Woman Films Her Own Abortion

See my previous post, I added more, lol.

An IQ of under 100 is simply "below average." You have got to be f***ing kidding me.

My father's boss's family has a 30 year old son who has been operating at age 8 level his whole life. He is an awesome person, he makes us laugh, he is surprisingly articulate at times and gives us amazing insights from the mind of a child that we often overlook as adults. Are you telling me he should have been aborted?

As far as addressing your post, basically what we have been doing is this: you keep harping on about how science, humble as it may be, is the most reasonable way we have of ascertaining reality, and I keep trying to tell you that science is so f***ing limited in the context of what it knows vs what it doesn't know, that this beast needs a muzzle put on it, before it tries to overtake the world with its "authority". There are simply some things that just should never be subjected to the scrutiny of science in the first place. It's like asking a karate student to be graded by a chef.

 

I'll respond to the rest of your post in the next response, but I'll just go ahead and respond in this one.

It's very cute and dandy that your father's boss's family has a son that can make you laugh and give you insight on something, but that's not anything remotely new when you can see that through an actual eight-year old. So, in short, if the family found value through that, then more power to them.

But in a "cold-hearted" fashion, yes, he should have been aborted given the mental deformity.

 

Addressed your post above.

 

There's (minor) truth to your statement on human emotion and scientific inquiry. The emotion is curiosity and gaining insight. So, it's only natural that we feed ourselves in a manner where we have a thirst for knowing more about the universe. But that's where the emotions stop and goes straight to critical analysis and the scientific method comes into play.

And, you've blatantly ignored my post regarding the parrot. I'll simply reiterate that mimicking human speech patterns doesn't really constitute an intelligent animal, especially when you compare them to Primates, marsupials, and pigs. The five senses are generally moot in this respect since smelling a parrot won't help demonstrate intelligence, nor using your sight, taste, touch, and hearing. You're speaking lethal lunacy here.

Science is to help explain how things operate. Determining intelligence is part of that equation and there's a method to determine that with parrots.

 

And as far as this pertains to abortions, if a karate student should not be graded by a chef, then neither should the question of abortion be subjected to a method of validation which after 30 years of constant inquiry could not determine if a parrot could communicate intelligently. With all due respect, and for all practical purposes, we don't have 30 years to decide that, when a child forms in the human body in a mere 9 months. A living being, that feels pain, overly emotional and irrelevant as that consideration may be to you and the scientific method.

 

That sounds more like an emotional pot-duggery than a proper response.

 

No I believe I addressed the parrot quite enough. I specifically stated that this parrot after he was taught these speech patterns was consistently able to APPLY these speech patterns independently of mimickry.. and logically. Alex The African Gray Parrot. Dr. Irene Pepperberg.

 

This is where you're completely wrong and going off on the deep end.

Again, you're drawing an illogical comparison here with the chef and karate bit. Abortion has been involved in the science, much to your dismay, but ethical questions pertaining to it, that's something that's also been applied through some level of science.

As for the parrot communicating intelligently...I still don't get why you resort to this failed logic? There's no communication when it simply mimics speech patterns.

 

That's limited to the simple words and research from the scientists who studied it. Beyond that, it cannot learn new words or phrases on its own without hearing it from someone else. It lacks the curiosity to learn.

 

No, I am simply explaining how and where and why the scientific method needs to be curbed, with a leash, and a muzzle, and blinders so it can't kick. Because there are times when it just f***ing fails. Yet wants to claim authority over those domains as well.

 

Neither can a baby learn without hearing from someone else. What do you think 12 years of schooling is for? There's a reason its called indoctrination, because most of us are just f***ing zombies who parrot what we were taught when we get out into the real world.

And guess what, if I was trying to learn Parrotese, I too would stop learning when they stopped talking to me. It's not my native language.

The only question remaining is does a lack of curiosity entail a lack of intelligence? And are we sure they are not curious? What if all their needs are met in a lab environment, will nature even ever call upon them to draw upon their curiosity for survival? My cat is a pretty darn curious animal most days, btw. Always exploring. How is that not curiosity in an animal?

 

The scientific method doesn't fail. That's why the procedure looks like this so the conclusions would not wind up as a fail.

​

 

False equivalency, dear. False equivalency.

As a sapient species, we do learn and process things in a more complex manner compared to other species in the animal kingdom. From there, we can learn to write, and learn on our own because have the tendency to build a thirst for learning, which is something a parrot lacks.

As for cat...it responds more on instinct. Simple as that.

 

Is the procedure working?

The procedure often fails when dealing with sentient beings because sentient beings cannot be controlled to act the same way every time. It's a clear sign of intelligence to half your own will and therefore act unpredictably. This is why the scientific method cannot be reliably applied to some questions, especially when involving intelligent consciousness. It just f***ing fails. It is an extraneous tool. It no belong. It's a square peg in a round hole. I'm not sure how else say this.

 

You're overreaching and it's very funny how you're so willing to believe it doesn't work. It has worked when applying multiple theories, which I've already mentioned to you in a few posts before. As for studying humans, there are many things in which the method application has come to the conclusion quite accurately and then some. Beyond that, speaking on individual basis, there were studies in the neurological department which remains consistent with the findings about human behavior.

So, no...it doesn't fail. But it seems to fall on deaf ears.

 

The scientific method arrives at correct conclusions when variables can be well controlled. In my book, that makes it very limited, considering how far this method seems to overstep its bounds to dictate truth, reality and policies in the real, uncontrollable world. I never said this method NEVER works, I just keep saying, it's not all its cracked up to be.

You have no idea where I am coming from when I say this, nor do I have the time right now to get into it, either. But it's been fun arguing, lol.

 

Well your book needs an update, and perhaps study science a bit more and learn a bit because it's not making your arguments with any greater validation. And you're overreaching again. You make it sound like the scientific method is utilized by the government or something. :smt043:smt043:smt043:smt043

I applaud your tenacity though. I wonder why you're so eager to keep posting here anyway?

 

Because I love debating.

And yes of course the scientific method is used by government. Unless you're a scientist working for a private organization, or in your own lab, you are a scientist working for the government.

And I have studied science, more than I can say... I have very valid reasons for why I am saying these things.

 

Loving this debate.

 

You clearly haven't studied it in-depth. You probably have just studied it from high school and a little from college and then simply haven't learned it further. If you did, then we wouldn't be debating this, now would we?

And actually, even private organizations receive funding through government research, so in short, they are working not just for government, but also for the entire scientific community.