Random Conversation 2.0

goodlove said:
Ok stop there. U brought up religion. Remember?

I just brought up science....even evolution
Click to expand...

Lol it was five seconds ago, yes I remember. I already outlined my reasoning behind assuming your belief was based on religion. Seeing as though your belief that life begins at the joining of sperm and egg isn't based on fact, and you've spoken of your religious beliefs before, I felt it was a pretty safe assumption. My bad lol
 
How do u know the scientist that believe life begins after the child is not dependant on the mother have an agenda?

No different that any research or study u, should always look at who is funding it.
Ethics and morals should come into play. Just because u can doesnt mean u should.

Love ur stubborness too.
;-)




FG said:
Love your stubborn self. Science is pretty darn clear on this. You do have religious scientists that disagree, based on their religious belief. Or based on ethical questiins. That a few cells is not life is clearly established by science, a few cells cant live. Be careful on sources. Global warming have nothing to do with this and the argument is not about if its occurring, its clearly proven. The argument is if its man-made or just a part of the normal cycle
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
RaiderLL said:
Lol it was five seconds ago, yes I remember. I already outlined my reasoning behind assuming your belief was based on religion. Seeing as though your belief that life begins at the joining of sperm and egg isn't based on fact, and you've spoken of your religious beliefs before, I felt it was a pretty safe assumption. My bad lol
Click to expand...

I outlined mine too.

Ur beliefs doesnt mean its not skewed.

U too have an agenda.

My reasoning is this.

Since life begins at uniting of cells....

.wrap it up

Get birth control and get educated.

The only time i cosign abortion is due to raoe , incest and the possible death of the mother.
 
goodlove said:
How do u know the scientist that believe life begins after the child is not dependant on the mother have an agenda?

No different that any research or study u, should always look at who is funding it.
Ethics and morals should come into play. Just because u can doesnt mean u should.

Love ur stubborness too.
;-)
Click to expand...
Gl, you have right to your opinion, but don't argue it the wrong way. Science is pretty damn clear on what defines a life, that is a fact. Your argument that scientists using the clear definition that science give have an agenda is laughable. Then you don't understand science. As I have a BS in molecular biology and a PhD in biochemistry, I humbly believe a know a thing or two about science and what science determines to be a life. I am also a religious person but I don't get that blurred whith what unbiased science say on the subject and what I ethically believe, they are two separate issues. Based on purely scientific facts, its unarguable what a life is by definition. And no, ethical arguments should NOT be involved in science, that's preposterous. Science is unbiased, period, if its not based on pure facts and nothing else, its philosophy and not science

Also, if one egg and one sperm together is a life, then a sperm and an egg also is a life and you are committing genocide when you masturbate and I'm committing murdr when I have my period
 
FG said:
Gl, you have right to your opinion, but don't argue it the wrong way. Science is pretty damn clear on what defines a life, that is a fact. Your argument that scientists using the clear definition that science give have an agenda is laughable. Then you don't understand science. As I have a BS in molecular biology and a PhD in biochemistry, I humbly believe a know a thing or two about science and what science determines to be a life. I am also a religious person but I don't get that blurred whith what unbiased science say on the subject and what I ethically believe, they are two separate issues. Based on purely scientific facts, its unarguable what a life is by definition. And no, ethical arguments should NOT be involved in science, that's preposterous. Science is unbiased, period, if its not based on pure facts and nothing else, its philosophy and not science

Also, if one egg and one sperm together is a life, then a sperm and an egg also is a life and you are committing genocide when you masturbate and I'm committing murdr when I have my period
Click to expand...
WINNER BY KNOCKOUT

boxing-knockout-winner-7197230.jpg
 
Like u stated , you have an opinion but im extremely sure and u said it yourself there are scientist who will disagree with you.




FG said:
Gl, you have right to your opinion, but don't argue it the wrong way. Science is pretty damn clear on what defines a life, that is a fact. Your argument that scientists using the clear definition that science give have an agenda is laughable. Then you don't understand science. As I have a BS in molecular biology and a PhD in biochemistry, I humbly believe a know a thing or two about science and what science determines to be a life. I am also a religious person but I don't get that blurred whith what unbiased science say on the subject and what I ethically believe, they are two separate issues. Based on purely scientific facts, its unarguable what a life is by definition. And no, ethical arguments should NOT be involved in science, that's preposterous. Science is unbiased, period, if its not based on pure facts and nothing else, its philosophy and not science

Also, if one egg and one sperm together is a life, then a sperm and an egg also is a life and you are committing genocide when you masturbate and I'm committing murdr when I have my period
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The Dark King said:
WINNER BY KNOCKOUT

boxing-knockout-winner-7197230.jpg
Click to expand...

Lol. Thank you TDK and thank you for your awesome rep!

I also got an anonymous positive rep, and to you, who ever you are, thank you, and no, I don't hate you. I don't hate anybody. That's a pretty much useless waste of energy:-)
 
goodlove said:
Like u stated , you have an opinion but im extremely sure and u said it yourself there are scientist who will disagree with you.
Click to expand...

Sigh, I didn't say that, at all. I said there are scientists that involve religious and ethical beliefs in the abortion issue, not what science say what defines a life. That is scientific facts, and as facts, they are by definition not arguable. Why do you think that scientists can't have an ethical or religious argument against abortion and still agree on what science define as life. These thoughts are not mutually exclusive. I have them, like insaid, I don't mix them together

Your argument is ethical and philosophical, not scientific
 
So are u saying that all scientist that believe what i believe is because of religion , moral and ethical reasons


FG said:
Sigh, I didn't say that, at all. I said there are scientists that involve religious and ethical beliefs in the abortion issue, not what science say what defines a life. That is scientific facts, and as facts, they are by definition not arguable. Why do you think that scientists can't have an ethical or religious argument against abortion and still agree on what science define as life. These thoughts are not mutually exclusive. I have them, like insaid, I don't mix them together

Your argument is ethical and philosophical, not scientific
Click to expand...
 
goodlove said:
Negroe u dont understand the basic fact that every human committed hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

No I said I don't commit hypocrisy. I don't know the minds and hearts of every person I only know my own. The things I advocate for I'm 100% through and through. I marched for victims like Eric Garner and Treyvon Martin because I don't believe in profiling especially profiling that leads to force. I treat people with kindness and respect unless they give me a reason not to. I believe in charity not in theory but I actually donate money and time to causes I deem worthwhile. I would never advocate for being pro-life but in the same breath advocate for the death penalty while pushing to cut programs that create situations where people are desperate enough to get into a life of crime. Act like you know fam.
 
goodlove said:
So are u saying that all scientist that believe what i believe is because of religion , moral and ethical reasons
Click to expand...

Yes, why do you think that some scientists don't have ethical and philosophical issues against abortion? The fallacy is when the lines between them are blurred. science is based on facts, and what a life is, is not arguable as they are based on scientific facts- but you, as a scientist can still have issues with abortion based on ethical, and other issues. Like I said many times, facts are by definition not arguable and science is based on facts, thus non arguable. I can still have issues with abortion based on scientific facts due to my ethical standards. I don't understand why that usvso hard to grasp. They are not mutually exclusive, and it doesn't make my argument a scientific one just because I'm a scientist.

This question is simply an ethical and philosophical and religious one, science is clear on the issue, but obviously, I have to repeat, I can have both an understanding of what scientific facts say, and still, ethically not agree with abortion.

See, time of abortion isn't a scientific question, at all, science don't dabble with opinions, and time of abortion is just that. All science do, is state facts. Let me is something that can be clearly defined, time of abortion is not, science doesn't get involved in that, science can define what an abortion is, but that is where science ends on the question. Science is by definition concerned about the "what", not the " why", that is the job of philosophy. And as such, science can only answer the"what" about abortion, nothing else, I.e., define what abortion is, anything beyond that is no longer science

For it to be science, it has to be proven, until then, its philosophy. Life has been defined and proven, thus fact and science. As an example the string theory, is still not prove so technically, its not science but philosophy and De Grasse would agree with that
 
Last edited:
Hypocrite means to have contradictions in belief.
You said you are against pimps and prostitution biz due to the sex trade but u have no problem with porn and probably have no problem with stripping. Thats hypocrisy........

I told u when we had that convo im a hypocrite in that situation. Big hypocrite.

If u are against violence and quality of life then stop watching football. Its a violent sport and it surely against quality of life. Yes im a hypocrite.
Big hypocrite.

People contradict themselves often due to tgeir agenda ... big or small

Naacp took money from sterling knowing he practice discrimination in housing. Big


People dont want to tell themselves they are hypocrite cause they cant be honest with themselves.

The Dark King said:
No I said I don't commit hypocrisy. I don't know the minds and hearts of every person I only know my own. The things I advocate for I'm 100% through and through. I marched for victims like Eric Garner and Treyvon Martin because I don't believe in profiling especially profiling that leads to force. I treat people with kindness and respect unless they give me a reason not to. I believe in charity not in theory but I actually donate money and time to causes I deem worthwhile. I would never advocate for being pro-life but in the same breath advocate for the death penalty while pushing to cut programs that create situations where people are desperate enough to get into a life of crime. Act like you know fam.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Thats soooo wrong its laughable to say that.
Just cause a sceintist believe life at conception has an agenda is wrong.

Ghee i can say that who believe life begins outside the womb has an agenda to push fullterm abortions and not on facts.

Plenty of scientist showed you when cells unite a new life begins.

What is the primary function of sex?

Reproduce. Correct?
FG said:
Yes, why do you think that some scientists don't have ethical and philosophical issues against abortion? The fallacy is when the lines between them are blurred. science is based on facts, and what a life is, is not arguable as they are based on scientific facts- but you, as a scientist can still have issues with abortion based on ethical, and other issues. Like I said many times, facts are by definition not arguable and science is based on facts, thus non arguable. I can still have issues with abortion based on scientific facts due to my ethical standards. I don't understand why that usvso hard to grasp. They are not mutually exclusive, and it doesn't make my argument a scientific one just because I'm a scientist.

This question is simply an ethical and philosophical and religious one, science is clear on the issue, but obviously, I have to repeat, I can have both an understanding of what scientific facts say, and still, ethically not agree with abortion.

See, time of abortion isn't a scientific question, at all, science don't dabble with opinions, and time of abortion is just that. All science do, is state facts. Let me is something that can be clearly defined, time of abortion is not, science doesn't get involved in that, science can define what an abortion is, but that is where science ends on the question. Science is by definition concerned about the "what", not the " why", that is the job of philosophy. And as such, science can only answer the"what" about abortion, nothing else, I.e., define what abortion is, anything beyond that is no longer science

For it to be science, it has to be proven, until then, its philosophy. Life has been defined and proven, thus fact and science. As an example the string theory, is still not prove so technically, its not science but philosophy and De Grasse would agree with that
Click to expand...
 
goodlove said:
Thats soooo wrong its laughable to say that.
Just cause a sceintist believe life at conception has an agenda is wrong.

Ghee i can say that who believe life begins outside the womb has an agenda to push fullterm abortions and not on facts.

Plenty of scientist showed you when cells unite a new life begins.

What is the primary function of sex?

Reproduce. Correct?
Click to expand...

Ooooo mmmmm ggggg. GL you've been explained the FACTS a million times and you're still trying to argue it. Believe what you want about when "life" begins but it'll never change the scientifically proven facts. You have every right to disagree with ending a pregnancy but you look silly trying to refute what's already been proven as fact.
 
RaiderLL said:
Ooooo mmmmm ggggg. GL you've been explained the FACTS a million times and you're still trying to argue it. Believe what you want about when "life" begins but it'll never change the scientifically proven facts. You have every right to disagree with ending a pregnancy but you look silly trying to refute what's already been proven as fact.
Click to expand...

Ooommggg u have been explained the facts tooo.

Admit it, when cells unite they create a new cell. Period. U know it.
And yes u have rite to disagree ad to form yoyr opinion but not to make up facts.
 
goodlove said:
Ooommggg u have been explained the facts tooo.

Admit it, when cells unite they create a new cell. Period. U know it.
And yes u have rite to disagree ad to form yoyr opinion but not to make up facts.
Click to expand...

Cells uniting doesn't mean life exists!!! That sir, is a fact. Refusing facts just because you don't believe them doesn't minimize their truth!

I just can't anymore with you lol. I just can't :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom