Liberals Perverted Science

Dixie said:
It doesn't matter WHY they aborted the process of life! What is the matter with you on this? Can you not comprehend that in order for something to DIE, it MUST be ALIVE FIRST? Does that logical fact elude you? It appears to, because you continue to make the same ridiculous argument over and over! If the fucking cell has been fertilized, it is no longer a single egg cell, it becomes (instantly) a living organism, and if dies in 1 second, 1 minute, 1 hour, 1 day, 1 year, or 100 years, it will ALWAYS be a living organism until that point. I don't need to post "proof" of that, it's common fucking sense!
Click to expand...

No, it's not common sense. It's illogical. We do not know if organisms were the result of the combinations and, in all probability, they weren't because none of them carried on the processes of life.

Yes, you fucking moron, we DO have an understanding of the process! If the egg cell is fertilized by the sperm and conception takes place, a living organism is the result. How long it survives is irrelevant to the fact that it is living. The mere fact that it died, should be enough logic to tell you, it MUST have been living, otherwise, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to DIE!
Click to expand...

It may have been temporarily alive, however, it probably didn't possess the necessary parts to continue, meaning it wasn't an organism.

I am having difficulty accepting the impossible and agreeing on the ridiculous. I don't have a bit of problem understanding science and the process of life. I also don't have a problem with logic, which you certainly seem to have. You can't point to something that has died, and claim that proves it never lived! It's just absurd and ignorant.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying "it" never lived. I'm saying an organism never lived because there most likely wasn't any organism. If all fertilized cells are organisms then why would over 50% die without any apparent external cause?

Let's go over this very slowly one more time... Once the organism DIES it is no longer a LIVING organism! I agree with you on that, is that your point? If the conception of egg and sperm results in an organism that dies, it ceases to be a living human organism. POINT MADE!

If you die... does it mean you weren't ever alive? Does it mean you were never a human being? This seems to be your argument! You continue to point to a pile of "fertilized eggs" that "didn't make it" and "sponteneously aborted" and claim this is proof they were never living! Logic dictates, if they died, they had to be living first. Something can't die (or "not make it") if it isn't living already, it's impossible.
Click to expand...

Good idea. Let's go over this slowly.

You wrote, "If the conception of egg and sperm results in an organism that dies, it ceases to be a living human organism. POINT MADE!"

The point is that was not my point. Again, let's take this slow. Let's start with the first word of your sentence; IF. If the conception of egg and sperm results in an organism.....that's the rub.

Science does not know if an organism was created because they have not tested the fertilized cells that self-aborted. That's assuming they know everything to look for. At the current time women are losing over 1/2 of their fertilized eggs and science does not know why.

If a human being dies we know that human being was an organism because it carried on the processes of life. One could say it was self-sustaining.

Hopefully an analogy will help. We can drop a 30 year old in the middle of a forest 300 miles from civilization. A month later he's rescued. He would be considered a survivalist.

We can also drop a 30 month old human being in a forest 300 miles from civilization and they might survive 3 or 4 days. Is the 30 month old considered a survivalist?

In case you have difficulty with the analogy I'll spell it out for you. The 30 year old survived due to what they did, the actions they took, what knowledge and ability they utilized. The 30 month old human, while having survived 3 or 4 days, did not survive due to anything they did. They were not capable of employing survivalist techniques. They were not what one would consider a survivalist.

Similarly, some fertilized cells may not be capable of carrying on the processes of life and that's why they do not survive. The mass of human tissue "lives", as in survives, for a short period of time the same way the 30 month old survived for a short period of time and just as the 30 month old never was a survivalist the logical conclusion is those cells that do not survive never were human beings.
 
The retards on this thread should be reminded that nearly no scientists identify as Republicans.

The vast majority identify as Democrats or independents. Six percent call themselves Republicans according to Pew.

http://people-press.org/report/528/

In other words - it ain't Liberals perverting scientists.
 
apple0154 said:
No, it's not common sense. It's illogical. We do not know if organisms were the result of the combinations and, in all probability, they weren't because none of them carried on the processes of life.
Click to expand...

If they BEGAN the process of life, they WERE living organisms, and we know exactly what caused them to be a living organism. None of this is disputable, why do you keep pretending it is?

It may have been temporarily alive, however, it probably didn't possess the necessary parts to continue, meaning it wasn't an organism.
Click to expand...

If it was alive at any point, it was a living organism, there is no other way to classify it. The fact that it didn't survive, doesn't mean it was something other than human life. The fact that you will one day "self-abort" from the process of life, doesn't mean you aren't a human!

I'm not saying "it" never lived. I'm saying an organism never lived because there most likely wasn't any organism. If all fertilized cells are organisms then why would over 50% die without any apparent external cause?
Click to expand...

Again, go look at your definition of an organism, if it was alive, it was a living organism, there is nothing else it could be. It doesn't matter when they die, that only confirms they are living organisms because something non-living can't die!

Good idea. Let's go over this slowly.

You wrote, "If the conception of egg and sperm results in an organism that dies, it ceases to be a living human organism. POINT MADE!"

The point is that was not my point. Again, let's take this slow. Let's start with the first word of your sentence; IF. If the conception of egg and sperm results in an organism.....that's the rub.

Science does not know if an organism was created because they have not tested the fertilized cells that self-aborted. That's assuming they know everything to look for. At the current time women are losing over 1/2 of their fertilized eggs and science does not know why.
Click to expand...

Science doesn't have to conclude the cause of death to determine something was alive! You are being ABSURD! Science does say that an organism is created, the moment of conception! You admit, 50% "don't make it" which means they were "making it" and died, therefore, they were LIVING!

If a human being dies we know that human being was an organism because it carried on the processes of life. One could say it was self-sustaining.
Click to expand...

And this applies at any point after conception! Once the process of life has started, it is a living organism, there is no other way to describe it. It doesn't matter how many die, they are still what they are! The ONLY point you have successfully made is, dead organisms are no longer living organisms.

Hopefully an analogy will help.
Click to expand...

No, it won't, because it will be yet another silly analogy that doesn't apply.

Similarly, some fertilized cells may not be capable of carrying on the processes of life and that's why they do not survive. The mass of human tissue "lives", as in survives, for a short period of time the same way the 30 month old survived for a short period of time and just as the 30 month old never was a survivalist the logical conclusion is those cells that do not survive never were human beings.
Click to expand...

There is no "fertilized cell" it ceased to exist the moment of fertilization. How much actual science education have you had? Once conception happens, it is no longer a single cell, it becomes a multi-cell living organism, and remains that until it terminates. If I need to repost this another couple dozen times, I can, but most people know this to be a fact, because we learned it in 7th grade.

When are you going to offer us anything other than your erroneous opinions?
 
Lowaicue said:
A marxist may be criticised for what he thinks, but at least he thinks!
None of you show any evidence at all of having even a single functioning brain cell.
Click to expand...

One of the faults I find with Marxism, is Marxist don't think. From a philosophical perspective, Marxist Socialism should work beautifully, but it doesn't. Every time this form of government has been tried, it has ultimately failed, because the practitioners are unable to think. Instead of thinking, they often resort to Fascism and despotism, in order to force their policies on unwilling subjects.

About every 50-60 years, we have to save a large chunk of the planet from Marxist Socialist scum, who can't seem to get that it doesn't work in practice. Thinking people would be able to understand why Marxism doesn't work. It's because it removes the aspect of human spirit and stifles creativity. There is no way around it, this is just an unfortunate side effect to Marxism. The result usually ends up being a working/peasant class, and a ruling/wealthy/political class.
 
Dixie said:
One of the faults I find with Marxism, is Marxist don't think. From a philosophical perspective, Marxist Socialism should work beautifully, but it doesn't. Every time this form of government has been tried, it has ultimately failed, because the practitioners are unable to think. Instead of thinking, they often resort to Fascism and despotism, in order to force their policies on unwilling subjects.

About every 50-60 years, we have to save a large chunk of the planet from Marxist Socialist scum, who can't seem to get that it doesn't work in practice. Thinking people would be able to understand why Marxism doesn't work. It's because it removes the aspect of human spirit and stifles creativity. There is no way around it, this is just an unfortunate side effect to Marxism. The result usually ends up being a working/peasant class, and a ruling/wealthy/political class.
Click to expand...

Neither did we see any great success emanating from the last eight years of bushism. But you are right, in as much as you appear to equate Marxism with the forms of communism seen in the last 100 years. Of course, not all of that communism has been Marxism. In the same way that bushism does not represent capitalism per se.
You say that Marxism has not been successful but do you know what the aims. short and long term, of Marxism are? We may assume that the ambitions of communists must be spoken in the same language as the aims of non communists. But you know what we say about the word 'assume'.
Left wing movements have almost eliminated the British ruling aristocracy, they got rid of the corruption of the Russian Royal family, they destroyed the corrupt nationalist system of China and eliminated the Batista regime in Cuba.
No one will convince me that the world would be a better place for the continued existence of these crooks.
It is true that no Nirvana stands as evidence of the success of Marxism but certainly in can be said that in many cases the governed population has seen improvements in their lot which would not have been possible under the previous regimes.
You should read Engels' 'The Condition of the Working Classes in England.' It is freely available at Project Gutenberg, and then tell me that left wing politics has never been successful.
 
Lowaicue said:
Because a Marxist thinks does not preclude others. The evidence before us, however, suggests that the right wing loonies here, find the creation of simple thoughts quite beyond them.
Click to expand...

I have to admit, when it comes to thinking "simple", you are my master.....
 
Damocles said:
Now, if they don't decorate for Christmas, you can tell me then that it was "replaced" by Halloween.
Click to expand...
These things happen gradually, but that is the ultimate goal. I expect to see reduced emphasis on Christmas at the WH, and every year thereafter while BHO occupies it.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I have to admit, when it comes to thinking "simple", you are my master.....
Click to expand...

The art of good communication is simplicity. Better simple and correct than complex and stupid.
Now I suppose you will ignore the points made and concentrate on the childish pastime of trying to better your betters. Well, you have that freedom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top