Previous 11 - 20 Next
They might well be "happy" if left alone, but they would not stop trying to force their agenda onto the rest of society. There would continue action to force gay sex practices into school sex ed classes. People who expressed support for traditional marriage would continue to risk being fired. Artisans would continue to be forced to apply their arts and professions in support of gay ceremonies. The movement to declare one's gender to be a personal opinion, changeable on a whim, would continue. The gay agenda would not pause one second if all opposition stopped.
Gays are just as virulent bullies and bigots as those bigots who bully gays. One and the same cloth.
In response to:

Defining Life

geezer117 Wrote: Jul 23, 2014 9:29 AM
I watched a relative die. At that moment, although there were hundreds of billions of living cells still there, she was considered dead as a human being because her brain stopped functioning. It is reasonable to hold that before an embryonic "group of cells" develops any brain cells, it has not started living as a human being. This difficult question calls for reasonable arguments. Simply screaming "life begins at conception" does not constitute a reasonable argument. There is a difference between cellular life and human life that has a purpose. The early Church's greatest philosophers and theologians held that human life began at quickening. That is, when there was sufficient nervous system development that the fetus could sense the world and act in the world, even in the most rudimentary way. Before that, the embryo could not possibly fulfill any purpose for which humans are created. Rick Warren teaches that we all have a purpose from our Creator. Science teaches that half of fertilized eggs never implant, and half of those that do spontaneously abort in the first 4 weeks. If the fertilized single cell egg is a full human being, please suggest what possible Creator's purpose for their lives is served when three fourths of them die utterly incapable of any human capacity. It is reasonable to hold that a Creator with a purpose would confer humanity on a fetus when has necessary human capacity. The question calls for reasonable argument. I repeat, simply screaming "life begins at conception" is not a reasonable argument, convinces no one to accept your position, and defeats no counter argument.
In response to:

Defining Life

geezer117 Wrote: Jul 23, 2014 8:54 AM
See the above post. It's not nonsense at all.
In response to:

Defining Life

geezer117 Wrote: Jul 23, 2014 8:53 AM
Adams pulls two fast ones on his readers. First, he says "...there is a remarkable degree of consensus on the definition of life." Any reader would take from that that our society is in consensus on that question. But he then narrows that consensus to "leading texts in the science of embryology", a quite small consensus indeed. Second, he leaves open whether that narrow consensus is an agreement on the fact that the fertilized cell is living a cellular life or whether it is agreement that the fertilized cell is a full human being with all the rights that implies. The agreement may be that the cell is alive in the same sense a bacterium is undeniable "alive", but its humanity is still a potential. Look at it from the other end. We define death as that point where brain activity ceases. The body is no longer a human being, even though its individual cells are undeniably alive. Many people take it as obvious that it takes more than one living cell to constitute a human life. At the very least, to many people, it takes a functioning brain. Anencephalic fetuses, lacking a brain, don't meet anyone's definition of "living human", regardless that all their cells are alive. Adams denigrates those struggling with that question by saying that some would define the start of human life as birth. Only the extreme pro-abortion activists do so. The real struggle is what degree of fetal development is sufficient for the living collection of cells to acquire the attributes necessary for human life.
In response to:

The Threat To The Scientific Method

geezer117 Wrote: Jul 22, 2014 9:54 AM
Pelosi, Reid and Obama were absolutely correct when they said that all climate "deniers" had been swept out of NASA and NOAA. What self respecting scientist will publish a view that the President of the United States himself is equivalent to denying there is a moon, or claiming the moon is made of cheese. Political extremists needed global warming to advance their agenda; they demanded global warming be approved by science; and surprise, surprise, science complies.
If any more proof is needed that Ron Paul and his brand of libertarianism will not ever be a major political party, here it is. I am borderline libertarian, but I'm not blind to the obvious when it stands right in front of me. Russia supplied the missile and the Russian Ukranians fired it. No doubt Putin did not want a civilian aircraft shot down, and the Ukrainian government does not want civilians killed in rebel controlled territory. That does not make the two things equal. Russia has control over if and to whom it gives its missiles; Ukraine does NOT have control over where rebels choose to locate and choose to give battle. Russia could end the conflict tomorrow by withdrawing; Ukraine can NOT end the conflict tomorrow by withdrawing, because a large part of its sovereign territory would be annexed to Russia. The essence of Paul's brand of libertarianism is that the future costs of withdrawing American leadership and power are smaller, he believes, than the costs of leaning them forward. History proves just the opposite.
In 2008 the country really, really NEEDED a black president. Now the country really, really NEEDS a female president. Electing a president because of skin color was a disaster, and Democrats say "Let's do it again!" Four more years of Progressive B*llsh!t.
It's not Wall Street unbalancing the resources for blacks, it's unions. Democrats always, always do as the unions demand because union money and union electioneering require payoffs. And union demands are usually contrary to black interests, especially in education and jobs. Blacks on the other hand always, always give their votes to Democrats, so politicians can favor unions with no loss of black votes. Someday, maybe, blacks will wake up to the fact their unwavering loyalty itself is what is generating their lack of political power.
In response to:

Environmental Pessimism

geezer117 Wrote: Jul 20, 2014 12:06 PM
Follett's obligatory bow to AGW - "overwhelming scientific evidence suggests that increasing carbon dioxide emissions will raise world temperatures in the coming decades" - has no basis in fact. There is not "overwhelming scientific evidence". There is a plausible theory backed up so far by little correlation of actual climate with rising carbon dioxide levels and no scientific evidence. Unfortunately for them, the history of climate and extreme weather events does not correlate with atmospheric carbon dioxide. If there were in fact "overwhelming scientific evidence", the Warmists would not have to resort to ad hominem vile name-calling, suppression of contrary opinion, or the now proven corruption of the official temperature databases. Simply citing the "overwhelming scientific evidence" would do the trick, if it actually existed.
In response to:

The Truth About Violence in Chicago

geezer117 Wrote: Jul 20, 2014 11:50 AM
If we can't do anything about the real problems, there is that old standby non-solution: gun control. It would not have saved your housekeeper, but it would make us feel we were doing something.
Previous 11 - 20 Next