Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:03 am
I wish that people would not only support the unborn life, but also the born life.
Discussions about Silent Computing
https://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/
https://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=53282
Double standards are human being's nature. Its unfortunate but aslong human is alive, he or she will have more or less double standards. All we really can do is to have less double standards than men average.Cov wrote:I wish that people would not only support the unborn life, but also the born life.
andyb wrote:Ok, how about this point - a baby has developed enough at 7 weeks that it can move spontaneously. That indicates some level of cognition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition
This is just like god, just because someone wants it to be true does not automatically make it true. Please point me in the direction of your evidence, because I would love to read that.
andyb wrote:Besides, I think my earlier point is still valid - I don't know (and neither do you) if the activity is organized or not.
I still disagree with your earlier point, and I know that foetus's are not fully developed until they are ready to come out, because that is how we have evolved.
andyb wrote:The baby that arrives is very far from fully opperational, there is a large chunk of skull missing
andyb wrote:it cant see more than blur
andyb wrote:it cant walk
andyb wrote:we have evolved like this for a number of reasons, and a 7-week old foetus is still very far from being "human", which is why it is called a foetus.
andyb wrote:The brain activity may be unorganized at first, but science has shown that unborn babies eventually do have direct responses to outside stimuli (sound/light/prodding/etc.).
This is the fundamental point I was talking about - at what point is that foetus capable of feeling pain, and has a brain that is functional to a degree where we would say no to an abortion.
andyb wrote:If the goalposts are to move, they're only going to move to an earlier post-conception date.
They already have on several occasions, and I have no problem with that so long as they are the right reasons, but a sensible line must be drawn and that is not as early as some people would like - such as 7-weeks.
Yeah, it's irritating to me that christains, especially while claiming to be righteous, pick and choose which parts of the bible they're going to follow (look at Exodus 20:13 for what I mean). I see it all the time, they forget the major rules, and somehow justify their bad behavior.andyb wrote:This is the kind of retarded un-thinking that I am totally opposed to when discussing abortion, this arsehole is not the first person in the US to murder in cold blood because of some mumbo-jumbo in an old book. I hope they execute the bloke.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8486794.stm
Andy
You're welcome.andyb wrote:Thanks for the links.
I would have no qualms supporting legislation that made abortions illegal after 12 weeks(or even 20 weeks). It would (from my perspective) be a step in the right direction.andyb wrote:It seems to me that the keys stage at which point there is any kind of cognition is around week 16 when the movements are described as "co-ordinated" and "active", and then 2-weeks later the baby can "hear" according to some.
From this I would surmise that terminating a pregnancy within the first 12-weeks is 100% OK, and anyone with the facts would agree, between 12-16 weeks there is a period where some people would argue that the foetus should not be terminated, and I have read that the signs of brain function appear as early as 16-18 weeks, but that is still not very easy to prove.
I really am not.Hey God...
Why is everyone convinced you're a dude?
Generalized Reciprocityqviri wrote:"Why do some people dislike others because they are different?"
"(Also called "strong reciprocity"). One can play nice with non-kin strangers even in single interactions if social rules against cheating are maintained by neutral third parties (e.g., other individuals, governments, institutions, etc.), a majority group members cooperate by generally adhering to social rules, and social interactions create a positive sum game (i.e., a bigger overall "pie" results from group cooperation).
Generalized reciprocity may be a set of adaptations that were designed for small in-group cohesion during times of high inter-tribal warfare with out-groups.
Today the capacity to be altruistic to in-group strangers may result from a serendipitous generalization (or "mismatch") between ancestral tribal living in small groups and today's large societies that entail many single interactions with anonymous strangers. (The dark side of generalized reciprocity may be that these adaptations may also underlie aggression toward out-groups.)"
Part of their logic is that the unborn life is helpless. What they fail to notice is if you are at the wrong end of a smart bomb you are just as helpless. And most of those in nursing homes, aren't they helpless as well?Cov wrote:I wish that people would not only support the unborn life, but also the born life.
Same time Zone as Atlanta.?Hey God, what time is it?
Both you and Pat don't have a clue.andyb wrote:Post resurrected due to heresy trial of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands.
Pat as always has pointed out all of the things about this retarded descision by the dutch courts to take a Politician through the courts for "Heresy", who has been disallowed most of his witnesses, and the truth is not submittable as evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell# ... 6ZUZ9CPZII
So God, what do you think of this load of bullcrap.
I can only hope that this totally backfires on the government, and that Geert is set free, and gets into power, and subsequently does a fantastic job.
Andy
Enlighten me, so I do have a clue, what Pat says in that video ties up with what I have read in the news, he just puts it more bluntly and from his angle (obviously a different angle to the newspapers).Both you and Pat don't have a clue.
It's a bit hard to give a reply in writing to a 7+ minute speech, so I'll try to reply to a few lowlights, but first an explanation.andyb wrote:Enlighten me, so I do have a clue, what Pat says in that video ties up with what I have read in the news, he just puts it more bluntly and from his angle (obviously a different angle to the newspapers).Both you and Pat don't have a clue.
Please tell me how this is not simply a "Heresy trial" for a start, then you could move on to explain why most of his witnesses were not allowed, then you can tell me why "truth" is not submittable as evidence in this bullshit "heresy trial".?
I wont say that I agree with everything that Geert has to say, but I cant just stand by and ignore a trial for someone saying the truth about a religion.
Andy
Wow, am I glad he isn't a judge.Anyone who isn't angry and ashamed that it [the trial] is taking place, doesn't deserve to live in a free society.
This is the part that is going to be interesting to me, and it pretty much comes to to the definition of such things, and how the law protects some elements more than others i.e. is the law itself biased.Incitement of hatred towards Muslims, discrimination of Muslims, and insulting certain groups of society.
I dont agree with that.Things he proposed in the past: to forbid the Quran (not the Bible or any other holy book)
I thought there was a little more to it, people were allowed in so long as the laws of their new country over-ruled any other such laws (sharia), and they behaved in a dignified way that would suit their new country, and integrated well. If it is how I understood it, I agree 100%.to put an immigration stop on Muslims (not Christians or atheists, even if they're from the same country)
I am fully in favour of the proposed french partial ban on full face coverings, and am not aware on his "tax" idea, a simple ban would work well where a "tax" would be difficult to uphold and is a silly idea on many levels.and the infamous headscarf tax (no tax on hoods as worn by youngsters, or hats by distinguished people).
I can see where he is going with that idea (trying to keep the Netherland as much like it is now for the future), but the way you put it sounds wrong.Another proposition by Wilders: striking our first amendment from the constitution (the non-discrimination act). Instead it should state that the Jewish-Christian and humanitarian tradition be the dominant culture in The Netherlands.
Again, he has a point, I would like to see the UK do just that (with a few obvious clauses to actually protect and help the innocent and helpless, whilst rejecting the cheats, liars and criminals), so again, this is mostly down to the wording in my opinion.Another proposition by Wilders: closing the borders for any non-European immigrant. What he means, but doesn't say, is coloured people. This has been added to the charges against him.
I agree that there has to be a line that should not be crossed, but the truth should carry far more weight in this regard, whilst insults and discrimination should be taken in context and in second place to the truth.So now, freedom of speech (7th amendment here). A great good.
I don't know how this is regarded in other countries, but by law, one can not speak freely without limits. One has a responsibility according to law, meaning you have to regard other regulations and principles of the constitution.
Limits to freedom of speech can be: defamation/slander, insults and discrimination.
I know its a strange collection of witnesses, but from one viewpoint simply dismissing them proves his point that Islam, and its radicals will be proven wrong on so many levels even as "his" witnesses.15 of the 18 witnesses Wilders invited aren't allowed. 5 of those 15 are law experts. Another 5 of of them are radical Muslims (yep, really - one of them is Mohammed Bouyeri, who killed Theo van Gogh). The last 5 are Islam experts. The court finds, Wilders tries to change this trial into a political platform, and they will not allow this.
It is not uncommon (at all) that a court dismiss witnesses.
Politicians help make the judiciary what it is, so it is political to a degree, and highlighting that could pave the way for changes to the judicial process.The decisionmaking is not political (as Pat wants you to believe) but simply judicial
Comes right back to the fact that his called wiitnesses would prove his point.and a practical "don't waste time if you already know".
First and foremost Pat is there to be funny and take the piss out of religion, secondly because he hates religion he is going to be biased to some degree, and he wont be 100% accurate unless it suits his point, whilst omitting things that would not help his cause.I think I'll not even respond to most of Pat's chat. If one doesn't understand law in general (or Dutch law in particular, which I can imagine, him being foreign) then there is google. I know he's on the internet.
Spouting off blunt remarks for effect without knowing what you're talking about is plain silly. I don't have a problem with people giving their unsalted opinions, but at least get your facts straight.
I did not know about the particulars of the dates and events, we dont get a lot of (accurate) info on this case in the UK, its either propoganda or defensive.The judges made sure the trial coincides with the elections? They must have had a glass ball, the government fell February 20th.
You don't agree to his opinion, or that he said this?andyb wrote:I dont agree with that.Things he proposed in the past: to forbid the Quran (not the Bible or any other holy book)
Mr Wilders says the Qur'an (Koran) is a fascist book which promotes violence and is similar to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
All Muslims, period.andyb wrote:I thought there was a little more to it, people were allowed in so long as the laws of their new country over-ruled any other such laws (sharia), and they behaved in a dignified way that would suit their new country, and integrated well. If it is how I understood it, I agree 100%.to put an immigration stop on Muslims (not Christians or atheists, even if they're from the same country)
Another article (from "view from the right"): Wilders says: stop Muslim immigrationThe highly controversial politician also said he wants to halt the immigration of Muslims, despite the fact he agrees that the majority of Muslims are peace-loving and law-abiding.
We should stop the mass immigration from Muslim countries. We have to stop it, today. No more immigrants from Muslim countries.
Agreed. A ban on full face coverings isn't discriminatory.andyb wrote:I am fully in favour of the proposed french partial ban on full face coverings, and am not aware on his "tax" idea, a simple ban would work well where a "tax" would be difficult to uphold and is a silly idea on many levels.and the infamous headscarf tax (no tax on hoods as worn by youngsters, or hats by distinguished people).
What is truth?andyb wrote:I agree that there has to be a line that should not be crossed, but the truth should carry far more weight in this regard, whilst insults and discrimination should be taken in context and in second place to the truth.So now, freedom of speech (7th amendment here). A great good.
I don't know how this is regarded in other countries, but by law, one can not speak freely without limits. One has a responsibility according to law, meaning you have to regard other regulations and principles of the constitution.
Limits to freedom of speech can be: defamation/slander, insults and discrimination.
Did you ask GamingGod?.....aristide1 wrote:I've asked everybody else, so God, what's Natalie Portman's phone #?
I dont agree that it should be banned outright, but I did enjoy his message in Fitna about reif I were to propose that I would not stop at the Quran, but that is a moot point as I would not propose such a thing, its just asking for more violence.You don't agree to his opinion, or that he said this?
If the latter:
'Qur'an should be banned' - Wilders strikes again
Its not a nice thing to say, but it is true, and as mentioned before I believe that in such scenarios the truth must win over an anient religious book thats pretty much says the same thing as Hitlers hate manual.Quote:
Mr Wilders says the Qur'an (Koran) is a fascist book which promotes violence and is similar to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
Again I dont agree with this, there is no clear aim, and no way to defend such an action. There is no reason not to have different policys regarding people coming into the country from X country vs Y country. People coming in from Sweden are likely to be let in with few questions, wheras someone from Nigeria will be quized - I see no problem there at all, so long as it has a purpose, a blanket NO from all (muslim dictatorships I assume) is plain wrong, why not just quiz them more than the Nigerians.?All Muslims, period.
[In fact it's worse, also Christians and atheists will be stopped, if they come from a Muslim country - when is a country a Muslim country...?]
Geert Wilders calls to stop Muslim immigration
I would hope so too.What is truth?
You make it sound as if though the "truth" is easy to ascertain, or even a given.
In some trials, a large portion of the time spent is just to figure out what happened, or in other words what the truth of the matter is.
True, here is a bit of truth, (I dont have the time right now to identify which one it is), feel free to tell me what you think.There are different kinds of truth: subjective, relative, objective and absolute.
The "truth" in Wilders' case is clearly a subjective one.
So what kind of truth is in my "Statement" above.? And what implication would that have on the law regarding insults and ironically discrimination if I were to say that in the Netherlands.? And lastly, why should someone not be allowed to speak the truth about something as nasty and hate filled as the Quran, when they are allowed to say such things about the North Korean dictatorship, or Iran etc etc.The code of criminal law handles insults, the constitution handles discrimination.
There is no act for "truth" in our code of criminal law or our constitution, therefore it is subordinate to insults and discrimination.
Not the other way around.
pro.Cov wrote:lol
N7SC: Can we get a little more help down here???
God: Get lost. Don't bother me.
N7SC: I was just asking. There is no reason to be ...
God: Oh boy, you don't get it, do you?
N7SC: Uhm, excuse me?
God: Do you really think I exist?
N7SC: ... well, you are talking to me right now, aren't you?
God: I will tell you something now.
For since I put you humans on earth, you develop the wildest theories which make my hair go white out of disappointment.
You just think of me as "the one" who does want you humans to do this & that ... I mean WTF ?
Who do you humans think you are? You arrogant bunch, huh?
N7SC: Phh, what could ...
God: Now you listen to me son.
You humans have nothing better to do than praying to me and committing one sin after another?
Who told you I want that? Can you folks not just get yourselfs under control again?
I don't give a damn about whatever happens on planet earth, ok.
You get out what you put in, and so far you have messed up big time.
According to my last analysis, you humans will have extinct yourselves by the year 2142.
Do you understand?
N7SC: Listen sir, it's not as easy as that for us.
God: And why is that?
N7SC: Because ... there is a force of humans working against the good ones.
This force is so strong that the system of injustice that we have, is kept in such a tight grip.
Please sir, don't let the good ones suffer much longer because we really can't cope anymore.
God: Hmm, who is the force in your opinion?
N7SC: ... The governments all over the world ... and the rich.
God: The governments?? But they represent YOU. They suppose to act in the best interest of the whole and not of an elite.
N7SC: *sigh*, I know God, oh I know.
(At this point little tears run down garysgold's cheek while he looked down.)
God: N7SC, son ... I will give you one advise now, and that's for you to spread the word, ok.
I have equipped you all with something called "common sense". I want you to tell the whole world, that every single action you do from now on, must be done with applying common sense..
No more greed, no more selfisch intentions, no more sick thinking.
Is that understood ?
N7SC: But ... with all due respect, I can't see that this helps.
God: You will see. You will see.
Once this has taken place on a global scale, it will kick off a domino effect to your favour.
Oh, and to help you to get heard better, I will equip you with the following super power: from now on you are invincible !
(God took a deep breath, turned around and looked into the far distant clouds. garysgold closed his eyes and when he re-opened them again, he was infront of his PC, still on the sevenforum's website.
He must have read Cov's posting and started to dream.)
Chances are they were there before the war was.colm wrote:dear god,
why do civilians hang out in war zones?