'Liberal' in America

[Asarlai]

Wrong, every species in the genus Homo are human. The genus uses the latin Homo, which means human, not the Greek Homo meaning same.

Homo means "man" not "human," referring to an individual and not a species; I would suggest that you not argue about Latin with me. In the scientific community, "human" refers to Homo Sapiens, or modern humans, when not prefaced with "early."

But what's the point of this argument? Human rights refers to the innate rights of modern humans (Homo Sapiens), no?

[mcbigski]

Nah, not going to do that. If the '08 and '10 election threads hadn't been deleted I'm sure I could find a veritable goldmine, but since they have I'll just point to your history of defending (and at times using) the hateful rhetoric of the tea party. And didn't you once compile a list of reasons defending the far right belief that Obama was evil (several of which were quotes of less than one sentence taken completely out of context)?

The onus is on you to prove wrong the several people who called you out for your posting style, because you do bring up good points. You can be reasonable and produce intelligent discussion, but then you pepper in these statements that just make you seem completely off your rocker.

Again, what hateful rhetoric have I used? Sounds like you're pretty sure I use hateful rhetoric, you just can't actually point to any?

I'm pretty sure that you must have used some arguments that were also shared by whoever the biggest asshole on Democratic Underground is, but that doesn't make you responsible for something someone else said.

You're engaging in name calling and character assassination without having any evidence. Just because you can get other posters to agree doesn't suddenly shift the burden of proof. Back it up or apologize.

Far too often progressives et al can't seem to conceive of a motive for an opposing position that doesn't boil down to ill will and/or bad faith. Pretty big lack of empathy there, IMO.

Edited to add: I'll 100% admit to the stubborness charge, obv.

[TrueMetis]

Homo means "man" not "human," referring to an individual and not a species; I would suggest that you not argue about Latin with me. In the scientific community, "human" refers to Homo Sapiens, or modern humans, when not prefaced with "early."

Homo can mean man but it can and does also mean Human, just like man can also refer to the collective group of humans. In the scientific community Human can refer to all the various species of humans.

And I would suggest you don't argue anthropology with me, you know the study of humanity.

ETA Fairly basic source for Homo = Human

But what's the point of this argument? Human rights refers to the innate rights of modern humans (Homo Sapiens), no?

Yes but when used in this context it is the common and legal definitions that's being used, the ones the refers to Homo Sapien Sapiens. Not the scientific one, which you brought up for some reason.

Really you should be using legal terms not scientific ones for an abortion discussion, which means you should go back to person a well defined legal term.

[Asarlai]

Really you should be using legal terms not scientific ones for an abortion discussion, which means you should go back to person a well defined legal term.

Scientific terms are required to establish some basic reason in the law. If we are to define murder as the willful and unjust killing of a human life, as is the case, then how can we establish who is a human (a scientific term) without science? "Willful" and "unjust," of course, need legal definitions, which don't spring so naturally from science as "human" and "life."

mcbigski - Your fetus comment was pretty hateful. There's your example.

Well so is killing 1.3 million innocent human lives a year. Earlier, I corrected his use of "extermination," but I do understand how people can get emotionally worked up into using exaggerated language.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

This thread is a real eye opener. We have a bunch of left-leaning posters who habitually use an inflammatory, immoderate, rude, nasty, etc. posting style calling out a conservative for using a provocative style as if they are models of decorum. Even some more moderate left-leaning posters, who generally don't use such a style it themselves but rarely say anything to lefties who do, are piling on.

this forum is remarkably tolerant and open-minded toward dissenting views --as long as they agree with the majority, anyway. But hey, congratullate yourselves anyway. As long as it makes you feel good about yourselves, how true it is really doesn't matter, I suppose. Dissenters are all just "teabaggers" (insert juvenile snicker here) anyway.

[TrueMetis]

Scientific terms are required to establish some basic reason in the law. If we are to define murder as the willful and unjust killing of a human life, as is the case, then how can we establish who is a human (a scientific term) without science? "Willful" and "unjust," of course, need legal definitions, which don't spring so naturally from science as "human" and "life."

We use legal terms, which are often separate from scientific ones. Murder has been a crime since long before we ever started figuring out what humans were scientifically.

When you see the word human in say the criminal code it is not the same human that you see in a paper written by an anthropologist. Same with life which has no accepted scientific definition.

[Asarlai]

This thread is a real eye opener. We have a bunch of left-leaning posters who habitually use an inflammatory, immoderate, rude, nasty, etc. posting style calling out a conservative for using a provocative style as if they are models of decorum. Even some more moderate left-leaning posters, who generally don't use such a style it themselves but rarely say anything to lefties who do, are piling on.

this forum is remarkably tolerant and open-minded toward dissenting views --as long as they agree with the majority, anyway. But hey, congratullate yourselves anyway. As long as it makes you feel good about yourselves, how true it is really doesn't matter, I suppose. Dissenters are all just "teabaggers" (insert juvenile snicker here) anyway.

You're overgeneralizing in just as inflammatory a matter. How far does the "left" spectrum go? Communism? Well, communist here, defending the anti-abortion comments. Because you see, not everyone you throw in a blanket enemy group has all the same views, words, and practices. The way you describe it seems quite different from the way it actually is here.

Of course if you go against the majority opinion, the majority of people will disagree and argue against you. Sorry, that's the definition of majority.

[Swordfish]

No, you are being called hateful, stubborn and ignorant becuase you associate with people who want to oppose giving equal rights to homosexuals.

My grandmother was against giving equal rights to homosexuals.

Does that make me hateful, stubborn and ignorant? or just her?

[Asarlai]

We use legal terms, which are often separate from scientific ones. Murder has been a crime since long before we ever started figuring out what humans were scientifically.

When you see the word human in say the criminal code it is not the same human that you see in a paper written by an anthropologist. Same with life which has no accepted scientific definition.

Life does have an accepted scientific definition (metabolism, homeostasis, growth, response to stimuli, reproduction). Further, geneticists have proven that a human organism, distinct from both mother and father, is formed upon conception.

What perplexes me is that Scott Peterson, who killed his pregnant wife, was convicted of double murder. Apparently the unborn child is only human when you want it to be.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Disagreement is fine. For Mcbigski to get called out for not using reasonable arguments or for being intemperate is simply a joke given what far nastier posters on the left get away with -- without comment -- as a matter of course.

[Asarlai]

Disagreement is fine. For Mcbigski to get called out for not using reasonable arguments or for being intemperate is simply a joke given what far nastier posters on the left get away with -- without comment -- as a matter of course.

So a couple of people saying that is suddenly the majority of posters?

[TrueMetis]

Life does have an accepted scientific definition (metabolism, homeostasis, growth, response to stimuli, reproduction).

A definition that wouldn't include virus's, the early stage of many plants, some bacteria, or somewhat interesting the early stages of a fetus. Your definition fails.

Further, geneticists have proven that a human organism, distinct from both mother and father, is formed upon conception.

Except it most certainly isn't distinct from its mother, as it cannot survive on its own and is nothing more than a clump of cells leeching of it's host. In any other circumstance we would call that a tumour.

What perplexes me is that Scott Peterson, who killed his pregnant wife, was convicted of double murder. Apparently the unborn child is only human when you want it to be.

Which rather undermines the idea of them using scientific definitions now doesn't it?

[Asarlai]

A definition that wouldn't include virus's, the early stage of many plants, some bacteria, or somewhat interesting the early stages of a fetus. Your definition fails.

There actually is quite a bit of biological debate as to whether or not viruses are truly alive. I'd be interested in hearing which plants and bacteria do not fit the biological definition of life (not "mine," but the standard biological definition).

Except it most certainly isn't distinct from its mother, as it cannot survive on its own and is nothing more than a clump of cells leeching of it's host. In any other circumstance we would call that a tumour.

It is a distinct organism, despite being dependent upon the mother. The drawing of the "murder" line at any point beyond conception is simply illogical, as there is no other clear point of transformation into humanity.

Which rather undermines the idea of them using scientific definitions now doesn't it?

It shows that we have a broken system, yes.

[Shryke]

This thread is a real eye opener. We have a bunch of left-leaning posters who habitually use an inflammatory, immoderate, rude, nasty, etc. posting style calling out a conservative for using a provocative style as if they are models of decorum. Even some more moderate left-leaning posters, who generally don't use such a style it themselves but rarely say anything to lefties who do, are piling on.

this forum is remarkably tolerant and open-minded toward dissenting views --as long as they agree with the majority, anyway. But hey, congratullate yourselves anyway. As long as it makes you feel good about yourselves, how true it is really doesn't matter, I suppose. Dissenters are all just "teabaggers" (insert juvenile snicker here) anyway.

Or you know, as long as you aren't spouting openly hateful, bigoted or provably wrong bullshit.

But hey, you keep hanging yourself on that cross boys.

[Shryke]

My grandmother was against giving equal rights to homosexuals.

Does that make me hateful, stubborn and ignorant? or just her?

Just her.

You would get to enjoy the same label though for defending her on that stance, if you did so.

[TrueMetis]

There actually is quite a bit of biological debate as to whether or not viruses are truly alive. I'd be interested in hearing which plants and bacteria do not fit the biological definition of life (not "mine," but the standard biological definition).

This erroneously assumes that there is a standard definition of life. But to the examples many species of trees produce seeds that will lie dormant for years, deacades and centuries, or in some notable cases millenia before sprouting. These show no signs of responding to any external stimuli, and do not grow at all until specific circumstances are met. Bacteria and some fungi show the same ability. By your definition there are not alive during the time they lay dormant. Neither then would a fetus be since they do not respond to stimuli until a certain point in their development.

It is a distinct organism, despite being dependent upon the mother. The drawing of the "murder" line at any point beyond conception is simply illogical, as there is no other clear point of transformation into humanity.

I think we may be using different definitions of distinct here. Here's mine.

"distinguished as not being the same; not identical; separate (sometimes followed by from ): His private and public lives are distinct."

My link

It shows that we have a broken system, yes.

Since legality is based on morality and morality is ever changing I think we're good.

[Dornish]

It is a distinct organism, despite being dependent upon the mother. The drawing of the "murder" line at any point beyond conception is simply illogical, as there is no other clear point of transformation into humanity.

And I see any point before brain waves to be completely preposterous.

[awesome possum]

Again, what hateful rhetoric have I used? Sounds like you're pretty sure I use hateful rhetoric, you just can't actually point to any?

As I already pointed out, the '08 and '10 election threads have been eaten by the board. If I could magically unerase those threads I could show the hateful tea party rhetoric you attempted to spew and support. Since they have been, I can't. I can only point out to anyone who's been paying attention the last few years that you have again and again demonstrated that you're a hateful person.

It's okay. I'm hateful too. I fucking hate the far right of the political spectrum. I think those on the far right are horrible people trying to destroy this country for their own petty, irresponsible gains... which is very sad, because it's not even their own gains... they just think it is because they're told so by their favorite radio personality.

I'm pretty sure that you must have used some arguments that were also shared by whoever the biggest asshole on Democratic Underground is, but that doesn't make you responsible for something someone else said.

As much as I'm sure you wish I was an adherent to that site, I'm not. I've never been there in my life. These opinions I have - this may seem very unnatural to you - I came around to them through my own means. I read the news and I develop my own opinion through that news. Not through a blog.

Not through Rush Limbaugh, who I've shown in the past that you take your opinion directly from. No joking there. I've literally shown that certain posts of yours are direct talking points spewed by Limbaugh. Direct. This isn't exaggeration. I spent weeks listening to him on my lunch break, trying to understand the nonsense he espouses and failing - because he is nothing but a far right ideologue, and I've heard you regurgitate his talking points verbatim.

Rush Limbaugh is as hateful a human being as one can get without taking the life of another. You've not only regurgitated his views but defended them heartily.

You're engaging in name calling and character assassination without having any evidence. Just because you can get other posters to agree doesn't suddenly shift the burden of proof. Back it up or apologize.

I didn't get anyone to "agree" with me. They called you out all on their own. The fact that you ignore this speaks volumes.

This thread is a real eye opener. We have a bunch of left-leaning posters who habitually use an inflammatory, immoderate, rude, nasty, etc. posting style calling out a conservative for using a provocative style as if they are models of decorum. Even some more moderate left-leaning posters, who generally don't use such a style it themselves but rarely say anything to lefties who do, are piling on.

this forum is remarkably tolerant and open-minded toward dissenting views --as long as they agree with the majority, anyway. But hey, congratullate yourselves anyway. As long as it makes you feel good about yourselves, how true it is really doesn't matter, I suppose. Dissenters are all just "teabaggers" (insert juvenile snicker here) anyway.

Boo hoo, we get called out for our hateful, stubborn, ignorant views. That's not fair! Boo hoo!!!!!!

My grandmother was against giving equal rights to homosexuals.

Does that make me hateful, stubborn and ignorant? or just her?

No, just her. Unless you admit to having inherited her views.

Disagreement is fine. For Mcbigski to get called out for not using reasonable arguments or for being intemperate is simply a joke given what far nastier posters on the left get away with -- without comment -- as a matter of course.

I'm fairly certain I've had more posts deleted calling out you far right wingnuts for your insane views than your actual posts have (admittedly, they were not nice posts). So please, get down off the cross. You guys look a fool all trying to fit up there at the same time.

[Lord O' Bones]

I'm fairly certain I've had more posts deleted calling out you far right wingnuts for your insane views than your actual posts have (admittedly, they were not nice posts). So please, get down off the cross. You guys look a fool all trying to fit up there at the same time.

Even though I'm sure this is true... I jump on thee vile angry liberal! You know, like I've done many times.

But apparently that never happened in some eyes.

[Galactus]

My grandmother was against giving equal rights to homosexuals.

Does that make me hateful, stubborn and ignorant? or just her?

Do you vote for her? Defend her arguments in public?