This is absolutely priceless! Imagine if Hillary was the POTUS instead of Barry Obamalam! But this must be how Barry sees it, too, and that would explain a lot. Check out Bubba here, and make sure you're not drinking anything when you do. At least don't face your monitor when you do, for the spit-take will be mighty.
My first thought upon watching this was that the Slickster was merely making a rhetorical blunder, but then he kept on making the assertion. Could he have meant the difference between those embryos destined for implantation and those not, or is he really this stupid? If it was the former, he's still dealing with the destruction of people unable to defend themselves against arrogant assholes who condescendingly stand on superiority based on size. We here in fly-by country call them "bullies", and these are the most heinous, barbaric, monsterous, and really, the most pathetic kind.
But if Billy-boy is really that stupid, then what does it make those people who elected him a second time? Answer: Obama supporters. Sorry. Trick question.
But really, I thought we on the right were the ones devoid of scientific sophistication. Obviously, on issues such as abortion, ESTR, homosexuality, anthropogenic global warming, we are constantly reminded how just who the buffoons are. (And that's just science!)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
He is either really ignorant on a supremely important moral issue and a very clear cut scientific fact, or he is being disingenuous (highly possible). Either is bad.
The intereviewer didn't correct him, either.
Pathetic.
Yeah, Neil. I meant to comment on the interviewer's lack of spine, but then, he might be a lefty as well and doesn't know about such things any more than Bubba.
You'll notice that whenever one tries to associate embryos, abortion, STDs, "unwanted pregnancies" with the sexual behavior that precedes them all, they can't seem to make the connection and get all cranky.
Speaking of pathetic, I can't believe the freakin' Bulls are gonna make the postseason. Hey, check out my impersonation of the Milwaukee Bucks' 2009 playoff appearance:
"I can't believe the freakin' Bulls are gonna make the postseason."
Well, it's not as if you weren't told.
Truth to tell, the Bullies are not a lock at all. They just lost two winnaBull games in a row against Toronto and tonite's Pacer game. I still think they can get there, but they'll be stum-Bull-in the whole way. I hope they make good use of the three days off they now have.
Bucks? Bulls? C'mon, it's all about the Lakers and the Cavs this year.
Marshall, abortion, ESTR and homosexuality are only issues because of the religious views of some people, not because of scientific sophistication or the lack of it. Those who oppose all three do so for religious reasons, not because of any scientific evidence.
Anthropogenic global warming is the outlier here. There are no religious reasons (at least that I'm aware of) why anyone would want to deny this established scientific fact. The "controversy" on this topic seems to be generated by those who have some financial interest in continuing to pollute and those who have been taken in by them.
In fact, one would think that Christians would be in the forefront of the environmental movement if they took their religion seriously.
DL,
You are totally backwards in your perceptions. The religious opinions on the issues of abortion, ESCR and homosexuality follows science, not the other way around. No embriology textbook states that a fertilized ovum is not the beginning of a new life, and in humans, a new human life. There is nothing within science that determines without a doubt that one becomes a person endowed with the unalienable right to life at any other stage of human development. THAT is a result of selfish, secular ideology; a subjective decision rather than an objective reality.
As for homosexuality, there is no science that states it is a "natural" orientation equal to heterosexuality. One needn't be a Dr. of anything to notice that the male is created to be with the female. Thus, it is a mental malfunction that one would be so attracted to members of the same sex and this point has never been scientifically overturned. The condition was NOT removed from the list of mental illnesses due to scientific discovery, but by activism within the psychiatric community. Not too long ago, I argued this point with Dan and Geoffrey and one of them, I believe it was Dan, offered a link (from a very pro-homosexual source, I might add) that in itself presented pro-homosex bias by the opinions of homosexual psychologists. (As an aside, I found this humorous considering Dan was outraged that Bush had oil-men on a committee overseeing the oil industry, yet, he was OK with offering this lame link with the opinions of homosexual psychologists. That's like taking the word of kleptomaniacs that stealing is just fine.) Since that time, there has been no study or research that has confirmed anything regarding either a biological explanation for homosexuality (that is, something that is akin to skin color and thus unchangable), nor any reason why that would justify legislative aquiessence of homosexual demands on society.
So on those three areas, Christians, or any other people of faith who's teachings agree on these issues, are quite aligned with the science surrounding them, thus showing just how smart God is and how smart we are to believe in Him. But, we obviously don't need our faith to see the truth of these issues. We only need an honest and open mind.
As to AGW, don't make me laugh. You really need to look at the opposing opinions regarding this issue to see what crock it really is.
No Marshall, you are completely wrong. Science doesn't inform your beliefs, religion does. Science has nothing whatever to say about the rights that may or may not be possessed by any living form. Rights may be asserted by religions or by governments, but science has nothing to do with it.
As for homosexuality, your position is clear. Any scientist, psychologist or other professional who says that homosexuality is something people are born with or who says it is not a mental illness is motivated by pro-gay bias or anti-religion bias. How convenient.
It is of course with global warming that your true colors become evident. You consider it a "crock" because a few scientists being paid by polluters whose voices are amplified by the right-wing media oppose the overwhelming consensus of legitimate scientists worldwide.
In all these cases, you argue from your belief (whether religious or just ideological) and go around looking for "evidence" that matches the conclusion you have already reached. To do otherwise, you have to first admit that all the answers are not in your religion and its holy book (or more precisely in your interpretation of it). That's something you are not willing to do.
DL,
Of course I'm not wrong. What a goofy thing to say.
I never said science informs my beliefs. But in these issues it is definitely aligned with my beliefs. Must I again go through how a person comes into existence for you? To pretend that the product of intercourse is anything other than another person is to be a self-serving liar. It is how each of us has come to be and science does not offer anything that can be objectively used to contradict that. It is selfish subjective reasoning that leads to a belief that the human embryo is something other than another person in an early stage of development and therefor ripe for experimentation. This is ideology of the worst kind equal to any Nazi or Klan member who believes a Jew or black is less than human for their ethnicity or color, except that you choose to state that the embryo isn't human because of it's mircoscopic size. Are you going to give the crap about self-awareness next? Don't bother because that is also self-serving subjectivity. If you have any science that justifies treating these helpless PEOPLE like a freakin' tumor, present it. Be forewarned: no one's been able to do it yet, but only given more opinion without scientific reasoning behind it. I don't hold out hope you'll be any more successful.
As for homosexuality, there is nothing that I have stated that isn't a result of researching the subject. All is factual. I have left myself open, as with abortion, to be convinced that I have missed some info, or some argument that isn't merely a lame excuse to support this selfishness.
I will state without shame or embarrassment that on this topic I begin with my faith, but there is far greater evidence of Christ as Lord than there is for homosexuality being unchangable. Indeed, for the latter there is none. That's not to say that there are likely many who don't care enough to exert the necessary effort. That's no different than a multitude of human failings for which the perpetrators are unwilling to make that effort.
But that's got nothing to do with the activists' attempts to pretend otherwise at the expense of our culture. And like so many of those other failings, those who feel so compelled find it easier to pretend that there is nothing wrong with the behavior than to exert that effort to change. So, rather than me being the one who tries to find evidence to support what I believe, it is exactly the opposite. These people have come to believe, for whatever reason, that they are "born that way", against any lack of scientific proof, and have come to look for anything that supports their opinion so they can maintain that which they find pleasing to themselves. If they had some scientific evidence, they'd trumpet it constantly. But what they need the most is scientific evidence that this orientation cannot be changed. There's far too many examples of those who have changed for that to be very likely.
So present your evidence. Present your proofs. And while you're at it, present your proofs that the AGW supporters aren't on the take themselves, and that every one of the deniars are before you fall back on that lame accusation.
"abortion, ESTR and homosexuality are only issues because of the religious views of some people, not because of scientific sophistication or the lack of it. Those who oppose all three do so for religious reasons, not because of any scientific evidence."
False. Go pick up any embryology textbook. Life begins at conception. Scientific fact. Abortion kills an innocent human being. So does ESCR.
I agree that science doesn't tell us it's wrong to kill innocent human beings. It doesn't tell us not to kill innocent humans outside the womb, either, but that is only because science isn't designed to make moral claims.
But science does tell us that ESCR and abortion kill human beings. Anyone who denies that is ignorant and/or disingenuous. And as best I can tell the unborn haven't committed any capital crimes, let alone had 10+ years of appeals that convicted murderers get.
It is amusing when anti-religious bigots try to eliminate our views from discussion just because our pro-science views happen to agree with our religious views. Oddly, I never notice them objecting to the pro-abortion / pro-ESCR / pro-gay rights views of liberal "Christians," and I never notice them objecting to our views on stealing, perjury and murder just because they coincide with our religious views.
You are only about a year behind on the facts of global warming. That is, the facts that corrected the previous misstatements. AGW is an unprecedent, unrestricted political power grab. You'd have to be a sucker to think that these politicians will ever give back any of the power and money they'll take, even in the wildly unlikely scenario that their environmental goals were ever achieved (as if they have some sort of magic thermometer so they'll know just when to stop micro-managing every aspect of your life).
The question in abortion is not whether the embryonic life form is a member of the species homo sapiens, but whether it is entitled to the protection and rights of a person under the law. That is simply not a scientific question. Most so-called "pro-life" advocates make exceptions permitting them to kill post-birth humans, so claiming that the decision is based on their membership in the human species is specious.
There is of course, no "evidence" that Christ is Lord. The term has no objective meaning nor any means by which the thesis can be tested. In fact, outside the narrow confines of particular varieties of Christianity the statement "Christ is Lord" is utterly meaningless. To use an unprovable religious assertion as the starting point for a scientific inquiry is to eliminate any possibility other than bias.
I would suggest further than for many who use this phrase, their true allegiance is to a particular interpretation of the Bible, one that requires an anti-intellectual and anti-scientific viewpoint.
Many have argued from a Christian perspective that the human rights of the mother outweigh those of her fetus, or that the obligation to treat homosexuals as we would like to be treated requires Christians to support their quest for equal rights. Certainly it is easy to make the case that a Christian's obligation to care for God's creation outweighs the economic considerations that drive us to pollute and destroy the environment. Why do you not share these beliefs? Surely it is not science that makes the difference.
DL,
The question in science is whence comes our sense of right and wrong? Do we act on only the data from research? Or do we act on data based on some sense of morality that does not always align with the results of scientific query?
It is obvious, as we both agree, that the embryo is human. I do not need my faith to come to the absolutely logical, and by that I mean "DUH!", conclusion that it is indeed equal in worth and value to any other human that has been lucky enough to make it unscathed through it's first nine months of existence. As I said, for someone, perhaps like you, to suggest otherwise can only be based on YOUR ideology, but not on anything that is an objective or scientific fact. Thus, to deprive the embryo of the same rights is blatantly wrong, whether from a perspective of faith, or just plain reason and logic.
What has happened is that some have taken to believe that the pleasures of sexual intercourse is the purpose of the act and any child that might result is an unfortunate by-product. This is immaturity of the highest order often dressed up as deep thought.
As to exceptions made by pro-lifers, you'll have to be specific. I'm gonna guess you mean one of two things:
First, abortion to protect the life of the mother. To choose between two lives is a rare and unfortunate possibility in life. If one must decide between two people, and to save both is impossible, one cannot be held responsible for the death of the one not chosen. If a woman is left to decide between herself and the fetus apparently threatening her life, she cannot be held responsible for saving herself if she lacks the courage or risk-taking character that would put her own life on the line. Even my faith does not hold her accountable for that child's life, though how great would be her reward in heaven if she died rather than abort.
The other could be capital punishment. This is both a logical and Biblically supported position that is ethical in supporting or opposing. Not a matter for science at all.
Another might be war. Also not a science issue, but also not opposed Biblically if a matter of defense.
As for evidence for Christ being Lord, of course it exists. You simply dismiss it. Yeah, it's not something of which there is video proof, or photos, or contracts signed and notarized. But the evidence is strong and I would invite you to actually look to the many books that discuss what the evidence is. One of the easiest to digest is Lee Strobel's The Case For Christ. Many wise-guys like to trash this book, but, it has quite a decent list of scholars and experts who's books are listed for more details on what is discussed. And yes, they point to Christ as Lord, not just someone who existed and had a large posse.
There are many false and misled Christians who argue for the right of a mother to murder her unborn, though their arguments are horribly weak, or for homosexual rights as they have listed them, when good Christians stand for the rights of everyone, but not for every whim of every human being. Good Christians can generally tell the difference. And you assume too much if you think that I don't value a good, clean earth, though I don't think it's as fragile as the eco-idiots do. They don't have the support of science as much as they pretend to.
Marshall, the concept of right and wrong is not a scientific concept. It is a religious or ethical concept. Your arguments for denying women control over their own bodies rest on biblical interpretation, not on science. You admit that you are making subjective decisions about whether certain human lives are worthy of continuing to live, but you deny others that right. At least you should come clean and admit that your anti-abortion stance springs from a belief that sexuality should be confined to marriage and that women should be subject to their menfolk.
As for Christ is Lord, there simply is not, can not and will not ever be any evidence that Christ is Lord. Even if we prove that Jesus existed, which I think is highly probable, that doesn't mean that he was offspring of an invisible deity and a virgin, or that he rose from the dead - those are concepts that arise from religious sources, not from scientific sources.
I won't waste my time arguing global warming with you. Read the newspaper.
"Your arguments for denying women control over their own bodies rest on biblical interpretation, not on science."
That's pro-abortion emotional sound bite #7. Science demonstrates that without a doubt there is ANOTHER body in the equation -- the one that gets crushed and dismembered. She is a human being, too, and should have rights to not be killed.
"You admit that you are making subjective decisions about whether certain human lives are worthy of continuing to live, but you deny others that right."
That argument proves too much, as it would argue against laws prohibiting murder.
"At least you should come clean and admit that your anti-abortion stance springs from a belief that sexuality should be confined to marriage and that women should be subject to their menfolk."
Anti-religious bigotry.
"As for Christ is Lord, there simply is not, can not and will not ever be any evidence that Christ is Lord."
The resurrection, among other things. It is very well attested.
"Even if we prove that Jesus existed, which I think is highly probable, that doesn't mean that he was offspring of an invisible deity and a virgin, or that he rose from the dead - those are concepts that arise from religious sources, not from scientific sources."
His existence is considered a fact by virtually all historians.
His resurrection is the best explanation for the following evidence (just for starters), agreed to by virtually all historians:
- his disciples believe He rose from the dead.
- the Apostle Paul converted from persecuting Christians to becoming Christianity's greatest advocated, including writing Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and more. These put essential Christian doctrines and beliefs within 20-30 years of the crucifixion.
- After the crucifixion, Jesus' brother James went from being a skeptic to a believer, a leader in the early church and a martyr.
Is it scientific evidence? No, it is historical, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid.
To clarify, I'm not saying virtually all historians believe the resurrection happened, just that they believe the evidence I just cited is true.
Post a Comment