Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Is Sarah Palin using a racial slur?

  1. -21
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,258
    vCash:
    1222
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphins9954 View Post
    Are you really pro-life??? Against the death penalty and war too???
    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphins9954 View Post

    The only way I can respect the pro-life thinking is if it's consistent and based on principle.
    False dilemma fallacy, I can be pro-innocent life and still support capital punishment. Just look at yourself, I am sure you are against the death penalty and war but support abortion, so you are the one who is inconsistent, “it’s ok to kill innocent babies but God-forbid you kill Ted Bundy or Nazis!”

    Embryos do not meet all the qualifications for life.


    Actually they do, if you knew what the qualifications for life were you’d know that.

    They require a life support system from the mother.


    So? This is not one of the qualifications for life. Many animals require another animal in order to live, it’s a form of symbiosis. In fact, no animal could survive completely on its own so your argument is absurd. Given your logic, a person would cease to be alive simply because they were put on a respirator or a dialysis machine.

    If an embryo could live outside the womb, then you might have a point.


    See above.

    WTF is a fully functioning genome? Do you mean fully functioning genes? If that's what you mean, then you're still wrong. Learn the definition of genotype and phenotype then try to tell me how many of an embryos genes are being expressed at 0-8 weeks.


    You’re going to have to brush up on your terms or this is going to be a difficult conversation, a genome is simply a full set of chromosomes. The Embryo’s genome is just as complete as yours and mine, nothing is added to it later on in development. Given your logic that the genes have to actually be expressed in order for someone to be human then 10 year old children would not be human because they hadn’t reached sexual maturity yet. The embryo is a living human being, there’s no way around that fact.

    You can go and look up the definition of genome and say that it was the proper use of the word til you're blue in the face, but I'll tell you that people in the field of genetics do not refer to the genome in this way, ever.


    Are you for real? A genome is just the entirety of a person’s genetic code, and that’s exactly how I was using it.

    “Life is specified by genomes. Every organism, including humans, has a genome that contains all of the biological information needed to build and maintain a living example of that organism. The biological information contained in a genome is encoded in its deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and is divided into discrete units called genes. Genes code for proteins that attach to the genome at the appropriate positions and switch on a series of reactions called gene expression.” - National Center for Biotechnology Information
    Apparently those geneticists at the NCBI are not “real” geneticists since they used the word genome exactly how I did.

    Let’s look at the six actual qualifications of life since it’s obvious you seem to be a bit foggy on what they are.
    1. Consists of a cell or cells (Embryos do)
    2. Reacts to stimuli (Embryos do)
    3. Reproductive capacity (Embryos undergo cellular reproduction)
    4. DNA (Embryos have a full human genome)
    5. Uses energy (Embryos do)
    6. Develops/Adapts (Embryos do)

    He was referring to the number of brain cells, not who has most value. A few more brain cells wouldn't have hurt your post.


    You see when you try to insult my intelligence but then muck up the facts in the same post you’re questioning my intelligence in it makes you look really silly. He clearly said that she has fewer brain cells than the embryos she values more than adults, which implies that Locke doesn’t think we should value embryos more or probably even as much as adults, so that was what I was questioning. Get educated, get informed.
    Total Depravity
    Unconditional Election
    Limited Atonement
    Irresistible Grace
    Perseverance of the Saints
    Quote Quote  

  2. -22
    JackFinfan's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2010
    Posts:
    442
    vCash:
    2269
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post

    False dilemma fallacy, I can be pro-innocent life and still support capital punishment. Just look at yourself, I am sure you are against the death penalty and war but support abortion, so you are the one who is inconsistent, “it’s ok to kill innocent babies but God-forbid you kill Ted Bundy or Nazis!”
    Being pro war and capital punishment is ok because you're pro-innocent life??? Because everyone knows we have never convicted and murdered a prisoner who was innocent, and there's never any innocent casualties in war.
    Quote Quote  

  3. -23
    EvilDylan's Avatar
    Scout Team

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2008
    Posts:
    2,818
    vCash:
    5664
    Loc:
    Huntsville, AL
    Thanks / No Thanks
    You are using genome in the wrong context. I don't care how many times you tell me to brush up on my terms. I work in the field, I know what I'm talking about. NO ONE says fully functioning genome. Furthermore no human has a fully functioning genome. We have thousands of genes that are not expressed. We share genes with plants that are NOT FUNCTIONING. So no, an embryo does NOT have a fully functioning genome. You don't know what you're talking about.

    Those scientists did not use genome in the same context. You obviously don't fully understand what a genome really is. You use it as a filler for your arguments to try and sound like you know what you're talking about. No human being that has ever existed has a fully functioning genome.

    Some people may agree with you about an embryo being considered a "life" some may not, like myself. But saying it's a fact doesn't make it so.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -24
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,258
    vCash:
    1222
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Being pro war and capital punishment is ok because you're pro-innocent life??? Because everyone knows we have never convicted and murdered a prisoner who was innocent, and there's never any innocent casualties in war.


    That’s such a lame argument though, are you not for sending anyone to prison then because we might accidentally put an innocent person in prison for the rest of his life? People who are executed have been convicted by a court of law and have gone through the appeals process, I have no issues with executing Ted Bundy and Timothy McVeigh, you seem to have issues with executing guys like that but no issues with killing babies that we know are innocent.

    You are using genome in the wrong context. I don't care how many times you tell me to brush up on my terms. I work in the field, I know what I'm talking about. NO ONE says fully functioning genome. Furthermore no human has a fully functioning genome. We have thousands of genes that are not expressed. We share genes with plants that are NOT FUNCTIONING. So no, an embryo does NOT have a fully functioning genome. You don't know what you're talking about.


    Stop pretending like you work in the field, you didn’t even know what the six qualifications for life were, that’s basic biology. A genome can be fully functioning without full expression; you’re getting confused about what functioning means. I can say my car is fully functioning even though I am not running the air conditioning, what I mean is that the car is complete it is not lacking any pieces. Functioning is not the same as operating; even genes that are not yet expressed are serving a function for the organism. The embryotic genome is complete, it’s functioning exactly how it is supposed to at that point of development, it has all the pieces it needs to develop the person to maturity. The truth of the matter is that you want to drag the conversation down rabbit holes about irrelevant semantics because you know you are losing the debate, a embryo is every bit as alive and human as a 6 month infant, a 40 year old man, and a 90 year old woman.

    Those scientists did not use genome in the same context.


    Yes they did.

    You obviously don't fully understand what a genome really is. You use it as a filler for your arguments to try and sound like you know what you're talking about. No human being that has ever existed has a fully functioning genome.


    Well now you have shot yourself in the foot, because now even if you believe an embryo doesn’t have a fully functioning genome (which they do) you still cannot say they are not human because you just admitted that you believe no humans have a fully functioning genome. So you’re done for, an embryo has to be a living human being because it meets all of the qualifications for life and has human DNA.

    Some people may agree with you about an embryo being considered a "life" some may not, like myself. But saying it's a fact doesn't make it so.


    Someone who works in genetics but doesn’t know an embryo is alive? Seriously? You’re opinion doesn’t make something alive or not alive, you have no logical foot to stand on, if you claim an embryo is not alive then you’re argument leads to such absurdities that we have already seen such as people on respirators ceasing to be alive. The only non-arbitrary, consistent, and therefore logical position is that life begins and conception and continues until death. Any other position is completely arbitrary or inconsistent and therefore logically invalid.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -25
    JackFinfan's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2010
    Posts:
    442
    vCash:
    2269
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post

    That’s such a lame argument though, are you not for sending anyone to prison then because we might accidentally put an innocent person in prison for the rest of his life? People who are executed have been convicted by a court of law and have gone through the appeals process, I have no issues with executing Ted Bundy and Timothy McVeigh, you seem to have issues with executing guys like that but no issues with killing babies that we know are innocent.
    Actually, I'm pro life, of course with the exceptions of rape and the mother's life. In my opinion the pro choice part is whether or not you choose to have sex, and whether or not you choose to use birth control. Now in the case of rape, those women didn't choose that, so I think she deserves the right to choose whether or not she wants that baby.

    Explain to me how being anti war is any different than being pro life? Not sure how protecting an unborn fetus is any different than protecting a 1 month old baby that dies in Iraq from a US missile.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -26
    EvilDylan's Avatar
    Scout Team

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2008
    Posts:
    2,818
    vCash:
    5664
    Loc:
    Huntsville, AL
    Thanks / No Thanks
    It's hilarious listening to people that don't know science try to talk science. They think google and wikipedia have every answer and they can go toe to toe with doctors and people in their respective fields.

    Statler waldork, you're a joke and so are your posts.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -27
    phins_4_ever's Avatar
    Perennial All-Pro

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2008
    Posts:
    3,474
    vCash:
    6952
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by EvilDylan View Post
    It's hilarious listening to people that don't know science try to talk science. They think google and wikipedia have every answer and they can go toe to toe with doctors and people in their respective fields.

    Statler waldork, you're a joke and so are your posts.
    Many have tried and argued with him. That poster is always right regardless of the subject. Though he is mostly wrong. Did I say 'mostly'? Let's change that to 'pretty much all the time'.
    You should see some of his posts in the threads in the religious forum. Oh my.
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. What is Sarah Palin?
    By Dolphins9954 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-30-2009, 11:50 AM
  2. Sarah Palin: Why She Resigned
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-07-2009, 01:22 PM
  3. Charlie Sheen sorry for using racial slur
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-20-2008, 03:06 AM
  4. CAUTION: Racial slur ahead....
    By bigbry in forum The Depths of the Sea
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-22-2007, 04:56 PM
  5. Man Says Duke Rape Cop Yelled Racial Slur
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-24-2006, 10:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •