The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

"literally"? If it was literally then it wouldn't be a problem for you to provide that quote too, would it? Like, quote what I said.

It's all over in https://kiwifarms.net/threads/are-you-getting-the-vaccine.84995/page-154#post-9470900

You don't trust scientists because you think they're corrupt because they disagree with you. It can't be that you're wrong, can it?

 

[Vince McMahon]

You said it! Not me. Explain yourself.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

You said it! Not me. Explain yourself.

After you had said that scientists were corrupt due to US grant money and because they wanted to get published in the US.

 

[Vince McMahon]

After you had said that scientists were corrupt due to US grant money and because they wanted to get published in the US.

Quote my words, directly.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Quote my words, directly.

How about these, where you don't trust scientists because they could be corrupted:

Wouldn't you just have to corrupt influential ones and the rest will follow suit due to peer pressure?

I find that argument really hard to comprehend. While it does make sense to me on the surface, it still feels like trust shouldn't be unquestioning because the majority of scientists say it. Isn't scientific consensus subject to constant change?

But I'm not saying any of that. I just find it hard to palate that I should trust them because they're the majority and not because they have convinced me. Wouldn't it be much better to made a choice based on understanding, rather than following the majority opinion?

but either way, you don't trust scientists like a good right-winger. Then you guys wonder why people laugh at you and say you guys are uneducated bafoons.

 

[Marshal Mannerheim]

Pro-life is... definitely a religion thing

Ahem.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Ahem.

There may be a few atheist pro-lifers, but the majority of the push in America is from fundie evangelicals and catholic

 

[Vince McMahon]

but either way, you don't trust scientists like a good right-winger.

Expand on your summation that I "don't trust scientists". Surely you have a logical chain that can lead you to that conclusion?

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Expound on your summation that I "don't trust scientists". Surely you have a logical chain that can lead you to that conclusion?

Did you not read those posts? You said you don't trust scientists because they can be corrupted

But I'm not saying any of that. I just find it hard to palate that I should trust them because they're the majority and not because they have convinced me. Wouldn't it be much better to made a choice based on understanding, rather than following the majority opinion?

 

[Vince McMahon]

Did you not read those posts? You said you don't trust scientists because they can be corrupted

Post one: "Wouldn't you just have to corrupt influential ones and the rest will follow suit due to peer pressure?"
The question was presented as a hypothetical to your hypothetical of corrupting 99% of scientists. Do you understand the posited question?

Post two: I find that argument really hard to comprehend. While it does make sense to me on the surface, it still feels like trust shouldn't be unquestioning because the majority of scientists say it. Isn't scientific consensus subject to constant change?
The question is: is scientific consensus a constant, or could it be revised?

Post three: But I'm not saying any of that. I just find it hard to palate that I should trust them because they're the majority and not because they have convinced me. Wouldn't it be much better to made a choice based on understanding, rather than following the majority opinion?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum - I am questioning whether a person should trust a majority held opinion just because it's held by a majority.

Now please, explain in detail which logical steps did you take to make an assumption that I "don't trust scientists"? A man of a formidable intelligence such as yours will no doubt find this task easy.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Post one: "Wouldn't you just have to corrupt influential ones and the rest will follow suit due to peer pressure?"
The question was presented as a hypothetical to your hypothetical of corrupting 99% of scientists. Do you understand the posited question?

Post two: I find that argument really hard to comprehend. While it does make sense to me on the surface, it still feels like trust shouldn't be unquestioning because the majority of scientists say it. Isn't scientific consensus subject to constant change?
The question is: is scientific consensus a constant, or could it be revised?

Post three: But I'm not saying any of that. I just find it hard to palate that I should trust them because they're the majority and not because they have convinced me. Wouldn't it be much better to made a choice based on understanding, rather than following the majority opinion?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum - I am questioning whether a person should trust a majority held opinion just because it's held by a majority.

Now please, explain in detail which logical steps did you take to make an assumption that I "don't trust scientists"? A man of a formidable intelligence such as yours will no doubt find this task easy.

I already explained. You don't trust scientists about vaccines or medicine because, as you said, they can be corrupted.

 

[Vince McMahon]

I already explained. You don't trust scientists about vaccines or medicine because, as you said, they can be corrupted.

You did not explain, you presented your "vision" of what I said without actually explaining how you came to this conclusion. Will you provide the explanation for what you did?

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

You did not explain, you presented your "vision" of what I said without actually explaining how you came to this conclusion. Will you provide the explanation for what you did?

I already did.

You were "just asking questions" about the vaccine, and when I gave answers and explained that 99% of scientists said to get the vaccine and got the vaccine themselves, you then said that the 99% of scientists world-wide could be corrupted (by US grant money and publications) so you didn't trust them (in the above quoted reply).

Ironically, you did also say that of course they would know more about the subject they have devoted their careers to studying than you or I do (and I agree, of course), but yet you still don't trust them because they could be corrupt

 

[Vince McMahon]

I already did.

You were "just asking questions" about the vaccine, and when I gave answers and explained that 99% of scientists said to get the vaccine and got the vaccine themselves, you then said that the 99% of scientists world-wide could be corrupted (by US grant money and publications) so you didn't trust them (in the above quoted reply).

Ironically, you did also say that of course they would know more about the subject they have devoted their careers to studying than you or I do (and I agree, of course), but yet you still don't trust them because they could be corrupt

What exactly is wrong with asking questions? Why did you put that in brackets?

The narrative you've constructed did not happen over the course of one single conversation, it was at least two. Don't you think it's disingenuous to assume about someone else's views and spin your interlocutors thoughts to form something that suits your debate needs?

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

There is no need to get sidetracked with "what the science says", because the law is already very clear: in just about every legal precedent which has ever been set, when the right to life is in conflict with the right to bodily integrity, the right to bodily integrity takes precedence.

Under no circumstances are you allowed to use someone else's body against their will, whether you are truly a "person" or not, and if that person has to use lethal force to free themselves from such an imposition upon their bodily integrity (such as in the case of a rape victim killing their rapist in self-defense), then the law will almost always take their side.

If, say, I were to kidnap you and hook you up to a machine which allowed me to stay alive using your organs (à la parabiosis), you would have every right to free yourself, even if it meant me dying. Why should the legal precedent be any different for abortion? Especially considering the fact that an embryo's claim of personhood is dubious at best?

 

[Muh Vagina]

This is some ash dark pot calling the kettle a nigger, though the kettle has a red tint all over it.

So the story is a complete lie and fabrication because Jesus Fundie bad? This story never happened?

Yes. Robertson and his ilk make up fear mongering stories all the time.

Excuse me, that wasn't my question. Why do you think science should take precedent over anything else when it comes to making decisions?

Because abortion is a medical procedure and this argument heavily involves science.

 

[CAPTAIN HAPPY]

Yes. Robertson and his ilk make up fear mongering stories all the time.

I have to reiterate, because I can't believe what kind of 2 year old logic I'm hearing here.
Are you actually saying that because you see the name Pat Robertson somewhere, I actually have no fucking idea where he popped up in this, JUST because of this name and its association, you conclude that the story I posted is not real?

99% of scientists said

I think your bullshit stats taken out of your ass is your problem here, H.

 

[Muh Vagina]

Are you actually saying that because you see the name Pat Robertson somewhere, I actually have no fucking idea where he popped up in this, JUST because of this name and its association, you conclude that the story I posted is not real?

Yes. He has a clear agenda and I have no reason to believe him.

 

[CAPTAIN HAPPY]

Yes. He has a clear agenda and I have no reason to believe him.

Did you even read the fucking story?

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Under no circumstances are you allowed to use someone else's body against their will

Unless you're sending them to war or forcing them to pay taxes.

If, say, I were to kidnap you and hook you up to a machine which allowed me to stay alive using your organs (à la parabiosis),

Not this Butlerian bullshit, again.

The analogy doesn't work because you are deliberately bringing the fetus into existence, and the fetus is of your flesh and blood. You're not having your body "hijacked" because you did the one exact thing that would cause the fetus to be brought into existence in the first place. It is nobody's fault that you can't make the connection between sex and reproduction.