Can we just accept that the left is never going to understand biology?

[Pedro de San Patricio]

It really is pointless trying to discuss anything related to that branch of study with them, from whether sexual reproduction is a type of reproduction to whether life begins before or after toddlerhood. I mean, think about it. They don't need to listen to what you're saying about it, since they already know they're more intelligent, educated, enlightened, compassionate, perfect, and good than any non-leftist could ever be. They don't need any facts you could provide, since they're more than capable of making up their own as necessary. They don't even need each others' opinions on the matter, since a core aspect of their ideology is that there is no objective reality and so what's true is what's true for you. So I have to ask, why even broach the topic with them when we approach it from such irreconcilably different directions?

 

[Skylar]

It really is pointless trying to discuss anything related to that branch of study with them, from whether sexual reproduction is a type of reproduction to whether life begins before or after toddlerhood. I mean, think about it. They don't need to listen to what you're saying about it, since they already know they're more intelligent, educated, enlightened, compassionate, perfect, and good than any non-leftist could ever be. They don't need any facts you could provide, since they're more than capable of making up their own as necessary. They don't even need each others' opinions on the matter, since a core aspect of their ideology is that there is no objective reality and so what's true is what's true for you. So I have to ask, why even broach the topic with them when we approach it from such irreconcilably different directions?

So to be clear, your 'objective reality' is that 'human life' is a fertilized egg. A single cell.

If so, is a human being the same thing as human life? If so, then you're arguing that this single cell is a human being?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

It really is pointless trying to discuss anything related to that branch of study with them, from whether sexual reproduction is a type of reproduction to whether life begins before or after toddlerhood. I mean, think about it. They don't need to listen to what you're saying about it, since they already know they're more intelligent, educated, enlightened, compassionate, perfect, and good than any non-leftist could ever be. They don't need any facts you could provide, since they're more than capable of making up their own as necessary. They don't even need each others' opinions on the matter, since a core aspect of their ideology is that there is no objective reality and so what's true is what's true for you. So I have to ask, why even broach the topic with them when we approach it from such irreconcilably different directions?

So to be clear, your 'objective reality' is that 'human life' is a fertilized egg. A single cell.

If so, is a human being the same thing as human life? If so, then you're arguing that this single cell is a human being?

What I'm arguing in what you quoted is that we are never going to find common ground because we're more or less coming from two separate realities. In mine, facts are true independently of whether anyone acknowledges them or not. In yours, facts are what is commonly agreed to be true. In mine, "life" is a defined state with set criteria. In yours, it's a basic right to determine when it begins for yourself. In mine, the entire process of sex works to facilitate the creation of new life. In yours, sex is a pleasurable social activity that sometimes results in pregnancy for reasons. All of that is just pulled from prior conversations you and I have had about it. I'm sure any future discussion will reveal many other differences between our realities' unique versions of science.

 

[Skylar]

It really is pointless trying to discuss anything related to that branch of study with them, from whether sexual reproduction is a type of reproduction to whether life begins before or after toddlerhood. I mean, think about it. They don't need to listen to what you're saying about it, since they already know they're more intelligent, educated, enlightened, compassionate, perfect, and good than any non-leftist could ever be. They don't need any facts you could provide, since they're more than capable of making up their own as necessary. They don't even need each others' opinions on the matter, since a core aspect of their ideology is that there is no objective reality and so what's true is what's true for you. So I have to ask, why even broach the topic with them when we approach it from such irreconcilably different directions?

So to be clear, your 'objective reality' is that 'human life' is a fertilized egg. A single cell.

If so, is a human being the same thing as human life? If so, then you're arguing that this single cell is a human being?

What I'm arguing in what you quoted is that we are never going to find common ground because we're more or less coming from two separate realities. In mine, facts are true independently of whether anyone acknowledges them or not. In yours, facts are what is commonly agreed to be true. In mine, "life" is a defined state with set criteria. In yours, it's a basic right to determine when it begins for yourself. In mine, the entire process of sex works to facilitate the creation of new life. In yours, sex is a pleasurable social activity that sometimes results in pregnancy for reasons. All of that is just pulled from prior conversations you and I have had about it. I'm sure any future discussion will reveal many other differences between our realities' unique versions of science.

You're quoting a unique cell with human DNA as a person. A human being. Where most on the left would recognize that as potential to become a human being. As they recognize a human being as more than a cell with human DNA.

It would be the same distinction one would draw if one were to recognize that an acorn is not an oak tree. Where by your logic, an acorn is an oak tree.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

and now for a Fundamentalist moment

 

[Sonny Clark]

It really is pointless trying to discuss anything related to that branch of study with them, from whether sexual reproduction is a type of reproduction to whether life begins before or after toddlerhood. I mean, think about it. They don't need to listen to what you're saying about it, since they already know they're more intelligent, educated, enlightened, compassionate, perfect, and good than any non-leftist could ever be. They don't need any facts you could provide, since they're more than capable of making up their own as necessary. They don't even need each others' opinions on the matter, since a core aspect of their ideology is that there is no objective reality and so what's true is what's true for you. So I have to ask, why even broach the topic with them when we approach it from such irreconcilably different directions?

Could you break that down for me, please? What are you talking about? What about biology? Who doesn't want to listen?

 

[hazlnut]

It really is pointless trying to discuss anything related to that branch of study with them, from whether sexual reproduction is a type of reproduction to whether life begins before or after toddlerhood. I mean, think about it. They don't need to listen to what you're saying about it, since they already know they're more intelligent, educated, enlightened, compassionate, perfect, and good than any non-leftist could ever be. They don't need any facts you could provide, since they're more than capable of making up their own as necessary. They don't even need each others' opinions on the matter, since a core aspect of their ideology is that there is no objective reality and so what's true is what's true for you. So I have to ask, why even broach the topic with them when we approach it from such irreconcilably different directions?

Life begins at birth.

Toddlerhood begins after the baby is walking and starting to talk.

You've never had children (hopefully), so STFU.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

You're quoting a unique cell with human DNA as a person. A human being. Where most on the left would recognize that as potential to become a human being. As they recognize a human being as more than a cell with human DNA.

It would be the same distinction one would draw if one were to recognize that an acorn is not an oak tree. Where by your logic, an acorn is an oak tree.

I feel like you're trying to write the issue of abortion specifically between the lines. Read only what I actually said and you'll be closer to what I was actually saying. That's explained again below in my reply to Sonny Clark.

Could you break that down for me, please? What are you talking about? What about biology? Who doesn't want to listen?

It's not so much that anyone "doesn't want to listen". It's that we're seeing reality from two almost completely separate viewpoints. There isn't really any common ground between the idea that the reality I see is objective and exists regardless of whether I'm looking at it or not and the idea that the reality you see is subjective and exists only insofar as everyone agrees that it does. Normally the two can still coexist somewhat peacefully, but, well, to be totally frank it's shit for discussing science.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Life begins at birth.

Toddlerhood begins after the baby is walking and starting to talk.

You've never had children (hopefully), so STFU.

The Bible says that life begins at birth because God breathes a soul into a body. Here's how life actually begins:

 

[Pete7469]

They also don't understand, math, history, english comprehension or any elementary level science.

 

[Skylar]

You're quoting a unique cell with human DNA as a person. A human being. Where most on the left would recognize that as potential to become a human being. As they recognize a human being as more than a cell with human DNA.

It would be the same distinction one would draw if one were to recognize that an acorn is not an oak tree. Where by your logic, an acorn is an oak tree.

I feel like you're trying to write the issue of abortion specifically between the lines. Read only what I actually said and you'll be closer to what I was actually saying. That's explained again below in my reply to Sonny Clark.

Could you break that down for me, please? What are you talking about? What about biology? Who doesn't want to listen?

It's not so much that anyone "doesn't want to listen". It's that we're seeing reality from two almost completely separate viewpoints. There isn't really any common ground between the idea that the reality I see is objective and exists regardless of whether I'm looking at it or not and the idea that the reality you see is subjective and exists only insofar as everyone agrees that it does. Normally the two can still coexist somewhat peacefully, but, well, to be totally frank it's shit for discussing science.

Objectively we have a cell with unique DNA. Whether or not that's a person and human being is definitely open to debate and interpretation. Some would argue that its the potential for a person. Like an acorn is the potential to become an oak tree. Others would argue that it is a person. And that an acorn IS an oak tree.

The objective portions are in agreement. The interpretive points aren't.

 

[Moonglow]

Life begins at birth.

Toddlerhood begins after the baby is walking and starting to talk.

You've never had children (hopefully), so STFU.

The Bible says that life begins at birth because God breathes a soul into a body. Here's how life actually begins:

After 4 kids, I couldna give a damn...what you dicks try to pawn off as a positions of liberals, democrats, progressive and yes repubs that shove their little pregnant girls into abortion clinics to hide their shame...

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

They also don't understand, math, history, english comprehension or any elementary level science.

To be fair, I've met far more liberals who could spell than conservatives, so there is that.

 

[Sonny Clark]

You're quoting a unique cell with human DNA as a person. A human being. Where most on the left would recognize that as potential to become a human being. As they recognize a human being as more than a cell with human DNA.

It would be the same distinction one would draw if one were to recognize that an acorn is not an oak tree. Where by your logic, an acorn is an oak tree.

I feel like you're trying to write the issue of abortion specifically between the lines. Read only what I actually said and you'll be closer to what I was actually saying. That's explained again below in my reply to Sonny Clark.

Could you break that down for me, please? What are you talking about? What about biology? Who doesn't want to listen?

It's not so much that anyone "doesn't want to listen". It's that we're seeing reality from two almost completely separate viewpoints. There isn't really any common ground between the idea that the reality I see is objective and exists regardless of whether I'm looking at it or not and the idea that the reality you see is subjective and exists only insofar as everyone agrees that it does. Normally the two can still coexist somewhat peacefully, but, well, to be totally frank it's shit for discussing science.

Well, we have almost seven billion people on this planet, and at least that many views and opinions. And, each is entitled to their own thinking and reasoning. You're not going to find 100% agreement, and if you ever do, it'll be very rare, very. There will always be those that see things from a different angle, and they sometimes reason their view 180 degrees from everyone else.

It never hurts to discuss issues, and most of the time, everyone learns something new from those discussions. We will always disagree on matters such as religion, politics, creation, evolution, global warming and climate change, wars, the death penalty, abortion, the right to keep and bear arms, taxes, campaign financing, subsidies, foreign aid, foreign trade, illegal immigration, and many other topics.

Don't get upset with folks for disagreeing, get upset when folks refuse to discuss important issues. If we never discuss problems and possible solutions, nothing will ever change, and nothing will get done to rectify wrongs. We discuss issues hoping that those conversations will find their way to the right set of ears, that have the means and power to act and bring attention to our social and economic woes. Planting seeds of thought is all it takes to bring about much needed solutions to today's problems. Every act starts with a seed of thought. Never give up trying to make a difference.

 

[Hamlet091765]

It really is pointless trying to discuss anything related to that branch of study with them, from whether sexual reproduction is a type of reproduction to whether life begins before or after toddlerhood. I mean, think about it. They don't need to listen to what you're saying about it, since they already know they're more intelligent, educated, enlightened, compassionate, perfect, and good than any non-leftist could ever be. They don't need any facts you could provide, since they're more than capable of making up their own as necessary. They don't even need each others' opinions on the matter, since a core aspect of their ideology is that there is no objective reality and so what's true is what's true for you. So I have to ask, why even broach the topic with them when we approach it from such irreconcilably different directions?

Granted, there are liberals who seem to be lacking common sense but a lot of very highly educated people, in the book learning sense, are liberal. It is very common
for college professors to be liberal minded and espousing idealistic concepts of what
a good life should entail.

When I was going to college I noticed this attitude in the liberal arts or core courses more so than in the architectural and engineering schools. I guess they get bored with teaching the same old rote year after year and are looking for new ways to placate their boredom. I got a suggestion for them,,, get a real job for the first time in your life.

 

[Hamlet091765]

You're quoting a unique cell with human DNA as a person. A human being. Where most on the left would recognize that as potential to become a human being. As they recognize a human being as more than a cell with human DNA.

It would be the same distinction one would draw if one were to recognize that an acorn is not an oak tree. Where by your logic, an acorn is an oak tree.

I feel like you're trying to write the issue of abortion specifically between the lines. Read only what I actually said and you'll be closer to what I was actually saying. That's explained again below in my reply to Sonny Clark.

Could you break that down for me, please? What are you talking about? What about biology? Who doesn't want to listen?

It's not so much that anyone "doesn't want to listen". It's that we're seeing reality from two almost completely separate viewpoints. There isn't really any common ground between the idea that the reality I see is objective and exists regardless of whether I'm looking at it or not and the idea that the reality you see is subjective and exists only insofar as everyone agrees that it does. Normally the two can still coexist somewhat peacefully, but, well, to be totally frank it's shit for discussing science.

Well, we have almost seven billion people on this planet, and at least that many views and opinions. And, each is entitled to their own thinking and reasoning. You're not going to find 100% agreement, and if you ever do, it'll be very rare, very. There will always be those that see things from a different angle, and they sometimes reason their view 180 degrees from everyone else.

It never hurts to discuss issues, and most of the time, everyone learns something new from those discussions. We will always disagree on matters such as religion, politics, creation, evolution, global warming and climate change, wars, the death penalty, abortion, the right to keep and bear arms, taxes, campaign financing, subsidies, foreign aid, foreign trade, illegal immigration, and many other topics.

Don't get upset with folks for disagreeing, get upset when folks refuse to discuss important issues. If we never discuss problems and possible solutions, nothing will ever change, and nothing will get done to rectify wrongs. We discuss issues hoping that those conversations will find their way to the right set of ears, that have the means and power to act and bring attention to our social and economic woes. Planting seeds of thought is all it takes to bring about much needed solutions to today's problems. Every act starts with a seed of thought. Never give up trying to make a difference.

I sometimes wonder, do the discussions we have on the issues really make a difference in governmental policy? Maybe it influences how some people vote.

 

[Sonny Clark]

You're quoting a unique cell with human DNA as a person. A human being. Where most on the left would recognize that as potential to become a human being. As they recognize a human being as more than a cell with human DNA.

It would be the same distinction one would draw if one were to recognize that an acorn is not an oak tree. Where by your logic, an acorn is an oak tree.

I feel like you're trying to write the issue of abortion specifically between the lines. Read only what I actually said and you'll be closer to what I was actually saying. That's explained again below in my reply to Sonny Clark.

Could you break that down for me, please? What are you talking about? What about biology? Who doesn't want to listen?

It's not so much that anyone "doesn't want to listen". It's that we're seeing reality from two almost completely separate viewpoints. There isn't really any common ground between the idea that the reality I see is objective and exists regardless of whether I'm looking at it or not and the idea that the reality you see is subjective and exists only insofar as everyone agrees that it does. Normally the two can still coexist somewhat peacefully, but, well, to be totally frank it's shit for discussing science.

Well, we have almost seven billion people on this planet, and at least that many views and opinions. And, each is entitled to their own thinking and reasoning. You're not going to find 100% agreement, and if you ever do, it'll be very rare, very. There will always be those that see things from a different angle, and they sometimes reason their view 180 degrees from everyone else.

It never hurts to discuss issues, and most of the time, everyone learns something new from those discussions. We will always disagree on matters such as religion, politics, creation, evolution, global warming and climate change, wars, the death penalty, abortion, the right to keep and bear arms, taxes, campaign financing, subsidies, foreign aid, foreign trade, illegal immigration, and many other topics.

Don't get upset with folks for disagreeing, get upset when folks refuse to discuss important issues. If we never discuss problems and possible solutions, nothing will ever change, and nothing will get done to rectify wrongs. We discuss issues hoping that those conversations will find their way to the right set of ears, that have the means and power to act and bring attention to our social and economic woes. Planting seeds of thought is all it takes to bring about much needed solutions to today's problems. Every act starts with a seed of thought. Never give up trying to make a difference.

I sometimes wonder, do the discussions we have on the issues really make a difference in governmental policy? Maybe it influences how some people vote.

We never know who's ears our words will enter. We never know if we plant a seed of thought or not. But, we have to try, and try, and try again and again. Never give up. The word is a powerful force when acted upon in the right manner. Always speak your mind, express yourself honestly, and hope that good will eventually come from it. Remember, an honest effort is better than no effort at all. Stand strong in your beliefs, and wait for the signs that you have influenced something or someone in a positive manner. It takes time for a seed to mature into a tree, and time for the tree to bear fruit.

 

[Moonglow]

It really is pointless trying to discuss anything related to that branch of study with them, from whether sexual reproduction is a type of reproduction to whether life begins before or after toddlerhood. I mean, think about it. They don't need to listen to what you're saying about it, since they already know they're more intelligent, educated, enlightened, compassionate, perfect, and good than any non-leftist could ever be. They don't need any facts you could provide, since they're more than capable of making up their own as necessary. They don't even need each others' opinions on the matter, since a core aspect of their ideology is that there is no objective reality and so what's true is what's true for you. So I have to ask, why even broach the topic with them when we approach it from such irreconcilably different directions?

Granted, there are liberals who seem to be lacking common sense but a lot of very highly educated people, in the book learning sense, are liberal. It is very common
for college professors to be liberal minded and espousing idealistic concepts of what
a good life should entail.

When I was going to college I noticed this attitude in the liberal arts or core courses more so than in the architectural and engineering schools. I guess they get bored with teaching the same old rote year after year and are looking for new ways to placate their boredom. I got a suggestion for them,,, get a real job for the first time in your life.

I never encountered any college professors telling me how to live, vote or what I should be wearing...I did have a liberal Arts communications major, and studied electronic engineering..yet no one commented on anything but the subject matter of the course....
Now while working for companies they damn sure tried to lead me in life...which I ignored...........same with church.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

It really is pointless trying to discuss anything related to that branch of study with them, from whether sexual reproduction is a type of reproduction to whether life begins before or after toddlerhood. I mean, think about it. They don't need to listen to what you're saying about it, since they already know they're more intelligent, educated, enlightened, compassionate, perfect, and good than any non-leftist could ever be. They don't need any facts you could provide, since they're more than capable of making up their own as necessary. They don't even need each others' opinions on the matter, since a core aspect of their ideology is that there is no objective reality and so what's true is what's true for you. So I have to ask, why even broach the topic with them when we approach it from such irreconcilably different directions?

Would you put a woman to death for 1st degree murder for using the so-called morning after pill?

 

[deltex1]

It really is pointless trying to discuss anything related to that branch of study with them, from whether sexual reproduction is a type of reproduction to whether life begins before or after toddlerhood. I mean, think about it. They don't need to listen to what you're saying about it, since they already know they're more intelligent, educated, enlightened, compassionate, perfect, and good than any non-leftist could ever be. They don't need any facts you could provide, since they're more than capable of making up their own as necessary. They don't even need each others' opinions on the matter, since a core aspect of their ideology is that there is no objective reality and so what's true is what's true for you. So I have to ask, why even broach the topic with them when we approach it from such irreconcilably different directions?

Life begins at birth.

Toddlerhood begins after the baby is walking and starting to talk.

You've never had children (hopefully), so STFU.

Hazels first law of biology is that every man needs a penis in her ass.