What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What law(s) would have stopped the Buffalo shooting?

Big Bend Texas

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2022
Messages
9,251
Reaction score
5,151
Points
893
You say it’s science but you become absolutely unscientific in your argument. The human zygote is a human zygote. Why do you change the wording? Two things that are different cannot be the same and science. A human Zygot is not
a living breathing human like it’s mother. You cannot cite science to argue that it is. You need the same absurdly that Yiu use in your gun flooding campaign.
I didn't change anything. A human zygote is by definition "human".

A newborn isn't as fully developed as the mother either.

Where the source of oxygen comes from is irrelevant, you still have actual inspiration and expiration occurring.

I've never seen anyone move the goal posts with the speed and frequency you do.
 

Big Bend Texas

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2022
Messages
9,251
Reaction score
5,151
Points
893
Yes life begins at conception. Science says it is not fully formed. You say you and the government and Church own it I say the woman who is breathing for it owns it. Why am I wrong or unscientific.


Your argument is not scientific at all - if you are religious it is your moral choice. KEEP IT BETWEEN YOU and YOUR GOD.

IF YOU ARE POITICALLY Motivated only shame on you. You dont have a right to control any woman’s womb having no relationship to you at all - butt out.creepy if you motivation is purely political like it is for Trump.
Science tells us humans are not fully developed until somewhere around age 25-28. Does that somehow justify killing anyone up to age 28 without any need for justification.

What is creepy right down to it's core are the arguments you are making to dehumanize the unborn to justify killing them at will.
 

Big Bend Texas

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2022
Messages
9,251
Reaction score
5,151
Points
893
Your argument is not scientific at all - if you are religious it is your moral choice. KEEP IT BETWEEN YOU and YOUR GOD
The foundation of all legal systems in free nations is codification of a mutually agreed upon moral code.

You have no idea whatsoever you're talking about.
 

Big Bend Texas

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2022
Messages
9,251
Reaction score
5,151
Points
893
It’s alive . Yes

It’s its own self - No. That is a religion induced or personal moral opinion. You left science when you went there.
Of course it is. After the 2nd division after fertilization it has it's own unique DNA code separate and apart from either parent.
 

Big Bend Texas

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2022
Messages
9,251
Reaction score
5,151
Points
893
Is the life that begins at conception identical to the life that owns the place where conception takes place?

Or do you own that place.
You have now lost it changing the discussion from one of science to property rights, the same justification used for allowing slavery.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
17,268
Reaction score
3,025
Points
245
Science tells us humans are not fully developed until somewhere around age 25-28. Does that somehow justify killing anyone up to age 28 without any need for justification.
You are as absurd as LOUIE Ghomert.

Still avoiding the biological concept of viability outside the womb I see.
 

Big Bend Texas

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2022
Messages
9,251
Reaction score
5,151
Points
893
It’s not the woman’s then who is it?

by the way no baby is self sufficient! Needs someone for many years so we can kill them as well right?
Probably needs a proofread and edit.
 

Big Bend Texas

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2022
Messages
9,251
Reaction score
5,151
Points
893
You are as absurd as LOUIE Ghomert.

Still avoiding the biological concept of viability outside the womb I see.
Viability outside the womb is irrelevant, that is not a requirement for being human.

A fifty year old on life support isn't viable either but nobody would be absurd enough to argue they aren't' human.
 

LuckyDuck

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
6,778
Reaction score
4,250
Points
995
NY gun laws:
Gun laws in New York - Wikipedia
NY has among the strongest gun laws in the US - indeed, NY has ALL the 'common sense' laws - laws, we are told,. will prevent shootings like this.
Obviously, these laws don't work.
So...
What law(s) would have stopped the Buffalo shooting?
What makes you believe this?
How do these law(s) not violate the constitution?
No law would have stopped the shooting.
One has to only look south of the border and see their gun death rates in Central America and they don't allow guns. England limits gun ownership and still has gun crime. This is the twenty-first century. You can make a firearm in your basement or garage. No guns? No problem. In Japan a man murdered 19 people in a killing spree with....(drum roll)....a knife. Thirty-three dead and 130 injured in a knife weilding killing spree by a group of people. A person determined to kill others, will easily find a way. He/she/it need only have in the residence, a kitchen knife, a screwdriver, a hammer, et cetera.
Lefties like to blame the firearm, rather than the one weilding it. They don't care that the VAST majority (literally millions) of law-abiding people with firearms are just that, law abiding and not harming anyone. The lefties goal is to disarm the public so that the public can't rise up against authoritarian rule.
 

Big Bend Texas

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2022
Messages
9,251
Reaction score
5,151
Points
893
A newborn is breathing on its own.
Irrelevant. It is where she created it developing naturally according to the laws of nature and it's a human being.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
23,720
Reaction score
7,463
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
I didn't change anything. A human zygote is by definition "human".

A newborn isn't as fully developed as the mother either.

Where the source of oxygen comes from is irrelevant, you still have actual inspiration and expiration occurring.

I've never seen anyone move the goal posts with the speed and frequency you do.

I disagree.
A human is self sufficient and sentient.
A fetus is only a potential human.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
17,268
Reaction score
3,025
Points
245
Viability outside the womb is irrelevant, that is not a requirement for being human.
It is a requirement for breathing on one’s own. I have already stated the stages after conception are human. Its a no brainer. The stages are not not a fully developed human being and right wingers in the world do not own a developing human being.

You cannot argue without being absurd so you label min cas irrelevant. It is a tell.

Viability is absolutely relevant to this discussion.
 

Big Bend Texas

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2022
Messages
9,251
Reaction score
5,151
Points
893
It is a requirement for breathing on one’s own
That has never been a requirement for defining human life, you pulled it out of your ass.

If that were the case we could kill everyone hooked up on a ventilator or who is dependent on oxygen under the same premise.

You are a sick disgusting, fucking ghoul.
 

Big Bend Texas

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2022
Messages
9,251
Reaction score
5,151
Points
893
You cannot argue without being absurd so you label min cas irrelevant. It is a tell.
This is a tell as well. It shows you to be a babbling moron arguing out of emotion because the facts destroy your case.
 

Big Bend Texas

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2022
Messages
9,251
Reaction score
5,151
Points
893

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
39,641
Reaction score
34,628
Points
2,915
I disagree.
A human is self sufficient and sentient.
A fetus is only a potential human.
So, if you put a newborn over in the corner and leave it on it's own, will it survive? Is it "self sufficient and sentient", or will it die?

Next dumbass scenario?
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
39,641
Reaction score
34,628
Points
2,915
It is a requirement for breathing on one’s own. I have already stated the stages after conception are human. Its a no brainer. The stages are not not a fully developed human being and right wingers in the world do not own a developing human being.

You cannot argue without being absurd so you label min cas irrelevant. It is a tell.

Viability is absolutely relevant to this discussion.
See post above to learn what a dumbass you are.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
17,268
Reaction score
3,025
Points
245
Which one Big Bend Texas of the following is your scientifically absolute truth based on your right winger facts when defining or explaining the concept of “self” ?


1. Illusion: The self is not real; it is an artificial construct of competing neural systems seeking to make sense of myriad streams of inner information — a trick of the brain.


2. Phenomenal subjectivity:The self is real in that the subject has authentic felt experiences that compose a coherent whole, but the self remains the product of brain neurophysiology and neurochemistry functioning much as we know it (with nothing else needed, certainly nothing exotic).


3. Patterns of information:The self is a highly complex, highly particular array of properties and relationships that can be expressed in some kind of formalized manner (perhaps featuring causal connections and perhaps reproducible beyond biological brains in artificial brains — meaning the self could be uploaded into a nonbiological substrate).

4. Weak emergence:The self is the product of interacting brain mechanisms, both at the microscopic neuronal level and at the macroscopic brain systems level. Given future neuroscience, eventually the self will be predictable from the brain alone; in other words, brain activity alone could still explain the self entirely.


5. Strong emergence:The self is a profoundly new thing that comes into existence as a product of underlying brain activities alone, but no matter how advanced neuroscience becomes, the self can never be predicted from these underlying brain activities, not even in principle.


6. Existential unity: The self is an existentially unified whole in that its parts are incapable of separate existence, and that successive mental states of the same self are inextricably bound through some kind of deep coherence (perhaps quantum-based, perhaps something else — but still of a kind that could count as "physical").

7. Special assembly of new force or structure:The self is a particular organization of a new force or structure in nature that generates or enables consciousness in an enhanced physical world; for example, "panpsychism," where consciousness is a nonreducible feature of every particle (each having inherent proto-consciousness), or "integrated information theory," where consciousness is an independent, nonreducible organization of reality (perhaps a different dimension of reality).


8. Nonphysical local consciousness:The self, in part, is independent of the physical world/body/brain and requires some kind of nonphysical essence — perhaps a new nonphysical feature of reality and perhaps accessible via parapsychology/ESP.


9. Nonphysical god-created consciousness:The self is what the creator designed to be the essence of human beings (and perhaps of other beings as well) by using a kind of nonphysical substance — a "soul" or "spirit" (whose properties remain in interminable dispute). This soul/spirit can be either a required component of consciousness that complements the brain or an independent nonphysical, concrete existing thing that is inherently conscious and uses or manipulates the brain.


While Nos. 8 and 9 both require nonphysical components to generate a self, each could work in two distinct ways. In the more modest explanation, this nonphysical component would combine with a brain so that the resulting entity actualizes a self. The second, more radical process would require that the nonphysical component is itself a self, the brain being a mere mechanism or vehicle — the analogy being "self/brain = driver/car" (or pejoratively, "the ghost in the machine"). (In Category 10, everything is derived from consciousness anyway, so it hardly matters

It’s its own self - No. That is a religion induced or personal moral opinion. You left science when you went there.

Of course it is. After the 2nd division after fertilization it has it's own unique DNA code

do you believe consciousness to be non-Physical or could be?
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
17,268
Reaction score
3,025
Points
245
That has never been a requirement for defining human life, you pulled it out of your ass.
Why are you obsessed with defining human life. I have not said that you are wrong about it yet you go on and an and on.

Your political agenda requires an authoritarian government to restrict women’s liberty and civil rights by controlling tent reproductive organs in every woman’s body.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$115.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top