Abortion

[Zetetic11235]

Discard my false and trivial statement about bilateral symmetry then. You still have utterly failed to provide any degree of credibility to your claim of the omnipotence of evolution. Evolution is what it is, it is an effect of the physical laws of this universe, it does not affect these laws! It does not influence what it is formed by; thus it has a limit to its influence, thus it is not omnipotent.

I find it quite commical that a finnacial advisor would challenge an academic physician to prove a point and then discard his knowledge as trivia and pabulum. Perhaps we should disclude every single fact of sicence from our argument as it is clearly only trivia and not provable as it must be falsifiable by necessity.

Furthermore, you have failed in vetting any point of mine save for that singular piece of information in reguard to bilateral symettry, which you refuted by means of indulging in one of those Google directives that you hold to be so contemptable. Judging by your response(or lack therof) to my post on page 10 citing and deconstructing your refutation of my previous post, you conceeded.

[Justin]

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic

While the issue deviates off topic, it glaringly needs to be addressed. It is quite apparent that I hold mild disdain for your careless liberal pabulum, but even setting those constraints aside, I have recognized during my interval of time at this forum that you have Not contributed one original/intriguing/thought provoking Philosophical Concept or Implication, just a constant stream of Regurgitated Googled Directives. Perhaps your efforts would be more appropriate immersed at a Trivial Pursuit Forum, where presenting research-able established facts are the main objectives and consequently rewarded, while the dynamic realm of a Philosophical Forum tends to pursue additional objectives. Philosophy requires---no demands the cognitive ability to merge the rigidity of empirical evidence and/or behaviors, while extrapolating possible implications or insightful measurable observations that help frame or reveal the inherent constraints of the Natural World and the impositions that hold court over the Human Experience.

Ruthless, there's really no need to stir the pot with belittling comments. Everyone sees philosophy and various topics of discussion through different eyes. This doesn't mean it's right or wrong, just unique and unto their own. There's no need to be negative towards someone you don't agree with or respond in an egotistical manner.

We're all here to discuss philosophy and we all come from different walks of life and with different experiences. I suggest we all leave our egos at the door and play nice... Please.

Philosophy is not the easiest thing to discuss without pushing each others buttons and we all realize this. It takes practice. Let's practice being nice to one another and not try to diminish each others credibility with comments like the above.

OK, back on the topic of Abortion or this thread will be closed. No need to reply just consider this a friendly warning. If you need reply, send me a PM. Thank you all for understanding.

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

Discard my false and trivial statement about bilateral symmetry then. You still have utterly failed to provide any degree of credibility to your claim of the omnipotence of evolution. Evolution is what it is, it is an effect of the physical laws of this universe, it does not affect these laws! It does not influence what it is formed by; thus it has a limit to its influence, thus it is not omnipotent.

I find it quite commical that a finnacial advisor would challenge an academic physician to prove a point and then discard his knowledge as trivia and pabulum. Perhaps we should disclude every single fact of sicence from our argument as it is clearly only trivia and not provable as it must be falsifiable by necessity.

Furthermore, you have failed in vetting any point of mine save for that singular piece of information in reguard to bilateral symettry, which you refuted by means of indulging in one of those Google directives that you hold to be so contemptable. Judging by your response(or lack therof) to my post on page 10 citing and deconstructing your refutation of my previous post, you conceeded.

In an effort to avoid the closure of the tread, because Justin indicated that we need to confer based on the topic of abortion, so I will make this quick and concise with regards to my concession regarding the usage of omnipotent. The term omnipotent means to have unlimited influence or being Almighty. The claim of omnipotent needs to be assigned for the definition to be applicable or valid, but we all know that designation is impossible because of the inherent “GOD LIKE” statement that would be required. The assignment of omnipotent is simply unattainable, so the usage of the term rationally becomes the realm of subjectivity, which reflects approachable, measurable processes that are so pervasive with regards to influencing the living breathing Human Being that they are possible candidates for the inherently subjective term of Omnipotent. While I choose the process of Evolution for my omnipotent designation, what would your possible process be, the Rock Cycle?

[Holiday20310401]

How'd you guys manage to get from abortion to omnipotent.

If we were all omnipotent we wouldn't feel the need for offspring.

[socrato]

This is what I mean by using big words. Why can't we be simple??

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic

While the issue deviates off topic, it glaringly needs to be addressed.

Why do we need "glaringly"?

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic

It is quite apparent that I hold mild disdain for your careless liberal pabulum, but even setting those constraints aside, I have recognized during my interval of time at this forum that you have Not contributed one original/intriguing/thought provoking Philosophical Concept or Implication, just a constant stream of Regurgitated Googled Directives.

Why can't we say It is apparent instead of quite apparent. Why say "mild disdain" and "pabalum"? Why not say I have realised that you have not contributed anything to this discussion instead of the big stuff you wrote?


This is driving me insane!! I didn't know that abortion meant topic. Cool though.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by socrato

This is driving me insane!! I didn't know that abortion meant topic. Cool though.

I guess abortions didn't exist in Plato's or Socrate's time though? , so its understandable.

Anyways, I still stand by (the whole thread hasn't changed my views one bit) that the embryo isn't living and abortion is ok for people who couldn't give their new son/daughter a good life anyways; loving, caring life.

But people should pay for their mistakes. (Ok maybe that was inappropriate).

It just becomes understandable if the result of the baby's life would be more suffering than living.

[Didymos Thomas]

It just becomes understandable if the result of the baby's life would be more suffering than living.

Living is suffering, brother.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic

While the issue deviates off topic, it glaringly needs to be addressed. It is quite apparent that I hold mild disdain for your careless liberal pabulum, but even setting those constraints aside, I have recognized during my interval of time at this forum that you have Not contributed one original/intriguing/thought provoking Philosophical Concept or Implication, just a constant stream of Regurgitated Googled Directives. Perhaps your efforts would be more appropriate immersed at a Trivial Pursuit Forum, where presenting research-able established facts are the main objectives and consequently rewarded, while the dynamic realm of a Philosophical Forum tends to pursue additional objectives. Philosophy requires---no demands the cognitive ability to merge the rigidity of empirical evidence and/or behaviors, while extrapolating possible implications or insightful measurable observations that help frame or reveal the inherent constraints of the Natural World and the impositions that hold court over the Human Experience.

Your syllable to coherent thought ratio is startlingly high.

Seriously, "Posting empirical facts without subsequent reason is insufficient for philosophical discussion" would have sufficed and not made you sound like a pretentious *******.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Living is suffering, brother.

Hmmm...If you're a pessimist I guess so, but suffering we'd assume here also means lack of the opposite.

[Holiday20310401]

Actually I like the allusions ruthless tends to compare people to. But yeah, its like your trying to use big words, because there are the few that don't have a purpose or that they're recursive.