Permission usually indicates that someone else can take away the permission. A right is something you are entitled to. You are not entitled Permission.
I'm not against abortions at all but just have them far earlier. 6 months is to late. 8 months is to late. During labor is too late. They have to own up to the responsibilities and concequences that will result of their actions.
What do you mean by "abortion"? I'm a bit confused. If you mean "ending the pregnancy (by inducing labor, C-section, etc.)" then it doesn't make sense to have an abortion during labor. If you mean "killing the fetus," then you're in luck, because close to zero pregnancies end in a doctor killing the fetus that late into the term. And when they do, it's an act of mercy because the fetus's organs are outside its body or it has no brain or whatever. The point, again, is that a woman can elect to end her pregnancy at any time, but after a certain point will have a baby to deal with (probably to put up for adoption).
Abortion generally means (in the common language anyway) that they KILL the fetus. I don't know of anyone who sould induce the labor at 6 months as thats a death sentence in and of itself. thats why I'm against Killing the fetus after 3 months. 2 months is my ideal but I would support 2 1/2 or 3 months as a compromise.
Yorutenchi: There are a lot of theories as to why...
-The feminist ones revolve around socialization
-There are theories that it has to do with verbal skills
-Environmental factors could be part of it
- Wat? Explain further
- Verbal skills somehow being the feminists fault?
- Also envriomental factors being the feminist fault?
None of those have anything to do with the school system being rigged against men.
The important part to stress here is that it is not the "boys fault" as people are so ready to accept and just hand wave it away.
It depends. If men are biologically prone to do more stupid things then how is it not their fault? Thats like saying women have a harder time in lifetime careers because she will have to choose between child rearing and her job. This is a legitimate concern but at the same time not something that is the "evil men's" fault. Same thing in that its not the feminists fault.
I'm curious what laws/principles keep women out of politics?
Try looking at Third world countries. Or middle eastern countries. Or lets say 100 years ago was it acceptable to have a woman in congress? At this moment I don't see them as having troubles but in the past they sure as hell did.
The piont I was making thoug not gracefully worded was that this is in fact not "pseudo science" as you put it but legitimate science that has backing. I'm not arguing from my own person opinion and random thoughts of the world.
Can you direct me to the legitimate scientific backing your time interpretation has? (and please realize that "Stephen Hawking talked about liking the idea once" is a far cry from "legitimate scientific backing.")
Whcih parts do you want? The idea that time is a measurment of the Universe? Thats knida...physics 101.
The talk of how Stephen Hawkings made the bold claim that god is impossible? I can link you to that. It really isn't important to my points other than the idea that the universe can be measured via time just as any other measurement.
Or are you talking about my mentoinings of Retrocausality? And yes it was a mention. Highroller seemed very adament about taking on this particular point so I've continued in that part of the debate though it isn't really important to my main argument of the thread.
Other parts of my argument You'd like me to site that I"ve missed?
And there are FACTS in science. If you start saying there are no facts in science then there is the door.
Is that in response to me joande?
I never said mens rights don't matter. If I did then I would like to see it. The comment about MRA members was an intentional poke at commons as he has stated on numerous occasions that Feminists are not what they say they are in core context.
Historically sexism has stopped women from being sucessful in politics. Doesnt' necessarily count as to now. And the only reason that they are this sucessful now is because of feminisits working to attain equal rights and decrease discrimination.
There is no sexism against boys that I have seen. As a male who has been through the school system what are some hard and specific laws/principles that are geared to keep men down in the education system. The numbers alone don't mean much unless you show me other parts to it.
Death rate of a month giving birth is rather low. And in your personal opinion when does the fetus become something that would be wrong to kill? Birth?
Nice of you to give a good example: giving birth is a gamble. So many things able to go wrong. Do you really want to force someone to go through hours of hellish pain with a chance of serious illnesses and even death?
Just like you said before.
Everything is a gamble. Should we refuse to live our lives because of that? Sometimes you make a gamble and lose.
So yes. After a piont. I'm not against abortions at all but just have them far earlier. 6 months is to late. 8 months is to late. During labor is too late. They have to own up to the responsibilities and concequences that will result of their actions.
NO IT FREAKING DIDN'T INSINUATING IS A RAPIST HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT. It's also significantly more toxic, hateful, R rated and directly insulting then making a dongle joke not directed which very PG by comparison.
Your missing the point. I will retract my statement of "sexist" and replace it with "innaproproprate". I'm not arguing that it was an overraction. I'm right with you there. but the example you used to counter it was bad. The bill was referencing the ****** on three sperate occasions apparently and without context I won't be able to determine if its true or not but more than likely it was a humerous poke at the sennator in order to make a point. No one got fired. No one threw a hissy fit (cept you) and no one took it as a serouis threat.
That congressmen suffered 0 reprecussions from that statemnt. Unless he is now on trial for rape then I dno't see how it was a good example.
Ironically you're the one "missing the point"
Why is a "humerous poke at the sennator in order to make a point" okay and a dongle joke not directed at someone not okay? BTW they both violated the "codes of conducts"
/Herm Edwards voice. Hello! /Off See the double standard.
I see the piont just fine. I'm not on teh side of "lets take this ***** to the railing" but rather "everyone needs to chill the fuz out."
Neither scenario was seroius and should not have been taken as serouisly as it was. There are real feminist issues in todays world that need to be adressed and stupid crap like "dongles incident" needs to not hapen for people to take the movement seriously or perhaps keep it from anti-feminst oops I mean MRA members from using it as ammo against an otherwise good cause.
Your wrong. 100%. This is facts. Its not a time bar. I didn't state that time moved in any direction. Time is a measurment of an already existing universe. Either the universe exists and time measures it OR the universe is being created as we speak along the line of time.
See, the problem is those two things mean exactly the same thing.
See, the problem is those two things mean exactly opposite.
They do not. The universe is "moving along the line of time," as it were, because that is what time measures. These two ideas are not incompatible. In fact, that's precisely what time is.
Let me put it this way. If god made the universe then the future is just as set in stone as the past. Reason being "If god made the universe...." then that HAS to mean "he made the begining and the end of the universe". It doesn't say that he made "part of the universe" as thats impossible. I am not saying that free will can't exist. I"m saying that free will cannot exist in a situation where an omnipotent being created the universe.
If god made the universe. Then he has the vantage point of being "outside" time. Time has no meaning for him.
No, time would still have meaning for him just as height, width, and depth would. They simply don't measure him. That doesn't mean they wouldn't apply to anything in creation, which is what you're trying to argue.
Saying time would not be relevant to us is incorrect. God being able to see all of space at once does not mean we are not bound to a specific position in space at any given time, just as we exist in a specific point in time at any given time.
Let me say this differently. He created every specific moment in time from the begining to the end of the universe. Thats what it means to have created the universe. He created/creates/will create EVERY second of my life. In what way would that mean I have any control?
Though I guess again I should note this only applies to an omnipotent creator rather than an atheist explanation.
Choose a number between 1 and 10. I'll continue to the next part when you respond.
Alright. Am I supposed to tell you what it is?
Essentially. I'm not giong to predict your choice or anything. But for the sake of the experiment it doesn't matter so long as you chose a number.
Now was it your free will that you chose that number? Was it chance? Well if god created the universe then he crafted that moment in time. If he created you choosing that number is that still your free will? Is it still your free will that it was pre-destined to be chosen? If you say that is still free will then you and I do not agree at ALL what free will is and there is little piont to continue. Free will is only there if I can truely choose whatever outcome I want. If god made the universe then he created the universe, myself and every situation I'll ever be in. If there isn't an omnipotent being then free will opens itself up.
Do we have a choice if there is only one destiny?
Of course. Just because only one outcome results does not mean only one outcome could have resulted. That's part-and-parcel with free will. It doesn't matter if only one thing comes about, it matters whether or not choice was involved when that one thing came about.
And I don't agree at all. I do not agree that it was my choice if its already pre-determined. You and I shall have to simply dissagree on the definition and range of what free will is. You seem to think that it doesn't matter if god created the universe because this "choice" that you made is still free will. However my view of the exact same situation that I think we agree on the specifics of, is not free will if there is a higher crafter involved.
If there is only one true destination and every choice you think "you" will make is actually already pre-determined?
It remains irrelevant whether God sees my actions "before" I do them.
Not if he crafted them. Either god crafts your actions or he doesn't. If he does then no free will. If he doesn't then we have free will. However I'm arguing form the premis that god created the universe. We are the universe. Ergo god created us and everything we did.
If there isn't a god then yes free will can exist within certain limitations.
You are either confused or an idiot. Your trying to tell me I'm an idiot for something you are confused about. You've done this tactic several times already in this thread. You don't understand the topic or how its relevant because of your narrowed(incorrect) view.
Everything happens and thus an infinite number of universes are created. Why are you in this particular universe at this particular time? ITs because your current "self" chose this path.
No it's not. It cannot be said that I chose this path because there exists every other scenario somewhere else in the multiverse. A choice is as much defined by what one does not do as what one does. I cannot be said to choose not to eat french toast if I have, by virtue of the multiverse, chosen to eat french toast.
Like your number argument. I cannot be said to have chosen a number if I split into ten different Highrollers choosing ten different numbers. That's the opposite of choice. It means I am powerless to choose anything because when presented with a set of potential actions, I must do all of them. Whatever current state I'm in is not based on my input, but merely randomness. This is not free will.
As I have stated. It is not free will. Also I think your somewhat confused about the multiverse theory. Prior to the event in which different possible outcomes exist there is only one universe. When the choice is presented then simultaniously you choose all of them and new universes are "created". But not in the sense that a big bang happened but that now there are more than one universe as each possiblity is explored.
Because I'm arunig from a point that "if god exists" it is an impossibility.
As Blinking said earlier, if you can argue the existence of a system in which God does not exist and there is free will, then it is possible for God to exist and that free will to remain intact.
The existence of God does not invalidate free will.
Yes it does. If there is no "crafter" of the universe then there is no omnipotent making decisions for me. If I make my own decisions that are based on chance and the accumulation of the factors at hand + statistics + chance = free will. If god exists then there are no "chances" and if there are no chances then statistics have no meaning. From there all you have are factors. Factors created and controled universally by a single omnipotent being.
IF you definition of free will is "being able to choose but always choosing what will be reguardless"
Ok, at least read this part and hear me out. Then we can decide to walk away or keep going:
I want to scrutinize your ideas of "what will be regardless."
All events of the past have been set. From our current vantage point, we can see the past, or at least the parts we were there for.
So does that mean we have no choice in the past? At t= 2:30 PM EST, March 30, 2012 did Highroller have no free will? No, at that time Highroller did. He had was making choices at that time. He's made choices every second since then.
We are, however, occupying a different position in time, and therefore we cannot make choices in the past, but we can make choices in the now, and when we get to the future, we can make choices then. At t= 2:30 PM EST, March 30, 2014, Highroller will be able to make choices then.
Similarly, we can apply this concept to position. I am no longer in my front yard. I was making choices earlier in my front yard, but I cannot do so now, because I am indoors.
As you say, time is coordinate, just like the three spatial dimensions are coordinates.
With this in mind, the fact can perceive all points in time at once and all points in space at once doesn't influence whether or not I can make a choice.
For instance, Highroller of 2014 can see what I'm going to do today. He does not violate the idea of free will because Highroller of 2014 occupies a different point in time wherein he has already done these events. But that doesn't mean I don't have free will in my current time.
Yes, obviously God can see what choices I'm going to make today. That because God occupies a point outside of time and can see everything. But that doesn't mean that God's existence means I don't have choice.
I was with you through the first parts. And I agree with them. But what you didn't mention was that god crafted the universe. You are part of the universe, not apart from it. God created you. God created you in that moment yesterday, today and tomorrow. He see's time all at once. He created the universe with this in mind. He knows now (as he can see) what you will do and not only does he KNOW what you will do, he created that moment.
Throw out the idea that each moment was created by higher intelectual power then I conceede that free will can exist. Throw in the fact that you have an all powerful being that created everything then I do not agree we have free will. If no one created us then no one has say over us. Does that make sense?
and It still doesn't run counter to them if you look at the model. Causality only works from our perspective. If were able to see time in reverse then causality also is reversed.
No, that does not follow. The glass does not fall because it is broken. It is broken because it falls. Time is not symmetrical.
On what grounds do you say time isn't symetrical? And the idea of causality only exist from our current viewpiont of time. In fact it hangs entierly on it. If you chance the perception of time then causality itself also changes.
The glass broke because it hit the floor. However if the force was reversed (something impossible to do if you consider time in a single direction) then the reversed action would be...reverse. The glass became unbroken as the energy retreated into a potential state.
If you reverse the flow of time or the perception of time as time doesnt' actually move, then almost all the laws of physics will have to be reversed. This includes rules of causality.
A question to ask I suppose it reponse is why is causality work? Why do things happen the way they do?
Its observation and eventually understanding. Then follows prediction. If things happen according to this "law" then "x" will happen. However if you change the oberservation then everything else changes.
It does work and I can prove it. If you track yourself backwards in time. Imagine you are hitting reverse in a video. Causality seems to be reversed as well. If you looked at your life in reverse what would you see? What if you never saw it otherwise?
Its not up for debate as its fact.
It is not.
Your right. I concede that its not "fact". Though its not **** i'm making up. These are real theories and real laws of physics. Thats the piont I"m getting at.
I'm trying my best not to read the pseudo-science arguments because they hurt me, but this I can't let slide:
Lol. You make me laugh.
[QUOTE=Yorutenchi;/comments/11137622]
Its not up for debate as its fact.
NOTHING--absolutely unequivocally--NOTHING in science is an unquestionable fact. The very idea is an anathema to all that science IS.
I already recanted this. You are right for fact. But there are sets of laws and reasonings that must be adhered to for the sake of arguments. The piont I was making thoug not gracefully worded was that this is in fact not "pseudo science" as you put it but legitimate science that has backing. I'm not arguing from my own person opinion and random thoughts of the world.
So far I know I need about 230 cards and 4 of which are Battle of wits. It doesn't have to be massivly competitive and I would rather have it on the cheaper side.
What are some good tutors/good stuff for a Battle of Wits win in multiplayer?
Its not cheating. He is confused. So long as you have at least 60 then you can have as many as you want so long as its not disruptive and you don't need help shuffling.
I'm of the opinion that the government should just get out of abortion completely. That means no more coercion of the state in forbidding abortions, and no more government funding of abortions. Instead of organizations like Planned Parenthood, I would like to see a real free market for abortions where clinics compete with each other to increase quality and drive down costs. Pro-lifers are happy that the free market funds abortions instead of the government, and pro-choicers are happy that women don't have to resort to unsafe, black market abortions. Both sides are happy to an extent.
This....no way should our government be paying to kill what I believe to be life unless it affects the sovereignty of the nation. I'm all for a woman to have a choice as well..... but I and others who believe it's immoral to have an abortion should not have to pay to kill a life that has no indirect or direct affect/effect on my countries sovereignty or my own personal liberty.
I agree with you on this. However it matters little as do much of our concerns. For example I may be very much against subsidies for corn and oil as well as vehemently against the war in Iraq but I have no ability to abstain from paying. I'm assuming its very much the same thing in this case.
I know. anyone that says "yeah she should kill her baby" shouldnt' be allowed to have an opinion. My piont is that adoption is viable and the mother should go through with the birth after a certain period. My personal belief is that it should be around 2-2 1/2 months not 6.
I disagree. It's not a risk-free endeavor to go through with the birth.
having sex isn't risk free but she did it anyway. I'm not saying she is the only one involved here but unless it was rape she DID commit an act knowing full well she could get pregnant as the only 100% safe way to avoid pregnancy is abstenence. Having sex is a gamble. People forget that. Sex is risk free in many people's mind.
"didn't get aids? good. Let me just yank the 6 month old fetus out with tongs"
Death rate of a month giving birth is rather low. And in your personal opinion when does the fetus become something that would be wrong to kill? Birth?
Red is the best right now. Maybe even white. But red for Rakdos Return, Devil's play, ect. White would be for sweepers and removal. I know this isn't the time or place but there has been
rumors that orzhov is getting a *****in sweeper in Dragon's maze
Permission usually indicates that someone else can take away the permission. A right is something you are entitled to. You are not entitled Permission.
Abortion generally means (in the common language anyway) that they KILL the fetus. I don't know of anyone who sould induce the labor at 6 months as thats a death sentence in and of itself. thats why I'm against Killing the fetus after 3 months. 2 months is my ideal but I would support 2 1/2 or 3 months as a compromise.
- Wat? Explain further
- Verbal skills somehow being the feminists fault?
- Also envriomental factors being the feminist fault?
None of those have anything to do with the school system being rigged against men.
It depends. If men are biologically prone to do more stupid things then how is it not their fault? Thats like saying women have a harder time in lifetime careers because she will have to choose between child rearing and her job. This is a legitimate concern but at the same time not something that is the "evil men's" fault. Same thing in that its not the feminists fault.
Try looking at Third world countries. Or middle eastern countries. Or lets say 100 years ago was it acceptable to have a woman in congress? At this moment I don't see them as having troubles but in the past they sure as hell did.
Whcih parts do you want? The idea that time is a measurment of the Universe? Thats knida...physics 101.
The talk of how Stephen Hawkings made the bold claim that god is impossible? I can link you to that. It really isn't important to my points other than the idea that the universe can be measured via time just as any other measurement.
Multiverse theory here a part of M-theroy.
Or are you talking about my mentoinings of Retrocausality? And yes it was a mention. Highroller seemed very adament about taking on this particular point so I've continued in that part of the debate though it isn't really important to my main argument of the thread.
Other parts of my argument You'd like me to site that I"ve missed?
And there are FACTS in science. If you start saying there are no facts in science then there is the door.
I never said mens rights don't matter. If I did then I would like to see it. The comment about MRA members was an intentional poke at commons as he has stated on numerous occasions that Feminists are not what they say they are in core context.
Historically sexism has stopped women from being sucessful in politics. Doesnt' necessarily count as to now. And the only reason that they are this sucessful now is because of feminisits working to attain equal rights and decrease discrimination.
There is no sexism against boys that I have seen. As a male who has been through the school system what are some hard and specific laws/principles that are geared to keep men down in the education system. The numbers alone don't mean much unless you show me other parts to it.
Just like you said before.
So yes. After a piont. I'm not against abortions at all but just have them far earlier. 6 months is to late. 8 months is to late. During labor is too late. They have to own up to the responsibilities and concequences that will result of their actions.
I see the piont just fine. I'm not on teh side of "lets take this ***** to the railing" but rather "everyone needs to chill the fuz out."
Neither scenario was seroius and should not have been taken as serouisly as it was. There are real feminist issues in todays world that need to be adressed and stupid crap like "dongles incident" needs to not hapen for people to take the movement seriously or perhaps keep it from anti-feminst oops I mean MRA members from using it as ammo against an otherwise good cause.
Let me put it this way. If god made the universe then the future is just as set in stone as the past. Reason being "If god made the universe...." then that HAS to mean "he made the begining and the end of the universe". It doesn't say that he made "part of the universe" as thats impossible. I am not saying that free will can't exist. I"m saying that free will cannot exist in a situation where an omnipotent being created the universe.
Let me say this differently. He created every specific moment in time from the begining to the end of the universe. Thats what it means to have created the universe. He created/creates/will create EVERY second of my life. In what way would that mean I have any control?
Though I guess again I should note this only applies to an omnipotent creator rather than an atheist explanation.
Essentially. I'm not giong to predict your choice or anything. But for the sake of the experiment it doesn't matter so long as you chose a number.
Now was it your free will that you chose that number? Was it chance? Well if god created the universe then he crafted that moment in time. If he created you choosing that number is that still your free will? Is it still your free will that it was pre-destined to be chosen? If you say that is still free will then you and I do not agree at ALL what free will is and there is little piont to continue. Free will is only there if I can truely choose whatever outcome I want. If god made the universe then he created the universe, myself and every situation I'll ever be in. If there isn't an omnipotent being then free will opens itself up.
And I don't agree at all. I do not agree that it was my choice if its already pre-determined. You and I shall have to simply dissagree on the definition and range of what free will is. You seem to think that it doesn't matter if god created the universe because this "choice" that you made is still free will. However my view of the exact same situation that I think we agree on the specifics of, is not free will if there is a higher crafter involved.
Not if he crafted them. Either god crafts your actions or he doesn't. If he does then no free will. If he doesn't then we have free will. However I'm arguing form the premis that god created the universe. We are the universe. Ergo god created us and everything we did.
If there isn't a god then yes free will can exist within certain limitations.
As I have stated. It is not free will. Also I think your somewhat confused about the multiverse theory. Prior to the event in which different possible outcomes exist there is only one universe. When the choice is presented then simultaniously you choose all of them and new universes are "created". But not in the sense that a big bang happened but that now there are more than one universe as each possiblity is explored.
Yes it does. If there is no "crafter" of the universe then there is no omnipotent making decisions for me. If I make my own decisions that are based on chance and the accumulation of the factors at hand + statistics + chance = free will. If god exists then there are no "chances" and if there are no chances then statistics have no meaning. From there all you have are factors. Factors created and controled universally by a single omnipotent being.
I was with you through the first parts. And I agree with them. But what you didn't mention was that god crafted the universe. You are part of the universe, not apart from it. God created you. God created you in that moment yesterday, today and tomorrow. He see's time all at once. He created the universe with this in mind. He knows now (as he can see) what you will do and not only does he KNOW what you will do, he created that moment.
Throw out the idea that each moment was created by higher intelectual power then I conceede that free will can exist. Throw in the fact that you have an all powerful being that created everything then I do not agree we have free will. If no one created us then no one has say over us. Does that make sense?
On what grounds do you say time isn't symetrical? And the idea of causality only exist from our current viewpiont of time. In fact it hangs entierly on it. If you chance the perception of time then causality itself also changes.
The glass broke because it hit the floor. However if the force was reversed (something impossible to do if you consider time in a single direction) then the reversed action would be...reverse. The glass became unbroken as the energy retreated into a potential state.
If you reverse the flow of time or the perception of time as time doesnt' actually move, then almost all the laws of physics will have to be reversed. This includes rules of causality.
A question to ask I suppose it reponse is why is causality work? Why do things happen the way they do?
Its observation and eventually understanding. Then follows prediction. If things happen according to this "law" then "x" will happen. However if you change the oberservation then everything else changes.
It does work and I can prove it. If you track yourself backwards in time. Imagine you are hitting reverse in a video. Causality seems to be reversed as well. If you looked at your life in reverse what would you see? What if you never saw it otherwise?
Your right. I concede that its not "fact". Though its not **** i'm making up. These are real theories and real laws of physics. Thats the piont I"m getting at.
I already recanted this. You are right for fact. But there are sets of laws and reasonings that must be adhered to for the sake of arguments. The piont I was making thoug not gracefully worded was that this is in fact not "pseudo science" as you put it but legitimate science that has backing. I'm not arguing from my own person opinion and random thoughts of the world.
What are some good tutors/good stuff for a Battle of Wits win in multiplayer?
I agree with you on this. However it matters little as do much of our concerns. For example I may be very much against subsidies for corn and oil as well as vehemently against the war in Iraq but I have no ability to abstain from paying. I'm assuming its very much the same thing in this case.
having sex isn't risk free but she did it anyway. I'm not saying she is the only one involved here but unless it was rape she DID commit an act knowing full well she could get pregnant as the only 100% safe way to avoid pregnancy is abstenence. Having sex is a gamble. People forget that. Sex is risk free in many people's mind.
"didn't get aids? good. Let me just yank the 6 month old fetus out with tongs"
Death rate of a month giving birth is rather low. And in your personal opinion when does the fetus become something that would be wrong to kill? Birth?