Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 462  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: Today at 07:46:22 PM »
This makes women responsible for abortion.

Yes, if they have the choice and choose to take that option without consulting the father.

However, they do not bear 100% responsibility for getting pregnant.  That at best is only 50% women's responsibility and sometimes 0%.  So men must be at least 50% responsible for unwanted pregnancy.

Sometimes it's 100% if the woman chooses to drug and rape a man or go to a sperm donation bank.

But the responsibility for getting pregnant is irrelevant. We are talking about the responsibility to the child after pregnancy has already occurred. At this stage the man is legally responsible (maybe not if he was raped or donated sperm) and there is nothing he can do about it at that point. The law says he is responsible to the child. The woman can escape responsibility to her child by killing it. The woman has more options to escape responsibility than the man has.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: Today at 05:50:06 PM »
Men are already responsible. If a woman decides to have the baby, the man is responsible to support it by law and can't walk away. The man is sentenced to 18 years of labor to support the child. When a man complains the societal response is "Your fault, pay up!"

If the woman decides not to have the baby, she can do so without repercussion. She is not held to the same standards to be compelled to support her baby and can choose to kill it and escape responsibility.


Care to actually discuss what you said.  You were 100% blaming the woman for being "irresponsible" and getting pregnant.  It had nothing to do with legal responsibilities afterward.  Your statement was wholly to say that it is the woman's fault she's  pregnant.  This isn't the first time you've said it.  Nice try at deflecting and trying to say it was about something else.

We are talking about abortion. Women can escape responsibility by choosing to end life legally and men can't. This makes women responsible for abortion. A woman's right to choose makes them responsible. Adoption is an option, as is having the baby and utilizing child support/welfare/family support. The man is legally on the hook for the child and does not get to escape responsibility like with the options the woman has.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: August 09, 2022, 04:41:26 PM »
..... justify the personal irresponsibility of women.

Of course you meant, once again, to say the irresponsibility of men.  Either that or you're simply a sexist who thoroughly enjoys the patriarchy that the U.S. has always been and seems to be heading even further to being.

Men are already responsible. If a woman decides to have the baby, the man is responsible to support it by law and can't walk away. The man is sentenced to 18 years of labor to support the child. When a man complains the societal response is "Your fault, pay up!"

If the woman decides not to have the baby, she can do so without repercussion. She is not held to the same standards to be compelled to support her baby and can choose to kill it and escape responsibility.

Quote from: stack
If 1% is so inconsequential to you, why not just leave that exemption from the ban in the law?

I have no idea why you are asking me to change a law. If it's illegal then it's illegal. If it's not, it's not. That edge case doesn't really matter to me. But Tennessee may value the individuality of life, even if its by rape, and would expect those women to pursue adoption or other options, expecting women to give up 9 months for the sake of their baby. In California it is illegal to clear out bird eggs from a tree in your back yard, so making abortion illegal in cases of rape because the people in your state value life isn't totally absurd.

Yes, because no woman has ever, in the history of humanity, told her suiters that she was waiting until marriage.
Hmm, well are you arguing that all women should act like brain-washed, controlled, prudes or that we should have higher standards? You can only pick one because having higher standards does not equal being the virgin Mary. Or admit that you're a sexist troll and move on.

At some points in history parents taught young women to have very high standards. Parental approval used to be expected for a woman to take a suitor, taking care of the 'inexperienced' issue.

If someone did get pregnant outside of marriage family pressure would be applied by both the man's family and the woman's family, if they had respectable morals, to get married and have the baby. Abortion was not an option and was something generally relegated to prostitutes and riff raff. The young adults going into the relationship knew that they would need to get married if a pregnancy occurred, so they would pick the best partner to pursue a relationship with from the start.

Quote from: BillO
Of course women can wait until marriage.  They very often do.  What about the following cases though:

1) A married woman gets pregnant by her husband but then finds out that she has a condition that puts both her and her child at a very high risk of death if she goes full term.

2) A woman get's raped and becomes pregnant but is in no position to be pregnant or support and care for a child.  An example here would be a woman on active duty in the armed forces or otherwise occupied in a life where being pregnant and giving birth are not possible.

3) The child will be born horribly disfigured to the extent they will have no quality of life whatsoever and will not survive, or will require constant medical support to 'live' that is far beyond the woman's ability to pay for.  For example born without a functioning major organ.

We could go on and on but perhaps you could respond to those 3.

Number 1 and 3 are extreme edge cases and the vast majority of abortions do not occur for that reason.

For number 2 the woman is typically discharged from active duty and is given maternity leave and possibly a desk job somewhere.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: August 08, 2022, 05:51:26 PM »
It does not matter if it occurred or not. The point is clearly that women can just get higher standards or opt for marriage.
One is not a connoisseur at birth. Only with a solid knowledge base and experience can one develop impeccable taste.

Yes, because no woman has ever, in the history of humanity, told her suitors that she was waiting until marriage.

How does one opt for higher standards and marriage in the case of rape or incest?

Parents can and do teach their children not to engage in incest.

Less than 1% of abortions occur to rape; you are attempting to use an extreme example to justify the personal irresponsibility of women.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: August 08, 2022, 05:21:56 AM »
It does not matter if it occurred or not. The point is clearly that women can just get higher standards or opt for marriage.

If you don't actually have an argument against that I would suggest you refrain from ranting irrelevance and how bad you think your opponent is.

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: August 08, 2022, 04:43:17 AM »
If you guys have nothing to post except a low content post, I would suggest not posting.

It doesn't get more low content than posting some random non-attributable tweet from one individual on the planet talking about a girls-night-out conversation. It literally means nothing and is completely irrelevant.

Wrong. It does not need to be attributable, or have even occurred, to convey the idea that women could just opt for higher standards and marriage.

An argument was expressed there, and it was not directly addressed.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: August 08, 2022, 04:33:34 AM »
If you guys have nothing to post except a low content post, I would suggest not posting.
I disagree. The 2nd part of my last post was pertinent to the discussion.  The link you posted contained content that was an obvious exaggerated reaction to the change in law.  Do I really have to explain this to you?

Remarks like "That might be a joke" is a fairly low content response. Was I supposed to respond that it might not be, where you again respond that it might be?

I will hold out until you have something legitimate to argue.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: August 08, 2022, 03:46:46 AM »
If you guys have nothing to post except a low content post, I would suggest not posting.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Buy Illegal Abortion
« on: August 08, 2022, 03:00:18 AM »
Even died in the wool fanatics of misogyny and religious mansplainin' (Tom and Achtung80. talking to you guys here) will have to admit that if it is not available legally it will promote a criminal source

Alternatively:


10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Old Politicians
« on: August 05, 2022, 06:32:21 PM »
Whenever someone brags about the Digital Age and muh amazing computers the arguments end up sounding like "The US Constitution: Now on LaserDisc!"

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Old Politicians
« on: August 05, 2022, 04:44:14 PM »
If thats the criteria then, well, none of the tech you listed is revolutionary either.

Automobile: we already used horses.  Cars were just us moving faster and longer. 
Radio: we already could send messages wirelessly via sound waves.  So this was just doing it with another wave.
Airplanes: we already had hot air balloons.  Putting a fan on the front to move isn't a big change.
Etc...

Correct. On their own those technologies weren't that big of a change. But if you combine radio, television, telephone, automobile, airplane, automated manufacturing, home appliances, it becomes a very significant change to human society in that era. We were comparing that era to the modern era. I specified that the era and time period represented a period of new useful technologies and impactful change to society, as compared to recent years in which it has been less so.

tom i hate to burst your bubble, but people born in the first half of the 20th century didn't actually invent books, libraries, and post offices. those things have been around for some time.

I did not claim that the early 20th century invented language and the written word. The invention of language and the written word was arguably even more important than the revolutions to society between the early to mid 1900's.

Humanity has been making less important revolutions and inventions as time goes on.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Old Politicians
« on: August 05, 2022, 03:13:51 PM »
Points 3 and 4 represent the creation of fundamentally new technologies. The Digital Age in on point 5 represents people doing the same things they were already doing, but on a computer.

For someone to say that a personal computer or even the internet was not revolutionary is insane.

We went from the Harvard Mark I in the 40's:



To this, way more powerful, in the oughts:



And that's not revolutionary?

Actually I did say it was revolutionary. I also said that it wasn't as important as the technologies that revolutionized society in the early to mid 1900's.

My main criticism was that the applications used are largely just digital replicas of things which already existed. People already had encyclopedias in their homes and had library passes. People already could compose documents, order things from catalogues, and send letters and notes to each other. Now you can do all of that on a computer with emojis. It provided a convenient platform, but people were still doing the same things they were doing before.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Old Politicians
« on: August 04, 2022, 12:40:12 PM »
Points 3 and 4 represent the creation of fundamentally new technologies. The Digital Age in on point 5 represents people doing the same things they were already doing, but on a computer.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Old Politicians
« on: August 04, 2022, 04:36:03 AM »
Also Radio: 1890
Telephone: 1876
Automobile: 1886

The years they revolutionized society were from 1900-1950's. Radio, television, telephone, automobile, airplane, automated manufacturing, home appliances, all came together to fundamentally revolutionize civilization in a very extraordinary way that far overshadows anything that came after. I can hardly say the same about the internet and video games.

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Old Politicians
« on: August 04, 2022, 04:06:02 AM »
...The era of the early and mid 1900's is also marked by extraordinary revolution from the telephone, automobile, airplane, radio, radar, computer, manufacturing, and medicine, which have only been refined and improved on today without fundamental revolution.

The list of achievements from the recent generations are comparably poor with some achievements in certain areas, but have not provided a comparative revolution to society to dignify the generation on. These later generations have only managed to continue or arguably degrade the status quo.
The digital revolution is all since 1950.  The first transistor was in 1947 but the first chip was 1958, Moore coined what we now call, his famous 2nd law in 1965.  The cell phone in your pocket has far more computing power than a room of equipment even from the 70s.  The internet grew out from the ARPAnet in the 70s.  We have the manufacturing revolution from 3D printing.  Automated low cost genetic sequencing is revolutionizing medicine.  Crop yields that remained stable from 1880-1950 have risen consistently since thus letting us (mostly) feed the world.  Of course there is space flight and its resulting vast increase in knowledge of the universe and our own planet as well as numerous commercial applications in farming, communications, mapping, news gathering, etc (but Tom thinks those are all false of course).  Likely more important than anything is the focus on sustainability.   The practice of burning fossil fuels without regard for the consequences to our environment that was so eagerly embraced in the first half of the 1900s which set the precedent for the 2nd half, has lead our civilization to the very brink of destruction.  If we manage to step back from the edge, which is not yet clear, it will be the greatest accomplishment in history.

None of that later technology is as revolutionary as the technologies from the beginning to mid 1900's. Most of what you cite originate from the time period I cited or even earlier. The 1950's already had radio communication and cell phones were just the natural progression of that technology rather than something truly revolutionary. The 1950's had plastic molding. 1940 Germany even allegedly had rockets capable of getting to space. Sputnik happened in the 1950's. The 1950's had computers. The internet and personal computing are one of the few new things that are revolutionary to society, but the 1950's had the analog equivalent of digital libraries, photoshop, microsoft office, online shops, and bulletin boards.

Genetic engineering is still in progress. The Moon Landing was supposed to be a test case for colonies on other worlds, but never came. The best theory about gravity in science comes from 1905.

Nothing truly and fundamentally revolutionary to human civilization has really occurred over the last 70 years. America has only lost power since it became a super power following WWII. It reached its peak and it was downhill from there. Recent generations are comparative failures compared to the pre-WWII generations.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Old Politicians
« on: August 03, 2022, 07:12:34 PM »
It is because the pre-1950's generations are still considered by society to be the greatest generations. They are a hard-nosed, no-frills, people with traditional morals who tell it like it is. They won WWII and built the US into a super power and are considered to have established the gold standard in public policy. The era of the early and mid 1900's is also marked by extraordinary revolution from the telephone, automobile, airplane, radio, radar, computer, manufacturing, and medicine, which have only been refined and improved on today without fundamental revolution.

The list of achievements from the recent generations are comparably poor with some achievements in certain areas, but have not provided a comparative revolution to society to dignify the generation on. These later generations have only managed to continue or arguably degrade the status quo.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: August 01, 2022, 01:33:33 PM »
I didn't have any adverse side effects.

...

Simply put: there's no evidence to this women even works at a doctor's office, much less is sick.

There is also no evidence from you about your experience with the vaccine. Pro-vaxxers admit to acting dishonestly to push their agenda.


18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: August 01, 2022, 01:06:22 PM »
It's hard for most people to admit that they are wrong. It is commendable for this health care professional to admit it.


https://seed171.bitchute.com/08tAzwjwwhDb/lRmd6CiKKRMJ.mp4

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 31, 2022, 11:11:51 PM »
Your twitter quote says - "It is illegal to use the Presidential Seal for commercial purposes."

Yeah, the copyrightlately.com lawyer debonked that.
It's not a copyright question.  However, the use of the Presidential Seal at a sporting event could reasonably suggest that the event is sponsored or endorsed by the government.  That's the part that's illegal.

Yet as a reasonable person you viewed the pictures from the event and knew that Trump was not the president and that the event was associated with a former president. Other reasonable persons would do the same. It is unlikely that anyone at the event thought they were attending the event of the current President.

The copyrightlately.com lawyer says that Trump can even call himself "President", as is customary for former presidents, in stationary with the seal on it, and get away with it:



The reasonable consumer knows that Trump is no longer president, therefore Trump can use the seal and call himself president. By this standard the reasonable consumer also knows that the golfing event was associated with a former, and not a current, president.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 31, 2022, 10:19:38 PM »
Your twitter quote says - "It is illegal to use the Presidential Seal for commercial purposes."

Yeah, the copyrightlately.com lawyer debonked that.

https://copyrightlately.com/trump-office-great-seal/



https://www.amazon.com/s?k=presidential+seal


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 462  Next >