Aufan59

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

I’m sure I misunderstood.

You did. 

8 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

59 said CO2 isn’t the cause just a week or so ago, but goes to greenhouse gasses as the mechanism.  I don’t recall you making the same sort of statement.

This is news to me!

Any conservatives here willing to take a swing at this?  Do people conceived of rape have fewer rights than those conceived of consensual sex?

On 5/12/2024 at 2:27 PM, I_M4_AU said:

A person in his own home and the police storm in, the person thinks he is being invaded and is shot.  Like this case, if it was at the wrong address, the home owner is protecting his property lawfully and is shot.

Do you think it’s constitutional for “the police to storm in”?

12 hours ago, AUDub said:

Neither of which kills with a flick of the wrist and the pull of a trigger. You’re comparing apples and airplanes. Not all rights can be inherently equivocated. It’s  fallacy to try and do so. Well meaning people are dying or killing through no inherent fault of their own because there’s no squaring that circle.

I would argue it’s an inherent result. No normal person wants to pick between dying or killing someone under the kind of pressure the police (law ENFORCEMENT, mind you) has to weigh with mere seconds, usually less, to decide.

We did to ourselves. Until we come up with police drones (lol) this will be the result. 

I don’t think it’s apples and airplanes.  They are rights guaranteed by the constitution.

If you can be legally murdered by government when exercising a right in your own home, then I think it’s fair to say that it isn’t really a right.

I agree we’ve backed ourselves into a corner with the second amendment.  There is no good answer to this, except amending the constitution, of which I would be in favor.

But the fascinating part is the contradicting place this puts conservatives in(and this is not directed at you specifically):  The second amendment is constantly argued as necessary, especially to empower the people against a tyrannical government.  However they somehow defend the government coming to your door and murdering you when you exercise this right.

And it is fascinating that any conservative could end up defending the government murdering its citizens for exercising their rights.  

11 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Your right to privacy in your own home when being served a *no knock warrant*.

You’ll have to explain this one.  When does this get you murdered by the government?

4 hours ago, AUDub said:

A right that entails the ability to deal death with a simple point and pull of a trigger.

This is the tragedy of a right that doesn’t allow law enforcement to have a monopoly of force. 

I’m not immediately disagreeing with that premise, but it is a right.

Imagine the government showing up to your home and murdering you when you exercise other rights, like your right to free speech, or your right to remain silent.  

6 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes it is a right and alway will be.  With any right there comes responsibility, which in this case, seems to be difficult to comprehend.  

What was not responsible?

What other rights can get you murdered in your own home by government when you exercise them?

33 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

That’s why it was a question, not a statement.

When confronting a police officer a citizen has to be aware of the possibility he/she may be thought of as a combatant if they are welding a weapon.  The perception is all on the police officer and that is what matters in the moment.

I know it was a question that is why I answered it for you. 

Is it really a right if it makes you fair game for the government to murder you inside your home?  

10 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

And using deadly force against a civilian; when does a civilian become a combatant?  When he has a gun or other weapon?

Well certainly that is not the answer, as simply exercising your rights does not make you a combatant.  
 

15 hours ago, AUDub said:

I’ll go with don’t answer the door with a deadly weapon in hand.

Don’t open your own door, in your own house, exercising your own rights?

On 5/4/2024 at 3:49 PM, I_M4_AU said:

I glad you guys agree with the study.

Looking at the greenhouse gases I can see why they want us to eat bugs and limit farming. I don’t think that is an achievable goal.  But that’s just me.

Wait, you are arguing against the science because you don’t want to eat bugs?

You realize it is possible to argue against proposed solutions without disagreeing with the problem.  Two people can agree on a problem and disagree on the solution…

On 5/4/2024 at 5:36 PM, auburnatl1 said:

I watched Fox and msnbc last night do their daily analysis on the case. Wow.  Fox mocked everyone from judge to jurors and said case was total deep state frivolous, prosecution was doomed. MSNBC was all about the brilliance of the prosecution and whether trump could get jail time and which prison.

After watching both anyone would have total bipolar confusion. It further underscored why this country and this forum is sometimes a delusional mess.

I get my news and information from neither.  
 

But if I had to choose my information source, I’d go with whichever source didn’t recently lose a lawsuit for almost $800 million for intentionally lying.

10 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Not interested because you are convinced they are wrong and are not curious as to how two different studies came up with similar findings?  I see.

I am convinced they are correct, CO2 doesn’t impact the temperature of the earth by way of enthalpy increases.  

However, this is like saying that umbrellas don’t absorb much water, therefore they don’t protect you from rain.  It is true that umbrellas don’t absorb much water.  But that isn’t the mechanism they use to protect you from rain.

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Tell them and report back if you will.

No interest.  I thought you might have interest in the validity of what you post.  But I remember the last discussion is that your only criteria is that it matches your viewpoint, not accuracy or validity.  

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Different studies:

How to cite this paper: Nelson, M. and Nelson, D.B. (2024) Decoupling CO2 from Climate Change. International Journal of Geosciences, 15, 246-269. https://doi.org/10.4236/ijg.2024.153015
Received: January 14, 2024 Accepted: March 23, 2024 Published: March 26, 2024

and

Received: March 02, 2024Accepted: April 03, 2024Published: April 15, 2024Citation: Lightfoot HD,Ratzer G.Reliable physics demand revision of the IPCC global warming potentials

So it seems at least two different studies have misunderstood the relationship between enthapy and radiative forcing.

Maybe you can straighten them out.  or maybe there is something to what they are saying.

Same garbage though.  The mechanism of global warming is not CO2 getting hotter (enthalpy) which makes the atmosphere hotter.

7 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I hesitate to bring this here, but….

 

Fire away.

This is the same garbage you posted before.  Confounds enthalpy with radiative forcing.

9 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I'll leave this one recent post on the board since you are being very reasonable in this discussion.

You say that as though the unborn human being climbed in there by him or herself, like a squatter in a California house.

That's not what happened.

Statistically speaking, the mother almost certainly voluntarily engaged in an activity that she was fully aware could result in the creation of another human being.  If we're talking about an exception to that statistical probability, we can treat that differently, but for the vast, vast majority of cases, she's directly responsible for the human being existing in the first place and needing her body to survive (and yes, the father does too, but he has no ability to decide to kill the unborn human, so that's why I'm leaving him out.)

You don't get to create a child and then refuse to feed or clothe it and claim it has no right to "use" your finances.  And that even goes for the father who has no legal choice about whether to kill the child by abortion.  Currently the mother gets to decide, then the father is legally forced to pay for her decision.  Talk about being anti-choice.  But I digress...

You don't get to create a child and then refuse to feed or clothe it on the basis that it has no right to "use" your finances.  So why should you be able to create a child and then claim it has no right to "use" your body?  You created it, now you have an obligation to be responsible for it.  That legal obligation exists after the child is born.  Why shouldn't it exist before the child is born?

I reject the notion that people are entitled to engage in behavior that they know can result in pregnancy and then refuse responsibility for the pregnancy.  I wouldn't care if that didn't result in a dead human being, but it does, every time.

And I can't think of another legal precedent in which someone can cause something to happen and escape responsibility for it unless they were mentally disabled when they caused it (or forced to do so).  You drive drunk knowing that you could kill someone—you didn't intend to, but you knew it was a possibility—you go to prison for vehicular homicide.  You rob a bank and someone has a heart attack and dies, you get charged with felony murder.  You didn't intend for anyone to die, but you set the chain of events into motion, you're responsible.

Why in this case should parents not be held responsible for the chain of events they knowingly set in motion?

A mother can legally give up all obligation to their child through safe haven laws and adoption.  So yes, you can legally create a child and refuse to feed or clothe it. 

Your examples about consequences of your actions are when committing a crime, consensual sex is not a crime.

Finally, and the real question that hasn’t been answered, what does the consent of the mother have to do with the rights of the person in the womb?  Why is it an “exception” that we can “treat differently”?  

In my opinion there is no exception, a person conceived of rape has the same rights as a person conceived through consensual sex.   How can a person’s rights be so arbitrary, that they are taken away because of the actions of a third party?  

4 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

So we're talking about infants/newborns, then.  

Sure, I can believe that.  I'm talking about adults.

Remember, the whole premise is that the less they look and speak and think like us adults, the less we identify with them as humans with human rights and the more likely we are to decide for them whether they live or die.

I am not disagreeing that people in the womb don’t have rights.  But not the rights to use another person’s body.

4 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I don't think it has, and the reason I don't think it has is because it would be unconscionable and therefore wouldn't occur to anyone to do it.

And yet the only difference between it and abortion is that the Siamese twin is easier to identify with.  The twin talks, reasons, and looks like us.  The unborn human doesn't, so it's harder for people to emotionally identify with.

The problem with allowing that sort of dynamic to play out is that every atrocity committed against minorities throughout history was facilitated by convincing the masses that the minority "wasn't like the rest of us."  In Nazi Germany they convinced the population that Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, etc. were subhuman.  Same with chattel slavery around the world.  Black people didn't look or talk like Europeans and Central Americans, so they were subhuman.  The human's property rights superseded any of the subhuman's rights.

The only justification for killing unborn humans at will is the same justification.  They are undeveloped, so they are subhuman and the bodily autonomy rights of the mothers supersedes the subhuman's right to life.  That's the argument in a nutshell.  Basically the same as the slave owner's argument from 1860.

I don't think humans (with unique DNA, different from both parents) are subhuman by virtue of being relatively undeveloped.  I don't think anyone has ever made a cogent case for that argument.  If they have, I've never heard it.  I've heard appeals to ridicule aimed in that direction, but that's a logical fallacy, not a logical argument.  I've heard people just assume that premise.  But I've never heard anyone make a logical argument for it.

Basically what people do is one of three things:

1.  They either start to assign characteristics to the human as it gets older that allow them to emotionally identify with it as a human.  It's really a human when it's a "person," and of course what that means is entirely subjective and up to the emotional identification of the person in question.  Just like black people being more acceptable to racists if they have lighter skin and other Caucasian looking features.

2.  Or they assign milestones that have to do with the human's ability to feel pain.  As though feeling pain made some logical sense in terms of denying human status and basic human rights.  It's very easy to kill anyone of any age in a controlled environment without them feeling any pain.  I can take any poster on this forum into a hospital room and kill them without them ever feeling pain...in fact, until they go under they'll be having the time of their lives.  Does that give me the right to do it without their consent?  The two have nothing to do with each other when you think about it.

3.  They simply default to birth, and only because at birth the mother's bodily autonomy issue is removed from the equation.  Again, it's a non-sequitur.  One really has nothing to do with the other in the context of the specific question of why an unborn human should be considered subhuman.

Back to the original statement of that never have been challenged with Siamese twins (to the best of either of our knowledge), I'm still pretty confident that the law would side with the dead twin and not the live one.  We don't have a precedent that we know of, but I would be shocked if it turned out the other way.  Wouldn't you?

There is precedent in the UK, which is why I specified not the US.  
 

For what it’s worth, it was decided that the twins be separated, knowing it would kill one of them, without the agreement of the parents.

16 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

The government is pushing an extreme view and is locked in one one cause.  Are they looking at others?

You are having such a hard time finding opposing views that are valid, that you have posted lies just to give an alternate viewpoint.

Maybe they have looked for reasonable alternative views, and have found none? 

1 hour ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Sure it does.

Siamese twins.  One twin cannot have separation surgery if it will kill the other twin without the 2nd twin's consent.  If one did it anyway without consent, definitely the doctor who performed the procedure and possibly the surviving twin would be charged with murder.

Good point, I didn’t think of that example.  Though I don’t know of any case where this has been an issue or been challenged, at least in the US.

7 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Was (is) it a blatant lie that it will be too late to do anything about climate change by the year 2030?  We are to believe we should reduce CO2 by 45% by then and be net zero by 2050 or it’s too late.   Isn’t that just fear mongering?

It is not a lie that we will pass one of the total carbon emissions goal that was set in the Paris accord around that time.  This is a matter of simple arithmetic.

The negative consequences of not limiting warming, are predictions based on the evidence at hand.  
 

You presume that the global warming alarmists are lying, so you feel justified in posting lies from differing view points?

On 4/24/2024 at 9:46 PM, I_M4_AU said:

I have no idea what the flat earthers feel about global warming.  They are allowed to have an opinion, do they not?

Is you opinion the only one that matters?  Is all the other opinions equivalent to the flat earthers?

Man made climate change will not be proven in our lifetime, is it critical enough for the President to declare a Climate Emergency?

 

 

 

Other opinions are fine, as long as they aren’t blatantly lying.

Which is why I associated the lies you posted with the flat earthers, as they also are blatant liars.

You may think it helps your case by posting different sides, but that isn’t the case if they are just blatantly lying.

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

No, your point contradicts itself.  The second one person has the right to kill another, the person initiating the killing has more rights.  And while "bodily autonomy" is certainly an important right, rights don't really get more important than the right not to be killed by someone else when you've done nothing to deserve it.

 

We assume the right of the innocent not to be killed.  This doesn't need to be established.  It's a basic bedrock tenet of human dignity.

 

Someone who is kidnapping you is not innocent and is an active threat to you. Considering what we know of people that kidnap others, there's a high likelihood that they will injure or kill you.  Killing them to escape this situation is not analogous to anything we're discussing.

 

It's not "extra rights."  It's a hierarchy of existing rights.  Some rights are of higher importance than others.  The right of the innocent not to be killed outranks the right basically all other rights.  It's a pluperfect of example of a first order right.

I still think that it is extra rights, as they have the right to use another person’s body.  There is no other example of this right being exercised and upheld.  It simply does not exist.

My point was not to equate kidnapping to pregnancy, or for you to explain to me that they are different, but to give a clear example of bodily autonomy being a right that is exercised even when intentional death of another is a consequence.  Bodily autonomy rights are well established and exercised in a variety of different ways.  

For me to better understand the rights that the person in the womb has:

If a woman does not kill the person in the womb, but instead has them removed and given the best available medical care, is that a violation of the person’s rights to not be killed?

If a woman is raped and gets an abortion, is that a violation of the person’s rights to not be killed?  Or in a different example:  if the woman did not know sex could result in pregnancy and gets an abortion, is that a violation of the person’s rights to not be killed?