This happens to me all the time. Nothing worse than telling someone a funny/interesting story only to discover that while you thought they were listening, they were really just waiting for you to stop talking so they could talk about something else.

Equally annoying is when you're in a conversation with 'Joe' and a third person steps in and starts talking to Joe about something else... and instead of saying "just a minute" and finishing your conversation, they turn and just get sucked in to this new conversation. I blame both people for this scenario, but mostly Joe...

@ReverendTed
You have been a courteous sparring partner so I will try to answer in kind, but I must admit being very exasperated by your last response. Moreover, I do not think I want to pursue a debate with someone who cannot see how adoption-in-place-of-abortion is neither feasible nor even remotely ethical (vis-à-vis the woman, the would-be child and human society in general). So this will probably be my last wall of self-indulgent dross.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: we both agree that we need more education all ‘round, on all subjects. And as you know, those most opposed to it are the same that are against abortion. Abstinence education is redundant when proper sex-ed is given, because it goes without saying that “no sex = no unwanted pregnancies” is a part of basic sex-ed. Of course, it is un-pragmatic to expect teenagers (or anyone for that matter) to forego sex, so why harp on it, other than for misguided religious purposes?

Your conception of consciousness is fuzzy at best. Everything we feel, experience, etc. is due to electro-chemical reactions in our body/brain. Magical thinking is saying some non-physical “me” exists attached to it, what religious people call a soul. Consciousness is not subordinate to cognition in terms of value, but in the sense that without the one (cognition) you simply don’t have the other (“subordinate” as in “dependent upon”). I mentioned blind-from-birth people for a good reason; they have no visual aspect to their consciousness, their identity/consciousness is built upon the other sensory input. Now imagine a being that has zero sensory input (or a central system capable of making use/sense of it), and you have a mass of muscles/cells/organs devoid of consciousness. And that is what is aborted before the 25th week. I must make it clear, however, that even if this developed much earlier it would still be the woman’s prerogative to choose what she does with her own body/life. In that respect I think the “viability” argument is a pragmatic (albeit conservative) one, because it draws the line between an excrescence and a (possibly) autonomous being.

After the first two paragraphs, your response goes from bad to worse. What I said about adoption v abortion still stands, but I would add that it is still forcing women to go through a pregnancy they do not want (thus still affecting the quality of their lives), not to mention leaving them with the guilt of abandonment, the kids with issues, etc etc. And all for what? So some third person’s unfounded superstitions be upheld? And then you have the gall to compare criminalising abortion with criminalising incest and crazy people locking up/raping their families. You seriously need to think a bit before making comparisons. In the case of child abuse and/or rape (incest itself is a victimless crime, but that’s for a different discussion), there are actual victims, for one, and secondly, the crazies would lock them up whether it was legal or not, because it is a question of absolute control over the other.

Since you cite Guttmacher statistics, allow me to suggest you read a little more:

• Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America—regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.

• Where abortion is permitted on broad legal grounds, it is generally safe, and where it is highly restricted, it is typically unsafe. In developing countries, relatively liberal abortion laws are associated with fewer negative health consequences from unsafe abortion than are highly restrictive laws.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

So basically pushing for the criminalisation of abortion is pushing for there to be more abortions, and more dangerous ones.

You note how a large percentage of abortion-seekers are above the poverty line. Obviously, they can afford it / are aware of the possibility. Ever notice how the poor/uneducated tend to have more kids than the others? Do you really think being poor makes you want to have more mouths to feed? Or perhaps it is because they lack access to contraception/abortion (not to mention the poor/uneducated tend to be more religious; religion thrives on misery). Of the “developed” world the US is a bit of a special case, because it is so backward with regards to healthcare and contraception. Notice how most women in the US pay for their abortion out of pocket, and “Nearly 60% of women who experienced a delay in obtaining an abortion cite the time it took to make arrangements and raise money.” (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html/) As an aside, the religious right here in Switzerland (not as influential but almost as stupid and backward thinking as that of the US) are trying to make abortion be no longer covered by the universal healthcare system.

On the “potential” question, everything has been said. I’d simply point out that your “95%” potential leaves out something absolutely crucial, namely the choice of the woman to terminate the abortion, which can reduce that to “0%”. You say “it’s nearly guaranteed”, but so what? Two people having heterosexual vaginal sex without projection over a long period of time will conceive of a child, it’s “nearly guaranteed”, therefore every possible pairing of male and female should have continuous unprotected sex otherwise they are depriving potential beings from existing. “But what if they don’t want to?” Exactly, what if the woman doesn’t want a child at that moment? See how absurd the “potential” argument is?

I’ll risk making this wall of text even wallyer and propose an analogy, The Analogy of the Film and Camera. When you put a film in a camera, the potential for it becoming a strip of individual, unique photos goes up. But so long as no pictures are taken, so long as nothing is imprinted on the film’s receptive surface, you lose no individual photos by taking the film out, and there’s the same amount of potential if you put in a different film at a different time. It’s wonky, I know, but it illustrates that potential individual (the film) is not the same as existing individual (the photo), nor does destroying the first cause any damage to the second, because the second doesn’t exist yet.

The comparison with the IGB campaign is terribly inappropriate and simply false. In one case it is question of keeping living individuals from ending their lives, whereas abortion is about preventing eventual individuals from coming into existence because it would harm the quality of life of an already existing individual (as well as the one to be). IGB is about giving people options/hope, whereas criminalising abortion is about taking that away (from women, to give it to the mind projections of superstitious third parties). The only connection between the two is that in both cases the unsubstantiated beliefs of third persons impinge on an individual’s quality of life and liberty. I already addressed your “good from bad” argument, which you draw out again in an emotionally manipulative way (which frankly made me sick).

On eugenics, oh boy. What you’re saying is akin to saying “self-defence should be outlawed because otherwise some (like Zimmerman) might commit crimes and say it was self-defence”. Or, a little closer to home perhaps: “we shouldn’t have universal healthcare because some might fraud”. Yes, some people fraud the insurance, and yes, some people are aggressive and try to pass it as self-defence. That’s why we have a judicial system. Bringing in eugenics is seriously grasping at straws and you know it.

I’ll end my last contribution to this exchange with the following: having a child should never be an inevitability. Bringing a human life into existence is way too big a responsibility to be an obligation. A women’s body is her own, to deal with as she chooses, uterus and co. included.

Cheers

>> ^Bruti79:

>> ^shinyblurry:
It's not three different Gods..it's three persons, one God. There is only one God, and that
God is three persons. How can God be three persons at the same time? Perhaps because He is
hyper-dimensional, although I don't think that would be an adequate description in reality. I think though that the concept itself illuminates the potential differences between His existence and ours.

How can god be a person and a god at the same time? How does a person exist as a god and a human at the same time? Removing the possibility of god being three identical clones and using your model. Logic and physics state that:
1)God is three persons
2)These three people are god
3)They are not duplicates of each other
4)Therefore: There are three separate gods
This all would have been summed up better had someone used better grammar.


Here is a dictionary definition of person

per·son (pûrsn)
n.
1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
5. Physique and general appearance.
6. Law A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
7. Christianity Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.
8. Grammar
a. Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person).
b. Any of the different forms or inflections expressing these distinctions.
9. A character or role, as in a play; a guise: "Well, in her person, I say I will not have you" (Shakespeare).

As you can see, Christianity has its own definition. It is referring to, essentially, that everyone in the Godhead shares the same nature or essence, but that they have their own individual personalities. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father but they are both equally God in nature. Not separate Gods, but one God made of three persons. Just like a human father and son are both equally human because they both share that human nature.

>> ^shinyblurry:

No bible was used in the making of this video, because it is factually incorrect. If you have to distort something to mock it you don't have a case..I thought atheists liked to boast about their bible knowledge?
Eve was tempted by Satan, not a talking snake. Adam and Eve both sinned when they ate the fruit, but the crime was not eating fruit, it was disobeying God. Their sin brought death into the world.
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"
Jesus and the Father are not the same person. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, but they are both God. God is three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not impregnate Mary; the Father sent the third person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit, in this wise:
"And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God."
Jesus did not sacrifice Himself to Himself. Again, the Father and the Son are not the same person. He was an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. He bore the punishment (death) for all sins so that through Him, we could be forgiven for our sins and be given eternal life.
"This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins"
A dead body was not required for Gods plan of redemption, to correct the mistakes human beings made. What was required was a man who lived a perfect, sinless life in total obedience to God. Since no human being could fulfill that requirement, God sent His Son in our place.
"Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ."
People are not sent to hell for doubting the love of God. They are sent to hell for their sins. God offers forgiveness to every single person, and He does not desire that any should perish, but that all will come to repentance. Never the less, because God is Holy and just, He will punish all sin.
People are not saved by taking the sacraments. That is a catholic ritual. We are only saved by faith in Jesus Christ, and that faith alone will justify us before God. We eat bread and drink of the fruit of the vine in remembrance of Him, but that is all.
The Kingdom of Heaven is not in the sky. The Kingdom of Heaven is on Earth, and will be in this Universe. We are not going anywhere. We will experience life as God had originally designed it, here on Earth, before the fall.
The gospel is simple:
We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and the wages of our sin is death. Because of sin we are spiritually separated from God and headed for His prison called hell. He has set a day to judge the world, and on that day all sin will be punished. However, God doesn't want to send anyone to hell. He created it for the devil and his angels, not human beings. He loves us, which is why God sent His only Son to bear the punishment for our sins, in our place, so we wouldn't have to go to hell. He took all of our sins upon Himself on the cross, and died in our place.
Now, because of Jesus, we can be forgiven and go free. Jesus paid our fine in full. This is the good news, that through Jesus our sins are forgiven, and that He grants us eternal life. Pray to Jesus Christ and ask Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior, and you will be saved.


~

No bible was used in the making of this video, because it is factually incorrect. If you have to distort something to mock it you don't have a case..I thought atheists liked to boast about their bible knowledge?

Eve was tempted by Satan, not a talking snake. Adam and Eve both sinned when they ate the fruit, but the crime was not eating fruit, it was disobeying God. Their sin brought death into the world.

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

Jesus and the Father are not the same person. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, but they are both God. God is three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not impregnate Mary; the Father sent the third person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit, in this wise:

"And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God."

Jesus did not sacrifice Himself to Himself. Again, the Father and the Son are not the same person. He was an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. He bore the punishment (death) for all sins so that through Him, we could be forgiven for our sins and be given eternal life.

"This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins"

A dead body was not required for Gods plan of redemption, to correct the mistakes human beings made. What was required was a man who lived a perfect, sinless life in total obedience to God. Since no human being could fulfill that requirement, God sent His Son in our place.

"Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.

For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ."

People are not sent to hell for doubting the love of God. They are sent to hell for their sins. God offers forgiveness to every single person, and He does not desire that any should perish, but that all will come to repentance. Never the less, because God is Holy and just, He will punish all sin.

People are not saved by taking the sacraments. That is a catholic ritual. We are only saved by faith in Jesus Christ, and that faith alone will justify us before God. We eat bread and drink of the fruit of the vine in remembrance of Him, but that is all.

The Kingdom of Heaven is not in the sky. The Kingdom of Heaven is on Earth, and will be in this Universe. We are not going anywhere. We will experience life as God had originally designed it, here on Earth, before the fall.

The gospel is simple:

We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and the wages of our sin is death. Because of sin we are spiritually separated from God and headed for His prison called hell. He has set a day to judge the world, and on that day all sin will be punished. However, God doesn't want to send anyone to hell. He created it for the devil and his angels, not human beings. He loves us, which is why God sent His only Son to bear the punishment for our sins, in our place, so we wouldn't have to go to hell. He took all of our sins upon Himself on the cross, and died in our place.

Now, because of Jesus, we can be forgiven and go free. Jesus paid our fine in full. This is the good news, that through Jesus our sins are forgiven, and that He grants us eternal life. Pray to Jesus Christ and ask Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior, and you will be saved.

All my memories of childhood have morphed to become third person views due to pictures taken of me at the time.

She will remember this stuff the way it happened.

This father is a God.

In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
Are you trying to get me to self link? All right. I'll try to recreate this, but it will have to wait until I go to the grocery store again. We had pork chops last night, even, but they were the frozen variety.

I want fresh off the shelf pork chops for this. And I'll have to buy some Coke! Glorious excuse for it.

And why the fuck are you talking to me in third person? It's freaking me out.


Maybe the temperature of the pork meat have something to do with it. The pork seen in the video you uploaded seemed more firm, while pork from other debunking videos looked thawed.

Are you trying to get me to self link? All right. I'll try to recreate this, but it will have to wait until I go to the grocery store again. We had pork chops last night, even, but they were the frozen variety.

I want fresh off the shelf pork chops for this. And I'll have to buy some Coke! Glorious excuse for it.

And why the fuck are you talking to me in third person? It's freaking me out.
>> ^legacy0100:

>> ^UsesProzac:
>>
I stated earlier that I had seen that, and they couldn't recreate it. No little white dots appeared and rose up. I've done this on my own with chops.
So to say that's a proven false is ambiguous at best.
Edit: Everyone should try it on their own. Each of the times I did at Sunflower Market, it happened. This was with organic, free range pork chops. I really don't know if they're worms, but we called them worms then and it was definitely yucky looking and worth a laugh in the back rooms.

You have it all backwards Prozac. The video is proven false because many others failed to recreate the same result the video claimed under the same presented condition. There are numerous articles and videos pointing out that they could not duplicate the claimed results (http://youtu.be/B-oapHo-gdU). The fact that others cannot duplicate the same results makes the original video's claim inaccurate. It's Scientific Method 101 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility)
If you are to argue that the duplicators have failed to carry the experiment properly, then you must provide evidence where the duplicated experiments have done wrong. It's a pretty darn simple experiment and it's rather hard to screw up. If there were other important preexisting conditions that had to be met prior to executing the experiment, then the original video should have stated these conditions. The video claims 'pour coke', 'over the pork' and '2 minutes'. People have followed the instructions, didn't see same result. Therefore the suggested hypothesis claimed by the video cannot be proven.
Also, Trichinella spiralis is quasi-microscopic. It is TINY and barely visible to the naked human eye. Try to Googling a photo of it and you'll only find microscopic images. Therefore, the so-called 'worms' visible in video cannot be Trichinella spiralis.
UsesProzac claims she's done the experiment and have seen 'something yucky'. Chances are that it wasn't Trichinella spiralis since they can't be seen by the naked eye. Perhaps she did see 'something yucky', but as to what that is, remains a mystery. No one has seen it but her, and it's her objective opinion claiming that it looked like a worm. I suggest UsesProzac upload a video of her experiment. Shot continuously without break in between, and in high quality so that the results are visible. Otherwise the existing evidence all over the net are stacked against you.

I agree with you in principle but s**t man, relax. It's only the internets. >> ^jackhalfaprayer:

argumentum ad hominem. it's not my job to do better; it's rockstar's job to do better. we weren't talking about me or anyone else until you changed the subject. i'd say that bethesda has been doing better open world games since the mid-to-late 90's, konami's silent hill series has been better at telling stories (read: making one feel like playing through a movie, which rockstar wishes they could accomplish), and just about any third-person game from tomb raider to max payne has a better 3-rd person targeting system than that broken-ass excuse rockstar has been trying to fix for 10 iterations or so. so pretty much everything that GTA has been mashing up into a huge meaningless sandbox of drivel has been done before in a less broken fashion, with more variety, less linearity, less repetitive gameplay, and without falling back on hopelessly cliche, hackneyed mafioso stereotypes and slipshod driving mechanics.
but if you wanted to give me money to write a game and pay some programmers and artists and designers, absolutely! i'd be happy to present to you a game that is better than anything rockstar has produced to date. until then, fanboy, defend this mediocre studio with some actual points instead an ad hominem logical fallacy... or just stfu about what i or anyone else should be doing better than rockstar. rockstar puts out unoriginal crap with semi-impressive tech and people like you eat it up, bloat their egos, and line the pockets of corporate lackeys that are afraid to do anything new with an old IP. there's better work out there. you must not hear about it because it's not mentioned in your gamepro subscription. so go preorder this re-hash bullshit, and rest ignorant of the knowledge that people like you are destroying this industry, and this community, by buying into the hype machine of some fake gangster-sim crap with nothing new to offer since version III. and don't tell me that I should put up with it because there's nothing better out there, wtf sort of defense is that?
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^jackhalfaprayer:
GTA III was the last time there was any innovation in this series. I'm tired of sandbox missions with a half-assed organized crime drama throughline. I'd rather watch Goodfellas or something where there's real writing and acting. Rockstar games are overhyped and underdeveloped.

You...or ANYONE do better. Seriously we've seen other sandbox games try and fail...this is like criticizing WoW for being what it is. Do something better or accept that this is as good as it gets right now and shut up.

argumentum ad hominem. it's not my job to do better; it's rockstar's job to do better. we weren't talking about me or anyone else until you changed the subject. i'd say that bethesda has been doing better open world games since the mid-to-late 90's, konami's silent hill series has been better at telling stories (read: making one feel like playing through a movie, which rockstar wishes they could accomplish), and just about any third-person game from tomb raider to max payne has a better 3-rd person targeting system than that broken-ass excuse rockstar has been trying to fix for 10 iterations or so. so pretty much everything that GTA has been mashing up into a huge meaningless sandbox of drivel has been done before in a less broken fashion, with more variety, less linearity, less repetitive gameplay, and without falling back on hopelessly cliche, hackneyed mafioso stereotypes and slipshod driving mechanics.

but if you wanted to give me money to write a game and pay some programmers and artists and designers, absolutely! i'd be happy to present to you a game that is better than anything rockstar has produced to date. until then, fanboy, defend this mediocre studio with some actual points instead an ad hominem logical fallacy... or just stfu about what i or anyone else should be doing better than rockstar. rockstar puts out unoriginal crap with semi-impressive tech and people like you eat it up, bloat their egos, and line the pockets of corporate lackeys that are afraid to do anything new with an old IP. there's better work out there. you must not hear about it because it's not mentioned in your gamepro subscription. so go preorder this re-hash bullshit, and rest ignorant of the knowledge that people like you are destroying this industry, and this community, by buying into the hype machine of some fake gangster-sim crap with nothing new to offer since version III. and don't tell me that I should put up with it because there's nothing better out there, wtf sort of defense is that?

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^jackhalfaprayer:
GTA III was the last time there was any innovation in this series. I'm tired of sandbox missions with a half-assed organized crime drama throughline. I'd rather watch Goodfellas or something where there's real writing and acting. Rockstar games are overhyped and underdeveloped.

You...or ANYONE do better. Seriously we've seen other sandbox games try and fail...this is like criticizing WoW for being what it is. Do something better or accept that this is as good as it gets right now and shut up.

>> ^luxury_pie:

@Boise_Lib can comment on comments commenting commentary in third person, neat!


Stop! I'm getting dizzy.

@Boise_Lib can comment on comments commenting commentary in third person, neat!

It's a strange facet of youth culture, that you openly ignore even processing information which runs contrary to your preconceived notions. That's what we call willful ignorance. I don't think that you have considered these issues very deeply if you feel that anything anyone mentioned here in this thread "completely annihilated" any of the points in the video. I'm sure it gave you a little thrill though to have all your views confirmed and not have to think too hard about it. In any case, if insulting me and speaking about me in the third person is your contribution to this thread, I think the truth about your understanding of this is self-evident at this point.

>> ^Boise_Lib:
Well I just found the purpose for which sb was put on the earth--to provide amusement.
Really Dumb video. And scrolling down and reading every point completely annihilated; I don't even have to read anything he writes (I know all their stupidity by heart--I was raised eyes deep in this shit).

>> ^Revenant2428:

Seeing this again after just playing Dead Space 2 makes me think that this movie had to be a huge inspiration to the devs that made the Dead Space games.


Also, "The Thing" is actually a pretty kickass game for the first xbox and ps2 that serves as a sequel for the movie. John Carpenter helped with production and even has a character in it modeled after him. As a third-person survival game with lots of action, half-human alien-bug monsters, and the isolation of the Antarctic base it's basically an early Dead Space. If you see it in a bargain bin somewhere pick it up, good times will be had.