Allegro.cc - Online Community
Post Reply

Allegro.cc Forums » Allegro.cc Comments » Thread locks too soon

rss feed Print
Thread locks too soon
bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

raynebc said:

I suppose this is progress at least:
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/442683-scientists-say-theyve-invented-recyclable-plastic

If the existing plastic is too hard to recycle, make a better plastic.

I'll believe it when I see it. Wikipedia doesn't know what polydiketoenamine is yet so I'd say it's a long way off from really being practical. And even if it's really recyclable, unless it's cheaper than traditional plastic, or governments outlaw other types of plastic, it won't actually fix the problem. People are assholes, and will not do the "right" thing on average unless you force them to or unless it's more convenient than the wrong thing (which is rare).

NiteHackr
Member #2,229
April 2002

It really astounds me just how over reliant we have become on plastic. Just looking at my groceries I really notice it. Get a drink, it's in a plastic bottle with a plastic cap etc... in my youth it was a glass bottle with a metal top you used a bottle opener on (or a newer twist top, which was still metal).

You could get fresh bread which was FAR better from a baker that was put in a paper bag. Veggies were in these wood/weaved baskets, or cardboard+wood baskets. Chip dip was in an aluminum container well into the 80s if I recall. Your garbage was in a metal garbage can which was emptied into the dumptruck when it passed by. We had paper straws, I think they may have been wax coated, been a while, tough to remember.

The worst offenders are those products you buy which are all in a plastic container, you open it up and each item inside is individually wrapped in plastic as well.

I think we should implement a strategy to gradually go back to those days. It would make us far less reliant on oil and God knows we have enough trees, especially in Canada, and they are a renewable resource.

--
Deluxe Pacman 1 & 2 (free) with source code available
https://nitehackr.github.io/games_index.html

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

NiteHackr said:

Heavy metals in the ground water? Huh? Lay off the crack Edgar.

I don't smoke crack Neil, that's whack. ;)

Old electronics = Lead soldier, and other metals = Heavy metal

Throwing them away = Heavy metal in the ground water

Recycle your old electronics please...

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

We do need to be concerned with deforestation too. Trees are renewable, but it does take time to renew so they are not an infinite resource. We need to manage them, meaning for every tree we cut down we must plant another one to eventually replace it, and we need to limit our consumption of trees to a reasonable level so that there is always a healthy population of mature trees nation-wide. The forests are vital for wildlife that depend on them for their habitat (or for vital resources, such as food), and we also depend on these resources. So yes, utilizing more paper products instead of long-term plastics is a welcome idea, but we still need to also strictly regulate it to prevent evil corporations from ultimately harming the environment.

Append:

I wonder too if we shouldn't be dedicating land to long-term forests with the goal of trying to grow massive trees like those that used to exist before man came to this land. The ones that are like 20 feet in diameter. I think it would be nice to be able to experience trees the way they were intended to be, and they may also have unique properties that their less mature brethren do not possess.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Guess what else our beloved Dump Pump Trump has been doing? Systematically removing protection from Federal lands and endangered species. Not to mention trying to redefine poverty levels to be even freaking lower than they are now. So poor people get even less to live on.

I'm surprised no one's been discussing the few states that have enacted abortion bans. I love how women don't want men to control their bodies, but they repeatedly show they can't be trusted to do so responsibly. ::)

Most things that can be made from wood fiber, can easily be made with hemp fiber instead - paper, cloth, etc...

And then there's hempcrete, which is fireproof and a perfect replacement for concrete.

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

"Poor" people in the USA are richer in this generation than any previous generation.

Roe vs. Wade deserves to be overturned. The deep blue states that want to continue to kill their offspring for convenience (as nearly all cases of abortion are) can do so while the others limit as they see fit. If it was only a woman's body involved, most people wouldn't give a damn, but too many pro-choicers are not honest enough to admit a fetus is a separate human body inside of the mother's body.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Except they still can't afford rent or food or medical care. ::)

You know what's wrong with this world? All the god damn vampires who prey on the weak.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

A fetus is no more human than a mole rat. There's no good reason to force a couple of cells that accidentally fertilized to control the lives of 3 people. When we know that it can be stopped painlessly in various ways, and depending on the circumstances it'll be coming into it might be really bad luck anyway. The only justification is that many women apparently experience permanent emotional suffering as a result. That said, they should still be free to do so if they so desire.

Just because you get pregnant doesn't mean you were being irresponsible. The only 100% safe sex is no sex at all. It's theoretically possible to still get pregnant on birth control. And it's pretty common to still get pregnant when condoms are used. A doctor once asked us if we were trying to have a baby because my wife isn't on any birth control system. We said we use condoms. And the doctor repeated, "So you're trying to get pregnant!?"

Mostly it has to do with the system crushing us. A few generations ago people could afford to have 4 or 5 or even 10 kids. These days it's hard to afford one. That's what it ultimately comes down to. Money. If we didn't have to worry about money (i.e., our basics needs were met) then having a child would be so much easier. All you'd do is care for it with everything you need already available. That would be your whole day. That's easy. That's not what abortion is about.

Abortion is about irresponsible drug addicts or something that have unprotected sex because they're reckless people and get pregnant. That child is going to have a very hard life, and probably be steered into the same bad choices simply because of the environment it was born into. Or worse. Possibly much worse if the parents have no morals.

Or hell, abortion is about a lower-middle class family that literally cannot afford a child (or another child). It's one thing to protect the baby's rights once it's born. It's impossible for us to know exactly when the "lights come on", but it's fair to say they don't fully come on until at least birth.

It really makes no sense for "God" to care about abortion. He is fine will all sorts of other killing, in fact he loves it, and is the world's greatest assassin.

It would be fine if the argument against abortion was reasonable, but it's irrational. It's fine for us to kill all sorts of plants and animals in the world, some of them very intelligent, but it's suddenly wrong to stop the development of an incomplete human with the intelligence equivalent to either a rock or perhaps a mosquito.

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

Bam failed biology class is seems. A human fetus is human. There are democrats that even refused to vote for a bill requiring that if a baby is born during a failed abortion, the doctor must give it the same life giving care that a normally born baby would receive. Passing through the vaginal canal being the fine line between "clump of cells" and human being is broken logic, but not atypical from what I've heard from pro choice people. Other popular, arbitrary criteria include "sentience", "intelligence" or merely whether the mother wants it to continue living.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

It doesn't matter that a fetus is human (so is my toe, but if it's magically living without me I suggest you shoot it).

What matters is that the fetus is not yet alive. It has never been alive. It cannot live on its own. It's effectively a parasite at least until late in the pregnancy. And even then it has the intelligence of, I don't know, a dodo bird if it's lucky. If it's OK to kill animals, like say a mosquito, just because it's inconvenient, then it's also perfectly OK to stop the development of a fetus.

The only people that assign a fetus magical worth is religious people, and we all know what logical thinking they possess and what brilliant decisions they make. ::) It's not even about the fetus. It's basically about it's doctrine being challenged. They couldn't care less about the actual life forms being affected. It's all about protecting the political power that indoctrination affords the church.

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

Your toe isn't a dinstinct human organism with its own DNA. A fetus, scientifically, a living human organism. Legally, it doesn't have rights because of leftist judges. Newborn babies can't live on their own, but they are considered legal persons. An animal's own offspring does not qualify as a parasite by medical definitions. A human life has more worth than a mosquito's. I'm not religious, but I believe human lives have worth.

Every single one of your statements was blatantly wrong, you're extremely unqualified to be having this argument.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Let's make sure to outlaw jerking off and ovulating. Wasted babies, you know. ALL human life is precious...::)

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

raynebc said:

Your toe isn't a dinstinct human organism with its own DNA.

Why does it matter that it's a human organism at all? Millions of kilograms of human DNA are dumped on the ground daily. That's an arbitrary line to draw. We kill thousands or millions of humans every year. The whole thing. Your government in particular. So that's not a valid argument unless you also oppose all of the other terminations.

raynebc said:

A fetus, scientifically, a living human organism.

Science is knowledge. It's not a magical club that gets to decide things. A fetus is an incomplete life form. It is incapable of surviving on its own for even a minute. It does not have full functioning organs. Everything is developing, and it takes time before it all comes online. It is but a stage of development from cells to animal. It is not an animal yet. It's basically an extension of the mother's body for several months.

raynebc said:

Legally, it doesn't have rights because of leftist judges.

It doesn't have rights because it doesn't deserve them. Any more than a spider or fly. It isn't a conscious being. It cannot feel pain. And affording it rights requires violating the rights of the mother and father, which we know for a fact are intelligent, conscious beings. And actually human, for that matter.

raynebc said:

Newborn babies can't live on their own, but they are considered legal persons.

They can survive on their own for hours. Possibly even a couple of days under ideal circumstances. They really only need their parents to provide them with food, clean up their waste, and keep them safe from hazards and other animals (human or otherwise) that wish to harm them (and teaching them things helps too, but isn't strictly necessary). Just like an infant lion.

A fetus relies on its mother for everything. Nutrients, waste disposal, oxygen, and hormones. Everything it needs is delivered by the mother-to-be.

raynebc said:

An animal's own offspring does not qualify as a parasite by medical definitions.

That's just semantics. A parasite is an invader, but obviously offspring are not. Interestingly, if it weren't for the blood-barrier the red/white cells of the mother would actually treat the fetus as an invader and attack it.

raynebc said:

A human life has more worth than a mosquito's. I'm not religious, but I believe human lives have worth.

I would agree with that, but where we differ is in the definition of a human life.

raynebc said:

Every single one of your statements was blatantly wrong, you're extremely unqualified to be having this argument.

Classic "I have no argument" tactic. Attacking the other person's qualifications for having the argument, despite neither one of you being a professional in the field. :P

Nothing I've said is blatantly wrong. It's subjective. There is no right or wrong. There's no universal answer. It's up to individual people deciding how they think of it and then a group of us coming to a consensus.

If a fetus is a human life then why don't we have ceremonies for their "deaths"? That alone shows how little we value them. For the most part, the only thing we do after a fetus is lost (i.e., miscarriage) is people, mostly women, provide emotional support for the would-be parents, mostly the woman. In some crazy circumstances the would-be mother might want funeral arrangements, but that's not common and most people wouldn't attend such an event. It's more for the mother's mental health than anything.

Interestingly, hospitals generally consider a miscarriage before 20 - 24 weeks (~4 - 5 months) as "clinical waste" (i.e., biological garbage). It wouldn't be cremated or buried, but bagged up and shipped off to be incinerated with the rest of the biological garbage. No birth or death certificate is issued, and it's also entirely legal to bury it in your backyard next to your dog. And estimates place the number of miscarriages at about 15-20% of pregnancies. That's a whole lot. I'm not sure if that counts the abortions too, or if those are a separate number.

Clearly, they are not as valuable as a human life. It's preposterous to suggest that they are. It's not helping anyone or anything. If anything it's doing more harm than good.

LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
avatar

raynebc said:

A human life has more worth than a mosquito's.

In order to prove that statement you need to prove what value a human life has, and what value a mosquito life has. Good luck doing that. Their is no "value" to life.

NiteHackr
Member #2,229
April 2002

These moments, with premature babies, quite capable of living, are beautiful...

video

video

This, is evil. If you support it, YOU are evil to the rotten core. Period.
{"name":"612018","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/0\/0\/006fe18e4f44723ce38e7b5c7e1200eb.jpg","w":501,"h":292,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/0\/0\/006fe18e4f44723ce38e7b5c7e1200eb"}612018

--
Deluxe Pacman 1 & 2 (free) with source code available
https://nitehackr.github.io/games_index.html

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

Edgar said:

Let's make sure to outlaw jerking off and ovulating.

Sperm and unfertilized eggs are not distinct human lives. Did you have even a quarter of a decent argument to make on this topic?

bamccaig said:

That's an arbitrary line to draw.

No it's not. If I was to terminate your life and put your entire body in a landfill, that would be wrong.

bamccaig said:

A fetus is an incomplete life form.

A toddler is an incomplete life form. Age doesn't change the fact that it is a human.

bamccaig said:

It is not an animal yet. It's basically an extension of the mother's body for several months.

It's attached to the mother's body out of necessity of the continuity of the species, but the fetus is still a distinct human body. Your opinion doesn't change fact.

bamccaig said:

It doesn't have rights because it doesn't deserve them.

Now you're getting more honest. You don't want it to have rights, so you decide it doesn't get to have them.

bamccaig said:

And actually human, for that matter.

And that honesty disappeared as quickly as it appeared. Only the most extreme of the pro-choice camp will so openly blare that the fetus isn't human so that's why it's OK to kill it.

bamccaig said:

That's just semantics. A parasite is an invader, but obviously offspring are not.

Don't make a comparison you know is obviously false. Obviously animals have the means to produce offspring or there would be no fauna on this planet.

bamccaig said:

I would agree with that, but where we differ is in the definition of a human life.

I'm going with the objective definition that it is an animal developing its own body with its own unique DNA. The science shows that the unique DNA is formed at conception and is the most medically justified point at which to say a life was created.

bamccaig said:

Classic "I have no argument" tactic.

Well, you don't seem to have much in the scope of good arguments here. There are objective truths in life and death, not everything is a liberal arts philosophy exercise.

bamccaig said:

If a fetus is a human life then why don't we have ceremonies for their "deaths"?

Some people do. Some courts prosecute people for double homicide when somebody murders a pregnant woman. Fetuses don't have legal personhood so their miscarriages aren't listed as deaths in public records, obituaries, etc.

bamccaig said:

That alone shows how little we value them.

You mean pro-choice advocates value them little. You seem to think the pro-life movement is a fringe element of society.

LennyLen said:

Their is no "value" to life.

You can't be reasoned with when you categorically have no respect for life regardless of the organism's age.

As I mentioned earlier, one of the truths that pro-choice advocates have so much trouble with is that the fetus is a human, by all objective knowledge. They have to deny this in order to shield themselves from the reality that nearly all abortions are to save themselves from inconvenience, so they can selfishly do what makes them feel good and have sex without living with the consequences of their actions.

If somebody was to admit that having an abortion is a terrible atrocity, but that they felt it was necessary for some reason, there could be room for sympathy. But then there are disgusting people that are proud to have abortions because their power over getting to say whether their offspring lives or dies gives them self-importance.

LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
avatar

raynebc said:

You can't be reasoned with when you categorically have no respect for life regardless of the organism's age.

You can't be reasoned with when you're a human who uses that fact to justify some meaningless value to human life.

So there you go, nobody can be reasoned with.

There is no right or wrong answer to the debate on abortion, as it all comes down to whatever values the individual has.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Neil Roy said:

Bloody mess

We're not talking about fully developed babies, Neil. Grow up, and don't post shit like that unless it's in spoiler tags. Do you butcher your own animals Neil? Then just shut the fuck up, because everyone else is doing the killing for you.

raynebc said:

You can't be reasoned with when you categorically have no respect for life regardless of the organism's age.

Nice wording rayne. "organism" would happen to include all biological life, now wouldn't it?

But neither of you have any respect for animal life. When you both turn vegan, then I'll listen to your opinions on abortion. Until then, just shut up because you're both hypocrites.

NiteHackr
Member #2,229
April 2002

We're not talking about fully developed babies, Neil.

The picture I posted IS OF AN ABORTION!!! What do you think they are murdering, eggs?! My wife was a premature baby, there are plenty of premature babies that survive outside the womb. They are no less a human being than you or I are!

Here, more images of what an abortion looks like, if you can't stomach it, than perhaps you need to re-evaluate your position on the support of such a horrendous crime!!! But I won't make it easier on you, because this crime against humanity infuriates me... if you support this, YOU... ARE... EVIL! And you will someday answer for your support of such evil, mark my words!

{"name":"612022","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/c\/5\/c5a6bebb26919423eb67a630ebf0e756.jpg","w":520,"h":310,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/c\/5\/c5a6bebb26919423eb67a630ebf0e756"}612022
{"name":"612021","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/4\/441252e6bf08e9c291cef34826c41746.jpg","w":259,"h":194,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/4\/441252e6bf08e9c291cef34826c41746"}612021
{"name":"612020","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/e\/4eab5f75fee26fae744142690975a6cc.jpg","w":400,"h":291,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/e\/4eab5f75fee26fae744142690975a6cc"}612020

^^ THAT IS WHAT YOU SUPPORT!!! >:(

--
Deluxe Pacman 1 & 2 (free) with source code available
https://nitehackr.github.io/games_index.html

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Neil Roy said:

More bloody messes

Nice, Neil, those are nearly full term abortions.

Most abortions are done within the first trimester, and they look nothing like that. There are laws to prevent things like that. But not all 'abortion' is murder. A fetus can't think / feel / take care of itself. It would not survive without its mother, and it is ultimately the mother's right to determine whether or not she should keep the child. She has her own health to consider, the life that the baby would have should she decide to keep it, and more.

And as for your pictures, You like being graphic Neil?

Well here ya go.

Can I interest you in a pork chop?
{"name":"p1050152_2.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/f\/1f6e9538f54d1c3572344a5fb8ca8b13.jpg","w":2536,"h":1312,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/f\/1f6e9538f54d1c3572344a5fb8ca8b13"}p1050152_2.jpg

How about a side of beef?
{"name":"stock-photo-hanging-on-hooks-in-the-cold-half-of-cows-283048190.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/2\/72cec95f9525a1b5273f77548a7ae9ae.jpg","w":450,"h":378,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/2\/72cec95f9525a1b5273f77548a7ae9ae"}stock-photo-hanging-on-hooks-in-the-cold-half-of-cows-283048190.jpg

Maybe you prefer lamb :
{"name":"maxresdefault.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/d\/2d4c50e6cb58ce63e6265db386524d6d.jpg","w":1280,"h":720,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/d\/2d4c50e6cb58ce63e6265db386524d6d"}maxresdefault.jpg

Or how about some chicken?
{"name":"dead-chicken.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/a\/a\/aa9e86c7781a1604ed3eed34a1977594.jpg","w":650,"h":391,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/a\/a\/aa9e86c7781a1604ed3eed34a1977594"}dead-chicken.jpg

Until you place the same value on animal life that you do on human life, I have zero respect for your opinion. ;)

In before the lock (deletion).

EDIT
One more thing. People like you are against abortion, yet you are also against birth control. Which is it man? People wouldn't need abortions if they had access to birth control. Fucking Catholic nutjobs.

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

Edgar: An organism is a distinct life form, and doesn't include an individual cell from an organism. That is why my skin cells aren't considered life forms. If you eat plants you are eating living things, so you are by definition as much a hypocrite as you claim me to be. I eat plants and animals, what my species is adapted to eating. Killing one's own young for convenience is unnatural and is not at all comparable to killing and eating an animal as has been done for millennia.

You continue to place arbitrary requirements before a living fetus has any right to live, but you do list feeling among them. Once it's demonstrated that a baby has a functioning nervous system, would you be fine with restricting its abortion because it could feel itself be torn apart?

People who use birth control still create offspring, does that surprise you? I'm not against birth control, you're making more over-broad assumptions just so you can try to make your stance less awful by comparison. My stance is balanced enough to exclude birth control from being considered murder because the pregnancy hasn't begun. If somebody takes direct action to terminate a pregnancy, I am against it.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

raynebc said:

Edgar: An organism is a distinct life form, and doesn't include an individual cell from an organism.

An organism is just a collection of cells. At what point is it alive? When it looks human? When it's heart beats? When it's brain thinks? When it's body feels? None of you can ever make up your minds about when a fetus becomes a human being.

An embryo is just a cell. It will mindlessly divide and replicate without any help from you or me or God or anybody else. But in the case of a human being, it would quickly die without the protective shelter of the womb. The ONLY thing keeping it alive is the mother, and if she sees fit not to carry the baby to term, that's HER decision. If it endangers her health, she has the RIGHT not to carry it. If she was raped, it's her RIGHT not to be forced to carry a rapist's baby. If she can't raise a baby on her own, and she isn't prepared to care for it, it's up to HER whether or not to bring the baby into the world. Not YOU, not ME, not THE POPE, not ROME, not anybody else.

I am steadily moving away from meat all the time. Lately I've been eating lot of tofu. And before you try to say I'm murdering soy beans, why don't you go out and slaughter your own meat if it's such a natural, okay thing to do. ;)

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

It's a human being from conception. That it has its own DNA and living cells means it's alive. It's pro-choice people who have a hard time pinning down the beginning of life because they want the option to kill their offspring.

Gametes are just cells from the parent, but when they fuse they result in a new cell with a combination of the parents' genes and unique DNA. It does not matter whether it would survive if artificially removed from the mother, it is a human by definition. It's pointless to continue this discussion as you aren't honest enough to admit that the real argument is whether it's OK for one human to choose to kill another human for convenience.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

You're right. This is a pointless discussion. ::)

Because you're a hypocrite, you believe in the 'sanctity of life' but only as long as its human. You're just as much a murderer as I am. That is the cold hard reality of humanity.

Do you remember anything before you were born?

Your argument is weak. An embryo could develop into a human, but only given support. It will never remember anything before it was born. Do you know most fertilized eggs are actually flushed out of a woman by her own body? So in your eyes she's committing murder, because all those fertilized eggs could have developed into human beings. You have no right to legislate what a women does with her own body. It's up to the mother to decide, not YOU.

Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010

These pictures are revolting. So the human dignity of these babies is best served by photographing their bodies and exposing them on the Internet?

What position would our "pro-life" camp take on rape?

Post Reply


Go to: