ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amy Coney Barrett , People of Praise , Supreme Court nominees

Reply
Old 13th October 2020, 09:34 AM   #41
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,776
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
That's not an answer though, that's just her repeating her job back to us. She's a high level Federal Judge being speed laned to the highest court in the land. She should have some answers ready. That's not asking too much.

But no we're supposed to believe that she's been in high level law for years and where she stands on the biggest legal issues of the day have just never crossed her mind.

We're asking her opinion, not for her legal decisions.

It's like at a job interview to be a mechanic you were asked "How would you replace the fuel pump on a '87 Honda Civic" and your answer was "Well I would replace it according to the procedures for replacing an '87 Honda Civic fuel." It's a mathematician's answer, a non-answer.


No when asked she started to hem and haw and refuse to commit.
She even taught law. The whole system is structured around hypothetical questions.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 09:35 AM   #42
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,732
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
If she expects to recuse herself from death penalty questions because of her religious beliefs, why wouldn't she then be expected to recuse herself from abortion questions for the same reason of religious beliefs? Isn't that inconsistent?

I think she would say that the death penalty question is whether the state itself has the right to kill people; the abortion question is whether abortion has Constitutional protection, or whether the matter should be left to state legislatures. I can see a difference.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 09:37 AM   #43
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,222
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Don't know
If you don't know the origin of your position, it may well be a straw man. You certainly can't say that it isn't a straw man, at least.

Also, what happened to not having opinions on stuff to avoid having a burden of proof for stuff?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 11:23 AM   #44
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,686
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
This is lady sure is pleading the 5th a lot for someone who's not actually on trial.

Roe Vs Wade? "I don't want to give an answer."
Can Trump cancel the election? "Well if that happens I'll have to weight the pros and cons carefully..."
Is water wet? "I don't want to commit to answer right now..."

You are aware that making definitive, final decisions is literally going to be your only job right?

But not making definitive, final decisions on the spur of the moment without listening to the arguments on both sides. Judges are supposed to be impartial and judge each case on the merits, not their personal views.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 11:30 AM   #45
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 29,407
I can scarcely imagine a more pointless exercise than these hearings. Nothing is being learned, no minds are being changed.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 11:33 AM   #46
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,821
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
But not making definitive, final decisions on the spur of the moment without listening to the arguments on both sides. Judges are supposed to be impartial and judge each case on the merits, not their personal views.
We're not asking for her definitive, final decisions. We're asking for her opinions and some context on the matters.

We can't go:

"Okay lady we're about to put you on the highest court of the land, arguably making you one of the 9 most powerful people in the government. What are your opinions on X?"

*Coyish giggle* "Well you'll just have to wait until that question makes it to the courts to find out now won't you? Tee hee hee."

She can give us some suggestion of some of her opinions now. It's not asking too much.
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 11:36 AM   #47
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,821
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
I can scarcely imagine a more pointless exercise than these hearings. Nothing is being learned, no minds are being changed.
I'm literally 100% understanding why she isn't already verified. What are they waiting on? Is Susan Collins still pretending to furrow her brow?
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 12:03 PM   #48
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 23,654
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
I can scarcely imagine a more pointless exercise than these hearings. Nothing is being learned, no minds are being changed.
And the outcome is predetermined.
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 01:19 PM   #49
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,732
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
And the outcome is predetermined.
Maybe so, but the discussion is putting important issues on the record. The Democrats are presenting specific cases of people whose lives were saved by the ACA, and who might die if it's repealed. That takes it out of the realm of legal theory. She is being challenged now on her positions regarding gun control, particularly permitting access by felons. There has also been intelligent discussion of the meaning of the establishment clause, the definition and application of originalism, etc. Both sides are engaging in responsible commentary. Hearings like this really are an insight into how the judiciary works.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 02:00 PM   #50
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,732
Sen. Hirona is challenging Barrett on her use of the term "sexual preference," as if it's casual choice, rather than biological "sexual orientation," and sees it as worrisome for gay marriage and other LGBTQ rights.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 02:20 PM   #51
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,222
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Sen. Hirona is challenging Barrett on her use of the term "sexual preference," as if it's casual choice, rather than biological "sexual orientation," and sees it as worrisome for gay marriage and other LGBTQ rights.
I think if you laid Stretch Armstrong, Plastic Man, Mister Fantastic, and Ms Marvel end to end, they still wouldn't be able to stretch as far as Senator Hirona.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 02:33 PM   #52
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,732
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I think if you laid Stretch Armstrong, Plastic Man, Mister Fantastic, and Ms Marvel end to end, they still wouldn't be able to stretch as far as Senator Hirona.

What's that even supposed to mean? She's not the only person who has expressed concern.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...ence-term.html
https://thehill.com/changing-america...arretts-use-of
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 02:43 PM   #53
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,222
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
What's that even supposed to mean? She's not the only person who has expressed concern.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...ence-term.html
https://thehill.com/changing-america...arretts-use-of
It means that it's a colossal stretch to try to find something objectionable in her position. It's semantic kremlinology.

The fact that Slate and The Hill buy into it doesn't surprise me, and also doesn't change my opinion of it.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 02:57 PM   #54
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,732
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It means that it's a colossal stretch to try to find something objectionable in her position. It's semantic kremlinology.

The fact that Slate and The Hill buy into it doesn't surprise me, and also doesn't change my opinion of it.

And people who seem to know quite a bit more than you about the subject say your opinion is wrong. Calling somebody "colored" used to be perfectly acceptable, too, but times change.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 03:31 PM   #55
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,222
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
And people who seem to know quite a bit more than you about the subject say your opinion is wrong. Calling somebody "colored" used to be perfectly acceptable, too, but times change.
"Know quite a bit more"? It's not a question of knowledge, it's a question of semantic preference. Just because some people have decided this is the new terminology, it doesn't mean it's caught on yet, or that the new usage is widespread. It doesn't even mean everyone has heard of it. And of course it doesn't mean that those who haven't yet adopted it are signaling some kind of dissenting worldview.

As you say, "colored" used to be perfectly acceptable. If someone back then had heard you use it (which you would, because it was perfectly acceptable), and said, "me and my friends decided this morning that the correct term is 'African American', and you saying 'colored' indicates you may be a racist", you'd laugh in their face and kick them to the curb.

Now, going on sixty years and two generations later, it's a different story, of course.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 03:54 PM   #56
jerrywayne
Graduate Poster
 
jerrywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,078
I hear Ms. Barrett will argue that she supports government health care programs, but only the health care that was available during the writing of the U.S. Constitution.

(I cribbed the above from humorist Andy Borowitz).
jerrywayne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 03:55 PM   #57
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,128
Quote:
Barrett refused to say whether she agreed with the landmark 2015 Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex marriage is a constitutionally protected right.

Barrett said recently that she held the same judicial philosophy as the conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked in the late 1990s. Scalia dissented in the Obergefell case.

"I have no agenda, and I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference," Barrett said in response to questioning about Obergefell on Tuesday. "Like racism, I think discrimination is abhorrent."
Quote:
From 2015 to 2017, Barrett served on the board of trustees of Trinity Schools Incorporated, a group of Indiana private schools that in 2014 adopted a policy of barring children with unmarried parents from attending the school, The New York Times reported. Former Trinity staffers told The Times that because same-sex marriage was banned in Indiana at the time, this was clearly designed to bar the children of same-sex couples.
https://www.businessinsider.com/amy-...erence-2020-10

Obergefell v. Hodges began in 2012. All courts ruled in favor of the plaintiff. It was pretty clear as the case wound its way to the SC that it could also well find in favor of Obergefell and the right of same sex marriage. Note that the school adopted the policy in 2014 and Barrett joined the Board shortly thereafter with the SC hearing the case in April 2015. Coincidence? Sure.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 03:57 PM   #58
jerrywayne
Graduate Poster
 
jerrywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,078
A harsh assessment of Ms. Barrett's purpose.

https://www.salon.com/2020/10/13/why...oll-feminists/
jerrywayne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 04:21 PM   #59
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,128
Originally Posted by jerrywayne View Post
A harsh assessment of Ms. Barrett's purpose.

https://www.salon.com/2020/10/13/why...oll-feminists/
Interesting article. Regarding women and having children, my daughter is 27 and is very adamant that she does not want children. She has never liked children and hasn't got a maternal bone in her body. Give her a puppy and she goes all gooey but try and put a baby in her arms and she cringes.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 05:14 PM   #60
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 29,407
My predictions, in order of time:
1. The committee will send the nomination to the full Senate on a party line vote.
2. The Senate will confirm, by a party line vote.
3. The election will happen. Republicans will file multiple lawsuits to overturn the results.
4. Even before the above is settled, Barrett will join a 5-4 majority to deprive millions of Americans of healthcare.
5. Barrett will join a 6-3 or 5-4 majority to overturn the will of the people and make Donald Trump the winner of the election.
6. Barrett will join a 6-3 or 5-4 majority to overturn Roe and Obergfell, probably before the end of 2021.
7. We are all so screwed.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 05:20 PM   #61
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,222
It'll be interesting to come back in 2022 and see how many of these predictions come true.


I predict all the confirmation related ones will come true. None of the court decision predictions will come true. I have no idea about the election predictions.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 05:46 PM   #62
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,358
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Interesting article. Regarding women and having children, my daughter is 27 and is very adamant that she does not want children. She has never liked children and hasn't got a maternal bone in her body. Give her a puppy and she goes all gooey but try and put a baby in her arms and she cringes.
Barrett would like you to know that your daughter's purpose is to make and raise children.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 05:52 PM   #63
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,222
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Barrett would like you to know that your daughter's purpose is to make and raise children.
I mean, in terms of evolutionary biology...
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 05:57 PM   #64
gypsyjackson
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 929
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I'd like to see some evidence of that.
Itís putting it strongly, for sure!

National Catholic Reporter reviews papal visit to the Philippines

Originally Posted by NCR
Pope Francis issued a firm warning Friday against what he calls an "ideological colonization" of family life, in an apparent reference to efforts to legalize same-sex marriage and to the use of contraception.

Some groups have noted that he also had the chance to speak out against killings but didnít:

Outright Internationalís take
gypsyjackson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 05:59 PM   #65
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,776
If I were a senator, I would hope I wouldn't care what party was involved and vote against any nominee that evasive.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 06:15 PM   #66
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,222
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If I were a senator, I would hope I wouldn't care what party was involved and vote against any nominee that evasive.
OLOL.

The only way to be a Senator is to want to be a Senator, and then make it happen. And the only way to make it happen is to get elected. Which means caring about party and voting for whatever gets you re-elected.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 06:45 PM   #67
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,128
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I mean, in terms of evolutionary biology...
Sure. Girls can start churning them out as early as 9-10 years old in terms of evolutionary biology...
Fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, and sisters and brothers can procreate in terms of evolutionary biology.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 06:57 PM   #68
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle View Post
You'd be surprised. The current pope once endorsed the killings of LGBT+ people when visiting the Philippines.
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I'd like to see some evidence of that.
Originally Posted by gypsyjackson View Post
Itís putting it strongly, for sure!

National Catholic Reporter reviews papal visit to the Philippines




Some groups have noted that he also had the chance to speak out against killings but didnít:

Outright Internationalís take
IOW, there is no evidence the Pope ever "endorsed the killings of LGBT+ people". I didn't think so.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 07:03 PM   #69
gypsyjackson
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 929
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
IOW, there is no evidence the Pope ever "endorsed the killings of LGBT+ people". I didn't think so.
Yeah, I think in general recent Popes have tended to avoid endorsing murder. Not like the good old days.
gypsyjackson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 07:07 PM   #70
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,222
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Sure. Girls can start churning them out as early as 9-10 years old in terms of evolutionary biology...
Fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, and sisters and brothers can procreate in terms of evolutionary biology.
If you can't trust evolutionary biology, what can you trust? Certainly not people who set aside evolutionary biology without having some sort of evolutionary argument for why it's no longer useful.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 07:16 PM   #71
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,128
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If you can't trust evolutionary biology, what can you trust? Certainly not people who set aside evolutionary biology without having some sort of evolutionary argument for why it's no longer useful.
When you have an argument that makes some sort of sense, get back to me.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 07:53 PM   #72
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 29,407
Originally Posted by gypsyjackson View Post
Yeah, I think in general recent Popes have tended to avoid endorsing murder. Not like the good old days.
What's worse, murder or just condemning someone to eternal damnation?
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 08:02 PM   #73
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 57,479
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
What's worse, murder or just condemning someone to eternal damnation?
Well, one of those two things is actually possible, so it's worse. Imaginary horrors, however dreadful, can't compete with real ones.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 11:05 PM   #74
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 13,970
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
My predictions, in order of time:
1. The committee will send the nomination to the full Senate on a party line vote.
2. The Senate will confirm, by a party line vote.
3. The election will happen. Republicans will file multiple lawsuits to overturn the results.
4. Even before the above is settled, Barrett will join a 5-4 majority to deprive millions of Americans of healthcare.
5. Barrett will join a 6-3 or 5-4 majority to overturn the will of the people and make Donald Trump the winner of the election.
6. Barrett will join a 6-3 or 5-4 majority to overturn Roe and Obergfell, probably before the end of 2021.
7. We are all so screwed.
I can imagine Barrett and other Trump appointed justices voting against the Donald. It would be a show of independence that could enable decades of conservative court dominance. Now, this only applies if the outcome of Trump's lawsuit is uncertain (maybe it delays the vote counting process, or casts doubt). If the court's ruling ensures Trump gets four more years, then, yeah, I can see them doing that.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 11:06 PM   #75
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
 
fishbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chilly Undieville
Posts: 7,249
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I mean, in terms of evolutionary biology...
As full as the planet is, the terms of evolutionary biology need to evolve pretty quickly or in terms of evolutionary biology a whole bunch of large monkey derived mammals are fixing to become extinct.
__________________
"When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder.
"It looks like the saddest, most crookedest candy corn in an otherwise normal bag of candy corns." Stormy Daniels
I hate bigots.
fishbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2020, 11:26 PM   #76
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,544
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If you can't trust evolutionary biology, what can you trust? Certainly not people who set aside evolutionary biology without having some sort of evolutionary argument for why it's no longer useful.
Just populate away like animals until resources become so scarce we all starve or fight to the death for what little there is. Just like any other unregulated species that has uncontested hegemony over all others, resulting in its own eventual demise as nature eventually imposes her implacable laws.

Or avoid the whole nightmare of the result of hitting the population limit by exercising the controls our intelligence and knowledge permit, enjoying a life without want of the necessities, and even some comfort and happiness.

Just like the religious, anti-science camp to fail.to see the potentialities of self destruction that await the apex species as it pushes out others, consuming all. To fail to perceive that the planet cannot magically make many loaves from one, there being finite resources. To fail to look farther off than today, expecting Sky Daddy to ever provide into perpetuity.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 12:04 AM   #77
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 28,051
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Sen. Hirona Hirona is challenging Barrett on her use of the term "sexual preference," as if it's casual choice, rather than biological "sexual orientation," and sees it as worrisome for gay marriage and other LGBTQ rights.
Really? Is that a controversial term?

I think that even if we are talking about something as a preference, then:

a) it would not mean that the preference is not determined (or even strongly influenced) by biological factors

and

b) why should there even be a moral distinction between someone being born with a sexual orientation or a "freely chosen" (to the extent that any concept of "free choice" is even coherent) one?

Oh, I forget.... America and Jesus F Christ!
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

Last edited by angrysoba; 14th October 2020 at 12:06 AM.
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 06:37 AM   #78
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,776
Unfortunately, based on her work it appears she won't be a vote to overturn brown v board. If a judge is not willing to fix past errors, then they shouldn't be a supreme court justice.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 06:54 AM   #79
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,222
Is that an axiom, or derived?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 06:55 AM   #80
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,776
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Is that an axiom, or derived?
None of your business
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:35 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.