Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You asked the question. I answered. I think that's what you're supposed to do in discussions.
You're procedural concern/objection isn't warranted because there's no lawsuit, hence your objection is irrelevant. Now you have to answer the question posed, or will you then say that martians on mars don't have to answer questions if asked on a wednesday?
The very basis of his argument is the same with both cases based on the support I gave.
ETS has no scientific grounds for making its conclusions. It is based on assumptions driven through creative statistical manipulations and extremely poor test beds.
Much like the ETS "science" I also built a case using stress as a driver for such an issue. Each of my points are scientifically verifiable, stress does cause these illnesses, so therefore if a person can show that this issue causes them stress, then it is verifiable that it does in fact increase their danger.
That places him in standing to object. In fact, I could argue this case with more evidentual support than that of ETS which relies on "unknowns" to draw its conclusions. My examples are evident. Stress causes illness, abortion can cause stress. This by the very logic (much more supportable than ETS claims) shows that abortion causes heart disease and various other illness in people.
My argument is sound. Yes, it is based on an absurdity, but then... so is ETS dangers.
Your argument, based on an absurdity, is only sound if you can get a judge to buy into it. As long as you cannot, it doesn't matter how scientifically verifiable your information is. Because law, while desiring to be idealistic, is pragmatic in practice.
if you can ban smoking in bars because you don't like smoking, why can't I ban abortion in abortion clinics, because I don't like abortion?
This was your first post.
I responded that whether you like or don't like abortions has no bearing on their legality or illegality (banning). Because your liking them or not does not impart any standing to you.
This was an appropriate and accurate response to your question.
I responded that whether you like or don't like abortions has no bearing on their legality or illegality (banning). Because your liking them or not does not impart any standing to you.
This was an appropriate and accurate response to your question.
Your argument, based on an absurdity, is only sound if you can get a judge to buy into it. As long as you cannot, it doesn't matter how scientifically verifiable your information is. Because law, while desiring to be idealistic, is pragmatic in practice.
Oh come on now DC, you know it is a catch to the position. Your answer is one that says "I don't care if it is right or wrong, it is the law!" If that is the case, then any law is just until decided otherwise, not because it is based on some principal, but simply because either the majority claims it or our so highly established leaders of the court mandate it to us. This is unacceptable, counter to the very purpose to which the founders speak of.
The presentation of my argument was not meant to pursue yet another absurd law, but to point out the problems with legislating based on absurd positions. We could go all day and I could provide very sound arguments that would result in the need for every human being put into a padded cell and at the same time argue that this would also be a violation due to issues it would cause. The problem with the issue is simply that basing laws on "good intentions" on "vague interpretation" and broad speculation of occurrence is... absurd.
Much like ETS is.
More specifically, since they do not know IF ETS causes anything, then until they do, people concerned with such should stray from private areas that allow it. This means customers, it also means workers. The decision then is solely under the discretion of the owner.
Oh come on now DC, you know it is a catch to the position. Your answer is one that says "I don't care if it is right or wrong, it is the law!" If that is the case, then any law is just until decided otherwise, not because it is based on some principal, but simply because either the majority claims it or our so highly established leaders of the court mandate it to us. This is unacceptable, counter to the very purpose to which the founders speak of.
The presentation of my argument was not meant to pursue yet another absurd law, but to point out the problems with legislating based on absurd positions. We could go all day and I could provide very sound arguments that would result in the need for every human being put into a padded cell and at the same time argue that this would also be a violation due to issues it would cause. The problem with the issue is simply that basing laws on "good intentions" on "vague interpretation" and broad speculation of occurrence is... absurd.
Much like ETS is.
More specifically, since they do not know IF ETS causes anything, then until they do, people concerned with such should stray from private areas that allow it. This means customers, it also means workers. The decision then is solely under the discretion of the owner.
Nomander, I love debating with you. You really do challenge my assumptions in the most interesting ways. But I've got some pressing business this afternoon, so I've got to go. But I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your post. Let's take it up another time!
no one ever died from inhaling "second hand fetus" fumes during an abortion, but cigarettes are poison.....
No one ever died from inhaling ETS either and I know for a fact you can not prove it, not even in the slightest.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
