BS: Unfit for SCOTUS

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 11:40 AM

That has to be satire, doesn't it?

"God created humans, pretty much in their present form, all at one time, within the last 10,000 years or so".

You MUST be kidding me.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 12:24 PM

Bla bla bla Richard

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 12:26 PM

You know very well, Richard, that we are not kidding.   If I am a Christian and see that the bible teaches a youngish earth, that is a consistent position,and you have demonstrated nothing to demonstrate your microbes to men belief. Go on, show me some evolution !.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 12:30 PM

Pete, don't bother he just wants to fight.
Can someone rename this thread to a bunch of old men fighting :)

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 12:32 PM

So, there's at least 101 million of 'em out there.

Gives one pause to think.

Yes. To think that religious fundamentalists are not far from having control of nuclear weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 12:44 PM

Yeh, I know dan, but it ain't about them as far as I,m concerned. They might already be too hardened to be able to change, though I hope not. It is about anyone willing to listen, and of course, about God my saviour and creator.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 12:50 PM

Musket,   You seem to have a persecution complex, if you think the term ...atheist...is sneering. If you call me a theist, I don't think it is sneering, but you,s add plenty of obviously sneering remarks, which would seem to make you a hypocrite.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 12:56 PM

What was that about the " truth of evolution " Steve .   You,ll be getting the snail after you at this rate.   Go on Steve, show me some evolution !.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 01:15 PM

Bill, whose freedom to choose....certainly not the child in the womb ? You can only justify, IMO, abortion on demand if you view the unborn as not being human. Perhaps the evolutionary religious outlook accommodates that thought ? It seems paradoxical that there is a call to save convicted murderers from the needle, while it is acceptable to rip a child out the womb on demand.   Yes, i expect a Christian judge May try to make rulings that accord with his beliefs if possible, but so would an anti theist who thinks we all miraculously ascended from the slime millennia past, to present.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 01:28 PM

You have millions, we have pete.

Luckily, nobody asks him to to anything more complicated than use a tin opener.

I can imagine the clerk of the Supreme Court trying to explain things to this sub intelligent judge in the Father Ted fashion, with a picture of two small cows.

"This is a small cow. This cow is far away."

I would show pete some evolution, but he clearly makes me pause, judging by his bizzare post above. Most humans evolve past that stage once they realise going swimming on a Sunday morning with the money they were given for Sunday School is a better use of their time.

They tend to be, recalling back, about eight years old at the time.

The evolution you speak of but don't understand tends to take much longer than what you reckon the world has been around for, so it wouldn't sink in if Steve or others with a professional interest even tried to explain to you. Educating pork isn't always a successful past time.

We used to be starfish apparently. Judging by some photos in magazines I recall as a teenager, we still have what appears to be one, although you need two mirrors to check your own.

Just wandering past, peering at the exhibits...

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 01:39 PM

Don't be hard on him pete. The word on the street is if you tug his beard three times, your wish is granted

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 02:15 PM

Tell me, does that curly powered wig make you feel like lady Gaga? My wife has a little black dress you can borrow

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 02:27 PM

And it's Mr old twat to you sir. I earned it

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 02:34 PM

Bloody hell. Everyone should have a view on emotive matters such as abortion, however, stupid comments such as "evolutionary religious" are not befitting of any adult debate.

This is a moral issue. Far above superstition, so leave your silly comments for fellow God botherers eh pete? Moral dilemmas require sober mature input, not make believe fantasy.

Regard slime. Live with it. The word you are looking for is, I believe, "primordial."

Anyway? What do you think everybody and everything must have been descended from? If we are in the image of your imaginary friend, I am Loki g over the bar at my mate, who is, let's face it, adorning the sort of face you never tire of kicking. Surely, this god character could have done better than him? Mind you, if he looks a bit like me, fair play to him. We both know perfection.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 02:40 PM

You MUST be kidding me.

Sorry, Richard, but its all frighteningly true.

Even more terryfying is that 75%+ of that 101 million plus are members of the REPUBLICAN PARTY and so vote.

Now, if that there ain't enough to give ya the fantods.......

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 02:46 PM

You can cream on prescription for the fantods.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 03:13 PM

A man's perspective is as great as his singular or multi sourced perspective.
As for Scalia goes, his written opinion on torture is illuminating.
He said that since torture always worked for Jack in the book 24, torture is a valid and useful tool.

Case closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 04:04 PM

Pete, there is NO serious scientific support for creationism. None. The whole concept is a fantasy. You have been shown this in this very site by a well qualified person - but you will not listen. Go back to la-la-land.

Oldtwat - when you have learned to formulate an insult, I may rise to one. Right now your invitations to blow you are unlikely to have a beneficial effect on your nonagenarian soggy egg noodle. All you are demonstrating is your own stupidity. You have not earned any mark of respect. Quite the converse.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 04:16 PM

I see you took a break from scaring little children Richard to answer me Lol

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 04:45 PM

Rich

I knew Don Riccles, you are no Don Riccles. Still you do a good parody of a mean fool. At least I hope it is a parody.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 05:53 PM

Donuel, stay safe somewhere. I never can see any rationality in anything you post. But I think your heart is in the right place. Maybe. Maybe you intend to refer to Don Rickles - of whom I had never heard until today.

Oldtwat - you really don't need any answer. Your gibberish lost.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 06:09 PM

On a related subject.

A senior Vatican official has been arrested for abusing children in the name of God in Latin America

The bad news? He is to be tried in a Vatican court. The same Vatican that protected him till the pressure became too much.

Superstition and courts. They go together like farts and astronaut suits.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 07:07 PM

Richard or should I call you dick. You seem to want to be American as every post is about our country. Real easy put your hand on the bible and swear to uphold the constitution. Which does include the 2nd admendment by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 07:47 PM

Country envy I guess, can't think of any other reason to concern yourself with another countries laws or government. A wanna be yank I guess. Hoorah god, guns and country

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 07:55 PM

I am now done playing with you so I will bid you farewell. If you want to be an American then apply and you will have a vote and the right to debate our system of government. Since I do have connections to the government, highest levels I may say, i probably can help you with the citizen issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 08:19 PM

Are you at least as intelligent as George Bush? I think we should be told...

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Jun 15 - 10:54 PM

Pete..."Bill, whose freedom to choose....certainly not the child in the womb ?"

**Child** is a loaded word until about the 20th week of pregnancy. Before that it is a zygote, then a fetus. Even then a fetus needs to be over about 24 weeks to have a 50-50 chance of survival. The statistics are available for everyone, but people differ about the relevance of them.
If one 'believes' that a zygote receives a 'soul' at conception, they treat abortion one way, if the believe that only a child after birth receives a soul, they see it differently, and if they do not think that 'soul' applies to anyone, it is entirely a different matter.

In any case, 'choice' is not something relevant an unborn of any stage. People of different cultures have treated the choice that parents & other adults make in many ways. Like all subjective issues, opinions differ.
We can agree that abortion is not a happy solution to a problem, but neither is war.. or theft.. or lying. Different problems require adjustment of one's moral guide. If you wish to say 'no' to ALL abortions, you severely limit choice about important issues. Even so, those who DO have religious objections to abortion should be allowed to follow those beliefs... in their own case! It is like other subjective views, religious & otherwise, it is personal and should not be decided by clergy, community, friends, or media. It is something for the parents.. especially the woman... to decide.
We have fairly good birth control to help avoid the problem...(except for genetic problems, rape, incest...etc.) but the issue will ALWAYS be there, and no one can design one single rule to cover everything. 25 years ago, *I* had to help make the decision when a planned pregnancy was determined to be not viable. It was about the saddest thing I can imagine, but there was no way around it. You might ask God why such things happen. I just treat it as bad luck. Such things happen to good Christians, good atheists and good agnostics. The decision is for each one to make.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 12:59 AM

Oldtwat - your country, alas, is probably the most powerful in the world. Yet it is alarmingly primitive and dangerous in too many respects. It deserves the criticism. I have worked there, in New York and Hollywood and have no desire to return. It is a danger to the rest of the world, both economically and militarily. And you sound more and more like Sheriff J. W. Pepper with each post.

I no longer post about UK politics only because the (US based) mods routinely delete any threads about UK politics before they get started.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 02:22 AM

Bill, I think you miss the point, most people take the view that abortion is necessary under certain circumstances.....but modern society is moving towards the use of abortion as a convenience.
This has more to do with modern economics than morality.

It seems clear to me that "life" begins with conception I don't see how any scientist(and this forum seems to be full of them), can disagree. It is simply more convenient for the "abortion on demand" lobby to claim that a baby is not a baby until the moment of birth.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 02:28 AM

I would also point out that in the UK, modern society has determined that the production of children by women without recognised partners is a means of attaining a much higher standard of living.

I think our sense of personal responsibility is being rapidly eroded?

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 02:54 AM

It is sad but typical in the way this thread quickly deteriorated with really both sides to blame but there was no need for it. I am not talking about individuals' posting history on other threads etc just this thread! It is clear that Richard's initial few posts do not suggest that a judge's ability to sit in judgement of other people should be questioned just because he has personal religious beliefs! The question was whether you could have faith in someone's ability to tell truth from fiction or fantasy if those beliefs were of a fundamentalist creationist tendency! It may be a cultural thing but I think here in the UK most people, many religious as well as non religious people, would worry about fundamentalist extremists being in such positions! If someone can dismiss the entire modern science of archaeology (and that is just one the sciences being dismissed by creationists) then how could you trust their judgement in other matters. That seems to be Richard's point. You may not agree with his point but it is a perfectly valid point to make! What we get though is heated debate with eventually personal insults thrown about by both sides of the debate. Come on guys surely we can discuss things in a better way than this?

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 03:45 AM

Allan makes a perfectly reasonable point and in doing so, takes all the fun out of the thread.

Sorry, I was under the impression this was a "walk round and view the exhibits" thread. It totally fascinates me that both countries can have a decent education system but superstition still lingers as an alternative to discovering reality.

The real world is far more exciting and "wondrous" than the parochial narrow take on existence as printed in the bible, Q'ran, Talmud or Lord of the Rings.

Mind you, it doesn't just need superstition in order to confuse yourself. Interesting post above, pointing out a moral question but then saying it isn't anything to do with morals. I suppose if he had enough typewriters he could eventually post Hamlet.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 03:48 AM

Bill has not missed any points. His post on abortion is right on the money. I'd add that we could try much harder to reduce the numbers of abortions by means of free availability of contraception, along with contraceptive advice of a practical and strictly non-moralising nature, and of much better education for relationships in schools (to which priests and imams and the like are not invited to contribute).

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 04:07 AM

Just as a point to that. The Dept of Health and Public Health England (speaking purely UK here, and this also applies to the rest of The UK) does have a policy in line with what Steve says.

However, unlike people in spheres of influence such as those setting the policies of faith schools, NHS people cannot be judgmental. As I type, the sexual health services of the CCG for Buckinghamshire is facing a judicial review of its freely available contraception service by a consortium of religious interests. To date, as you cannot ignore the action, that's over £300K in legal fees. Money that has to be taken from front line services. The real costs haven't even started yet. If it goes to court, the actual consortium rather cleverly does not have any assets (it's costs to date are paid for by voluntary donations and is constituted to not make those controlling it liable) so once this nonsense is halted in court, the CCG (patients, tax payer, call it what you will) will not be able to recover the costs.


Nice.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 04:51 AM

Musket, I hope that an application for security for costs has been made. If it was refused, what were the grounds?

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 09:36 AM

ake: "... modern society is moving towards the use of abortion as a convenience."

Modern society? It has been thought of that way ..by some... for centuries. The major difference is technique. (Trained doctors vs. coat hangers...etc) In the 1960s, I KNEW a guy who did occasional back-room abortions in the days before the Pill.
There is a smaller % of pregnancies being terminated now because, as I said, of modern contraception.

Even so, I question your basic assumption. You are projecting your feelings about it and suggesting you 'know' how the subjective attitudes of others are changing....unless you have some serious study to back you up.

...and    "in the UK, modern society has determined that the production of children by women without recognised partners is a means of attaining a much higher standard of living."

Well gee-gosh... exactly what parts of 'modern society' might you be referring to? Your remark sure sounds like a veiled reference to certain parts of 'modern society'.... and I don't care for the implication.

Now you have the interesting juxtaposition of claiming some parts of society are having more abortions, while others are intentionally having more children out of marriage. Makes me wonder how you arrive at these hard-to-verify conclusions.

(I am reminded of the story of the man who asserted "All Indians walk in single-file. I know because I saw an Indian once once, and HE was walking in single-file!")

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 10:59 AM

The best way to avoid termination of unwanted pregnancies is to use birth control, and promote its use. Some of the more extreme views expressed on the right seem to be dedicated to making pregnancy happen at any cost to any person, which is, I think, insane.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 11:01 AM

That's because most fundagelicals are, indeed, insane.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 03:26 PM

No Greg, they are not insane. They are misguided.

I am not sure what to make of those who carelessly throw around words like 'insane'.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 03:48 PM

Here you are Bill, from the Office of National Statistics.

The main benefit is social housing Bill, a young single mother with a child or children goes straight into social housing and receives free rent, council tax and other benefits.
A young married couple must find work mainly low paid work and struggle with rent family expenses etc.

Many couples now live separately with the mother claiming state benefits.

" Your remark sure sounds like a veiled reference to certain parts of 'modern society'.... and I don't care for the implication."

Would you like to explain that remark?......I don't do "veiled references"! and of course its a comment on one sector of society, we are presently discussing "single parent families"???

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 04:13 PM

Well, Bill, take it up with Amos 16 Jun 15 - 10:59 AM

Also, you apparently haven't met the same ones I have.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Pete frown seven stars link
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 04:13 PM

First bill, though I disagree with you, you did explain your position clearly, and without the negative jibes as exhibited by some.   I do not see it as a matter of if and when a soul is imparted , rather that the child is clearly human ( and in bible teaching, known by God and made in his image ) from within the womb. Though I take the view that this is from conception , I am not dogmatic on this , and don't know if the morning after pill is an issue as such. However, it is not far after that the development of a child is evident, and many a woman seeing a child in the womb, changes their mind about destroying that dependant life. I would be interested if you would support a limit on abortion on demand, at any stage of a pregnancy?.   I don't think that whether survival has high stakes or not is a good argument. A lot of people in life have very low stakes when for instance, a terminal illness afflicts, yet still efforts are made to somehow beat the odds. Why should an unborn child be expendable just because at a certain stage he might not be capable of life without the womb.    Neither is it legitimate to leave every parent to decide if they should destroy their unborn . It is of course the law, but one day it might be the law for kids to decide if they can terminate their aged/disabled parents. Of course, those that don't want to euthanise their parents...in their case..!.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 04:15 PM

Atta boy, Pharoah - play the Ron Reagan welfare queen card. That's a new one for you, tho - its usually the filthy disease-ridden homosexual card. Good to know you're branching out.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 04:25 PM

And of course , Richard, you get to decide what is a ....serious....study.   Meanwhile, you continue with the bluff and bluster rather than present a case for your beliefs. Seems I have to remind you all again, that though I don't claim to be able to prove biblical creation, I have presented much evidence that demonstrates it is more in accord with observable, testable, repeatable science, than evolutionism that rather starts with non negotiable commitment to naturalistic causes no matter what the evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 04:29 PM

Come on Greg, you know I have nothing against welfare and people do what they have to do under the present system.
But it works against the traditional family structure and is terminal for society.
Society is breaking down...big time and it's costing a fortune.

You see, it's this system which is insane, everyone from the top to the very bottom are scamming every penny or million they can.
We need to stop the insanity and start to get organised.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 04:32 PM

Yet another logical well thought out post from Greg ........NOT.         I do wonder, though Ake, whether girls get pregnant intentionally, to get housing and benefits , though from experience with girls we know, they do seem to get an ...entitlement...mindset, almost as if they had earn it !.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 04:43 PM

Pete - try to think. The vast, vast, preponderance of scientific views are that evolution is the most probable explanation. Creationism flies in the face of that vast preponderance of scientific, factual, study. A judge who forms a view in the face of the vast preponderance of the evidence is not fit for office.

Your attempts to nitpick at explanations given to you by many vastly more knowledgeable in the relevant field than you have clearly demonstrated that trying to give you a detailed rational explanation is a waste of time. You are not equipped to deal with it. Your objections are irrational.

Akenhateon, your condemnation of single parents is a new low, even for you. The suggestion that there are many young girls who choose single parenthood as a means to improve their lifestyles is another fantasy, and a vile one too. There may be a few idiots who make bad choices, and there will be a number who try to justify their position, but this sort of thing is uncommon and it is a foolish propaganda attempt to try to pretend that it is any sort of norm. Shame on you.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 04:55 PM

The point I am trying(perhaps clumsily) to make, is that our children now appear to be dispensable commodities, to be used or dispensed with, rather than nurtured and loved.

Governments should be encouraging young people to construct family units, rather than see children turned into bargaining chips or used in weird social experiments.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 05:00 PM

Good to know that you're a misogynist as well as a creationist, pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 05:00 PM

The morning-after pill and intra-uterine devices abort embryos. An embryo is the result of the fusion of the nuclei of an egg and a sperm. The presence of an embryo that is potentially capable of implantation means that conception has already taken place. There is some lack of clarity of thinking here from anti-abortionists (as ever). You can't have it both ways. In essence, what we refer to abortion is no different from what the morning-after pill or the coil does. Make your minds up about exactly what it is you're for or against.