BS: Unfit for SCOTUS

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 05:01 PM

Richard, just read the link I provided.

A member of my family works in social services(housing) in this area, I know what I am talking about.

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

"A member of my family works in social services(housing) in this area, I know what I am talking about."

Don't you just love it when a true master of the non-sequitur posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 06:05 PM

Richard, what you are appealing to, is a preponderance of opinion, not of scientific fact.   The one thing we can say about consensus science, is that it ain't science. If it were, science would have halted centuries past, and we would never know what is now known.   Evolutionism changes the findings of experimental science to accomadate it's own dogma, rather than say....maybe we got it wrong, as it clashes with observational science.    Brighter minds disagree with me, yes, but there are a fair number who don't wholesale buy the Darwin dogma.    And since when did being a lawyer, make you a science authority. Methinks you don't present your case, because you can't. Fortunately, I don't need great learning, to point out the more basic damage in the evolutionist foundations.    And that is damage, many honest evolutionist actually own up to.....I can quote them, if that is required.........

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 06:11 PM

Barking mad. Say goodnight to the folks, Gracie...

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 06:14 PM

Allan conn, please elucidate what you mean by creationists dismissing archaeology and other sciences. If anything, the archaeologist often confirms the bible after skeptics have dismissed its data.   And what other science is dismissed by creationists. Even evolutionism is dealt with, but by demonstrating how it fails science.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 06:18 PM

Ye gods, does this man's comedy know no bounds? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 06:36 PM

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

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

As I read it, Amos referred to 'insane reasoning', not insane persons. I would encourage him to use better words, though his meaning is al least clear. Insanity ought to be reserved for technical definitions of psychological status.

---------------------------------------------

Pete: ". I would be interested if you would support a limit on abortion on demand, at any stage of a pregnancy?."

Interesting question... yes, I would probably like to see certain restrictions followed after about 24 weeks... involving the viability of the fetus and the specifics of the mother's health and 'situation'. After that, giving up a healthy baby for adoption when she cannot reasonably care for it seems more sensible. (very young mothers...etc.)

" Why should an unborn child be expendable just because at a certain stage he might not be capable of life without the womb. "
I can answer that personally from 25 years ago. Because the psychological trauma of watching the 'growth' of a baby who cannot possibly survive outweighs some generalized idea that ANY termination of a pregnancy is somehow immoral. (Look up "triploidism". The doctor who explained it said that he knew of very few cases of full-term pregnancies, none of which survived more than a day or two.)



"...one day it might be the law for kids to decide if they can terminate their aged/disabled parents. "

Now, now... the 'slippery slope' argument here is going a bit far. And being an 'aged parent', I will certainly be watchful.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 06:49 PM

The arguments put in favour of time limits are mischievous in the extreme. If you are opposed to abortion, as pete claims to be, then time limits are irrelevant, except in the sense that they are posited as a tactic: I should love to know why any anti-abortionist would wish to resort to a tactic that suggests abortion for some but not for others. Very dishonest. Second, very few very late abortions are carried out, and, in many cases, they are done because of unconscionable delays caused by medical bureaucrats who don't like abortion, by restrictive laws which create obstacles for women for whom time is of the essence or by the fact that the woman didn't know she was pregnant. There are remedies for all these circumstances that do not require a time-limit law.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 07:11 PM

..."yes, I would probably like to see certain restrictions followed after about 24 weeks... involving the viability of the fetus and the specifics of the mother's health and 'situation'. After that, giving up a healthy baby for adoption when she cannot reasonably care for it seems more sensible..."

Sad to say, this is at odds with your previous post that I found myself agreeing with. You're even suggesting that women should not have abortions so that they can then produce babies for adoption. All a little too Catholic for my taste. It's not your body. Write that out a hundred times, Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 08:31 PM

In my last but one post I accidentally left out the word "often" from the sentence "The arguments put in favour of time limits are OFTEN mischievous in the extreme". I know there are sincerely-put arguments for limits, though I don't agree with them. I was trying to highlight the mischief of those anti-abortionists who, instead of sticking to their guns and arguing consistently against all abortion (misguided though honest), try to whittle away at the time limits in the hope of getting them so impossibly low as to make abortion next to impossible for most women (despicable).

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Jun 15 - 11:11 PM

I said "certain restrictions" without specifying.... and this does not mean 'denial' of abortion, but merely extra discussions, warnings & counseling... along with, as I said, considerations of the woman's health and situation.. meaning married or not, the status of the father, if known...etc. One of the concerns is that many younger women are barely able to cope with all the implications, and ought to have available some advice/counseling/information.
It happens all too often that a young, unmarried girl panics and does something hurried, and often dangerous.... so even 'restrictions' would apply mostly to certified doctors who are involved.

In the last analysis, it IS her body, but even she should consider the wishes of her husband, partner,,,etc., as it may affect her future in various ways.

I too would hope that rabid anti-abortionists, as much as possible, be kept from interfering with a woman's decision.... but her decision should be an informed one. ... and yes, I do see the problem of deciding who is to 'inform' her.
None of this is easy. Education and contraception is the path to make it as close to easier as possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 02:24 AM

bill, your quote was from Greg, not me.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 03:10 AM

Bridge -I don't know the details. Picked it up during a speech someone made at the NHS Confederation conference. I do know that the Musket you call Mither was chair of a PCT that was subjected to a judicial review. In that case, I think he said those who brought it did it in the name of a person who successfully applied for legal aid. That was over a different matter and it was a score draw. (PCT won but lost on appeal. Conclusion - their decision that was challenged interpreted a poor wording of law.)

Hopefully Musket is reading and might know more? He tends to follow such things. I'm just a jobbing doc.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 03:20 AM

I see that Akenaton appears to have added The Daily M*il to his reading list. Just when you thought it couldn't sink any lower.

Nice bit of supporting misogyny pete, whilst we are on the subject of your friend. Stick to creationist nonsense eh? You can't and don't actually insult anyone with your delusional fantasy and society gladly accommodates people of challenging intellect. But the bit above about women?

Nasty.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 03:40 AM

Yes, legal aid can be abused - although there is not much of it about these days, and mostly it is not abused.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 08:26 AM

It's because it is rare and necessary that my blood boils when I see it abused...

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,#
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 08:44 AM

Legal Aid in Canada is being so underfunded that the people who really need it have great difficulty accessing it. It has become especially pronounced under the Conservative government in Canada. True, provinces provide the financial aid, but eventually the money is filtered from the national capital. It has begun to ensure that economically poor people have less and less access to fair representation in legal matters. There are many reasons that poor people are over-represented in prison populations. That is one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 09:02 AM

All part of the neo-conservative "War On Poor Folks", Bruce - both N & S of the 49th Parallel. But you knew that. All Hail Ron Reagan.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 09:08 AM

Agree with you there #......wonder if the "equality warriors" on Mudcat will expend one hundredth of the energy on jusice, that they do on promoting their "myth de jeur"?

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 10:22 AM

.....wonder if the "equality warriors" on Mudcat will expend one hundredth of the energy on jusice, that they do on promoting their "myth de jeur"?

Testicles-gonads-balls-nuts-two veg-knackers-cojones-family jewels-sac-bollocks-nads-rocks....

Oops sorry, thought anyone could join in...

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 11:44 AM

bill, l have looked up trioplody. sorry to hear that you had to make a decision on this very rare condition. from my faith position, I expect I would have chosen otherwise but I can see the difficulty you faced.
slippery slope argument....well maybe, but if you view human life as sacred either end of the spectrum, it may well be a comparison argument. at least one leading evolutionist has spoken in favour of euthanizing the aged, I hear, and I suppose that if we are just on the animal spectrum as evolutionism teaches, that would be a consistent position.
and thanks for answering my query. this of course, ties in with steves posting. he accuses anti abortionists of dishonesty in campaigning for a lower limit, rather than an outright ban. but I question where it is that the dishonesty lies. when abortion was legalized in the uk, I seem to remember promises of checks, but now it is virtually on demand.    by contrast, I doubt if the anti abortionist would deny that a greater restriction was desired.
steve suggests I am inconsistent. rather, I don't want to argue from a position of which I am not sure. there does come a time , and I think fairly early on when it is obviously a child that is being aborted.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 11:49 AM

if we are just on the animal spectrum as evolutionism teaches, that would be a consistent position.

Flawed logic. By the same argument in would be 'consistent' to deal with disease carrying people in the same way as disease carrying mosquitos.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 12:01 PM

And if you don't regard us as "just on the animal spectrum" what respect do you give to other forms of life ? Less than sacred ?

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 12:02 PM

Different rates of evolution in homo sapien can be seen when examining the intellectual stand point of pete, the Pope and others impressed by superstition.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 12:07 PM

at least one leading evolutionist has spoken in favour of euthanizing the aged, I hear...

Never have so many weasel words been included in such a short sentence.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 12:10 PM

I seem to remember promises of checks, but now it is virtually on demand.

What "checks" were promised, and to what extent have those checks been abandoned? Evidence, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 12:13 PM

not sure what your problem is " guest ". are you equating mosquitoes to people ?. but I have heard of an evolutionist who, if given the choice of saving a child, or a rare tiger, was unclear which he would save, but I freely admit I may be missing something in your argument. my argument was, that human life is sacred from a Christian perpective, but from an evolutionist perpective a human is just an evolved animal, and therefore it may be consistent with that view to eliminate a sickly adult , an unwanted baby.......or maybe even a diseased human...

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 12:22 PM

I have heard of an evolutionist who, if given the choice of saving a child, or a rare tiger, was unclear which he would save

What was his name? Can you provide the context for this alleged remark and a direct quote? As the question he was allegedly asked has nothing to do with evolution, can you explain to us why you thought it necessary to say that he was an "evolutionist"? Is he a qualified evolutionary biologist or is he just someone who you disagree with?

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 12:42 PM

You didn't put "it may be consistent" you had "that would be a consistent position". If no 'divider' is put anywhere in this 'animal spectrum' (your term) then drawing on it for one comparison (euthenasia) has the same logic as drawing it for another (insecticide coated bed-nets maybe).

Having us as distinct from the animals allows an easy (for you - it drives most other people nuts) point of view. A lot of the human race (including many people of religion) seem to able to cope wih a more complex situation and make their own decisions (or maybe accept that of their culture). For example, we have vegans, vegetarians, vegetarians who eat fish, non-vegatarian who only eat animals that have had natural life. And so on.

Some of them squash moquitos, some don't. Some euthanase sick animals, some give painkillers to sacred (see - that word) cows until they finally drop dead (and wreck their eco-system in the process).

Moral decisions are complicated - unless you buy into an off-the-peg set.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 12:44 PM

Which is why having this guy as a judge amazes people.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 01:24 PM

This gets better. "Evolutionists" prefer tigers to humans. An ex girlfriend reckoned I was a bit of a tiger if that's any good? OK, too much information but warmed the cockles of my heart anyway.

And this bit about a leading evolutionist wanting to euthanise the elderly. Brilliant! Almost as good as the bit about God putting humans on the planet a few thousand years ago. If he did, they would have gone the way of dodos and neanderthals a long time ago. How did you hide from Darwin pete?

Oh, and the bit about human life being sacred to christians. A lie. A total lie. Crusades, inquisition, priests killing unwanted babies of "fallen" women and allowing their bible to be used when pronouncing the death sentence in savage uneducated countries, and attending the executions to get the poor bastard to "repent."

This is a serious thread is it not? Are we discussing the suitability of this judge? The side show of weird people who want to bring their delusion to reality does not help.

Mind you, at least pete has the excuse of brain washing. What's Akenaton's excuse?

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 01:58 PM

Pete... to fully answer you as to why it is NOT consistent to consider humans as no better than mosquitoes... etc, it would be necessary to send you to the very learned writing of various Philosophers... such as Immanuel Kant in "The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals".... but that gets way too thick & technical.
The closest I can come is to note analyses such as this, where explanations that resemble religious ones are noted, but without specifically positing a 'god'. You get formulations like the Golden Rule which make sense because we ARE an unusual species, no matter what you attribute our character to.

It simply is NOT the case that accepting evolution can justify euthanasia for the aged...and if one (you gotta do better that "I heard that") makes such a silly claim, it is no different than one Christian theologian asserting some astounding nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 02:21 PM

That the likes of Bill reckon reasoned argument is going to give pete a barbecued donkey on the road to Damascus is beyond me.

Still, nice try.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 02:28 PM

I note with some amusement that the defenders of the faith have moved from the simple case of a judge giving credence to those who reject the overwhelming balance of the evidence to the case of abortion.

My view there is simple. A zygote is not a human being, but a woman is. It's her body. Her choice. Simples.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 03:59 PM

I think , Richard, that the defenders of the faith who moved the discussion to abortion, might not be those of the Christian faith. at least I don't think I introduced it.   and I am quite happy to bring this back on topic. a judge that does not accept a story that is not properly evidenced, and flies in the face of observable, testable, experimental science is more suitable than a judge that believes the unsubstantiated and changeable evolution myth. you are of course entitled to believe stuff that you cannot defend, but you got no business insisting others, and those in public office, believe it too.
of course , if you got a case that the overwhelming balance of the evidence favours your belief, than lets have it......ok, just a couple , then, that can only be interpreted as according to the general theory of evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,simple
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 04:02 PM

unique in all creation is man
with different feet and hands

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 04:34 PM

Pete - you KNOW that the overwhelming balance of scientific authority favours evolution. Stop being silly. a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 04:59 PM

no doubt, there will be the usual objections to my describing your beliefs as faith so.......
"the belief that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter, is simply a matter of faith in strict reductionalism and is based entirely on ideology "
yockey,    information theory and molecular biology p284    1992

"evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion......"
m, ruse.    national press   may 13   2000.

I could find more quotes from other honest non creationists, but these are pretty representative......to which I only add, amen !

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 05:08 PM

Neither of those quotes support your position

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 05:09 PM

"...the unsubstantiated and changeable evolution myth..."

awww... c'mon Pete. It is overwhelmingly substantiated. Changeable simply means willing to integrate new data about the details! Myth? You play very freely with the term when the fuzzy details of Genesis are considered fact, while DNA & paleontology are called myth.
Your system cannot document even which humans recopied religious texts, much less anything about how they were 'inspired'. It seems that many were 'inspired' in different ways... but most view the basics as UNchangeable. Sorry, but I'll stick with the views of folks who have not already decided what the answers are before looking at the evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 05:23 PM

nice one simples
Richard, I KNOW no such thing, and as the above quotes infer, neither do a lot of those who subscribe to it. it is only because you are ideologically driven that you claim superiority of evidence. if you think I am going to tap all those figures in....wrong. like I say, YOU just give me a couple of things that can only be interpreted in accordance with the general theory of evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 05:25 PM

Once again, with bells and whistles if only I had any: there is no such thing as "the general theory of evolution". There is such a thing as wilful pig-ignorance, of course.

I get very animated about out-and-out anti-abortionists. To my mind, they are among the most intolerant and wicked people on earth. That is not to say I don't acknowledge sincerely-held, measured views that I personally and quite vehemently disagree with. I can see the arguments for time-limits, etc., though I think they are misguided. I can't argue with need for vulnerable young people to be surrounded by good advice and support (of the practical, non-moralising and non-tendentious sort). But rampant anti-abortionists, with few exceptions that I know of, support their moralising prejudices with the promotion of ignorance or religious fervour or both. It's just horrible, and I won't even mention the name of that wicked Catholic woman who taught her flock that poverty, ignorance and sexual abstinence were virtues and that birth control and abortion were the greatest evils on the planet. She's probably going to be sainted soon. Just remember that when you next hear that the Catholic church is "making progress".

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 07:53 PM

Well, Pete, if you don't know that the vast preponderance of scientific opinion accepts evolution - and indeed that the vast preponderance of religious opinion regards your creation myth as allegory - and that virtually nobody or at least an insignificant minority swallows the absurd fantasy that an omnipotent god created all humans in substantially their modern form at some point in the last 5 to 10 thousand years, then you really, really, must get out more and meet more normal people.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Olddude
Date: 17 Jun 15 - 08:35 PM

Hey pete,
Give up cause ya can't fix bridge over the river stupid

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 15 - 01:07 AM

"The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State."
~Founding Father James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, "Essays In Addition to America's Real Religion"

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 18 Jun 15 - 03:30 AM

Aw well pete. Look at it like this.

The observable and deduceable happens regardless of belief.

Two thousand years from now, the superstitious, if evolution hasn't kicked in and the need for it no longer applies, will possibly be getting their moral compass from the good book.

The church of the glory of Gandalf will be shunning the reformed poor Congregational church of Samwise. Meanwhile, there will be those practicing the dark arts of Mordor... Those who kick the bucket will be queuing at the Grey Havens quayside and the best way to lead an enchanted life will be if you are lucky to be short in height with hairy feet.

Yet strangely, f will still equal ma.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jun 15 - 05:52 AM

Bloody hell, where is Steven Shaw when you need him!
Gibberish.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Jun 15 - 11:53 AM

Oh sorry Richard . You were actually appealing to consensus science. We will never make progress with that you know.....it ain't science.       Btw, I had to grin when you mentioned praying for fair festival weather !

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars
Date: 18 Jun 15 - 11:59 AM

Steve who says there is no such thing as the general theory of evolution. Try looking up kerkut, and I expect you will find the definition of the man who framed the expression.   Seems to me pretty much what you believe, and encompasses the whole thing, as opposed to the bait and switch so often employed by evolutionists.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Jun 15 - 12:04 PM

Yeh dan, but maybe help someone else cross !