|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 03/10/2006 : 16:56:28 [Permalink]
|
Here's an update on this idiotcy. It seems that some abortions are not banned, after all...
quote:
Lawmaker: Religious virgins eligible for South Dakota abortions
RAW STORY
Published: March 10, 2006
Resisting calls by moderates from both sides, as well as public statements by President Bush, South Dakota lawmakers have rejected the idea of allowing exemptions for cases of rape or incest to the state's abortion ban.
One backer of the bill, State Senator Bill Napoli, argued on PBS's Newshour that if a victim had followed strict religious guidelines, her life would be endangered by the pregnancy. Under this scenario, she would be eligible for an abortion.
Words fail me.... 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 17:00:52 [Permalink]
|
Bill said:
quote:
Yet dude is willing to wipe away "personhood at conception" with a wave of his arbitrary magic wand and then proclaim that "personhood does not begin at conception" because dude said so.
There is no limit to your dishonesty is there bill?
You are the one making the claim that a fertilized egg is a human being.
I'm asking you to support your assertion with evidence and rational argument.
Because you can't do it, you resort to typical religious nonsense..... just a regurgitation of the "Oh yeah? Well, prove god doesn't exist!" bullshit you and your ilk throw out.
I am under no obligation to prove that a fertilized egg isn't a person, just as I am under no obligation to prove that your god doesn't exist.
You, on the other hand, as the claimant, are under obligation to support your position with some evidence and the rational explanation of why that evidence supports your position.
I know you don't understand it, and that you likely never will. Because you don't want to understand.
Your continued failure to answer my question to you is, once again, noted.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 17:08:54 [Permalink]
|
verso said:
quote:
It is unclear to me when personhood begins. This is actually an issue my wife and I have come up to recently, in choosing birth control. I have always felt it was at conception - then I came upon the "twinning" argument in my research, and that has caused me to re-evaluate my position.
However - until this is clarified in my mind beyond any doubt, I will assume it is at conception, because I would hate to be guilty of quashing another human's right to life. And if it is not at conception, then at the moment I believe I will default to implantation, because at that point, in my fundamental-but-growing knowledge on the subject, that is when the embryo becomes what it will be for the rest of it's life.
Yet another admission that "human life begins at fertilization" is nothing more than an arbitrary stance.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
verso
Skeptic Friend
USA
76 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 17:21:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
verso said:
quote:
It is unclear to me when personhood begins. This is actually an issue my wife and I have come up to recently, in choosing birth control. I have always felt it was at conception - then I came upon the "twinning" argument in my research, and that has caused me to re-evaluate my position.
However - until this is clarified in my mind beyond any doubt, I will assume it is at conception, because I would hate to be guilty of quashing another human's right to life. And if it is not at conception, then at the moment I believe I will default to implantation, because at that point, in my fundamental-but-growing knowledge on the subject, that is when the embryo becomes what it will be for the rest of it's life.
Yet another admission that "human life begins at fertilization" is nothing more than an arbitrary stance.
Dude, your density is beginning to confound me. I can appreciate the thoughtful dialog marfknox, Dave, Dr. Mabuse and others bring to the discussion, but you are just being dense, bitter and spiteful. And judging from what I've seen in this and other threads, I'm not the only one of that opinion.
To prevent this discussion from trailing off the same way the previous abortion thread did between you and marfknox, I'm afraid I will have to disregard your posts from here on.
Edit: spelling |
| Edited by - verso on 03/10/2006 17:22:16 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 17:26:54 [Permalink]
|
verso said:
quote:
To prevent this discussion from trailing off the same way the previous abortion thread did between you and marfknox, I'm afraid I will have to disregard your posts from here on.
Yeah, can't answer my question so ignore me.
Whatever works for you.
Edited to add:
btw... nice bit of hypocrisy there. Complain about me insulting you, then insult me... nice work.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 03/10/2006 17:29:03 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 20:32:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
I am sorry Dave, I thought you were in favor of abortion on demand...
You didn't even ask, did you?quote:
...because that is what happens in abortions, Dave. The "doctor" goes in and impales the little parasite for having the nerve to depend on it's mother for nutrition in it's first 9 months or so of life. It was the design of the deity, or the results of NS, for it to be this way and the little "parasite" who just wants to live had no part in designing this mechanism, Dave.
And how is it that you know that the deity intended no abortions whatsoever? It's rather obvious that natural selection gave us the capabilities to perform them, after all, so that part is a dead-end to your argument.quote:
quote:
Since my point was far too subtle for you to understand (as is obvious), I'll ask again: why, exactly, do you value the lives of humans over the lives of all other life forms?
Why do we have laws that forbid us to kill another man, but allow us to shoot pesky varmints such as coyotes or such? Do you agree that is wrong to kill a man while it is ok to kill pesky varmint? Or do think there is no difference in shooting another man then in shooting a coyote, Dave?
Why can't you just answer the question, Bill? Why, exactly, do you value the lives of humans over the lives of all other life forms? I'm not asking about laws, and I'm not asking about what you think that I think - I'm asking about what you think.
quote:
You didn't even ask, did you?
(bill) Ok then I am asking now?
quote:
And how is it that you know that the deity intended no abortions whatsoever? It's rather obvious that natural selection gave us the capabilities to perform them, after all, so that part is a dead-end to your argument.
(Bill) Natural Selection also gives you the capacity to commit murder, rape, rob, and pillage, so now are you going to go act out all those capabilities as well?
quote:
Why can't you just answer the question, Bill?
(bill) I prefer a level playing field first.
quote:
Why, exactly, do you value the lives of humans over the lives of all other life forms? I'm not asking about laws, and I'm not asking about what you think that I think - I'm asking about what you think.
(bill) Let me ask you why you think we should not? In other words, do you see no difference in the value of life lost when a man is shot to death vs. a billy goat being shot to death? If you had to swim 25 yards out to save a drowning dog, or 30 yards out to save a drowning man, you would have no problem explaining to the people on shore, who just lost their loved one, that you saved the dog because he was closer and you saw no difference in the value of the dog vs. the value of the drowned grand dad, dad, brother, or whatever who was out 5 yards further, but you could only save one?
Of course you would save the man, Dave. I would save the man. I would guess 98-99%, or higher, of all Americans who had the capacity to save either or would choose the man. Why Dave? Why do we put people in jail for life, or put them to death for murder of another human, but if you trap a mole in your front yard nobody sends you to the gallows? Or would you like to see the day when killing a mole or killing a man would get you the same sentence? Be reasonable, Dave…
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 21:36:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
You didn't even ask, did you?
Ok then I am asking now?
In the face of such rudeness and otherwise unchristian behaviour on your part, I think I'll remain enigmatic for the moment.quote:
quote:
And how is it that you know that the deity intended no abortions whatsoever? It's rather obvious that natural selection gave us the capabilities to perform them, after all, so that part is a dead-end to your argument.
Natural Selection also gives you the capacity to commit murder, rape, rob, and pillage, so now are you going to go act out all those capabilities as well?
Once again, you failed to answer the important question: how is it that you know that the deity intended for there to be no abortions whatsoever? The natural selection bit was simply to show that natural selection obviously didn't intend for the abortion rate to be zero, or otherwise we wouldn't be capable of the act at all.quote:
quote:
Why can't you just answer the question, Bill?
I prefer a level playing field first.
How is the playing field not level? I simply asked a question.quote:
quote:
Why, exactly, do you value the lives of humans over the lives of all other life forms? I'm not asking about laws, and I'm not asking about what you think that I think - I'm asking about what you think.
Let me ask you why you think we should not?
I don't think that. Once again, you've failed to answer the question and you've made assumptions about me instead of asking. Why, exactly, do you value the lives of humans over the lives of all other life forms?quote:
Be reasonable, Dave...
I am being reasonable. You're the one who is jumping to rash conclusions, lying about other people and refusing to answer questions. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 22:16:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verso
Maybe I am still missing your point, but as I understand it, your reductio was based on a flawed analogy, as a tapeworm's life doesn't compare to a human's.
Reductio ad absurdum arguments are supposed to be absurd (hence the name).quote:
Or was the point of the analogy to bring up the question of "why is a tapeworm's life less valuable than a human's?
Now you're getting it.quote:
Hmm. To be honest, I have never really thought about it from a secular standpoint.
Well, the question wasn't actually posed to elicit a "secular-only" answer, but I'll give you lots of points for rationality compared to Bill.quote:
Why DO we (or the vast majority of people) value human life over other life? Maybe it's instinctual. Maybe it's cultural.
Beats me, but it's not so simple as that, even.
Say you've got a choice between saving the life of your mother, or the lives of five complete strangers. I bet most people would save mom. Now, make the choice between mother and a million strangers, or a billion (obviously, there's an evil genius at work putting you through the emotional wringer with his death ray), and I'd bet that the number of people willing to save mom by sacrificing all those other people will drop (not to zero, but it'll be lower).
Or, consider the Vietman war. In that conflict, there were millions of people who were willing to kill other human beings in return for "stopping the spread of communism in southeast Asia." There were also millions of people willing to kill in order to spread communism in southeast Asia.
The point should be obvious: humans really don't regard other human life equally. One mother does not equal one stranger in terms of "value." Five strangers don't even rank the same as mom. And hundreds of thousands of highly exotic strangers who don't generally speak your language may be worth less than even a purely political (and thus rather nebulous) goal. Other examples abound.
Obviously, what is is not necessarily what ought to be. Should we treat all human life equally? Should a person who chose to save his mother instead of two strangers (just two) be villified (perhaps even punished?) for viewing those strangers as less deserving of life (by half or more) than his mom?
Should we treat a zygote as an equal in "value" to a fully-grown adult? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
trogdor
Skeptic Friend
198 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 23:23:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Bill
quote:
That's not clear at all, since all the evidence points to the "intent" of whatever to be that only 35% of fertilized human eggs are carried through to a live birth, and most acts of sexual relations don't result in a fertilized egg in the first place.
(bill) Uh huh, so what % of people walking the face of this planet do you think were not a result of man/women sex, where the mother (host) carried the baby (parasite) in her whom to the point of it's birth? I would be willing to go out on a limb and put it at about 99.99 % or more of the people walking the earth today are here because of man/women sex where the mother carries the offspring to term. Just as the deity or the results of NS intended.
well Bill,
as a test tube baby I can say that I am not the result "of man/woman sex"
Am I against the intent of some deity or natural selection? |
all eyes were on Ford Prefect. some of them were on stalks.
-Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 23:24:13 [Permalink]
|
Here's whole quote of South Dakota State Senator Bill Napoli's "religious virgin" comment, from the PBS transcript:quote:
FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Napoli says most abortions are performed for what he calls "convenience." He insists that exceptions can be made for rape or incest under the provision that protects the mother's life. I asked him for a scenario in which an exception may be invoked.
BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june06/abortion_3-03.html
So, according to Napoli, being religious and/or a virgin makes a "girl" more equal than an unreligious, sexually-experienced "girl." It also would help if she's been knocked around a little and "sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it." (I imagine Napoli beginning to drool at that point in the interview. I wouldn't want this sick fuck around my kids!) What a load of sexist, blue-nosed, bigoted bullshit!
Don't these Theonazi politicians even have to pass high school Civics class?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/10/2006 23:32:51 |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 23:45:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
And just because you refer to human in their most infant stages a blob makes it no less a human.
The "blob" is human but it is not a human.
Do you see the difference?quote:
It is the offspring of sexual relations between man/women just as the deity or NS had indented. What do think it is? A parasitic tick growing inside the women? *sigh*
This is semantics but,
In biology a parasite is:
An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
So a fetus could be called a parasite, especially if the mother is an unwilling carrier.
A tick is an arachnid of the order Acarina. It can never develop into an other species so ticks has nothing to do with this subject. |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 06:33:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by trogdor
quote:
Bill
quote:
That's not clear at all, since all the evidence points to the "intent" of whatever to be that only 35% of fertilized human eggs are carried through to a live birth, and most acts of sexual relations don't result in a fertilized egg in the first place.
(bill) Uh huh, so what % of people walking the face of this planet do you think were not a result of man/women sex, where the mother (host) carried the baby (parasite) in her whom to the point of it's birth? I would be willing to go out on a limb and put it at about 99.99 % or more of the people walking the earth today are here because of man/women sex where the mother carries the offspring to term. Just as the deity or the results of NS intended.
well Bill,
as a test tube baby I can say that I am not the result "of man/woman sex"
Am I against the intent of some deity or natural selection?
Hate to break it to you, but yes. You are. According to Bill's long winded diatribe against homosexuality, artificial insemination is "unnatural" and against the intent of the "Creator/NS"(tm).
I'm sure the opinion of someone of Bill's obvious intellect and reason is crushing to you. (snicker)
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 07:25:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
You didn't even ask, did you?
Ok then I am asking now?
In the face of such rudeness and otherwise unchristian behaviour on your part, I think I'll remain enigmatic for the moment.quote:
quote:
And how is it that you know that the deity intended no abortions whatsoever? It's rather obvious that natural selection gave us the capabilities to perform them, after all, so that part is a dead-end to your argument.
Natural Selection also gives you the capacity to commit murder, rape, rob, and pillage, so now are you going to go act out all those capabilities as well?
Once again, you failed to answer the important question: how is it that you know that the deity intended for there to be no abortions whatsoever? The natural selection bit was simply to show that natural selection obviously didn't intend for the abortion rate to be zero, or otherwise we wouldn't be capable of the act at all.quote:
quote:
Why can't you just answer the question, Bill?
I prefer a level playing field first.
How is the playing field not level? I simply asked a question.quote:
quote:
Why, exactly, do you value the lives of humans over the lives of all other life forms? I'm not asking about laws, and I'm not asking about what you think that I think - I'm asking about what you think.
Let me ask you why you think we should not?
I don't think that. Once again, you've failed to answer the question and you've made assumptions about me instead of asking. Why, exactly, do you value the lives of humans over the lives of all other life forms?quote:
Be reasonable, Dave...
I am being reasonable. You're the one who is jumping to rash conclusions, lying about other people and refusing to answer questions.
quote:
Ok then I am asking now?
In the face of such rudeness and otherwise unchristian behaviour on your part, I think I'll remain enigmatic for the moment.
(bill) Why am I not surprised, Dave? This is part of the nonsense Dave likes to play. After chiding everyone in the forum who opposes abortion Dave will then play little games where Dave declares he will not share his position because Bill was rude. Shoot, if no one declared anything based on rudeness then Dude alone could bring this forum to the ground. Give me a break, Dave. But yet Dave thinks everybody else is obligated to answer his question because he is Dave. Let me give you just a few examples, in just the past 2 pages, of Dave just plain ignoring questions posed to him while insisting everyone else address him and his questions in the utmost fashion:
* (bill) So a human parasite in the mothers whom is to be impaled to death for the crime of being conceived against her/his will, while a tick parasite is to be cared for with respect and sustained as a distant relative and one who man shares his DNA with even if a remote small % of DNA at that?
*(bill) Uh huh, so what % of people walking the face of this planet do you think were not a result of man/women sex, where the mother (host) carried the baby (parasite) in her whom to the point of it's birth?
*(bill) So what percent of mums DNA does the baby have to have before you no longer consider it a parasite, Dave?
*(bill) My 4 month old daughter is breast feeding from my wife and is dependent on this for her very existence. Is my 4 month old still a parasite, Dave?
* (bill) Why do we have laws that forbid us to kill another man, but allow us to shoot pesky varmints such as coyotes or such?
* (bill) Do you agree that is wrong to kill a man while it is ok to kill pesky varmint or do think there is no difference in shooting another man then in shooting a coyote, Dave?
*(Bill) Natural Selection also gives you the capacity to commit murder, rape, rob, and pillage, so now are you going to go act out all those capabilities as well?
*(bill) But yet the human parasite has 50% of her/his mothers DNA, much much more then distant relative of a tick. So why do you give respect to the tick parasite but you kill the human parasite?
*(bill) Let me ask you why you think we should not? In other words, do you see no difference in the value of life lost when a man is shot to death vs. a billy goat being shot to death?
* (bill) If you had to swim 25 yards out to save a drowning dog, or 30 yards out to save a drowning man, you would have no problem explaining to the people on shore, who just lost their loved one, that you saved the dog because he was closer and you saw no difference in the value of the dog vs. the value of the drowned grand dad, dad, brother, or whatever who was out 5 yards further, but you could only save one?
I, for one, see Dave establishing a pattern here.
quote:
Once again, you failed to answer the important question:
(bill) Coming from you Dave that is rich, real rich.
quote:
how is it that you know that the deity intended for there to be no abortions whatsoever? The natural selection bit was simply to show that natural selection obviously didn't intend for the abortion rate to be zero, or otherwise we wouldn't be capable of the act at all.
(bill) Again Dave, NS gave you the capacity to murder, rape, rob and pillage. Now if you make the |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
trogdor
Skeptic Friend
198 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 07:32:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by trogdor
quote:
Bill
quote:
That's not clear at all, since all the evidence points to the "intent" of whatever to be that only 35% of fertilized human eggs are carried through to a live birth, and most acts of sexual relations don't result in a fertilized egg in the first place.
(bill) Uh huh, so what % of people walking the face of this planet do you think were not a result of man/women sex, where the mother (host) carried the baby (parasite) in her whom to the point of it's birth? I would be willing to go out on a limb and put it at about 99.99 % or more of the people walking the earth today are here because of man/women sex where the mother carries the offspring to term. Just as the deity or the results of NS intended.
well Bill,
as a test tube baby I can say that I am not the result "of man/woman sex"
Am I against the intent of some deity or natural selection?
Hate to break it to you, but yes. You are. According to Bill's long winded diatribe against homosexuality, artificial insemination is "unnatural" and against the intent of the "Creator/NS"(tm).
I'm sure the opinion of someone of Bill's obvious intellect and reason is crushing to you. (snicker)
I fell so left out. 
at least now I can empathize better with my gay friends. |
all eyes were on Ford Prefect. some of them were on stalks.
-Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 07:45:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by trogdor
quote:
Bill
quote:
That's not clear at all, since all the evidence points to the "intent" of whatever to be that only 35% of fertilized human eggs are carried through to a live birth, and most acts of sexual relations don't result in a fertilized egg in the first place.
(bill) Uh huh, so what % of people walking the face of this planet do you think were not a result of man/women sex, where the mother (host) carried the baby (parasite) in her whom to the point of it's birth? I would be willing to go out on a limb and put it at about 99.99 % or more of the people walking the earth today are here because of man/women sex where the mother carries the offspring to term. Just as the deity or the results of NS intended.
well Bill,
as a test tube baby I can say that I am not the result "of man/woman sex"
Am I against the intent of some deity or natural selection?
Hate to break it to you, but yes. You are. According to Bill's long winded diatribe against homosexuality, artificial insemination is "unnatural" and against the intent of the "Creator/NS"(tm).
I'm sure the opinion of someone of Bill's obvious intellect and reason is crushing to you. (snicker)
quote:
Hate to break it to you, but yes. You are. According to Bill's long winded diatribe against homosexuality, artificial insemination is "unnatural" and against the intent of the "Creator/NS"(tm).
(bill) To quote a founding father here, Dave: "liar"
quote:
I'm sure the opinion of someone of Bill's obvious intellect and reason is crushing to you. (snicker)
(bill) Is that supposed to be some sort of insult as it sounds like it might? I don't care if it is but I am just surprised to here insults coming from you Val after your lecture and chiding of Dude for that very action.
To trogdor, notice I said 99.99% in my notion for the procreation mechanism in humans? If you want to debate the worth of test tube human or something similar just start a thread. I am sure it will be a great conversation
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
