Brain differences in political orientation - Page 12

**Beowulf** · 12-04-2011, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

.... is it just me or did Reba just basically say that it's okay to masturbate?

MY VIRGIN EARS!!!!!!

If you want to die on the spot, yeah.

jillio · 12-04-2011, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

jillio, first let me explain that this is not directed at you personally, anyone else here personally and is not a slam on you in any sense. But tell that statement to the Jews of the Holocaust. Tell that to the unborn. Nuff said!

Anytime someone prefaces a statement with "This is not directed at you personally, it is obvious that it most certainly is.

I lost family members in the Holocaust. And I find it offensive that you would pull the Holocaust out of your butt in nothing more than an attempt to bring an emotional component into a debate. That is low, indeed. To compare abortion to the Holocaust is fallicious. Abortion is a choice. Being gassed and burned in an oven is not. How dare you. Only from a white privileged male would you hear such a thing.
You are quite right. Enough said. Anything else you say from this point forward will only serve to further show what a despicable, insensitive, conservative agenda pushing low life you are.

Not directed at you, personally, by the way.

Sunshine · 12-04-2011, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

Most unborn babies are viable!!

Simple math show you wrong.

Pregnancy - 40 weeks
Limits viability - 24 weeks, or 60% through pregnancy

If we look right now all pregnant women entire world, spread should be roughly even across all weeks pregnancy, give/take few. Therefore, roughly 60% all pregnancies less 24 weeks, or unviable.

So 40% viable. How this "most"?

**KarissaMann05** · 12-04-2011, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Yes, you understand it perfectly. Until a fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb, it is not viable.

I heard a new way to remove a fetus and to place in the life-supporting machine thing, so he/she can survive, and then someone would adopt the child later. But, I suppose they would prefer abortions to life-supporting machine things. I'll ask someone about the article that I read last April or so. It's very interesting to read!

jillio · 12-04-2011, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

No, God didn't say that. It has nothing to do with men masturbating. It was a very specific event by one man, Onan, that displeased God. It was Onan's responsibility to carry on the name of his deceased brother thru marrying his widow and producing children. He refused to do that.

Genesis 38
8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. 9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

So the Christian sects can twist the words of the Bible and say God was speaking metaphorically when it is about something they want to do, but take them literally when it involves something they don't want to do.

Sending a dude to have sex with his dead brother's wife sounds a lot like pimping to me.

jillio · 12-04-2011, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarissaMann05

I heard a new way to remove a fetus and to place in the life-supporting machine thing, so he/she can survive, and then someone would adopt the child later. But, I suppose they would prefer abortions to life-supporting machine things. I'll ask someone about the article that I read last April or so. It's very interesting to read!

Life support will not save all babies born too early. It will only save a few that are just below the viability line. And in "saving" them, the baby generally ends up with so many medical and developmental probems that they end up close to a vegetative state.

There is a reason that we have a certain amount of time in our gestation period. It takes that amount of time for a fetus to develop to the point that it can live independent of the mother's womb.

If a woman wants to carry her pregnancy to term and give the baby up for adoption, she has the right to do so. If she doesn't want to carry the pregnancy to term, then she has the right not to. No one outsitde of those directly involved should be involving themselves in her decision. And Roe v Wade guarantees the right to privacy between a doctor and his patient.

**saywhatkid** · 12-04-2011, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

So the Christian sects can twist the words of the Bible and say God was speaking metaphorically when it is about something they want to do, but take them literally when it involves something they don't want to do.

Sending a dude to have sex with his dead brother's wife sounds a lot like pimping to me.

My and Reba's words are copied directly from the Bible. You make what you will from it. No twisting occured by Reba or myself.

Carry on.

jillio · 12-04-2011, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Simple math show you wrong.

Pregnancy - 40 weeks
Limits viability - 24 weeks, or 60% through pregnancy

If we look right now all pregnant women entire world, spread should be roughly even across all weeks pregnancy, give/take few. Therefore, roughly 60% all pregnancies less 24 weeks, or unviable.

So 40% viable. How this "most"?

Not to mention the number of miscarraiges that actually occur prior to the woman even knowing that she is pregnant.

But hey, don't confuse him with facts. He finds facts to be an annoyance. He would much prefer to rant and rave based on emotion.

**deafskeptic** · 12-04-2011, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Not to mention the number of miscarraiges that actually occur prior to the woman even knowing that she is pregnant.

But hey, don't confuse him with facts. He finds facts to be an annoyance. He would much prefer to rant and rave based on emotion.

I prefer facts as they are even when they're not what I want to hear.

jillio · 12-04-2011, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywhatkid

My and Reba's words are copied directly from the Bible. You make what you will from it. No twisting occured by Reba or myself.

Carry on.

Reba's interpretation was not copied and pasted from the Bible. And I might remind you that when you do copy and paste, you are also taking out of context. Anyone can find a Bible verse to support anything they want to. The LDS find support for polygamy in the Bible, but the other Christian sects don't. That is why it is not an effective reference for debate.

jillio · 12-04-2011, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

I prefer facts as they are even when they're not what I want to hear.

Me, too. I gives one a realistic perspective from which to operate.

jillio · 12-04-2011, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

Then why is religious discussion not allowed?

censorship?

As I can see, Jillio is the first person to proclaim religious discussion is not allowed, as well as the first person to misrepresent scripture. So, if religious discussion is not allowed, why would Jillio do that?

It has virtually na.thing to do with a liberal or a conservative agenda.

Because your brother, or your cousin, or your alter ego, or whoever he is insists on making religious reference to EVERYTHING. You might want to go back and see who brings religion into discussions.

I misrepresented nothing. You, on the other hand, have been known to purposely tell lies in order to try to make a point. Now that's a very Christian behavior for you.

**Reba** · 12-04-2011, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

So the Christian sects can twist the words of the Bible and say God was speaking metaphorically when it is about something they want to do, but take them literally when it involves something they don't want to do.

I wouldn't presume to speak for Christian sects. I'm just referencing the Bible. That is a very clear cut passage about a specific people and a specific event.

Quote:

Sending a dude to have sex with his dead brother's wife sounds a lot like pimping to me.

That's your problem, isn't it?

That's also odd because I thought you were all for interpreting text within its historical social context, and not judging other cultures against the norms of our current American culture.

jillio · 12-04-2011, 03:25 PM

Let's get back on track and see if we can find a way to pacify those that want to bring religion into each and every topic. How about if we discuss the neural correlates associated with religious experience?

jillio · 12-04-2011, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

I wouldn't presume to speak for Christian sects. I'm just referencing the Bible. That is a very clear cut passage about a specific people and a specific event.

That's your problem, isn't it?

That's also odd because I thought you were all for interpreting text within its historical social context, and not judging other cultures against the norms of our current American culture.

Not a problem for me in the least. Just a demonstration of what can happen when you take things too literally.

You saying that there weren't prostitutes and pimps back then? Might want to check with Mary Magdalene.

**Reba** · 12-04-2011, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Reba's interpretation was not copied and pasted from the Bible. And I might remind you that when you do copy and paste, you are also taking out of context. Anyone can find a Bible verse to support anything they want to. The LDS find support for polygamy in the Bible, but the other Christian sects don't. That is why it is not an effective reference for debate.

Yet you made your comment about spilled seed without any kind of reference at all. Is that more acceptable? I gave the book and chapter. If anyone wants to read more of that context they can. How much of the Bible do you think I should quote in a single post? Enough to make the point, or enough to get me in trouble with the mods?

I provided a biblical support for my interpretation, and you didn't.

If you believe that the Bible is not an effective reference for debate, why did you bring up the "spilled seed" reference in the first place?

**KarissaMann05** · 12-04-2011, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Life support will not save all babies born too early. It will only save a few that are just below the viability line. And in "saving" them, the baby generally ends up with so many medical and developmental probems that they end up close to a vegetative state.

There is a reason that we have a certain amount of time in our gestation period. It takes that amount of time for a fetus to develop to the point that it can live independent of the mother's womb.

Of course.

I well aware, hence my mention, "I suppose they would prefer abortions to life-supporting machine things." I just talked to someone and he is not sure if he remembers that article, The Future of Babies: Artificial Wombs and Pregnant Grandmas | LiveScience, but he think it is, maybe.

Again, I never said life-supporting machines are only way to save them... I offer some interesting information.

Quote:

If a woman wants to carry her pregnancy to term and give the baby up for adoption, she has the right to do so. If she doesn't want to carry the pregnancy to term, then she has the right not to. No one outsitde of those directly involved should be involving themselves in her decision. And Roe v Wade guarantees the right to privacy between a doctor and his patient.

Okay, now now. Nowhere in my posts here said she can't have one... She can have her abortion if she wants to, go ahead. I merely offered some thoughts and interesting information...

EDIT: I forget to say something. I know I said life-supporting machines, so I mean, artificial wombs. My bad.

**saywhatkid** · 12-04-2011, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Reba's interpretation was not copied and pasted from the Bible. And I might remind you that when you do copy and paste, you are also taking out of context. Anyone can find a Bible verse to support anything they want to. The LDS find support for polygamy in the Bible, but the other Christian sects don't. That is why it is not an effective reference for debate.

Out of context to copy and paste?

You want the entire Book of Genesis?

BTW, I was not using it for debate. I offered mine as an easier to understand version of what Reba posted. There is no point in using Biblical quotes in a debate here, because they can be reported and deleted. That is how people want it here, and I agreed to follow those rules. *shrug*

**deafskeptic** · 12-04-2011, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Not a problem for me in the least. Just a demonstration of what can happen when you take things too literally.

You saying that there weren't prostitutes and pimps back then? Might want to check with Mary Magdalene.

Let's not forget harlots in the Old Testament

jillio · 12-04-2011, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

Yet you made your comment about spilled seed without any kind of reference at all. Is that more acceptable? I gave the book and chapter. If anyone wants to read more of that context they can. How much of the Bible do you think I should quote in a single post? Enough to make the point, or enough to get me in trouble with the mods?

I provided a biblical support for my interpretation, and you didn't.

If you believe that the Bible is not an effective reference for debate, why did you bring up the "spilled seed" reference in the first place?

Your example is not the only place in the Bible that reference is made.

You know, you should consider teaching a Bible school class. You really seem to be wrapped up in it. But AD is not the place for it, even though you jump on every miniscule opportunity to bring it into the discussion.

I have attempted to compromise for the Bible thumpers and discuss science as applied to the religious experience. Evidently, compromise is something that the "Christians" here know nothing about.

**Reba** · 12-04-2011, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Not a problem for me in the least. Just a demonstration of what can happen when you take things too literally.

You saying that there weren't prostitutes and pimps back then? Might want to check with Mary Magdalene.

I never stated that there were no prostitutes in the Bible.

**saywhatkid** · 12-04-2011, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Let's get back on track and see if we can find a way to pacify those that want to bring religion into each and every topic. How about if we discuss the neural correlates associated with religious experience?

I have only seen this occur, in my personal involvement, when a comment that was likely intended to mock Christianity was used. I will always stand up against such things. No need to pacify me. I don't look for that here.

jillio · 12-04-2011, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywhatkid

Out of context to copy and paste?

You want the entire Book of Genesis?

BTW, I was not using it for debate. I offered mine as an easier to understand version of what Reba posted. There is no point in using Biblical quotes in a debate here, because they can be reported and deleted. That is how people want it here, and I agreed to follow those rules. *shrug*

Yep, out of context.

I see plenty of Biblical quotes being used to debate issues around here, you included. Just because you used a different version doesn't mean that you were not using that quote to support one point and discount another. It just means you were tag teaming.

**saywhatkid** · 12-04-2011, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Your example is not the only place in the Bible that reference is made.

You know, you should consider teaching a Bible school class. You really seem to be wrapped up in it. But AD is not the place for it, even though you jump on every miniscule opportunity to bring it into the discussion.

I have attempted to compromise for the Bible thumpers and discuss science as applied to the religious experience. Evidently, compromise is something that the "Christians" here know nothing about.

I see. Thumpers?

**Reba** · 12-04-2011, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

Let's not forget harlots in the Old Testament

I haven't forgotten them. There were harlots in the Old and New Testaments. I never denied that. What is the point here?

jillio · 12-04-2011, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywhatkid

I have only seen this occur, in my personal involvement, when a comment that was likely intended to mock Christianity was used. I will always stand up against such things. No need to pacify me. I don't look for that here.

So, how about the neuronal correlates associated with the religious experience. And that would be all religious experience, not limtited to simply one religion. A muslim brain, a Christian brain, and a Santa Ria brain all show the same activity during religious experience.

**Beowulf** · 12-04-2011, 03:38 PM

Sunday, bloody gloomy Sunday.

**Reba** · 12-04-2011, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Yep, out of context.

I see plenty of Biblical quotes being used to debate issues around here, you included. Just because you used a different version doesn't mean that you were not using that quote to support one point and discount another. It just means you were tag teaming.

What do you mean by tag teaming?

**saywhatkid** · 12-04-2011, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Yep, out of context.

I see plenty of Biblical quotes being used to debate issues around here, you included. Just because you used a different version doesn't mean that you were not using that quote to support one point and discount another. It just means you were tag teaming.

Tag team with Reba? Amazing connection! She knows 50 times more about Bible than I do. I thought I was doing a service for people that are baffled by KJV Bibles. That includes me.

**saywhatkid** · 12-04-2011, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

What do you mean by tag teaming?

We are the Bible Thumpers, current WWE tag team champions?

12-04-2011, 03:38 PM	#357 (permalink)
Beowulf Premium Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 10,515	Sunday, bloody gloomy Sunday. __________________ .

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

12-04-2011, 03:25 PM	#344 (permalink)
jillio Banned Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 60,296	Let's get back on track and see if we can find a way to pacify those that want to bring religion into each and every topic. How about if we discuss the neural correlates associated with religious experience?