(Nov 9, 2020 09:41 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ] (Nov 9, 2020 09:29 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]But you’re assuming I didn’t vote for Trump due to emotion. The problem isn’t that women may or may not be more emotional than men, it’s that you think you’re better than women because of a stereotype. That you make choices because you’re so smart, moral and logical and emotional decisions are made by women. Your comment was to offend.
Anyway, this has been fun and I appreciate some of the info you posted. I don’t know everything, so it’s useful. Remember ...we are all works in progress.
When you think about it, the argument against abortion is pretty much an appeal to emotion. Strange that for republicans that one issue should be the sole deciding factor for voting for a president.
Well, it’s an appeal to giving the same rights of a born baby to an unborn one. And is terminating a viable fetus a healthcare “right?”
I think that both sides need to find common ground but the challenge is that the issue doesn’t only involve women - it involves another life. It has become known as a woman’s issue, but it’s really an overall humanitarian issue, in my opinion.
(Nov 9, 2020 10:17 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ] (Nov 9, 2020 09:41 PM)O po Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ] (Nov 9, 2020 09:29 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]But you’re assuming I didn’t vote for Trump due to emotion. The problem isn’t that women may or may not be more emotional than men, it’s that you think you’re better than women because of a stereotype. That you make choices because you’re so smart, moral and logical and emotional decisions are made by women. Your comment was to offend.
Anyway, this has been fun and I appreciate some of the info you posted. I don’t know everything, so it’s useful. Remember ...we are all works in progress.
When you think about it, the argument against abortion is pretty much an appeal to emotion. Strange that for republicans that one issue should be the sole deciding factor for voting for a president.
Well, it’s an appeal to giving the same rights of a born baby to an unborn one. And is terminating a viable fetus a healthcare “right?”
It relies on rhetoric and emotions to make the fetus seem like a conscious baby when it isn't. It's a play on our emotions and isn't based on reasoning or objective facts.
(Nov 9, 2020 08:56 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]In other news, why do you guys think that federal funding for our space programs will be diminished or halted? If Democrats respect science, why would they do that?
"A discussion of Joe Biden's space policy is of course much more speculative, but we can make some educated guesses.
For example, some experts have predicted that U.S. space policy won't change dramatically if Biden wins the election. Such forecasts often cite the official Democratic Party Platform, which pledges continued support for NASA and space exploration more broadly.
"We support NASA's work to return Americans to the moon and go beyond to Mars, taking the next step in exploring our solar system," the platform reads, in part. (Whether the same urgency — getting boots back on the moon by 2024, for example — will apply is another question, however.)
But the next sentence highlights an important difference with the priorities of the current White House: "Democrats additionally support strengthening NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth-observation missions to better understand how climate change is impacting our home planet."
That makes sense: Biden has said that combating climate change will be a priority of his administration if he wins the White House. That would be a departure from the current administration; President Trump has expressed skepticism about the reality and dangers of human-caused climate change.
Back on the similarities side, a President Biden might also be quite friendly to commercial spaceflight endeavors. After all, Biden served as vice president during the administration of President Barack Obama, whose federal budget requests directed NASA to hand off crewed operations in low Earth orbit to private astronaut taxis like SpaceX's Crew Dragon capsule. NASA's Commercial Crew Program got up and running in 2010 and awarded crew-carrying contracts to SpaceX and Boeing in 2014.
It's far too early to speculate about other important matters, such as whether a President Biden would keep on the current NASA Administrator, Jim Bridenstine, or bring in his own pick. We'll just have to wait and see what Election Day and beyond have in store."---
https://www.space.com/election-2020-spac...rump-biden
(Nov 9, 2020 10:25 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ] (Nov 9, 2020 10:17 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ] (Nov 9, 2020 09:41 PM)O po Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ] (Nov 9, 2020 09:29 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]But you’re assuming I didn’t vote for Trump due to emotion. The problem isn’t that women may or may not be more emotional than men, it’s that you think you’re better than women because of a stereotype. That you make choices because you’re so smart, moral and logical and emotional decisions are made by women. Your comment was to offend.
Anyway, this has been fun and I appreciate some of the info you posted. I don’t know everything, so it’s useful. Remember ...we are all works in progress.
When you think about it, the argument against abortion is pretty much an appeal to emotion. Strange that for republicans that one issue should be the sole deciding factor for voting for a president.
Well, it’s an appeal to giving the same rights of a born baby to an unborn one. And is terminating a viable fetus a healthcare “right?”
It relies on rhetoric and emotions to make the fetus seem like a conscious baby when it isn't. It's a play on our emotions and isn't based on reasoning or objective facts.
(Nov 9, 2020 08:56 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]In other news, why do you guys think that federal funding for our space programs will be diminished or halted? If Democrats respect science, why would they do that?
"A discussion of Joe Biden's space policy is of course much more speculative, but we can make some educated guesses.
For example, some experts have predicted that U.S. space policy won't change dramatically if Biden wins the election. Such forecasts often cite the official Democratic Party Platform, which pledges continued support for NASA and space exploration more broadly.
"We support NASA's work to return Americans to the moon and go beyond to Mars, taking the next step in exploring our solar system," the platform reads, in part. (Whether the same urgency — getting boots back on the moon by 2024, for example — will apply is another question, however.)
But the next sentence highlights an important difference with the priorities of the current White House: "Democrats additionally support strengthening NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth-observation missions to better understand how climate change is impacting our home planet."
That makes sense: Biden has said that combating climate change will be a priority of his administration if he wins the White House. That would be a departure from the current administration; President Trump has expressed skepticism about the reality and dangers of human-caused climate change.
Back on the similarities side, a President Biden might also be quite friendly to commercial spaceflight endeavors. After all, Biden served as vice president during the administration of President Barack Obama, whose federal budget requests directed NASA to hand off crewed operations in low Earth orbit to private astronaut taxis like SpaceX's Crew Dragon capsule. NASA's Commercial Crew Program got up and running in 2010 and awarded crew-carrying contracts to SpaceX and Boeing in 2014.
It's far too early to speculate about other important matters, such as whether a President Biden would keep on the current NASA Administrator, Jim Bridenstine, or bring in his own pick. We'll just have to wait and see what Election Day and beyond have in store."--- https://www.space.com/election-2020-spac...rump-biden
I think the abortion argument goes further than rhetoric and whimsical emotions. Why if a pregnant woman is murdered, during one of her trimesters, is it ruled a double homicide? (or triple, if she's pregnant with twins, etc) From observation, it seems that our culture picks and chooses when it's convenient (or not) to label it a life, you know?
Re: space exploration under Biden - yea, I figure he'll balance his priorities, starting with climate change. My opinion though, take it fwiw - the US can't afford to keep shifting its priorities and mission every time a new administration takes over. I fear we may lag behind other nations, and it will take more than a few years to ''catch up.'' It's just frustrating.
(Nov 9, 2020 10:25 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]It relies on rhetoric and emotions to make the fetus seem like a conscious baby when it isn't. It's a play on our emotions and isn't based on reasoning or objective facts.
No, it relies on science defining it as "human life" and murder being defined as the taking of "human life". Consciousness is a red herring about "personhood" that is all about injecting subjective judgement into an objective reality. IOW, quibbling over consciousness is the appeal to emotion. It's about how you feel about the fetus, rather than what it, in fact, is.
Quote:"We support NASA's work to return Americans to the moon and go beyond to Mars, taking the next step in exploring our solar system," the platform reads, in part. (Whether the same urgency — getting boots back on the moon by 2024, for example — will apply is another question, however.)
Career politicians lie like they breath.
Quote:From observation, it seems that our culture picks and chooses when it's convenient (or not) to label it a life, you know?
That's the nature of appealing to emotion. It's hard to define life as an objective state. It's more of a philosophical question. People suddenly pontificating on things like life and personhood in the absence of any real facts to settle the matter for us. The fetus gets humanized as a person and the terminating of it gets moralized as murder. It's all just a clever ruse of words and emotionally charged catchphrases.
I edited above, my reply to your reply on space exploration. You guys are too quick today. Some days, it takes forever to receive replies.
(Nov 9, 2020 11:09 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:From observation, it seems that our culture picks and chooses when it's convenient (or not) to label it a life, you know?
That's the nature of appealing to emotion. It's hard to define life as an objective state. It's more of a philosophical question. People suddenly pontificating on things like life and personhood in the absence of any real facts to settle the matter for us. The fetus gets humanized as a person and the terminating of it gets moralized as murder. It's all just a clever ruse of words and emotionally charged catchphrases.
No, it's not hard to define human life. Science clearly and unambiguously defines what is alive (we're not talking pseudo-life like viruses here) and what is human (has its own unique human DNA)...hence objectively human life. That's the scientific fact.
And all this personhood and woman's body crap is how emotional arguments only muddy the otherwise crystal clear water. Personhood has nothing to do with whether it is a human life, murder is defined by human life (not personhood). And a unique human life is obviously not part of the woman's body. So all these are the emotional arguments. The right only uses them when they've been duped into following the left's anti-science red herrings.
(Nov 10, 2020 12:34 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]No, it's not hard to define human life. Science clearly and unambiguously defines what is alive (we're not talking pseudo-life like viruses here) and what is human (has its own unique human DNA)...hence objectively human life. That's the scientific fact.
And all this personhood and woman's body crap is how emotional arguments only muddy the otherwise crystal clear water. Personhood has nothing to do with whether it is a human life, murder is defined by human life (not personhood). And a unique human life is obviously not part of the woman's body. So all these are the emotional arguments. The right only uses them when they've been duped into following the left's anti-science red herrings.
You think it’s fine to take lives during war to keep your freedom, right?
Quote:Science clearly and unambiguously defines what is alive (we're not talking pseudo-life like viruses here) and what is human (has its own unique human DNA)...hence objectively human life. That's the scientific fact.
Cells are alive. Tissue is alive. Organs are alive. Are we to define them as human lives? And red blood cells are alive and yet have no DNA. Does that mean they aren't human?