Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

damn_registrars's Journal: That's a long joke there, friend 17

Journal by damn_registrars
Slashdot's fake conservative really went for a long setup on this joke.. Really, really, really long. And with a few mini-jokes in it as well - really, a pretty good show there friend.

I'll start with the first mini-joke, as it is right in the title. He calls his joke "The Scientific Pro-Life Argument"; the problem though is that there is quite nearly no valid science in his argument anywhere.

After all, his bit about

one or more of the following phenomenon -- mitosis (cellular division where the DNA is duplicated), cellular respiration, as a result of osmosis or photosynthesis, etc.

Applies as well to an embryo as it does to the skin cells that you wash off in the bathroom. Or the cells from your respiratory tract that you literally sneezed out the last time you had a cold. Or any of a number of other living cells that we regularly shed as part of our daily existence. In short, there is nothing special about that list; he posted it to make the conservative anti-abortion argument look silly (and it did a pretty good job there).

He follows up with this logical failure:

Some times, there is no explanation for a in-vitro death.

Which, presumably, was chosen just to show how conservatives can make themselves look more ridiculous when trying to sound scientific than they already look when they just embrace their ignorance.

It goes well with his interesting term

abortophiles

Which should basically mean "people who love to stop". And who runs around with giant stop signs to proclaim their political stance?

He also included an obligatory political jab as the conservative stance is often to assume that the reader isn't smart enough to figure out on their own who the favored audience is:

some Democrats consider people to be dependent children up to age 26.

Even though that has nothing to do with the matter at all.

He then pretended to be knowledgeable on medical ethics - and of course advocated for forcing the stance of a conservative male on the population of the entire world - while also pushing an unsupported line about the effects on the mother.

So what was the final punchline? It appears to be primarily the notion that conservatives support redefining "science" to push their agenda (while simultaneously doing everything they can to prevent funding of scientific research, mind you) on topics that they refuse to actually become well versed on. There were a few others buried in there but by and large this seems to be much like when a certain radio host claimed to be educated in "the sciences" before repeatedly shoving his foot in his mouth on pretty much every scientific matter he could think of to lecture his audience on.

By the way, friend, if you're reading this you forgot something. Namely, you didn't have a bestiality / homosexuality / anal sex / genetic inferiority line in there. I know it's been a while since you've been here to put on your act, so I thought I'd mention it to you as a service to help you get your act back up to par sooner. Good luck.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

That's a long joke there, friend

Comments Filter:
  • But only if you call 'common sense' an addiction.

    Applies as well to an embryo as it does to the skin cells that you wash off in the bathroom. Or the cells from your respiratory tract that you literally sneezed out the last time you had a cold. Or any of a number of other living cells that we regularly shed as part of our daily existence. In short, there is nothing special about that list; he posted it to make the conservative anti-abortion argument look silly (and it did a pretty good job there).

    If you statement held validity, then we'd all be Ash in the Army of Darkness [imdb.com] scene where he's over-run by tiny copies of himself.
    Picking over the rest of your rebuttal, I see you trying to nip at the edges and sound important, while falling short, e.g.:

    He follows up with this logical failure:

    Some times, there is no explanation for a in-vitro death.

    The worst thing we have here is a space character between 'some' and 'times'. If you think there is a fallacy here, then what? Name the fallacy, please.
    The best I can get at for a reason not to curb abortion

    • Applies as well to an embryo as it does to the skin cells that you wash off in the bathroom. Or the cells from your respiratory tract that you literally sneezed out the last time you had a cold. Or any of a number of other living cells that we regularly shed as part of our daily existence. In short, there is nothing special about that list; he posted it to make the conservative anti-abortion argument look silly (and it did a pretty good job there).

      If you statement held validity, then we'd all be Ash in the Army of Darkness scene where he's over-run by tiny copies of himself.

      You don't seem to understand much about cellular biology. My point is that he did not name a single trait of a living cell that makes a fetal cell in any way different from an adult cell that is routinely sloughed off during life. His argument would make every person alive guilty of performing abortions many times a day.

      He follows up with this logical failure:

      Some times, there is no explanation for a in-vitro death.

      The worst thing we have here is a space character between 'some' and 'times'. If you think there is a fallacy here, then what? Name the fallacy, please.

      The fallacy is the notion of "in vitro death". Three is nothing "in vitro" about traditional pregnancy. The phrase in vitro refers to being outside the regular context of life, sexual

      • Point: in vitro [wikipedia.org] was used erroneously.

        However you could do yourself a favor by learning something about the situation instead of painting people in such broad strokes.

        If people are contending that 2+2=5, then I'm going to call them idiots. Heck, I'll even agree that it's a broad stroke. When you're talking about 57mil+ [numberofabortions.com] since Roe v. Wade, let's do this: I'll endeavor to be less reactionary about climate reporting, if you reconsider the open river of evil that is abortion.

        • Point: in vitro was used erroneously.

          Thank you. I see his misuse of in vitro as being intentional, a part of his continued act. You are free to disagree.

          When you're talking about 57mil+ since Roe v. Wade

          I appreciate that the page you linked to does source some of their numbers. However there are a lot of problems with the numbers they post, as well.

          For one, they put up a number they call

          US this Year due to rape or incest

          However I cannot find anywhere on their site where they describe how they come up with this numbers. I would argue that such a number is nearly impossible to ascertain with any real certainty due to p

          • Only that it take an act of applied blindness not to note that the abortion numbers look as racially skewed as incarceration numbers.
            In the latter case, we're instructed to decide that there is racism afoot in our legal system. And there may be.
            In the former case, the explanation is: SHUT UP!
            • Only that it take an act of applied blindness not to note that the abortion numbers look as racially skewed as incarceration numbers.

              How exactly do those numbers support that notion in any meaningful way? If you don't have numbers on the racial makeup of people who seek abortions, you can't make that claim and support it. They most certainly did not offer any evidence to support it with any of the numbers that they had on their website (including the unsourced numbers).

              That said, you should be a little ashamed of yourself for how you just opted to follow your party's endorsed strategy for discussion rather than actually approaching

              • See http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/16/79-of-planned-parenthood-abortion-clinics-target-blacks-hispanics/ [lifenews.com]

                That said, you should be a little ashamed of yourself for how you just opted to follow your party's endorsed strategy for discussion rather than actually approaching the discussion in a mature and reasoned manned.

                And you should be ashamed for immediately pointing a finger and trying to shame me. The "blame first, win news cycle", while it has kept your girl in office these five years, has done about shag-all to help the economy. Your only saving grace is that our electorate is substantially composed of slow learners.

                • And you should be ashamed for immediately pointing a finger and trying to shame me

                  I tried to discuss with you the web page that you cited. I even paid them a compliment for the fact that they had sources for some of their numbers. You then responded with anger over the fact that i dared to question some of the numbers that they posted with no source. The fact that you discarded my questions to instead display anger towards me for not being willing to take your favorite assumptions and regard them as unquestionable statements of truth is itself shameful. Why did you post that link if

                • That is - at very best - a questionable conclusion there. The only data they have is the claim that planned parenthood is

                  putting 79% of its abortion clinics in minority neighborhoods.

                  Which they actually redefine later in the same article as

                  79% of Planned Parenthoodâ(TM)s surgical abortion facilities are located within walking distance of African American and/or Hispanic/Latino communities.

                  They are falling victim to their own inability to separate correlation from causation. When you are close to minority neighborhoods you are generally close to the population centers of the largest cities in the country. It wouldn't make sense to place a health clinic that is interested in serving reproductive health needs of

                  • You say "conspiracy theory" as though it whisks the dead bodies off to some corn field.
                    I suppose that it is with a similar hard hearts that people in other times, on other continents, have viewed other tragedies.
                    • You say "conspiracy theory" as though it whisks the dead bodies off to some corn field.

                      I say conspiracy theory because you are alleging that people are conspiring to use abortion as a tool for population control and/or ethnic cleansing. There is no evidence to support such a notion, in spite of how much you want there to be - or at least you have yet to present any.

                      But before you invest more energy into trying to group me in with the group you most love to hate based on your assumptions of my stance on abortion, allow me to quote someone whose opinion on the matter I do share:

                      abortion should be safe, legal, and rare

                      I'll let y

                    • And I'm sure you wouldn't be comparing me to a Nazi, there.

                      See, now, you had to get out the "N" word. ;-)

                    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

                      I presume whoever you are, you posted that as AC because the source is so embarrassingly biased as to not be even reasonable to count as a source at all. If you have meaningful information to present, feel free to try again. Something that just blindly paints someone who you disagree with as the devil won't get you far.
                    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

                      by Anonymous Coward
                      I presume whoever you are, you posted that as AC because the source is so embarrassingly biased as to not be even reasonable to count as a source at all.

                      Wrong again -- you're so wrong, it's comical. If you had bothered to read, you've have found a fully researched article complete with references.

                      Just because you don't like the conclusion doesn't mean it's not a valid source.

                      Are we sure you're not a fake liberal trying to make liberals look bad by your horribly constructed arguments and your silly
                    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

                      I see what you're trying to do there, AC. Too bad it doesn't correlate with reality. That may explain why you are too cowardly to even propose it with a made-up slashdot name behind it.
                    • by Anonymous Coward
                      None of what you post correlates with reality, but that's doesn't stop you.

                      Of course, you clearly want it to not correlate with reality, because that's part of the bit. You're doing a terrific job making liberals look like absolute putzes. I was completely wrong about you -- you're a comedic genius. You're like "Liberal Larry' -- another well known liberal satire personality. But I doubt you're as cute as Sunny from Sunny TV, another liberal parody.

You can't take damsel here now.

Working...