70
   

Proof of nonexistence of free will

 
 
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Sun 14 Apr, 2019 09:14 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
You really are pretty ignorant, aren't you! CA, if a country, would be the 5th richest in this world. http://fortune.com/2018/05/05/california-fifth-biggest-economy-passes-united-kingdom/


Then they should be wealthy enough to feed poor children instead of killing them. I was not talking about size of the population or GDP. I was talking about raising and nurturing babies instead of killing them. https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/states/

California's abortion rate is 19.5/1,000 live births, total yearly abortions are 157,350 percent of pregnancies aborted is 24% and number of abortion facilities are 512.

Nebraska's abortion rate is 6.3/1,000 live births, total yearly abortions are 2,280 percent of pregnancies aborted is 8% and number of abortion facilities is 5.

24% of pregnancies ending in abortion to avoid starving children in the wealthiest most productive state in the union is terrible. I think Nebraska's 8% is bad enough and, if we outlawed abortions in Nebraska except to save the life of the woman, we could get that number down to around 2%. (Which is probably closer to where it should be to save the lives of women.)

Are you concerned at all that one of the largest concentrations of wealth and productivity in the world is the place where they are killing unborn babies at such high rates compared to places like Nebraska?
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Sun 14 Apr, 2019 09:33 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
https://www.sfgate.com/education/article/Stanford-Cal-Tech-qs-best-universities-world-13044727.php Two Calif. universities ranked among top 5 in world. Are you from one of these states? After analyzing all 50 U.S. states, we came up with this list as the 10 worst states in our nation for 2019:


I hope these universities aren't teaching their students that killing unborn babies is better than nurturing them because of the bigoted notion that they don't deserve to live because of their age and location.
https://www.homesnacks.net/best-states-to-raise-a-family-in-america-1211642/
Here are the 10 best states to raise a family in America for 2019 according to the data:
New Hampshire (Photos)
Vermont (Photos)
Maine (Photos)
North Dakota (Photos)
Nebraska (Photos)
Iowa (Photos)
Wyoming (Photos)
South Dakota (Photos)
Connecticut (Photos)
Massachusetts (Photos)

California comes in at 43 on this list.

This is what is important to me. Forcing states that consist of people who have similar values but are different than yours is wrong don't you think?

Shouldn't they be able to run their states the way they choose to through legislation?
Or do you want to force us all down to the level of #43 established by California?

Nebraska is #5 and would like to maintain or improve that family nurturing environment by establishing our own laws on abortion that fit the values of the vast majority of the people that live here.

Are you against voting for laws?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2019 03:35 pm
@brianjakub,
Quote:
California comes in at 43 on this list.
I hope everybody thinks that, so we don't get any more people like you in our state. As a state, we're doing very well, thank you! 5th largest economy in the world. The founding of the high tech industry with many of the most famous home-based in our area including Apple, Google, Facebook, with many foreign companies establishing a branch in this area. San Francisco is one of the most visited cities in the world. Most people in the world know about the Golden Gate Bridge. Our state enjoys a varied climate from snow to desert. Los Angeles/Hollywood has the movie industry that many countries try to immolate. We also have Disneyland.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2019 06:27 pm
@cicerone imposter,
So what's wrong with California being the state of wealth? And, Nebraska being the state where unborn children are safe and nurtured. Why do you want to force every state to be like yours? Why are you so anti-choice?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2019 11:46 pm
@brianjakub,
Quote:
Why do you want to force every state to be like yours?
. Show me where I made such a claim?
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2019 05:16 am
@cicerone imposter,
You said you think Roe v Wade is a good decision because it forces every state to allow mothers to kill their unborn babies instead of nurturing them. That would not be legal with Nebraska if it wasn't for Roe. Don't you agree that role versus Wade forces your values (your California values) on Nebraskans? Before Roe v Wade abortion was legal in California and illegal in Nebraska what's wrong with that?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2019 06:50 pm
@brianjakub,
Quote:
You said you think Roe v Wade is a good decision...
. I made no such claim. My position has always been, "why let complete strangers interfere in a woman's choice of what to do with her own body?" Your interpretation of other people's statements needs much improvement.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Apr, 2019 12:13 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Ok when you said you were concerned about The judges Trump appoints. And then you pointed out in the same post you don't think people should get involved in a woman's choice whether she kills her baby or not. You don't think it was a logical For me to assume that you were worried that a trump appointee Might overturn Roe versus Wade.?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jun, 2019 10:31 am
@brianjakub,
https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/21-TruthsThat-Prove-Republicans-Have-Been-Wrong-About-Everything When republicans want to control women's bodies, and force them to have babies they do not want and can support, that takes away the freedom of the woman and her doctor to choose what they wish to do. Right to lifers are hypocrites. They want to force birth of the baby, but do not want any responsibility to feed, care, and provide all the needs they require until they become adults. There are millions of children around the world that are starving and without healthcare and parents. They need care. What are these hypocrites doing to support them? Nothing.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jun, 2019 10:42 am
@brianjakub,
Quote:

Then they should be wealthy enough to feed poor children instead of killing them. I was not talking about size of the population or GDP. I was talking about raising and nurturing babies instead of killing them. https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/states/
What are you doing to feed, shelter, and provide health care for all the starving children in this world? How about all the orphans in our country? Are you helping them in any way?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jun, 2019 10:44 am
@brianjakub,
Quote:
brianjakub

Re: cicerone imposter (Post 6826251)
You said you think Roe v Wade is a good decision because it forces every state to allow mothers to kill their unborn babies instead of nurturing them.
I never said Roe vs Wade is a good decision. It's none of my business what any woman wishes to do with her body.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jun, 2019 12:49 pm
@cicerone imposter,
There are few things that government does that can hurt the economy in a serious way. Democrats and republicans never want to make big changes because in the end they both have the same goals but are approaching them from different angles to make it look like they are fighting for something. In the end, no matter who wins the inside the beltway crowd stays in power either by winning elections or by becoming lobbyists.

What scares them is when somebody gets into office that isn't part of that crowd. Somebody who doesn't care about maintaining the powers that be. There are a few of those and they are mostly Libertarians on the right or Socialists on the left I would consider Ben Sass, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump , Rand Paul, Alexandria Cortez.

Hardly any of them understands the federal governments main job which is:
1. to uphold the constitution instead of rewriting it
2. Promote good and punish evil
3. Set up a National Defense which includes an interstate highway
4. Stay the hell out of law abiding citizen's way and let local governments take care of the rest.

There is a lot of candidates on both the left and the right scaring the inside the beltway folks which are making things interesting for a change.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jun, 2019 05:20 pm
@brianjakub,
Quote:
Hardly any of them understands the federal governments main job which is:
1. to uphold the constitution instead of rewriting it
. A: Who is trying to rewrite the Constitution?
Quote:
Hardly any of them understands the federal governments main job which is:
Quote:
2. Promote good and punish evil
. A: When the president is evil, there's not much we can do about that. Besides all that, "good and evil" are very subjective, and not everybody will agree based on their politics.
Quote:
Hardly any of them understands the federal governments main job which is:
3. Set up a National Defense which includes an interstate highway
A: Congress already has the responsibility to secure our safety, and construct and maintain our infrastructure at the national level.
Quote:
Hardly any of them understands the federal governments main job which is:
4. Stay the hell out of law abiding citizen's way and let local governments take care of the rest.
A: That's up to the citizens to elect the kind of people who understands those issues, and keep their promises. Most do not.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2019 06:17 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
. A: Who is trying to rewrite the Constitution?


They aren't trying, they did as the wiki quote explains.

wiki
Dissenting opinion
The dissenting opinion was written by Justice William Rehnquist. He objected to the majority decision giving several reasons.[9]

He first pointed out there was no legitimate plaintiff in the case and that was a requirement to hear the case. A legitimate plaintiff would be a woman in her first trimester of her pregnancy at some point while the case was being tried. McCorvey (Jane Roe) did not fit that qualification and so the ruling had no application to the case.[9]
The court recognized a woman's right to abortion under the general "right to privacy from previous cases. But he argued, "A transaction such as this is hardly 'private' in the ordinary usage of the word."[9]
The majority opinion was vague on where exactly the right to privacy was located in the Constitution. Several amendments were mentioned, but none were specifically identified to contain the right to privacy. The word privacy is not found in the Constitution.[9]
Additional problems include the court acting as a legislature in breaking pregnancy into three trimesters and outlining the permissible restrictions states may make.[9] Rehnquist pointed out that 36 of the 37 states in 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, had laws against abortion, including Texas. He wrote "...The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."[9]
Understanding Roe v. Wade
Right to privacy interpretation
The basis for the "right to privacy" is a judicial interpretation that can be traced from an earlier case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965).[10] In this landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives violated the right to privacy as found in the Constitution.[10] However, the right to privacy is not directly mentioned in the Constitution.[11] The Supreme Court has stated that the Right to Privacy is implied by several amendments. Beginning in 1923 the court interpreted the "liberty" guarantee in the Fourteenth Amendment as a broad right to privacy.[12] Justice William O. Douglas stated the guarantees of the right to privacy had penumbras (implied rights) "formed by emanations (a flowing) from those guarantees that help give them life and substance."[13]

Trimester concept
In its decision, the court used the three trimester framework of pregnancy.[10] During the first trimester an abortion was safer for the mother than childbirth.[10] The reasoning was that the decision whether to get an abortion at this stage should be left up to the mother to decide.[10] Any law that interfered with abortions in the first trimester would be presumed to be unconstitutional.[10] During the second trimester laws could regulate abortion only to protect the health of the mother.[10] During the third trimester the unborn child was viable (able to live on its own outside the mother's womb).[10] So laws could restrict or prohibit abortions except in cases where it was necessary to preserve the mother's health. This doctrine stood until 1992.[10] In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) the court changed from basing the legality of an abortion on trimesters to basing it on fetal viability.[14]

When you start making up things the constitution doesn't say by saying, "it "implies" it says it", then you should look at how the states that adopted the amenmant interpretted it, and most thought it allowed them to outlaw abortion. So, William Douglas changed the meaning of the constitution that day by misusing the word implied. He should have waited for a constitutional amendment or a law to pass. The laws did come and a lot of states legalized murdering the unborn human beings. Some states still would have laws outlawing or restricting the murder of unborn human beings by voting for that law but William Douglas changed the meaning of the constitution so that elections no longer matter except maybe to select judges so they can legislate new meanings are implied in the constitution.

Quote:
. A: When the president is evil, there's not much we can do about that. Besides all that, "good and evil" are very subjective, and not everybody will agree based on their politics.


So why are you calling the president evil. Evil is determined by what evil policies a president is promoting. Can you name one and explain why it is evil?

Quote:
A: Congress already has the responsibility to secure our safety, and construct and maintain our infrastructure at the national level.


Congress is the legislative branch and how the power of the purse. The word "secure" as an active verb is delegated solely to the executive branch unless you mean they must secure the funds by passing a law.

Quote:
A: That's up to the citizens to elect the kind of people who understands those issues, and keep their promises. Most do not.


Thanks to our pathetic public school system. The solution is making education a locally controlled system driven to excellence by competition through vouchers.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2019 08:59 pm
@brianjakub,
https://www.justia.com/constitutional-law/docs/privacy-rights/
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2019 09:05 pm
@brianjakub,
Quote:
So why are you calling the president evil. Evil is determined by what evil policies a president is promoting. Can you name one and explain why it is evil?
The president is evil on many counts. Here are some: a) he separated children from their parents, and didn't keep track of them. https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/a21724631/why-are-immigrant-children-separated-from-parents-border-donald-trump/ b) Trump institution tariffs that killed jobs. https://www.gobankingrates.com/making-money/economy/trumps-tariffs-cost-jobs/ Trump is a racist. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_n_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83 Trump's lies. https://www.newstimes.com/news/article/News-media-is-starting-to-describe-Trump-s-13940884.php
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2019 09:10 pm
@brianjakub,
Quote:
California comes in at 43 on this list.
We live in the heart of Silicon Valley in California. Our city is considered one of the safest in the country. https://sunnyvale.ca.gov/news/displaynews.htm?NewsID=493&TargetID=49
Sunnyvale unemployment rate: Sunnyvale, CA Current Unemployment - 2.3%
Sunnyvale, CA Unemployment Rate
Month/Year Sunnyvale, CA%.... California% National %
1 / 2019............... 2.3%............. 4.8%..............4.0%
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2019 02:13 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I am at my office which is in a strip mall. My car is parked, unlocked with my belongings in it and the keys in the ignition. Never had a break in. You can live comfortably here on $15/hr. That is about the lowest paying job there is. I don't see any homeless except for mentally ill, drug addicts or those who chose to be. I watch the news about California cities and read about homeless in the streets around silicon valley. Hypodermic needles and sewage in the streets. Employed people making a decent wage living in their cars because your economy is so out of balance a $15/hr job won't pay the rent. A nice three bedroom apartment rents for $750 a month or less in Nebraska. The only thing screwed up here is our property taxes are too much of a percentage of our states economy.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2019 02:46 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Although the Constitution does not explicitly provide for such rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution protect these rights, specifically in the areas of marriage, procreation, abortion, private consensual homosexual activity, and medical treatment.


That is a quote from your own post.

That sentence from your quote says the Supreme court changed the meaning of the constitution by interpreting the words differently than than the founders did when they wrote it.

Let's use marriage for example. Wiki says:
Quote:
The definition of marriage varies around the world not only between cultures and between religions, but also throughout the history of any given culture and religion, evolving to both expand and constrict in who and what is encompassed, but typically it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually sexual, are acknowledged or sanctioned. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or considered to be compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity.

Which means historically you had to consummate a marriage by having sex. If you look up the wiki definition of sex:
Organisms of many species are specialized into male and female varieties, each known as a sex.[1][2] Sexual reproduction involves the combining and mixing of genetic traits: specialized cells known as gametes combine to form offspring that inherit traits from each parent. The gametes produced by an organism define its sex: males produce small gametes (e.g. spermatozoa, or sperm, in animals; pollen in seed plants) while females produce large gametes (ova, or egg cells). Individual organisms which produce both male and female gametes are termed hermaphroditic.[2] Gametes can be identical in form and function (known as isogamy), but, in many cases, an asymmetry has evolved such that two different types of gametes (heterogametes) exist (known as anisogamy).[/quote]

By that definition people of the same sex cannot have sex because they cannot combine and mix genetic traits by the use of sexually specialized cells known as gametes that combine to form offspring that inherit traits from each parent. Same sex partners can only mutually stimulate each other in a sexual way which, by definition, is not having sex and since sex and consummation was a necessary aspect of marriage when the constitution was written states should be allowed to define marriage that way if their elected bodies enact laws that way. So, that is another example of changing the definition of words in the constitution by judicial fiat. The interesting thing is, some states changed it by enacting laws through the duly elected state legislatures which is legitimate since marriage is a state institution and not a federal.

The same can be said for recognizing an unborn baby as a human being with rights, especially the right to live safely.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2019 05:10 pm
@brianjakub,
Quote:
By that definition people of the same sex cannot have sex.
Try telling that to the people who are having homosexual intercourse or are arrested for sexual assault. Sexual Assault Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
definitions.uslegal.com/s/sexual-assault
Sexual Assault Law and Legal Definition Sexual assault refers to an assault of a sexual nature on another person. It can include a wide range of unwanted sexual contact such as rape, forced vaginal, anal or oral penetration, forced sexual intercourse, inappropriate touching, forced kissing, child molestation ,exhibitionism, voyeurism, obscene ...
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/17/2019 at 04:38:25