Hello There, Guest!

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Obama Appoints VanAndel Scientist and Man of Faith
#21
ibofightback Wrote:
MichMan Wrote:Nutty?

He was the one who claimed that it was "concluded" that forced abortions and forced sterilization would be Constitutional under the right circumstances.


Good god Michman, you can't even get your story straight. Two posts back you were claiming it was Holdren who said these things, now you're saying it' Ehrlich?


You have proved once again that you don't read my posts OR your posts.

If pictures help you, here is one of the cover of the book. Look carefully and you will discover who wrote the book:

[Image: 9f1f024128a063d01c0bc010.L._AA240_.jpg]
 Reply
#22
MichMan Wrote:If pictures help you, here is one of the cover of the book. Look carefully and you will discover who wrote the book:

[Image: 9f1f024128a063d01c0bc010.L._AA240_.jpg]


Oh right, so you're saying ALL THREE wrote the words? How'd they do that exactly? One word each? Or did they split letters?

And even then, have you ACTUALLY READ THE BOOK? Or at least the section of the book under discussion? Or even the page? I provided you with the page. They're reporting what somebody else has concluded.

You're clearly trolling now MichMan. I've pointed the above out more than once, even provided you with a scan of the page in question, yet you still persist in this fantasy that if someone reports what somebody else said, then they endorse it. Every newspaper reporting a murder has endorsed the murder. Every mother telling their partner what their child did wrong that day is endorsing bad behaviour. Every historian reporting on the crusades is endorsing slaughter. Heck - the authors of the gospels clearly must be endorsing the torture and crucifiction of Jesus, since they report it!

And you STILL have not even bothered with countering whether what they reported is true or not. Tell me MichMan, is there a block in the constitution to forced population control? Can you point it out to me? Rather than some bogus claim that by reporting what others say means they endorse it, how about instead challenging whether it's true or not?

Or is the reason that's what you do because what they're saying is true?
 Reply
#23
I just think that you would see it differently if a right wing scientist had advocated/promoted/advanced the same illegal actions in order to avert what he believed to be an immenent religious catastrophy.

Personally, I think that certain things like that are wrong, illegal and un-Constitutional no matter who is committing the crime. I think most Americans would agree with that.

Like I said, hopefully Collins will help balance things out.

Cheers,
 Reply
#24
MichMan Wrote:I just think that you would see it differently if a right wing scientist had advocated/promoted/advanced the same illegal actions in order to avert what he believed to be an immenent religious catastrophy.


For crying out loud MichMan. READ THE F***ING DOCUMENT. They did not advocate it. They did not promote it. They did not advance it.

Would you prefer an academic text book on population and the environment simply ignore what the law says about various hypothetical solutions to problems?

Or would you prefer a text book on the topic simply ignores "solutions" you disagree with, even when those solution have at least partly been implemented (ref China)

That's exactly the kind of damaging approach to science I'm talking about - ignore reality because it's something you want to hide from the kiddies.

Well guess what MichMan, as much as you may want to ignore reality, it ain't going to ignore you.

Quote:Personally, I think that certain things like that are wrong, illegal and un-Constitutional no matter who is committing the crime. I think most Americans would agree with that.

Hang on ... let me get this straight .... you are claiming things are illegal and un-constitutional even if they are no laws against it and the consitution does not speak against them?

This sounds like you're promoting some kind of facist dictatorship, where someone (like you?) arbitrarly decides what is against the law and what isn't?

Me, I believe in the rule of law, including any constitution, and if a law is wrong or missing, then you fix it, you don't just make it up as you go along.

You apparently believe otherwise.

If you don't, then the appropriate response might instead be to thank the authors for pointing out this hole, and work to getting it fixed - not to villify them for daring to report something you'd prefer wasn't true.
 Reply
#25
Quote:ibofb wrote:
Hang on ... let me get this straight .... you are claiming things are illegal and un-constitutional even if they are no laws against it and the consitution does not speak against them?

This sounds like you're promoting some kind of facist dictatorship

Wow.

It is now "facist" and dictator"-ish to correctly state that forced abortions and forced sterilizations are illegal and unconsitutional? And that those practices should stay illegal and unconstitutional?

I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt because i realize you don't liver under US laws or the US Constitution.

But you keep digging yourself deeper.

(BTW, please tell us under what circumstances you believe it is legal for force a woman to have an abortion or to subject her to forced sterilization.)
 Reply
#26
MichMan Wrote:It is now "facist" and dictator"-ish to correctly state that forced abortions and forced sterilizations are illegal and unconsitutional? And that those practices should stay illegal and unconstitutional?


illegality is another story, since the authors dont' seem to talk about that - you're the one who brought up hypothetical illegalities. What the authors claim is that according to at least one lawyer in the field, it's NOT unconstitutional.

As I already pointed out, you've previously failed completely to even address that. This would be a valid criticism of the book - if what they stated was actually wrong or there was a substantial competing view and they didn't provide it.

Yet until know you've completely ignored it - even my direct request for you to point out if it was indeed unconstitutional was ignored.

So now you've claimed they're wrong. Great, back it up. Evidence please? They provided their sources, what are yours?
 Reply
#27
I'm not taking your bait.

Here is the quote from the book:

[Image: 837_detail.jpg]


Here is their own biography of the "Constitutional Scholar" that you are basing your argument on:

Quote:The first comprehensive treatment of population law was that of the late Johnson C. Montgomery, an attorney who was president of Zero Population Growth, and whose ideas are the basis of much of the following discussion.

He is a lawyer for a leftist special interest group associated with the same radical cause as the authors.

Why don't YOU find a REAL Constitutional scholar who supports your position. Because you still don't have one.
 Reply
#28
Quote:Why don't YOU find a REAL Constitutional scholar who supports your position. Because you still don't have one.

MichMan, if you can't LEARN TO GODDAMN READ I'm going to ban you from commentating in these kind of talks. You simply troll. You don't read what I say. You don't read the links I give. You just pretty much ignore any rational discussion and continue with your irrational and dishonest rants.

This is just one more example.

I HAVE NOT GIVEN A POSITION ABOUT THE SUBJECT. I've said what these guys are reporting, which is what someone else said. I have no flippin idea if it's constitutional or not. They've at least given some backing for their position. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS STATED A POSITION AND REFUSED TO BACK IT UP.
 Reply
#29
My apologies that I offended you.

I will rephrase my position this way. I will make two bets.

Bet #1- I will wager a year's supply of Double X with anyone who can provide case where a US federal court has agreed that forced abortions and forced sterilizations for the purpose of population control are not a violation of the US Constitution.

Bet #2 I will also bet a year's supply of Double X that there would be no more than a few current Constitutional scholars who hold that position. (Examples- US attorney, professor of law at a US University, current/former solicitor general, current or former US Senator from the judiciary committee, etc. Not lawyers associated with abortion groups, eugenic organizations, population control groups etc)

And unless, someone can find a CREDIBLE Constitutional argument justifying these horrific actions, this will be my last statement on the subject.
 Reply
#30
Here is an example of how science has been politicized by the left:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC7bE9jopXE[/youtube]

In a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts”, Greenpeace shrieked that there will be an ice-free arctic by 2030 thanks to global warming....

Fast Forward four weeks:

“I don’t think it will be melting by 2030,” Leipold reluctantly concedes. “That may have been a mistake.”

But it’s OK for Greenpeace to make these, ahem, “mistakes” Leipold suggests because “We as a pressure group have to emotionalise issues and we’re not ashamed of emotionalising issues.” ......

“We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth … The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model,” Leipold said.


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesd...the-issue/
 Reply

 
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)