CreateDebate


Sweetspice16's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Sweetspice16's arguments, looking across every debate.

I'm cool with Satanism in the style of the Church of Satan. They're fun people, reasonable, rational, like to have a good time, don't let other religions be pains in the asses without trolling them a bit. I would even join if I was willing to devote any time to a church. Instead, I just live by their principles for the most part.

sweetspice16(255) Clarified
1 point

Ah, I was confused for a minute, because I'd never seen you saying that kind of stuff. I agree nothing will change minds of people who dislike PP. They're not looking for facts, they're not looking for information. Those videos were heavily manipulated - that's been proven. Extreme Pro-life/Anti-choice people only care that others conform to their views, and want PP shut down no matter what.

We already have a religious freedom law. It's called the First Amendment. Problem solved.

Wow...there is just so much wrong in the opening statement.

Evolution started in 1859 by Charles Darwin.

Did it (Evolution) start when Charles Darwin introduced it in 1859, or prior to this?

First of all, Darwin was not the first to discover evolution. Evolution was first mentioned by the Greek philosopher Anaximander. Charles Darwin wasn't even the first to discover natural selection, although he and Alfred Russell Wallace were the first to provide a fully-formed hypothesis regarding natural selection. Epicurus (greek philosopher) had the earliest-known written thoughts about it, however. Regardless, no one "started" evolution. It was already in practice and had been for billions of years. Just like Newton didn't "start" gravity, and Ben Franklin didn't "start" electricity in lightning. And the fact that evolution was already occurring in no way disproves Darwin's (or anyone else's) hypothesis but helps to confirm it via the fossil record.

Anyway, the general concept of evolution is as proven as it can be - as much as gravity, laws of motion, thermodynamics, and general relativity. There is still some debate as to the specific mechanisms of evolution, although natural selection is very well evidentially supported, particularly for microevolution.

As far as proving the bible, yes, I agree, the bible exists. It was definitely written - we have the book to prove it. That does not make the events within it accurate, and does not necessarily mean we should live or, more to the point, force others to live according to it. The Qu'ran exists - want me to tell you you should follow its proposed rules? How about the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, the Kebra Nagast? Do you believe all of those books are about completely accurate events?

Plenty of Christians have managed to reconcile their faith and democratic values, and I say good for them. I haven't, but that's because I'm not Christian.

Try quoting verses in the new testament(our Christian testament) that you can take out of context to make people believe that God hates women. It's truly sad to see people on the Left with such bigoted hatred for Christians to continually insult and attack their faith.

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

1 Corinthians 11:7-9:"For a man...is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

“….and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be sensible, chaste, domestic, kind, and submissive to their husbands, that the word of God may not be discredited…. Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect…” Titus 2:4-9

“No one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been redeemed from the earth. It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste…” Revelation 14:3-4

1 Peter 3:7 "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

Revelation 17:1-18 (I'm not even copying that mess here).

I actually don't hate Christians in general. I don't believe in the religion but I think it's great that people find strength from it. My problem is when people use the religion as a weapon to force their beliefs on others. This is America and it's supposed to be the land of the free - so quit telling me what to do.

If you care please google the facts of how the majority of late term abortions are not for "health" or life of mother. That is a pure lie from the left and people actually play stupid to excuse supporting such a party of inhumanity.

New York Times: “the overwhelming number of abortions occur well before 20 weeks; later abortions most often involve severely troubled pregnancies that pose risks to a woman’s health or life.”

It should be noted - abortion is not late term until 24 weeks.

And if you want a few Bible verses on the value of a fetus...

Exodus 21:22-25

22 “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

"If a man begets a hundred children, and lives many years, so that the days of his years are many, but he does not enjoy life's good things, and also has no burial, I say that an untimely birth is better off than he. For it comes into vanity and goes into darkness, and in darkness its name is covered; moreover it has not seen the sun or known anything; yet it finds rest rather than he." (Ecclesiastes 6:3-5)

Jerimiah - 1:5 - "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; ..."And I appointed you (Jeremiah) a prophet to the nations."

This is person-specific.

Isaiah - 44:24 - This is what the LORD says-- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself,

The bible claims God makes everything on this planet - so are you going to stop eating meat because it was created by God and is alive? Are you saying we should stop all wars, all killing, ban weapons so people can't kill each other?

Anyway, moving away from the freaking Bible passages...science states a fetus is not viable and cannot feel pain until 24 weeks. The logical conclusion from that is that the opportunity for further development is subject to the best interests of the host body, in this case the pregnant woman. You do not get to tell her what is best for her.

Also, as far as PP, the money they receive from the government does not go to abortions - it goes to breast exams, gyno appointments, and medicines. So when you defund PP, you don't save a bunch of fetuses, you kill a bunch of women who could not afford healthcare from another provider. Congratulations.

You know the Bible wasn't all that concerned for fetuses, right? I mean, you know that the Bible valued adult female life more than that of a fetus? Late term abortions are very very rare and typically for health/life reasons, so I don't know who you think is killing late term fetuses for fun, but it doesn't matter. Until the fetus is born, the woman it develops in makes the decision. We have bodily autonomy in this country, and by trying to ban abortions, you're saying women have less rights than a dead person. We can't even force someone to donate blood, so we shouldn't be forcing them to have a child. But I digress... As far as Obama's quotes about Christians and gun owners, I've never heard him saying anything blatantly hateful. He is allowed to disagree with your views. You are allowed to disagree with him. He has made observations about actions performed by Christians that he is skeptic about. It's criticism. But political correctness isn't about stopping educated and justifiable criticism on a person's chosen actions - it's about stopping mindless and idiotic slurs on things that people have no control over - race, sexuality, and women's damn periods. Again, you want to insult someone, put some freaking thought into it and have an actual reason.

Yes, and the states that have embraced it have a very high approval rating for it. I still don't think it's perfect, but it's working better than even I thought.

He is being punished because if you randomly hate or feel superior to half of the country's population (women), more than half when you take into account his racist remarks, he should not be president! If he wants to express hate for someone, there are better ways than assuming a woman is on her period, or degrading someone by saying how pretty they'd look "on their knees". He's an ass, and not even a creative one. I'm a liberal - speak your mind all you want, but if you don't do so with any bit of thought behind it, I will mock you, and I will make sure word spreads of your idiocy. Get the hell over it!

That's ridiculous. If you are unable to communicate your hatred and disgust for other people's idiocy while being politically correct, then you simply need to improve your vocabulary. I say exactly what I think, and still manage to not offend someone on something they can't control - I only offend them on stupid ass choices they made, at which point I don't care. Frankly, I would hate for someone to get distracted and think my disgust with them comes from blind bigotry, rather than a legitimate reason.

sweetspice16(255) Clarified
1 point

They could definitely try to do that, but I promise, I will lead the revolution if anyone tries to take away the first amendment. And since the other side is stupid enough to think that when the Founding Fathers said "this isn't a Christian nation" that they meant "this is a Christian nation", the more intelligent people of the revolution will win.

I shall not acknowledge that I cannot address those points. Those points are ludicrous, and I got bored replying long before I reached them. Additionally, they don't take into account that not all women want a man - at least in a serious relationship. But anyway, let me address them now so that we're clear - there will be links, but feel free to ignore them as you've been doing. Women don't wish to be inferior - at least not the majority (I obviously can't account for every lunatic out there).

Here's a few things that women want.

Here's a study on women "liking men who are more dominant". Oops, oh wait...

Women don't care if the man is making money - we care that he has ambition, a passion, that he lives life.

And fyi - women find subservient unattractive because it's annoying. I don't want a guy - or a friend or a family member - who's sitting there waiting on me hand and foot, or whining about stuff instead of doing stuff. Just like I won't do that stuff to someone else. It's called being an adult. We can be equal (not you and me, I've got science on my side, and you've got...your imaginary points, I guess), without one gender being dominant over the other.

you can negate science all you wish, but again, that's on you..

You're the one ignoring all the science I keep linking to...

This is a load of crap and was found out to be a myth

Really?

The Hitler part is somewhat disputed but girls don't naturally like pink and boys don't always like blue.

investors will invest regardless of gender.

Will they? Because studies and accounts indicate otherwise.

men are likely to take more risks- and becoming highly successful involves a lot of risks.

Again, not necessarily true. The bigger issue is that women don't tend to have the same resources to play with. However, other studies indicate that men would often be better served by being less overconfident and more cautious.

If women instinctively function to be subdominant with the male being the opposite,

but they don't. There are societies in the world that are female-dominant, such as the Nagovisi and the Ede. The mere existence of these societies indicates that male dominance is a social construct, not a biological one. Additionally, we can overcome biological instincts. If we couldn't, we would all still be terrified of snakes.

women have shown to prefer 'doggy style'*

I don't know what you're talking about there. Most women prefer on top. But regardless, women tend to prefer a position that gives them (and that can vary, because bodies vary) the most physical pleasure, because so very much of the time, men can't be bothered to give us a damn orgasm, so we have to make the situation to our advantage. If we do want doggy, it's probably not a submissive thing, it's probably a "we're pretending you're Channing Tatum" thing and we don't want your face to get in the way of fantasy. Sorry.

there is also a correlation with women liking the color pink).

I just want to start with this point, because while so much of your post proved that you had no science or, you know, sense, backing you up, this one is just glaring. The distinct mentality that girls like different things, as evidenced by them liking pink, is a load of crap. Up until WW2, blue was considered to be a girly color, while pink was masculine. Only reason that changed was Hitler. If you provide a girl with a typically boy toy and a typically girl toy, but don't provide any pressure on which one she chooses, it can go either way

why is that most self-made millionaires and billionaires are men? This has nothing to do with society (hence "self-made").

So not only do you not understand sex, gender, and biology, but you also don't understand business. Self-made means a company you created, it doesn't not mean society had no effect on you. Unless you are independently wealthy to begin with, most businesses, especially those that will rake in millions, have investors. Investors, in the current US society, dislike working with women and do like sexually harassing them. As I said in my first post.

Women are different decision makers than men, and it just so happens that the fields in which men make the best positions are powerful fields (such as business).

This is a load of bull.

You seem to negate the fact entirely that males are more dominant than women- which is a feminist extremist view that is entirely irrational. Men are indeed more dominant, and always have been.

Of course I negate it. It's not a fact, and it's not true.

Is this a prime illustration of women's ability to reason? Perhaps your emotions deluded your reasoning?

Really? Science isn't good enough for you? In society today, we have the choice on whether or not to reproduce. Many people have multiple sex partners, in many cases, multiple spouses over the course of their lives, and divorced or widowed people often remarry, even when kids are involved. Society has already bypassed that trait. It's actually opposite to telling homosexuals to stop being gay, because it's saying do what's best for you.

Less women are in positions of power because in earlier society, men were more likely to work, and now there is a culture that is resistant to hiring and promoting women. Women typically have to work at least twice as hard to gain the same promotion as a man - and they tend to work longer hours and take less sick days. Women are more likely to go to college, more likely to hold higher degrees, more practiced at multitasking, have a higher average IQ, are typically more creative (which has been noted to have a greater effect on future success than IQ anyway), and yet from the time we are born, we are socially conditioned to become wives, mothers - to avoid the STEM fields and other male-dominated industries, and to work in "women's" fields, such as teaching or nursing. Plus, men tend to interact primarily with and help other men in companies, leaving female coworkers in the cold.

On top of that, women still handle the majority of child-rearing and housework, so we have more responsibilities that may prevent us from pushing our way up the ranks.

Additionally, when looking at entrepreneurship, women face sexual harassment issues, especially when seeking investors. Since we would be blamed for our own rape or molestation, it behooves us to avoid situations where we could possibly be seen to have instigated an attack. Plus, most people feel women are weaker intelligently, despite opposing evidence, and don't want to put their money in a company run by women.

I will grant you women have a natural tendency to be somewhat weaker, because in women, the body converts nutrients to fat in case of future reproduction at which time such stores will be beneficial, while in men, the body converts nutrients to muscle to fight off predators in defense of the pregnant woman, but this is only one factor to strength. By working out and lifting weights, women have the potential to be just as strong as men, but typically are discouraged from such activity by society. However, I promise, I could kick your butt in a fight.

Biologically, men have become dominant because by being dominant, they could control female sexuality, and minimize the risk of raising another man's child. However, societally, we should and mostly have moved past this, and in light of that, women are not subordinate.

Additionally, religion has been used for centuries to oppress women. The "Adam and Eve" myth, the "women are subject to their husband's will" thing, religion has been telling women that if they don't submit to their husband, they are going to hell (or whatever equivalent). Women were raised, basically brainwashed into faiths that were telling them they had no choice in their own life. So feminism has just helped them take back the control they should always have had.

And seriously, you don't understand why a woman would want to not be blamed for her own rape? Or be paid the equivalent of men? And feminism benefits men as well - it allows men to express their feelings, thereby lowering health issues from stress and minimizing depression rates. It supports men entering into any career they so choose, just as much as women should be able to. It promotes fathers taking care of their children and not being considered a pervert for being at the park with their kid during the day. The feminist movement supports the LGBT movement.

Since brain activity is how we determine death, it should be the same marker for life. That doesn't necessarily mean first brainwaves, but I do think there is a level of brain activity that should be used to determine that life has begun.

Bad study.

That's what I get for not checking a link. I know that there's a better study out there, because we discussed it in my biology class last year, but I can't find it right now. Doesn't matter anyway, because we've basically ended chimp testing anyway.

There is no way to apply that to clinical studies of pharmaceuticals.

Here's some other tests.

The Embryonic Stem Cell Test (EST) is an alternative that can be used to find out if a chemical or drug may harm the developing foetus. In a validation study, the test was found to be 78% accurate, with 100% accuracy at detecting very toxic chemicals, while the animal test can only detect 60% of toxicants.

MICRODOSING

Microdosing is an innovative technique that measures how very small doses of potential new medicines are absorbed, distributed, metabolised and excreted by the human body (in so called ADME studies). These microdoses are radio-labelled, injected into human volunteers and measured (usually in blood samples) using a very sensitive measuring device called an accelerator mass spectrometer. Currently, it is estimated that 40% of drugs fail in human trials because the traditional ADME studies conducted in animals do not accurately predict how the drug would behave in humans. In 2009, international drug regulators (ICH) endorsed the use of microdosing in early clinical trials to improve the speed and safety of drug development.

I really like microdosing because it does cover the whole system, in the being that will actually be using the medicine.

Adult stem cell research is more effective than animal testing because there are no complications or failures related to tissue rejection. In fact, international researchers using adult stem cells - cells that are present in all growing human tissue - have shown success in treating cardiac infarction, Crohn's disease and thalassemia. The answers to the mysteries of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's will be found by using stem cells and other modern technologies, not by cutting up beagles.

The computer models can also calculate effects on the overall being or the separate organ systems. It shortchanges results on the cellular level, which can be counteracted by other tests.

The 9 out of 10 failure rate definitely warrants new testing methods.

The 9 out of 10 failure rate indicates that animal testing does not work! It's a shot in the dark and the researchers hope they won't be sued when it kills humans. Use cell cultures to test the drug on a cellular level, make sure it's probably going to do what its supposed to do. Use computer models and organ chips to test it in systems. Use computer models and microdosing to see if there are adverse effects. Then break out some death row prisoners and some volunteers, and get to testing.

Also, we haven't mentioned psychological studies and such, so can we agree there is no need to torture a monkey or a dog to see if abused children still seek love?

sweetspice16(255) Clarified
1 point

You're kidding on Thalidomide right? Thalidomide was tested on animals, passed with flying colors, and then was horribly dangerous in babies

98%+.

70%

We mostly use mice and rats. Get a lot of the same crap we do. You should watch Ratatouille for the reason why. Also, you might want to google "transgenic" and "knockout".

I understand that we mostly use mice and rats, and why that is true. It doesn't make the tests more accurate. For one, the stress of living in a cage and being tested on results in skewed data. Test subjects tend to be overweight or malnourished, again skewing data. The manifestation of diseases isn't always the same, and the cure isn't always the same.

This seems made up.

It's not.

These methods are definitely not accurate 90% of the time

The PCRM disagrees

The NEAVS also finds these methods pretty accurate

Epidemiological studies are data analyses of the population, which helps us understand the diseases we are fighting against. They are how we linked smoking to cancer and identified AIDS.

Here's more on stem cells

Limiting animal testing is definitely a step in the right direction, but we need to keep moving towards eliminating it. There are ways to eliminate it.

Gordon Baxter, co-founder of Pharmagene Laboratories, which uses only computers and human tissues to create and test drugs once said, “If you have information on human genes, what’s the point of going back to animals?”

“We have moved away from studying human disease in humans,” he lamented. “We all drank the Kool-Aid on that one, me included.” With the ability to knock in or knock out any gene in a mouse—which “can’t sue us,” Zerhouni quipped—researchers have over-relied on animal data. “The problem is that it hasn’t worked, and it’s time we stopped dancing around the problem…We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans.” Even the old director of the NIH doesn't think animal testing works.

sweetspice16(255) Clarified
1 point

I agree with the second half of your statement, but

we test animals to determine the effectiveness of our research and to test that the products are safe

Animal testing isn't accurate. So scientists test animals so that they can say the drug has been tested for safety before they do the actual testing on humans. It is widely believed that animal testing slows down medical advancements.

Animal subjects do not account for human mechanisms either. Chimpanzees are generally considered to be our closest relatives, from a DNA standpoint, at roughly 70% similarity. They don't get AIDS, their proteins vary from our proteins, which affects cancer studies, they have a different number of chromosomes. Animal testing is not viable - it is inaccurate 92% of the time. 92%! That means it is accurate 8% of the time. I could flip a coin and guess whether or not a medicine was safe. We can use stem cells, tissue samples, epidemiological studies, the in-vitro and computer models you mentioned. Those methods are accurate 90% of the time. I'm not saying you could pick one method to replace animal testing, but a combination would give you a pretty wide picture and would be more accurate and more cost-effective. Using a combination can be done - Pharmagene Laboratories is doing it.

I am not saying that, and I apologize if that was unclear. Animal testing is one of the earlier stages of testing, but it's a useless one, and a number of drugs are stopped after being ineffective or dangerous in animal studies in the US, and don't make it into the other stages. My point is animal testing is a cruel and useless method. We have alternative methods that are significantly more accurate. Use those to replace animal testing and we will likely develop more useful medicine.

I'm sorry but no for a host of reasons. First of all, until a fetus could viably live outside the mother, if the mother doesn't want it, it is little more than a parasite. Additionally, the fetus is not sentient until 24 weeks. And abortion isn't an easy decision, easy to obtain, or easy to afford, so if a woman has made the decision to overcome those obstacles, I think she knows what is best for her situation. On top of that, when abortion is banned, it doesn't stop abortions, it just makes them into dangerous and illegal procedures. Another point to consider is that while adoption sounds like a much happier alternative, its not. There is a severe disparity between kids who need homes and people willing and able to adopt. That means that at the moment, adoption means the mother is likely condemning either her baby or another child to growing up in the system, and likely suffering from the variety of mental and physical issues that are more common in children raised in the system. And I don't want women raising children they don't want,because that's not going to work out for anyone.

I would love if no one had to have an abortion ever again. But to get to that point, we need to stop fighting against Planned Parenthood. We need to fix the foster system. We need to make it so that its easier to adopt if you would be a fit parent. We need to encourage education and jobs so that people are better able to support children. We need to improve sex ed in schools so that people know how to prevent pregnancy. We need to improve birth control methods. We need to agree that women know themselves and allow sterilisation surgeries for women who know that they do not want to get pregnant ever so that they don't have to play Russian roulette with birth control. So many prolifers (I don't necessarily mean you, just in general) are so concerned about banning or stopping abortion that they don't look at the surrounding factors. If we fix the other options, abortion could very well fix itself.

A vegetarian lifestyle is still typically better for health, at least when done right. The problem is so many people don't keep it balanced. But it does involve foods that are easier for the human body to digest, and have less bad fats and such that can cause health problems. This is assuming, of course, that there are no underlying health issues that would indicate the necessity for another diet, such as chronic anemia, Parkinson's, or so forth.

Absolutely. Women are still taught to be quiet and nice and secondary, even if such teachings are subconscious.


1 of 15 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]