Expose Lies that Steer General Public to Agendas - by Media and Politicians
|
Let me bring data to a smear fight. https://www.guttmacher.org/report/ 59% of those having abortions already had a child. This isn't about young sluts just screwing around and having abortions instead of birth control, it's people already parents maintaining their families at the sizes they can afford to maintain. Furthermore most people who get abortions pay for it themselves out of pocket. And quite frankly, your assertion they're only doing it because they're manipulated by politicians and an industry that wants their money is just an insult to every woman in this country by asserting they're just stupid little lambs getting lead along and robbed. The point of truth vs lie was specific to falability of birth control. Can you show me where statistics I have seen ranging from 40% to 60% are the result of true birth control failures over user error? It is not important for this specific point to review the statistics you posted. My lie exposure is concerning birth control itself, and it's effectiveness when used properly. Therefore exposing a lie in excuse, steering people from truth solutions to promotion of agenda Then you should be more concise when you phrase your debates. And the stat I reference which still applies is that 59% of the people going for abortions indeed already chose to have a child already. It's not sluts. It's family planning. And even if they're particularly bad at family planning it's still done for sake of manageable family size, not just because the world is one big orgy. 2
points
Everyone should be made aware that birth control measures are not always safe. For instance, a friend of mine was wearing one and was knocked down and killed by a bus. Do the media and politicians make the general public aware of truths such as this? That was a rhetorical question because we all know the answer is no, due to most of our politicians having shares and other business interests with the condom manufactures. You are one of those pathetic individuals who make irrational accusations without producing hard evidence as well as making criticisms of the status quo without providing logical alternatives . A five year old child could spout out criticisms about anything without offering a better way of doing things or completing a particular task. If you want anyone to take your juvenile rant seriously you would have to spell out your own ideas. 1
point
On the specific issue of abortion I would agree that the only people who should be involved in the decision making process to terminate a pregnancy are the the mother-to-be and to a much lesser degree, the ''dastardly dirty dick himself''. Back street abortions must rate as one of the most vile practices which females all too often feel they have no alternative but to use. The procedure can consist of filling a bulbous type container with a delivery spout,( much like a battery filler) filled with a witch's brew of liquid antiseptic fluid along with other dangerous ingredients , all of which will harm, both short and long term the internal organs of the female. Of course there should be free professional counselling for all pregnant women who wish to have an abortion and, if the patient wishes to proceed with the termination despite the efforts to dissuade her, then that service should also be free. That's not the discussion of this debate! Prove lies by showing truth! Show it, it's like 4th grade math, show your work! Or its INCORRECT! I don't care where you are steered, I want to know what truth you followed and what lies were exposed when you investigated the choices before offering the support you decided on! In other words what truth was made evident factually before you pledged your undivided support and allegiance to the cause you uphold so vehemently? You want to know what truth I followed? Okay. I am pro-abortion, I believe that women should be able to have access to abortion; and I even believe that abortions should be bulk-billed [I'm Australian, that just means "government-funded"]. Now, my path that steered me to that decision had quite a few twists and turns, but for this debate, I will focus on three: 1. The knowledge that some women wish to have abortions. I know this by speaking to women, by listening to women, feminist and otherwise, by my understanding of the economic, social and biological concerns of giving birth to and raising a child. In my opinion, I do not believe that a child whose mother "does not want them" will be raised in a healthy household. Now, this lead me to the counter-point: Women could just adopt their children out; abortion is unnecessary in the face of adoption. I considered this point, and whilst it has some interesting points, it was dismissed by the affirmative case: 2. Childbirth is a dangerous, difficult, painful, disabling and occasionally scarring endeavour. It can even lead to suicide from post-partum depression and the hormonal imbalance caused by pregnancy. Forcing women to undergo this, against their will, is torturous. If it was a simple case of laying an egg, I couldn't disagree with adoption, but pregnancy and childbirth (as a result of evolution) is a perilous and dangerous process, because of the size of a newborn baby's skull, and the energy required to create a living organism. However, then I came to another counter-point: As much as a woman may suffer, any moral person believes in the greater good, or the lesser evil. Since abortion kills the unborn child, the death of the child outweighs any suffering to its mother. Now, I don't quite agree with this, after all, you can't force a dead person to donate their kidney, even if it would save another person's life, so it seems wrong that we can force a woman to rent out her womb to an unborn life against her will. But that alone didn't convince me, what did was the facts. I went to Wikipedia, embryology websites and neurology websites, and discovered . . . 3. The foetal brain is non-functional before the first trimester; it feels no pain, it cannot think and it has no life of its own. It is illegal to perform an abortion on a living foetus after the 24th week (at the latest), and most abortions are performed in the first and second weeks. The only abortions allowed after the 24th week are done in the case of stillbirth, to prevent infection. Knowing this, and since we know that the seat of consciousness is the brain, it is impossible to say that a foetus suffers by being aborted, and in fact, it is for all intents and purposes, braindead. during the first trimester, meaning that it is little more than a parasitic growth. It's not life, by any definition I would grant. This is what lead me to my pro-abortion position. So long as abortions are performed legally, I see no reason why a woman should be disallowed from having one if that is her choice. Feel free to rant, just be clear and stick to specifics, everything is often generalized. Generalizations are the strength of lies and liars! Isn't truth important? Isn't it obvious that information is packaged to herd us like cattle? What if we are not cattle anymore? Are we pawns taking the fall? Or are we mindfully strategic pieces worth the square we stand on in the game? . The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. A free race cannot be born of slave mothers. When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become the foundation of a new race. In a 1921 article in the Birth Control Review, Sanger wrote, "The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective." Reviewers of one of her 1919 articles interpreted her objectives as "More children from the fit, less from the unfit." Again, the question of who decides fitness is important, and it was an issue that Sanger only partly addressed. "The undeniably feeble minded should indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind," she wrote. Democrats will never say they support Margret Sanger's views. That is opinion. This is an exercise in bottom line truths, on which your opinion sits. I'm not interested in opinion, I'm interested in the truth your opinion is founded on. So my post isn't focused on for or against here. It's focused on what truthful content is used for your opinion. So your opinion isn't actually being Disputed on this debate. . This DEBATE FOCUS is on the foundation of your opinion, not on your opinion! I want to see the why based on investigation, and how you arrived factually to your opinion, not emotionally or in your own thoughts of right or wrong. I want the investigation of facts you weighed on every side of the issue, and the weighing of those facts in your final determinations. Your opinion is actually is NOT the focus of dispute on this specific debate. This is an exercise in bottom line truths, on which your opinion sits. And what bottom line truths did you investigate or ignore in your final stance on the matter. I'm not interested in opinion, I'm interested in the truth your opinion is founded on. And it can be any view political, religion, educated studies, etc... I want to know the why to the what! And I want to know what was accepted as evidence of truth, and what was ignored! . There are many ways to arrive at what you define as truth? And what you believe, or know, or assume, or think and what is a credible source of a sound position. And its important to understand to what degree your position is credible and reasonable. What is the objective approach you used to conclude truth, or what is probable, or possible? Or what is just steering through popularity in social attitudes, and to be tested as reasonable or unreasonable selective conclusions for positions held and degree of truth held? So this debate is focused on how you define your "truth" and show your work, and prove it is a credible truth that has been arrived through reasonable conclusions through fair evaluations, weighing relative arguments objectively, and not just based on a bias or assumption. So the question is, What are the foundation of facts you used to weigh and determine your views and opinions?
What validation process did you apply to all sides of issues or beliefs?
What criteria did you apply to weigh and apply to conclude your beliefs, or views, or opinions? Are you foundation of facts persuasively established through an honest comparison? Are the foundations of facts used reasonable for taking a stand or strong position for what is fair, or right, or is truth in a matter? Did you arrive at your conclusion without an independent fair objective investigation? . In general, many people accept what is told to them at face value if the opinions appeal to their mentality or world view, and similar in nature to the other opinions they already hold. . For Example: - Many people dig their heels in arguements in favor of Atheism, while hiding behind findings exclusive only to Evolution. By so doing they refuse to objectively challenge their positions through an honest evaluation of other persuasive evidence and findings. An opinion lacks credible logic and reasoning, if any argument used outside of their defensive comfortable argument or field of study. A person who is selective only of points that agree with their view is just a noisy whoops whirly bird you shake on New Years Eve. It's meaningless noise! There isn't any credibility in views left unchallenged! Unchallenged points of debate are futile arguments. Argument that rejects challenge outside their defensive comfort level, are unstable, and have no credible merit!
If your view refuses to address findings from other sources, with potential of evidence proving to have equal merit for persuasion, then your view simply put is just a small opinion of an uneducated idiot! No matter how smart you think you sound, it's just an admission of how not smart you actually are! As seen often in debates in support or denial of Divine Intrusion. Those who remain unchallenged in their views because they will only debate through one direction refuse true investigation of evidence worth equal consideration, in the case of these arguments that the possibility of God exist is credible. And reasonable evidence of Divine Intrusion outside of their comfort level arguments in evolution do exist. And by ignoring it exists it shows a lack of credibility in their entire argument. How can you take a stand without honest evaluation of all evidence? Is there integrity in an argument if evidence remains ignored without them honestly evaluating it? Since evolution is not fully conclusive in every way, then evolution is not a Deductive Argument. It may be a convincing Ampliative Argument, but it is not a Deductive Guarentee, or even a Deductive Assurance. Evolution in itself is an Inconclusive Argument because it is still only an opinion without Absolute certainty Affirmatively Proven beyond any doubt reasonable or unreasonable, in the rules of Absolute Facts, so it remains Debatable. And is unable to conclusively confirm or deny if God Exists or if God Doesn't Exist! Opinions in debate should pass a test of credibility. Showing the opinion was derived through an objective challenge, and through a thorough investigation, and with an honest approach applying equal weights of measure for points and debating possibility and probability with at minimum an objective review of supports or points that are used in persuasion. It's evident in every issue debated, it's a human nature character flaw to think winning in opinion by a refusal to weigh the opposing opinions is even a debate in the 1st place!
. 1
point
You are 100% correct. Aborton is a huge money making business. Racists want easy no restriction abortions to prevent more Black people being born. Planned parenthood is an extreme pro abortion orgnization. It is all about money from tax payers. This is why they give campaign money to Democrats so the money keeps coming. People choose not to use birth control because it takes an effort to be safe. These selfish idiots use abortion as their birth control! 1
point
Yes it sounds a bit extreme but there is truth in those words. I'm sure not all pro abortion people are racists. The ones who are would never admit it. Many are not racists other than to say they don't want more minorities using our social programs. Like you say it is all about money one way or another. Types of Reasoning
Disciplines > Argument > Types of Reasoning
Reasoning within an argument gives the rationale behind why one choice, for example should be selected over another. Types of reasoning include: Abduction: the process of creating explanatory hypotheses. Backwards Reasoning: Start from what you want and work back. Butterfly Logic: How people often argue. Analogical Reasoning: relating things to novel other situations. Cause-and-Effect Reasoning: showing causes and resulting effect. Cause-to-Effects Reasoning: starting from the cause and going forward. Effects-to-Cause Reasoning: starting from the effect and working backward. The Bradford Hill Criteria: for cause and effect in medical diagnosis. Comparative Reasoning: comparing one thing against another. Conditional Reasoning: using if...then... Criteria Reasoning: comparing against established criteria. Decompositional Reasoning: understand the parts to understand the whole. Deductive Reasoning: starting from the general rule and moving to specifics. Exemplar Reasoning: using an example. Inductive Reasoning: starting from specifics and deriving a general rule. Modal Logic: arguing about necessity and possibility. Pros-vs-cons Reasoning: using arguments both for and against a case. Residue Reasoning: Removing first what is not logical. Set-based Reasoning: based on categories and membership relationships. Systemic Reasoning: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Syllogistic Reasoning: drawing conclusions from premises. Traditional Logic: assuming premises are correct. Note that these are not all mutually exclusive methods and several give different lenses onto overlapping areas. In classical argument, for example, all arguments are framed as either inductive or deductive.
Should the United States Allow Syrian Refugees into the Country? Is it safe and will Refugees be properly vetted? Truth vs Lies We have seen an increase of terrorism and crime. Refugees have been involved in incidents that show they are not likely to adapt to our lifestyle. My truth is based on Cologne Germany - New Years Eve And also an increase in terrorism, happening rapid rate of almost daily in areas of unrest, and also in areas where Refugees have been allowed in. They are products of difficult environments, and what is considered unacceptable here and even criminal behavior here is not the same as their experience and way of life. They cannot acclimate in general, and it's too risky to Americans to let them in. 25,000 Refugees came to Canada last year and likely more since then, not one has committed any sort of terrorist act on the Dominion of Canada, therefore, your argument is null and pointless. Haven't the majority of terrorist attacks in the U.S. been completed by U.S. born citizens? http://www.therebel.media/refugeesingermanycommitted69000crimesinjustthreemonthsin2016 69000 crimes, "surprisingly only 1.1% were for sexual crimes" 1.1% is over 6,900 in sexual crimes! So I don't know our policing or vetting in comparison, is it the reporting? But we do have a baseline where Refugees have been a huge problem. With Canada basically with open terrain to US, that's a scarey thought in itself!! I will post facts of support. Sanbirnadino, the wife was from abroad. Boston Marathon, the boys were children of a refugee and tge boys had had involvement from family abroad. Even the Florida Gaybar Terrorist, had radicalized by a mosque who had a foriegn speaker that encourage violence against gays. Homegrown or not, The last thing we need is magnets to spread this ideology. It's a difficult issue because you have rotten apples in the bushel of apples. It's best to support them were they are then to send them into other countries. If the money used to relocate them, and then care for them was used to better their circumstances, then it would be a safer option, but we should relieve suffering also. I just don't think it's best to place them in other countries. I think it weakens societies that are already struggling. . Open Borders are Bad for America, and is a product of a insane or evil government. They are either really foolish, or there is a conspiracy to destroy us from within. My truth is Open Borders are Bad for America, especially because of crime and terrorism as my 1st complaint, and 2nd it devalues the privilege of becoming American, and it undermines patriotism and fosters a devaluing of American life styles, freedoms, and opportunities. As seen in protesters burning an American Flag and raising a Mexican Flag. That should never ever be tolerated, let alone encouraged. It's out Country, if we don't respect it, they won't respect it! 1
point
Correct use of contraception has a 98 - 99 % effective rate Leaving less than 2% of abortions to link to failed correct use of birth control. As abortions because of " failed birth control" are inflated by error of user! This is completely illogical. The percent of effectiveness of contraception has nothing to do with the number of women getting abortions due to failed contraception. 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
This is one of the many examples. Atheists don't just leave out truth and history regarding the biblical text, they change history, close the door to knowledge, and even destroy artifacts. So in education they teach wrong information, in order to discredit the Bible, and mislead people in order to illuminate biblical faith. . That's not true. Free thinkers are really dictators of thought. Atheists and skeptics close the door on finds that prove the Bible. The literally direct it, control it, and it comes down to ruling, one world government, dictatorship. There has been an agenda throughout history to discredit the Bible even in historic value. So in the 1930s, they had determined Exodus to be in Rameses as Pharoah. Without finding anything they declared, the bible and God to be dead. Then with atheism force of their agenda, based in Satanism really. Satan rules and the goal is to eliminate God and His people and that's what we see today, no matter how unreasonable, it's a closed door. But the door was closed for all of you "free thinkers" by the dictating "free thinkers" 1st of all I'll say many Biblical scholars were asleep at the wheel. So they are to blame for apathy. Genesis is very detailed on geneology, just math tells you the approx time period of Exodus. There was a place called Rameses generations before Exodus, because the word Rameses as in the place, the jumped to a conclusion, and instead of using simple math, the intellectuals did it their way, conveniently. So your a historian you have simple math in ancient texts, do you study it? Or assume based on word association? Apparently simple is to easy for the atheist and skeptic, so let's just go with word association! "Patterns of Evidence-Exodus" is a well done documentary proving all stories from Joseph to Moses to the walls of Jericho! Right were it's supposed to be be by my own study of simple math in geneology purposely detailed by God in Genesis. Also location is tricky for a few reason, changes in names modern map compared to ancient map. And also commercialization, if a location says this is a Biblical place, the location can make money in tourism, some areas welcome that and exploit it. Whereas other government do not at all want to confirm biblical artifacts and places. One factor is Muslim countries do not want to cooperate with confirming biblical History, for obvious reasons. And all these are obstacles the dictators of free thought don't tell the little free thinkers, because the dictating free thinkers want to discredit the Bible and remove God and Christianity. Only Jews and Christians, although there are some that want to eliminate violence of Muslims, the religion doesn't bother them. None of the others bother them, why? Because Satan is behind it, and he is still trying to ascend above God. The question I have, same with liberal media, I get conservatives do it also, but not nearly to the degree of liberals. In liberal politics, the free thinkers dictatorship organizations are working conspiracies, and universities also have been infiltrated, Republican also have been infiltrated. But the left is much more of a useful tool. They are tools! And media and universities all tools. Using each other by taught skills of exploitation, manipulation, using everything, even causing harm, to "fix it" Because the goal is one world rule, basically one world communism. The question is, do you think they wear that on their sleeves, and on display? So you have this big giant that controls what you get to choose. So they only allow what they want you to think, and gift wrap it for you all, and call it free thinking! But wouldn't free thinking be to give you all the information and let you all think freely, and conclude freely? So they found everything in a time line the Bible itself said it would be in, yet they dig 200 years outside of it and tell the world, "see nothing" and when people of integrity in the field show everything, even in sequence of order, they keep the door shut, thereby keeping the door to the little free thinkers minds closed also! I'd be passed if someone controlled me, I hate it. Give me info I'll decide for myself! http://patternsofevidence.com/blog/2016/ |
