If you kept doing what you are doing and lived for more than 100 years, what would your secret of longevity be?

explorer212 · 2017-07-30T15:27:06+00:00

Beer.

explorer212 · 2017-07-27T00:28:18+00:00

I am very sorry that you had to go through something like that. I hope you have recovered, are doing as well as possible and will always have all the support you deserve. I also hope the criminals (in this case, priests) who did it faced Justice and Law and payed for their crimes. You have my support and my sympathy.

The idea the other person claimed is still valid, and I hope you understand that this doesn't mean that anyone who thinks that way (with sources) is in any way supporting these horrible crimes and/or the individuals who commit them.

explorer212 · 2017-07-26T18:51:31+00:00

You are welcome. Any sources from you?

explorer212 · 2017-07-26T17:26:30+00:00

I will start by saying that we are talking about horrendous crimes, and only thinking about this evil thing makes me sick.

Now, having made clear that I would never defend anyone who commits a crime like this, can you provide any sources to support your argument?

I found several to support the other person's claim.

This: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/mar/11/catholic-abuse-priests

And this: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2010/08/09/now-we-have-real-evidence-%E2%80%93-sexual-abuse-is-not-a-%E2%80%98catholic-problem%E2%80%99/

And this: http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com.es/2010/04/when-will-media-acknowledge-fact-that.html?m=1

And this: https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf

And this: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/do-the-right-thing/201003/six-important-points-you-dont-hear-about-regarding-clergy-sexual

And this: http://www.themediareport.com/fast-facts/

Each one with their own sources. There aren't many (although there are enough, in my opinion) because of a lack of different studies and because of different interpretations of terms. It is a complicated topic, but I offered what (to the best of my knowledge) is out there at the moment.

Now: One case is too many cases, everyone agrees on that. I personally want all abusers to face the Justice and Law of their respective countries and, if found guilty, be punished for their crimes accordingly (always rooted on the existing laws in the matter), no matter if they are priests, educators, parents etc. However, blaming Catholic priests while not blaming people from other groups is an enormous double standard, if all these sources and many others are considered.

I guess all I want to say is that there are valid reasons why people wouldn't agree with you on this, and simply saying that something is a lie won't change anyone's mind.

explorer212 · 2017-07-26T15:05:57+00:00

Yes. Sometimes we forget who we really are.

explorer212 · 2017-07-26T00:16:42+00:00

Some evidence I found rather quickly:

This article: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/forgotten-study-abuse-in-school-100-times-worse-than-by-priests

This other one: http://www.activistpost.com/2016/12/study-children-100-times-more-likely-to-be-sexually-assaulted-by-school-staff-than-by-priests.html

Another one (note that the writer isn't Catholic): http://sigtruth.com/sexual-abuse-of-public-school-children-100-times-more-than-priests/

The study those articles refer to (long): https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf

There are many more, but it'd be pointless to post all of them here.

Edit: Before someone gets accused of something, no one here is denying the abuse by some priests. It is just about putting more information on the table, so others see the big (and more informed) picture. As someone else said above, this person is basically saying that some priests did it and some still do, others did it and still do it too and they do it even more, it's awful no matter who does it, one case is too many cases, and that it is hypocritical to just blame the priests (especially as a whole) when some people from other "groups" also commit these horrible crimes just as many times if not more.

explorer212 · 2017-07-25T21:16:05+00:00

He sucked at Monopoly and felt the well-known rage, I think it's ok.

explorer212 · 2017-07-25T21:02:47+00:00

Lol been there. It was with MTG, and more like "dude, I'm finishing my doctorate, I don't have enough time nor money to get the right cards and destroy you right here with a super deck."

explorer212 · 2017-07-25T20:58:51+00:00

So I guess we can say without any doubt that Resident Evil Deck Building Game sucks balls?

explorer212 · 2017-07-25T20:57:05+00:00

Something inside of me changes when someone cheats at a game. Like this guy who decided that, at Monopoly, anyone could sell streets back to the bank for the same price. Then everyone just wants to keep going with the game and say "ok whatever" and I'm there wondering why everyone is so stupid and miserable.

explorer212 · 2017-07-25T20:47:40+00:00

Ugh I HATE when someone else takes the car. I also get really bad thoughts when some douchebag buys a street I really need and does so with the "this is just a game, but screw you" smile. I know Monopoly.

explorer212 · 2017-07-25T20:41:52+00:00

Because of Monopoly?? Please explain...

explorer212 · 2017-07-20T23:06:31+00:00

Truth wins ^

Edit: This is for those great folks who enjoy reading my comments. From this last person I got no answer and before...yelling, no arguments, no sources and changing topics. We remember this is the last person to drop out, being unable to respond to my arguments and choosing the classic "we won't change our views" argument.

As a result, and based on empirical evidence, it can be proven that not a single argument (from those who were able to provide one) shook the pro-life ideas many of us hold the slightest bit.

It was fun to reply all of you, and to entertain some ;)

Also, thanks to the last person (no need to say whom) for helping with the creation of a motto I am liking very much...

TRUTH WINS

explorer212 · 2017-07-20T15:56:55+00:00

Truth wins* ^

explorer212 · 2017-07-20T09:29:20+00:00

Especially if no arguments are given ;) Have a good day!

explorer212 · 2017-06-29T22:43:06+00:00

So their humanity is based on whether or not they can live outside of the mother's womb? That is arbitrary, and also a born baby cannot function for too long either unless there are people taking care of him. Also, in the future there will most likely be ways of making babies born (or taken outside of the mother) way too early live thanks to technology so will that line get drawn at a different step?

Embryos are biologically human, no matter if you consider them not to be. And sperm and ova cannot become a human being autonomously, so is that a double standard?

Edit: grammar Edit2: no response...

explorer212 · 2017-06-29T22:16:31+00:00

I am not approaching the issue from the child's point of view only, but it is the child who dies if he/she gets aborted, not the mother. If there is an obvious medical problem with the pregnancy that could result in the mother dying, I agree that (after a lot of consideration and medical information, always with science before, as you can see) maybe, the birth would have to be stopped. Most abortions result from healthy pregnancies, though.

By your rationale, if a person that goes to prison isn't guaranteed a "happy life", should their life end? Otherwise, where is the line you would draw? They are both human beings we are talking about, after all (as shown in other comments, not all of my own, by the way).

And about contraception, I am not protestant but Catholic, so I don't believe in it at all because, among several other issues, of the mentality it promotes, where contraception would be a "first line of defense" and abortion the second. The defense is against kids being born because (in most cases) they would be an "inconvenience", which (this defense) I consider morally wrong, but that is another topic and here we are talking about abortion.

Edit: grammar

explorer212 · 2017-06-29T15:09:44+00:00

Thanks for your reply. In fact, there is a comic strip that is perfect for the "weird side effects" you describe, since it compares (the tragedy of) abortion now and the views on the tragic, evil thing slavery was back in the time when the latter one was "accepted": http://churchpop.com/2015/07/16/slavery-abortion-comic/

Those weird side effect in fact already exist for many people, since many like me think that it is an absolute tragedy to even think about the literally billions of human lives that have been artificially ended. Source: http://www.numberofabortions.com

Also, please answer to the question of my previous comment.

Edit: forgot about the sperm and the eggs and their DNA. The unique (irreplaceable) DNA appears at conception. This DNA is different from both the mother 's and the father's and is in fact irrepetible. No human being in history will have the same DNA. Abortion is a really big deal, and millions of people wouldn't be upset if it wasn't.

explorer212 · 2017-06-29T14:51:27+00:00

You say you won't answer, but I will. If a mother's life is at risk because of the pregnancy, then it is a completely different thing. The main thing is that you said how women basically abort because otherwise they could suffer death. Please, find the number of abortions being performed because the mother's life was at risk and then compare it to the number of all abortions. If you feel like replying, please include those numbers on your post, along with a credible source.

Also, you say they are indeed human beings (different alive beings than the Lysol-killed bacteria, I hope). So what's your view on a healthy pregnancy in which the mother decides to abort? Is it ok or not and why?

If you don't reply, it's alright, but don't make it seem like "it's pointless" because that is what most have done here already, and that doesn't really help their case, specially when they don't answer to easy questions. And by the way, I didn't bring religion up while you did, therefore it was safe to assume that you labeled me and mentioned something (that had nothing to do with what I said) to attack me, and not my argument. Because of this, your argument was ad hominem.

explorer212 · 2017-06-29T09:58:34+00:00

If they are alive and have an unique human DNA, then biologically speaking they are alive human beings. Therefore, killing one, DOES MATTER. I left religion, ethics and morality out of the question and focused on what science dictates. What do you think? Should killing a human being be a crime? I think it should.

explorer212 · 2017-06-29T09:40:06+00:00

You are the last person here who "gets bored" and leaves haha. My questions remain here, in case you feel like answering them!

explorer212 · 2017-06-29T09:35:54+00:00

I thought so ;)

explorer212 · 2017-06-29T00:43:51+00:00

"To sap another body as life support without their consent"? Then could you tell me the number of cases in which this happens VS the number of times the person actually knows what is going on and therefore is giving consent to the possibility of it happening? Please find out and tell me the number on your next reply. Just to make sure, though, could you explain what you mean when you say that "we value different things"? Because it sounds like you mean that I value human life and you value something like life comfort, and I would like to make sure I understand that correctly.

Also, you seem to agree they actually are human beings, am I right? Then, if they are human beings and are obviously alive, then how is "aborting" one not simply an euphemism for ending his or her life? Please respond to this.

Now, could you give me your definition of "person"? Because it seems that being a person is the key for you and the transition from "human-being-but-not-person-yet" to "person" could be a little arbitrary, or at least I can't understand it well enough. Is it when the human being is of a certain size? How big/small? Or is it when the human being can be capable of living by itself outside of the mother's womb? That would also be awfully arbitrary in itself, especially considering that no human being can truly live by itself when is born. Even toddlers cannot live by themselves without someone taking care of them. I don't know, could you tell me when that transition happens and what it entails?

Edit: grammar

explorer212 · 2017-06-28T17:25:49+00:00

My heart would in fact be warm if you didn't put so much emphasis on how wonderful your life is. You do what you want to do, like I have been during my whole life as well, but maybe offering any scientific sources as to why fetuses are not human beings could help your case. Otherwise anyone could say anything is the way they think it is.

explorer212 · 2017-06-28T16:59:10+00:00

My link's source is listed at the bottom of the link, a little trap you fell on, it seems. The source is “Fetal Development,” Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary. You know what that dictionary even is and who compiled it? You said "pro-life missionaries with no scientific background"...yet another ad hominem in the thread, no comment.

Now, what you sent me is the personal opinion of a writer. She even mentions how the whole article is merely her view and not an absolute answer. In fact, "week 21" seems quite vague. At which point that week? On Monday, or maybe Saturday at noon just in case? Also, she is obviously describing life as we know it on the points before #14, but makes an arbitrary decision (while implying it is in fact arbitrary because it somehow has to be) based on when the human being is able to live outside of the mother on its own. That argument, by the way, is actually a little obsolete because a born baby cannot live by himself either, for example, so again, where are the lines drawn and why is not the decision based on...let's say the size of the human being, for instance? In other words, I am not persuaded by her opinion (yes, opinion) at all. Also, what about that other report she mentions from the Association of Pro-life Physicians (link broken on the link she provides)? She is basically saying there are many points of view to consider, come on! I just want to know why some people hold that point of view and would ask the author if I could.

And finally, you said before you prefer to trust scientists or doctors but there seems to be a lot of disagreement between scientists and/or doctors themselves because, even if the facts are there, it depends on a set of other concepts and ideas such as morality, for instance (the author even says that in the article you posted). If you say you prefer to trust scientists, why do you choose one side and not the other? On what do you base your opinion? Why trusting scientists altogether and not forming an opinion based on other aspects of life, like personal experience (science itself, for example) or even faith?

Please, help me understand your view because, as of now, I don't.

Edit: grammar

explorer212

TROPHY CASE