Florida plans to become first state to eliminate all childhood vaccine mandates

[IBDaMann]

So when it comes to Trump's policies on immigration or abortion, I'm pretty sure I'm on her side.

Supremacy. I get it.

Thus, I am sometimes on her good side.

One can only be on her "good side" by being similarly dishonest.

 

[IBDaMann]

Fortunately, the courts disagree,

Dishonest leftists routinely turn to activist courts to throw the game in their favor.

Fortunately, courts don't get the final say. Legislation gets the final say. The States get the final say.

The U.S. Supreme court has now decided that individual U.S. states decide are to decide whether abortions should be legal or not

As it should be. But it's not because the Supreme Court says so; SCOTUS simply affirms that the States say so.

Which means U.S. Citizens have the ability to vote with their feet as to what laws they want to live under.

Teachable moment: "... as to what laws under which they want to live."

Correct. Some States have the death penalty and others do not.

 

[IBDaMann]

We gotta start calling Scott "Timex" because he takes a lickin' but keeps on clickin'...

" ... but keeps on tick'n"

 

[IBDaMann]

ChatGPT has said...

Nope. Either you drop ChatGPT as a reference or you use the ChatGPT output that I gave you. Pick one.

 

[Scott]

Nope. They are viruses.

It is possible to see a virus in a sufficiently powered microscope.

They do.

* They are not alive.
* They invade cells as a parasite and reprogram them to reproduce more copies of the virus.
* They consist of a membrane enclosing RNA.

We've clearly started talking about biological viruses in this sub thread, so I've responded in the APP biological virus thread I made a while back. For the audience, my response is here:

APP - Post in thread 'Do biological viruses actually exist?'

Sep 17, 2025

Sure, and I certainly believe that cells exist, as well as bacteria. I also suspect that some microbes that are classified as biological viruses are actually bacteria.

Nope. They are viruses.

Perhaps it may be best if we simply agree to disagree on that point.

It is possible to see a virus in a sufficiently powered microscope.

It is certainly possible to see various microbes in electron microscropes. The issue is whether there is any solid evidence that said microbes are actually biological viruses.

The issue is whether they actually fit the description...

• Scott

Into the Night, if you are unable or unwilling to respond in that thread, I can also respond in the thread I made on biological viruses in the General Politics Forum, assuming you would be amenable to responding there.

 

[Scott]

Science is not evidence.

The evidence of viruses is NOT missing. They can be observed directly through a sufficiently powerful microscope. Their presence can be detected by indicators.

A virus is not a particle. It is a complex structure.

Viruses invade cells, causing the cell to make copies of the virus. The normal functioning of that cell is disrupted. The immune system first responds by destroying the cell.

The effects of this damage and the immune system response is the disease, often showing up as congestion, a runny nose, sore throat, etc.

After a few days, antivirus cells matching that virus begin replicating.

After about a week in most cases, the virus is eradicated from the body by antivirus cells, which are capable of doing a much better job than the white blood cells that first responded.


Science is not a method. The dictionary does not define any word. A virus is not a particle.


False authority fallacy.

For the audience- we've started talking about biological viruses in this subthread, so I've responded to this post in posts 689 to 693 in the following thread:

APP - Thread 'Do biological viruses actually exist?'

Mar 1, 2025

I made a thread that basically had the same premise as this one back in 2022. It had a good run, but then petered off for a long time. It's recently gotten a bit of a renewal, but I've come to believe that this is a subject that will get a lot of people to engage in personal attacks. I was hoping to avoid that this time around and this is the reason that I'm remaking this thread here. Note that I am not saying that the electron microscope photographs that virologists present aren't real microbes, just that they don't actually have the properties that would fit the definition of biological...

• Scott
• biological viruses evidence that biological viruses exist viruses
• Replies: 702
• Forum: Above Plain Politics Forum

 

[Scott]

I believe women should be allowed to choose whether or not they want to remove a fetus from their body.

So you condone contract murder.

That's not what I said.

 

[Scott]

Does a chicken or a cow get their day in court before getting slaughtered for consumption?

No. The law does not apply to animals.

Laws still apply to animals, it's just that getting their day in court before being slaughtered isn't part of the legal code in any country I'm aware of.

 

[Scott]

Does a chicken or a cow get their day in court before getting slaughtered for consumption? They are highly intelligent creatures, after all:

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/kids/the-intelligent-hen-chickens-smarter-than-toddlers/news-story/ee489b1bb6455dde2b18381285651ec2

Cows: Science Shows They're Bright and Emotional Individuals

Thinking of cows simply as "food products" ignores who they truly are. In fact, science shows they have rich and deep cognitive and emotional lives.

www.psychologytoday.com

You have obviously have never raised either chickens or cows.

I've lived on a farm where cows were raised, I just wasn't raising the cows myself. In any case, why did you come to the conclusion that I haven't raised chickens or cows?

 

[Scott]

As you point out, we don't eat human fetuses, so I would say there is more deference towards human fetuses than adult chickens or cows, but I doubt there are few if any examples where a human fetus has an intelligence that is in the same ballpark as its mother. This is why the mother's wishes on whether she wants to carry a pregnancy to term must take precedence.

A human being is not a chicken or a cow.

Agreed.

Why do condone murder?

I don't.

 

[Scott]

Fortunately, the courts disagree, at least to some extent.

Void reference fallacy. No court has the authority to cancel the Constitution.

What I meant by the statement you quoted above is that the U.S. Supreme court has now decided that individual U.S. states are to decide whether abortions should be legal or not, and if legal, under what circumstances. Which means U.S. Citizens have the ability to vote with their feet as to what laws they want to live under.

 

[Scott]

Yes, and people tend to disagree the most on definitions when they're personal ones instead of common ones that can be found in dictionaries.

Do tell, what do dictionaries have to do with anything? Unless you believe that "dictionaries" somehow own the language, you shouldn't even be mentioning them.

No, I don't believe that dictionaries "own the language". I -do- believe that they offer common definitions for words, which can be very useful when trying to talk about things where people have a penchant for using non common definitions for words. To give you an example, some people see abortion as murder or a proper subset of contract killings. As far as I know, no well known dictionary defines abortion as murder. Therefore, I find it's best to discard said definitions in any discussion on the subject.

 

[Scott]

While it can be nice to be able to define words any way we like if we're just communicating with ourselves, it becomes a real problem if we're communicating with others who don't share our personal definitions for said words.

You just described the root of all communication breakdowns.

I don't know about that, but it looks like we agree that personal definitions for words can cause a lot of problems.

Convenient.

Have you ever considered that it's convenient for your beliefs that you -do- see a difference?

Nope. I understand the serious problems to which you are blind. Why do you believe that your position is somehow more authoritative and less erroneous just because you discover an erroneous website that agrees with your erroneous position?

Alright, let's backtrack a bit here. I think we have agreed that any good discussion requires that people agree on the definition of the words being used in said discussion. Dictionaries and encyclopedias, such as Wikipedia, offer common definitions for words. This is why I find that they are the best sources when it comes to trying to find an agreement on the definitions of words used in a discussion.

 

[Scott]

You could say that you have defined a Chilango as someone who is black. I could tell you that that's not how it's generally defined, but you could say you don't care and insist that that's the way -you- define it.

You are arguing that I could do what you are, in fact doing right now.

No, I'm not. I am insisting that we use common definitions for words. Such definitions can be found in dictionaries and encyclopedias. You are insisting that we use your personal definitions for words that I disagree with, such as abortions being a subset of contract killings.

 

[Scott]

You are averse to using definitions for abortion found in dictionaries precisely because that's not how you yourself define the term.

I will never support your supremacy, especially not killing supremacy.

I never said that I support "supremacy", let alone "killing supremacy". Another thing, in the last post, you engaged in quote box altering of the text of mine that I quoted above by adding some text in brackets that I didn't put in myself, which is in violation of Rule 16. Feel free to peruse Rule 16 yourself if you are in doubt:

Thread 'Rules of the Board!'

Jul 22, 2006

This site uses user driven content, each user is responsible for the content and opinions in their posts. The owners of the site JPPolitics LLC do not necessarily share the opinions of the author of any post on the forums. This forum was created for Political commentary, News, Education, and entertainment purposes. Please read the rules carefully before posting on the forums.

General Forum Rules
(These rules apply to the entire site)

1. No posting private information without consent. We will delete the posts and you will likely not have access for at least a couple...

• Generic
• Replies: 0
• Forum: Rules

I didn't report it, as I think our conversations have been fairly productive, but please refrain from doing that in the future.

In any case, it appears that you agree that you are averse to using defintions for abortion found in dictionaries and encyclopedias such as Wikipedia. This is a shame, because it implies that we may have reached be reaching an end in terms of how far we can discuss the subject of abortion. Just as happened with a former friend of mine, we simply can't discuss the subject if we can't come to an agreement on how to define the term.

 

[Scott]

When it's clear that logic has no home in a conversation, it's best to throw in the towel.

I disagree. When all honesty has left a conversation, it's time to roll and get in a good workout for free.

When logic has been replaced by vitriol, we get to a place that I think Nietsche best described:
“He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.”

Source:

"He Who Fights with Monsters" Meaning

Friedrich Nietzsche's haunting observation that "He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an a

unearnedwisdom.com

 

[Scott]

[Anyway], I figure if I make the mistake as a native English speaker that's read a lot of books and written a fair amount, and that sites meant to help English teachers don't cover, it's probably not that big a deal.

Did you just basically say that you can teach English to others, but if you make an error, it is, by definition, not big enough of a deal for you to learn and to improve such that you never make that mistake again?

No, just that it's not that big of a deal. That doesn't mean I can't improve.

Actually, that's kind of what you wrote.

I disagree.

 

[Scott]

I've already mentioned that I don't agree with some of Wikipedia's stances on certain subjects, such as vaccines. That being said, Wikipedia offers people places to start on just about any subject [snip]

You are chanting, and being totally dishonest. Drug pushers give people a place to start. Pimps give women a place to start. Wikipedia gives people a place to get indoctrinated into hardcore Marxism.

There you go with your "Marxism" again. I haven't seen you provide a shred of evidence that Wikipedia is marxist or that it can be compared in any way to drug pushers or pimps. I see it as a source of information. Sometimes the information is flawed, such as its information on vaccines- in those cases, I would suggest people use a different source of information. When it comes to issues such as abortion, however, it seems fine.

 

[Scott]

Wikipedia certainly has its flaws, but at least it always lists sources for its material.

Unfortunately, it lists nonauthoritative sources for those as well.

Sometimes, sure, but then those can be debunked.

Not by dishonest people who are pushing those errors.

Agreed. Fortunatetly, there are honest people who can do the debunking.

 

[Scott]

And as mentioned, at least they list their sources.

How does that change anything?

It's the difference between someone telling you to trust that their beliefs are correct and someone telling you why they believe what they believe.