Consent

[AV1611VET]

No, you do not. Here is a good definition for you:

Bearing false witness: to falsely accuse someone else of wrongdoing.

Am I now?

You've been away awhile, haven't you?

14

 

[CabVet]

Am I now?

You've been away awhile, haven't you?

14

Admitting that you do it does not change the fact that you are bearing false witness. If anything, it makes it worse because you are doing it on purpose.

 

[AV1611VET]

Accusing "scientists" of being responsible for abortions = bearing false witness.

Does it now?

Does science have anything to say about abortion? Those who have taken embryology know full well the answer to this question. If you examine pro-choice arguments for abortion, you will find the proponents using such terms as "tissue" and "grams of material" (a weight). What they do not like to discuss is what that "tissue" consists of.

SOURCE

You can disagree with the article.

You can disagree with me.

But saying I'm bearing false witness is a little over the line, IMO.

It may not be in your book, but I'm not obligated to think like you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Admitting that you do it does not change the fact that you are bearing false witness. If anything, it makes it worse because you are doing it on purpose.

Thankfully you're not my judge.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm not obligated to agree.

 

[MikeCarra]

This "good hypothesis" generated ... well ... a whole generation of evidence, didn't it?

No idea what you mean.

A good hypothesis is one that, by definition, has evidence in support of it.

 

[MikeCarra]

Wow ... that's just sad on so many levels.

So which offends you more:

"logic" or "honesty"?

Clearly they offend you if someone coming out in support of both makes you "sad".

 

[MikeCarra]

That typically depends on whether it's empirical based physics, or "theoretical" physics.

No, theoretical physics still has to comport with mathematical robustness. And remember, theoretical physics ultimately has to be proven in order to be solid.

True. Alas however, bad ones sometimes generate a consensus as well.

You probably confuse "consensus" with "tacictly sitting quietly by until proof is provided".

 

[AV1611VET]

Accusing "scientists" of being responsible for the crash of the Hindenburg = bearing false witness.

The Hindenburg blew up because the pilot ordered a 90° turn to port (or starboard, I don't remember now), causing a main steel beam to break from the stress and puncture one of the 16 Hydrogen tanks, leaking Hydrogen into the hold.

When the mooring ropes were lowered, and a connection was made to the ground, this sent an electrical charge up the rope to the outer skin of the craft, which then sparked inside the hold from the outer skin to a metal rod inside the hold.

A spark that went right through the Hydrogen gas leaking out.

Somewhat like the power stroke of an internal combustion engine, but w/o the compression.

The result is on Youtube for your viewing disgust.

What brainacs would even suggest filling 16 tanks with Hydrogen, for crying out loud?

Scientists would ... of course.

 

[CabVet]

Does it now?

SOURCE

You can disagree with the article.

You can disagree with me.

But saying I'm bearing false witness is a little over the line, IMO.

It may not be in your book, but I'm not obligated to think like you.

Actually, I agree 100% with that article. If you read it entirely (and don't just copy and paste a portion that you think agrees with your point), you will realize that the point that is made is that science cannot be used to justify abortion (which is the position that most scientists hold). It is a MORAL issue. Even the title of the article is "The Scientific Basis for a Prolife Position". So why are you using it to say that scientists are responsible for abortions?

 

[CabVet]

What brainacs would even suggest filling 16 tanks with Hydrogen, for crying out loud?

Scientists would ... of course.

False witness. Again.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, I agree 100% with that article. If you read it entirely (and don't just copy and paste a portion that you think agrees with your point), you will realize that the point that is made is that science cannot be used to justify abortion (which is the position that most scientists hold). It is a MORAL issue. Even the title of the article is "The Scientific Basis for a Prolife Position". So why are you using it to say that scientists are responsible for abortions?

Because they changed the terminology from God's to theirs -- effectively mitigating any guilt that may arise from someone contemplating abortion.

It's one thing to have "fetal tissue" removed via a "routine operation."

It's quite another to say you're having a "child" removed.

Which is scientifically more correct?

1. woman with fetal tissue
2. woman with child

Again, you may disagree -- some do just because I said it.

But saying it is "bearing false witness" is a little over the line, IMO.

In any event, as I said:

You're entitled to your opinion; I'm not obligated to accept it.

 

[AV1611VET]

False witness. Again.

Good -- guilty as charged, according to your standards.

I'll accept it with pride.

 

[CabVet]

Because they changed the terminology from God's to theirs -- effectively mitigating any guilt that may arise from someone contemplating abortion.

And scientists have nothing to do with it.

It's quite another to say you're having a "child" removed.

"Child" is also a scientific term. So is "adult" and "teenager".

Which is scientifically more correct?

1. woman with fetal tissue
2. woman with child

Neither one. The correct term is "pregnant woman". What is inside the woman is a fetus, not a child. Just like a 20 year old human is not a child. You can misuse the term as much as you want it, it doesn't make scientists responsible for abortions.

 

[CabVet]

Good -- guilty as charged, according to your standards.

I'll accept it with pride.

Apparently, you are guilty as charged according to your standards too:

14

But keep repeating the false accusations, by all means, it's not like it is a sin or anything like that.

P.S.: Do you have any idea how flammable jet fuel is and how much of it is carried in an airliner?

 

[AV1611VET]

P.S.: Do you have any idea how flammable jet fuel is and how much of it is carried in an airliner?

Then why don't they keep using Hydrogen, like they keep using jet fuel?

Not quite a valid comparison, is it?

 

[CabVet]

Then why don't they keep using Hydrogen, like they keep using jet fuel?

"They" will always use the cheapest thing available. And don't worry, there will be a time when hydrogen is cheaper:

The reason why they stopped using dirigibles was not the Hindenburg, it was because something much faster came around: the airplane.

Not quite a valid comparison, is it?

Yes, it is a valid comparison.

P.S.: Hydrogen was not used as fuel in the Hindenburg.

 

[AV1611VET]

P.S.: Hydrogen was not used as fuel in the Hindenburg.

Well ... as the old saying goes:

Amateurs built the Ark; professionals built the Hindenburg.

 

[CabVet]

Well ... as the old saying goes:

Amateurs built the Ark; professionals built the Hindenburg.

Do you know why hydrogen was used in the Hindenburg? It must be related to science and scientists since you blame them for the explosion, right?

 

[[serious]]

The Hindenburg blew up because the pilot ordered a 90° turn to port (or starboard, I don't remember now), causing a main steel beam to break from the stress and puncture one of the 16 Hydrogen tanks, leaking Hydrogen into the hold.

When the mooring ropes were lowered, and a connection was made to the ground, this sent an electrical charge up the rope to the outer skin of the craft, which then sparked inside the hold from the outer skin to a metal rod inside the hold.

A spark that went right through the Hydrogen gas leaking out.

Somewhat like the power stroke of an internal combustion engine, but w/o the compression.

The result is on Youtube for your viewing disgust.

What brainacs would even suggest filling 16 tanks with Hydrogen, for crying out loud?

Scientists would ... of course.

Yeah, how could we trot around in a vehicle filled with explosive/flammable stuff. A Christian would never do that (If by "christian" you mean Amish)

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, how could we trot around in a vehicle filled with explosive/flammable stuff.

For the second time:

Please explain why, then, hydrogen was discontinued.

You don't see gasoline discontinued when a car burns up.

So what made scientists change their minds about filling dirigibles up with hydrogen?