If the baby can survive outside the womb is abortion "murder"?

[Loren Pechtel]

People keep on ignoring the cartoons and illustrations though they have excuses for it. I want people to talk about it so it seems the only choice is to make another thread

People keep ignoring them because it's an argument about emotion. If the facts were on their side they would present the facts--thus, the use of an emotional argument strongly suggests the facts are not on their side.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So you can't debunk a cartoon that went for about a minute?

Im saying you debunked it yourself when you posted 20 other YouTube videos that are full of shit.

If you want to understand whether your cartoon is accurate or not, look at the URL. If it says "YouTube" and is not from a medical textbook or instruction on the subject, it's not likely to be accurate. Even if it is and is being talked about by those scientifically illiterate chucklefucks, you still won't be able to walk away with an accurate picture for the spin.

Quit trying to link YouTube videos as part of your argument. It makes you seem like a cracked out conspiracy theorist.

I've seen decent stuff on YouTube. Some doctors put videos about procedures on YouTube as being a faster way of explaining things to the patient. When my wife was having cataract surgery we found multiple videos from docs explaining the procedure they perform.

But it's definitely a be very cautious place.

 

[excreationist]

Quit trying to link YouTube videos as part of your argument. It makes you seem like a cracked out conspiracy theorist.

In my Dr Chris thread someone shared a Professor Dave YouTube video - so sometimes it can be ok.

 

[Jarhyn]

So you can't debunk a cartoon that went for about a minute?

Im saying you debunked it yourself when you posted 20 other YouTube videos that are full of shit.

If you want to understand whether your cartoon is accurate or not, look at the URL. If it says "YouTube" and is not from a medical textbook or instruction on the subject, it's not likely to be accurate. Even if it is and is being talked about by those scientifically illiterate chucklefucks, you still won't be able to walk away with an accurate picture for the spin.

Quit trying to link YouTube videos as part of your argument. It makes you seem like a cracked out conspiracy theorist.

I've seen decent stuff on YouTube. Some doctors put videos about procedures on YouTube as being a faster way of explaining things to the patient. When my wife was having cataract surgery we found multiple videos from docs explaining the procedure they perform.

But it's definitely a be very cautious place.

They have licenses and references, at least, but I still don't think YouTube is a generally useful source; RFK types post more content than your doctor friend and they don't get turned out or tuned out.

It's possible to use a certain amount of references to cross reference all of them to each other, and usually you'll find the reputable ones from looking for the population that the most deranged of them disagree with and attempt to claim know nothing. Some less deranged seeming folks will agree with them, too, but many of them will have questionable qualifications. Look for the two of those happening together...

But many people don't have the time for all that or the ability to just know which is which.

Take for instance the latest bereft reply:

Quit trying to link YouTube videos as part of your argument. It makes you seem like a cracked out conspiracy theorist.

In my Dr Chris thread someone shared a Professor Dave YouTube video - so sometimes it can be ok.

See? They honestly think that because "sometimes" they find good sources there that it's going to be more than digging through asbestos trying to find gold flakes or whatever.

That's what we have fucking robots for, and peer review.

Then, we now have ideologues making inroads on peer review structures and making their own mills to "efficiently" imitate ethical action but for the purposes of selfish exclusion of the "other", in the same way as the evangelicals preach the inverse of Jesus's message with the help of some bullshit by Paul, efficiently imitating the model of the broader religion, or as Catholics have done and in places and ways continue to do.

But this is why we test and test again and replicate, and replicate again, and test new theories for which the test relies on the principles of previous models, and this is what peer reviewed academic science is about.

 

[excreationist]

Quit trying to link YouTube videos as part of your argument. It makes you seem like a cracked out conspiracy theorist.

In my Dr Chris thread someone shared a Professor Dave YouTube video - so sometimes it can be ok.

See? They honestly think that because "sometimes" they find good sources there that it's going to be more than digging through asbestos trying to find gold flakes or whatever.

Actually the Professor Dave video was on the opposing side so I'm happy if it was seen as a bad thing.

 

[Jarhyn]

Quit trying to link YouTube videos as part of your argument. It makes you seem like a cracked out conspiracy theorist.

In my Dr Chris thread someone shared a Professor Dave YouTube video - so sometimes it can be ok.

See? They honestly think that because "sometimes" they find good sources there that it's going to be more than digging through asbestos trying to find gold flakes or whatever.

Actually the Professor Dave video was on the opposing side so I'm happy if was seen as a bad thing.

How do you not understand that I'm being absolutely clear, and have not for a moment stepped away from "it's all suspicious trash; maybe Dave is a gold flake among the asbestos, but you've got a predisposition for mesothelioma and aren't wearing a respirator and coming to us now asking why your cough is so bad, and get away from that fuzzy rock, it's not gold, what are you, insane?!?"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They have licenses and references, at least, but I still don't think YouTube is a generally useful source; RFK types post more content than your doctor friend and they don't get turned out or tuned out.

It's possible to use a certain amount of references to cross reference all of them to each other, and usually you'll find the reputable ones from looking for the population that the most deranged of them disagree with and attempt to claim know nothing. Some less deranged seeming folks will agree with them, too, but many of them will have questionable qualifications. Look for the two of those happening together...

The good stuff isn't trying to convince you of anything, it's simply explaining a topic. And it's not controversial.

But many people don't have the time for all that or the ability to just know which is which.

Yeah, most people are very poor at weeding out garbage. Which is why there is so much of it--it works.

See? They honestly think that because "sometimes" they find good sources there that it's going to be more than digging through asbestos trying to find gold flakes or whatever.

Exactly. Finding one nugget proves absolutely nothing about nugget density.

Back of the envelope I did once: I probably own enough U-235 to make a bomb. Now, separating it out from the rest of the atoms in that stupid lot I inherited is quite another matter....

 

[Jarhyn]

They have licenses and references, at least, but I still don't think YouTube is a generally useful source; RFK types post more content than your doctor friend and they don't get turned out or tuned out.

It's possible to use a certain amount of references to cross reference all of them to each other, and usually you'll find the reputable ones from looking for the population that the most deranged of them disagree with and attempt to claim know nothing. Some less deranged seeming folks will agree with them, too, but many of them will have questionable qualifications. Look for the two of those happening together...

The good stuff isn't trying to convince you of anything, it's simply explaining a topic. And it's not controversial.

But many people don't have the time for all that or the ability to just know which is which.

Yeah, most people are very poor at weeding out garbage. Which is why there is so much of it--it works.

See? They honestly think that because "sometimes" they find good sources there that it's going to be more than digging through asbestos trying to find gold flakes or whatever.

Exactly. Finding one nugget proves absolutely nothing about nugget density.

Back of the envelope I did once: I probably own enough U-235 to make a bomb. Now, separating it out from the rest of the atoms in that stupid lot I inherited is quite another matter....

Yeah, and I had all the gold I would need to make all the baubles I ever wanted to make and sell... Same problem, really.