Thread: Prove which tastes better...chocolate or strawberry ice cream?

Originally Posted by Babba

In some specialized cases it can bring in higher revenues. But it is not true in most cases.

Therein lies the problem. Sometimes facts are based on timing and circumstances, at times rendering them to look like opinions.

Originally Posted by Babba

True. Righties state as fact that human personhood begins at conception, when scientists and doctors have found no such consensus on the issue.

Bzzzzzt, wrong.

Human "personhood" begins whenever the law says it does. "Personhood" is fuzzy, arbitrary... subjective. It is not a matter of scientific inquiry.

The lifespan of every sexually reproducing organism is at the point of fusion for the gamete cells - fertilization, or conception. Humans are no exception.

This is bedrock life science, and it can be observed directly in the lab through microscopy.

If the above FACT were to inform our legal definition of "personhood," then the standard would need to be changed to conform to that FACT.

Originally Posted by meridian5455

When you say that there is no consensus, do you mean that scientists aren't sure one way or another?

I'm saying that Righties can't state for a fact that personhood begins at conception nor can they state for a fact that humans are not contributing to climate change. But they continue to do just that day in and day out.

Originally Posted by Babba

I'm saying that Righties can't state for a fact that personhood begins at conception nor can they state for a fact that humans are not contributing to climate change. But they continue to do just that day in and day out.

But can anyone state that this isn't the case?

Originally Posted by Jets

Therein lies the problem. Sometimes facts are based on timing and circumstances, at times rendering them to look like opinions.

But your statement was a general/universal one with no such qualifications:

Originally Posted by Jets

Heres an example:

Lower taxes equal higher tax revenue.

Is this fact or opinion?

So it's an opinion.

Originally Posted by meridian5455

But can anyone state that this isn't the case?

Either way, does that mean it's okay if Righties state these things as irrefutable facts?

Originally Posted by Babba

can't state for a fact that personhood begins at conception

No one can state that.

It's a legal fact that personhood doesn't begin at conception, and that's the problem! Legal facts are arbitrary - the law says this or the law says that. The law can be just and appropriate or it can be not so, but either way, the law is what it is.

Sometimes our legal definitions are out of synch with basic scientific knowledge and / or the promotion of human rights. Our definition of "person" once precluded abducted and purchased humans of African descent!



The lifespan of every Homo sapiens begins at conception. That is verifiable fact. There is no dispute to be had.

Justifying why living humans are not people is your cross to bear, not mine.

Originally Posted by meridian5455

But can anyone state that this isn't the case?

Opinions can';t always be proved...they just ARE.

(see the topic title)

Originally Posted by Babba

Either way, does that mean it's okay if Righties state these things as irrefutable facts?

No, but at the same time, it cannot be said that they are absolutely wrong either. There are too many emotions in regards to when life begins and they tend to cloud the issue.

Originally Posted by Devil505

But your statement was a general/universal one with no such qualifications:


So it's an opinion.

Thats the point I was trying to make. Sometimes there is a thin line between an opinion and a fact. At times opinions can be shown to be correct.