Joe’s Own Words

Yep.

You seem to think that a "conspiracy theory" is for crazy people, and if labeled such, is always wrong. Is this true? If not, don't say things like that, because there are bad people in this world, and conspiracies against other people do happen.

Rarely, if at all does a conspiracy theory ever hold water. If I heard a conspiracy theory out of someone who has lead their life without resorting to such things to gain political power, I would believe them.

Trump's base on the other hand, the use Conspiracy Theories as their bread and butter. It's so common that you can dismiss them out of hand because many, many of their conspiracy theories are proven false.

So yeah, in the context of Trump and his base? Yeah. Crazy people. Crazy ideas.

That is foolish. Bank robbers conspire to rob banks. Serial killers conspire to kill. Hitler conspired to rule the world, and almost did.
Are conspiracy theory's really that fake to you?

No, your comparisons are foolish. Conspiring to commit murder, Conspiring to rob a bank are a far cry from touting conspiracy theories.
You shouldn't try to put "Conspire to" and "Conspiracy Theory" in the same bucket.

That'd be like saying (in your words) something like this:

"That is foolish. Wolves eat pigs. Wolves attack humans....
Is the Three Little Pigs and Little Red Riding Hood that fake to you?"

Uuugg. You don't know what the definition of a conspiracy is.

Those are the same thing. The culture has made it different, so it can disqualify anyone who they think has a crazy idea as a "conspiracy theory."

Conspire: make secret plans jointly to commit an unlawful or harmful act
Conspiracy Theory: a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event.

The problem with conspiracy theories is that they are hardly ever true. Especially if they come from QAnon. You want me to talk about Pizzagate? That was a conspiracy theory. There was no "Conspiring to commit pedophilia."

The difference between "Conspire to" and "Conspiracy Theory" is this:

Conspire to: It is proven that these individuals are attempting to do this thing.
Conspiracy Theory: I have evidence (Mind you, most evidence provided by conspiracy theories is largely circumstantial and insufficient in a court of law.) which suggests that these individuals are conspiring to do this thing.

Hardly ever true says who? Who defines if they are true or not? Kennedy died because of a conspiracy theory. Most major evil things that have happened in this world are because of fo a conspiracy theory that people act on.

No, there are conspiracy theories surrounding his Death. Kinda like 9/11. Everyone thinks they know who did it, but no one can come up with a consensus because there's no evidence.

When people ACT on Conspiracy THEORIES, they apprehend or impeach those they suspect of "evil" acts.

Are you in high school? Or middle school? I'm really shocked you don't know the difference between a conspiracy theory, and what it means to conspire.

The conspiracy around Kennedy was solved 10 years ago.

You are conflating the actual definition of conspiracy theory and conspiracy with the cultures definition of the two.

On November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was in a motorcade in Dallas, Texas, when he was struck by two bullets. He died at 46 years old. Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested for the assassination of the president, and, two days later, Oswald was killed on live television.

The Warren Commission was then created to investigate the incident and concluded that Oswald acted alone. However, some believe there is more to the story. There are theories that the CIA hired Oswald because of the president's reactions to Communism and the Bay of Pigs Invasion. Others believe the Mafia, Cuba, or the Soviet Union were involved in the assassination.

So, no, it wasn't solved as there is no evidence to disprove it. That is what makes conspiracy theories dangerous and batshit crazy. Because most of the time? They are. I honestly really don't care who or why JFK was killed. Was before my time and there's nothing I can do about it now. What I have to deal with now is people who will pick up any crazy story they hear so it will suit their narrative and their agenda.

Conspiracy Theory Examples:
-The Deep State Conspiracy.
-Bigfoot
-Lochness Monster
-The whereabouts of Jimmy Hoffa.
-US Government developed AIDS to kill homosexuals.
-China developed COVID to attack US.
-US developed COVID to attack China
-Democrats are a cabal of satan-worshipping pedophiles.
-Area 51 is a military installation that experiments on aliens and their spacecraft.
-A research facility in Alaska is a mind control lab.
-Masks are a tool used by the government to enforce complacency.
-And finally today, that there was a massive coordinated effort to undermine Trump's Presidency vis-a-vis voter fraud.

These are all conspiracy theories.
They are all stupid.
Anyone who subscribes to these notions is just as, if not more so, stupid. I suppose it has a multiplicative factor the more theories you believe in.

So, I should have memed "Look Daddy, the teacher says every time a trump supporter memes about a conspiracy theory, an angel gets its wings." Though, more likely, a person of color suffers a racist attack; be it verbal or physical.

This issue of voter fraud is not a conspiracy. It is a conspiracy theory. It has yielded no evidence.

"I have irrefutable proof bigfoot exists." (Doesn't have evidence.)
"I have proof George Bush was responsible for 9/11." (No evidence.)

And finally, my favorite,

"I have Irrefutable proof voter fraud happened on a massive scale." (Doesn't have evidence.)

-China developed COVID to attack US.
Well, they might not have specifically released it, but the labs in China that were testing Covid did not contain it well. China is known to hate America, in the past and the present.

-Democrats are a cabal of satan-worshipping pedophiles.

I never heard of that one, but it is nearly true.
The policies that dems pass, especially on abortion, meet the Biblical definition of Satanic. The ritual for worshipping a pagan god named Molech (the god of Child Sacrifice), in the Bible, is nearly identical to the process of Abortion.

“Topheth is Moloch, which was made of brass; and they heated him from his lower parts; and his hands being stretched out, and made hot, they put the child between his hands, and it was burnt; when it vehemently cried out; but the priests beat a drum, that the father might not hear the voice of his son, and his heart might not be moved.”

All for well being, money, crops being fertile and plentiful. For modern days: free will, women's rights, money, stability, "family," etc.

-Masks are a tool used by the government to enforce complacency.
-And finally today, that there was a massive coordinated effort to undermine Trump's Presidency vis-a-vis voter fraud.
See? You did it! YOU labeled all these ideas you do not agree with as "conspiracy theories", so you could disqualify them as false! Guilty.

"This issue of voter fraud is not a conspiracy. It is a conspiracy theory. It has yielded no evidence."

It has yielded evidence, whether it can be known by the courts or not.

"I have Irrefutable proof voter fraud happened on a massive scale." (Doesn't have evidence.)"

And that is why she was fired. Because she was making claims that she did not even discuss with the Trump team.

"but the labs in China that were testing Covid did not contain it well. China is known to hate America, in the past and the present."
>> Which labs. Do you have any proof that it came from a lab and was unleashed to the world beyond "someone said it?" So, because they hate US, that means they're guilty? Oof, must suck to be in your world where one can suffer guilt by how they feel.

>> That's nothing like an abortion. Only so far as there is a dead baby. A baby is only a baby when it is born. A fetus is aborted, not a baby.

>> You think that a lot of Democrats are Satan-Worshipping Pedophiles? Let me ask you, if Democrats are pedophiles, why would they be advocating abortion? That just doesn't make sense. Never mind that you think this statement holds water. That just blows me away that you can be so stupid to give that any credence. Oh, I just saw you're attributing a barbaric practice for "the gods" to give rain and well crops to kill a living child. A fetus within the first month can feel no pain, has no thought, has no sense of feeling. It is a collection of cells held together. That's it.

"See? You did it! YOU labeled all these ideas you do not agree with as "conspiracy theories", so you could disqualify them as false! Guilty."
>> They are conspiracy theories as the make a statement about an individual regarding a specific practice without having any evidence to suggest the claims to be factual. It's not about whether or not I disagree with them. It's the fact that you're saying "So long as you can't disprove it, it's true." That's not how facts work. Truth is not facts. Truth is your perception of what you believe to be valid. Facts are objective in that they cannot be disputed regardless what truth is applied to them. The fact is, there is no evidence to support the claims about masks or voter fraud regarding the conspiracy theories surrounding them.

"It has yielded evidence, whether it can be known by the courts or not."

>> Right, you want to discredit the authority on what evidence is and is not? See? You're proving yourself to be bat-shit crazy.

"And that is why she was fired. Because she was making claims that she did not even discuss with the Trump team."
>> She who? You mean the lady who gave that speech the other day? I don't even remember her name. it doesn't matter, multiple Trump supporters have said they have hundreds, if not thousands, of affadavits of proof. They have paramount amounts of evidence of wide-spread voter fraud.
(1)

(2)
And we still don't have said evidence.

The GOP is a joke now. It's pathetic. A sick gazelle of what it used to be with all of their lies, their bad faith arguments, their back-pedaling, their vitriol. All of it.

I've said my piece. I can't make a horse drink water, and I can't fix stupid. I don't know why I mince words with you and spare you heavy profanity, but man. Does this situation call for it.

You're so malleable, you're like a sheep who will believe anything they're told, regardless of the facts. All because you want your truth to be factual when it never will be.

Trump lost. GSA signed over the transition today.

Deal with it.

(3)
I could also say, since Trump hated China, it's entirely possible, that he had operatives capture an animal in Wuhan, inject it with the virus to try and get an epidemic to start in China, then sell China a bunch of ventilators and medical supplies to make USA a lot of money.

Backed up by the fact that Trump was having our own States bid for medical equipment at auction against each other.

Which labs. Do you have any proof that it came from a lab and was unleashed to the world beyond "someone said it?" So, because they hate US, that means they're guilty? Oof, must suck to be in your world where one can suffer guilt by how they feel.

See what you did there? You made my argument for me! You completely assumed my premises. Now since you know it all, answer the question for me!

Answer is, no. It didn't come from a lab. It's just a conspiracy theory cooked up by crazy people using the genetic fallacy.

That's nothing like an abortion. Only so far as there is a dead baby. A baby is only a baby when it is born. A fetus is aborted, not a baby.

Oh, I just saw you're attributing a barbaric practice for "the gods" to give rain and well crops to kill a living child. A fetus within the first month can feel no pain, has no thought, has no sense of feeling. It is a collection of cells held together. That's it.

I just, uuhhh. That is horrifying that you believe that.

A fetus within the first month can feel no pain, has no thought, has no sense of feeling. It is a collection of cells held together. That's it.

Whether the fetus can feel pain, has no thought, and no sense of feeling is irrelevant.
Your standard values, and use. If that is so, then I can kill, by your standard, someone who I stab with a painkiller. I can just kill that person because he or she cannot feel pain! I can also kill anyone in a coma because they don't have any registered brain patterns. I can kill you if I drug, and put you into a place where I numb your nerves.

Do you see? As long as you or someone else doesn't meet these standards, I can kill them. This is exactly what this culture does to unborn humans, they find standards that cannot be met by the fetus at the time, so they can dismember it.

"It is a collection of cells held together. That's it."

That's like saying the sun is the moon.
"The science of embryology teaches us that from the moment of conception, the fetus is a complete and whole human being."
So, no, the fetus is not just a clump of cells, that is stupid to say, it has a heart, a brain, etc. It is a very detailed human being, as we all are.

I find it horrifying you would take away a woman's rights and give men the power to force their trusting girlfriends to have children against their will.

"That's like saying the sun is the moon."
To that, I will give another quote by a well-renowned astro-physicist.
"The Cosmos is also within us, we are made of star stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself."
So, you could say the sun is the moon, and the moon is the sun.

"The science of embryology teaches us that from the moment of conception, the fetus is a complete and whole human being"
And to that, I will not only counter what you said, but do it with a pro-life quote:
""Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."

The operative word within this wall of text being "Development." Insofar as that the living thing has not yet developed into a Human Being. It is classified as a Zygote, not a human. It shares Human DNA and material, but it is not human in its Darwinian Classification.

(2)
And we still don't have said evidence.

The GOP is a joke now. It's pathetic. A sick gazelle of what it used to be with all of their lies, their bad faith arguments, their back-pedaling, their vitriol. All of it.

I've said my piece. I can't make a horse drink water, and I can't fix stupid. I don't know why I mince words with you and spare you heavy profanity, but man. Does this situation call for it.

You're so malleable, you're like a sheep who will believe anything they're told, regardless of the facts. All because you want your truth to be factual when it never will be.

Trump lost. GSA signed over the transition today.

Deal with it.

I'm sorry, do you know what the law is? The law does not allow Biden to be President until this court case is final! So, if you are so adamant about what the law says, that is what it says!!

"I'm sorry, do you know what the law is? The law does not allow Biden to be President until this court case is final! So, if you are so adamant about what the law says, that is what it says!!"

You're right of course. He's your President-elect until January 20th. Then he's your President.

I could also say, since Trump hated China, it's entirely possible, that he had operatives capture an animal in Wuhan, inject it with the virus to try and get an epidemic to start in China, then sell China a bunch of ventilators and medical supplies to make USA a lot of money.

Backed up by the fact that Trump was having our own States bid for medical equipment at auction against each other.

Except, there is no way for that to be true. Why? Because the CoronaV is not a human's virus, which is why someone intentionally released it upon is. The CV is actually a dogs, disease.

Wrong: (It's been around for a while)

"The older human coronaviruses were first identified in the mid-1960s, but have likely circulated in humans for centuries. These include 229E (alpha coronavirus), NL63 (alpha coronavirus), OC43 (beta coronavirus) and HKU1 (beta coronavirus).2 For the most part, these older iterations present with a mild respiratory infection, except for HKU1, which can also cause gastrointestinal infection, he notes."

https://consultqd.clevelandclinic.org/coronaviruses-have-been-around-for-centuries-what-differentiates-2019-ncov/

Answer is, no. It didn't come from a lab. It's just a conspiracy theory cooked up by crazy people using the genetic fallacy.

Actually, none of that makes sense. Covid is a dog's disease, it would have taken 800 years to constantly transfer into a person. Strands of a certain kind of mRNA had to have been added. Think about it, and look this stuff up, but not from CNN.

First case of Human Corona Virus was in the 1960s. We didn't have Genetic Splicing until the 1970s. Try again. There's nothing to look up.

You are using covid as a relative term. Of course there have been "covids" in the last 50 years, but there have not been covids like this.

There's nothing relative about "COVID" Covid is a very specific strain of virus. Just like the flue, or hepatitis, or the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Oh! Here's a great example!

You ever had a cold sore on your mouth? That's herpes. Specifically, Herpes Simplex Virus - 1.

The herpes you get on your genitals is Herpes Simplex Virus - 2. Different strands, different effects.

We even had COVID before, back in 2003, do you remember that? Back then it was called SARS. it's name was actually SARS-CoV. We we are facing now is SARSCoV-2. Different strain, different behavior. SARS stands for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. the CoV meaning Corona Virus.

"Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an ongoing global health emergency."

I'm literally explaining to you in all the ways this is not some government conspiracy theory by giving you facts as irrefutable evidence and you're trying to work your way around it. Stop. Get help.

"If we wanna go down that rabbit hole a bit, diseases and other things that are part of your DNA, your genetics, you're amputating that part of yourself to preserve your life. Rather than accept this disease as part of your genetic makeup, you seek to cure it.

That's how you interpreted what I said.

What I actually said was the fetus is part of the mother in that they are attached. The fetus feeds off of the mother, causes her nausea, slows her down, puts her through hormonal swings and changes, then causes her immense pain. The relationship the fetus shares with the mother is closer to that of a parasite, in that this is the relationship dynamic between the mother and fetus."

Okay boomer. You have a very messed up view of reality. Messed up. You would allow a baby to be killed on a sidewalk.

"The fetus feeds off of the mother, causes her nausea, slows her down, puts her through hormonal swings and changes, then causes her immense pain. The relationship the fetus shares with the mother is closer to that of a parasite, in that this is the relationship dynamic between the mother and fetus."

And that doesn't change once their outside of the womb. So you should probably apologize to your parents for being such a parasite. Go do something with your life.
Sikeeee? You're wrong. The human being is not a parasite. The formation of another human being is not unatural.

No, the difference is a zygote or fetus does not share the same anatomy of a human. Once a fetus shares the same anatomy of a human, is where I draw the line. Hell, once a fetus can feel pain I say "No, this should not be permitted."

--HAHAHAH! What have you done to yourself! "Once a fetus shares the same anatomy of a human, is where I draw the line." The fetus does not share the same anatomy until it is 25 or 26, which is outsie of the womb!

---"Hell, once a fetus can feel pain I say "No, this should not be permitted." Your logic says that as long as YOU don't feel pain, I can kill you, that is rediculous.

Semantics are not splitting hairs, but rather the study of the meaning of words. If semantics offends you, then perhaps you should not engage in debates about science if you are not willing to acknowledge the terms and meanings of scientific debate. Understanding the anatomical difference between a human, a fetus, and a zygote are very important distinctions that must be made when considering abortion.

--Semantics offend me? No!!! Don't be a fool, and stop being arrogant! You are splitting words, and dancing around!

--What considerations? Killing your child?

You're wrong.
A fetus will share the same anatomy when it develops the same anatomy as a human: heart, brain, lungs, liver, kidneys, skeleton, etc. etc.
You're f**king stupid if you think that the anatomy isn't the same, and you should definitely take an A&P course.

"Your logic says that as long as YOU don't feel pain, I can kill you, that is rediculous." No, what's ridiculous is your summation of my logic. The difference between what I said and what you're saying? Is that you can kill me, a living, breathing, born, human. Provided I do not feel pain. I have the capacity to feel physical or emotional pain. It is my sentience and will to live that inspires me to stay alive even if these senses were dulled into complete numbness. A fetus does not develop sentience until long after the CNS is developed. Once the CNS is developed, it can react to stimuli. Once it can react to that is when doing such actions becomes inhumane. You're a retard.

I'm not splitting words, I am being very deliberate in what I am saying on a very serious matter. For you to say I am splitting my words is your vain attempt at minimizing and reducing my argument as it contradicts your narrative. Sit down and deal with the notion that your narrative is scientifically flawed.

"--What considerations? Killing your child?"
What are you talking about?

How am I wrong? Explain.

So sentience is the standard?

Oh, scientifically flawed? How? You have a hard time explaining what you believe.

Abortion is murder.

Abortion isn't murder #facts.
If it is, you better stop getting bl***obs as you're supporting cannabalism.

Abortion is murder, it takes the life of a human being.

I don't get bl***obs, dummy. When I have a wife, I will not have her do such a thing, it is disgusting.

Good point, it is nearly cannibalism.

Lol. At least you're consistent. Good luck getting the world to agree with you on that. Because guess what? It's not cannabalism. Yes, it is human material, but it isn't alive. It is living tissue, but it isn't "alive" in the context of sentience. Are you vegan too? Because cows are alive. Eggs are alive. Do you eat eggs? Do you enjoy eating fried chicken?

If you do, by your own standards. Eating fried chicken is drowning a mother in the bodies of her unborn children, then covering her in flour and spices for our eating pleasure.

" Good luck getting the world to agree with you on that. Because guess what? It's not cannabalism."

I am sure I am not the only human being in this world who would see that as "soft cannabalism." It isn't, because the person isn't eating the thing, but, it comes too close.

"Yes, it is human material, but it isn't alive. It is living tissue, but it isn't "alive" in the context of sentience."

That doesn't make sense at all. What the hell. Yeah, it is human, but not alive. I'M SORRY, BUT THOSE TWO WORDS IN THE CONTEXT OF A GROWING THING DOESN'T CONNECT. THEY ARE POLAR OPPOSITES>

No. Cows don't have the same value as human beings. Eggs are not alive. 95% of humans eat unfertilized eggs. Yes. Yes. You seem to think that humans have the same value as animals. Fool.

Well, it is a sad thing, but it is part of the fall.

Majority of the world doesn't even see it as "Soft Cannabalism." I didn't even know that this was a phrase until you said it. Just shows how much of an extremist against women's reproductive rights you are.

Plenty of Organic eggs are fertilized and consumed by people. Many of your storebought, slaughterhouse chicken farms grow these eggs where chickens are stored in total darkness and bed-ridden to their nests, are in fact unfertilized.

However, some supermarket eggs are fertilized and you don't even know it. Just ask William Watkins. He's got a pretty cool pet now.

Didn't we already go over this?

"A fetus will share the same anatomy when it develops the same anatomy as a human: heart, brain, lungs, liver, kidneys, skeleton, etc. etc.
You're f**king stupid if you think that the anatomy isn't the same, and you should definitely take an A&P course."

So? I really don't get your point.

No, I am convicting you of a logical ambiguity! FOOL!

Abortion is the tearing apart (murder) of a fetus. DUH.

Operative word being "will" meaning it does not share that anatomy and succeeds what I am trying to help you understand.

Abortion is not murder. #facts

A fetus/zygote is Human reproductive material, just like semen and embryos. Spermicide? Birth Control? Better put a stop to that and stop getting bl***obs. Oh wait, you're a man. Double standards don't apply to you because you're selectively logical.

Abortion isn't murder.

"Abortion is not murder. #facts"

I call this murder... <---

A fetus cannot be a zygote at the same time. A zygote is the first stage of development of the baby.

"Human reproductive material" So what, you're just assembled "Human reproductive material"?

Double standards don't apply to me in this case, because they don't. If you didn't kill someone, you didn't.

The fetus there is not a "someone" it is a "something." It is not human.

Interesting thought, when we refer to dogs or other pets, we don't refer to them as "someone." But, they are alive, aren't they?

1. You didn't respond to the pictures.

2. Prove to me that the fetus is just a something.

1. You didn't respond to the pictures.

2. Prove to me that the fetus is just a something.

I already did. You referred to it as a "fetus" instead of a human. do you know the where that fetus is in relation to its development on its timeline? Asking so I can explain how it isn't human.

I already did. You referred to it as a "fetus" instead of a human. do you know the where that fetus is in relation to its development on its timeline? Asking so I can explain how it isn't human.

So that picture above, how can you not see abortion as unjust?

Sidestepping my question with another one. Good job. Answer the query before I answer yours.

"Yes, it does matter. Because if you actually listened to my argument, and were interested in being earnest in a debate, you would understand the reason I asked to see and understand where I am coming from. Instead, you selfishly place your own priorities above the one you're speaking to instead trying to create a high horse for yourself to make yourself feel better.

Doesn't bother me any, because it just proves what I already know about you. To me, judging from my knowledge on what I know of fetuses, I do not think that fetus had acquired a state of sentience at the time it was aborted. It was no bigger than an inch or two. The process was humane.

But please, try again to turn this issue around on and against me to attack me as a person to try to make your point. Because that is logical fallacy and gives a hint that you are incapable of holding a debate in earnest.

Let me know when you actually want to debate the facts. All you've done this entire debate is make appeals to emotion. Now, you've let your emotions get the better of you. I wish I could pity you. But, I don't let my emotions get in the way of debate or controversy."

Under the influence, you must be. How about I find a picture of a baby's head hanging from a pole? HUH? Still don't care? Need to see if the expression on its face should be cared about? You aren't debating the facts. You are bending reality to your will. These images are obviously of murdered human beings.

"But, I don't let my emotions get in the way of debate or controversy."
Not true. Everyone has emotions in debates. By the way, I have offered biology, which oyu have refused. I have offered reality, which you have refused. What's next? Do I really need to come to your home and dumb dead babies on your couch?

Lying doesn't help your case.

"Lying doesn't help your case."

Those images above are clearly of murdered human beings. You fool.

Interesting out of all the things you thought I was talking about, you chose that as to what you thought I was implying you were lying about. But, since we're talking about it...

No they aren't. They're human fetuses.

Your lie was that you have "offered biology, oyu[I, myself] have refused. I [you] have offered reality, which you [I, myself] have refused."
You offered pseudo biology trying to move the goal post to suit your agenda placing sentimentality over the human reproductive process, picking and choosing what acts are okay and not okay to suit your narrative. Now, you chastise someone for doing the same but who is far more open-minded about the topic with their opinions based on science and psychology. You haven't offered reality you've offered your truth. Truth is not the same as fact. Any philosopher knows that. Reality is subjective as it is defined by the one who perceives it. It isn't a universally recognized construct. There are places where we all agree on what is and isn't "real." (What is "real?" How do you define "real?")

As for calling me a fool? See image.

"Interesting out of all the things you thought I was talking about, you chose that as to what you thought I was implying you were lying about. But, since we're talking about it...

No they aren't. They're human fetuses.

Your lie was that you have "offered biology, oyu[I, myself] have refused. I [you] have offered reality, which you [I, myself] have refused."
You offered pseudo biology trying to move the goal post to suit your agenda placing sentimentality over the human reproductive process, picking and choosing what acts are okay and not okay to suit your narrative. Now, you chastise someone for doing the same but who is far more open-minded about the topic with their opinions based on science and psychology. You haven't offered reality you've offered your truth. Truth is not the same as fact. Any philosopher knows that. Reality is subjective as it is defined by the one who perceives it. It isn't a universally recognized construct. There are places where we all agree on what is and isn't "real." (What is "real?" How do you define "real?")

As for calling me a fool? See image."

"human fetuses" Great! Whatever euphemism you'd like to use! They are humans and deserve human rights. The killing of them is wrong.

How is stating simple truth to you so confusing?
https://blog.drwile.com/still-more-evidence-that-babies-in-the-womb-are-fully-human/]

Because you are a fool.
Fool: One who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpssl_ZfPCM

Ah. Dr. Wile. Christian values.

But in the bullshit department, a trumpublican can't hold a candle to a clergyman. When it comes to bullshit, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe, in awe of the all time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims. No contest. Religion has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it, religion has actually convinced people that here is an invisible man. Up in the sky. Watching you and everything you do of every minute of every day. The "Man." who has a list of T E N T H I N G S H E D O E S N O T W A N T Y O U T O D O. If you do any of these ten things, he has a special place where he will put you where you will suffer and burn amid fire and brimstone and feel inexplicable pain full of torture, death, fire and misery until the end of time...

But he loves you. He loves you and he needs money. All powerful, all perfect, all wise, all knowing... But he just can't handle money. Religion takes in billions and billions in donations every year, they don't pay taxes and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bull shit story? H O L Y S H I T!

WoW. You are so dumb and blinded, I can't handle you.

See? You can't hold civil discussions, you always resort to name-calling in the end because you couldn't convince the other guy of your truth. You believe your truth should be the truth for everyone else. Well, chum. Facts disagree. Quit trying to impose your world-view onto others.

The right-wing is always accusing the left of doing that and here they are, trying to impose their religious views onto others.

What hypocrisy.

"Majority of the world doesn't even see it as "Soft Cannabalism." I didn't even know that this was a phrase until you said it. Just shows how much of an extremist against women's reproductive rights you are."


Of course, they haven't. Because they haven't spent more than 10 seconds thinking about the action, just about the feeling. Huh, because the term soft cannibalism somehow makes me anti-women, and even further, anti women's bodies. Get your thoughts straight.
By the way. If you think about it, you are putting an exposed human body part into your mouth, and sucking. Duh it's soft canabalism.

"Plenty of Organic eggs are fertilized and consumed by people. Many of your storebought, slaughterhouse chicken farms grow these eggs where chickens are stored in total darkness and bed-ridden to their nests, are in fact unfertilized."

Funny how you go from "Im sure your vegan." to "animals are beautiful!! Ahaha *sob*!"

"However, some supermarket eggs are fertilized and you don't even know it. Just ask William Watkins. He's got a pretty cool pet now."

Don't know, don't care. Animals are not as valuable as humans.

I was merely trying to match your narrative. I could care less how chickens/eggs are farmed because I hold the same principles to them as I do people. (Not that we farm people.) Rather, in essence, eggs are eggs. Fertilized or not. Nice try, attempting to use my own argument against me though. Kudos.

Soft Cannabalism huh? Better stop kissing, sucking nipples, etc. Or maybe it's just a sexual act. Must be horrific to have sex in your world.

True, animals are not as valuable as humans. But, they are sentient, are they not? They are alive, are they not? What constitutes as "alive" to you? Because your argument is that human fetuses are valuable because they are "alive." In your principle, aren't animal "fetuses" (speaking broadly here) "alive?"

Eggs are not humans, they don't have the same value. Why can't you understand that?

I don't have sex, I'm not married. Kissing is completely different. So is sex. But sucking a "raw genital" is something different entirely.

No, my argument is that I should not be able to kill you because you are less developed. Fetuses are humans, genetically, and physically. And the pictures show that. They need time, as I did as a teen.

Fun fact, skin is an organ. Lips are organs. Genitals are organs. Both secrete bodily fluids. Both are done to bring pleasure.

I ask again, at what week of the fetus' development was this image taken?

"Fun fact, skin is an organ. Lips are organs. Genitals are organs. Both secrete bodily fluids. Both are done to bring pleasure."

-Kissing is completely different. We both know that.

"I ask again, at what week of the fetus' development was this image taken?"
Should it matter?! You see a picture of a dead human being and ask what week it was killed so that you might somehow clear your conscious. You disgust me.

"-Kissing is completely different. We both know that."
Do we? That depends on how you draw the lines of where the parallels stop being parallels. I think that in principle of one body engaging another, they're the same. Different fluids are exchanged, sure. But you're still sucking on an organ.

Soft Cannibalism.

"Should it matter?! You see a picture of a dead human being and ask what week it was killed so that you might somehow clear your conscious. You disgust me."

Yes, it does matter. Because if you actually listened to my argument, and were interested in being earnest in a debate, you would understand the reason I asked to see and understand where I am coming from. Instead, you selfishly place your own priorities above the one you're speaking to instead trying to create a high horse for yourself to make yourself feel better.

Doesn't bother me any, because it just proves what I already know about you. To me, judging from my knowledge on what I know of fetuses, I do not think that fetus had acquired a state of sentience at the time it was aborted. It was no bigger than an inch or two. The process was humane.

But please, try again to turn this issue around on and against me to attack me as a person to try to make your point. Because that is logical fallacy and gives a hint that you are incapable of holding a debate in earnest.

Let me know when you actually want to debate the facts. All you've done this entire debate is make appeals to emotion. Now, you've let your emotions get the better of you. I wish I could pity you. But, I don't let my emotions get in the way of debate or controversy.

Oh yeah, that's Biden Derangement Syndrome.

Yep.

At least we can admit you have it, that's progress :)

I guess I am not sure what you think means "Biden Derangement Syndrome."

I believe it means that you are too blinded to see the truth, and you so will vote for Biden no matter what.

We always used the term BDS to mean brain dead spastic which he is with a name like a Brain eating disease for a screen name.

Okay.

Actually no, it's a reversal of the Trump supporter's "TDS [Trump Derangement Syndrome]" in which, the accuser was conveying that the accused has no logical reason to hate the person the syndrome is named after. Instead, the hate comes from the fact that the other side simply won.

So in this case, you suffer from Biden Derangement Syndrome; you'll stick to your guns and say he's this corrupt, pedophile, nepotic, right-stealing, communist, socialist who is going to ruin our country.

... When you won't even look at Trump and his actions in which the proof is right there. He's groomed you to believe it's the other side when it's really him. There is no evidence to suggest that Biden is any more corrupt than Trump is. For every instance of corruption or pedophilism that you could point at Biden, I could point at Trump.

You don't know the definition of communist, socialist, etc. It is the opposite of Trump.

LOL.
The meaning of Socialist and Communist is "the opposite of Trump?"

No sir, you don't even comprehend what they mean. I try not to think of Trump supporters as lacking intelligence, or knowledge, but you're working -really- hard to prove me right.

No, take the meaning of communist and socialist (x) is the opposite - of Trump (t).

Very unkind of you.

So how is Trump not socialist or communist?

Well, yes he is.

A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
n. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

The green new deal, raising taxes trillions of dollars, "free healthcare"?
All of these things are very idealistic to the communist ideology. None of those things are good for America, none of those things are free, and all of those things will turn America into another Stanlingrad.

Biden's ideologies are spot on with the definition of communism. In this case, since we live in the modern world, we would call him a soft totalitarian (read Live Not by Lies by Rod Dreher, it explains the extremely important difference, please).

That's fine. Trump can break precedence all he wants, go kicking and screaming out of the white house without dignity, to be the first president to do so ever. It does not change reality. Cling to your date, and lie with your shame in the bed you've made.

That has always been a liberal fantasy.

Trump has said himself, that if and when his term is over, he will not do such a thing, nice try.

Begging the Georgia governor to overturn a vote that wasn't in his favor? He's doing it now. Kicking. And. Screaming.

"Begging the Georgia governor to overturn a vote that wasn't in his favor? He's doing it now. Kicking. And. Screaming."

What are you talking about? That had no context to my previous comment.

Because the definition of communist and socialist does not match up to Trump. Plain and simple. In a plain manner, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao would hate Trump.

“[Communism is] a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."

Trump is a Capitalist, not a Communist. He is literally the opposite. He passes policies that hurt Communists, which is why Biden and Harris, and the entirety of the left, the Trump because he gets in their way.

Now, whether you believe that or not, Trump still does not match the definition of communist, and definitely not socialist (which is basically the soft pushed version).

Well, we have class war.
So, how is he not a socialist? Pretty sure I saw him giving some handouts to the 1%ers and big businesses.

?

Or even the stimulus package, those are all socialist programs :)

I wouldn't call things that come near a socialist idea, socialist, because, since we have proven that Trump is not communist, Trump cannot be socialist either. This is a specific circumstance. Socialism is basically like totalitarianism and soft totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is much more forceful and easier to see but not easy at all to accept. Soft totalitarianism is similar. It is harder to see and easier to accpet. So, people who have lived through the world wars and have lived in, say Czech, are very scared because they all have seen this before.

Socialism is basically the euphemism of communism. Look that up (euphemism).

" Socialism is basically like totalitarianism and soft totalitarianism."

This is 100% false. The rest that follows is false.

" Socialism is basically like totalitarianism and soft totalitarianism."

This is 100% false. The rest that follows is false.

Here's what I meant. I meant it is similar in the way that soft totalitarianism has the same relationship with its more imperlialistic brother (totalitarianism).

So:

Soft totalitarianism---Totalitarianism

Socialism---Communism

Get it?

I see what you're saying.

You're saying an apple and an orange are both fruit. Therefore, they're the same.

I see what you're saying.

You're saying an apple and an orange are both fruit. Therefore, they're the same.

Great! That's not exactly what I mean, but as long as you understand.

Good, now that we agree on how you think, I can call you stupid. Apples and oranges aren't the same thing. One is a citrus with a very specific qualities that make it different than the other.

Saying that they're the same because they're fruit is a genetic fallacy and represents a narrow mind

I could also argue that since we pay taxes on our property, it really isn't our property if we have to pay taxes for something that we own. It is the governments property. Everyone earns a wage that matches their skillset and their needs already. Sounds like we're already in communism by your definition.

No, we pay taxes for being able to live in a gov area. Yes, this is probably not how the founding fathers intended for things to happen, but Trump is not "special" in this sense. This has been happening for EVER.

Yes, they get a wage based on their income, but that is not the amount of work they do, again, it is just based on their income.

Yes and no. But Trump is not a distributor of communism.

Neither is Biden.

You're right of course. He's your President-elect until January 20th. Then he's your President.

He's not even the President elect, because there is a court case. Don't you get it? He is "perceived" by the media that he is the President elect, but states have not finished counting, so neither are "president elect(s)"

"He's not even the President elect, because there is a court case. Don't you get it? He is "perceived" by the media that he is the President elect, but states have not finished counting, so neither are "president elect(s)""

>>

So what, dude, it's the law. No one is the President-Elect until Dec 17th I believe (might be 14th).

That's fine. Trump can break precedence all he wants, go kicking and screaming out of the white house without dignity, to be the first president to do so ever. It does not change reality. Cling to your date, and lie with your shame in the bed you've made.

"Good, now that we agree on how you think, I can call you stupid. Apples and oranges aren't the same thing. One is a citrus with a very specific qualities that make it different than the other."

You need to refresh your memory of that conversation.

*facepalm* that is exactly what I am saying you are doing!!!

I find it horrifying you would take away a woman's rights and give men the power to force their trusting girlfriends to have children against their will.

--That is a great euphemism for murder. Look "euphemism" up.

"That's like saying the sun is the moon."
To that, I will give another quote by a well-renowned astro-physicist.
"The Cosmos is also within us, we are made of star stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself."
So, you could say the sun is the moon, and the moon is the sun.

--- You didn't counter my argument, you gave an irrelevant quote.

"The science of embryology teaches us that from the moment of conception, the fetus is a complete and whole human being"
And to that, I will not only counter what you said, but do it with a pro-life quote:
""Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).

--Uhuh, whats your point? All you did was repeat my quote in a different way.

"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."

--Again, all you did was proove my point further. That quote is explaining the conception process.

The operative word within this wall of text being "Development." Insofar as that the living thing has not yet developed into a Human Being. It is classified as a Zygote, not a human. It shares Human DNA and material, but it is not human in its Darwinian Classification.

----NONONONONO. NO. "It" is not classified as a "baby," yet, it is a human, since conception, that is what conception means!! Conception means beginning, so the "beginning" of human life!!

https://www.hli.org/resources/the-conception-conundrum/

--That is a great euphemism for murder. Look "euphemism" up.
>> Did, and Murder is hyperbole. Look "hyperbole" up.

--Uhuh, whats your point? All you did was repeat my quote in a different way.
>> Evidently you don't see the difference. Human development does not mean you are human. It means you are developing into one.

--Again, all you did was proove my point further. That quote is explaining the conception process.
>> "... is a large diploid cell that is the -beginning- of a human being. It is not a human being yet. It is developing into one. Two cells are not a human being. I don't care how you try to cut it. Do you call eggs with blood spots Chickens? No. You call them eggs. The bloodspot means they're fertilized. But in form and classifications, they are eggs. Not chickens.

----NONONONONO. NO. "It" is not classified as a "baby," yet, it is a human, since conception, that is what conception means!! Conception means beginning, so the "beginning" of human life!!
>> Yes, yes yes. It is the beginning of a human. But the life, and the human itself is not yet fully formed into a human being.

-That is a great euphemism for murder. Look "euphemism" up.
>> Did, and Murder is hyperbole. Look "hyperbole" up.
What? "Did" and "murder"? What are you talking about?

That's just stupid. You don't "become" human when you leave the 6 inches of flesh that you've been in for a year and a month. That also doesn't make any genetic sense. Your rDNA and mRNA have been coded to form a human body. So somehow you are not human if you are not fully developed? You can apply the same terms to born humans. Can I kill a toddler because he or she is not fulyl developed? Can I kill a teen because he or she is not fully developed? Can I kill a twenty-year-old because he or she is not fully developed?

You said that "I find it horrifying you would take away a woman's rights and give men the power to force their trusting girlfriends to have children against their will." is a euphemism for murder. You told me to look up euphemism. I already knew what it meant. So that's why I wrote. "Did (I did.)" Then I told you to look up Hyperbole, as Murder is a Hyperbole for what I suggested.

Wait. A year and a month? What? What are you talking about?

You cannot apply the same logic to infants, toddlers, etc. As they have developed all of the characteristics that compose the human make-up. Such as (but not limited to) skeletal structure, all internal organs, blood content, pain receptors, a functioning brain, a beating hurt, sentience. An unborn fetus does not have these things as it is in the process of development. When we refer to children in this context, they are called "Human Child." or "Human Fetus." When you refer to a fetus you MAY say "Human fetus" not in the sense that it is a completed developed human body, but what it will become. Likewise, a chicken egg is still an egg. But it is not a chicken.

Your arguments are entirely flawed as you're taking the term of development and having it encompass the entire process from being a zygote, to a fetus, to a functioning human infant, to a functioning human child, and so on.

Are your mental capacities so limited that this concept is impossible for you to grasp, leaving you to intentionally use such tainted logic?

is a large diploid cell that is the -beginning- of a human being. It is not a human being yet. It is developing into one. Two cells are not a human being. I don't care how you try to cut it. Do you call eggs with blood spots Chickens? No. You call them eggs. The bloodspot means they're fertilized. But in form and classifications, they are eggs. Not chickens.

OOHOHOHO. Those are quite the semantics!!

You don't get human conferring fairy dust sprayed onto you when you leave the womb!! You are human from the beginning, so says embryology.

No it is "developing" not developing into one. That doesn't make sense. Then, you technically aren't human until you are 25, because then your body is complete.

So what? I shouldn't have to be "fully formed" for me to have value! Technically, I am not fully formed, because I am not yet 25! Looks like you can just come up to me, and stab me!

No, the difference is a zygote or fetus does not share the same anatomy of a human. Once a fetus shares the same anatomy of a human, is where I draw the line. Hell, once a fetus can feel pain I say "No, this should not be permitted."

Semantics are not splitting hairs, but rather the study of the meaning of words. If semantics offends you, then perhaps you should not engage in debates about science if you are not willing to acknowledge the terms and meanings of scientific debate. Understanding the anatomical difference between a human, a fetus, and a zygote are very important distinctions that must be made when considering abortion.

You cannot apply the same logic to infants, toddlers, etc. As they have developed all of the characteristics that compose the human make-up. Such as (but not limited to) skeletal structure, all internal organs, blood content, pain receptors, a functioning brain, a beating hurt, sentience. An unborn fetus does not have these things as it is in the process of development. When we refer to children in this context, they are called "Human Child." or "Human Fetus." When you refer to a fetus you MAY say "Human fetus" not in the sense that it is a completed developed human body, but what it will become. Likewise, a chicken egg is still an egg. But it is not a chicken.

--Actually, that is exactly what you can do. You don't seem to understand that your logic, and mine, taken to its end, has consequences.

--What is the standard? You said that the fetus is not developed enough, but nor is the 25 year old compared to the 30 year old.

---That is bery dangerous to compare humans to chickens. Don't do that, otherwise, you could justify anything.

Your arguments are entirely flawed as you're taking the term of development and having it encompass the entire process from being a zygote, to a fetus, to a functioning human infant, to a functioning human child, and so on.

---That's exactly what it is, duh. You are developing inside, and outside of the womb.

Are your mental capacities so limited that this concept is impossible for you to grasp, leaving you to intentionally use such tainted logic?

---What? You disagree, so you precieve that "this concept is impossible for you to grasp, leaving you to intentionally use such tainted logic?" Fool.

"What is the standard? You said that the fetus is not developed enough, but nor is the 25 year old compared to the 30 year old."
The standard difference that at birth, a human infant has all the organs that it will have (with the exception of puberty) when it grows to be an old human. With a zygote, it lacks those organs. It is not human, but human material.

"---That is bery dangerous to compare humans to chickens. Don't do that, otherwise, you could justify anything."
So, when you eat scrambled eggs are you eating scrambled chickens or scrambled eggs?

To be clear, there are two types of development: Natal development, and Human development. Human Development starts at birth. Natal Development starts at conception/gestation.

Actually though. That is so stupid!! How can something not be human, but be human material? Euphamistic crap, I think so.

"---That is bery dangerous to compare humans to chickens. Don't do that, otherwise, you could justify anything."
So, when you eat scrambled eggs are you eating scrambled chickens or scrambled eggs?

In the case of eggs, unfertilized eggs, so not a "baby" chicken.

"To be clear, there are two types of development: Natal development, and Human development. Human Development starts at birth. Natal Development starts at conception/gestation."

Again, complete euphemistic crap. How can you start to be a human, after you move 6 inches on the face of the Earth? Take this for example: You come out of the womb. Yay! Humanhood! I can't kill you! Then, I shove you back into the womb. No longer human, death to your kind. Sound familiar?

It's funny, you accuse me of semantics, but here you are -actually- doing that. You think that debending on which side of the cervix you're on, determines whether or not you are "human" as loosely classified. As I stated previously, I consider that once the brain is developed enough to respond to stimuli, recognize voices, etc, that's where I consider them human. However, in spite of my beliefs, the fetus within the womb is just that. A human fetus. Human being the adjective, fetus being the noun. In simpler terms, the word "human" describes what kind of fetus it is. However, it is not a human. A chicken is not an egg, and an egg is not a chicken.

I won't try to convince you of this, but know that you will never convince the majority of women who want to make choices regarding their own bodies while you're a man speaking philosophical points about a very real and scientific process that occurs within their body. The world is trending to recognize the irrefutable facts regarding women's reproductive rights. Sometimes, we hit snags because people whine and cry enough with their naivety, but eventually the laws are set straight.

If you don't like it, don't do it. Don't impose your beliefs on others, and by extension, do not limit the rights of others. Fetuses do not have rights, neither do zygotes.

And no, conception is strictly as soon as the sperm meets the egg, and fertilizes, that is the definition of conception.

"It's funny, you accuse me of semantics, but here you are -actually- doing that. You think that debending on which side of the cervix you're on, determines whether or not you are "human" as loosely classified. As I stated previously, I consider that once the brain is developed enough to respond to stimuli, recognize voices, etc, that's where I consider them human. However, in spite of my beliefs, the fetus within the womb is just that. A human fetus. Human being the adjective, fetus being the noun. In simpler terms, the word "human" describes what kind of fetus it is. However, it is not a human. A chicken is not an egg, and an egg is not a chicken."

Quote, please.

It's not a good idea to have a subjective pov of what is a human, because you can justify anything at all. Same for blacks during the civil war, they were counted as "something like humans." Somehow, they were owned. Same with abortion. People like you can create your own definitions of humanity so that you can kill a defenseless being.

How is the offspring of a human, not a human?! Ever heard of a frog coming from a woman's belly? HUH?

"I won't try to convince you of this, but know that you will never convince the majority of women who want to make choices regarding their own bodies while you're a man speaking philosophical points about a very real and scientific process that occurs within their body. The world is trending to recognize the irrefutable facts regarding women's reproductive rights. Sometimes, we hit snags because people whine and cry enough with their naivety, but eventually the laws are set straight."

You fool! FOOL! If the fetus is part of the mother, then the mother has 20 toes, 20 fingers, 2 hearts, 2 hands, 2 feet, 4 arms, 4 legs, 2 brains, and if the fetus is a male, she has a p**is and a va**na. Make sense? NO, it doesn't!!! The fetus is not part of their body!!

"Reproductive rights." What a splendid euphemism for murder.

"The world is trending to recognize the irrefutable facts regarding women's reproductive rights. Sometimes, we hit snags because people whine and cry enough with their naivety, but eventually the laws are set straight."

Evil scumbag. People "whine and cry" because they see millions of babies being slaughtered, and in the name of women. But, don't you know? There is no such word as "women."

"Same for blacks during the civil war, they were counted as "something like humans."
Except, blacks are identical to humans, save for the concentration of melanin in their skin. Same anatomy. an underdeveloped fetus does not share human anatomy as it lacks that anatomy. So, your comparison is a failed stretch.

"If the fetus is part of the mother, then the mother has 20 toes, 20 fingers, 2 hearts, 2 hands, 2 feet, 4 arms, 4 legs, 2 brains, and if the fetus is a male, she has a p**is and a va**na. Make sense? NO, it doesn't!!! The fetus is not part of their body!!"
Actually, you're partially right. You would have more ground to say that they share a symbiotic relationship. Except, the fetus does not provide any benefit to the mother (the host.) In any classification of whether or not they are a part of eachother, a fetus resembles a parasite, or an unwanted growth.

If we wanna go down that rabbit hole a bit, diseases and other things that are part of your DNA, your genetics, you're amputating that part of yourself to preserve your life. Rather than accept this disease as part of your genetic makeup, you seek to cure it.

That's how you interpreted what I said.

What I actually said was the fetus is part of the mother in that they are attached. The fetus feeds off of the mother, causes her nausea, slows her down, puts her through hormonal swings and changes, then causes her immense pain. The relationship the fetus shares with the mother is closer to that of a parasite, in that this is the relationship dynamic between the mother and fetus.

"Same for blacks during the civil war, they were counted as "something like humans."
Except, blacks are identical to humans, save for the concentration of melanin in their skin. Same anatomy. an underdeveloped fetus does not share human anatomy as it lacks that anatomy. So, your comparison is a failed stretch."

Oh, so you have to have identical anatomy to be human? Well, looks like no one is human!

"Actually, you're partially right. You would have more ground to say that they share a symbiotic relationship. Except, the fetus does not provide any benefit to the mother (the host.) In any classification of whether or not they are a part of eachother, a fetus resembles a parasite, or an unwanted growth."

Wait, so I'm right, or I'm wrong? You have trouble deciding. Guess what? If you play in the tall grass, you'll get a tic! If you have sex, your probably going to have human offspring, which is not a parasite! It is a fully intentional act of the body, and a fully allowed one by the body itself. Nothing is out of the ordinary. Just as God made us. If you don't believe in God, then say it's nature, or something.

Wrong: (It's been around for a while)

"The older human coronaviruses were first identified in the mid-1960s, but have likely circulated in humans for centuries. These include 229E (alpha coronavirus), NL63 (alpha coronavirus), OC43 (beta coronavirus) and HKU1 (beta coronavirus).2 For the most part, these older iterations present with a mild respiratory infection, except for HKU1, which can also cause gastrointestinal infection, he notes."

https://consultqd.clevelandclinic.org/coronaviruses-have-been-around-for-centuries-what-differentiates-2019-ncov/

Uhu, whats your point?
All that does is prove mine more. This is a new strand.

"Uhu, whats your point?
All that does is prove mine more. This is a new strand."

>> It refutes your point completely. COVID has been in existence (an earlier less deadly strand) since the 1960s. Whether that specific strand came from dogs or not is irrelevant to the current strand.

COVID has mutated now as viruses are infamous for doing. It now targets humans to a much harsher degree than it had in the past. Your theory that this came from a dog is wholly false and has no evidence to support the claim. Period.

I never said it wasn't in existence. I said it is an incompatible form of covid, that has to have been changed. Yes, it is relevant. Because human beings don't get dog disease, and vice versa.

.... Really? Are you that uneducated? Really? I don't want to call you stupid because I don't want to put you down for something that isn't your fault... but...

Have you ever heard of rabies?