I actually think it’s a great analogyUNI88 wrote:The err on the side of caution argument is a good one but I love how Conks and Donks both use it when it suits them and ignore or dismiss it when it doesn't. Climate change is a good example (not apple to apples but comparable so don't go comparing my analogies to Z's ). Are we absolutely certain the humans are contributing to climate change? No. Can we reasonably assume that humans are contributing to climate change? Yes. Well then shouldn't we err on the side of caution and do something to lessen the impact?89Hen wrote:It's archaic to admit I don't know when a baby becomes a person so we should err on the side of caution? What exactly about that is archaic? Or did you just throw out a word hoping it would stick?
Donks insist global warming is “settled science”, conks think it’s poppycock...conks insist when life begins is “settled science” and donks are fine aborting right up to birth (or when they get to the border, whichever comes first)