Comments by "Theodore Shulman" (@ColonelFredPuntridge) on "Forbes Breaking News" channel.

  1.  @charlesjohnson3625  Yes, of course I am pro-choice. And pro-life.
    2
  2. The goal is (probably) to learn why the animals are so excited on cocaine. Surely even you can see why that would be useful to know.
    2
  3.  @zachariah1990  Yes, I knew that. But how is it relevant to a discussion of funding basic science?
    2
  4. Many biologists would hesitate to define “woman” too. I know; my profession was in bio-science.
    2
  5. Very good. Now, try posting what she really said.
    2
  6.  @wesleyashley99  That depends on what you were trying to achieve (on what your definition of "success" is). It was not correct, though.
    2
  7. No one who knows anything about virology would say what you just said.
    2
  8.  @alanjm1234  Q: Where do they get virgin wool? A: From ugly sheep!
    2
  9. RE: "What’s the first thing the doctor does when he turns to you and says your grandma has passed away ?" He checks to see whether or not her insurance plan will pay for his services. That's the first thing he does.
    2
  10. Don’t you want people to read what you post?
    2
  11. Why? The point of posting on social media is to get people to read what you post, isn’t it?
    2
  12.  @sandie1112  For what crime?
    2
  13.  @notyourtypicalcomment2399  You're right that the fetus is not violating the woman's rights. Right-to-lifers are the ones who are violating the woman's rights. The fetus is an innocent beneficiary of the violation which the right-to-lifers' violations. Just as (here's a clarifying analogy) when Robin Hood broke the law by stealing from the rich and giving it to the poor, the poor were not guilty, but they benefited from Robin Hood's violations. The poor should not have been punished, but they shouldn't be allowed to keep the money either.
    2
  14.  @francescapoteet5481  RE: "That child is separate from the mom although inside her body." Then let it be removed from her body (if that is what she wants) and be separate in a separate place (for as long as it can, which is usually somewhere between ten seconds and five minutes). Own the separateness! Celebrate the separateness. Maximize the separateness! Let there be separateness in great abundance, since it is so important to you. RE: "... it is a living human being on its own and has rights as well." Yes, but like your rights and mine, its rights stop at the barrier defined by the patient's skin. Inside your body, there are no rights for anyone, unless you say there are. Inside my body, I decide who has rights, and what rights they have, and when, and why, and how long. Inside my body, I can switch everyone else's rights on and off like an electric light. Inside my body, if I decree that you have rights during odd-numbered times of day and no rights during even-numbered times of day, my decree makes it so.
    2
  15.  @notyourtypicalcomment2399  No sir. Laws against abortion don't only require us not to kill anyone. They require that one person be forced, by the government, to grant access to the inside of her body when she does not want to. Enduring a whole pregnancy, and childbirth, is not a passive, nothing kind of thing. It's an affirmative undertaking and a bloody great imposition. Like submitting to a major surgery for someone else's benefit, not yours, and not resisting,
    2
  16.  @beno.9958  How the woman became pregnant does not reduce or invalidate her right to choose how long to remain pregnant. Her responsibility is to choose wisely, and it is a responsibility to herself. You complain that it's not fair to the fetus. Well, the fetus which gets conceived and aborted gets to live a short life between the time when it is conceived until the time when it is aborted. If she had been more careful to avoid conceiving it, then it wouldn't even get that short time! And that would be worse. A short life is better for the one who lives it than no life at all. So I find it very difficult to feel sorry for the fetus. Sure, it would be better to get more life than it gets, but the short life it gets is better for it than no life at all. Nobody gets to live as long as he wants to live. Especially, nobody whose living requires the use of the insides of another person's body gets to live as long as he wants. He only gets to live as long as he can get the other person to authorize the use of the inside of her body to keep him alive. Too bad for him!
    2
  17.  @helenn6061  "Natural" doesn't matter. As far as morals, ethics, and philosophy go there is no "natural" and "unnatural". Any moral or ethical predicate or imperative which applies to natural things or in natural situations, applies equally well to artificial things and in unnatural situations. To argue otherwise is to commit the "Naturalistic fallacy" or the "Appeal-to-nature fallacy". Undergraduate philosophy majors learn this, usually in Freshman year.
    2
  18. I can tell you what her answer would be: "Senator, changing the law will not be part of my job. That is YOUR job."
    2
  19. You have no idea what a total shutdown would do.
    2
  20.  @Repdem  Right. If Rand Paul wants to cut Federal spending, let's start by cutting the budgets of Fort Campbell and Fort Knox by 45%, and see what Senator Paul has to say about that.
    2
  21. How to would you know?
    2
  22.  @divinenation22  If we had not isolated and purified the virus, how in the world would we know, and be able to modify, its complete RNA-sequence???
    2
  23.  @divinenation22  Where's your evidence that it doesn't? You are the one pushing a non-mainstream opinion so the burden of proof is on you, not on me.
    2
  24.  @GODHATESADOPTION  It's not really all THAT complex. Most ophthalmologists spend most of their time replacing lenses which have cataracts. Takes about 20 minutes and has a very low complication-rate.
    2
  25. ​ @sherrillsturm7240  Agree. Every doctor knows that things are not as cut-and-dried as he is trying to make out. As a politician, Rand Paul also knows that the public can be bamboozled by pretending that epidemiology is an exact science or that specialty-vocabulary (like the phrase "gain-of-function") doesn't change over time or vary in meaning depending on who is saying it to whom and in what context. James Jordan is the same. He shouts at Fauci: "The American people want to know how many need to be immunized in order to return to normal! We want the number! Don't talk mush, just GIVE US THE NUMBER!" He knows perfectly well that the number depends on what we do, how we behave. But he pretends that there's a simple answer.
    2
  26.  @jimmycricket5366  Rand Paul? He'd be out of his league.
    2
  27. You feel that way because you don't understand what is happening, what is involved. Spend a few years volunteering on an OB ward.
    2
  28. "My work is on nursing homes; I'm a health-care economist." "That's outside my scope." "That's not for someone in my position." Jim Jordan seems determined to compel this poor guy to express opinions about subjects he doesn't know anything about. 3:30: Now Jordan is grandstanding. What a waste of the witness' time.
    2
  29. To me it looked like she was trolling him, pretending to take his childish "gotcha" theatrics seriously.
    2
  30.  @dannygrounds7119  A paper one.
    2
  31.  @HemiBurns  The definition would depend on context. "Woman" means something very different in a discussion of, say, neo-Darwinian biochemical evolution of an x-linked recessive genetic disease, from what it means in a play by Shakespeare or a novel by Robert Graves! And it might mean something different from all of those, in the context of a law which defines the term in an unconventional way. Did you know, for instance, that in one law (I don't remember which law it was but it's an often-cited part of American family-jurisprudence pertaining to divorce in the state of New York) the term "mother" is explicitly defined in the law's "definitions" section as including step-mothers? So if one of the parties to a lawsuit involving that law were to say "the law only says that the child's mother has authority over the child; the child's stepmother has no authority!" the judge would have to answer: "You are wrong, because the "definitions" section defines "mother" to include the stepmother; I therefore rule for your opponent here, not for you."
    2
  32. It is a scarce procedure. Less than one million per year in a country of more than 300,000,000? That's less than one per 300 people, which is pretty scarce. I mean, if you had a lot of jugs full of 300 red cherries each, and in each jug only one of those cherries were yellow rather than red, you'd say that the yellow cherries were pretty scarce, wouldn't you?
    2
  33.  @ajolleyduck2933  If the three year old is located inside the parent's body (somehow) then yes, the parent may kill the three year old, and doing so is justifiable homicide, not murder. If (as happens more often) the three year old is not located inside the parent's body, but is outside the parent's body, then no, the parent may not kill the three year old; doing so would be murder, and not allowed. I hope this makes things clear for you. I am trying to write as simply and directly as I can.
    2
  34.  @BeeBlot  And we can fix the gun problem by being clever and innovative, too.
    2
  35. Not yet.
    2
  36. Yeah, Ted, gun-control alone won't fix the problem. But more cops and shrinks without gun-control won't fix it either. We need more cops, more shrinks, AND more gun-control.
    1
  37.  @jackmeoff9299  Your screen name is appropriate for your intelligence level. The public high school in NYC which I graduated from is still one of the best high schools in the world - public, private, vocational, or charter.
    1
  38.  @max420thc  That's not true. Dems have the biggest two or three - Soros, and Bill Gates- but the Elon-Musk types, the Scaife family (who inherited Andrew Mellon's fortune), the much larger level of guys who own single-digit-number of billions, are all Republicans.
    1
  39.  @jackmeoff9299  Not at the public school I went to. It was very rigorous and still is.
    1
  40.  @TUKByV1  Stuyvesant High School. Look it up.
    1
  41. Don’t worry! The fourth amendment protects Americans from unreasonable seizures.
    1
  42. There is no such thing as a reliable lie-detector test.
    1
  43. Because Harris, unlike Trump, is not sold to malignant foreigners
    1
  44.  @vickiroman189  All together now, kids: gimme an H! Gimme a Y! Gimme a P! Gimme an O! Gimme a T! Gimme an H! Gimme an E! Gimme a T! Gimme an I! Gimme a C! Gimme an A! Gimme an L! Whaddowegot now? That's right, kids! HYPOTHETICAL!!!!
    1
  45.  @wayando  When did human life ever have great value??? When have human beings ever lived in peace, except for a few minority groups in places like Pennsylvania?
    1
  46.  @charlesjohnson3625  No, the debate is about whether or not being a human life entitles it to be sheltered and sustained inside another person's living body, against her will and in spite of her active efforts to get rid of it. (The answer is NO!)
    1
  47. Yeah, let's cut spending. Start by cutting the budget of the Fort Knox Army Base in Kentucky by 45 percent. Let's see how Rand Paul votes on that!!
    1
  48. Yeah, it's legislative extortion and it's wrong. And the Republicans are gonna vote against it and be blamed for risking a default. Joe Biden is not senile; he's a very very clever, seasoned political warrior who knows everything and has seen everything. The Old Mongoose, the political counterpart to boxer Archie Moore.
    1
  49.  @Harbinger_of_nurgle  How would you know? Do you know anything at all about the history of science and technology?
    1
  50. In what context?
    1