[Dwight Schrute]

I have never heard of a figure of speech, and personally think Nate is off his rocker.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Nate

What the hell, guys? Haven't you heard of a figure of speech? Or a metaphor? Or hyperbole? Or rhetoric?

Er...what about what I said makes you think I don't understand what he's saying?

[Nate]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Er...what about what I said makes you think I don't understand what he's saying?

Not that you don't understand, but I don't really see what is so "strange" about "waxing poetic", generally speaking.

It's perfectly mundane and unavoidable if you plan to use language to communicate ideas, even scientific ones.

"Nature takes its vengeance on subsequent children" might very well be a perfectly apt description of what happens [if anything].

"Light bends around corners" or "light fills the room" are about as equally poetic, but perfectly scientific statements of fact.

[Skifree0813]

Originally Posted by Nate

"Nature takes its vengeance on subsequent children" might very well be a perfectly apt description of what happens [if anything].

I don't doubt that, I just think the choice of words could still be much more considerate. I don't quite like the idea of being the human embodiment of punishment in this sense.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Nate

Not that you don't understand, but I don't really see what is so "strange" about "waxing poetic", generally speaking.

But the feeling I got here was "good ol' mother nature, keeping things in balance." Like I said, kind of a sentimental vibe, especially when coupled with his biblical references.

Just providing commentary.

[Napoleon17]

Originally Posted by Nate

What the hell, guys? Haven't you heard of a figure of speech? Or a metaphor? Or hyperbole? Or rhetoric?

Science is a lame duck without metaphor. DNA isn't a "strand". Atoms don't look like the solar system. Light isn't a "wave". "Natural selection" isn't a choice.

If his science turned out to be correct, the popular term for it very well may be something like "abortive revenge."

"The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children. In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There's a special punishment Christians would suggest."


The bolded part of his statement suggests to me that he thinks more than science is responsible for the rise in children born with disabilities. The way he phrased everything made it all a little mystical for me. He clearly did not just say "Science suggests that when a mother has an abortions, subsequent children born to that mother experience higher rates of disabilities". So, I think it was more than just a metaphor for what may or may not be scientifically true. Reminiscent of Pat Robertson blaming everything on the wrath of God.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by Napoleon17

"The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children. In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There's a special punishment Christians would suggest."


The bolded part of his statement suggests to me that he thinks more than science is responsible for the rise in children born with disabilities. The way he phrased everything made it all a little mystical for me. He clearly did not just say "Science suggests that when a mother has an abortions, subsequent children born to that mother experience higher rates of disabilities". So, I think it was more than just a metaphor for what may or may not be scientifically true. Reminiscent of Pat Robertson blaming everything on the wrath of God.

Voluntary induced abortions are against the natural order. It is anti biblical and attacking what should be the most serene place on the planet for a child. To say that there will be o consequences in America for the aborting of over 5o million children since Roe v. Wade is kind of ludicrous.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Voluntary induced abortions are against the natural order. It is anti biblical and attacking what should be the most serene place on the planet for a child. To say that there will be o consequences in America for the aborting of over 5o million children since Roe v. Wade is kind of ludicrous.

We've been punished by being the most prosperous nation in the world. Poor us.

[Dwight Schrute]

I imagine you jest, but there is a lot of truth in that statement, Jerry.