Evil Avatar  



Go Back   Evil Avatar > Geek Love > Totally Off Topic

» Sponsored Links


» Recent Threads
Sega's 16-Bit...
Last post by Evil Avatar
Today 07:34 AM
15 Replies, 844 Views
Call of Duty: Black Ops...
Last post by Evil Avatar
Today 07:07 AM
0 Replies, 1 Views
Liberals gone wild
Last post by AlfredT
Today 06:12 AM
2,232 Replies, 259,375 Views
Game & Movie Releases...
Last post by Chimpbot
Today 05:26 AM
19 Replies, 1,245 Views
Giant Shark Movie The...
Last post by 92miata
Yesterday 09:13 PM
5 Replies, 824 Views
Fallout 76's Solution To...
Last post by MavenACTG
Yesterday 08:07 PM
19 Replies, 2,039 Views
Marvelís Spider-Man Ė...
Last post by MadMurdock_0311
Yesterday 06:08 PM
1 Replies, 623 Views
DOOM Eternal Debut...
Last post by Booda
Yesterday 05:15 AM
10 Replies, 1,604 Views
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-13-2018, 10:55 PM   #1181
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 7,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Posting that article was a mistake.
There are definitely some others out there which can make a better case for why students should be able to reserve the right to deplatform.

For myself I don't think deplatforming is a valid tactic. Even Elizabeth Warren and the completely partisan bullshit SPLC took a few minutes to mention the dangers of suppressing speech. Of course they expect they will be in the right, which is absolutely false.

They also mischaracterize the original event and the research of Mr. Murray which caused this hearing this Youtube clip is taken from but that's the job of Democrats when it comes to science they don't like.

vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 03:13 AM   #1182
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
An abstract is a brief summary of research, moron. It's a summation of findings. It's presented at the beginning of research, to help you when you encounter big words and difficult ideas.

Like those presented in this Princeton bibliography of research, published in scientific journals and textbooks, presenting the same piece of information: " a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote."

That's at conception. For the stupid among us, that means when the little spermy thingie from a boy interacts with the little eggy thingy from a girl and we have A NEW HUMAN LIFE.

I know, I know...words like boy and girl are difficult for some of you on the left, but if you can breathe deeply and hold off on anaphylactic shock caused by encountering reality, you might learn something.

Science. Try to keep up.

I stopped responding here because you don't seem to understand what a valid source is which explains some of your positions I guess.

This is your source that you cited above:
https://prolife.princeton.edu/

Also none of those quotes are even from actual peer reviewed papers. However even if they were it wouldn't matter because your source is so biased that they could easily create a lie by cherry picking quotes to misrepresent the scientific consensus.

You need to understand how to evaluate what a valid source of information is to even know you aren't just eating up propaganda. Your source here is basically propaganda, and even the underlying quotes which there is no reasonable way to authenticate are all over 20 years old and also not peer reviewed.

Even if you are right it doesn't matter because you are using bullshit evidence and wasting my time with it.

Also this is just a terrible way to defend a pro life position anyway. Life beginning at conception is essentially a definition that is malleable, similar to the automatic weapons ban in that it is really just a consensus decision and if that definition moves your whole belief framework would break down I guess? Also it doesn't even relate to when personhood begins, and also trying to use the definition of life doesn't even stand up to scrutiny anyway for a bunch of reasons. Like how you are essentially imbuing a cheek cell with the same value as a fertilized egg.

Talking about personhood and the potential that an fertilized human egg contains gives you much better footing, though I personally think it would be easier to rationally defend at least 3-4 weeks, because there are sticky logical issues about eggs not attaching and that there are like 100000 "human" deaths a day from failure of a fertilized egg to implant.

Last edited by Eats; 03-14-2018 at 03:26 AM..
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 07:01 AM   #1183
Chief Smash
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CT - USA
Posts: 3,494
Eats. That was one of the worst posts I’ve ever seen.
Chief Smash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 07:10 AM   #1184
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Bawwston
Posts: 7,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Smash View Post
Eats. That was one of the worst posts Iíve ever seen.
Posts justifying murder usually are.
SpectralThundr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 08:15 AM   #1185
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 7,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpectralThundr View Post
Posts justifying murder usually are.
In this case it wasn't justifying murder as much as trying to make a point about how just because something is published doesn't mean it will withstand scrutiny. So the first part is calling into question the academic credibility of the study, which is a fair point. I question the validity of any study that comes straight out of, say, the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Anti-Defamation League prior to peer review.

Followed with what I think is a request to further clarify the definition of when something is considered a "person".

Is the criteria for a person a fertilized egg; this is after all post conception though pre-heartbeat and pre-unique DNA and most cell division.

But there are dozens or even hundreds of biological reasons a fertilized egg may not "take" even within the first 12 - 72 hours and simply be rejected by the body. Normal ol' biology; not abortion (or at least not man-made abortion) so does this still count under the "murder" category? Taken to extreme isn't this just abortion by the Divine hand of God rather than the doctor?
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 08:33 AM   #1186
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
I stopped responding here because you don't seem to understand what a valid source is which explains some of your positions I guess.
lol. You'll have to do better, since I've actually completed peer-reviewed doctoral research and you clearly have not.

Quote:
This is your source that you cited above:
https://prolife.princeton.edu/
This is my source cited above.

And it is filled with peer reviewed research which supports the reality that a human life begins at conception, hence this peer reviewed research is listed on a page by those who support protecting human life since it is peer reviewed evidence that human life begins at conception.

Derp.

Quote:
Also none of those quotes are even from actual peer reviewed papers. However even if they were it wouldn't matter
First point? Liar.
Second point? Evidence you are a close-minded echo chamber liar.

The sourced information at the link is peer reviewed and points to the science that human life begins at conception.

Quote:
You need to understand how to evaluate what a valid source of information is
I'm quite capable, considering I compiled a forty-page bibliography of research material on my own personal successful dissertation. The linked research is valid peer reviewed scientific information. Your post, however, is anecdotal garbage.

Quote:
Even if you are right it doesn't matter
Translation: 'I'm not changing my mind in the presence of information I cannot refute because I don't wanna and you can't make me!'

lol. Derp.

Quote:
Also this is just a terrible way to defend a pro life position anyway. Life beginning at conception is essentially a definition that is malleable
Malleable? Only within an hour or so of actual chemical processes occurring during conception, but no longer than that, lol. It's called science. Reality. Get on board!

Quote:
Also it doesn't even relate to when personhood begins
I know that, but YOU DO NOT. You're the one who spent most of his posts conflating human existence and personhood. We know when human life begins. It's called science. It's at conception. Personhood is a completely different question regarding the value of human life, used (once again) by leftists to obscure and deny reality in order to accomplish your goal, which in this case is holding onto the right to kill unborn children up until birth (and argued increasingly for thereafter by leftists as well!). You do the SAME DAMN THING with sex identification, a simple question of xx or xy which you try to obscure with 'gender' and 'culture.'

Quote:
Like how you are essentially imbuing a cheek cell with the same value as a fertilized egg.
LOL. No, I'm imbuing you with stupidity, because this is an absolutely farcical analogy.

Quote:
Talking about personhood and the potential that an fertilized human egg contains gives you much better footing
I'm not trying for a 'footing' fella. I'm stating the scientific fact. A human life begins with conception.

So, feel free to refute that. When does a unique human life, with DNA different from its mother, actually begin?

Progressive abortionist answer = 'When I say so...and disposable until then.'
Science = 'At conception.'
Eats = 'blaaargh blaaah blaaargh.'
__________________
Why would Republicans pass such a terrible tax law? lol...

Giving people more of their own money...WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? :D
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 09:39 AM   #1187
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
So the first part is calling into question the academic credibility of the study, which is a fair point. I question the validity of any study that comes straight out of, say, the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Anti-Defamation League prior to peer review.
This comment made me curious. Yes, academic publication normally involves some kind of peer review for publication in independent journals. But, I thought that think tanks usually just issued their own papers directly.

I don't read academic journals in political science, so I am naive here about where these things are published and how think political tank researchers may publish things differently than other academic disciplines. I suppose that some of these think tanks also have members who are academics, so I can see how there would be overlap.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
What I think is immaterial
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 09:48 AM   #1188
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 7,033
As an aside I'd like to shut down the whole cheek cell = same as a fertilized egg thing.

An egg has a unique DNA profile from the host soon after fertilization process when it absorbs the 23 pairs of DNA from the second of the partners and matches them with the 23 chromosomes of the host.

Cells sloughing off from the cheek, or the skin, or whatever are going to be identical to the host. The fact there are still many similarities between the DNA profile of the host and the fertilized egg is simply coincidence, there are just so many sequences you can get when you are matching the few types of peptides and proteins.

I mean, if you want to think too much about it consider that, depending on the size of the genome sample, you could match 70% of any particular human's DNA to a carrot.

Considering this similarity of DNA to the host as a criteria of if a fertilized egg is a unique human may not be the best metric.

You might as well say abortion is OK because on a macro DNA comparison level you're just extracting a potato. The devil though is in the details.
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 09:52 AM   #1189
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 7,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
This comment made me curious. Yes, academic publication normally involves some kind of peer review for publication in independent journals. But, I thought that think tanks usually just issued their own papers directly.
That's why I don't trust them usually. They, and to be fair many right wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, simply issue very academic sounding papers and treatises. The important part is often found in the references in these cases. Those sources may have been reviewed and be trustworthy but it is incumbent on the reader to decide if the article they are reading has misinterpreted the use of the data. Too often the information is cherry picked so the reader is left to do their own investigation.

If an author happens to be based out of or supported by a think tank or partisan body but their work is published in an academic journal that is totally different.
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 03:11 PM   #1190
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
If you don't understand that the other question was about whether the ends justify the means and passive vs active murder then you are incapable of grasping the basic framework of morality and have no place in an abortion discussion.
Okay, you can't figure out why those questions were posted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
The followup to the other question is why don't you give 5 cents a day to save a life in africa since you just murdered someone to save 5 lives, and then why don't you give all your money and isn't a life worth more than 5 cents per life. By not giving 5 cents are you guilty of murder just like the 5 deaths that were caused by you not pushing the person?

Surely you would've rather paid 25 cents to save 5 lives instead of killing a person like you just did. So you could just not murder anyone and send a quarter to africa instead. These are just some of the issues with taking action to cause deaths in order to prevent deaths. None of which are related to the question I posed.
Sure it does. Both questions I posted were meant to be fallacies. The difference between your fallacy and the ones I posted is that I realize they're fallacies. Why do you think I included the act of killing? Because that's what abortion is, but your fallacy didn't include it -- yet you still insisted it somehow proved your pro-abortion position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
Also you don't seem to know what fallacy means.
I do know what fallacy means, but do you? Previously you didn't know how philosophical questions were fallacies, but you seemed unaware that you weren't actually asking a question -- you have provided the rhetorical question to promote your mistaken belief that was based upon an unsound argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
Yes, when you change the fundamental nature of a question to a different question the answer can change. That is how words and ideas work.
Geez, you don't know what fundamental means either. The fundamentals were the same -- one baby's live or one billion people's lives. What I did, which was saying it depended on the baby and asked how many parents would pick their own baby over a billion people, was add a secondary piece to your scenario -- but the fundamentals remained the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
Even if you are right it doesn't matter because you are using bullshit evidence and wasting my time with it.
Wow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
Also this is just a terrible way to defend a pro life position anyway. Life beginning at conception is essentially a definition that is malleable, similar to the automatic weapons ban in that it is really just a consensus decision and if that definition moves your whole belief framework would break down I guess? Also it doesn't even relate to when personhood begins, and also trying to use the definition of life doesn't even stand up to scrutiny anyway for a bunch of reasons. Like how you are essentially imbuing a cheek cell with the same value as a fertilized egg.
So, you're incorrectly complaining about a perceived lack of peer reviewed scientific research being provided to you, but you also want to claim that life beginning at conception is malleable instead of, you know, being founded in objective science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
Talking about personhood and the potential that an fertilized human egg contains gives you much better footing, though I personally think it would be easier to rationally defend at least 3-4 weeks, because there are sticky logical issues about eggs not attaching and that there are like 100000 "human" deaths a day from failure of a fertilized egg to implant.
Such an objective stance you're taking: "Eh... 3 or 4 weeks sounds about good." Gone is your worrying about science.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 04:41 PM   #1191
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 605
Which one of those sources was published in a peer reviewed journal and how can we even know they are authentic because you got those from a prolife propaganda outlet?

Even if we could verify them there is no way to know if this is cherry picked information or not.

Also all of those sources if authenticated are very old and outdated anyway.

What is going on with you where you think using a blatantly biased source makes sense?

You don't have to defend this point to the death you know. You could objectively see that what I am saying here is valid criticism.
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 04:48 PM   #1192
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 605
Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
As an aside I'd like to shut down the whole cheek cell = same as a fertilized egg thing.

An egg has a unique DNA profile from the host soon after fertilization process when it absorbs the 23 pairs of DNA from the second of the partners and matches them with the 23 chromosomes of the host.

Cells sloughing off from the cheek, or the skin, or whatever are going to be identical to the host. The fact there are still many similarities between the DNA profile of the host and the fertilized egg is simply coincidence, there are just so many sequences you can get when you are matching the few types of peptides and proteins.

I mean, if you want to think too much about it consider that, depending on the size of the genome sample, you could match 70% of any particular human's DNA to a carrot.

Considering this similarity of DNA to the host as a criteria of if a fertilized egg is a unique human may not be the best metric.

You might as well say abortion is OK because on a macro DNA comparison level you're just extracting a potato. The devil though is in the details.
How does any of this make the cell not human life? Does human life matter, or unique human life? Are we preserving human life or aren't we? Or do we care about the potential of personhood in the cell/cells?

This is why personhood is important.
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 04:56 PM   #1193
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
Which one of those sources was published in a peer reviewed journal and how can we even know they are authentic because you got those from a prolife propaganda outlet?

Even if we could verify them there is no way to know if this is cherry picked information or not.

Also all of those sources if authenticated are very old and outdated anyway.

What is going on with you where you think using a blatantly biased source makes sense?

You don't have to defend this point to the death you know. You could objectively see that what I am saying here is valid criticism.
It's simply not. You've been proven wrong, as a matter of scientific fact. Then you wanted to play the conflation game.

Complaining of cherry picking? If science has proven that life begins at conception... then life begins at conception. I don't see people actually argue that it doesn't, but I do see people, like yourself, then shift to some seemingly arbitrary "well, we'll count it when that life is at this stage."

If these scientific conclusions are "old and outdated," as you contend, where is your scientific evidence which says their conclusions are wrong?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 05:02 PM   #1194
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 605
Right here:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45963181/n.../#.WCcX-snQf0w

You will notice the actual real journal articles:

http://www.jbsdonline.com/mc_images/..._29_4_2012.pdf

You will also notice they are not 20+ years old.

Here's a nobel prize winning harvard biologist's thoughts:

http://www.jbsdonline.com/mc_images/..._29_4_2012.pdf

Also in an actual journal and not propaganda sources from a propaganda outlet.

Also science doesn't "prove" what words mean....
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 05:39 PM   #1195
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
Which one of those sources was published in a peer reviewed journal
You're a big boy. Put on your big boy pants and go read them.

Quote:
Even if we could verify them there is no way to know if this is cherry picked information or not.
You're a big boy. Put on your big boy pants and go read them.

Quote:
Also all of those sources if authenticated are very old and outdated anyway.
You're a big boy. Put on your big boy pants and go read them.

Quote:
What is going on with you where you think using a blatantly biased source makes sense?
You're a big boy. Put on your big boy pants and go read them.

Quote:
You don't have to defend this point to the death you know. You could objectively see that what I am saying here is valid criticism.
You're a big boy. Put on your big boy pants and go read them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
This is why personhood is important.
Personhood is your fig leaf to deny you are ending a human life. It's not a "person" because...reasons reasons reasons...until you say so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
Right here


Nice try. Human life begins at conception.

When does human life begin Eats? Hmmmm? When does science say a unique human life begins in the womb, eh Eats? Riddle me that, genius.

At conception. Moron. Hey, I have another tough one for you: How do we determine sex identification in the human species? Eh? LOL@U.
__________________
Why would Republicans pass such a terrible tax law? lol...

Giving people more of their own money...WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? :D
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 05:45 PM   #1196
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 605
Cool response.

None of those citations even say they are from journals as far as I can see.

It is sad that you both don't have a rebuttal and won't admit you are wrong. It really shows off your capabilities for self reflection and critical thought.
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 05:51 PM   #1197
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
Cool response.
Hey there, that may work for you, but SCIENCE works for me.

Carnegie Stages of Human Reproduction!

Day One: Zygote Formation.

Gee...what could a zygote be? I wonder?!!?

Quote:
A zygote is a eukaryotic cell formed by a fertilization event between two gametes. The zygote's genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. In multicellular organisms, the zygote is the earliest developmental stage.
Wow! A unique human being, formed from the genetic material of a male and female human being!

Run along and find another excuse for aborting babies other than denying they are actual babies.
__________________
Why would Republicans pass such a terrible tax law? lol...

Giving people more of their own money...WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? :D
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 06:00 PM   #1198
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 605
https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/e...ral_disclaimer

"None of the authors, contributors, sponsors, administrators, sysops, or anyone else connected with the Embryology Wiki in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages."

So this is already super legitimate I see. Another solid source from Terran. You are now 3/3 on this thread.

Also this doesn't even talk about what is and isn't life as far as I can tell so I'm not even sure why you linked it at all...

But please keep writing science in all caps. It definitely gives more weight to your argument.
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 06:05 PM   #1199
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
Another solid source from Terran.
You are a true moron, lol, to use a fig-leaf disclaimer to discount the ubiquitous medical school CARNEGIE STAGES OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT. lol@the moron!

Quote:
Also this doesn't even talk about what is and isn't life as far as I can tell so I'm not even sure why you linked it at all...
A zygote is the first stage of human life. But as you said earlier: "Even if you (Terran) are right it doesn't matter..."

A dog and his vomit are not easily separated. Enjoy your eats, Eats.
__________________
Why would Republicans pass such a terrible tax law? lol...

Giving people more of their own money...WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? :D
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 06:16 PM   #1200
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 605
Honestly, I think the information is probably correct, but it is just funny at this point how you keep bringing these terrible sources instead of real ones that you can authenticate.

However, it doesn't even say "A zygote is the first stage of human life"

This whole website is not even about what is or is not life or human life.

This is still bad fundamentally for you to try to cling to a definition of human life that includes a cheek cell though. You need to shift your argument because you aren't even interested in preserving all human life according to your preferred definition of life, which I have just debunked with real and current peer reviewed science anyway. There is no clear consensus on the definition for that word and you shouldn't wrap your belief system up in that anyway because it is clearly malleable.

You should at least say that you believe personhood begins with a fertilized egg because of its potential. That is a much stronger foundation for you to fight from because then all of the arguments I have offered about the malleability of the definition of life dissolve.

Then we can focus on how weird it is that 99% of humans die as fertilized eggs and how we don't do anything at all to prevent so much involuntary manslaughter.
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:41 AM.