I should just stop feeding a troll, but I can't resist.
If you don't have that view, how do you justify your decision in Rockoon's case, when he never even specifically mentions the issue?
In his first comment Rockoon said: "This is what the left does. They de-humanize that which they want to restrict, steal, or deny rights to."
Note the last option can only really refer to fetuses and embryos.
And that comment followed one talking about mentally disabled people. Which was a class of people that were de-humanized and denied rights to, just as Rockoon said. Even with the embryo question, there still is no evidence in his posts you responded to that he is "pretty anti-abortion". That is still an assumption you made based on his stating of scientific items.
Indeed, your other mistaken assumption is the same one he made: that by "human" I meant belonging to the species homo sapiens. I was actually talking more about the common understanding of human as 'being a person'.
Then you are either a perfect example of the claim in the article, and reject science because of personal beliefs, or you never contributed a thing to the discussion because you aren't replying to Rockoon's original post. My interpretation of the exchange between you and him would argue for the first choice there.
I wasn't aware Rockoon was making a species argument and if so, it was completely irrelevant to the abortion sub-debate anyway.
And now you are trolling. His very first post above is saying an embryo is a human being, and then he specifically states that a human embryo is Homo sapiens sapiens. The second "sapiens" refers to modern man specifically. And you say you don't realize he is making a species argument.
Also, how can it be "completely irrelevant to the abortion sub-debate anyway", when there was no such topic in the posts?
BTW, a human corpse is another example of the species homo sapiens.
Yes, just as a dead butterfly pinned in a collection is an example of its species. I was going to say that this does not change the discussion above in any way. But actually, it diminishes your argument, because a dead person has no brain activity at all, and your argument is based on brain ability.
Nope, you completely misread the thread. I already stated that wasn't my personal opinion.
And trolling again. You post a scientific argument as if it is your belief, and defend it as if it is your belief, dismiss people who dispute what is apparently your belief, and now claim it wasn't your belief all along. So you were just jerking off the thread for personal enjoyment.
Thank you UpnAtom, you have been a most enlightening subject.
[you to Rockoon] You seem pretty anti-abortionist.
[me to you] you make a serious mistake is assuming people who agree with Rockoon's scientific basis are automatically anti-abortion.
Nope, I said nothing about anyone but Rockoon.
I just reviewed Rockoon's posts, and find no indication if he is for or against abortion. For you to make the claim that someone who states that science dictates that a human embryo is a human being, of the species H. sapiens, is "pretty anti-abortionist", it naturally follows that you think everyone who states that scientific fact is against abortion. If you don't have that view, how do you justify your decision in Rockoon's case, when he never even specifically mentions the issue?
Indeed, your other mistaken assumption is the same one he made: that by "human" I meant belonging to the species homo sapiens. I was actually talking more about the common understanding of human as 'being a person'.
Then you are either a perfect example of the claim in the article, and reject science because of personal beliefs, or you never contributed a thing to the discussion because you aren't replying to Rockoon's original post. My interpretation of the exchange between you and him would argue for the first choice there.
BTW, a human corpse is another example of the species homo sapiens.
Yes, just as a dead butterfly pinned in a collection is an example of its species. I was going to say that this does not change the discussion above in any way. But actually, it diminishes your argument, because a dead person has no brain activity at all, and your argument is based on brain ability.
You seem pretty anti-abortionist. The article is telling me not to bother talking rationally with you.
Besides Rockoon's response to this, you make a serious mistake is assuming people who agree with Rockoon's scientific basis are automatically anti-abortion.
I have stated in past comments that I agree that the unborn humans are indeed of the species Homo sapiens, yet I still am not opposed to abortion.
In simpler terms, a fetus or embryo is human, but I'm not preventing someone from killing it for whatever reason they wish to.
I just checked, and even added "england" to the search. All I am seeing is articles about a professor that watches a lot of scifi and superhero movies.
Real example of this did happen a few years ago. One of the popular Linux distros had a major fight on the Wikipedia page, that is still probably going on. The guy who started the distro saw a news piece about Israel attacking Gaza (in retaliation of Gaza attacking Israel, which was in retaliation...), and put out a notice that he didn't want anyone who supported Israel to use his Linux distro. Soon after, he recanted that statement, and apologized for letting personal issues cloud his professional judgement.
So, does the Wikipedia article about that Linux distro have the obligation to mention that incident that is years old, only existed for a short time, and has no impact on the distro itself? The main reason for mentioning it was that the fight was not about support of Israel or Gaza, but about limiting who can use open source software, based on political/ethnic/religious matters.
Looking at the wikipedia page just now, the incident is now forgotten. But it is still available if you look through Google, with the right search phrase.
So, you are agreeing that using "www.google.com" would not work for Europeans looking to avoid this censorship, because "www.google.com" would automatically redirect to their location. I am assuming you realize that "www.google.com" is not the same as "www.google.com/ncr", but I could be mistaken.
You're right. I didn't think of that one, mainly because it seems quite coincidental that the one gene that got moved is the one that was needed by one particular group to live in the area they are living.
That was either the luckiest gene transplanting ever, or the smartest virus the world has ever seen.
Alternatively, it could be that the ancestors of the Sherpa people had sex with the other group. If so, and the other group has living descendants in the Sherpa people, are they really extinct? That is what dmbasso and some AC are arguing about.
And how the fuck did you read religious connotations in my post? I'm an atheist.
Because you said that thousands of years ago specific genes were transplanted from one group of people into another group of people. That first group then went extinct, leaving only those spliced genes as evidence.
Since we didn't have genetic splicing until a few years ago, the two choices left as possible genetic engineers are aliens and God. Take your pick.
Why? Because it is in the Constitution. If you want your group of poker buddies, or drinking buddies, or running buddies, or World Cup watching buddies, etc, to have the same protection, you just need to get the country to agree to a Constitutional Amendment.
If you don't want freedom of speech, or religion, or association, etc, to be protected, again, amend the Constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
I should just stop feeding a troll, but I can't resist.
If you don't have that view, how do you justify your decision in Rockoon's case, when he never even specifically mentions the issue?
In his first comment Rockoon said: "This is what the left does. They de-humanize that which they want to restrict, steal, or deny rights to."
Note the last option can only really refer to fetuses and embryos.
And that comment followed one talking about mentally disabled people. Which was a class of people that were de-humanized and denied rights to, just as Rockoon said.
Even with the embryo question, there still is no evidence in his posts you responded to that he is "pretty anti-abortion". That is still an assumption you made based on his stating of scientific items.
Indeed, your other mistaken assumption is the same one he made: that by "human" I meant belonging to the species homo sapiens. I was actually talking more about the common understanding of human as 'being a person'.
Then you are either a perfect example of the claim in the article, and reject science because of personal beliefs, or you never contributed a thing to the discussion because you aren't replying to Rockoon's original post. My interpretation of the exchange between you and him would argue for the first choice there.
I wasn't aware Rockoon was making a species argument and if so, it was completely irrelevant to the abortion sub-debate anyway.
And now you are trolling. His very first post above is saying an embryo is a human being, and then he specifically states that a human embryo is Homo sapiens sapiens. The second "sapiens" refers to modern man specifically. And you say you don't realize he is making a species argument.
Also, how can it be "completely irrelevant to the abortion sub-debate anyway", when there was no such topic in the posts?
BTW, a human corpse is another example of the species homo sapiens.
Yes, just as a dead butterfly pinned in a collection is an example of its species. I was going to say that this does not change the discussion above in any way. But actually, it diminishes your argument, because a dead person has no brain activity at all, and your argument is based on brain ability.
Nope, you completely misread the thread. I already stated that wasn't my personal opinion.
And trolling again. You post a scientific argument as if it is your belief, and defend it as if it is your belief, dismiss people who dispute what is apparently your belief, and now claim it wasn't your belief all along. So you were just jerking off the thread for personal enjoyment.
Thank you UpnAtom, you have been a most enlightening subject.
[you to Rockoon] You seem pretty anti-abortionist.
[me to you] you make a serious mistake is assuming people who agree with Rockoon's scientific basis are automatically anti-abortion.
Nope, I said nothing about anyone but Rockoon.
I just reviewed Rockoon's posts, and find no indication if he is for or against abortion. For you to make the claim that someone who states that science dictates that a human embryo is a human being, of the species H. sapiens, is "pretty anti-abortionist", it naturally follows that you think everyone who states that scientific fact is against abortion. If you don't have that view, how do you justify your decision in Rockoon's case, when he never even specifically mentions the issue?
Indeed, your other mistaken assumption is the same one he made: that by "human" I meant belonging to the species homo sapiens. I was actually talking more about the common understanding of human as 'being a person'.
Then you are either a perfect example of the claim in the article, and reject science because of personal beliefs, or you never contributed a thing to the discussion because you aren't replying to Rockoon's original post. My interpretation of the exchange between you and him would argue for the first choice there.
BTW, a human corpse is another example of the species homo sapiens.
Yes, just as a dead butterfly pinned in a collection is an example of its species. I was going to say that this does not change the discussion above in any way. But actually, it diminishes your argument, because a dead person has no brain activity at all, and your argument is based on brain ability.
You seem pretty anti-abortionist. The article is telling me not to bother talking rationally with you.
Besides Rockoon's response to this, you make a serious mistake is assuming people who agree with Rockoon's scientific basis are automatically anti-abortion.
I have stated in past comments that I agree that the unborn humans are indeed of the species Homo sapiens, yet I still am not opposed to abortion.
In simpler terms, a fetus or embryo is human, but I'm not preventing someone from killing it for whatever reason they wish to.
Not agenda, just exposed bias.
Wow! That was well reasoned and lucid.
This.
I don't believe you.
Well sure, if the drunk guy grabs the driver's tits.
Yeah. the people who assemble Boeing's planes are wage slaves. Sure.
It's laying egg pods. Soon they'll hatch into baby planes.
You're petrified of a guy who finds a tax on alcohol reasonable? And who can explain why that tax is there?
I just checked, and even added "england" to the search. All I am seeing is articles about a professor that watches a lot of scifi and superhero movies.
Real example of this did happen a few years ago. One of the popular Linux distros had a major fight on the Wikipedia page, that is still probably going on. The guy who started the distro saw a news piece about Israel attacking Gaza (in retaliation of Gaza attacking Israel, which was in retaliation ...), and put out a notice that he didn't want anyone who supported Israel to use his Linux distro. Soon after, he recanted that statement, and apologized for letting personal issues cloud his professional judgement.
So, does the Wikipedia article about that Linux distro have the obligation to mention that incident that is years old, only existed for a short time, and has no impact on the distro itself? The main reason for mentioning it was that the fight was not about support of Israel or Gaza, but about limiting who can use open source software, based on political/ethnic/religious matters.
Looking at the wikipedia page just now, the incident is now forgotten. But it is still available if you look through Google, with the right search phrase.
Does every other company get 1000 requests a day?
So, you are agreeing that using "www.google.com" would not work for Europeans looking to avoid this censorship, because "www.google.com" would automatically redirect to their location. I am assuming you realize that "www.google.com" is not the same as "www.google.com/ncr", but I could be mistaken.
Well then, that wouldn't work in non-English countries. The phrase would be translated to something that doesn't abbreviate to "ncr".
Does is matter if the connection has encryption enabled? Or is the first exchange un-encrypted anyway?
for some insane reason named his after his address.
Why is that insane?
I don't know why either. My wifi is named after my wife's place of origin.
NABOO.
That's why we call our daughter Princess.
You apparently don't know that Metallica lost a member very early in their career. So, yes, metal stars do flame out early.
I answered dmbasso's question, and not only is it flagged Offtopic, but now you call me a troll.
Well, it just shows the ignorance of mods and ACs here on slashdot.
You're right. I didn't think of that one, mainly because it seems quite coincidental that the one gene that got moved is the one that was needed by one particular group to live in the area they are living.
That was either the luckiest gene transplanting ever, or the smartest virus the world has ever seen.
Alternatively, it could be that the ancestors of the Sherpa people had sex with the other group. If so, and the other group has living descendants in the Sherpa people, are they really extinct? That is what dmbasso and some AC are arguing about.
And how the fuck did you read religious connotations in my post? I'm an atheist.
Because you said that thousands of years ago specific genes were transplanted from one group of people into another group of people. That first group then went extinct, leaving only those spliced genes as evidence.
Since we didn't have genetic splicing until a few years ago, the two choices left as possible genetic engineers are aliens and God. Take your pick.
Well flamebait and truth are not mutually exclusive.
Also, see my sig.
Viva la Revolución!
Why? Because it is in the Constitution. If you want your group of poker buddies, or drinking buddies, or running buddies, or World Cup watching buddies, etc, to have the same protection, you just need to get the country to agree to a Constitutional Amendment.
If you don't want freedom of speech, or religion, or association, etc, to be protected, again, amend the Constitution.
It's really pretty easily explained.
I keep saying to just outlaw automobiles. As long as it saves one life, it's worth it.
Or so people state while making these stupid rules.