>... that prompted hi-tech firms to label their products green.
Only one. That attribute that causes some feely-types to part with more of their "green" so they can feel good about themselves for helping to save the Earth.
It's just an appeal to narcissism. Advertisers and marketers have been doing this for a long, long time.
And old player pianos can be midi-fied. It just takes a bunch of pallet valves and a midi-controlled solenoid driver module (they're available). Of course, if you have the type of piano that requires pumping with your feet, you'll also have to retrofit an electrically (unless you prefer windmill or water wheel power) driven air pump.
> So, in a couple thousand years, are people going to > have to respect the beliefs of a Pastafarian?
I predict it will be legislated (with hate-crimes consequences) within the next decade, what with post-modern thinking and relativism all the rage these days.
Where I work, the Network Nazis have made our computing environment so secure from cyber-threats that we might as well just unplug our CAT-5 cables altogether.
> So far, you have used "alive", "a human life"... interchangeably,
I have not. I specifically stated that "alive" and "a life" are not identical.
>... you have used "a human life" and now "a new human organism" interchangeably
So? What's the problem?
> A human life = a human organism possessing a human mind.
Well, then. I guess it's a matter of definition. Strike my use of "a human life" and substitute "a human organism," if my usage confuses you.
> what is so special about the fertilization event that makes the fertilized egg a "human" > and the unfertilized egg and sperm milliseconds prior to that not "human"?
It is one of the scientifically definitive points of the coming into existence of a human organism. That should be obvious. (I say "one of" because twinning is another way, as you have noted.)
> What about monozygotic twins? Are they perpetually sharing a single "human life"?
Of course not. Twins are two different organisms.
> On the other hand, if you believe that monozygotic twins are each fully human, then you are logically > obligated to accept that "humanity" begins at some point after the embryo splits in two, and thus is > unrelated to the fertilization event.
Why do you put quotes on "humnanity"? What do you even mean by "humanity?"
The zygote before it splits is a human organism, from the point of conception. After it splits, there are now two separate human organisms. I don't understand why you think this is a problem for me. I'm not the one who is claiming that the "humanity" of a human organism is due to some extra-physical blessing conferred upon it.
The "humanity" of a human organism, in my view, consists in the fact that the organism is human in kind. Nothing more than that.
> What I am saying is that being human requires > having a human mind, not just being "a human organism".
> You cannot claim that "a human life" begins at conception, > and use biology to back it up, the only definition of > life biology can back up is the "alive" version in which > case you are wrong, as both sperm and egg are biologically alive.
Are you really claiming that science has no clue about when a new Human organism comes into being?
If you are saying that being a Human requires more than just being a biological organism of the Human kind, and that science doesn't know what that is, but it has to do with some subjective judgment about what constitutes a Human life, then you have a faith-based definition of Human life, not a scientifically based one.
Faith-based definitions of what constitutes Humanity weren't very kind to Africans and Jews in fairly recent history. These days, the unkindness falls on defenseless babies.
But let's say that relying on the rhythm method for birth control while opposing abortion is indeed hypocritical. How does that justify the intentional killing of a (yet-to-be-born) Human Being? Aren't you just relying on a weak tu quoque argument?
> Life does not start at conception. > A sperm is a living cell. >...
Now you're playing word games. A sperm or an egg is living. Of course! But neither is a life unto itself. That which is "alive" is not identical to that which is "a life."
And yes, I meant that a new human life starts at conception. Where else would it begin? When do you think a new human life begins?
Most birth control methods, including the "rhythm method" and your everyday hormonal contraceptives prevent the fertilization from occurring at all. So, no that's not murder.
Also, "murder" implies intent to kill, so no, natural abortion (failure to implant, miscarriage, etc.) is not murder.
Of course life starts at conception. It's the scientifically correct answer to that question Ask a biologist! Any other definition of when a life begins is fuzzy and faith-based.
> This sort of sweeping education reform will never > happen in America though, because we are too conservative...
You're kidding, right? The more conservative of us home school our kids because the less conservative overlords of public schooling have totally fscked-up that institution.
Slashdot Mirror
> ... that prompted hi-tech firms to label their products green.
Only one.
That attribute that causes some feely-types to part with more of their "green" so they can feel good about themselves for helping to save the Earth.
It's just an appeal to narcissism. Advertisers and marketers have been doing this for a long, long time.
Running Light Without Overbyte.
This kind.
And old player pianos can be midi-fied.
It just takes a bunch of pallet valves and a midi-controlled solenoid driver module (they're available).
Of course, if you have the type of piano that requires pumping with your feet, you'll also have to retrofit an electrically (unless you prefer windmill or water wheel power) driven air pump.
> So, in a couple thousand years, are people going to
> have to respect the beliefs of a Pastafarian?
I predict it will be legislated (with hate-crimes consequences) within the next decade, what with post-modern thinking and relativism all the rage these days.
The bathroom?
You think that's an appropriate place to feed a baby?
Yuck!
Be discreet, yes.
But not in a public bathroom.
Subduction leads to Orogeny!
You think it would be better if they were celibate?
.. that's encumbered by a price tag.
I'm just not that in love with popular culture, these days.
But why?
Judging from all the comments below, I see that we have a story that really is news for nerds.
This stuff really matters!
"Ir" + "Regardless" = "Regardless"
Another counter example:
1 + 1 = 3 (for large values of 1)
Where I work, the Network Nazis have made our computing environment so secure from cyber-threats that we might as well just unplug our CAT-5 cables altogether.
> So far, you have used "alive", "a human life" ... interchangeably,
I have not. I specifically stated that "alive" and "a life" are not identical.
> ... you have used "a human life" and now "a new human organism" interchangeably
So? What's the problem?
> A human life = a human organism possessing a human mind.
Well, then. I guess it's a matter of definition. Strike my use of "a human life" and substitute "a human organism," if my usage confuses you.
> what is so special about the fertilization event that makes the fertilized egg a "human"
> and the unfertilized egg and sperm milliseconds prior to that not "human"?
It is one of the scientifically definitive points of the coming into existence of a human organism. That should be obvious. (I say "one of" because twinning is another way, as you have noted.)
> What about monozygotic twins? Are they perpetually sharing a single "human life"?
Of course not. Twins are two different organisms.
> On the other hand, if you believe that monozygotic twins are each fully human, then you are logically
> obligated to accept that "humanity" begins at some point after the embryo splits in two, and thus is
> unrelated to the fertilization event.
Why do you put quotes on "humnanity"? What do you even mean by "humanity?"
The zygote before it splits is a human organism, from the point of conception. After it splits, there are now two separate human organisms. I don't understand why you think this is a problem for me. I'm not the one who is claiming that the "humanity" of a human organism is due to some extra-physical blessing conferred upon it.
The "humanity" of a human organism, in my view, consists in the fact that the organism is human in kind. Nothing more than that.
> What I am saying is that being human requires
> having a human mind, not just being "a human organism".
We disagree, then.
> You cannot claim that "a human life" begins at conception,
> and use biology to back it up, the only definition of
> life biology can back up is the "alive" version in which
> case you are wrong, as both sperm and egg are biologically alive.
Are you really claiming that science has no clue about when a new Human organism comes into being?
If you are saying that being a Human requires more than just being a biological organism of the Human kind, and that science doesn't know what that is, but it has to do with some subjective judgment about what constitutes a Human life, then you have a faith-based definition of Human life, not a scientifically based one.
Faith-based definitions of what constitutes Humanity weren't very kind to Africans and Jews in fairly recent history. These days, the unkindness falls on defenseless babies.
> shouldn't the Catholic church embrace hormonal contraceptives?
Yes, they should. For a variety of reasons. I'm not Catholic, though.
> So the Catholic Church ... are hypocrites.
And that justifies the intentional killing of babies by everybody else?
OK, maybe you got me on the rhythm method.
But let's say that relying on the rhythm method for birth control while opposing abortion is indeed hypocritical.
How does that justify the intentional killing of a (yet-to-be-born) Human Being?
Aren't you just relying on a weak tu quoque argument?
> Life does not start at conception. ...
> A sperm is a living cell.
>
Now you're playing word games.
A sperm or an egg is living. Of course!
But neither is a life unto itself.
That which is "alive" is not identical to that which is "a life."
And yes, I meant that a new human life starts at conception. Where else would it begin?
When do you think a new human life begins?
Most birth control methods, including the "rhythm method" and your everyday hormonal contraceptives prevent the fertilization from occurring at all. So, no that's not murder.
Also, "murder" implies intent to kill, so no, natural abortion (failure to implant, miscarriage, etc.) is not murder.
Of course life starts at conception. It's the scientifically correct answer to that question Ask a biologist! Any other definition of when a life begins is fuzzy and faith-based.
So, what's wrong with that?
... is the least of problems with public schools.
> This sort of sweeping education reform will never ...
> happen in America though, because we are too conservative
You're kidding, right?
The more conservative of us home school our kids because the less conservative overlords of public schooling have totally fscked-up that institution.
... but I've left instructions there to look for me elsewhere, since classmates.com wants money for anything useful.
If all the other social networking sites can do it for free, why use classmates.com?
Tin foil hats are quite the style these days.
Why did you include a question mark?