Ryuukyuzo's Waterfall
From what I've seen, whites are by far the least racist people on the planet.
"But what about the American black slave trade?" you say? It was nothing compared to the Arab black slave trade. Oh, you never heard of the Arab black slave trade? Well I'm not surprised, seeing as they castrated all the black men and refused to let the black women get pregnant, ensuring there wasn't a "next generation" of blacks to remember the atrocities of the slave trade.
This line here -- "This society places a heavy stigma on homophobes causing them to hide in the closet, sort of speak, in shame and fear of being found out." -- while it's obviously a joke, there's some truth to it. People think it's "okay" to act with cruelty and direct hatred towards people so long as they're 'bigots'. That makes it justified, right?
This is an age-old game. Direct your hate towards the people society has deemed "okay" and even "righteous" to hate, and no one will oppose you on it. Hating homophobes is every bit as bigoted as hating homosexuals.
I hate to break it to you, but the reason you hate homophobes? - It's the same reason homophobes hate homosexuals.
Homophobia is a relatively new "phobia". Consider the ancient Greeks. Man on man sexual affairs were common, especially in the military. It wasn't looked upon as anything taboo because the idea that homosexuality was wrong didn't yet exist. This proves that homophobia is a learned fear, not something genetically ingrained in us.
Basically, the whole political spectrum has shifted to the left in the last passing decades. People now expect the state to solve all their problems and carry them through their whole life, and the state is all too willing to take control of your life.
The result? You punish the hard-working and goal oriented, and subsidize the stupid and lazy. It's a shame.
You're not being honest. If this was really a matter of you finding my argument weak you would have debunked it.
Instead you've jumped right to declaring my argument weak, which means you disagree with me for a reason other than you find fault in what I say.
My guess is that you spent a hell of a long time debating this issue before with people whom you don't find particularly intelligent and you may even have won, so changing your mind now would be the same as admitting you were wrong the whole time and you don't want to do that.
But, that's neither here nor there. I suppose it doesn't matter if we don't agree with each other. Both our cases are laid out and anyone whom bothers to read the whole thing could decide for themselves which side makes more sense.
OK, I'm willing to add that something belongs to you if you buy it. The fetus didn't buy the shell. Now what? ;)
Now, nothing. As I've said, ownership doesn't play a part in which came first. Perhaps the hen owns the shell, it's still part of the egg, which must be determined by its own genes.
"OK, so if I'm able to take your car or house away from, then it'll be mine ;)"
Precisely. They are in your possession, so until otherwise they are your property. Perhaps I call the police and get them back, then they are mine again.
Once fertilization takes place, the fetus owns itself, or rather, it becomes an individual. And as an individual, it is not owned by the parent any more than another human being can belong to you.
Agreed. Just one minor detail, I would say when it is laid it is no longer owned by the mother as it is no longer part of her.
NO, IT IS NOT. If the egg shell and fetus inside are one unit, then they couldn't be separated. And yet, they can be separated. It is possible to transplant the chicken fetus into a duck egg and the duck egg would not become a chicken egg just because it contained a chicken.
Philosophically, they are one unit. When you refer to yourself, you say "I", singular. Sure, you could be sliced into little bits, but until then you are one unit.
If you manually separate the shell from the rest of the egg, then it's no longer and arbitrary separation, it's a literal one.
A small donation from the father? Are you on drugs? The father provides exactly 50% of the necessary genetic material. Did you take biology?
Small, in the literal sense.
We are not part of the mother. We are individuals. If we were part of the mother then we would be able to donate our organs and/or blood to her if she needed them. But we can't. Her body would reject them. Why? Because we are individuals that are not part of her. Basic Biology 101.
I agree. Once we are born, we are not a part of mother. One an egg is laid, it is no longer a part of the mother.
So who owns the egg? If fertilized, it owns itself. It has possession over who whole egg. If not, well if a gift is given and not received to whom does it belong?
Us, if were hungry enough. =/
In order for something to belong to you, you have to make it.
Immediately not true. You can buy things and claim ownership of them, you can find things and claim ownership of them, you can build something for some one else and NOT have ownership of it. Ownership is defined by your ability to keep said thing.
A fetus grows a heart, lungs etc. But only because of the genes it got from its parents. It's not a conscious being and isn't even aware it's growing. At least it's parents are making a conscious effort to create an entire chick.
Or, are you saying that as soon as a change happens to the materials in the egg it is no longer owned by the parent? In which case you open up a whole new mess of problems. Exactly how much change is necessary to switch ownership? This would also be an arbitrary choice. Besides, I KNOW you don't really believe that changing something is how ownership is defined. Or, if I went to your home while you where at work and replaced the furniture, windows, carpet, etc. would you say I now own your home? Obviously not. You've clearly only chosen to define ownership like this NOW because you think it supports you side of the debate. It doesn't.
Hell, the hen and rooster are making a conscious effort to create a chick. The whole chick. The fetus has no ides it's going to grow a heart and lungs. So according to you even if one were to accidentally change something, he would now own it... =/
So, once again I must explain to you, the mother made 99% of the things that make the fetus. Hell, the entire chick itself is a byproduct of the hen (and rooster), so is the chick property of the hen, since she made it? Everything the chick uses to grow was made by the hen after all.
And even if the chick (or at least the shell) IS the hens property, that doesn't mean the chicken came first because the egg is still ONE unit, REGARDLESS of if you chose to arbitrarily split the egg's components into whom owns them. Thus, the egg needs be defined based on its own genes. And if it carries the genes of what you would define as a chicken, then that's what type of egg it is.
You can say the shell is owned by the hen, you can even go so far as to say the fetus is created by the hen. It doesn't matter. Just because then hen owns it doesn't change what it is and in this case both the shell and the fetus are part of exactly the same egg.
Final point. Humans. We grow inside our mothers. Everything we are is a product of her creation (and a small donation from the father). Does she own us? She made us. Sure, you can say we grew our organs ourselves.. but then, we only did these things because our mother willed it and fed us. She was the one whom intended for us to be full babies, not us. We are still part of the mother up to birth, but even after birth there is no change in compound. So, according to your definition of ownership we are still owned by our mothers after birth. How much longer is arbitrary.
Perhaps its when we eat our own food and thus create energy independent of our mothers, but that would make us property of whatever produced what we ate... perhaps it's when we grow, but how much growth before we "own" ourselves? And besides, we don't create anything new, we just enlarge all the things the mother built for us.
I know saying you only own that which you can keep sounds cruel, but it's the only internally consistent way to define ownership. It doesn't matter though. Ownership doesn't play a part in which came first.
So, what?
I'm stubborn, perhaps more so than even you, but because of this I make it my business to keep my definitions consistent. Had you pointed out a real inconsistency in what I say I would, in a heart beat, switch my stance and debate equally as hard for your side. But you didn't, because you couldn't.
So, you're damn right I keep reasserting my stance and I will continue to do so because as of this point mine has no inconsistencies while yours has plenty.
Which is why I say if you have something to bring to the table, now's the time. Otherwise, don't bother.
Is this all you've got now, Joe?
Re-asserting things you've already said?
Claiming these scientists back you means nothing as anyone with an IQ high enough to pronounce the word "chicken" can see that observing that the crystallization of the eggs is "jump-started" by OC-17 proves nothing outside of OC-17 being what "jump-starts" the crystallization the the eggs. Absolutely nothing.
There was a time where there were more points on my side of the debate. Was I right then, but reality changed so that I was wrong once your side had more points? Obviously not. I don't even see why you would say such a thing matters. I could easily make a bunch of sock-puppet accounts and change the point ratio very quickly, but it wouldn't magically make me right, common sense does that job more than well enough.
So far you're latest arguments has been "I'm right because":
1. I say so
2. Scientists say so
3. I have more points
And I've shown you that every one of these things mean nothing, but instead of a counter argument you just rotate to another, even more foolish "point".
If you have nothing to bring to the table, don't bother coming. =/
It seems you've gone beyond tenaciousness and have transcended to superciliousness.
You say I am in denial yet it is you whom refuses to concede even though you cannot find fault in what I say.
This isn't a matter of you "buying" it. This is a matter of you covering your ears and denying that what I say can be correct as it stands antithesis to what you currently believe and have formerly fought to prove.
Oh well, indeed. =/
I guess you weren't sincere in your previous proposal. =/
Again, you've brought up the same argument as though I haven't already responded to it.
How many times do I have to tell you? 99% of the egg was created by the hen. You're arbitrarily choosing to view the shell as separate from the egg. Why not view the yolk as separate from the egg, THAT'S not part of the fetus. Neither is the chalaza, the thin albumin, the thick albumin, the vitelline membrane, the inner shell membrane, the outer shell membrane OR the air cell.
Every single one of those things listed is made by the mother independent of the fetus.
Saying a chicken egg is that which is laid by a chicken because the hen makes the shell is every bit as stupid as saying a chicken egg is that which is laid by a chicken because the hen makes the chalaza.
Until the chick grows and manually separates itself from the shell the shell is 100% part of the egg, just like the chazala, just like the fetus.
I've already dealt with this point Joe. Go back and re-read it.
But even if you DID some how get a chicken-fetus into the shell of a duck egg without needing to change either to allow them to accept each other, all you would have is a chicken-fetus in the shell of a duck egg.
It wouldn't be a duck egg OR a chicken egg. It's a hybrid of the two and should only logically be referred to as such. =/
The shell is NOT part of the parent once it is laid, just as the rest of the egg is not once laid. There is no physical connection to the parent. Perhaps you meant it's part of the parent when it is still un-laid, but then so is 99% of the egg, which would make that an arbitrary separation. So, either the shell is part of the egg or it is it is it's own unit independent of either the egg OR the parent... which is also an arbitrary separation.
The shell is just a container, sure; but that's like saying the chalazae is "just an anchor".
It isn't much on it's own, but the whole conception will fail without it.
Now you're just projecting. =/
When scientists claimed the atom was indivisible, were they right? No. Just because scientists say it, doesn't make it so.
But at least that conclusion was a matter of observation. This isn't even a question of observation! How you define a chicken is arbitrary. How you define a chicken egg is arbitrary. The only thing you must then consider is if your definitions are free of inconsistencies.
You have failed to do so and the findings of these scientists doesn't prove anything other than that chickens us OC-17 to harden their eggs faster.
Claiming you're right because SCIENTISTS "back" you up in a matter like this makes as much sense as claiming you're right because ARTISTS "back" you up. XD
The last point in this debate was mine and you have yet to debunk it. I am 100% willing to change my position if you can do that. I hoped you of all people would of had at least the maturity to do the same. =/
