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. =/
Well, in all fairness it was ONLY the scientist's findings that I took issue with and argued against in my original comment. You started arguing with me.
I have logic backing me up.
Besides, scientists are not infallible. Just because a scientist claims it does not make it so. These scientists record observations and I'm not saying their observation was wrong, just the conclusion they drew from it; which is a matter of philosophy (or, basic logic).
Which is something that these British scientists, apparently, are not particularly adept in. ;)
Any scientists claiming the chicken came first that may be reading this, I hereby challenge you.
What? No, Joe. That's not even an argument. You're just re-asserting what you already believe.
You're saying
Almost chicken >> Almost-chicken egg >> chicken
But the chicken comes from the materials of the egg. Just as the chicken must be defined as a chicken based on its OWN genetic makeup; so too must the egg be defined by the genes of the egg.
If the egg carries the genes of (what will become) a chicken, then it MUST be a chicken egg.
So let me get this straight. You're saying that the chicken came first because the hen makes the egg shell independent of the chicken zygote thus a chicken egg must be that which is laid by a chicken since chickens create and lay eggs regardless of if they're fertilized or not. That way even unfertilized eggs can be called chicken eggs even if no chickens will grow from them.
I agree with 95% of what you say, but what I cannot agree to is drawing a line between the egg shell and the other parts of the egg.
The mother makes the shell, inner shell membrane, the outer shell membrane, the thin album, the chalaza, thick album, vitelline membrane, yolk, the air cell AND the oocyte all independent of the fetus.
The only thing the fetus does is use these parts to allow it to grow into a chick. Viewing the shell as separate from everything else is an arbitrary decision as the fetus uses every part of the egg, including the shell; and if even one of those things listed above isn't there then the whole conception will fail. Yes, the fetus doesn't absorb the shell like it does most of the other parts, but the shell is every bit a part of the egg as the yolk.
But, your point still stands. The problem as I see it is this
1. Chicken egg = egg laid by chicken
The problem here is of course that you're left with the regression problem I listed earlier since the will-be-chicken uses the egg to grow into a chicken and if the egg is determined by it's parent then so must the chick that the egg will become.
2. Chicken egg = egg w/ a chicken fetus in it
The problem here is that unfertilized eggs laid by chickens will have no classification.
With situation No. 1 you are left with an impossible problem as you would have to define everything from the first life forms up to present day chickens as chickens... which would defeat the purpose of defining animals, but with No.2 you simply need a slight shift in how you view chickens and eggs.
Fertilized eggs >> Chicken eggs
Unfertilized eggs >> Chicken's eggs/Eggs laid by a chicken
An unfertilized chicken egg (chicken's egg) is that which is laid by a chicken, a fertilized chicken egg (chicken egg) is that which has a chicken fetus in it. There is no inconsistencies with these definitions, but there is a major inconsistency when you define both unfertilized AND fertilized eggs as chicken eggs.
Well, then you're talking about the shell (or, at least the parts of an egg on an individual level) and NOT the egg. The shell is one of 11 parts of the egg, but NOT the egg in its entirety.
Take the shell out of the equation for a minute. Everything inside is part of the egg. The shell acts as a uterus. So, since all the insides of the egg are what make up the chicken you must agree that if the uterus wasn't part of the egg and was instead a part of the mother (like in humans), then the "egg" would be defined by what it grows into.
Otherwise you get an infinite regression. This is a human. Why? Because it came out of a human. How do we know THAT human was a human? Because it too came out of a human etc, etc.
So, If the shell (uterus) is NOT part of the "egg", then a chicken egg is that which produces a chicken, like how a human is that which has the genes of a "human", not what births it since every generation is slightly different than the previous.
Great, but bring the shell back into the equation. If the uterus IS part of the egg and that which is the egg is to produce a chicken and a chicken egg must be defined as that which produces a chicken less an infinite regression occurs than the egg, in its entirety, INCLUDING the shell; must have come first by definition.
This is why I say an egg is ONE unit. If you start disecting the egg in a duality, that which comes from the mother and that which comes from the father; you open up yet another regression because the genes that the mother had that caused it to from a shell outside the zygote came part from her father and mother. And likewise to her mother's mother and her mother's mother's mother Etc.
So, for simplicities sake in order to define a chicken and define a chicken egg you MUST look at them as singular units and as I've said before, if a chicken egg is one unit then it must be that which a chicken comes from.
Why is it that I don't get notified when you message me??? o.O
No. How the firtilization happens IS within the scope of this analysis because for rooster sperm to be accepted in a ducks egg one of three things would have to happen.
1. The sperm is changed to be accepted into the egg (which would make it duck sperm)
2. The egg is changed to accept the rooster sperm (which would make it a chicken egg.)
Or,
3. Both are changed just enough to accept eachother (which would make it neither a duck, nor a chicken.)
You have a misunderstanding of what a chicken egg is. It is one unit. The almost-rooster's sperm meets the almost-chicken's egg and a single zygote is created.
Just because the outside of the zygote hardens doesn't change that it is part of the will-be-chicken.
So, knowing this, if almost-chicken and almost-rooster mate their combined genetics will create a fertilized egg that will one day hatch into what you would define as a chicken.
Since the egg it (the chicken) grew from is part of the chicken untill it hatches from it, a chicken egg must be that which a chicken hatches from.
Otherwise you are saying that a non-chicken and a chicken are the same thing as you say the egg (which is part of the unborn chicken) and the unborn chicken are two different things.
That would be like saying a human zygote and the egg part of the zygote are two different things. =/
Almost-Chicken >> Egg >> Chicken
Regardless of how you define chicken egg if its egg came before it then the egg must have come first.
If you define a chicken egg as an egg laid by a chicken then there can be no chicken eggs.
Not-Chicken >> Not-Chicken Egg >> Chicken???
That makes no sense. If there was a chicken preceded by an egg and the egg was preceded by something that was not a chicken then the egg the chicken came from came first in the line of chicken generations.
I agree that the egg was laid by a non-chicken, but if the species of the child is determined by its parents and NOT the genes of the child itself then whatever the parents birth MUST be considered the same species as themselves. Which means everything a non chicken will give birth to will be a non-chicken.
Non-Chicken >> Non-Chicken Egg >> Non-Chicken hatch-ling
This is senseless. Nothing in that article has anything to do with whether the chicken or the egg came first.
"Scientists cracked the puzzle after discovering that the formation of eggs is possible only thanks to a protein found in chicken's ovaries. That means eggs have to be formed in chickens first."
So because chickens posses a protein that helps them to harden eggs faster the chicken came first? If chicken eggs crystallized slower, or even outside the body, would that mean the egg must have came first? NO.
Besides, this chicken with OC-17 must have come from an egg herself, which would mean their was an egg before the chicken. So even if having a protein that speeds up the crystallization of eggs was the deciding factor of which came first (it isn't) it STILL fails.
