No, not really lol. She's pretty conservative generally speaking.

To be fair, in the 'old wild west,' to steal a mans horse was, quite frequently, a de facto sentence to slow death for that man. A man whos horse was stolen all too often faced death from exhaustion and dehydration in the desert, whereas a company who has been looted faces the horror of filing an insurance claim.

My Mom drives a Prius, and she's Republican...

Possibly, but he's going to want a lot more than a book deal out of it, I'm sure.

She certainly does! Her dick is 6'2". I know Bill can't top THAT.

You're right, and I owe you an apology. I didn't even realize at the time that I was being nasty. Sorry for that, I sometimes don't even realize how much my mood is coloring my speech as it's happening.

EXCEPT the only other elements around were the lightest elements, requiring even more time to build a singularity. Can't really conclude any less time is needed. But the heavy elements as well most certainly could have existed with no BB.

Oh, you were there? It's theorized that the overwhelming majority of elements were hydrogen and helium, but not the entirety. A black hole/singularity is a concern of overall mass- not the individual mass of each atom and molecule. Whether it's predominately heavy elements, predominately iron, or predominately helium, the condition for a black hole/singularity is simply that the mass is sufficient that gravitational attraction compresses the whole beyond the schwarzchild radius.

Again nothing is known about the state of matter in the theoretical singularity before the BB

The notBB idea completely accounts for the matter in the universe, without some unknown and unexplained super singularity exploding and creating the universe. Soooooo I'm liking the more complete explanation, that doesn't require an unexplained BB. I believe it has long been the case in theoretical physics that most often the most elegant and simple explanation turns out to be the strongest.

I think you're talking out of your ass. You can't even name the idea in question- WHAT idea? The poorly explored one in the article, you mean? No, that doesn't begin to completely account for all the matter in the universe.

Also, let's look at these two quotes of yours:

"nothing is known about the state of matter in the theoretical singularity before the BB"

"EXCEPT the only other elements around were the lightest elements:

One of these statements does not belong here.

Heavy Elements (link)

Doesn't really contest anything here- this shows the conclusions some have drawn from available data, but do not speak to heavy elements being ONLY formed in old stars, nor does it actually assert that their presence in the immediate aftermath of the big bang was impossible; even if only .0000001% of the mass contained within the big bang formed heavy elements during the initial expansion, that is still a massive raw quantity of heavy elements.

Black holes have never been seen (link)

Of course they haven't been seen. To see something requires viewing light either emitted or reflected by it, neither of which occurs with these particular phenomena. As I said, they were called black holes initially because they appeared to be actual holes- as in regions where there should be detectable emissions, but none exist. The phenomena were initially detected and their nature inferred due to the fact that light 'falls' into it.

You may be right about the uneven distribution if the BBT is correct

What are you trying to say here, exactly?

There can't be an uneven distribution of matter after a big bang if no big bang occurred; that's non-sensical.

If a big bang occurred, the distribution of matter and energy was almost certainly uneven. Asserting a perfect distribution of all matter and energy in all directions is quite a claim to make.

I don't see how any of this constitutes actually disputing my position either, care to clarify that?

The discrepancies you point out, exist only if you assume that heavy elements could be part of a singularity.

You'll note that I noted the formations could occur during or just after the big bang as well, while all the material is still reasonably close. We also don't know what the initial matter that expanded from the big bang looked like- some of it may well have originated as heavy elements at the moment of the big bang.

Further

Also a cause for uneven distribution is not shown in the BBT.

Do we have any reason to believe that the distribution of mass and energy from the big bang was 100% uniform and perfect? If not, then we're working with an uneven distribution.

We do in fact have a sound theory that says the heavy elements are formed in stars.

I'm not contesting that- I'm contesting the idea that this is the only way that they can possibly form. If it is possible for these to form during the course of the/a big bang, then it's pretty obvious we don't have a way to directly observe that yet.

Further, nothing you've said speaks anything regarding the possibility of an inaccurate timeframe.

Finally black hole theory has one big hole in it. Namely that it does not seem like a hole at all. Matter seems to accumulate, rather than pass through a hole. Black holes are known to increase in size as they draw in matter. All they are sure of is that in BHT a powerful gravity well exists. What's inside it is pure speculation.

This isn't a hole in the theory. Black holes were named long before we had any understanding whatsoever of what they are, because they literally appeared as distant 'holes' in the night sky as observed by a telescope, due to their gravity preventing light from escaping. Nobody who is informed at all seriously believes these are actually holes of some kind.

It's a relic of the individual terminology used, and we continue to use this terminology because we don't yet know enough about the phenomena to give them a 'more accurate' name.

Neither side is really accurate for me. I use it, but probably not as often as I should.

I read, investigate myself, and learn in general constantly, and retain much of it, but next to none of it is done under the context of trying to win a debate down the line. I often find myself entering a debate on a topic I've learned much about, and more often than not work from memory initially. When my claims are questioned, I tend to backtrack to find the sources I originally worked with. Most of the time it's quite accurate, but sometimes it turns out that I misremembered something, or conflated two different issues in my memory, or something to that effect.

If I approached this less casually, I'd probably be a better debater- but debating itself is just one of the things I use in my endless quest for knowledge. Almost every time, even if the other side is completely wrong from a factual perspective, there is something useful or at least interesting to be learned by debating them- and I welcome having my positions questioned and criticized, as regardless of whether it reaffirms that I'm right or causes me to seriously re-examine the issue, I benefit from it in some way- more in the latter than the former, really.

I'll probably continue the same, honestly. I don't feel entirely comfortable regurgitating something I just googled, as I generally prefer to look at an issue from as many sides and varying sources as possible before forming an opinion- not that I can prevent myself from inadvertently forming one before I have much in the way of information, but at the very least I can refrain from asserting something I believe to be true if I haven't satisfied my own burden of proof.

While I'll need to do further reading on the subject, as it is interesting, the specific criticisms levvied against BBT in the article don't seem particularly well thought out.

The two examples given are:

1) A black hole that evidently formed inside of 900M years when accumulating mass that quickly should be more or less impossible. But given that the big bang concept theorizes that all matter and energy in the universe was originally (or just previously, in the cyclic big bang theory) in one location as is, it would seem to have pretty ready access to far more mass than is needed at one point in this history, and an uneven scattering with a particularly high concentration would be more than sufficient for the black hole to skip most of the accumulation time by virtue of having most of the mass it needed from the get-go.

2) Heavy elements that evidently formed inside of 700M years when the processes known to create them are only known to occur in stars much older than that. But, again, with all of the matter and energy that exists being concentrated into one spot at some point, certainly there would be enough pressure and energy for fusion processes to begin prior to, during, and even for some time after the big bang before the energy disperses. Similar to the black hole bit, in a way.

Both are also fundamentally rooted in the idea that we know exactly how black holes and heavy elements form, and further know that the known method(s) are the ONLY way(s) they can form.

Both of these discrepancies could also arise if we happened to be basing our predictions on the time the big bang allegedly occurred on a very limited area of the universe due to technical limitations.

Even that article suggests that possibly a number of 'smaller bangs' could be a normal part of the process. In this case, the big bang theory may well be correct, just wrong in scope, and be limited only to an area somewhat larger than what we can currently observe. This would be a case of the data being correct, but the conclusion being incorrect- the conclusion here being that this event is the origin of the entire universe. The whole thing may well be marriageable to a cyclic big bang theory as well, depending on the information we uncover.

That said, I'm not saying that they're wrong, just that I don't see how the information provided in the article actually discredits BBT without making further baseless assumptions. Honestly, I hope they're right- it's a wonderful thing when a previously held scientific theory is found to be untenable, because thats when a surge of new investigation and learning begins.

I... may have gotten to this debate via the waterfall, when I was technically supposed to be working, and couldn't watch the video. Possibly.

I believe that when we are called to jury duty we should perform it.

Attempting to evade jury duty is a very common phenomenon. Those called to jury duty roughly fall into three categories:

1) Those who are able to evade jury duty, employing knowledge of the proceedings and the intellect to leverage it in order to do so.

2) Those who do not want to perform jury duty but are lacking in the knowledge/intellect required to do so

3) Those that accept jury duty as a responsibility and do not attempt to evade it.

Those who actually serve jury duty are limited to categories 2 and 3 above, predominately 2. This has the net effect of lowering the actual burden of proof required by prosecutors, and allowing legal precedents to arise that should not.

The more people we have in category 3, the better.

"It'll be a great memory" is primarily a justification for what amounts to a very short-term diversion, rather than an actual motivation to do something.

We don't do the things that make great memories for the purpose of making great memories, at least most of the time. We do the things that make great memories because great memories tend to come from great experiences, however transient. The memories are more of a side effect.

A pragmatist will note the transience of these pleasant experiences, and will generally hold that their transience means they are not worth the costs (financial or otherwise) of experiencing them. The memory argument is typically used as a justification here; even if the experience is momentary, the memories last for most of a lifetime.

"Creating memories together" is another form of this, which is primarily (though not always) more concerned with establishing or reinforcing bonds between individuals. Creating the memories are merely a side effect of the actual intent in most cases, but it's far more pleasant to say that one wants to do something with you to "create a new memory with you" than it is to say that one wants to do the same to "establish an emotional bond with you."

There are, of course, exceptions, where creating memories is the primary goal. This is most frequently the case with a family member who knows he or she will be dying soon, or at the very least will be facing serious life-threatening situations- it's most frequently a parent with a young child when this is the goal; a terminally ill parent who is still mobile but expects to lose mobility soon might want to create memories for their child while they still can- a military parent who is to be deployed to a very dangerous area might want to do the same.

debating* with argument, rather. Didn't notice that until after a vote was cast.

You're confusing dating with arguing. Clinging to these commandments in an argument would fairly and reasonably be called a cop-out for those unable to hold their own.

Debate is different from argument, and debate is all about rationally presenting each position and questioning the premises, assumptions, reasoning, and conclusion on the other side. It's supposed to result in eventually reach a conclusion, with one side or the other demonstrated as being a generally more reasonable position to hold; a decision making tool, and one that also allows aspects of our own position that we may not examine fully to be looked at with unbiased eyes. In a debate, one side or the other may prove to be the better option, but nobody loses- everybody wins, both (or more) debaters and the audience.

The problem is when one tries to apply the debate format to something that is fundamentally subjective, or when an individual stoops to fallacies (such as most of these) rather than reasoning in what is supposed to be a debate. It turns into an argument, and there is only one winner- and it's a shallow win, because who knows what the better option is after all that?

Better to glorify the mental traits that distinguish us from other animals, than to glorify those traits that can be easily surpassed by beasts of burden or machines. The nerds are the most human among us.

There's an app... er, spell for that!

If a priest were to bless the Atlantic Ocean, each blessing would convert 1 pint of water. He must be in physical contact with a portion of the water to perform the blessing.

It's a level 1 spell, so if the priest were to max out his level and allocated all his spell slots to it, he could perform the spell several dozen times (~70 castings of level 1 or higher spells with good stats and other bonuses). Overall, that amounts to about 10 gallons/day max.

Based on an estimate of 264.17 billion gallons of waters in the Atlantic Ocean, it would take a maxed out priest roughly 72 million years to bless the entirety. Better make sure it's an immortal priest.

Even more complicated is the need of 5 pounds of powdered silver as a material component for the spell. That's over 21 trillion pounds of silver total. So... a very rich immortal priest.

289 points on that account. The operators identity should be pretty clear- or at least, the "main" account should be. Look at the name, writing style, the way the created debates are structured, and the context provided in this thread.

I need feminism because, even though such was not their intent, their actions have sparked additional scrutiny into injustices affecting other groups that might otherwise have gone scoffed at unanimously. Even now, many of these injustices are downplayed by the majority, but at least some are thinking about them now.

Exactly what could possibly be accomplished by further disparaging an organization already known to be unscrupulously violent?

Even ff there is no potential for discussion and understanding with such an organization, there is still no benefit I can see to disparaging them. Doing so only gives them more ammunition to fuel propaganda by which to further indoctrinate others to their cause. The best propaganda is built on truths and half-truths that are spun to invoke specific emotions in the audience.

I mean, what? Do you want more recruits for ISIS? Do you want them to have more fuel to inspire further violence and terrorism? Aren't you opposed to them?

No, it didn't. That's just the most inflammatory troll persona I can name off the top of my head. I'm assuming at this point that you're a troll persona, possibly by the same operator even- no evidence in your case, I just don't want to believe that someone could actually want that, and would rather believe they would only do so to get a rise out of others. Call it naivete.

I dunno, that's a long time. We'll probably have brain-computer interfaces by then to augment our memory. The proofs of concept are already there, it's just a few decades of refinement to wait for.

Benefit of the doubt, of which I suppose I should know better.

The effect of such speech is to make the situation worse. That in and of itself is a bad thing. If you're doing so intentionally with the full knowledge of its effects... I think I like FromWithin better.

Funny story. The summer before my freshman year of high school, I went on vacation to a nearby beach campground for a week. This was what my family tended to do for vacation every year given our finances, but I didn't mind.

Anyway, there was a particularly attractive spanish blonde girl around my age staying at the campground that same week, who favored a small pale blue bikini. At the time I was nearly completely inexperienced with girls, and tended to get so nervous about them that approaching them was more or less out of the question at that point- but oh, did I ogle. And ogle. And ogle some more. I thought I was being really stealthy about it, too.

Anyway, we came home from vacation, I finished up the last of summer vacation, and then went to start my first day of high school. And whom do I run into in homeroom? You guessed it. And I mentioned thinking I was being stealthy about it? Not so much. She recognized me and called me out on it immediately.

She wasn't unpleasant in doing so, and in retrospect her manner and body language were most definitely flirtatious- but I didn't know a damned thing about girls at the time, and my humiliated stammering apology and retreat certainly did not score me any points.

So... yes, men do remember the bikini clad women we ogle at the beach, at least some of us. And some of those women remember us too.

You can disagree all you want- this isn't a subjective thing, mediated by opinion. This is a case where the problem with the comparison is objectively measurable and has predictable results. You're wrong here- not as in having an opinion I disagree with, but as in subtracting 2-3 and getting a positive result.

Nazi comparisons are not constructive. They are insulting and divisive. There is no way to reconcile that, and there is no place for it in civilized conversation. End of story.

Seriously? You are telling me that there are no instances where making a comparison to Nazis is appropriate? Really? Wow!

Why don't we expunge all references to Nazis. Let's destroy any and all books that talk about the Nazis and eliminate the history and public knowledge of Nazis. After all, making references to Nazis is so offensive that we must protect against it.

Going to stop you right there. I stated that there was no place for comparing individuals or their tactics to the nazis or their tactics, and I've given a pretty thorough explanation as to why. This is pure dissembling on your part.

The nazis are still a part of history, and did terrible things that, like it or not, have shaped the modern world heavily. They also made terrible mistakes that must not be forgotten lest they be repeated.

Pointing out that comparing individuals and tactics to nazis accomplishes nothing positive is not suggesting that everything related to the nazis should be covered up, and it's ridiculous that you would suggest that. That's not even a potential 'slippery slope' end result- it's an entirely different direction.

Furthermore, since it is never, ever, appropriate to make a reference to Nazis, there's no down side. If we do this then we won't be tempted to call skin heads Neo-Nazis and risk insulting them. When some evil dictator starts "ethnic cleansing" we won't be tempted to make the comparison and risk offending them.

Already touched on this. Can you point out one example, any example, where comparing an individual, group, or tactics used by such to the nazis or those used by the nazis has been directly responsible for any improvement? A single one?

When someone tries to categorize something, that can be considered as human, as being sub-human, let us make sure that we take their feelings into consideration and not say, "Hmmm, the Nazis once categorized Jews as vermin and were somewhat successful in getting, what would other wise be considered normal humans, to kill beings that were considered human before the categorization took place." Let us just not question it. Let us just say, "Yeah, you're right!!! They are sub-human."

Ok, seriously- is English your second or third language, or were you raised on esoteric dialect? This is a non-sequitur, any way you slice it.

Godwin's law refers to the theory that as an online discussion progresses, it becomes inevitable that someone or something will eventually be compared to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis, regardless of the original topic. It makes no claim as to the validity of the comparison. That has to be determined on a case by case basis.

As I've said before, the problem is not whether or not the comparison is valid. Frequently, it is a valid comparison. The problem is that the very act of making that comparison NEVER makes the situation better, and frequently makes it worse.

Pretty much; that stigma gives such comparisons no place in civilized conversation.

In civilized conversation, when someone makes a bad call, he or she is subjected to constructive criticism. Constructive criticism includes several key components beyond communicating that the criticized thing is 'bad;' it includes specifically what is wrong with the criticized thing, what is RIGHT with the criticized thing, and suggestions for improvement. When the components of constructive criticism are removed, all you are left with is an insult. Lacking any form of constructive criticism, all a nazi comparison is is an insult- and a particularly dire one given the stigma. For most people, comparing them to a nazi is on par with a guy calling an atheist feminist a merciless cunt who owes him a rib.

Are you seriously not getting this? It doesn't matter whether you are comparing the individuals or their tactics to the nazis. It is the fact that you are making comparisons to the nazis at all that is the problem. You are saying "Your behaviour is bad because the nazis did the same thing." That is pure polarizing divisive inflammatory sensationalism of the exact same kind that you are decrying. It demonizes the individual without actually delving into any explanation of what is wrong- exactly the nazi tactic you decry here. YES, calling a fetus a parasite is everything we've said here. And comparing the behavior to nazis is exactly the same thing. And THAT is how to criticize the behavior. Specific criticisms, that can lead to specific resolutions. Telling someone they're doing something wrong is insufficient, and doing it in an abusive manner is hateful.

And yet, likening individuals to nazis- even if such is accurate- has the exact same effect of classifying them as sub-human/inhuman. This is obvious, and there is no way you somehow missed that there was a massive social stigma attached to that organization. The nazis did many things- some of them were executed well (even if for a horrible cause), and many of them were atrocities. If the ONLY negative thing you can say about something is that the nazis did it, then you're probably attacking the wrong thing. If there is something reasonable to object to in a persons argument, such as a dishonest strategy or intentional fallacy, you needn't compare them to nazis- but rather, should call out the specific behaviour for what it is. Comparing them to nazis, even when such is accurate, does not do this. It merely conflates the issue, demonizes the accused, and polarizes the situation further, setting everybody back. It serves no purpose other than to be inflammatory and divisive. That is the irony of Godwin's Law; in proving Godwin's Law, the poster himself/herself uses a favorite tactic of the nazis, as you've described here.

Probably the same reason he allegedly:

1) Punished Adam and Eve for wrongdoing committed prior to their being able to conceptualize right and wrong after being deceived by a serpent that he put there to deceive them.

2) Looked more favorably on one of Adam and Eve's children than the other due to the quality of their offerings, scoffing at vegetables and cheering for fatty meat, never giving a moments consideration to the massive bias he was engendering. And when this blatantly unfair treatment predictably resulted in tension between the brothers, of course it was entirely Cain's fault- nevermind the fact that he was being raised by parents who never knew what morals were until adulthood, nevermind how to teach them to children.

3) Requires blood to pay for sin, and refuses to budge from that position, despite ostensibly having conceptualized and created the entire system for redeeming sin. When this proves non-scalable, he changes the rules, but only just enough to let one dude pay for everyones sins. Except it's not everyone's sin, it's only those who profess belief despite his other actions. This alone should be enough. There was nothing obstructing god from changing the system, he just didn't feel like it, and opted to let a prophet who may or may not have been his offspring die a torturous death instead.

4) Requires belief for the aforementioned salvation, despite having gone out of his way to design the earth in such a way as to suggest it was much older than it really is, and to suggest natural processes created life rather than himself. Case in point: Burying various fake skeletons in different layers of rock arranged such that they mirror the way layers of sediment form when observed by man.

5) Divinely inspires numerous works to help guide people to the faith, but intentionally introduces massive values dissonance, inconsistencies, and conflicts to further dissuade individuals from believing.

It all makes sense if we assume the christian god to be a #trollgod.

planted fake dinosaur skeletons in carefully-engineered layers of soil to suggest

I understand all that- I just feel that even in a rape scenario, if abortion is to be considered wrong, then those involved in the decision to abort share some of that wrong; it does not lie solely on the rapist, even if the rape itself does. Even if it's in the pursuit of resetting the conditions, one cannot be responsible for making a decision and not be at least somewhat culpable for the results of that decision. The same logic that assigns the fault for the abortion to the rapist also assigns some of that fault to the mother.

For example, most arguments I have heard for abortion would apply equally to infants.

This is largely because of an assumption made by the pro-life side, that it is a question of a human existence and that what we define as a human existence is the only one with any value; many believe that the only question here is the point at which the fetus is considered human- and you're right that in the 'person' sense of the word an infant does not yet qualify, generally for several months after being born.

But there is more to it than that. A newborn infant may not have the developed consciousness of what we call a person, but they certainly have all of the features that we associate with animals. In addition to being pro-choice, I am also fundamentally opposed to causing needless pain/distress to any creature capable of experiencing such. We are also aware of the requirements of sufficient central nervous system development to experience pain or any type of distress, as well as sufficient peripheral nervous system development to experience pain. We don't know at what point the fetus can actually experience these things, but we know the point in development where the physical structures necessary for the fetus to potentially experience them form. These typically form sufficiently enough to theoretically function midway through the second trimester. Allowing for differing rates of development and some uncertainty regarding the actual time of conception, I have personally arrived at the following breakdown:

Conception through the end of the first trimester, I consider the embryo to have no rights whatsoever. Abortion would be allowed during this stage for any reason, including personal convenience.

Second trimester through the development of consciousness (occurs after birth), I consider the fetus to have animal rights. This means, to me, that it should be cared for properly and not subjected to undue pain or distress whenever necessary, and that it has a right to live. You can't abort a second trimester fetus, you can't beat your dog with a rod, you can't kill your dog just because he pissed you off. That right to live is superceded, however, when the animal is a dire threat to a persons life. It is acceptable to put down an animal carrying a deadly disease, or has a history of attacking and harming humans. Similarly, it is acceptable to abort a second trimester or older fetus when its presence is a dire, direct threat to the mothers life. I do not make this distinction for simply being a minor threat; I don't believe a dog that bites someone after having his tail pulled deserves to be put down, and I don't believe that speculation about nominal or slightly elevated risk levels is sufficient to justify aborting a fetus at this stage. This persists through infancy as well. If an infant (or an individual with a severe enough mental handicap as to be effectively an infant) was holding a loaded gun for whatever reason, pointed in the direction of an officer, and the officer responded with force, I would consider it a tragedy, but I would not consider it wrongdoing on the officers part- even if the infant couldnt possibly know what it was doing, there are still cases of infants (and mentally handicapped individuals) discharging firearms and killing themselves or others.

Human-child rights I assign when the individual is able to demonstrate self-awareness; we have numerous well-documented methods to establish this. This development varies widely between individuals, typically occurring during the first year, sometimes as young as 3 months, sometimes well into the second year. Some individuals with severe mental handicaps never reach this stage, and some individuals with mental handicaps who do never exceed this stage. Individuals in this stage have human rights, but still fall under the control of a parent or guardian figure, and are limited in many freedoms because of this.

Full adult human rights are assigned when the individual is sufficiently physically and mentally developed so as to be in theory self sufficient; able to seek and perform some form of work to provide for himself or herself. Outside of a legal age of majority, this would be subjective and dependent on development. Given a legal age of majority, go with that.

Note that I refer to what I consider to be universal rights here, not necessarily to those encoded into law, and also that this is oversimplification and doesn't cover all issues either.

Thats all I wanted. I'm not contesting the credibility of the article, more the implications of the wording and further implication of consensus regarding said implications than can really be said of it.

This is not an article presented by the NLM any more than a work of fiction in a local library is presented by that library.

The NLM contains numerous articles by numerous authors, some of which are firmly grounded in science, some of which include some speculation and hypothetical scenarios, and some of which contradict one another.

NLM articles are accepted based on specific criteria, which are detailed further on their site. Among other things, it is noted that the articles are not the word of the NLM, and does not necessarily reflect the beliefs or standpoints of the NLM. Look for yourself.

The usage of baby in that context is colloquial- women who miscarried in the blastocyst stage still often refer to the miscarried blastocyst as their baby.

Like I said before; this does not constitute either an authoritative statement with the NLMs "seal of approval," nor does it even represent a direct assertion of what you're suggesting by the individuals who wrote the article. Both of these premises are necessary for the way you have presented it to hold true, and neither of those premises pan out.

Ah, but a victim was not created. An unwanted pregnancy was created. That developing fetus does not become a victim until subjected to abortion- and when they are, it is the mothers decision to do so that changes that unwanted pregnancy to a victim.

Calling it 'necessary' as such is just an attempt to justify and rationalize the act. And regardless of what the law says- if abortion is wrong, then deciding to abort even after you've been raped is wrong.

A pro-choice standpoint doesn't have these problems, and tends to follow from its premises very well. This whole business here... doesn't.

The dishonesty is not in supplying the link, it is the way you present it as being authoritative in ways that it is not.

Your post,

"According to the National Library of Medicine, it's a baby at 5 weeks.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/ article/002398.htm,"

carries the implication that this is an authoritative statement regarding fetal development made by a consensus of the NLM.

It is neither. It is colloquial usage of language (alongside the actual biological terms) based on the target audience of the article, made by the authors and editors of a single article within countless others stored within the NLM.

It is not being 'presented by' the NLM, the NLM is merely keeping a copy of it, alongside millions of other articles; stating that they are 'presenting it' is akin to accusing a local library of racism, citing 'their presentation' of an excerpt from the librarys copy of "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" as evidence. This article is not the word of the NLM, and Huck Finn is not the word of the local library; these are just individual pieces of work that each keeps.

Within that same article, at week 3, the statement is made "The embryo is what will develop into your baby." This carries the implication that an embryo is not a baby, but merely a stage of development on the way to what will eventually become the baby AFTER the embryonic stage- presumably during or after the fetal stage.

Technically, you didn't lie- but you presented your source material as being much more than it really is, and as saying things it isn't really saying.

And how is it being established as "necessary?" That seems to be the lynchpin here. If it isn't "necessary" then a significant amount of the responsibility for the action rests on the woman who opted to have the abortion, even if she isn't responsible for the presence of the embryo in the first place.

I'm well aware of the reason that the pro-life side takes this tactic, but I don't see how it follows validly from their rhetoric- except seeing rape and incest babies as an acceptable sacrifice for their agenda, which is specifically that unborn babies should not be killed.

So how is it established as "necessary?"

So, question for you. Your viewpoint is that the fetus has a right to live, is an innocent, and whatnot, and that abortion is an atrocity committed against innocent defenseless life, correct?

If that is your standpoint, why do you have no issue with abortions after incest or rape? Is a baby any less of an innocent because its biological parents were blood relatives, or one forced themselves on the other? Isn't aborting under these scenarios effectively punishing the child for the crimes of the (or one of the) parents?

The main arguments for these are (for rape) the psychological well being of the mother (and subsequently the child), and (for incest) the problem of developmental defects, particularly negative ones. Those nazis you compare pro-choice people to? They were also known for having a decidedly final solution for the mentally ill and those with birth defects.

I'm pro-choice myself, mind you- it just seems that your actual stance doesn't seem to actually follow from your rhetoric, unless I'm missing something.

This is an article contained within the National Library of Medicine, not an authoritative statement by the NLM as a whole.

At no point in the article linked is any assertion made at what point it 'becomes' a baby. The only identified stages of development are the zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetal stages. The term 'baby' is used throughout the article, and explains the entire development process- it is never labelled a baby as a stage of development, and as this article is geared towards expecting mothers, there is no assertion of human features at any point as an answer to the abortion question.

Analyzing the writing can also reveal the spin that the author has on the whole thing; note that the writer defines pregnancy as starting before conception, with the womans last period, with actual intercourse and fertilization not taking place until week 3 of pregnancy. The writer of this particular article also defines pregnancy as starting before conception, with the mothers last period, reinforcing this both at the beginning (noting conception in week 3) and at the end, stating "In your 40th week of pregnancy, it's been 38 weeks since conception, and your baby could be born any day now."

Ultimately, this article says nothing truly relevant regarding abortion, and attempting to spin it as such is rather dishonest. Did you make this assumption by doing a search within the article for the word baby, to note the earliest point that the article refers to it as a baby, regardless of the writers intent?

The overwhelming majority of what comes in my email never gets read or even looked at, but thats largely due to my profession; I get information on systems that are completely irrelevant to the scope of my position, number in the hundreds or occasionally thousands, daily.

A different model monitor, the same model monitor with different color temperature/intensity settings, the same model monitor with the same settings that is older or newer, the same exact monitor viewed from different angles- all of these will give a different overall image

Looking at it from another monitor... on this one it looks like a medium blue and a dark tawny brown. The discrepancy in perception is, in my opinion, simply a factor of different displays being different, further complicated by the fact that the dress is backlit in the photo here.

You're colour blind.

Could you link me to the specific disorders that cause white-blue or gold-black colorblindness? I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way.

That aside...

Strictly speaking, upon scrutiny, the 'white/blue' portion looks like a very pale blue upon scrutiny, but is certainly closer to 'white' than it is to 'blue.' Again, with the image linked in this article, looked at directly on my flat panel monitor, with the color temperature and intensity settings that I am using.

A different model monitor, the same model monitor with different color temperature/intensity settings, the same model monitor with the same settings that is older or newer, the same exact monitor viewed from different angles- all of these will give a different overall image.

In this case, it's probably just the airbrush like effect that our vision has when two different colors are in close proximity. Take a sheet of lined white paper, like from a notebook. Look at it dead on and its obviously white with blue lines. Tilt it away from you slowly sideways until the lines blur together, and it looks more grayish/pale blue. When you view your monitor from an angle, you are in a sense compressing the image together (your screen looks far wider from dead on than it does from an angle, but is still putting forth the same amount of light), and the angle further causes increased refraction and diffraction as the light passes through the surface of your screen.

I saw that too. I think I would need to see the actual dress in person to make the call. But the specific image generating the controversy looks either white and gold or blue and black/brown to me depending on the angle I view it from.

I see blue and dark brown/black when I look at the image on a screen that is tilted at an angle to me, either laterally or vertically. 30-45 degree angle depending on the screen.

I see white and gold when looking at the image straight on.

Not a specific person I suppose- but if one common activity really irritates me, it's those who try to steer political discussions towards high-tension, high-emotion partisan topics when they're irrelevant to the specific discussion at hand.

For example, discussions about health care, foreign policy, drug/gun law, etc will often turn into an argument about gay rights or abortion. I can only presume steering the conversation towards these topics is an attempt to work with/exploit the emotional side of the audience while simultaneously sabotaging their rationality, reducing the likelihood of ones own extremely position coming under serious scrutiny. Couple of people on here love to do that.

On the other hand smoking pot can cause a decided lack of awareness of what your "thing" is doing at any given moment, which is generally a bad thing thing.

I want to know where you're getting pot that potent. Back when I used to smoke, I saw a first time smoker taking gravityrips of some real good headies. That's the highest I ever saw anyone from pot, and while he was blazed, he wasn't anywhere near that level.

I think alcohol has a much higher potential for mismanagement of "things," and for some it doesn't take much.