|
Foyes36 posted:Why do I keep seeing this guy pop up? Who the gently caress is he in 200 words or less? He's one half of the Patreon campaign to make an anti-Anita Sarkeesian movie. So far they've convinced idiots to had over more than eight thousand dollars a month.
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:01 |
|
|
The Dark One posted:He's one half of the Patreon campaign to make an anti-Anita Sarkeesian movie. So far they've convinced idiots to had over more than eight thousand dollars a month. Shocking how the Venn diagram of gamergate MRAs and race realists is a drat perfect circle. Cato libertarian trash (see the link) just makes for the trifecta of shitheadishness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
e: wrong thread
woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The problems that are currently being discussed in the bioethics community don't have to do with sexual orientation (there's not any meaningful evidence that sexual orientation is genetic or biologically determined, and as you say, such discussions tend to be traps). The present concern is largely over sex-selective abortion, although evidence of such practices is debated. There are also issues regarding other genetic conditions and statistical associations between genotype and phenotype. It's a very thorny issue; on the one hand we really don't want to encourage a situation that would result in a genetic class system because holy poo poo the normal class systems are bad enough already, but on the other hand it doesn't really seem all that unreasonable (to me at least) to say that embryos that will probably turn into a completely nonfunctional human beings who cannot even reliably feed themselves should probably be aborted in most circumstances. Shades of gray doesn't even begin to cover the myriad of potential issues with regards to what is basically Human-guided Natural Selection or the lack thereof.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
Anyone hear about this? Trying to check the credibility: http://nationalreport.net/2014-federal-tax-refunds-delayed-october-2015/
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 12:48
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:Anyone hear about this? Trying to check the credibility: Googling the headline brought up a Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/taxdelay.asp
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 13:01
|
|
|
Neruz posted:It's a very thorny issue; on the one hand we really don't want to encourage a situation that would result in a genetic class system because holy poo poo the normal class systems are bad enough already, but on the other hand it doesn't really seem all that unreasonable (to me at least) to say that embryos that will probably turn into a completely nonfunctional human beings who cannot even reliably feed themselves should probably be aborted in most circumstances. It's funny- last time I discussed this debate I was accused of falling for anti-abortion concern trolling. It just goes to show how much difference an audience shift makes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's funny- last time I discussed this debate I was accused of falling for anti-abortion concern trolling. It just goes to show how much difference an audience shift makes. A lot of people have a lot of opinions on the matter and they would like to tell you those opinions and why their opinions are better than all the other opinions, as such it can be kind of difficult to talk about because you're always running the risk that someone will suddenly demand you acknowledge their opinions as being the best opinions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The problems that are currently being discussed in the bioethics community don't have to do with sexual orientation (there's not any meaningful evidence that sexual orientation is genetic or biologically determined, and as you say, such discussions tend to be traps). The present concern is largely over sex-selective abortion, although evidence of such practices is debated. There are also issues regarding other genetic conditions and statistical associations between genotype and phenotype. Gattaca was a p good movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:Anyone hear about this? Trying to check the credibility: National Report is satire, just nowhere near as good at it as The Onion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The debate over this isn't pro-choice concern trolling- the issue isn't about the abortion, it's about social, and potentially structural and legal, discrimination toward the class of individuals who are subject to abortion. I don't even know what this means. Individuals aren't subject to abortion, unless we're picking out individuals and sending Terminators back in time to find their pregnant moms and kick them down the stairs. Abortion prevents someone from being born. To say that you're subjecting individuals to abortion is accepting pro-life framing that a blastocyst is a person. Since it's not, there's no difference between aborting a blastocyst with Huntington's disease, selecting out sperm from a Huntington's sufferer that lacks the gene for fertilization, or even letting a person with Huntington's decide not to procreate at all. Is it a bioethics concern if people with Huntington's decide not to have children? That's a very common decision, which subjects the class of people with Huntigton's to discriminatory contraception.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't even know what this means. Individuals aren't subject to abortion, unless we're picking out individuals and sending Terminators back in time to find their pregnant moms and kick them down the stairs. The class of individuals with the condition would be subject to the structural and social prejudices that accompany eugenic pressure. Additionally, the concern with the wrongful life and suit is precisely that it constructs and requires fetal interests. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Again we run into a problem of where exactly you draw the line; at what point does a clump of cells become a human being with human rights? At birth? At the point it can survive outside the womb? At the point it is recognizably human? At the point of insemination? Somewhere in-between? There are some good arguments for most of those positions too and I have absolutely no idea how you would choose. Personally I'm fine with 'at the point it can survive on its own' but intellectually I recognize that some of the other stances do in fact have valid points to their arguments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The class of individuals with the condition would be subject to the structural and social prejudices that accompany eugenic pressure. This doesn't follow. Just because I decide not to risk passing on my Hungtington's gene, that doesn't mean that individuals with the condition will be subject to prejudice and oppression.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
I could believe people would be stupid enough to subject those individuals to prejudice and oppression regardless of the logical validity of said prejudice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This doesn't follow. Just because I decide not to risk passing on my Hungtington's gene, that doesn't mean that individuals with the condition will be subject to prejudice and oppression. The history of eugenics disagrees with you. There's also a reverse effect- societal prejudices applied and presented as negative eugenic screening practices. The original UK eugenic movement was designed by most of its founders as purely voluntary, and focusing on a relatively limited set of indicia that at the time seemed scientifically reliable(though we now know them as stupid and bigoted). It took less than five years for broader society to transform the movement into a mandatory system based on standards that reflected the prejudices of the time. Also, to continue the hypothetical, it's likely that you will be subjected to prejudice as an individual carrying a Huntington's gene. People are really bad at understanding and applying genetic information and evaluating risk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:People are really bad at understanding and evaluating risk. This is just generally true. If people were good at understanding and evaluating risk gambling and the stock market would not exist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Neruz posted:Again we run into a problem of where exactly you draw the line; at what point does a clump of cells become a human being with human rights? At birth? At the point it can survive outside the womb? At the point it is recognizably human? At the point of insemination? Somewhere in-between? There are some good arguments for most of those positions too and I have absolutely no idea how you would choose. That's about the point where we agree that the line is drawn where a bunch of people in power don't find it icky, and not in any abstract logic, science, or philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Since many philosophers place the identity of a person not on being enmattered in a single body, but on continuous possession of an unbroken chain of memories, you could protentially place personhood as starting at about five months post birth. I can think of a lot of people who would be super upset at the idea that a 4 month old baby is not a person.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Neruz posted:I can think of a lot of people who would be super upset at the idea that a 4 month old baby is not a person. I mean, they're really just biological alarm clocks that you can't set or turn off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Neruz posted:I can think of a lot of people who would be super upset at the idea that a 4 month old baby is not a person. I'm not suggesting going around killing infants, just that all the different gray areas merge together. There's a sizable group of people who are super upset at the idea that a blastocyst is not a person, and a lot more who think that a third trimester fetus is, but the consideration line has to be made somewhere, and wherever it's drawn somebody is going to be super upset one way or the other.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Sure, but contiguous memory is no more or less abstract than 'able to thrive outside the womb', 'has a heartbeat', 'looks like a babby', etc. And it's the only one that really relates direct to each of us being a person. Nice to see we are agreed upon this matter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Neruz posted:Nice to see we are agreed upon this matter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
You only count as human when you can successfully fight for your life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Crain posted:You only count as human when you can successfully fight for your life. I am not a human 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Neruz posted:Personally I'm fine with 'at the point it can survive on its own' but intellectually I recognize that some of the other stances do in fact have valid points to their arguments. I believe that the stance that's taken now in most jurisdictions (and I personally agree with) is after the first breath has been taken. It's a fundamentally human activity that does not occur until birth and a clear way to mark the line between fetus and person.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
e_angst posted:I believe that the stance that's taken now in most jurisdictions (and I personally agree with) is after the first breath has been taken. It's a fundamentally human activity that does not occur until birth and a clear way to mark the line between fetus and person. Not really- I don't know of any legal jurisdictions that use breathing as the standard- although it was one of the theories proposed by theologians for the delivery or birth of the soul, iirc (one problem is what you do with fetuses that have to immediately go on a breathing apparatus). The actual legal standard is unclear and varies intensely by jurisdiction. It's worth noting that many states in the US extend personhood to the fetus for the purpose of identifying victims of crime, some for antiabortion reasons and some not. It's a really complicated area. Abortion itself is regulated by a similarly complex calculus that has its origins in fetal viability (which was the original basis for the trimester scheme in Roe. That's actually a distinct question from personhood in some respects, though. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:(one problem is what you do with fetuses that have to immediately go on a breathing apparatus).
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Crain posted:You only count as human when you can successfully fight for your life. I was going to say that you only count as human when you own land.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Crain posted:You only count as human when you can successfully fight for your life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYLOGDT4VEk
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
One of my wife's friends posts two thing on Facebook: pictures of her daughter, or poo poo from Life News or whatever. I've ignored it, but then she posted this one: http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/there-is-nothing-brave-about-suicide/ It was a long time coming, but I had to unfriend.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 04:17
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
Not email related but my aunt has gotten it into her head that I think "Don't believe everything you see and read on the internet" = "Don't believe anything you see and read on the internet".  Never mind that these are two completely concepts, the former being an exercise in healthy skepticism and critical thinking while the latter is just flat out insane as most information is found on the internet nowadays, it also ignores the fact that the original adage was applied to all forms of media.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
You know, if no-one cares about this anymore, feel free to tell me so I can stop this self mutilation. This week in LL101!  OH NO MY etc.  I wondered how they would say Obama is a friend of terrorists after he started bombing them. Full on delusional denial it is, then. Also, the idea that ISIS are afraid of a bunch of incompetent chickenhawks eager to give them what they want.  "Why won't Obama save this idiot who committed a felony?"  "Instead they redefine the definition of Palestine"  Yes, being forced to stop demonizing is the same as being forced to stop demonizing.  Ye, it sure has been the Obama supporters who are hysterical about Ebola.  How DARE anyone be motivated to vote for positive reasons!  Do I even need to respond here?  How many of Voter ID laws also introduce new taxes to pay for and send out the ID's to the poor? Oh, none? Interesting.  How DARE liberals complain about Christians, and not do the same thing to them that they to ISIS? You know, bomb them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
LL101 gives me a peek inside the conservative id, so you're doing a valuable public service.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
They managed to fit an entire bible verse on a lapel pin? Jesus wept.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You know, if no-one cares about this anymore, feel free to tell me so I can stop this self mutilation. I care. Now suffer for my amusement!  quote:
I'll take that over people who vote because they are too stupid and lazy to realize that all the poo poo they are afraid of is just propagated bullshit by radio show hosts to get them to vote against their own interests. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:They managed to fit an entire bible verse on a lapel pin? Jesus wept.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:One of my wife's friends posts two thing on Facebook: pictures of her daughter, or poo poo from Life News or whatever. I've ignored it, but then she posted this one: quote:but we do not own ourselves Christ, what an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Those loving cunts. I'm sorry but it upsets me when I see attacks on Rock the Vote. My uncle helped to found it and had an award in his name after he passed. He helped make the Motor Voter Act a real loving national law. What is so wrong with letting people vote? OH THAT'S RIGHT. They're the "wrong" kind of people. Ugh. Sorry, I can usually shrug off, and secretly look forward to, the LL101 post but that hit the wrong nerve.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:01 |
|
|
Jazu posted:Christ, what an rear end in a top hat. this person must go into crushing debt and become a vegetable, it's gods will!
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 17:36
|
|
