The "chicken" would have evolved from a single cells organism which replicated via the process of mitosis. Over the centuries, the organism would have evolved into a multicellular organism which would have reproduced most likely via an asexual mechanism. Centuries later, evolution continues on it's path and the demand for greater genetic variety would have stemmed the more common male/female reproductive mechanism with either an internal or external genital system.
IN short, the chicken came first although the species which first laid that egg wouldn't not have been recognizable as a chicken by todays standard.
I can see that you're angry right now; but expressing your rage at all Christians isn't particularly helpful and is quite bigoted. Hitler said something rather similar to what you're saying right now about the Jews. And, from memory, that didn't work out so well for the Jews.
I'm assuming this is the "criminal" side? I recall as a boy always being fed the story that Ned Kelly was some kind of Robin Hood, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. But that simply wasn't the case. The "poor" were his immediate family and gang members. The guy was a murderer. How he became famous was his ingenuity in developing his bullet-proof amour and, given our convict origins and Irish origins for many of us, his actions were somehow seen as a fight against British aristocracy.
That's very confusing. One the one hand he's saying that, as per his quote, that child sexual abuse isn't as bad as religious indoctrination. And on the other, in his defense, you're saying that that he mean't quite the opposite.
How does that work?
Why the spamming of Cuaroc is any more valid than my own, noting that he has not only recycled old debates word-for-word in high quantities but also has got over 1000 of his points just by spamming the word 'troll' in several replies to people
Can you explain what you mean by "spammer"? We seem to be operating under a different understanding of that word. Spamming and trolling aren't the same thing.
Why the abusive version of trolling that Hellno uses is any more valid than Dana's. don't pretend that Hellno isn't any nicer than Dana, he's bulliied me on this site just as bad as she has.
I haven't witnessed any of that. But I would say that you should be reporting any spamming or any inappropriate abuse. That said, we don't receive any feedback on what action takes place after reporting comments.
Why it is okay for Joe to troll.
He's trolling, yes. But his trolling isn't as damaging to the site or to the community as your previous attempts at trolling were. Just as I'm inclined to say that we should be a bit more tolerant of your current activities (not that I really consider you to be a troll at present), we should also be more tolerant of Joe's trolling.
I'm curious why you would see Muslim liberals as being hypocritical? Have you actually taken the time to read the Qur'an from back to front (that's the correct order of reading for the Qur'an)? If you're only source of information about Islam is right-wing white supremacist websites with their selective quotes (i.e. cherrypicking), then I would entirely understand your irrational and ill-informed position.
1. I no longer consider you to be a troll. I think you were a troll previously, but that you've largely stopped trolling and that your most recent contributions to this site have been markedly more valuable that they were in the past.
2. Spamming and trolling has a direct impact on other people. I'm confronted with troll comment and spam posts and forced to look at them. Thus there is the quality of being a "victim" of spamming/trolling. And both can also result in economic damage to online services.
3. Homosexuality is essentially victimless, so its not really offensive. As a straight man, I have the choice not to engage in homosexual sex. I have the choice not to look at gay porn. Thus, homosexuality is inoffensive. Homosexuals don't force their homosexuality onto non-homosexuals in the same way that we heterosexuals often try (and fail) to force our heterosexual ideals into them. So, we're more trollish and offensive than they are.
Yes; but.
While there might be a moral obligation to share with the less fortunate; I'm inclined to question the wisdom of "conditional sharing". As it stand, there are conditions on things like foreign aid. You can have this food to feed your people; but first you have to change your policies so that they're more beneficial to me. That seems to be a system that has historically backfired all too often.
What causes AS is the part that I'm less certain on. That, I've got to look up. But off the top of my head I'd imagine it's more likely to be neurobiological along the lines of structural changes in the brain or the absence of a protein used in neuroplastic development and pruning.
Having just done some lite reading on the topic, yes, it seems to be largely structural during fetal brain development and with subtle, but global, structural changes which are inconsistent between individuals. What that means is, there isn't enough similarities between the brain structures of AS sufferers to use brain imaging techniques as a diagnostic method.
People with AS think and feel just as much as neurotypical people. They just do it differently.
Differently, yes. But it's a question of degree. They think/feel SO differently that it's considered to be abnormal. And what's so problematic about AS in this sense is that because they can't recognize varying degrees of their own emotions (e.g. differences between disagreeing, frustration, and anger), there's tendency to express extremes of emotion. Therefore, they often respond to minor emotional triggers with extreme affective states because they're unclear about their own more subtle emotions or unsure of how to express those more subtle emotions.
If 99% of people had AS, society would view those currently normal (the 1%) as the strange ones.
That's true, not just of AS but of any and all mental disorders. If 99% of people had schizophrenia, it would be considered normal. Under the Soviet psychiatric system, it was considered so "normal" to be a socialist that anyone who wasn't a socialist was committed to they asylums. And it's not that long ago in the Western psychiatric system that theism was considered so normal that "atheism" was considered reasonable grounds to hold someone in a psychiatric hospital.
Apparently Dawkins is of the opinion that being sexually abused as a child isn't particularly damaging; but being raised Catholic is significantly more damaging for a child. And the evidence he presents for this pedophic apologetic argument is....none whatsoever.
Hitchens thoughts on bombing the shit out of Muslim children (I believe he prefered to use the term "cull") became quite famous for a while; but was of course censured in the right-wing atheist media.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2007/
I don't know. Most atheists I know are spectacular people and I love them dearly. Most anti-theists I know are socially inept and pedophile apologists like Dawkins, mass-murder apologists like Hitchens, or just plane whacked conspiracy theorists like Sam Harris (n.b. claims to be a credible scientist, believes in reincarnation).
Yes. Tomorrow after tea time. The Vogon Constructor Fleet commanded by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz will be demolishing the Earth in order to facilitate an intergalactic highway construction project. You've had ample notice. The plans have been on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard'.
Best make sure you have clean underwear on, a dressing gown, and don't forget your towel and toothbrush.
Without looking it up I can tell you Asperger's Syndrome is an Autistic Spectrum disorder, essentially a somewhat higher functioning form of autism. People with Asperger's Syndrome are somewhat better at social interaction as opposed to those with true autism. My experience with Asperger's kids is that, unlike autistic children, they have a desire for social interaction but that they simply cannot understand the social cues or the rules of social interactions. Consequently, they might not realize when a conversation has begun (as opposed to idle banter) or when a conversation has been concluded. They also have a lot of trouble recognizing the affective states of other people, so they can't easily identify the emotions experienced by others. One of the major problems with this that I've observed is that many of them also struggle to identify their own emotions.
Yeah, that's a pretty horrible and inappropriate thing to say. You two seem to really bring out the worst in one another. Maybe it's best not to engage him. Not easy, I know. But trust that people don't put much stock in what he has to say about you.
Yes, there's certainly a lot of biased reporting. While they do report the truth, it's how that truth is framed, the spin that they put on it, and what they choose not to report that contributes to this climate of fear. However, it's in their best financial interests to promote this climate of fear too as it keeps viewers attention.
No, it absolutely should not be illegal. That said, I don't believe it should be a free-for-all either. There are most certainly times when pregnancy termination is both highly desirable and absolutely necessary. What we really need to do, IMO, is come to some consensus as to when "life" actually begins and under what conditions abortion is acceptable and unacceptable.
An addict? Maybe. But I also think he's cleaned up his act quite a lot. I have a lot more contact with him in his current incarnation and I've found him to be quite a pleasant chap to interact with. I realize, of course, that not everyones experiences will necessarily be the same as mine.
Yes, this is clearly a case for Social Services to be involved with. A child, left to fend for themselves in those kind of circumstances, is likely to grow up with some significant psychological/emotional issues and perpetuate a cycle of abuse/neglect into the next generation unless they have appropriate supports with which to develop resilience.
Make the call.
Sorry but it's not. I'm not the one who made the claim that humans have rights. You did via the topic.
The questioning of if someone has a right does not equate with the assumption that someone has a right. What a rather absurd assumption.
Nor do I care enough to.
Ah, some intellectual honesty. If you can't be bothered to formulate a reasoned argument, you should have just said so right from the beginning and not wasted peoples time with all this beating around the bush nonsense.
Is it an OK thing to do? Yes. Is it a little weird? Yes.
"I don't want them to die outside" - Awwww! Cuteness!
I wonder, if I was a worm, would I prefer to snuff it outside in my natural habitat or in an alien environment? Not sure. Do the worms have an Xbox to keep them entertained so they don't get bored in the tank?
I don't need to provide evidence for humans not actually having rights, since I've already stated they are merely the ideas and inventions of human beings themselves. Now, if you can provide physical, concrete evidence that we do have rights, whether it be through divinity, nature, etc., then we'll talk.
Actually, as the one making the claim that humans have no inherent rights, the burden is on you to establish this as fact. Simply stating "they are merely the ideas and inventions of human beings themselves" does not constitute an establishment of facts.
And that's only a tiny sample of the totality of logical fallacies. Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
While it's handy to be able to commit all of these to memory, it's probably easier to read through someones argument and just note if something doesn't really add up then go to the logical fallacy list to see what kind of fallacy they're making. Often times you don't even need to argue in favor of your position when you can just rip shreds in their arguments by highlighting how fallacious their argument is.
But, it also strengthens your own arguments if you can keep your use of logical fallacies to a minimum. To completely eliminate logical fallacies from ones arguments is, however, almost impossible.
I'm from Australia and, yes, most migrants/refugees here also spend a first few years stuck on welfare. After about 2 years, most of them find their feet and begin to engage with work or study and do end up contributing. First generation migrants, admittedly, tend not to contribute that much. I knew one Russian nuclear engineer who ended up driving a taxi because his qualifications weren't recognized. This his economic contribution was significantly lower than his capacity.
I have a similar problem to some extend. I'm a licensed psychiatrist back in Australia; but living in Malaysia my qualifications aren't recognized. There's no welfare system to speak of here; but I'm working as an English language teacher instead.
I'm not American; but I'd say it's worth having a second look at your immigration legislation. But stopping all immigration would be a terrible idea. Like most developed nations, the natural birth rate in the U.S. has declined significantly and you have an aging population as a result. You need a younger generation (of working age that can pay taxes) that is either equal to or greater than the aging population in order to support social services and aged care. And, like most developed nations, the only way to achieve this in the face of the declining birth rate is via immigration. Furthermore, immigrant families tend to have greater numbers of children, this they invariably make greater contributions by way of income tax to the long-term survivability of the nation.
Yes, a strawman is a logical fallacy.
No. Female children are still subject to sexual exploitation and pedophilia at six times the rate of boys.
I completely agree that we don't have a choice about who we're attracted to; but:
a crush on Sarah Palin.
WTF!? And I thought you were reasonably cool until now!
No, please, say it isn't true. You can't have a crush on Sarah Palin. That's NOT sexy!
Well, sorry for obviously not being down to your intellectual level. If you think humans don't have any inherent rights, that's an incredibly absurd claim that most reasonable people would be inclined to ask for some evidence for. But, it sounds like you're not interested in supporting your absurd claims, so I wont even both asking you to support your position.
Westerners in Dubai are in "ghettos" for their safety
Umm...evidence? Positive claims really need to be supported with evidence if they're to be given any credibility.
my group will be travelling in bullet proof car with armed guards
I'm just going to call bullshit on that because that story doesn't seem to have any correlation with what expats in Dubai are experiencing:
Westerners were invited to Dubai also well paid because local people useless, have to be isolated (especially women)
LOLWAT? Again, calling bullshit on this one too. I think you're confusing Dubai for Saudi Arabia.
Are you one of those conspiracy theorists that think Muslims are trying to take over the world? That we're in league with ET and we're inserting body doubles into European parliaments? ROFL!
And I used to think atheists understood critical thinking. Apparently not.
OK. I was a little bit suspicious that that might be the case.
Please speak to your treating physician about having a medication review, keep far away from any drugs (esp. amphetamines), and please pay attention to your sleep cycles. There's a lot of research now highlighting the importance of maintaining a routine sleep cycle in reducing relapses.
I think that's got more to do with being a ethnic minority. You see the same thing in Dubai with Westerners congregating into ghettos and demanding Western style laws. Different countries seem to have very different experiences of ethnic migration. So what I agree that ethnic (esp. Muslim) migration hasn't gone at all well in Europe, the U.S. and Canada seem to experience an altogether different pattern of migration and integration.
I should point out, I'm an anglo-Australian living in Malaysia and seem to find myself living in a largely European community. White attracts white. Brown attracts brown. Etc.
I'm sure you're going to spring a point on us that seems similar, but actually isn't similar, to this analogy you've now established.
Actually, I've got nothing. Nada. Neyt. Zulsh.
Especially in regards to the brain.
OK; but if we could eliminate prion diseases like Kuru?
I agree, "Church" rule (irrespective of which religion) doesn't work. Human rights seem to go out the window. Scientific progress, however, that's tricky. While European theocracy led to a technological Dark Ages, Middle Eastern and Turkish/Ottoman theocracy lead to a very real technological Golden Age.
No. While I support the right of mothers to terminate their pregnancies, gender is a terrible reason for aborting a fetus. This is currently a common practice in both India and China where families have a specific preference for having male children. If a fetus is female, it's aborted. And for families that cannot afford a pregnancy termination, the infant girl is killed or abandoned. As I see it, aborting based on gender is the ultimate insult to women and feminism.
I have done nothing wrong on this debate.
I haven't accused you of doing anything wrong in this debate.
I am the victim, not anyone else.
Can you show me some evidence of you being the victim? Bear in mind that a lot of people might be inclined to express anger toward you because you do have a habit of being verbally and emotionally abusive toward other people.
> I have the right to choose what happens on MY debates.
Yes; but the way that you manage that means that they aren't really debates. Debates, by their very definition, encourage opposing points of view. What you're doing is actively discouraging opposing points of view, therefore it's no longer a debate.
Let me ask you something, why do you want to use a debating website? Do you want to take part in debate or simply change how everyone thinks about an issue?
It does take two to tango. But what I'm saying is that maybe you don't always recognize it when people respect you. That I or someone else might disagree with you or have an opinion that is different to your doesn't mean that we don't respect you. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I feel comfortable expressing difference BECAUSE I respect you. If I thought that you were emotionally weak or too immature to deal with people disagreeing with you, I'd probably just pretend to agree with you all the time or ignore you. But, as it stands, I believe that you're a big grown-up girl, that you're capable of being emotionally strong, and that you can deal with disagreements without resorting to immature rants and abusing people. That's respect right there.
What is the probability of that happening?
If both parents are below the age of 20, there is a 1:1450 risk factor.
By the time you get to 49, the risk as as high as 1:25.
If it happens then they become weak and die.
No, they don't get weak and die. It's not every egg cell that experiences meiotic nondisjunction events. It's random and there are no symptoms of it happening. You wont know about it unless that particular cell is impregnated and allowed to carry full term.
Well, if CD had a CONCEDE button, I'd be using it. Yes, you're right. I'm confusing tyranny and anarchy. I suppose because I suspect that anarchy will always give way to some form of tyranny. There's always some despot waiting on the periphery to tack over in a power vacuum.
They die. The people with that disorder disappear.
No. They die; but the disorder will still appear because it's not related to genetic inheritance. It's caused by a meiotic nondisjunction event during the creation of gamete cells. In other words, you could have an ovum egg cell within you right now carrying 24 chromosomes and there's simply no way to know.
Of course you can get injured. Then you screw yourself over and the person that didn't get injured lives on like a boss.
But that really the kind of society that we want to have?
I agree, although I think it's likely to happen much faster than that. We're already seeing a range of antibiotic resistant bacteria which are immune to standard treatment regimens. And with a slew of superbugs emanating from Asia and Europe each year, we probably do have something to be somewhat concerned about.
No it wouldn't. You might be able to get rid of some genetic disorders (e.g. sickle cell anemia); but chromosomal disorders such as Downs Syndrome are still going to occur because they're a result of mutations and other random factors. Add to that, disabilities which are the result of non-genetic and non-chromosomal disorders. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is a result of the mother using excessive amounts of alcohol during the course of the pregnancy. Viral infections can cause disability. Accidents can cause disability.
All this will achieve is to eliminate one possible causative factor of disabilities. That's still important and it would still have a beneficial effect; but at what cost? What will we be giving up and a society in order the achieve this goal?
