JDG wrote:
Massive straw man, unworthy of reply. See Charlie's posts on the
subject.
I don't think that calling my argument a straw man contributes to
positive debate on this subject.
OK, I'm sorry. Your argument is fallacious because the chance that the
male/female ratio becomes
On 17/07/2006, at 6:50 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15/07/2006, at 3:43 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
We weren't discussing abortion.
Yes we are. We are talking about conceiving a number of
children,
and eliminating the children of the
Charlie wrote:
A blastocyst is not a child to most people, John. Many, possibly most
according to some studies, zygotes *fail to implant* and die in the
toilet or soaked up in a panty-liner. The wastage is naturally huge.
Clearly, until they're able to implant, they're disposable,
At 02:49 AM Monday 7/17/2006, Charlie Bell wrote:
Cancer is undifferentiated balls of cells too. Is a tumour a human?
The obvious difference is that if left alone a blastocyst has a
chance (if nothing goes wrong) of becoming a human being, whereas a
tumor does not.
Insert Classic Lawyer
Deorbit Burn Successful
17 July 2006 8:11 a.m. EDT
Shuttle Discovery has begun its deorbit burn, which will slow the
spacecraft down by about 302 mph, just enough to allow it to slip
back into the Earth's atmosphere. The burn, which lasted three
minutes and two seconds, places Discovery on
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of jdiebremse
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 11:02 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 7/12/06, Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And lesbians have a huge advantage in selection: they select the
father of their daughters based on logical criteria, while hetero
women chose based on love [or hormones, etc]. So, the daughters
of lesbians will have a competitive advantage
On 17/07/2006, at 3:04 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 02:49 AM Monday 7/17/2006, Charlie Bell wrote:
Cancer is undifferentiated balls of cells too. Is a tumour a human?
The obvious difference is that if left alone a blastocyst has a
chance (if nothing goes wrong) of becoming a human
Nick Arnett wrote:
And lesbians have a huge advantage in selection: they select the
father of their daughters based on logical criteria, while hetero
women chose based on love [or hormones, etc]. So, the daughters
of lesbians will have a competitive advantage over the daughters
of
Dan Minette wrote:
Let's also assume that it rarely was used to get all boys or all
girls, that most families who used it picked a girl if they had a
boy and a boy if they had a girl. Why would this be such a
significant problem that the government had to ban it?
Certainly in *this* country,
Jim Sharkey wrote:
I personally am repelled by the idea of choosing a baby's sex. I
don't see it as a practice that needs banning, but I do see where the
logical next step is Why can't my baby be blond, or tall, or any
number of other more desirable traits? and I can further see why
some
On 17/07/2006, at 7:12 PM, Jim Sharkey wrote:
I also wonder, if such tinkering becomes viable, does it have the
possibility of damaging an egalitarian society?
No. It's likely to make any society *more* equal in the (possibly
quite) long run.
Charlie
Doug Pensinger wrote:
Jim Sharkey wrote:
I also wonder, if such tinkering becomes viable, does it have the
possibility of damaging an egalitarian society?
How so?
Well, I would imagine that such advances would only be available to
the wealthy, at least initially, possibly even for an entire
Jim Sharkey wrote:
Well, I would imagine that such advances would only be available to
the wealthy, at least initially, possibly even for an entire
generation. In which case, children of the wealthy, who arguably
already have one leg up on the competition, would get yet another
tick in
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 12:52:34 -0400 (EDT), Jim Sharkey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doug Pensinger wrote:
Jim Sharkey wrote:
I also wonder, if such tinkering becomes viable, does it have the
possibility of damaging an egalitarian society?
How so?
Well, I would imagine that such advances would
On 17/07/2006, at 8:10 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
I imagine that even if the manipulation of traits becomes illeagal
here it will be legal somewhere and rich people will have access to
it anyway. In any case, in the U.S. people from different social
stratta have a tendency to mix so I'm
Charlie Bell wrote:
Because whatever traits that contribute to discrimination would be
weeded out. The population will likely become homogeneous...
Yes, like the Y-chromossome that will be eliminated, ending up
with a lesbian society :-P
Alberto Monteiro
Jim Sharkey wrote:
Dan Minette wrote:
Let's also assume that it rarely was used to get all boys or all
girls, that most families who used it picked a girl if they had a
boy and a boy if they had a girl. Why would this be such a
significant problem that the government had to ban it?
On 17/07/2006, at 8:33 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Because whatever traits that contribute to discrimination would be
weeded out. The population will likely become homogeneous...
Yes, like the Y-chromossome that will be eliminated, ending up
with a lesbian society :-P
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Yes, like the Y-chromossome that will be eliminated, ending up
with a lesbian society :-P
On one of the forums I frequent, there's a saying: There's a 'Penny
Arcade' strip for every occasion. This one must be Alberto's:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/11/04
:-D
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The couple in this case thinks they have a good reason for sex selection:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=391264in_page_id=1770ct=5
I don't think that.
Julia
B...
There was a science fiction story
On 7/17/06, Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. Selection by emotion evolved to chose traits that were
advantageous for our caveman ancestors, like bullying power
or capacity for deceit.
I imagine that perhaps the mix of the two has advantages
over either one, given that's how
At first glance, this is the weirdest freecycle wanted ever... I'm
trying to imagine a scenario in which one might purchase a casket and
then not need it.
Nick
-- Forwarded message --
From:
Date: Jul 17, 2006 9:34 AM
Subject: [sanjosefreecycle] Wanted : Still seeking
Nick Arnett wrote:
Yes. Selection by emotion evolved to chose traits that were
advantageous for our caveman ancestors, like bullying power
or capacity for deceit.
I imagine that perhaps the mix of the two has advantages
over either one, given that's how things have turned out so far.
Have
Julia Thompson wrote:
Robert Seeberger wrote:
I hypothesize that the damage to the outer ring caused load
shifting,
with the inner core acting as a fulcrum. On the other parts of the
affected floor compressive forces became [the opposite of
compressive] forces or torsive forces beyond the
Its nice to finally know exactly what happened:
http://www.slate.com/id/2145889/
I still seems that I wasn't very far off the mark when I noted
that it can't have been a very deep secret that the wife of an
ambassador was a CIA agent.
JDG
___
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, I'm sorry. Your argument is fallacious because the chance
that the male/female ratio becomes severely offset under current
circumstances is very close to zero.
Well, obviously I disagree. You haven't really provided any
On 18/07/2006, at 3:12 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
Abortion is the killing of an unborn child, plain and simple.
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. An unimplanted embryo is
not a pregnancy. Plain, and simple.
Charlie
___
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17/07/2006, at 6:50 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell charlie@ wrote:
On 15/07/2006, at 3:43 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
We weren't discussing abortion.
Yes we are. We are talking about
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ronn!Blankenship
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 02:49 AM Monday 7/17/2006, Charlie Bell wrote:
Cancer is undifferentiated balls of cells too. Is a tumour
a human?
The obvious difference is that if left alone a blastocyst has a
chance (if nothing goes wrong) of
I'm not sure if this archive is cool or disturbing. Cool for historic
purposes, but a bit disturbing if you once posted things you may not want
potential employers to find.
From the webpage...
About the Wayback Machine
Browse through 55 billion web pages archived from 1996 to a few months
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, if you are able to assume that the economic cost of choosing
a baby's sex goes down, I thought I could assume that the price of
oil would not go up...
For the recrord, I don't see how anything I said implied that the
price of
On 18/07/2006, at 3:20 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
The question is, at what point does the organism become a fully-
fledged member of the group? You say at conception. Possessing
a full complement of chromosomes suddenly makes you fully human.
Well, others disagree. Some think it's when
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Abortion is the killing of an unborn child, plain and simple.
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. An unimplanted embryo
is not a pregnancy. Plain, and simple.
Not plain, and not simple. What word would you have me use
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The couple in this case thinks they have a good reason for sex
selection:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?
in_article_id=391264in_page_id=1770ct=5
I don't think that.
Wow... killing all the male
On 18/07/2006, at 3:40 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Abortion is the killing of an unborn child, plain and simple.
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. An unimplanted embryo
is not a pregnancy. Plain, and simple.
Not plain,
On 7/17/06, Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure if this archive is cool or disturbing. Cool for historic
purposes, but a bit disturbing if you once posted things you may not want
potential employers to find.
From the webpage...
About the Wayback Machine
Browse through 55 billion
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You started the semantic game, by defining abortion contrary to
most peoples' usage, and saying plain and simple.
What are you basing your view of most peoples' usage on? I would
love to see your evidence on this point. So far
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see no biological basis for classifying the cells of the
zygote as part of some other organisim, so therfore it is its
own organism.
It has no organs. How can it be an organism?
Since when did having organs become a
JDG wrote:
What are you basing your view of most peoples' usage on? I would
love to see your evidence on this point. So far as I know, I am using
abortion in the standard sense of the killing of a unborn child.
There is nothing standard about using the term 'abortion' to refer to
'killing
JDG wrote:
Well, obviously I disagree. You haven't really provided any
evidence to back your view that it is very close to zero, other
than to refer me to Charlie's posts. As near as I can tell,
Charlie's posts are a long run argument. Well, in the long run
we're all dead. In the
http://photoninthedarkness.blogspot.com/2006/07/seven-most-common-thinking-errors-of_10.html
Part 3 of the Seven Most Common Thinking Errors of Highly Amusing Quacks
and Pseudoscientists is up, containing errors #s 4 and 5.
Julia
___
42 matches
Mail list logo
