Travis In Austin

So is there as much complaining as there was the year before, and the year before that on who got what? Maybe the complaints were all here from Texas because of Baylor and TCU.

So you must have enough water there? What are they growing?

It isn't an objection, Carl banned gun rights discussion from this thread back at 81, he has never deviated from that. Why does it appear the Mods have overruled that to you? I think what happened there is Christy was just letting everybody know she is watching. It is kind of her MO, doesn't want to be overbearing. But if you want to push her buttons without confirming, by all means go ahead. I think you will see nobody else posted on that subject after she did,except YOU.

Boy it sure got quiet in here all of a sudden.

Oh I won't be crying, just copying and pasting the posts, I don't need to comment. Res ipsa loquitor

Clearly Carl disagreed with you, I thought you were in the discussion when he gave 3 warnings?

You are a bit late to this party, it was already locked for a gun control debate.It was this post here. MercedesBerater, on 03 Dec 2015 - 11:54 AM, said: True. But pressure cookers were not designed to cause death, and death only. Which is the other side of the gun debate. Last call. I think Carl deleated some posts, similar to yours (they left out the possibility that we will slide into Germany though) during the lock, so it may not have been apparent. You might want to edit yours before he does, or locks it again. It is not really a gun control statement anymore than our President calling for more gun laws to prevent terrorist getting weapons. It is the solution to the terrorist killing more people, right. Yeah your right, I will just ask Chad and Carl to deleate the whole thing, he/they can decide if it is political or not, a typical gun rights discussion that has been locked at least ten times before, but I need to go back and repost the prior posts in this thread where it got off track three times and he kept saying "last chance" Talking about our Constitutional rights should be banned and locked on this forum. Your right. It wasn't locked by me. I think it has been discussed before, many times, and I posted the decisions for everyone. The thread wasn't locked because of the discussion about constitutional rights, it was locked because it was locked, and those posts were deleted. As you will see from the reposts I am in the process of laying out here for Carl and Chad.

Which is a typical argument in a gun debate. Let's get back on topic, thanks again. Here is post 84

This was post No. 91

You are a bit late to this party, it was already locked for a gun control debate.It was this post here. MercedesBerater, on 03 Dec 2015 - 11:54 AM, said: True. But pressure cookers were not designed to cause death, and death only. Which is the other side of the gun debate. Last call. I think Carl deleated some posts, similar to yours (they left out the possibility that we will slide into Germany though) during the lock, so it may not have been apparent. You might want to edit yours before he does, or locks it again. It is not really a gun control statement anymore than our President calling for more gun laws to prevent terrorist getting weapons. It is the solution to the terrorist killing more people, right. Yeah your right, I will just ask Chad and Carl to deleate the whole thing, he/they can decide if it is political or not, a typical gun rights discussion that has been locked at least ten times before, but I need to go back and repost the prior posts in this thread where it got off track three times and he kept saying "last chance"

I am. And I think abortion after 20-25 weeks is murder. I am pretty sure about 99.5 percent of America agrees with you on that.

You are a bit late to this party, it was already locked for a gun control debate. It was this post here. MercedesBerater, on 03 Dec 2015 - 11:54 AM, said: True. But pressure cookers were not designed to cause death, and death only. Which is the other side of the gun debate. Last call. I think Carl deleated some posts, similar to yours (they left out the possibility that we will slide into Germany though) during the lock, so it may not have been apparent. You might want to edit yours before he does, or locks it again.

Here is how the science of biology defines it. The last sentence being applicable here.Definition noun, plural: fetuses The yet-to-be born mammalian offspring following the embryonic stage, and is still going through further development prior to birth Supplement Following the embryonic stage, the developing young enters the fetal period, which is in the later stages of development prior to birth. The fetal period is when the offspring has taken a recognizable form as its own species. The fetus is also characterized to possess the major organs in contrast to an embryo. Tthe fetal organs though are not yet fully functional and are still undergoing further development. In humans, the embryo is called a fetus at the ninth week from the time of conception up to the moment of birth. After being born, the offspring is called an infant or a newborn. That is a general definition for all mammals, including marsupials, dolohins and whales, and then at the end it say fetus, infant and newborn. Nothing abiut a person.The law defines what a person is for purposes of a crime, constitutional protection, etc. You are not going to get therebwith science. Oh..you meant "p-e-r-s-o-n". I hadn't realised you were being literal. I just mean adult human, and science clear defines a fetus as a different entity than the "infant" or "newborn." I'm just not at all confused personally about this. You keep missing the forest through the trees every time you go to definitions, whether they are in law, science or Merriam Webster's Dictionary.Look, if you prefer the term, "fetus," fine. Then, don't kill fetuses. We are talking about morality, and definitions can get in the way sometimes. I am not saying there can't be exceptions in the general rule, nor am I saying the law shouldn't be as it already is. People, in the end, are going to have to come together with their maker/conscience/god/etc., and I don't think falling back on definitions is always a valid justification for engaging in "wrong." You are trying to use "scientific" definitions in support on an argument about the priority or morals. Science uses terminology as part of science, just line engineering does. Science doesn't make judgements on when something is deserving of protection, or not. You used the term "person" and said it was "defined" by science. That suggests, in my view, there is some sort of scientific "evidence" in support of outting existing lives ahead of embryos, fetuses or what ever else. All I am saying is the a biological term isn't "science" and it doesn't have anything to do with moral and ethical decisions and priorities. Biologists, Embryologists, Zoologists and other scientists pick and use terms either out of convention or convenience, not for purposes associated with moral priorities. Saying that a science textbook says usesthe term "fetus" to describe the biological structure of something between two chronological points of gestation doesn't does not apply to a discussion of priorities about that structure. It has as much weight as paying "the Pope says life starts at conception." Neither is science or evidence of where,or what the priorities should be. 1. Read more carefully, please. I didn't say the science terms applied any moral judgment. Nor do I infer that.2. Biology is a science. 3. The reason science spikes different names to things is that they are DIFFERENT. DIFFERENT!! Can you please acknowledge that? Two entities that are different by some substantial reason are given different names so add not to confuse one with another. 4. Baby is not a fetus because those are different things. Hence different names. 5. Now comes the moral judgment that I choose to apply. And that judgment is this: a fetus must be subordinate to the mother, whereas a baby shall be given equal status. That's my moral judgment, based on the difference in the meaning of the two science terms. 6. You can choose to make any different moral judgment you want for whatever reason you want based on any criteria you feel like choosing.... Absolutely anything you choose. 7. Whether the law says YEA or NEA to abortions will have absolutely no affect whatsoever in any way on my particular moral judgment about the subject. I really don't care one way or another personally, other than to assume having it legal saves countless lives of mother's who will OTHERWISE seek butchered jobs in back alleys. 8. Science is not at issue for you. You needn't even believe in it. It's ME in this argument who have chosen science as a means of understanding the different stages of human development. So for the last time, can we still stop saying "science doesn't define the moral argument?" It's a non sequitur. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk You started with this."Actually, I wasn't that interested in the law. My interest was in the moral stance of the public. In deciding right from wrong, they have placed more value on an adult life than on a prospective or future life that has not yet met the scientific definition of a person. A life not yet begun, one could say. For me the law is less interesting than human behavior, psychology and sociology, because it is primarily a political institution." It doesn't say what I originally thought it meant. I think I was thrown off by the phrase "scientific definition of a person." I thought you were trying to say science defines when a person "is" or, based on the following sentence, when life begins. Reading it carefully, I agree that you were not saying that at all. The discussion then changed between you and Jeff about babies and fetuses, and I didn't really catch the shift. I didn't keep up with the development of the conversation and didnt have the quote above in the right context for the rest of the exchange. Science, biology and medicine do have very clearly defined terms in order to distinguish development of animals, including humans. A "baby" clearly, by all scientific definitions of neonate/infant is what you have after birth. I had also keyed in on your phrase regarding the definition of a "person" because the law deals with what a "person" is all the time, in a great number of areas. We were actually in agreement on much of the semantics, I was in fact mistaken that you were trying to use scientific definitions of human development on support of an argument or conclusion. That pretty much covers your Point No. 1. 2 and 3 I agree with. Except that items don't have to have to be different for some substantial reason for science to give them different names. The difference between two things may only be detected on the microscopic, nuclear or atomic level. The difference need only be reliably capable of observation or detection. No. 4, is 100% accurate, and the term Science uses for "baby" is neonate which is up to 4 weeks, and infant. We have already discussed why groups select words to use in advertising, political slogans. Babies, puppies, and kittens seem to stir strong emotional feelings. No. 5 I don't take a position on. No. 6, that is certainly true. But what you base it on will have bearing on the firmness of the moral conviction in the individual, and how the outside world views your application of those morals. Cults and sects are based on a strong leader and group being able to convince you of different morals that the mainstream would agree are pretty immoral. My parents knew people who joined the Peoples Church in the City, and others they knew were talking about Synanon. You can base a moral judgement on anything, but what you choose to base it on can clearly have consequences. 7. That is certainly true. Either side of that issue, or any issue can feel as passionate about the issue as they want, to the point where they even express themselves about it in all sorts of ways. As long as neither side violates the law. The Clerk who would not issue licenses said her moral convictions were very strong and very sincere, the judge who put her in jail until her office started issuing licenses had no doubt about that. He also pointed out that the law trumps an officials personal moral convictions. No. 8. That was actually what I was trying to say until I realized I was talking past you and didn't correctly read what you initially said.

You are missing my point. Let's say you come across an object. Does what you call it affect what it is? Lets try it. Tomato (Tow ma toe) Nope "Tow may ter" Nope Liberal tomato Yep Conservative tomato Yep Nazi tomato YEP Socialist Tomato YEP Ketchup Nope I guess it depends on what it is and the context. If the object is a turd, I kick it aside. If it is a gold nugget, I put it in my pocket. Science teaches me how to identify the first from the second.Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk What if it was a Krugerrand in 1986 or so?

How is everyone doing? Did you make sure your car seats were installed correctly? I recent study of accidents involving car seats showed that 50% were installed incorrectly to some degree. Wait, I forgot you probably have specialized knowledge and expertise in that area. She is without a doubt, precious cargo

Cool, but ear infections are a major problems with labs and water. Have plenty of Epiotic on had if water is in their ears

Is that even possible, I don't think so.Ok I make signs, no big deal but look what 2 people ordered, it surprised even me ! I blurred out a letter just for this pic.......... I wonder what the kids got the parents?

Well said.

Happy Birthday

Boseo

Well you haven't lived until you have had a Socialist Tomato. It's the GMO tomatoes you have to watch out for.

You are missing my point. Let's say you come across an object. Does what you call it affect what it is? Lets try it. Tomato (Tow ma toe) Nope "Tow may ter" Nope Liberal tomato Yep Conservative tomato Yep Nazi tomato YEP Socialist Tomato YEP Ketchup Nope I guess it depends on what it is and the context.

Here is how the science of biology defines it. The last sentence being applicable here.Definition noun, plural: fetuses The yet-to-be born mammalian offspring following the embryonic stage, and is still going through further development prior to birth Supplement Following the embryonic stage, the developing young enters the fetal period, which is in the later stages of development prior to birth. The fetal period is when the offspring has taken a recognizable form as its own species. The fetus is also characterized to possess the major organs in contrast to an embryo. Tthe fetal organs though are not yet fully functional and are still undergoing further development. In humans, the embryo is called a fetus at the ninth week from the time of conception up to the moment of birth. After being born, the offspring is called an infant or a newborn. That is a general definition for all mammals, including marsupials, dolohins and whales, and then at the end it say fetus, infant and newborn. Nothing abiut a person.The law defines what a person is for purposes of a crime, constitutional protection, etc. You are not going to get therebwith science. Oh..you meant "p-e-r-s-o-n". I hadn't realised you were being literal. I just mean adult human, and science clear defines a fetus as a different entity than the "infant" or "newborn." I'm just not at all confused personally about this. You keep missing the forest through the trees every time you go to definitions, whether they are in law, science or Merriam Webster's Dictionary. Look, if you prefer the term, "fetus," fine. Then, don't kill fetuses. We are talking about morality, and definitions can get in the way sometimes. I am not saying there can't be exceptions in the general rule, nor am I saying the law shouldn't be as it already is. People, in the end, are going to have to come together with their maker/conscience/god/etc., and I don't think falling back on definitions is always a valid justification for engaging in "wrong." We're talking past each other. I mention the definitions in order to make a point about knowledge. As we develop knowledge we catagorize it and make distinctions (taxonomy) about different objects and ideas. When I hear people scream, "you are killing babies" and they are talking about abortions, I feel compelled to point out that in fact we are not killing "babies" according to our best knowledge. We are killing fetuses. And the reason the words are important is the distinction we have about the knowledge. The human knowledge about the universe has decided that a baby is not the same as a fetus which is not the same as an embryo and so on. Some people value this knowledge, and maybe try to employ it, and obviously others can choose to ignore it, disbelieve it, or disagree with it. That's their choice. My choice is to appreciate the distinction. Perhaps the law chooses something else. Perhaps a religion choose yet a different thing. We all line up behind some set of beliefs - which just mean an organized set of information we trust. The world isn't ideal. Most things are a compromise, and abortions are one of those compromises where various interests must be weighed. There's not much good to say about wars or abortions, and yet we have them both and must live with that. I completely agree with you that, proponents of an issue will resort to phrases calculated to stir an emotional reaction. Killing Babies Meat is Murder War on Drugs Deadly Vaccine Gross exaggerations stir an emotional response, which is the point of propoganda. Anything that looks like it it could be from a news headline, bumper sticker or from a protest sign I tend to ignore

Thise were great, thank you. It looks like, at least, 25 people a year die by being struck by lightning in the US. At least a ten time greater chance of being struck by lightning than being killed by a domestic or foriegn terrorist.

Here is how the science of biology defines it. The last sentence being applicable here.Definition noun, plural: fetuses The yet-to-be born mammalian offspring following the embryonic stage, and is still going through further development prior to birth Supplement Following the embryonic stage, the developing young enters the fetal period, which is in the later stages of development prior to birth. The fetal period is when the offspring has taken a recognizable form as its own species. The fetus is also characterized to possess the major organs in contrast to an embryo. Tthe fetal organs though are not yet fully functional and are still undergoing further development. In humans, the embryo is called a fetus at the ninth week from the time of conception up to the moment of birth. After being born, the offspring is called an infant or a newborn. That is a general definition for all mammals, including marsupials, dolohins and whales, and then at the end it say fetus, infant and newborn. Nothing abiut a person.The law defines what a person is for purposes of a crime, constitutional protection, etc. You are not going to get therebwith science. Oh..you meant "p-e-r-s-o-n". I hadn't realised you were being literal. I just mean adult human, and science clear defines a fetus as a different entity than the "infant" or "newborn." I'm just not at all confused personally about this. You keep missing the forest through the trees every time you go to definitions, whether they are in law, science or Merriam Webster's Dictionary. Look, if you prefer the term, "fetus," fine. Then, don't kill fetuses. We are talking about morality, and definitions can get in the way sometimes. I am not saying there can't be exceptions in the general rule, nor am I saying the law shouldn't be as it already is. People, in the end, are going to have to come together with their maker/conscience/god/etc., and I don't think falling back on definitions is always a valid justification for engaging in "wrong." You are trying to use "scientific" definitions in support on an argument about the priority or morals. Science uses terminology as part of science, just line engineering does. Science doesn't make judgements on when something is deserving of protection, or not. You used the term "person" and said it was "defined" by science. That suggests, in my view, there is some sort of scientific "evidence" in support of outting existing lives ahead of embryos, fetuses or what ever else. All I am saying is the a biological term isn't "science" and it doesn't have anything to do with moral and ethical decisions and priorities. Biologists, Embryologists, Zoologists and other scientists pick and use terms either out of convention or convenience, not for purposes associated with moral priorities. Saying that a science textbook says usesthe term "fetus" to describe the biological structure of something between two chronological points of gestation doesn't does not apply to a discussion of priorities about that structure. It has as much weight as paying "the Pope says life starts at conception." Neither is science or evidence of where,or what the priorities should be.