top 71 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 90 points 5 months ago (11 children)

Even if it was a human, Chris would be wrong with his lie about "90% of scientists." Not sure why people think a lie will help their argument in cases like this.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    Eh... A Human fetus is human, but it is not "a human". Your toenail clippings are human.

    Plus, the humanity or personhood of a fetus doesn't really matter for the pro-choice position. Simply put, there is no (other) legal situation that can compell you to give up your bodily autonomy.

    Example. I can shoot someone in the street in cold blood, and they could die without a blood transfusion. The courts cannot compell me to do something as harmless as donating blood to save that person's life. A fetus, despite arguably being a person, does not have a right to your blood, your breath, your nutrients, or a space inside your body. Full stop.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 33 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I had a...call? survey? at some point from an entity that probably gave rise to this data. It was basically a push-poll that used question order and positive reinforcement to try to get people to agree that abortion is murder.

    Mostly, it tried to conflate "human" with "a human," starting out with things like "are cells isolated from humans still human?" "Can cultured cells be called 'viable?'" "So would you agree that tissue cultured from a human donor is viable, human tissue?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    That sounds like a hell of a survey.

    Mine are always like "on a scale of 0 to 10, 0 being very poor and 10 being outstanding, how would you rate the service you have received today?"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    They don't care about facts data or science. They use it to argue in bad faith, not to have a serious convo.

    If you call that out they'll just ignore you and try and get you with some other made up gotcha fact.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Exactly. It's something like a gish gallop - you can't really rebut that and explain why it's a comment made in bad faith, but to casual readers it's a valid retort.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago

    Also, even if 90% of scientists did say that... what percentage of those scientists are not biologists?

    Do we need to know a geologist's or physicist's opinion about "some sort of weird meat-science"?

    Like the old "Yeah, sorry, I am a Doctor, but I'm a Doctor of Jazz, not medicine"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 75 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    I do love the "blank slate mammal" look we all seem to share at this stage.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 68 points 5 months ago* (6 children)

    A just a few less cells and it compares to birds, reptiles and fish.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    At what stage are these, uh, stages?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Comparative Anatomy and Embryology - Advanced | CK-12 Foundation https://share.google/7DK4c0mlikYsbvPVy

    This website is actually pretty helpful for teaching.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    Damn, that ended up being a bit of a rabbit hole.

    The source for this image was Wikimedia Commons which describes them as "Romanes' 1892 copy of Ernst Haeckel's fraudulent embryo drawings."

    I hadn't heard of these fraudulent drawings that were seemingly so notorious that describing them as fraudulent needed no further elaboration, so I went on Ernst Haeckel's Wikipedia page which has a longish subsection about these specific drawings. Apparently some... shall we say artistic license, was taken to make the different embryos look more similar to one another, and by modern standards they're useful mostly for getting the idea across but are not completely true to life.

    Wikipedia even has an article specifically about embryo drawings. The short of this story seems to be that there was some controversy back in Haeckel's day mostly by people who rejected Darwinism. In the 90s some scientists noticed that these drawings didn't match what they see in the lab and wrote a paper about it. Their paper was hijacked by people who reject Darwinism (i.e. creationist nutsos) and so there was more controversy than the matter probably really deserved.

    Finally, I found this article on the website of the National Center for Science Education that defends Haeckel's drawings, comparing them to modern photographs with any egg yolk removed (as the embryos were originally depicted without the yolk, something Haeckel was up front about) to show that they weren't that inaccurate:

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 284 points 5 months ago (21 children)

    Here you go OP. It’s actually ok to swear on the internet.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 92 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Here is a not weirdly censored and un-censored version:

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    I mean… could I have gone and found the original, maybe. Did it cross my mind, no I jumped straight to do it on my phone and make it look as natural as possible, but of course this was the harder option. 🤦‍♂️

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    I like to go the extra mile. I uncensor shit emphatically.

    A censored "shit" in a post about Star Trek? "SHIT" in big Star Trek font.

    "Cunt" in a post about the UK? Enjoy your "CUNT" dressed in a union jack.

    The censored word is "cock"? Here's "COCK" in flesh tones with bulging purple veins on it.

    Fucking lean into it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 62 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    I don't get at all this trend of badly censored words.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    The creators of Lemmy (who also run the Lemmy.ml instance) are huge fans of censorship and propaganda so they use automated swear word filtering to train their users into uncritically accepting censorship.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Unless you’re a part of .ml, apparently. They auto-censor that stuff for some reason.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    hold up....the CCCP supporting fascist loving asscrack of the federation censors posts?!

    to hear a ml user, they make it seem like they're having a fucking blast over there... sounds like a fucking gulag.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 66 points 5 months ago* (4 children)

    Thank FUCK you edited that horrible FUCKING word, so that my innocent eyes aren't FUCKING desecrated.

    Tits.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago

    Pfft, we have a hard time proving people under 1 billion net worth are human live nowadays.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 5 months ago

    No, it's a dolphin embryo

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago*

    Somebody do better please. Sources are Wikimedia.

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    90% of scientists agree

    Even if that were true these kinds of people are notorious for discounting the vast majority consensus because some lunatic said otherwise. It's almost like science has no bearing to them unless it validates their preconceived ideas.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago*

    Exactly the problem and they all cite a paper written by a pro life conservative who works at the Hamilton foundation which is a conservative 'think tank'.

    The paper itself is abysmally stupid. He emailed about 60 000 people with 5 or so confoundingly, unnecessarily complex question (manipulated) and about 30 000 or so responded and then he interpreted the answers and made the conclusion that like 90% of respondents agree that life begins at conception.

    Morons say 90% of scientists agree, which is not even what the paper claims at all which itself is not good.

    He could have just asked 'does human life begin at conception'? Also he complained (author) in a podcast about the paper about how so many faculty at the college he was st during the paper writing urged him to discontinue the project as for various reasons and then spins that to basically say pro women's rights advocates are in a conspiracy against life and were all democratic demons in a death cult (more or less)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 5 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Were these scientists dentists ?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • Fun fact: Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny.

    Depending on what species a foetus looks like, you can make a guess for how long it has been present inside a womb.

    Source: Haeckel's Embryos.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    You are never going to convince me the biggest vilain in the whole world is fucking religion. I hate religious people with all my heart

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    isn't fucking religion

    Or

    You are never going to convince me; the biggest villain in the world is fucking religion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago*

    Lot of faith in that analysis, I guess.

    I do honestly think land ownership is the greatest evil. Because if houses aren't a commodity then a lot of problems (homelessness, hoarding, environmental damage, corporate bullshit, etc) start to be a lot harder to justify.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I think it's in the top 5:

    1. Capitalism

    2. Patriarchy

    3. Racism (I consider this tied with patriarchy tbh)

    4. Religion

    5. People who take two seats on public transit with no justification

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago
    [–] 9 points 5 months ago

    90% of scientists agree you pull random percentages out of your ass.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Haha, gotcha

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    The tale of a tail.

  • source