HOME | DD | Gallery | Favourites | RSS
| SleepyFoxes
SleepyFoxes
[8010463]
[2008-08-05 16:27:59 +0000 UTC]
"Loves Fanta Exotic."
(Denmark)
# Statistics
Favourites: 306; Deviations: 1; Watchers: 143
Watching: 649; Pageviews: 21255; Comments Made: 2146; Friends: 649
# Comments
Comments: 136
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 1 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 1 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 1 β©: 0
You're welcome, entirely deserved.
π: 0 β©: 0
Hi there! 
PS: I found you via the 'random deviant' button!
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks, have a nice day!
π: 0 β©: 0
Hi. I was just wondering, where have all your deviations gone to? I went to your galleries and I saw nothing there. I know you had artwork because I've seen it on Windsonde before.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Spring clean really... Been in a slump, had to deal with IRL, and wanted a clean-up. Might re-upload some of them at a later point when I can do artsy stuff again and feel good about it.
π: 0 β©: 1
OK. Thanks for replying back so soon. Hopefully you re-upload Blight's ref sheet soon, I really like his design and I hope to put him in one of my challenges when I join Windsonde.Β Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Shoot me a PM when/if you still need his ref and I'll throw it in my stash for you. ^^
π: 0 β©: 0
You're welcome, well deserved, love your style!
π: 0 β©: 1
Again, thank you!
π: 0 β©: 0
1. Have you asked one? How would you know? Nobody actually knows, you just assume it without any scientific basis. Jews in the Nazi camps weren't given choices either. If you really were "PRO" choice, you'd care about the baby's choice instead of making up excuses. You are no better than those who have cheered on the murders of millions of other groups deemed to be "sub-human" and therefore not considered capable of "choice". It's not pro choice when the child is denied any. Often, the father isn't asked his opinion either.
2. Sanger's legacy lives on. The KKK founders are long dead too, does this mean the KKK isn't racist? When you resort to crappy dumbass shit like saying "conspiracy garbage" it means you don't like the evidence and want to pretend it doesn't exist. It's a fact that PP is racist in policies, trying to encourage more black women than white women to have abortions. Abortion is barbaric, and the fact that black Americans are disproportionately targeted demonstrates that Planned Parenthood is continuing the same racist policies of their founder, Margaret Sanger.
www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.hβ¦
www.truthwiki.org/margaret-sanβ¦
www.jillstanek.com/2007/05/marβ¦
You don't actually KNOW what a baby in the womb feels, hears, of whatever. We do have evidence that learning of language begins in the womb, therefore the baby is already thinking and feeling; the time this starts is being pushed earlier with new discoveries and studies. Begins to respond to sounds at about 20 weeks, and 4 weeks later it's fully formed. It has arms, hands, fingers, feet, and toes and can open and close its fists and mouth. The external ears are formed, the beginnings of teeth are forming. The liver produces bile and the circulatory and urinary systems are working, and that means that the heart is definitely beating on its own, and "it" urinates.
Ethically, nobody has the 'right' to kill anyone else, not that's stopped anyone from murdering others when they wanted to.
The fact that something is legal doesnβt make it ethical, it makes it an easy choice. The sad thing is that abortion is used as a common form of contraception, an easy and legal one, not as an extreme measure
The baby is not her body, any more than the guy who fucked her is her body while he's fucking her. Just because the kid feeds on a portion of what you take into your body, doesn't make the kid a part of your body. That's like saying all cars are part of gas stations. Both fetuses and cars stop and then leave after a while.
Strange that in the USA, these Planned Parenthood clinics are located mostly in black American neighbourhoods than white neighbourhoods even of similar income levels - seems like someone in authority is intentionally practising eugenics to keep the black American population down.
Contraception use increases as wealth increases, condoms are very cheap to use, abortion on the whole is more expensive and a LOT MORE dangerous to health. Improve their standard of living and health, they won't have as many children because the children will live longer.
Kotego blocked my further replies which is typical censorship you "anti-choice" folks. You are NOT pro "choice" despite all your lies to yourselves and to everyone else.
π: 0 β©: 1
I can't ask one, because again, it isn't able to, and a biologist will tell you the same, and they certainly aren't at all guaranteed to have a dog in that fight, they just state the facts. And the fact is that a fetus is incapable of making any choice, nevermind even be self-aware or process input at a stage were chosen abortion is relevant.
Show me a recent study (within say the last 5 years) that supports your argument of this supposed eugenics agenda still being a thing. And I don't mean more frequent PP's located in empoverished areas, were they need all the support they can get, regardless of skin-color.
π: 0 β©: 1
You can ask one, wait until they're born. Why murder someone and then pretend it's not murder just because they can't talk?
You're not stating facts because you don't know them. Nobody knows with current science how much self-awareness there is, how much brain is needed, at what point a child really begins learning. You're just repeating unwarranted assumptions used as excuses by supporters of abortion which actually don't have any real knowledge. There's voluntary movement (i.e. open/closing fists), reaction to light (Week 15) and facial expressions (Weeks 13-14), but how much awareness is unknown. You don't know, you just make excuses and assume.
You already know that PP is practising racist policies by the number of black children aborted versus the number of white children aborted, that black women are focused upon, that the number of clinics is more than double in black neighbourhoods even when the same income is accounted for. Planned Parenthood targets minorities, concentrating their clinics in minority neighbourhoods. Their founder, Margaret Sanger, designed the organization to use sterilization and abortion to control minority populations - and that's exactly what they've been doing. If they weren't racist, the number of clinics would be evenly distributed regardless of ethnicity. The African-American population in the USA has been reduced over the decades due to these policies.
π: 0 β©: 1
No, why wait when waiting isn't in the cards? A newborn is not at all the same as a fetus within the voluntary abortion range, so entirely irrelevant. And it isn't murder. A fetus doesn't even have rights, because the biology of a fetus is not even close to developed enough to er on the side of caution and grant it rights of any kind. A getus' brain is barely developed at all before some 20-weeks, nothing in there that can facilitate active thought. You can read this on wikipedia, it takes 2 seconds to look up.
Yes you can check for that, because many, many studies have proven it. What keeps improving is our means to keep a fetus alive if it gets born early, or treating other problems that might occur in the womb, which is all well and good. This doesn't mean you can force a woman to go through with a pregnancy they don't wish for, regardless of the circumstances of the conception. Oh really? Biologically/scientifically based reasonings are unwarranted and under-educated? Are you high? If so, what're you smoking and can I have some, because it must be pretty rad to be that high up in the sky you can't see the ground. No, those reactions are reactionairy, same as if you put your hand on a hot stove, the pain makes you reflexively pull your hand back, no active thought required. Breathing is automatic, you need to activaly hold it. Other functions on your body are automatic and requires 0 thought to control.
Oh, here we go with the conspiracy theories again. PROVE that it intends to eradicate blacks NOW. Correlation =/= causation. Have you considered that there are more PP's in certain neighbourhoods, not just black neighbourhoods, because those places are not as well off with economy/education levels, which, guess what, influences the amount of healthcare you need. Uneducated people have unprotected sex, or if they just can't afford other sources for their healthcare, so they go to PP to get their shit covered. PP is still only 3% abortions, which is a ridiculously small amount out of their TOTAL services, which have a very, very broad range. Like just general healthcare check-ups. Are you seriously going to try to convince me that every woman, every single black woman, who goes into PP, are getting pigeonholed into abortion? Because then you're delusional. Have you ever aksed black women what they think of PP, why they go there?
π: 0 β©: 1
It is murder. You say it isn't because you're defining the victim as subhuman.
I don't cite "conspiracy theories", I cited FACTS, moron. It is is a FACT that Planned Parenthood has racist policies that focus upon encouraging African-Americans to have more abortions, a policy so successful that the African-American population in the USA as GONE DOWN! Unlike nearly every other ethnic group.
You're obviously an apologist for genocide.
π: 0 β©: 1
And you're living in the past. 
And I don't think you know your definitions entirely. Human alone doesn't matter. A tumor contains human DNA, dead skin cells etc. Human being has some criteria that a fetus doesn't entirely fullfill. Like being sentient, ability to be conscious, develope a personality (or personhood argument), and a fetus is not physically able to support that under 20 weeks, were the brain is simply not capable to do it. Under 20 weeks is also were the majority if voluntary abortion is legal, and most people get their abortions in the first trimester. And that's simple biology.
I need some proof of that before I'll believe it. About black population going down, specifically because of abortion.
I'm curious, are you for the death penalty, are you for contraceptives (pills/vasectomy etc), supporting single mothers, making adoption easier?
π: 0 β©: 1
Actually, no, I am not living in the past. I'm far more up-to-date than you are as you just gave a lot of excuses based on decades old assumptions from more than thirty years ago.
You don't know if something is sentient or not, when you can't - or won't - ask nor communicate. Decades ago, the assumption - wrongly - was that only humans were capable of abstract thought. It was also assumed - despite accumulated evidence of many cases - that the brain is where all thought happens, all memory resides, that a brain needed to be a certain (unknown) size, etc..... These assumptions began unravelling with great controversy since the 1980s. You wouldn't know about that, because you're the one who is living in the past and outdated.
science.sciencemag.org/contentβ¦
www.drjudithorloff.com/Free-Arβ¦
flatrock.org.nz/topics/scienceβ¦
www.youtube.com/watch?v=no85Pcβ¦
There's a species of jellyfish which hunt in packs in the ocean near Japan. They employ tactics in their hunting (like a wolf pack) which surprised many scientists who studied jellyfish - as jellyfish have no brain. There are people with normal lives and average intelligence (or higher) with almost no discernible brain material. A logical person would consider such facts, and wonder if those assumptions such as yours; "Like being sentient, ability to be conscious, develope a personality (or personhood argument), and a fetus is not physically able to support that under 20 weeks, were the brain is simply not capable to do it." are correct - How would you KNOW?! You don't. You just repeated outdated assumptions of other people.
Learning begins in womb. You mentioned β20 weeksβ, and that's outdated too. It was previously assumed that it was from 30 weeks, then further discoveries pushed that date earlier and earlier. More recently, there's evidence of hearing and learning the mother's language from 16 weeks. How much further wrong are you in all those assumptions of yours?
europepmc.org/abstract/MED/127β¦
news.psu.edu/story/141254/2009β¦
europepmc.org/abstract/MED/311β¦
pss.sagepub.com/content/21/3/3β¦
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11β¦
The number of abortions in the USA of African-Americans is so great in number that it accounts for a 36% difference in the population number from what would otherwise have occurred.
www.blackgenocide.org/black.htβ¦
Of course adoption would be a better idea. There are literally millions of infertile couples who want to adopt children. Planned Parenthood completely ignores this. Supporters of abortion make excuses that don't hold up logically.
Vasectomy is a bad idea. Every man I knew who had a vasectomy later got prostate cancer.
Condoms could be improved in poor countries. In my experience, condoms are quite effective these days. Thirty years ago, they weren't anywhere near as reliable.
Single mothers is a stupid idea. Single mothers have poorer children whose education suffers.
π: 0 β©: 1
Right, so if I go in and scramble your brain, you'll still be there? What a joke...
We are humans, not jellyfish. Also the studies you linked (articles) were from 1980...we've progressed a looot more since then. If the BRAIN dies, WE die. Biological fact of humans, and many other species...
I don't even know what to tell you at this point, other go back to school and learn some basic biology about humans. Also telepathy has not been scientifically proven, and there's been a million dollar challenge running for what, 19 years I think, to prove that there's merit to these claims, and nobody has been able to prove it. Unfortunately, Randi is now retired.
Yes, I'm for adoptions as well...of adopting the EXISTING kids, not robbing the cradle before it's even occupied. There are MANY kids in the adoption centers that still need homes, so there's no point in forcing more children into the worl w/o being able to guarantee them a home. Adoption is an alternative to parenthood, not pregnancy, since it requires the pregnancy to be completed. Again though, I'm all for adoption, adoption of the kids already born, to get homes, before we consider bringing more children into the world on 'behalf'/demand of others.
Prove that vasectomy is linked to cancer.
Yes, I agree.
Stupid or not, do you support helping them out more so that their kids do not have worse circumstances compared to others? If no, should a pregnant, single woman be forced to give birth to a baby, and forcibly having it taken away? That's ridiculously cruel to do... It's equally cruel to force a woman to carry a pregnancy through if she doesn't wish to have one. It's a direct violation of bodily autonomy.
π: 0 β©: 1
Most of those peer-reviewed papers that I linked to, and those studies which they validated, are from the past decade and a half. Some are from the 1990s. Didn't you read anything properly? Being 20-30 years doesn't change their evidence when it's been repeatedly confirmed by other scientific papers since, unlike your assumptions which were refuted by that same later evidence.
Who said humans are jellyfish? Stop being stupid in pretending that the point there isn't apparent; they don't have a brain! Yet they act in a manner which was previously assumed to require a brain, which shows that having a brain isn't necessary for much of what scientists previously assumed was important for it. You can't possibly be that dumb to make such an excuse and be rational about it. There's around 400 people on this planet without a brain, yet living normal lives. Explain this. There's a famous case of a USA military officer during the Vietnam War who not only survived half his brain being blown away during a battle, but continued to give lucid orders to the soldiers under his command while laying there in the midst of that battle - and survived with no alterations in his personality nor intellect.
Telepathy has already been scientifically proven many times over, so has ESP, precognition, and out of body experiences - unfortunately, there's denialism rampant in your country and many others. Out of Body experiences are recognised in legal precedents going back a century, repeatedly confirmed, in the legal systems of the Commonwealth of Nations. The evidence is overwhelming, backed by statistical research. Those who keep saying that the science isn't there are either ignorant, or pseudo-sceptics.
journal.frontiersin.org/articlβ¦
www.williamjames.com/Science/Eβ¦
www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Rupert Sheldrake's research has already proven you to be wrong, and he hasn't said anything which can be proven wrong either. Stop running around in life with your fingers stuck in your ears when reality throws something at you which you don't like just because you were told bullshit and didn't know it at the time. There are a LOT of pseudo-sceptic idiots making a LOT of money selling their horseshit, pretending to be rational while contradicting their own claims, Michael Shermer for example.
onlytheghosts.deviantart.com/aβ¦
So what if there are many kids waiting to be adopted, that does not equal there being a lack of millions of sterile couples wanting to adopt. It only shows that paperwork is a bitch and the system sucks.
I don't support welfare for people stupid enough to ruin their marriages and selfishly ruin their children's lives in doing so. The Western nations have successfully devastated their societies, have horrific divorce rates, broken families, drastically reduced living standards for the average person over the past 70-80 years, and have kids whose both parents are forced by circumstances into working.
The baby is not part of her body. The baby just grows there inside, but is not genetically the same, nor an organ of the woman. Your excuse is illogical. Just being attached doesn't make it the same thing, any more than a guy fucking her means that he's part of her - or a car getting fuel is part of the gas station. By your silly argument, it's okay to murder the lover while his dick is inside the woman.
π: 0 β©: 1
The Randi foundation disagrees, and is staying up to date, run by scientists. Enough said.
And no, they're not without brains, they're brain damaged, there's a really big difference dude... Holy shit.
So what...? You're a pro-birther. You're all for forcing more people into the world, but as soon as they're out, fuck'em, it's their idiot parents problem right? It's not like they had options to NOT have that kid forced into the world or anything, nope. So if contraceptives fail, it's too bad, suck it up, like kids are some kind of punishment? Because that's what it ends up as. Kids are NOT punishments. They should be loved and cherished, not thrown around like a commodity, so there's NO reason to force them into the world, when abortion is safe and available to anyone who wants them, mostly within ethical timelines.
And yes, the fetus is part of her body at that stage, because it cannot live without being hooked up to it. The second the fetus is removed from the womb at that young gestational age, it'll die. Genetics don't matter. Teratoma's have unique human DNA, and we remove those without a second thought. The guy won't die if you remove him from the woman he's banging... Marked difference. The fetus CANNOT live, if it's cut off from the woman at that age. It's first at week 21 that the chances for survival of a pre-born is above 50%. It declines very fast before that, because the body of the fetus is not close to developed enough to survive.
π: 0 β©: 1
James Randi has no scientific credentials whatsoever.
James Randi is a liar and a crook. That's been proven repeatedly. You can rig a game any way you like to avoid paying out when someone comes along, but in his case he's a outright fraud anyway.
www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/fiβ¦
articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011β¦
He's not a 'sceptic', he's a pseudo-sceptic, a fake.
In 1997, Randi threatened to fly to Sri Lanka to persuade Arthur C. Clarke to stop advocating cold fusion. (Clarke, a genuine scientific visionary, inventor of the communication satellite and award-winning author, received degrees, with honors, in physics and mathematics.) In 2001, on a BBC Radio program, Randi attacked Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize-winner and professor of physics at Cambridge University.
Why? Josephson was interested in the possible connections between quantum physics and consciousness. Randi also has a penchant for lawsuitsβhe once tried to sue a writer known for covering the UFO beat, simply because he printed some unflattering but verifiable information about the magician. Randi left the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) because of all the litigation against him.
Charismatic psychic Uri Geller, whose abilities have been tested by a number of prestigious laboratories, has probably been Randi's biggest target. In the process of attempting to discredit the psychic, Randi has also attacked institutions, like Stanford, intrigued by Geller's alleged abilities. He defamed two eminent scientists, Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ, calling them "incompetent." At the time, author Robert Anton Wilson wryly observed, "Randi was not there, yet he claims to know what was going on [during the experiment] better than the two scientists who were supervising it. The only way he could know better ... is if he had 100 percent accurate telepathy."
JREF is not run by scientists, it's run by employees who aren't in the business of losing money by paying out for any claims, therefore they must refuse any possibility of a claim that could be real. Rigged game. Money doesn't motivate you to pay out for a losing bet, when they can set the rules and the game and can rig it - unscientifically - any manner they want to. Randi and his followers at CSI and JREF have no intention of paying ANY claim, under ANY circumstances. Pseudo-sceptics move the evidence goal posts around, and Randi has stated that he ALWAYS HAS a way out. The people at CSI, and JREF talk about evidence, BUT no matter what evidence you have it is NEVER good enough, for CSI or JREF. Even peer reviewed papers from Ph.D level scholarly journals ARE NOT good enough for CSI and JREF.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_91wrhβ¦
You may have missed these links during an edit.
journal.frontiersin.org/articlβ¦
www.williamjames.com/Science/Eβ¦
www.debunkingskeptics.com/
You don't know what you're talking about when you say "they're not without brains, they're brain damaged". No, they are without brains, no discernible nor detectable brain tissue.
No, the fetus is not an organ, the baby is a separate but dependent person. They aren't 'part' of the woman, any more than someone getting a live blood transfusion during a medical emergency is part of the donor.
Genetics always matter when you're talking about humans being part of other humans.
The patient needing a live blood transfusion could quickly die too if the transfusion is stopped too early. Does this make them part of the donor? No.
π: 0 β©: 1
braindomain.weebly.com/do-you-β¦ People CANNOT live without brains. It's physically impossible.
Uri Geller has been proven a fraud. And it's been recorded. And you can find it on youtube now. scienceblogs.com/gregladen/200β¦ Pretty well explained here. If you really believe this shit, you are so gullible you could give aspirin a headache.
Even then, you know what's a right for people? Bodily autonomy. No person can be forced to kep another person alive, regardless if one of them will die if the other doesn't donate something to keep them alive. Done deal. A fetus doesn't even have rights. And since you don't give a shit about kids already born, the fact that you crusade for a lump of tissue that doesn't qualify for rights is rather puzzling.
π: 0 β©: 1
James Randi definitely is a fraud, and being able to duplicate the appearance of something doesn't make the original fake, otherwise the fact that Hollywood movies can mimic the appearance of pretty much anything with special effects means that nothing really exists. I can fake a rocket launch, does that make rocket launches fake? No. I can fake the appearance of a bird flying, does that mean birds are all faking it and not really flying? No. Just because you can fake something does not logically refute the existence of that same thing in other circumstances. James Randi can fake whatever he wants and claim that someone else is doing the exact same trick as he just did, but doesn't equal to it being true that they did. They may have done something else entirely. Mimicking an apparent result does not logically mean that result is always faked, regardless of what that result or effect might be. The argument presented by James Randi - and his cheerleaders - is not rational.
"No person can be forced to kep another person alive" = by this argument, you can say that parents should be ethically able to murder their children whenever they want to. It's a dumbass excuse for murder.
"And since you don't give a shit about kids already born" = this is a false accusation. Shut the fuck up and stop lying about other people, arsewipe.
" If you really believe this shit, you are so gullible you could give aspirin a headache" = go ahead, have your headache. I happen to not only have directly seen and experienced "paranormal" events quite frequently, I am part of an entire clan of unusual people who can do stuff which you idiots think (wrongly and ignorantly) are impossible. Your kind are in denial all the time. You're like colourblind half-deaf fools screaming that colours don't exist and that nobody else can see or hear or do anything better than you. The lines across the sky that are visible in the near infrared, I bet you can't see them - but I can, my son can. There are sound frequencies that most humans are not officially supposed to be able to hear, outside the assumed range of audibility, yet pretty much everyone in my family and among my blood relatives can hear well outside the assumed human range. There are whole lot of things which moronic little dolts like you are too scared to face about the world and what's around you. When you see hints of it, you rationalise it all away, and pretend to yourself that it didn't happen. James Randi and his kind are one of those deniers of the real world, his JREF even denies the results of peer-reviewed scientific studies when these don't fit their narrowminded denialist world view.
π: 0 β©: 1
Really? Then are these alleged psychics just playing up their shit by 'having a bad day'? Do tell.
Well jesus, the slippery slope. You can't be forced to keep someone else alive -using your own body-, i.e. the violinist argument. You cannot be forced to be hooked up to someone else, and using your body functions (like using your body to clean their blood), to keep them alive. So you're not forced to give up, say, a kidney, to save your child. Sure, it's not exactly anything anyone would look fondly on, but it's their rightful choice. Parents have an obligation to feed, clothe,, and otherwise care for their kids, because of parental responsibilities, re-inforced by law, to ensure their health be taken care of.
It's drawing a line on what's expected, and what isn't. And again with drawing lines; a fetus is not the same as a child. The developemental differences are vast, and DNA doesn't matter in that argument. Abortion is not something I want people to have, but the alternatives are much, much worse, and I endorse protecting the -people- that matter in this instance, over something that isn't a person yet. But this is irrelevant to you, because you refuse to look at the evidence for it.
If you can do these things, I'm sure you can also produce proof of it.
π: 0 β©: 1
You haven't yet shown any evidence of any of those psychics failing at all in an independent test. You've cited that fraud James Randi and his equally fraudulent JREF, and you've cited others who have simply echoed those particular frauds as if more people citing the same fraud makes the fraud somehow less of a fraud.
"slippery slope" argument is fallacious.
So, you're saying that everyone should have the right to murder anyone who inconveniences them? Parents should be able to slaughter their kids then. "Law" is irrelevant as an argument on ethics, as laws are often unethical. "Obligation" could be said to apply to a woman to not murder the child of two people (her, and the child's father - who should also have a say in what happens but apparently you don't give a damn about the man's opinion regarding his child, so I guess you're also brainwashed with that man-hating Feminist crap).
You haven't shown in any manner that a fetus is not a child. You just keep playing games of redefining to fit, and disregarding DNA is one of those things which you choose to disregard without any logic at all. The biggest and best alternative to abortion is adoption of the child by someone who can, and will, care for them, and love them. Three million potential parents in the USA, just fix the paperwork, cut back on the bribery need to get past the shitty redtape and the bullshit from Planned Parenthood, and those couples wouldn't be childless any more.
Sure I can prove it, but I'm not your monkey to order around for presenting "tricks" to entertain you with. You've already demonstrated a totally closed mind, and IMHO, that makes you a moron who I don't see any motivation to convince. One day, you'll probably run across some paranormal shit and go nuts when your tightly-held fantasies about the world are blown to shreds. That happened to Michael Shermer, by the way.
π: 0 β©: 1
The debunking was shown on TV mate. It speaks for itself. You're just being pigheaded ignorant. I'm not telling you to think like I do, but be sceptical, like you -claim- to be. I'm perfectly willing to accept a psychic for a psychic, if they can prove that they are psychics, under scientific rigor. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence mate. Tell me that you went to a resteaurant with Gordon Ramsey they other day, I could believe that, with a grain of salt, but tell me that you can see pink pixie unicorns managing the clouds or something, I'll ask you what drugs you're on, or rather, not on, because that claim is so out there, so contrary to every scientific evidence we have, that you will need to prove it with undisputable evidence to be taken seriously. So on this area, I'm agnostic, so to speak.
And no, I have never said anything like that, so don't put words in my mouth. You have no clue what you're talking about, since you have to wrench what I say out of context. And look at the accusations! Wow, talk about assumptions. Again.
Those couples wouldn't be childless, if they actually tried for adoption. There are plenty of kids in the system without homes...but nobody wants them. So that's their problem, I ain't signing anyone up to be a broodmare unless they want to. I'm not advicating for free murder, byecause humans possess empathy, and we seek out rules and structures for protection; pack-mentality. I care a lot for people, even if I'm particularly empathic, I care because I have some moral fiber. I care about human beings. Human beings who can think, feel, experience life. Damage like coma or something else that renders a born human being incapable of doing so fully, should still be protected, because they can still do most of the previously said things, just to a limited degree. A fetus can do none of these things while below 20 weeks, because it simply isn't developed enough. It doesn't have the parts to do so, and their DNA means fuck all in that regard. You don't buy a crate of parts for a motor and call it a motor. It's a crate of motor parts. They need assembly to do what you bought it for. If you gave that crate to me, and I have no need for it, I'll get rid of it, because I don't want it. It's still a crate of parts, not a motor. Yes, a fetus developes if you leave it alone, that's why there's a -limited- amount of time were voluntary abortion is legal (unless you're Canada, but they're crazy), which I agree with, were people have time to get one if they want one. If they want one after that amount of time, then too bad, you had the chance, because now the fetus warrants protection. It warrants protection because it's so far developed that its mental faculties indeed could start processing input and start doing those afforementioned things, but a fetus below 20 weeks can't (because it practically doesn't have a brain). That's why a fetus below doesn't not get rights to protection, and the fetus above does, same reason why people can't just murder eachother for no damned reason and not end up in jail, you tosspot. Yes, we kill eachother on a daily basis for whatever excuse you can find, those people end up with some sort of punishment if we can get to them and enforce it. As it should be. Call me out for frivolous murder again and we're defintively done, because then you really are an ignoramus, and there's no sense in wasting my time on you.
And you know why men don't get a say? Because they're not the ones pregnant. They don't have the prospect of carrying the fetus for 9 months, dealing with all the physical consequences of it, etc. They can freely have, and air, their opinion about it, not like there's a gag order on it, but the final say is on the woman who has to deal with it. The man can technically walk away when he pleases, no cost involved, the woman cannot. Let's not get into child support, because I don't want to argue that with you, but I support financial abortion for men, as long as it's done in the same period that a woman can opt for a voluntary abortion, in time for her to make a decision afterwards.
Oh, you can prove it, but you can't be arsed? Then neither can I, and I will wave your claim. Simple as. Why haven't you gone to scientists though? If you can prove this thing you supposedly can do, then that could dramatically change things. Or can you just not be bothered to have your claim scrutinized and rejected if people find it to be bogus...
Exceptional claims = exceptional evidence.
π: 0 β©: 1
Stuff shown on TV? Oh that makes it all true then. Sorry MATE, it's called an IDIOT BOX for a very good reason.
The couples DO try to adopt, I mentioned that already, so why are you carrying on as if they didn't? There aren't enough kids available, yet there are MILLIONS of babies being aborted.
Planned Parenthood and similar organisations make more money from selling parts, and they're not in the adoption business. They'd see it as a threat to their business.
www.ocregister.com/articles/tiβ¦
You really don't know what a baby in the womb can, or can't do, as much you think that you do. I keep pointing it that you're using outdated information. You keep recycling debunked, ancient crap. Just recently it was discover the heart begins beating at 16 days, and NOBODY in the medical community even guessed that a few years ago.
No, the reason you don't believe a man should have a say in what happens to his own child is that you're one of those brainwashed losers who have totally swallowed the Feminist bullshit.
Nothing exceptional about being "psychic". It's just the new fangled word for a very old and well known (in most cultures) reality. Some people can hear sounds above and below the normal human range. Some people can see light frequencies outside the normal human visible spectrum, Some people can "feel" who is about to ring on a telephone before they answer it, most men (but only a minority of women) can sense magnetic fields well enough to subconsciously pick the direction of magnetic north 90% of the time, some people can always recognise the sex of an unborn child from the mother's appearance and smell, some people can hit a cricket ball and react before the bowler has thrown that same ball, some people can almost always pick the subtle cues on a person's forehead that tell their real emotional feelings about a subject and be correct 80% of the time as if they were mindreading, some people can pick up a letter and tell you the contents before opening it, some people can control their heart rate and body temperature at will......
Nor is it exceptional for idiots to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend that any evidence of weirdness will just go away so they can pretend it never happened. What you moronic dolts call "paranormal" isn't 'para' anything, it's normal but not yet understood - and many twits have this odd little denialist habit of deluding themselves by putting anything which isn't understood and categorised into their "Does Not Exist" box regardless of it's actuality. Physicists generally have little problem accepting the possibility of odd things because of all of those odd things that they can't explain but exist regardless of what they wish were true; quantum synchronicity, electron tunnelling, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, the fact that Einsteinian Physics and Quantum Mechanics don't reconcile, the lack of evidence of Dark Matter (a magical substance needed to explain why other stuff isn't happening in the Cosmos the way it's supposed to if the Big Bang happened).
π: 0 β©: 1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal⦠This page has been up for ages, we know quite a lot, because people have studied it. And the heart starts beating in week 6, so maybe you should read more, instead of having your head up your arse.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_β¦ Baby-part selling is fabricated to de-fame them.
And you have met Uri Geller in real life then? He's demonstrated his tricks to you personally? He's as much a psychic as I am a penguin. The debunking that James Randi did of, say, James Hydrick, was done very simply, and even for TV, there was no reason to have further 'rigged' it so Hydrick would fail the second time. He could've easily succeeded if his claims were true.
Either way, body temperature 'control' is done via physical techniques, it's impressive, but not anything related to being 'psychic' or especially gifted. Your body can do a lot of things if you train enough and know what to do. Your eyes being able to see something other humans cannot should be noticable in the physical structure and composition of your eyeballs = testible. Aside from that, we can see infrared light under certain conditions as well, which, sure isn't as impressive as being permanently able to see it, but that hasn't been proven.
And then you claim shit that people can do, like predicting the gender of a fetus...you realize there's always a 50/50 chance right? And based on ...smell? Genetics can be related to that. Genetics can have a big role in how people percieve other people by smell. One person smelling another person who's slightly sweaty might be repulsed by a bad smell, while someone else could find the smell appealing. While it isn't common knowledge, it's been around for a good time by now...
Then I can feel when some people are about to call sometimes. Because it's happened to me. It's happened to my mom, my brother, most people I know have experienced it, if they even take note of it happening. These things are coincidences. Besides, if you expect a call from someone, because either they told you, or something of relevance that would make them call you is in effect, then you have circumstantial advantage. Even with guesswork, there's always a chance of being right, and in a profound way, that doesn't mean it's some special ability that only you and a select few posses. And if it is, get it validated by the scientists so it can be documented, it'd be cool.
Detecting emotions from really small visual clues is something all of us can be trained to do. Look at poker players. We humans are normally ridiculously aware of expressional clues from other people, that's how 'tells' were found, again, in relation to poker players, as an example. Have you ever seen one of those creepy-ass digital people talk, and despite knowing that they're digitally created, you can definately see it, because their movement and expressions are just -off-. The more you train yourself to pick up on these things, the more you can, and it can be very interesting to do.
And yes, being a psychic is exceptional, because it involves doing things that no others/very few others, can do if they're not cheaty scammers. And it's easy to scam with it, that's the whole point James Randi is trying to make out of it. These tricks they did were much easier explained by physical circumstances and explenations rather than a supernatural one, and the supernatural was not proven present. Why should we just accept the words coming out of someone's mouth in terms of extraordinairy ability, when there are physical reasons why that thing can take place, and when it can be tested if it is just physical reasons (i.e. cheating) that're happening, and not the actual psychic ones (they don't care about physics). I'm entirely open to the idea, or possible reality, that true psychics exist, but there has been no proof. Same with any deities.
People can do some pretty cool shit, doesn't mean it's special, or elitist, like some people seem to think.
And just because we can't explain it now, doesn't mean we never will. It doesn't mean something is special or breaks any laws as such, just means we haven't found the middle thing, if there is one. Temperence, dude.
π: 0 β©: 0
Yes they do. Abortion kills unborn human beings. Abortions shouldn't remain legal for innocent lives are lost that way.
π: 0 β©: 1
Odd then, human rights don't apply to fetuses.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes they do. Why do people get charged with double homicide for murdering a pregnant woman you hypocrite?
π: 0 β©: 1
Sentimental homage.
Still doesn't grant a fetus human rights it doesn't qualify for.
π: 0 β©: 1
Same excuse the Nazis used towards the Jews, especially ignoring sound science that life begins at conception.
π: 0 β©: 1
No, life begins way before that, conception perpetuates it. There's nothing significant that makes a fetus warrant rights that cannot be refuted. Are you gonna bring up SLED next?
π: 0 β©: 1
That's a false cause fallacy and an invalid argument.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you so much for the fav :3
you've got some sweet gryphon art in your gallery
π: 0 β©: 1
You're welcome, it's a very nice and simple education work!
And thanks.
π: 0 β©: 0
Just wanted to say I highly agree with what you said on that 500 dollar adopt, or whatever amount it was. I find it ridiculous, the ONLY reason they sell like that is because it's a over used fad of a style. And it's no different than hollister or acrombie and fitch, they are not selling because they're inherently amazing products, they're selling for the name, and that's really it.
I find it a bit unfair, not as a child whining, but as in: I know plenty of artists that apply far more skill, time, effort, and originality that get nothing near that, not even a third of that price. Such as myself, my digital skills are not near my traditional(to my dismay), but even so, I spend far more time (and originality) in my artwork and I'm lucky to get 5 dollars for a highly detailed sketch. But I'm trained traditionally, not digitally, but that doesn't really deter effort and originality.
People are simply attacking you because they rather defend a popular artist, not think for themselves- As the term goes, "sheep."Β
I think it's honestly /cheap/ to replicate another user's style to get popular. I mean yes, one can argue that if that marketing technique works, then that's fine and dandy. However, that wouldn't work in the REAL art world. I.e, off of these simple internet sites. If you pulled that in the "real" world, you would most likely get sued. {: And that's all there is to it. Point made with that fact alone, really.
There's a reason that (for example) many manga'ka artists get sued and can no longer publish- whether it's stealing a style or the storyline- it's still ripping something off. Sadly, I've also seen the person who stole it, win over the judge through connections, get the original artist banned from publishing. Which astonishes me, and angers, how ridiculous the world can be sometimes. Which is no different than here. I remember the first artist who exhibited that particular style, and how over the span of 6 months to a year, countless users began replicating it. Not simply because they liked it, but because it sold. And on a smaller note, it's sad that cartoony art sells, and realism is pretty much thrown under the table.
Dont get me wrong, cartoony art can be amazing, I quite like a lot of it. But that doesn't mean they've actually taken the time to educate themselves in things like anatomy. Many times they havent.Β
SO ANWAYS, with that all being said. You're 100% right, and it's almost laughable how people march to a popular person's tune, let alone spend that much money on a set of pixels. Granted, if I could make that much money doing what the artist does, by all means I would, but so far my experience is that my style means squat- which means I, A) will not be noticed and therefore, B) will not get much money.
BUT- I give you kudos for speaking up like that. And it isn't "rude" like so many are trying to throw at the few users who have stood up and made a comment about it. It's sharing their own opinion, there is a reason it's called freedom of speech. There's no naming and shaming, there's simply explaining a logical appeal. Nothing more. But logic doesn't seem to register much in online communities. And when someone is logical, you're only "rude." :~P people are silly.
And with that, have a wonderful night. {': <3
π: 0 β©: 1
Hehe, thanks for the kind words.
I don't mind people making money off of simplicity, sometimes that's the best, but not to that degree, that doesn't make sense...
I've paid for designs, from someone like Fydbac, who, in my humble opinion, is great at designs, and doesn't do that silly bid-whoring, it's just straight up paying, you get to decide some things, and occasionally they do an auction, but that's a buyout first come first serve.
I love cartoony art, and anime, and realism, depending on the theme and tone, so everything deserves spotlight.
Just...can't wrap my head around throwing obscene amounts of money at a simple concept work... Well, people can spend money on whatever they please, but that much money on something that doesn't match up to the price tag is bound to create spoiled creators, which can only serve as their detriment...
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>