@TangledThorns

From what I've read in the scientific literature, they say that fetus' brains and sex develop at different points, so e.g. hormone spikes at a certain point in development can make the brain male or female, while the rest of the body develops to be the opposite sex.

(Individuals' sex can be more complicated than just genetic sex. Genetic males can grow up to appear female in every way if there are certain unusual hormonal conditions.)

OK Ok. i have to be the guy who turns this in a wrong direction. Sorry.

I have worked with these wonderful individuals who have Down Syndrome and have cherished my time with them. Yet I have to throw out these stats and wonder how people today feel about it:

"A 2002 literature review of elective abortion rates found that 91–93% of pregnancies in the United Kingdom and Europe with a diagnosis of Down syndrome were terminated. Data from the National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register in the United Kingdom indicates that from 1989 to 2006 the proportion of women choosing to terminate a pregnancy following prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome has remained constant at around 92%.

In the United States a number of studies have examined the abortion rate of fetuses with Down syndrome. Three studies estimated the termination rates at 95%, 98%, and 87% respectively." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#Abortion_rates)

My question to you is: Should we terminate any child that has a pre-birth diagnosis of Down Syndrome? And if so, will you miss seeing stories like the above? Since we cannot cure Down Syndrome, is the answer to just terminate it before it happens...or should we encourage parents to try and bring these beautiful children into the world? Videos like these sort of hinge on that choice.

Although I'm a late Gen X'er (1981), I like the Beatles. I think they wrote very good and diverse music and were a good performing band. They aren't in my very-short-list of personal favorite bands or songs, with personal being a very key word. To each his own; I might hate what you like and you might hate what I like but neither of us is "wrong".

That being said, I think that in the future the Beatles are in some danger of being to music what Shakespeare is to literature. I (personally again) dislike most Shakespeare, and I think that modern Western culture tends to shove his works down ones throat more than necessary. Worse, collectively our culture overreacts to anyone that for whatever reason says they aren't a fan: Don't like Bieber / Michael Jackson / what or whoever? That's cool. Don't like Shakespeare? Philistine! He's the greatest writer of all time! Wharrgarrbl!

I guess what I'm saying is that I can imagine that in 50+ years, a kid might be sitting in school listening to his teachers go on and on about how Shakespeare was the best writer of all time and the Beatles were the best musicians of all time, and anyone thinks otherwise is just wrong, end of discussion. It will be a shame if that happens. By all means play the music (and teach a Shakespeare play or two), but let the reactions and opinions fall where they may.

There are many organisations which have conflicting views, (my Tamaskan is 5 years old, male, un-neutered, and non violent) you happen to support the one that supports your extremely slim argument. I support the testimonies of people who deal, on a daily basis, with the terrible effects these breeds can have. Why do you think so many countries ban fighting dogs? Don't you think they have studied all the literature? Your 3 year old is very advanced for his age knowing how to control a fighting breed, how did you get the dog to respect a 3 year olds authority? I suspect, as you did for yourself, with force. You are certainly not a responsible person taking such a risk with your child in allowing the child to take a bone off such an animal. You cannot be 100% sure it will not react, yet you are incomprehensibly willing to take that risk. Regardless of the breed, no one in their right mind would risk their child in such a cavalier fashion. I could point you in the direction of myriad reports and videos on the dangers of fighting breeds but, obviously, it would be a waste of time. I wish you good luck with your child, and sincerely hope you do not live to regret your words.

Your talk of "the present climate" is intriguing. What present climate exists for the most powerful nation and military force that has ever existed? You see American citizens are so absolutely terrified of everything that it's just gotten ridiculous. People believe that the Chinese are going to attack any minute, that Iran is off our coast with a nuclear weapon. Usually these threats exist coming from those who have our boot on their necks. The disparity of force is mind blowing.

I'm sorry but we are not in need of protection like this. We go around the world supporting terror and tyranny and you say that's for the greater good? I don't believe so, but it's interesting the way you say it, many people believe that we are somehow just about to be strangled by some crazy powerful threat. It's a part of a lot of literature, I suggest you look into the long history of fear in the US...it's not dissimilar to the German public and their fear of Jews that was dredged up.

How about "Golem Spider" because it makes a Golem. Golems are endemic to D&D folklore and secular literature as well as Jewish folklore. Golems are made of mud and debris and they are animated by a magician. It seems a fitting metaphor.

Perhaps there's a similar creature in indigenous amazon folklore to the Golem and if so, I submit that as an alternate name too.

I'd like to know how many webs had 8 legged constructs and if that's the sole instance, I'd go with your fungus theory. I figure you scientifically ruled out it was the exoskeleton of a dead spider.

Why do you call it a 'he'? Did you sex it? Do only females of this species create webs?

GOLEM SPIDER GOLEM SPIDER GOLEM SPIDER GOLEM SPIDER GOLEM SPIDER GOLEM SPIDER GOLEM SPIDER GOLEM SPIDER GOLEM SPIDER GOLEM SPIDER GOLEM SPIDER.

Here's a naming suggestion: Google/Image Search each of the proposed spider names come up and see what kinds of associations (other than to what presently seems to be called 'the decoy spider') already exist.

sorry man.the distinction argument is bullshit as well.
that somehow one evil is less evil than the other.

one of the problems i have with the distinction argument is that it attempts to discern...or worse..rationalize.. the intent.
that when the terrorists kill,maim and torture it is for nefarious and evil reasons but when WE do it,the cause is just and noble and that any collateral damage is purely a misjudgement or a mistake.

this is the epitome of hypocrisy.

i am in no way defending the horrors perpetrated upon innocent civilians in the name of god by the taliban.i am,however,pointing out that what we do in the name of (fill in whatever propagandist literature you wish) is just as heinous and evil.

which brings me back to my main point:governments lie.

All Non-FOX media is how we're going to divide this from now on right? Everyone is dumb except Fox News and the people who follow Fox news. There's no such thing as journalism, or science, or literature is that correct?

QM you know the world is more complex than that. Also Democracy Now is an organization that broadcasts the truth about Obama daily.

Thumbnail is from *related=http://videosift.com/video/Hysterical-Literature-Session-One-Stoya

Hysterical Literature: Session One: Stoya has been added as a related post - related requested by gwiz665.

Here's a quote for you. The husband of the deceased:

“The doctor told us the cervix was fully dilated, amniotic fluid was leaking and unfortunately the baby wouldn’t survive.” The doctor, he says, said it should be over in a few hours. There followed three days, he says, of the foetal heartbeat being checked several times a day.

“Savita was really in agony. She was very upset, but she accepted she was losing the baby. When the consultant came on the ward rounds on Monday morning Savita asked if they could not save the baby could they induce to end the pregnancy. The consultant said, ‘As long as there is a foetal heartbeat we can’t do anything’.

“Again on Tuesday morning, the ward rounds and the same discussion. The consultant said it was the law, that this is a Catholic country. Savita [a Hindu] said: ‘I am neither Irish nor Catholic’ but they said there was nothing they could do.

“That evening she developed shakes and shivering and she was vomiting. She went to use the toilet and she collapsed. There were big alarms and a doctor took bloods and started her on antibiotics.

“The next morning I said she was so sick and asked again that they just end it, but they said they couldn’t.”

At lunchtime the foetal heart had stopped and Ms Halappanavar was brought to theatre to have the womb contents removed. “When she came out she was talking okay but she was very sick. That’s the last time I spoke to her.”

source - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/1224326575203.html
The Irish Times

Now, do you think they should have removed the source of that septicaemia sooner?

(Bias declaration: I was within feet of the people pictured on the front of this video above)

>> ^harlequinn:

From the linked article "An autopsy carried out by Dr Grace Callagy two days later found she died of septicaemia “documented ante-mortem” and E.coli ESBL."
The risk of septicaemia is the same whether the baby dies by itself or whether the baby is killed by Drs (i.e. an abortion) - in both cases the baby is born dead and it is the medical intervention itself that presents the risk for complications. This is well documented in medical literature.


She was screaming and vomiting in her hospital bed for three days>> ^harlequinn:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^harlequinn:
From the linked article "An autopsy carried out by Dr Grace Callagy two days later found she died of septicaemia “documented ante-mortem” and E.coli ESBL."
The risk of septicaemia is the same whether the baby dies by itself or whether the baby is killed by Drs (i.e. an abortion) - in both cases the baby is born dead and it is the medical intervention itself that presents the risk for complications. This is well documented in medical literature.

You want to maybe post some of that literature? Because if not, you're just a fucking liar.

Not posting any literature doesn't make me a liar - it just makes you uninformed - sorry, "fucking uninformed".

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^harlequinn:
From the linked article "An autopsy carried out by Dr Grace Callagy two days later found she died of septicaemia “documented ante-mortem” and E.coli ESBL."
The risk of septicaemia is the same whether the baby dies by itself or whether the baby is killed by Drs (i.e. an abortion) - in both cases the baby is born dead and it is the medical intervention itself that presents the risk for complications. This is well documented in medical literature.

You want to maybe post some of that literature? Because if not, you're just a fucking liar.


Not posting any literature doesn't make me a liar - it just makes you uninformed - sorry, "fucking uninformed".

>> ^harlequinn:

From the linked article "An autopsy carried out by Dr Grace Callagy two days later found she died of septicaemia “documented ante-mortem” and E.coli ESBL."
The risk of septicaemia is the same whether the baby dies by itself or whether the baby is killed by Drs (i.e. an abortion) - in both cases the baby is born dead and it is the medical intervention itself that presents the risk for complications. This is well documented in medical literature.


You want to maybe post some of that literature? Because if not, you're just a fucking liar.

From the linked article "An autopsy carried out by Dr Grace Callagy two days later found she died of septicaemia “documented ante-mortem” and E.coli ESBL."

The risk of septicaemia is the same whether the baby dies by itself or whether the baby is killed by Drs (i.e. an abortion) - in both cases the baby is born dead and it is the medical intervention itself that presents the risk for complications. This is well documented in medical literature.

>> ^jimnms:

Caffeine is not a diuretic.

“In the 10 studies reviewed, consumption of a caffeinated beverage resulted in 0 to 84 percent retention of the initial volume ingested, whereas consumption of water resulted in 0 to 81 percent retention.”
Another study, in the same journal in 2005, involved scientists following 59 active adults over 11 days while controlling their caffeine intake. They were given caffeine in capsule form on some days and on other days were given a placebo. Researchers found no significant differences in levels of excreted electrolytes or urine volume. [source]