Wow, your avatar is s̶̡̘̬͍̎̑̾͋͌̾̚o ą̬̻̣͔͍̊̍ͪ̋͆͟ͅw̵̫̦͔͙͓̍̋̆̓͟T
5;̱̥eͩ̎ͨ̃̌҉̵͕̗͇̀s̃ͫ͏͕̜̙͚̟̬ö̉
̤̦̰͇̤̦̼̺͘m̱͙͓̰̺ͧ̓̇͐̆ͭͨͮ̚ͅeU
9;̜̹̮̿͆̊̊̌͘͟͠

!

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Why is a heartbeat so important? Deer have heartbeats and yet, every fall, the forests are filled with armed Republicans.
Since we clearly only care about killing humans, if a line is to be drawn in the sand, then I say it needs to be on the basis of the development of a definitively human quality in the fetus.
I must have missed your comment earlier and wanted to reply, but the latest three replies in that thread were already mine, and the last one is, to me, the most important, so I figured I'd reply here.



I put the heartbeat comment in parentheses because it wasn't the point in itself, but illustrative of how quickly the fetus develops. After seeing my own developing children on an ultrasound, I can understand the reasoning behind the "mandatory pre-operative ultrasound" legislation a few states have instituted. I was very surprised by how quickly things go from "dark blob" to "vaguely humanoid" to "little person" and I suspect a non-trivial proportion of people seeking abortion may be as uninformed about it as I was. I was not at all expecting to hear their heartbeats when we did, which is why the heartbeat illustration carries weight with me.

I think your "line in the sand" is a perfectly rational approach. I disagree personally, but I can appreciate that you're taking a reasoned approach and I would be willing to accept it as a basis for legislation on the matter.
It gets problematic when we attempt to define "a definitively human quality". On one extreme, a human fetus is and will be a human fetus. On the other extreme, even newborns only look human, and exhibit few, if any, behaviors that distinguish them from primates. (Primate rights, or animal rights in general being another hot potato, tying in to the "only care about killing humans" sentiment.)

What, to you, would constitute a "definitively human quality"? Limbs? Beginning of neural development?
(This directly ties into what I think is that "most important question", so if you'd like to reply in the original thread, that's great.)

Somehow I missed (or didn't receive) the notification that you'd replied to my question about "safe nuclear". Awesome info, thanks!

Just stumbled onto your profile page and noticed an exchange you had with dag a few months back.
What constitutes "safe nuclear"? Is that a specific type or category of nuclear power?
Without context (which I'm sure I could obtain elsewise with a simple Google search, but I'd rather just ask), it sounds like "clean coal".

Question!

When a dupeof is invoked and votes are transferred, does it properly handle the situation where a given individual has already voted for both videos?

Aww, ain't it a bummer that this one's dead?

The original, and slightly higher-quality video of the Bugatti Veyron accident is here.

Head's up, dead video alert:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Lamborghini-Gallardo-burns-itself-to-the-ground

One interesting thing is that shot glass didn't actually produce the hit I was expecting; instead it hit the writer's offhand remark about a "shot of acquitted felons streaming out of the courthouse". But it worked, so hey.
It's Lazydude's fault he's hard to find, though. He wore the bathrobe to distinguish himself - he should have included that tag somewhere in his video descriptions.

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
Haha. That's damn near the same string of keywords that I used! I just didn't scroll all the way down! Thanks!

In reply to this comment by ReverendTed:
I Googled movie reviews bathrobe shot glass and the last link on the first page was your answer: Lazydork.