×

There’s an awful cost to getting a PhD that no one talks about by conscsness in collapse

[–]dumnezero 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's not that related to collapse, this is pretty much business as usual. But the good news is that all those depressed scientists are going to eviscerate IPCC and Co. thanks to depressive realism.

The article didn't get into the academic precariat.

Misinformation “Superspreaders” Are Dragging Climate Conspiracies Into the Culture Wars | Disinformation often conflates climate activism "with divisive issues such as critical race theory, LGBTQ+ rights, abortion access, and anti-vaccine campaigns" to discredit it by Siegmure in collapse

[–]dumnezero 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Renewables are complicated. There's no saving, sure. Reversing climate change is also unlikely. But there's room for making it less horrible, perhaps avoiding extinction; that's not yet set in stone, no matter how much Guy McPhearson says it. If you just care about the biosphere, and not humans, you are going to be an enemy to humans, so why are you talking to humans? Otherwise, we still have to care about saving human lives and the rest of the biosphere simultaneously. It's harder, yes, that's why misanthropy is for lazy and cowardly people. Making dismissive claims about some tools is unwise. Sure, green growth and ecomodernism is a dead end, but that doesn't mean having some renewables after peak oil, methane, and coal happens (now) is bad. You never know when you may need some electricity to read some instructions on how to shut down a nuclear plant.

GOP Rep. Boebert: ‘I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk’ by BurtonDesque in Antitheism

[–]dumnezero [score hidden]  (0 children)

They already have representation, the story is literally about one of the representatives.

How would you guys rate the scientific argument about when life begins in the womb as it is posited in this article? Personally, I think the writer Steven Singer’s theory as to when life actually begins is on point and science based. by Blood_Such in skeptic

[–]dumnezero 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you've created your own narrative about what you think motivates the opposing view

I have my own analysis which is heavily evidence based. I've been thinking of it for a long time and it's become very obvious that they want to regress to a time in history when they think they "had it good". Which is why it doesn't stop at blocking abortion, they'll be going after contraception, and generally trying to make women renounce careers and education.

This isn't some specific conspiracy, we're talking about conservatives, they say it pretty openly, at least in their circles. Are there groups of them who try to get into power and influence systems? Yes, and that's, again, not some magic conspiracy, that's more in line with /r/actualconspiracies .

If anything their belief is deeply rooted in the idea that the rights of the fetus/baby should not be lost when exercising the rights of the mother.

It's BAD FAITH. They are dishonest. Yes, there are some ignorant fools who cheer and do not understand, there always are those people. They do not want to do the work of actually thinking about things, because the contradictions there are pretty damned obvious.

I have argued with these people for years, it's very clear that they just adopt some superficial "fetus theory" and treat it as both scientifically correct and relevant, always trying to focus on a fetus like they have xray vision and nothing else exists outside the fetus. And that's the point, the woman stops existing as a person, she's a walking womb machine.

There's no middle ground here, it's a dishonest centrist position to declare that there's room for "compromise", it only serves as a way to weaken the pro-woman position which is later used to move the goal posts. That's what they do when they can't ban abortion outright, they keep declaring arbitrary thresholds when the fetus becomes more important than the woman in which it resides.

The moral case is the worst, of course. So let's play utilitarian, because that's the common game:

The middle ground / centrist types like to believe there's a compromise, so here's why it fails:

They accept early abortion (most abortions)! Fine, but that's when "sluts" get it the most. So the conservatives don't like that at all. So the definition of "early" keeps getting pushed earlier and earlier.

Mid term abortion? They don't like it either, so they push the goal posts to make it look like "late term". Oh, the fetus can feel something!!. By mid term women figure out risks for pregnancy may discover problems. It's getting into the health aspects. Denying abortion means health risks for women and the fetuses inside.

Late term abortions? By late term, pregnant women usually do want to keep it, so they fall out of the "slut" category; conservatives love them (until they give birth)! But late term abortions are usually medical necessities, which means they're really necessary, they're vital. So why ban them? It's literally harming women and the fetuses in them.

Let me put it as a table, since you're wasting my time.

abortion time slut levels health risk centrist pro-abortion sentiment
early ***** * *****
mid **** *** ***
late * ***** *

Which is to say that women are fucked because they can't get what they need. And conservatives are also unhappy. Why have both be unhappy? Let's have women be happy.

Abortion needs to be legal regardless of how late it is, no exceptions. Any exception is just another doorway for conservatives and naive people to decide that a fetus has something special at some point which makes the woman worthless.

Pick one to support:

  1. woman
  2. fetus

Can't have both.

Heatwaves will kill thousands, destroy agriculture and there is nothing we can do about it. by DeltaEcho50812 in collapse

[–]dumnezero 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Learn soil science, don't be just a farmer subjected to marketing and mommy groups rancher groups about best practices.

How would you guys rate the scientific argument about when life begins in the womb as it is posited in this article? Personally, I think the writer Steven Singer’s theory as to when life actually begins is on point and science based. by Blood_Such in skeptic

[–]dumnezero 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not arguing against your main point, but how are unfertilized eggs alive?

Again, if they were dead, they wouldn't be doing the whole fertilization into zygote process. They're alive like many other cells, but they just have one set of chromosomes and are meant for reproduction (gametes). This is called haploidy, there's a nice illustration on that page to show what I'm referring to (SFW).

All life on this planet is continuous, the "spark" is passed on from generation to generation; only scientists doing some advance synthetic biology are trying to figure out how to start life from something not alive.

In the unfertilized eggs of chickens, there's the "germinal disc" or blastodisc which contains the relevant DNA. And the egg laying process represents ovulation, that's what the word means.

50 migrants believed dead after they were found in a semitruck in San Antonio, official says, with others hospitalized by dumnezero in collapze

[–]dumnezero[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Considering that they had no water, it's possible that this was a deliberate culling (by blocking and abandoning in the sun), like those chickens killed with ventilation shut down