Another Dinosaur-to-Bird Transitional Fossil

Science • Views: 3,173

Here’s some important science news from last week that slipped through LGF’s cracks: the discovery of a four-fingered theropod that fills in another step in the evolution of dinosaurs into birds.


Image credit: James Clark

A newly discovered dinosaur provides a fossil snapshot of the reptiles’ evolution into birds, and neatly fills a troublesome transitional gap.

Living 159 million years ago in what is now Western China, Limusaurus inextricabilis was a small, herbivorous member of the theropod family. The coelurosaur branch of that family survives today, in highly modified form, as birds.

But while bird wings appear to have developed from the middle three digits of a five-digit hand, theropod forelimbs have just three digits, leaving a double-digit gap in the evolutionary record. Limusaurus inextricabilis, described in a paper published Wednesday in Nature, appears to fill that gap.

It has four digits. The first is shrunken, while the second is enlarged, as if compensating for the dimunition of the first. And though this transitional creature didn’t yet have the feather-like structures found in later proto-bird dinosaurs, it did have a toothless upper and lower jaw — in other words, a beak.

Jump to bottom

205 comments
1 Charles Johnson  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:29:57pm

Of course, every time you fill in a gap, you make two new gaps.

2 wrenchwench  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:31:21pm

Speaking of gaps, it's too bad A.W. can't be here to show its appreciation for this post.

////////////////////

3 HelloDare  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:32:29pm

They say it tasted like chicken.

4 Dancing along the light of day  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:33:20pm

Thanks for the dinosaur fossil discovery postings!

5 Steve Rogers  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:33:28pm

Obviously Satan planted that fake to test our faith. /

6 screaming_eagle  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:34:02pm

But the REAL question is :
Were they good BBQ?

7 Charles Johnson  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:34:22pm

Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly are trotting out the smears against Dr. Tiller again. Coulter just said she doesn't think of killing Tiller as a murder.

"I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don't believe in imposing my morality on others."

8 jorline  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:34:40pm

re: #1 Charles

Of course, every time you fill in a gap, you make two new gaps.

That's what Perez Hilton said...he's on my shit list tonight.

Nice fossil Charles.

9 Syrah  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:34:58pm

re: #1 Charles

Of course, every time you fill in a gap, you make two new gaps.

A problem of infinite division.

No matter, those that are tripped up by the gaps are looking for magic, not science. They will never be satisfied less they see the actual and physical hand of God shape the mud into a living creature. It's as if they lack the faith to accept that God created the world as it exists.

10 jaunte  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:36:56pm

re: #7 Charles


"I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don't believe in imposing my morality on others."

Nasty.

11 wrenchwench  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:37:15pm
Limusaurus (meaning "mud lizard")
The specific name means "impossible to extricate"

Take that as a caution, lizards.....

12 avanti  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:37:46pm

re: #7 Charles


"I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don't believe in imposing my morality on others."

Tell me she did not say that ? WTF does she think she's doings by condemning a legal medical procedure.

13 ArmyWife  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:38:38pm

re: #7 Charles

Which is just so stupid. There e been many times I've enjoyed reading Coulter, but things like this outweigh the good.

14 Jetpilot1101  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:40:00pm

Science is so friggin' cool.

15 ArmyWife  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:40:03pm

re: #12 avanti

are you kidding me? I condemn the procedure with every ounce of my existence, but I do not DO NOT condone murdering anyone. It's possible to condemn the one, without supporting the other.

16 legalpad  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:40:27pm

re: #7 Charles

Why do smart people not get it to not talk about shooting people on national TV?

17 ArmyWife  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:41:38pm

re: #16 legalpad

I think it was an attempt at humor. A failed attempt.

18 Charles Johnson  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:41:55pm

"If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist."

19 Truck Monkey  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:42:11pm

re: #15 ArmyWife

I was thinking the same thing. You said it much better than I ever could.

20 irongrampa  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:42:21pm

Always been a wonder to me that given the conditions needed to allow fossilization we have the picture currently shown. Don't imagine there will ever be an A to Z picture considering the strictures, tho'.

Still impressive, just looking at the skeletons, and imagining it in life.

21 lawhawk  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:42:21pm

re: #1 Charles

Of course, every time you fill in a gap, you make two new gaps.

It's gaps all the way down (good for business!)

22 Karridine  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:42:32pm

re: #9 Syrah

A problem of infinite division.

No matter, those that are tripped up by the gaps are looking for magic, not science. They will never be satisfied less they see the actual and physical hand of God shape the mud into a living creature. It's as if they lack the faith to accept that God created the world as it exists.

Or the faith to accept that a Creator without a Creation is an impossibility, therefore the material world has ALWAYS existed, as has The Creator...

"...if ye will accept it.."
"...if ye have eyes to see..."
"...if ye have ears to hear..."

23 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:42:33pm

re: #15 ArmyWife

are you kidding me? I condemn the procedure with every ounce of my existence, but I do not DO NOT condone murdering anyone. It's possible to condemn the one, without supporting the other.

DITTO.

24 Kragar  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:43:14pm

Gosh, it could be hundreds of years old!

/

25 legalpad  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:43:18pm

re: #1 Charles

Of course, every time you fill in a gap, you make two new gaps.

This is why we have The God of the Gaps that we are so familiar with.

26 freetoken  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:43:46pm
[...] slipped through LGF’s cracks

Ouch... Somebody posted a spin-off link to an article, last week...

/*sniff*

27 HelloDare  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:44:28pm

Obama also has a toothless upper and lower jaw. Wonder if the mullahs in Iran consider him a proto-bird dinosaur?

28 jaunte  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:44:32pm

Next to the posted link at Wired Science:

Epidexipteryx ("display" + "wing, feather") lived during the middle-to-late Jurassic, predating the famed Archaeoptryx, and represents an alternative evolutionary pathway from dinosaurs to birds.

The discovery by the Chinese Academy of Sciences adds complexity to the presumed road from T-rex to turkey vulture because the creature looks like a mythological chimera. And that, in the words of the authors of the paper, is "bizarre".


Fancy Feathers Predated Flight in Dinosaur-Bird Hybrid

29 Truck Monkey  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:44:41pm

re: #18 Charles

"If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist."

Of course the alternate being if you do.. than do. Really really nasty and uncalled for. A real black eye for right thinking pro lifers, of which I am one.

30 wrenchwench  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:45:40pm

re: #26 freetoken

[...] slipped through LGF’s cracks

Ouch... Somebody posted a spin-off link to an article, last week...

/*sniff*

Are you saying you are one of LGF's cracks?

31 legalpad  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:46:20pm

re: #17 ArmyWife

Hey, where is ArmyHusband these days?

32 Syrah  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:46:38pm

re: #22 Karridine

I will give that one some thought.

There was chaos . . .

33 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:47:16pm

re: #18 Charles

"If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist."

Link.

I don't much care for her.

34 Charles Johnson  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:47:55pm

I'll bet Media Matters and Think Progress will be all over those ugly quotes from Coulter. Even O'Reilly looked a little taken aback.

35 ArmyWife  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:49:17pm

re: #31 legalpad

In MD. He was here this weekend, and it looks like he will be transferred to Ft. Lee after all - around November. Thank you for asking about him!

He has been making overtures about raising his hand for Afghanistan. The active duty and veterans amongst us will understand that, I suppose. My brain gets it, my heart, not so much.

36 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:49:23pm

re: #34 Charles
I was watching and called away to the phone, how far around the bend did she go?

37 ArmyWife  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:49:54pm

re: #34 Charles

Sometimes a good size roll of duck tape is in order. This is a prime example of one of those times.

38 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:50:17pm

re: #35 ArmyWife

Toughest job in the world....military spouse.

39 rumcrook  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:50:57pm

wheres the transitional fosil between the chicken and obama

40 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:51:26pm

re: #39 rumcrook
Bill Ayres.

41 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:51:40pm

re: #7 Charles

Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly are trotting out the smears against Dr. Tiller again. Coulter just said she doesn't think of killing Tiller as a murder.

"I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don't believe in imposing my morality on others."

That picture of her in the sidebar ad is way beyond creepy.

42 ArmyWife  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:51:56pm

re: #38 pingjockey

naw. We don't have bullets winging over our heads. Until that happens, I've no room to complain.

43 avanti  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:52:00pm

re: #23 reine.de.tout

DITTO.

re: #12 avanti

Tell me she did not say that ? WTF does she think she's doings by condemning a legal medical procedure.

You missed my point, you can be opposed to abortion, but you can't deny you are imposing your moral position. I respect your position, but not Anne's.

44 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:52:43pm

re: #42 ArmyWife
I bow to your superior wisdom. :)

45 screaming_eagle  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:53:28pm

re: #41 Alouette

That picture of her in the sidebar ad is way beyond creepy.

I think it makes her look old and sinister.

46 rumcrook  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:53:48pm

re: #40 pingjockey

smirk good one but

sorry wrong he's farther back in the fosil record as a reptile

47 Truck Monkey  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:53:59pm

re: #34 Charles

I'll bet Media Matters and Think Progress will be all over those ugly quotes from Coulter. Even O'Reilly looked a little taken aback.

It's a wonder she hasn't found a man to marry yet.

48 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:54:19pm

re: #46 rumcrook
Hmmm... Have to think then.

49 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:54:37pm

re: #45 screaming_eagle

I think it makes her look old and sinister.

It makes her look like she has an Adam's apple. And the eyes look dead.

50 Ayeless in Ghazi  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:56:21pm

re: #7 Charles

Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly are trotting out the smears against Dr. Tiller again. Coulter just said she doesn't think of killing Tiller as a murder.

"I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don't believe in imposing my morality on others."

It's times like this you want Wanda Sykes in the room.

51 albusteve  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:56:50pm

re: #12 avanti

Tell me she did not say that ? WTF does she think she's doings by condemning a legal medical procedure.

you missed the point....what's so disturbing about condemning abortion?...it's just another point of view

52 ArmyWife  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:57:33pm

re: #43 avanti

Her behavior in this case was not worthy of respect by anyone with an ounce of sense. That isn't respectful behavior no matter how you slice it. All that aside, her poorly chosen subject of condemnation was the provider of a legal service, not the service itself. You stated it was deplorable she condemn the service - I disagree. I find the service incredibly worthy of being condemned, I don't, however, feel condemnation comes in the form of violence.

53 Charles Johnson  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:58:03pm

Coulter said Dr. Tiller "killed 60,000 babies."

54 ArmyWife  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:58:08pm

re: #38 pingjockey

but I thank you for the thought, I really do!

55 Racer X  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:58:32pm

I got $5 on a Flounce™ before post #237.

56 albusteve  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:58:46pm

re: #53 Charles

Coulter said Dr. Tiller "killed 60,000 babies."


busy guy...and speedy too

57 Gus  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:58:56pm

Speaking of Coulter and transitional fossils let's not forget Coulter's infamous Giant Raccoon's Flatulence Theory:

Imagine a giant raccoon passed gas and perhaps the resulting gas might have created the vast variety of life we see on Earth. And if you don't accept the giant raccoon flatulence theory for the origin of life, you must be a fundamentalist Christian nut who believes the Earth is flat.

Darwiniacs do not have a single observable example of one species evolving into another by the Darwinian mechanism of variation and selection. All they have is a story. It is a story that inspires fanatical devotion from the cult simply because their story excludes a creator. They have seized upon something that looks like progress from primitive life forms to more complex life forms and invented a story to explain how the various categories of animals originated. But animal sequences do not prove that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection caused the similarities. It is just as likely that the similarities are proof of intelligent design, creationism, or the Giant Raccoon's Flatulence theory. The animal-sequence drawings allegedly demonstrating evolution by showing, for example, a little runt horse gradually becoming a grand stallion, are just that: drawings.

Priceless.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

58 ArmyWife  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:59:33pm

re: #51 albusteve

Hey! I thought it was lights out a couple of hundred posts ago?

59 DEZes  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:59:35pm

re: #55 Racer X

I got $5 on a Flounce™ before post #237.

Put me down for 10 on post 521.

60 Racer X  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:00:10pm

Raccoon farts - I love it!

61 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:00:13pm

re: #54 ArmyWife
Didn't get married until I retired from the navy. I'd see the wives and kids meeting the ship and couldn't imagine. You're gone for 6 mos to ? So one spouse is now mom/dad/chief cook and bottle washer.

62 Kragar  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:00:27pm

re: #55 Racer X

I got $5 on a Flounce™ before post #237.

What about a hissy? What are the odds on a hissy?

63 Ayeless in Ghazi  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:00:27pm

re: #49 Alouette

It makes her look like she has an Adam's apple. And the eyes look dead.

Not to be bitchy, but isn't that what she always looks like?

64 legalpad  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:00:36pm

re: #35 ArmyWife

My sons are in Iraq and Germany. But then kids aren't supposed to live with you their whole lives. I don't know what's going on with regard to Afghanistan. My son in Germany says they are not going to get to go there or Iraq (They all want to go.) But they may be saving his group for more obscure events. I think that the more rural aspects of Afghanistan make the urban combat thing less likely, meaning the enemy won't have hostages or human shields as often. Without civilian shields, they really like to avoid our guys. We can also bring air power to bear more often. In many ways, an easier war.

As for your role as Army Wife: Don't sell yourself short. Being a good one makes a world of difference to the Army Husbands performance, and to who ever's back he's watching. Also, never hesitate to get help when needed from those many of us who appreciate the service for so many reasons.

65 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:01:23pm

re: #43 avanti

You missed my point, you can be opposed to abortion, but you can't deny you are imposing your moral position. I respect your position, but not Anne's.

Abortion is LEGAL, as you say.
My opposition to the procedure is in no way IMPOSING ANYTHING, on ANYBODY.

I will do whatever I can, whenever I can, in whatever legal means are available, to encourage and support real choice.

66 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:01:24pm

Two things I am glad I have never had to make a decision about.

An abortion or what kind of fossil I'll become.

67 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:02:00pm

re: #57 Gus 802
She's a frackin nut. One thing, I do have her book...How to talk to a liberal.

68 DEZes  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:03:09pm

Well, I must take my leave.

Lizards as always, thanks for the fine company.

69 Steffan  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:03:43pm

re: #15 ArmyWife

are you kidding me? I condemn the procedure with every ounce of my existence, but I do not DO NOT condone murdering anyone. It's possible to condemn the one, without supporting the other.

To paraphrase something James Taranto said a couple of years ago, Dr. Tiller was aborted in his 271st trimester.

Nothing excuses cold-blooded murder, especially the way Dr. Tiller was killed.

70 legalpad  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:04:32pm

re: #66 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Two things I am glad I have never had to make a decision about.

An abortion or what kind of fossil I'll become.

I like the idea of somebody looking at my bones a million years from now.

71 Ayeless in Ghazi  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:04:57pm

re: #57 Gus 802

Speaking of Coulter and transitional fossils let's not forget Coulter's infamous Giant Raccoon's Flatulence Theory:

Priceless.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Amazing that someone could write that without once hearing a little voice saying "hold - what I'm writing here is just stupid".

72 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:05:09pm

re: #62 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
I don't know. We're pretty calm in here right now.
Mwahahaha....The puppy is being harassed by a fly and is trying to catch it.

73 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:05:13pm
74 Gus  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:05:22pm

re: #67 pingjockey

She's a frackin nut. One thing, I do have her book...How to talk to a liberal.

I never understood why pundits feel compelled to comment on every single issue. Speak long enough and sooner or later one will put their foot in their mouth. I blame it on "empowerment" from the 60s and 70s in which people have been taught that their opinions are "worthy" which in many cases is not true.

75 Ayeless in Ghazi  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:05:48pm

re: #71 Jimmah

PIMF "hold on"

76 Gus  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:06:05pm

re: #71 Jimmah

Amazing that someone could write that without once hearing a little voice saying "hold - what I'm writing here is just stupid".

Exactly.

77 Racer X  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:06:07pm

Bug resurrected after 120,000 years

Scientists have brought a newly-discovered bug back to life after more than 120,000 years in hibernation. It raises hopes that dormant life might be revived on Mars. The tiny purple microbe, dubbed called Herminiimonas glaciei, lay trapped beneath nearly two miles of ice in Greenland. It took 11 months to revive it by gently warming it in an incubator. Finally the bug sprang back to life and began producing fresh colonies of purple brown bacteria.

78 ArmyWife  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:06:09pm

re: #61 pingjockey

I've gone for 18 months! Email has made it so much better. I can't imagine the wives of past who had to write letters and then wait for letters to come back!

79 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:06:19pm

re: #74 Gus 802
Racoon flatulence is a new low/high(?) in hyperbole.

80 Gus  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:06:58pm

re: #79 pingjockey

Racoon flatulence is a new low/high(?) in hyperbole.

That was from 2006. Probably not.

81 Edgesitter  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:07:14pm

I love Coulter's columns, they are usually funny even if I don't totally agree with her point. On TV she is a crackpot not a comedienne.

82 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:07:25pm

re: #78 ArmyWife
I was in the Persian Gulf in 80 when the Mad Mullahs had the hostages. Fastest I ever saw mail was 2 weeks.

83 avanti  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:07:45pm

re: #51 albusteve

you missed the point....what's so disturbing about condemning abortion?...it's just another point of view

OK, point by point.

Anne says she would not impose her moral judgment on someone who would murder a abortionist.
I assume from that, that she condemns abortion.
If she condemns abortion, that's a moral judgment. None of the above means that like Anne, you condone murder of abortionists.

84 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:08:11pm

re: #77 Racer X
Keep yer damn earthling imperial hands off of Mars!

85 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:08:38pm

re: #81 Edgesitter


Hence the "TOTUS".

86 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:09:05pm

re: #80 Gus 802
She's probably written something since that beats racoon farts all to hell.

87 legalpad  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:09:15pm

re: #78 ArmyWife

I've gone for 18 months! Email has made it so much better. I can't imagine the wives of past who had to write letters and then wait for letters to come back!

The communication these days is phenomenal. My guys are on facebook all the time and email and call occasionally, even from where they are.

88 freetoken  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:09:18pm

re: #77 Racer X

Sounds like it would make a good sci-fi thriller...

ATTACK OF THE PURPLE-BROWN BUG

89 Racer X  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:10:06pm

When Evolution Is Not So Slow And Gradual

ScienceDaily (June 3, 2009) — What's the secret to surviving during times of environmental change? Evolve…quickly.

A new article in The American Naturalist finds that guppy populations introduced into new habitats developed new and advantageous traits in just a few years. This is one of only a few studies to look at adaptation and survival in a wild population.

90 ArmyWife  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:10:09pm

re: #64 legalpad

Thank you. This group has gone through 2 deployments with me, as you might remember, and they were a constant form of support. I won't forget that!

My thoughts are with your sons, where ever they happen to be.

91 rumcrook  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:11:54pm

re: #77 Racer X

then promptly escaped from the laboratory and spread across the globe killing all human life.... /////

92 KingKenrod  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:12:30pm

re: #18 Charles

"If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist."

She parroting pro-choice slogans to show how outrageous they are when applied to an adult. Just replace abortionist with abortion. I didn't see the segment, but I've she's said those things before.

93 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:13:01pm

Niece shipping off to Afganistan this week (I found out today).

She will fuck somebody up! She has two children and a delicious hubby... somebody better not try to get in the way of her getting home.

94 ArmyWife  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:13:10pm

re: #82 pingjockey

It wasn't much better for mailing packages to Iraq, trust me!

95 jaunte  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:13:12pm

re: #89 Racer X

Ann Coulter will comment on guppy traits as soon as she receives Jonathan Wells' email.

96 irish rose  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:13:55pm

Fascinating, Charles.
Who made the discovery, and when?

97 Gus  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:13:57pm

re: #77 Racer X

Bug resurrected after 120,000 years

Scientists have brought a newly-discovered bug back to life after more than 120,000 years in hibernation. It raises hopes that dormant life might be revived on Mars. The tiny purple microbe, dubbed called Herminiimonas glaciei, lay trapped beneath nearly two miles of ice in Greenland. It took 11 months to revive it by gently warming it in an incubator. Finally the bug sprang back to life and began producing fresh colonies of purple brown bacteria.

They better get armed security at that facility just in case ALF decides to " "liberate" the ancient microbial life. /

98 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:14:43pm

re: #51 albusteve

you missed the point....what's so disturbing about condemning abortion?...it's just another point of view

I'm getting the impression that Avanti isn't happy when someone has a point of view based on a moral judgment they've made that differs a point of view he has made based on his own moral judgment.

His logic seems to be that if an individual opposes the abortion procedure then that personal opposition is somehow an imposition of their views on others.

The way I see it - Avanti's insistence that an individual refrain from voicing opposition lest they "impose" on others is actually Avanti imposing his own "moral" judgment.

99 Tarkus289  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:15:01pm

They are saying six dead now in the D.C. train crash

100 ArmyWife  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:15:10pm

re: #77 Racer X

is it called Hermi for short? Just wonderin'

(seriously, that is really cool).

101 irish rose  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:15:11pm

re: #93 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Niece shipping off to Afganistan this week (I found out today).

She will fuck somebody up! She has two children and a delicious hubby... somebody better not try to get in the way of her getting home.

I wish her godspeed, and a safe and quick return.
What branch is she in again?

102 Steffan  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:15:58pm

re: #84 pingjockey

Keep yer damn earthling imperial hands off of Mars!

Good advice. She'd lay a Burning Mandala on your butt so fast you wouldn't have time to blink.

103 ArmyWife  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:16:28pm

re: #98 reine.de.tout

Avanti is of the moral relativist school of thought. I'm ok, you're ok - so long as the "you're" is in line with the lib concept of diversity.

104 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:16:44pm

re: #101 irish rose

Air Force. Some kind of specialist of sumthinerother.

105 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:16:56pm

re: #102 Steffan
Heh! Anime' strikes!

106 albusteve  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:17:44pm

re: #98 reine.de.tout

I'm getting the impression that Avanti isn't happy when someone has a point of view based on a moral judgment they've made that differs a point of view he has made based on his own moral judgment.

His logic seems to be that if an individual opposes the abortion procedure then that personal opposition is somehow an imposition of their views on others.

The way I see it - Avanti's insistence that an individual refrain from voicing opposition lest they "impose" on others is actually Avanti imposing his own "moral" judgment.

behind the smiley face is the classic liberal reversal...you are exactly right...in reality they utterly reject opposition

107 Dianna  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:17:50pm

I love the Latin name of this fossil. I just adore it.

108 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:18:39pm

re: #106 albusteve
What the hell is that line..."I reject your reality, and substitute my own".

109 freetoken  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:18:50pm

re: #73 Slumbering Behemoth

Reading the replies over there...

I have decided to coin the term:
HATE☢ON™
to apply to the social phenomenon that started to emerge when BHO won the nomination of his party.

/Yes, it is a take-off of Move-On���ON™

110 Kragar  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:19:00pm

re: #105 pingjockey

Heh! Anime' strikes!

Personally, when it comes to Mars, my money is on the Tech Priests

111 ArmyWife  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:19:01pm

Taking the highly evolved chihuahuas for their last outing. BBL.

112 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:19:36pm

re: #110 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Holy Crap!

113 albusteve  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:19:56pm

re: #108 pingjockey

What the hell is that line..."I reject your reality, and substitute my own".


"subject to change when needed"....yup

114 avanti  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:19:58pm

re: #98 reine.de.tout

I'm getting the impression that Avanti isn't happy when someone has a point of view based on a moral judgment they've made that differs a point of view he has made based on his own moral judgment.

His logic seems to be that if an individual opposes the abortion procedure then that personal opposition is somehow an imposition of their views on others.

The way I see it - Avanti's insistence that an individual refrain from voicing opposition lest they "impose" on others is actually Avanti imposing his own "moral" judgment.

Crap, why or why did I post on a abortion thread. I have no problem with anyone being pro life. I have a problem with Anne condoning murder.

115 Dar ul Harb  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:20:49pm

re: #108 pingjockey

What the hell is that line..."I reject your reality, and substitute my own".

-Adam Savage of "Mythbusters"

(Did he get it from someone?)

116 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:21:34pm

re: #109 freetoken

HATE☢ON™! APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE KEYBOARD!
HATE☢ON™! APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE KEYBOARD!
HATE☢ON™! APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE KEYBOARD!

117 irish rose  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:21:57pm

re: #104 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Air Force. Some kind of specialist of sumthinerother.

They have a lot of those in there, last I heard ;).

118 A Man for all Seasons  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:22:05pm

re: #1 Charles

Of course, every time you fill in a gap, you make two new gaps.

Can you imagine as new technology comes on-line in the future?
We will explore the Strata of the Earth and discover great mysteries and secrets....We live in an exciting time....

119 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:22:15pm

re: #115 Dar ul Harb
He may have, but I'd never heard it before. Until Myth Busters.

120 Dar ul Harb  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:22:24pm

re: #107 Dianna

I love the Latin name of this fossil. I just adore it.

Heh. Must have been really tough going to get to it in the rock.

121 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:22:34pm

re: #106 albusteve

behind the smiley face is the classic liberal reversal...you are exactly right...in reality they utterly reject opposition

I've been monitoring tonight from my secret location in the Rocky Mountains, at 7500 feet.

Keep up the good work.

Hi Avanti.

122 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:23:03pm

re: #110 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Say, did you every play Soulstorm for the PC? Any good?

123 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:23:22pm

re: #121 Walter L. Newton
We had snow down to 3500 feet last night!

124 Dar ul Harb  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:24:37pm

re: #120 Dar ul Harb

That last sentence didn't quite come out as I intended. Lexicus semiunintelligibilis.

125 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:24:44pm

re: #123 pingjockey

We had snow down to 3500 feet last night!

Where, general location?

126 albusteve  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:25:01pm

re: #114 avanti

Crap, why or why did I post on a abortion thread. I have no problem with anyone being pro life. I have a problem with Anne condoning murder.


Tell me she did not say that ? WTF does she think she's doings by condemning a legal medical procedure.

that is what you asked....don't twist it around

127 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:25:20pm

re: #125 Walter L. Newton
North Central Wa state. Wenatchee Valley.

128 The Shadow Do  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:25:41pm

re: #114 avanti

Crap, why or why did I post on a abortion thread. I have no problem with anyone being pro life. I have a problem with Anne condoning murder.

She is very good at needling libs. Know what I mean?

129 Ayeless in Ghazi  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:25:47pm

re: #98 reine.de.tout

I think you have misread avanti there. He was only pointing out the hypocrisy of Coulter saying she didn't want to impose her morality on others, while obviously proposing exactly that on the abortion issue.

130 Kragar  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:25:51pm

re: #122 Slumbering Behemoth

Say, did you every play Soulstorm for the PC? Any good?

Yes, personally, I preferred the campaign mechanics from Dark Crusade, but it was still pretty good. Sisters of Battle were a decent addition but didn't care for the Dark Eldar (though I never have really).

131 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:27:03pm

re: #127 pingjockey

North Central Wa state. Wenatchee Valley.

Isn't that pretty low for snow at this time of year?

132 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:27:11pm

re: #130 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I preferred the campaign mechanics from Dark Crusade

What is different, if you don't mind giving me the run down?

133 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:28:38pm

re: #131 Walter L. Newton
Waaay low. Freezing level should be above 10,000 feet, it's been cold and damp enough, the cherry harvest is running two weeks late. AGW my ass.

134 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:29:04pm

re: #114 avanti

Crap, why or why did I post on a abortion thread. I have no problem with anyone being pro life. I have a problem with Anne condoning murder.

OK, but that isn't what you said, Avanti. And everyone has a problem with Ann condoning murder. Go check what you said.

135 avanti  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:29:35pm

re: #126 albusteve

Tell me she did not say that ? WTF does she think she's doings by condemning a legal medical procedure.

that is what you asked....don't twist it around

That was is response to Anne's

"I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don't believe in imposing my morality on others." Do you get it yet ?

136 albusteve  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:30:23pm

re: #134 reine.de.tout

OK, but that isn't what you said, Avanti. And everyone has a problem with Ann condoning murder. Go check what you said.


avanti....WD-40

137 Kragar  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:31:17pm

re: #132 Slumbering Behemoth

What is different, if you don't mind giving me the run down?

The regional rewards were different, where you could only bonus abilities from conquering enemy starting territories, which wasn't that bad. The bad part was you could only leave a planet from certain spots using a take and hold scenario. Enemy units could reinforce the zone multiple times, so you could be forced to keep fighting the same mission 5 or 6 times in a row just trying to whittle the forces down so you could have a fair shot at the hold aspect. Made game play drag significantly

138 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:31:58pm

re: #129 Jimmah

I think you have misread avanti there. He was only pointing out the hypocrisy of Coulter saying she didn't want to impose her morality on others, while obviously proposing exactly that on the abortion issue.

Yes, he indicated I misunderstood.

But check what he said in #43. It was easy to misunderstand.

You missed my point, you can be opposed to abortion, but you can't deny you are imposing your moral position. I respect your position, but not Anne's.
139 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:32:07pm

Going up.

140 avanti  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:33:43pm

re: #129 Jimmah

I think you have misread avanti there. He was only pointing out the hypocrisy of Coulter saying she didn't want to impose her morality on others, while obviously proposing exactly that on the abortion issue.

Thank goodness, someone got it. I respect the pro life position, but it is a moral position.

141 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:33:49pm

re: #136 albusteve

avanti....WD-40

Albusteve -
You know I've never made a secret of my opposition to abortion A few always begin screeching about how that opposition is somehow equivalent of my 'imposition" of my own moral values on others.
It's been tiresome.

142 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:36:34pm

re: #137 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Gotcha. Thanks for the run down. I may get it, but it's still selling for it's original price despite having been released well over a year ago, which seems a bit absurd to me.

I may wait until it hits the bargain bin.

143 BatGuano  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:44:35pm

And though this transitional creature didn’t yet have the feather-like structures found in later proto-bird dinosaurs, it did have a toothless upper and lower jaw — in other words, a beak.

And yet, the illustration shows feathers.

144 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:47:06pm

Many people who are opposed to abortion are not just people who would never have one themselves; they are people who would outlaw the procedure for everyone if they could, and many of them relentlessly strive to do just that. That is the very definition of imposing one's own moral position upon unwilling others.

Pro-choicers are fine with other women choosing to carry their pregnancies to term, and fine with other women choosing to terminate them, if it is done early. In other words, they are fine with the women concerned choosing for themselves what happens with and within their own bodies. Thus, they cannot be accurately described as pro-abortion (that would be the Chinese government, which mandates abortions for all Chinese women after a single childbirth), but as pro-choice.

Many antiabortionists, on the other hand, are actually anti-choice, and not just for themselves, but for all women. They would, if they could (and they keep working on it) legally eliminate the choice of pregnancy termination from the array of alternatives open to women, leaving only one avenue open - to carry each and every pregnancy to term - and that is no choice at all; it is in fact the death of choice -or to be more specific, it's murder.

145 jim in virginia  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:48:59pm

re: #93 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Niece shipping off to Afganistan this week (I found out today).


This is totally inadequate, but tell her thanks.

146 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:58:33pm

re: #144 Salamantis

Many people who are opposed to abortion are not just people who would never have one themselves; they are people who would outlaw the procedure for everyone if they could, and many of them relentlessly strive to do just that. That is the very definition of imposing one's own moral position upon unwilling others.

Pro-choicers are fine with other women choosing to carry their pregnancies to term, and fine with other women choosing to terminate them, if it is done early. In other words, they are fine with the women concerned choosing for themselves what happens with and within their own bodies. Thus, they cannot be accurately described as pro-abortion (that would be the Chinese government, which mandates abortions for all Chinese women after a single childbirth), but as pro-choice.

Many antiabortionists, on the other hand, are actually anti-choice, and not just for themselves, but for all women. They would, if they could (and they keep working on it) legally eliminate the choice of pregnancy termination from the array of alternatives open to women, leaving only one avenue open - to carry each and every pregnancy to term - and that is no choice at all; it is in fact the death of choice -or to be more specific, it's murder.

There ya go, Salamantis, and it's tiresome.
I have a deep deep antipathy and hatred for the abortion procedure.
I am pro-life, anti-abortion.
However, abortion t is legal, and there is nothing I can do to make it otherwise. I accept that.

And again, MY energies will be spent doing whatever I can legally and with moral and financial support to encourage and support OTHER choices.

And that is MY decision to make, mine alone, and it does NOT impose ANYTHING on anyone else, but your insistence that I call myself "pro-choice" instead of "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" IS an imposition on me.

147 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 7:06:47pm

re: #146 reine.de.tout

There ya go, Salamantis, and it's tiresome.
I have a deep deep antipathy and hatred for the abortion procedure.
I am pro-life, anti-abortion.
However, abortion t is legal, and there is nothing I can do to make it otherwise. I accept that.

And again, MY energies will be spent doing whatever I can legally and with moral and financial support to encourage and support OTHER choices.

And that is MY decision to make, mine alone, and it does NOT impose ANYTHING on anyone else, but your insistence that I call myself "pro-choice" instead of "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" IS an imposition on me.

I said many antiabortionists, not all, although I would argue that most of them, and certainly most of the ones that I've met (and I've met a helluva lot of them) would dictate their personal morality to others if they could pass the law that let them do it.

If you are personally antiabortion but would at the same time not be willing to add your vote to the passage of a law forbidding the procedure for everyone, willing or otherwise, then you are an exception, not the rule, in my experience.

148 BARACK THE VOTE  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 7:07:27pm

Since abortion is legal, and will remain so, and since no-one in the US is actually 'pro-abortion', I wish both the anti-abortion and the pro-choice crowd could work together on finding ways to limit the need for abortion. They could engage in a combined effort to provide better birth control and better access to birth control. They could work together to make sure all insurance companies cover the pill--which they don't, currently, although they'll cover Viagra.

They could work together on educating people about their birth control options, and fund research into more and better ones (we don't have many options for male birth control, for example).

It seems as if there should be a broad coalition of people from both camps who could work together, especially if they care about women's health.

The current polarisation of the debate makes this impossible, and it's a shame.

149 NonNativeTexan  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 7:29:12pm

re: #148 iceweasel

Definitely the first three months should not be limited.
After that I believe there should be limitations. One law
that should be passed is similar to the Moses law. This
would allow any mother and father to released their
newborn infant for adoption , no questions asked.
There is an adoption demand for newborns that would
become part of loving families.

150 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 7:31:35pm

re: #147 Salamantis

I said many antiabortionists, not all, although I would argue that most of them, and certainly most of the ones that I've met (and I've met a helluva lot of them) would dictate their personal morality to others if they could pass the law that let them do it.

If you are personally antiabortion but would at the same time not be willing to add your vote to the passage of a law forbidding the procedure for everyone, willing or otherwise, then you are an exception, not the rule, in my experience.

I've been willing to compromise along the lines you have in the past proposed. However, iceweasel is right too: The issue is too polorized at present for a real debate. Both sides are essentially run by their fringe elements: The pro-choice side by NARAL, the pro-life side by Operation: Rescue. Reform requires the removal of the crazies.

151 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 7:38:19pm

re: #148 iceweasel

Since abortion is legal, and will remain so, and since no-one in the US is actually 'pro-abortion', I wish both the anti-abortion and the pro-choice crowd could work together on finding ways to limit the need for abortion. They could engage in a combined effort to provide better birth control and better access to birth control. They could work together to make sure all insurance companies cover the pill--which they don't, currently, although they'll cover Viagra.

They could work together on educating people about their birth control options, and fund research into more and better ones (we don't have many options for male birth control, for example).

It seems as if there should be a broad coalition of people from both camps who could work together, especially if they care about women's health.

The current polarisation of the debate makes this impossible, and it's a shame.

I have actively worked and supported efforts such as the ones you mentioned.

IMO the "polarization" is caused by those on the other "side" who simply want to go no further than having abortion be legal.

152 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 7:40:10pm

re: #151 reine.de.tout

I have actively worked and supported efforts such as the ones you mentioned.

IMO the "polarization" is caused by those on the other "side" who simply want to go no further than having abortion be legal.

Actually, not just my opinion, but my experience also.

153 jcw46  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 7:57:44pm

Not wanting to go off thread or anything; (this is an abortion thread isn't it? and btw I thought abortion threads were a no-no.)

but maybe someone could stop bitch slapping Avanti around long enough to explain this article in re: the title of this post/thread referring to the long held/disseminated supposition of there being a dinosaur to bird evolutionary connection?

No snark. Serious question cause I alway thought the Dino to bird theory seemed pretty elegant with fossil transitionals and everything.

154 BARACK THE VOTE  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 8:00:48pm

re: #151 reine.de.tout

I have actively worked and supported efforts such as the ones you mentioned.

IMO the "polarization" is caused by those on the other "side" who simply want to go no further than having abortion be legal.

I commend you for your work, and for your position also.

I think the polarisation is happening from the fringe elements on both sides, though.

155 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 8:02:03pm

It has been my experience that the pro-choicers have done more to reduce abortions, by engaging in sex education, making contraceptives accessible, and working to have the morning-after pill available at pharmacies without prescription, than the antiabortionists ever have.

The antiabortionists seem only to work to reduce abortions by the already pregnant, even against the womens' will, rather than working to prevent unwanted pregnancies that would most likely be subsequently aborted. In fact, a sizeable percentage of antiabortionists are also anti-contraception.

156 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 8:24:10pm

re: #155 Salamantis

It has been my experience that the pro-choicers have done more to reduce abortions, by engaging in sex education, making contraceptives accessible, and working to have the morning-after pill available at pharmacies without prescription, than the antiabortionists ever have.

The antiabortionists seem only to work to reduce abortions by the already pregnant, even against the womens' will, rather than working to prevent unwanted pregnancies that would most likely be subsequently aborted. In fact, a sizeable percentage of antiabortionists are also anti-contraception.


Sala - I am neither as smart nor as educated as you are and I cannot "argue" my points with nearly the eloquence you argue yours.

However, you continue to twist and turn and try to paint anti-abortionists as evil people, doing no good whatsoever, and even here (quote from your 144)

They would, if they could (and they keep working on it) legally eliminate the choice of pregnancy termination from the array of alternatives open to women, leaving only one avenue open - to carry each and every pregnancy to term - and that is no choice at all; it is in fact the death of choice -or to be more specific, it's murder.


trying to paint anti-abortion pro-lifers as the equivalent of murderers.


I beg of you to try to have the same tolerance that you request of others.

157 Hhar  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 8:39:13pm

re: #148 iceweasel


I beg to differ: there are people who are pro abortion. Thy think there are too many people on the planet, and that women should not get pregnant in the first world. Its called a "baby free earth" policy. Now, these are minority wingnuts, but there are many varieties of wingnut.

158 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 9:35:25pm

re: #156 reine.de.tout

However, you continue to twist and turn and try to paint anti-abortionists as evil people, doing no good whatsoever, and even here (quote from your 144)

They would, if they could (and they keep working on it) legally eliminate the choice of pregnancy termination from the array of alternatives open to women, leaving only one avenue open - to carry each and every pregnancy to term - and that is no choice at all; it is in fact the death of choice -or to be more specific, it's murder.

trying to paint anti-abortion pro-lifers as the equivalent of murderers.

Well, several of them HAVE BEEN murderers; for instance Michael Griffin, Paul Hill, John Salvi, Eric Robert Rudolph, James Kopp, and Scott Roeder. And they've tried to murder choice by murdering the people who provide it. Others, for instance Shelley Shannon and Donald Cooper, only managed to severely wound their victims.

These anti-choice terrorists may think that they are doing God's work by assassinating those whom they consider to be Satan's minions, just as their firebombing friends (41 bombings, 173 arsons, and 91 attempted bombings or arsons to date) might consider themselves to be bringing down devils' dens, but I consider the perpetrators of such crimes to be objectively evil.

I beg of you to try to have the same tolerance that you request of others.

I am tolerant of people whose opinions differ from my own; however, when those people dare to intolerantly arrogate unto themselves the divine right to forcibly dictate to others what they can and cannot do with their own lives, I cannot placidly acquiesce to that, and must stand against it, as a matter of personal integrity. As the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur remarked in his work Tolerance Between Intolerance and the Intolerable, the one thing that tolerant people cannot in all good conscience tolerate is the coercive intolerance of others. To tolerate such intolerance is to act in a self-contradictory and bad faith manner; those who defend intolerance are manifesting it themselves.

159 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 10:32:15pm

re: #158 Salamantis

Well, several of them HAVE BEEN murderers; for instance Michael Griffin, Paul Hill, John Salvi, Eric Robert Rudolph, James Kopp, and Scott Roeder. And they've tried to murder choice by murdering the people who provide it. Others, for instance Shelley Shannon and Donald Cooper, only managed to severely wound their victims.


There is no doubt but that these are indeed evil people, but in your earlier posts, it was not clear that your comments were reserved for them. I am not one of them, and neither are the people I know who hold the same views I do.


These anti-choice terrorists may think that they are doing God's work by assassinating those whom they consider to be Satan's minions, just as their firebombing friends (41 bombings, 173 arsons, and 91 attempted bombings or arsons to date) might consider themselves to be bringing down devils' dens, but I consider the perpetrators of such crimes to be objectively evil.


As do I, as well as the pro-life anti-abortion folks I know.


I am tolerant of people whose opinions differ from my own;


Yes, this is what you say. Perhaps you aren't aware that many of your posts have so many twists and turns, your tolerance is not obvious.
I would ask you to be aware that many of your pronouncements in these matters take on the tone of sermons; and ask that you attempt to differentiate between those of us who are "acceptable" to you, and those who like these murderers are not acceptable to anyone.

however, when those people dare to intolerantly arrogate unto themselves the divine right to forcibly dictate to others what they can and cannot do with their own lives, I cannot placidly acquiesce to that, and must stand against it, as a matter of personal integrity


Of course you must stand against it, as I feel I must take a stand when I see what appear to be comments that seem to lump most of us in with those evil ones.

160 amrafel  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 1:40:08am

"It's gaps all the way down" (note 21)
It seems like it's controversy all the way down, too:
[Link: www.sciencedaily.com...]
Title: Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links
ScienceDaily (June 9, 2009)
(And by "Discovery," they're talking about the regular noun, not the proper noun from Seattle.)

161 Zooty Zoot  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:28:09am

The article refers to "reptiles." Technically, there is no such thing. Cladistically speaking, reptiles is not a genus, phylum, class, order, or anything. It's a word that kids (and, unfortunately, zoo's and imprecise news reporters) use to describe animals that tend to have scales, but which are not encompassed within an exclusive common ancestor.

162 Kenneth  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:34:25am

The Clear Wing Humming Bird Moth is a fascinating animal. It's a moth which looks and behaves just like a hummingbird. Many people mistake it for a hummingbird when they first see this insect buzzing around their garden.

163 Kenneth  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:37:52am

re: #161 Zooty Zoot

You are mistaken.

Reptiles, or members of the class Reptilia, are air-breathing, cold-blooded amniotes that have skin covered in scales or scutes as opposed to hair or feathers. They are tetrapods (having or having descended from vertebrates with four limbs) and lay amniote eggs, whose embryos are surrounded by the amnion membrane. Modern reptiles inhabit every continent with the exception of Antarctica, and four living orders are currently recognized:


* Crocodilia (crocodiles, gavials, caimans, and alligators): 23 species
* Sphenodontia (tuatara from New Zealand): 2 species
* Squamata (lizards, snakes, and amphisbaenids ("worm-lizards"): approximately 7,900 species
* Testudines (turtles, tortoises, and terrapins): approximately 300 species


The majority of reptile species are oviparous (egg-laying) although certain species of squamates are capable of giving live birth. This is achieved, either through ovoviviparity (egg retention), or viviparity (offspring born without use of calcified eggs). Many of the viviparous species feed their fetuses through various forms of placenta analogous to those of mammals with some providing initial care for their hatchlings. Extant reptiles range in size from a tiny gecko, Sphaerodactylus ariasae, that grows to only 1.6 cm (0.6 in), to the saltwater crocodile that may reach 6 m in length and weigh over 1,000 kg. The science dealing with reptiles is called herpetology.

164 Kenneth  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:49:43am

re: #148 iceweasel

Since abortion is legal, and will remain so, and since no-one in the US is actually 'pro-abortion',


In fact there is a very small minority of people, extremists for sure. who are pro-abortion. No, they are not representative of the pro-choice camp, but they do exist.

I wish both the anti-abortion and the pro-choice crowd could work together on finding ways to limit the need for abortion.

It seems as if there should be a broad coalition of people from both camps who could work together, especially if they care about women's health.

The current polarisation of the debate makes this impossible, and it's a shame.

I am all for that. Hillary Clinton stated her position on abortion as "ideally it should be legal, medically safe, a woman's choice, and extremely rare." Better education and availablity of contraception would be essential to reach that goal. Part of that education must be the acceptance of facts on both sides of the debate. Both sides are blinded by myths and willful ignorance.

As you point out, the anti-abortion side tends to be anti-contraception. However, the pro-choice side ignores the fact that about 70% of abortions are performed for reasons of birth control. Cases involving birth defects or rape or incest represent a much smaller percentage. And that issue Obama so artlessly dodged in the election campaing? It's a medical fact, human life does indeed begin at conception.

165 Hhar  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:51:19am

re: #163 Kenneth


No no, Zooty zoot is entirely correct. The "Class" reptilia is paraphyletic and does not represent, in modern classification, a proper taxonomic group. The problem here is that a proper taxonomic group (according to most recent standards) includes all descendents of a given common ancestor. Since birds are not included as reptiles, but probably share a more recent common ancestor with crocodiles than, say, turtles, it is considered inappropriate to include both turtles and crocodiles as reptiles, but not birds.

This can be a bit tricky to get your head around, but here is a simple explanation:

[Link: www.palaeos.com...]

The great advantage of cladist analyses is how readily they can incorporate molecular phylogeny.

166 Hhar  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:00:05am

re: #159 reine.de.tout

No one should tolerate slander. Well done.

167 BARACK THE VOTE  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:23:27am

Excellent and throughtprovoking post from you, as ever. It makes me think, but even so I have disagreements.

re: #164 Kenneth

In fact there is a very small minority of people, extremists for sure. who are pro-abortion. No, they are not representative of the pro-choice camp, but they do exist.

Who? In the US? ? ?
I've volunteered for a bunch of places in the US that support a woman's right to choose. I haven't met anyone who is "pro-abortion".

Abortion is a painful, morally fraught, difficult decision to make, no matter how pro-choice a woman may be.

I am all for that. Hillary Clinton stated her position on abortion as "ideally it should be legal, medically safe, a woman's choice, and extremely rare."

Frankly I think that captures the pro-choice position.


As you point out, the anti-abortion side tends to be anti-contraception. However, the pro-choice side ignores the fact that about 70% of abortions are performed for reasons of birth control.

Whoa whoa whoa. Define "reasons of birth control". Do you just mean 'elective abortion', as in, 'the condom broke and I'm not ready to have a baby?'

If the right would like to reduce surgical abortions performed at 6 weeks and up for THAT reason-- they should make emergency contraception/ the morning after pill available in the US to everyone at every drugstore, without a prescription, the way it has been in Europe for YEARS.

That's a concrete way to reduce elective abortion. So why has the right been so persistent in blocking it?

And that issue Obama so artlessly dodged in the election campaing? It's a medical fact, human life does indeed begin at conception.

1) it is not a medical fact that life begins at conception. Define 'life', define 'conception', and then we'll really get going.

2) Obama was artful, modest, and selfdeprecating in asserting that the question of when life begins is "above his pay grade".
He was saying that it's a question for ethicists, philosophers, theologians, and ultimately God (if one believes in God).
he was asserting a fundamental American principle, actually-- it's not the job of the state to issue moral or religious pronouncments, nor to interfere in the personal or private lives of citizens.

Well, my opinions anyway, Have at it!
Always a pleasure--
cheers
iceweasel

168 Hhar  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:33:16am

re: #153 jcw46

Not wanting to go off thread or anything; (this is an abortion thread isn't it? and btw I thought abortion threads were a no-no.)

but maybe someone could stop bitch slapping Avanti around long enough to explain this article in re: the title of this post/thread referring to the long held/disseminated supposition of there being a dinosaur to bird evolutionary connection?

No snark. Serious question cause I alway thought the Dino to bird theory seemed pretty elegant with fossil transitionals and everything.

At present the dino to bird theory is the best one around, full stop, but it must be said that it is a bit over hyped. For instance, the fossil at the top of the thread has a toothless beak, and this is being played as evidence of a linkage to birds. But how good a bit of evidence is it? Toothless beaks have evolved several times amoung diapsids, and a couple of times amoung the dinosauria, and archaeopteryx itself was well-toothed, so how relevant is this feature in theropods? Hard to know. The digit count is what is interesting here.

I don't mean to dismiss the dino to bird notion: like I said it appears to be the best one out there. It is true that we appear to have feathered dinosaurs, and that feathers (not to mention all of the other avian skeletal features shared with dinosaurs) are not the sort of things that seem likely to all evolve twice, but at the same time all of that doesn't mean we understand very well how we got from feathered dinosaur to bird, ie what was the ecology and morphology of the actual phylogenic trajectory.

The article you post is a bit of abservation that doesn't square simply with the dinosaur to bird theory. It might hypothetically indicate that the dino-to-bird idea is false, but there is so much data to indicate that it is likely to be true that I doubt it. So what does it mean? Same as everything else: science as normal.

There is a lot of hype around evolutionary biology.

169 Kenneth  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:43:05am

re: #167 iceweasel

The pro-abortion fanatics I have personally met were radical feminsits who intentionally got pregnant so they could then get an abortion as a "political act" of defieance against The Patriarchy. These few women were considered freaks and extremists among the mainstream pro-choice and feminists. The do persist on North American campuses today. Again: they are a very small group.

Yes, Hillary's position is pro-choice, but I do think it encompasses a great deal more personal reponsibility than the average pro-choice position. She at least acknowledges the moral dimension to abortion.

I have previously posted the statistsics on reasons why women get abortions. I encourage you to look them up and read them for yourself. That is precisely my point: that pro-choice people are willfully ignorant of some facts about abortion.

And finally, yes it is a medical fact that human life begins at conception. The fertalized cell has the full complement of human DNA, and the cell is undergoing metabolism and mytosis. That is the very definition of human life.

If the embryo were not alive, there would be no need to abort it, would there? The reason abortion is legal is because the courts ruled that an unborn foetus is not a "legal person". They made no reference to the question of when life begins. Pro-choice people who deny life begins at conception are lying to themselves to avoid thinking abuot what they are doing. I have heard many pro-choic people say that Roe vs Wade decided that life begins at birth. It did no such thing.


Roe v. Wade held that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes viable.’" The Court defined viable as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[1] The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, which the Court defined in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton. These rulings affected laws in 46 states.[3]

Agian, only a few of the late-term abortions are perfomed for reasons of protecting a woman's health.

Finally, I am not impressed by a president who says he is not qualified to make moral decisions, or one who hides his poiltical position behind a clever bit of rhetoric.

170 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:52:48am

re: #159 reine.de.tout

Of course you must stand against it, as I feel I must take a stand when I see what appear to be comments that seem to lump most of us in with those evil ones.

Sadly, you remind me of those people who falsely claim that Charles is attacking all Christendom when he ridicules Young Earth Creationism.

I am NOT attacking those who do not wish to coercively impose their personal antiabortion convictions upon unwilling others. If, as you staunchly and convincingly maintain, you're not one of those people, then my quite valid, solid and sound criticisms of the vicious and tyrannical psychopaths of whom I speak has nothing whatsoever to do with you.

171 Land Shark  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:01:26am

Great stuff. If any of you is interested in reading a great book on the subject of dinosaurs, check out Dr. Robert Bakker's "The Dinosaur Heresies". In this book, which has been out for many years, Dr. Bakker explores the dinosaur to birds connection (he believes birds are dinosaurs, effectively) in a way anyone can understand, as well as talking about how they had to have been warm blooded. He does his own illustrations and keeps it very interesting.

All these recent dinosaur to bird fossils seem to pretty much confirm what Dr. Bakker talks about. He spent years in the field digging up fossils and examining the ones in museums and the like, so he knows his stuff. The book is fascinating and enlightening. Highly recommended.

172 Hhar  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:02:42am

re: #167 iceweasel

Pro-abortion: David Benatar

[Link: books.google.ca...]

Never underestimate the effect nihilism can have. It is a mistake to think that whacked out ideology is only at work amoung the pro-lifers. There are some very disturbed people in both camps.

173 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:44:59am

re: #170 Salamantis

Sadly, you remind me of those people who falsely claim that Charles is attacking all Christendom when he ridicules Young Earth Creationism.

I am NOT attacking those who do not wish to coercively impose their personal antiabortion convictions upon unwilling others. If, as you staunchly and convincingly maintain, you're not one of those people, then my quite valid, solid and sound criticisms of the vicious and tyrannical psychopaths of whom I speak has nothing whatsoever to do with you.

Sadly, you are unable to recognize that Charles is very clear in differentiating between "all Christendom" and YECers; but you are not clear in making your distinctions obvious.

174 Hhar  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:48:37am

Kenneth, you hit the nail on the head.

Regardless of your position on the ethics of abortion, there is very little reasonable doubt that it involves, from a biological point of view, the deliberate killing of a human organism. People attempt to objectify the human (witness the insistence on calling the conceptus a "fetus" and not referring to a second trimester fetus as a "baby" because it isn't "scientific", as though gynecologists don't routinely refer to a 20 week gestational age fetus as "baby".) or to concentrate on how evil some antiabortionists are to avoid this simple but painful fact, but any political position has unavoidable moral consequences.

The state, by placing limits on the legality of behavior, is necessarily coercive. Defining the limits on the capacity of the state to coerce its citizens is what political debate is about, and the debate on abortion is about the role that the state has in protecting the life and integrity of the mother and the fetus. But if you have two camps who routinely call each other murderers, or who reduce abortion to "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!", well, you aren't going to get very far in any discussion.

175 cjcasey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 10:58:43am

re: #23 reine.de.tout

Ditto here. I always tell people I'm anti-abortion and pro-choice. I volunteered to take a friend to have one done, but I'm really glad that she didn't.

176 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 11:16:16am

re: #173 reine.de.tout

Sadly, you are unable to recognize that Charles is very clear in differentiating between "all Christendom" and YECers; but you are not clear in making your distinctions obvious.

On the contrary, I did it in my VERY FIRST POST IN THIS THREAD, and the one TO WHICH YOU INITIALLY and GROUNDLESSLY OBJECTED!

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Many people who are opposed to abortion are not just people who would never have one themselves; they are people who would outlaw the procedure for everyone if they could, and many of them relentlessly strive to do just that. That is the very definition of imposing one's own moral position upon unwilling others.

Pro-choicers are fine with other women choosing to carry their pregnancies to term, and fine with other women choosing to terminate them, if it is done early. In other words, they are fine with the women concerned choosing for themselves what happens with and within their own bodies. Thus, they cannot be accurately described as pro-abortion (that would be the Chinese government, which mandates abortions for all Chinese women after a single childbirth), but as pro-choice.

Many antiabortionists, on the other hand, are actually anti-choice, and not just for themselves, but for all women. They would, if they could (and they keep working on it) legally eliminate the choice of pregnancy termination from the array of alternatives open to women, leaving only one avenue open - to carry each and every pregnancy to term - and that is no choice at all; it is in fact the death of choice -or to be more specific, it's murder.

To which you answered:

There ya go, Salamantis, and it's tiresome.
I have a deep deep antipathy and hatred for the abortion procedure.
I am pro-life, anti-abortion.
However, abortion is legal, and there is nothing I can do to make it otherwise. I accept that.

And again, MY energies will be spent doing whatever I can legally and with moral and financial support to encourage and support OTHER choices.

And that is MY decision to make, mine alone, and it does NOT impose ANYTHING on anyone else, but your insistence that I call myself "pro-choice" instead of "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" IS an imposition on me.

First you denigrate my post as "tiresome", then you claim that I insist that you call yourself "pro-choice", which I DID NOT DO.

But perhaps the most dismayingly telling part of your post is where, after claimimg to harbor a "deep antipathy and hatred for the abortion procedure", you say you "accept" that "abortion is legal, and there is nothing I can do to make it otherwise." To me, that sounds like you REGRET that there is nothing you can do to ban it, and that if you thought you COULD deny every woman on the planet that personal reproductive choice different from your own, that you WOULD.

Considering such language from you, exactly how sure ARE you that you do not stand with the moral imperialists? Perhaps it is not ME who is having problems making such distinctions, but YOU...

177 Hhar  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 11:40:57am

So Salamantis, if abortion were to be made illegal by democratic and constitutional means, would that be "moral imperialism"?

178 Areozol  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 11:50:04am

And Google Ads bought by creationists are popping up like crazy...

179 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 11:56:07am

re: #176 Salamantis

First you denigrate my post as "tiresome", then you claim that I insist that you call yourself "pro-choice", which I DID NOT DO.

But perhaps the most dismayingly telling part of your post is where, after claimimg to harbor a "deep antipathy and hatred for the abortion procedure", you say you "accept" that "abortion is legal, and there is nothing I can do to make it otherwise." To me, that sounds like you REGRET that there is nothing you can do to ban it, and that if you thought you COULD deny every woman on the planet that personal reproductive choice different from your own, that you WOULD.

Considering such language from you, exactly how sure ARE you that you do not stand with the moral imperialists? Perhaps it is not ME who is having problems making such distinctions, but YOU...

Your lectures and bellowing are indeed tiresome.

As far your questioning me about my certainty that I do NOT stand with "moral imperialists" - how dare you? It seems you've made up your mind about me, based on your own certainties that anti-abortion folks are evil, and you so you come back to where you were to begin with, to what I objected to in the beginning - lumping me in with the murderers.

180 Hhar  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 12:17:57pm

reire: #179 reine.de.tout

The real question is what all this anguish about "imposing morality" is about. Coulter is really offensive here, but under that (as usual), she has a real point: saying "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!" is as morally fatuous as saying "Don't like murder? Don't kill people!".

Of course soceties impose some degree of social conformity on members: in North America, sane people do not call others "moral imperialists "for (say) punishing honor killings, yet in a way, one IS being a "moral imperialist" and "coercive" when one insists that parents and brothers from whatever ethnicity do not have the right to murder daughters and sisters for sexual indiscretion. What's wrong with being a moral imperialist, per se? Why, nothing, apparently, as far as I can see.

Stick to your guns.

181 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 1:06:28pm

re: #179 reine.de.tout

Your lectures and bellowing are indeed tiresome.

As far your questioning me about my certainty that I do NOT stand with "moral imperialists" - how dare you? It seems you've made up your mind about me, based on your own certainties that anti-abortion folks are evil, and you so you come back to where you were to begin with, to what I objected to in the beginning - lumping me in with the murderers.

When you proffer rhetoric such as you did in post #146, where you (seemingly regrettably) 'accept' that there is 'nothing you can do' about abortion being legal but nevertheless harbor a 'deep deep antipathy and hatred for the abortion procedure', it sounds suspiciously as if you WOULD ban it if you COULD. Which would make the difference between you and those murderers the fact that they are willing to commit heinous crimes in order to TRY to enforce their moral preferences upon all and sundry, and you are not, but also entail that you share similarity to them in that you embrace their imperialistic goals, if not their vicious methods. It is your own words which sympathetically associate you with such odious and execrable people.

Or maybe you would rather possess the gift of mind control, so you could cognitively ensure that no pregnant women would ever WANT to choose to terminate their pregnancies - subjugating their free wills to your moral thrall in the process.

It kinda reminds me of Muslims who would never commit jihad themselves, but who shed no tears when jihad is perpetrated, and fault all who fail to answer Allah's call.

And Hhar, the American honor killers are the antiabortion jihadists sticking to gunning down doctors and escorts and clinic personnel, and going splodeydope on clinics.

182 Hhar  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 1:10:15pm

Oops. Didn't answer the question. The question was: "So Salamantis, if abortion were to be made illegal by democratic and constitutional means, would that be "moral imperialism"?"

183 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 1:18:21pm

I'm just sad to think that valuing life is considered odious now, Sal.

Every bit as heartbreaking as the stories of Dr Tiller's patients are the stories of women who later come to regret their decisions. I've heard them. I don't wish that upon any woman, but that is what many of them do every day. It's very sad. For them, for the babies, and on occasion for the fathers. I wish both men and women respected themselves and each other enough not to end up in this position, but I doubt that will ever happen.

I guess I don't know what to consider myself. I would never have an abortion, I wouldn't ban it, I support contraception, I think abortion is horrible and would council any woman who came to me that another option is better but not judge her for the decision she decided to live with. Am I a jihadist now too?

184 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 1:20:31pm

And you don't have to answer me, Sal, I don't really want an answer. This topic sucks- I don't like any aspect of it and I'm likely not to speak about this again. Just wanted to say not everyone who considers themselves pro-life is a thug looking to push their morality on people.

185 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 1:21:27pm

re: #181 Salamantis

When you proffer rhetoric such as you did in post #146, where you (seemingly regrettably) 'accept' that there is 'nothing you can do' about abortion being legal but nevertheless harbor a 'deep deep antipathy and hatred for the abortion procedure', it sounds suspiciously as if you WOULD ban it if you COULD. Which would make the difference between you and those murderers the fact that they are willing to commit heinous crimes in order to TRY to enforce their moral preferences upon all and sundry, and you are not, but also entail that you share similarity to them in that you embrace their imperialistic goals, if not their vicious methods. It is your own words which sympathetically associate you with such odious and execrable people.

What? I'm frankly beginning to wonder if your real problem is that you are bothered that a lowly woman like myself, who holds a different opinion than you, will not properly recognize and submit to your obviously superior moral position and arguments.


Or maybe you would rather possess the gift of mind control, so you could cognitively ensure that no pregnant women would ever WANT to choose to terminate their pregnancies - subjugating their free wills to your moral thrall in the process.

I already explained earlier what it is I do, and have every right to do - I support in actions and words those efforts that make it possible for women to make choices other than abortion. Do you believe those efforts are not worth supporting? Can't follow (or respond to) your conclusion that I want to possess the gift of mind control.

It kinda reminds me of Muslims who would never commit jihad themselves, but who shed no tears when jihad is perpetrated, and fault all who fail to answer Allah's call

.So - now I am like those right-wing loons who murder, as well as Muslims who support jihad? Sala - where are you getting this?

186 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 1:36:47pm

re: #182 Hhar

Oops. Didn't answer the question. The question was: "So Salamantis, if abortion were to be made illegal by democratic and constitutional means, would that be "moral imperialism"?"

Yes, it would. Just as much as it would be moral imperialism to render consensual adult homosexual acts a crime "by democratic and constitutional means", or to mandate the teaching of creationism rather than evolution in public high school science classes. I feel the same way about prohibitions against assisted suicide in cases of adult terminal illness accompanied by intractable pain, prohibitions against adult consensual prostitution and gambling, prohibitions against pornography produced and consumed by consenting adults, and prohibitions against the adult use of marijuana, caffeine, nicotine or alcohol. Notice that I specify 'adult', as children lack the capacity to responsibly choose such courses of action.

Such laws are relentlessly pushed upon the population at large by religious right socons who, whether they realize it or not, are endeavoring to piecemeal morph this country into the particular sectarian theocracy they prefer.

In a constitutional democracy, an array of choices must be made available to the citizenry, including those that we would not personally choose, but that others would. Constitutional democracies should be all about maximizing the responsible exercise of personal freedoms (meaning that rights are balanced by obligations - for instance, the right to consume alcohol is accompanied by the obligation not to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated, as it infringes upon the rights of those with whom one shares the road not to be injured due to one's erratic driving). Only in theocracies and totalitarianisms are all life decisions either mandated or forbidden, reducing the citizenry to unwilling clones in the process, and inasmuch as a constitutional democracy enacts such sanctions, it is trending towards the very majority tyranny for which the Bill of Rights, guaranteeing specific constitutional rights for all, was passed to forfend.

I am obdurately libertarian (small-l) in matters of personal liberty. You run your own damn life, and leave me alone to run mine, as long as the consequences of my choices are bourne by me and not by you.

187 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 1:42:58pm

re: #183 Sharmuta

I'm just sad to think that valuing life is considered odious now, Sal.

Every bit as heartbreaking as the stories of Dr Tiller's patients are the stories of women who later come to regret their decisions. I've heard them. I don't wish that upon any woman, but that is what many of them do every day. It's very sad. For them, for the babies, and on occasion for the fathers. I wish both men and women respected themselves and each other enough not to end up in this position, but I doubt that will ever happen.

I guess I don't know what to consider myself. I would never have an abortion, I wouldn't ban it, I support contraception, I think abortion is horrible and would council any woman who came to me that another option is better but not judge her for the decision she decided to live with. Am I a jihadist now too?

My ex-wife had her arm twisted by her commanding officer while she was in the military to not have an abortion after her contraception failed, but rather to carry her pregnancy to term, and to give it up for adoption. As soon as the window for having an abortion passed, he marched her out in front of the entire unit, and denounced her as a whore and a strumpet; meanwhile other servicewomen were obtaining abortions without personal or professional consequence. Shattered, she resigned her commission.

More than thirty years later, she curses that callous hypocritical bastard and the fact that she allowed herself to be coerced by him, has nightmares about running into the kid, and deeply, profoundly regrets not obtaining the abortion she desired.

There are genuine regrets on BOTH sides of the choice. But antiabortionists like to pretend that they are all on one, and only one, side.

188 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 1:52:27pm

re: #187 Salamantis

You know I'm no morality pusher. My respect for life comes from more than my personal sense of morality. It also comes from my study of science.

I have no more to say on this topic.

189 Hhar  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 1:55:36pm

Thought so. So "imperialism" doesn't really mean "imperialism" when you use the word. To people who speak English, "imperialism" is not synonymous with "authoritarianism", nor with "statism".

Its just a verbal stick to beat people with. Swearing at me doesn't change my mind.

Words have meanings. Attempt to grow up and realise that. Then maybe you will figure out why people who disagree with you think that sometimes you aren't exactly clear in your distinctions.

190 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 2:02:59pm

re: #185 reine.de.tout

.What? I'm frankly beginning to wonder if your real problem is that you are bothered that a lowly woman like myself, who holds a different opinion than you, will not properly recognize and submit to your obviously superior moral position and arguments.

.

My problem is with people who do not engage in the criminal methods of antiabortion jihadists, but share their goals; such people comprise the ocean in which such terrorists swim. The way to ascertain whether or not you are one of these people is to answer one question: If you had the power to wave a magic wand and ensure that abortions were never again performed, even though many women would continue to desire them, would you wave that wand?

.I already explained earlier what it is I do, and have every right to do - I support in actions and words those efforts that make it possible for women to make choices other than abortion. Do you believe those efforts are not worth supporting? Can't follow (or respond to) your conclusion that I want to possess the gift of mind control.

.

I consider the work that you do to render it more feasible for women to choose to carry pregnancies to term to be laudable and praiseworthy, because in such cases, you are not dictating their choices, but enabling them to possess a wider array of them.

The mind control point is that if you could remove from all women - without their consent - any and all desire to choose abortion, so that while the option remained open, it would never be exercised, would you do so? Or would the fact that such a nonconsensual removal would be enslaving and immoral deter you?

.So - now I am like those right-wing loons who murder, as well as Muslims who support jihad? Sala - where are you getting this?

Antiabortionists who would not personally commit antiabortion crimes but devoutly desire that edicts be passed that mandate that all women be legally forbidden from obtaining abortions remind me of Muslims who would not personally commit jihad but devoutly desire that a global Islamic caliphate be established where all knees are constrained to bend to the mullah-communicated will of Allah.

191 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 2:10:36pm

re: #189 Hhar

Thought so. So "imperialism" doesn't really mean "imperialism" when you use the word. To people who speak English, "imperialism" is not synonymous with "authoritarianism", nor with "statism".

Its just a verbal stick to beat people with. Swearing at me doesn't change my mind.

Words have meanings. Attempt to grow up and realise that. Then maybe you will figure out why people who disagree with you think that sometimes you aren't exactly clear in your distinctions.

When some people strive to restrict the personal freedoms of others in specific ways that conform with their own particular morality, the term 'moral imperialism' is eminently applicable. Abusing the machinery of the state in order to effect same is only one 'statist' and 'authoritarian' path among others to the perpetration of moral imperialism. Other paths include the criminal path of removing the opportunity to exercise such personal freedoms by blocking clinic entrances, assassinating doctors, or firebombing clinics.

192 Hhar  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 2:12:34pm
My problem is with people who do not engage in the criminal methods of antiabortion jihadists, but share their goals; such people comprise the ocean in which such terrorists swim.

Can one not fervently oppose abortion AND respect and uphold the rule of law and the constitution? Is a conservative Catholic, who opposes both abortion and birth control, but who respects and upholds the law of the land, part of the ocean in which terrorists swim?

193 Hhar  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 2:14:53pm
When some people strive to restrict the personal freedoms of others in specific ways that conform with their own particular morality, the term 'moral imperialism' is eminently applicable. Abusing the machinery of the state in order to effect same is only one 'statist' and 'authoritarian' path among others to the perpetration of moral imperialism. Other paths include the criminal path of removing the opportunity to exercise such personal freedoms by blocking clinic entrances, assassinating doctors, or firebombing clinics.

That's what I said: "imperialism' means what you want it to mean, not what it means in English. You take a lot of words just to agree.

194 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 2:20:46pm

re: #188 Sharmuta

You know I'm no morality pusher. My respect for life comes from more than my personal sense of morality. It also comes from my study of science.

I have no more to say on this topic.

I respect zygotic and embryonic life. I just respect persons, and personal choices, more. Which is why I support the right of women to choose 1st trimester abortions. Just as I support the right of women NOT to choose 1st trimester abortions. Their choices here are THEIRS, and not mine.

And indeed, as I have said before, I would allow abortions after fetal viability (mid 2nd trimester) only to preserve the life of physical health of the woman from serious and permanent threats (such as blindness, brain damage, paralysis, coma, or comprehensive renal failure requiring kidney dialysis for the rest of one's life), or if the fetus was either already dead (it's obviously not viable then, but I am talking late term procedures here, when fetuses would usually be viable) or else so massively damaged or deformed that it would not long survive childbirth.

There is plenty of time for a woman to choose not to carry a pregnancy to term before it becomes viable.

195 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 2:29:47pm

re: #192 Hhar

Can one not fervently oppose abortion AND respect and uphold the rule of law and the constitution? Is a conservative Catholic, who opposes both abortion and birth control, but who respects and upholds the law of the land, part of the ocean in which terrorists swim?

Some conservative Catholics have NOT so respected the law of the land. Doctor murderers and clinic firebombers include conservative Catholics among their number. Joseph Scheidler, who wrote the clinic sabotage handbook Closed: 99 Ways to Stop Abortion, is a former Catholic priest; John Salvi, antiabortion murderer, is a conservative Catholic; Joan Andrews, who vandalized 120 clinics in a 2 years span, is a conservative Catholic. And there are more.

As long as they restrict themselves to endeavoring to convince others, and do not transgress into attempting to coerce them, and do not provide safe haven to antiabortion terrorists, I have no problem with conservative Catholics espousing antiabortion convictions.

196 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 2:32:07pm

re: #193 Hhar

That's what I said: "imperialism' means what you want it to mean, not what it means in English. You take a lot of words just to agree.

[Link: wordnetweb.princeton.edu...]

Noun
•S: (n) imperialism (a policy of extending your rule over foreign countries) •S: (n) imperialism (a political orientation that advocates imperial interests) •S: (n) imperialism (any instance of aggressive extension of authority)

I am employing the third definition.

197 Hhar  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 2:42:33pm
As long as they restrict themselves to endeavoring to convince others, and do not transgress into attempting to coerce them, and do not provide safe haven to antiabortion terrorists, I have no problem with conservative Catholics espousing antiabortion convictions.

But that isn't what you said, is it? What you said was:My problem is with people who do not engage in the criminal methods of antiabortion jihadists, but share their goals; such people comprise the ocean in which such terrorists swim.

This is a topic that people are sensitive about, and yet you play Humpty Dumpty with English, post stuff that reasonably can be interpreted as implying that the Pope is a terrorist sympathiser, go on BALLISTIC with caps....Grow up, OK? If someone thinks you have antagonised them, they might just have reason.

198 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 2:48:29pm

re: #197 Hhar

But that isn't what you said, is it? What you said was:My problem is with people who do not engage in the criminal methods of antiabortion jihadists, but share their goals; such people comprise the ocean in which such terrorists swim.

This is a topic that people are sensitive about, and yet you play Humpty Dumpty with English, post stuff that reasonably can be interpreted as implying that the Pope is a terrorist sympathiser, go on BALLISTIC with caps....Grow up, OK? If someone thinks you have antagonised them, they might just have reason.

Here you are correct; I should have said 'share their goals to the extent that they will offer them sanctuary'. But then again, if sanctuary is not offered by such people, they cannot be credibly considered to 'comprise the ocean in which such terrorists swim', now, can they?

199 Hhar  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 2:51:47pm

re: #196 Salamantis

When people who speak English as their native tongue use imperialism, they understand that it typically has political connotations of extensions of territoriality. So when the state passes seatbelt laws, calling it "imperialism" is a misuse of the word. When a secular democratic state modifies its laws by constitutional means, that isn't "imperialism".

So no, you are using rhetorical devices innappropriately.

200 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:00:03pm

re: #190 Salamantis

My problem is with people who do not engage in the criminal methods of antiabortion jihadists, but share their goals; such people comprise the ocean in which such terrorists swim. The way to ascertain whether or not you are one of these people is to answer one question: If you had the power to wave a magic wand and ensure that abortions were never again performed, even though many women would continue to desire them, would you wave that wand?

Well, I'm finished. It is not productive to judge a person based on what you might ascertain from a question about a magic wand.

There is no magic wand.
Life is what it is, and will never be exactly what I or you might want for a perfect world. We all simply have to deal with what actually is, in the way we believe is best.

To make a determination that I am just like the murderers or jihadis because you think I might answer a "magic wand" question a particular way is unrealistic.

201 Hhar  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:11:46pm

re: #200 reine.de.tout

It is not productive to judge a person based on what you might ascertain from a question about a magic wand.

Bingo.

Conterfactual conditionals are hazardous at the best of times, and meaningless when the counterfactual component is in principle quite impossible.

202 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:43:33pm

re: #200 reine.de.tout

Well, I'm finished. It is not productive to judge a person based on what you might ascertain from a question about a magic wand.

There is no magic wand.
Life is what it is, and will never be exactly what I or you might want for a perfect world. We all simply have to deal with what actually is, in the way we believe is best.

To make a determination that I am just like the murderers or jihadis because you think I might answer a "magic wand" question a particular way is unrealistic.

The wand-waving question not a matter of being 'just like' the murderers or jihadis, except in one small particular; the willingness to coerce unwilling others into forced compliance with one's own moral convictions, had one the ability to do so.

And I do not know the answer to the question of whether or not you would be willing to wave that wand; otherwise, there would have been no point in asking the question in the first place. I still don't know.

But any world in which such a tyrannical and dictatorial magic wand existed would not, in my opinion, be perfect; in fact, far, far from it.

But you are right in the sense that all we can do is all we can do; the most we can do is the best we can with what we've got, and the world is not the way that we would have it be, but the way that it actually is - and the way that it actually is is that sometimes - in fact most times - there are no universal or perfect solutions, so each of us must choose our own particular and imperfect ones, and, both for better and for worse, live with the consequences of our own choices.

203 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:48:33pm

re: #199 Hhar

When people who speak English as their native tongue use imperialism, they understand that it typically has political connotations of extensions of territoriality. So when the state passes seatbelt laws, calling it "imperialism" is a misuse of the word. When a secular democratic state modifies its laws by constitutional means, that isn't "imperialism".

So no, you are using rhetorical devices innappropriately.

I guess a definition from WordNet, a state-of-the-art Princeton University conceptual-semantic and lexical database funded by (among others) DARPA and the National Science Foundation, doesn't suffice for some people...

[Link: wordnet.princeton.edu...]

204 Hhar  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:24:09pm

re: #203 Salamantis

Definitions do not suffice, and never have sufficed, to capture normal usage, and nothing in that definition implies that when a secular democratic state peaceably and legally modifies its laws it is imperialism of any form.

You have a habit of conflating evils for rhetorical effect.

205 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 5:36:23pm

re: #204 Hhar

Definitions do not suffice, and never have sufficed, to capture normal usage, and nothing in that definition implies that when a secular democratic state peaceably and legally modifies its laws it is imperialism of any form.

You have a habit of conflating evils for rhetorical effect.

You have a habit of invoking and denigrating definitions solely depending upon whether or not they seve your rhetorical purposes.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh