🔥 Popular | Latest

Apparently, Children, and Life: kristenmastora7 gallium-knight: Here's a test: I'm holding a baby in one hand and a petri dish holding a fetus in the other. I'm going to drop one. You chose which. If you really truly believe a fetus is the same thing as a baby, it should be impossible for you to decide. You should have to flip a coin, that's how impossible the decision should be. Shot in the dark, you saved the baby. Because you're aware there's a diference. Now admit it woah. <p><a href="https://prolifeproliberty.tumblr.com/post/162788244517/kelincihutan-embrace-your-insanity-true-is" class="tumblr_blog">prolifeproliberty</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="http://kelincihutan.tumblr.com/post/155309422362/embrace-your-insanity-true-is-true-this-is" class="tumblr_blog">kelincihutan</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://embrace-your-insanity.tumblr.com/post/120890326550/true-is-true" class="tumblr_blog">embrace-your-insanity</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>True is true.</p></blockquote> <p>This is such bullshit.</p> <p>First off, OP has apparently never heard of the word “triage.”  Now, that word is usually used in a medical context, but it actually applies to any situation where a person has to choose to save one life at the expense of another.  Cops and firefighters have to do this too, sometimes.  Let me demonstrate.</p> <p>Imagine a burning building.  There is a child in one room where the door is behind a fallen beam.  In another room is an adult, unconscious.  You are a firefighter.  You can easily reach the adult.  It will take you at least ten minutes to reach the child.  If you get the adult out, you <i>will</i> save their life but the child <i>will</i> die.  If you attempt to reach the child, the adult <i>will</i> die and you and the child might also die.  You must choose who to save.<br/></p> <p>Awful, right?</p> <p>But, despite this being a horrible decision, it is not an impossible one.  Not because adults are more valuable human beings than children, but because in a situation like this one (and these kinds of things happen in real life, unfortunately), it is possible–important, even–to make a decision that will save the lives you are able to save.  That does not mean you are assigning more value to one person over the other.</p> <p>Second, OP has also apparently never understood the words “coercion,” “duress,” or “hostage taking.”  If OP is holding an infant in one hand, a fetus in the other, and threatening to kill one of them if I don’t do something about it, my decision is not a free one.  <b><i>The OP is a murderer, a hostage-taker, and is responsible for the whole situation.</i></b>  They created the situation, they are the ones at fault if either the infant or the fetus die.  They are the aggressor, they are the one threatening to kill people.  My actions, whatever they may be, are taken in response to them.</p> <p>Even if the OP ever acted out this fantasy, my choice wouldn’t mean I viewed infants or fetuses as morally different from one another.  It would mean OP is a terrorist.<br/></p> </blockquote> <p>Also, if a fetus (a preborn human 8 weeks from conception or later) is in a Petri dish, it is likely already dead. A zygote or blastocyst, maybe, if the right conditions are met in the dish, could still be saved. But OP clearly shows an embarrassing lack of understanding of prenatal development.</p> <p>Fetus is not a catch-all term for preborn humans. It’s a specific stage of human development, preceded by embryo and followed by neonate (colloquially known as “infant” or “newborn”). </p> <p>There is nothing wrong with choosing to save one life rather than letting both die. There IS something wrong with intentionally killing a human being when nobody has to die.</p> </blockquote> <p>*posits a ridiculous hypothetical that shows an embarrassing lack of scientific knowledge* </p><p>&ldquo;Checkmate, pro-lifers!&rdquo;</p>
Alive, Being Alone, and Ass: Meet my new workout buddy: @DrSmashlove A lot of u wanna date someone and complain that the person u with don't feel the same thing for u that u feel for them. "You love me ... but you don't love me the way I love you." And this become the basis of discord and enmity between two lovers. I would posit that people who feel this way got their expectations fucked up. Let's take it back to the caveman. The caveman loved the cave woman for the companionship and comfort she provided. U feel me? After a long day of wrestling saber tooth tigers and dinosaurs with his bare hands bruh the only thing that could cool his ass off at the end of the day in that cold ass cave was the warm confines of the four walls of some soft cave woman Punani 🤗. Similarly the cave woman engendered love in the heart of the caveman by rearing his chirren. And she appreciated him: "shit, I'm 5'3". I couldn't wrestle bears and shit alone. This caveman low key got stink-bref but I'll let his ass breathe fire into my grill for the comfort of not having to watch my chirren being eaten alive 😍." <- women BEEN the smarter, more reasonable-rational species 😂. Fast forward to 2017 where we over-obsessed with equality and everyone want equality in EVERYTHING, even emotions. "Do you crave me like I crave you?" "Do you think about me like I think of you?" "No good morning text huh ok GOOD NIGHT" <- at 11:03 am baby girl? What time zone u in? China? 😂 And we expect all these feelings in an era where we done fucked up the relationship-responsibility paradigm. Fully capable grown ass men be unemployed on the couch smoking weed eating Funyuns for breakfast playing PlayStation talmbout "do u luh me baby" - bruh - what is there to love - u ain even disabled - u just CHOOSE not to work - if the caveman were alive today he'd bust the door down on yo crib and strangle yo ass talmbout "OOGA BOOGA - I AINT WRESTLE ELEPHANTS TO MAINTAIN THE BLOODLINE FOR THIS FUCKERY". Ask yourself: do u feel in your heart that this person loves u? Not exactly how u love them but in their own way? If yes, then give it a chance. Expect reciprocation sexually because he can control that. Emotions can be faked but you're better off accepting the real thing. Bless up 😍😂
Arguing, Energy, and Internet: Scientists Now Believe the Universe Itself May Be Conscious JUNE 28, 2017 AT 7:56 PM The Anti-Media/ Jake Anderson You don’t have to look far to find outlandish theories on the nature of the cosmos and human consciousness. These days, notions once relegated to sciencefiction are finding their way into esoteric academic journals, and from there, into mainstream discourse. One example of this is the Simulation Argument ( HolographicUniverse), recently championed by ElonMusk; another is ‘ timecrystals,’ a tantalizing non-linear phase of matter. The newest symphony of mind jazz being broadcast across the Internet posits new ideas about the embattled theory of “panpsychism,” or the belief that mind is a fundamental property of the physical universe and is imbued into all states of matter. A new paper, published by physicist Gregory Matloff, has brought the idea back into scientific discussions, promising experimental tests that could “validate or falsify” the concept of a ubiquitous “proto-consciousness field.” Matloff also pushes the controversial idea of volitional stars, suggesting there is actually evidence that stars control their own galactic paths. As absurd as the theory sounds, it has several prominent adherents, including British theoretical physicist Sir Roger Penrose, who introduced panpsychism three decades ago. Penrose believed consciousness arises from the properties of quantumentanglement. He and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff authored the Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) hypothesis, which asserts, among other things, that consciousness results from quantum vibrations inside microtubules. In 2006, German physicist Bernard Haisch took the idea further and proposed that consciousness arises within a “quantum vacuum” any time there is a significantly advanced system through which energy flows. Neuroscientist Christof Koch, another proponent of panpsychism, approaches it from a different angle, using integrated information theory to argue that consciousness is not unique to biological organisms. 🖐🏾More in comments👇🏾

You don’t have to look far to find outlandish theories on the nature of the cosmos and human consciousness. These days, notions once relegat...