Pfft, we have a hard time proving people under 1 billion net worth are human live nowadays.
Fucking.
Here you go OP. It’s actually ok to swear on the internet.
Unless you’re a part of .ml, apparently. They auto-censor that stuff for some reason.
They got more problems than censoring bad words tho…
hold up…the CCCP supporting fascist loving asscrack of the federation censors posts?!
to hear a ml user, they make it seem like they’re having a fucking blast over there… sounds like a fucking gulag.
I’m sure if you’re a bootlicking, barely literate troglodyte it is amazing to be on ml
Here is a not weirdly censored and un-censored version:
I mean… could I have gone and found the original, maybe. Did it cross my mind, no I jumped straight to do it on my phone and make it look as natural as possible, but of course this was the harder option. 🤦♂️
I also like to reinvent wheels, it’s basically a hobby at this point
MY EYES! NOOOOO! MY INNOCENCE!!!
I don’t get at all this trend of badly censored words.
The creators of Lemmy (who also run the Lemmy.ml instance) are huge fans of censorship and propaganda so they use automated swear word filtering to train their users into uncritically accepting censorship.
They try to be a rebel, but still wanna please facists algorithms. American puritanism BS. Fuck that.
One theory is that it’s done intentionally to farm engagement from people pointing it out. Also I think most mainstream platforms heavily push down in the algorithm content that isn’t sanitised. This is to make the platform more appealing to advertisers because the platform’s userbase is the product.
As for why the words are partly censored instead of completely censored I’m not sure. I’d guess it’s to game the algorithm while also making the word completely obvious.
Either way, if this is the behaviour that you engage in on a platform, that platform is terrible and you are an attention obsessed idiot.
It’s to get by censorship algorithms on certain sites. The picture is copied as-is, so it stays even when not needed.
Even if it was a human, Chris would be wrong with his lie about “90% of scientists.” Not sure why people think a lie will help their argument in cases like this.
Eh… A Human fetus is human, but it is not “a human”. Your toenail clipping are human.
Plus, the humanity or personhood of a fetus doesn’t really matter for the pro-choice position. Simply put, there is no (other) legal situation that can compell you to give up your bodily autonomy.
Example. I can shoot someone in the street in cold blood, and they could die without a blood transfusion. The courts cannot compell me to do something as harmless as donating blood to save that person’s life. A fetus, despite arguably being a person, does not have a right to your blood, your breath, your nutrients, or a space inside your body. Full stop.
Also, even if 90% of scientists did say that… what percentage of those scientists are not biologists?
Do we need to know a geologist’s or physicist’s opinion about “some sort of weird meat-science”?
Like the old “Yeah, sorry, I am a Doctor, but I’m a Doctor of Jazz, not medicine”
They don’t care about facts data or science. They use it to argue in bad faith, not to have a serious convo.
If you call that out they’ll just ignore you and try and get you with some other made up gotcha fact.
Exactly. It’s something like a gish gallop - you can’t really rebut that and explain why it’s a comment made in bad faith, but to casual readers it’s a valid retort.
I had a…call? survey? at some point from an entity that probably gave rise to this data. It was basically a push-poll that used question order and positive reinforcement to try to get people to agree that abortion is murder.
Mostly, it tried to conflate “human” with “a human,” starting out with things like “are cells isolated from humans still human?” “Can cultured cells be called ‘viable?’” “So would you agree that tissue cultured from a human donor is viable, human tissue?”
That sounds like a hell of a survey.
Mine are always like “on a scale of 0 to 10, 0 being very poor and 10 being outstanding, how would you rate the service you have received today?”
Reminds me of this… https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/yes-prime-minister-questionnaire-design-matters
They are asking the questions in a way that gets the answers they want just like in yes prime minister.
Because they aren’t arguing to persuade the other party but to persuade the readers/listeners that won’t bother to research if its actually true.
Because they are stupid enough that they believe appeal to authority has any meaning.
I do love the “blank slate mammal” look we all seem to share at this stage.
A just a few less cells and it compares to birds, reptiles and fish.
We all start off as weird worm-like gilled things, huh
Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.
At what stage are these, uh, stages?
Comparative Anatomy and Embryology - Advanced | CK-12 Foundation https://share.google/7DK4c0mlikYsbvPVy
This website is actually pretty helpful for teaching.
Damn, that ended up being a bit of a rabbit hole.
The source for this image was Wikimedia Commons which describes them as “Romanes’ 1892 copy of Ernst Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings.”
I hadn’t heard of these fraudulent drawings that were seemingly so notorious that describing them as fraudulent needed no further elaboration, so I went on Ernst Haeckel’s Wikipedia page which has a longish subsection about these specific drawings. Apparently some… shall we say artistic license, was taken to make the different embryos look more similar to one another, and by modern standards they’re useful mostly for getting the idea across but are not completely true to life.
Wikipedia even has an article specifically about embryo drawings. The short of this story seems to be that there was some controversy back in Haeckel’s day mostly by people who rejected Darwinism. In the 90s some scientists noticed that these drawings didn’t match what they see in the lab and wrote a paper about it. Their paper was hijacked by people who reject Darwinism (i.e. creationist nutsos) and so there was more controversy than the matter probably really deserved.
Finally, I found this article on the website of the National Center for Science Education that defends Haeckel’s drawings, comparing them to modern photographs with any egg yolk removed (as the embryos were originally depicted without the yolk, something Haeckel was up front about) to show that they weren’t that inaccurate:
“Tube that’s lumpy on one side and tapers off on the other”
Yeh it’s peak, really goes downhill from there.
No, it’s a dolphin embryo
Reminds of https://youtube.com/shorts/rQqMcWuUDeg
Were these scientists dentists ?
I doubt even 10% of the scientists can tell a human embryo apart from a dolphin.
I really expect nobody from the physics, math, social sciences, history, geology, or almost every other department to do it.
deleted by creator
The tale of a tail.
