• Maya🍎@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    4·
    3 hours ago

    Fun fact: Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny.

    Depending on what species a foetus looks like, you can make a guess for how long it has been present inside a womb.

    Source: Haeckel’s Embryos.

  • MissJinx@lemmy.worldEnglish
    7·
    6 hours ago

    You are never going to convince me the biggest vilain in the whole world is fucking religion. I hate religious people with all my heart

    • Jax@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      6·
      3 hours ago

      isn’t fucking religion

      Or

      You are never going to convince me; the biggest villain in the world is fucking religion.

    • sangeteria@lemmy.mlEnglish
      51·
      3 hours ago

      I think it’s in the top 5:

      1. Capitalism

      2. Patriarchy

      3. Racism (I consider this tied with patriarchy tbh)

      4. Religion

      5. People who take two seats on public transit with no justification

      • groet@feddit.orgEnglish
        3·
        1 hour ago

        Religion is a rationale for other evils. It is in itself not evil.

        Patriarchy and racism (and many religions do that too) are all the same thing - chauvinism, the belief in the superiority of the own group. This also includes nationalism, homophobia, xenophobia and any other “I hate you because you are different”-isms

        So I’d go with:

        1. Chauvinism
        2. Capitalism (greed)
        3. People who blast music on speaker in public transit
  • BigBenis@lemmy.worldEnglish
    221·
    12 hours ago

    90% of scientists agree

    Even if that were true these kinds of people are notorious for discounting the vast majority consensus because some lunatic said otherwise. It’s almost like science has no bearing to them unless it validates their preconceived ideas.

    • Zebrafive@lemmy.myserv.oneEnglish
      4·
      4 hours ago

      Exactly the problem and they all cite a paper written by a pro life conservative who works at the Hamilton foundation which is a conservative ‘think tank’.

      The paper itself is abysmally stupid. He emailed about 60 000 people with 5 or so confoundingly, unnecessarily complex question (manipulated) and about 30 000 or so responded and then he interpreted the answers and made the conclusion that like 90% of respondents agree that life begins at conception.

      Morons say 90% of scientists agree, which is not even what the paper claims at all which itself is not good.

      He could have just asked ‘does human life begin at conception’? Also he complained (author) in a podcast about the paper about how so many faculty at the college he was st during the paper writing urged him to discontinue the project as for various reasons and then spins that to basically say pro women’s rights advocates are in a conspiracy against life and were all democratic demons in a death cult (more or less)

      • cannedtuna@lemmy.worldEnglish
        151·
        20 hours ago

        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. 🤦‍♂️

        • axx@slrpnk.netEnglish
          1·
          6 minutes ago

          “Harder”. I mean, sure. It’s all so low effort anyway. Why not call that harder.

        • moakley@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          2 hours ago

          I like to go the extra mile. I uncensor shit emphatically.

          A censored “shit” in a post about Star Trek? “SHIT” in big Star Trek font.

          “Cunt” in a post about the UK? Enjoy your “CUNT” dressed in a union jack.

          The censored word is “cock”? Here’s “COCK” in flesh tones with bulging purple veins on it.

          Fucking lean into it.

      • voidsignal@lemmy.worldEnglish
        702·
        23 hours ago

        They try to be a rebel, but still wanna please facists algorithms. American puritanism BS. Fuck that.

      • ordnance_qf_17_pounder@reddthat.comEnglish
        431·
        23 hours ago

        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.

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        62·
        18 hours ago

        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.

      • samus12345@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        11·
        23 hours ago

        It’s to get by censorship algorithms on certain sites. The picture is copied as-is, so it stays even when not needed.

    • Seleni@lemmy.worldEnglish
      154·
      19 hours ago

      Unless you’re a part of .ml, apparently. They auto-censor that stuff for some reason.

      • GreenKnight23@lemmy.worldEnglish
        93·
        18 hours ago

        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.

        • LostCarcosan@lemmy.todayEnglish
          72·
          17 hours ago

          I’m sure if you’re a bootlicking, barely literate troglodyte it is amazing to be on ml

  • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.orgEnglish
    4·
    12 hours ago

    Amazing how we (or any organism complex enough to have organs) are just a pair of cells that underwent a sequence of protein-controlled division, folding and diversification. And excretion and consumption that formed and maintains non-cellular parts like fluids and bones. Plus the microbiome but arguably that’s not you, much like mites.

  • BillyClark@piefed.socialEnglish
    86·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • Bytemeister@lemmy.worldEnglish
      34·
      2 hours ago

      Eh… A Human fetus is human, but it is not “a human”. Your toenail clippings 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.

      • kureta@lemmy.mlEnglish
        11·
        13 hours ago

        Wow. I have never heard this argument articulated in this way. Thanks!

    • howrar@lemmy.caEnglish
      8·
      16 hours ago

      Am scientist (not in life sciences). If someone showed me this image, I’d have absolutely no idea what I’m looking at. So that’s one for the 10%, I guess.

    • tburkhol@slrpnk.netEnglish
      29·
      23 hours ago

      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?”

    • neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      16·
      22 hours ago

      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.

      • fizzle@quokk.auEnglish
        2·
        19 hours ago

        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.

    • fakeman_pretendname@feddit.ukEnglish
      11·
      21 hours ago

      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”

    • voxthefox@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      8·
      1 day ago

      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.

          • turdas@suppo.fiEnglish
            12·
            17 hours ago

            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:

    • marcos@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      22 hours ago

      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.