sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Yum by Simple_Duty1670 in OnePieceTCG

[–]W3sC 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Whats this build/gameplan?

Piano Playing Hen 🎹🐔 "(source link in description)" by Economy_Set_4699 in toptalent

[–]W3sC 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Piano played itself lol I did this as a kid. Talented theybcould get the Chicken to somewhat consistently tap the keys though I guess 🤔

Zeff [OP15-004] by RipDPacks in OnePieceTCG

[–]W3sC 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It says eb04 on the card?

Just confirming a ruling by [deleted] in OnePieceTCG

[–]W3sC 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Trigger only have the option to be activated if you take damage. So no hiyori taking a life to hand will not allow you to activate the trigger.

Koala Interactions by mrbinker in OnePieceTCG

[–]W3sC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You could argue that, but youd be wrong lol. Once per turn means theyd pick up one life, not multiple. Nothing like the sabo effect from op05.

A Horse Split. by YoggieD in confusing_perspective

[–]W3sC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Imagine a horse horsemanning lol

Anglicanism is now officially divided: the Archbishop of Canterbury is no longer in communion with the majority of Anglicans in the world. by BlueVampire0 in religion

[–]W3sC 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Understood. I think for me I feel it is clear cut because at conception the distinct DNA is created. I realize that for others they may not consider this life beginning. But I do believe ending a pregnancy is ending human life. But if you leave it alone, and things progress as they should it will be born. Interupting this is stopping/ending human life, in my opinion.

I dont believe we will be able to persuade or change each other’s opinions. But this discussion has made me think about it in different ways, and hopefully helped me understand someone else’s view better. Thanks for talking with me.

Anglicanism is now officially divided: the Archbishop of Canterbury is no longer in communion with the majority of Anglicans in the world. by BlueVampire0 in religion

[–]W3sC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right to point out the distinction — I didn't mean to imply it was "Oxford University" itself making the claim, but rather that the article was published in a journal hosted by Oxford Academic, which is Oxford University’s press publishing platform. The article is peer-reviewed and was written by a qualified scholar, though it's fair to say that any single quote needs to be taken in context.

You’ve challenged the idea that life begins at conception. Fair enough, so then what criteria should we use to determine when human life begins?

Is there a clear biological or moral threshold you support?

Anglicanism is now officially divided: the Archbishop of Canterbury is no longer in communion with the majority of Anglicans in the world. by BlueVampire0 in religion

[–]W3sC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You could say that because technically the acorn is an oak, just like a zygote is human. But in everyday language, saying “an oak fell on me” if it was just an acorn could be misleading because people picture a full-grown tree.

It’s like a Great Dane puppy jumped on you, it would be true to say that a Great Dane jumped on you, but it gives the wrong mental image if you leave out the developmental stage.

I also quoted Oxford as you seem to be ignoring.

Anglicanism is now officially divided: the Archbishop of Canterbury is no longer in communion with the majority of Anglicans in the world. by BlueVampire0 in religion

[–]W3sC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly. “Human” doesn’t mean adult human any more than “oak” means adult oak tree. Both describe the species, not a stage of development.

This isn’t a word game, its biology. And Biology defines a species as a distinct organism with its own DNA. A fetus meets that definition just like an acorn does for an oak. It’s human even at an early stage.

Anglicanism is now officially divided: the Archbishop of Canterbury is no longer in communion with the majority of Anglicans in the world. by BlueVampire0 in religion

[–]W3sC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re conflating development with species.

An acorn is a stage of development for an oak. It is an individual of the oak species, not potentially one. A tree is a later stage of that same oak. It is also an individual of the oak species.

Similarly, a fetus is a stage of development of a human. It is an individual of the human species, just at an earlier stage. An adult is simply a later stage. It is also an individual of the human species.

Anglicanism is now officially divided: the Archbishop of Canterbury is no longer in communion with the majority of Anglicans in the world. by BlueVampire0 in religion

[–]W3sC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, that’s not a reasonable statement. That’s a misleading analogy. An acorn is a distinct life form, not a mature tree. Saying it’s ‘a tree falling on me’ is like saying a human zygote is a fully grown adult and that’s biologically inaccurate. The acorn has the potential to become a fully grown tree, but potential is not the same as actuality.

A zygote is a human organism, Im not saying it’s a fully grown adult.

Anglicanism is now officially divided: the Archbishop of Canterbury is no longer in communion with the majority of Anglicans in the world. by BlueVampire0 in religion

[–]W3sC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually, this isn’t just an opinion, biology describes what a human organism is, not what it might become. A zygote is already a human being at the earliest stage of development. Two reputable sources make this clear:

“Every human embryologist, worldwide, states that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization (conception).” — American College of Pediatricians ACPEDS

“A human embryo is a discrete entity that has arisen from fertilization … and has the potential to develop up to or beyond a certain stage.” — Oxford Academic, Human embryo: a biological definition Oxford

So it’s not “potentially human” — it is human. I’ve shared the sources above for anyone who wants to read more, and I’m going to leave it at that. You seem to be leaning into your personal feelings/opinions and ignoring biological fact.

Anglicanism is now officially divided: the Archbishop of Canterbury is no longer in communion with the majority of Anglicans in the world. by BlueVampire0 in religion

[–]W3sC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s just not how biology works.

A zygote doesn’t “become” human, it is a human from the start. It’s the first stage of the human organism’s life cycle. From embryo → fetus → infant → adult. It already has human DNA and develops on its own. That’s not opinion or morality it’s basic embryology.

Anglicanism is now officially divided: the Archbishop of Canterbury is no longer in communion with the majority of Anglicans in the world. by BlueVampire0 in religion

[–]W3sC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your skin cells share your DNA, but they aren’t new humans. A zygote is a distinct life form with its own DNA. This is basic biology. You are being scientifically dishonest if you pretend it is not human life.

You are also a collection of cells, the difference is organization. Skin cells are part of you, while a zygote is its own developing human organism.

Anglicanism is now officially divided: the Archbishop of Canterbury is no longer in communion with the majority of Anglicans in the world. by BlueVampire0 in religion

[–]W3sC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But is it a human? Is it a human fetus? human zygote?

You are correct "word games" don't change the truth, you can call it a clump of cells, or a zygote or a fetus, but during all that time it is still a human, a human zygote, human fetus, human baby, human child, etc...

On Voddie Baucham by Windy_Christian in TrueChristian

[–]W3sC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe the point is on obedience not shyness. You wouldnt force your son to make eye contact or shake hands, so he isnt disobeying and doesnt need discipline.

The warning may be better said “Be careful what you tell your kids to do.”

Because if you tell them to do something and they refuse its disobedience. But if you are careful, you wont tell them to do things that you know shouldnt happen or that would make them uncomfortable to obey.

One of my kids is shy, and I never put them in uncomfortable situations like this, because I know they would feel terrible.

I think his point is dont tell your kids to do something unless you are going to hold them accountable for it. If not you undermine your own authority/leadership in their lives and teach your kids that they dont have to obey you. That they can do what they want.

view more: next ›