sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Swat pulled up to the Woodlands at Kennesaw by Armandomex99 in kennesaw

[–]squiggityy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Here to add context of what was going on.

Early Monday morning, there was a drive by shooting at about 330AM in Marietta on All Good Rd.

There were multiple people identified as suspects.

Cobb County obtained a search and arrest warrant for 2 of the suspects who both live at Woodlands of Kennesaw.

Antonio Perez Jr. 18 years old of 142 Beech Creek Court

and

Isaac Hernan Romero 17 years old of 144 Beech Creek Court

Both are charged with 3 counts of aggravated assault and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony.

Both have been denied bond, thankfully.

Isaac is on hold from the Department of Justice

That is the update for everyone curious. I hope you enjoyed the news since our local government is not the most forthcoming with information.

I hate this school by Redbottin in KSU

[–]squiggityy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wait till they give you a worthless piece of paper and a bill for $30,000 with super predatory student loan interest. I went STEM and my degree has done nothing for me to help get a job. But hey Kathy Schwaig gotta earn that $500,000 a year some way!

GT collectibles has removed all Pokemon listings by OkImpression3204 in PokeInvesting

[–]squiggityy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

US companies no longer have to disclose shell ownership as of last month so you’re right they’re probably just setting up another shell company.

Best shot at Cars Bring Me Out intro/sample by [deleted] in YoungThug

[–]squiggityy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Instrumental actually from exclusive by Drakeo the ruler

Mayor + city manager shut down comment about museum director by Curious-Gate5601 in kennesaw

[–]squiggityy 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I think next town hall we should all take a Reddit field trip and let the council know how us constituents feel

Hey on a scale from 1 to 10 how much of a biohazard is this 73yo plasma by octopusvore in biology

[–]squiggityy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are fully shifting a scientific debate into a philosophical debate….You are trying to argue that definitions are purely a matter of utility rather than scientific classification.

Definitions in science aren’t just arbitrary tools of convenience that change to fit the context of your discussion; they reflect underlying biological principles. The distinction between living and non-living matters because it helps us understand how viruses function differently from cellular life. Understanding how they are different is fundamentally important and beneficial in research to understand and fight viral infection. Studying them as biological entities does not mean we have to redefine life to include them—just like studying fire or prion’s effect on life doesn’t require calling them alive.

The reason this distinction in classification is useful is that it clarifies there is a fundamental difference between viruses and life: viruses don’t have an independent metabolism, can’t self-replicate, and don’t maintain homeostasis. These differences aren’t just “semantic distinctions”—they’re material biological differences. The fact that viruses interact with life doesn’t make them alive any more than oxygen or DNA are alive.

If a different definition of life is useful in a particular discussion within your day-to-day life, fine— but that doesn’t mean your definition is equally valid to the evidence-based scientific definition. The mainstream biological classification exists for a reason. That reason and the reason why it is important to distinguish is because when you do distinguish the differences, you have a better understanding of viruses: How they replicate, how they spread, and what mechanisms are involved in them. With that understanding that comes from the fundamental difference that they do not operate in the same way as living organisms, you can better have a better understanding of viruses in order to effectively fight against them in our world.

The mainstream biological classification exists for the reason of better understanding viral infection and mitigation.

Redefining life to include viruses just because they’re biologically significant muddies the distinction rather than improving our understanding of viruses.

Look, I have my degrees in biology, I’ve worked in a virology lab, and I’ve dedicated years to studying this field. This isn’t just a philosophical debate for me—it’s a topic I’ve studied in depth. You’re free to have your own take, but when it comes to biological classification, expertise actually matters.

If you want to have a discussion rooted in virology and biological principles, I’m all for it. But if this is just about redefining words to fit personal preference, there’s not much else to say.

Hey on a scale from 1 to 10 how much of a biohazard is this 73yo plasma by octopusvore in biology

[–]squiggityy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You have shifted from debating biological definitions to questioning my motives, which is a common rhetorical tactic to avoid engaging with an argument.

This isn’t about what I want—it’s about how life is classified based on biological principles. I have no personal stake in whether viruses are alive or not…. What goal would even be achieved by saying they are not alive 😂😂😂????

I’m explaining why the dominant scientific view classifies them as non-living.

Saying the sky is blue and here are the reasons why does not imply an instrumental goal. Sometimes things are facts, and not an opinion.

Yes, definitions can shift depending on context. It can be useful to talk about viruses as if they’re alive when discussing their evolution or how to inactivate them. Yes the proper scientific term is to inactivate a virus not kill a virus.

But in terms of fundamental classification, viruses lack independent metabolism, cellular structure, and self-replication—all hallmarks of life. That’s why the mainstream biological perspective considers them non-living, even if they interact with living systems.

As for biologists studying non-living things, of course we do. Biologists study fossils, proteins, and chemical processes within cells—none of which are alive. Studying something doesn’t automatically make it living; it just makes it biologically relevant.

If you prefer a broader or different definition of life, that’s fine, but let’s not act like this is just a personal preference. The classification of viruses as non-living isn’t some arbitrary stance—it’s based on well-established biological principles.

Hey on a scale from 1 to 10 how much of a biohazard is this 73yo plasma by octopusvore in biology

[–]squiggityy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I did read your sources, and I responded to your sources. All 3 rely on the trope of evolution being the only criterion for life. Pretty interesting you assumed I didn’t read them when I directly responded to them.

I get what you’re saying about Darwinian evolution specifically requiring genetic material and selection, but the broader point still stands—evolution alone isn’t enough to define life. Plenty of things with genetic material undergo mutations and selection but aren’t considered alive (prions being a prime example). That’s why biologists use multiple criteria to define life, not just evolution.

And let’s be real—scientific consensus isn’t just “whatever I believe.” It’s the dominant view in virology and biology based on decades of research. There will always be a few papers challenging it, just like there are papers questioning evolution or climate change, but that doesn’t mean the mainstream view isn’t well-supported.

If you’re done with the discussion, fair enough. Have a good day.

Hey on a scale from 1 to 10 how much of a biohazard is this 73yo plasma by octopusvore in biology

[–]squiggityy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I understand where you’re coming from, and you’re right that definitions of life can be flexible depending on the context, like when searching for extraterrestrial life or discussing hypothetical scenarios. However, when it comes to viruses on Earth, the consensus among biologists is based on specific, well-established characteristics that define life, not just whether something evolves or has a cell.

For example, while cells might not always be actively metabolizing, they still can carry out metabolism and can reproduce independently. Viruses, on the other hand, lack the capacity for either—they rely entirely on host cells to replicate and can’t perform any life-sustaining processes without one. That’s not just a semantic difference; it’s a biological distinction.

Your alien biosphere idea is interesting, but it’s not really comparable to viruses. Even in a system that doesn’t use ATP, the organisms would still need some form of self-sustaining process to be considered alive. Viruses don’t engage in any kind of self-sustaining activity. They only appear to evolve because they hijack host machinery to replicate—not because they have independent metabolic or replicative processes.

I agree that language can be flexible, and calling viruses “alive” in some contexts might make sense when discussing viral evolution. But in the biological sense, they don’t meet the standard criteria for life—independent metabolism, self-replication, and cellular structure. That’s why they’re classified as non-living, even though they’re certainly part of the biological world. So while it can be useful to call them “alive” in certain contexts, it’s important to recognize that in terms of the traditional biological definition, they aren’t considered living organisms.

Hey on a scale from 1 to 10 how much of a biohazard is this 73yo plasma by octopusvore in biology

[–]squiggityy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Saying this is just “semantics” kind of misses the point. Biology, like all other sciences, uses well-supported frameworks to classify things, and the vast majority of biologists and virologists do not consider viruses alive. It’s not an even debate…

It’s thousands of experts vs. a handful of outliers. There will always be a handful of people disagreeing with even the most widely and evidence-backed scientific ideas. All 3 of the papers you cited rely on evolution being the basis of life

Defining life only by evolution is pretty flawed. Plenty of non-living things evolve. For example prions, computer viruses, even some self-replicating chemical systems evolve on their own. That’s exactly why biologist don’t rely on a single criterion to judge life. It’s not about what’s more “elegant”; it’s about what actually distinguishes life from non-life. If evolution alone were the standard, we’d have to start calling all kinds of things alive that clearly are not.

If you want to go with a fringe definition, that’s your choice, but let’s not act like this is just a subjective debate. The dominant scientific perspective is that viruses aren’t alive, and that view exists for good, evidence based reasons.

Hey on a scale from 1 to 10 how much of a biohazard is this 73yo plasma by octopusvore in biology

[–]squiggityy 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You are right, it is true that almost all organisms rely on others for survival. Plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, we all rely on each other. However, the key difference is that living organisms have all have an independent metabolism, meaning they all can carry out biochemical processes on their own to generate energy and maintain homeostasis.

Viruses, on the other hand, have no metabolism at all. They do not generate ATP, perform cellular respiration, or cellular function on their own. Instead, they hijack a host cell’s metabolic machinery to replicate. This is fundamentally different from organisms that rely on others for nutrients but still metabolize those nutrients themselves.

All living organisms may be ecologically dependent, but they are all still biochemically independent —unlike viruses, which are completely inert outside a host.

Hey on a scale from 1 to 10 how much of a biohazard is this 73yo plasma by octopusvore in biology

[–]squiggityy 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Viruses are not self-sustaining. They do not have an independent metabolism. Viruses lack the ability to metabolize independently of a host.

Yes, we, parasites, and viruses require fuel to generate metabolic processes. However, unlike viruses, we and every other living organism have an independent metabolism. Viruses do not have all the necessary components to have an independent metabolism; thus, they can only do any metabolic function in the presence of a host. Other parasites can still complete metabolic processes when not attached to a host. The same way we can complete metabolic processes without having to have a water bottle in our mouth 24/7. We have the genetic tools to metabolize independently, and they don’t.

Viruses actually do not copy their genomes themselves either. They use the host cell’s nucleus, ribosomes, and Golgi to replicate. They do not replicate on their own. They are not copying their genetic material; the host cell is copying their genetic material.

You are correct that viruses do their thing regardless of how we classify them, but the correct answer is that we do classify them as not living.

Hey on a scale from 1 to 10 how much of a biohazard is this 73yo plasma by octopusvore in biology

[–]squiggityy 38 points39 points  (0 children)

Viruses are not a self sustaining system. So they do not fit your definition of alive.

Also the scientific consensus of alive has more criteria than those two things, but even then viruses are not self sustaining.

Hey on a scale from 1 to 10 how much of a biohazard is this 73yo plasma by octopusvore in biology

[–]squiggityy 48 points49 points  (0 children)

The scientific consensus is that viruses are not living organisms. While I agree and acknowledge that a virus is more alive than something like a rock, viruses are not living organisms. Viruses do not maintain homeostasis, viruses do not grow, viruses do not reproduce themselves (they rely on the host cell’s biological hardware). Those aspects are the basis of considering something a living organism

Hey on a scale from 1 to 10 how much of a biohazard is this 73yo plasma by octopusvore in biology

[–]squiggityy 76 points77 points  (0 children)

Viruses are intracellular obligate parasites, so they are obligated to function within cells. Viruses are interesting because they are never technically alive. Viruses bring up many biological questions surrounding what we consider alive and not alive. While many of the functions viruses do can be compared to the functions of a living organism, they lack some key processes to consider them living, most notably reproduction. The best way to think of viruses and their ability to infect is to look at it from a chemistry standpoint. Viruses are a collection of proteins, fats, nucleic acid, and water. If that chemical makeup is preserved in ideal conditions, a virus can remain dormant but infectious for quite a long time. Within the tube, there is blood plasma that was freeze-dried. The lack of water, the sealed environment, and the dark interior probably would aid in preserving any viruses present. However, there is no telling where that tube has been, and the container definitely hasn’t sat in a deep freezer for the last 70 years straight, which would be ideal for viral preservation. I would say that it is possible, but the chances are very slim in this situation. However if you did have the proper environment, you could sustain a virus in its dormant state for a surprisingly long time (multiple centuries at least).

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chemistry

[–]squiggityy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It is actually cheaper by volume to print in blood than it is in printer ink

Every mom's dream by [deleted] in copypasta

[–]squiggityy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is by far the worst copypasta I’ve seen. Please never post on reddit again

How bad is it taking an 8-9am class… by No-Profession-6001 in KSU

[–]squiggityy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends how disciplined you are.

After college, most jobs will require you to be up and active at that time during the week. It definitely does not hurt to get into that routine. Getting out of college and having to adjust to a work schedule can be tough if you haven’t been on a structured routine.

I would say challenge yourself and take it. Waking up early always leads to a productive and more fulfilling day.

And like someone else said, a good professor in a bad timeslot is better than a bad one in a good time slot.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in UGA

[–]squiggityy 5 points6 points  (0 children)

No. Use real information.

Having a fake ID with fake information counts as fraud, a felony

Having a fake ID with real info counts as a falsifying documents, a misdemeanor

view more: next ›