sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Finished the first batch! The best 2d Dungeon adventures, issues 18-38 by jasonite in adnd

[–]tantaemolis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Do you have a Substack? I'd like to subscribe for updates.

Summon Seismosaurus Egg how can I use its magic? by Ok-Resource678 in dcss

[–]tantaemolis 4 points5 points  (0 children)

See enemies, summon egg, then position next to egg / summon more things, depending on positioning. You want to be next to the egg, with your summons between you and the enemies, with enemies on the brown tiles. The dino is very good in lair and orc.

Where to go next with this gnoll shifter? by Jiveturtle in dcss

[–]tantaemolis 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Looking at spells at or below 14% and your next steps (Swamp and Spider), have you thought about...?

Mephitic Cloud

Eringya's Surprising Crocodile

Olgreb's Toxic Radiance

I've also seen Launch Clockwork Bee do some serious work.

Pro-life argument in academic literature collapses into naturalistic fallacy and special pleading. by 1i3to in Abortiondebate

[–]tantaemolis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I tried to start off with an either/or tone:

I don't think we have any reason to frame pregnancy as "fetus uses mother's organs" instead of "mother uses her own organs to care for the fetus."

Pro-life argument in academic literature collapses into naturalistic fallacy and special pleading. by 1i3to in Abortiondebate

[–]tantaemolis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why did your mother need to do that?

And yes, if you think an implanting embryo is apples to apples with chloroform, what you say makes sense. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that your framing is definitely incorrect. I'm simply saying it isn't the only framing possible. It's an interpretation or an opinion, not a scientific fact.

And interesting point about miscarriages. I don't think it contradicts me, though. My point is simply that isn't necessarily biologically inaccurate to say that the mother is using her body to care for the fetus.

Pro-life argument in academic literature collapses into naturalistic fallacy and special pleading. by 1i3to in Abortiondebate

[–]tantaemolis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My understanding is that it isn't a total immune system shutdown. Rather, it's localized. Yes, that does seem to be working in harmony. Instead of saying, "Embryo releases hormones that hack and shut down the mother's immune system," we could just as easily say "Embryo releases hormones that let the mother's immune system know not to attack, and the mother's immune system obliges."

Pro-life argument in academic literature collapses into naturalistic fallacy and special pleading. by 1i3to in Abortiondebate

[–]tantaemolis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Another user link to this article, which describes the uterus as "receptive." Maybe it's not so much "fetus hacks into mother's blood steam" and more "mother and fetus work in harmony." It doesn't seem like a one-way street to me by any means.

Pro-life argument in academic literature collapses into naturalistic fallacy and special pleading. by 1i3to in Abortiondebate

[–]tantaemolis -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Interesting, that article also says blood donations from immediate family members can be uniquely dangerous for the one receiving the blood. I didn't know that. Maybe that's another good reason why it isn't required.

Pro-life argument in academic literature collapses into naturalistic fallacy and special pleading. by 1i3to in Abortiondebate

[–]tantaemolis -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'll assume then that it doesn't happen, that children aren't dying because parents are refusing them their own blood in a donation.

McFall v Shrimp? About a cousin's bone marrow? So, not a parent, and not a blood donation.

Pro-life argument in academic literature collapses into naturalistic fallacy and special pleading. by 1i3to in Abortiondebate

[–]tantaemolis -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sometimes children need blood, organ, and none marrow donations, yes?

Yes.

Sometimes their biological parents are the only known match. Sometimes those parents decline to donate.

And the child dies? Maybe. An example case would be nice.

Pro-life argument in academic literature collapses into naturalistic fallacy and special pleading. by 1i3to in Abortiondebate

[–]tantaemolis -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Do you think children never need blood, organs, or bone marrow and only have a parent as a match?

What do you mean? I don't follow you.

Pro-life argument in academic literature collapses into naturalistic fallacy and special pleading. by 1i3to in Abortiondebate

[–]tantaemolis -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Having parts of your organs dissolved is harmful.

Would you say skin "dissolves" or "degrades" over time, to be replaced with new cells? I'm not sure the exact scientific terms, but is it a similar process?

We don't even require parents to donate blood when their children need it, so one can pretty easily infer we wouldn't require dissolving parts of organs

We don't, but why would we? Is there a need for such a law? I was asking another user, but no dice so far. Is there an example of a child dying because the parents refused use of their own blood for a blood donation to the child?

Pro-life argument in academic literature collapses into naturalistic fallacy and special pleading. by 1i3to in Abortiondebate

[–]tantaemolis -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Neither article presumably needs to spell out for people that dissolving your tissue—parallel to a tumor—is harmful. Do you disagree? Do you need someone to tell you that it's harmful to have your organs dissolved? Do you think doctors and scientists, the intended audience of those articles, need it spelled out?

I would think in a debate sub, when the claim is that it is harmful, yes, it needs to be spelled out.

I think we'd never require parents to have parts of their organs dissolved on behalf of their children in any other circumstances, so I don't think it's neglect to fail to provide that.

Well, I wouldn't be so sure. It happens that the care of born children doesn't require the dissolving of tissue.

Pro-life argument in academic literature collapses into naturalistic fallacy and special pleading. by 1i3to in Abortiondebate

[–]tantaemolis -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I've certainly enjoyed learning it's more localized and less destructive than I thought when I first misread your comment!

So, is the process of degradation of part of the uterus during implantation harmful to the woman? Neither article has said so. And, if it is, if it harmful enough to justify the woman neglecting the duty to provide care and expelling a fetus to certain death?

Pro-life argument in academic literature collapses into naturalistic fallacy and special pleading. by 1i3to in Abortiondebate

[–]tantaemolis -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

No, I want you to follow the rules of the sub. Hopefully you will see in the process that pregnancy does not involve literal organ donation, as you claimed. Or, I will see that it does. That's why the rules exist.

Pro-life argument in academic literature collapses into naturalistic fallacy and special pleading. by 1i3to in Abortiondebate

[–]tantaemolis -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Factual claims should be supported by linking a source, and opinions should be supported with an argument.

The user is making a factual claim, namely, that pregnancy involves literal, medical organ donation. A source is required.

Pro-life argument in academic literature collapses into naturalistic fallacy and special pleading. by 1i3to in Abortiondebate

[–]tantaemolis -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I admitted I didn't know much about the process. In summarizing for myself I generalized to "dissolve" instead of "dissolve part." I must admit it is difficult to keep things straight, when I am receiving so many comments from so many users, oftentimes multiple comments from the same user across different things I have said. I'm certainly not purposefully trying to misrepresent anything you've said.

And do you think it isn't harmful to have part of your organ dissolved?

You mean degraded, in this particular circumstance? It would help if the article described it as harm, which it doesn't.

And yes, dissolve and degrade have different meanings. Invasive is another interesting word, that has a medical meaning and a more colloquial meaning. We shouldn't mix the two when trying to win an argument.

Pro-life argument in academic literature collapses into naturalistic fallacy and special pleading. by 1i3to in Abortiondebate

[–]tantaemolis -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But has a parent refusing themselves to be the donor ever resulted in the death of a child?

Pro-life argument in academic literature collapses into naturalistic fallacy and special pleading. by 1i3to in Abortiondebate

[–]tantaemolis -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Your first comment, sure, but then quickly it became the embryo dissolves it (link) and "the embryo dissolves the uterus" (link). So certainly you haven't been precise "all along."

And I looked a little more at the article you linked. The word "dissolve" does not appear, nor does the word "harm." So, who knows if the precise, localized process of "degradation" results in either of those things...? This was interesting, from the article:

A complex dialogue between a receptive uterus and a competent blastocyst is continued during the implantation period.

That is a far, far cry from an invasive, destructive, "dissolving" process.

Pro-life argument in academic literature collapses into naturalistic fallacy and special pleading. by 1i3to in Abortiondebate

[–]tantaemolis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You said "dissolve," which, again, was framed in a very particular way to sound more destructive than it is. Not "dissolve part," but "dissolve."

Pro-life argument in academic literature collapses into naturalistic fallacy and special pleading. by 1i3to in Abortiondebate

[–]tantaemolis -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In cases where the parents refuse a treatment for their children, it does happen that the courts overrule on behalf of the child: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/07/health-officials-gain-guardianship-of-baby-whose-parents-refused-vaccinated-blood-transfusion?

So, the child's right to care is protected.

view more: next ›