FireChan

I see players not go full out quite a bit in the NFL. Comparing the NFL to the NBA is tough, because the NBA has measures that allow them to fully GTD contracts, outside of a low salary cap. The NBA also gives teams trade exceptions, MLE's, amnesties, and etc. There's also an exponentially higher level of trading, which makes expiring huge contracts valuable. That will never happen in the NFL. No one is trading for Haynesworth in the NFL because his contract is expiring.

Yes. It's like old school chivalry masquerading as modern. Women being treated like children without any self-determination of their own with perceived kindness, instead of another method.

That was because of an international fashion conglomerate.

Clearly, your argument is that Jerky is not doing something because he doesn't have daughters. An appeal to emotion, an appeal to personal involvement. A bad argument. Why would I refute WEO's post?

An appeal to emotion isn't a great argument.

A commensalistic relationship does not. Just two organisms. Which is in admission in itself that the fetus is a life.

One finals trip with Westbrook, Durant, Ibaka, and partially Harden and Jackson is a criminal offense. Derek Fisher could coach that team to 60 wins.

He didn't say she said no. Just by virtue of having alcohol in her system makes it rape. Which makes 99% of American males rapists, I guess.

Finally.

Well, technically it could be considered commensalism, but I'm sure most would say it's a mutualistic relationship.

Not to get all English teacher on you, but I am surprised that you view a poem containing the lines, "I took the one less traveled by. And that has made all the difference," as regret. Sounds more like pride to me.

How is it "very likely?"

He doesn't write the articles. He also doesn't have a monopoly on religion.

It's basically the same thing you said above. We can opine what makes us human or unique, compared to other life, but we can't prove it. That doesn't stop the zygote, ovum, or HeLa cell from being "living," but the distinction between which one of those is a human life is subjective. But it's the zygote. Final answer. If you took no action against it (also barring unforeseen complications), it would become a human child. Like Tasker said above, would you be tried for murder/manslaughter if you caused a 3 month pregnant woman to lose her child? At the very least, that situation raises a perceived contradiction in the law.

The only way folks were going to be happy with this schedule is if it read. Jags at Jags Jags at Jags Jags at Jags Jags at Jags Jags at Jags Jags at Jags Jags at Jags Jags at Jags Bye week

This.

Really, you should just post like this for your audience. I actually read these.

It's also wrong. "Life begins at conception because of cell theory" is demonstrable bull ****. For example: an ovum is "life" by the definition of "cell theory." But an ovum, by definition, only exists before conception. So either your reliance on "cell theory" to define life is not just wrong, but asinine. Every point I made "conflating" things since - HeLa cells, for example - demonstrated the fundamental fallacy of your own definition. (And as an aside, I'll mention the fundamental fallacy of "unique DNA" - are identical twins not alive because they share the same chromosomes? Ridiculous assertion.) Life begins at the cellular level, it is the basic unit of life. If something is a cell, it is alive. I don't understand what is wrong about that. A HeLa cell, ovum, and zygote are all living. And while it is an imperfect definition (especially regarding viruses), it does apply to most of the life in the world. To your aside, I had noted the unique DNA dilemma with identical twins. Perhaps a better phrasing would be "with DNA formed through sexual reproduction." Although, the clones.... And then you demonstrate it again, by referencing "sentience vs. lump." HeLa cells aren't sentient, no...but then, neither is a zygote. Of course, that's splitting verbal hairs - the discussion hasn't been about sentience, but the potential for sentience. "Sentience" isn't even your measure of "life" in this context, "potential" is - your argument being that "potential is what defines when life begins." Same problem - show me where an unfertilized ovum has any less potential than a fertilized one. The sentient vs. lump phrase was intended to summarize their potential, I was just writing shorthand. However, sentience comes after life. Where sentience begins or occurs has nothing to do with where life begins. And to your problem, an unfertilized ovum has to be fertilized (not great odds there) then go through the entire implantation and pregnancy process, whereas a fertilized egg has already gotten past that first step. If I start at the 50 yard line and you start at the opposing endzone, who has more potential to get to the 49 yard line? And before you dismiss that on the grounds that an unfertilized ovum isn't a human life because it can't grow and differentiate into biological structures on its own (which, by the way, is a much better definition of "when life begins" than anything the rest of you have brought up), remember that more than a few religions view an unfertilized ovum as just that. It's the basis by which traditional Catholic doctrine is against birth control, as interfering with the potential for human life. I thought that was implied. And I don't care what those religions say. That is a better definition though. And thus, via the negative enchelus and not "conflation," the holes are poked. Not because you're wrong, but because you haven't and can't offer a definitive definition for "when life begins." (Hell, since specificity seems to be an issue - see "cell theory" - let's be specific and say "when human life begiNons.") You can opine many things - fertilization, "cell theory" (but not for haploids...or undifferentiated human cells, or non-unique DNA patterns, or cells lacking "potential"), but you can't actually prove any of them, can you? No.

Chef's post was a joke. To the bolded, I never implied that. And now, when you ask, "Do you think people considering, and going through with abortions, don't consider carrying pregnancy's to term and giving children up for adoptions," the answer is yes. Because they are uneducated or stupid. I don't expect them to consider much.

Who has more accidents? Dumb and uneducated folks or smart and educated folks? I realize that contraceptives are not 100% effective. Somehow, I doubt the .08% percent who have IUD failure are making up a hefty chunk of the abortion percentage. Do they have numbers on this sort of thing? Like a survey? Do the folks at PP count reusing condoms as an "accident?" Also, "accidents" are an implicit risk of having sex. It's a possible consequence of an action. Don't do it if you refuse to accept the consequences.

I think a lot of people considering or going through with abortions are uneducated, or stupid, or poor. I mean, it's not hard to not get pregnant. I don't think there are many women seeking abortions who didn't screw up, outside of rape cases and the like. Also, Tom, I'm coming back for your post.

I never said anything didn't count. All we can do is take the information available to us and form an opinion. Not all of the evidence is going to fit perfectly, because nothing is simple.

It's more qualitative and quantitative to me when comparing EJ's seasons, if that makes sense. But you're right, the 2014 could have been stricken by a small sample size. But I don't think so. And, like I said, there are QB's on that attempts list with almost 6 times as many throws as EJ. 4 games to 10 games is much closer in terms of samples. And, I NEVER said the second season didn't count, I just pointed out the difference in samples.

"Now" implies that I have previously said that it was too small. But based on the things coming out of practice, the readily apparent lost confidence, Marrone scrubbing the tapes to hide EJ's bad plays, and the games, I would definitely say he was worse in year two. I think you're confusing sample size when talking about rates, vs comparing years. A comparison of 4 games and offseason to 10 games and offseason isn't that drastic. Now, 4 games to 16 games rated by attempt is a differen story, especially because the numbers are vastly different.