FireChan

Islanders also grow up with each other, John. They live in the same area for years. Kujo did not. If I knew more, it would be clearer to me.

He had a worse QBR and passer rating. His "highs" in his second season didn't come close to the ones in his first, and his lows were worse. Houston was worse than the Tampa game IMO.

Ceiling is in the eye of the beholder. Some say Alex Smith, some say Colin Kaep, some say Joe Flacco. If Bortles goes out there and plays worse his second year, and plays worse than Chad Henne, and you're in a position to make a playoff run, you play Henne.

That's true, which is why I'm asking.

He can. But if he moved here at 4, how close could he really be to them? It's not like he's seeing grandma every month.

What does Bortles regressing his second year have to do with a comparison made today?

A lot of it is about playing when the bullets are flying, but not all of it. EJ had an entire offseason to learn from his mistakes, build up chemistry, and to practice reading some of the defenses that he saw in between his 10th and 11th start. Bortles did not. It's about making progress your second year. Unfair comparison.

You didn't poke holes in anything. You just conflated the argument. "I'm still waiting for someone to prove that life begins at conception, myself..." I proved that life began at conception, due to cell theory. Point blank. Then you asked, "explain to me why pro-lifers eat...anything, really. Can't think of a human-metabolizable food that isn't cell-derived." Which means, what? It seems to me you tried to make a claim that if cell-theory states that an ovum is considered "life," all cells/all life is created equal. Which is silly. I don't know a rational person who believes that birds aren't alive, or who believes birds' lives are worth as much as human ones. Then we talked about cancer cells, and immortal cell lines, and the lines got fuzzier. So, I attempted to clarify my position, as the scope of the conversation got wider, in order to account for one of the greatest ethical dilemmas of the modern era. Life begins at conception because of cell theory. The human right to live, HeLa cells vs. ovums, sentience vs. lump are all part of an argument past the simple definition of "life." Unless you'd like to have a conversation about the Miller-Urey experiment and the "primordial soup," we should set boundaries on just what the !@#$ we're talking about.

I'm in the same boat.

Would you argue that human clones do or don't have the right to life?

Is it the thinking for mechanics? I'd love to see a chart of pass attempts vs mechanic breakdowns or something similar, do you know of any?

I can see that. Is that your stance?

I'd assume the argument is that EJ can demonstrate good mechanics, but falls back to bad habits too often. And that Fitz and those others are just always throwing with poor mechanics. But, of course, I'd argue that if you "fall back" to bad habits often, you have bad mechanics.

Potential for sapience, yes. Unique DNA, I don't know. You asked for proof that "life" began at an ovum, and I supplied it.

HeLa cells will never become human beings. Human life begins at the cellular level, due to cell theory, but it is foolhardy to say that each cell should be dictated the same rights as a human life. The answer is that any cell is considered living just like every plant and animal is considered living, but plants and animals (or HeLa cells) don't become humans with sentience and independent thoughts. Now, onto HeLa cells. They may fit the definition of human life, but they violate the spirit of it. The Patriots of life, if you will.

HeLa cells are routinely killed.

What is the difference between having good mechanics that turn bad all the time, and having bad mechanics?

Yes. Hers are cancer cells. They'll never be anything more than a lump.

More like, all human cells should be. With preference given to cells that will eventually develop into another being.

Cell theory defines life. It's proof that life begins at conception.

Getting ugly.

I don't know when that appeared. I would never call for someone's job, ever. Unless they worked for me.

That was my claim. I just used the INT example to demonstrate how a small sample size could quickly be skewed in a different direction.

3rd smallest sample size. EJ's next pass could be a pick, and his rate changes drastically compared to a QB who played all of 2014.

Because we need to in order to survive. My life is worth more than a plant's, or a cow's.