You have to partially unfocus your eyes like you are looking slightly past the image. The 3d image should come into view when you find the right depth of focus.
I had a ton of Magic Eye books as a kid. Those were always really easy for me. I have no idea what I'm supposed to be seeing with this one. From one angle it's just rows of alternating depths, so I guess if that's what I'm supposed to be seeing then I'm all good.
I don't know the law on that, but I'm going with what's the point of putting the parents on a birth certificate if one of those listed isn't a biological parent.
I don't know the law on that, but I'm going with what's the point of putting the parents on a birth certificate if one of those listed isn't a biological parent.
Biological identification hasn't been relevant in a long time, honestly. What about surrogates? What about donors? Adoptions? In effect, a birth certificate names who is taking guardianship for a newborn and provides a means to determine who has rights.
You have to partially unfocus your eyes like you are looking slightly past the image. The 3d image should come into view when you find the right depth of focus.
I had a ton of Magic Eye books as a kid. Those were always really easy for me. I have no idea what I'm supposed to be seeing with this one. From one angle it's just rows of alternating depths, so I guess if that's what I'm supposed to be seeing then I'm all good.
I never had any problems with Magic Eye books either, but I don't see anything on this one yet. It's hard to tell whether I'm beginning to see an image, or if I'm just seeing anti-aliasing artifacts in a low-res image file.
Being the biological father is not a prerequisite, otherwise at birth adoptions would list no parents. They just didn't have a line that says "other mother" do they panicked and the guy who was supposed to say "it's fine, the forms haven't been updated yet" instead said "something something Jesus something something the gayz".
Uhhh, what? Where in the world did you get that from?
Being the biological father is not a prerequisite, otherwise at birth adoptions would list no parents. They just didn't have a line that says "other mother" do they panicked and the guy who was supposed to say "it's fine, the forms haven't been updated yet" instead said "something something Jesus something something the gayz".
Uhhh, what? Where in the world did you get that from?
Past experience... But, it was more of a joke than anything.
I don't know the law on that, but I'm going with what's the point of putting the parents on a birth certificate if one of those listed isn't a biological parent.
Biological identification hasn't been relevant in a long time, honestly. What about surrogates? What about donors? Adoptions? In effect, a birth certificate names who is taking guardianship for a newborn and provides a means to determine who has rights.
Being the biological father is not a prerequisite, otherwise at birth adoptions would list no parents. They just didn't have a line that says "other mother" do they panicked and the guy who was supposed to say "it's fine, the forms haven't been updated yet" instead said "something something Jesus something something the gayz".
I don't know the law on that, but I'm going with what's the point of putting the parents on a birth certificate if one of those listed isn't a biological parent.
Dr. Ben Carson Used Fetal Tissue In Life-Saving Research Before GOP Candidate Ben Carson Condemned It
Further proof that running for president in the Republican Party may actually kill brain cells, Ben Carson seems to have forgotten his own research in his rush to condemn the use of fetal tissue donations in science. Oops.
According to an explosive blog post by an OB/GYN named Jen Gunter, back when Carson was a world-famous neurosurgeon and not a willing member of the Republican primary clown show, he led a study that used “two fetuses aborted in the ninth and 17th week of gestation.” The kinds he now describes as “disturbing” and a symptom of moral decay.
As Gunter noted:
While opining on the uselessness of fetal tissue research to Megyn Kelly Dr. Carson neglected to mention his own paper Colloid Cysts of the Third Ventricle: Immunohistochemical evidence for nonneuropithelial differentiation published in Hum Pathol 23:811-816 in 1992. The materials and methods describe using “human choroid plexus ependyma and nasal mucosa from two fetuses aborted in the ninth and 17th week of gestation.”
And what’s more, Carson was so proud of the findings that he published them along with several other doctors in a medical journal.
Sometimes, I wonder if those who believe life begins at conception would support a dependency write off for pregnancies that fall into the previous fiscal year. Somehow, I doubt it.
Dr. Ben Carson Used Fetal Tissue In Life-Saving Research Before GOP Candidate Ben Carson Condemned It
Further proof that running for president in the Republican Party may actually kill brain cells, Ben Carson seems to have forgotten his own research in his rush to condemn the use of fetal tissue donations in science. Oops.
According to an explosive blog post by an OB/GYN named Jen Gunter, back when Carson was a world-famous neurosurgeon and not a willing member of the Republican primary clown show, he led a study that used “two fetuses aborted in the ninth and 17th week of gestation.” The kinds he now describes as “disturbing” and a symptom of moral decay.
As Gunter noted:
While opining on the uselessness of fetal tissue research to Megyn Kelly Dr. Carson neglected to mention his own paper Colloid Cysts of the Third Ventricle: Immunohistochemical evidence for nonneuropithelial differentiation published in Hum Pathol 23:811-816 in 1992. The materials and methods describe using “human choroid plexus ependyma and nasal mucosa from two fetuses aborted in the ninth and 17th week of gestation.”
And what’s more, Carson was so proud of the findings that he published them along with several other doctors in a medical journal.
Sometimes, I wonder if those who believe life begins at conception would support a dependency write off for pregnancies that fall into the previous fiscal year. Somehow, I doubt it.
I would love to see somebody try and bring the case to court. Well... she is eating for two and thus technically has a dependent.
Dr. Ben Carson Used Fetal Tissue In Life-Saving Research Before GOP Candidate Ben Carson Condemned It
Further proof that running for president in the Republican Party may actually kill brain cells, Ben Carson seems to have forgotten his own research in his rush to condemn the use of fetal tissue donations in science. Oops.
According to an explosive blog post by an OB/GYN named Jen Gunter, back when Carson was a world-famous neurosurgeon and not a willing member of the Republican primary clown show, he led a study that used “two fetuses aborted in the ninth and 17th week of gestation.” The kinds he now describes as “disturbing” and a symptom of moral decay.
As Gunter noted:
While opining on the uselessness of fetal tissue research to Megyn Kelly Dr. Carson neglected to mention his own paper Colloid Cysts of the Third Ventricle: Immunohistochemical evidence for nonneuropithelial differentiation published in Hum Pathol 23:811-816 in 1992. The materials and methods describe using “human choroid plexus ependyma and nasal mucosa from two fetuses aborted in the ninth and 17th week of gestation.”
And what’s more, Carson was so proud of the findings that he published them along with several other doctors in a medical journal.
Sometimes, I wonder if those who believe life begins at conception would support a dependency write off for pregnancies that fall into the previous fiscal year. Somehow, I doubt it.
I would love to see somebody try and bring the case to court. Well... she is eating for two and thus technically has a dependent.
Dr. Ben Carson Used Fetal Tissue In Life-Saving Research Before GOP Candidate Ben Carson Condemned It
Further proof that running for president in the Republican Party may actually kill brain cells, Ben Carson seems to have forgotten his own research in his rush to condemn the use of fetal tissue donations in science. Oops.
According to an explosive blog post by an OB/GYN named Jen Gunter, back when Carson was a world-famous neurosurgeon and not a willing member of the Republican primary clown show, he led a study that used “two fetuses aborted in the ninth and 17th week of gestation.” The kinds he now describes as “disturbing” and a symptom of moral decay.
As Gunter noted:
While opining on the uselessness of fetal tissue research to Megyn Kelly Dr. Carson neglected to mention his own paper Colloid Cysts of the Third Ventricle: Immunohistochemical evidence for nonneuropithelial differentiation published in Hum Pathol 23:811-816 in 1992. The materials and methods describe using “human choroid plexus ependyma and nasal mucosa from two fetuses aborted in the ninth and 17th week of gestation.”
And what’s more, Carson was so proud of the findings that he published them along with several other doctors in a medical journal.
Sometimes, I wonder if those who believe life begins at conception would support a dependency write off for pregnancies that fall into the previous fiscal year. Somehow, I doubt it.
I would love to see somebody try and bring the case to court. Well... she is eating for two and thus technically has a dependent.
Dr. Ben Carson Used Fetal Tissue In Life-Saving Research Before GOP Candidate Ben Carson Condemned It
Further proof that running for president in the Republican Party may actually kill brain cells, Ben Carson seems to have forgotten his own research in his rush to condemn the use of fetal tissue donations in science. Oops.
According to an explosive blog post by an OB/GYN named Jen Gunter, back when Carson was a world-famous neurosurgeon and not a willing member of the Republican primary clown show, he led a study that used “two fetuses aborted in the ninth and 17th week of gestation.” The kinds he now describes as “disturbing” and a symptom of moral decay.
As Gunter noted:
While opining on the uselessness of fetal tissue research to Megyn Kelly Dr. Carson neglected to mention his own paper Colloid Cysts of the Third Ventricle: Immunohistochemical evidence for nonneuropithelial differentiation published in Hum Pathol 23:811-816 in 1992. The materials and methods describe using “human choroid plexus ependyma and nasal mucosa from two fetuses aborted in the ninth and 17th week of gestation.”
And what’s more, Carson was so proud of the findings that he published them along with several other doctors in a medical journal.
Sometimes, I wonder if those who believe life begins at conception would support a dependency write off for pregnancies that fall into the previous fiscal year. Somehow, I doubt it.
I would love to see somebody try and bring the case to court. Well... she is eating for two and thus technically has a dependent.
A baker in suburban Denver cannot cite his religious beliefs in refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday, backing a lower court that decided he had illegally discriminated against the two men.
---
In its opinion on Thursday, a three-judge panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals said the state's Anti Discrimination Act, known as CADA, clearly prohibits businesses from refusing to serve customers based on their sexual orientation.
It said the bakery had argued that wedding cakes inherently convey a celebratory message about marriage, and that the commission's order therefore conflicted with the baker's beliefs.
"We disagree," the appeals court wrote.
"Nothing in the record supports the conclusion that a reasonable observer would interpret Masterpiece's providing a wedding cake for a same-sex couple as an endorsement of same-sex marriage rather than a reflection of its desire to conduct business in accordance with Colorado's public accommodations law," it added.
It said the bakery remains free to continue espousing its beliefs, including opposition to gay marriage.
"However, if it wishes to operate as a public accommodation and conduct business within the State of Colorado, CADA prohibits it from picking and choosing customers based on their sexual orientation," the court wrote.
The owner said he was gonna keep appealing, I don't know to who but the law is very clear, he just needs to check his personal life at the door like every other employee in America.
A baker in suburban Denver cannot cite his religious beliefs in refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday, backing a lower court that decided he had illegally discriminated against the two men.
---
In its opinion on Thursday, a three-judge panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals said the state's Anti Discrimination Act, known as CADA, clearly prohibits businesses from refusing to serve customers based on their sexual orientation.
It said the bakery had argued that wedding cakes inherently convey a celebratory message about marriage, and that the commission's order therefore conflicted with the baker's beliefs.
"We disagree," the appeals court wrote.
"Nothing in the record supports the conclusion that a reasonable observer would interpret Masterpiece's providing a wedding cake for a same-sex couple as an endorsement of same-sex marriage rather than a reflection of its desire to conduct business in accordance with Colorado's public accommodations law," it added.
It said the bakery remains free to continue espousing its beliefs, including opposition to gay marriage.
"However, if it wishes to operate as a public accommodation and conduct business within the State of Colorado, CADA prohibits it from picking and choosing customers based on their sexual orientation," the court wrote.
The owner said he was gonna keep appealing, I don't know to who but the law is very clear, he just needs to check his personal life at the door like every other employee in America.
Pretty much, but if he really objected so much that he's willing to break the law and jeopardize his business and the livelihood of his employees, why not just say they're too busy to make the cake? After segregation ended, the bigots were smart enough to refuse service because they were too busy or just about to close or had a private event going on.
Someone should really prank that guy. Go into his cake shop with a female friend, order a cake for "the wedding", make arrangements for cake style etc. Then after the wedding, come back and thank the baker, and show him pictures of the lovely gay wedding reception.
Nah. That class of opinions and intelligence aren't related at all, in either direction. Bigotry comes from a place of fear, not stupidity, and acceptance comes from a place of love, not insight.
Nah. That class of opinions and intelligence aren't related at all, in either direction. Bigotry comes from a place of fear, not stupidity, and acceptance comes from a place of love, not insight.
I wouldn't necessarily wholly agree with that statement.
I wouldn't necessarily wholly agree with that statement.
Then you're just as prejudiced as the bigots.
You can disagree with someone's opinions without them being an imbecile. Even horrible opinions come from somewhere emotional, and the sorts of emotions and concerns that turn into bigotry are almost always some form of fear - fear at one's heritage being marginalized, their culture being eroded, their lifestyle changing.
Bigotry is, at its core, a fear of change, and there's nothing inherently tied to intelligence or stupidity about that.
A baker in suburban Denver cannot cite his religious beliefs in refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday, backing a lower court that decided he had illegally discriminated against the two men.
---
In its opinion on Thursday, a three-judge panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals said the state's Anti Discrimination Act, known as CADA, clearly prohibits businesses from refusing to serve customers based on their sexual orientation.
It said the bakery had argued that wedding cakes inherently convey a celebratory message about marriage, and that the commission's order therefore conflicted with the baker's beliefs.
"We disagree," the appeals court wrote.
"Nothing in the record supports the conclusion that a reasonable observer would interpret Masterpiece's providing a wedding cake for a same-sex couple as an endorsement of same-sex marriage rather than a reflection of its desire to conduct business in accordance with Colorado's public accommodations law," it added.
It said the bakery remains free to continue espousing its beliefs, including opposition to gay marriage.
"However, if it wishes to operate as a public accommodation and conduct business within the State of Colorado, CADA prohibits it from picking and choosing customers based on their sexual orientation," the court wrote.
The owner said he was gonna keep appealing, I don't know to who but the law is very clear, he just needs to check his personal life at the door like every other employee in America.
If your topic covers a story over 6 months old (Watergate, Benghazi, 2012 Election, etc.) post it here.
Discussions on racism, homophobia, transphobia, and the like are allowed, targeted insults based on these will not be tolerated.
Political debates get heated and are meant to be intense, if you take offense to being called or proven wrong, you don't belong here.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen; if you prove you can't handle the criticism you bring upon yourself in this thread, you may be removed from it. You are responsible for what you post.
Along those lines, heat is fine, but sustained, clearly personal hostility is not okay. The personal attack rules still apply. Attack positions, not posters. Failure to adhere to this will result in your removal from the thread.
This thread is NOT the Flame Core.
These rules are subject to change and modification where and when needed.
Random Politics & Religion may be mained or demained depending on the activity within at a Moderator's discretion.
