Baby killers cause Komen to cave

apple0154 said:
If one is classifying something strictly by DNA then an egg is a chicken.
Click to expand...

then why were you stupid enough to repeat this same old worthless argument one more time......"No more inane than saying we can't call an acorn an oak tree or an egg a chicken".....you've just admitted that scientifically, the argument is worthless.....therefore you already knew that scientifically you cannot deny that a fetus is a human being........if you knew it, why raise the argument?.....
 
icedancer2theend said:
Trademarks protect consumers as well as the brand. Using a branding can mislead the public to give to potentially nefarious organizations- this is harmful to the brand image as well as the consumer. Get disgusted over something real instead of imagined.
Click to expand...

There's nothing imagined about one million dollars wasted. As far as "nefarious organizations" it is easy to check the validity of a charity. A brand name is fine, however, many of the charities effected have used the pink ribbon or writing and/or the slogan "for the cure" long before Koman applied for the trademark.
 
apple0154 said:
No. It just had it's ass slapped. :lol:
Click to expand...

top.gif
 
PostmodernProphet said:
most folks are already aware that an acorn is a stage in the development of oaks, eggs are a stage in the development of chickens and an embryo is a stage in the development of a human being.......there is a fringe element that ignores those facts of science so they can continue to kill human beings in one particular stage of development......some day we hope to exterminate that fringe element.....
Click to expand...

A stage of development. That's precisely why we have different terms. That's why it's illegal for a supermarket to advertise tomatoes and offer customers a packet of seeds. That's why a garden center can not advertise oak trees and hand out acorns. It's false advertising and it's because a fringe element would try to get away with such an underhanded practice that makes such laws necessary.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
then why were you stupid enough to repeat this same old worthless argument one more time......"No more inane than saying we can't call an acorn an oak tree or an egg a chicken".....you've just admitted that scientifically, the argument is worthless.....therefore you already knew that scientifically you cannot deny that a fetus is a human being........if you knew it, why raise the argument?.....
Click to expand...

Because we use more than an scientific definition to describe things.

As I said before try alternating the use of words in every day life describing things in a purely scientific manner. For example, order cheesecake with fruit topping and receive tomato sauce on top.

Do try to use the grey matter the good Lord gave you.
 
apple0154 said:
There's nothing imagined about one million dollars wasted. As far as "nefarious organizations" it is easy to check the validity of a charity. A brand name is fine, however, many of the charities effected have used the pink ribbon or writing and/or the slogan "for the cure" long before Koman applied for the trademark.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is when you call it "wasted". Trademarks are important that's why we have them. You can make all the pronouncement on waste 'til the cows come home but EVERY organization and company have a right to protect their brand. Komen is far from the first nor will it be the last to spend a million or more to legally protect its brand- for the very reasons I listed.
 
icedancer2theend said:
Yes, there is when you call it "wasted". Trademarks are important that's why we have them. You can make all the pronouncement on waste 'til the cows come home but EVERY organization and company have a right to protect their brand. Komen is far from the first nor will it be the last to spend a million or more to legally protect its brand- for the very reasons I listed.
Click to expand...

It stole the right to use the symbols and words from other charities that had them prior and never registered them. That's the point.
 
apple0154 said:
No more inane than saying we can't call an acorn an oak tree or an egg a chicken.
Click to expand...

Actually, neither are the same thing. Until the acorn germinates it is like an ovum. Which is an egg. If you come up with something equivalent you may have a point, but neither of these are equivalent.

Once the acorn germinates it is an oak tree, in an early stage of development. Once the egg is fertilized, it is a chicken (so long as it was a chicken egg) in an early stage of development.

It isn't very difficult science, they teach it to fifth graders.
 
apple0154 said:
Yes, doctors and others do that just as people will talk about a house when all they have are the blueprints. Or talk about their "house" when all that is evident is a hole in the ground for the foundation.
Click to expand...

Blueprints are called plans like an ovum is called an egg, "house" is used in future terms. Like a couple planning on having a baby, the term would be used future tense. However, once the bun is in the oven, very often it is spoken of in present tense.

Once the foundation is there, it is a house, in early stages. Like a burgeoning and developing human life.

There's an old expression, "Don't count your chickens before they've hatched."
Click to expand...

Note they called them chickens. They just warned you that not all of them may survive. Still chickens.

It means: Don't assume that you will get something. Wait until you actually have it.
Click to expand...
No, it means that sometimes bad things happen to your chickens before they have hatched.

It means to not plan something out and act as if it is going to happen, as it might not go through or it might go wrong.
Click to expand...

With their chickens. Not with their "embryos"... While it is a chicken embryo, it is still a chicken.

It's saying don't expect the ideal conditions for something to happen in the future;
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_t...t_count_your_chickens_before_they_are_hatched'
Click to expand...

Repeating and underlining the fact that even an "old saying" calls an unhatched chicken a chicken isn't helping your case.
 
apple0154 said:
It stole the right to use the symbols and words from other charities that had them prior and never registered them. That's the point.
Click to expand...

That's a dumb point- you can't steal what isn't the property of another. Certain trademarks belong to Komen. Whether someone used them prior to Komen trademarking them is of no consequence.
 
Damocles said:
Actually, neither are the same thing. Until the acorn germinates it is like an ovum. Which is an egg. If you come up with something equivalent you may have a point, but neither of these are equivalent.

Once the acorn germinates it is an oak tree, in an early stage of development. Once the egg is fertilized, it is a chicken (so long as it was a chicken egg) in an early stage of development.

It isn't very difficult science, they teach it to fifth graders.
Click to expand...

Refer to the post 20. That post is not all that difficult to understand either.
 
Damocles said:
Blueprints are called plans like an ovum is called an egg, "house" is used in future terms. Like a couple planning on having a baby, the term would be used future tense. However, once the bun is in the oven, very often it is spoken of in present tense.

Once the foundation is there, it is a house, in early stages. Like a burgeoning and developing human life.
Click to expand...

Try selling a foundation as a house.

Note they called them chickens. They just warned you that not all of them may survive. Still chickens.
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension difficulties, I see. It’s saying don’t count them AS chickens because they are not chickens.

It’s like the Kenny Roger’s song, The Gambler. “Don’t count your money while you’re sitting at the table. They’ll be time enough for counting when the dealing’s done.” The reason being they are not winnings as the game is still being played. Ones winnings are the money they have AFTER they leave the table.

No, it means that sometimes bad things happen to your chickens before they have hatched.
Click to expand...

No, it means they are not chickens yet. If they were chickens then one could count them as chickens.

With their chickens. Not with their "embryos"... While it is a chicken embryo, it is still a chicken.
Click to expand...

It is an egg. That’s why we have such a word.

Repeating and underlining the fact that even an "old saying" calls an unhatched chicken a chicken isn't helping your case.
Click to expand...

It is when read and understood by someone not afflicted with a reading comprehension difficulty.
 
apple0154 said:
Refer to the post 20. That post is not all that difficult to understand either.
Click to expand...

It was just wrong. The reality is, once fertilization occurs and the chicken begins to develop, it is a chicken. Once the acorn germinates, it is a tree, just a young one.
 
apple0154 said:
If one is classifying something strictly by DNA then an egg is a chicken. Try alternating the use of "chicken" and "egg" in general conversation and witness the reaction. Perhaps one could start by ordering a breakfast of scrambled chickens and bacon. And, yes, many country eateries use fresh eggs that may very well be fertilized if purchased from small, local farms.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, only if it is fertilized is the egg a chicken. Until it is fertilized, it is an egg with only half of the necessary DNA that could make it a chicken. Chicken would be the adjective, egg the noun at that point. A fertilized chicken egg has a developing chicken inside. Chicken becomes a noun once it has become a developing separate life.

Again, look back to your fifth grade sex ed. Once the ovum (egg) is fertilized, then the human begins to develop...
 
Damocles said:
Incorrect, only if it is fertilized is the egg a chicken.
Click to expand...

This is becoming quite tiring. You have to do something about your reading comprehension. I wrote, "And, yes, many country eateries use fresh eggs that may very well be fertilized if purchased from small, local farms." Whether the egg is fertilized or not it is still an egg. It is not a chicken.

Until it is fertilized, it is an egg with only half of the necessary DNA that could make it a chicken. Chicken would be the adjective, egg the noun at that point. A fertilized chicken egg has a developing chicken inside. Chicken becomes a noun once it has become a developing separate life.
Click to expand...

It is still an egg.

Again, look back to your fifth grade sex ed. Once the ovum (egg) is fertilized, then the human begins to develop...
Click to expand...

Begins to develop. A child in kindergarten is beginning to develop into a doctor but they are not a doctor. There are developing CEOs and plumbers and computer programmers and carpenters but there are no doctors or CEOs or plumbers or computer programmers or carpenters in that classroom. None. Not a single one. And that's something one usually learns in kindergarten.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top