April 10th: The bill has been vetoed!
April 2nd: The politicians in Arizona are about to sign into law a bill that would mandate sites like e621 to either impose age verification on all users or be at a risk of lawsuits. Such system would be required to go through third party vendors, who in turn must go through a government database to verify every user's age. This is not only a major violation of privacy, but it also opens up a very real danger of identity theft through phishing schemes and other methods, not to mention that we would not be able to control any of that information to make sure it is permanently deleted after age verification is complete.
Unfortunately, Arizona is the state out of which e621 operates, which means that this law will almost certainly affect us if it is to pass. If want to help us ensure that this site can continue to serve you without being required to know who you are, please ask the Arizona governor to veto this bill.
Please, help us get the word out by letting others know about this issue.
For some further information on what the bill does have a look at https://action.freespeechcoalition.com/bill/arizona-hb-2586/
We still have a Discord server, come talk to us!
Want to advertise on e621? Click here!
BananFisk
MemberI saw this on XKCD, and I think it is fitting for this site
SimperinFool
MemberWolves are more closely related to humans than to protozoans
Therefore wolves are humans
meh123
MemberActually, birds are dinosaurs, they are simply called birds by scientists so as not to confuse the masses, but they are actually one and the same. Look it up.
BananFisk
MemberI have skin
A potato have skin
Therefore I'm a potato
Ex Machina
MemberThis is actually very sound logic.
If you can call both a Stegosaurus and a T-Rex "dinosaurs", despite their very different physical structures and their extremely distant genetic seperation then it could be fairly argued that the much more closely related sparrow is also a "dinosaur". It's all about where you want to draw your arbitrary line across the tree of evolution.
Halite
MemberNo, it isn't.
It's what people who fail to understand logic think is sound logic.
Ex Machina
MemberI'm afraid you're mistaken. The author brings up a great point here. Either sparrows are dinosaurs or we need to stop considering every non-lizard kinda-reptile that lived before the Cretaceous Extinction a "Dinosaur" because most of them are far less genetically related to eachother than sparrows are to t-rex.
Halite
MemberThe flaw in the logic is in saying that sparrows are dinosaurs.
You are taking a faulty assumption, that all dinosaurs are related species, and propagating it further.
Sound logic is to address the original fault.
Extending the bad logic doesn't make it good logic.
tl;dr: Saying t-rex isn't related to stegosaurus as closely as we once believed = sound logic.
Saying sparrows must be dinosaurs =/= sound logic.
Halite
MemberSorry for the double-comment, but here's a nice list of logical fallacies (faulty logic) in general terms:
http://mason.gmu.edu/~cmcgloth/portfolio/fallacies/fallacies.html
Please note the "straw man (fallacy of extension)" section, it outlines the logic used here.
EightyNine
MemberJust because you can bring up points to try and support your argument doesn't mean the argument is any more valid.
Alien enthusiasts and conspiracy theorists spend years working to validate their points, and come up with some pretty interesting points. Does it make them valid? Fuck no.
Ex Machina
MemberYou're actually agreeing with the point that both the author and I are making. That "Dinosaurs" is a very non-scientific catch-all term. What he has done to prove this is highlight the T-rex (A famous dinosaur) and use it as his example for what it means to actually be a dinosaur. He could have centered the argument on stegosaurus, triceratops, or apatasaurus, but that wouldn't allow him to make the bird joke, which aids in highlighting the absurdity at hand.
I think you, on the other hand, missed the point of the argument the author is making entirely. He's pointing out the vagueness of the term "dinosaur". If we accept the current breadth of the word "dinosaur"'s reach, we would have to also accept that it encompasses still living birds, creating a bit of a problem, albeit an extremely entertaining one. Because who doesn't love the idea of looking out their window at a dinosaur in the yard?
I'd also like to highlight the empty and contrarian nature of your response. Unlike the fellow before you, you haven't attempted to illuminate any flaw in the argument being made, or offer any counterpoints. You're just saying "nuh-uh!" because you don't like something about what is being said (Though, as stated, I think you just misunderstood).
EightyNine
MemberHi, hey
Hey genius.
Hey.
No.
I was telling you that "just because you can form an argument for something, doesn't mean the argument is even valid."
You know, it helps to be able to read before you start arguments in completely unfitting places.
Ex Machina
MemberThere's no ill will here, I'm just trying to address your posts. The point I was making was, you're response wasn't at all constructive. If you did indeed believe that what I and/or the author said was wrong, you should have stated why and how. If you did not disagree, and just wanted to make a point about the nature of arguments in general, then you chose an odd time to do it. That's all.
Halite
MemberI wasn't saying that the term "dinosaur" is accurately used.
I was saying that the logic used to argue in this particular case is flawed.
Bad logic doesn't mean it's a bad point, just a bad way to present that point.
BananFisk
Memberpost #227758
MrDumbass
MemberI guess you were right :P
BananFisk
Memberpost #551722
I love it when i'm right
idiotwithacomputer
MemberWolves are more closely related to humans than to protozoans.
Therefore wolves and humans are both a part of categories protozoans aren't. (Mammals, vertebrates, etc)
T.Rex and sparrows are more closely related to each other than to stegosaurus.
Therefore T.Rex and sparrows are both part of a category stegosaurus isn't (theropods)
The clade Theropoda is a sub-clade of the clade Dinosauria.
Login to respond »