• 0 Posts
  • 41 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 13th, 2023

help-circle

  • I’m a Windows user and have bwen for many many years. I recently started learning Linux so I can hopefully one day be competent enough to justify never having to buy Microsoft ^TM branded lube again.

    My partner, and much of my friend group, are a Mac users.

    I am a programmer so I know many many Linux people.

    It is Shocking how accurate this meme is LOL


  • Okay… Having not actually read the bill in question and only having a cursory understanding of what specifically constitutes a fetus vs an embryo, unborn child (like actively going into labor), etc. this feels like an actually kind of okay thing?

    I mean, obviously the removal of a woman’s rights to control and administer their own bodies is fucking insane and those supporting it should be treated with nothing shy of the most abject contempt one could muster… But the way this article is worded makes it sound like the bill will allow women to seek some form of monetary justice from an unwanted pregnancy? Which feels jarringly contrary to the motivations behind the policys that make this bill necessary?

    Genuinely asking. Am I missing something? Lol




  • Goblin_Mode@ttrpg.networkto196@lemmy.blahaj.zonerule
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    10 months ago

    But if we are talking strictly biologically speaking then we’ve got two sexes.

    Not really though, I mean intersex people kinda disprove that by themselves right? Unless we aren’t defining sex by what you have between your legs but instead more of just a genetic makeup, which would mean that the 2 sexes theory is disproven by any of the millions of people who have the “wrong” chromosome pair.

    The 2 biological sexes thing works as a very broad generalization but it really doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. I used to say the exact same thing until I got a dump truck of examples thrown at me lol



  • at least I know more than 1 :)

    Moi aussi.

    I was not aware that Biden, Al Gore, and Obama were “the entire democratic party ever”? Strange how that list of under 200 names somehow includes all 250+ federal democratic congressman and presidents AND most of Hollywood?? Wow my apologies, I clearly hadn’t realized that over half of the 10s of thousands of people who work in the movie industry were also on that list of under 200!

    Good catch on that one!

    Perhaps you should try actually engaging in discussion instead of just mouthing off complete nonsense and hoping no one calls your bluff?


  • I don’t have any specific memories or sources on hand since it was like 8 years ago. So by all means take this with a fairly large grain of salt.

    But I’m pretty sure it had something to do with the DNC actively pushing for Hillary and denying Bernie the same resources and privileges guaranteed to other candidates. Like there was a substabtial amount of money that was intended to go to the nominee, but Hillary got it well before the primaries. Also there were the emails that got leaked from DNC execs who were very openly against Bernie and discussing ways to debase him or otherwise get support for Hillary to beat him despite their role as neutral orchestrators in the primaries.

    We don’t know everything. Really just the email leaks and a few reports here or there. But judging by what we do have it paints a pretty damning picture for what we don’t have.




  • Every issue you’ve described is something actively fought for and put forth by Republicans. The same Republicans who hold the house and, subsequently, the ability to pass legislation to fix these things.

    Democrats, or I guess in this specific case Biden, has no ability to just snap his fingers and grant: bodily autonomy, re-write the war budget, programs for housing scarcity, education, livable wages, or health care. To claim otherwise or that he is just toting people along while actively avoiding responsibility is either showing that you have literally no idea what you’re talking about or is just straight misinformation.

    I do not love Biden and I adamantly disagree with some of his decisions such as his response to the Israel/Palestine conflict. But he has done some serious good with his time in office. Expanding access to live saving medication for seniors, providing an actually reasonable student loan repayment plan, modernizing the internet infrastructure for millions of homes in the mid west, and shifting much of the Federal governments facilities to use green energy just to name a few.

    I truly wish 3rd party candidates stood any sort of chance in a general election, I really do. But as it stands currently they do not, history has shown us that over and over and over again. So you have 3 choices: vote for the party that actually perpetrated those above issues and has made it perfectly clear they will do so again, vote for the lesser evil that while horribly flawed has actually done some serious good in addition to frankly just not promoting an authoritarian ethnostate, or toss your vote out and pray for the best.




  • A tumor is a collection of cells that have one or more missing flags that would normally restrict cell growth, allowing it to grow and multiply far beyond what your body is built to allow for. The difference is that as it grows, a fetus will eventually reach a floor of cognitive ability to allow for sentience whereas a tumor will just spread.

    I’m not here to discuss the philosophical quandary of valuing one life over another. I don’t want to debate the ethical ramification of arguing on the behalf of a hypothetical man who has never known true autonomy, or a diefic figure who simply decides that from a utilitarian perspective your life is worth less than that of your neighbor. I’m simply saying that sentience is the defining characteristic of intelligent life. I don’t think that should have to be a controversial statement.

    An embryo may have the potential to become a human one day but at the moment it is not. Just like an acorn is not an oak tree. I wouldn’t sit under an acorn for shade, nor would I hang a tire swing from it, because it isn’t a tree. It’s an acorn. And an embryo is not a thinking and feeling human being. It’s an embryo.

    Now where am I getting this information from? Well I suppose I am applying my own personal understanding of it since I don’t have an exact quote or reference for you. I do not have a degree in biology, but I know someone who does, a lot of someone’s actually. Off the top of my head I can think of 5 people in my close, immediate circle who have studied biology at length, 1 of which has multiple degrees in the discipline and another 2 are doctors. And yes, I HAVE heard “human beings” described as having started to exist in that state from the point of sentience. Matter of fact, while I’m sure some do see it like you do I personally have never heard someone refer to a zygote or embryo as a human being… They call them zygotes and embros… Because that’s what they are, despite what they may potentially become.

    But that’s all beside the point. I can see you are just trying to be reasonable and explain that I will not convince anyone this way. And you’re probably right; but I will make a counterpoint. This is not a strawman. Despite what one feels or believes on the subject a fetus under a certain threshold of development is not capable of the very barest minimum required cognitive functions to be considered a human baby. And suggesting that it has more rights Than it’s fully formed human mother is fucking insane.


  • regardless of your views on the individuality of fetuses

    While I can appreciate what you’re going for here and will even relent that your argument is topical to the discussion at hand. I do feel the need to point out that a fetus is, by deffinition, objectively, not a human being.

    I get where you’re coming from and I respect that you believe these 2 things are equitable. But, feelings aside, capital punishment for a human being is very very very different from removing a small collection of half formed cells. Its like comparing the death of an animal to that of a tumor that was removed in a surgical procedure. The tumor died, but it’s not the same thing as killing an actually sentient aninal




  • I’m by no means saying this is a definitive win. Just that setting a spear (I perhaps should have mentioned this in the previous comment) is a historically proven method of countering a charge. You might still die but I think with a proper spear odds might actually be in your favor if only slightly

    In this very skilly hyper specific scenario where you are tasked with fighting a horse to the death, but with the stipulation that you are given prep time, I believe you could find and properly whittle a passable enough stick to function as a rudamdntary spear for the purpose of bracing against a charge, and that’s assuming you don’t have some particularly sharp metal/rocks on hand with some basic lashing materials. If the horse pulls up and tries to canter around the set spear you could hoist it up and now you have range. If it pulls back for another charge? Set it again. You don’t have to thrust with it, just hold it point out and wait for the horse to either impale itself or get tired. That’s how boar hunts work after all.

    Like yeah I don’t like your odds lmao but its not nearly as doomed as you might think imo


  • I mean yeah but the point is that technological advancement was still a common occurance. Like, yeah a sensationalized article about self driving cars would blow some minds but to most i think it wouldn’t really make any bigger waves then basic cars already were at the time. How can they be blown away by the concept of self driving when the vehicle itself is so new and interesting you know? AI is so abstract that even today most people don’t understand it, 100 years ago it’d just be “another new thing” just like it is today… We are actually less accustomed to ground shaking new inventions so I’d argue that 100 years ago a lot of our modern tech would be less exciting given the regularity in which things were changing then.

    Social upheaval however is ALWAYS a huge deal, especially for the time. Bear in mind that Progressivism is a fairly new ideology in the States. For literally hundreds of years social change came at a snails pace and took serious, concerted effort. Nowadays we are on average much more open to change and accepting of diversity in all it’s forms, but there’s a reason everyone remembers the name Martin Luther King Jr., versus… Ruth Bader Ginsburg I guess?