Yes, I agree - we have covered this ground fairly well. It is always nice to have a civil conversation adjacent to abortion. Well done, sir.
Yes, I agree - we have covered this ground fairly well. It is always nice to have a civil conversation adjacent to abortion. Well done, sir.
It's only 'arbitrary' if you ignore neuroscience. The fact of the matter is we know exactly which structures matter for consciousness and that the (for example) hand or spleen have no direct involvement. There is a definitive, non-arbitrary line between the body that supports life and the mental systems capable of processing internal experience.
I think you're trying really hard to split hairs here. A comatose patient has the intact macrostructures necessary for consciousness (assuming they have ever been conscious). The biological hardware is fully built; its function is simply being disrupted by some type of shock to the system. That is completely different from an early fetus, where the nueral pathways are non existent.
An unconscious person could wake up, which doesn't take much, but that's still a biological change. With comatose people with significant brain damage the changes needed to realize the capacity for consciousness are a bit more significant. Once we're saying people can have the capacity for consciousness even if biological processes will need to occur to realize it, I don't think we can say with confidence that the fetus does not meet this standard.
There is a fundamental difference between waking up an existing mind and building the substrate of a mind from scratch. The total absence of necessary brain structures allows us to rule out consciousness with certainty.
Is the standard past consciousness/experiences then? If yes, then I think this raises dilemmas with a hypothetical comatose infant, but some people are willing to bite the bullet on that.
There can be no consciousness until the mental architecture exists. A comatose infant will have that, while a fetus (especially early in this developmental stage) will not. Mental content and mental capacity are not the same thing.
I assume your answer is probably consciousness, but then is killing unconscious people fine?
This is a strawman. You are conflating unconsciousness with the absence of consciousness. An unconscious entity is capable of experiences. The complete absence of the biological capacity for experience means no internal state can be recovered as no subjective experience has begun to exist.
When you see the government increase taxes you've got to start worrying about it.
Taxes for things like universal healthcare which covers more, everyone gets it, and costs less in taxes than private insurance?
Sign me up. Our current healthcare is FUBAR.
All politics is culture war.
Uh, no. What about tax rates, infrastructure debates, funding allocation, subsidies, etc., suggest cultures wars?
Because polar bears kill you. If a woman would rather face the death penalty than be with a strange man, then they don't deserve any sort of power as they're too emotional with it. Look, I know this about you; it's why I lumped you in.
Bears typically avoid humans, while some men wont take "no" for an answer. Why anyone would be upset by that observation boggles the mind.
Do you actually think I'm a rapist?
No, but your apparent outrage over this (judging by how often you bring it up) kind of makes you seem a less safe option for a woman to encounter in the woods than a bear. You seem to be seething at women while a bear would just go a different direction.
What else do you think it was?
Many other things such as the war with Iran, the poor economy (caused by tarrifs and the war with Iran), Trump's indifference to the economy, aggressive immigration enforcement, bad primary endorsements (eg. Paxton over Cornyn was a self-inflicted wound), etc.
It still appears you're pulling this number out of thin air.
Pink Left = Women + Trans.
Ahh, culture war stuff.
Because you equate hating women who choose the polar bear with being a rapist and the word lost it's meaning at that poin
Polar bears, huh? If you say so. Im not sure why the bear scenario upsets you so. It seems to me you make their point by being so upset about it. 😉
2026 midterms didn't happen over feminism; it was literally just gas prices and Epstein.
That certainly didnt help, but I'd argue it is more than just that.
Ahh, so your hunch is that it's rigged if women vote. Hard to argue with such a questionable rubric...or not. 🤣
That seems completely arbitrary. How do you determine the percentage of women voters that reaches the threshold of 'rigged'?
What is the pink left (and why am I lumped in)?What is HT?
dose of socialism from now on.
The US has a mixed system which includes aspects of the dreaded 'socialism'.
Not just force. Don't forget the gulags and entire property taken. State needs to profit.
I accepted your debate - we can hash it out there. 😃
Meh. It not about being nicer, its about what works better. Force addresses actions in the short term, but not the underlying ignorance, ideology, etc. Force will never eradicate circumcision.
SatanLucy wrote:
Small correction:
I am not spawn of Satan. I am Satan Meowist Taoist Venus worshipper.
Oh, my apologies!
RemyBrown wrote:
Circumcision is kinda weird too. Maybe we could just stop the entire practice?
Id like that, but its too common to ban and incarcerate, just reduce it and penalize circumsision with a $500 fine; Jews and Gentiles held to the same standard.
I dont think it is necessary to penalize. As much as I disapprove of the procedure, there should be exceptions and it should ultimately be up to the parent or of-age patient.
I'd just like to see major medical organizations being more direct about the procedure rather than hiding behind carefully worded statements. I mean, the official position of the American Academy of Pediatrics is "the benefits outweigh the risks", but where there are good hygiene standards the benefits are negligible. The 'benefit' is reducing the chance of UTI from 1% to .1% and the 'risks' do not take into account disfigurement of a patient who cannot consent.
SatanLucy wrote:
Circumcision is kinda weird too. Maybe we could just stop the entire practice?
This is an anti semitic comment. You basically agreed with Hitler. He wanted to stop the circumcision too. Why do you agree with Hitler
He is referring to specific ultra-orthodox sects of Judaism in which a mohel will use his mouth to suction away blood after skin removal. There have been reports of infants being infected with HSV-1 (coldsore herpes) in this way.
Its not mainstream or common, but it is unhygienic and definitely something that should be discontinued.
Christian circumcision is not a thing.
Circumcision is kinda weird too. Maybe we could just stop the entire practice?
Being transgender has nothing to do with nuclear energy, meth, drug use, or STIs.
Me reading your argument:
Debby wrote:
Votes dated after November 3 will not be counted in the U.S.
They will be counted in our hearts.
Listen, if someone wants to have a serious conversation about how to make elections more secure, I'm all for that. I think it requires a balance between accessibility and security. However, if the argument points to minor vulnerabilities—which will always be present—as evidence of 'massive voter fraud' (sufficient to pile up 6 million surplus votes), then we are talking absurdity. That bears the hallmark of starting with the conclusion, not the evidence.
If anything is found it's assumed one occurred but we don't have to report it if we found no evidence. But we know it did and act accordingly
No evidence, but you *know* a catastrophic breach occurred? You're not seriously thinking the question through or you're just not serious.
wylted wrote:
A lot of my work involves an element of cyber security. If I found a vulnerability and then said that because the crime is undetectable, it means we definitely have not gotten a breach or that nobody ever will breach us, so it's best to leave ourselves unprotected, I would be fired.
Wouldn't you also be fired for claiming a catastrophic breach occurred without evidence for the catastrophe?
There is no corruption in having completely insecure elections?
The poll workers confirmed to these idiots that the identities they were using (which were real) could be used to vouch for other real identities. What is conveniently being glossed over is that one identity cant vote twice. If the person whose identities they co-opted votes, then the vote(s) is going to get kicked out by the system. If they've vouched for more than one person, then all of those votes are called into question. This is about the most-doomed-to-fail high-effort low-impact schemes one could come up with.
This isnt evidence of corruption or widespread voter fraud. This is evidence these would-be journalists dont understand how the larger machine works.
What do you mean?
I mean, even if successful (which is unlikely), it takes a lot of manpower to yield low output. This strategy takes 2 people to get up to 8 votes. Assuming, for the sake of argument, this were employed in 2020, you would need something like 1.5 million people to achieve the ~6 million votes Biden won the popular vote by. That's laughably absurd. Between the extremely likely scenario where one failed vote brings the entire house of cards down and needing a shit-ton of manpower, this scheme is simply not capable of affecting an election with such large margins.
Assuming we are talking elections in 2028, I think Trump's base is more into insurrection and authoritarianism than democracy, there's a lot that could happen, I don't see a peaceful exchange of power in 28, I'm sure there will be violence.
A valid and serious concern.
I don't think it really matters, I suspect the Dems could run a trained monkey in 2028 and still win the election.
Let us hope we have a strong candidate with no challenge, but given the lack of significant distance between a strong Talarico and a corrupt Paxton for Senate in Texas, I'm not so optimistic.
poll workers allowed him to
Allowed him to what exactly...act a fool and not vote? Yes, they did that. There's no corruption in that, though.
Are you saying because it happened at a local level that it means those policies aren't a serious concern for the national votes these people place?
Even if this were real, it isn't scalable to 'widespread voter fraud', and it's silly to suggest otherwise.
They were arrested because they committed a crime. Shocker.
Also, this isnt 'widespread voter fraud'. They didnt vote! If they did, it would literally be one person (pretending to be someone they're not) vouching for another person (pretending to be someone they're not) for a fraudulent vote. That is low impact at a local level. GTFOH with that silliness.
In the real world, Rubio is a better candidate than Vance. In Maga world, I think Vance would be favored.