Politics/Slapfights - Ancient history to modern day!

[TTTX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYijMCNGxOk&ab

Johnny vs Amber court trial is going on right now if people care.

[TTTX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG3lp5GjXkw&ab

[Vol]

Johnny vs Amber court trial is going on right now if people care.

I've been aware of the case, vaguely, and that he's suing for slander, which is a very high bar for public figures. But even briefly listening on the trial is nuts. Especially with the fact that he stayed with her well past the point of sanity. Guess love blinds.

---

https://thesymbolicworld.com/articles/n ... -symbolim/

Taleb thus ends up arguing for religion due to its sheer survival record.15 For example, since the Catholic Church has survived for nearly 24 centuries (Taleb sees it as a continuation of the Roman Republic),16 it reveals itself as a very powerful frame for reality, which is therefore likely to survive for a very long time still.

In contrast, Taleb is very harsh against intellectuals who advance theories that haven’t been tested by time, such as Steven Pinker.17 If a scientist and your Grandma disagree about something, you’re probably better off trusting your Grandma, because she has survived longer. The scientist may tell you something that is more intellectually convincing and efficient in the short term, but if it leads to your demise in the medium term, it’s no good. A framing for reality that, like your Grandma’s, is suboptimal everywhere but that allows you to survive is incomparably truer and better than a framing that, like Pinker’s, is optimal locally but subjects you to a catastrophic Black Swan event later down the line.

Interesting article, but this is a vital bit. It's not true in every case, for one, my grandma will eat raw bacon while I'm preparing to fry it up, and I'm fastidious about cleaning my hands after handling raw meat and not getting it in my face. Probably safer than not, but my odds of survival only improve by not consuming raw bacon. But in other occurrences, science would absolutely take a backseat to old lady wisdom. If the oldest woman to ever live drank port, ate candy, and had 2 cigarettes every single day, a 50 year old researcher with all the education in the world and plenty of nicely presented models cannot us she was wrong to do so because all those habits are unhealthy, clearly, he would be wrong.

We could step back and appeal to _generalized_ models, where _most_ people who smoke, drink, and eat candy habitually die younger, for predictable reasons, than those who don't. But then we can appeal to the generalized model of old people, and if their models contradict the rational, well thought out research, which is more likely to be true?

[TTTX]

I've been aware of the case, vaguely, and that he's suing for slander, which is a very high bar for public figures. But even briefly listening on the trial is nuts. Especially with the fact that he stayed with her well past the point of sanity. Guess love blinds.

well abuse victimes always have a hard time leaving their abusers, because of a lot of reasons.

[Vol]

well abuse victimes always have a hard time leaving their abusers, because of a lot of reasons.

Fair point. Listened to some of the butler's testimony today, as well as the recorded footage of Depp and Heard arguing. That was a ridiculously bad relationship, even before his finger got cut partially off.

In other news, Musk bought Twitter. Predictable reaction from all corners. Sadly, Mick Foley, one of the guys I admired as a kid, especially for his books and his commitment to free speech when the WWF was targeted by fundies in the 90's/00's, is having a small meltdown.

But I better understand the theory that free speech is a threat to democracy. If you take the position that democracy isn't self-evidently, or even arguably, a good thing, you have nothing but linguistic control to maintain it. Why you would want to if that's what you think is a different question, but it's coherent. So the presence of Nazis would not be just an unpleasant group of (presumably) trolls ruining conversations, but rather an outstretched hand leading to alternatives that democracy cannot guard against.

Which is also true even if you think democracy (constitutional republics) are a grand thing, because of course people will always seek to subvert them for autocratic means. But if you believe in free speech, they "shouldn't" falter, because they "should" be self-evidently superior to autocracy. If they're not, or the bad guys start winning, then you go down with the ship.

TLDR; If free(r) speech on Twitter dooms democracy, it's because nobody believed in it to begin with.

[TTTX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T6xD3aQJH8&ab

well that explains a lot, also means she will get a light sentence should Johnny win.

[TTTX]

TLDR; If free(r) speech on Twitter dooms democracy, it's because nobody believed in it to begin with.

that's the joke of the decade considering the amount of crazy people generally used twitter to cancel people over stupid shit.

[Vol]

that's the joke of the decade considering the amount of crazy people generally used twitter to cancel people over stupid shit.

It's impressive if you think about it. For most of our lives, nobody took the internet seriously, to the point "the internet is serious business" was an old meme. And then enough crazy people became so utterly fixated on making their will known that it's now a means of destroying lives.

Anecdotally, a lot of edgy fellows seem to all be getting their Twitter accounts unbanned, or unsuppressed. Seems like the digital version of shredding paperwork, because Musk intends to make the algorithms open source.

[TTTX]

It's impressive if you think about it. For most of our lives, nobody took the internet seriously, to the point "the internet is serious business" was an old meme. And then enough crazy people became so utterly fixated on making their will known that it's now a means of destroying lives.

well the crazy found a platform to connect to each and somehow get big American companies to listen to them probably because the American companies don't want their employs to fight for stuff like maternity leave, paid vacation and of course good paying minimum wage, so they supported the crazy to keep the people busy while the American companies did their thing as they always, now people are really pushing back and companies are really losing money and really need money because of covid made a mess for like 2 years, so supporting the crazy aren't a thing they can do anymore, not when the bottom line is threaten.

[Vol]

well the crazy found a platform to connect to each and somehow get big American companies to listen to them probably because the American companies don't want their employs to fight for stuff like maternity leave, paid vacation and of course good paying minimum wage, so they supported the crazy to keep the people busy while the American companies did their thing as they always, now people are really pushing back and companies are really losing money and really need money because of covid made a mess for like 2 years, so supporting the crazy aren't a thing they can do anymore, not when the bottom line is threaten.

You're mostly right. I like to point out how we went from Occupy Wall Street to JP Morgan sponsoring gay pride floats within a decade. The rich and powerful figured out that discarding "traditional American values" and instead pretending to be progressive is a great way to avoid protests and ever having to treat employees better. It was very cunning.

The other half of that is better maternity leave, vacation, and minimum wage would do little if anything to improve the state of workers. We have a concept here called a "welfare trap," where to be eligible for certain government benefits, you have to make beneath a certain amount of money. So if you get a raise or promotion, you could end losing a lot of money. And in general, the cost of living has rapidly gotten so high that even $20, $25, $30 an hour, a ridiculous amount for most menial jobs, wouldn't be enough.

[TTTX]

You're mostly right. I like to point out how we went from Occupy Wall Street to JP Morgan sponsoring gay pride floats within a decade. The rich and powerful figured out that discarding "traditional American values" and instead pretending to be progressive is a great way to avoid protests and ever having to treat employees better. It was very cunning.

The other half of that is better maternity leave, vacation, and minimum wage would do little if anything to improve the state of workers. We have a concept here called a "welfare trap," where to be eligible for certain government benefits, you have to make beneath a certain amount of money. So if you get a raise or promotion, you could end losing a lot of money. And in general, the cost of living has rapidly gotten so high that even $20, $25, $30 an hour, a ridiculous amount for most menial jobs, wouldn't be enough.

story of my life, I am mostly right or I just make a fool of myself it is generally one of those 2.

You Americans need to do like us Europeans, stop calling them benefits and make them rights.

[Vol]

story of my life, I am mostly right or I just make a fool of myself it is generally one of those 2.

You Americans need to do like us Europeans, stop calling them benefits and make them rights.

Being mostly right, and a confident fool, is the key to success.

America is designed so that "rights" are innate to people, they are given by God (in a general sense if you like), something higher and more authorative than any human government. Because our founders wanted to heavily restrict what government could do. So we have a right to free speech, because government cannot censor speech. We have a right to bear arms, but if no gun shops existed to sell to me, my right is not violated, unless the government conspired to cause that.

But people use "right" to mean "things I want." Which is tricky. Do you have a right to fresh water? Nearly everyone would say yes, but what if no one wanted to do the jobs necessary to produce and transport fresh water to you? The government cannot force people to work, and if that results in no fresh water for you, are your rights violated?

[TTTX]

Being mostly right, and a confident fool, is the key to success.

America is designed so that "rights" are innate to people, they are given by God (in a general sense if you like), something higher and more authorative than any human government. Because our founders wanted to heavily restrict what government could do. So we have a right to free speech, because government cannot censor speech. We have a right to bear arms, but if no gun shops existed to sell to me, my right is not violated, unless the government conspired to cause that.

But people use "right" to mean "things I want." Which is tricky. Do you have a right to fresh water? Nearly everyone would say yes, but what if no one wanted to do the jobs necessary to produce and transport fresh water to you? The government cannot force people to work, and if that results in no fresh water for you, are your rights violated?

and you have to be stubborn as well or people will walk all over you. speaking from exeperince.

in Denmark we believe in helping our fellow Danes (skin color doesn't matter if you are born and raised in Denmark, you are a Dane plain and simple) and make sure they have the best opportunities for getting a great future which is why we pay for health care, education, etc.
wasn't always like this, at the time of my great grandparents they fought for those rights, before that Denmark was very similar to the American system when it came to education.
Hell by law we don't have a minimum wage (a company can actually pay you like 2 bannas a day and that would be legal, not that anyone would do that, but you can by law), we use the unions to decide and negotiate what the minimum wage should be for whatever company you work for and what work is acquired of you to make sure everything is right for everyone, it is about being fair at the end of the day.

Well as Frank Fountain said in Bioshock in a audio diary "somebody's gotta scrub the toilets" it is not a right if you aren't willing to fight for or work to keep said right.
In Denmark we pay for you to take a higher education, however you still have to work to get said education and you can only use the system 5 times, it is a system designed to help you work for it and is a right you have, but not a crutch for you to waste time until you can retire.

[Someone With Mass]

Wow. The Russians are painting Astrid Lindgren as a Nazi in their internal propaganda. Just when you think that they can't be more pathetic, Putin finds a way.

[SciFlyBoy]

... Because our founders wanted to heavily restrict what government could do. So we have a right to free speech, because government cannot censor speech. We have a right to bear arms, but if no gun shops existed to sell to me, my right is not violated, unless the government conspired to cause that.

But people use "right" to mean "things I want." ...

This brought up a similar point i recently learned about. I watched a video that begins to explain the difference between civil rights and civil liberties, which is what I think people mostly get mixed up. This guy was a great channel. Though this talks about the civil aspect, I think the general rights and liberties aspect works too.
https://youtu.be/gdTvXWKFXdc

[Vol]

in Denmark we believe in helping our fellow Danes (skin color doesn't matter if you are born and raised in Denmark, you are a Dane plain and simple) and make sure they have the best opportunities for getting a great future which is why we pay for health care, education, etc.
wasn't always like this, at the time of my great grandparents they fought for those rights, before that Denmark was very similar to the American system when it came to education.
Hell by law we don't have a minimum wage (a company can actually pay you like 2 bannas a day and that would be legal, not that anyone would do that, but you can by law), we use the unions to decide and negotiate what the minimum wage should be for whatever company you work for and what work is acquired of you to make sure everything is right for everyone, it is about being fair at the end of the day.

You're describing a high trust, homogenous society. Common culture, morality, and a common good everyone more or less agrees to. Those who don't are pressured to conform to it. You'll notice the places with the most "diversity" don't have any of that. If you don't share a common culture, morality, or anything with your neighbors, there is no common good to sacrifice your personal goals for. America would probably be very similar to Denmark, in our own way, if we hadn't been tricked into thinking that "anyone can be American" actually means "No one can't be American."

Wow. The Russians are painting Astrid Lindgren as a Nazi in their internal propaganda. Just when you think that they can't be more pathetic, Putin finds a way.

Please explain this for us haughty Anglophones.

This brought up a similar point i recently learned about. I watched a video that begins to explain the difference between civil rights and civil liberties, which is what I think people mostly get mixed up. This guy was a great channel. Though this talks about the civil aspect, I think the general rights and liberties aspect works too.

That video is correct, but entirely zeroed in on that specific American context. But as a relatively simple definition for educating people, works well enough.

On that note, since it appears Roe V Wade is going to be overturned, probably, and abortion will become a matter of state policy instead of federal/judicial, we can look at it with different lens.

A traditionalist might say that abortion is plainly evil, because of their theological beliefs. Or they might say it's perfectly normal, as all cultures historically practiced it, and infanticide, to some extent.

A modernist might say abortion is wrong because there primitives murdered their young for pointless reason, and the triumph of science and reason eradicates the practice. Or they might say we can observe a fetus is only cells, and medicine will surely one day know the exact point where it becomes human, but clearly not before it looks like one.

A post modernist would say both are stances are completely correct, or incorrect, because everything is subjective and no one can be right or wrong unless enough people can force dissenters to shut up and do what they want.

You will notice that the American debate is mostly the last one, but using appeals to the previous two.

[Sinekein]

On that note, since it appears Roe V Wade is going to be overturned, probably, and abortion will become a matter of state policy instead of federal/judicial, we can look at it with different lens.

Sure.

[TTTX]

You're describing a high trust, homogenous society. Common culture, morality, and a common good everyone more or less agrees to. Those who don't are pressured to conform to it. You'll notice the places with the most "diversity" don't have any of that. If you don't share a common culture, morality, or anything with your neighbors, there is no common good to sacrifice your personal goals for. America would probably be very similar to Denmark, in our own way, if we hadn't been tricked into thinking that "anyone can be American" actually means "No one can't be American."

well America is build on well immigrants in a giant meleting pot so the American culture is all over the place (which you can see if you visit all the different states, everyone has their own things, culture, flag, etc., there are common things obviously, but there are clear differences between the states), hell before the civil war happened the American people was more loyal to the state they were from then the country itself (it had a lot in common with the Holy roman empire if I would use a historic example).

Denmark on the other hand is a country that has been around for over a 1000 years and changed it's culture more times the anyone cares to count and there have been immigrants and what not, but not on the scale of what the Americas experienced.

[Someone With Mass]

Wow. The Russians are painting Astrid Lindgren as a Nazi in their internal propaganda. Just when you think that they can't be more pathetic, Putin finds a way.

Please explain this for us haughty Anglophones.

Astrid Lingren was a famous author of children's books like Pippi Longstockings and was/is in the top 20 of the world's most translated authors. She's had a children hospital, museum and even a satellite named after her. The UNESCO archives that were created to preserve humanity's heritage are also storing her original manuscripts.

I used to listen to tapes of her narrating her stories when I was a child and for the Russians to have the fucking audacity to even insinuate that she was something as vile as a Nazi (which would be odd, considering how she received the international Right Livelihood Award in 1994 for her commitment to non-violent justice and equality for children, animals and minorities) makes me think that they deserve everything they're getting.

Along with Ingmar Bergman, who was a producer and screenwriter (he made The Seventh Seal among other classics) and I can't say that I followed his work that much, since it was before my time and I don't have as much of an interest of film history.

It's just disgusting that they're feeding their population such pig shit.

Then again, it's not that surprising, considering that they're insinuating that they don't have any noteworthy accomplishments of their own that they can be proud of. That isn't warmongering.

[Vol]

Sure.

I'd make a macabre joke about "clumps of cells," blood of martyrs, and hyper-individualism, but I honestly don't have the comedy in me right now. Needless to say, as polls have shown most Americans have only a vague symbolic understanding of the Roe ruling, it'll take a little while before we all realize abortions will still be legal and prolific in most states.

Denmark on the other hand is a country that has been around for over a 1000 years and changed it's culture more times the anyone cares to count and there have been immigrants and what not, but not on the scale of what the Americas experienced.

That is the difference between a melting pot and smashing the pot all over the kitchen. A "melting pot" preserves the original intent of the soup, the people and beliefs of a country in this case, which is literally what "conservative" should mean. Conserve what the Founders created, and try to understand what they intended and how to achieve it. That is the minimum common belief that Americans should have, but we don't.

Thankfully, Denmark is not as huge a target for internal subversion as America, so I hope you Danes learn something from what happens to us. Because it sounds lovely over there.

Then again, it's not that surprising, considering that they're insinuating that they don't have any noteworthy accomplishments of their own that they can be proud of. That isn't warmongering.

That makes no sense. It would be like saying Judy Blume was a Communist. What is the logical connection between a decorated children's author who did humanitarian work and Nazis?

[Someone With Mass]

That makes no sense. It would be like saying Judy Blume was a Communist. What is the logical connection between a decorated children's author who did humanitarian work and Nazis?

They also went after the founder of IKEA.

If I were to go with the easy route, I'd say that they're trying to paint us as Nazis so it's easier to justify military actions against us to the Russian people, since we're once again considering joining NATO because of what they themselves have done, but their mental gymnastics knows no bounds.

I'd be willing to bet that they don't even think about what they're doing. They just hear "Nazis" and immediately enter cave man mode.

[Sinekein]

I'd make a macabre joke about "clumps of cells," blood of martyrs, and hyper-individualism, but I honestly don't have the comedy in me right now. Needless to say, as polls have shown most Americans have only a vague symbolic understanding of the Roe ruling, it'll take a little while before we all realize abortions will still be legal and prolific in most states.

Oh but do tell your jokes, please, I'm listening. I love right-wing comedy. It's always so funny and not at all laughing at instead of with.

And as we all know, it's clearly the women wealthy enough to travel to another state where abortion is legal who will suffer the most, right? There's no way a woman could, I don't know, become pregnant from rape or incest in a state like Texas or Oklahoma, and have absolutely no other way to get an abortion than a coat hanger. It's obvious rape victims always come from privileged backgrounds and never have any monetary issues.

Yeah, how hyper-individualistic it is for a woman not to want to raise a child born from rape. So selfish. With aaaaaaaall the monetary help the US grants to struggling parents too! Truly a welfare paradise that country.

If your stance on that matter is to repeat "hyper-individualism" or "comfort abortions" like a dumb boomer, I think I'll just let you enjoy that travel back to the Middle Ages, because you fucking deserve it.

By the way, here is a world map regarding abortion rights:



Congratulations to the USA to joining the "countries everybody wants to live in" club, alongside Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Mali, Sudan, Eritrea or Yemen!

[TTTX]

[
That is the difference between a melting pot and smashing the pot all over the kitchen. A "melting pot" preserves the original intent of the soup, the people and beliefs of a country in this case, which is literally what "conservative" should mean. Conserve what the Founders created, and try to understand what they intended and how to achieve it. That is the minimum common belief that Americans should have, but we don't.

Thankfully, Denmark is not as huge a target for internal subversion as America, so I hope you Danes learn something from what happens to us. Because it sounds lovely over there.

well things have changed a lot since the founders made America, hell the USA have changed a lot in the last 100 years or so, I mean the american democrat's were original more like the american republican's of today about a 100 years ago.

well we did have some discussions with the whole refuge crisis as middel eastern muslims have a very different culture to us and it created well tensions and what not.

[Vol]

They also went after the founder of IKEA.

If I were to go with the easy route, I'd say that they're trying to paint us as Nazis so it's easier to justify military actions against us to the Russian people, since we're once again considering joining NATO because of what they themselves have done, but their mental gymnastics knows no bounds.

I'd be willing to bet that they don't even think about what they're doing. They just hear "Nazis" and immediately enter cave man mode.

Oh, okay, now it makes sense. We do that too, using "Nazi" as shorthand for "this person is very bad and nothing they ever said matters." It's very stupid, and it annoys me a lot, but the western world is stuck in the post-WW2 cultural time loop.

I can't tell how much of Russia's bluster is real or not anymore. It doesn't seem like they can back up any threats with force, if our puppet state is turning the proxy war into an attrition battle. But I also suspect Ukrainian people are going to be a bit more likely to fight this hard than, say, the inhabitants of the state of New Jersey. I suppose that I can't tell if Russia is incompetent or serious means their strategy is effective, in a way.

well things have changed a lot since the founders made America, hell the USA have changed a lot in the last 100 years or so, I mean the american democrat's were original more like the american republican's of today about a 100 years ago.

well we did have some discussions with the whole refuge crisis as middel eastern muslims have a very different culture to us and it created well tensions and what not.

The Republicans today are more progressive than the Democrats of 12 years ago, in fact. The change since the 60s in particular has been very fast, and very destructive. The sad part is that it's only going to be obvious when the real problems start.

The house I was working on all last week, the owner had Fox News on all day, every day. The massive amounts of illegal aliens constantly swarming into the country was talked about often. At not point did any of the hosts, or any of their guests, suggest we should stop the immigration. They only talked about making it more orderly, reducing it, but never a word about stopping it. As if the idea never occurred to them you could have a country where millions of people didn't walk in and suckle the teat of prosperity. It was weird to consider that Fox News is considered "far right" by a lot of Americans, and it had no cultural preservation instinct at all.

How did that work out? I've heard Sweden has major problems in certain cities, all major British cities are now minority British, so on and so forth, but Europe still remains very homogeneous within borders. Nothing about Denmark makes the news here though.

Congratulations to the USA to joining the "countries everybody wants to live in" club, alongside Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Mali, Sudan, Eritrea or Yemen!

I'm going to guess the map is saying, from red to green, "Almost none, in case of health risk, if they're poor, on demand," which are the standard breakpoints.

By the time this all works out, the ruling is given, states pass their laws, and we have many, many protests, nobody is going to be happy with the final results. Which is the best America can do, and better than average lately. That Congress has never, and will never, pass a federal law to address the issue, hence the SCOTUS taking the law into their own hands with Roe, impugns their existence.

[TTTX]

The Republicans today are more progressive than the Democrats of 12 years ago, in fact. The change since the 60s in particular has been very fast, and very destructive. The sad part is that it's only going to be obvious when the real problems start.

The house I was working on all last week, the owner had Fox News on all day, every day. The massive amounts of illegal aliens constantly swarming into the country was talked about often. At not point did any of the hosts, or any of their guests, suggest we should stop the immigration. They only talked about making it more orderly, reducing it, but never a word about stopping it. As if the idea never occurred to them you could have a country where millions of people didn't walk in and suckle the teat of prosperity. It was weird to consider that Fox News is considered "far right" by a lot of Americans, and it had no cultural preservation instinct at all.

How did that work out? I've heard Sweden has major problems in certain cities, all major British cities are now minority British, so on and so forth, but Europe still remains very homogeneous within borders. Nothing about Denmark makes the news here though.

well it is hard to perserve something, when american culture can be about a lot of things.
not to mention the world is having a bit of birthing crisis, with the whole not enough people are having enough kids to maintain the current population which is means not enough people replace the current work force, army and whatnot. that is going to be a big problem for us, on the other hand it might lead to bigger pay raises and more jobs in the future so it might work itself out.

for the most part it has worked out fine, there is still some problems with integration, which isn't surprising the older generation of muslims are more conservatives then the newer ones who grew up here. I think we have had more problems with our current prime minister then we ever had with the muslims.
On the other hand I haven't been keeping much eye on danish politics these last few years as my mental health have been not the greatest as my life is slowly falling apart (as the last of my family basically have a foot in the grave at this point) and I have to first time in my life have to live more for myself then my family and basically start my own future (and hopefully my own family someday), that does scare me a bit.

[Vol]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2UnUxmz_Jw&t=1s

Never watched one of these before. The speech itself is pretty identical to our State of the Unions, could be verbatim if you switched some nouns, but with more gravitas. The ritual and tradition are important after all. I take it that Charles there giving the speech is a bad sign for the queen's health.

[Mazder]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2UnUxmz_Jw&t=1s

Never watched one of these before. The speech itself is pretty identical to our State of the Unions, could be verbatim if you switched some nouns, but with more gravitas. The ritual and tradition are important after all. I take it that Charles there giving the speech is a bad sign for the queen's health.

Yeah, and royalists are mad he did it, which gives signs of the popularity of the Royals after Elizabeth's death, which is good or bad depending on your stance.
I think the Queen has a few more years left, if that, but they're not golden ones. After Phillip died she's really taken a turn for the worse, grief can apparently do that to ya.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

As far as the whole Roe vs Wade thing;
Yeah when stuff isn't codified into actual law and left to precedence or tradition then things like this are always going to happen.

In the long term the hard lines will remain as they have, left leaning states will have abortions, right leaning ones will not.
As for the reasons why to/to not have them in the first place, if it's a moral reason then you have to show how your version gives the least suffering per person. IMO pro-Abortion has less suffering in a practical sense.
In the case of rape, incest and trauma that would kill both mother and foetus it should 100% be allowed and legally accessible.
In the case of it being a contraceptive I have misgivings past the 24 week period, but before that I place it down to a lifestyle choice and should be allowed with advice given. I would prefer other forms of contraceptives were used, but the morning after pill/other abortive methods are fine so long as they're safe.

Until we can 100% prove life, at any stage other than "can survive outside the womb with assistance" (which IIRC is around 21-24 weeks) then it should be a reasonable assumption to be able to terminate that pregnancy and a woman should have the right to terminate if she is able to process the ramifications for herself.

Any other reason, religious or not, should not come into the equation and should not be the basis for this law. It is a law protecting a woman's rights to her own body and what happens in it.
If she wants to grow a parasite inside, or a baby inside, it's her choice and should remain so, and should be her right.

But this is also a problem with the USA's "rights" being whatever 17th century Christians thought they should be and not what they should actually be in this modern age.


EDIT:

[Vol]

well it is hard to perserve something, when american culture can be about a lot of things.

I've heard that a lot, my entire life, and I never could accept it. Now, I think it's because "American culture" _is_ a finite set of things, a set of principles and traditions that it has to be, and very little of that is present anymore. Or more simply, "America isn't American."

On the other hand I haven't been keeping much eye on danish politics these last few years as my mental health have been not the greatest as my life is slowly falling apart (as the last of my family basically have a foot in the grave at this point) and I have to first time in my life have to live more for myself then my family and basically start my own future (and hopefully my own family someday), that does scare me a bit.

A very common response. Hear from many people that the future seems very bad, and it is hard to care about petty political slapfights when much scarier things look to be coming. My ideal would be to somehow make enough money to set up a homestead, a small farm somewhere nobody would think to go, with enough like-minded people to eke out a decent living. A wife that could put up with my nonsense would be wonderful too, as well as a bunch of kids. But I don't expect any of that to ever happen either.

Yeah, and royalists are mad he did it, which gives signs of the popularity of the Royals after Elizabeth's death, which is good or bad depending on your stance.

Is there a distinction between the people who follow the royals like celebrities and people who literally want the monarchy to return to power?

As far as the whole Roe vs Wade thing;
Yeah when stuff isn't codified into actual law and left to precedence or tradition then things like this are always going to happen.

The question is ultimately about personhood. No one is saying women don't have autonomy over their bodies, except in the particular case where nature has obliged them to carry babies. There is no scientific answer on when personhood occurs, because it is a fundamentally philosophical question, all science can tell us is that a zygote is as much a human as a fetus as an infant as a toddler as any state of human life, any criteria about heartbeat, pain, brain function, birth, are arbitrary and symbolic. So it is up to our leaders to define "personhood" according to the will of the people and the principles of the country, and they have consistently failed to do so, even today in particular. They don't know, we don't know, so I err on the side of utmost caution when it comes to defining a living thing as "not a person," because the history of defining who is or isn't a person is unpleasant.

As for the reasons why to/to not have them in the first place, if it's a moral reason then you have to show how your version gives the least suffering per person. IMO pro-Abortion has less suffering in a practical sense.

Pro-abortion has less suffering in the personal economic sense. Physically, a person who is born and lives their life will experience more suffering than one who never does, but we'd all agree that isn't quite in the spirit of what is meant here.

Until we can 100% prove life, at any stage other than "can survive outside the womb with assistance" (which IIRC is around 21-24 weeks) then it should be a reasonable assumption to be able to terminate that pregnancy and a woman should have the right to terminate if she is able to process the ramifications for herself.

Can you see why "surviving with assistance" as a criteria for being a human being, endowed with human rights, makes for a complicated case?

But this is also a problem with the USA's "rights" being whatever 17th century Christians thought they should be and not what they should actually be in this modern age.

That is a fair critique, however, the corollary is that in a purely secular sense, there is no justification for "rights" or "personhood" to begin with. They are arbitrary labels for arbitrary concepts that semi-furred great apes invented for some vague evolutionary social benefit. You need to dance with the devil if you want to keep "rights" as we all understand them. Since there is no biological basis for any of that, and the philosophical one would inevitably reduce to, "Whatever the most people in an area are saying," then we're defaulted into the actual outcome of repealing Roe anyway. It would be subjectively true in Kentucky that fetuses have human rights, and subjectively true in Illinois that they're parasitic clumps of cells, and neither could ever be right or wrong.

[TTTX]

I've heard that a lot, my entire life, and I never could accept it. Now, I think it's because "American culture" _is_ a finite set of things, a set of principles and traditions that it has to be, and very little of that is present anymore. Or more simply, "America isn't American."

the question is then what is American?

A very common response. Hear from many people that the future seems very bad, and it is hard to care about petty political slapfights when much scarier things look to be coming. My ideal would be to somehow make enough money to set up a homestead, a small farm somewhere nobody would think to go, with enough like-minded people to eke out a decent living. A wife that could put up with my nonsense would be wonderful too, as well as a bunch of kids. But I don't expect any of that to ever happen either.

it is a problem, but the our society is going through something (not sure what) so that probably explains the political unrest, the 20th century also had problems at the start, but they were mostly overcome by the 2 world wars as people just wanted peace and quiet and there hasn't been any major wars (the cold war wasn't a war in a traditional sense) since then and the cold ended like over 30 years ago, there isn't anything really driving people towards something (we haven't started colonizing space yet, although the first colony should pop up in like what in a decade or 2 if Elon Musk is to be believed).

[Mazder]

Is there a distinction between the people who follow the royals like celebrities and people who literally want the monarchy to return to power?

Yeah.
One is less annoying than the other.
Both put way too much importance on the royals though.
Now I'll meme all day on the Rule Britannia, Queen and Country, etc stuff but honestly the Parliament and the Lords hold all the real power in the nation, if the Royals go then the House of Lords will either stay in a new fashion or be gone and all the lawmaking is done by Parliament. But seeing as the Lords in recent days have been vetoing some stuff I find myself on the fence if they should go or not.

The question is ultimately about personhood. No one is saying women don't have autonomy over their bodies, except in the particular case where nature has obliged them to carry babies. There is no scientific answer on when personhood occurs, because it is a fundamentally philosophical question, all science can tell us is that a zygote is as much a human as a fetus as an infant as a toddler as any state of human life, any criteria about heartbeat, pain, brain function, birth, are arbitrary and symbolic. So it is up to our leaders to define "personhood" according to the will of the people and the principles of the country, and they have consistently failed to do so, even today in particular. They don't know, we don't know, so I err on the side of utmost caution when it comes to defining a living thing as "not a person," because the history of defining who is or isn't a person is unpleasant.

As far as personhood goes it would deem to be which personhood's wishes do you take, the one growing or the one being grown.
Potentials aside, until the foetus (yes I will keep using UK spelling for it) is shown to be semi-conscious (brain waves/sufficient brain/body development), or has the ability to survive outside the womb without the basic assistance the womb provides then the mother's wishes must be upheld first as it's her personhood being altered.
I grant that until there are rules set in stone/law on when a foetus becomes a baby, and therefor a person, there will always be an air of unpleasantness around the subject. And until then I will always be on the side of "until it passes the point where the foetus can survive outside the womb with assistance that replicates the environment/growth the womb would provide the foetus is able to be terminated/removed form the mother at her request".

Pro-abortion has less suffering in the personal economic sense. Physically, a person who is born and lives their life will experience more suffering than one who never does, but we'd all agree that isn't quite in the spirit of what is meant here.

Nah, obviously. Life is full of potentials, as is death.
A baby born into a poor home with 5 extra kids may become the person who cures cancer, a baby born to a rich family may become a mass murdering psychopath.

Can you see why "surviving with assistance" as a criteria for being a human being, endowed with human rights, makes for a complicated case?

Yes, I would amend it to be "can survive outside the womb without assistance that replicates/simulates the environment of the womb to stimulate growth to full term".
Now if cloning is ever invented and viable/cost effective to provide the proper care for a foetus without the mother and can be removed and birthed 100% outside a female body then it gets even more difficult with implications.
Especially on the side of providing the ability to keep a population balanced.

That is a fair critique, however, the corollary is that in a purely secular sense, there is no justification for "rights" or "personhood" to begin with. They are arbitrary labels for arbitrary concepts that semi-furred great apes invented for some vague evolutionary social benefit. You need to dance with the devil if you want to keep "rights" as we all understand them. Since there is no biological basis for any of that, and the philosophical one would inevitably reduce to, "Whatever the most people in an area are saying," then we're defaulted into the actual outcome of repealing Roe anyway. It would be subjectively true in Kentucky that fetuses have human rights, and subjectively true in Illinois that they're parasitic clumps of cells, and neither could ever be right or wrong.

I mean there is the rule of law, which is put to vote and ratified into the legal documents of the land. That is justification on something is allowed as a right or not.
The USA, for example, does not hold the right to medical assistance being a fundamental human right, but many nations of Europe do, and their society reflects as such.
There are social reasons for human rights, even ones sought through religious means. Hell, sometimes it's because of religious ones being bad that we want to make certain rights codified into law. Fair representation and fair trial are probably because we don't want to live by "an eye for an eye" any longer.

The main problem is that unless it's actually codified then it is all just about opinion by area. If both sides of the aisle take it as a given because of precedence then it takes until moments like this where we need to realize that things like this need to be actual laws/rights.

If a state wishes to use a justification for such laws though I do think that if their reasons are religious then at a personal level we should ignore it until the religion has been proven absolutely true for all. Otherwise it's all made up bullshit to ignore when it is and isn't safe to remove what is essentially, a growth. But that's my personal opinion and I am not advocating for applying it to the USA.

[Someone With Mass]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3kVR9M-Tgg&ab_channel=SkyNews

[Vol]

the question is then what is American?

By modern standards? Anything, and therefore nothing. It's a meaningless term. By the standard I'm using, philosophically liberal, reverent of founding fathers and documents, strong supporter of minimal government, and part of a cultural chain that was only broken after WW2.

...there isn't anything really driving people towards something...

What would that even be? Nationalism is taboo, so it can't be for country. "Mankind" is extremely vague, but great men have done great things for it. Family, community, they are being diluted by economic/cultural atomization (In America).

---

As far as personhood goes it would deem to be which personhood's wishes do you take, the one growing or the one being grown.

Right, that's the central point of contention. It creates a paradox to assert that a person's rights matter, and then at the same time violate a person's right to live. So for abortion to be justifiable, morally or legally, it is necessary to assert that a child in-utero is not a person until some point in development.

It's like the silly hypothetical, "What if you woke up and found out you'd had a dying man surgically connected to your heart, would you have the surgeons undo it and let him die?" That would of _course_ be murder, even if through no fault of the one being asked.

Yes, I would amend it to be "can survive outside the womb without assistance that replicates/simulates the environment of the womb to stimulate growth to full term".

And why that criteria at all? It's symbolically meaningful, I fully agree, but I'm curious as to the reasoning. Why not an hour after that point? Or when the liver is fully grown. When all fingers/toes are distinct. When it burps. Those are all valid criteria too, no?

I mean there is the rule of law, which is put to vote and ratified into the legal documents of the land. That is justification on something is allowed as a right or not.
The USA, for example, does not hold the right to medical assistance being a fundamental human right, but many nations of Europe do, and their society reflects as such.

Exactly right. No one really talks about it, because we're a dying country and all, but the Constitution is not equipped to grant a "right" that comes only from another persons' labor. It comes out seeming callous and primitive, granted. Obviously the government wiggles and stretches what they can do to inch towards that, but they're limited insomuch as the law matters.

Fair representation and fair trial are probably because we don't want to live by "an eye for an eye" any longer.

Fun fact: "Eye for an eye," as understood by the ancient Jews in the OT, wasn't purely literal. The idea was that the magnitude of repayment needed to be equivalent to that. Hence why in the OT, you have specific sentencing for specific crimes that are not identical to the crime. And then sometimes it was, like with murder. But even back then, they had rudimentary trials, rights, codified law. Not remotely fair by our standards, but our standards aren't remotely fair either.

---
@SWM: Hearing more Russian saber rattling today. At NATO, at Scandinavia, everyone. Meanwhile, the US Pravda is crowing about how Russia is totally a dead country, Putin's totally going to be removed, the west will role in and colonize it (reading between the lines) so it can never threaten the hegemon again.

It's like being on a plane, seated between two fucking lunatics, who're trying to stab each other with spoons. It's miserable and bloody and nobody benefits.

[TTTX]

By modern standards? Anything, and therefore nothing. It's a meaningless term. By the standard I'm using, philosophically liberal, reverent of founding fathers and documents, strong supporter of minimal government, and part of a cultural chain that was only broken after WW2.

sounds about right.

What would that even be? Nationalism is taboo, so it can't be for country. "Mankind" is extremely vague, but great men have done great things for it. Family, community, they are being diluted by economic/cultural atomization (In America).

hard to say (predicting the future is close to impossible, but you can at best make good guesses of where thing would go), once we start colonizing space that will become a driving force, people love the adventure if nothing else or just to make a better life for themselves part of the reason why people came to America was because the old world sucked, so they went to the new one in the hopes of a better life.

[Someone With Mass]

@SWM: Hearing more Russian saber rattling today. At NATO, at Scandinavia, everyone. Meanwhile, the US Pravda is crowing about how Russia is totally a dead country, Putin's totally going to be removed, the west will role in and colonize it (reading between the lines) so it can never threaten the hegemon again.

It's like being on a plane, seated between two fucking lunatics, who're trying to stab each other with spoons. It's miserable and bloody and nobody benefits.

Yeah, I wish that all these senile boomers would just do the world a favor and quietly die so that people with realistic worldviews and actual intelligence can do some productive work instead.

[Sinekein]

Yeah let's use the golden mean fallacy here. Clearly Russia and the US are equally to blame in what is happening to Ukraine, and pretending otherwise is only being a gung-ho hawk.

What reason would Sweden, a country whose territorial waters are being visited almost constantly by Russian submarines, have for wanting some allies? I mean, Russia, is not the agressive sort, I don't know where you could get that idea. It's clearly just a plot to wage more war and buy more weapons.

/facepalm

[TTTX]

@SWM: Hearing more Russian saber rattling today. At NATO, at Scandinavia, everyone. Meanwhile, the US Pravda is crowing about how Russia is totally a dead country, Putin's totally going to be removed, the west will role in and colonize it (reading between the lines) so it can never threaten the hegemon again.

It's like being on a plane, seated between two fucking lunatics, who're trying to stab each other with spoons. It's miserable and bloody and nobody benefits.

The US is really dumb if they think the west are just going to role in Russia and take over, they still have nukes and Russia is a very big country.

The US have tried that serval times before (with other countries) and it has never worked, it has only ever backfire and made things worse them before.

[Someone With Mass]

Well, the lead political party in Sweden (democrats for those who care) is in full support of us joining NATO, so there's that.

[Mazder]

Right, that's the central point of contention. It creates a paradox to assert that a person's rights matter, and then at the same time violate a person's right to live. So for abortion to be justifiable, morally or legally, it is necessary to assert that a child in-utero is not a person until some point in development.

It's like the silly hypothetical, "What if you woke up and found out you'd had a dying man surgically connected to your heart, would you have the surgeons undo it and let him die?" That would of _course_ be murder, even if through no fault of the one being asked.

Well according to any law in the USA no-one actually has the legal right to life so...I guess that problem is solved? /jk
Yeah the Declaration of Independence makes a mention of it but more in the sense of "we should be able to do what we want so fuck you we're out" kind of way. And it's not like it's binding like the Constitution is.

An, yes, the development was set to 21-24 weeks. That's been the measure where the foetus crosses the boundaries to becoming more human-like from a visual perspective and has the necessary function to be able to survive if birthed at that time with assistance of an incubator. That's when it's a child in utero, before that it's a foetus.

And yes, 100% I would cut those ties. I wasn't asked, so my consent was not given so it's tantamount to mutilating my body and I have a right to have anything as such fixed. I withhold that right for any person.
But that doesn't hold true for all allegorical example we could apply to a pregnancy.

And why that criteria at all? It's symbolically meaningful, I fully agree, but I'm curious as to the reasoning. Why not an hour after that point? Or when the liver is fully grown. When all fingers/toes are distinct. When it burps. Those are all valid criteria too, no?

Hours/days are a broad measurement for it, but seeing as for the longest time we've had that system in place as a rough estimate for development (as every body grows slightly differently) it's a decent estimate to be used.
If you're asking if it's a case of "someone got delayed to their allotted abortion slot because, say, the hospital staff were busy and the time rolled over to an hour past midnight, should it be allowed?" then I'd say, yes. They had the time and appointment set.
If not then honestly it's up to the medical professional to submit a request for special circumstances. But seeing as the american system works off insurance rather than care, no company would ever try to break the law that way.

No, I wouldn't class those individual characteristics as valid.
Parasites have appendages.
A liver is just one organ.
A burp is an act of reflex and passing of gasses.

I'm not a medical professional so I choose one of the most easily recognisable cut off point the medical community has to go off of right now.
If the foetus can not survive, even in an incubator with the best intentions, it's not a baby.

Exactly right. No one really talks about it, because we're a dying country and all, but the Constitution is not equipped to grant a "right" that comes only from another persons' labor. It comes out seeming callous and primitive, granted. Obviously the government wiggles and stretches what they can do to inch towards that, but they're limited insomuch as the law matters.

You're not a dying country.
Fucking one of the 2 global superpowers and he thinks it's a dying country.
It's just changing to something you're not familiar with.
Almost as if the Constitution is an antiquated document that needs updating or something. Or maybe shouldn't be the be all and end all of your thoughts on what rights are.
Also everything comes off someone else's labour. The very air you breathe being not all fucking toxic smog is the labour of the environment protection agencies, the government and the medical profession. Are you gonna start paying for air now? It doesn't come out as being callous it comes out as being fucking retarded. In America land of the "free" you're not guaranteed the feedoms to be kept healthy by the laws of the land.
Yet loads of not free nations do.
And TBH that part of your nation should die. It's a stupid way of existing and you'd roll over china if you gave up half of your ego.

Fun fact: "Eye for an eye," as understood by the ancient Jews in the OT, wasn't purely literal. The idea was that the magnitude of repayment needed to be equivalent to that. Hence why in the OT, you have specific sentencing for specific crimes that are not identical to the crime. And then sometimes it was, like with murder. But even back then, they had rudimentary trials, rights, codified law. Not remotely fair by our standards, but our standards aren't remotely fair either.

So basically revenge, lol.
At least with today you can try to contest it in some cases.
Plus things not being fair is kinda the way the US has run for...well ever. So has the UK ya learned it from us.

@SWM: Hearing more Russian saber rattling today. At NATO, at Scandinavia, everyone. Meanwhile, the US Pravda is crowing about how Russia is totally a dead country, Putin's totally going to be removed, the west will role in and colonize it (reading between the lines) so it can never threaten the hegemon again.

It's like being on a plane, seated between two fucking lunatics, who're trying to stab each other with spoons. It's miserable and bloody and nobody benefits.

Yeah, nah.
The west isn't going to roll into Russia if putin dies. It'll be a slow laborious peace talks process, they might slowly westernize over time but that's like, in 50 years if they get that bad of an agreement with us.

TBH the whole problem has been the fact that since the Soviet Union fell and Putin came into power the country has failed to actually be a success, falling back on the nuclear problem time and time again to solve it's fledgling existence.
Largest nation on earth by landmass, has the economy of, at best, Canada equivalents. It's right by Europe that are westernizing fast and instead of changing with them they tried to double down and now find themselves well on the losing side both economically and culturally.

I really hope that Russia doesn't get balkanized because that's just repeating the same mess.

[Someone With Mass]

Putin said today in a statement that Sweden and Finland joining NATO won't be a threat to Russia. Luckily, I found an Idiot-To-English translator and it says "we don't have the resources to open up another military front, otherwise we would. We are working hard at finding alternative ways of being warmongering fuckbuckets."

[Mazder]

So apparently of those to vote against a bill to help mothers access to a program that will get more baby formula during a shortage are all republicans.
All pro lifers.
They are;
Andy Biggs (Arizona), Lauren Boebert (Colorado), Matt Gaetz (Florida), Louie Gohmert (Texas), Paul Gosar (Arizona), Marjorie Taylor Greene (Georgia), Clay Higgins (Louisiana), Thomas Massie (Kentucky) and Chip Roy (Texas).

Reminds me what George Carlin says in this clip;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHRaUUlD00w&ab_channel=FewLaughs

But honestly I do find it fucking strange how they object to it on an economic ground yet can't justify how their actions are going to make more american mothers poorer, and american babies go hungrier. Unless they're doing this to target the non-american babies, in which case it's very much on brand for them.

[Vol]

hard to say (predicting the future is close to impossible, but you can at best make good guesses of where thing would go), once we start colonizing space that will become a driving force, people love the adventure if nothing else or just to make a better life for themselves part of the reason why people came to America was because the old world sucked, so they went to the new one in the hopes of a better life.

That's touching on what brings together a lot of my dislike of the post-modern world. When we dream about space, such as in Mass Effect, we are aspiring to something greater and better, but also a living culture. Eden Prime is a very obvious metaphor for this, which is why it works as the first level. Modern culture and space exploration are anathema, oil and water.

Yeah let's use the golden mean fallacy here. Clearly Russia and the US are equally to blame in what is happening to Ukraine, and pretending otherwise is only being a gung-ho hawk.

Are you appealing to a higher moral standard than minimizing war/suffering?

Putin said today in a statement that Sweden and Finland joining NATO won't be a threat to Russia. Luckily, I found an Idiot-To-English translator and it says "we don't have the resources to open up another military front, otherwise we would. We are working hard at finding alternative ways of being warmongering fuckbuckets."

In the same day, I'll read articles claiming Ukraine will take Russian land, Putin has multiple different fatal illnesses, NATO (America) has to make up for all the defense contractor spending we stopped in the Middle East by dumping trillions into Ukraine, and then the exact opposite. Every day. Whatever is actually happening over there, it seems likely that Russia isn't capable of a multiple front war like the old days, but the sanctions are hurting the west more than them, and this proxy war is in part a way to punish the serfs.

But honestly I do find it fucking strange how they object to it on an economic ground yet can't justify how their actions are going to make more american mothers poorer, and american babies go hungrier. Unless they're doing this to target the non-american babies, in which case it's very much on brand for them.

What was the literal text of the bill?

[TTTX]

That's touching on what brings together a lot of my dislike of the post-modern world. When we dream about space, such as in Mass Effect, we are aspiring to something greater and better, but also a living culture. Eden Prime is a very obvious metaphor for this, which is why it works as the first level. Modern culture and space exploration are anathema, oil and water.

yeah, however there will be a lot of trials and set backs in the beginning and obviously a lot of rule breaking (as well... there aren't a lot of laws regarding what happens in space, so that will be a whole other giant issue to be tackled) as major companies will have major competition with each other for like mining in space and probably other unsafe things that is going to be terrible to well experience for the future colonist.

it is nice to dream of a better tomorrow, but reality is that once we start colonizing space well it is just going to open the door for a lot of different problems some of them will be familiar (like the colonies of the old world rebelled and wanted to do their own thing will most likely happen again), others will be new (like what effects the lower gravity of mars will have on human biology, etc.)

[Sinekein]

Yeah let's use the golden mean fallacy here. Clearly Russia and the US are equally to blame in what is happening to Ukraine, and pretending otherwise is only being a gung-ho hawk.

Are you appealing to a higher moral standard than minimizing war/suffering?

Well, no. But in that case, one side is actually causing the war, while the other isn't.

That's like blaming the friend who hands a pepper spray to a rape victim. "Think of the suffering that spray could cause! If she'd just opened up her legs and thought of England, she wouldn't need it."

[Mazder]

What was the literal text of the bill?

Well without all the legal speak/jargon from what I can gather it's basically saying "using a certain amount of money not currently used in the budget we'll set aside for the acquisition of baby formula ending this fiscal year (so september 2022).

This is the only link I could find for any actual text, all the rest is new articles talking about it.

I still just find it amazing how on one hand these politicians against it are spouting how much they care for the babies, want the babies to live, feel a foetus is a fully formed baby at every stage, but yet when it comes to making sure that during a shortage poor mothers can get formula for their babies to keep them alive they're all like "pfffttt, nope".
That stupid little club of republicans is pulling down it's whole party, and the party wasn't that great to begin with.

[Mazder]

Well, no. But in that case, one side is actually causing the war, while the other isn't.

That's like blaming the friend who hands a pepper spray to a rape victim. "Think of the suffering that spray could cause! If she'd just opened up her legs and thought of England, she wouldn't need it."

If she did think of England right now she'd shut her legs right the fuck back up again.
England's fucked right now, to put it bluntly and kinda on "point".

[Someone With Mass]

In the same day, I'll read articles claiming Ukraine will take Russian land, Putin has multiple different fatal illnesses, NATO (America) has to make up for all the defense contractor spending we stopped in the Middle East by dumping trillions into Ukraine, and then the exact opposite. Every day. Whatever is actually happening over there, it seems likely that Russia isn't capable of a multiple front war like the old days, but the sanctions are hurting the west more than them, and this proxy war is in part a way to punish the serfs.

I also saw this in a video a few days back.



With a pinch of salt, naturally. At this point, I think it's a little bit of a sunk cost fallacy for Russia.

[Vol]

yeah, however there will be a lot of trials and set backs in the beginning and obviously a lot of rule breaking (as well... there aren't a lot of laws regarding what happens in space, so that will be a whole other giant issue to be tackled) as major companies will have major competition with each other for like mining in space and probably other unsafe things that is going to be terrible to well experience for the future colonist.

What rules could there possibly be? They have to be enforceable to mean anything. As soon as a self-sufficient colony exists, the rules of whoever sent them there means only as much as the colonists care to listen.

I think that's a big part of why shows like Outlaw Star, sci-fi in general, are so much fun. The perverts in government can't possibly monitor and control everyone in space. It's a wild frontier that literally cannot be tamed. Unless you rely on Mass Relays I guess.

Well, no. But in that case, one side is actually causing the war, while the other isn't.

That's like blaming the friend who hands a pepper spray to a rape victim. "Think of the suffering that spray could cause! If she'd just opened up her legs and thought of England, she wouldn't need it."

I would be more worried that pepper-spraying a rapist would make them significantly more violent, so a gun would be better, but I get your point.

So we all agree that despite any other provocations, Russia escalated to war and invaded thus they're morally in the wrong. Do you believe we all have an ontological duty to resist "bad"?

This is the only link I could find for any actual text, all the rest is new articles talking about it.

Huh. That does seem like all it does, as far as that shows. Then I don't know why they'd oppose it. Either because midterms are coming up, and they want to oppose everything for their campaigns, or they're pretending to care about the budget still. Obviously the bill itself would utterly fail to do anything close to what's written there, that little amount of money would be lost in the leech swarm long before hungry children get fed. But you're not supposed to vote against feel-good bills regardless.

With a pinch of salt, naturally. At this point, I think it's a little bit of a sunk cost fallacy for Russia.

You'd have to be trusting beyond trusting to believe what the Ukrainian government is saying, about anything ever, but you're probably right. That and they got the corridor to the sea, yes? Figure they might settle for what they have, but need to grind it out and get a lot of people killed before egos allow people to sue for peace.

[Someone With Mass]

You'd have to be trusting beyond trusting to believe what the Ukrainian government is saying, about anything ever, but you're probably right. That and they got the corridor to the sea, yes? Figure they might settle for what they have, but need to grind it out and get a lot of people killed before egos allow people to sue for peace.

So far, Zelensky has said that Ukraine won't give up any territories, so there's definitely a sense of ego there.

I've also heard that one of the Russian diplomats who quit because of the war said that Putin and his goons are so deep into fighting to maintain the power they have and that they don't care how many lives they have to toss into the meat grinder to do it. That and he said that Putin's palace and yachts are tasteless and pompous, so he'll probably have to spend the rest of his life trying to avoid assassinations.

But more and more Russians are waking up to the regressive atrocities that their leaders are committing for no good reason, so that's a silver lining, I guess.

[Mazder]

Huh. That does seem like all it does, as far as that shows. Then I don't know why they'd oppose it. Either because midterms are coming up, and they want to oppose everything for their campaigns, or they're pretending to care about the budget still. Obviously the bill itself would utterly fail to do anything close to what's written there, that little amount of money would be lost in the leech swarm long before hungry children get fed. But you're not supposed to vote against feel-good bills regardless.

Well seeing it's the MTG club, and they're basically the "anti-Biden club no matter what", I guess it's just them being the opposite despite them literally asking for this exact solution during the shortage discussions (from what I hear).
Yeah, it just makes it look like that in practice these pro-life christians are bad at being either with their behaviour.
But TBH both parties in the USA are kinda fucked from their previous branding so who knows.

[TTTX]

What rules could there possibly be? They have to be enforceable to mean anything. As soon as a self-sufficient colony exists, the rules of whoever sent them there means only as much as the colonists care to listen.

I think that's a big part of why shows like Outlaw Star, sci-fi in general, are so much fun. The perverts in government can't possibly monitor and control everyone in space. It's a wild frontier that literally cannot be tamed. Unless you rely on Mass Relays I guess.

basically having the colonists being treated as little more the slave labor, most of the colonization process will be funded by big business (at least in the beginning) because of all the resources there are to get in space and well we have already seen what happens when a company only cares about the bottom line, here on earth, so I would imagine it will get even worse in space (not to mention corruption will probably also be even worse).

well that is assuming we don't invent tech that makes space travel even easier then it is now (which is very unlikely, BTW.).
Jules Verne wrote a book about going to the moon, that was considered fiction and would never happen, about a century later after the book came out we got to the moon.