Water touches water and therefore makes it wet
Killing humans who have no nervous system is fine. It’s only immoral if the human is a person
Which opens the debate: when becomes an embryo a person?
Difficult question. And research on that topic would be immoral at least.
Either way, the fetus of a woman who wants an abortion is up her vagina without consent and is therefore a rapist. Deadly force is permissible in the act of removing a rapist from their victim.
An unwanted/planned child is a rapist? You can’t be serious.
It’s not a child. A child is defined as having been born. It’s a fetus. A parasite.
Come on. Have you seen what’s going on on college campuses right now? I’ve heard far less serious things being said with absolute sincerity.
We’re reaching the point where victimhood is the only trait people aspire to achieve.
If it is a person, then yes, it could be considered a rapist, and subject to forcible removal at the mother’s will. If it is not a person, it is merely an unexpected growth, and subject to forcible removal at the mother’s will.
The ridiculousness of the former scenario tells us that, for purposes of deciding whether the mother is entitled to remove it, the fetus should not be considered a person.
I love that bait, hahah. Rape aside, woman had to take into account possibility of a child when she had sex. Same with her partner. Sorry, but that’s the biological reason sex even exists, and denying it because we found good methods of contraception does nothing because even these methods are being advertised as not 100% effective.
So, no victims there other than the poor unborn child.
That “rape aside” is doing a lot of heavy lifitng there and conveniently sweeps away the need to actually address anything that isn’t the “had sex, your fault” narrative you seem to be espousing here.
Especially given that there is little to no effort being given to exemptions of any kind.
Nobody is denying that sex is how babies are (usually) made, i mean apart from the “this book is the literal truth” christians i suppose.
or you’re trolling, in which case, congratulations…i guess.
I slightly do troll - in a sense of presenting fully opposite view to the one provided.
And the"rape aside" is meant to do the heavy lifting. It’s there as a heavy notion that shit happens. Forced sex, rapid health declination, getting too drunk to think logicaly (…although from what I know, then it’s also rape, no? Or I misunderstood), or simply finding out your body can’t handle birth. These are all valid reasons for abortion.
But by all means, consequence of sex is having a child, and people - this is my own fully subjective opinion - seem to be bewildered by this notion. By all means, people always should take into account that sex ends with children without precautions, and still may end with children with, and be responsible about it. Not call a consequence of their actions a parasite.
Not call a consequence of their actions a parasite.
I ate tapeworm larvae for science and got tapeworms in my intestine. So it’s not a parasite?
Ok. So she has been raped.
Is she obligated to report that rape? Is she obligated to accuse someone? Is she obligated to prove she has been raped? Is she obligated to cooperate with an investigation into her rape? Is she obligated to even claim she had been raped?
The answers are “No, No, No, No, and No”. Since she is not and should never be under any sort of obligation to do any of these things, you don’t know and can’t know that she was raped. Yet, by your argument, as a victim, she is entitled to an abortion.
With your philosophy, you could presume that any particular woman seeking an abortion has been raped, and is simply not reporting it for whatever reason. She is entitled to her abortion.
-
I didn’t aim to proclaim “women need to admit to rape to get healthcare”. I countered instead calling fetus a rapist - an actively and wholly out of control of a woman agressor. No, unethical situations aside, both parties knew what consequences are there. No use getting pissed at someone/thing because of your own stupidity.
-
I put rape aside because it wasn’t aimed at discussing this part in depth but…if you want, why not. First of all, women, as you wrote, are not obligated to admit to being a victim of rape. And yes, in the way I described it above, it’s suggested that rape victims are entitled to abortion. However, the mental jump to then switching the logic around that any woman looking for abortion was raped is simply illogical in the same manner that saying only alcoholics buy alcohol is. In the dystopian version of the world where abortion is fully illegal except for unexpected and unethical situations like rape, I think that yes, women would have to admit to being a victim to receive medical help. There’s simply hardly any other way.
However, the mental jump to then switching the logic around that any woman looking for abortion was raped is simply illogical
I agree, but I didn’t say that they were raped. I said you could presume they were raped. You are perfectly capable of making and choosing to make that presumption.
I think that yes, women would have to admit to being a victim to receive medical help. There’s simply hardly any other way.
There most certainly is another way. You are under no obligation to ask. You don’t need to create an obligation for her to tell. Even if you did ask and she did tell, she could have some reason for lying and claiming it was consensual when it actually wasn’t, so you can ignore any answer she gives.
The “other way” is to allow you to presume that she meets whatever criteria you believe necessary to justify and permit abortion. If you need to believe she was raped, presume she was raped. If you need her life to be in danger, go right ahead and presume her life is in danger.
One last point: You are under zero obligation to presume that her sexual encounters were consensual. If you choose to presume consent, I’d like to know your rationale for doing so. And I’d like to know how fairly you will be treating a rape victim seeking an abortion if you presume consent that was not granted.
About presuming she met any criteria: If our aim is to limit unneeded abortions, then this approach is not only invalid, but also damaging. It will work against the target of removing casual abortions while also removing a lot of weight behind act of rape. The second part is dangerous because it could lessen actual amount of help for victims. Also, this means that woman would have to prove she’s a victim - by gaining second opinion, most probably with the help of police, maybe could be done by medical specialist. I’d honestly rather lean onto the other, to remove need for criminal investigation if such is unwanted by victim.
About last point: I choose to presume consent because great majority of children is conceived consensually, and as such this is default, and I’d treat a rape victim as a rape victim, not much to say about that one. Case by case.
-
It’s actually a pretty simple question, and has a simple, straightforward answer. The fetus does not become alive until its survival needs can be feasibly met by someone or something other than the mother. Until it is biologically capable of surviving the death of the mother, it is alive only as a part of the mother’s body.
An infant does require considerable support. It will die if neglected. But, the support an infant requires can be provided by any caregiver. Dad, grandma, or an older sibling can feed an infant. Doctors can provide it with IV nutrition.
Nobody but mom can “feed” an immature fetus.
To you it seems simple, but this is a philosophical question that hasn’t been answered for over a century. You can reason for any point in time to be the point it becomes a person.
I maintain that debating fetal personhood is a huge mistake because it goes down a philosophical road where you can’t clearly define things like when someone feels pain.
There is a much simpler reason to make abortion legal- for the same reason it is not legal to harvest a corpse’s organs without the person’s consent before they die or the reason you can’t be forced to donate a kidney. Being forced to use your organs for someone else’s benefit against your will is illegal in every other situation. Even if it means a human will die without them. That doesn’t matter if it is something that will eventually develop into someone with full human rights or if it has them already. It’s just not relevant. It’s about the rights of the person whose body will be used.
It is mainly a religious argument from people who think I knew you in the womb means something but discard all the other verses in the Bible
Which was entirely made up and pushed through a concerted effort back in the 70s. Goldwater even warned of it.
It was mostly just Catholics who were anti-abortion before the 70s. Then the Baptists discovered it was an issue they could latch onto and others followed.
And it wasn’t just a political reason the Baptists latched on to it. They realized legal abortion meant less white babies because you’re a lot less likely to be able to get one if you’re poor.
Thanks. I havent heard that argument yet.
Most of these people would be okay with harvesting a dead person’s organs so long as they aren’t theirs.
That’s always the issue. https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/
I’d show the fundies a plucked chicken and assert its personhood but I don’t think they’d get the joke.
Wetness it as a property liquid can only give to another thing, not to itself. When water touches water, you simply have more water.
That’s not true
denying it doesn’t change the fact :(
I don’t think water touches water because it’s all water.
Otherwise you touching a person would make you two people, because the skin is touching skin.
Water is H2O. It absolutely touches other H20.
Even then water is only wet sometimes. Extremely cold ice isn’t wet for example. It’s quite dry until you reduce its heat enough for it to become wet again.
Most of water on earth is wet. It’s not a default property though.
Is second one H twenty? Hah!
Even then water is only wet sometimes. Extremely cold ice isn’t wet for example.
Is that water or is it just made of water?
It’s quite dry until you reduce its heat enough for it to become wet again.
Don’t you mean increase?
Yes, yes.
Yes.
Yeah… Neosporin is WAY too weak for this burn. Holy crap hahahahaha
Haloperidol is not strong enough
You know what else kills a human? Forcing them to give birth even if they are not healthy enough to do so.
If you are going to make talking points at least be cohesive.
What happened to Edmund Fitzgerald?
The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down
Of the big lake they call Gitchigumee
The lake it is said never gives up her dead
When the gales of November turn gloomy
Wrecked, 29 died, Lake Superior never gives up her dead
It got wrecked. Because of that fact, many people are calling for the Great Lakes to be nuked.
I have not until now heard of anyone calling for the Great Lakes to be nuked but I kinda support it. Where do I sign the petition?
Like your mom every Friday night when I come over.
That’s the kind of shit Donald Trump would say.
It was one of the robert’s evan but not the movie one
What’s that
There’s a podcast called Behind the Bastards, Robert Evans is the host. Podcast about terrible people in history, Evans and guests have left wing politics and “crude” humor…it’s awesome
It’s a ship, there’s a whole song about it
Haven’t heard of it
While the music style is not everyone’s cup of tea is an excellent example of a ballad and I think it’s a fun song And well done.
Relevant xkcd
Nice.
Twitter formatting sucks ass.
Reading order:
4 2 1 3
What ? No, it’s 3 2 4 1
If you’re talking chronological that is
I don’t understand
-
if you assign a number 1-4 from top to bottom, reading order is then the indices 3, 2, 1, 4
-
alternatively, if you assign 4, 2, 1, 3 to each element top to bottom, reading order is then 1, 2, 3, 4
different algorithms, same result. i had chatgpt help me out with some fancy ass notation for those interested:
Instructions unclear, dick caught in semi-colon.
-
This diagram helps to show that you and Hadriscus agree on the order of the posts, but not on how to describe it. That’s pretty interesting to me.
- 4, 2, 1, 3 – labeling the posts from top to bottom with which order they should then be read. So the first post is read forth, the second post is read second, etc.)
- 3, 2, 4, 1 – listing the order that the posts should be read if they were understood to be labelled in 1-4 top-down. So we should read the third post first, the second post second, forth post third, …
Exactly haha, they are both arguing the same point because they used different numbering scheme!
The fact that neither can agree on how to describe it yet agreeing on what is so wrong in the first place is just an additional data point on how stupid Twitter numbering is. I find that fascinating.
hhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnn
You’re right
The fact that we have gotten this confused is all the evidence I need to change how this works.
Simplest solution is to change the layout from:
- Profile
- Attachments /screenshots / replies
- Text
To
- Attachments /screenshots / replies
- Text
- Profile
The formatting on Twitter is what kept me from using it.
Or is it 3 2 4 1
I wish Lake Superior would empregnate me.
lake junior
Why would you wish that
Cuz I’m so wet.
Imagine getting murdered by one of the great lakes and it doesn’t involve drowning. 💀
Many people actually die of Cold Shock/hypothermia before drowning!
https://www.wdio.com/weather-news/not-just-the-waves-the-dangerous-cold-of-lake-superior/
Well played. Now let’s have the fundy tell us how water covered the earth and drowned everybody but then the world was repopulated. Wait… is there some incest required for that to be true? OH NO!
A little incest, a little beastiality; but who’s counting? I guess not the ones who believe that… because, ya know… they can’t count.
BOOM! WHAT A BURN! FUCKING NAILED IT WITH THAT SCORCHER!
Noah is a Babylonian “deluge myth”. Judaism didn’t even exist until 1,000 years later:
It tells of how Enki, speaking through a reed wall,[v] warns the hero Atra-Hasis (‘extremely wise’) of Enlil’s plan to destroy mankind by flood, telling the hero to dismantle his house (perhaps to provide a construction site) and build a boat to escape
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atra-Hasis
The worship of Yahweh alone began at the earliest with prophet Elijah in the 9th century BCE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahwism
This means that originally the flood was caused by one god and mankind was saved by another. That’s a better explanation than “God was angry but bipolar, so he saved one family and killed everyone else.”
I see that I have failed at being funny. I’ll try to be better next time
Lolz I laughed and upvoted u
Look, I don’t agree with the rest of the statement either, but tell me, what is the water touching? Oh, more water? Water is wet.
When water touches water you get more water, not wet water
thats because water is already wet 😂
Water can’t be wet. Wetness is a property that water gives to something else.
like water
Not at all
id argue its the same as saying fire isnt hot, just whatever fire touches becomes hot
And you would be wrong. That is called the Association fallacy.
Fire is not a liquid.
Tru fax
It threw me at first too. Helps to think of it as wetness being an interaction between a liquid and solid. Water makes things wet, it isn’t itself wet.
So only solids can be wet?
Wetting is a rather complex topic. Basically, yes.
Not all solids can be wetted. Wax, for example: water beads up on a waxed surface; it does not actually wet the surface.
Not all “wetting” involves water. Soldering and brazing involve “wetting” base materials with a molten filler metal. Dripping molten metal on the base material does not necessarily “wet” it either: the molten filler can “bead” just like water on wax. When it solidifies, the filler metal is not bonded to the unwetted base metal.
You’d have to ask a physicist. I would be surprised if you couldn’t make other liquids “wet”. The solid analogy helps with conceptualising an interface, one material on another. I suppose you could make water wet, by freezing a block and then splashing said block with water but that doesn’t equate to it being wet itself, if that makes sense.
wet containing moisture or volatile components
Water is wet. The fact that this is an argument is ridiculous.
This describes very specifically how water makes other things wet. Nowhere, does it describe water making itself wet, because it can’t. Wetness is a property that water can only give to other things, not to itself.
moisture wetness caused by water
water is wet. water contains moisture, because water is moisture.
Or you can go the chemical route, which is so eloquently put by Professor Richard Saykally:
they’d say, “Strong tetrahedral hydrogen bonding!” But that’s the correct answer. That’s what makes water wet.
https://gizmodo.com/what-makes-water-wet-1713082349
Or if you’re more into videos you can watch an entire lecture on it. https://vimeo.com/11854837
Because water is fucking wet.
I see where you’re mistaken: water isn’t wet, it just makes things wet.
Lol literally arguing with a chemist who’s only job was studying water. Yeah I can see where you’re mistaken. Thinking you’re smarter than the professionals.
I see where you’re mistaken: water isn’t wet, it just makes things wet.
Something something are these nuts fitton in you face…
Since the latter doesn’t follow from the former, refuting the first point doesn’t automatically refute the second. Nice try, Lake Superior, but you might want to brush up on formal logic.
What order of events was this conversation?? I never could get into tumblr/Twitter reply format I’m so confused. Who shot first
Sometimes it goes backwards. Next they are going to post everything sideways and the dates will be encoded in a base 12 abacus representation of the Vietnamese calendar.
The timestamps should be a big clue. 3d, 1d, 9h, and the tweet at the top has no timestamp but from context it should be obvious that came last.
This is useful but to be candid I’m not looking at memes for intellectual stimulation so it’s more effort than I’d like.
The red numbers show it chronologically. Twitter has replies and quote retweets. This began with the purple quote retweet. To which Lake Superior responded. Then in green I think this is a quote retweet (or more likely a screenshot) of the exchange. (I don’t think you can quote multiple posts so I think it’s a screenshot.)
The tweet at the top has the rest of them attached as a screenshot which does make it a bit confusing.
Lake Superior’s tweet (the “innermost” one) came first. Tom quote-retweeted it. Lake superior replied to Tom’s tweet. Ron took a screenshot of the whole exchange and posted it as his own tweet.
it’s 3241 but you made me realized how chronically online i am for knowing this intuitively without needing to be told or think about it
so, thanks 😅
I’m just glad I’m not the only one who wants to read from top to bottom like a fucking normal person.
I just want to roll the whole internet back by about 20 years.
He can’t even get the order right. The phrase is “[thing] and also water is wet.”
The gales of November came early this year.
Well, both were wrong about one thing.
