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, …
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.
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.
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 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.)
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.
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.
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.
The only “unneeded” abortions are those that are forced on the mother against her will. Every other abortion is “needed”. (We have not previously considered forced abortions in this discussion, and I see no compelling reason to delve into them now. I mention them only in demonstration that the mother’s needs are valid, so the only abortion that is “unneeded” is the one that she has determined to be unneeded: an abortion forced upon her without her consent.)
The second part is dangerous because it could lessen actual amount of help for victims.
The only “help” our hypothetical victim has requested is an abortion, and she hasn’t requested it from you. She has requested it from someone ready, willing, and able to provide that help. Neither she nor that provider want you to be involved at all. She hasn’t asked for your help; she doesn’t want your help. Why are you choosing to involve yourself? What “help” are you going to force on her against her will?
About last point: I choose to presume consent
I’ll stop you right there. The rest of your argument is likely true, but the truthfulness of that second part does not justify the first part. You don’t get to make that “choice”.
The only time it is reasonable to presume consent is when you are actually presuming innocence. Where an individual is accused of committing a crime by acting without consent, presumption of innocence requires us to presume consent until proven otherwise beyond the shadow of a doubt. As our situation does not involve anyone accused of a criminal act, there is no valid justification to presume consent.
#You may never infer consent from silence.
If your personal code of morality only allows you to accept abortion in the case of non-consent, you may presume non-consent. You can satisfy your own morality by accepting the possibility that she was raped, and just doesn’t want to talk about it. You can simply presume she meets your arbitrary criteria; you have no need to actually prove her status to any degree of certainty.
The only “unneeded” abortions are those that are forced on the mother against her will.
Abortion is killing off another human being, so it’s not really that black and white. Also, I agree that forced abortions are, at the very least, unneeded.
The only “help” our hypothetical victim has requested is an abortion, and she hasn’t requested it from you.
What I meant by help is therapy, societal support and the like. If we just presume that every woman wanting abortion is a rape victim, these forms of help would loose support due to lessening the weight of situation.
Why are you choosing to involve yourself?
The only place I chose to involve myself initially was in calling a human being brought into this world through people knowing what they are doing a parasite.
I’ll stop you right there.
It was you who wanted to kniw my rationale. I simply responded.
As our situation does not involve anyone accused of a criminal act, there is no valid justification to presume consent.
Meanwhile, however, you require others to presume that there’s a rape victim. This means there’s criminal act, and thus is a valid justification.
If your personal code of morality only allows you to accept abortion in the case of non-consent, you may presume non-consent. You can satisfy your own morality by accepting the possibility that she was raped, and just doesn’t want to talk about it. You can simply presume she meets your arbitrary criteria; you have no need to actually prove her status to any degree of certainty.
I’ll be honest, only at this point I actually got what you are going for, but sadly, it applies both ways and depends highly on someones morality. While I cannot say in good faith that I would choose life of an unborn baby over it’s mothers health - be it mental or physical - there are people whose moral compas wouldn’t allow to simply accept killing off such child. There are also more reasonable - in ny opinion - people who simply don’t want us to kill off unborns due to the mere convienience.
My point from the get go was, however, to not treat creating a new living being from activity meant for doing just that as a surpise and/or punishment. For people to think about what they are doing, and what consequences may be.
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.
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 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.
Even then water is only wet sometimes. Extremely cold ice isn’t wet for example. It’s quite dry until you reduce increase* its heat enough for it to become wet again.
Most of water on earth is wet. It’s not a default property though.
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 cant make other liquids wet because its already wet by nature. thats just what liquids are. no matter how many times you tell me im wrong, i’ll always know you are wrong
it cant make other liquids wet because its already wet by nature
incorrect. this is the association fallacy-- you cannot prove it is wet other than through fallacy. wetness is only a property it can give to other things, not a property it possesses itself. water can’t be wet simply because it makes something else wet.
therefore, you are wrong.
no matter how many times you tell me im wrong, i’ll always know you are wrong
no its you being a hypocrite, which is why you are wrong
water is wet, and everything you try saying how it “only gives wetness but doesnt have it” just further is proving how water is wet. because everything that touches it becomes wet, besides water, because ita already wet
How disappointing that you’ve turned to anger and accusations, all because you refuse to accept that water is not wet, it merely makes things that touches wet.
actually it is you who can’t wrap your head around the fact that water is wet, and it’s because it makes other things wet. water cant make wet water because water is already wet in the first place
Nope. Water is not wet. It just makes other things wet.
And insulting me by saying I’m “cracking” just because I’ve said the same thing over and over makes no sense. That sounds desperate. So does breaking down into foul language when you don’t get your way…
you are projecting again. not sure what sounds angry in any of my comments
You keep saying that after you do it, along with swearing and name-calling. I recommend that you go outside for a breath of fresh air. The fact that water isn’t wet, but only makes things wet obviously has you infuriated…
Maybe you’d even understand that water isn’t sugar (or fire) while you’re at it!
and you seem to be taking every comment in only the worst possible way imaginable. no anger here, and there hasnt been any name calling. perhaps you made it up? please show me where my comments offended you and i will explain myself clearly, for i do not know what you talk about
Nah, water isn’t wet, it just makes other things wet. It’s unfortunate that this upsets you to the point that you have to make up stories about me and that you have amnesia about the things you’ve said— that you even confuse water with sugar and fire. You must be in quite the twist.
its not ive forgotten but my brain just made my memories get forgotten. but i havent forgotten lets get that straight
and if it is just water, why go through all the trouble of convincing that it isnt wet? feels we are just arguing the meaning of the word wet and not the word that can describe water the best (which is wet)
its not ive forgotten but my brain just made my memories get forgotten. but i havent forgotten lets get that straight
So… you didn’t forget… your brain forgot? lol
And I’m not trying to convince you of anything— I’m just correcting you. It’s you who have been trying all the convincing with your logical fallacies, acting like water is the same as fire or sugar. Then I have to correct you again by informing you that water is not sugar or fire. I’ve had to do that more than once now.
Since you are so confused, I suggest you take a rest. Water isn’t wet. It just makes things wet.
water is wet. because it makes things wet. and you seem to not grasp what a comparison is either. i never said fire or sugar was water i was comparing your logic to something else
and my first point is basically what is being said about water “not being wet” it is yet another comparison, as in i didnt forget my brain made me forget. water isnt wet it just makes things wet. comparison
One again, I must correct you and - apparently - your brain that makes you forget things.
Water is not wet; it just makes things wet. The transitive property of math does not apply to water because water is not math. (Another thing water is not).
You seem increasingly confused, blaming your “brain” for your mistakes. I suggest giving your “brain” a nice rest.
Once again, it’s a false equivalence logical fallacy— neither sugar nor fire are water, and there is no reason to believe they would act like water. Especially considering that water is not wet, it just makes things wet.
This seems to be causing you quite a bit of distress and memory problems. I suggest a rest.
You falsely compared to water to fire and sugar. Water is neither fire nor sugar. Water has none of the properties of fire nor sugar. You are clearly very confused about what water is and what sugar and fire are.
You blamed your “brain” for this. Repeatedly.
May you and your “brain” have a speedy recovery as you ponder how water is not wet, it just makes other things wet.
“Nuh uh!” isn’t a very compelling argument. It seems that you are the one who is out of ideas and whose “brain” keeps forgetting things… weren’t you the one accusing me of projecting? Lol
you just said nuh uh isnt a compelling argument and then just did exactly that LMAO
I see that your “brain” is still confused, since that’s not what happened. But it’s cute that you think it is. Like how you think sugar and fire are water.
But water isn’t wet; it just makes other things wet.
Now your “brain” seems to be hallucinating, since I never made such a claim. This whole this seems to have really upset you. Perhaps you should take a break and consider how water isn’t wet— it just makes other things wet.
i’ve already used the sad remark in a comment, so in your reply moaning about copying you directly copy me. and when did i say you have nothing original to say? never
water is wet. i can tell because i touch it and it is wet
lol, now your imagination is getting a bit carried away— and you can’t even remember the things you said. All because water isn’t wet, it just makes things wet.
im not upset. im just wondering why you are always making things up is all, and why you think water isnt wet because it is obvious water is wet, everything water touches becomes wet so how can it not be wet?
Given your tone, the swearing, the making stuff up, and the frequent problems with your “brain”, you obviously are upset. Just because water isn’t wet, but just makes things wet isn’t cause for all of that.
You keep saying that, yet you’re the only one who uses strong language and had repeated trouble with his “brain”, hallucinating… And just because you can’t read tone in text doesn’t mean others can’t. The amount you’re tormenting yourself over water not being wet, just making other things wet… it’s silly.
You keep saying that, but the only rage and pretend seems to come from your own cheer and projection. Really, I wonder, if it weren’t for the waters (that don’t wet) where would you get you wetting?
No insults, just observations of your “brain” problems that you keep having, the one which keep you from understanding that water isn’t wet, it just makes things wet.
There’s that “brain” getting things wrong again, as you’ve often admitted it does, just like it keeps mistaking water for being wet when it just makes things wet. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
You’re the one who first admitted that your “brain” wasn’t working right, which is obvious since you don’t understand that water isn’t wet, it just makes things wet. Lol
your “brain” is yet again not working. you dont know what a comparison is even after explanation, why would i ever believe you when you say water isnt wet 😂
There your “brain” goes again not working, thinking water is wet when it’s not, just because it makes other things wet. Weren’t you the one accusing me of projecting, lol?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.”
Add comment