Yeah they just drop that casually in there in a list of things that we are being heartless for not thinking about. Because the right has been so on top of compassion for Biden’s health.

I was about to agree with you but I reread it. Women is used as well, and the sentence that uses females is about their biology not choice.

Still not accepting the argument about the implication on men’s coding though.

I dunno I’m finding it hard to find it funny. Like a bit if what you’re saying is true and he’s that dumb, but I think he likely egged on some extremists.

I assumed he did do one but not as an an endorsement of Nazis, but as an edgy “this will piss off the libs” kind of thing. Thoughts?

I technically agree with this. If it came down to making laws about this or that, body autonomy takes priority. But I don’t think that should preclude discussion about an individual’s motivation for the modification, and whether it is healthy.

Isn’t the rule of thumb that you can use it for things you can verify? They were able to verify.

Haha this is right in the middle of the spectrum between Comic Sans and Simpsons.

lol I had never seen that trailer but you are so right.

My Mac is supposed to be the safe box too. I keep having to talk myself down from installing Asahi.

Urge to distro hop again…rising…

I think this is a prudent approach and worth following through on, but plenty of intelligent people go bonkers outside of their domains.

Wait did you actually tip it and break it? That’s awesome I want to know this spite story is true.

I laughed so hard at this. Always love getting another take on the absurdity of treating the Bible as immutable knowledge.

It’s the tweet equivalent of comedic timing.

You pick it up by the twine and apply the ol’ hectoNewton metre.

Is this a righty tax since they are forced to buy a higher minimum quantity?

I actually have heard people espouse that view, but I haven’t gone further than that as it’s usually coming from people who don’t really want to debate animal ethics.

It’s technically related since someone might believe that creating life and avoiding death is more important than any amount of suffering. It makes endorsing factory farming and anti-abortion logically consistent. But it’s a technicality because I don’t think people have really thought that hard about it, ergo I agree with you it’s nonsensical.

I thought their first and even second paragraphs are reasonable. They were not advocating for forced abortions or post birth abortions. I’m not clear on your objection.

Also just generally in this thread, I’m seeing the pro life camp being boiled down to “anti choice”. Sure, that isn’t untrue. To restrict abortion rights is to restrict the choices of women. And to put them at medical risk in some cases, and to potentially bring a child into a world of misery.

But if you’re starting from the premise of “it’s hard to say when life starts, we have to pick an arbitrary point, and I pick conception” then it’s logically consistent to call it murder after that point, and it’s reasonable to weigh the abortive rights of women against the morality of murder in that context.

To be clear, I don’t think life-worth-protecting starts at conception. I’m playing devil’s advocate here. I just wish that us in the pro-choice camp acknowledged the problem as not so simple.

I can’t even get past Donald’s statement which is absurd to me. What actually has “intrinsic value [in the] universe” and what difference does it make if my experiences are “intrinsically valuable” or not?

Can you help me understand the image? The turning lane here is foiled by more than two-ish cars, but that’s still better than the one car it would take to block the right turners otherwise.

Can you summarize the gist of it? I keep seeing this claim and it is extremely non-intuitive.

Supposing it’s true, how is it we’ve magically arrived at the optimal number of lanes as of the uttering of the statement?

If it’s a basically linear function where the lowest traffic is near-zero lanes, is there an implication that mass transit would be built in tandem with lane reduction, or does everyone just get more miserable?

Edit: I’ll add that what I’ve heard is that more people choose to drive until the misery-equilibrium is reached. So roads will always be as busy as they are now because they are at their max tolerable level of drivability. That seems plausible for some roads and for some finite number of lanes, but not generally applicable.