There we go

[San Goku]

We are in the Matrix killa, just have to figure out how to get out.

[Haohmaru]

https://www.ign.com/articles/the-matrix ... ons-review

@DM Liar! If it gets a 4 from ign it must be all sorts of bad.

[Digital Masta]

https://www.ign.com/articles/the-matrix ... ons-review

@DM Liar! If it gets a 4 from ign it must be all sorts of bad.

I said it was fine. Meaning not particularly good or bad just fine. Not particularly memorable either. I guess meh would be a better word. It was meh.

[Digital Masta]

By "human" I probably should have used "person." It's human DNA, but I don't consider it a person.

Quick question, what in our universe is human but not a person? Are there people that don't have human DNA?

You cannot be human and not a person. That doesn't work.

A fetus, if we're defining "a human" as "has human DNA." That definition is problematic overall, but I don't mind handwaving it.

The phrase "he came back a different person" is probably an easy way of encapsulating what I'm talking about, though the line itself wouldn't be relevant to any point I attempted to make. It's not necessarily entirely biological. Early identical twin fetuses are exactly the same. Identical twin children are not.

There is a stage in human life where you cease being a parasitic lump of cells and can become a biologically independent organism. I'm OK drawing the line there. We allow people to make life or death decisions for their dependents when those dependents are incapable of making those decisions themselves. I'm OK with the assumption that unborn life wants to live - once that life is capable of having wants.

And so we come to my original thought. We just end up talking in circles.

[Haohmaru]

That's the thing about certain important topics. You're not a kid anymore.
Your point of view was formed after years and years of life experience and your own intellect.
Like DM said. I don't even waste my time convincing other people (as in not family or important friends) otherwise.
You'll end up in talking in circles like you said.

[xandorxerxes]

Note - this is long, but it's not actually debating/arguing with you guys. I do think Haoh's reasoning here is precarious - points of view can be innocuously wrong, but wrong points of view can also be reinforced to dangerous levels (thanks Facebook). Even ingrained opinions should be challenged if the stakes are high enough. Letting grandpa make racist comments at the table is one thing if you just hope he dies soon, things like abortion are a bit more life and death (/rimshot). This is especially true when we vote on people who will drive the country into the ground based on an issue.

That's the thing about certain important topics. You're not a kid anymore.
Your point of view was formed after years and years of life experience and your own intellect.
Like DM said. I don't even waste my time convincing other people (as in not family or important friends) otherwise.
You'll end up in talking in circles like you said.

And so we come to my original thought. We just end up talking in circles.

I don't think we're going around in circles per se (much more convoluted shape), but I do hope y'all better understand what I was trying to define. Amusingly Haoh pretty much hit what I was going for with the "was formed after years of life experiences" - an early fetus isn't developed enough to have experiences it can remember, let alone learn from them (thus the twins comment).

You guys treat anything with human DNA that may potentially become a child as human life, with all human rights. That's fine. I don't think it should have rights until it's capable of being a child (even with assistance). Whatever, that's fine too. There's nothing out there that says one is objectively more right than the other in that sense at this time.

The problem is that this is where abortion is debated, but it's not where abortion should be debated. The debate should happen at the level of the law itself. Are medical conversations and decisions between you and your doctor privileged or can the state intervene when it doesn't like something? If the answer is yes they are privileged (mine is, obviously) then you support the result of Griswold. If you support the result of Griswold, then you agree with the basis of Roe - so you have to justify why the state can suddenly intervene in this particular decision. The Justices provided the guideline of when the state has a valid interest.

1) At what point is the legal question of the state's interest met? Does the state have an interest in something that has a high chance of being miscarried? What is that interest? If the state already has too many foster children and the would-be mother doesn't want the child, is it actually in the state's interest to abort instead of carrying the baby to term? Foster children have MUCH higher rates of being arrested or being homeless. If it's in the state's interest to carry the fetus to term, is it not also in the state's interest to ensure that those babies are well taken care of (the old "if we force people to have babies, why do we not pay for social services to take care of those babies" question)?

2) Parents are allowed to do really stupid things that can cause their child impairment for the rest of their life. Should we revoke those rights? What if a parent can't support a child/their children well enough, what is their crime and what should their punishment be? When should we not punish those things?

3) If it's illegal to abort as soon as sperm and egg meet, is plan B an abortion? Should plan B be illegal? Is birth control that prevents a fertilized egg from sticking to the uterine walls an abortion, because it forces what we recognize as having rights to die? What about medications that can cause a miscarriage - what percent risk is acceptable?

4) We are allowed to defend ourselves if we are being actively harmed or are afraid of being actively harmed. A pregnancy actively harms a woman. Where is the threshold where she is no longer defending herself?

I'm not asking you guys to answer these here - but these are all considerations that people need to have answers for in order to have a fully coherent viewpoint. "Life begins at conception" or "abortion is wrong overturn Roe" is much too simple a stance to take, and has implications that impact many more things. Each of those points above are other facets of law or major areas that could be impacted. If we want to minimize impact we have to identify precisely what is wrong with Roe and change that as minimally as we can in order to get it right.

Other rant - Biden's approval for things like "jobs" and "economy" are down. Trump got a lot of shellacking for loss of jobs during COVID too. I get that people hate politicians when it's the other party but can we at least get consistent hate for the dumb shit they do instead of things that are actually not their fault? Trump fucked up the pandemic response HARD but it's not like he caused the damn thing. Worldwide inflation is high - it's what happens when a bunch of people want to buy stuff after not buying stuff for a year+. I really, really hate these misdirections.

[Haohmaru]

Note - this is long, but it's not actually debating/arguing with you guys. I do think Haoh's reasoning here is precarious - points of view can be innocuously wrong, but wrong points of view can also be reinforced to dangerous levels (thanks Facebook). Even ingrained opinions should be challenged if the stakes are high enough. Letting grandpa make racist comments at the table is one thing if you just hope he dies soon, things like abortion are a bit more life and death (/rimshot). This is especially true when we vote on people who will drive the country into the ground based on an issue.

That's why I said intellect and experience. I'm no idiot and I have plenty of life experience.
You're not talking to some redneck racist unschooled stay at home his whole life I watch the news so I think I know it all ignorant person.
You have your views on this and I have mine. If this was a debatable topic I would definitely participate. I have my own believes in this and you have yours.

[killacross]

I've learned nothing
Walking with Ms Thickums to her desk. She wore leggings to work today. She dropped something and bent over to pick it up. I looked at her ass. Her leggings went completely see thru.

We got to her desk...so I whispered it to her ear [not trying to be sexy...trying to be discreet]. She blushed to her hairline.

I don't know why that turns me on so....

[Haohmaru]

I only see this ending one way..

[killacross]

how's that?

....and fuck you all for not telling me this!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKxxfnhyNRM

[San Goku]

I've learned nothing
Walking with Ms Thickums to her desk. She wore leggings to work today. She dropped something and bent over to pick it up. I looked at her ass. Her leggings went completely see thru.

We got to her desk...so I whispered it to her ear [not trying to be sexy...trying to be discreet]. She blushed to her hairline.

I don't know why that turns me on so....

LoL man ninja

I only see this ending one way..

LOL!!!!!

[Digital Masta]

Note - this is long, but it's not actually debating/arguing with you guys. I do think Haoh's reasoning here is precarious - points of view can be innocuously wrong, but wrong points of view can also be reinforced to dangerous levels (thanks Facebook). Even ingrained opinions should be challenged if the stakes are high enough. Letting grandpa make racist comments at the table is one thing if you just hope he dies soon, things like abortion are a bit more life and death (/rimshot). This is especially true when we vote on people who will drive the country into the ground based on an issue.

That's the thing about certain important topics. You're not a kid anymore.
Your point of view was formed after years and years of life experience and your own intellect.
Like DM said. I don't even waste my time convincing other people (as in not family or important friends) otherwise.
You'll end up in talking in circles like you said.

And so we come to my original thought. We just end up talking in circles.

I don't think we're going around in circles per se (much more convoluted shape), but I do hope y'all better understand what I was trying to define. Amusingly Haoh pretty much hit what I was going for with the "was formed after years of life experiences" - an early fetus isn't developed enough to have experiences it can remember, let alone learn from them (thus the twins comment).

You guys treat anything with human DNA that may potentially become a child as human life, with all human rights. That's fine. I don't think it should have rights until it's capable of being a child (even with assistance). Whatever, that's fine too. There's nothing out there that says one is objectively more right than the other in that sense at this time.

The problem is that this is where abortion is debated, but it's not where abortion should be debated. The debate should happen at the level of the law itself. Are medical conversations and decisions between you and your doctor privileged or can the state intervene when it doesn't like something? If the answer is yes they are privileged (mine is, obviously) then you support the result of Griswold. If you support the result of Griswold, then you agree with the basis of Roe - so you have to justify why the state can suddenly intervene in this particular decision. The Justices provided the guideline of when the state has a valid interest.

1) At what point is the legal question of the state's interest met? Does the state have an interest in something that has a high chance of being miscarried? What is that interest? If the state already has too many foster children and the would-be mother doesn't want the child, is it actually in the state's interest to abort instead of carrying the baby to term? Foster children have MUCH higher rates of being arrested or being homeless. If it's in the state's interest to carry the fetus to term, is it not also in the state's interest to ensure that those babies are well taken care of (the old "if we force people to have babies, why do we not pay for social services to take care of those babies" question)?

2) Parents are allowed to do really stupid things that can cause their child impairment for the rest of their life. Should we revoke those rights? What if a parent can't support a child/their children well enough, what is their crime and what should their punishment be? When should we not punish those things?

3) If it's illegal to abort as soon as sperm and egg meet, is plan B an abortion? Should plan B be illegal? Is birth control that prevents a fertilized egg from sticking to the uterine walls an abortion, because it forces what we recognize as having rights to die? What about medications that can cause a miscarriage - what percent risk is acceptable?

4) We are allowed to defend ourselves if we are being actively harmed or are afraid of being actively harmed. A pregnancy actively harms a woman. Where is the threshold where she is no longer defending herself?

I'm not asking you guys to answer these here - but these are all considerations that people need to have answers for in order to have a fully coherent viewpoint. "Life begins at conception" or "abortion is wrong overturn Roe" is much too simple a stance to take, and has implications that impact many more things. Each of those points above are other facets of law or major areas that could be impacted. If we want to minimize impact we have to identify precisely what is wrong with Roe and change that as minimally as we can in order to get it right.

Other rant - Biden's approval for things like "jobs" and "economy" are down. Trump got a lot of shellacking for loss of jobs during COVID too. I get that people hate politicians when it's the other party but can we at least get consistent hate for the dumb shit they do instead of things that are actually not their fault? Trump fucked up the pandemic response HARD but it's not like he caused the damn thing. Worldwide inflation is high - it's what happens when a bunch of people want to buy stuff after not buying stuff for a year+. I really, really hate these misdirections.

I understand your position as that's where I came before I changed my opinion after doing some soul searching.

1)Well, as you know I'm Mr. "The State Is illegitimate" but if I were the state, I'd say that you'd probably have an interest once population levels dip below replacement rates and continue to do so for an extended period of time. In terms of the state, you need taxpayers and the government Ponzi scheme...the house of cards can't sustain itself without a healthy new dose of bodies to steal from/enslave to debt. Most developed nations are significantly under replacement rates. I mean you can always open the borders to people making babies at incredible rates BUT typically large swaths of those people aren't exactly compatible with your culture which may result in some serious problems down the line.

2)You're right and it's messed up but they still aren't allowed to just kill their kids.

3) That is minutia and a distraction. We're talking about abortion, meaning it's clear you're pregnant and know you are pregnant. When you take Plan B it's right after, you don't even know if you got pregnant, to begin with. You don't take Plan B 6 weeks later.

4) You're better than this. (Joe Biden voice) Come on, man! (/end voice). We're allowed to defend ourselves against outside aggression, pregnancy isn't outside aggression. It's the process in which life is created in mammals. It's not an active attack on a woman. It's not aggression when you punch me in the face first. I didn't ask to be punched in the face just like the fetus didn't ask to be created but now that it is created it's doing what it's supposed to do.

Yes, fetuses require resources from their mother, but it isn't an attack, that's why women have wombs. They are designed for that process to happen. Sometimes shit happens and something goes wrong but in general, women's bodies are not only built for but actively support that "attack". But children are "attacks" on your resources because that is the nature of children, they are gigantic resource hogs., they have no choice, they have to be..until they are capable of taking care of themselves.

Again, that's similar to my boxing analogy. It's not aggression to get my ass beat/possibly die when I agree to a boxing match. My opponent doesn't go to prison for assault or murder as long as he followed the rules (and typically fetuses are following the "rules" of the process of birth). I know going into the match that there is a possibility I'm gonna get destroyed and/or killed. I also know that if I do this for long enough I risk serious physical and mental damage later in life.

Women don't just randomly fall on top of penises and "end up" pregnant. They chose to have sex (agree to a boxing match) knowing full well that despite all the protection (training for the boxing match) there is still a chance of pregnancy (get my face beaten in or killed). They know damn well that the horizontal mambo results in mammalian pregnancy.

Another analogy. It's like handcuffing yourself to a person in a coma, destroying the key, and then saying that you want to cut off their arm and kill them so that you can be free again. Why the hell did you handcuff yourself to the coma patient in the first place? But what makes it worse is that all the while you know that there is a very high chance that in 9 months this coma patient will wake up and be fine but you still want to kill them. Not to mention the coma patient didn't even ask to be handcuffed to you. They had no idea.

Granted the above analogy doesn't take into account that you wouldn't have to take care of the coma patient after they wake up because they aren't your child. Although technically you could always give up the child.

Accountability isn't, "Hey let me get an abortion", accountability is "Hey, let me not be in that situation, to begin with."

And yes, in regards to sex I put more of the responsibility on women. When it comes to making sure your family isn't out of the streets I put more responsibility on men. Sure both share some level of responsibility but ladies...we don't get access to the sweet, watery guts unless you say yes. And we definitely can't raw dog it unless you let us.

Hell, I had to recommit myself to making sure I strap up with my girlfriend because now she'll just let me, and then when I'm like, "Nah, I gotta go put one on now!" she'll be like "NO! 2 more minutes!", and while there hasn't been any scares or anything I'm recommitted to, "NO! NO! NO! YOU WILL NOT TEMPT ME!"


I would like to move on now...

[killacross]

I only see this ending one way..

You need to be saying that to DM

[Digital Masta]

I only see this ending one way..

You need to be saying that to DM

We've all been there.

[Haohmaru]

Hahah speak for yourself

[killacross]

Oh.. Sorry Haoh.

When he says go deeper....

[San Goku]

Oh.. Sorry Haoh.

When he says go deeper....

Edit

Hhmmm I wonder if I can do that yoga stretch

[San Goku]

NEW DOCTOR STRANGE TRAILER: https://youtu.be/Rt_UqUm38BI

Multiverse of Madness

Edit

Apparently Spider-Man is in 3rd place in the world behind Hi, Mom a Chinese comedy, which they say Spider-Man will pass soon. The #1 movie in the world is from China called The Battle at Lake Changjin. It's a military movie where America took the L. I was looking it up and was like oh that makes sense lol. Heard on the radio and thinking what movie could beat Spider-Man right now lol.

[superbob]

3rd coworker this week just tested positive, won't be joining the family for christmas unfortunately

[San Goku]

3rd coworker this week just tested positive, won't be joining the family for christmas unfortunately

Fuck bro that sucks. We were supposed to see some extended family and that got canceled.