TitaniumButterfly
No bio...
User ID: 2854
I still love it (and relevant to here, especially for its representation of AI)
This is one of my least favorite things about it.
Right. I like to ride my bike for fun and exercise, so I have sympathy here, but the reality is that due to entirely-understandable factors having cyclists on the road generates a huge amount of unpredictability, which is one of the worst experiences as a driver and which raises the general level of danger.
People operating motor vehicles need to know what to expect! And with cyclists, one never does. Never mind that because of their combination of maneuverability and vulnerability one must always keep an eye on them, which means that one isn't free to watch the rest of the road nearly as well as one should.
We put up with this as a society because tradeoffs but let's not pretend that cyclists on the road aren't hazardous by nature. To themselves and everyone around them.
One good thing about the potential future absolute surveillance state is that punishment for such behavior would (hopefully) be much more frequent and fine tuned.
Unless it's disproportionately non-whites doing it, in which case that's a non-starter.
RIP sweet BPD princess.
I loved the first four and last three books, it's 5-12 that could be so-so
I thought there were only ten O.O
What a charming hobby.
You'd be amazed. Not by racist fish, but by the pathological need of ~museum curators everywhere to conform to the trend. Pride finds a way.
Didn't care for the first couple chapters, and given how much everyone complains about the series I've never really heard anything good enough about it to bother committing to all that.
"Life being worth living" suggests that there is a person who would appreciate that life.
This is not implied within a non-secular context. Indeed it's pretty commonplace for us that we'll only be able to fully appreciate our lives in retrospect, in the light of our expanded consciousnesses in the resurrection.
Debate is out on whether the nascent brain activity of a fetus counts as a person.
Does the brain activity of someone in deep sleep count as a person? Is there a moral issue with killing them?
Glad you liked it. Simak was so far ahead of his time. Particularly the part where
A few years ago I was up in Seattle on business and found a first edition in fantastic shape at Twice Sold Tales. Very happy with it.
Meanwhile I'm on book 2 of 12 Miles Below. So far it feels not quite as good as the first but definitely willing to give it time. Thanks again for the rec.
Must be; thanks!
Yes, and that's why the status quo lies where it does.
There's a large contingent, maybe even a plurality, that believes that being born from parents who didn't want you sucks
I realize that you're not making this argument here but I've always found it awful. What's worse -- having parents who didn't want you, or literally being dead? The whole concept suggests a broken understanding of life to me; some kind of deep conviction that life is only worth living if it's not too far from ideal (by whatever random standard). Same with the people on reddit who say that if every child can't have their own bedroom that's abuse and it would be better not to have them.
Never mind that a lot of people are waiting in the wings to adopt; never mind the many, many people who have gone on to live great lives despite rough beginnings. Sorry kiddo, you're not going to get this one fairytale thing that I've arbitrarily decided is more important than life itself; down the drain you go!
The question here, really, is whether anti-abortionists are coming from a place of A) wishing punishment upon women for enjoying sex or B) concern for the resulting human lives.
Within this context the question of whether nascent humans should count as humans isn't being begged. It's established that this is the background belief of (almost all) anti-abortionists, which is what matters here.
Claiming that anti-abortionists just want to punish women is a weird sort of disbelief in the foreigner, I think. Indeed it seems to beg the question of whether we really care about the nascent lives involved, and it comes down on the side of 'no'.
No, that's not right at all. We're not against it because we're worried about an afterlife of torment. We're against it because we consider it evil and wrong to kill babies. Indeed the whole concept that it's wrong to kill babies for the sake of convenience would seem to be a Christian one, since infanticide is otherwise a fairly common thing for humans to engage in.
The reason we're not arguing for middle-ground legislation which bans elective abortions but makes exceptions for rape is that there's zero political will on the other side to accept such a compromise, as you pointed out above. The only way to get any kind of restriction is to get enough power to enforce full restriction, so there's simply no game-theoretic reason we'd even try to do anything less.
There's a distinction being made here between getting everything we (anti-abortionists) want and whether we'd be in favor of legislation which achieves some but not all of that. But we would take the proposed deal in a heartbeat for the same reason that the anti-gun crowd will be happy for every incremental erosion even if it doesn't result in a full ban.
I do want an exception for (legit) maternal health concerns -- that's just weighing one life against another as is difficult but appropriate -- but not for rape. The reason is simple: The rape resulted in a human life. If someone was conceived in rape and is now two years old, you can see why killing the child doesn't make sense. The fault is that of the rapist; ending an innocent third-party human life doesn't improve the situation.
The thought of a woman (or girl) having to go through that pregnancy is indeed horrific. This is what makes rape so terrible! In a sense, the rape is not an event at that point so much as an ongoing process. But I think ending an innocent human life is much worse than nine months of pregnancy.
Alternatively, our awareness of that evil. There's a take about the fruit which is that it was meant for us in the fullness of time, but we jumped the gun and became aware of evil long before we were ready for it.
In any event, as you say, it's a consequence, not a punishment.
Out of curiosity how did you find this place? I've never really seen anyone link to us from the outside.
Within this context, no one is attempting to 'punish' people for sexual activities that do not result in the creation of human lives. However, when people choose to engage in the specific versions of those activities which may result in the creation of human lives, our perspective is that they have certain obligations to the resulting human lives and should be held accountable.
And then people are mad as though this person is dodging the correct cosmic punishment for their sins rather than suffering as they deserve. As thought a universal justice with built in punishments for the wicked is being subverted by technological and medication advances.
Frankly your post belies an unhinged, pathological antipathy toward people who believe in human purpose and absolute morality, but I'm not getting much else from it.
Your very best and most charitable framing of your opponents is that they are crying in a womanlike manner?
I think dodging accountability is a childlike and feminine trait, yes.
4 is, IME, where transportation becomes a real problem. Just the sheer logistics of it! And ofc needing a vehicle big enough for everyone, including mammoth car seats.
Probably the age spread makes a significant difference. Having one or two kids old enough to sit in normal seats (or up front) helps. Still situations where a kid is crammed in-between two giant seats.
Yet only this one you take issue with.
You're not arguing in good faith here, having repeatedly attributed stances to me which I did not take and do not hold.
I wonder why.
Say what you mean, coward. Maybe then we can have a real conversation.
They've met twice and don't have a relationship.
Every now and then. A lot of people have urged me to cut off all contact due to the sheer potential radiative damage of her influence but I'm of the mind that on balance it's better for them to know their mom. I'm also making a scary, hopefully-not-prideful bet that they'll be able to look at how her life is going and compare it to our healthy family life and learn the right lesson there.
Don't mind admitting this is one of the most stressful needles I've ever had to thread. The stakes are enormous and there's no clear right answer.
ETA: Since you seem sincerely concerned, I'll note that she never, ever calls to talk to them except sometimes on birthdays. And even after everything that surprises me.
Finished reading this and scrolled away before a little voice inside whispered "That all sounded so normal and obvious that it barely even registered."
Lord, have mercy.
or else they have an accountability problem.
Only if you see pregnancy as a punishment for the crime of having sex they're "unfairly" trying to avoid.
No, I see it as an obvious direct consequence of their decisions. You're the one loading this completely-unobjectionable fact with emotional valence.
Crying that the natural consequence of one's decision is 'punishment' is childlike. And womanlike, I guess. As I said, they seem to have a problem with accountability.
ETA: Also, watch your quotation marks. I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth.
- Prev
- Next
There's freedom from and freedom to. If rampant sexual degeneracy ruins most young people as spouses, the remainder is about as 'free' to behave traditionally as they would be in solitary confinement.
More options
Context Copy link