And I’d say his defense isn’t the defense he thinks it is. So now what?

Let’s say we could remove a fetus at conception and bring it to term, and it would be able to develop happily and healthily? Are abortions still okay? If so, being able to survive outside the host isn’t changing your stance, just your reasons. If not, then where does the obligation end? Who’s raising this child? Most abortions aren’t removed because the mother feels like she has a parasite, so what are we doing about those reasons? And why do you think those reasons only start once the fetus is viable?

Oh look, a stranger on the internet thinks he knows me!

I’ve been posing here for close to 2 years. Feel free to find one comment where I’ve said someone should not have access to abortions under any circumstances. I think having an abortion is a terrible choice, and the vast majority of people who choose to do so are putting in more thought and emotion than they do in choosing what to wear that day, and contraceptives are a better option if it is an option, but the person having an abortion and their care provider know far more about their circumstances than I do, and they’re in a far better position to make that choice than I am, and I’d rather they be able to have one in a proper facility than some sketchy place or means hidden from the authorities.

And just about none of us can survive alone. Even those who can were trained by others, all the way back to the start. If your threshold is needing someone else to help, where do you draw the line? Conception? 13 weeks? 27 weeks? Birth? Physical disability? Intellectual disability? Anencaphaly? Old age? When do people stop or start being people? What’s your cutoff line? Why?

If you’d gone with, say, the person no longer being obligated to care for the fetus, I would have kept scrolling. Perhaps you were implying that with your magical cutoff, but that cutoff changes all the time. This article puts the survival rate at 26 weeks at 89%, and the term extreme preterm refers to those born at less than 28 weeks. So why not 26 weeks? Why not 28?

My conclusion on your stance, with as much support as you had for your conclusion about mine, is that you picked a point that you feel comfortable with, where the easy answer lies. “Oh, this is when it could survive outside the mother, so she has options other than abortion at that point, so that’s where I’ll stop allowing it. I certainly won’t look at consciousness because then I might have to say it’s okay to kill people for the sake of convenience.” This smacks of the idea that hospitals will allow morphine administration to the point of relieving pain in terminal patients. Sure that might be higher than a fatal overdose in a healthy patient, but we didn’t assist in their death, we just helped with the pain. For the record, I’m perfectly fine with that if the patient wants it, I just don’t need to lie to myself and say the morphine isn’t making them die sooner than they would without it.

Edit: I swear I saw you say 27 weeks. The point still stands.

Earth is the host.

We all need something external to survive. I’m pro-choice, but this is a broken argument. It does segue nicely into a discussion about socialism and communism, though.

So the boycott was pointless, as indicated. I also saw people saying they were going to boycott InBev, and they clearly had an impact for some period of time, along with the Bud Light boycotters, yet here we are. Also, you mentioned InBev, not Bud Light.

InBev stock is up 1.6% over the last year. If you’d bought stocks this January, you would have made about 30% profit.

I enjoyed this comment thread enough for the joke to be worth it imo.

That’s because lawyers are generally pretty smart, and they can tell when they have a sure thing.

It’s more of a problem because it takes fewer idiots to wreck things with FPTP, so the ratio is less important. Even a small amount is a problem.

But, it matters less in a FPTP election than in most other things.

Aww, you made me think of Slashdot!

Again, this is not weird in upper echelon financial strategies. And a quick search with the terms “musk Twitter Tesla collateral” got me a link to this article. You only have to read the first sentence for corroboration. And if you don’t trust an article posted by NASDAQ for information about stocks, I dont think I can do more to help you.

Yeah, I mean, what’s the worst that could happen? looks around

There are good indications that a significant part of the overvaluation was due to Musk hype, so clearly people hating on Musk will have an outsized impact compared to the public faces of other corporations. I’d still say that’s a good reason for the stock to drop. Now, add on massive recalls to the truck designed in Minecraft, and lackluster sales for a variety of reasons (including Musk hate). It’s not a good time to own Tesla.

When your defense is, “Actual Nazis would say you need to work on your Nazi salute if you want to do it right,” you need to realize you’re also saying, “Actual Nazis would recognize this as a poorly done Nazi salute.” And him being an unfit, physically inept fuck doesn’t make it less of a Nazi salute, no more than my hour of playing tennis doesn’t make my attempt at a backhand swing any less of a backhand swing just because Serena Williams would fall on her ass laughing if she saw me do it.

It’s very easy to find an image of a politician, or anyone really in the public eye, doing what appears to be a Nazi salute. Pretty much any gesture that starts with the hand below shoulder level to above head level may well briefly transition between those two that could result in an image that appears to be a Nazi salute from one angle or another. It’s much harder to find video that closely mimics actual videos of Adolf Hitler doing a Nazii salute, even harder to see it happen twice just moments apart.

In a David Attenborough voice…

Some scavengers grow fat from their endeavors due to their skill in locating the best morsels, leaving them beyond challenge in their territory.

You are still showing your lack of understanding of statistics. It requires a large sample size, yes, and the larger it is the more accurate it will be, but the proportion of the total population doesn’t have to be large at all. Margin of error and confidence are both controlled by the absolute sample size (assuming a random sampling). Here’s a link that covers the basics. Most serious polls use a sample size of about 5000. Now, 1000 isn’t terrible, but it isn’t good, but not because it’s such a tiny fraction of the population.

As for the methodology, which is also critical, I don’t know what method for phone surveys is considered adequate, and it is well known that phone surveys are becoming less relevant even if they are more accurate than polls where the respondents are self-selected.

I think you read that wrong.

Individualism and exceptionalism in a society that can’t be supported without the efforts of countless others and subsidized by the poorer living conditions of people who don’t even live there sounds kind of silly to me.

I think the only way I could be associated with Texas is if the association included drunk. Hope you’re doing okay.