gotdamn

You know what else kills a human? Forcing them to give birth even if they are not healthy enough to do so.

If you are going to make talking points at least be cohesive.

Twitter formatting sucks ass.

Reading order:

4th (first post)

2nd (second post down)

1st (third post down)

3rd (last post)

What ? No, it's 3 2 4 1
If you're talking chronological that is
- I don’t understand
Or is it 3 2 4 1
The formatting on Twitter is what kept me from using it.

Apparently, water also burns

As someone that has experience pouring boiling hot pasta water over my feet I can confirm that it indeed burns.

What order of events was this conversation?? I never could get into tumblr/Twitter reply format I'm so confused. Who shot first

The timestamps should be a big clue. 3d, 1d, 9h, and the tweet at the top has no timestamp but from context it should be obvious that came last.
- This is useful but to be candid I'm not looking at memes for intellectual stimulation so it's more effort than I'd like.
I'm just glad I'm not the only one who wants to read from top to bottom like a fucking normal person.
I just want to roll the whole internet back by about 20 years.
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.)
it’s 3241 but you made me realized how chronically online i am for knowing this intuitively without needing to be told or think about it
so, thanks 😅
I think it goes:
Quoted tweet > Tom > Lake Superior reply > OP

What happened to Edmund Fitzgerald?

It's a ship, there's a whole song about it
- Haven't heard of it
The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down
Of the big lake they call Gitchigumee
The lake it is said never gives up her dead
When the gales of November turn gloomy
It got wrecked. Because of that fact, many people are calling for the Great Lakes to be nuked.
- I have not until now heard of anyone calling for the Great Lakes to be nuked but I kinda support it. Where do I sign the petition?
- That's the kind of shit Donald Trump would say.
  Edit: in case there's any confusion I mean the string literal in the comment above.
- Like your mom every Friday night when I come over.
Wrecked, 29 died, Lake Superior never gives up her dead
https://youtu.be/9vST6hVRj2A
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Edmund_Fitzgerald

Imagine getting murdered by one of the great lakes and it doesn't involve drowning. 💀

Many people actually die of Cold Shock/hypothermia before drowning!
https://www.wdio.com/weather-news/not-just-the-waves-the-dangerous-cold-of-lake-superior/

Water touches water and therefore makes it wet

Killing humans who have no nervous system is fine. It's only immoral if the human is 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.
- Most of these people would be okay with harvesting a dead person's organs so long as they aren't theirs.
- I'd show the fundies a plucked chicken and assert its personhood but I don't think they'd get the joke.
- It is mainly a religious argument from people who think I knew you in the womb means something but discard all the other verses in the Bible
- Thanks. I havent heard that argument yet.
- Tbf, I think organ donation should be opt-out, and you should be ineligible to receive any organ or tissue (including blood).
- That's not true
Which opens the debate: when becomes an embryo a person?
Difficult question. And research on that topic would be immoral at least.
- 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.
  Nobody but mom can "feed" an immature fetus.
- 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.
I don't think water touches water because it's all water.
Otherwise you touching a person would make you two people, because the skin is touching skin.
- Water is H2O. It absolutely touches other H20.
  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.

I wish Lake Superior would empregnate me.

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!

A little incest, a little beastiality; but who's counting? I guess not the ones who believe that... because, ya know... they can't count.
BOOM! WHAT A BURN! FUCKING NAILED IT WITH THAT SCORCHER!
- 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
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atra-Hasis
  The worship of Yahweh alone began at the earliest with prophet Elijah in the 9th century BCE
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahwism
  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."
He's into that too. Don't you worry

Yeah.... Neosporin is WAY too weak for this burn. Holy crap hahahahaha

Haloperidol is not strong enough
- The antipsychotics?

He can't even get the order right. The phrase is "[thing] and also water is wet."

The gales of November came early this year.

Something something are these nuts fitton in you face...

Water is wet because people think water is wet.

Water is wet when touching water

Well, both were wrong about one thing.

Look, I don't agree with the rest of the statement either, but tell me, what is the water touching? Oh, more water? Water is wet.

When water touches water you get more water, not wet water
- thats because water is already wet 😂
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.
- So only solids can be wet?
- wet containing moisture or volatile components
  Water is wet. The fact that this is an argument is ridiculous.
Tru fax

Since the latter doesn’t follow from the former, refuting the first point doesn’t automatically refute the second. Nice try, Lake Superior, but you might want to brush up on formal logic.