In that case consequences should be equivalent in size to my actions which were to type words and the only reasonable consequence would be a discussion; unless I'm preceeding a crime, which would be a threat, which itself is a crime.
Also, I didn't even offend him in any way so I don't see sense in him talking about consequences as if I said some absurdity about someone.
Yes, I'm responsible for my actions and I should see the consequences if they're equivalent to what I did. But what does it have to do with all this?
Also, dropping "your actions have consequences" and refusing to explain further doesn't explain much about what you wanted to say so I don't understand how you expected me to understand a text without any meaning or connection to the discussion.
First half is saying tolerance to the intolerant causes intolerance while the second half is saying intolerance to the intolerant causes intolerance. It is a writing error, I wasn't talking about the idea itself despite I disagreeing with it.
It is not less valuable but the way it was created was against the individual rights of the mother.
I agree abortion laws are about trade-offs as I showed in my example and that's why abortion shouldn't be legal in the cases I stated. Abortion shouldn't be legal for anyone cause, if it was in a consensual relationship, the mother assumed the risk of pregnancy.
The only lives that are less valuable are those which deliberately risk or take way the others' lives.
Mind you, the second half of the text is wrong (like unironically and objectively, despite I agreeing with the second half, contradicts the first half.
You talk like I can answer you before you've posted the text. Also, you saying I can't criticize an instance for their decisions for whatever reason is still quite of criticizing (despite making no sense but okay).
Also, there's no general agreement or scientific pointing of where life and consciousness is started on a fetus so, if the government job is to conserve the life of a individual, a fetus life still matters and shouldn't be taken by neither the parents or anyone else.
Brazil (ironically enough) has a good constitution about about abortion where's it is strictly prohibited unless some cases apply like: the baby has developed no brain, the baby has originated from a sexual assault case or the process of giving birth or the pregnancy itself represents a risk of death for the mother. It is simple, states that life's have the same values as well as showing the individual rights matter.
Private doesn't means the privacy in this case just a formal formatting. If they were not discussing in a publicly available chat then it is already considered private by the definition but yeah, 99% true.
Probably WhatsApp but even if it isn't we have to "assume" (certainly they're doing it) that they're are sniffing through every of your WhatsApp messages too.
Yes, that's the part where I said in most part only illegal content and things that prejudice the instance itself like bots and spam overall should be prohibited.
If I should be restricted to not criticize the instance then why are you criticizing me? I'm a smaller unit than the instances so according to you I weren't supposed to be able to be criticized.
Yes, that's what I wanted to say. "Anti-bigotry" turned into a tool for bullies to shut people who don't think the same and, while I know the problem is not exclusively with Mastodon, it's definitely frustrating to go to a place that was supposed to be some kind of refuge for the free people but has the same people from the place you escaped from.
Thanks for being respectful. Also, I'm a right guy but I'm not conservative.
In that case consequences should be equivalent in size to my actions which were to type words and the only reasonable consequence would be a discussion; unless I'm preceeding a crime, which would be a threat, which itself is a crime. Also, I didn't even offend him in any way so I don't see sense in him talking about consequences as if I said some absurdity about someone.