Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)AA
Posts
3
Comments
318
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • I completely agree. This is a much better argument to make. For example, I generally concede that abortion = killing, but not murder. In the same way that killing a person is justified (for example, self-defense applies here), sometimes it's justified to have an abortion, even if that is killing a baby. And because it involves such personal, sometimes traumatic territory, that should be between you and your doctor only.

    But that's a different argument than what you began with.

  • You're still missing the point.

    When a person sees abortion as murder, the view of abortion laws is the same as those of murder. If you say "making murder illegal doesn't reduce the number of murders" anyone with any sort of a moral center will say "I don't care, murder should still be illegal." And that's the perspective will not be changed no matter what the murder rates are. That's how the argument gets reduced to "Why have laws?" To them, it's basically saying "It doesn't help enough, so why even draw that line at all?"

    That said, let's look at your proven fact for a moment. I don't believe the data will help, because when you narrow the focus to the US, and look at reaction to legal changes, you see a very clear drastic rise in abortions in the 70's, which didn't begin to fall until the 90's, and it fell at a much slower rate, and is still higher than it was in the 70s. ( source )

    Which makes logical sense, if you increase access to the service, of course more people will be able to use it. At the same time, since Roe vs. Wade was repealed, there have already been multiple news stories showing that the strict abortion laws did prevent some (often medically necessary life-saving) abortions.

    You may say these numbers aren't statistically significant, but to a person who sees abortion as murder, preventing even one is better than not preventing it.

    Anyway, all of this misses the major point of the abortion rights side to begin with. Which is that sometimes abortions are medically necessary and that should be between you and your doctor to decide when that is.

    I want to say that the most effective argument is to show just how drastically the abortion rates fell in the areas where they increased access to birth control and sex education. However, when I showed my mother, she responded with a Youtube video that tells me how Planned Parenthood eats babies.

  • The point behind this is that your argument boils down to essentially "people still break laws, so why have laws?" That is a poor argument that isn't going to convince anybody who believes that abortion is murder. Particularly if you are saying that the "murderers" in this case are just putting themselves at risk.

    I say this as someone who agrees with you, that the best way reduce the number of abortions is to provide better sex education and access to birth control.

    My mother has been an anti abortion activist for as long as I can remember, so I'm familiar with the thought process.

  • Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Well I agree with most of that, and I suppose I should clarify that I'm not hostile to every decorative emoji someone uses in their text. My response is primarily towards the folks who use it instead of clear written communication, but it extends to people who overuse emoji to the point of making the text less readable.

    Adding flavor or decorations (like the one used in this post) has rarely confused me, and I have no complaints there. But I'll still disagree with you that using emoji ever makes things more clear than using words. I have certainly never had that experience

  • Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Emojis are a terrible method of communication. People have different interpretations of the same faces, and use them to mean different things. On top of that, they render differently depending on which device or service you are using, potentially sending a completely different message than you intended.

    Tiny faces are ambiguous and usually don't help clarify a message.

    Just use your words, it makes for better communication. Spell out what you mean and there's less room for misunderstanding.

  • As another tall guy, I don't really understand.

    My backpack fits under the seat, but it has no impact on what my legs can do, because that's not where the bottleneck is. I don't think legs bend that way to be able to use that space under the seat. My thighs end up wedged between my seat back and the seat in front of me, and they can't really point towards the floor there.

    At the same time, there is absolutely zero chance I am letting my backpack with my laptop out of my sight. The airport already made sure I pulled it out and showed everyone that I am carrying an expensive device. If it's my device, then I paid too much to just shove it in a shared bin with strangers' stuff for a few hours. If it's my work device, then I'm not willing to risk any delay in getting my work done, because that's terribly inconvenient for me.

  • I'm pretty sure what you're missing here is that you did give (arguably) objective descriptions of issues with the game, but it's still your opinion that these make the game a failure. Sure, it didn't meet up to your standards, but those standards are absolutely subjective.

    Lots of games are repetitive. Lots of games have no story consequences shown in the game. They still succeed at being games, even if they don't meet your standards.

    I get it, you are passionate about this, but you're mistaken at this point.