admiralteal @ admiralteal @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

795

Joined

2 yr. ago

Huh?

People really seem to forget that prior to October 7th, Bibi was facing regular mass protests. Accusations of full authoritarianism. He was being condemned for the fact that he was building the most ultra-conservative government Israel had ever seen. Facing multiple political corruption and bribery accusations and MAYBE even looking at future jail time, at least if he didn't maintain the PM seat and the relative immunity it offers.

The Bibi administration NEEDS Hamas. Without them, they're just screwed. Only the threat of violent attack from across the border is able to maintain his power. And indeed, he'd even been facing accusations that he was directly sending support to Hamas.

Really, nothing good will happen on the region until the Israeli people follow through on their political duty and vote all these fuckers out, then immediately become partners with Gaza and the West Bank to build Palestine into a functional, modern democracy where its citizens have a chance to thrive. THAT is their recipe for long-term peace and stability. No amount of smart bombs, iron domes, blockades, and border walls will get them there, at least shy of completing the genocide so many in the Bibi administration have said publicly they want.

I sure hope you are right, that this is finally the tide turning... but I've seen that tide fail to turn before.

I don't think any undecided audience will be convinced by this "mass of cells"-style argument either. But to someone who DOES worry that it is a 'person' being aborted, hearing someone else dismiss that life makes it seem like the pro-choice people are callous and uncaring.

If you're arguing for an audience, all the more reason to be explicit and clear about the underlying ethical conviction rather than just a subjective opinion about what is and isn't life. How this is about a person's right to make the right choice for themselves, privately.

Either that or talk about the pain and hardship brought on by pregnancy, especially pregnancy caused by violence, and the benefit the abortion can provide. That can also be pretty compelling.

Waiting for the SCOTUS to (again) reduce punitive damage limits in order to protect their special boy.

Historically, they HATE punitive civil damages and look for cases to cut them back. That's where the current 4x limit currently exists, which even in the State Farm decision was clearly flagged as toeing the line.

Just look at how little actual damage Exxon ever paid for the Valdez spill. Or McDonalds for the hot coffee. These punitive damages always have a habit of just evaporating after the headlines. Leaving the victim little better off than before.

Oh, alright then. The guy didn't spend 20+ minutes gasping for air and struggling on a gurney, then, because industrial accidents are the exact same as what happened here. And the euthanasia researchers that have actually researched N2 asphyxiation and said the Al process would likely be torture are all just... less knowledgeable than you.

Strongly recommend not using this argument, or any of the ones showing up in this sub-thread. No one is going to be convinced on any of this. The people trying to ban abortion will never, ever be convinced by arguments about when life begins -- and will likely just become more certain that the pro choice crowd are full of callous monsters that don't grant dignity to life.

Read A Defense of Abortion, Judith Jarvis. It is the argument.

In a nutshell: it doesn't matter if the fetus is alive/a human/has a soul/whatever. You can grant that it is a full human being with rights from the beginning, even. Our ethical rules place autonomy of your own body hierarchically higher than preserving the life of someone else. That must be true or else it would be perfectly reasonable to harvest extra organs from people without their consent, take any or all property from citizens without cause to give to the needy, or draft individuals into whatever charitable work you wanted with no due process. There are very strict limits on how much charity a person can be mandated to participate in, and that limit is usually down to transient circumstances and taxes. It certainly does not dive into your flesh.

The state has no business enforcing control over decisions an individual makes about the contents of their own uterus, even if those decisions may lead to a death.

Whether or not it is RIGHT or GOOD to get an abortion doesn't even matter and, frankly, isn't worth debating. That is a subjective question. All that matters is whether the state is allowed to step in and prevent it from happening -- and they aren't.

The only thing marking a clear difference between a fetus and any other person is the fetus's need of the womb to live. And unfortunately for the fetus, one person's need of some service to live is not sufficient to enslave another.

But that IS the point. We don't know. It isn't studied -- cannot be studied ethically.

It is presumed to be painless based on unrelated case studies. And so people are proudly and confidently stepping forward to say "ignore the situations where it causes apparent pain and distress (animal examples), we'll just use very different industrial accidents where we THINK it maybe was painless but have no way to know and will use that to declare it is painless."

Meanwhile this guy struggled to live for over 20 minutes tied to a gurney.

You have a belief without evidence. You have to prove it. And we both know it is not going to happen because the research doesn't exist and would be unethical.

Blocking bad faith actors is my pastime.

The purpose of those tests isn't even to test any general idea of "acuity". They're meant to monitor cognitive decline. With a good elder care GP, you start getting them regularly at 70.

You don't "ace" them. They aren't IQ tests or any shit like that. They don't measure your mind compared to anyone else's. The "best" result you should ever get is no change from baseline. They're compared to past performance. Anyone claiming to "ace" them just doesn't understand why they even took them.

Love that you had the time to get your degree from wikipedia but couldn't plug "veterinary association nitrogen asphyxiation" into a search engine and click the first, second, or third result.

For me, the first are a couple of UN articles about the subject that contain all of this information. But you couldn't be bothered to look this up because you can only do wikipedia "research" that confirms your priors, not that might contradict them.

The fucking US Veterinary Association published that it is only approved for pigs and even then recommends sedating the animal first because of observations of extreme distress. This is widely published -- find it if you want, I don't care at this point. Wikipedia is not going to undermine the countless medical organizations who all objected or condemned this shit. So sick of the wikipedia PhDs in this thread claiming to know what none of the doctors or medical researchers do.

Oh, you've done it? Tell me about your specific medical expertise that is greater than... basically every medical organization that has spoken on the subject. Is your expertise also that you read a wikipedia page?

Pretty much everything real on the subject is about industrial accidents, which are not really analagous, or from the few examples of euthanasia with nitrogen pods -- and the information provided by Dr. Philip Nitschke who researched the actual N2 aspyxiation euthanasia devices and who publicly said the Alabama method was not like that at all and was likely to cause significant pain and distress.

22 minutes is now being reported, with the guy struggling, gasping, resisting, fighting, trying not to die. Fighting for his life on the gurney. This method provides no guarantees, no timelines, and DEFINITELY is not the nonsense people are describing about "gentle sleep" or whatever the fuck.

I suspect you and the people in this thread have exactly the same level of expertise as the Al lawmakers and agencies that allowed this to happen: bullshit none.

That's horrifying. Holding your breath until you think holding it any longer will kill you because not doing so definitely will. At least with the injection there was absolutely nothing you could do to delay or stop the process once it started.

You have missed my point. If the penalty for an error were death, with no wiggle room whatsoever, there would be no more errors because no one would be willing to risk it. It would end the death penalty.

And even then I'm not sure "I would literally stake my life on it" is a high enough burden. But it is absolutely insane and unacceptable that anyone is willing to stake someone else's life on it and not their own.

Oh the bar is quite high. No problem then, it will only be a small number of definitely innocent people we murder.

How about we can execute people, but if they're later exonerated every single person involved in the execution themselves gets executed automatically. I think that may enforce a high enough standard for me.

I mean, the citation is, to start with, not a medical organization. They're reporting on workplace incidents, essentially, and making big assumptions. Also no mentioned of the violent seizures.

Also, not to be captain obvious, but reports of the experience, definitionally, come from people who survived, which is another layer of it being a vastly different experience than dying that may not even be terribly analogous. Surviving it might mean a biologically different process happened to you than not surviving it.

There's a huge difference between an industrial accident and an execution. One of them is being done on purpose. An industrial accident may be someone running into a room flooded by the N2 fire suppression system, expecting nothing was wrong, taking a few deep breaths, and suddenly blacking out. Sudden, unexpected, unprepared, confused. The prisoner knows its coming, it's being administered on a schedule, and might not be too keen on the whole thing. The guy in this case, for example, was strapped down to a gurney and had the mask tied to his head, allegedly. Not being surprised means it is a lot less likely to work in that sudden, shocking way even all-else being equal, which it isn't.

Again, the medical experts I've seen interviewed all shrug at the question. They do not know. And even if knowing its coming isn't an issue, the best evidence of using it for deliberate execution we have was the great distress it apparently caused animals.

It would be a bit less terrible a method if it actually worked that way. Still depraved, but slightly less.

But it doesn't. Took 30 minutes for the guy to die, supposedly.

Vets swore off using this technique a while ago because of how clearly-distressed animals were when it was performed on them.

There's a big difference between the kind of freak industrial accident you're describing and intentional administration via a mask. And either way, we literally do not know if it is peace or torture.

Good thing executing prisoners never gets the wrong people and always makes the victims whole.

And how do you know that is the experience, here? When most medical experts say clearly they have no idea whether this is peaceful or torture, how are you so confident it is the former?