the_toast_is_gone @ the_toast_is_gone @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

357

Joined

2 yr. ago

The entire argument here is that if we consider a fetus a person, then we should apply self-defense laws to pregnancies. I'm pointing out why "self defense" against a person who has done literally nothing is ridiculous. I was writing my previous posts under the assumption that a fetus is a person, the same as in the original post.

But I also believe that there's no point in drawing arbitrary lines in the sand where a human organism/being/whatever you'd like to call it becomes a person. The minute you do that, it opens the door to whoever is writing the rules this week to decide things like "humans who are in a coma aren't people anymore" or "humans without a certain level of intellectual ability aren't people." That isn't a level of authority that I would entrust to any mortal human being. Would you?

Organs are components of an organism that support its life functions. A fetus is not a component of an organism, but is an organism unto itself. If it were an organ, then it would be something a woman is born with and develops naturally as she grows. Women are born with egg cells, true, but they don't become fetuses until they are fertilized and undergo a degree of development.

So if a five-year-old can't be held responsible and killed for hitting its mother by being thrown at her, because it was the dad who threw it, then how can a fetus be held responsible and killed for existing and causing harm to the mother, even though it never chose to exist at all and was conceived by another person?

In that case, the child thrown at its mother is guilty of assault because it harmed her by colliding with her. The child would be subject to self-defense rules and could rightly have been shot out of the air like a clay pigeon.

Right, I agree. And so, would you say that a fetus, which did not choose to be conceived or sustained in any way in the mother, should be held responsible for any harm (however you define that) that comes to the mother as a result of the pregnancy? If so, then you should also hold the child responsible because it struck and harmed its mother, even though it didn't do so by choice.

What exactly is the fallacy here? The point is that if the child has done nothing of its own choice to harm its mother, then the fetus cannot be held responsible either.

A Certain Kind of Death. It's a very stark and dry documentary about what happens to the bodies of people who die with no next of kin. It follows the journeys of three people who die alone, with no heirs, and no relatives to come pick up their stuff.

I remember the guy in charge of the place talking about how very often he'd call the family of a decedent and the survivor would say something like "Oh... well, we always wondered what happened to him." It struck me, made me realize that this is how I was going to go at some point if I didn't change my ways.

I have yet to change my ways.

That doesn't answer the question. Should a five-year-old be held responsible if their dad throws them at their mom?

Would you be okay with charging a 5-year-old child with assault if a dad threw the kid at his mom without the kid wanting that? The kid didn't choose to be thrown at his mom, but collided with her regardless. Similarly, the fetus didn't choose to be conceived, but exists nonetheless.

The core problem with 7DTD is a lack of direction. The devs have spent the last however many years rebuilding the core aspects of the same over and over and over again instead of just deciding that they like what they have and refining that. I'm convinced this is what they'll continue to do even after the "1.0" release they just did.

The only thing they're sure of is that the players are playing the game wrong, and they will mercilessly nerf any particularly powerful strategy, trick, etc. that doesn't fit wit their confused definition of what the game is. Really, the best thing I can say to someone interested in the game is, look at the end-game horde base builds. They follow bizarre logic that only follows around the nonsensical whims of the developers. It feels less like you're surviving a brutal post-apocalypse and more like you're playing a tower defense puzzle game. Something like Sanctum if it was a zombie survival game, ran like trash, and didn't know what it wanted to be.

Those people are stupid. The entire point of having so many limits distros is so that every use case is covered. I've used Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora, Arch, Void, even dabbled in Gentoo, and I can tell you that there's a valid reason to use pretty much all of them, and also valid reasons not to use any particular one of them. "You do you" should be the dogma of the Linux community, not "You do me."

I don't know about Hunt, but War Thunder and Dota have official Linux clients.

It isn't just that she was religious; according to her family, she had schizophrenia. https://www.sj-r.com/story/news/crime/2024/07/26/crump-sonya-massey-needed-a-helping-hand-not-a-bullet-to-the-face/74551662007/

I don't know what she was thinking at the time, but it must have been horrifying. As someone with sz, it makes me wonder what lengths people will go to put me down should they see the need.

How would that happen? It's obvious he was shot at. Others in the crowd got killed/injured as a result of the gunfire. This just seems like standard procedure.

• Short term interest: this is just human nature. All economic models work around human nature and desires. People desire short-term gains in pretty much any endeavor. If this was a communist society, they'd still rush to get this thing out as fast as possible so they could meet state quotas/meet whatever other incentive is being offered to finish the job. The problem comes not from the motivations, but how they respond to it. Rushing deadlines and ignoring the need for testing and quality code is a universal human constant.
• Commercial focus: we have a much better idea of how much an endeavor, product, service, etc. will cost under capitalism because we have a decentralized and automatic way to calculate its value in the form of prices. Miscalculations - or simple human errors, like pushing bad code by accident - happen though, and hopefully this company has learned that prioritizing pushing something out can risk losing them money vs. testing it and coming out with a quality product.
• Antagonist interests: this is another question of short-term vs. long-term interests. Say you have a factory. If you crank up the machines to double speed, you're potentially doubling your production, right? It isn't that simple, actually. You can end up with a lot more workplace accidents that way, which will destroy your productivity extremely quickly. Same deal here. This will, hopefully, be a lesson learned by the industry in not pushing garbage code. M$ can't serve ads to people who can't boot their PCs, and will instead lose boatloads of money suddenly having to fulfill tech support contracts because of their screw-up, for example. Crowdstrike is going to have its competitors look a lot more appealing from here on out because they've been exposed as fools. (If they have no competitors - IT people, this is your sign!) Mistakes will happen until the end of time, of course, but that doesn't mean fat-fingering the keyboard is a fault of the Western economic system.

Capitalism is, in essence, the ability for people to exchange their goods freely. It isn't dependent on corporations or some weird hierarchy of managers and workers. Those are facts of living in this system, but it isn't a direct consequence of "capitalism." If everyone worked only for themselves and produced something to bring to the exchange, that would still be capitalism.

My understanding of schizophrenia, as someone who has it, is that it's a disorder affecting primarily the brain but we understand it very poorly. Even clinically, we're more or less throwing darts at a board when it comes to treating the illness. What we have now works, more or less, but there are new theories emerging to support different potential treatment avenues. I'm really looking forward to seeing where that research goes. In any case, though, given that its primary effects are mental, I think it's safe to call it a "mental illness."

What does an economic system have to do with bad IT decisions?

Dark Souls PvP is for people who can't handle a real fighting game.

Really? Science disproved God? News to me, could you tell me more?

How do you think we should take care of that?

God has a way of pulling me out of potentially disastrous situations just before they become really bad. He hasn't let me down yet.