Show newer

@mike805 That probably has less to do with culture and more to do with leadership.

@mike805

Im not sure that tracks.. Seems like the correlation has more to do with womens rights and when they became defined (if at all) rather than specifically when rape was outlawed.

@deegeese @RodneyPetersonTalent

@DaveFernig

Thats a complete non point for me and I think it only came up as a question at all to make a vain argument for abortion. While I do support abortion I dont think "when a human exists" is a meaningful or even useful question. The only question to ask is "When does this creature have thought, feelings, and can suffer or have desires" As long as the baby is capable of thought on any level IMO it is wrong.

@mike805 @RodneyPetersonTalent

Someone needs to do a Nifty Fifties that is historically accurate, segregation and all, as a random thing at a store for a single day just to bring awareness to racism... I feel like someone just walking in there and seeing thast, and living it as if it were real might be quite impactful. Sadly I doubt it would ever happen as a lot of people would also be s=very upset.

@mike805

Rape probably wasnt risky during caveman days.. or i should say, far far less risky. IF your stronger than the woman, without a society whats the risk? Only risk is the woman might kill you, which is a valid risk, but presumably minimal if the man is stronger (or with a group).

Perhaps thats the issue, we evolved that trait back when the risk was low and now that the risk is high our evolution hasnt fully caught up.

@deegeese @RodneyPetersonTalent

@admitsWrongIfProven @freemo It's like the "one-drop rule" of ideologies; how convenient! It allows us to avoid dealing with the actual difficulties of the human condition and being reasonable to one another! /s 😂

@deegeese

No they wouldnt, I am not proposing making abortion illegal illegal in this thread.

If you mean in the case where abortion is illegal (unrelated to this thread by thats ok) then yea, you choose to prioritize the rights of the unborn child over the emotional trauma to the mother.. IT is one reason why any extreme on either side isnt a good one.

@mike805 @RodneyPetersonTalent

So seems my keyboard is showing a WPM of anywhere between 140 - 160 for me (this is after correction for errors and the standard penalty)... however my accuracyis showing as only 96%. I think It is largely due to the new keyboard though. I expect as I get used to it my accuracy may rise a % or two.

@mike805

I think it may be that the right just doesnt put a priority on keeping trolls out. I guess they feel the free speech is too important a principle. As with most things Im a mix of both, im fine with keeping blatant trolls out but generally feel that we should give more leadway to open discussion than censorship without ignoring either.

What is "their side" when it comes to the left? Israel? From what I've seen the conflict has been divided on the left (some strongly in each camp) so the left doesnt have a clear side... The right however seems to be 100% against Muslims (as their religious hatred always seems to take priority) and with either support or indifference regarding Israel. Largely the right just seems happy they are killing muslims meanwhile the left cant make up its mind about iif jews are a whites or not so they cant decide if they are ok to hate or not.... yea its a shit show.

@RodneyPetersonTalent

@freemo @RodneyPetersonTalent First thing to acknowledge on abortion is it's not a trivial issue and neither side is obviously wrong.

Pregnancy and abortion is practically the divide by zero error of Western ethics.

Western ethics holds that if you have one person dependent on another, and the responsible person cannot provide, you transfer the responsibility to someone else. You cannot do that with pregnancy.

OTOH the West believes each person owns their own body.

So neither extreme works.

@mike805 @RodneyPetersonTalent

Agreed its a ethical dehlema where any solution will have some immoral imposition on someone. The only truely moral solution would be incubators.

My focus is to find a solution that minimizes the infringement on both parties.

@mike

Why wouldnt it be technically possible? Perhaps you mean the server software you run doesnt have that feature. Thats not the same as it not being possible (Our server does a hell of a lot of things not possible on any other server, and I can always add more).

@mike805

Well said... the people who look for even the slightest subtle hint of a thought on the right as an excuse to attack someone or discredit them proves to e they **are** the problem right now, and not the solution. Toxicity at people who are partly on your side does nothing but to weaken the case for your side to anyone who is on the fence.

This person has certainly done more to increase Trump's vote count than I could ever hope to do.

@RodneyPetersonTalent

@mike Of course I can, I am the system admin I can do what I want with my server.

@mike I would just block the whole server then selectively allow must-have accounts if that turned out to be the case, which would still eliminate spam.

If the system allows commercial accounts which are likewise allowed to spam I'd have no tolerance for it.

@mike I really dont care if it does happen. So long as I am not expected to use it and no one cares if i block them from our server (assuming they start allowing spam, which is my main concern)

Show older
CleverLibre Social

CleverLibre Social is an inclusive social instance for open discussion, learning, and community.
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.