🎓 Dr. Freemo 
🇳🇱
@freemo@social.cleverlibre.org
- UFoI Member
- http://UFoI.org/u/freemo/
- Website
- http://JeffreyFreeman.me
- Gitlab
- https://git.qoto.org/freemo
Admin
Jeffrey Phillips Freeman
Innovator & Entrepreneur in Machine Learning, Evolutionary Computing & Big Data. Avid SCUBA diver, Open-source developer, HAM radio operator, astrophotographer, and anything nerdy.
Born and raised in Philadelphia, PA, USA, currently living in Utrecht, Netherlands, USA, and Thailand. Was also living in Israel, but left.
Pronouns: Sir / Mister
(Above pronouns are not intended to mock, i will respect any persons pronouns and only wish pronouns to show respect be used with me as well. These are called neopronouns, see an example of the word "frog" used as a neopronoun here: http://tinyurl.com/44hhej89 )
A proud member of the Penobscot Native American tribe, as well as a Mayflower passenger descendant. I sometimes post about my genealogical history.
My stance on various issues:
Education: Free to PhD, tax paid
Abortion: Protected, tax paid, limited time-frame
Welfare: Yes, no one should starve
UBI: No, use welfare
Racism: is real
Guns: Shall not be infringed
LGBT+/minorities: Support
Pronouns: Will respect
Trump: Moron, evil
Biden: Senile, racist
Police: ACAB
Drugs: Fully legal, no prescriptions needed
GPG/PGP Fingerprint: 8B23 64CD 2403 6DCB 7531 01D0 052D DA8E 0506 CBCE
Joined Jul 2018
> where did I say that??
Where did I say you said that... If you had said it I wouldnt have had to ask would I?
Correct because right now the man gets no authority. Even when abortion was legal a man had no say if they didnt want their child aborted (not saying this is a wrong legal thing, just that it is fact). If what the man wants has no effect on the outcome then neither should thepenalty.
Are you suggesting that a woman should only be allowed to have an abortion if the man approves?
Jesus fucking christ your a toxic human being... someone misunderstanding the question is **not** moving the goal post... even if it was my fault for not being clear enough its still a miss communication not a moving of goal posts... please waste someone elses time with this nonsense toxic crap
I see you completely missed the point. Its not about if the court can determine who the dad is. Its that it makes no sense to hold someone accountable for someone elses actions. The same way I would say its a rediculous to hold a woman accountable for a child a rapist produced.
No, if you want the definition of a law to change over time you need to legally get new amendments drafted that change it. Thats how all law has worked. They dont have expiration dates that automatically activate or anything so absurd.
> You said the GOP is the same as the democratic party.
Nope said nothing remotely like that.
Stux said they act like bullies, I said both sides act like bullies. Saying both sides are bullies is **not** remotely the same as saying both sides are identical in every way.
Please stop arguing in bad faith.
Yup as was the woman, so both should have equal responsibility. That means if the woman has the right to forgit the baby and not take care of it (such as giving it up for adoption) the man should have equal right.
🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱
boosted
🇳🇱
boosted
@freemo Oh look, one of these guys!
How could a man be criminally charged for an act he didnt do? As for the man being financially responsible, that would only be fair if the woman didnt have a right to forfit the child for adoption either. Not sure that would help if im being honest.
@nixCraft just to be clear they explicitly state they do not use your data to train models and thry do not retain copies of your data.
In hylerinflation wages are delayed behind cost of goods and this causes serious issues.
Inflatio is only good when its low enough that it has a slow long term effect. We want inflation but not too much or too little
@BalooUriza Saying the same untrue thing a second time wont make it true.
No it really cant, and thats a really dishonest interpritation.
For starters it is **obvious** it is a exemplary clause, not a qualifying one. I think thats pretty obvious and if you cant see that just change the language to something youd support and it becomes obvious.
Second, the people who literally wrote that amendment have been quoted and cited dozens if not hundreds of times explicitly stating that isnt what was meant, and the courts at the time made it clear that isnt what was meant.
There is literally no **honest** interpretation that could possibly see it that way, thats just absurd IMO.
But more importantly what i think they should have a right to doesnt matter. What matters is there is a top level law (amendment) that does grant them that right. So long as that exists yes, it should be upheld and they should have that right.
Now if we agree certain weapons should be illegal, im fine with that. then make it a new amendment and do it the right way.
Some of those **america** as a whole cant bear due to international treaty, which would supercede any right for an individual to bear them.
But tanks and bazookas, sure.
Well only scotus ruled that, courts need to agree with scotus.. but yea it has been the interpritation for quite some time.. but it is a **horrible** interpritation.
Now to be clear I support abortion, and I was saying for years that it was a cheat to even attempt toi use that amendment the way it was to protect abortion, it made no logical sense... and here we area.
I may dislike the fact that abortion is no longer protected, but it was absolutely the correct interpretation of the law in its current state.
/such a law would be great just because it may take some time before SCOTUS acts, if it will act.
All I am saying is that the two arent comparable... Abortion has no amendment and democrats have made no effort to propose one (but republicans have proposed anti-abortion amendments many many times).
Cant really compare that to guns where republicans already have an amendment, secured it as best they could with getting a friendly scotus, and generally are working against bad-faith interpretations rather than lack of action on their parts.
The 2A already makes it illegal to infringe on the right to bear arms, that includes the right to carry them. So any laws like that shouldnt be needed if it werent for our really ass-backwards SCOTUS rulings.
Getting clarence on the SCOTUS likely already fixed that we just need some gun cases to make it back to SCOTUS for reconsideration. My hope is that the now republican SCOTUS will actually enforce the 2A as it should have been all along, that is, to strike down **all** laws limiting access and the right to bear arms.
Because we already have the strongest law and protection imaginable, there is literally an amendment that says that access to guns cant be infringed, it doesnt even mention the possiblity for exceptions.
The problem is theleft has largely ignored the amendment and violated it. This isnt the republicans fault.
Now abortion, for that there is no amendment and no real protections, unlike gun laws.
- UFoI Member
- http://UFoI.org/u/freemo/
- Website
- http://JeffreyFreeman.me
- Gitlab
- https://git.qoto.org/freemo
Admin
Jeffrey Phillips Freeman
Innovator & Entrepreneur in Machine Learning, Evolutionary Computing & Big Data. Avid SCUBA diver, Open-source developer, HAM radio operator, astrophotographer, and anything nerdy.
Born and raised in Philadelphia, PA, USA, currently living in Utrecht, Netherlands, USA, and Thailand. Was also living in Israel, but left.
Pronouns: Sir / Mister
(Above pronouns are not intended to mock, i will respect any persons pronouns and only wish pronouns to show respect be used with me as well. These are called neopronouns, see an example of the word "frog" used as a neopronoun here: http://tinyurl.com/44hhej89 )
A proud member of the Penobscot Native American tribe, as well as a Mayflower passenger descendant. I sometimes post about my genealogical history.
My stance on various issues:
Education: Free to PhD, tax paid
Abortion: Protected, tax paid, limited time-frame
Welfare: Yes, no one should starve
UBI: No, use welfare
Racism: is real
Guns: Shall not be infringed
LGBT+/minorities: Support
Pronouns: Will respect
Trump: Moron, evil
Biden: Senile, racist
Police: ACAB
Drugs: Fully legal, no prescriptions needed
GPG/PGP Fingerprint: 8B23 64CD 2403 6DCB 7531 01D0 052D DA8E 0506 CBCE
Joined Jul 2018
