Goblin_Mode @ Goblin_Mode @ttrpg.network Posts 1Comments 134Joined 2 yr. ago
Every issue you've described is something actively fought for and put forth by Republicans. The same Republicans who hold the house and, subsequently, the ability to pass legislation to fix these things.
Democrats, or I guess in this specific case Biden, has no ability to just snap his fingers and grant: bodily autonomy, re-write the war budget, programs for housing scarcity, education, livable wages, or health care. To claim otherwise or that he is just toting people along while actively avoiding responsibility is either showing that you have literally no idea what you're talking about or is just straight misinformation.
I do not love Biden and I adamantly disagree with some of his decisions such as his response to the Israel/Palestine conflict. But he has done some serious good with his time in office. Expanding access to live saving medication for seniors, providing an actually reasonable student loan repayment plan, modernizing the internet infrastructure for millions of homes in the mid west, and shifting much of the Federal governments facilities to use green energy just to name a few.
I truly wish 3rd party candidates stood any sort of chance in a general election, I really do. But as it stands currently they do not, history has shown us that over and over and over again. So you have 3 choices: vote for the party that actually perpetrated those above issues and has made it perfectly clear they will do so again, vote for the lesser evil that while horribly flawed has actually done some serious good in addition to frankly just not promoting an authoritarian ethnostate, or toss your vote out and pray for the best.
Not sure how to help you with that one. People call for an end to vetos literally every time it's used
I think when a Christian minister is making a statement about a guy who is VERY vocal about how his every action is influenced by his being a Christian, then a Christian denounciation feels adequate.
When your job is to do a good thing.
And your predecessors either didn't know or didn't care to do it, thereby not not doing their jobs.
Then yes. I will celebrate the guy who actually did his job.
... I would like to hear more about this secret name...
Counterpoint: Warzone.
Did you even read my initial comment?
I explicitly said that I have never been let down by a GTA campaign. What I was saying was that RDR2 is a different series that plays by different rules. For that reason I don't feel like it's necessarily fair to use RDR2 as an example of how they will treat GTA with the respect the series deserves.
I agree. It's just that this is the same series.. Idk maybe it will kick ass, I'm just overly cynical I guess lol
Knowing Rockstar put off development of this game for as long as they did just so they could milk GTAO for every last penny makes me hesitant at best.
I have never been let down by a GTA campaign, but they know where the money is, I'm hesitant to believe they will give this one the attention it deserves after seeing the profits from GTAO. Or maybe I'm just pessimistic
You know what, fair enough lol
Well if we're gonna get specific then if your blowing the bubbles I would assume it's largely carbon dioxide lol
When it's too hot you aren't always able to get cooler.
When it's too cold it is always possible to get warmer. If only in a small way.
In the middle of winter you can put on another layer, wear fuzzy socks, drink a nice warm drink, hell even just blow into your hands. But in the middle of summer sometimes you just have to suffer.
I fucking love winter and no one can take that from me
Why is not being alone in the universe a bad thing though?
I actually get a great deal of comfort from the thought that us and our silly little squabbles are so inconsequential to the universe at large. That some alien species we can't even begin to imagine is just doing the same shit we are 800 billion light years away. Makes me feel like maybe getting up for work in the morning ain't so bad when you consider the scale
I get where you're coming from but that's not an argument about the defining characteristics of dictatorships, that's an argument about the existence or lack thereof of free speech.
In my opinion a better argument would be that China has 1 leader at the top of the ladder with near unquestionable power over government precedings who will remain in that position until he either dies or chooses to step down. That already would make him something analogous to a monarch, but add the regular use of military strength in forcing compliance from the masses and now we have a dictator.
Fair and based.
We are still actually an Oligarchy though lol just, like you said, closer to what we claim we are then China is
A tumor is a collection of cells that have one or more missing flags that would normally restrict cell growth, allowing it to grow and multiply far beyond what your body is built to allow for. The difference is that as it grows, a fetus will eventually reach a floor of cognitive ability to allow for sentience whereas a tumor will just spread.
I'm not here to discuss the philosophical quandary of valuing one life over another. I don't want to debate the ethical ramification of arguing on the behalf of a hypothetical man who has never known true autonomy, or a diefic figure who simply decides that from a utilitarian perspective your life is worth less than that of your neighbor. I'm simply saying that sentience is the defining characteristic of intelligent life. I don't think that should have to be a controversial statement.
An embryo may have the potential to become a human one day but at the moment it is not. Just like an acorn is not an oak tree. I wouldn't sit under an acorn for shade, nor would I hang a tire swing from it, because it isn't a tree. It's an acorn. And an embryo is not a thinking and feeling human being. It's an embryo.
Now where am I getting this information from? Well I suppose I am applying my own personal understanding of it since I don't have an exact quote or reference for you. I do not have a degree in biology, but I know someone who does, a lot of someone's actually. Off the top of my head I can think of 5 people in my close, immediate circle who have studied biology at length, 1 of which has multiple degrees in the discipline and another 2 are doctors. And yes, I HAVE heard "human beings" described as having started to exist in that state from the point of sentience. Matter of fact, while I'm sure some do see it like you do I personally have never heard someone refer to a zygote or embryo as a human being.. They call them zygotes and embros.. Because that's what they are, despite what they may potentially become.
But that's all beside the point. I can see you are just trying to be reasonable and explain that I will not convince anyone this way. And you're probably right; but I will make a counterpoint. This is not a strawman. Despite what one feels or believes on the subject a fetus under a certain threshold of development is not capable of the very barest minimum required cognitive functions to be considered a human baby. And suggesting that it has more rights Than it's fully formed human mother is fucking insane.
Wow, that is an insanely obtuse interpretation of what I said.
Of course there are always civilian casualties In war. Of course that is why war crimes exist in the first place.
"Massive" literally means "Large in comparison to what is typical". So when I say massive civilian cassualties forgive me for assuming you'd understand I was using that word for it's intended purpose.
Bombing a hospital full of civilians is absolutely a war crime.
What argument are you making here? Your first paragraph implies you believe that Isreal is justified in it's approach based on the US's failed conflicts with Guerilla warfare. But then your second paragraph implies that Isreal is not justified for exactly that reason, which is like.. Yeah.. That's correct lol.
I feel like it shouldn't be a controversial opinion to say that if you are unable to conduct a war without massive civilian casualties then you shouldn't be conducting that war. If you do anyway you are, at the very best, a war criminal.
Could you cite that law for me? Because last I checked there is no such law forcing Isreal to shoot back, school or otherwise.
Intentionally bombing civilians is a war crime. I don't care how many of your "intended targets" you think you're getting. If you are bombing civilian centers, like, oh let's say a hospital for instance, then you are a war criminal, Full stop. There is nothing forcing Isreal to do that.
regardless of your views on the individuality of fetuses
While I can appreciate what you're going for here and will even relent that your argument is topical to the discussion at hand. I do feel the need to point out that a fetus is, by deffinition, objectively, not a human being.
I get where you're coming from and I respect that you believe these 2 things are equitable. But, feelings aside, capital punishment for a human being is very very very different from removing a small collection of half formed cells. Its like comparing the death of an animal to that of a tumor that was removed in a surgical procedure. The tumor died, but it's not the same thing as killing an actually sentient aninal