Mine Blog

Just my blog; Mass Effect Fae of Appalachia

[antifainternational]

Are there any online/teach yourself martial arts courses you can recommend? I know this is something best learned in person, but I need to start SOMEWHERE and none of my local gyms are open for lessons atm. Thank you!

There Hmm, good question!  Of course, it’s always better to receive instruction IRL & with a live partner, so anything you learn online/self-study isn’t going to be as good.  But like we always say any training is better than no training!  And nothing stops you from keeping physically fit either - which is a key part of excelling in any martial art. If we were putting together something, we’d suggest watching some kali/escrima drill videos and practicing those 2x a week; some muay thai drill videos & doing those drills 2x week; and some BJJ drills 2x week.  That will keep you constructively-busy in these pandemic-y times, really help with your fitness level, and give you some foundational stuff to build on when you can go back to your class/club! Mark Anastacio has some good solo kali stick and knife drills on YouTube you could probably work with.  We found a nice single stick technique video from one of the Dog Brothers, too.  Tons of solo muay thai videos out there - footwork videos, shadow boxing videos, solo drills, etc.  Here’s a decent 20-minute muay thai workout + 10 beginner muay thai shadow boxing drills + some footwork drills.  Professor Stephan Kesting has a great list of 17 solo BJJ drills you can practice at home.  Professor Jason Scully has 54 more solo BJJ drills for you right here. If you have access to a heavy bag, these guard passing drills from Professor Nick “Chewy” Albin are worth a try. Y’all have some solo martial arts resources for Anon here?  Put ‘em in the comments!

[canadianwheatpirates]

Can only speak to BJJ, but base body/ground movement skills will get you a long way by yourself and give you a good base for if/when you do get training. It may be hard to get hold of (i’m willing to try and help) but John Danaher has a whole solo drill video set that was free in the middle of last year ‘cause of quarantine.

In general for BJJ, your body skills are going to be:

On your back:

Bridge (off to the side, not straight upwards, in most cases)

Shrimp

Reverse Shrimp

Butt Scoot

Supine Heist

Hip Heist/Technical Stand

Leg Pummeling

Leg Scissor

From Turtle (curled up on hands and knees):

Sit-out

Shoulder rolls

Inside Leg Standup

From standing:

Backwards break-fall

Sideways break-fall

Forwards break-fall

[eliwats22]

…Guys…was The Civil Rights Movement worth it?

I feel like it wasn’t. As it seem most western millennials and zoomers get their ideas of freedom and equality from cartoons rather than their civil rights courses

So meaningless it seem…going to be forgotten by the next generation…

[beardedmrbean]

it was worth it, never doubt that for a moment

[gopfails]

You actively supported the gutting of the voting rights act only a few months ago you racist piece of shit.

You're pathetic

[eliwats22]

Wait who said him and I are part of GOP?

Oh like you people ever gave a fuck about black people rights.

[m00nlandings]

We know that you’ve never given a fuck about black people’s rights.

[anamericangirl]

So, the best allegory I've seen about abortion is probably conjoined twins. If one conjoined twin wanted to remove the other, causing the other's death, would that be allowed? I don't think anyone would support that. In both cases, both are living, unique people and the only difference between that and a pregnancy is a fetus can't advocate for itself.

That’s a pretty good one but of course pro-aborts will never answer it. They throw out every ridiculous allegory and hypothetical for us to answer as it if proves their point if they get the answer they want but the second you give them a hypothetical it’s “ugh that’s not the same thing 🙄”

[realsillywizard]

Hey, that is a pretty good one!

But ultimately I think it breaks down because in the case of fetus and parent, the separation between the two is very clear. There's a specialised organ dedicated to bridging the two.

This is not the case with many conjoined twins, where it is impossible to say where one body begins and the other ends. You cannot request to remove someone from something you can't confidently declare isn't theirs.

There are however cases where this is more clear, parasitic twins for example, and we actually do have examples of exactly what anon said would never happen: A twin being removed despite the certainty that it would kill them.

Finally, I disagree with a couple premises tacked onto your main point: A fetus is living sure. Probably unique too depending on how you define it. But up to a point it is definitely not a person. Following this I also disagree that the ability to advocate is the only difference.

[anamericangirl]

“But ultimately I think it breaks down because in the case of fetus and parent, the separation between the two is very clear. There's a specialised organ dedicated to bridging the two.”

No one’s disputing that there’s a difference with the way the bodies are connected. The question is why does that difference matter? That doesn’t break it down at all unless you can provide a sound explanation on why the way the separation works makes any sort of difference as to whether a person is ok to kill.

“This is not the case with many conjoined twins, where it is impossible to say where one body begins and the other ends. You cannot request to remove someone from something you can't confidently declare isn't theirs.”

That’s actually not the reason many conjoined twins aren’t separated. When separation is considered, the question isn’t “Whose body is this?” It’s how to respect the rights and interests of both individuals, even when they share parts of their bodies.

So you’re looking at this from entirely the wrong perspective. It’s not about ownership of the body. It’s about the rights and interests of those involved. And so is abortion.

“There are however cases where this is more clear, parasitic twins for example, and we actually do have examples of exactly what anon said would never happen: A twin being removed despite the certainty that it would kill them.”

I would love to know how exactly you see this as support of your position. You literally provided a link to a story of the UK government mandating that one twin in a set of conjoined twins be killed against the parents wishes.

Anon didn’t say this never happens, they said they didn’t think anyone would support it. So what is your point in sharing this? Does the fact that a government did this mean it’s acceptable? Was this a good thing?

“Finally, I disagree with a couple premises tacked onto your main point: A fetus is living sure. Probably unique too depending on how you define it. But up to a point it is definitely not a person. Following this I also disagree that the ability to advocate is the only difference.”

You say up to a point a fetus is “definitely” not a person. If it so definite, then you should have no problem pinpointing at what exact point that changes. So when does a fetus become a person? What is the magic component that turns a non-person suddenly into a person?

And it’s all well and good to say you disagree but you disagreeing means nothing. Other than the ability to advocate, what are the other meaningful differences?

[realsillywizard]

Answering out of order for flow reasons:

Anon didn't say this never happens, they said they didn't think anyone would support it. [...] Was this a good thing?

AAG, respectfully, think this through a bit. For it to have happened, someone must have supported it. At least a majority of the medical council that made the decision to go ahead must have supported it.

It's too complicated of a situation for me to blithely declare it good or not, but I think it was defensibly the best of a series of bad outcomes. In that regard I support it.

What outcome would you have supported in this case out of interest? Considering what would have happened with no intervention.

The question isn't "Whose body is this?" It's how to respect the rights and interests of both individuals.

You've misunderstood the angle of argument I was taking, and maybe that's on me. I was taking this from the bodily autonomy approach. You can clearly delineate the bodies of mother and fetus in a way you can't for conjoined twins. You can't take the bodily autonomy approach for conjoined twins in the same way because you cannot cleanly determine who has autonomy over what.

As for the rights and interests of individuals, that's way way easier to differentiate the two groups by because I don't grant that pre-consciousness fetuses have rights or interests.

If it's so definite, you should have no problem pinpointing at what exact point that changes.

I have to assume you've never encountered the concept of an emergent property before, otherwise you wouldn't ask this in good faith.

So I'll explain: as alluded to my criteria for personhood is the mental construct that is consciousness. Consciousness is an emergent property.

You cannot precisely determine when an emergent property begins or arises, it's impossible. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to say definitely when it is or isn't present.

For example, it's not possible to say when puberty begins and ends. It is possible to identify people that are pre or post-pubescent.

You cannot precisely say when a sunset begins or ends, that doesn't mean we don't have an understanding of day or night.

We attempt to apply hard legal boundaries to both, but these are ultimately arbitrary based on modal data.

So we can't say precisely when consciousness arises, but we can take a conservative approach of saying it must be after cortex development, therefore consciousness begins with cortex development.

[anamericangirl]

"AAG, respectfully, think this through a bit. For it to have happened, someone must have supported it. At least a majority of the medical council that made the decision to go ahead must have supported it."

This is a non-point. It's like someone saying, "No one would support the Holocaust," and responding, "Well, Hitler did, so that's obviously false." Most people understand that phrases like "no one would support that" are figures of speech meant to convey that virtually no one (or at least an overwhelming majority of people) would support it. They're not literal claims that not a single person on Earth does.

Making an argument that boils down to semantics implies you cannot engage with the substance of the discussion and are thus going for the lowest hanging fruit you can find just to pretend you have something.

"It's too complicated of a situation for me to blithely declare it good or not, but I think it was defensibly the best of a series of bad outcomes. In that regard I support it.

What outcome would you have supported in this case out of interest? Considering what would have happened with no intervention."

If you think it was "defensibly the best outcome" then defend it. If two children are in a medically complicated situation where they are both at risk then go ahead and defend killing the weakest and most at risk child and explain why it's "the best outcome" and why it's acceptable for the government to mandate it happen and override the parent's wishes on medical decisions for their children.

You keep saying things like "a series of bad outcomes" and "considering what would have happened with no intervention" without actually specifying what it is you think would have happened. What was going to happen that makes killing one of the children the best solution?

"You've misunderstood the angle of argument I was taking, and maybe that's on me. I was taking this from the bodily autonomy approach. You can clearly delineate the bodies of mother and fetus in a way you can't for conjoined twins. You can't take the bodily autonomy approach for conjoined twins in the same way because you cannot cleanly determine who has autonomy over what.

As for the rights and interests of individuals, that's way way easier to differentiate the two groups by because I don't grant that pre-consciousness fetuses have rights or interests."

Of course bodily autonomy can't be approached the same way because conjoined twins are a unique case. That's exactly the point. How we apply bodily autonomy depends on the circumstances. It's clearly not an absolute right, especially when decisions directly affect another person. Pregnancy is a unique case too.

What this example is showing is that you already recognize there are limits and exceptions to bodily autonomy. But when it comes to abortion, you suddenly treat it as if it's absolute. Like someone can always do whatever they want with their body, even if it directly results in another person's death. Yet you're willing to make exceptions in other situations.

And even with conjoined twins, what about cases where the separation between the two bodies is much clearer? Can one twin kill the other because they're exercising "bodily autonomy"? What if one twin is stronger than the other? Does the stronger twin automatically get more rights?

And it doesn't matter if you don't grant that pre-consciousness fetuses have rights or interests. It matters what the truth is. They objectively do because they are human beings and they are granted those things by nature of being human even if you refuse to recognize it.

"I have to assume you've never encountered the concept of an emergent property before, otherwise you wouldn't ask this in good faith.

So I'll explain: as alluded to my criteria for personhood is the mental construct that is consciousness. Consciousness is an emergent property.

You cannot precisely determine when an emergent property begins or arises, it's impossible. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to say definitely when it is or isn't present."

If you cannot determine at what point a non-person becomes a person, then I don't understand how you can be comfortable allowing them to be killed when you don't know when that transition happens. If you don't know when it happens, then there is obviously a point where you cannot say whether consciousness is or isn't present. Otherwise, you would be able to identify exactly when the switch occurs.

And here's what you're not getting: you are the one making the claim that human beings before consciousness are not people, so the burden of proof is on you. What exactly is it about consciousness that grants someone personhood? Why is it that a preborn human being does not qualify?

And where exactly do you draw the line with abortion? Is the argument that once consciousness is definitely there, abortion is wrong, but as long as we aren't sure whether it's there, it's acceptable? If consciousness is the determining factor, then how do you justify making that distinction?

Also, we do not know for certain that a fetus has absolutely no consciousness at any point in their development. There is a lot we don't know about consciousness in the womb and it is an active area of study. There's absolutely no scientific consensus about consciousness in the womb and we are unable to look at a baby in development at any stage and say that consciousness "definitely" isn't there.

"So we can't say precisely when consciousness arises, but we can take a conservative approach of saying it must be after cortex development, therefore consciousness begins with cortex development."

So that's a vague non-answer that basically means there is a point where we know consciousness exists, but before that point it's difficult to identify. So the argument becomes "go ahead and kill the baby because they haven't reached the point in development where consciousness is definitely there, so we're going to assume it isn't there, and if you want to kill them, now is your chance."

In most situations, people tend to err on the side of life when there is uncertainty. But when it comes to abortion, for some reason the position becomes the opposite: "If we can't 100% confirm that all of these specific characteristics have developed, then we're going to assume they aren't there and that means they are not a person and I'm okay with killing them based on that assumption."

If we are going to allow the intentional killing of a human life, you need to know and be able to prove we are not killing a person. And you cannot do that.

[realsillywizard]

Oof this is going to be long:

"This is a non-point. It's like someone saying, "No one would support the Holocaust," and responding, "Well, Hitler did, so that's obviously false.""

I think it'd be more like responding "Actually a significant number of people do support the holocaust and it's important to remember that" Idk I feel like being accurate is important in conversations like these. But you're right that it is unimportant in the grand scheme of things so let's drop it.

If you think it was "defensibly the best outcome" then defend it. [...] What was going to happen that makes killing one of the children the best solution?

Their life expectancy if they remained conjoined was estimated at 6 months. Separated, one of them is now living as a healthy adult. I didn't specify this because it was detailed in the link I posted. I take the harm reduction stance of saying one dead infant is better than two dead infants. Curious to hear how your stance differs.

What this example is showing is that you already recognize there are limits and exceptions to bodily autonomy. But when it comes to abortion, you suddenly treat it as if it's absolute. [...] And even with conjoined twins, what about cases where the separation between the two bodies is much clearer? Can one twin kill the other because they're exercising "bodily autonomy"?

You're strawmanning me here, I've not expressed these sentiments. I'm nuanced as shit actually. There's also a distinction between the moral and legalistic argument for bodily automony, the latter of which I think is stronger. Remember, the bodily autonomy argument is not framed as going out of your way to kill another person, but in preventing them from accessing your body regardless of what that means for them. I'm not sure about your latter point, it's conceptually weird. To ensure complete dependence and complete separation, let's say we've got two fully separate people linked by an IV that sustains one at the cost of another. Does the donor have the right to unhook themselves, even if it kills the receiver? Morally I think it's questionable, legally I think they should probably have the right. Worth noting that the bodily autonomy argument is not intended to stand on it's own as a definitive argument, I don't think it's the strongest pro-choice argument either, but is one part of the pro-choice toolbox.

And it doesn't matter if you don't grant that pre-consciousness fetuses have rights or interests. It matters what the truth is. They objectively do because they are human beings and they are granted those things by nature of being human even if you refuse to recognize it.

You cannot just declare that. It's not objective, it's entirely subjective. Rights are socially constructed concepts, it HAS to be subjective. Point to the object.

You are the one making the claim that human beings before consciousness are not people, so the burden of proof is on you.

You say this as if you're not also making a claim, what are you, agnostic on fetal rights? I think being agnostic on fetal rights would lead you to be pro-choice, after all if you don't have an opinion you should leave it to others to decide for themselves. No, you very much are also making claims here. You are claiming abortion is immoral, and other people should be prevented from doing it. You also have to justify that. Is the argument that once consciousness is definitely there, abortion is wrong, but as long as we aren't sure whether it's there, it's acceptable? [...] So the argument becomes "go ahead and kill the baby because they haven't reached the point in development where consciousness is definitely there, so we're going to assume it isn't there, and if you want to kill them, now is your chance."

I never said anything like that, that's a wild strawman. I said the opposite, as long as there is doubt we should not kill anything. A cortex is required for consciousness. We cannot say for when during cortex development consciousness emerges, but as long as there is no cortex to speak of we can be reasonably certain there is no consciousness. It is not a case of we haven't reached the point where consciousness is definitely there, it is that we are still at the point where consciousness is definitely not there. After consciousness develops, I could consider it immoral to abort, but I think on balance it should remain legal to avoid putting a chilling effect on medically neccessary abortions, subject to ethics board approval. I recognise this is not a perfect solution, I don't think a perfect solution exists.

What exactly is it about consciousness that grants someone personhood? Why is it that a preborn human being does not qualify?

Not pre-born, pre-consciousness. Stop changing what I'm saying. As for what about consciousness grants personhood, this is an incredibly long topic. I'll get into it if you're like, actually open-minded and interested in learning in good faith. In short, I pre-suppose that I am a person. I think about what I am, it seems to be a mental construct. I could conceive of myself existing as a mind without a human body, I cannot conceive of myself existing as a human body without a mind. In the latter, I would not exist. So, it seems my existence is tied to being a mental construct. If I assume this holds for others, it follows that something that doesn't exist as a mental construct is not a person. This is consistent with everything I observe about the world. Also, we do not know for certain that a fetus has absolutely no consciousness at any point in their development.

I don't buy this. I don't buy that the scientific consensus is the way you describe it. Please describe to me the conscious experience of a single celled zygote. Why is it that a single celled zygote can be conscious but not sperm? What about non-human bacteria? I think it's the most reasonable stance in the world to hold that a brain is required for consciousness.

[anamericangirl]

Yes, let's drop the first point. You're taking it way too literally and it's derailing the conversation.

"Their life expectancy if they remained conjoined was estimated at 6 months. Separated, one of them is now living as a healthy adult. I didn't specify this because it was detailed in the link I posted. I take the harm reduction stance of saying one dead infant is better than two dead infants. Curious to hear how your stance differs."

Okay, but you're glossing over the very important detail which is the action you're calling "harm reduction." This happened by causing the death of a child. A child's life was deliberately sacrificed, and your position is "Meh, one dead infant is better than two dead infants"?

My stance is that we do not kill children. My stance is also that the government should not override the parents' wishes when it comes to medical decisions.

And just because a doctor or doctors estimate a six month life expectancy doesn't mean that's what will actually happen. Doctors can be wrong about those kinds of predictions, and they often are. My stance is that doctors should follow the Hippocratic Oath and do no harm. They should do everything they reasonably can to try to save both children instead of deciding that one child's life should be sacrificed for the other.

"You're strawmanning me here, I've not expressed these sentiments. I'm nuanced as shit actually. There's also a distinction between the moral and legalistic argument for bodily automony, the latter of which I think is stronger. Remember, the bodily autonomy argument is not framed as going out of your way to kill another person, but in preventing them from accessing your body regardless of what that means for them."

I'm not strawmanning you. You're not using that term correctly. You did express those sentiments, even if you don't realize it. You're not nuanced as shit when it comes to abortion. I've seen enough of your comments to know that.

Your description of bodily autonomy doesn't work in the context of abortion because it ignores what pregnancy actually is. If you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, you have to be honest about that. Remember, once someone is pregnant, bodily autonomy is no longer about "preventing someone from accessing your body" because that access has already happened. The baby is already there. And how did they get that access? It was granted to them by the parents.

At that point, the question isn't whether someone can be prevented from accessing your body. The question is whether you have the right to intentionally kill another human being who has done nothing wrong. Someone whose existence was brought about by your actions, who is dependent on your body because of those same actions, and then to retroactively decide they no longer have any right to continue receiving that support. This goes beyond bodily autonomy.

If you're going to have an honest conversation about abortion, you have to acknowledge that bodily autonomy is not the only moral question involved. It has to be weighed alongside the rights and interests of the unborn child, so simply invoking "bodily autonomy" doesn't settle the issue.

"I'm not sure about your latter point, it's conceptually weird. To ensure complete dependence and complete separation, let's say we've got two fully separate people linked by an IV that sustains one at the cost of another. Does the donor have the right to unhook themselves, even if it kills the receiver? Morally I think it's questionable, legally I think they should probably have the right."

My issue I have with you and hypotheticals is that you never answer the ones presented to you. You always change the details of the scenario to one that's easier for you to answer and doesn't even contain the original question which was the whole purpose the scenario was presented to you in the first place. Your IV scenario is fundamentally different from the situations we have been discussing. If you can't answer the one I asked then fine but I'm not a fan of replacing it with a donor situation that changes the question to having a right to unhook themselves from an IV.

"You cannot just declare that. It's not objective, it's entirely subjective. Rights are socially constructed concepts, it HAS to be subjective. Point to the object."

That's fundamentally untrue, and it shows a misunderstanding of how human rights work. How can you argue so strongly for bodily autonomy, to the point of using it to justify killing an unborn child, while also claiming that rights are ultimately subjective? If that's really your position, then what are you even debating? The right to bodily autonomy might as well not exist.

And since you continue to misunderstand my point, the unborn child objectively has rights according to the very framework of human rights. Human rights are rights granted to human beings. There aren't additional qualifiers that say, "only if they're wanted," "only if they're conscious enough," or "only if they meet someone's personal definition of personhood." If you believe human rights are real, then it makes no sense to believe there are human beings to whom they simply don't apply.

Human rights are not subjective in the sense that each of us gets to decide which human beings deserve them and which do not. If bodily autonomy is a human right, then every human being has that right by virtue of being human. If the right to life is a human right, then every human being has that right for the same reason. That's what I mean when I say the issue is objective.

The real question is whether the unborn child is a person. Either they are or they aren't. That's an objective truth claim. If they are a person, then they either possess human rights or they don't. That's also an objective question, not a matter of personal preference.

We don't each get to invent our own definition of personhood and then decide it's acceptable to kill everyone who falls outside of it. So yes, this ultimately comes down to objective truth. Your subjective or abstract views about personhood don't determine what that truth is.

"You say this as if you're not also making a claim, what are you, agnostic on fetal rights? I think being agnostic on fetal rights would lead you to be pro-choice, after all if you don't have an opinion you should leave it to others to decide for themselves. No, you very much are also making claims here. You are claiming abortion is immoral, and other people should be prevented from doing it. You also have to justify that."

I'm not making a claim that would be literally resulting in the unjustified murder of human beings if wrong. And I never indicated I wasn't making a claim? But your claim is the one that allows an action to be taken on a human life and if you are wrong then you are killing someone. So if you are going to assert that we can abort babies because they aren't people, then you need to prove they are not people. Otherwise you are just supporting murder.

And I have justified my claims. You've seen me justify them multiple times.

You, on the other hand, haven't really. You say abortion is ok because they aren't people but you haven't rationalized why they aren't people. You claimed it's because you don't believe they have consciousness but have failed to explain why consciousness is what makes a human being a person and you don't even know when conscious starts. So far, you have been unable to back up a single claim.

"I never said anything like that, that's a wild strawman. I said the opposite, as long as there is doubt we should not kill anything."

It's not a strawman. It's a question. I was asking you something. But please point out where you said if there is doubt we shouldn't kill anything. Because there is doubt. We literally do not have the answer.

"A cortex is required for consciousness. We cannot say for when during cortex development consciousness emerges, but as long as there is no cortex to speak of we can be reasonably certain there is no consciousness. It is not a case of we haven't reached the point where consciousness is definitely there, it is that we are still at the point where consciousness is definitely not there."'

"reasonably certain" is not good enough when we are discussing killing a child. And the cortex starts developing in the first trimester. Like I said, there is a lot we don't know about consciousness in the womb so making a positive claim about it definitely being there or not being there is ignorant at best.

When is consciousness definitely not there? And when is it definitely there? If you can spot those two things, you should be able to come up with some sort of answer of when consciousness starts and a non-person becomes a person.

So far, you're just saying things but you're not offering any kind of support for your vague and noncommital claims. And it really exhausts me being in a back and forth with a person who will not answer questions posed to them or offer support for their arguments. Like I'm pretty sure i won't be responding after this because you're not really saying anything. You're just rephrasing things without offering any new information.

"After consciousness develops, I could consider it immoral to abort, but I think on balance it should remain legal to avoid putting a chilling effect on medically neccessary abortions, subject to ethics board approval. I recognise this is not a perfect solution, I don't think a perfect solution exists."

When does consciousness develop? If that is where you draw the line then you have to know where the line is. And what is a "medically necessary" abortion?

"Not pre-born, pre-consciousness. Stop changing what I'm saying''

Girl, i'm not changing what you're saying. That's what I'm saying. That's my verbiage. That is how i choose to refer to them because I think Pre-consciousness is a stupid term. Especially when you can't tell me when that is.

"In short, I pre-suppose that I am a person. I think about what I am, it seems to be a mental construct. I could conceive of myself existing as a mind without a human body, I cannot conceive of myself existing as a human body without a mind. In the latter, I would not exist. So, it seems my existence is tied to being a mental construct. If I assume this holds for others, it follows that something that doesn't exist as a mental construct is not a person. This is consistent with everything I observe about the world."

So basically, "I think, therefore I am."

I reject that. Being aware of yourself and conceiving on your existence as a mental construct is not what defines whether or not you are a person. You are not a person because you are conscious and can conceive of your existence, you can do that because you are a person.

If consciousness is what makes makes a person a person then why aren't all creatures with consciouness people? Why aren't cats and dogs people? Why aren't bears people? Or birds? You get the idea.

And what about someone in a coma? They have no consciousness. Are they not people anymore?

The unborn baby has the capacity for consciousness from the moment they exist. Not the immediate capacity, but they do have it. It just has to develop. Like everything else.

"I don't buy this. I don't buy that the scientific consensus is the way you describe it. Please describe to me the conscious experience of a single celled zygote. Why is it that a single celled zygote can be conscious but not sperm? What about non-human bacteria? I think it's the most reasonable stance in the world to hold that a brain is required for consciousness."

You don't have to take my word for it you can look it up.

Also, read what I said a little more carefully. I didn't say they do have a conscious experience. I said we don't know for certain. That means exactly what it sounds like - I don't know. I can't describe an experience I'm not even claiming to know exists. But our lack of awareness isn't proof that something doesn't exist.

I don't know exactly when consciousness begins, and I don't need to pretend I do. Get it now? To me, whether a fetus is conscious at a given moment is irrelevant because I don't accept the premise that consciousness is what makes someone a person. Human beings exist from conception, and all human beings are people.

But the difference between a zygote and sperm is that the zygote is a complete living human organism and the sperm is not. It is a reproductive cell. That's why the zygote has the capacity for consciousness and the sperm does not.

Anyway, I don't see myself responding to you in this thread again so take care.

[m00nlandings]

No such thing as a pro abort, there are only forced birthers like you morons! The fetus has no right to use another person’s body to reach full development and to be born! If it dies because it was expelled at 3 gestational months because the pregnant person induces an abortion then so be it, the person’s right to not carry to term passed that and to not give birth is an enumerated human right to bodily integrity and bodily autonomy ! You have no right to dictate if someone else carries to term and give birth.

KYS forced birther!

[thisworldisawh0re]

[himancienttheblackangel]

HE SAID

HE SAID

HE SAID

HE SAID

Bitch WHAT THE FUCK DID HE PHYSICALLY DO TO YOU WEAK ASS EMOTIONAL FUCKS

Whole generation of cuck men ahhhhh he said something that made you sad awwwww poor fucking weak awwwh

[m00nlandings]

Psychotic how you right wing conservatives project! What he said was an example of what advocated for ! Sorry you’re too much of a cuck for Charlie not to admit the truth that the he got his throat shot by another psycho right wingers

[astropeony]

Say it as loud as you can

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Reminder that this phrase is about male genocide and women being inherently better than men, not gender equality.

Which splits its repeaters into the groups of those whp are ignorant of its meaning, and those who genuinely advocate for it.

[gopfails]

"Male genocide"

You wanna be oppressed so bad

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Men already face serious andbiften systemic/systematic inequalities for being male. Your ignorance of this is not a counterargument.

What I was addressing was that this phrase was/is a call to genocide.

Pay attention.

[captainsquare]

Gopfails is a low quality troll who does this for attention. The best thing to do is not engage with him.

[m00nlandings]

Captainsquare misspelled you’re own name dear

[idle-drifter]

I had this little conversation last month. I don't know where they calculate the 85%. But I do get paid for my time and labor. Otherwise, I would quit. The nice thing about not owning the business. I'm not attached to any debt incurred by the owners.

[trader-j0e]

I love the fact that they misused the "clown makeup" template, once again proving that the Left Can't Meme.

[m00nlandings]

Not misused; proving you can’t spell cause you misspelled “right”

[astropeony]

Say it as loud as you can

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Reminder that this phrase is about male genocide and women being inherently better than men, not gender equality.

Which splits its repeaters into the groups of those whp are ignorant of its meaning, and those who genuinely advocate for it.

[gopfails]

"Male genocide"

You wanna be oppressed so bad

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Men already face serious andbiften systemic/systematic inequalities for being male. Your ignorance of this is not a counterargument.

What I was addressing was that this phrase was/is a call to genocide.

Pay attention.

[astropeony]

Uh huh, it's men who are married and impregnated by women at an early age, it's men who are forced into domestic slavery, it's men who are systematically prohibited from defending themselves and developing their physical strength, it's men who are subjected to standards for women that force them to erase their faces and physiology in order to visually please women, which is why they are referred to as "children of Sephora," it's men who are killed by women if they don't cover their bodies from other women, and it's men who are featured prominently in women's pornhub top rankings, yeah, we get it, men are actually suffer

/sarc )

[cheshireinthemiddle]

It's men who are excluded from being victims by law via gendered crime definitions.

It's men who are denied victim services for being male.

It's men who are statistically more likely to be blamed when seeking help than to actually receive help.

It's men who face oppositions to gender equality being treated as progressive.

It's men who get falsely accused/punished at disproportionate rates.

It's men who are constantly told that their consent doesnt matter.

It's men who lead in almost every major cause of death, but we still put the spotlight (and funding) on women.

It's men who have their black of reproductive and parental rights turned into women's rights.

It's men who can face serious systematic/systemic inequality and no one will care.

It's men who arent even allowed to talk about the inequalities they face.

[re-jet-irony]

"You wanna be oppressed so bad"

It always fascinates me when they say this. Because why? Why would men want to be oppressed so bad that you use it as a taunt?

It's basically them admitting that being a supposed oppressed group has certain benefits that they want to hold onto. It's why they fight against men's issues so hard, even when the issue doesn't involve them.

Because men's issues, if acknowledged at all, must be dealt with through a 'feminist lens' so they can control the perception of that issue to maintain their own victimhood which grants them power. It's a mass 'crying woman' tactic, really.

[gopfails]

Did womans victimhood grant them power when families chose to kill their daughters so they could try again for a son? Or when their genitals get mutilated?

You're a fucking loser for even trying to spin this.

[hamstergetten]

It granted them the ability in some countries to have more funding for their rape and abuse while men barely get any, the ability to have rape laws written that prevent them for being considered rapists in some parts of the world, it got the u.n.

It granted them the right for widespread activism again FGM while male circumcision is less likely to be opposed and even have certain organizations like many u.n. ones to encourage. It got them the ability in many parts of the world to be exempt from the draft. The ability for their sexism and profiling of men to get excused and defended.

Whenever men and women suffer issues it grants them a society more likely to put more aid for helping women even when men suffer it more.

I have zero idea what the fuck you are even doing here. How is this a GOP fail. Are you a moron who thinks only right wingers can believe women can have advantages over men?

We are allowed to mock men, insult them, and generalize them in ways that are more likely to be condemned when aimed at women. Being seen as an oppressed group leads to people caring more about your suffering and putting more effort into ending it.

Besides remember. If you're an oppressor group the oppressed are morally allowed to hate you.

[m00nlandings]

Delusional take is delusional.

[idle-drifter]

I had this little conversation last month. I don't know where they calculate the 85%. But I do get paid for my time and labor. Otherwise, I would quit. The nice thing about not owning the business. I'm not attached to any debt incurred by the owners.

[beardedmrbean]

I own a store, I pay people $20 hr to work there, if the store makes money I make money and my employees get paid $20 an hour, if the store breaks even I make no money and my employees make $20 an hour, if the store loses money I make negative money and my employees make $20 an hour. AC unit exploded, we need to replace it now, all the profits for the week are now in play replacing the AC unit, I make no money, my employees make $20 an hour.

If I make a shit ton of money I may give my employees a bonus, or I may squirrel it away for another potential store loses money time in the future.

Would my employees like to join me in the gamble of making money with the potential risk of making negative money, or would they like to be able to keep a steady stream of revenue?

[m00nlandings]

Stupidest thing I’ve ever seen written. They’re already gambling by working for your stupid ass; if your business makes negative money; they don’t get paid because either checks bounce or people get cut. How bad of a business owner are you that your entire profit goes towards replacing an AC? That is literally a part of operational costs.

You poor little martyr, you’re not allowed to blatantly commit wage theft by the law. The few protections employees have.

[idle-drifter]

I had this little conversation last month. I don't know where they calculate the 85%. But I do get paid for my time and labor. Otherwise, I would quit. The nice thing about not owning the business. I'm not attached to any debt incurred by the owners.

[beardedmrbean]

I own a store, I pay people $20 hr to work there, if the store makes money I make money and my employees get paid $20 an hour, if the store breaks even I make no money and my employees make $20 an hour, if the store loses money I make negative money and my employees make $20 an hour. AC unit exploded, we need to replace it now, all the profits for the week are now in play replacing the AC unit, I make no money, my employees make $20 an hour.

If I make a shit ton of money I may give my employees a bonus, or I may squirrel it away for another potential store loses money time in the future.

Would my employees like to join me in the gamble of making money with the potential risk of making negative money, or would they like to be able to keep a steady stream of revenue?

[brosef-von-dudehomie]

If a guy tells you he'll give you 99¢ of every dollar you make a company but he keeps 1¢, then makes that same deal with 1,000 other people, you don't get to bitch that he's making more than you.

[m00nlandings]

lol they do get to bitch but it’s adorable that you pretend that profits don’t exist or pretend profit is the money that is used to cover operational cost!

[idle-drifter]

I had this little conversation last month. I don't know where they calculate the 85%. But I do get paid for my time and labor. Otherwise, I would quit. The nice thing about not owning the business. I'm not attached to any debt incurred by the owners.

[gearboxpraexology]

The 85% is probably the business's revenue after labor costs.

@thinginthefen am I correct? do you think wage labor pays for inventory or raw materials? What about the equipment the business uses? Rent, electrical or water bills? Maintenance and upkeep? If not, do you not believe those costs should be paid for with the revenue earned from their use?

[wherelibertydwells]

First order thinkers are the sort of people who think that food comes from the back room of the grocery store. Inventory, materials and equipment. The money you took to start the business. The intelligence to put it all together. That stuff just appears and is there when you need it.

[m00nlandings]

Sounds like a strawman argument! You mean the intelligence and time that you under paid someone for in comparison to the surplus value. More often than ‘the boss’ is an example of a first order thinker!

[idle-drifter]

I had this little conversation last month. I don't know where they calculate the 85%. But I do get paid for my time and labor. Otherwise, I would quit. The nice thing about not owning the business. I'm not attached to any debt incurred by the owners.

[gearboxpraexology]

The 85% is probably the business's revenue after labor costs.

@thinginthefen am I correct? do you think wage labor pays for inventory or raw materials? What about the equipment the business uses? Rent, electrical or water bills? Maintenance and upkeep? If not, do you not believe those costs should be paid for with the revenue earned from their use?

[return-of-the-blech]

Why do these idiots believe the boss doesn't do any work?

[m00nlandings]

This is what they call a loaded questions; they’re not idiots and more often than not its the people under the boss that do most of the work and create the surplus value. Also what the fuck do you think profit is? That’s right surplus value created by the workers! Also dipshit, how does your inventory and equipment create value? Are they self assembled and 100% self operating? Are they 100% self maintaining and self cleaning? No? Do you need skills to do those things?

[the-world-go-crazy2025]

either trump keeps staging assassination attempts to look tuff or they hiring the worst gunmen known to man JUST FUCKING KILL HIM ALREADY

[anamericangirl]

Leftists have learned nothing in the past year. They still celebrate and call for violence and also somehow expect everyone to believe they are the good guys.

[cookingwithroxy]

I think what makes Op's post the weirdest is the whole overall position of 'there is no way that these people are just random insane weirdos who decided to kill someone (OP) openly calls for the death of, they have to be very bad hired killers or false flags!'

Like, the absolute unreality there is kinda interesting to behold.

[yokelfelonking]

Someone says something that may theoretically imply something that contradicts progressive ideology: "THIS IS HATE SPEECH, IT'S LITERAL VIOLENCE, THEY ARE LITERALLY CALLING FOR GENOCIDE"

Progressives openly call for violence and murder against someone: "How could anyone possibly think that anyone would take this seriously?"

People physically attack the people progressives have been openly calling for violence against: "No idea why this happened, they probably faked the whole thing, glad it happened though and I actively promote it happening again but worse next time"

[m00nlandings]

When you misspell conservative

[astropeony]

Say it as loud as you can

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Reminder that this phrase is about male genocide and women being inherently better than men, not gender equality.

Which splits its repeaters into the groups of those whp are ignorant of its meaning, and those who genuinely advocate for it.

[gopfails]

"Male genocide"

You wanna be oppressed so bad

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Men already face serious andbiften systemic/systematic inequalities for being male. Your ignorance of this is not a counterargument.

What I was addressing was that this phrase was/is a call to genocide.

Pay attention.

[burningabyss572]

What does the Future is Female even fuckin' mean cause like....

Humans are not that one species of lizard, I don't know how to tell you.

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Oh! An actual question. Fun.

"The Future is Female" came from radical feminist seperatist and proud man-hater, Sally Miller Gearhart. Gearhart wholeheartedly believed that women were inherently better than men, and should be 100% of leaders, police, teachers, etc. That the world should be led by women and women alone. And her solution to all of this was to convince women all over the world to selectively abort any male children they have to reduce the male population down to 10%. Then put the remaining men into "camps" for "breeding purposes". (The part about camps was found in her supporter's notes in response to questions of how they will keep up the population. I havent found anything from her directly about it, but it makes sense.).

This slogan was popularized for decades and misinterpreted as generic empowerment to the point that you can see/gear it on mainstresm television and see it sold on t-shirts.

As in "The Future is Female" isnt some empowering slogan about women being equal. It's about women being superior, and a call to the genocide of men. It's saying the future belongs to women.

EDIT:

OP is selectively erasing comments and turned off reblogs immediately after I posted this. No actual counterargument other than "men should die". Which means OP is likely on the side of people who knows what "the future is female" means and approves of it🤷‍♂️

[astropeony]

Reblogs aren’t disabled, clown. I block comments from other clowns like you because it’s pointless using translator every time to argue with those who will defend men while ignoring objective data about what men actually do to women and that other men, if they "do" suffer(womp womp), do so because of the system that other men built. I’m too lazy to reply to each of you, and I don’t want you to litter my comments with crap that could tarnish the image of young feminists or other women you’re forcing into compulsory empathy for scumbags("not like other men/pick me, girls/actual good" men). If you want to fight a straw man, go ahead. But I wouldn’t advise you to spread lies about me :p

[anneone16621189]

Don't bark about beating down straw men when you're too chicken shit scared to put that stick to the men you hate so much.

[m00nlandings]

Btw I find it precious you men play the victim with strawman while making delighted in the idea of a man harming women who call out male violence against women.

Truly, go kill yourself

[astropeony]

Say it as loud as you can

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Reminder that this phrase is about male genocide and women being inherently better than men, not gender equality.

Which splits its repeaters into the groups of those whp are ignorant of its meaning, and those who genuinely advocate for it.

[gopfails]

"Male genocide"

You wanna be oppressed so bad

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Men already face serious andbiften systemic/systematic inequalities for being male. Your ignorance of this is not a counterargument.

What I was addressing was that this phrase was/is a call to genocide.

Pay attention.

[astropeony]

Uh huh, it's men who are married and impregnated by women at an early age, it's men who are forced into domestic slavery, it's men who are systematically prohibited from defending themselves and developing their physical strength, it's men who are subjected to standards for women that force them to erase their faces and physiology in order to visually please women, which is why they are referred to as "children of Sephora," it's men who are killed by women if they don't cover their bodies from other women, and it's men who are featured prominently in women's pornhub top rankings, yeah, we get it, men are actually suffer

/sarc )

[cheshireinthemiddle]

It's men who are excluded from being victims by law via gendered crime definitions.

It's men who are denied victim services for being male.

It's men who are statistically more likely to be blamed when seeking help than to actually receive help.

It's men who face oppositions to gender equality being treated as progressive.

It's men who get falsely accused/punished at disproportionate rates.

It's men who are constantly told that their consent doesnt matter.

It's men who lead in almost every major cause of death, but we still put the spotlight (and funding) on women.

It's men who have their black of reproductive and parental rights turned into women's rights.

It's men who can face serious systematic/systemic inequality and no one will care.

It's men who arent even allowed to talk about the inequalities they face.

[re-jet-irony]

"You wanna be oppressed so bad"

It always fascinates me when they say this. Because why? Why would men want to be oppressed so bad that you use it as a taunt?

It's basically them admitting that being a supposed oppressed group has certain benefits that they want to hold onto. It's why they fight against men's issues so hard, even when the issue doesn't involve them.

Because men's issues, if acknowledged at all, must be dealt with through a 'feminist lens' so they can control the perception of that issue to maintain their own victimhood which grants them power. It's a mass 'crying woman' tactic, really.

[gopfails]

Did womans victimhood grant them power when families chose to kill their daughters so they could try again for a son? Or when their genitals get mutilated?

You're a fucking loser for even trying to spin this.

[re-jet-irony]

You just used crimes against women to try to make me feel bad, which would result in me backing off because regardless what feminism might try to say, sexism against women is regarded as a bad thing and most people don't want to be associated with it.

You just did the equivalent of crying in public to make people think I'm an asshole.

You just used women's victimhood to try to gain an advantage over me.

Your proclamation doesn't do anything for those women suffering, you just prop them up and use their pain for your advantage.

So yes.

[gopfails]

Holy shit you're retarded.

[re-jet-irony]

Don't have a response without emotional manipulation or insulting? Okay.

[m00nlandings]

We know you can’t have a response without emotional manipulation or insulting! Stop doing it, you stupid cunt

[astropeony]

Say it as loud as you can

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Reminder that this phrase is about male genocide and women being inherently better than men, not gender equality.

Which splits its repeaters into the groups of those whp are ignorant of its meaning, and those who genuinely advocate for it.

[gopfails]

"Male genocide"

You wanna be oppressed so bad

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Men already face serious andbiften systemic/systematic inequalities for being male. Your ignorance of this is not a counterargument.

What I was addressing was that this phrase was/is a call to genocide.

Pay attention.

[burningabyss572]

What does the Future is Female even fuckin' mean cause like....

Humans are not that one species of lizard, I don't know how to tell you.

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Oh! An actual question. Fun.

"The Future is Female" came from radical feminist seperatist and proud man-hater, Sally Miller Gearhart. Gearhart wholeheartedly believed that women were inherently better than men, and should be 100% of leaders, police, teachers, etc. That the world should be led by women and women alone. And her solution to all of this was to convince women all over the world to selectively abort any male children they have to reduce the male population down to 10%. Then put the remaining men into "camps" for "breeding purposes". (The part about camps was found in her supporter's notes in response to questions of how they will keep up the population. I havent found anything from her directly about it, but it makes sense.).

This slogan was popularized for decades and misinterpreted as generic empowerment to the point that you can see/gear it on mainstresm television and see it sold on t-shirts.

As in "The Future is Female" isnt some empowering slogan about women being equal. It's about women being superior, and a call to the genocide of men. It's saying the future belongs to women.

EDIT:

OP is selectively erasing comments and turned off reblogs immediately after I posted this. No actual counterargument other than "men should die". Which means OP is likely on the side of people who knows what "the future is female" means and approves of it🤷‍♂️

[astropeony]

Reblogs aren’t disabled, clown. I block comments from other clowns like you because it’s pointless using translator every time to argue with those who will defend men while ignoring objective data about what men actually do to women and that other men, if they "do" suffer(womp womp), do so because of the system that other men built. I’m too lazy to reply to each of you, and I don’t want you to litter my comments with crap that could tarnish the image of young feminists or other women you’re forcing into compulsory empathy for scumbags("not like other men/pick me, girls/actual good" men). If you want to fight a straw man, go ahead. But I wouldn’t advise you to spread lies about me :p

[anneone16621189]

Don't bark about beating down straw men when you're too chicken shit scared to put that stick to the men you hate so much.

[m00nlandings]

Don’t bark about someone being too chickenshit to beat up men you claim they hate when you’re too chickenshit to kill yourself

[astropeony]

Say it as loud as you can

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Reminder that this phrase is about male genocide and women being inherently better than men, not gender equality.

Which splits its repeaters into the groups of those whp are ignorant of its meaning, and those who genuinely advocate for it.

[gopfails]

"Male genocide"

You wanna be oppressed so bad

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Men already face serious andbiften systemic/systematic inequalities for being male. Your ignorance of this is not a counterargument.

What I was addressing was that this phrase was/is a call to genocide.

Pay attention.

[astropeony]

Uh huh, it's men who are married and impregnated by women at an early age, it's men who are forced into domestic slavery, it's men who are systematically prohibited from defending themselves and developing their physical strength, it's men who are subjected to standards for women that force them to erase their faces and physiology in order to visually please women, which is why they are referred to as "children of Sephora," it's men who are killed by women if they don't cover their bodies from other women, and it's men who are featured prominently in women's pornhub top rankings, yeah, we get it, men are actually suffer

/sarc )

[cheshireinthemiddle]

It's men who are excluded from being victims by law via gendered crime definitions.

It's men who are denied victim services for being male.

It's men who are statistically more likely to be blamed when seeking help than to actually receive help.

It's men who face oppositions to gender equality being treated as progressive.

It's men who get falsely accused/punished at disproportionate rates.

It's men who are constantly told that their consent doesnt matter.

It's men who lead in almost every major cause of death, but we still put the spotlight (and funding) on women.

It's men who have their black of reproductive and parental rights turned into women's rights.

It's men who can face serious systematic/systemic inequality and no one will care.

It's men who arent even allowed to talk about the inequalities they face.

[re-jet-irony]

"You wanna be oppressed so bad"

It always fascinates me when they say this. Because why? Why would men want to be oppressed so bad that you use it as a taunt?

It's basically them admitting that being a supposed oppressed group has certain benefits that they want to hold onto. It's why they fight against men's issues so hard, even when the issue doesn't involve them.

Because men's issues, if acknowledged at all, must be dealt with through a 'feminist lens' so they can control the perception of that issue to maintain their own victimhood which grants them power. It's a mass 'crying woman' tactic, really.

[gopfails]

Did womans victimhood grant them power when families chose to kill their daughters so they could try again for a son? Or when their genitals get mutilated?

You're a fucking loser for even trying to spin this.

[generallemarc]

Just say you didn't read the evidence, it saves everyone time.

[m00nlandings]

Just say you didn’t post evidence, it saves everyone time

[astropeony]

Say it as loud as you can

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Reminder that this phrase is about male genocide and women being inherently better than men, not gender equality.

Which splits its repeaters into the groups of those whp are ignorant of its meaning, and those who genuinely advocate for it.

[gopfails]

"Male genocide"

You wanna be oppressed so bad

[cheshireinthemiddle]

Men already face serious andbiften systemic/systematic inequalities for being male. Your ignorance of this is not a counterargument.

What I was addressing was that this phrase was/is a call to genocide.

Pay attention.

[astropeony]

Uh huh, it's men who are married and impregnated by women at an early age, it's men who are forced into domestic slavery, it's men who are systematically prohibited from defending themselves and developing their physical strength, it's men who are subjected to standards for women that force them to erase their faces and physiology in order to visually please women, which is why they are referred to as "children of Sephora," it's men who are killed by women if they don't cover their bodies from other women, and it's men who are featured prominently in women's pornhub top rankings, yeah, we get it, men are actually suffer

/sarc )

[cheshireinthemiddle]

It's men who are excluded from being victims by law via gendered crime definitions.

It's men who are denied victim services for being male.

It's men who are statistically more likely to be blamed when seeking help than to actually receive help.

It's men who face oppositions to gender equality being treated as progressive.

It's men who get falsely accused/punished at disproportionate rates.

It's men who are constantly told that their consent doesnt matter.

It's men who lead in almost every major cause of death, but we still put the spotlight (and funding) on women.

It's men who have their black of reproductive and parental rights turned into women's rights.

It's men who can face serious systematic/systemic inequality and no one will care.

It's men who arent even allowed to talk about the inequalities they face.

[re-jet-irony]

"You wanna be oppressed so bad"

It always fascinates me when they say this. Because why? Why would men want to be oppressed so bad that you use it as a taunt?

It's basically them admitting that being a supposed oppressed group has certain benefits that they want to hold onto. It's why they fight against men's issues so hard, even when the issue doesn't involve them.

Because men's issues, if acknowledged at all, must be dealt with through a 'feminist lens' so they can control the perception of that issue to maintain their own victimhood which grants them power. It's a mass 'crying woman' tactic, really.

[feminismisstillahatemovement]

[m00nlandings]

Misspelled the men’s rights movement there buddy and we know that you’re a hate movement because you lie and strawman so fucking much