- cross-posted to:
- murderedbywords@feddit.uk
- cross-posted to:
- murderedbywords@feddit.uk
You must log in or register to comment.
You know what else kills a human? Forcing them to give birth even if they are not healthy enough to do so.
If you are going to make talking points at least be cohesive.
Apparently, water also burns
As someone that has experience pouring boiling hot pasta water over my feet I can confirm that it indeed burns.
What order of events was this conversation?? I never could get into tumblr/Twitter reply format I’m so confused. Who shot first
The timestamps should be a big clue. 3d, 1d, 9h, and the tweet at the top has no timestamp but from context it should be obvious that came last.
This is useful but to be candid I’m not looking at memes for intellectual stimulation so it’s more effort than I’d like.
The tweet at the top has the rest of them attached as a screenshot which does make it a bit confusing.
Lake Superior’s tweet (the “innermost” one) came first. Tom quote-retweeted it. Lake superior replied to Tom’s tweet. Ron took a screenshot of the whole exchange and posted it as his own tweet.
I’m just glad I’m not the only one who wants to read from top to bottom like a fucking normal person.
I just want to roll the whole internet back by about 20 years.
Sometimes it goes backwards. Next they are going to post everything sideways and the dates will be encoded in a base 12 abacus representation of the Vietnamese calendar.
The red numbers show it chronologically. Twitter has replies and quote retweets. This began with the purple quote retweet. To which Lake Superior responded. Then in green I think this is a quote retweet (or more likely a screenshot) of the exchange. (I don’t think you can quote multiple posts so I think it’s a screenshot.)
What happened to Edmund Fitzgerald?
It’s a ship, there’s a whole song about it
Haven’t heard of it
While the music style is not everyone’s cup of tea is an excellent example of a ballad and I think it’s a fun song And well done.
Relevant xkcd
Nice.
It got wrecked. Because of that fact, many people are calling for the Great Lakes to be nuked.
I have not until now heard of anyone calling for the Great Lakes to be nuked but I kinda support it. Where do I sign the petition?
That’s the kind of shit Donald Trump would say.
It was one of the robert’s evan but not the movie one
What’s that
There’s a podcast called Behind the Bastards, Robert Evans is the host. Podcast about terrible people in history, Evans and guests have left wing politics and “crude” humor…it’s awesome
Like your mom every Friday night when I come over.
The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down
Of the big lake they call Gitchigumee
The lake it is said never gives up her dead
When the gales of November turn gloomy
Wrecked, 29 died, Lake Superior never gives up her dead
Imagine getting murdered by one of the great lakes and it doesn’t involve drowning. 💀
Water touches water and therefore makes it wet
Killing humans who have no nervous system is fine. It’s only immoral if the human is a person
I maintain that debating fetal personhood is a huge mistake because it goes down a philosophical road where you can’t clearly define things like when someone feels pain.
There is a much simpler reason to make abortion legal- for the same reason it is not legal to harvest a corpse’s organs without the person’s consent before they die or the reason you can’t be forced to donate a kidney. Being forced to use your organs for someone else’s benefit against your will is illegal in every other situation. Even if it means a human will die without them. That doesn’t matter if it is something that will eventually develop into someone with full human rights or if it has them already. It’s just not relevant. It’s about the rights of the person whose body will be used.
Most of these people would be okay with harvesting a dead person’s organs so long as they aren’t theirs.
That’s always the issue. https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/
Which opens the debate: when becomes an embryo a person?
Difficult question. And research on that topic would be immoral at least.
It’s actually a pretty simple question, and has a simple, straightforward answer. The fetus does not become alive until its survival needs can be feasibly met by someone or something other than the mother. Until it is biologically capable of surviving the death of the mother, it is alive only as a part of the mother’s body.
An infant does require considerable support. It will die if neglected. But, the support an infant requires can be provided by any caregiver. Dad, grandma, or an older sibling can feed an infant. Doctors can provide it with IV nutrition.
Nobody but mom can “feed” an immature fetus.
Either way, the fetus of a woman who wants an abortion is up her vagina without consent and is therefore a rapist. Deadly force is permissible in the act of removing a rapist from their victim.
An unwanted/planned child is a rapist? You can’t be serious.
It’s not a child. A child is defined as having been born. It’s a fetus. A parasite.
Come on. Have you seen what’s going on on college campuses right now? I’ve heard far less serious things being said with absolute sincerity.
We’re reaching the point where victimhood is the only trait people aspire to achieve.
I love that bait, hahah. Rape aside, woman had to take into account possibility of a child when she had sex. Same with her partner. Sorry, but that’s the biological reason sex even exists, and denying it because we found good methods of contraception does nothing because even these methods are being advertised as not 100% effective.
So, no victims there other than the poor unborn child.
That “rape aside” is doing a lot of heavy lifitng there and conveniently sweeps away the need to actually address anything that isn’t the “had sex, your fault” narrative you seem to be espousing here.
Especially given that there is little to no effort being given to exemptions of any kind.
Nobody is denying that sex is how babies are (usually) made, i mean apart from the “this book is the literal truth” christians i suppose.
or you’re trolling, in which case, congratulations…i guess.
I slightly do troll - in a sense of presenting fully opposite view to the one provided.
And the"rape aside" is meant to do the heavy lifting. It’s there as a heavy notion that shit happens. Forced sex, rapid health declination, getting too drunk to think logicaly (…although from what I know, then it’s also rape, no? Or I misunderstood), or simply finding out your body can’t handle birth. These are all valid reasons for abortion.
But by all means, consequence of sex is having a child, and people - this is my own fully subjective opinion - seem to be bewildered by this notion. By all means, people always should take into account that sex ends with children without precautions, and still may end with children with, and be responsible about it. Not call a consequence of their actions a parasite.
I don’t think water touches water because it’s all water.
Otherwise you touching a person would make you two people, because the skin is touching skin.
Something something are these nuts fitton in you face…
He can’t even get the order right. The phrase is “[thing] and also water is wet.”
Look, I don’t agree with the rest of the statement either, but tell me, what is the water touching? Oh, more water? Water is wet.
When water touches water you get more water, not wet water
thats because water is already wet 😂
It threw me at first too. Helps to think of it as wetness being an interaction between a liquid and solid. Water makes things wet, it isn’t itself wet.
So only solids can be wet?
You’d have to ask a physicist. I would be surprised if you couldn’t make other liquids “wet”. The solid analogy helps with conceptualising an interface, one material on another. I suppose you could make water wet, by freezing a block and then splashing said block with water but that doesn’t equate to it being wet itself, if that makes sense.
Wetting is a rather complex topic. Basically, yes.
Not all solids can be wetted. Wax, for example: water beads up on a waxed surface; it does not actually wet the surface.
Not all “wetting” involves water. Soldering and brazing involve “wetting” base materials with a molten filler metal. Dripping molten metal on the base material does not necessarily “wet” it either: the molten filler can “bead” just like water on wax. When it solidifies, the filler metal is not bonded to the unwetted base metal.
wet containing moisture or volatile components
Water is wet. The fact that this is an argument is ridiculous.
Tru fax
