ViperMan

@Pooter I wasn't originally responding to you. I was responding to @ClearedHot when he referenced "bible bangers" and "a very draconian ruling based on religion." The other post was in response to @Demonrat who made the same argument. The bottom line point I was making is that it is a cop out from the left to argue that because a large group of people make a religious argument, the conclusion they reach is false. It's a model example of arguing from false premises. In the form of the argument they made, it's of course valid, but they choose to ignore the actual scientific reality that it is an independent life inside the woman. The plain matter of fact is that the conclusion they reach is true, but it's easier to dismiss religious arguments than scientific ones. You are cool with calling it a "woman's choice." To a point, so am I, but only to a point. At some point, it's no longer her choice. At some point, she's bought that merge. But hey, that's life in the city. What I think the world needs to get beyond is this framing that the government is somehow forcing a woman to have a child. That's also a false frame. Nature is forcing her to have the child. The government provides some (limited) outs, but they need to be acted upon early and/or in limited circumstances. I agree that there is unfair portrayal on both sides as to what the other side believes, but there is no scientific gray area as to when life begins - it's absolutely clear and unequivocal - and that's not a religious viewpoint, it's a scientific one. What constitutes "life" from a philosophical viewpoint, and when it has "value" is a different question where there is gray area. But in that separate context "life", the word, has a different meaning.

Ok, fair enough. Please disregard much of my most recent post then. Yeah, I'm not very religious, but I see the pro-choice side of this argument paint the other side as religious fanatics and it confines the argument to a place where it frankly doesn't belong. And yeah, I do respond to multiple posts at once. I was responding to @Demonrat in there somewhere. Anyway

It's a dodge because the left side of this argument paints any pro-lifer as a religious fanatic or zealot (which you did) precisely so they can dismiss religion (which is easy / justified) without having to deal with hard science that shows that there is an independent life inside a pregnant woman. That was the structure of your argument from a couple posts ago. You painted the other side as religious and then you closed the book without ever having to grapple with something scientific. Go re-read your post. And it is absolutely settled scientifically. It's not settled by our courts because we live in a messy and self-interested society. I agree that it is a messy issue and that there is probably wiggle room on the early side for things like abortion to take place. That said, there is clearly a human at 7, 8, and 9 months of pregnancy. I'm trying to find time to read the whole draft decision, but the first 6-7 pages make some pretty good arguments. And you can't talk about abortion without implicitly talking about life. Here's some words for you: Abortion (noun) - "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy." Pregnant (adjective) - "(of a woman or female animal) having a child or young developing in the uterus." Finally, to your point about Roe, I don't think you really care what the courts say as far as your argument is concerned, and neither does anyone else on the left. It's an appeal to authority - nothing more. How do I know this? Because they're not all of a sudden going to go away when/if the court comes down with this decision...

Dude, forget the Christian argument. Did your life not start in the womb? If not, then where did it start? Outside the womb? Are you Schrodinger's baby? You didn't exist until you passed through the birth canal? And if you passed back through in reverse, would you immediately un-exist again? What about a C-section, at exactly what point during the incision does the baby pop into existence? Or does it ever? The "secular" argument is every bit as ridiculous as the so-called religious argument. At some point prior to the event called birth, there is a human in there. That's irrefutable and scientific. You equating death from a natural cause (miscarriage) to one requiring intervention (abortion) is gross. I'm not sure where it falls on the moral continuum, but it's gross. And to your point about a pregnant woman being murdered, you better believe that there is precedent for that person to be charged with double murder, which makes our legal system all the more ridiculous. We all know it's a messy issue. People come down on different ends of what the other party considers extreme. I guess I just admit that aside from all the religious arguments against it and all the "secular" arguments for it, I found the defense of "abortion" by the governor of VA to be outrageous. Yeah, let's go with an abortion when a woman is dilating because it might impair her "mental" health. Yeah, let's allow a child to die that happened to be born because I was performing an abortion, so that makes it ok if that's what the parents originally wanted. The morning after pill doesn't bother me, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9-month abortions do. We all have freedom, none of us - including women - has absolute freedom.

Nice dodge, but as I said, it's a difficult position to stake out morally that someone should be allowed to abort a life because they find it convenient. I invite you to make that case as opposed to avoiding the subject. And to your point about it being "my" morals or "your" morals being used to regulate society, guess what, you were born into a society and culture that is riddled with rules and laws that came from someone else's moral code. So I find this argument disingenuous on its face. I know you don't agree with every law that is written - neither do I. That's not an argument either for or against abortion.

I think I agree with your general position, but I don't think this current trope of calling it a "state's issue" is consistent. Should murder be a states' issue? Murder is illegal by state law and federally. If people really consider this to be equivalent to murder, then it does require a law at the federal level outlawing it. This ain't a states' issue in just the same way murder isn't. Here's the thing. It doesn't matter that abortions will continue if Roe happens to be overturned. Murder happens. Do you think that murder shouldn't be outlawed? Do you think outlawing guns will clean up the streets? Get real. The point of having laws is to collectively state what we-the-people are not going to accept. What we think constitutes "right" and "wrong." What we want our government to enforce on our behalf to make a society that we can all live and thrive in. And casting proponents of the issue purely in religious terns is a convenient way of avoiding having to grapple with a very contentious issue - regardless of your religion. It's an easy way to paint the target, label it something else, and move on without ever having to lend real support to their position. I'm areligious and against abortions of convenience. It is an easy off ramp from the argument, and people love to take it because arguing that someone should be allowed to abort someone else because it's going to be inconvenient is a pretty hard position to stake out morally - hence the disproportionate focus from the left on incest, rape, danger to the mother, etc - it's a framing tactic. Most abortions are carried out for convenience - not because of one of those (arguably) reasonable exceptions. Finally (FYI) there is plenty of fantastic precedent for overturning cases. Stare Decisis is important, but it's more important that the court is to be able to correct errors. Do you honestly think the court shouldn't be able to overturn previous decisions? JFC. Seriously. See the following: Plessy Brown Dred This. Have whatever opinion you want to about the abortion issue - no fair reading of the constitution provides some sort of magical privacy that allows for abortion. It's the only right that has been derived from this supposed broad-based privacy which flows from the 14th amendment, and for something that is supposedly so fundamental, it is pretty strange that it doesn't rear its head in any other case law. But maybe I'm the only one that finds that strange. No doubt this won't be the last of the issue (either way) - what it absolutely does do, however, is begin to re-establish the credibility of the court to enact decisions that actually make sense.

There's an unavoidable and fatal flaw to your approach, i.e. when "operatives" (trolls) promulgate true things. What then? Are you going to ban the actual truth because it's promoted by someone who has been classified as a troll? As soon as you adapt your approach, they'll adapt theirs. They'll sock-puppet the truth and now you're going to be on record suppressing it! Have fun with that. If something is true, it's true - it makes no difference who or what says it. No, the futile thing is to attempt to control something that is so slippery as speech. If there is misinformation out there, there is information out there that can and will refute it. Sorry, this is a bad idea all the way down.

Two holes? Still about 6-9 less than Putin's mom has.

For real? Like no shit? *If* this is the case, there needs to be a massive come to Jesus with regard to how our media apparatus functions. That's already true, but this should make it obvious for everyone, regardless of which side of the isle you're on.

Pretty sure the answer is yes. You can't be "put" on orders in order to take leave, but if you're on an order, you're allowed to use it. LES = Leave and Earnings Statement. Some other nuances: I don't think you accrue leave (or other benes) if you're on an order of less than 31 days.

Don't click on (or otherwise use) those sources. They get some money (somehow) when you do. Refuse to use them and visit others. Vote with your dollars. That's the best min effort / max impact thing you can do to help kill the beast.

Dude, this invasion is the definition of totally premeditated and unprovoked - there is no middle ground here. Provoking something necessarily involves you doing something illegitimate. Ukraine determining their own destiny is fully legitimate. "NATO expansion" is a pretext to BS foreign policy goals Russia has long held. So regardless of the total lack of moral logic required to suggest that a country executing their own ambitions is justification for a hostile invasion, you've got Russia who has knowingly, and legally, signed agreements that have disallowed nothing the West has done. So this notion that NATO expansion is somehow responsible or culpable for Russia's current actions is fully hollow. Worth about eight minutes of your time from this mark. For real? Sorry, did I miss the major news story that China has invaded a sovereign country (unprovokedly) and is shelling civilians in a criminal manner? I get China ain't our friend, but this comparison exemplifies "specious." Call me when China starts dropping cluster munitions in Taipai...I'll get on board with your theme.

No fan of Joe, but what's the alternative? To legitimize Putin and his ilk by dealing with him and in doing so tacitly approve of his actions? That'll just engender even worse. It's clear to me that Putin does have to go. The "West" cannot afford to deal with him in really any capacity after this adventure. Not sure what that means, but there is plenty short of WWIII which that can mean. For starters, we really should offer to be Europe's energy guarantor and take real and visible steps towards that end. Putin thinks the current sanctions are biting? Wait until he (and his people) realizes he's getting cut off from his largest market.

That's the exact feeling I had upon first reading. I was struck by how similar it all was to my "modern" experience and how its absurdism was present in my own experience. A passage (in reference to Colonel Cathcart)

The book killed me...seems like I need to watch the movie.

Ok that's cool, we're all working with our own set of terms. Yeah, so they haven't worked according to that metric. That said, sanctions never work overnight, and I think characterizing something that is supposed to work over time as a failure until the moment it works is an unfair judgement to make. I give NK a 0.0% (repeating, of course) chance of being a world-leading nation in the next 100 years under their current regime. Civilians being miserable is a necessary but insufficient condition for sanctions to work in many cases - this one included. And right now, they are acceptable collateral damage. As are their bank accounts, iPhones, and pantries. I quite literally could not care. I hope it motivates them to ask the all-important question: "WTAF?" And finally, anyone's attitude about what is and isn't funny or appropriate is a relative judgement. In light of millions of people being illegally and criminally displaced from their homes and being hungry, yeah, I think that would be a shitty thing to laugh at. Looking at some poor Russian who can no longer get cheese from Italy because his government is *ucked, is funny. And I will laugh at it.

Just noticed this today myself and have set a reminder for Dec '22 to get myself set up with some other bank that offers the 2% unlimited cash back reward (the best I've been able to find). This was literally the only thing USAA had over and above all other banks out there. Now, they don't. They can waive bye-bye to my direct deposit $$$.

Hmmm, lemme check. Ghadafi? Dead. Saddam? Dead. Slobodan Milosevic? Dead. So yeah, maybe sanctions don't "work", but if I was a dictator, it would seem to me that sanctions are a pit stop that the West puts me in for a few months or years before I wind up getting killed by someone they support. And to your comment that it's not working in Iran or NK, I will disagree by simply saying you're wrong - without evidence - because I can. Look at a map of SK vs NK when they're lit at night...I'd say they're working.

It's not necessarily about punishment per se. Though it will be punishing, to be sure. It has multi-pronged effects that are more important. Namely, no one in Russia will be able to avoid figuring out WTF is going on since their money is now worth less than shit. It will cause their government many problems at home. It will limit the ability of the Russian military to make war, because as we all know, it's not lift and thrust that makes airplanes fly, it's money. It will cause massive rift within the Russian power brokerage. It will amplify distrust of the government. It will sow doubt among those who actually trust Putin. It will diminish their future ability to modernize their war machine. In short, it will do all manner of objectively good things. So yeah, sorry your average Ivan is getting it in the pants, but when you compare that to what's happening to your average Ukrainian, that pain inflicted against the Russian populace is meaningless. Fuck 'em.

I'm a pretty big naysayer of this current administration, but what they've done so far with Javelins and tough sanctions (what they've been able to do), has been commendable. Russia's economy is getting absolutely crushed, and there is still a lot more that we can do. And we should. Putin should be relegated to permanent pariah status. https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=RUB&to=USD&view=1M

Could have been better ♟️ For all the Snowden defenders: https://nypost.com/2020/11/02/edward-snowden-shows-his-true-colors-by-applying-for-russian-citizenship/ https://www.china.org.cn/world/2022-02/16/content_78051824.htm https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/02/11/nothing-more-grotesque-media-pushing-war-says-edward-snowden Quick recap: 2013: Snowden steals secrets from the NSA. Goes to hide in Russia for "sanctuary" until he can get a fair trial or some such. 2014: Russia invades eastern Ukraine. 2021/2: Snowden downplays potential for war in Ukraine. 2022: Russia full-scale attacks Ukraine. 👍

I'm good with the Ukrainians doing it 👍 - then it's belligerent vs belligerent. Doesn't have to be us, and you're right - it shouldn't be. Either way, I think that what is conventionally accepted as gospel - that nuclear powers will fight each other with nukes - is 1950s cold war thinking. Putin is throwing his d*ck around in Europe and we are caught with our pants down. He is obviously playing by a different set of rules now, and he'll continue to outmaneuver us if we hold fast to this notion (fear) that he's got a legit itchy nuclear trigger finger. He doesn't, and thinking that orients itself around that "fact" is doomed to lose.

No, not really. Not besides just starting a long and grinding slog that's going to kill and maim a bunch of people who don't deserve to be killed or maimed. I'm just suggesting that there is a much, much, higher bar for using nukes than people seem to think exists around here - especially against another nuclear state! If Putin got legitimately splattered, there would be hell to pay, but nukes coming out? Pffffft. Scoff. No one gets to put that cat back in the bag, and everyone knows it. Also, assassinate is the wrong word. MLK, JFK, and Abe Lincoln were assassinated. If Putin was killed in a lawful military strike, that's that. This. Though I will say, Russia is likely not fighting with everything they have.

Yeah. "President" and "sovereign nation" may not be the most illuminating phrases to characterize Putin and what he's doing at this point. I dunno, but IMO he is clearly WAY over the line here, into instant war criminal status. And I think both us and them are past the point of counting our nukes. We both have the ability to annihilate each other, and I personally *highly* doubt they would risk total war over one guy - even their "president" - who last time I checked was an autocrat who was suppressing political opposition in his country. I think dropping one dude as a message would maybe give their leadership chain enough of a shake up they'd be given the opportunity to back off. Clearly we will be fighting nuclear powers in the future. It stands to reason we should figure out good ways to do it.

Here me out on this one. We should hellfire Putin. Send them a *uck of a message. Shake things up. Call their remaining leadership's bluff on further escalation. Put them on notice that they are criminals and are legal targets.