Quoting: Perkeleen_VittupääPlease, stop these wars everywhere.. Just put down your weapons. Please.

Let's play a little "what if" game:

If HAMAS laid down thier weapons and said "we will fight no more", what would the likely outcome be?

If Israel laid down THIER weapons and said "we will fight no more", what would THAT likely outcome be?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: QYMEIf i could at least have the g502 working properly that would be a start. If i could manage to stop the g910 rgb rainbow that would be a plus. But imo, that's kind of a non issue in the long run. Where i'm really disapointed is that i don't see how to use my g13 gamepad. I haven't delved into the problem that much. If there was a way to instal logitech software through something like proton, then add it as a non steam game maybe... I have honnestly no clue if that's possible.

Sorry to necro this post. You may consider trying out "input-remapper" to see if it will offer key rebinding for your G13.

https://github.com/sezanzeb/input-remapper [External Link]

I had used several other pieces of software found randomly on Github and I can link them to you if you wish, but they are fiddly to set up. The one I liked the best ended up working well with a launcher script to activate it and de-activate it, if I remember right. Once I discovered input-remapper, I never used the G13 again, as I have mostly Nostromo/Razer gameboards in use. Currently, I am using a Delux T9 because I don't want to wear out my Orbweaver.

Give input-remapper a try! I hope it works for you.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guyquite a few more quietly at the request of alt-right figures, who are gleefully identifying who to censor.

Sources needed.

=====

Quoting: Purple Library GuyIncidentally, "The Left" was never in control of Twitter in the first place. Liberals were, but that's rather a different thing.

30 years ago, maybe. Today they are the same.

=====

Quoting: Purple Library GuyIt's kind of like the way more than 90% of political violence in the United States is done by the far right. You see a politically motivated killing it's almost always someone on the far right.

Um....Here is some data. TLDR; twice the percentage of violence is perpetrated by those claiming to be Democrat than Republican (4% vs 2%). It's close enough to not matter, though (scroll down to the pie chart).
https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/data-reveals-race-gender-political-affiliations-mass-murderers/ [External Link]

also

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/feb/23/claudia-tenney/do-many-mass-shooters-end-being-democrats-rep-tenn/ [External Link]

=====

Oh, you want examples of declared political ties? Don't mind if I do....

https://www.newshawknetwork.com/politics/deranged-leftist-opens-fire-gop-softball-practice/ [External Link]

...but this one is independant, not Conservative like you would be suggesting....

https://heavy.com/news/2017/06/jared-loughner-political-affiliation-democrat-republican-liberal-politics-conservative-new-york-times-you-tube-lee-sarah-palin/ [External Link]

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: CyrilQuoting: TherinS
Abortion is murder, not birth control.

Quoting: TherinS
If having a baby will interfere with a person having a happy life then use birth control, not murder.

*facepalm*

You'd better explain the reason for that response. I've read it several times and the only thing I see is to use birth control to prevent pregnancy in the first place instead of murdering a growing baby.

Once that baby is there, the mother is responsible for two lives, not just hers.

Quoting: CyrilQuoting: TherinS
Yes! A thousand times yes! Killing a baby is murder. Thank you.

You know, I don't think that was he meant, at all...

Much like when Purple referred to DNA cells. It was obvious I was not referring to that at all.

Quoting: CyrilQuoting: TherinS
Oh, don't go splitting hairs now, you know what " where life begins" means. (see what I did there? Splitting 'hairs'? DNA? Get it? ....Bueller?)

https://twitter.com/ConSelfOwns/status/1542220262287998977 [External Link]

Notice how the text being argued against never said the cells are a human being? What the random doctor claimed about cancer cells in no way discredits the quoted tweet. Cells can be human without being A human, like there are pig or cow cancer cells but we don't consider them a pig or cow. The cells mentioned don't have the potential to become an autonomous being by themselves, just like human reproductive cells don't ... Until the reproductive cells are united. At that point, the growth of a new human life begins (they don't teach this in school anymore?) and that is the start of life in this context. The person posting the original tweet should have made that distinction clear, but common sense was ignored for the sake of a snappy comeback.

And with that, I'm ending my involvement in this thread. It's become clear that the opinion belonging to the commenters on this thread of at what point a life becomes valuable is separated by at least 5 weeks. The point of who has the right to decide when to end said life is adjacent to that. I've made my points and opinions known; feel free to discuss further.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: CyrilYou know, I think "Democracy", its nowadays definition, is one of the biggest confusion and lie of the world.
Democracy is not voting for people to decide for you, especially not the key component at least, it's voting directly for the laws.
Voting for people should be the minority, only for rares cases, like it was in Athens.
Athens, for a short period of time, was a true democracy, but our governments today... no. Or a so, so downgraded version of it, at the point where it's a bit disgusting using the same word for two things that have nearly nothing in common.

Yes, that's the state we find ourselves in. There has been a big push to get rid of the electoral college in the USA such that every vote counts. The electoral College is intended to be a way to prevent states with enormous populations from completely negating several other states' votes. In this way, each state gets even representation.

A more accurate description of the USA would be to describe it as a Representative Democracy, not a true Democracy.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: CyrilAnd by "protect children", what about that:

https://eu.cincinnati.com/story/news/2022/07/01/ohio-girl-10-among-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/ [External Link]

You are validating or supporting several points and facts I've made so far in this thread.

1) The state decided to make abortions illegal, which is the states' right to decide.
2) This other state chose to continue the practice, which is the states' right to decide.
3) The citizens of each state now have the opportunity to change the law regarding this subject as they see fit by voting. (I seem to recall all these points being made previously).

Most important to the subject of the link is what to do about a pregnancy when it is the result of incest or rape. I've already made my thoughts on that in a previous post; perhaps you missed it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library GuyOf course the question isn't where "life" begins. There are millions and millions of live things in and on everyone's body. Bacteria, many of them beneficial, microscopic little bugs living in our skin, on and on. Indeed, there are some things which are independently mobile and have human DNA (certain white blood cells and glial cells, for instance). Nobody says we shouldn't be allowed to do them in if we want.

Oh, don't go splitting hairs now, you know what " where life begins" means. (see what I did there? Splitting 'hairs'? DNA? Get it? ....Bueller?)

Quoting: Purple Library GuyThe question is where "personhood" begins

No. Life. Human Life.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyLooking at it the scientific way, it's not a person or capable of registering experiences until it has, at least, both a brain and some kind of thought-like activity in that brain.

Well, here.

Quoted from: https://www.healthline.com/health/when-does-a-fetus-develop-a-brain#anatomy [External Link]

Around week 5, your baby’s brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop. Your baby’s brain is part of the central nervous system, which also houses the spinal cord. There are three key components of a baby’s brain to consider. These include:

Cerebrum: Thinking, remembering, and feeling occurs in this part of the brain.
Cerebellum: This part of the brain is responsible for motor control, which allows the baby to move their arms and legs, among other things.
Brain stem: Keeping the body alive is the primary role of the brain stem. This includes breathing, heartbeat, and blood pressure.
/end quote

It looks like the argument about the point at which a baby is considered alive is after the 5 week mark, which is about 1 week after pregnancy symptoms develop (I think. I'll never have children so I don't pay attention to that).

Quoting: Purple Library GuyThey mean "When is there a soul?" To which my answer is "Never, there's no such thing", but to which the pre-20th-century Catholic doctrine's answer was "at the quickening"--which is to say, when you can feel it move.

Since the 20th century, specifically around 1942, Ultrasound technology began being used in medical diagnosis. I'd wager that it did not take long to be used in determining when a human life was growing inside a woman, and as the technology improved, earlier and earlier signs of human life could be detected. That's what helps determine when life begins in today's world. Deny those signs, deny science.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: SalvatosIf you ask me, the real base is a good deal simpler: if it’s in my body, I can choose to get rid of it. I don’t care if it’s a fetus, a baby, mom’s spaghetti or the cure to cancer.

...and therein lies the biggest difference of opinions. Some people think a baby is a wart to be removed for unsightly reasons, while others realize its a human life. Dehumanizing a baby is not cool.

Quoting: SalvatosYou’ll also want to read up on how many women commit suicide rather than being forced to carry to term, or die trying to get an abortion (or perform it upon themselves) illegally, or end up killing themselves and/or their infants after being forced to look after them for a while.

Before 1973, I might agree with you. Name for me one state that has had a prolific problem in that regard since then. This RvWade decision does NOT ban anything by itself and I believe that fact is not expressed enough. Now the people get to vote how they want their state to treat unborn babies instead of being dictated at the National level. Don't like what your state decides? Move or vote in people who reflect your beliefs. I'll bet the number of states that outright ban the procedure is going to be alot lower than what the talking heads on TV want us to believe.

Quoting: SalvatosMaybe it’s worth considering how life ends, not just when it begins?

Yes! A thousand times yes! Killing a baby is murder. Thank you.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: SalvatosCute. Of course, we both know that the people have little to no actual power over their state’s decisions, much like the country’s, especially when their views don’t align perfectly with whichever of the two available parties (lol) is in office; and so returning power to individual states is only really beneficial to the state representatives that disagree with the majority of the others.

Isn't that what voting is all about? I'll argue again, Democracy is about voting for what you want and the majority gets the win. If the candidate you are voting for is not winning because of the platform they stand for, then that means they are not getting enough support for their (and by extention, your) opinion.

Quoting: SalvatosBut since you prefer to argue about abstract principles rather than practical effects

Let's talk practical effects, then. Yes, a state that forbids its doctors from performing abortions will likely see an increase of detrimental incidents like self or less than safe procedures, more births, more mothers with mental issues (that seems to be the biggest concern I keep reading about, now that I look back on it). Birth control (or, laughably I'll admit, abstinence) is the best way to prevent ALL of those horrible things from happening. Abortion is murder, not birth control. I am fully in favor of encouraging manufacturers to produce more (and make more available) birth control options, of which there are plenty already. While I don't quite agree with making birth control available at taxpayer expense, I do realize that having babies whose parents depend on the welfare state to survive is going to cost much, much more than the couple hundred dollars a year for contraception. Having less welfare babies will help reduce welfare costs and (again, according to what I've read here) help with mental issues from having to go through or not go through the procedure, whether on welfare or not.

People are meant to be free to live their lives as they see fit without being beholden to a Federal government controlling their lives, telling them what to do, eat, wear, drive, or whatever. If having a baby will interfere with a person having a happy life then use birth control, not murder.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestConservatives don't care about children (not just in the USA but everywhere), they just want control of womens bodies. It's also a ridiculous thing to consider the unborn thing a baby and totally disregard a pregnant womans needs or feelings over it. It's not a casual thing women do between lunch and dinner. Where it's legalised there are no abortion factories either, the women have to talk to their doctors and at least one psychologist.

That's about a B.S. argument if I ever heard one. Conservatives want to CONSERVE LIFE. The whole point is to PROTECT children, born and unborn. The only ones determined to show they do not care about children are the groups eager to murder them in the womb. Its big business for them and a political ploy, and dehumanizes the sanctity of life itself.

<s>
I've never been to an abortion before but I get the feeling that Planned Parenthood and the ilk have a conversation that goes like this:

Mother-to-be: I wanna get rid of my baby.

Nurse or doctor: Are you sure?

Mtb: Yes

NoD: Are you of sound mind?

Mtb: Yup

NoD: Ok hop up on the table.....

Maybe there is more concern in other countries, but that organization and the whole movement supporting them is determined to make killing babies akin to removing a wart. It's a life at conception, but each state gets to set its own murder laws now, so that should make some Liberal states very happy.
</s>

Quoting: GuestI think it's also quite simplistic view of freedom (political or otherwise) to say that whatever you will should happen. There are a lot of heinous things lots of people would vote for given the freedom.

Fortunately, heinous things are almost never voted into law because people KNOW they are heinous. Gimme some examples of this happening in recent history (preferably in the USA, since that's where this whole flap is happening).

Quoting: GuestOf course fascists around the globe make gains by disregarding the human sciences as useless, and give false natural explanations to stuff (like the old school racists). They also commonly target womens rights.

Fascists also blame everyone else for failures and rally the people with "Its THESE people that are the problem, they have to go!" That's how one of the most fascist governments in world history expanded its power in the late 1930s. Seems like there is alot of blame getting thrown around currently but most reasonable adults are wising up.

View this comment - View article - View full comments