tbh it's a two sided problem because it's difficult to argue against the fact that google has a really good product for consumers too. You go to rumble or bitchute and even if you want to there's a lot of features you just won't get there.
Some people don't understand why you'd want to ban ivf.
It is a sensible policy if you're anti baby murder and you consider a zygote a baby. IVF isn't a sniper shot, it's a shotgun blast. You create many many lives, most of whom will die, and if you succeed you dispose of the rest (aka you kill them).
You can think of it like having a baby like the Soviets took Berlin. Not really so moral when you look at it like that.
There's a lot of points on that line that are debatable of course. Even many pro-lifers are iffy on the earliest moments after birth. Do you really consider a baby a life worth protecting once the sperm has fertilized the egg and it hasn't even subdivided into a new cell yet? It's tougher to say than for a baby at 20 weeks who looks human and has a brain and functional internal organs.
I'm actually sort of torn myself. My own view isn't necessarily so clear. The tension is between the fact that a new life in terms of separate DNA comes to exist at conception and the fact that this alleged life is so far from being human at that point. My son at 10 weeks was obviously a growing human with so many human attributes, but a single cell is not so obviously human
It is a sensible policy if you're anti baby murder and you consider a zygote a baby. IVF isn't a sniper shot, it's a shotgun blast. You create many many lives, most of whom will die, and if you succeed you dispose of the rest (aka you kill them).
You can think of it like having a baby like the Soviets took Berlin. Not really so moral when you look at it like that.
There's a lot of points on that line that are debatable of course. Even many pro-lifers are iffy on the earliest moments after birth. Do you really consider a baby a life worth protecting once the sperm has fertilized the egg and it hasn't even subdivided into a new cell yet? It's tougher to say than for a baby at 20 weeks who looks human and has a brain and functional internal organs.
I'm actually sort of torn myself. My own view isn't necessarily so clear. The tension is between the fact that a new life in terms of separate DNA comes to exist at conception and the fact that this alleged life is so far from being human at that point. My son at 10 weeks was obviously a growing human with so many human attributes, but a single cell is not so obviously human
Looked around about this because I hadn't heard about it before, looks like well-meaning individuals donate their cars to an organization for a warm fuzzy feeling and a tax break, and then the organization can give it to a migrant and then take a big grant from the government for the residual value of the vehicle.
Donations are what they are, but it looks like the process pays more than the overall value of the vehicle which is kinda sus.
Donations are what they are, but it looks like the process pays more than the overall value of the vehicle which is kinda sus.
I love Chris Williamson. It's like you have this guy you'd expect in the gym or in the club (and his history is in clubs) speaking articulately with the world's smartest people on a huge variety of subjects.
One thing I'm a bit annoyed at is that people think it's just generic "migrants" who are eating cats and the like. But it isn't, it's specifically Haitian migrants. And the thing is, that changes everything.
Haiti is hell on earth. It's an apocalyptic warzone where fundamental human values go by the wayside. The true stories coming from that country would make your blood run cold. Of anywhere on earth that probably should have refugees coming from there, Haiti is at the top of the list. So in that context it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the people leaving that country are some level of messed up, and that they might violate social norms most people might think are sacrosanct but really get the volume turned down in the midst of real human suffering.
Some people are pretending that it's impossible to think it could be happening and that it's inherently racist to assume it could be happening, but we are talking about a very specific situation that requires a nuanced understanding. Anyone of any race coming out of something like that is likely to be somewhat off. Look a few generations ago to the generations that kept fully stocked pantries because they were traumatized by the depression.
Haiti is hell on earth. It's an apocalyptic warzone where fundamental human values go by the wayside. The true stories coming from that country would make your blood run cold. Of anywhere on earth that probably should have refugees coming from there, Haiti is at the top of the list. So in that context it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the people leaving that country are some level of messed up, and that they might violate social norms most people might think are sacrosanct but really get the volume turned down in the midst of real human suffering.
Some people are pretending that it's impossible to think it could be happening and that it's inherently racist to assume it could be happening, but we are talking about a very specific situation that requires a nuanced understanding. Anyone of any race coming out of something like that is likely to be somewhat off. Look a few generations ago to the generations that kept fully stocked pantries because they were traumatized by the depression.
One key thing about entertainment brainwashing kids is that parents at least nominally get to choose what entertainment kids see for a good chunk of their childhoods.
Warren is hilarious because she's asking for something that will lead to Americans being deeper in debt as if she's doing them a favor.
I've got the gotek and rbg2hdmi installed in my Amiga 500, but neither is working quite right. I think the rbg2hdmi needs to be configured for a certain cpld using the on screen menu, but the gotek is just missing some files on the USB stick.
Looking forward to finishing up these two little things and I can start playing with the Amiga for real...
Looking forward to finishing up these two little things and I can start playing with the Amiga for real...
Yeah, actually...
People don't always agree with me when I post thoughtful arguments here, and sometimes I'm wrong and they're right, but I never get the impression that I'm getting a preprogrammed response back. People engage with the argument I made for the most part. Every time I try the same around redditors (even redditors on places like lemmy) I get back something a youtuber said or something written in an article, presented as if it's their own original thoughts, but those thoughts rarely fit in with what I had to say because I'm not usually regurgitating someone else's points.
People don't always agree with me when I post thoughtful arguments here, and sometimes I'm wrong and they're right, but I never get the impression that I'm getting a preprogrammed response back. People engage with the argument I made for the most part. Every time I try the same around redditors (even redditors on places like lemmy) I get back something a youtuber said or something written in an article, presented as if it's their own original thoughts, but those thoughts rarely fit in with what I had to say because I'm not usually regurgitating someone else's points.
I don't think this plan sounds remotely correct.
Part of the softwood lumber dispute is that it's already really easy to buy canada's lumber because you don't need to own the land since the crown owns it and they just sell the resources on that land.
Part of the softwood lumber dispute is that it's already really easy to buy canada's lumber because you don't need to own the land since the crown owns it and they just sell the resources on that land.
Not particularly. Because what you do is you go in and you look at the rulings through a partisan lens, and then when that lens doesn't correctly predict what's going to happen it proves that the partisan lens isn't particularly useful. The attack right now is that the supreme Court is extremely partisan only ruling in one case, but we can prove that viewed through that lens, at any given moment the output doesn't make any sense.
Nick Freitas is great, his podcasts often have deep investigations of different ideas and he's clever enough to not juat parrot bullet points.
In a recent effortpost, I investigated a mistake in that movie. Mike judge focuses on the anti-intellectual and auntie elitist form of idiocracy, but I ended up making the argument that there is a second form of Idiocracy that is pseudo intellectual and elitist in nature. As an example, in the movie the famous TV show "ow my balls" is often mentioned, but The true idiocracy universe would have a second show, just as vacuous, of watching people watch "ow my balls" to laugh at how unrefined and uncultured they are.
At the end of the movie, the anti-intellectual anti-elitist idiocracy is convinced that watering plants with water instead of brawndo works because the plants start growing again. The elitist anti-intellectual idiocracy may not be convinced by that, and instead we'll start parroting the line "correlation is not causation" and start demanding to see the peer reviewed study, in spite of nobody actually understanding what correlation does not imply causation actually means, nor would a peer-reviewed study actually is, nor what peer review actually entails.
At the end of the movie, the anti-intellectual anti-elitist idiocracy is convinced that watering plants with water instead of brawndo works because the plants start growing again. The elitist anti-intellectual idiocracy may not be convinced by that, and instead we'll start parroting the line "correlation is not causation" and start demanding to see the peer reviewed study, in spite of nobody actually understanding what correlation does not imply causation actually means, nor would a peer-reviewed study actually is, nor what peer review actually entails.
Thankfully that part of the law never comes up that much because the fact that they don't blink tends to make them look nefarious by default.
It seems that whenever dozens of former intelligence officials agree on something it's almost certainly to be false...
The purpose of reading news ought not to be indoctrinated to any one side, but to get accurate information so you can try to make good decisions outside of whatever a left or right wing establishment wants you to do.
No political faction has a monopoly on the truth, and no political faction has a monopoly on lies. Therefore just choosing one and assuming they'll be the "good guys" forever is stupid. No major political faction has perfectly clean hands and that's why if truth matters -- and it does -- individuals must think for themselves and critically analyze what they're presented with.
Both parties have at one time attacked the Supreme Court. Nobody on the left had anything to say when the supreme Court judicated away a major policy contention in Obergefell, but the right wasn't happy with it. Now the right is quite happy with the outcome of the Trump immunity verdict, and the left is laying the groundwork to destroy the institution by going after every Justice who doesn't agree with them politically. Whether the left or right likes it or not, both cases were tried based on existing law, and while individuals may disagree with the outcome, it isn't as if these were legislators creating something out of whole cloth. Civil rights already existed in the case of Obergefell, and sovereign immunity existed in common law predating the United States by hundreds of years.
The same chief justice presided over both cases, and yet for political partisans one was an example of the law working right and the other was an example of the law working wrong.
It's probably for the best that prosecution for official actions gets taken off the table for both parties because political processes are the things that should be guiding the decisions of presidents, not whether someone's going to be able to pigeonhole them into a partisan conviction. And in the end, Obergefell ended up being the right decision regardless of you political affiliation, with 51% of Republicans now supporting gay marriage in spite of it being a contentious issue in the past. Not saying that either decision is fully correct, but it's hard to say either one was entirely wrong either.
A counterpoint to Obergefell or the Trump immunity case proving how partisan the court is would be other cases at the same time that the same side lost. The Trump election cases could have taken on those cases and overturned the 2020 election but the supreme court chose not to in a major loss to the Republicans. Around the same time as Obergefell which gave the left a massive win, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. limited some Obamacare mandates based on religious freedom, handing the right a win.
That isn't to say the court is infallible or that it isn't occasionally partisan, but rather to show that reality is a lot more complicated than hit pieces might portray.
No political faction has a monopoly on the truth, and no political faction has a monopoly on lies. Therefore just choosing one and assuming they'll be the "good guys" forever is stupid. No major political faction has perfectly clean hands and that's why if truth matters -- and it does -- individuals must think for themselves and critically analyze what they're presented with.
Both parties have at one time attacked the Supreme Court. Nobody on the left had anything to say when the supreme Court judicated away a major policy contention in Obergefell, but the right wasn't happy with it. Now the right is quite happy with the outcome of the Trump immunity verdict, and the left is laying the groundwork to destroy the institution by going after every Justice who doesn't agree with them politically. Whether the left or right likes it or not, both cases were tried based on existing law, and while individuals may disagree with the outcome, it isn't as if these were legislators creating something out of whole cloth. Civil rights already existed in the case of Obergefell, and sovereign immunity existed in common law predating the United States by hundreds of years.
The same chief justice presided over both cases, and yet for political partisans one was an example of the law working right and the other was an example of the law working wrong.
It's probably for the best that prosecution for official actions gets taken off the table for both parties because political processes are the things that should be guiding the decisions of presidents, not whether someone's going to be able to pigeonhole them into a partisan conviction. And in the end, Obergefell ended up being the right decision regardless of you political affiliation, with 51% of Republicans now supporting gay marriage in spite of it being a contentious issue in the past. Not saying that either decision is fully correct, but it's hard to say either one was entirely wrong either.
A counterpoint to Obergefell or the Trump immunity case proving how partisan the court is would be other cases at the same time that the same side lost. The Trump election cases could have taken on those cases and overturned the 2020 election but the supreme court chose not to in a major loss to the Republicans. Around the same time as Obergefell which gave the left a massive win, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. limited some Obamacare mandates based on religious freedom, handing the right a win.
That isn't to say the court is infallible or that it isn't occasionally partisan, but rather to show that reality is a lot more complicated than hit pieces might portray.
I was just joking, I've been using brave on all my devices that can run it for years. The only Google product I still use on a daily basis is YouTube.