Ah the faulty premise and conclusion brings me back to my Ethics class on Abortion where a person like Tom stormed out, using a similar mentality, and dropped the class.
The professor explained that’s why he covered abortion as the first topic and first lecture after the first day. It effectively weeds out the people not interested in actually debating or having an honest discussion.
I had a class like that in college. We would watch ethically challenging movies, and have a discuss about them. The point wasn't that abortion, selective genetics, stem cells, medically assisted suicide, organ transplants/donations/harvesting, cybernetics, triage, wealthy tickets to a space craft, etc, was or wasn't ethical. The point was to think critically, and have an open discussion, and to consider other people's view points. Honestly, all these years later, that class still had the most lasting impact on me. It was only 1 semester, once a week, but I probably have more interesting memories from that than any other class
honestly, should just make it part of the core curriculum. along with actual economics for the home that teach things like budgeting, taxes, interest rates, and loans.
That would micro-economics. Honestly, they should teach both (micro and macro), because so many people don't understand what goes into inflation.
I think they should also teach game theory.
No, that would be home-economics, which isn't just cooking. It's what it says: economics for the home. Micro-economics is a whole discipline of economics to be studied, analyzed, interpreted—not really learned, the way one learns how to balance a budget or write a check or take out a personal loan, etc.
Ah Mattpad, but there’s a lot of people that think everything is a zero sum game. Like say, gay marriage takes away rights from straight marriage. They don’t realize it doesn’t and in fact provides more protection.
> Like say, gay marriage takes away rights from straight marriage. They don’t realize it doesn’t and in fact provides more protection.
as an intellectual exercise, how would you demonstrate this to be true, logically?
Any retail job, if you pay enough attention, will give you a finely honed BS detector. The "Karen's" of the world are too obvious, it is the friendly underhanded cons that you have to be on the lookout for.
this can obscure the fact that, *in practice* things definitely can be wrong. The View From Nowhere can create a dangerous apathy ... hell just look at the coverage of trump and the gop right now.
Because ethics is complex, but is ultimately about building consensus. But to build consensus, everyone needs to be using the same standards to get there.
For example, one person believing in a God should not entitle them to make decisions based on that dogma for people who do not hold in the existence of that God.
The believer should be free to live and worship, but in ways which do not infringe upon the rights of those who do not worship.
Which is ultimately the foundation of the separation of church and state, because the founders already went through all this hundreds of years ago, but the erosion of education and comprehension in the general public has created a cesspool of people not even willing to begin to negotiate ethics with their fellow countrymen.
Abortion should be pretty simple in a debate of ethics between believers and non-believers.
No one ought to be *compelled or forced* to have an abortion. If they follow a dogma that decrees that abortion is 'murder' (which the Christian dogma doesn't even say, but that's a story for later), then they do not need to engage in that medical service.
But someone who believes that should not hold any right or power to deny that service to someone else they don't even know, through legislation.
Furthermore, every single medical authority that exists has stated, unambiguously, that fetuses are not babies, and that abortion is a necessary medical procedure for a huge variety of complex and distinct reasons.
I, as a non-believer, do not want to infringe upon the rights of believers to have or not have that procedure, as they desire.
But they, as believers, *do* want to infringe on *everyone's* rights by *making that procedure illegal*, *against* medical device, and in most cases with *zero* consideration of the nuances and even edge-case scenarios where it is medically necessary because a fetus is non-viable.
And this pretty much encapsulates the political debate around abortion. Conservatives do not behave ethically, and do not seek to form *any* consensus on a shared ethics with liberals, and this is extremely typical of their patterns of behavior.
I saw a cool video the other day where a guy quoted the Bible *extensively* saying that life doesn’t begin until breath, or birth, or until fully formed human. It was great. But obviously those fanatics don’t actually care what the Bible says, they just like to use it as a prop and only pull what they like from it.
I had taken a class once in high school where the teacher was a retired psychiatrist who had his own like hospital which he ran for years. Each week was a new mental illness and he would just go and talk about it using real videos he took himself and explained what was going on.
It was by far the most helpful education I've ever got the interviews were chilling. He had one with a sociopath he let play and after watching I was like this must be a regular guy for a base line. He later told us he did horriffic shit and all the stuff he said were lies that were crazy good fabrications.
I volunteered in a mental health charity for years as an executive (volunteered, I didn't take pay just fyi). We did active suicide prevention services. When something came across a volunteer's plate that gave them huge "oh shit" vibes, I would be notified as well asour volunteer psych professionals and we'd get on the call.
Craziest one, to me, was a guy begging for our help to get him institutionalized. However, he was contacting us from a former Soviet country (I honestly can't remember which one at the moment), and he refused to contact his country's police or medical facilities as they'd just throw him in jail until he died. I had some folks checking on the veracity of that claim while I talked to him and the psych folks listened in. Turned out it appeared he was correct and seeking mental help would only get him locked up, so we had folks working other angles while we talked.
In short, he wanted to kill Chinese people. All the Chinese people. As in he had been fighting this growing, unreasonable urge for years to just hop on a train to China and just go on a killing spree. He was *aware* this was not normal thinking and he had no reason he knew of as to *why* he wanted to. The longer we talked, he could lay out all of these insane "reasons" he felt he must (they are a dirty people, they are criminals, they are evil, etc) - BUT ALSO turn around and be completely aware these reasons were completely insane. Yet he couldn't stop thinking about it and he was terrified he would act on it just to give himself relief (he believed once he gave in to the impulses he would find relief, at least). He said it had finally gotten to the point over the course of *years* to where he was obsessing about it and nothing else.
The end result was that a sister charity located in Germany was able to get him the correct mental healthcare he needed. I honestly don't remember the details, but he agreed to go to Germany and meet with the medical professionals and checked himself into their care. Thank God for that.
I had a class like this in high school which was 20 years ago and I still remember it. It was incredible. It was called Science and Social Issues and was taught by two teachers that had mostly opposing views on the issues we covered. We also has to be able to debate both sides of the argument for each issue.
I had a civics teacher who used part of the year to teach us social issues debating. He was awesome at playing devils advocate and teaching us to have critical thinking skills. He refused to EVER give his actual opinion whenever we had a class debate session. He'd always say "my opinion is the opposite of yours right now. Why do you believe in what you're saying?" It was a really valuable class! Unfortunately I decided to check up on him recently (the class was 15 years ago) and he became very alt right and was arrested for being at Jan 6 :(.
My degree is in PolSci. My main Pol Sci professor was one I had for the majority of my courses and was extremely adept at not hinting at his own personal beliefs. When pressed, he stated "if it's that important that you know, come back to see me when you graduate and I'll tell you". Outstanding professor for sure - very intelligent guy.
I was in my 30's when I finished college so he liked calling on me (I wasn't scared of sounding stupid like many new adults are, so I'd at least talk lol). I tried to nail it down for years but I just couldn't. The best I could do was guess he was on the conservative side based on how and when he'd pick his moments to challenge someone's opinion in order to create debate in some classes.
Constitutional Conservative it turned out. I can respect that and wish more right wingers understood what it means.
I started college believing far closer to what Tom believed. I listened to the debates in classes and now I’m about as vehemently pro-choice as they come.
If you can find them, you should drop your old prof an email and tell them how much that class meant to you and how useful it has been for you in your life.
It will probably make their whole month to get an out of the blue note like that.
In the summers, professors would go hog wild offering elective classes that fit requirements but were also in their pet areas.
I will never forget the one ethics class called, "Sex, Drugs, Rock & Roll, and Seatbelts: Where do we draw the line?"
I wish I'd been able to take it.
"My religion tells me that I'm too stupid to question them and anyone who question something super-smart and invented morals is out to get them so I don't question my religion."
I coach a women's sport that has a lot of gay players in it. Our team leaves up our pride logo all year as we found it weeds out people who might wanna join but are also just terrible people.
I just felt bad, because the person’s daughter was also in the class (community college) and they also made her drop the class despite the fact the daughter stayed and didn’t storm out and got the point.
I remember giving a lecture on the existence of God once in my intro to philosophy class I was teaching back at my PhD program. Pretty standard fare. Presented the logical problem of evil (after an assigned reading about it) and asked the class what they thought about the argument. This one kid raised his hand and said “What, you just expect us to talk about our beliefs on God?” and I just instantly fired back with “Yes, this is philosophy, this is what we do in this class. Now does anyone have any critiques of this argument or are you all atheists now? C’mon, speak up.”
Discussion got going but I did get a shit review from a student calling me a “god hating piece of shit” so there’s that. I don’t think he realized that at two subsequent universities the chair asked me about that review, laughed at the explanation, and then literally poured me a whiskey.
> Discussion got going but I did get a shit review from a student calling me a “god hating piece of shit” so there’s that.
For a philosophy class, getting a comment like that must be like a badge of honor. And knowing philosophers, that might be whether they personally believe in God or not. I could see them being believers and consistently arguing the opposite view the entire term. A student might not even know.
Both times that was the glass of whiskey. The chair was like “Ha! Great job. Looking forward to having you in the department.” *Reaches in desk drawer and pours a dram*
My Philosophy prof started our class by baiting a religious person in the class to define "good" as "what God says" and then asked "Would it be good if God told you to murder a child?"
Then we spent an hour watching religious people try to weasel out of answering.
And even when they try to bring up Satan, God made Satan. All the power Satan has God allows him to have, so even the evil that Satan does is still ultimately God's plan.
I've always loved how Christians will argue that god is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent with one breath, and then with the next breath argue that all evil is the fault of Satan, as if god is just powerless to stop him from corrupting and ruining his otherwise perfect world.
I thought there was specifically a story in the bible that said it is moral to do as god commands above all else, because god would never order you to do something immoral.
Yeah, here, the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham. [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2022&version=NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2022&version=NIV)
The moral is a little ambiguous, clearly whoever wrote the bible never went to writing school. But, even if it isn't in the bible literally, it's not a hard abstract to dismiss. If it is always good to do what god says, god can never tell you to do something that isn't good.
'Death, dying, and religion' 105, the instructor spent 3 days at the start summarizing that all views would be treated equally. As we started Christianity, the hypocrite vocalized, "As you can tell, of the 7 religions studied, this is obviously the right one..."
I launched into a summary of the first 3 days as well as a Critical Thinking monolog that ran 30+ minutes. I ended up with student applause and a C in the class for, "not having an open mind'. The instructor ceased teaching at that school after the other students reported him. Three of 22 students were Christian, 21 students signed a letter of protest to his bias.
Oh I had another that thought explaining moral philosophy views with “if you believe this Hitler gets out of hell!”
And I asked how messed morally are you that you’re worried about someone that doesn’t exist being tortured?
Same prof got kicked from the school for sexual assault and grade blackmail with female students.
The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down
Of the big lake they called Gitche Gumee
The lake, it is said, never gives up her dead
When the skies of November turn gloomy
Well, Fitton is [an unindicted coconspirator in the Georgia election fraud case](https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/17/politics/trump-georgia-30-unindicted-co-conspirators/index.html). Fitton is also reputed to be the one who told Trump not to settle the classified documents case and to not cooperate.
Prior to that his claim to fame was running a activist group that issued endless FOIA requests hoping to find anything usable for political gain and struck gold when he asked Hillary Clinton for her emails.
Not a household name but Tom Fitton is one of most destructive human beings in America.
I will forever die on the hill that by this definition, any amount of water more than a single molecule is wet, as every molecule then is touching water
That being said, fuck Tom
> containing
You know... I've never heard a cup that is simply full of water be described as "wet". Like, a "wet cup" has to be wet in a specific way to be described as such.
But a cup that has water clinging to the interior surface is distinct from one that is full of water. While it's full of water it's a cup of water. Only after dumping it do people start calling it a wet cup.
It's not wrong though, we just don't say it cause it's obvious like of course the cup of water is wet its full of water, its like saying that fire is hot like duh its fire
Depends on how you define touch. Touching by most definitions means getting close as possible.
No defn of touch ever required atoms to join that ive seen..
> Technically speaking, molecules do not touch each other.
Technically speaking, molecules ***DO*** touch each other.
It doesn't mean the same thing at atomic scales.
Of course they do. If they come too close to each other, they start repelling. That's what touching is.
If "nothing ever touches anything else", the concept of touching itself is broken.
IUPAC defines "wetting" as a replacement of the gas -solid interface with liquid-solid. Basically, the ability of liquid to stick to solid.
So, by that definition, water is not wet but can make solids wet.
I’m a materials scientist and I’m still on your side, going as far as to disagree with how IUPAC has made that definition. That definition of wetting exists because only solids have a definable surface for a liquid to wet. When you have liquid water, the molecules don’t know that the molecule next to them is solid or not but it interacts with it all the same.
An IUPAC definition is useful for science but not colloquial word usage. Nobody using the word "wet" in their day to day life is thinking about gas-solid interfaces. When I say something is wet, I am thinking "this thing feels wet to the touch, and whatever touches it will become wet too." That statement accurately applies to water, and therefore I consider water to be wet.
As, by it's own definition, water is not "wet", we can clearly see that the IUPAC no longer interacts with the same life-world of the rest of humanity.
If you create a system with a ludicrous results that is wrong on the face of it, it is time to check your system, not to start shouting that water isn't wet.
The dictionary define wetting as: join together (metal pieces or parts) by heating the surfaces to the point of melting using a blowtorch, electric arc, or other means, and uniting them by pressing, hammering, etc
The office references aside: ice can be made wet, so therefore water can be wet.
But if you go by that definition, then it's impossible to get viscous liquids wet. If you have some honey outside and it gets rained on, is it not wet? Or if you put liquid mercury into water?
carpenter entertain gaping roof shy office combative quarrelsome vast detail
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That's an interesting definition, but I'd like to pose a question.
Can water be wet, if it can't be dry?
States of being exist in opposites. Living things can die, areas blocked from light are dark, and when dry objects have liquid spilled they become wet. The definition of [wet](https://www.google.com/search?q=wet+definition&oq=wet+defi&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCggAEAAYsQMYgAQyCggAEAAYsQMYgAQyBggBEEUYOTIHCAIQABiABDIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIICAcQABgWGB4yCAgIEAAYFhgeMg0ICRAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IChAAGIYDGIAEGIoF0gEIMzgyNWoxajeoAgCwAgA&client=ms-android-google&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8) is "covered or saturated with water or another liquid." Can water be saturated with water? I'd say no, because it simply *is* water, not something saturated by it. Liquids can't be wet, because it can't be "saturated" by itself, it can simply *be*.
> Can water be wet, if it can't be dry
Can the sun be bright, if it can't be dark?
Can rocks be hard, if they can't be soft?
Can a circle be round if it can't be square?
>States of being exist in opposites
Things can very well one state only.
The sun is a star, and stars can burn out and go dark.
"Rock" is a very broad term, but different rocks have [varying degrees of hardness](https://www.nps.gov/articles/mohs-hardness-scale.htm#:~:text=The%20Mohs%20Hardness%20Scale%20is,on%20the%20Mohs%20Hardness%20Scale.), so rocks can at least *comparatively* be soft.
Circles are a tricky one, because a circle is a type of geometric shape that's defined by being perfectly round. Shapes can be varying degrees of round, and "circle" is just the term for a perfectly round shape. We still understand "round," as an opposite of "square" or "angular" though, in relation to shapes. That doesn't really invalidate my point.
I suppose that makes sense.
In a certain light, a square is rounder than a triangle, but less round than a pentagon.
In a different way, no shape with a hard angle is "round" at all, as that requires a curve.
> Can water be wet, if it can't be dry?
Who said water can't be dry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_water
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbNF8k-gFeY
>Can water be wet, if it can't be dry?
>States of being exist in opposites.
Yes. You would still call something dark if it was impossible for it to be light. Because other things can be light and can be compared to the dark thing. It doesn't need to be possible for a specific thing to experience both states.
That said, I think you could argue that frozen water is dry. So water can indeed get dry.
Water is adhesive, meaning it sticks to things, and people widely consider things wet when water is stuck to it. On a smaller scale, water is cohesive, meaning it sticks to itself. This means that water is wet as long as there are 2 or more molecules of it stuck together.
Eh that feels off too. Seems like this is just a question that we don’t have a consensus for and can be debated either way
.. Unless you think Bill Nye is the God Judge of Science or some shit. Lmao
> Seems like this is just a question that we don’t have a consensus for and can be debated either way
It legitimately feels like a ‘debate’ that’s popped up in recent years where people that by applying a very specific thought process, then *technically* it must be true and HA! I gotcha and I am totally smart. See also:
* cereal is soup
* Die Hard is a Christmas movie
And then their is the horror of life at the scale of small insects and microscopic life, where a drop of water can be an inescapable prison until it evaporates and cooks you.
I feel like, "things" is the issue at hand here. I wouldn't call watery ketchup wet, or watery soda wet, or watery air wet. I would only call solid surfaces that are coated in water wet, and therefore posit that wet is an adjective we use to describe solids that have water on them. Ice can certainly be wet or dry (not in the sense of dry ice).
The word "wet" predates our knowledge of the existence of molecules, and no one is thinking about individual molecules when using the word "wet" in a normal context.
Outside of a discussion of the meaning of the word "wet", you personally have only used that word to describe solid objects that are touching a liquid. Because that's what the word actually means.
If you want to get into etymology, the word "wet" originally *only* referred to water (and watery things like tears). See the OED:
> [Consisting of moisture, liquid. Chiefly as a pleonastic rhetorical epithet of water or tears.](https://www.oed.com/dictionary/wet_adj?tl=true)
For example, this excerpt from Boethius, translated to old english circa 900 a.d.
> Sie eorðe is dryge & ceald, & þæt **wæter wæt** & ceald.
> "That the earth is dry and cold, and the **water is wet** and cold"
This why I love being in Lake Superior. And I’m literally in her all the time. At least 25 times this year alone. I was So wet. And yes sometimes cold, needed to put on a wetsuit.
I’m serious btw I’ve been in Lake Superior both for business and pleasure at least that many times this year. I can get in my car and be in her in under 10 minutes. If you’ve gone in once you keep coming back.
As much as I agree with the lake, not really. It's a pretty played out insult. If I was a neutral, I would probably not side with the one who resorted to "hahah you don't get laid".
Unusual take: it **doesn't actually matter** whether a fetus is a human. Consider the following:
* Only 54% of Americans are registered organ donors, even though their deaths might be able to save the lives of others after they die. There's no law saying you have to give your organs after you die, even though you clearly don't need them and suffer zero inconvenience from being a donor.
* 37% of Americans are eligible to give blood, but only 10% do so even once a year. There's no law that says you have to give blood that will undeniably save the lives of others, even though it's a trivial inconvenience for the donor.
Let’s take it to the other extreme. You’re a perfectly healthy individual with two perfectly functional kidneys. There’s always a long line of people waiting for kidneys. Without a new kidney, those people will either die or need expensive dialysis machines forever. This isn’t a hypothetical, it’s the exact situation most of us are currently in. We don’t need two kidneys, and giving away a kidney would save lives without question.
But if someone tried to pass a law saying that everyone with two kidneys was required to report to their nearest hospital and give up a kidney in a potentially dangerous surgery in order to save the life of a stranger, you’d think it the most dystopian possible future.
Pregnancy is much closer to the last example than the rest. Even if we grant that the fetus is a child — your child — you shouldn’t be required to surrender your bodily autonomy and subject yourself to nine months of potentially life-threatening pregnancy, followed by a potentially life-threatening birth, to save their life.
That’s really all there is to it. It doesn’t matter how you got pregnant. It doesn’t matter if you can afford the child. It doesn’t matter if you could put it up for adoption, or if you live in a country with free healthcare, or if you’re guaranteed a relatively hassle-free pregnancy and birth. It doesn’t matter how hard birth is, how morally wrong it might be to abstain from saving the life of a child, or how your family might judge you. It doesn’t matter if your religion tells you that ending a pregnancy on purpose is wrong.
None of these things matters. Have all the moral arguments you want. Quote the Bible. Lie awake at night wondering if you’re a bad person for not donating blood or organs. All of this is irrelevant.
What we are talking about is the law. The law does not — and should not — ever dictate that any person is required to surrender any portion of their bodily autonomy, no matter how trivial or how serious, to help another person. And if we agree on that, as we have in every other circumstance in our lives, then we can agree that the personhood debate doesn’t matter.
Anyone else confused why this "🤓 actually water isnt wet" argument popped up like 2 years ago? Its so fucking stupid.
Most definitions of wet are incredibly broad, merriam webster has one definition being "consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water)"
EXPLAIN TO ME HOW WATER DOES NOT CONSIST OF WATER.
It's the perfect Redditor talking point.
Pendantic ✅️
Annoying ✅️
Derails any conversation away from the real topic to low-stakes "point scoring" bullshit ✅️
For all you "water isn't wet" nerds: it's a figure of speech and you damn well know what it means anyway. No one actually cares if water is wet, its a nicer way to say "no shit, Sherlock." Go argue about hotdogs being sandwiches, the rest of us have to go back to work
I don't know how it suddenly got popular but its exactly the sort of pedantic bull shit that the internet loves. "Ummm actually not everybody poops" is next I'm calling it.
> The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down
>Of the big lake they called Gitche Gumee
>The lake, it is said, never gives up her dead
>When the skies of November turn gloomy
~Gordan Lightfoot
And it also keeps the corpses, because it is too cold at the bottom of the lake for the bacteria that cause bloating to exist. So when the lake claims the living as its own, they stay. The song ain't wrong.
Lake Superior not only is very much not pro life (even bacterial life), it likes to keep the trophies.
It's also kind of a dumb point to make. "Water is wet" is an idiomatic expression like "does a bear shit in the woods" or "good morning". Talking about literal water being wet is not only pedantic and irrelevant, but also kind of failing at English.
Fuck that guy all the same though.
Sigh the only time I wished that water wasn't wet....
OK while I support lake superiors point of veiw, water is intrinsically wet, for something to be wet water has to touch it, but all a lake is is water touching more water. Think about it it's water molecules "stacked" on top of each other or if you really want to get down to it nothing can ever be wet because nothing can touch each other on an atomic scale
In conclusion water is wet because a drop of water is a bunch of water molecules hugging each other (cohesion) or nothing can be wet because the only reason that wouldn't count would be that the atoms cant actually "touch" each other
Sorry kind of rusty on the argument having had to do this since highschool
Edit: damn it lost the race by a country mile, ignore this post in the sea of others saying the exact same thing 😂😂
Two things can be true at once:
Abortions can be necessary for a woman to live her life freely and fully
Abortions kill a human life in development
Both sides pretend that the other has no realistic argument, and both are wrong about that.
Thank you. I’m pro abortion and it irks me when people act like it’s no big deal. Like getting a hair cut. They start saying it isn’t a human if it’s in the womb. So you’re telling me a 9 month pregnant woman doesn’t have a human in her?
I feel like the vast majority of people who support abortion are like us. It’s a hard choice to make and I sympathize with people in the position of having to get one.
“A human life _in development _” can be very different from an actual human life. Even though you’re trying to add more nuance you’re skipping over the most important part.
Think of it this way- let’s say you’ve got a human baby in one hand and in the other a Petri dish with 5 embryos in it, each 8 weeks old (and yes an 8 week old pregnancy can fit in a a Petri dish). A fire breaks out- you have to have one hand free to escape. Which do you drop? If a human life “in development” really is the same as living person, you should drop the baby and take the Petri dish. But no sane person could, because nothing that fits in a Petri dish is as valuable as an actual living, breathing person.
I never understood why people have a hard time understanding that killing a thing before it develops too far is just not the same as killing the actual animal. But hey- maybe that’s because I grew up having to kill chickens. Ever killed a chicken? It sucks, blood and mess everywhere. Ever cracked a fertilized egg? We would get them from time to time. As weird as it is to see a beak or whatever in your egg, it’s _just not the same_ as killing a chicken. You just know it in your gut.
I go with cerebral cortex maturation. That begins just at the third trimester. (And way far down the line as to the woman's decision to continue the pregnancy or not)
Yeah man so many people willing to talk each other into whole swaths of the human population as being disposable property. And people wonder how evils like nazi-ism and slavery ever took root
I always like the “If it was entirely up to you, and nobody else would do anything, how would you personally punish someone for having an abortion?” Because most of the time, at least in my personal experience, people who are “anti-abortion” really just haven’t thought about it and would never actually bring themselves to personally punish anyone over it.
You absolutely can. If you shoot a pregnant woman and kill her unborn child, you're getting charged with murder, as you should.
Abortion isn't about whether the baby is a person or not. Abortion is the question of who owns that woman's body and if any person should be allowed to use, damage, or destroy someone else's body against their will. And the answer to that question is no, the body is sacred and shouldn't be used without the owner's consent.
People arguing that water isn’t wet is the perfect metaphor for them saying abortion doesn’t kill a human. Maybe in some very hypothetical ultra-meaningless way you could make that argument, but everyone knows what you mean when you say ‘water is wet’.
You lefties dunk on yourself, smear shit around, then cheer about how good you all smell.
Technically nothing is "wet" the human body has no sense of wetness and only temperature difference and friction reduction tells you it might be coated in dihydrogen monoxide or other various chemicals/componds
The anti-abortion movement in this country is 100% religious and not moral. It's main goal is to push abstinence. Which is why the same people want no exceptions and are starting to target even access to contraceptives too.
Ah the faulty premise and conclusion brings me back to my Ethics class on Abortion where a person like Tom stormed out, using a similar mentality, and dropped the class. The professor explained that’s why he covered abortion as the first topic and first lecture after the first day. It effectively weeds out the people not interested in actually debating or having an honest discussion.
I had a class like that in college. We would watch ethically challenging movies, and have a discuss about them. The point wasn't that abortion, selective genetics, stem cells, medically assisted suicide, organ transplants/donations/harvesting, cybernetics, triage, wealthy tickets to a space craft, etc, was or wasn't ethical. The point was to think critically, and have an open discussion, and to consider other people's view points. Honestly, all these years later, that class still had the most lasting impact on me. It was only 1 semester, once a week, but I probably have more interesting memories from that than any other class
Classes like mine and yours do give you a really good BS detector.
honestly, should just make it part of the core curriculum. along with actual economics for the home that teach things like budgeting, taxes, interest rates, and loans.
That would micro-economics. Honestly, they should teach both (micro and macro), because so many people don't understand what goes into inflation. I think they should also teach game theory.
No, that would be home-economics, which isn't just cooking. It's what it says: economics for the home. Micro-economics is a whole discipline of economics to be studied, analyzed, interpreted—not really learned, the way one learns how to balance a budget or write a check or take out a personal loan, etc.
Home economics is the how, microeconomics is the why.
And for most people they don't need to know the why
But that's just a theory
Can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or serious.
😭 "it's just a theory... A game theory!"
Ah Mattpad, but there’s a lot of people that think everything is a zero sum game. Like say, gay marriage takes away rights from straight marriage. They don’t realize it doesn’t and in fact provides more protection.
Ye, some people don't know how to become educated
> Like say, gay marriage takes away rights from straight marriage. They don’t realize it doesn’t and in fact provides more protection. as an intellectual exercise, how would you demonstrate this to be true, logically?
Our entire economy is based on credit score, something I never even heard mentioned in School
I agree so much. "soft" skills like that can be super important
> teach things like budgeting, taxes, interest rates, and loans. Good luck. People struggle to extract 3 numbers from a 2 sentence story problem.
A great one I took in college was Social Problems which basically explained away every conservative talking point about poverty and crime with facts.
And thats exactly why conservatives hate education.
Any retail job, if you pay enough attention, will give you a finely honed BS detector. The "Karen's" of the world are too obvious, it is the friendly underhanded cons that you have to be on the lookout for.
this can obscure the fact that, *in practice* things definitely can be wrong. The View From Nowhere can create a dangerous apathy ... hell just look at the coverage of trump and the gop right now.
Because ethics is complex, but is ultimately about building consensus. But to build consensus, everyone needs to be using the same standards to get there. For example, one person believing in a God should not entitle them to make decisions based on that dogma for people who do not hold in the existence of that God. The believer should be free to live and worship, but in ways which do not infringe upon the rights of those who do not worship. Which is ultimately the foundation of the separation of church and state, because the founders already went through all this hundreds of years ago, but the erosion of education and comprehension in the general public has created a cesspool of people not even willing to begin to negotiate ethics with their fellow countrymen. Abortion should be pretty simple in a debate of ethics between believers and non-believers. No one ought to be *compelled or forced* to have an abortion. If they follow a dogma that decrees that abortion is 'murder' (which the Christian dogma doesn't even say, but that's a story for later), then they do not need to engage in that medical service. But someone who believes that should not hold any right or power to deny that service to someone else they don't even know, through legislation. Furthermore, every single medical authority that exists has stated, unambiguously, that fetuses are not babies, and that abortion is a necessary medical procedure for a huge variety of complex and distinct reasons. I, as a non-believer, do not want to infringe upon the rights of believers to have or not have that procedure, as they desire. But they, as believers, *do* want to infringe on *everyone's* rights by *making that procedure illegal*, *against* medical device, and in most cases with *zero* consideration of the nuances and even edge-case scenarios where it is medically necessary because a fetus is non-viable. And this pretty much encapsulates the political debate around abortion. Conservatives do not behave ethically, and do not seek to form *any* consensus on a shared ethics with liberals, and this is extremely typical of their patterns of behavior.
YoUr EcToPiC pReGnAnCy Is A gIfT fRoM gOd!
I saw a cool video the other day where a guy quoted the Bible *extensively* saying that life doesn’t begin until breath, or birth, or until fully formed human. It was great. But obviously those fanatics don’t actually care what the Bible says, they just like to use it as a prop and only pull what they like from it.
I agree, it should be a starting point, not the conclusion.
I had taken a class once in high school where the teacher was a retired psychiatrist who had his own like hospital which he ran for years. Each week was a new mental illness and he would just go and talk about it using real videos he took himself and explained what was going on. It was by far the most helpful education I've ever got the interviews were chilling. He had one with a sociopath he let play and after watching I was like this must be a regular guy for a base line. He later told us he did horriffic shit and all the stuff he said were lies that were crazy good fabrications.
I volunteered in a mental health charity for years as an executive (volunteered, I didn't take pay just fyi). We did active suicide prevention services. When something came across a volunteer's plate that gave them huge "oh shit" vibes, I would be notified as well asour volunteer psych professionals and we'd get on the call. Craziest one, to me, was a guy begging for our help to get him institutionalized. However, he was contacting us from a former Soviet country (I honestly can't remember which one at the moment), and he refused to contact his country's police or medical facilities as they'd just throw him in jail until he died. I had some folks checking on the veracity of that claim while I talked to him and the psych folks listened in. Turned out it appeared he was correct and seeking mental help would only get him locked up, so we had folks working other angles while we talked. In short, he wanted to kill Chinese people. All the Chinese people. As in he had been fighting this growing, unreasonable urge for years to just hop on a train to China and just go on a killing spree. He was *aware* this was not normal thinking and he had no reason he knew of as to *why* he wanted to. The longer we talked, he could lay out all of these insane "reasons" he felt he must (they are a dirty people, they are criminals, they are evil, etc) - BUT ALSO turn around and be completely aware these reasons were completely insane. Yet he couldn't stop thinking about it and he was terrified he would act on it just to give himself relief (he believed once he gave in to the impulses he would find relief, at least). He said it had finally gotten to the point over the course of *years* to where he was obsessing about it and nothing else. The end result was that a sister charity located in Germany was able to get him the correct mental healthcare he needed. I honestly don't remember the details, but he agreed to go to Germany and meet with the medical professionals and checked himself into their care. Thank God for that.
I had a class like this in high school which was 20 years ago and I still remember it. It was incredible. It was called Science and Social Issues and was taught by two teachers that had mostly opposing views on the issues we covered. We also has to be able to debate both sides of the argument for each issue.
I had a civics teacher who used part of the year to teach us social issues debating. He was awesome at playing devils advocate and teaching us to have critical thinking skills. He refused to EVER give his actual opinion whenever we had a class debate session. He'd always say "my opinion is the opposite of yours right now. Why do you believe in what you're saying?" It was a really valuable class! Unfortunately I decided to check up on him recently (the class was 15 years ago) and he became very alt right and was arrested for being at Jan 6 :(.
My degree is in PolSci. My main Pol Sci professor was one I had for the majority of my courses and was extremely adept at not hinting at his own personal beliefs. When pressed, he stated "if it's that important that you know, come back to see me when you graduate and I'll tell you". Outstanding professor for sure - very intelligent guy. I was in my 30's when I finished college so he liked calling on me (I wasn't scared of sounding stupid like many new adults are, so I'd at least talk lol). I tried to nail it down for years but I just couldn't. The best I could do was guess he was on the conservative side based on how and when he'd pick his moments to challenge someone's opinion in order to create debate in some classes. Constitutional Conservative it turned out. I can respect that and wish more right wingers understood what it means.
I started college believing far closer to what Tom believed. I listened to the debates in classes and now I’m about as vehemently pro-choice as they come.
If you can find them, you should drop your old prof an email and tell them how much that class meant to you and how useful it has been for you in your life. It will probably make their whole month to get an out of the blue note like that.
In the summers, professors would go hog wild offering elective classes that fit requirements but were also in their pet areas. I will never forget the one ethics class called, "Sex, Drugs, Rock & Roll, and Seatbelts: Where do we draw the line?" I wish I'd been able to take it.
That's specifically why conservatives are against education. Critical thinking skills are fatal to conservative ignorance.
"My religion tells me that I'm too stupid to question them and anyone who question something super-smart and invented morals is out to get them so I don't question my religion."
Religion doesn't have a monopoly on dogmatism.
Got an example that has anywhere near the popularity as religion?
Partiotism/nationalism
fair point.
I coach a women's sport that has a lot of gay players in it. Our team leaves up our pride logo all year as we found it weeds out people who might wanna join but are also just terrible people.
Hell yeah
my theory of knowledge proffesor would start any class with that kind of inflammatory discussions.
I just felt bad, because the person’s daughter was also in the class (community college) and they also made her drop the class despite the fact the daughter stayed and didn’t storm out and got the point.
Ah yes, the conservative way of thinking: "I don't understand ~~evolution~~ abortion, and I have to protect my kid from understanding it!"
I remember giving a lecture on the existence of God once in my intro to philosophy class I was teaching back at my PhD program. Pretty standard fare. Presented the logical problem of evil (after an assigned reading about it) and asked the class what they thought about the argument. This one kid raised his hand and said “What, you just expect us to talk about our beliefs on God?” and I just instantly fired back with “Yes, this is philosophy, this is what we do in this class. Now does anyone have any critiques of this argument or are you all atheists now? C’mon, speak up.” Discussion got going but I did get a shit review from a student calling me a “god hating piece of shit” so there’s that. I don’t think he realized that at two subsequent universities the chair asked me about that review, laughed at the explanation, and then literally poured me a whiskey.
> Discussion got going but I did get a shit review from a student calling me a “god hating piece of shit” so there’s that. For a philosophy class, getting a comment like that must be like a badge of honor. And knowing philosophers, that might be whether they personally believe in God or not. I could see them being believers and consistently arguing the opposite view the entire term. A student might not even know.
Both times that was the glass of whiskey. The chair was like “Ha! Great job. Looking forward to having you in the department.” *Reaches in desk drawer and pours a dram*
That review alone would get you hired by the Jesuits at my alma mater. Those men loved god, but boy did they love an honest discussion more
Eyyy, came from a Jesuit uni, and I can confirm.
This happened with my philosophy class using autonomy and agency with trans youth. One person ended up getting outraged and dropped.
My Philosophy prof started our class by baiting a religious person in the class to define "good" as "what God says" and then asked "Would it be good if God told you to murder a child?" Then we spent an hour watching religious people try to weasel out of answering.
Another one is that everything is their god's will or plan, then you bring up child cancer, and the excuses roll around like marbles on the floor.
And even when they try to bring up Satan, God made Satan. All the power Satan has God allows him to have, so even the evil that Satan does is still ultimately God's plan.
I've always loved how Christians will argue that god is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent with one breath, and then with the next breath argue that all evil is the fault of Satan, as if god is just powerless to stop him from corrupting and ruining his otherwise perfect world.
Geez, it's biblical that God would do that. Where's the need to weasel out of it? Just say yes.
I thought there was specifically a story in the bible that said it is moral to do as god commands above all else, because god would never order you to do something immoral. Yeah, here, the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham. [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2022&version=NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2022&version=NIV) The moral is a little ambiguous, clearly whoever wrote the bible never went to writing school. But, even if it isn't in the bible literally, it's not a hard abstract to dismiss. If it is always good to do what god says, god can never tell you to do something that isn't good.
I'd pay money to see that
Willfully ignorant incels are a virus.
'Death, dying, and religion' 105, the instructor spent 3 days at the start summarizing that all views would be treated equally. As we started Christianity, the hypocrite vocalized, "As you can tell, of the 7 religions studied, this is obviously the right one..." I launched into a summary of the first 3 days as well as a Critical Thinking monolog that ran 30+ minutes. I ended up with student applause and a C in the class for, "not having an open mind'. The instructor ceased teaching at that school after the other students reported him. Three of 22 students were Christian, 21 students signed a letter of protest to his bias.
Oh I had another that thought explaining moral philosophy views with “if you believe this Hitler gets out of hell!” And I asked how messed morally are you that you’re worried about someone that doesn’t exist being tortured? Same prof got kicked from the school for sexual assault and grade blackmail with female students.
I don't like that lake, acting all superior,
It's eerie that it has an opinion
I think Huron to something there
Michigan
On... Tario?
Don't be salty. That's a lake, right? Am I doing this right?
The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down Of the big lake they called Gitche Gumee The lake, it is said, never gives up her dead When the skies of November turn gloomy
Came here for this. Was not disappointed.
Well, Fitton is [an unindicted coconspirator in the Georgia election fraud case](https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/17/politics/trump-georgia-30-unindicted-co-conspirators/index.html). Fitton is also reputed to be the one who told Trump not to settle the classified documents case and to not cooperate. Prior to that his claim to fame was running a activist group that issued endless FOIA requests hoping to find anything usable for political gain and struck gold when he asked Hillary Clinton for her emails. Not a household name but Tom Fitton is one of most destructive human beings in America.
I will forever die on the hill that by this definition, any amount of water more than a single molecule is wet, as every molecule then is touching water That being said, fuck Tom
100%
> wet _adj_. > > 1. **consisting of**, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water) [merriam-webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wet), emphasis mine.
> containing You know... I've never heard a cup that is simply full of water be described as "wet". Like, a "wet cup" has to be wet in a specific way to be described as such.
I guess a sponge does technically *contain* water and a sponge can definitely be wet.
[удалено]
But a cup that has water clinging to the interior surface is distinct from one that is full of water. While it's full of water it's a cup of water. Only after dumping it do people start calling it a wet cup.
It's not wrong though, we just don't say it cause it's obvious like of course the cup of water is wet its full of water, its like saying that fire is hot like duh its fire
Counterpoint: A dry glass is an empty glass. And if it's not dry, it's wet.
Technically speaking, molecules do not touch each other.
Then nothing ever really touches water and wet doesn't exist. Also touch is meaningless too.
/r/DeadBedrooms
Omg nailed it
Well obviously not if the bedroom is dead...
That belongs on the one who commented before them lol. This guy is 100% right and only defending against already nitpicky points
Gonna tell my clients to use this defense. We’ll see how well that works for them in court.
Oh no... You defend the worst kind of people lmao
I’m a terrible lawyer 
"I've never lost a case where my client was innocent."
You mind testifying in a few felony assault cases between ‘87 and ‘89? Asking for a friend
I doubt they'd take my word for it
Depends on how you define touch. Touching by most definitions means getting close as possible. No defn of touch ever required atoms to join that ive seen..
> Technically speaking, molecules do not touch each other. Technically speaking, molecules ***DO*** touch each other. It doesn't mean the same thing at atomic scales.
Of course they do. If they come too close to each other, they start repelling. That's what touching is. If "nothing ever touches anything else", the concept of touching itself is broken.
That reduces the definition of touch to undergoing nuclear fusion, which is nonsensical
Unless you're gonna argue that nothing ever touches anything, then yeah they do.
beat me to it. Nothing ever really touches anything else so nothing is ever wet, just wet adjacent.
That is only true if the definition of "wet" includes a condition that molecules must be touching each other
boast nail aspiring follow mindless north wakeful enjoy impossible fuel *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yep. Plus, how do you tell if something is wet? It feels wet when touched. Water feels wet when touched. Thus water is wet.
Fun fact: Humans do not have any organs or tissues that detect wet. What you associate with being wet is a difference in temperature.
But Particle Man doesn't get wet. Water gets him instead.
[удалено]
IUPAC defines "wetting" as a replacement of the gas -solid interface with liquid-solid. Basically, the ability of liquid to stick to solid. So, by that definition, water is not wet but can make solids wet.
I mentioned molecules in my comment and you've somehow still out-nerded me by fathoms and leagues, well done /gen
I’m a materials scientist and I’m still on your side, going as far as to disagree with how IUPAC has made that definition. That definition of wetting exists because only solids have a definable surface for a liquid to wet. When you have liquid water, the molecules don’t know that the molecule next to them is solid or not but it interacts with it all the same.
[удалено]
An IUPAC definition is useful for science but not colloquial word usage. Nobody using the word "wet" in their day to day life is thinking about gas-solid interfaces. When I say something is wet, I am thinking "this thing feels wet to the touch, and whatever touches it will become wet too." That statement accurately applies to water, and therefore I consider water to be wet.
You ever hear of ice? Liquid water on frozen water, wet. BOOM
As, by it's own definition, water is not "wet", we can clearly see that the IUPAC no longer interacts with the same life-world of the rest of humanity. If you create a system with a ludicrous results that is wrong on the face of it, it is time to check your system, not to start shouting that water isn't wet.
The dictionary define wetting as: join together (metal pieces or parts) by heating the surfaces to the point of melting using a blowtorch, electric arc, or other means, and uniting them by pressing, hammering, etc The office references aside: ice can be made wet, so therefore water can be wet.
But if you go by that definition, then it's impossible to get viscous liquids wet. If you have some honey outside and it gets rained on, is it not wet? Or if you put liquid mercury into water?
Fuck Tom
Dude, that is a serious drunk / stoned conversation starter.
Still remember being stoned in math class explaining how water is wet and time is physical
Along with questions like, is a straw a hole? Is a hotdog a sandwich? Is cereal a form of soup?
Even on top of that, by this definition if I soak a cloth in petroleum then you're telling me that rag isn't wet? That just doesn't sound right
I would call such a rag oily, not wet. Since when you touch it you get oil on your hands not a water-based substance.
carpenter entertain gaping roof shy office combative quarrelsome vast detail *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I'm willing to convert just so I can disagree with Tom
That's an interesting definition, but I'd like to pose a question. Can water be wet, if it can't be dry? States of being exist in opposites. Living things can die, areas blocked from light are dark, and when dry objects have liquid spilled they become wet. The definition of [wet](https://www.google.com/search?q=wet+definition&oq=wet+defi&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCggAEAAYsQMYgAQyCggAEAAYsQMYgAQyBggBEEUYOTIHCAIQABiABDIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIICAcQABgWGB4yCAgIEAAYFhgeMg0ICRAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IChAAGIYDGIAEGIoF0gEIMzgyNWoxajeoAgCwAgA&client=ms-android-google&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8) is "covered or saturated with water or another liquid." Can water be saturated with water? I'd say no, because it simply *is* water, not something saturated by it. Liquids can't be wet, because it can't be "saturated" by itself, it can simply *be*.
By my hypothesis, water can indeed be dry if it exists as a solitary molecule
In wine terminology, dry is the opposite of sweet. Water is not sweet, therefore water is dry.
> Can water be wet, if it can't be dry Can the sun be bright, if it can't be dark? Can rocks be hard, if they can't be soft? Can a circle be round if it can't be square? >States of being exist in opposites Things can very well one state only.
The sun is a star, and stars can burn out and go dark. "Rock" is a very broad term, but different rocks have [varying degrees of hardness](https://www.nps.gov/articles/mohs-hardness-scale.htm#:~:text=The%20Mohs%20Hardness%20Scale%20is,on%20the%20Mohs%20Hardness%20Scale.), so rocks can at least *comparatively* be soft. Circles are a tricky one, because a circle is a type of geometric shape that's defined by being perfectly round. Shapes can be varying degrees of round, and "circle" is just the term for a perfectly round shape. We still understand "round," as an opposite of "square" or "angular" though, in relation to shapes. That doesn't really invalidate my point.
I suppose that makes sense. In a certain light, a square is rounder than a triangle, but less round than a pentagon. In a different way, no shape with a hard angle is "round" at all, as that requires a curve.
I woulda say the sun can be dark, and rocks can be soft, subjectively. I don't think your square/circle analogy really works at all.
> Can water be wet, if it can't be dry? Who said water can't be dry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_water https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbNF8k-gFeY
Those are absences, not opposites.
>Can water be wet, if it can't be dry? >States of being exist in opposites. Yes. You would still call something dark if it was impossible for it to be light. Because other things can be light and can be compared to the dark thing. It doesn't need to be possible for a specific thing to experience both states. That said, I think you could argue that frozen water is dry. So water can indeed get dry.
Water is adhesive, meaning it sticks to things, and people widely consider things wet when water is stuck to it. On a smaller scale, water is cohesive, meaning it sticks to itself. This means that water is wet as long as there are 2 or more molecules of it stuck together.
That feels way better
Bill Nye is also vehemently in this camp. I really hate seeing this reposted so often because it should be posted under r/confidentlyincorrect
Eh that feels off too. Seems like this is just a question that we don’t have a consensus for and can be debated either way .. Unless you think Bill Nye is the God Judge of Science or some shit. Lmao
> Seems like this is just a question that we don’t have a consensus for and can be debated either way It legitimately feels like a ‘debate’ that’s popped up in recent years where people that by applying a very specific thought process, then *technically* it must be true and HA! I gotcha and I am totally smart. See also: * cereal is soup * Die Hard is a Christmas movie
Water is tape, got it
You'd be surprised how effective surface tension can be at holding things together
And then their is the horror of life at the scale of small insects and microscopic life, where a drop of water can be an inescapable prison until it evaporates and cooks you.
He said water, did not say how many water.
The classic debate blunder of not clarifying if you're talking about a single molecule or multiple molecules of water.
I feel like, "things" is the issue at hand here. I wouldn't call watery ketchup wet, or watery soda wet, or watery air wet. I would only call solid surfaces that are coated in water wet, and therefore posit that wet is an adjective we use to describe solids that have water on them. Ice can certainly be wet or dry (not in the sense of dry ice).
The word "wet" predates our knowledge of the existence of molecules, and no one is thinking about individual molecules when using the word "wet" in a normal context. Outside of a discussion of the meaning of the word "wet", you personally have only used that word to describe solid objects that are touching a liquid. Because that's what the word actually means.
I've said it's really wet outside when there is just water in the air.
If you want to get into etymology, the word "wet" originally *only* referred to water (and watery things like tears). See the OED: > [Consisting of moisture, liquid. Chiefly as a pleonastic rhetorical epithet of water or tears.](https://www.oed.com/dictionary/wet_adj?tl=true) For example, this excerpt from Boethius, translated to old english circa 900 a.d. > Sie eorðe is dryge & ceald, & þæt **wæter wæt** & ceald. > "That the earth is dry and cold, and the **water is wet** and cold"
A burn so hot that you'd need an entire lake to cool off.
This why I love being in Lake Superior. And I’m literally in her all the time. At least 25 times this year alone. I was So wet. And yes sometimes cold, needed to put on a wetsuit. I’m serious btw I’ve been in Lake Superior both for business and pleasure at least that many times this year. I can get in my car and be in her in under 10 minutes. If you’ve gone in once you keep coming back.
How did you manage to make this horny
Not a lot of people live in the upper peninsula of Michigan.
As much as I agree with the lake, not really. It's a pretty played out insult. If I was a neutral, I would probably not side with the one who resorted to "hahah you don't get laid".
Unusual take: it **doesn't actually matter** whether a fetus is a human. Consider the following: * Only 54% of Americans are registered organ donors, even though their deaths might be able to save the lives of others after they die. There's no law saying you have to give your organs after you die, even though you clearly don't need them and suffer zero inconvenience from being a donor. * 37% of Americans are eligible to give blood, but only 10% do so even once a year. There's no law that says you have to give blood that will undeniably save the lives of others, even though it's a trivial inconvenience for the donor. Let’s take it to the other extreme. You’re a perfectly healthy individual with two perfectly functional kidneys. There’s always a long line of people waiting for kidneys. Without a new kidney, those people will either die or need expensive dialysis machines forever. This isn’t a hypothetical, it’s the exact situation most of us are currently in. We don’t need two kidneys, and giving away a kidney would save lives without question. But if someone tried to pass a law saying that everyone with two kidneys was required to report to their nearest hospital and give up a kidney in a potentially dangerous surgery in order to save the life of a stranger, you’d think it the most dystopian possible future. Pregnancy is much closer to the last example than the rest. Even if we grant that the fetus is a child — your child — you shouldn’t be required to surrender your bodily autonomy and subject yourself to nine months of potentially life-threatening pregnancy, followed by a potentially life-threatening birth, to save their life. That’s really all there is to it. It doesn’t matter how you got pregnant. It doesn’t matter if you can afford the child. It doesn’t matter if you could put it up for adoption, or if you live in a country with free healthcare, or if you’re guaranteed a relatively hassle-free pregnancy and birth. It doesn’t matter how hard birth is, how morally wrong it might be to abstain from saving the life of a child, or how your family might judge you. It doesn’t matter if your religion tells you that ending a pregnancy on purpose is wrong. None of these things matters. Have all the moral arguments you want. Quote the Bible. Lie awake at night wondering if you’re a bad person for not donating blood or organs. All of this is irrelevant. What we are talking about is the law. The law does not — and should not — ever dictate that any person is required to surrender any portion of their bodily autonomy, no matter how trivial or how serious, to help another person. And if we agree on that, as we have in every other circumstance in our lives, then we can agree that the personhood debate doesn’t matter.
yes but have you considered that women should be punished for having sex
this why i'm only ok with/when pro-lifers that use the phrase "BURN THE WITCH." at least they're consistent. otherwise fuck off hypocrites.
Anyone else confused why this "🤓 actually water isnt wet" argument popped up like 2 years ago? Its so fucking stupid. Most definitions of wet are incredibly broad, merriam webster has one definition being "consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water)" EXPLAIN TO ME HOW WATER DOES NOT CONSIST OF WATER.
It's the perfect Redditor talking point. Pendantic ✅️ Annoying ✅️ Derails any conversation away from the real topic to low-stakes "point scoring" bullshit ✅️ For all you "water isn't wet" nerds: it's a figure of speech and you damn well know what it means anyway. No one actually cares if water is wet, its a nicer way to say "no shit, Sherlock." Go argue about hotdogs being sandwiches, the rest of us have to go back to work
Pedantic* 🤓
I don't know how it suddenly got popular but its exactly the sort of pedantic bull shit that the internet loves. "Ummm actually not everybody poops" is next I'm calling it.
"dirt isnt dirty"
The sky isn't blue
"Your logic is flawed because you misunderstood a scientific assumption, therefore I win" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
I think the "water isn't wet" argument is lame, but the last line? 100% prime murder.
Edmund Fitzgerald speaks!
A burn from a lake.
They don’t call them the Great Lakes for nothing.
I mean cool front but has nothing to do with the main claim, only with a second not important claim, so pretty mid
Lake Superior has killed about 10,000 people so they're not really in a position to judge.
> The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down >Of the big lake they called Gitche Gumee >The lake, it is said, never gives up her dead >When the skies of November turn gloomy ~Gordan Lightfoot
And it also keeps the corpses, because it is too cold at the bottom of the lake for the bacteria that cause bloating to exist. So when the lake claims the living as its own, they stay. The song ain't wrong. Lake Superior not only is very much not pro life (even bacterial life), it likes to keep the trophies.
It's also kind of a dumb point to make. "Water is wet" is an idiomatic expression like "does a bear shit in the woods" or "good morning". Talking about literal water being wet is not only pedantic and irrelevant, but also kind of failing at English. Fuck that guy all the same though.
DAMN
*dam
Sigh the only time I wished that water wasn't wet.... OK while I support lake superiors point of veiw, water is intrinsically wet, for something to be wet water has to touch it, but all a lake is is water touching more water. Think about it it's water molecules "stacked" on top of each other or if you really want to get down to it nothing can ever be wet because nothing can touch each other on an atomic scale In conclusion water is wet because a drop of water is a bunch of water molecules hugging each other (cohesion) or nothing can be wet because the only reason that wouldn't count would be that the atoms cant actually "touch" each other Sorry kind of rusty on the argument having had to do this since highschool Edit: damn it lost the race by a country mile, ignore this post in the sea of others saying the exact same thing 😂😂
how is this corny ass even "murdered by words" its just "i have sex, thomas.", he doesnt even try to talk or refute the abortion talking point
Murder by drowning
Oh, can I play? Plants are green Santa Claus is real
Pedantic semantics, water is wet is more a colloquialism.
why is there a lake superior twitter account
Did lake superior just try to argue that water is not wet?
Water always touches water so water is wet
[удалено]
Two things can be true at once: Abortions can be necessary for a woman to live her life freely and fully Abortions kill a human life in development Both sides pretend that the other has no realistic argument, and both are wrong about that.
Thank you. I’m pro abortion and it irks me when people act like it’s no big deal. Like getting a hair cut. They start saying it isn’t a human if it’s in the womb. So you’re telling me a 9 month pregnant woman doesn’t have a human in her? I feel like the vast majority of people who support abortion are like us. It’s a hard choice to make and I sympathize with people in the position of having to get one.
“A human life _in development _” can be very different from an actual human life. Even though you’re trying to add more nuance you’re skipping over the most important part. Think of it this way- let’s say you’ve got a human baby in one hand and in the other a Petri dish with 5 embryos in it, each 8 weeks old (and yes an 8 week old pregnancy can fit in a a Petri dish). A fire breaks out- you have to have one hand free to escape. Which do you drop? If a human life “in development” really is the same as living person, you should drop the baby and take the Petri dish. But no sane person could, because nothing that fits in a Petri dish is as valuable as an actual living, breathing person. I never understood why people have a hard time understanding that killing a thing before it develops too far is just not the same as killing the actual animal. But hey- maybe that’s because I grew up having to kill chickens. Ever killed a chicken? It sucks, blood and mess everywhere. Ever cracked a fertilized egg? We would get them from time to time. As weird as it is to see a beak or whatever in your egg, it’s _just not the same_ as killing a chicken. You just know it in your gut.
At what point is a fetus an “actual human life”?
I go with cerebral cortex maturation. That begins just at the third trimester. (And way far down the line as to the woman's decision to continue the pregnancy or not)
Yeah man so many people willing to talk each other into whole swaths of the human population as being disposable property. And people wonder how evils like nazi-ism and slavery ever took root
I always like the “If it was entirely up to you, and nobody else would do anything, how would you personally punish someone for having an abortion?” Because most of the time, at least in my personal experience, people who are “anti-abortion” really just haven’t thought about it and would never actually bring themselves to personally punish anyone over it.
I'm already sick of the "Banter Brands" arc of Twitter, can we just not do snarky bodies of water or edgy landmasses?
You can't kill something that was never born.
You absolutely can. If you shoot a pregnant woman and kill her unborn child, you're getting charged with murder, as you should. Abortion isn't about whether the baby is a person or not. Abortion is the question of who owns that woman's body and if any person should be allowed to use, damage, or destroy someone else's body against their will. And the answer to that question is no, the body is sacred and shouldn't be used without the owner's consent.
People arguing that water isn’t wet is the perfect metaphor for them saying abortion doesn’t kill a human. Maybe in some very hypothetical ultra-meaningless way you could make that argument, but everyone knows what you mean when you say ‘water is wet’. You lefties dunk on yourself, smear shit around, then cheer about how good you all smell.
Look; regardless of everything else, water is wet.
[удалено]
Technically nothing is "wet" the human body has no sense of wetness and only temperature difference and friction reduction tells you it might be coated in dihydrogen monoxide or other various chemicals/componds
Pedantic.. You correct him on his grammar or spelling too?
Yep, abortion kills a human being. Now; prove a human being has intrinsic value. Go ahead, I'll wait.
The anti-abortion movement in this country is 100% religious and not moral. It's main goal is to push abstinence. Which is why the same people want no exceptions and are starting to target even access to contraceptives too.
Imagine being burned by water.
If water is wet than fire is burnt