Stoneykins

joined 2 years ago
[–] Stoneykins@mander.xyz 13 points 2 years ago

No, I don't see fetuses as babies, I feel no moral stress whatsoever in supporting abortion rights. But that is a different point. You were casually claiming adoption as a solution even though it requires thousands of times more effort from a society that currently refuses to provide that effort.

And this is an internet comment, not a research paper, google it. There is so much data on this shit, I'm not gunna spoon feed it to a stranger just because I point out something they said is BS.

[–] Stoneykins@mander.xyz 16 points 2 years ago (11 children)

There is historical precedent that your assumptions are not the case. Assumptions are deadly if you use them to ignore the world around you.

And it's not like there are great systems in place to support babies given up for adoption, even if that was what happened.

[–] Stoneykins@mander.xyz 15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I'm on team "glad you responded" but I still wanna respond to 2 things you said.

First, a lot of anti-abortion people want the abortion conversation to end at "this is murder", but how do you address the bodily autonomy argument? Even if I accept any and all abortions as the full death of a complete person, why are women compelled to donate their bodies to save another person? I don't support forced organ donations to save lives, and by that logic I also do not support forced pregnancies. Any opinion on that perspective?

Christian nationalism isn't complicated in what it is, it is just the desire/push/beliefs from the people that want a nation with an explicitly christian government, a christian theocracy. If it completely took over everything, freedom of religion would be dead, everything would be christian. To try and rephrase it bluntly, Christian nationalism is the desire for and work towards a Christian nation. Some people take it seriously, some people don't, some people outright support it, others deny it even is a real concept.

Edit to add: if you aren't anti-lgbtq, will you call your representatives that you vote for and emphatically tell them so? The difference in opinions between conservatives and their politicians about lgbtq is something I hear from most conservatives I've talked to, but it makes me sad to see they don't really care beyond saying "I'm not anti-lgbtq". If you vote for an anti-lgbtq politician because of other policies they support, please at least tell them you don't agree with their anti-lgbtq stance. It is literally the least amount of help I can think of to ask for.

[–] Stoneykins@mander.xyz 31 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Excuse me but this is clearly a Parasaurolophus mommy.

[–] Stoneykins@mander.xyz 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I think it would depend on the individual. Some would admit it, once they see the whole globe through that glass it would be like trying to say apples don't exist in response to someone handing you an apple. Their senses would override the belief. They might not be very thrilled to admit it...

Then there would be the people that are fanatics about it... They would probably get hysterical, or check out mentally, or get violent, or some other sort of emotional break. I would also guess these people would be unwilling to go into space in the first place.

[–] Stoneykins@mander.xyz 26 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Whether it was intentionally designed this way or just something that stuck because it benefitted them, the way they are trained teaches them to behave in that confusing way, and results in them being more often able to justify the use of force (just justify it, they use force whenever they want) because "the suspect wasn't following orders".

[–] Stoneykins@mander.xyz 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Btw even if it wasn't intentional this is the funniest thing I've seen today, "damn building instincts" had me in tears.

I'm sorry if this is rude, I'm glad we had a pleasant exchange.

[–] Stoneykins@mander.xyz 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)
[–] Stoneykins@mander.xyz 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I know you meant the ones that you don't want to get stung by, but even those don't exist to sting you, they are important predators and scavengers of their environments, and their loss would still have negative effects.

Plus, the context of the post is discussing the possible negative impacts if certain animals just disappear, so I used your phrasing as an excuse to talk about something I think is interesting. I mean, without wasps, you don't have figs anymore, at all, and all sorts of other stuff. I think that is neat.

[–] Stoneykins@mander.xyz 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Huh. Do you live pretty far from where beavers do (not asking you to be specific)?

But yes, beavers are great. They are what is known as a "keystone species" because they create the wetland environments that many other species depend on to live in. They eat wood, and yes, the way they build dams is by piling debris/wood wherever they find/hear flowing water, until they've plugged it all up. Then they build a lodge with an underwater entrance in the pond they made, and stock it with sticks to eat through the winter. I think they are adorable.

[–] Stoneykins@mander.xyz 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Oooh that one is rough, especially since you just said generic "wasp". That would get rid of a monumental amount of pollinators, specialist ones. And scavengers and predators that help manage other pests. And a large number of wasps are smaller and don't sting, instead they have ovipositors. I won't get into detail what they do with em, but they are harmless to humans and often amazing at taking out populations of agricultural pests, like hornworms

[–] Stoneykins@mander.xyz 10 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I can't tell if this is a bit or someone who has only heard of beavers from a half overheard conversation they were eavesdropping on.

view more: ‹ prev next ›