I hate to wade in but I see a lot of misinformation being posted.
The reality is both Israel and Palestinians are victims; victims of each other, their neighbors, and the world around them. You can make one side look better or worse depending on when you start the clock on the discussion.
When Israel was formed in 1948 there wasn't a Palestinian state, but rather a collection of towns with various ethnic populations including Jewish and Muslims peoples. The area was controlled by Britain in the time before WW2 under a mandate from the league of nations, the precursor to the UN.
In 1948 the UN set a border for Jewish and Palestinian states in the territory that is today known as Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. The Jewish peoples, some who could trace their ancestry in the area to biblical times, and others who settled the area as either a Zionist effort or fleeing the Holocaust, accepted the borders which were much smaller than today's Israel, because it meant they would finally have their own state and land.
The Arabs didn't accept the border for a variety of reasons, and the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia attacked the fledgling Jewish state.
Notably, the Palestinians didn't attack. Though there were tensions between the Jewish peoples and the Palestinians who felt the encroachment of Jewish settlers from Europe, the Palestinian cause was really created and coopted by their Muslim neighbors.
During the war Israel expanded their borders, 700,000 Palestinians were displaced while some were massacred. Some Palestinians fled the war, some were forced out, some left at the call of their Arab neighbors, and some left in fear of being massacred. The armistice that ended the war left Israel larger, Jordan in control of the West Bank, and Egypt in control of Gaza. Note, this was before the West began to provide military aid to Israel.
So the Israel narrative or myth is that they have the pure moral high ground where they win a war for the right to exist. The Palestinian narrative and myth is that they were all violently dispossessed by the Jews and are pure victims. To this day, children born in Palestinian refuge camps are taught about the village they are "from" which often doesn't exist and their family does 70 years ago. Though many were not forced out during the war, the narrative is they were all forced to leave by the Jewish army.
So you have these competing ideas passed down on both sides that are in conflict, and neither one quite right.
When you look at how Palestinians have been treated by their Arab neighbors you see how they have been abused further. For example, Jordan and Egypt could have made the West Bank and Gaza independent Palestinian states, but they didn't. They continued to occupy them, and ultimately lose control after going to war with Israel again in the six day war in 1967, which set the stage for many of the problems today.
Over the years these narratives in conflict have bred real world violence in a tit for tat escalation that spans decades. Israel continues its narrative that it is in a war for its right to exist, which is true, but also doesn't accept responsibility for worsening the situation at times over the years and human rights abuses such as the 24 documented displacements.
Palestinians continue to define themselves as a dispossessed people, teaching their children that they need to reclaim what they lost, while being used by their surrounding Arab religious state neighbors as a proxy battleground against Israel. Palestinians have refused offers to develop permanent housing for fear of would weaken their claim to being refugees, and really live in entrenched slums that they call refuge camps.
The recent events were caused by Hamas, fearing the normalization of Israel relationships and the fading of the Palestinians cause to retake lost land, attacking Israel. Then of course, you have Israels grossly disproportionate response and the horrors therein.
So really the situation is quite a mess, and made worse by people ignorant of the history rushing to support one side or the other. In reality, both sides are prisoners of their own history, and unlikely to set themselves free anytime soon.
If you want a short podcast that goes over this in more detail, I recommend "The Daily" podcast titled 1948, which was released this past November 3rd and interviews the NYT Israel correspondent from 1970.
Let me know if you have any follow up questions.
For everyone else who is blindly on one side or the other waiting to bait me into a never ending argument by selectively framing the situation: no thanks, I have a weekend to enjoy.
As Israeli - Very good explanation indeed, thanks! I would mention a few things like Israeli Arabs and that not all Jews are from Europe and most are actually Mizrahi Jews(Come from Arab countries), but well written explanation overall
Thank you! I wanted to touch on some additional points like those, but I am in my phone and already was hitting the character limit, so I'm glad you mentioned them.
I think you need to actually start closer to 1918. When the proto-isreali insurgency heated up and eventually lead to the 1946 bombing of the king David hotel killing 91 civilians and destroying the Palestinian embassy. The proto-isreali insurgency would then leverage this terror campaign to force the two state plan (which was a proto Israeli concept) and remove any plan to make an Jewish state in Africa.
No one will ever convince me lehi or irgun aren’t in control of hamas, there’s just too many coincidences and actions that actively work against Palestine.
Thank you for this nuanced and unbiased write up. I have been actively avoiding this topic online and this helped me to get an idea about the background of the war going on now.
I recommend finding a movie you love that was a book first and reading it. I’m an extremely picky reader and I did this with Dune and LOVED it. Hasn’t gotten me much further but this may help kickstart your love of reading again.
I recommend starting with young adult novels. There are a lot of great ones and they are easy to get into. Large fonts makes fast reading. They generally have an interesting theme and simple plot. Great way to get started. Trying to go from nothing to something complex like Infinite Jest is a recipe to fail.
After Reddit shut off 3rd party apps, I came here and resolved to read more. In the previous decade I had read maybe 2 books. I think your resolution is achievable but i would make it ridiculously achievable of reading like 1 min a day.
The habit of reading is what you want and the books will come after that and chances are you will read much longer. Don’t read anything you “should” be reading. Get a “popcorn flick” equivalent that you interests you and isn’t challenging.
Great recommendations. I want to read the foundation series, I’m enjoying the show, but the wait time on Libby is really long. Michael Crichton is one of my favorite authors. I do need to read some of Clarke’s books but it almost suffers from “classical” must read avoidance I have lol
If Asimov’s Robots series has a shorter/no wait I think they’re worth reading. Maybe not as exciting as the Empire and Foundation series, but it’s interesting background- the evolution of robots, positronic brains, robot/human relations, jump ships, space colonization, human clones. Caves of Steel, The Naked Sun and Robots of Dawn are murder mystery detective stories that advance the robot plot.
Asimov recommended reading his books in this order:
The Complete Robot (1982) and/or I, Robot (1950)
Caves of Steel (1954)
The Naked Sun (1957)
The Robots of Dawn (1983)
Robots and Empire (1985)
The Currents of Space (1952)
The Stars, Like Dust (1951)
Pebble in the Sky (1950)
Prelude to Foundation (1988)
Note: Forward the Foundation (1993) was then unpublished, but would have followed Prelude.
If you are in Canada or the US I can’t recommend the Libby app highly enough - books, audiobooks and magazines borrowed to your devices from your local Library. Looking at the last 5 years of borrowing it has saved me (pirating probably) thousands of dollars of audiobooks, and having an endless supply of audiobooks with zero cost really encourages reading.
They happen to align with my values. I was raised Christian, and I only became agnostic in college, so that probably plays into it.
For example, abortion, I think murder is abohherent, baby murder especially so. I don’t know when the right to life begins, so I err on the side of caution, at the earliest point, at conception.
Im not anti-lgbtq.
I dont hold contempt for atheism, I dont like /r/atheism
Christian nationalism is weird one because no one seems to know what that actually means. And hell, freedom of religion is one of the most important rights, right next to free speech.
Unfortunately, many Republican elected representatives are, to varying degrees, anti-LGBT and do support Christian encroachment into non-religious people's lives.
Honest question. How do you reconcile your claim about not being anti-lgbt when the GOP is very vocally and openly pushing anti-lgbt messaging and legislation.
You know I voted for Hillary and Biden even though both trashed the idea of Medicare For All. That’s a huge issue for me, but you don’t really get to pick your politicians. You only pick the lesser of two evils. Republicans don’t like Dems. They might not love Trump or even Ted Cruz but for some people that’s their lesser of two evils. So I can’t speak for this other commenter but I can understand why you might vote for someone who doesn’t share your values
And for plenty of policy points that's not an issue. When we're on the topic of basic human rights, I'm not entirely sure how you* can handwave those abuses away because you want lower taxes.
If there's an answer that isn't basically "well they're not on my priority list so they can get fucked", I'd love to hear it. We're not talking about some relatively benign issue like zoning laws or whether or not we should introduce a new sales tax to fund the park system. Sitting by complacently is actively tacitly supporting the policies trying to further these abuses, and it's not some trivial issue that doesn't matter.
People can have different opinions to what is important and what is not. If someone try to censor every online forum in order to protect people from cyber crimes and financially support North Korean government even though time and time it has been proven that it doesn’t go well, fuck up all the housing crisis even more, but is the only candidate who (remotely) supports LGBTQ, I’m not voting them, which is exactly the case in my country.
There are other important aspects of people’s lives and you can’t just go around and say your priorities are wrong. You can however argue about the reasoning that led to said priorities and initial opinion, which is exactly what people are talking to you.
Neo-libs may not be, but there are plenty of us who are adamant that the workers shall not be disarmed.
Ignoring that...
The gop is unintionally better for lgbtq than the dnc
Only one is actively imposing legislation that oppresses the lgptq community. If you honestly believe that, I beg you to take an actual hard, honest look at the legislation the GOP has passed in the last 6 years. You'll find that's just simply not true. Lying to others is one thing, but don't lie to yourself.
Are there individuals within the GOP who don't support those things? Perhaps, but they're clearly at least not opposed to them. Unfortunately the "old guard" have decided they'd rather let the complete and utter batshit insane corner of the party drive the platform. It's time to realize that.
Yeah, I probably should’ve said gop and dnc, and adjusted the wording slightly.
I would argue that any right is meaningless without 2a to back it up. Thus, any rights given by the DNC aren’t real. They aren’t worth the paper it’s written on.
And while in most scenarios I'd agree, we're not talking hypothetical scenarios anymore. The GOP doesn't care about you or your rights. They made that clear when a group of them attempted a coup, and the whole did absolutely nothing to condemn it. All over losing a single presidential election. Anything promised by a group that tried to throw our entire republic away isn't worth shit either.
That is a far more pressing concern. Far more. Especially when any anti-2a legislation is not going to come close to surviving with this current SCOTUS.
Ok so if your choice was between a politician who made LGBT issues their priority but were against medicare for all/socialized medicine, and a politician that made medicare for all/socialized medicine their priority but were against LGBT rights, who would you choose?
Both are human rights issues. Which one is more important to you?
You must have a much higher tolerance for glacial paced change than I do.
As someone who is aggressively pro-2a (although almost certainly for different reasons than you), I might have been able to legitimately see your point 10 years ago when the GOP was less actively hostile to the very existence of gay people. Unfortunately we don't live in 2013 anymore.
You know that someone can agree with most things in a platform and hate other things about it right?
The fact that they said they’re not anti-lgbt instead of saying they’re pro-lgbt implies that lgbt issues in general are lower on their list of priorities. They may not agree with the anti lgbt stuff but it isn’t important to them anyway.
I'm aware of that first part, but I'm not quite sure how it's possible to make a moral argument that basic human rights shouldn't be towards the very top of your list. The unfortunate reality of the matter is that even in the off chance your local R isn't completely awful, the policies that will be implemented on a national level if they manage to take control of the presidency again are. Voting for an R is a tacit endorsement of those policies.
They’re a Republican. They don’t view LGBT issues as a human rights issue in the first place. It’s a political issue for them. Hence why they can reconcile that their opinion vs the party platform.
Again, that’s why they said they’re not anti-lgbt rather than saying they’re pro-lgbt.
They can disagree with the Republican Party on LGBT issues, because it’s a political issue for them and not a human rights issue.
Idk man. It just seems like you’re saying “political issue” but what you mean is “doesn’t affect them”.
And I think the whole they’re not “anti” these people they just don’t care enough about them to vote for them to have basic protections is a tough sell. At some point it’s a forced choice, and sitting out isn’t really an option.
I guess maybe it’s how they truly see it, but it doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny.
It just seems like you’re saying “political issue” but what you mean is “doesn’t affect them”.
Yeah, that is exactly what I said and what I meant. It was my point. Thank you for getting the point?
At some point it’s a forced choice, and sitting out isn’t really an option.
Idk, the fact that the Log Cabin Republicans exist kinda proves that it is. Even LGBT people can reconcile Republican ideals and their own LGBT identity. It’s much easier for someone that isn’t LGBT to ignore LGBT issues. And the majority of people wont have someone close to them be LGBT, making it even easier to not care about them.
Yea it is easier for them to ignore. Choosing to ignore it is still a choice. And the effect of that choice is the continued suspension of human rights. There is no true option of sitting out.
The point is framing it as a “political issue” takes the responsibility off of them. Again, it’s true they see it that way, but all I hear is they only care about themselves.
This sounds an awful lot like a repudiation of “vote blue no matter who” but from the opposite angle. The fact of the matter is that different people place different priorities on different issues. Everyone these days seems to think that all people need to have the perfect opinion on every subject but I think that’s crazy. Take the wins you can get and leave the rest for later.
Personally I think that means that Democrats need to bide their time on several issues. If they would make a commitment to let guns, abortion (would have been easier 4 years ago), and LGBT issues lie for an entire election cycle, and make the general electorate believe that’s a real promise, they could get so much other shit done. I know people here are going to start in on how such a statement is unfair to trans people, women, victims of gun violence, etc, but there’s no denying the fact that those issues are sticking points for huge amounts of voters.
You don’t even have to concede any arguments to do what I’m suggesting either. All you need to do is acknowledge that we have other things we could work on before we cross those bridges. If you look at polling data most Americans agree with Democrats on solutions to problems like healthcare, the tax code, and labor laws. If we could implement even semi progressive laws around these issues we would improve the lives of everyone in America, including those most impacted by the issues above. Why would we not do that and then go back to our usual bickering along political lines?
When it comes down to it we’re not gaining anything by insisting on purity tests for these positions that only drive voter engagement for conservatives. Just table them for now and work on what can realistically be accomplished. The alternative is not more progress for more people, it’s more of this culture war bullshit, and that doesn’t help anyone at all. Isn’t that the worst option on the table?
Democrats need to bide their time on several issues… LGBT issues lie for an entire election cycle
The problem is a lot of damage can be done in one election cycle. Just this year so far? 590 anti-trans bills have been proposed and 85 anti-trans bills have passed in the US: https://translegislation.com
And how did those bills get passed? Republicans were able to pass them because some voters are so worried about their guns and drag queen story hour that they refused to vote for Democrats. You’re making my point for me. Anything is better than regression, including no progress at all.
I bet leaving guns alone would be enough by itself but Democrats just can’t stop themselves from poking that beehive even though they know damn well that no meaningful legislation will come from it. They’re not gaining any voters or changing any laws by making it a sticking point but they’re definitely losing voters because of it. If you know you can’t make anything happen then why bring up something that’s only going to hurt you? Fight that battle on the day you can win it and until then keep your mouth shut about it.
I never stated whether I was pro or con guns, so I don’t need the lecture. I was simply pointing out that you can’t just sit out an election cycle when it comes to human rights
Call it what you want, that way of doing things hasn’t seen much of any major progress since the civil rights movement. The moral high ground seems rather pointless to claim if all you’re doing is watching things deteriorate from an elevated position.
I don’t see how putting human rights on hold will somehow make things work any faster, better or more efficiently. My rights as a human are up for grabs, and somehow thats me “watching things deteriorate from an elevated position”? lol, ok buddy. You’re being unreasonably hostile right now so I’m disengaging. Enjoy your holidays if you celebrate them.
Christian nationalism is just the merging of Christian and American identity. “America is a Christian nation”. You hear similar often from pandering and or deranged Republicans
Banning abortion doesn’t stop abortion, it just shifts it to a black market where women are far more likely to die.
Perhaps, but it will likely at least severely reduce it. It’s certainly not appropriate to assume that every woman who would have had an abortion when it’s safe and legal would also do so when it’s dangerous and illegal. More likely, it would lead to a rise in babies given up for adoption.
You know what I changed my mind. I’ll do a little research paper for you, but only if you do it first, defending your claim that the most likely result of an abortion ban is (mostly) an increase in adoptions.
I prefer sources to be papers, but I’ll accept anything that cites it’s data well.
I honestly wouldn’t know where to start looking for data on that. But I didn’t make the claim that this was definitely going to happen, just that it was the likely outcome, based on the common sense assumption that if abortion access wasn’t easy, safe, and anonymous, and involved a significant risk of injury or death for the mother, more women would likely find it less risky to carry their pregnancy to term and give up the baby for adoption if they haven’t changed their mind on it by then.
Also, they may simply choose to use birth control more often, and/or insist on their partners wearing a condom.
From my point of view, I find the claim that making abortion illegal would not prevent even a single one from occurring far more incredulous and therefore requiring a higher level of proof.
Alright I’m gunna take this point by point because broadly I understand what you are trying to get at but you have a few details that bother me and I feel derail the whole thing.
But I didn’t make the claim that this was definitely going to happen, just that it was the likely outcome
Me neither, I was talking about historical precedent, not some hard and fast rule of the universe.
based on the common sense assumption that if abortion access wasn’t easy, safe, and anonymous, and involved a significant risk of injury or death for the mother, more women would likely find it less risky to carry their pregnancy to term and give up the baby for adoption
First of all, with the “death or injury” part of this, I don’t see why this is preferable. Seems like threatening their lives and happiness in the interest of forcing births. But also, this assumes there aren’t other ways this can shake out in the end, and child abuse, abandonment and childhood homelessness, and human trafficking are all part of this topic and all things that increase when abortion is illegal. Your common sense assumption is based on a situationally perfect example, and it doesn’t make sense when applied to real world experiences.
if they haven’t changed their mind on it by then.
This is just a piece of that bullshit take that argues women will learn to love their future babies if they are just forced to carry them long enough that abortions are more difficult and less legally accessable. Nah
From my point of view, I find the claim that making abortion illegal would not prevent even a single one from occurring far more incredulous and therefore requiring a higher level of proof.
Good thing I wasn’t claiming that then. I’m saying the amount prevented would be negligible, not magically impossibly zero. It would likely be a small amount, and utterly overshadowed by the negative effects of banning abortions.
I honestly wouldn’t know where to start looking for data on that.
Generally any search engine is a good start, although you can go to google scholar if you want more academic and dense results. Then, just look for what experts/doctors are saying. Try to stick to groups that verify each other and are verified by outside groups, individual experts are fallible on who knows what, so trust the experts that other experts seem to trust. Generally unless you want to be a researcher yourself, these are the most trustworthy and direct sources for data and such you can possibly get.
Me neither, I was talking about historical precedent, not some hard and fast rule of the universe.
Well that’s the thing, “historical precedent” means that this has actually demonstrably happened before, in which case there should be data on it. That’s why I asked for proof. Which I understand you’re most likely not going to be able to provide, since there obviously can’t be any reliable data on the amount of clandestine abortions that happened before it was legalized.
First of all, with the “death or injury” part of this, I don’t see why this is preferable. Seems like threatening their lives and happiness in the interest of forcing births.
I mean, I’m not a woman, but if I were, and I was given the choice between having an illegal procedure that had a good chance of injury or death (and no possible recourse), and carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term, I think I would choose the latter, because it seems a lot safer, no matter how inconvenient.
This is just a piece of that bullshit take that argues women will learn to love their future babies if they are just forced to carry them long enough that abortions are more difficult and less legally accessable. Nah
Well, in the absence of any hard data, I find that idea more convincing than the opposite, but again, I’ll admit that I’m not a woman. But unless you are, you’re likely no more of an expert on this than I am. And even if you are AND have gone through all this, you’d just be a single data point of anecdotal evidence, which would not be enough to convince me.
Good thing I wasn’t claiming that then. I’m saying the amount prevented would be negligible, not magically impossibly zero. It would likely be a small amount, and utterly overshadowed by the negative effects of banning abortions.
You realize that for statistical purposes, “zero” and “negligible” are absolutely identical, right? It’s called a null hypothesis, look it up.
Perhaps, but it will likely at least severely reduce it.
I rejected that. I didn’t say “there would be the same amount of abortions no matter the law” or anything like you seem to think. I don’t think it would be “severely” reduced, and the negatives are extreme to the point of being unacceptable.
As for the data you want me to provide, I refer to the other things said. Unless you agree to also put in the effort to provide data to support your argument, I’m not going to put in all that effort for a random internet convo. Since you made the first claim (at least that I interacted with) (“Perhaps, but it will likely at least severely reduce it”), you can go first.
To be blunt I find the behaviour of demanding rigorous sources and academic honesty in internet arguments obnoxious and hypocritical. Very few people read them, they just want them as stamps of approval. And most conversations I see where someone is demanding sources, they are who should be logically providing sources to the conversation. It is just a silly part of internet culture dancing around pretending to be intellectualism. On a personal level I do love sources though, when they get posted. Not just for accuracy, I find them fun to read.
Okay, well I don’t care enough about winning arguments on the Internet in order to write a whole research paper right now, so I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree and call it a draw.
You sound like a petulant child out of their depth. An intelligent person would have a fairly easy time figuring out where I stand on the topic based on my response.
Forgive me for not being terminally online and Lemmy showing me older posts.
Yeah, I’m afraid that’s just an ad hominem, not an argument.
And no, I don’t have a problem figuring out where you stand on the issue, but since you apparently can’t even defend your position without resorting to insults, this seems to be a clear case of “you can’t reason anyone out of an opinion which by reason they never acquired”.
If you think you have the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body then I don’t give a flying fuck about anything you have to say, regardless of how you dress it up.
Of course I have a right to tell her that, whether or not she actually does it, or whether I have the right to violently enforce my opinion on her is an entirely different matter. But we were just arguing hypotheticals in this thread anyways.
FWIW I’m not convinced that banning abortion is the solution, but neither that making it easier and safer to access solves any problems, because neither do anything to address the root cause of why women feel like they need to have any abortions at all (excluding those necessary for medical reasons of course).
But sure, I’m clearly the petulant child here that’s out of my depth, because an intelligent person would have no problem seeing such nuances instead of resorting to politically popular catch phrases.
And it’s funny, isn’t it, because women tell men all the time what they ought to do with their bodies (go to work, make money, provide for the family, share the housework, don’t drink, don’t do drugs, the list goes on), yet as a man, I’m supposedly not allowed to even have an opinion what what a woman should do with hers? I’m sorry, that just sounds like blatant sexism, but I’m sure that as long as it’s in favor of women, you’re perfectly happy accepting that.
That is exactly my point. Glad you could see it my way.
Except for the draw part. This wasn’t a competition, and in the nicest way possible, I’ll just walk away from this thinking you are fully incorrect, and I assume you will do the same about me. “Agree to disagree” is more for people who actually know each other. Bye stranger!
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.
I would rather die than be pregnant. Nobody wants their body hijacked and raped for 9 months. That’s something you only do if you consent to it. Otherwise you might as well waterboard someone for 9 months they’d much prefer it.
More like banning any medical procedures during pregnancy will force people to get then somewhere else. Also killing someone who is using our body without your consent is self defense.
You can equate the two, but they’re not functionally the same in reality. There is statistical evidence that banning abortion does not work and in fact has the opposite effect, so swapping the words makes no sense. A better comparison would be Prohibition in the US in the 1920s - banning alcohol didn’t stop the production or use of it, it just made it exceedingly dangerous, lots of people got sick, went blind, and died from homemade liquor that contained too much methanol.
If you truly care about the life of the child at conception and after its birth, you’d choose the option where there is never an unwanted or accidental pregnancy. Most unwanted pregnancies result in children suffering abuse, entering the foster system, and eventually aging out without ever having a permanent or stable family. Many of these kids live a life where they’ve NEVER been loved.
There are nearly 400,000 children in the foster system in the US right now and the number grows every day. There’s no one to adopt these babies. Forcing women to have children does not work. No child should ever be unwanted, every child deserves loving parents. This is the world that abortion bans create.
Nobody is pro-abortion. Nobody likes or wants women to have abortions, especially the women getting the procedure…it is NOT pleasant. Pro-choice supporters would be thrilled if there’s never another abortion again, as long there were no unwanted pregnancies.
The best,statistically provenmethod to prevent abortions is education and easy access to contraception. Full stop.
The point behind this is that your argument boils down to essentially “people still break laws, so why have laws?” That is a poor argument that isn’t going to convince anybody who believes that abortion is murder. Particularly if you are saying that the “murderers” in this case are just putting themselves at risk.
I say this as someone who agrees with you, that the best way reduce the number of abortions is to provide better sex education and access to birth control.
My mother has been an anti abortion activist for as long as I can remember, so I’m familiar with the thought process.
We have laws that regulate abortion, alcohol, etc already. I said nothing about “why have laws?” in any part of my argument. I said banning abortion will not reduce abortions, much less stop them. That statement is a proven fact.
You and others seem to be applying my belief that abortion should not be illegal to all other laws, which is not the case. That is my opinion on a singular issue. I never stated nor implied other laws shouldn’t exist.
When a person sees abortion as murder, the view of abortion laws is the same as those of murder. If you say “making murder illegal doesn’t reduce the number of murders” anyone with any sort of a moral center will say “I don’t care, murder should still be illegal.” And that’s the perspective will not be changed no matter what the murder rates are. That’s how the argument gets reduced to “Why have laws?” To them, it’s basically saying “It doesn’t help enough, so why even draw that line at all?”
That said, let’s look at your proven fact for a moment. I don’t believe the data will help, because when you narrow the focus to the US, and look at reaction to legal changes, you see a very clear drastic rise in abortions in the 70’s, which didn’t begin to fall until the 90’s, and it fell at a much slower rate, and is still higher than it was in the 70s. ( source )
Which makes logical sense, if you increase access to the service, of course more people will be able to use it. At the same time, since Roe vs. Wade was repealed, there have already been multiple news stories showing that the strict abortion laws did prevent some (often medically necessary life-saving) abortions.
You may say these numbers aren’t statistically significant, but to a person who sees abortion as murder, preventing even one is better than not preventing it.
Anyway, all of this misses the major point of the abortion rights side to begin with. Which is that sometimes abortions are medically necessary and that should be between you and your doctor to decide when that is.
I want to say that the most effective argument is to show just how drastically the abortion rates fell in the areas where they increased access to birth control and sex education. However, when I showed my mother, she responded with a Youtube video that tells me how Planned Parenthood eats babies.
You’re missing the point. If you conflate abortion and murder, you’re either being willfully ignorant or exceedingly simple. Just because some people equate two things, doesn’t make them the same in reality. Whether you like it or not they are different, and applying the same standards to them makes no sense.
Your argument is like saying “Advil and heroin are both pain relieving drugs, so the law should apply equally.” They are not the same, and we should not treat them the same, even if some people mistakenly equate them.
I completely agree. This is a much better argument to make. For example, I generally concede that abortion = killing, but not murder. In the same way that killing a person is justified (for example, self-defense applies here), sometimes it’s justified to have an abortion, even if that is killing a baby. And because it involves such personal, sometimes traumatic territory, that should be between you and your doctor only.
But that’s a different argument than what you began with.
Aborting a non viable pregnancy isn’t and never will be murder. In fact, stopping women with non-viable pregnancies from getting an abortion often can be murder itself. Therefore abortion != murder
think murder is abohherent, baby murder especially so. I don’t know when the right to life begins, so I err on the side of caution
Why stop there? You have no idea, right? So why do you masturbate or use condoms? You’re killing millions of potential babies!
If you don’t know, you should err on the side of caution for the rights of the people who you do know are real.
Or maybe you should just stay out of it, because as you say, you don’t know. Leave it to the scientists and doctors who DO know and who almost universally support abortion access.
Why stop there? You have no idea, right? So why do you masturbate or use condoms? You’re killing millions of potential babies!
Not the guy you’re responding to, but you have a point. Coincidentally, most religions are also against both, so at least you can’t accuse them of being inconsistent on the issue of reproduction.
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.
In my mind, so long as lgbtq people have both free speech and the right to bear arms, the rest of their rights will come. See: The marches and protests that lead to gay marriage. Those two rights come before everything else, and support everything else.
I’m anti abortion once the fetus is viable. Prior to that point, a woman is refusing to let someone else use her body to survive, and while there are personal moral questions there, I think she should have the right to make that call. After that point, she’s attempting to kill someone else to avoid the suffering that a birth would entail.
I still support her right to rid herself of an unwelcome guest, I just don’t support abortion as the method.
I’m aware that late term abortions are so vanishingly rare that this is a pointless hair-splitting exercise, but I like to have a consistent moral system as much as I can, whether it’s currently relevant or not, and I thought someone might appreciate my .02.
Being a fetus doesn’t excuse a foreign body’s presence inside of mine. I do not intend to be pregnant and if my partner’s sperm invades my body when I do not want it I will take every step to eliminate it or the process that follows it. A fetus isn’t important. If anything forcing someone to exist is the utmost violation of bodily autonomy. As they say, just because something is natural doesn’t make it good.
Kudos for sharing. Feel free to ignore those who challenge your values. It takes a bunches of mental energy to argue and it isn’t necessarily worth it to argue.
With that said, I will still would like to ask you a question, if you are up for it.
How did you form your values?
I only ask because it is easy, when you are raised as Christian, to uncritically accept the teaching, values, and views of those around you as your own.
As kids we are conditioned through school, parents, and in general just information asymmetry to accept what adults say as fact and not question it. It is easy to carry that same tendency over into our values and viewpoints. Kids and adults have a hard time separating fact from opinion. We tend to treat widely held beliefs as fact instead of as the opinions they actually are.
Pro guns, all sorts of historical precedent, from the US in Iraq, to Roof Koreans, to the French Resistance, to Australia. (This is honestly my strongest belief, guns and free speech)
Free speech, how can you speak up if you can’t speak?
I understand your justification for your beliefs and even share some of your moral beliefs. It seems to me like you didn’t really answer in the way I meant to communicate it. I’ll try to rephrase my original question to what I mean clearer. What causes you to rank your own values in the way you do?
Why do you think access to guns is more important than your beliefs on abortion? Or why are they more important than not getting overcharged on everything from housing to education to healthcare?
TLDR: Without guns and speech, you have no rights, and I have historical evidence to back me up. But also they’re pre-crime laws.
Simply put, the right to bear arms protects every other right. But before you grab the ammo box, you supposed to actually say something. Protest, make yourself heard. Free speech and guns go hand in hand in my mind.
For guns specifically, guns protect rights I can point to any number of historical precedents. Even in America, gun control basically started as a way to disarm black people, and it’s still trying to keep poor people from arming themselves, and look how minorities are treated. In Nazi Germany, one of the first things they did was disarm the Jewish people. On a lighter note, Australia disarmed, and now they banned hentai. You can’t make this shit up
Guns are powerful tools, poverty stricken farmers in the middle east held off the most powerful military in the world for decades, whether or not you agree with them. The IRA successfully kept most of Ireland independent from the UK with guns. The French Resistance wouldn’t have been able to do anything without guns. Hell, the Roof Koreans wouldn’t have saved their stores without guns.
I can come up with more, but I think you get the point.
It’s a similar situation with free speech. Tons of historical precedents. Martin Luther King marching for example. (I came up with a ton of examples, but I realized just how long it was)
In any case, gun control and hate speech laws are pre-crime laws. What’s the actual issue? Murder, assault, robbery, that sort of thing. Simply owning and saying shit isn’t hurting anyone by itself. Murder should be against the law, not having a gun and not outing yourself as a bigot. It’s pre-crime, not actual crime.
Yeah, I might be to blame for some of that shit. I started !antiquememesroadshow a few months ago, then it blew up and started covering c/all, then it spread like herpes to the other meme communities.
Actually they are all the same, and none of them are, that’s why they are all the same. The plan was made before fire codes required updated sprinkler systems or something and since they keep reusing the same plans they all are fire hazards.
A fire fighter buddy of mine was ranting one night and I caught the tail end of the discussion.
Oh ok, that makes sense. Thought he might have meant that at first but second guessed because I only see them in strip malls or other buildings they didn’t build themselves these days but thinking about the aisles does make me think fire hazard now. At least they usually keep the lighters by the cash, though I wonder if someone learned that one the hard way.
Lightning never strikes the same place twice. In fact it favors repeated strikes at the same arcing point.
In the middle ages churches would ring the steeple bells during a thunderstorm in an effort to soothe God. (it was assumed the Christian God was directly responsible for lightning.) This resulted in such an epidemic of lightning deaths among parish priests that ringing church bells in thunderstorms remains a criminal act in some regions of Europe.
Modern cathedrals and statues are fitted with replaceable lightning rods, in an admission God is content to let the mechanics of static electricity guide His thunderbolts.
I always suspected that the “no mixing wool and linen” verses in the Bible were due to miniature lightning striking (heh) the fear of God into the ancients.
Linkedin is the only social media I would reccomend to put yourself out (as in, put your successful projects in) as it’s used more as a networking tool to land yourself in better jobs.
LinkedIn is getting shittier all the time too. I check it out twice a year or so and every time I look at my feed it reminds me a bit more of Facebook. It’s the only social media I haven’t deactivated and is likely to stay that way for a while longer at least but it definitely feels like it’s getting further and further from that professional vibe it once carried, and not in a good way.
They recently switched some feed algorithms and it became completely useless. At least in my case if I use their “adjusted” feed, or whatever it is called, I sometimes see the same posts up on top for several days! I anyway prefer the chronological feed which you can luckily still set as standard, but there I get so many results, I do tend to miss those “high impact” posts of some of my connections.
So, neither is great and I have no idea how they think its usable in any way. Not using their app by the way, so maybe thats the issue, but I refuse to put that on my phone.
You dont really have to be all that active there either. Just login every now and then to add / accept new connections and to update your profile.
LinkedIn for me is basically public CV that recruiters can view. Depending on your profession you can also link your github, stackoverflow, portfolio, blog or something similar there to direct people to channels you prefer instead of social media.
Watched this over the Christmas break. The best review I had read from someone else was from a post on Lemmy that said something to the effect of “if you set up a TV to play 10 generic sci-fi movies and just changed the channel between them allrandomly you’d end up with a film as cohesive as Rebel Moon.”
I think he’s been incredibly consistent with his videos and don’t find any of his ads offensive or annoying, even though I’ll never buy something. I guess I disagree that the quality has changed. I do feel I’ve seen most content already though and he’s not doing much to keep interest growing.
I don’t agree, his techniques and format are still good and though expensive, the covert instrument sets are some of the finest tools I have. If the guy wants to make a buck and offer a one stop shop for the hobby I don’t see the problem.
I guess my only complaint with LPL is seemingly running out of challenging locks, which is more a fault of manufacturers.
Apparently not just his tools, either. He’s got some partners too, and it started recommending me their videos too. Their stuff is more of the same, advertisements for their store.
Eh, I would have to disagree with this, I have been watching him for a while and as far as I can tell the quality is the same the only difference now days is that he mentions his tools in the videos while picking the locks, so the videos didn't even really get longer.
He’s very much not liked in the lock picking community.
Not only does he push his overpriced tools a lot, most of them are very much not needed. He also puts a lot of focus on specialized car lock picking tools which are expensive at, made for each brand basically, and in a very dubious grey area which is a big no no in that “sport”.
From a purist side there are also a lot of complaints.
Agreed. Before it would be “so I made this tool by filing down this other thing, you can probably make one yourself” to “I used this tool that you can get in my shop, and here’s how to pick it with a few standard tools as well…”
Man picks lock with skill and tools, not allowed to mention he also sells tools? Shit that would knock out so many YouTubers… LawrenceSystems, NetworkChuck, Level1Techs, pretty much anyone who does electronics or home automation…
This seems to be the prevalent trend with most channels that gain traction. They start focusing more on selling their plushies, clothing, tools, or other shitty branded merchandise, and less on the content that got them there.
Maybe it’s because original content creation is hard work. I get that. But holy shit, when they start hawking their stupid merch hard their credibility just goes down the toilet.
Feels like it’s mostly because there’s not much to talk about anyway, whatever needed to be said has already been said in one of his 1.5k video. I start follow his channel before he established his company, it’s mostly the same and it’s really just about how he defeat the lock. He sometimes still talk about unique lock he find interesting though.
Yeah, those unique locks are the highlights I remain subscribed for. He used to dismantle locks more often, but at this point it'd just be more of the same if he kept doing that.
Might be a good idea for him to change up his format a bit to make fewer videos but have them be more of a deep dive into whatever locks he's focusing on, maybe do more of the old "now let's see if we can open this with the leg of a Barbie™ doll and half of an M67 fragmentation grenade" stunt videos. I remember he used to get more experimental with his approaches when there was back-and-forth with Bosnian Bill.
I got into lockpicking and now I love Lock Noob. Covert Instruments aren’t that good either, I would go with Sparrows if I were to start, if anybody else is interested in getting into the hobby.
Someone who becomes good at something selling goods/services isn’t exactly what I would consider offensive. Consider the guy who did Mouse Trap Monday videos who is now selling his trap commercially: do you have any idea how long he spent testing and reviewing traps to reach a point where that was viable? I suspect he spent thousands of hours on this.
Level1Techs sell basically the only DisplayPort KVM worth a damn, that’s a pretty great offering to have. They don’t bring it up much but it’s there.
I kind of wish that multi-unit housing came with sound isolation ratings. That’d create an incentive to have better isolation and help customers weigh the tradeoffs.
This is part of my argument against the recent trend to allow bigger wood framed buildings, so they’re cheaper. There’s only so much you can do to soundproof a multi family house, but a large apartment building needs more. You know here’s higher risk of fires, flooding and damage just by having more people. You know statistically there will be noise issues. You can’t just pass the responsibility on the tenants when you know this will be a problem. Larger buildings should be required to be built in a way to protect tenants from this, ie. Not wood. They deserve at least as much consideration as the builder’s profits
Larger buildings are required to do this under IBC, and have been for many years. You can absolutely make a modern multifamily wood framed building quiet with proper design and construction.
There’s no perfect building material. Wood has issues. But concrete is terrible for the planet from a climate perspective and we’re rapidly running out of quality aggregate (especially sand) in many parts of the world. You can make a list of pros and cons about any other material, too.
we need to put sound insulation into the building codes. it won't increase rents much since all the money's in the land anyways. personally I've never had an actual issue with noise form other units but I'll grant this to the people who do.
I don’t really want to force a specific bottom limit on sound insulation, which is what that would do, though.
Some people won’t care as much as others relative to price and may not want to pay what it’d cost. And some people may want a much-quieter unit than any bottom limit would place.
The problem is that they can’t make an informed decision now because the information isn’t available.
Might be worth just mandating it since you can also fix thermal efficiency issues at the same time. And that affects everyone since poor thermal efficiency = more pressure on the electricity grid and increased risks of extreme cold and heat to individuals.
But transparency would certainly be better than nothing.
It is, but LEED was kind of a flash-in-the-pan fad for tax breaks and hardly any developers strive for a LEED certificate anymore (exception I’ve seen is govt projects). the cost of LEED certification is too much for most developers to stomach.
Nowadays I mostly see LEED as an extra set of letters in a person’s email signature.
Perhaps LEED should be replaced by a bunch of smaller certifications, each covering only a tiny subset.
It is nice to have one logo you can stick on a building, instead of lots of them. But after a little pushing it could be normalized to have a spot for multiple plaques near the entrance of a building, showing which certs it has earned.
Then you have a lower bar for entry and owners can choose a la carte what they want to strive for, and disregard the rest.
Like, a sound isolation rating on an apartment building would be a huge selling point. Have a certifying company that brings in big speakers and microphones and tests room-to-room sound conduction. Then you get a certification for the soundproofing.
I guess the nice thing about private cert authorities is anybody can just do this. It would take a while to get recognized but you could solve the two-sided marketplace problem pretty easily.
LEED kinda works like that with the different levels. LEED Gold checks off requirements a, b, and c; LEED Platinum also includes d and e, etc. I’m not LEED accredited, though, so I can’t speak to the finer differences.
There is a new standard making headway called WELL Certification . I’m not sure the difference between this and LEED but I’d be interested to learn more one day.
First, IBC has had this as code for at least 15 years.
The International Building Code (IBC) establishes minimum requirements for airborne and impact performance of multifamily buildings. The minimum code requirement is STC 50 and IIC 50. Since many factors can affect the transmission of sound in the field, including non-standardized source and receiver rooms as well as construction tolerances, a field measurement (ASTC or AIIC) of three to five points below the lab measurement is acceptable to meet code requirements.
As the understanding increased of how STC and IIC ratings correlate with occupant comfort, the International Code Council (ICC) issued ICC G2-2010, “Guideline for Acoustics,” which established two additional levels of acoustical performance:
acceptable, defined as STC 55 and IIC 55; and preferred amount of isolation as STC 60 and IIC 60
Second, all the money is most definitely not in the land. As a general ballpark, developers want the land to be under 1/4 of the total cost of the project.
Nice. How effective is that minimum standard? Most currently existing buildings are of course older than 15 years so most people won't have experienced it. Sadly these days anywhere remotely urban has way more than 1/4 the cost as land, espically for already existing buildings
asklemmy
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.