I kinda got busy and stopped recording part of the way through that game and the hinnom game. I lose to mictlan, im not sure if i can bring myself to go back and relive all of that pain and record it.
I beg you, do not talk politics. It works fine if every one is sane and avoid hot button issues( a few issues are third rail by nature) it would only take one nut to make everything hell even in the comments and well, this IS the internet.(Edit) I have seen nice comment sections under siege after one opinion set someone off and they and all the help they could find started haunting and picking fights in the comments. lasted months.
I think talking politics is fine, though it would be conditional on who is talking politics with you. I find that having a selfish mindset, of pumping people for information instead of selflessly trying to change other people's minds to be a lot more beneficial for everyone involved. In the end, despite how much we may think we can contribute to changing people's minds, decisions like that are almost entirely in the hands of the owner.
Sure, people can disagree about whether women should have any sort of control over their own bodies or not, but... the positions are hardly morally equal. Similarly people can disagree on whether we should put children in concentration camps to be drugged and sexually abused, but similarly the positions are not equal
I think framing it like that makes people much more agitated about the issue Petter. Lets start with a point on which both sides agree: Third trimester abortions are not (very) ethical. There are quite a few reasons that both sides feel this way: the fetus is much more developed and human like, the fetus can at this point survive outside the womb (as a premie) etc. Basically the fetus has started to get some of the rights that it will have as a human once it is born. Even in the US, there is pretty broad agreement that third trimester abortions shouldnt be allowed because the women has had plenty of time before to address the issue and the baby is far to human and is possibly capable of surviving without the mother. So i don't know whether you agree with this point or not, but i cant think of any place on earth where on the day of delivery you can tell the doctor that you have changed your mind and you want your pregnancy terminated. Now if you are against third trimester abortions, that certainly doesnt mean that you should be against first trimester abortions, because the situation is much different... the fetus isnt terribly human like yet in appearance or function (esp early first trimester abortions), the mother hasnt had any time to handle it yet in a more responsible manner etc.. Now if we take the extreme on the other side... If someone were the most extreme pro-lifer - they would need to be against birth control pills because those function by preventing fertilized eggs from binding to the wall of the uterus --- basically causing a one cell abortion. Yet this position is extremely rare in America - even among catholics who have historically opposed it. So where am i going with this? Well most people agree that as the fetus gets older it begins to get some human rights and its not from 0% to 100% on the day of delivery. Meanwhile most people agree that women have some rights to avoid pregnancy after having their egg fertilized (i.e: birth control pill).... So basically almost everybody is a "moderate" in the sense that they are not 100% pro-fetus rights at the expense of the mother nor 100% pro womens rights at the expense of the fetus. So if we establish that everyone is indeed to a degree a moderate, it doesn't mean that they are all wrong or that all the moderate positions are morally equal. People could still argue with vigor on when the fetus should start to get some rights and why its more important to protect the rights of women. But i think deciding which point we should grant enfranchisement to a fetus is a point upon which reasonable people disagree. In practical terms, I disagree with several people on abortion whom i have a great deal of respect for. So sorry for the essay, but this is one issue which in America is framed in such devicive ways - it polarizes people so much that they can't have much level discussion about it. Where do i personally stand on the issue? Well I think this is one of the oldest, hardest and most intimate choices that a woman, her partner, and a doctor have to make... Where often enough they are trying to choose the least bad scenario among several bad ones. I basically come down with a very moderate position that unless I'm directly involved its none of my business. In terms of law, in the first trimester, I personally think the benefits of allow allowing a woman to choose outweigh the benefits of granting human rights to a developing embryo. Further 45% of Americans believe that first trimester abortion should be legal under any circumstance, and making anything illegal that so much of the public supports doesn't make any practical sense (See prohibition). Second term, abortions become increasingly harder decisions for those involved to make since more and more the fetus is what we recognize as a human baby, should it be illegal at this point to get an abortion? Probably not, im not going to be picketing in the streets if most second trimester abortions aren't legal though. There is probably some gradient where it shifts from reflecting badly on you if you waited this long to you are doing something against the law though. In my mind this gradient is probably during second trimester. Should third trimester abortions be illegal? For me, i worry that making anything like this illegal will force women to take care of things outside of the hospitals where it is more dangerous, but I'm certainly not against giving the fetus the right to life in the third trimester with some exceptions (life of the women in threat etc). But i think my position is pretty mainstream, and politicians / media just use inflamatory rhetoric to get folks fired up about abortion (which btw elected officials never change this much, it changes slowly if at all through the courts mostly). Getting people so fired up that they see the opposition as Nazi's --- makes it so they cant work together on other issues which they agree, like reducing American military spending. (2/3 Americans agree military is strong enough/too big and shouldn't get more money, yet they get their increase) So I don't know Petter, I agree with you that the world would be better if women had an opportunity to choose about whether they want to have a child. But I see it as a very gray issue, where people can have very different views and still be human.
@@LucidTactics I think this is a tough one for anyone here to make claims and real comments on with any sort of major authority without having a women on this.Much like how you cant rule on slavery without someone who's potentially affected by it, ruling what is and is not right in terms of womens rights without a womans voice is kinda.. disenfranchising.
@@SkeIIum Hey Skellum, me having an opinion on the matter doesn't disenfranchise women. But i think you might be missing my point, because my point isnt about exactly about what the law should be. My point is that it is an issue which reasonable people can and do disagree - both women and men. So i'm definitely not trying to say XYZ should be the law of the land and i'm definitely definitely not saying XYZ should be the law of the land regardless of what women want. On the subject of can men voice their opinions on the subject though: let's not forget that while its primarily a women's issue, its also a men's issue since men are the fathers too (you know like a father wants to keep his progeny at 27 weeks of pregnancy but the wife/girlfriend decides she doesn't anymore). I'm not saying that law should prevent women from ending unwanted pregnancies to the benefit men, but i am saying that men should have some voice in the law as well and they are certainly entitled to opinions.
@petterwas I am pro abortion. Just a preface. If you think of all fetuses as babies you will understand why pro lifers are pro lifers. It’s a very fair opinion to take. Again I’m pro choice all the way, but you need to see the other sides reason for thinking what they think before you discount it. Sometimes there is no good reason, but often there is one. It may be misguided, but it’s there and almost always somewhat reasonable.
@@LucidTactics Third trimester abortions are also vanishingly rare and apart from used to save the mother's life, they don't really exist outside of pro-forced birth talking points.
Also if you’re no longer in consulting and industrial engineering what do you do?
Thank you for the episode!
What happened to the Hinnom series?
I kinda got busy and stopped recording part of the way through that game and the hinnom game. I lose to mictlan, im not sure if i can bring myself to go back and relive all of that pain and record it.
@@LucidTactics Damn I was really enjoying the premise behind that game and looking forward to Melqart monster super combatants. Oh well
What did I hear at the end...
"Worshipers of the world unite and seize the means of ascension"?
Hearing some of these guys talk is absolutely fucking cringe worthy. But I still enjoy the videos. Just wish Lucid would only talk.
I beg you, do not talk politics. It works fine if every one is sane and avoid hot button issues( a few issues are third rail by nature) it would only take one nut to make everything hell even in the comments and well, this IS the internet.(Edit) I have seen nice comment sections under siege after one opinion set someone off and they and all the help they could find started haunting and picking fights in the comments. lasted months.
How bout this WW3 though
lol @ all the bad political takes in that vid
I think talking politics is fine, though it would be conditional on who is talking politics with you. I find that having a selfish mindset, of pumping people for information instead of selflessly trying to change other people's minds to be a lot more beneficial for everyone involved. In the end, despite how much we may think we can contribute to changing people's minds, decisions like that are almost entirely in the hands of the owner.
Sure, people can disagree about whether women should have any sort of control over their own bodies or not, but... the positions are hardly morally equal.
Similarly people can disagree on whether we should put children in concentration camps to be drugged and sexually abused, but similarly the positions are not equal
I think framing it like that makes people much more agitated about the issue Petter. Lets start with a point on which both sides agree: Third trimester abortions are not (very) ethical. There are quite a few reasons that both sides feel this way: the fetus is much more developed and human like, the fetus can at this point survive outside the womb (as a premie) etc. Basically the fetus has started to get some of the rights that it will have as a human once it is born. Even in the US, there is pretty broad agreement that third trimester abortions shouldnt be allowed because the women has had plenty of time before to address the issue and the baby is far to human and is possibly capable of surviving without the mother. So i don't know whether you agree with this point or not, but i cant think of any place on earth where on the day of delivery you can tell the doctor that you have changed your mind and you want your pregnancy terminated. Now if you are against third trimester abortions, that certainly doesnt mean that you should be against first trimester abortions, because the situation is much different... the fetus isnt terribly human like yet in appearance or function (esp early first trimester abortions), the mother hasnt had any time to handle it yet in a more responsible manner etc.. Now if we take the extreme on the other side... If someone were the most extreme pro-lifer - they would need to be against birth control pills because those function by preventing fertilized eggs from binding to the wall of the uterus --- basically causing a one cell abortion. Yet this position is extremely rare in America - even among catholics who have historically opposed it.
So where am i going with this? Well most people agree that as the fetus gets older it begins to get some human rights and its not from 0% to 100% on the day of delivery. Meanwhile most people agree that women have some rights to avoid pregnancy after having their egg fertilized (i.e: birth control pill).... So basically almost everybody is a "moderate" in the sense that they are not 100% pro-fetus rights at the expense of the mother nor 100% pro womens rights at the expense of the fetus. So if we establish that everyone is indeed to a degree a moderate, it doesn't mean that they are all wrong or that all the moderate positions are morally equal. People could still argue with vigor on when the fetus should start to get some rights and why its more important to protect the rights of women. But i think deciding which point we should grant enfranchisement to a fetus is a point upon which reasonable people disagree. In practical terms, I disagree with several people on abortion whom i have a great deal of respect for.
So sorry for the essay, but this is one issue which in America is framed in such devicive ways - it polarizes people so much that they can't have much level discussion about it. Where do i personally stand on the issue? Well I think this is one of the oldest, hardest and most intimate choices that a woman, her partner, and a doctor have to make... Where often enough they are trying to choose the least bad scenario among several bad ones. I basically come down with a very moderate position that unless I'm directly involved its none of my business. In terms of law, in the first trimester, I personally think the benefits of allow allowing a woman to choose outweigh the benefits of granting human rights to a developing embryo. Further 45% of Americans believe that first trimester abortion should be legal under any circumstance, and making anything illegal that so much of the public supports doesn't make any practical sense (See prohibition). Second term, abortions become increasingly harder decisions for those involved to make since more and more the fetus is what we recognize as a human baby, should it be illegal at this point to get an abortion? Probably not, im not going to be picketing in the streets if most second trimester abortions aren't legal though. There is probably some gradient where it shifts from reflecting badly on you if you waited this long to you are doing something against the law though. In my mind this gradient is probably during second trimester. Should third trimester abortions be illegal? For me, i worry that making anything like this illegal will force women to take care of things outside of the hospitals where it is more dangerous, but I'm certainly not against giving the fetus the right to life in the third trimester with some exceptions (life of the women in threat etc).
But i think my position is pretty mainstream, and politicians / media just use inflamatory rhetoric to get folks fired up about abortion (which btw elected officials never change this much, it changes slowly if at all through the courts mostly). Getting people so fired up that they see the opposition as Nazi's --- makes it so they cant work together on other issues which they agree, like reducing American military spending. (2/3 Americans agree military is strong enough/too big and shouldn't get more money, yet they get their increase) So I don't know Petter, I agree with you that the world would be better if women had an opportunity to choose about whether they want to have a child. But I see it as a very gray issue, where people can have very different views and still be human.
@@LucidTactics I think this is a tough one for anyone here to make claims and real comments on with any sort of major authority without having a women on this.Much like how you cant rule on slavery without someone who's potentially affected by it, ruling what is and is not right in terms of womens rights without a womans voice is kinda.. disenfranchising.
@@SkeIIum Hey Skellum, me having an opinion on the matter doesn't disenfranchise women. But i think you might be missing my point, because my point isnt about exactly about what the law should be. My point is that it is an issue which reasonable people can and do disagree - both women and men. So i'm definitely not trying to say XYZ should be the law of the land and i'm definitely definitely not saying XYZ should be the law of the land regardless of what women want.
On the subject of can men voice their opinions on the subject though: let's not forget that while its primarily a women's issue, its also a men's issue since men are the fathers too (you know like a father wants to keep his progeny at 27 weeks of pregnancy but the wife/girlfriend decides she doesn't anymore). I'm not saying that law should prevent women from ending unwanted pregnancies to the benefit men, but i am saying that men should have some voice in the law as well and they are certainly entitled to opinions.
@petterwas I am pro abortion. Just a preface. If you think of all fetuses as babies you will understand why pro lifers are pro lifers. It’s a very fair opinion to take. Again I’m pro choice all the way, but you need to see the other sides reason for thinking what they think before you discount it. Sometimes there is no good reason, but often there is one. It may be misguided, but it’s there and almost always somewhat reasonable.
@@LucidTactics Third trimester abortions are also vanishingly rare and apart from used to save the mother's life, they don't really exist outside of pro-forced birth talking points.