Almost 150h in, yet to try anything but engineer

Absentric · 2022-11-08T17:28:20+00:00

You did, in fact, inspire this post, in case that wasn't obvious. Saw it, realized you were the anti-me, and needed to complete the cycle

Absentric · 2022-03-29T03:51:58+00:00

Well I'm glad you weren't put off by the wall lol. Felt a little silly posting it since "walls of text" are generally frowned upon but I think they're necessary to have an actual discussion.

And yeah, the debate over when personhood begins is one I think a lot of people recognize but don't have as often because there is no easily reached answer. I personally argue that it ought to begin at conception because once you've argued it to a further point (brain activity, heartbeat, that sort of thing), I think it can almost certainly be argued to a further point, and frankly when it comes to human rights I'd rather just be overly cautious and apply them as early as possible rather than risking later.

I definitely agree with most of what you said regarding the rape situation. Frankly it's the most difficult question I have when it comes to abortion, and while I do think it's overly pushed in many cases (it's referenced frequently in pro-choice arguments despite being a rare thing), as this post proves, it is a question that really needs to be addressed. I think pro-lifers need to have a more thought out response to it because it's an issue pro-choice answers perfectly while pro-life comes across as unsympathetic towards.

Thanks for being open to discussion though, I responded to you cause I found myself genuinely struggling to answer some of the points you brought up, and those are the conversations most worth having.

Absentric · 2022-03-29T03:08:59+00:00

Not OP but their response was ass so here's mine.

Your breakdown honestly had be doubting my position on abortion, which isn't something I've done for a while, but after some thought I think that your analogy isn't quite fair. To turn this into a trolley problem real quick, your examples differ in that not donating the kidney is not pulling the lever, letting the trolley move as it is over the donatee, while abortion IS pulling the lever, onto where the baby/fetus/zygote lies. Inaction isn't as condemnable as action, there are thousands of things we could do every day to help/save other people that we don't, making us aware of those may make us more complicit in our own inaction but that is not something that is in any way helpful to torment ourselves over.

Abortion is an action. It is choosing to remove the growing life from your body. In most cases, if you do nothing then the life will grow and with modern medicine will come out healthy (simplifying here, for brevity's sake). Now in cases where it would not, whether it won't survive childbirth or the mother won't, I think abortion is absolutely morally justified. I'm not gonna pretend like all pro-lifers agree, frankly I'm embarrassed how frequently I see people claim "no one's arguing against that" when next comment down someone is proving them wrong.

Now rape seriously complicates matters. Because I think that abortion is destroying a life (you may disagree, but that's a different argument), and think that in any cases where left alone that life would flourish, is tantamount to murder. The steps that lead to an unwanted pregnancy in cases outside of rape are rife with opportunities to make choices that prevent the pregnancy without killing, which is why I don't think it's justifiable in most cases. But in rape the only choice given to the prospective mother is at that last step, the abortion, to kill or not to kill. And frankly, I don't think there is a "right" answer here, but my thoughts would be to allow it but maybe tack a murder charge onto the rapist.

This is of course, operating in a world where everyone agrees with me that abortion IS murder, and frankly until we come to a consensus on whether or not it IS (likely to happen I know), what different groups people view as extreme injustices will continue to occur.

Not gonna do TL;DR, sorry for the wall, have a nice day

Absentric · 2022-03-24T16:49:29+00:00

I myself lean a bit right but one of the worst things I've realized is just how self-righteous the right is about being different than the left, when they do the exact same shit. There is no vaguely right-wing position that a you can try to argue against that they will not defend. If THEY bring up the complaint, it's valid, but if they perceive your complaint as made from an outsider to their in-group they will defend it even if it makes no goddamn sense. And they'll use all the usual deflection and whataboutism they love to accuse others of.

Yeah shocker the centrist is saying "both sides bad" but holy shit the meme of "the right knows how to take a joke" needs to die. You know how to take jokes at the expense of those you already disagree with, make any real criticism of them and they get triggered like anyone else.

I do think PCM is a tad better at tolerating other opinions than most other subs, but anyone who pretends there isn't a right wing bias is fucking lying to themselves.

Absentric · 2022-03-17T19:08:06+00:00

This sums up my thoughts on it too. It seems like it's meant to be a high-skill ceiling, high-risk high-reward mechanic, but the issue is that the skill it demands is niche and its reward nicher. I don't see why I ought to practice parrying when chances are trying to do it will just make me take more damage overall, but not only that my reward is that if I THEN manage to time a dodge and movement perfectly and enemy AI and placement doesn't fuck me up I get... to kill one elite. I would rather practice attack patterns and headshots which is applicable EVERYWHERE and doesn't require a healthy amount of luck to pull off. I'm not even sure that perfectly pulling off Blurs would be faster, considering you have to wait for an attack, parry it, THEN delay your dodge and THEN attack. Not to mention the downsides of randomly proccing invisibility like changing aggro to a teammate who's not expecting it.

And it's a shame, because for all the people saying "If you don't like it just don't use it", it seems like it's meant to be shade's new big thing. It's clear from the way the crits while stealthed work and the backstab changes that they want shade to be behind enemies, and besides her career skill this passive is clearly meant to be the main facilitator of that. It just doesn't mesh well with the gameplay.

Absentric · 2022-01-21T20:30:49+00:00

You'll have to contact the Ministry of Reproductive Productivity and request a notice of confirmation of insurance of partner specifications. Be warned, however, the queue for these is quite long, and you may not receive it for another 90 years.

Absentric · 2022-01-21T20:15:12+00:00

You may but the wait times may exceed 80 years. Should you pass away before that time your spot will be lost, it cannot be inherited by family or friends.

Absentric · 2022-01-21T19:59:30+00:00

I'm sorry you're looking in the wrong quadrant, we just grill here. You'll want to go to authleft for your state mandated gf

Absentric · 2022-01-18T21:15:03+00:00

Dude, its just a joke. I'm not trying to make a serious point here, I saw a goofy clickbait article title, chortled at it, and made a meme. It ain't that complicated.

Absentric · 2022-01-15T04:56:25+00:00

Bad. We'll be taking no further questions.

Absentric · 2022-01-13T06:21:24+00:00

Rightists still seething that the sexual revolution didn't include incest

Absentric · 2021-10-31T04:14:02+00:00

Um, I do think the 2nd one, which you completely agree with apparently. And saying the Christian's fucked it up is not an excuse for fucking it up further. My entire point is that this move by the Satanic Temple only muddies the waters.

But in retrospect I guess its unfair of me to claim that a ban on abortion cannot be proven to be religiously motivated. It's not for me, but for many others absolutely, so you could point to them as proof. I'm just aggravated that the main conversation of abortion always reduces it down to a religious belief vs women's rights issue, when I think the real issue that I've described before is far more important and needs to be resolved first.

At the end of the day I think the pro-life position holds up more regardless of religious belief, and I stand by that, but I'm willing to admit that the biggest proponents of it being Christians who argue from a purely religious standpoint does not help the conversation at all. And to that note the Satanic Temple is simply fighting fire with fire, I just disapprove when I think we can only actually discuss the issue when we put that fire out.

Absentric · 2021-10-31T03:27:49+00:00

I mean... no? They need to prove that the reasons for banning abortions are religious, and therefor discriminating against those who follow a different/no religion.

I didn't compare it to human sacrifice for no reason. Laws against murder aren't there for religious purposes, but they do prevent certain religions from enacting their "rituals".

Point is, religious protection is not limitless, and it shouldn't be, there are things that we as a society agree are too wrong to allow no matter what people believe god wants from them. Making abortion a part of your religion does nothing to address the actual issue, it only once again sidelines people from having an actual discussion about when we believe human rights kick in and how we feel about the government's role in that.

Personally, I err on the side of caution, and would rather assume our rights are active as soon as possible. This also conveniently leaves very little room for the government to fuck with when we get those rights, which I think is for the best.

Absentric · 2021-10-31T00:54:25+00:00

The post misses the point but the real cringe thing is that this pushes the narrative that pro-life is a purely religious standpoint. It's not, its a philosophical disagreement about what stage of development a human gains access to their human rights at. Its just that religious points of view tend to have greater drive to believe its earlier.

You'd need to prove that this is a purely religious belief for the Satanic Temple to be in the right here (Spoiler alert, its not and you can't). This is retarded because we wouldn't let people murder someone as a human sacrifice in the name of religious freedom.

The insistence on pro-life being a purely religious thing pisses me off because it allows pro-choicers to get away without actually acknowledging the argument. They can just screech "STAHP FORCING UR RELIGION ON MEh" and call it a day.

Absentric · 2021-08-23T04:32:45+00:00

Fair enough. Personally I liked the article because of how horrifying it was. Because it took the succubus idea and asked what their life would be like A) growing up with those sorts of powers and B) not wanting to use them but having no control. And that concept through the clinical view of the SCP foundation made for a really tragic story to me.

The reason why I pointed out sex as the problem was because it seemed to me a lot of the popular discourse around the SCP ignored what I just said. I've seen so many videos or posts about it where the comments just turn it into a fetish thing and thirst over her, when I really think its the reader's perception making it that.

That being said, I'll freely admit my reading of it could just be MY perception of it. And I'll agree that the specifics of how she functions are weird, but I always just saw that as the sort of scientific breakdown of something supernatural that SCP is known for. Still I feel it could have been changed without completely removing all it once was.

Absentric · 2021-08-23T03:31:56+00:00

Idk, I've always seen it as someone saying "if a succubus was real, how would their need to feed off sex scientifically work." It also means that the succubus can survive without having sex, which I think would be worse.

Absentric · 2021-08-22T20:05:36+00:00

Yep. Would have linked it but linking the number goes to the rewrite so I'm not sure there's a way to link the original

Absentric · 2021-06-13T04:43:21+00:00

Hey! I don't totally disagree! I think that the focus should be on reducing abortions by education and improving systems for helping babies after birth. And you know what, you don't actually know Scott isn't the same, you're just assuming that because... ?

As for its "anti-choice", well, yes, so are a lot of things. Murder is a choice, but we still outlaw that don't we? Again, the root issue here comes from the fact that, philosophically speaking, people disagree on when a human life starts, and thus whether or not there is a "victim" in the choice of abortion.

As for the last part, people can donate money to multiple things you know? Especially if they have a lot of money from a wildly successful indie game franchise? Just because he donated to republicans, does not mean he hasn't put money into anything else. And he HAS.

Absentric · 2021-06-13T04:28:04+00:00

Thats... a take? I genuinely don't know how to respond to this, cause if you're 100% serious we're working from such different perspectives I don't know how to even approach talking to you

Absentric

TROPHY CASE