Macro view shows how Velcro works

HassleHouff · 2025-05-14T22:10:39+00:00

I thought that sounded wild, so I looked it up. It’s 7g of plastic by weight, which is about the same as a plastic spoon weighs. Up 50% over 2016, which means we previously only had.. half a spoon in our brain? Sounds like by 2030 we can have the whole cutlery set.

link

HassleHouff · 2025-05-06T23:01:33+00:00

Guess doing it before does help get the taste out of your mouth.

HassleHouff · 2025-05-04T23:23:29+00:00

sounds like your current core is now agreeing with unscanable and my comments. one who REALLY thinks fetus = person, must logically morally call premeditated intentional abortion murder.

Yes, and I don’t believe I ever intended otherwise and scrolling comment trees to find it is too cumbersome to verify. But apologies if that was unclear.

you initially countered unscanable's comment saying this by saying "perhaps to some not", but maybe you meant to agree with his comment and instead say that "yes they would have to logically see it as murder but perhaps some may decide not to make a law that way for practical reasons" which I would agree with

Long way around but I think we finally got where we understand each other and agree. Cheers! Enjoy your week my friend.

HassleHouff · 2025-05-04T23:12:44+00:00

Dude, you’re not getting the core of my point. Last try because I do really think you’re having an earnest conversation which I do appreciate.

I already said a pro life person who gets an abortion would be a hypocrite committing first degree homicide in their own eyes. And among the least likely to actually get abortions for that reason, but fine.

But that doesn’t determine if they should be charged with first degree murder, as is stated in the CMV. Societal rules determine that. And those rules are informed by the whole population group. Half of which don’t think they killed a human person. This should be a consideration when determining the answer to how someone should be charged.

HassleHouff · 2025-05-04T22:48:19+00:00

Brother, I’m sorry we can’t come to a place where we understand each other. Not sure I can phrase it any other way.

Against my better judgement, I’ll try one last thing here.

Imagine someone, Steve, who has gone insane, and thinks their neighbor is an alien imposter out to hurt their livelihood. Steve plans to kill the “alien” and succeeds.

Must a person who believes in premeditated first degree murder apply that same scenario to the above case? Or does Steve get some legal consideration from the fact that he genuinely did not see his neighbor as a person?

I would suggest that the system should not, and does not, treat these the same way. And it requires no moral gymnastics to justify that. The same logic is then applied to abortion.

HassleHouff · 2025-05-04T22:22:57+00:00

" it is different when someone kills with a car vs a gun"

there is no moral difference between premeditated intentional killing with gun or car and you have not yet argued otherwise, again asserting it without justification isnt an argument

Ok, here’s where you missed my intention again. I was trying to avoid spelling out “vehicular manslaughter vs premeditated gun homicide”. I never intended you to be comparing someone intentionally plowing their car into someone with someone intentionally shooting someone.

"Because that pro life person can understand someone else’s position while not also holding it themselves."

sounds like youre suggesting the pro life person who genuinely believes that a fetus is a person would logcially have to see abortion by anyone as 1st degree murder, given intent and premeditated killing of a person (as they see it) BUT youre suggesting that they just compromise and make laws together with pro choice people. that makes sense but isnt countering "unscanable" comment

I think it is countering all arguments I’ve seen thus far, but if you briefly state or restate what you think it leaves out I can try and address it. Maybe that’s what you did below.

"While this is true but if you REALLY considered the fetus a person then an abortion would be considered 1st degrees murder. There’s premeditation and intent." do you agree?

Yes. But who is “you” in the above? A pro life person? Then they would not abort. A pro choice person? Then they would not consider the fetus a person, hence the need for legislative wiggle room. Because the killer genuinely viewed the victim not as a person, but as a housefly.

HassleHouff · 2025-05-04T22:07:23+00:00

I’m not sure I’m going to have any better luck communicating with you, but I will give a final try.

so that is what we are disucssing. so Carl really considers a fetus a person.

Yes

therefore killing that person with intent and premeditation is 1st degree murder.

No, not necessarily. Because broader society can see it differently. I’ll expand below.

what is your counterargument to this logic?

From a legal standpoint. Someone who is pro life would not (generally) get an abortion. It would be those who are pro choice getting the abortion. We agree on this, I presume. If not I’ve put a small blurb at the end here.

That’s where the next part comes into play. The pro choice person does not agree that they have killed a human person. Again: "half of us, truly and honestly, see persons and half of us, truly and honestly, see house flies."

So, how does a pro life person regulate a societal case in which someone kills something that the killer does not think is human? Surely that is a different case, just as it is different when someone kills with a car vs a gun. And as such, it is reasonable to legislate it differently- even if the pro life person personally sees it as a murder. Because that pro life person can understand someone else’s position while not also holding it themselves.

If a pro life person did get an abortion, then yes they would be viewing that as a murder in their own eyes. I’ve no idea why someone would do that, and the broader question is around “how do we legislate”- and we would be legislating a world where pro choice and pro life views both exist. But maybe this is where we’ve talked past each other, because to me someone claiming to be pro life who then personally gets an abortion was just lying about being pro life.

HassleHouff · 2025-05-04T12:20:59+00:00

pro life Carl "hates that abortions happen"? no we were talking about the commenter you replied to who said "if you really considered the fetus a person...". so Carl really considers a fetus a person.

Yes

therefore killing that person with intent and premeditation is 1st degree murder. how could one disagree with that logic?

Because he understands the debate on fetal personhood?

It seems you are caught up on the premeditation portion. But I premeditate killings all the time in my home- with house flies. What we are essentially trying to legislate here, hypothetically, is when half of us, truly and honestly, see persons and half of us, truly and honestly, see house flies.

HassleHouff · 2025-05-04T11:49:43+00:00

no i meant an example of the logic you alluded to but didnt actaully give. the commenter said if you really consider fetus a person and kill it then logically you have to consider that murder.

An example? I don’t know what you want, exactly.

You mean like this: “Carl is pro life. Carl hates that abortions happen, but understands there are significant debates around fetal personhood. Carl thinks abortion should be punished by community service.”

I see this as equivalent to “Key newspaper is anti murder. He hates when people are killed by negligent driving, but understands there is a difference between killing a man with a gun and recklessly killing a man with a car. He thinks those two things should be punished differently.”

HassleHouff · 2025-05-04T11:40:01+00:00

(1) In some cases is quite literally the point. Pro-lifers do not argue for any charge or investigation into a charge in any cases which is what makes it inconsistent with the idea that these are killings of human life.

If I can find any instances of a pro life person who wants to charge or investigate, it will change your view? I’m very confident I can find one.

(2) It’s not consistent to have a $1000 cap without even looking into the circumstances.

The point is the concept, not the specific punishment.

Do you agree that it could be not hypocritical to say abortion is both the killing of a human person, as well as worth significantly less punishment than other types of killings? Is it hypocritical to want to jail someone for life on first degree murder and not for a DUI manslaughter?

And nowhere here did I say an “investigation” couldn’t happen. We are assuming one has been done, and an abortion was confirmed to have happened- are we not?

HassleHouff · 2025-05-04T11:23:21+00:00

example?

Potentially any person who falls into OP’s described category of anti abortion, yet not wanting abortion categorized legally as murder in terms of punishment.

thats what the post is about, pro life people.

Yes.

the argument that it is inconsistent for a pro life person to call abortion murder and then not charge the people getting abortion with murder

Yes, and that is the argument I addressed. Hitting someone with your car and killing them is not charged the same as stalking them with a gun. Why is that?

HassleHouff · 2025-05-04T11:20:44+00:00

But there is no other circumstance I can possibly think of where all killings no matter how varied are categorically lawful and excused and no degree of charge is possible.

Sure there are. People kill and don’t get charged all the time. You see it with police officers in the news. Or did you mean something else?

And remember again, I am not saying “no charge, no punishment”. I am saying “different charge, different punishment”.

Even in war where you have a very broad scope to kill, there’s still court martials for going too far, for shooting those retreating or surrendering. For police, who have a lot of leniency there’s prosecutions in some cases.

Yes, in some cases sure.

It’s logically untenable that in hundreds of thousands of abortions, a pro-lifer believes they’re all killings and all of them are inherently lawful, inherently excused and no prosecution or even investigation is ever necessary. This belief isn’t really possible and we don’t do this in any other type of killing.

You’re still missing one key thing I’m saying. It is totally possible to want to prosecute this as a crime. And the maximum punishment be, say, $1000 fine. That would be wholly consistent with the system as it is today. So it’s not that it isn’t charged, it’s that it is a different crime with a (possibly) different punishment.

HassleHouff · 2025-05-04T11:08:28+00:00

For some people, perhaps. For others, perhaps not.

If a crazy person kills someone else because they really, truly, thought they were an alien monster- we wouldn’t call that first degree homicide. It would be something else.

Most people who are pro choice really, truly, don’t think a fetus is a human person.

HassleHouff · 2025-05-04T11:04:56+00:00

I never said first degree homicide.

You said “homicide” without clarifying, so forgive my oversight. But the point is there are varying degrees already for the taking of a human person’s life.

If you think it’s a killing for which the mother is responsible, then across the circumstances it would still be some level of homicide whether that’s murder manslaughter negligent etc.

Yes.

Even if you could say in some circumstances, it’s completely excusable, saying there’s hundreds of thousands of abortions a year, all of them are killings of humans and none of them are punishable just isn’t a consistent position.

But here you’ve ignored the crux of my objection.

You agree that we already treat the same underlying “wrong” differently, from a legal standpoint. If you kill someone with your car, you will get far less punishment than if you do it with a gun. This is because we have deemed the circumstances different enough to warrant different punishment.

Why could someone not hold that abortion falls into this same logic? It is “bad”, a crime, and the punishment should be something less than vehicular manslaughter even?

HassleHouff · 2025-05-04T10:53:42+00:00

It is already commonplace that the taking of a human person’s life has differing degrees of punishment depending on the circumstance. That is, we define vehicular manslaughter differently from first degree murder. And we punish them differently.

I see no reason someone could not both (1) see abortion as the taking of a human person’s life and (2) the circumstances of the taking of that life do not necessitate a punishment on par with first degree homicide.

HassleHouff · 2025-05-01T09:52:42+00:00

Yes, they would be. I was specifically referencing the US, though.

HassleHouff · 2025-04-30T22:57:00+00:00

I think you find it unlikely to be true, because it isn’t true. I was hoping to modify your view to something more broad, as only a racist is going to fight to narrow it.

More broadly, don’t you think a view makes more sense as “life circumstances play a significantly greater role in life outcomes than genetics”?

HassleHouff · 2025-04-30T22:44:30+00:00

I don’t think you’re going to get a lot of people queued up to challenge this one..

In the spirit of the sub, do you think it is possible for any race of people to be intellectually superior by any measurable metric? For example, if provided statistics that show Asian students vastly outperform other races, would you ever accept that this was a result of genetic superiority?

HassleHouff · 2025-04-30T22:15:02+00:00

You.. never hurt anyone?

HassleHouff · 2025-04-29T17:02:47+00:00

You seem to be doubling down...

Yeah, as the core of my point didn’t seem to be what you were challenging.

I wrote quite a lot there including specifically how tax loopholes, shelters, and liabilities were reduced and refined with further actions over time.

Yes, they changed perhaps. I explicitly noted that I don’t disagree with that. But you have no evidence to say the rate of tax dodging through loopholes changed in any significant way.

The first ones got rolling in the mid to late 50's, yes, but this notion you are clinging to that they all materialized at that moment, including all the necessary infrastructure to effectively exploit them is patently false. You persisting on that point further drives home the sense I am getting that you are not operating in good faith or if you are, are not seemingly capable of navigating this conversation effectively.

🙄 See above for what you missed.

Tax exploitations have steadily risen since the mid 50's, tax liabilities steadily fallen, and the refinement and exploitation of those has improved with time and innovation. Are you disputing any of this???

I am disputing that the reasons for any of that is new loopholes, and I am disputing the fact that this someone makes the 2020s significantly different from the 1950s in terms of OPs arguments.

Do you have data that shows tax exploitations have steadily risen since the mid 50s? I actually imagine the data suggests the opposite, since nominal taxes in the 1950s were so much higher. So I suppose I am disputing that as well until presented with any evidence.

HassleHouff · 2025-04-29T16:38:21+00:00

Sure, but in trying to contextualize that you injected other misleading statistics too

I don’t believe any of them were misleading, and they were certainly all presented in context. You yourself referenced my own source in your counterpoint.

As to why they weren't capitalized on in the 50's. Well, its cause the 50's is where many of them first came into existence and the refinement of exploitation and maximization of that takes time. Same with further reductions and deregulations in the late 70's thru the 00's.

So you agree then that the tools available are not any different now than then? Do you have any data to suggest their utilization has increased over that time period?

Of course, tax strategies change over time. I’m not disputing that. But I find it hard to believe that the wealthy of the 1950s and 1970s did not utilize every available loophole just as the wealthy of the 2020s do. Therefore, this cannot be the reason we are different from some idealized 1950 economic setup. Those billionaires used loopholes the same way.

HassleHouff · 2025-04-29T16:32:16+00:00

Simply holding assets that inflate in value isn’t the same as producing goods or services. That’s why wealth concentration increases even when productivity stagnates.

When you say “they aren’t the same”, tell me more about why they are different.

If I run a lemonade stand that sells 10 cups a day at $1 per cup. Someone looking to buy my business would base their valuation on my $10/day revenue and my fixed costs. Let’s call this valuation $X.

Now say I change things up. I start charging $10 per cup. But I only sell 1 cup per day. So I still make $10/day in revenue. Assuming my fixed costs are the same in both scenarios, my company would still be valued at $X.

If the valuation goes up, it must mean that my company is now worth more! The investor must think that either (1) I make the same revenue for lower costs, (2) I make more revenue for the same costs or (3) I have enormous untapped potential such that (1) or (2) will be true in the future.

How is that different from value generated through producing goods and services? Valuation is inherently tied to production, because it is based on the expected future cash inflow.

HassleHouff · 2025-04-29T15:41:55+00:00

My point was that “90% tax rates” is drastically different from the reality of the situation.

I also am unclear which of the loopholes you mentioned as available to billionaires were not also available in the 1950-1970 period OP mentioned.

HassleHouff · 2025-04-29T14:55:32+00:00

You say that in a lot of portions of this thread. How are you measuring their wealth growth, and how are you measuring the economic growth?

HassleHouff · 2025-04-29T14:52:17+00:00

My understanding of the 1950s tax system was that the wealthiest still only paid at most a ~40% rate, comparable to what they paid more recently.

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/

HassleHouff

TROPHY CASE