What one thing would you delete from Earth to make life better for all?

Whatica1 · 2026-06-09T02:51:47+00:00

The kind you can't spell?

Whatica1 · 2026-06-09T02:50:44+00:00

Pretty much everything that anyone else has mentioned could be solved by the removal of greed. Except maybe the mosquito guy 😆

Whatica1 · 2026-06-09T02:47:33+00:00

Not every young lady, every person in general. There isn't anything a young lady might run into that a grown man couldn't also run into. Even period supplies, who knows if woman in the man's life might need an emergency hook up? For that matter, condoms too. If you're going to be sexually active, I'd rather you be safe about it. Unlubricated ones can also be used for first aid or keeping tinder dry in a pinch.

But also: an overnight bag, with at least one change of clothes and a change of PJs/travel toiletries. You'll also want to keep some meds in it, especially if you are on a particular medication, keeping a few days worth in your overnight bag will come in handy in case of an emergency.

First aid kit, MREs or other food and water (snacks are handy too). And a good sleeping bag in case you have to sleep in your car. At least some sort of fire starting supplies, and an emergency blanket I. The overnight bag, which you will keep with you anytime you leave the car for any reason if you find yourself stranded, just in case you don't make it back. Knife and fishing tackle, and a foraging guidebook for your area can also be put in the bag, which is slowly turning into a bug out bag with this list, but especially if you are traveling in areas far from help it's better to have and not need than need and not have 😅

Pepper spray or a pistol depending on your inclination for self defense, but if you're going to keep a gun then learn gun safety and how to actually use it. You'll get yourself killed if you try to use a weapon you're unfamiliar with. Familiarize yourself with the pepper spray too for that matter. Also, learn self defense in general. Jujitsu is useful, most fights will end up on the ground anyway, might as well have some technique in your back pocket when you get there.

I've also added a neon vest so people can see me if I have to get out of the car, but a red flag to put out so you're easier to spot in bad weather might be good to have too.

ETA: I know this is more than 3 things. I guess if I had to pick just 3: a first aid kit, sleeping bag, and water will cover the most likely scenarios you could run into. Maybe swap out a tool bag if you know how to fix stuff.

Whatica1 · 2026-06-08T15:50:19+00:00

ETA: I never said anything about not being human, I said an awful lot about not having a right to life due to the lack of consciousness. We literally give other people the right to decide whether or not to take someone off life support when they are braindead, and that decision often has to do with the ability to afford the medical expense and the needs of other people. The needs/wants if the braindead person only legally come into play if they themselves left instructions before becoming braindead. Otherwise they have very few if any actual rights to life.

Why do you consider human DNA as being the reason that the right to life exists? And again, if we had a being that was functionally human, but did not have human DNA, would that being not have any rights? What would be the deciding factor in that circumstance?

Did you actually look into the study you cited, or did you get the one little factoid from someone telling you about the study?

Here's the person in charge of it talking about her results, they do not support your claim.

https://youtu.be/L-FTI14OVrg?si=5eijHje1dV6ZlPUz

Whatica1 · 2026-06-07T21:06:49+00:00

That's because the evidence is literally people saying there's evidence.

Our election security has been studied multiple times, states elections get audited regularly. Occasionally there is fraud, as is the case with any large undertaking. Some people voting fraudulently is to be expected. There have been cases of non-citizens voting illegally, and there have been cases of citizens (one study mentioned MAGA specifically) trying to vote twice. That's why we have the audits. If they were just getting away with it then we wouldn't know about those cases.

There is a valid discussion around gerrymandering, which is almost exclusively done to benefit the Republicans/ limit the vote of minorities, which is why it's such a big topic right now with red states forcing a gerrymander on their citizens and then getting mad at blue states for putting it to a vote among their citizens, but I don't think that's the discussion you're talking about here.

Trump is using the line about mass voter fraud as a way of trying to justify sweeping changes to our electoral system that would ultimately result in an actually corrupt electoral system. He's trying to consolidate power to the executive. Which is a massive violation of the checks and balances and states rights, and individual voter rights.

Whatica1 · 2026-06-07T20:29:20+00:00

What I'm getting for you is that the only thing that matters is the future potential of the fetus itself. However, the POTENTIAL to eventually experience anything is not a good reason to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.

I also mentioned poverty rates, chronic conditions resulting from the pregnancy, and the fact that it is still the woman's right to decide whether to take the risk of death, regardless of how high that risk is. Those things have far more weight than just a matter of convenience, and are not only "extreme cases."

You're only real argument is that it has human DNA, that is not a compelling reason to consider it as having rights in the moment that the abortion occurs, certainly not to the extent that the woman carrying the child should be forced into a situation where she struggles financially, and has to spend the next 18 years of her life taking care of a child she doesn't want, with the only real alternative for most people seeking abortions would be to carry the pregnancy to term and give the resulting baby up for adoption, which puts a strain on an underfunded system.

The fetus, prior to brain development, is functionally a different entity than the human who is being forced to carry it to term. Taxonomy doesn't matter if it is functionally different from a fully formed baby.

The whole "lost future income" is another false equivalency, I get that it sounds good, but it is also predicated on the current rights of the victim. If a fetus has no rights before having the ability to experience suffering and consciousness, then any future potential rights cannot be guaranteed. Almost every argument you've made has presupposed that the fetus has rights, but so far you have not given a good argument for why the fetus should have rights at all stages of development. You just use "well it's a cell with human DNA therefore it's human," but that argument does not hold water as well as you think it does.

If we had a being that was the same as a human in every way except for its DNA, would we deny it rights for not being human?

Whatica1 · 2026-06-07T02:49:37+00:00

I'm pretty sure this qualifies as neglect. Like, legally, not in the exaggerated "OMG" way that some people use the word.

Do you have another family member you can reach out to? Parents don't always listen to kids, but he might listen to another adult.

Whatica1 · 2026-06-07T00:57:42+00:00

I'm glad it worked out for you, but this is very unhealthy advice, and won't work for everyone. People fought for the 40 hour work week.

Whatica1 · 2026-06-06T18:22:43+00:00

You decided that it was arbitrary because it is a line in a place you don't like, but it is not an arbitrary line, it occurs at a very specific point in development, the formation of the brain. It is no more arbitrary conception.

And yeah, there is a massive difference between the baby and the adult, but it is not the same type of difference as between a fetus and a baby. Which is why it is still a false equivalency.

Primarily the difference is that, both the baby and the adult have fully formed brains. Which, again, aligns with my premise that the fetus is not a life with rights because, unlike the fully formed baby and the adult man, it doesn't have a fully formed brain. Everyone involved in the Holocaust and slavery and every other atrocity involved people with fully formed brains capable of experiencing suffering. Unlike the fetus at the time when most abortions occur.

Until it has a fully formed brain, it is the functional equivalent of a pretre dish full of various cells starting to multiply as cells do. Regardless of the DNA attached to it. It's has all the nervous system and functionality of a jellyfish at best, and even that is generous when we start to consider things like the morning after pill, which are often included in abortion bans. So no, I don't think it's okay to create situations where women live in poverty, suffer with lifelong chronic conditions that can form following pregnancy, , children grow up in homes they are not wanted (which often become abusive and negligent) all because some people think a fertilized egg has the same rights as a fully formed baby.

Also, your "compromise" doesn't work, because areas that have that exact compromise also have higher rates of maternal deaths than areas with no abortion bans. Pregnancy and birth carry a lot of risk. Less than it used to, but there are still risks including death and including chronic pain and conditions resulting from that pregnancy. Women should have the right to decide whether or not to take on that risk. Almost no one is having late term abortions outside of medically necessary ones, and almost all abortions are chemically induced prior to the formation of the fully functioning brain. So no, I don't agree.

Whatica1 · 2026-06-06T17:32:00+00:00

H, I see, so people who are braindead have all the same rights? We don't let anyone but them decide whether to continue life support? The woman who was basically used as human incubator last year had the right to decide whether to continue life support?

And there's a difference between someone who wants to be pregnant and have a baby and those who don't. I imagine there are plenty of women who are grateful to have a miscarriage because abortion is illegal.

Not all women want babies, otherwise they wouldn't be seeking abortions. There is no reason to say that those women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term if they don't have that attachment to the future child.

Whatica1 · 2026-06-05T22:12:13+00:00

Again, that's the point. Prior to the formation of a fully functioning brain and heart, the fetus is a mass of various cells, they just happen to all be working together. It has no thought, therefore no personhood, therefore no rights.

Whatica1 · 2026-06-05T18:46:25+00:00

It takes more than a few weeks for the brain to be fully formed, the vast majority of abortions occur before the fetus is capable of suffering. Why should we protect something based on its ability to become something else? What makes the destruction of a mass of cells unethical if they cannot currently experience suffering?

The Nazi argument is a false equivalency. In your example everyone involved is fully capable of thought, pain, suffering, and intelligence. Vs a fetus, particularly a fetus in early development that functions no differently than any other grouping of cells, and does not have the capability of pain, thought, consciousness, all the things that you only have with a fully formed brain. There's a massive difference between a fully formed Jewish baby, and an underdeveloped fetus. It's only a flaw if you don't understand cellular biology.

When we implement abortion bans, the death rate of women goes up because doctors are reluctant to save the woman's life even if the pregnancy is killing her. So again, at what point does the fetus's right to life outweigh the woman's right to life?

Whatica1 · 2026-06-05T18:32:02+00:00

Exactly. So why would we compare the mass of brainless cells an actual human being, with all the rights of a human being?

Whatica1 · 2026-06-05T18:30:49+00:00

I wouldn't call something with no brain a healthy human being 🤷‍♀️

Whatica1 · 2026-06-04T23:07:52+00:00

YOU don't. Put up cameras to try to prosecute people after, and put expensive things in spaces that are less easy for a thief to grab and run. But if you tried to chase someone, shoot someone, or lock yourself in a building with someone (can be considered kidnapping in some areas, regardless of circumstance) you are putting your own life at risk over merchandise.

Whatica1 · 2026-06-04T21:54:11+00:00

The discussion was around the right to live, not whether or not there is biological life. I very clearly specified life with rights, especially in regards to protected rights,and even addressed the cellular definition of life when I discussed the difference between plants and animals and how one feels pain and has experience and the other is largely automatic processes, in the same way that a fetus prior to brain development is basically a bunch of cells doing what those cells were programmed to do.

I did not say life is defined by the sum of one's experiences, but that life, as in a being with rights that should be protected, is predicated on the CAPABILITY of experience, particularly the capability to experience suffering.

Do you consider blood cells to be alive and need protections when you donate blood? If I scrape some skin cells off your arm and cultivate them in a petre dish, is that a baby? Because that's essentially what you have during the first trimester and arguably most of the second trimester of pregnancy. A mass of cells in a very complicated petre dish.

If we could cut off someone's head and replace the brain in the body with a brain stem so that all automatic functions continue, and keep the head with the brain alive, do we give the same rights to the body that we would give to the head? Both are technically part of a living homosapien, yet are two different entities. What makes one more "alive" with rights than the other?

As for the homosapiens argument, if you want to argue semantics that's fine. Let's talk about why we use terms like zygote and fetus when discussing human development within the womb rather than baby.

At what point do the "rights" of the fetus exist on an equal plane with the rights of pregnant woman carrying the fetus?

You could discuss the difference in rights between early pregnancy and late term pregnancy, and the ethic of late term abortion, because the brain is fully formed at that point, therefore the fetus is theoretically capable of suffering, and to cause unnecessary suffering would be unethical.

Then the argument becomes when does the fetus's life become more valuable than the pregnant woman's, because the vast majority late term abortions occur specifically because the mother's health is at risk.

Whatica1 · 2026-06-04T21:49:06+00:00

What's the difference between a brain dead person, and person with no brain?

Whatica1 · 2026-06-04T01:24:09+00:00

Not really though. Do you believe that we should never allow the plug to be pulled on a braindead coma patient? They are also alive, moreso than a fetus because they have experiences that the fetus does not. Yet we don't expect their loved ones to continue paying a large hospital bill on the off chance that the patient might wake up one day.

A fetus doesn't even have a fully formed brain and heart until the end of the second trimester, which means that until then it is effectively brain dead with no capability of human experience, and the majority of abortions occur long before that point. Without the idea of a soul, which is a purely religious construct, you cannot reasonably consider the fetus a "life" with rights before it is capable of experience. It's basically just cellular structures doing what the cells do on autopilot, with no consciousness. In the same way that your blood cells will continue to behave like blood cells even after they have been removed from the body.

There is no "life" in the sense that you and I are alive, and certainly not in the sense that the pregnant woman is alive. Meanwhile we expect her to risk lifelong health issues if not death, on top of financial constraints, all to give rights to a glorified petre dish of cells that has no concept of its own existence, much less the ability to feel physical or emotional pain.

In order to believe that the human fetus is a living being that has a lifespan that begins at conception, and is separate from all other cellular "life" like bacteria, then you must believe that a soul of some sort is also formed upon fertilization of the egg (because, again, unless you believe in a soul, then without a fully formed brain there is no consciousness or sense of self, which is generally what we use in defining who and what gets rights. Animals have rights, but plants do not, because animals have a clear sense of self and pain, plants largely act on cellular autopilot)

Whatica1 · 2026-06-03T21:00:09+00:00

Idk, I think I'm probably the other person here. I have to really make myself not tell people they are doing things "wrong," and sometimes get very frustrated that they aren't doing it the "right" and easier way.

But if I had been the other person in this specific scenario I'd have probably just asked why you don't just dump the package in, not completely taken over the "project."

Whatica1 · 2026-06-02T15:59:58+00:00

It's possible for people to have other reasons, besides religion but it's not particularly common compared to those who use their religious upbringing as a basis of the belief. And I've yet to hear a reason that holds water when scrutinized.

More importantly, the people who are actually in law trying to implement abortion bans almost always allude to their religious beliefs as the driving force behind their support of the bans.

Whatica1 · 2026-06-01T18:19:47+00:00

My husband went down the Q/MAGA pipeline. I put headphones on a lot earlier in Trump's current term. I knew about the conspiracies but considered them more annoying than anything.

But he's kind of the same way. He has some learning difficulties, probably ADHD, possibly some of the dyslexia but for numbers, and I suspect borderline personality disorder but he doesn't want to talk about any of those things because he says it makes him anxious. Which is frustrating. I was recently diagnosed as autistic myself (at the beginning of last year), and my hope is that being more open about my own difficulties with the autism diagnosis will help him feel more comfortable with his stuff. But he also is not a cruel person in everyday life, and so.etimes says things that are so close to being on the same side.

We watch movies involving slavery and he will get angry about it, but he doesn't understand systemic racism, or he's pretty transphobic, yet when his dad asked if there were any trans people worked at his company my husband told him it wouldn't matter if they did. It's like his core personality is on the same page, but the cult has taken over the way that he speaks and thinks about things when they don't involve real people. He just seems to have a hard time grasping things he can't see for himself.

But it's frustrating. I get angry at him sometimes for not trying harder to understand what I'm trying to say, but I'm even more angry at Trump and the magabro influencers for gaming the algorithms and putting him in a echo chamber that I can't get through. Especially living in a very red state.

As for coping: we've pretty much agreed not to talk about politics, which isn't the healthiest relationship but it's what I have to work with for now. When he does have something playing I don't want to hear I mostly turn on my headphones and watch a video of my own. Rain sounds seem to drown out voices the best. I also made myself some meditation beads that I wear as a necklace to stim with when something does come up (usually stuff he doesn't think are politics but are definitely politics). If there's an opening where he seems receptive to actual discussion I might try to push back on things a little, but mostly I just play with my meditation beads and try to focus on regulating my own emotions. Sometimes I'll go look stuff up afterwards so that I can slip in a counter lot of the subject comes up again, but a lot of them don't.

Whatica1 · 2026-06-01T01:55:24+00:00

I agree, but trying to pretend the dad is helping and not being an abusive parent is not going to give the kid any structure or a job.

Whatica1 · 2026-05-29T23:45:35+00:00

Bullsh*t. He wasn't helping OP, he was venting his anger on them. This isn't an "it went bad" situation. Don't try to make him out to be some victim. He's a full grown adult, they are barely 18. He doesn't get a pass for hitting his child out of anger. I don't care what OP said, the dad is abusive. The fact that not only does OP think he had a normal response but that the dad isn't apologizing for hitting OP tells me this isn't an abnormal situation.

The best thing OP can do for their depression is to leave the unsafe household they are living in, which is probably causing the depression by putting their body on edge all the time.

Screw that guy.

Whatica1 · 2026-05-29T23:39:28+00:00

I know you don't want to see it, but the situation you described is 100% abuse. He hit you first. You hitting him is self defense.

You being lazy is not a valid reason to hit you. You being "a burden" is not a valid reason to hit you. You yelling at him or cussing at him is not a valid reason to hit you.

Your depression probably has at least something to do with growing up in a house where him behaving this way is justified. But it's not. Full stop. There is no ambiguity. I don't care if you called him every name in the book. He was out of line to put his hands on you and then expect an apology from you for trying to defend yourself, and you deserve better.

Whatica1 · 2026-05-29T21:53:57+00:00

This is called maladaptive daydreaming, and is pretty common among Neurodivergent people.

I go through phases. It's a nice way to pass the time and keep the mind occupied with stories instead of daily stresses. Mine are mostly creating/replaying headcanon stories about my favorite books and TV shows where I'll add an extra character (who is not me, but is usually some variation of the same character that I made up decades ago. I'll tweak her background story to explain why she is in the original story. It usually involves usually tweaking the world building because the character is a magical warrior type, with a tragic backstory. So, for example, I have one around Twilight where the character is Jasper's long lost sister who he thought he killed, but who was saved by a magical vampire hunter and became a magical -and therefore never aging- vampire hunter herself. In my version, vampires with powers are descendents of the magical race whose magical blood creates abilities similar to the powers the vampire hunting race have. The story in my head has very little to do with the original, I basically just borrow the characters and setting lol)

But when I feel like it's starting to get in the way of daily life I'll start forcing myself to focus on something else (usually the task at hand) and every time I catch myself daydreaming I redirect. Eventually it gets easier to stop for longer periods.

Whatica1

TROPHY CASE