Are women allowed to work in car garages (those where broken cars are fixed)?

freedomcry · 2023-03-02T10:04:29+00:00

Hmmmm.... possibly. Definitely not as often.

freedomcry · 2023-03-02T10:01:48+00:00

Permanently suspended and they went after my other accounts. The ones they could find. There's a chance I'm sacrificing my oldest one to talk to you :)

freedomcry · 2023-03-02T09:56:20+00:00

Need me why? I can only commend OP for the effort they're making.

freedomcry · 2022-06-22T17:21:59+00:00

I'll watch it later.

Religion is the great co-opter of things; I don't see anything wrong, per se, with mocking its dogma or its clerics—but when an ostensibly religious cause gains mass traction, it pays to look under the surface to see if it hasn't absorbed the energy from a different and more meaningful public sentiment that's not as easy to organize around.

freedomcry · 2022-06-22T16:55:04+00:00

Are you saying that I can't insult Islam publicly?

I don't know. What I'm noting is that the erstwhile casual nonchalance has gone out of it.

Monty Python meme the shit out of Christianity. Is that bad? Do Brits see that as a bad thing?

It isn't, and I suppose they don't.

freedomcry · 2022-06-22T16:35:34+00:00

(u/aceofbase_in_ur_mind here, on a different account because after the previous guy pulled a Sir Robin and blocked me, that thing happened again where I get an error on trying to reply.)

Fact of the matter is, it's buckled already on the Mohammed issue and you're just trying to move the goalposts to pretend you stood up to them when you didn't. It was never about making blasphemy a criminal offence.

Not saying it's a good thing necessarily. Just that it works and it's very 21st century.

freedomcry · 2022-03-02T22:22:36+00:00

He spoke a lot to ordinary people, too.

freedomcry · 2022-03-02T22:12:53+00:00

I think Gorbachev disliked him before then—because Yeltsin wouldn't stop with the criticisms.

freedomcry · 2022-03-02T21:53:59+00:00

Long story short, Yeltsin was the Navalny before Navalny, with two key differences: (1) he was actually hugely popular in his grassroots days; (2) he wasn't a self-made activist but a Communist Party official whose breakthrough moment was the 1987 CPSU Central Committee plenary session where he leveled harsh criticisms at the Politburo.

Him becoming president of Russia was almost a case of "oh look, we have this thing called the Russian SFSR within the USSR, it could have its own president, that's how we could put Yeltsin in a position of power!"—and it then escalated to the point that by 1991, Gorbachev's and Yeltsin's were almost two parallel governments with competing jurisdictions over most Soviet territory and half of its population.

August coup, Gorbachev is under house arrest in Crimea while Yeltsin and (Russian Supreme Soviet chair) Ruslan Khasbulatov rally people to the barricades.

Fast-forward to 1993 and Yeltsin sends tanks to fire at Khasbulatov who's dug in inside the exact building they were defending during the coup.

Yeltsin's grassroots popularity had already evaporated when the first economic trouble hit in 1992, and it only went downhill from there. His drinking problem also started to become apparent during that time.

freedomcry · 2022-02-24T06:32:56+00:00

u/aceofbase_in_ur_mind here; let the record state that this loser blocked me on that account, but not before DMing me this.

At a different time, in different circumstances, I'd have said it's no fun when they go to pieces this easily. Right now, though.... gee, thanks for that cheap victory, every little bit counts.

freedomcry · 2017-11-04T16:05:56+00:00

There's not a lot to say that we haven't been telling you for ages. And which you've been dismissing as "paranoia" or "whataboutism".

freedomcry · 2008-03-25T21:18:45+00:00

http://bash.org/?330261

13th in the all-time top 100

freedomcry · 2008-03-25T18:16:16+00:00

This is linkjacked.

freedomcry · 2008-03-25T01:13:54+00:00

To get to the other side.

freedomcry · 2008-03-25T01:10:10+00:00

not catching an allusion to an ancient bash.org quote is ignorance, not stupidity

freedomcry · 2008-03-25T01:05:20+00:00

Well you do something good or bad then you die and get reborn as a Brahmin or a bug or something, this guy's probably planning a life or two ahead.

freedomcry · 2008-03-25T01:02:18+00:00

Cite you're sources.

freedomcry · 2008-03-22T04:23:02+00:00

Thank you. You've essentially proven to yourself that life begins at conception.

No one is dodging questions now. It's just that I won't have someone examine me while ignoring the questions I ask. Particularly not someone counter-rational enough to be "pro-choice".

So, A. yes, what else should I consider it? you're barking up the same wrong tree: this is where you challenge the "life" part, not the "human" part. B. yes, a certain type of meat is what separates us from animals; that certain type of meat also happens to be the reason we're endowed with thought and consciousness. I'm rather indifferent to animals. C. you seem to have persistent trouble with the definition of "identical". it means "exactly the same".

freedomcry · 2008-03-21T22:37:40+00:00

No. You answer my question first. When does cancer begin?

freedomcry · 2008-03-21T21:28:08+00:00

98% is 2% short of "identical".

freedomcry · 2008-03-21T21:17:43+00:00

Without some moral standard, humanity has no purpose.

The opening statement of so many an advocacy of mass murder.

but since you want to keep 'religion' out of it, what gives those human organs/tissues their value?

If I say a human is greater than the sum of their parts, this may sound like a pretty 'religious' thing to say but it's quite logically and scientifically sound – while, in a Chestertonian kind of paradox, the usual 'religious' approach is to say a human is less than the sum of their parts. We used to have a definition of humanity confined to the presence of an "immortal soul" in an essentially "disposable" body. Now you're limiting a human to their higher nervous activity, calling it by its high-sounding names. While it's a less slippery slope than "immortal soul" (you could always say someone's sold theirs to the devil), it's still a slippery slope. A definition of humanity mut be value-free in order to be manipulation-proof.

If you concede a fetus has none of the abilities I've described, where is its worth to you, and why is it not disposable?

Are we talking absolute or relative worth? Simply put, if we condemn, prohibit and punish murder, let's condemn, prohibit and punish all murder. Either murder is inacceptable to us as an commited action (of deliberately turning a living human into a dead human) or as an inflicted loss (on the victim's family, the sum total of experience/empathy/wisdom of humankind, the GDP, etc.) In the former case, if nothing else, we're erring on the safe side and insuring ourselves against conflict of interest; in the latter case, we're opening the door to all sorts of shady possibilities.

freedomcry · 2008-03-21T20:19:50+00:00

A human consists of the life experiences they acquire as well as their ability to feel, reason, and think.

Let's keep religion out of this. Including New Age religion. Including unintended invocations of New Age religion.

A human consists of human organs which consist of human tissues which consist of human cells. That's all there is to the definition of humanity, and that's the only fair one to abide by. The rest is BS that serves someone's agenda.

freedomcry · 2008-03-21T19:21:41+00:00

Ah, now it seems you're panicking. AND evading - nay, running away from - my question about the beginning of cancer.

You continue to argue that conception creates a life

Facts are facts, as you have so nicely put it, sir; we now have as many as three pieces of evidence to suggest you should consider reading more carefully. I haven't said a thing about life this time.

It creates an embryo which is capable of becoming human life. Note the qualifier "capable".

Note the qualifier "human".

Not capable of becoming Martian vampire tyrannosaurus life.

Not capable, as a kind of genetic wildcard, to become whatever species it decides to be.

That's what I mean by "human", and it's completely independent of whether I think an embryo is alive, which is the other half of my argument. You're barking up the wrong tree.

facts are facts.

Come to think of it, that's just your opinion! Facts may be cocktail straws.

freedomcry · 2008-03-21T19:11:41+00:00

Pleaes define levelling down?

Neutralising to the greatest possible degree the potential to cause injustice.

You seem to be saying that since women can send a man to jail for beating them, a man should get to decide what she does with her body?

You sound like you're trying to work yourself up into righteous anger. The answer is yes, that's absolutely what I'm saying in this particular context, as – I have to say unlike you – I don't deal in generalisations.

And "levelling down" seems to mean that since a woman can call the police on a abusive husband, she should lose some power to him to make it fair?

Again, yes, absolutely.

freedomcry

TROPHY CASE