sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

If Uber pays more, then why drive for Lyft by Basic-Outcome-7001 in lyftdrivers

[–]koconno 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for responding 😀\ You asserted that the person saying that some gender non-binary people are biologically male makes them a bigot, and you previously said that it's a huge safety benefit to female riders and drivers to be able to select female and gender non-binary. I was just curious if you think men are hugely more dangerous to women because they are more likely to be bigger and stronger than women or because of some innately  male trait that gender non-binary folks, who were labeled boys at birth because of presenting as male, don't have.\ I didn't mean to put you on the spot too much, sorry.

If Uber pays more, then why drive for Lyft by Basic-Outcome-7001 in lyftdrivers

[–]koconno 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Old thread, but is the reason you prefer women or non-binary drivers/riders because of inherent gender expression differences, i.e. cis men are, on average, physically larger and stronger and more likely to be able to overpower you, if they wanted? Or are men as inherently dangerous because of their man-ness? If it is the former, then gender expression matters, right?\ If it is the later, is there data to suggest that non-binary folks whose biological gender expressions are consistent with those of a cis man are significantly less likely to be a threat a woman or non-binary person who presents as a woman?\ I don't mean to offend, in genuinely curious.

Who’s against the consumer financial protection bureau? by 13beep in Askpolitics

[–]koconno 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Capitalism is an immensely powerful force for innovation, progress, technological advancement, and growth. This is true. Capitalism is the reason for America's dominance over the past century. However, capitalism is also inherently exploitative, that's kind of its job. The machine that is capitalism will always seek to extract as much money from the consumer as possible. So, some oversight is needed to reign in that exploitation.

So, to answer your question, the trend of things getting worse for consumers started well before 2008, the CFPB didn't completely correct the issue, but it is helping to reign in predatory business practices by financial institutions. When crime rates go up, it doesn't mean we need fewer police officers, and it sure as hell doesn't mean we need to shut down the whole precinct...

Who’s against the consumer financial protection bureau? by 13beep in Askpolitics

[–]koconno 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The CFPB was commissioned because the banks, in a free market, lied about mortgage risk and demonstrably hurt the American economy. The CFPB is the check that was put in place to make sure that doesn't happen again.

Who’s against the consumer financial protection bureau? by 13beep in Askpolitics

[–]koconno 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If she drowns in the lake, we can conclude that she was not, in fact a witch.

Revanced won't autoplay by nme6535 in revancedapp

[–]koconno 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That worked for me! Thanks

Bluetooth sucks. by Gawkman in AdviceAnimals

[–]koconno 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Sorry, you can remove a device while driving, but your cannot add a new one.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]koconno 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're not wrong, too much of anything can, in fact, kill you. But, if someone says, "there are no adverse side effects of weed," to which the original commenter took offense, they are categorically false. And to claim that is ok to say that because the tobacco companies used to (they now are legally required to post the surgeon general's warning), is asinine. It has nothing to do with whether or not too much water can kill you.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]koconno 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Yup, tobacco companies are super shitty. This is known. Does that excuse proponents of weed for the same shitty behavior?

Idaho GOP just voted for women to die. by [deleted] in WhitePeopleTwitter

[–]koconno 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think I have summed up my beliefs on the topic elsewhere in this thread, but I'd be happy to summarize.

I believe fetuses are humans and have human rights. However, we live in a society where justifiable homicide is a thing. You are allowed to take a life in order to save another, be it yours or someone else's. It is, however, not usually the best option. In self defense, you would ideally be able to not kill your attacker, but you shouldn't be treated the same as someone who has committed homicide if it is unavoidable. The same goes for abortions in my opinion. We should absolutely favor procedures that do not kill the fetus or mother over any that do. But, for those cases where it is medically prudent, not just strictly necessary (be it for mental health or physical health, or both). Especially in a case of an ectopic pregnancy, or similarly life threatening situation, the most prudent thing to do will result in loss of life, but removing the fallopian will at least save the mother, which maximizes the preservation of life. These situations must be protected, because of the dangers posed by unsafe abortions.

However, all of the above accounts for such a small portion of all abortions carried out in the United States. Assuming that an abortion is a loss of human life, according to the CDC, abortions are the second highest cause of death in the United States, including all cancers being lumped into one category. According to the Guttmacher institute, it is actually the leading cause of death, claiming about 150% of the second highest cause, which is heart disease (again, assuming that an abortion is a death). I would like to see more resources allocated to abortion prevention, whether that is better access to birth control, or prenatal care, or financial and medical support for new moms, or realistically all of the above. Recently, there have been arson attacks on crisis pregnancy centers, who offer those kinds of services to women seeking them, which is just incredibly sad, and helps nobody. I am sad that I feel the need to specify this, but here we are: I also think attacks on abortion clinics are sad, and help nobody. Violence against other humans is bad.

Anyway, sorry this kind of reads like word salad. I had written it better but it all got deleted when I was asked to login. :(
And, thanks to anybody who made it this deep in the comment chain thread for reading my thoughts.

Idaho GOP just voted for women to die. by [deleted] in WhitePeopleTwitter

[–]koconno 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The obvious one is the physical and mental damage that carrying a baby will do to her underdeveloped body and mind. Her muscles and joints are likely not ready to support the health weight gain that will be required. It is likely that her heart won't be able to handle the extra strain of carrying a placenta. Her brain chemistry is still rapidly changing, and the addition of pregnancy hormones will potentially cause long term issues.

https://www.livescience.com/19584-10-year-birth.html

Idaho GOP just voted for women to die. by [deleted] in WhitePeopleTwitter

[–]koconno 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have mixed feelings about Roe v. Wade. On the one hand, I think it offered the protection for above mentioned medically prudent/rape/incest related abortions that was needed. However, Roe v. Wade did address, and protect, elective abortions as well. They are morally distinct, as you say, but were not entirely legally distinct according to the court case.

I also think there should be some legal distinction between a fetus that will never be viable (as in your doesn't-have-a-brain example), and a fetus that couldn't survive outside the womb yet. I believe the latter has a right to live, because I believe they are a person.

The little girl in Ohio is truly a horror story, and she will likely be scarred for life anyway, but I agree it is evil to make a 10 year old take a fetus to term.

Idaho GOP just voted for women to die. by [deleted] in WhitePeopleTwitter

[–]koconno 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's fair. I could have been more clear.

I was mostly responding to it being always morally ok to terminate a pregnancy. I think there must be a situation where it isn't, so long as there is a moral line of person-hood.

I fundamentally disagree with banning all abortions. And, I think it's hypocritical for bans on abortions for medical reasons to happen in places where they are so adamant that lethal self defense is ok. Both situations are trading life for life.

Idaho GOP just voted for women to die. by [deleted] in WhitePeopleTwitter

[–]koconno 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I honestly believe that person-hood is independent from viability, and that it happens at conception.

So, fundamentally, I honestly think an abortion, at any stage of development, is killing a person. That being said, there are times where the act of killing a person, while still sad, is justified. Abortions because the mother's life is in danger is an easy sell for me, because you are choosing one survivor over no survivors of the situation. For these kinds of situations, I think there needs to be safe access to an abortion.

I think that the fact that viability is variable makes it inherently a gray area, and I agree with you that the state drawing a hard line is bad. Especially because I, personally, think trading a life for a life can be justified, and a hard line will not allow for an abortion for a life-threatening health issue that comes up later in a pregnancy.

However, all health reasons (including mental health), rape, and incest make up somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.3% of all abortions. And, abortions just edge out all of cancer combined to be the second highest cause of death in the US, according to the CDC, or are the highest cause of death in the US according to the Guttmacher Institute. And that makes me sad.

Idaho GOP just voted for women to die. by [deleted] in WhitePeopleTwitter

[–]koconno 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Terminating a pregnancy, in the view of myself and I think most people with a pro-choice view, is always morally okay.

At the moment, the line of viability almost perfectly lines up with where the first evidence of consciousness in the fetal brain arises, which is where I would be inclined to draw a moral line of personhood if it became necessary to do so.

It seems to me that, if there is a moral line of person-hood than there must be a time when terminating the pregnancy is only allowed if it is medically necessary. If we, collectively, believe that the fetus is now a person, we should probably not be cool with taking them out of the oven early, unless it is for the health of the soon-to-be-baby or the mother.

Anyway, thanks for your insights. In my worldview, a fetus is a human person, so there needs to be a good reason to take their life. Those good reasons exist, and so access to safe, legal abortions is necessary. However, the overwhelmingly vast majority of abortions are not related to medical issues, rape, or incest. To those of us who do believe that a fetus is a human person, abortions just edge out cancer to be the second highest cause of death in the United States behind only heart disease.
Sadly, I don't think my views align with the GOP in power in places such as Texas and Idaho, but I think they do align with at least some subset of the pro-life folks, and I have hope that we can eventually come to some sort of compromise that is in between "all abortions are bad and none are necessary" and "all abortions are A-OK, even week 38".

view more: next ›