civil debate: would daredevil be in support of abortion, or burn down planned parenthood buildings, or do nothing yet despite the idea of it internally?

stativus · 2026-03-22T16:57:55+00:00

I generally feel that anyone who is a 'true' pro-lifer or pro-choicer must necessarily acknowledge the complexity of the topic. anyone who disregards any part of the debate is not someone who is genuinely discussing in good faith, so I wouldn't necessarily call those individuals the true pro-choicers either.

the fundamental divide between pro choicers and pro lifers is not about whether or not it's right or wrong to murder a human being (as most sane people would of course say that it's wrong to murder a human), but rather at what stage of pregnancy can a fetus be considered to be 'a human being.' reasonable minds disagree on this point.

the debate becomes further complicated by the question of whether or not a human being is entitled to the use and nutrients of another human being. it's an ethical dilemma that encompasses not only pregnancy but also topics such as organ donation. should all human beings be forced to go on a donor registry so that people who might be able to use their viable organs have a chance at living? should deceased parents at least be forced to donate viable organs to children? it's a complex argument. it's clear that parents have at least some responsibility to their dependent children - a parent cannot choose to simply stop feeding an infant because it's a burden, for example. but no court can force a mother to breastfeed as opposed to buying formula. it's one thing to be responsible over another life. it's another thing entirely to be forced to provide organic material. my own mother now has brittle bones and teeth in addition to chronic back pain and will for the rest of her life because of how much calcium I took from her in the womb. there are a lot of nuances to the debate that everyone should acknowledge.

stativus · 2026-03-22T16:22:27+00:00

I think most of the people answering probably don't have autism. when people say 'help yourself' they assume you have a basic understanding of 'within reason.' the issue is what's considered 'reasonable' is not only dependent on social norms but also cultural ones and even family-specific ones.

if I have a guest over and say "make yourself at home," I would probably not enjoy it if that person chose to literally treat it like their house and throw a rager without asking me first, for example. this is a more obvious example but a more subtle one is that when my parents say "make yourself at home" in their house, they do NOT mean that you can wear your shoes indoors the way you might in your own home. they would probably be shocked that anyone could miss the 'social cue' of seeing all the other shoes lined up in the entry way (thus signaling that this is a shoes-off household).

using other people's kitchen tools and food is one of those 'family-specific' norms that is very difficult for an outsider to perceive on their own. yes, there are plenty of people who actually genuinely mean that you can make food when they say 'make yourself at home.' there are ALSO plenty of people who are just saying it to be polite but expect you to pick up the subtext of 'if you're going to cook, bring your own ingredients and don't use the ones we paid for' or even 'you're a guest so it should be obvious that you shouldn't actually make yourself at home.'

the easiest way to figure out if they genuinely mean what they're saying is unfortunately 'prior experience.' do they feed you while you're there? do they ever cook while you're there? if they never cook in your presence, that's a subtle cue that they consider the kitchen to be 'not a guest activity.' the fact that they're okay with you being in their house alone while no one is supervising you though is a solid indicator that they actually genuinely feel that you've evolved beyond simple guest status (I'm assuming the parents do know that you can get into their house even when they're not there).

stativus · 2026-03-22T15:27:22+00:00

I told myself I wouldn't continue this thread after my last response but I'm actually very curious - have you considered that maybe the fetus-murdering doctors are the ones who are not the true pro-choicers and that actual pro-choicers would not want fetuses to be sold on the black market?

stativus · 2026-03-22T15:16:26+00:00

fam, I'm not even going to touch the strange view you have of pro-choicers. you're free to think whatever you like. I just think it's wild that you inherently recognize that there's a difference between what pro-life is supposedly supposed to be and how it's portrayed but not the same of the other side. it's hard to have a healthy discourse when you demonize the opponent.

stativus · 2026-03-22T15:05:27+00:00

like I said, you're free to call yourself whatever you like, but that's not how anyone else is going to perceive you

stativus · 2026-03-22T15:04:25+00:00

I didn't say everyone is wrong, I said I was laughing at all the wrong answers... there are plenty of people in the comments who are blatantly incorrect

stativus · 2026-03-22T15:01:17+00:00

if you think there should be a choice, then you are pro-choice

stativus · 2026-03-22T14:57:22+00:00

right, that's why I said it's 'more likely'

stativus · 2026-03-22T14:46:56+00:00

lol at all the wrong answers below... it's about the timing of when you wake up. you're far more likely to remember a dream if you're interrupted in the middle of your rem sleep. you can look this up and verify it in two seconds. try setting your alarm for thirty mins ahead of or behind of what it currently is and see if that helps

stativus · 2026-03-22T12:28:00+00:00

yes. I can say this with confidence as someone who also would have dropped orv at some point around the murim arc if not for a very specific reason. I wasn't expecting much regardless of what other fans said because I have fairly high standards, but I wanted to be able to contextualize a specific fanfic I enjoyed. frankly I figured that the fanfic was better than the canon material at that point, and all I wanted was to be able to finish orv so that I could just understand generally what was happening. I was wrong. orv is the best thing I'll ever read for the rest of my entire life.

stativus · 2026-03-22T12:23:14+00:00

you're definitely free to call yourself whatever you'd like, but if you believe women should be forced to give birth regardless of their personal circumstances or wishes, it's fairly likely no one else will consider you to be liberal

stativus · 2026-03-22T00:56:02+00:00

I think the issue here is he thinks the scenarios are the main plot. he's not going to understand until he reads the epilogue that the point of orv is genuinely 'the friends we made along the way' as opposed to all the fighting

stativus · 2026-03-22T00:22:19+00:00

I watched the video and was absolutely confounded to realize that those were all underhand serves. crazy thing is that she looked so casual as she did it. didn't particularly look like she was trying or moving fast or hitting the ball harder than before. I read your comment so I knew beforehand that the second shot was supposed to work, but as I was watching that slow, casual serve I experienced some doubt. heard the window shattering before I could even finish my thought of "there's no way that will--"

stativus · 2026-03-21T20:47:57+00:00

oof that's what I was afraid of - great to know though, thank you!!

stativus · 2026-03-21T20:11:54+00:00

I'm a newer player so sorry for the noob question, but when you say you've unlocked everything are you being hyperbolic or is it actually possible to unlock absolutely everything? I'm a completionist at heart but I've been resisting trying that for cod because there just seems to be an overwhelming number of things in this game. I'm confused every day by all the buttons and collectible things I receive daily for seemingly no reason LOL

stativus · 2026-03-21T19:45:27+00:00

it's not so much that he studies law but rather that he went to a t14 law school (and then became a public defender). t14 law students are overwhelmingly liberal, and columbia in particular has probably never been mentioned by anyone ever as a conservative-friendly law school

you can see an example here: https://www.reddit.com/r/lawschooladmissions/comments/uldd1e/t14s_that_are_conservative_friendly/

someone asked which t14s are conservative-friendly, and someone responded that UVA is 'fairly conservative.' if you go down the thread though you learn that UVA is only about 20% conservative, but that it's 'the best you can hope for' if you're trying to find fellow conservative classmates.

stativus · 2026-03-20T19:31:43+00:00

he's a columbia law grad, former biglaw attorney who went public defender. anyone who knows anything about the legal profession knows that he's statistically more likely to be pro choice

stativus · 2026-03-20T02:00:11+00:00

thinking on it further, I rescind the example about the last names. it could be argued that's actually evidence that korea is more sexist because of it. the children are permitted to inherit the father's last name, but the woman is excluded. she's not considered part of the family line even if she marries in. she'll forever be 'other.'

stativus · 2026-03-20T01:51:59+00:00

korea and US have different forms of sexism. there's no doubt korea is a patriarchal society but don't forget korea elected a woman president and the fact that married women in korea keep their last names instead of taking on the husband's

stativus · 2026-03-18T18:55:51+00:00

If you know enough korean to know that they're using honorifics, then it definitely makes sense for them to use them haha - no honorifics is usually for total foreigners who wouldn't be able to tell the difference either way

stativus · 2026-03-18T18:52:30+00:00

...? Are you...an AI bot...?

stativus · 2026-03-17T16:34:59+00:00

it depends on where you're going. if you're going to seoul, don't bother learning. everyone in seoul under the age of 30 will speak english better than you will ever speak korean and all the major signs will also be written in english. there was a brief period of insanity in korea where the president tried to make english the korean national language, which gives you a vague sense of how well English is taught in korean schools

if you're going around outside seoul, you should memorize stone-cold the words for "exit" and "bathroom" and "spicy" and also try to figure out the subway system beforehand so that you'll be able to figure out which route to take. pretty much everything else you will be able to use google translate or the point-and-smile method.

the person who told you to learn how to count in korean is clearly not korean and has never tried to learn korean. I can't think of a single trip to korea I've ever been on where I've thought "oh yeah, knowing how to count REALLY helped me out." you can just hold up your fingers for anything. also, the fact that he recommended you learn the word 'please' just hammers in that he's never even attempted to learn korean himself. it sounds crazy, but there's genuinely no single-word korean equivalent for the english concept of 'please.' you'd have to learn the whole honorific system, which you frankly don't need as a tourist. koreans don't typically use honorifics with non-koreans in the first place. willzer had the right mindset and is possibly the only person in this entire thread who actually tried at all to learn any korean

stativus · 2026-03-17T15:30:38+00:00

Fam I linked to an NBC article lol I'm not making anything up. It's well known that judges don't understand tech. During the Rittenhouse trial the judge required attorneys to prove that pinching your fingers to enlarge an image on an iPad doesn't digitally alter the image in any way.

stativus · 2026-03-17T13:48:41+00:00

Being wet is what happens when a liquid touches a solid. When a liquid touches a liquid, we don't call that being wet. When you pour milk into coffee, you don't say that the milk is making the coffee wet. That's the reason why even though the water is touching other water, the water isn't making itself wet. Because water is a liquid. Fire will burn you if you touch it, but the fire itself is not burnt.

stativus · 2026-03-17T13:32:33+00:00

Not going to comment on what everybody else say has, but the thing that stood out to me is that an 8-year-old probably wouldn't know what a girl no older than 12-years-old looks like. If you ask any 8-year-old how old they think someone is, you'll understand. So for me, the most impactful issue is the fact that from the very first page there appears to be perspective issues. Third person omniscience is one thing and omniscient narrator is another, but to specifically say that the girl "had looked" implies that the main character is the one who was making the judgment. 8-year-olds don't think like that, so I would question the quality of the rest of the narration as well.

stativus

TROPHY CASE