MathCodeLove

Does this count of “non-American’s online will take any opportunity to shit on America”?

On the note of census units, the only reason we all know our zipcode is because we have to know it. If census units were used as frequently as zip’s I imagine they would quickly become more widely known as well.

If you’re spending the time applying and submitting something then you might as well spend the extra 30 minutes or so to do it right, no?

Yes I personally feel bad when children are murdered. You're right. How dare I push those feelings on others.

Wanna cite some sources? I cited mine. You're making some pretty big leaps there.

0.5% - 1% of abortions are because of rape or incest: https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/psr...

Free condoms: https://www.goodrx.com/health-topic/sexual-health/free-condo...

Birth defects affect only 1 in 33 babies, meaning the majority would grow up healthy: https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/infographic.html

For statistics on abortions caused by rape, https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/psr...

Here, approximately 0.5% to 1% of abortions are because of rape and/or incest. Looks like my original estimate was right :)

The most vulnerable are not the rape victims, but the unborn infants, and they're being harmed in great number.

Black men are also responsible for the majority of firearm murders ala gang violence, the total number of which make the number killed in school shootings look miniscule by comparison, but I don't see you calling them out. I bet you'll say it's a systemic issue. No chance the white school shooters are dealing with any systemic issues themselves? Perhaps people like you who seem to have an unreasonable disdain for young white men?

Just because you've internalized self-hatred and white-guilt doesn't give your the right to project that on the rest of the population.

Okay my exact percentages are probably wrong, the point being the vast majority of abortions could be prevented by safe sex.

Safe sex is absolutely universally possible. Free condoms are given out all over the place, and in places where they aren't it's probably better to practice abstinence until you're ready than kill unborn children so you can get a quick nut.

In cases except rape, which are a small minority of abortions, there is reproductive autonomy.

Elaborate on "moral hazard".

I explicitly said most. Not all. Most. Most abortions, like most births, would have resulted in a healthy adult human. You're responding to a misreading of what I said.

So you focused on a fraction of a percent of abortion cases rather than the overwhelming majority that happen because the mother and/or father couldn't be bothered to have safe sex. I explicitly said in my comment lets talk about the majority. Marijuana causes some fraction of a percent of the population to go into a temporary psychosis, that doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Why do you single out 18 year old white boys specifically? Was there a law that restricted 18 year old white men from purchasing guns that got shot down? If so, good. That's sexist and racist.

It's incredible that when you disagree with someone, your assumption is that they lack life experience and have a naive worldview. Because surely if they were wiser, they'd agree with you, right?

If you truly have a good response to the things I mentioned, I'd like to hear them. Your current behaviour truly is incredibly condescending.

I'm sorry but the map disagrees

Please read:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Would you like to add anything constructive to this discussion or just insult me since you disagree with my politics?

Or maybe they're just humane and don't believe in taking away an unborn humans opportunity at life?

We're not forcing anyone to have kids. 99% of would be abortions are preventable by just practicing safe sex. Yes I know there's the 1%, but let's talk about the overwhelming majority here.

If you can't afford children, be a responsible adult and don't have them.

I wasn't talking about men's rights, but a humans right to life. How do you justify a mother opting to kill her unborn child while still condemning the killing of a born child? Again, 9 months of gestation is absolutely not more an invasion of autonomy than the following 18 years of care. To believe that its okay to kill a fetus 3 months into pregnancy but not okay to kill a newborn is pure mental gymnastics. In most abortions the aborted fetus would have developed into a healthy, functioning human being had you not prevented it. That's murder. You're taking away a humans opportunity for life.

What that map actually shows is that Texas has more liberal abortion laws than the majority of the world.

You being a "non-American" doesn't give you the right to speak for the rest of the world.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law#:~:text=Wade%E2....

Losing black people doesn't mean Austin is "anti black". SF also lost minorities when the tech scene blew up.

Texas doesn't even have state income tax.

The state isn't and shouldn't be responsible for ensuring everyone has medical insurance. That's an individual responsability.

Blocking the sick leave ordinance just put us in line with the majority of the country. Not exactly a radical move.

Edit:

Also citations not from a .org would be great. I don't need a write up to wade through. Your data should be able to speak for itself if it's legitimate.

Lol yes because preventing the murder of unborn children and being allowed to own guns are "wacky right wing laws".

How absurd. How is Texas anti-human for non-whites? For the poor? For women? The only thing that could be argued is "anti women" would be the abortion bill. But a lot of people don't view that as a woman's rights issue. The "my body my choice" argument is about the same as if a single father advocated to kill his infant and claimed "my life my choice". The 9 months of pregnancy are by no means more of an invasion of autonomy than the following 18 years of care.

Right but you phrase it like some horrible thing when it's a net positive for the investors, the business owners/folders, and the broader economy. Just because "the rich get richer" doesn't mean it's inherently bad and that others don't also get richer. It's not a 0 sum game.

Alternatively, the decreased risk may incentivize larger or more frequent investments and simultaneously draw in newer investors and make it easier for them to take the plunge.

It does allow the rich to get richer if the company does well, but it also facilitates startup funding and could very well be the difference between a startup getting the funding it needs to be successful or it getting denied due to risk factors.

I'm not blaming the victim because they aren't victims. They voluntarily choose to use software and are upset when it doesn't live up to their arbitrary standards, standards they themselves are doing nothing to reach when it's perfectly within their abilities to do so.

If you complained about how much you hate trackpads but refused to buy a USB mouse I wouldn't say that mice should be mandatory accessories bundled with every laptop sale, I'd say you should buy a mouse yourself or stop complaining about it.

Your saying that this being a possibility means all proprietary software is immoral is like saying that since some businesses are pyramid schemes, all businesses are immoral.

Spyware is immoral, I agree. That doesn't make all proprietary software immoral and collecting relevant usage data doesn't make it Spyware.

That's fair for software that's a one time purchase. But most modern software is subscription based, and is more akin to renting an apartment where you're more restricted in what you can modify.

Legally, I agree that we should be able to modify whatever software we purchase so long as we don't redistribute it. I don't believe, however, that the engineers should be required to hand over the source code for us to do it.

Car mods are usually legal, but no one is demanding schematics from the manufacturer to help them go about it.

But it doesn't. The user isn't forced to cede that power to the developer(s). I don't know how you can possibly quantify it as "unjust".

What makes software different from any other labor, intellectual property, or physical property? Should a musician not be able to charge for their music? An artist for their art? An architect for their designs? A mason for laying the bricks?

You do own your computing machine, which means you have the right not to use proprietary software. That doesn't mean that proprietary software itself isn't moral if the user chooses to run it. You seem to believe that any software which isn't free is also abusive, when that's clearly not the case. Many software companies that develop proprietary software are profitable and are so without abusing their users.

DCMA only "restricts your freedom" so far as someone else intellectual property is concerned. If that software had never been created there wouldn't be the "freedoms" surrounding it to restrict. It's also usually illegal to buy a painting and then sell prints of that painting so your freedom is likewise "restricted". While I agree that some parts of DCMA aren't ideal, the broad argument of proprietary software "restricting your freedom" because of it is fallacious.