Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
Listen my foals and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Pipsqueak Revere,
On the twenty-second of June, in Six-and-Teen;
The voting was tight and the race was keen,
But the victory of “Leave” o’er “Remain” was clear.
Of the midnight ride of Pipsqueak Revere,
On the twenty-second of June, in Six-and-Teen;
The voting was tight and the race was keen,
But the victory of “Leave” o’er “Remain” was clear.
Source
not provided yet
I was kinda wondering the same thing. Looks like we’ve gone a tad off-topic, haven’t we?
And someone please explain what abortion has to do with brexit. Actually, don’t do that. I already have a headache.
Not really, with the invention of the ESOP model a company can be ran by the bottom up by granting employees in the company discounted or even free stock or management options that give them the power to vote on corporate decisions in much the same way stockholders would in a traditional model of business. Lumped in with the concept of the Flat Organization and the traditional boss and officer model inherit in the traditional Tall Organization means that you could run a company without a traditional owner, or without a strong owner; every employee has a commanding vote in things from product to wage and an equal share of the company that they also feel they own it.
The limit of 22 weeks is a scientifically established one (the standard held by the World Health Organization), below which almost no premature newborn can survive, even with intense care (FYI, the survival rate is 55% for 24 week births and 15% for 23, 80% of children born between 22 and 25 weeks will be disabled (severely for a third of them), and the documented absolute record for a premature birth without disability is at 21 weeks and 5 days).
Incidentally, this is also the time when babies start to develop conscious thought.
Laws on abortion usually draw the line a few weeks before that (in France, it isn’t allowed beyond the 12th week), so as not to kill a potentially viable infant (that, I can agree, would be plain wrong).
And stop saying things that are that stupid. [rule 0 removed] if you think this is totalitarianism, and you’re cheapening the term or don’t understand it at all. This is totalitarianism.
@Ereiam
Stupid argument? Isn’t 22 weeks, or “a nose” (@TexasUberAlles) a bit of an arbitrary line?
What makes a baby worth more, than, say, a chimpanzee? A chimp has greater intelligence than a young baby, yet less worth in their life. The potential that they have must, therefore, be the valuable thing. This is readily apparent already in seeing why the death of a child is such a tragedy. It’s lost potential.
And that potential is there 1 week into the pregnancy.
To be clear, though, I do believe in abortion in cases where the mothers’ life is in jeopardy as determined by medical experts. But I also strongly believe in the sanctity of life, so birth control and financial woes don’t strike me as acceptable reasons to end the development of a human being.
@AaronMk
Here in the U.S, we have this radical idea that people should be able to reap the rewards of a successful enterprise, and that they can own things like businesses. Those “broad yes/no” decisions are the ones that allowed the business to reach that point. And you can argue the owner isn’t necessary, but fact is the owner is absolutely necessary: if they weren’t there, the business would’ve never been there in the first place to become largely autonomous and employ all those people.
Businesses don’t grow on trees. They need someone to start them. They cannot exist unless someone, or some group of people, does.
@TexasUberAlles
Everyone’s capable of bias.
But if you’re going to argue that businesses don’t give people jobs, you had might as well argue the sky isn’t blue. Not terribly interested in spending hours refuting sources saying the sky is always purple. And as I’ve established above, those creators are necessary to the businesses’ existence. Unless you’re also going to argue that businesses form by autonomous collective.
In any case, the only person I strongly really disagree with is probably not going to budge an inch, anyways, so I’m probably just going to ignore most of these points from here out to save myself a great deal of trouble. Here’s to hoping I can stick to that commitment… A few I’ll probably stick around for, though, like totalitarianism.
Edited because: rule 0
Those sources are coming across as biased as all hell
So… “The Los Angeles Times”, “Former US Secretary Of Labor Robert Reich”, and “Literally an actual billionaire” count as “biased as all hell” to you.
Well then.
Seems to me that the time has come for a new IPO, for that owner.
That’s middle management bro, the owner of a massive company actually really doesn’t do much functionally except be a name that’s put on the checks. They just delegate that shit out really.
I’mma just drop this here since you got my mind on the comic.
||
||
Only in the case of small business does the business owner have any say. As it grows larger more and more delegation often takes place with an HR department that pays the checks and allocates the jobs, a research department is established to actually research demographic groups, and a marketing team is built to advertise the product and work with research to fine-tune marketing to hit their specefic demographic. The owner would have nothing to do with this. By this point the skills would be far beyond his own honestly in that they go into an immense range of skill sets (accountancy, art and design, even fucking psychology). One man can’t be that much a rain man to Will Hunting it like you’re proposing.
Once they’re there, all they need to do is making broadly sweeping yes and no decisions, be a pretty face (managed by a department in its self no doubt, albeit small), and be a hand to hold a pen to sign a check on everyone else. When it’s hiring or firing its department heads.
Shit, when I got hired on to my latest job I never got to see the store manager. Everyone I handled was middle-management. She was totally unimportant and un-involved in the process and my meeting her was a formality that lasted all of two-seconds.
But also once a company goes public and hits the stock market it’s no longer commanded by the “owner” and it goes to the shareholders who form a board of corporate officers who handle even more of the day-to-day business of the company and act as a legislature in some ways to the corporate owner. By now the company becomes a slip of paper that can be bought or sold off like property.
@Nattes Novgrel
These days the worst of the worst usually die in a gunfight with police anyway, unless you mean the ones running for president.
considering that murder is wrong and approving of its instutionalization for murderers is hypocritical
Murder is, by definition– at least everywhere in the world outside the UK
Unless one then goes on to describe oneself as “pro-life”.
Then what good will it do to add one more body to the pile? Let’s get real: considering that murder is wrong and approving of its instutionalization for murderers is hypocritical.
>Killing them won’t bring back their victims
Life imprisonment won’t bring them back either. In fact, nothing will.
As awful as a human being may have been, killing them won’t give life back to their victims. And if you kill them for the mere satisfaction of seeing that they’re as dead as them, that’s not justice, that’s just vengeance.
Death penalty can’t be reserved for just the worst of the worst?
You can’t really have capital punishment on the books just for the corner-case irredeemable monsters. They’re too rare, and the US justice system at least has a poor record of telling the irrevocably guilty bastards who deserve death from the innocent people.
What if they were like Ed Gein or Saddam Hussein? Wouldn’t they be viable for death penalty?
Life imprisonement would work as well. And if a miscarriage of justice happens, you can always release someone wrongfully sentenced to life, while you can’t revive someone who got executed for a crime they didn’t commit (as it often happens).
You do know that, as soon as a fetus is considered viable (about 22 weeks in, according to the WHO), no abortion can be legally practised, right? I highly doubt that you were that premature. There goes your stupid argument.
Like I said in the spoiler, I classify myself as pro-choice.
Those sources are coming across as biased as all hell. Besides, I wasn’t even talking about tax cuts or increases for the rich (for the record, they should have to pay the same percentage as everyone else)
How are they liars exactly? They think killing evil is good and saving the meek and innocent. You haven’t really refuted that.
I understand the pro-life moral conundrum but at the same time I feel like if the mother is going to make the choice to have an abortion it should be allowed as a preventative measure, consider the life the baby would be born into if the mother was one who wanted the abortion but could not obtain it.
So where do you draw the line?
I do believe the relevant legal standard is “where the other person’s nose begins”. You are talking about a government declaring on the whim and personal opinion– and it is absolutely a personal opinion– of some segment of the population that another segment has no right of bodily autonomy over their own internal organs. That is totalitarianism in its most literally visceral form, and completely incompatible in any way with the concept of “small government”.
Deliver the textbook-scripted rationalizations of support for the killing of actual human beings all you want, the coping mechanisms that allow these people to function in a state of cognitive dissonance are none of my business, but to call themselves “pro-life” while doing so is a lie, plain and simple. I have no intention of indulging any attempts at sealioning or distraction via hypothetical situations; a term has been used which is factually incorrect on its face and intellectually dishonest in its common application– my point has been clearly proven.
@Nattes Novgrel
They create jobs
No, they don’t. They really don’t. It’s a pernicious and persistent myth, but a myth all the same.
in their eyes
In their eyes, in somebody else’s abdomen. The tortured logic and convoluted rationalizations they come up with to justify their inherently contradictory beliefs are irrelevant to the fact that they make liars of themselves every time they claim to be “pro-life” while supporting the killing of other human beings, and doubly so if they claim to support “small government” in the process.
>I would dearly love for the wealthy elite to be forced to stop parasitizing the economy, and exploiting people who actually work for what they have
If we’re talking about business elite, they’re definitely not parasites. They create jobs, and pay their own money or their backer’s money in a promise they will give it back to them, and do things such as start the business, research of demographics, marketing, etc. In terms of importance, the workers could easily be replaced by someone better, but at the top that’s more difficult.
>Anyone who calls themselves “pro-life” while supporting capital punishment or war is a liar. Full stop
Except capital punishment and war in their eyes is seen as stopping evil, even if it means unfortunate civilian deaths.
Abortion to them is essentially ending an innocent life who has had no chance to prove themselves.
And no, I consider myself pro-choice, I’m just explaining why pro-lifers feel the way they do.
You actually got me to laugh. There is absolutely no compromise or concession with you, is there? Full stop liars and a totalitarian state?
You do know “the way I see it” is meant to soften the statement “it’s baby murder” so as to not spark an argument, right? After all, it’s not their organ, it’s someone else’s body. Government has always protected people from each other. That’s not totalitarianism, that’s the first purpose of any government.
Also, the idea of war and capital punishment is to stop killers - uniformed or not - and thus to save lives. So those can be pro life things. Because sometimes it’s good to stop rampaging murders or dictators committing genocide.
Also, food for thought for abortion: I was very premature. I was born by c-section and had to live in an incubator to survive. Once I was taken out of the womb, it would be murder to kill me.
But what if we called the surgery a different name? Would that make it okay for someone to break into the nursery and murder baby-me? What if after my birth my Mom said, “ah, I’ve had enough babies. Scramble his brains.”?
Born premature, lived in an incubator. As incubator technology grows, this will allow increasingly early babies to live. I’ve heard recently some Chinese researchers grew chickens without an egg. Point is: It’s going to happen. Wealthy parents might one day be able to use an artificial womb to skip the pains and ailments of pregnancy altogether.
So where do you draw the line?
Edited
If you want to argue that right wing politicians only offer lip service to small government, then I can argue that left wing politicians only offer lip service to economic equality
Okay, sure.
…“But the other guy does it too” still isn’t a valid justification for any position, on either side.
You mean ‘‘Pro-life’’ groups?
No. No I do not. I mean anti-reproductive-freedom groups, which is why I said “anti-reproductive-freedom”. “Pro-life” is a propaganda term, it is demonstrably and inarguably a complete and utter lie when applied to any group which also supports capital punishment and/or war; the way that anti-reproductive-freedom groups dishonestly and disingenuously use the term really only legitimately applies to the Catholic Church.
Anyone who calls themselves “pro-life” while also supporting capital punishment or war is a liar. Full stop.
By how we see it, it’s more or less murder to abort a baby
There’s a reason why the medical field has different words for “baby” and “fetus”, but that’s secondary to the central fact that one cannot with any legitimacy or intellectual honesty claim to support limited government while simultaneously insisting on a government so intrusive as to impose “how you see it” by force of law on an unwilling citizenry. Advocating for forcing other people to comply with one’s individual personal opinions about other people’s internal organs is completely irreconcilable with the concept of “small government”. Citizens who are not secure in their own bodies from government interference are not citizens at all, they are subjects of a totalitarian state.
@Nattes Novgrel
wealth redistribution, especially for countries this size, is impossible without government interference
Oh, it’s possible without government interference, angry men with guns do it all the time, so in that sense it’s just a matter of organization and scale; that’s just not the way that most reasonable people want to see it done. I would dearly love for the wealthy elite to be forced to stop parasitizing the economy and exploiting people who actually work for what they have, but it’s not at all worth disrupting the entire societal infrastructure to make it happen by voting from the rooftops. It’s worth reminding everyone involved in the system, though, that history is full of examples of nations that were unshakably convinced that their reign would be eternal and wealth redistribution was “impossible”, right up until the Visigoths kicked the gates open; there’s only so far that a populace will be pushed before pushing back, and it’s not in the best interests of anyone but the vultures and crows to let a society go that far off course.