p3n

The problem is that influencers have shilled stupid VPN services so much that even legislatures think they know what they are and think the primary use for the technology is circumvention and privacy.

They have no idea about all the IPsec tunnels providing site-to-site VPNs for all their businesses. Or how VPN protocols like GRE, which while providing no security on their own, are still very useful for tunneling protocols through different network stacks.

Yes, because it is never comes at their own expense through self-sacrifice. True leaders eat last, not first.

The difference is that for the people dying under capitalism, the system is working as intended, and for the people dying under communism, it is not. In both cases, the leaders don’t really care, because it works for them.

If it is well known that it is illegal for law enforcement officers to wear masks, and there is an armed man wearing a mask who is threatening a group of people, it would be reasonable to assume they are not a law enforcement officer and a shooting could be justified in self-defense.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

Also Matthew 6:14-16: “14 For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” (NIV)

I know it isn’t Biblically supported, but I always thought it would be incredibly poetic if we were asked to pass final judgement on people who had harmed us, only to find out afterwards that we were actually passing judgement on ourselves for our own actions. Makes me wonder how many people would condemn others for their own actions?

This would be a very literally implementation of Matthew 12:36-37: " 36 But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. 37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” (NIV)

I respectfully disagree with that consensus.

Her legal name was Bradley Manning when she was charged and tried: https://web.archive.org/web/20110726100828/http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/eCache/DEF/12/444.html

When referring to legal proceedings it only makes sense to use someone’s legal name during those proceedings. Court documents do not get retroactively updated when someone changes their name.

Ultimately, what is disrespectful to Chelsea Manning is entirely determined by Chelsea Manning not the Lemmy Community, Military Community, Trans Community, or any other group.

Nobody gets to be offended for me, and I am the sole determiner of what is respectful and disrespectful to me.

deleted by creator

^ This is the only attempt at an objective argument in this entire thread and it is not the argument presented by the OPs story, which was the point I was trying to make.

Maternal mortality includes abortions though: A maternal death is defined by the World Health Organization as “the death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy".

I could care less about being downvoted, but it made me realize that even people who claim to be interested in objective truth and facts are no different than the religious people who they mock for ignoring scientific evidence for things like global warming. Everyone just wants to reaffirm what they already believe.

“Still a man, he hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest” -Paul Simon

Where does the Bible say life begins at first breath? I know that is says this, “13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” Psalm 139:13 NIV.

If I were to argue on premises, then I would start with a higher premise: Why is murder illegal? If it is my religious belief that murder is wrong, then by your argument doesn’t that make homicide laws a violation of the 1st Amendment and thus unconstitutional?

It is literally the highlighted quote in the article: “we actually have the substantiated proof of something we already knew—that abortion bans kill people.”

This is true as evidenced by the story, but what is also true is that abortions also kill people. So the question should be is it a net positive or a net negative? I don’t see this being examined in any objective and scientific way.

No, what I have a problem with is using a sample size of 1 as evidence of an epidemic and the perception that no women die from legal abortion procedures.

Also, from the report: “In 20 of the 108 cases, the abortion was performed as a result of a severe medical condition where continuation of the pregnancy threatened the woman’s life.”

I point this out because another misconception is that you can always save the woman’s life with an abortion if it is threatened by the pregnancy.

I don’t want anyone to interpret this to mean that I think it was in any way OK that this woman died, but I do want to point out what I see as an objective bias here.

According to the National Libary of Medicine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4554338/

108 women died from complications related to legal abortions during a 12 year period between 1998 and 2010, for an average of 9 per year. Where are these stories on the front page?

This is a story that is posted to elicit an emotional reaction rather than a honest attempt to examine whether there is actual recorded medical evidence that more women are dying as a result of this policy.

Edit:

• Post citing scientific data -11.
• “Religious people should be locked in asylums” +10.

Says a lot about this community.

I’m not sure how you interpret this story to represent this comment, but it appears to me that Robert’s sister likely invited him to her Bible study, not because he is a Christian but expressly because he is not. He was likely dragged there by his wife Corinna. This seems to be corraborated by the ABC story:

Members of both Woodhull’s and Castillo’s family urged her not to marry him.

“It’s a testament to the kind of person she was that she went through with it, thinking she could help him,” the prosecutor said. “I can’t believe that she knew her wedding vows would ultimately be her death sentence.”

So Corinna, against the advice of everyone who knows Robert, marries into an abusive relationship thinking she can help him, and brings him to his sister’s Bible study, where he stabs her in a supposed drug induced rage, and you interpret his actions as an accurate representation of Christian love? Robert doesn’t represent even Wordly love in this story, let alone Christ like love.

If they don’t have to worry about guns, then why do they have guns drawn?

ATAK-Civ originally developed by the U.S. Military for tactical use on Android phones. It was open-sourced and released on the Play Store several years ago.

⊙﹏⊙

I’ll probably get down-voted to oblivion for asking, but continuing this train of thought: If a woman gives birth to a baby and simply walks away, should she be charged with a crime?

If not, why?

If so, why?

There are plenty of examples of this, so it really isn’t thoeretical.