There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

meco03211

@[email protected]

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

meco03211 ,

I’d maybe be a little hurt that my friend didn’t think they could ask for some help.

meco03211 ,

How can you be so cold? They’ve barely had decades to prepare for this eventuality.

More presumed human remains recovered from submersible that imploded, killing 5, Coast Guard says (apnews.com)

The Coast Guard has recovered remaining debris, including presumed human remains, from a submersible that imploded on its way to explore the wreck of the Titanic, killing all five onboard, deep beneath the Atlantic Ocean’s surface, officials said Tuesday....

meco03211 ,

Of there’s no legitimate reason to fly, then yes.

meco03211 ,

Recently, the artist formerly known as Twitter…

Fucking gold

meco03211 ,

What does that do?

meco03211 ,

Please. Proceed.

unless this is a quote/meme I’m not familiar with

meco03211 ,

Some claims by religion are absolutely falsifiable. Young Earth Creationism for instance. There are plenty of ways to show the earth is just a smidge older than ~6000 years old. By smidge I mean like orders of magnitude older.

meco03211 ,

But that doesn’t make the claim itself not falsifiable. They just “prove” it’s true with bullshit. And the fact that it has absolutely been proven false means it’s falsifiable.

This is where I’ve found most issues with idiots championing such idiocy. They don’t understand the topics they try to argue.

meco03211 ,

The problem then is transport inside the city. Couple this idea with the (currently) top comment to make cities walkable and this is pure fire.

meco03211 ,

I wonder if this might have some limited effect on clickbait headlines.

meco03211 ,

Guaranteed he’s one of the shits that goes on social media to bitch about the “catch and release” of other criminals.

meco03211 ,

Now this has me curious. What’s considered “the pole”? Is it literally the line coming out from exactly center (or whatever relative features for the specific shape of the moon)? Or if you’re within like 10 ft can you say you landed there? How far off can you be and still be on the pole?

meco03211 ,

Default country is best country.

meco03211 ,

I also do believe more in the traditional family kind of thing (husband working, wife taking care of the household and both of them taking care of the children).

What if the family has two dads? Or two moms?

meco03211 ,

You’re already aware the sites have a liberal slant. What you might not be aware of is the plethora of “conservatives that don’t hate” that turn out to be fucking awful bigots that come to these places and try to stir shit up. The questions are to weed out whether you’re genuine or one of the awful bigots.

That being said, you seem genuine enough to me. However you seem like you might still be somewhat impressionable and I’d caution you in looking for a “more conservative community”. Those tend to be hotbeds for recruitment and indoctrination.

I’d ask, what do you think you’ll get from a more conservative community that the more easily found liberal communities cannot offer?

meco03211 ,

Depending on the amount he had it could be a smart move. Even a public defender should be able to handle any possession charges that are amount based. What could be possession of a larger amount carrying a larger penalty gets downgraded to some lower possession charge and maybe a vandalism or destruction of property type charge.

meco03211 ,

catholic church wants to know your location

meco03211 ,

Pretty sure that is another way of saying 86% of people can successfully play dead.

Remember folks: If it’s black, fight back. If it’s brown, lie down. If it’s white, goodnight.

meco03211 ,

I’d think in general, “just a broken back” would not be an immediate death sentence (even if it’s results in you being paralyzed and unable to effectively save yourself). However I also don’t see it being likely that’s all you’d suffer from a grizzly attack. If they’ve broken your back, you probably have one or two other injuries.

meco03211 ,

Bear balls! That’s what my wife and I use (along with bear spray and a 10mm). Little jingly balls you hook into your backpack. Now just walking makes a continuous noise.

meco03211 ,

Most wild animals don’t want random interactions with strange noises. They will avoid as much as possible. Grizzlies and black bears don’t usually “hunt”. I’m unsure how effective it would be with polar bears or if it would draw them in. But your prep for going to an area with polar bears should be not going to the area with polar bears.

meco03211 ,

It’s mace for bears. Usually much stronger than regular “mace”. Also the canister is designed to spray a longer distance (like 20 to 40 ft). Google some videos to see it in action.

meco03211 ,

Try filtering the phrase “formerly Twitter”. Most articles I see still add that after the “x”.

meco03211 ,

Then tried playing the “I’m not touching you” game.

meco03211 ,

No no. You can defend yourself with a gun indoors. You just can’t shoot it. Perhaps a pistol whipping?

meco03211 ,

Good work Johnson! Now sprinkle some crack on him and let’s go.

meco03211 ,

It’s the phase after FA. Fuck Around- Find Out.

meco03211 ,

They were running their mouths not trying to run the country.

meco03211 ,

Chris Christie. Maybe the least smelly turd in the group. He still smells like shit and now the question is whether he’s only trying to separate himself from the others while still planning to deliver the exact same steaming mess any of them would. Is he hedging his bet that trump is falling to the charges?

meco03211 ,

Oddly enough it’s still not worth it if he’s there. I’ve seen the exact same scene every time I flush after dropping a deuce. Adding an unflushable nugget to the bowl doesn’t change much.

Meta sparks privacy fears after unveiling $299 Smart Glasses with hidden cameras: ‘You can now film everyone without them knowing’ (nypost.com)

Meta sparks privacy fears after unveiling $299 Smart Glasses with hidden cameras: ‘You can now film everyone without them knowing’::These stylish shades may look like a regular pair of Ray-Ban Wayfarers, but they’re actually Meta’s new Smart Glasses, complete with two tiny cameras and speakers implanted in the arms. The...

meco03211 ,

Should it be illegal?

In the US, it’s been long held people do not have the “expectation of privacy” while out in public. One of the major issues that you’ve kinda touched on is how would it be enforced? So are you opposed to all forms of recording? Or is this more focused on a corporation potentially gathering data on people just by being in public where someone is wearing these?

meco03211 ,

My privacy issue would be the likely massive access they’d “require” in order to use. If using them means Meta gets access to all sorts of info just so I can use it, then hell no. If I have relatively complete control over the access I’m fine with it.

meco03211 ,

It’s “public”. But that would be the same as filming you in your own house. If it’s a friend you invited over, they could record you and it’s on you to indicate your opposition and kick them out/trespass them should they refuse to comply.

Now in the private bar, the other patrons are allowed to be there and there’s no law prohibiting them from recording (excepting places like a bathroom of course). If the bar tells them not to record, they can comply or be asked to leave. If the bar doesn’t tell them to leave, it’s on you to leave. Consider if a nazi walked into the bar. They have the right to be a nazi and go to bars. Bars have the right to refuse or provide service to whomever (so long as it doesn’t target a protected class). You have no more right to be at the bar than the nazi or person filming (absent some other condition like the bar telling them to leave).

Tl:Dr - it’s not public in the legal sense. However civil law takes over.

meco03211 ,

Point of clarification. It’s not “public” in the legal sense. Might be why you’re catching some downvotes. The rest of it is pretty much on point.

meco03211 ,

US. Yes. I can’t speak for other countries.

meco03211 ,

The difference is advertising. Lemmy has no incentive to sell you out. A company like reddit will squeeze every legal penny out of your personal info and then some more illegally if they think they can get away with it.

meco03211 ,

if the Fake News reporting is correct,

Which is it? Is it correct? Or is it fake news? What could someone of otherwise middling intelligence do to discern which is which?

meco03211 ,

What’s the conversion to Stanley Nickles?

meco03211 ,

Weird. I keep hearing the deranged nuts saying it’s murder. Are they OK with 2 years for murder? Why are they so easy on criminals?

Our do they subconsciously know it’s not actually murder?

meco03211 ,

Did you also miss the part about her being a teenager? Mental health issues? Only $400 to her name? You would sentence her and the fetus to an extremely difficult life. If you advocate adoption, you probably don’t understand the physical toll of carrying a fetus to term. So you’d be sentencing a teenager to undergo that still.

Pro abortion is a terrible way to frame that position. No one is advocating for more abortions. We are advocating for that option to be legally available alongside a multitude of support and educational routes to help people be fully informed as well as have access to proper birth control and medical care.

meco03211 ,

I’m advocating for abortions that make sense

That’s not up to you to decide. That’s a decision to be made between a doctor and patient privately.

The rest of your comment is just special pleading to placate your delicate and ill placed sensibilities. That is a healthcare decision, the same as anything else you’d go to a doctor for. You not agreeing with someone else’s decision is your problem and yours alone.

meco03211 ,

It’s a poor way to frame your position. It somewhat implies you want more of them to happen. Personally I’d prefer no abortions happen. Not because they’re illegal, but because there’s no need for the operation. I’d also prefer no need for angioplasty or root canals. Kinda like the idiots that call themselves “pro life” yet support the death penalty and think it needs to be used more.

meco03211 ,

I didn’t say the abortions needed to make sense to me

Then why say it? Who else are you talking about and who decides what makes sense? Why would it have to make sense to anyone besides the doctor and patient?

If i disagree i will vote to put people into office that will hopefully vote the way i want on things.

And if some angry twat spouts lies like women are aborting at 9 months just for fun and that they’ll stop that, whats to stop you from voting for an idiot like that because you both don’t know what you’re talking about?

You try very hard to defend a shitty position while not admitting you hold it. From your other comments you are fully buying into the bullshit propaganda about abortions. Then you take that misinformation to the voting booth. You claimed to have LGBT friends (while making a thinly veiled homophobic joke). Ask them for some information on abortions. Ask some women. Hell, ask a damn doctor.

It’s OK to be wrong. It’s OK to have fallen for some well dressed propaganda. Just learn from it and try to understand why that happened.

meco03211 , (edited )

Jumping in here. Would you accept forced blood donation? If someone desperately needed a blood transfusion and no volunteer donors come forward, would you accept a government finding an eligible person and drawing blood by force if necessary? Why or why not?

meco03211 ,

Sorry but you avoided the point of the question. In this case you are specifically the only person with acceptable blood for the transfer and it is to a person you refuse to provide blood for. That can take the form of Joe Billionaire or some other manifestation of what you might consider an “ultimate evil”, but at the heart of the matter is that you do not want to participate. Would you be OK with a government forcing you to provide blood against your wishes?

meco03211 , (edited )

So your two examples of the drunk driver and vaccines are different. You don’t have the right to drive or go to school. You are granted that privilege by the government. Part of those privileges involve consent to certain requirements. So in those cases, the government is simply forcing you to uphold the agreement put in place. If you used this reasoning to support your argument, it would be like saying bodily autonomy is a privilege granted by the government. Maybe if you’re at a breeding age they would prevent you from sterilization (so you can procreate for the greater good). They could tell you not to get a tattoo (or go full Hitler and force you to get a tattoo).

You say you would not be OK with the law, but would comply. How far does that go? Would you support another military draft? Potentially being put into deadly situations (especially if you don’t agree with the war/whatever is happening)? Forced labor if it was for “the good of the country” or some reason (maybe making a product you don’t agree with e.g. drugs, guns, late term abortion kits)?

If someone were to refuse to comply with any of these laws, what should the punishment be?

Edit: What if the government tried to mandate forced abortions? If they can declare something necessary “for the greater good”?

meco03211 ,

I share your frustration with using mobile. Also I must commend you on staying pretty consistent. There’s a lot of abortion opponents that come unglued at the thought of something like forced blood or organ donation. Though I disagree with your opinion, this is a rare case where the issue was almost fully boiled down to a difference of opinions. I’ll change course a tad.

No doubt you agree with the right to privacy and I’m sure you’d have some exceptions (probable cause to search and stuff like that). If a doctor considers it medically necessary to abort citing life of the mother as being in danger, how would you reconcile allowing the government to overrule that? What other areas should the government overrule licensed and practicing professionals in their area of expertise? How would you reconcile the right to medical privacy? After all the government would need to know it was a medically necessary operation rather than some reason you oppose. What other medical information should the government have access to without your consent? Surely you could also see that would be rife for abuse (don’t hire the woman on fertility drugs as she’s likely going to be pregnant soon).

In some other comments you’d mentioned you’d think at some point in the pregnancy it would transition from fetus to person. What obligations would the government need to adhere to once the fetus is considered a person? Consider a pregnant woman fasting in an effort to induce a miscarriage. No doubt you’d expect government involvement if a parent decided to just stop feeding their already born child. Would you support an extreme like force feeding a woman in an effort to preserve the “person”? Forced c-section once deemed viable? If you don’t support that extreme, where do you draw the line and is that consistent with where you draw the line for already born people?

meco03211 ,

You cannot argue that eventually a fetus becomes a person.

No real argument there. But “personhood” can be a troublesome notion to define. I’ve found it easier to frame it as “At what point should the government confer certain rights to a fetus/person?” After all, there are many rights that are age gated and no one really balks at that (driving, smoking, voting).

I do think abortion should unquestionably be allowed up to the third tri mester. It’s just after that where it starts to get into that gray area for me personally.

This gets back to doctors being overruled by the government. If a doctor recommends terminating a pregnancy the day before they’re due date, who are you or the government to contravene that? The licensing isn’t the government overruling their decisions. That’s the government’s check to ensure its citizens won’t fall victim to some quack rubbing then down with crystals and essential oils while calling themselves doctors.

This is the point opponents like to use the “abortion as birth control” and try to argue these late term abortions should be banned to prevent that. That’s just simply not the case for late term abortions though. Women are not carrying a fetus for 9 months only to up and change their mind right before it becomes unequivocally murder. Again, the hypothetical is this is a doctor’s recommendation. A doctor would not be recommending terminating that late simply because the person felt like it. Things would need to be catastrophically dire for the mother or fetus for that to be recommended that late. On top of that, a tiny fraction of abortions happen in the third trimester. The implications for malpractice are huge if they recommend dangerous treatments that are not outweighed by the benefits. You have espoused at least a modicum of faith in the government to identify “the greater good”. Would you extend that same faith to doctors? Assume they will mostly act ethically and professionally and only recommend abortion if it is truly the best option?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •