I firmly believe shit like this annoys him more than anything else.

This is isn’t conservationism though. They’re not trying to maintain the status quo. They’re trying to go backwards.

Their ideology is to not want free and fair elections.

Tactful.

There’s similarities, but it’s a little more empty, and it’s a little too reposty from other sites still. reddit then felt a bit more like the place, this isn’t that yet.

Present. My oldest account just had it’s 13th cake day.

Silly me, not trying to sound dumb. Guess you got me.

Okay, thanks.

I’ve never killed anyone, and I almost certainly never will. Should we make it law to say I can, just because we’re sure I won’t?

You’re shitting on the very concept of a thought experiment and of a hypothetical. What you’re doing is like saying “The law should say you should be able to murder whoever you like so long as the sky is green, because the sky is never green”. This is a tactic to avoid addressing the issue. Namely, even if you don’t think something is going to happen, why would you allow it, if it absolutely musn’t?

They say it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it, but if you absolutely refuse to entertain it for strategic reasons, change the date. A healthy fetus, a few days passed due date, maybe no more than week from labour, could easily be induced, mother decides “Actually nah”, takes a bunch of pills to kill it - you good with that?

To make it harder, even if not impossible, for the average user to ad block them.

Are you asking because you’re not sure of the answer, or because you are, and you know that web integrity will require a pre-compiled closed source binary to browse the web?

I still don’t see why my open source browser can’t just lie when it’s sending a description of itself to the third party. The only way I could see it working is if that description needs to be encrypted by a key that’s compiled in to a closed source browser, and then websites only accept requests from a few closed source browsers.

Is that what you’re saying? That unless I have one of a couple accepted clients which are proprietary and closed source, websites just won’t work?

Come on, they’re the World Series champions.

“Oh my god, a premise, I just have to accept it!” – your imaginary version of me.

Do you have a crush on me? Because if so, I’m not interested. Otherwise there’s no reason for you to still be talking to me.

I think that’s about as many invitations to say something of substances I’m going to watch you reject before I decide you have nothing of substance to say at all.

I have invited you multiple times to tell me what you think. It’s not my job to help you find your tongue. Speak or don’t.

How is asking you what you think putting words in your mouth? If there’s some point you want to make, just make it. If there’s some point you have made you think I have wrong, just clarify it.

If you disagree with nothing I’m saying, what was you were hoping you’d added to the conversation?

So what you’re saying is that it depends? Yeah, I agree. And we both therefore disagree “States Shouldn’t Be Able To Put Any Limits On Abortion”. We also therefore agree it’s fine for the government to have some control over your body.

What is you think we disagree on, and why?

What does “once it’s born” have to do with this conversation? And why are you dodging my question:

If you can end the pregnancy without killing the fetus, but you kill the fetus, should that be illegal?

Do you know how loudly dodging this question speaks? You’re basically admitting it.