You could also argue that you're not being authoritarian but rather ceding authority to the people involved.

That's what pro-choice is in a nutshell.

Their trying to paint you as authoritarian is illogical and holds no real water.

You could point out that the very definition of 'life' is that it can sustain itself. A fetus can not survive on its own. There is no scientific evidence of a 'soul' or 'afterlife'.

Their 'ogic' has no merit.

HOWEVER...

There is the conundrum of late-stage abortion. While EXCEEDINGLY RARE and generally done ONLY TO SAVE THE MOTHER, there are some instances where there's a chance (albeit a tiny chance) that the fetus could sustain itself with the help of neonatal care and modern medicine.

So, there's a bit of concern they could raise at that point. That said, anyone getting an abortion late in their last trimester is absolutely mortified by doing so. It's done as a matter of survival, a medical need to preserve the existing patient.

Well, that and we have a whole bunch of life already. Man, we've got billions of us humans. I doubt any deity really sees a need for more of us. They've got enough shit to do already. I'm not sure why they'd want to make a person have a child they do not want. It seem punitive, rather than caring.

Oh, I agree...

The state of mental health care, especially access to it, is disgusting in this country.

I'm not sure why you'd think I said anything contrary to that.

"Oh, look! You have food in your belly. Millions of kids are starving."

That'd be true and just about as relevant. Perhaps you responded to the wrong person, or misread what I wrote? I'm the guy who actually has empathy for the mentally ill. I can't even fathom what it'd be like to have clinical depression. Can you imagine your days filled without any hope? I can't. It'd be horrible.

But, yes, I am seemingly not hindered by my mental quirks. They're just who I am and are not something that makes me mentally ill. I still function fine. My day-to-day life is not hampered by any mental illnesses. I'm not sure why that makes me some sort of ogre to you.

Given Firefox's dwindling marketshare, I dare say I might be right and that is what's needed.

After all, the data indicates they're not giving the people what they want.

And, well, I'm not sure that it's purist to want a browser to follow the standards. I want my terminal to follow the POSIX standards. I want my text editor to follow the standards for the format I'm working with. The list goes on...

That's, you know, why we have standards. We don't just make 'em up willy nilly. Well, we usually don't...

Hmm... Maybe I should dust off my coding skills and find some friends to help write that browser. It probably won't be all that popular, but it'd be an option.

Yeah, we got there in the end.

Unlike you, I did not take the time to reply. In fact, I only saw your reply because I clicked on the parent link.

You've been here for a long time. I suppose I have too, but I've taken breaks. I'm a bit surprised that you took the time and effort to respond.

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

I find that saves me time and mental energy. Still, it's good to see you're still around.

At the bottom of the page is this link:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fosuosl.org%2Fdonate%2F

This should have been included in the article. The way the article is written, one might assume that they only want corporate donations or even a single donation that will support them through the next year.

Also... $150k for staff is just a sign of the times. That's not even 'outlandish'.

Anyhow, I realize this may not get approved. I will send a donation this afternoon. You too can donate, even if it's just a small amount. If enough of us donate, we can meet their funding needs.

While the sharing (at least like we see in this instance) is relatively new, our cars have been recording information about our driving since as early as the 1990s.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

The disturbing part (to me) is that this data has been recorded since the 90s, and we STILL don't have clear ownership of the data. It can, has, and will be used against you in a court of law.

In the linked article is a bit about something I'd presumed based on my conversations with other people. The reality is that a lot of people don't even know they are driving a car that's collecting information about them.

On top of that, vehicles are now storing more than the minimum required data and able to transmit that data.

I like driving too much to only own old vehicles. So, I accept that my car is pretty much going to rat me out in the event of an accident or a stop for high speeds. But, snitches get stitches. When a car rats me out, I'm going to get it back from the impound lot and set that fucker on fire. It knew the rules before it ratted on me.

I'm confused...

First, I'm not a Catholic. I'm also not a believer in any deities of any kind. However, generally speaking, I'm not a dick about it - and I like to at least understand religions and belief systems. If anything, I'd describe myself as a 'horrible Buddhist'.

So, I mean no disrespect with this post.

Wouldn't a 'real' Catholic believe that the Pope is God's representative on Earth? So, if he was trying to find common bonds with other faiths, isn't that God's will manifest on Earth?

Even if it's different from prior doctrine, the Church has changed its stance on many things - often for the better. There's nothing in the scripture, as far as I'm aware, that says God can't change his mind. If that was the case, the Church would still be the same as it back in something like ~50 CE.

There's also that whole 'papal supremacy' thing. That there is a big one.

That shouldn't be red flag material. It's a decision made by the Pope who is, by their own beliefs, pretty much always right and God's PR person on Earth. If the Pope says it's time to find commonalities with other religions, then that's essentially God saying to do that. Who are human believers to argue with God's will?

Again, I mean no disrespect. I could EASILY be missing something. I just found that statement odd and contrary to what little I do know about religion. It doesn't pass the logic test from what I know of Catholicism.

People also misunderstand this topic.

If you go through the DSM-5, you'll absolutely find something that describes something you do or something you believe.

However, it's not a diagnosable mental illness unless it is both uncontrollable and has a significant negative impact on your life.

But, if you read the DSM-5 (or look this stuff up online), you'll realize we're all fucking nuts - except we aren't, we're just humans.

At one point in my life, I was a bit concerned about my sanity. So, I went and got tested. This took the better part of several days as I did things like the MMPI, spoke to various therapists, and a couple of psychiatrists. I learned a bit, including the above. Also, I'm not crazy.

Well, that's not how they put it. The diagnosis was something like, 'You have no diagnosable mental illnesses negatively impacting your life.' (It was something like that.) I took it to mean that was as close as they were going to come to calling anyone sane.

They did suggest that I should seek therapy if I had future concerns or if I felt I needed to speak with someone. However, I was satisfied with the answers given.

Anyhow, I mentioned that to qualify the first part of this. I'm not an expert in the field. I'm just regurgitating what I was told by the professionals. Many people hear voices in their head but that doesn't make them schizophrenic. The above is how they explained it to me. They still happily took my money.

I should have been a bit clearer.

I'd like that to be true for Firefox. It's the main FOSS source browser. As an open source browser, it should display the content as described by the HTML, CSS, ,and any supported scripting language like JavaScript. Though I suppose Chromium should also do that (but that's off-topic, more or less). These are the applications that proved the core for many other applications.

I'm fine with the various other browsers not rendering things exactly as described. Hell, I use Brave to watch YouTube.

But, Firefox itself should (in my opinion) just display the web as the authors intended. They should then encourage people to make use of their vast repository of add-ons and themes.

Yes, I want pop-up ads blocked. But, if I'm using an open source browser that's the core of many other browsers, it'd be great if that decision was left up to the end user. If none of the browsers support the standards, what's the point of having standards? The browsers that are the parents of so many other browsers should (again, in my opinion) render the web exactly as described.

I hope that makes more sense.

You're not wrong.

The odds of that being the case are very low. The truly physically disabled people among the 'incel' group would be a rounding error.

I'm not sure that I agree. I'd like the browser to display the web *exactly* as written and then let me make the choices for customization.

Yes, I block (most) ads. I choose to do so. The browser shouldn't do that for me. That's what extensions are for. The browser should be neutral, displaying content exactly according to the W3C standards.

I suppose that's a lot to ask these days.

I've bumped into some incels, but never in real life - at least not that identified as such or displayed their atypical behaviors.

I really don't get it. It's not hard to get laid. We humans have been getting laid since before we climbed down from the trees. It's not hard to take a shower, put on clean clothing, and hold your vile thoughts to yourself. Even ugly people can get laid. Even ugly men can get laid.

It's not 'involuntary'. It's just shitty behavior that they chose to engage in and shitty beliefs they chose to accept as reality.