Lemm.ee still has hexbear. The toxicity is the same as it ever was, going strong

It’s the structure of our “first past the post” system. Basically, each party gets one representative on the presidential ticket. The two major parties have primaries where the top candidates compete in a vote within themselves, and the winner gets put on the presidential ticket for that party.

The obvious problem with that is that the party convention picks the candidate, not the voters. So it’s possible to buy a party’s candidate or for the conventions to snub popular choice in favor of not shaking things up too much in the status quo.

The latter point, the democratic party picking lukewarm candidates that are moderate at best because the establishment doesn’t want to disturb the status quo, has been a problem for a long time and is a major reason democrat voters don’t go to the polls.

I know you’ve probably heard this about a dozen times by now, but…

Don’t join Facebook.

They track everything they can about you, down to how long you spend looking at something on your screen. I’m fairly certain they listen to what’s going on around you if you put the app on your phone. An ad for something I’ve mentioned in passing has popped up on my feed shortly later too many times to be a coincidence.

They follow you around on your browser, too. They know what you shop for. It’s all specially tailored to sell you their ads.

I keep an account to stay in touch with my family, and it’s appalling how much more information they get from you than any other app. Not to mention the heavy prevalence of MAGA hats and I’ll-kill-you-before-I-consider-your-opinion conservatives.

Instagram isn’t much better, but at least the people there are nicer.

Anyone reading this thread and genuinely interested in it should go listen to the dollop podcast. It’s American history, mostly between the 1500’s and now. But the different episodes they do are stuffed full of this kind of faulty logic from the past.

Look into the death of George Washington. His doctor responded to what could have been a mild cold by taking a liter of blood 4 separate times from him. Washington very well could have recovered if he was just left alone.

Oh, and the doctor somewhat realized his mistake and tried to put some of the blood back after(!) Washington expired, with the logic that if blood loss killed him giving it back should revive him.

So yeah. Pumping blood back into a dead man. That was done on the founding president of the United States.

Was listening to an American history podcast (the dollop) about the radium girls. They wore uranium infused lipstick because it glowed and they thought it was cute. They licked their fingers regularly to help apply uranium dust to things.

While their male supervisors were wearing full lead suits totally for no reason and let those girls do that.

Many of them lost their jaws. There was a suit filed that they won, but every single one of those girls died before they could collect the money.

The suit led to a law establishing workers’ safety rights, so it wasn’t all bad. But that law was definitely written in those girls’ blood.

My argument was that you can’t claim the moral high ground based on legality alone. I understand that nuance exists in the context, but moral high ground does not come from whether or not it’s legal.

I see what you’re getting at, but I think ‘moral high ground’ might not be the phrase you’re looking for.

Laws and morals are explicitly different. That’s why juries exist, so that a law may be put against the morals of a situation and the morals may prevail if need be.

Breaking the law isn’t necessarily immoral. It’s just illegal. So it isn’t like someone breaking the law is seeking to take the moral high ground in the first place, nor does that mean that someone who only ever follows the law always has the moral high ground. Lawful-evil does exist.

Precedent is nothing more to them than a tool to keep democrats down. Show me the last time a republican respected precedent when there was nothing in it for them.

Ok, I understand this now. The reddit post this post is based on came on the heels of another post where an actual father disowned his actual daughter and then took the money he promised her for college and left her out to dry, while giving all of her siblings the same amount. There are several people discussing that incident on the linked post, but this is not that. It’s just a post about fathers disowning their children.

I guess that’s my bad. That guy was an asshole. I’m not trying to say all dads who do that are assholes. I guess based on the first two comments on this thread chain, I thought we were talking about that guy.

I’m tired of words being put into my mouth. I could clarify my stance again, but I don’t think I care enough.

I didn’t say boundaries shouldn’t exist. I’m was actively arguing that we are not all the same. I understand perfectly what he meant by the difference between love as a feeling and as an action, and feel that the distinction is irrelevant in the context. You don’t have to agree with me, I’m not looking for approval.

Besides all that, none of it has to do with the original purpose of this thread before it went off on a tangent, which is that the situation in question is fucked. No interpretation of boundaries or conditional love fits into the fact that he rescinded a life changing gift upon learning she wasn’t his, after he loved her like a father for 19 years.

I sympathize with his situation. What he did was misdirect his pain at his kid, which is shitty either way.

Insisting on your own definition doesn’t really do anything other than show (again, for the third time now) that you believe love has limitations as to who deserves it.

You love differently. I’ve already made my points. You’re free to love or not love your children as you wish, but stating something as broad as ‘all love is conditional’ is getting into the territory of deciding what love is for everybody. If you can’t grasp why that’s ridiculous, I can’t help you.

I’m not interested in continuing this increasingly circular argument. Agree to disagree.

Regardless of what either of us defines love as, it’s pretty hard to argue that what that man did to a child he spent years raising was justified. Even if love is conditional, there’s still a line where it turns from simply not loving that person into active spite. That girl did nothing to lose his love except discover at the same time he did that they weren’t related. If that’s his condition for loving her, as I said to begin with, he didn’t actually love her.

In any case, I try to make it a point to not say the same things over and over when arguing on the internet, because it just leads to a lot of wasted time. So if you’ve got nothing more to add than insisting on the same points you’ve made multiple times now, you’ll forgive me if this is where I stop responding.

You are a god among men

This is the natural progression of the games-as-a-service model. Any game that relies on online support of some kind just to function will eventually cease like this.

Is it stupid that a vr game about a pet relies on online support to function? Absolutely. But it is what it is. Buy more offline games.

Putting forth the most extreme example you can think of is the opposite of proving your point. You’re just demonstrating where your line is, and doing so also showing that you can’t fathom love deeper than that, not proving it doesn’t exist. It’s also a little sad you think that parents out there don’t love their children in the face of crimes they committed is the rule and not the exception.

I understand deep pain and not being able to face the kid after that kind of betrayal by the mother. Taking away that kid’s ticket to life because of it is absolutely worth judging someone over. This is not just being unable to cope with pain. This is lashing out at someone who doesn’t deserve it.

Look bud, I’m sorry about what happened to your mate, and I won’t pretend to understand the personal nature of the decision he had to make. But I’m also not going to sit here and let you justify what is clearly an act of spite by saying all love is conditional because a mother doesn’t love a murderer. That’s a pretty ridiculous jump, and that you had to jump that far in the first place really only shows that you think love should be conditional.

You should probably reevaluate the place in yourself where that notion comes from, because that’s not really the kind of statement a stable person makes.

Anyway, you’re not going to convince someone who defines love differently than you that there is a limit to what that love should be. Less so that the specific circumstances of this situation in particular are justified.

Have a good night, buddy.

deleted by creator

Anybody with a shred of knowledge about the child tax credit knows exactly this. Biden’s economy is doing fine. It’s republicans repealing democratic policies that make the economy worse.

Tale as old as time.

All love is conditional

My man, that’s not even close to true. The only person who chooses to love conditionally is the one doing the loving. A parent’s love for a child is the last kind of love that should be conditional. And if that parent’s condition after 20 years is that that child came from his seed, then he doesn’t really love his child. Love means accepting someone for who they are, not judging their worthiness based on their circumstances.

I’d say, based on how convinced you are to make a statement that all love is conditional, you probably need to see a therapist.

I’d like to give this guy the benefit of the doubt and say that trauma is a bitch, but he really just said “I discovered you were conceived in an affair so you don’t matter to me”. It’s pretty difficult to reconcile that opinion from the standpoint of a father.

Ok, but when you spend a third to a half of your life loving someone like your child and then you just drop them for something that isn’t at all their fault, do you really love any of your children? Do you really love anyone when you can drop a bond like a father to a child just like that?

All that kind of move does is send the message to everyone else in his life that his love is conditional and you might be dropped at any point for something that isn’t your fault.

Maybe that’s the point. Unity caves immediately to the big lawyers and says “Sorry guys, we tried. Looks like all you little studios will have to pay up after all. Blame Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft”