sorted by: new top controversial old
13
[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago

You raise a fair point: what exactly is a zombie? To me, a zombie is not a sapient thing, so if it remembers its previous sapience, it's not a zombie. But zombies aren't real, which makes it difficult to define them precisely.

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 month ago

No. Jesus had his intellect and personality intact, which zombies do not.

NB: I'm taking the Gospels as gospel, here. I do not think the man himself rose from the dead.

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago

You may well be right and that's why it's vital not to be complacent. Donate, volunteer, vote. Get out there and make a Harris win happen!

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 month ago

easy to profit by re selling

This was exactly the reason they shut down the 3DS marketplace: re-selling old games is more profitable via Switch Online than it was through the 3DS marketplace!

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Real (I assume you mean proven) conspiracies start off as theories.

No, they don't. Conspiracy theories are not 'theories about conspiracies'. You are both misusing the term 'conspiracy theory' and wrongly describing the Tuskegee experiment as a conspiracy, which it never was. One of the people who originally called it out did so after reading about it in a published scientific paper! The pereptrators of that 'experiment' lied to the participants, but they were not otherwise secretive, otherwise they wouldn't have been writing and publishing papers about it.

Fuck off

I'm not going to discuss this further with someone who cannot do so civilly.

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago

The Tuskegee Experiment was not a conspiracy theory. So, in that sense you're right.

Conspiracy theories and theorists are homogenous: the flawed thinking is inherent to the concept. Conspiracy theories are untrue by definition, and nothing to do with real conspiracies.

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago

No, it isn't. He's a conspiracy theorist. Voting for him is endorsing conspiracy theorists.

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago

RFK is less coherent than Biden politically and intellectually, which is what matters.

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 month ago

OP has given us no info about the candidates they're considering other than RFK, who is a lunatic. There's no merit to encouraging RFK's views, so Biden should be OP's choice.

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 12 points 1 month ago

Please explain why it should be given to anyone else.

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 54 points 1 month ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

No. Vote Biden.

UPDATE: Vote Harris!*

If you can spare the time or money, volunteer and donate to the campaign in places they can actually win.

EDIT: Also, vote Democrat if there are any other elections going on at the same time. If Trump does win, the only chance of holding him to any kind of account is to have as many Democrats in positions of power as possible.

Sincerely, someone who can't vote in your elections but still lives with the knock-on effects!

*EDIT 2: Absolute necro-editing to change this to say Vote Harris.

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 months ago

This is from the manifesto, published after both those articles. It's the most up-to-date information we have on Labour's plans.

49

A paper summarising 'car-related harm including crashes, pollution, land use, and injustices'.

Some key remarks from the report:

  • 1 in 34 deaths are caused by cars and automobility with 1,670,000 deaths per year.
  • Cars and automobility have killed 60–80 million people since their invention.

While some people benefit from automobility, nearly everyone—whether or not they drive—is harmed by it. Slowing automobility's violence and pollution will be impracticable without the replacement of policies that encourage car harm with policies that reduce it.

Although switching to electric vehicles may be less politically controversial than reducing car use, electrification fails to address a majority of the harms described in this paper, including crashes, intentional violence, sedentary travel, car dependence and isolation, unequal distribution of harm, inaccessibility, land use, or consumption of space, time, and resources.

It also has a handy list of interventions that can reduce car harm drawn from this meta-analysis of 'effective interventions to reduce car use in European cities'.

73

I've had an organ donor card in my wallet for as long as I can remember and I've always made it very clear to my loved ones that I want all my organs to be used when I die.

My question is, given that I only need one kidney, would it be better if I were to donate the other one right away rather than after my inevitable demise?

Obviously, my organs won't be used in the unlikely event that I die in some unrecoverable way, like being lost at sea or something. And there's always the possibility that a close relative might need a kidney at some point, so I should arguably save it for them.

Is there some other reason to do it now?

view more: next ›

frankPodmore

joined 1 year ago