🎓 Doc Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@qoto.org

@freemo You're a Spencarian Specialist :)

A bit of a mouthful but perfect for announcing out loud as your title or sub-specialism! Try saying it now out loud! " I'm a.... "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencerian_script

@freemo
Same. I could be on one of those Titan subs and still be pissed that “Unknown Caller” popped up.

@freeschool

This is how to compile `outbox.json` with `jq` to an array of posts that have the `published` date and its `content`.

```
jq '{ data: [.orderedItems[] | {published: .published, content: (.object | objects | .content // empty) }] }' outbox.json > content.json
```

(remark: not a jq expert, thus this could probably be simplified)

@freemo

@realcaseyrollins

So as far as the first passage is concerned, that is part of an older covenant that is no longer relevant. Hebrews 8-9 explains why this is so, but in Acts 10:9-16 God more concretely declares that the old rules from the previous covenants no longer apply.

You are missing the point,.. its not about “rules”. It is very possible that before the new covenant god said “you must have an abortion if…” and under the new covenant since the rule is no longer applied it changes to “you no longer have to have an abortion if….” But thats not the point at all is it?

The point here is that god used to require and allow abortions… now those abortions are no longer required, but why would you assume that just because it isnt required it is no longer allowed?

What does the change in the covenant have to do with things that used to be allowed (not required).. nothing about the change in the covenant suggests that something previous allowed is now not allowed. So that is irrelevant.

For the second passage, that’s just some suicidal dude. It was the inclusion of a passage like that which really, even now, has me questioning that you read that and came to your conclusion through your own plain reading of the text.

Did I not say the second passage was weak evidence and only suggestive? Since I explicitly stated its own weakness in the argument why would that have you question my motives at all? If I was bias would I not express that point as strong evidence when it isnt?

For the third passage, it’s pretty strange that you would argue that it’s in favor of abortion, since it punishes someone for killing a fetus.

I didnt say the third argument explicitly states its in favor of abortion.. I said that it clearly shows that killing a mother is a grievous act punishable by death, but killing just the fetus is punishable by a fine. Ergo it clearly shows that killing a fetus is considered a lesser evil than killing a person (after birth), ergo one can conclude that killing a fetus is not considered equivalent to murder at all, but rather a much lesser crime than murder.

Also note that it is about killing the fetus against the mothers wishes, so it is not suggestive at all that abortion is a crime, only that abortion is such a minor act that even inflicting it upon an innocent woman is only worthy of a financial penalty while killing the woman deserves death.

Does this not clearly show that killing a fetus is not remotely equivalent to murder?

You accuse me of seeing what I want to see, when those mental gymnastics you just did were quite absurd, I think its fair to say your the one seeing what you want to see and trying to manipulate the facts to suite your bias.

@freemo The Numbers 5:24-27 is interesting. It sounds like they did have an abortion potion in those days, and it was used on adulterous women.

There is also an ancient rabbinical ruling that if a woman is in danger of death in childbirth, you kill the fetus to save the mother.

@freemo @realcaseyrollins then they should waive their liability protection, including the extra special one they have on top of the general one.

Is it me or does #QOTO not seem as sluggish as it has been recently?

@freemo

@freemo I bet many company creators wish they had signed a prenup hehe