Void Abyss @voidabyss@qoto.org
Joined Aug 2021
Void Abyss
boosted
What the zionist are teaching their children. https://t.wtyl.live/videos/watch/83cc809f-0ae0-4ad7-9e0a-2b0855d84d06
Void Abyss
boosted
Zionist's kids chanting death to Arabs https://t.wtyl.live/videos/watch/5dc68d96-f3f4-4190-963f-1fb362c2c006
Void Abyss
boosted
Help us reach our Supporting Members goal 🥅!
We want to sign up 500 KDE Supporting Members before Plasma 6 is released in February. We have already reached more than 💯.
Let's give it a push!
https://kde.org/fundraisers/plasma6member/
---
If you would like to donate just once, that's great too!:
Void Abyss
boosted
@kde@floss.social
Done 👍 Proud to be a supporting member of #KDE 💙
Void Abyss
boosted
@freemo Slavery makes you stupid, lazy, and overconfident, and you eventually blunder and lose everything. Is there anyone that has not happened to?
Void Abyss
boosted
Leftists accuse responsible parents of wanting to "ban books" and then lie or hide which books are being scrutinized. An interesting tactic would be a mock-breathless "they want to ban these books!" campaign that shows the real books that are being identified as problems.
Imagine going to a place where Leftists are protesting responsible parents and setting up a booth nearby that presents the real books parents are rightly upset about. What would happen? It certainly puts the Leftists in a decision dilemma: let people see the truth or flip out.
Even a more honest statement or booth, "yes, we want to ban schools and libraries from giving these books to kids" or "see what books we're banning," would be a fascinating experiment of the same kind.
Leftist activism almost always proceeds with the support of a mystified public that is so mystified by deliberately blurring or hiding the full context. It's almost always successfully combatted by restoring clarity and exposing the manipulation of understanding.
Imagine going to a place where Leftists are protesting responsible parents and setting up a booth nearby that presents the real books parents are rightly upset about. What would happen? It certainly puts the Leftists in a decision dilemma: let people see the truth or flip out.
Even a more honest statement or booth, "yes, we want to ban schools and libraries from giving these books to kids" or "see what books we're banning," would be a fascinating experiment of the same kind.
Leftist activism almost always proceeds with the support of a mystified public that is so mystified by deliberately blurring or hiding the full context. It's almost always successfully combatted by restoring clarity and exposing the manipulation of understanding.
Void Abyss
boosted
Destructive behaviors beget bad results, if only that everyone looks like a graffiti wall.
Void Abyss
boosted
IT'S NOT JUST mRNA AND SPIKE PROTEINS, IT'S ALSO DNA
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Mok235igX8ZI/
#VaxStroke #DiedSuddenly #VaccineInjury #VaccineDeath #MillionsDied #MillionsWillDie #StopTheShots #GeneTherapy #ExcessMortality #PopulationReduction #VaxCollapse #VaxRegret
Are you suggesting that all people who get tattoos have some underlying emotional distress or suffering, and therefore is self harm?
No, many do that for those reasons, some people just copy what others do.(Herd mentality)
What determine self-harm is the net negative outcome on the individual and society unless it’s self-sacrifice.
The rule here is if it bad for the individual, it’s bad for society unless self-sacrifice.
Self-sacrifice might be perceived as bad for the individual but it’s a net positive for society.
Void Abyss
boosted
L'activation à distance des appareils électroniques a été validée par le Sénat. Désormais arrivée à l'Assemblée, elle a été discutée en commission des lois. Les députés ont protégé certaines professions tout en validant, de fait, ce système de surveillance de masse pour les autres. Les débats en séance commencent le 3 juillet.
@Lapineige it seems like you have a problem with your website
https://transparencyreport.google.com/safe-browsing/search?url=https:%2F%2Flapineige.fr%2Fyunohost%2Fsso%2F%3Fr%3DaHR0cHM6Ly9sYXBpbmVpZ2UuZnIveW5oX292ZXJsYXkuY3Nz&hl=en-US
Void Abyss
boosted
Void Abyss
boosted
It is time! We have just released the biggest update in years for Zettlr — 3.0.0 is out NOW!
Get it now on our GitHub releases page, or wait until the automatic updater catches the release within the next couple of minutes!
Void Abyss
boosted
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/ is one of the most active projects on GitHub, with a PR merged around every 10 minutes.
The state and the corrupt corporate hospital care are hurting families and children, please spread the story of Maya far and wide, thank you!
Take Care of Maya
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt27542448/?ref_=rvi_tt
Void Abyss
boosted
CW long post (original content)
The Paradox of Altruistic Gamete Donation and Surrogacy
The various forms of artificial human reproduction are, all of them, problematic; not least because they present all sorts of complex moral and legal issues. And this blog touches on such issues but, before going into the complexity, let us first have a little simplicity.
Let us, therefore, consider what appears to many to be the least problematic forms of artificial human reproduction: altruistic gamete donation and altruistic surrogacy. They are called ‘altruistic’ because they are the freely given gifts of women who seek no profit; women who simply want to do good, and who are under no pressure to do so.
Such an altruistic woman is Anne, a healthy young woman who donates eggs so that an infertile couple can have children. Let's suppose that no monetary exchange is involved, not even in the form of compensation for expenses, which is still a subtle form of exchange. Anne, remember, expects nothing in return from the couple. This is altruism, not commerce. Some people would find her action morally acceptable, even laudable; and they would see no good reason why it should not be considered perfectly legal.
Another such altruistic woman is Marie. Like Anne, Marie is a healthy young woman and absolutely altruistic. Anne acts as a surrogate mother for a couple because the woman who wants to become a mother cannot carry a pregnancy. Again, let's suppose that no monetary exchange is involved, not even in the form of compensation for expenses. Marie allows the use of her womb for mere altruism and expects nothing in return from the couple. Some people would find her action, too, to be morally acceptable; even laudable. This, too, they believe, should be perfectly legal.
Certainly, appropriate forms of regulation would be necessary in the cases of both, Anne and Marie, to anticipate and avoid possible conflicts that just might arise between the parties involved. But, in general, there are not many people who would find the actions of either Anne or Marie to be, in any way, dreadfully, seriously, problematic.
Now, let us imagine another healthy, young, and exceptionally altruistic woman, whom we shall call, for obvious reasons, Annemarie. Annemarie, in this imaginary case, both donates her eggs to, and, acts as a surrogate mother for, a particular infertile couple, the woman of which cannot carry a pregnancy. Annemarie does the same, and is the same, as Anne and Marie. The same: but, different.
Yes, here is the paradox: while some people would approve of the actions of Anne, and of Marie, the actions of Annemarie seem to them to be very different. Because very few people would consider the practice of conceiving and gestating a child with the deliberate intention to give the child away to a commissioning couple, even for purely altruistic reasons, to be either morally or legally acceptable. So, with Anne and Marie: not problematic. Yet, with Annemarie: so problematic.
What is so wrong in the case of Annemarie that is not seemingly wrong in the cases of Anne or Marie? If two actions are individually good, why are they not good when combined together?
The paradox obviously does not arise for those who do not consider gamete donation – that is the donation of either eggs or sperm - or surrogacy, (or both,) to be in any way acceptable. For others, the paradox is there.
Ova are donated with a view to generating children; and if a surrogate mother is needed to complete the process why shouldn’t she be the very same woman who donates the eggs?
Similarly, if an altruistic surrogate mother is doing something good, isn’t she doing something even better if she is also the altruistic donor? Would it be different if Annemarie donates her ova to one couple and acts as a surrogate for a different couple?
We can easily imagine all sorts of permutations and combinations of roles, genders, relationships, number of people involved, etc., between the process of gamete donation and surrogacy. We can easily imagine just how complex and problematic the whole business can become.
In the reality of the world out there, cases are usually much more complicated that those presented here in such a simplified way. But, even as we discuss clear cut simplified cases, sooner or later some contradiction appears; and it points to something seriously wrong with splitting up the normal, and naturally composite, action of becoming the mother and the father of a child.
Those who would defend altruistic gamete donation and surrogacy should, if they are being logical, also defend the practice of generating children with the purpose of donating them to couples. For that is the logic of it all. Somehow, we feel that there is more to this than cold logic; this does not feel right and proper.
And those who have no problems with some form of compensation (be it a fee, or expenses, or whatever) for gamete donation and surrogacy, should have no problem with turning the bringing of a child into this world into a commercial business.
We demand to know: Since when has treating children as commodities to be given is progress?
