The world is not binary like that. Your side is not all good and the other side is not all bad.

What ever gets a reaction from the opposition I guess

Asteroid impact can solve homelesness too.

I still think populating other planets is a worthy cause. We should do that while taxing the billionaires more.

Makes no differencr to me.

It’s private wealth, not government funding. They’re free to use their wealth how ever they see fit as long as it’s legal.

Ad-hominem is not argument to the contrary either.

That’s still not an argument against the need to have a backup of humanity somewhere beyond Earth. Your desire to stick it to the man won’t mean much if we go extinct.

We will most likely always have terrorism and wars. That’s not an argument against letting wealthy individuals fund a private space race.

surely they would know they are (edit: seen as) the bad guys?

This is a popular view only on left-wing social media. The vast majority of people just see them as wealthy individuals, without thinking of them as particularly bad. If I didn’t visit Lemmy, I wouldn’t even know how many people dislike them. Everywhere else, I mostly see people looking up to them. Criticism does exist, of course, but it’s usually focused on specific traits - like Elon’s Twitter addiction - rather than condemning them as a whole.

To answer your question, Elon Musk plays a lot of Diablo IV and is actually quite good at it. He claims to be in the global top 20, though that’s debatable and hard to verify. However, he is ranked in the top 20 on the leaderboard at helltides.com.

That’s quite cynical view. There’s about 0% chance of that happening during their lifetime. Or you think they’ll just want to go to mars and sit inside some capsule for the rest of their lives? C’moon now…

Elon’s argument for why we need to spread to other planets holds true even if everything on Earth were going perfectly.

It’s not about getting everyone off Earth - it’s about creating a backup for humanity on other planets. This ensures that the only known flame of consciousness in the universe isn’t extinguished by a nuclear war, pandemic, supervolcano, or asteroid impact. It’s about not having all your eggs in one basket.

I’ve yet to hear a good argument for why it matters even if they did. I’ve made thousands of comments on Lemmy that are free for anyone to grab and do anything they want with. If I didn’t want people to have access to them I wouldn’t be posting on the first place.

ITT: People realising most of the world lives outside their bubble

(commenting from alt account as lemm.ee is down again)

Don’t worry, I’m relatively satisfied with my life and have no desire in ending it. I’m just in the lonely chapter of my life where I’ve outgrown my old friend group but haven’t yet found the new ones. I don’t consider AI my friend. It’s just something to bounce my esoteric thoughts off.

Lucky? I thought the 12 week limit and need for 2 doctor statements after that was outrageous.

I mean the pro-life stance is clear in the sense that they generally don’t accept abortion unless the mother’s life is in danger. So when someone is ‘pro-life,’ I know what that means. However, when someone says they’re ‘pro-choice,’ I don’t always know what they mean. I’ve assumed most people draw the line somewhere around three months, after which you’d need a medical reason and a doctor’s statement to proceed. But based on the replies I’ve gotten here, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Many seem to suggest that no such lines should be drawn at all and even go as far as calling the baby a parasite, which seems a bit crazy to me to put it lightly.

I know such lines are arbitrary and there’s no practical difference between one day and another but what seems obvious to me is that a total ban and allowing it at 8 months for any other that a serious medical reason are both equally extreme stances and the ‘truth’ is there somewhere in between.

Then have the child and give it up for adoption? If you don’t want to keep it, you can freely abort it until, say, 12 weeks, after which you’d need a medical reason and a statement from one or two doctors. I don’t see what the issue is here.

I’m not saying this is exactly how it should be, but something along those lines. The idea that someone should be free to abort a 7-month-old fetus if they choose seems quite extreme to me.

I don’t know what hellhole you live in, but where I’m from, doctors don’t arbitrarily deny abortions to someone whose life is in danger. The reason you need a second opinion is because you had three months to decide whether you want to keep it or not. If it’s been more than that, the child is already so far developed that you’ll need a medical reason to abort it, and at that point, ‘I changed my mind’ is no longer a good enough reason to end the life of a living, feeling being. Also, after that point you generally also need surgery to remove the dead fetus.

How do you know you’re going to die due to pregnancy without visiting a doctor? You’re not going there to prove anything. You’re going there for a diagnosis. Doctor is the medical expert, not the mother.

I don’t think that drawing a line means it wouldn’t be allowed under any circumstances after that. Before the line, it would be at the mother’s discretion, and after passing the line, you’d need a statement from one or two doctors and a valid medical reason for it.

Where I live abortion is legal untill 12 weeks and after that you need a medical reason for it and a statement from 2 doctors. What’s wrong with this?

You are being forced to feed a parasitic being in your body, a being that destroys your body in the process.

Okay, let’s take this reasoning even further then. Why can’t this same logic be used to a 3 year old?