@SimonTuffen@Mattiverse@ediz1975 Then he didn’t react fast enough as he almost hit the fucking thing. And had he done so, the ambulance would have had to stop to make sure he was ok. I guess I should have said “reacted reasonably within 2 seconds.” Because almost hitting it isn’t reasonably.
@SimonTuffen@luismvpt@ediz1975 Slowing (safely) causes more time to assess said situation. This was on both my theory tests. For HGVs and for cars. Wasn’t it on yours? Christ.
@SimonTuffen@PremierLeague20@ediz1975 If their side of the road is clear yes. If there are parked cars forcing it to straddle the centre line, as there are here, then NO you don’t. If you have a licence and that’s how you drive? Send it back to Swansea because you’re clearly unqualified.
@SimonTuffen@Mattiverse@ediz1975 A car is expected to react in 2 seconds. So yes. A cyclist SHOULD be able to do the same or better as its lighter and will stop quicker when brakes are engaged. Even braking safely so as not to risk injury.
@MinEffortLive Nah the NPC trend was a thousand times worse. This is weird but not THAT weird.
And to be clear, no hate to her. She found something that seems to work and has rolled with it. I just find this “face dancing” thing odd, is all.
@BigGooberGuy@frmdaborooo@lauren_w67 “Murder” by definition is an “unlawful killing.” If abortion is legal and carried out within the legal timeframe then, by definition, it’s not “murder.”
@CarrotCakeKiwi@PonchoTere63425@0wWipers@rbpea1993@darlingstrawbie Also as an aside: I never stated my view on such things. So don’t just assume why my beliefs are because I made a point about word definitions. Because I DO NOT like people putting words in my mouth. Worst way to argue a fucking point.
@CarrotCakeKiwi@PonchoTere63425@0wWipers@rbpea1993@darlingstrawbie But because it’s justified in a legal sense it’s not MURDER. Because in that case the kill was lawful. Whether you personally believe abortion is justified or not, it’s not unlawful until a certain point and therefore does not meet the legal definition of “murder.”
@CatholicCo200@rbpea1993@darlingstrawbie I dunno, my niece and nephews were totally different very quickly. They were developing a personality by 3 months old. Sure it starts VERY basic, but picks up speed rapidly. But an unborn child has no detectable personality. Which is, I suppose, where this argument originates.
@LostVoidGamer@PonchoTere63425@rbpea1993@darlingstrawbie To have a will, one must have a personality. An unborn child has no personality that is detectable by any method we have. Your logic could be used to keep brain dead people alive, even when they’ll live on machines until their body gives out.
@CatholicCo200@rbpea1993@darlingstrawbie And I hope you read this before responding: just note I have heard this. I haven’t said it myself. But it is still a moral argument, whether you agree or not.
@CatholicCo200@rbpea1993@darlingstrawbie Here’s one I’ve seen: an infant, a baby is developing a personality. Personhood. A zygote/fetus? Isn’t. Similar argument to why people are ok with unplugging life support for brain dead people. Someone isn’t a “person” without a personality.
@SootySec@ed_in_my_head@DTM_Woodworks It’s like the people that found Diana from the Pragmata game sexualised. No, guys, that’s YOU, not the guys playing the game and wanting to protect the character from danger, which is how it’s meant to be experienced.
Nothing sexual about it, yet they screamed sexualisation.