Basically the difference between being legally supported as opposed to simply not illegal.

South Africa recognizes same sex marriages, where-as the other places allow same sex relationships legally, but don't recognize the marriages.

There's also significant input from American Evangelicals contributing to these laws. For instance, Scott Lively an evangelical anti-gay activist, helped push for Uganda to penalize same-sex relationships with the death penalty. And Islam only makes up 13.7% of Uganda.

I'm usually fine giving the benefit of the doubt, but this comment was in direct response to a scene from the show that was absolutely blatant, so they had to wilfully ignore that.

I saw someone complaining that the old X-men show was at least subtle and not in your face about how it approached social issues.

This was in response to a clip from the old X-men show of a bunch of anti-mutant brownshirts in armbands getting mad that a filthy mutant was touching a human woman.

I think it's safe to say that person was not arguing in good faith.

You're moving goalposts here. You said millions of Russians would die if Ukraine was given aid and I asked how you determined that number. By the same token, Russia should simply surrender.

Because the millions for Ukraine accounts for civilian casualties, not purely military. For anything similar Ukraine would have to counter invade Russia and launch artillery at residential areas.

Even if we assume the worst of Ukraine's intent, they wouldn't have the capability to go beyond securing their borders.

How did you come to the calculation of millions of Russians?

As horrendous as this ruling is, I'm also pissed at the pro-forced birthers that are upset by this ruling. It's so intellectually dishonest to object to this ruling when it uses the same justifications they use to oppose abortion.

These people pick issues to be passionate on but never actually put in the effort to research. And not just whether their position makes any sense, but what the downstream effects of the position would mean.

The politicians who write these anti-abortion laws are even more lazy. This is literally their job and they should have seen this coming. They could have put in exceptions for IVF from the get-go but they didn't, because they are more interested in winning points than writing effective legislation.

In the 2004 Bard's Tale game you keep running across kids who die thinking they are they chosen one.

And then trows (basically goblins) come out and sing an oompa loompa style song mocking the kids.

Nice, thanks for sharing the cover itself! It really is a delight

I had gay couples explained to me as a kid over twenty years ago and understood it no problem.

Geometry on the other hand, I still struggle with...

If Elon Musk is looking for more money pits to throw cash into, baseless law suits against Disney is certainly the way to go.

Lawful doesn't mean following the laws. A lawful person isn't obligated to follow the law in the Kingdom of Baby Eating.

Good explanation, thank you. It looks like fair use is a lot more limited than I had thought. And obviously not worth the risk for the average person to try and use as a defense.

Ah, thank you for that context, I didn't see any mention of Patreon in the article.

I'm still stuck on him suggesting a submachine gun for police use, especially having also criticized submachine guns as promoting inaccuracy.

Not that this would save the average person from litigation hell, but does Nintendo actually have a legal leg to stand on? What would make a (free) mod any different from any other artistic expression?

Also assuming the mod creator didn't do anything crazy like rip assets from an existing Pokémon game.

They reported 9.9 billion in profit for their third quarter last year, so I think 458 minutes of profit from that quarter.

I assumed 90 days in the quarter, or 129,600 minutes.

So dollar or minute wise, that comes out to a 00.35% penalty to that quarter.

Edit: Which isn't even close to the 36 minutes in that article, so I'd err on me being the wrong one.

Edit 2: I think I see the difference, I was looking at their profit, not their revenue.

If they can't give a reason that's internally consistent why should I believe them?

Even allowing for the unproven assertion that souls exist, at no point does that soul obligate giving up bodily autonomy.

You can't use organs from corpses without permission, you can't force a drunk driver to provide an organ to a kid they ran over, you can't force a parent to donate an organ to their own child. All of these things would save "souls" but is hardly part of pro-forced birth platforms.

And if fetuses have souls, that would surely make the Christian god the true murderer as 10 to 20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriages, but the Christian god is held to a lower moral standard than human beings by pro-forced birthers. And the governments that reject welfare programs are also held to lower moral standard for some reason, as well.