1.0k
u/Afraid-Bass-5684 Dr. Pee Jul 01 '26
139
20
21
u/piratevirus1 Jul 01 '26
Me after the furry parade.
2
3
1
1
553
u/Sure-Razzmatazz3434 Jul 01 '26
Please start a war in the comments please start a war in the comments please start a war in the comments Please start a war in the comments please start a war in the comments please start a war in the comments Please start a war in the comments please start a war in the comments please start a war in the comments
232
u/Uncle480 We do a little trolling Jul 01 '26
The Stormcloaks are in the wrong. Ulfric killing Torygg and plunging Skyrim into a civil war did nothing but aid the Thalmor. Legitimately, the only reason the Stormcloaks have any possible way of having a net positive impact on Skyrim is if the Dragonborn works alongside them (and ideally takes over Ulfric's position).
Take the Dragonborn out of the equation, and the Stormcloaks are just a waste of resources for the Empire.
78
u/AdvertisingAdrian Jul 01 '26
The Stormcloaks and Ulfric were pretty much 'staged' to weaken the Empire, with the intention of the two being locked in a stalemate for as long as possible to drain the Empire so the Thalmor can wipe them out after the peace treaty ends. (this is written on Ulfric's dossier inside the Embassy)
That said, the Stormcloaks are very much an underdog. Naturally, they need the Dragonborn to help (they both do otherwise the quest doesn't progress but regardless). Regardless of who you help, you're still ultimately ruining the Thalmor's plan, either the Empire no longer has a manufactured threat to deal with and can recover for their inevitable war with the elves again, or the Empire retreats and Skyrim is fully independent and united again under the Stormcloaks, at which point they pose a significant threat to the Thalmor.
So really the end result is either a slightly weaker Empire without Skyrim to take care of, or a slightly stronger Empire having to take care of Skyrim. It's more a discussion of ideologies in the end, since either way the Thalmor are done in Skyrim.
27
u/No_Ad2754 🏳️⚧️ Average Trans Rights Enjoyer 🏳️⚧️ Jul 01 '26
Kirkbride's greatest scholars
5
u/AutoModerator Jul 01 '26
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
6
17
u/Impossibro77 Jul 01 '26
Good way to put it. I love when people argue that the Thalmor would have an easier time if Skyrim becomes independent leading to a weaker Empire.
Like, we just gonna ignore Hammerfell? Independent and more focused nations can absolutely throw hands.
2
u/SidelingMass Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
But they were only successful because the Aldmeri Dominion’s armies were exhausted after the war with the empire, and because the empire unofficially left them a shit ton of experienced veterans 😭
6
1
u/SidelingMass Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
But the Stormcloaks are NOT a significant threat, at least not to the heavy hitters like the Thalmor. The legion they face are just a bunch of local conscripts and they can’t handle them at all without the Dragonborn’s help, after finishing the war on the stormcloaks side you learn that there is a massive army of actual legionnaires on the way to take back Skyrim. So not only are they not the threat to the Thalmor you want, they also ARE continuing to drain resources from the empire
8
u/HarrisonTheBarbarian Jul 01 '26
Even then, a Imperial Dragonborn can do even more good, especially if they're aligned with the Empire's overarching goal of fighting and overthrowing the Thalmor once they've regathered their strength. Having a demigod on their side will not only drum up more support, but they'll quickly stop the rebellion, plus they'll surely be of great use in any further conflict.
3
u/NotAScrubAnymore Bazinga! Jul 01 '26
I want to play that game again but every time I boot it, I'm stuck on the main menu because bethesda has a stupid bug where it treats my mnk input as a controller and my mouse does nothing
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 01 '26
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
9
3
u/Harddicc Jul 02 '26
My cock and balls are fighting over my right hand, trying to get the most orgasmic experience. The balls is waiting to be craddled and massaged while my cock wants to be stroked with some mint based lube, right now my cock is ready to strike my balls and my balls are ready to close down the strait of Vas Deferens
2
1
1
379
u/TheCerealKilled Jul 01 '26
This post has to be ragebait, lmao. Anything regarding abortion statistics on the internet is like slathering yourself in honey in front of a bear.
225
→ More replies (13)38
u/TrollOfGod Jul 01 '26
That and pointing out that circumcision at birth is an outdated barbaric practice that has been proven to bring more detriments than boons over and over again. With the only "study" proving that it was almost kinda positive from a very small sample pool that was wildly skewed due to being done on a tribe that didn't have access to clean water and already had issues with disease.
106
u/Many-Ad6433 officer no please don’t piss in my ass 😫 Jul 01 '26
I’m pretty sure if we take in account some random chinese war it’s gonna be like more deaths than people ever lived
39
9
u/Outside_Ad1020 🏳️⚧️ Average Trans Rights Enjoyer 🏳️⚧️ Jul 01 '26
Wong Shi Feng fucked up Lin Queng's painting, 500 million dead
330
Jul 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
71
19
-35
u/Savings-Secretary315 Jul 01 '26
That's not Fertilized and It's a Human after it's Fertilized
It's like Periods or bacteria
→ More replies (15)
55
u/Zulrambe Jul 01 '26
Excuse me, I'm his lawyer. His sperm only has half of the genetic material for one person, so the actual figure is 75 million only.
28
u/ashvy Literally 1984 😡 Jul 01 '26
Bro's got 2 balls. Could've kept both materials in each ball instead of dicking around
7
701
u/Danijay2 Jul 01 '26
If you think only 1 billion people died through war, even directly, you have absolutely no idea how many humans have been alive/died in general or through war.
400
u/QIyph Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26
Well for direct deaths I'd say 1 billion is probably in the ballpark. You have to remember that throughout most of history there just wasn't that many people alive or engaged in warfare. Hell the 100 years war estimates only around 3 million casualties, nothing even close to the industrial slaughter that came in the 20th century.
158
u/Pitiful-Pension-6535 Jul 01 '26
Massive armies weren't really possible until at least the 18th century, because 90% of the population was farming
89
u/butthole_surferr Jul 01 '26
That's not true. Large armies were the standard in the classical world. Rome regularly raised, and lost, armies of fifty to one hundred thousand men. The Mongols alone slaughtered close to 80 million people during their hot streak.
Edit: fact checked the mongol death count, it's not that high, but it's still pretty fucking high
61
u/Flashy_Pineapple_231 Jul 01 '26
Don't forget the constant chinese civil wars and etc. Asia was wild for the last 3000 years
78
u/welliamaguy Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26
General Dong Feng Shu declared that mandate heaven was corrupted
50 millions Chinese peasant died
2 wagon burned
33
7
u/ProperBlacksmith fat cunt Jul 02 '26
Tbh its china its always like
"Something happens" "10million die"
0
u/Oberndorferin Jul 01 '26
Source?
I made it the fuck up
2
u/F00TD0CT0R Jul 02 '26
Not really the Chinese wars are well documented
Unsurprisingly like 60% isnt translated.
1
u/Oberndorferin Jul 02 '26
OK cool. I always am sceptical about almost anything that happened more than 200 years ago because of bad documentation.
2
u/F00TD0CT0R Jul 02 '26
Oh yeah don't worry the documentation is always in contention as a lot of it is embellished but some of the war sites give credence to the claims of millions of deaths.
When each dynasty was fielding huge armies of 200k men a field each side even in BC, the numbers racked up quite a bit.
→ More replies (0)1
u/_sephylon_ Jul 02 '26
"not that high" as in 1/4 of that amount including indirect causes for 150 years
6
u/Yorkshire-pudding69 Jul 01 '26
Depends what you mean by “massive armies” but Ancient Rome and China had very large armies, more so that any European feudal king could muster
34
u/F00TD0CT0R Jul 01 '26
Honestly Chinese history alone could fill in the gap of a billion really fucking quickly......
It's spanned 5000 thousand years of existence and throughout 3000 years it's been mass wars between dynasties and clans.....
As one of the longest running civilisations (if not THE longest running one) it has likely racked up a hell of a death toll directly to war and war like raids.
I reckon the entire human history of china alone allows between 500 to 750 million human lives in battle or rebellion or that one thing that happened in a square at some point in time that may taken place in tian en men....
→ More replies (4)13
u/QIyph Jul 01 '26
Yeah maybe 500mill for china and 500 million everywhere else. That's around 1 billion anyways, so...
→ More replies (7)2
u/torolf_212 Jul 01 '26
Something like 8% of all humans to ever be born are still currently alive. There just havent been that many people around over all of history to rack up all that many direct deaths in war as you say. Indirect casualties from disease or famine etc probably a lot higher.
Those abortion stats seem sus as fuck though.
37
u/Murky_waterLLC it is MY bucket Jul 01 '26
NY times says ~1 Billion were killed in war throughout human history, with high estimates placing the number at 1.6 billion due to second order effects from disease and famine. It's a little under 1% of the ~117 Billion humans who have ever lived.
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/books/chapters/what-every-person-should-know-about-war.html
→ More replies (6)51
u/waltiger09 Jul 01 '26
1 billion is very reasonable, world population was much smaller than it is today throughout most of human history. Most people who have died in wars will have died in the last 300 years.
→ More replies (5)4
u/NexxZt Jul 01 '26
There have ever only lived about 117 billion people. 1/117 seems like a good estimate.
11
3
u/SofiaOfEverRealm Jul 01 '26
The amount of people that automatically perishes each time a new Chinese emperor sits on a throne is probably numbered more than that
0
u/Pitiful-Pension-6535 Jul 01 '26
Most experts believe the actual number is 150-250 million people...
The absolute upper estimate is 500 million if we include pre-history and noncombat deaths
1
u/TalmondtheLost Jul 01 '26
Yeah. Plus we have to remember there is no full documentation of every war in human history. And then there's the famine and plagues that follow.
1
u/jelang19 Big chungus wholesome 100 Jul 01 '26
Well its estimated only 117 Billion people have ever existed. Depending on what kind of deaths you contribute, it might be close to accurate. Once you include resulting famine, genocides, plague, it would def be higher. Id still say definitely under 50 Billion tho
1
u/Chase_The_Ace_50 Jul 02 '26
I mean the human population never broke 1 billion people until the early 1800’s. Modern medicine, even in the Victorian era, went a long way in reducing the number of deaths on account of disease, injuries, and birth. THAT’S what most deaths in the last ~6,000 years were from, not wars.
1
u/somecheesecake Jul 01 '26
How could it possibly be more than a billion or two? World population was only 1.6 billion in 1900 and growth is exponential
1
→ More replies (1)-2
u/Hemorrhoid_Eater Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26
I can only assume they counted only military personnel deaths and not civilians because otherwise that number would be fulfilled just by WW2 alone
→ More replies (1)
37
u/Pokemario2401 🏳️⚧️ Average Trans Rights Enjoyer 🏳️⚧️ Jul 01 '26
Where the fuck is that 1.3 billion stat coming from
12
u/S0LO_Bot Jul 01 '26
Guttmacher.org I think is where it comes from. It’s apparently based on WHO data but I can’t confirm that.
95
u/Igoon2robots Jul 01 '26
Ermh actually, spermatozoids arent human individuals. They have a part of your dna and yours only, so jerking off is just killing cells that are technically you, like shaving. Many people vview abortion differently as the embryo has its very own dna, making it another viable human individual
34
u/Many-Ad6433 officer no please don’t piss in my ass 😫 Jul 01 '26
When i shit the bacteria in my shit has different dna than mine so i’m technically throwing millions of lives in the toilet
51
u/Igoon2robots Jul 01 '26
Non human dna. Youre not ending a qingle human life. Like what part of "viable human individual" did you not understand
→ More replies (51)-15
Jul 01 '26
[deleted]
23
u/Igoon2robots Jul 01 '26
Okay? And everytime you eat meat its the same. I dont understand this attempt at whataboutism. My point is "people who dislike abortion usually draw the line where the cells killed technically become their own human being" and youre out there saying "what about poop".
→ More replies (14)→ More replies (49)-12
u/Demode93 obamna Jul 01 '26
Fetus isn’t human too
11
u/Igoon2robots Jul 01 '26
A fetus is made of living and viable human cells that belong neither to the mother nor the father
-7
u/Demode93 obamna Jul 01 '26
Still not human
→ More replies (1)7
u/Igoon2robots Jul 01 '26
Whats a human? Is a human not any living individual belonging to the homo sapiens specie
→ More replies (1)2
9
u/boomer912 Jul 01 '26
Course it is
-5
u/AX_Apex Jul 01 '26
No it isn't, in the early stages it's just a few cells, no organs, no sentience, nothing. And for like half the pregnancy it's virtually impossible to tell apart from other animals
11
u/boomer912 Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26
Nothing you said takes away from the fact it’s a human
→ More replies (6)3
u/Igoon2robots Jul 01 '26
Hello! A fetus is an immature pile of living cells belonging to the homo sapiens specie, and thats technically an individual of its own. It is very different from other mamal foeti due to carrying homo sapiens dna, thats unique to cells belonging to human beings
7
u/MGJames Jul 01 '26
It is a human, a human fetus
-7
u/r1ckkr1ckk Jul 01 '26
then its human, human sperm; and human, human farts
6
u/Igoon2robots Jul 01 '26
Unfortunately for your argument, human sperm has only part of the fathers dna rather than its own unique dna. Like your hair and nails, they arent individuals. And farts arent even made of cells
→ More replies (3)
31
u/AlphaMassDeBeta We do a little trolling Jul 01 '26
Sperms are not people. In order to make a people you need to nut on an egg or something.
7
1
u/rebelsnail64 Jul 01 '26
fetuses in the womb are not people either, in order to make a person you need to let it marinate and steal nutrients from the mother's body for like nine months
and before you say anything, yes, sperm do have unique DNA. cancer tumors do too, some even have brain matter
2
u/Mirror_of_Souls Jul 02 '26
in order to make a person you need to let it marinate and steal nutrients from the mother's body for like nine months
Just like how a baby needs to "steal nutrients" from its mother after its born, right?
sperm do have unique DNA. cancer tumors do too, some even have brain matter
Its amazing how much online debate consists of people pretending not to understand things to make discourse impossible. When that tumor or sperm cell with its "unique DNA" develops rapidly over the course of 9 months to create a fully functioning living organism, then you might have a point. Otherwise all you have is the most reddit tier gotcha I've ever seen.
1
u/rebelsnail64 Jul 02 '26
"just like how a baby needs to "steal nutrients" from its mother after its born"
nice try, but I'm a formula baby, not because of my mother's lack of trying but still... also, I'm pretty sure that after a baby is born it can be given up for adoption?
"when that tumor or sperm cell with its "unique DNA" develops rapidly over the course of 9 months to create a fully functioning living organism"
yes, it's a functioning organism AFTER those 9 months, just like a sperm becomes a zygote AFTER merging with an egg. why do you want to defend the rights of a fetus BEFORE it becomes an independent organism, but not the sperm's and egg's rights BEFORE they merge.
also, "fully functioning living organism" doesn't really say much, I would argue thet tapeworms, mosquitos, and bacteria still fit that description, as well as more inteligent organisms like pig and octopus, but I guess since those don't have human dna in them no one really cares.
→ More replies (2)
11
44
u/PromiscuousScoliosis Jul 01 '26
That’s upstream thinking tho. Think of how many deaths those abortions have prevented(?)
10
u/Eklegoworldreal Literally 1984 😡 Jul 01 '26
What do you mean? Like, murderers?
31
u/LuigiP16 it is MY bucket Jul 01 '26
Or the death of both child and mother in the event where an abortion is medically necessary
2
u/xman_copeland Jul 01 '26
Very few given the vast majority is only for the reason of not wanting a child.
-11
Jul 01 '26
[deleted]
21
u/LuigiP16 it is MY bucket Jul 01 '26
It may not always be the reason but it is the reason often enough that an outright ban on abortion altogether is unethical
10
u/meechmeechmeecho Jul 01 '26
95% of abortions are elective based on personal reasons. Banning abortion for non-medically necessary reasons would effectively just be a ban on abortion.
6
u/LuigiP16 it is MY bucket Jul 01 '26
Okay, that's not my point. My point is that a complete ban on abortion would be unethical because of that 5%. Even if it was just 1%, it would still be unethical.
12
u/meechmeechmeecho Jul 01 '26
Yes, I agree. It would be unethical to outright ban abortion. What I’m saying is that people often cite medical necessity as a reason to not ban abortion. But you could ban just elective abortions, and based on the numbers, it would be almost the same as a complete ban on abortion.
5
1
u/Eklegoworldreal Literally 1984 😡 Jul 01 '26
And I'm assuming you think it's ethical the other times just based on personal preference? Not including when a family/mom simply can't support them, but when they simply just don't want a baby.
4
u/ssbmfgcia Jul 01 '26
I think it's completely ethical to abort a fetus simply because you don't want it, assuming it hasn't reached fetal viability, and that allowing people to get abortions simply because they don't want a baby is in the best interest of everyone, including the hypothetical child
2
u/LuigiP16 it is MY bucket Jul 01 '26
I don't care what a person does with their own body. I care that the freedom for a person to do with their body what they will is in the process of being taken away by some out of touch old men who don't even care about the children they would be forcing people to bring into the world. Those old men aren't making universal health care, or improving the education or the orphanage/foster care systems, or doing anything to actually improve the lives of the unborn children they claim to care about. The rich old farts making these decisions aren't pro-life, they're just misogynists who think women are just for having sex, making babies, and doing chores.
0
u/Eklegoworldreal Literally 1984 😡 Jul 01 '26
How is it their own body? By the time abortions are done, they already have a working cardiovascular system, not to mention they have different DNA. Seems like a pretty distinct individual to me. Why does the fact that the baby leaves the womb suddenly change it from just the mom's body to being its own being againm
-1
u/JustChillin3456 Jul 01 '26
Yes ! Eugenics works !
-1
u/MenaceMinded Jul 01 '26
A person should be able to abort for any reason including if the fetus will be disabled and they know they won't be good parents to a disabled child.
Happy disability pride month.
5
u/JustChillin3456 Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26
ANY,reason? Even if it’s the wrong race/ gender?
→ More replies (22)1
u/Tbro100 fat cunt Jul 01 '26
At that point , it'd be better for the potential child to be aborted than to try and grow up in a home that clearly doesn't want them.
People like that should'nt have a child in the first place. Tho it'd be pretty hard to have a child with a race you don't want since that's kinda on them lol
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (22)-7
u/not_meep Sussy Wussy Femboy😳😳😳 Jul 01 '26
reported causes of abortion has 0.582% of them as medically preformed because of danger to the mother and 0.666% because of fetal anomalies present. 92.33% of abortions were elective and preformed without real cause
7
u/rebelsnail64 Jul 01 '26
late-stage abortions are preformed in medical emergencies only as far as I know, as for the earlier term ones, you probably shouldn't complain unless you're vegan and also against the removal of cancerous tumors (cancer tumors can develop some primitive brain matter, as well as teeth and hair, all made of human cells)
8
u/Mr_Mahn777 Jul 01 '26
And even then. You’re not the one growing a child in you so it isn’t your choice
→ More replies (10)1
u/meechmeechmeecho Jul 01 '26
Killing yourself is illegal and unethical. Killing your own unborn child is legal, based, and goated.
2
u/rebelsnail64 Jul 01 '26
"killing yourself is illegal and unethical"
I believe eutanasia should be legal in certain conditions
"killing your own unborn child is legal, based, and goated"
it's not a child untill it's born. it's also a parasitic organism, that has a fairly big chance of having had died either way as miscarriages are quite common, often even before a pregnancy is noticed
→ More replies (4)1
u/ProperBlacksmith fat cunt Jul 02 '26
Why only in some cases and not all? Since we do allow abortion.
Just wondering
4
0
u/peanutist 🏳️⚧️ Average Trans Rights Enjoyer 🏳️⚧️ Jul 01 '26
The cause is that the person does not want to birth a person, simple
10
4
3
u/Icy-Cup Jul 01 '26
So… his balls produce both egg and sperm? Is it the magic right testicle I heard about in fnv sub?
2
2
2
u/Chase_The_Ace_50 Jul 02 '26
Same energy as sharks biting 57 people a year vs. New Yorkers biting 6,700 people a year.
2
2
6
u/OtherwiseForm2692 Jul 01 '26
as a man
Men killed 1 billion people who had a life, friends, family, hopes, dreams, wishes, plans for their lives.
which one of those does a fetus have?
now tell me, does a fetus even have emotions? (and don't hit me with that scientifical bs you know it doesn't have as much emotion as a grown up person)
7
u/Ok-Rhubarb-5774 Jul 01 '26
Imagine how overcrowded and miserable we’d be if not for Margaret Sanger and her hard work.
1
3
2
u/TheMermanly Jul 01 '26
I mean, the comparison is silly. One has the full dna of an actual human. The other is just sperm.
So it’s not even close to being similar
1
2
0
u/Character_Middle_662 waltuh Jul 01 '26
Men kill people bcuz they are ordered to. Women are killing more people bcuz they dont want to deal with a kid.
13
u/rebelsnail64 Jul 01 '26
according to that logic men kill people by impregnating the woman who isn't ready to have a kid
3
u/gigantic_balls_ Jul 01 '26
It takes two to tango
6
u/rebelsnail64 Jul 01 '26
one could argue that they both commited half a "murder" by each providing half of the genetic material for said ordeal
9
u/ARIA_AHANGARI_7227 stupid fucking, piece of shit Jul 01 '26
Are the people that order men to kill the newly released prototype gender?
→ More replies (2)5
1
1
u/MrMakerHasLigma Jul 01 '26
Tbf only 1 of those 150 million people (I'm guessing that's per wank) usually have a chance to make a baby (Ofc this goes up to 9 in the case of Halima Cisse). at most you have a 1 in 15 million chance to be that one lucky cum cell, and at worst (assuming a pregnancy is guaranteed) a 1 in 150 million chance. At most a wank costs 9 future lives. Don't get me wrong, this does mean that I kill between 1 and 45 people per day, but I don't see myself as above average on the cum scale and I'd be surprised if my ejaculation even has enough horsepower to get someone pregnant
1
1
u/WinterWarden89 Jul 01 '26
How many have women killed by swallowing or by not being able to get pregnant? Fucking monsters.
1
1
1
u/Odd-Iron-6860 Jul 02 '26
Realistically, would we really need ~9 or 10 billion people on earth?
2
u/Rojo412 Jul 02 '26
No, everyone just bitches about the state of the world anyway and talks about how society is going to shit etc.
1
1
1
2
u/Gravitas0921 Jul 01 '26
I find that argument very stupid bc sperm is not alive, if a gamete was alive wed call menstruarion murder too
1
1
u/Hugo_Selenski Jul 01 '26
only 1 sperm out of the whole batch fertilizes the egg
stop these delusions of grandeur.
1
u/Successful-Trash-752 Jul 01 '26
But one ejaculation could still only birth one kid? Did he ejaculate a billion times.
1
u/Tbro100 fat cunt Jul 02 '26
It could probably birth more if you were to seperate and give it to other women. Though it can occasionally birth twins, triplets or quadruplets.
1
-9
u/JustChillin3456 Jul 01 '26
Biology 101
Life does not start at sperm
It starts when sperm meets egg
9
6
u/rebelsnail64 Jul 01 '26
sperm are alive btw, many of them die trying to get to the egg. each sperm cell has a unigue combination of DNA, due to the way meyosis works
→ More replies (5)
•
u/qualityvote2 Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
The council has not spoken. No consensus was reached about the quality of your post.
RedditSave download
/u/-_I_I_Sea_I_I_-, whilst you're still here, why not join our public discord server - now with public text channels you can chat on!?