John Wright (@johncwright2001)

Pinned post

John Wright @johncwright2001 Nov 12, 2024

STARQUEST: SPACE PIRATES OF ANDROMEDA
Now available: tinyurl.com/urshcn2w

Space Opera must be Great! Gallant! Gigantic! Grandiose!

This tale told by a Grandmaster vows to return the glory that was lost! Remember the days gone by, when science fiction was fun? Now new hope is here!

If you are weary of weak, wan, woke and wasted works, your wait is ended! Here is an epic, as grand as any tale of old -- here you will hear wonders told!

Meet Captain Athos Lone, Ace agent of Star Patrol, in his one-man mission of vengeance! He must infiltrate the Space Pirate fleet to kill the haughty King of Pirates. He dons the Deathmask of his ancestors to assume the powers of the Ancient Mariner, who like an iron ghost, when slain, must rise again!

Meet the mysterious spymaster called Nightshadow, who walks in dark worlds but serves the light! He faces the sinister Syndicate of Space, ruled by the Secret Seven, a gathering of galactic gangland crimelords!

Meet an Imperial Deathtrooper fated to reverse his loyalties, and fight his own clone-brothers! A thought-policeman for the Inquisition, tasked with hunting down any deviants displaying traces of psychic talent, he hides his own ancient heritage in the psionic arts!

Meet the mystic Space Princess Lyra, heiress to eerie powers, sole survivor of a destroyed planet, robbed of realm and family by the Evil Galactic Empire. She seeks to find and end the star-killing super-weapon known only as the Great Eye of Darkness! But first she must find her missing past.

Against these heroes looms the unseen menace of the Four Dark Overlords: Lord Pestilence, Lord Famine, Lord War, Lord Death!

An utmost evil the unwary galaxy thinks long dead! Will Darkness fail and Light prevail?

Read On! For All True Tales are but Part of a Greater!

#scifi #spaceopera #fantasy #starquest #superversive #starquest

John Wright @johncwright2001 9h

I had a small 1/2 inch pocketknife on my keyring engraved with my name as a birthday present.

Airport security took it from me. They did not pay for it, nor replace it, nor give me any way to stow it nor recover it later.

This was due to 9/11. Which was due to Muslims.

fatima saleh Verified account @Phatymarh44 2d

To those hating all Muslims!
Please name me ONE bad thing a Muslim has PERSONALLY done to you.
View quoted post on X

John Wright @johncwright2001 22h

In Christ's name we pray. Amen.

Kathy717😊🇺🇸 Verified account @STLKLK24 1d

Heavenly Father, in the mighty name of Jesus, we ask You to thwart and rebuke every evil force-foreign and domestic-that rises against President Trump and the United States of America. Expose every plot, dismantle every scheme, and surround our President and our nation with Your divine protection. Let truth prevail, justice stand, and Your will be done!🙏🏻🇺🇸
View quoted post on X

John Wright @johncwright2001 23h

"It’s whether or not it constitutes a legal person with moral and legal rights."

At the risk of repeating myself, let me ask whether this is a question of rights or of duties, specifically, the father's duty and the mother's duty to protect their offspring.

May a mother lock a baby in a cupboard and have it starve to death? If not, may she blind or maim that baby?

If not, why not? Does she have a duty to protect her children from harm?

If she does have such a duty, when does it apply? When the baby is born? When it is formed in the womb? Before?

What if, by use of chemicals, she wishes to blind or maim a child while in the womb, or chemically castrate or lobotomize him, turning a healthy fetus into one certain to be born with crippling birth defects, blindness, idiocy?

If done before birth, should such an act be lawful?
Suppose, before she were pregnant, before she is wed, the woman willingly exposed herself to chemicals meant inflict permanent birth defects on any children she bore thereafter. Would this or would this not be a breach of her duty to care for her child's life?

Because, under the law, if any man performs an negligent or willful act he knows will harm another, he is liable for the injury, even if the one he harms has not been born yet. If I leave a landmine in my neighbor's property, and seven years go by without him tripping it, but his six year old child steps on it and blows off a foot, I am liable. There is no statute of limitations for common law negligence or aggravated assault.
So if we come to the conclusion that any act, negligent or deliberate, which the mother does to harm her child, before, during, or after pregnancy, then logic forces us to conclude it is a breach of her duty to care for the child, we cannot then say that it is unlawful to wound the child, but lawful to kill him, because killing him is merely wounding him so severely that he dies.

If the parent has a duty to protect the child, and if this means preventing any act at any time, before or after birth, which will lead to the child's death, then the status of the child -- whether he has human rights or not -- is irrelevant.

Alexander PCs @AlexanderPCS 1d

Need to say this, so buckle up. Chips will fall where they might, but with all the talk about the issue this past week, the record needs to be completely straight about something:

The belief that human life begins at conception is not actually a “belief” at all. It is a demonstrable, inalienable, unassailable scientific fact that is beyond any dispute or argument. It is not contingent on anyone’s political leanings or philosophical framing.

1) Not only is the “zygote” alive at the point of conception, both the male sperm and the female egg meet the biological definition of “alive” before conception even occurs. Both are living human cells made of human tissue, containing human DNA. When those two living cells combine, conception initiates the development of an entirely new human organism from reproductive cells that are already living.

2) Cellular metabolism, biological organization, capacity for growth and development - all the biological criteria of “human life” are present.

3) The living genetic material is human. It belongs to the species Homo sapiens, not any other species.

4) It is a biologically distinct human organism with a new, unique combination of DNA that is different from either parent. It is an integrated and developing biological entity as opposed to an isolated cell type.

5) It will develop continuously given suitable environmental conditions. It will progress through embryonic, fetal, infant, adolescent, mature adult, and elderly stages without ever changing species.

So, biology is absolutely not against anyone who argues that, from the point of conception, the human zygote is:

- Alive
- Biologically human
- A developing human organism

No biologist will dispute any of this. The question surrounding abortion is, and has always been a *legal* one not a biological one. And that question isn’t whether or not it’s alive, or human. It’s whether or not it constitutes a legal person with moral and legal rights.

The political opinion, or religious belief, or philosophical position or whatever you wanna call it that all human life is worthy of legal personhood and legal rights and protections at the point of conception is a mainstream viewpoint shared by billions of people of various faiths and politics across the world. It’s not some fringe position based purely on religious preferences and teachings with no scientific evidence to support the position.

The idea that someone who holds this viewpoint is some sort of religious extremist or misogynist or unscientific simpleton needs to be completely crushed. This is a mainstream, rational opinion grounded in both science and morality. You don’t have to agree with it, but mocking it makes you look like an intolerant jerk.
View quoted post on X

John Wright @johncwright2001 1d

@Phatymarh44 There is this.
x.com/marcsplainter1…

fatima saleh Verified account @Phatymarh44 2d

To those hating all Muslims!
Please name me ONE bad thing a Muslim has PERSONALLY done to you.
View quoted post on X

John Wright

Latest posts 5