Total posts: 12,563
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
I can have multiple contradicting opinions. Ability of mine, I guess.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Well, God created everyone, no? Still, God hates sin. I dont think that attraction is a sin. Action can be a sin, but attraction is simply out of person's control.
Created:
Attraction doesnt seem like a choice. I mean, if it was a choice, person could change it any time a person chooses. However, it just seems impossible to change an attraction by choice.
Homosexual man could try not to look at men. However, he would still have imagination, because he would not be able to forget how men look like.
Acting on an attraction is a choice, of course. Therefore, when homosexual man chooses to act on his attraction, that is choice.
Lets think of this in a different way. God could have made me a homosexual. If He did, I would not be able to change it. I cannot change attraction by simply wishing it to change.
Now, Bible tells us not to judge, not to seek revenge and to love everyone. That is what The New Testament is about.
That doesnt mean that we cannot tell homosexuals who engage in homosexual acts that what they are doing is wrong and that God will punish them for it.
Attraction is not a choice. Action is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ponikshiy
Sorry, you are not making any sense. Besides, I dont feel like trolling right now, so I will not be responding to you for some time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ponikshiy
you would most likely not ban guns, candy or tickles In That special spot from your uncle
So your argument is an assumption and a personal attack. Great.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
We are talking about porn here. Stick to the topic. If you want to debate about guns, make topic related to that lmao
Created:
Posted in:
Just because 100% of their users didn't immediately leave the app doesn't mean they like the direction Musk is taking it in.
95% of users didnt leave the site after free speech was applied. 95% of users stayed on the site. If 95% of users stayed on the site, then 95% of users didnt leave the site after free speech was applied.
Free speech should be respected even when people dislike it. Free speech doesnt stop being important if people dislike it. If free speech doesnt stop being important if people dislike it, then free speech should be respected even when people dislike it.
Free speech should be respected on social media. Free speech holds same value in public as it does on social media. If free speech holds same value in public as it does on social media, then free speech should be respected on social media.
running out of money is going to make them shut down
Twitter didnt shut down after applying free speech.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
That still doesnt answer what makes a person to make a certain choice, or what makes person's will to make a certain choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
If a child can somehow access it, maybe watching inappropriate videos is not the largest of the concerns.
As long as we have a conclusion that porn harms children, then children who are having access to porn would be harmed.
It is irrelevant if one harm is largest or smallest of concerns. Being harmed by multiple things increases harm.
If being harmed by multiple things increases harm, then it is irrelevant if one harm is largest or smallest of concerns.
Children who see porn would be harmed by it. Porn should be banned to prevent such harm. If children who see porn would be harmed by it, then porn should be banned to prevent such harm.
If it is false that no child would be harmed by porn being legal, then porn should be banned. It is false that no child would be harmed by porn being legal. Porn should be banned.
But should they be banned for adults? Maybe not. Are you really advocating to outright ban all porn just because children "might" access it?
As long as porn is available to adults, it would be available to children as well.
Oh that is easy, just make it less accessible, like if you require a secret key to access it(and only download it locally).
Sure, that could work sometimes, except children could still see it by accident. For example, an 18 year old thinks its funny to show porn to 14 year old bro. Or adult accidentally leaving the porn tab open.
As long as sexual urges are still a thing within human society, porn will persist.
This does not make porn impossible to ban. Some countries have already banned it. Porn plays no role in society. It only causes harm to children.
So if porn brings sexual pleasure to adults and causes harm to children, the only way to be against the ban of porn would be to assume that its okay for adults to harm children for sexual pleasure. I dont think thats the position anyone wants to hold.
Created:
Posted in:
Now, I do believe there is an argument to be made here.
P1) Exposing children to sexuality harms children
C) Children shouldnt be exposed to sexuality
P2) If exposing children to sexuality harms children, then children shouldnt be exposed to sexuality.
Porn is an exposure to sexuality. Therefore, children who see porn would be exposed to sexuality.
P1) If porn being available on internet harms children, then all porn should be banned
P2) Porn being available on the internet harms children
C) All porn should be banned
We know that children sometimes find porn at a very young age.
P1) If the only way to reduce the exposure of children to porn to the minimum is to ban all porn, then all porn should be banned.
P2) The only way to reduce the exposure of children to porn to the minimum is to ban all porn
C) All porn should be banned
As long as porn is easily available, some children will find it and be harmed by it.
So basically, the only way for you to argue against this is to say that something that harms children should be allowed due to your pleasure lmao
Created:
-->
@sadolite
It could turn out well, unless children end up being too spoiled.
I mean, isnt it obviously true that reasoning with children improves their mental abilities, where yelling does not improve their mental abilities?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Eh, eating meat is not necessary for survival. If you want drinking water, collect rain. It literally falls everywhere except in deserts. Sea water can also be turned into drinking water. I am not sure why do people think that they are running out of water.
Created:
Posted in:
Ok, I have one more.
P1) If freedom of speech is more valuable than not losing some users, then freedom of speech should be protected even if it causes the loss of some users
P2) Freedom of speech is more valuable than not losing some users
C) Freedom of speech should be protected even if it causes the loss of some users.
I dont think I can make it any more simple.
Created:
Posted in:
lol, 300 million people started using a product with moderation. The product changed and dropped the moderation and users started leaving. This is REALLY simple. If the change was popular, user numbers would be going up, not down. The fact that they are going down proves the change is not popular.
It seems that most basic logic fails you.
Lets try something very simple.
P1) If 300 million people use the site that has free speech, it means that 300 million people want to be on a site that has free speech
P2) 300 million people use the site that has free speech
C) 300 million people want to be on a site that has free speech.
Ok, lets make it even more simple, because I am afraid it is still too complicated.
P1) If 300 million users are still using the site after free speech was introduced, it means that great majority of the users stayed on the site.
P2) 300 million users are still using the site after free speech was introduced.
C) Great majority of users stayed on the site.
There. I think I can make it a bit more simple.
P1) If free speech is more valuable than small part of users leaving the site, then site should have free speech.
P2) Free speech is more valuable than small part of users leaving the site
C) Site should have free speech.
P1) If small number of users leaving due to freedom of speech will not make site shut down, then site should implement freedom of speech
P2) Small number of users leaving due to freedom of speech will not make site shut down
C) Site should implement freedom of speech.
There. I tried my best to explain it to you in the most simple way possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ponikshiy
When I was little girl I was too nice and caring, so I started to slaughter tiny animals in my village to train myself to be tough.
Thats cruel lmao
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ponikshiy
I would never be able to slaughter an animal. I hate violence.
Created:
Posted in:
A platform gained hundreds of millions of users while using restrictions. It stopped using those restrictions and their users started to drop. And you think that means people want that? That's silly.
If twitter has 300 million users and has free speech, then people want free speech. Twitter has 300 million users and has free speech. People want free speech.
If twitter has 300 million users and has free speech, then it is false that all people would leave the site that has free speech. Twitter has 300 million users and has free speech. It is false that all people would leave the site that has free speech.
P1) If 300 million people stayed on Twitter after Twitter allowed free speech, then 300 million people value free speech enough to stay on twitter.
P2) 300 million people stayed on Twitter after Twitter allowed free speech
C) 300 million people value free speech enough to stay on Twitter.
P1) If people dont want free speech, twitter wouldnt have 300 million users.
P2) Twitter has 300 million users.
C) It is false that people dont want free speech.
P1) If 300 million people stayed on twitter after twitter allowed free speech, then 300 million people want to use the site that has free speech.
P2) 300 million people stayed on twitter after twitter allowed free speech
C) 300 million people want to use the site that has free speech
Given that your argument, if it can be called that, was that people would leave site that has free speech, we see the example of twitter refuting your argument.
P1) If lots of people value free speech, then lots of people will value free speech on social media.
P2) Lots of people value free speech
C) Lots of people will value free speech on social media.
The only way to argue against this is to argue that very few people value freedom of speech lmao
Of course, there are people that would like to silence the opposition and abolish free speech. However:
P1) If freedom of speech is a right, it cannot be taken away because some people disagree with it.
P2) Freedom of speech is a right.
C) Freedom of speech cannot be taken away because some people disagree with it.
P1) If freedom of speech is a right, then it is more important than some profit.
P2) Freedom of speech is a right
C) Freedom of speech is more important than some profit.
Now, if you say: freedom of speech should be abolished any time there could be harm, then:
P1) If promoting harm can cause harm, then promoting harm should be banned.
P2) Promoting harm can cause harm
C) Promoting harm should be banned.
P1) If LGBT promoting abortions and castration can cause death and violence, then LGBT promoting abortions and castrations should be banned.
P2) LGBT promoting abortions and castration can cause death and violence
C) LGBT promoting abortions and castrations should be banned.
Promoting abortions and castrations means promoting death and violence.
P1) If LGBT books promote death and violence towards children, then LGBT books should be banned
P2) LGBT books promote death and violence towards children
C) LGBT books should be banned
There are only few positions you can hold, but none is good for your rainbow ideology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Take this, for example.
P1) If porn being available on internet harms children, then all porn should be banned
P2) Porn being available on the internet harms children
C) All porn should be banned
We know that children sometimes find porn at a very young age.
P1) If the only way to reduce the exposure of children to porn to the minimum is to ban all porn, then all porn should be banned.
P2) The only way to reduce the exposure of children to porn to the minimum is to ban all porn
C) All porn should be banned
As long as porn is easily available, some children will find it and be harmed by it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Eh, the entire history of humans is a history of wars and violence.
However, today, they brought sexual perversion to a whole new level with porn and public display of sexuality.
If too much sexuality harms society, it should be stopped. Too much sexuality harms society. It should be stopped.
All statistics show that too much sexuality has negative impact on people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Rieka
He blocked me too long time ago. Thats why I have to type @roosevelt when responding to him. He will still respond to you even after he blocks you. Democrats cannot resist.
Created:
Posted in:
@roosevelt
white people who blame minorities (like you) for their failures in life
Are you saying that I am a minority or that I am white person who blames minorities? Because I dont blame minorities for my failures.
Created:
Neuroscientific studies indicate that when minors who are frequently verbally abused reach adolescence, “they are less creative and curious, they are less capable of acquiring new knowledge and more prone to experience sadness and depression,” says David Bueno i Torrens, a biologist specialized in genetics and neuroscience and director of the first chair in neuroeducation in Spain, at the University of Barcelona. The same areas of the brain are activated, explains the biologist; what changes is the relationship between the different areas. “With negative education, the brain amygdala becomes more reactive to negative emotions, and the area that manages emotions, the prefrontal, becomes less capable of managing anxiety and stress,” he continues. Those minors, more apathetic, have a harder time finding motivation. In their search for stimuli, they may fall into drug use.
Created:
Posted in:
and since becoming a "free speech" site, it has been losing users.
300 million users stayed.
It gained those users while it hard lots of speech moderators.Thus proving you wrong that "Free speech is popular" on social media sites. Most people don't want that.
Most people want free speech. Most people stayed on Twitter. If most people stayed on twitter, then most people want free speech.
Please think of actual arguments next time.
Created:
Posted in:
You are just rambling at this point. I dont see any arguments in your text. I have already reminded you that twitter has 300 million users. I have already explained to you what free speech is. You already admitted multiple times that sites can respect free speech and still exist. You just answered with bunch of assumptions, ignored citizen report argument, ignored that freedom of speech is more important than profit... So yeah, if you feel the need to respond with bunch of insults like a 4 year old, I wont be playing that game. You felt the need to respond with bunch of insults like a 4 year old. I wont be playing that game.
Created:
it only applies to people who make 30 million per year or more.
Well, I misunderstood then.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
If Trump beats Biden, then such strategy is a bit questionable.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
It indeed is. I was just wondering if there is some other purpose for exit tax, such as preventing people from coming in since they know they wont be able to come out easily.
Created:
So, you have to pay to leave? Whats the purpose of that, other than to keep poor people in?
Created:
Posted in:
So Hunter Biden is guilty? 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
There are, and they will. The current batch of them are not the 1st. They probably wont be the last. Every time some right wing prick with money gets butt hurt they think that they need their own social media site. They all end up the same way. But with enough money behind it they can last a few years.
Sorry, you are not making any sense. First you conceded that there is lots of them, that lots of people value free speech. Now you say that such sites can only last few years at best. I could give you countless examples of sites that have free speech and that have lasted for much more than few years, but given that you reject evidence in favor of making drama, I will just remind you that twitter still has 300 million users.
and pretty much every one of those users signed up while they were still a normal social media site. Now that they are becoming a cesspool, they are bleeding users and especially money
What is this rambling? Twitter is a free speech site. Twitter has 300 million users. Therefore, free speech site has 300 million users.
I also assume the sun will rise tomorrow. It has a similar level of certainty. No law is perfect. There are always flaws, there are always loopholes. People will find them.
Your first assumption is correct because you have an assumption that Sun will rise tommorow?
Also, any law can be improved if too many sites dodge it. Maybe some small, unnoticable site would be able to dodge it, but such site would be reported by citizen report. Therefore, Any site violating the law would be punished. Law would take place. If law takes place, any site violating such law would be punished.
lol are you 12? If I like free speech I have to be ok with nazi's calling for mass murder? What a childish argument.
I believe we already explained that caling for violence isnt free speech.
no, I prefer a functioning society. And all freedoms have limits. Every. single. one. without exception.
Well, then go to North Korea. North Korea has lots of limits on freedom, if limits on freedom is what you prefer. The only limit to freedom of speech should be call to violence.
ok, you must be 12. Because anyone older than that would know that right wing loons calls for violence every couple of seconds
Ah, refutation without refutation. Usually, when you make a counter argument, you should make it about the argument you are trying to refute. I didnt make the argument you are refuting. You are refuting an argument that I didnt make. If I didnt make the argument you are refuting, you are refuting an argument I didnt make. Its complicated, I know. Besides, every site: youtube, quora... is full of calls to violence. However, the leftists call everything they disagree with a call to violence, so I am guessing you get your information from leftist source. However, I urge you not to make such irrelevant arguments anymore.
Created:
-->
@Nyxified
I am not going to prevent your happiness. Preventing your happiness would not increase mine. It would not benefit me. I am not going to do that which doesnt benefit me.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
Thank your mother you Don't
Eh, I hate my parents, so I dont feel the need to be thanking them for whatever the previous comment means
My ex put his life on line every day to feed and clothe me. Yet I am considered weak for doing less work and living good.
Your ex sounds like a good, hard working person. But yes, living good and doing less work does sound smarter.
I did not even see him, because I good girl waiting for husband some day
Well, yes marriage is important. West doesnt care about whats important. West doesnt care about marriage and family.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ponikshiy
If you divide your house it falls. That is wht we create division and work to radicalized you.
Americans are not smart enough to understand that.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
I am weak and poor. Without smarts and my beauty I would have not survived. No man can think as good as woman.
Well, gotta agree with this. Women do tend to outplay men in life.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
Men cannot cut it as women. You put a man in my body and he dies within 24 days
I dont know what does that mean.
Created:
-->
@Nyxified
1. "Patients Report High Satisfaction with Sex-Reassignment Surgery" https://www.issm.info/news/sex-health-headlines/patients-report-high-satisfaction-with-sex-reassignment-surgery/2. "Trends in suicide death risk in transgender people: results from the Amsterdam Cohort of Gender Dysphoria study (1972–2017)" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7317390/3. "Psychosocial Adjustment to Sex Reassignment Surgery: A Qualitative Examination and Personal Experiences of Six Transsexual Persons in Croatia" https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/960745/4. "Long-Term Follow-Up of Adults with Gender Identity Disorder" https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-014-0453-55. "Long-term Assessment of the Physical, Mental, and Sexual Health among Transsexual Women" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23553588_Long-term_Assessment_of_the_Physical_Mental_and_Sexual_Health_among_Transsexual_Women6. "What does the scholarly research say about the effect of gender transition on transgender well-being? " https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/7. "Fact check: study shows transition makes trans people suicidal" https://www.transadvocate.com/fact-check-study-shows-transition-makes-trans-people-suicidal_n_15483.htm8. "Mental health and gender dysphoria: A review of the literature" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26835611/9. "Sex-reassignment surgery yields long-term mental health benefits, study finds" https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/sex-reassignment-surgery-yields-long-term-mental-health-benefits-study-n107991110. "Transgender surgery can improve life for most, study confirms" https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/32125811. "Conversion therapy, suicidality, and running away: an analysis of transgender youth in the U.S." https://scholarship.libraries.rutgers.edu/esploro/outputs/workingPaper/Conversion-therapy-suicidality-and-running-away/99103179060090464612. "LGBT conversion therapy ineffective and harmful, critics say" https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/lgbt-conversion-therapy-ineffective-and-harmful-critics-say-1.3101838
Fine. Fine. You are a woman. Whatever makes you happy, be that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
I dont think free will means no punishment for bad actions.
There are basically only two options that you have, regarding will:
either will is causes by something, either its not caused by anything.
P1) Person's will is caused by something
P2) If we dont know what causes person's will, then we cannot know if person has free will.
P3) We dont know what causes person's will
C) We cannot know if person has free will
P1) Person's will is not caused by anything
P2) If person's will is not caused by anything, then person's will is not caused by a person
C) Person's will is not caused by a person
P3) If person's will is not caused by a person, then person has no free will
C) Person has no free will
Or if you assume person's will is caused by person:
P1) Person's will is caused by some part of a person
P2) That part of the person is not person's will
C) Person's will was caused by some part other than person's will.
P1) If that part is not under the control of person's will, then person's will is caused by something that person's will cannot control
P2) That part is not under the control of person's will
C) Person's will is caused by something that person's will cannot control
P1) If that part causes will and has existed before will, then it cannot be under the control of will
P2) That part causes will and has existed before will
C) That part cannot be under the control of will
Created:
Posted in:
there are lots of those sites. Truth social, frank speech etc. They have tiny user bases because they only appeal to right wing loons.
First you said they would all bankrupt, now you say there is lots of them. Please, make up your mind in the next comment.
They are now losing users
Twitter has over 300 million users.
Some new website would presumably pop up that does something similar but isn't a "social media website" to get around the laws.
This is an assumption, since you assume that it would be possible to get around the law.
But that would kill traditional social media sites. "normal" people would leave them because they'd be toxic shit holes.
Twitter has over 300 million users. Besides, judging by comments on YouTube, Quora... they are all toxic abusive sites. The only difference is that allowing free speech increases a variety of opinions where not allowing free speech decreases a variety of opinions. If you believe that variety of opinions is good, then you believe that free speech is good. If not, then you prefer profit over free speech. Besides, free speech wouldnt include call to violence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bella3sp
Gender equality in law and in practice is what feminism is defined for, aka, social, political and economic equality of both sexes.
Sure, but I am not sure if thats a realistic or even a good goal, given the huge differences between two sexes.
Created:
Posted in:
As I said, plenty of people value free speech, therefore sites that allow free speech would have plenty of people, as people who value free speech go to sites that have free speech.
Twitter has lots of users, by the way.
no, you'd probably just see those sites die. People would move on to something else.
I suggest you read the argument. I said "If all sites were forced to respect free speech". There, I had to repeat myself there because you didnt read my argument properly.
Created:
Posted in:
I can see where you are coming from, but no you are wrong. If you had truly free speech on social media, they would go bankrupt. Virtually no one actually wants truly free speech on there. I don't want to see/hear some KKK member or anti-semite spew hate. I wouldn't use a platform that made me see that. And no advertiser wants their add popping up next to a call for genocide. Twitter is a good example of this. They cut their moderation, allowed hate to spread further and faster than ever, and their revenue is down like 60%.
I disagree that they would go bankrupt, since there are plenty of people who value free speech. People who value free speech would be on the sites that value free speech. Plenty of people would be on sites that value free speech. Sites that value free speech would not go bankrupt.
If all sites were forced to respect free speech, then all people on the internet would have to use sites that respect freedom of speech. Therefore, those sites would still have users.
While I do agree that some profit might be lost, freedom of speech is more valuable than some profit.
Created:
Posted in:
If free speech is going to be sacrificed for profit, then profit is more valued than free speech. In a situation where they choose between free speech or profit, they choose profit. They choose profit over free speech if they value profit more. I agree that call to violence is bad, but other than that, free speech should exist. Since social media is the main communication place, it makes sense to desire free speech over profit in the main communication place. Therefore, it makes sense to desire free speech on social media.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
"A world with consistent laws does not require a creator" undermines you're explanation for why a creator must be reasonable.
If world has a creator, such creator must be reasonable, since world is reasonable. Therefore, reasonable creator would create a reasonable world. Unreasonable creator would not create a reasonable world. Therefore, either the world has no creator, or it has a reasonable creator. It cannot have an unreasonable creator, as you originally claimed. World created by unreasonable creator would be an unreasonable world with unreasonable laws, since unreasonable creator cannot create reasonable things.
Thats not what I said. I do not have good reason to accept the existence of a creator. Not to run down a rabbit hole, but I was simply trying to correct your misapprehension of atheism - it's not a competing claim to theism, but a null position.
Null position still requires a reason to be reasonable. Not believing in God for no reason is unreasonable. You say that you dont have a reason to not believe. Therefore, your lack of belief is not based on reason. Reasonable, by definition, requires a reason.
And there doesn't have to be - that's the point. There needs to be evidence for belief. There does not need to be evidence for non belief. Atheism is the latter.
This is false reasoning.
Your logic goes like: Non-belief is correct if it does not have evidence to support it. Non-belief does not have evidence to support it. Non-belief is correct.
The problem with such logic is that non-belief in such logic would be correct by that same logic, since lack of belief in logic is correct since such lack of belief doesnt have evidence to support it.
In order for lack of belief to be correct, lack of belief needs to have a reason. Lack of belief doesnt have a reason. Therefore, lack of belief is not correct.
It is correct to believe in something that exists. Lack of belief in something that exists is incorrect. There exists a possibility that God exists. Therefore, lack of belief in such possibility is incorrect.
It is reasonable to act according to the possibility. Therefore, it is reasonable to act according to the possibility that God exists.
People have lack of belief in God for no reason. It is not correct for people to have lack of belief for no reason. It is not correct for people to have a lack of belief in God.
Correct means to have a reason. Lack of belief in God doesnt have a reason. Therefore, lack of belief in God is not correct.
Possible is not a stable foundation. It's speculation, and I see no reason to entertain it. There is no legitimate "therefore" when youre multiple layers into imagination
There is a reason to accept possibilities. God is a possibility. Therefore, there is a reason to accept God. Since we are dealing with the unknown, possibilities are the only thing we have. Therefore, if stable foundation is the most logical path, and the most logical path is possibility, then stable foundation is possibility.
I choose to do the right thing. That does not mean do what someone else tells me. It does not mean follow a bad example of morality either.
Choosing to do whats right is good, since it pleases the moral God, if he exists.
My point was simply that the deity you're holding up as the standard of morality is not moral. That throws the whole thought experiment askew.
Christian God is moral, since he banned killing. Banning killing is moral.
...and then proceeded to condone and participate in exceptions. I question the moral label you're trying to attach to this deity. I don't believe you have fully integrated the Bible into your god-concept.
Not exceptions. Killing that prevents killing upholds the "thou shall not kill", it is not an exception to it.
If God is moral because he banned killing, then violating that rule makes him immoral. You can't have it both ways.
He did not violate that rule.
Preventing killing upholds the "thou shall not kill". One bad person would kill lots of people. Killing one bad person prevents killing. Therefore, killing one bad person upholds the "thou shall not kill" rule.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bella3sp
To be honest, I dont understand what feminism is about.
I mostly see feminists screaming oppression every time someone says abortion is wrong.
So if oppression is anything that a feminist disagrees with, then the only way to not oppress feminists is to not disagree with them.
The moment you start demanding equality between men and women, is the moment you start feeling oppressed since such equality cannot exist.
Women give birth to children. Men do not. So the only way to make two equal is for women to stop giving births, therefore to destroy offspring.
Even in the workplace and even in schools, most women end up being less effective than most men.
The richest people are men.
Best chess players are men.
While there are women who have very high intelligence, slightly higher than that of smartest men, it still doesnt change that such women are very small minority among women.
Even if smartest person is a woman, it still stands that average woman is simply less intelligent than average man. So average woman will never be equal to average man in workplace or education.
Created:
Posted in:
No one wants to hang around in a space full of KKK members, or anti semites etc.
This is an assumption.
Allowing free speech allows all different ideas. Allowing all different ideas would increase the amount of different ideas. Allowing free speech would increase the amount of different ideas.
Increasing the amount of different ideas is necessary for best exchange of ideas. Therefore, free speech is necessary for best exchange of ideas.
If KKK members are minority in society, and society uses internet, then KKK members will be minority on the internet. On all sites, if all allow free speech, in most cases KKK members would be a minority. If their views are wrong, then they would be easily disproved by overwhelming majority.
Created:
Posted in:
Opposing to any particular behavior of a person can cause violence. All opposing views oppose to a behavior of a person. All opposing views can cause violence.
Therefore, unless view says "There should be violence", view should not be banned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Is that a slight shift in your thinking?
😁
It is possible. Whats possible must be considered as such.
Created: