Total posts: 4,340
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Are you saying that you would be a "deadbeat", when it comes to sexual responsibility?
Probably; it's why I would get a vasectomy before I had sex. Now the woman doesn't even have to take birth control and deal with the side effects.
All birth control burden; on me.
Created:
Posted in:
@Wyted
As A Democrat this pisses me off and I encourage my fellow democrats to stick it to the man by voting RFK.
Everyone here knows you aren't a democrat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
When do you think Gp will say, 'My Trump, my Trump, why have you forsaken me?'
I don't think he would.
Trump can film himself in a KKK uniform and MAGA world will still back him (or they will call it fake news).
If Biden gets murdered tomorrow, then Biden gets murdered tomorrow. If Trump gets murdered tomorrow, so will the republican party.
Created:
Posted in:
@GP
We now pay 1 trillion every year just to pay the interest on the debt. That's a years worth of military spending!
Biden and Trump will do the same thing. They both should get criticized here.
Why are Americans OK with just throwing money away?
Because they care more about a politician's stance on transwomen in women's sports than the US debt. It's stupid, but that's a flaw with democracy. It's not plausible to only let high IQ people vote though. The minimum would have to be like 130 in order for this country to be better off and the stupid majority (by comparison) won't agree to take their voting rights away.
Created:
Posted in:
Wrong, they mostly just will opt not to get them
Any reason a woman has to get an abortion doesn't go away just because a doctor can't perform an abortion.
They will actually have less unwanted pregnancies and just opt out of abortions more often.
Only if they stop having recreational sex (which; premarital sex is Pandora's box; it's not going back in the box).
Maybe like public shame.
Public shame is reliant on 2 things, neither of which will happen:
- Everyone in your community knowing you got an abortion. The city I live in has as many people as there are seconds in a day. It's easy to find people that don't know you had an abortion.
- A society where like 99% of people are anti abortion. Nationwide; it's about at 40%. That 40% at most would shun you; the 60% wouldn't care. Of that 40%, many of them would give compassion to women that got abortions (so they don't really want to ban it; you don't give compassion to someone you believe committed murder).
Liberals know they are lying when they claim bodily autonomy arguments as well, which is why they supported vaccine mandates and support things like free healthcare, which would prevent doctors from having as much bodily autonomy.
They don't believe in bodily autonomy; they believe in being anti unwanted pain (AUP) and vacciene mandates, UHC, and abortion all reduce unwanted pain. So do AR 15 bans (mass shootings cause pain) and abolishing ICE (deportations cause pain). So does abolishing the death penalty and doing rehabilitation for murderers (it's the least painful option). I merely am LUSHOOTY; so my morality is different. I respect their morality even if I don't agree with it. The conservatives have no consistent morality. That I can't respect.
Not googling it but from memory. First degree is premeditated, 2nd is murder without premeditated and 3rd degree I forget maybe like making sure they suffer when they die or something.
If your definition of 3rd degree is true, then it's a subset of 1st degree murder.
I think based on these definitions, that all 3 should be punished with death (based on these definitions assuming they are accurate). If you shoot someone for fun, it's not premeditated, but you should still face death.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
No I don't I just think women shouldn't be punished too harshly if at all, and that doctors should be serving serious time.
Then doctors won't perform abortions meaning women would self perform their own abortions, so whatever punishment you give to the doctor you would have to give to the woman.
It doesn't mean I think it should be legal. It means I believe women at worst should get a slap on the wrist for it.
What do you mean when you say, "Slap on the wrist"? Like, is it a fine or something?
Honestly I would go as far as to say that infanticide up until about 1 month should be a slap on the wrist for women.
I believe if you murder an infant who has already been born, then you should be executed. At that point, bodily autonomy is no longer an argument.
It doesn't make you wrong if most people disagree, but you may want to consider why we do think of murder in degrees, like 1st degree or 2nd degree or 3rd degree and why we differentiate them from negligent homicide or manslaughter and why we differentiate that between self defense or why we allow mitigating factors like heat of passion or justified homicide if you defend the life of another.
What is the difference between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder? Like, what would an example of each be?
Created:
Whether or not Trump has dementia is irrelevant; I am not voting for him because of Jan 6 and Project 2025 (which would make him dictator; taking away our free and fair elections). If it wasn't for these, then I would vote 3rd party, but because of this, I'm picking Biden. I'm not cheering him on; but it's the lesser of 2 evils.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
This is pretty rare and statistics cited prior to abortions becoming widely legal that contributed to this common misconception were made up.
Back then, they also weren't nearly as sex positive (and the women actually waited until marriage in those days).
I think that it's not something that needs to go punished.
Then you want abortion to be legal. Disagreeing with the decision to abort is different than wanting to ban abortion. Like, I disagree with people's decision to drink alcohol. I think they should be allowed to make that decision because I'm pro choice on alcohoul consumption. Anti Abortion means you want to ban (and punish) those responsible for abortions.
I disagree, it cannot be easy making that decision, and I am sure it's going to be a trauma you have to live with for the rest of your life.
I'm anti abortion; I believe zygote's lives matter more than their woman's pain. I hope the woman who get abortions (as well as their boyfriends) feel trauma from it because they committed homicide and I want murderers to suffer. If you disagree with this, then it's totally understandable, but then you would want abortion to be legal (discouraging abortion is a subset of wanting it to be legal). I'm just very brutally honest; I'm not pro life; I'm anti abortion. I want it banned and both parents of the aborted baby punished. It's fine if you disagree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
i would sooner elect a murderer who would keep murder illegal than a peaceful person who would legalize it.
I can understand that perspective, but I also understand the anti hypocrisy perspective. I would have executed the murderer and have the pro-murder politician run against someone else.
For abortion, I would like to see women go practically unpunished and for doctors to be the ones going to jail.
If you have this as the standard, then if abortion is banned, then doctors will refuse to provide abortions, meaning the woman who gets an abortion would perform one personally. Whatever punishment you would give to the doctor, you would have to give to the woman. What is that punishment?
Two drug dealers in a shoot out and one dies, I would give a lesser punishment to than somebody who murdered his wife for insurance money.
I would execute both murderers.
Parents of aborted babies should do community service as their punishment. Giving parents of aborted babies the death penalty is a non-starter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Would murder be okay just because a serial killer was pro making murder illegal?
Murder would not be ok, but a serial killer doesn't get to preach about how bad murder is when they did it themselves. Find someone who isn't a serial killer to preach about how bad murder is.
you can change your kind about things also. Who cares.
What do you believe the penalty for murder should be? Assuming it's the right wing position, it's death. If not, then probably life imprisonment. Unless you believe murderers should get rehabilitated into society (so very far left position), you don't get to make this argument.
I believe murderers should get killed, so I don't believe in trying abortion like murder (because then it would mean the death penalty for women that get abortions).
Created:
Posted in:
Every single anti abortion male (myself included) shouldn't have sex until the doctor approves of their vasectomy.
This is the only respectable way to be anti-abortion I think.
You think the concern of 9 months of plausible woman's pain isn't worth committing intentional fetal homicide; I agree. Then the concern of 3 days or so of male pain from vasectomies is also not worth committing fetal homicide.
Get vasectomized before you have sex that has the potential to produce pregnancy or shut up about abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Objectification divorces all other aspects of a person from their appeal as a sexual partner, which then is based entirely on physical appearance.
And I made this claim about women's bodies, not women. I could say objectified to an extent.
I think everybody wins here.
Yeah; I don't have to date a woman that finds my autism as a red flag. If no woman dates me, then I'm fine with that; I got PornHub and I don't want kids.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Being attracted to something does not objectify it by default.
Yes it does.
Objectifying definition:
I would not want to have sex with an ugly woman, therefore I see no point in dating an ugly woman.
If a woman finds me ugly and refuses to date me because of how I look, then I'm alright with that. I've had women turn me down because of my autism. They didn't want to be honest and say it, but when I told them nonchalantly, "you don't want to date me because of my autism", they said, "Well, ... um, ... I mean". They didn't want to admit their ableism, but it was there (and that's fine).
They don't want to date autistic men; I don't want to date ugly women.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Currently, all jizz and tissues then?
Sure; it's safer than having sex for real.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Is this like a 'character' you're doing?
No. I only say what I believe on here (plus the occasional joke). If a woman is sufficiently ugly, then the vast majority of men wouldn't want to marry her or have sex with her.
It's insane how much you got wrong in three sentences.
Are you willing to marry and have sex with a woman that you personally find ugly? Because she has to look good for me to even consider her.
I would not want to date someone like this and I don't think you would be willing to either:
Created:
Posted in:
I don’t understand why men like anal. You are getting shit all over your dick. I would expect women to like anal more because it’s one of the types of sex that doesn’t result in pregnancy so they could enjoy it more.
Created:
@GP
I can generalize. Like, if I say, "DC is an ideological monolith compared to Arizona", then it's a fact and can't be bigoted.
I've noticed most black people either copy the white liberal or the white conservative. Most autistic people aren't autistic rights activists; if they are political, then they pick some other issue to focus on.
I'm not judging, but I'm observing and most blacks voted for Biden, so they weren't too offended at what he said.
Created:
-->
@Mall
I don't know where the claim "If you turn on the remote" came from. I know I mentioned pressing the button on the TV remote to turn the TV on.
That is kind of what I meant.
You don't do something that you know what result will be and say "oh I didn't consent or agree".No basis in doing it in the first place then.
I hear you, but this perspective isn’t universal. It’s why I like to argue with analogies that translate well where pretty much everyone will get the same result.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Clayton Bigsby I don’t think is a real person. He is played by Dave Chapelle.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
What is their name? Video is restricted.
But blacks are like autistics; they aren’t the most vocal for interests of their group. LGBT activists tend to be more pro BLM than run of the mill black people.
Blacks and Autistics aren’t on code.
Created:
@Wylted
How would buying staples at Walmart for $10 instead of $75 cost jobs?
It wouldn’t cut any jobs, but I don’t think the government spends $75 on one staples. Governments have some incentive to cut costs because high taxes isn’t appealing. This is for both left and right wing governments as right wing governments would convert it into a tax cut and left wing governments would use the money to help more poor people out.
Created:
Posted in:
Women were meant to be objectified; if they weren't, then no man would want to marry them.
I can’t be sexist; I’m getting a vasectomy before I have sex so the woman I’m with doesn’t have to be on painful birth control meds or risk pregnancy. All birth control burdens; on me.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Does the value of a babies life depend on how one is conceived?
No, but rape victims should get $300K in restitution if they don't abort and $280K if they do abort. Consensual sex pregnancies don't deserve that compensation because it's for rape victims only.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Cutting money to art museums means some artists become unemployed, so they would go on welfare or they would starve (unless they found a different job, but it's unlikely). Now, I'm alright with that. But it's unpopular to advocate cutting government spending because it leads to there being more unemployed people and more suffering instead of just taxing the globalists.
I guess you dismissed them and for some reason believe conservatives support troops in Germany .
Conservatives back high military spending, so they would want troops in Germany.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
They didn't know what you were going to become.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
How much does the government spend on art museums?
Created:
-->
@Savant
@Moozer325
It's not hypocritical or related; it's just very unusual.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Schools anyway have incentive to allow smart kids to go there, but when it comes to stupid kids, most of them are just wasting 12 years of resources not working while having others work for them. And in the end, they end up doing a job which didnt even require education.
That makes sense. Don't force the dumb kid to go to school to free up recourses for the smarter kids.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
1. Money spent on reverse stings which seem border line illegal2. Art exhibits that are just people spraying paint out of their ass onto canvas3. Putting American troops in Germany, pretty sure we are no longer at war with Germany and don't need troops there.
Maybe we should cut these programs, but how much do they cost? Because lets say someone steals $1 from me and I don't notice. I would be way less upset than if someone stole $20,000 from me and I find out. I wouldn't vote for a politician because of their promise to give me back the $1 that was stolen from me; but I would be way more inclined to vote if it was $20,000.
1 and 3 are left wing ideas that the right disagrees with. 2 is government waste if federally funded, but it doesn't cost that much money as a program per American taxpayer. It's not like the taxpayers spend $1 trillion on art museums.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
There are plenty of jobs which dont require any education other than what you get while doing those jobs anyway. Jobs such as cleaners, factory workers, farmers...ect. and almost any physical job. Parents can teach their kids to read and write, and for many people thats quite enough.
But for many people, they need college education. You can't tell who is who at a young age. When I was 4, I wanted to be a fireman. When I was 7; a professional athlete. Not anymore. It's better to have education and not need it than to need it and not have it.
Created:
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
The bigger question is how do you reduce without causing negative consequences.
If you don't have a specific idea on how to do that, then it's impossible.
Abolishing police, for example, would reduce spending and boost economy since that workforce would be moved to productive sector.
The conservatives won't agree to this.
Making all schools private would probably be best.
Then poor kids (defined as kids who have parents that can't afford to spend $20K/year on all of their kid's education for 13 years of school) don't get education and they become incompetent for the future's jobs.
As for reducing healthcare, I dont see that happening, but it would mean someone no longer has health insurance.
That's the drawback of letting the globalists have lower taxes.
Reducing military at the time when all our enemies are increasing theirs rapidly might not be a great move.
I trust NATO to protect us, but you don't have any good ideas on how to cut government spending so the globalists can have a tax cut.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
@Wylted
We should maybe not overspend. However maybe, murdering people to cut down on government spending is unethical.
Then what program do you want to cut? If none, then according to you, we already don't overspend. With few exceptions (none backed by the right), cutting government spending leads to death. You don't want to pay a lot in taxes for strangers? Fine. Let the globalists pay more in taxes.
Why would you care if the globalists pay more in taxes?
I've tried to tag you before and it failed. This time it worked though.
Created:
-->
@Savant
What if I oppose government spending on bombs that kill children?
That would be maybe the one exception. But the one time the pro life and the pro money position agree, the conservatives don't agree.
Cutting the military budget is not fiscally conservative because the conservatives are against it and the liberals are for it. Fiscally libertarian is not the same as fiscally conservative. The libertarians are principled and so are the leftists. I respect both. Not the conservatives though; the one time they support expanding government funding is when it's a program that stereotypically murders and tortures people.
But what about the police???
If the police never were stereotyped to be killing black people, then the left would have no problem with them; but the right would because it's "government spending" and they would correctly view police officers as government employees; so they would get treated like how the right treats teachers.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
If you say, "Raise taxes on the rich to help the poor", then the right thinks you are a socialist.
If you say, "Raise taxes on the globalists to help American Patriots!", then the right thinks you are a patriot.
Framing is important.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
I got to see what the conservatives think of it.
You either want to raise taxes on the globalists or you are pro-globalist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
But if producer of child porn was arrested, but his videos were available for free on the internet, there wouldnt be any "pay" to anyone for watching it, so what would your argument even be then?
Probably to treat the consumers of child porn like the consumers of chocolate milk.
Created:
Fiscal conservatives: We want to cut government spending to balance the budget.
Me: On what? You would have to cut spending by 20%. The Us budget is here:
Please tell me what you want to cut. These are your only options whether you like it or not.
Fiscal conservatives (FC): I dOn'T KnOw!.
Me: When you advocate for cutting government spending to balance the budget, you don't mean what you say; you bandwagon.
Cutting government spending leads to people dying. Accept that or don't call yourself fiscally conservative.
FC: How would you rather balence the budget?
Me: Raise taxes on the globalists!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Some people enjoy watching speeding videos on YouTube, so again your logic doesn't work.
But there is a difference between speeding and raping a child (speed limits should be increased).
You are obviously just looking for excuses, and arent making any sense anymore.
I don't want people having sex with infants since infants can't consent.
So if child porn is not payed for by viewer, then its not a crime for that viewer?
It still probably should be because the consumer is the reason the product gets produced.
Although after thinking about it, if I banned chocolate because of the child slavery associated with it, you would help kids out more than banning child porn.
So I hate to bite the bullet, but it makes sense to at least legalize consuming child porn just like consuming chocolate made with child slavery, but producing both should be illegal. Make the producers only obtain it from aware and consenting sources. You can't expect the consumer to filter out their consuming choices.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
The alternative to what?Are you asking to working or not working?
Yes. What is your alternative to being a slave to a company?
Created:
-->
@Mall
It's like the function of pressing the button on the TV remote to turn the TV on.
The claim, “If you turn on the remote, then you consent to the chance that the TV will be on” is not a fair analogy because it doesn’t meet all of the following requirements:
1. Feels very good to do on an instinctive level.2. Has plausible risk to it if things go very south.3. Treatment would harm some other entity significantlyAnd one bullet point from the following criteria:4. Therefore, you should not be allowed to get the treatment due to the significant harm it would cause to others.5. Despite this, you should be allowed to get the treatment despite the significant harm it would do to others.
Pushing a remote button doesn’t feel super good. There is no plausible risk things go south from the TV being on that is homicide level south or similar. If you get a TV addiction, since nobody is significantly harmed by you breaking it, you are allowed to treat your TV addiction.
To end all of this, you have to start with the mindset of every individual when it comes time to look at playing with fire.Fire will burn . Now either stay away or take on the aftermath of being exposed to the heat.
Fire doesn’t meet step 3: Treatment after a burn doesn’t harm others significantly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Your logic:"Video of a crime is also a crime, because video of a crime cannot exist without a crime".
My logic is:
"Video of a crime that you planned to commit for the enjoyment of others is also a crime, because video of a crime cannot exist without a crime".
If you film yourself murdering Person A without their consent and some other people pay you to murder person A because they find enjoyment in watching Person A get murdered, then I would also give your clients a murder charge. That’s different than NBC filming a mass shooting or using footage from it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Like I said I don't know why you asked about harm to non consenting people.Maybe you meant consenting people.
Because consent is valuable. It’s what separates charity from theft and what separates consensual sex from rape.
If you consent to the risk of getting an STI, that’s on you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
There are videos of murders and shootings on the internet, there are videos of car homicides, people driving cars into crowds...ect.Those videos are legal.
That’s different. It’s not like the police told some people, “Hey; you know what would be a good idea? How about we film you doing an act where you murder other people (in real life, not a pretend movie) for other people’s entertainment?” That’s different than a homicide being recorded.
Created:
Posted in:
@Wylted
Using thousands for hair and makeup is not something I would do but part of campaigning is looking good for the camera.
Well that would backfire once taxpayers realize how much it costs out of campaign funds (this is why Lori Lightfoot lost her primary; she did the same thing).
Engage in the middle of the road fallacy in your rhetoric at least and dislike any controversial political figures so you can also feel intellectually superior without putting in the actual work to in fact be intellectually superior.
I’m not a partisan hack even though you want me to be one.
1. Take a year and study Marx and be an annoying Marxist who is wrong and arrogant but atheist has some sort of actual premises for their belief to wrap up their ideology.2. Study Rothbard for 1 year3. Study evola for 1 year
I do not believe you have done this.
You get the word out about who you are by hitting the streets. You will not win on the television in Chicago but by hitting the streets.If I was campaigning in Chicago it would be in the barber shops. I would spend $30,000 on hair cuts and use hair salons to do my makeup for the cameras as an excuse to get the word out.
How did that work out for Lori Lightfoot?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Child rape can be illegal, while those who just watch child porn without doing child rape can be left alone.
In order for Angela White (porn star) to make porn, she has to have sex.
In order for child porn to be made, a child has to have sex. All child sex is child rape as kids are too young to consent (this is why we don’t let them sign important contracts). Like a 10 year old can’t buy a house even if they have the money.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Walking down a hallway or into a classroom where multiple children were shot dead is like walking through ground zero, you don’t just pretend nothing happened there.
What if the kids don’t know what building it was? You can ignore the decades old shooting. Like the gay bar club shootout in Orlando happened. They didn’t tear down the bar.
Why do you even care about this?
Economic reasons; tearing down schools and building new ones costs millions of dollars I think. My tax money matters more than people’s feelings; it’s a product of being fiscally right wing and cutting government spending.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
This topic is about child porn being legal, not child rape being legal.
In order to produce child porn, a child must be raped and have their mentality destroyed at a young age, so it’s a package deal.
Created: