Total posts: 4,340
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
But I can say too "I can just leave the house while expecting not to see anyone" or "I can just leave the house while expecting not to see anyone with clothes on".
If you go outside without expecting to see anyone, then how come you can be outside and others can't be? Being naked in public vs wearing clothes in public aren't equal; clothes are designed to keep us warm and (in extreme situations) so people aren't having sex with whomever due to clothes not being there. You want to see naked people? Then go to PornHub. The rest of us want to see only clothed people.
Plus, I was forced to keep my eyes open as a kid, so I was forced to see other people. A terrible violation.
You can close your eyes if you want too.
Then I wouldnt use technology which wouldn't exist.
So don't benefit off of it now.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Or America just stops having elections and Trump becomes King of America.
I don't support that, but it seems that's what could happen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You assume whatever you want, I forgot it was pointless to talk to you since you ignore fact checks.
2nd statement is incorrect. The conservatives are the ones that claim the fac checks are leftist propaganda, not the independents.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Same logic can apply to people's dicks. If you dont want to see people's dicks, dont leave your house. Simple.
Or I can just leave the house while expecting to not see any dicks.
I can use technology even if it is bad.
But if we had the, "kids shouldn't be forced to go to school" policy, then technology doesn't exist to the extent it does now.
So it wouldnt help me unless I am born again.
It wouldn't, but the law still should exist. Circumcising infants should be illegal unless valid medical reason.
But plenty of people complain about when someone cuts himself. So I guess they dont believe in body rights.
That's fair.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
If someone wants to cut themselves and they are a consenting adult, then that is their choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Besides, I could say "I shouldnt be forced to see anyone.".
If you believe that, then don’t go to public places.
I am not sure about that, but yeah I guess technology is bad then.
Then done use it. Get off of DART.
Kinda late now. I am already circumcised. Making it illegal now wont uncircumcise me.
The law would protect future infants. Great things happen when people plant trees whose shade they will never sit in, but their kids would.
Okay, then 70 years of oppression with 1000 years of group oppression (groups can live longer than people).
Oppression you are used to is less painful than new oppression.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Sure they have. They endured 1000 years of your oppression and still remained cool about it.
Nobody has had 1000 years of oppression because nobody has been alive for 1000 years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Circumsision to infants should be illegal. Without forced education, technology doesn’t exist. To protest forced education, get off of the internet. The internet is only possible because of forced education.
I should not be forced to see someone’s dick. My consent matters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
1. Each day 12 children die from gun violence in America. · 2. Guns are the leading cause of death among American children and teens. ·
That’s because there is not much outside competition because children almost never die from ANYTHING.
But what gun control measure(s) do you support? If none, then there is no point in mentioning that statistic.
100 people die of guns a day and kids make up 23% of the population. Kids are 50% less likely to die from guns than adults.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
This was the LGBT+ community I was referring too:
Liberty andGunsBuildsToughness+(more of it)
Choosing not to conform to whatever the culture around you is a luxury which America affords, but it does inherently carry the risk of being isolated from your peers. You accept this risk in choosing to be a nonconformist when you have the ability to do otherwise, and such a person has no right to pull the martyr card.
That’s fine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
There are people in the world who think that my body doesnt belong to me
In what context? If you decide your bodily autonomy is eating oranges that you buy, then nobody would care.
Created:
Posted in:
@GP
You will defend whoever MAGA world loves no matter what, so it’s not surprising that you would say this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You dodged again.
If Trump wants to censor leftist speech due to his belief that it's unpatriotic and unamerican, then do you agree with him doing that? If you refuse to answer, then I (and I hope everyone else who readds this) will assume the answer is yes.
Created:
Posted in:
@GP
Shapiro is becoming markedly less famous for censoring Candace Owens.
He did this because of capitalism.
But the Daily wire has been around since Aug 20, 2015. Why wasn't their account banned in Aug 27? It's because Big Tech isn't censoring conservatives due to capitalism.
Big Tech will do what is needed to make the most money. If that means free speech, then fine. If it means censorship, then fine.
Either you respect that or you don't believe in capitalism on this issue. You would want ultimate equality of viewpoint freedom (socialism = equality). Not all views are equal; some bring more profit than others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Have you considered the possibility that I did answer and it's a technical glitch that you can't see it?
Possible, but if that's the case, then repost.
Created:
Posted in:
@GP
Tucker was famous in 2000. I'm referring to if Big Tech wanted to censor conservatives, then lets say generic conservative commentator A starts their channel Jan 1 2010. Their channel would have been taken down by Jan 8, 2010 before they got big and famous.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
If you don’t want to die in a car crash, don’t get into a car. Plain and simple.
Really with all activities you can do that are dangerous, you can say, “If you don’t want the risk, then don’t do the activity”. But with all of these activities (except for sex), if things go south, then you can legally get treatment in all 50 states since you aren’t harming anyone by getting treatment for the vast majority of activities (you aren’t harming anyone significantly if you go to the doctor after an injury from a car accident).
Find some situation that meets all of the following criteria:
1. Feels very good to do on an instinctive level (driving doesn't feel nearly as good as sex).
2. Has plausible risk to it if things go very south (2% of the US population dies from a car accident in their lives vs 33% chance you end up with an unplanned pregnancy).
3. Treatment would harm some other entity significantly (there is no harm in you going to the doctor's office after an accident and this is universally agreed upon. This is not true for abortion).
And 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.
It’s easy for me to think of many situations where 1 and 2 are met. It’s much harder for me to complete 1-3 and then get 4 or 5. Your answer for 4 or 5 should be something pretty much everyone agrees with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
But you seem to be dodging the question:
Do you agree with Trump on this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
This is misdirection, that is not the context.
I am completely unaware of the Trump clip Fox News took down.
You can say you sell shoes, but if they're actually pine cones you're lying. Just like you can say you're a journalist, but if you censor matters of utmost public interest because you don't want your viewers/readers to know about them then you're lying.
The only time they wouldn’t cover a story is if it’s not profitable enough. Big News stations are motivated by capitalism, and they will do whatever they believe is most profitable to advertisers. It’s not out of hatred for conservatives, it’s out of a desire to make money.
Oh, you're trolling again. I suppose not knowing when you are trolling is part of the troll.
Nope. I’ve seen many left wing and right wing videos get removed. It turns out that multi trillion dollar companies are hard to manage in terms of data.
If they wanted to censor conservatives, then Ben Shapiro would have never became famous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I don’t know about that. My grandfather is someone who believes Obama is Muslim (and probably believes Obama was born in Africa). He also hates Trump and is not voting for him in 2024.
So many people just don’t do their research, but that doesn’t make them racist.
Created:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
Maybe, but if that's your argument, then you would rather kill 20 elderly people with 1 year of life left than a 5 year old. I wouldn't do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
But does an older age mean more value?
Depends. Intrinsically; no. Extrinsically, yes (unless retired).
"If you didn't have to choose one, would you consider both as having the same value?"
No. 8 year olds have to be in taxpayer funded school for less remaining time than the zygote, so they are therefore less of an economic burden.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Do you believe in pedophilia being practiced?
No. I believe the penalty for rape and murder should be death. No imprisonment necessary.
Do you believe nobody should be incarcerated?
Correct. I believe people in jail for victimless crimes should be let out, people in jail for murder, rape, or similar should be executed, and people in jail for anything in between should have community service be their punishment (and if they escape, then they get re captured and whipped). Imprisonment costs the taxpayer too much money.
Created:
-->
@Mall
@Sidewalker
It's just like playing with matches. If you don't want to get burned, it's nothing to play with.
If you burn yourself from matches, then treatment is legal in all 50 states to heal yourself. But this treatment is undisputedly harmless whereas this is not true for abortion.
Really with all activities you can do that are dangerous, you can say, “If you don’t want the risk, then don’t do the activity”. But with all of these activities (except for sex), if things go south, then you can legally get treatment in all 50 states since you aren’t harming anyone by getting treatment for the vast majority of activities (you aren’t harming anyone significantly if you put ice on your hand after a burn from matches).
Find some situation that meets all of the following criteria:
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 significantly
And 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.
It’s easy for me to think of many situations where 1 and 2 are met. It’s much harder for me to complete 1-3 and then get 4 or 5. Your answer for 4 or 5 should be something pretty much everyone agrees with.
I will tag one person who believes abortion should be legal and another who wants it banned. Let me know what you guys come up with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
I used to be 8. This doesn’t mean an 8 year old is the same as a 21 year old. Try getting the 8 year old to do Calculus.
You gain value as you develop.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
All ideas should have unrestricted free speech.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Depends on if you call violating the law and lying about it constantly "a policy".
Depends on the law being violated. If it’s speeding, then I don’t care. If it’s rape, then I think the person that did it should be killed regardless of party affiliation.
Democrats said whatever congress wants to be impeachable is impeachable.
True, but although the dems think Trump is a racist, they acknowledge that being racist is not an impeachable offense. But surely stiffing your workers is impeachable? Or rape (if you did it)?
Certainly, and it would be 10x stronger case if they did start broadcasting a speech of his and then cut it off when the person whose job it is to censor heard something coming 5 seconds ahead.
If Trump does a 2 hour speech, then you can’t expect them to broadcast all of it. If you want to listen to Trump’s opinions, then go to his YouTube channel.
A company that refuses to show the speech of national officer holders due to the content of that speech is not part of the press.
They can broadcast whatever they want. It’s free market capitalism. You can sell shoes, just don’t do it at a Resturant because they can’t use that to make money. You can say a 2 hour speech or a 10 minute speech, just don’t expect a company to broadcast that if they can’t make money off of it.
Many people including doctors were blocked. Many posts were removed.
It’s probably a software glitch. I got a post removed once for endorsing homosexuality. If there are 100 anti vax posts and 5 of them get removed, then to me, that doesn’t sound like anti vaxxers by large are getting censored. I’m anti mandate (even in 2021) and I followed anti vax accounts. They weren’t being censored.
This is well documented and if you don't believe it that's hardly surprising given that you refused to read a single page bill that you spread disinformation about no matter how many times I gave you the link.
You can send me the link if it’s only 1 page. I think I will try and read it, although you have sent me 20 pg bills before. If there is a bill, then it’s usually unenforced because we’ve seen all these anti vax accounts and although they have a fact check label, they aren’t being pulled down.
Conservatives make up half the country; they aren’t being censored and I don’t like it when people play the victim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Only UDog would come up with this radical hypothesis.
I kind of have to do this on issues where many people disagree with each other.
Created:
Posted in:
@GP
Lol, hate speech against the corrupt government. You can't make that shit up.
Hate speech is free speech.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Interesting theory, we'll just apply it to the criminal traitors that Trump hopefully locks up and see that they couldn't possibly be undergoing censorship since you know who they are.
It depends on what their crime is. But if it’s a policy disagreement, then that’s not a good enough reason to lock someone up. Like if you think Biden is doing open borders (it would be nice if he was), then you can vote against him for this, but it’s not impeachable.
You can't put 340 million people on live TV, but one of them is POTUS and if you won't show people what POTUS is saying you are not genuine press.
Would you argue Fox News is censoring Biden by not letting him be on air? A company doesn’t have to display your entire monologue. Otherwise it could get boring for viewers. The goal of corporate media is to make money and if that means only having politicians say things that give them money, then so be it.
Refusing to let anyone see the original claim because you think it's false is not free speech.
Correct, but I’ve seen so many anti COVID vax posts at the height of the mandates and they weren’t taken down, but Big Tech exercised their own free speech by posting pro vax content as a fact check.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
People don't have complete freedom of speech just as actions.
For all political ideas, free speech should be unrestricted. “But censorship is ok if Trump does it.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
the guy who has been framed, gagged, the target of tons of online censorship
If the media hated Trump to the extent of wanting him to get censored and if conservatives were being censored by Big Tech for being conservatives, then nobody would know who Ben Shapiro is because he would have been censored before he became famous.
who was dropped from fox news live
This is not censorship anymore than if Fox News refused to have Bernie Sanders on. You can’t put 340 million people on live TV, but all 340 million of us have free speech.
CNN won't broadcast because they want to fact check it first
Fact checking (even if you believe it’s fake) is free speech.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Trump is very pro LGBTUm, no.
I disagree.
Look, when people say that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, they have to be called morons.
If someone says Barack Obama was born in Kenya, then you counter that with a google search that proves he was born in Hawaii.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
That's not exactly the original scenario you presented, but would 10% would be an acceptable cutoff in your view? Again, you seem to be using arbitrary cutoffs after previously implying that arbitrary cutoffs are bad.
I'm not sure. If it's .0001%, then I would take the chance. But I would probably let every adult decide for themselves (aka, being pro choice).
Created:
Posted in:
Trump doesn't MEAN it
Then why would he say it?
TYT is biased
Fox News won't report on it because they know it makes them seem unpopular.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
So do you believe killing is the same thing as letting die? Because letting the child starve to death is letting die whereas killing the zygote is killing.
If the 2 were equivalent, then not feeding a starving homeless person and then him dying would lead to a murder charge if letting die is the same as killing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
0, 50, and 100 are also arbitrary. But let's say 50.
Then if a woman is pregnant with a zygote that has a 45% chance of killing her, then she would be legally forced to take that risk. Seems too harsh.
Dad can't shove the kid out of the canoe unless there is at least an X% chance of the kid killing the dad.
If there was a 10% chance that I would die to save a kid’s life (assuming I knew those odds in advance), then I would not take that chance. Everyone that saves someone from drowning believes they don’t have any significant chance of dying from saving another person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Yes, because they’re morons!
Well, in order to get them to hate Trump, you can't call them, "Morons" because even though people have the instinct to do that, it makes MAGA world more inclined to vote for Trump. It's not even that they inheritely like Trump, but they hate the people associated with Biden (you). Trump is very pro LGBT; but most gay people vote against him because a lot of the people that love Trump are homophobic evangicals from the Bible belt. If Trump's main support was from Upstate NY, then LGBT people would feel more confterable voting for Trump.
Idiots deserve nothing but derision
Don't expect the people you derise to change their position on Trump.
But they are more opposed to Democrats than Republicans.
Generally speaking, this is true because republicans dog whistle, "small government" more than the democrats. But I'm pretty sure people like Chase Oliver are more democrat than republican.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
It's a good point, but then you would have to answer the following question:
Abortion should be banned for consensual sex unless there is an X% chance the mother would die without an abortion.
How much is X%? Anything other than 0,50, or 100 is going to be arbitrary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Because if 12 year olds can consent to sex, then they can consent as to whether or not they should attend school (6th grade).Yes, and they can do both. How absurd to have a theory in which every minor student is being forced to go to school.
This to me doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Kids should be forced to go to school.
Not my point. My point is you don't get certain freedoms until you are old enough because otherwise it's a threat to safety. Otherwise we would have to let 5 year olds vote.They let gender studies grads vote, that's more dangerous than five year olds.
I believe being able to pass a citizenship test should be required to vote for everyone.
I can consent to running my car into a pedestrian but that doesn't mean I should have the legal freedom to do.
The implication is that you running a car into a person is harming them significantly.
Maybe, but you stop for a month and it's just as good as before. Also like weed, caffeine, and food.
Possible, but I'm not sure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
If safety is a goal, greater threat to safety comes from banning sex.
I disagree; sex is dangerous.
Obviously, children can be allowed to some degree to choose what they will eat
If they want to eat 100 Oreos a day for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, then should a parent be allowed to let their kid pick that option? Because I believe that is child abuse.
So how is sex bad for health?Addictive doesnt mean bad for health
Isn't the main reason why people say weed is bad for you due to it's addictive potential (if consumed at a young age)? Something being addictive means it's bad for you if you can't get an infinite supply of it (but the high from sex wears off as time goes on).
Created:
Posted in:
If you could only do one:
- Prevent one zygote from dying from abortion
- Prevent one child from dying from starvation
Then what do you pick and why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Those Libertarians are bad news. The most useless citizens we have.
Libertarians hate Trump. See how Trump did at the Libertarian convention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
We get it. You hate Trump. However, a lot of people don't.
You can scream, "Trump is a Nazi" all you want, it won't get MAGA people to vote against Trump.
You want people to vote against Trump? Then come up with something new other than, "Trump is (insert bad trait here).". Your current strategy isn't working; find something else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I read the title of this thread, and before confirming, I knew it was Roosevelt.
Classic Roosevelt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
If consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy, then consent to be in a canoe isn't consent to catch a disease.
You could say it's different because the odds of having sex has a lifetime 1/3 chance about that you have an unplanned pregnancy. It's not like the risk of disease is nearly that high solely from getting in canoes, even over the course of your life.
Created: