Total posts: 4,340
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
How could they want to segregate and move out of the country with the most hatians per capita?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The desire to kill Jews I think should be treated differently than the action of killing Jews.
The first is what Nazis do; and we shouldn't sentence Ye West to hard labor for his horrible opinions. The ladder should be punishable with experimentation for the rest of their lives or death. Hard labor leads to murderers running off.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The citizens of Israel aren't trying to kill all the Jews....
I saw this poll that said like 3/4 of Israeli Arabs don't want Israel to be a state.
The money isn't for them, it's for the country that adopts them.
I'm not sure it would be adoption as much as it would be a customer increase. It's like saying if Burget king has 1000 customers, then they've adopted 1000 people. But Egypt wants the Gazans in Gaza to try and stake a claim to Gaza for Muslims. It's like telling Waloon to accept all the French people from Bruseels; Waloon wants the French people in Brussels to stake their claim to the land.
Muslims want more land for Muslims; Jews want more land for Jews.
For some reason a lot of countries have decided that Gaza can commit acts of war 40 times in a row and yet counter attacks are unjustified, that's the nonsense which needs to stop.
40 times seems like an exagerration. I don't have a dog in this fight; it just seems unrealistic that this is true.
but the real problem is the million+ people who love Hamas, vote for Hamas, hide Hamas, and most importantly fail to ensure the land they call home doesn't commit acts of war on other countries.
Hamas hasn't had elections since 2006. It's like getting angry at Americans in 2024 for voting for George Bush.
That is not the question you asked.
The question I asked was:
I believe in not stealing for a military industrial complex.How do you plan on achieving that?
So you want there to be some diplomatic solution?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well then don't shame others for refusing to let homeless people in their home because hypocrisy is bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You're saying all 8 million are connected to Hamas? Kinda proves Israel right if true.
I'm saying in the South Levant, there are 8 million Muslims. But those that want to do harm to the Jews aren't going to leave for any sum of money; their goal is to be a super majority in the area which then leads to a genocide of Jewish people.
14% GDP is a small price to pay in order to not have to worry about rockets and rape gangs.
Can't they just expieriment on their rapists for science? That seems to be a better punishment than deportation.
Vote for & donate to the most liberal candidate who can win, debate people, wait for the aliens to ask me what needs to change. What can one man do?
How would donating to any politician help Israel without stealing. If Israel gets helped, then it would be through American taxes (which you argue is theft). One man without political power can do pretty much nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
How do you know?
Either she dies or she survives pregnancy. The future is never 100% certain. Mybe I live to 60, maybe I don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Pay Muslim countries $10,000 / head to take them in if they want to leave.
8 million arabs; that's $80 billion (about 14% of Israeli GDP).
I believe in not stealing for a military industrial complex.
How do you plan on achieving that?
Created:
Posted in:
Fuck the police for enforcing this stupid law!
How about they break into Eric Adam's home if he cares so much about the lives of squatters?
Here in the suburbs, you try that shit; you get shot because to me, my property matters more to me than your life (just a logical component of being fiscally right wing; anyone that's fiscally left wing can adopt a homeless person if they want too; their pain they get from homelessness doesn't matter to me).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Abortion should be legal only for saving a mother's life.
You don't know if a pregnancy will kill a woman until she either dies or gives birth to the kid. So you would revise this argument to, "Abortion should be legal only when there is an X% chance or higher the woman will die without an abortion."
But then how much do you weight X at?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What is needed is a common sense approach to the issue of abortion.
"Common sense" is a vague politician like slogan. Please define, "common sense".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Well you might have a 0.0001% chance of dying in a car accident on the way to the adoption agency. Plus child support is not optional.
I think adoptions should be door to door. The parent drops the kid off at a stranger's house; if the stranger doesn't want the kid, then they repeat the process until someone is willing to adopt. It just takes one parent. A kid with a deadbeat dad has 1 deadbeat parent. An orphan has 2 deadbeat parents. How come only one group of parents has to pay child support? It should be both or neither.
Because having a line somewhere is necessary for feasibility. Why is the voting age 18? Why not 17 or 19?
Because that is the status quo and changing the status quo here would have it look like it's to the benefit of a certain party (because everyone knows young people lean more left than the general population). If all ages were equally likely to vote for any party, then I think anyone who passes the Citizenship test should be allowed to vote even if 6 years old. You've proven yourself at that point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There's also a non zero risk for a mother to survive working at a job to feed her children, yet the state mandates that every mother provide for their children, regardless.
The mother can set her kids up for adoption if she does not agree to the risk of caring for her kids.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There exists other options to save a mother's life that isn't abortion.
Not always. The risk to a mother's life is never 0% for her pregnancy even if it's very close to 0%.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Raising a child or paying child support may have a 0.001% of causing one's death indirectly, but few people would say that child abandonment shouldn't be a crime.
You can set an infant up for adoption; you can't do that with a fetus.
Maybe some of them, but I think most pro-life women would have a cutoff somewhere above 0%.
Wherever they draw the line (if it's not at 0%, 50%, or 100%) is totally arbitrary. Lets say they place it at 5%. Why there? Why not 6% or 4%?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If people wish to segregate themselves, then that is their right. If they wish to integrate, then that is their right. I would believe most Hatian Americans don't live in a neighborhood for just Hatian Americans or even for Caribbean Americans (although I could be wrong on this). If Hatians wanted to segregate, then they would still live in Haiti.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
They could use a pretty basic utilitarian framework for that. Assume that if the mother dies, the child will die as well. On utilitarianism, a 55% chance of two people surviving is preferable to a 100% chance of one person surviving.
And this belief would probably turn off virtually every pro life women from the pro life ideology because pro lifers believe if she has a 45% chance of death from pregnency, then she should be forced to take that risk, making it harder to ban any abortions under any circumstances.
A society where 100% of the woman either were pro choice or become pro choice due to this argument means pro life dudes would have a much harder time spreading their genes and ideas, leading to society accepting legalized abortion until the moment of birth.
Pro life men would be like gay couples; unable to reproduce, and the onyl way they can spread their morals is through adoption with a woman that never becomes pregnant due to her not wanting to be forced to risk her life for a fetus (which this pro life dude would force her to take the risk), and society would come to the consensus that pro life is a subset of mysoginy because they want to force a woman to risk her life even if there is a 45% chance of death from pregnancy.
"Pro-life" is referring to the lives of diploid human organisms, not human cells. Maybe that's a vague label, but so is "pro-choice."
I do prefer the terms Pro Abortion Legalization (PAL) and ANti Abortion Legalization (ANAL); but the terms have yet to be adopted, so I code switch a lot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
My girlfriend's daughter had a very difficult pregnancy with preeclampsia and hypertension. The doctors said she wouldn't survive a full term delivery. She delivered a preemie at around 7 months old. I held her last month, it was a beautiful little girl with wide eyes. So tiny, so incredible.Abortion isn't the only option.
I call this:
Emotional story about a pregnancy that doesn't work on me because I don't care about emotions with legal policy; only logic and morality. This argument being used to justify abortion legalization due to fetal defects.Then making the, "Abortion isn't the only option" argument that everyone believes in; the left believes it should be an option whereas the right does not believe abortion should be any option.
Emotions dont' work on me; I have autism. I think like Chat GPT; using facts and logic; not emotional stories.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
If that's the case, then lets say a woman is pregnant and there is a 45% chance the woman dies without an abortion.
Should she be allowed to get an abortion?
I don't know how a pro lifer can answer no to that.
At that point, it's no longer, "Pro life" as much as it is, "Pro Zygote life, and if the woman dies, then so be it as long as the odds are under 50%".
They should just change their name to, "Pro Zygote" if they are willing to give a woman a 45% chance at death to save a zygote. If someone is anti cancer, then we don't call them "Pro life", we call them, "anti cancer" because it's the type of life that matters (whether cancer patients or zygotes).
Created:
Posted in:
Premise 1: Abortion should be legal at least if the pregnancy is a risk to the mother’s life.
Premise 2: Every single pregnancy is a risk to the mother’s life (even if the risk of death is .0001%).
Conclusion 1: Because every pregnancy is a risk to the mother’s life, abortion should be unconditionally legal all the way until the moment of birth.
Please tell me where my logic is wrong if you disagree with my conclusion.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Gradually; it's not like I can talk to 40 million black people at once.
Created:
-->
@Mall
The law says do not murder which reduces FREEDOM to murder.
The right to murder does not outweigh the right to not murder.
It depends on how the freedom is used .
This is correct.
$1 is good, if you gave me $1, then that would be good. If you burned down my house and paid me $1, then that would be bad because $1 is not worth the right to burn down a house.
Freedom is good if it's the right to not wear an orange shirt ($1). It is not good if it's the "right" to commit homicide (burning someone's house down and paying them $1).
My moral ethos isn't pro liberty absolutism, it's LUSHOOTY absolutism (Liberty Unless Significantly Harming Others Or Too Young). Murder significantly harms somebody else, so it should be illegal. Same thing with the R word. Refusing to wear an orange shirt, or choosing to smoke weed if old enough harms nobody else to a significant degree, so it should be legalized. A campfire produces smoke that travels around and harms other people nominally, but since the harm is very minimal, it should be legal to start campfires in an area where there is no plausible risk of forest fires.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
I've done that with minorities before and they are fine with it.
Created:
-->
@Mall
If there was a law that said everyone must wear an orange shirt, then that law helps and harms nobody, but it's a bad law because it reduces freedom.
Freedom therefore is a good thing that should be balenced with other variables like saftey, economic security, pain reduction, and more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Oh wait, that's what they have been doing since 1948; that's what the misinformed are calling occupation, apartheid, and genocide.
I don't call it genocide, but it's just not America's problem, so cheer for Israel on the sidelines if you want; but I believe in an America first policy for Ukraine and Israel.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
but if they were perfect and were perfectly enforced then no one would have a legitimate cause to make war on the government or other citizens.
People disagree on abortion, guns. People even disagree on religious liberty (with Muslim countries being against it). You are going to need something similar to the 10th amendment to get the Arab world to be on board (just like how the states got on board to unite in one country in the US). The 1st amendment would prevent the global government from imposing a religion. Anyone whom the Muslim countries oppress based on religion can move outside of the Arab world.
There is no need now, and they would still find plenty of excuses for huge bureaucratic waste that doesn't involve massive conventional warfare, just as they do right now.
Probably not $1.6 trillion worth spent on murder (current global military spending). Maybe India gets some more toilets so they are less of a shithole. Maybe kids get better education in better funded schools (where they become fluent in English) and they get out of poverty and America benefits because our language spreads around the world.
Neither are perfect democracies, Israel is much more democratic, and there is nothing in the concept of democracy that prevents genocide.
Palestine would either have elections as free as Sweeden, or anyone objecting to how Palestine is run can move to Sweeden for democracy and elections. People use the word, "democracy" loosely. But every country should have regular elections.
Just like the Taliban are playing dress up and dotting their Ts Hamas could be all formal about it and then start rounding up all dissenters for the gas chambers.
If Palestine annexed Israel, then they would annex a population half Jewish. You can't genocide half the population. There is strength in numbers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Nobody will think every law is perfect, but the laws should be a lot better than the status quo in a few respects (like no need for massive bureaucratic waste on the military if the whole world is one nation because wars over territory wouldn't exist anymore).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
government sets the property tax and can evict you for failure to pay property tax (essentially rent)
But whether that government is the Israeli government or the Palestinian government, assuming the property tax is the same, if you are the normal person living in this area, then why would you care? Governments (in a democracy) are owned by the people. The only difference between Israel and Palestine (assuming one state solution) would be the flag; both places would be roughly half Jewish half Muslim.
when the united states absorbed the indian territories, they killed and corralled the natives
This is because the ratio of Whites to Natives was very high towards the white side. If Natives made up the majority on this continent, then it would be like Australia trying to absorb Indonesia by annexing them.
great idea, how do we start that ?
Every country becomes a state in the United Nations of Earth and gets treated like a state (except for very big countries by size or population that would be broken up into several states). The countries that would get broken up are below:
You would need an electoral college to determine representation in government. People can freely move wherever they want, practice whatever religion they want, English is the sole official language and the entire world's children are bilingually immersed in English and the Native language. English isn't even called English; it's called L1 (the document below expains it better than I can on the spot):
Let me know if there is anything you would like to add to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Human beings are not countries. Humans control territory that is privately owned. Countries don't own territory in the same context.
If NY annexes CT, then the result will be the same as if CT annexes NY; NY residents can freely move to CT and vice versa. If I own 2 houses, that is totally different to someone else owning those 2 houses.
A one world nation lets everyone travel and move to any part of the world that they please. If Israel annexes Palestine, then the effect would be the same as if Palestine annexes Israel.
Fighting over borders is just an excuse for politicians to start wars that kill people and steal taxpayer money all in the name of power.
A one world nation with one world language ends the need for war.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I believe you are correct. She is also homeless.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
She said it about halfway into the video. Not that it's a bad thing to hate white people. It's the popular thing to do these days. You can even get rewarded for it.
It's racist to hate white people; but it was a statement she made out of anger towards individual white officers. I would have preferred it if she said, "I hate you 3 officers", but it's splitting hairs.
I still think the government should have just left her alone.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Humans teach their kids bad lessons such as "be unique, dont blindly follow others".Thats wrong. You shouldnt be unique. You should blindly follow whatever is popular and just try to change the world with insignificant personal example while not opposing to anything that is popular.
By you making this argument, you are being unique.
I would tell people who have opinions they know are very unpopular, use your judgement for if you state those views or keep them to yourselves. I don't know your life or beliefs, but you make the call whether to fit in or be authentic.
Created:
-->
@Mall
The law will enforce or deny rights and freedom based on speech for the good . So much for freedom being inherently good.
I believe freedom is inheritely good; not unconditionally good.
As far as so called whites saying what they wish to say , I don't think they'll have a problem with a system behind them working for them ultimately benefiting and privileging.
It is merely possible white privilege exists, but to believe this I think requires evidence that is more than something that can be explained by omitting variables. I do think white names have a higher chance at getting jobs than black names (assuming qualifications are the same), but the way I would address this is I think a company should only be allowed to ask (wrt names) the first 2, middle 2, and last 2 letters of your name and it should be combined into a code.
Lets say your name is JA-WA-LA. I can't tell if the first name is Jamal, James, or Jack. Lets say it is TY-WA-LA. I can't tell if that's Tyler or Tyrone. JE I can't tell if it's Jerry or Jerome. Do this and get rid of diversity quotas while also making it illegal to refuse to hire based on any RSG (Race, Sexual Orientation, Gender) characteristic. I also think a company shouldn't be allowed to fire you for not being vaccinated against COVID as the disease just isn't a threat anymore.
Why don't you guys just start saying it?
Because we don't want to be cancelled by the 30%. The 30% needs to become significantly less common before I feel comfortable saying it; maybe at 5% I will feel comfortable saying it. Only around 3% of straight men are willing to date a trans woman, and that is enough for most vocal transwomen to at least concede that it's ok for a straight guy to not want to date them for being trans (including Samantha Lux who is not on the left). If that figure was 40%, then Samantha Lux would say any straight man that doesn't want to date transwomen is transphobic. But if it's 3%, she can't get away with saying that without alienating a lot of people.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Welcome to FLRW's Greater Than 140 Group !!!
Thanks.
The average IQ in the USA is 98.
True, but this website contains people who take pleasure in debating; so I would assume the average IQ on this website is higher than the national average. Your typical American doesn't like their views changed. I would assume the people here are more willing to learn and have their minds changed than the average American even though it's still unlikely. You ask the typical person in real life, "Should abortion be legal?" regardless of how they answer, they won't defend their view as well as if you ask someone that question here.
People that come here, stay for 2 weeks and leave don't count. People that have been here for a while and are established; they count.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm not sure if she said that, but using your freedom of speech to say something horrible doesn't mean you should get assaulted for it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The government agents (aka these police officers) are annoying.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So, secret gatherings where you can eat a burger, say women would be happier as mothers than corporate slaves, and also say the N word?I suppose they all go together.
I mean, people are more likely to say republican views at a republican conference than they would be saying those views to random people.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Why aren't you doing your part to lower the 30% by exposing to everyone how hypocritical it is to think that word is a "no no" according to your reasoning? You say you're a free speech absolutist, but here you're regulating yourself because of a measly 30%
I lower the 30% by citing the 30% poll like I did on this thread.
Free speech absolutist means in this context, "I am alright with white people saying the N word". It doesn't mean I say it personally to black people. It means I am alright with other people doing it.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
When are you going to start just using the N word in public then, how have the results been so far? Have you said it to a black person and then said "I guess you're in the 30% of black snowflakes who think that's a racist word, it's really just like bitch"?
I'm not using the N word yet, but I'm waiting for the 30% figure to fall to even lower numbers among blacks (because many will adopt the majoritarian position solely because it's the majoritarian position, making the majoritarian position even more majoritarian). If only 5% of blacks actually have a principled issue with it due to most blacks in the 30% assimilating to the majority of blacks, then that 5% is going to be much less relevant. It's kind of like how vegans make up 3% of the population, so even though they believe meat eaters commit murder, they kindof have to be quiet about that because they know their opinion is extremely rare. A world where 30% of the population is vegan and it's believed that 80% is vegan is going to have more vocal vegans than a world where it's 3%. Those that eat meat would do so away from those that they even think have a chance at being vegan in that world to avoid the drama.
There is strength in actual numbers and perceived numbers.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
I bet ludofl3x says he only friends people with an IQ over 200.
Someone's got a big ego. Lol.
But I'm glad you think my IQ is above 120. I took an IQ test twice (1st time I bullshitted the test because I know a lot of tests inflate your score; 2nd time was for real). 1st test I get a 78; fairly predictable because it's the 6th percentile and 12% of people don't try on tests, so I got about the median for that group (I randomly guessed).
The time I take the test for real; I get 142. I think most people here have an IQ at least 115.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
So if the cause doesn't include you, you don't care about it.
Depends on the cause; I would happily get a bumper sticker that says, "Stop Police brutality" because there is no race hustle with that. But BLM is a race hustle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
The real problem is that there just isn’t enough time in school curriculums to teach everything necessary. For the record, I was taught about the other killed in the holocaust along with the Jews, but that was it.
It's really easy to teach multiple genocides at once. You have a test be the following:
1. How many people died in the Halocaust? 18 million.
2. How many people died in the Arminean genocide? 1.5 million.
Have like 5 genocides and learn about the cause for each one in one History unit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I oppose all separatist movements that happen in US territory that negatively affect the US.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Some believe freedom itself is just good so therefore freedom in this, freedom in that.
Yeah; freedom is good.
White people having the social acceptance of saying the N word is a fun superficial right; it's not anything fundamental.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
If I cite that poll, then most black people who take serious issue with it will accept it.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
The people who get mad would be in that 30% of black people. But once they realize they are in the 30%, that percentage would fall pretty quickly (because most blacks don't consider race with the N word).
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Only 30% of black adults think it's ok for blacks to say the N word and not whites. Among young black adults, it's even less.
And I can't be racist; I think the confederate statues should be torn down and replaced with bald eagle statues.
Created:
-->
@Savant
The analogy I see commonly used on the left for abortion is that individuals shouldn't be forced to donate a kidney, but the utilitarian solution would be that they should be forced to donate a kidney.
Fair; the left is not utilitarian; they are just AUP; and the fear of losing your kidney produces a lot of pain for people. Like when I was younger, I had a fear of being an organ donor because I would have had some fear that I would need the organs after I died. I overcame that fear, but many people still retain it.
Created:
Posted in:
They should teach about the Armenian genocide as thoroughly as the Holocaust. They also should talk about the 12 million Gentiles that died in the Holocaust as much as the 6 million Jews.
I don't like how Jews get so much of the spotlight. Include more people.
Lets have an inclusive environment when it comes to talking about the historical genocide of the excluded. Don't have all the focus be on Jews. Spread it out.
Created:
Saying white people can't say the N word is like saying men can't say the B word due to it's history of being misogynistic towards women. So many black dudes say that word; it's crazy.
It should be socially acceptable to say any swear you want.
Created: