Total posts: 4,340
Posted in:
# of people homeless: 600K.
Cost of a good house: 500K.
Cost to give every homeless person a free house: 600K*500K=600M*500=60000M*5=60B*5=$300B.
Cost of free college: $60B
Amount of money spent on the military: $800B
Cut the military budget by 50%; that raises enough money to give free college and to give every homeless person a free house (while having $40B left over).
Cut the military budget (and this means we can stop funding Ukraine).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
You can't be proud of privileges that are based on you hurting other people.
My white privilege (if it exists) does not me involve hurting anyone.
better funded schools are a good thing. But the system we have means that "white" areas tend to have better funded schools. I would fully support better funding all schools.
I agree.
It's possible your genetics played a part. But personality also likely played a big role. As an example, I have siblings that were very good at science. So I didn't want to focus on science classes and focused on things like history instead.
What made your siblings good at science and you good at History was your interests (that I think genetics has at least some role to do with it).
Maybe she was mad at your dad and associated math with him. Maybe she just didn't like school at all and was a poor student.
When she was 7 years old, I don't think she was making that connection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
The point isn't whether or not I want to spend all my money "sponsoring starving children", the point is that anyone who says that a tax cut for themselves is more important than children starving to death, is an asshole.
So then lets raise your taxes (just you; nobody else) and use the money to save starving kids in Africa. If you answer no, then it's hypocritical. If you answer yes, then donate money to help kids in Africa and remove the government middleman.
Most would agree they want to cut taxes, but would shy away from actually looking at the consequences of their actions. If you actually pinned them down and asked them if the government should allow poor children to starve to death, most would say no.
If you believe that, then pin them down and make them understand that fiscal conservatism means poor children starve to death. If you are correct, then this idea would eliminate fiscal conservatism and therefore make it harder for conservatives to win elections, as many socially left people vote conservative because of taxes.
But while the idea is popular, there is strength in numbers.
But then when more funding for policy B gets suggested, they oppose it anyway. That is exactly what you are doing.
I'm not in power. My ideal taxation and spending code is outlined in Operation Get out of Debt. If there was a bill that redirected money towards prisons towards teachers, then I would vote yes for it.
America and Japan are the only western nations I can think of that actually use the death penalty. Everyone else abolished it because it is pointless.
Everyone else abolished it because western civilization is very leftist and AUP (Anti Unwanted Pain). I'm not AUP; I'm LUSHO; Liberty Unless Significently Harming Others. But even if one's moral ethos was AUP, schools benefit from killing the murderers and r ists and re directing the money to help our teachers. The compromise is for the AUP democrats.
You don't have to illegally kill a bunch of people to give teachers a raise.
Then how come in every state, many teachers aren't well funded? If Massachusetts wants to pay teachers more, then what's stopping them? They can spend as much on education as they want.
lol most people would disagree with that. I mean, it is just straight up cartoon villain evil.
It's just fiscal conservatism for those that have thought it through. Unfortunately, most don't. But if they did and 70% of the people that call themselves fiscally conservative became fiscally left, then that benefits your party and I'm fine with that as long as there is honesty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Something is going on within you and I doubt anyone here is qualified to help you figure it out.
The therapists don't know what it is either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
There is nothing or anyone that isn't racist or cant be made racist.
Some people be acting like that, but normal people shrug it off if it's not a realistic claim. Like people don't call Joe Rogan racist too much anymore. Cancelling someone is short term and they get over it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Also, I am willing to volunteer to be your insult victim if you want, and I will even be triggered.
Then I get addicted to doing it and I don't want to start that, even if it's online.
Try changing meds, maybe take one of the hormones of happiness, for example dopamine.
That's called doing drugs.
Created:
Posted in:
I believe the confederate flag should be burned by those that own one.
I believe ICE should be abolished.
I believe Affirmative Action should be eliminated as it considers race.
I believe anyone who murdered an Asian person because of COVID should be tried for murder and executed.
I believe Qualified immunity should be repealed (most people this benefits wouldn't vote for me if I ran for POTUS, but that is irrelevant; it should still be repealed).
I'm not racist, but there exists a sporadic pain in my head that came as a result of me getting fired from a job I've had for about 2 years. The only way the pain can get reduced temporarily is by me uttering very offensive words. I've tried, "Get out of my fucking head" and it worked with short term relief for a while, but it's starting to fade away. I've resorted to, "Get out of my jack nasty head you stupid son of a goat fucker and enjoy getting blowjobs from your cousin's sister" and it currently provides some sort term relief, but eventually, this will go the way of, "Get out of my fucking head".
I'm worried it will turn into a phrase that will involve me uttering the N word (hard r) and I don't want to utter it randomly only for some black stranger to get offended over what they (and honestly most people, including my parents and even my therapist) have no idea about and beat me up over it.
I need to prevent this from happening. I take meds; they don't work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You need evidence to prosecute someone for committing the R word.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Selective morality then.Sort of a tad hypocritical..
Is it selective morality? Yes. It's also selective morality to want to legalize a man having consensual sex with his wife but wanting to ban him from having sex with a 6 year old girl. But this isn't hypocrisy and neither is wanting to ban the killing of innocent zygotes while mandating the killing of murderous terrorists.
Created:
Posted in:
Maybe we should get some phone numbers so we can stay in touch if DART ends up going the DDO route.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
one is based on your race. The other is based on your dad teaching you math. You really can't see the difference between those two things?
One is genetic (race), the other is genetic (autism based intelligence).
uh huh. but you took the same test. They could study hard and get the same score. You doing well is not white privilege.
So you can be proud of privileges that are objectively good (being born smarter) but not privileges that are objectively neutral (being white)? That seems like a fair standard.
now, if you go to a school that is well funded, has lots of one on one teacher/student time and that caused you to get good grades, but black students a few miles away have to go to a run down school where 1 math teacher is teaching 50 kids and has no time to help them individually, then that would be white privilege.
It would be more like, "Highly funded school privilege" which I would be proud of if I had it since I want schools to be better funded to increase national average IQ.
there is certainly a genetic component to intelligence. but you know what is an even bigger component to being good at math? Having a math teacher for a dad. He was likely available to help teach you. That's not genetic.
I have a sister. My dad helped her out and he helped me out. Only one of us is very good at math (me; not my sister). I believe at math, I am genetically smarter than my white sister. Dad was helping us both out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
You know the supreme court can refuse to take cases right?
Alright; so then what is the point of appeals of the Supreme Court can refuse to have your case anyways?
yes, and this is what makes you a gaping asshole. saving yourself a little money is more valuable to you than children's lives.
Are you willing to spend all of your excess money sponsoring starving children? If yes, then become broke. If no, then you are the same as I am (except that I'm more honest).
I'm not saying all fiscal conservatives are giant assholes. I am saying that anyone who says a tax cut for themselves is more important than children's lives is a giant asshole. If all fiscal conservatives agree with that statement, only then would they all be giant assholes.
All fiscal conservatives support cutting taxes for themselves even if it means a starving kid would die. Most people don't like raising other people's kids even if it's the difference between life and death for that other person's child. They don't have the guts to lay it out like that due to them being cowards, but it is true.
ok? and right wing states get no where near that. what's your point?
That I believe public school teachers should get paid more and it can be supplemented by cutting spending on prisons by executing murderers and ra**sts. The prison population would get reduced by about 20%. A huge win for criminal justice reform advocates.
And the EU is in good company with Kenya, Cameroon, and South Africa.and canada, and the UK and mexico and almost all of south america, and pretty much every western nation.
South America is a shithole; and there is no need to follow the herd with a bunch of small EU nations vs the 2-4th largest nation in the world.
government that complains that teachers aren't getting paid enough money while blowing money on murderers is a government that makes no sense.you're back to making ridiculous statements again. These two things are completely unrelated.
Nope. They are totally related. More money for prisons means less money for teachers (unless you raise taxes, which is a 3rd rail in the US).
No need on the US copying the EU. America is a better place to live than the EU.lmao. You said western countries have the death penalty.
When did I say most western countries have the death penalty? America is alone on that in terms of western countries (and I think America does a better job here than the EU).
My tax cuts > innocent stranger's life > murderer's life. If you disagree with that, then become poor by giving your money to stranger kids in Alabama or Harlem. Poor people's suffering is not my problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
that is not how the law works. Part of "due process" is the appeals process. Denying it to people based on your emotions is not okay.
Not sure about that. Otherwise the Supreme Court would weigh in on every murder charge because all convicted murderers would want to appeal. There should be trial by a jury; juries aren't curropt with power.
My tax cuts matter to me more than the life of a starving kid in America that we know is innocent; I'm fiscally conservative.yes we know you are a giant, gaping asshole. I'm not sure why you like repeating it so much.
I'm just being a fiscal conservative; advocating for cutting government spending and accepting the logical consequences of that; children starve. You are calling all fiscal conservatives giant assholes by calling me one based on this quote (which I'm not against you doing that if you are upfront with the belief that all fiscal conservatives are assholes).
why are people willing to spend $25.2 billion/year on convicted murderers and r***sts when 96% of them actually did one of the worst crimes in our legal system?Your question is stupid. The alternative would be letting them go, or executing a bunch of potentially innocent people. Both are unacceptable.
If all murderers and ra**sts were killed, then about 600 falsely convicted people would get killed and $25.2 billion would be saved (about $42 million per one person's life for a year). If you think one innocent person's life for a year is worth more than $42 million, then you should donate all your excess money to help starving children survive for a year, because it would be cheaper.
it also means you don't give a shit about the constitution or people's rights apparently.
If I didn't care about the rights of the falsely accused at all, then I would put them in jail, not give them any food, and let them starve to death. I believe the death penalty in a way designed to reduce pain balances the rights of the potentially falsely accused with the goal of saving money (and yes; I value my money more than any stranger's life; if you think this is cruel, then donate all your excess funds to help starving child strangers). Just don't be a hypocrite and demand I and society (aka strangers) sacrifice money to help the poor when you are unwilling to sacrifice lesser amounts of money.
I didn't say human life was priceless. I said that compensation cannot be given.
What's the difference between these 2 claims?
If you accidentally imprison the wrong person, you can't give them their years back, but you can give them a money amount in compensation for what they have lost. If you've killed them, there is no compensation possible.
Compensation has to be funded by the taxpayer and it's not my fault someone faced a false accusation, so the taxpayer should not give prisoners money for their suffering. This is the consequence of fiscal conservatism and cutting government spending (unless you propose some other idea to cut government spending).
this is exactly my point, and exactly why your point was stupid. You don't want to give teachers more money.
I believe the minimum teacher salary should be $80K/year. But every left wing state wants to get to that and they haven't. A government that complains that teachers aren't getting paid enough money while blowing money on murderers is a government that makes no sense.
it's something most modern nations do. 56% of countries in the world have banned the death penalty. only 27% of countries use it. So the US is in good company with countries like Saudi arabia, Afghanistan and Iran.
And the EU is in good company with Kenya, Cameroon, and South Africa.
If a Nazi says, "The Sky is Blue", then they are correct on that quote.
If Iran says, "Murderers should get killed", then the majority of the US population believes they are correct on that quote.
What religion backs a policy is irrelevant unless you are Islamophobic.
there are almost no "western" nations that have the death penalty. Almost all have banned it.
No need on the US copying the EU. America is a better place to live than the EU.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
appeals are part of due process.
I would rather get all the evidence needed the day of the trial; trial dates years after are going to have logarithmic evidence. Evidence is like apples; the newer it is, the better it is. I would rather lower courts deal with all of the work; no need to make higher courts busy with murder trials. Probably not a good idea for the US Supreme Court to weigh in on every murder charge; it would make them too busy.
your tax cuts matter more to you than a potentially innocent persons' life.
My tax cuts matter to me more than the life of a starving kid in America that we know is innocent; I'm fiscally conservative. If the typical person is unwilling to spend $1/day on the life of an innocent child, then why are people willing to spend $25.2 billion/year on convicted murderers and r***sts when 96% of them actually did one of the worst crimes in our legal system?
Fiscal conservatism means some poor people are going to have to die and I and all fiscal conservatives are alright with that to save money on taxes.
And if you try to make it faster and cheaper, you massively increase the risks that you are executing innocent people.
I'm alright with that because I don't believe human life (even innocent human life) is priceless and the people that believe innocent human life (IHL) is priceless have not thought it through.
If IHL was priceless and the government believes IHL was priceless, then they could force every person to adopt as many starving children as they can afford if it saves just one life.
Thousands of children's lives will be saved by forcing people to adopt; but it's not a good policy to do because there are things that matter more than saving people's lives (even children's lives).
All of the following questions must be considered:
1. Will more IHLs be saved?
2. Will money be saved?
3. Will economic security be infringed on?
4. Will this be good for fiscal autonomy?
5. Will this be good for safety?
6. Will this be good for bodily autonomy?
7. Will this be good for convenience?
8. Will this be good for economic security?
Everything must be considered, not just what saves the most amount of IHLs.
If the government wanted, they could give money to teachers tomorrow.
The bluest states in the country with the highest teacher salaries still have any teachers there wanting more money. If the government wanted to pay teachers more money, then why haven't they done so? It's not like corporations made the governor of Massachusetts curropt.
This is the kind of thing saudi arabia or other totalitarian states would do.
Well abolishing the death penalty is something rouge Latin American states would do.
There are both western and non western countries that both have and don't have the death penalty. But being against an idea solely because it's done by 3rd world countries is White, Liberal, Racism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
that isn't white privilege. It has nothing to do with being white at all.
What's the difference between white privilige and smart privilige?
You getting a good score doesn't give them a bad score.
Me getting a good score means I'm more egilable for jobs that caused someone else to be disqualified.
Lets say there are 15 job applicants; Applicant A,B,C,... N, and you. A's SAT score is 1200, B's is 1190, C's is 1180, etc. Lets say the job takes the top 10 job applicants by SAT score and SAT score is all that is considered. If your SAT score is 1210, then Person I is out of a job because of you. If your SAT is 1010, then Person I has a job.
You having a high SAT score would make it harder for Applicant I to get a job than if your SAT score was lower.
The only reason scores are relavent is for jobs and colleges (which in theory lead to jobs).
So it's ok to be proud of whatever privilige you have.
That has nothing to do with your "heritage" or genetics.
I'm not saying me being white made me good at math. But my genes I think had a lot to do with it (by genes, I think I mean high functioning autistic genes; not white genes).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
lol the cheapest way to do the death penalty is just to strangle anyone you suspect committed a crime. that's cheaper than literally any other option. That doesn't mean it is a good or even possible option.
Random people being strangled don't have their due process.
They both require a trial, and I would be fine with putting the convicted murderer in an electric chair in the courtroom and turning it on if guilty; it's a quick execution that is cheap.this would be wildly unconstitutional. But right wing people don't actually care about the constitution, so that doesn't surprise me.
Electric chair doesn't violate the 8th amendment.
My tax cuts matter more to me than felon's lives. I'm a fiscal conservative. Your claim here is incorrect. Both parties support the constitution when it best benefits them. Like, I think the 16th amendment should be repealed, but I want to keep the 1st, 2nd, and honestly, the 8th too, among others. I just don't think electric chair counts as cruel and unusual punishment. You may think it does, but we are both using the 8th amendment to make our arguments. You think it's cruel and unusual; I don't. But imprisonment costs too much money and our teachers deserve the money more than murderers.
what stat? That isn't more expensive to execute people? It is an established fact.
It costs more to execute people because death row inmates often spend 30 years in prison before execution. I would eliminate that; if convicted, then they get executed by electric chair in the courtroom; saving the taxpayer money. They wouldn't spend 30 years in prison; but 0.
It's like saying buying a mansion costs more money over your life than renting an apartment. You realize you don't have to buy a mansion, but can buy an apartment of equal size to the one you would have rented that would be cheaper if you want to live in that area.
Murderers getting free housing, healthcare, and food in jail is giving them socialism, so therefore all anti-death penalty advocates are socialists for murderers; they want them taken care of by the taxpayer and they want them given what they need to survive (they would rather pay for them than give our teachers a raise with the money saved by not paying for murderers to sit in jail).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
you are proud of your privilege. IE you are proud that you are treated better than other people. Yes, that is being an asshole.
I took the SAT and got a 690 on it for the math section (98th percentile). I got many privileges based on that (and I believe my math smartness is largely genetic as my Dad taught it for 20 years or so). I am proud of that privilege. Does it make me an asshole? No.
Being proud of your privilege doesn't make you an asshole.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So, your overriding regard for life is not overriding.
I'm not claiming it is. I'm anti-abortion, not pro-life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
ironically, the opposite is true. It costs far more to execute someone than to imprison them for life.
The cheapest way to do the death penalty is cheaper than the cheapest way to do life imprisonment. They both require a trial, and I would be fine with putting the convicted murderer in an electric chair in the courtroom and turning it on if guilty; it's a quick execution that is cheap. Life imprisionment requires 50 years of food and guards.
Although the republicans have no core ideology, I believe they are mostly correct on this issue.since you didn't bother to look up whether what you were writing was true before writing it, it doesn't surprise me you would agree with republican talking points since factual information obviously isn't important to you.
I looked up the stat you referenced, and I think it's bullshit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Instead, I support the idea that all should either be proud or not proud and I lean towards not proud of things they didn't earn.
Fair, but would I be proud to be very good at math? A lot of that is genetic I think, and I didn't earn my genes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
so your post is that being a complete asshole upsets people?
Is it being an asshole or is it just the pro Black position taken to it's logical conclusion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Look, are you trying to say you accept the they/them “non-binary” crap because it’s in our language/culture, or not?
I'm not trying to say that, but I am trying to say that English is a very gender neutral language compared to Spanish.
Created:
Posted in:
BLM: White people should recognize their privilege.
Me: Alright. I recognize my privilege because I'm white. I'm lucky to have this privilege. I'm happy to have this privilege. I'm proud to have this privilege. I am Proud to be White.
BLM: Quit being racist!
Me: What? Didn't you want me to recognize my privilege? Oh; you wanted me to act sad about something you believe is good for me. That doesn't make sense. Nobody should be upset at a privilege they have even if others don't have it. Imagine me saying, "I'm Ashamed that I was born really good at math and I resent this part about me."
It doesn't make sense. If white privilege exists (just like any privilege), then I should be proud to have it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Ive been clear for years, that, the X x is numerically more complex than X y. Simple.
Your argument is, "Females have more DNA, therefore they are more complex".
Onions have more DNA than humans. Does this make onions more complex? No.
Created:
Posted in:
I think whether one is AUP (Democrats) or LUSHO (Libertarian), there is ample reason to support executing murderers
If one is LUSHO, then they don't like the government giving free stuff to people. This would include murderers and those that commit r***, so they would favor executing them to save taxpayer money.
If one is AUP, then they want more money going to help teachers. Enough money is spent taking care of murderers and those that commit r*** in jail to give every public-school teacher an $8400/year raise. Even one that is AUP would want to help our teachers and students more than murderers and those that commit r***, so the logical penalty would be death. Every state, even the bluest ones have many of their teachers wanting a higher salary and the state can't afford to give them one. An $8400/year raise by not spending on murderers and similar frees up a lot of cash.
Although the republicans have no core ideology, I believe they are mostly correct on this issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What about Islamic terrorists.
I believe violent terrorists should be put to death, defined as those that murder or r*** people known to be innocent for an ideology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Gender ideology is different than being gender neutral.That’s bs.
Is the word, "chair" in the English Language masculine, feminine, or gender neutral? Because in Spanish, it's not #3; it's #2. Most Spanish nouns are #1 or #2. All English nouns (or virtually all) are #3.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Being gender neutral is a product of Anglo American Civilization (especially compared to our neighbors on the other side of the southern border). Spanish speakers gender all of their nouns; we don't do that up north.
Gender ideology is different than being gender neutral.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
If the question is do you support abortion up right until 5 minutes before birth and they refuse to answer it's pretty obvious the answer is yes.
Or it could be they are in a democrat primary and there are many democrat voters that support legal abortion until the moment of birth, so you don't want to piss them off, but you want to get elected and you also want to appeal to independents who may or may not agree with you on abortion, so you lie about your position. Politicians lie.
I clicked on exceptions and it mentioned the exceptions had to do with the mothers health, there is a link for exceptions so it doesn't appear to ban all abortions just all abortions that are unrelated to a mother's health concerns.
Yeah, but usually the right wing positions are, "ban in all situations unless the mother would die without one" or, "ban unless (exception), but if none apply, then at conception".
So do you want to ban the killing of zygotes?no
Then when do you believe abortion should be banned by? How many weeks?
They never speak with nuance, which means they probably don't have anything.
There are pro lifers and pro choicers that speak with nuance.
Do you really think I would be less welcome to be at a pro life rally than a pro choice rally?
I would say pro life rally because they tend to be more pro free speech. A libertarian that is pro choice until viability would be more welcome at a pro life rally than a pro choice rally run by feminists who believe pro life speech should be banned due to it being hate speech towards women who are disproportionally black and Latina. Although in general, I would argue male protestors tend to be better behaved than female protestors because men tend to have thicker skins. I've gotten blocked by women wanting to ban abortion and women who wanted to legalize it. It is much more rare for a man to cancel over political opinions I've noticed. Men tend to be less puritan and less nit picky.
You seem to be moderate on abortion; I consider anything from legal up until 0*-24 weeks as moderate.
0* being 0 weeks unless r***, incest, life/health of the mother, fetal defect.
Wrt to the stories of basically partial birth abortion and/or letting the fetus die, if you want the fetus saved, then that's fine, but if it's the government's role to save life when the alternative is letting it die, then this can be used to justify universal healthcare, ending homelessness, and other aspects that bring America closer to socialism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I'll respond to the 2nd comment later; it's almost 12:30 where I am (I live on the East Coast).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Why do let wing politicians when pressed won't take hard stances on what limits there should be on abortion?
Because politicians dodge questions.
Also nobody wants it banned from conception that is just silly.
Abortion law in the United States by state - Wikipedia states all the black states on the map want it banned from conception (with maybe an exception for r***).
I never see a pro life activist circulating pictures of zygotes. They instead show pictures of fetuses showing fully formed but tiny human looking things.
That's because it's easier to defend something that looks like a zygote while pretending it looks like a fetus.
I just picked a number straight out of thin air, it could be the rest as well but I googled and it said the zygote forms after 4 days
So do you want to ban the killing of zygotes?
I know they say that to appeal to conservatives who are on the fence but I think most of them would mean between a woman and her conscience arguments.
I think they mean, "the woman and her doctor" and the doctor usually does what the woman wants anyways.
I think I am a pretty typical pro lifer. I think first trimester leave it to the conscience of the woman but after that maybe it should be a decision for a woman and her doctor.
Legal abortion up until 12 weeks legalizes the majority of abortions and therefore is, "Pro Choice". 7 weeks is the 50/50 point; half of abortions are before; the other half are after. 90% are before 12 weeks.
Your position is pro choice and I'm not against that, but understand that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Saying zygote lifes matter has the potential of downplaying how important a pro lifer sees the life of an unborn child.
Why? If you believe a zygote is a human, then you would have no problem with saying, "Zygote Lives Matter" because you believe a zygote is a human. Plus, in this polarized climate, most people that want to ban abortion would accept the new change to reflect accuracy.
Most left wing states banned abortion for fetuses that are developed enough, so many unborn children are already protected. Those wanting to ban abortion have told me that they want it banned from conception, so they would then be, "Zygote Rights Activists".
I am pro life and I would be okay with the morning after pill or killing a zygote that formed 4 days into pregnancy.
Why 4 days? Why not 5 or 3? Or 6 or 2?
the prochoice argument and I have been watching debates with peter singer so I am aware of their arguments is that a baby could be killed even just 5 minutes prior to giving birth and it would be ethical. I just don't personally see the difference between a baby 5 minutes prior to being born and one 5 minutes after being born.
About half of left wing states already banned abortion this late into pregnancy and virtually every red state did as well.
The view of the pro life people are that 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions should not happen unless there is a valid medical reason as determined between a doctor and a patient.
This is the, "leave the decision between the woman and her doctor" argument, which is the democrat position.
I am personally unsure about my position on abortion, although it does change a lot. I have no problem unironically saying, "Zygote Lives Matter" in a way that sounds joking but it's serious if it's what I believed (this is because I don't care how popular or unpopular my framing is). But because I don't think it should be legal to kill zygotes, I will get a vasectomy before I have sex with someone in a way that can get them pregnant if things go south and I think anyone that has my position on abortion should promote vasectomies before having potential pregnency producing sex.
It's not fair to put so much birth control effort on women when the man can get birth control done much easier.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Isn't it obvious that you use the terms pro-life because you believe your opponent doesn't believe a fetus or a zygote is life and you want to remind them it is a life by using the term.
A 2 year old is a life; everyone believes it should be illegal to kill a 2 year old.
A cancer cell is a life; everyone thinks you should be allowed to kill a cancer cell.
Some life should be illegal to kill; other life should be legal to kill.
Just be specific; those that want to ban abortion are pro zygote because they value a zygote as their equal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
And obviously, no one thinks fetus is equal to a born human,
Nope; there are people that believe a fetus is as equal to an infant as an infant is to a 2 year old.
But if your argument is that they should name themselves "Zygote Rights Activist" because its honest, then I must say that being honest is less important than being cool.
That's the problem; people aren't honest with their label. I would prefer it if the only people that called themselves Pro choice are libertarians; the left is Pro Abortion Legalization (PAL); the right is ANti Abortion Legalization (ANAL).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Not everything in our culture is good…
Yeah, but some things are neutral. Like the fact that America's colors are red, white and blue (vs Mexico's Red, White, and Green) is neutral. But being red white and blue is a product of American Civilization, so I feel better about Red, White, and Blue than Red, White, and Green.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I meant the part where Trump doesn't care who he pisses off.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What if you care about both? Trump didn't care about votes in 2016, he acted like a philophisor and he won in 2016.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Nah ... they are murderers that should have their heads chopped off or should face the firing squad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Eh ... too far. I don't like travelling. If they hear my justification and it isn't nonbinary stuff, then I think they would respect it.
Created:
Posted in:
Lets say you are a white person protesting police killings of black people because you believe a black life is equal to your own and you want to save their lives. I should get away with calling you a, "Black Rights Activist" if you say, "Black Lives Matter" and I should be able to type in, "#BlackLivesMatter" into YouTube and get a bunch of BLM supporters with their videos. I see these videos of Black Rights Activists and they would be proud to call themselves Black Rights Activists.
Lets say you are a born person protesting abortionists killings of zygote people because you believe a zygote life is equal to your own and you want to save their lives. I should get away with calling you a, "Zygote Rights Activist" if you say, "Protect the Unborn" (aka, "Zygote Lives Matter") and I should be able to type in, "#ZygoteLivesMatter" into YouTube and get a bunch of ZLM supporters with their videos. I do not see videos of Zygote Rights Activists when they protest; I see science videos about zygotes; but never Lila Rose or Classically Abby or Chloe Waked. I can put in #ProLife and find stuff; and everyone is Pro life to an extent (otherwise we would all be suicidal), but those that want to ban abortion are Zygote Rights Activists.
They should start calling themselves ZLM, "Zygote Lives Matter" so they are more honest. They would lose support because the normie thinks of that as silly, but at least it's honest. I mean, they do that with, "Blue Lives Matter" when some number of cops are getting killed by people (although I would prefer the government just fund cops less and if your house gets robbed, then have stand your ground giving you the authority to defend your own home).
Blue Lives Matter has a movement because cops are obviously human beings. Black Lives Matter has a movement because blacks are obviously human beings. Zygote Lives Matter would have a movement if Zygotes were human beings, but no such movement exists. Hell, I can't even find a, "Fetus Lives Matter" movement on YouTube.
People don't believe Zygotes (or even Fetuses) are human beings as much as they say they do. I can find "Youth Lives Matter", but the Youth are pretty safe, so it's not a big concern.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Also, I’m not convinced gender neutral pronouns are part of our culture. Certain subcultures, yes, but American culture as a whole? No.
In Latin Languages, almost every noun is gendered (la silla, el lapiz, etc). In English, we just do gender neutral (chair, pencil, etc).
Being gender neutral is part of Anglo American Civilization.
Created:
Posted in:
It's because being gender neutral is a product of Anglo-American civilization and Anglo civilization is the best out there for tending to lean libertarian compared to the others. Spain and France are too influenced by the Catholic Church and all of their authoritarianism. The Anglos and Germanic groups believe in more liberty by comparison.
When I say Anglo civilization, I don't just mean stereotypically white English speaking countries. I also mean places like Jamacia, Nigeria, and Papua New Guinea as well.
I am proud of my civilization and this civilization happens to be gender neutral, so I like using gender neutral pronouns.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It would take 4.5 minutes to read my post and confirm it. You don't need to look at all Arizona law. The claim is that the change made murdering migrants legal. All you have to look at is the change.If the change cannot possibly make murder legal, then you know you have spread misinformation.
I hope you are correct. I'm just not sure, especially in this polarizing climate where it seems politicians seem to be willing to do whatever they can to hang onto power. Many people are very worried about movers (who tend to be left wing) moving to states and turning them blue. Conservatives tend to stay where they live; liberals are more likely to move around.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
It's rebellion, so it is rebel pride.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Please don't enforce Rebel Pride on me or I will rebel.
Left wing examples of, "Rebel Pride":
- Getting abortions.
- Being undocumented.
- Being on welfare.
- Smoking weed in states where it is banned.
- Being a prostitute.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You won't admit to spreading misinformation
On that particular issue, I'm just not sure at this point if Kyle Kulinski was telling the truth or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Your comment makes no sense.
But there is no changing your mind, so why should I bother even commenting? It's like a Christain trying to convince a Muslim to do something based on the bible (or a Muslim trying to convince a Christain to pray 5x a day to Mecca because of the Quran).
Political parties are like religions; people don't want to deviate, and I'm willing to deviate from any party (like I'm anti abortion for instance). But you got a party to stick too, so there is no changing your mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
"Rebel Pride" comes from the confederate flag, which conservatives like because of, "Rebel Pride".
Created: