Total posts: 4,340
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
A person may use deadly physical force under subsection A only 13 in the defense of himself or third persons as described in sections 13-405 14 and 13-406.
Where is sections 13-405 14 and 13-406?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
That'll apparently be up to the mother and or appropriate party for justification.
Leaving the decision up to the mother for all pregnancies is pro choice for all pregnancies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@ebuc
I have 2 left wingers tagged to this thread.
Please state what you think about what I said in the OP.
If you don't respond in 24 hours, then I will assume you silently agree with claiming all conservative speech is hate speech while wanting to ban all conservative/hate speech, but don't want to come out and say it due to fear of social backlash.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Do you love to working at the US?
Work on your grammar.
I believe you meant:
Do you love to work in the US?
I have to in order to survive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
your argument is "you care about corruption, but want corrupt people on the court to suit your political agenda". That means you only care about corruption when it benefits you to care. Which is the same as not caring.
You are dodging my point. Do you want one party rule? Because one party rule (whether democrat or republican) is dangerous.
Look at polling on individual policies. Health care, women's rights etc. All of the "core" right wing policies are unpopular. Republicans win elections primarily on fear mongering, lies and cheating (gerrymandering etc).
I don't trust polling outlets. If they were accurate, everyone voted on abortion, and 60% of the US population was pro choice, then this country on average would be about as blue as NY is in our time. If it was 55% (the pro Public option or Medicare for all grouping), this the average in the country would be like Colorado.
Gerrymandering doesn't affect the national popular vote.
If the fear mongering is majoritarian in their belief, then these are instances of the majoritarian position being the right wing position.
you are equating views with political parties. This doesn't make sense.
Why not? What makes someone a political party are their views. If someone agreed with Trump 100% of the time but called themselves a democrat, they would be wrong.
there is conservative one party rule. Because when republicans pick judges, they exclusively pick far right loons hand picked by right wing think tanks. When democracts pick judges they tend to be centrist, maybe a bit left.
The left is just as extreme as the right and the political compass test is inaccurate with what they classify as left/center/right wing.
true. But there is 0 evidence that the democrats would, or have ever, put a psycho on the bench.
What is psycho? I believe in your view, psycho and social conservative are synonymous. To me, they are not. Like if someone hated Trump and wanted to ban abortion at 15 weeks nationwide, wanted constitutional carry nationwide, was anti UHC, wanted to eliminate Medicaid (a consequence of cutting government spending and fiscal conservatism), they aren't a trump hack, but you still think they are psychotic because they are socially and fiscally conservative and they govern as such.
It is the republicans who are obsessed with court packing for political gain.
Both parties are. I prefer a Supreme Court with 3-6 left wing judges and 3-6 right wing ones.
Judges aren't supposed to even have political affiliations.
They do have party biases and it's foolish to deny this.
The solution is for the court to be impartial.
This is wishful thinking. Everyone has biases.
Who are not going to pick sides based on political party. But republicans exclusively pick based on how they believe they will rule on culture war issues.
So do democrats. Do you think Biden is going to appoint a judge that is anti Roe V Wade? No.
Trump picked a judge based on how he thinks the judge would rule on culture war issues (abortion, Trump issues).
Biden also picked a judge based on how he thinks the judge would rule on culture war issues (abortion, Trump issues).
When the right states an opinion (abortion is murder), it's political. When the left states an opinion (abortion is healthcare), it's non-partisan.
It's only political when conservatives do it according to the left. It's political when anyone does it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I just read the bill.
Where is it and where are the relevant quotes?
We don't want to shoot immigrants in fact Republicans usually are aware we need high immigration levels but just want to secure the border and the left calls us anti immigration for thinking border security should be a thing. We have deep empathy for immigrants. Even the illegal immigrants we are aware that they are typically doing nothing wrong and just escaping bad situations. We just have to balance considering those things with national security
What is national security? If they r**e or murder, then they should get beheaded, their blood and organs taken from them, and that goes to save the lives of American Patriots. There are other ways to prevent terrorism besides deportation (just protect the things you would expect terrorists to go after).
We just have to balance co sidering those things with national security and try to open up routes to take them in legally and with some sort of vetting process and in numbers that don't overwhelm out infrastructure or create large enclaves that don't integrate.
What does it mean to integrate?
Just to know where we draw the line. If it is night time and I see a few people ducking behind my daughters window. It is acceptable for me to open fire on them right?
If they are using your daughter as porn material, I would shoot them over that; it's child porn at that point. But I don't think that's what happening.
If they are just accidentally over my property line and it is broad daylight yes it would be wrong to open fire
This was the situation I think the Arizonian government was trying to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
So your claim is that Arizona us crafting a law to murder undocumented immigrants randomly?
I’m saying if they are just traveling through your property (not breaking and entering, and I support stand your ground), then you can shoot them.
I’ve ran on private property before. It shouldn’t get you killed.
I am not clicking the link.
It’s a Kyle Kulinski Video. He is an anti woke free speech absolutist (credit where it’s due). If you don’t want to watch this video, it’s your choice, but being in an echo chamber is bad (even if it’s a right wing echo chamber).
I trust 100% that you are being sincere with me and not being sensationalist or falsely claiming something is th intention of a bill that is not the intention.
I am being sincere. I don’t grift. I only say what I actually believe.
Created:
-->
@mendis56
Thanks for the compliment.
I don’t live in the UK. I live in the US.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
gotcha. so you don't care about corruption. Your primary goal is to shove through right wing, unpopular policy even if that means letting super corrupt judges stay on the court.
I care about curroption but I don’t want one party rule on the court. Just outlaw curroption from here on out.
Your primary goal is to shove through right wing, unpopular policy even if that means letting super corrupt judges stay on the court.
If right wing policy was unpopular, then no Republican would have ever made it into the White House.
Why would liberal judges mean one party rule?
If it’s 1-2 liberal judges, then it wouldn’t be one party rule. If all 9 judges are liberals, then it is one party rule.
I believe every Supreme Court judge is curropt. Just like if Trump wins in 2024, I wouldn’t want to fire all the left wing judges and have Trump give conservatives one party rule on the court.
But your position is to protect someone you know is super corrupt because it benefits you politically.
My position is if Thomas is the only curropt judge, then I’m cool with sacking him and replacing him. If all the judges are curropt, then just outlaw the curroption.
Like if Trump outlawed curroption, fired all the curropt judges if all of them are curropt, and replaced them with MAGA psychos, you (and I) wouldn’t like that.
Areas with one party rule are bad places to live because politicians don’t have to focus on making the area better because they feel they will win no matter what.
The more battleground an area is, the better it is to live there (generally speaking).
Ideological diversity is a strength.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
A chance of you dying is different from a chance of it being a boy or girl being born when it was already verified.
The only difference is proportion.
How big does the proportion have to be to justify abortion to save the mother’s life?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
The link I sent was Arizona trying to keep their state red by shooting undocumented immigrants who tend to cause others to vote blue.
Created:
If the ruling was 5-4 or even 6-3, the. You can make the case for it being partisan.
It was 9-0.
I’m not voting for Trump, but I respect the results.
It was also 9-0 when they said Trump lost in 2020.
My rule is when individuals (not ideas, but individuals) are on trial, I respect whatever the court says since I wasn’t there.
Biden won in 2020, but Trump can run in 2024.
Most other people will cheer for their team.
Created:
Posted in:
The definition:
abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.
If one says, “Abortion should be banned”, then this can be argued to be abusive speech to women (similar grounds).
If one says, “Government spending should be cut, so cut welfare and social security”, then this is threatening and abusive speech to the poor and elderly who need this to LIVE (elderly are similar to these other groups).
All conservative speech can be argued to be hate speech. I would respect it if the left wanted to ban all hate speech (including conservative speech) or if they were free speech absolutists.
Just don’t play the middle ground and be honest.
All conservative speech is hate speech, so be consistent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What happened with the rules changing?Last I heard the change won the vote. Who vetoed it?
I read the ban log; Korea got temporarily banned for defending pedophillia.
Free speech absolutists are a minority nationwide.
Created:
Posted in:
How about no?
But MAGA people will defend it no matter what.
They treat zygotes than Mexicans. Go figure.
No changing their minds; it seems sadistic at this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I am not allowed to say that I hate Jews.
By you saying this (and not disagreeing with Wylted), you are implying that you hate Jews.
I'm a free speech absolutist, so I'm alright with you saying that (I'm also ok with you defending pedophilia which got you banned). But keep that in mind.
I don't agree with DART's censorship policies (I'd want them to legalize all political speech, insults, etc), but terms of service are terms of service and it makes sense to abide by that for your sake.
I harbor no ill will to those based on religion and I don't believe children can consent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
They are predicting what would happen; they aren't endorsing it.
If a weather reporter says, "In 5 days, there will be a tornado", does that mean they like the tornado? No.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Trump isn't rightwing. He's an idiot who jackknifes back and forth because he has no actual beliefs of his own other than money=good.
What is right wing/left wing by your metric?
so your argument is that the obviously, extremely corrupt SCOTUS should be allowed to keep his job after accepting millions upon millions of dollars in bribes as long as he promises not to do it again?
I would answer yes to that because I don't know the alternative. If every supreme court judge got fired for corruption, then it would empty the court, meaning Biden would spam it with 9 judges; 9 left wing judges, and then future conservative policy would be virtually impossible to implement, so it leads to one party rule (and places where politicians don't have to worry about re election tend to not be good places to live). Same thing if Trump gets in power and 9 conservative judges come to power.
I would rather outlaw the corruption and any future corruption gets punished with impeachment.
IE Bribing them is wrong, but thomas should get a pass for all his corruption because..... reasons. Basically, what you did.
I've been against curroption for a while; I didn't vote Trump in 2020; I voted Jorgenson.
It's more like the democrats say, "Corruption is bad" and the conservatives stay silent on it because they know the democrats are correct, but they didn't have the guts to agree with a democrat on even the mildest of political claims.
It's why the conservatives won't say even from the sloganist perspective that Black Lives Matter (because it would be agreeing with the left). Although from the sloganist perspective, I am pro BLM and IOTBW; from the non sloganist perspective, I am neither.
The right refuses to give the left credit where its due on modern day controversial issues because they are hacks. I'm not a hack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
There is always a chance of death for future events. There is a chance that I die tomorrow (even if it's slight).
No pregnancy has a 0% chance of death.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I am confused though. C-sections exist and are excellently done with extremely high success rate these days.
I would imagine cutting open a pregnant women's stomach is going to be a very big threat to her life. I wouldn't want someone cutting my stomach open.
If lower based on all past events, towards 10 percent or below chance, I would consider abortion pretty justifiable. Idk the full circumstances in what you are asking.
If it's 10%, then that means you would be willing to kill one woman (and her fetus, because death of mother means death for the fetus as well) for every 10 fetuses you save. If that's your standard, then that is fair, but understand that. You also would need to punish the woman for aborting if her odds of death are below 10%.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You didn't deny my post.
What is the minimum percentage of risk of maternal death needed to legalize abortion in your view?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Do you realise up until birth means you're literally supporting the slaughter of a human baby being technically non-murder?
If the alternative is imposing a chance that the mother dies, then yes. This applies to every pregnancy.
If you think this is too cruel, then please state a minimum chance of death you would force the mother to endure in order to save her baby.
But if I had to pick between killing a mother (100% certainty) or killing a 2 year old baby (100% certainty), I'm picking the person that won't be a burden to the state for 20 years.
I don't want kids. I would rather have a 5 year old die than have me die. If you think that is too psychotic, then you haven't thought it through.
You ask the typical person is they are willing to spend $1/day sponsoring the life of a child, and they would say, "No".
If the typical person is unwilling to spend $1/day on a child, then why should I be willing to spend my life on a child?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
"Every pregnancy is a threat to the mother's life."How so?
Any pregnancy can kill a mother (even if the odds of killing the mother are about .000000001%). The chance still exists.
If this is too petty for you, then please state a minimum risk of death you would force on the mother in order to protect her baby.
Created:
Posted in:
The most hardcore right wing abortion position is, "legal only with risk to the mother's life".
Every pregnancy is a threat to the mother's life.
Legalize abortion up until the moment of birth.
It's small government and we can't go around treating the zygote equally to the woman. That's socialist.
Fuck socialism and the free market (including Big Tech) is based.
Created:
The GOP doesn't consistently believe in anything.
I can't do this with the democrats though; their ethos is anti-unwanted pain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
In Jesus' time, slavery was normal.
An all powerful God would have changed the time and outlawed slavery unless they supported it.
In America, you might not get bombed, more likely to get shot.
Technically, but 17K people about died of homicide in the US last year out of 340 million people (so a .02% annual death rate from homicide). I wouldn't worry about it.
Simple really in India. Same as the rats. In India, a place where there is much starvation. Cows run free in the streets and are forbidden to be eaten. And the rats eat up to 1/3 of the food that comes into the ports. Worshiping cows and rats literally hurts millions of other people.
The same starvation happens in Africa; they don't worship cows and rats over there.
Telling an Indian living in India, "You should eat those cows" is like telling a westerner, "You should eat that dog".
It is possible to be Hindu and not be poor enough to where you starve.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Maybe that was a bad example. My bad (I got to see his arguments for it before I think they are good ones or not).
But if there is an issue where everyone agrees, then it doesn't get debated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
But most billionaires are rightwing, because the right loves to hand them money and tax loopholes.
I looked up at one time that 52% of billionaire voters voted for Trump; 42% against.
So they are about as right wing as men, but left wing ones you can easily find.
If you actually called out both equally you would be calling for Thomas to resign.
I would prefer it if corruption was just outlawed and he could keep his position, with the penalty for being corrupt after a certain date being impeachment (and there should be 1 representative per 50K American Citizens so it's harder to bribe them all and so representation is more decentralized so the house wouldn't be hypocritical when they vote out the corrupt). The senate should be abolished because it represents a Vermont resident about 70x more than a CA resident because CA has a population about 70x as big. States would only exist as containers to make sure your district doesn't completely change borders due to accumulation with federal representation.
But you care more about the joke from the left than the decades of bribes from the right.
I thought Oliver was serious, like unironically.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Not true, many communists in the US support the freedom of capitals it's to speak.
Then why are they communist? Is it just a passionate leftist?
The rest of your points I found confusing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
So are you saying it's fake and that Oliver was joking?
If so, then fine.
Corruption shouldn't exist at all, but I imagine left wing judges are curropt and the left doesn't call it out nearly as much as the right wing judge curroption.
I call them both out equally.
I thought the left was praising the curroption when it benefitted them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
How is that Communist as supposed to Capitalist or neither/both?
The communist believes in censoring right wing speech. It's how it is different from the socialist.
Well if you are so skilled and dedicated to use your influence to lead a massacre, you are long term more dangerous than the particular arrested/killed lunatic(s) that carried the most recent one out.
Talking about murdering people is different than talking about legalzing AR 15s.
Which one?
A generic communist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Roe v. Wade has been established case law for decades.
Homophobic laws were established case law for centuries. Precedent, status quo, and tradition is irrelevant.
How would putting it back be corruption?
Because John Oliver is trying to buy votes in the Supreme Court by getting Thomas out of there and replacing him with a judge Biden would appoint who would be pro Roe V Wade.
Roe v. Wade has been established case law for decades. It was upheld over and over and over. So the supreme court repealing it was corruption.
If the 1st 2 sentences are true, it doesn't make the 3rd sentence true as that's not what corruption is.
How would putting it back be corruption? It has decades of case law supporting it and it is overwhelmingly popular. So your base premise doesn't make sense.
Your 2nd and 3rd sentence have nothing to do with whether or not it's curropt. It's like someone saying, "I'm not racist; I have a kitten". Somebody having a kitten (even if true) is no proof that they aren't racist.
It's corruption because John Oliver is trying to buy votes.
I'm consistently against corruption.
I don't even like Thomas since he's a hypocrite; but I don't like leftists claiming curroption is bad (unless they can use it for left wing causes).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
If you set the precedent that “political speech that reults in 100 people dying is just as bad as 100 murders”, then that is communist (and I fail to see how it wouldn’t be).
Speech that has 100 people or so get killed as a side effect of a policy (like advocating for legalized guns results in at least 100 children dying a year or so) should be treated much better than actually murdering 100 children.
The communist disagrees.
Speech that has 100 people or so get killed as a side effect of a policy (like advocating for legalized guns results in at least 100 children dying a year or so) should be treated much better than actually murdering 100 children.
The communist disagrees.
Created:
Posted in:
According to Kyle Kulinski:
Corruption that benefits the right (repealing Roe V Wade): Bad.
Corruption that benefits the left (re enacting it): Good.
If the left wins on every issue, then what would our politicians disagree on? It would be one party rule at that point.
Doesn't seem too good for diversity of thought.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I am anti Covid vaccine mandate, Pro let the suckers die or suffer long term without it. Society isn't always that psychopathic about it, unfortunately.
That's fine.
Honestly, that's my take as well.
Regarding the issue at hand, are you asking me something here?This topic seems to have nothing to do witha. COVID vaccine mandate.
I was asking why were Canadian Truckers getting treated worse than JEFFERY EPSTEIN!?
Created:
-->
@Mharman
@MisterChris
Maybe either one of you can give me your value for X.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@oromagi
Maybe you guys (both of you are on the left, so I can assume you support vacciene mandates) have something to say about this.
Or do you just not want to criticize those than the corporate media told you not to criticize.
Canadian Truckers deserve better treatment than Jeffery Epstein.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
This place is a cesspot of conspiracy theories, bigotry, and fierce anti-intellectualism(really ironic considering the website's supposed purpose).
(From your perspective) What a very long way of saying, "right winger".
But if everyone was left wing, then what is there to argue about like what you want to do here:
Over years of development i've come to this website for a lotta' things, a way to "sharpen" my brain, a way to develop my argumentation
?
You advocate a contradiction.
You don't see people debate things like, "Should burning living babies be legal?" because everyone agrees the answer to that is no.
You see people debate things like, "Should Trump be POTUS?" because many people say yes and many people say no.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Trump isn't really a conservative but it's pretty obvious that the left is a larger threat to the bill of rights. the bill of rights being the most important part of the constitution.
I don't think the order of the amendments matter. But the left is more pro 8th and 13th, the right is more pro 2nd and 5th. Both support the 1st for people on their dichotimy team (left vs right).
I guess the accusation comes down to the fact that he disagreed with a lot of people about what the constitution gave Mike Pence th authority to do.
Wanting to modify the constitution is different than wanting to terminate it. Lincoln modified the constitution. He didn't terminate it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
What happened is straight fascism and if I was a conservative and saw this happen to liberals it would wake me up to who the true bad guys are and I would immediately switch sides.
On the issue, "Should Canadian truckers have their assets frozen?", I agree with the conservatives.
On the issue, "Should the constitution be terminated?", I disagree with Trump.
I'm not a partisan hack.
Created:
Posted in:
Only one of these sets had their bank accoutns frozen and people defending the decision.
It was the truckers.
If you are pro vacciene mandate, how do you defend that?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So a nationalist? Connotations are irrelevant.
If so, then Crimea is disputed territory. Who are the Patriots in Crimea? Are they Pro Russia, Pro Ukraine, or Pro Crimea?
If you have any allegience to any nation you want, it can be argued to be Patritism.
An American Patriot would want their area to stay or be annexed by the USA.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
How would you define patriot then?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You said all immigrants were patriots. That is not an absolutely or generally true statement.
If Patriot is defined as someone that prefers living in the US above all others, then it's a correct statement. Just like you love Texas if you move there from CA, even if you are a socialist. Maybe you love Austin, TX.
Every immigrant moving to America loves America. It might not be Kansas, America. It might be Queens, America.
Why move somewhere that you hate?
Created:
Person A: I believe that abortion should be banned unless there is a risk to the mother's life. You never know in advance if abortion will kill the mother's life, but if the abortion is a risk to the mother's life, then she should be allowed to get an abortion. This includes all pregnancies at all stages of development, because all pregnancies are a risk to the mother's life (even if it's (1/a trillion) percent chance). Abortion legalization should therefore be unrestricted.
How could a pro lifer disagree with that logic? Unless they maybe state, "The odds of a woman dying from this pregnancy has to be at least X% in order to allow her to get an abortion."
How much would X be? Because I can argue that if X% is .0000000001%, then I can advocate banning abortion unless a risk to the mother's life and it sounds very pro choice. Even repealing the Hyde Amendment sounds pro life if X is this low if it's the mother's life we are talking about.
What is your value of X is you are pro life?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So billionaires can vote against what you perceive to be their interests.
You are assuming billionaires feel the urge to play reverse psychology.
They have no incentive too. They aren't a universally despised group in the US (U.S. views of billionaires now somewhat more negative than in 2020 | Pew Research Center). Only the universally despised have an incentive to play reverse psychology, and even then, it's only 50/50 due to them thinking that everyone would think they are playing reverse psychology (someone in Richard Spencer or NAMBLA territory would be an example).
Billionaires aren't in NAMBLA territory.
They didn't come because they were in awe of the algonquian way of living and they were neither soldiers nor warriors.
Is your fear that you don't want there to be a Mexican separatist movement along the southern border? Because there is a deportation free way to avoid that.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Even if they were, why do the billionaires donate to democrats?
Because the billionaires agree with the dems who want to raise taxes on them (because some billionaires want to be taxed more). Bernie Sanders got plenty of large donations too.
The vikings moved from Norway/Denmark to Scotland/England/France. It wasn't love of the local culture and people that brought them.
They were soliders. Migrants are not soliders; they are civilians.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
So you had kids BEFORE you went to college. Very white trashy.
If a black couple did the same thing in Harlem, would you have that same vigor towards them? If not, then why not?
For me, I don't like it when people on welfare vote for the party that wants to cut their welfare. It's not smart voting.
If middle class people want to vote red because they don't want money going to the poor, then fine.
If you are on welfare though, then you should be voting for the party that wants to expand welfare benefits. If you get off of welfare, then you can vote for the party that wants to cut it (just like if you are born poor and vote blue when you are poor, but become rich and vote red, then that's understandable).
But if the GOP loses so many voters, what would it mean to be a republican if the whole country is fiscally left wing because pretty much everyone went to public school and got help from the government for over a decade?
They would have to resort to RSG issues, and there I understand that a lot of people just cheer for their own team (if Richard Spencer was born black, then he would be a very big BLM advocate; if Andrew Tate was born a woman, then he would be a hardcore feminist, etc).
RSG issues are easier to market on.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That does not answer the question, and it is wrong on many levels.
It did.
The democrats want to steal the globalists to fund the healthcare of the people they deem to be American PatriotsThe globalist movement is powered by delusional people who think they can run healthcare systems with stolen money and not have it become expensive and subpar (among many other futurist delusions).
Globalist and billionaire I believe are synonymous terms.
That is not the definition of a patriot. Being born doesn't prove patriotism, nor does it prove preference. Failing to flee at the first opportunity doesn't prove patriotism, nor preference.
If you move to the US from a foreign country, then you love America and therefore are a Patriot.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
1. Preventing my great pain is most important.Basically, nothing else matters if I am in unbearable pain.
It's ok to believe this, but I place little importance on reducing pain if it's temporary pain, especially when compared to something more long term.
Created: