Total posts: 4,340
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You have no chance of winning this debate in my opinion.
Then there is no point in me responding further.
I haven't even read the rest of your tribalistic indoctrination, but there is no point if you are too far gone (TFG).
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You wanted DeSantis to quit, so you should give him credit here instead of calling him a loser.I want him to disappear. He is a moron like all the MAGA MORONS.
Alright; so then give him credit for dropping out.
He had a woman who was having sex with another woman running his don’t say gay program.
DeSantis doesn't care if you are homosexual; I'm assuming you don't care if someone is homosexual.
If you want LGBT stuff taught in public schools; you believe that. But whether the person running the "Don't say gay" bill is straight or not is irrelevant.
He banned books that taught children about the horrors of slavery.He’s a disgrace.
That, I agree with you on.
Children should be taught about how horrible slavery is, but I think the content is too repetitive. You don't need to spend 8 years or so going over exactly the same concepts. Have 1/4 of the school year have it's history class be dedicated to how horrible slavery is and get all the anti slavery education done in that 1/4 of the year. By freeing up time, we can teach kids about other stuff that we currently can't because there is not enough time in the school day.
You probably think I'm hardcore right wing, but I'll give the left credit on the issue if I think they deserve it. I'm not a partisan hack.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't think Nikki Haley is liked by most democrats, but I might be wrong. Her nationwide approval I don't even think is above water.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Even if he doesn't that doesn't mean he endorses him, and even if Trump endorsed him that wouldn't mean people who endorse Trump endorse him.... and even if people endorse Fuentes that doesn't mean they endorse everything he says.
Trump certainly knows what Fuentes said by now. 3 things could happen:
- Trump denounces Fuentes and turns down his endorsement. Then a tiny part of the country (Nazi flag waving Nazis) stay out of the election and he may get a small (but bigger part) of flappable voters to vote for him.
- Trump says nothing. Then nobody talks about it, so Trump doesn't have to suffer the loss of endorsing Fuentes because he keeps that endorsement to himself and everyone can at least assume Trump doesn't like a guy he had dinner with.
- Trump endorses Fuentes here, which would mean he is unelectable (for the next 2 weeks; and then people will forget about it).
If you applied that of hyper-contagious guilt by association then anyone who supports Biden supports lynching because Biden once endorsed a KKK guy and the KKK once endorsed lynching.
That racist endorsement was 50 or so years ago. Trump's implied support is current.
You should judge politicians by the standards of their time, not ours.
Biden let his white son get away with saying the N word. But since I have a principled stance that anyone should be allowed to say the N word regardless of race and I don't inheritely think it's racist for a white person to say the N word, I'm not going to call Biden a racism enabler because he might agree with me on that (just like he agrees with the republicans on a lot of issues).
This is because Trump agrees with FuentesSo you can read minds.
I cannot read minds, but I can see patterns. If you ask someone if slavery is bad and they say, "No comment"; they support slavery but don't have the guts to be upfront with supporting slavery. If a confederate flag waiver gets asked if they support slavery and they say, "No", then they just think the confederate flag is southern pride (I think the confederate flag is racist, but if white southerners don't; that's not the same thing as them refusing to denounce slavery while flying the confederate flag).
He called for Terminating the entire constitution.I love the 1st,2nd,4th,5th,8th,9th,10th,13-15th, and the 19th amendment. I don't like the 16th amendment; that amendment was bad.No more than you just did.
False.
But the rest are based and it is anti free speech and anti gun to advocate destroying the entire constitution.I guess you used the your telepathy to figure that one out too?
I use common sense. If someone has a planned parenthood sticker on the back of their car as well as a "Transwomen are real women" sticker, if you believe there is a plausible chance they vote republican, I think it's delusional thinking.
Keep on cheering for your party. Nothing I say will make you not vote for Trump because you are unconvincable, so maybe I should stop trying.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
As a workaround, if you want a voteless debate, you can have me be the judge for the debate and tell me not to vote in it, and I won't.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You wanted DeSantis to quit, so you should give him credit here instead of calling him a loser.
But you didn't because you are a partisan hack and will do whatever it takes to go after someone with an R in their name (unless that someone with an R is hated by the MAGA people, then you only might like that person).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
They like that he pisses off leftists.
All the MAGA people (who make up the majority of the republican party) care about is "owning the libs".
What they don't realize is they could "own the libs" by reducing their fertility rates by letting them abort their kids, when their kids are going to tend to be low income and non-white (both left groups) and are unconditionally going to be part of a younger generation than Gen Z, so when they vote, who do you think they would tend to vote for?
There is not a single person that can run for office that can satisfy both the left base and the conservative base; and it's very often that people that have ran for POTUS piss off both bases (DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Biden).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Trump isn't going to denounce Nick Fuentes calling for executing political opponents and I'm sure he knows Fuentes said this (but won't admit it; claiming you don't know someone when you do is the easiest way to avoid bad press that might even piss off your own base). This is because Trump agrees with Fuentes, but he knows if he came out and said that, a lot of his base would flee him.
He called for Terminating the entire constitution.
I love the 1st,2nd,4th,5th,8th,9th,10th,13-15th, and the 19th amendment. I don't like the 16th amendment; that amendment was bad.
But the rest are based and it is anti free speech and anti gun to advocate destroying the entire constitution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, legally speaking, you can tell some kid that you a pedophile, and the feds will only punish you if you have child porn or do child abuse. Your house probably will get searched, stuff will get vandalized, but it's cops doing their job and no major party will criticize the cops over it. Although if the feds are against child porn because it exploits children, but are fine with chocolate (which was made using child slavery), I think it's hypocritical.
I mean, does alcohol have some different effect on minors than it does on adults?
I think the alcohol/weed/tobacco/vape age should be set to the same age as the age of consent; 16 unconditionally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I don't have an issue with parents swearing to kids.
If I had a kid, I would tell my kid that they can't swear in front of strangers because strangers don't like it (or their friends until they are 13), but they can swear to me all they want.
I do think though that while someone who is attracted to kids can say sexual things about that kid to that kid, if it's acted on, it's child rape. If the kid gives the pedophile the finger, that's also free speech. If the kid tells their parents that the pedophile was making them uncomfortable, and the parents get outraged at the pedophile over the pedo making their kid uncomfortable, that's also free speech.
I've gotten in trouble by a kid's parents for calling the kid a brat and for publicly stating that I couldn't tell if the kid was a boy or a girl.
Parents are very protective of their kids.
But if it's ok for an 8 year old to have sex, then it's ok for an 8 year old to drink recreational alcohol. I think alcohol messes with your brain less. The converse isn't necessarily true.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm not going to ignore them just because they are on the left.
The difference between far left and far right censorship:
The average person that supports Biden supports a guy that probably takes too many naps (and honestly should be replaced with Kamala Harris because I don't think Biden is mentally there and it's certainly possible; so have someone like Kamala Harris replace Biden; have Biden step down and have Harris replace him; nobody thinks Kamala Harris has dementia and she is his VP).
The average person that supports Trump supports a guy that would execute his political opponents.
If you think Biden has dementia, lets say you think Obama is the one controlling Biden, then you should treat the 2024 election as Obama vs Trump; if you think Harris controls Biden, then you should treat the 2024 election as Harris vs Trump.
But don't vote for Trump. Keep free speech alive!
The sad part is I'm going to forget about this in like 48 hours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah; free speech is based.
Freedom is dangerous, but I prefer it to the alternative.
Created:
Posted in:
Should horrible views get free speech? You would need a definition for what counts as a horrible view (and not a definition by examples).
Usually, "hate speech" is what people want to ban.
The definition of "hate speech" is the following: "abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or SIMILAR GROUNDS:"
If someone says, "Blacks should get killed", that would be deemed hate speech.
If someone said, "Death to poor people" (I'm not saying they are the same thing, but the left supports both groups because they are stereotypically oppressed, and many people would argue a poor (white or else) homeless guy deserves the same right to live as a middle class (white or else) person), that would be viewed as hate speech.
If someone said, "Death to murderers", whether you agreed or not, most people support someone's right to say it (because the murderer harmed someone else to a significant degree; the generic black or poor person did not).
So if the standard is, "If you advocate the death penalty for any harmless or minimally harming group (the poor homeless guy on welfare harms the taxpayer nominally with welfare consumption); then that's hate speech that we would ban you from saying."
If someone said, "I want to cut government spending and if it means poor homeless children of color starve to death, so be it. I'm a fiscal conservative and I prefer my taxes low with dead stranger kids to higher taxes and living stranger kids", if you were logically consistent, you may call advocating for fiscal conservatism hate speech.
If our government decides to censor fiscal conservatism, how would America be any ideologically different from communist China? Death and suffering of the poor are always the cost of economic freedom / low taxes/ low spending / fiscal conservatism / social freedom as well.
Advocating the censorship of those advocating human sacrifice in the name of freedom (even if it's a slight cost of freedom to save a huge number of lives) is communism.
We had that during COVID lockdowns (people were advocating censoring those who wanted a little human sacrifice in exchange for a lot of freedom), and these people are communists. I can respect (and despise) an honest communist; I cannot respect a wishy-washy communist who doesn't realize they are a communist that claims to only want to censor some things they would deem to be hate speech while not realizing the precedent they have set.
Me; I'm a free speech absolutist. You should be allowed to advocate literally any political position you want, whether it's as far right as the KKK or as left-wing as calling for the deaths of all conservatives, even if they are anti Trump republicans (but still agree with Trump on all the policies they deem make Trump a bigot). People should see Liz Cheney the same way as they see Ben Shapiro; they are both anti Trump republicans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Are you a transgender?
No.
What is a woman?Seriously! Do you have to ask?
Yes. The definition used to be based on chromosomes. But people want to change the definition to something that isn't consistent (like, "Whoever identifies as a woman"). If I identify as a couch, that doesn't make me a couch.
So the identitarian definition is not a good definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@John_C_87
Due to the freedom of speech and freedom of press holding no connection to the 1st Amendment can be used to describe any women or man who is not a medical doctor can perform an abortion.
The first amendment protects the right to free speech, not freedom of action.
You can under the first amendment, advocate for legalizing drunk driving. That doesn't give you the freedom to drive drunk.
It is legal to protest for legalized abortion in Texas and every state where it is banned. It is illegal to get an abortion in these states.
Also, sorry to be the one to break the news but a woman can perform an abortion even when pregnant, to abort is not limited by English grammar to only mean one thing a termination of a pregnancy at the cost of life. The meaning to abort is to officially stop an officially started process of somekind, it is when it is connected to a medical process such as delivery of posterity it becomes a harmful self-incrimination. The freedom of speech and press describes that English grammar cannot hold one word with multiple meanings to be magically understood in criminal law.
You can legally call abortion whatever you want; murder; women's healthcare. But should you be allowed to perform an abortion or receive one? That's the disputation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@John_C_87
Either women die during labor while delivering a child of American posterity or they do not. Which one is it?
Hard to tell while she is pregnant, but only those that are pregnant can get abortions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Doctors say they wrestle with vague laws; it’s often hard to determine whether a patient’s case qualifies as an exception.
Well, if abortion is banned except when the mother might die without one, any pregnancy the woman might die without an abortion; so if you were logically consistent with that, it means legal abortion up until the moment of birth (because any pregnancy can have the mother die even if the odds are 1/1 billion). This only ceases to be true if abortion is banned except when the mother has an (X%) chance of dying without one (X% should be pre determined by any state that wishes to ban abortion except to save the mother's life).
In some states, violating abortion laws is considered a felony, and can be punishable by large fines and between a decade to life in prison.
Well, when your state and logical pro life ethos calls for abortion to be treated exactly as murder (which means life imprisonment for the doctor that got the abortion as well as the woman that hired the doctor for the abortion), you can expect that.
If you don't like this fact, maybe don't say stuff like, "Abortion is murder" because that's the logical conclusion; treat it like murder if abortion is indeed murder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@John_C_87
Are you saying no mother ever dies while in labor due to medical complications?
No and this is a strawman. In post Roe America, every state has abortion as legal at least to save the mother's life.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
There are many thought patterns that lead back to the same policy/tactic/code of behavior.
Like what (for conservatives)?
How do we/you know we aren't the crazy ones?
Because I've ran some expieriments on people before.
I've asked 2 women; both pro life women that supported Donald Trump, if they would rather vote for a pro lifer that hates Trump or a pro choicer that loves him.
The first woman said they prefer the pro lifer that hates Trump.
The second woman said they prefer the pro choice that loves Trump.
They both asked me what I thought.
I told them, for me, the answer was easy; I am a pro lifer that hates Trump.
The first woman ended up abandoning her previous pro Trump position in order to fit in with the simulated parties I pointed her too. Now, she is a pro lifer that hates Trump. The 2nd woman became a pro choicer that backs Trump.
I gave you a like.
They both initially were pro lifers that loved Trump. But many people want to fit into a party, and I can present the party dichotomies anyway I want to and I can cause people to believe whatever I want because people are too afraid to give credit to a politician they dislike and people are too afraid to criticize a politician they like.
I ran the experiment a 3rd time. It was on someone who was anti death penalty and anti COVID vacciene (1 left belief and 1 right belief; which I respect). I asked him would he rather support a pro death penalty person that was anti vax mandate or an anti death penalty person that was pro vax mandate. He said the 1st; I told him I agreed with the 1st; and his psychology caused him to abandon his initial anti death penalty belief.
Democrats kindof did this with anti abortion Hispanic immigrants; a pro choicer that wouldn't deport the undocumented immigrants they knew or a pro lifer that would deport the undocumented immigrants they knew. The immigrants selected the 1st option; democrats said they were the 1st option, and the immigrants have became much more pro choice than their ethnic counterparts that stayed in their home country.
You will never convince someone that their epistemology is wrong. Epistemology is what creates knowledge and is the only knob by which convincing can happen. For example if someone believe the bible is the only source of knowledge, you can only convince them of anything by twisting the bible to make your case.
This is correct. To convince an anti unwanted pain democrat of a position, I must state how my position is anti-unwanted pain. For the republicans though, they don't have a consistent ethos like the bible or anti unwanted pain or liberty or anything like that.
Making a good argument is also the only way to convince a rational person who is not in a cult (or freakishly loyal to a party or whatever word you want to use).If cult:argueelse:argue
I can see that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Pro lifers: Ban abortion!
Me: Why?
Pro lifers: Because abortion kills an innocent human being!
Me: But pregnancy is painful for a lot of women.
Pro lifers: Doesn’t matter! Pain is temporary; deathis permanent.
Me: So you believe that 9 months of unwanted pregnancy painis less serious than killing an unborn child?
Pro lifers: Yes.
Me: So you believe then that 1 day of unwanted pregnancypain is less serious than killing an unborn child?
Pro lifers: Yes.
Me: For gender exclusive pain (male only pain vs female onlypain), can we assume that 1 day of male pain has to be weighted the same as 1day of female pain?
Pro lifers: Sure.
Me: Do you guys believe prevention is the best cure? After all, it’s better to prevent the abortion and the 9 months ofunwanted pregnancy than either/or if abortion kills a human being.
Pro lifers: Sure. People should wait until marriage tohave sex (even though most of us didn’t do that(whatpercentage of the us waits until marraige? - Search (bing.com))).
Me: So rather than advocate women go through 9 months ofunwanted pregnancy pain in order to prevent the death of an unborn child(because the goal of pro lifers is not to save life; it’s to prevent death),how about you just advocate that the dude get a vasectomy and endure 1 day ofpain to prevent the death of any unborn kid that would have been producedrather than advocate that the woman endure months of pain (whether from birthcontrol pills or pregnancy) in order to achieve the same result; preventing thedeath of an unborn kid?
Pro lifers: How will people reproduce?
Me: Easy; before the vasectomy, every dude stores enough prevasectomy sperm samples in a hospital freezer to reproduce at least 4 kids witha woman who consents to the pregnancy beforehand (and this woman is far lesslikely to abort). The benefits of this idea:
- Cheaper than taking care of unplanned pregnancies through welfare.
- Less net bodily pain imposed on the genders as an average and median wrt to birth control.
- Virtually eliminates abortion, as unplanned pregnencies no longer exist.
- Virtually eliminates unwanted pregnancy pain
I think the idea is a silver bullet. I believe abortion should be banned from consensual sex because it kills an innocent human being (maybe even for rape victims). Because of this, I will get avasectomy before I have sex. I believe every sexually active pro life man that doesn't have a vasectomy is a hypocrite, and the same is true for every sexually active pro life woman that doesn't require a vasectomy before they have sex.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
you spend way too much time trying to find consistency in beliefs and then attack anyone who doesn't follow your views.
I wouldn't say it's an attack; although the internet can make it seem like that.
It's more passion about an issue.
someone can be against abortion cause it's a human but believe in big government which isn't party line, others may be for it cause they think the localest decision is the woman, even if they prefer local governing decisions in generl and aren't liberal.
I realize that, there are whole lifers and libertarians. I respect both beliefs (even if I don't agree with either 100%).
But if one has exceptions to either belief, they shouldn't be party induced exceptions; they should be customized exceptions.
I liked your comment though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
And if you ask me about various conservative positions I'm going to tell you that some I find stupid, some I find just wrong, some I just see differently, and few I may even agree with.
What conservative belief(s) do you have?
Here are a bunch of issues:
- San Francisco style Reparations
- Citizens united
- First past the post
- Higher taxes on the wealthy
- Additional gun control
- Climate change alarmism
- Corporate welfare
- 2020 election
- AI
- Income tax
- Relocating peaceful (undocumented/illegal) immigrants(to either their home country or to blue counties).
- Big tech censorship
- Medicare for all
- Affirmitive action
- Believe women, good or bad?
- Death penalty for felonies
- Abortion for consensual sex
- Felons voting(assuming you back incarceration)
- Homeschooling
- Drag queens for children
- Teacher salary raises
- Increase Military spending
- Circumsising infants
- Energy
- Free college
- Electoral college
- Ye West
- Ukraine-Russia Conflict
- Gay marriage
- Gas Sales Tax
- Churches
- Getting fired for being LGBT
- Getting fired for being unvaccinated
- Refusing service to LGBT customers
- Hard vacciene mandate (for customers)
- Censorship for far left (flag burners)
- Censorship for far right (white supremests)
- Porn
- GMOs
- Israel-Palestine conflict
- PR statehood
- DC statehood
- CRT
- Crypto Currency
- Birth control
- Minimum wage
- Individual welfare
- Oil nationalization
- Veganism
- Hitler
- Tariffs
- Gender transitioning for minors
- Sex
- Police body cameras
- Yemen-Saudi Arabia conflict
- Furries
- Subsidize renewable energy
- Planned parenthood funding
- Should employers be required to provide free birth control?
- Enviornmental regulations
- LGBT couples adopting
- Tough on weed
- Tough on vape
- Tough on Nicotine
- Voting
- Defund the police
- Defunding the FBI
- Adultury
- Qualified immunity support
- Constitutional carry
- Should prostitution be legal(unmarried people)?
- National DNA database
- Patriot Act
- Metric system
- Hyde Amendment
- Wage gap
- Abortion for rape victims. Nationwide
- Nationwide abortion ban
- Cultural Appropriation
- Transgenderism
- Trans people competing in women's sports
- Confederate flag/What caused the civil war?
- Creationism
- Belief in God
Conservatism comes from the word "conserve", which is an ideal centered around keeping things the way they have always been or adhering to tradition.
Some traditions conservatives do not want to support:
- Roe V Wade
- The progressive income tax
- Trump is not a traditional president
The GOP isn't consistent either with being pro status quo.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Truth table it out. What happens when you assume that other minds are irrational?If you're right then what do you gain?If others are rational, but you don't give them a chance to be convinced, then to them you aren't susceptible to reason as well.
If I'm right, hopefully I can convince others to break out of partisan cults, and then once that happens, then they become more persuadable once they realize that their party was forming their own beliefs instead of their own mentality.
If others are rationale, then they would be open about the times when they are willing to buck orthodoxy and be as passionate about the issue they buck orthodoxy with their party on as if it was an issue accepted by their party.
When was the last time you heard someone like YouFoundLxam advocate a left wing position he genuinely believes in? Or Dr. Franklin?
They are afraid to call out their own party on issues where they think their party deserves critisism.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
i am different than you in beliefs... i stick to general principle on most things
What is your principle?
and understand that reasonable people can differ on details
The issue is the exceptions to their principles are consistently the same.
Like lets say the conservative ethos is small government and personal liberty, but there are exceptions. Here are some examples of potential exceptions:
Ex A: Right to get an abortion
Ex B: Right to be an undocumented immigrant
Ex C: Right to be Jewish
Ex D: Right to interracially marry
Ex E: Right to be Polygamous
Ex F: Right to marry someone of the same sex
Ex G: Right to be a prostitute
Ex H: Right to smoke weed
Ex I: Right to have sex with someone underage
With few exceptions, the exceptions conservatives have decided to make their exceptions to the, "small government" ethos are A,B,E,G, I and (F and H) are like 50/50.
Some exceptions are going to be more popular than others (exception I is going to be more popular in terms of an exception than C or D and this is fine), so exceptions are ok.
But when the majority of conservatives have their exceptions to the, "small government" ethos are at least A,B,E,G, and I, it seems like a cult to me.
All of these letters should be mutually independent in terms of the views of the individual.
My exceptions are A and I; that's it.
Created:
Anybody that's reading this, I recommend staying tuned to the end. It wouldn't seem to make any sense, but eventually, I think it will.
DP supporter: Here's what I believe:
- Every gun law is an infringement (unless it happens to transgenders).
- Ban abortion. Abortion is murder. Murder should either be punished with death or life imprisonment. So treat abortion the same way.
- End single motherhood for harmless fathers (unless the father is an illegal alien, then kick him out because it's the LAW and the LAW must be upheld no matter what (unless it's the Roe V Wade law)).
- America first! No money for foreign countries (unless Israel, because they stand for freedom (but only the freedoms we don't like such as legalized abortion and other satanic rights (biblical rights, like the right to freely move where you want they don't do))).
- Parental rights (unless the parents look like this: Example)
- Like Trump because he runs the country like a business, hate wokeness, and call businesses woke (and like Trump because he runs the country like a business).
- My body my choice for vaccination (but not for cannabis; out of my most agreeable states; only 13% of them legalized recreational weed; the states I don't like, about 90% of them legalized weed).
- God is always morally correct on everything (unless it's any of these verses: 20 Bible Passages for Curious Leftists, then I'm against it).
- Taxation is theft (and fund our police).
- Decentralize the government, less people per representative (so government becomes less centralized). In other words, agreeing with this guy: How to Make Congress Less Terrible | Robert Reich (youtube.com). But wait, he uses buzzwords like, "Women" and, "People of Color", and he's on the left, so we can't agree with a left-wing point.
- I support the free market; free market capitalism is great (unless the free market (aka Big Tech) decides to take down my speech because they have decided that my speech is harmful for their profit margins, then I don't like the free market). The free market using child slaves to produce goods cheaper; I don't protest against that. The free market taking down electronic text that I wrote; I will get upset at that and I will protest against that.
- I support free speech so much; it's why I agree with this woman that wants to take away certain people's right to vote because they tend to vote blue: Marjorie Taylor Greene Calls It 'Wise' to Bar Democrats Who Move to Red States From Voting (newsweek.com) (or at least I won't actively call her out on it because she is on my team).
- I'm going to act like my mind can be persuaded and other people are going to assume my mind can be persuaded (and maybe I will actually believe that my mind can be persuaded), but subconsciously, I won't be able to have my mind persuaded because I have a party to stick too. My party's orthodoxy can't be challenged no matter what, no matter how little it makes sense. Until I break partisan bonds, my mind will never be changed.
For those who are wondering, D supporter is not, "Democrat Party supporter", it's "Donald TrumP Supporter".
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You are supposed to default to science, even when you assume your personal situation might be an exception.
Science has exceptions.
Like according to science, gay men wouldn't exist unless a mutation because gay men don't reproduce, so they can't spread their gay genes; but straight men do spread their genes.
So according to science, straight genes are designed to overtake gay genes.
But here Gen Z is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It's the standard conservative position on transgenderism that you are calling stupid.Correct, because it is.
Do you believe every conservative position is stupid? Because if so, then you are against the idea merely because it's conservative, so the left wing would be your tribe. At that point, convincing you to agree with my position is like someone who was born in NYC (and is a Yankees fan) trying to convince someone born in Boston (who is a Red Sox fan) to become a Yankee fan even though they were born in Boston, when if the NYC person was born in Boston, they would end up doing the same thing.
If the right was the first group to accept the belief that transwomen are real women, the left would call transgenderism a conspiracy theory. If the left were the first to oppose vacciene mandates, citing the claim that they disproportionally effect people of color, then the right would be claiming it's your patriotic duty to get the American shot.
As your OP states, the "woke left" "can't even" define a woman "consistently" - implying very clearly that you think there's something wrong with that and worthy of calling out.
In the spreadsheet I linked, I actually defined what a woman is in a way the left and right might agree too. But you don't point that out because you are just doing your narraitve.
Let's set aside for a moment that the King of "you're just believing what your tribe tells you to believe" suddenly thinks it's a problem for a large political group to have widespread disagreement on the specifics of an issue
I'm generalizing. The vast majority of trans activists are going to be left wing on issues unrelated to transgenderism just because the left pre selected the issues for them, but it's a generalization.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Plenty of women don't look like Melania and plenty of men do. Arnold S*****ne**er has a similar skin tone to Melania; Cadence Owens does not.
But drag queens (who are cisgender men) look like women. Both the Matt Walsh fans and the Samantha Lux fans believe cisgender male drag queens are men.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
A human zygote is a human zygote.End of story.
A human foreskin is a human foreskin. What's your point?
Abortion is a separate issue.
Then why do pro lifers have a strong tendency to believe transgenderism is not accurate and vice versa?
And as I just stated in another of your threads...Women produce eggs. Though if their production systems have been disabled, they are reproductively disabled women.Whereas men who have chopped of their dicks and balls and call themselves Tiffany, are just that...Though also reproductively disabled.
I addressed this in that thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I would say that by this point, with gender and science being part of the national dialog for at least a year now and a prominent topic on this site, anyone who still pretends gender and/or sex is a simple one or the other proposition with no reasonable room for question either suffers from a diagnosable cognitive deficiency or is being disingenuous.
In other words, if they agree with the conservatives on transgenderism (about 60% of the population according to Pew), then they either suffer from a diagnosable cognitive deficiency or is being disingenuous by your logic.
It's the standard conservative position on transgenderism that you are calling stupid.
But it's what you can expect from a hardcore left triber.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
That's because biology is not the either/or that simpletons like yourself seem to think. Plus definitions are invented by people, and no one person has a monopoly on what words mean.
Did you read the rest of the OP? Or are you too simpleton to do that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I haven't really studied the "spanking your child" issue that much.
What links do you know of that confirm your position?
At this point, I might do my best to play Devils Advocate.
Created:
Posted in:
The radical left and the thousands of woke gender studies PHD majors can't even answer the question in their own field consistency with years to answer; what is a woman?
But that's ok; because this suburban Yankee math major from exurban NYC (myself) answered the question by himself in a few days:
Suburbs, STEM, the Second Amendment, and the First Amendment before SJWs, Snowflakes, and San Fransisco!
Created:
Posted in:
Pro lifer: Scientists confirm a zygote is a human being!
Me: According to you, scientists can't even define what a woman is. Why do you only trust the scientists when it benefits your team?
Pro lifers: Trans science is new. Zygote science is not!
Me: How old does the science have to be before you believe it? Really, any number you select is going to be arbitrary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Are they an American citizen?
Nope; and it is totally irrelevant because legality does not equal morality. It's why we are both anti abortion despite abortion being legal in most states.
More funding. Almost anything can be solved with funding to the right places.
You sound like a liberal bud, and I know that's not your party. More taxes; more spending! More government!
So, are you making the argument that if you just decide one day to come to America, you don't have to get documentation, but if your actually born here you should be required to?
No; I'm saying nobody should be forced to go through an arbitrary state run legalization process under the punishment of deportation. Government; get out of people lives!
But in order to vote, there needs to be tougher requirements to vote (but the native born and the immigrant should be held to the same standard as where you are born is totally arbitrary).
So, no countries? Just states?
You can have countries. Just like Spain and France have open borders with one another. They are both countries.
Borders are a representation of where bad ideas stop, and good ideas start.
Not always. The NJ-PA border is an arbitrary line.
America > Latin America.
Correct; it's why people are moving here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Why are Trumpers atheists? Proverbs 14:31 - Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker, but he who is generous to the needy honors him.
Some Trump supporters are religious Christians, some aren't. Some Trump haters are religious Christians, some aren't (I define religious Christain as going to mass at least weekly).
I'm an atheist, I hate Trump, I like shooting guns, saying, "Fuck Fauci", I'm anti-abortion, anti-evolution, pro vasectomy, and celibacy before marriage, I don't want the US involved with Ukraine and all that globalist bullshit. I am pro masculinity (it's why I like the collected personality of cops, soldiers, and firefighters even if I'm anti war. I like the employee; not always their job); I think Andrew Tate is funny af.
I'm all over the place politically.
Epstein didn't kill himself!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
If you want to become an American citizen, you must apply to become a citizen.
What about automatic green cards for immigrants? They automatically get a green card when they enter the US. They don't have to worry about deportation, and you don't have to worry about them turning the country permanently blue.
Now obviously the system we have right now is very bad and needs to be updated.
How specifically would you update the system other than an open border policy.
Name 1 trait you get from being undocumented that if an American Citizen, it justifies your deportation.
What should be the point of spending thousands of dollars to the state (so a tax) to avoid deportation paid for by the American taxpayer?
In order to be a country, you have to have a border in order to separate yourself from other countries. If the border doesn't do its job, then your country doesn't have a border.
So then have national borders be like state borders; Oregon would be different from Ohio, but an Oregon resident should be allowed to freely move into Ohio without fear of prosecution from the state simply because they didn't pay thousands of dollars in government fees to do go through Ohio's legalization process.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
But there are millions of situations to where spanking a child may be acceptable or unacceptable, and this is the normie position; that you shouldn't spank your child, but since you know your child best and since we assume the parent wants what's best for the child, our society lets parents make the call.
If the parent didn't love the child, the child would be starving on the streets somewhere.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Evil according to Christianity is purely the absence of God, and Hell is purely separation from God. So, when we do evil, we are further and further separating ourselves from God.
Who created hell? God did.
But you fail to understand that these legal documents were based off of Judeo Christain values.So, the values in these documents had a source, and the source is the Bible.So, you actually do base your source of morality on a document that is based off of the values of the Bible.
1st commandment: You must worship God.
3rd commandment: Using the Lord's name in vain is hate speech.
1st amendment: Worship whoever you want. Hate speech is free speech.
The bible: Welcome strangers into your home.
4th amendment: You should not be forced to welcome troops into your home (and by extension, everyone else).
The bible: God is your government, God is your state, and you should never rebel from your state.
2nd amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The bible: Threatens eternal intensity and duration punishment
8th amendment: Forbids cruel and unusual punishment.
The bible: There is one law for all of mankind.
10th amendment: States can make their own laws to an extent.
There are areas of agreement (5th amendment), but the bible and the constitution are very different.
No where in the Bible will you find God commanding his followers to persecute any group of people. And I use the word persecute for a reason.
Imagine hundreds of people walking off of a cliff's edge. Each step represents a purposeful act of Evil. The cliff's edge represents total separation from God. They are walking away from God.Now imagine a man in the crowd (Jesus) stopping people and pleading with them to turn around. Some turn around, others keep going.The steps going opposite of the cliff represent dying to your own wants and desires and having faith in the man (Jesus) and turning away from Evil.
An all powerful and all loving God just would fill the cliff with enough walkable rock to not kill anybody.
If Jesus tells us to help the poor, but we ignore them every time we see them, we don't really have faith in Christ, because if we did, we would be living like Jesus tells us to live.
Helping the poor sounds like a left wing idea. I'm not the biggest fan of wealth redistribution which theocracy would mandate. Donate if you want, but don't force others to donate.
Socialism sucks!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
For me, love is obeying God and keeping his commandments. Hence:
- I don't kill people.
- I don't commit adultery.
- I don't steal.
- I don't desire their goods.
- I don't lie about them.
Bullet points 1 to 3 and 5 (excluding 4). If you need God to tell you these things are immoral to prevent you from doing them (meaning if you didn't believe God existed, then you would do them), I question your morality. I would hope you don't do these things whether or not you believe in God.
#4; I desire people's goods and that's good. I see Andrew Tate with millions of dollars and I want to copy what he did. I desire to have millions of dollars.
I hope God changes his laws.I don't want God to change his laws.
It sounds to me like you are justifying a bunch of horrible stuff:
"But it's the Old testament".
It doesn't matter:
But it was taken out of context
Also irrelevant. If the bible says a good quote, the Christain accepts it at face value. If the bible says a bad quote, the Christain argues it's out of context. Don't work backwards from your conclusion.
After all, why would you want to spend eternity with God if you hate him?
Because the alternative is being lit on fire for eternity.
Lets just say I would rather be in prison with rapists and murderers than being burnt alive.
The question is who the god who rules? Democracy means rule by the majority. But in that case, the majority is god. In a dictatorship, it is ruled by the dictator. In socialism it is rule by the elite.
The majority has power.
But majority rule or God rule. Which is better? Every rule supported by the majority there is at least a good argument for. The majority is more persuadable than the bible. The majority abolished slavery, marital rape, gave women the right to vote, provided public education, and improved life expectancy as well as reduced more suffering than what the bible gave us.
The majority deserves to rule more than God.
I'm not American - I don't know what the 8th amendment is.
The 8th amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment. If an eternity in hell isn't cruel and unusual punishment, then nothing is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Conservatives confessed homosexuality is sinful. Badness is a human word. Conservatives have always loved everyone. Liberals accepted everyone except the conservatives.
I don't love anyone. I don't love strangers. I wouldn't send money to a stranger, so I don't love them. It sounds kindof socialist.
I think if God didn't exercise judgment on a godly basis that he would not be God and in fact would be a liar.
I hope God changes his laws.
At the end of the day, whether you worship him or not, you are under his jurisdiction.
If his jurisdiction burns people in hell forever, he is unfit for worship. When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.
I think the American Constitution was a product of its time and betrayed Christianity.
Do you support theocracy? Yes or no.
Just like at the end of the day, you are under the jurisdiction of the American president whether you voted for him or not. The difference is that you can renounce your American citizenship and leave the country.
The difference is the American POTUS violates the 8th amendment way more than God does if God burns people in hell forever.
The question is not whether you are LGBT or not. It is whether you reject Christ or not.
What does it mean to reject Christ?
Conservatives would take the view that Jesus paid for those people who trust in him but not the rest. Or they would hold to the view that Jesus paid for all, but for people to receive eternal life, they need to accept it.
These views are identical.
The reason we worship God is not to go to heaven.
For me, it would be if I worshipped God. Otherwise there is no point.
It is because God is God and deserves praise and adoration.
No he doesn't if he burns people in hell forever.
Lots of people praise God with their lips but not with their hearts.
To me, this sounds like feelings.
Damn, this god is an egotistical maniac if he wants billions of people bootlicking him.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Child spankers are the group of people in society that rejects all science and statistics about spanking, and goes against them.
What particular statistics? It's not an issue I have research thoroughly. But I don't like accepting debates because my Wifi access is unpredictable during the school year and I got school.
I also have felt very bad after debates. Me and my opponent (usually) are willing to do whatever is needed to make a point and we often don't understand each other's points.
If debating is for you, fine debate. But I don't debate anymore. It's not for me.
Is it your belief that child spanking is:
- Generally bad idea
- Unconditionally a bad idea, but it should be legal (I would say dating a co worker is in this category).
- Should be unconditionally illegal and you would use the power of the state to punish parents who do this to their kid if the state finds out. If this is your position, you need an acceptable punishment that you are upfront with.
?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's all fun and games until they start to claim those people on the census and get more congressional seats "representing" their serfs.
The democrat ideology isn't so much great replacement theory (LBJ was okay with right wing Cubans immigrating to the US without having to go through the legalization process). But no matter which party you have a preference to, what party ends up benefiting objectively doesn't matter. We can merge the New England states to be one state (and Democrats lose 10 senate seats) if it makes things even.
The GOP would then have to figure out which issues they would concede and which issues they would keep in order to stay electorally competitive. It's nothing new. Both parties have done these sorts of things throughout history (the GOP on gay marriage, the democrats on masks, vaccine mandates, and gun control (constitutional carry has become very common throughout the states; and it started with Vermont).
Immigration might follow suit as this country strides more towards the ethos of liberty.
So will the backlash to kicking people out of hotels, schools, and perhaps apartments to house migrants be enough for the right-tribe to seize control and prevent illegal immigrants from counting towards apportionment?
Nobody is advocating for kicking out tenants to make way for government housing. The most I've seen is hotel rooms (that were already empty) being paid for by the taxpayer (which I don't even agree with because I don't like socialized housing; I unironically prefer letting people freeze and starve to death rather than take care of them because I call myself a fiscal conservative and I want to reduce government spending and if that means people, if that means children starve and suffer and freeze, so be it). I don't expect everyone to have this view if I frame it like this, and that's fine.
But the 10th amendment allows localities to make their own decisions. If the decision angers you enough and you live in a place like NYC, you can move to Westchester or Putnam County if you want, where they probably don't want to give the undocumented taxpayer paid for housing.
I feel as if it would be poetic justice to take left-tribe voters and send them to central America while transferring their citizenship to the people they invited over.
If the individual left wingers consent, fine. If they don't, it's not fine. You may even make Central America Anglophone majority if that happens (that would be decent). But if they live in a country they hate, they should leave (preferably to Cuba; it would be decent if Cuba became Anglophone).
But people are individuals and should be treated as such.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
We actually solved all the problems of illegal immigration by bussing them all to sanctuary cities. Democrat replacement theory.
The democrat ideology isn't so much great replacement theory (LBJ was okay with right wing Cubans immigrating to the US without having to go through the legalization process).
Their belief is that the decision to whether or not to allow undocumented immigrants should not be up to the city, state, or county, but up to the household.
If your household wants undocumented immigrants (like if an undocumented immigrant is your father or spouse), your household can have undocumented immigrants, even if that household is in rural North Texas. If your household doesn't wants undocumented immigrants, your household doesn't have to have undocumented immigrants, even if that household is in urban Manhattan or San Fransisco.
The 10th amendment's ethos calling for local rule is applied the strictest when you leave the decision to the smallest form of government; the household.
But no matter which party you have a preference to, what party ends up benefiting objectively doesn't matter. We can merge the New England states to be one state (and Democrats lose 10 senate seats) if it makes things even.
The GOP would then have to figure out which issues they would concede and which issues they would keep in order to stay electorally competitive. It's nothing new. Both parties have done these sorts of things throughout history (the GOP on gay marriage, the democrats on masks, vaccine mandates, and gun control (constitutional carry has become very common throughout the states; and it started with Vermont).
Immigration might follow suit as this country strides more towards the ethos of liberty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think she was racist and so was pretty much every white American person of her time.
People should be judged by the standards of their time and culture, not ours. Otherwise, Lincoln was a bad president. Yeah; he freed the slaves, but he wanted to deport people to Africa just because they were black and for most of his life, he supported the confederacy's right to have slaves.
People are a product of their time.
I am anti abortion choice, but this would be constant whether Margaret Sanger was racist or not. Just like if I believed Lila Rose was racist, I would criticize her racism, but I would loosely agree with her on abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
This is in terms of trends, not an explicit rule.
The left: Anyone who wants to deport undocumented immigrants is racist.
The right: It's not racist! People coming here without documented is not a race anymore than sexual orientation.
Me: Hey left wingers. Calling people names for disagreeing with me on an issue that doesn't effect me isn't my style, but if it's your style, you can try calling the right undocuphobic. They can't really deny agreeing with that label as easily, because they are against people being here simply because they are undocumented. Just saying. The right may act all politically correct and stress the terms, "It's ILLEGAL!", then you can call them illegophobic (which really means they would be afraid of anyone who broke any law, even if it was speeding 5 mph above the speed limit).
I'm giving you guys some pointers for how you can get what you want politically on this issue and reduce unwanted pain as what you guys want to do (because I've heard that deportations produce a lot of pain for those involved).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I know you think Margaret Sanger is a white supremist. But the pro choice left crowd will probably deny Margaret being racist just like how the MAGA crowd denies Trump being racist. Either that, or they will ignore her racism and still advocate for legalized abortion. Or (if they are smart and coincidentally believe she is racist), they will criticize her on her being racist while agreeing with her opinion that abortion should be legal and accessible in the name of reducing unwanted pain.
Just like a pro lifer who thinks Trump is racist can criticize Trump for being racist, while still supporting him because he wants to reduce abortion access.
Created: