Total posts: 4,340
-->
@Mps1213
I’m fine with people using any drug they want as long as it doesn’t lead to them harming others from their drug use. I think most people are. The issue with abortion is, “If bodily autonomy (BA) is so important, are you allowed to harm others in the name of exercising bodily autonomy?” Someone who is a bodily autonomy absolutist (which the pro choice position often defends) means they are going to have to be in favor of theft to fuel drug addictions (that the addict chose to get into) because BA >FA (Fiscal Autonomy). Since this position I believe virtually everyone is strongly against, it means FA>BA.
Pro choice democrats believe BA>RTL (Right to life) and RTL>FA (which is why they are for government nationalized healthcare), so they believe BA>FA (which is against the normie position).
Pro choicers who are not democrats believe either FA>BA>RTL or BA>FA>RTL. Since the normie position is FA>BA, it means the only combination that seems to make sense is FA>BA>RTL. But this means that it would be okay for a deadbeat dad to not pay child support for his kid’s life (FA>RTL). But this is stupid to defend, so RTL>FA>BA in the context of family relations (what conservatives believe).
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
That is an argument against sex outside of marriage. That isnt an argument against sexual activities with children.
An adult knows enough about the danger of STIs to make an informed decision regarding whether or not to have sex. A 8 year old child doesn’t even know what an STI is.
So you would be in favor of banning sex outside of marriage.
I think it should be heavily discouraged, but not banned, mainly because adults have better risk assessment abilities than 12 year olds. When I was young, I went on car trips every year to Missouri and Michigan where my grandparents lived. I was constantly pressuring my parents to speed 80,90, even 100 I think. If I, with my 12 year old mind was driving that car, we would have ended up in an accident. Adults have better risk judgment than kids.
Most kids in relationship with map dont want for map to go to prison. However, they are aware that society thinks that what they participated in was most wrong. They have to deal with the pressure of society's opinion.
You don’t know that. Like anecdotaly, my dad laid on me when I was 7 I think the way I would with a consenting woman now (I think it would feel good; but my personal morals prevent me from wanting it) (but we had clothes on; if it wasn’t, it would have been sex). I hated when Dad did that. I wouldn’t say I’m traumatized from it because I didn’t know what it was, but I didn’t like it. Ironically, he’s against pedophillia even though I think he’s a pedophille. My sister told me that and I reliezed that I was sexualized as a kid. This is before I knew pedophillia was a thing, so I hated it.
Map stands for minor attracted person. Pedo is too insulting to use, so I gave up on it.
Map is a euphemism to normalize having sex with kids. You can use it if you want, but I’ll use pedo.
I dont think it’s about power. It’s about an attraction. For example, baby is the weakest, but most map arent attracted to babies.
Fair point. But if the kid doesn’t like it (I don’t think kids would), then it is rape. You think kids can consent. If the kid didn’t want the pedo prosecuted, in court, the kid would have defended the pedo and said that it was consensual. If that was the standard, I don’t think pedophillia would be as stigmatized as it is now because there would be reports done by mainstream media about how kids are in trauma about their adult lovers being killed.
Like let’s say there was an alternative USA; they viewed blacks as animals, but they didn’t view them as beasts; they viewed them similar to how society now views dogs; cute animals, but dumber than white humans. Blacks didn’t go to school because dogs don’t go to school. This was a historical trend, so blacks would in this society be like dogs; very very nice towards their white owners, but idiots because they never went to school.
There would be laws against interracial marriage not because of concerns that the white race would become less pure, but because of concerns that the animals (blacks) can’t consent to sex with whites. Now let’s say that in this alternate USA, there is a famous court case that argued that blacks could in fact consent to sex with whites. If a white man and a black woman had sex, the white guy would be prosecuted for raping a black person, similar to how you would if you had sex with a dog (I think beasiality should be a state issue as it already is). If the sex was consensual and the black person was arguing that they liked it, I think that court case would lead to interracial marriage eventually being legal. Let’s say in this alternate USA, sex between blacks and whites never produced any kids (just like how sex between humans and dogs and adults and children never produces any kids), then this society would never have to deal with the question, “Are mixed race kids human?” because there would be no mixed race kids.
However let’s say every time a white person had sex with a black person, the blacks person called it rape. Then having sex with black people would get viewed comparably to pedophillia.
If there was a 12 year old kid who enjoyed sex with adults (I don’t know your type), there would be prosecutions, the kid would have argued that they feel more traumatized from their adult partner being prosecuted than they did from sex, it would make mainstream news, and there would be a movement (that would have won decades ago) that legalized pedophillia. But 12 year old kids don’t like having sex. I never really enjoyed porn or anything similar until I was 14 I think, and just because I liked the porn doesn’t mean I would want to do that in real life. Pretty much all porn I watch I would never want to emulate.
And how far does the claim, “children can consent” go? Like would you be okay with legalizing having sex with very drunk people that are awake but loony (like how children usually act)? I’ve never been drunk, but I’ve seen drunk people in videos before. They are going to regret any sex they have when they become sober.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You were threatening Korea remember?
If Korea raped a kid, I would WANT him killed. But I’m not going to find his address, drive to that address, and kill him. Even if he told me his address, I wouldn’t kill him. I have no power. Now if I was president and I managed to make child rape punishable by death, I WOULD be responsible for the death of child rapists. But me as a random person am only responsible for people getting them killed if I either sign a bill that gets them killed or murder them with a weapon.
For instance I support a system of government with police, it would by hypocritical and cowardly to claim to be a pacifist at the same time as I vote for and lend support towards an organization that keeps killing people in my name.
You could argue that, but I’m pretty much the opposite of a pacifist. I can list 6 crimes that I think should be punishable by death, I want to own an AR 15, a shotgun, and a Glock. If someone breaks into my house and I think they are not a threat, they will not leave that house alive. But I’m vegan, and I respect the right to not get homicided of innocent animals than the people that rape kids. Those people should get a tall tree and a short piece of rope, if you know what I mean(if you call them people).
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Juxtaposing "fiscal" with "autonomy" in regard to the "right to life" is completely illogical
Why? Fiscal autonomy matters too. If it didn’t, then I could force you to give all your money to the state. It would also legalize theft.
A pregnancy has NO LEGAL RIGHTS!
This is positive analysis, not normal analysis. The unborn right now in most states do not have rights. But pro lifers argue they should.
Such bans/restrictions apply to the pregnant girl/woman, not the pregnancy.
The bans/restrictions apply to the pregnant woman because of the belief that the unborn deserves the right to not get murdered.
Pro-lifers argue, demand, and push for pregnant little girls and young women to give birth. Once they do give birth, pro-lifer's go dead silent. They have no responsibility or obligation to the birthed child.
Then the argument you would make is, “fiscal conservatives are selfish” (which is technically correct, but I just don’t see the issue with some forms of selfishness) not pro lifers. A pro lifer that wears a mask in 2023, got vaccinated and boosted, wants vaccine mandates, wants to tax the rich more to save people’s lives, wants to ban all guns to save lives, spends all their money adopting children from Africa, wants universal healthcare, and is pro life for the whole life on all applicable issues would NOT be selfish according to your claim.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Most children have sexual urges.
At 7 years old, no. At 15 years old, unfortunately yes.
Relationships would be better guided by society. In the USA, 30% of children had sex before 16.
That's a problem.
Great majority of them have no STI.
I read something that said 25% of Americans have an STI and young people are more likely to have one because when old people were kids, they had more prudish values (and this is based) when it comes to sex.
Allowing such relationships wouldnt cause every child to have STI.
A lot of kids are going to get STIs, and a lifetime of having STIs isn't worth 3 minutes of sexual pleasure. At least with pregnancy, that kid would grow up in 19 years. STIs last with you the rest of your life.
Most of adult-child relationships are never discovered. Same goes for child-child relationships.
I'm not sure about the first claim. But most child-child relationships are discovered because it's legal.
The stigma from society hurts those children psychologically.
I don't think this is the case. A kid has leverage over the pedophile since the pedo will get prosecuted and the kid would get comforted by society. I knew this teacher that had a relationship with a 16-17 year old girl. When relationships end (which is common in highschool), the kid outs the pedo.
It also hurts map, as they are treated like monsters and tortured.
It's pedo, not map. And this is based; kids don't want to be traumatized by pedos. Henry Abbott Tech teacher arrested for alleged sexual relationship with student (wlad.com) shows a pedo tracking down his girlfriend. Who DOES that?
It is questionable if ban on such relationships does more good than harm in its current form.
Given that adults tend to be very controlling of kids they are close too, it does more harm. With parents, you know the parent is looking out for their kid's best interests (unless there is assault, rape, or similar, but this is rare). Pedos just want sex from the kid. In the link I sent you, the 41 year old man was dating a 17 year old girl; he could have waited a year and it would have been legal (adultery aside since he is married). But pedos want that type of power over the children they date, so they pick young kids.
I don't know if your into anyone that's super young. If you are, just wait until they are 18 and then the law won't prosecute you as hard. They would be more informed to make good decisions by then.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I started masturbating at age 7 or 8, I dont even remember exactly. I just know it felt good and I imagined having sex and I enjoyed imagining that.
Your an early case, Caught Your Kid Masturbating? (webmd.com) states the average age for boys is 10 years old.
There was this book called "The Trauma Myth" that deals with adult-child relationships. In most cases in those relationships, child is happy.
If there was an adult that gave a kid nothing but candy to eat, the kid would also enjoy it most of the time (I wouldn't since I have never liked candy. But I'm an odd case). That doesn't mean it's beneficial for the child. Adults know when to stop for sex; they know the effects of it (STIs, unwanted pregnancy, realizing that birth control is not effective enough) that kids can't grasp yet.
When I was 5 years old, I wanted a bunch of kids. I had no idea they would be so expensive (I thought $5 was a lot of money), but I wanted them for a stupid reason (just to play a game with me that I forgot). Now, I have enough common sense (and different values) to know better than to want kids I can't afford to raise. Even if you happen to be a gay kid, kids take very horrible risks they shouldn't take. A 5 year old can get some STI that lasts with them the rest of their life since they wouldn't like condoms (adults have enough sense to use a condom, even the gay ones). But if every 5 year old was sexually active, our world would be a much worse place with STIs being held by virtually EVERY kid, having virtually every teenage girl dealing with an unwanted pregnancy (that forces her to pick 1 of 2 horrible options (assuming she's in a place where abortion is legal); killing her unborn child, or having such a young kid go through pregnancy that will traumatize her). This all starts with relationships.
It's better if young people (I define young as below 18) don't get into relationships. I think the age of consent should get raised to 18 nationwide to protect the kids.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Not every pedophile is a rapist.
The ones that don't rape; I respect. I'm primarily attracted to sexy women, 5'9" tall, preferably blond (but not a requirement), not a hardcore (liberal or conservative), doesn't want kids, etc. This doesn't mean I RAPE them. I easily could rape them if I wanted too; just drug their drinks. But I won't EVER do that because I have morals.
If you are a non offending pedophile, I respect you controlling your urges on a daily basis. However, the moment you rape a kid, I think you should get hung. Children don't enjoy sex. Teens may watch porn on the internet, but that is very different from sex. I, as someone who is 21, has watched exclusively straight porn. HOWEVER, what they do in porn videos I would NEVER want to emulate in real life. All the porn actors in the porn I watched were consenting adults.
If there was like a robot that looked and felt exactly like a child that pedophiles could use to get their sexual urges out on, since it's not a real life child, I would support that 100%. Maybe NAMBLA should get to work on building such robots. That hopefully reduces child rape.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I am not trans, although I sometimes do wish I was a girl.
I thought you were given your profile pic. If someone had a BLM profile pic, I would assume they are black.
However, trans children are often provoked the most.
Stocks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
Not everyone can do that tho
People should. Quit being a pussy and suffer in the short term to upgrade yourself in the long term. Short term fun is not as good as long term happiness.
Can we really say that everyone is able to deal with ridicule without ending up harmed in any way?
You can have emotions without whining. Females should be happy, perky, even quirky (it's okay if Females need to stop whining and be disciplined (same with males). People should:
1) Work hard (whether it's school or exercise, put in the work)
2) Toughen up your mind. If someone criticizes you, if the criticism is justified, use it to make yourself better. If it's not, ignore it. NEVER cry or complain just because the work is hard. It will be over soon, and if you do the work, you will upgrade yourself.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
An individual can be anything they choose to be labelled.
I disagree. The only way you can be a democrat is if you agree with their party 100% of the time (same with any other party). Everything else is being an independent. People should be independents.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
For a trans man (FTM), you REALLY are letting your feminine side show. I'm a guy. My parents get angry at me over various things, I don't complain; I comply (to an extent).
Virtually every man isn't going to get butthurt over people making fun of them. Their mentality is, "Be a MAN; toughen up. Discipline=Freedom. Escape the matrix. Do pushups, sit-ups, if your not first, your last. Celebrating is for winners only. Quit making excuses and get to work!".
Like, I'm LGB (the T doesn't belong with the LGB). People made fun of me for being alphabet. You know what I DIDN'T do? Act like a bitch, report them making fun of me to adults. I'm a MAN; I endured the pain, because pain is temporary. The male mentality is to hide their emotions (with very few exceptions. If your parents die, you get 5 days to mourn and then you have to move on with your life (7 if your a minor when your parents die) and YOU let your emotions run like wild.
Emotions are for girls; so if you want to be what society deems is a man; DON'T ACT LIKE A WHINY BITCH!
I'm from CT, but I identify as a Floridian, because Florida is where pedo snowflakes (and snowflakes in general) go to melt!
Created:
-->
@Athias
If you're suffering from kidney failure, and refuse to donate my kidney, despite our being a match, have I infracted upon your "right to life" in my refusal?
No; I'm not going to bite the bullet and defend forced kidney transplants. But being consistent with not biting the bullet, there are times when pro choicers would have to bite the bullet.
That is an estimation to be made by the rightful owner of the body.
Surrogates usually charge between $80K-$150K for their services.
I'm pro-choice all the way, even after the child is born. That is, a parent should not be coerced into sustaining a child--i.e. labor, resources, time, etc.
This is biting the bullet; virtually everybody believes a deadbeat dad should be FORCED to pay child support (sacrifice fiscal autonomy) in the name of the right to life for his child.
BODILY AUTONOMY =/= RIGHT TO STEAL MONEY FOR DRUGS.
What's the difference? Bodily autonomy is freedom from pain; stealing money to buy drugs your addicted too is freedom from pain.
(I don't think parents denying their children the use of their kidneys is prominent enough to warrant pro-life attention)
The pro lifers go after surrogacy (which I think is very rare); they would go after whatever is needed to be consistently pro life.
If can join both bodily and fiscal autonomy as "Resource Autonomy" for lack of a better term, then I would state that one's "right to life" as it is commonly described is mutually exclusive from one's "resource autonomy."
The issue with that is there are times when bodily autonomy comes into conflict with fiscal autonomy, so one has to prevail. Like should someone be allowed to steal from you (loss of fiscal autonomy) to do drugs (gain of bodily autonomy)? Most people would say no, implying that someone's fiscal autonomy outweighs the bodily autonomy of a meth user.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
So, not necessarily the gun itself, but the second amendment.
So if someone was pro 2nd amendment and left wing on all other issues, would they be a conservative? No; they would be a socialist.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I don't recall saying that in this thread. Could you provide a quote?
Here's the quote:
there is a natural hierarchy between woman and zygote which requires no choices or beliefs.
We don't need to have a discussion on rights to recognize the life of the mother is of primary importance.
The literal life of the mother is important; that's why abortion laws in every state I think allow abortion when the mother would die without one.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Correlation is not causation
If the R value is pretty high, then it's not causation, and if people did drugs without ever going on welfare, then some would see it as okay. A Columbia professor does heroin. But he knows when to stop so he doesn't get addicted. However, there are a lot of idiots out there that don't know when to stop, so they get addicted, they go broke, they become homeless, and then they steal for money. Should they be allowed to steal money to maintain their bodily autonomy to smoke heroin? If you say yes to this, your biting the bullet. If you say no to this, then you believe that fiscal autonomy > bodily autonomy. Since you also want high taxes to pay for socialist government services that save lives (I'm not knocking you for this), that means you would value right to life > fiscal autonomy. So by the transitivity principle, you would believe that right to life > bodily autonomy (which means you would be pro life).
that one’s right’s end where another’s beings, typically expressed as “the freedom to swing your arms ends at someone else’s nose”
This goes both ways; it can be used to claim the right to bodily autonomy only goes so far as to protect the woman's right to bodily autonomy, or it can ALSO be used to say that the female's right to bodily autonomy only goes to the extent of making sure the unborn doesn't have their right to life infringed.
This basic idea would explain why if meth use necessarily lead to theft, that would be a valid reason to deny said right despite believing in one’s right to do what they wish with their own body.
Meth addicts are significantly more likely to steal from others than non meth addicts. Do you dispute this?
If you don't, then you would deny the meth addict's right to bodily autonomy in the name of protecting other people's fiscal autonomy.
I also have no idea where you got that I believe the right to life > fiscal autonomy.
Isn't that why socialists support Medicare for all, free housing, and free food, all because they believe the right to life is more valuable than the right to fiscal autonomy?
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
There is a third option: there is a natural hierarchy between woman and zygote which requires no choices or beliefs.
If you believe a zygote isn't a human being, a lot of people believe that, however, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778 claims that 96% of biologists disagree with you. So your position is an anti-scientist position (just like anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers).
The life of the zygote is secondary to the life of the body sustaining its life.
This argument only works for abortion needed to save the mother's life; the vast majority of pregnancies aren't going to kill the mother. Virtually nobody is against these types of abortions.
Created:
-->
@Athias
No, it simply means that one believes that one human being does not bear the right to compel and coerce the service and/or labor of another.
This is the same thing as saying that pro choice people believe bodily autonomy outweighs the right to life.
Even if the concern about money, one's financial does not qualify one's right to bodily autonomy.
No bodily sensation that is temporary is worth infinite dollars.
What?! So both A & B represent Bodily Autonomy?
This was a typo. I meant to say:
By the law of transitivity, if A>B (Bodily autonomy > right to life), and B>C (Right to life > Fiscal autonomy), then you would believe A>C (Bodily autonomy > Fiscal autonomy).
THIEVERY =/= FISCAL AUTONOMY.
The right to have fiscal autonomy is the same as the right to not have your money stolen.
Why has your description of "pro-life" allowed for a modifier which qualifies the position on a case by case basis?
Because pro lifers argue that only a parent has the obligation to take care of their child. If pro lifers believed that the right to life was absolute, they would believe in forced kidney donations are justified if it saves lives. These aren't my beliefs; they are the beliefs of pro lifers.
Yes, and this is the reason I believe that the pro-life position, at least here in the United States, is more consistent that that of the pro-choice.
I think this position is biting the bullet. Most pro lifers (when they aren't thinking about abortion) don't believe kidney donation should be FORCED to save the life of their biological child.
Please elaborate.
A pro lifer (who believes a child's life > bodily autonomy) would need to support forced kidney donation to save the life of their hypothetical 8 year old child. I know if I had a kid that was like that, I wouldn't want to donate a kidney to save their life. I can barely get through a blood prick, let alone an invasive surgery.
A pro choicer (who believes bodily autonomy > a child's life and if they are a democrat, would also believe that a child's life > fiscal autonomy) would believe that bodily autonomy > fiscal autonomy, which means that they would believe it's okay for a cocaine addict (who is broke due to their addiction) to steal from others to buy cocaine because their bodily autonomy > fiscal autonomy for other people.
If hypothetically, your ranking was fiscal autonomy > bodily autonomy > right to life (in the context of what a parent has to do for their child), then you would believe that not paying child support for your is totally okay even if your kid starves to death because by your logic, fiscal autonomy > right to life, even for your own child.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Fiscal autonomy? Fiscal? Fiscal!?! 🤦♂️
Yes; fiscal autonomy matters; if you disagree, give all the money you don't need to survive to an anti child poverty organization.
The drug analogy is a false equivalency to the abortion discussion. Same with the organ obligation analogy. Irrelevant.
How so?
A pregnancy has zero legal rights! It has no rights of any kind that supersede that of the girl/woman it’s within.
In many states, an unborn baby has the right to live because abortion is banned in some US states.
Abortion boils down to pro choice = empathy and pro life = dispatched selfishness.
I have no idea how you came up with the conclusion that pro life advocates are selfish, even if you disagree with pro life ideology.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
There is no necessary connection between meth addiction and stealing
Drug addicts are more likely to steal to pay for their drug addiction.
So even if meth necessarily leads to theft then that would be a perfectly valid reason to take away that right.
So you believe that it's okay to take away the right to smoke meth in order to protect fiscal autonomy. This means you think (in this context) that fiscal autonomy > bodily autonomy. But since you are a socialist, this means you think the right to life > fiscal autonomy. So this would mean that according to you, right to life > bodily autonomy. So then you would be pro life. But your pro choice, so that's a contradiction.
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Cah you define the consistent ethos of the GOP?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I was in prison for pedophilia.
Don't have sex with kids.
They actually like it a lot when they hear pedophiles are being tortured or killed.
Well, I don't know about your country, but in America, a rapist is a tyrant, and we have a saying here: The tree of liberty from time to time must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants.
Murderers, rapists, kidnappers, human traffickers, arsonists, and fentanyl traffickers all should get their heads cut off because I value the $25.2 billion a year we spend taking care of these monsters over the lives of horrible people.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You can't deliver death online and deciding to kill someone makes you their enemy.
I have no power to kill you whatsoever. But it is my position that child rapists should get the death penalty.
You can debate the nature of consent in this thread so it's not spread out all over the site
I'll have a look.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
What would the difference be?
Created:
If your pro choice and believe a zygote is a human being, you believe bodily autonomy outweighs the right to life. Pro choice people tend to be democrats who believe that the right to life outweighs fiscal autonomy (the right to not fiscally sacrifice for someone else). By the law of transitivity, if A>B (Bodily autonomy > right to life), and B>C (Bodily autonomy > Fiscal autonomy), then you would believe A>C (Bodily autonomy > Fiscal autonomy).
Consider the following question: Is it okay to be addicted to meth, heroin, or some hard drug if it leads to you stealing from other people to maintain your drug addiction? If you believe that Bodily autonomy > Fiscal autonomy, then you would have to believe that it's okay to be addicted to meth even if you must steal from people in the name of your bodily autonomy to be happy.
But lets be real; no normal person is okay with people being addicted to hard drugs if it means that the addict robs people to get high. So since this is a contradiction, I can't call myself pro choice.
If your pro life, you believe that the right to life outweighs the right to bodily autonomy (not in ALL cases, but in the specific case of what a parent has to provide their child).
Consider the following scenario: Lets say your a parent with 2 working kidneys and your 8 year old son needs a kidney transplant to survive. Pretty much any parent that isn't a deadbeat would agree to give their child a kidney. However, should you as a parent be OBLIGATED to give your kidney to save the life of your 8 year old son (when everyone believes an 8 year old son is at least as valuable as a fetus, and I also think everyone would agree that giving your kidney to save a life is less of a sacrifice than to be pregnant for 9 months to save a life)? If you believe a parent must do whatever is needed to save their child's life under the pro life ethic, you would have to answer yes to that question.
No matter if your pro choice or pro life, your going to have to bite the bullet. This is why I am strictly neutral on the abortion issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Party traitors are often seen as a bigger threat than the other party itself.
That's true, but it wouldn't make any sense as to why that is the case.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You need to put yourself in the other guys shoes when you say stuff like that.Make an argument if you care enough to threaten death.
Having sex with a child is raping that child because kids can't consent. Rape should be punished with death.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
So if the right is defined by being pro gun, then someone can be pro gun (to whatever extent the GOP agrees too) and pro choice up until the moment of birth, pro booster mandates, pro war with Russia, anti ICE, pro maximum wage, pro Affirmative Action, believing that transwomen are women, and a whole host of other left wing ideas, but because they are right wing on guns, they would be a republican (even though most people would not call that person a republican).
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Sorry, I meant to say there "on popular support of right wing voters".
What does it mean to be right wing then? Democrats say what is popular with their voters, but it wouldn't matter unless they had some sort of consistent theme (anti pain). In order to convince a democrat that abortion should be banned, you would have to prove that abortion causes more unwanted pain than banning abortion. Anti pain is the consistent theme of the democratic party. What is the consistent theme of the GOP?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Being attracted to children is most definitely not my choice, but I cant change it.
I didn't know you are a pedophile. Don't have sex with kids bud. If you act on it, you deserve death. But if you don't act on it, it is what it is.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
The commandment, "increase life" and, "do not kill", as long as they don't contradict each other, it would be similar to saying your ethos is, "freedom" and, "small government" because the smaller your government is, the more free you are.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
No. Bible commands the death of gays.
That was not said by anybody on this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
The supreme court argued a storeowner can refuse to serve someone for being gay.
This to me sounds like a storeowner refusing to serve someone for being unvaccinated.
The right should treat gay people the same way they treat unvaccinated people (and vice versa).
Statement: If you are allowed to deny business to someone for being gay, your ALSO allowed to deny business to someone for being unvaccinated.
I think the converse, inverse, and contrapositive should apply equally.
Liberals think the converse and inverse shouldn't apply because they argue that the unvaccinated are putting other people at risk. To me, this barely makes sense because unvaccinated people are causing almost no vaccinated and boosted people to even get COVID, let alone die from the disease.
You need a little bit of risk to maintain liberty. Those willing to trade liberty for safety deserve neither and would lose both.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Bible commands "increase of life + not resisting evil".
Where in the bible does it say that?
right wing policies are based on popular support
Many policies the right advocates for are not based on popular support, as in general, left wing policies are more popular (abortion, background checks, immigration).
For example, "increasing happiness + decreasing pain".A person, when faced with situation where he has to choose between the two, can choose any of the two as they are considered equally important.
What's the difference between increasing happiness and decreasing pain? Democrats are for WANTED pain (this is why nobody protests against people running the 1600 m, because that's WANTED pain because all mile runners consent). But UNWANTED pain (forced pregnancy, loss of a kid's life from a mass shooting, separated families because of deportations) the left is consistently against.
Created:
Posted in:
TERF stands for Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist.
Now the left hates TERFs and the right loves them.
I respect TERFs for coming to their own conclusions.
But what doesn't make sense is why this is the case.
I mean, sure, the TERFs are right wing on trans issues. They ALSO are super pro choice (they ARE radical feminists after all).
So in a world that made sense, left wing trans activists and right wing pro life activists (who both would rather vote for a pro lifer that thinks transwomen are women than a pro choicer that agrees with Matt Walsh on trans issues) would not like TERFS (for the trans activists, it's because the TERFs are right wing on trans issues which they prioritize and for pro life activists, it's because TERFs are very pro choice) and right wing Matt Walsh fanboys and left wing pro choice activists (who both would rather vote for a pro choicer that thinks transwomen are men than a pro lifer that thinks transwomen are women) would like TERFS (for the Matt Walsh fanboys, it's because the TERFs are right wing on trans issues which they prioritize and for pro choice activists, it's because TERFs are very pro choice).
But that doesn't happen because our society thinks more left vs right instead of actually supporting groups that agree with their main issue.
Created:
For the libertarians, it's "small government", which they argue leads to, "you should be allowed to do whatever you want as long as you aren't harming others". This justifies their stance on weed, gun control, immigration, wars, healthcare and other issues. They are pro weed, anti gun control, anti ICE, anti war, and anti Medicare for all (because all of these beliefs are consistent with, "you should be allowed to do whatever you want as long as you aren't harming others".
For leftists, it's "anti pain" (even if democrats don't realize this). This justifies their stance on weed, gun control, immigration, wars, healthcare and other issues. They are pro weed, pro gun control, anti ICE, anti war (at least when America does it; but sending foreign aid to Ukraine helps reduce their pain), and pro Medicare for all (because all of these beliefs are consistent with, "we should minimize pain".
The conservatives have no consistent ethos.
They stand for, "small government" unless it's immigration, the police, or military spending (strangely enough, conservatives want a higher military budget while not funding Ukraine's military even though America's military is almost exclusively for other country's goals if they are allies with the US), or for LGBT freedoms.
They stand for, "life" while being against Medicare for all, gun control, or an open border policy (which saves lives).
They stand for, "American tradition in 1980" unless it's Roe V Wade (an American tradition for 50 years). No matter what year conservatives think is the ideal year to base American policy off of, there will be SOME reality present in that year that conservatives will be opposed too. Any time before 1980 in the US had very high income taxes (unless the time was early enough to where segregation or slavery was reality, which conservatives SHOULD oppose). So no time period before 1980 has conservative ideals 100%. After 1973 (but before 2022), Roe V Wade was the law (and conservatives don't like Roe V Wade). Since all time is either after 1973 or before 1980 (or both), conservatives don't consistently stand for American tradition.
They stand for, "Chirstian tradition", which is code for, "Bible law" or, "Theocracy". The bible advocates open borders nearly all times immigrants are mentioned (What Does the Bible Say About Immigration? (openbible.info) contains dozens of pro open border bible quotes). The bible also advocates that loving money/capitalism is bad (What Does the Bible Say About Wealth? (openbible.info)). The bible also has some anti gay quotes (25 Bible Verses about Homosexuality - What Does Scripture Say? (biblestudytools.com)). The bible says that people that have gay sex should be put to death (Leviticus 20:13). I think ALL of these positions (except immigration) are horrible positions and the conservatives believe that at least SOME of these positions are horrible positions. But if conservatives were consistently pro bible in their policies, I would agree with basically none of it, but at least I can respect it (like I only agree with democrats about 47% of the time, but at least I RESPECT their ideology).
They stand for, "Everything Trump says, I support" unless it comes to Trump telling his followers to get boosted against COVID. The vast majority of Trump supporters aren't boosted (and I think this is fine since I don't like vaccine mandates). But then don't act like Trump is so smart that you agree with everything he says, because he told you to get boosted and you claimed he was a sell out.
So I will tag some conservatives and ask them to define what their party consistently stands for.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Or the 2nd amendment could quite easily lead to another holocaust.
The 2nd amendment prevents a Halocaust.
Created:
Normal people: Nobody can be pro life and pro holocaust.
Ye West: Well, ACTUALLY.
If the Holocaust is brought back, this is why we have the 2nd amendment.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Social media =/= real life. There is an account on Insta that wants to ban all guns. It doesn't mean most of the left agrees with it.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Yeah, some NPR articles are dumb. But if you ask your typical street liberal if it's racist to say people should get into shape, they would say no.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
A good Christian doesn't have sex until they are married.
But the penalty for child rape should be death, whether Catholic or otherwise.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
I don't think it's a good idea to strawman the left. Virtually nobody is saying that pushing a healthy weight is white supremacy.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Too much weight is bad. Too little weight is bad.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I think if the drag queens sounded more feminine and the men didn't know they were drag queens, then men would be fine with it.
Men of God don't do adultery. Or premarital sex.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Red states have the highest homicide rate, but blue cities also have the highest homicide rate. Poverty seems to be a bigger reason people murder than gun laws.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I am relatively consistently for parental rights.
This means:
1) If you want to teach your kid homosexuality and transgenderism is unacceptable based on Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any other religion, you should be allowed to do that.
2) If your kid comes out as trans and you as a parent decide it's best for your kid to get top or bottom surgery, parental rights. There is a very low chance of regret.
Parental rights applies to left wing parents as much as it does right wing parents.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
You are pro 2A except for groups you don't like (transgenders, pro choice liberals, pro BLM liberals, pro gay liberals, socialists). If this is what you believe, don't call yourself pro 2A because pro 2A means the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia means a well mentioned militia.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Nothing says freedom like giving the mentally ill, gender confused, testosterone filled guys the guns.
Most people that buy guns are testosterone filled. Elon Musk is mentally ill; he has autism. Your fine with him owning guns. Gender confusion has nothing to do with gun ownership rights in a free society.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
If Ben Shapiro didn't make a video about why trans people shouldn't be allowed to own guns, Lxam would be praising Samantha Lux just like Lxam would for Blaire White before Shapiro made the video. The right looks at things through a partisan lens. The right listens to their figure heads and doesn't fact check what their leaders say.
Created:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
There are ways to do abortions illegally that produce little pain. Africa's been doing it for a long time. Millions of aborted babies every year in Africa.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
That myth started in the 1970s by activists . The truth is back alley abortions are mostly a myth
People are still going to get illegal abortions, so they need punishment if it's banned. if you go after the doctors, then no doctors do abortions anymore, meaning women do them personally and are going to need punishment.
Created: