Total posts: 4,340
You said that a terrible life is better than no life at all. This depends. If you only struggle now and then, then struggling is not as bad as death. But if there is a 50 percent chance that a foster kid would develop PTSD, then some would say it’s better to give the fetus the easy way out then to subject half of the kids to PTSD. The difference between killing an orphan who might get PTSD and killing a fetus who might get it is the fetus can’t feel pain.
For me, that’s not even the reason I’m pro choice, because PTSD is treatable. I’m pro choice up until 20 weeks into pregnancy because there are 2 situations in my head:
1) An unintended pregnancy gets brought to term and set up for adoption (because teenagers shouldn’t parent a baby). In the best of circumstances, the kid gets adopted by foster parents super early in the kids life. A starving African kid that got adopted by the foster parents in situation 2 dies of starvation because the foster parents adopted a baby that got aborted in situation 2.
2) The fetus gets aborted; a painless death since it was aborted before 20 weeks. The starving African child gets saved by foster parents.
In situation 1, an African kid died of starvation and it was very slow and painful. In situation 2, a fetus died a painless death. The foster parents only have the ability and the will to adopt 1 of the kids. Which situation do you prefer? I prefer situation 2. Banning abortion causes situation 1 to occur. If a kid will die either way, it’s better to kill the kid who can’t feel pain and is not expecting the death. Even if you kill somebody painlessly, they are expecting the death so such a death truly isn’t painless since death stress(stress knowing your going to be killed) is often more painful than a shot in the back of the head.
If there were no starving kids anywhere in the world, I’d be against abortion. But there are tens of millions of starving kids worldwide that are going to die a painful death from starvation. If babies that didn’t have to be birthed for aborted, then foster parents could save starving kids in the rest of the world instead of having to adopt kids that didn’t have to exist.
You said 1/3 of women have considered adoption. But the vast majority just consider adoption ;they never actually adopt. But for those that do, it’s better that they adopt starving 3rd world kids than babies that could have been aborted and as a result, died a painless death 99 percent of the time.
Created:
-->
@TXHG
Don’t copy History Buff.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Next time you want to respond, so so in 1 comment. It’s easier on my end.
What if that "deadbeat dad" is not wealthy enough to pay (or dead, or incarcerated, or differently-abled)?
Then he gets a federal construction job where he earns $15 an hour, the government makes back their money by selling the apartment they build. 15x40x4=$2400 a month. They pay $1000 to the single mom they created and they keep the rest.
This is unrealistic and completely misses the point.
It is totally realistic and solves the problem the left think exists.
This would be a gross invasion of privacy and unenforceable.Perhaps universal free health-care would be a better option.
It is not an invasion of privacy as it is a minor restriction people can comply with. UHC would be a bad idea because I don’t want to pay for promiscuous people’s STI treatment. They should get treated and they should pay for it, not the taxpayer.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
How far does your argument for de-colourifying people go BTW? I mean you're happy for them to change their name, their identity, to something stereotypically white to fit in better. If they have money should they lighten their skin?
I don’t think I mentioned minorities changing their skin color, but if dark skinned people see racism as a problem, but I don’t see the problem with minorities injecting a vitiligo shot in them to make them white if it makes them feel better. The vitiligo bacteria for context, eats at melanin and can turn a person white.
I don’t think white privilege exists, as Indian Americans are pretty dark skinned and they are the most successful ethnic group in America. This is because Indian Children almost always grow up with 2 parents and as a result, don’t end up in poverty often. African American children more often than not, don’t get 2 parents in the house and as a result, they do worse off than Indians; who are of a comparable skin tone.
Nonetheless, if minorities think that their life will be easier if they looked white, then they should have the freedom to inject the vitiligo bacteria into their skin to make them white. No bleaching necessary ; no plastic surgery necessary; just a simple vaccine with the vitiligo virus ought to make minorities more comfortable. Such a vaccine won’t even be that expensive; it should cost around $10.
There is something for both democrats and republicans to gain from encouraging racially insecure minorities to get a vaccine that makes them white. The liberals see an end to the white privilege that they often believe exists. The conservatives see people racially assimilating into a country, and conservatives love assimilation.
People call this idea racist, but to call racial assimilation racist is like to call it racist to force or encourage immigrants to learn English. It isn’t racist to make an immigrant learn English, as this makes their lives better. It also isn’t racist to encourage a minority to get a vitiligo vaccine (which is a lot easier than making an immigrant learn English) as this also makes the minority’s life better. If white privilege exists, then the minority gets to experience white privilege with the vitiligo vaccine. If white privilege doesn’t exist, the minority becomes less insecure about their race and as a result, they will live a better life. Either way, a vitiligo vaccine benefits minorities and is not a racist idea. The only Indian I asked about this believes in white privilege, and would gladly take vaccine to make him less insecure about his race. Now let’s see your solution to make minority life better:
Would the simpler and more moral option not be to stop racism rather than to try and stop people being a race other that white?
It may be more moral to not be racist to begin with, but unfortunately, American society has tried this for 55 years and so far, the minorities still think society is racist to them. From the perspective of the African, society will always be racist to them. Rather than go against hundreds of thousands of years of the tribal racism that the left still thinks plaques society, it would be simpler to give minorities a vitiligo shot that makes them white with time. If racism is still prominent, it won’t be that reduced in 50 years. If you can’t beat the racism that you think exists, use technology to hack biology to make everyone the same skin color.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
My policy proposal to help racial inequality is to reduce the poverty made through single motherhood. This can be done by paying single moms a UBI that is paid for not by the government, but by the deadbeat dad. If men don’t wish to be deadbeat dads and pay a UBI to the female they got pregnant, then they should be as careful with sex as women are.
Minorities changing their name to something western would end discrimination on the basis of name, if it exists.
As for gay sex, my idea is to prohibit all sex while having an STD. If you have an STD, you must get it treated before you engage in any sex. People would get their diseases treated in order to legally have consensual sex. Since people want sex, STIs would be virtually gone in the US in a year.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
In this thread, your saying that conservatives can move to places where their ideology is the law. You probably want UHC. So by your logic, why don’t you move to Europe? At least Europe isn’t a shithole like Africa.
Conservatives prefer America. Our per capita income is 50 percent higher than Canada and nearly double that of the EU. Rather than the US copying Europe, why can’t Europe copy the US? America is the better place to live because more non American westerners immigrate to America than the other way around. The US also attracts more immigrants than the rest of the west. This isn’t because it is easier to come to America; it’s because immigrants from non western countries want to come to America.
Rather than America learning from a continent with half the per capital income, why can’t Europe learn from the land of the free?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
When I lived in Africa, believe it or not, some white people actually suggested similar to the "non-suffering" Africans there!
What did they suggest be done to those who weren’t starving and suffering?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
What would the child live for except for dying an extremely painful death by starvation? Better to end their pain, even if it means a merciful death.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
It’s not generalizing as much as it is pointing out a statistic. When 1/8 gay and bi males get HIV and many more get other STIs, something must be done to prevent it.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
If you say racist stuff on a street corner, people can walk away. If you say racist stuff online, people can walk away ie go somewhere else.
if that were true, then black children from homes with two parents would succeed at the same rate as any other group. But that isn't what happens.
I don’t think there are any studies that show this that don’t factor out single motherhood.
If you have a name that doesn't sound like it is a a white person's name you are much less likely to get a job interview,
This might be true, but a reliable source is needed. If it is true, then people with those names should change their name to something western. Transgender people change their names to fit into their desired gender. Some other people change their name just because they feel like it. Besides the fact that most minorities have at least 1 European name(out of first name, last name), anyone who feels victimized because of their name is free to legally change their name to something that they think will give them a better job.
The solution, if this problem exists, is certainly not racial reparations as this costs an insane amount of money, it keeps minorities dependent on government handouts, which keeps them poor, and it worsens race relations. Sadly, this is backed by most black people, even though it encourages government dependency, which should apply to no one except government employees.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not all of them do, but enough gay and bi males have promiscuous sex and as a result, get STDs. People shouldn’t have sex until marriage to prevent STI spreading.
Created:
-->
@Conway
If gay and bi males want to be less likely to get HIV, as well as if anyone wants to avoid an STI, they should wait until marriage to have sex.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You seem to forget all the free land that was given away to "lighter-skin-toned-people" (in the U.S.A).
This was almost 200 years ago. Just as Germany doesn’t have a grudge on France for invading them 200 years ago, society has moved on from those times. You don’t see Germans telling French people to check their privilege on the basis of a French invasion 200 years ago, so you shouldn’t see black people telling white people to check their privilege based on racism that no longer exists.
You seem to forget all the home loans that were systematically denied to "darker-skin-toned-people" (REDLINE).
I have no idea what you are referring to as black people can get loans just as whites can.
You seem to forget about the disproportionate conviction rates between "lighter-skin-toned-people" and "darker-skin-toned-people".
Currently blacks are about 6x more likely to go to jail than whites. But blacks are also 4x more likely to grow up in a single motherhood house and significantly more likely to live in urban areas. People who live in urban areas and people who grow up in single motherhood houses are more likely to commit crime. When these factors are brought into the statistics and taken into account, black children raised in rural areas with 2 parents are as likely to end up in jail as whites in the same conditions.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
but he was a racist asshole spreading bullshit white supremacism nonsense.
He is entitled to free speech. Saying that we should ban racists for “hate speech” against minorities is like saying we should ban atheists for “hate speech” against the almighty God. Just as you can say anything hateful you want against God, and you can call him stupid, you have the right to call black people genetically stupid as well. If you can offend God, or the president, then you can offend any racial group.
I think what is holding black people back isn’t genetics or systemic racism, but instead it is the single motherhood epidemic that is infecting ALL racial groups, but especially the black ethnic group. If single motherhood didn’t exist, then racial equality in America would exist more in statistics.
Created:
-->
@Conway
In reality, chances of contracting HIV are directly related to choosing risky behavior.
Which gays and bi males are more likely to do. It’s not homophobic to say this. It’s just fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
They often are going to die anyways, and often within a year. It’s I think better to end the pain and suffering of dying from hunger.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Also, bombing Africa would cause many non suffering people to die. I don’t know a better way to get Africa free or relatively free of its suffering. I think trade could work to some extent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I wouldn’t nuke Africa, as this is a painful way to die, but those who are being shot should have a say in the matter.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Saying that someone is racist because they believe that whites are smarter than blacks is like saying someone is sexist because they believe men are physically stronger than women. If it’s true, then it’s not racist or sexist to say either claim. It would be a fact at that point.
If someone said that gays and bisexuals are more likely to get HIV, provided the source they put is reliable, this isn’t homophobic to say. It is a fact.
Created:
-->
@Death23
I read the decision and his post and I don’t think saying black people are biologically inferior to white people is hate speech or ban worthy.
It’s just like me saying that men are biologically stronger than women. If I can find a source to back it up that is reliable, then it might be true.
Created:
Posted in:
Would you rather shoot a starving African kid and give them the easy way out(assuming you could get away with it) or do nothing and let them die of starvation (which is more painful than a shot in the back of the head).
You aren’t allowed in this would you rather to feed them, as people just don’t do that.
It is because of this that I would shoot them in the back of the head; to end their suffering.
Created:
-->
@Death23
What did he say that caused him to get banned?
Created:
-->
@MgtowDemon
So, if whites have higher IQs than black people as what the data says, I don’t think it’s biological. For example, black people are much more likely to be raised in single motherhood houses. If your raised in a single motherhood house, your 4x more likely to go to jail because your 4x more likely to be poor. Your also going to have a lower IQ.
Even though white people tend to have higher
IQs than blacks based on the data, how much does IQ impact intelligence? My record IQ is 156, yet I’m certainly not that smart. There are also instances where people with low IQs are able to do impressive things, like solve 2^50 in their head. IQ certainly means something, but it certainly doesn’t mean everything. There may be other intelligence tests that blacks do better in than whites. They couldn’t survive for thousands of years in Africa if they were stupid.
Thoughts?
Created:
-->
@Death23
Drunk driving causes victims so we should ban that. What are the laws on throwing bricks from windows?
Created:
Lets legalize everything that doesn't have a victim with the crime. Make America Great Again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
What makes murder wrong is that it is not victimless. If there is no victim, there is no crime. But there is a victim for murder. So murder should be banned.
Created:
-->
@MgtowDemon
If someone said, "Blacks have lower I.Q's than Whites", some people will respond to that by saying it's racist. Now, unfortunately, this is a scientifically verifiable fact
Where is your source for this?
Created:
Posted in:
If the Christian god didn't exist, how did the pope get into power? The bible says Jesus promoted Saint Peter. Science has yet to provide an alternative answer.
Created:
Posted in:
If billionaires didn't exist, then our economy would implode because the billionaires would have the vast majority of their wealth taken from them, they are only left with $1 billion, and then they would have no incentive to produce, leading to the economy failing, tens of millions of people would lose their jobs because no one will manage the businesses anymore since their financial incentive will be gone, and the economy would be destroyed. What's the point of taxing billionaires very highly anyways?
Created:
Posted in:
Congress should have term limits. You shouldn't have to know the law to be in office. You just need good ideas that people back. Congress is curropt and they need to have term limits.
Created:
-->
@Athias
First: why 20 weeks?
That's when the fetus can feel pain.
Second: the vast majority of pro-lifers argue the better use of discretion before having sex
The vast majority of pro lifers claim that if you don't want children, don't have sex, yet only 3% of the US population waits until marriage, so the vast majority of these people are hypocrites. The democrats advocate contraception use for people wanting to have sex and unwilling to concieve. But pro lifers instead advocate for abstinence only education, which the stats show is counterproductive to reducing abortions.
Kill 600,000 to save 10,000,000? I don't believe the math operates that way.
So, then why don't pro lifers adopt kids if they are so concerned about life?
Millions die from hunger all around the world. Do you donate your time and money to feeding them? Have you adopted as many children as you can financially support? And in your choice not to do so, are you responsible for their deaths?
I'm not responsible for their deaths; I just didn't feel like saving them. Just as people shouldn't be forced to save a kid from hunger, people shouldn't be forced to bring a kid into the world.
Thoughts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Sure, but people who are in their teens are at the highest risk for crashing or injury operating a vehicle: CDC notes:"The risk of motor vehicle crashes is higher among teens aged 16–19 than among any other age group. In fact, per mile driven, teen drivers in this age group are nearly three times as likely as drivers aged 20 or older to be in a fatal crash.2"
So people above the age of 20 still account for a significant portion of the crashes that occur. In order to reduce their deaths, the driving age can be raised to 30. Are we going to do something like that? The answer is no because freedom is dangerous as hell, but it's worth it.
We should do what we can to minimize gun homicides while ensuring the rights of others, it isn't: The solution either cures all homicides by guns or it doesn't matter, that is absolutist. We want to save more people from this fate, and regulating guns, in general, will accomplish that.
Guns already have regulations with them.
Also, do you not know what, "Deaths per 100,000 population: 5" means? It means that per every 100,000 people of the 330,000,000 people who live in the US, 5 will be killed by a gun. That means 19,000 people or so will die to guns each year.
19,000 is a moderately big number of gun deaths, but 330,000,000 people is a very big sample size. I think it is better to measure rates instead of actual counts because rates take into account the population size.
Thoughts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm not completely sure, 21 would be the best age, but 18 would be an acceptable compromise.
Many people beyond this age die in accidents.
Also, automatics are really effective at killing people, the number of deaths per automatic used to deaths per almost any other kind of gun makes that apparent. It's how efficient they are at killing
Every gun is effective at killing. the question is how dangerous the gun is? The danger of anything is measured in how many people it kills.
Also I never said what kind of regulations I was for, you just assumed you knew what I was going to say, which you didn't.
I don't know your position on guns. If you want to end gun homicides, the only way this would even be possible is with banning all guns, which few people want and I don't want.
Your stats said that the homicide rate is around 5 per 100,000. This means in a given year, the odds of you being murdered by a gun are .005%. That's incredibly small. I think I'll take that chance.
I gotta go, I'll respond to your claims here and abroad in about a week. Have a good afternoon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Blatantly, you are saying that all guns deaths are caused by school shootings, which is untrue.
I didn't say that, but very little of the gun deaths are caused by "assault weapons" so banning them will do little to save people at best.
And Car accidents and speeding is dangerous, which is why I advocate to up the age at which one can get their drivers licence
What age would you set? Since your 16, I presume you don't drive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Hmm, yeah that is pretty broad to be fair, gun control? Just argue that easier access = more shooting
Your more likely to get struck by lightning than you are to die from a school shooting. Mass shootings account for a very small portion of all homicides. "Assault weapons" kill roughly 1,200 people a year. Speeding kills 9,378 people. Your over 7x more likely to die from speeding than you are to die from an "assault weapon". Every gun control advocate with a car speeds. If they think speeding isin't dangerous, why do they think "assault weapons" are since these guns kill less people?
In reality, freedom is dangerous as hell, but I love it. It's what makes America great, especially when the death toll is so small.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You can be non-binary and pansexual.
You can be, but I'm asking what if your non binary and you only are attracted to non binary people?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
What if your only attracted to non binary people because your non binary? If so, your not pansexual.
Created:
Posted in:
Most liberals aren't antifa, most conservatives aren't klansmen, and most libetarians aren't anarchists. People can think for themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
So....... you agree with me? At least that the bible is homophobic? I'm gay, question, if you had the means and were commanded to by god, would you murder me
I thought you were dating a trans woman. If a guy is dating someone that is non binary, are they gay or straight?
Created:
I've changed my mind for some reason to being pro choice up until 20 weeks of pregnency. The reason for this is the vast majority of pro lifers don't adopt and there are many kids that are orphans that die due to hunger. This should be a meme:
600,000 fetuses die due to abortion per year, most of which die by a painless way since they can't feel pain and everyone loses their minds.
Over 10,000,000 children die to hunger per year, all of which die by a painful way and no one bats an eye.
If pro lifers wish to be consistent, they would save one of these kids from hunger. Instead, the most famous pro life organization, the Catholic church spends their money protecting priests who violated their vow of chastity by raping little boys. They need to fix their priorities.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
trump is by far not a lbertarian. he wants universal healthcare
You sure about that? He wants to repeal Obamacare.
he is set on preserving social security
I wouldn't get rid of social security, I'd just fund it differently.
I'd probably run as a republican even though I agree with the libetarians more. I like low taxes, a free market economy, and gun rights.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
anyone who wants to 'ban foodstamps' would lose miserably, as they should.
I don't see why homeless people can't rely on churches for food. If churches got money to bail rapists out, they got money to help the poor.
americans aren't even close to voting for an economic libertarian. when these sorts of folks run for president.... it's all just masturbation.
I think I'd run as a republican. With the exception to immigration, trump is basically a libetarian.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
if you did, your username would fit
Most politicians are establishment. If I want to win, I need to wear an AK 47 with a don't tread on me shirt. People like anti establishment candidates. I'd want to get rid of the US debt and I think I figured out a way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
arms just means a weapon
It means gun.
and the white house isin't public property.it is owned by the US government. IE it is owned by the public.
The white house isn't public property in that you can't just walk onto the white house. Only certain people are allowed in the white house.
lol, no it isn't. I could easily say "every person should be allowed to carry a nuclear weapon on the street. That's freedom". It would be just as silly.
Nuclear weapons aren't useful for defense against tyranny. AK 47s are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
because the war on poverty was largely run by right wing people.
It was made by Lyndon B Johnson, who was a lefty.
it was never designed to fight the actual causes of poverty, so it couldn't ever succeed.
The war on poverty was designed to fight poverty.
true, but since corporations exist to make as much money as possible, by design, they pay their employees as little as they possibly can. With no government protections, this creates a permanent underclass.
There should be some government protections, but we need to encourage workers to get jobs that are fine with paying very high wages as opposed to forcing businesses to pay lower wages than the alternative of hooking low income people up with better paying jobs.
Independence from government sounds nice on paper, but in practice this just means you have the freedom to be abused by the rich where no one has the power to help you.
It means the government doesn't pay you welfare benefits.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Having a president saying that free speech should be illegal is rather disturbing though.
I agree, but Trump didn't say this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Bear arms means the right to carry arms.
If we took that entirely at face value, then any citizen has the right to walk into the white house with an grenade launcher.
Grenade launchers aren't arms and the white house isin't public property. Every safe person should be allowed to carry an AK 47 while on the street. That's freedom.
I disagree that the 2nd amendment should allow just anyone to own a weapon since it clearly says that it is for being in a "well regulated militia", which most gun owners aren't.
The masses are the militia.
But even if we assume that that is what is meant, there still need to be reasonable restrictions on people's rights for the sake of public safety.
There should be some restrictions, but open carry should not be one of them. The constitution protects open carry.
Created: