Total topics: 331
Anybody who says, "30,000 people die from guns a year and guns are the reason" doesn't have the goal of banning AR 15. They have the goal of banning all guns, but they know that position isn't too popular, so they are doing what they can to shift the overton window. This is what you believe if you are Anti Unwanted Pain (AUP) and you don't believe the government would go tyrannical and you want to copy the UK gun culture.
The UK jails people for misgendering online (I've read articles hinting at this that I can't remember), but the left thinks this is justified in the name of reducing the unwanted pain of the trans community.
I don't agree with censorship of any kind, but I can see the logic in it if one is consistent with their AUP morals.
The right wants the 2nd amendment to defend against tyranny, so you figure they would be against getting rid of the constitution and they would vote against anyone who came out in favor of terminating the constitution:
Never mind, they love this guy.
I love the 1st and 2nd amendments (and others; like the 8th and 13th) and I don't like voting for broadly anti constitution candidates.
The majority of the people that vote for anti constitution candidates don't love the constitution as much as they think they do.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Pro vaccine and Pro scientist: Remy: Affluenflammation (Red Hot Chili Peppers Californication Parody) (youtube.com). This video is pre COVID.
So why the parties largely switched on vaccines I don't know.
Even libertarian sites aren't consistent. It's one thing if they change their minds and admit it; but if the green party endorsed smallpox vaccienes, then reason.com would treat that vacciene like how they treated the COVID vacciene.
I think it's a mistake to not get vaccinated, but it's your right to make that mistake. The size of the mistake depends on the deadliness of the disease.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Fiscal conservatism: The belief that it is morally justified to let children that are poor, homeless, or undocumented starve to death and freeze to death in order to save money on the taxes of the well off (defined as top 50% of the country fiscally) and to cut government spending by 2% or so.
Now, don't get me wrong, I accept this label and I would call myself somebody that is fiscally conservative and I don't care how unpopular this makes me.
But if you don't agree with fiscal conservatism, I don't judge and it's totally understandable.
But most people who call themselves fiscally conservative, socially liberal; I call them the Anti-Trump Republicans; people who are fine with letting children starve and freeze to death in order to save money on their taxes and to cut government spending; but hate Trump for talking without a filter.
Fiscal conservatives; you know who you are. Own it; understand that in a world where everyone understands what the label means, most people would strongly disagree and my fiscal conservatism is probably truly backed by like 20% of the population. And I'm fine with that, because I prefer honesty, transparency, and bluntness to popularity among the American Public.
So once this is understood, democrats (Bernie Sanders style) are going to win every election hands down and I don't know how the conservatives are going to be different than Bernie Sanders on any issue if they want power again [Bernie could give lots of foreign aid money, all disagreement would get labeled as, "fiscally conservative" (which would be an insult similar to how the word "racist" is an insult right now. Calling someone a racist used to be a compliment or neutral term as Fiscally conservative kindof is now, but that might change once word get out)].
Against foreign aid? Then you are fiscally conservative.
Against socialism? Then you are fiscally conservative, and this belief produces pain for the poor if the belief is in power.
Against free healthcare (even for the undocumented)? Then you are fiscally conservative.
Insults are the easiest way to bend most right wingers into submission (if the insult can't be disputed). You call the right racist over wanting the border wall, that insult is disputed because the right denies being undocumented is a race. You call them undocuphobic, and the right would advocate abolishing ICE because they are cowards; they are afraid of being insulted in an undisputable way (and they don't really have a backbone).
Now I do have a backbone; I'm fiscally conservative and if people don't like me for it, then so be it.
But the left wants to reduce unwanted pain and the right wants to promote it. The right is sadistic; all of their ideology disagreements with the left either produce pain or there is a dispute to if pain is produced from the belief. If there is a consistent reason for it (liberty like with guns, or abortion with anti-homicide), then fine.
But not all of their beliefs are anti-homicide or pro liberty (for harmless people) to own AR 15s if it's fairly certain they won't murder with the guns. Some of their beliefs are done in the name of, "law and order", (which is the opposite of liberty) like deportations and the police killing black American Citizens. You don't need to be a race hustler to be against the government/police officers having the power to kill people without due process, nulling the 5th amendment.
On issues like deportations and police brutality, the right is sadistic and I am strongly against taking pleasure in the suffering of those who didn't have due process rights and I'm not sure how they would deny that argument.
Starving kids in Africa; I'm cool with letting them starve to death; but I don't take pleasure in doing it. I just prefer my money to their life in the name of fiscal conservatism.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear" (Ephesians 6:5).
The Christain apologist defense of this quote: Couldn't find anything (gotquestions.org Ephesians 6:5 - Search (bing.com)).
If one can't find a bible verse that contradicts this, then the bible is pro slavery. Otherwise, the bible contradicts its self and therefore is not an all knowing document.
But, Lincoln the republican before law based on religion.
Yankees are based.
Burn the confederate flag.
And expand constitutional carry and no more vacciene mandates.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Group 1:
Claim 1: Racial Diversity is a strength in the classroom!
Claim 2: Students learn best when their teacher is the same race as them.
Reason: A racially diverse classroom will have some students not the same race as their teacher.
Group 2:
Claim 1: The republicans freed the slaves during the Civil War and this is why the Civil war was fought.
Claim 2: The Civil War was not about slavery.
Reason: I don't think I need to explain.
At least PragerU takes the position I agree with here: Was the Civil War About Slavery? (youtube.com)
Group 3:
Claim 1: Undocumented immigrants (UIs) should get deported.
Claim 2: The death penalty should be abolished.
Claim 3: Murder is worse than coming here illegally and murderers should be treated worse.
Reason: If you want UIs deported, then you don't want them getting free healthcare. If you are against the death penalty, then you support murderers getting free healthcare.
This claim goes against Claim 3, which I believe is a tautoligy.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
It's a test with as many questions as you want, all the questions are in theory very easy, they are all true/false, but if you get even one answer wrong, you are a felon. You aren't allowed to ask for help because that "ruins the mood" and you are expected to read her mind.
Are you going to want to take that test and even answer a single question? I wouldn't want too.
That's what sex is to me. Every answer has to be correct (consensual) or else you are a felon.
If that's reality, then I want 0 questions on my test. I can't get any wrong if I don't answer any questions.
"Safe words". If she uses a safe word, then you have already done something sexual to her without her consent. So if she uses a safe word on you, then you are a rapist until the definition of rape changes to someone that has sex immediately after the safe word is uttered by either party.
I want no questions on my test.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I think it solves as good evidence that the sex you had was consensual.
I've heard people want privacy. Then why can't you print out 2 forms in the privacy of your home?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
All of these leagues have divisions (races) and they try to get a diverse group of teams from all the divisions to compete in the playoffs and if you are a really good team, but enough other teams are a lot better, then you don't get in because a higher ceded team from a worse division took your spot.
It's Affirmative Action.
It should be a strict meritocracy.
Don't judge by the content of their record, not by whether that division has privilege or not by other teams tending to do better.
Affirmative action is bad.
I genuinely believe this, so I don't watch sports to protest. But anybody that watches professional sports is supporting Affirmative Action.
This is fine; you have free speech, but just understand that.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Me: So Christians; do you believe Jesus paid for everyone's sins?
Christians: Yes.
Me: So I automatically go to heaven?
Christians: Yes.
Me: So why do I have to be Christain? I'm going to heaven no matter what.
Christians: You only go to heaven if you believe in God and Jesus.
Me: You believe in God and Jesus and you believe when you die, you will go to heaven?
Christians: Yes.
Me: And you believe living in heaven is unimaginably better than life here?
Christians: Yes.
Me: And Jesus paid for all of your sins, so because you believe in him, you get to go to heaven when you die (even if you commit a crime or sin as bad as murder)?
Christians: Yes.
Me: I (as an atheist) don't want you to do this, but what's stopping you from committing suicide? You are going to heaven if you commit suicide because you would die. If you believe suicide is a sin, Jesus paid for that sin, because according to you, he paid for all sins.
Christians: He only pays for repented sins.
Me: Hold on now. Your god will forgive a murderer or a child rapist that genuinely repents before he dies, but he won't forgive a suicidal person that repents after death? What about a genuine atheist that doesn't think there is a god and repents (but after death)?
This is the difference between being sheep smart and being lion smart; the person with sheep smarts repeats what they've heard (and their memory is good, but their critical thinking skills suck). The lion smart person has more critical thinking; if the idea makes sense; then they accept it. Otherwise, they try and figure out a rationale and moral response to it.
If you believe a pre death repentant murderer deserves the right to heaven more than a post death repentant atheist, I do not like that morality at all and I fail to see how any critical thinker would disagree with me on at least that.
It's not pro-life, it's not pro law and order, it's not pro victimless liberty, and it's anti free thinking to believe a murderer should get treated better than an atheist simply because they repented.
But it's faith; and you can't challenge faith and expect people to change their minds no matter how good your argument is.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
If you have a girlfriend,
Vasectomy + Negative STI tests that you and your girlfriend have = Right to raw dog consenting women (who I would assume would want raw dogging if you have a vasectomy and she and you test negative for STIs).
Alpha men get vasectomies before sex so they can raw dog. Beta males (Bottom G) are scared of a day of ball pain.
Be a man. Get vasectomized before you have sex. Earn your right to raw dog.
Short term pain brings long term pleasure. Discipline + time -> freedom. Alpha men do the tough thing and bear the cross for their relationships. Beta males put all the birth control pressure on their women (who endure months of pain vs you enduring one day of pain).
I will get a vasectomy before I have sex. I'm not a pussy; I don't want people thinking my girlfriend is tougher than I am because she can endure months of birth control pain whereas I can't endure one day of vasectomy pain.
Pre vasectomy sperm samples can be stored in a hospital freezer when you want kids with a consenting woman.
Only pussy men have sex before they get a vasectomy.
Be the man; no pain no gain. Endure before you release into a woman.
Lets end abortion (and unwanted pregnancy pain).
Be a man; be tough.
If you are a woman; only date men willing to prove their toughness.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I don't like welfare kings that are from the inner city.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
If a white person who really liked BLM (and BLM is their main issue) didn’t want black people getting killed by the police because they viewed a black person as their genuine equal, I should have no problem (and they should have no problem) with me calling them a Black Rights Activist.
So pro lifers; as people that are born, should have no problem accepting the, “Zygote Rights Activist” label because you believe a zygote is your equal. And that’s fine.
Just be honest and don’t be afraid of looking foolish; there are many people that agree with you on this.
You will turn many (maybe most) people off from your movement, but at least you are being honest.
And you should not be offended or try and weasel your way out of the label, “Zygote Rights Activist” because you believe a Zygote is your equal. You believe neither one of you should get homicided, and currently zygotes are legally homicided in most states, and you want to end that.
So just accept the label, "Zygote Rights activist".
Me; I don't view a zygote as my equal; I don't even view a 3 year old kid as my equal. If I had to pick between burning myself alive to the death or burning a 3 year old alive to the death; I'm picking the 3 year old (because of personal bias). If the typical person is unwilling to spend $1/day to save the life of a starving 3 year old from dying of starvation (burning to death takes a few hours; starving to death takes weeks so it's more painful), then why should I be willing to give my life to save somebody else?
If I had to pick betweena 5 year old kid dying or a 25 year old dying; I'm picking the one that doesn't have a job yet (the 5 year old kid).
People prefer the 5 year old because they are younger; by believing this, they would then believe that they lose value as they age.
If you think young people are more valuable than adults, next time you are trying to hire someone for a job, hire Timmy the 2 year old from daycare.
People love babies because they are cute. I don't like babies because they are useless and loud and often can't even speak English.
I like rich; smart; independent, fast.
I like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Bill Gates. They are rich; their companies produce.
Socialism is bad; I prefer capitalism.
Now I wouldn't have the 5 year old kid die if the alternative is nothing; I respect a 5 year old's right to not get murdered.
But I'm just saying I would rather khave this person stay alive:
then this person alive:
Cute to me is a euphemism for the intersection of small, good looking, and stupid.
I don't like stupid; I like smart. I don't like poor; I like rich. I don't like dependence. I like independence.
I don't like Chuch Music; I like Rock and Roll.
I don't like CA and AL; I like NV and FL.
If I had to pick between Person A or Person B dying:
The ugly one has got to go. I wouldn't want the ugly one dying for no reason; but if I had to pick one dying, the strong deserve to live more than the weak.
I like winners; not losers!
In fact, I would go a step further. If Group 1 or Group 2 had to die:
Group 1: Elon Musk and Bill Gates
Group 2: 10 homeless people
I would rather have Group 2 die. 1 Person that significently positively changes the world deserves the right to live more than 500 homeless people. With 500 homeless people not existing; the world becomes virtually unchanged. Bill Gates doesn't exist; no more Microsoft.
It's possible for someone's extrinsic worth to be more than their worth for being a human being.
Everyone's intrinsic value to me is A+B+C. A is their worth just for being human (Bill Gates has the same A value as a homeless guy). B is what they have currently done for society - what they took from society and what we can reasonably expect them to take from society (B for Bill Gates is thousands of times the value of A for Bill Gates). A 12 year old kid's B value is higher than a 3 year old kid; they will be in public school for less. C is an unknown quantity; it's what they might do in the future.
A+B+C=Intrinsic Value. Extrinsic Value=B.
Not all born innocent people deserve the right to live equally, but the A value for every person is equal and positive. If you do a crime as bad as murder, rape, or similar, for you; B=-A, and C=0. You can't be freed, and it costs too much money to keep someone alive who has 0 intrinsic worth, so you should get killed by beheading, with your blood and organs being used to save the lives of Patriots! If you are a left winger, I can replace the bolded words with low income people in the hospital who are disproportionally people of color.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
They all care about animals, and their leaders all back TRUMP!
PETA is strongly against bug consumption btw (What about insects and other “pests”? | PETA). In other words, if the globalists want us to eat bugs, then PETA is against the globalists.
Trump got endorsed by Modi, the PM of India during that time (India has a lot of vegetarians). Most politicians hate Trump, not vegetarian India’s PM.
The #1 most vegan country in the world is Israel. Not Denmark, Sweden, and certainly not Palestine.
Israel!
Israel, India, and Trump made the right move here.
I don't like Trump and I'm not voting for him, but credit where it's due.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
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:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
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:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
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:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
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:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
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:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
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:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
If you knew the election was going to be between one of these 2 people (I'm not saying this is reality, but hypothetically speaking), who would you vote for:
Person 1: A Pro choicer that is a proud white supremist and is pro choice because they want women to be allowed to decide if they want an abortion. They don't make their pro choice stance racial; they just happen to not like non white people and the unwanted pain produced from pregnancy for some women.
Person 2: A pro lifer that denounces white supremacy.
If your answer in this hypothetical is, "I would vote 3rd party" or, "I wouldn't vote", to me, this counts as a dodge. I get it; you are a pro choicer that hates white supremacy.
But if you had to pick between the pro-choice white supremist or the pro life non white supremist, if you pick the pro life non white supremist, fine.
But if you pick the pro choicer that is a white supremist, that's fine as well.
But if this is what you pick, don't be mad at pro life Trump supporters for voting for him over Biden (pro choice non white supremist) even if Trump is a white supremist.
And if you are a pro lifer that thinks Trump is racist (you might not think he's racist, but lets say hypothetically speaking you thought he was racist), if you care more about abortion policy than racism, fine; vote for the pro life person you believe is a white supremist. My grandfather did that twice. I'm not mad at him. He didn't like Trump's white supremacy (he believes Trump is a white supremist), but he held his nose and voted for him over a pro choice that supported what he believes is murder.
But if this is you, then don't get angry at left wingers who would be willing to vote for a white supremist over a pro lifer.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
15 years ago:
Conservatives: The bible is against homosexuality. Homosexuality is bad!
Liberals: The bible says to love and accept everyone!
Now (or sometime in the future, but I can definitely see the trend):
Conservatives: The bible says to love and accept everyone!
Liberals: The bible is against homosexuality. The bible and Christianity are bad!
Me: I personally don't like Christainity and I don't consider myself to be Christain. My main reason is that if God burns people in hell forever, I think he violates the 8th amendment (and the constitution and the bill of rights are a much better source of legal morality than Christianity and the bible) and I don't care how many Christians I piss off from saying that. But at the same time, God saying things like, "gays are bad and I don't like them" to me is free speech. If he advocated the death penalty for gays, I would take issue with it. But if he says stuff like, "it's an abomination", to me, that's free speech.
But with the radical left, they don't take nearly as much issue with God burning people in hell forever, as much as they do with the bible saying things like, "Homosexuality is degenerate".
I'm LGBT, but I would rather be called degenerate than burn in hell forever under any circumstances whether LGBT or not.
I hate Christainity more over it's threats of eternal hellfire (if accurate) than I am about any anti alphabet attitudes it may have.
But everyone goes to heaven. Jesus paid for everyone's sins, so you go to heaven no matter what.
you may say.
Then why do I have to worship God? I'm going to heaven no matter what by your logic.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
I hate Jan 6; it was done by MAGA conservatives, and it shouldn't happen.
But the media was acting like Jan 6 protestors were violently trying to murder elected officials.
If MAGA conservatives wanted to murder elected officials, they would have brought their guns.
Lets just say it is pretty hard (maybe impossible) to violently overthrow a government without guns (especially if the party doing it are hardcore 2A advocates who waive gun flags as much as left wingers waive gay flags).
The media blew up the whole situation!
They must really want this Trump guy gone. It's not because of, "Terminate the constitution" (they hated him before then). It's not because they think he's a racist (John McCain is on the record of being pro confederacy and George Bush actually built the border wall and being anti black and anti undocumented are the media's reasons for thinking Trump is a racist). Trump even deported less people than Biden and Obama. The corporate media didn't call them racist.
I might have to go red this election, although I'm pretty persuadable; I'm like Joe Rogan. The left wing media (because Fox and OAN are part of mainstream media too) but CNN and NBC and all of that set are trying to see what sticks with Trump. It so happened all the accusations of Trump being bigoted can be applied to other presidents (both democrat and republican) that mainstream media didn't complain about.
I don't know their reason for hating Trump (although their reason isn't a moral reason). If it was a moral reason, they would tell the world what it is.
I know the left wing media is scared of Trump, so I might have to vote for Trump.
But I'm fairly persuadable on this, so let me know what you guys think.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I think it would be steel manning to claim that this is what the libertarian party believes:
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
To summarize, people can do whatever they want with their lives as long as they aren't harming anybody else.
Now, when they say this, do they mean:
- People can do whatever they want with their lives as long as they aren't harming anybody else to any extent.
- People can do whatever they want with their lives as long as they aren't harming anybody else to significant extent.
Because there are 2 issues that I thought of. They are:
- Should the rich (the globalists) be taxed enough to pay for things like free college of poor people (we the people)?
- Are vacciene mandates bad?
If Libertarians believed People can do whatever they want with their lives as long as they aren't harming anybody else to any extent, then they would answer no to both questions. The unvaccinated harm vaccinated people if the vaccinated get COVID because of them (even if it's a nominal sacrifice, it is a sacrifice that still exists).
If Libertarians believed People can do whatever they want with their lives as long as they aren't harming anybody else to a significant extent, then they would answer yes to both questions. Taxing Billionaires/globalists (whether it's when they die in the form of a hefty estate tax or while they are alive) harms them, but only nominally so.
People should either answer yes to both questions or no to both questions. I would answer yes to both questions.
Nominal harm doesn't count; it has to be significant for me. Otherwise, it seems kindof petty.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The left: Women earn less than men! Men are privileged!
Me: Gay Married Couples Have Higher Income than Heterosexual Married Ones. Should gays check their privilege? Indian Americans earn more than white men in the US. Should Indians check their privilige?
How far does this go?
How about let the market decide how much people should get paid, whether they are gay, Indian, or male? That's a standard I'm willing to get behind.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Lets say you are a 17 year old female. You go into a bar, you meet single guys who are 25 and have like $60K in net worth. You lie to one of them about your age and say you are 18 when you are 17. You have sex with them with them thinking you are 18 when you are 17.
You leave. You tell them by text "I have evidence. You committed statutory rape. You have 2 options:
- Give me your entire net worth ($60K) by venmo. I don't want to look at your ugly face and stinky body anymore. Just venmo me the money. You have 48 hours to comply. If you don't, #2 will take into effect:
- I turn you into the police for statutory rape where you lose the $60K and your freedom. Your reputation goes down the toilet. You will be an outcast from society. You may kill yourself from societal rejection and homelessness. I don't care. You mean nothing to me except an income source that needs to be depleted as quickly as possible and then I move on to the next sucker; the next SIMP. Girl power!
Option 1 at least lets you keep your freedom. So what is it going to be?
"
In that situation, the law argues the 17-year-old female is a rape victim while the 25-year-old that got tricked is a predator.
Until the laws regarding age of consent change, this is totally legal and the 17 year old female will face no prosecution.
Young females don't realize the level of legal power they have. If I was a young female their age, I would be taking advantage of the laws until they get changed. I'd be rich all from desperate men and blackmail with the law on my side.
If the law gets bumped down to age 16, a 15 year old female can try this. If the law changes to 15, a 14 year old can do this, and so on and so forth.
If there is a stratified age of consent (16 for people within 2 years of age), this is inconsistent. Either a 16 year old is mentally competent enough to consent to sex or she isn't.
If you think this is unfair, change the laws.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Society: Ban child porn!
Me: Why?
Society: Because it exploits children!
Me: What do you think about Chocolate Milk? Should it be legal to drink it?
Society: Yea, why not?
Me: Well, Chocolate production uses child slaves, so chocolate production exploits children.
The pedophile exploits children by nutting to naked kids on the internet. I exploit children by drinking chocolate milk frequently with chocolate made with child slavery. I got some questions.
1. Do you think it exploits children more to have them do 5 sex videos in their life in a comfortable temperature room or to have them work for 15 years on farms making chocolate for your lattes and your Hersheys bars whether it's hot, humid, rainy, or other, 16 hours a day, 7 days a week?
2. If you are an adult that is sexually active, can you go longer without masturbation, or without chocolate products?
The pedophile by nutting to kids on the internet (not sex with kids, but by nutting to them on the internet (which could even be animated child porn)) is exploiting kids less for a more essential cause than I am by drinking chocolate almond milk.
"But you were getting angry at someone for saying sexual activities are for children of all ages". There is a difference between masturbation and sex. Masturbation can be done with animated child porn (which should be legal as no kids are effected and it might actually reduce child rape since animated child porn can cause certain things to happen sexually that would never be performed in real life). Legalizing animated child porn production (and adult porn production) would significantly reduce child rape rates I think.
I don't want to be a hypocrite.
But if you want to ban child porn because it exploits children, you would only be logically consistent if you wanted to ban chocolate that even had 1% of it's production made with child slaves(Child Labor and Slavery in the Chocolate Industry - Food Empowerment Project (foodispower.org)).
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Only right wingers can respond to this post. I'm going to try and ignore left wing responses to the OP because they don't know how right wingers think except for guesses. This is for right wingers to answer.
The Right: The radical left can't even define what a woman consistently is!
Me: Can you guys define what a republican/conservative/right winger consistently is?
The left is pretty consistently anti-pain and pro comfort. All of their beliefs they believe are designed to reduce pain.
What about the conservatives? I don't want to accuse them of being pro pain, but what's the alternative?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Sex Without Intercourse: A Hot Option for Lovers of All Ages
The author of this is Jewish:
I’m not saying all, or even a majority, or even 10% of Jews agree with Michael on this.
But if Jews want to stop being viewed as NAMBLA defenders by the Nazis (who I don’t agree with; I think genocide is horrible), maybe stop posting stuff like this.
I mean, if Muslims didn’t want people thinking they are terrorists, they would do what they feasibly can to eliminate that image. If you are a transwoman and you don’t want people calling you a man, you do your best to make yourself as feminine as possible.
If you are Jewish, I’m not inherently against you; but can you denounce people like Michael Castleman?
But if Jews want to stop being viewed as NAMBLA defenders by the Nazis (who I don’t agree with; I think genocide is horrible), maybe stop posting stuff like this.
I mean, if Muslims didn’t want people thinking they are terrorists, they would do what they feasibly can to eliminate that image. If you are a transwoman and you don’t want people calling you a man, you do your best to make yourself as feminine as possible.
If you are Jewish, I’m not inherently against you; but can you denounce people like Michael Castleman?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
If the election is Trump vs Biden, if Trump wins, there will be no Jan 6.
If Biden wins, there probably will be another Jan 6 this time. This Jan 6 might actually be sucessful.
I don't want another Jan 6, I might vote for Trump because of that.
If you want Biden and hate Jan 6, please explain to me how Biden winning would prevent another Jan 6.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The left: "No human being is illegal. Abolish ICE!"
Me: What if the US sent 200K Americans to Greenland, 700K to Iceland, had them live in these areas there for 5 years, and then they vote to get annexed by the US? If Greenland and Iceland turn them down, we call these countries Ameriphobic bigots, and then basically what happened to Hawaii happens to Iceland and Greenland. Basically what happened to Hawaii could happen to Greenland and Iceland.
No human being is illegal! America Fuck Yeah! God bless America!
Lets Diversify Iceland with people from different places with different perspectives (places like Texas, Florida, Tennessee, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Arizona, Utah, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia). Diversity is a strength!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The left generally thinks prostitution and adultury should be legal (I would assume adultery because it's legal in many states and the left tends to favor consensual sexual freedom).
If they are going to believe that, fine. But then don't get angry at Trump for sleeping with prostitutes while married; if he did do that, by the left's logic, it would not matter.
Something vice versa applies to the right.
I think prostitution should be legal as long as it also isn't adultery at the same time. I wouldn't want my girl cheating on me.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
1. Trump is good because he runs the country like a business!
2. Woke is bad. We need to never surrender to the woke mob!
3. Big businesses are better than small buisinesses because they helped more people in order to be big and successful. It's a result of capitalism.
4. Big businesses are woke!
If they accept all but 1, then they don't think Trump is good. All but 2; they think being woke is good. All but 3, they don't like capitalism. All but 4, they don't believe big businesses are woke.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
In general, the countries that abolished slavery first tended to be white majority countries.
WHITE POWER! God bless Western Civilization!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Me: Immigrants built America.
The left: Yey! He's so progressive!
Me: No; I mean like this:
Finish the job genocide free. Eliminate Native Reservations that keep Natives in poverty and living off the government; integrate Native reservations with their states. Don't deport any whites from Native reservations. No human being is illegal (and I'm anti ICE so I can say this)!
Tax cuts and economic growth matters more than preserving languages spoken by under 1 million people.
Encourage interracial marriage for those that want kids to make Native Americans and other minorities that pass as Native American or minority barely exist as time goes on.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Some person: What do you think caused the civil war?
Haley: (Dodge)
Me: It's about (states rights) to (make their own decisions), primarily to enslave blacks! FUCK the confederate flag!
I'm a NORTHERNER! People here know I'm not left wing on guns, vaccine mandates, the death penalty, or the US debt, or climate change alarmism, or even reparations, but the confederate flag shouldn't be flying; most flags don't even belong in the museum. They belong in the fireplace, turning to ash!
Lincoln, the NORTHERN REPUBLICAN, put the racist confederates in their place and created Juneteenth!
God bless America and the Union.
Fuck the CSA!
The people that support the confederate flag make no sense to me on that issue (unless they actually are pro slavery, but don't have the guts to say it in order to appeal to normies).
I don't care if former confederate slates lean red, they were on the losing side of the civil war (and it's fucking awesome they lost).
God bless the Yankee and God bless America!
It is a contradiction to believe that Lincoln; the republican, freed the slaves in a war that you don't believe was about slavery.
I don't expect any SJWs from the left to give me credit on this issue because they are alright if I call myself a right winger (until I actually lean in on why I'm right wing; then their memory gets refreshed).
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Pro lifers: Science confirms life begins at conception! The Scientists can be trusted with all knowledge.
Me: Bruh; scientists can't even define what a woman is (that's what you guys say).
If you don't trust scientists with the trans issue, why do that with abortion?
(In the rare even that the person reading this is pro life and believes transwomen are women): Science is correct on both of these issues. Transwomen are women and protect the unborn. Trust the science (no matter what)!
Me: Don't many science cites say 2nd hand smoke can be worse for you than actually smoking?
Like, scientists often make claims that are not backed up by science because they have an agenda (reducing smoking by using people's kids as emotional strings). Now, I agree with this agenda (I hope smoking becomes less common), but only say things about smoking that are true (like it kills a lot of people).
Common sense sometimes outweighs scientific claims. Common sense claims that smoking is worse than 2nd hand smoke; some science articles claim the opposite.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
a. The right to an abortion
b. The right to own an AR 15
c. The right to be undocumented
d. The right to be unvaccinated
There are 16 possible combinations of these rights (assuming Boolean approach).
Definitions: a: Being in favor of legalized abortion. ~a: Not being in favor of legalized abortion. \cap: Intersection.
Why are pretty much all the following combinations represented in Washington DC the following:
1. a \cap ~b \cap c \cap ~d (democrats)
2. ~a \cap b \cap ~c \cap d (republicans)
What consistent ethos unites a \cap ~b \cap c \cap ~d together and ~a \cap b \cap ~c \cap d together?
It's all because the parties decided to embrace these arbitrary combinations of ideas. But then the parties control what the vast majority of people in this country think on these 4 issues.
I do not believe there is a single thing that unites a \cap ~b \cap c \cap ~d together and ~a \cap b \cap ~c \cap d together other than what the parties decided to initially back.
And if balance between freedom and safety is the goal, there are 4 other combinations that support 2 other rights and reject 2 others (a \cap b \cap ~c \cap ~d) (and it's opposite), as well as (~a \cap b \cap c \cap ~d) (and it's opposite). These 4 combinations (plus the democrat and republican combination) is 6 (4 nCr 2). This is not by accident. It's basic mathematics.
But these other ideas are barely represented because people have parties to stick to in DC. In fact, out of 16 Boolean combinations of these beliefs, only 2 are even represented (because the 2 party system has this country by the balls (and the far left and the far right that people seem to want will be in favor of the same combinations as the democrats and republicans separately; they are just more passionate about it).
In our tribalistic political environment, pretty much the only difference between center (left/right) and far (left/right) is passion. Bernie Sanders has the same goals as Biden (he's just faster paced with them than Biden is) and Matt Gaetz has the same values as Kevin McCarthy; Matt Gaetz is just faster paced with them).
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
This guy blocked me.
It's people like this that make me want to boast the following:
David,
You look like you are Gen X. I'm Gen Z. My generation is replacing yours through immigration and race mixing because you didn't abort us when you had the chance! But if you did, your population numbers would plummet and you would have to rely on even more non whites for labor (either that, or all retire and starve because nobody would be working in the US once every Gen X person is retired).
God bless our public schools (for increasing the national average IQ, something white nationalists seem to be very proud about)!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Liberal: Hello HFCSM. Would you blow a man to end world hunger?
HFCSM (honest and blunt): Honestly, I wouldn't end world hunger even if I didn't have to blow a man. Ending world hunger would cost a lot of tax money from the rich globalists. Cutting taxes means some people are going to have to starve, and I'm ok with that. I don't want to pay for other people's kids; that's socialist! God bless Big Tech.
If you disagree with HFCSM, that's fine, but then don't call yourself fiscal conservative; because that's logically what fiscal conservatism means.
Lower taxes means less money for the poor which means poor children starve.
If you're fine with that, alright, but if you're not; don't call yourself fiscally conservative, because you are not. And there is nothing wrong with that. Just come as advertised and if you call yourself fiscally conservative, just make sure you understand what that means.
I don't like it when people write blank checks and falsely advertise their political ideology. Just be honest!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Bernie Sanders wants free healthcare, but his marketing sucks.
If I was Bernie Sanders and I wanted conservatives to support free healthcare (even if I wanted conservatives to support socialism), I would sell the following shirts with a sarcastic message on them:
The MAGA base isn't against socialism and they don't love the rich; they hate rich billionaires like Bill Gates, George Soros, and Mark Zuckerburg. They merely hate whatever right wing media tells them to hate.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Lets say you have a dad and he murders and rapes a bunch of women. Should you be punished for his crimes in any significant way? No! You are not your dad.
Lets say you have a great great grandparent and he enslaves a bunch of blacks. Should you be punished for his crimes in any significant way? No! You are not your ancestor.
But all the pro black people won't change their minds because they have a party to stick too. My mind is free!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
If you have any disagreement and you want to state it, you are free to do so. I don't agree with anyone 100% of the time.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Trumper: Donald Trump is awesome!
Me: Why?
Trumper: He increased funding for HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities).
Me: So you like the fact that Trump increased government spending?
Trumper: Yes... no... (and then diverges to another topic)
We talked about politics for a while. I could only ask questions because I was at work. I asked him if he was pro free speech, and he said yes, but I still had to moderate myself because I was at work.
Me: I don't think it's fair that elderly people when they were my age got to go to college for $50 a semester and I have to pay $5K a semester.
Trumper: That's because the government spends too much money subsidizing colleges.
Me (after thinking about it; I didn't tell him this at the time): Didn't you just praise Trump for subsidizing HBCUs?
Trump can do pretty much anything and his base would eat it up or be like, "Well, um, I mean ..." and still vote for him anyways (like when Trump said he wants to be a dictator).
Conservatives accuse liberals of wanting to get rid of the constitution (me personally; I don't like the 16th amendment, but other than that, I love the 1st and 2nd amendment, as well as the 5th, 8th, 13-15th, and the 19th (this is not an exhaustive list)). So it's implied that conservatives like the constitution.
A quote from Trump:
So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great "Founders" did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!
And his base will twiddle their thumbs because they don't have a good response (but they will vote for him anyways).
Trump can literally advocate nuking Manhattan and San Fransisco and Chicago to destroy the woke left and his base wouldn't be upset enough to vote against him for it; to them, it helps the right win elections. However, if Trump said we should legalize abortion, even though aborted babies (if born) would be more likely to be non-white, poor, entirely gen alpha (which I can assume will be more left wing than Gen Z), and future democrat voters in 18 years, the MAGA base would get angry at him for wanting to legalize what they believe is murder.
Legalizing abortions to prevent more democrat voters from being born? No; it's murder regardless of political ideology.
Actually NUKING left wing strongholds? Hell Yeah! Owning the LIBS!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Me: Should undocumented immigrants who don't murder get government paid for healthcare?
LP: NO! THAT IS BIG GOVERNMENT SOCIALISM!
Me: Should American Citizens who do murder get government paid for healthcare?
LP: Yes. The State should take care of all prisoners in jail at the taxpayer's expense because we believe the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment.
Me: How about lets treat undocumented immigrants who don't murder better than American Citizens that do murder. I'm anti UHC and pro death penalty.
U=Undocumented immigrants getting government paid for healthcare.
M=Murderers getting government paid for healthcare.
\cap=Intersection
^C=Opposite
All of the following combinations make sense of who gets government paid for healthcare even if I don't personally agree with it:
1. U \cap M
2. U \cap M^C
3. U^C \cap M^C
My ideal is bolded.
This option does not (but it's the status quo of our country):
U^C \cap M
It's what the libertarians back.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Me: Can children consent?
Society: NO!!!
Me: So why is circumcision of babies a thing (or as I like to call it; chopping off penis foreskin)? The kids can't consent to that.
Society: Because the kid won't remember it (or parental rights).
Me: So your saying it's okay for a parent to have the right to have sex with their baby boy if the baby boy won't remember it?
Society: NO!!! Children can't consent as BABIES!!
Me: You need to pick one argument.
Either pick:
1. "Babies can't consent to (sex, genital mutilation)" so this would mean you advocate for keeping it illegal to having sex with babies AND you would want it to be illegal to do ANY form of genital mutilation on those who are too young to consent (whether you call this genital mutilation a gender surgery or cutting off dick foreskin). This means that religious officials and doctors who do dick foreskin chopping off get prosecuted by the police and tried the same as someone for raping a baby (so I would do the death penalty for that). It also means ANYONE that has cut the foreskin off of babies before the baby is a consenting adult is a groomer and would face the same penalty as child rape (which SHOULD mean death) if they do it beyond a legally established date. People that chop baby foreskin off before the date wouldn't be facing punishment, but people who do that after the date (a date I would want to make pretty soon) would be put to death for doing something as bad to a baby as raping them while they are a baby.
Or pick:
2. "The baby won't remember it and parental rights". So this means circumcision (and gender surgeries) are allowed to do on a baby that can't even consent yet because of parental rights, AND that it would be okay to have sex with your newborn on the grounds that they won't remember it.
I pick #1
If your religion tells you to do something as bad to a baby as raping them, you need to find a different religion. It doesn't matter if this religion is Christianity, Judaism, or Transgenderism.
LEAVE THE BABIES ALONE!!!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Gavin Newsom can in theory send blue voters from California into battleground states for the pourpose of turning them blue while still giving California be fairly blue (because it is one of the bluest and the biggest state in the country). These people would be American Citizens, so they can’t be sent back to California. There are probably some hardcore blue California voters that would be happy to move to battleground states to turn them blue in exchange for financial compensation. Move them to slightly red districts to turn them blue.
Every red state either doesn’t have a lot of people (North Dakota, Wyoming) or is not very red (Texas, Florida) and if they aren’t too red, then sending red voters into states to make them redder would possibly cause their state to turn blue. California and NY don’t have this problem.
Newsom runs for POTUS and the left base gives him credit for it.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
There are 2 possibilities: God burns ordinary people in hell for God does not burn ordinary people in hell.
If the 1st is true, then Christains are bootlickers for worshipping a God that enacts cruel and unusual punishment, and I worship tyrants; the constitution is a better source of legal ideology than the bible and all constitutional conservatives agree with this.
If the 2nd is true, I don't have to worship him because I'm not going to hell if I don't.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
On one hand, most Americans are hypocrites on the age of consent (if they are Christain).
Christain Americans: 13 YEAR OLDS CAN'T CONSENT!!
Me: Don't you worship a God that had sex with a 13 year old girl (Mary)? I mean, pedophilia or atheism, you decide bud.
But also if young people are allowed to legally consent to sex (Korea was the first person I met that defended pedophillia, so it's a new view to me and I kinda have to play Devils Advocate because when virtually everybody agrees with you, you don't come up with as good of arguments as someone that is in the ideological minority because the ideological minority thinks about the majority's positions way more than the other way around). A flat earther can make better arguments justifying a flat earth than a random person that thinks the earth is spherical because the flat earther thought about their position way more. I believe the earth is spherical, but I don't think I could win a debate with a flat earther on the earth's shape because they've thought their position on this issue through much more than I could. The same thing would apply for pro pedophilia people vs your typical anti pedophilia person.
Korea's argument: Children can consent.
Me response: What about drunk people? Can they consent?
His response: No; drunk people might regret the sex they have.
I don't think this is a good response. If sober adults consent to have sex and enjoy it the full time, but the woman regrets it an hour later (lets say she was a virgin and her hymen broke, so she regrets it an hour later), the man is not a rapist. If the woman gets an unintended pregnancy, she regrets that sex. But if a drunk person regrets sex 5 hours later, it's viewed as rape done by the sober party. So I don't think the fear of sexual regret is a good enough reason to charge someone with rape.
So either drunk people can consent (not Korea's position if I understand it correctly) or children can't consent (not Korea's position if I understand it correctly), or there is some other reason why drunk people can't consent but children can with Korea's logic.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
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:
Updated:
Category:
Politics