Total posts: 2,799
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I think that the Protestant and Catholic birth rates were in the other referenced study.
It said that the Catholic rates were higher but the difference was closing and was expected to be essentially the same within a decade or so
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Can you get this one? https://www.jstor.org/stable/2061139
Yeah, I'll summarize the conclusion:
One theory is that fertility is expected to decline as religious and other ethnic groups would have similar fertility rates as they became part of the mainstream American culture. They believe that residence in the suburbs is one example of integration into the mainstream American lifestyle, and they reference a 1966 study by Zimmer and Goldsheider that shows that Catholic and Non-Catholic fertility has converged "much more" than it has in urban areas.
There is a theory that minority groups should have lower fertility than the dominant group, but seeing as there was no pronatalist ideology discouraging contraception, they threw that one out. (That and it seems today that a lot of minority groups have higher fertility anyway)
A study in 1968 by Day did an international comparison of Protestant and Catholic fertility. It concluded that the pronatalist Catholic ideology increased fertility under two conditions: economic development was high and the group was sensitive to its own minority group ideology. Day said that without those two conditions, the pronatalist ideas were unlikely to have any effect He also suggested that Catholic doctrine and natality were "connected through ethno-centrism and the feeling of being threatened as a group".
Another simple hypothesis from Freedman, Whelpton, and Smit in 1961 during the Baby Boom gave the credit of higher fertility to the "continuing strength of American Catholic institutions and ideology.
Deviations of Catholics from official church teachings and views of conservative clergy are "evident in the closeness of the reproductive ideals of Catholics with non-Catholics" (Blake, 1966) " as well as the secularization of their contraceptive practices" (Westoff and Jones, 1977) " and in their low fertility per se".
It also says that there was a big moral ambiguity surrounding oral contraceptives "the pill" that likely led to the huge decrease in Catholic fertility around 1963-64. For several years, apparently they thought the Vatican would change its stance on the issue and would be rationalized as an ovulatory cycle regulator. However, by 1968 when they chose to reaffirm their teachings, about a third of its members were using the pill (Ryder and Westoff, 1971, p. 209).
They believe that Church authority was lost because "the door had been opened for Catholics and there was no going back".
Social forces encouraging low fertility in the US coupled with that loss of authority they believe is an adequate explanation of the lower Catholic fertility. The fertility converged in the 30s and 40s, but they say the Great Depression likely accounts for that. The good economic conditions of the 50s allowed higher fertility.
They conclude with saying that Catholic fertility rates have converged and diverged and can diverge again. However, they think it is unlikely because of Catholic rejection of church teaching on birth control, the increase of Catholics entering the middle class, and Catholics entering suburban areas.
Didn't have time to proofread, sry :P Hope it helps
So my short interpretation of this is that Catholics have integrated into US society which promotes low fertility. The Vatican waited too long to condemn the oral contraceptive, so now that is most ignored by non-traditional Catholics. For Catholics to become high fertility again, we must ensure that they have economic opportunity, but that they also have strong, separate institutions that are probably going to be in the bad graces of our secular government, which will give that boost of feeling threatened as a group- they will be more reliant on Church institutions. That and a renewed conservative resurgence in the Church.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Yeah, on the other hand given this and how most kids have a nuclear bomb dropped on their brains from age 6 months when they are handed an iPad if your kids have a triple digit IQ and would fit in socially and physically in the 90s or earlier they're basically super heroes
I'm a little confused by what you mean by this, but I think you're referring to the soon-to-be increased importance of environmental effects (how you raise your kids) on life outcomes. If so, I think that IQ as a relatively-important measure could be true, but overall genetic quality will reduce what people are capable of. Plumbers will be worse, worse accountants, worse electricians. An overall worse-off society.
As an aside, Catholics in the US did have a much higher fertility rate than the WASPs prior to Vatican II. I have been trying to find the exact numbers (there actually ARE studies but they are all paywalled) but by the 1960s 35% of the babies born in the US were baptized as Catholics. The founding stock of the country was 1% Catholic! Pretty crazy, right? The "great replacement" already happened once, with the Ellis Island immigrants.
That is really interesting. I have access to a lot of databases, so if you send me the studies, I can look through them for you. I know a tradcath friend of mine likes to rant about Vatican II, but I don't remember anything in it relating to parenthood/contraception/etc that should have reduced fertility.
But yeah we will see if these religions will hold onto the children born into them...but man the secular, urban lifestyle really is a fertility shredder. I keep saying it because I don't think I can put into words how weird it is to me. Is there a historical precedent to so many people just voluntarily ending their lines?
If there is, that's the reason their civilization died out. This seems like an entirely manufactured issue for people to all of a sudden choose to have no kids and say they hate kids. That is occurring even without considering the rapid change of living expenses. Single-income households with children living in a house used to be possible with a factory job, but now it is barely possible for one working parent with a college degree to live in an apartment with any kids. But even if it were possible to have kids financially, I'm still at a loss that people don't even have it as a goal. Their current goal is no children, retire early.
Yeah, but what I don't get is what they expect their lives to be like when theyre in their 50s or whatever. Being a single adult I dont think would be that depressing if you are close with the rest of your family and they are having kids, but there are entire families where the none of the kids are reproducing, or there are like four kids and one grandkid lol. Just seems so depressing to think about getting together with your aging siblings out of a sense of obligation to celebrate another Christmas that has long since lost its magic... Is it really worth it to "travel"? Or whatever it is people think they want
Yeah, that is something that I also don't understand. Maybe they don't have enough foresight. Maybe they think that 15 pet cats will fill that hole in their heart. I'm not quite sure what they expect their elderly years to be when they retire early from not having kids. A long 40 years for hobbies to take up. Hopefully we don't fall into a suicide epidemic, no safety net is as good as family.
Depressing. I have heard whispers of that sort of thing but it's always hard to tell whats reality or not. Yes don't have kids because you're concerned about the environment, I'm sure leaving the future to those who don't share that concern will help...
My thoughts exactly. The biggest way to change the future is through your kids. You have a lot of influence on their beliefs depending on your relationship with them, so you'll be leaving the earth worse off by your own measure. There is so much you can do to lower carbon emissions like having a garden, biking as much as possible to go places, etc. Saying "I'll just not have a kid" while eating specialty foods that need to be shipped a thousand miles is just a lazy copout attempt to show you "care" while expending no effort.
Yeah this is what really weirds me out, man. I went to a college that notoriously attracts the last bastions of conservative, white, religious youth in Texas so I do know a lot of married people or parents from college. But none of my friends from HS are even married. actually I dont think any are even engaged. I have a friend from middle school who is engaged but I would be shocked if they have kids since they are hardcore secular urban libsMy older sisters social circle is mostly urban lib and they all have kids or are starting to though so maybe it really does happen rapidly once you see that big 30 approaching
I did go to a Catholic high school, and I'm starting to see a handful of marriages. Almost all of them are the still strongly-Catholic kids that want a lot of kids from what I understand. The kids that left religion (excluding me for the time being :/ ) seem to be entirely or almost entirely unmarried. Even though these kids went to the same high school and the same 3 or 4 grade schools, they are ending up in much different places. They weren't the liberal-types of "Catholic" schools either, so it seems that both the school and the parents both need to promote religious lifestyles to even have a hope of them keeping it.
It would make sense, only one of my parents was technically religious but didn't take it seriously (didn't even go to Sunday Mass).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Sorry for the wordy response lol.
It really is weird though how many people I know are clearly selecting themselves out of the gene pool. I know it’s pretty dehumanizing to think of yourself in Darwinistic terms but damn you’re the endpoint of literally billions of years of organisms reproducing, it must take a lot to overpower that inherent urge. I’ve always wanted children so don’t understand. I guess the real urge is to have sex and until recently that just resulted in children
I don't think it is dehumanizing to recognize that you have a biological purpose on the earth to reproduce. But in the end, we are the result of billions of years of reproduction and everything had to happen exactly the way it did for us to be here. I don't understand how people can think of everything that went into our existence and still choose to put an end to an entire genetic line.
In high school, I didn't think I wanted kids or to get married. Now I'm married and want to have kids lmao. However, I am not seeing that progression towards wanting to have kids (or even in some cases, to get married) among many of my peers. Even if it does happen, it'll likely be too late to have any.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Yeah I think contraceptives also just changed the way that people view having children. There were always ways to prevent having kids but they were more primitive and prone to failure etc, now it’s just 100% a choice. In the past people who wanted lots of kids would have more than people who didn’t but the amount of people opting out now or just failing to get with someone in time is extremely large…I wonder what impact it will have on the gene pool long term
Yes, I do think that the introduction of mass-legalized abortion and the sexual revolution soon following the wide availability of birth control also did a lot to cognitively disassociate sex from having children.
As for the gene pool, I think the future looks rather grim. Lower-IQ people have less foresight/planning ability and have more kids, while those wealthier, higher-IQ people choose to have less on average. Considering that 40-60% of intelligence is inherited, we are going to go through a stage of serious dysgenics that will take many generations to recover from.
I would say the impact was substantial. They went from 1.2 (almost apocalyptic tier) to hovering around 1.5 which is far from ideal but a society can get by on that.I think it has a lot to do with the type of lifestyle you can afford, relative to expectations. For people in places like California or Massachusetts who grew up in their parents 4 bed 2.5 bath house that they bought in 1985 who can now barely make rent on an apartment I imagine it’s really tough to want to have a kid in that circumstance. Since liberals tend to live in expensive metro/coastal areas I wonder if that alone explains the birth rate differences rather than any personal choicesI’ve also read, but can’t find proof right now, that the kinds of subsidies in many European countries make educated/high IQ people more likely to have kids. If true that’s obviously a good thing
Yeah, I think the Hungarian model certainly shows promise. A 25% increase is nothing to scoff at. I'm just not certain that the generous financial incentives will be enough, considering that 2.1 fertility is needed to sustain a population (must be over 2 to replace parents and those that die annually)
Certainly more is necessary- a cultural shift. Maybe a return to religiosity in which parenthood is greatly encouraged would do the trick, but it would have to be a religion that forbids contraceptives like Catholicism and more traditional sects of other religions (hence why Orthodox Jews have a ton of kids as you noted- while not entirely banned, they are quite restrictive over contraceptives)
This modernist, atheist attitude of living life to the fullest while young and no life after death really has no room in it to waste your finite time and money on raising children.
Certainly it's probable that high living expenses prevent some liberals from having kids, but considering that even those at the higher percentiles of income in the US still don't tend to have as many kids as the poorer ones, I think that again is only one piece of the puzzle.
Here is a 2017 study that found that higher income was strongly correlated with having fewer children. In fact, it was a straight decline from the highest birth rates in the under $10k category to the lowest birthrates in the over $200k income category, with one exception ($10-15k was lower than surrounding) https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/
Not sure how representative this is, but as an anecdote, one of my professors had told us about how his daughter had once wanted to have 3 or 4 kids. His daughter and her husband I believe he said were both doctors (very able to afford kids), but now she doesn't want any because she is worried about climate change. It's insane how all of this fearmongering turned someone who would have been likely a great parent into one adamantly opposed to having children.
Merry Christmas btw. May yours be better than mine (I have covid!)
Merry Christmas to you as well! It's been a rather uneventful Christmas, but I can't complain. Get better, my friend! :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Might be a religious component to it as well.
Whatever keeps them from wrapping their willy
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I might be inclined to agree with you, but it seems that the people having so many kids abroad live in massive, crowded slums
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
There just isn’t this massive reserve of impoverished young people anymore as people think.
>The Middle East and Africa have entered the chat
More of a problem for Europe than us, but that could change quickly based on how easy transport from one country to another has become
Good post, though! It’s very curious that we don’t know why birthrates have declined. Obviously contraception has played a major role, probably the entrance of women into the workplace as well. That mixed with the fact that a frightening amount of people my age say that they hate kids and never want them adds attitudes about parenthood to the mix.
Hungary has seen some increases to its birthrate and marriage rate since the passage of their generous social benefits for those that have kids. It doesn’t seem substantial enough, but I hope they can be an example for us
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Almost a quarter of U.S. children under the age of 18 live with one parent and no other adults (23%), more than three times the share of children around the world who do so (7%). The study, which analyzed how people’s living arrangements differ by religion, also found that U.S. children from Christian and religiously unaffiliated families are about equally likely to live in this type of arrangement.In comparison, 3% of children in China, 4% of children in Nigeria and 5% of children in India live in single-parent households. In neighboring Canada, the share is 15%.
Not sure where those stats are from so I can’t see the numbers for all countries, but it would seem that this could be a government-manufactured problem.
First-world countries like Canada and US have more welfare for single mothers than Nigeria.
Seeing as this is a problem that has drastically grown since the 60s here (which accompanied the “War on Poverty”), I’d reckon that is probably a primary contributor to single parenthood.
Stopping the subsidizing of bad behavior at the least would curtail the issue of single parenthood/poverty. Now as for getting smarter, more responsible people to have kids… that seems a little tougher
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Those vaccines were also effective over an extremely long period of time
I agree that that is also an important point. I believe I referenced that in my precious post.
But let’s say hypothetically that COVID had a 30% death rate and mutated quickly. It would still probably be a good idea to mandate it.
In my opinion, the best response is likely to address both of those ideas: how many shots are required and how deadly is it?
This is a case where a low percentage of people die and you need multiple boosters per year to be “fully vaccinated”. So assuming it is correct that unvaccinated people are more likely to spread it, I can understand the argument for mandates, I just don’t think we should have one
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Last month unvaccinated individuals were 5.8 times more likely to contract Covid than those who were vaccinated, which means 5.8 times more likely to expose someone else to Covid. So getting vaccinated is about more than just personal protection. My body my choice doesn’t cut it, not as long as you continue to go out and interact with society.
Assuming there is no bias in the data (ex. Unvaccinated people have less mild symptoms and therefore get tested more, no over-reporting of deaths linked to COVID, etc), then I think there is a somewhat reasonable argument there.
But it seems frighteningly subjective for choosing at what point you can tell people they can’t interact with society if they don’t get it (ex. being fired)
I think there can be a point at which you can require vaccines, I just don’t think this is the one. Polio and small pox had about a 30% death rate. So definitely require those.
Based on the data of us having 50.2 million infections and 799k deaths, that’s just under 1.6%.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
This is like asking if first degree murder is the same as negligent homicide. Sure the former feels so much worse, but the end result is still the needles loss of life.
Which is why it is smart for at-risk people to get it because it is worth it for them (assuming they don't have medical conditions that prevent them from doing so).
But as far as vaccines protecting other people, I could be wrong, but I have not seen strong evidence to that conclusion nor have I seen that it greatly decreases the chance of getting/therefore spreading the disease like vaccines tend to do for diseases that don't mutate quickly.
So as far as this abortion/vaccine equivalence goes, they just seem to be on entirely different planets for me. One is protecting yourself, and the other is harming another person. I'm sure you disagree with the harming another regarding abortion part, but conservatives generally would agree with that. That's why I'm a little shocked that they're trying to make these types of arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
People should be allowed to decide if they want to inject themselves with a vaccine. People should be allowed to decide if they want to use heroin if they are living on their own. Your body, your choice.
High amounts of drug use in society does affect me. I see no "hypocrisy" when they aren't the same thing.
Drug use causes societal decay (heroin addicts aren't model citizens in case you weren't aware).
Whether or not someone has a more mild version of the flu than they would have had they not got the vaccine? The effects on me are quite negligible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Tolerance is a euphemism for surrender used by those who have something to gain.
pretty much. Goes from “it’s what we privately do in the bedroom” to “your kids must learn about it in school” to “you have to actively support my life choices”. Oh I sure hate to theorize on what comes with even more power
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Can you really rule out that he hates white people?
Nope. He either does or is exceptionally self-absorbed. Perhaps both
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If we tolerated each others moral expectancies.
Any moral system that preaches tolerance is doomed to fail. Tolerance is your value. The one slowly growing in the background? Not so sure it does.
Created:
Posted in:
Is there no distinction between opposing millions of people potentially being fired over a personal medical choice and opposing masses of people shooting up heroin in our communities and poisoning our kids?
Apparently not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I suppose 'intent' would have to be proven which makes it all a bit tricky?
Yeah, in all reality, I doubt he wanted to incite attacks. I think that he recognized that would be a result, but he cared more about getting adoring attention than strangers being beaten.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So you have no laws against incitement in the US?
We do, but I don’t believe that most cases of fake police reports would generally be considered incitement. Generally incitement is when you actively call for violence via speech as far as I know.
I agree. I have yet to see any MSM pundit even mention the possible consequences of his hoax. Not to mention the set back to race relations in the US that he may have caused.
Which is why I think it should be a hate crime. He is artificially inflating the anger of Blacks towards Whites. The fact that in the report he consciously chose to say the perpetrators were White is at the very least an attempt to denigrate Whites, and at the worst incitement to commit reprisal attacks against them.
Just as a side thought, I wonder if freedom of speech plays into it not being incitement because there is no direct call to action for violence, and this is more of just a lie. And it would seem that that would fall right into the “hate speech” trap of creating anger towards others might lead to violence.
So I guess I’d say it should be a hate crime (essentially a mandatory felony sentence) to lie and say a specific other group committed a hate crime against you while also believing it shouldn’t be considered incitement
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I believe he faces upwards of 20 years in prison for all of the crimes he was convicted of. However, what happens now is most likely a slap on the wrist. I'd be shocked if he served even a quarter of that time.
What should happen is him being charged with a hate crime for blood libeling White people with his fake allegations. Unfortunately no such law is on the books.
So what happens now is that he won't be made an example of, and we will continue to see hate crime hoaxes in America, as we have perverse incentives to do so over here. Had he not been caught, this would have been a massive career boosting move. It is very lucrative to be a (non-White) high-profile victim of a hate crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I think you could hypothetically tell any of your teachers that what they taught you was a load of hogwash. You might get a suspension or detention for it, but you can tell your geometry teacher that that's a load of useless crap, too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
If you’re pro-life, then abortion is considered literally murdering a baby.
Do you think that not getting a vaccine is the moral equivalent of murder? If they aren’t, I don’t see what the issue is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
UK lost a lot more wars pal
Now that I think of it, I believe they even lost one to.... us
:^)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@Dr.Franklin
a black terrorist inspired by BLM killed six whites including an eight year old boy during a Christmas parade. The town voted for trump and was majority white. This was an anti-white leftist terrorist attackWhoever would have thought that we could agree on something, Doc?I don't know how you can be right wing and reject Christ at the same time?That is because you are not the sharpest tool in the box, Doc. Now stay on topic.
I don't want to see any of this infighting. I don't care if you're Christian, Pagan, Atheist or anything else.
What matters here is recognizing that we're being killed off and that the media will do anything to hide that fact (except when they're celebrating it, of course), as well as supporting policies to put an end to this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Any more questions about the POS?
Ah, our greatest strength back at it again..... I feel so enriched!
Just one more question: when is the execution date?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I wonder if running over 40 white people with a car is going to flip Wisconsin red? It's already red with blood.
Depends on how they spin the story. I don't know much about that POS that did it, but if he is connected to left-wing causes.... maybe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I said that your neighbor is threatened and you decide to defend their house. Assuming that that neighbor doesn't tell you to go away, can you defend him?Yes.Do you need someone's permission to defend them from being killed or having their house burnt down? Or do you have a right to be a good citizen that looks after others' safety?You have the right.Wondering when you’re going to ask a question relevant to the point I’m making.
These questions were related to you saying that Kyle wasn't asked permission while in my example you say that the neighbor shouldn't need permission to defend the other neighbor. So, by not needing permission to defend your neighbor's house from being burnt down and him being killed, why would Kyle need to be asked to defend local businesses if the business he was defending didn't tell him to go away?
If that’s what they wanted they would have asked for that instead of telling people to stay home.
Who were they telling to stay home? I'm sure that when they told people to stay home, they included demonstrators and rioters in that request.
That’s why they called in the national guard
They called in the national guard to defend firefighters and critical infrastructure. That was why most of the damage happened to private businesses and not public property.
They called in some national guard for that purpose on the 24th. The county board requested 2,000 troops on the 25th and were only given 250. And despite their presence, there was still plenty of burning and looting which Kyle went to help stop.
Yep, this is our clear difference. I actually believe in things like democracy and law and order. Right wingers love talking about law and order but embrace vigilantism, as you are clearly demonstrating, which is the exact opposite.
You believe in buzzwords without any real action or results. I do love law and order, and you cannot tell me that during many of those days of rioting in Kenosha, there was any semblance of law and order.
If the cops and guard had been able to keep things under control, I would say that armed citizens would have no reason to be there. However, when the cops fail to keep order in the city, as they did last summer, then I 100% support the right of citizens to defend the city from agitators.
If you only support order when the government enforces it, then you don't support order. You support the government. Because order is not always maintained because the leaders don't always care to enforce order. Take Portland, for example, which had months of rioting. The city and state could have crushed the rioters any time they pleased, but they didn't. So had armed citizens gone out to stop them, as long as they did so in a lawful manner, I would have been very supportive of that.
Whenever the state is unwilling or unable to enforce order, do you think citizens should have to just stand by and watch their city burn? Or do you, like me, support "vigilantes" (aka responsible citizens) keeping the peace?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I am still wondering why Biden was so personally angry with the Verdict.How many people in the world are actually angry for a minute when a white skinned child rapist yelling NIGGA gets shot while attempting to violently harm someone? Why would you shed a single tear for a guy that does that?
Because the child rapist, woman beater, and thief were all posthumously given black status for supporting BLM.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@Dr.Franklin
yes fuck rosenbaum, total piece of shitDid you know him personally?
Perhaps I can explain why in the form of a haiku:
Joseph Rosenbaum
Had relations with minors
He's a piece of shit
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
This is an entirely different scenario.First, I am being asked to help because I’m the only one who could. Rittenhouse was not asked by anyone, he went there to play the hero.
I had nothing about being asked in that scenario. I said that your neighbor is threatened and you decide to defend their house. Assuming that that neighbor doesn't tell you to go away, can you defend him?
Do you need someone's permission to defend them from being killed or having their house burnt down? Or do you have a right to be a good citizen that looks after others' safety?
This wasn’t a “we’re on our way but we’re 45 minutes away” situation, the police were not absent because they were short resources, that’s nonsense. Dealing with civil unrest is not easy, and the last thing the authorities wanted was a bunch of armed vigilantes playing cops.
I'm sure that they would rather have armed vigilantes playing cops than to let rioters have free reign to destroy everything in sight. I know I would feel much safer as a non-rioting citizen.
And being short on resources is what happened. I'm not saying that in the sense that they were "defunded". I just know that a small city's police force isn't equipped to deal with a large riot. Their resources were insufficient to deal with the issue ahead of them.
Then clearly, this is where we see things differently. Please show me the press release where local officials were telling the public that they don’t have enough officers and needed everyone to bring their fire arms and head to Kenosha.
Do I need one? Kyle probably saw the news at least once or twice during the summer and saw the massive destruction in many cities that the cops couldn't handle. Anyone could reasonably assume that that would happen. I knew that would happen.
You don't need a city official to say that it is going to happen for it to be reality. What we clearly see differently is the moral obligations and rights of citizens to defend each other when lawlessness is plaguing an area.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It’s not self defense in any reasonable sense when you willingly put yourself in harms way.
Let's say that you live in a rural area where the police will take 45 minutes to arrive for a call.
Someone threatens your elderly neighbor and says they will come back to burn their house down, and you decide that you want to help protect that neighbor until the police arrive. You call the cops and head over with your rifle.
The guy comes back, and the police are still 15 minutes out. You are standing in the front lawn with said gun to help protect that neighbor. The guy threatening to burn the house down then pulls a gun on you. Can you shoot him? Is it not self-defense because you "put yourself in harms way" by offering to protect your neighbor since the cops couldn't?
A) that he was justified in going down there because the rioters were violent rapist antifa thugs bent on hurting people and destroying the neighborhood and the police are no where to be found, andB) that there was nothing wrong with his decision to go down there strapped with an AR15 because he was just going down there to render aid and help put out fires and the AR15 was just on the off chance that he would need to defend himself, just like a seat belt.Would you say you agree with both A and B, and if so, how do you square them?
I think those can be easily reconciled. First, I think that he was justified in going to Kenosha because it is a nearby town in peril. The cops were not able to respond in all parts of the city because of how widespread the riots were.
As for the second, I think that he was justified in bringing a gun because he was helping people out in a dangerous area.
Those two ideas play together quite nicely because he went there to help (because of issues caused by said danger), and he brought a weapon to protect himself with because the area he was helping had widespread violence. Many people were beaten and a handful were killed that summer. It was wise to bring a gun.
If I went to help at a soup kitchen in the bad part of town, I would also bring a gun. I'd bring a different type of gun because I'd be much less likely to need it and the needs of any likely altercation would be less dire, but I'd still bring one so that I can defend myself if necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Just say "Let's go Brandon"It encapsulates it all.
Brandon didn’t run over those people, though.
Someone deserving of medieval-style capital punishment did
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
BLM isn't sending their best to Wisconsin.
I don’t know, he’d very likely be one of their best
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
All of left wing media is happily reporting a black supremacist registered sex offender mowing down 40 white people in a parade. All as planned.
I don’t think I’ll speak on the incident. All of my thoughts are very much in violation of the site’s rules…..
All I’ll say is, we don’t need to live this way
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Left wing whackos really hate the Constitution
They love Constitutional things that aren’t in the Constitution. Things like the right to murder unborn babies- they are heavily in support of that
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Hope the Kenosha Kid gets as rich as the Covington Kid off the backs of radical left-wing media racists.
Hope he bankrupts all of the corrupt, slandering media.
Let's go Kyle!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe Brandon is pining for the laws of the Marxist Manifesto instead of the American Constitution.A Marxist utopia where the State, not the individual decides which citizens get protection.
We live under what is known as anarcho-tyranny. "the state tyrannically or oppressively regulates citizens' lives yet is unable or unwilling to enforce fundamental protective law"
They want to concoct any law to criminalize otherwise very well-behaved citizens while punishing cops for enforcing the law against rioters and other criminals (and punishing citizens in many cases for protecting their own property),
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I guess that is another possibility. I suppose he can have a problem with well-established case law regarding self-defense. Good point
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It’s a nice strawman you got there.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see how.
If you’re ‘angry and concerned’ by an innocent jury verdict, that (in my opinion) means one of two things:
Either you’re upset because the jury was incorrect and let a guilty man walk free.
Or you’re upset that they didn’t convict him even though he is innocent. I don’t think Joe is evil enough to want an innocent person in jail, therefore it would appear he thinks the jury got the verdict wrong
If there is another possibility I didn’t consider, be sure to let me know 🙃
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Oh I see. Didn’t realized he “clarified” later
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What Biden said wasn’t quite as good as what GP showed. Biden also said:
"While the verdict in Kenosha will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included, we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken," Biden said.
The non-guilty verdict of a kid that was clearly innocent made him feel “angry and concerned”.
So it’s nice that he says the jury has spoken and all, but at the same time he’s basically saying that the jury was wrong. Otherwise, if he believed the jury was right, he would be admitting to being angry and concerned that they didn’t convict an innocent person
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If conservatism was about nationalism/keeping the status quo (the laws your nation currently has are the ones that ought to stay)
That is not what a nationalist is. They are generally- but not necessarily- the polar opposite of that. They are, the vast majority of the time, reactionaries.
As in: "In political science, a reactionary or a reactionist is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which that person believes possessed positive characteristics absent from contemporary society."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If conservatism was about nationalism/keeping the status quo (the laws your nation currently has are the ones that ought to stay), then they would be in favor of Roe V Wade,Pretty sure nationalism is about national security and not about killing babies.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure nationalists would be repulsed by the idea of killing their lifeblood.
Created:
I see a lot of talk about "he didn't do anything illegal, but he shouldn't have been there". I have to disagree. The police and fire department were nowhere to be found- they were stretched thin by the widespread insanity occurring at the time. The governor didn't bring the national guard in to defend the town.
It put regular citizens in the terrible and unfortunate position of having to defend the town themselves. I don't think even for a second that Kyle wanted a fight. His clear trauma on the stand shows he isn't some malicious figure that relished in killing people.
He was a kid that wanted to help out a local community and felt cool LARPing as some modern-day "rooftop Korean", and being a 17-year-old, he was in way over his head. He wasn't expecting to get attacked for putting out a fire. He ran away before he shot anybody.
I also think that he was under no obligation to surrender to the mob in the hopes that they wouldn't beat and/or kill him. He turned himself in after I believe an hour, which shows that he feared the people chasing him, not the idea of going to jail. Now do I think that the mob could reasonably believe that he might be an active shooter if they hadn't seen how the altercation began? Yes, and that is why I don't think that everyone chasing him should be convicted of attempting to falsely imprison or kidnap him.
Created:
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
@RM
I appreciate you guys going out of your way to support me on this even though you two don't like me lmao
Created:
-->
@Double_R
So in other words, you know better whether it was sexual assault than the person who not only lived through it, but literally wrote a book and gives speeches about it in relation to today’s me too movement. Ok bro.
So in other words, you have no argument. You are utterly incapable of looking at the facts of the matter and coming to a conclusion.
The fact of the matter is this: you very likely know you are wrong but are too contrarian and prideful to admit it. So, you don't engage with anything I say and keep quoting her as if that in itself is somehow irrefutable proof.
If a battered woman says her boyfriend isn't beating her, I guess we should just assume that is the truth, right? No matter his bruised fists and her bruised face, because we can't possibly "know better", right "bro"?
The presence of coercive elements is not sexual assault.
It literally is. Sexual relations that someone is coerced into is sexual assault. Coercion doesn't need to be physical, either
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Instead of injecting our own opinions of what must have happened, why don’t we just ask her? This is what she had to say almost 20 years later:“Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship”You can all that many things, sexual assault is not one of them.
That's not my opinion, it's what the facts point to when they are all considered together. There are women who have been raped but don't think or say they have. They can call it a "bad encounter" or think they just regret it. That doesn't mean it wasn't rape just because they said it isn't, as a victim's words aren't how we determine if it occurred or not.
Therefore, simply quoting her words doesn't mean it wasn't sexual assault.
So, do you think that a sexual relationship between the most powerful person and someone with little to no power has no coercive elements? If so, why not?
Created:
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
well stated
Thank you, BPD <3
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Sexual assault is an act in which one intentionally sexually touches another person without that person's consent, or coerces or physically forces a person to engage in a sexual act against their will
Hi, Double_R. Hope you're doing well!
It wasn't sexual assault in the sense of physical force. There was the facade of consent. But, considering she was a lowly White House intern and he was the literal most powerful man in the world, I think there is inherently some coercion present because of that power distance.
Do you think that she could reasonably have said 'no' to a request for a blowjob? Don't you think she considered that there could be severe consequences if she upset the president?
Created: