I wouldn't say I value my people over yours, I just don't want to be forced to suffer the consequences their hypersensitivity will force on me
.
Strategically America is far more valuable to have as a "live free or die trying" attitude than Canada. Having America as an ally (and our damn cold weather) are among the only reasons Canada has what freedoms it is so readily trying to throw away now
People have always been offended at everything.
Further, it’s as much the protected right of the offended party to be offended as it is the protected right of the person expressing the thing that offended them to be offensive.
Your rights do not protect you from social consequences, if people want to act in legal ways on their dislike for you it’s entirely within their right to do so just as it is yours to reciprocate that.
The problem is the offended are subverting and/or changing the laws to make the legal system a weapon rather than a tool.
3
deleted
· 3 years ago
Doesn't sound worse to me than technically prohibiting abortions or taking away the right to vote from people you assume won't vote for you.
.
If this offends you, you know which button to click.
Those tired claims again?
Abortion is literally life or death. Nobody has a right to murder, and that's the perspective proponents need to satisfy. Not their own.
And voter ID is not racist. What's racist is the assumption that us brown people are too damned stoopid to get some form of ID.
deleted
· 3 years ago
I see how you guys are tired of these arguments, but they aren't going away by stomping on the ground and repeating your tired old bullshit. Saying a measurable signal is a "heartbeat" is bullshit, calling the voluntary removal of a bit of body tissue murder is bullshit. Denying the fact that people likely to vote democrat - not limited to non-white people, YOU did that, very well knowing it affects also whites, poor whites that is - are also more likely to be kept from voting by republicans is also bullshit. All you got is straw man bullshit and plain lies. You should run for congress.
.
Please note I'm not debating this with you, I'm just calling you a liar and bullshitter.
You see it as a measurable signal or a bit of tissue. Your opponents see it as a life. Again, their concerns are what need to be convinced, not yours.
.
And no, *I* didn't make it about race. The politicians did. They're the ones arguing that voter ID or verification is racist.
▼
deleted
· 3 years ago
Considering a lump of tissue a person is just plain stupid, and as you're not stupid, you're giving false evidence.
.
And yes, you clearly did. I didn't mention race in general or any specific color, you did. While the republican attempt to steal votes addresses certain races more than others, it's not only about racism. If republicans found out white, left-handed grandmas were significantly likely to vote dems, they'd be looking for ways to exclude this very part of the population.
.
Also you limited it to voter ID which is just a part of what the reps
are trying. Making it harder for working poors to vote by limiting voting places, gerrymandering, the guys are creative.
Are you not a lump of tissue? Aren't I? Just meat and blood and bits that smell terrible when spilled? Again, you need to satisfy those who disagree with you on that front. In this instance I am not making a stand, just pointing out that your conclusions are not the only ones.
.
I know what the national debate is. The left claims that requiring ID is racist. That's the only argument a reasonaby informed person could think you were referring to. Especially given your history on this very site.
.
Your final points are irrelevant. Every single claim you could make about gerrymandering sprays shit on every side. Removing some voting places is a logistical matter, purging voting rolls or making it so that absentee ballots must be rerequested is a securit matter.
But let's go ahead and talk about that, while ignoring the concentrated efforts to harvest ballots, undermine the constitution, illegally change voting practices by edict rather than legislation, and the attacks on the courts, etc.
▼
deleted
· 3 years ago
I'm not a lump of tissue in my mom's body any more. I don't know about you, cause one might call you a certain part of body tissue, but I'd rather not or else some easily offended child may report me for profanity.
Implication is no better than open insult. Worse, I'd argue. Just say who you mean and what you mean.
@cakelover You don't have to respond to the thread, just see who you're dealing with before you decide if you want to jump in.
Abortion is a complex issue primarily because there isn’t a clear cut answer to when it stops being morally wrong to prevent a birth.
There are, as with everything, 2 radical extreme stances
-
One being that the latest it’s ok is anytime before the actual birth which is generally rejected by most legitimate stances
-
And the other extreme being that any form of artificially stopping sex from potentially making a baby such as pulling out, using birth control meds, or wearing a condom constituting stopping a persons from being born and immoral which is also generally rejected by most legitimate stances
-
This is one situation where the idea of “the truth likely lies somewhere inbetween” is both likely not fallacious and also fairly useless because there’s a wide range with a few “steps” in it like the heartbeat and when the pre-brain controls bodily functions. It’s not a simple thing, people within the same “camps” don’t even have general agreement as to their own sides opinions.
In times when I have had the conversation I've generally pissed off a lot of people in each camp by simply reconsidering my stance or not having an extreme enough one.
Just as well. I know what I know is right.
The funny thing at the end of the day is that abortion has nothing to do with "being offended."
.
Someone having hurt feelings because another person won't refer to them as "demon/demonself" is actually not the same as killing someone. It just isn't.
.
Treating it like it is is literally proving my point for me lol.
.
Whether you believe it to be killing someone or not, as famous put it, the other side DOES. And there is science that can support that belief. Aside from which, I highly doubt you are actually qualified to assess when life DOES begin, if not at conception.
.
"Bacteria is life on Mars, but a heartbeat isn't life on earth? Weird."
.
Abortion is irrelevant as a talking point in this regard. Do better. If you can.
.
Sadly I suspect this is you firing on all cylinders, and still doing little more than blowing smoke.
Bacteria doesn't rely on a host, that's the difference. I'm not gonna get sucked into the moral debate of it all again, but there really is a difference.
I'm honestly not even debating the moral aspects of it. I'm not saying my stance in it.
.
I'm saying that the argument is that life begins at conception and, if that is the case (and thus far there's no way to prove that's incorrect or correct one way or the other), people have grounds to believe that abortion is literally murder.
.
With that in mind you can't compare abortion to hurt feelings. I mean, you CAN, but it's not a sound argument.
.
Someone could cut your finger off tomorrow. Not remotely equivalent to someone calling you a cracker. Or saying you're fat. Or saying "Let's go Brandon" which is now being equated to giving the Nazi salute by people who clearly have no idea what actually went on in Nazi Germany.
.
Doing actual measurable harm - especially in a physical manner - is not on the same scale as someone foaming at the mouth because they can't cope with the fact that not everyone on the planet agrees with them
oh again i wasn't even debating that, but the scientific definition of life includes not relying on a host, which is why viruses aren't considered alive.
The reason viruses aren’t alive is because they don’t reproduce, they trick a cell into making more of them, they aren’t reproducing themselves. It has nothing to do with relying on a host, by that logic tapeworms would be considered not alive because they quickly die when removed from their host and rely on hosts to go through their life cycle. An embryo does all of its own cellular replication, it just takes material from the mother.
Well again, by that standard we should all technically be considered some degree of dead since we rely on the planet to keep us alive. We can only survive extremely short periods off the planet (or not at all without it's resources and special protection).
.
I realize they probably mean more intimate connection (umbilical cord) but this would also mean that up until the cord is cut, babies are not alive. Which doesn't seem to add up either, since they can sleep and react and feel after certain parts of their development.
I'd think it would also mean every premature baby, as well as anyone on any kind of life support, could be considered dead as well
.
Fetuses would seem more akin to parasites than viruses (or maybe I'm confused - highly sleep deprived ATM)
.
^this isn't an argument for or against abortion btw, just general response to the concept that anything relying on a host to support them is not alive
a tapeworm can survive without a host; it needs specific conditions, but it's possible. There also is the reproductive fact with viruses, you're right about that.
@xvarnah parasites can also get away with not having a host, as can gut bacteria. I also agree a fetus is closer to a parasite than a virus.
I mean the same is true of a fetus, after a little over half the gestation time, humans gestate for 40 weeks, Premature babies can survive, as you say, in specific conditions, after about 24 weeks and have about a 50% survival rate that improves the closer to gestation finishing that they are premature.
When was that, exactly? People got offended by someone with a slightly different skin color drinking out of the same water fountain. Hell, a dress I'm working on is based on a painting from 1884 which is famous because it offended all of Parisian high society. The painter and the model were both "cancelled". People have always been offended by stuff that was considered bordering or out of the social norms. In fact I would argue western society is generally more tolerant than ever, and all the whiners are concentrated on Twatter anyway, which you can easily choose to ignore.
2
deleted
· 3 years ago
No, they can't ignore it, the right needs Twatter (thanks for that!) so they can pretend half a dozen idiots and a few dozend trolls are a legit threat to whatever they choose to protect against all those strawmen.
I know, right? I always see these overblown reactions to some idiots' stupid takes online, and every goddamn anti-SJW reactionary is like "ThE LeFt iS sAyInG ThAt"... Like dude, the left isn't a hive mind, in fact the overwhelming majority of leftists are tired of the woke performative stuff that doesn't actually solve the real problems. Making a movie character gay won't help people who live paycheck to paycheck and can't afford healthcare, but the online part of both sides of the political spectrum tend to react to the former more than the latter. I guess the internet just tends to really overblow things, like when some stupid shit a few dozen people do is suddenly "a trend" or whatever, but over here in reality nobody actually cares. I mean when was the last time someone mentioned this internet bullshit irl to you? In my experience whenever someone mentions it, it's to make fun of it.
You're right, the net makes people tend to overestimate the relevance of stuff they personally care for. But I think it really started going downhill, like really steeply, when Satan released Twatter on us. The very idea of "discussing" a topiic in 140 or 280 characters is what automatically turns every meaningful debate into a bumfight of zingers, and is attracting people with anti-intellectual tendencies. It's been made worse by the fact that too many politicians mistake that platform for real life and fear shitstorms like they're literal. Gets worse, cause now there's enough enraged people on these platforms who take that shit to real life. That's even fewer people then but they're strongly enhancing the perception of relevance. Self-fulfilling prophecy.
If I had that time machine, I would leave Hitler as a baby alone and take care of little Jackie Dorsey. The world as we know it survived Old Adolf, but Twitter is the beginning of the very end of civilization.
Agreed, the small character limit is an absolutely evil genius move if your goal is to fuck up society and discourse. It's baffling to me that so much discourse is still happening at that hellhole of a website.
Furthermore, since a lot of people were either banned (some for better reasons than others) or left on their own and went on to other websites, echo chambers were created and Twitter itself became an echo chamber for the wokes. So if you look just at Twitter it will seem like the overton window has shifted but that's not at all true in reality. People running off to their own online echo chambers and getting used to not having their opinions challenged is a problem although tbh I don't know what the solution would be.
1
deleted
· 3 years ago
I agree, Twatter appears to be an echo-chamber for overly wokes, keep in mind tho that a substantial number of them are just trolls.
IKR? It's super ironic to see how the very people always thumping on conservative core values are willing to butt-rape integrity and honesty with their unlubed dicks at the drop of a MAGA-hat if it gains them power.
Also, way to reference my moral outrage at children being violently raped in response to, allow me to check my notes, you echo-chambering over strawmen while accusing others of echo-chambering over strawmen.
12/10 keep it up
▼
·
Edited 3 years ago
deleted
· 3 years ago
You ok? Clear vision on both eyes? Any numbness in your extremities?
The weirdest thing about this post is the inability of people to separate this hat (which is a play on trump's slogan, sure) from Trump himself.
.
And then they get offended while pretending to not be offended and that everyone else is the problem. And the irony just compounds as time goes on.
But America First
.
Strategically America is far more valuable to have as a "live free or die trying" attitude than Canada. Having America as an ally (and our damn cold weather) are among the only reasons Canada has what freedoms it is so readily trying to throw away now
Further, it’s as much the protected right of the offended party to be offended as it is the protected right of the person expressing the thing that offended them to be offensive.
Your rights do not protect you from social consequences, if people want to act in legal ways on their dislike for you it’s entirely within their right to do so just as it is yours to reciprocate that.
.
If this offends you, you know which button to click.
Abortion is literally life or death. Nobody has a right to murder, and that's the perspective proponents need to satisfy. Not their own.
And voter ID is not racist. What's racist is the assumption that us brown people are too damned stoopid to get some form of ID.
.
Please note I'm not debating this with you, I'm just calling you a liar and bullshitter.
.
And no, *I* didn't make it about race. The politicians did. They're the ones arguing that voter ID or verification is racist.
.
And yes, you clearly did. I didn't mention race in general or any specific color, you did. While the republican attempt to steal votes addresses certain races more than others, it's not only about racism. If republicans found out white, left-handed grandmas were significantly likely to vote dems, they'd be looking for ways to exclude this very part of the population.
.
Also you limited it to voter ID which is just a part of what the reps
are trying. Making it harder for working poors to vote by limiting voting places, gerrymandering, the guys are creative.
.
I know what the national debate is. The left claims that requiring ID is racist. That's the only argument a reasonaby informed person could think you were referring to. Especially given your history on this very site.
.
Your final points are irrelevant. Every single claim you could make about gerrymandering sprays shit on every side. Removing some voting places is a logistical matter, purging voting rolls or making it so that absentee ballots must be rerequested is a securit matter.
But let's go ahead and talk about that, while ignoring the concentrated efforts to harvest ballots, undermine the constitution, illegally change voting practices by edict rather than legislation, and the attacks on the courts, etc.
@cakelover You don't have to respond to the thread, just see who you're dealing with before you decide if you want to jump in.
There are, as with everything, 2 radical extreme stances
-
One being that the latest it’s ok is anytime before the actual birth which is generally rejected by most legitimate stances
-
And the other extreme being that any form of artificially stopping sex from potentially making a baby such as pulling out, using birth control meds, or wearing a condom constituting stopping a persons from being born and immoral which is also generally rejected by most legitimate stances
-
This is one situation where the idea of “the truth likely lies somewhere inbetween” is both likely not fallacious and also fairly useless because there’s a wide range with a few “steps” in it like the heartbeat and when the pre-brain controls bodily functions. It’s not a simple thing, people within the same “camps” don’t even have general agreement as to their own sides opinions.
Just as well. I know what I know is right.
.
Someone having hurt feelings because another person won't refer to them as "demon/demonself" is actually not the same as killing someone. It just isn't.
.
Treating it like it is is literally proving my point for me lol.
.
Whether you believe it to be killing someone or not, as famous put it, the other side DOES. And there is science that can support that belief. Aside from which, I highly doubt you are actually qualified to assess when life DOES begin, if not at conception.
.
"Bacteria is life on Mars, but a heartbeat isn't life on earth? Weird."
.
Abortion is irrelevant as a talking point in this regard. Do better. If you can.
.
Sadly I suspect this is you firing on all cylinders, and still doing little more than blowing smoke.
.
I'm saying that the argument is that life begins at conception and, if that is the case (and thus far there's no way to prove that's incorrect or correct one way or the other), people have grounds to believe that abortion is literally murder.
.
With that in mind you can't compare abortion to hurt feelings. I mean, you CAN, but it's not a sound argument.
.
Someone could cut your finger off tomorrow. Not remotely equivalent to someone calling you a cracker. Or saying you're fat. Or saying "Let's go Brandon" which is now being equated to giving the Nazi salute by people who clearly have no idea what actually went on in Nazi Germany.
.
Doing actual measurable harm - especially in a physical manner - is not on the same scale as someone foaming at the mouth because they can't cope with the fact that not everyone on the planet agrees with them
.
I realize they probably mean more intimate connection (umbilical cord) but this would also mean that up until the cord is cut, babies are not alive. Which doesn't seem to add up either, since they can sleep and react and feel after certain parts of their development.
I'd think it would also mean every premature baby, as well as anyone on any kind of life support, could be considered dead as well
.
Fetuses would seem more akin to parasites than viruses (or maybe I'm confused - highly sleep deprived ATM)
.
^this isn't an argument for or against abortion btw, just general response to the concept that anything relying on a host to support them is not alive
@xvarnah parasites can also get away with not having a host, as can gut bacteria. I also agree a fetus is closer to a parasite than a virus.
If I had that time machine, I would leave Hitler as a baby alone and take care of little Jackie Dorsey. The world as we know it survived Old Adolf, but Twitter is the beginning of the very end of civilization.
Furthermore, since a lot of people were either banned (some for better reasons than others) or left on their own and went on to other websites, echo chambers were created and Twitter itself became an echo chamber for the wokes. So if you look just at Twitter it will seem like the overton window has shifted but that's not at all true in reality. People running off to their own online echo chambers and getting used to not having their opinions challenged is a problem although tbh I don't know what the solution would be.
12/10 keep it up
.
And then they get offended while pretending to not be offended and that everyone else is the problem. And the irony just compounds as time goes on.