Total topics: 460
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
The supreme court argued a storeowner can refuse to serve someone for being gay.
This to me sounds like a storeowner refusing to serve someone for being unvaccinated.
The right should treat gay people the same way they treat unvaccinated people (and vice versa).
Statement: If you are allowed to deny business to someone for being gay, your ALSO allowed to deny business to someone for being unvaccinated.
I think the converse, inverse, and contrapositive should apply equally.
Liberals think the converse and inverse shouldn't apply because they argue that the unvaccinated are putting other people at risk. To me, this barely makes sense because unvaccinated people are causing almost no vaccinated and boosted people to even get COVID, let alone die from the disease.
You need a little bit of risk to maintain liberty. Those willing to trade liberty for safety deserve neither and would lose both.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
TERF stands for Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist.
Now the left hates TERFs and the right loves them.
I respect TERFs for coming to their own conclusions.
But what doesn't make sense is why this is the case.
I mean, sure, the TERFs are right wing on trans issues. They ALSO are super pro choice (they ARE radical feminists after all).
So in a world that made sense, left wing trans activists and right wing pro life activists (who both would rather vote for a pro lifer that thinks transwomen are women than a pro choicer that agrees with Matt Walsh on trans issues) would not like TERFS (for the trans activists, it's because the TERFs are right wing on trans issues which they prioritize and for pro life activists, it's because TERFs are very pro choice) and right wing Matt Walsh fanboys and left wing pro choice activists (who both would rather vote for a pro choicer that thinks transwomen are men than a pro lifer that thinks transwomen are women) would like TERFS (for the Matt Walsh fanboys, it's because the TERFs are right wing on trans issues which they prioritize and for pro choice activists, it's because TERFs are very pro choice).
But that doesn't happen because our society thinks more left vs right instead of actually supporting groups that agree with their main issue.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
For the libertarians, it's "small government", which they argue leads to, "you should be allowed to do whatever you want as long as you aren't harming others". This justifies their stance on weed, gun control, immigration, wars, healthcare and other issues. They are pro weed, anti gun control, anti ICE, anti war, and anti Medicare for all (because all of these beliefs are consistent with, "you should be allowed to do whatever you want as long as you aren't harming others".
For leftists, it's "anti pain" (even if democrats don't realize this). This justifies their stance on weed, gun control, immigration, wars, healthcare and other issues. They are pro weed, pro gun control, anti ICE, anti war (at least when America does it; but sending foreign aid to Ukraine helps reduce their pain), and pro Medicare for all (because all of these beliefs are consistent with, "we should minimize pain".
The conservatives have no consistent ethos.
They stand for, "small government" unless it's immigration, the police, or military spending (strangely enough, conservatives want a higher military budget while not funding Ukraine's military even though America's military is almost exclusively for other country's goals if they are allies with the US), or for LGBT freedoms.
They stand for, "life" while being against Medicare for all, gun control, or an open border policy (which saves lives).
They stand for, "American tradition in 1980" unless it's Roe V Wade (an American tradition for 50 years). No matter what year conservatives think is the ideal year to base American policy off of, there will be SOME reality present in that year that conservatives will be opposed too. Any time before 1980 in the US had very high income taxes (unless the time was early enough to where segregation or slavery was reality, which conservatives SHOULD oppose). So no time period before 1980 has conservative ideals 100%. After 1973 (but before 2022), Roe V Wade was the law (and conservatives don't like Roe V Wade). Since all time is either after 1973 or before 1980 (or both), conservatives don't consistently stand for American tradition.
They stand for, "Chirstian tradition", which is code for, "Bible law" or, "Theocracy". The bible advocates open borders nearly all times immigrants are mentioned (What Does the Bible Say About Immigration? (openbible.info) contains dozens of pro open border bible quotes). The bible also advocates that loving money/capitalism is bad (What Does the Bible Say About Wealth? (openbible.info)). The bible also has some anti gay quotes (25 Bible Verses about Homosexuality - What Does Scripture Say? (biblestudytools.com)). The bible says that people that have gay sex should be put to death (Leviticus 20:13). I think ALL of these positions (except immigration) are horrible positions and the conservatives believe that at least SOME of these positions are horrible positions. But if conservatives were consistently pro bible in their policies, I would agree with basically none of it, but at least I can respect it (like I only agree with democrats about 47% of the time, but at least I RESPECT their ideology).
They stand for, "Everything Trump says, I support" unless it comes to Trump telling his followers to get boosted against COVID. The vast majority of Trump supporters aren't boosted (and I think this is fine since I don't like vaccine mandates). But then don't act like Trump is so smart that you agree with everything he says, because he told you to get boosted and you claimed he was a sell out.
So I will tag some conservatives and ask them to define what their party consistently stands for.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Normal people: Nobody can be pro life and pro holocaust.
Ye West: Well, ACTUALLY.
If the Holocaust is brought back, this is why we have the 2nd amendment.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
DeSantis dismisses 2024 polling decline against Trump: 'I'm not a candidate' (msn.com). DeSantis isn't running in 2024; the republicans who are done with Trump are going to have to pick someone else
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
What if in the US, if you could prove you were vegan for an entire consecutive year from April 16 to April 15, you had no federal income tax for that year. It gives people an incentive to not kill animals for food (the dairy industry kills baby calves and the egg industry kills chicks).
Anybody wanting to opt out of income taxes like this would have to do the following:
1) Film all the meals they eat for a year and have it sent to a state
2) Send all the receipts of the meals they ordered to the state so the state can fact check and make sure that no animal products were consumed in that year
Assuming that this vetting process happens, the reward is no federal income tax. I don't think too many people will take advantage of this, but those that do would see rewards for helping make the world a better place.
Those that choose to eat animal products won't get penalized for doing so.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
My definition for a woman: Someone with a high ratio of brain connections between brain hemispheres compared to brain connections that stay in the same hemisphere.
My definition for a man: Someone with a low ratio of brain connections between brain hemispheres compared to brain connections that stay in the same hemisphere.
Lets see if this answers Matt Walsh's question, "What is a woman?"
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Imagine if Bud Light said that abortion is murder. All the dedicated pro choicers would boycott Bud Light. I think that would be immature. I think it's equally immature to boycott Bud Light over them claiming transwomen are women.
You have the right to do it, it's a free country. But if you DO boycott Bud Light, don't be claiming your against cancel culture when you cancel Bud Light for disagreeing with you.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Lets say your driving above the speed limit when you don't have too for pleasure (like people have sex when they don't have too for pleasure). Lets say that you end up accidentally running someone over while driving above the speed limit and the only way they will survive is if you give them a kidney. Lets say they were in a cross walk so they were crossing the street legally.
This analogy presents the fact that if you didn't screw up, somebody wouldn't be needing you for help (just like with pregnency/recreational sex/abortion). If I did this to someone and they needed my kidney, I would absolutely oblige since I screwed them up, I would feel a personal obligation to save their life since I caused them to be dependent on me. However, forcing OTHERS to oblige if they are in a similar situation seems too authoritarian to me. You SHOULD save the person that you caused to be dependent on you, but it's not an obligation.
I have to treat an unborn baby the same way up until the moment of birth. I'm not proud of this, but I have to be consistent.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
My moral code is:
One does not have an obligation to help, just to not harm.
Because of this, I believe the following:
1) No UHC and socialized medicine, food, or housing.
2) Abolish ICE while giving nothing of financial value to undocumented immigrants that are here. Deporting the undocumented is harming them; but not giving them free stuff is just not helping them.
3) Ban abortion beyond 8 weeks; it harms the unborn because they are getting killed, with the penalty being a lifetime sales tax of 10% imposed upon both parents of the aborted baby. I can see the argument for how it harms then woman, but I'll give her 8 weeks to abort (unless she was raped, then it's 12 weeks, or the abortion saves her life, then it's up to 40 weeks) since I don't think a zygote or an embryo is a human, but a fetus is. Expand the Hyde amendment so if rape victims or life saving abortion want to be performed, the person getting them must pay for them. I don't have an obligation to help them out.
4) Pro veganism; when I live on my own, I intend on going vegan 100% of the time and I support ending animal death. The meat industry kills innocent animals it's disgusting.
5) Abolish the income tax, and when the stock market becomes big enough, nationalize a tiny portion of the stock market so the dividends pay for government expenditures without taxes (this is when the stock market becomes big enough). In the meantime, fund all government expenditures with a sales tax on neceseties and luxuries and a capital gains tax.
6) Replace all fossil fuels with nuclear energy to combat climate change; if solar panels were a useful way to combat climate change, Obama would have solar panels. Same with Clinton and anybody that tries to get the US to go solar. Build nuclear power plants to combat climate change and get America relying 75% on nuclear energy. Sell the plants to the private sector.
7) Chop off the heads of murderers and rapists because I don't want society having our tax dollars helping murderers and rapists live. This is harming the murderer or rapist, but it's better than harming the taxpayer by having them fund the living expenses of the worst people in this country. If somebody has to be harmed, it's better for the murderers and rapists to be harmed.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Can anyone give me a definition that it's followers live up to 100% of the time?
If Matt Walsh can ask what is a woman, I think I can ask these questions.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
"We must ban owning cars for EVERYONE because of all the children that die from car accidents. Take public transit; move to a big city and use their public transit system. If you disagree, this is LITTERALLY the same thing as wanting children to die."
"We must mandate blood donation for EVERYONE because of all the children that die from not having blood. Nobody needs all their blood and you can lose some to save lives! If you disagree, this is LITTERALLY the same thing as wanting children to die."
"We must mandate adopting children for EVERYONE because of all the children that die from not being adopted. If you disagree, this is LITTERALLY the same thing as wanting children to die."
"We must ban dogs for EVERYONE because of all the children that die from dog bites. Nobody needs pitbulls or any other dog breed If you disagree, this is LITTERALLY the same thing as wanting children to die."
"We must ban AR 15s for EVERYONE because of all the children that die from mass shootings. Nobody needs an AR 15. If you disagree, this is LITTERALLY the same thing as wanting children to die."
If Statements 1 to 4 are stupid, so is statement 5. Shall not be infringed!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
1) Paying off the entire US debt using the following plan:
2) Aim to increase the stock market 500% by increasing our population 500% and putting the people in the counties that want them.
3) Want the federal standard for abortion to be up to 8 weeks into pregnancy (unless your a rape victim, then you get 12 weeks, or unless you need the abortion to save your life, then up until the moment of birth)
4) Protect family values; more prosecutions for deadbeat dads, and making sure fathers raise their kids. This includes if the fathers are undocumented. All fathers matter.
5) Bring back the death penalty in every state for murderers rapists, and kidnappers, saving $25.2 billion a year, and using that money to give our struggling teachers a $8400 a year raise, providing better education for our kids since better people would be attracted to teaching.
6) Nationalize the education system once the US debt is paid off so the states can use the money they dedicated for education to pay off their state debts (teachers get a starting salary of $68400 a year)
7) Implement a federal rape victim insurance plan. It works by every female paying $.15 a day to the federal government and if they get raped, get pregnant from the rape, and are able to successfully prosecute their rapist, they get $300,000 restitution for the trauma of being raped. If they abort, they get $100,000. The rapist gets killed.
8) Replace prison sentences with lashings for minor crimes to save the taxpayer money and to reduce re offense rates.
9) Anyone that steals would be subject to a day of hard labor per $160 they stole. After their sentence, the state hooks them up to a job to where they don't have to steal anymore because they are busy and not poor anymore. The job would pay $40,000 per year with healthcare as a salary. The jobs they would be doing are outlined here:
10) Run this country like a buisiness; customers aren't kicked out for being undocumented, customers pay money for the stuff they get here (taxes, jobs, goods and services bought here), this business doesn't bomb other businesses in war unless for self defense, and America gets rich off of freedom.
If anyone disagrees with any part of this, let me know; I don't block and it's okay if we don't agree 100%; I don't expect anyone too and I'm not going to get mad over disagreements.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The reason for this is because democrat politicians are trying to make the country better, whereas some republican politicians and most republican voters have double standards in place that I don't respect.
Republicans in 2008: Child rape should be punished with death! Child rapists are horrible people (they are RIGHT here in my opinion)
Roy Moore: Rapes a child
Republicans(most of them): We'll vote for him. We think he is a child rapist, but he has an R next to his name, so we will vote for him.
Republicans: Abortion is evil; abortion is murder and we believe murder should be punished with death (so logically, you can assume they want abortion to be punished with death)(I don't think it's pragmatic to execute 1/6 of the country for getting or paying for an abortion). Also Family values, deadbeat dads should raise their kids (they are right; deadbeats deserve further punishment if they don't raise their kids)
Herschel Walker: Yeah; I agree with you. Also, I'm the father of an aborted baby. And I'm a deadbeat to 4 kids.
Republicans: We'll vote for you to own the libs.
Republicans: We want to cut taxes.
Me: Less taxes=less government services. What do you want to cut?
Republicans: We don't want to tell you, we just want lower taxes.
Republicans: We support back the blue (except for Capital police officers on Jan 6)
Republicans: We want less people on welfare (never call out their own base when they are on welfare)
I'm sick of the hypocrisy.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I don't know why conservatives are so pro electoral college. The electoral college is Affirmative action to states that can't attract as many people. If you want more voting power in your state, then your state needs to find a way to attract more people.
If your worried about democrats coming into power, what you might want to do is abolish political parties and force every politician to run as an independent so there are no parties. But the thing to first do is rank choice voting, 5 candidates, each of whom must have up to 10 policy agendas that they fight for and between 3 to 7 of them have to be left wing ideas and between 3 to 7 of them have to be right wing ideas. This way, voters are selecting somebody that they agree with at least 80% of the time instead of at least 50% of the time.
If this happens, there is no need for the electoral college because every vote would be equal, just like it is in all 50 states; it's not like in Nevada, where the vast majority of the population of that state lives in Clark County, it's not like Nevada has an electoral college where counties with less population are given more votes. This is true for every other state in the union. So why not for the country at large? And get rid of the senate; it represents Wyoming and Vermont per capita way more than California or Texas.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
If one believes the election is rigged, then they don't vote in it. If you think the voting machines are going to switch your pro Trump votes to pro Biden ones, then what's the point in voting if the elites decided who the winner is going to be?
You vote because you trust the electoral process. Otherwise, don't vote in the elections that you think are going to be rigged against you.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
If a muslim says that they want to run Jewish people over with their car, the right (I think) would want that muslim prosecuted for hate speech. I mean, many right wing states banned BDS protests (which being pro BDS agree with it or not is not the same thing as being anti Jewish people) and the right never screams about, "free speech" when it benefits Palestinains
But if a white christain Trump supporter says they want to run Jewish people over with their car, the right views it as, "hate speech is free speech".
The left is consistent with both. No matter if it was Christain or Muslim, they would claim it's hate speech that should get prosecuted. I can at least respect that.
But I'm a free speech absolutist, so for me, it wouldn't matter if the person that said it is Christain or Muslim, I think it's protected speech. Now if they act on it and murder Jewish people, I'd want the murderer put to death with a public beheading. But if it's just all talk, I think prosecuting someone for speech is too authoritarian. This is whether Christian or Muslim.
The reason why I'm a free speech absolutist is I'm going to say 3 statements I may or may not agree with (this means I agree with it, this means I don't)
1) Death to murderers, rapists, and kidnappers. They are horrible people. I can't wait to cut their heads off.
2) Death to J walkers, baseball players, and singers. They are horrible people. I can't wait to cut their heads off.
3) Death to Jews, blacks, people that have gay sex, and people that cut off their dicks. They are horrible people. I can't wait to cut their heads off.
The left thinks that groups 1 and 2 are free speech that should be legal to say, whereas #3 is hate speech that should be banned. I think they are all free speech (and hate speech, because it is speech where you are hating someone and all of these claims hate SOME group of people). But I think hate speech is free speech.
The only sort of alternative view I could see is thinking #1 should be legal whereas 2 and 3 are banned because nothing is wrong (in most people's views) with being in 2 or 3, but there is something wrong with being in 1. But I really think saying anything in #2 should be legal, so I have to treat #3 the same way.
I wonder if someone said, "Death to women that get 8 week abortions. They are horrible people. I can't wait to cut their heads off.", where that would fly under. Some people think it's as bad as murder, so it would be #1, but others think it's #3 because they don't see it as murder. I don't know how you can objectively determine where such a statement would fall under, but I have a feeling the left would want that statement banned under hate speech, just like they would for the other items in #3.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
They should spend money on training Americans to protect themselves rather than rely on the police to protect them. When your house or business is being robbed, when your 8 year old daughter is being raped, don't rely on the police. The police are minutes away when you need protection within seconds.
Introducing: The 2nd amendment. "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The amendment greater than all the others (including the first), because it PROTECTS all of the others. All of the amendments are worth keeping except for #16; the state should not be entitled to the fruits of my labor.
With this amendment, you can protect yourself within seconds rather than rely on the government that take minutes.
But a 2nd amendment is no good if people don't have guns. This is why I call for cutting funding for police significantly; if someone is robbing you or raping you, you are expected to know how to use a shotgun, a glock, an AR 15, or pepper spray to protect your home or body from the criminal. Who needs the cops; we got guns! If you don't know how to shoot well enough to protect your home, that's on you. Learn to protect yourself rather than rely on the inefficient government police force.
Shall Not Be Infringed! The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants, and a rapist is a tyrant for forcing his will upon a victim in an unjustified context.
More power to we the people, and less power to the government!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Open borders presentation - Google Slides. Anyone that disagrees with the ideas stated here should check out this presentation; I think I addressed everything.
Hopefully DART doesn't censor MA FREE SPEECH!!
Feel free to like if you agree.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics