Youtube comments of Daily Wire Third Stringer (@DailyWireThirdStringer).
-
1500
-
1400
-
959
-
829
-
804
-
712
-
569
-
483
-
482
-
478
-
475
-
410
-
399
-
383
-
362
-
357
-
345
-
344
-
327
-
323
-
321
-
280
-
273
-
270
-
269
-
251
-
244
-
242
-
240
-
227
-
222
-
218
-
190
-
187
-
173
-
167
-
163
-
160
-
147
-
145
-
145
-
143
-
140
-
140
-
136
-
135
-
128
-
120
-
118
-
118
-
118
-
115
-
107
-
97
-
88
-
86
-
83
-
79
-
79
-
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at the New Year's lunar festival, MLK Jr. celebration, July 4th parade, gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, garlic festival, Juneteenth celebration, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, on a farm, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own home . . . Pretty much anywhere.
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
78
-
77
-
74
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
72
-
71
-
68
-
67
-
67
-
65
-
64
-
63
-
62
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: WorldPopulationReview)
50
-
50
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
What I appreciate most about this debate is that it was not concentrated on the ethics of euthanasia as a concept. Both sides agreed that, in at least some cases, giving an individual the freedom to end his or her own life on his or her own terms is the moral thing to do. (In my view, it is those who insist that all patients be kept alive for as long as possible -- even to the point of requiring life-support until the very end -- who are truly extreme.) Rather, the concern largely centered around whether those who only have mental disabilities should be permitted to access such care. Simply put, my own stance is that they should, but only after exhausting all possible alternatives. Even more difficult is the question of whether involuntary euthanasia should be permitted (e.g. in the case of a patient who cannot provide informed consent, such as an elderly person with severe Alzheimer's who is terminally ill and evidently suffering).
My full position may be stated thus. Three conditions must be met: 1) The patient has to be in a state of misery (physical, mental, or psychological), 2) the patient must have been diagnosed with a terminal condition with a prognosis no longer than a couple of years (excluding those with mental/psychological disabilities), and 3) the patient must provide informed consent (void if the person is not mentally competent, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to make an informed choice). As for those who are not able to make such a decision for themselves, the input of a) all relevant evidence including written, oral, and electronic documentation that would indicate the person's preference in this situation, and b) close friends and family must be considered. a) takes precedence over b) if there is a discrepancy, and if a) doesn't apply, then b) and the opinions of at least two doctors must be in agreement with one another before proceeding. If the discrepancy persists, then conditions 1 and 2 are reconsidered and, should the result be that both prove highly applicable, the doctors' recommendation supersedes that of the family's and friends'. If not, and there is disagreement among these two groups, the patient is kept alive until such time as both conditions 1 and 2 are satisfied, or a consensus emerges.
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
Hey Briggs, great video! As someone from California, I have considered moving to Nevada (primarily because it's cheaper, but I also fell in love with the landscape). On my first road trip out there, I was 19, and that first desert highway was like nothing I have ever seen. The road stretched for miles (I would guess 25-30 at least), and there was no traffic, buildings, or anything resembling civilization anywhere in sight -- only shrubs and hills. It was truly magnificent.
Over the course of two more road trips, I have now traveled almost every paved highway criss-crossing that state (that's hardly a boast; there aren't very many to begin with 😅). I can recall visiting the town of Hawthorne for the first time, and just thinking how (again, as someone from California Central Valley) the people living there are so isolated from the rest of society. You would have to travel over 100 miles just to get to the closest mid-size city (Reno). If you don't have your own private vehicle, forget it. And just thinking about the costs of maintenance, gas, time, etc. to travel that far on a regular basis to do things the rest of us take for granted . . . wow. Perhaps the most remarkable, however, was the town of Rachel, which is the ONLY sign of civilization along a 95-mile stretch of road (375, the Extraterrestrial Highway). And the closest major city? Las Vegas, at almost 150 miles. Still, I absolutely love the beauty, and as someone who dislikes urban environments, I'm not exactly repulsed at the idea of living somewhere rather off the beaten path, so-to-speak. But that might be a little much, even for me. Anyways, I love that you covered this in such detail, and keep up the great work!
P.S. I can confirm that 98% of the state looks exactly like what you see at 8:34, only that most roads are two-lane highways rather than Interstates (this looks like I-80 to me, though I couldn't even begin to guess where). And yes, in case you were wondering, I have slightly exceeded the 70 mph speed limit at times, though I won't say by how much. Fortunately, I've never been caught while in Nevada (I have in Oregon and Idaho). Here's an interesting fact: a 2017 Ford Fusion is capable of traveling in excess of 120 mph quite easily.
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
@karlstrauss2330 Wrong. The separation between church and state is enshrined in our Constitution and the writings of many of our Founding Fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin, just to name a few. The Founders could have added a clause to the Constitution instituting Christianity as the state religion, but they did the exact opposite. They FORBID any particular religion from exercising supremacy over another, in no small part because they just won independence from a country whose monarch claimed to have divine authorization to rule for life. Wow, you don't know anything about U.S. history, do you? Is this what the so-called "1776 Commission" is teaching kids nowadays?
26
-
25
-
25
-
"You take my water, burn my olive trees, destroy my house, take my job, steal my land, imprison my father, kill my mother, bombard my country, starve us all, humiliate us all, but I am to blame: I shot a rocket back."
"Israel is not an apartheid state . . . it is something worse, much worse."
~Noam Chomsky
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: WorldPopulationReview)
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
Will we let this problem continue indefinitely, or will we follow the lead of all other developed countries and actually do something to ensure that dangerous weapons don't fall into the wrong hands? Americans shouldn't have to fear for their lives every time they go out in public or make a simple mistake.
I'll start by stating the obvious: You don't need an AR-15 to hunt a wild animal. As for "self defense," the logical follow-up would be to ask, "self defense against what?" And the answer, more often than not, is against other people with guns. Guess what, geniuses: strict gun control would LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF BAD PEOPLE WITH GUNS. That's the whole point! Have you ever pondered for a single second why we seem to struggle with this "self defense" issue while Europeans do not? There's your answer.
We know with certainty that gun control is effective. To take but one example, mass shootings TRIPLED after the last assault weapons ban expired in 2004 -- yes, TRIPLED. That's no coincidence. States with the loosest gun laws have the highest rates of gun violence. 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates (per capita) are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review) Yet, gun control is most effective when implemented on a national level, not state or municipal.
Now to address the elephant in the room: the Second Amendment. Does it provide an individual right to own a firearm? Perhaps. Does that matter? Not one bit. It's obsolete. The Founders never expected technology to progress as far as it has. Even today, Americans don't have an absolute right to bear arms; they cannot own weapons of mass destruction (nuclear and chemical). However, imagine for a second if they did. What would be the logical end result? Would we blame "mental health" when someone wipes the entire city of Detroit off the map with a Hydrogen bomb, or unleashes mustard gas on an entire school? Certainly not. It's the EXACT same argument with respect to guns, albeit on a smaller scale -- unlike cars, knives, and other objects one may use to k*ll, they have no essential function (transportation, cutting meat and vegetables, etc.). They have but one purpose, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. This is why every other advanced democracy on the planet has instituted strict regulation over ownership of these weapons (if not outright banned them, like Singapore).
My proposed solution to the constitutionality problem: If the 2nd Amendment cannot be repealed, then it should be reinterpreted. A "well-regulated Militia" could apply exclusively to the National Guard, or the entire Amendment could be rendered obsolete because the reasons for its existence no longer apply: There's no more need for slave patrols, indigenous Americans no longer pose a threat, and we have a national standing army (thus, a militia is superfluous and unnecessary). Another (perhaps superior) option is to apply an originalist -- yes, an originalist -- philosophy by extending the logic that it doesn't give one an absolute right to bear arms (e.g. WMDs and machine guns). That is, reinterpret it such that it provides a right to own ONLY hunting rifles and shotguns -- not handguns or other long guns -- because when it was drafted, "arms" only constituted muskets, which take some thirty seconds to reload. If Roe isn't safe, neither is D.C. vs. Heller.
I must counter the objection that "if you ban guns, then only criminals will have guns" -- alternatively phrased as "cRiMiNaLs dOn'T fOlLoW lAwS" (no sh*t Sherlock) -- before some simpleton inevitably raises it in reply to this comment. This objection assumes that a) the government will be largely unsuccessful in repurchasing these weapons (a dubious claim, as we'll see), or b) a sufficient black market will develop to meet the demand (also highly doubtful). As to the first, I do not propose that federal agents barge into people's homes and search their property for firearms. Rather, all dabatases will be consulted by intelligence agencies to uncover sales records (or will be legally demanded from sellers) to determine who owns what. Subsequently, penalties will be imposed for those who fail to comply with a federal mandate; some preliminary suggestions include temporary suspension of one's driver's license and revocation of Medicare and Social Security benefits.
As to the second claim, a black market cannot develop if demand is not met. As it turns out, guns are drastically more complicated to manufacture and distribute than drugs. This also implies that there would be sufficient demand in the first place -- and considering that firearms are not an addictive substance, this is in serious doubt to say the least. Ever wondered why Canada, Australia, and Europe have been successful with their gun control efforts, despite the fact that one of their closest allies and largest trading partners is the world's largest market for firearms? This is it. Even Canada doesn't have an underground economy for firearms, and they share a BORDER with us. This argument is completely invalid.
One also often encounters the claim that an armed populace is necessary to deter "government tyranny." Besides the fact that every other advanced democracy in the world doesn't seem to have an issue with this, I can hardly be convinced that anyone would entertain this objection in good faith for the simple fact that the United States has the MOST POWERFUL MILITARY IN THE WORLD. No amount of AR-15s will overcome a fleet of F-35s, M1 Abrams tanks, and Apache helicopters. With such firepower, the military will decide the outcome of any revolution, for good or ill. I might also begin to take this argument marginally more seriously when those advancing it also cease simultaneously -- and paradoxically -- supporting bloated defense and police budgets.
For a shooting to occur, there must be two basic ingredients: people (the shooter and the victims), and guns. Logically, the most effective solution would address both of them. By all means, treat mental health. We at least owe our fellow citizens that much. I would go further: Provide everyone with the basics -- housing, food, healthcare, education, and employment, at a minimum (i.e. revive F.D.R.'s Economic Bill of Rights). But let's not pretend for a single second as if that by itself will be sufficient.
The fact that guns are the issue is not in dispute. We are the only country on Earth with more guns than people (120 firearms per 100 citizens). No other country even comes close (Yemen is in second place at 52 guns per 100 citizens, and is currently embroiled in civil war). Our rates of firearm homicide are beyond compare to any nation in Europe or East Asia. Whether this is tractable is also not up for debate. It certainly is. The only question is whether we can stomach this problem continuing indefinitely, or find the political will to do something about it. Personally, I don't appreciate the "freedom" of being gunned down at the shopping mall, movie theater, or department store. It's long past time we gave the programs successfully implemented in peer nations, comparable to us in most other metrics, serious consideration. I believe the Canadian licensing system will soon become (if it isn't already) palatable to the majority of Americans. The Constitution may say we have a right to bear arms, but the Declaration of Independence also guarantees us the right to live. Which one we value more highly is up to us to decide -- but, as we have undeniably witnessed over the past few decades, we cannot have both.
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is second). Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence of any country in the world. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana.
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at the MLK Jr. celebration, July 4th parade, gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, garlic festival, Juneteenth celebration, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own home . . . Pretty much anywhere.
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
15
-
15
-
15
-
For everyone who says "guns aren't the issue, it's mental health," or "guns don't just get up one day, walk to a school, and fire themselves," I ask you: Would you apply that same reasoning to nuclear weapons? Certainly you don't believe that the world would be SAFER if civilians has access to weapons of mass destruction, do you? Then why do you REFUSE to acknowledge the empirical evidence that PROVES that the prevalence of guns in a society results in more gun violence and deaths? For every 100 people living in America, there are 120 firearms. By comparison, in the next closest country, Yemen (which is currently embroiled in civil war), there are 52 firearms for every 100 people. We are OBJECTIVELY the least safe country in the developed world in terms of the gun homicide metric. So, tell me, why not apply your flawed "guns don't kill people, people kill people" reasoning to other weapons of war as well? I eagerly await THAT answer.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at the bowling alley, distribution center, bank, MLK Jr. celebration, July 4th parade, gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, garlic festival, Juneteenth celebration, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own home . . . Pretty much anywhere.
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
When 22 are shot dead in Maine,
we know nothing will get done.
Their lives will have been taken in vain,
because in America we worship the almighty gun.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This has to end. My freedom to live is of a higher priority than your freedom to own a weapon of war. Full stop. Here's an originalist interpretation of the Constitution for you: the Second Amendment only applies to muskets. Kiss your semi-automatic handguns, assault rifles, and extended magazines goodbye, conservatives.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: WorldPopulationReview)
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
@waltergrace565 The propaganda part is true. Prager "University" is a prime example. The best counter is to only consider the scientific data. When a climate scientist claims that there is a high risk of total societal collapse, almost certainly there is a reason why. And it's informed by research, not an "agenda."
As for the "real-world experience," what I have noticed is that such experience teaches the exact same lessons as what you could easily find on the Internet anyway. It is also a fallacy to generalize from one's experience. "Uh, wElL, I wOrKeD mY wAy uP." Yeah, that was when a high school diploma could land you a decent job and college costed approximately 37 cents and a Pop Tart. The economy of today is nothing like the economy of 40 years ago. Upward social mobility has slowed. Wage growth has stalled. Unionization has declined. Housing, healthcare, and education are increasingly unaffordable. Meanwhile, the rich have increased their wealth by approximately $50 trillion in the last 50 years. Unless you're extremely lucky and become a corporate executive or are already wealthy and make wise investments, you're not "making it" in today's economy. This is especially true of the younger generations. They're not poorer because they're "lazy"; they're poorer because corporations have realized that they can maximize shareholder value by minimizing expenses (like labor), and have lobbied the government to ensure that they can keep getting away with it. In sum, your "real-world experience" is dogsh*t when you fail to consider it in the context of the bigger picture.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This has to end. My freedom to live is of a higher priority than your freedom to own a weapon of war. Full stop.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: WorldPopulationReview)
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@silentmajority8365 The ridiculous gun culture (in large part due to the gun industry's marketing to younger people) got us here
The obscene amounts of money spent on lobbying (especially by the NRA), almost exclusively to Republican politicians, to prevent any meaningful action on gun safety got us here
The sheer lack of access to mental health care (because we have other priorities for our tax dollars, like illegal and offensive wars on the other side of the world) got us here
The systemic failure to provide for the basic needs of citizens (food, shelter, healthcare, education, stable job with a living wage, paid maternity leave, and dozens of other necessities that are guaranteed to each citizen at no cost in EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRY) got us here
The ability of corporations to exploit their workers and treat them as disposable without any accountability or basic protections (such as the right to unionize and negotiate such fundamentals as wages, benefits, scheduling, and hours) got us here
Ever wonder why we are alone among developed nations when it comes to mass shootings? Here are some suggestions to ponder. Meanwhile, the kind of society you're asking for is a Middle East-type Christian theocracy, except where everyone is perpetually self-interested (as a consequence of a highly capitalist economy), many fall through the cracks, and at any time anybody could purchase a firearm and unlimited ammunition and carry it wherever they want. Tell me where that society has ever flourished. I'll wait.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@Nightknight1992 He clearly meant Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, and Finland). And his point is indisputable: those three nations have very strict immigration policies, which are almost certainly intended to preserve their homogenous population and culture. The U.S., by contrast, has never really had a shared culture (you may be familiar with the old "melting pot" hypothesis, although "salad bowl" is perhaps more felicitous); hence, it's reasonable to assume that modest levels of immigration will not be destabilizing. In fact, that has been the norm throughout our country's history -- first from Europe and Africa, then from Asia, and now Latin America. Not so much in Scandinavia.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
A "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above. You're welcome.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@rodrigo445678 Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as an entity that exists over time, or is self-aware (which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Besides the fact that Taiwan doesn't trust China in the slightest (as they should), they like New Zealand are also an island nation. It is MUCH easier for them to shut down international travel and then, being that it is so small, deliver much-needed supplies like ventilators, PPE for healthcare workers, and masks to its entire population. They have some geographical advantages that the US lacks in a pandemic-type scenario. Additionally, the US has to worry about people from Mexico, which has the 3rd-highest death toll in the world at over 50,000 currently, crossing our border illegally and infecting people in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California.
9
-
9
-
9
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence of any country in the world. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: WorldPopulationReview)
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: WorldPopulationReview)
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Based.
For a shooting to occur, there must be two basic ingredients: people (the shooter and the victims), and guns. Logically, the most effective solution would address both of them. By all means, treat mental health. We at least owe our fellow citizens that much. I would go further: Provide everyone with the basics -- housing, food, healthcare, education, and employment, at a minimum (i.e. revive F.D.R.'s Economic Bill of Rights). But let's not pretend for a single second as if that by itself will be sufficient.
The fact that guns are the issue is not in dispute. We are the only country on Earth with more guns than people (120 firearms per 100 citizens). No other country even comes close (Yemen is in second place at 52 guns per 100 citizens, and is currently embroiled in civil war). Our rates of firearm homicide are beyond compare to any nation in Europe or East Asia. Whether this is tractable is also not up for debate. It certainly is. The only question is whether we can stomach this problem continuing indefinitely, or find the political will to do something about it. Personally, I don't appreciate the "freedom" of being gunned down at the shopping mall, movie theater, or department store. It's long past time we gave the programs successfully implemented in peer nations, comparable to us in most other metrics, serious consideration. I believe the Canadian licensing system will soon become (if it isn't already) palatable to the majority of Americans. The Constitution may say we have a right to bear arms, but the Declaration of Independence also guarantees us the right to live. Which one we value more highly is up to us to decide -- but, as we have undeniably witnessed over the past few decades, we cannot have both.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Garry G They AREN'T protesting for equality. Statistically, more unarmed white people in the US are killed by police than black people, but they won't tell you that. They're using this as a backdrop for their Marxist agenda. The founder of BLM straight-up admitted that her and her staff are "trained Marxists." After seeing what happened in Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba and now Venezuela, if that doesn't scare you then nothing will. Their demands are a direct threat to everything this country stands for. This isn't about police brutality, it's about creating more chaos until the eventual revolution takes over and they are able to construct their Communist dictatorship. This isn't an issue contained to just black people; Tony Timpa and Daniel Shaver have both died brutally at the hands of police, yet you have never heard of them. Is that equality? How about the black officer David Dorn who was shot in cold blood by these "peaceful protesters?" Does it look like they CARE about black lives to you?! They complain about George Floyd all day long, but the dozens of black people shot in Chicago every week, many of them innocent, they pay no attention to. You know why? Because they have an agenda BEYOND "equality." That's plain as day to anyone who bothers to research the relevant statistics on this matter.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Member of Gen Z here who recently just came of age. I never had a drink prior to my 21st birthday, and over 8 months later I still have not gotten drunk. I tasted wine, which was absolutely awful. I then tried beer (after having smelled it for 3 years straight cleaning out carts at a golf course), and it was arguably even worse. The stuff tastes just as bad as it smells. Hard seltzer wasn't really my thing either. And don't even get me started on IPA's. Now, I don't drink anything except wine coolers, which are probably best described as alcoholic fruity soda (even though I stopped drinking "actual" soda years ago). I've been high once, and if being drunk is anything remotely similar (or more "depressing," which is hard for me to fathom), I NEVER want to try it. Throw in there the fact that my uncle recently passed away from liver cirrhosis after decades of heavy drinking, and I am determined to avoid excessive drinking like the plague. I'll take shrooms or LSD before I ingest a sufficient quantity of whiskey or vodka to feel buzzed. So when they say that alcohol is falling out of favor with Gen Z, I believe it.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
You mean the things that are two inches long, can't feel pain, and possess less sentience thanna fish? Please. 🙄 "Protect life" you say. So how do you feel about war, drone bombing innocent civilians, allowing 45,000 Americans to die every year due to a lack of health insurance, child poverty, access to weapons that k-ll people on a mass scale, mandating life-saving vaccinations, paid maternal leave for work, or unions/higher wages and earning enough to make a decent living? How many of those things do you care about??
8
-
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This has to end. My freedom to live is of a higher priority than your freedom to own a weapon of war. Full stop. Here's an originalist interpretation of the Constitution for you: the Second Amendment only applies to muskets. Kiss your semi-automatic handguns, assault rifles, and extended magazines goodbye, conservatives.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
This video should be mandatory viewing in every high school in America. I think this is great advice for anyone, including myself, who isn't sold on a career choice yet. Some people grow up wanting to be doctors, engineers or lawyers and that is A-OK. They can go to college straight after high school if they wish. For the vast majority of us, however, we aren't certain who we want to become, we just want to have a stable career that brings in a high income. That's where most students fresh out of high school get sold on the college idea, as college graduates statistically earn $1 million more over the course of their lifetime than non-college graduates. Unfortunately, very few are told that they can get what they desire via other methods as well; most notably trade school, the military, and moving up the ranks within a business or a sector of the economy by acquiring desirable skills. I think the best way of choosing a career path is by figuring out what you're good at and what your passions are. If you get these two things to line up, and you work hard enough to get where you want to go (college or no college), you'll set yourself up for success and happiness.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Wow, I'm surprised that mass shootings or gun violence aren't on the list, given that they are a distinctly American problem (in the developed world, at least). But I think I would put #1 on a list of things that piss me off, not on a list of what I fear most. After all, the fact that Sinema has taken $900,000 from Big Pharma or that Joe Manchin still earns millions from his family's fossil fuel company doesn't affect my life in any deep or personal sense, but it sure as hell makes it extremely difficult to get any decent legislation passed that would systemically change America for the better (Medicare for All, universal childcare, lower prescription drug costs, paid family leave and sick time/vacations, unionization rights, ending undemocratic processes like gerrymandering, etc.). All this would be absolutely essential if we were to even consider ourselves a "developed" country, because every other wealthy (OECD) nation in the world has them. It's absolutely ridiculous, and it's all because the Supreme Court ruled that money is speech --- an absurdity if I ever heard one. Corruption is treated like murder in other developed countries, why not here? Because the only ones with the power to do anything about it are all BOUGHT OFF!!! 🤬
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
9:00 Requiring businesses to enforce that their construction workers wear a helmet is NOT the same as enforcing a seatbelt law. People who choose to violate the former either are fined for not enforcing a basic regulation that protects workers safety (in the case of the business owner(s)) or lose their jobs (the workers). In the latter case, you are essentially fining people and adding points to their record (which could ultimately mean losing their license, their car being impounded, and/or going to jail) for not doing something that would add to THEIR OWN safety, not the safety of others around them. This is why the vaccine mandate is not in the least bit comparable to a seatbelt law. People should have the freedom to do whatever they want if THEY are the only potential victims of their actions (why else would we legalize drugs, Kyle?), but once other people's rights are impacted the state has a role to play in maintaining public safety. To assert otherwise and yet hold the beliefs on drug policy that Kyle does is to be fundamentally inconsistent in one's ideology. There is always a small chance that a heroin (or alcohol) user will overdose and die, and there is always a similiar chance that those not wearing a seatbelt will meet the same fate. Why, then, should our approach to seatbelts be any different than the approach we take with respect to substances people use to experience pleasure? Please, Kyle, get your principles in order.
7
-
7
-
7
-
As a libertarian leftie, I actually find myself agreeing with Michael Shermer on many points here. My libertarian philosophy is that the government has NO role in creating dictates for your own safety, only in regards to the safety of others. In other words, it only has the right to interfere when your behavior put others' rights (to life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, and so on) in jeopardy. This applies to same-sex marriage and intimacy, contraception (which I cannot believe is still a debate at this late date), interracial marriage, gambling, prostitution, and drug use, just to name a few. There can be no doubt that such things as seatbelt laws, helmet requirements, and even speed limits in certain situations would have to be immediately struck down if this principle was employed consistently. When the government has decided it wants to legislate to protect you from yourself, you know it has overstepped its authority.
P.S. As for abortion, the my answer is simple: an embryo/fetus that cannot experience pain (i.e. before 18 weeks gestation) is not a moral patient, and therefore is not a "person" under the law and has no rights. Also, none of the above applies to minors (i.e. children), as they do not possess their full rational faculties and cannot give consent.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
As a 24-year-old American male myself, I have some suggestions for outreach to my demographic the Harris-Walz campaign should consider:
1. Have Tim Walz hold rallies at college campuses focused on issues that appeal to young men, such as expanding healthcare and housing access, taking action on climate change, and the legalization of marijuana, to name just a few.
2. Have either Tim Walz or Kamala Harris do a long-form podcast with so-called "independent media," whether that's on right-leaning outlets such as Joe Rogan or PBD, or left-leaning ones like Hasan Piker and The Young Turks.
3. Release an ad in the same spirit as Walz and his classic car of him and/or Harris playing video games with their children, preferably the sons (Gus and Cole). As cheesy as it might sound, gaming is HUGE among young American men (myself included), and the lane as far as I can tell is wide open for this connection to be formed. At the very least, it's worth a shot.
Regardless of how the campaign tailors its messaging, one thing is clear: they should do something to address the needs and desires of men under 35, as even the perception that the very real concerns of this demographic are being ignored could cost them the election.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
I've had depression before. Unfortunately for me, it was due to life circumstances that are permanent, but were at least not my fault (i.e. I had no control over the matter). Kyle's description is accurate: the best way to explain it to someone who hasn't experienced it is to think of it as an illness. Just like how the body can get sick (fever, fatigue, nausea, etc.), so can the mind. You have just about as much ability to prevent one as you do the other (except that there are no vaccines for depression). I eventually made it out the other side, but it was a slow climb. I hope Fetterman, perhaps my second-favorite politician (after Bernie Sanders), will recover soon as well. I now have a more complete understanding of why someone would choose to end it all after going through it myself, and it is something I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
For everyone who says "guns aren't the issue, it's mental health," or "guns don't just get up one day, walk to a school, and fire themselves," I ask you: Would you apply that same reasoning to nuclear weapons? Certainly you don't believe that the world would be SAFER if civilians has access to weapons of mass destruction, do you? Then why do you REFUSE to acknowledge the empirical evidence that PROVES that the prevalence of guns in a society results in more gun violence and deaths? For every 100 people living in America, there are 120 firearms. By comparison, in the next closest country, Yemen (which is currently embroiled in civil war), there are 52 firearms for every 100 people. We are OBJECTIVELY the least safe country in the developed world in terms of the gun homicide metric. So, tell me, why not apply your flawed "guns don't kill people, people kill people" reasoning to other weapons of war as well? I eagerly await THAT answer.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@trench01 I've got some more for you:
"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, with which more than half of the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize..."
~ Thomas Paine
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself, and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
~ Benjamin Franklin
"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those that spring from any other cause..."
~ George Washington
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
~ John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli, 1797
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear..."
~ Thomas Jefferson
"Religion and government will each exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together."
~ James Madison
Oops, doesn't fit the narrative? Sorry about that. (Not really)
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This has to end. My freedom to live is of a higher priority than your freedom to own a weapon of war. Full stop. Here's an originalist interpretation of the Constitution for you: the Second Amendment only applies to muskets. Kiss your semi-automatic handguns, assault rifles, and extended magazines goodbye, conservatives.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: WorldPopulationReview)
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: WorldPopulationReview)
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at the dance rave party, gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, garlic festival, Juneteenth celebration, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own house . . . Pretty much anywhere.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@briancollins3704 It's not murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above. Facts do suck, don't they?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Clarification: The numbers Kyle cites (42,000 children with gender dysphoria, 1,000 on puberty blockers, 282 total top surgeries, etc.) were only counting new cases in the year 2021 (which is already three years out-of-date). The total is actually substantially higher. Quoting that very same Reuters article: "Overall, the analysis found that at least 121,882 children ages 6 to 17 were diagnosed with gender dysphoria from 2017 through 2021," which implies that this is very likely an underestimate.
Indeed, the author admits that these tallies from the Komodo analysis cited are "likely an undercount because they didn't include treatment that wasn't covered by insurance and were linked to pediatric patients with a gender dysphoria diagnosis," a point Kyle easily would've noticed had he taken a minute to actually read the article as opposed to misinterpreting graphs.
It nevertheless remains true that gender dysphoria is a very rare phenomenon (about 0.17% of the total under 18 population in the United States on the low end), and the number who seek treatment for it is lower still. That said, it would be nice if Kyle corrected himself and presented the numbers fairly and accurately going forward.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
For everyone who says "guns aren't the issue, it's mental health," or "guns don't just get up one day, walk to a school, and fire themselves," I ask you: Would you apply that same reasoning to nuclear weapons? Certainly you don't believe that the world would be SAFER if civilians has access to weapons of mass destruction, do you? Then why do you REFUSE to acknowledge the empirical evidence that PROVES that the prevalence of guns in a society results in more gun violence and deaths? For every 100 people living in America, there are 120 firearms. By comparison, in the next closest country, Yemen (which is currently embroiled in civil war), there are 52 firearms for every 100 people. We are OBJECTIVELY the least safe country in the developed world in terms of the gun homicide metric. So, tell me, why not apply your flawed "guns don't kill people, people kill people" reasoning to other weapons of war as well? I eagerly await THAT answer.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Hunter B. We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Hm, if that's the case then why don't Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Iceland, Japan, or a number of other highly developed countries feel the need to arm themselves against a "tyrannical government"? In case you didn't know, they also happen to be the most prosperous societies on Earth. And they all have very strict gun laws. Maybe there's no need once the government actually works for the PEOPLE rather than the wealthy and the corporate elite? Also, who do you think we would be fighting if it got to that point? Personally, I cannot take anyone seriously who simultaneously believes the government could become "tyrannical" at any moment and that they need the means to defend themselves so as to (as Jefferson wrote) overthrow the government and establish a new one that fears the people, not dominates them (I'm totally on board with that, I lean towards anarchism) --- but who ALSO says that our military should be the most powerful in the world and that the bloated budget of $770 BILLION should be maintained or even increased year after year. Using history as our guide (the American Revolution, for example), who do they think the politicians or a dictator will use as his/her/their shield to remain in power? The MILITARY, of course. Did we already forget that it was the British army who defended their colonies in the Seven Years' War, and then when the colonies rebelled, that same military was used against them? You want the people who would potentially be defending a brutal dictator (the Commander-in-Chief) to have MORE sophisticated weapons and means of subjugation? Are you INSANE? Here at least the libertarians have an argument --- the gun-toting neoconservatives have no idea what they want in such a scenario. Hope the hearts of the people with the most firepower (our servicemen and women) are turned in our favor, I guess --- and there, I'm afraid to say, history is not on your side.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
A question: If abortion is a "states rights issue," what about gay marriage? Contraceptives? Sodomy? Miscegenation (interracial marriage)? None of those are codified in the Constitution. Heck, neither is the Supreme Court's power to strike down federal, state, and local laws that conflict with the Constitution (judicial review). That was established in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison.
So where does it end? If women don't even possess the right in half the states across this country to exercise basic autonomy over their own bodies, then there is no sense in which we can call ourselves a "free nation" (unlike the rest of the developed world, where abortion is LEGAL).
Now, all unplanned pregnancies that could have been terminated at an EARLY stage when the fetus is not capable of experiencing pain (i.e. prior to 18 weeks gestation) will result in unsafe back-alley abortions (jeopardizing the life of the fetus AND the mother), more children being raised in financially unstable households and further driving the economically disadvantaged into destitution, more dysfunctional families, AND overwhelming our woefully underresourced and inadequate foster care system, where kids will be raised by people who are not their biological parents. I don't know about you, but I would almost be GLAD to have been aborted in such situations.
If Republicans actually cared about babies, they would be proposing legislation to remedy the fact that the United States is still one of THREE countries in the WORLD that does not provide paid maternity leave by law. Congratulations conservatives, you have succeeded yet again in making the world a worse place to live. I hope you're satisfied.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@richardandrus2194 Sure, the high-speed rail has the advantage of saving time (though that remains to be seen, depending on how many stops are added). But what are you going to do once you arrive? Rent a car? L.A. is simply too big to bike around. Having been there many times in recent years (including just a couple of months ago), I can attest to the fact that it was designed with the intent that most people would be using their private automobiles to travel. Its network of freeways leave little doubt that this is the case. And by the way, one can listen to podcasts/YouTube videos and drive simultaneously. I do it all the time. From where I live, I can listen to two episodes of the Joe Rogan Experience and I'm there. Traffic isn't a nightmare most of the time (every hour isn't rush hour), the roads (I-5 and 99) are well maintained, and most modern cars are equipped with cruise control. I also have the added benefit of a portable (and modified) stereo system -- my Bose Quietcomfort earbuds simply don't compare. Neither do any set of headphones I have tried. Finally, there is this thing that you have to varying degrees in your own vehicle, and is all but nonexistent on public transit: privacy. And for the record, I support the high-speed rail in my home state of California: as I see it, anything that will reduce traffic (for me) is worth considering.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I'm a 22-year-old male who is quadruple-vaxxed, although to be fair I only received my last dose in early September (the bivalent booster) because I was forced to in order to remain in compliance with the California State University health code. Now for my driving credentials: I'm a hardcore utilitiarian, and I do my absolute best (most of the time -- I am vulnerable to the same character flaw as David here) to drive like one. That means that I don't obey the law just because it's the law. Rather, I consider what the intended purpose of the law is, which is generally to promote traffic safety. So like David, I almost always use my turn signal, but unlike David I often won't if there's literally nobody around to see it (although this isn't always the case; I've used my turn signal when turning from one empty desert road onto another in the middle of frickin' nowhere just out of habit. Whenever that happens, I just have to laugh at myself lol). This also means that, yes, I've intentionally ran a red light a couple of times (once twice in a row on my way to work -- I waited a good 10 seconds at the first before proceeding through the intersection, and the next traffic signal will turn red for absolutely no reason. Hey, I was in a rush 🤷♂️). I see no harm in doing it when there is literally NOBODY around, which was the case in every instance. On a final note, then, as a consequentialist I am fundamentally opposed to the notion that a law has to be obeyed simply because it's the law. Morality extends far beyond what could get you a ticket or land you in jail -- it's about making the world a better place, or, as the Father of Utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham once put it, promoting "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."
P.S. One of my pet peeves is referring to the left lane as a "passing lane" on highways where there are speed limits. If you're doing the maximum speed you can get away with by law enforcement (say, 12 mph over), and the doofus behind you wants to drive 20 mph over, are you expected to move over for them?! This, and taking away the incentive for people to weave in and out of traffic to reach their destination a few minutes faster, is exactly why I believe we HAVE to model our Interstate highway system after the German Autobahn (where only the leftmost lane has no speed limit). It makes little sense that a country that is little more than half the size of Texas but has a quarter of the U.S. population can safely operate highways with no speed limits (boasting a lower fatal collision rate per mile driven than we do), and yet we haven't implemented that here. You're telling me that it's safer to drive 150 mph between Berlin and Hamburg than it is out in the Nevada desert? BULLSH*T!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is second). Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun v-olence of any country in the world. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana.
Source: WorldPopulationReview
5
-
A question: If abortion is a "states rights issue," what about gay marriage? Contraceptives? Sodomy? Miscegenation (interracial marriage)? None of those are codified in the Constitution. Heck, neither is the Supreme Court's power to strike down federal, state, and local laws that conflict with the Constitution (judicial review). That was established in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison.
So where does it end? If women don't even possess the right in half the states across this country to exercise basic autonomy over their own bodies, then there is no sense in which we can call ourselves a "free nation" (unlike the rest of the developed world, where abortion is LEGAL).
Now, all unplanned pregnancies that could have been terminated at an EARLY stage when the fetus is not capable of experiencing pain (i.e. prior to 18 weeks gestation) will result in unsafe back-alley abortions (jeopardizing the life of the fetus AND the mother), more children being raised in financially unstable households and further driving the economically disadvantaged into destitution, more dysfunctional families, AND overwhelming our woefully underresourced and inadequate foster care system, where kids will be raised by people who are not their biological parents. I don't know about you, but I would almost be GLAD to have been aborted in such situations.
If Republicans actually cared about babies, they would be proposing legislation to remedy the fact that the United States is still one of THREE countries in the WORLD that does not provide paid maternity leave by law. Congratulations conservatives, you have succeeded yet again in making the world a worse place to live. I hope you're satisfied.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Hapkidoman442 There's one major flaw in your argument: they aren't protesting for equality. Statistically, more unarmed white people in the US are killed by police than black people, but they won't tell you that. They're using this as a backdrop for their Marxist agenda. The founder of BLM straight-up admitted that her and her staff are "trained Marxists." After seeing what happened in Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba and now Venezuela, if that doesn't scare you then nothing will. Their demands are a direct threat to everything this country stands for. This isn't about police brutality, it's about creating more chaos until the eventual revolution takes over and they are able to construct their Communist dictatorship. This isn't an issue contained to just black people; Tony Timpa and Daniel Shaver have both died brutally at the hands of police, yet you have never heard of them. Is that equality? How about the black officer David Dorn who was shot in cold blood by these "peaceful protesters?" Does it look like they CARE about black lives to you?! They complain about George Floyd all day long, but the dozens of black people shot in Chicago every week, many of them innocent, they pay no attention to. You know why? Because they have an agenda BEYOND "equality." That's plain as day to anyone who bothers to research the relevant statistics on this matter.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: WorldPopulationReview)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at the gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own house . . . Pretty much anywhere.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
ProjectVeritas DotCom Do you even know what causes climate change? Under natural conditions it takes thousands of years, but humans have f***ed that up on a massive scale. We've built countless factories that spew carbon dioxide all day long, constructed literally billions of vehicles that emit GHG's, and bred cows and other livestock far beyond rates that would be sustainable in the wild, releasing tons of methane gas (which is 26 times worse than CO2). Before they were outlawed, hydroflourocarbons tore an actual hole in the ozone layer, which serves to block harmful UV radiation from the Sun. This is a very well-understood phenomenon, and it's real. If we want to maintain our current standard of living, we have to act fast. For the sake of our own species, along with sustainability, we have no choice but to overcome our dependence on fossil fuels. Educate yourself on the science before propagating your nonsense all over the Internet, exposing unsubstantiated claims to impressionable people. Read Lawrence Krauss's new book, or take an Environmental Science class, and get back to me.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Jonathan Stringer Vaccines saved literally hundreds of millions of people from smallpox, measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, polio, tetanus, diptheria, and influenza, among many other dangerous diseases. And all of a sudden the same technology that eradicated smallpox, at one time the most deadly disease in the world, is exacerbating the spread of a virus? Tell me, how much do you know about history or medical science? Not even enough to pass at a 3rd grade level, it seems.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@El.Matamoros. And what has the Bible given us besides justification for genocide, r-pe, m-rder, abusing women, opposing basic human rights, and over 1,000 years of some of the strictest oppression that included burning witches, persecuting and executing those who didn't fall in line via numerous Inquisitions, untold numbers of deaths and incomprehensible levels of suffering by starting wars (like the Crusades), quashing all opposition, justification for some of the most authoritarian regimes in history, and almost zero technological and scientific progress? That it gave a some people false hope and encouraged a few to help the poor? Wow, what a track record...
4
-
4
-
4
-
@ripdiptatterchip3851 Honestly, you made the wrong choice. If you had to choose between working 3 jobs or making unemployment, you should go for the latter every time (assuming the compensation is about the same). 3 jobs is ridiculous. No American should have to work that hard just to get by. And most likely, whoever the executive is at those companies you're working for is making bank off all your hard work. Not exactly fair, is it? I say you reduce yourself to 1 job that pays a liveable wage ($15/hour might not be enough depending on where you live), and your lazy brother gets off his @ss and finds a job too. I'm 21, and I've been working through this whole thing as well, on top of college (but I "only" have one part-time job). I probably could've just taken unemployment indefinitely, but I applied when the pandemic first began and was compensated for the 5 weeks I was furloughed, and I didn't miss my opportunity to get my old job back. Feeling like I earned the money is much more satisfying, but that alone is no excuse for people not having enough to put a roof over their heads while one man is rich enough to singlehandedly launch himself into space.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@s_pink Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
4
-
4
-
4
-
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at the gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own house . . . Pretty much anywhere.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
A question: If abortion is a "states rights issue," what about gay marriage? Contraceptives? Sodomy? Miscegenation (interracial marriage)? None of those are codified in the Constitution. Heck, neither is the Supreme Court's power to strike down federal, state, and local laws that conflict with the Constitution (judicial review). That was established in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison. So where does it end? If women don't even possess the right in half the states across this country to exercise basic autonomy over their own bodies, then there is no sense in which we can call ourselves a "free nation" (unlike the rest of the developed world, where abortion is LEGAL). Now, all unplanned pregnancies that could have been terminated at an EARLY stage when the fetus is not capable of experiencing pain (i.e. prior to 18 weeks gestation) will result in unsafe back-alley abortions (jeopardizing the life of the fetus AND the mother), more children being raised in financially unstable households and further driving the economically disadvantaged into destitution, more dysfunctional families, AND overwhelming our woefully underresourced and inadequate foster care system, where kids will be raised by people who are not their biological parents. I don't know about you, but I would almost be GLAD to have been aborted in such situations. On top of all that, the world has just gained an extra mouth to feed, bringing Malthusian predictions about a dystopian future back into the spotlight. Congratulations conservatives, you have succeeded yet again in making the world a worse place to live. I hope you're satisfied.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is second). Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun v-olence of any country in the world. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Same here. I will be at a junior level next year (roughly) because I changed majors from Business Administration to Political Science. I will turn 23 next month. The key, as I've learned, is to find what you're passionate about. If it's a career goal, then pursue whatever path (college, trade school, military, internship, etc.) will get you there the quickest while still being doable. If it's an area of study (as it is with me -- I'm still not certain which job I would like to have, though I like keeping my options open), then major in it. Even if it seems useless or a career where it's relevant seems hard to obtain, many employers (from what I hear) will hire you for the simple fact that you have a degree. Keep it up, don't lose hope. There's no time limit for graduation (unless you're receiving certain kinds of financial aid).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
4:30 Hey Kyle, I was one of those young dudes you were talking about who just got into politics and found The Daily Wire, Brandon Tatum's channel, PragerU, and other conservative outlets and fell for their ideas hook, line and sinker. It's so easy to fall into the mindset of "Pffft, look at what these liberals are doing, saying that men can become women and all that nonsense" and TOTALLY ignore any issue of actual substance (healthcare, homelessness, wealth inequality, student debt, etc.). The right wins by not telling you what their strategy is on these ideas (they don't have one except "yAy CaPitAliSm") and instead directing your attention to things that most Americans can agree with (death penalty, anti-socialism, fetus is a human being, not transitioning children, and so on). It wasn't until I discovered your channel that I realized the spell I was under and where our outrage should REALLY be directed (American war crimes in the Middle East, NSA spying, and the scam that is the health insurance industry, just to list a few examples). Thank you for that, from the bottom of my heart. You've converted me, and I am (almost certainly) never going back, although I may moderate on a few things as time goes by.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: WorldPopulationReview)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This has to end. My freedom to live is of a higher priority than your freedom to own a weapon of war. Full stop.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at the July 4th parade, gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, garlic festival, Juneteenth celebration, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own home . . . Pretty much anywhere.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Except that abortion is not murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@auglybluething1995 Yeah, and you know what else Jesus said? He said to c*t off your limbs or g*uge out your eye if they cause you to "sin" (Matthew 5:28, Mark 9:43), or b*at some sl*ves more than others (Luke 12:46), or h*te your family (Matthew 10:34) and yourself (Luke 14:26), and b*rn anyone who disbelieves alive (John 15:16). Also, women can't exercise any authority over men (1 Timothy 2:11), and you should let those who steal from you or sue you have even more than what they take (Matthew 5:11). Finally, anyone who even questions the legitimacy of Jesus' s*crifice is sent to hell for eternity, with a "gnashing of teeth" and "wailing" (Matthew 13:41). Is this a good way to organize society? I wouldn't even raise my kids like this, let alone rally an entire society around this dogsh*t. We can find plenty of morality by embracing nature and deriving our "oughts" using a scientific approach, as we do in economics and modern medicine. There will always be disputes, because there are few (if any) moral absolutes, but if we can pull together we can get it done. And, I argue, we have been doing it all along, by applying faith rather than evidence. If you ask me, I find the latter to be far more convincing.
Wow, apparently this is so bad that the algorithm keeps deleting this comment. Thanks YouTube, you're helping me prove my point
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ianwalton284 Yes I do want it legalized. You know why? Because Breonna Taylor's death should have NEVER happened. You know what her crime was? Distributing WEED. We're not even talking about hard-core drugs here that can actually KILL you like meth or heroine. Nope, just old fashioned marijuana. This has gotten out of control. THIS is what Black Lives Matter should be protesting. And if they were, I would be out there on the streets joining them RIGHT NOW. But they want to abolish the police, the nuclear family, and instill Marxist values. I can't get on board with that, because those aren't solutions that will work. If we legalize ALL drugs, and make it so that anyone who has had a substance detected in their system (indicating addiction) can obtain them LEGALLY (and exclusively them), then the black market will be DESTROYED. You know why? Because the prices for the LEGAL equivalent will be MUCH lower and, yep, LEGAL. Therefore, no one will have to ROB, STEAL, and KILL to get their fix. It's unfortunate that these people are addicted in the first place, but right now there is an INCENTIVE to get CHILDREN hooked on illegal drugs. If it was legalized the incentive would DISAPPEAR because the black market would be crushed. Therefore, in the long run, by making them "quasi-legal," we are able to REDUCE the number of people who are addicted. Health professionals and pharmacists can also prepare them with absolute precision, and can administer and prescribe them safely to prevent overdoses. It's a win-win situation. However, we must continue to hold Big Pharma like Purdue accountable for getting so many people addicted in the first place. That should have never happened, and we need to take steps to ensure that history doesn't repeat itself.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
YouTube WantsToSilenceMe Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as an entity that exists over time, or is self-aware (conscious, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
DJ DaveRave aka Dave Gordon You mean like this?
"Then he said to them, 'This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: "Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor."'" (Exodus 32:17 NIV)
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 15:17,18 NIV)
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." (1 Samuel 15:2 NIV)
"Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." (Psalms 137:9 NIV)
"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.” (Hosea 13:16 NIV)
Some good ol' "Biblical morality" for you.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Ah, so the Bible is your favorite collection of ancient myths and fairy tales, huh? Nice. Personally I have an affinity for Homer's the Iliad and the Odyssey, but the Vedas, the Pyramid texts, the Coffin texts, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Instruction of Amenemope, the Book of Caverns, the Book of Gates, the Amdaut, the Book of the Heavenly Cow, the Code of Hammurabi, the Kesh Temple Hymn, the Popol Vuh, the Avesta, the Koran, and the writings of Herodotus are all good too.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Fun fact: The most prosperous societies on Earth are "socialist." I'm talking about Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the Netherlands, just to name a few. Do you mean to say that every time the government spends our taxpayer dollars on HELPING the American people by providing them with basic necessities that every other developed country already provides (universal healthcare, childcare, lower prescription drug costs, a liveable wage, paid maternity leave, etc.) instead of what our corrupt politicians have been spending it on thus far (endless war, the military-industrial complex, weapons for foreign countries, corporate subsidies, Wall Street bailouts, and so on) is "socialism"?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
God that was hard to watch. Kari Lake is such a joke. As an American, I would like to apologize to all my British friends on behalf of the United States for sheer ignorance and shameless deflection on display here. Piers was right about almost everything: guns should be regulated like cars, Fox News is not a "globalist news network" (whatever the hell that means), vaccines are SAFE and EFFECTIVE, and both the 2020 and 2022 elections were free and fair.
On the guns point, the comparison to cars is patently absurd for the simple reason that cars serve an essential function (transportation), while guns do not. Europeans get by just fine unarmed. They don't have 199 mass shootings in 127 days. Gun control is constitutional; the first four words of the Second Amendment literally speak of "a well-regulated militia." (Gun nuts beware: if Roe isn't safe, neither is D.C. vs. Heller.)
As for Fox News, the network is owned and operated by a 92-year-old billionaire, Rupert Murdoch. Could you imagine a conservative politican downplaying their influence or discrediting them as "globalist" 20 years ago, 10 years ago, or, hell, even 5 years ago? I can't. Not only are they the largest conservative network in the U.S., they are the largest network period in terms of total viewership. When right-wing politicians have drifted so far off the spectrum that even Fox is too unappealing to them, you know that they have lost any grip on reality. She just insulted all Americans who watch Fox for their daily news briefing with that unhinged rant.
The vaccines point hardly deserves any mention. Yes, the world shut down over the worst pandemic in a century. And guess what? It's all reopened. All this bluster about "government tyranny" and the "forfeiting of rights" was total nonsense. Millions have died from COVID-19, how many lost their lives due to the vaccine? Only a fraction of a fraction of a single percent of those whose lives were spared because of it. Anecdotes are mostly useless, but take this for what it's worth: I'm a 22-year-old male who was "jabbed" four times, and I feel better than ever. So spare me your antiscience bullsh*t, Kari.
Finally, let me remind blockhead Karen here that Trump's legal team challenged the election results over SIXTY times in court, and lost every single case. Even judges HE appointed laughed it out of the courtroom. Numerous audits, including a Republican-led one in Arizona, have concluded that Joe Biden won the 2020 election fair and square and that, yes, he did receive approximately 81 million votes. As for blockhead Karen's own election, her legal team was recently SANCTIONED by the court for spouting the very same lies she shamelessly utters here. Her abject failure to prove her case in court speaks for itself. Keep huffing that copium, Kari, see how far that gets you. If this is the best the GOP has to offer, we're effectively no longer a democracy (given the duopoly), because the only option for the sane, rational voter is "not-them."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
What Lindsey is referring to when he says that "50 of 53 European countries ban abortion before 15 weeks" are elective abortions, i.e. where the mother wants an abortion for no reason whatsoever. A simple Google search will show you that most of these countries, in fact, have exceptions for "mental/psychological/physical health" of the mother, which essentially allows doctors to sign off on it if the patient answers "yes" to a simple question along the lines of "will having this child cause you significant mental distress?" And on top of that, the three countries that allow abortion past 15 weeks are Sweden, Iceland, and the Netherlands -- plus the U.K. because it is not generally enforced until 24 weeks. The Netherlands allows abortion-on-demand until 24 weeks, but I personally favor the Swedish model which prohibits it after 18 weeks -- the estimated point at which the fetal nervous system is developed to feel pain -- with medical exceptions for fetal inviability and life/health of the mother.
If I were in the Senate, I would make Lindsey here an offer: bump up your limit on abortions to 18 weeks (with medical exceptions), and apply it equally across ALL states such that federal law supersedes state law. In other words, create a single national standard where abortion is legal until 18 weeks in ALL states, rather than this patchwork we have now. I'll gladly "sacrifice" late-term abortions in states like California and New York if he's willing to override outright bans in Texas and Kentucky (and all the others). The question is, is he consistent and honest enough to agree to such a proposal, or is his actual agenda to ban abortion nationwide and any movement away from such a goal he would vigorously oppose, even if it would (according to him) emulate the European law he ostensibly holds in such high esteem.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@bradynlotterman8164 This "abortion is murder" argument has to stop, and it has to stop now. The truth is that "murder" is killing that is against the law. We kill hundreds of thousands of livestock each day (cows, pigs, chickens, etc.), but we don't murder them. A 12-week-old fetus, on the other hand, is less sentient and aware of pain than a squirrel. There is no moral justification for offering legal protection to a living organism that hasn't achieved sufficient development to feel pain. Most people realize this, so some them turn to the "humans have souls and animals don't" argument (which is false, souls don't exist, and religion has no place in public policy regardless), or that human DNA is somehow special by virtue of the fact that its arranged so as to produce a human. Except that our DNA is composed of exactly the same molecules (notably, purines and pyrimidines) as every other organism on the planet. Scientifically, there is virtually no way of rationally justifying the banishment of abortion because it's a form of "murder." To do that, one has to turn to the antiquated superstitions of one faith or another, and that's when one has conceded the argument. A rational discussion has to be based on facts and logical reasoning, and when those are sacrificed by one side the other wins by default. In so doing, one has simply refused to adhere to the rules of the debate. The Founders wrote the Establishment Clause into the First Amendment of the Constitution specifically to safeguard against theocracy (essentially what they just escaped from), but it seems that a particular faction would rather rewrite history than acknowledge that fact.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jordanmunk3041 Ah, so the Bible is your favorite collection of ancient myths and fairy tales, huh? Nice. Personally I have an affinity for Homer's the Iliad and the Odyssey, but the Vedas, the Pyramid texts, the Coffin texts, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Instruction of Amenemope, the Book of Caverns, the Book of Gates, the Amdaut, the Book of the Heavenly Cow, the Code of Hammurabi, the Kesh Temple Hymn, the Popol Vuh, the Avesta, and the writings of Herodotus are all good too.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@salmonkill7 I watched The Daily Wire for 4 years, that goon Michael Knowles doesn't know ANYTHING with regard to science. He feeds on culture war nonsense, as does his cohort Matt Walsh. It's entertaining enough, but when it comes to securing a safe future for all of humanity, their content and opinions are abysmal. This is an issue that needs to be treated with due seriousness, because the future of the human race literally depends on it. Even if you deny what climate scientists have been telling us for decades, and is now the accepted scientific consensus (in the same league as the "germ theory of disease"), we will eventually run out of fossil fuels. Then what? Our only hope is to start research into clean, alternative sources of energy now, so that we have a head start and can adequately prepare for the worst-case scenario. I fully agree that we have to work with the facts, not the speculations that this or that climate scientist may have about future events. And the facts tell us that a transition is inevitable --- or we'll return to the Iron Age. Upgrading our power grid and incentivizing innovation into new sources of energy should be a top priority regardless of political affiliation. We may not destroy the planet (it's seen far worse than us), but we'll sure as hell take ourselves out if we don't take proper precautions --- and many forms of life with us. And that's a future I think all of us want to avoid.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@EcceHomo1088 Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This has to end. My freedom to live is of a higher priority than your freedom to own a weapon of war. Full stop. Here's an originalist interpretation of the Constitution for you: the Second Amendment only applies to muskets. Kiss your semi-automatic handguns, assault rifles, and extended magazines goodbye, conservatives.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@alaskayoung3413 Except that abortion is not murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@yukonjack. You're saying "energy independence" like it's a bad thing. And Afghanistan wasn't a "disaster" (I thought you distrusted Mainstream Media?); we evacuated over 100,000 people in just a few weeks, making it the largest airlift in U.S. HISTORY. Only somewhere between 100 and 200 Americans remain, and most of them are dual citizens. They were warned multiple time since April to leave. What are we going to do, drag them out? Despite what the media tells you, the withdrawal from Afghanistan was an OVERWHELMING SUCCESS, and it took Ol' Joe to stand up to the establishment and finally pull us out. His predecessor, as we all know, cucked out despite making endless promises. And finally, are you really going to blame all your woes on poor brown people coming over the border? Are they the reason the workforce isn't unionized and underpaid, or that 30 million Americans don't have health insurance, or that 500,000 Americans (many of whom are veterans) are out sleeping on the streets? Are they responsible for any of it? Of course not. And by the way, you should probably know that Biden has deported tens of thousands of Haitian migrants. This whole nonsense about an "open border" is all one big lie pushed by "news" outlets like Fox News, OANN, and Newsmax to get their viewers riled up and distract attention from what's really going on --- namely that wealth inequality is getting drastically worse, the middle class has far less purchasing power than they did 60 years ago (and for the first time in history have less collective wealth than the top 1%), and no one is doing anything about it because our politicians are all corrupt and bought off by billionaires and their corporations. That's the real problem here, but sure, blame José crossing the border for the fact that you're living paycheck to paycheck while Bezos can buy himself another megayacht. Yep, that's the ticket.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Argenta Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Viability doesn't mean anything. A fetus is potentially viable at 20 weeks if you live in New York City and have access to the most advanced intensive care technology, but isn't until about 26 weeks at the earliest if you live in, say, North Dakota. Viability makes no moral difference whatsoever. What does have moral significance is whether the fetus can suffer, and that isn't possible until around 18 weeks. And even then, from a utilitarian approach the momentary suffering of the fetus will have to be weighed against the potential pain it will cause the mother --- in gestation, to give birth, and to care for it for a minimum of 18 years --- as well as the pain it will experience throughout the course of its life and whether its life, on balance, will in some sense be "worth living." 15 is too early and 24 is too late to start restrictions in my opinion, but the idea that a woman will be forced to travel a thousand miles just to undergo a 15-minute procedure is absolutely absurd. If you don't like abortion, the answer is simple: DON'T HAVE ONE! But neither you nor anyone else has any right to prohibit others from getting one without sufficient moral jusification.
3
-
@trevorthesorcerer Did you really just say "socialism does not work"? Buddy, have you been to Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, or Iceland?! Those are some of the best countries to live in the entire world, because they actually CARE about their people! They take measures to ensure their well-being (through healthcare, education, social safety net, etc.) and give them the tools they need to succeed. These tools are called "social rights," which is why these countries are often called "social democracies." Right now, they're kicking our @ss on indexes of happiness and average prosperity. The World Happiness Index is just one out of many sources I can cite on this. As long as the budget is managed appropriately, "socialism" as most Americans use the term will NOT inevitably destroy our economy like it did Venezuela's. That's just an excuse the r*cist and apathetic Republicans (and their media propoganda outlets) use to swindle their voters into supporting policies that actively make lives harder for the poor and downtrodden. I'm willing to bet the CEO of Raytheon matters more to them than the 10 million poorest Americans combined, because at least the former can afford to contribute to their campaigns in a meaningful way. They're put in Washington to satisfy their donors and the billionaire class, and nothing more.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Maybe. I don't know what Trump's answer would be, but I can give you mine. And that is: It's up to the medical experts. The AAP and CDC each released statements in 2012 endorsing the procedure (for prophylactic reasons), and concluded that it is an appropriate matter for parents along with their doctors to decide. Do you trust the medical community or not? I do in all matters, not just in transitioning children and vaccines. (The science on this, by the way, is very clear. Look at the studies themselves if you want the details. Denying their validity, such as by claiming they're "flawed" without evidence, is akin to denying climate change without having reviewed any of the supporting facts and data underlying the theory.)
However, I believe in four reforms should be enacted: 1) any financial incentive needs to be eliminated (as would happen under single-payer healthcare), 2) doctors should have the option of refusing to perform if they have a moral objection (like in the U.K.), so both parents AND the doctor must agree, 3) parents must request it (so the default is that it is not performed), and 4) regulations require that the surgery is performed by a trained medical professional in a sterilized environment under anesthesia (thereby outlawing the traditional Jewish method, where most de@ths occur). Hence, ideally, it would remain legal but fewer and fewer parents would choose it, and eventually as the culture shifts it would fall out of favor entirely -- exactly the same as what happened in Western Europe and throughout most of the Commonwealth.
And, please, don't consider responding with an objection that "it reduces s-xual pleasure," because the highest quality evidence consistently finds that it does not in the vast majority of men (such as VMMC trials in Africa and the Dominican Republic) -- and, indeed, having researched this topic for four-and-a-half years myself, this aligns perfectly with the numerous accounts I've seen from men who have had the surgery as adults (both for medical reasons and not), and who consequently experienced both sides. My own speculative explanation for this (based on research) is that, in most cases, much of the inner lining is retained, sensitivity to temperature is more important than light-touch, the brain "adjusts" to the deficit over a period of about six months to one year (many men have testified to this), the mechanics differ post-surgery, and the "20,000 nerve endings" figure often cited is a wild overestimate based on a sample size of ONE that employed shoddy statistics.
For all these reasons, I believe it is more accurately described as "modification" rather than "mutilation." Having invested literally hundreds of hours of my time reading about this topic, I am quite confident that I am more qualified to speak on this than any of you, and these are the conclusions that I have reached. (And, for the record, I do not intend on having the surgery performed on any of my children.) If you're curious to learn more, I recommend the following sources: the Canadian Pediatric Society has released a fair, balanced, and thorough assessment that was reaffirmed in 2021; for an expert's opinion, member of the American Urological Association Dr. Aaron Spitz has written about this in some detail; and, finally, for those curious about the ethics of the issue (particularly those with a consequentialist utilitiarian bent, like myself), atheist antinatalist South African philosopher David Benatar (who, an activist himself, writes frequently on men's rights issues) has much insightful commentary to offer as well. Happy reading.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@TakeHit0 Embryos/fetuses have no rights because they aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Japan, Singapore, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, South Korea, and a number of other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws in the world, and also the lowest rates of gun v-olence in the world. Meanwhile, the U.S. has more guns-per-capita than Yemen (which is #2), and also has the highest rates of gun v-olence in the developed world --- by far. That is not a coincidence.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@vgames89 There's a difference between boycotting a product or criticizing a company for taking political action and what this video brought to our attention. For example: the left wasn't too happy when the CEO of MyPillow spoke about God interfering in the 2016 election to put Trump in office, and I can totally understand why. So I'm sure quite a few of them threw away their pillows or burned them soon afterward. Okay fine, it's your property you have the right to do that. What you don't have the right to do is discriminate against other people because they have different beliefs, by firing them, harassing them, etc. The best course of action you can take is have a civil conversation or debate, and try to convince him/her that s/he is in the wrong. Too many leftists don't seem to understand this, unfortunately (seriously, just watch footage of AntiFa rallies). Also, the left owns Big Tech (Google/YouTube, Facebook/Instagram, Twitter, etc.) and the Mainstream Media, putting conservatives at a considerable disadvantage comparatively speaking.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@bigoof6369 Socialism, as in social democracy? Yes. The Scandanavian countries prove it. Communism as in USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, or Venezuela? No. Not even close. One is libertarian, the other is an extreme authoritarian planned economy that will never function. As for "pure" Communism, it has never been tried, but I'm starting to believe it never will --- because it's impossible. It's a pipedream. There will always be hierarchies, and there will always be people who are stuck at the bottom. We can't all be equal, materially or otherwise --- but we can sure as hell try, by slowly building a system that is more highly regulated and more fair, that enhances the best aspects of capitalism (fair competition, free trade, etc.) and minimizes the worst (wealth inequality, monopolies and corporatism, crony capitalism, and so on). That's social democracy.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Ah, so the Bible is your favorite collection of ancient myths and fairy tales, huh? Nice. Personally I have an affinity for Homer's the Iliad and the Odyssey, but the Vedas, the Pyramid texts, the Coffin texts, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Instruction of Amenemope, the Book of Caverns, the Book of Gates, the Amdaut, the Book of the Heavenly Cow, the Code of Hammurabi, the Kesh Temple Hymn, the Popol Vuh, the Avesta, and the writings of Herodotus are all good too.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@(WatchingTheEndUnfold) Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
1. Admit that you've done wrong.
2. Realize the penalty for your transgressions, and that you deserve eternal torment in an evil lair.
3. Believe that Merlin visited humanity a thousands years ago, and spared us all of much grief and destruction as payment for your wrongdoing.
4. Understand that asking for forgiveness is eternal, and that you are only required to do it once.
5. Make concessions, and sacrifice a goat so that the almighty wizard Merlin will spare you.
See how easy this is? I honestly have no idea how people are capable of believing such bullsh-t. I have done nothing unethical, and neither have you --- unless you have been complicit in m-rder, lied under oath, failed to keep your promises, treated other people disrespectfully when it wasn't warranted, stolen property, committed s-xual assault, or in any manner imposed unnecessary suffering on any conscious creature. If you have done any of these things, you have reason to feel guilty --- unless you have rectified them. Because in the end, that's all we can do. There is no force that will hold you responsible for your actions outside of yourself and human-generated institutions (e.g. the legal system), and if you demur you are deluding yourself. Any deity that has deemed you deserving of eternal torment for jerking your pee-pee or not believing in its existence due to a rational consideration of the evidence is not one worthy of our worship. Period.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: WorldPopulationReview)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Well it's already saved over 100,000 lives (including my grandmother's I'm sure, she's not in very good shape), so even if that is a direct quote (and I honestly doubt it is) he was only exaggerating. Of course he didn't mean to say that the vaccine is 100% effective (especially against the Delta variant), but if telling people that their lives are statistically infinitely more likely to be saved getting the vaccine, I don't see the harm in it. 700,000+ lives lost, millions suffering from long-term symptoms (chronic fatigue, brain fog, higher risk of blood clots, reduced lung capacity, loss of sense of taste and smell, etc.), I'll take my chances with the vaccine over the virus any day, thank you very much.
3
-
3
-
Let's evaluate that claim, shall we?
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “mutilation” as follows: ”An act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal.” Alternatively, the same dictionary also defines it as “an act or instance of damaging or altering something radically.” Hence, radical or severe “damage” or “alteration” is a necessary component in order to satisfy the most commonly accepted definitions of “mutilation.” With that in mind, let’s proceed with the argument.
Any proposed "ban" is up to the medical experts. The AAP and CDC each released statements (in 2012 and 2014, respectively) endorsing the procedure for prophylactic reasons, and concluded that it is an appropriate matter for parents along with their doctors to decide. Do you trust the medical community or not? I do in all matters, not just in transitioning children, abortion, COVID-19, and vaccines. (The science on this, by the way, is very clear. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet; stick to the hard evidence, not propaganda. Otherwise, you're no better (epistemologically speaking) than a climate denier who has become convinced by sites such as WattsUpWithThat. Look at the studies themselves if you want the details. Simply dismissing them out of hand, such as by claiming they're "flawed" without evidence, is akin to denying climate change without having reviewed any of the supporting facts and data underlying the theory.)
However, I believe four reforms should be enacted: 1) any financial incentive needs to be eliminated (as would happen under single-payer healthcare), but the cost (~$150-200) must be borne by the parents due to the surgery's elective nature, 2) doctors should have the option of refusing to perform if they have a moral objection (like in the U.K.), so both parents AND the doctor must agree, 3) parents must specifically request it (so the default is that it is not performed), and 4) regulations require that the surgery is executed by a trained medical professional in a sterilized environment under anesthesia via block injection (thereby outlawing the traditional Jewish method, where most de@ths occur. And, as an aside, the concern about the link between acetaminophen use in pregnancy, infancy, and early childhood and ASD is valid, but as of now the AAP, AAFP, and FDA still recommend it for fever and pain reduction in babies). Hence, ideally, it would remain legal, as it is in literally every other country in the world (though Iceland (lol) has made attempts to outlaw it), but fewer and fewer parents would choose it, and as the culture shifts it would eventually fall out of favor entirely -- the exact same process as what unfolded in parts of Europe and throughout most of the Commonwealth (and is currently happening in South Korea as well).
As for why it must be performed in infancy and cannot wait until adulthood when the person can give consent, which is a reasonable objection, the reasons are numerous. First, the risk of complications are much lower at this stage (~.5% compared to ~3%) and are predominantly minor. Second, some benefits (such as lower risk of penile cancer and UTI's in infancy and early childhood, which can cause permanent liver damage) are only conferred when it's done in infancy. Third, the inconvenience is greatly lessened -- recovery time is shorter, there are no stitches involved, and there is no need to take time off work or abstain from s-xual activity. Finally, some studies have found that there is a slightly higher chance of negative impact to function in nonmedical cases when the surgery is done later in life (perhaps attributable to greater complications), though this is in dispute due to the low quality of the evidence. It also helps, of course, that babies don't form memories of the experience -- a fact that many men who consider it later in life are quite jealous of (29% of uncut men wish they were, as opposed to 10% of cut men that wish they weren't, according to a YouGov poll from 2015). Impacts to psychological functioning, by the way, are pure speculation and a complete myth, and are, once again, utterly unsupported by the evidence. (There's more proof, one might argue, that it increases the odds of winning a Nobel Prize.)
3
-
And, please, don't consider responding with an objection that "it reduces s-xual pleasure," because the highest quality evidence consistently finds that it does not in the vast majority of men (such as VMMC randomized controlled trials in Africa and the Dominican Republic) -- and, indeed, having researched this topic for four-and-a-half years myself, this is perfectly consistent with the numerous accounts I've seen from men who have had the surgery as adults (both for medical reasons and not), and who consequently experienced both sides. My own speculative explanation for this (based on research) is that, in most cases, much of the inner lining is retained (i.e. "mid" to "high" cuts are the norm), sensitivity to temperature is more important than light-touch, the brain "adjusts" to the deficit over a period of about six months to one year (some men have testified to this), and the mechanics differ post-surgery. Moreover, the oft-cited figure of "20,000 nerve endings" is a wild overestimate based on a sample size of ONE that employed shoddy statistics (by a convicted fraudster and HIV/AIDS denialist, no less).
(Side note: I am well aware of the history of the practice in America, but it is quite irrelevant to the discussion as it pertains to ethics; claiming that it's wrong merely because the person to start the trend, William Harvey Kellogg, believed that it would prevent m@sturbation is functionally equivalent to condemning Planned Parenthood because its founder, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist. Comparisons to FGM are also not apt: the latter offers negligible or no medical, health, hygiene, or aesthetic benefits, and is quite often much more severe. I'm an atheist, but I'm also willing to acknowledge when certain beliefs, practices, rituals, etc. are beneficial based on scientific findings, or at least not harmful, as are other critical thinkers like Stephen Moreton, Martha Nussbaum and Sam Harris. Also, the historical evidence strongly indicates that the trend only caught on decades later after initially introduced, during both World Wars to maintain hygiene in trench warfare, but that's another matter.)
"Our risk-benefit analysis showed that benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by up to 200 to 1. We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime. Wide-ranging evidence from surveys, physiological measurements, and the anatomical location of penile sensory receptors responsible for sexual sensation strongly and consistently suggest that male circumcision has no detrimental effect on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure." (Emphasis added.) That is according to a meta-analysis published in the World Journal of Clinical Pediatrics in 2017.
"The hypothesis of inferior male sexual function following circumcision is not supported by the findings of this systematic review. The popular narrative that male circumcision results in sexual dysfunction does not seem to be supported by evidence." (Shabanzadeh) Taken directly from a review published in the Danish Medical Journal in 2016, which is run by the Danish Medical Association — not exactly an organization biased in favor of this operation. Furthermore, "the Danish Health Authorities do not recommend a law-enforced ban of non-medical circumcisions in Denmark based on these low rates of short-term complications." (Emphasis mine.) Hm, it's almost like the evidence doesn't support the notion that circumcision is harmful and should be banned, and even Scandinavian societies have recognized this. Go figure.
"Male circumcision for non-therapeutic reasons appears to be practiced with relative regularity and frequency throughout Europe . . . [and is] the only scenario, among the topics discussed in the present chapter, in which the outcome of balancing between the right to physical integrity and religious freedom is in favor of the latter." (Italics mine.) From a study commissioned by the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (various authors).
You want something more recent? Here you go. "Despite the conflicting data reported in articles, the weight of the scientific evidence suggests there is not sufficient data to establish a direct association between male circumcision and sexual dysfunction." (Emphasis added.) Quoted directly from the results of a meta-analysis performed by Oxford's Department of Sexual Health and published by Oxford University Press in 2023.
For all these reasons, I believe it is more accurately described as "modification" rather than "mutilation" (this latter descriptor being about as felicitous as labeling abortion "murder," and employed for essentially the same purpose: eliciting an irrational, emotional response). Having invested literally hundreds of hours of my time reading about this topic (hence the long dissertation chock-full of medical information), I am quite confident that I'm more qualified to speak on it than anyone who might be reading this, and these are the conclusions that I have reached. (And, for the record, I do not intend on having the surgery performed on any of my children because I personally believe bodily autonomy concerns outweigh the benefits -- after all, modifications are still, almost by definition, unnecessary. Others may reasonably hold a different view.) If you're curious to learn more, I recommend the following sources: the Canadian Pediatric Society has released a fair, balanced, and thorough assessment that was reaffirmed in 2024 (though not as comprehensive as the AAP's); for an expert's opinion, member of the American Urological Association Dr. Aaron Spitz has written about this in some detail; and, finally, for those curious about the ethics of the issue (particularly those with a consequentialist utilitarian bent, like myself), atheist antinatalist South African philosopher David Benatar (who, an activist himself, writes frequently on men's rights issues) has much insightful commentary to offer as well. Happy reading.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It's pretty obvious what happened here. The intruder (David DePape) broke into the home, as seen on another video (not shown here), using the hammer and pulling the glass towards him, hence the reason it appeared to be shattered from the inside. Realizing that Nancy wasn't home, he then proceeded to threaten Paul Pelosi. Mr. Pelosi makes a call to 911 disguised as a call elsewhere (a food order perhaps), per the audio tapes that were also released, and only gives David's name to the dispatcher after asking him for it (strongly suggesting that they weren't already familiar with one another). When the police show up at the front door for a "wellness check" (not really expecting anything serious), Mr. Pelosi continues his act that he and David are "friends" so as to not aggravate him, but still attempts to take the hammer away from him. David DePape, on the other hand, realizes he's been duped and at the last minute decides to follow through with an attack on Mr. Pelosi, despite the fact that he wasn't his intended target. The police quickly react and arrest DePape, and then attend to Mr. Pelosi's injuries. I hope this clears up any confusion, especially for those who seemed to have adopted a philosophy of anti-empricism and conspiratorial thinking, of which one side of the political spectrum is inarguably more guilty than the other.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Flexinciple When life begins is irrelevant. Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@isturbo1984 The GOP are do-nothings, you got that right. They're up there grandstanding about Doctor Seuss, Potato Head, and Big Bird while Democrats (most of them, anyway) are actively fighting to provide the people with universal childcare, tuition-free community college, child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, homecare/elder care, paid family and medical leave, Medicare expansion for hearing, vision, and dental, funding for clean energy infrastructure, and increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans and corporations who have dodged them for far too long (and exploited their workers) to pay for all of it. Quite the disparity there. Some of them are fighting for us; most aren't.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Wtf are you talking about, weed is one of the safest drugs in existence. Even over-the-counter medications can be dangerous if you take too much (e.g. Tylenol), but you can't overdose on weed. You'll feel unpleasant for a while, but it won't kill you like a lot of other substances (alcohol, by comparison, is about 254 times more dangerous than edible THC according to the LD50). A lot of us, including myself, would like to know what all the hype is about surrounding this plant, and given that experts estimate thousands of lives could be saved if weed supplanted alcohol as the recreational drug of choice, there is NO REASON you or anyone else should complain. We're not just "throwing our lives away." Are we not allowed to have fun once in a while? And in her case, she did it to deal with the grief she was suffering over the loss of her biological mother.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@conjurerwoman9726 Okay, calling a politician lying and corrupt is like calling a carrot orange. The vast majority of modern politicians have not been 100% truthful, and corruption exists in all corners of federal government. Treasonous? Yes he has communicated his sympathy for dictators like Putin and Kim Jong Un, but personally I would prefer this over rhetoric that eventually ignites war. The labels racist and misogynist get thrown around so much these days, especially by those on the left, that their meaning has essentially diminished entirely. Give me solid evidence that might lead you to conclude he is either of those things. And psychopath? Really? You could say Nikola Tesla was a psychopath because of his abrasive nature and ineptness at socializing, but as we all know his actual intentions were wholesome. I'll give you the narcissist claim, given that he has his name printed in large letters on his private jet and helicopter. Then again, a leader needs to have confidence in himself to perform well under the immense pressure of the position. And as for con artist, well, he may be or may not be. He has almost certainly engaged in shady business practices at some point in his career, but that does not act as a good predictor of how well he will serve the country in his position as President.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence of any country in the world. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: WorldPopulationReview)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@DavidWest2 The highest quality evidence consistently finds that it does not have any negative impact in the vast majority of men (such as VMMC randomized controlled trials in Africa and the Dominican Republic) -- and, indeed, having researched this topic for four-and-a-half years myself, this is perfectly consistent with the numerous accounts I've seen from men who have had the surgery as adults (both for medical reasons and not), and who consequently experienced both sides. My own speculative explanation for this (based on research) is that, in most cases, much of the inner lining is retained (i.e. "mid" to "high" cuts are the norm), sensitivity to temperature is more important than light-touch, the brain "adjusts" to the deficit over a period of about six months to one year (some men have testified to this), the mechanics differ post-surgery, and the oft-cited figure of "20,000 nerve endings" is a wild overestimate based on a sample size of ONE that employed shoddy statistics (by a convicted fraudster and HIV/AIDS denialist, no less).
(Side note: I am well aware of the history of the practice in America, but it is quite irrelevant to the discussion as it pertains to ethics; claiming that it's wrong merely because the person to start the trend, William Harvey Kellogg, believed that it would prevent m@sturbation is functionally equivalent to condemning Planned Parenthood because its founder, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist. Comparisons to FGM are also not apt: the latter offers negligible or no medical, health, hygiene, or aesthetic benefits, and is quite often much more severe. I'm an atheist, but I'm also willing to acknowledge when certain beliefs, practices, rituals, etc. are beneficial based on scientific findings, or at least not harmful, as are other critical thinkers like Martha Nussbaum and Sam Harris. Also, the historical evidence strongly indicates that the the trend only caught on decades later after initially introduced, during both World Wars to maintain hygiene during trench warfare, but that's another matter.)
"Our risk-benefit analysis showed that benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by up to 200 to 1. We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime. Wide-ranging evidence from surveys, physiological measurements, and the anatomical location of penile sensory receptors responsible for sexual sensation strongly and consistently suggest that male circumcision has no detrimental effect on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure." (Emphasis added.) That is according to a meta-analysis published in the World Journal of Clinical Pediatrics in 2017.
"The hypothesis of inferior male sexual function following circumcision is not supported by the findings of this systematic review. The popular narrative that male circumcision results in sexual dysfunction does not seem to be supported by evidence." (Shabanzadeh) Taken directly from a review published in the Danish Medical Journal in 2016, which is run by the Danish Medical Association — not exactly an organization biased in favor of this operation. Furthermore, "the Danish Health Authorities do not recommend a law-enforced ban of non-medical circumcisions in Denmark based on these low rates of short-term complications." (Emphasis mine.) Hm, it's almost like the evidence doesn't support the notion that circumcision is harmful and should be banned, and even Scandinavian societies have recognized this. Go figure.
But go ahead, ignore and dismiss the credible scientific evidence all you want -- including a systematic review published by a SCANDINAVIAN journal. But while you're at it, I would like to know: Are you also a climate-denier, or do you only ignore the scientific evidence whose conclusions you don't like?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@cchcch-jw9dw "Tearing down statues" These statues belong in a museum, not the public square. Let me know when "the left" doesn't want them displayed ANYWHERE, not just on a pedestal in a public park for all to see. "Burning flags" I think you mean burning fabric colored red, white, and blue, which is THEIR property and they have a legal right to do. It's a symbol, nothing more. "Vilinizing [sic] our founding fathers" Calling out the fact that half the men who founded this country and declared that "all men are created equal" owned slaves is not vilification. Some do go overboard with their demonizing of the Founders, I agree, but the much bigger problem is their literal deification being pushed by the right, who seem to imply they could do no wrong (anyone remember Sally Hemings?). Is this really all you've got? Wow, and you call us snowflakes...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lxi.. I'm a man and I disagree lol. I'm with Rogan on this. If I'm at a party and I get hammered, and some chick (sober or not) decides to have some fun with me, I won't even press charges (assuming that I don't lose my virginity that way, and that I am single or in an open relationship). If it turns out that she isn't that hot, I would feel a little embarrassed, but certainly not victimized. If she decides to make it public, however (against my wishes), or -- even worse -- brags about it, then I will consider taking legal action. Otherwise, I'll live with it 😆
Edit: I forgot, two more exceptions: NO STD's or unwanted children, please. Now that I would find harmful.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ah, so the Bible is your favorite collection of ancient myths and fairy tales, huh? Nice. Personally I have an affinity for Homer's the Iliad and the Odyssey, but the Vedas, the Pyramid texts, the Coffin texts, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Instruction of Amenemope, the Book of Caverns, the Book of Gates, the Amdaut, the Book of the Heavenly Cow, the Code of Hammurabi, the Kesh Temple Hymn, the Popol Vuh, the Avesta, the Koran, and the writings of Herodotus are all good too.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ezko420k4 We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2:10 Woah, does Kyle not understand art?! Fictional stories and legends have been told almost as long as human language has been around! We tell them because they're motivating, uplifting, inspiring, epic, or simply because we want to see something just as cool happen in the real world (but that is usually not the case). We like Star Wars because (most of us anyway) enjoy watching people who can move things with their mind duke it out with laser swords. All the stuff about galactic strife, politics, this alliance versus that regime, lore and backstory about Light Side Force users (Jedi) vs. Dark Side Force users (Sith) is just extra. Sure, if you're a geek like me it's often just as important, but speaking for general audiences here we just want to see people do things they can't do in real life, like throw stuff without touching them and have epic battles for control of the galaxy. Harry Potter is much the same thing, although it is based in the real world (that's why it's not "high fantasy"). And so are the all the superhero films. With some of them, and the MCU in particular, many of us gain a special kind of satisfaction in dedicating hours to watching all the films and understanding all the references in the crossovers. And then to see all these characters interact on one screen (as in Avengers: Infinity War or Avengers: Endgame) and team up against a SUPER bad guy takes epic to another level. Now, we could have a debate about whether or not these movies are "real cinema" (Martin Scorcese sure doesn't think so), but they ARE art of one form or another. My current favorite is The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit films, and these movies piqued my interest in fantasy so much (I'm more of a sci-fi guy, generally speaking) that I've read all the books and am currently in the process of reading their prequel, The Silmarillion. Kyle, you can't honestly tell me that you don't appreciate fictional storylines that occur in the real world of any kind, whether it be Indiana Jones, Pirates of the Caribbean, The Matrix, The Da Vinci Code, Interstellar, Back to the Future, Mission: Impossible, or frickin' Home Alone. There has to be SOMETHING in this list that you have seen and enjoyed watching. Man, you're starting to sound as uncultured as my Grandma who hates movies, but at least she reads books!!!!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
We're not talking about House races. Literally nobody cares about those. And even if we were, I have no idea where the hell you pulled the number 218 from. Out of your @ss is my bet. What actually matters are the high-profile, statewide races, namely, Senators and governors. And how many of those won their races out of the dozens he has endorsed? One so far, maybe two, three, or four when all is said and done: J.D. Vance in Ohio (which is becoming a solidly red state anyway), and if he's lucky Kari Lake in Arizona, Adam Laxalt in Nevada, and/or Herschel Walker in Georgia. That's it. You deserve no credit for the Republican governor winning in Idaho or the Republican Senator winning re-election in South Dakota, because there was no chance they were going to lose. That's the way politics works. The fact that this comment accrued any likes at all provides irrefutable evidence that human nescience has no limits.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at the July 4th parade, gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, garlic festival, Juneteenth celebration, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own house . . . Pretty much anywhere. How is it spelled again? "Freedom" or "freeDUMB"?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Kyle:
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “mutilation” as follows: ”An act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal.” Alternatively, the same dictionary also defines it as “an act or instance of damaging or altering something radically.” Hence, radical or severe “damage” or “alteration” is a necessary component in order to satisfy the most commonly accepted definitions of “mutilation.” With that in mind, let’s proceed with the argument.
Any proposed "ban" is up to the medical experts. The AAP and CDC each released statements (in 2012 and 2014, respectively) endorsing the procedure for prophylactic reasons, and concluded that it is an appropriate matter for parents along with their doctors to decide. Do you trust the medical community or not? I do in all matters, not just in transitioning children, abortion, COVID-19, and vaccines. (The science on this, by the way, is very clear. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet; stick to the hard evidence, not propaganda. Otherwise, you're no better (epistemologically speaking) than a climate denier who has become convinced by sites such as WattsUpWithThat. Look at the studies themselves if you want the details. Simply dismissing them out of hand, such as by claiming they're "flawed" without evidence, is akin to denying climate change without having reviewed any of the supporting facts and data underlying the theory.)
However, I believe in four reforms should be enacted: 1) any financial incentive needs to be eliminated (as would happen under single-payer healthcare), but the cost (~$150-200) must be borne by the parents due to the surgery's elective nature, 2) doctors should have the option of refusing to perform if they have a moral objection (like in the U.K.), so both parents AND the doctor must agree, 3) parents must specifically request it (so the default is that it is not performed), and 4) regulations require that the surgery is executed by a trained medical professional in a sterilized environment under anesthesia via block injection (thereby outlawing the traditional Jewish method, where most de@ths occur. As an aside, the concern about the link between acetaminophen use in pregnancy, infancy, and early childhood and ASD is valid, but as of now the AAP, AAFP, and FDA still recommend it for fever and pain reduction in babies). Hence, ideally, it would remain legal, as it is in literally every other country in the world (though South Africa and Iceland (lol) have made attempts to outlaw it), but fewer and fewer parents would choose it, and as the culture shifts it would eventually fall out of favor entirely -- the exact same process as what occurred in parts of Europe and throughout most of the Commonwealth (and is currently happening in South Korea as well).
As for why it must be performed in infancy and cannot wait until adulthood when the person can give consent, which is a reasonable objection, the reasons are numerous. First, the risk of complications are much lower at this stage (~.5% compared to ~3%) and are predominantly minor. Second, some benefits (such as lower risk of penile cancer and UTI's in infancy and early childhood, which can cause liver damage) are only conferred when it's done in infancy. Third, the inconvenience is greatly lessened -- recovery time is shorter, there are no stitches involved, and there is no need to take time off work or abstain from s-xual activity. Finally, some studies have found that there is a slightly higher chance of negative impact to function in nonmedical cases when the surgery is done later in life (perhaps attributable to greater complications), though this is in dispute due to the low quality of the evidence. It also helps, of course, that babies don't form memories of the experience -- a fact that many men who consider it later in life are quite jealous of (29% of uncut men wish they were, as opposed to 10% of cut men who wish they weren't, according to a YouGov poll from 2015). Impacts to psychological functioning, by the way, are pure speculation and a complete myth, and are, once again, utterly unsupported by the evidence. (There's more proof, I would argue, that it increases the odds of winning a Nobel Prize.)
And, please, don't consider responding with an objection that "it reduces s-xual pleasure," because the highest quality evidence consistently finds that it does not in the vast majority of men (such as VMMC randomized controlled trials in Africa and the Dominican Republic) -- and, indeed, having researched this topic for four-and-a-half years myself, this is perfectly consistent with the numerous accounts I've seen from men who have had the surgery as adults (both for medical reasons and not), and who consequently experienced both sides. My own speculative explanation for this (based on research) is that, in most cases, much of the inner lining is retained (i.e. "mid" to "high" cuts are the norm), sensitivity to temperature is more important than light-touch, the brain "adjusts" to the deficit over a period of about six months to one year (some men have testified to this), the mechanics differ post-surgery, and the oft-cited figure of "20,000 nerve endings" is a wild overestimate based on a sample size of ONE that employed shoddy statistics (by a convicted fraudster and HIV/AIDS denialist, no less).
(Side note: I am well aware of the history of the practice in America, but it is quite irrelevant to the discussion as it pertains to ethics; claiming that it's wrong merely because the person to start the trend, William Harvey Kellogg, believed that it would prevent m@sturbation is functionally equivalent to condemning Planned Parenthood because its founder, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist. Comparisons to FGM are also not apt: the latter offers negligible or no medical, health, hygiene, or aesthetic benefits, and is quite often much more severe. I'm an atheist, but I'm also willing to acknowledge when certain beliefs, practices, rituals, etc. are beneficial based on scientific findings, or at least not harmful, as are other critical thinkers like Martha Nussbaum and Sam Harris. Also, the historical evidence strongly indicates that the the trend only caught on decades later after initially introduced, during both World Wars to maintain hygiene during trench warfare, but that's another matter.)
"Our risk-benefit analysis showed that benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by up to 200 to 1. We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime. Wide-ranging evidence from surveys, physiological measurements, and the anatomical location of penile sensory receptors responsible for sexual sensation strongly and consistently suggest that male circumcision has no detrimental effect on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure." (Emphasis added.) That is according to a meta-analysis published in the World Journal of Clinical Pediatrics in 2017.
"The hypothesis of inferior male sexual function following circumcision is not supported by the findings of this systematic review. The popular narrative that male circumcision results in sexual dysfunction does not seem to be supported by evidence." (Shabanzadeh) Taken directly from a review published in the Danish Medical Journal in 2016, which is run by the Danish Medical Association — not exactly an organization biased in favor of this operation. Furthermore, "the Danish Health Authorities do not recommend a law-enforced ban of non-medical circumcisions in Denmark based on these low rates of short-term complications." (Emphasis mine.) Hm, it's almost like the evidence doesn't support the notion that circumcision is harmful and should be banned, and even Scandinavian societies have recognized this. Go figure.
For all these reasons, I believe it is more accurately described as "modification" rather than "mutilation" (this latter descriptor being about as felicitous as labeling abortion "murder," and employed for essentially the same purpose: eliciting an irrational, emotional response). Having invested literally hundreds of hours of my time reading about this topic (hence the long rant chock-full of medical information), I am quite confident that I'm more qualified to speak on it than anyone who might be reading this, and these are the conclusions that I have reached. (And, for the record, I do not intend on having the surgery performed on any of my children because I personally believe bodily autonomy concerns outweigh the benefits -- after all, modifications are still, almost by definition, unnecessary. Others may reasonably hold a different view.) If you're curious to learn more, I recommend the following sources: the Canadian Pediatric Society has released a fair, balanced, and thorough assessment that was reaffirmed in 2021 (though not as comprehensive as the AAP's); for an expert's opinion, member of the American Urological Association Dr. Aaron Spitz has written about this in some detail; and, finally, for those curious about the ethics of the issue (particularly those with a consequentialist utilitarian bent, like myself), atheist antinatalist South African philosopher David Benatar (who, an activist himself, writes frequently on men's rights issues) has much insightful commentary to offer as well. Happy reading.
P.S. You know who else hated circumcision? NAZIS!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Facts First First of all, no one supports drug use for children. However, we must ask the question: which is worse, a parent who does heroine or a parent who spends 15 years in jail for doing heroine? I think you know the answer. Also, I believe psychedelic treatment can help adults struggling with addiction tremendously, and set them on a path to putting their life back together WITHOUT being locked in a cage for years on end. The point is to discourage the use of hard substances like opiods (which, by the way, are largely a by-product of a privatized healthcare system where doctors are incentivized to prescribe them) without treating it like it's this horrible crime. Much of it is victimless, and even those situations that aren't (like parents who abuse drugs) are not better resolved by sticking them in the criminal justice system. They need therapy and treatment, not punishment.
P.S. Your use of the word "godless" is meaningless. Everything is godless, because "god" doesn't exist.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In my Business Ethics class last semester, my professor asked why he should care how well the U.S. team performs at the World Cup. It was a thought-provoking question. If I had to choose, I almost certainly would have rather been born in the Netherlands than in the United States. The reasons are obvious: better access to healthcare, education, housing, and an overall higher quality of life (generally speaking).
My answer is that I believe both the left and the right are wrong in their definitions or interpretations of patriotism. It's isn't blind loyalty to the institutions that have sovereignty over the patch of dirt you happened to be born on (or, in some cases, immigrated to), nor is it the belief that your country is "exceptional" just because -- which, in its extreme zealous form, is often called "nationalism." My answer is that true patriotism -- "healthy" patriotism, if you will -- consists of a modest pride in one's shared culture, values, and institutions, which in the United States is chiefly represented in the founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; the robust system of representative democracy and the separation of powers; and the Bill of Rights are all prime examples of shared values and traditions that are worthy of celebration and preservation. There can be nothing more "patriotic" than upholding those values in one's personal, professional, and political life, including voting and advocating for change.
If one prefers a community-based approach, what can be more patriotic than wanting what's best for one's neighbor, whether he or she lives next door, in a nearby town, or in another state? If he or she is desperately in need of medical coverage, and his or her country can provide it at the cost of a slightly higher tax on a multi-billionaire, refusing the opportunity to make that change is decidedly unpatriotic. Any criticism of one's country made with the intent of improving the lives of its citizens, from this point of view, is patriotism at its finest. Hence, rather than rejecting the concept of "patriotism" outright, I propose that the left adopt a more populist stance and embrace the term. For those still in doubt, imagine this: a democratic socialist candidate for President (a Bernie Sanders, if you're so inclined) correctly notes that we are still the only developed country that lacks universal healthcare, and enthusiastically supports a solution: Medicare-for-All, which he/she touts as "American-style single-payer. We'll do universal healthcare the American way!" I want to boast that we have the best healthcare system, infrastructure, and universities in the world, and that's the sense in which I consider myself "patriotic." An appreciation for what we have, no doubt, but also -- like Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream -- a vision of what we could be, if we united with the shared objective of improving living standards for all. And when that happens, I will have no hesitation in wholeheartedly supporting our national soccer team in the next worldwide competition.
One final note here on the global perspective: my vision explained above would entail global leadership in organizations like the U.N., including being an exemplar in promoting human rights and adherence to international law. Additionally, in the long-term, I believe it is feasible that each country today could establish relations as cordial as states within the U.S., like Texas and California; they may have differing ideologies and values (to put it mildly), but respect for basic human rights is ubiquitous and these differences won't manifest in conflict. The United Nations is, in my view, a very promising effort in leading the world in that direction.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
As a Democrat, I disagree with affirmative action. Consider the obstacles students had to overcome, not race. Sure, a privileged White or Asian student may have a higher GPA, but is that really more impressive than a student who wasn't so fortunate in regards to having a stable home life and access to materials, attending well-funded schools, etc.? Probably not. Sure, such a plan may disproportionately benefit students of color, but any student may benefit of a system like this regardless of their ethnic background. And, unlike race, at least it is a relevant criterion as far as being a reliable predictor of future academic success and career potential.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Programmer-LOVE Has there been a greater dividing force than religion? More people have been killed in the name of God (or gods) than for any other reason. The burnings, stonings, "honor killings," terrorism, Inquisitions, countless wars, witch hunts, genocides, torturings, cultural oppression, misogyny, homophobia, pestilence, corruption, poverty... all these are the products of religion. If we do what you ask, the developed world will start to look a lot less like Germany or Japan and a lot more like the Middle East. Is that what you want? How about we treat everyone as people, with fundamental human rights, regardless of what they believe? Religion has always stumbled over its lack of evidence, and with such a track record it in no way deserves the pedestal it has been given today, even in the most highly developed parts of the world.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
As a Gen Z-er (I just turned 24), I have observed this trend firsthand. I am perhaps the exception. I was initially extremely wary and, frankly, utterly disinterested in learning to drive, so for about 9 months after receiving my learner's permit I hardly practiced at all. Then I began to feel the pressure from my parents who were sick of driving me to golf practice, so I toughened up and passed the behind-the-wheel test on my first attempt at nearly sixteen-and-a-half.
My experience since very closely mirrors Matt's: I vividly recall my first time driving all by myself to buy some school supplies at a local Michael's (15 miles or so round trip on a mostly farm road with moderate traffic). I was terrified. Of course, it all went well, and I have had my fair share of mistakes since then (nothing too dramatic, thankfully). But last year, I decided to embark upon my fourth multi-state summer road trip mere weeks after getting into my first at-fault collision (a fender-bender), and the longest one yet: 3,700 miles in five days across six states, including one day that covered 1,100 miles in 19 hours. (Notable places visited are Lake Tahoe, Yellowstone, Salt Lake City, Moab, Denver, Cheyenne, and Las Vegas.) All the while, of course, I'm fearing the slightest mistake lest my insurance rates spike even further (or worse). I count myself blessed that nothing of the sort occurred.
With this experience behind me, I believe I understand quite well both sides of the debate: on the one hand, driving is an extremely liberating and rewarding experience for which there is no modern equivalent, and on the other it is often quite an expensive affair that also happens to be one of the most dangerous activities a majority of us participate in on a daily basis. I long for the day when America catches up to the rest of the developed world -- nay, surpasses the developed world -- in terms of public transportation infrastructure so that the roads are cleared of people who don't appreciate the freedom private transportation offers. Germany is perhaps the best model in this regard.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
7:52 I THOUGHT I RECOGNIZED THAT LAST ONE!! That intersection is literally about 10-15 miles from my house. I used to take that road all the time to get to Merced (and still do occasionally -- where I live it's closer than the freeway (99) and there's a lot less traffic, so it's more fun). Okay, full disclosure: I've gone into triple-digits in the wee hours of the morning on that stretch of road immediately after the intersection in the video, I don't regret it. So maybe I'm more qualified than most to say that what that guy did was BOLD, especially at that time of day. True, there's rarely any traffic to speak of no matter what time it is at that intersection -- but at the speed he was going, that is NOT a risk worth taking. Yeah, I've parked next to that very intersection late at night (don't ask why, I like my solitude) and I can verify that there won't be a soul around for tens of minutes at a time, if not more, and of course no car in sight for miles. But THAT was reckless. Nevertheless, I am glad to see that it was also wreckless.
2
-
On a serious note, though, we on the left need to seriously consider whether "transethnic" is a genuine phenomenon. Ethnicity is, after all, just as fluid and culturally determined as gender (assuming that race is to ethnicity as s-x is to gender). Is Rachel Dolezal ethnically Black or not? For my part, as of now I tend to doubt it because I do not see "ethnic dysphoria" as an actual psychological phenomenon, or at least one that causes severe mental distress when not affirmed. However, I am willing to be swayed should the evidence prove otherwise and a consensus among medical professionals and organizations -- the AAP, APA, AMA, and AAFP especially -- is reached.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@diane6378 Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as an entity that exists over time, or is self-aware (which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Here in California, where we have some common sense (not a lot, I'll grant you), you are able to select your language preference when you first register to vote. And then guess what? If you want it mailed to you (which I opted for, I turn mine in in-person), they will mail you a ballot in your preferred language. Isn't that amazing?!! Personally, I believe that if you are going to live in the United States --- as opposed to staying on a work visa or as a foreign exchange student or whatnot --- you should at least take the time to learn the English language. I would learn French if I moved to France, or German if I want to live in Germany. If you have the resources (time, textbook, money for education, etc.), then there is no excuse not to do it. We can cater to people of all backgrounds (assuming they have good intentions, of course), but we can't cater to the world's several dozen languages simultaneously. Voting is done no more than once every two years; having to communicate with coworkers, neighbors, friends and friends of friends, and total strangers is done on a daily basis. Learning English, even at a basic level, will make your life that much easier if you decide to live here.
2
-
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@reallycoolname6124 We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@atenrok The holiday (including the exact date, December 25th) actually began as a celebration of the Winter Solstice (around December 21st). That is, until the Catholic Church hijacked it and declared that to be the date of Christ's birth, even though most scholars date it to several months earlier (around September). You would think for such an important historical (and religious) figure, somebody would have written down the date that this guy was born and preserved it, but nope. In fact, the evidence that he even existed is poor at best, and would not be sufficient for most historians if they were considering the historicity of other figures of that time period (e.g. Plato, Cicero, Julius Caesar, etc.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You're not "pro-life" if you only support measures conducive to life before it exits the womb. Are you equally outraged about the fact that millions of innocent men, women, and children halfway around the world are being bombed into oblivion by our military or starved to death by our sanctions (and those of our allies)? Or that close to 85 MILLION Americans are uninsured/underinsured and 45,000 die each year due to a lack of proper healthcare? How about the future generations that will be completely wiped out because minimal action is being taken to address the impending climate catastrophe? Do you support the most basic regulations that would ensure that those precious unborn children won't be brutally gunned down once they reach the 3rd grade?
And don't even get me started on non-human life. The suffering of hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows we slaughter alive each and every day merely because we enjoy the taste of their flesh is ASTRONOMICAL compared to all abortions humanity has ever performed COMBINED. Does the life of that unborn child matter if it is gay or transgender, or would it be better off if it was "six feet under"? Prove to me that you believe life matters AFTER it has left the womb by pressuring your legal representatives to pass paid maternity leave and universal childcare, as the USA remains the ONLY developed country that does not provide these services. Better yet, demand that those children earn enough to make a decent living for themselves and their families when they grow older by advocating for raising the minimum wage and unionization efforts. Make it clear that you demand action on criminal justice reform, starting with abolishing the barbaric practice of state-sanctioned execution which more closely aligns the US with Saudi Arabia than with any of our peer nations in Europe. Finally, vigorously oppose any measure to engage in an unjustified and illegal offensive halfway around the world that costs taxpayers trillions of dollars and steals the lives of thousands of innocent Americans (usually young men).
George Carlin exposed this blatant hypocrisy decades ago.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f-cked."
Embryos/fetuses prior to 18 weeks gestation cannot suffer (let alone possess any form of sentience or consciousness), and that infuriates conservatives. So in order to maximize human misery (their ultimate agenda), they seek to outlaw it so that mothers are forced to give birth and those children grow up in destitute and dysfunctional households with little to no social support, receive a poor quality education and either saddle themselves with student debt or serve in the armed forces, only to end up wounded/severely traumatized with no guaranteed healthcare and/or slaving away for a corporation for baseline wages -- all the while ensuring maximum penalties for engaging in sexual activity -- and finally growing old and retiring in little comfort due to a rapidly diminishing allowance in the form of Social Security. Repeat the cycle. And that's not even taking into consideration the potential consequences of overpopulation -- resources will be spread thinner and thinner until, at a certain point, the damage done to our planet will be so severe that human civilization will be all but wiped off the face of the Earth. Think how much worse off we would be TODAY if we added 60+ million to our population (approximately the number of fetuses aborted in the U.S. since 1973). Famine, war, and widepread civil unrest are just the beginning. That's the world Republicans want -- a dystopian Malthusian/Orwellian hellscape -- whether they are cognizant of it or not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at the July 4th parade, gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, garlic festival, Juneteenth celebration, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own house . . . Pretty much anywhere.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"I wouldn't dispute it."
LOL, that is probably the first time he was honest in his life! I find it so ironic that the same "law and order" people who repeatedly smear the Black Lives Matter movement with riots (burning down buildings, looting, and the like) are also very quick to sweep January 6th under the rug. It's almost like they're embarassed about it, and they should be. They let the mask slip a little bit. They don't have any principles (standing up for democracy, respecting the police, etc.), and this can be clearly demonstrated for all to see when things don't go their way. Yes, burning down someone's small business is bad, but even more scary and threatening is trying to overturn our democracy by force. For those who fear that the far left may someday organize a Communist revolution, they need to pay attention to what's happening before their very eyes: almost that exact situation took place, except it was fascists and neo-Nazis who were the perpetrators. And please, for the love of god, don't cite the Declaration of Independence as justification. Biden is not a dictator, he won't take your freedoms away. However, I can't say the same about Bush who signed the PATRIOT Act and used the NSA to spy on Americans or Nixon/Reagan who have locked up millions of people for victimless offenses. If you call that "freedom," I think you need to research exactly what that word means, because that's most definitely not what the Founders meant by it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
As a young person, I don't find a movie any more high-value because it was released in theaters. For me, it makes no difference whether a movie is exclusively shown in theaters, on streaming and in theaters simultaneously, or streaming only. After all, Sausage Party had a theatrical release, did it not? I judge a movie's quality based on the movie itself, not the format in which it is released to an audience. I don't doubt that I'm in the minority here, but as times change and more generations are raised watching Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime I have a feeling that a growing share of the population will feel as I do. And to be honest, I think theaters are overrated anyway --- I can watch a film here at home on my 7.2 Dolby Surround Sound 4k television, on my own couch, with a better selection of snacks and no need to pay for overpriced popcorn, and I don't have to travel any farther than my living room. To me, it's almost a certainty that movie theaters are on their last legs, and it won't be more than a few decades before they become what Blockbuster is to us today. That's my prediction, at least. And quite frankly, I think we'll all be better off for it. I know I will.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Okay I have a LOT to say about this. First and foremost: DON'T go running red lights! I have personally done it a couple times, but NOT without stopping, looking both directions, waiting a few seconds and seeing absolutely NOBODY in either direction. Some traffic lights are just plain stupid, and if you're late for work (as I was) and there are no red light cameras (which are UNCONSTITUTIONAL), then please go right ahead. Second thing: I hate my home state, but it did get one thing right, and that's the California Basic Speed Law. Essentially, it says to drive the proper speed for the given conditions (without exceeding the speed limit, that's the only part I don't agree with). The speed limit is defined as the maximum speed for IDEAL road conditions. Driving with limited visibility, in inclement weather, or in moderate or heavy traffic will generally slow one down to below the speed limit. However, in areas with very light to no traffic at all, and with very few to no opportunities for merging (no intersections), and in unpopulated areas I think speed limited are absolutely unnecessary. Germany calls these kinds of roads its "autobahn". Sometimes they're referred to as "turnpikes" here in the states. I believe these are the types of roads where people should be free to let loose, and go whatever speed they feel they can handle (somewhere near the speed limit obviously, assuming there is no inclement weather or visibility issues AND NO distracted or drunk driving). It's important to note that interstates do NOT fit in this category, as they generally see much heavier traffic than other roads in the region. So yes, the people who weave between lanes going 20+ mph over the speed limit are IDIOTS and I hate them more than anyone! It's sweet sweet justice to see those degenerates several miles later on the side of the road with a cop flashing its lights parked behind them. That said, the far left lanes (sometimes known as the "express lanes") often have people who travel WITH the flow of traffic within that lane going 15+ mph over the speed limit. These are NOT the people who deserve to be pulled over! If traffic is lighter, the overall speed will increase; that's just traffic safety 101. It's the IMBECILES frequently changing lanes WHILE speeding who think they're better than everyone else that deserve a big fat ticket! So my motto is this: Speeding is NOT a crime! (Done responsibly)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time, liveable minimum wage, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
2
-
2
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Name-cz5jj We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@yourgoddidntcreatetheuniverse The U.S. government doesn't just sanction the countries that it "hates," it sanctions those that have no regard for human rights or life. It's one reason we were involved in the Second World War (the other was the bombing of Pearl Harbor), and it's the reason we treat countries that violate the sovereignty of others (particularly if the one whose sovereignty is being violated is democratic, and the invader is autocratic) like pariah states, and sanction the hell out of those that are restrictive to the point that you may die in police custody because you wore your headscarf incorrectly. I would never imply that we always do the right thing -- we secretly supported Saddam Hussein in Iraq, toppled numerous democratically elected leaders (particularly in South America), allied with warlords in Afghanistan, bombed hundreds of thousands of innocents across Southeast Asia and the Middle East, encouraged and aided Israel every step of the way in their oppression and numerous human rights abuses of Palestinians, back dictators like MBS in Saudi Arabia as he's executing a genoc*de in Yemen, and much, much more -- but please, do not make the careless of mistake of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. An "America is always bad" attitude will never be conducive to progress in terms of protecting human rights if we aren't always to blame, or if we actually do something right once in a while.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You're not "pro-life" if you only support measures conducive to life before it exits the womb. Are you equally outraged about the fact that innocent children and fully-grown human beings halfway around the world are being bombed into oblivion by our military? Or that tens of millions of AMERICANS are uninsured and 45,000 die each year due to a lack of health insurance? How about the future generations that will be completely wiped out because minimal action is being taken to address the impending climate catastrophe? Do you support the most basic regulations that would ensure that those precious unborn children won't be brutally gunned down once they reach the 3rd grade?
And don't even get me started on non-human life. The suffering of hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows we slaughter alive each and every day merely because we enjoy the taste of their flesh is ASTRONOMICAL compared to all abortions humanity has ever performed COMBINED. Does the life of that unborn child matter if it is gay or transgender, or would it be better off if it was "six feet under"? Prove to me that you believe life matters AFTER it has left the womb by pressuring your legal representatives to pass paid maternity leave and universal childcare, as the USA remains the ONLY developed country that does not provide these services. Better yet, demand that those children earn enough to make a decent living when they grow older by supporting raising the minimum wage and unionization efforts. Make it clear that you demand action on criminal justice reform, starting with abolishing the barbaric practice of state-sanctioned execution which more closely aligns the US with Saudi Arabia than with any of our peer nations in Europe. Finally, vigorously oppose any measure to engage in an unjustified and illegal offensive halfway around the world that costs taxpayers trillions of dollars and steals the lives of thousands of innocent Americans (usually young men).
George Carlin called out this blatant hypocrisy decades ago.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f-cked."
Embryos/fetuses prior to 18 weeks gestation cannot suffer (let alone possess any form of sentience or consciousness), and that infuriates conservatives. So in order to maximize human misery (their ultimate agenda), they seek to outlaw it so that mothers are forced to give birth and those children grow up in destitute and dysfunctional households with little to no social support, receive a poor quality education and either saddle themselves with student debt or serve in the armed forces, only to end up wounded/severely traumatized with no guaranteed healthcare and/or slaving away for a corporation for baseline wages -- all the while ensuring maximum penalties for engaging in sexual activity -- and finally growing old and retiring in little comfort due to a rapidly diminishing allowance in the form of Social Security. And then the cycle repeats itself. And that's not even taking into account the potential consequences of overpopulation -- resources will be spread thinner and thinner and, at a certain point, the damage done to our planet will be so severe that human civilization will be all but wiped off the face of the Earth. Think how much worse off we would be TODAY if we added 60+ million to our population (approximately the number of fetuses aborted since 1973). Famine, war, and widepread civil unrest are just the beginning. That's the world Republicans want -- a Malthusian/Orwellian hellscape -- whether they are cognizant of it or not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is second). Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun v-olence of any country in the world. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Grant Goldberg Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@RCmack Damn what do you expect him to do? Walk to his front lawn and raise his hands in the air while chanting at the sky, and the virus magically disappears? No, he cracked down on travel as soon as it was feasible to do so, and gave ventilators to all the states that needed them. Now there are excess all over the place. Then he distributed the federal stockpile of PPE (which wasn't very big), so now that isn't much of an issue either... Now it's all about testing. We're doing well over 300,000 tests per day, which is short of where we need to be to re-open fully (by about a million), but there's no doubt we'll get there before long. Oh and does anyone remember the Javits Center and the USNS Comfort in New York? Yeah those weren't needed for too long, now were they? The governors know how to best run their states (at least I hope), so enacting some kind of national lockdown isn't as effective as it would be in a smaller and more uniform country like South Korea. New York and Montana are experiencing this crisis very differently, so they are obviously going to react to it differently. Tell me how #45 has failed the American people again?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
24-year-old White American male and certified "bro" here. I totally disavow JD Vance, Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate, and Donald Trump and the hateful, misognystic ideology they represent. Too many young men disillusioned with the system (not always for the wrong reasons, many are struggling with affordability, housing, well-paying careers, relationships, etc.) have been effectively brainwashed into taking the blame out on boogeymen, whether it's the "woke left," feminists, SJWs, or so-called "elites" (by which they mean liberal politicians or Hollywood celebrities, typically).
It's a classic divide-and-conquer strategy employed by demagogues like Trump to divert attention away from the real issues, the progenitor of which is the most important issue of our time: the corporate capture of our politics and the consequent failure of the government to adequately deliver even the basics for its citizens (healthcare, housing, education, childcare, and so on). Having more "masculine" celebrities such as Tim McGraw or Garth Brooks campaign with or on behalf of Kamala Harris will certainly help, but I believe they have an extremely powerful asset and communicator in Tim Walz that is currently being underutilized. Perhaps my optimism may be attributed to my fondness for the man, but if he were to take up the mantle of Bernie Sanders and speak to these concerns, the tide shift could be legendary (particularly if the two were to take the stage together). The "Bernie Bro" phenomenon is one worth reviving if Harris aims at maximizing her chances of winning this election and beyond.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Is it murder if you accidentally step on a zygote, too? After all, it is a human because it has its own unique set of DNA, right? In that case, anyone who has ever scratched his or her nose is a serial killer, because with modern technology any living cell in your body can be used to create a person. Get outta here with that B.S. --- the only thing that matters is whether the fetus can feel pain, and even then your ethics are most likely logically inconsistent, unless you think the entire world should go vegan. We slaughter cows by the hundreds of thousands every single day simply because we like the taste of their flesh, and they feel INFINITELY more pain than a 12-week-old fetus does (because a fetus of that age doesn't experience pain at all, according to the consensus of embryologists). Is that "murder" too, and is everyone who has bought a hamburger at McDonald's complict in it? I would argue yes, but at least I have the rational justification of unnecessary suffering by my side. You, meanwhile, have got absolutely nothing except the scribblings of ancient superstitious desert-dwelling goat-herders who were certain that the Earth is shaped like a pancake. That, my friend, is the definition of delusion --- but you might prefer the term "faith." It makes no difference, it's all the same. Keep your fantasyland fairy tales to yourself, please, and your theology off of other people's biology, you filthy knuckle-dragger.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@VidyaSimran One thing you need to understand is that there are vast differences in certainty when it comes to theories proposed by scientists, especially climatologists. The ozone layer depletion was directly measurable, as proven by the observation of a giant hole opening up over Antarctica. However, with other theories, like "global warming," scientists can only measure its effects, not observe it directly. Also adding to the uncertainty is the fact that if it is accepted that the planet is permanently, and not temporarily, heating up over time, they also theorize that human activity is the cause. It's not due to any natural processes (e.g. the diminishment of sunspots on the surface of the Sun), in whole or in part. And even if we were to assume that people are responsible for heating up the planet, what can be done about it to make any significant difference? And what would be the cost? Taking all truckers off the road and drastically slowing our economy? Such a big problem requires an even bigger solution, and that may mean the entire world returning to the Stone Age. If industrialization is responsible, the only solution is to do away with industrialization, correct? Despite all the positive contributions to human health and benefits to humanity's standard of living in general? That's why I say it's not even worth minimizing our contributions to a problem that we a) don't fully comprehend, and b) is too large to fix completely.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No universal healthcare, no universal childcare, no paid maternity leave, no federal housing guarantee, no federal job guarantee, no paid vacation time, no affordable prescription drugs, no universal basic income, no Medicare coverage for hearing, vision, and dental . . . We never had any "economic freedoms" to begin with. Maybe it's time to stick it to corporate executives and their lobbyists and reactivate Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Economic Bill of Rights.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This comment section is restoring some of my faith in humanity. Racial warfare is not productive, but class warfare IS. It's the elites sitting at the top versus everyone else. The Framers wanted to avoid establishing a monarchy so there was no nobility, and so everyone in society can be viewed as equals. What they neglected was the influence wealth can create, for the person who attains it, for those who inherit it, and whoever might have connections with that individual. And it doesn't help that lobbying is also legal, and hence so is bribery and corruption. So even the only political power we may have --- who we elect as our Representative, our Senator, or our President --- may not ultimately mean anything. It's disgraceful. But it's the truth. We can hide from it, but we can't escape it. All we can do is try to reform it from within, by lending our support to those who aren't corrupt or bought-off by this or that industry, and hope that we get enough of them to make a real difference. What their social policies happen to be (i.e. whether they're in favor of gay marriage or not) is of little consequence by comparison. Will they fight for ordinary working people like us, or are they bought and owned by Shell Incorporated? Let your ballots reflect the answer. As George Carlin once said, "It's a big club . . . And you ain't in it."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I hear everyone whining about how a warming climate has affected them, but ZERO people offering up ideas besides "the government(s) need to get involved." Am I the only one with common sense here? I, like millions (or perhaps billions) of other people, am not giving up my freedoms and comfort to make a MINISCULE difference in this massive, worldwide issue. If we keep demanding change, all that would happen is politicians will take away all the things we love (electronics, vehicles, air conditioning and heating, etc.) and keep it for themselves. How am I the only one that can look this far ahead? I'll be the first to admit that this may EVENTUALLY pose an existential threat to humanity, but I'd rather the human race thrive for another 200 years in unprecedented freedom and quality of life than see the world collapse in a totalitarian state for potentially thousands of years. I'm willing to take that chance, and it appears all you freedom-hating morons are not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The answer is simple: Because corporations have bought our polticians and have run a relentless propaganda campaign that has convinced nearly half the American electorate that raising taxes on the rich to give all Americans certain economic rights (housing, food, healthcare, education, time off from work, etc.) -- like the social democratic states of Europe -- is "socialist," and therefore bad. They have brainwashed a substantial portion of Americans into believing that these people are simply "lazy," when in reality they either suffer from addiction, have mental health problems, or are just down on their luck -- none of which justifies treating them like scum or failing to provide them with certain basic necessities. But soulless Republicans couldn't care less. If you're born the son of a business magnate with a silver spoon in your mouth, your wealth is well-earned; but if you're born to a single mother in Harlem, well you lost the social lottery and better "pull yourself up by your bootstraps." It's disgusting.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
Biden can nominate whoever he wants. Anyone crying foul that he's selecting on the basis of immutable characteristics better not lean Republican. Ronald Reagan specifically selected the first female nominee to the Supreme Court (Sandra Day O'Connor), his successor George H.W. Bush replaced the first African-American Justice (Thurgood Marshall) with Clarence Thomas, and just over a year ago President Trump made a shortlist of female judges to fill Ruth Bader Ginsberg's seat, ultimately deciding on Amy Coney Barrett. Well, two can play at that game.
2
-
@orangehatmusic225 We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You're not "pro-life" if you only support measures conducive to life before it exits the womb. Are you equally outraged about the fact that millions of innocent men, women, and children halfway around the world are being bombed into oblivion by our military or starved to death by our sanctions (and those of our allies)? Or that close to 70 MILLION Americans are uninsured/underinsured and 45,000 die each year due to a lack of proper healthcare? How about the future generations that will be completely wiped out because minimal action is being taken to address the impending climate catastrophe? Do you support the most basic regulations that would ensure that those precious unborn children won't be brutally gunned down once they reach the 3rd grade?
And don't even get me started on non-human life. The suffering of hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows we slaughter alive each and every day merely because we enjoy the taste of their flesh is ASTRONOMICAL compared to all abortions humanity has ever performed COMBINED. Does the life of that unborn child matter if it is gay or transgender, or would it be better off if it was "six feet under"? Prove to me that you believe life matters AFTER it has left the womb by pressuring your legal representatives to pass paid maternity leave and universal childcare, as the USA remains the ONLY developed country that does not provide these services. Better yet, demand that those children earn enough to make a decent living for themselves and their families when they grow older by advocating for raising the minimum wage and unionization efforts. Make it clear that you demand action on criminal justice reform, starting with abolishing the barbaric practice of state-sanctioned execution which more closely aligns the US with Saudi Arabia than with any of our peer nations in Europe. Finally, vigorously oppose any measure to engage in an unjustified and illegal offensive halfway around the world that costs taxpayers trillions of dollars and steals the lives of thousands of innocent Americans (usually young men).
George Carlin called out this blatant hypocrisy decades ago.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f-cked."
Embryos/fetuses prior to 18 weeks gestation cannot suffer (let alone possess any form of sentience or consciousness), and that infuriates conservatives. So in order to maximize human misery (their ultimate agenda), they seek to outlaw it so that mothers are forced to give birth and those children grow up in destitute and dysfunctional households with little to no social support, receive a poor quality education and either saddle themselves with student debt or serve in the armed forces, only to end up wounded/severely traumatized with no guaranteed healthcare and/or slaving away for a corporation for baseline wages -- all the while ensuring maximum penalties for engaging in sexual activity -- and finally growing old and retiring in little comfort due to a rapidly diminishing allowance in the form of Social Security. Then the cycle repeats itself. And that's not even taking into consideration the potential consequences of overpopulation -- resources will be spread thinner and thinner until, at a certain point, the damage done to our planet will be so severe that human civilization will be all but wiped off the face of the Earth. Think how much worse off we would be TODAY if we added 60+ million to our population (approximately the number of fetuses aborted since 1973). Famine, war, and widepread civil unrest are just the beginning. That's the world Republicans want -- a Malthusian/Orwellian hellscape -- whether they are cognizant of it or not.
2
-
2
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@stpierreorama Wait a minute, did you just call Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher "neoliberals"? LMAO. They were hardcore conservatives, both socially and economically. Reagan was largely responsible for dramatically ramping up the massive failure that has been the War on Drugs, and signed a law that punished crack users (who were mostly black) 100 times more harshly than powder cocaine users (who were majority white). That is just one of the long list of socially conservative disasters Reagan implemented during his tenure as President. (He also screened Bernard Nathanson's propaganda film "The Silent Scream" in the White House, the major claims of which were thoroughly debunked by Planned Parenthood and numerous embryologists, but that's neither here nor there.) You call yourself a "classical liberal," which I know quite a bit about --- I used to be one. My guess is that you lean more right-libertarian, and that your favorite politician is perhaps someone like Senator Rand Paul, but I don't want to make too many assumptions about you from the get-go. I could go on and talk about Dave Rubin, but I'll leave it there... The fact of the matter is that I used to think as you do, until I discovered that the most prosperous societies on the planet are socialist (the Scandinavian countries), and that the U.S. doesn't rank very highly in any statistic worth measuring by developed standards except military budget and incarceration (we rank 37th in healthcare, 27th in upward social mobility, 96th in violent crime, 46th in life expectancy, 19th in the World Happiness Report, should I really belabor the point?), and the "socialist" (really the economies are mixed, much more so than ours) Western European countries (as well as a few East Asian ones like Japan) all rank at the top. How do they do it? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that they all have universal healthcare, paid vacation/family leave/sick time by law, free or reduced college tuition, a completely secular democracy, widespread unionization and collective bargaining, a fair criminal justice system, high taxes to fund public infrastructure, and low overall poverty as a result of their generous welfare state. In other words, they are kicking our @ss in every possible way except military might. And I don't know about you, but investing billions more of our tax money into the military-industrial complex to line the pockets of the CEOs of Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Honeywell is not materially improving the lives of any (ordinary) American. But there still exist countless ways of doing just that. And yes, because this question has no doubt crossed your mind, I am an unabashed Bernie supporter.
2
-
2
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@edwardkantowicz4707 Red herring. The science (peer-reviewed literature) has reached a consensus that circumcision is not mutilation. Don't take it up with me; I'm just the messenger. Take it up with the experts who have well-conducted studies to prove it.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “mutilation” as follows: ”An act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal.” Alternatively, the same dictionary also defines it as “an act or instance of damaging or altering something radically.” Hence, radical or severe “damage” or “alteration” is a necessary component in order to satisfy the most commonly accepted definitions of “mutilation.” With that in mind, let’s proceed with the argument.
Any proposed "ban" is up to the medical experts. The AAP and CDC each released statements (in 2012 and 2014, respectively) endorsing the procedure for prophylactic reasons, and concluded that it is an appropriate matter for parents along with their doctors to decide. Do you trust the medical community or not? I do in all matters, not just in transitioning children, abortion, and vaccines. (The science on this, by the way, is very clear. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet; stick to the hard evidence, not propaganda. Otherwise, you're no better (epistemologically speaking) than a climate denier who has become convinced by sites such as WattsUpWithThat. Look at the studies themselves if you want the details. Simply dismissing them out of hand, such as by claiming they're "flawed" without evidence, is akin to denying climate change without having reviewed any of the supporting facts and data underlying the theory.)
However, I believe in four reforms should be enacted: 1) any financial incentive needs to be eliminated (as would happen under single-payer healthcare), but the cost (~$150-200) must be borne by the parents due to the surgery's elective nature, 2) doctors should have the option of refusing to perform if they have a moral objection (like in the U.K.), so both parents AND the doctor must agree, 3) parents must specifically request it (so the default is that it is not performed), and 4) regulations require that the surgery is executed by a trained medical professional in a sterilized environment under anesthesia via block injection (thereby outlawing the traditional Jewish method, where most de@ths occur. As an aside, the concern about the link between acetaminophen use in pregnancy, infancy, and early childhood and ASD is valid, but as of now the AAP, AAFP, and FDA still recommend it for fever and pain reduction in babies). Hence, ideally, it would remain legal, as it is in literally every other country in the world (though South Africa and Iceland (lol) have made attempts to outlaw it), but fewer and fewer parents would choose it, and as the culture shifts it would eventually fall out of favor entirely -- the exact same process as what occurred in parts of Europe and throughout most of the Commonwealth (and is currently happening in South Korea as well).
As for why it must be performed in infancy and cannot wait until adulthood when the person can give consent, which is a reasonable objection, the reasons are numerous. First, the risk of complications are much lower at this stage (~.5% compared to ~3%) and are predominantly minor. Second, some benefits (such as lower risk of penile cancer and UTI's in infancy and early childhood, which can cause liver damage) are only conferred when it's done in infancy. Third, the inconvenience is greatly lessened -- recovery time is shorter, there are no stitches involved, and there is no need to take time off work or abstain from s-xual activity. Finally, some studies have found that there is a slightly higher chance of negative impact to function in nonmedical cases when the surgery is done later in life (perhaps attributable to greater complications), though this is in dispute due to the low quality of the evidence. It also helps, of course, that babies don't form memories of the experience -- a fact that many men who consider it later in life are quite jealous of (29% of uncut men wish they were, as opposed to 10% of cut men who wish they weren't, according to a YouGov poll from 2015). Impacts to psychological functioning, by the way, are pure speculation and a complete myth, and are, once again, utterly unsupported by the evidence. (There's more proof, I would argue, that it increases the odds of winning a Nobel Prize.)
And, please, don't consider responding with an objection that "it reduces s-xual pleasure," because the highest quality evidence consistently finds that it does not in the vast majority of men (such as VMMC randomized controlled trials in Africa and the Dominican Republic) -- and, indeed, having researched this topic for four-and-a-half years myself, this is perfectly consistent with the numerous accounts I've seen from men who have had the surgery as adults (both for medical reasons and not), and who consequently experienced both sides. My own speculative explanation for this (based on research) is that, in most cases, much of the inner lining is retained (i.e. "mid" to "high" cuts are the norm), sensitivity to temperature is more important than light-touch, the brain "adjusts" to the deficit over a period of about six months to one year (some men have testified to this), the mechanics differ post-surgery, and the oft-cited figure of "20,000 nerve endings" is a wild overestimate based on a sample size of ONE that employed shoddy statistics (by a convicted fraudster and HIV/AIDS denialist, no less).
(Side note: I am well aware of the history of the practice in America, but it is quite irrelevant to the discussion as it pertains to ethics; claiming that it's wrong merely because the person to start the trend, William Harvey Kellogg, believed that it would prevent m@sturbation is functionally equivalent to condemning Planned Parenthood because its founder, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist. Comparisons to FGM are also not apt: the latter offers negligible or no medical, health, hygiene, or aesthetic benefits, and is quite often much more severe. I'm an atheist, but I'm also willing to acknowledge when certain beliefs, practices, rituals, etc. are beneficial based on scientific findings, or at least not harmful, as are other critical thinkers like Martha Nussbaum and Sam Harris. Also, the historical evidence strongly indicates that the the trend only caught on decades later after initially introduced, during both World Wars to maintain hygiene during trench warfare, but that's another matter.)
"Our risk-benefit analysis showed that benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by up to 200 to 1. We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime. Wide-ranging evidence from surveys, physiological measurements, and the anatomical location of penile sensory receptors responsible for sexual sensation strongly and consistently suggest that male circumcision has no detrimental effect on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure." (Emphasis added.) That is according to a meta-analysis published in the World Journal of Clinical Pediatrics in 2017.
"The hypothesis of inferior male sexual function following circumcision is not supported by the findings of this systematic review. The popular narrative that male circumcision results in sexual dysfunction does not seem to be supported by evidence." (Shabanzadeh) Taken directly from a review published in the Danish Medical Journal in 2016, which is run by the Danish Medical Association — not exactly an organization biased in favor of this operation. Furthermore, "the Danish Health Authorities do not recommend a law-enforced ban of non-medical circumcisions in Denmark based on these low rates of short-term complications." (Emphasis mine.) Hm, it's almost like the evidence doesn't support the notion that circumcision is harmful and should be banned, and even Scandinavian societies have recognized this. Go figure.
For all these reasons, I believe it is more accurately described as "modification" rather than "mutilation" (this latter descriptor being about as felicitous as labeling abortion "murder," and employed for essentially the same purpose: eliciting an irrational, emotional response). Having invested literally hundreds of hours of my time reading about this topic (hence the long rant chock-full of medical information), I am quite confident that I'm more qualified to speak on it than anyone who might be reading this, and these are the conclusions that I have reached. (And, for the record, I do not intend on having the surgery performed on any of my children because I personally believe bodily autonomy concerns outweigh the benefits -- after all, modifications are still, almost by definition, unnecessary. Others may reasonably hold a different view.) If you're curious to learn more, I recommend the following sources: the Canadian Pediatric Society has released a fair, balanced, and thorough assessment that was reaffirmed in 2021 (though not as comprehensive as the AAP's); for an expert's opinion, member of the American Urological Association Dr. Aaron Spitz has written about this in some detail; and, finally, for those curious about the ethics of the issue (particularly those with a consequentialist utilitarian bent, like myself), atheist antinatalist South African philosopher David Benatar (who, an activist himself, writes frequently on men's rights issues) has much insightful commentary to offer as well. Happy reading.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You're not "pro-life" if you only support measures conducive to life before it exits the womb. Are you equally outraged about the fact that millions of innocent men, women, and children halfway around the world are being bombed into oblivion by our military or starved to death by our sanctions (and those of our allies)? Or that close to 85 MILLION Americans are uninsured/underinsured and 45,000 die each year due to a lack of proper healthcare? How about the future generations that will be completely wiped out because minimal action is being taken to address the impending climate catastrophe? Do you support the most basic regulations that would ensure that those precious unborn children won't be brutally gunned down once they reach the 3rd grade?
And don't even get me started on non-human life. The suffering of hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows we slaughter alive each and every day merely because we enjoy the taste of their flesh is ASTRONOMICAL compared to all abortions humanity has ever performed COMBINED. Does the life of that unborn child matter if it is gay or transgender, or would it be better off if it was "six feet under"? Prove to me that you believe life matters AFTER it has left the womb by pressuring your legal representatives to pass paid maternity leave and universal childcare, as the USA remains the ONLY developed country that does not provide these services. Better yet, demand that those children earn enough to make a decent living for themselves and their families when they grow older by advocating for raising the minimum wage and unionization efforts. Make it clear that you demand action on criminal justice reform, starting with abolishing the barbaric practice of state-sanctioned execution which more closely aligns the US with Saudi Arabia than with any of our peer nations in Europe. Finally, vigorously oppose any measure to engage in an unjustified and illegal offensive halfway around the world that costs taxpayers trillions of dollars and steals the lives of thousands of innocent Americans (usually young men).
George Carlin exposed this blatant hypocrisy decades ago.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f-cked."
Embryos/fetuses prior to 18 weeks gestation cannot suffer (let alone possess any form of sentience or consciousness), and that infuriates conservatives. So in order to maximize human misery (their ultimate agenda), they seek to outlaw it so that mothers are forced to give birth and those children grow up in destitute and dysfunctional households with little to no social support, receive a poor quality education and either saddle themselves with student debt or serve in the armed forces, only to end up wounded/severely traumatized with no guaranteed healthcare and/or slaving away for a corporation for baseline wages -- all the while ensuring maximum penalties for engaging in sexual activity -- and finally growing old and retiring in little comfort due to a rapidly diminishing allowance in the form of Social Security. Rinse and repeat. And that's not even taking into consideration the potential consequences of overpopulation -- resources will be spread thinner and thinner until, at a certain point, the damage done to our planet will be so severe that human civilization will be all but wiped off the face of the Earth. Think how much worse off we would be TODAY if we added 60+ million to our population (approximately the number of fetuses aborted in the U.S. since 1973). Famine, war, and widepread civil unrest are just the beginning. That's the world the overwhelming majority of Republicans want -- a dystopian Malthusian/Orwellian hellscape -- whether they are cognizant of it or not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Drugs are amazing tools for painkillers, such as those with chronic back issues or post-op patients. Recreationally, they can be a lot of fun to use at first, but once addiction sets in, you need to keep using them to survive (either because the withdrawal will be that bad [side note: alcohol is one of the few where withdrawal can actually K*LL you], or because you just need them to function normally [e.g. cocaine, methamphetamine], as anyone who needs coffee [caffeine is a drug] in the morning is well aware). Others are just fun, and are not usually harmful in the short-term, but long-term effects may be dangerous (tobacco is a great example, and so is alcohol). And others are mostly or entirely non-addictive (especially marijuana and psychedelics), because it's not the nature of the chemical to get you "hooked" or because tolerance is built up very quickly. It's the latter category that are the safest to use by far. The former may be used either in moderation or with caution, but some are just better to avoid altogether (nicotine). And of course, the addictive ones are the most risky, and often the most deadly (the chances of OD skyrocket when the drug is laced with other compounds and the buyer is unaware, such as fentanyl in heroin). Doctors should be incredibly cautious when prescribing opioids --- obviously --- and I would even go so far as to say that after a certain time period following dismissal from the hospital, the opioid can only be administered in a medical setting. But the goal for those who are addicted now should be to use the same strategy as with nicotine and alcohol abuse: wean them off their substances, so as to mitigate or prevent a withdrawal and to make the sobriety process go more smoothly. This means providing the substance in a clincal setting in progressively smaller doses, so that in a few weeks (or months) they are free from it altogether. Many others don't suffer from addiction (about 80% of all drug users, in fact), and we're not worried about them because they are meeting all their responsibilities. It's those whose lives have been negatively impacted (lost job, ruined relationships, etc.) that desperately need our help, whether they think they do or not. By implementing this on a wide scale, rather than just putting them behind bars or taking up space on our streets, we will finally be catching up with what Switzerland and other highly developed nations in Europe have been doing for years. And it's worked. (Much of this information has come from an expert on drug addiction, Dr. Carl L. Hart, a professor ar Columbia University, and his book Drug Use for Grown-Ups. I highly recommend you give it a read if this is a topic that piques your interest.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
For everyone who says "guns aren't the issue, it's mental health," or "guns don't just get up one day, walk to a school, and fire themselves," I ask you: Would you apply that same reasoning to nuclear weapons? Certainly you don't believe that the world would be SAFER if civilians has access to weapons of mass destruction, do you? Then why do you REFUSE to acknowledge the empirical evidence PROVING that the prevalence of guns in a society results in more gun violence and deaths? For every 100 people living in America, there are 120 firearms. By comparison, in the next closest country, Yemen (which is currently embroiled in civil war), there are 52 firearms for every 100 people. We are OBJECTIVELY the least safe country in the developed world in terms of the gun homicide metric -- it's not even close. So, tell me, why not apply your flawed "guns don't kill people, people kill people" reasoning to other weapons of war as well? I eagerly await THAT answer.
2
-
2
-
One nation indivisible. The phrase "under god" was a later interpolation added during the Red Scare in the 1950's, and I utterly reject it as part of the official Pledge as an American citizen. This country was founded on being tolerant of people of all creeds (read the First Amendment of our Constitution), and that includes those with no such belief at all. I'm one of them, and so was Thomas Paine (a Deist, who was hardly "religious" in the most widely accepted meaning of the word), W.E.B. DuBois, Robert G. Ingersoll, Clarence Darrow, Samuel Clemens, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, and many other great men and women throughout American history.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jonathanalvarez3875 I never said the government should pay off all existing debt. Only that it should work towards implementing a plan that would subsidize college education under certain conditions, namely: 1) The student exhibits sound academic progress, 2) The majors in highest demand would be covered entirely (Nursing, Business, Computer Science, Law, etc.), and 3) each university's budget is reviewed prior to gaining approval for federal subsidies. Beyond just covering tuition at public colleges, this would guarantee a profit for private universities as well, as they will no longer have to worry about students defaulting on their loans. So in the end, most or even all private institutions may transition to the public sector. Of course, this would have to be funded through taxpayer costs, and I would suggest a securities tax, a 50% inheritance tax for those worth $5 million or more, and 60% income tax on those earning $50 million or more. I consider this plan to be far superior to a UBI option, which may be necessary in the future as automation develops but can be sidelined for a later time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
As a college student who happens to be White, this is the one conservative Supreme Court ruling that I actually agree with. One's race should not be used as a factor in admissions, especially to promote causes like "campus diversity." Such a program may (and often does) result in, for example, an African American applicant from an upper-middle class household with poorer academic performance being admitted, and a low income Asian American applicant with superior academic talent rejected. Despite what many others on the left might say, college admissions is a zero-sum game.
This is why I favor a more merit-based approach that considers not just raw test scores, but obstacles that one has had to overcome -- e.g. one that takes socioeconomic status into account. It is quite evident that applicants from wealthier backgrounds are at a considerable advantage, as they can afford amenities that facilitate learning (private school, tutors, course materials, a quiet study space, etc.). I would contend that an African American applicant from a poor background with slightly lower test scores has demonstrated greater academic talent/motivation than a White applicant from a much wealthier household. Thus, such a program may still inadvertently promote the cause of "campus diversity," but it is not an explicit goal; I cannot view such a goal as anything else than reverse discrimination.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: WorldPopulationReview)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at the Lunar New Year's festival, MLK Jr. celebration, July 4th parade, gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, garlic festival, Juneteenth celebration, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, on a farm, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own home . . . Pretty much anywhere.
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Personally, I cannot take anyone seriously who simultaneously believes the government could become "tyrannical" at any moment and that they need the means to defend themselves so as to (as Jefferson wrote) overthrow the government and establish a new one that fears the people, not dominates them (I'm totally on board with that, I lean towards anarchism) --- but who ALSO says that our military should be the most powerful in the world and that the bloated budget of $770 BILLION should be maintained or even increased year after year. Using history as our guide (the American Revolution, for example), who do they think the politicians or a dictator will use as his/her/their shield to remain in power? The MILITARY, of course. Did we already forget that it was the British army who defended their colonies in the Seven Years' War, and then when the colonies rebelled, that same military was used against them? You want the people who would potentially be defending a brutal dictator (the Commander-in-Chief) to have MORE sophisticated weapons and means of subjugation? Are you INSANE? Here at least the libertarians have an argument --- the gun-toting neoconservatives have no idea what they want in such a scenario. Hope the hearts of the people with the most firepower (our servicemen and women) are turned in our favor, I guess --- and there, I'm afraid to say, history is not on your side.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You're not "pro-life" if you only support measures conducive to life before it exits the womb. Are you equally outraged about the fact that millions of innocent men, women, and children halfway around the world are being bombed into oblivion by our military or starved to death by our sanctions (and those of our allies)? Or that close to 70 MILLION Americans are uninsured/underinsured and 45,000 die each year due to a lack of proper healthcare? How about the future generations that will be completely wiped out because minimal action is being taken to address the impending climate catastrophe? Do you support the most basic regulations that would ensure that those precious unborn children won't be brutally gunned down once they reach the 3rd grade?
And don't even get me started on non-human life. The suffering of hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows we slaughter alive each and every day merely because we enjoy the taste of their flesh is ASTRONOMICAL compared to all abortions humanity has ever performed COMBINED. Does the life of that unborn child matter if it is gay or transgender, or would it be better off if it was "six feet under"? Prove to me that you believe life matters AFTER it has left the womb by pressuring your legal representatives to pass paid maternity leave and universal childcare, as the USA remains the ONLY developed country that does not provide these services. Better yet, demand that those children earn enough to make a decent living for themselves and their families when they grow older by advocating for raising the minimum wage and unionization efforts. Make it clear that you demand action on criminal justice reform, starting with abolishing the barbaric practice of state-sanctioned execution which more closely aligns the US with Saudi Arabia than with any of our peer nations in Europe. Finally, vigorously oppose any measure to engage in an unjustified and illegal offensive halfway around the world that costs taxpayers trillions of dollars and steals the lives of thousands of innocent Americans (usually young men).
George Carlin called out this blatant hypocrisy decades ago.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f-cked."
Embryos/fetuses prior to 18 weeks gestation cannot suffer (let alone possess any form of sentience or consciousness), and that infuriates conservatives. So in order to maximize human misery (their ultimate agenda), they seek to outlaw it so that mothers are forced to give birth and those children grow up in destitute and dysfunctional households with little to no social support, receive a poor quality education and either saddle themselves with student debt or serve in the armed forces, only to end up wounded/severely traumatized with no guaranteed healthcare and/or slaving away for a corporation for baseline wages -- all the while ensuring maximum penalties for engaging in sexual activity -- and finally growing old and retiring in little comfort due to a rapidly diminishing allowance in the form of Social Security. Then the cycle repeats itself. And that's not even taking into consideration the potential consequences of overpopulation -- resources will be spread thinner and thinner until, at a certain point, the damage done to our planet will be so severe that human civilization will be all but wiped off the face of the Earth. Think how much worse off we would be TODAY if we added 60+ million to our population (approximately the number of fetuses aborted since 1973). Famine, war, and widepread civil unrest are just the beginning. That's the world Republicans want -- a dystopian Malthusian/Orwellian hellscape -- whether they are cognizant of it or not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
For everyone who says "guns aren't the issue, it's mental health," or "guns don't just get up one day, walk to a school, and fire themselves," I ask you: Would you apply that same reasoning to nuclear weapons? Certainly you don't believe that the world would be SAFER if civilians has access to weapons of mass destruction, do you? Then why do you REFUSE to acknowledge the empirical evidence PROVING that the prevalence of guns in a society results in more gun violence and deaths? For every 100 people living in America, there are 120 firearms. By comparison, in the next closest country, Yemen (which is currently embroiled in civil war), there are 52 firearms for every 100 people. We are OBJECTIVELY the least safe country in the developed world in terms of the gun homicide metric -- it's not even close. So, tell me, why not apply your flawed "guns don't kill people, people kill people" reasoning to other weapons of war as well? I eagerly await THAT answer.
2
-
2
-
2
-
I hate literally everything about this. First and foremost, college should be FREE. Virtually every other developed country has low-or-no cost higher education, yet we don't. The pressure for women to hook up with older men simply to afford an education should not exist, period. This is disgusting, and any civilized person should feel the same.
Second, this disadvantages younger men who are also trying to afford college (like myself), who have no such option. Don't get me wrong: I'm outraged that women feel financially coerced into entering relationships with people they would otherwise have nothing to do with, but I am equally incensed that men lack any such opportunity. One solution to this is to level the playing field such that nobody is pressured to engage in such (frankly repugnant) behavior, and making tuition affordable is certainly one way to accomplish that.
Third, what does this say about the OBSCENE levels of wealth inequality this country is currently experiencing? That a lucky few (emphasis on "LUCKY," this is not a meritocracy) can now gratify themselves by treating women as a commodity?!! Words honestly fail me to articulate just how despicable this truly is.
Fourth (and last), I want to appeal to the old-school traditionalist conservative types: is this the epitome of "family values" you prize so highly? Some rich dudes who are either divorced or never married buying women for their own gratification? Are women that disposable, that they are no longer treated as persons that one must connect with and entertain and respect, but merely commodities to be bought and sold? If this isn't the erosion of nuclear family, I don't know what is.
I'll conclude with this: I believe prostitution should be legal, but under no circumstances should women feel pressured into the industry. The alternatives should be sufficiently abundant such that only the women who enjoy that line of work are in fact doing it. No exceptions. I like to think that I'm a fairly tolerant and open-minded person, but I have never been more disgusted by any topic related to sexuality as I am by this one. Consent cannot be commodified. End of story.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Let's evaluate that claim, shall we?
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “mutilation” as follows: ”An act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal.” Alternatively, the same dictionary also defines it as “an act or instance of damaging or altering something radically.” Hence, radical or severe “damage” or “alteration” is a necessary component in order to satisfy the most commonly accepted definitions of “mutilation.” With that in mind, let’s proceed with the argument.
Any proposed “ban” is up to the medical experts. The AAP and CDC each released statements (in 2012 and 2014, respectively) endorsing the procedure for prophylactic reasons, and concluded that it is an appropriate matter for parents along with their doctors to decide. Do you trust the medical community or not? I do in all matters, not just in transitioning children, abortion, and vaccines. (The science on this, by the way, is very clear. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet; stick to the hard evidence, not propaganda. Otherwise, you're no better (epistemologically speaking) than a climate denier who has become convinced by sites such as WattsUpWithThat. Look at the studies themselves if you want the details. Simply dismissing them out of hand, such as by claiming they're "flawed" without evidence, is akin to denying climate change without having reviewed any of the supporting facts and data underlying the theory.)
However, I believe in four reforms should be enacted: 1) any financial incentive needs to be eliminated (as would happen under single-payer healthcare), but the cost (~$150-200) must be borne by the parents due to the surgery's elective nature, 2) doctors should have the option of refusing to perform if they have a moral objection (like in the U.K.), so both parents AND the doctor must agree, 3) parents must specifically request it (so the default is that it is not performed), and 4) regulations require that the surgery is executed by a trained medical professional in a sterilized environment under anesthesia via block injection (thereby outlawing the traditional Jewish method, where most de@ths occur. As an aside, the concern about the link between acetaminophen use in pregnancy, infancy, and early childhood and ASD is valid, but as of now the AAP, AAFP, and FDA still recommend it for fever and pain reduction in babies). Hence, ideally, it would remain legal, as it is in literally every other country in the world (though South Africa and Iceland (lol) have made attempts to outlaw it), but fewer and fewer parents would choose it, and as the culture shifts it would eventually fall out of favor entirely -- the exact same process as what occurred in parts of Europe and throughout most of the Commonwealth (and is currently happening in South Korea as well).
As for why it must be performed in infancy and cannot wait until adulthood when the person can give consent, which is a reasonable objection, the reasons are numerous. First, the risk of complications are much lower at this stage (~.5% compared to ~3%) and are predominantly minor. Second, some benefits (such as lower risk of penile cancer and UTI's in infancy and early childhood, which can cause liver and kidney damage) are only conferred when it's done in infancy. Third, the inconvenience is greatly lessened -- recovery time is shorter, there are no stitches involved, and there is no need to take time off work or abstain from s-xual activity. Finally, some studies have found that there is a slightly higher chance of negative impact to function in nonmedical cases when the surgery is done later in life (perhaps attributable to greater complications), though this is in dispute due to the low quality of the evidence. It also helps, of course, that babies don't form memories of the experience — a fact that many men who consider it later in life are quite jealous of (29% of uncut men wish they were, as opposed to 10% of cut men who wish they weren't, according to a YouGov poll from 2015). Impacts to psychological functioning, by the way, are pure speculation and a complete myth, and are, once again, utterly unsupported by the evidence. (There's more proof, I would argue, that it increases the odds of winning a Nobel Prize.)
And, please, don't consider responding with an objection that "it reduces s-xual pleasure," because the highest quality evidence consistently finds that it does not in the vast majority of men (such as VMMC randomized controlled trials in Africa and the Dominican Republic) -- and, indeed, having researched this topic for four-and-a-half years myself, this is perfectly consistent with the numerous accounts I've seen from men who have had the surgery as adults (both for medical reasons and not), and who consequently experienced both sides. My own speculative explanation for this (based on research) is that, in most cases, much of the inner lining is retained (i.e. "mid" to "high" cuts are the norm), sensitivity to temperature is more important than light-touch, the brain "adjusts" to the deficit over a period of about six months to one year (some men have testified to this), the mechanics differ post-surgery, and the oft-cited figure of "20,000 nerve endings" is a wild overestimate based on a sample size of ONE that employed shoddy statistics (by a convicted fraudster and HIV/AIDS denialist, no less).
(Side note: I am well aware of the history of the practice in America, but it is quite irrelevant to the discussion as it pertains to ethics; claiming that it's wrong merely because the person to start the trend, William Harvey Kellogg, believed that it would prevent m@sturbation is functionally equivalent to condemning Planned Parenthood because its founder, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist. Comparisons to FGM are also not apt: the latter offers negligible or no medical, health, hygiene, or aesthetic benefits, and is quite often much more severe. I'm an atheist, but I'm also willing to acknowledge when certain beliefs, practices, rituals, etc. are beneficial based on scientific findings, or at least not harmful, as are other critical thinkers like Martha Nussbaum and Sam Harris. Also, the historical evidence strongly indicates that the the trend only caught on decades later after initially introduced, during both World Wars to maintain hygiene during trench warfare, but that's another matter.)
"Our risk-benefit analysis showed that benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by up to 200 to 1. We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime. Wide-ranging evidence from surveys, physiological measurements, and the anatomical location of penile sensory receptors responsible for sexual sensation strongly and consistently suggest that male circumcision has no detrimental effect on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure." (Emphasis added.) That is according to a meta-analysis published in the World Journal of Clinical Pediatrics in 2017.
"The hypothesis of inferior male sexual function following circumcision is not supported by the findings of this systematic review. The popular narrative that male circumcision results in sexual dysfunction does not seem to be supported by evidence." (Shabanzadeh) Taken directly from a review published in the Danish Medical Journal in 2016, which is run by the Danish Medical Association — not exactly an organization biased in favor of this operation. Furthermore, "the Danish Health Authorities do not recommend a law-enforced ban of non-medical circumcisions in Denmark based on these low rates of short-term complications." (Emphasis mine.) Hm, it's almost like the evidence doesn't support the notion that circumcision is harmful and should be banned, and even Scandinavian societies have recognized this. Go figure.
For all these reasons, I believe it is more accurately described as "modification" rather than "mutilation" (this latter descriptor being about as felicitous as labeling abortion "murder," and employed for essentially the same purpose: eliciting an irrational, emotional response). Having invested literally hundreds of hours of my time reading about this topic (hence the long rant chock-full of medical information), I am quite confident that I'm more qualified to speak on it than anyone who might be reading this, and these are the conclusions that I have reached. (And, for the record, I do not intend on having the surgery performed on any of my children because I personally believe bodily autonomy concerns outweigh the benefits -- after all, modifications are still, almost by definition, unnecessary. Others may reasonably hold a different view.) If you're curious to learn more, I recommend the following sources: the Canadian Pediatric Society has released a fair, balanced, and thorough assessment that was reaffirmed in 2021 (though not as comprehensive as the AAP's); for an expert's opinion, member of the American Urological Association Dr. Aaron Spitz has written about this in some detail; and, finally, for those curious about the ethics of the issue (particularly those with a consequentialist utilitarian bent, like myself), atheist antinatalist South African philosopher David Benatar (who, an activist himself, writes frequently on men's rights issues) has much insightful commentary to offer as well. Happy reading.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I am definitely a night shower guy. My job makes me run, clean muddy carts with a hose and trudge through mud OR get doused with a bunch of loose dirt as I'm picking up range balls. And on top of all that, it gets extremely hot out here in the summer so I am sweating my @ss off the entire time. There is NO WAY I am going to bed dirty and smelling like sh*t. Even if I'm home all day, I'll often take a shower anyway because more likely than not I've been sweating at some point throughout the day. Also, by taking night showers -- yes, I get that "fresh" feeling Kyle is talking about -- but even more than that, I don't have to clean my bedsheets more than once a month. Because dirty bedsheets just don't do it for me man. Gross. 🤮 I recently spent four days at a friend's house (I've never met him in-person prior to this), and we attended a huge convention all day (L.A. ComicCon) AND went out for dinner afterwards, and they didn't want to shower before bed. It blew my mind. 🤯 I was dressed as Kylo Ren, so I used the excuse that I was sweating in my costume when they asked me why I wanted to shower, but that was hardly the only reason. I was surrounded by hundreds of people, touched a lot of dirty sh*t (germ-wise), and I'm fairly certain that the science says taking a hot shower helps you fall asleep, not wake up. So if anything, if I wanted to wake up in the morning I would take a cold shower, not a hot one. I also rarely sweat overnight while I'm asleep (like Kyle) and I'm often rushing out the door anyway, so I don't bother with morning showers.
In summary, all of you people who go to bed stinky and take your shower in the morning are WEIRD. Although, if you shower twice per day (once in the morning, once in the evening), I can totally respect that and basically nothing I said here applies to you. Night showers are the way to go!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Qu'ran & Sunnah Thomas Jefferson was a Deist. Since I am not surprised that you don't know what Deism means, I'll explain it to you: Deists believe that the universe was created by God, or a Creator, but do not believe that this Creator has interfered with human beings in any way (including writing laws for us to follow, communicating with us, performing miracles, or sending its "son" go preach its message). However, they do believe that certain rights pre-exist government and no institution of man can take them away. Because Deism no longer exists on the scale it used to, the modern-day equivalent is more like agnosticism and, as non-religious folk, we often call these "human rights." By virtue of being born a human, you afforded rights that all other species do not have. It's a form of speciesism, but it has the same effect.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@champspec That's some bull💩 if I've ever seen any. I was fairly deep into conservative media in late 2020/early 2021, and I can specifically recall Brandon Tatum -- a hyperconservative commentator from Arizona, and no "actor" -- encouraging his audience to attend the rally on January 6th, and lamenting that he couldn't be there himself. Other prominent figures in right-wing media (e.g. Alex Jones), however, were able to attend, even if they did not trespass onto Capitol grounds. If you sincerely believe that every single one of the thousands of people who attended (upwards of 80,000, not 500,000 or a million) and the hundreds who stormed the Capitol were "actors," your cognitive faculties are lacking to an extent that any decent society would commit you to a mental institution.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at the gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own house . . . Pretty much anywhere.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I occupy somewhat of a middle position on this issue. As a utilitarian, what ultimately matters to me is the suffering involved in meat production, not the consumption of meat itself.
I was pleasantly surprised to learn that Tomi Lahren (of all people) is opposed to factory farming. So am I. And I'll concede to her this: I would not fault anyone for consuming free-range meat that is humanely slaughtered. Sadly, the vast majority of meat-based products on the market today is not produced that way, and therein lies the concern. Thus, I completely understand -- and even sympathize with -- the vegan's point of view and their boycott of all (or most) animal-based products.
Tomi's dismissal of the climate impacts of factory farming (of beef in particular), on the other hand, is at once disappointing and misguided. Bovine methane emissions are a significant, though not primary, contributor to global warming, and are therefore completely relevant to the climate debate. As to her point that people will eat meat no matter what -- if for no other reason than it tastes good -- I fear she's right. As a former vegan myself, I have sinced relapsed into a sort of vegetarian that eats poultry (I still refuse "red meat" such as beef and pork). However, as someone who also has had a burger or two in the earlier stages of my life, the "meat substitutes" (e.g. Beyond Meat, Impossible burgers, etc.) are nowhere near as bad as she described. I challenge anyone reading this to try it for themselves and come to a different conclusion.
I'll conclude with this: although I do not expect the entire world (or even a majority) to become vegan anytime in the foreseeable future, I believe there is reason for hope. Lab-grown meat has already demonstrated strong potential for mass production. Chemically, it is identical to real meat, but no suffering (assuming no extra emissions and comparable or improved worker safety) is involved in the manufacturing process. It is quite literally the ideal substitute, and I strongly suspect that it will not only become dominant by the end of this century, but no consumer will even notice the substitution when it occurs except through the media. One way or another, I believe the age of factory farming will come to an end, and the world will be a much better place for it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ah, so the Bible is your favorite collection of ancient myths and fairy tales, huh? Nice. Personally I have an affinity for Homer's the Iliad and the Odyssey, but the Vedas, the Pyramid texts, the Coffin texts, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Instruction of Amenemope, the Book of Caverns, the Book of Gates, the Amdaut, the Book of the Heavenly Cow, the Code of Hammurabi, the Kesh Temple Hymn, the Popol Vuh, the Avesta, and the writings of Herodotus are all good too.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Wait a minute, what about whites?!! Are we not deserving of the same protections? I have French ancestry, and back in the 18th and 19th centuries all any man wore was long hair! Seriously, just look at portraits of Rousseau, Voltaire, Pascal, and Descartes if you don't believe me. Many Englishmen had long hair as well (whether natural or a wig), including the likes of Hobbes, Locke, and Newton! Germans (of which almost half my ancestry derives) are not exempt from this trend either: just Google portraits of Leibniz and you'll see what I mean. What if I want to express pride in my ancestry by following in their footsteps? Am I not deserving of legal protection either, California? 😠
2
-
@jordanmunk3041 Ah, so the Bible is your favorite collection of ancient myths and fairy tales, huh? Nice. Personally I have an affinity for Homer's the Iliad and the Odyssey, but the Vedas, the Pyramid texts, the Coffin texts, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Instruction of Amenemope, the Book of Caverns, the Book of Gates, the Amdaut, the Book of the Heavenly Cow, the Code of Hammurabi, the Kesh Temple Hymn, the Popol Vuh, the Avesta, and the writings of Herodotus are all good too.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@johnsprague4914 NATO is simply an assertion of a Western alliance between democracies in North America and Europe, nothing more. (And especially in light of the first two World Wars, I contend that this is quite the accomplishment.) Russia could join NATO if it so chooses, but it first has to demonstrate that it can operate as an effective and legitimate democracy, not an autocratic oligarchy. Hence, NATO's ultimate purpose is to defend democracy around the world. Opposition admits nothing less than an open hostility to preserving the principles that have made the West the most prosperous region anywhere in the world -- namely, a commitment to democratic ideals and the safeguarding of basic civil and human rights and liberties. As a young American male, I wouldn't be drafted to fight for Finland; rather, I would be fighting to defend the most successful realization of these ideals in all of world history. And that, I believe, is a cause worth fighting for and is why I support NATO (despite all opposing arguments of which I am very familiar, most notably articulated by professor Noam Chomsky).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@21acurry Yes. Let me ask you this: Would you want to live in a world where smallpox kills 5 million people a year? If not, you have mandatory vaccination programs to thank for achieving herd immunity, saving countless lives, AND eradicating it from the face of the Earth (excluding lab cultures). (COVID has done half that, by the way.) Why don't people die of tetanus (which is excruciatingly painful), polio, or measles anymore? Because mandatory vaccines for children all but eliminated those too (that is, until some anti-vaxxers showed up in Washington state and a measles outbreak occurred for the first time in decades). And don't even get me started on the flu shot... You have no idea how many lives that has saved since its inception. What's the take-away here? That you people have been wrong every step of the way. You call it "freedom," I say it's "freedumb". Do you want to have the right to die from a raging pandemic, contributing to its spread and perpetuation, if it was completely preventable by rolling up your sleeve? If so, then don't call yourselves "pro-life." Why is it you people only care about "freedom" when it would cause more suffering or limit pleasure? Sincere question. I eagerly anticipate a (well thought-out) response.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If you consider yourself an American and you don't think the National Anthem represents you, I don't know what to tell you. It represents people of all races, creeds and ethnicities. The one and only requirement is that you're an American, either legally or at heart. What does it mean to be American, exactly? Not much, except supporting our founding documents: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Other than that, you can be anything you want and still call yourself an American. It isn't restricted to white Christian folks, that's for damn sure. And it isn't restricted to overzealous patriots either, or members of a certain political party or ideology. Kneel for the anthem all you want, it's a form of peaceful protest and I 100% support your right to do it. But please, if you were born and raised here, and especially if you have reaped the fruits of your labor in a country that allowed you to accumulate your wealth freely (I'm looking at you LeBron James), don't delude yourself into thinking that the Anthem doesn't represent you. That just simply isn't true.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Uh, that abortion is not murder? Murder is killing that is against the law. If it's legal, then it's not "murder." And thanks to Roe vs. Wade, abortion is legal nationwide. Hence, it is not murder. I might say that the death penalty is murder, but that would be factually incorrect --- because the law in many states allows for the execution of people who have committed heinous crimes, whether I agree with it or not (and I don't, by the way). But if you had even the slighest amount of philosophical training, you would immediately realize your fallacy and delete this banal comment. But I suspect you won't, because people like you have no shame. Ignorance is a source of pride for your kind, I can tell.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence of any country in the world. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: WorldPopulationReview)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This has to end. My freedom to live is of a higher priority than your freedom to own a weapon of war. Full stop.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at the July 4th parade, gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, garlic festival, Juneteenth celebration, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own home . . . Pretty much anywhere.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
As someone who just switched majors from Business to Poli Sci and is absolutely loving it, I think I can safely say that politics is for me. 😂 (Philosophy would be my second choice.) Also, I'm amused that when discussing labels, your options presented on screen are "Communist," "Marxist-Leninist," "Marxist-Leninist-Maoist," and "Anarchist." As an ordinary social democrat, I feel just a tad left out in this analysis. 😳🤣
P.S. The criticism of labels is on-point; as a recovered Libertarian, I can vouch for that. Nevertheless, they do simplify your perspective on most things, and are therefore useful in political conversations where your time is short or as a conversation-starter.
2
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time, liveable minimum wage, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
How utterly absurd. In the case of slavery, there is clearly harm being done. Not so with abortion. Embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mrbigmoney2081 Lol that is some of the most twisted logic I have ever heard. Why won't I believe in something there is literally 0 evidence for? I don't know, maybe because I'm not delusional? Also, don't tell me religion makes people moral; some of the worst atrocities in all of mankind have been justified on the grounds of religion. The Spanish Inquisition and conquest of the Americas, the Crusades, the Holocaust, 9/11, the Ku Klux Klan, ISIS, need I go on? You want to talk about treating people like a blade of grass, just take a look at religion. My mind is my own church, thank you very much.
2
-
2
-
Nope. Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as an entity that exists over time, or is self-aware (conscious, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
2
-
2
-
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at a summer camp, the gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own house . . . Pretty much anywhere.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@svscared This is just flat-out wrong. The United Nations, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have all characterized Israel as an apartheid state. Hell, even the top human rights organization in Israel -- B'Tselem -- has done the same. The simple truth is that the Israeli government is denying Palestinians the full rights of citizenship for no other reason than their ethnic origin, and confining them to two designated areas, one of which is currently experiencing an illegal occupation and the other a medieval-type siege. As for "ethnic cleasing," consider this: for every 1 Israeli killed from 2008 to 2021, 23 Palestinians were murdered. That comes directly from the United Nations. The Palestinian population has grown in spite of Israel's brutality, not because of it.
When I say I look forward to casting my vote for Katie Porter, I now do so a bit more tepidly than before. It's beyond shameful that she hasn't even joined a letter signed by 55 of her Democratic representatives calling for more humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, let alone join the 19 or so who have called for a ceasefire -- including her opponent, Representative Barbara Lee. In this respect, I am as outraged and disappointed as any individual who values treating everyone with basic human decency regardless of their background, and who believes that all innocent civilians should be thought of as more than mere "collateral damage."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I grew up a Jehovah's Witness, and my dad is a firm believer in demons. In fact, he claims to have seen them do strange things in the real world. For instance, according to him, when he was growing up in a five-family household in the San Francisco Bay Area, when his older brother (my uncle) was practicing the riff from Stairway to Heaven on the guitar -- which, if you weren't already aware, is the subject of numerous conspiracy theories due to alleged "backmasking" and guitarist Jimmy Page's fascination with the occult -- his mother (my grandma, who was an absolute died-in-the-wool believer that was converted by door-knocking JW's) got up and sleepwalked around the house. As soon as he was done playing, she would go back to bed.
As another example, my dad once told me a story of how his ex-wife (now deceased), upon converting to JW, was plagued by demons who spoke to her as she read the Bible (New World Translation), and on one occasion even "tripped" her on an empty floor in the dark, putting her in a coma. I've since met others who claim to have had similar kinds of supernatural experiences (all of whom grew up uber-religious, of course). You'd be surprised how common this belief is, even in "less superstitious" places like my home state of California.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@paulwheeler6609 You are 100% correct. I used to believe that owning a firearm was a fundamental right (barring certain exceptions, such as mental incompetence, which may also prohibit one from voting) until I saw how the rest of the developed world operates. Almost without exception, obtaining a firearm is extremely difficult (if not impossible), and even if you succeed there is no way you're getting your hands on an assault rifle unless you're in law enforcement or active service. And wouldn't you know it, their rates of firearm-related deaths pale in comparison to ours on a per-capita basis. Ideally, I would now go so far as to require a mandatory buyback of all registered firearms (instituting a strict licensing system like Canada's to earn them back), harshly punish those caught with unregistered weapons, and revoke federal benefits (e.g. Social Security, Medicare, driver's license) for anyone who refuses to comply with the federal mandate. But that would first require reinterpreting or repealing the Second Amendment, and that is unfortunately not likely to happen anytime soon. 😔 Still, having been on all sides of this issue I now consider myself "red-pilled," and I'm delighted to see that there are others who have applied reason to reach a similar conclusion.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
For everyone who says "guns aren't the issue, it's mental health," or "guns don't just get up one day, walk to a school, and fire themselves," I ask you: Would you apply that same reasoning to nuclear weapons? Certainly you don't believe that the world would be SAFER if civilians had access to weapons of mass destruction, do you? Then why do you REFUSE to acknowledge the empirical evidence PROVING that the prevalence of guns in a society results in more gun violence and deaths? For every 100 people living in America, there are 120 firearms. By comparison, in the next closest country, Yemen (which is currently embroiled in civil war), there are 52 firearms for every 100 people. We are OBJECTIVELY the least safe country in the developed world in terms of the gun homicide metric -- it's not even close. So, tell me, why not apply your flawed "guns don't kill people, people kill people" reasoning to other weapons of war as well? I eagerly await THAT answer. The only halfway decent response I can think of is that nuclear weapons cannot be used in self-defense, to which I reply that in a dearmed society (like most of Europe, for example), you won't need to defend yourself against someone with an assault rifle. Period. My right to LIVE supersedes your right to own a weapon of war.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Keep in mind, Mark used the same username in each and every one of his accounts (minisoldr), gave specific biographical details that align precisely with his personal life (e.g. the year he got married) using these accounts, provided a location that matched exactly where he resided at the time (Greensboro, NC), and -- here's the clincher -- used the SAME EMAIL ADDRESS to create each account, which his campaign has already confirmed as his personal email.
Sorry Brandon, but there's no escaping this one. The evidence against him is rock-solid, and he's on track for a Doug Mastriano-level loss, if not more. I would be extremely worried if I were the Trump campaign, given his full-throated endorsement (which he has yet to rescind) and lavish praise for this man. What's with Republicans propping up the most psychotic, far-right nutjobs against incumbent male Jewish attorney generals in battleground states anyway?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ghostwalk2446 Oh, but these "some people" are very vocal. They're in our entertainment (Hollywood), and they're in Congress. They believe that a biological woman can become a man anytime she wants, and vice versa. And the specific situation I'm discussing is shoving a person into bushes, not biting their nose off. Furthermore, I'm basing my logic on what the majority of men would do; we're not discussing Ronda Rousey, because her reaction would most likely not reflect how the majority of women would respond in this situation. So there are going to be exceptions if the man is elderly, has a medical condition, generally very passive in nature, or otherwise impaired in some way. I'm making generalizations, not statements of fact.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MrS22222 Hm really? Because Japan, Singapore, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, South Korea, and a number of other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws in the world, and also the lowest rates of gun v-olence in the world. Meanwhile, the U.S. has more guns-per-capita than Yemen (which is #2), and also has the highest rates of gun v-olence in the developed world --- by far. That is not a coincidence.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Wailwulf Yellow lights exist for providing a transition period between green and red, and whether or not a driver chooses to proceed through them is purely his or her choice. I have NEVER heard of a case where I live (in California) in which a cop ticketed a driver for proceeding through a yellow light. And if that ever happened to me, you can bet your @ss I will be fighting that one out in court. There's no "discretion" to be had here on the part of law enforcement. Perhaps the situation is different in Canada. However, from what I've been told, in my area police officers will exercise discretion if a driver just barely misses a yellow light, accidentally driving through a red. The window is, if I had to estimate, no greater than about 1.5 seconds. That, to me, seems fair. Being ticketed for driving through a yellow, on the other hand, is absurd.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@poopdeckpappy2658 "tHe cLiMaTe AlWaYs cHaNgEs" My god, where do I start with this one... If you mean Ice Ages, then sure. But this is different because this change is human-caused and the rate at which it is occurring is literally unprecedented (unless you include massive natural disasters like the Toba eruption). On its own, the climate would probably gradually transition to something cooler as another Ice Age takes over, but because we're here, it's taking off like a runaway train in the other direction. The polar ice caps will melt, coastal cities will flood, whole ecosystems will be destroyed, deserts will spread rapidly, and (perhaps worst of all) global underwater currents will slow or stop altogether as they are diluted by the rapid change in sea levels. And you're saying it's not a problem?! Well, either you or your progeny are in for a nasty surprise. And we'll still be here, saying "we told you so," because the science doesn't lie.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
That's up to the medical experts. The AAP and CDC each released statements in 2012 endorsing the procedure (for prophylactic reasons), and that it is an appropriate matter for parents along with their doctors to decide. Do you trust the medical community or not? I do in all matters, not just in transitioning children. However, I believe in three reforms should be enacted: 1) any financial incentive needs to be eliminated (as would happen under single-payer), 2) doctors should have the option of refusing to perform if they have a moral objection (like in the U.K.), so both parents AND the doctor must agree, and 3) regulations require that the surgery is performed by a trained medical professional in a sterilized environment under anesthesia (thereby outlawing the traditional Jewish method, where most de@ths occur). And please, don't even consider responding with an objection that "it reduces s-xual pleasure," because the highest quality evidence consistently finds that it does not (such as VMMC trials in Africa and the Dominican Republic) -- and, indeed, having researched this topic for four-and-a-half years myself, this aligns perfectly with the numerous accounts I've seen from men who have had the surgery as adults (both for medical reasons and not), and who consequently experienced both sides. Having invested literally hundreds of hours of my time reading about this topic, I am quite confident that I am more qualified to speak on this than any of you, and these are the conclusions that I have reached. (And, for the record, I do not intend on having the surgery performed on any of my children.) If you're curious to learn more, I recommend the following sources: the Canadian Pediatric Society has released a fair, balanced, and thorough assessment that was reaffirmed in 2021; for an expert's opinion, member of the American Urological Association Dr. Aaron Spitz has written about this in some detail; and, finally, for those curious about the ethics of the issue (particularly those with a consequentialist utilitiarian bent, like myself), atheist antinatalist South African philosopher David Benatar (who, an activist himself, writes frequently on men's rights issues) has much insightful commentary to offer as well. Happy reading.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The facts say otherwise. The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not.
If that isn't enough to convince you, there's also this fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: WorldPopulationReview)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yep. Fortunately, there's already a movement to get wealth distributed to the places where it is most desperately needed. It's called effective altruism, and was founded by Princeton University Professor of Philosophy Peter Singer, Oxford Professor of Philosophy Will MacAskill, and Toby Ord. Bill Gates, according to Singer, is "one of the greatest effective altruists in the world." So at least there are a few rich people out there doing good works, and they can generally be found by seeing who has signed the Giving Pledge (Warren Buffett and George Soros have as well). Jeff Bezos has not. We cannot rely on private charity to improve living standards around the world, or even here at home, because there will never be enough altruism to go around. It sucks, but this is the world we live in. About 40% of this country would rather see them starve or run to what few Christian missionary organizations exist just to survive than see the wealthiest countries make sizeable (and meaningful) contributions to their fellow human beings. And a fair portion of them think it was "god's plan" that they are so lucky, and that people halfway around the world are so unfortunate. At least the current Pope is taking an interest in making an effort to alleviate their suffering, though.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
RFK Jr. is completely out to lunch on this issue, and this is reason I'll never vote for him. As lefties, I believe we should value science and empiricism above all else (e.g. as opposed to religion and superstition). Anyone who believes as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. does has not evaluated the scientific evidence dispassionately. The Wakefield study, for instance, has been thoroughly discredited, and there is no peer-reviewed study suggesting that the mRNA COVID vaccines are similarly harmful. In fact, the evidence to the contrary is just as compelling as that supporting the theories of anthropogenic climate change, evolution, and general relativity. If one accepts the science in those domains, then one cannot consistently hold the view that vaccines are neither safe nor effective. Conspiracy theorists who spit in the face of the most objective and rigorous search for knowledge in existence should not hold elected office, period.
If it weren't for vaccines, we would still be dying from smallpox by the millions. So forgive me for placing my trust authoritative sources and the scientific consensus (e.g. Dr. Paul Offit, the American Medical Association) rather than some crackpot has-been environmental lawyer.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@valoredramack9117 This is a logical fallacy. First of all, the universe is freakin' HUGE, containing somewhere on the order of 10^22 planets in it (that's 10 with 22 zeroes after it). The fact that one had the right conditions for life is not at all surprising --- in fact, given our current knowledge of biochemistry (which is more than sufficient to hypothesize about how life might have started), it would be a miracle of there was no life in the universe at all! But what applies to individual objects within a universe (e.g. a pyramid, a planet, a solar system, a galaxy, etc.) does not apply to the universe as a whole, because that is jumping one logical sphere. To give an example, it is true to say that every human that has ever existed had a mother (Adam and Eve weren't real, sorry if this is news to you), but it is not true to say that the human race had (has?) a mother. Same thing with the universe as a whole. Additionally, given that space and time are intertwined (as Einstein showed us), there was no time before the Big Bang and hence it makes no sense to ask "what came before?" So both philosophically and scientifically, this argument does not hold water. Another argument from ignorance is that the universe is somehow "fine-tuned" for life, but given that it seems that everything out to kill us (weather, climate, asteroids, supernovae, galaxies colliding, etc.), this takes gullibility to another level of extreme. We're only here because a slow, painful process of evolution by natural selection played out for 4 billion years, with innumerable setbacks and unfathomable amounts of suffering. Not exactly the handiwork one would expect from an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent deity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You're not "pro-life" if you only support measures conducive to life before it exits the womb. Are you equally outraged about the fact that millions of innocent men, women, and children halfway around the world are being bombed into oblivion by our military or starved to death by our sanctions (and those of our allies)? Or that close to 70 MILLION Americans are uninsured/underinsured and 45,000 die each year due to a lack of proper healthcare? How about the future generations that will be completely wiped out because minimal action is being taken to address the impending climate catastrophe? Do you support the most basic regulations that would ensure that those precious unborn children won't be brutally gunned down once they reach the 3rd grade?
And don't even get me started on non-human life. The suffering of hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows we slaughter alive each and every day merely because we enjoy the taste of their flesh is ASTRONOMICAL compared to all abortions humanity has ever performed COMBINED. Does the life of that unborn child matter if it is gay or transgender, or would it be better off if it was "six feet under"? Prove to me that you believe life matters AFTER it has left the womb by pressuring your legal representatives to pass paid maternity leave and universal childcare, as the USA remains the ONLY developed country that does not provide these services. Better yet, demand that those children earn enough to make a decent living for themselves and their families when they grow older by advocating for raising the minimum wage and unionization efforts. Make it clear that you demand action on criminal justice reform, starting with abolishing the barbaric practice of state-sanctioned execution which more closely aligns the US with Saudi Arabia than with any of our peer nations in Europe. Finally, vigorously oppose any measure to engage in an unjustified and illegal offensive halfway around the world that costs taxpayers trillions of dollars and steals the lives of thousands of innocent Americans (usually young men).
George Carlin called out this blatant hypocrisy decades ago.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f-cked."
Embryos/fetuses prior to 18 weeks gestation cannot suffer (let alone possess any form of sentience or consciousness), and that infuriates conservatives. So in order to maximize human misery (their ultimate agenda), they seek to outlaw it so that mothers are forced to give birth and those children grow up in destitute and dysfunctional households with little to no social support, receive a poor quality education and either saddle themselves with student debt or serve in the armed forces, only to end up wounded/severely traumatized with no guaranteed healthcare and/or slaving away for a corporation for baseline wages -- all the while ensuring maximum penalties for engaging in sexual activity -- and finally growing old and retiring in little comfort due to a rapidly diminishing allowance in the form of Social Security. Then the cycle repeats itself. And that's not even taking into consideration the potential consequences of overpopulation -- resources will be spread thinner and thinner until, at a certain point, the damage done to our planet will be so severe that human civilization will be all but wiped off the face of the Earth. Think how much worse off we would be TODAY if we added 60+ million to our population (approximately the number of fetuses aborted since 1973). Famine, war, and widepread civil unrest are just the beginning. That's the world Republicans want -- a dystopian Malthusian/Orwellian hellscape -- whether they are cognizant of it or not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'm very left-of-center, but I consider myself more strict on immigration than others. Ideally, we would want people to stay where they are and live a long, happy, prosperous life (in fact, we know for certain that this is possible in Latin America, as Costa Rica demonstrates). However, in the short-term, we should remain open to those who have a legitimate claim to asylum. The way I see it, if we can afford the economic burden of up to one million extra births each year due to a national prohibition on abortion, we can accept tens of thousands of migrants who, although unskilled, can immediately become economically productive. As such, those who are fluent in English (among other desirable skills) should have priority.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The culture of ultra-wokeness is the reason right-wing outlets like The Daily Wire and The Rubin Report and conservative independent creators on YouTube (e.g. Brandon Tatum, Geeks & Gamers, etc.) are growing rapidly. This culture of hypersensitivity and hyperawareness about race and sex (multiculturalism, intersectionality, social justice, postmodernism, whatever you want to call it) is turning people away from all liberal causes, including economic policies that have nothing to do with identity politics whatsoever. I know this because I was caught in it for 4 years. Fortunately, I discovered this channel and I was rescued from my ignorance. But this has got to change. Being told that you're privileged when in fact you are at a disadvantage in multiple ways (affirmative action, no legal protections against hiring/firing discrimination, accusations of "toxic masculinity," and so on) is absolutely not an appealing message to young men like myself. Keep pushing out the content Kyle, you are making a difference. 👍
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@antonioharrison8274 Oh really? Jesus "never said if you are rich you cant [sic] go to heaven"? That's where you're gonna plant your flag? OK, here we go...
Hm, what does Mark 10:25 say? "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (NASB)
"And god [sic] is not a communist." Hm, I wonder then what it means when Jesus says, "One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." (Mark 10:21, NASB)
Oh don't worry, I've got more:
Luke 12:33: "Sell your possessions and give to charity..." (NASB)
Luke 18:22 "One thing you still lack: sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." (NASB)
Luke 6:30: "Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back." (NASB)
Matthew 6:19: "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal." (NASB)
It's amazing how many so-called "Christians" don't even know what's in their own Bible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rabbit251 First of all, that username 💀. If you think Nancy frickin' Pelosi is on the "Left," I've got news for you. A true politician on the "Left" would not be massively corrupt. I don't normally engage in purity-testing -- I have my disagreements with the Left, such as on affirmative action -- but this is one issue I will not compromise on. I'm glad you pointed out that Katie Porter is on the right side of this. Now she is a good representative of the Left in government, and as a Californian I cannot wait to vote for her as my next Senator.
As for the trans debate, I defer (as I always do) to the experts, and the American Medical Association, American Pyschological Association, and American Academy of Pediatrics (among many others) have all now reached a consensus that gender dysphoria is a genuine phenomenon that occurs in a small fraction of the overall population. Because "gender" is socially constructed and detached from biology (unlike sex), it is possible to be born with a gender that doesn't match your biological sex. However, because it is primarily mental/psychological, there is certainly room for reasonable debate as to which should take precedence -- gender or biological sex -- with respect to segregated activities like sports, bathrooms, lodging, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're a miserable excuse for a human being.
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards), like Social Security and Medicare
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity/medical leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, and so on)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
For everyone who says "guns aren't the issue, it's mental health," or "guns don't just get up one day, walk to a school, and fire themselves," I ask you: Would you apply that same reasoning to nuclear weapons? Certainly you don't believe that the world would be SAFER if civilians has access to weapons of mass destruction, do you? Then why do you REFUSE to acknowledge the empirical evidence PROVING that the prevalence of guns in a society results in more gun violence and deaths? For every 100 people living in America, there are 120 firearms. By comparison, in the next closest country, Yemen (which is currently embroiled in civil war), there are 52 firearms for every 100 people. We are OBJECTIVELY the least safe country in the developed world in terms of the gun homicide metric. So, tell me, why not apply your flawed "guns don't kill people, people kill people" reasoning to other weapons of war as well? I eagerly await THAT answer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're not "pro-life" if you only support measures conducive to life before it exits the womb. Are you equally outraged about the fact that innocent children, women, and men halfway around the world are being bombed into oblivion by our military or starved to death by our sanctions (and those of our allies)? Or that tens of millions of AMERICANS are uninsured and 45,000 die each year due to a lack of health insurance? How about the future generations that will be completely wiped out because minimal action is being taken to address the impending climate catastrophe? Do you support the most basic regulations that would ensure that those precious unborn children won't be brutally gunned down once they reach the 3rd grade?
And don't even get me started on non-human life. The suffering of hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows we slaughter alive each and every day merely because we enjoy the taste of their flesh is ASTRONOMICAL compared to all abortions humanity has ever performed COMBINED. Does the life of that unborn child matter if it is gay or transgender, or would it be better off if it was "six feet under"? Prove to me that you believe life matters AFTER it has left the womb by pressuring your legal representatives to pass paid maternity leave and universal childcare, as the USA remains the ONLY developed country that does not provide these services. Better yet, demand that those children earn enough to make a decent living when they grow older by supporting raising the minimum wage and unionization efforts. Make it clear that you demand action on criminal justice reform, starting with abolishing the barbaric practice of state-sanctioned execution which more closely aligns the US with Saudi Arabia than with any of our peer nations in Europe. Finally, vigorously oppose any measure to engage in an unjustified and illegal offensive halfway around the world that costs taxpayers trillions of dollars and steals the lives of thousands of innocent Americans (usually young men).
George Carlin called out this blatant hypocrisy decades ago.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f-cked."
Embryos/fetuses prior to 18 weeks gestation cannot suffer (let alone possess any form of sentience or consciousness), and that infuriates conservatives. So in order to maximize human misery (their ultimate agenda), they seek to outlaw it so that mothers are forced to give birth and those children grow up in destitute and dysfunctional households with little to no social support, receive a poor quality education and either saddle themselves with student debt or serve in the armed forces, only to end up wounded/severely traumatized with no guaranteed healthcare and/or slaving away for a corporation for baseline wages -- all the while ensuring maximum penalties for engaging in sexual activity -- and finally growing old and retiring in little comfort due to a rapidly diminishing allowance in the form of Social Security. And then the cycle repeats itself. And that's not even taking into account the potential consequences of overpopulation -- resources will be spread thinner and thinner until, at a certain point, the damage done to our planet will be so severe that human civilization will be all but wiped off the face of the Earth. Think how much worse off we would be TODAY if we added 60+ million to our population (approximately the number of fetuses aborted since 1973). Famine, war, and widepread civil unrest are just the beginning. That's the world Republicans want -- a Malthusian/Orwellian hellscape -- whether they are cognizant of it or not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
I've argued before that:
"The fact that Kyle seems absolutely convinced that Trump will be convicted within the next [nine] months is adorably naïve. First of all, the U.S. Supreme Court will delay all of these cases as much as they possibly can; look no further than their refusal to expedite Trump's total immunity claim. This makes it highly unlikely that the cases brought by the Department of Justice will be concluded before November 5th -- especially given the complex and unprecedented constitutional questions involved -- and, as is widely understood, Trump can simply dismiss them when he's reelected (or pardon himself, if need be).
That leaves the two state cases. Inarguably the stronger of the two is the Fulton County, Georgia RICO case. Anyone even slightly paying attention is no doubt already aware of the scandal involving Fani Willis and her handpicked special prosecutor, Nathan Wade. To say this completely jeopardizes the prosecution would be an understatement. Finally, the weaknesses of the case involving hush money payments to a p*rn star (lol) are hardly worth spelling out; here, it will suffice to remind the reader that it relies upon an entirely novel legal theory invented wholecloth. At most, Trump is guilty of a misdemeanor offense -- one that the FBI didn't find it worth their time to pursue."
With each passing day, I feel increasingly vindicated with respect to Trump's legal future. The odds that a conviction will hold (i.e. not be vacated on appeal) by election day are near zero. Democrats shot themselves in the foot the moment they chose to run Biden a second time.
(P.S. I still maintain that J.D. Vance will be chosen as Trump's running mate; we will see how that one holds up as well. 😂)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- No common sense gun laws
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is second). Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun v-olence of any country in the world. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time, liveable minimum wage, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DavidWest2 This, by the way, is not even a complete collection of my thoughts on the matter (I have researched this topic for four-and-a-half years). That information, however, is available upon request. As to your first point, I am pleased to see you concede that the health benefits are well-documented at this point (though still predominantly minor). Concerning sensitivity and function, on the other hand, I believe an accusation of misrepresentation with the intention to mislead is warranted. As I've noted, the most rigorous observations (with randomized controlled trials, or RCTs, being the "gold standard") have consistently found that the differences pre- and post-operation are negligible. Those few with contradictory findings have, almost without exception, been criticized by other experts for flawed experimentation methods or poor statistical analyses (see, for instance, Morris et al.'s response to Sorrells, Young, and Van Howe (2007)). We will agree that more research is needed to determine the effect, if any, on partners (male or female). Based on my research alone, it would seem to vary quite significantly by individual, although a majority do not appear to indicate a preference one way or the other.
"The dismissal of [the 20,000 nerve-endings figure] doesn't automatically invalidate the potential loss of sensitivity argument." I beg to differ. It does, at the very least, cast it into serious doubt. Again, more research is needed to conclusively determine the exact magnitude of the loss, but as I mentioned earlier, even a superficially substantial amount may make little difference to overall sensation because (for instance) the mechanics differ post-surgery or the brain may have the capacity to "adjust" to the deficit — both of which have been attested to by men who were operated upon as adults.
Regarding the Danish Health Authorities, I would like to point out that your stance was previously iterated thus: "If we apply the same principle of upholding bodily integrity over religious tradition, we could reimagine the practice of circumcision." Perhaps this impression is erroneous, but I interpreted this message as equating circumcision to FGM, with the implication being that the response from medical and governmental authorities should be similar. If so, then it would be inconsistent to also agree with the stance of the Danish Medical Association, which has explicitly opposed any "law-enforced ban of non-medical circumcisions." Clarity on this would be appreciated.
Lastly, your critique of the equivalence between this issue and climate change is flawed. It is my contention that there currently exists a "broad scientific consensus" with respect to the effects of the procedure on overall health and function/sensation (namely, the one I just outlined). And, as I have just noted, there is reason to believe that you may be disregarding said consensus "without valid grounds." Further, the implication that the debate around climate change does not encompass "personal, ethical, and cultural factors" is, I argue, wrong on its face. The decision to drive (an ICE car) to work rather than cycle or to make use of aviation for a luxurious getaway necessarily involves personal, ethical, and cultural considerations. That one belongs to the medical domain and the other the physical is ultimately irrelevant. The degree of confidence in the conclusions as informed by empirical evidence is what matters, and in both cases (I contend) the consensus is quite strong — albeit not equal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fun fact: The most prosperous societies on Earth are "socialist." I'm talking about Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the Netherlands, just to name a few. Do you mean to say that every time the government spends our taxpayer dollars on HELPING the American people by providing them with basic necessities that every other developed country already provides (universal healthcare, childcare, lower prescription drug costs, a liveable wage, paid maternity leave, etc.) instead of what our corrupt politicians have been spending it on thus far (endless war, the military-industrial complex, weapons for foreign countries, corporate subsidies, Wall Street bailouts, and so on) is "socialism"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're not "pro-life" if you only support measures conducive to life before it exits the womb. Are you equally outraged about the fact that millions of innocent men, women, and children halfway around the world are being bombed into oblivion by our military or starved to death by our sanctions (and those of our allies)? Or that close to 70 MILLION Americans are uninsured/underinsured and 45,000 die each year due to a lack of proper healthcare? How about the future generations that will be completely wiped out because minimal action is being taken to address the impending climate catastrophe? Do you support the most basic regulations that would ensure that those precious unborn children won't be brutally gunned down once they reach the 3rd grade?
And don't even get me started on non-human life. The suffering of hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows we slaughter alive each and every day merely because we enjoy the taste of their flesh is ASTRONOMICAL compared to all abortions humanity has ever performed COMBINED. Does the life of that unborn child matter if it is gay or transgender, or would it be better off if it was "six feet under"? Prove to me that you believe life matters AFTER it has left the womb by pressuring your legal representatives to pass paid maternity leave and universal childcare, as the USA remains the ONLY developed country that does not provide these services. Better yet, demand that those children earn enough to make a decent living for themselves and their families when they grow older by advocating for raising the minimum wage and unionization efforts. Make it clear that you demand action on criminal justice reform, starting with abolishing the barbaric practice of state-sanctioned execution which more closely aligns the US with Saudi Arabia than with any of our peer nations in Europe. Finally, vigorously oppose any measure to engage in an unjustified and illegal offensive halfway around the world that costs taxpayers trillions of dollars and steals the lives of thousands of innocent Americans (usually young men).
George Carlin called out this blatant hypocrisy decades ago.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f-cked."
Embryos/fetuses prior to 18 weeks gestation cannot suffer (let alone possess any form of sentience or consciousness), and that infuriates conservatives. So in order to maximize human misery (their ultimate agenda), they seek to outlaw it so that mothers are forced to give birth and those children grow up in destitute and dysfunctional households with little to no social support, receive a poor quality education and either saddle themselves with student debt or serve in the armed forces, only to end up wounded/severely traumatized with no guaranteed healthcare and/or slaving away for a corporation for baseline wages -- all the while ensuring maximum penalties for engaging in sexual activity -- and finally growing old and retiring in little comfort due to a rapidly diminishing allowance in the form of Social Security. Then the cycle repeats itself. And that's not even taking into consideration the potential consequences of overpopulation -- resources will be spread thinner and thinner until, at a certain point, the damage done to our planet will be so severe that human civilization will be all but wiped off the face of the Earth. Think how much worse off we would be TODAY if we added 60+ million to our population (approximately the number of fetuses aborted since 1973). Famine, war, and widepread civil unrest are just the beginning. That's the world Republicans want -- a dystopian Malthusian/Orwellian hellscape -- whether they are cognizant of it or not.
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time, liveable minimum wage, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@billworden6642 What you have written is sheer gobbledegook. If you were paying attention to the news less than three years ago, you will recall the moment when Trump asked a member of his COVID-19 task force (Dr. Deborah Birx) if injecting disinfectant would be an effective treatment during a press briefing. Clearly you were not, or otherwise (if I'm being charitable), your memory must be faulty, to say the least. (Because surely this falsehood wasn't maliciously propogated with the intent to deceive. 🙄) That's okay -- the clip can easily be found on YouTube for your viewing pleasure.
Your fabrication concerning the Charlottesville protests doesn't fare any better. Again, if you were even passively following media coverage from reputable outlets, you might recall that the then-President asserted that there were "good people on both sides." Who were the both sides you may ask? Far-right white supremacists marching with tiki torches shouting anti-Semitic chants, and counter-protesters. Go ahead, tell me that the depiction of each side advocating for noble causes is accurate. I dare you. These two apparent attempts at gaslighting are so egregious on their own that, I contend, the remainder of your message has lost all credibility. And so, I fear, might have you; unless you have the integrity -- and, frankly, the sanity -- to admit your mistake.
1
-
1
-
@CommonCensorship Well then, I'm afraid that there is not much to debate, if your intended meaning is that morality is divorceable from religion. Indeed, this is a fundamental tenet of modern philosophy (specifically axiology, one of the three domains) in the wake of the Euthyphro dilemma and the collapse of Divine Command Theory (supported by, among others, Thomas Aquinas), first raised by the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates. Two leading secular moral philosophies are deontology (e.g. Kantianism) and utilitarianism (Bentham/Mill/Singer), and it is to the latter that I look for guidance when navigating ethical concerns. I will freely debate the merits of each, or even another ethical theory (Aristotle's virtue ethics, for instance), if you wish.
EDIT: I apologize, Aquinas was not a divine command theorist, but proposed a similar philosophy known as "natural law theory." I own up to my mistake. Still, his argument appears to rely on the premise that God's commandments will produce the best results for humanity -- a highly dubious assumption. (It may rely on accepting the existence of a blissful afterlife, for which evidence in its turn must be provided.) Moreover, it is also susceptible to Scottish philosopher David Hume's is-ought distinction.
1
-
@CommonCensorship I don't know why your comment is getting flagged and (presumably) deleted. The YouTube filter can be quite capricious. Now, as to the statement "good is a human construct," I find that very intriguing. Certainly, if we wish to get into semantics we can confidently claim that the word "good" is a human construct, as is all of language. But it's the implications for objective morality that particularly interest me. If it is your contention that "good" is only defined by humans, then it must be deductively true that it is not defined by some cosmic force (such as God or karma). Furthermore, drawing out the implications leads us to conclude that "bad" must also be a human construct, as it is the logical counterpart to good (whether it is the presence of evil or merely the absence of good). But if "good" and "bad" are merely human constructs, then there can be no objective morality, including of the theistic kind. As a moral realist I disagree with this claim, but for those who hold the view that morality and religion are inseparable from one another, this conclusion is completely unacceptable. Is this still your position?
Edit: Apologies for the late reply, I succumbed to my biological necessity for rest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time, liveable minimum wage, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In January 2023, I predicted J.D. Vance would be Trump's 2024 running mate. Why? Besides the fact that he is fiercely loyal (a prerequisite to even be granted consideration, it would seem), here are some of my justifications:
A) He just won a highly contested Senate race in a Midwestern state that, up until very recently, was considered the ultimate bellweather of American politics. While it will almost certainly not be a toss-up for the Presidency this election cycle, it will be for the Senate. With West Virginia as an automatic pickup, Republicans need to win just one more seat in order to guarantee Senate control. Who are the two most vulnerable Democratic incumbents? Montana Senator Jon Tester and Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown. J.D. Vance on the bottom of the ticket may motivate Ohioans who showed up for him in 2022 to vote for his fellow MAGA devotee: Bernie Moreno.
B) Returning to the Presidential contest, only four states are considered toss-ups, which (due to sharing certain characteristics beyond geography) can be broadly lumped into two groups: the Sun Belt (Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina) and the Rust Belt (Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania). Guess in which of the two, based on polling, the Trump campaign is struggling the most to gain traction. Vance's status as a sitting Senator from Ohio may additionally aid significantly in reaching out to Rust Belt voters who are attracted to his brand of populism, as evidenced by the stunning Trump victory there in 2016 (shattering the Democrats so-called "blue wall"). Of the eight candidates revealed to be on Trump's shortlist, the choice of which is most likely to appeal to the concerns of this critical region of the country could hardly be more obvious.
C) Yet another advantage J.D. Vance possesses relative to many others on the shortlist is his television presence. Trump made a calculated decision to select a candidate who contrasted sharply with weaknesses in his personality, character, and manner of speaking in 2016 -- that is, someone with a calm, tempered, more "Presidential" demeanor who, at the time, was relatively scandal-free (Mike Pence). 2024 is a fundamentally different election environment. His support with evangelicals is all but cemented. His tone, style, and mannerisms are all part of the act and no longer as newsworthy. What does have voters concerned, however, is his apparent mental decline (closely tied to age; more on that later). What he needs in order to alleviate these concerns is someone within the administration who can set the record straight when he inevitably slips up (and argue forcefully in his defense), and who's better suited to do so than J.D. Vance? The 2024 Republican debates demonstrated to voters all across the country the disparity in competence, articulation abilities, and charisma, and the two worst performers (ironically) also happen to be on his shortlist: Tim Scott and Doug Burgum. If his goal is to get voters to tune out the VP completely and focus entirely on him, he may indeed choose one of them. But if he prefers a candidate who is able to defend and evangelize the MAGA message as effectively as himself (if not more so) -- and therefore win over more voters who are otherwise unimpressed with his declining mental acuity and advanced age -- few others compare to the rising star that is J.D. Vance.
D) The fourth benefit J.D. Vance adds to a Trump ticket is so obvious it's hardly worth spelling out in detail: age. Trump is 78, Biden is 81. After eight years of these two speaking on behalf of the entire nation (Harris barely exists as far as most voters are concerned), a 39-year-old whippersnapper like J.D. Vance will seem like a breath of fresh air. Those more informed about American history may also see parallels with another up-and-comer in the Republican Party: Teddy Roosevelt (who is still considered one of the greatest Presidents of all time). By no means am I predicting a catastrophic event in a second Trump term, but as the great Mark Twain once said: "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."
E) But wait, there's more. Some may counter that while, yes, J.D. Vance is a sitting U.S. Senator, he lacks political experience. While there's merit to this argument, I do not believe it to be nearly as compelling in the current situation, which has no precedent in mdoern American politics; that is, where a former U.S. President, suffering an electoral defeat in his re-election bid, is attempting a comeback. In these circumstances, I believe such experience is far less important than having a national profile -- which J.D. Vance absolutely possesses. The author of a national bestseller (Hillbilly Elegy), his tale is one that exemplifes the "American Dream": growing up in a socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhood in a largely neglected part of the country, and overcoming adversity (including a mother who battled opioid addiction) to attend an Ivy League university (Yale Law School) and launch several successful business ventures. This is precisely the kind of story that impresses one Donald J. Trump, and is one well-suited to advancing the agenda the GOP in its current iteration stands for.
F) Finally, as a bonus, J.D. Vance also happens to share the last three letters of his surname with Trump's previous running mate, which might avoid drawing too much attention to the difference in administration on a sub-conscious level (and may also prove convenient for those who wish to make minor changes to their old Trump/Pence merchandise 😆).
For all these reasons, I still maintain that J.D. Vance is the leading contender in the Trump veepstakes, but only time will tell.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're not "pro-life" if you only support measures conducive to life before it exits the womb. Are you equally outraged about the fact that millions of innocent men, women, and children halfway around the world are being bombed into oblivion by our military or starved to death by our sanctions (and those of our allies)? Or that close to 70 MILLION Americans are uninsured/underinsured and 45,000 die each year due to a lack of proper healthcare? How about the future generations that will be completely wiped out because minimal action is being taken to address the impending climate catastrophe? Do you support the most basic regulations that would ensure that those precious unborn children won't be brutally gunned down once they reach the 3rd grade?
And don't even get me started on non-human life. The suffering of hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows we slaughter alive each and every day merely because we enjoy the taste of their flesh is ASTRONOMICAL compared to all abortions humanity has ever performed COMBINED. Does the life of that unborn child matter if it is gay or transgender, or would it be better off if it was "six feet under"? Prove to me that you believe life matters AFTER it has left the womb by pressuring your legal representatives to pass paid maternity leave and universal childcare, as the USA remains the ONLY developed country that does not provide these services. Better yet, demand that those children earn enough to make a decent living for themselves and their families when they grow older by advocating for raising the minimum wage and unionization efforts. Make it clear that you demand action on criminal justice reform, starting with abolishing the barbaric practice of state-sanctioned execution which more closely aligns the US with Saudi Arabia than with any of our peer nations in Europe. Finally, vigorously oppose any measure to engage in an unjustified and illegal offensive halfway around the world that costs taxpayers trillions of dollars and steals the lives of thousands of innocent Americans (usually young men).
George Carlin called out this blatant hypocrisy decades ago.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f-cked."
Embryos/fetuses prior to 18 weeks gestation cannot suffer (let alone possess any form of sentience or consciousness), and that infuriates conservatives. So in order to maximize human misery (their ultimate agenda), they seek to outlaw it so that mothers are forced to give birth and those children grow up in destitute and dysfunctional households with little to no social support, receive a poor quality education and either saddle themselves with student debt or serve in the armed forces, only to end up wounded/severely traumatized with no guaranteed healthcare and/or slaving away for a corporation for baseline wages -- all the while ensuring maximum penalties for engaging in sexual activity -- and finally growing old and retiring in little comfort due to a rapidly diminishing allowance in the form of Social Security. Then the cycle repeats itself. And that's not even taking into consideration the potential consequences of overpopulation -- resources will be spread thinner and thinner until, at a certain point, the damage done to our planet will be so severe that human civilization will be all but wiped off the face of the Earth. Think how much worse off we would be TODAY if we added 60+ million to our population (approximately the number of fetuses aborted since 1973). Famine, war, and widepread civil unrest are just the beginning. That's the world Republicans want -- a dystopian Malthusian/Orwellian hellscape -- whether they are cognizant of it or not.
1
-
@SnakeSagacity Sure. But in many cases, drugs/surgeries/social transitioning does help. In fact, this is true in the vast majority of cases (according to one study, the detransition rate was just 1%). If somebody chooses to outwardly embody characteristics traditionally associated with the other sex, to the point that they become almost indistinguishable from members of that sex (save for biology), and that's what it takes for them to feel comfortable, then I have no problem with it. It would be like forcing you (assuming you are a biological male) to wear a dress, makeup, and high heels every day of your life, and refer to you as she/her. Do you really believe that any amount of counseling/mental health treatment could alleviate your discomfort in such a situation? Highly doubtful. Where things get tricky is to what extent we accept them as members of the other sex (e.g. in sports, bathrooms, etc.), or when we're talking about minors with gender dysphoria. In those areas, I believe there is room for reasonable debate -- and, of course, whenever possible I tend to defer to the experts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@majordendrocopos That's why I say it depends on the traffic and the road you're driving on. If you're on a residential street with zero traffic, then of course you should obey a 25 mph speed limit or less because there's a high risk of hitting someone who's not a motorist. But if you're on a protected highway, or out in the middle of nowhere, speed limits are almost unnecessary. In California, where I live, there's something known as the "Basic Speed Law," which means you should drive the appropriate speed for the conditions. So if it's snowing or the roads are icy, you should slow down. If the weather's nice and there's nobody around to be harmed (except yourself), you should feel free to punch it. Ultimately, as time passes I think people will choose to drive at slower speeds because they would spend a lot of extra money on gas driving faster. (Trust me I know, I've been to Nevada a few times on long, straight roads that are literally in the middle of nowhere.) We all accept some level of risk when we get behind the wheel, so removing or at least raising speed limits in certain areas is not a far-fetched idea at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lukamina7586 Right, until you consider that California has more electoral votes than any other state at 55, while Wyoming only has 3. That is a MASSIVE difference in an election only worth 538 total. Also, minority votes are needed to win key swing states like Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Nevada, and others. If you total them together, it is all but IMPOSSIBLE for a Presidential candidate to win without any minority support whatsoever. If you watched the documentary, this would be obvious to you. If you knew ANYTHING about the Electoral College, this would be obvious to you. But because you haven't, and you have proven yourself to be a complete dunce, I won the debate and you don't know anything. Go do some research next time before starting an argument with somebody.
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence of any country in the world. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: WorldPopulationReview)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The so-called "good guys with guns" FAILED to do their jobs that day.
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This has to end. My freedom to live is of a higher priority than your freedom to own a weapon of war. Full stop. Here's an originalist interpretation of the Constitution for you: the Second Amendment only applies to muskets. Kiss your semi-automatic handguns, assault rifles, and extended magazines goodbye, conservatives.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at the July 4th parade, gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, garlic festival, Juneteenth celebration, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own house . . . Pretty much anywhere.
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JesseJames-vc2bm Wrong. This objection assumes that a) the government will be largely unsuccessful in repurchasing these weapons (a dubious claim, as we'll see), or b) a sufficient black market will develop to meet the demand (also highly doubtful). As to the first, I do not propose that federal agents barge into people's homes and search their property for firearms. Rather, all dabatases will be consulted by intelligence agencies to uncover sales records (or will be legally demanded from sellers) to determine who owns what. Subsequently, penalties will be imposed for those who fail to comply with a federal mandate; some preliminary suggestions include temporary suspension of one's driver's license and revocation of Medicare and Social Security benefits.
As to the second claim, a black market cannot develop if demand is not met. As it turns out, guns are drastically more complicated to manufacture and distribute than drugs. This also implies that there would be sufficient demand in the first place -- and considering that firearms are not an addictive substance, this is in serious doubt to say the least. Ever wondered why Canada, Australia, and Europe have been successful with their gun control efforts, despite the fact that one of their closest allies and largest trading partners is the world's largest market for firearms? This is it. Even Canada doesn't have an underground economy for firearms, and they share a BORDER with us. This argument is completely invalid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
The weather changes, the climate does not. The climate tracks weather patterns for all seasons from year to year. If we see Northern Siberia reaching temps of 100°F or the Sahara Desert dipping below 0°F in the summer, we know that the climate is shifting in a warmer (or colder) direction based on measurements of temperatures in those areas dating back hundreds of years. The climate is much more long-term than just half a year. It takes decades of measurements to accurately forecast climate trends into the future, and then using that to predict specific changes in weather patterns (more hurricanes, heat waves, winter storms, etc.) is even more difficult --- but that's why we have expert scientists working on it, and they have the data. Michael E. Mann is someone I would consult if you want an expert's opinion on what to expect, and that's not to say that the experts are always right (many a economist has made a fool of themselves in recent years), but a lot has changed since the 1970's (when some were expecting "global cooling"), including massive improvements in technology and even more data to back up their forecasts. 98% of climate scientists (and over 90% of scientists in general) wouldn't be sounding the alarm on climate change if they felt the data or predictive technology was inadequate, or if the science behind it (e.g. the mechanism that drives the "greenhouse effect") wasn't fully understood. It's beyond debate at this point; the only question is what are we going to do about it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh please. 🙄 Tell that to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, the U.K., South Korea, France, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Austria, Poland, Italy, and about a dozen other developed countries I could name that have no issues with a "tyrannical government."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ah, so the Bible is your favorite collection of ancient myths and fairy tales, huh? Nice. Personally I have an affinity for Homer's the Iliad and the Odyssey, but the Vedas, the Pyramid texts, the Coffin texts, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Instruction of Amenemope, the Book of Caverns, the Book of Gates, the Amdaut, the Book of the Heavenly Cow, the Code of Hammurabi, the Kesh Temple Hymn, the Popol Vuh, the Avesta, the Koran, and the writings of Herodotus are all good too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Defend yourselves against whom? Others with assault weapons? Well guess what: In a de-armed society, there would be no need to defend oneself against such a threat, because it simply wouldn't exist. This is the case in Japan, Norway, Denmark, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, South Korea, and over a dozen other developed countries I could name.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@firghteningtruth7173 "Authoritarian societies start by removing weapons from its people." Oh, you mean like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Sweden, Denmark, post-reunification Germany, Spain, Italy, post-Imperialist Japan, and nearly every other country in the developed world? Ah yes, those are all states that consistently top charts of the most authoritarian regimes on the planet. 🙄 Give me a f*cking break.
And you say you're "pro-freedom," do you? What about the right of women to exercise personal bodily autonomy? What about the right of children to rent books from school libraries? What about the freedom to smoke weed, a substance that has been PROVEN to be essentially harmless for adults? Heck, what about the right to no-fault divorce, a ban on which is currently making its way through the Texas legislature? Or is that the wrong kind of freedom, and you only mean the right of the capitalist class to exploit its workforce (e.g. with right-to-work laws) and to own literal weapons of war? How is that kind of freedom working out for you?
And yes, as you've probably guessed by now, I am from California. Don't get me wrong, we have our own problems, but intruding into the uteruses of women, locking people up for decades for simple marijuana possession, and having some of the highest rates of gun violence in the nation aren't any of them. And I'm thankful for that. Like pretty much all of Europe, we prioritize the life and well-being of people who are actually BORN rather than unconscious and unfeeling clumps of cells. And as a die-hard utilitarian who doesn't believe in fairy tales (again, like much of Northern Europe), that's the way it should be. Oh, and one final thing: if my Governor is the Democratic nominee in 2028, he will obliterate Ron DeSantis in a general election. I'm calling it right now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EXTREME MAGA Is that why 9 out of the top 10 states with the longest life expectancy (Hawaii, Washington, Minnesota, California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Oregon, Vermont, and Connecticut) are all blue while 9 out of the top 10 with the shortest (South Carolina, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Louisiana, West Virginia, and, of course, Mississippi) are all red? 🤔
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ah, so the Bible is your favorite collection of ancient myths and fairy tales, huh? Nice. Personally I have an affinity for Homer's the Iliad and the Odyssey, but the Vedas, the Pyramid texts, the Coffin texts, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Instruction of Amenemope, the Book of Caverns, the Book of Gates, the Amdaut, the Book of the Heavenly Cow, the Code of Hammurabi, the Kesh Temple Hymn, the Popol Vuh, the Avesta, the Koran, and the writings of Herodotus are all good too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@STARFIRESOLAR We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
18:54 "There are plenty of atheist, agnostics [sic], secularist societies that are very far in that direction on the spectrum that are phenomenally successful as opposed to other countries that are super religious which are not."
Yeah, like the Soviet Union, China and North Korea. Oh wait . . .
Seriously though, Kyle, I hope you are not referring to Sweden, Norway, Finland, or Denmark, each of which has their own state religion (unique sect of Christianity) and/or monarch, and in which only about a quarter of the population identifies as atheist/agnostic (the vast majority belonging to the state religion). Take a moment to educate yourself by comparing that with the three societies listed above, which are (or were, in the case of the U.S.S.R.) actually almost entirely secular in nature.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ah, so the Bible is your favorite collection of ancient myths and fairy tales, huh? Nice. Personally I have an affinity for Homer's the Iliad and the Odyssey, but the Vedas, the Pyramid texts, the Coffin texts, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Instruction of Amenemope, the Book of Caverns, the Book of Gates, the Amdaut, the Book of the Heavenly Cow, the Code of Hammurabi, the Kesh Temple Hymn, the Popol Vuh, the Avesta, the Koran, and the writings of Herodotus are all good too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When right-wing pundits (and people generally) talk about "cancel culture," I think what they are really getting at most of the time is Big Tech censorship. Kyle is a fairly principled person, so he would almost certainly agree that if the Internet death penalty was too harsh for someone like Alex Jones, then certainly it is too much for the average user, or even people who have a sizeable platform and like to stir up controversy (Milo Yiannopoulos comes to mind). So when Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube target their accounts but no left-wing outlet of comparable size, many on the right (fairly, I think) cry foul. The other form of "cancel culture" is facing real-life consequences for what you post on social media, and here I defer to Alex O'Connor (aka "CosmicSkeptic"), in that I believe the punishment should be proportional to the crime. If an ordinary person makes an insensitive joke (especially if this post is many years old), termination of employment for a company that was not at all implicated by it is far too severe and, I would argue, unjust. That said, there are perfectly justifiable instances in which ending someone's career may be a fair thing to do in response to offensive behavior (as we now see with the Jon Gruden controversy). It's a tricky thing to adequately balance, and it is absolutely a slippery slope that can eventually lead to workplace discrimination based on political ideology (just to take one example). And I'm sure that's a world neither of us want to live in. If "cancel culture" only results in KKK members and Nazis losing their jobs, I'm okay with it. But if it becomes a weapon to be used against others simply due to a difference of opinion, it has gone way too far and action will be needed at the federal level, I believe, to rectify it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's just a TASTE of what's in your so-called "Holy Book":
"Then he said to them, 'This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: "Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor."'" (Exodus 32:17 NIV)
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 15:17,18 NIV)
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." (1 Samuel 15:2 NIV)
"Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." (Psalms 137:9 NIV)
"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.” (Hosea 13:16 NIV)
You call that "age-appropriate"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm sure most Americans would want goods produced here in America. However, there is a concept in economics known as "comparative advantage," which basically says that if another country can do it better (i.e. produce more of it), then all nations are better off if they do what they are best at and then trade. I'm sure America could produce air fresheners, but we would almost certainly not be as efficient at it as some Asian countries, and even if we are, doing so will negatively impact other industries in which we do have an absolute advantage because there won't be enough workers to fill all the manufacturing jobs. The result is a much greater inefficiency and, ultimately, a much higher cost that will be passed on to consumers, meaning that far fewer people will be able to afford this product as before. That is the beauty of globalization. So the solution isn't always to produce everything here in America, unless there happens to be a shortage of jobs and we have a relative comparative advantage over most other countries in that industry. A much better idea would be to ensure that all products meet our regulations before we import them (such as by doing inspections in the home country where they are produced or after they arrive here), and if they don't, we don't import goods from that company. Simple. And if it just so happens that no country has a comparative advantage over us that also manufactures products that meet our standards, then we can talk about producing them here at home. It's all about using our resources (capital, labor, raw materials, etc.) in the most efficient way possible so that the maximum number of people have access to the final product.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
@danjenkins8981 Because it's not "murder"? Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry, but we cannot tolerate statues of Abraham Lincoln becoming a controversial or partisan issue. I completely understand the debate over the Confederate generals (Robert E. Lee for instance), because they were a) traitors to the United States of America, and b) the obvious one: vicious racists. Abraham Lincoln, even though he might not have openly said it before his death, was staunchly against the American tradition of slavery. He worked arduously throughout the Civil War, going many a sleepless night, to bring about victory and save the Union while also liberating millions of people from bondage. Because of his hard work, and the tactics of military generals like Grant and Sherman, he was successful at both. And for that, he deserves to be honored for as long as the United States survives on this earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As a former libertarian-turned-leftie who abandoned a religious worldview years ago, I have been profoundly moved by the realm of philosophy, particularly ethics. Ultimately, I want to improve the world as much as possible and have human civilization flourish for as long as possible, and I have found the most intuitive, rational, and coherent ethical philosophy to accomplish this to be utilitarianism. If I, as a more progressive-leaning American atheist, had to select a "guiding principle," that would be it. The almost selfless worldview whose sole objective is alleviating the suffering and increasing the well-being of all sentient creatures is what gives my life meaning. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it prevented me personally from starting down the long slide into nihilism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I was the same way when I turned 15 1/2. I got my learner's permit as soon as possible, but quickly lost interest in actually training to earn my driver's license. I actually enjoyed learning about traffic laws/reading the Driver's Handbook far more than actually driving; it was really strange. Then, almost a year later, I finally found the motivation to get some behind-the-wheel experience and obtain my license out of necessity (to drive myself to golf practice). I was almost 16 1/2 by that point, and from what I've seen here in my part of California, that is much earlier than many of my peers. Since then, I've developed a great appreciation for the freedom a private vehicle offers, and I wouldn't trade my license/car for almost anything else that I own. At the same time, I understand that it's not for everyone, and I absolutely believe that our public transportation infrastructure is woefully inadequate by the standards of most other developed countries and is in desperate need of an upgrade. As someone who has been one of these teens just a few years ago (I'm 22 now), a driving-skeptic-turned-driving-enthusiast, I think I can speak for both sides. At the end of the day, my advice to them would be "just try it. If you still don't like it, that's fine -- only do it as much as you absolutely have to." I was the same way, and now I have taken a several thousand-mile road trip every year for the past four years, excluding 2021 because of mechanical issues with my vehicle. 😂
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The economy tanked under Donald. We were also importing fossil fuels at record rates, because all domestic production wss being EXPORTED. Biden has continued Trump's remain-in-Mexico and Title 42 policies, and supplied even more funding for border security. Trump, meanwhile, failed to deliver on his signature promise; the wall wasn't even BUILT, let alone making Mexico pay for it. Finally, Trump funded neo-Nazis in Ukraine, giving Putin an excuse to invade. Biden, on the other hand, actually kept his promise to withdraw from Afghanistan, which the orange clown failed to execute despite numerous promises. Every single word of your asinine comment is a lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BruceWayne-qp2es By the way, appealing to authority can NOT be a fallacy in and of itself. Is it a logical flaw to take the research of others and use it to support your argument, especially if they are professionals in that particular field? An individual cannot possibly be an expert in EVERYTHING, so the work of others will have to be cited to support your arguments if you argue outside your domain. And even within your domain often the topics are so vast that researchers rely upon one another to find the answers. Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Alex Vilenkin, Richard Feynman, Freeman Dyson, Roger Penrose, Steven Weinberg, etc. just in the field of theoretical physics. Haven't you ever heard of the grade-school strategy "divide and conquer"? Apparently not. It's a foreign concept to you, and that should come as no surprise for someone as dimwitted as yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bernie Sanders needs to release a statement to all West Virginians saying, in effect, that "Your elected representative has opted not to support universal pre-K, paid family/medical leave, a child tax credit, a Medicare expansion to include hearing, vision, and dental, lower prescription drug costs, and an upgrade to the power grid to support a transition to clean and renewable energy, which a MAJORITY of West Virginians want. Oh yeah, and does it matter that he also makes millions in profits each year from his family's fossil fuel company?"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@actsismmljcorrectlyobeyed6190 So tell me, which religion is right? The Jews? The Muslims? The Mormons? Buddhists? What about the Hindus, the oldest religion on the planet? Or maybe the ancient Egyptians were right all along? How about the Greeks, or the Romans? The Norwegians? How many gods are there? There are literally thousands of religions, and within each of them dozens of subdivisions. Even in Christianity we have the Catholics, the Protestants, the Methodists, the Jehovah's Witnesses, need I go on? How can any god expect us to choose the right one and everyone else goes to hell? I have no issue with anyone practicing their faith, but this dilemma is something to consider if you're expecting the afterlife to be pleasant and joyful. Maybe I should go about my life trying every single one and hope that that one day of prayer lands me somewhere decent. Yeah no, I think I'll just read the Bible when I'm old and retired and got nothing better to do. That's been my plan from the beginning, and I think I'll stick to it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Damn proud of my title as a Satanist. The devil is nothing compared to that petty, unjust, unforgiving, vindictive, bloodthirsty, misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully you call "God."
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
10:25 A quick note on the Palantiri from a long-time subscriber to this channel. As a Tolkien fanatic, I feel obligated to point out that this description is not entirely accurate. The Palantiri were not designed for purposes of espionage, nor were they inherently evil. Rather, they are special orbs (originally seven of them, but a few were lost by the time of The Lord of the Rings) crafted by the most skilled Elven-smith to ever live -- Fëanor -- many, many thousands of years before the War of the Ring. Their history is long, but it will suffice to say here that they were brought to Middle-earth some three-thousand years before this War by the ancestors of Aragorn from Númenor (as those who have seen The Rings of Power probably know).
One was stolen by Sauron when its host city (Minas Ithil, later renamed Minas Morgul) was captured; one fell into the Anduin river during a war (the second-largest of them all, in Osgiliath); and one eventually came into the possession of Círdan in the Grey Havens (a.k.a. Mithlond, with which one may see the Master Palantir in Tol Erresëa in the Blessed Realm of Valinor). The one we see in the film became the property of Saruman after he was graciously handed the keys to Orthanc in Isengard by Men, where it was stored. Finally, it is also believed that Denethor II, the Steward of Gondor, had his own. These facts by themselves should debunk the notion that the Palantiri were by their nature evil (even though two of the owners were fallen Maia and one was driven mad by grief). Quite the opposite is true, in fact.
Their primary purpose was communication, not spying. One may think of them as a kind of telephone in Middle-earth, or a Skype call. They allowed kingdoms separated by vast regions to correspond instantaneously with one another. Only when they fell into evil hands were they put to other purposes -- but even then, they still required direct physical contact in order to initiate communication (as seen with Pippin). All things considered, however, I must give my two cents: Palantir is a badass name for a technology company.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
1
-
@ladybee4240 Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, elder care, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robb4951 True, but most of those are species that are relatively easy to tame or hold in captivity (such as parrots, insects, small reptiles, and the like). Others, such as the Bengal Tiger, are extremely endangered (about 2,000 left in the wild), and the US alone has 7,000 of them in captivity. If we want to preserve these species (which I believe is something we can all get behind), then zoos are a great solution for that purpose. If their native habitat continues to be destroyed, then eventually the captive Tigers will be the only ones left alive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ZZ-ly1jf Was that an argument? I must have missed where you made a single refutation of anything I said. If you conducted even the most basic research, you would know that the societies I listed (Norway, Finland, Denmark, Japan, etc.) consistently rank the HIGHEST on life expectancy and happiness indexes. Now, if you call living a long, satisfied 80+ years in a society where your basic needs are met and don't have to worry about being gunned down at the shopping mall "ab-sed children," then I'm afraid you have your priorities mixed up. Please, tell me: Is there something more important than living a long, fulfilling, healthy life, having a stable career, and children who are successful? If there is, I would very much like to hear it. Because so far, these countries have us beat in every single measure that counts. As people who have to fear for our safety in shopping malls and subways, and who lack basic necessities that these countries have provided for decades (think healthcare, childcare, unionozation, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time, elder care, free college, and so on), I contend that we're the "ab-sed children," not them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time, liveable minimum wage, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NewNormalWorldOrder "Matter cannot be created nor destroyed." Right... but the laws of physics (in this case, the Law of Conservation of Matter) within the universe do not apply to the universe as a whole. As an example, imagine that I make the claim that every human that has ever existed has a mother. This is obviously true (so long as you are not a Creationist, and believe in the literal truth of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden). However, it is not true to deduce from this that the entire human race must have a mother. That would be committing a logical leap, and hence make one guilty of a fallacy. (There is also some disagreement among physicists when it comes to this law and Hawking Radiation and antimatter in black holes, but that's a separate discussion.) And as improbable you think our existence is, it is even more improbable that something created all of us (for which we have no other evidence), and which by its very nature would have to be at least as complex as the thing it created (top-down design; Darwinian natural selection is the only force we know of that creates naturally-occurring complex designs bottom-up), hence requiring an explanation of its own. Thus, the theist is already put in the difficult position of having to explain the reasons we would expect such a Creator deity to exist, given that the mystery of our origins has only been delayed one further step, and that's before even making any claims that such a thing can observe every minute detail of its creation, see what we are doing, cares about us, reveal itself and issue commandments, listen to and answer prayers, or in any way interfere with the natural progression of its creation. Making such a claim would commit the person to making the jump from Deism to Theism, which usually argues for the existence of a deity of one or another revealed religion, as opposed to one that started things off and stepped away. Finally, your point about death resulting in worm-food is completely irrelevant in a discussion of the veracity of any of the claims of religion. If the truth makes you uncomfortable, perhaps you aren't cut out for a philosophical and scientific debate demanding any intellectual rigor. Geez, for such a boisterous and outwardly pugnacious commentor, I was expecting a higher degree of sophistication in your argumentation. I must say, I'm quite disappointed. What a shame.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@henrybart6267 We've got 4 networks (CNN, MSNBC, ABC and CBS) that appeal to liberal-minded viewers, while only 1 to please conservatives and libertarians. How is this even remotely balanced? What I think this country needs more than anything is a completely unbiased broadcaster, one that isn't trying to push some agenda and is devoted to covering all news stories, not just cherry-picking them. Bernie is a bad candidate for the Democrats for several reasons: a) he isn't even a Democrat, he's a socialist, b) his socialist status makes him too radical for many moderate voters, and c) he's really damn old. Does anybody truly think he'll be able to handle the stress of being President for eight years? If he's nominated, he better have a damn good running mate, because there's a good chance he's not going to see himself leave office.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time, liveable minimum wage, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're not "pro-life" if you only support measures conducive to life before it exits the womb. Are you equally outraged about the fact that millions of innocent men, women, and children halfway around the world are being bombed into oblivion by our military or starved to death by our sanctions (and those of our allies)? Or that close to 70 MILLION Americans are uninsured/underinsured and 45,000 die each year due to a lack of proper healthcare? How about the future generations that will be completely wiped out because minimal action is being taken to address the impending climate catastrophe? Do you support the most basic regulations that would ensure that those precious unborn children won't be brutally gunned down once they reach the 3rd grade?
And don't even get me started on non-human life. The suffering of hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows we slaughter alive each and every day merely because we enjoy the taste of their flesh is ASTRONOMICAL compared to all abortions humanity has ever performed COMBINED. Does the life of that unborn child matter if it is gay or transgender, or would it be better off if it was "six feet under"? Prove to me that you believe life matters AFTER it has left the womb by pressuring your legal representatives to pass paid maternity leave and universal childcare, as the USA remains the ONLY developed country that does not provide these services. Better yet, demand that those children earn enough to make a decent living for themselves and their families when they grow older by advocating for raising the minimum wage and unionization efforts. Make it clear that you demand action on criminal justice reform, starting with abolishing the barbaric practice of state-sanctioned execution which more closely aligns the US with Saudi Arabia than with any of our peer nations in Europe. Finally, vigorously oppose any measure to engage in an unjustified and illegal offensive halfway around the world that costs taxpayers trillions of dollars and steals the lives of thousands of innocent Americans (usually young men).
George Carlin called out this blatant hypocrisy decades ago.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f-cked."
Embryos/fetuses prior to 18 weeks gestation cannot suffer (let alone possess any form of sentience or consciousness), and that infuriates conservatives. So in order to maximize human misery (their ultimate agenda), they seek to outlaw it so that mothers are forced to give birth and those children grow up in destitute and dysfunctional households with little to no social support, receive a poor quality education and either saddle themselves with student debt or serve in the armed forces, only to end up wounded/severely traumatized with no guaranteed healthcare and/or slaving away for a corporation for baseline wages -- all the while ensuring maximum penalties for engaging in sexual activity -- and finally growing old and retiring in little comfort due to a rapidly diminishing allowance in the form of Social Security. Then the cycle repeats itself. And that's not even taking into consideration the potential consequences of overpopulation -- resources will be spread thinner and thinner until, at a certain point, the damage done to our planet will be so severe that human civilization will be all but wiped off the face of the Earth. Think how much worse off we would be TODAY if we added 60+ million to our population (approximately the number of fetuses aborted since 1973). Famine, war, and widepread civil unrest are just the beginning. That's the world Republicans want -- a dystopian Malthusian/Orwellian hellscape -- whether they are cognizant of it or not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're not "pro-life" if you only support measures conducive to life before it exits the womb. Are you equally outraged about the fact that millions of innocent men, women, and children halfway around the world are being bombed into oblivion by our military or starved to death by our sanctions (and those of our allies)? Or that close to 70 MILLION Americans are uninsured/underinsured and 45,000 die each year due to a lack of proper healthcare? How about the future generations that will be completely wiped out because minimal action is being taken to address the impending climate catastrophe? Do you support the most basic regulations that would ensure that those precious unborn children won't be brutally gunned down once they reach the 3rd grade?
And don't even get me started on non-human life. The suffering of hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows we slaughter alive each and every day merely because we enjoy the taste of their flesh is ASTRONOMICAL compared to all abortions humanity has ever performed COMBINED. Does the life of that unborn child matter if it is gay or transgender, or would it be better off if it was "six feet under"? Prove to me that you believe life matters AFTER it has left the womb by pressuring your legal representatives to pass paid maternity leave and universal childcare, as the USA remains the ONLY developed country that does not provide these services. Better yet, demand that those children earn enough to make a decent living for themselves and their families when they grow older by advocating for raising the minimum wage and unionization efforts. Make it clear that you demand action on criminal justice reform, starting with abolishing the barbaric practice of state-sanctioned execution which more closely aligns the US with Saudi Arabia than with any of our peer nations in Europe. Finally, vigorously oppose any measure to engage in an unjustified and illegal offensive halfway around the world that costs taxpayers trillions of dollars and steals the lives of thousands of innocent Americans (usually young men).
George Carlin called out this blatant hypocrisy decades ago.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f-cked."
Embryos/fetuses prior to 18 weeks gestation cannot suffer (let alone possess any form of sentience or consciousness), and that infuriates conservatives. So in order to maximize human misery (their ultimate agenda), they seek to outlaw it so that mothers are forced to give birth and those children grow up in destitute and dysfunctional households with little to no social support, receive a poor quality education and either saddle themselves with student debt or serve in the armed forces, only to end up wounded/severely traumatized with no guaranteed healthcare and/or slaving away for a corporation for baseline wages -- all the while ensuring maximum penalties for engaging in sexual activity -- and finally growing old and retiring in little comfort due to a rapidly diminishing allowance in the form of Social Security. Then the cycle repeats itself. And that's not even taking into consideration the potential consequences of overpopulation -- resources will be spread thinner and thinner until, at a certain point, the damage done to our planet will be so severe that human civilization will be all but wiped off the face of the Earth. Think how much worse off we would be TODAY if we added 60+ million to our population (approximately the number of fetuses aborted since 1973). Famine, war, and widepread civil unrest are just the beginning. That's the world Republicans want -- a dystopian Malthusian/Orwellian hellscape -- whether they are cognizant of it or not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This has to end. My freedom to live is of a higher priority than your freedom to own a weapon of war. Full stop. Here's an originalist interpretation of the Constitution for you: the Second Amendment only applies to muskets. Kiss your semi-automatic handguns, assault rifles, and extended magazines goodbye, conservatives.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
I do like the Parliamentary system of government that you and many European countries have, but I think there is a way to make our system work. I think the system was intentionally designed so that the President could act as a leader without having too much power because of the checks and balances of Congress, unlike a Prime Minister. So the bipartisan legislation will pass easily, but the more divisive bills will either barely pass or have no prayer of being singed into law. The way to make the system more pluralistic (i.e. add more parties) is to have three elections every 2 years. The first are the primaries, where a field of candidates for each party run against one another and the most popular is nominated (we have that now, like Super Tuesday). So that's all well and good. Then, sometime in early October, we would have a run-off election where the nominees face off and the top two proceed to the general election in early November. This process would be the same for all federal positions (Representatives, Senators, and President). This way, by just adding a single election (which voters can choose not to participate in if they wish), we could give other parties a chance and possibly end the Washington gridlock, not to mention hold the two "major" parties more accountable. Even more than term limits and ending corporate funding, I think this is the single solution that will save our democracy. That is, unless we take the advice of George Washington and dissolve all political parties altogether.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We elect the leaders in government to play referee in the economy to ensure it's working for us, not just 1% of the population and the largest corporations. The government is the problem only insofar as they aren't doing nearly enough. Teddy Roosevelt would be aghast to see the titans of industry -- Amazon, Walmart, Microsoft, Apple, Alphabet, Norfolk Southern, Berkshire Hathaway, and many more -- that essentially run the modern economy by rigging the rules in their favor. Indeed, as the success of many social welfare programs in northern Europe demonstrates, an effective government is the only solution to this problem. All the others -- particularly the lack of intervention -- will only exacerbate it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at the little league game, July 4th parade, gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, garlic festival, Juneteenth celebration, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own house . . . Pretty much anywhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Where did dogs come from? Or our cabbages, which look nothing like wild cabbages? Research the fossils, which show a gradual transition from one form to another. Or look at the mountains of evidence that our shared DNA forms a perfect phylogenetic tree going back to the very first life form. Or how about biogeography and the difference between continental islands and oceanic islands, the former of which contains (native) mammals and freshwater fish and the latter which does not, suggesting that some species were able to make the journey to islands that were formed in the ocean (birds, for example), and that terrestrial mammals can only have inhabited islands that broke away from the main landmass? Or how about the fact that species on both types of islands resemble those on the main landmass from which their ancestors orginated, yet are distinctly different genetically? Or, if you want to see evolution before your very eyes, look up the Robert Lenski experiments, which shows how bacteria can acquire characteristics advantageous to its survival in just a matter of weeks. But you won't do any of these things, because you dumb@sses love to wallow in your ignorance and gobble up whatever your pastor tells you. Evolution is an established scientific fact with enough evidence to prove its veracity as the germ "theory" of disease or the "theory" of general relativity, but you will believe an entire book of myths and fairy tales written by desert-dwelling peasants who were absolutely convinced the Earth is shaped like a pancake. Wow. The capacity for human stupidity never fails to amaze me. Enjoy this life, because you wom't be getting one after.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ah, so the Bible is your favorite collection of ancient myths and fairy tales, huh? Nice. Personally I have an affinity for Homer's the Iliad and the Odyssey, but the Vedas, the Pyramid texts, the Coffin texts, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Instruction of Amenemope, the Book of Caverns, the Book of Gates, the Amdaut, the Book of the Heavenly Cow, the Code of Hammurabi, the Kesh Temple Hymn, the Popol Vuh, the Avesta, the Koran, and the writings of Herodotus are all good too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deborahhershey3045 Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time, liveable minimum wage, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So Kyle just admitted that literally anything he says regarding medicine should be taken with a grain of salt, right? (Video: https://youtu.be/KAqQ9UAfWDA ) Well, his ignorance is on full display here folks.
I've researched this topic for four years. I became obsessed with it after I learned what was done to me, and immediately fell for the prodigious amount of propaganda that can be found on the Internet. It's clear that Kyle hasn't done ANY research at all (as if it wasn't obvious enough by the sheer lack of nuance), because he doesn't seem to be aware that the current consensus of urologists is that it DOES reduce the risk of STD's (HIV by up to 60%), penile/prostate/cervical cancer, UTI's, and more, and that it has a neutral impact on s-xual function, sensation, and enjoyment (meaning that for some their experience post-op improved, for others it decreased, and for the vast majority it stayed the same). Hell, even reading the WIKIPEDIA page on the subject would have told you that!! (This finding is consistent with the numerous accounts of men who were circumcised in adulthood that I read online -- that assurance is what allowed me to escape my clinical depression that this caused me.) And if you don't trust online encyclopedias, either look at the numerous studies that have been conducted by actual EXPERTS, or refer to a couple of good, informed sources on the subject: Dr. Aaron Spitz, one of the country's leading urologists who has spent his whole career studying s-xual dysfunction in men and is a member of the American Urological Association, and the atheist South African moral philosopher David Benatar, who wrote an entire book on discrimination against men (The Second Sexism). These aren't "rationalizations," this is science. The facts will tell you that it is less "mut*lation" (as he calls it) and more "modification." Look, I oppose the procedure too -- because I believe in the fundamental principle of bodily automony (only overriden by medical necessity) -- but I do not stoop to the level of the circ opponents and outright deny the science. Those people can not reasonably claim that they are superior to those who refuse to accept that the planet is warming, and I'm afraid that Kyle has found himself falling into that trap. Frankly, this is a total disgrace to himself and to his audience.
Edit: For the record, I do NOT support the way the Jews have performed, and continue to perform, the procedure. If it is to be performed at all, it should be done by a highly trained physician in a sterilized environment, ALWAYS.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, that's up to the medical experts. The AAP and CDC each released statements in 2012 endorsing the procedure (for prophylactic reasons), and concluded that it is an appropriate matter for parents along with their doctors to decide. Do you trust the medical community or not? I do in all matters, not just in transitioning children and vaccines. (The science on this, by the way, is very clear. Look at the studies themselves if you want the details. Denying their validity, such as by claiming they're "flawed" without evidence, is akin to denying climate change without having reviewed any of the supporting facts and data underlying the theory.)
However, I believe in four reforms should be enacted: 1) any financial incentive needs to be eliminated (as would happen under single-payer healthcare), 2) doctors should have the option of refusing to perform if they have a moral objection (like in the U.K.), so both parents AND the doctor must agree, 3) parents must request it (so the default is that it is not performed), and 4) regulations require that the surgery is performed by a trained medical professional in a sterilized environment under anesthesia (thereby outlawing the traditional Jewish method, where most de@ths occur). Hence, ideally, it would remain legal but fewer and fewer parents would choose it, and eventually as the culture shifts it would fall out of favor entirely -- exactly the same as what happened in Western Europe and throughout most of the Commonwealth.
And, please, don't consider responding with an objection that "it reduces s-xual pleasure," because the highest quality evidence consistently finds that it does not in the vast majority of men (such as VMMC trials in Africa and the Dominican Republic) -- and, indeed, having researched this topic for four-and-a-half years myself, this aligns perfectly with the numerous accounts I've seen from men who have had the surgery as adults (both for medical reasons and not), and who consequently experienced both sides. My own speculative explanation for this (based on research) is that, in most cases, much of the inner lining is retained, sensitivity to temperature is more important than light-touch, the brain "adjusts" to the deficit over a period of about six months to one year (many men have testified to this), the mechanics differ post-surgery, and the "20,000 nerve endings" figure often cited is a wild overestimate based on a sample size of ONE that employed shoddy statistics.
For all these reasons, I believe it is more accurately described as "modification" rather than "mutilation." Having invested literally hundreds of hours of my time reading about this topic, I am quite confident that I am more qualified to speak on this than any of you, and these are the conclusions that I have reached. (And, for the record, I do not intend on having the surgery performed on any of my children.) If you're curious to learn more, I recommend the following sources: the Canadian Pediatric Society has released a fair, balanced, and thorough assessment that was reaffirmed in 2021; for an expert's opinion, member of the American Urological Association Dr. Aaron Spitz has written about this in some detail; and, finally, for those curious about the ethics of the issue (particularly those with a consequentialist utilitiarian bent, like myself), atheist antinatalist South African philosopher David Benatar (who, an activist himself, writes frequently on men's rights issues) has much insightful commentary to offer as well. Happy reading.
1
-
1
-
Biden can nominate whoever he wants. Anyone crying foul that he's selecting on the basis of immutable characteristics better not lean Republican. Ronald Reagan specifically selected the first female nominee to the Supreme Court (Sandra Day O'Connor), his successor George H.W. Bush replaced the first African-American Justice (Thurgood Marshall) with Clarence Thomas, and just over a year ago President Trump made a shortlist of female judges to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat, ultimately deciding on Amy Coney Barrett. Well, two can play at that game...
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@liberalshaveitallbackwards4667 That tells me that gun laws don't work at the municipal level, when you can drive 20 minutes out-of-town and obtain any firearm your heart desires. And they're slightly more effective at the state level, and most effective at the national level. Here's your proof: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: WorldPopulationReview)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Multiple reasons, not least among them health, hygiene, and aesthetics. If you stick to actual science (as opposed to propaganda, of which there is a plethora online) and read the peer-reviewed literature, the protection against STI's and UTI's, in addition to other pathologies like phimosis, is fairly well-established. However, some of these benefits are only conferred when it's performed in infancy. The literature is also overwhelming with respect to function and sensation. Here are a couple of examples:
"Our risk-benefit analysis showed that benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by up to 200 to 1. We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime. Wide-ranging evidence from surveys, physiological measurements, and the anatomical location of penile sensory receptors responsible for sexual sensation strongly and consistently suggest that male circumcision has no detrimental effect on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure." (Emphasis added.) That is according to a meta-analysis published in the World Journal of Clinical Pediatrics in 2017.
"The hypothesis of inferior male sexual function following circumcision is not supported by the findings of this systematic review. The popular narrative that male circumcision results in sexual dysfunction does not seem to be supported by evidence." (Shabanzadeh) Taken directly from a review published in the Danish Medical Journal in 2016, which is run by the Danish Medical Association — not exactly an organization biased in favor of this operation. Furthermore, "the Danish Health Authorities do not recommend a law-enforced ban of non-medical circumcisions in Denmark based on these low rates of short-term complications." (Emphasis mine.)
The medical community, in my view, should have the final say on this issue. However, I would support reforms that 1) require consent from the doctor in addition to both parents (in other words, don't get the government involved unless the medical community -- e.g. the AAP, CDC, AMA, AUA -- decides otherwise), 2) eliminate any financial incentive (as would happen under single-payer healthcare), but the cost (~$150-200) must be borne by the parents due to the surgery's elective nature, 3) require a specific request from parents (so the default is that it is not performed), and 4) establish regulations mandating that the surgery is executed by a trained medical professional in a sterilized environment under anesthesia via block injection (thereby outlawing the traditional Jewish method, where most de@ths occur.)
I've researched this topic for four-and-a-half years, and these are conclusions that I came to. Information or perspectives on any particular or tangentially related matter is available upon request. You're welcome.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't think that's the argument he's making. Plus, the evidence does not support a net loss of sensation or pleasure. Here's a quote from a systematic review published in the Danish Medical Journal in 2016, which is run by the Danish Medical Association (not exactly an organization biased in favor of the operation):
"The hypothesis of inferior male sexual function following circumcision is not supported by the findings of this systematic review. The popular narrative that male circumcision results in sexual dysfunction does not seem to be supported by evidence . . . The Danish Health Authorities do not recommend a lawenforced ban of non-medical circumcisions in Denmark based on these low rates of short-term complications." (Shabanzadeh)
And here's another from a meta-analysis published in the World Journal of Clincial Pediatrics in 2017:
"Our risk-benefit analysis showed that benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by up to 200 to 1. We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime. Wide-ranging evidence from surveys, physiological measurements, and the anatomical location of penile sensory receptors responsible for sexual sensation strongly and consistently suggest that male circumcision has no detrimental effect on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure."
The notion that circumcision elicits a loss in pleasure, sensation, or function (barring rare exceptions, such as a botched surgery or severe complications) is entirely a myth. That's not my own opinion, that's the findings of experts from all around the globe -- including in northern European/Scandinavian societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Personally, I cannot take anyone seriously who believes the government could become "tyrannical" at any moment and that they need the means to defend themselves so as to (as Jefferson wrote) overthrow the government and establish a new one that fears the people, not dominates them (I'm totally on board with that, I lean towards anarchism) --- but who ALSO says that our military should be the most powerful in the world and that the bloated budget of $770 BILLION should be maintained or even increased year after year. Using history as our guide (the American Revolution, for example), who do they think the politicians or a dictator will use as his/her/their shield to remain in power? The MILITARY, of course. Did we already forget that it was the British army who defended their colonies in the Seven Years' War, and then when the colonies rebelled, that same military was used against them? You want the people who would potentially be defending a brutal dictator (the Commander-in-Chief) to have MORE sophisticated weapons and means of subjugation? Are you INSANE? Here at least the libertarians have an argument --- the gun-toting neoconservatives have no idea what they want in such a scenario. Hope the hearts of the people with the most firepower (our servicemen and women) are turned in our favor, I guess --- and there, I'm afraid to say, history is not on your side.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bobgorno8387 We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I say "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Holidays" with no qualms whatsoever. To me, the religious undertones don't matter; because everyone who is even slightly educated knows that Christmas isn't rooted in the Bible (i.e. there is no command to celebrate Jesus's birthday anywhere to be found, nor is even the date of his birth [if he existed] to be found), but has its origins as a pagan celebration of the Winter Solstice which the Catholic Church co-opted for their own purposes. And to me, that's all it is. A time to have fun and exhange gifts, enjoy some hot chocolate and silly music with bells, and gather with family and friends in a warm house while it rains or snows outside. It's somewhat of a silly tradition when you think about it, but it's not one that I'm eager to leave behind --- and certainly not because some believe it has its roots in a fairy tale (which, as I'm sure you're aware, is not true at all). Besides, Trans-Siberian Orchestra is just too much fun to blast at full volume on my car stereo this time of year. 😁🤣🤣
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@onlypimpseattacoswiththeir3017 Okay, calm down a little bit. I will give you the facts, and let you make up your own mind. First, I never said anything about schools or education, so I have no idea where the hell you're pulling that from. Second, the patriotism displayed by Puerto Ricans despite not being allowed to vote can be explained by US's support and protection of virtually every aspect of the island, as evidenced by FEMA's involvement in the aftermath of hurricane Maria. In other words, Puerto Ricans choose to remain a US territory, despite lacking all the rights of US citizenship. For these reasons, I think mainland (or, dare I say, "true") Americans don't view Puerto Ricans in the same way they do citizens of, say, another state.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kyle is so ignorant of the facts on circumcision it's almost embarrassing. I've researched this topic for four years. I became obsessed with it after I learned what was done to me, and immediately fell for the prodigious amount of propaganda that can be found on the Internet. It's clear that Kyle hasn't done ANY research at all (as if it wasn't obvious enough by the sheer lack of nuance), because he doesn't seem to be aware that the current consensus of urologists is that it DOES reduce the risk of STD's (HIV by up to 60%), penile/prostate/cervical cancer, UTI's, and more; and that it has a neutral impact on s-xual function, sensation, and enjoyment (meaning that for some their experience post-op improved, for others it decreased, and for the vast majority it stayed the same). Hell, even reading the WIKIPEDIA page would have told you that!! And if you don't trust online encyclopedias, either read the numerous studies that have been conducted by actual EXPERTS, or (if you prefer) take a look at a couple of good, informed sources on the subject: Dr. Aaron Spitz, one of the country's leading urologists who has spent his whole career studying s-xual dysfunction in men and a member of the American Urological Association, and the atheist South African moral philosopher David Benatar. These aren't "rationalizations," this is science. The facts will tell you that it is less "mut*lation" (as he calls it) and more so "modification." Look, I oppose the procedure too -- because I believe in the fundamental principle of bodily automony (only overriden by medical necessity) -- but I do not stoop to the level of the circ opponents and outright deny the science. Those folks can not reasonably claim that they are superior to those who refuse to accept that the planet is warming, and I'm afraid that Kyle has found himself falling into that trap. Frankly, this is a total disgrace to himself and to his audience.
1
-
1
-
@sandhanitizer15 It depends on weather and average traffic, but 75 seems pretty reasonable. Out in Nevada, which I've visited a few times, most highways are in the middle of nowhere and have a speed limit of 70. You could go hours without seeing another vehicle in either direction on some of them. In those environments, I think drivers should be able to go any speed they feel is safe, but also be encouraged to slow down whenever they are about to pass a fellow motorist. That way, you can get the best of both worlds. (And yes, I've done 100+ mph on many of these roads, and I do not regret it one bit. If you've never driven that fast in the desert, let me tell you, it's surreal.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at the Lunar New Year's festival, MLK Jr. celebration, July 4th parade, gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, garlic festival, Juneteenth celebration, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, on a farm, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own home . . . Pretty much anywhere.
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time, liveable minimum wage, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
Obispo Purpura We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@k333rl Personally, I cannot take anyone seriously who believes the government could become "tyrannical" at any moment and that they need the means to defend themselves so as to (as Jefferson wrote) overthrow the government and establish a new one that fears the people, not dominates them (I'm totally on board with that, I lean towards anarchism) --- but who ALSO says that our military should be the most powerful in the world and that the bloated budget of $770 BILLION should be maintained or even increased year after year. Using history as our guide (the American Revolution, for example), who do they think the politicians or a dictator will use as his/her/their shield to remain in power? The MILITARY, of course. Did we already forget that it was the British army who defended their colonies in the Seven Years' War, and then when the colonies rebelled, that same military was used against them? You want the people who would potentially be defending a brutal dictator (the Commander-in-Chief) to have MORE sophisticated weapons and means of subjugation? Are you INSANE? Here at least the libertarians have an argument --- the gun-toting neoconservatives have no idea what they want in such a scenario. Hope the hearts of the people with the most firepower (our servicemen and women) are turned in our favor, I guess --- and there, I'm afraid to say, history is not on your side.
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're not "pro-life" if you only support measures conducive to life before it exits the womb. Are you equally outraged about the fact that millions of innocent men, women, and children halfway around the world are being bombed into oblivion by our military or starved to death by our sanctions (and those of our allies)? Or that close to 85 MILLION Americans are uninsured/underinsured and 45,000 die each year due to a lack of proper healthcare? How about the future generations that will be completely wiped out because minimal action is being taken to address the impending climate catastrophe? Do you support the most basic regulations that would ensure that those precious unborn children won't be brutally gunned down once they reach the 3rd grade?
And don't even get me started on non-human life. The suffering of hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows we slaughter alive each and every day merely because we enjoy the taste of their flesh is ASTRONOMICAL compared to all abortions humanity has ever performed COMBINED. Does the life of that unborn child matter if it is gay or transgender, or would it be better off if it was "six feet under"? Prove to me that you believe life matters AFTER it has left the womb by pressuring your legal representatives to pass paid maternity leave and universal childcare, as the USA remains the ONLY developed country that does not provide these services. Better yet, demand that those children earn enough to make a decent living for themselves and their families when they grow older by advocating for raising the minimum wage and unionization efforts. Make it clear that you demand action on criminal justice reform, starting with abolishing the barbaric practice of state-sanctioned execution which more closely aligns the US with Saudi Arabia than with any of our peer nations in Europe. Finally, vigorously oppose any measure to engage in an unjustified and illegal offensive halfway around the world that costs taxpayers trillions of dollars and steals the lives of thousands of innocent Americans (usually young men).
George Carlin exposed this blatant hypocrisy decades ago.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f-cked."
Embryos/fetuses prior to 18 weeks gestation cannot suffer (let alone possess any form of sentience or consciousness), and that infuriates conservatives. So in order to maximize human misery (their ultimate agenda), they seek to outlaw it so that mothers are forced to give birth and those children grow up in destitute and dysfunctional households with little to no social support, receive a poor quality education and either saddle themselves with student debt or serve in the armed forces, only to end up wounded/severely traumatized with no guaranteed healthcare and/or slaving away for a corporation for baseline wages -- all the while ensuring maximum penalties for engaging in sexual activity -- and finally growing old and retiring in little comfort due to a rapidly diminishing allowance in the form of Social Security. Repeat the cycle. And that's not even taking into consideration the potential consequences of overpopulation -- resources will be spread thinner and thinner until, at a certain point, the damage done to our planet will be so severe that human civilization will be all but wiped off the face of the Earth. Think how much worse off we would be TODAY if we added 60+ million to our population (approximately the number of fetuses aborted in the U.S. since 1973). Famine, war, and widepread civil unrest are just the beginning. That's the world Republicans want -- a dystopian Malthusian/Orwellian hellscape -- whether they are cognizant of it or not.
1
-
@wheatandtares9764 "Leftist policies create shitholes, wherever its [sic] instituted."
Have you lived under a rock under your entire life? The Scandanivan countries are Social Democratic (a form of libertarian socialism), and they are the most prosperous societies on PLANET EARTH. Any way you choose to measure it (life expectancy, wealth equality, World Happiness Index, homelessness, rates of violent crime, education, carbon footprint, provision of public goods like healthcare, etc.), what countries will you see at the top? Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands (and Japan) --- EVERY SINGLE TIME. How do they do it? ALL of them have a generous social safety net (a "leftist" policy), some form of collective bargaining (a "leftist" policy), high unionization rates (so high in fact, that minimum wage laws don't even exist; another "leftist" policy), and a completely secular form of governance (as "leftist" as it gets). This claim is a flat-out LIE, and should at the very least put the veracity of your other claims into serious doubt. After all, one cannot successfully debate an opponent who deliberately argues in bad faith to give the impression of having attained a victory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time, liveable minimum wage, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ah, so the Bible is your favorite collection of ancient myths and fairy tales, huh? Nice. Personally I have an affinity for Homer's the Iliad and the Odyssey, but the Vedas, the Pyramid texts, the Coffin texts, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Instruction of Amenemope, the Book of Caverns, the Book of Gates, the Amdaut, the Book of the Heavenly Cow, the Code of Hammurabi, the Kesh Temple Hymn, the Popol Vuh, the Avesta, the Koran, and the writings of Herodotus are all good too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You act like the two are the same thing. They aren't. It's unfortunate that a large proportion of the country lacks basic education in political science to distinguish between them, but I'll do my best to correct your error. Communism is an explicitly authoritarian ideology that was meant to lend more power to the oppressed masses of workers, the proletariat. Since Vladimir Lenin adopted the ideology as his own in the early 20th century, it's never worked in quite that fashion. Instead, a vanguard party takes over until the country has reached the level of economic development necessary for a proletariat revolution. Suffice it to say this hasn't happened, and on the whole Marxism-Leninism has been an abject failure. Socialism, however, has two quite distinct connotations: as a synonym for Communism (as in the United Soviet Socialist Republics, or the U.S.S.R.), and as an ideology that takes a more moderate and libertarian approach to the massive wealth disparities wrought by capitalism. In the former sense, North Korea and Cuba may be correctly labeled "socialist" economies. The latter, however, much more closely resembles the economic policies of Sweden, Denmark and Iceland, with a generous welfare state and collective bargaining. They call their specific brand of socialism the "Nordic Model," which is classified as a form of "social democracy," a kind of libertarian socialism. The two, politically speaking, could not be more different from one another, and one may confirm this by simply observing the quality of life of the average citizen in any of these countries and what rights and protections they are afforded by law. I hope this clears up your confusion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time, liveable minimum wage, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Prove to me that your favorite deity exists. You believe in which god? Zeus? Marduk? Osiris? Baal? Enlil? Apollo? Dagda? Quetzlcoatyl? Ogma? Marzin? Rigatona? Ceros? Vediovis? Cronos? Belus? Dauke? Enurestu? Sebek? Amon-Re? Molech? Shelm? Nergal? Govannon? Mider? Nuada Argetlam? Gwydion? Tammuz? Enki? Consus? Furrina? Adeona? Dea Dia? Pwyll? Lleu? Jupiter? Potina? Robigus? Vesta? Nin? Sahi? Allatu? Elali? Mami? Nebo? Amurru? Beltu? Qarradu? Zagaga? Nusku? Nirig? Ueras? Ma-banba-anna? Bau? Dagan? Suqamunu? Samas? Lugal-Amarada? Lêr? Bilé? Vaticanus? Dimmer? Ubilulu? Gasan-lil? Pluto? Potina? Odin? Tagd? U-ki? U-Tin-dir ki? Persephone? Istar? Ops? Kerridwen? Ahijah? Ptah? Resheph? Astarte? Yau? There's a list of thousands of fake anthropomorphic deities, and Yahweh Elohim, god of the Jews, is just one of them.
You believe in which of the following collections of ancient myths and fairy tales: Homer's the Iliad and the Odyssey, the Vedas, the Pyramid texts, the Coffin texts, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Instruction of Amenemope, the Book of Caverns, the Book of Gates, the Amdaut, the Book of the Heavenly Cow, the Code of Hammurabi, the Kesh Temple Hymn, the Popol Vuh, the Avesta, and the writings of Herodotus? Prove to me that the "Bible" is not yet another of these scribblings by highly superstitious, primitive desert-dwelling goat-herders. Go ahead. I'll wait. Until then, I'll get my morals from the greatest minds in philosophy and economics -- Peter Singer, John Rawls, Noam Chomsky, and John Maynard Keynes, to name just a few. The most prosperous societies on Earth (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands) are also some of the most atheistic. By the way, the Bible supports abortion:
"May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” (Numbers 5:23 NIV)
"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.” (Hosea 13:16 NIV)
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time, liveable minimum wage, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dduong4505 Which President just signed into law healthcare for veterans impacted by toxic burn pits? I'll wait. Here's some advice: provide some reasons why "Vets and all other Americans" should vote a certain way. Allow me to demonstrate:
Don't vote for Republicans, because they support:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
It's not too difficult, trust me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This has to end. My freedom to live is of a higher priority than your freedom to own a weapon of war. Full stop.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's my ranking:
S - In-N-Out Burger, Panda Express, Chick-Fil-A (Round Table would also go here)
A - Popeye's, Subway, Wendy's
B - KFC, Chipotle, Five Guys
C - Taco Bell, McDonald's, Domino's Pizza, Burger King, Carl's Jr.
D - Little Caesar's, Jack in the Box, Sonic
I have never tried Dairy Queen, Arby's (I don't eat beef or pork), White Castle, Pizza Hut, or Papa John's.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because they don't support:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
If you voted Republican, you have some explaining to do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let's evaluate that claim, shall we?
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “mutilation” as follows: ”An act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal.” Alternatively, the same dictionary also defines it as “an act or instance of damaging or altering something radically.” Hence, radical or severe “damage” or “alteration” is a necessary component in order to satisfy the most commonly accepted definitions of “mutilation.” With that in mind, let’s proceed with the argument.
Any proposed "ban" is up to the medical experts. The AAP and CDC each released statements (in 2012 and 2014, respectively) endorsing the procedure for prophylactic reasons, and concluded that it is an appropriate matter for parents along with their doctors to decide. Do you trust the medical community or not? I do in all matters, not just in transitioning children, abortion, COVID-19, and vaccines. (The science on this, by the way, is very clear. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet; stick to the hard evidence, not propaganda. Otherwise, you're no better (epistemologically speaking) than a climate denier who has become convinced by sites such as WattsUpWithThat. Look at the studies themselves if you want the details. Simply dismissing them out of hand, such as by claiming they're "flawed" without evidence, is akin to denying climate change without having reviewed any of the supporting facts and data underlying the theory.)
However, I believe four reforms should be enacted: 1) any financial incentive needs to be eliminated (as would happen under single-payer healthcare), but the cost (~$150-200) must be borne by the parents due to the surgery's elective nature, 2) doctors should have the option of refusing to perform if they have a moral objection (like in the U.K.), so both parents AND the doctor must agree, 3) parents must specifically request it (so the default is that it is not performed), and 4) regulations require that the surgery is executed by a trained medical professional in a sterilized environment under anesthesia via block injection (thereby outlawing the traditional Jewish method, where most de@ths occur. And, as an aside, the concern about the link between acetaminophen use in pregnancy, infancy, and early childhood and ASD is valid, but as of now the AAP, AAFP, and FDA still recommend it for fever and pain reduction in babies). Hence, ideally, it would remain legal, as it is in literally every other country in the world (though Iceland (lol) has made attempts to outlaw it), but fewer and fewer parents would choose it, and as the culture shifts it would eventually fall out of favor entirely -- the exact same process as what unfolded in parts of Europe and throughout most of the Commonwealth (and is currently happening in South Korea as well).
As for why it must be performed in infancy and cannot wait until adulthood when the person can give consent, which is a reasonable objection, the reasons are numerous. First, the risk of complications are much lower at this stage (~.5% compared to ~3%) and are predominantly minor. Second, some benefits (such as lower risk of penile cancer and UTI's in infancy and early childhood, which can cause permanent liver damage) are only conferred when it's done in infancy. Third, the inconvenience is greatly lessened -- recovery time is shorter, there are no stitches involved, and there is no need to take time off work or abstain from s-xual activity. Finally, some studies have found that there is a slightly higher chance of negative impact to function in nonmedical cases when the surgery is done later in life (perhaps attributable to greater complications), though this is in dispute due to the low quality of the evidence. It also helps, of course, that babies don't form memories of the experience -- a fact that many men who consider it later in life are quite jealous of (29% of uncut men wish they were, as opposed to 10% of cut men that wish they weren't, according to a YouGov poll from 2015). Impacts to psychological functioning, by the way, are pure speculation and a complete myth, and are, once again, utterly unsupported by the evidence. (There's more proof, one might argue, that it increases the odds of winning a Nobel Prize.)
1
-
And, please, don't consider responding with an objection that "it reduces s-xual pleasure," because the highest quality evidence consistently finds that it does not in the vast majority of men (such as VMMC randomized controlled trials in Africa and the Dominican Republic) -- and, indeed, having researched this topic for four-and-a-half years myself, this is perfectly consistent with the numerous accounts I've seen from men who have had the surgery as adults (both for medical reasons and not), and who consequently experienced both sides. My own speculative explanation for this (based on research) is that, in most cases, much of the inner lining is retained (i.e. "mid" to "high" cuts are the norm), sensitivity to temperature is more important than light-touch, the brain "adjusts" to the deficit over a period of about six months to one year (some men have testified to this), and the mechanics differ post-surgery. Moreover, the oft-cited figure of "20,000 nerve endings" is a wild overestimate based on a sample size of ONE that employed shoddy statistics (by a convicted fraudster and HIV/AIDS denialist, no less).
(Side note: I am well aware of the history of the practice in America, but it is quite irrelevant to the discussion as it pertains to ethics; claiming that it's wrong merely because the person to start the trend, William Harvey Kellogg, believed that it would prevent m@sturbation is functionally equivalent to condemning Planned Parenthood because its founder, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist. Comparisons to FGM are also not apt: the latter offers negligible or no medical, health, hygiene, or aesthetic benefits, and is quite often much more severe. I'm an atheist, but I'm also willing to acknowledge when certain beliefs, practices, rituals, etc. are beneficial based on scientific findings, or at least not harmful, as are other critical thinkers like Stephen Moreton, Martha Nussbaum and Sam Harris. Also, the historical evidence strongly indicates that the trend only caught on decades later after initially introduced, during both World Wars to maintain hygiene in trench warfare, but that's another matter.)
"Our risk-benefit analysis showed that benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by up to 200 to 1. We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime. Wide-ranging evidence from surveys, physiological measurements, and the anatomical location of penile sensory receptors responsible for sexual sensation strongly and consistently suggest that male circumcision has no detrimental effect on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure." (Emphasis added.) That is according to a meta-analysis published in the World Journal of Clinical Pediatrics in 2017.
"The hypothesis of inferior male sexual function following circumcision is not supported by the findings of this systematic review. The popular narrative that male circumcision results in sexual dysfunction does not seem to be supported by evidence." (Shabanzadeh) Taken directly from a review published in the Danish Medical Journal in 2016, which is run by the Danish Medical Association — not exactly an organization biased in favor of this operation. Furthermore, "the Danish Health Authorities do not recommend a law-enforced ban of non-medical circumcisions in Denmark based on these low rates of short-term complications." (Emphasis mine.) Hm, it's almost like the evidence doesn't support the notion that circumcision is harmful and should be banned, and even Scandinavian societies have recognized this. Go figure.
"Male circumcision for non-therapeutic reasons appears to be practiced with relative regularity and frequency throughout Europe . . . [and is] the only scenario, among the topics discussed in the present chapter, in which the outcome of balancing between the right to physical integrity and religious freedom is in favor of the latter." (Italics mine.) From a study commissioned by the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (various authors).
You want something more recent? Here you go. "Despite the conflicting data reported in articles, the weight of the scientific evidence suggests there is not sufficient data to establish a direct association between male circumcision and sexual dysfunction." (Emphasis added.) Quoted directly from the results of a meta-analysis performed by Oxford's Department of Sexual Health and published by Oxford University Press in 2023.
For all these reasons, I believe it is more accurately described as "modification" rather than "mutilation" (this latter descriptor being about as felicitous as labeling abortion "murder," and employed for essentially the same purpose: eliciting an irrational, emotional response). Having invested literally hundreds of hours of my time reading about this topic (hence the long dissertation chock-full of medical information), I am quite confident that I'm more qualified to speak on it than anyone who might be reading this, and these are the conclusions that I have reached. (And, for the record, I do not intend on having the surgery performed on any of my children because I personally believe bodily autonomy concerns outweigh the benefits -- after all, modifications are still, almost by definition, unnecessary. Others may reasonably hold a different view.) If you're curious to learn more, I recommend the following sources: the Canadian Pediatric Society has released a fair, balanced, and thorough assessment that was reaffirmed in 2024 (though not as comprehensive as the AAP's); for an expert's opinion, member of the American Urological Association Dr. Aaron Spitz has written about this in some detail; and, finally, for those curious about the ethics of the issue (particularly those with a consequentialist utilitarian bent, like myself), atheist antinatalist South African philosopher David Benatar (who, an activist himself, writes frequently on men's rights issues) has much insightful commentary to offer as well. Happy reading.
1
-
Rambo Chi "Covid is going away, it's going away." April 15th, 2020. "We'll reopen by Easter." "We're doing a great job on Covid." And that's just the first few weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic. Or how about this one: "We won this election. It was stolen." Proof doesn't matter to him, unlike the 60+ judges who threw his election fraud "cases" out of court (many of which were appointed by him); the Supreme Court (including the newly appointed Amy Coney Barrett), who refused to hear the case entirely (so 4 Justices didn't agree to grant cert); Bill Barr, his Attorney General, who admitted it was all nonsense; and last but not least, his own Vice President, who announced that "Trump was wrong" that he had the power to overturn the election. The Washington Post has a list of over 30,000 of such fabrications, I suggest you check it out. Dumb Republican.
https://youtu.be/r8yOv4PwttM
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
1
-
Since Kyle has taken the rare step of soliciting input from viewers, I will provide mine. As a consequentialist, my top concern is what results will be produced from this. The fact that thousands of people will be inconvenienced (however mildly) is a given. On the other hand, protestors will argue that this at least has a chance of changing policy. According to my understanding, this is true -- but not in the way supporters believe. In all likelihood, the public backlash to this form of civil disobedience will only encourage those in power to crack down on free protest -- and, by extension, the First Amendment. The law recently signed by the Florida governor decriminalizing vehicular homicide exemplifies this. In the end, all that is likely to occur from these protests are more enforced restrictions and deterrents, not unlike those the Supreme Court has refused to overturn in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. For this reason, I take a strong stance in opposition to indirect forms of civil disobedience (hence nonviolent protests such as civil rights-era sit-ins are excluded), no matter how just the cause.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What would really go a long way is if we were all fed the same information. Rather than liberals watching MSNBC and conservatives swearing by Fox News, we can all have the same baseline and make our own judgements from there. Instead, almost half the country thinks Mainstream Media (ABC, NBC, CBS) has a deep liberal bias while the other half (somehow) thinks CNN is more or less objective. The rise of social media, rather than alleviating this problem, has actually made it worse: Now everyone has entered their separate echo chambers, following pundits like Dennis Prager and Candace Owens (on the right) or Glenn Greenwald and Ezra Klein (on the left). And here on YouTube is no exception: We have PragerU and The Daily Wire telling us one thing, and Vox and Secular Talk telling us another. What we need is another Walter Cronkite-type figure, someone who we can all trust to give us the straight facts with no spin (much easier said than done). Even then, I fear that we have polarized so much that a significant minority of extremists on both ends won't buy into it (Q'Anon conspiracy theorists and hard-left AntiFa nutcases). Good luck finding a solution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let's not pretend like this is anything new, as the Corporate Media seems to be doing. Thanks to Julian Assange (who deserves a FULL and UNCOMPROMISING pardon), we know that the U.S. military has bombed hospitals filled with civilians with NO data indicating a terrorist threat or presence of enemies whatsoever. And when Assange blew the whistle, he had to flee the country so as to avoid being charged under the Espionage Act (an UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AUTHORITARIAN and ANACHRONISTIC piece of legislation passed during the WWI era). Also leaked was the statistic that U.S. drone strikes have a 90% civilian casualty rate. An estimated 200,000 civilians died during our time in Afghanistan, with over $2 trillion of taxpayer money. Is THIS what you want our money going towards? If you answer "yes," who may just be a psychopath who has absolutely no regard for the value of human life whatsoever. The U.S. is the greatest war criminal in world history, PERIOD!
P.S. To all you morons placing blame in the Biden Administration, WHERE WERE YOU WHEN THE EXACT SAME THINGS WERE HAPPENING UNDER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION? Trump REMOVED any Obama-era protections against bombing civilians, whatever happened to be left! If you're looking for a culprit, look no farther than the military-industrial complex (Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc.) and all the hundreds of thousands they have contributed in "campaign funds" to candidates who support aggressive military tactics. This is no coincidence: Because in this country, what we have is effectively legalized BRIBERY and CORRUPTION! Money = speech means more civilian casualties in the Middle East using trillions in taxpayer money with NO accountability whatsoever! WAKE UP!
Source: https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/trumps-secret-rules-for-drone-strikes-and-presidents-unchecked-license-to-kill/
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not gonna lie, this list almost perfectly matches a list that I would have ended up with. The most "controversial" takes imo (and I think they're quite forgiveable) are placing Rold Gold pretzels in D-Tier and Cape Cods in C-Tier. Just for the sake of comparison, here's my ranking:
S-Tier: Ruffles (both types), Cape Cods
A-Tier: Cheeze-itz (all EXCEPT spicy), all Fritos, regular Goldfish, Sun Chips (Cheddar Cheese and French Onion), Lay's (Original and Wavy)
B-Tier: Pringles, Rold Gold Pretzels, Sun Chips (Garden Salsa)
C-Tier: Flavor-blasted Goldfish, Bugles, Chex Mix
D-Tier: Doritos (Nacho Cheese only), all other Lay's, Veggie Sticks
F-Tier: Cheetos (all of them), all other Doritos, "Baked" anything, spicy Cheese-itz
All the others I either haven't tried or don't recall trying well enough to make a decision. As you can see, I'm not much of a spicy fan either. 😋 Also, is just me or did Doritos and Cheetos taste a LOT better when you were a kid? I used to rejoice every time we ate them for dinner, now I whenever I see a bag I'm like "Yuck."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The only thing we're the "best" at (that we should be proud of --- we lead the world in military spending and incarceration but that isn't anything to boast about) is that we have the world's first and most bad@ss Constitution. Our Founding was a success story of the highest order, having defeated the world's greatest military force (at that time) to win our independence, and then bringing together some of the greatest minds on the planet (Benjamin Frankin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton, just to name a few) to compose the documents that officially state this nation's raison d'etre. It was a break from tyranny --- the British monarchy --- and a success story capable of passing into legend. Besides that, this country sucks. 90 years of slavery, 100 years of Jim Crow, horrific atrocties against Native peoples, Asian discrimination, and of course, a corrupt government that only serves the interests of those with the largest wallets. We are lagging FAR behind the rest of the developed world in basic social safety net programs, directly contributing to a comparatively low quality of life, life expectancy, happiness index, high crime rates, and incomprehensible levels of wealth inequality. The only way an American can remain a patriot is if his or her ignorance about the rest of the world is maintained, and that's exactly what the right wing has been securing. Education is their weakness, and they know that if more people go to good schools they will realize just how much they have been duped, which explains why righties are against public funding for tertiary education (another thing this country lacks, but many other OECD countries provide). I know all this because it happened to me, just in the last couple of years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at the MLK Jr. celebration, July 4th parade, gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, garlic festival, Juneteenth celebration, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own home . . . Pretty much anywhere.
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time, liveable minimum wage, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This has to end. My freedom to live is of a higher priority than your freedom to own a weapon of war. Full stop.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at the July 4th parade, gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, garlic festival, Juneteenth celebration, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own home . . . Pretty much anywhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, elder care, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, elder care, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
1
-
You go, Cori Bush! This is probably the one chance we will have to advance a progressive agenda to fight climate change and implement some social democratic reforms for the next ten years. And by then, so much damage will have been caused that it would be absurd not to fight like hell to avoid it now. We just need to get Biden to do some hard-talk with extremist Senators (if Republicans have their RINO's, then Dems have their DINO's) who aren't on board with the $3.5 trillion price tag. Sinema is bought and owned by Big Pharma, having taking $750,000 in "donations" from them, and Machin's family runs a fossil fuel company (from which Manchin himself has made millions) and his relatives were involved in a price-gouging scheme with pharmaceuticals. They could be prosecuted and thrown in jail, but maybe, just maybe, we could work around that if he's willing to, I don't know, vote on a bill with provisions supported by EIGHTY PERCENT OF AMERICANS and West Virginians, such as lowering drug prices!! If they sink it, they will go down in history as the villains who spent their final decades on this planet accruing a personal fortune while depriving millions, both currently living and future generations, of their opportunity to live comfortably. They aren't "moderates", ABC, they're corporate extremists and, if they aren't capable of changing their minds, selfish b@stards who gain status and wealth at everyone else's expense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So you're fine with polio, smallpox, measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, whooping cough, influenza, Hepatitis A and B, and HPV all spreading like wildfire throughout the population, with the simple goal of maximizing human misery? Wow, how kind of you . . .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What was the alternative? Oh yeah:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, elder care, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@scottiejohnson2639 Where do I even start with you? You DO realize that a fetus lives WITHIN the mother for 9 months before entering the world on its own, right? And because of the excessive pain that comes with childbirth, not to mention the 20+ years of commitment that follow, access to safe abortions is absolutely necessary in a civilized society. But clearly religious zealots don't want to live in that world--they would rather we live in the barbaric time of 3,000 years ago. They should never be taken seriously by anyone with a modicum of sense, period. You want to live in a society where mutilating genitals is okay and performing an abortion could get you k*lled? Go move to the Middle East. They're about 500 years behind everyone else. You'll fit right in. Leave the rest of us civilized folk to run this country how we see fit. Once the baby is born, it has every right to protection of its own body with the sole exception of a doctor's recommendation, upon which the parents of said child may choose to act. The child, once it's born, is NOT the parents' property. He or she is a human being all his or her own. This right does not apply to a fetus in the mother's womb, and this is where I think you are getting confused. Try applying a bit of logic once in a while.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Personally, I cannot take anyone seriously who believes the government could become "tyrannical" at any moment and that they need the means to defend themselves so as to (as Jefferson wrote) overthrow the government and establish a new one that fears the people, not dominates them (I'm totally on board with that, I lean towards anarchism) --- but who ALSO says that our military should be the most powerful in the world and that the bloated budget of $770 BILLION should be maintained or even increased year after year. Using history as our guide (the American Revolution, for example), who do they think the politicians or a dictator will use as his/her/their shield to remain in power? The MILITARY, of course. Did we already forget that it was the British army who defended their colonies in the Seven Years' War, and then when the colonies rebelled, that same military was used against them? You want the people who would potentially be defending a brutal dictator (the Commander-in-Chief) to have MORE sophisticated weapons and means of subjugation? Are you INSANE? Here at least the libertarians have an argument --- the gun-toting neoconservatives have no idea what they want in such a scenario. Hope the hearts of the people with the most firepower (our servicemen and women) are turned in our favor, I guess --- and there, I'm afraid to say, history is not on your side.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@antmaster360 This is either a gross misunderstanding, or you're not very bright. I'm opting for the latter. At the beginning there was a shortage of masks of any kind. If the experts recommend the general public starts wearing them right away, immediately there would be an extremely high demand of the top-quality masks (the N95's, as you said). It doesn't matter whether there was an abundance of lower-quality ones, like surgical masks. If there were N95's or similar PPE available, the public would have made every effort to get their hands on it. And as I told you already, the inevitable consequence is that the people who need them the most--namely, the HEALTHCARE workers (NOT "social workers," there's a massive difference)--would be unable to protect themselves, putting them at comparatively higher risk of death (because they work with known COVID patients), and thereby disproportionately impacting the trained professionals early on. And if I didn't spell this out for you clearly enough, this would invariably set us up for failure with respect to our pandemic response, because many who have the necessary expertise to treat COVID patients effectively would either be sick or dead. Try using your brain once in a while.
1
-
@antmaster360 I think Fauci had good reason to lie. I'll say it for a third time now: If he didn't, people likely would have bought up all the available N95's, because they aren't stupid. They know (well enough of them do, anyway) that the other kinds of face coverings--cloth masks made of T-shirts, neck gaiters, bandanas, surgical masks, whatever--are not as effective at reducing transmission. Most would want to get their hands on medical-grade masks, and if the medical community wasn't well-prepared at the time (they were not), then a shortage would promptly ensue. If you've been watching the news you might remember how bad the PPE shortage for front-line workers was already; if there was high demand from the public in addition to doctors, nurses, etc., it would have been 100 times worse. My mom's a nurse, and just imagine if someone you knew had to show up to work knowing they could get sick and possibly die because they lack the PPE for protection. It's unfathomable, and that's why I think Fauci had to do what he did.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Who's laughable again?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're not "pro-life" if you only support measures conducive to life before it exits the womb. Are you equally outraged about the fact that millions of innocent men, women, and children halfway around the world are being bombed into oblivion by our military or starved to death by our sanctions (and those of our allies)? Or that close to 70 MILLION Americans are uninsured/underinsured and 45,000 die each year due to a lack of proper healthcare? How about the future generations that will be completely wiped out because minimal action is being taken to address the impending climate catastrophe? Do you support the most basic regulations that would ensure that those precious unborn children won't be brutally gunned down once they reach the 3rd grade?
And don't even get me started on non-human life. The suffering of hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows we slaughter alive each and every day merely because we enjoy the taste of their flesh is ASTRONOMICAL compared to all abortions humanity has ever performed COMBINED. Does the life of that unborn child matter if it is gay or transgender, or would it be better off if it was "six feet under"? Prove to me that you believe life matters AFTER it has left the womb by pressuring your legal representatives to pass paid maternity leave and universal childcare, as the USA remains the ONLY developed country that does not provide these services. Better yet, demand that those children earn enough to make a decent living for themselves and their families when they grow older by advocating for raising the minimum wage and unionization efforts. Make it clear that you demand action on criminal justice reform, starting with abolishing the barbaric practice of state-sanctioned execution which more closely aligns the US with Saudi Arabia than with any of our peer nations in Europe. Finally, vigorously oppose any measure to engage in an unjustified and illegal offensive halfway around the world that costs taxpayers trillions of dollars and steals the lives of thousands of innocent Americans (usually young men).
George Carlin exposed this blatant hypocrisy decades ago.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f-cked."
Embryos/fetuses prior to 18 weeks gestation cannot suffer (let alone possess any form of sentience or consciousness), and that infuriates conservatives. So in order to maximize human misery (their ultimate agenda), they seek to outlaw it so that mothers are forced to give birth and those children grow up in destitute and dysfunctional households with little to no social support, receive a poor quality education and either saddle themselves with student debt or serve in the armed forces, only to end up wounded/severely traumatized with no guaranteed healthcare and/or slaving away for a corporation for baseline wages -- all the while ensuring maximum penalties for engaging in sexual activity -- and finally growing old and retiring in little comfort due to a rapidly diminishing allowance in the form of Social Security. Then the cycle repeats itself. And that's not even taking into consideration the potential consequences of overpopulation -- resources will be spread thinner and thinner until, at a certain point, the damage done to our planet will be so severe that human civilization will be all but wiped off the face of the Earth. Think how much worse off we would be TODAY if we added 60+ million to our population (approximately the number of fetuses aborted since 1973). Famine, war, and widepread civil unrest are just the beginning. That's the world Republicans want -- a dystopian Malthusian/Orwellian hellscape -- whether they are cognizant of it or not.
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What Michael is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. Michael seems to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Really?
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, elder care, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time, liveable minimum wage, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence of any country in the world. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana.
Source: WorldPopulationReview
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TrueMithrandir Well, the Libertarian Party has been favor of gay marriage since its inception in 1972. No doubt there are some "old" folks still around who supported the party then, and still do today. Sure, they may be a little extreme on economics (okay, maybe very extreme), but you've got to give them credit: They were the first. Even the Democratic Party was against marriage equality up until few years ago. As recently as 2012, Hillary Clinton campaigned on traditional marriage, and then when 2016 rolled around she suddenly "had a change of heart." Nobody really buys that, do they? Come on. But there isn't a shadow of a doubt in my mind that there were a sizeable number of people in their 20's and 30's who endorsed the platform of the Libertarians back in the early 70's, and still hold to that position well into their 70's and 80's. A generalization such as that is not only dishonest, it's disingenuous and you know it. I mean, aren't we talking about the same people who were in college 50 years ago and vigorously protested the Vietnam War, and smoked all kinds of substances (until Nixon shut that down), the so-called "Hippie" or "Beatnik" movement? Does "make love, not war" or Woodstock ring a bell? If not, you need to revisit a history class my friend.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're not "pro-life" if you only support measures conducive to life before it exits the womb. Are you equally outraged about the fact that millions of innocent men, women, and children halfway around the world are being bombed into oblivion by our military or starved to death by our sanctions (and those of our allies)? Or that close to 70 MILLION Americans are uninsured/underinsured and 45,000 die each year due to a lack of proper healthcare? How about the future generations that will be completely wiped out because minimal action is being taken to address the impending climate catastrophe? Do you support the most basic regulations that would ensure that those precious unborn children won't be brutally gunned down once they reach the 3rd grade?
And don't even get me started on non-human life. The suffering of hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows we slaughter alive each and every day merely because we enjoy the taste of their flesh is ASTRONOMICAL compared to all abortions humanity has ever performed COMBINED. Does the life of that unborn child matter if it is gay or transgender, or would it be better off if it was "six feet under"? Prove to me that you believe life matters AFTER it has left the womb by pressuring your legal representatives to pass paid maternity leave and universal childcare, as the USA remains the ONLY developed country that does not provide these services. Better yet, demand that those children earn enough to make a decent living for themselves and their families when they grow older by advocating for raising the minimum wage and unionization efforts. Make it clear that you demand action on criminal justice reform, starting with abolishing the barbaric practice of state-sanctioned execution which more closely aligns the US with Saudi Arabia than with any of our peer nations in Europe. Finally, vigorously oppose any measure to engage in an unjustified and illegal offensive halfway around the world that costs taxpayers trillions of dollars and steals the lives of thousands of innocent Americans (usually young men).
George Carlin called out this blatant hypocrisy decades ago.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f-cked."
Embryos/fetuses prior to 18 weeks gestation cannot suffer (let alone possess any form of sentience or consciousness), and that infuriates conservatives. So in order to maximize human misery (their ultimate agenda), they seek to outlaw it so that mothers are forced to give birth and those children grow up in destitute and dysfunctional households with little to no social support, receive a poor quality education and either saddle themselves with student debt or serve in the armed forces, only to end up wounded/severely traumatized with no guaranteed healthcare and/or slaving away for a corporation for baseline wages -- all the while ensuring maximum penalties for engaging in sexual activity -- and finally growing old and retiring in little comfort due to a rapidly diminishing allowance in the form of Social Security. Then the cycle repeats itself. And that's not even taking into consideration the potential consequences of overpopulation -- resources will be spread thinner and thinner until, at a certain point, the damage done to our planet will be so severe that human civilization will be all but wiped off the face of the Earth. Think how much worse off we would be TODAY if we added 60+ million to our population (approximately the number of fetuses aborted since 1973). Famine, war, and widepread civil unrest are just the beginning. That's the world Republicans want -- a dystopian Malthusian/Orwellian hellscape -- whether they are cognizant of it or not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bloodaonadeline8346 Here's a proposition: We stop spending hundreds of billions of dollars on finding more efficient ways of k*lling brown people, and instead use that money to fight poverty (as opposed to poor people) here at home. Yes we have a large population, and we also have the largest GDP in the world as well. But we squander it on worthless pursuits that don't benefit anyone except Wall Street, the 1%, and the military-industrial complex. Do you know why? Because they've bought off all the politicians! First order of business, then, is to catch up with the rest of the developed world and get money out of our political institutions. Only then would the People actually have a say in their government!
"When the people fear their government, there's tyranny. When the government fears its people, there's liberty."
~ Thomas Jefferson
Right now, the government doesn't fear us. They fear the corporations, who never have the people's interests in mind!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
After the game? Fine, as long as the crowd has mostly disappeared AND you are not pressuring players to participate. I'm just worried what consequences this would have for players who opt not to join in. Will they be ostracized by the others, simply because they have a different theology (Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, atheist/agnostic, etc.) or even belong to a different denomination (Catholic, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, etc.)? I don't like the precedent this sets. Private schools exist for this very reason (religious indoctrination), maybe he should work at one of those.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here we go again. 🤦♂️
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
Brave New World to me is not nearly as terrifying as 1984. In the latter, everyone is beaten into submission, there is NO privacy and you spend your entire life in misery with no hope of escape. At least in Brave New World you have a chance to be HAPPY, even though you aren't necessarily free. Both books are examples of how liberty may be stripped away from us, but one is executed by means of the stick and the other a carrot (punishment vs. reward). However, I truly feel that if we want to make everyone happy, we allow for as much liberty as possible. They touched briefly on the thought of true happiness, which can only be attained through tribulation and pursuit such as love and marriage. The happiness of the people in BNW is superficial, it doesn't reach the depth that humans are capable of experiencing. I'm not convinced that the conservative values are necessarily right either, as once again you are restraining people not for good reason, but because some "higher power" exists and says it's right. I think the key to creating a utopia would be allow people to choose for themselves what lifestyle they want to live, as each individual is unique. Just because gay marriage is legal or premarital sex is not a crime does not mean YOU have to live your life that way. You can choose to live however you want. It's when we force people to adopt a certain lifestyle that we run into persistent suffering and agitation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
3MM4 P33L What gullible sucker would fall for Christianity? I mean seriously? Believing in endless fairy tales, "divine intervention" (which by the way never occurred in the two largest wars in human history), and evil spirits controlling the world? How utterly insipid does one have to be to believe all these things are true? I don't believe a man named "Yeshua" was the savior for all humanity. Like Thomas Paine, I believe he was a replacement for the ancient Sun god. F*** him. He's nothing. Worshipping a human is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of, alive or not. And even if he WAS genuine, I would STILL not turn to him because of what is said about him; specifically, that you must devote yourself to him or burn in hell. What about the billions of good, hardworking people living in China and India RIGHT NOW?!! What about THEIR souls? Do THEY matter? Turning to him would be the ultimate selfishness, regardless of how Christians are taught to behave. I KNOW have better morals than all Christian fundamentalists. You know why? Because I believe law-abiding homosexuals are GOOD people who have done NOTHING wrong in their entire lives. That ALREADY makes me better than every so-called "Christian" on the planet. Please, I don't need a book to tell me how to live my life. I can figure that out for myself. Religion is for people without a working brain. Unfortunately for you, I have one of those.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let's evaluate that claim, shall we?
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “mutilation” as follows: ”An act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal.” Alternatively, the same dictionary also defines it as “an act or instance of damaging or altering something radically.” Hence, radical or severe “damage” or “alteration” is a necessary component in order to satisfy the most commonly accepted definitions of “mutilation.” With that in mind, let’s proceed with the argument.
Any proposed "ban" is up to the medical experts. The AAP and CDC each released statements (in 2012 and 2014, respectively) endorsing the procedure for prophylactic reasons, and concluded that it is an appropriate matter for parents along with their doctors to decide. Do you trust the medical community or not? I do in all matters, not just in transitioning children, abortion, COVID-19, and vaccines. (The science on this, by the way, is very clear. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet; stick to the hard evidence, not propaganda. Otherwise, you're no better (epistemologically speaking) than a climate denier who has become convinced by sites such as WattsUpWithThat. Look at the studies themselves if you want the details. Simply dismissing them out of hand, such as by claiming they're "flawed" without evidence, is akin to denying climate change without having reviewed any of the supporting facts and data underlying the theory.)
However, I believe four reforms should be enacted: 1) any financial incentive needs to be eliminated (as would happen under single-payer healthcare), but the cost (~$150-200) must be borne by the parents due to the surgery's elective nature, 2) doctors should have the option of refusing to perform if they have a moral objection (like in the U.K.), so both parents AND the doctor must agree, 3) parents must specifically request it (so the default is that it is not performed), and 4) regulations require that the surgery is executed by a trained medical professional in a sterilized environment under anesthesia via block injection (thereby outlawing the traditional Jewish method, where most de@ths occur. And, as an aside, the concern about the link between acetaminophen use in pregnancy, infancy, and early childhood and ASD is valid, but as of now the AAP, AAFP, and FDA still recommend it for fever and pain reduction in babies). Hence, ideally, it would remain legal, as it is in literally every other country in the world (though Iceland (lol) has made attempts to outlaw it), but fewer and fewer parents would choose it, and as the culture shifts it would eventually fall out of favor entirely -- the exact same process as what unfolded in parts of Europe and throughout most of the Commonwealth (and is currently happening in South Korea as well).
As for why it must be performed in infancy and cannot wait until adulthood when the person can give consent, which is a reasonable objection, the reasons are numerous. First, the risk of complications are much lower at this stage (~.5% compared to ~3%) and are predominantly minor. Second, some benefits (such as lower risk of penile cancer and UTI's in infancy and early childhood, which can cause permanent liver damage) are only conferred when it's done in infancy. Third, the inconvenience is greatly lessened -- recovery time is shorter, there are no stitches involved, and there is no need to take time off work or abstain from s-xual activity. Finally, some studies have found that there is a slightly higher chance of negative impact to function in nonmedical cases when the surgery is done later in life (perhaps attributable to greater complications), though this is in dispute due to the low quality of the evidence. It also helps, of course, that babies don't form memories of the experience -- a fact that many men who consider it later in life are quite jealous of (29% of uncut men wish they were, as opposed to 10% of cut men that wish they weren't, according to a YouGov poll from 2015). Impacts to psychological functioning, by the way, are pure speculation and a complete myth, and are, once again, utterly unsupported by the evidence. (There's more proof, one might argue, that it increases the odds of winning a Nobel Prize.)
1
-
And, please, don't consider responding with an objection that "it reduces s-xual pleasure," because the highest quality evidence consistently finds that it does not in the vast majority of men (such as VMMC randomized controlled trials in Africa and the Dominican Republic) -- and, indeed, having researched this topic for four-and-a-half years myself, this is perfectly consistent with the numerous accounts I've seen from men who have had the surgery as adults (both for medical reasons and not), and who consequently experienced both sides. My own speculative explanation for this (based on research) is that, in most cases, much of the inner lining is retained (i.e. "mid" to "high" cuts are the norm), sensitivity to temperature is more important than light-touch, the brain "adjusts" to the deficit over a period of about six months to one year (some men have testified to this), and the mechanics differ post-surgery. Moreover, the oft-cited figure of "20,000 nerve endings" is a wild overestimate based on a sample size of ONE that employed shoddy statistics (by a convicted fraudster and HIV/AIDS denialist, no less).
(Side note: I am well aware of the history of the practice in America, but it is quite irrelevant to the discussion as it pertains to ethics; claiming that it's wrong merely because the person to start the trend, William Harvey Kellogg, believed that it would prevent m@sturbation is functionally equivalent to condemning Planned Parenthood because its founder, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist. Comparisons to FGM are also not apt: the latter offers negligible or no medical, health, hygiene, or aesthetic benefits, and is quite often much more severe. I'm an atheist, but I'm also willing to acknowledge when certain beliefs, practices, rituals, etc. are beneficial based on scientific findings, or at least not harmful, as are other critical thinkers like Stephen Moreton, Martha Nussbaum and Sam Harris. Also, the historical evidence strongly indicates that the trend only caught on decades later after initially introduced, during both World Wars to maintain hygiene in trench warfare, but that's another matter.)
"Our risk-benefit analysis showed that benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by up to 200 to 1. We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime. Wide-ranging evidence from surveys, physiological measurements, and the anatomical location of penile sensory receptors responsible for sexual sensation strongly and consistently suggest that male circumcision has no detrimental effect on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure." (Emphasis added.) That is according to a meta-analysis published in the World Journal of Clinical Pediatrics in 2017.
"The hypothesis of inferior male sexual function following circumcision is not supported by the findings of this systematic review. The popular narrative that male circumcision results in sexual dysfunction does not seem to be supported by evidence." (Shabanzadeh) Taken directly from a review published in the Danish Medical Journal in 2016, which is run by the Danish Medical Association — not exactly an organization biased in favor of this operation. Furthermore, "the Danish Health Authorities do not recommend a law-enforced ban of non-medical circumcisions in Denmark based on these low rates of short-term complications." (Emphasis mine.) Hm, it's almost like the evidence doesn't support the notion that circumcision is harmful and should be banned, and even Scandinavian societies have recognized this. Go figure.
"Male circumcision for non-therapeutic reasons appears to be practiced with relative regularity and frequency throughout Europe . . . [and is] the only scenario, among the topics discussed in the present chapter, in which the outcome of balancing between the right to physical integrity and religious freedom is in favor of the latter." (Italics mine.) From a study commissioned by the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (various authors).
You want something more recent? Here you go. "Despite the conflicting data reported in articles, the weight of the scientific evidence suggests there is not sufficient data to establish a direct association between male circumcision and sexual dysfunction." (Emphasis added.) Quoted directly from the results of a meta-analysis performed by Oxford's Department of Sexual Health and published by Oxford University Press in 2023.
For all these reasons, I believe it is more accurately described as "modification" rather than "mutilation" (this latter descriptor being about as felicitous as labeling abortion "murder," and employed for essentially the same purpose: eliciting an irrational, emotional response). Having invested literally hundreds of hours of my time reading about this topic (hence the long dissertation chock-full of medical information), I am quite confident that I'm more qualified to speak on it than anyone who might be reading this, and these are the conclusions that I have reached. (And, for the record, I do not intend on having the surgery performed on any of my children because I personally believe bodily autonomy concerns outweigh the benefits -- after all, modifications are still, almost by definition, unnecessary. Others may reasonably hold a different view.) If you're curious to learn more, I recommend the following sources: the Canadian Pediatric Society has released a fair, balanced, and thorough assessment that was reaffirmed in 2024 (though not as comprehensive as the AAP's); for an expert's opinion, member of the American Urological Association Dr. Aaron Spitz has written about this in some detail; and, finally, for those curious about the ethics of the issue (particularly those with a consequentialist utilitarian bent, like myself), atheist antinatalist South African philosopher David Benatar (who, an activist himself, writes frequently on men's rights issues) has much insightful commentary to offer as well. Happy reading.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Stephanie Jeanne' Hey, just a friendly reminder that all of the most famous last holdouts for slavery in America were devout Christians (Jefferson Davis, John C. Calhoun, and Robert E. Lee, just to name a few). And take a guess what they used to justify their conviction. Yep, the Bible. Because despite all you were told in Sunday School, there is no passage in the so-called "Good Book" that explicitly condemns slavery; and there are many that endorse it. Besides the Old Testament laws giving explicit instructions on how to treat slaves (Exodus 21 and Leviticus 35), nowhere in the New Testament does the "wonderful" Jesus ever show his contempt for slavery. In fact, it's quite the opposite: "Then the master of that slave will come on a day that he does not expect, and at an hour that he does not know, and will cut him in two, and assign him a place with the unbelievers. And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accordance with his will, will receive many blows, but the one who did not know it, and committed acts deserving of a beating, will receive only a few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more." (Luke 12:46-48 NASB)
There you have it, straight from the horse's mouth. If these were the enduring morals for humanity handed down by the creator of the universe for all time, you might have thought "he" would have set the record straight from the beginning. Alas, it seems graven images are of more consequence to "him" than humans spending their entire lives in bondage --- so long as it isn't "his" tribe that's being mistreated of course (the Israelites). Let's face it: this is exactly the sort of barbarism we would expect from illiterate, superstitious desert-dwelling goat-herding tribesmen, not a moral code that is supposed to guide human behavior until the end of time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: WorldPopulationReview)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
J C Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as an entity that exists over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A question: If abortion is a "states rights issue," what about gay marriage? Contraceptives? Sodomy? Miscegenation (interracial marriage)? None of those are codified in the Constitution. Heck, neither is the Supreme Court's power to strike down federal, state, and local laws that conflict with the Constitution (judicial review). That was established in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison.
So where does it end? If women don't even possess the right in half the states across this country to exercise basic autonomy over their own bodies, then there is no sense in which we can call ourselves a "free nation" (unlike the rest of the developed world, where abortion is LEGAL).
Now, all unplanned pregnancies that could have been terminated at an EARLY stage when the fetus is not capable of experiencing pain (i.e. prior to 18 weeks gestation) will result in unsafe back-alley abortions (jeopardizing the life of the fetus AND the mother), more children being raised in financially unstable households and further driving the economically disadvantaged into destitution, more dysfunctional families, AND overwhelming our woefully underresourced and inadequate foster care system, where kids will be raised by people who are not their biological parents. I don't know about you, but I would almost be GLAD to have been aborted in such situations.
If Republicans actually cared about babies, they would be proposing legislation to remedy the fact that the United States is still one of THREE countries in the WORLD that does not provide paid maternity leave by law. Congratulations conservatives, you have succeeded yet again in making the world a worse place to live. I hope you're satisfied.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
Literally anything paid for by our taxes is "socialism" according to the Right, unless it's the military, the police, firefighting, Social Security, Medicare, K-12 education, Wall Street bailouts, oil and farm subsidies, border patrol, the Post Office, stimulus checks (in the case of President Trump), infrastructure, or handouts to Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. Did I miss anything?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@abrahamlincoln937 Teddy was progressive in some ways (and yes, I realize that he founded the Progressive Party, also known as the "Bull-Moose Party"), but in other ways he was much more conservative. For example, the fact that he once referred to the great Thomas Paine as a "filthy little atheist" compels me to think that he might have been a theocrat, or at the very least intolerant of those with a different point of view.
(And by the way, Paine was a Deist, not an atheist. His famous line, "my mind is my own church," is from his book The Age of Reason and was meant as an insult to the Christian sects that were popular in his day. In the book he clearly states that he believes a God, just not the God of any particular religion --- especially Christianity.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To call it "mutilation" is unfelicitous. The evidence does not support a net loss of sensation or pleasure. Here's a quote from a systematic review published in the Danish Medical Journal in 2016, which is run by the Danish Medical Association (not exactly an organization biased in favor of the operation):
"The hypothesis of inferior male sexual function following circumcision is not supported by the findings of this systematic review. The popular narrative that male circumcision results in sexual dysfunction does not seem to be supported by evidence . . . The Danish Health Authorities do not recommend a lawenforced ban of non-medical circumcisions in Denmark based on these low rates of short-term complications." (Shabanzadeh)
And here's another from a meta-analysis published in the World Journal of Clincial Pediatrics in 2017:
"Our risk-benefit analysis showed that benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by up to 200 to 1. We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime. Wide-ranging evidence from surveys, physiological measurements, and the anatomical location of penile sensory receptors responsible for sexual sensation strongly and consistently suggest that male circumcision has no detrimental effect on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure."
The notion that circumcision elicits a loss in pleasure, sensation, or function (barring rare exceptions, such as a botched surgery or severe complications) is entirely a myth. That's not my own opinion, that's the findings of experts from all around the globe -- including in northern European/Scandinavian societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at the July 4th parade, gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, garlic festival, Juneteenth celebration, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own house . . . Pretty much anywhere.
1
-
@PrettyPrincess2614 WRONG. There is no objective moral standard in YOUR religion because a) the foundation of your "morality" is only as strong as your faith and the ability to convert others, which may in fact be quite weak due to a lack of evidence, and b) even if your religion was true, each person will have differing interpretations of the holy text and incompatible moral philosophies as a result. Moreover, at least in regard to the Abrahamic religions, there are numerous contradictions, rendering the construction of any coherent moral code impossible. I, on the other hand, as a secular humanist, can turn to philosophy and adopt a morality that is perfectly coherent. I'm a hedonistic rule utilitarian consequentialist, how about you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Now this is democracy. I would rather he just pay his damn taxes on the stock he owns right now rather than selling it, because that's where most of his net worth is located. Rich people like him are able to avoid liquidation (and hence taxes) by taking a huge loan from the bank and using their stock as collateral. That is a MAJOR loophole that needs to be closed. Other than that, he should really stop whining about a one-time billionaires tax, which would be used to fund the very same infrastructure his products depend on! And not only that, but he could only have made a profit if he took advantage of the infrastructure that was paid with taxpayer's money (distribution services using public highways, employees commuting to work, etc.). Yes, it's about time he pays back into the system, and all others like him who were able to reap the benefits of a rigged game for far too long. Would he rather see poor ol' Joe across the street who's barely able to afford rent pay more in taxes than he does? I sure hope not; but there is no doubt in my mind that some billionaires in this country would secretly answer in the affirmative. I'm all for space exploration --- but let's make sure that the basic needs of the American people (healthcare, housing, education, etc.) are met first. Are we all okay with that? Good.
And by the way, I voted yes on that Twitter poll. Now let's hope the next one is about whether he should pay the same tax rate as everyone else, let alone more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bonebusta2467 Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
As someone on the left, I often disagree with Piers' takes, and sometimes I am in total agreement with them (as on guns), but there is one thing I am always sure of, and it's that they always come from the heart. I do not understand, or in any way appreciate, the irrational hatred surrounding drag queens, in much the same way I couldn't care less if a woman dresses in a cowboy hat, flannel, blue jeans, and boots and likes to ride horses. People should be free to express themselves however they want, provided that others aren't being harmed. (That sets minimum standards around public decency, for instance.)
That said, I have my doubts than this specific recruiting strategy will prove effective. As a young American man myself, I will feel incentivized to join when I KNOW with virtual certainty that the government has everyone's best interests at heart (democracy, freedom, human rights, and so on), as opposed to just those of fossil fuel companies. I also fully support NATO and European/North American solidarity, so a threat to one of the countries in the alliance (e.g. Russia) may also provide some impetus for me to join. Rob is an American hero, no doubt about it, but I can't help but think that he and Piers find this just a little too outrageous beyond what is rational.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If I had to take I guess, I would say it will be a 5-4 split decision to uphold Roe (or keep most of it intact), even with a strong conservative majority. John Roberts almost always votes on the side of precedent, and I think it's likely Neil Gorsuch will join him. If they don't, frankly I find it ridiculous that 3 unelected bureaucrats can overrule the preferences of three-quarters of the American population based on little more than superstition. Any sane person would call that a theocracy. If there's a good secular argument for outlawing abortion before roughly 15-18 weeks (when the fetus has a nervous system developed to feel pain), I haven't heard it (and neither has my favorite living philosopher, Peter Singer). It also doesn't help that all three of the appointments of the new conservative justices were controversial (the Republican Senate blocked Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland for almost a year and then approved Gorsuch, Kavanaugh was accused of s-xual assualt, and Barrett was nominated one month before an election, directly contradicting what Republicans like Lindsey Graham were promising back in 2016). If they overturn Roe, there will be unrest we have never seen since the election of Donald Trump --- but even worse. Most Americans see this folly for what it is, and (rightly) reject the intrusion of theology and religious dogma into the very personal decisions of women about their own anatomy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at the gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own house . . . Pretty much anywhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history
1
-
1
-
Tywin Lannister It's more free for sure. The notion that "a few rich" control all the wealth is absurd. If that were true, then college dropouts like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg would have never become billionaires from one great idea (the OS and social media, respectively). Perhaps the most important aspect of a capitalist economy is that it incentivizes hard work. In a socialist one, you'll earn money no matter HOW much effort you put into your job. You know what that does? It incentivizes laziness. And guess how the government will make you work harder... Yep, they put a gun to your head. Say goodbye to freedom. This has been proven again and again in the Soviet Union, Mao's China, Cuba, North Korea, and now in Venezuela. You want to tell me that they got socialism wrong THAT many times?! How many times have we gotten capitalism wrong? Go ahead and give me a number, I'll wait. Capitalism is our only option because it WORKS. And it's the only one that is compatible with our Constitution as it was written. Sorry fella, but using the government to re-distribute wealth never works out for the people in the long-term. You'll have had to actually LIVE in a Socialist country to truly understand that. I'd rather just learn from their mistake.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@abby54 You didn't answer the question. So your "perfect" god is responsible for Satan then? And all the evil in the world? And children who die of cancer and starvation, and from natural disasters. This is who you choose to worship? I've been fortunate enough not to be raised in Yemen, where the majority of the population is at risk of starvation. Who do I have to thank for that? Certainly no fairy in the sky would would permit such suffering. I would thank my country and my parents, surely, but no one else. And by the way, my parents created me. Life started as a rudimentary self-replicating organic molecule and gradually evolved through natural selection. The molecule started on Earth, which itself is made of stardust, which came from a cooling universe following the Big Bang, which itself came out of nothing. So there is no god. And Jesus wasn't the savior of mankind. The fact that someone else can die for a person's transgressions is an utterly immoral concept. It means, literally, than a prisoner on death row can go to heaven via a last-minute conversion whereas a Hindu in India, never having harmed anyone in his life, will suffer eternal torment. If your "god" is real, I don't appreciate these games he's playing with the human race, so he can go to hell. And so can you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@VoiceOfTheEmperor Do you mean scientists in the 17th century? Of course they were religious, because they would be severely punished if they weren't. Just ask Galileo or Giordano Bruno. Since Darwin, however, the best and brightest scientists have been overwhelmingly secular. Thomas Henry Huxley, his grandson Sir Julian Huxley, Francis Crick and James Watson, W.D. Hamilton and G.C. Williams, Stephen J. Gould, Richard Dawkins, E.O. Wilson --- and that's just in the field of evolutionary biology. In physics: Sir Fred Hoyle, Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein (who was more of a pantheist than anything), Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, Nobel laureaute Steven Weinberg, Roger Penrose, and, of course, the late Stephen Hawking. That's just a few of the most eminent in two scientific disciplines; maybe there's a reason that 91% of the members of the National Academy of Science and 87% of the British Royal Society identify as nonreligious?
1
-
@crispinjulius5032 Activists ended child labor, got women the right to vote, and eliminated Jim Crow. You're welcome. And the most prosperous societies on Earth are "socialist" (by your definition): Norway, Sweden, Finland, Demark, and the Netherlands. Give me an honest answer: Is it "socialist" any time the government spends our tax dollars helping ordinary Americans (healthcare, childcare, paid maternity leave, etc.) instead of on endless wars, the military-industrial complex, corporate subsidies, and Wall Street bailouts?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The government is supposed to be in the business of safeguaring the rights of its citizens, that's its main purpose. These rights, of course, are spelled out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (I will not repeat them here). The principle by which one can reasonably draw the line between freedom and security is this: it's only those actions that infringe on the rights of others that concerns the State. The personal choices one makes are not the government's business unless and until other people's rights are in jeopardy or being violated. So in this scenario, seatbelt laws will not be enforced as a general rule (excluding certain sitautions like minors), because its only the life of the individual not following the law that is in jeopardy. I would use the same argument for ignoring speed limits when the highway is empty; if the risk of injury is minimal or nonexistent to everyone other than the driver, then law enforcement has no reason to pull anyone over for speeding. You have accepted the risk of a crash by exceeding the speed limit --- that's called being an adult. I would also apply this reasoning to drug use, as millions of Americans legally drink alcohol which can cause coma and death if you overdose. Does that mean that getting drunk should therefore be illegal? Of course not. We have to strike a balance between personal liberty and security, and the best means of doing this (in my opinion) is only allowing the authorities to get involved when the actions of one person are in some way posing a threat to the rights of someone else. What people do by taking on risk to themselves is their business, and the government should not be their nanny and ensuring that that they take all the proper precautions to protect themselves --- or else. Wearing a mask, because it promotes public health, is enforceable under this principle, but taking a vaccine is not (because it only provides protection to those who take it). That's how it should be done.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at the MLK Jr. celebration, July 4th parade, gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, garlic festival, Juneteenth celebration, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own home . . . Pretty much anywhere.
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, the U.K., South Korea, France, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Austria, Poland, Italy, and about a dozen other developed countries I could name that have strict gun laws, very low rates of gun violence, and no issues with a "tyrannical government."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This has to end. My freedom to live is of a higher priority than your freedom to own a weapon of war. Full stop.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dabblerdeluxe775 The stock market is a reflection of the broader economy insofar as it gives an estimate as to how much consumers are spending and how much confidence investors have in the future of the market. That has real-world implications, such as stagflation and recessions. The major corporations that make up the NYSE, to give one example, employ a large portion of America's workforce. If they aren't performing well financially, thousands or millions of American jobs may be at risk. Purchasing power is increasingly becoming a problem as inflation rises, that is true. But that has been happening for decades now, and there is still plenty of time for the Fed and Congress to address it. The solution is obviously not to print more money or bring everything under the public domain. What we'll see going forward is many of the low-income jobs being replaced by machines (automation), and simultaneously more white-collar positions (such as computer programming) will grow in demand. Eventually, if thing continue to play out, we'll need some kind of UBI to keep the economy running. Right now though we're still a long ways off from that being a primary concern. Our focus should be on preparing people to enter the workforce through training and education. A skilled laborer or professional is much more preferable than someone who needs to work three low-income jobs to make ends meet. But they need to put in the effort too. Again, it comes down to personal responsibility.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fun fact: The most prosperous societies on Earth are "socialist." I'm talking about Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the Netherlands, just to name a few. Do you mean to say that every time the government spends our taxpayer dollars on HELPING the American people by providing them with basic necessities that every other developed country already provides (universal healthcare, childcare, lower prescription drug costs, a liveable wage, paid maternity leave, etc.) instead of what our corrupt politicians have been spending it on thus far (endless war, the military-industrial complex, weapons for foreign countries, corporate subsidies, Wall Street bailouts, and so on), it is "socialism"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as an entity that exists over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're not "pro-life" if you only support measures conducive to life before it exits the womb. Are you equally outraged about the fact that millions of innocent men, women, and children halfway around the world are being bombed into oblivion by our military or starved to death by our sanctions (and those of our allies)? Or that close to 70 MILLION Americans are uninsured/underinsured and 45,000 die each year due to a lack of proper healthcare? How about the future generations that will be completely wiped out because minimal action is being taken to address the impending climate catastrophe? Do you support the most basic regulations that would ensure that those precious unborn children won't be brutally gunned down once they reach the 3rd grade?
And don't even get me started on non-human life. The suffering of hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows we slaughter alive each and every day merely because we enjoy the taste of their flesh is ASTRONOMICAL compared to all abortions humanity has ever performed COMBINED. Does the life of that unborn child matter if it is gay or transgender, or would it be better off if it was "six feet under"? Prove to me that you believe life matters AFTER it has left the womb by pressuring your legal representatives to pass paid maternity leave and universal childcare, as the USA remains the ONLY developed country that does not provide these services. Better yet, demand that those children earn enough to make a decent living for themselves and their families when they grow older by advocating for raising the minimum wage and unionization efforts. Make it clear that you demand action on criminal justice reform, starting with abolishing the barbaric practice of state-sanctioned execution which more closely aligns the US with Saudi Arabia than with any of our peer nations in Europe. Finally, vigorously oppose any measure to engage in an unjustified and illegal offensive halfway around the world that costs taxpayers trillions of dollars and steals the lives of thousands of innocent Americans (usually young men).
George Carlin called out this blatant hypocrisy decades ago.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f-cked."
Embryos/fetuses prior to 18 weeks gestation cannot suffer (let alone possess any form of sentience or consciousness), and that infuriates conservatives. So in order to maximize human misery (their ultimate agenda), they seek to outlaw it so that mothers are forced to give birth and those children grow up in destitute and dysfunctional households with little to no social support, receive a poor quality education and either saddle themselves with student debt or serve in the armed forces, only to end up wounded/severely traumatized with no guaranteed healthcare and/or slaving away for a corporation for baseline wages -- all the while ensuring maximum penalties for engaging in sexual activity -- and finally growing old and retiring in little comfort due to a rapidly diminishing allowance in the form of Social Security. Then the cycle repeats itself. And that's not even taking into consideration the potential consequences of overpopulation -- resources will be spread thinner and thinner until, at a certain point, the damage done to our planet will be so severe that human civilization will be all but wiped off the face of the Earth. Think how much worse off we would be TODAY if we added 60+ million to our population (approximately the number of fetuses aborted since 1973). Famine, war, and widepread civil unrest are just the beginning. That's the world Republicans want -- a dystopian Malthusian/Orwellian hellscape -- whether they are cognizant of it or not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertgreen1282 "Importing impoverished, unskilled, and uneducated people to compete with our own low income citizens." And what, adding 60 million newborns to our population who need 18 years worth of resources before they can contribute to our economy is not a burden on society? (Yes, I'm talking about abortion.) Who fault is it that the top 1% now owns more collective wealth than the ENTIRE middle class combined? Oh yeah, the Republicans. In the 1960's, 35% of the private workforce was unionized. Today, that number is just 11%. Why is that? One word: REAGAN. It's almost like when you pass massive tax cuts, anti-union legislation, no minimum wage laws, give handouts to billion-dollar corporations, and massively deregulate the economy that the rich just get richer while everyone else suffers! Who would have thought?? Surely not that fat cat Trump who passed the 2017 tax cuts, of which 83% of the benefits went to the top 1%, right?!! Republicans couldn't give a sh*t about regular working people because they are all bought off, which is why they and Faux News talk about the culture war all day long. They don't have any solutions, unless you think that more "fReE mArKeT cApITaLiSm" is just what we need!
1
-
1
-
1
-
For everyone who says "guns aren't the issue, it's mental health," or "guns don't just get up one day, walk to a school, and fire themselves," I ask you: Would you apply that same reasoning to nuclear weapons? Certainly you don't believe that the world would be SAFER if civilians had access to weapons of mass destruction, do you? Then why do you REFUSE to acknowledge the empirical evidence PROVING that the prevalence of guns in a society results in more gun violence and deaths? For every 100 people living in America, there are 120 firearms. By comparison, in the next closest country, Yemen (which is currently embroiled in civil war), there are 52 firearms for every 100 people. We are OBJECTIVELY the least safe country in the developed world in terms of the gun homicide metric -- it's not even close. So, tell me, why not apply your flawed "guns don't kill people, people kill people" reasoning to other weapons of war as well? I eagerly await THAT answer. The only halfway decent response I can think of is that nuclear weapons cannot be used in self-defense, to which I reply that in a dearmed society (like most of Europe, for example), you won't need to defend yourself against someone with an assault rifle. Period. My right to LIVE supersedes your right to own a weapon of war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well that's great I wish that this message was conveyed to everyone so there would be no nonbelievers like me. One NDE isn't going to be enough to prove to me that everything I know is wrong. Whose heaven did he visit? That of the Christians, or of the Mormons, or the Muslims, or the Hindus, or none of the above? We can't possibly know, even if this man is telling the truth (which I highly doubt). And if he is, this "god" (no matter which religion he belongs to) has done a very poor job of gaining followers. Why can't he just proselytize himself? Is he too lazy? Not powerful enough? Give me a break. When I die, even if I'm proven wrong, I'll still not regret any of my decisions because I know I used my logic and common sense to come to the most accurate conclusions I could. I sought the truth, not what was comforting. And if I'm sent to hell for that, I know I will be morally superior to the being who put me there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maximusmeridius6409 Not a single bit of that was factual. Reaganomics and excessive deregulation under BUSH caused the 2008 (when Bush was still President) financial crisis which, as you pointed out, led to the worst recession in U.S. history (excluding the Great Depression, which was caused by a very similar set of circumstances --- namely, excessive deregulation --- under the Hoover administration). Since Reagan's tax cuts for the rich, the top 1% now owns almost as much as the bottom HALF of Americans combined. The average CEO was paid 16 times more than the average worker in his/her company in the 1960's; that number is 300 to 1 today. The system is only working for the DONOR class, not the average hardworking American. Wealth inequality is now at levels not seen since the Gilded Age, and instead of John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie we have Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk. And you might want to take a closer look at our most recent President, who is all but certain to go down as one of the worst 10 Presidents in U.S. history (Obama doesn't even come close). His biggest achievement was the 2017 "tax cuts," of which 83% of the benefits will go to the top 1%. It was a tax cut for the RICH, ordinary Americans saw their taxes INCREASE under his administration. Biden, meanwhile, has pledged not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $400,000/year, and if his infrastructure plan passes (as it almost certainly will), he will have kept that promise. And you remember when Orange Man said "we have 15 cases, soon to be zero. The virus is going away. It's going away..."? He downplayed the severity of it the entire time. Meanwhile, 500,000 Americans died under his watch, and the economy crashed because WE weren't prepared. Maybe it wasn't a good idea to disband the Pandemic Response Team (Global Health Security and Biodefense unit) back in 2018 after all. Who woulda thunk it?!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I applaud you, sincerely, from the bottom of my heart. I would consider myself pro-choice, and I arrived at that position through careful reasoning and lots of contemplation (as well as by consulting the work of outside sources on both sides, like Ben Shapiro and Brandon Tatum [on the right], and Kyle Kulinski and Peter Singer [on the left]). It is my assessment that the latter group presents the superior arguments, but at times it is a hard truth to accept. I actually fashion myself more of a moderate on this issue (as does Kyle Kulinski, Singer I'm not so sure about), as I am broadly in favor of a woman's right to choose (choice is a key factor here, as it implies that she either does not want the child for various reasons, or does not have the means to care for it without sacrificing much of her material possessions or future prospects [career, college education, etc.], which would almost certainly negatively impact the child as it grows up) until the point at which the fetus can feel pain, which is at about 18 weeks. As a utilitarian, I strive to minimize as much unnecessary suffering as possible, and I would consider it highly unethical to abort a fetus after 18 weeks when it could have been done sooner (thus avoiding suffering), but was postponed due to laziness. Now that, I can fully admit, is so concerning that the law should incentivize people to make their decisions at an earlier stage, and I would sign on to a provision that the only exception to a late-term abortion ban (i.e. at roughly 18 weeks) is a medical one, and even then it should be done only if it causes the least amount of pain. If the best route (the one that avoids the most suffering) is carrying the baby to term and delivering it via C-section and euthanizing it (as would happen when its quality of life would be so poor as to not be worth living at all, like extreme spinal bifida), then that is what should be done instead. Ultimately, though, it's up to doctors to make these decisions, and not the legislatures. Prior to 18 weeks, I would even favor restrictions beginning at 13 simply because of the complexity and wastefulness involved in 2nd-trimester abortions. Perhaps a disincentive such as a financial penalty (e.g. $2,000 bill that cannot be waived) will be appropriate and (hopefully) encourage women to make their decisions as soon as possible. And 12 weeks and before, I would impose a "life tax" that brings the bill to $500 (not to exceed) that can waived for those meeting certain socioeconomic criteria (e.g. living below the poverty line), to incentivize the widespread use of birth control. I also think that every woman, when she comes of age, should be provided with the option of implanting one IUD at no cost to herself. If this program were widely implemented, I am almost certain that it would drastically reduce the number of abortions each year, and hence meeting my goal of minimizing as much unnecessary suffering as possible. (Our treatment of other conscious creatures a whole subject unto itself, and I will not go into it here, but I believe that too needs to be gradually reformed.) So really, I guess you and I are not so dissimilar as we might seem (that is, if you're in favor of contraceptives over abortion, as I presume you are). And by the way, I would not ask my S.O. to get an abortion unless the situation was so dire (e.g. we're homeless) that there was no other option, and even then if we missed the deadline I would not blame the people who wrote the law --- because I know it is based on facts and the ethics were carefully reasoned so as to maximize human welfare.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Andromedon777 Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fun fact: The most prosperous societies on Earth are "socialist." I'm talking about Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the Netherlands, just to name a few. Do you mean to say that every time the government spends our taxpayer dollars on HELPING the American people by providing them with basic necessities that every other developed country already provides (universal healthcare, childcare, lower prescription drug costs, a liveable wage, paid maternity leave, etc.) instead of what our corrupt politicians have been spending it on thus far (endless war, the military-industrial complex, weapons for foreign countries, corporate subsidies, Wall Street bailouts, and so on), it is "socialism"?
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"And [Jesus] said to them, 'Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.'” (Mark 9:1 NIV)
That was 2,000 years ago . . . Oops.
Ah, so the Bible is your favorite collection of ancient myths and fairy tales, huh? Nice. Personally I have an affinity for Homer's the Iliad and the Odyssey, but the Vedas, the Pyramid texts, the Coffin texts, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Instruction of Amenemope, the Book of Caverns, the Book of Gates, the Amdaut, the Book of the Heavenly Cow, the Code of Hammurabi, the Kesh Temple Hymn, the Popol Vuh, the Avesta, the Koran, and the writings of Herodotus are all good too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Libertarian you say? So you buy the corporate propaganda that what's profitable is what is best for society? Ever wonder why U.S. healthcare is the worst in the developed world? Ever consider that it just might be related to the fact that ours, to this day, remains by far the most privatized in the Western world? Would you agree that the police and firefighters generally do a pretty good job? Or the U.S. Postal Service? Why not bring healthcare under the same tent? Why make people pay $2,500 for a ride in an ambulance just so some miserly executives can line their pockets? Why is insulin ten times more expensive here than it is in Canada? Are you really "free" if 80% or more of your waking hours are spent slaving for your corporate overlords where any surplus value of your labor is extracted and funneled into the pockets of shareholders (most of whom are already obcenely wealthy) or into financial operations that benefit no one except those at the very top, like stock buybacks? Are you really "free" when you work full-time, even mandatory overtime, and just barely make enough to afford rent/mortgage payments? Is that the society you want to live in? Our allies in the West figured this out a long time ago: unfettered capitalism results in the most extreme disparities in wealth, so to correct for that they instituted social programs to rescue those at the bottom who are drowning, while maintaining a more-or-less meritocratic social structure where those who work the hardest can afford luxuries (i.e. those items beyond the very basics, like healthcare, education, and so on). I suggest you do some research into "social democracy" and learn what true freedom is about, perhaps starting with Noam Chomsky's On Anarchism. Good luck.
1
-
Harriet Tumbman, Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, Martin Luther King Jr., even President Barack Obama... All of their stories belong at their proper time in American history. They deserve to be taught alongside the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and even the current President. Give them their proper time in history, tell their stories in chronological order along with everyone else's because at the end of the day, their history IS American history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fun fact: The most prosperous societies on Earth are "socialist." I'm talking about Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the Netherlands, just to name a few. Do you mean to say that every time the government spends our taxpayer dollars on HELPING the American people by providing them with basic necessities that every other developed country already provides (universal healthcare, childcare, lower prescription drug costs, a liveable wage, paid maternity leave, etc.) instead of what our corrupt politicians have been spending it on thus far (endless war, the military-industrial complex, weapons for foreign countries, corporate subsidies, Wall Street bailouts, and so on) is "socialism"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence of any country in the world. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: WorldPopulationReview)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Going from this guy to Donald Trump could not have been a greater contrast, in intelligence, articulation, wisdom, expertise, competence, rationality, leadership, confidence, and just basic human decency. Can we make an exemption to the 22nd Amendment, just for him? Please?
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Will we let this problem continue indefinitely, or will we follow the lead of all other developed countries and actually do something to ensure that dangerous weapons don't fall into the wrong hands? Americans shouldn't have to fear for their lives every time they go out in public or make a simple mistake.
I'll start by stating the obvious: You don't need an AR-15 to hunt a wild animal. As for "self defense," the logical follow-up would be to ask, "self defense against what?" And the answer, more often than not, is against other people with guns. Guess what, geniuses: strict gun control would LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF BAD PEOPLE WITH GUNS. That's the whole point! Have you ever pondered for a single second why we seem to struggle with this "self defense" issue while Europeans do not? There's your answer.
We know with certainty that gun control is effective. To take but one example, mass shootings TRIPLED after the last assault weapons ban expired in 2004 -- yes, TRIPLED. That's no coincidence. States with the loosest gun laws have the highest rates of gun violence. 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates (per capita) are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review) Yet, gun control is most effective when implemented on a national level, not state or municipal.
Now to address the elephant in the room: the Second Amendment. Does it provide an individual right to own a firearm? Perhaps. Does that matter? Not one bit. It's obsolete. The Founders never expected technology to progress as far as it has. Even today, Americans don't have an absolute right to bear arms; they cannot own weapons of mass destruction (nuclear and chemical). However, imagine for a second if they did. What would be the logical end result? Would we blame "mental health" when someone wipes the entire city of Detroit off the map with a Hydrogen bomb, or unleashes mustard gas on an entire school? Certainly not. It's the EXACT same argument with respect to guns, albeit on a smaller scale -- unlike cars, knives, and other objects one may use to k*ll, they have no essential function (transportation, cutting meat and vegetables, etc.). They have but one purpose, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. This is why every other advanced democracy on the planet has instituted strict regulation over ownership of these weapons (if not outright banned them, like Singapore).
My proposed solution to the constitutionality problem: If the 2nd Amendment cannot be repealed, then it should be reinterpreted. A "well-regulated Militia" could apply exclusively to the National Guard, or the entire Amendment could be rendered obsolete because the reasons for its existence no longer apply: There's no more need for slave patrols, indigenous Americans no longer pose a threat, and we have a national standing army (thus, a militia is superfluous and unnecessary). Another (perhaps superior) option is to apply an originalist -- yes, an originalist -- philosophy by extending the logic that it doesn't give one an absolute right to bear arms (e.g. WMDs and machine guns). That is, reinterpret it such that it provides a right to own ONLY hunting rifles and shotguns -- not handguns or other long guns -- because when it was drafted, "arms" only constituted muskets, which take some thirty seconds to reload. If Roe isn't safe, neither is D.C. vs. Heller.
I must counter the objection that "if you ban guns, then only criminals will have guns" -- alternatively phrased as "cRiMiNaLs dOn'T fOlLoW lAwS" (no sh*t Sherlock) -- before some simpleton inevitably raises it in reply to this comment. This objection assumes that a) the government will be largely unsuccessful in repurchasing these weapons (a dubious claim, as we'll see), or b) a sufficient black market will develop to meet the demand (also highly doubtful). As to the first, I do not propose that federal agents barge into people's homes and search their property for firearms. Rather, all dabatases will be consulted by intelligence agencies to uncover sales records (or will be legally demanded from sellers) to determine who owns what. Subsequently, penalties will be imposed for those who fail to comply with a federal mandate; some preliminary suggestions include temporary suspension of one's driver's license and revocation of Medicare and Social Security benefits.
As to the second claim, a black market cannot develop if demand is not met. As it turns out, guns are drastically more complicated to manufacture and distribute than drugs. This also implies that there would be sufficient demand in the first place -- and considering that firearms are not an addictive substance, this is in serious doubt to say the least. Ever wondered why Canada, Australia, and Europe have been successful with their gun control efforts, despite the fact that one of their closest allies and largest trading partners is the world's largest market for firearms? This is it. Even Canada doesn't have an underground economy for firearms, and they share a BORDER with us. This argument is completely invalid.
One also often encounters the claim that an armed populace is necessary to deter "government tyranny." Besides the fact that every other advanced democracy in the world doesn't seem to have an issue with this, I can hardly be convinced that anyone would entertain this objection in good faith for the simple fact that the United States has the MOST POWERFUL MILITARY IN THE WORLD. No amount of AR-15s will overcome a fleet of F-35s, M1 Abrams tanks, and Apache helicopters. With such firepower, the military will decide the outcome of any revolution, for good or ill. I might also begin to take this argument marginally more seriously when those advancing it also cease simultaneously -- and paradoxically -- supporting bloated defense and police budgets.
For a shooting to occur, there must be two basic ingredients: people (the shooter and the victims), and guns. Logically, the most effective solution would address both of them. By all means, treat mental health. We at least owe our fellow citizens that much. I would go further: Provide everyone with the basics -- housing, food, healthcare, education, and employment, at a minimum (i.e. revive F.D.R.'s Economic Bill of Rights). But let's not pretend for a single second as if that by itself will be sufficient.
The fact that guns are the issue is not in dispute. We are the only country on Earth with more guns than people (120 firearms per 100 citizens). No other country even comes close (Yemen is in second place at 52 guns per 100 citizens, and is currently embroiled in civil war). Our rates of firearm homicide are beyond compare to any nation in Europe or East Asia. Whether this is tractable is also not up for debate. It certainly is. The only question is whether we can stomach this problem continuing indefinitely, or find the political will to do something about it. Personally, I don't appreciate the "freedom" of being gunned down at the shopping mall, movie theater, or department store. It's long past time we gave the programs successfully implemented in peer nations, comparable to us in most other metrics, serious consideration. I believe the Canadian licensing system will soon become (if it isn't already) palatable to the majority of Americans. The Constitution may say we have a right to bear arms, but the Declaration of Independence also guarantees us the right to live. Which one we value more highly is up to us to decide -- but, as we have undeniably witnessed over the past few decades, we cannot have both.
When 18 are shot dead in Maine,
we know nothing will get done.
Their lives will have been taken in vain,
because in America we worship the almighty gun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I actually happen to agree with Sam Harris on torture. Yes, it should be outlawed in most circumstances and we should generally be against it in principle, but in a situation where people's lives are at stake and we know beyond a reasonable doubt that a prisoner has information that may be needed to prevent that from happening, it could be the moral decision. From a utilitarian perspective this makes complete sense. If you subscribe to full-on deontology, however, that's when this becomes an issue. And since conservatives tend towards the latter side of the spectrum, as a liberal I think we should be more favorable to the former.
P.S. You forgot a number of big-name New Atheists, including (but not limited to, of course): Victor J. Stenger, Lawrence Krauss, A.C. Grayling, Susan Jacoby, Dan Barker, James Randi, Michael Shermer, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@keithhoss4990 1) Masks work. There are literally thousands of studies that you could look at.
Point 2) Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of an innocent person. Abortion is not murder for two reasons: a) It is not unlawful (in a majority of U.S. states at least, and according to the Supreme Court vis-a-vis Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey), and b) outside of possessing human DNA, there is no sense in which an embryo/fetus can reasonably be said to be a "person." A "person" is any entity that can see itself as existing over time (past, present, and future) and which has preferences and seeks to satisfy them. So defined, a fetus at any stage is not a person, as it meets none of these requirements. That's not to say that a fetus has no moral worth whatsoever, as its nervous system is developed sufficiently to feel pain starting around 18 weeks, but before that there is no clear reason why its preferences (if it has any) outweighs that of the mother who desires bodily autonomy and financial security. (Not to mention that the vast, vast majority of abortions occur BEFORE that time, around 98-99% of them in fact.) And before you say that the fetus has the potential to become a human being with preferences, let me remind you that women have miscarriages (also known as "spontaneous abortions") all the time and rarely, if ever, do we treat that loss as equivalent to the tragic death of a 6-year-old, a 35-year-old, or even a 77-year-old human. It is also irrelevant. Just because it could become X does not mean that it automatically possess all the rights of X. Prince Charles could become King, but he is not yet the reigning monarch, is he?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You act like the two are the same thing. They aren't. It's unfortunate that a large proportion of the country lacks basic education in political science to distinguish between them, but I'll do my best to correct your error. Communism is an explicitly authoritarian ideology that was meant to lend more power to the oppressed masses of workers, the proletariat. Since Vladimir Lenin adopted the ideology as his own in the early 20th century, it's never worked in quite that fashion. Instead, a vanguard party takes over until the country has reached the level of economic development necessary for a proletariat revolution. Suffice it to say this hasn't happened, and as a whole Marxism-Leninism has been an abject failure. Socialism, however, has two quite distinct connotations: as a synonym for Communism (as in the United Soviet Socialist Republics, or the U.S.S.R.), and as an ideology that takes a more moderate and libertarian approach to the massive wealth disparities wrought by capitalism. In the former sense, North Korea and Cuba may be correctly labeled "socialist" economies. The latter, however, much more closely resembles the economic policies of Sweden, Denmark and Iceland, with a generous welfare state and collective bargaining. They call their specific brand of socialism the "Nordic Model," which is classified as a form of "social democracy," a kind of libertarian socialism. The two, politically speaking, could not be more different from one another, and one may confirm this by simply observing the quality of life of the average citizen in any of these countries and what rights and protections they are afforded by law. I hope this clears up your confusion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What's the alternative?
- More tax cuts for the rich?
- Endless war?
- Rampant corruption?
- Voter suppression?
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)?
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts?
- No environmental protections?
- Hindering unionization efforts?
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)?
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)?
- Privatizing everything?
- Defenestration of separation of church and state?
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)?
Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time, liveable minimum wage, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Vote for politicians who AREN'T corrupt and bought by the dirty energy lobby, Big Pharma, the military-industrial complex, and all other big corporations rigging the game AGAINST the American people!!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeckjeck3119 A parasite? You know that you were a fetus once too right? As a matter of fact we all were. Every single human in existence was a fetus at one point. Those aren't parasites, they're people. Plato, Julius Caesar, Marco Polo, Nicholas Copernicus, William Shakespeare, Galileo Galilei, Issac Newton, John Locke, George Washington, Queen Victoria, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, everyone. How is that hard to understand? Life starts at conception, ask any biologist. Sperm and egg meet to form a zygote, which divides rapidly to form a human infant ready to exit the womb. In no single instance in the entire human species has a baby been conceived and born the next day. It has never happened even once. Killing a viable fetus is no different than murder. I'll say it again: life begins at CONCEPTION. If you refuse to at least acknowledge that scientific fact then there is no way we can engage in polite, civilized debate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeckjeck3119 Okay I'm really growing tired of this debate. This has gone on for far too long already. So the results for viruses being living organism are mixed: it depends on your definition of "life." Viruses are dependent on a host to survive, much like an embryo and early fetus. So if you contend that they are indeed alive according to science, then you must also accept that the human embryo is alive as well. And I take issue with your wine analogy for one reason: grapes do not become wine on their own. Provided the mother is getting the necessary amount of nutrients to keep her and her baby alive, her child (statistically speaking) will develop and eventually reach the point of self-sufficiency. It is inevitable. So any time a mother gets an abortion, she is killing a human that would have had a chance to grow and (save for some rare congenital condition) become a fully-fledged adult. That is murder any way you slice it. Now I notice that your mother did not choose to abort you. You were an embryo/fetus at one point, does that mean you weren't alive? Of course not. The cells that made up your developing body were by all scientific definitions living organisms. But those weren't just any cells, they were human cells. Bringing about an intentional death to that creature is legally defined as murder. And we are no more monsters for eating eggs than we are for eating beef, pork, poultry, lamb, venison, or meat from any other creature that walks this Earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why? Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@goodlyantics.5243 For everyone who says "guns aren't the issue, it's mental health," or "guns don't just get up one day, walk to a school, and fire themselves," I ask you: Would you apply that same reasoning to nuclear weapons? Certainly you don't believe that the world would be SAFER if civilians had access to weapons of mass destruction, do you? Then why do you REFUSE to acknowledge the empirical evidence PROVING that the prevalence of guns in a society results in more gun violence and deaths? For every 100 people living in America, there are 120 firearms. By comparison, in the next closest country, Yemen (which is currently embroiled in civil war), there are 52 firearms for every 100 people. We are OBJECTIVELY the least safe country in the developed world in terms of the gun homicide metric -- it's not even close. So, tell me, why not apply your flawed "guns don't kill people, people kill people" reasoning to other weapons of war as well? I eagerly await THAT answer. The only halfway decent response I can think of is that nuclear weapons cannot be used in self-defense, to which I reply that in a dearmed society (like most of Europe, for example), you won't need to defend yourself against someone with an assault rifle. Period. My right to LIVE supersedes your right to own a weapon of war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deadpoolrockz6410 That's a good point. Qui Gon was the first to discover this power, though never completed it. Since then, though, Yoda was next to learn about it (through Qui Gon) and passed it on to Obi-Wan. Anakin also got word of it (in the Clone Wars) and, while still a dark side practitioner, completed his training as well. Obviously we can assume Luke learned how to do it, probably sometime right after the end of Return of the Jedi, even though he lived out much of his life as a hermit on Ach-To disconnected from the Force. I highly doubt any Jedi, with the possible exception of Ahsoka (because she was with Anakin on that planet in the Clone Wars), learned this power as well. This doesn't mean they aren't in tune with the Force post-death, but are not one with it. Mace included.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
Also, life begins at conception, but that's completely irrelevant as to whether abortion is moral. From a utilitarian perspective, if it doesn't cause the fetus pain (and before 18 weeks gestation it doesn't), then there is very little wrong with it, ethically speaking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chemical-or9 Embryos/fetuses aren't "persons," and therefore possess no rights. Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xxxxOS I don't believe that at all. Especially Elon Musk, who I think wants to push humanity forward, not let it starve to death. What evidence do I have for this? Take the Boring Company and Hyperloop as an example. If he completed just one of his many designs for this project, a person would be able to go from L.A. to New York in just 3 hours. If you have relatives on the other side of the country, you could pay them a visit for a few hours and still have enough time to relax in the evening when you get back! And the best part? It's 100% sustainable. He's also working on using AI implants to fix neurological disorders (NeuraLink). I firmly believe Elon is looking towards the future for ways to make our lives better, not for his own self-interest. I don't know if I can say the same about Bezos, however. But remember this: the U.S. has had a capitalist system for over 200 years now. At first, only the wealthy could afford an automobile. Now even most poor people have one. At first, only the wealthy could afford a portable telephone and a T.V. Of course, now both those things are common household commodities. As the technology improves and becomes more efficient, the prices of these inventions fall and the overall prosperity of the nation rises significantly. Calitalism is not all bad, although it does leave room for a lot of abuse if it goes unchecked. Do Bezos and Musk have too much money? Probably. But we should think twice about taking it away from them and re-distributing it to the country. After all, inventing the fastest means of travel via land in the world and becoming an inter-planetary species are expensive ordeals. And I would scarcely trust anyone else to think of a better way of doing them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think you meant to say guns aren't the problem. Well, guess what: they are. The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This has to end. My freedom to live is of a higher priority than your freedom to own a weapon of war. Full stop.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Good for them, telling people they need to move tables because they have a certain skin color... Here's an idea for you: why doesn't the REUGULAR moves tables instead?! It seems that nobody thought this one through. I've made this statement many times, and I will do it again: If it was the other way around, I guarantee that the employees would have never faced repercussions of any kind. Nobody cares about racism against whites, because it doesn't exist right? Wrong. Racism is treating people inferior because of their skin color, period. It makes no difference if they're black, brown, white, red, yellow, orange, blue or anything else. This should really be common sense to all human beings, but sadly it appears it's not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden isn't COMMANDING women to get abortions, he's ALLOWING them to. BIG difference. Biden himself never, so far as we know, pressured his wife Jill into getting one. As for all the war criminals who preceded him, however, leading back all the way to FDR, but especially #43, their actions weren't modeled after anything explicitly Christian except for the very worst that that religion has produced: the Crusades. Additionally, the Nuremberg Tribunal explictly forbid their actions, under penalty of being HANGED. The REAL question is why Bush, Obama, Trump, Clinton and Carter aren't currently behind bars, not why Biden is still receiving Holy Communion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as an entity that exists over time, or is self-aware (which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marconapolitano2821 Actually, according to a report by the World Health Organization in 2016, only Sweden has a slightly higher suicide rate than the U.S. (13.8/100,000 as compared to 13.7), while the other Nordic countries--Iceland, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands, and Denmark--are much lower at 13.3, 11.7, 10.1, 9.6, and 9.2, respectively. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marconapolitano2821 Private charity? Are you kidding me? So you want to put all the power into just a few wealthy elite and hope that they spend their busloads of cash the way you want them to, meanwhile we have thousands if not millions who are struggling day to day just to afford to feed their kids? That is a sick joke. I used to think the way you do, but empirical observation (i.e. the success of the Nordic countries and Germany/Australia/Japan/etc.) has revealed to me that government is the only solution to this problem. We must be able to hold our elected representatives accountable, and do their jobs by providing us with basic services like access to free healthcare and university in the same way that they provide firefighting and law enforcement. But you probably want to privatize those too, because that will somehow make everything better and bring about some sort of capitalist utopia (there are none currently in existence, nor will there ever be). It's a scam. Anarcho-capitalism will just widen the wealth divide until a majority (51% or more) are struggling to survive while the top 1% can have everything they want. What we have now isn't even close to a meritocracy, and establishing that kind of Ayn Rand free-for-all unfettered capitalism will have the same effect as outright communism: tyranny and wealth by a few over the majority. It's exactly the situation Karl Marx predicted would occur (proletariat vs. bourgeoisie), and I fear it will have exactly the same consequences as people grow more and more desperate. The OECD countries I just mentioned avoided this catastrophe by enforcing minimal regulations (i.e. labor unions allowed to organize and negotiate) and re-distributing some of the wealth in the form of social programs to fulfill people's "social rights" (right to grow up in a household with decent income, access to free healthcare, free university tuition when certain conditions are met, and so on). That's social democracy and that's what we should be aiming for, because it will make America the most prosperous highly populated nation in the world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Since Kyle has taken the rare step of soliciting input from viewers, I will provide mine. As a consequentialist, my top concern is what results will be produced from this. The fact that thousands of people will be inconvenienced (however mildly) is a given. On the other hand, protestors will argue that this at least has a chance of changing policy. According to my understanding, this is true -- but not in the way supporters believe. In all likelihood, the public backlash to this form of civil disobedience will only encourage those in power to crack down on free protest -- and, by extension, the First Amendment. In other words, they will backfire. The law recently signed by the Florida governor decriminalizing vehicular homic*de exemplifies this. In the end, all that is likely to occur from these protests are more enforced restrictions and deterrents, not unlike those the Supreme Court has refused to overturn in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. For this reason, I take a strong stance in opposition to indirect forms of civil disobedience (hence nonviolent protests such as civil rights-era sit-ins are excluded), no matter how just the cause.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is second). Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun v-olence of any country in the world. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana.
Source: WorldPopulationReview
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at the gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own house . . . Pretty much anywhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've had depression before (acute, but not clinical/chronic, thank god), and the best way I can describe it is a sickness of the mind. No matter how healthy you are, if you catch ebola, you're going to have a bad time. The same is true with depression. Sometimes there's a stimulus (as there was in my case, and it seems in John's as well in the form of a stroke), but sometimes there's not. In all cases, however, it's crippling, debilitating -- whatever word you want to use to describe the greatest disturbance to ordinary functioning imaginable. This may seem odd to those who haven't experienced it -- it's far more than "you're just in a bad mood." In many instances, you even lose the will to live (what I call "rock bottom," i.e. the absolute worst it could possibly get).
Although this wasn't what occurred in my case, I strongly suspect that a serious existential/midlife crisis could precipitate a depressive episode. I sincerely hope, no matter who you are, that none of you will ever have to experience it. This is something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy, and just see a guy like John suffer from it breaks my heart. I'm very glad that he's on a path to recovery, that he's opening up about his experience in an intimate and personal way, and that Kyle is taking the time to cover it. Seeking medical attention is absolutely the right thing to do in this situation. John's been knocked down and gotten back up before; I have little doubt he will do so again and be on the Senate floor very soon doing what Pennsylvanians elected him to do: fighting for working people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NiCoL4x With respect to hormones (specifically, hormone replacement therapy or HRT), from my understanding current medical guidance is not to prescribe until age 16 — by which point the vast, vast majority are certain of their gender identity. In my view, this offers the best compromise between being near enough to the onset of puberty (which can be delayed with puberty blockers) to make a physiological difference and erring on the side of caution to ensure that the patient possesses the judgment to provide informed consent. Regarding healthcare, it is not in dispute that the United States' privatized system consistently produces the worst health outcomes in the developed world despite having some of the most advanced technology. The conclusion that this is ultimately a consequence of the lack of equitable access is inescapable. We would be wise, in my view, to learn from the healthcare systems of other wealthy democracies such as Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands — and not least in the realm of prescription drugs, where pharmaceutical companies are free to charge Americans hundreds of times more for the same drug as in the aforementioned OECD nations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fun fact: The most prosperous societies on Earth are "socialist." I'm talking about Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the Netherlands, just to name a few. Do you mean to say that every time the government spends our taxpayer dollars on HELPING the American people by providing them with basic necessities that every other developed country already provides (universal healthcare, childcare, lower prescription drug costs, a liveable wage, paid maternity leave, etc.) instead of what our corrupt politicians have been spending it on thus far (endless war, the military-industrial complex, weapons for foreign countries, corporate subsidies, Wall Street bailouts, and so on) is "socialism"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fun fact: The most prosperous societies on Earth are "socialist." I'm talking about Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the Netherlands, just to name a few. Do you mean to say that every time the government spends our taxpayer dollars on HELPING the American people by providing them with basic necessities that every other developed country already provides (universal healthcare, childcare, lower prescription drug costs, a liveable wage, paid maternity leave, etc.) instead of what our corrupt politicians have been spending it on thus far (endless war, the military-industrial complex, weapons for foreign countries, corporate subsidies, Wall Street bailouts, and so on), it is "socialism"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@J L Says who? The Catholic Church, which was responsible for the Crusades, the Inquisitions, witch burnings, and countless other atrocities? Or the fundamentalist Christians in the South who used it to justify slavery and Jim Crow for almost 350 years? But I guess when your holy book contains verses like
"Then he said to them, 'This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: "Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor."'" (Exodus 32:17 NIV)
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 15:17,18 NIV)
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." (1 Samuel 15:2 NIV)
"Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." (Psalms 137:9 NIV)
"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.” (Hosea 13:16 NIV)
we should not be surprised when those who actually believe its bullsh*t often act in ethically questionable ways.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NHLblkgurl We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@X2LR8 I'm 22 now, unless and until the Republicans all of a sudden support basic social safety net measures (such as maintaining Social Security and expanding Medicare access), action on the greatest environmental crisis the human race has ever seen, and basic freedoms (like the right to choose and access contraception), they will NEVER have my vote again. (Yes, I voted down-ballot red in 2020 when I had a more libertarian bent.) I want this country to catch up to every other developed nation in the world in terms of universal healthcare, childcare, higher education, paid maternity leave/sick days/vacation time, and now, unfortunately, the fundamental right to bodily autonomy. Is that really so hard for the wealthiest nation on Earth?!!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not in Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany, South Korea, Singapore, Japan, the Netherlands, France, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Canada, or Iceland they don't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Imo, he's both right and wrong at the same time. The statistics show that younger people today -- and men in particular -- are actually having less sex than ever before, at least in the United States. However, he does have evidence on his side to support the claim that circumcision is not detrimantal to sensation or function. I'll give just two sources he might cite to this end:
"The hypothesis of inferior male sexual function following circumcision is not supported by the findings of this systematic review. The popular narrative that male circumcision results in sexual dysfunction does not seem to be supported by evidence . . . The Danish Health Authorities do not recommend a lawenforced ban of non-medical circumcisions in Denmark based on these low rates of short-term complications." (Shabanzadeh. Taken from a systematic review published in the Danish Medical Journal in 2016, which is run by the Danish Medical Association, not exactly an organization biased in favor of the operation.)
And here's another from a meta-analysis published in the World Journal of Clincial Pediatrics in 2017:
"Our risk-benefit analysis showed that benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by up to 200 to 1. We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime. Wide-ranging evidence from surveys, physiological measurements, and the anatomical location of penile sensory receptors responsible for sexual sensation strongly and consistently suggest that male circumcision has no detrimental effect on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure."
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BaffinSailor Lol you hate democratic socialists? What are the most free societies on Earth again? Oh yeah, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Germany, Japan... Oh, but by your standards they would all be called "socialist." Well damn, I guess the 100 million Americans living on the brink of destitution just have to suck it up, because enacting socialism would give them too much freedom! 🙄
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Abby-yc7tt And how did you feel when your parents told you Santa isn't real? Betrayed? Now you want adults to experience that same trauma with much greater potency? And if not, to dedicate their lives to a delusion? All so they could be "moral," by taking advice from a book that contains verses like:
"Then he said to them, 'This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: "Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor."'" (Exodus 32:17 NIV)
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 15:17,18 NIV)
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." (1 Samuel 15:2 NIV)
"Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." (Psalms 137:9 NIV)
"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.” (Hosea 13:16 NIV)
What are you smoking?!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@phoenixblanco3892 Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@squiblift2019 Personally, I cannot take anyone seriously who believes the government could become "tyrannical" at any moment and that they need the means to defend themselves so as to (as Jefferson wrote) overthrow the government and establish a new one that fears the people, not dominates them (I'm totally on board with that, I lean towards anarchism) --- but who ALSO says that our military should be the most powerful in the world and that the bloated budget of $770 BILLION should be maintained or even increased year after year. Using history as our guide (the American Revolution, for example), who do they think the politicians or a dictator will use as his/her/their shield to remain in power? The MILITARY, of course. Did we already forget that it was the British army who defended their colonies in the Seven Years' War, and then when the colonies rebelled, that same military was used against them? You want the people who would potentially be defending a brutal dictator (the Commander-in-Chief) to have MORE sophisticated weapons and means of subjugation? Are you INSANE? Here at least the libertarians have an argument --- the gun-toting neoconservatives have no idea what they want in such a scenario. Hope the hearts of the people with the most firepower (our servicemen and women) are turned in our favor, I guess --- and there, I'm afraid to say, history is not on your side.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michheanreth2596 Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time, liveable minimum wage, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're not "pro-life" if you only support measures conducive to life before it exits the womb. Are you equally outraged about the fact that millions of innocent men, women, and children halfway around the world are being bombed into oblivion by our military or starved to death by our sanctions (and those of our allies)? Or that close to 70 MILLION Americans are uninsured/underinsured and 45,000 die each year due to a lack of proper healthcare? How about the future generations that will be completely wiped out because minimal action is being taken to address the impending climate catastrophe? Do you support the most basic regulations that would ensure that those precious unborn children won't be brutally gunned down once they reach the 3rd grade?
And don't even get me started on non-human life. The suffering of hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows we slaughter alive each and every day merely because we enjoy the taste of their flesh is ASTRONOMICAL compared to all abortions humanity has ever performed COMBINED. Does the life of that unborn child matter if it is gay or transgender, or would it be better off if it was "six feet under"? Prove to me that you believe life matters AFTER it has left the womb by pressuring your legal representatives to pass paid maternity leave and universal childcare, as the USA remains the ONLY developed country that does not provide these services. Better yet, demand that those children earn enough to make a decent living for themselves and their families when they grow older by advocating for raising the minimum wage and unionization efforts. Make it clear that you demand action on criminal justice reform, starting with abolishing the barbaric practice of state-sanctioned execution which more closely aligns the US with Saudi Arabia than with any of our peer nations in Europe. Finally, vigorously oppose any measure to engage in an unjustified and illegal offensive halfway around the world that costs taxpayers trillions of dollars and steals the lives of thousands of innocent Americans (usually young men).
George Carlin called out this blatant hypocrisy decades ago.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f-cked."
Embryos/fetuses prior to 18 weeks gestation cannot suffer (let alone possess any form of sentience or consciousness), and that infuriates conservatives. So in order to maximize human misery (their ultimate agenda), they seek to outlaw it so that mothers are forced to give birth and those children grow up in destitute and dysfunctional households with little to no social support, receive a poor quality education and either saddle themselves with student debt or serve in the armed forces, only to end up wounded/severely traumatized with no guaranteed healthcare and/or slaving away for a corporation for baseline wages -- all the while ensuring maximum penalties for engaging in sexual activity -- and finally growing old and retiring in little comfort due to a rapidly diminishing allowance in the form of Social Security. Then the cycle repeats itself. And that's not even taking into consideration the potential consequences of overpopulation -- resources will be spread thinner and thinner until, at a certain point, the damage done to our planet will be so severe that human civilization will be all but wiped off the face of the Earth. Think how much worse off we would be TODAY if we added 60+ million to our population (approximately the number of fetuses aborted since 1973). Famine, war, and widepread civil unrest are just the beginning. That's the world Republicans want -- a dystopian Malthusian/Orwellian hellscape -- whether they are cognizant of it or not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If the "10^10^123" number was so convincing evidence for the existence of god, you would think that it would have been enough to persuade the greatest physicist of our time, Stephen Hawking, to be a believer. Alas, he was not; because the figure is misleading. The odds against Mount Everest being shaped exactly as it is or everyone in the world being exactly as they are are nearly as high, yet there's no "miracle" to be found. It's possible that our universe exists within a set of a nearly infinite number of other universes, a so-called "multiverse," each with its own set of laws, that might account for this fact. Or, even if ours is all there is, postulating a designer only postpones the mystery one further step. A creator of such a massively improbable universe would have to be immensely complex, and therefore at least as improbable himself (or herself). Without an explanation to end the infinite regress of creation, saying "God did it" gets you absolutely nowhere. And thus far, no theologian or philosopher has ever provided us with an adequate explanation for the origins of such an entity. Only science provides answers, and it's unimaginably more likely that mankind invented a fictional Creator to explain his own origins than such a being actually revealed itself to them, in that specific part of the world, exactly 13.72 billion years after its initial creation. Besides, other physicists have called this number into question, with Professor of Physics Victor J. Stenger -- for instance -- doing more calculations than most to prove that the odds of the physical constants being exactly as they are and producing life are in fact much, much lower. Rehashing old arguments is all theologians got, because the profession has been around for thousands of years and produced absolutely nothing of value.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@@Eet_Mia Let's evaluate that claim, shall we?
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “mutilation” as follows: ”An act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal.” Alternatively, the same dictionary also defines it as “an act or instance of damaging or altering something radically.” Hence, radical or severe “damage” or “alteration” is a necessary component in order to satisfy the most commonly accepted definitions of “mutilation.” With that in mind, let’s proceed with the argument.
Any proposed “ban” is up to the medical experts. The AAP and CDC each released statements (in 2012 and 2014, respectively) endorsing the procedure for prophylactic reasons, and concluded that it is an appropriate matter for parents along with their doctors to decide. Do you trust the medical community or not? I do in all matters, not just in transitioning children, abortion, and vaccines. (The science on this, by the way, is very clear. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet; stick to the hard evidence, not propaganda. Otherwise, you're no better (epistemologically speaking) than a climate denier who has become convinced by sites such as WattsUpWithThat. Look at the studies themselves if you want the details. Simply dismissing them out of hand, such as by claiming they're "flawed" without evidence, is akin to denying climate change without having reviewed any of the supporting facts and data underlying the theory.)
However, I believe in four reforms should be enacted: 1) any financial incentive needs to be eliminated (as would happen under single-payer healthcare), but the cost (~$150-200) must be borne by the parents due to the surgery's elective nature, 2) doctors should have the option of refusing to perform if they have a moral objection (like in the U.K.), so both parents AND the doctor must agree, 3) parents must specifically request it (so the default is that it is not performed), and 4) regulations require that the surgery is executed by a trained medical professional in a sterilized environment under anesthesia via block injection (thereby outlawing the traditional Jewish method, where most de@ths occur. As an aside, the concern about the link between acetaminophen use in pregnancy, infancy, and early childhood and ASD is valid, but as of now the AAP, AAFP, and FDA still recommend it for fever and pain reduction in babies). Hence, ideally, it would remain legal, as it is in literally every other country in the world (though South Africa and Iceland (lol) have made attempts to outlaw it), but fewer and fewer parents would choose it, and as the culture shifts it would eventually fall out of favor entirely -- the exact same process as what occurred in parts of Europe and throughout most of the Commonwealth (and is currently happening in South Korea as well).
As for why it must be performed in infancy and cannot wait until adulthood when the person can give consent, which is a reasonable objection, the reasons are numerous. First, the risk of complications are much lower at this stage (~.5% compared to ~3%) and are predominantly minor. Second, some benefits (such as lower risk of penile cancer and UTI's in infancy and early childhood, which can cause liver and kidney damage) are only conferred when it's done in infancy. Third, the inconvenience is greatly lessened -- recovery time is shorter, there are no stitches involved, and there is no need to take time off work or abstain from s-xual activity. Finally, some studies have found that there is a slightly higher chance of negative impact to function in nonmedical cases when the surgery is done later in life (perhaps attributable to greater complications), though this is in dispute due to the low quality of the evidence. It also helps, of course, that babies don't form memories of the experience — a fact that many men who consider it later in life are quite jealous of (29% of uncut men wish they were, as opposed to 10% of cut men who wish they weren't, according to a YouGov poll from 2015). Impacts to psychological functioning, by the way, are pure speculation and a complete myth, and are, once again, utterly unsupported by the evidence. (There's more proof, I would argue, that it increases the odds of winning a Nobel Prize.)
And, please, don't consider responding with an objection that "it reduces s-xual pleasure," because the highest quality evidence consistently finds that it does not in the vast majority of men (such as VMMC randomized controlled trials in Africa and the Dominican Republic) -- and, indeed, having researched this topic for four-and-a-half years myself, this is perfectly consistent with the numerous accounts I've seen from men who have had the surgery as adults (both for medical reasons and not), and who consequently experienced both sides. My own speculative explanation for this (based on research) is that, in most cases, much of the inner lining is retained (i.e. "mid" to "high" cuts are the norm), sensitivity to temperature is more important than light-touch, the brain "adjusts" to the deficit over a period of about six months to one year (some men have testified to this), the mechanics differ post-surgery, and the oft-cited figure of "20,000 nerve endings" is a wild overestimate based on a sample size of ONE that employed shoddy statistics (by a convicted fraudster and HIV/AIDS denialist, no less).
(Side note: I am well aware of the history of the practice in America, but it is quite irrelevant to the discussion as it pertains to ethics; claiming that it's wrong merely because the person to start the trend, William Harvey Kellogg, believed that it would prevent m@sturbation is functionally equivalent to condemning Planned Parenthood because its founder, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist. Comparisons to FGM are also not apt: the latter offers negligible or no medical, health, hygiene, or aesthetic benefits, and is quite often much more severe. I'm an atheist, but I'm also willing to acknowledge when certain beliefs, practices, rituals, etc. are beneficial based on scientific findings, or at least not harmful, as are other critical thinkers like Martha Nussbaum and Sam Harris. Also, the historical evidence strongly indicates that the the trend only caught on decades later after initially introduced, during both World Wars to maintain hygiene during trench warfare, but that's another matter.)
"Our risk-benefit analysis showed that benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by up to 200 to 1. We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime. Wide-ranging evidence from surveys, physiological measurements, and the anatomical location of penile sensory receptors responsible for sexual sensation strongly and consistently suggest that male circumcision has no detrimental effect on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure." (Emphasis added.) That is according to a meta-analysis published in the World Journal of Clinical Pediatrics in 2017.
"The hypothesis of inferior male sexual function following circumcision is not supported by the findings of this systematic review. The popular narrative that male circumcision results in sexual dysfunction does not seem to be supported by evidence." (Shabanzadeh) Taken directly from a review published in the Danish Medical Journal in 2016, which is run by the Danish Medical Association — not exactly an organization biased in favor of this operation. Furthermore, "the Danish Health Authorities do not recommend a law-enforced ban of non-medical circumcisions in Denmark based on these low rates of short-term complications." (Emphasis mine.) Hm, it's almost like the evidence doesn't support the notion that circumcision is harmful and should be banned, and even Scandinavian societies have recognized this. Go figure.
For all these reasons, I believe it is more accurately described as "modification" rather than "mutilation" (this latter descriptor being about as felicitous as labeling abortion "murder," and employed for essentially the same purpose: eliciting an irrational, emotional response). Having invested literally hundreds of hours of my time reading about this topic (hence the long rant chock-full of medical information), I am quite confident that I'm more qualified to speak on it than anyone who might be reading this, and these are the conclusions that I have reached. (And, for the record, I do not intend on having the surgery performed on any of my children because I personally believe bodily autonomy concerns outweigh the benefits -- after all, modifications are still, almost by definition, unnecessary. Others may reasonably hold a different view.) If you're curious to learn more, I recommend the following sources: the Canadian Pediatric Society has released a fair, balanced, and thorough assessment that was reaffirmed in 2021 (though not as comprehensive as the AAP's); for an expert's opinion, member of the American Urological Association Dr. Aaron Spitz has written about this in some detail; and, finally, for those curious about the ethics of the issue (particularly those with a consequentialist utilitarian bent, like myself), atheist antinatalist South African philosopher David Benatar (who, an activist himself, writes frequently on men's rights issues) has much insightful commentary to offer as well. Happy reading.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lol, who does she think she is, the next William F. Buckley? She typifies the stereotypical ignorant, selfish southern American woman. Well guess what, "freedom" (which really means corporate totalitarianism, and a kleptocratic/plutocratic form of government) brought us the Great Depression (1929 under Hoover and initiated under Coolidge) and the Great Recession (8 years of deregulation under Bush). The track record of laissez-faire capitalism in the United States consists of market failures and corporate greed. Meanwhile, what do our friends in Europe have? Free healthcare, subsidized education, a generous welfare state, high unionization rates, fair wages, paid vacation time/family leave by law, intact roads and bridges, first-class infrastructure including high-speed rails and underwater tunnels, high proportions of clean energy to fossil fuel use (and much lower carbon emissions per capita), little or no open corruption, a highly representative form of democracy (Switzerland even has national referendums for issues that attain a certain level of popularity), and low rates of violent crime and incarceration. That's just a taste of what it would look like to live in a country where the politicians work for the people they were elected to represent, not for big corporations and special interests. No, Nikki, we don't want your type of "freedom," where billionaires accrue record amounts of wealth while poverty, personal bankruptcies, and homelessness are rampant. You can have it. We want a system that cares about us, not the CEO of Pfizer or Lockheed Martin. If you want to live in that other world, there are plenty of countries around the world that will be glad to accept you. But not here in America, we're better than that. Or, at the very least, we should be. And if not, it's because of people like you that we aren't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're not "pro-life" if you only support measures conducive to life before it exits the womb. Are you equally outraged about the fact that innocent children and human beings halfway around the world are being bombed into oblivion by our military? Or that tens of millions of AMERICANS are uninsured and 45,000 die each year due to a lack of health insurance? How about the future generations that will be completely wiped out because minimal action is being taken to address the impending climate catastrophe? Do you support the most basic regulations that would ensure that those precious unborn children won't be brutally gunned down when they reach the 3rd grade?
And don't even get me started on non-human life. The suffering of hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows we slaughter alive each and every day merely because we enjoy the taste of their flesh is ASTRONOMICAL compared to all abortions humanity has ever performed COMBINED. Does the life of that unborn child matter if it is gay or transgender, or would it be better off if it was "six feet under"? Prove to me that you believe life matters AFTER it has left the womb by pressuring your legal representatives to pass paid maternity leave and universal childcare, as the USA remains the ONLY developed country that does not provide these services. Better yet, demand that those children earn enough to make a decent living when they grow older by supporting raising the minimum wage and unionization efforts. Make it clear that you demand action on criminal justice reform, starting with abolishing the barbaric practice of state-sanctioned execution which more closely aligns the US with Saudi Arabia than with any of our peer nations in Europe. Finally, vigorously oppose any measure to engage in an unjustified and illegal offensive halfway around the world that costs taxpayers trillions of dollars and steals the lives of thousands of innocent Americans (usually young men).
George Carlin called out this blatant hypocrisy decades ago.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f-cked."
Embryos/fetuses prior to 18 weeks gestation cannot suffer (let alone possess any form of sentience or consciousness), and that infuriates conservatives. So in order to maximize human misery (their ultimate agenda), they seek to outlaw it so that mothers are forced to give birth and those children grow up in destitute and dysfunctional households with little to no social support, receive a poor quality education and either saddle themselves with student debt or serve in the armed forces, only to end up wounded/severely traumatized with no guaranteed healthcare and/or slaving away for a corporation for baseline wages -- all the while ensuring maximum penalties for engaging in sexual activity -- and finally growing old and retiring in little comfort due to a rapidly diminishing allowance in the form of Social Security. And then the cycle repeats itself. That's the world Republicans want, whether they are cognizant of it or not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Omg, just from reading the video title I can already tell that everything they say is going to be bullshit. Trump is an ally of peaceful protests (except when he has to walk somewhere, then everyone needs to clear the area because the President is the #1 target for assassins, we don't want another JFK), but most of the "protests" occurring at night in liberal cities are riots. Looting, vandalism, arson, murder (David Dorn)... just to name a few of the horrible things crazy leftists have done and continue to do over the death of one man. We should all be condemning this without a second thought, but the media never reported any of these things about the lockdown protests (they were only knocking them relentlessly for "not wearing masks," such a horrible sin! 😱🙄)... I guess the question then becomes are the MEDIA the hypocrites when it comes to the protests?! A huge gun rally in Virginia and not a single shot was fired; massive gatherings of people with assault rifles on the doorsteps of capitol buildings and not a single person was injured. That's because conservatives and Libertarians actually know how to BEHAVE THEMSELVES, and are GRATEFUL for the things they own rather than always blaming the "system" for their own inadequacies. So in summary, no our President is not a hypocrite when it comes to protests (that's not to say he isn't hypocritical about other issues though).
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What everyone seems to be missing here is that junior high/high school sports are supposed to be for FUN, not for demolishing your opponents by as much as you possibly can. It doesn't matter if the score is 100-0 or 51-50, a win's a win. In college or professional sports, that's fine. But in games that involve minors, the point of sports is to encourage teamwork, build up fitness, bond with your teammates, learn valuable life lessons, and beyond all else have fun. These priorities change once you graduate from high school, so kids should have the opportunity to enjoy them while they can. It's also essential that everyone has a chance to participate, not just the star player and a few others who are decent. Yes, you can win that way --- but that's not the point. The point isn't to steal as many championships as you can at the expense of only using 2 or 3 of your players for a few minutes each game. And a game where your opponent is constantly scoring --- or you are able to dunk again and again with no substantive challenge being offered --- is not fun for anyone. This coach deserved what was coming to him. To think otherwise is to commit oneself to a one-dimesional mode of cognition.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let's evaluate that claim, shall we?
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “mutilation” as follows: ”An act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal.” Alternatively, the same dictionary also defines it as “an act or instance of damaging or altering something radically.” Hence, radical or severe “damage” or “alteration” is a necessary component in order to satisfy the most commonly accepted definitions of “mutilation.” With that in mind, let’s proceed with the argument.
Any proposed "ban" is up to the medical experts. The AAP and CDC each released statements (in 2012 and 2014, respectively) endorsing the procedure for prophylactic reasons, and concluded that it is an appropriate matter for parents along with their doctors to decide. Do you trust the medical community or not? I do in all matters, not just in transitioning children, abortion, COVID-19, and vaccines. (The science on this, by the way, is very clear. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet; stick to the hard evidence, not propaganda. Otherwise, you're no better (epistemologically speaking) than a climate denier who has become convinced by sites such as WattsUpWithThat. Look at the studies themselves if you want the details. Simply dismissing them out of hand, such as by claiming they're "flawed" without evidence, is akin to denying climate change without having reviewed any of the supporting facts and data underlying the theory.)
However, I believe four reforms should be enacted: 1) any financial incentive needs to be eliminated (as would happen under single-payer healthcare), but the cost (~$150-200) must be borne by the parents due to the surgery's elective nature, 2) doctors should have the option of refusing to perform if they have a moral objection (like in the U.K.), so both parents AND the doctor must agree, 3) parents must specifically request it (so the default is that it is not performed), and 4) regulations require that the surgery is executed by a trained medical professional in a sterilized environment under anesthesia via block injection (thereby outlawing the traditional Jewish method, where most de@ths occur. And, as an aside, the concern about the link between acetaminophen use in pregnancy, infancy, and early childhood and ASD is valid, but as of now the AAP, AAFP, and FDA still recommend it for fever and pain reduction in babies). Hence, ideally, it would remain legal, as it is in literally every other country in the world (though Iceland (lol) has made attempts to outlaw it), but fewer and fewer parents would choose it, and as the culture shifts it would eventually fall out of favor entirely -- the exact same process as what unfolded in parts of Europe and throughout most of the Commonwealth (and is currently happening in South Korea as well).
As for why it must be performed in infancy and cannot wait until adulthood when the person can give consent, which is a reasonable objection, the reasons are numerous. First, the risk of complications are much lower at this stage (~.5% compared to ~3%) and are predominantly minor. Second, some benefits (such as lower risk of penile cancer and UTI's in infancy and early childhood, which can cause permanent liver damage) are only conferred when it's done in infancy. Third, the inconvenience is greatly lessened -- recovery time is shorter, there are no stitches involved, and there is no need to take time off work or abstain from s-xual activity. Finally, some studies have found that there is a slightly higher chance of negative impact to function in nonmedical cases when the surgery is done later in life (perhaps attributable to greater complications), though this is in dispute due to the low quality of the evidence. It also helps, of course, that babies don't form memories of the experience -- a fact that many men who consider it later in life are quite jealous of (29% of uncut men wish they were, as opposed to 10% of cut men that wish they weren't, according to a YouGov poll from 2015). Impacts to psychological functioning, by the way, are pure speculation and a complete myth, and are, once again, utterly unsupported by the evidence. (There's more proof, one might argue, that it increases the odds of winning a Nobel Prize.)
1
-
And, please, don't consider responding with an objection that "it reduces s-xual pleasure," because the highest quality evidence consistently finds that it does not in the vast majority of men (such as VMMC randomized controlled trials in Africa and the Dominican Republic) -- and, indeed, having researched this topic for four-and-a-half years myself, this is perfectly consistent with the numerous accounts I've seen from men who have had the surgery as adults (both for medical reasons and not), and who consequently experienced both sides. My own speculative explanation for this (based on research) is that, in most cases, much of the inner lining is retained (i.e. "mid" to "high" cuts are the norm), sensitivity to temperature is more important than light-touch, the brain "adjusts" to the deficit over a period of about six months to one year (some men have testified to this), and the mechanics differ post-surgery. Moreover, the oft-cited figure of "20,000 nerve endings" is a wild overestimate based on a sample size of ONE that employed shoddy statistics (by a convicted fraudster and HIV/AIDS denialist, no less).
(Side note: I am well aware of the history of the practice in America, but it is quite irrelevant to the discussion as it pertains to ethics; claiming that it's wrong merely because the person to start the trend, William Harvey Kellogg, believed that it would prevent m@sturbation is functionally equivalent to condemning Planned Parenthood because its founder, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist. Comparisons to FGM are also not apt: the latter offers negligible or no medical, health, hygiene, or aesthetic benefits, and is quite often much more severe. I'm an atheist, but I'm also willing to acknowledge when certain beliefs, practices, rituals, etc. are beneficial based on scientific findings, or at least not harmful, as are other critical thinkers like Stephen Moreton, Martha Nussbaum and Sam Harris. Also, the historical evidence strongly indicates that the trend only caught on decades later after initially introduced, during both World Wars to maintain hygiene in trench warfare, but that's another matter.)
"Our risk-benefit analysis showed that benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by up to 200 to 1. We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime. Wide-ranging evidence from surveys, physiological measurements, and the anatomical location of penile sensory receptors responsible for sexual sensation strongly and consistently suggest that male circumcision has no detrimental effect on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure." (Emphasis added.) That is according to a meta-analysis published in the World Journal of Clinical Pediatrics in 2017.
"The hypothesis of inferior male sexual function following circumcision is not supported by the findings of this systematic review. The popular narrative that male circumcision results in sexual dysfunction does not seem to be supported by evidence." (Shabanzadeh) Taken directly from a review published in the Danish Medical Journal in 2016, which is run by the Danish Medical Association — not exactly an organization biased in favor of this operation. Furthermore, "the Danish Health Authorities do not recommend a law-enforced ban of non-medical circumcisions in Denmark based on these low rates of short-term complications." (Emphasis mine.) Hm, it's almost like the evidence doesn't support the notion that circumcision is harmful and should be banned, and even Scandinavian societies have recognized this. Go figure.
"Male circumcision for non-therapeutic reasons appears to be practiced with relative regularity and frequency throughout Europe . . . [and is] the only scenario, among the topics discussed in the present chapter, in which the outcome of balancing between the right to physical integrity and religious freedom is in favor of the latter." (Italics mine.) From a study commissioned by the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (various authors).
You want something more recent? Here you go. "Despite the conflicting data reported in articles, the weight of the scientific evidence suggests there is not sufficient data to establish a direct association between male circumcision and sexual dysfunction." (Emphasis added.) Quoted directly from the results of a meta-analysis performed by Oxford's Department of Sexual Health and published by Oxford University Press in 2023.
For all these reasons, I believe it is more accurately described as "modification" rather than "mutilation" (this latter descriptor being about as felicitous as labeling abortion "murder," and employed for essentially the same purpose: eliciting an irrational, emotional response). Having invested literally hundreds of hours of my time reading about this topic (hence the long dissertation chock-full of medical information), I am quite confident that I'm more qualified to speak on it than anyone who might be reading this, and these are the conclusions that I have reached. (And, for the record, I do not intend on having the surgery performed on any of my children because I personally believe bodily autonomy concerns outweigh the benefits -- after all, modifications are still, almost by definition, unnecessary. Others may reasonably hold a different view.) If you're curious to learn more, I recommend the following sources: the Canadian Pediatric Society has released a fair, balanced, and thorough assessment that was reaffirmed in 2024 (though not as comprehensive as the AAP's); for an expert's opinion, member of the American Urological Association Dr. Aaron Spitz has written about this in some detail; and, finally, for those curious about the ethics of the issue (particularly those with a consequentialist utilitarian bent, like myself), atheist antinatalist South African philosopher David Benatar (who, an activist himself, writes frequently on men's rights issues) has much insightful commentary to offer as well. Happy reading.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@657spy You want the truth? Here you go:
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse.
1
-
1
-
@michaelcoigne8695 Personally, I cannot take anyone seriously who believes the government could become "tyrannical" at any moment and that they need the means to defend themselves so as to (as Jefferson wrote) overthrow the government and establish a new one that fears the people, not dominates them (I'm totally on board with that, I lean towards anarchism) --- but who ALSO says that our military should be the most powerful in the world and that the bloated budget of $770 BILLION should be maintained or even increased year after year. Using history as our guide (the American Revolution, for example), who do they think the politicians or a dictator will use as his/her/their shield to remain in power? The MILITARY, of course. Did we already forget that it was the British army who defended their colonies in the Seven Years' War, and then when the colonies rebelled, that same military was used against them? You want the people who would potentially be defending a brutal dictator (the Commander-in-Chief) to have MORE sophisticated weapons and means of subjugation? Are you INSANE? Here at least the libertarians have an argument --- the gun-toting neoconservatives have no idea what they want in such a scenario. Hope the hearts of the people with the most firepower (our servicemen and women) are turned in our favor, I guess --- and there, I'm afraid to say, history is not on your side.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at the July 4th parade, gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, garlic festival, Juneteenth celebration, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own house . . . Pretty much anywhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fuckgoogleforever Well let's start with the fact that 28.9 million Americans are uninsured, accounting for almost 11% of the population as of 2019. https://www.kff.org/uninsured/issue-brief/key-facts-about-the-uninsured-population/
On top of that, 72 million Americans (accounting for 41% of the working population) are experiencing debt problems because of medical bills as of 2007. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/newsletter-article/survey-79-million-americans-have-problems-medical-bills-or-debt
Moreover, one in four Americans are currently experiencing problems with medical bills, and nearly one in three have delayed medical attention because of cost concerns. Also, in the U.S. 69% of adults reported having difficulty with shopping around (indicating a lack of price transparency). The U.S. also spends far more on healthcare than other developed countries where service is free or very low cost. Clearly, we're doing something wrong.
https://www.singlecare.com/blog/medical-debt-statistics/
And finally, for the first time in over fifty years average life expectancy in the U.S. dropped two times in a row to 78.6 years in 2016. 25 other developed countries, meanwhile, have an average life expectancy of 81.8 years as of 2015. What's the culprit? One huge factor is the opiod epidemic, of which the U.S. accounts for 27% of the world's overdose deaths with only 4% of the world's population. That's 7 times higher than the rate of overdoses in the European Union in 2014, with a population of over 500 million (or about 6.7% of the world's population). Why is this so? Because in the U.S., doctors are incentivized under a privatized system to prescribe more pills without listing all of its effects. This isn't nearly as much of an issue in countries with government-run healthcare, as we can clearly see.
https://www.singlecare.com/blog/medical-debt-statistics/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@evolutionistheflyingspaghe2702 Viability makes no moral difference. What does make a moral difference is the concept of "personhood." Embryos/fetuses aren't "persons," and therefore possess no rights. Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@parkplaceproperties4818 Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U.S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at the July 4th parade, gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, garlic festival, Juneteenth celebration, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own house . . . Pretty much anywhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
And by the way, I am in full support of ending the disastrous Drug War, revoking ALL seatbelt laws, and enacting stricter regulations to counter drunk driving. I like to think I'm a principled person.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Me too, which is why I am favor of drug legalization, workplace democracy, unionization, ending wage slavery, worker-owned co-ops, a more equitable distribution of resources, removing speed limits (like Germany's Autobahn), repealing seatbelt laws, gay marriage, and everything else that promotes individual liberty which also does not hurt the collective in any significant or measurable way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@enerzise3161 Our science cult is "weak"? We have people like Niels Bohr, Francis Crick, Sigmund Freud, Stephen Hawking, Alfred Kinsey, Pierre-Simon Laplace, Carl Sagan, Kip Thorne, James Watson, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Who do you have? Bozos like Joel Osteen, Kenneth Copeland and Billy Graham? Please...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For everyone who says "guns aren't the issue, it's mental health," or "guns don't just get up one day, walk to a school, and fire themselves," I ask you: Would you apply that same reasoning to nuclear weapons? Certainly you don't believe that the world would be SAFER if civilians had access to weapons of mass destruction, do you? Then why do you REFUSE to acknowledge the empirical evidence PROVING that the prevalence of guns in a society results in more gun violence and deaths? For every 100 people living in America, there are 120 firearms. By comparison, in the next closest country, Yemen (which is currently embroiled in civil war), there are 52 firearms for every 100 people. We are OBJECTIVELY the least safe country in the developed world in terms of the gun homicide metric -- it's not even close. So, tell me, why not apply your flawed "guns don't kill people, people kill people" reasoning to other weapons of war as well? I eagerly await THAT answer. The only halfway decent response I can think of is that nuclear weapons cannot be used in self-defense, to which I reply that in a dearmed society (like most of Europe, for example), you won't need to defend yourself against someone with an assault rifle. Period. My right to LIVE supersedes your right to own a weapon of war.
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, it's a good thing abortion isn't murder then. Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
LOL the one thing that Trump says that's totally reasonable is what causes you to jump ship. Not gonna lie, this reads exactly like a satire, but it's reality. Vaccines work, including the Trump-created vaccines. You really should get one. If you don't like it, cry harder. This is glorious. Stay classic, Brandon. 👍🤣🤣🤣
P.S. Vaccine mandates are nothing new. They mandate the polio, measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, pneuomococcal, diptheria, and a whole host of other vaccines in order for children to attend public school. And for adults, the Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1905 that hard vaccine mandates are Constitutional. Typical Brandon doesn't know what he's talking about yet again. How does this guy even have a following? Seriously... 🤣🤣
Final edit: 7:15 Why does this sound like a subtle argument for hookup culture? My man can't even get his principles straight. 🤣 By the way, you would be astounded to learn just how many people worship, literally worship, Donald Trump. Especially the creepy white evangelical types. Robin Bullock, Johnny Enlow, Kat Kerr, Greg Locke, yikes...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So far, this is what I have come up with every time I see one of these nescient morons spam that vapid slogan "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn":
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time, liveable minimum wage, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you're unvaccinated and you die from COVID, I can't say I feel sorry for you. You had your chance. Like you said, we're not going to force "poison" into anyone's arms. You have the freedom to weigh the risks and benefits and live with the results of your decision, or die because of it. I know people personally who refuse to get the vaccine, and if I lost them tomorrow due to the virus, all that would come out of my mouth is "Oh well." What more can you do? 🤷♂️
P.S. It seems that literally everywhere else but California is getting rain now. Seriously, can we steal some of those floods from you Florida, Arizona, Colorado, China, and Germany? It would be much appreciated!!! 🤦♂️🤦♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ralphferley2602 Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
As to the first point, let's see if you can answer a basic history question: who started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a Democrat or a Republican President? And for extra credit, here's a bonus follow-up: Which President fulfilled a promise that ended the latter, and which one promised to and later changed his mind (hint: it's an immediate predecessor), and to which parties do they belong? I eagerly await your response.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
@Kerz300 We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Things the "far left" cares about:
- Universal healthcare
- Extension of child tax credit
- Paid family/medical leave
- Tuition-free higher education
- A living wage/unionization
- Mitigating ecological disaster
- Preservation of human rights around the world
- Provision of literally anything else guaranteed by every major democracy (except the U.S.)
Things the "far right" cares about:
- Blanket abortion ban
- Abolition of federal agencies (Dept. of Education, IRS, EPA, OSHA, FDA, CFPB, etc; Agenda 2025)
- Undermining U.S. democracy
- Elimination of the social safety net (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, TANF, WIC, etc.)
- Exorbitant military spending and endless war
- Increasing civilians' ease of access to weapons of war & ammunition
- Expansion of police state; more incarceration
Anyone who claims that these two sides can be compared doesn't know the first thing about global politics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bewlay Brother No way, never going to happen. This is 'MERICA bro, we have a Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court has ruled gives EVERYONE the right to own a firearm (D.C. vs. Heller), and with the current composition there is NO WAY that will be overturned anytime soon. DEATH STICKS FOR EVERYONE, HELL YEAH!!! 🇺🇲 🦅🔫
(In case you couldn't tell, this is satire. I'm a born-and-bred American from California, but even I realize how absolutely insane it is for just anyone 18 years of age or older to walk into a gun shop and buy weapons of mass destruction, AND THEN WIELD THEM IN PUBLIC, which California and New York tried to ban but the far-right fascist Supreme Court struck down last summer -- along with stripping away a UN-recognized woman's human right to bodily autonomy, of course. The right-wing in this country is INSANE.)
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I will be the first to admit that we don't truly know (in a strict epistemological sense) whether God exists or not, as there are no deductive arguments that disprove the existence of a deity (there are plenty of valid inductive ones that make such a thing less likely, even highly improbable), but if there is then I would place my money on the fact that he/she/it is not the progenitor of any revealed religion and that it couldn't care less what you do with your private parts. This is what Deism is all about, and I have great respect for those who hold this position (after all, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine were deists), but I would disagree with them on philosophical grounds, not scientific or historical ones.*
* Qualifier: There are some deists (like Antony Flew) who argue that the existence of God can be demonstrated through scientific means, such as the Origin of Life and the complexity of DNA. Because that stretches beyond traditional notions of Deism (i.e., that someone or something created the universe and stepped away from it), my disagreements would be based on scientific or historical truth and not philosophy alone. The only means a traditional Deist has of invoking science is if cosmology unravels the mysteries surrounding the origins of our universe, and I don't believe that is ever likely to happen. Some things can just never be fully understood by humans, no matter how precise the instruments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Except that abortion is not murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As a Californian, I believe Gavin Newsom is far more electable at this point than either Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders (primarily because of age). The Democratic party, more than anything, needs some younger blood and someone who is COMPETENT (i.e. not Kamala Harris) and somewhat popular (sorry Mayor Pete). If I were a betting man, I would bet that he will be the Democratic nominee in 2024 if Biden doesn't run for re-election, and he his opponent on the Republican side will be Ron DeSantis. Although, I am very concerned about a number of failures and scandals that could be used against him -- most notably, dining at French Laundry during the pandemic, closing all golf courses and wineries except for his own, killing universal healthcare in the state legislature, and vetoing a bill that would have established drug addiction treatment centers. He is not perfect by any means, but he's almost certainly better than everyone who has occupied the White House in at least the last 40-50 years. It's a low bar, but unfortunately that's the state of the modern left-wing party in America.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time, liveable minimum wage, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For everyone who says "guns aren't the issue, it's mental health," or "guns don't just get up one day, walk to a school, and fire themselves," I ask you: Would you apply that same reasoning to nuclear weapons? Certainly you don't believe that the world would be SAFER if civilians had access to weapons of mass destruction, do you? Then why do you REFUSE to acknowledge the empirical evidence PROVING that the prevalence of guns in a society results in more gun violence and deaths? For every 100 people living in America, there are 120 firearms. By comparison, in the next closest country, Yemen (which is currently embroiled in civil war), there are 52 firearms for every 100 people. We are OBJECTIVELY the least safe country in the developed world in terms of the gun homicide metric -- it's not even close. So, tell me, why not apply your flawed "guns don't kill people, people kill people" reasoning to other weapons of war as well? I eagerly await THAT answer. The only halfway decent response I can think of is that nuclear weapons cannot be used in self-defense, to which I reply that in a dearmed society (like most of Europe, for example), you won't need to defend yourself against someone with an assault rifle. Period. My right to LIVE supersedes your right to own a weapon of war.
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Since Kyle has taken the rare step of soliciting input from viewers, I will provide mine. As a consequentialist, my top concern is what results will be produced from this. The fact that thousands of people will be inconvenienced (however mildly) is a given. On the other hand, protestors will argue that this at least has a chance of changing policy. According to my understanding, this is true -- but not in the way supporters believe. In all likelihood, the public backlash to this form of civil disobedience will only encourage those in power to crack down on free protest -- and, by extension, the First Amendment. In other words, they will backfire. The law recently signed by the Florida governor decriminalizing vehicular homic*de exemplifies this. In the end, all that is likely to occur from these protests are more enforced restrictions and deterrents, not unlike those the Supreme Court has refused to overturn in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. For this reason, I take a strong stance in opposition to indirect forms of civil d*sobedience (hence nonviolent protests such as civil rights-era sit-ins are excluded), no matter how just the cause.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@liberalismisbraincancer Fun fact: The most prosperous societies on Earth are "socialist." I'm talking about Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the Netherlands, just to name a few. Do you mean to say that every time the government spends our taxpayer dollars on HELPING the American people by providing them with basic necessities that every other developed country already provides (universal healthcare, childcare, lower prescription drug costs, a liveable wage, paid maternity leave, etc.) instead of what our corrupt politicians have been spending it on thus far (endless war, the military-industrial complex, weapons for foreign countries, corporate subsidies, Wall Street bailouts, and so on) is "socialism"?
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, if you look at how the Scandinavian countries are doing, you'll see that government can improve living conditions for its citizens. They have free healthcare, we don't; they have free childcare, we don't; they have paid time off/family leave/maternity leave/sick leave by law, we don't; they have high wages and unionization rates, we don't; they have relatively low levels of wealth inequality, we don't; they have a stable, functioning democracy that is entirely secular and where corruption is illegal, we don't; they have low levels of gun violence and violent crime in general, we don't; they get most of their energy through renewables, we don't; AND they are some of the happiest societies on Earth, and we're near the bottom of the list of OECD countries. And you wonder why people like us are unhappy with the state of affairs in this country. We live in a system that's rigged for the billionaires and the corporations, because they have BOUGHT and OWNED our politicians at the expense of the people they were elected to represent. Regular working Americans are getting screwed while they are running out the back door with all the money. Don't believe me? Just look at the statistics: for the first time in U.S. history, the top 1% now owns more wealth than the ENTIRE MIDDLE CLASS COMBINED. One man has the funds to singlehandedly launch himself into space while up to 60,000 Americans DIE because of a lack of health insurance each year. This isn't a meritocracy; it's an oligarchy. More tax cuts for the rich while the working poor and middle class sees their taxes INCREASE. 83% of the benefits of the Trump tax cuts went to the top 1%. Elon Musk paid $0 in federal income taxes in 2018, and so did Bezos in 2007 (when he was a billionaire). The effective tax rate for billionaires and multi-millionaires is around 3%, while everyone else in the top income bracket pays an effective rate of about 37%. Is that enough reason to get you to believe that pure capitalism might not be distributing our resources fairly?
P.S. If you really believed in "individual liberty," you would be in favor of ending the War on Drugs and legalizing prostitution nationwide. Oh, but many of you dogmatists believe that an ancient book forbids these things, so we must protect people "from themselves." In other words, you think the government should be actively involved in preventing people from having a good time. What hypocrisy. 🙄
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: WorldPopulationReview)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In all but the most extreme scenarios, there really is no comparison between capitalism and slavery. In the former, you are literally considered someone's property and you have no choice whatseover in who dictates everything you are allowed to do. In principle (but not always in practice), that person has authority over you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If they tell you to do something, you have to do it --- even if they reneged on a promise they made to you, or if you are busy doing something important (like breastfeeding your child). The power structure is as extreme as it gets. Here you are, born into an institution where one person (or a handful) has absolute control over your every move, and even if you're sold to someone else, nothing changes (that is, unless that person has bought your freedom, which almost never happens). Under capitalism, your work is only "rented" temporarily and you are compensated for your labor. You have also entered into this situation voluntarily by means of a contract, and are free to leave at any time. The car analogy doesn't really work here, because while the car being rented is not really technically the renter's property, one does not typically rent the same car over and over again. But that's exactly what happens in businesses where retention rates are moderately high. If the car analogy was true, businesses would not spend exorbinant amounts of time and money training their employees, which they expect will pay for itself long-term. I must say, however, that government has some role to play in this, to ensure worker safety (OSHA), to protect against exploitation and discrimination (e.g. child labor laws), and covering up areas where the free market does not perform well (minimum wage laws are a good example in this country). Ayn Rand-style hardcore libertarianism is nothing more than a pipedream, but so is the Communist utopia Marx was envisioning. If it wasn't, it would've happened already. Rather, the best solution is somewhere in between socialism and capitalism, and I am prepared to argue that the socially democratic Scandinavian model does it best.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And get more:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering of unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstruction of any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatization of everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)?
No thanks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sam doesn't believe in "evil," he believes in the "Worst Possible M*sery for Everyone," which, according to him, is bad, not "evil." Anything that takes us in that direction is "bad," and anything that takes us away from it is "good." It's a value judgement based on suffering, not what some all-good or all-evil force dictated we should do. If anything, with how a lot of right-wing evangelicals speak on the subject, it would seem that the Christian S@tan is directing us to do good from Harris' point of view, because all the other guy seems to care about is what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. 🤣 As someone who has read "The Moral Landscape," this characterization of Sam's position is so inaccurate it's almost laughable.
1
-
Ah yes, being taught SCIENCE -- i.e. that evolution and climate change are FACTS, your feelings and religious delusions be damned -- and learning how the rest of the developed world operates -- easy abortion access, very strict gun control, and generous welfare states -- is "leftist indoctrination." As a college student from California, I can assure Scottie here that the REALITY is that we are being taught FACTS first, and left to make up our own minds (and, in many cases, justify our positions with argumentation). He knows that the ONLY way young voters can become conservative is by true indoctrination, e.g. religious nonsense or presenting a skewed perspective of history that omits essential developments. A facts-first approach encourages critical thinking, the enemy of today's GOP.
1
-
1
-
@JoJo-kh7vf Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden can nominate whoever he wants. Anyone crying foul that he's selecting on the basis of immutable characteristics better not lean Republican. Ronald Reagan specifically selected the first female nominee to the Supreme Court (Sandra Day O'Connor), his successor George H.W. Bush replaced the first African-American Justice (Thurgood Marshall) with Clarence Thomas, and just over a year ago President Trump made a shortlist of female judges to fill Ruth Bader Ginsberg's seat, ultimately deciding on Amy Coney Barrett. Well, two can play at that game...
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is amateur hour. I'm 21-and-a-half and I still don't have an Instagram, Snapchat, or TikTok account. It all seemed so trivial to me. I had to install Facebook for a homework assignment, but soon thereafter Facebook deleted my account --- which was fine with me, I wasn't using their garbage platform anyway. A year ago I made a new one just to communicate with a former friend and coworker who moved to another state, and I literally haven't opened the app in months. I started using Twitter perhaps two years ago now, and I typically on comment on things I think are really important (like Supreme Court decisions or potential warfare), or some other news item that captures my attention. That's it. YouTube, on the other hand, I have been using (on and off, but definitely more on) since 2013, and this channel in particular since Trump was elected. Since then, I've watched almost every news segment that has been uploaded by ABC. And there is no way I would trade that time spent being informed about current events happening in my youth (let alone the dozens of other channels I watch on a regular basis) for a paltry $1,800. I'll take the privilege of being able to explain the Trump years to my grandkids in old age over some fleeting short-term monetary gain any day of the week. Sorry.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mitch103178 I wish we could teach the atrocities of America's past along with the brilliance of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin and the bravery of George Washington at the same time. There is so much to adore and deplore about our past, why does it have to be one or the other? Yes, Jefferson owned slaves, but that is not why we remember him. He would be just as much an icon in American history (if not more so) if he wasn't a plantation owner --- if he was more like his contemporary Thomas Paine in that regard. Very few actually believe it was a good thing that he held people in bondage (and mated with them, the whole Sally Hemings debacle), but there are quite a significant percentage who would rather skim over that uncomfortable fact in our history --- and that in itself is deplorable. But so is teaching all of history through the lens of skin color and ethnicity and neglecting some of the more inspiring, abstract, and philosphical moments (the creation of a new democracy, the rebellion against the world's most powerful Navy at the time, the support of freedom, justice, and democracy over monarchy an tyranny, etc.). Call me a centrist, but that's what I support. 🤷♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@libertypastor1307 Wow there's a lot to unpack here... First of all, by "outdated" I meant the language used in the translation (thee, thy, thou), as well as all the colloquialisms in early 17th century England at the time that in the modern English-speaking world now has a completely different meaning. We've both seen words change their meaning in our lifetimes, just imagine how different it might be after 400+ years (ex: "gay" used to mean "happy," now it's an adjective used to describe a homosexual man). Languages evolve and change rapidly, hence why there's a new edition of the dictionary every single year. Secondly, allow me to inform you on the true origins of the NASB (it's not the work of Satan that I can assure you): "The New American Standard Bible has been produced with the conviction that the words of scripture as originally penned in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek were inspired by God. Since they are the internal word of God the Holy Scriptures speak with fresh power to each generation, to give wisdom that leads to Salvation, that men may serve Christ the glory of God. The purpose of the Editorial Board in making this translation was to adhere as closely as possible to the original languages of the Holy Scriptures, and to make the translation in a fluent and readable style according to the current English usage." Futhermore, "1. These publications shall be true to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek; 2. They shall be grammatically correct: 3. They shall be understandable; 4. They shall give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives him; therefore, no work will ever be personalized." Moreover, it also says in the introduction that it is a revision of the American Standard Version, which itself is a counterpart to the English Revised Version, which is heavily based on the KJV. "The ASV, a product of both British and American scholarship, has been highly regarded for its scholarship and accuracy." Additionally, it asserts that "decisions about English renderings were made by consensus of a team composed of educators and pastors. Subsequently, review and evaluation by other Hebrew and Greek scholars outside the Editorial Board were sought and carefully considered." Do your research before making claims, especially ones as egregious as those in your prior comment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. DON'T VOTE FOR CORRUPT POLITICIANS!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above. Abortion is a human right. Period.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tss Tickle North Korea has it's own religion: Juche. And both DPRK and China are authoritarian Communist. Atheism is component of Communism, not the reverse. To pin the atrocities of this century, or the last, on atheism is like saying that every Christian who has ever killed someone did it in the name of Christianity. It makes no sense. No one has killed in the name of "atheism," because there is nothing to kill for. No deity, no holy book, no church, no nothing. What atheists HAVE done is adopted a dangerous ideology of totalitarianism and killed to achieve some vision of a utopia. If you had more than just a baseline comprehension of recent human history, it would be obvious to you that authoritarian ideologies (communism, fascism, etc.) were the motivating factors of these events, not atheism. In fact, the word "atheism" shouldn't even exist. Do we have a word for people who don't believe in unicorns? Are they "a-unicornists"? How many "a-unicornists" have committed mass g*nocide recently? My guess: not very many.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. The evidence is clear: More guns = more gun deaths.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gonefishn5138 Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence of any country in the world. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: WorldPopulationReview)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rebirth602 Wow, this is wrong in every way imaginable. The vaccine IS effective; otherwise, why are over 90% of hospitalized patients RIGHT NOW unvaccinated?!! Against the Delta variant, you may still get infected, but your symptoms will be MUCH lighter than they otherwise would have been --- proof that the vaccine is WORKING. And who said the vaccine is causing mutations? Some crackpot on the Internet? Get some data from the CDC or WHO on this, and I'll believe it. (Not going to happen, because this is a flat-out LIE!) And the vaccine HAS been tested on MILLIONS of people at this point, and all the evidence shows that it is both safe AND effective. That's why Pfizer's has already received full FDA approval. Oh, but the FDA doesn't mean anything anymore, because you clowns keep moving the goal posts. And finally, murder is killing that is AGAINST THE LAW. Is abortion against the law in the United States?!! NO!! Thanks to Roe vs. Wade, every woman has a right to a safe abortion procedure (with limitations, obviously). You're telling me that the life of a 12-week old fetus without a brain (or any nervous system capable of feeling pain, and hence suffering) is worth MORE than the hundreds of thousands of adult cows and pigs we slaughter every day for our food?!! Creatures that are CONSCIOUS, and can actually SUFFER? Talk about a clown show. 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Personally, I cannot take anyone seriously who believes the government could become "tyrannical" at any moment and that they need the means to defend themselves so as to (as Jefferson wrote) overthrow the government and establish a new one that fears the people, not dominates them (I'm totally on board with that, I lean towards anarchism) --- but who ALSO says that our military should be the most powerful in the world and that the bloated budget of $770 BILLION should be maintained or even increased year after year. Using history as our guide (the American Revolution, for example), who do they think the politicians or a dictator will use as his/her/their shield to remain in power? The MILITARY, of course. Did we already forget that it was the British army who defended their colonies in the Seven Years' War, and then when the colonies rebelled, that same military was used against them? You want the people who would potentially be defending a brutal dictator (the Commander-in-Chief) to have MORE sophisticated weapons and means of subjugation? Are you INSANE? Here at least the libertarians have an argument --- the gun-toting neoconservatives have no idea what they want in such a scenario. Hope the hearts of the people with the most firepower (our servicemen and women) are turned in our favor, I guess --- and there, I'm afraid to say, history is not on your side.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The driving force behind the capitalist theory of economics is that you should be compensated based on how much your productivity is worth. If five workers design, build and sell a product worth $500, each of them should receive $100 or 1/5th of the revenue (which may actually be $100 total after expenses for raw materials, so each gets $20 per unit sold). This is a form of a meritocracy where providing a good or service that is in demand directly results in fair compensation. That's not exactly how our system is set up, however. Under U.S. capitalism, the executives at the top are allowed to run away with all the money, or even passively accumulate it, at the expense of their workers. This is where we run into a problem. I think most people can agree that the harder working folks should earn a higher income as well as those with technical skills or training (unless you're a die-hard communist, perhaps), but that is often not the case, as Kyle mentioned.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Two things: First, that Fox commentator (I don't know his name) seems to be under the impression that California legalized sports-betting. We didn't. It was overwhelmingly rejected in the last election (both on reservations and online). I voted for it because, as a libertarian leftie, I believe in maximizing personal freedom. Most voters in my state, apparently, don't agree with me. (By the way, this divergence also was revealed with respect to the ban of flavored e-cigarettes, which Californians approved.)
Second, there are a few out there who would tolerate smoking a joint at the end of a long day toiling for your corporate overlords, but since Ron Paul left office they haven't had much power. However, as I recall, Republican mega-donor Charles Koch allied with none other than Snoop Dogg to push for some reform on this front, so this might not remain a feature of our politics for too much longer (one can hope).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fun fact: The most prosperous societies on Earth are "socialist." I'm talking about Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the Netherlands, just to name a few. Do you mean to say that every time the government spends our taxpayer dollars on HELPING the American people by providing them with basic necessities that every other developed country already provides (universal healthcare, childcare, lower prescription drug costs, a liveable wage, paid maternity leave, etc.) instead of what our corrupt politicians have been spending it on thus far (endless war, the military-industrial complex, weapons for foreign countries, corporate subsidies, Wall Street bailouts, and so on), it is "communism"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh yeah, how so? John Fetterman isn't trying to BUY his way into the Senate. And he actually CARES about working people. Do you really think that celebrity Dr. Oz, a snake oil salesman and puppy killer, gives a damn about the ordinary Pennsylvanian with his multi-hundred million dollar fortune, his several mansions, and his ten properties overall? The man can't even answer the question of "How many houses do you own?" truthfully! Dr. Oz just wants lower taxes -- HE would be a disaster for all but the very rich! Oh, and he's also anti-freedom, I forgot to mention that part. No abortions, no contraception, no weed, no bodily autonomy or right to privacy of any kind in Oz's America! He wants SHARIA LAW!!! FETTERMAN for US SENATE!
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at the gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, garlic festival, Juneteenth celebration, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own house . . . Pretty much anywhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at the gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, garlic festival, Juneteenth celebration, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own house . . . Pretty much anywhere.
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bay5005 Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@faithparrish4990 Money isn't a social construct, it was originally based on the gold standard before government assigned a value to physical objects. There is some level of objectivity to this (a yacht is worth more than a pencil, for example) that depends on how difficult it is to design, obtain the resources for and construct said product. So money and market economics are very real (albeit not truly tanigble) things. As for houses, I don't think I have to explain that one. What are you living in right now? Is that really the best example you can come up with? Maybe you are implying private property, which according to Lockeian theory (upon which our country was founded) everyone has a right to. Private property is essential for prosperity, because free markets cannot function without it. This ties back to my other argument that, although not tangible in the truest sense of the word, it has very real implications for the real world. Finally, politics is just how people choose to govern one another. Who makes decisions for everyone to follow and how do we choose the people that make those decisions? It's a government created by men, who are fallible and any system they design involving their participation will be as well. (Someday we might create A.I. that makes perfectly rational decisions, but we hope for the sake of our species that they don't become our overlords.) Going back to gender, it does not have any physical manifestation nor does it have any real impacts on the functioning of our society that can't be replaced with biological sex. Therefore, it's utterly useless and only serves to create chaos and confusion, such as when we allow transgender "women" to compete against biological women in athletics or permit them to enter women's bathrooms and locker rooms. This madness has to end if we are to maintain any kind of social order, and it has to end soon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@faithparrish4990 Philosophy is about exploring questions that we will (almost certainly) never answer. It's about the metaphysical, the epistemological, and the moral aspects of human existence. It essentially exists to explore the questions that religion gives us the answers to by using reason, logic, and scientific principles. In other words, it's exactly the right approach we should take with respect to politics (because the church and state should be separate). However, traditional philosophy does NOT defend the right of individuals to choose whatever "gender" they prefer. If we were to address this a question philosophically--using reason, logic, and applying scientific principles--we would reach the same conclusion that a biologist would reach: that men CANNOT become women, or vice versa. Therefore, it is utterly absurd that we should pretend that they can. In my view, this position is as untenable as pretending that there's a magical fairy in the sky telling us all how we should behave. We cannot scientifically observe the transformation of male to female taking place, therefore we cannot pretend like it ACTUALLY happened. I can lie to you and to the whole world that I have colon cancer, but if no doctor can detect it then I am LYING. And if I insist that I have cancer anyway, then I might be referred to a psychiatrist who might diagnose me with a mental disorder. The same is true of gender. Either a person accepts the sex he or she is born with, that SCIENCE AFFIRMS he or she is, or they receive the mental health treatment they desperately need. We as a society should not be CATERING to people with a diagnosable and treatable mental illness. For the record, I am 100% in favor of gay marriage, because as I see it "marriage" itself is a commitment between two consenting adults to be faithful to one another. Homosexual couples should be given the exact same privileges heterosexual couples are afforded, free of discrimination. Just thought I'd clear that up.
1
-
@faithparrish4990 Why is this necessary? Because science should be superior. If we can't agree on science being objective truth, we cannot have reasoned debate. Period. If you have XX chromosomes, you are female. If you have XY, you are male. Period. This is not up for debate. Science trumps everything, especially when our observations are THIS well established and recognized. This is why every elementary school child learns basic biology. This is why we learn it AGAIN in high school in more depth. And once more in college if that's your chosen field (which I took in high school for a 2nd time in high school as an Advanced Placement course). I know what I'm talking about. I didn't Google search any of this, this is all from the top of my head. I listen and learn about this sort of thing day-in and day-out. I like getting a wide variety of opinions from people like Sam Harris and William Lane Craig. And no woke leftist is going to talk me out of denying the truth, denying reality itself. I don't care what you identify as, it's none of my business. What I DO care about is accepting the fundamental, basic principles of science as objective fact and basing our informed opinions on them. If we deny the very premise that science matters, then we lose all ability to have reasoned and productive debate. End of story. This is why I can't talk a Christian into accepting that homosexuality should be tolerated, or that the Earth is older than 6,000 years. They deny any scientific evidence that doesn't fit their ideology. And I suspect that is exactly what's happening in your case as well. Have a nice day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fustercluck2460 Embryos/fetuses aren't "persons," and therefore possess no rights. Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@solidarity8388 Well that's an unfair characterization if I've ever seen one. Hitchens made a point that men are by nature natural comedians, because it's up to the man to attract a mate, not the other way around (historically speaking, at least). So the trait for humor was selected in men far more than it was in women. That's natural selection (sexual selection, to be specific). There is nothing "misogynistic" about discussing rudimentary biological facts between the sexes. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant, because it's the truth. If the truth offends you, perhaps you need to reevaluate your priorities. Now, as most of us know, Hitch was also a journalist, and witnessed firsthand (far more than most ever will) the brutality of certain regimes and the destructiveness of certain ideas (religious ones especially). Among the long list of countries he's visited are North Korea and Iraq, the former he described as the most religious country he ever visited (North Koreans are raised to believe that Kim Il-sung still reigns over their land "in spirit"), and the latter as being dominated by a full-blown psychopath. If you watched his debate with Peter, you'll hear that he recalls witnessing firsthand the public execution of Iraqis for the most petty offenses, and family members receiving a front-row seat. This is just one of a long list of indescribable and inexplicable atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein's regime. Of course Hitch continued to defend his stance on the Iraq War long after the initial invasion, but there can be no doubt that his motivations for the principle of starting the war were morally justified --- whether or not it was effective in practice. There are other things Hitchens has said that I disagree with, but to slander him as a "misogynist" or a "warhawk" based on such weak evidence is as egregious an attempt at defamation as one can imagine. You can do better.
1
-
1
-
Seatbelt laws are deeply authoritarian. The government has no business whatsoever in enforcing policies that are meant to protect people FROM THEMSELVES. This is why I believe all drugs, including heroin, should be legalized (but highly regulated so that safety is maximized). I take the same stand towards seatbelts, speed limits, and other rules of the road. If there is no one to get hurt, except the driver, the laws meant to ensure safety are void. So a guy driving by himself should be allowed to not wear a seatbelt if he so chooses, because that's freedom. Similarly, a single car on the highway late at night can drive as fast as it wants, so long as there is no one else around to potentially impacted (such as in a residential area, an urban environment, school zone, business district, etc.). This is basic common sense. Just as there is no reason an individual should wait at a red light when there are no motorists or pedestrians in sight, so too should they have the liberty to take their safety into their own hands and disregard the speed limit when it is not necessary. The government's role is to get involved when there is a potential conflict between at least two separate parties, period. So yes, seatbelt laws in principle are as authoritarian as it gets.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time, liveable minimum wage, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lukeduran12 Well at least you're taking more of a realist approach to this topic. On that, I commend you. I agree 100% about the supply of fossil fuels and, as long as they last, people just aren't going to give up their cars or their electricity. So the only feasible option at the moment is waiting until they run out, and most of the experts agree that this will occur sometime before 2100. What we should be doing now is spending CRAZY amounts of money (think military budget) and working feverishly (think Operation Warp Speed) on finding a new source of infinite and clean energy. In the meantime, while working on that we can expand our nuclear, hydroelectric and geothermal (Yellowstone) technologies to supplant fossil fuel energy for electrical power. I don't think cows are going anywhere anytime soon, even though myself and many others don't eat beef and we are healthy as can be. And I hear where you're going with the carbon-capture techniques but like you said, I don't see them being rolled out on a sufficiently widespread scale to make much of a difference. In fact, if I remember correctly the ocean itself is a carbon sink, as are the many forests (Amazon) that use it for photosynthesis. Without a doubt they MUST be preserved.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
This dude runs the largest private charity foundation in the WORLD. He's pledged to donate 99.9% of his net worth to charitable causes, and has signed an agreement with Warren Buffett, George Soros, and others to give away 10% immediately (which, by the way, he has done as his foundation is worth tens of BILLIONS). There are pictures galore on the Internet of this guy administering oral doses of the polio vaccine in some of the poorest and most overcrowded places in the world. It's essentially his life's mission to ensure that women in developing countries have access to education and birth control so that their quality of life can be improved without seeing a dramatic (and unstable) skyrocketing of the population, which would exacerbate the problem (i.e. extreme poverty) much further. Now, none of this means that he wasn't involved in what Epstein was doing on his island, but if all billionaires were as dedicated as he is to the "effective altruism" movement (look it up), suffice it to say that the world we are living in today would be unrecognizable (and horrific). This guy could be spending the rest of his days racing the fanciest sports cars; instead he's occupied himself with personally vaccinating the world's poorest children against deadly and crippling diseases, running the globe's largest private charity, and alerting the public to the imminent threat of climate change. We could do a lot WORSE than Bill Gates, Kyle, and that's what you just don't understand. Or refuse to. I don't know which. Either way, maybe it's you who is the scumbag. Dislike. 👎
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above. There are no "rights" to speak of.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SusieNation You are asking this question to the right person, let me say that right off the bat. (I learn about this a lot in my free time). So yes, I can assure that there is a HUGE difference. Social liberals (the most common use of the term "liberal") believe in the leftist ideology to an extent. They tend to prefer more government intervention and social change (as opposed to classical liberals, which believe in the latter but want to keep government small, also known as libertarians; people like myself 😁), while leftists want the government to adopt a VASTLY greater role in the social and economic realms. They are also commonly referred to as "progressives." Modern-day examples include people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, and Ilhan Omar. Someone like Piers Morgan, Tulsi Gabbard, or Joe Biden would fit the more traditional definition of "liberal" (that is, social liberals). There's quite a difference between the two, and the Democratic Party itself seems to be split between the two ideologies (as shown by the Super Tuesday race between moderate Joe Biden and the more radical Bernie Sanders). They disagree on the level of government involvement in certain issues such as healthcare and climate change. But both, generally speaking, want to hand more power to the government than right-wingers and Republicans. Does it make sense now?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sophritoh First of all, gun control DOES make a difference. The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is second). Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun v-olence of any country in the world. Coincidence? I think not. Another source of evidence is the fact that 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: WorldPopulationReview)
And personally, I cannot take anyone seriously who believes the government could become "tyrannical" at any moment and that they need the means to defend themselves so as to (as Jefferson wrote) overthrow the government and establish a new one that fears the people, not dominates them (I'm totally on board with that, I lean towards anarchism) --- but who ALSO says that our military should be the most powerful in the world and that the bloated budget of $770 BILLION should be maintained or even increased year after year. Using history as our guide (the American Revolution, for example), who do they think the politicians or a dictator will use as his/her/their shield to remain in power? The MILITARY, of course. Did we already forget that it was the British army who defended their colonies in the Seven Years' War, and then when the colonies rebelled, that same military was used against them? You want the people who would potentially be defending a brutal dictator (the Commander-in-Chief) to have MORE sophisticated weapons and means of subjugation? Are you INSANE? Here at least the libertarians have an argument --- the gun-toting neoconservatives have no idea what they want in such a scenario. Hope the hearts of the people with the most firepower (our servicemen and women) are turned in our favor, I guess --- and there, I'm afraid to say, history is not on your side.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time, liveable minimum wage, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mendoza Juan So I guess Adam and Eve are real people then? And Noah fit millions of species on his tiny little ark during a flood that couldn't possibly have happened in that time frame? And the reason we have different languages is because some magical sky-fairy destroyed a tower and dispersed peoples all over the world? Do these sound like realistic historical explanations to you? No, it sounds like a bad attempt to explain why things are the way they are. The Bible isn't scientific at all. The creatures weren't "designed," they evolved by natural selection. If you want to use your lame "god of the gaps" argument to suggest that because we currently are incapable of grasping quantum physics, that's your prerogative. But every scientist worth his salt is going to laugh at you, because if the last 500 years has proven anything it's that science is figuring more things out all the time and that your "god" is running out of places to hide. Even questions we aren't capable of answering, such as the origin of the universe, will not at all provide any evidence for any particular religion. Because who's to say that Yahweh didn't create the universe as opposed to the Trinity, or Allah, or Zeus or Baal or Oden or Ra or Brahma? Other people have claimed to have "revelations" besides Jesus so I'm not at all impressed with the Christian religion. Nor do I buy the story that he is the "son" of some almighty being that sits outside the observable universe watching everyone's actions and answering all their prayers. Anyone with a modicum of common sense knows that organized religion is entirely fabricated and survived because it provided an evolutionary advantage and psychological comfort. The idea of a multiverse is much more probable than a grand dial-tuner who we can't define or apply any limits to, or even explain the existence of. It's pure speculation, and poor one at that. At least a multiverse can be explained through naturalistic means. The idea of a creator a) has no evidence supporting it, b) is unknowable by its very nature because it is not bound by physical limitations like everything else in this universe, and c) ultimately explains nothing because we can't explain the existence of such a being. Instead of being unable to explain the existence of the universe, we are instead unable to explain the existence of God. Combined with the fact that this deity is filled with logical contradictions (it can't be omnipotent and benevolent because of the problem of evil, nor can it be omniscient and omnipotent because it lacks the power to change the future, nor can it be perfect and omnipotent because children die of cancer), this "explanation" for the universe gets you absolutely nowhere. The default stance, therefore, is atheism; and that's where I am. I hope you'll join me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I either wholeheartedly agree with your rankings, or vehemently disagree. There is no in-between for me on this one. KitKats and Sour Punch straws are banging (though I do still the former are slightly overrated), but Reese's are NOT. Okay okay, before you throw candy corn at me, let me explain: I once thought it was a good idea (silly me) to mix in a small, ordinary Reese's peanut butter cup in some good ol' hot chocolate for dessert when on camping trip. Before you try it: DON'T. I used to be a big fan of Reese's just like Kyle, but that "experiment" simultaneously ruined BOTH hot chocolate and the peanut butter-and-chocolate combination for me (including peanut butter M&M's, which I used to love). Years later, the trauma still affects me. As to the eggs with creme, you HAVE to give them a shot. I know it seems weird, but those sh-ts are delicious AF. Solid S Tier. I'm also more a Milky Way guy myself (another S-Tier candy), and Snicker's is almost as good (A-Tier). Maltese are crunchy and weird, I tried them once expecting a soft Hershey's-like chocolate, and was severely disappointed. E-Tier for me. Pocky Sticks are pretty solid, and I would recommend you try them (A-Tier). And of course, I'm with you 100% on Twizzlers -- the only thing nastier than red licorice is black licorice. You're never changing my mind on that one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
1
-
0:48 The Falkland Islands is a country of about 4,000 people. That means the next closest country of considerable size to USA in terms of gun/citizen ratio is YEMEN, literally one of the WORST societies to live in at this moment. It would be a miracle if we had the highest ratio of guns to people and weren't at the top of the list of rates of gun violence in the developed world. Unfortunately, we're #1 by a long shot. On a national level (municipal/states are different, because guns bought legally in one locality can be easily transported to another), gun control WORKS. The countries with the lowest rates of gun violence are Japan, Singapore, and South Korea --- and in ALL of them it is against the law to own a firearm. A serious question remains about whether mandatory buybacks will really work (i.e. whether enough people will comply), but there is no doubt whatsoever that gun control at the NATIONAL level will reduce gun violence. At the very least, we should have universal background checks and a national registry so that people with a criminal record or who may pose a theat to others (if they're mentally unstable, for example) are unable to obtain a firearm, and a 5-year renewal period is enforced and red flag laws are in place so that people who suddenly become a danger to others don't have access to them. This is basic, common sense regulation (the same as speed limits) that would in no way infringe on your liberty --- unless you happen to fall into one of these high-risk categories, in which case your right to bear arms has been revoked to protect society at large. Another issue is gang violence, which could be dramatically reduced if we just legalized drugs, but that is a discussion for another time. It might also help to step up law enforcement in high-crime neighborhoods, not for drug raids (which I believe are a violation of individual liberty, but I digress), but to deter violent crimes. That, too, would go a long way in addressing the gun violence epidemic that has only gotten worse in the last few years. Oh yeah, and then gradually phasing out the sale of semi-automatic weapons would almost certainly cut down on the number of mass shootings, and when they do occur, make them less deadly as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I was in agreement all the way up until the very end. The truth is, there is quite a bit of overlap between right-wing and left-wing populists, at least in theory (see e.g. Krystal and Saagar on Breaking Points, who seem to agree with one another more often than not). Charlie Kirk and Cenk Uygur, for example, completely agreed that banning private equity in the housing market is integral to increasing affordability. Granted, in places where it matters the most, such as U.S. Congress, it's far less common (largely because both varieties of populists are few and far between due to the incentive structure created by campaign finance), but even there occasional points of agreement between the far right and far left will emerge. I'm old enough to remember when AOC teamed up with Matt Gaetz to ban stock trading for all Congresspeople and their families. So while they may not agree even on a majority of issues, the ones where they do often are some of the highest priorities for the progressive left, and if we need the support of right-wing populists to get it done, we should be doing everything we can to secure it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I cut soda out of my diet completely probably close to four years ago now. I used to drink it every night with dinner growing up, because that's what my parents were having. Then one day, sometime around my 18th birthday, I said to myself "I don't feel like having a Coke or Sprite yet again, I think I'll just have water," and I haven't looked back since. With the exception of the occasional cup of tea (at, say, a Chinese restaurant) or -- since turning 21 -- wine cooler, all I drink is water. Sports drinks (like Gatorade) are popular in my area, but I find them disgusting -- calling them "flavored water" is almost too kind (though that's what they are). Same thing is true of energy drinks (Monster, Red Bull, Rockstar, etc.) and coffee. Now, I would only drink a bottle of Coke if I was out in the desert and severely dehydrated -- and even then I will have to hold my nose. Curiously, I have only had a temptation to break my streak when I am struck by a sudden, odd craving for orange soda (e.g. Fanta). When it hits, only then will I consider a soft drink if alternatives are available. All that said, I do not believe that kicking the soda habit has made me superhuman -- though it does save some money, and that in itself I think makes it all worth the effort.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is second). Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun v-olence of any country in the world. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jeremy Dionisio Hm, maybe because Zeus was the god of thunder? And so was Thor? Maybe those are good indicators. If what the ancients say were true, we would still be witnessing the effects they were describing. But science has progressed too far for that. We know why volcanoes erupt, the ground shakes, and lightning strikes down from the sky. And it isn't because the gods are mad. This is the god of the gaps I was describing. Today, the gaps are free will (or the illusion of it), consciousness, the origin of the cosmos, the beginning of life, and so-called "objective" moral values. And each one of these fails to stand up to scrutiny when the concept of an all-mighty "creator" is proposed. It didn't solve anything 2,500 years ago, and it won't solve anything today. Only science is capable of solutions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@youtubesucks1108 Ignorant? Are you telling me that I'm ingorant? Ignorant about what? Santa Claus? Garden gnomes? Elves? UNICORNS? Exactly WHAT am I "ignorant" about?!! I probably know MORE about this subject than you do! The cosmological argument? All you do is push the problem back one step further! Who created god?! It's just as likely we're living in a multiverse, if not more so because that explanation actually makes scientific sense! The teleological argument? That just confuses "order" with design! The "moral" argument? I don't believe there are moral absolutes! We have developed an inner sense of "morality" because of our evolutionary past and we have been conditioned to be so by society. It's all easily explained without the assumption of a supreme being who is "all good" (which, by the way, is the exact opposite of the capricious son of a b** in the Old Testament). So what have YOU got? Go ahead, give me some "evidence" for this all-powerful "creator" that answers prayers and cares who I sleep with and in what position. Until such time, don't you DARE ever insinuate that I am "ignorant" ever again! Remember, I am in good company. I have Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, and Bertrand Russell on MY side, not yours! Have a nice day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time, liveable minimum wage, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnsmit5999 Wrong. Instead of relying on answers that came out of thin air and must never be questioned, our morals would derive from philosophy. Philosophy often doesn't have final answers, and that's the way it should be if we are to maintain any kind of civility. In a totally theocratic dictatorship, there will always be those who dissent for the simple reason that "god" cannot be PROVEN to exist. Therefore, why should they live by laws based on what might actually be a fantasy? You can either exterminate them (like Hitler did), relocate them (bringing up all sorts of ethical dilemmas), or hide them away (i.e. lock them up) simply for having a different viewpoint. These are your three options if you want to live in a country that truly derives all its morals from religion. What's the alternative then? The philosophical approach, which takes its ideas of separation of church and state and human reason as the prime solution to constructing a civilized society in the form of sophisticated debate and clash of ideas. The best ideas win out and are what is implemented. This of course has the potential for conflict within the political system, which usually encourages the most popular ideas to be the winners, but there are various ways to reconcile the two. The notion that atheists have no moral compass whatsoever is absolutely absurd. We just choose to derive ours from philosophy, reason and science rather than a sky fairy. But to each their own. I won't tell you that your morals are wrong, but I will say that if you believe homosexuality should be illegal just because an anachronistic book says it's immoral, I'll have to inform you that you are deeply misguided.
1
-
1
-
For being wrong?
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “mutilation” as follows: ”An act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal.” Alternatively, the same dictionary also defines it as “an act or instance of damaging or altering something radically.” Hence, radical or severe “damage” or “alteration” is a necessary component in order to satisfy the most commonly accepted definitions of “mutilation.” With that in mind, let’s proceed with the argument.
Any proposed "ban" is up to the medical experts. The AAP and CDC each released statements (in 2012 and 2014, respectively) endorsing the procedure for prophylactic reasons, and concluded that it is an appropriate matter for parents along with their doctors to decide. Do you trust the medical community or not? I do in all matters, not just in transitioning children, abortion, COVID-19, and vaccines. (The science on this, by the way, is very clear. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet; stick to the hard evidence, not propaganda. Otherwise, you're no better (epistemologically speaking) than a climate denier who has become convinced by sites such as WattsUpWithThat. Look at the studies themselves if you want the details. Simply dismissing them out of hand, such as by claiming they're "flawed" without evidence, is akin to denying climate change without having reviewed any of the supporting facts and data underlying the theory.)
However, I believe in four reforms should be enacted: 1) any financial incentive needs to be eliminated (as would happen under single-payer healthcare), but the cost (~$150-200) must be borne by the parents due to the surgery's elective nature, 2) doctors should have the option of refusing to perform if they have a moral objection (like in the U.K.), so both parents AND the doctor must agree, 3) parents must specifically request it (so the default is that it is not performed), and 4) regulations require that the surgery is executed by a trained medical professional in a sterilized environment under anesthesia via block injection (thereby outlawing the traditional Jewish method, where most de@ths occur. As an aside, the concern about the link between acetaminophen use in pregnancy, infancy, and early childhood and ASD is valid, but as of now the AAP, AAFP, and FDA still recommend it for fever and pain reduction in babies). Hence, ideally, it would remain legal, as it is in literally every other country in the world (though South Africa and Iceland (lol) have made attempts to outlaw it), but fewer and fewer parents would choose it, and as the culture shifts it would eventually fall out of favor entirely -- the exact same process as what occurred in parts of Europe and throughout most of the Commonwealth (and is currently happening in South Korea as well).
As for why it must be performed in infancy and cannot wait until adulthood when the person can give consent, which is a reasonable objection, the reasons are numerous. First, the risk of complications are much lower at this stage (~.5% compared to ~3%) and are predominantly minor. Second, some benefits (such as lower risk of penile cancer and UTI's in infancy and early childhood, which can cause liver damage) are only conferred when it's done in infancy. Third, the inconvenience is greatly lessened -- recovery time is shorter, there are no stitches involved, and there is no need to take time off work or abstain from s-xual activity. Finally, some studies have found that there is a slightly higher chance of negative impact to function in nonmedical cases when the surgery is done later in life (perhaps attributable to greater complications), though this is in dispute due to the low quality of the evidence. It also helps, of course, that babies don't form memories of the experience -- a fact that many men who consider it later in life are quite jealous of (29% of uncut men wish they were, as opposed to 10% of cut men who wish they weren't, according to a YouGov poll from 2015). Impacts to psychological functioning, by the way, are pure speculation and a complete myth, and are, once again, utterly unsupported by the evidence. (There's more proof, I would argue, that it increases the odds of winning a Nobel Prize.)
And, please, don't consider responding with an objection that "it reduces s-xual pleasure," because the highest quality evidence consistently finds that it does not in the vast majority of men (such as VMMC randomized controlled trials in Africa and the Dominican Republic) -- and, indeed, having researched this topic for four-and-a-half years myself, this is perfectly consistent with the numerous accounts I've seen from men who have had the surgery as adults (both for medical reasons and not), and who consequently experienced both sides. My own speculative explanation for this (based on research) is that, in most cases, much of the inner lining is retained (i.e. "mid" to "high" cuts are the norm), sensitivity to temperature is more important than light-touch, the brain "adjusts" to the deficit over a period of about six months to one year (some men have testified to this), the mechanics differ post-surgery, and the oft-cited figure of "20,000 nerve endings" is a wild overestimate based on a sample size of ONE that employed shoddy statistics (by a convicted fraudster and HIV/AIDS denialist, no less).
(Side note: I am well aware of the history of the practice in America, but it is quite irrelevant to the discussion as it pertains to ethics; claiming that it's wrong merely because the person to start the trend, William Harvey Kellogg, believed that it would prevent m@sturbation is functionally equivalent to condemning Planned Parenthood because its founder, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist. Comparisons to FGM are also not apt: the latter offers negligible or no medical, health, hygiene, or aesthetic benefits, and is quite often much more severe. I'm an atheist, but I'm also willing to acknowledge when certain beliefs, practices, rituals, etc. are beneficial based on scientific findings, or at least not harmful, as are other critical thinkers like Martha Nussbaum and Sam Harris. Also, the historical evidence strongly indicates that the the trend only caught on decades later after initially introduced, during both World Wars to maintain hygiene during trench warfare, but that's another matter.)
"Our risk-benefit analysis showed that benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by up to 200 to 1. We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime. Wide-ranging evidence from surveys, physiological measurements, and the anatomical location of penile sensory receptors responsible for sexual sensation strongly and consistently suggest that male circumcision has no detrimental effect on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure." (Emphasis added.) That is according to a meta-analysis published in the World Journal of Clinical Pediatrics in 2017.
"The hypothesis of inferior male sexual function following circumcision is not supported by the findings of this systematic review. The popular narrative that male circumcision results in sexual dysfunction does not seem to be supported by evidence." (Shabanzadeh) Taken directly from a review published in the Danish Medical Journal in 2016, which is run by the Danish Medical Association — not exactly an organization biased in favor of this operation. Furthermore, "the Danish Health Authorities do not recommend a law-enforced ban of non-medical circumcisions in Denmark based on these low rates of short-term complications." (Emphasis mine.) Hm, it's almost like the evidence doesn't support the notion that circumcision is harmful and should be banned, and even Scandinavian societies have recognized this. Go figure.
For all these reasons, I believe it is more accurately described as "modification" rather than "mutilation" (this latter descriptor being about as felicitous as labeling abortion "murder," and employed for essentially the same purpose: eliciting an irrational, emotional response). Having invested literally hundreds of hours of my time reading about this topic (hence the long rant chock-full of medical information), I am quite confident that I'm more qualified to speak on it than anyone who might be reading this, and these are the conclusions that I have reached. (And, for the record, I do not intend on having the surgery performed on any of my children because I personally believe bodily autonomy concerns outweigh the benefits -- after all, modifications are still, almost by definition, unnecessary. Others may reasonably hold a different view.) If you're curious to learn more, I recommend the following sources: the Canadian Pediatric Society has released a fair, balanced, and thorough assessment that was reaffirmed in 2021 (though not as comprehensive as the AAP's); for an expert's opinion, member of the American Urological Association Dr. Aaron Spitz has written about this in some detail; and, finally, for those curious about the ethics of the issue (particularly those with a consequentialist utilitarian bent, like myself), atheist antinatalist South African philosopher David Benatar (who, an activist himself, writes frequently on men's rights issues) has much insightful commentary to offer as well. Happy reading.
P.S. You know who else hated circumcision? NAZIS!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertsmith-cj6gl Only such people as Aretha Franklin, Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, Norman Rockwell, Walt Disney, John Wayne, Doris Day, Meryl Streep, Steven Spielberg, Robert De Niro, Tom Hanks, T.S. Eliot, John Steinbeck, Harper Lee, Aaron Copland, Bob Dylan, Steven Wonder, Barbara Streisand, Bruce Springsteen, Henry Ford II, Milton Friedman, Sam Walton, Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Oprah Winfrey, Ellen DeGeneres, Ben Carson, Anthony Fauci, Bill and Melinda Gates, Martin Luther King Jr., Cesar Chavez, Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela, Tony Blair, George McGovern, John Lewis, Billy Graham, James D. Watson, Stephen Hawking, Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin, John Glenn, Jackie Robinson, Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods. You know, only unremarkable individuals.
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Who's trash again?!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, elder care, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@skydiver1013 Oh, you want a non-biased source? How about Fox News or Newsmax? Or Breitbart? Or maybe Redstate? 🙄 Come on, you have to be joking. This issue isn't a matter of opinion; it's one of fact. We have all the evidence to prove that a) GHG's cause climate change by means of the "greenhouse effect," and b) that humans are contributing FAR MORE to the global total than anything in nature. The only two questions remaining is just how severe the consequences are going to be, and what should be done to prevent them. It's not my fault if you're too ignorant (or too stupid) to do the minimal amount of research necessary to find all the evidence that anthropomorphic climate is occurring. And of course we want to solve all of the other problems you mentioned. Here, I'll go one by one and prove it:
Poverty: Redistribution of wealth in the form of social programs. Tax the rich and use that money to nationalize the pharmaceutical industry and implement a single-payer healthcare system. Provide free college tuition for all American citizens meeting certain education requirements. Expand access to welfare, mental health clinics, and rehabilitation facilities, including a program that would allow drug addicts to take psychedelics under supervision of an experienced health professional. Use federal funds to create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the energy industry to achieve a sustainable future. Provide low-income housing to give the homeless a head start, and reform the banking system so that they can take out a loan with little or no credit history.
Hunger: This one's easy. Domestically, this problem can be addressed by solving poverty, such as by making use of the solutions listed above. Internationally, the U.S. may deliver humanitarian aid (NOT foreign aid in the form of currency, but food and supplies) to the poorest regions of the world. Perhaps the area suffering the most is Yemen, but at the moment we are not permitted to provide assistance because we're equipping Saudi Arabia with the tools they need to carry out a genocide. This brings me to my next point:
Violence/war: End U.S. participation in all foreign conflicts. We are not the world's police force, and most of the time the country we invaded ends up worse off than it was before (e.g. Iraq). Obviously, this includes a complete withdrawal out of Afghanistan and ending our operations with Saudi Arabia. Just taking these two steps will go a long way in establishing peace abroad. Our involvement in the Middle East should have come to an end a long time ago. By the same token, Israel will no longer receive any financial assistance from us, because they have established their own apartheid-like state with respect to the Palestinians. Give them their own territory (i.e. the West Bank and the Gaza Strip), and we may reconsider. Domestically, reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. The more that are bought and sold, the more lives will be lost in the form of mass shootings. This is a verifiable statistic, and you can look it up for yourself if you wish. The U.S. has more guns per capita than any other country in the world, so it's no surprise that it also has the highest rates (i.e. percentages, not raw numbers) of gun violence of any developed nation. The only country that even comes close is Yemen, and as we have already seen, that's not something to be proud of. Moreover, legalize, tax, and regulate all but the most dangerous drugs and decriminalize the rest. This will put the Mexican cartels out of business, solving the border crisis over time (which is erroneously often used as a scapegoat by uneducated right-wingers for high rates of violence, typically to justify tougher laws on immigration). Additionally, domestic disputes will decline as adults addicted to alcohol, opioids, or other substances have access not only to safer and milder alternatives (such as weed), but also to rehabilitation programs that do not put them in jail but encourage them to overcome their addiction and perhaps induce a psychedelic experience using psilocybin, LSD or DMT, which frequently facilitates a transition away from these substances.
Infectious disease: Really? Do we seriously need to go here? It was a Republican President who disbanded the commission for disease prevention in the National Security Council (Global Health Security and Biodefense) in 2018. Democrats in Congress, as far as I know want to take every measure to ensure that a pandemic of this magnitude never happens again. It's the "budget-hawk" Republicans who will block every attempt at increasing funds in this department. This is just a flat-out lie.
Cancer research: Name me 1 time a Democrat in Congress opposed funding for this purpose. It doesn't happen. What does happen is that the free market lunatics want Big Pharma to develop their own treatments independently, and then charge an arm and a leg to have access to them. What's the point of developing a cure if none but the most wealthy can receive it, or the developer can put a patent on it so they can make a profit at the expense of the lives of the people? This is beyond greedy, it's inhumane.
Pollution/overfishing/adequate sanitation/education and clean water: Wow, now you're sounding just like a straight-blue Democrat. Of course all those things are priorities, which is why we have departments in the government (such as the EPA) to oversee activities that may cause them. Even though it was established by Richard Nixon, not too many Republicans are fans of the EPA and other such agencies (I've heard it called the "Employment Prevention Agency"). But without them, there would be no oversight at all, because businesses aren't incentivized to protect the environment and the Tragedy of the Commons will prevail. This is why rugged individualism fails, and some form of collectivism is sometimes necessary. And of course, we can't forget about education. Which party is proposing a bill right now that would expand the budget in this area, and which party has their own alternative bill that leaves out this priority? I want to you look this up and get back to me. Until then, have fun educating yourself on the basics of American politics. 🤦♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
Also, nobody cares about your book of fairy tales. Do you care about Homer's the Iliad and the Odyssey, the Vedas, the Pyramid texts, the Coffin texts, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Instruction of Amenemope, the Book of Caverns, the Book of Gates, the Amdaut, the Book of the Heavenly Cow, the Code of Hammurabi, the Kesh Temple Hymn, the Popol Vuh, the Avesta, the Koran, or the writings of Herodotus? Yeah, that's what I thought.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michheanreth2596 Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
Wrong. Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Perkz 45 ✰ Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thomasgreene4709 Do you care that 45,000 Americans die each year because they lack health insurance? Or all the starving homeless who can barely feed themselves? Or the failure to extend the child tax credit, which has sent child poverty skyrocketing? Or how about all the innocent civilians we slaughtered in our pointless war campaigns overseas? And don't even get me started on the world's poorest citizens, whether it's the fact that we fund and arm Saudi Arabia, who is actively carrying out a genocide in Yemen at this very moment, or the sanctions we have on Afghanistan, putting tens of millions at risk of starvation, or the fact that we donate far less as a proportion of our GDP in foreign aid to assist the worst off in our world. Oh, and I almost forgot to mention our other ally in the region, Israel, which is an apartheid state illegally occupying foreign territory and has indiscriminately slaughtered innocent Palestinans, repeatedly showing a complete and utter disrgard for human life, and who we fund and arm to the teeth. So please, don't tell me that it's the Democrats who are pro-death, if you're willing to admit that one other major political party in America is more culpable for these atrocities.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kevin6293 The birth of a man we don't even know existed, don't have an exact date on (in one story (Matthew), Joseph leaves Bethlehem because Herod has ordered a slaughter of first-borns; in another (Luke), the Roman consul is demanding that everyone return to their ancestral hometown for a census, a practice which is never recorded as happening anywhere in the Roman Empire). Oh, and don't forget: the wise men were sent by Herod to kill Jesus, but changed their minds at the last minute and presented him with gifts instead. And just one more small detail to add: Besides this highly historically implausible story (rising to the level of a fairy tale), nowhere in the NT does it suggest that Jesus's birthday is to be celebrated. In fact, NT doesn't even provide an exact date of this supposed event --- no month, no day, and not even a year. But we can't expect a holiday with pagan origins to adhere too closely to the Biblical text, now can we? On the plus side, there is an injuction to commemerate the date of Jesus's death and resurrection, so there is at least Biblical justification for the celebration of Easter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As a conservative, all I care about is:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
Because that's what's important!
Smh, I hope you get banned again. 🤦♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
Personally, I cannot take anyone seriously who believes the government could become "tyrannical" at any moment and that they need the means to defend themselves so as to (as Jefferson wrote) overthrow the government and establish a new one that fears the people, not dominates them (I'm totally on board with that, I lean towards anarchism) --- but who ALSO says that our military should be the most powerful in the world and that the bloated budget of $770 BILLION should be maintained or even increased year after year. Using history as our guide (the American Revolution, for example), who do they think the politicians or a dictator will use as his/her/their shield to remain in power? The MILITARY, of course. Did we already forget that it was the British army who defended their colonies in the Seven Years' War, and then when the colonies rebelled, that same military was used against them? You want the people who would potentially be defending a brutal dictator (the Commander-in-Chief) to have MORE sophisticated weapons and means of subjugation? Are you INSANE? Here at least the libertarians have an argument --- the gun-toting neoconservatives have no idea what they want in such a scenario. Hope the hearts of the people with the most firepower (our servicemen and women) are turned in our favor, I guess --- and there, I'm afraid to say, history is not on your side.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm sincerely baffled how these states just don't do the obvious, and replace their expensive drug cocktail that is no longer available (because the ingredients were being imported from Europe) with a single substance that is widely available and even has some medical uses (mostly for animals): fentanyl. From what I've heard from people who overdosed and nearly died (revived using Narcan), it was like they were gently but quickly put in a state of deep relaxation, and then they passed out. If there is an "ethical" way to execute, that might be it (or I suppose anesthesia could work as well, which is also used for euthanasia in other parts of the world). But it my personal belief that life in prison is a worse punishment, as it is essentially a death sentence but where the date of your final breath is unknown. (And people often spend many years, even decades, on death row anyway.)
"This puts us on a list of countries that we don't want to be on." You mean like Japan, one of the world's most advanced economies and where 80% of the population is in favor of capital punishment? Come on Kyle, opposition to the death penalty is a totally defensible position, and there is no reason you should ever feel the temptation to mislead by omitting essential information, let alone succumb to it. I have great respect for your point of view, but I also hold you to a higher standard than most others in the political commentary space. It does not require perfection, but it certainly asks a lot more of you than what you have offered here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: WorldPopulationReview)
1
-
1
-
Absurd. Embryos/fetuses aren't "persons," and therefore possess no rights. Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above. Young Black children, on the other hand, clearly are "persons" in any sense of the word. Who is trying to strip away the voting rights of minorities again? It isn't the Democrats.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards), like Social Security and Medicare
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity/medical leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, and so on)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is such a breath of fresh air. Yeah, the billionaires have gotten away with paying next to nothing in taxes (don't believe me? Just ask them, Warren Buffett admits it!), INCLUDING on their federal income taxes, where the effective tax rate is far lower than the average worker! And of course, the shares they own (which make up the majority of their wealth) are not taxed at all. What we have in this country is effectively a regressive tax system, where they get to hoard billions while our infrastructure falls apart and hundreds of thousands of AMERICANS (not "illegal aliens") in desperate need are being neglected. I'm sick of it! And if you're somehow against raising taxes on the wealthy, because of "freedom" or whatever, you can go cry me a river! Better yet, how about you do it for the thousands of people living in Flint, Michigan who STILL don't have clean water to drink!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As a Californian, I didn't vote last time around (I had just turned 18), when Senator Feinstein was challenged by Kevin De León. I most definitely will this time, and my knowledge of California politics tells me that, should she choose to run for re-election, voters here won't make an Iowa/Chuck Grassley mistake. Porter would make a fantastic Senator, aside from any comparisons to the incumbent (who also happens to be one of the most corrupt in terms of trading on the stock market). Ro Khanna's time will come, perhaps in 2028. And if I'm still a resident here, I look forward to supporting him in his Senate bid. First Bernie, then John Fetterman, and now hopefully Katie Porter -- progressives are once again beginning to take control of the U.S. Senate, and I'm loving every second of it. Porter 2024!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@janine-Saved-By-Grace-Alone Abortion does not fall under the category of "murder." Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Personally, I cannot take anyone seriously who believes the government could become "tyrannical" at any moment and that they need the means to defend themselves so as to (as Jefferson wrote) overthrow the government and establish a new one that fears the people, not dominates them (I'm totally on board with that, I lean towards anarchism) --- but who ALSO says that our military should be the most powerful in the world and that the bloated budget of $770 BILLION should be maintained or even increased year after year. Using history as our guide (the American Revolution, for example), who do they think the politicians or a dictator will use as his/her/their shield to remain in power? The MILITARY, of course. Did we already forget that it was the British army who defended their colonies in the Seven Years' War, and then when the colonies rebelled, that same military was used against them? You want the people who would potentially be defending a brutal dictator (the Commander-in-Chief) to have MORE sophisticated weapons and means of subjugation? Are you INSANE? Here at least the libertarians have an argument --- the gun-toting neoconservatives have no idea what they want in such a scenario. Hope the hearts of the people with the most firepower (our servicemen and women) are turned in our favor, I guess --- and there, I'm afraid to say, history is not on your side.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@clarkstrange2142 You don't even know the meaning of the word "racism." You have no idea how much harm the Bible has caused Africans, African-Americans, Native Americans, Asians, Aborigines, and people of the Middle East. All at the hands of white Christians who thought they were promoting the one "true" faith. Thomas Jefferson literally coined the term "separation of church and state," meaning that these two domains remain SEPARATED from one another. So not only are churches not taxed, but they don't preach THEIR morals in our government. But if we held to this doctrine, the Republican Party would lose its entire platform. And I hope they do. Of course Jefferson was a deist; look what happened to those who didn't believe in a supreme being of any kind in those days (e.g. David Hume). But he was far from being the theocrat most Christian conservatives today want to paint him as. He was anything but, and that's why I honor him in my profile picture. In my mind, I'm continuing his legacy by fighting for the very thing he wrote in a letter over 200 years ago. You want to slander atheists as "rac*st," but the hypocrisy couldn't be more staggering. Exodus 21 has done far more harm to advancing racial equality than any atheist has ever dreamed of. Have a nice day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@clarkstrange2142 I'm not sick of the anti-Christian rhetoric at all. In fact, I'm enjoying every second of it. It's about time this nasty religion has repented for its sins. But the key flaw in your logic is that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. did not k*ll in the name of atheism. Those atrocities were committed in the name of fulfilling a communist "utopia" that (evidently) never came to pass. But in them you and I have a common enemy. They were authoritarians, and as a libertarian I am on the complete opposite side of the spectrum from them. I believe in the power of social democracy, whereby social programs could be provided for the welfare of the people and lessen the wealth inequality via taxation. Some of the most secular countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark) consistently rank at the top on happiness indexes and overall prosperity. The U.S. could climb up there as well if we work to root out corruption and overthrow the ideology that has hindered our social progress for decades: conservatism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're not "pro-life" if you only support measures conducive to life before it exits the womb. Are you equally outraged about the fact that innocent children and fully-grown human beings halfway around the world are being bombed into oblivion by our military? Or that tens of millions of AMERICANS are uninsured and 45,000 die each year due to a lack of health insurance? How about the future generations that will be completely wiped out because minimal action is being taken to address the impending climate catastrophe? Do you support the most basic regulations that would ensure that those precious unborn children won't be brutally gunned down when they reach the 3rd grade?
And don't even get me started on non-human life. The suffering of hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows we slaughter alive each and every day merely because we enjoy the taste of their flesh is ASTRONOMICAL compared to all abortions humanity has ever performed COMBINED. Does the life of that unborn child matter if it is gay or transgender, or would it be better off if it was "six feet under"? Prove to me that you believe life matters AFTER it has left the womb by pressuring your legal representatives to pass paid maternity leave and universal childcare, as the USA remains the ONLY developed country that does not provide these services. Better yet, demand that those children earn enough to make a decent living when they grow older by supporting raising the minimum wage and unionization efforts. Make it clear that you demand action on criminal justice reform, starting with abolishing the barbaric practice of state-sanctioned execution which more closely aligns the US with Saudi Arabia than with any of our peer nations in Europe. Finally, vigorously oppose any measure to engage in an unjustified and illegal offensive halfway around the world that costs taxpayers trillions of dollars and steals the lives of thousands of innocent Americans (usually young men).
George Carlin called out this blatant hypocrisy decades ago.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f-cked."
Embryos/fetuses prior to 18 weeks gestation cannot suffer (let alone possess any form of sentience or consciousness), and that infuriates conservatives. So in order to maximize human misery (their ultimate agenda), they seek to outlaw it so that mothers are forced to give birth and those children grow up in destitute and dysfunctional households with little to no social support, receive a poor quality education and either saddle themselves with student debt or serve in the armed forces, only to end up wounded/severely traumatized with no guaranteed healthcare and/or slaving away for a corporation for baseline wages -- all the while ensuring maximum penalties for engaging in sexual activity -- and finally growing old and retiring in little comfort due to a rapidly diminishing allowance in the form of Social Security. And then the cycle repeats itself. That's the world Republicans want, whether they are cognizant of it or not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alanyoung6747 Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ignatiusjackson235 "You don't need to believe in God in order to believe that a human fetus ought to be granted human rights." Is that so? I beg to differ. Only religious dogma can provide a coherent and logical explanation as to why the life of a human fetus is more important than, say, the life of a skunk fetus. There is nothing inherently special about human DNA (the "building blocks" of life that serve as the instructions for constructing an organism) --- unless of course you happen to believe that humans are imbued with a very special "spirit" (often referred to as a "soul") that other members of the animal kingdom, even though they are in every sense comprised of the exact same substances we are in material structure, are not. I don't have to bother explaining why such a view is not supported by any of the available evidence, but I will elaborate on the implications that such an admission (namely, that humans are no more different materially than the rest of the animal kingdom), if you would grant it to me, will have on the bioethics of abortion. If humans are not special, then a fetus --- whether human or not --- will not carry any moral significance on the basis of species membership. If this is so, then another basis for defending the "right" of a (human) fetus to live will need to be determined. In the absence of any such foundation, we can assess whether the life of a fetus is indispensable from a (hedonistic) utilitarian perspective; that is, the action that promotes the greatest happiness (i.e. pleasure) is right, and that which results in the greatest suffering (i.e. pain) is wrong. If the fetus cannot feel pain (and embryologists have estimated that it cannot until approximately 18 weeks gestation), then it is not a moral patient. Period. None of us would have qualms about kicking a rock, because rocks cannot suffer. And so it is with a human fetus up until ~18 weeks. From that point forward (again taking the utilitarian perspective), however, the interests of the fetus (not suffering) will have to be counterbalanced against the interests of the mother (giving birth, nurturing, financially providing, sacrifices, emotional attachment, etc.), and a conclusion can be drawn as to which action is the morally correct one. Optimally, the fetus wouldn't even reach the stage of its development when it can experience pain before a decision is made --- and indeed, statistics show that in the U.S., 98% of abortions occur within the first trimester (about 13 weeks). It is also not relevant to say that because it has the potential to become a human being, that it therefore deserves to have all the rights of a human being. Prince Charles has the potential to become King, but that does not mean he is King (at least not yet) --- and therefore he is not the reigning monarch. Similarly, a fetus cannot enter preschool, and an American child cannot (legally) purchase a gun. A "right to life" or "right to bear arms" isn't something that's given to you the moment you're conceived; it's something handed to you as you grow and develop. The only moral case one can make that human lives are "special" is that we can attain a higher level of consciousness than all other creatures (from which stems all our creative output), and that presumably also confers upon us a greater capacity for suffering. But none of this applies to a being that doesn't possess, nor has ever possessed, such a high level of cognitive functioning. And as I have just explained, the assertion that it might possess such a thing sometime in the future is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. Otherwise, we would hold funerals for every miscarriage, for starters. As George Carlin once said, "Not every ejaculation deserves a name." (Sperms are 50% human, after all.) Quite simply, there is no moral case to be made against abortion from a purely secular perspective. May I suggest you read something by Peter Singer, Practical Ethics perhaps?
P.S. The verse you're looking for is Numbers 5:19-23. Considering that this is the only place where abortion is referenced in the Bible, it would seem to me that it is much, much easier for a Christian to make the case that abortion is morally acceptable (at least in cases of infidelity) than it is for them to argue, using their religious text as a primary source, that it is a sin. But what I find truly astounding is that anyone of sound mind would take the scribblings of some obscure tribe of superstitious goat-herders in the ancient Near East seriously, especially following the discovery that they sincerely believed that the planet on which they lived is shaped like a pancake and sits at the center of the universe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brothersandsistersofvalhalla Have you read The Communist Manifesto? Marx wouldn't even allow people to own private property. That means they government would have the right to seize your house and your car, and convert them into public property (best case scenario; worst case scenario they will take them for themselves and hold a gun to your head if you protest). You call that "freedom"? If so, I don't know where your head is at. Also, Marx specifically advocated for a planned economy, where the proletariat (i.e. the "workers") run the country and own the means of production. Now, you might say that the USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, and North Korea "hijacked" the original intent behind Communism, and that's probably fair, but such criticism in no way diminishes the concern over whether "true Communism" is even attainable. Communism is an authoritarian ideology by nature, and Marx himself admitted as much: He said such a revolution may only be brought about by means of "despotic inroads." If you have seen what life is like in North Korea right now, or under Stalin's Russia or Mao's China or Pol Pot's Cambodia, I don't know how much more terrifying you need this ideology to get before you admit that a more libertarian form of left-wing economics (Social Democracy, democratic socialism, anarcho-syndicalism --- whichever you prefer) is perhaps the better option, especially considering that the Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark) have much such effective use of them.
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history
1
-
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at the gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own house . . . Pretty much anywhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're not "pro-life" if you only support measures conducive to life before it exits the womb. Are you equally outraged about the fact that millions of innocent men, women, and children halfway around the world are being bombed into oblivion by our military or starved to death by our sanctions (and those of our allies)? Or that close to 70 MILLION Americans are uninsured/underinsured and 45,000 die each year due to a lack of proper healthcare? How about the future generations that will be completely wiped out because minimal action is being taken to address the impending climate catastrophe? Do you support the most basic regulations that would ensure that those precious unborn children won't be brutally gunned down once they reach the 3rd grade?
And don't even get me started on non-human life. The suffering of hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows we slaughter alive each and every day merely because we enjoy the taste of their flesh is ASTRONOMICAL compared to all abortions humanity has ever performed COMBINED. Does the life of that unborn child matter if it is gay or transgender, or would it be better off if it was "six feet under"? Prove to me that you believe life matters AFTER it has left the womb by pressuring your legal representatives to pass paid maternity leave and universal childcare, as the USA remains the ONLY developed country that does not provide these services. Better yet, demand that those children earn enough to make a decent living for themselves and their families when they grow older by advocating for raising the minimum wage and unionization efforts. Make it clear that you demand action on criminal justice reform, starting with abolishing the barbaric practice of state-sanctioned execution which more closely aligns the US with Saudi Arabia than with any of our peer nations in Europe. Finally, vigorously oppose any measure to engage in an unjustified and illegal offensive halfway around the world that costs taxpayers trillions of dollars and steals the lives of thousands of innocent Americans (usually young men).
George Carlin called out this blatant hypocrisy decades ago.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f-cked."
Embryos/fetuses prior to 18 weeks gestation cannot suffer (let alone possess any form of sentience or consciousness), and that infuriates conservatives. So in order to maximize human misery (their ultimate agenda), they seek to outlaw it so that mothers are forced to give birth and those children grow up in destitute and dysfunctional households with little to no social support, receive a poor quality education and either saddle themselves with student debt or serve in the armed forces, only to end up wounded/severely traumatized with no guaranteed healthcare and/or slaving away for a corporation for baseline wages -- all the while ensuring maximum penalties for engaging in sexual activity -- and finally growing old and retiring in little comfort due to a rapidly diminishing allowance in the form of Social Security. Then the cycle repeats itself. And that's not even taking into consideration the potential consequences of overpopulation -- resources will be spread thinner and thinner until, at a certain point, the damage done to our planet will be so severe that human civilization will be all but wiped off the face of the Earth. Think how much worse off we would be TODAY if we added 60+ million to our population (approximately the number of fetuses aborted since 1973). Famine, war, and widepread civil unrest are just the beginning. That's the world Republicans want -- a dystopian Malthusian/Orwellian hellscape -- whether they are cognizant of it or not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, it isn't. Good thing abortion isn't murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@IssyFishyy Clearly you don't understand the science. Monekys, dogs, and dolphins DO have consciousness, all it takes is a single Google search and you'll find the evidence to prove it. The fossil record isn't "littered with contradictions," if it was evolution would have been thrown out by now. But the entire scientific community has formed a consensus that evolution is an established fact. I still haven't heard a single argument to prove YOUR case. What do you think happened? Some unknowable being using unknowable means brought everything into existence? That's absolutely the most ridiculous proposal any scientist has ever heard. When we don't understand something, we study it further. We don't just give up and say "God did it." That's called laziness. Yes I will grant you that the fossil record is "incomplete," but that by itself is not evidence against evolution. As a matter of fact, that is to be expected because not every species becomes a fossil! And of course, not every fossil is found yet! So far, there hasn't been a SINGLE instance in which a fossil, when dated properly, contradicted evolutionary theory. If it was found, it would revolutionize science. So rather than sitting around and throwing stones at an established scientific fact, you go out and FIND evidence that evolution is wrong. Come back to me once you have found it. Bye bye.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@1111amyg Lmao. Okay, here goes nothing...
Donald Trump completely shut down the border with China. That took place just 1 month after the China FINALLY decided to report to the rest of the world (the WHO) that they were experiencing issues with an outbreak of a new respiratory virus, which by that point (December 31, 2019, hence COVID- 19) has likely already been circulating for AT LEAST a month. China didn't do enough to stop it, but the WHO (China's little puppet) was there to cover up for them. So one month later, Trump announces a travel ban on China. Unsurprisingly, he was labeled xenophobic for taking this decisive (and life-saving) action. Now of course US citizens from China couldn't be locked out from their home country (could you imagine the backlash from that?), so some were bound to slip through the gaps. Then, on March 6th, Trump announced a similar travel ban to include all of Europe (excepting the UK, which was added later), as Italy was suffering major damage as a result from an overwhelmed healthcare system. Then, on March 11th, President (yes he IS your President, like him or not) Trump signed the CARES Act into law, which was designed to provide emergency relief to millions of people who just got laid off as a result of a near-total economic shutdown (something that has NEVER happened before in human history as a result of a pandemic, not even the Spanish Flu of 1918). Then we of course saw the issue with the Carnival cruise lines which suffered major outbreaks on board (the Diamond Princess and Grand Princess), and eventually all the passengers were safely offloaded onto military bases to undergo a mandatory 14-day quarantine. Now we start to see this cases rise substantially in New York. Supposedly a lawyer arrived from Iran and infected over a dozen other people, who in turn infected God knows how many more. Horrible situation, but New York's lord and savior Andrew Cuomo took decisive action and saved thousand of lives, right? Not quite. As it turns out, it was his policies that FORCED sick elderly patients BACK into their nursing homes, exponentially exacerbating an already horrible situation and likely contributing to thousands of more deaths. On March 13th, President Trump declared a National Emergency (two very big words), and it was under this declaration that he was able to distribute much-needed medical supplies to areas that most desperately needed them (like New York). Just five days later, on March 18th, he also responded by taking advantage of a decades-old law giving the President the power to order the private sector to manufacture goods necessary for national defense: the Defense Production Act. This order required companies like 3M and General Electric to immediately transition their production lines to making PPE like N-95 respirators for frontline workers. Oh, and of course he gave the authority to transition the Javits Center into an emergency hospital, and the USNS Comfort to house non COVID (and later positive COVID) patients. The Comfort was hardly needed for more than a month, and the Javits has been virtually empty since the beginning. And Mr. Cuomo still says Trump hasn't done enough? Give me a f*cking break. Now, the focus is on testing. We've conducted more tests than any other country in the world at this point, and are already doing more per capita than South Korea which has largely re-opened its economy. The medical experts predict that we need to do at least 30 million tests per month to re-open safely, and I don't know if you saw that chart they presented at the Senate hearing this morning, but those test numbers are going UP. There's no doubt in anyone's mind that we'll get there soon enough. A fair analysis might conclude that the reaction was slow, but when he did react he did so decisively. He put together the greatest Task Force the nation could have asked for, and heeded their advice the entire time. Other action he left up to the individual states, as he knows each one will have to react differently (Montana still has not locked down).
1
-
1
-
@1111amyg The ships docked safely, and all the passengers were offloaded and put into quarantine without error. The President wanted it done properly so there wasn't community spread. So I don't know what the hell you're complaining about there... The DEMONRATS held up and delayed the CARES Act to add provisions that had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the coronavirus! The Republicans were unanimously in support of the provision that lower income Americans would receive stimulus money (including the one that if you make 99,000+ you receive nothing), but were NOT in favor of adding useless environmental protections and the like that had NO relevance to the COVID-19 situation WHATSOEVER. Of course Trump let the states decide the rest, is that not what I said? They should know better how to handle this crisis, the situation in Utah or Montana is very different than that of California or New York. The states that needed ventilators got them. Now there are tons to go around. And you know how South Korea flattened their curve so quickly? THEY TRACED PEOPLE'S MOVEMENTS. The government SURVEILLED where each citizen went and if someone was possibly exposed to the virus, they were FORCED into quarantine. I'm sorry if you didn't know this, but we have this little thing called the CONSTITUTION in America that guarantees the liberties of each of and every American citizen, and doing what South Korea did is NOT possible under the rights provided to the People under this document. Try doing some research, what works in one country may not work in another. And of course I haven't been tested, because I haven't gotten sick. Right now the recommendation is that you get tested if you have symptoms, not if you're feeling perfectly healthy. Maybe I can go get an antibody test if I want, but considering that I haven't had any flu-like symptoms in at least a year or more, I don't think I will.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let's evaluate that claim, shall we?
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “mutilation” as follows: ”An act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal.” Alternatively, the same dictionary also defines it as “an act or instance of damaging or altering something radically.” Hence, radical or severe “damage” or “alteration” is a necessary component in order to satisfy the most commonly accepted definitions of “mutilation.” With that in mind, let’s proceed with the argument.
Any proposed "ban" is up to the medical experts. The AAP and CDC each released statements (in 2012 and 2014, respectively) endorsing the procedure for prophylactic reasons, and concluded that it is an appropriate matter for parents along with their doctors to decide. Do you trust the medical community or not? I do in all matters, not just in transitioning children, abortion, COVID-19, and vaccines. (The science on this, by the way, is very clear. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet; stick to the hard evidence, not propaganda. Otherwise, you're no better (epistemologically speaking) than a climate denier who has become convinced by sites such as WattsUpWithThat. Look at the studies themselves if you want the details. Simply dismissing them out of hand, such as by claiming they're "flawed" without evidence, is akin to denying climate change without having reviewed any of the supporting facts and data underlying the theory.)
However, I believe four reforms should be enacted: 1) any financial incentive needs to be eliminated (as would happen under single-payer healthcare), but the cost (~$150-200) must be borne by the parents due to the surgery's elective nature, 2) doctors should have the option of refusing to perform if they have a moral objection (like in the U.K.), so both parents AND the doctor must agree, 3) parents must specifically request it (so the default is that it is not performed), and 4) regulations require that the surgery is executed by a trained medical professional in a sterilized environment under anesthesia via block injection (thereby outlawing the traditional Jewish method, where most de@ths occur. And, as an aside, the concern about the link between acetaminophen use in pregnancy, infancy, and early childhood and ASD is valid, but as of now the AAP, AAFP, and FDA still recommend it for fever and pain reduction in babies). Hence, ideally, it would remain legal, as it is in literally every other country in the world (though Iceland (lol) has made attempts to outlaw it), but fewer and fewer parents would choose it, and as the culture shifts it would eventually fall out of favor entirely -- the exact same process as what unfolded in parts of Europe and throughout most of the Commonwealth (and is currently happening in South Korea as well).
As for why it must be performed in infancy and cannot wait until adulthood when the person can give consent, which is a reasonable objection, the reasons are numerous. First, the risk of complications are much lower at this stage (~.5% compared to ~3%) and are predominantly minor. Second, some benefits (such as lower risk of penile cancer and UTI's in infancy and early childhood, which can cause permanent liver damage) are only conferred when it's done in infancy. Third, the inconvenience is greatly lessened -- recovery time is shorter, there are no stitches involved, and there is no need to take time off work or abstain from s-xual activity. Finally, some studies have found that there is a slightly higher chance of negative impact to function in nonmedical cases when the surgery is done later in life (perhaps attributable to greater complications), though this is in dispute due to the low quality of the evidence. It also helps, of course, that babies don't form memories of the experience -- a fact that many men who consider it later in life are quite jealous of (29% of uncut men wish they were, as opposed to 10% of cut men that wish they weren't, according to a YouGov poll from 2015). Impacts to psychological functioning, by the way, are pure speculation and a complete myth, and are, once again, utterly unsupported by the evidence. (There's more proof, one might argue, that it increases the odds of winning a Nobel Prize.)
1
-
And, please, don't consider responding with an objection that "it reduces s-xual pleasure," because the highest quality evidence consistently finds that it does not in the vast majority of men (such as VMMC randomized controlled trials in Africa and the Dominican Republic) -- and, indeed, having researched this topic for four-and-a-half years myself, this is perfectly consistent with the numerous accounts I've seen from men who have had the surgery as adults (both for medical reasons and not), and who consequently experienced both sides. My own speculative explanation for this (based on research) is that, in most cases, much of the inner lining is retained (i.e. "mid" to "high" cuts are the norm), sensitivity to temperature is more important than light-touch, the brain "adjusts" to the deficit over a period of about six months to one year (some men have testified to this), and the mechanics differ post-surgery. Moreover, the oft-cited figure of "20,000 nerve endings" is a wild overestimate based on a sample size of ONE that employed shoddy statistics (by a convicted fraudster and HIV/AIDS denialist, no less).
(Side note: I am well aware of the history of the practice in America, but it is quite irrelevant to the discussion as it pertains to ethics; claiming that it's wrong merely because the person to start the trend, William Harvey Kellogg, believed that it would prevent m@sturbation is functionally equivalent to condemning Planned Parenthood because its founder, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist. Comparisons to FGM are also not apt: the latter offers negligible or no medical, health, hygiene, or aesthetic benefits, and is quite often much more severe. I'm an atheist, but I'm also willing to acknowledge when certain beliefs, practices, rituals, etc. are beneficial based on scientific findings, or at least not harmful, as are other critical thinkers like Stephen Moreton, Martha Nussbaum and Sam Harris. Also, the historical evidence strongly indicates that the trend only caught on decades later after initially introduced, during both World Wars to maintain hygiene in trench warfare, but that's another matter.)
"Our risk-benefit analysis showed that benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by up to 200 to 1. We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime. Wide-ranging evidence from surveys, physiological measurements, and the anatomical location of penile sensory receptors responsible for sexual sensation strongly and consistently suggest that male circumcision has no detrimental effect on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure." (Emphasis added.) That is according to a meta-analysis published in the World Journal of Clinical Pediatrics in 2017.
"The hypothesis of inferior male sexual function following circumcision is not supported by the findings of this systematic review. The popular narrative that male circumcision results in sexual dysfunction does not seem to be supported by evidence." (Shabanzadeh) Taken directly from a review published in the Danish Medical Journal in 2016, which is run by the Danish Medical Association — not exactly an organization biased in favor of this operation. Furthermore, "the Danish Health Authorities do not recommend a law-enforced ban of non-medical circumcisions in Denmark based on these low rates of short-term complications." (Emphasis mine.) Hm, it's almost like the evidence doesn't support the notion that circumcision is harmful and should be banned, and even Scandinavian societies have recognized this. Go figure.
"Male circumcision for non-therapeutic reasons appears to be practiced with relative regularity and frequency throughout Europe . . . [and is] the only scenario, among the topics discussed in the present chapter, in which the outcome of balancing between the right to physical integrity and religious freedom is in favor of the latter." (Italics mine.) From a study commissioned by the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (various authors).
You want something more recent? Here you go. "Despite the conflicting data reported in articles, the weight of the scientific evidence suggests there is not sufficient data to establish a direct association between male circumcision and sexual dysfunction." (Emphasis added.) Quoted directly from the results of a meta-analysis performed by Oxford's Department of Sexual Health and published by Oxford University Press in 2023.
For all these reasons, I believe it is more accurately described as "modification" rather than "mutilation" (this latter descriptor being about as felicitous as labeling abortion "murder," and employed for essentially the same purpose: eliciting an irrational, emotional response). Having invested literally hundreds of hours of my time reading about this topic (hence the long dissertation chock-full of medical information), I am quite confident that I'm more qualified to speak on it than anyone who might be reading this, and these are the conclusions that I have reached. (And, for the record, I do not intend on having the surgery performed on any of my children because I personally believe bodily autonomy concerns outweigh the benefits -- after all, modifications are still, almost by definition, unnecessary. Others may reasonably hold a different view.) If you're curious to learn more, I recommend the following sources: the Canadian Pediatric Society has released a fair, balanced, and thorough assessment that was reaffirmed in 2024 (though not as comprehensive as the AAP's); for an expert's opinion, member of the American Urological Association Dr. Aaron Spitz has written about this in some detail; and, finally, for those curious about the ethics of the issue (particularly those with a consequentialist utilitarian bent, like myself), atheist antinatalist South African philosopher David Benatar (who, an activist himself, writes frequently on men's rights issues) has much insightful commentary to offer as well. Happy reading.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And vote for who? The Republicans? Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertkowallek8453 We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vrmomoffour9446 Um yeah you did to an extent. Regardless of the intentions, the real-world results of affirmative action are that Asian Americans are much less likely to be accepted than they otherwise would be in favor of African Americans and Hispanics. By lowering the standard of acceptance for these groups, a new problem is created: a mismatch. A black person, for example, who just barely got accepted into Harvard because of AA is actually much more likely to drop out and not attain his or her educational goal than if he or she simply attended a school more suited to his or her skill level. If you look at the statistics on drop-out rates for these minority groups compared to that of whites or Asian Americans, what you'll find is a huge disparity as a result of this. This is obviously not mentioning the fact that thousands of qualified Asian and white applicants are denied entrance each year due to their skin color alone. It doesn't take too much deep thought to conclude that this is wrong. All in the name of what? "Diversifying" their campuses? The most qualified applicants will never reach a satisfactory level of "diversity" at any of the Ivy League institutions. Asians perform better in every single category as a racial group on average. The decent approach would be to accept the most qualified applicants regardless of skin color, sex, or any other physical characteristic. Treat everyone equally: that is the goal, right? Then why the hell aren't we doing it?! If we want to fix the disparity in academic performance among minority populations, that is an issue that has to be addressed at the elementary and secondary level, not at the university level! By trying to "fix" the problem, top universities are actually just making it worse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Good luck censoring rap music. It's freedom of expression for artists to make any kind of music they want, and if it has a fanbase and grows in popularity that's just free market capitalism at work. You can pass laws that prevent children from purchasing this form of music (as we do with various pornographic video) or require music streaming services to have their users create an account that verifies their age before accessing the music, but there will always be loopholes. Heck, we have a hard enough time getting our children to stay away from Internet pornography, imagine trying to come up with ideas to keep them from listening to music. Similarly, there's not much we can do about the fatherless home crisis either. Only drastic measures such as locking men up in houses with their families may have any kind of desirable effect, and even then we may end up with other problems (such as child abuse, domestic violence, etc. since these men are staying out of the criminal justice system). At the end of the day, we are considering the unsolvable root cause of the issues when instead we should be looking at what we can do to alleviate the situation, because the second best thing to fixing the source of a problem is figuring out what can be done to lessen its adversity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time, liveable minimum wage, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JBarnes917 Except that abortion isn't murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Pretty rare for an officer to be thanked when pulling a person over." Pfffft, lady you have no idea . . . Just a couple weeks ago, I was on my annual summer road trip when I got pulled over by an Oregon state trooper on Highway 95 for doing 101 mph in a 70. I apologized for my mistake, thinking it was safe and explained that I was trying to finish my planned route by 10 pm that night (I was on the road at 5:30 that morning). I then slowed down to 10 mph over the speed limit and, I kid you not, within 10 minutes of crossing into Idaho I was pulled over again -- this time, for doing 74 in a 65 downhill. Fortunately, this cop took pity on me (seeing that I had just been issued my first citation 30 minutes earlier), and let me off with a warning. I thanked him, shook hands, and went about my day -- though with significantly more trepidation than before. Oh, and there's a dog in my story too: apparently, a K-9 detected illegal drugs in my vehicle, and they spent at least ten minutes rummaging through it (I even had to help one of them pop the hood). The dog must have picked up on the residual scent of my brother's and his girlfriend's vapes from when I drove them to the movie theater a couple months before (I'm from California). Go figure.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dingdring6317 And we will never be. Because a "right to life" for fetuses is absurd. Embryos/fetuses aren't "persons," and therefore possess no rights. Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah, let's defund the very same people who we depend on to protect us against others who have malicious intentions, such as intruders, especially if we haven't taken advantage of our Second Amendment rights. What a brilliant idea! Said literally no sane person ever. In fact, I'm the opposite of "defund the police," I'm in favor of giving them MORE funding. Hear me out. What I have come to understand from listening to multiple different sources (e.g. podcasts like the Joe Rogan Experience and Making Sense with Sam Harris featuring martial artists and law enforcement experts) is that the issue with excessive force is a result of a total lack of training. If you learned just how infrequently the people we entrust with the authority of maintaining law and order (not using that phrase in the right-wing sense) are trained in hand-to-hand combat, you would be shocked. In situations where the suspect is unarmed (George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks, Jacob Blake, Walter Scott, the list goes on), a policeman trained in Jiu Jitsu could easily overpower them (unless they are highly trained themselves) and restrain them until they submit to arrest. And I don't mean kneeling on their neck --- the upper back is much more effective at subduing the individual without suffocating them. When police first encounter a suspect that resists, if they have not encountered this situation before (either on-the-job or in practice), their fight-or-flight response kicks in and they panic knowing that a firearm is clinging to their belt. The results, as we often see, can be tragic. So not only do the police need training in the use of deadly force, but also taking a course in martial arts (Jiu Jitsu being by far the best) will go a long way in securing both the safety of our officers as well as the suspects all around this country. If you're curious to learn more, I highly suggest you listen to Sam Harris' podcast #246 - Police Training and Police Misconduct with Rener Gracie.
And it shouldn't have to be said, but I am 100% against broken-window policing, racial profiling, stop-and-frisk, and this useless drug war. The point I am trying to make is that these two issues are mutually exclusive, and there is no inconsistency in being in favor of one and not the other.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DangerRUSS_85 No it isn't. Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's pretty obvious what happened here. The intruder (David DePape) broke into the home, as seen on another video (not shown here), using the hammer and pulling the glass towards him, hence the reason it appeared to be shattered from the inside. Realizing that Nancy wasn't home, he then proceeded to threaten Paul Pelosi. Mr. Pelosi makes a call to 911 disguised as a call elsewhere (a food order perhaps), per the audio tapes that were also released, and only gives David's name to the dispatcher after asking him for it (strongly suggesting that they weren't already familiar with one another). When the police show up at the front door for a "wellness check" (not really expecting anything serious), Mr. Pelosi continues his act that he and David are "friends" so as to not aggravate him, but still attempts to take the hammer away from him. David DePape, on the other hand, realizes he's been duped and at the last minute decides to follow through with an attack on Mr. Pelosi, despite the fact that he wasn't his intended target. The police quickly react and arrest DePape, and then attend to Mr. Pelosi's injuries. I hope this clears up any confusion, especially for those who seemed to have adopted a philosophy of anti-empricism and conspiratorial thinking, of which one side of the political spectrum is inarguably more guilty than the other.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@judaspreistvlct The same John Adams who wrote in the Treaty of Tripoli that the United States "was not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"? Oh please, you realize that you can be moral without being religious, right? Perhaps you should research Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill and their ethical philosophy, utilitarianism. And how would you know what he was referring to? Did you speak to him?!!
James Madison: "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together."
Benjamin Franklin: "Lighthouses are more useful than churches."
Thomas Jefferson: "Christianity neither is, no ever was a part of the common law."
Also by Jefferson: "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."
Also by Jefferson: "Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state is absolutely essential in a free society."
And last but not least, I give you this by the great Thomas Paine: "The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion. Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity."
I've got more, but that should give you the idea. No, the Founders never intended to make America a theocracy. In fact, their signature achievement was to create a wholly SECULAR nation where religion has no business intruding in the public sphere (i.e. government), and in return the public space would never intrude upon it (e.g., tax exemption for churches). Republicans have seeked to violate this principle time and again, and in so doing undermining the very project the Founders intended to preserve, and I will not let it stand so long as I live --- starting with you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Uh, which is worse: Temporarily high prices of gas when there are reasonable alternatives available (EVs, public transportation, etc.), or runaway climate change inducing rising sea levels, droughts on a mass scale, more powerful storms and wildfires, wars over water, critical ocean currents that moderate the weather being diluted, a refugee crisis the likes of which we have never seen, and mass ecological destruction resulting in millions of species going extinct? I'll let you ruminate on that for a bit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ullerivas2755 Let me be clear: admissions to a university (say) should be entirely merit-based. Race, sex, sexual orientation, or any other immutable characteristic should NOT be a factor. Period. Same thing for jobs and hiring. The whole point of the Civil Rights Act was to FIGHT discrimination, but some hard leftists want to bring it back. Their reasoning for doing so escapes me entirely. And I get that Twitter, Facebook, etc. are private companies and can (technically) do whatever they want, but if I had the choice I would regulate them like public utilities because of the sheer amount of influence they exert on our culture. Being able to use their services has become just as important as speaking to other people face-to-face. More so even, because of the potential for such a wide audience. The principle of the First Amendment should be applied here as well, without a doubt. And finally, I support "common sense" gun control (although I'm not a huge fan of that phrase). That means universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and red flag laws. "Common sense," to me, does NOT include having the military show up at people's doorstep and forcing them to forfeit their semi-automatic in exchange for cash. That's authoritarian. The cat's already out of the bag. The law-abiding ones will comply, while those who were seeking to cause harm anyway will not. It doesn't solve the problem. We have to pursue other solutions instead, like expanding access to mental health clinics. Taking everyone's guns away (or at least just the assault weapon types) will create more harm than good. That I can be sure of. I'm in full support of nationalizing healthcare and the pharmaceutical industry, preferably in the form of a single-payer system. Absolutely without question--it's frankly humiliating that we're the only developed country on Earth that hasn't taken this step. The entire Western world is laughing at us, and for good reason. We let our people die because they can't afford insulin. It's criminal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@drcokepepper I think the point of the science vs. religion debate is not that science can know everything (it can't, we're stuck at Planck time when the universe was first created for example), but that so much of what religions first believed was proven wrong. We weren't directly created by the hand of God, we evolved. We're not the at the center of the solar system, the galaxy, or the universe. We're just on some random speck of dust in an incomprehensibly big universe. And everything else--the existence of a soul, heaven and hell, angels and demons, free will, and even an almighty creator who cares about us--is just superstition. I'm not saying for a fact that it isn't true, but it's becoming increasingly more difficult to believe in light of everything we now know about the world around us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And start global thermonuclear war? Ah hell naw. Also, we're going to "protect" you in the same way we "protected" the people of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Chile, Guatemala, Cuba, Iraq, Lybia, Syria, and Iran (under the shah) LOL 🤣
1
-
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at the gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, garlic festival, Juneteenth celebration, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own house . . . Pretty much anywhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ah, so the Bible is your favorite collection of ancient myths and fairy tales, huh? Nice. Personally I have an affinity for Homer's the Iliad and the Odyssey, but the Vedas, the Pyramid texts, the Coffin texts, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Instruction of Amenemope, the Book of Caverns, the Book of Gates, the Amdaut, the Book of the Heavenly Cow, the Code of Hammurabi, the Kesh Temple Hymn, the Popol Vuh, the Avesta, and the writings of Herodotus are all good too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're not "pro-life" if you only support measures conducive to life before it exits the womb. Are you equally outraged about the fact that millions of innocent men, women, and children halfway around the world are being bombed into oblivion by our military or starved to death by our sanctions (and those of our allies)? Or that close to 70 MILLION Americans are uninsured/underinsured and 45,000 die each year due to a lack of proper healthcare? How about the future generations that will be completely wiped out because minimal action is being taken to address the impending climate catastrophe? Do you support the most basic regulations that would ensure that those precious unborn children won't be brutally gunned down once they reach the 3rd grade?
And don't even get me started on non-human life. The suffering of hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows we slaughter alive each and every day merely because we enjoy the taste of their flesh is ASTRONOMICAL compared to all abortions humanity has ever performed COMBINED. Does the life of that unborn child matter if it is gay or transgender, or would it be better off if it was "six feet under"? Prove to me that you believe life matters AFTER it has left the womb by pressuring your legal representatives to pass paid maternity leave and universal childcare, as the USA remains the ONLY developed country that does not provide these services. Better yet, demand that those children earn enough to make a decent living for themselves and their families when they grow older by advocating for raising the minimum wage and unionization efforts. Make it clear that you demand action on criminal justice reform, starting with abolishing the barbaric practice of state-sanctioned execution which more closely aligns the US with Saudi Arabia than with any of our peer nations in Europe. Finally, vigorously oppose any measure to engage in an unjustified and illegal offensive halfway around the world that costs taxpayers trillions of dollars and steals the lives of thousands of innocent Americans (usually young men).
George Carlin called out this blatant hypocrisy decades ago.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f-cked."
Embryos/fetuses prior to 18 weeks gestation cannot suffer (let alone possess any form of sentience or consciousness), and that infuriates conservatives. So in order to maximize human misery (their ultimate agenda), they seek to outlaw it so that mothers are forced to give birth and those children grow up in destitute and dysfunctional households with little to no social support, receive a poor quality education and either saddle themselves with student debt or serve in the armed forces, only to end up wounded/severely traumatized with no guaranteed healthcare and/or slaving away for a corporation for baseline wages -- all the while ensuring maximum penalties for engaging in sexual activity -- and finally growing old and retiring in little comfort due to a rapidly diminishing allowance in the form of Social Security. Then the cycle repeats itself. And that's not even taking into consideration the potential consequences of overpopulation -- resources will be spread thinner and thinner until, at a certain point, the damage done to our planet will be so severe that human civilization will be all but wiped off the face of the Earth. Think how much worse off we would be TODAY if we added 60+ million to our population (approximately the number of fetuses aborted since 1973). Famine, war, and widepread civil unrest are just the beginning. That's the world Republicans want -- a dystopian Malthusian/Orwellian hellscape -- whether they are cognizant of it or not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm honestly more concerned about the expectations young men like myself will have for the appearance of women going into the future with this technology than I am about the p*rn industry. There is already a debate about whether p*rn has set young men's expectations too high, and that they are struggling with s-xual disorders because of it. Rates of E.D. have skyrocketed amongst this demographic. Women, too, will suffer the consequences in terms of self-esteem, as the standards of beauty will have reached absurd levels. Don't get me wrong: I am in full support of the development of artificial intelligence, but only because I'm hoping that it will improve our overall quality-of-life, as basic household appliances like refrigerators, dishwashers, microwaves, and washing machines have.
Kyle brings up a good point about automation, too: who will reap the economic benefits of machine labor? How will that accrued wealth be distributed? For an illustration of four possible future scenarios, I highly recommend journalist Peter Frase's book Four Futures: Life After Capitalism. If anything, this is a greater concern to me than any hypothetical, science fiction-style sentient-AI revolution -- although luminaries such as Stephen Hawking have warned us about both.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Paul Whelan was convicted of grand larceny for stealing $10,000, was dishonorably discharged from the Marines and subsequently served as a clerk in Iraq, and then was found to have $80,000 in his pocket at the Moscow airport. I still think he should be freed, but let's not pretend that he's some sort of hero. A vet worthy of our respect -- reverence, even -- is someone like John McCain, not Paul. Russia was never going to trade him for Viktor Bout, so it was Brittney Griner or no one at all. And I can take a guess what most people who read this comment would prefer, because Brandon's audience is generally comprised of barely-human scum and ignoramuses. Someone who stole $10,000 matters more than a WNBA star who made an honest mistake of transporting trace amounts of hashish oil in vape cartridges she was using for MEDICAL purposes, and who also happens to be lesbian and Black. Bigots have no place in civilized society. Take your hatred elsewhere, or otherwise keep it to yourself. People who possess basic human decency will thank you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What if I told you that I traveled that road just five days after this video was uploaded? (I'm just now seeing it a year-and-a-half later.) Well I did, as part of my fourth and final road trip beginning in my home state of California, making it the first (and perhaps only) time I have done so in my 24 years on this earth. I was eager to see the Rocky Mountains for the first time on my way to Denver.
The best way I can describe it, as someone quite familiar with my local Sierra Nevada mountain highways, is it's just about the most demanding mountain pass imaginable for an Interstate. I-5 going between Los Angeles and the Central Valley (which used to hold that title in my head) hardly compares. At one point, a semi-truck was stalling out on a steep grade in front of me (I was in the right lane because some maniacs were okay driving 70 mph in pouring rain, so I let them pass), in a construction zone no less, and I had to make a split-second decision to either accelerate on an incline and attempt a merge in a crowded left lane or stop behind the truck and wait for an opening large enough to safely accelerate to 65 mph (which by all appearances could be a long time indeed). I chose the former and barely squeezed in, but that moment ranks as one of the most stressful experiences in my eight-plus years of driving.
As for the rest of the highway, it felt more like one was gliding over the mountains than actually driving on them. If I need to travel that way again, I'm going to take the other road I drove on that very same day, on which I needed to do nothing other than adjust my cruise control occasionally for a whole three hours: I-80. 😂
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michheanreth2596 Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@normaaliihminen722 First of all, no I don't think people who get hurt from doing illegal activity should receive medical services for free. They've lost their privileges and there is absolutely no reason they should be taken care of at the expense of the taxpayer. Second, yes I think others should pay for the health of fat people. You know why? Because that's how a collective system works. It doesn't matter who you are, whether you have a birth defect, a pre-existing condition, a rare illness, or any other health problem. You get taken care of no matter what. I realize that not everyone is going to use it as much as others, but in most cases people didn't choose to get sick or injured. No one brings about cancer upon themselves. And the whole point is to elongate lifespans by providing services at an affordable price (or for free), so someone doesn't have to choose between being able to walk again or go bankrupt, or in some cases bargain with their life. That's utterly inhumane. I'm sorry to hear about your back, but I really do believe it's possible to be both efficient and affordable at the same time. Proper healthcare shouldn't simply be a privilege for the rich, it should be treated as a human right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ah, so the Bible is your favorite collection of ancient myths and fairy tales, huh? Nice. Personally I have an affinity for Homer's the Iliad and the Odyssey, but the Vedas, the Pyramid texts, the Coffin texts, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Instruction of Amenemope, the Book of Caverns, the Book of Gates, the Amdaut, the Book of the Heavenly Cow, the Code of Hammurabi, the Kesh Temple Hymn, the Popol Vuh, the Avesta, the Koran, and the writings of Herodotus are all good too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
This is so true. The fossil fuel lobby has bought almost all of our politicians, so very few have the willpower to hold them accountable --- because if they do, they may lose some of their biggest donors. That's where money in politics has gotten us. It's also why we still subsidize them. They're taking our tax money and giving it to one of the most profitable industries in the world. Yeah, that's how ridiculous things have become. And both parties are at fault, though not to the same degree. After all, it was the Trump administration who installed Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson as our Secretary of State, and Republicans take far more in campaign contributions from the coal, oil, and natural gas lobbies than Democrats. But only those on the progressive left --- Bernie, AOC, Elizabeth Warren, Ilhan Omar, etc. --- have their hands clean of this entirely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ah, so the Bible is your favorite collection of ancient myths and fairy tales, huh? Nice. Personally I have an affinity for Homer's the Iliad and the Odyssey, but the Vedas, the Pyramid texts, the Coffin texts, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Instruction of Amenemope, the Book of Caverns, the Book of Gates, the Amdaut, the Book of the Heavenly Cow, the Code of Hammurabi, the Kesh Temple Hymn, the Popol Vuh, the Avesta, and the writings of Herodotus are all good too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BthIX I know all that, and those are a few reasons why I oppose routine infant circumcision (RIC). The most I will argue for is that it is left up to the medical professionals, who, sure, may have disagreements amongst themselves, but the hard evidence can never be easily dismissed. And as of now, the evidence supports allowing the option for parents if their doctor is in agreement. This position is also heavily influenced by the fact that an outright prohibition will inevitably cause severe social disruption (hence why, to this point, no country in the world has done so). The best course of action, in my view, is to leave it entirely to parental/medical discretion (NOT a default, one must ask for it), and wait for it to fall out of favor here just as it has in Canada and Europe. Research shows that we are slowly but surely trending in that direction. (I, for one, hope to continue that trend.) If you don't agree with this that's fine, I completely understand the view of the opposition (I was once there myself), but I hope that you are at least able to see where I'm coming from. In general, I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea of the state interfering in medical decisions in which both the medical professionals and the families agree, no matter what the issue is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's what the corporations WANT you to think. Fun fact: The most prosperous societies on Earth are "socialist." I'm talking about Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the Netherlands, just to name a few. Do you mean to say that every time the government spends our taxpayer dollars on HELPING the American people by providing them with basic necessities that every other developed country already provides (universal healthcare, childcare, lower prescription drug costs, a liveable wage, paid maternity leave, etc.) instead of what our corrupt politicians have been spending it on thus far (endless war, the military-industrial complex, weapons for foreign countries, corporate subsidies, Wall Street bailouts, and so on), it is "socialism"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
veritas 1206 You want to talk about "clinging on to the past," you don't have to look any farther than modern-day social liberalism. They believe that two wrongs somehow make a right, and are deliberately trying to punish white people for their historical oppression and mistreatment of minorities. I think this defeats the purpose of creating an equal and just society; we're never going to be truly equal until everyone is held to the same standard regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, gender identity, etc. Everyone is human and deserves to be treated as such. Explaining why Tim Scott is the only black GOP Senator requires a deeper dive into the inner workings of the American political system, which I readily admit I'm not at all qualified to speak on. My area of focus is the ideology itself, specifically of three American political parties: the Republicans, the Democrats, and the Libertarians (the one to which I belong). There may well be some voter suppression involved in the explanation of the Tim Scott situation, but I'm inclined to think that it's more likely that white folk run more often for national political office for the GOP than black folk. That's just my suspicion, so don't by any means accept that prior statement as fact. That is as far as my speculation will take me concerning this specific question.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's almost like you read Peter Singer, the world's leading bioethicist, especially his book Practical Ethics. Although, according to the data used in his book, the moral line for pain would be closer to 18 weeks, not 20. But I can hardly see the difference, because both are long after the period of time that follows after a woman learns she is pregnant. Somewhere in that window she can decide whether to keep the child or not, and it's rarely an easy choice to make. I prefer the trimester approach, however, because after 13 weeks of development (approximately the 1st trimester), the abortion procedure becomes significantly more complicated, and costly --- and if the procedure could have been done earlier, most would probably agree that it is wasteful as well. For that reason, I think there should be a minimum financial penalty to getting an abortion (to incentivize contraceptive use), which in the first trimester is not to exceed $500 (with some exceptions, including those living at or below the poverty line), and the second would be much higher (somewhere in the neighborhood of $2,000 perhaps). The third would be off-limits completely, with exceptions only for medical reasons (the mother's health is at risk, or the baby would not be viable outside the womb for long).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sally Vee The news networks. ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC all CONSTANTLY give these people a chance to speak on their show. And no, you are factually incorrect about the discrimination. The Supreme Court ruled that LGBT rights are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Apparently you are someone who either doesn't do your research or keep up at an adequate level with current events. I don't experience extreme privelege. As a matter of fact, my sexuality never comes up in my conversations at work, school, household or anywhere else EVER. It would not matter who I liked or didn't like, because NOBODY CARES WHAT MY SEXUALITY IS. That's the point. And obviously I'm not transgender either, but I COULDN'T CARE LESS about the issues "transgender" people face for one simple reason: if you are biologically XX and you claim that you're a male (or vice versa), you have a MENTAL DISORDER. It is THAT simple.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is America y'all. The only (developed) country where you're free to get shot at the gas station, flea market, grocery store, elementary school, high school, concert venue, sports stadium, department store, movie theater, church, garlic festival, Juneteenth celebration, on the street, at a bar, in the nightclub, inside a restaurant, on the baseball field, at a park, in the playground, even your own house . . . Pretty much anywhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To call it "mutilation" is unfelicitous. The evidence does not support a net loss of sensation or pleasure. Here's a quote from a systematic review published in the Danish Medical Journal in 2016, which is run by the Danish Medical Association (not exactly an organization biased in favor of the operation):
"The hypothesis of inferior male sexual function following circumcision is not supported by the findings of this systematic review. The popular narrative that male circumcision results in sexual dysfunction does not seem to be supported by evidence . . . The Danish Health Authorities do not recommend a lawenforced ban of non-medical circumcisions in Denmark based on these low rates of short-term complications." (Shabanzadeh)
And here's another from a meta-analysis published in the World Journal of Clincial Pediatrics in 2017:
"Our risk-benefit analysis showed that benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by up to 200 to 1. We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime. Wide-ranging evidence from surveys, physiological measurements, and the anatomical location of penile sensory receptors responsible for sexual sensation strongly and consistently suggest that male circumcision has no detrimental effect on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure."
The notion that circumcision elicits a loss in pleasure, sensation, or function (barring rare exceptions, such as a botched surgery or severe complications) is entirely a myth. That's not my own opinion, that's the findings of experts from all around the globe -- including in northern European/Scandinavian societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Pennsylvania wants a Democrat that fights for the PEOPLE!
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ah, so the Bible is your favorite collection of ancient myths and fairy tales, huh? Nice. Personally I have an affinity for Homer's the Iliad and the Odyssey, but the Vedas, the Pyramid texts, the Coffin texts, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Instruction of Amenemope, the Book of Caverns, the Book of Gates, the Amdaut, the Book of the Heavenly Cow, the Code of Hammurabi, the Kesh Temple Hymn, the Popol Vuh, the Avesta, and the writings of Herodotus are all good too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@averagejoe9040 I don't see that logical connection, particularly because being the breadwinner does not automatically make you the most qualified to make all the decisions. The final decision should ideally be made by the parent who is more knowledgeable about the topic to which it relates. If it's a domestic issue, for example, like who the kids should be guarded by while the parents go on vacation, then the homemaker (probably the mother) should have the final say because she spends the most time caring for them. Likewise, important financial decisions should ultimately be made by the father if he is doing most or all of the providing, since it is his income (generally speaking, there may be exceptions of the mother is a former accountant, banker, businessperson, or the like). Whoever is more informed should have the final say. At least, that's what I believe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which fish can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're not "pro-life" if you only support measures conducive to life before it exits the womb. Are you equally outraged about the fact that millions of innocent men, women, and children halfway around the world are being bombed into oblivion by our military or starved to death by our sanctions (and those of our allies)? Or that close to 70 MILLION Americans are uninsured/underinsured and 45,000 die each year due to a lack of proper healthcare? How about the future generations that will be completely wiped out because minimal action is being taken to address the impending climate catastrophe? Do you support the most basic regulations that would ensure that those precious unborn children won't be brutally gunned down once they reach the 3rd grade?
And don't even get me started on non-human life. The suffering of hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows we slaughter alive each and every day merely because we enjoy the taste of their flesh is ASTRONOMICAL compared to all abortions humanity has ever performed COMBINED. Does the life of that unborn child matter if it is gay or transgender, or would it be better off if it was "six feet under"? Prove to me that you believe life matters AFTER it has left the womb by pressuring your legal representatives to pass paid maternity leave and universal childcare, as the USA remains the ONLY developed country that does not provide these services. Better yet, demand that those children earn enough to make a decent living for themselves and their families when they grow older by advocating for raising the minimum wage and unionization efforts. Make it clear that you demand action on criminal justice reform, starting with abolishing the barbaric practice of state-sanctioned execution which more closely aligns the US with Saudi Arabia than with any of our peer nations in Europe. Finally, vigorously oppose any measure to engage in an unjustified and illegal offensive halfway around the world that costs taxpayers trillions of dollars and steals the lives of thousands of innocent Americans (usually young men).
George Carlin called out this blatant hypocrisy decades ago.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f-cked."
Embryos/fetuses prior to 18 weeks gestation cannot suffer (let alone possess any form of sentience or consciousness), and that infuriates conservatives. So in order to maximize human misery (their ultimate agenda), they seek to outlaw it so that mothers are forced to give birth and those children grow up in destitute and dysfunctional households with little to no social support, receive a poor quality education and either saddle themselves with student debt or serve in the armed forces, only to end up wounded/severely traumatized with no guaranteed healthcare and/or slaving away for a corporation for baseline wages -- all the while ensuring maximum penalties for engaging in sexual activity -- and finally growing old and retiring in little comfort due to a rapidly diminishing allowance in the form of Social Security. Then the cycle repeats itself. And that's not even taking into consideration the potential consequences of overpopulation -- resources will be spread thinner and thinner until, at a certain point, the damage done to our planet will be so severe that human civilization will be all but wiped off the face of the Earth. Think how much worse off we would be TODAY if we added 60+ million to our population (approximately the number of fetuses aborted since 1973). Famine, war, and widepread civil unrest are just the beginning. That's the world Republicans want -- a dystopian Malthusian/Orwellian hellscape -- whether they are cognizant of it or not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
1
-
If I had to take I guess, I would say it will be a 5-4 split decision to uphold Roe (or keep most of it intact), even with a strong conservative majority. John Roberts almost always votes on the side of precedent, and I think it's likely Neil Gorsuch will join him. If they don't, frankly I find it ridiculous that 3 unelected bureaucrats can overrule the preferences of three-quarters of the American population based on little more than superstition. Any sane person would call that a theocracy. If there's a good secular argument for outlawing abortion before roughly 15-18 weeks (when the fetus has a nervous system developed to feel pain), I haven't heard it (and neither has my favorite living philosopher, Peter Singer). It also doesn't help that all three of the appointments of the new conservative justices were controversial (the Republican Senate blocked Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland for almost a year and then approved Gorsuch, Kavanaugh was accused of s-xual assualt, and Barrett was nominated one month before an election, directly contradicting what Republicans like Lindsey Graham were promising back in 2016). If they overturn Roe, there will be unrest like we have never seen since the election of Donald Trump --- but even worse. Most Americans see this folly for what it is, and (rightly) reject the intrusion of theology and religious dogma into the very personal decisions of women about their own anatomy.
1
-
@jesuschristministry780 Ah, so the Bible is your favorite collection of ancient myths and fairy tales, huh? Nice. Personally I have an affinity for Homer's the Iliad and the Odyssey, but the Vedas, the Pyramid texts, the Coffin texts, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Instruction of Amenemope, the Book of Caverns, the Book of Gates, the Amdaut, the Book of the Heavenly Cow, the Code of Hammurabi, the Kesh Temple Hymn, the Popol Vuh, the Avesta, and the writings of Herodotus are all good too.
But seriously, if the Qur'an was faked, why not the Bible?
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're not "pro-life" if you only support measures conducive to life before it exits the womb. Are you equally outraged about the fact that millions of innocent men, women, and children halfway around the world are being bombed into oblivion by our military or starved to death by our sanctions (and those of our allies)? Or that close to 70 MILLION Americans are uninsured/underinsured and 45,000 die each year due to a lack of proper healthcare? How about the future generations that will be completely wiped out because minimal action is being taken to address the impending climate catastrophe? Do you support the most basic regulations that would ensure that those precious unborn children won't be brutally gunned down once they reach the 3rd grade?
And don't even get me started on non-human life. The suffering of hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows we slaughter alive each and every day merely because we enjoy the taste of their flesh is ASTRONOMICAL compared to all abortions humanity has ever performed COMBINED. Does the life of that unborn child matter if it is gay or transgender, or would it be better off if it was "six feet under"? Prove to me that you believe life matters AFTER it has left the womb by pressuring your legal representatives to pass paid maternity leave and universal childcare, as the USA remains the ONLY developed country that does not provide these services. Better yet, demand that those children earn enough to make a decent living for themselves and their families when they grow older by advocating for raising the minimum wage and unionization efforts. Make it clear that you demand action on criminal justice reform, starting with abolishing the barbaric practice of state-sanctioned execution which more closely aligns the US with Saudi Arabia than with any of our peer nations in Europe. Finally, vigorously oppose any measure to engage in an unjustified and illegal offensive halfway around the world that costs taxpayers trillions of dollars and steals the lives of thousands of innocent Americans (usually young men).
George Carlin called out this blatant hypocrisy decades ago.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f-cked."
Embryos/fetuses prior to 18 weeks gestation cannot suffer (let alone possess any form of sentience or consciousness), and that infuriates conservatives. So in order to maximize human misery (their ultimate agenda), they seek to outlaw it so that mothers are forced to give birth and those children grow up in destitute and dysfunctional households with little to no social support, receive a poor quality education and either saddle themselves with student debt or serve in the armed forces, only to end up wounded/severely traumatized with no guaranteed healthcare and/or slaving away for a corporation for baseline wages -- all the while ensuring maximum penalties for engaging in sexual activity -- and finally growing old and retiring in little comfort due to a rapidly diminishing allowance in the form of Social Security. Then the cycle repeats itself. And that's not even taking into consideration the potential consequences of overpopulation -- resources will be spread thinner and thinner until, at a certain point, the damage done to our planet will be so severe that human civilization will be all but wiped off the face of the Earth. Think how much worse off we would be TODAY if we added 60+ million to our population (approximately the number of fetuses aborted since 1973). Famine, war, and widepread civil unrest are just the beginning. That's the world Republicans want -- a dystopian Malthusian/Orwellian hellscape -- whether they are cognizant of it or not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Upper-cr1kh Fun fact: The most prosperous societies on Earth are "socialist." I'm talking about Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the Netherlands, just to name a few. Do you mean to say that every time the government spends our taxpayer dollars on HELPING the American people by providing them with basic necessities that every other developed country already provides (universal healthcare, childcare, lower prescription drug costs, a liveable wage, paid maternity leave, etc.) instead of what our corrupt politicians have been spending it on thus far (endless war, the military-industrial complex, weapons for foreign countries, corporate subsidies, Wall Street bailouts, and so on), it is "socialism"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fun fact: The most prosperous societies on Earth are "socialist." I'm talking about Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the Netherlands, just to name a few. Do you mean to say that every time the government spends our taxpayer dollars on HELPING the American people by providing them with basic necessities that every other developed country already provides (universal healthcare, childcare, lower prescription drug costs, a liveable wage, paid maternity leave, etc.) instead of what our corrupt politicians have been spending it on thus far (endless war, the military-industrial complex, weapons for foreign countries, corporate subsidies, Wall Street bailouts, and so on) is "Marxism"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For everyone who says "guns aren't the issue, it's mental health," or "guns don't just get up one day, walk to a school, and fire themselves," I ask you: Would you apply that same reasoning to nuclear weapons? Certainly you don't believe that the world would be SAFER if civilians had access to weapons of mass destruction, do you? Then why do you REFUSE to acknowledge the empirical evidence PROVING that the prevalence of guns in a society results in more gun violence and deaths? For every 100 people living in America, there are 120 firearms. By comparison, in the next closest country, Yemen (which is currently embroiled in civil war), there are 52 firearms for every 100 people. We are OBJECTIVELY the least safe country in the developed world in terms of the gun homicide metric -- it's not even close. So, tell me, why not apply your flawed "guns don't kill people, people kill people" reasoning to other weapons of war as well? I eagerly await THAT answer. The only halfway decent response I can think of is that nuclear weapons cannot be used in self-defense, to which I reply that in a dearmed society (like most of Europe, for example), you won't need to defend yourself against someone with an assault rifle. Period. My right to LIVE supersedes your right to own a weapon of war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What Michael is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. Michael seems to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Do Democrats support:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)?
I'll let you ruminate on that for a minute.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time, liveable minimum wage, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because they LOST. They couldn't come together to defend their land and got CONQUERED. No one feels bad for them. Just like the British descendants in modern-day South Africa, they aren't exactly dying to give their land back. All of world history is composed of people fighting to take control of land. You can trace this all the way back to the Egyptians, Sumerians, Persians, Romans, Greeks, Ottoman Empire, Mongolians, Russians, British, Spanish, French, Portuguese... the list goes on and on. No one is really concerned about the plights of Native Americans now that they have their own autonomous pieces of land, commonly referred to as "reservations." They were here first, and although they did lose, the least we can do is give a small portion of their land back and let them live how they want.
1
-
1
-
Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as existing over time, or is self-aware (consciousness, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dapv144 Personally, I cannot take anyone seriously who simultaneously believes the government could become "tyrannical" at any moment and that they need the means to defend themselves so as to (as Jefferson wrote) overthrow the government and establish a new one that fears the people, not dominates them (I'm totally on board with that, I lean towards anarchism) --- but who ALSO says that our military should be the most powerful in the world and that the bloated budget of $770 BILLION should be maintained or even increased year after year. Using history as our guide (the American Revolution, for example), who do they think the politicians or a dictator will use as his/her/their shield to remain in power? The MILITARY, of course. Did we already forget that it was the British army who defended their colonies in the Seven Years War, and then when the colonies rebelled, that same military was used against them? You want the people who would potentially be defending a brutal dictator (the Commander-in-Chief) to have MORE sophisticated weapons and means of subjugation? Are you INSANE? Here at least the libertarians have an argument --- the gun-toting neoconservatives have no idea what they want in such a scenario. Hope the hearts of the people with the most firepower (our servicemen and women) are turned in our favor, I guess --- and there, I'm afraid to say, history is not on your side.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oooh, now we are in my wheelhouse. My favorite author on topics of morality (specifically metaethics) is Sam Harris, and I fully agree with his argument that what's "moral" can be decided by what promotes the well-being of conscious creatures. In his mind, anything that moves us away from "The Worst Possible Misery For Everyone" (where the maximum number of conscious beings suffer as much as they can for as long as they can) is a moral action. Defined this way, "good" is what leads to more flourishing and "bad" is what leads away from it. It's a very persuasive argument, and I would dare say is only as controversial as every other argument in philosophy (the only formal "law" is the law of non-contradiction, according to Daniel C. Dennett). It's baseline is an assumption that one has to make, but such assumptions (Harris argues) are everywhere, including science: we value evidence and the Laws of Logic, but there is nothing telling us we should. They're just human-constructed constraints we have to work with, and so it is with a theory of objective morality based on achieving well-being and avoiding unnecessary suffering. The issue with declaring that all morality is subjective is that one commits oneself to defending the worst of human behavior, because under that ethical worldview, "you could never say that [insert genocidal maniac here] was wrong." That's a tough pill to swallow for most people, and it's why they often turn to religion for answers; but Harris offers us an alternative, and it's a particularly appealing one. Hume's "is/ought" distinction is often mentioned as a counterpoint, but what these same people neglect to mention is that Hume's original intent was to use that as a counter to religious claims to absolute morality; because you can't deduce from "God exists" (an "is") to "therefore, you should do such-and-such" (an "ought"). Harris's proposal, therefore, is just as sound as any religious lunatic who claims that we should get all our morality from the Bible. The only difference, of course, is that there is no invisible guiding figure giving us directions and commands to obey; we must figure them out for ourselves. And here I defer to utilitarianism (preference or hedonistic, it doesn't matter to me) and someone I consider the greatest living philosopher of our time (and my personal favorite): Peter Singer. Even though he hasn't fully accepted that morality is objective (although he is leaning in that direction), his work in applied ethics fits beautifully within Sam Harris's metaethics. Both The Moral Landscape and Practical Ethics are great books if this topic interests you, or you want to learn more about the topics I discussed here. Certainly I feel that morality is objective (but not in a "supernatural" or "spiritual" sense); the only question is how that moral framework is going to change our habits and behaviors and, ultimately, those of our entire species for the better.
1
-
@windogendoors7566 Correction: Murder is the unlawful taking of an innocent person's life, and embryos/fetuses aren't "persons." Because, at a minimum, a "person" must be an entity that can experience pain (suffer, which squirrels can do), be aware of its surroundings (sentient, which the hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows slaughtered each day are), and can see itself as an entity that exists over time, or is self-aware (conscious, which only dogs, dolphins, great apes, humans, and a few other species are capable of). A fetus, prior to the age of 18 weeks, is none of the above.
1
-
1
-
@jusapikachu5212 That's actually a horrible misrepresentation of the conservative position. Conservatives DO want better education, which is why the advocate for school choice (that is, the ability of parents to send their children to better schools). They also prefer charter schools because they often have more resources than standard public schools. They also advocate for ID laws because EVERY SINGLE DEVELOPED COUNTRY in the world requires them EXCEPT us. It ensures fraud doesn't take place. If you need an ID to purchase alcohol, or to register to vote at the DMV, you absolutely should need one when you submit your ballot at a drop box if we want to preserve the integrity of our elections (like most of Europe). If we want to emulate those other developed nations (which liberals often support), this is a step we have to take. There's a good case to make for granting Puerto Rico statehood, but D.C. makes no logical sense whatsoever. First of all, it's VERY tiny (the next smallest state, Rhode Island, is 17 times its size) and it's also the nation's capital, meaning it has it's OWN form of political leadership. The Founding Fathers would have made it a state if they so desired upon becoming the capital city in 1790, but they didn't. Furthermore, any citizen who is upset over not living in a formal "state" and living too close to the home of the President and our treasured national monuments can migrate a whopping 5 miles into Maryland or Virginia. It's really not that hard. So the suggestion that the District of Columbia deserves statehood is utterly preposterous. About the census, it was designed to count AMERICAN CITIZENS, not people who don't have the proper documentation as somehow waltzed their way in. We care about those who are here legally, and including data from illegal aliens will skew the results. The purpose of the census is to gather a broad understanding of how well American citizens are faring and in what areas, and since most illegals are living in considerably different circumstances (not having all the same rights), their responses will almost certainly tarnish the image of America as a whole. Finally, you do NOT want to abolish the electoral college. And let me explain why (but first, I highly suggest you watch the documentary Safeguard: An Electoral College Story). 70% of this country is White, 60% is non-Hispanic White. All a President has to do is appeal to White voters and he/she will win every time. Under the Electoral College, minority voters have the ability to change the outcome of a particular state (as we are witnessing right now in Georgia), and this is true of most swing states (Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania). If they unite to a sufficient degree, therefore, they can change the outcome of an entire election (as we saw in 2008 with Obama) which would be all but impossible if the 60% of non-Hispanic White voters acted more or less as a monolith. Finally, all a President has to do is appeal to the needs of voters in major cities (New York, L.A., Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia, etc.) and ALL of rural America would be ignored. Think of them however you want, but they do have their own specific needs and always having an Executive that only answers to the urban lifestyle will eventually make their lives extremely challenging, if it wasn't already. And before you say they can just move to the cities, many of them are critical because they grow the food all the city-dwellers eat. They're the backbone of our food supply and our nation would starve without them (or go into deep debt buying from other countries). Their voices deserve to be heard too, as much as you might disagree with some of their wants or beliefs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're not "pro-life" if you only support measures conducive to life before it exits the womb. Are you equally outraged about the fact that millions of innocent men, women, and children halfway around the world are being bombed into oblivion by our military or starved to death by our sanctions (and those of our allies)? Or that close to 70 MILLION Americans are uninsured/underinsured and 45,000 die each year due to a lack of proper healthcare? How about the future generations that will be completely wiped out because minimal action is being taken to address the impending climate catastrophe? Do you support the most basic regulations that would ensure that those precious unborn children won't be brutally gunned down once they reach the 3rd grade?
And don't even get me started on non-human life. The suffering of hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows we slaughter alive each and every day merely because we enjoy the taste of their flesh is ASTRONOMICAL compared to all abortions humanity has ever performed COMBINED. Does the life of that unborn child matter if it is gay or transgender, or would it be better off if it was "six feet under"? Prove to me that you believe life matters AFTER it has left the womb by pressuring your legal representatives to pass paid maternity leave and universal childcare, as the USA remains the ONLY developed country that does not provide these services. Better yet, demand that those children earn enough to make a decent living for themselves and their families when they grow older by advocating for raising the minimum wage and unionization efforts. Make it clear that you demand action on criminal justice reform, starting with abolishing the barbaric practice of state-sanctioned execution which more closely aligns the US with Saudi Arabia than with any of our peer nations in Europe. Finally, vigorously oppose any measure to engage in an unjustified and illegal offensive halfway around the world that costs taxpayers trillions of dollars and steals the lives of thousands of innocent Americans (usually young men).
George Carlin called out this blatant hypocrisy decades ago.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f-cked."
Embryos/fetuses prior to 18 weeks gestation cannot suffer (let alone possess any form of sentience or consciousness), and that infuriates conservatives. So in order to maximize human misery (their ultimate agenda), they seek to outlaw it so that mothers are forced to give birth and those children grow up in destitute and dysfunctional households with little to no social support, receive a poor quality education and either saddle themselves with student debt or serve in the armed forces, only to end up wounded/severely traumatized with no guaranteed healthcare and/or slaving away for a corporation for baseline wages -- all the while ensuring maximum penalties for engaging in sexual activity -- and finally growing old and retiring in little comfort due to a rapidly diminishing allowance in the form of Social Security. Then the cycle repeats itself. And that's not even taking into consideration the potential consequences of overpopulation -- resources will be spread thinner and thinner until, at a certain point, the damage done to our planet will be so severe that human civilization will be all but wiped off the face of the Earth. Think how much worse off we would be TODAY if we added 60+ million to our population (approximately the number of fetuses aborted since 1973). Famine, war, and widepread civil unrest are just the beginning. That's the world Republicans want -- a dystopian Malthusian/Orwellian hellscape -- whether they are cognizant of it or not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@morbidlyoppressed9038 70% of Americans are Christian, and (depending on how you ask the question) about 87% believe in God. If you are claiming that the issue is a lack of religious belief, you would be flat-out wrong. In fact, the statistics show that the U.S. is the most religious country in the developed world, and ranks dead last in a number of key statistics (rates of violent crime, life expectancy, happiness indexes, wealth equality, upward social mobility, infrastructure development, healthcare performance, and so on). And the best societies according to these measures are, guess what, also the most atheistic: Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Denmark, and the Netherlands all have between 40 and 80% of their population who say they are nonreligious. But sure, keep living in your little nationalistic, highly propagandized echo chamber. It would be asking too much of a conservative Republican to be educated about the outside world. 🤷♂️
1
-
@morbidlyoppressed9038 Science says there are two sexes, excluding intersex folks (XXX, XXY, XYY, X, etc.). Sex and gender are not the same thing. Sex is purely biological, whereas gender is purely psychological/social. So far, psychology has shown that gender exists on a spectrum, whereas sex is (almost) a dichotomy. If you still don't understand, have a scientist like Neil DeGrasse Tyson explain it to you, just like he did to that ignoramus Ben Shapiro.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fun fact: The most prosperous societies on Earth are "socialist." I'm talking about Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the Netherlands, just to name a few. Do you mean to say that every time the government spends our taxpayer dollars on HELPING the American people by providing them with basic necessities that every other developed country already provides (universal healthcare, childcare, lower prescription drug costs, a liveable wage, paid maternity leave, etc.) instead of what our corrupt politicians have been spending it on thus far (endless war, the military-industrial complex, weapons for foreign countries, corporate subsidies, Wall Street bailouts, and so on) is "socialism"?
1
-
1
-
I'm against the death penalty for a totally different reason. I can completely understand the sentiment of many on the right that it's the best form of retribution for the most heinous crimes (usually homicide) and the most unrepentant people. However, in principle I would still be against it NOT because such people have a "right to life" (that phrase is misused in more ways than one can count; what about innocent cows and pigs?), but because I think lifetime in prison without parole is a far harsher sentence. Think about it: Your life could end tomorrow, and you would be spared all the suffering that comes with existence, or you could live out the rest of your days (often decades) in a prison cell surrounded by people who couldn't care less about your welfare. And then, to top it all off, you will die there as well. Which is worse? The one argument I hear against this (and it's somewhat convincing, given that the maximum sentence in a country like Norway is 20 years) is that humans don't have free will, so these criminals don't "deserve" this punishment in any meaningful sense. What this does NOT take into account, however, is the deterrent aspect of such a harsh punishment: even if humans lack free will (as I believe we do), it still matters what thoughts go through a person's head before he or she commits an act. If the thought that prevents the person from committing homicide is the dread of the sentence that will be levied on him/her if he or she is caught, then the "punishment" is doing far more than just retribution: it's actively keeping society safer as a deterrent. Add on to this that studies have repeatedly shown that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent, and we have an airtight case for abolishing it altogether.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I really, really hope she chooses Josh Shapiro. Unlike Arizona, North Carolina or Kentucky, Pennsylvania is a state Democrats absolutely need to win in order to keep the White House. In fact, Dems could lose the entire "Sun Belt" (Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina) and still hold onto power, as long as Nebraska's 2nd goes their way (otherwise, we have an electoral college tie 😬). Josh is also exactly eight years younger than Harris, which positions him nicely for a 2032 Presidential run. He's a competent orator who, I believe, can strongly counter the influence of J.D. Vance in the "Rust Belt" (Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania). Polls have shown for months now that Dems' easiest pathway to the White House lies through these three states. Josh has also been in the spotlight recently: his response to the Trump assassination attempt in Butler, PA was widely lauded. Finally, Harris/Shapiro 2024 has a ring to it. If she chooses someone other than Josh, I seriously question her decision-making skills.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Family, faith, and freedom." Right-wingers don't even know what the word "freedom" means. In most states (ironically all of them except Oregon), police barge into the houses of otherwise productive and law-abiding citizens, tackle them to the ground, and arrest them for taking substances that Daddy Government doesn't approve of. We call them "drug raids." I don't need the government telling me what I can or cannot put into my body, but I would like for it to fulfill its role as a servant of the people by providing them with protection (firefighting, police, and healthcare), not as their enemy. Same thing goes for sex: Daddy Government should not be involved in the most intimate parts of people's lives, regardless of sexual orientation. That's freedom. But all this ignorance finds its origins in a delusion, namely that "faith" without evidence is a virtue. In fact, that's a tautology because if it did have evidence it wouldn't be faith. Religion has to cover their @sses by pretending that you can somehow will something into existence despite all the evidence to the contrary, and Christianity is no different. It's about time we stop pretending that it is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So many on the progressive left are succumbing to the isolationist/anti-establishment temptation to resist aiding Ukraine in their defense against Russian aggression. They are (or were, prior to being at war) a free, democratic country aligning themselves more with their Central and Western European neighbors than with Putin's proto-fascist Russia. Unlike Israel, however, their cause (defense of their sovereign territory from invasion) is actually just. First Saagar, who appears to have irrationally and obsessively opposed Ukraine from the very beginning (in his case, I suspect it also derives from his intense anti-European prejudice), then Krystal, who never offers any resistance to her bombastic co-host on this subject, and now . . . not you too, Kyle. 😢 It would seem that, among the modern new media left, only Vaush has the correct and moral position on this issue. Utterly disappointing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ah, so the Bible is your favorite collection of ancient myths and fairy tales, huh? Nice. Personally I have an affinity for Homer's the Iliad and the Odyssey, but the Vedas, the Pyramid texts, the Coffin texts, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Instruction of Amenemope, the Book of Caverns, the Book of Gates, the Amdaut, the Book of the Heavenly Cow, the Code of Hammurabi, the Kesh Temple Hymn, the Popol Vuh, the Avesta, the Koran, and the writings of Herodotus are all good too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence of any country in the world. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: WorldPopulationReview)
1
-
I suppose what is most frightening is the fear of dying prematurely. We all know what's coming, but most of us would like to put it off as long as possible. If an individual happens to live into his or her 90's today, he or she can at least be grateful that they have lived a full (and hopefully happy) life. If you spend the majority of your life contemplating mortality, and growing progressively more depressed by it, however, then death has won. The Grim Reaper doesn't "win" just by taking every old person. That's merely winning by default, like when your opponent forgot the rules of the game and you ended up "winning" because of it. If, on the other hand, a young person dies in a car accident, or from an injury, or because they were killed, or any other environmental factor they had no control over, that is counted as a victory for Death. It's exactly those kinds of situations we should seek to minimize so everyone at least has the chance to live to a ripe old age. Then the conversation is shifted towards remedies for medical conditions, which can often spell doom for the fairly young (think Chadwick Boseman). So in conjuction with maximizing personal safety all our efforts should be geared towards longevity by curing cancer, heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer's, and many other lethal conditions, and in recent years (at least in the U.S.) we have failed miserably (I think this is the third year in a row American life expectancy has actually FALLEN). And we must also consider that billions of people around the world are not nearly as lucky as we are (assuming you live in a developed country), and in many of them life expectancy doesn't exceed the 50's. That is abominable, and under no circumstances should that EVER be acceptable or tolerated by any of us. And looking into the future, some can clearly envision a time when humans will live to be hundreds or even thousands of years old (Aubrey De Grey and David Sinclair, to name a few). As for now, though, none of us should expect that breakthrough to occur in our lifetimes, and if it does happen many of us will no doubt be pleasantly surprised (I know I will be). Still, in the end, one will only be postponing the inevitable. And think how tragic it would be to die in an accident at the age of 67 when life expectancy is 400 --- clearly, we are not ready for that technology anyway. Not yet, at least. As far as what happens after we die, I envision one of two possibilities: either we return to the state we were in before we were born (none of us has any qualms about the time that passed before our existence, we shouldn't have any concerns about what happens after either), or we are reincarnated. If I were reincarnated as a cow, I would be p*ssed. But perhaps I'll be a human again, or a monkey, or a crawfish, or even an alien --- I don't know. Having gotten a general anesthesia once, though, I don't think nothingness is as scary as it sounds. After all, we only have this time on Earth to worry about what will happen to us, and once it's over (and there is nothing) we will no longer have the capacity to fret over such things. I would like to think it's like going to sleep for the last time, as if finally hopping in bed after a long day (except it's following a long life instead), and for that reason I would want to go out in the same fashion as when I got my wisdom teeth removed: via anesthetic-induced euthanasia. No pain (other than the needle going into your arm), and no worries either because you know when your time is coming --- removing half the reason for fear from the equation. No matter what happens, though, we were here to experience life in this universe, and that is more than the vast majority of possible human beings will ever have. Hopefully we have used this precious little time wisely and productively by pursuing the things that bring us happiness and are able to say with certainty that we left the world a better place than we found it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What about the born? You're not "pro-life" if you only support measures conducive to life before it exits the womb. Are you equally outraged about the fact that millions of innocent men, women, and children halfway around the world are being bombed into oblivion by our military or starved to death by our sanctions (and those of our allies)? Or that close to 70 MILLION Americans are uninsured/underinsured and 45,000 die each year due to a lack of proper healthcare? How about the future generations that will be completely wiped out because minimal action is being taken to address the impending climate catastrophe? Do you support the most basic regulations that would ensure that those precious unborn children won't be brutally gunned down once they reach the 3rd grade?
And don't even get me started on non-human life. The suffering of hundreds of thousands of pigs and cows we slaughter alive each and every day merely because we enjoy the taste of their flesh is ASTRONOMICAL compared to all abortions humanity has ever performed COMBINED. Does the life of that unborn child matter if it is gay or transgender, or would it be better off if it was "six feet under"? Prove to me that you believe life matters AFTER it has left the womb by pressuring your legal representatives to pass paid maternity leave and universal childcare, as the USA remains the ONLY developed country that does not provide these services. Better yet, demand that those children earn enough to make a decent living for themselves and their families when they grow older by advocating for raising the minimum wage and unionization efforts. Make it clear that you demand action on criminal justice reform, starting with abolishing the barbaric practice of state-sanctioned execution which more closely aligns the US with Saudi Arabia than with any of our peer nations in Europe. Finally, vigorously oppose any measure to engage in an unjustified and illegal offensive halfway around the world that costs taxpayers trillions of dollars and steals the lives of thousands of innocent Americans (usually young men).
George Carlin called out this blatant hypocrisy decades ago.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f-cked."
Embryos/fetuses prior to 18 weeks gestation cannot suffer (let alone possess any form of sentience or consciousness), and that infuriates conservatives. So in order to maximize human misery (their ultimate agenda), they seek to outlaw it so that mothers are forced to give birth and those children grow up in destitute and dysfunctional households with little to no social support, receive a poor quality education and either saddle themselves with student debt or serve in the armed forces, only to end up wounded/severely traumatized with no guaranteed healthcare and/or slaving away for a corporation for baseline wages -- all the while ensuring maximum penalties for engaging in sexual activity -- and finally growing old and retiring in little comfort due to a rapidly diminishing allowance in the form of Social Security. Then the cycle repeats itself. And that's not even taking into consideration the potential consequences of overpopulation -- resources will be spread thinner and thinner until, at a certain point, the damage done to our planet will be so severe that human civilization will be all but wiped off the face of the Earth. Think how much worse off we would be TODAY if we added 60+ million to our population (approximately the number of fetuses aborted since 1973). Famine, war, and widepread civil unrest are just the beginning. That's the world Republicans want -- a dystopian Malthusian/Orwellian hellscape -- whether they are cognizant of it or not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Who's the stupid one again?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
Wrong. At most, heroin is responsible for about 45,000 deaths each year. And almost every one of those is explained by adulterants, such as a fentanyl analogue, being present in the drug and making overdose much more likely. The other 25,000 or so are due to taking heroin in addition to other sedatives, like alcohol, leading to respiratory failure. If we legalized and regulated the substance, we could a) have strict controls on what is being sold, so people know exactly the right dose to take, b) have tests for "illicit" substances sold on the market so users can avoid taking heroin laced with adulterants, and c) implement a mass education campaign that encourages people to use opiods and other drugs responsibly and not to mix it with others at the same time. This would drastically cut down on the number of deaths, as we can see in places like Switzerland where this is already in effect.
Source: Dr. Carl Hart, professor of Psychology at Columbia University
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This has to end. My freedom to live is of a higher priority than your freedom to own a weapon of war. Full stop.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: World Population Review)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U S. has the most firearms per capita of any country in the world (Yemen is a distant second), being the only nation on EARTH with more guns than people. Not surprisingly, we also have the highest rates of gun violence of any country in the developed world by far. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Norway, and almost all other developed countries have some of the strictest gun laws, and also have the lowest rates of gun violence of any country in the world. Coincidence? I think not. This is the price you pay for "freedom." I hope it's worth it.
Fun fact: 9 out of the top 10 states with the highest rates of gun violence per capita are the Republican-led states of Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Montana. (Source: WorldPopulationReview)
1
-
1
-
@jorgeabuauad Bro what? 😂 Hell almost certainly does not exist, the concept was a later invention of the early Catholic Church, as Jesus and the Gospels only spoke of "Gehenna" (essentially a pit outside of town where all the bodies were cremated). Moreover, they clearly plagiarized Hades from the Greek mythos, which predates Christianity. The concept of the "underworld" existed long before Jesus was born, although you wouldn't know it if you only read the Bible -- there is no mention of such a place in the Old Testament. Rather than reading books on witchcraft, the occult, and sorcery or whatever the f*ck, I highly suggest you take a close look at the actual scholarly literature. Heaven and Hell by Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, a renowned Biblical authority, is a good place to start.
1
-
On "Nikki Haley Can't Stop Embarrassing Herself," uploaded 1/17/2024, I predicted that:
"The fact that Kyle seems absolutely convinced that Trump will be convicted within the next ten months is adorably naïve. First of all, the U.S. Supreme Court will delay all of these cases as much as they possibly can; look no further than their refusal to expedite Trump's total immunity claim. This makes it highly unlikely that the cases brought by the Department of Justice will be concluded before November 5th -- especially given the complex and unprecedented constitutional questions involved -- and, as is widely understood, Trump can simply dismiss them when he's reelected (or pardon himself, if need be).
That leaves the two state cases. Inarguably the stronger of the two is the Fulton County, Georgia RICO case. Anyone even slightly paying attention is no doubt already aware of the scandal involving Fani Willis and her handpicked special prosecutor, Nathan Wade. To say this completely jeopardizes the prosecution would be an understatement. Lastly, the weaknesses of the case involving hush money payments to a p*rn star (lol) are hardly worth spelling out; here, it will suffice to remind the reader that it relies upon an entirely novel legal theory invented wholecloth. At most, Trump is guilty of a misdemeanor offense -- one that the FBI didn't find it worth their time to pursue."
With each passing day, I see the words becoming reality. I am truly too good at this. 😂
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time, liveable minimum wage, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peterc9153 It doesn't matter what the Bible says, what Jesus said, or anyone else associated with the Christian religion. What matters is that we design law according to reason and science, and account for freedom as much as possible. Don't try telling me that the US is founded on Christian ideals; as a matter of fact, Thomas Jefferson once wrote that, "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of common law." John Adams, his political opponent, said exactly the same thing: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." (Treaty of Tripoli, 1796)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For everyone who says "guns aren't the issue, it's mental health," or "guns don't just get up one day, walk to a school, and fire themselves," I ask you: Would you apply that same reasoning to nuclear weapons? Certainly you don't believe that the world would be SAFER if civilians has access to weapons of mass destruction, do you? Then why do you REFUSE to acknowledge the empirical evidence that PROVES that the prevalence of guns in a society results in more gun violence and deaths? For every 100 people living in America, there are 120 firearms. By comparison, in the next closest country, Yemen (which is currently embroiled in civil war), there are 52 firearms for every 100 people. We are OBJECTIVELY the least safe country in the developed world in terms of the gun homicide metric. So, tell me, why not apply your flawed "guns don't kill people, people kill people" reasoning to other weapons of war as well? I eagerly await THAT answer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For everyone who says "guns aren't the issue, it's mental health," or "guns don't just get up one day, walk to a school, and fire themselves," I ask you: Would you apply that same reasoning to nuclear weapons? Certainly you don't believe that the world would be SAFER if civilians has access to weapons of mass destruction, do you? Then why do you REFUSE to acknowledge the empirical evidence that PROVES that the prevalence of guns in a society results in more gun violence and deaths? For every 100 people living in America, there are 120 firearms. By comparison, in the next closest country, Yemen (which is currently embroiled in civil war), there are 52 firearms for every 100 people. We are OBJECTIVELY the least safe country in the developed world in terms of the gun homicide metric. So, tell me, why not apply your flawed "guns don't kill people, people kill people" reasoning to other weapons of war as well? I eagerly await hearing THAT answer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ah, so the Bible is your favorite collection of ancient myths and fairy tales, huh? Nice. Personally I have an affinity for Homer's the Iliad and the Odyssey, but the Vedas, the Pyramid texts, the Coffin texts, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Instruction of Amenemope, the Book of Caverns, the Book of Gates, the Amdaut, the Book of the Heavenly Cow, the Code of Hammurabi, the Kesh Temple Hymn, the Popol Vuh, the Avesta, and the writings of Herodotus are all good too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse.
1
-
@shawnmurray9964 This:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@annaclarafenyo8185 Well part of me wants to agree with you, but the other part has heard nothing but positive things about psilocybin especially, but also DMT, LSD, and other hallucinogens as a whole. Even the bad trips can give a person a whole new appreciation for life, and in a time when everyone is so lonely and depressed from being locked inside their house I think this is just what we all need to maintain some kind of sanity. Of course I would never force someone to try them, especially if they want to keep their brain functioning at all times (Michio Kaku is a good example), but I genuinely feel that the average person could benefit from them in indescribable ways. It's certainly better than staying at home and watching television or playing video games all day and getting fat or drunk. Everyone who has taken these substances I've heard from have highly recommended that others try them at least once. And I'm not just talking about my neighbor down the street, but actual successful individuals like Sam Harris and Joe Rogan. In his book Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion, Sam wrote, "But if [my daughters] don't try a psychedelic like psilocybin or LSD at least once in their adult lives, I will wonder whether they had missed one of the most important rites of passage a human being can experience." And this is exactly the point I'm trying to make. LSD was manufactured in a lab, so I'm a little less supportive of that one, but psilocybin was a gift from nature to mankind. In fact, many anthropologists believe that psilocybin and similar hallucinogens accelerated our evolutionary development and helped us exit the Stone Age, start the Agricultural Revolution and begin the process of creating a civilization. There are also many good reasons to believe it's the source of many religions as well. All I would like to do is find out the truth for myself, and if the worst that happens is that I have a bad trip then I am perfectly okay with it. The government shouldn't have the power to dictate to me what substances I can put into my own body.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wagner was a vicious anti-semite, but I still enjoy listening to Ride of the Valkyries. So long as the music itself isn't encouraging illicit or immoral behavior (this is my qualm with a lot of rap music), especially behavior that the artist himself committed, then it's fine with me. Good luck finding a painter, a novelist, a songwriter, a rock star, or any other artist who has a perfectly clean record. It's possible, but there are so many with questionable backgrounds that it's not even worth considering. What IS worth asking is whether the material encourages you to commit such actions yourself, and if it does, then you have a moral obligation to stop consuming it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I voted "No," but I also voted for Kevin Paffrath (the Democrat who was trailing Elder). I figured that at least this way, if a majority of Californians do want Newsom out of office (and I can understand the sentiment completely, he isn't doing anything), we might have a small hope of electing someone better to replace him. Unfortunately, Paffrath got less than a quarter of the number of voted Elder got, but it didn't matter in the end because the recall was unsuccessful. As much as I don't like Newsom, I can't help but feel that we dodged a bullet --- Elder's ideas, if executed properly, would have turned California into Texas in the blink of an eye. And that, without a doubt, is FAR worse than having a governor who dines at the French Laundry minutes after declaring that all restaurants have to close.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. Why do you consistently vote against your own economic interests?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This bill would be paid for over the course of 10 years, and accounts for just 2.5 years of the military budget. Instead of spending OUR MONEY on useless wars in a desert on the other side of the world, or on building the world's largest stockpile that we'll (hopefully) never use, Democrats try to use taxpayer money to help ORDINARY WORKING PEOPLE by providing them with universal childcare, lower prescription drug costs, elder care/homecare, upgrading the electrical grid, tuition-free community college, a child tax credit, and much more, and what happens? We get tools like Kevin McCarthy who try to block the whole d@mn thing because he has to suck up to his corporate donors. He doesn't care about you unless you make more than $400,000/year. Then he'll fight like hell to ensure that your taxes don't increase, and instead milk the poor and the working class so he can bail out Wall Street. I'm sick of it. No decent American should put up with this, ever. What has McCarthy done for Americans lately? Ranted about Big Bird? Read children's books (Dr. Seuss) in front of our nation's highest legislative body? None of these things make a material impact on our lives, Kevin. The elites love you because you rig the game in their favor, and so do the sycophants who are unable to think for themselves (or don't want to), but everyone else hates your guts. I would say you should be voted out next November, but I don't want to get too hopeful --- the Democrats have their own problems too (namely, being ineffectual and spineless and embracing Wokeism). What a turd.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- No substantive material improvements in the lives of ordinary Americans (healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, extended child tax credit, student loan debt relief, etc.)
- Privatized everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamesosa3482 Abortion is not morally wrong. If you were even slightly read on this topic you would know that there are very good ethical justifications for an abortion policy. For starters, I would recommend you read Practical Ethics by Peter Singer, the world's leading bioethicist. He makes an airtight case for the morality of abortion on the basis that a) a fetus at any age is not a person (i.e. an entity that is capable of seeing itself existing over time, with plans for the future and preferences), and b) that a fetus prior to 18 weeks cannot suffer physical pain. Very few would argue that a zygote is worthy of legal protection (though no doubt there are some such people out there in the world, it is my assumption --- and sincere hope --- that you are not one of them), but there is also something of a consensus that a newborn is deserving of at least some protections (i.e. excluding instances where its quality of life may be so poor and so short that it's not worth keeping it alive, such as cyclopia or spinal bifida). The question is where the moral line between those two points can be drawn, and I (and many other liberals, e.g. Kyle Kulinski and Singer) draw it at the point where the nervous system is sufficiently developed so the fetus can feel pain. Before then, it may just be a matter of messiness or wastefulness that we might say that restrictions should be imposed (a larger financial penalty for 2nd-trimester abortions, for instance). All vertebrates have a heartbeat, and we slaughter fully grown pigs and cows by the hundreds of thousands and many don't even bat an eye (ironically, it's often the so-called "pro-life" people who are the most egregious on this front). Of course, there is no justification for that kind of treatment for members of other species but some special protections for our own in utero, other than some ignorant form of speciesism. If we can hang an adult cow by its hind legs while it's still alive and spill its guts, we can surely justify the killing of an embryo that can neither feel pain nor is consciously aware of actually being alive. That's how abortion is ethically, and morally, justifiable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden: "What are Republicans for?"
I can answer that for you:
- More tax cuts for the rich
- Endless war
- Rampant corruption
- Voter suppression
- Cuts to the already miniscule social safety net (by developed standards)
- Wall Street deregulation and bailouts
- No environmental protections
- Hindering unionization efforts
- Nonstop distractions about culture war garbage (Dr. Seuss/Potato Head, Sexy M&M's, Critical Race Theory, transgender bathrooms)
- Obstructing any substantive material improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans (like healthcare, childcare, homecare, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time, liveable minimum wage, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug costs, and student loan debt relief)
- Privatizing everything
- Defenestration of separation of church and state
- Government overreach into your personal business (mass surveillance, regulating your sex life, your anatomy, your intake of certain substances, etc.)
In other words: Everything that would objectively make the lives of ordinary working-class Americans worse. "lEt'S gO bRaNdOn" my @ss!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fun fact: The most prosperous societies on Earth are "socialist." I'm talking about Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the Netherlands, just to name a few. Do you mean to say that every time the government spends our taxpayer dollars on HELPING the American people by providing them with basic necessities that every other developed country already provides (universal healthcare, childcare, lower prescription drug costs, a liveable wage, paid maternity leave, etc.) instead of what our corrupt politicians have been spending it on thus far (endless war, the military-industrial complex, weapons for foreign countries, corporate subsidies, Wall Street bailouts, and so on), it is "socialism"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Squirrels have a heartbeat. This argument is quite honestly one of the dumbest I have ever heard. Even when a fetus is old enough to feel pain, so can a full-grown cow. That doesn't stop us from hanging them by their hind legs and slicing them open while they're still alive because we like the taste of their flesh, now does it? What makes humans unique is that we can attain a higher level of consciousness than all other animals in the animal kingdom, and use this as a source for creative intelligence. It's why we have everything from language to civilizations to automobiles. It also means we are capable of suffering at a higher level (or so biologists and neuroscientists think), and this serves as the foundation for a sound argument that we ought to afford greater privileges to grown members of our own species. But that only applies to grown members; a fetus has none of these capabilities, and the fact that it might if nurtured is irrelevant. As far as consciousness is concerned, the estimate is somewhere around 6 months of age (outside the womb) that humans achieve anything of real moral significance. Development of the ability to experience pain, of course, happens long before that --- but such a defense against abortion is not consistently applied, or else everyone who has ever "cleaned" a fish is guilty of a deeply immoral act, let alone everyone who is complicit in the mass slaughter of sentient mammals for food.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Uh oh, the establishment Republican Party and media are leaving their voter base behind. Now instead of watching Fox News, they're going to go to Newsmax and OANN, where the hosts tell them that getting vaccinated is "against nature" (no, seriously). The right once against shifts farther to the extreme, and soon there will be no limit to what conspiracy theories and superstitious gobbledegook they'll believe about the Democrats, Hollywood, and the so-called "elites" who are pushing Agenda 21, the New World Order, the Great Reset, and many other highly improbable or impracticable attempts at world domination.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The mainstream media has an incredible amount of power as they are the ones who bring current events to people's attention and influence the public's perspective on them, possibly altering their entire ideology in the process. Media bias - right OR left - is extremely dangerous and should be avoided within the main news networks at all costs. This is essential to keeping a well-informed and educated electorate that will vote for the candidates who make the most sense. The media of today doesn't just cover certain topics (i.e. Donald Trump) in a negative light or others (people speaking out on social issues) in a positive light, but they intentionally distort or leave out the facts of certain cases (Trump's speech about the protests in Charlottesville in which he condemned white supremacy); OR practice what is known as "selective reporting," where they cover certain stories (sometimes endlessly, such as George Floyd) but completely ignore others (such as Cannon Hinnant or David Dorn), only amending this when social pressure becomes too great. They are deeply dishonest and if we strive to create a populace that is well-educated on the issues our politicians are advocating, this should be priority #1 no matter which side of the political spectrum you fall on. And to be clear, I am not referring to networks such as MSNBC or Fox that openly admit to being partisan, but the ones who claim to be a non biased news source (most notably CNN, NBC, CBS, and yes, ABC News!!!).
1
-
1