Comments by "Oblithian" (@Oblithian) on "Nate The Lawyer" channel.

  1. Ok, in regard to their arguments. Their concept of multiple genders as argued is self-contradicting. They are saying sex (or traditional gender) does not accurately define a person, which I agree it is a single component to a larger individual identity. HOWEVER, they are in the same breath also defining gender as something that does exactly that, and these new genders are so explicit as to define themselves with more weight than gender had been given ever before and runs completely contrary to 'escaping traditional gender roles'. Like the recent neo-segregationist movements (found rooted in CRT and identity politics), these are regressive and work against their claimed goals (of pursuing mutual respect and equality) as an inherent result focusing on extreme differentiation.
    2
  2. Only thing I can recommend temporarily is affordable food delivery services, but it wouldn't take long before they start gstting raided (perhaps with more injuries, deaths, and property damage).
    2
  3. Just like Trump and all the rest.
    2
  4. If we get right down to it the conclusion, as inconvenient as it becomes, for the ethical standard will inevitably be that upon becoming a genetically separate lifeform, it has rights. Now expressing and limiting the rights is where you get into the mud, especially because the US is a society of individualism and a fetus or zygote is completely dependent. Regardless, as with children they are given no say and therefore require protections (but no protection should be infinite). Just as a father currently has inescapable responsibilities to their offspring. Steps can be taken safely to find an alternate host (or stored while waiting) before a certain stage. Like with anything else, after that stage there should be responsibility for not dealing with the matter in a timely manner (and getting into the situation to begin with, if voluntary). If you don't transfer the pregnancy before doing so becomes a matter of life and death for the unrepresented party, you should have an obligation to deliver it (though not to raise it. A government system should be in place for that). If in the event of a complication, requiring a decision to save one or the other, the default should be that the party with the highest survivability should be saved (unless self-sacrifice was explicitly stated by the party with capacity beforehand). No matter the circumstances of conception the unborn is innocent in this, and its life is inarguably fully affected in the handling of these matters. The arguments against which are equally applicable to a fully dependent infant, the only difference is, we see them and can feel more empathy. Other options exist and whenever they can be done safely then they should be. Inconvenience is never a good excuse for denial of rights. One may have other opinions, and that is fine at the end of the day it is the most popular opinion that gets adopted and not merely my own. But I do seriously believe that this is how things will conclusively be done be it in our lifetime or in another few generations.
    2
  5. One, it is not acceptable to demand people announce their gender, or sex. However, if someone wants to be referred to as something other than what would reasonably assumed, they probably should announce it. Then having been announced, if another party is aware of it and chooses to ignore the preference in identification that would reasonably be considered rude. But not illegal, unless repeated and constituted harassment. The notion that people MUST announce themselves is ridiculous and goes against privacy and anti-descrimination laws. Besides the fact that the individuals they claim to be protecting would be forced to draw (what may be) unwanted attention toward themselves, and the fact that what is assumed may not be correct. Then there are issues with self-defined things under the same words rendering words without communicative meaning and therefore as good as garble, but that's a seperate matter.
    2
  6. Thanks for letting us skip the recap. 👍
    2
  7. A WRITTEN APPOLOGY!? He probably didn't even write that. Even if he did, a written apology does not show sincerity, nor is it what he should be doing as a gesture of reconcilliation. Apologize to the man in person and try to make up for it in some way.
    2
  8. But not her talent unfortunately...
    2
  9. The government should be financially liable, then the victims would actually get money. Then the government can decide the penalty for their employee. But I at least agree accountability is needed.
    2
  10. Regardless of if this case is bogus. "Trump is the toughest guy I know", he must not know very many tough guys. Would you want Trump with you in an emergency or someone from the Navy Seals?
    2
  11.  @philipstape3431  After this 'equal pay' farce I would like to see the teams play eachother to prove their supposed equal skill.
    2
  12. Yep, any girl that complained enough at school got to play whatever sport or team she wanted. But when i was a young child was I allowed to even try ringette? No. (The rings looked more fun)
    2
  13. I can't fault the public that much for giving someone the benefit of the doubt when voting. But, I can definitely fault them a little. She really is showing the flaws of the system though. Councillors who aren't reading the bills they pass. Things that are unconstitutional being enacted. Because it isn't preventative, and because there aren't automatic processes to safeguard things, they are now going to have to fight to claw back the things she put in place. That money she spent, they can't get that back. She isn't your fraudulent CEO the money she made, and money she took, she spent.
    2
  14. Why even say you had a secret backyard wedding!???
    2
  15. What a good reason to like someone...
    2
  16. How did it work for Gillette.
    2
  17. Probably more weatlh and or fame. But maybe all three, who knows?
    2
  18. Wait nait, let's examine the possibility of self-conscious bias, it does seem like a lot. But, if it was a male and another male came out while this was going on... Would we be giving them as much leeway for ignoring the directions of the officer, arguing, walking away...
    2
  19. I have never watched a single video of his, and only learned of his being a YouTube creator after another Creator made reference to him. Previously I only knew him as that fellow from those annoying 'Honey' commercials. I can certainly see how some people would have never even heard of him. YouTube's algorithm seems to silo people.
    2
  20. I agree. Although, (radical opinions aside) anyone making any statement must accept that to some extent as an opinion wil always offend/hurt another. Where to draw the line....? I don't know. For an objective hard line, I think it would be somewhere were several conditions would have to be met. Substantial and lasting harm, knowledge of harm, intent to harm, insignificant benefit. I am not certain he believes his statments actually cause harm. To be fair, I suppose we are acting like his statements are as bad as an order to commit the crimes some of the individuals within the group he 'loves' comitted. In that sense the harm is fairly not to the degree asserted by the media given the general perception of outlandishness. To some extent we are probably having more of a knee-jerk reaction by being caught off guard by such outlandish statements. But as a general policy (my personal belief) we should always do our best not to upset others. That said, most people don't like my approach "being a pushover".
    2
  21. Then you would definitely be going to jail, and that just isn't worth having your child grow up without a parent.
    2
  22. There is a fair point about people in general using charity for attention. There are also those other people who are doing it for attention that can get angry when you take away their spotlight. BUT, he did this with the communities permission. And the people who matter wanted it, its not really up to other people to get offended.
    2
  23. *"In his old time slot" Oh... Well that isn't news or surprising at all. That's not the entire channel that's like saying, "Melon customers decline when store stops selling melons". Either way it would be more surprising if fox lost zero viewers in the short term.
    2
  24. Woah woah woah woah woah woah. CRT IS NOT an 'inclusive' classroom initiative. It is, in every way, divisive.
    2
  25. She also has no obligation to 'embrace her culture', if we went by that obligation... Everyone better be going to church. Maybe people are finally cluing into the contradiction that is supporting cultural traditions are supporting conservatives of another culture. While supporting modernization 'Westernization'(which has always been a dumb term) is supporting their liberals.
    2
  26.  @TheGosgosh  They will call them misinformed and feed false or misconstrued information though.
    2
  27. Who wants to drink bud light anyway?
    2
  28. The irony is, if we don't talk about the absurdities and only tell them they are absurd and moved on, none of these stupidities would happen.
    2
  29. Chris Rock would never press charges, he apparently has quite the integrity.
    2
  30. It would be amusing.
    2
  31. There's a space themed meme for this lol.
    2
  32. Technically he didn't have a criminal punishment he simply volunteered his bond and 2 days of community service.
    2
  33. Does being able to abort a fetus just because you want a different sex seem right to you? What about if you want to get pregnant and abort a child just to hurt someone who wants a child? (ex. the father, a grandparent, etc.) If you can think of situations where it shouldn't be done, then 'my body my choice' needs some realistic limitations. But merely pointing out fair concerns gets you blackballed these days.
    2
  34. Her perspective, boiled down is that jokes marginalize people and make them not seen as human. If that is the case, all the times people joke about caucasians, they are committing a hate crime I guess. While I can agree that a widely held perspective could do that; one joke in itself does not. They may have malice, they may get booed. If people want to be upset they can (contrary to popular belief of, I can be upset but you can't). But the response cannot be mob justice, or assault, or anything else so impulsive and archaic. Tolerating (or especially supporting) that behavior, is not good for society.
    2
  35. This is not merely a matter of a misdemeanor he was attempting to disrupt the operation of the government. I don't care who he is, the penalty should be a lot higher and he should be banned from office. First he tried to trip the alarm by opening the door, likely to claim it was an accident. Then clearly pulled the alarm without trying to leave. "Oh he just needed to get through, there was a vote. The vote was outside? So he pulled a fire alarm!?" They must think everyone is stupid.
    2
  36. The fact that she's bent out of shape really reinforces that she wasn't in it for the betterment of women, she was in it for the money. And the fact that Rapinoe(?) is happy despite the faux agreement shoes that Rapinoe(?) was also just in it for the money. She stomped her feat was turned down, went to someone else, stomped some more and got her candy. Now she's happy as a clam until she wants more. But I do think it was just a move of selfishness on the team for their payout at the expense nof whomever is necessary (as is stereotypical for sports teams). They wanted to get a 'win' out of a lost battle and pretend like they are 'heroes' and 'role models'. It was a garbage suit but they also sold out their former teammates. I don't think these players (who support this farse), should be role models to anyone. They are an embarrassment to women everywhere not because one woman is indicative of another, but because they claimed to be the paragons of all women.
    2
  37. Well, she can't she may be stealing but she's also trapped. As soon as she is out, she loses all her protections.
    2
  38. I assume he can then sue her for defamation. Plus, the appeal.
    2
  39.  Anal Farmer  Since when is being violent a stereotype? Is it just one of those American things, or was it too invented and propagated by the sensationalist 'news'.
    2
  40. Scared and intimidated. As bad as it was, it wasn't so bad that it was indescribable or even something so violent and disturbing that Nate would opt out of showing it.
    2
  41.  @IMDunn-oy9cd  He also doesn't have to stay a women, that is one of tge thousands of options in the +.
    2
  42. Ever notice, all the prevailing dialogue seems to ignore the opinions and perspectives of female to male transgender people? I am guessing the self-proclaimed 'feminists' are a bit angry at them for "abandoning the cause".
    2
  43. Ironically, the child is likely to respond more favourably. You give the wnt too much credit and children not enough. Well... some children anyway, but parents will raise their kids how they want no matter how unpleasant the result. hahaha
    2
  44. Is Dan getting 'cancelled' or is he going through the regular investigative process not afforded to people who are 'cancelled'?
    2
  45. People also alleged this about the man who was murdered by a police officer. It is neither thruthful, nor impacts the facts of the case. It only serves upset public opinion.
    2
  46. There could be other lasting reputational issues also.
    2
  47. Just remember everyone the virus could also have been studied at the lab, post locating it (rather than having been manufactured). That said, no reasonable person can fairly say it isn't AT MINIMUM suspicious that a disease lab's location coincides with the first known instances. The media's ability to effectively label things as mockable 'conspiracy' should be gravely conscerning.
    2
  48. But I fear they will make it more pro-censorship.
    2
  49. Lol to be fair, it's not like American citizens are law abiding right now either.
    2
  50. BFORs are important.
    2