Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei must go gaolang > your fav is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem loli real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
due to sexism agasint men
assuming they dont need no help and they can man up
it's made so that men arent given the resources to escape abusive situlations in the same way women can???
is there any man shelters for men who have nowhere to go?? in the same women shelters exist
ofc not cause femminists wont help fund such things cause contrary to your preaching, you guys dont care about down on the ground vitchims of abuse
look at the way, people made fun of kyle rittenhouse for having a mental breakdown and what not
little to no empathy for your fellow man, it's honestly digusting
which does not change my point
she can have been abused and still have the weath aswell as connections to escape such a enviorment
an average women who's low to middle class couldt get away from a abuser as easily as she has less acess to resources then a rich elite like amber
amber is a member of the higher class, she's literally apart of hollyhood any situlation she finds herself in that's bad can easily be avoided much easier then say a poor white woman
poor not as to say pity but rather poor as in economical value like amount of weath owned
ok so biden liberal right??
if his value is meritocracy then why does he support polcies that would go against that like affrimtive action and so on
if you are enforcing diviersity hires then that by definition aint merit based, it's race based or gender based
the black people in the street getting interviewed are bad thoughts
didt you say listen to minorties??
what happened to listening to minorties carrot??
you took me naming examples of black and white morality in a negative context as you then quote me making it seem like that's my stance on the matter
if you want my honest stance, i think both sides are flawed and have bias reasoning however you have some cases where they can be right cause get this even a bad clock gets the time correct sometimes
yea because liberal is used as a opposite to conservative
https://www.diffen.com/difference/C...he importance,intervention to sever that link.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...nd-conservatives-may-boil-down-to-one-belief/
and as a term analogus to the left
you just use weird definitions to define liberal in a way most sources would disagree on cause to you, you gotta be the rebel so despite everyone on earth going yea liberal left
you deny that cause even when you win in the mainstream, you still wanna have that perception of a freedom fighter fighting system
it's just a game of cosplay carrot, you wanna be perceived as some french revolulust like the days of old but you literally are more just the modern day version of the black shirts
you guys are protectors of the status who just wanna look moral by pretending to be a robin hood like figure
robin hood a didt agree with the poltics of the king at the time and b actually gave to those who needed the money
you would defend some rich elite just cause they are a protected class in the liberal regime like blacks or women if a german does something bad to a jew it's okay cause we support the aryan sounds alot like it's okay if a black man does something bad to a white dude cause we support black people
same race baiting shit to garner support,same cenorship of the media and same top down power structure
you guys arent anarchists, there's more comparison to the nazi party of old
so they hate goverment cause they are now more progressive now and at the same time love goverment cause it benefits
like which is it, does the goverment support right wing or no?
you just contradict yourself right here
it's literally just going goverment only leans right when it's convenient
-goverment benefits right wing
-goverment acting against conseratives by being more progressive
like which is it, are they supporting right wing or left
you wanna have it both ways here when it's clearly not that way, it's clear that the system leans left and has a bias towards right wing
Kindly, this does. Wealth do not negates the effect an abuser has on its victim.
Are you serious right now ? I'm actually asking because this time I don't want to appear rude because with other people you would be blocked with such comment. What you are saying proves that you are completely ignorant (and I'm not saying that as an insult) of the situations and reality of victims of abuse (men or women) and the mental GRIP that abusers have on their victims.
I'm extremelly serious here, read about that. Because right now, there is a gap of knowledge about that subject separating us and I just can't take the time to give you courses on the reality of those people.
Again, read about the reality that victim of abuse face and why its so hard for them to seek help.
Of course. Liberal are just the barers of certains values. But liberals can be (on the surface at least) progressive. Not saying that they can't be conservative tho, in fact conservatism is one of the value that make liberals, liberals as they want to keep the status co. Macron for example, can't stand change.
Duh... that's exactly what I'm trying to tell you guys.
Rightism, liberalism, conservatism and their values, ARE bad:
- For the lower class and middle classes
- For minorities
- For LGBTQ+
- For women's rights
- For the culture
- For the Fauna
- For the FLora
- For science education in general
- For economy
For pretty much everything.
This would need to be a entire series of book, but the impact of liberals and conservatism + the far right and fascism have been EXTREMMELY damagefull for the entire planet beginning with the search for gold and news commercial road that killed 70+ BILLIONS of people in the Americas starting in 1493. (And I'm not even talking about religious wars before and after that)
Again, listen to science, ethnic groups are not biological races
Yes, the problem is that you include me as a liberal when I'm actually fighting AGAINST liberals. So you are making a foundamental error of political comprehension.
Like I said, the main value of liberalism is meritocracy and leftist are OPPOSED to meritocracy. But tell me, if you are opposed to liberals, are you also opposed to meritocracy ?
Let's see if you are really against the status co...
Basic centrist don't exist. There is the right and the left. Centrist is just what liberal call themself to appear more progressive and to appeal to both leftist and rightist voters.
You will often here liberals say "I'm above political division" or "I'm neither left or right" or "there is good is the left and good in the right side" or "both extrems are bad".
You see, liberalism is not as much a political stance as it is an economic one, so liberals are often lacking in term of political value. So their programs will often seem... empty of ideologies. In reality, liberals/apoliticals just want one thing, : for things to stay as they are.
Indeed, but this is a vector, not a position. In reality, their position is still the right side, they just move on this part of the political spectrum.
That's why until a few hours ago, I was not calling you a far rightist. Just a confusionnist, meaning an apolitical/liberal leaning conservative. But I'm doing it now as you are more and more showing me rethoric close to the far right (Racism/sexism/anti science/Antiwoke etc.. the only exception being the right of abortion)
Some people here are indeed leaning left. Yes. That's right. But the majority of people here are either apolitical, either liberals. Or they are staying silent.
I'm the only leftist who makes a real stand here. Sadly...
I understand but this is not what liberalism is. Liberalism is a set of value that place meritocracy and freedom at the center of their ideology. This is something you must absolutely understand because without that, you will stay oblivious to a great series of mesure that liberals are actually doing.
In short, meritocracy is the value that really separate the left from the right.
Meritocracy is a model of society that has been in the making for more than a millenia. Today meritocracy is what is shaping the ENTIRE society. Its one of the foundation of capitalism. Meritocracy is literally the representation of the status co and what liberals are seeing as a salvation.
The problem is that merit is a myth and that meritocracy NEVER worked and will never work. There are countless documentations on that so I won't give you specific data, just type "meritocracy is bad for you" and you should understand the problem.
Because it never worked, people are trying to change the system. Those people are us, leftist (and communists and anarchists). Because we see the political problems linked with meritocracy and all its social issues we are FOUNDAMENTALY opposed to this model of society that is rulling the world right now.
This is why a left side and a right side started rising in the first place. Because they were in conflict on values such as meritocracy or propriety or human rights.
Anyway, what you need to understand is that today, meritocracy is defended by the right side of the political spectrum starting with liberals up until the far right and we, the left, are trying to create a new system. More equal with less inequalities.
No. I just call far right people with far right values. there is a tone of people on this forum that are not far right (the majority in fact)
And.. that's where you are wrong.
I was on your side once. And I know that I'm not stupid and I was not stupid back then. I was just missinformed and completely under the influence of my cognitive biases.
This is what I think you are, not stupid, just missinformed about foundamental subject such as sociology, science or politics and completely under the influence of your cognitive bias and maybe a little bit too influenced by far right rethoric on social medias. Maybe you should try to listen to left wing media for once.
The science here doesn't disagree with me lmao. In fact here, its actually showing what I'm telling you and you don't understand it because you don't try to go look beyond the paper.
Conservatives are indeed more frustrated against governements, which is logical, they hate progress and progress is rising within governements. But they LOVE the system. In fact the system foundamentaly benefits them. (mostly the rich). The system is why people like Trump, who spit on the face of gov, was able to become president. The system (in USA) favors lobbying, and lobbying is mostly something that can be done by rich people... who are most of the time leaning toward conservatism.
Liberal as shown are content with the status co, gov and the system.
On the contrary leftist/socialist and communist (that are absents from this research) are less frustrated with governement than they are with the entire system.
In short : When the rights wants to get rid of governements but wants to keep the system in place, the left wants to get rid of the entire system enabling bad governement to emerge.
Right now, liberals and the right are running the system. But it will change. You'll see.
All I see here is "bla bla bla, I'm triggered, bla bla bla"
Who said I was feeling lonely ?
I've been here since the begiining, and I didn't see you much mate. And
Just a ball of skin with the genetic characteristics of a human, but not a human yet. saying that this is a human would be like saying that 5 brick are a full building, they are not, they are a bunch of stone with the construction potential to become a building if more stone is added.
Its not about a change of specie its the start of one. From nothing to something. A ball of skin is not a specie.
No, its just as the genetic potential of homo sapiens. It will be an homosapiens when it gets all its physical and mental characteristics
That's not really what I saw in the process when she admitted her guilts about those situations.
She specified that it was a two way abusive relationship
Which is wrong. Heard shows photos of her being literally marked and there was the testimony of her make up artist that said that she had to hide bruses under makeup. But maybe are you thinking that those are fake for some (UNKNOWN) reason ?
I don't know.. @TheAncientCenturion could suddenly choose to place in the staff someone who is aware of the problem such as transphobia or sexism, maybe he could even recrute a transwoman.. That would be neat.
Not in science bro
If pro Life were consistant they would also fight for plant, for the right of people living under very hard conditions because of the society (trans/poor people/people of color) and for the end of the death sentence.
But since pro life are most of the time far right and conservative, they won't to that.
Yes, but Flaura can live without us, not fauna. At least not a part of fauna.
Not at all. What I'm saying is that there is no evidences showing that Depp was mentally or physically harm by the situation (not by the violences) of the trial. The trial actually helped him and the entire world leftist aside defended him. So there was no harrasment, no meme and lauging or deligitimization campagn. Those were only for Heard.
But considering his situation with heard, he was in the same vicious circle. That's why this trial was so complicated, both were abusive, which is extremelly rare.
Nop, they did their duty
Actually, no one is saying that. in an abusive relationship its hard for both men and women to escape the relationship.
But that's why I think you are not totally lost (I why I keep replying to you) you have some tools to understand the issue, like the understanding that men are indeed expected to be tough. Which lead to less recognition for men in SOME cases.
The problem is that you are focusing all you attention on men, when in reality when we compare the situation of men and women, women have it 100x time harder. Women are still over representated in domestic abuse.
again, you are focusing on a problem (men being abused) and you are looking at the wrong origin of the problem (woke focusing on women) when the reality is that we DO focus also on men, but we know that women are the priority right now because of the numbers and we know that the origin of the problem is not us, but Patriarchy. A system that do harm to both men and women (not on the same scale tho)
I've already explained you why there is less shelters for men with scientific paper as a source. Now read please.
Wrong, we do. We just choose to prioritize the greater number of victim of abuse first, men represent only a very SMALL portion of victim of sexism abuse because of gender.
Feminist are already focused toward women, you can't ask them to also fight for men on the same scale when we KNOW that men are the first source of violence for women. This would be too much mental load.
If you want for men to be more representated, then you fight for men who are victim of abuse and we will be ally. But don't you dare try to diminish women's fight in the process.
Are you really asking us to have empathy for a killer here ???????????? ???????
?????
???
??
?
?
?
?
?
?
No, that's just not how abusive relationship works.
No, liberal left. A rightist that is leaning toward progressism.
He doesn't mate. He still support the good ol american meritocratic model.
No, I was speaking about the guy talking. Not people being interviewed.
Sadly, there is no cases where the right is foundamentally right in an objective or scientific manner.
The first paper is using the term of liberal as it is used in usage, not in politic, while the other don't really define what a liberal is. The second paper however don't really disagree with me, as its true, there is a difference of belief between liberals and conservative (hence why those are not the same). But this doesn't mean that liberal are not on the right side of the political spectrum, it just means that they are potentially more progressive and more open to individual freedoms.
THe problem is that both paper don't take into consideration the point of views of socialist, communist and leftist. If they would, you would see that there is a bigger difference between the visions of a leftist and a liberal that between the vision and values of a liberal and conservatist.
Again, it all boils down to concept and values like the meritocracy.
Liberals have blurred the line, so there is some confusion happening (even in the researches) about the difference between liberalism and leftism but its starting to change. With the politic of people like Macron, the public is starting to see what the real liberal values are and why they are completely different (and incompatible) with leftist or socialist values.
Well, stay in ignorance then, I won't spend all my life explaining basic political things to you
Yup. Robin Hood was a true leftist and a true militant. (at least in some of the tales)
?
I'm literally saying that I'm against rich people. Are you playing dumb or what ?
Again, not at all. We would completely change the system.. You don't read what I say do you ?
You are confusing government with institution and the "system". The system is all the institution that are above the gov (laws/constitutions/system of power/chambers/wealth status co in the country/situation of minorities in the country etc..)
THe system is what enable government but its not the government.
Rightist/conservatist/far rightist hate governements but they LOVE the system, because it benefit them.
No, you just don't pay attention to what I'm saying.
---------
But again, you didn't answer my question to see if you are indeed against the status co.
Do you support or not meritocracy as a model of society ?
Are you serious right now ? I'm actually asking because this time I don't want to appear rude because with other people you would be blocked with such comment. What you are saying proves that you are completely ignorant (and I'm not saying that as an insult) of the situations and reality of victims of abuse (men or women) and the mental GRIP that abusers have on their victims.
I'm extremelly serious here, read about that. Because right now, there is a gap of knowledge about that subject separating us and I just can't take the time to give you courses on the reality of those people.
Again, read about the reality that victim of abuse face and why its so hard for them to seek help.
Of course. Liberal are just the barers of certains values. But liberals can be (on the surface at least) progressive. Not saying that they can't be conservative tho, in fact conservatism is one of the value that make liberals, liberals as they want to keep the status co. Macron for example, can't stand change.
Duh... that's exactly what I'm trying to tell you guys.
Rightism, liberalism, conservatism and their values, ARE bad:
- For the lower class and middle classes
- For minorities
- For LGBTQ+
- For women's rights
- For the culture
- For the Fauna
- For the FLora
- For science education in general
- For economy
For pretty much everything.
This would need to be a entire series of book, but the impact of liberals and conservatism + the far right and fascism have been EXTREMMELY damagefull for the entire planet beginning with the search for gold and news commercial road that killed 70+ BILLIONS of people in the Americas starting in 1493. (And I'm not even talking about religious wars before and after that)
Again, listen to science, ethnic groups are not biological races
Yes, the problem is that you include me as a liberal when I'm actually fighting AGAINST liberals. So you are making a foundamental error of political comprehension.
Like I said, the main value of liberalism is meritocracy and leftist are OPPOSED to meritocracy. But tell me, if you are opposed to liberals, are you also opposed to meritocracy ?
Let's see if you are really against the status co...
Basic centrist don't exist. There is the right and the left. Centrist is just what liberal call themself to appear more progressive and to appeal to both leftist and rightist voters.
You will often here liberals say "I'm above political division" or "I'm neither left or right" or "there is good is the left and good in the right side" or "both extrems are bad".
You see, liberalism is not as much a political stance as it is an economic one, so liberals are often lacking in term of political value. So their programs will often seem... empty of ideologies. In reality, liberals/apoliticals just want one thing, : for things to stay as they are.
Indeed, but this is a vector, not a position. In reality, their position is still the right side, they just move on this part of the political spectrum.
That's why until a few hours ago, I was not calling you a far rightist. Just a confusionnist, meaning an apolitical/liberal leaning conservative. But I'm doing it now as you are more and more showing me rethoric close to the far right (Racism/sexism/anti science/Antiwoke etc.. the only exception being the right of abortion)
Some people here are indeed leaning left. Yes. That's right. But the majority of people here are either apolitical, either liberals. Or they are staying silent.
I'm the only leftist who makes a real stand here. Sadly...
I understand but this is not what liberalism is. Liberalism is a set of value that place meritocracy and freedom at the center of their ideology. This is something you must absolutely understand because without that, you will stay oblivious to a great series of mesure that liberals are actually doing.
In short, meritocracy is the value that really separate the left from the right.
Meritocracy is a model of society that has been in the making for more than a millenia. Today meritocracy is what is shaping the ENTIRE society. Its one of the foundation of capitalism. Meritocracy is literally the representation of the status co and what liberals are seeing as a salvation.
The problem is that merit is a myth and that meritocracy NEVER worked and will never work. There are countless documentations on that so I won't give you specific data, just type "meritocracy is bad for you" and you should understand the problem.
Because it never worked, people are trying to change the system. Those people are us, leftist (and communists and anarchists). Because we see the political problems linked with meritocracy and all its social issues we are FOUNDAMENTALY opposed to this model of society that is rulling the world right now.
This is why a left side and a right side started rising in the first place. Because they were in conflict on values such as meritocracy or propriety or human rights.
Anyway, what you need to understand is that today, meritocracy is defended by the right side of the political spectrum starting with liberals up until the far right and we, the left, are trying to create a new system. More equal with less inequalities.
No. I just call far right people with far right values. there is a tone of people on this forum that are not far right (the majority in fact)
And.. that's where you are wrong.
I was on your side once. And I know that I'm not stupid and I was not stupid back then. I was just missinformed and completely under the influence of my cognitive biases.
This is what I think you are, not stupid, just missinformed about foundamental subject such as sociology, science or politics and completely under the influence of your cognitive bias and maybe a little bit too influenced by far right rethoric on social medias. Maybe you should try to listen to left wing media for once.
The science here doesn't disagree with me lmao. In fact here, its actually showing what I'm telling you and you don't understand it because you don't try to go look beyond the paper.
Conservatives are indeed more frustrated against governements, which is logical, they hate progress and progress is rising within governements. But they LOVE the system. In fact the system foundamentaly benefits them. (mostly the rich). The system is why people like Trump, who spit on the face of gov, was able to become president. The system (in USA) favors lobbying, and lobbying is mostly something that can be done by rich people... who are most of the time leaning toward conservatism.
Liberal as shown are content with the status co, gov and the system.
On the contrary leftist/socialist and communist (that are absents from this research) are less frustrated with governement than they are with the entire system.
In short : When the rights wants to get rid of governements but wants to keep the system in place, the left wants to get rid of the entire system enabling bad governement to emerge.
Right now, liberals and the right are running the system. But it will change. You'll see.
All I see here is "bla bla bla, I'm triggered, bla bla bla"
Who said I was feeling lonely ?
I've been here since the begiining, and I didn't see you much mate. And
Just a ball of skin with the genetic characteristics of a human, but not a human yet. saying that this is a human would be like saying that 5 brick are a full building, they are not, they are a bunch of stone with the construction potential to become a building if more stone is added.
Its not about a change of specie its the start of one. From nothing to something. A ball of skin is not a specie.
No, its just as the genetic potential of homo sapiens. It will be an homosapiens when it gets all its physical and mental characteristics
That's not really what I saw in the process when she admitted her guilts about those situations.
She specified that it was a two way abusive relationship
Which is wrong. Heard shows photos of her being literally marked and there was the testimony of her make up artist that said that she had to hide bruses under makeup. But maybe are you thinking that those are fake for some (UNKNOWN) reason ?
I don't know.. @TheAncientCenturion could suddenly choose to place in the staff someone who is aware of the problem such as transphobia or sexism, maybe he could even recrute a transwoman.. That would be neat.
Not in science bro
If pro Life were consistant they would also fight for plant, for the right of people living under very hard conditions because of the society (trans/poor people/people of color) and for the end of the death sentence.
But since pro life are most of the time far right and conservative, they won't to that.
Yes, but Flaura can live without us, not fauna. At least not a part of fauna.
Not at all. What I'm saying is that there is no evidences showing that Depp was mentally or physically harm by the situation (not by the violences) of the trial. The trial actually helped him and the entire world leftist aside defended him. So there was no harrasment, no meme and lauging or deligitimization campagn. Those were only for Heard.
But considering his situation with heard, he was in the same vicious circle. That's why this trial was so complicated, both were abusive, which is extremelly rare.
Nop, they did their duty
Actually, no one is saying that. in an abusive relationship its hard for both men and women to escape the relationship.
But that's why I think you are not totally lost (I why I keep replying to you) you have some tools to understand the issue, like the understanding that men are indeed expected to be tough. Which lead to less recognition for men in SOME cases.
The problem is that you are focusing all you attention on men, when in reality when we compare the situation of men and women, women have it 100x time harder. Women are still over representated in domestic abuse.
again, you are focusing on a problem (men being abused) and you are looking at the wrong origin of the problem (woke focusing on women) when the reality is that we DO focus also on men, but we know that women are the priority right now because of the numbers and we know that the origin of the problem is not us, but Patriarchy. A system that do harm to both men and women (not on the same scale tho)
I've already explained you why there is less shelters for men with scientific paper as a source. Now read please.
Wrong, we do. We just choose to prioritize the greater number of victim of abuse first, men represent only a very SMALL portion of victim of sexism abuse because of gender.
Feminist are already focused toward women, you can't ask them to also fight for men on the same scale when we KNOW that men are the first source of violence for women. This would be too much mental load.
If you want for men to be more representated, then you fight for men who are victim of abuse and we will be ally. But don't you dare try to diminish women's fight in the process.
Are you really asking us to have empathy for a killer here ???????????? ???????
?????
???
??
?
?
?
?
?
?
No, that's just not how abusive relationship works.
No, liberal left. A rightist that is leaning toward progressism.
He doesn't mate. He still support the good ol american meritocratic model.
No, I was speaking about the guy talking. Not people being interviewed.
Sadly, there is no cases where the right is foundamentally right in an objective or scientific manner.
The first paper is using the term of liberal as it is used in usage, not in politic, while the other don't really define what a liberal is. The second paper however don't really disagree with me, as its true, there is a difference of belief between liberals and conservative (hence why those are not the same). But this doesn't mean that liberal are not on the right side of the political spectrum, it just means that they are potentially more progressive and more open to individual freedoms.
THe problem is that both paper don't take into consideration the point of views of socialist, communist and leftist. If they would, you would see that there is a bigger difference between the visions of a leftist and a liberal that between the vision and values of a liberal and conservatist.
Again, it all boils down to concept and values like the meritocracy.
Liberals have blurred the line, so there is some confusion happening (even in the researches) about the difference between liberalism and leftism but its starting to change. With the politic of people like Macron, the public is starting to see what the real liberal values are and why they are completely different (and incompatible) with leftist or socialist values.
Well, stay in ignorance then, I won't spend all my life explaining basic political things to you
Yup. Robin Hood was a true leftist and a true militant. (at least in some of the tales)
?
I'm literally saying that I'm against rich people. Are you playing dumb or what ?
Again, not at all. We would completely change the system.. You don't read what I say do you ?
You are confusing government with institution and the "system". The system is all the institution that are above the gov (laws/constitutions/system of power/chambers/wealth status co in the country/situation of minorities in the country etc..)
THe system is what enable government but its not the government.
Rightist/conservatist/far rightist hate governements but they LOVE the system, because it benefit them.
No, you just don't pay attention to what I'm saying.
---------
But again, you didn't answer my question to see if you are indeed against the status co.
Do you support or not meritocracy as a model of society ?
That's precisely the point.
A foetus is not a beautiful human life, its a big bunch of skins and electrical signal that has the POTENTIAL to become a full human life. Its not beautiful, its gross. Sometimes life, is gross. And its necessary to understand that its only a gross potential for human life to fight pro life propaganda about beautiful already formed human life form/babies in the womb. To make clear that people have absolutely no right to take women's rights to own there body and to remove an unwanted lifeform taking all the life force out of them if necessary.
A foetus is not a beautiful human life, its a big bunch of skins and electrical signal that has the POTENTIAL to become a full human life. Its not beautiful, its gross. Sometimes life, is gross. And its necessary to understand that its only a gross potential for human life to fight pro life propaganda about beautiful already formed human life form/babies in the womb. To make clear that people have absolutely no right to take women's rights to own there body and to remove an unwanted lifeform taking all the life force out of them if necessary.
A feotus IS life. It is alive in the biological very technical sence. But its as alive as plant in their early stages are alive. Its not human yet., its only a potential human life. It only gets all the characteristic of human around the 20th week chen consciousness arise.
Therefore there is no "killing human" with abortion, its a nonsense.
Therefore there is no "killing human" with abortion, its a nonsense.
No, just the facts.
Life is everything living, from zygots to elephant, from plants to humans. But what we are talking about is not life, its the limit we put to ourself to accept where and when we can end this life when it becomes a necessity for a woman.
Such as the fact that we can accept to take the life of a flower but not the life of dog, we must accept when necessary to take the life of a zygot but not the life of a human.
The reality is that consciousness is the common factor. So we must see when consciousness starts. And its around 20 weeks. But to besure, we can start a bit earlier, that's why abortion is sometimes allowed up to fourteen weeks.
If you guys are failing to see this simple and logical thing, then we might indeed have a problem. But I'm used to fight pro life, anti women's rights and far right propaganda.. so bring it on.
Life is everything living, from zygots to elephant, from plants to humans. But what we are talking about is not life, its the limit we put to ourself to accept where and when we can end this life when it becomes a necessity for a woman.
Such as the fact that we can accept to take the life of a flower but not the life of dog, we must accept when necessary to take the life of a zygot but not the life of a human.
The reality is that consciousness is the common factor. So we must see when consciousness starts. And its around 20 weeks. But to besure, we can start a bit earlier, that's why abortion is sometimes allowed up to fourteen weeks.
If you guys are failing to see this simple and logical thing, then we might indeed have a problem. But I'm used to fight pro life, anti women's rights and far right propaganda.. so bring it on.
You feel the need to Justify that a budding life is not worth it knowing it'll be Life etc but then you say I'm the one that Denies the Science. Just say your a GD Hypocrite already. You use "science" as a shield to justify yourself and hide behind it but then you also deny it too. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Only you is saying that the seeds of a life are not worth it. What I'm telling you is that this descision is not up to you, its up to the person who own the body that will recieve and nourrish this life.
If a woman or a transman decides to keep the baby that they did not expect, then its a descision we must respect. The same way, if they decide that this life is not something they can accept and give life forces to, then ending this life before it grows into a conscious being is their descision too and we must ALSO respect it.
Science in this case only gives us the time limits : the beginning of life and the beginning of consciousness. Its up to us to create a boundary where it is acceptable for us to end life and when it is innaceptable to do so. My vision limits that around 15 weeks, but you can differ.
Noone is hypocrite about science here, we all agree on the scientific premisse. What we don't agree, is on the choices we make with it.
If a woman or a transman decides to keep the baby that they did not expect, then its a descision we must respect. The same way, if they decide that this life is not something they can accept and give life forces to, then ending this life before it grows into a conscious being is their descision too and we must ALSO respect it.
Science in this case only gives us the time limits : the beginning of life and the beginning of consciousness. Its up to us to create a boundary where it is acceptable for us to end life and when it is innaceptable to do so. My vision limits that around 15 weeks, but you can differ.
Noone is hypocrite about science here, we all agree on the scientific premisse. What we don't agree, is on the choices we make with it.
What about the new body and its rights?
And its highly subjective whether one thinks its beautiful or not.
Consciousness is no requirement to biologically be a member of the species homo sapiens, still. And thats enough for pro-life people to assign the same human value to a fetus as you do to 20+weeks individuals
*human zygote.
Pro life peeps most likely dont care if you abort a rat zygote or fetus or whatever. They care about the human part. Their opinion is humans have intrinsic value over other life forms regardless of developmental stage.
Just agree to disagree
Cherry picking the convenient shit. Not exactly uncommon
And its highly subjective whether one thinks its beautiful or not.
Post automatically merged:
Consciousness is no requirement to biologically be a member of the species homo sapiens, still. And thats enough for pro-life people to assign the same human value to a fetus as you do to 20+weeks individuals
Post automatically merged:
*human zygote.
Pro life peeps most likely dont care if you abort a rat zygote or fetus or whatever. They care about the human part. Their opinion is humans have intrinsic value over other life forms regardless of developmental stage.
Just agree to disagree
Post automatically merged:
Cherry picking the convenient shit. Not exactly uncommon
Last edited:
What about it ?
At what point do you consider that life gets rights ?
When it appears ? Then we should give right to plants, I mean why not, but good luck with that.
Or when it gains consciousness ?
Tell me. At what point of the conception of a lifeform do you consider that life should get rights ?
Until consciousness arise, its not an homosapiens yet, its just the potential for an homosapiens. Again, it would be like saying that a bunch of bricks is a building, its not, its the potential for a building even if we are sure that it will become a building.
And its wrong just as I explained in my previous reply.
At what point do you consider that life gets rights ?
When it appears ? Then we should give right to plants, I mean why not, but good luck with that.
Or when it gains consciousness ?
Tell me. At what point of the conception of a lifeform do you consider that life should get rights ?
Until consciousness arise, its not an homosapiens yet, its just the potential for an homosapiens. Again, it would be like saying that a bunch of bricks is a building, its not, its the potential for a building even if we are sure that it will become a building.
And its wrong just as I explained in my previous reply.
No a species is a group of individuals. There is no start of being an individual of a species down the line of development. A human zygote is different to a zygote of another animal species.
Your nonsense here is massively antiscience
Telling the person you used physical violence on to not be a baby about it is not admitting guilts, it is not recognizing the guilt and having no remorse.
Holy fuck
Yes, and abusive = violence?
I know you hate actual definitions of terms so I wouldnt even be surprised at this point
Sure, they wont do anything over me saying the truth though
Your nonsense here is massively antiscience
Post automatically merged:
Telling the person you used physical violence on to not be a baby about it is not admitting guilts, it is not recognizing the guilt and having no remorse.
Holy fuck
Post automatically merged:
Yes, and abusive = violence?
I know you hate actual definitions of terms so I wouldnt even be surprised at this point
Post automatically merged:
Sure, they wont do anything over me saying the truth though