At least if you lived in a socialist place before that naturally left you so helpless that you now wish for the heavy restrictions to be back because you rely on them.

“At least the walls of the prison kept me warm”…

All communist social-media addicts are always hsppy for the rest of their lives, of course! The addiction can’t be the issue, it has to be capitalism!

Cocktails without alcohol cost way too much for what they are. That would be like paying 15 bucks for a burger without meat.

Restaurants sometimes also have like dozens of types of beer, wine, etc. but the best non-alcoholic they can do is a water or a coca cola softdrink?

It is against the law. That means that society, as a whole, has decided that this is immoral.

No one forces you to stare at the girl

So that means that its morally okay to kill everyone who looks at me (“No one forces then to look at me!”)?

Why is your ethics enforceable, but other people’s aren’t?

Because ethics are only enforcable through laws and the laws currently enforce “my” ethics in that regard.

Why does she have less right to practice her ethical choice to expose her body (assuming by your answer you would have offense)?

Whether that is morally right is an ethical question but would you say the same about a minor (exposing themselves)?

Ethics is very subjective

Exactly, so what is the issue with the company having moral concerns about it and shutting it down?

I’ve now informed myself on the Republicans and the Democrats views and policies and the Republucans indeed seem quite right, more so than I thought. My stance on this post is still the same but I guess this helps to put things into perspective…

Does the fact that we think even “regular” conservatives have shitty beliefs make you feel better?

I could already imagine what you think of their ideology. The problem I have is with labeling a general political orientation as illegitimate.

Do conservatives want to fund public services?

They probably don’t want to increase their funds. But yeah, public services exist for a reason. How many funds they should get it a debate to be had.

Do they want to reduce police funding?

Probably not (?), though would you mind explaining what the whole police defunding demands are about? Is it just currently viewed as a waste of money or what?

Do they want to reduce inequity and tax the rich?

They probably dont want to tax the rich more than they currently do, but yeah they would AFAIK still tax them (and tax them more than normal people). Inequality is a moral-based question again. You may find it fair if everyone has the same amount of money, someone else might find it fair that you get more money the more you earn, etc.

Thanks, this clears things up for me

“I never said it was but it totally was!” So no to that as well.

To make sure you can’t interpret this the wrong way:

• I did not claim that having the right to drop a baby was comparable to having the right to abort
• However, it is completely irrelevant how comparable they are because this nontheless clearly shows that your absolute claim of “total choice” is false.

To sum it up for you:

• The dropping example refutes your claim about total control
• You said it isn’t comparable
• I agreed and pointed out that I never claimed it to be. However, it still refutes your fucking claim. The whole point was for it to be non-controversial (I hope we agree dropping a baby is not your right) so we can both agree that you do not have total control, which you had previously implied.

• What’s a SCOTUS appointment if you dont mind me asking?

• Seems like a questionable system though, right? Im vaguely familar on how partys in the US can appoint judges for life as soon as others leave…

• Isn’t this favorable appointing of judges done on both sides, depnding on the governing patty (aka Democrats and Republicans) or what is the scandal about what happened under Trump?

We aren’t talking about Russian elections

Yeah but you said that doubting the validity of elections is not an opinion. We weren’t talking about any country’s elections specifically.

stop acting like “you don’t have the right to drop a baby onto the floor!” is remotely in the ballpark of an apt comparison

I never claimed it to be but dont you realize that it refutes your claim that one should have “total” control over one’s body? This showd that its a matter of where you draw the line. Its not black and white. Can you kill a baby after it was born? Two minutes before? A month before? 6 months before?

One country could have a “conservative” ideology that’s considered entirely “liberal” by another country.

… which is why find these generalized statements on political orientations stupid. At least the girl in the post could have said “Republican” or sth.

Except they did. “The rights” in the U.S. attempted to overthrow the duly elected president

No, it’s not “the rights” who did that. It was a group of people from the right side of the spectrum, presumably the more extreme ones who did that. You can’t generalize every condervative person into that group.

(Although the fact that it was actually Trump who called for the attack is highly problematic, even more so the fact that he now is again up as a candidate elected by his party).

The democrats are by no means an extreme party. Those are not left extremists.

We are outside of that normal.

YOU are outside of that normal. But then, why do you project the disagreement with one party to the “standart progressive vs conservative debate”. You can’t take one party from one country that you dislike and genelarize that “condervative=bad”. That would be like saying “China’s social credit system is bad, therefore leftists are bad”. No!

By no means do I support the Republican party or their views but claiming conservative to be illegitimate just because your only choice of a conservative party is bad is so strange.

Its fair no neither side. Just because right extremists do bad stuff where you live and left extremists don’t seem to exist or be as prelevant where you live, that doesn’t make the whole political direction (e.g. left-leaning, right-leaning) invalid. That just makes extremists bad. That would be like saying “Staling = bad, therefore every non-condervative = bad”.

It’s not like “the rights” or “the lefts” have tried to overthrow the government. More like: people whose views are so extremely right/left that they are antidemocratic have tried to overthrow democracy.

“think trans people are grooming kids”

Thats just an insult, not an actual belief.

“I think the election was rigged”

How is this not an opinion? Do you think the elections in russia are unquestionably fair?

“I think women shouldn’t have total control over their bodies”

Nobody has total control, that was never up for debate, it’s just a question of where you draw the line. You can’t consume heroin, for example. If you’re holding a baby in your arms, you dont have the “total freedom” to drop it. Similarly, it’s a valid ethical debate if and when an embrio is concidered another living being. You might say “control over their body”, someone else might say “it’s not their body, it’s that of another human”.

Your entire comment assumes that “the others” are intolerant and you are the tolerant saint. The truth is, what is tolerant depends on your morals and is thus subjective. Tolerating other’s opinions is a fundemental requirement for a democracy, with the exception of opinions that are anti-democratic. Not tolerating a whole political view, however, has nothing to do with that. That would just means being an intolerant asshole and claiming that one’s own political beliefs are the only ones that are correct.

Yeah but extremes on either side of the spectrum try to overthrow democracy. We have to fight the extremes but not the whole political orientation.

I just looked up Roe V Wade (I’m not from the US) and it appears that it was recently overturned by a federal court. A court does not make the laws, so overturning an older case means, as fas as I know, correcting the decision on laws that they have to follow, no matter if they like it or not. If you want a law on abortion, you should get the parliament to pass such a law IMO.

Generally, if someone’s methdology is unacceptable, that doesn’t invalidate their political views and certainly not the whole political orientation.

This is so catastrophically problematic on so many levels. “Conservative” or “right” are valid and legitimate political orientations, just like “left” is. Posts like this that suggest that a political view is wrong are just so closed-minded and fundementally intolerant. These always seem to disregard that there is a disagreement because of ideology and always suggest that “the conservatives’” opinion is of any less value than their own. What the heck?

But that anti-KKK stance is not as extreme as it could be. I’ll give you an example of a more extreme stance: Every member should be tortured and executed, everyone who they were friends with should be imprisoned, everyone who mentions the name “KKK” should be imprisoned.

That is an extreme stance and it is ridicolous too. And in most (all?) cases, extremism also means authoritatian. Do you have an example for an extreme stance is any good?

Using an IDE definety IS programming.

(I think that was a joke, it IS actually a lightning cable)