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?

In dead case, I fish you the bessed.

Richtlinien für MINISTERIEN ≠ Einschränkung für Bevölkerung

Da fehlt ein Komma nach dem Wort “Lage” in deinem Kommentar. Du bist es also anscheinend auch nicht.

Nonody is “known” for that behaviour. You really just seem to ascribe personality traits to people based on their skin color. I thought we were long past that.

If the post said “a Black trans women interrupted me”, would that be also fine, in your eyes?

Das eine bezieht sich auf die Bevölkerung, das andere auf die schriftliche Ausdrucksweise von Behörden. Ich halte es für legitim, zu fordern, dass Behörden sich schriftlich einheitlich und außerden nicht ideologiegetrieben äußern.

Die Pflanzen sind nur zum Eigenkonsum zugelassen. Aber wenn du dich um deine Gesundheit bringen willst, dann nur zu!

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.