Page #1
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#44
New Comment Rating: -9 Similar topics: 1.Does it actually matter? 2.SYD is a great place 3.Trump/Pence or Biden/Harris...Which do you feel will prevail??? 4.Kneeling before the American Flag during the National Anthem... 5.༼☯﹏☯༽ Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
the facts are there. the democrat voters are just to fucking dumb to read them.
"1856 †
As our Republican fathers, when they
had abolished slavery in all our national
territory, ordained that no person shall
be deprived of life, liberty, or property"
"1852
The Democratic Party will resist all
attempts at renewing – in Congress or
out of it – the agitation of the slavery
question [i.e., will oppose all efforts to
abolish slavery ]"
The South supported slavery, states’ rights, while the North wanted to stop it.
The rural conservative South favored the Democrats back then
and the progressive North favored the Republicans.
Obviously that has now completely flipped. It took almost a century.
There are now Republicans saying to bring back slavery of some sort.
Actually, you yourself supports something very close to slavery.
You certainly don't support human rights, the basis for rejecting slavery.
Why does your party still Pledge Allegiance to "Liberty, EQUALITY, and Justice For All"?
It was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and Christian socialist.
YOU SHOULD FUCKING HATE IT!! But, it's part of your Republican LIBERAL heritage.
(The 'under god' part was added by Dwight Eisenhower in 1954, gutting the secularism)
Still, the rural conservative South supports and defends the side of slavery
and that side is still flying the Confederate flag. Southern Democrats were
the backbone of secession and the Confederacy.
Now why would the current Republican party support the flag of the Southern Democrats, as important part of their history, while the current Democratic party wants to ban it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signs of the Democrats’ Southern / rural past:
- The Democratic donkey dates back to Andrew Jackson (a Southern Democrat, 1820s
–30s). Jackson’s populist, agrarian base was deeply Southern and rural. The symbol stuck, even after the party’s base shifted.
- State Democratic parties long held fundraising dinners named after Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, both icons of the party’s rural, Southern, agrarian roots.
(In recent years, some states renamed them because of the association with slavery.)
- In parts of the Deep South, older voters and local politics still have Democratic
“family traditions” going back generations, even though most white Southerners shifted Republican after the 1960s.
- Some Southern local offices (sheriffs, judges, county clerks) stayed Democratic for decades after the national shift, only recently becoming Republican.
- Even today, Democrats sometimes invoke themes of “the little guy vs. the elites” —
a populist tone that echoes their 19th-century rural base, even though the “little guy”
is now imagined as an urban worker or minority voter rather than a small farmer.
Signs of the Republicans’ Northern / progressive past:
- The Republican symbol of the elephant was popularized by cartoonist Thomas Nast,
a Northern progressive Republican, in 1874 and stuck through repeated use, eventually becoming the party’s enduring symbol. Back then, it was still the party of the Union victory, civil rights for freedmen, and Northern progressives.
- The Republican Party branded itself as the party of Union victory and progress after the Civil War. Even though it’s now dominant in the South, the GOP still calls itself “the party of Lincoln.”
- Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, is still celebrated by Republicans, even though he was the leader of the anti-slavery, Northern-based party. The annual “Lincoln Day Dinners” at GOP events are a direct tie to those Northern progressive origins.
- Through the mid-20th century, the GOP still had a liberal/progressive wing based in the Northeast (e.g., Nelson Rockefeller of New York). While diminished today, some of that tradition survives in moderate Republicans from states like Maine (e.g., Susan Collins).
- Republicans historically pushed protective tariffs, banking reform, railroads, and infrastructure to grow the industrial North. Echoes of this “pro-business, pro-modernization” stance remain in the GOP’s emphasis on free markets, trade, and corporate growth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Democrats KNOW their history, but you are just too fucking dumb to understand
that the parties flipped sides.
Are you denying that it was the SOUTH that wanted to keep slavery
and that it was the NORTH who wanted to abolish it?
Are you denying that the NORTH won the civil war and the SOUTH lost?
It's as simple as 1+1=2, but you keep denying the obvious.
No you are denying democrats wanted slavery, you keep saying partys flipped, no, democrats to this day want illegals doing their dirty work for low wages, why do you think they are against ice!?
only registered users can see external links
He says he hates liberals.
It is not a police problem, but the idiot lunatic libtards that will not support the law.
No bail law...GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK.
All any sane person needs to do is look at the FREAK b*den regime.
"Defund the police" doesn't mean "Get rid of police", it means getting back all the tasks that were dropped onto them, which could be done better by civil servants, and give them to civil servants.
The police spends 70%+ of their time on issues like mental health, homelessness, substance abuse, and low-level disputes. That is a waste of money and also has very negative effects on citizens, because cops SUCK at those tasks.
Those tasks should be handled by specialized services (social workers, crisis intervention teams, traffic safety units).
This would free up police to focus on the 5–10% of cases that are actually violent crime.
When they are that much more efficient, some of the police budget can be reassigned
to the civil servants, which is the "defunding" people talk about.
People are also tired of having to fear police almost just as much as criminals.
You have a strange idea of freedom, if you want to replace crime with a police state.
Go look up what people actually mean with "Defund the police", instead of doing
your stupid straw-manning.
"No bail law"? There are only TWO countries in the world with a commercial bail bond systems (private, for-profit), the U.S. and the Philippines. Do you think that's working well? GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK!
put dope heads in jail and detox them and then release them. if the buyers are in jail, the dealers are out of a job and will disappear.
but it is more profitable to jail the dealers and take their money,cars,guns, than it is to jail the users and heal them. follow the money in regards to drugs.
I fear police, not because of their violence but because of their quotas they swear they don't have but do.if they don't issue enough tickets to make the boss's happy they get a ass chewing, so they write a bunch of tickets to people that a warning would be a plenty or like the last 1 i got , not even valid, but had to go to court anyway to get it chunked out.
In any case, you're not willing to fund mental healthcare a cent more,
so what are you talking about?
Trump's 2026 discretionary budget proposes over $28.6 billion in cuts
to mental health-care and mental-health-related spending:
NIH: nearly $18 billion cut.
CDC: approx. $3.6 billion cut.
HRSA: about $1.7 billion cut.
SAMHSA: more than $1 billion cut.
AHRQ: $129 million reduced
Your police is not dealing with crime, your police is mostly an intimidation force.
The more unsafe you are feeling, the more intimidation you are asking for.
That doesn't work. Policing is more than driving around looking for people to bother.
The same with your stupid National Guard. They are just there to remind people to behave. That does nothing to deter real criminals, but it's FUCKING EXPENSIVE.
It's just stupid messaging, from a stupid president, and you're stupid to like it.
Here's what my police does: They saw a stolen car somewhere, of the type that criminals like to use as getaway car (Audi S4). Instead of taking it in, they bugged it with microphones and GPS. That's how they found a criminal garage. So they went in there and bugged that whole place and all the cars in there. It was called "Operation Buzzard". That's how they identified a boss, more criminals, killers-for-hire and hit-dealers. Then they arrested the boss (Anouar T.), who was sentenced to 26 years, and 8 associates who got between 208 days and 7 years. They also found leads about the murder of lawyer Derk Wiersum, which was a notorious case, linked to the killing of crime journalist Peter R. de Vries. That's policing, and your National Guard cannot do that.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
The interview with Connor was 'interesting'.
Mehdi: "I think you say, I'm a fascist?"
Connor: "Yeah, I am!" *crazy laugh
'Conservatives': *start clapping
[Connor says he lost his job because of this debate. He's now asking for money.
People who know him say he lost his job months before. He's a grifting conman.
In any case, this 'right-wing conservative' is asking for 'socialism', in stead of
'pulling himself up by his bootstraps and go work for a living.']
For people who think that racism doesn't exist anymore, this will open your eyes.
Unless you are one of them and don't own up to being a racist, of course.
For liberals, who want to see a good recap with Mehdi Hasan, see MSNBC's:
only registered users can see external links
For people who consider themself a conservative, who support free trade, limited government, and individual liberty, here's the recap with The Bulwark's Tim Miller:
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
YOU know, those folks that support abortion, mercy killings, assisted suicides and such,
"No lives matter"
Starting tomorrow morning all Democrats and liberals are to report to the Grand Canyon for jump off. Surrender all assets to the nearest government office and walk to the Grand canyon at once.
I am willing to bet, within a week 200,000 plus idiots will jump to escape Trump, the rest will say "wait a minute, my life matters!" then they will confess that All lives matter .Because when it comes to theirs, it matters to them. It is just that YOUR life does not matter to them.
You literally told me that you think that NO ONE HAS ANY VALUE.
You also said that the whole idea of human rights is nonsense.
According to you, people don't have any responsibility for each other.
That's literally saying: "No lives matter".
Or did I not understand you correctly?
In that case, explain HOW anyone matters, according to you.
I support the right of abortion, because the woman's life matters.
A clump of cells only matters, when the woman thinks it does.
When it's a clump of cells in a test tube, it only has value related to
the possibility to help people with a desire to have children.
During its development, the clump of cells gains what "matters".
Still, at any point during gestation, the life of the woman carrying it matters MORE.
I support the right to euthanasia, because the quality of life matters too.
People with functioning brains have a right to life, not an obligation.
So you are just straw-manning people, who YOU don't understand.
most lives matter to those living them. if i were to try to take your life,you would ask me not to,would you not? that means your life matters to you.
when someone mentions the 10 commandments to you, i am sure you just brush it off as nonsense as you have no concept of faith or religion. but some bunch of 1 world government folks sit down and write up a few "rights" you think it is the equivalent of the gospel.
you put way to much value in the words scribbled by some do gooders a few decades ago.
"most lives matter to those living them". A fetus doesn't.
If lives only matter, because it matter to those living them, why do you care?
Why would you be against assisted suicide? They WANT to die!
When it's very easy to come up with a better 10 commandments,
than supposedly god did, I don't believe a god was involved at all.
It was just something that primitive people came up with, mostly to assure their religion.
I think the human rights are better, because it's based on 2000 years further advancement in the debate on morality.
since you disagree with that statement,would you feel the same way about it as you do what was written in history?
the fetus matters because 2 humans interacted, created it,and once it comes from its womb it will grow to become a man or woman that can contribute to the world and procreate to ensure humans are on earth for a long time.
if you abort all babies, or clumps of cells as you call them, the human race will be racing towards extinction.
if you don't want to create a new life, do something to avoid it happening. it is not the fetus's fault you chose to be reckless.
Then humanity will never outgrow it savagery.
How much more do you want people to work? Isn't it enough already?
How about humans actually getting to enjoy their lives?
Productivity has skyrocketed for decades. People's lives didn't improve.
I'm disagreeing with you because your ideas aren't based in reality.
"would you feel the same way about it as you do what was written in history?"
I have no idea what you're trying to ask here.
"it will grow to become a man or woman that can contribute to the world"
So, why are you ONLY assigning this value to fetuses?
You didn't provide this argument for anyone outside of the womb.
Do you now acknowledge that those have value too?
The problem with your "value system" is that it is not consistent.
"and procreate to ensure humans are on earth for a long time."
That procreation it the biggest problem threatening humans on earth.
If we want to humans to keep on existing, that procreating needs to decrease a lot.
Too many new humans do not contribute to the world, they contribute to our demise.
If humanity grows from 10 billion to 20 billion, humanity doesn't improve by 2X,
but we destroy the last bits of nature AND THEN WE ALL FUCKING DIE.
That's why my "value system" related to why humans have human rights is not related to their personal contribution to the world. Your "value system" would mean that someone who is fully disabled doesn't have any value. To me, their human rights
don't differ at all from the human rights of a genius inventor.
I don't call babies a clump of cells, I call the stage before zygote a clump of cells, which you call a baby. To me, it's a baby when it is capable of living outside of the womb, without a machine to keep it alive.
Your argument shows that your ideology is mostly about punishing people for having sex. You still haven't explained why a baby has any value, besides what its parents assign to it. If you have the same "value system" as the other extreme right-wingers, you tell me why they strongly forbid the abortion of a malformed zygote or fetus or even a dead one. What "contribution to the world" do they provide?
It shows their ideology to be based on nothing by dogma, not logic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now for my "value system": people have human rights, because that's a vital condition to achieve a flourishing, peaceful and sustainable civilization. If we all accept that humans have rights, then we might finally stop horribly murdering and torturing each other, all the goddamn time. It's the basis for humanism. It's also the basis for your Declaration of Independence.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
That's 100% the identical idea as the basis for humanism. Of course, you need to do some rewriting of history, and interpret things literally, to make belief that it isn't, but it fully support my ideology. They just added the "Creator", because everyone was religious back then. It helps acceptance, when you can make the idiots believe that it's a Commandment From God. It works just as well in a secular society. Probably better, because religion adds a lot of baggage and destroys people's ability to think logically.
what i was trying to say is if your human rights were rewritten 20 years ago would you still value them as much as you do the 1's you go by?
2000 years ago, or 20 years ago,or yesterday,does it matter?
your 1 world government,no one exceeds the next person society would really just be similar to a bunch of people high on dope, no reality,no motivation,no desire,no challenges,no problems,no reason to get up in the morning,nothing. a very boring life.
with your value system, it doesn't have any when they don't think it has any.
Do you want a kid to be 'punishment'? What a 'contribution to the world' will that kid turn out to be. Again, NO LOGIC, just dogma.
The human rights are based on a simple proposition. I don't need a text, to guide me, I have logic, which enables me to make up my own mind about a human rights laws, instead of taking the text as gospel. When they change something, I can decide whether I think it improves human rights or diminishes it.
The 10 commandments are not primitive to me BECAUSE they are 2000 years old (actually 3,000 to 3,300 years old), but because there is no advanced philosophy behind it. There are texts that are almost as old, that obviously represent much more advanced thinking, mostly from ancient Greece.
Lets address them:
1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make for yourself a carved image.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.
1-4 Are just religion confirming and shows 'god' to be a snowflake.
5 Family is important, but the idea that this is one-sided is primitive shit
6 duh
7 "Be honest to each other" is superior. People are not property.
8 duh
9 "Be honest" is superior. Just "your neighbor"? Tribalism!
10 What? A thoughtcrime? Unless you act on it, it's not a crime.
The ones that are 'duh' can be simply replaced with the idea that other people have rights. The 10 commandments are primitive crap, because it doesn't provide the simple basic values that humanism provides, like: Freedom, Equality, Compassion, Empathy, Critical Thinking / Inquiry, Justice, Love for Humanity, Environmental and Social Responsibility, Consent / Autonomy. It's missing all those principles, while several Greek philosophers were already providing the groundwork for them.
Even the new testament could do better, than the so-called "Divine Revelation".
A neutral eye can see 1000 years of human progression in the morality of it.
Did they supreme being improve their thinking over time? Strange idea.
But even the new testament is flawed. It's still very primitive, but better.
"1 world government" Bullshit right-wing propaganda!
I support countries, with sovereignty, working together for the benefit of all.
Supporting international solidarity isn't supporting a "1 world government".
why say duh to do not kill, you don't mind killing a baby in what should be it's safest place,it's mothers womb.
if it is not safe there, it is not safe anywhere with your mindset.
and how can anyone explain value of life to someone like you when you consider family 1 sided bullshit. you don't even value family.
i am wondering what you do value,other than the concept of controling everyone else while being free yourself
Apparently, I'm smarter than god, who didn't consider this.
However, it was just primitive people who came up with it, and it shows.
If you want to fuck other people, you're not in a good relationship.
Be honest about it and leave. Find happiness with someone else.
I DO mind killing a BABY, in it's mothers womb, but I'll allow abortion, for
good reasons, not willy-nilly, up to around 20-24 weeks, except special cases. Still, I am all for improvements in healthcare and culture, to reduce abortions.
Making abortions illegal doesn't result in less abortions, just more suffering.
Still unable to read? I think "Honor your father and your mother" is one-sided.
Why shouldn't parents honor their children? Did god not think of that?
The bible endorses killing a child if it doesn't obey its parents.
Are you fucking kidding me? Do you support THAT?
The bible is also full of killing ACTUAL babies. And it supports abortion.
It just supports it for when the man THINKS that his' woman fucked around.
Do YOU think THAT 'baby' has lost its 'value of life'?
I told you what I value; human rights. Basic values that humanism provides, like: Freedom, Equality, Compassion, Empathy, Critical Thinking / Inquiry, Justice, Love for Humanity, Environmental and Social Responsibility, Consent / Autonomy.
Not freedom for me, freedom for everyone. I just understand that the freedom
of one person can have a negative effect on the freedom of another person.
When you give maximum freedom to powerful and wealthy people,
they WILL negatively affect the freedom of a shitload of other people.
Do you really fail to understand that? It's not a difficult concept.
You really need to learn to read or are you just straw-manning?
i still don't get how you think we have rights just because we are born. rights and privileges are earned,
"i still don't get how you think we have rights just because we are born."
It's not something magical or supernatural, that makes me think
we HAVE rights, it's a principle. I ACCEPT it as true
(We hold these truths to be self-evident), for a PURPOSE.
The purpose is to improve civilization, for the well-being
of the most living and thinking beings who are part of it.
Do you think it was self-evident, that people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? That was very much NOT self-evident, at a time when two sides had just stopped brutally murdering each other, over who controls the people and the continent. Your Founding Fathers wanted the wars to stop, so they DECIDED that people should have those rights. It was self-evidently NEEDED.
They goddamned didn't get it from god. God was nowhere to be found.
That was pragmatic make-belief (intentionally misspelled make-believe).
If everyone accepts human rights, that means less genocide and torture.
Because genocide and torture have a negative effect on civilization.
Human suffering has a negative effect on the motivation to solve problems.
Maybe not the problems causing the human suffering NOW, but definitely
all the other problems, that will or might cause human suffering long-term.
There is no morality, without living and thinking beings creating it.
The only thing that is objectively true is that some actions have a
positive effect on the well-being of the living and thinking beings
and other actions have a negative effect on the well-being of the
living and thinking beings. Some actions have a local or personal effect
and some actions a widespread effect.
That means morality is FLUID. Circumstances can change,
which can turn previously 'good' actions into 'bad' actions.
Still, the purpose behind the morality does not change, improve civilization.
When a horrible disease has killed humanity, except for 100 people,
I will surely change my mind on abortion. "Sorry, you were raped women,
we will punish the bastard, but you need to deliver this child."
"You won't have to care for it, if you don't want to and we will help you
during your labor. Humanity needs this from you. We need more humans."
This is not such a time.
in a world where even a donkeys life doesn't matter
Isn't this the 'Black lives matter' topic?
Or are you thinking that "XX =XY" is race related?
NO ONE is claiming that "XX =XY". That's just you failing to understand it.
There are people who were assigned the sex "Male" at birth, by the doctor, because they had all the "Male" characteristics at birth.
There are also people who were assigned the sex "Female" at birth, by the doctor, because they had all the "Female" characteristics at birth.
If you don't understand anything about it, then don't try to start a discussion on it.
I don't know anything about ART, so when phart tried to start a discussion on whether
the paintings made by Hunter Biden were art, I told him that we cannot discuss that, because NEITHER of us knows ANYTHING about art. On my vacation in Paris, I saw many paintings that looked like a toddler made them, but those were highly priced and treasured works of art. Maybe I would start to understand it, if I put in the effort studying it.
But, you come around and think that you know everything, on no effort studying it at all.
100% confidence, 0% knowledge. Just your "common sense".
Too bad, some thing are a scientific question, not a gut feeling.
You never say what you do for a living, or if your profession requires ANY knowledge
on any subject. If you do have that, and I don't, you could pull the "authority card" on that subject. Then you can call "bullshit". On not even elementary school "book smarts" on biology related subjects, you cannot do that, for the discussion around sex and gender.
Then I pull the "authority card" for at least understanding cell biology and genetics.
At least I'm willing to listen to what the specialists on the science subject have to say,
you only care to listen to propagandists.
You are incapable of a serious discussion.
Why do you even need this question answered? Do you find it difficult?
ALL LIVES MATTER! It's basically what my political views are based on; humanism.
That's why I support the principle that everyone has a right to a decent quality of life.
Can you tell me now how you support the principle that all lives matter?
But where the wall starts crumbling is when you want to take away from the achievers and give to the non achievers to level the playing field for the decent quality of life.
You have never explained what the motivation would be for the achievers to continue to achieve when they reap nothing more than what is necessary to survive from their efforts and those that do nothing are in a equal place in life.
If you achieve more, you should reap more. humanism does not account for rewards for success, just survival of all
to ANYTHING. If people don't have rights, they don't matter.
Of course humanism accounts for rewards for success.
It says people have a right to basic standards, to provide a fair shake in life.
That's not just good for those people, but for humanity as a whole.
The desire for MORE than basic standards provides the rewards.
Actually your preferred system eliminates the motivation to achieve, because it provides so much power and wealth to some people, that they never have to achieve anything anymore, because their power and wealth makes them infallible, no matter how stupid and evil they have become. That hurts society tremendously.
And if a baby is found in the forest, where is it written it has a "right" to anything? It has basic NEEDS like food and water,to survive, but even the bare needs have to be paid for somehow,has to be administered by someone, that cost MONEY, no matter how much you hate money, it takes it to do ANYTHING>
Do you understand what a RIGHT is? It's NOT something you have to work for.
Yes that baby has rights! Read your DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE!
It has the right to be free by our constitution . 2 different things.
Bill of rights says the baby can pursue happiness and have free speech and etc. But there is nothing that says the baby has a RIGHT to food and water. We just provide it to preserve life and prevent hunger.
Of course a baby will die if it's not provided by someone else to maintain it's life.
BUT, it has a RIGHT to someone else to maintain it's life. We have built a civilization that is capable of providing everyone with what's necessary to survive, humanity has decided that humans have those rights, and we have created laws to defend those right.
The US adopted the UDHR too. Did you ever bother to read it?
only registered users can see external links
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
How clear do you want it?
Why do you deny those facts? Do you think that is in your best interest?
Did someone tell you you don't have these basic rights? Why would they?
Maybe they consider you worthless, unless you make yourself worthwhile to them.
That's the last people you should support, if you have any self-respect.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."
Do you think it just means the right to be free?
What is freedom to you? Is it freedom, if you don't have a right to survive?
And why keep talking about babies? Because they are powerless?
That doesn't matter. A strong, able and intelligent adult has the same rights.
So basically what you just stated in that first line is humans are slaves to the young, a right to someone to care for it? God forbid letting the parents take care of it right?
dark scary group of elites, in your mind. Nice ethics!
Are you kidding? Slaves to the young, because we ALL have human rights?
You think pregnant woman are slaves to their fertilized cell, zygote or fetus.
I think the woman has human rights, because she is a sentient human being
with a future, just like a baby. So, we consider everyone's human rights and
make the optimal decision. The whole benefit of a civilization is cooperation,
to assure human rights. If the parents cannot take care of a baby, civilization
has the responsibility to facilitate it's human rights.
You are contradicting yourself again:
"humans are slaves to the young, a right to someone to care for it?"
"God forbid letting the parents take care of it right?"
That means parents are slaves to their young. Unless you think they have a right to just let it starve. They don't, because that would put them in prison.
You're making my arguments for me.
You're saying a baby's life doesn't matter, as long as it has parents.
If it has no right to live, according to you, why does it's life matter?
There is no consistency to any of your ideas. My idea is simple and consistent; the more sentient a being is, the more priority it's right to life has. A bug has low sentience, so we can kill it if it's a nuisance. Still, all bugs on this earth as a whole, do have a right to live, by my opinion. That's a higher right to life, than I grant a pathogen virus or bacterium. A chicken has a bit higher sentience, so we can kill it for food, but we cannot torture it to death wantonly. There are laws against that.
A dog is considered even more sentient, so we don't allow killing it for food.
If a dog had the same sentience as a healthy adult human being, it would have the same rights. It's all very consistent; A basic principle, supported by reason, leading to conclusions.
Your view on the other hand, eliminates the rights of a woman, in favor of the 'rights' of a fertilized cell. But, somehow, when that fertilized cell has developed into a baby, it has no rights anymore, according to you. I find your explanations
for that completely lacking. What's your basic principle for it?
A fly hardly has any sentience, so we can kill it, if it's a nuisance.
That's literally what I said, and you're trying to find some got-you in it?
In any case, I usually try to catch flies alive. Not because I don't want to hurt them, but because insects are an important part of the ecosystem and insects are already declining. The higher the life-form, the more I care about it's life.
I asked you for your basic principles, for why (all) lives matter.
Do even you have any basic principles for ethics at all?
I don't care about some mugger getting shot when he raises a gun.
I care when they get shot while the cop isn't in any danger.
And there are too many of those cases.
Either your cops are fucking cowards, or they are bloodthirsty monsters,
and it's not some bad apples, it's a pattern of behavior.
I will say,alot of the cops that claim they felt they were in danger,probably were NOT and just took the safe route and shot anyway.
People that apply for a cop job should know by now in 2025 with all the media coverage that the job is unsafe and if they are chicken shits they should go apply at the local post office.
They are trained to be bullies and to escalate, to intimidate.
They are not trained to protect and serve, they are being trained to prioritize
their own lives over anyone else's, at all cost. They are trained to be cowards.
I think this is a reason for why there are so many people in prison in the US.
If you teach people to FEAR the police and the law, it should always be present
to assure lawful behavior from your citizens, but if you teach people to RESPECT
the police and the law, it stimulates lawful behavior from your citizens, when there
is no risk of punishment too.
Black people are afraid for their lives if a cop just talks to them.
Do you have any ability to imagine what that must be like?
Try to speak to a black person randomly in a store or something and most of the time,you get a friendly reply,maybe even conversation,
But there are those few exceptions, "oh that cracker is a racist i gots to be on the defensive" .
those are the only 1's you hear about on the news.
They are people, like you! What do you expect?
Besides the many stories of black people getting killed by police,
every single black person can tell you many stories about COPS bothering them, while they were just minding their own business, like shopping, traveling home or to work, jogging or exercising in a park, eating in their car near a drive-through.
No matter what normal shit they do, some COP asks "What are you doing here?".
Then they are expected to be very polite, or the COP instantly escalates the situation. But, being polite is no defense; if a COP is in the mood of bothering a black person,
it will continue. It's literal bullying, and it happens to black people a fucking lot. It's a constant pressure on black people to know their place. They better take it, because if they resist in any way, the COP ends their life. Then you come along telling me that they got themselves killed, by not being polite enough. THAT IS RACISM, because it doesn't happen to white people. On the news, you only see the bullying that ended
in the death of some black person, but there is a pattern of abuse behind it.
Then there are just instances where entering your house while holding a sandwich
is considered suspicious enough to get shot with several bullets. And then you think that's ample justification for a cop to shoot. But, that's not you being racist, right?
only registered users can see external links
I don't take on a job that consist of me being shot at,cussed and so on
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Black people are harassed by cops constantly.
Most black people just see it as a fact of life,
but some think this is not how it should be and protest it.
Those cops deserve NO respect and I think it's courageous to show that.
Your party once supported FREEDOM. Remember that time?
Or was that only for white people? Dumb question; of course.
You actually know I'm right, you just like it that way.
"A Black person is five times more likely to be stopped without just cause than a white person. A Black man is twice as likely to be stopped without just cause than a Black woman. 65% of Black adults have felt targeted because of their race."
only registered users can see external links
Prove them wrong!
This video is not completely related, but please listen to this American guy
who explains how much different it feels for him living in The Netherlands:
"I Found In The Netherlands What We Lost In America | An American Living In The Netherlands"
only registered users can see external links
New Comment Go to top