Lightor

A 20% tariff on imported goods?

More tax breaks for the rich?

Come on man. Harris is against those.

So being for a tax break for the rich is wrong. And being against a tax break for the rich is wrong? What other option even is there?

I hate to over use the word but come on, they’re just so weird.

I wonder if there can be more than one important issue effecting our future at a time…

One side has stats that have down that Roe V Wade massively reduced crime as less children were born into the system or unwanted. The burden of an unwanted child can ruin both the parents and childs life. We’ve seen how abortion bans can lead to doctors being scared to do anything in some situations causing the mother to die.

The other side is people saying a fetus has a soul because an old book told them so.

It’s pretty clear which side should be backed. Not saying either side is perfect, but one side has a lot more supporting evidence than the other.

Let’s not forget, the pro choice side is just that, you have a choice. No one is forcing anything, the other side is. Again, the choice is clear to me.

The example of pushing a woman down the stairs is silly. The reason why it’s worse if she’s pregnant is because you took away her choice and opportunity to have that baby, after she is dealing with all that comes with being pregnant. That is not the same as a person who is a month in and doesn’t want it, by her choice.

I’m sure they do. But the thing is science at stats don’t back their stance.

There is no room for a discussion. It’s like one side saying “kill everyone” and the other side is saying “let’s not kill people” then people are like “well, let’s compromise and kill just some people, it’s only fair.” No, I’m done. Democrats have been way too tame and compromising for too long, I’m done entertaining this BS.

Ok, with reductio ad absurdio in mind. You’d be ok with banning all the books that have romance in them, thats inappropriate for young people to be thinking about relationships. At least some people would think so, just like in this case. The banning of books falls apart when you realize that the decisions of what books to ban are based on personal morals.

Also, I agree with them, it is a strawman. A book about a girl realizing she might like other girls is not the same as having kids watch a snuff film. It’s not related to things they will experience in their life, no one is asking to watch it, it is no where even close to the same. You’re building up that wild stance, or straw man, to fight an entirely different topic. You might as well have asked if they could take them on field trips to executions. It’s ridiculous.

Yes I do understand the topic… Just because I disagree doesn’t mean I don’t understand. That’s a bit close minded. We are talking about banning books in school, which is why it’s weird you brought up a snuff film.

Those are not even close to the same thing… A book about a girl getting her first period is not some horrible experience that they need to be sheltered from. You’re putting a snuff film and a book about “my first period” in the same category…

Ok, lets say banning books is good. Who gets to decide what is banned and why? I could come up with reasons to ban nearly anything. But guess what, kids can still find it on the Internet. You’re not going to stop anything, you’re just going to shelter and isolate them. “It seems like all the books at school about relationships are girls and guys, not guy and guy. Something must be wrong with me.” That’s what you’re creating.

Your stance is to push your morals on others and only allow what you think is right. My stance is to allow parents to, you know, parent their kids. Prepare them for the real world. And I think we can do that without making them watch snuff films.

In general, I agree. But if someone is saying different things every other week, going back and forth, it shows that they really have no stance. Flip flopping isn’t evolving your understanding, it’s constantly changing your “view” to appeal to whatever crowd you’re in front of.

Exposed to? Everyone has the Internet. Trying to stop exposure via books when the whole Internet is on their phone is silly and just causes more harm than good as groups of people get to decide what is ok and what isn’t.

I can tell you, later

Historically inaccurate

And who gets to decide when we’re at war about what

You want good people protected, how do you propose we do that without any group that is very cop like in their responsibilities?

They hate’us cause they anus.

I can get this one more so. My business has a client side and a contractor side. People say “user” and it’s too ambiguous.

It’s that what this comment is? Everything is either bait, trolling, or not real. Only fools react to things on the Internet.

Dude, logic won’t work but I appreciate the attempt. I think people are angry and need a group to let it out on, tale as old as time. Bad cops are too vague of a topic, it’s easier to hate them all and justify it by a “bad system” which just makes it worse. Hate all cops and paint them as the enemy while asking them to change. Don’t ever acknowledge good cops and encourage that behavior. It’s childish.

But he wants to debate on Fox. The station that was held legally liable for lying for him. The station that has to admit to being “entertainment” not news. Yeah, that’s a better choice.

Go back back to othering

The irony…

You’re really representing a lot of these with bad faith. It seems like you came into this thread with a view and used anything said to justify that view.

Your first call out about and ignores the entire point being made and the clear double standard being called out. You seem more willing to play the victim than have an honest conversation on equality.

Imagine if men behaved this way about women discussing double standards, it wouldn’t make you feel good. So why do it to men?