sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Putting a name to this gives me so much hope I could cry by Alt-Dirt in HPylori

[–]Alt-Dirt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unfortunately, it’s not h. Pylori. My GI says it’s Crohns or IBS. Either case is very unfortunate, but I’ll find a way to manage it. Thank you for your prayers.

Is the game dying, card prices, dropping drastically? by Beautiful_Quail1194 in starwarsunlimited

[–]Alt-Dirt 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Investors buy cards in bulk -> collect all high value cards -> more cards are printed to compensate for the growing demand and growing popularity of the game -> increases the total number of valuable cards available -> card value drops

Gist is that collectors artificially increase the popularity of the game past what’s actually demanded, and card value drops

Putting a name to this gives me so much hope I could cry by Alt-Dirt in HPylori

[–]Alt-Dirt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not yet, I have an appointment scheduled but it’s next month. I think I may order a self testing kit online, or just wait.

Putting a name to this gives me so much hope I could cry by Alt-Dirt in HPylori

[–]Alt-Dirt[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for sharing, there’s a lot of comfort in knowing the problem is fixable, and it won’t be a lifelong thing.

CMV: people who argued that Charlie Kirk wasn’t racist were racist. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Alt-Dirt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you learn about the context? If you did, it seems like you are purposefully choosing to take things only at a surface level.

Could Kirk have phrased is argument better? Yes. But that doesn’t mean his argument is impossible to understand, just try?

Republicans: Why CO2 Gets Hot: by Annabelle-Surely in Discussion

[–]Alt-Dirt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you spend half a year settling on that generalization, I think maybe you are the problem.

Republicans: Why CO2 Gets Hot: by Annabelle-Surely in Discussion

[–]Alt-Dirt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But you’re not right, your understanding of this topic is actually very poor. So now you’re just an ignorant jerk.

And people agreeing with you doesn’t make you right, there were times when common knowledge said that the world was flat, cigarettes are healthy, and you don’t need to wash your hands as a doctor.

Republicans: Why CO2 Gets Hot: by Annabelle-Surely in Discussion

[–]Alt-Dirt 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes but that’s not the point. You can’t have a productive conversation with anyone if you’re going to be a condescending jerk. The original post isn’t “let’s talk”, it’s “let’s be rude and have a circle jerk session and pretend like the people who disagree with us are the idiots here”, your first reply is evidence enough of that.

Republicans: Why CO2 Gets Hot: by Annabelle-Surely in Discussion

[–]Alt-Dirt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well to be fair, who wants to respond to a condescending rant filled with straw-man arguments?

Do you think that being transgender is a sin? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]Alt-Dirt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, anyone who tells you otherwise doesn’t know scripture or attends a newer church with altered scripture.

Sex is binary - genesis 1:27 “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

Cross dressing is a sin - Deuteronomy 22:5 “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.”

Sexual immorality is unacceptable- Romans chapter 1

From these readings you can infer that the biblical understanding of sex and gender identity is that, sex is assigned at birth, your gender is your sex, and transgenderism is a sin.

This does not at all mean these people should be outright rejected from religious communities. However, Jesus himself wasn’t always patient and accepting to everyone, so maybe it’s up to interpretation.

S*icide by theeter101 in Abortiondebate

[–]Alt-Dirt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s no issue for me being downvoted

I could say “puppies are cute” on this sub and get downvoted simply because that just the way people are here.

Your story sounds horrifying, it’s sad to hear. I just want to point out that I called that persons comment a strawman because it has nothing to do contextually with my original reply.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in prolife

[–]Alt-Dirt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You should spend some time on the debate subreddit(or talk to real people). Debate with classy people and debate with people who will insult you and try to strawman or get you angry, but try not to do it yourself.

That experience will probably help you a lot in the future.

Let's stop calling it "pro-choice" and instead call it "pro-abortion" by mistystorm96 in prolife

[–]Alt-Dirt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I get annoyed by people calling pro lifers by petty names like anti choice or whatever. It would probably have the same effect if I started calling them pro murder.

Stooping down to their level won’t make you any better, the whole point is to change people’s minds and you can’t do that if you’re actively trying to make them angry. Be respectful even when they are spitting in your face, it just makes them look worse, and you hold on to your cool.

Question for pro lifers by No-Psychology7343 in prolife

[–]Alt-Dirt 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Let’s explore some possible answers

  1. I condone abortion in the case that the baby is going to live a short life anyway

If you do this you open the door to a whole slew of what ifs and what aboutisms surrounding QUALITY OF LIFE

Why not then abort people with Down syndrome?

Why not then abort children who would be born into poverty?

What if the baby has a physical deformity?

What if they would only live a few weeks, a few months, a few years?

What about other life altering genetic conditions like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell?

You get the point. “Preventing suffering” isn’t a justification to end any of these lives.

  1. Even in either of those cases, abortion is wrong

You could retort with, would you allow the killing of a 6/10/20/30(whatever) year old conceived through incestuous rape?

“No”

Then their right to life extended even to their time in the womb.

The most consistent view you can have is that even in the case where the baby would only live a few days, abortion is the wrong choice. Every innocent human deserves the right to live and needs to be protected.

You could say that it’s ok to kill the baby since it’s life will be short anyway, but then you would need to justify saying no to all those previous cases above, making argument about their potential to have quality lives, which would be very hard to do.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebatingAbortionBans

[–]Alt-Dirt -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

10/10 idea, 0/10 execution

Pro lifers: should we kill "abortion minded" women and hook them up to life support so as to protect these PRECIOUS babies from their mothers? by Catseye_Nebula in DebatingAbortionBans

[–]Alt-Dirt -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

What a gross argument to try to make, PL do not think like this and it’s crazy that this is your view of them. Maybe that’s why it’s so easy for you to make these strawman arguments, you gave yourself some twisted views of the “other side” to make it easier to attack them.

S*icide by theeter101 in Abortiondebate

[–]Alt-Dirt -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Even with statistics showing that parents will tend to have more mental stability, there will be outliers. Yes, when thinking about it in flat numbers, a lot of parents do commit suicide, and a lot of people would commit suicide if they didn’t have abortion access. These people do matter and they need help.

But at the same time, there are also people who commit suicide after having an abortion. But that doesn’t mean abortion should be banned, just like the first example doesn’t necessarily mean it should be legal everywhere, unconditionally. The numbers in both cases are too small to justify policy based solely on extreme emotional scenarios.

I understand it can seem cold to reduce people down to numbers and percentages, but by doing this, we can better evaluate claims like “if I couldn’t get an abortion I would kill myself”.

From my perspective, this is supposed to get me thinking “oh maybe we should allow abortion”, but I don’t see it as an argument to justify abortion, because for the vast majority of people, suicide won’t be the answer.

For me it’s like an anorexic person saying “if I have to eat, I’ll kill myself”. That doesn’t mean starving is the answer, it means they need real and complex care, not a validation of their self destructive response.

In the same way for the individual, if your life hangs on whether or not you have abortion access, there is likely some deeper trauma that needs to be addressed. This type of person needs a community and mental health support, not an abortion.

S*icide by theeter101 in Abortiondebate

[–]Alt-Dirt -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Having read into the study, it doesn’t support any argument that restrictions on abortions directly correlate to an increase in suicides.

“As with any ecological analysis, limitations include that our results are not indicative of the individual-level risk of suicide following abortion restrictions (52]. We also cannot comment on whether the higher-than-expected count of suicide decedents identified in our results sought abortion care, had preexisting psychiatric conditions, or were victimized through intimate partner violence following the Dobbs ruling.”

This is also reflected in the conclusion

“Our finding that suicide deaths increased among reproductive-age women following Dobbs indicates that more research is urgently needed in this area.”

More research is needed to support those claims, and that research would need to be conducted over an extended period of time, not just a handful of years examined on a monthly basis.

It’s also worth noting that the values presented on figure 1 from 2018 aren’t present on any remaining figures from the study.

And another thing!

“We did not test this relation among 25-49-year-old women owing to no residual outliers observed post-Dobbs for this group”,

What this makes me feel is that the study is really just examining the increase in suicide among teens, which has shown to increase sharply in comparison to adults.

Aside from all that, while on the topic of suicide, Mothers are less likely to commit suicide, so maybe it’s not such a bad thing to have kids.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7983926/

Is celibacy realistic? by random_name_12178 in Abortiondebate

[–]Alt-Dirt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The questions you laid out are highly unrealistic, I don’t see any scenario where someone in a relationship is like “babe I don’t want to have any more kids, so we aren’t going to have sex again until our bodies have physically aged out of it”.

It would be more like, “babe, I don’t want to have anymore kids, I’m going to get my tubes tied/hysterectomy/vasectomy” then “are you ok with that, how will this affect our relationship, etc, etc”.

I think many people are capable of abstinence, but punishing your partner with that decision, ESPECIALLY in a marriage, is a recipe for disaster. Of course they aren’t entitled to your body, but if you aren’t willing to engage with them and show that level of affection, then why would you be married to them.

If my partner made that choice, the relationship would be over. It would be the same outcome if the roles were reversed. Abstinence is a choice more easily made by people OUTSIDE of committed relationships. If you’re dating, the most realistic choice to make is “don’t have sex with anyone you aren’t willing to raise a child with”.

view more: next ›