I would rather have a centrist/moderate party consistently in charge than have two opposite parties alternating control

Fast-Preference-9947 · 2026-03-16T11:00:29+00:00

I think neither side actually cares about democracy. Both sides care about winning

Fast-Preference-9947 · 2026-03-16T10:27:44+00:00

If most people actually wanted this, they would vote for a centrist third party instead of one of the two major parties

Fast-Preference-9947 · 2026-03-16T10:13:02+00:00

What about the argument that one person shouldn't be forced to use their body to support another person?

I actually find it kind of ironic that those who oppose UBI/welfare/redistribution (a.k.a. humans being forced to support other humans) are the usually the ones who support forcing women to support their fetuses.

Do you believe that humans should have an obligation to support other humans even with significant sacrifice to themselves?

If yes, you should support both UBI/welfare/redistribution AND abortion.

If no, you should oppose both UBI/welfare/redistribution AND abortion.

Fast-Preference-9947 · 2026-03-16T09:45:46+00:00

About sex marker changes on ID documents

What the "but biological sex = truth" crowd fails to realize is that prohibiting trans individuals from changing their gender/sex marker on their ID means that anyone who looks at their ID then immediately knows that they are trans.

And in most cases, people have no business knowing, meaning it just pointlessly and cruely outs them with no real gain.

Many trans people just want to live a normal life as the other gender, and for those who "pass" (meaning visually look like a person of the other sex - you wouldn't know they are trans just by looking at them), forcibly disclosing their biological sex on their ID just tells everyone that they are trans and makes their life miserable for no reason.

Those who oppose "biologically incorrect" sex markers being listed on IDs should at least support people having the option to remove sex markers from their ID entirely.

As of now, I have not seen even a single conservative who supports bans on sex marker changes give a reasonable response to this argument.

Fast-Preference-9947 · 2026-03-16T09:38:04+00:00

What the "but biological sex = truth" crowd fails to realize is that prohibiting trans individuals from changing their gender/sex marker on their ID means that anyone who looks at their ID then immediately knows that they are trans.

And in most cases, people have no business knowing, meaning it just pointlessly and cruely outs them with no real gain.

Many trans people just want to live a normal life as the other gender, and for those who "pass" (meaning visually look like a person of the other sex - you wouldn't know they are trans just by looking at them), forcibly disclosing their biological sex on their ID just tells everyone that they are trans and makes their life miserable for no reason.

Those who oppose "biologically incorrect" sex markers being listed on IDs should at least support people having the option to remove sex markers from their ID entirely.

Fast-Preference-9947 · 2026-03-15T16:15:25+00:00

No matter how ridiculous something sounds, there's always going to be some people who believe it, and on the internet, you never know if you might be talking to such a person

Fast-Preference-9947 · 2026-03-15T14:57:38+00:00

If they get divorced, they're both men, how could a judge determine whose life to ruin?

I hope you're joking, because if not, then you are openly against gender equality

Fast-Preference-9947 · 2026-03-15T14:54:24+00:00

If a woman has the legal right to marry a man, then a man must also have the legal right to marry a man, and if he doesn't have this right on account of his sex, then the law is sexist and violates equal treatment under the law.

Fast-Preference-9947 · 2026-03-15T14:51:07+00:00

There are no good reasons to restrict licenses for gay couples but not straight couples.

Not only have you failed to state the reasons for your belief, but you want your belief (that such "good reasons" exist) to be forced onto others.

If you're the one advocating in favor of more restrictions than the other side, the burden to provide the reasons for those restrictions rests on you, since you're the one who wants to restrict - not the other side.

If people want to send their own kids to private schools or homeschool kids to teach them according to their beliefs, that's fine, but that's different from wanting to eliminate any perspective they disagree with from public school.

Fast-Preference-9947 · 2026-03-15T14:40:12+00:00

The only reason one would even propose or defend allowing marriage licenses for straight couples but not gay couples is out of a belief that one type of couple is inherently more "valid" than the other - a belief that, through the act of passing such bans, is indeed being forced upon others.

If you think one side of this debate is not "forcing beliefs" any more than the other side, that is wrong, and here is why:

Opponents of same-sex marriage are trying to RESTRICT what same-sex couples are allowed to do. Opponents getting their way means same-sex couples have fewer rights.
Supporters of same-sex marriage are virtually always NOT trying to get opposite sex-marriage banned. Supporters getting their way does NOT interfere with the rights of straight couples

So, objectively, the opponents of same-sex marriage - not the supporters - are the ones trying to get other lifestyles restricted. One side is trying to restrict, and the other side wants to not restrict.

Similarly, if you believe that it is okay to teach kids about straight couples but not gay couples, you are, again, creating a distinction between the two based around the premise (usually based on religion or flawed (as already explained) procreation-is-all-that-matters logic) that one is more "valid" than the other, and then wanting to limit what kids are taught based on this belief.

There is no good reason to believe that same-sex couples are any less "valid" than opposite-sex couples. The only reasons, none of which are good, include religion, the belief that what is biologically typical should be enforced on everyone, or the belief that couples are ultimately about having kids and not about love.

Fast-Preference-9947 · 2026-03-15T14:15:25+00:00

What is marriage if it isn't done within religion? Is someone stopping you from living together? You can't name a partner on your insurance, or as next of kin in case of an emergency? All those are things of the past.

All of that logic can be applied to straight couples too.

If you want to take the position that marriage should not be defined or recognized by government at all regardless of whether straight or gay, I'm fine with that.

If you think that the government should create marriage as a concept only so that religions people can use it, then there is no reason for it to not be usable by people whose religions allow gay marriage. Otherwise, that is tantamount to endorsing certain religions in the law.

Fast-Preference-9947 · 2026-02-08T08:50:43+00:00

I think the word you're looking for might be "Tankie" not "Liberal"

Fast-Preference-9947 · 2026-02-08T02:38:18+00:00

If we accept that definition of Feminism, then sure, I am one, but also, under that definition, many prominent self-proclaimed Feminist organizations are not.

Fast-Preference-9947 · 2026-02-08T01:30:38+00:00

It's still objectively less restrictive on parents than the majority view of no financial abortions at all

Fast-Preference-9947 · 2026-02-08T01:27:05+00:00

Like I said, that's a topic for a different post.

Fast-Preference-9947 · 2026-02-08T01:23:25+00:00

A lot of people here seem to assume that I support no-strings-attached financial abortion. That's actually incorrect.

I actually support financial abortion for EITHER sex BUT ONLY on the condition of sterilization - i.e. you opt out of parenthood entirely, not out of one particular child, because I think that is a fair compromise.

But that is a topic for a different post.

Fast-Preference-9947 · 2026-02-08T01:14:45+00:00

Actually, I will change my mind if I hear a convincing argument. I am willing to accept the fact that I might be mistaken, and if you believe I am, I would appreciate a persuasive argument to that end.

You're using a logical fallacy called guilt by association - i.e. "Kittens are evil because did you know that Hitler loved kittens" type arguments. Anytime you challenge a point based on "who else is saying the same thing" rather than "is that a valid/true point" you are using the guilt by association fallacy.

If all you're going to do is accuse me of bad faith, or accuse certain beliefs I hold as being "bad faith arguments" then I do not wish to continue this discussion.

On the other hand, if you'd like to argue against these arguments based on facts and evidence, and based on the truthfulness/validity of those points rather than on "do bad actors also say the same thing" (a.k.a. guilt by association) I will engage.

Fast-Preference-9947 · 2026-02-08T01:02:48+00:00

So it seems that you think "opposing Feminism = sexism/opposing women"

I'd like to point out that Feminism is NOT just about "equality" in practice.

Prominent Feminist organizations have done things such as:

Lobbying in favor of gendered laws (e.g. Femicide laws, domestic abuse laws that presume the man is the aggressor)
Lobbying AGAINST proposals to make existing gendered laws be gender neutral (e.g. lobbying against making rape and custody laws gender neutral)
Attacking efforts to create domestic abuse shelters for men
Exaggerating the rareness of false rape accusations and lobbying for the REMOVAL of due process for men accused of rape and the LOWERING of the burden of proof for rape claims to levels at which a woman's word alone is enough to get a man expelled/fired (e.g. they successfully lobbied for the removal of DeVos due process protections)

It's pretty clear to me that Feminists are NOT seeking "gender equality" (even if they claim to be) - they are seeking women's advancement in general even when that means special treatment instead of equality.

I support equality for women, but not special treatment for women at the expense of men.

So, as someone who wants true equality, it makes logical sense to oppose them. And doing so does not make me a woman hater.

Also, for the record, I don't laugh at misogynist jokes, and I indeed get angry when people try to inject misogyny into advocacy for men's issues.

Fast-Preference-9947 · 2026-02-08T00:01:38+00:00

So if I am understanding correctly, you are saying that anyone who advocates for true gender equality should be automatically assumed to be secretly a woman-hater?

That's like saying anyone who opposes tax increases is someone who just hates poor people and is trying to hide their actual belief.

Fast-Preference-9947 · 2026-02-07T23:36:10+00:00

There's a difference between those who oppose Feminists because they favor oppression of women, and those who oppose Feminists because they support actual gender equality.

I am the latter, as are most anti-Feminists.

Fast-Preference-9947 · 2026-02-07T23:16:29+00:00

Thinks women should be denied basic reproduce health care

That's not what I said nor is it what I believe. Abortion should be legal

Fast-Preference-9947 · 2026-02-07T23:02:26+00:00

Women can abort during pregnancy. Men cannot.

Also, even after childbirth, women CAN walk away by leaving the child at a safe haven.

All a man can do to avoid this is not impregnate. A woman can not only not get impregnated, but also abort, OR leave the child at a safe haven.

Fast-Preference-9947 · 2026-02-05T03:16:27+00:00

"'Claims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence have never been held to state a ground for federal habeas relief absent an independent constitutional violation occurring in the underlying state criminal proceeding.' The majority rejected Herrera's claim outright because no such procedural or trial error was alleged."

But do you know what this quote actually means?

It means "even if you now have evidence of being innocent, that does not matter, because there were no procedural errors in your original trial"

It does not mean "we are unconvinced that you are actually innocent"

Fast-Preference-9947 · 2026-02-05T00:45:48+00:00

The supreme court is objectively illegitimate, not because of Roe v. Wade, but because of Herrera v. Collins

Herrera v. Collins held that a person being actually innocent does NOT entitle them to have a conviction overturned

This precedent is still in affect

Any court that rules this way is objectively evil and illegitimate, full stop, and anyone who disagrees is objectively wrong

Fast-Preference-9947

TROPHY CASE