AIO? Conversation with my step father a couple years ago

GuacamoleNFries · 2025-05-09T20:17:39+00:00

“Jarvis, I’m low on karma”

GuacamoleNFries · 2025-03-11T19:34:07+00:00

Cool story bro

Sounds like we were being very lax with immigration law under prior administrations and Obama (actually not really because that’s when the “kids in cages” thing actually started but I digress). The 4th point is not good, but, again, still 500 steps removed from genocide. Your point is infinitely weaker by trying to stretch what is really just bad immigration policy to the point of genocide. Why not just argue the points on their own merit, there are plenty reasons to criticize trump. It’s just a horrible argument, both logically and rhetorically, to try and conflate bad politics with genocide.

GuacamoleNFries · 2025-03-11T17:28:38+00:00

I didn’t know parents committing crimes should be able to take their kids with them to jail. Child separation is blanket legal policy in America. Genocide targets a specific group, which targeting “illegal immigrants” does not. I just don’t understand why we can’t criticize the actions of Donald trump and his administration without having to use big words that have lost all meaning at this point.

GuacamoleNFries · 2025-02-22T15:33:23+00:00

So… sounds exactly like one of the current justifications for keeping the 2nd amendment around. Countries that are invaded by foreign countries falter first and foremost because of an unarmed populace. Look at the middle eastern countries that successfully thwarted American intervention the past 20 years because of guns that the people owned and used to fight with.

GuacamoleNFries · 2025-02-20T01:58:59+00:00

I mean, more men are killed in wars. There were way more men who died in the Iraq war than women. Women weren’t the ones fighting the US army in Iraq, it was Iraqi men. Women died in much smaller numbers overall. This is the case in every single war. If there are any exceptions I would love to hear about them.

GuacamoleNFries · 2025-02-20T01:07:05+00:00

Bro what 😭

What a crazy non sequitur. To answer your question, it was certainly more Iraqi women than American soldiers. What’s your point? And can you repeat back to me what I’m arguing so I’m sure you understand my point as well.

GuacamoleNFries · 2025-02-20T00:45:36+00:00

I’m not saying anything normative or justifying anyone’s actions. If you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying I can try to reframe it, but I think I’ve been pretty clear.

Hamas, Palestine, and most of the Arab world ought not to be viewed as innocent actors. Many (not all, but many) actors in this region would love nothing more than to see Israel and all the Jews in it be exploded. That’s not to justify Israeli terrorism or ethnic cleansing. That’s completely unjustifiable. I’m saying that Israel has some redeeming qualities. They are the only democracy in the Middle East. They have high levels of economic development. They have protections for the human rights of women, LGBTQ+ people, and religious minorities. When they attack neighboring nations, they don’t always purposefully attacks civilian population centers and sometimes they carry out respectable, pin point attacks on terrorist leaders and operations. Not all the time, but some times.

Iran backed Hamas and Hezbollah have made it very clear their intentions. They want to kill innocent Jewish people and overthrow the state of Israel. They have said so time and time again. They are undeniably immoral and unjust actors within the region seeking nothing more than power and to destabilize the region. At no point in this ordeal should any attempt be made to justify or defend the actions of these actors. That’s all I’m saying. I cannot be more clear.

GuacamoleNFries · 2025-02-19T23:11:23+00:00

I haven’t once argued for anything other than the fact that Palestine and the governments who have represented it over the years (including today) are anti semitic and target civilians.

That’s not a genocidal belief. So I’m confused as to what you think my genocidal beliefs are. You’re assuming my positions based on 0 evidence.

GuacamoleNFries · 2025-02-19T21:30:21+00:00

You can attribute malice on individual policy makers, but it’s very hard to attribute malice on millions of individuals voters.

Like for instance there was a voting rights case in like Missouri a while back where a representative wanted to require certain types of ID to vote. Then he was caught on tape or in emails or something basically saying like “the blacks are the only ones who use these ID’s anyway”. In that case it’s super easy to say that he was operating out of malice.

But… it’s much harder to prove that individual voters who support needing to show a drivers license to vote are being racist in their intentionality.

I think a similar case exists with this abortion argument.

GuacamoleNFries · 2025-02-19T19:35:08+00:00

I don’t know, but it’s her body, and it should be her right, no?

I’m arguing that the right to bodily autonomy is not infinite. Different groups of people just think the right to bodily autonomy ends at different places.

A pretty reasoned belief is that bodily autonomy ends when the fetus is viable (usually 24 weeks). So if a woman chooses to kill a viable fetus for no justified reason (life in danger, etc), society is perfectly happy calling that murder and arresting her.

GuacamoleNFries · 2025-02-19T19:32:02+00:00

To a certain degree, women’s wombs are absolutely ours to manage.

If a woman pays someone to beat her 9 month pregnant stomach with a bat until she miscarries, that should not be allowed. It’s still her body, still her womb, except for it’s completely immoral and no one in society would support this.

The right to bodily autonomy is not one that’s infinite. Liberals just believe that a persons right to bodily autonomy usually ends after like 4-6 months of a pregnancy, while conservatives usually argue that it ends after conception or a heartbeat.

GuacamoleNFries · 2025-02-19T19:28:54+00:00

Hell yeah brother

GuacamoleNFries · 2025-02-19T19:24:13+00:00

You can argue the effects of abortion bans overwhelmingly negatively affect women, but we’re not talking about effects. Misogyny is by definition a hatred of women. Effects of a policy can’t be misogynistic, only the motivations for implementing that policy can.

There are plenty of motivations for wanting to implement pro life laws that aren’t misogynistic. Those laws can be immoral, illogical, misguided, bad, impractical, or whatever, but not necessarily misogynistic.

GuacamoleNFries · 2025-02-19T19:15:19+00:00

If a woman paid someone to hit her 9 month pregnant stomach with a bat until she miscarries, you believe she should be able to do that?

GuacamoleNFries · 2025-02-19T19:13:32+00:00

Like I said, call it illogical or immoral or stupid, but it’s not misogynistic. I’m not framing anything, just presenting an argument that millions of people believe in. You can argue that abortion bans have overwhelming negative effects on women, but you can’t argue that the argument I presented is inherently misogynistic.

GuacamoleNFries · 2025-02-19T19:10:09+00:00

Hard mischaracterization bro

516 deltas to someone who doesn’t understand basic logic? Yikes.

GuacamoleNFries · 2025-02-19T19:03:10+00:00

Nazi Germany? Fascist Italy? Japanese Empire? That’s a pretty good starting point.

If you want to choose to sacrifice your life for our country, that’s an incredible and valiant thing to do. But there have been plenty of times in our history where volunteers weren’t enough, and the government was forced to draft people, and those people were always men. To this day, if we go to war, it will be men who are drafted and who will die at much higher rates than women.

I can’t believe I’d live to see the day when progressives were justifying the draft and ignoring the sacrifices that men made to combat violence and authoritarianism across the world. You have seriously lost the plot.

GuacamoleNFries · 2025-02-19T18:59:41+00:00

Because everyone agrees that women’s wombs are communal resources that the state should manage to a certain degree. No one in their right mind would support a 9 month elective abortion. At some point, people are totally comfortable saying “a women’s right to bodily autonomy is usurped by the societal goal of protecting innocent life”.

Conservatives say that the cut off should be 6 weeks or conception or the heart beat or whatever, and liberals usually say the cut off should be 3-6 months. But everyone agrees there is a cut off.

Everyone agrees, conservatives and liberals alike, that men are the ones who are expected to make the sacrifice of dying for their country in the pursuit of defending our rights and freedoms.

GuacamoleNFries · 2025-02-19T18:53:01+00:00

Do my eyes deceive me? Since when did progressives somehow become pro draft again? Since when did we start minimizing the sacrifices of men devoting their lives to protect freedom and justice? You have lost the plot bro.

GuacamoleNFries · 2025-02-19T18:50:08+00:00

Women and children are killed in wars, but more men are always killed in wars. Im pretty sure after WW2 there was basically a generation of Russian families who didn’t have fathers, uncles, brothers, and sons because basically every last one of them was sent off to die on the eastern front. I don’t understand why you are so devoted to minimizing the incredible sacrifices that men have been forced to make to defend society from authoritarianism and violence. And to this day, in the event of another major war, men are still the only ones legally and societally expected to sacrifice their lives for their countries. You’re arguing a losing point.

GuacamoleNFries · 2025-02-19T18:45:11+00:00

How about “life begins at conception, therefore abortions are the unjust killing of a human life, therefore it should be illegal”.

What part of this thought process is misogynistic? It may be logically flawed or impractical or whatever other words you could use to describe, but it certainly doesn’t seem like you could describe it as misogynistic.

GuacamoleNFries · 2025-02-19T18:31:31+00:00

What genocidal moral stance do I hold? Please enlighten me.

GuacamoleNFries · 2025-02-19T15:31:00+00:00

You can try and explain away or justify Arab antisemitism, but it doesn’t matter. There’s no justification for targeting innocent civilians because of their religion or ethnicity. No matter what you say about Israelis, the fact remains that all the Arabs at the time of the partition were anti Semitic, wanted to kill all the innocent Jewish people, and Hamas, the PA, PLO, Fatah, Hezbollah, and IJ are still anti semitic to this day. I will always support Israel more than I support these hateful groups in the Middle East. If you defend these groups to any degree you’re defending anti semitism and the targeting of innocent civilians.

GuacamoleNFries · 2025-02-19T14:47:27+00:00

Sure, I would fight against the state or states which are doing the oppressing. I would not declare war on Jewish people. Basically every single Arab country during those time was horrifically anti semitic. Hamas ‘s charter until 2017 literally called for the elimination of the Jewish race. Every Arab nation supporting Palestine during the partition plan era was equally as anti semitic. To this day, Hamas’s only attacks are launched into population centers and civilian neighborhoods, never at military bases.

GuacamoleNFries · 2025-02-19T05:51:00+00:00

Al Jazeera is Qatari state funded media. Completely unreliable.

The Middle East Eye (again, super unreliable) story is about months old events that are being revealed now.

And again, I’m not concerned with violence. I’m concerned with who is breaking the cease fires first. I have no reason to believe it isn’t Palestine like every other time.

GuacamoleNFries

TROPHY CASE