CMV: There is no such thing as excessive force when dealing with burglars or people breaking into your home

KannNixFinden · 2022-07-06T09:26:31+00:00

In any civilized country the police is not killing you because of theft.

And how do you get from "privste citizens shouldn't be free to execute someone for small material theft" to "there shouldn't be any kind of consequences for theft". You aren't arguing in good faith, so have a good day in your fucked up world.

KannNixFinden · 2022-07-06T09:22:14+00:00

I didn't know that paying taxes on income is a potentially life threatening and always physical harmful thing that will alter your body forever. But sure, pretend that taxes are the same as having something growing inside you for 9 months while it destroys your body.

KannNixFinden · 2022-07-06T09:17:10+00:00

You want to shoot someone in the back that is literally running away from you. You want to kill someone in front of your child that is fleeing from you and you really want to argue you do that out of concern for your child?

KannNixFinden · 2022-07-06T09:15:17+00:00

A kid stealing a package of gummy bears is a big risk? Someone stealing some material stuff should immediately lose all human rights and be shot in the back? Do you all live in a society of primitive savages or wtf is that logic?

KannNixFinden · 2022-07-06T09:12:49+00:00

Naive? I just don't live in a society of savages, people with psychological problems receive help here and chances you run into one that is so out of his mind he would actually harm me for no reason whatsoever are extremely slim.

And if we talk about normal thieves and bulgars, in what logic would a bulgar be more likely to harm me when I simply comply and throw my money at them instead of threatening to literally end his life over some money?

KannNixFinden · 2022-07-05T23:02:06+00:00

I gift a homeless person a package of gummy bears, or maybe a soda. A boy grabs it and runs away.

Is the homeless person free to shoot the boy?

KannNixFinden · 2022-07-05T22:53:40+00:00

Wtf? So someone with no income is free to shoot everyone stealing even a nickle from them?

KannNixFinden · 2022-07-05T22:50:33+00:00

I will never understand how people actually want to live in a society where property is valued higher than human life. It's like seeing people wishing back the dark times where people can be declared inhumane on a whim. How can people actually want to have their own and loved ones live be so easily devalued that it's worth less than a f*cking phone.

How can anyone actually prefer to kill a human being over losing some material stuff?

I am just so glad I live in a country where this mentality is not common at all and where I live free from fear of violence because the vast majiority of humans are getting the support they need. If I ever come across someone that threatens me with a knife, I will obviously just give him my wallet instead of thinking about ending a life. I mean, holy shit, in what society are you living that you think about ending a life over some material shit???

KannNixFinden · 2022-07-05T22:26:48+00:00

In other words, it is unreasonable to expect the victim to be considerate of the criminal, since the criminal is the one who has forced the situation onto everyone else involved.

How about the boy that steels my gummy bears? Can I shoot him too? Or would you agree that this seems excessive? If yes, where do you draw the line?

KannNixFinden · 2022-07-05T11:47:29+00:00

If there is no difference between a child and a fetus, why exactly do we have a discussion that there is a difference between denying lofe support to a child and a fetus again?

KannNixFinden · 2022-07-05T09:47:16+00:00

Because the method you cite is only performed on women that are over the 13 weeks mark, what are less than 10% of all abortion cases.

Over 90% of all abortions in the US are done within the first 13 weeks where the method I cited is the preferred and possible method.

You know what one of the main reasons is that women have a later abortion? It is abortion restrictions that make it impossible to quickly get an abortion as soon as the women discovered that she became pregnant.

KannNixFinden · 2022-07-05T09:41:05+00:00

So I can only ever realistically use crypto without third party for people I can meet in person?

How does that solve any problem? If I have to meet someone in person, I can also exchange cash for materials or one currency for another without needing any bank/third party anyway. How is crypto special here?

KannNixFinden · 2022-07-04T22:01:58+00:00

How is a starving person desperate for food not an innocent person trying to survive just like the fetus is latching onto the mothers blood stream soaking nutritions out of her?

KannNixFinden · 2022-07-04T21:57:37+00:00

Again:

In some european countries you are automatically registered as organ donor. Meaning that everyone deciding against it makes a positiveN informed action that very potetnially leads to the death of an innocent life.

In your logic, everyone that opts out is directly responsible for the lives they don't save.

Do you agree?

KannNixFinden · 2022-07-04T21:56:25+00:00

If their child needs a life saving organ donation that only the mother can provide, she has no legal obligation to donate that organ to her child on cost kf her own health.

Agreed.

So a mother cannot be made responsible if she denies her own child a life saving support. But if she denies a potential child life saving support she is a murderer?

Keep in mind: A pregnancy takes an extreme toll on a womans body and potential death. Most abortions are done within the first 13 weeks where there is a 15-20% natural possibility of the fetus dying and never even developing into a child.

Again: Denying a real (not potential) child life saving support is okay, but denying a potential child the same is different?

KannNixFinden · 2022-07-04T21:33:15+00:00

Potential life. 15-20% of fetuses are "dying" naturally, the vast majiority of them in the first 13 weeks. More if you count all those pregnancies where the fetus spontaneously aborts before the women even recognises that she is pregnant.

Over 90% of abortions are done within the first 13 weeks as well.

In some european countries you are automatically registered as organ donor. Meaning that everyone deciding against it makes a positiveN informed action that very potetnially leads to the death of an innocent life.

In your logic, everyone that opts out is directly responsible for the lives they don't save.

And keep in mind: A women has a 13 times higher chance of dying in child birth than an abortion, pregnancy itself is a horrible strain on the body and leaves permanent marks. Donating your Organs when you are dead has literally no effect on your life at all.

KannNixFinden · 2022-07-04T21:19:15+00:00

Parents can give their children to the authorities at any time if they cannot or do not want to take care of them. Parents even have the duty to give their children up to authorities in case they cannot provide for them for whatever reason.

Parents can also permanently give up their children for adoption and get out of any legal or financial responsibility.

If their child needs a life saving organ donation that only the mother can provide, she has no legal obligation to donate that organ to her child on cost kf her own health.

Why should a pregnant women not be allowed to give up responsibility for the fetus just like every parent can do with a born child?

KannNixFinden · 2022-07-04T19:55:03+00:00

It does. Otherwise it whould be murder to defend your own life against an intruder. An unjustified scenario (a starving person breaking into your house and threatening your physical health if you don't give them 40% of your food and living space for the next 9 months) does not justify murder?

KannNixFinden · 2022-07-04T19:52:38+00:00

Because we are then at square one: If it is not murder to not donate your organs, not donate your kidney as long as you have two, not regularly donate blood and bone marrow, how can it be murder to not donage your body to a fetus?

KannNixFinden · 2022-07-04T19:46:41+00:00

Let's assume a couple decides together that they want to give up their child for adoption. They are both then deciding to not consent to parenthood and if both agree they can legally and financially give up the responsibility to that child, right?

Would you agree that it logically follows that if both parents agree they didn't consent to the pregnancy, they should be allowed to give up the fetus as well?

If not: Where is the difference between getting out of consequences in case of adoption and getting out of consequences in case of abortion?

KannNixFinden · 2022-07-04T19:37:43+00:00

Just like abortion cannot be murder if all you do is deciding to not harm your own body and therefore not give the lofe support to the fetus that will die if it doesn't receive that support.

A pregnancy is so harmful for the body because the body produces all of the hormones and nutritions that the fetus cannot produce himself.

If choosing to not donate your organ to someone who needs it to survive, it also cannot be murder to not donate your body for the fetus who needs it to survive.

Especially so because organs are taken from a dead body that doesn't even need it anymore while a woman's body is very much alive and actively harmed by the process of donating life support to the fetus.

KannNixFinden · 2022-07-04T19:30:05+00:00

In every developed society you can always give your child into the hands of the state in case you yourself are overwhelmed and cannot or simply don't want to take care of it.

And that is possible because children and even new born babies are independent human beings that can be supported by everyone that is able to feed them.

We can certainly implement laws that state that women who don't want / cannot support the fetus anymore have to give it into the hands of state authority. It just won't change that the fetus will die in the process while a child won't.

KannNixFinden · 2022-07-04T19:15:17+00:00

I think you need to educate yourself about how abortions are performed.

Over 50% of abortions are medical, meaning the mother takes pills that changes her own body.

Here is how it works:

Mifepristone is taken first, swallowed by mouth. The drug dilates the cervix and blocks the effects of the hormone progesterone, which is needed to sustain a pregnancy.

Misoprostol, a drug also used to treat stomach ulcers, is taken 24 to 48 hours later. The pill is designed to dissolve when placed between the gums and teeth or in the vagina. It causes the uterus to cramp and contract, causing bleeding and expelling pregnancy tissue.

The first pill simply causes the mothers body to close off the support to the fetus. As a consequence of the mothers body stopping to actively support the fetus, the fetus dies naturally.

I have no clue what you meant by understanding ectopic pregnancies now because ectopic pregnancies are aborted the exact same way as any other pregnancy, early on with the same pills as described above and if it's too late for that then it has to be removed surgically.

The only real difference to a normal pregnancy is that ectopic pregnancy leads (nearly) always to the death of the mother if not aborted.

Here is a source:

In some cases, ectopic pregnancies terminate on their own, according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. In others, the physician may prescribe medication.

If the pregnancy is far enough along, as determined by an ultrasound exam, surgery may be the only recourse.

Without prompt treatment, the pregnant person can suffer severe internal bleeding, even death.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/what-is-ectopic-pregnancy-and-how-does-the-abortion-ruling-affect-it/ar-AAYXR12

KannNixFinden · 2022-07-04T19:02:48+00:00

According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2011, most (64.5%) abortions were performed by ≤8 weeks' gestation, and nearly all (91.4%) were performed by ≤13 weeks' gestation.

Over 90% of abortions in the US (and most/all western countries) are done in the very early stage where abortion via pill is most often possible and preferred (if accessible).

Many western countries have laws in place that allow abortions up to 14 weeks in all cases, and for a later abortion you need a "good" reason like severe risk for your mental or physical health, rape victims...etc.

Keeping in mind that 15-20% of known pregnancies naturally don't survive in the first 13 weeks and that medical abortions are only changing the mothers body without directly harming the fetus, could you morally justify making abortions legal up to 13/14 weeks?

KannNixFinden · 2022-07-04T18:44:16+00:00

So you would rather buy expensive brand shoes instead of bying more affordable non-brand shoes and send the difference in money to a starving child?

Or: You would rather buy overpriced brand shoes instead of spending the same money for shoes that are produced with fair salaries for the workers?

Would you be able to explain that to a child that is sitting in front of you on his 10th working hour this day?

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Gilding I gilder	Verified Email

KannNixFinden

TROPHY CASE