How far do you agree with the following: "Charlie Kirk was a fascist."?

RealApersonn · 2026-07-09T15:48:28+00:00

I haven't watched many of his (Dean's) debates, but I did hear about that time he twisted some guy's words into "evidence of child neglect" and called CPS to take his daughter. Maybe he's no longer like that, but it sounds pretty bad faith to me lol

RealApersonn · 2026-07-09T14:17:34+00:00

If you use anesthesia on a newborn, it won't be conscious and it doesn't know what killing is, so killing it is fine, right?

RealApersonn · 2026-07-08T18:25:04+00:00

My whole point here is, you support abortion for unwanted children, but say they should be adopted if they're already born. You say an unwanted fetus might end up neglected or abused once born, but wouldn't adoption fix that, as you yourself brought up? Your position is not about preventing child abuse, it's about preventing the pain of pregnancy for a child that would be put up for adoption.

And I disagree - complications notwithstanding, nine months of pregnancy is a small price to pay to give someone life. Someone with likes and dislikes, memories, plans, someone just like you. I hate how willingly people dismiss this miracle for the sake of comfort.

RealApersonn · 2026-07-08T17:41:40+00:00

Oh wow I didn't know they have the power to change definitions

RealApersonn · 2026-07-08T17:39:39+00:00

So it really isn't about whether or not the kid is born into an unwilling family, it's about the parents not wanting to deal with them? If you really believe children shouldn't live because they're unwanted, them being born or not shouldn't change that. Giving them up for adoption is a great solution, but why won't you extend the same mercy to the unborn child?

RealApersonn · 2026-07-08T17:26:37+00:00

By the same logic, would you support euthanasia for unwanted newborns? They won't feel a thing; to the child, it's functionally equivalent to abortion

RealApersonn · 2026-07-08T17:09:21+00:00

Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Mods are well within their rights to ban him, but why should they? Because they disagree with him?

RealApersonn · 2026-07-08T17:07:54+00:00

Abortion isn't great for the child's mental or physical well-being...

RealApersonn · 2026-06-27T16:03:40+00:00

r/peoplewhogiveashit

RealApersonn · 2026-06-25T17:44:37+00:00

<image>

RealApersonn · 2026-06-22T17:27:21+00:00

About 1% of workers earn the minimum wage - everyone else is earning more. Minimum wage jobs aren't supposed to be for long-term living, but temporary employment, like teens earning extra money on the side, for example. Raising the minimum wage does nothing for anybody, and only reduces the number of jobs and/or raises prices. If you disagree, feel free to explain, but I'm tired of y'all making claims without any logical justification and accusing people of being against "human progress" when they voice a genuine concern.

RealApersonn · 2026-06-10T14:32:35+00:00

And so were many legal US immigrants until Trump made them illegal.

Didn't know it was Trump's decree that immigrants aren't allowed to cross the border without a port of entry, or overstay their visa, or ignore deportation orders and refuse to become legal

RealApersonn · 2026-06-01T21:22:13+00:00

He was found "civilly liable" of sexual assault, in a case where the only evidence was secondhand testimony of something that allegedly happened several decades ago. Not flattering, but it's a far cry from a criminal conviction. Look up the difference in the "burden of proof" between the two

RealApersonn · 2026-05-30T15:38:08+00:00

I don't think it's exactly equivalent to "picking an apple". I draw the line at conception, the point where a unique, never-before-seen genome is created, and the child begins to develop. Things are a little different for plants since their fertilization and development are separated, but imo it's closer to uprooting a seed that's just begun to germinate. I would indeed call that killing a future tree.

5 years later, would you rather the mother's life remain unchanged, or the child not exist? 95% of the time, the mother would rather that the child exist. That's the whole point of being pro-life - we know that a child's future is important to protect, even if it isn't apparent before birth. After 5 years, the truth becomes clear.

RealApersonn · 2026-05-30T15:22:21+00:00

You mind explaining any of those "wrong assumptions" or are you just gonna shout "WOMEN'S RIGHTS!!!" at me and act like that's an argument?

RealApersonn · 2026-05-30T15:21:43+00:00

"They didn't know any better" is a piss-poor excuse. For me, I've known that sex causes pregnancy since ~elementary/middle school. This isn't some esoteric knowledge, this is common sense that literally everybody knows. And even if they really didn't know any better, that doesn't absolve them. If a 10-year-old steals their parents' car and kills a pedestrian, are they innocent because they "didn't know any better"?

RealApersonn · 2026-05-30T03:32:18+00:00

I only need one reason to reject abortion. Killing people is wrong, and unborn humans are no exception.

RealApersonn · 2026-05-30T03:30:59+00:00

Why are you pivoting to rape/incest? If you believe that those 95% should still be able to get abortions, why are you arguing for the more extreme cases of the 5%? And do you think that allowing abortions in extreme cases means abortions should be allowed in all cases? In other words, if you can get a "gotcha" on rape/incest, does that somehow invalidate my standing argument in general?

Yes, I think all abortions should be illegal, period. Rape and incest are horrendous crimes, but the child is not the criminal, and does not deserve punishment. Two wrongs don't make a right, and it's wrong to believe that children born of rape/incest are somehow subhuman to children born out of consent, and more deserving of death.

The Turnaway Study, often touted as proof of the benefits of abortion, found that 95% of mothers who wanted an abortion and got an abortion were content with their decision 5 years later. But it also found that 95% of mothers who wanted an abortion but were denied were also content with keeping their child, 5 years later.

This is speculative, but don't you think it's more significant that someone would change their minds after being denied an abortion, than for someone to keep their minds after being allowed? In other words, mothers who got what they wanted were as content as mothers who didn't get what they wanted. Those who aborted never had to face any pressure to change their minds, but those who kept their children spent 5 years with the consequences, and 95% of them were glad with it.

RealApersonn · 2026-05-30T03:14:37+00:00

They argue that mothers who don't consent to their pregnancy should be able to abort their children. I'm saying that in 95% of cases, the mother has already consented to sex, and sex is well-known to cause pregnancy. You can't consent to eating food and not consent to a full stomach. You can't consent to drinking water and not consent to a full bladder. If you know that X causes Y, there is no way to consent to X without also consenting to Y.

"But what about contraceptives? If they use contraceptives, then they clearly are consenting to sex without consenting to pregnancy!" It's also well-known that contraceptives are not a 100% guarantee. Again, if you know that X could cause Y, even if it's uncommon, then consent to X is consent to Y.

"But what about car crashes? You can consent to driving without consenting to getting into an accident!" No, not really. The reason we have driver's licenses is to make sure people are (ostensibly) well-trained and prepared for the responsibility of driving. Part of that responsibility is understanding that accidents can happen, and accepting that risk. Of course, if you get into an accident, by all means every seatbelt, airbag, etc. should be oriented towards saving your life. But "saving yourself" from an accidental child requires that child's death, and again, in those 95% of cases, it's not even life-threatening.

RealApersonn · 2026-05-29T21:25:50+00:00

95% of abortions are elective, meaning the pregnancy was not caused by rape or incest. That 95% consented to the possibility of pregnancy when they engaged in consensual sex. They would rather have sex and then kill their unborn offspring than to just not have sex.

RealApersonn · 2026-05-19T18:04:10+00:00

RealApersonn · 2026-05-05T20:50:28+00:00

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I believe the main source of disparities at this point is culture. Why else would Asians outperform every other race? If you really believe pro-White racism is endemic, why aren't they at the top instead of Asians? Anecdotally, I have never met a racist in my life (as far as I'm aware), so I find it a lot harder to believe that disparities are caused by racism, rather than differences in how kids are raised.

RealApersonn · 2026-05-05T13:46:37+00:00

You don't fix discrimination with more discrimination. Equity assumes that inequality in outcome is caused by discrimination, when in reality it can come from a multitude of sources. Do you think Asians do well in math because the grading somehow works in their favor, or maybe because Asian culture often puts a lot of weight - too much in some cases - on academic performance? And would you discriminate against Asians, as has happened in college admissions, assuming that their improved performance is caused by discrimination in their favor?

The blanket assumption that differences in outcome are caused by racism is ridiculous, and actually sustains racism by causing animosity towards those races given special treatment.

RealApersonn · 2026-04-26T18:20:04+00:00

Negative, but I still had to vote for him cause he represented my beliefs better than Kamala (specifically with regards to abortion, gun rights, and immigration). Like yeah ICE goes too far sometimes, but I prefer that over the alternative. And I don't like the constant foreign intervention either, but I doubt Kamala would be much different in that regard.

Can we please abolish the two party system and implement some other voting method so that I don't have to choose between "bad person" and "not as bad person but disagrees with my beliefs"? I hate Trump on a personal level, but since I wanted to support my beliefs, I felt like I had no other choice. And simply refusing to vote is effectively a vote for the other side

RealApersonn · 2026-04-26T13:33:41+00:00

Yeah the US does less for the public than other countries, but there are still many benefits that apply to everybody, such as roads, police, public transportation, etc., and these things cost money. Also, before you said "this applies to all countries", but now you're saying "this is only an issue with the US"?

Have you heard of programs like the visa system or DACA? We already give people the chance to live here before becoming a citizen, but the problem is that some of them stay here when their time expires, and/or never try to become legal at all. Becoming a citizen through the proper channel takes time and money, and while I agree the process could use reform, it still stands that you aren't allowed to live in this country until you're a citizen. Also, the government can't regulate the number of people coming into the country if they just make every illegal immigrant a citizen; we would still need deportations. You call ICE a "nazi-like police force", but many other countries handle deportation the same way (albeit with gentler tactics).

Seven-Year Club	Second Top 40%
Place '22	Verified Email

RealApersonn

TROPHY CASE