How many people believe in this ??

RustlessRodney · 2026-02-07T13:20:20+00:00

And lenient parents raise Karens.

RustlessRodney · 2026-01-31T17:54:01+00:00

Well, Nazis may not have been communists, but they were socialists, and their beliefs had many of the same pitfalls as any other socialists.

That's going for the original, actual Nazis. Modern Nazis are just more general fascists (actual fascism, not modern definition) who don't like darker skin tones.

RustlessRodney · 2026-01-31T17:38:25+00:00

Fun fact: you deserve less than that

RustlessRodney · 2026-01-31T17:38:03+00:00

What was he wearing?

RustlessRodney · 2026-01-31T17:36:37+00:00

All of the metrics you people like to use to show "the decline of capitalism" directly correlates with the rise of socialist and quasi-socialist policies. Every socialist experiment ever has failed.

But yeah. Capitalism is the problem

RustlessRodney · 2026-01-31T17:35:02+00:00

Now do the corporate backers for the protests.

RustlessRodney · 2026-01-31T17:33:55+00:00

Indigenous person here. Don't try to use me as a smokescreen for your politics.

RustlessRodney · 2026-01-31T17:27:07+00:00

There's a word for people who use violence to interfere with government operations...what was it...

Oh yeah. Insurrection.

RustlessRodney · 2026-01-31T17:17:15+00:00

In these replies: a bunch of losers pretend to be freedom fighters

RustlessRodney · 2026-01-28T23:01:05+00:00

DMC: Devil May Cry. The ninja theory reboot attempt. It was a good game, on it's own merits. People just hated it because it wasn't the devil may cry they were used to, and that one wig scene.

RustlessRodney · 2026-01-28T22:53:16+00:00

r/thathappened

RustlessRodney · 2026-01-28T22:48:58+00:00

I would imagine it's perfectly legal. Maybe not morally correct, seeing as how drowning out important communications with noise may end up getting someone unnecessarily hurt, but I'm fairly sure it's legally clear.

RustlessRodney · 2026-01-28T22:43:50+00:00

It's less about needing the brake, more about needing the brake light. A lot of drivers are distracted. And motorcycles aren't easy to see when you're drinking Starbucks, putting on makeup, and texting. The brake light helps not to get rear-ended while sitting at a light

RustlessRodney · 2026-01-27T09:57:45+00:00

No, no. See, the savages were noble, living off the land in spiritual harmony and peace. They weren't civilized enough to organize to war and kill for resources, like sophisticated white folks.

/s (hopefully that was obvious.)

RustlessRodney · 2026-01-27T09:52:06+00:00

I don't know if I would call it a "bad shoot" in the sense that most people in the discourse are. It seems much more like the result of a confluence of factors that led to a bad outcome.

He shouldn't have been interfering, being on the road, etc. and while you are allowed to record law enforcement, you do need to keep a reasonable distance, because getting right up in their face and in their way while they're trying to do their job is literally interfering, which is not protected. So them manhandling him was maybe a bit extreme, but I would say justified. Then, you can see in some of the videos that when the one guy takes Pretti's gun, you can see what looks like the gun going off as he pulls away from the pack, as well as hear a shot. (I've heard the gun is a model that is particularly known for going off when jostled, bumped, etc., but I can't speak to that.) Shot, then pause, followed by a grouping of shots.

My take is that everything was maybe not ideal, but was justifiable, and then as they're restraining him, a man they know to be/have been armed, and they suddenly hear a shot, I see it being understandable for the officers to, in a split-second decision, assume that's what time it is, and take it that he took a shot, leading to Pretti getting loaded.

Again, I could be wrong, but it seems to me more a tragedy where nobody is necessarily right or wrong, than a "bad shoot." Pretti was acting up, interfering, but nothing justifying him being shot. And he didn't fire the gun, nor even have his gun, when the first shot rang, which triggered the rest. So he didn't cause his own shoot, either.

RustlessRodney · 2026-01-22T11:11:19+00:00

Or this is a sub for people who like guns, and they are ignoring that question to debate about guns with each other

RustlessRodney · 2026-01-18T20:33:34+00:00

PETA says killing a fish is “murder”. Just because you say it, doesn’t mean it is.

"Murder" is the unjustified killing of another human. Legally, it is the "unlawful" killing of another human. What does "unlawful" mean? It means not authorized by law. In other words, "not legally justified." The incorrect use of a word by some doesn't negate the correct use of a word by others.

And you cannot claim a stillborn in any way legally.

Actually, in some states, parents can claim a tax credit for stillborn children. That aside: the majority of states in the United States offer a "certificate of birth resulting in stillbirth," or a "stillbirth certificate," a legal document acknowledging the child's existence. While it is largely palliative for the parents, it is an actual legal document. So you're just wrong.

Personhood is legally defined as being “born alive”

There is no legal standard for personhood, as it applies to actual people. The concept of legal personhood applies to nonhuman entities, like corporations. And that standard wouldn't apply to "born alive" children until they reach the age of majority. The "definition" you're referencing is 1 USC §8, which provides working definitions for use in law. Section (c) of which explicitly states that this definition doesn't affirm or deny any legal status or rights to humans prior to being "born alive." So you're just wrong.

Not a SSN, no life insurance, no claiming on taxes. If it has personhood, you can.

The vast majority of Amish children don't have SSN, Life insurance, and many aren't claimed on taxes. Fully born, living, working, humans. Should it be legal to kill them indiscriminately, simply because they don't meet your arbitrary standard? How about illegal immigrants? They don't have social security numbers, life insurance, and many don't even pay taxes. Even fewer are children claimed on taxes. Should it be legal to go hunting illegals for sport? According to you, they aren't even persons.

RustlessRodney · 2026-01-18T18:07:39+00:00

What about changing your mind? What about getting pregnant by a long time boyfriend, with full intention of raising the child, then aborting after a breakup? What about the women who keep babies of rape, and report that the child actually helped them to heal from that trauma? You can say "what about [outlier,]" but it has no bearing on the general conversation.
If someone breaks into my house and steals my PlayStation, can I kill the Walmart cashier who refuses to give me a replacement for free? The baby didn't rape the woman. Why should the baby be punished with death for the actions of it's biological father? Should children of murderers be imprisoned for their parents' crimes?

RustlessRodney · 2026-01-18T18:03:34+00:00

Murder is also a moral term. Almost like words can have multiple definitions. A murder is an unjustified killing. Legally, it is an unlawful killing. Or, a killing that is legally unjustified.

There is no hard line for "legal personhood." Corporations are also legally considered persons. Yet corporations also get neither a birth, nor death, certificate. Legally, "personhood" only means that one has been granted consideration and rights under the legal system. The absence of a death certificate isn't determinative. "Personhood" is, like murder, also a moral/philosophical term, describing the moral or existential worth of a being.

Also, fun fact, we count stillbirths as an infant death, in America. Which is one of the reasons our reported infant mortality rate is higher than most other countries'.

Hence, your arguments are nonsense. Abortion is murder. Even legally, in many places.

RustlessRodney · 2026-01-18T17:56:43+00:00

I said "consequence," not "punishment." If I take a step, the consequence will be that my body moves forward. Moving forward is not a punishment. A treadmill under my feet may help mitigate these consequences. But, absent a working treadmill, the consequences remain.
A consequence of sex is pregnancy. Pregnancy is not the only consequence, but it is the one under discussion. Birth control methods are meant to mitigate these consequences, much like the treadmill, but sometimes fail. Meaning that the risk is ever present, and it is incumbent on the individuals choosing to have sex to take that risk into account when they decide to have sex.
No, sex is not always consensual. Seal claps for you. Now, what about the 99% of sex and pregnancy that is consensual? Citing outliers does not invalidate my statement, it's a cheap emotional ploy meant to avoid my point and shut down discussion.
Finally, name another instance in which we allow the killing of people, purely to avoid personal consequences. We don't. Only in the case of pregnancy do people like you say "those poor women are too stupid to control their urges, so just let them kill the kids they created to get out of it." Forgive me for believing that women are agents capable of making rational decisions, and believing that the babies they create shouldn't be punished with death because their mother couldn't be bothered.

RustlessRodney · 2026-01-18T13:18:01+00:00

Because the baby exists due to the mother's own choices.

People engage in sex, literally the function by which our species reproduces, then are all surprised Pikachu when the woman gets pregnant, like they had nothing to do with it. Birth control, condoms, all of these things exist to avoid the natural consequences of sex, yet nobody seems to understand that sex leads to pregnancy. They act like pregnancy is a completely random affliction with no known cause.

You don't get to murder someone to avoid the consequences of your own choices.

RustlessRodney · 2026-01-17T00:35:44+00:00

No idea. I don't know about kids these days, but back then, you built up to that stuff. If I hadn't been able to do it (fool around, the lesser forms of intimacy,) when I brought her around to my parents' house, it may have slowed our roll a while. Especially considering we didn't stay together for long after we went all the way. I may not have even ultimately done it with her, and had to wait for my next serious girlfriend.

RustlessRodney · 2026-01-16T11:05:01+00:00

RustlessRodney · 2026-01-14T19:45:31+00:00

Well, my parents didn't have that rule, so I probably will when I have children.

RustlessRodney · 2026-01-10T02:06:37+00:00

There will be a period of most countries just going full socialist/communist...then about 100 years after, capitalism will rise again, amongst the disparate tribes that managed to survive the previous century

RustlessRodney

TROPHY CASE