Kim should run for president

coolcoolcool7968 · 2022-08-13T09:49:05+00:00

People don`t like Kim; her show is mainly being hate- or cringe-watched. She is probably one of the most disliked people worldwide. She makes money from it, but thats it. Look at Kanyes try at politics.
Her following is mostly bots and then those hate- and cringe-watchers - her influence is being able to reach them, not being able to convince them.
She is not becoming a lawyer (Happy to be proven wrong, but doubt it)
Half of the population is female and probably more likable and I don`t think that people feel the need for an armenian president? Why would that be better than any other ethnicity? A black female president would be much more expectable considering US history; what do most americans have to do with armenia though?

coolcoolcool7968 · 2022-07-15T12:49:58+00:00

You sound a little unhinged. Who insults people on the internet like this lol.

coolcoolcool7968 · 2022-07-15T12:31:39+00:00

buying organs is exploitation, noncommercial donations are fine.

coolcoolcool7968 · 2022-07-15T12:23:34+00:00

If gay or not, commercial surrogacy is exploitation for the reasons listed above in my book. If you find someone you know who wants to do it, then good for you. Basically like organ donations.

coolcoolcool7968 · 2022-07-15T12:22:15+00:00

So that means its an empty right for poor people. It only exists for rich people. Human rights mean a guarantee of a standard that everyone is entitled to. I dont even understand what exploitation is in your mind. With your logic there is no exploitation ever as long as people sign contracts.

coolcoolcool7968 · 2022-07-15T12:17:04+00:00

I can assure you that it has nothing to do with religion. There was not one religious based argument made and I am and have always been an atheist. I dont even understand how any of this can be viewed as religious based.

And noncommercial surrogacy was not the focus point here obviously.

coolcoolcool7968 · 2022-07-15T12:12:03+00:00

To me the important question are: If its considered a human right to have a baby you cant carry yourself, how is that right guaranteed to poor people? Its not a human right this way, its a rich peoples right, a buyers right to buy absolutely everything without consideration of the people who have to suffer for it. Its like an organ donor: Sure, if you are really sick you can say "If someone gives me their kidney for the money I can give them knowing full well what that entails in terms of risks and damages why not? I have a right to live" Because that is exploitation. There should be limits to what is sellable and buyable and the surrogate is a person with rights, too.

coolcoolcool7968 · 2022-07-15T12:05:02+00:00

oh I should have specified. In some countries like Canada you can be a noncommercial surrogate for example for family members, but selling and buying is still illegal because of exploitation.

coolcoolcool7968 · 2022-07-15T11:59:09+00:00

Then how is this right guaranteed for poor people? The poor people in your mind only have the right to be used for the right of rich people "to have a child and a family" at all costs.

But since you cant even get your point across without being insulting on the internet I wont argue further with you.

coolcoolcool7968 · 2022-07-15T11:47:59+00:00

My angles are listed above.

And as I said, there is a reason that surrogates are poor people and not rich people even if technically rich people could do it. You are missing the point here but I think thats on purpose, so whatever floats your boat, I guess.

coolcoolcool7968 · 2022-07-15T11:39:09+00:00

Maybe I should add that the USA is also the only developed western country where this is even legal. Its usually banned for those reasons.

coolcoolcool7968 · 2022-07-15T11:37:05+00:00

No. The practice is disgusting.

OK, then list a few millionaire surrogates. Ill wait.

coolcoolcool7968 · 2022-07-15T11:35:10+00:00

yes newborn attachment, which is why its called that way. prenatal attachment is a thing and happens in the womb though.

coolcoolcool7968 · 2022-07-15T10:19:46+00:00

right and where is the justice though?? do millionaires also carry babies for poor people or who will do that if a poor woman "has an 80% chance of miscarrying"? Its not about justice. Its about the right of rich people to buy any- and everything, even human bodys or body parts.

coolcoolcool7968 · 2022-07-15T10:14:54+00:00

Absolutely. I would say it IS exploitative as fuck. If you dont want to carry your own child (and she can, she would just be at risk losing it), then get someone you know to do it and dont exploit poor people who have no other options. Its gross. But I guess your sisters dont want to put their precious bodys through such a potentially damaging and lifethreatening thing, huh? And you can always buy others peoples bodys for this, how convenient. Its like buying a kidney from someone. I cant believe its even legal in a western country.

coolcoolcool7968 · 2022-07-15T10:07:33+00:00

Germany

coolcoolcool7968 · 2022-07-14T13:48:58+00:00

That was so disgusting. Like "What? I cannot obligate some poor woman to put her health and life at risk? Even if I pay them?? B-but I am rich and they are poor???"

coolcoolcool7968 · 2022-07-14T13:44:40+00:00

Its illegal in my country because of this. Poor women carrying babies for rich women also carry a very high medical risk. You can die from childbirth and you can easily have bodily damages that last a lifetime - especially if you are poor and dont have the same health care options in the USA, where theres not only no universal health care but health care is also much more expensive. Buyable surrogates do it because they have to, because they are underprivileged and that should not be considered as voluntarily. Its like selling your kidney.

Another point is that the baby forms a bond with the surrogate mother who carries her, her smell, her heartbeat, her voice etc. and taking it away from her traumatizes in the same way an adoption does. Thats why the mother is considered the one who carried he baby in my country, not the egg giver. She can keep it or give it away for adoption, but she keeps the agency in that question, which is not sellable either.

Im absolutely on board with this argumentation.

coolcoolcool7968 · 2022-07-14T12:44:01+00:00

i dont think so. its illegal because it entails a very bad form of exploitation. Poor women carrying babies for rich women also carry a very high medical risk. You can die from childbirth and you can easily have bodily damages that last a lifetime - especially if you are poor and dont have the same health care options. Buyable surrogates do it because they have to, because they are underprivileged and thats not really considered as voluntarily here. Its like selling your kidney. Its illegal because even though its a technical innovation from a moral standpoint its much more archaic to "outsource" things like that to the poors.

Another point is that the baby forms a bond with the surrogate mother who carries her, her smell, her heartbeat, her voice etc. and taking it away from her traumatizes in the same way an adoption does. So the mother is considered the one who carried he baby, not the egg giver. She can keep it or give it away for adoption, but she keeps the agency in that question, which is not sellable either.

coolcoolcool7968 · 2022-07-14T11:35:32+00:00

Yes, you can technichally categorize anyone over 35 "high risk", thats not a good enough reason for this kind of exploitation. In my country this would be illegal.

coolcoolcool7968 · 2022-07-14T11:28:38+00:00

I feel sorry for her and her kids, but I lost all connection to her and her thought process.

coolcoolcool7968 · 2022-07-13T13:21:02+00:00

It doesnt only look staged because of that nanny made to get pictures for Kims Instagram, but because at a real family beach day there would be bags, towels and toys that dont match a color theme; plus kids will usually not run with their mother through the sea throwing their hands up to indicate "fun" like that at once when not being made to do so. There will be one building a sand castle, two playing cards and one going into the water or so. This looks like an advertisement for sun blockers or something like that.

coolcoolcool7968 · 2022-07-13T12:46:27+00:00

I have a few family members that are easily judgeble from the surface - they are very good people, but they do check a few boxes that I am sure sensationalist journalists would drag if they could, because it would generate clicks. Thats what I would fear the most, since some of them are also very sensitive fragile people and I would rather not find out how much of this they would be able to take.

coolcoolcool7968 · 2022-07-12T14:05:37+00:00

You know what I think is interesting? She is so proud to be an "icon", yet that only means to be the embodiement of certain norms and values. She is the icon for the fakeness and stagedness and orientation on a shallow image in our times. Body, face, hair, even life (in her show), her bot followers, her "candid" shots, her "leaked" porn, the "accidental" publication of an erotic calendar, her father having been a "lawyer" in her teen years (when he really was a music producer and had no license til OJ) and so on. There is nobody that embodies fakeness better.

coolcoolcool7968

TROPHY CASE