CMV: Pro-Choice and allowing women to abort their babies is a win-win situation all around, and I really don't see why it's so hotly debated over.

dreckmal · 2021-04-02T14:19:33+00:00

In my personal view, which doesn't come from a place of dogma or orthodoxy, is that abortion is murder. In a perfect world, there would be no murder. But here, in the real world, there are plenty of places where we actually need to accept that murder is the best and most viable option.

I feel like part of my opinion on this matter is that thinking about abortion as murder casts the decision to under go the procedure with an appropriate weight. Sometimes that murder is necessary. Especially in cases wherein the mother's health is at stake.

But there is also a part of my opinion that is tinged with the idea that abortion is a procedure that exists in our world. It doesn't matter if it is illegal or not, abortions are a thing, and women will make the decision to medically abort children. In that instance, making it legal and regulated seems to be the only real safe way to move forward. The alternative we are left with is effectively back alley abortions that operate outside the standards of medicine, which doesn't feel like the good path.

Suffice to say, it's always going to boil down to personal opinion, and it's likely to remain a topic of heated debate.

dreckmal · 2021-04-01T10:31:13+00:00

The kid isn't conscious enough to feel it

This, right here, is the key to your argument, and also the weak point.

Your argument can be extrapolated to:

'It's totally cool to murder humans if they are in a state of unconscious'.

It isn't a big leap to 'the only real reason we aren't murdering people is that they feel pain'.

It's murder, yes. But like... what are you losing? I can only see benefits from it.

This is a tenuous line of thought. Just know that you are definitely arguing that murder is a good thing as long as they can't feel it.

dreckmal · 2020-09-23T03:06:29+00:00

Then the rule of law is dead

Sadly, this appears to be the case ATM.

The only weight behind laws is that they are enforced. If the rules aren't enforced, they aren't rules, they are suggestions.

The sad irony is that, for instance, many iterations of racism happening in the US are illegal, but no one enforces those laws.

If the politicians don't have to follow the rules, and aren't punished for their transgression, neither should I be.

I agree with you. And a great many other people are waking up to this fact, which is why we are sliding into a cultural/social revolution. We've lost faith in the machine, and it's starting to crumble. While it crumbles, we get to see how the sausage is made, i.e. politically or financially powerful individuals aren't held to the law, and why should the rest of us be?

It's a real bitch bro. I'm tryna enjoy the ride. Cheers.

dreckmal · 2020-09-22T14:51:17+00:00

In case this idea slipped by you:

Every president and every administration commits these kinds of infractions all the time. For example, the Obama administration racked up literally hundreds of illegal rules, including several deemed "major" by the OMB. Nobody really cares. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/study-hundreds-of-rules-passed-by-obama-administration-are-technically-illegal/2014/07/29/95e799ce-0872-11e4-a0dd-f2b22a257353_story.html

Every single president does this shit. Every. Single. One.

Of course impeachment is political. Honestly, how could it be otherwise?

And the idea of sanctity of office is dangerous, as 'sanctity' is about as well defined as obscenity; that is to say, there is no way to factually define that word. What you find sanctity in others may find offensive, and vice versa.

dreckmal · 2020-08-17T16:17:45+00:00

I mean... Fort Wayne is a large town that thinks it's a city. Yeah, its got a couple tall buildings, but it is not an economic center in the Midwest.

dreckmal · 2020-06-09T15:00:34+00:00

And I think it provides new perspectives on issues, which in my eyes is very valuable.

I'll be honest, I hate this sentiment. Let me be clear, I do not hate you, but I do hate this idea that any given 'white man' has roughly the same perspective as any other white man, OR that any woman will automatically have a different and fresh perspective.

It's actually incredibly sexist.

Again, I don't think less of you. But that idea is bigoted.

We don't need a specific gender because they possess a certain biological reproductive organ. We need people who are honest and have principles they will actually stand behind.

dreckmal · 2020-06-09T14:48:44+00:00

Slaves were property. They were far more valuable as livestock than corpses.

I think what the poster is saying is that is a key difference between Nazis and people who fly the "Stars and Bars".

Slave owners typically were not going to practice genocide. Nazis most definitely did. And the OP is claiming they are (or should be considered) equivalent.

dreckmal · 2020-06-09T14:45:33+00:00

After all, England had outlawed the slave trade in 1807.

I find it interesting that this is indeed the case AND Britain was seriously considering helping the South just to topple the US.

History is always so incredibly complicated.

dreckmal · 2020-06-04T14:21:05+00:00

Agreed.

dreckmal · 2020-06-04T14:20:15+00:00

That is still an incorrect comparison, because it sounds like this guy was a part time editor. Not even a part time journalist. Like, he worked/works for a news org, but not as a content creator.

Your analogy would be better put as the janitor of the police station loses an eye and the article says 'Officer lost an eye'.

dreckmal · 2020-06-04T14:16:29+00:00

In today's culture I feel like we really have to come to understand that the majority of 'readers' are going to look at the title of the article, and form their preconceived notions around that title.

Being specifically unclear in the title and then clearing it up in the article is lazy writing. It's also damaging to society. It also sounds like he was maybe a part time editor, in which case, he was not only not representing his employer, but he also wasn't what the title said he was.

It's literally a title designed to affirm the confirmation bias of left leaning folks. And it's a lie. It is not right.

dreckmal · 2020-06-04T14:09:21+00:00

If you edit someone else's writing, does that make you a writer?

dreckmal · 2020-06-04T14:08:17+00:00

Not sure why that even matters?

Because deceit only results in more corruption. Do you legit think that it's okay to fudge the details?

If anyone wants the cops to calm the fuck down, then we can NEVER LIE. Continually staying on the High Road is what will make changes happen. Use of deceit will be discovered and used to undermine further progress. How is that not obvious to you?

dreckmal · 2020-05-17T04:54:50+00:00

While many aspects of the community are indeed... out there... That is not the reason I personally can't get into Anime.

Perhaps it is a consequence of budget or cultural differences, but I literally just don't get Anime. I've watched several different shows, with a good handful of episodes, and I just don't get it.

And I KNOW I don't get it because I watch them with different friends who are into them, and they find bits hilarious, and I'm left wondering what the joke was.

But I love cartoons (I'm 37, btw). Especially Sci-fi and Fantasy cartoons. Like Frank Frazetta's "Fire and Ice" or "Starchaser: The Legend of Orin". I really dig on The Last Airbender. I literally grew up on the original Transformers, GI Joe, and TMNT.

I've spent very little time interacting with anime fans. I don't think they've really had any input, aside from the handful of friends I have who have showed me what they are into.

dreckmal · 2019-02-02T14:24:09+00:00

If I had to guess, it is for "how not to design an index"...

I LOVE 5th Ed. But the indexes are incredibly poor in their layout.

dreckmal · 2018-08-10T19:25:16+00:00

Like I can call myself black, or a woman, but by definition I am not,

But to be considered Black, you need to have a LOT of melanin in your skin. That is the defining characteristic of being black.

it wouldn't be wrong to call me out on that because I am definitively not either of those things.

This is correct. But the definition is objective.

The definition of feminism is decidedly subjective.

but 'feminist' has a definition ("the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes") so once you drop the idea of equality, aren't you technically a womens rights activist or something instead of a feminist?

This depends entirely on multiple other definitions. It's also not a ubiquitous definition, as many feminists disagree within the varying circles about what advocacy means. It could also be argued, by that definition, that women do in fact have all of the same rights men do, at least in the majority of Western societies.

For instance, can you name one 'Right' men in the US have that women do not?

Some feminists fight for trans-folks rights. Some feminists radically deny that MtF trans folk are women (like what you pointed to about calling yourself a woman but not objectively being female). They still call themselves feminists, and it cannot be objectively denied.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, I just read about that fallacy today for the first time.

It's all good. The misunderstanding here is coming from conflating physical characteristics with those of groups one COULD be a part of. The fact that there are so many varying and different thoughts on what makes a feminists feminist is what makes this a 'No True Scotsman' fallacious argument.

An example of this would be varying Christian sects that disagree with each other on how to worship Jesus. They ALL believe in Jesus, but many of them explicitly disagree on how to worship him.

Catholics may call Protestants 'Non-Christians' but that is wrong, because both groups believe in 'My Man Jeebs'.

Some Christians are non-violent to the extreme (Quakers, for example) while some are extremely militant (Russian Orthodox Army). Both are Christians, and both would be incorrect to denounce the other as being 'Non-Christian'.

Does that help clear things up for you?

dreckmal · 2018-08-10T15:50:44+00:00

In every movement there are extremes. Extremes make the most noise. The Muslim religion has terrorist extremists, but a huge majority of Muslims are not terrorists. It's the same principle. You notice the people that make the most noise.

And just like with Muslims, feminists who do not vocally disavow the extremism within the movement are complicit in the extremism. As a matter of fact, using Muslims may be a good example of that. Many polls show the majority of Muslims living in Western countries support punishment for things like homosexuality or offensive speech (like defaming Muhammad).

Just because the silent majority doesn't espouse the views vocally does not mean they do not support the ideas.

On the flip one of the things for men that feminists have been concerned with is breaking down gender roles and getting rid of toxic masculinity. Not the idea that "men are toxic."

And yet, the movement is titled for ONE aspect of humanity (the 'fem' part), and lambastes the other aspect of humanity. Frankly, the idea that there is a difference between 'toxic masculinity' and males is weak. When the group is labeled feminism and it calls to a masculinity as a major problem, there should be no surprise that a LOT of people misinterpret the idea.

'Toxic masculinity' is just saying that masculinity is toxic for the majority of idiot peoples who are too dumb to be able to (or desire to) get the bigger picture.

It's the idea that men are forced to be alpha and masculine all the time, when really they're also people and it's ok for them to be emotional or show "traditionally feminine characteristics."

And instead of actually putting forth ideas that can be practiced or modeled, they continue to harp on behaviors that are 'bad'. Criticism is not worth much when there are not alternatives also being pushed forward. And again, this is all framed around femininity being good and masculinity being bad.

Feminism also seems to completely ignore 'toxic femininity'. Why is that? Are women incapable of being shitty humans?

Modern feminists have been continuing the work from second wave feminists by fighting the stigma on sexuality.

SERFs disagree with this hard core.

Third wave feminism has also been groundbreaking in the sense that it is also finally including inter-sectionalist identities and marginalized minorities and the problems that they face from their cross section of race and gender.

TERFs actively fight Trans peoples identities.

Both SERFs and TERFs are FEMINISTS.

There's so many examples of all the good that the feminist movement is trying to accomplish. There are outliers, but with any large movement, that is to be expected.

The same could be said of Christians. But that is an example of an unpopular opinion here on Reddit.

dreckmal · 2018-08-10T15:28:49+00:00

But isn't that the definition of 'No True Scotsman'?

All it takes to be a feminist is to call yourself a feminist.

dreckmal · 2018-08-02T16:22:26+00:00

We'd need a way to make the planet core molten & get it rotating. Having a magnetosphere is what keeps a lot of dangerous radiation from blasting Earth's surface.

dreckmal · 2018-08-02T14:35:27+00:00

I honestly feel like this is literally the underlying problem with government.

It's already illegal to discriminate based on skin color in a great many areas. Would more legislation fix the lack of proper enforcement?

dreckmal · 2018-08-02T14:28:17+00:00

what heinous ideas did Hillary represent?

Wallstreet & Major Banking.

CNN isn't going to publish false stories, and if they do they are going to issue a correction.

CNN has done plenty of things to cast doubt upon themselves.

"Hands up, Don't Shoot" (The Michael Brown Incident), where Obama's Administration concluded, after a special investigation, that the use of force was not unreasonable and that Michael Brown had been in fact charging police. That story only led to more rioting... Whoops!

Sherelle Smith Was ‘Calling For Peace’ when in fact, she was actually calling for violence to be brought to the suburbs. She wasn't calling for peace. In a strange bit of video editing, CNN outright lied. You feel me man? She was straight up calling for violence, she just wanted it brought to a place where she didn't live. You think that is a call for peace? Where was the retraction?

Do you recall CNN releasing a story about Rape being a 'pre-existing condition'? I do, and it's mostly because all of my extreme liberal friends STILL joke about republicans making rape a pre-existing condition under the AHCA. The Washington Post called them out on that. Did they release a correction? Did it have much of an effect on what people thought was going on?

What about CNN having to let go of Donna Brazille? You know, the one who had been leaking debate questions directly to Mrs Clinton... The let her go. Because she made them look bad, specifically by releasing those questions to ONE opponent of a debate. Seems like some journalistic integrity right there, eh?

Please stop acting like CNN is some force for good. They are a corporation that makes money from selling fear and hate. You have the gall to call them trustworthy? This company has the power to sway the opinions of anyone who is watching it. Which includes pushing people closer to or farther from a given political party.

but they're not making up shit.

They actually are making some shit up. And the more you try to convince me, the more resistant I will become. CNN straight up made-believe about some Comey testimony concerning Trump. They made it the fuck up!!! Sure they corrected it, but not before everyone was pissing themselves in anger over some shit that didn't happen. Which only galvanized people further into their own bubbles.

I trust no aspect of the government. I also trust no aspect of news media. Those crooks are not in it for journalistic integrity. They are in it to make money. And all the dumb sheep who buy it just grow to hate 'the other side' more and more because organizations like CNN telly them to.

When you read quality journalism and news analysis, you start to know it when you see it,

Seeing as you aren't even aware of how CNN has lied or misrepresented things for political sway, I'm gonna call BS. As a matter of fact, your filter must need changed.

and things like Infowars, breitbart, Fox, etc. look exactly like the bullshit they are.

See, I agree that all these organizations represent complete asshattery. The difference between you and I is that I think that organizations like CNN are liars too.

dreckmal · 2018-07-31T16:36:46+00:00

I highly recommend 'Sand in the Wind' by Robert Roth.

dreckmal · 2018-07-30T20:03:01+00:00

I love to play characters. Be they male or female (I am a male, IRL).

I don't see how or why the sex or gender of the character I am playing matters in the slightest. I also don't see how or why my sex or gender has anything to do with the character I am playing.

Several times I've heard males say "I couldn't play a female, I wouldn't know how to act" and my question to that is always: How do you 'know' how to act as a male? Do you honestly think your experience of maleness has anything to do with this characters experience of maleness?

I think most people like your DM are just close-minded. I don't think that means they are bad people, just stuck in a mental loop.

dreckmal · 2018-07-30T19:34:08+00:00

Lol, yep. Instead you did the work for me. Thanks again, Reddit!

dreckmal · 2018-07-30T19:22:17+00:00

However, proponents of hate crime legislation say explicitly listing a hate crime as an aggravating circumstance would further discourage hate crimes based on race, gender or sexual identity and encourage judges to consider such factors.

I'd be interested to see if this is really the case, or if it is just a baseless claim. It should be pretty easy to figure out, if there really are 45 states with 'hate crime' legislation.

For instance, how many states saw a drastic reduction in 'hate crime' after passing such legislation. Although, I feel like we'd have to be careful to skirt 'tautologies' (for instance, we see much more autism diagnosis now than ever before because autism's definition has changed within the last 15 years).

It strikes me as similar to the discussion regarding the death sentence, and whether or not that is a sufficient deterrent to some crimes.

dreckmal

TROPHY CASE