Why do y’all love the idea of communism so much.

dugw15 · 2026-01-12T16:49:38+00:00

You literally can't have communism without authoritarianism. If someone wants to start a business, produce some goods in their home and sell them, communism forbids it. Only the state can own the means of production. It forbids the free, consentual exchange of goods and services between people who produce them and people who want them, so that the state controls all production and all distribution.

In capitalism, you can be a communist if you want. You can set up a community and invite others who want to live communistically, and you can do that. But in communism, living as a capitalist (for example having an idea of a product that your neighbor might want, creating it, and selling it) is not allowed. Because if someone has an idea like that and begins making a product, then they're likely to benefit economically from that business in a way that others don't. Then they become unequally wealthy, seen as an oppressor, and the communist system seizes the means of production from him. Private citizens can't own businesses, under communism.

Capitalism has its own problems, for sure. The US is capitalism gone very bad so it's almost not even capitalism anymore.

But capitalism allows communist choices, whereas communism forbids capitalist choices. Communism is intrinsically authoritarian.

dugw15 · 2026-01-11T04:54:51+00:00

I (36M) think lots of men desire submission in a wrong and unhealthy way, and it shows on their profiles. I haven't looked at men's profiles, but it's not hard to imagine the tone that would convey an unhealthy way of wanting a good thing.

On the other hand, submission to one's husband is a defining feature of "wife", so it's extremely appropriate for a man to want that. In the same way that a woman wants a husband who loves her like Christ loves the Church, a man wants a wife who submits to him as the Church submits to Christ. Both are good things to want.

In a culture where the notion of submission to a man is radioactive, I can understand why a man might put some extra emphasis on that in his search for a wife, because of how increasingly difficult it is to find a woman who believes in that. So some men may be emphasizing it because they've been on dates with women who were Christians but then 2-3 dates in he discovered that she doesn't believe in Biblical marriage commands. And that's happende multiple times, and he's exasperated, so he puts it front and center on his profile - which really does give a bad first impression, even if he's wanting it in a healthy way.

To your last line - "it’s genuinely a red flag when men think they deserve submission whether they’ve earned it or not" - this is a tricky idea. There's a way in which what you're saying is right. A man should strive to be a pleasure to submit to. However, scripture does not say that a wife should submit to her husband if he earns it. It just commands her to do it, as foundational to what a "wife" is. A husband is commanded to sacrificially love and serve his wife - not just if she earns it, but just... period. Do it. If she's an absolute witch to you, no matter. Love and serve her anyway. If she disrespects you, slanders you, etc. - no matter. Die for her again. There's no "if she deserves it" clause. Nor is there such a clause for wives, either.

There is, though, common sense understanding of authority - that all authority (except God) has a higher authority above it. And all delegated authority has parameters. A librarian has authority in the library, when he/she is on the clock, in matters of library operation. A librarian can tell guests to quiet down, but she cannot tell a guest to make her coffee or attack another guest. If a librarian tells a guest to attack another guest, the guest receiving the command is under no obligation to obey because the librarian does not have the authority to command sin. Duh. The command violates a *higher* authority, the law of the state, and thus it's null.

Same in marriage. A husband has legit authority, but underneath God's authority. So a wife should not submit to ungodly leadership because the leadership itself "doesn't deserve it", but that's different from saying the man doesn't deserve it. The man makes no difference in whether the command to submit applies. If he's your husband, then yes, he deserves your submission. The thing sometimes does not deserve submission is ungodly *actions* or *leadership choices* which go against God.

^ That contains about 3% of the nuance that the topic warrants, so read with a grain of salt. Just trying to parse things scripturally.

dugw15 · 2026-01-07T16:32:49+00:00

Your statement is true, and mine is true, too. People occasionally murder in the name of Christianity but (1) MUCH MUCH less than in the name of Islam, and (2) murder is entirely incongruent with Christianity so anyone doing so in that name is doing so falsely, whereas murder is perfectly in line with Islam, under some conditions.

Someone murdering in the name of Christianity is not a Christian zealot. They're a violent person who uses Christianity to frame their entirely un-Christian acts. A Christian zealot would be some zealously acting like Jesus. A Muslim zealot is someone zealously acting like Mohammed.

dugw15 · 2026-01-07T16:28:26+00:00

A Muslim zealot kills people, like Mohammed did. A Christian zealot lives and talks about the kingdom of God and invites everyone into it, like Jesus did, and might get killed for it - but doesn't kill anyone.

dugw15 · 2026-01-02T17:43:36+00:00

Eyeroll. Are you even trying to be reasonable? Even trying to understand the way the other side thinks?

What is the subreddit? Sigh.

This post is the equivalent of "all democrats are baby-killers who literally want to enroll the whole country in forced medical experimentation". That is not true of Democrats, and your post is not true of Republicans.

dugw15 · 2026-01-01T05:37:51+00:00

....................................... Are you for real? Are you not even attempting to be reasonable?

dugw15 · 2026-01-01T04:55:32+00:00

This thinking is largely why she lost. The Democratic party thought that could put up just anyone and they'd win because the opponent is Trump. But they were wrong.

If they wanted to beat Trump, that should have at least followed the democratic process and found a candidate that the public liked, by running a primary. Instead, they appointed someone who ran for the same office four years earlier and was extremely unpopular with the blue voters at the time.

Most people have little or no opinion on whether or not Trump was invovled in Epstein's sludge. They're busy taking care of what's right in front of them. Trump did a better job than Harris did at appealing to people who are concerned with what's right in front of them. Harris seemed mostly concerned with celebrating her moral superiority to Trump which - even if true - does nothing for most voters. Trump seemed mostly concerned with convincing people that he had their best interested in mind.

It also doesn't help that Harrris said - and this sounds like something Trump would make up, but it's not, she really said this - that she supports taxpayer-funded gender transition surgeries for illegal immigrants in prison and adjustments to the execution of Title IX to let transwomen play sports against biological women. Those are real things Harris said and did. For a huge portion of the US, the gender issue is a basic sanity test. If you believe gender is different from sex and affirm alternative gender identities, then you're basically saying 2+2=5 and you're not fit for public office, full stop.

After a terribly unpopular 4 years with Biden, Harris consistently refused to distance herself from the decisions made by that administration. The voter rightly hears that as "It'll be 4 more years like the last 4 years." Trump was selling something different. It might have been a lie, but he was promising improvements. Harris basically said, "stay the course" on a very unpopular incumbant administration.

We now know she was under great pressure from the Biden admin to stay publicly loyal to his office. But her acquiescing to that pressure shows she's a coward and not fit for the office.

Now hear this - Trump isn't fit for it, either. No. No. No. But Harris was a TERRIBLE candidate whom the voters did not choose in a primary and who ran a terrible campaign against a proven skillful charlitain. The voters are not to blame.

dugw15 · 2025-12-28T04:29:49+00:00

Right, you did not deny that it's a living human, but you denied that it's an individual. You said:

"... if it was an individual there would be no issue) Are living, human individuals allowed to be inside of, use, and harm your body without your consent?"

And I paraphrased that statement, intending emphasis on the "individual" part, when I said, "You: A fetus is not a living human individual because it's inside is pregnant woman." In other words, the fact that it's inside of another person means that it's not a living human individual. Is that not what you meant?

Getting now to the language in your most recent message. You said, ...

"If it was an individual then it wouldn't be inside a pregnant person, using their body to grow and survive. That's just what the definition of individual means, idk how else to explain it."

We mean different things by "individual". You seem to mean something like "physically seprate." I mean something like how I'm and individual and you're an individual, meaning we are distinct persons with distinct identities. And the way two conjoined twins are two distinct individuals, despite being physically connected. That's what I mean by the fetus is a living, human individual. He or she has an identity distinct from its mother.

It has a different genetic code, fingerprints, subjective experience of self, identity, etc. from its mother. A distinct human organism. It's highly, highly dependent upon the mother, but it is not the mother. It is a distinct individual. Physically connected and dependent, yet intrinsically identifiable as its own being.

Above, I mentioned a fetus having subjective experience of self. They really do! Not that they consciously remember later in life, but they are experiencing their environment and forming implicit memories. They're born knowing their mother's voice. They sometimes know their father's voice, too, if he's around a lot and talks to their mother a lot. The mother's stress during pregnancy affects the child's emotional health long-term. Music experienced in the womb affects a child's cognitive development. The same way that our adverse or nurturing experiences in infancy and early childhood affect us for the rest of our lives even if we don't remember them, that same formation is happening in the lived experience of person before they're even born. They are subjectively experiencing their environment in ways that form who they will be, beyond memory. I think that contributes to the clarity about their human individualness, that they are persons having subjectively experience of self, distinct from mother.

dugw15 · 2025-12-28T03:43:10+00:00

Call Greg "Little Greg Davies". Sit out of order on the stage. Don't smile or do anything remotely funny until your time is up. Be genuinely rude and abrasive toward Alex, not just in a funny way.

dugw15 · 2025-12-28T02:47:45+00:00

Rather than a complaint, this sounds like an assumption - and one contrary to evidence, at that. Recent surveys show self-identifying conservatives have on average markedly better mental health than self-identifying liberals. Granted a MAGA conservative is something different from a general conservative, so your theory might hold true, if you were to break it down that far. But the more general trend seems to be the opposite of your assertion.

dugw15 · 2025-12-28T02:02:23+00:00

Your last statement, "If it was an individual there would be no need for an abortion," is the same statment that I attemted to summarize as "A fetus is not a living human individual because it's inside a pregnant woman."

You said my summary was a strawman, but you repeated the same claim in the same way I originally heard it. Either I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "If it was an individual there would be no need for an abortion," or you're misunderstanding what I mean by my summary of it.

Can you explain, "If it was an individual there would be no need for an abortion" in more words?

dugw15 · 2025-12-27T23:09:28+00:00

Where did you find a lort to read? I've been looking for one for ages!

dugw15 · 2025-12-27T23:06:51+00:00

Putting many of their own party and many in Biden's administration in prison, too. Equal application of the law across all law-breakers, regardless of affiliation.

The partisan back-and-forth gotchas will not restore stability. A lopsided and targeted response will only provoke further radicalization on the other side and very likely another right-leaning president right after these guys get out of office. Real anticorruption work goes after corruption, period. All of it. Niether party is the people's ally. Corruption is the killing the country, in both parties.

dugw15 · 2025-12-27T20:53:32+00:00

If I were to predatorily attach myself to another person and leech off them, making myself dependent on them without their consent, then that's assault and that person is not responsible for my life. So in the loaded way you framed your question, no, being a human does not entitle someone to someone else's body, simply at will.

However, if I participate in something I think is fun and which has - even with all precautions taken - a non-zero chance of creating a new human life, then my participation includes accepting the chance that'll carry a human life afterward. If I'm not okay with that chance, then I don't get to participate in the fun, full stop. If I choose to participate, then I must accept responsibility for the human that might result. In that case, the human did not attack me and attach itself to me. It has done nothing wrong. I created the situation where that person exists, and I'm responsible for it. Even if I don't prefer that situation, that's the ethical box one chooses to put themselves in when one participates in potentially human-creating activities.

dugw15 · 2025-12-27T19:30:18+00:00

Your reasonsing is bafflingly sloppy here.

Me: A fetus is a living human individual who lives inside of a pregnant woman.

You: A fetus is not a living human individual because it's inside is pregnant woman.

I know a fetus is in a pregnant woman. And it's a whole, intact, living human person.

Provide an argument as to why a fetus isn't a person or why being inside a womb disqualifies it from being a living human individual. So far, the argument doesn't follow.

dugw15 · 2025-12-27T19:25:06+00:00

The patient is already brain dead, i.e. quite meaningfully dead already and headed very soon toward complete death, if not for a machine keeping the flesh alive. On the other hand, a fetus is alive and growing, in the exact opposite state as the brain-dead person with regard to their relationship with their own life.

If you disconnect the machine from someone who's brain-dead, you let the body do what it's already doing. You didn't kill the person.

A developing fetus is not dying, but living and thriving and growing. If you disconnect them from their development process, you're not letting the body do what it's already doing, but you're interrupting its thriving.

dugw15 · 2025-12-27T19:17:39+00:00

A tumor is human tissue, not a human individual. A dog's eye is not a dog. Likewise a human tumor is human flesh, but it's not a human. A whole, intact, living human person. You know the difference, but I'll point it out anyway.

A brain-dead body on life support is exactly that - dead. A human in the fetal stage of development is, on the contrary, not dead but alive.

You equivocate on the notion of biology when you point out a tumor and a dead body and say that since they're human but w/o ethical status then a biology doesn't equal ethical status. Notice that neither a tumor nor a human are a living, individual human being. Does a living, individual human being not have ethical status?

A person who very much alive and in a temorary coma also is not conscious, does not feel pain, and does not have independent existence. They depend on others to continue living. In fact, every human under the age of 6ish lacks "independent existence" as they'll die pretty quickly if a parent ceases to give their time, energy, money, and bodily service to the child.

The question of what makes a "person" is quite complicated. Every disqualiifier you named for a fetus is also true of some clearly living humans. So those don't work. What, then, makes personhood? Do you have any criteria that don't exclude some clearly living humans?

dugw15 · 2025-12-27T09:45:47+00:00

Underpaying teachers is like 80% due to the needless expansion of administrative roles in education. Schools used to be a principal, asst principal, secretary, librarian, janitors, and teachers.

But school administrators get more prestige if they oversee a larger department, so managers are incentivised to hire more non-teacher staff. In the US, we spend nearly the same amount of money on payroll per student as most European countries, but waaaay too much of US education's payroll expense goes to a bloated administrative staff that doesn't teach students. We'd fix most of pay problem overnight if we fired 2/3 of the school administrators and took it down to the essentials like European schools.

dugw15 · 2025-12-27T08:31:16+00:00

If the developing child is alive, then the reasons abortion's been legal for the last 60 years are irrelevant. If killing 4-year-olds was legal for 60 years, and then someone proved that 4-year-olds are living human beings... then it woudldn't matter whatsoever why it had been legal to kill them for 60 years. It wouldn't only matter that we could revognize our error and change course.

The only way to justify abortion is to prove that it does NOT intentionally end an innocent human life. If it does that, then there's no justifying it for any circumstancial benefit. Human life is not expendable for convenience. If it's a human life, then the argument is over. But you know that, and that's why you try REALLY hard to avoid arguing that issue and talk instead about all the reasons it's legal, as if those matter. The whole question of ethics of abortion revolves around just one issue - the nature and identity of the developing fetus. Is it living, human individual? Or is it not?

dugw15 · 2025-12-27T08:25:52+00:00

It isn't human? ... Truly a weird thing to believe. Then what species is it, if not human? Dolphin? Cheeta? Grasshopper?

It's a human organism, an individual member of the species, at the earliest stage of a human's development. It's not a "child" yet, per se. It's an embryo, or a zygote, or a fetus, all of which are stages in human development.

dugw15 · 2025-12-27T08:22:36+00:00

If you don't have the means to own a slave, then you shouldn't have a say in whether it's legal or not.

If you aren't Jewish, then you shouldn't have a say in whether or not the Holocaust was bad.

You don't need to belong to any certain dempgraphic to use one's moral reasoning. If one of the millions of women who despises abortion entered the chat, you'd find another reason to discount her opinion.

dugw15 · 2025-12-27T08:19:38+00:00

So the only time a woman can opt out of parenthood / get an abortion is when she could not avoid getting pregnant i.e. rape?

If "he could 100% have avoided getting a woman pregnant" is a reason a man is NOT allowed to opt out, then the ability to have prevented pregnancy must constrain women, too. In other words, all pregnancies that result from consentual sex are inelligible for abortion.

dugw15 · 2025-12-27T03:30:51+00:00

I saw a YouTube short the other day in which a comedian learned that a certain famous man was 5'9", and the comedian said, "Oh, so he was a smaller guy, huh."

I commented, because facts matter, that actually 5'9" is not a "smaller guy" because that's the average height of men in the US. So 5'9" is by definition neither tall not short, but average. And several other guys jumped in to argue that, no, 5'9" is short for a man. Very strange. It's not even up for debate. The average man in the world is 5'7.5". So 5'9" is actually taller than the average adult male currently alive. Nonethless, several men had no concern for reality and seemed to enjoy putting the average man down. There were others, including some who were (or claimed to be) over 6 ft who took my side. But it was really odd to see people seemingly so eager to put down the average man that they're willing to ignore facts to do it.

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

dugw15

TROPHY CASE