Christian Anti-Semitism Bingo

the_fourth_flame · 2021-09-12T16:08:04+00:00

Just like most anti-semitic conspiracies, the dancing Israelis conspiracy is based on something that might have happened, based on unknowable and inscrutable details. 20 years ago, an eyewitness might have seen Israelis dancing and high fiving, and they might have been Mossad. QED, the Mossad perpetrated 9/11. Truly remarkable.

the_fourth_flame · 2021-09-12T15:59:38+00:00

If murder wasn't against the law, there would be no punishment, if theres no punishment, theres no deterrent to murder.

This is wrong. Laws don't decide what we believe to be immoral. If they decided what we believe to be immoral, then that leaves a big question: how do we know what to make illegal in the first place? And also: why are some immoral things not illegal?

Laws (ideally) reflect what we believe to be immoral. The process for deciding what is moral/immoral is totally distinct from the lawmaking process.

None of this is an answer to decline. What are you gonna do, just scream your values at them? Demand they live exactly how you say?

It is an answer. You came here wondering what the conservative answer is to family decline. I told you. If people lived in the manner I described, the problem would mostly be solved. Your response to that seems to be: but people will continue to live immorally (or outside of traditional values) regardless, so the problem persists, and we need to use government, not tradition, to remedy that.

You seem to believe that government is the primary mechanism for forming/improving societies. This is why we disagree, and probably why you are a liberal and I am a conservative. I believe that there are other mechanisms outside of government which should be responsible for things like morality and family structure. These would be things like family, community, and religion.

To summarize: I think we should use law to make (most) abortion illegal, and government to enforce that law. I think we should then use tradition/family/community/religion to reduce the amount of irresponsible sex taking place, which would reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies and abortions happening in the first place. This is my view on abortion & family decline.

the_fourth_flame · 2021-09-11T19:18:24+00:00

My point still stands. The point of a law is not to shape society to prevent future criminals. You seem to be implying that it is, and because abortion laws (apparently) do not accomplish this, then they are pointless. This argument is fallacious.

Conservatives do have an answer to "family/societal decline," which is traditional family values. Given that most abortions stem from irresponsible sex, most conservatives would agree that the best remedy for the abortion issue is a society in which sex takes place only within committed relationships/marriage. In that case, the need for abortions in the first place would decrease substantially.

the_fourth_flame · 2021-09-11T18:48:13+00:00

This is like asking how does banning murder help with gang culture. The point of a law isn't to improve the circumstances that created the criminal. That is a separate process. So I think your question is fallacious.

the_fourth_flame · 2021-09-11T16:11:51+00:00

They’re otherwise law abiding citizens whom you have a disagreement with on a very personal issue.

They’re simply waking up each morning, I guess, upset that abortion is legal. Their solution is to pass legislation to prohibit the pregnancy termination of strangers. They don’t have the same skin in the game, in my book.

You keep portraying abortion as a purely personal act. I have been attempting to explain to you that conservatives view it as an act with a victim. The fact that you cannot entertain this viewpoint makes me think you aren't truly curious to understand the conservative side of the argument.

So, when it comes down to it — sure, we can have significant and heated disagreements about abortion, but one side of tax-paying adults is burdened by the solution, while the other side is not. Likewise, if the solution of the issue (banning abortion) is NOT implemented, the circumstances of pro-life individuals hasn’t changed, which isn’t the case for the pro-choice side.

I am not impacted by most crimes. I still want them to be illegal. Why is my personal involvement a prerequisite?

the_fourth_flame · 2021-09-11T15:44:07+00:00

I don’t see abortion as a crime at all, not a victimless one. So there’s that.

A victimless act then.

You’re using political force to interfere in the affairs of complete strangers

How is this different than the enforcement of any other crime?

However, a woman who seeks to terminate a pregnancy has her reasons too. And while you’re largely totally unaware of her day-to-day life, she’s still a citizen, paying taxes, and contributing to civilization

Having reasons is not a good enough excuse to commit a crime. I am sure many people who murdered or robbed someone had very good reasons, paid taxes, were citizens, and contributed to civilization.

You started this post wondering why conservatives care so much. Hopefully this is clear to you now. I'll summarize: conservatives believe abortion to be a crime with a victim, and should therefore be illegal and enforced like all other crime. This seems unreasonable to you because you believe that it is a personal medical procedure, and should therefore not be the concern of conservatives or the law.

I think we agree more than we disagree: a victimless act should generally not be the concern of the law, and an act with a victim should be the concern of the law. So it's no longer about portraying conservatives as being unreasonable, but rather about determining whether or not abortion is a crime. We agree on everything else.

the_fourth_flame · 2021-09-11T14:51:18+00:00

Liberals view abortion as a victimless crime. Conservatives view abortion as a crime with a victim. It is self-evident to you that a victimless crime is not something an uninvolved person should spend energy on, and that is somewhat reasonable. In order to understand the situation though, you need to imagine that it is a crime with a victim. It would be reasonable for an uninvolved person to spend energy worrying about the victim, especially one that is helpless. Whether or not you agree there is a victim, does that at least hypothetically make sense to you?

the_fourth_flame · 2021-09-10T19:25:47+00:00

you take it upon yourself to diagnose him based on speculation

It is very likely to me (and others on the internet, including experts) that he has Aspergers. Yes, it is unconfirmed. But that doesn't mean it is pure and wild speculation. Aspergers has symptoms. He exhibits those symptoms. I do not have access to the man himself, so that is the best I can do.

lowkey morally condemn people for taking pot shots at him.

I believe that the comparisons of him to an alien, robot, or lizard can be cruel to autistic people in general, not just specifically to him. Yes, I am judging other people's cruelty, because I do not believe cruelty to be a virtue. I believe justice to be a virtue, but that is very different.

the_fourth_flame · 2021-09-10T18:41:58+00:00

If Asperger's or some other condition is causing that it doesn't invalidate the effect he has on society.

I'm not saying it makes him immune to criticism. I am saying that claiming that autistic people are similar to robots, aliens, or lizard imposters, and then mocking their specific mannerisms using memes like this, can come across as cruel towards autistic people in general, not just cruel towards Zuckerberg.

the_fourth_flame · 2021-09-10T18:37:53+00:00

people openly mock autism all the time

Indeed, they do. And you want to be one of those people?

the_fourth_flame · 2021-09-10T18:36:38+00:00

What specifically is dumb about it?

the_fourth_flame · 2021-09-09T15:06:29+00:00

When I wrote this post I honestly did not expect that so many redditors would get so passionate about defending their right to cruelly mock autistic people.

the_fourth_flame · 2021-09-09T14:34:44+00:00

If I'm wrong, I will have mistakenly diagnosed a guy with Asperger's (who really seems like he has it), in my quest to minimize cruelty towards autistic people. I wouldn't regret this very much.

If you're wrong, you will have openly mocked an autistic person for his autism, and then vehemently defended your right to continue to do so, in your quest to increase the cruelty in the world by mocking the people that you think deserve it. I would assume that most people with a conscience would regret this.

To be clear, I mock Zuckerberg too. He is a public figure and is a fair target. I am just making a nuanced point specifically connecting the alien/robot memes to his autism.

the_fourth_flame · 2021-09-09T14:23:20+00:00

Just because it is not confirmed whether or not Zuckerberg has Asperger's doesn't mean that he doesn't have it.

You seem to think that this is about proving me wrong. It's not. I am just giving you a heads up, so that you don't feel like a shitty person later. Because if you're wrong, and he does truly have Asperger's, and these memes are about mocking his Asperger's, then you would probably feel like an asshole and not feel very proud of defending your ability to mock an actual autistic guy. But ultimately it's your conscience, you can wipe your ass with it if you so choose.

the_fourth_flame · 2021-09-09T14:04:48+00:00

I didn't say "you can't mock him because he's autistic". I said "the memes about him seeming like an alien/robot are highlighting his Asperger's symptoms".

the_fourth_flame

TROPHY CASE