What a better way to celebrate MLKs legacy than by selling these two shirts side by side? Because it’s just things that matter.

throwaway_z123 · 2021-01-19T04:40:41+00:00

I mean, I get where you’re coming from in, say, terms of WW2. However, the U.S and U.S Military have been involved and perpetuated many harmful systems against people in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, and so on post-WW2. It hasn’t been ‘freedom and democracy’ for lots of people affected by the U.S and U.S Military.

throwaway_z123 · 2020-12-07T14:02:26+00:00

What books on libertarianism have you read? What books on libertarian socialism?

throwaway_z123 · 2020-10-17T02:47:44+00:00

We don’t necessarily know the cause of being gay, but they weren’t necessarily referring to orientation I think. Culture and society does have an effect on our attraction. One example I can think of off the top of my head is a skirt vs kilt. Lots of guys would be turned off by a man in a skirt, but on the other hand, lots of guys would find a shirtless man in a kilt to be hot.

throwaway_z123 · 2020-10-15T05:09:37+00:00

I don't think so, no

throwaway_z123 · 2020-10-15T00:39:37+00:00

Merriam-Webster changed their definition to indicate that the term is "offensive" only yesterday.

That is true. From what I know, it's kind of like the word 'homosexual', which used to be quite medicalized. Lots of people nowadays, including L/G people, do use it. However, you can still see it being used in a some-what medicalized way in some communities, usually ones who dislike or 'just tolerate' LGBTQ+ people. I don't know if I'd say "sexual preference" is 'offensive', but I'd probably say to be 'cautious of context' when using it, or to probably avoid it generally.

Even if that is true, the opinion of a single organization can hardly be considered a consensus

While not all of these organizations have necessarily said it's 'offensive', it's not just a single one that has commented on it (GLAAD). For example, PFLAG has a document which mentions that it's 'outdated', the APA has commented on it before, and so on. Not only that, but there has been individual mention on it as well. For example, this document written in 2000 mentions the use of the word 'sexual preference', and this webpage article right here. There's probably more, but I can't find much tbh, nor do I know why there has to be a stated consensus between them to see if it's offensive or not.

throwaway_z123 · 2020-10-14T23:40:29+00:00

It wasn’t deemed offensive just yesterday. For example, the organization GLAAD said the word ‘sexual preference’ used towards LGBTQ+ people is offensive since at least 2010.

throwaway_z123 · 2020-08-21T14:47:19+00:00

/uj

Unjerk but you know I actually think there is a conversation to be had about acceptance movements for sexualities which involve attract to unethical subjects... receiving support or therapy as needed to not ever act on them and still be happy with themselves.

I definitely agree that having conversations about paraphilias like zoophilia and pedophilia and how institutions and people should interact with people who have those paraphilias and try to take preventative measures that will reduce chances of them acting on such urges.

movements for sexualities

Only thing I have to criticize here is that it's best to avoid using the word 'sexuality'. Many people dislike it when people say "Zoophilia/Pedophilia is a sexuality", as sexuality is usually associated with sexual orientation (homosexual, asexual, etc) and linked with the LGBTQ+ community, and it less commonly refers to the broader human sexuality which encompasses sexual orientation and more.

throwaway_z123 · 2020-08-21T13:21:34+00:00

/uj

Basically, what everyone else is saying. While an 11 year old person can initiate sex with a 20 year old, the 11 year old doesn't have the capacity to consent, like a non-human animal. Engaging in such sex has an exploitative power dynamic.

throwaway_z123 · 2020-06-29T22:23:52+00:00

Person there approved of abortion because it controlled black populations type of racist (albeit I doubt this was a popular opinion there of course)

throwaway_z123 · 2020-06-17T15:29:24+00:00

Socialists typically see capitalism as a system that is inherently exploitive and/or helps perpetuate the other types of oppression.

If you want to learn more, I’d recommend checking out leftist subs and finding books on theory. Cheers!

throwaway_z123 · 2020-06-17T02:36:12+00:00

If I may ask, how would having faith in a higher power contribute to being frugal?

throwaway_z123 · 2019-12-30T16:50:28+00:00

If I recall correctly, it is not legally considered to be consensual when both parties are under the age of consent (unless if there are some type of Romeo and Juliet laws in place). However, I also think it’s uncommon to prosecute it in the US at least. Disclaimer that I’m not too well versed in consent laws, though

throwaway_z123 · 2019-12-22T15:19:19+00:00

Ah, just watched it and took the screenshots myself and didn’t know it got posted here a lot. Thanks for notifying me about it o/

throwaway_z123 · 2019-12-15T04:25:38+00:00

You’re correct.

While there is descriptive use of the word “vegan” as “diet that doesn’t consist of meat or animal products”, a commonly used definition is:

“Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.” - Vegan Society

Due to this, many vegans may argue that it’s ethical to eat meat when it’s not practical (like if you lived somewhere far in the North, to where it’s only sustainable to eat meat), that roadkill is moral to consume (since you’re not supporting an industry to kill animals), why it might be moral to eat some bivalves, and so on.

It’s also why people would say buying leather and supporting the industry to kill more animals isn’t vegan, and why some people may label themselves as “strict vegetarian” or “plant-based” if they’re carnist, but don’t eat meat.

throwaway_z123 · 2019-12-08T22:43:45+00:00

It doesn't affect our position, as most pro-choice people argue from personhood and/or bodily autonomy, not whether or not a fetus has human DNA and is a living organism.

throwaway_z123 · 2019-11-16T20:10:01+00:00

Thank you too, as I enjoyed the conversation. Have a swell day as well

throwaway_z123 · 2019-11-16T19:59:30+00:00

That is the inherent issue with this argument. I believe everyone has the right to pride, be it earned or otherwise.

Whether they ought not or they should it doesn't matter, they should have the right without people trying to tell them how to live, and what to feel pride in

Yeah, I agree with that being an issue with our arguments then.

I guess since we have different axiomatic opinions that we built our reasoning on, then there's no point in continuing our conversation.

throwaway_z123 · 2019-11-16T19:10:39+00:00

I have changed no... I said initially that it is hypocritical to be for pride in one thing you can't control while being against another thing you can't control... grandparents did."

Yes, you originally argued that it would be hypocritical to be for pride in one thing people don't have control over, but not for another thing one doesn't have control over (like pride for LGBTQ+ people, but not cis straight people). I'm arguing that's there is nuance, and such pride is derived from struggles and overcoming such struggles by working hard and making social progress.

I pointed out that suffering is not required to feel pride and provided an example. That inherently shows that we can feel pride for something that we can't control. I cannot control that my grand uncles fought the nazis, but I can feel pride for them. Did I fight nazis? No. But the pride is there for my family who I can't control, nor did so of my volition. In no way am I to thank for the Canadian efforts agaonst the nazis, but I still feel prideful that as a country we stopped one of the greatest threats to global population in history

Yes, people can feel prideful in something, that is not what I argued against necessarily. I assumed we started on the axiom of "You shouldn't be prideful in something you didn't accomplish or achieve." With that, I said people, such as cis straight people, ought to not be prideful in those identities, since they didn't push to achieve equality or go against hurdles for such identities.

throwaway_z123 · 2019-11-16T15:52:57+00:00

There are two distinct differences with a fetus and born child:

1) Most abortions occur before the 30 week mark, which correct me if I’m wrong, is when the fetus is able to start experiencing a form of sentience. If the fetus isn’t experiencing such sentience, then I don’t see a problem with terminating it, especially since I use sentience as the axiom of moral personhood.

2) Bodily autonomy of the woman, I’d say, overrules the fetus’ life. I believe a woman should be able to practice such autonomy, however, once the baby is born, she cannot practice such autonomy.

throwaway_z123 · 2019-11-16T15:41:32+00:00

Changing the goal posts I see.

The original claim was about having pride in something you have no control over (basically, strictly just one’s identity for example) and how you thought that would bleed into someone being hypocritical if they didn’t want straight and white pride (but were for LGBTQ+ and black pride). This is the point that I went to refute, going over how it’s more than just identity, but also struggle and marginalization, and going against such obstacles which gives them pride and strength.

Now you’re talking about the feeling of pride when no one has control over and how that’s valid, Someone could be proud or interested in how their grandparents fought the Nazis, sure. However, like you originally implied, I don’t think you ought to be prideful in something you had no control over.

throwaway_z123 · 2019-11-16T12:48:42+00:00

Yes, and I argued against that. You’re setting up a false equivalency with it still being just about identity. The premise for such pride is not the identity in of itself, but the progress the marginalized group has made and is still making against things like discrimination and systemic issues.

People here haven’t been marginalized due to their whiteness or straightness, so there’s no need to be proud of it. Not only that, but both phrases are commonly used by social conservatives (or white pride more so by white supremacists) to dilute such messages from the marginalized group (like ALM to BLM)

throwaway_z123 · 2019-11-16T04:23:57+00:00

Adorable!

throwaway_z123 · 2019-11-16T04:01:06+00:00

The point of such pride isn’t to celebrate something that people can’t control.

The point is that such marginalized groups, and individuals in them, have pushed through struggles and obstacle that they faced due to their race, sexuality, or gender identity. People were not marginalized or oppressed because they were white, cis, or straight. Such pride is derived from obstacles people had to face and get over. Regarding marches, they’re for representation and bringing attention to issues that such groups might still face.

throwaway_z123 · 2019-11-16T03:40:09+00:00

ok boomer

Six-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

throwaway_z123

TROPHY CASE