MasterOBee Master/King @ MasterObee @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

514

Joined

2 yr. ago

he argument that women have a right to their bodily autonomy, is enough.

Well sounds like you already decided your argument is right and every other argument is wrong, so we don't need to discuss any further. I would implore you to explore multiple sides of an argument, so even though you may not agree, much like I disagree with your side, you can understand it, much like I understand your side.

I asked you to expand on your wild claim, you couldn't.

I was trying to learn your position and potentially go on your side if you had a solid argument. 1 thing you're right about is me not having an opinion on if the court is corrupt or not, because I don't have any information saying they're corrupt. I wanted to learn your argument, but you failed to convince me, and likely anybody else, with you've mentioned.

If that child, really fetus, is inside your body, no, I don’t think you have to continue letting the fetus use your body. Because that’s what it is. No one would force a woman to breastfeed. No one would say you legally have to use your boobs no matter what to feed this child. That’s what being pregnant is.

You're talking about me avoiding questions, which I answered already, but you ignored mine: If I have a 1 day old child, is it my responsibility to make sure my baby is fed and doesn’t die of starvation?

And no, you are continually side stepping and not telling me how you’d feel. How would you feel?

I answered that above, if you want me to expand on it I can, but I did answer it. I said:

If that’s the only information about the situation that I have, I wouldn’t like it. If you instead word the same exact situation like ‘do you have a responsibility to your child to keep them alive’ I would say yes.

I don't think you read your first link, here are some quick quotes for ya

from #6 - "The most recent version of the FBI study shows no rise in the national violent crime rate between 2020 and 2021. That said, there is considerable uncertainty around the FBI’s figures for 2021 because of a transition to a new data collection system. The FBI reported an increase in the violent crime rate between 2019 and 2020, when the previous data collection system was still in place."

Comparing 2022 to 2021 doesn't really matter, what about a 5 year trend? just because 2020 and 2021 we had a higher rate of crime, that doesn't mean we only look at 2022 potentially having lower crime rates.

Especially when paired with this quote further down on #8 - " One important consideration is that official statistics for 2022 are not yet available. Voters might be reacting to an increase in violent crime that has yet to surface in annual government reports. Some estimates from nongovernmental organizations do point to an increase in certain kinds of violent crime in 2022: For example, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, an organization of police executives representing large cities, estimates that robberies and aggravated assaults increased in the first six months of this year compared with the same period the year before."

#7 is also telling "While the total U.S. violent crime rate does not appear to have increased recently, the most serious form of violent crime – murder – has risen significantly during the pandemic. Both the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported a roughly 30% increase in the U.S. murder rate between 2019 and 2020."

and I know you didn't read the second link, because it doesn't show an increase of police deaths by year. It shows years from the 1980-2019. It analyses unreported deaths from police. Not at all what I think you're trying to discuss.

I don't find your argument convincing if you can't find any 'corrupt' court cases then.

Yeah, they interpret it.

You said they got it wrong and it was a corrupt ruling. I'm curious where you think the law went against what they ruled, in other words, how did they interpret the law 'corruptly'

No, when someone presents you an idea or concept you use their definitions so that you understand what they are trying to communicate.

Oh so I always have to use whatever definitions of words you come up with to have a conversation with you?

You intiated a conversation with this question to me "Nothing hard about it, to have individual rights one must first be an individual. If you don’t understand the word individual pick up a dictionary." - I looked it up and used the definition. Then you get mad because I didn't choose the definition that you, not even stated, but rather thought of. What are you even arguing?

I don't think that's a good faith discussion and I'd rather not discuss such a complex, nuanced moral issue with someone that only believes they're 100% right.

Once again, I’d love to discuss if you’d like. Having an unpopular opinion really helps me engage with the other side and know where they’re coming from. I think sometimes you should give that liberty to someone you disagree with.

If self-awareness was a disease you’d be the healthiest person alive.

It's funny you say this when the comment you responded to, I literally said "I can admit that pro-choices have a reasonable argument, even though I don’t subscribe to that opinion."

Can you say the same about the other 'sides' argument?

We can choose different definitions of 'individuals' or we can talk about the core of our arguments - you don't think the babys life should be considered when weighing an abortion or not, and I do think it should be.

We can discuss and try to come to some common ground, or you can continue your inconsistency and rude behavior. I'd prefer the former, but if you can't handle an honest discussion, I'm fine with the latter.

What's been explained? That you refuse to discuss this with me because you're always 100% right and that any other argument that deviates from yours is inherently 'dickish'? You've made that known.

Once again, I'd love to discuss if you'd like. Having an unpopular opinion really helps me engage with the other side and know where they're coming from. I think sometimes you should give that liberty to someone you disagree with.

Citizens united is a good example. Where do you think they got their law wrong?

“you had sex and got pregnancy and this is your consequence or punishment”

If an individual does the only action that would cause a human life to be created, I don't think they get to kill that being just because it's inconvenient. It's about preserving a human life, not about punishment.

You really seemed to side step the entire analogy by saying you aren’t the parent.

I showed how your hypothetical and where it doesn't apply. If you'd like to use a different hypothetical, I'm fine with that. Why not use my child? If I have a 1 day old child, is it my responsibility to make sure my baby is fed and doesn't die of starvation?

How would you feel and react if the government forced you until a dangerous medical procedure to potentially save the life of someone else?

If that's the only information about the situation that I have, I wouldn't like it.

If you instead word the same exact situation like 'do you have a responsibility to your child to keep them alive' I would say yes.

I get we love this narrative on reddit/lemmy that cops are just out killing everyone. But that's simply not true, being hyperbolic about it doesn't help us address the actual issue - insane violent crime rates in this country. If we had a 'normal' amount of violent crimes, how much less police interactions would people have?

We need to clean up the PD's, but lets not act like our country makes it easy to be a police officer.

If you had to guess right now, how many would you guess? since 2017 - so we'll say over a 5 year span, what's the total?

Just because they don't rule the way you'd like, doesn't make them corrupt.

What's the cases they've ruled on that show you their corruption?

What a good way to shut down conversation. I think that's what's wrong with the political climate now days, you get in an echo chamber and any deviation from your echo chamber and you shut down conversation saying that any deviation from you is 'inherently dickish.'

If you'd actually like to discuss, I'm here.

If you can't help but to be a dick in your comments, I won't care to discuss.

That’s called cherry picking.

Oh, so you can choose a definition and deny a fetus any rights because of it, but if I use a definition of the same word, it's intellectually disingenuous? Be consistent man.

If you want an honest discussion about the rights of women vs a fetus, I'll be glad to have it. I just ask that you stop playing games and actually discuss.

You act like just because a couple words are related it's a 'gotcha' I can run with individual rights or human rights, or I can argue that definitions of words have no meaning besides conveying information, and they are actually fluid (see how the definition of 'woman' has changed).

Which would you like me to argue?

Doesnt stop you from being wrong because you lack the basic understanding of the concepts.

So you think your argument is 100% factually correct, despite it clearly being an opinion.

I can admit that pro-choices have a reasonable argument, even though I don't subscribe to that opinion. If you refuse to see any other argument on a divided issue, I suggest you learn about the other sides argument, and it either strengthens your position or gives you more nuance on the division. Wanna know why politics is so divided? It's because people 100% think they're right and they won't listen to the other argument to understand it. You share that quality with the MAGA folks, I hope you learn to not have that awful quality.