"We Have Met The Enemy And He Is Us!" - Pogo

A nice enough bootstraps sentiment but not really true.

What about victims of violent crime? Who caused their problem?

What about contracting coronavirus because you’re an essential worker and your job requires you to be in close contact with others — and living with whatever symptoms come next up to and including death?

Birth defects? Being born to shitty parents?

Just a few things that come to mind. We should think about and craft policy for these people, too.

really dudd

dude i mean dude

Can you think of anyone in the world who is a victim besides Trump?

I mean obviously he’s been treated incredibly unfairly but other than him

I was thinking more like rape victims and modern-day slaves as a start but okay

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk this up to your own over-exuberance in waxing philosophical.

Because even a five-year-old can tell you that slaves need enslavement like a fish needs a bicycle, rape victims aren’t responsible for their own rapes, and that being murdered means the end of your life, after which no further moral edification is possible.

Okay, maybe five-year-olds wouldn’t put it quite like that, but you catch my drift.

At any rate, they intuitively grasp the concepts of good and evil at a young age, and not just because they watch Disney movies.

They know that slavers, rapists, and murderers are wicked people who inflict needless cruelty on others and should be put behind bars so their abuses can be stopped.

I know you’re fixated on abuses carried out by governments, but a bright 40+ year old fellow like yourself can’t possibly believe that *privately*-orchestrated enslavement and abuse of other individuals either never occurs or is somehow ultimately to the benefit of the victim.

That would just be silly

Okay man — I’ll agree to consider that the death of a child can sometimes be “a very good thing” (yikes), if you’ll consider that government can sometimes be a force for good

Deal?

Eyy we’re both getting out of our very narrow, fundamentalist worldviews today

But first, you gotta give me some tangible, concrete ways in which the death of a child can be “a very good thing, in the long run, for that child.”

That statement can be interpreted many ways, and I sure wouldn’t want to take your quote “out of context”!

Then, I’ll respond in kind with some examples in history of how government was a force for good

Also deal?

That I wouldn't co-sign the death of children? Yeah, got me there!

The fact that you feel no need to explain this statement is noted

No reply option below,
tl;dr on that bowl of heavily salted tears.

Guy, while ya and yer fellow Cult45 Rightists are a tad boring, ye're very much so in particular, as yer go-to's ain't one size fit allz, yet ya keeps tryin ta retrofit them.

Try ta dig some new ones up. Yer soulmate, Kylie, is the only one that reads yer redundant hooey.

'What will truly amaze you is when you learn to see things outside of your own very narrow, very fundamentalist worldview.

You cannot fathom, for example, that the death of a child* might be a very good thing, in the long run, for that child.'

Oh, you're pro-choice now?

I didn't see that coming.

*Obviously I'd use the word fetus

'You cannot fathom, for example, that the death of a child might be a very good thing, in the long run, for that child.'

So you're saying that if a child that's actually wanted and is already an independent person dies, that might be very good.
But if an unwanted fetus, a few weeks into development with no ability to think or communicate, is terminated, that's always a bad thing?

I know what *you* think it means. I don't agree that it means that because I could see what was actually happening.

As evidenced by your 23 responses...

Oh, I understand him.

It's ironic that that meme is used to imply that Newman is twisting words.
His complaints about C-16 were ridiculous, you know the word pronoun isn't even mentioned in it?
The point of it was to protect trans people in society, not to jump on individuals for not acknowledging someone's gender.

I agree that he outmanoeuvred her.

AKA

Someone skilled in debate, repeatedly making comments that suggest he holds a particular stance, then when his comments are phrased as that stance, argues that he never used those words.

Obviously, it's an example of a smartass getting away with contradicting himself whilst being questioned by someone who seemingly hasn't prepped their questions well enough.

'Not wanting you to kill the unborn doesn't therefore make me responsible for your unborn.'

You wanting or not wanting someone to do something is how you define Leftism!

Why do you want to control people?

Do you think you're superior etc etc...

Heh.

Monkey see, monkey do.

Have you seen the Monty Python organ donor sketch?

'Location. Doesn't. Change. That.'

"So, can we have your liver then?

'The unjust taking of a life is the ULTIMATE expression of control over others. You are completely removing another person's ability to choose to think, speak, and act ever again.'

What do you mean ever again?

It's a fetus. What conversations do you think it's having in utero?

It isn't a person, every time you compare it so someone who's already been born, it's a false comparison.

It. Is. Inside. Someone. Else's. Body.

You do not get to control what happens to that person's body, that person takes priority because they are an established person, a fetus is not.

What, now you think I'm just masquerading as a donkey?

Nothing could be truer.