Freedom for those children who have been taught that their puberty induced body dismorphia means they were literally born in the wrong body and it's time to chemically block that puberty (with chemicals previously used to castrate homosexuals), and chop of their relevant sex determined body parts....The left has gotten so sick that any liberal who refuses to swallow their new tripe loses their liberal card.
Neo fascism is on the left.
It's hard to say I can rub your nose in anything. The expectation for red, compared to the reality, is underwhelming. Even so, you said enough women would vote blue. But you didn't say enough for what. To keep everything blue? To reduce the tide to a dribble?
If you think Roe is the source of the underwhelming Republican performance, and it may be, then I'll say worth it. Repubs will have enough to stifle any more BS from Biden and Biden will stay the course. Which will be to our advantage in 24.
Desantis turned a swing state completely red and Trump is starting to slap at him. That's your next president.
No. The provider is the authority. Most women and people generally are spoonfed a narrative that makes them believe their unborn child is not even alive. Abortion doctors regularly encounter the little people they kill. Pro-life laws should target the actual killer, not the woman who has been misled by them and other institutions. Not the woman, who very often is victimized by the trauma and left with no support by those who pretend they simply underwent a procedure as innocuous as a cyst removal.
"For long-term relationships, there were essentially no sex differences: Men and women were equally reluctant to get involved with someone with a very high number of notches on their bedpost. For short-term relationships, in contrast, men were less reluctant than women."
You can imagine that's a reason if you want, but it doesn't explain why the state with the second largest GDP (Texas) has the least debt of any state.
I think Cali might have moved down the list from #1. It still wouldn't bode well if they went for secession.
Another issue would be that all the food producing counties in the state are red. Cali would be doomed.
For pro choice voters, yes. During several debates this election season, candidates were asked what limits on abortion they would support and they refused to state any. Planned Parenthood was started by a eugenicist and for that purpose. They have done a fine job
You can only say that because you pick and choose what qualifies as wealthy. South Korea is much higher than the US. The US barely inches ahead of Japan, Sweden, Austria, Finland and Switzerland.
Just go shoot a gun and calm the fuck down. You need to move past this mental illness. Hoplophobia appears to seriously affect ones ability to...do anything at all
All true. If a person is suicidal, a gun increases their chances of follow through. The vast majority of people are not suicidal, in which case a gun has no impact on suicidality. The presence of a father decreases the likelihood that such emotional disturbances will arise.
The likelihood of the event absolutely has to do with how many people have an event occur vs how many do not. Suicide is highly unlikely. For people who do not suffer suicidal ideation, the likelihood is zero, even if there's a gun in the home.
Your hoplophobia causes you to put a high degree of agency in inanimate objects.
"When did you stop hitting your wife" is an example of plurium interrogationum, or complex question. "The presupposition is a proposition that is presumed to be acceptable to the respondent when the question is asked."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Your example is literally included as an example on the source page.
The numbers aren't hard to search. Poverty doesn't paint a very strong argument for you because the numbers are close, even where women are higher than men. But I'm talking about being destitute, not poor.
"In 2020, about 69.6 percent of the estimated number of homeless individuals in the United States were male."
https://www.statista.com/statistics/
To pretend humans aren't the result of natural and sexual selection is anti-science. Humans are estimated to have existed for 6 million years. Civilization and agriculture has only been around for 10 thousand years.
The differences between men and women are small (though important) on average. But females tend to cluster more around the average than males, making the bell curve taller in the middle for women and longer at the tails for men. That explanation may be confusing unless you're familiar with the Greater Male Variation Hypothesis, which you can look up if you're curious.
As for your perception of media, that's merely a statement of your perception.
I'm not sure you're getting this. Biology determines the gender.
I'm sure you weren't listening in sex ed. Sperm determines gender. It comes from the father. Whether a person is a boy or a girl depends on the father.
You're too fuckin stupid to continue this back and forth waste of my time.
Golly, 10 thousand sure does seem like a high likelihood kind of number... until you consider that's out of 168 million women. Lucky for me and my daughter I understand what unlikely looks like.
Men are unlikely to commit suicide too by the way. And if you have a gun in your home, it doesn't induce suicidal ideation. A gun should be a problem for you, because you should definitely have suicidal ideation. It's not for me or my daughter.
Well, suicides are twice as likely to be fatherless. And since I had her assigned a girl at birth, she is 7 times less likely to commit suicide. So my presence more than offsets the correlation of a presence of a gun with suicide.
Plus, chances of suicide are only about. .14% for everyone, let alone women who are far less. Tripling a miniscule number is still a miniscule number.
People can be of the same stripe and fight each other. Often they fight each other more than they fight those who are further from their disposition.
Bloods and Crips. Hells Angels and Outlaws. Iran and Iraq. Nazis and Commies. All are much the same as their bitter enemy.
If you're evidence says that guns are worse while drugs are no better, then your evidence is contradictory.
Sure the top two causes of death are guns and drugs. But drugs account for almost twice as many deaths while guns kill just slightly more people than gravity. Some years, falls kill more than guns. All according to the CDC.
My presence in her life will more that counteract the presence of a gun. Which, by the way is mere correlation. You may find a person is 5 times more likely to commit suicide if they use vinegar as a cleaner in their home. Mere correlation.
I can be dangerous on occasion. I took up skydiving this year.
Because of the socially constructed nature of race, a person can board a plane in the US as a black person, and exit the plane in Brazil as a white person. They have a different notion of race there. A black person can be white.
It's hilarious that you think a man can be a woman but a black man can't be white. Race is for more socially constructed than gender expression. Pigment is far less consequential than sex organs and the resulting physical affects of them.
Sure there is a relationship. Drugs have a huge black market, which always comes with violence. If you look at the CDC data, you'll see that drug poisoning kills twice the people guns do. You'll also see that states with the highest gun deaths do not neatly overlap with states having the highest drug deaths.
There's no basis for the claim that illegal gun use is greater than illegal drug use. Perhaps gun use in general is greater than illegal drug use, but legal gun use isn't the issue.
I don't think the father of the dead college kid is reassured by the notion that their kid's death was peaceful.
We aren't trying to compare like with like. I am demonstrating that all the talk about guns is under the pretext of minimizing or reducing impact. If that wasn't a false pretense, we would hear more about those things that have a greater impact, as drugs do by a long shot.
Lol all this attention because I said racial supremacists are the least supreme examples of their race, and you (for some reason) took it personally.
Norwich thought I was limping him with racial supremacists for no other reason than he is the least supreme kind of person.
Of all the people killed in 2020, 33% we're from drugs. 16.2% we're from guns. 33% is a higher death rate than 16.2%. Since the measured population is people killed, that's twice as many people.
The vast majority of gun owners are never even shot. There are more gun owners than drug users. Drugs kill at a higher rate than guns.
Asian countries have long been primitive backwaters except for where they adopted healthy economic institutions, or stole from those who had healthy economic institutions. Their backwater position had nothing to do with their race. That's why they thrive in the west under healthy institutions.
You're looking at the outcome and presuming a racial cause. That's because skin tone is all you have in common with the high quality white people you champion.
That proposed criminalization is holding law abiding citizens responsible for the actions of law breakers. When I pointed that out, you said they wouldn't be law abiding citizens. That's a circular argument justifying the proposed law. Those people ARE law abiding citizens. You can't point to future criminalization as a defense for the proposed law.
This is very obvious. Get off this fallacy so we can proceed.
This is another lamentably false statement. 32 million people regularly use drugs in the United States and there were 100,000 OD deaths last year. Your apparent belief that 32 million people intentionally shot someone with the intent of killing them last year is preposterous and stupid. There are a lot more people taking drugs than shooting people with guns and this should be perfectly obvious to anybody with even half a functional brain cell.
If drugs are more lethal than guns, which seems to be -- bizarrely -- what you are implying, then why is the military armed with guns and not drugs?
You are equating lethal shooters with non lethal drug users. That's fallacious. You should be equating drug users with gun users (owners) to make a comparison. Many more people own guns than use lethal drugs. The vast vast majority of gun owners are perfectly safe, even while actively shooting their guns.
Drugs kill twice as many people as guns do. The military doesn't employ drugs because drugs accidentally kill the user at an astronomical rate. Far more than what guns kill on purpose.
Firstly, You're not suggesting a world wide ban on guns are you? That's gonna take a little more conquering. Yes I am talking about the issues as they relate to America, and what might be done. There is literally nothing to be done about global gun and drug deaths.
Secondly, if something people do for fun kills them at twice the rate of tools meant to kill, that makes my case even greater. We talk about guns because of politics, not because of impact. Which leads to the thirdly.
Thirdly, this is not tu quoque (you're terrible at identifying logical fallacies haha). It is about what we discuss and why. It's driven by political narrative, not impact.
Did you ever consider it might be because drug users take drugs of their own free will, whereas gunshot victims don't usually volunteer to get sprayed with bullets?
Lol you're incorrect. The majority of gun deaths are from suicide. Even including suicide, drug deaths are double gun deaths. And including suicide is what disingenuous talking heads always do when discussing gun violence.
You're future criminalizing law abiding citizens as cause for creating the law that would criminalize them. That's circular reasoning and it's not what I did.
I wasn't even discussing gun bans when I suggested that penalizing criminals and not law abiding citizens is complex in this context. That post was in keeping with your statement that individuals should be held accountable for their own actions, not those of others. You abandoned that notion as soon as it failed to meet your wants.
Of course 2A can be amended, through the amendment process. There is 0 political will for such. The result is that a gun ban is illegal and will remain so for the foreseeable future. That's logically linear and factual.
You can't use flawed laws as a defence against propositions to change those laws because that's circular reasoning.
That's not what I did, but if I had it wouldn't be an example of circular reasoning. I was referring to getting guns out of the hands of criminals while leaving innocent people alone. Declaring those people future criminals to justify the law that will criminalize them actually is circular reasoning.
A gun ban is illegal. It's against the supreme law of the land. Banning guns is therefore already criminal.
You can't characterize good laws as flawed to justify flawed laws. It's not circular reasoning, but it is relying on a false premise.
You said individuals should be held responsible for their actions. Now you're suggesting criminalizing individuals who have done nothing wrong. Your internal contradictions need to be addressed.
I worded the title after a separate debate by the same name was closed.
We do need to hold individuals responsible, individually. That's why it's a complex matter to get the guns out of the hands of shooters without taking them from law abiding gun owners.
As a child, I used a gun often.
