Thank you for admitting you are incapable of understanding you know what they say: "Smart people seem crazy to dumb people". It's perhaps because they are too dumb to understand or too weak-willed to try.
Lol, amazing how emotional people can get over literally nothing. Something as simple as this young lady not using precise language to convey her thought transpired into you bashing me to make yourself feel better. I don't know what this spell is I have over people, but dang it's some powerful stuff.
I guess it is bullshit when it goes completely over your head.
...sure body, whatever helps you sleep at night. If this is the hill you want to die on have at it.
Says the guy unable to decipher what she actually meant when she said "other than that".
I am quite sure he doesn't care about you being white any more than he cares about me being black. I believe the reason why he is saying that is because he is an asshole that feels the need to correct people.
Well, I am not saying you have to apologize for it. I just think if we are going to talk about Trump being racist while reading an article about white supremacy we might want to clear up the distinctions between each term. And in doing so, I thought to point out why I was bringing up the distinctions between each term.
CLEARLY she meant that generally she does not care about skin color...then she followed up mentioning a specific and rare instance where she does care about skin color and its regarding who she likes.
That's like saying "I like pie. I do not like cherry pie, but other than that, I love pie". Is it a contradiction? Yes, and using the law of contradiction you can make an inference as to what this person is REALLY saying. If you READ between the text and apply logic you can pull out an easy to interpret message.
1. They generally enjoy pie.
2. There is an exception to this rule.
3. That exception is cherry pie.
Therefore the author is REALLY saying: "I don't like cherry pie, but other than that I enjoy pies" or "I like non-cherry pies"
Reading between her text she is clearly saying
1. I generally don't care for color
2. There is an exception to the rule
3. When it comes to matters of who I love I prefer black men.
4. Other than that I don't care for color.
You are taking one thing out of context and ignoring the entire message that is being conveyed.
It was an inference I made based on her saying she loves black men...I am confident in assuming in saying she loves black men in terms of dating and not she loves black men to look at, or she loves black men to go fishing with, or she loves black men to play D&D with.
And even still she never claimed to care about skin color...she still only stated that she does care about skin color in terms of who she "loves" beyond that she does not care about skin color. You are still disputing against something she never said and ignoring that the "other than that" was meant to denote an exception to the rule.
Well, you posted an article about whether or not Trump is a white supremacist and not about whether or not Trump is racist. The words racist, supremacist, and nationalist are not all synonymous.
All white supremacists are racist, but not all racists are white supremacists. Nationalism is a whole other thing. White Nationalists (those believe in forming a white national identity) are different from American Nationalists (those believing in forming an American national identity). Nationalism is only racism when those nationalists seek to form a national identity around their race because they view other races to be inferior or their own race to be superior. White nationalists and Black nationalists sometimes are racist against other races, but raciam and racial nationalism are not mutually exclusive.
But American nationalism is not about a racial identity, its about an American identity. This could include members of all races, ethnicities, and skin colors.
Trump is definitely a nationalist, definitely xenophobic, seemingly racist against those with the racial make-up of Mesoamericans, seemingly anti-Hispanic, and could be an undercover white supremacist. I don't know if he thinks one race is superior or inferior, but I can see why Hispanic (not a race) people would think he has something against them.
I, as a black man, have never felt threatened by Trump or racially attacked.
Her point: The only time I am concerned with skin color is when I am dating.
Your point: She is concerned with skin color in cases dealing with dating preferences.
Y'all are literally saying the same thing. She never claimed she doesn't care about skin color. She just claimed that when it comes to matters beyond dating she doesn't care about skin color. That's what that "Other than that" means.
This is truly the smart/compassionate route:
1. If you don't want children or cannot care for children, do not have sex without contraceptives.
2. If those contraceptives fail and you have an unwanted pregnancy, get an aborition.
3. If you are pregnant and pass the abortion point and still don't want the kid or can't care for it, put it up for adoption.
4. If you do want the kid, but know you can't care for a severely disabled one; know that your child can potentially be disabled and you might have to find care for it.
5. If you can care for it and don't mind it, then care for it or pay someone to do it.
6. If you lack the time, funds, or energy to care for it; the government SHOULD step in to assist
7. If it is proven that the child will endure severe suffering, then you can kill it.
1. When did I say or suggest I know the minds of every American citizen. I don't need to know their minds in order to say "we" in reference to where I think our tax dollars should go. Even if others don't want our money going to care for the mentally disabled, it can still go there because our taxes already go to causes that some of us couldn't care less for.
2. Of course the government has room for improvement when it comes to caring for citizens who are unable to care for themselves, but is the point in voting and electing leaders who can do a better job at budgeting. If the parents don't want the child, there is precedent for what happens...they put the child up for adoption, and the state ends up caring for it anyway. Granted now the child need 24/hr care and would likely not be adopted, but equal protection of the law is just that. Based on the Fourteenth Amendment we cannot really treat the disabled differently from the abled. If the state provide grants for the care of abled children, it can and must subsidize for the care of disabled children.
3. And you do not have to "care" for the child in the sense of giving 24/hr care to that child. YOU are legally obligated to pay taxes to the U.S. Government. Once the government takes those taxes, it can with that money sponsor homes for these disabled care with people who WILL be available to provide 24/hr care as it would be their job to do so OR they would be receiving government compensation or tax breaks to adopt such individuals.
4. And exactly what is miserable about needing full-time care? The need for full-time care does not necessarily mean suffering or misery. If there is actual suffering for that individual then I have already said sure, but how can it be known that an infant is suffering? You want to assume that needing full-time care equates to suffering, however, there are conditions where a person might need full-time care and are not suffering. By this logic, we might as well kill any elder who would need full-time care or any full-grown adult who needs full-time care but doesn't have someone with the patience to care for them
This is a huge fallacy...the false equivocation between needing 24/hr care and experiencing personal misery
5. Is it humane to end misery and suffering through death when there is no other way? Sure, however, you must first demonstrate that the being is, in fact, miserable and suffering. For an infant, the only way to prove such misery and suffering is mostly physically and throught an examination of brain activity. However, needing 24/hr care is not evidence in itself of misery and suffering.
Also, you are emphasizing not the fact that parents want to end suffering, but the fact that the parents personally do not want to be the ones providing the care (or finding someone to provide the care) and in not wanting to provide this care or be responsible for that care in some way they are doing the opposite of being "humane" which is showing compassion or benevolence. What is more compassionate than caring for someone.
Let me hammer this point to death--if it can be PROVEN that the being is in fact suffering and has not the potential of alleviating that suffering even with 24/hr care or anything else that we can provide as a society.
If you want to talk about compassion, let's talk about how we can improve our services to the disabled and those in need to where infanticide is not the only option and is a last resort.
6. They are not neglecting the child? That is definitely subjective. It depends on the situation...if something could be done to alleviate the suffering, they are neglecting the child by saying "We don't want to care for this child and would rather put it down". If nothing else can be done then killing the child is caring for the child.
7. Babies are put up for adoption everyday...doesn't have to be the government, it can be anyone to care for the child.
And I am pointing out in saying this, the deficit that exists when it comes to caring for these individuals. Heck even if the parents are in the picture, I believe the government should assist.
But you are asking if infanticide should be permitted, and my answer is....yes, but if it can be avoided let's improve our systems to avoid it.
My argument is not that the government has this all figured out and has the correct system in place for dealing with things like infants severely suffering.
who said I wouldn't put a human out their misery
I literally said I am for assisted suicide...if that is not putting a human out of their misery then what is? However, there is a difference between putting someone out her misery out and killing a child because you do not want to provide 24/hr care.
And yes, abortion is legal? However, I am looking at this from a legal standpoint as well. The reality is a born child is a citizen of the U.S. and with that come certain protections and rights.
However, you went beyond just, putting a suffering baby out of its misery...you went into a realm of parents offing their children for things like hemophilia which is something a person can grow up with and...perhaps saying a "normal life" is not the best ways of putting it, but there are babies that make it out if infancy with the condition and there are adults with the condition who are living happy lives.
So separating the two things:
If you are talking about taking a child out of his or her misery due to having, yes.
If you are talking about killing a child who just need care and can actually survive and be happy with the care, no.
If you are talking about children with parents who just don't want to take care of a disabled child that can survive and be happy, no.
Who is "we"? The American people/government/society. It is the purpose of government to protect the general welfare of its citizens and once this baby is born...it is a citizen of the united states. Even if the parents don't want anything to do with the child, we can at least step up as a community to care for these children. Me pushing for government support for this child to have a chance at a painless life and to survive to a point where he can make his own decisions is no more immoral than a parent deciding to end that life. What gives the parent the right to choose for someone else whether they live or die. Especially if that someone is not under excruciating pain and can survive to have a normal life al beit with a disability. And perhaps that child will grow to make a rational decision to kill himself...assisted suicide is not something I am against.
The point is even if the parents don't want anything to do with this child, there are others out there willing to help.
Though the parents must bear some responsibility in the end as they are neglecting a child because of his disability. I am not saying they ought to be responsible for raising the child, but they are to be involved in the process of getting the child into a family or living situation where the child can be looked after.
And you ask "why should it have a right to life?" Well, why should YOU have a right to life? If you are saying this child's right to life ought not be respected then you are saying your right to life ought not be respected and I should be able to trample over you, subjugate you, or take your life without due process or repercussions.
So long as this child is American, assuming this child was born here, he does have the same equal protection granted under the Fourteenth Amendment. This implies the same right to life that we all have.
I am also going to leave this right here: "The researchers behind the study cited by Cruz’s campaign say their research doesn’t look at violent criminals — they only looked at ex-felons generally, violent or not. Nor does their ex-felon population represent all criminals, just those who were arrested by police. And finally, they say, they’re not even sure that with all those qualifiers it’s even true that a majority of ex-felons go on to register as Democrats. That’s true in some states studied, but not others, and no national data is available."
https://www.factcheck.org/2015/12/
And just say that even if all criminals were democrats...it still wouldn't justify not implementing laws meant to keep guns out of their hands...laws like making it illegal to sell unregistered partially manufactured guns. It makes little sense if these homemade guns are wide use among criminals to allow the continued LEGAL purchase of these weapons.
I don't think killing an infant is morally just unless the infant is in excruciating physical pain that cannot be alleviated by anything but an easy death. If there is a chance the condition can be stabilized or pain can be alleviated without death we must take it because the child deserves a shot at a full life.
And parents' desire to not want a disable child does not take priority over the child's right to life.
Laws are needed. By this logic, we should eliminate murder laws because criminals ignore those too. Both the left needs to realize is that gun laws alone is not the whole solution and what the right needs to realize is gun laws should be part of that solution. What sense does it make to allow a mentally ill person or an ex-convict to purchase illegal weapons? None at all. Sure these gun laws should not infringe upon law-abiding citizens who are mentally stable. But keeping others from purchasing weapons and penalizing them when they obtain illegal weapons should be totally okay. Right?
And of course criminals can still by weapons in the black market. That is a problem too, but when they can purchase partially manufactured weapons legally...it does not help solve the problem. Clearly, some regulation ought to be put in place to keep this from happening as well. Do you think criminals would purchase partially manufactured weapons if they had to register them under their own name.
This means criminals could only turn to the black market for guns--meaning that we would also have to crack down there as well to figure out where they are getting these guns.
What nobody seems to be talking about is how unregistered guns are getting on the street and into the hands of criminals.
True, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have gun laws to hold them accountable. Of course we shouldn't get too crazy and make things difficult for law abiding gun owners who have no desire to do wrong.
However we should target illegal firearms. We must start by outlawing certain firearms and ensure there is a punishment from criminals using unauthorized weapons, but then we must also seek to get those weapons off of the streets. So much of our approach to gun violence is reactionary. Just as our approach to many crimes. We need to be proactive in preventing criminal from obtaining these weapons.
We have to ask ourselves how is it that we have the highest number of gun-related deaths? How is it that in some countries gun deaths only make up 3% of homicides?
Crime has nothing to do with political philosophy. There is nothing about being liberal-minded that would make me more associated with the criminal element. Not do any of my own personal ideologies relate to the creation of criminality. Again, our enemies are one in the same but you are too busy demonizing me simply because I came to my conclusion that murder and theft is wrong differently from you.
And this is exactly the problem. Exactly how am I complicit or even lumped in with the group killing? What because I pointed a statistic that does not fit into your narrative, therefore, I must be a liberal and all criminals are liberals. Rather than considering that our enemies are the same group of people, you want to turn me into your enemy.
But I am not saying we shouldn't have gun laws, I am saying we need more than gun laws since gun laws will be benign to criminals. So no my logic does not lead to the conclusion that we should legalize murder...my logic would lead to the conclusion that we should study what makes murderers want to murder and what conditions allow murder and seek to eliminate them.
Is it really stupid to seek conditions that prevent crime before they can occur?
You are taking me saying "restrictions don't stop criminals" as me saying we should eliminate restrictions and allow criminals to run amuck. This is a strawman argument when I am actually saying "Restrictions are not enough to stop criminals, we need to do more to prevent gun violence"
Explain to me how putting forth a law that stops the buying and selling of illegal guns will stop criminals from buying and selling guns? How will it stop these criminals from using these weapons?
CLEARLY we need more than gun laws...we need to get guns off the streets altogether and to target buyers and sellers of illegal weapons before we seek to regulate legal weapons. Without going after illegal weapons first it makes not sense to regulate the legal ones.
You are basically saying that it is stupid to focus on preventative tactics.
That is like saying...we should only be concerned with taking care of individuals with HIV/AIDS and not worry about ways to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. We can do both. We can promote policies that prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS while also treating HIV/AIDS.
Just as we can promote policies that prevent gun violence and the buying and selling of illegal guns while also having policies that punish those who buy and sell illegal weapons. But preventative strategies are VERY important if you truly want to eradicate the issue.
Are fetuses really babies?
What makes fetuses and babies equal?
Should women have a right to determine what goes on with their own bodies?
What about when the mother is raped?
What about when the baby's birth can lead to the mother's death?
What if the pregnancy is harmful to the mother?
And you know what's going to happen if we put forth gun laws?
Criminals will still buy and sell guns.
They will still use guns.
Innocents will still get hurt.
And when we do catch a criminal and charge them with owning an unauthorized weapon it will be too late.
My goal is to keep the gun out the hands from criminals from jump, not to charge them after the fact.
Let me clarify, I am not saying restrictions should not exist, but the existence of these restrictions would be benign to criminals. This would mean that more would need to be done in order to eliminate gun violence.
This is the same with other laws...sure we should have a law against rape, but this restriction means little to those who are violent enough to commit rape. Therefore, we need more than restrictions to address this. If criminals obtain guns illegally, how will a law stop them from using them? How will a law stop them from killing innocents? How will a law stop them from going to illegal arms dealers? Clearly, we need to focus on how illegal weapons are getting to these criminals as well and seek to get rid of them.
What do you get out of insulting Americans? What do you have to gain from it? How does demonizing Americans actually solve the issue of gun violence?
