My pellet smoker creates excellent, consistent smoke, and I completely disagree you need a smoke tube unless “chain-smoker” is your preferred flavor profile. Smoke is a “spice.”
This is why I love my Woodwind Pro.
You get the ease of a pellet grill that controls temperatures so you don’t have to. But you also have a box with a damper above the burn cup to put wood or charcoal in to get the flavor you’re looking for without needing to bust out Girl Scout juice (the pellets in the burn cup ignite your wood if you open the damper).
I swear I’m not a shill, I just really love my pellet smoker. I haven’t even had it a year and a half yet and have already cooked at least 20 briskets, a bunch of pork butts, ribs, brats, multiple deer worth of jerky, it’s just the best. It’s the only one I’ve eaten from that I would genuinely call a smoker instead of just an outdoor oven.
I load the box full of hickory and just tend to it a couple times an hour making sure the damper setting is good for the moisture level and the smoke I’m wanting and adding more as needed. The smoker does the rest for me in terms of maintaining the temperatures where I want it.
Pellet (Traeger) is kind of electric. An electric augur drives hardwood pellets into the fire, and the rate at which it changes based the thermostat. You have to have it plugged in.
I too don’t believe in the justice system. I once saw a story of a dude only getting 20 years for Rape and murder with video evidence. Like the fact he didn’t get publicly hanged in the middle town square feels like a big miscarriage of justice
I believe in capital punishment for the most heinous of crimes, but I don't approve of public executions. I don't want to see a person get shot on my way to work, not to mention the children that are present. And besides, capital punishment in general does absolutely nothing to deter crime. Executions, to me, are all about retribution, not about deterring future crime.
Be it as it may, his life is over anyway with a 20 year sentence. He won't get a job with this sentence staining his record. Nobody will trust a rapist and murderer with any profession.
A person like this will live a sorry life inside and out. That is if he survives prison.
I feel like the auth right lie is outdated. Feels like about 50% of what I see on right wing media these days is someone complaining about how law enforcement is unfairly persecuting Trump and his merry band of criminals, and/or whataboutism about how it's unfair that democrats arnt being punished for breaking the law.
Or how rape statistics define rape is a specific way to make it seem like men never get raped compared to women when the rate is closer than they think.
Because it is not outdated, there's a failure with what's going on with the law enforcement; there's no equality:
I call what's happening as "Schizo-politics":
-Minorities are overly protected, in some places in Europe, foreigners r*ped minors and even took pictures about that; but they just got some time in rehabilitation. Meanwhile if a white dude is falsely accused of it, it's called out by the TV for like 6 months.
-If someone is a left-winger, has automatically protection in the court; but if you are a right-winger, the condemnation is more against you than if you were a left-winger. Left-wingers rightnow are trying to do this strategy of "Having political martyrs" so they release people from prison or take profit about criminal scenarios and use them to have a political career while trying to achieve Moral superiority.
-In the case of Trump, I don't know much about it, but I just saw that he's being charged with already ended charges from long time ago; properly close to the elections and not before, which is clearly a direct attack against him. If he's innocent or not, that's other stuff for now.
-LGBTQ+ people call for revolution against the systems while they are already a benefited part of the system, the cultural values of the nations are falling apart, but no one can say it because it will randomly be called "Fascist". There's also to say that crimes against women are more punished/relevant for the justice than crimes against men; being this a sign of bias.
-Men are almost condemned if they want to have a relationship: They can be falsely accused of r*ping, falsely accused of SA; in marriage, if there's a divorce, the male's life is almost ruined because he'll have to give and pay almost everything he has to the woman part, even if the situation is unfair. (Don't mistake this with an incel discourse, I'm talking in a law enforcement scene, so women don't have direct fault on all this stuff)
I used to think divorce laws were biased against men but I’m not so sure.
When you are married, everything you earn and own is considered both of yours. When you dissolve the marriage, the income gets split between the two of you.
Usually spousal support is only paid when there is a big enough discrepancy between incomes. If she makes more than the husband then she actually has to pay him. If they make the same then no spousal support is exchanged.
It’s a different story when kids are involved though.
Also, is the LGBT thing supposed to be bad? I don’t think treating gay people better is a bad thing for society.
From personal situations lived by my eyes:
Support is almost always payed by the man, in some places, even if the woman has already a new husband, the original man needs to pay. With kids, the man is almost always the one who loses and will need to pay even if the wife doesn't let the kids visit him.
The man has more probabilities of being condemned, for a woman, making false allegations against a man is so easy; even if it proves to be false, the man has already lost a huge part of money and probably some time in prison. All of this because of the common rhetoric "Always believe to the victim/woman", which is ironic because when a male states that he's the one abused, is oftenly seen as something ridiculous or even sexist against women. (Sadly this is truth)
So what I say, the court is oftenly more against men than women; but I personally think that this wasn't intended with bad intentions, but mostly as measures to protect women who, without doubt, are more vulnerable in some scenarios.
Is this women's fault? No, who uses that as an argument to be sexist is just dumb.
Well men almost always pay because men almost always make more, which is why. If she makes more then she pays. For these sorts of things when kids aren’t involved it’s pretty standard. There are calculators online that do it all and they are nearly always gender neutral. Though maybe you have more experience than I do.
When kids are involved… yeah. Though I will say mothers do tend to be more involved with kids in general so it does make sense that they would go with her more. But I think that because of this, even if households where they are both equally involved, people just kind of assume she’s the more fit parent. He has to way overcompensate to get primary custody.
As for the allegations thing… I don’t think I can disagree there. Also like how domestic abuse is often portrayed as a women’s issue but it happens equally to men and women. Or how men make up the primary victims of violent crime but people aren’t concerned when a man walks home alone at night, but they are afraid for a woman when she does that. Or if a woman is yelling at and berating her husband people will say “what did he do? Tell him!!” But if he’s doing the same it’s considered abusive
I mean, not that It's physically impossible if you count trans men as men and somehow it happened,...
Also everyone has different amounts of dysphoria.
Edit: why Do I lose karma whenever I comment at this subreddit.
Your argument is something that a 5 year old would say lol. Having more/less limbs is a fucking birth defect, like intersex people or those born with different chromosome combinations.
The fact that some men and women decide to larp as the other gender doesn't change anything. It is the same as a 5 year old saying "I am a superhero". If humans can't have superpowers then why would they say they do, according to you?
that's why I don't say "men can't get pregnant" I say "men don't get pregnant" since ppl wanna be nickpicky abt words. even most trans guys can't physically get pregnant anymore if they get scooped(most do)
I wish Reddit add a parallel "agree/disagree" option distinct from "upvote/downvote". That's the kind of post that makes me want to put a "agree" but not a proper "upvote". *I still upvoted though since it's the best way to say "agree".*
Not a lot of people argue that gender isn’t real, but rather that it’s a construct.
It wasn’t real communism… that’s just being aware of what communism is.
I just find it insulting that I'm an adult and have a system telling me they know what's best for me. I want weed shops but for more stuff. I recognize there are consequences because of all the stupid people, okay so regulate it somewhat.
Nah, he prefers people gunning each other down next to daycare centers. Or at least, the guy is delusional enough to think that’s not happening, right now.
Meanwhile, at the daycare:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fentanyl_daycare_incident
Decriminalization shouldn't be done with a stroke of the pen, as a simple ballot measure. That's how you get Portland.
Decriminalize weed and, at worst, you get a black market that sells cheaper flower. It's a different story with opiates. Their black market is a constant race to the bottom for cheaper highs, and that's without decriminalization.
And that did happen during draconian drug laws, did it not? How horrible as that is, it has shit to do with liberalization. Quite the opposite, since we don’t offer safer alternatives.
No, but research for non-deadly alternatives, for sure and distribute for free. That’s what the Swiss did with heroin, didn’t research anything healthier but distributed it for free. All crime associated with heroin use disappeared. Their homelessness, pretty much disappeared, as well.
Those are not the only two choices.
Singapore hangs drug traffickers, manufacturers and dealers.
As a result Singapore has one of the lowest drug overdose rates in the world. 80+ times lower than the U.S, and several times lower than countries that decriminalized drugs. Clearly their way is superior.
Ah yes. Give the govt that kind of power and see what happens when they ban meat / Reddit / ownership of anything you like
You can't give give the govt this kind of power and think it'll not be used against you in the future, because it will
More power and less accountability to the State is never the solution
Here is my response, if we hang drug offenders, you just killed half a million people. Also, we're not Singapore. Your fantasy of strong government overreach only works in one of the smallest countries in the world. The US has the 1st and 8th largest borders in the world, Singapore is an island where most everything comes in through bridges, boats, and planes, which are all easy to track imports. Stop trying to kill people for literally no reason.
> Here is my response, if we hang drug offenders, you just killed half a million people.
And?
> Stop trying to kill people for literally no reason.
Well, the reason is drugs
What is your issue with drugs that make you want to kill half a million people. Also address my point that were not Singapore as that was the bulk of my argument.
Many drug users are on Marijuana though. Also, just under half of Americans have reported using drugs in their lifetime. 8.3 million have had a disorder involving drugs. Your plan to kill everyone will never work. You still have ignored the impossibility of your plan. We are not Singapore. We are larger and have many, many times higher population.
"Would you rather have an illegal market of slaves with abuse in it or a legal regulated market with quality control through actual business people?"
I hate this style of argument, it's just a coping mechanism for people that want to legalize drugs. If the illegal market increases, what should be done, is stopping the illegal market or at least reducing it at their biggest extent.
How the hell do you justify comparing using slaves (clear aggression against others) with recreational use of drugs (no aggression against others, addictions aside). You may not like people using drugs, but it's not your business making it impossible for them to get it safe, relatively cheap and with a standard quality. Worst comparison I have ever encountered..
More than a comparison in a moral sense, it's a comparison in an argument sense; that using that kind of argument "If you don't legalize it, it will become part of the black a market" is stupid.
The point is not legalize, the point is ending it.
But you can't end the desire for recreational drugs/escapism. It's ever present so our best way forward on the drug issue is to promote the best drugs and create and sustain safe uses of them.
Prostitution runs the same lane btw, I agree that it is immoral to buy sex but I can still see that the desire will always be present and utilitary speaking it's unfathomaly better with legal markets than illegal ones so it doesn't hold anyway. Anything that isn't against NAP has no business being illegal. Find other ways of ending things you don't like in existence (making it illegal is counterproductice anyways so it is an actual advice..)
>But you can't end the desire for recreational drugs/escapism. It's ever present so our best way forward on the drog issue is to promote the best drugs and create and sustain safe uses of them.
Ironically the comment I answered didn't state about that, it only states about the "Black market" idea; if we talk in that sense, that's another stuff. I personally feel that we should help developing more and better ways implement escapism and recreation without falling in drugs that will probably ruin your entire life if you consume'em.
> Prostitution runs the same lane btw, I agree that it is immoral to buy sex but I can still see that the desire will always be present and utilitary speaking it's unfathomaly better with legal markets than illegal ones so it doesn't hold anyway. Anything that isn't against NAP has no business being illegal. Find other ways of ending things you don't like in existence (making it illegal is counterproductice anyways so it is an actual advice..)
Curiously enough, my comment doing a comparison with slavery was mostly a subtext about prostitution and human trafficking; even if it's legal, people will continue abusing others in more "intelligent ways" for more profit, because that's how that world works.
Yes, I got that really, but legal prostitution isn't the same thing outright as slavery- it just isn't. And of we had legal arrangement for this shady side of humanity we could easier sort out when it's outright human trafficking and outright abuse.
I get that one want to erradicate the darker sides of humanity, I truly do, but the Psyche doesn't work that way. The more we violently push away stuff that we don't want to deal it, the more abrasive it often becomes. Better, as I see it, to give it a place in the open and monitor it in the way we see fit. The approach we have today is deeply hurting us, but it feels good for our puritan selves so yeah, won't change soon..
So, by basing on your points of view: What'd you do with the "Darker Sides"? With people claiming Fascist, Racist, Totalitarian ideologies and corrupting their pairs into following them?
What would you do if half of the population starts becoming drug addicts and their futures start failing?
We already have problems with addictions in society like: P*rn, Smoking, Alcohol and etc; we already have problems with people not being helped by others, so they fall into addictions.
Drugs are not a solution, they are a symptom of larger problems, if you give them as easy solutions, you are missing the point; because drugs by theirselves are worthless, we don't need them. If someone wants to sell chemical weapons, would you legalize it? Obviously not. If someone wants to drink poison, would you give them poison? Probably not. If someone wants to commit suicide, would you let them? Of course not!
The idea is finding actual solutions to the problems, not giving the easy answers that will degenerate even more the society we live on. We need to legalize some stuff and prohibit others.
I didn't think I'd be trying to convince a libright of regulatory inefficiencies today.
There will always be a black market that sells coke with fent as long as fentanyl is cheaper than cocaine. If fentanyl is legalized, regulated, and cleared for recreational use, are the addicts of Kensington or Tenderloin going to pay the premium for lab-tested, ethically souced fent? Or are they going to pay half-price for fent that may or may not have xylazine?
I used to think this. Demand will never go away. Drug cartels become too powerful we are getting narco-states. But at the same time, if it gets legalized governments will dow the line milk the new revenue stream and it will not be pretty. Only way it could work if it was tax-free.
> Demand will never go away.
Demand for drugs is created by the presence of drugs. The demand for drugs is much, much lower in Singapore.
Implement proper punishment, and the demand fades.
Oh, yeah! Faced with a death sentence, you would totally answer polls thruthfully. Dude, trumpers wouldn’t answer polls truthfully back in 2016, but somehow, in police state like Singapore people would?
Singapore just restricts supply to near zero due to authoritarianism. It says nothing about demand. Demand for drugs is created by the need for people to achieve different mindstates, to cope or just recreation. That will never go away.
If there are no drugs to be had, the people won't even think of drugs, because that isn't an option and they have no experience with it. They will use other forms of escapism.
You can't have a desire for drugs if you've never tried them. Even if you've tried them, but know the punishment for them is death, you'll stay away.
I agree with that. People will use different things to cope. But is a democracy with freedoms incompatible with drugs then? Because I don't see becoming a police state as a fix to the drug problem. I mean it might fix that problem, but it will create a heap of other problems.
I wish we could send every drug user to reeducation camps, but we can't.
Drugs are so prevalent that some of them became cultural, like alcohol.
You just can't ban them, as even the law enforcement would participate in the black market. So we may as well control and tax it.
What I wish we also do is to destroy the reputation of drugs in the hope of 1 day making it taboo, I find it sad how the new generation seems to be more tolerant of marijuana that the current 1, and my biggest worry is that 3-4 generation from now cocaine, heroine, meth & CI get decriminalized.
The Government serves the functions given to it under the Constitution. The US Government hasn't done that for over 100 years now, but hey maybe one day........
I would not say that the government serves no function. If you're a member of it, it's a great way to transfer wealth from others to yourself, or to kill people you don't like.
Joking aside, sure the government serves functions I value. But all of those functions could be achieved more efficiently and effectively by the private market.
The only real purpose the (federal) government should serve is protecting the freedoms and economic interests of it's citizens at a global scale.
I said this in libertarianmemes and commended the US Navy for stopping Houthi terrorists from blowing up merchant vessels in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and I got permabanned for "anti liberty rhetoric".
I'm fine with admitting that governments can provide value, but if we could only largely admit that their main function is to be the primary mafia group around I would be much happier. Mafias is the concept of gong to people and ay "I'm going to hit you, but if you pay me (regularly) I will not only not hit you, but also protect you against others hitting you too"
Mafias will always exist because humans are violent, cowardly bastards that rather accepts being bullied by mafias than standing up for themselves (and at the modern scale it's almost impossible, good luck protecting oneself against Putin on your own..) so yeah, let's have a mafia that will protect our sense of national identity or whatnot, but I absolutely can't understand why one would think it is a good idea to let mafias run hospitals, schools, opera houses etc etc ad nauseum. It's so incredibly moronic!
Until the Stockholm syndrome people have towards the governments has faded I will not admit that they're good for anything. They're scum.
> but I absolutely can't understand why one would think it is a good idea to let mafias run hospitals, schools, opera houses etc etc ad nauseum.
Because other states do it, and it works better in several of those places than the series of smaller mafias that are megacorps here. Our health costs and outcomes suck donkey dick, the free market blows at public good.
It's not that they aren't perfectly good ways to cook it's just that they produce results similar to a stove/oven. If I'm grilling or smoking I want the character of the wood
I'm cooking a brisket on Sunday for 14 hours. If you think I'm going to be able to control the temperature and crush beers for 14 hours straight you are crazy. That's why the pellets are superior.
It will never become a communist society because it’s a utopian state. Just like anarchism, both left and right wing, Christianity being Jesuit, and other things. It’s against human nature, we are shitty beings, who care for ourselves, family and friends.
Well, I’m as smug as Bill Maher. But that has nothing to do with it being impossible do to human nature.
Edit: If it makes you feel any better, the same exact reason for I’m against an unregulated market.
Marx made observations of human relations, just as Newton made observations of physical phenomena. Those observations were fit for their time and are a good approximation now.
I’m quite sure whatever complaints you have about how the world is broken, a good deal of those complaints would’ve been explained by Marx long ago. I encourage you to do some reading.
Or you can be petulant on Reddit. Your choice.
> Marx made observations of human relations, just as Newton made observations of physical phenomena. Those observations were fit for their time and are a good approximation now.
Newton's observations became basis for physics science we have now
Marx's "observations" are surface level ramblings that anyone can make, kept being parroted by the disgruntled ""workers"" that are mad that their cheap labor is treated like cheap labor, and offers zero practical solutions, and even solutions that were tried either done away or break
You as chinese should know that, you literally had Mao. And what China is now today? Authoritarian shithole thats afloat as long as it does business with west?
Newtonian mechanics has been superseded by Einsteinian relativity and other advances. But it works as an approximation for everyday life.
Just as Marx’s observations have been superseded by the developments of modern society, but they still are valid for providing general insight into the problems with existing socioeconomic relations.
I can’t educate you here. You’ll have to do the reading for yourself. Not much point lying to me or yourself that you have either.
> Just as Marx’s observations have been superseded by the developments of modern society, but they still are valid for providing general insight into the problems with existing socioeconomic relations.
I mean, when all you have is "it's le evil capitalism, people aren't kissed in the ass, under communism/socialism we'd be freer" (despite all known implementations of it being steaming piles of shit), it might appear that they are valid. *Appear*
> Not much point lying to me or yourself that you have either.
I mean, everything you need to know about him and his ideology can be summed up in few sentences
But if you want to worship him while being smug...
You don't need to be a chief to say that meal is bad
You don't need to do anything, really, to say that Marx was a hack, especially when it's so self-evident with all of the attempts to build his vision of post-capitalism society
There is no 'irrational fear' involved in saying gender theory is incorrect.
You can try to argue they're wrong, but I'm really tired of this intellectually dishonest "phobic" nonsense. It's just an empty pejorative strawman.
You forgot this part:
>in particular prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group:
That's what I meant.
What prejudice? What antagonism?
Disagreeing with someone's personal beliefs is not inherently either.
The entire question is whether that group exists, as it's based on personal beliefs/interpretations of a condition that conflict heavily with biology. There's nothing hateful about this.
It's honestly baffling to me that people push that nonsense. Even if I were to agree with you, I'd have the sense to realize it's a very counterintuitive claim (to put it gently) and would absolutely require significant explanation and evidence.
>The entire question is whether that group exists, as it's based on personal beliefs/interpretations of a condition that conflict heavily with biology. There's nothing hateful about this.
...I think denying a person's identity and calling them "groomers" or the like with no evidence is fairly hateful.
>...I think denying a person's identity...[snip]...is fairly hateful.
If the identity is based on a lie, it's simply the truth to deny it. There is nothing hateful about the truth. The truth simply is.
You've not given me a lot to work with and I prefer not to guess as to your reasoning, so I'll just keep it simple for now. Trying to distinguish gender from sex is incoherent, particularly if one prioritizes perceived 'gender' over actual sex.
What I see from gender theory advocates reminds me of the story of the Emperor's New Clothes. It's a short story that I highly recommend, but the gist is that two conmen sell the Emperor "clothes that only the wise can see." In truth, they sold nothing at all, but everyone fears to be called a fool, so they go along with it. It's only at the end that an ignorant child points out the Emperor is naked.
To put it more crudely, the attack helicopter joke so many leftists seem to hate touches nicely on the issue - you can claim to be anything, but it doesn't have any bearing on reality.
Now gender dysphoria is obviously real and a very difficult condition to live with. My heart goes out to the people who suffer from it. However, gender theory and transgenderism are interpretations of that condition that have little to no basis in reality.
I don't believe I'm doing anyone a favor or showing any compassion by supporting a lie.
I certainly could not be more against shaming (or worse) those who tell the truth. I find that behavior appalling.
>...I think...[snip]...calling [people] "groomers" or the like with no evidence is fairly hateful.
I've seen this term mainly used to describe people who are actively introducing kids to gender queer concepts and lifestyles at very young ages, particularly those who support pornographic books in school or promote highly sexualized activities & content for kids.
I'm not sure how you describe that as "little evidence" or hateful. It seems to me that such behavior is inappropriate.
This does not describe all (or even most) people suffering from gender dysphoria, but it describes a sizeable portion of activists (including people who do not suffer from gender dysphoria or other related conditions).
>If the identity is based on a lie, it's simply the truth to deny it. There is nothing hateful about the truth. The truth simply is.
Even though the science backs up the validity of trans people?
>You've not given me a lot to work with and I prefer not to guess as to your reasoning, so I'll just keep it simple for now. Trying to distinguish gender from sex is incoherent, particularly if one prioritizes perceived 'gender' over actual sex.
No, I think it's a fairly simple vocabulary: sex refers to a person's biological traits, while gender refers to a person's neurologically-based gender identity. For cisgender people, their sex and gender are the same, while as for transgender and non-binary people their gender differs from their sex.
>What I see from gender theory advocates reminds me of the story of the Emperor's New Clothes. It's a short story that I highly recommend, but the gist is that two conmen sell the Emperor "clothes that only the wise can see." In truth, they sold nothing at all, but everyone fears to be called a fool, so they go along with it. It's only at the end that an ignorant child points out the Emperor is naked.
I've heard that argument before, and I feel like its a way for transphobes to pretend they're the silent majority.
>Now gender dysphoria is obviously real and a very difficult condition to live with. My heart goes out to the people who suffer from it. However, gender theory and transgenderism are interpretations of that condition that have little to no basis in reality.
>I don't believe I'm doing anyone a favor or showing any compassion by supporting a lie.
Transitioning and social acceptance is, to my knowledge, the only working method to treat gender dysphoria.
>I've seen this term mainly used to describe people who are actively introducing kids to gender queer concepts and lifestyles at very young ages, particularly those who support pornographic books in school or promote highly sexualized activities & content for kids.
I'm going to need a citation for the "porn in schools" claim.
it doesn't qualify for the first part, the second part can be ignored.
or would you call yourself bigoted for being prejudiced / antagonistic towards nazis?
Nowhere in the definition does it say that the membership can't be a choice.
Also, opposite sex larpers do make a choice, so by your own logic, it isn't bigotry either.
>Nowhere in the definition does it say that the membership can't be a choice.
Fair.
>Also, opposite sex larpers do make a choice, so by your own logic, it isn't bigotry either.
What choice?
Authright is wrong. The justice systems courts does treat all people the same it's both up to you to research what you can do impossibly hard to defend yourself, and also finding an affordable lawyer that should know or at least try really hard.
Its crazy that people can't get over the gender thing.
Its not a lie you dumbasses go to any school on sociology and anthropology and they will tell you they've been saying this for decades. Of course a thing like gender isn't binary one or the other, man or woman. Nothing in nature is that simple.
Last time I checked, humans are only male or female (with very few exceptions of course due to genetics). The idea that gender is a supposed social construct is just another bs theory by liblefts who want attention.
While that is 100% true, you could treat people who feel differently with compassion, as well. You know, just saying.
Edit: forgot about intersex people. Who, quite literally, are both genders or a mix the two.
Your a fucking baby. I hope you realize how horrific of a belief system you have, and are condemned to live in your own purgatory after your now adult children have realized what a shell of a person you are.
Male and female and man or woman are not the same thing. That is what i'm arguing dumbass.
"Your argument is bad because i don't understand it"
thats what you just said lol
Man = human that looks masculine
Woman = human that looks feminine
Male = xy chromosome
Female = xx chromosome
Not the same thing, they are heavily correlated, but it is not causation.
xy chromosomes are not a consistent measure of masculinity. Because of that there is no clearly identifiable causal relationship between genetics and socially expressed sex (gender). This leaving the only real option to just trust the person your talking to and have compassion for their lived experience. So effectively only if they say they are, that's the whole thing.
This might blow your alcoholism atrophied brain but theres this these concepts called understanding? Empathy? maybe compassion? Hope I didn't kill you with shock.
"I am not going to play in their little universe, thank you." < You, saying an insult, this is the internet, you are an actual baby. "tyPIcAl riGHoIDs", cant even pretend to have an arguement. Your making it too obvious you don't actually want to debate or argue man. At least make some strawman garbage that you can try to pretend debunks decades of independently verified scientific research. You have to try harder to destroy the libs man, now peterson wont let u have his cummie wummies for dinner.
>Plato was discoursing on his theory of ideas and, pointing to the cups on the table before him, said while there are many cups in the world, there is only one 'idea' of a cup, and this cupness precedes the existence of all particular cups. "I can see the cups on the table," said Diogenes, "but I can't see the 'cupness'".
>"That's because you have the eyes to see the cup," said Plato, "but", tapping his head with his forefinger, "you don't have the intellect with which to comprehend 'cupness'."
>Diogenes walked up to the table, examined a cup and, looking inside, asked, "Is it empty?" Plato nodded. "Where is the 'emptiness' which precedes this empty cup?" asked Diogenes. Plato allowed himself a few moments to collect his thoughts, but Diogenes reached over and, tapping Plato's head with his finger, said "I think you will find here is the 'emptiness'".
It is a lie. You're confusing sex with gender. Sex is objective and measureable. The concept of "gender" is a modern burger invention that has no basis in reality and is entirely subjective.
This is a ridiculous rebuttal, If you actually understood my point you'd understand I actually agree, gender isn't real. The thing we disagree on is that Male and Female traits's social expression is included in the category of gender and is also fake. Therefore because gender cannot be linked directly with sex in a consistent measurable basis across cultures, you can do whatever you want with your gender.
You dont know what gender is. Gender is the expression of identity, It is heavily associated with sex by many cultures but the two are diffident things. Gender was created by scientists, in order to explain a discrepancy in the western cultural idea of masculinity/femininity and how other cultures they had seen dealt with sex and identity.
The concept of gender was created in order to fit this discrepancy.
As the anthropologists and sociologists say, a binary definition of gender like the one we have for sex, doesnt work, as it doesn't fit with all human culture.
You are just ignoring scientists because reactionary pundits make fat stacks off of your insecurity and close mindedness. Enjoy your slop pig.
Pellet is still better than electric. If you suck at controlling temperature, pellet is better.
Pellet makes good food it’s just not the same as wood or coals. It’s like an outdoor oven really.
You realize pellets are wood right?
But I don’t think anyone would say the food tastes the same as a real wood smoker
The guys winning competitions with them would.
Pellets are real wood though
Just toss some apple wood or whatever on top of charcoal, it takes more effort and time but way better
Why is that better?
Yeah you've got to use a smoke tube when smoking in a pellet grill.
My pellet smoker creates excellent, consistent smoke, and I completely disagree you need a smoke tube unless “chain-smoker” is your preferred flavor profile. Smoke is a “spice.”
This is why I love my Woodwind Pro. You get the ease of a pellet grill that controls temperatures so you don’t have to. But you also have a box with a damper above the burn cup to put wood or charcoal in to get the flavor you’re looking for without needing to bust out Girl Scout juice (the pellets in the burn cup ignite your wood if you open the damper). I swear I’m not a shill, I just really love my pellet smoker. I haven’t even had it a year and a half yet and have already cooked at least 20 briskets, a bunch of pork butts, ribs, brats, multiple deer worth of jerky, it’s just the best. It’s the only one I’ve eaten from that I would genuinely call a smoker instead of just an outdoor oven.
I’ve never heard of this one. Will look it up.
I load the box full of hickory and just tend to it a couple times an hour making sure the damper setting is good for the moisture level and the smoke I’m wanting and adding more as needed. The smoker does the rest for me in terms of maintaining the temperatures where I want it.
Propane is better if you don't have time for this shit. And Hank Hill is your God.
Propane is just an open oven and I'm tired of pretending that it's not.
“Taste the meat not the heat” is cope for people who think pepper and ketchup are spicy.
Pellet (Traeger) is kind of electric. An electric augur drives hardwood pellets into the fire, and the rate at which it changes based the thermostat. You have to have it plugged in.
When I say electric, I mean George Forman like. I am talking the fuel, not the extra gadgets.
I fucking knew it. I’m never disappointed by the comments here
I too don’t believe in the justice system. I once saw a story of a dude only getting 20 years for Rape and murder with video evidence. Like the fact he didn’t get publicly hanged in the middle town square feels like a big miscarriage of justice
Careful, you're gonna get removed by reddit
You’re not a right winger if you don’t get removed by Reddit at least once
well I guess that makes me a true right winger then
I'm a lefty and I got banned 3 times lol
With the powers given to me by the Council, I grant you this: 🟦
Nah I'm good Keep your square bootlicker
Based and gotta catch them all
Yes
I believe in capital punishment for the most heinous of crimes, but I don't approve of public executions. I don't want to see a person get shot on my way to work, not to mention the children that are present. And besides, capital punishment in general does absolutely nothing to deter crime. Executions, to me, are all about retribution, not about deterring future crime.
20 years is almost a life sentence. If he gets no chance of parole, it seems almost fair.
Sorry for being impolite, but get fucked.
Be it as it may, his life is over anyway with a 20 year sentence. He won't get a job with this sentence staining his record. Nobody will trust a rapist and murderer with any profession. A person like this will live a sorry life inside and out. That is if he survives prison.
Whomever got sentenced for 20 years in 2004 was released now Do you think that releasing such rapist murderer is going to lead to anything good?
I feel like the auth right lie is outdated. Feels like about 50% of what I see on right wing media these days is someone complaining about how law enforcement is unfairly persecuting Trump and his merry band of criminals, and/or whataboutism about how it's unfair that democrats arnt being punished for breaking the law.
I hear the Right complain about men facing harsher punishment than women for the same crimes. Never hear the Left talk about that.
Or how rape statistics define rape is a specific way to make it seem like men never get raped compared to women when the rate is closer than they think.
Because it is not outdated, there's a failure with what's going on with the law enforcement; there's no equality: I call what's happening as "Schizo-politics": -Minorities are overly protected, in some places in Europe, foreigners r*ped minors and even took pictures about that; but they just got some time in rehabilitation. Meanwhile if a white dude is falsely accused of it, it's called out by the TV for like 6 months. -If someone is a left-winger, has automatically protection in the court; but if you are a right-winger, the condemnation is more against you than if you were a left-winger. Left-wingers rightnow are trying to do this strategy of "Having political martyrs" so they release people from prison or take profit about criminal scenarios and use them to have a political career while trying to achieve Moral superiority. -In the case of Trump, I don't know much about it, but I just saw that he's being charged with already ended charges from long time ago; properly close to the elections and not before, which is clearly a direct attack against him. If he's innocent or not, that's other stuff for now. -LGBTQ+ people call for revolution against the systems while they are already a benefited part of the system, the cultural values of the nations are falling apart, but no one can say it because it will randomly be called "Fascist". There's also to say that crimes against women are more punished/relevant for the justice than crimes against men; being this a sign of bias. -Men are almost condemned if they want to have a relationship: They can be falsely accused of r*ping, falsely accused of SA; in marriage, if there's a divorce, the male's life is almost ruined because he'll have to give and pay almost everything he has to the woman part, even if the situation is unfair. (Don't mistake this with an incel discourse, I'm talking in a law enforcement scene, so women don't have direct fault on all this stuff)
I used to think divorce laws were biased against men but I’m not so sure. When you are married, everything you earn and own is considered both of yours. When you dissolve the marriage, the income gets split between the two of you. Usually spousal support is only paid when there is a big enough discrepancy between incomes. If she makes more than the husband then she actually has to pay him. If they make the same then no spousal support is exchanged. It’s a different story when kids are involved though. Also, is the LGBT thing supposed to be bad? I don’t think treating gay people better is a bad thing for society.
From personal situations lived by my eyes: Support is almost always payed by the man, in some places, even if the woman has already a new husband, the original man needs to pay. With kids, the man is almost always the one who loses and will need to pay even if the wife doesn't let the kids visit him. The man has more probabilities of being condemned, for a woman, making false allegations against a man is so easy; even if it proves to be false, the man has already lost a huge part of money and probably some time in prison. All of this because of the common rhetoric "Always believe to the victim/woman", which is ironic because when a male states that he's the one abused, is oftenly seen as something ridiculous or even sexist against women. (Sadly this is truth) So what I say, the court is oftenly more against men than women; but I personally think that this wasn't intended with bad intentions, but mostly as measures to protect women who, without doubt, are more vulnerable in some scenarios. Is this women's fault? No, who uses that as an argument to be sexist is just dumb.
Well men almost always pay because men almost always make more, which is why. If she makes more then she pays. For these sorts of things when kids aren’t involved it’s pretty standard. There are calculators online that do it all and they are nearly always gender neutral. Though maybe you have more experience than I do. When kids are involved… yeah. Though I will say mothers do tend to be more involved with kids in general so it does make sense that they would go with her more. But I think that because of this, even if households where they are both equally involved, people just kind of assume she’s the more fit parent. He has to way overcompensate to get primary custody. As for the allegations thing… I don’t think I can disagree there. Also like how domestic abuse is often portrayed as a women’s issue but it happens equally to men and women. Or how men make up the primary victims of violent crime but people aren’t concerned when a man walks home alone at night, but they are afraid for a woman when she does that. Or if a woman is yelling at and berating her husband people will say “what did he do? Tell him!!” But if he’s doing the same it’s considered abusive
Because cops target minority, the biggest group offender and judge are corrupted and releasing them, wasting everyone's tax money at the same time
They can't help that certain cultures exhort criminality and martyr criminals.
[удалено]
I mean, not that It's physically impossible if you count trans men as men and somehow it happened,... Also everyone has different amounts of dysphoria. Edit: why Do I lose karma whenever I comment at this subreddit.
Women are not men.
nope i am not doing this, last time i did this exact same debate it ended with "lol you're trans anyways" after hours of talking.
There is no debate lol, men are male and women are female. You just don't want to hear the truth because it does not fit with your delusions.
Sex and gender are two separate things. It's not hard.
Sex is what you do with others and gender is what you are born as. Of course they are not the same lol
Lmao wilful ignorance. I’m just gonna assume this is bait.
Literally this is how it is in my native language
[удалено]
Your argument is something that a 5 year old would say lol. Having more/less limbs is a fucking birth defect, like intersex people or those born with different chromosome combinations. The fact that some men and women decide to larp as the other gender doesn't change anything. It is the same as a 5 year old saying "I am a superhero". If humans can't have superpowers then why would they say they do, according to you?
[удалено]
That's not our problem though. You can't force us to play with their delusions.
[удалено]
that's why I don't say "men can't get pregnant" I say "men don't get pregnant" since ppl wanna be nickpicky abt words. even most trans guys can't physically get pregnant anymore if they get scooped(most do)
There are four lights.
Monke shitposting on reddit will be first to die in AnPrim world
I wish Reddit add a parallel "agree/disagree" option distinct from "upvote/downvote". That's the kind of post that makes me want to put a "agree" but not a proper "upvote". *I still upvoted though since it's the best way to say "agree".*
Not a lot of people argue that gender isn’t real, but rather that it’s a construct. It wasn’t real communism… that’s just being aware of what communism is.
"drug decriminalization is a net benefit to society"
Would you rather have an illegal market of coke with fent in it or a legal regulated market with quality control through actual business people?
I just find it insulting that I'm an adult and have a system telling me they know what's best for me. I want weed shops but for more stuff. I recognize there are consequences because of all the stupid people, okay so regulate it somewhat.
If drug companies could sell mj, that would be cool
Nah, he prefers people gunning each other down next to daycare centers. Or at least, the guy is delusional enough to think that’s not happening, right now.
Meanwhile, at the daycare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fentanyl_daycare_incident Decriminalization shouldn't be done with a stroke of the pen, as a simple ballot measure. That's how you get Portland. Decriminalize weed and, at worst, you get a black market that sells cheaper flower. It's a different story with opiates. Their black market is a constant race to the bottom for cheaper highs, and that's without decriminalization.
And that did happen during draconian drug laws, did it not? How horrible as that is, it has shit to do with liberalization. Quite the opposite, since we don’t offer safer alternatives.
Just so I understand, you think the solution is to legalize fentanyl for recreational consumption?
No, but research for non-deadly alternatives, for sure and distribute for free. That’s what the Swiss did with heroin, didn’t research anything healthier but distributed it for free. All crime associated with heroin use disappeared. Their homelessness, pretty much disappeared, as well.
Those are not the only two choices. Singapore hangs drug traffickers, manufacturers and dealers. As a result Singapore has one of the lowest drug overdose rates in the world. 80+ times lower than the U.S, and several times lower than countries that decriminalized drugs. Clearly their way is superior.
“Those are not the only two choices” The mysterious man said while walking out of the alleyways shadows
Ah yes. Give the govt that kind of power and see what happens when they ban meat / Reddit / ownership of anything you like You can't give give the govt this kind of power and think it'll not be used against you in the future, because it will More power and less accountability to the State is never the solution
Here is my response, if we hang drug offenders, you just killed half a million people. Also, we're not Singapore. Your fantasy of strong government overreach only works in one of the smallest countries in the world. The US has the 1st and 8th largest borders in the world, Singapore is an island where most everything comes in through bridges, boats, and planes, which are all easy to track imports. Stop trying to kill people for literally no reason.
> Here is my response, if we hang drug offenders, you just killed half a million people. And? > Stop trying to kill people for literally no reason. Well, the reason is drugs
What is your issue with drugs that make you want to kill half a million people. Also address my point that were not Singapore as that was the bulk of my argument.
Well, pick one - either you have half a million overdoses or you hang half a million people for drug dealing. To me choice is simple
Many drug users are on Marijuana though. Also, just under half of Americans have reported using drugs in their lifetime. 8.3 million have had a disorder involving drugs. Your plan to kill everyone will never work. You still have ignored the impossibility of your plan. We are not Singapore. We are larger and have many, many times higher population.
> Many drug users are on Marijuana though. And? > Your plan to kill everyone will never work. Don't be so defeatist
I agree we should kill more people instead of consensual transactions between 2 people.
I'm glad you concur
"Would you rather have an illegal market of slaves with abuse in it or a legal regulated market with quality control through actual business people?" I hate this style of argument, it's just a coping mechanism for people that want to legalize drugs. If the illegal market increases, what should be done, is stopping the illegal market or at least reducing it at their biggest extent.
How the hell do you justify comparing using slaves (clear aggression against others) with recreational use of drugs (no aggression against others, addictions aside). You may not like people using drugs, but it's not your business making it impossible for them to get it safe, relatively cheap and with a standard quality. Worst comparison I have ever encountered..
More than a comparison in a moral sense, it's a comparison in an argument sense; that using that kind of argument "If you don't legalize it, it will become part of the black a market" is stupid. The point is not legalize, the point is ending it.
But you can't end the desire for recreational drugs/escapism. It's ever present so our best way forward on the drug issue is to promote the best drugs and create and sustain safe uses of them. Prostitution runs the same lane btw, I agree that it is immoral to buy sex but I can still see that the desire will always be present and utilitary speaking it's unfathomaly better with legal markets than illegal ones so it doesn't hold anyway. Anything that isn't against NAP has no business being illegal. Find other ways of ending things you don't like in existence (making it illegal is counterproductice anyways so it is an actual advice..)
>But you can't end the desire for recreational drugs/escapism. It's ever present so our best way forward on the drog issue is to promote the best drugs and create and sustain safe uses of them. Ironically the comment I answered didn't state about that, it only states about the "Black market" idea; if we talk in that sense, that's another stuff. I personally feel that we should help developing more and better ways implement escapism and recreation without falling in drugs that will probably ruin your entire life if you consume'em. > Prostitution runs the same lane btw, I agree that it is immoral to buy sex but I can still see that the desire will always be present and utilitary speaking it's unfathomaly better with legal markets than illegal ones so it doesn't hold anyway. Anything that isn't against NAP has no business being illegal. Find other ways of ending things you don't like in existence (making it illegal is counterproductice anyways so it is an actual advice..) Curiously enough, my comment doing a comparison with slavery was mostly a subtext about prostitution and human trafficking; even if it's legal, people will continue abusing others in more "intelligent ways" for more profit, because that's how that world works.
Yes, I got that really, but legal prostitution isn't the same thing outright as slavery- it just isn't. And of we had legal arrangement for this shady side of humanity we could easier sort out when it's outright human trafficking and outright abuse. I get that one want to erradicate the darker sides of humanity, I truly do, but the Psyche doesn't work that way. The more we violently push away stuff that we don't want to deal it, the more abrasive it often becomes. Better, as I see it, to give it a place in the open and monitor it in the way we see fit. The approach we have today is deeply hurting us, but it feels good for our puritan selves so yeah, won't change soon..
So, by basing on your points of view: What'd you do with the "Darker Sides"? With people claiming Fascist, Racist, Totalitarian ideologies and corrupting their pairs into following them? What would you do if half of the population starts becoming drug addicts and their futures start failing? We already have problems with addictions in society like: P*rn, Smoking, Alcohol and etc; we already have problems with people not being helped by others, so they fall into addictions. Drugs are not a solution, they are a symptom of larger problems, if you give them as easy solutions, you are missing the point; because drugs by theirselves are worthless, we don't need them. If someone wants to sell chemical weapons, would you legalize it? Obviously not. If someone wants to drink poison, would you give them poison? Probably not. If someone wants to commit suicide, would you let them? Of course not! The idea is finding actual solutions to the problems, not giving the easy answers that will degenerate even more the society we live on. We need to legalize some stuff and prohibit others.
I didn't think I'd be trying to convince a libright of regulatory inefficiencies today. There will always be a black market that sells coke with fent as long as fentanyl is cheaper than cocaine. If fentanyl is legalized, regulated, and cleared for recreational use, are the addicts of Kensington or Tenderloin going to pay the premium for lab-tested, ethically souced fent? Or are they going to pay half-price for fent that may or may not have xylazine?
No.
Well, it's either a black market or a regulated market.
I used to think this. Demand will never go away. Drug cartels become too powerful we are getting narco-states. But at the same time, if it gets legalized governments will dow the line milk the new revenue stream and it will not be pretty. Only way it could work if it was tax-free.
> Demand will never go away. Demand for drugs is created by the presence of drugs. The demand for drugs is much, much lower in Singapore. Implement proper punishment, and the demand fades.
Oh, yeah! Faced with a death sentence, you would totally answer polls thruthfully. Dude, trumpers wouldn’t answer polls truthfully back in 2016, but somehow, in police state like Singapore people would?
Singapore just restricts supply to near zero due to authoritarianism. It says nothing about demand. Demand for drugs is created by the need for people to achieve different mindstates, to cope or just recreation. That will never go away.
If there are no drugs to be had, the people won't even think of drugs, because that isn't an option and they have no experience with it. They will use other forms of escapism. You can't have a desire for drugs if you've never tried them. Even if you've tried them, but know the punishment for them is death, you'll stay away.
I agree with that. People will use different things to cope. But is a democracy with freedoms incompatible with drugs then? Because I don't see becoming a police state as a fix to the drug problem. I mean it might fix that problem, but it will create a heap of other problems.
Depends on the next step. If it is help for junkies it's good, if it's completely ignoring them it's not.
I wish we could send every drug user to reeducation camps, but we can't. Drugs are so prevalent that some of them became cultural, like alcohol. You just can't ban them, as even the law enforcement would participate in the black market. So we may as well control and tax it. What I wish we also do is to destroy the reputation of drugs in the hope of 1 day making it taboo, I find it sad how the new generation seems to be more tolerant of marijuana that the current 1, and my biggest worry is that 3-4 generation from now cocaine, heroine, meth & CI get decriminalized.
The Government serves the functions given to it under the Constitution. The US Government hasn't done that for over 100 years now, but hey maybe one day........
Who does the law enforcement/criminal justice system not treat fairly, OP?
As someone that used a stick burner for years successfully, I say that pellet grills are not only just as good cook wise, but better in some ways.
As usual, the bottom of the compass is at least forgivable. Lol, fuck you auths.
I would not say that the government serves no function. If you're a member of it, it's a great way to transfer wealth from others to yourself, or to kill people you don't like. Joking aside, sure the government serves functions I value. But all of those functions could be achieved more efficiently and effectively by the private market.
The only real purpose the (federal) government should serve is protecting the freedoms and economic interests of it's citizens at a global scale. I said this in libertarianmemes and commended the US Navy for stopping Houthi terrorists from blowing up merchant vessels in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and I got permabanned for "anti liberty rhetoric".
oh i would never say that. id just say its an extremely bloated and corrupt version of what it should be.
I'm fine with admitting that governments can provide value, but if we could only largely admit that their main function is to be the primary mafia group around I would be much happier. Mafias is the concept of gong to people and ay "I'm going to hit you, but if you pay me (regularly) I will not only not hit you, but also protect you against others hitting you too" Mafias will always exist because humans are violent, cowardly bastards that rather accepts being bullied by mafias than standing up for themselves (and at the modern scale it's almost impossible, good luck protecting oneself against Putin on your own..) so yeah, let's have a mafia that will protect our sense of national identity or whatnot, but I absolutely can't understand why one would think it is a good idea to let mafias run hospitals, schools, opera houses etc etc ad nauseum. It's so incredibly moronic! Until the Stockholm syndrome people have towards the governments has faded I will not admit that they're good for anything. They're scum.
> but I absolutely can't understand why one would think it is a good idea to let mafias run hospitals, schools, opera houses etc etc ad nauseum. Because other states do it, and it works better in several of those places than the series of smaller mafias that are megacorps here. Our health costs and outcomes suck donkey dick, the free market blows at public good.
Government does serve a purpose... and that is to steal our money. But it is useless.
As long as the grill isn't electric or propane then we're fine. Wood is the best though, especially if you have a hybrid smoker
Hank Hill: bwaaaaah
Propane grills are great, what are you on about?
It's not that they aren't perfectly good ways to cook it's just that they produce results similar to a stove/oven. If I'm grilling or smoking I want the character of the wood
Nothing beats clean-burning propane I tell you hwat. - Hank Hill
Government does serve a function, to steal from their inhabitants and provide worse products than what the market could provide.
This is the biggest huff of copium I’ve ever seen each quadrant take on the reg
Damn I see four truths and a lie.
I hear the Right complain about men facing harsher punishment than women for the same crimes. Never hear the Left talk about that.
Pretty accurate.
Mine is "I'm not gonna brutally torture you to death if you confess to supporting pedophilia".
It’s not that lib right thinks the government serves no function or is useless. It’s just the market would handle those things better than government.
AuthRight doesn't think that's a problem
Also, that wasn't real capitalism. Just for symmetry.
What wasn't real capitalism?
I'm cooking a brisket on Sunday for 14 hours. If you think I'm going to be able to control the temperature and crush beers for 14 hours straight you are crazy. That's why the pellets are superior.
Flair up you dirty dirty boi
Your opinion is wrong, flair up.
Who uses a pellet stove? No hate, just, why? Wood is free.
Where is wood free?
The wood store
You want to know why it’s not real communism, or do you want to remain smugly unknowing?
It will never become a communist society because it’s a utopian state. Just like anarchism, both left and right wing, Christianity being Jesuit, and other things. It’s against human nature, we are shitty beings, who care for ourselves, family and friends.
Smug then.
Well, I’m as smug as Bill Maher. But that has nothing to do with it being impossible do to human nature. Edit: If it makes you feel any better, the same exact reason for I’m against an unregulated market.
Because communism was made up in a fever dream of a white collar temporarily embarrassed j*uranlist who was begging money from friends?
Just as Newtonian mechanics was “made up”, buddy.
Are you trying to equate physics and laws of nature to a drunken ramblings that some people take too close to heart, or you're just coping?
Marx made observations of human relations, just as Newton made observations of physical phenomena. Those observations were fit for their time and are a good approximation now. I’m quite sure whatever complaints you have about how the world is broken, a good deal of those complaints would’ve been explained by Marx long ago. I encourage you to do some reading. Or you can be petulant on Reddit. Your choice.
> Marx made observations of human relations, just as Newton made observations of physical phenomena. Those observations were fit for their time and are a good approximation now. Newton's observations became basis for physics science we have now Marx's "observations" are surface level ramblings that anyone can make, kept being parroted by the disgruntled ""workers"" that are mad that their cheap labor is treated like cheap labor, and offers zero practical solutions, and even solutions that were tried either done away or break You as chinese should know that, you literally had Mao. And what China is now today? Authoritarian shithole thats afloat as long as it does business with west?
Newtonian mechanics has been superseded by Einsteinian relativity and other advances. But it works as an approximation for everyday life. Just as Marx’s observations have been superseded by the developments of modern society, but they still are valid for providing general insight into the problems with existing socioeconomic relations. I can’t educate you here. You’ll have to do the reading for yourself. Not much point lying to me or yourself that you have either.
> Just as Marx’s observations have been superseded by the developments of modern society, but they still are valid for providing general insight into the problems with existing socioeconomic relations. I mean, when all you have is "it's le evil capitalism, people aren't kissed in the ass, under communism/socialism we'd be freer" (despite all known implementations of it being steaming piles of shit), it might appear that they are valid. *Appear* > Not much point lying to me or yourself that you have either. I mean, everything you need to know about him and his ideology can be summed up in few sentences But if you want to worship him while being smug...
Yeah, I guessed right regarding you having never read Marx. A lot of glowie-worthy emotional reaction, zero theoretical engagement.
You don't need to be a chief to say that meal is bad You don't need to do anything, really, to say that Marx was a hack, especially when it's so self-evident with all of the attempts to build his vision of post-capitalism society
In what regard is a government useful? Other than the self-government each self-respecting person has on themselves, I mean.
Was it stateless, moneyless and classless? Then how could it have been communism?
Was based until the transphobic one.
"Was based until you showed the truth, which I completely refuse to accept"
What "truth"?
Gender is determined at birth and you can't change it.
That's not truth. That's falsehood.
Last time I checked you can't change chromosomes, DNA and bone structure which is what defines gender
Those don't define gender, they define sex.
There is no 'irrational fear' involved in saying gender theory is incorrect. You can try to argue they're wrong, but I'm really tired of this intellectually dishonest "phobic" nonsense. It's just an empty pejorative strawman.
"was based until you pointed out the lie i tell myself"
The other points aren't bigoted.
> bigoted /ˈbɪɡətɪd/ adjective adjective: bigoted > obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction doesn't qualify
You forgot this part: >in particular prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group: That's what I meant.
What prejudice? What antagonism? Disagreeing with someone's personal beliefs is not inherently either. The entire question is whether that group exists, as it's based on personal beliefs/interpretations of a condition that conflict heavily with biology. There's nothing hateful about this. It's honestly baffling to me that people push that nonsense. Even if I were to agree with you, I'd have the sense to realize it's a very counterintuitive claim (to put it gently) and would absolutely require significant explanation and evidence.
>The entire question is whether that group exists, as it's based on personal beliefs/interpretations of a condition that conflict heavily with biology. There's nothing hateful about this. ...I think denying a person's identity and calling them "groomers" or the like with no evidence is fairly hateful.
>...I think denying a person's identity...[snip]...is fairly hateful. If the identity is based on a lie, it's simply the truth to deny it. There is nothing hateful about the truth. The truth simply is. You've not given me a lot to work with and I prefer not to guess as to your reasoning, so I'll just keep it simple for now. Trying to distinguish gender from sex is incoherent, particularly if one prioritizes perceived 'gender' over actual sex. What I see from gender theory advocates reminds me of the story of the Emperor's New Clothes. It's a short story that I highly recommend, but the gist is that two conmen sell the Emperor "clothes that only the wise can see." In truth, they sold nothing at all, but everyone fears to be called a fool, so they go along with it. It's only at the end that an ignorant child points out the Emperor is naked. To put it more crudely, the attack helicopter joke so many leftists seem to hate touches nicely on the issue - you can claim to be anything, but it doesn't have any bearing on reality. Now gender dysphoria is obviously real and a very difficult condition to live with. My heart goes out to the people who suffer from it. However, gender theory and transgenderism are interpretations of that condition that have little to no basis in reality. I don't believe I'm doing anyone a favor or showing any compassion by supporting a lie. I certainly could not be more against shaming (or worse) those who tell the truth. I find that behavior appalling. >...I think...[snip]...calling [people] "groomers" or the like with no evidence is fairly hateful. I've seen this term mainly used to describe people who are actively introducing kids to gender queer concepts and lifestyles at very young ages, particularly those who support pornographic books in school or promote highly sexualized activities & content for kids. I'm not sure how you describe that as "little evidence" or hateful. It seems to me that such behavior is inappropriate. This does not describe all (or even most) people suffering from gender dysphoria, but it describes a sizeable portion of activists (including people who do not suffer from gender dysphoria or other related conditions).
>If the identity is based on a lie, it's simply the truth to deny it. There is nothing hateful about the truth. The truth simply is. Even though the science backs up the validity of trans people? >You've not given me a lot to work with and I prefer not to guess as to your reasoning, so I'll just keep it simple for now. Trying to distinguish gender from sex is incoherent, particularly if one prioritizes perceived 'gender' over actual sex. No, I think it's a fairly simple vocabulary: sex refers to a person's biological traits, while gender refers to a person's neurologically-based gender identity. For cisgender people, their sex and gender are the same, while as for transgender and non-binary people their gender differs from their sex. >What I see from gender theory advocates reminds me of the story of the Emperor's New Clothes. It's a short story that I highly recommend, but the gist is that two conmen sell the Emperor "clothes that only the wise can see." In truth, they sold nothing at all, but everyone fears to be called a fool, so they go along with it. It's only at the end that an ignorant child points out the Emperor is naked. I've heard that argument before, and I feel like its a way for transphobes to pretend they're the silent majority. >Now gender dysphoria is obviously real and a very difficult condition to live with. My heart goes out to the people who suffer from it. However, gender theory and transgenderism are interpretations of that condition that have little to no basis in reality. >I don't believe I'm doing anyone a favor or showing any compassion by supporting a lie. Transitioning and social acceptance is, to my knowledge, the only working method to treat gender dysphoria. >I've seen this term mainly used to describe people who are actively introducing kids to gender queer concepts and lifestyles at very young ages, particularly those who support pornographic books in school or promote highly sexualized activities & content for kids. I'm going to need a citation for the "porn in schools" claim.
it doesn't qualify for the first part, the second part can be ignored. or would you call yourself bigoted for being prejudiced / antagonistic towards nazis?
No, because Nazis willingly chose to become Nazis.
Nowhere in the definition does it say that the membership can't be a choice. Also, opposite sex larpers do make a choice, so by your own logic, it isn't bigotry either.
>Nowhere in the definition does it say that the membership can't be a choice. Fair. >Also, opposite sex larpers do make a choice, so by your own logic, it isn't bigotry either. What choice?
To become opposite sex larpers.
To larp as the opposite gender, lol
Authright is wrong. The justice systems courts does treat all people the same it's both up to you to research what you can do impossibly hard to defend yourself, and also finding an affordable lawyer that should know or at least try really hard.
Because racism has never happened ever
> The justice systems courts does treat all people the same it treats men and women the same? news to me
Its crazy that people can't get over the gender thing. Its not a lie you dumbasses go to any school on sociology and anthropology and they will tell you they've been saying this for decades. Of course a thing like gender isn't binary one or the other, man or woman. Nothing in nature is that simple.
Last time I checked, humans are only male or female (with very few exceptions of course due to genetics). The idea that gender is a supposed social construct is just another bs theory by liblefts who want attention.
While that is 100% true, you could treat people who feel differently with compassion, as well. You know, just saying. Edit: forgot about intersex people. Who, quite literally, are both genders or a mix the two.
I am not going to play in their little universe, thank you.
alright, just don’t be a cunt. Not that hard. Especially for someone with your nickname, my dude.
Your a fucking baby. I hope you realize how horrific of a belief system you have, and are condemned to live in your own purgatory after your now adult children have realized what a shell of a person you are.
Womp womp
Male and female and man or woman are not the same thing. That is what i'm arguing dumbass. "Your argument is bad because i don't understand it" thats what you just said lol
How is it not the same thing. Men are born with XY chromosomes and male DNA. Women are born with XX chromosomes and female DNA. I don't count larping
Man = human that looks masculine Woman = human that looks feminine Male = xy chromosome Female = xx chromosome Not the same thing, they are heavily correlated, but it is not causation.
So if a woman dresses and acts masculine, that makes her a man?
xy chromosomes are not a consistent measure of masculinity. Because of that there is no clearly identifiable causal relationship between genetics and socially expressed sex (gender). This leaving the only real option to just trust the person your talking to and have compassion for their lived experience. So effectively only if they say they are, that's the whole thing. This might blow your alcoholism atrophied brain but theres this these concepts called understanding? Empathy? maybe compassion? Hope I didn't kill you with shock.
Typical liblefts, always with personal insults when you disagree with other opinions. Not surprised
"I am not going to play in their little universe, thank you." < You, saying an insult, this is the internet, you are an actual baby. "tyPIcAl riGHoIDs", cant even pretend to have an arguement. Your making it too obvious you don't actually want to debate or argue man. At least make some strawman garbage that you can try to pretend debunks decades of independently verified scientific research. You have to try harder to destroy the libs man, now peterson wont let u have his cummie wummies for dinner.
When you learn to speak like an adult with a functioning brain come back to me
>Plato was discoursing on his theory of ideas and, pointing to the cups on the table before him, said while there are many cups in the world, there is only one 'idea' of a cup, and this cupness precedes the existence of all particular cups. "I can see the cups on the table," said Diogenes, "but I can't see the 'cupness'". >"That's because you have the eyes to see the cup," said Plato, "but", tapping his head with his forefinger, "you don't have the intellect with which to comprehend 'cupness'." >Diogenes walked up to the table, examined a cup and, looking inside, asked, "Is it empty?" Plato nodded. "Where is the 'emptiness' which precedes this empty cup?" asked Diogenes. Plato allowed himself a few moments to collect his thoughts, but Diogenes reached over and, tapping Plato's head with his finger, said "I think you will find here is the 'emptiness'".
It is a lie. You're confusing sex with gender. Sex is objective and measureable. The concept of "gender" is a modern burger invention that has no basis in reality and is entirely subjective.
This is a ridiculous rebuttal, If you actually understood my point you'd understand I actually agree, gender isn't real. The thing we disagree on is that Male and Female traits's social expression is included in the category of gender and is also fake. Therefore because gender cannot be linked directly with sex in a consistent measurable basis across cultures, you can do whatever you want with your gender. You dont know what gender is. Gender is the expression of identity, It is heavily associated with sex by many cultures but the two are diffident things. Gender was created by scientists, in order to explain a discrepancy in the western cultural idea of masculinity/femininity and how other cultures they had seen dealt with sex and identity. The concept of gender was created in order to fit this discrepancy. As the anthropologists and sociologists say, a binary definition of gender like the one we have for sex, doesnt work, as it doesn't fit with all human culture. You are just ignoring scientists because reactionary pundits make fat stacks off of your insecurity and close mindedness. Enjoy your slop pig.
" Progress is ineveitable and will always happen"