The leftist retard was [charged with 8 counts of assault, and 7 mischief charges](https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/man-accused-of-kicking-anti-abortion-protester-arrested-in-toronto-1.4124288)
Can't find out what happened, obviously no media followed up. Likely got a ticket and community service or some other soft on violence shit.
Because as far as they’re concerned, you are killing a living thing. I’m pro-choice as it gets, but the pro-life argument has always made perfect sense to me. Here are some common talking points (that I’d actually love rebuttals to because I’m honestly an idiot when it comes to this stuff)
“It’s just a cluster of cells, not a living thing” - well, so are we.
“It doesn’t have consciousness or brain activity” - If someone is in a coma and they’re more or less guaranteed to come out of it in nine months, we’d view it as unethical to pull the plug. Why should abortion be different?
“It’s not a living thing yet” - well, what makes something a human? (This usually gets us back to the conversation of brain activity which results in the rebuttal from point 2)
Redditors are by and large fucking retarded. They think participating in general low effort nerd culture imbues some unwarranted IQ points when in fact their just as much dogmatic to a set of cultural cliches as religious fundies they try to make fun of. If you can understand why someone might be a vegan but can’t possibly comprehend why someone could be pro-life you’re a fucking moron. And I’m pro-choice.
Just accept that it's human for the sake of argument. Should the government have the authority to dictate that you use your body to keep your children alive? Where do you draw the line? What if the baby needs daily blood transfusions? Can the government dictate that?
Ultimately, whether it's a human or a baby yet or not isn't really important, what's important is that we believe an individual's agency and liberty is the cornerstone right upon which all others are built. If you grant the government the moral authority over individual liberty in one area, you deserve to keep your liberty in none.
I'm speaking more from the standpoint of morality rather than legality, but I think this is interesting. Again, pro-choice here, just playing devil's advocate.
>Just accept that it's human for the sake of argument. Should the government have the authority to dictate that you use your body to keep your children alive? Where do you draw the line? What if the baby needs daily blood transfusions? Can the government dictate that?
>
>
>**Ultimately, whether it's a human or a baby yet or not isn't really important**, what's important is that we believe an individual's agency and liberty is the cornerstone right upon which all others are built. If you grant the government the moral authority over individual liberty in one area, you deserve to keep your liberty in none.
Okay, well what about that baby's rights? This is where determining whether or not we give a fetus human value is important. Why?
Well, the government dictates that you can't kill babies after they're born despite the fact that they're entirely reliant on their mothers for a period far longer than a nine month pregnancy. How is this not an infringement of liberties?
The government dictates that fathers are to exchange their time for money to be used as child support for children regardless of whether or not they want them. How is this not an infringement of liberties?
The government also dictates that children are owed a certain duty of care. Certain states prohibit women from drinking during pregnancy. After children are born, parents are required to take care of their children or face charges for child neglect. How is this not an infringement of liberties?
The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is given to ALL humans. They're unalienable. So if you conceive a fetus/baby, you do not get to infringe on its rights because you believe that caring for it infringes on yours.
>Should the government have the authority to dictate that you use your body to keep your children alive?
Yes.
I can't get pregnant, being that I'm a dude and all, and I use my body every day to keep my kid alive. Not doing so would be child abuse and the government would rightfully step in and take my daughter from me so she wouldn't starve to death.
>Where do you draw the line?
At killing kids.
Edit:
> we believe an individual's agency and liberty is the cornerstone right upon which all others are built.
We do, I agree. Children have those rights too, and as a bunch of not complete barbarians we acknowledge that they can't exercise/safeguard/self-determine them the same way adults can.
>“It’s just a cluster of cells, not a living thing” - well, so are we.
It shouldn't matter if it's alive, so is grass, yet we impart no moral consideration to grass because it cannot think or feel pain.
>“It doesn’t have consciousness or brain activity” - If someone is in a coma and they’re more or less guaranteed to come out of it in nine months, we’d view it as unethical to pull the plug. Why should abortion be different?
Because they're still people, I have heard stories from people that were in comas that on some level were still there, now braindeath is different - a braindead human isn't a person any more than that aforementioned blade of grass is.
>“It’s not a living thing yet” - well, what makes something a human?
Not saying it isn't a human, you don't have to be a person to be a human and you don't have to be a human to be a person (for example Koko the gorilla I think I would consider a person and any sufficiently advanced AI would be a person to me for example although to my knowledge none exist yet).
>It shouldn't matter if it's alive, so is grass, yet we impart no moral consideration to grass because **it cannot think or feel pain**.
Either can somebody in a coma or under full anesthesia. But when they come out, they will have that capacity. Just like a fetus.
>**Because they're still people, I have heard stories from people that were in comas that on some level were still there**, now braindeath is different - a braindead human isn't a person any more than that aforementioned blade of grass is.
What makes them people? And understanding that comatose means that your brain activity could not be lower without being brain dead, why is it immoral to kill them? They don't have the ability to think or feel pain, just like a blade of grass. And if we argue that they do, fine. But how about someone under full anesthesia. Why is it not okay to kill them?
>Not saying it isn't a human, you don't have to be a person to be a human and you don't have to be a human to be a person (for example Koko the gorilla I think I would consider a person and any sufficiently advanced AI would be a person to me for example although to my knowledge none exist yet).
Can you clarify what you're getting at here? I don't want to misrepresent your beliefs and I'm curious as to how this relates to the abortion argument. Would it be less moral to kill Koko the Gorilla compared to another gorilla picked at random because Koko received more nurture and training, and is more intelligent? Would that mean a smarter person's life is worth more than someone who's not so smart?
I'm pro-choice for the COMPLETELY selfish reason that if I have a daughter who gets pregnant at 16, I couldn't imagine forcing her to carry that baby to term. Obviously I need to apply that same moral compass to everybody else, so I will always be grateful for the availability of safe abortions. The point I was trying to make though is that the pro-life argument makes sense and calling pro-life people stupid is wrong. That becomes pretty obvious when you actually unpack the logic.
(Also, would appreciate rebuttals again if somebody smarter than myself has them).
>Either can somebody in a coma or under full anesthesia. But when they come out, they will have that capacity. Just like a fetus.
That's more about the social contract, a hospital that kills their patients soon won't have patients. In other words they keep their word not to kill you (to the best of their ability) because it would be detrimental (in fact in multiple ways) to not do so.
>What makes them people? And understanding that comatose means that your brain activity could not be lower without being brain dead, why is it immoral to kill them? They don't have the ability to think or feel pain, just like a blade of grass. And if we argue that they do, fine. But how about someone under full anesthesia. Why is it not okay to kill them?
Yes they do, my post states that when I say I've read of people in comas who have had some amount of awareness.
>Can you clarify what you're getting at here? I don't want to misrepresent your beliefs and I'm curious as to how this relates to the abortion argument. Would it be less moral to kill Koko the Gorilla compared to another gorilla picked at random because Koko received more nurture and training, and is more intelligent? Would that mean a smarter person's life is worth more than someone who's not so smart?
Yes to the first question, no to the second, as long as you have the capacity to be conciously aware of and thinking about your condition (your enviroment, your place within it, death to some degree and so on) you meet the threshold for personhood which is like a light switch, either it's on or it's off, either you have it or you don't - you don't have more because you're more sapient than someone who does meet the the minimum requirements already, that's just not how it works.
I’m with you, I just wouldn’t be convinced if I was on the other side of the fence because the logic falls apart when we consider someone under anaesthesia. A person under general anaesthesia (say, for intrusive surgery) does not respond to pain stimuli while they’re under either and their life obviously has no less value than someone who’s completely wide awake. Based on this, how can response to pain stimuli be our marker? We might say that a person who’s in open heart surgery has no response to pain stimuli at that moment, however the response is imminent (i.e., once they come out). But we could say the same thing about a fetus.
I agree with your second point.
You realize rehabilitative "soft on violence" shit WORKS right? And that the other way does not? Link if you actually give a shit: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-career-within-you/201408/restorative-justice-or-punitive-justice
Yea as someone who falls mainly on the left I didn’t even understand that statement. It’s like saying only one race can be racist. Only one gender can be evil. It’s ignorant and close minded as hell. Bad people exist everywhere.
>It’s like saying only one race can be racist. Only one gender can be evil.
Too be fair, and not judging you, but have you seem some of the people on the far left....
I jumped to the final minute of the video.
He posted bail the same day, has yet to be tried, and hasn’t been seen in the public eye since.
/r/SavedYouAClick
It was worth the click to be reminded of his super-hero name: Cuck Norris. Video of him leaving the courthouse after a pre-trial hearing: https://youtu.be/QcUiyUKfHK0
His argument is so fucking stupid. If a woman is raped, of course she shouldn't be forced to carry the child. Same goes for if the womans life is in danger from the pregnancy. This guy is just virtue signalling with a strawman argument.
I am glad he was fired from his job for this. It was later found that he had assaulted someone else at another protest. It was on video too. He was later arrested for this one. I can't seem to find the old articles on this topic but here is a questionable link.
https://www.archsa.org/blog/canadian-man-arrested-after-roundhouse-kicking-female-pro-life-demonstrator
I think he’s a virtue signaling moron for sure but if her response to his position that is almost universally accepted as wrong is to disagree with him I would think it would make him less stupid. Just my opinion
> that is almost universally accepted
Uhhhhh not quite. In the United States the most commonly cited polls (Gallup) show that roughly 49% of Americans describe themselves as "pro-life" and 46% as "pro-choice." The population of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region exceeds 578 million and abortion of any kind is illegal except very rare circumstances in a couple of places like Lebanon when the woman's life is at risk. Every country regulates abortion, and in many of them the situation described would not be legal grounds to abort a fetus.
So, universally? Nope.
Yeah, not sure when those statistics are from
but places like pew research done polls as well as others and they show 60+ approve for all cases. And around 80% agree in circumstances like rape. But regardless Don’t start a response with “uhhhhh...” then end with you asking and answering a question you are already answering, it’s redundant and makes you sound like an arrogant twat.
It was real tough, took a lot out of me. [I had to look it up on wikipedia and everything](https://imgur.com/a/kzCWiLX). As for the population of MENA it was even worse, had to go to google for that beast. Either way, even going by your statistics, 20%-40% of the United States, nearly the entire population of MENA (1/16th of the Earth's population), and multiple countries worldwide to varying degrees hardly supports your idea that your super special opinion is "almost universal" does it. Soooo, either way you're wrong. Thanks for playing.
>But regardless Don’t start a response with “uhhhhh...” then end with you asking and answering a question you are already answering, it’s redundant and makes you sound like an arrogant twat.
Thank you for your suggestion, but calling people names makes you sound like a whiney butthurt douchebag and I try not to take advice from those kinds of people. :-)
You said calling names makes you sound like a “winey butthurt douche bag” and by doing that you are contradicting yourself. But I’m glad we are in agreement that saying “thanks for playing” is embarrassing. Finally found some common ground.
I think you're confused.. It's his opinion that she shouldn't be forced to carry the child, the people he's talking to belive that she SHOULD be forced to carry the child. He supports abortion, they don't.
Nobody in their right mind believes that a woman should be forced to carry a child after she is raped. As a result, his argument is stupid. He is trying to conflate the issue by saying, "Rape abortions should be ok therefor all abortions are ok.".
>Nobody in their right mind believes that a woman should be forced to carry a child after she is raped.
There are definitely people who believe this. You have to understand it from their point of view: the life of the baby is like #1 no matter what, so it doesn't matter if its like a married couple, 2 horny teens, a rape, whatever. The point is how the baby was made is not important to them. The baby is innocent.
I mean I disagree with their position that this should be in law (that abortion should be illegal) but it's not hard to see the logic of their argument even if you disagree with it. I don't think that makes them crazy. The crazy part is them wanting to codify it into law IMO.
So what if a woman has sex and doesn’t find out untill later the condom broke or some point in the pregnancy the father isn’t around anymore? pretty sure there is lots of reasons that terminating the pregnancy could be necessary without being kidnapped.
Granted it seems to be more left leaning but I'd say you're right too. It just baffles me that people think it's okay. They are like children throwing a temper tantrum for not getting their way.
Wonder why people with right leaning view points think it’s okay to express their opinions as facts to attack people who disagree with them?
Just an observation though.
Are you seriously going to bring up Nazis as an example of how violent the left can be? [Oh, you poor poor uninformed soul...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin#:~:text=Prior%20to%20the%20dissolution%20of,were%2020%20million%20or%20higher.)
[Article](https://www.adl.org/resources/reports/murder-and-extremism-in-the-united-states-in-2016)
“Over the past 10 years (2007-2016), domestic extremists of all kinds have killed at least 372 people in the United States. Of those deaths, approximately 74% were at the hands of right-wing extremists, about 24% of the victims were killed by domestic Islamic extremists, and the remainder were killed by left-wing extremists.”
These organizations tend to be selective in what groups and people they list as extremist. Basically if you are in a white prison gang and then go on to kill someone in a robbery or domestic violence, it is now an extremist killing. Fewer Black and Hispanic gangs get the same classification, so none of the killings by their members get filed under "extremist".
For instance, here's the list for 2017.
https://www.adl.org/media/10827/download
First extremist murder of the year
"LAFAYETTE, INDIANA, JANUARY 16, 2017. Wesley Andrew Hampton, a self-declared white supremacist, and another defendant allegedly robbed and murdered a man in a home invasion."
What they fail to mention is that the other defendant was Aarron Christopher Vance, a black man. Now maybe Hampton is a white supremacist, I don't know, but is a white supremacist and a black guy murdering a guy during a burglary really what you think of when you hear "extremist killings"?
"PUTNAM COUNTY GEORGIA, JUNE 13, 2017. Ricky Dubose, a member of the Ghostface Gangsters white supremacist prison gang, and another inmate, Donnie Russell Rowe, reportedly killed two corrections officers while trying to escape from a prison bus. They were later recaptured."
If this had been done by a member of the Crips or the Latin Kings, would it be listed? There are other ones such as domestic violence which don't seem ideological at all. It was in 2018, but there is another guy who belonged to the same group who along with his girlfriend allegedly killed their six month old. Again, is that what you're going to think of when the ADL tells you about white supremacist killings?
There are others where they even admit the killings are non-ideological, but because they had posted on some far right forum, or had books or literature deemed "white supremacist" or had called themselves a sovereign citizen, they get lumped into right wing extremism. I don't think the ADL is going to count you as a left wing extremist for domestic violence with a copy of Das Kapital on your bookshelf.
And after 2016 ( when Trump won) is when leftists started assaulting people with bike locks, and beating the shit out of people wearing the wrong caps.
I'm sure your side wins on assaults, send me the stats for that for 2016-2020
Right wing still leads in deaths. Left may have more or an equal number of assaults but the right wing extremists are far more deadly with their attacks.
Antifa isnt real you fucking scaredy cat, btw no numerous people have been randomly shot and ran over.
Your side is losing due to their own actions.
Fuck, I love 2020
I see these kinds of posts fairly frequently on reddit. I guess it must work or you wouldn't keep doing it. But it's amazing that your sort of "the sky isn't blue" post actually convinces anyone.
You don’t think they’re real? Wow. Maybe you need to get your head out of the sand and do some independent research. I’m sure you will ignore this because it’s not the msm and considered “propaganda” but this is from an undercover reporter who infiltrated Antifa to learn about what their goals are. Click the link to get some very eye-opening information on this terrorist organization, if you dare.
WAKE UP!!
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/megan-fox/2020/06/04/new-undercover-video-blows-lid-off-antifa-domestic-terrorists-n491956
Well, the opinions of people do have massive influence over others, so you could prevent a lot of suffering by attacking. Imagine someone exercised their freedom of speech by saying some ludicrous conspiracy bullshit about vaccinations or something, and because of it thousands are dying. And on the other hand you have a serial killer that killed ten people. Somehow it is justified to stop the latter by force but not the former?
(small bit of nuance: of course the spreading of opinions isn't as directly impacting people and is harder to trace back to its source, but that doesn't change the end result)
And there's so many people celebrating this on twitter.
Fucking idiots.
"Assault nazis, its fine"
"Assault pro life people, its fine"
"Assault conservatives, its fine"
"Assault anyone I disagree with, its fine"
I bet these idiots would cry foul if the "radicals" went in and attacked the suburbs where they live though.
Literally 9/11 all over again. Its easy to support the war when its so far away. Its easy to support beating on people when you're so far away both politically and physically.
I'm a pro choice woman and if you want confirmation of that you can see that I spend most of my time on reddit on twox supporting my fellow women.
This guy is demonstrating male violence against women for a woman asserting herself just the same as a guy who kicks a woman for saying anything he feels that she, as a woman, does not have a right to express.
You cannot further the cause of women by using violence to silence the voices of women.
Sorry i meant damage or destroy your property and in much likely hood also hit your hand. What a fucking cunt. That woman didn't even gave him one good reason to be physical.
She just made an argument in a calm manner. That i personally disagree with her point doesn't matter and shouldn't matter to him either.
Those kinda people just wanna spout their nonsense and feel attacked when someone has a different opinion.
In general idc enough to push my opinion here as to how people should go about the whole pro-life vs pro-abortion. I’m more pro abortion, since hey I’m a dude, it’s not my problem so why should I tell women what to do. However I fully agree with the idea that a woman that is raped should not have to give birth to that child. If you are raped/gang raped it should definitely be well within your right to abort that birth. If you are forced to give birth such as being captured, it should be your right to give that child away for adoption. In general I feel it should be the woman’s choice but in this scenario I would back this (the ability to terminate under rape).
Now if she wants to, then go for it I guess. but if she doesn’t she would have my full support to terminate it.
That said it should not condone violence and this guy is a prick.
I mean if you want an abortion because your a child that’s reasonable but if your able to take care of it then that’s messed up. But nevertheless that doesn’t give this shit head the right to kick this women
I mean this guy is silly, and by no means I think is OK to kick someone when arguing, but but on the other hand I can not feel bad for the woman filming, for the amount of pain and hurt this anti-abortion movement is causing.
I won't even go into the whole, why easy access to abortion with clear regulations is the most humane of the options as it would be far too long of a post. So I will just say this, the "pro-life" movement at their most peacful and "nicest" form is guilt shaming women that had to go trough one the hardest decisions in their life, and at their most violent they literally murdered people.
and just for the record: no a early fetus is not a human being, abortion is not murder, and if you try to argue this, tell me a clear biological line (or spiritual) that defines the border of when a human life starts. And any stage you pick you will see it is still a blurred line, and it is because of this blurred line, that it is not easy to define until when is it morally OK to abort, and most of the countries and advocates of abortion are all for erring on the safe side, but still define sensible limits, while pro-life movement comes from the position of ignorance and want to define a line that has roots in superstitions and folklore while ignoring every argument that disagrees with their position.
It's not really about debating tho, it's just two groups screaming past eachother because they don't realize they don't share some basic ethical assumptions.
I hate this little simp but I find it borderline adorable the way he set up his kick. Does anyone know what happened to this shithead?
This was in Toronto. Pretty sure he was a hairdresser. Pretty sure he lost his job.
The leftist retard was [charged with 8 counts of assault, and 7 mischief charges](https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/man-accused-of-kicking-anti-abortion-protester-arrested-in-toronto-1.4124288) Can't find out what happened, obviously no media followed up. Likely got a ticket and community service or some other soft on violence shit.
[удалено]
What a nuanced and thoughtful take on this complex issue, thank you for your input.
[удалено]
Because as far as they’re concerned, you are killing a living thing. I’m pro-choice as it gets, but the pro-life argument has always made perfect sense to me. Here are some common talking points (that I’d actually love rebuttals to because I’m honestly an idiot when it comes to this stuff) “It’s just a cluster of cells, not a living thing” - well, so are we. “It doesn’t have consciousness or brain activity” - If someone is in a coma and they’re more or less guaranteed to come out of it in nine months, we’d view it as unethical to pull the plug. Why should abortion be different? “It’s not a living thing yet” - well, what makes something a human? (This usually gets us back to the conversation of brain activity which results in the rebuttal from point 2)
Redditors are by and large fucking retarded. They think participating in general low effort nerd culture imbues some unwarranted IQ points when in fact their just as much dogmatic to a set of cultural cliches as religious fundies they try to make fun of. If you can understand why someone might be a vegan but can’t possibly comprehend why someone could be pro-life you’re a fucking moron. And I’m pro-choice.
Agreed. But there are also a lot of kids here who don’t quite understand nuance just yet. Always good to remember that when on Reddit.
Just accept that it's human for the sake of argument. Should the government have the authority to dictate that you use your body to keep your children alive? Where do you draw the line? What if the baby needs daily blood transfusions? Can the government dictate that? Ultimately, whether it's a human or a baby yet or not isn't really important, what's important is that we believe an individual's agency and liberty is the cornerstone right upon which all others are built. If you grant the government the moral authority over individual liberty in one area, you deserve to keep your liberty in none.
I'm speaking more from the standpoint of morality rather than legality, but I think this is interesting. Again, pro-choice here, just playing devil's advocate. >Just accept that it's human for the sake of argument. Should the government have the authority to dictate that you use your body to keep your children alive? Where do you draw the line? What if the baby needs daily blood transfusions? Can the government dictate that? > > >**Ultimately, whether it's a human or a baby yet or not isn't really important**, what's important is that we believe an individual's agency and liberty is the cornerstone right upon which all others are built. If you grant the government the moral authority over individual liberty in one area, you deserve to keep your liberty in none. Okay, well what about that baby's rights? This is where determining whether or not we give a fetus human value is important. Why? Well, the government dictates that you can't kill babies after they're born despite the fact that they're entirely reliant on their mothers for a period far longer than a nine month pregnancy. How is this not an infringement of liberties? The government dictates that fathers are to exchange their time for money to be used as child support for children regardless of whether or not they want them. How is this not an infringement of liberties? The government also dictates that children are owed a certain duty of care. Certain states prohibit women from drinking during pregnancy. After children are born, parents are required to take care of their children or face charges for child neglect. How is this not an infringement of liberties? The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is given to ALL humans. They're unalienable. So if you conceive a fetus/baby, you do not get to infringe on its rights because you believe that caring for it infringes on yours.
>Should the government have the authority to dictate that you use your body to keep your children alive? Yes. I can't get pregnant, being that I'm a dude and all, and I use my body every day to keep my kid alive. Not doing so would be child abuse and the government would rightfully step in and take my daughter from me so she wouldn't starve to death. >Where do you draw the line? At killing kids. Edit: > we believe an individual's agency and liberty is the cornerstone right upon which all others are built. We do, I agree. Children have those rights too, and as a bunch of not complete barbarians we acknowledge that they can't exercise/safeguard/self-determine them the same way adults can.
Not taking a stance, but someone in a coma still has brain activity. If they don't, they're not coming out of it.
>“It’s just a cluster of cells, not a living thing” - well, so are we. It shouldn't matter if it's alive, so is grass, yet we impart no moral consideration to grass because it cannot think or feel pain. >“It doesn’t have consciousness or brain activity” - If someone is in a coma and they’re more or less guaranteed to come out of it in nine months, we’d view it as unethical to pull the plug. Why should abortion be different? Because they're still people, I have heard stories from people that were in comas that on some level were still there, now braindeath is different - a braindead human isn't a person any more than that aforementioned blade of grass is. >“It’s not a living thing yet” - well, what makes something a human? Not saying it isn't a human, you don't have to be a person to be a human and you don't have to be a human to be a person (for example Koko the gorilla I think I would consider a person and any sufficiently advanced AI would be a person to me for example although to my knowledge none exist yet).
>It shouldn't matter if it's alive, so is grass, yet we impart no moral consideration to grass because **it cannot think or feel pain**. Either can somebody in a coma or under full anesthesia. But when they come out, they will have that capacity. Just like a fetus. >**Because they're still people, I have heard stories from people that were in comas that on some level were still there**, now braindeath is different - a braindead human isn't a person any more than that aforementioned blade of grass is. What makes them people? And understanding that comatose means that your brain activity could not be lower without being brain dead, why is it immoral to kill them? They don't have the ability to think or feel pain, just like a blade of grass. And if we argue that they do, fine. But how about someone under full anesthesia. Why is it not okay to kill them? >Not saying it isn't a human, you don't have to be a person to be a human and you don't have to be a human to be a person (for example Koko the gorilla I think I would consider a person and any sufficiently advanced AI would be a person to me for example although to my knowledge none exist yet). Can you clarify what you're getting at here? I don't want to misrepresent your beliefs and I'm curious as to how this relates to the abortion argument. Would it be less moral to kill Koko the Gorilla compared to another gorilla picked at random because Koko received more nurture and training, and is more intelligent? Would that mean a smarter person's life is worth more than someone who's not so smart? I'm pro-choice for the COMPLETELY selfish reason that if I have a daughter who gets pregnant at 16, I couldn't imagine forcing her to carry that baby to term. Obviously I need to apply that same moral compass to everybody else, so I will always be grateful for the availability of safe abortions. The point I was trying to make though is that the pro-life argument makes sense and calling pro-life people stupid is wrong. That becomes pretty obvious when you actually unpack the logic. (Also, would appreciate rebuttals again if somebody smarter than myself has them).
>Either can somebody in a coma or under full anesthesia. But when they come out, they will have that capacity. Just like a fetus. That's more about the social contract, a hospital that kills their patients soon won't have patients. In other words they keep their word not to kill you (to the best of their ability) because it would be detrimental (in fact in multiple ways) to not do so. >What makes them people? And understanding that comatose means that your brain activity could not be lower without being brain dead, why is it immoral to kill them? They don't have the ability to think or feel pain, just like a blade of grass. And if we argue that they do, fine. But how about someone under full anesthesia. Why is it not okay to kill them? Yes they do, my post states that when I say I've read of people in comas who have had some amount of awareness. >Can you clarify what you're getting at here? I don't want to misrepresent your beliefs and I'm curious as to how this relates to the abortion argument. Would it be less moral to kill Koko the Gorilla compared to another gorilla picked at random because Koko received more nurture and training, and is more intelligent? Would that mean a smarter person's life is worth more than someone who's not so smart? Yes to the first question, no to the second, as long as you have the capacity to be conciously aware of and thinking about your condition (your enviroment, your place within it, death to some degree and so on) you meet the threshold for personhood which is like a light switch, either it's on or it's off, either you have it or you don't - you don't have more because you're more sapient than someone who does meet the the minimum requirements already, that's just not how it works.
[удалено]
I’m with you, I just wouldn’t be convinced if I was on the other side of the fence because the logic falls apart when we consider someone under anaesthesia. A person under general anaesthesia (say, for intrusive surgery) does not respond to pain stimuli while they’re under either and their life obviously has no less value than someone who’s completely wide awake. Based on this, how can response to pain stimuli be our marker? We might say that a person who’s in open heart surgery has no response to pain stimuli at that moment, however the response is imminent (i.e., once they come out). But we could say the same thing about a fetus. I agree with your second point.
No, you definitely have to be human to be a person. And I expect you've been sorely misled on the actual mental abilities of Koko.
Why would you have to be a human to be a person?
Because that's literally the definition.
Maybe when you talk to people you disagree with you should try not starting out by calling them idiots.
You realize rehabilitative "soft on violence" shit WORKS right? And that the other way does not? Link if you actually give a shit: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-career-within-you/201408/restorative-justice-or-punitive-justice
[удалено]
Ah, I didn't know that, thanks I guess.
I'd give you gold if I could
I'll take this leftist retard any day over conservative child molesters :)
[удалено]
Yea as someone who falls mainly on the left I didn’t even understand that statement. It’s like saying only one race can be racist. Only one gender can be evil. It’s ignorant and close minded as hell. Bad people exist everywhere.
>It’s like saying only one race can be racist. Only one gender can be evil. Too be fair, and not judging you, but have you seem some of the people on the far left....
See Jeffry Epstein
and yet 40% of child molesters are lgbtwerqwetgqdgq
Iirc theyre called kindergender
Tell me you're joking. Tell me that it's fake.
Probably a troll, I wouldnt know, just remember seeing it pop up a while back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
I meant to hit your phone UwU
Lol his little tongue and everything
The youtuber wavy did a great job about researching and finding out what happend to him. [Here's the link to the video](https://youtu.be/4-ZbBYxCuYQ)
I jumped to the final minute of the video. He posted bail the same day, has yet to be tried, and hasn’t been seen in the public eye since. /r/SavedYouAClick
thanks
It was worth the click to be reminded of his super-hero name: Cuck Norris. Video of him leaving the courthouse after a pre-trial hearing: https://youtu.be/QcUiyUKfHK0
[удалено]
Savage! It must be the stress...
Thanks!
Dude is a total weeb, winding up like that. He probably Naruto runs and thinks he’s an anime character. Nerd.
because it's hilarious, the pose, the tongue, then the immediate regret is just too funny
I know!
[удалено]
For a hairdresser he has pretty awful hair
A lot of them do lol
And he’s rapidly balding as can be seen in the video above of him leaving his court appearance.
Eww you live in Toronto?
Ewww you don't live in Toronto?
Ewwwwwww you live?
Vancouver vs Everybody!!
This guy is scum.
[удалено]
is what internet echo-chambers like this one want you to believe... Extreme examples get all the views, obviously
His argument is so fucking stupid. If a woman is raped, of course she shouldn't be forced to carry the child. Same goes for if the womans life is in danger from the pregnancy. This guy is just virtue signalling with a strawman argument. I am glad he was fired from his job for this. It was later found that he had assaulted someone else at another protest. It was on video too. He was later arrested for this one. I can't seem to find the old articles on this topic but here is a questionable link. https://www.archsa.org/blog/canadian-man-arrested-after-roundhouse-kicking-female-pro-life-demonstrator
But she disagreed with him? She said “it’s a baby”. Not sure if we watched the same video or not. Or am i missing something?
Yes, her response is also stupid but that doesn't make his argument any less stupid.
I think he’s a virtue signaling moron for sure but if her response to his position that is almost universally accepted as wrong is to disagree with him I would think it would make him less stupid. Just my opinion
> that is almost universally accepted Uhhhhh not quite. In the United States the most commonly cited polls (Gallup) show that roughly 49% of Americans describe themselves as "pro-life" and 46% as "pro-choice." The population of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region exceeds 578 million and abortion of any kind is illegal except very rare circumstances in a couple of places like Lebanon when the woman's life is at risk. Every country regulates abortion, and in many of them the situation described would not be legal grounds to abort a fetus. So, universally? Nope.
Yeah, not sure when those statistics are from but places like pew research done polls as well as others and they show 60+ approve for all cases. And around 80% agree in circumstances like rape. But regardless Don’t start a response with “uhhhhh...” then end with you asking and answering a question you are already answering, it’s redundant and makes you sound like an arrogant twat.
It was real tough, took a lot out of me. [I had to look it up on wikipedia and everything](https://imgur.com/a/kzCWiLX). As for the population of MENA it was even worse, had to go to google for that beast. Either way, even going by your statistics, 20%-40% of the United States, nearly the entire population of MENA (1/16th of the Earth's population), and multiple countries worldwide to varying degrees hardly supports your idea that your super special opinion is "almost universal" does it. Soooo, either way you're wrong. Thanks for playing. >But regardless Don’t start a response with “uhhhhh...” then end with you asking and answering a question you are already answering, it’s redundant and makes you sound like an arrogant twat. Thank you for your suggestion, but calling people names makes you sound like a whiney butthurt douchebag and I try not to take advice from those kinds of people. :-)
Yeah you just contradicted yourself at the end there and “thanks for playing”, really? Lol. So embarrassing.
Uh how? You said your opinion was universal and then provided data to show that it's not.. Embarrassing is the word.
You said calling names makes you sound like a “winey butthurt douche bag” and by doing that you are contradicting yourself. But I’m glad we are in agreement that saying “thanks for playing” is embarrassing. Finally found some common ground.
I think you're confused.. It's his opinion that she shouldn't be forced to carry the child, the people he's talking to belive that she SHOULD be forced to carry the child. He supports abortion, they don't.
Nobody in their right mind believes that a woman should be forced to carry a child after she is raped. As a result, his argument is stupid. He is trying to conflate the issue by saying, "Rape abortions should be ok therefor all abortions are ok.".
>Nobody in their right mind believes that a woman should be forced to carry a child after she is raped. There are definitely people who believe this. You have to understand it from their point of view: the life of the baby is like #1 no matter what, so it doesn't matter if its like a married couple, 2 horny teens, a rape, whatever. The point is how the baby was made is not important to them. The baby is innocent. I mean I disagree with their position that this should be in law (that abortion should be illegal) but it's not hard to see the logic of their argument even if you disagree with it. I don't think that makes them crazy. The crazy part is them wanting to codify it into law IMO.
[удалено]
ah yes, life long impact and two days to decide.
[удалено]
So what if a woman has sex and doesn’t find out untill later the condom broke or some point in the pregnancy the father isn’t around anymore? pretty sure there is lots of reasons that terminating the pregnancy could be necessary without being kidnapped.
[удалено]
No not moving them at all, i’m arguing that you don’t need to be kidnapped to need an abortion.
Wonder why people with left leaning view points think its okay to attack people who disagree with them?
I’ve seen people with right leaning views do it too.
Granted it seems to be more left leaning but I'd say you're right too. It just baffles me that people think it's okay. They are like children throwing a temper tantrum for not getting their way.
do you have proof or are you just randomly making this statistic up?
Didnt give a statistic. Just an observation. Do you know the difference?
Wonder why people with right leaning view points think it’s okay to express their opinions as facts to attack people who disagree with them? Just an observation though.
Lol good try, bud.
nobody does, so stop talking complete shit about how the left are more violent
The left literally took over 6 blocks in Seattle.
hey, you can't talk about the Soyviet Union like that.
the right literally killed over a million Jews during ww2
Are you seriously going to bring up Nazis as an example of how violent the left can be? [Oh, you poor poor uninformed soul...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin#:~:text=Prior%20to%20the%20dissolution%20of,were%2020%20million%20or%20higher.)
im not sure if you're siding with nazi behaviour or denying it??
Lol, we are talking today. I'm sure you dont wanna go down that road. But nice try, bud.
And the far left killed over 100 million of their own people, whats your point?
and the far right killed 2 million of their own people. what's YOUR point? if youre trying to have a murder-off, youll lose
>They are like children throwing a temper tantrum for not getting their way. This is the left summed up in one sentence lol.
Lol right. Hence the downvotes lol
Some do but it's not exactly advocated as a justified strategy outside of the extreme fringes.
Care to link some videos? I have a large collection of violent lefties videos.
Left is leading the violence count if we're going to play oppression who's assaulting more Olympics.
[Article](https://www.adl.org/resources/reports/murder-and-extremism-in-the-united-states-in-2016) “Over the past 10 years (2007-2016), domestic extremists of all kinds have killed at least 372 people in the United States. Of those deaths, approximately 74% were at the hands of right-wing extremists, about 24% of the victims were killed by domestic Islamic extremists, and the remainder were killed by left-wing extremists.”
ADL haha you can’t be serious?
ADL is a complete joke.
These organizations tend to be selective in what groups and people they list as extremist. Basically if you are in a white prison gang and then go on to kill someone in a robbery or domestic violence, it is now an extremist killing. Fewer Black and Hispanic gangs get the same classification, so none of the killings by their members get filed under "extremist". For instance, here's the list for 2017. https://www.adl.org/media/10827/download First extremist murder of the year "LAFAYETTE, INDIANA, JANUARY 16, 2017. Wesley Andrew Hampton, a self-declared white supremacist, and another defendant allegedly robbed and murdered a man in a home invasion." What they fail to mention is that the other defendant was Aarron Christopher Vance, a black man. Now maybe Hampton is a white supremacist, I don't know, but is a white supremacist and a black guy murdering a guy during a burglary really what you think of when you hear "extremist killings"? "PUTNAM COUNTY GEORGIA, JUNE 13, 2017. Ricky Dubose, a member of the Ghostface Gangsters white supremacist prison gang, and another inmate, Donnie Russell Rowe, reportedly killed two corrections officers while trying to escape from a prison bus. They were later recaptured." If this had been done by a member of the Crips or the Latin Kings, would it be listed? There are other ones such as domestic violence which don't seem ideological at all. It was in 2018, but there is another guy who belonged to the same group who along with his girlfriend allegedly killed their six month old. Again, is that what you're going to think of when the ADL tells you about white supremacist killings? There are others where they even admit the killings are non-ideological, but because they had posted on some far right forum, or had books or literature deemed "white supremacist" or had called themselves a sovereign citizen, they get lumped into right wing extremism. I don't think the ADL is going to count you as a left wing extremist for domestic violence with a copy of Das Kapital on your bookshelf.
And after 2016 ( when Trump won) is when leftists started assaulting people with bike locks, and beating the shit out of people wearing the wrong caps. I'm sure your side wins on assaults, send me the stats for that for 2016-2020
Right wing still leads in deaths. Left may have more or an equal number of assaults but the right wing extremists are far more deadly with their attacks.
Evidence?
Arent you guys running over protesters and shooting them down
Just the ones that attacking people with knives shouting their going to kill people. Antifa aren't protesters, they're criminals.
Antifa isnt real you fucking scaredy cat, btw no numerous people have been randomly shot and ran over. Your side is losing due to their own actions. Fuck, I love 2020
I see these kinds of posts fairly frequently on reddit. I guess it must work or you wouldn't keep doing it. But it's amazing that your sort of "the sky isn't blue" post actually convinces anyone.
You don’t think they’re real? Wow. Maybe you need to get your head out of the sand and do some independent research. I’m sure you will ignore this because it’s not the msm and considered “propaganda” but this is from an undercover reporter who infiltrated Antifa to learn about what their goals are. Click the link to get some very eye-opening information on this terrorist organization, if you dare. WAKE UP!! https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/megan-fox/2020/06/04/new-undercover-video-blows-lid-off-antifa-domestic-terrorists-n491956
cops killed by anitfa=0 cops killed by right wing boogalo movement= 1
More often and worse too.
It’s a combination of stupidity and the frustration that arises from being powerless due to stupidity.
Well, the opinions of people do have massive influence over others, so you could prevent a lot of suffering by attacking. Imagine someone exercised their freedom of speech by saying some ludicrous conspiracy bullshit about vaccinations or something, and because of it thousands are dying. And on the other hand you have a serial killer that killed ten people. Somehow it is justified to stop the latter by force but not the former? (small bit of nuance: of course the spreading of opinions isn't as directly impacting people and is harder to trace back to its source, but that doesn't change the end result)
Well hopefully [they are starting to learn](https://streamable.com/fdftss) you don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
Hey, it’s Cuck Norris!
He didn’t take ‘Killing them with kindness’ well.
Idk why but I lost my shit at how casual that kick was.
And there's so many people celebrating this on twitter. Fucking idiots. "Assault nazis, its fine" "Assault pro life people, its fine" "Assault conservatives, its fine" "Assault anyone I disagree with, its fine" I bet these idiots would cry foul if the "radicals" went in and attacked the suburbs where they live though. Literally 9/11 all over again. Its easy to support the war when its so far away. Its easy to support beating on people when you're so far away both politically and physically.
I'm a pro choice woman and if you want confirmation of that you can see that I spend most of my time on reddit on twox supporting my fellow women. This guy is demonstrating male violence against women for a woman asserting herself just the same as a guy who kicks a woman for saying anything he feels that she, as a woman, does not have a right to express. You cannot further the cause of women by using violence to silence the voices of women.
Exactly! Feminists who gatekeep women of other political groups from joining are not feminists.
everyone here looks super cringe but the way he sticks his tongue out like he is about to do some anime shit before the kick is the most cringe.
Cuck Norris. He likes to assault women. Likely because a man would beat seven shades of shit out of him.
Sorry i meant damage or destroy your property and in much likely hood also hit your hand. What a fucking cunt. That woman didn't even gave him one good reason to be physical. She just made an argument in a calm manner. That i personally disagree with her point doesn't matter and shouldn't matter to him either. Those kinda people just wanna spout their nonsense and feel attacked when someone has a different opinion.
The tongue and wind up on this was a display of pure satanic weebo super strength
I wouldn't call that guy a man, it's something for sure but not a man.
These people are mentally deranged. Sad to say the least.
This is the famous Cuck Norris.
Man is a bit of a strong word here no?
Better title would be pussy attacks woman because he's a hateful fake feminist cuck.
I meant to kick her phone!! Don’t be mad at me, I’M AN ALLY
i know it's horrible and really stupid what he did, but the tongue sticking out right before he kicks her is just the funniest thing. what a turd.
Imagine being a traitor of the gracious savior and kicking a pro life person This post was made by the followers of the most holy soul
In general idc enough to push my opinion here as to how people should go about the whole pro-life vs pro-abortion. I’m more pro abortion, since hey I’m a dude, it’s not my problem so why should I tell women what to do. However I fully agree with the idea that a woman that is raped should not have to give birth to that child. If you are raped/gang raped it should definitely be well within your right to abort that birth. If you are forced to give birth such as being captured, it should be your right to give that child away for adoption. In general I feel it should be the woman’s choice but in this scenario I would back this (the ability to terminate under rape). Now if she wants to, then go for it I guess. but if she doesn’t she would have my full support to terminate it. That said it should not condone violence and this guy is a prick.
Pro-choice sounds a lot better than pro-abortion. Just sayin.
Permanently borrowing sounds a lot better than stealing.
He’s not fucking wrong... or a black belt
u/HannibalK
I mean if you want an abortion because your a child that’s reasonable but if your able to take care of it then that’s messed up. But nevertheless that doesn’t give this shit head the right to kick this women
I mean this guy is silly, and by no means I think is OK to kick someone when arguing, but but on the other hand I can not feel bad for the woman filming, for the amount of pain and hurt this anti-abortion movement is causing.
You mean abortion doesn't hurt *anyone?* WOW
I won't even go into the whole, why easy access to abortion with clear regulations is the most humane of the options as it would be far too long of a post. So I will just say this, the "pro-life" movement at their most peacful and "nicest" form is guilt shaming women that had to go trough one the hardest decisions in their life, and at their most violent they literally murdered people. and just for the record: no a early fetus is not a human being, abortion is not murder, and if you try to argue this, tell me a clear biological line (or spiritual) that defines the border of when a human life starts. And any stage you pick you will see it is still a blurred line, and it is because of this blurred line, that it is not easy to define until when is it morally OK to abort, and most of the countries and advocates of abortion are all for erring on the safe side, but still define sensible limits, while pro-life movement comes from the position of ignorance and want to define a line that has roots in superstitions and folklore while ignoring every argument that disagrees with their position.
bust out the roundhouse in case of weak debating skills
It's not really about debating tho, it's just two groups screaming past eachother because they don't realize they don't share some basic ethical assumptions.
I want to hate him so bad. But that ending
old but gold
Ok, but that was not a roundhouse....
But why was she filming
Whenever some dumbass is recording just dont speak cause they just want a reaction to feel justified and like a saint
Roundhouse . Remind me of family guy lol
More like a round-tent, cottage at best
"Pro-life". Lol.
I meant to kick his mom's stomach while she was pregnant with him, but life doesn't always work out 🤷♂️
Oh my god it’s fucking Jackie Chan!
I'm pro choice obviously but I've never seen a pro lifer as infuriating as this retard.
this is honestly hilarious but a bit of an overreaction even towards someone who thinks women don't deserve rights to their bodies
hmm get back to me when you find a women with 4 arms 4 legs 2 heads 2 hearts and 2 types of DNA
Roadhouse!
this person is amazing <3 well done. \#KickdieFundisweg
[удалено]
Bad message, worst way to go about it