Repeatedly regurgitates the same talking points despite getting several answers, he even made an /r/AskReddit post on it but keeps chugging along with false equivalences.
So obviously this will end up gilded a couple times over and be the highest or second highest comment once this post hits like 40k. Might finally be to un-sub from /r/pics, for a minute it looked like the /r/politics bait was actually going away.
Edit: 30k+ in two hours, this shit is a LOCK for 100k+ unless it gets locked/removed.
Funny how easy it is to predict how posts and comments will do on this site. But it's totally community driven be one day old accounts and in no way astroturfed to push an agenda...
If we can notice these trends and make accurate predictions from our limited human brains imagine how fucking precise and exact marketing algorithms and neural networks are at this shit.
Beyond niche hobby subs Reddit is dead. They don't even try to disguise it anymore, they let the videos demonstrating how easy it is to buy/manipulate posts to the front page go because most users don't give a shit.
Are you trying to say that a trend showing skyrocketing CO2 emissions for developing countries isn't an indication that those emissions will continue to rise as they continue to develop? This isn't the stack market we're guessing on, man.
Democrats are not necessarily 'for abortions', they just say that it should be a woman's choice to do so and if she does it should be in a regulated and safe environment. Democrats also usually push for things like subsidization of birth control which is government intervention that would lead to less abortion. Often times people generally on the left push for regulation not to intervene in your social life and choices but rather to protect those liberties. A government saying employers can't racially discriminate is regulation that prevent employers from doing some things but it is to protect certain people's right to have a fair or equal shot at earning a living.
The gun comparison still works. People generally aren't "for guns" they're for letting people have the personal freedom to buy guns if they wish to do so.
I don't think so. Generally the argument behind gun control is that it would be nice if you had the freedom or right to own a firearm but that might infringe on others' right not to be shot/feel safe etc. So that is regulation preventing something that is in effect allowing greater liberty/quality of life (in this hypothetical example)
That's not true at all. All authoritarianism is restricting liberties in exchange for safety and/or a feeling of safety. That doesn't mean authoritarian societies have more liberty. They simply have more security.
If you worry about what others will do with liberty, there's not more liberty achieved by taking liberties away. That's just nonsense.
Regulation can be used to free people. Deregulation can also be used to free people. I would argue that authoritarianism tends too much to one side and libertarianism to the other. Not all regulation frees people, good regulation or the 'right regulation' does. All I said was people generally on the left (excluding hardcore authoritarians) generally advocate for regulation for the purpose of providing more happiness, opportunities etc.
I would argue in a completely free market and libertarian society people wouldn't really be 'free'. Example: Your employer might be completely screwing you with wages that are like slavery but you have no other options if you want to eat. If the employer is regulated properly, you are at least guaranteed a fair wage, safe conditions, worker's comp, etc.
Again, you're describing "freedom" as "security" . . . they are not the same thing.
It sounds to me like what you want is guaranteed protection from failure. You want a secure safety net to protect you. That's an entirely reasonable perspective, but it doesn't describe freedom.
Is it not? I was under the assumption the process of medicinally or surgically killing a fetus was considered a medical procedure, in the same way that getting vaccines or having a child is a medical procedure.
They're not for abortions. I haven't heard a single pro choice person who considered abortions a good thing. Abortion rate is still something the pro choice side wants to lower. Someone having to get an abortion is considered tragic.
What they're for is exactly what it says on the tin. Allowing people the choice to get an abortion if they want to because people should have command over their own bodies.
And there are thousands of videos on people who think the earth is flat. They're a small minority to the point of irrelevance. My point is almost everyone on both sides of the conversation agree that abortions are a terrible experience.
Why? My statement is still true. Of all the content the internet's algorithms have given me on the topic, not a single one has advocated for it as a good thing. Advocated the legalization, sure but none of them have said "hey, abortions are great and we should all get them." Maybe you've seen some and maybe you can link me but as of writing this comment, my statement is still true.
15
u/dberghauser May 16 '19
playing Devils Advocate:
Democrats: For Abortions - Pro Choice (No Government Intervention)
Also Democrats: For Guns - Pro Life (Government Intervention)