- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 65,981
- Reaction score
- 23,408
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
These people have become completely insufferable. Fortunately, there are still many people hanging out on this forum that enjoy figuring out why a disagreement can subsist.
I can watch Ben Shapiro and enjoy the show, even when he is defending positions as far from mine as they can possibly get. I think the worst example with him would be gay marriage. He's going as far as saying he wouldn't attend a gay marriage, or even the reception after the ceremony. He makes his points, I fundamentally disagree with some of premises, but at least I understand how difficult it can be to square some of his beliefs with this issue and why he thinks the way he does.
We'd probably disagree about other issues, just as you and I probably would disagree about other issues, but we all agree on the important point that people should be free to believe in what they want and should be also free to express those beliefs.
An example of that is that while I am VERY pro-choice. But I came to realize that most pro-lifers are not evil people wanting to control women and force women to have babies nor are they religious fanatics. Rather, they believe a fetus is a "baby" the same as a born baby. What is more horrific than killing defenseless babies for reasons of convenience or economics? That is a good motive.
Rather, I do not think a fetus is a baby, has no self awareness, and is entirely within the jurisdiction of the mother, not us of society.
But I can see their point, including emotionally. Except due to severe birth defect or risk to the mother, I oppose partial birth abortion (but not late term). Although I do not think a fetus is a baby, I do believe society can outlaw a pregnant woman from using drugs that harm the fetus and that such a mother could be both prosecuted (if proven absolutely and a known-to-her REAL risk - not something like smoking or drinking) and sued by a representative.
That is a debate with 2 sides, both are sincere and both have their facts and reasons. Just an example.
There is no debate happening on the topic of genetic males entering female-only athletic competitions. Just simple slogans and name-calling from the other side.
I'm pro-Trump, but have often stated I 100% agree with Warren that Amazon and Google - the 2 largest monopolies probably in earth's history - must be broken up. However, I fully oppose her wealth tax as really it is creating federal property taxes, opening the door the same way income tax was - 1% and only on rich people. I greatly oppose a federal property tax. Property taxes hamper the average people ever gaining retirement economic safety.
I'm not trying to change the topic. Rather, there isn't a debate going on about genetic males in women's athletic competition. The other side is just spouting slogans and insults - avoiding any debate of the physiological aspects of physical athletic contests.
Last edited: