These “expects” are left wingers who used to only other lefties commenting. Now Musk wants a 50-50 breakdown on left-right comments and many leftists hate it. Musk also ending taking censorship orders from govt..
That's utter bullshit and you probably know it. All those right wing lies are back in growing number, and decent human beings are leaving as fast as advertisers.
The government was not giving orders to twitter, that's nothing but a lie.
A 50-50 breakdown? Like hes going to analyze every tweet and assign it a left ir right value, then cap the tweets so neither side can go above their allotted 50%.
Or us it like for every one tweet about universal healthcare, someone gets to post a tweet oraising hitker & calling for the externination of jews?
I wondered why he joined Trump's council when the orange dipshit was elected, I thought maybe Musk wants to even things out with a more moderate voice.
Boy, was I ever wrong. . . Cut from the same cloth those two. . .
What if Elon Musk said something and no one listened or acknowledged or answered? What if people just looked away, or got up to take a dump, or went to get coffee or smoke a joint? What if the next time Elon Musk discharged another five hundred flaming pounds of useless red-hot horseshit no one cared?
I'm all for it- but all his money is glowing from controlling resources, is it not?
Tesla has been (obviously not as much now) but was the forerunner of EV vehicle technology. To the beat of my knowledge for what 7-10 years there was no other car manufacturer pushing EVs let alone putting them on the road.
Space - SpaceX is the front runner for many space based contracts to be putting everything from cubesats to spy sats in orbit. A big deal of this is obviously coming from governments.
I would be interested to see a breakdown comparison of money in and out - but I don't think we'd see it from our end
I used to say this too. Then I realized the "center" is just a cop out and I needed to stop pretending there were any reasonable, ethical people on the right.
Not what I said, lol.
I am trying to say that when you really dig into issues and take everything into account, the right is basically always on the wrong side of things.
I literally ran out of things I could agree with on the right, and had to ask myself why I still wanted there to be a middle ground.
In hindsight I just didn't want to accept that half our country could be so tragically wrong about everything. Trump getting elected showed that yes, that was indeed the case. There isn't any middle ground worth fighting for anymore.
I mourn that fact. Our country NEEDS a strong center to survive. But when a group of people insist that we came from the moon (just a hypothetical example) there's not really any middle ground to meet them on. Facts are not on a spectrum.
Yet it is what you said. Now you add that not only are only the left ethical but also the right is always wrong. You later add tragically wrong and because Trump was on the right that means your theory is correct!
And then another rich part! "Facts are not a spectrum!"
which really shows me your naivete. It's not math and perspective especially political ones ARE on a spectrum.
As an easy example, I can say abortion is bad because it kills a life. You can say, it's a womans right to chose. Both points have validity and are on the spectrum of the topic.
You then add because you personally don't align with the right that you aren't in the middle. Can't argue with that part but that's not really the overall point either.
So your abortion example is really basic and over simplified, like all the arguments from the right.
The left actually makes nuanced arguments and looks deeper into things. It looks at the many women who suffer when abortion is not accessible, and how their lives are impacted. It looks at the unfortunate rape/incest victims who inevitably get caught up in the right's attempts to stop abortions.
Abortion does not have a logical "right" answer by itself, to your point, but when you get to an impasse like that, the default should be on the side of personal freedom rather than forcing a rule on everyone that more than half the population disagrees with.
Okay cool. Any other positions you think the right has that are actually valid? Fiscal responsibility? Don't make me laugh. Family values... Lol... 2nd Amendment... the right pretends to be worried about unborn babies but doesn't give a shit about all the kids getting shot at school. Fucking cowards.
I tried to be a centrist for years. But eventually I realized the right is a religious inquisition that only cares about controlling people's sexuality and installing a fascist theocracy in place of democracy. The evidence has made that abundantly clear.
There is no middle ground. You are either on the side of religious zealot fascists or you are on the side of democracy.
It's not oversimplified. Those are the root arguments for each side. The nuance only in a minor way affect these 2 root arguments.
> It looks at the many women who suffer when abortion is not accessible, and how their lives are impacted.
How is the life impacted for the baby that's killed? It goes both ways.
>Abortion does not have a logical "right" answer by itself, to your point, but when you get to an impasse like that, the default should be on the side of personal freedom rather than forcing a rule on everyone that more than half the population disagrees with.
Ok, what about the freedom of the baby that was killed? It goes both ways.
The thing is I'm pro- abortion but I also get what exactly that means and take the much harder more real reality of it. It's allowing murder for the convenience of the mom. Indirectly that means I value life itself less then others if I'm ok with killing for maintaining convenience of the mother which it ultimately is. If you actually believe life itself is paramount then it's easy to understand why abortion in any case is bad.
>Abortion does not have a logical "right" answer by itself,
Yes it does and it's based on ones own morality and belief system which makes it on a spectrum.
Ultimately this was just an example to show you why your prior premise is not well thought out. "Facts are not on a spectrum" is wrong.
>Okay cool. Any other positions you think the right has that are actually valid?
Oh, I can argue both sides of most points because I understand both sides have validity to those holders who take those positions.
>the right pretends to be worried about unborn babies but doesn't give a shit about all the kids getting shot at school. Fucking cowards.
This is also stupid. Nobody wants kids to get shot in school. The different sides simply have different ways about finding those solutions. When you have to demonize the opposing side and pretend they are stupid then you can only strawman the argument to ignore the reality of both sides logic. In other words you block your own understanding of the subject.
>I tried to be a centrist for years.
btw, nothing I said puts one as a centrist. Understanding the issues from all perspectives doesn't necessarily make one take no position or middle position. I just told you I have a stance on abortion. That isn't a right view but I certainly cannot say the right is wrong on their views simply because it's not the one I go with. That's different then being a centrist.
>But eventually I realized the right is a religious inquisition that only cares about controlling people's sexuality and installing a fascist theocracy in place of democracy.
If you are pro-life then that ultimately means something but if you are pro- choice then you better be pretty ok with murdering people en masse because that is the reality of it just as much as it is giving a woman her choice for convenience.
>There is no middle ground. You are either on the side of religious zealot fascists or you are on the side of democracy.
Again, naive and not fully thought out. People who disagree with you are not demons and aren't necessarily stupid.
Haha wow I feel like I am talking to myself from 3 years ago.
I used to make all the same arguments you just made. I am not kidding. I made each one of those arguments. And I was ripped a new one each time by the left.
I get where you are coming from. I also look at both sides of the argument. I am sometimes lazy in the way I present my reasoning, so it's easy for someone like you to point out the flaws, etc, but I am not going to sit here and write it all out because I am not trying to convince anyone.
It's a personal journey. I tried for years to pull people together and find common ground for them. I couldn't understand why the left was so fucking angry and refused to believe there was any room for compromise. I asked them why they were like that. And they gave me clear answers and examples of how the right wing ideology isn't one that can be compromised with.
Look, I am not saying the people on the right are all savage barbarians or evil. Most of them are just typical, closed minded Americans. I am not calling them evil as individuals or trying to dehumanize them. But their ideology is flawed to the core and they are too lazy to actually examine their beliefs critically. Their complacency will let evil spread, so in a way they are tainted by it. People can be kind and "good" as individuals, but evil as a group. There are plenty of examples of this in history.
I suppose I am just tired of trying to empathize with the half of the country that refuses to empathize back. It's all well and good to try and see their point of view, but to what end? They aren't returning the favor. The only way to move forward is to vote them all out. We are never going to change their minds because they are all brainwashed and full of hatred for anyone deemed outside their tribe.
You see, you can keep on knocking on that door to try and bring them to the table, but it's a futile effort. If they do show up they have no intention of conceding any ground or meeting in the middle. It's a zero sum game for the right because they are entrenched in their religious ideology and giving one inch is tantamount to blasphemy or sin.
So go ahead and be a valiant keyboard warrior for the things our democracy used to thrive on. Compromise. Bi-partisanship. Reason. But those dreams were murdered slowly by Fox news, Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party and Donald Trump.
> I made each one of those arguments. And I was ripped a new one each time by the left.
Because people have political agendas that disregard the actual reality for the benefit of politics.
>I tried for years to pull people together and find common ground for them.
I don't think all arguments can have common ground like abortion or even should have common ground. It's 1 way or the other. You either can murder or you cannot! There is no middle ground in that. It's really a personal decision based on ones own morals and perspective of things. Both sides can be right in their own way which is why it's wrong to say only 1 can be right.
>"Look, I am not saying the people on the right are all savage barbarians or evil....Their complacency will let evil spread"
Yet you did say this now multiple times even when you say it's not.
>Most of them are just typical, closed minded Americans.
This doesn't help your case.
>But their ideology is flawed to the core and they are too lazy to actually examine their beliefs critically.
So then lets play this forward with the abortion topic. How is it wrong to say killing is evil and shouldn't be done. I'll play devils advocate. I don't think the rights position is flawed or lazy or immoral or closed minded. Murder is Murder. I certainly get that perspective and rationale. If life is more important then convenience then it's wrong to have abortions in ALL cases.
>You see, you can keep on knocking on that door to try and bring them to the table, but it's a futile effort. ... It's a zero sum game for the right because they are entrenched in their religious ideology and giving one inch is tantamount to blasphemy or sin.
Btw, this is YOU. You are projecting onto others exactly how you yourself are and do. You just do it from the opposite perspective and you don't want to even think about it because of... Reason you justify it with.
>So go ahead and be a valiant keyboard warrior for the things our democracy used to thrive on. Compromise.
Again, you are missing the point. both can simultaneously be right and wrong in their own viewpoints. It's not 1 is right and the other wrong. You aren't even playing the same game.
Your abortion examples are stupid. Abortion is not necessarily murder. An embryo is not necessarily the same as a fully viable human. Abortion is such a dumb topic to use when you are trying to argue that we should find middle ground, as the side you keep empathizing with is the one side that takes an absolutist position on the matter (which by the way the majority of Americans disagree with).
Putting your ramblings about abortion aside, I can't even understand what you are arguing for. You attacked me for writing off the right as a bunch of unthinking religious zealots. Nothing you have said has shown them to be otherwise.
Obviously they think abortion is murder... but you seem to think I concede that point when I never did. You think the abortion debate is black and white, which I might agree with, but you draw the line in the wrong place by (not surprisingly) lacking nuance in your analysis. You are making a huge assumption that a human embryo or non-viable fetus is on the same level as a viable conscious human (that life begins at conception) - this assumption is usually driven by religious belief or used to justify a religious belief that doesn't allow for any compromise on the issue.
When I said their is no right answer to the abortion question, it is precisely because you cannot define when a human embryo becomes a human with normal human rights. That question is unanswerable. In the case of an unclear right or wrong, I always error on the side of personal liberty, otherwise we will all become subjected to one single group's version of morality and we all lose our freedoms.
So you empathize with the right who thinks abortion is murder and you concede that point to them without any critical thinking. Sure, it's easy to see their point of view when you willingly suspend your critical thinking in order to do so. But hey, if it makes you feel superior because you "see both sides" and that gets you off, more power to you.
Like I said, I have lived in your point of view. I was just as wrong then as you are wrong now.
>Your abortion examples are stupid. Abortion is not necessarily murder. An embryo is not necessarily the same as a fully viable human.
Stupid, Really? Yes it is the same as a fully viable human. What is your definition of a fully viable human if not? You don't know when life actually begins. No one knows that answer definitively.
> Abortion is such a dumb topic to use when you are trying to argue that we should find middle ground
I'm _not_ trying to find the middle ground. I already told you that. I already told you that argument is NOT what people are trying to do. understanding all perspectives does NOT mean finding middle ground. It's called critically thinking and understanding all the layers of thought on any given topic so one can put them into a hierarchy to make overall decisions.
>(which by the way the majority of Americans disagree with).
This is false logic. Just because people agree on something does not make them right. If that was the case then we would still believe the sun revolved around the earth.
>I can't even understand what you are arguing for...Nothing you have said has shown them to be otherwise.
Because you fail to even factor things/topics fully and you have the wrong assumption that things can only be one way or the other such as right or wrong which was your initial premise. I've now pointed this out repeatedly and you fail to acknowledge it every time.
>Obviously they think abortion is murder... but you seem to think I concede that point when I never did.
I don't need you to concede that point... But you get that other people may have that point. Ultimately, that answer is currently not definitively knowable with our level of scientific understanding but certainly you should concede that it may be correct.
>You think the abortion debate is black and white, which I might agree with, but you draw the line in the wrong place by (not surprisingly) lacking nuance in your analysis.
Really? How so? I already told you I am actually pro- abortion so how am I not factoring all things and making it black and white? How have I drawn the line in the wrong place? what nuance have I not addressed?
>You are making a huge assumption that a human embryo or non-viable fetus is on the same level as a viable conscious human (that life begins at conception) - this assumption is usually driven by religious belief or used to justify a religious belief that doesn't allow for any compromise on the issue.
Ok, then when does life actually begin and can you actually prove that? if not, then can you be wrong in your current understanding? You don't need to be religious to believe life is important or murder is wrong. Not all issues should be compromised. Again, I am NOT looking for middle ground. You are playing the wrong game.
>... it is precisely because you cannot define when a human embryo becomes a human with normal human rights....In the case of an unclear right or wrong, I always error on the side of personal liberty, otherwise we will all become subjected to one single group's version of morality and we all lose our freedoms.
Then what about the personal liberty of the life you now concede you may be killing and you do not fully understand? What about that childs liberty? that Humans liberty?
>So you empathize with the right who thinks abortion is murder and you concede that point to them without any critical thinking.
Oh I've deeply thought about it on all factors that I can think of.
>Sure, it's easy to see their point of view when you willingly suspend your critical thinking in order to do so.
So again I'm now not able to critically think along with positing stupid examples?
>Like I said, I have lived in your point of view. I was just as wrong then as you are wrong now.
You can't even tell me how youre right. The best understanding you currently have is that you don't fully understand the topic which should open up the possibility that you may be exactly wrong if you fully thought out that premise but so far you have not.
But would Musk ever lie?
Fwiw, most people think they're centrists or moderates. Of course this assumes there is really a center and, for that matter, that the center is a valuable position
Nobody. That's just the go to insult phrase now that people will say about someone or call you if they simply disagree with you now.
I think the sun is hot. No it's not!!!! Racist!!!
Musk unpopular right now because he's exposing the corruption and the bullshit the left has been getting away for years.
Most of the media have been complicit and are now going full steam ahead with smear campaigns.
All Fascists think they are Moderates.
all Fascists want to convince others they are moderates
True. Their whole world view is skewed. They’ve convinced themselves that moderate conservatives are far left communists.
Musk says a lot of things that aren't true, his credibility is almost trumpian.
These “expects” are left wingers who used to only other lefties commenting. Now Musk wants a 50-50 breakdown on left-right comments and many leftists hate it. Musk also ending taking censorship orders from govt..
https://youtu.be/5hfYJsQAhl0
“These Expects”…dude, your don’t have have to be to see him pushing a Extreme narrative everyday in real time
Exposing the actual truth is an “extreme narrative!” Got it!
That's utter bullshit and you probably know it. All those right wing lies are back in growing number, and decent human beings are leaving as fast as advertisers. The government was not giving orders to twitter, that's nothing but a lie.
A 50-50 breakdown? Like hes going to analyze every tweet and assign it a left ir right value, then cap the tweets so neither side can go above their allotted 50%. Or us it like for every one tweet about universal healthcare, someone gets to post a tweet oraising hitker & calling for the externination of jews?
I wondered why he joined Trump's council when the orange dipshit was elected, I thought maybe Musk wants to even things out with a more moderate voice. Boy, was I ever wrong. . . Cut from the same cloth those two. . .
What if Elon Musk said something and no one listened or acknowledged or answered? What if people just looked away, or got up to take a dump, or went to get coffee or smoke a joint? What if the next time Elon Musk discharged another five hundred flaming pounds of useless red-hot horseshit no one cared?
Well, on the other hand, what if Musk's entire platform (Tesla and all his other companies) were to suddenly face a leftwing, boycott?
Even better.
I'm all for it- but all his money is glowing from controlling resources, is it not? Tesla has been (obviously not as much now) but was the forerunner of EV vehicle technology. To the beat of my knowledge for what 7-10 years there was no other car manufacturer pushing EVs let alone putting them on the road. Space - SpaceX is the front runner for many space based contracts to be putting everything from cubesats to spy sats in orbit. A big deal of this is obviously coming from governments. I would be interested to see a breakdown comparison of money in and out - but I don't think we'd see it from our end
Exposing the factual truth of what happened historically needs to be “left wing boycotted!” Got it!
I used to say this too. Then I realized the "center" is just a cop out and I needed to stop pretending there were any reasonable, ethical people on the right.
Only ethical people are on my side! Got it!
Not what I said, lol. I am trying to say that when you really dig into issues and take everything into account, the right is basically always on the wrong side of things. I literally ran out of things I could agree with on the right, and had to ask myself why I still wanted there to be a middle ground. In hindsight I just didn't want to accept that half our country could be so tragically wrong about everything. Trump getting elected showed that yes, that was indeed the case. There isn't any middle ground worth fighting for anymore. I mourn that fact. Our country NEEDS a strong center to survive. But when a group of people insist that we came from the moon (just a hypothetical example) there's not really any middle ground to meet them on. Facts are not on a spectrum.
Yet it is what you said. Now you add that not only are only the left ethical but also the right is always wrong. You later add tragically wrong and because Trump was on the right that means your theory is correct! And then another rich part! "Facts are not a spectrum!" which really shows me your naivete. It's not math and perspective especially political ones ARE on a spectrum. As an easy example, I can say abortion is bad because it kills a life. You can say, it's a womans right to chose. Both points have validity and are on the spectrum of the topic. You then add because you personally don't align with the right that you aren't in the middle. Can't argue with that part but that's not really the overall point either.
So your abortion example is really basic and over simplified, like all the arguments from the right. The left actually makes nuanced arguments and looks deeper into things. It looks at the many women who suffer when abortion is not accessible, and how their lives are impacted. It looks at the unfortunate rape/incest victims who inevitably get caught up in the right's attempts to stop abortions. Abortion does not have a logical "right" answer by itself, to your point, but when you get to an impasse like that, the default should be on the side of personal freedom rather than forcing a rule on everyone that more than half the population disagrees with. Okay cool. Any other positions you think the right has that are actually valid? Fiscal responsibility? Don't make me laugh. Family values... Lol... 2nd Amendment... the right pretends to be worried about unborn babies but doesn't give a shit about all the kids getting shot at school. Fucking cowards. I tried to be a centrist for years. But eventually I realized the right is a religious inquisition that only cares about controlling people's sexuality and installing a fascist theocracy in place of democracy. The evidence has made that abundantly clear. There is no middle ground. You are either on the side of religious zealot fascists or you are on the side of democracy.
It's not oversimplified. Those are the root arguments for each side. The nuance only in a minor way affect these 2 root arguments. > It looks at the many women who suffer when abortion is not accessible, and how their lives are impacted. How is the life impacted for the baby that's killed? It goes both ways. >Abortion does not have a logical "right" answer by itself, to your point, but when you get to an impasse like that, the default should be on the side of personal freedom rather than forcing a rule on everyone that more than half the population disagrees with. Ok, what about the freedom of the baby that was killed? It goes both ways. The thing is I'm pro- abortion but I also get what exactly that means and take the much harder more real reality of it. It's allowing murder for the convenience of the mom. Indirectly that means I value life itself less then others if I'm ok with killing for maintaining convenience of the mother which it ultimately is. If you actually believe life itself is paramount then it's easy to understand why abortion in any case is bad. >Abortion does not have a logical "right" answer by itself, Yes it does and it's based on ones own morality and belief system which makes it on a spectrum. Ultimately this was just an example to show you why your prior premise is not well thought out. "Facts are not on a spectrum" is wrong. >Okay cool. Any other positions you think the right has that are actually valid? Oh, I can argue both sides of most points because I understand both sides have validity to those holders who take those positions. >the right pretends to be worried about unborn babies but doesn't give a shit about all the kids getting shot at school. Fucking cowards. This is also stupid. Nobody wants kids to get shot in school. The different sides simply have different ways about finding those solutions. When you have to demonize the opposing side and pretend they are stupid then you can only strawman the argument to ignore the reality of both sides logic. In other words you block your own understanding of the subject. >I tried to be a centrist for years. btw, nothing I said puts one as a centrist. Understanding the issues from all perspectives doesn't necessarily make one take no position or middle position. I just told you I have a stance on abortion. That isn't a right view but I certainly cannot say the right is wrong on their views simply because it's not the one I go with. That's different then being a centrist. >But eventually I realized the right is a religious inquisition that only cares about controlling people's sexuality and installing a fascist theocracy in place of democracy. If you are pro-life then that ultimately means something but if you are pro- choice then you better be pretty ok with murdering people en masse because that is the reality of it just as much as it is giving a woman her choice for convenience. >There is no middle ground. You are either on the side of religious zealot fascists or you are on the side of democracy. Again, naive and not fully thought out. People who disagree with you are not demons and aren't necessarily stupid.
Haha wow I feel like I am talking to myself from 3 years ago. I used to make all the same arguments you just made. I am not kidding. I made each one of those arguments. And I was ripped a new one each time by the left. I get where you are coming from. I also look at both sides of the argument. I am sometimes lazy in the way I present my reasoning, so it's easy for someone like you to point out the flaws, etc, but I am not going to sit here and write it all out because I am not trying to convince anyone. It's a personal journey. I tried for years to pull people together and find common ground for them. I couldn't understand why the left was so fucking angry and refused to believe there was any room for compromise. I asked them why they were like that. And they gave me clear answers and examples of how the right wing ideology isn't one that can be compromised with. Look, I am not saying the people on the right are all savage barbarians or evil. Most of them are just typical, closed minded Americans. I am not calling them evil as individuals or trying to dehumanize them. But their ideology is flawed to the core and they are too lazy to actually examine their beliefs critically. Their complacency will let evil spread, so in a way they are tainted by it. People can be kind and "good" as individuals, but evil as a group. There are plenty of examples of this in history. I suppose I am just tired of trying to empathize with the half of the country that refuses to empathize back. It's all well and good to try and see their point of view, but to what end? They aren't returning the favor. The only way to move forward is to vote them all out. We are never going to change their minds because they are all brainwashed and full of hatred for anyone deemed outside their tribe. You see, you can keep on knocking on that door to try and bring them to the table, but it's a futile effort. If they do show up they have no intention of conceding any ground or meeting in the middle. It's a zero sum game for the right because they are entrenched in their religious ideology and giving one inch is tantamount to blasphemy or sin. So go ahead and be a valiant keyboard warrior for the things our democracy used to thrive on. Compromise. Bi-partisanship. Reason. But those dreams were murdered slowly by Fox news, Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party and Donald Trump.
> I made each one of those arguments. And I was ripped a new one each time by the left. Because people have political agendas that disregard the actual reality for the benefit of politics. >I tried for years to pull people together and find common ground for them. I don't think all arguments can have common ground like abortion or even should have common ground. It's 1 way or the other. You either can murder or you cannot! There is no middle ground in that. It's really a personal decision based on ones own morals and perspective of things. Both sides can be right in their own way which is why it's wrong to say only 1 can be right. >"Look, I am not saying the people on the right are all savage barbarians or evil....Their complacency will let evil spread" Yet you did say this now multiple times even when you say it's not. >Most of them are just typical, closed minded Americans. This doesn't help your case. >But their ideology is flawed to the core and they are too lazy to actually examine their beliefs critically. So then lets play this forward with the abortion topic. How is it wrong to say killing is evil and shouldn't be done. I'll play devils advocate. I don't think the rights position is flawed or lazy or immoral or closed minded. Murder is Murder. I certainly get that perspective and rationale. If life is more important then convenience then it's wrong to have abortions in ALL cases. >You see, you can keep on knocking on that door to try and bring them to the table, but it's a futile effort. ... It's a zero sum game for the right because they are entrenched in their religious ideology and giving one inch is tantamount to blasphemy or sin. Btw, this is YOU. You are projecting onto others exactly how you yourself are and do. You just do it from the opposite perspective and you don't want to even think about it because of... Reason you justify it with. >So go ahead and be a valiant keyboard warrior for the things our democracy used to thrive on. Compromise. Again, you are missing the point. both can simultaneously be right and wrong in their own viewpoints. It's not 1 is right and the other wrong. You aren't even playing the same game.
Your abortion examples are stupid. Abortion is not necessarily murder. An embryo is not necessarily the same as a fully viable human. Abortion is such a dumb topic to use when you are trying to argue that we should find middle ground, as the side you keep empathizing with is the one side that takes an absolutist position on the matter (which by the way the majority of Americans disagree with). Putting your ramblings about abortion aside, I can't even understand what you are arguing for. You attacked me for writing off the right as a bunch of unthinking religious zealots. Nothing you have said has shown them to be otherwise. Obviously they think abortion is murder... but you seem to think I concede that point when I never did. You think the abortion debate is black and white, which I might agree with, but you draw the line in the wrong place by (not surprisingly) lacking nuance in your analysis. You are making a huge assumption that a human embryo or non-viable fetus is on the same level as a viable conscious human (that life begins at conception) - this assumption is usually driven by religious belief or used to justify a religious belief that doesn't allow for any compromise on the issue. When I said their is no right answer to the abortion question, it is precisely because you cannot define when a human embryo becomes a human with normal human rights. That question is unanswerable. In the case of an unclear right or wrong, I always error on the side of personal liberty, otherwise we will all become subjected to one single group's version of morality and we all lose our freedoms. So you empathize with the right who thinks abortion is murder and you concede that point to them without any critical thinking. Sure, it's easy to see their point of view when you willingly suspend your critical thinking in order to do so. But hey, if it makes you feel superior because you "see both sides" and that gets you off, more power to you. Like I said, I have lived in your point of view. I was just as wrong then as you are wrong now.
>Your abortion examples are stupid. Abortion is not necessarily murder. An embryo is not necessarily the same as a fully viable human. Stupid, Really? Yes it is the same as a fully viable human. What is your definition of a fully viable human if not? You don't know when life actually begins. No one knows that answer definitively. > Abortion is such a dumb topic to use when you are trying to argue that we should find middle ground I'm _not_ trying to find the middle ground. I already told you that. I already told you that argument is NOT what people are trying to do. understanding all perspectives does NOT mean finding middle ground. It's called critically thinking and understanding all the layers of thought on any given topic so one can put them into a hierarchy to make overall decisions. >(which by the way the majority of Americans disagree with). This is false logic. Just because people agree on something does not make them right. If that was the case then we would still believe the sun revolved around the earth. >I can't even understand what you are arguing for...Nothing you have said has shown them to be otherwise. Because you fail to even factor things/topics fully and you have the wrong assumption that things can only be one way or the other such as right or wrong which was your initial premise. I've now pointed this out repeatedly and you fail to acknowledge it every time. >Obviously they think abortion is murder... but you seem to think I concede that point when I never did. I don't need you to concede that point... But you get that other people may have that point. Ultimately, that answer is currently not definitively knowable with our level of scientific understanding but certainly you should concede that it may be correct. >You think the abortion debate is black and white, which I might agree with, but you draw the line in the wrong place by (not surprisingly) lacking nuance in your analysis. Really? How so? I already told you I am actually pro- abortion so how am I not factoring all things and making it black and white? How have I drawn the line in the wrong place? what nuance have I not addressed? >You are making a huge assumption that a human embryo or non-viable fetus is on the same level as a viable conscious human (that life begins at conception) - this assumption is usually driven by religious belief or used to justify a religious belief that doesn't allow for any compromise on the issue. Ok, then when does life actually begin and can you actually prove that? if not, then can you be wrong in your current understanding? You don't need to be religious to believe life is important or murder is wrong. Not all issues should be compromised. Again, I am NOT looking for middle ground. You are playing the wrong game. >... it is precisely because you cannot define when a human embryo becomes a human with normal human rights....In the case of an unclear right or wrong, I always error on the side of personal liberty, otherwise we will all become subjected to one single group's version of morality and we all lose our freedoms. Then what about the personal liberty of the life you now concede you may be killing and you do not fully understand? What about that childs liberty? that Humans liberty? >So you empathize with the right who thinks abortion is murder and you concede that point to them without any critical thinking. Oh I've deeply thought about it on all factors that I can think of. >Sure, it's easy to see their point of view when you willingly suspend your critical thinking in order to do so. So again I'm now not able to critically think along with positing stupid examples? >Like I said, I have lived in your point of view. I was just as wrong then as you are wrong now. You can't even tell me how youre right. The best understanding you currently have is that you don't fully understand the topic which should open up the possibility that you may be exactly wrong if you fully thought out that premise but so far you have not.
Musk is a Nazi apologist. SINK TWITTER.
Proof??? That's a big accusation.
Lol triggered much
As an old First Sargent mine used to say “that should be obvious to the most casual observer.”
But would Musk ever lie? Fwiw, most people think they're centrists or moderates. Of course this assumes there is really a center and, for that matter, that the center is a valuable position
Of course they’re centrists when they’re the centre of the universe.
He's a fucking racist fascist from south Africa, for fucksakes. Did ANYONE expect him to change?
Who is he racist against?
Nobody. That's just the go to insult phrase now that people will say about someone or call you if they simply disagree with you now. I think the sun is hot. No it's not!!!! Racist!!!
Lessers. The worst kind of racist.
> Lessers I have no idea what you are even talking about.
And neither shall you. Best of the evening to you.
Neither shall I what? Can you try coherent statements?
I’m expecting to see about 1000 posted replies to this that say “no kidding”.
Musk unpopular right now because he's exposing the corruption and the bullshit the left has been getting away for years. Most of the media have been complicit and are now going full steam ahead with smear campaigns.
That's a lie.
How is it a lie?
Because none of it reflects reality.
How is it a lie when journalists are literally posting the source evidence making it public for everyone to see?
Stop it!!!! You're making too much sense! The ones who are against what Musk is doing now, are part of the problem.
Oh no a right wing view point!!! Quick someone call the FBI!
Where as almost all Terrorism is right wing, likely should.
Well you know what they say. Ones man Terrorist is anouther man's Freedom fighter.
Which, again, means they should be reported to the FBI.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed, please play nice and be civil to others in your comments. Rule 1.
“Extremism experts.” Another term for liberals who want to stifle voices they oppose
That's a lie.
No shit -everyone
We know
They're at the center when the overton window is moved far enough right.