EatATaco

But the system seems to be better than police officers. Which is entirely believable. Humans have all kinds of biases that make the decisions we make far less than desirable.

Per the article, it has decreased the risk of repeated violence and, according to an expert, its the best systen we have. Why would you want to go back to a worse system? This is using our brains in an attempt to overcoming our biases.

Sure, but from the context I believe she is talking about suspending it for the abortion law, not just in general. I wish they would get rid of it altogether, or at least force them to actually filibuster it.

Quick civics lesson, there are two houses and they only have a “majority” in one. They need both.

I’m a pretty good looking guy, and not being afraid of gay people, with plenty of exposure, I’ve had a few come on to me. I’ve even had one tell me he knows I’m straight and that the only thing he wants is to suck my dick and he would make it fantastic. I figure that with having the hardware and practice, they probably know a good deal about physically pleasing a man, so I’ve seriously considered it.

But like you, I can’t get over the fact that I am just not attracted to men. Even when very drunk. Literally struck out with multiple women rather than taking a sure blowjob.

If anyone would have made that choice, being a horny and open man desperate for a blowjob with opportunity, I’d be a prime candidate. And I couldn’t even choose to be bi.

You can’t reason a person out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

I’m not sure I’ve read a single political post by facebones that has ever been actually thoughtful. It’s also just “muh both sides!”

Yeah, but because he only did so after it became obvious that it was a problem because conservatives stacked the court, basically both sides are the same!

I think “the shoe is on the other foot” is cutting both ways here. Read this thread, it’s filled with people defending banning people for hate speech, but the defending him here for literally asking for someone to be murdered.

I would think asking for someone to be shot is kind of hate speech. Even in the US where there is explicitly free speech, that could get you arrested if it was believed it incited someone to actually do it. Like Trump did not attack the capitol that day, but he certainly should be held accountable for inciting it with his speech.

Not that I think the concert should have been cancelled. . .but isn’t asking for someone to be killed “spewing hatred”? Isn’t asking for them to actually be shot infringing on their “health and safety.” This is “if the shoe is on the other foot” example for me, it doesn’t appear that their ban was unjustified, or her ban was unjustified. Although, it probably doesn’t even really count because we are talking about two different countries here.

It’s a step towards the state raising children instead of parents.

This can be used as an argument against any type of child protection laws. So unless you think “well, the state shouldn’t be able to protect children from parents who starve and beat them, because that’s a step towards raising children instead of parents” then the question is really about one of “how much is too much.”

In the future, when it expands to other social aspects, we’ll have no recourse.

Of course we will, what are you talking about? This is the slippery slope fallacy. It’s not “we can’t do anything, or else we have to do everything.”

Just read up on the couple who breast fed their kid on a non-functional nipple and was in the process of transitioning their 5yr old.

Vague references to something that may not even have happened, but almost certainly is being misrepresented by a lack of information, doesn’t help your case at all.