What are your thoughts on abortion?

Discuss everything else: politics, society, culture, science, philosophy, ideas, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Hairblues
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1264
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2393
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Topical minoxidil and finasteride

Re: What are your thoughts on abortion?

Post by Hairblues » 1 year ago

That Guy wrote:
1 year ago
Feminist bra-burning is largely a myth stemming from the 1968 Miss America pageant in which these feminists threw all kinds of stuff into a fire, one of which was a bra and that became the most famous image.

These women were not wives and mothers, generally speaking — they were pretty much textbook youth hippies.

Also you're basically saying that, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary, those women in Poland are really oppressed and suffering...they just don't know it yet. Some women being pissed about abortion laws, when SJWs can be found everywhere, is hardly convincing.
Bra burning is a metaphor I’m using, my mistake, thought that would be pretty obvious.
I will circle back to my point from that side bar
Men assumed women were happy, yet many were not.
So that was the point.
JS assumes the women in Poland are happy THAT is the point I’m making. Men in this country assumed the same thing in 60s.
Yet the divorce rate went up in 70: and 80s
Once women had more options

Well the way it sounds to me the polish women when it comes to their own life even medical health choices are oppressed. Compared to western values at least.
And what evidence is their to the contrary you mention?
So women who want the right to an abortion or even less strict laws on abortion (Poland is more strict then 1960s Texas) are automatically SJW?

User avatar
Hairblues
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1264
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2393
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Topical minoxidil and finasteride

Re: What are your thoughts on abortion?

Post by Hairblues » 1 year ago

JasonStatham wrote:
1 year ago

You simply can't give women what they want. They are horrible at judging. That's why in the past, mostly fathers picked a "good man" for their daughters that had a stable income and handled their daughters well. Now, women pick assholes left and right. Also look at women and voting. They see a Syrian Baby crying from the Media (which are well aware of why they put it that way *NPC PROGRAMMING COMPLETED*) and suddenly we have to open borders or you are
‘You simply can’t give women what they want.’
I think my point has been made

I give you props for your honesty 😆

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1964
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 4353
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: 3 FUE hair transplants (5124 grafts), 5% minoxidil, Nizoral shampoo, hope.
Location: Belgium
Age: 30
Contact:

Re: What are your thoughts on abortion?

Post by Admin » 1 year ago

Hairblues wrote:
1 year ago
Men assumed women were happy, yet many were not.
So that was the point.
JasonStatham assumes the women in Poland are happy THAT is the point I’m making. Men in this country assumed the same thing in 60s.
Yet the divorce rate went up in 70: and 80s
Once women had more options
I'm going to go full cuck here but I also think it's a good idea that women have options, since men actually have to put in the work to make sure that their marriage or relationship doesn't sink.

Notice how I didn't mention happiness though, I don't believe it should be a goal in life. Men and women are not seeking happiness, they're after not hurting. Life is suffering, but still, it's worth it for those unborn babies to be given a chance.
"Along the way some boys started making fun of him by shouting, “Go away, baldy! Get out of here!” Elisha turned around and stared at the boys. Then he cursed them in the name of the Lord. At once two bears ran out of the woods and ripped to pieces 42 of the boys." - 2 Kings 23-24

User avatar
That Guy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1287
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2304
Norwood: NW2.5

Re: What are your thoughts on abortion?

Post by That Guy » 1 year ago

Hairblues wrote:
1 year ago
Bra burning is a metaphor I’m using, my mistake, thought that would be pretty obvious.
I will circle back to my point from that side bar
Men assumed women were happy, yet many were not.
So that was the point.
JS assumes the women in Poland are happy THAT is the point I’m making. Men in this country assumed the same thing in 60s.
Yet the divorce rate went up in 70: and 80s
Once women had more options

Well the way it sounds to me the polish women when it comes to their own life even medical health choices are oppressed. Compared to western values at least.
And what evidence is their to the contrary you mention?
So women who want the right to an abortion or even less strict laws on abortion (Poland is more strict then 1960s Texas) are automatically SJW?
You're not "oppressed" simply because a particular option is not available to you. Oppression is a prolonged, cruel subjugation of someone.

Again, none of what you're saying suggests that the general consensus among Polish women is that they are unhappy with life in Poland as it pertains to women. No offense, but what you're doing here is basically the trademark of modern liberalism: Not EVERYONE is happy, therefore no one is.

Am I oppressed because I can't legally buy and do cocaine? But I really want to! It should be my personal freedom, societal consequences be damned!

I'm not sure why it's out of the realm of possibility to you that maybe women (and people in general) who live in that country aren't forced into anything, and they still have options in dating and sex, but perhaps life in Poland upholds values that urge one to actually carefully consider their choices regarding such matters, because if they choose poorly, they will have to live with the consequences instead of being absolved of them by the state.

You've brought up previously in this thread something about me not sounding like a "capitalist" but what you've confused here is libertarian and authoritarianism. You're arguing in favour of what I would say are policies that are too libertarian.

I suspect that what you believe is that it's not a government's place to enforce morality? Well, no one actually believes that when you get down to brass tacks.

User avatar
Hairblues
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1264
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2393
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Topical minoxidil and finasteride

Re: What are your thoughts on abortion?

Post by Hairblues » 1 year ago

That Guy wrote:
1 year ago
You're not "oppressed" simply because a particular option is not available to you. Oppression is a prolonged, cruel subjugation of someone.

Again, none of what you're saying suggests that the general consensus among Polish women is that they are unhappy with life in Poland as it pertains to women. No offense, but what you're doing here is basically the trademark of modern liberalism: Not EVERYONE is happy, therefore no one is.

Am I oppressed because I can't legally buy and do cocaine? But I really want to! It should be my personal freedom, societal consequences be damned!

I'm not sure why it's out of the realm of possibility to you that maybe women (and people in general) who live in that country aren't forced into anything, and they still have options in dating and sex, but perhaps life in Poland upholds values that urge one to actually carefully consider their choices regarding such matters, because if they choose poorly, they will have to live with the consequences instead of being absolved of them by the state.

You've brought up previously in this thread something about me not sounding like a "capitalist" but what you've confused here is libertarian and authoritarianism. You're arguing in favour of what I would say are policies that are too libertarian.

I suspect that what you believe is that it's not a government's place to enforce morality? Well, no one actually believes that when you get down to brass tacks.
What I’m saying is freedom of choice is important in the society I live in.
I read a little bit about Poland since this post not enough to get into a heavy debate but enough that I question the career and financial options to women who live their as well as what happens if they are married to a man they wish to leave or divorce.
It’s from what I gather highly influenced by the Catholic Church. Not exactly a place where women are considered equals in all ways that are common to most Western modern society of this day and age at least.


I think if women have choices they will choose what they want. Simple. The ones who want kids can have them and the ones who don’t, won’t.
Like I said it seems like many can’t even make a medical decision. The abortion laws in Poland are stricter than 1960s Texas.

The cocaine comparison well we can do that with anything
Should NYC ban sugar? It’s really bad for you and proven to be so. Obesity is bad for society.
YET I was against the soda ban in NYC me ‘the liberal’.
I don’t even drink soda.
Pot is illegal in my state yet it’s ridiculous that it is. Yet I’m sure many can argue why it should remain illegal.
Not all laws are equal. Which is what you are saying with your cocain comparison.


My argument is this for my own country at least;

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”

Unless you want to suggest Men only mean actual men and not women?
I know what Jason thinks 😆

If it’s really NOT about curtailing the behavior of women and it’s about population, then we can make test tube babies. The government can employ segregates
Someone said it’s not about the quality of the life, it’s about the numbers.
I’m purposely being a little ridiculous with this suggestion to make a point, but in my opinion it’s not any less ridiculous than telling western women (specifically American womn) they have no choice what they do with their sex lives because the future of the world depends on it.

User avatar
That Guy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1287
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2304
Norwood: NW2.5

Re: What are your thoughts on abortion?

Post by That Guy » 1 year ago

Hairblues wrote:
1 year ago
What I’m saying is freedom of choice is important in the society I live in.
I read a little bit about Poland since this post not enough to get into a heavy debate but enough that I question the career and financial options to women who live their as well as what happens if they are married to a man they wish to leave or divorce.
It’s from what I gather highly influenced by the Catholic Church. Not exactly a place where women are considered equals in all ways that are common to most Western modern society of this day and age at least.


I think if women have choices they will choose what they want. Simple. The ones who want kids can have them and the ones who don’t, won’t.
Like I said it seems like many can’t even make a medical decision. The abortion laws in Poland are stricter than 1960s Texas.

The cocaine comparison well we can do that with anything
Should NYC ban sugar? It’s really bad for you and proven to be so. Obesity is bad for society.
YET I was against the soda ban in NYC me ‘the liberal’.
I don’t even drink soda.
Pot is illegal in my state yet it’s ridiculous that it is. Yet I’m sure many can argue why it should remain illegal.
Not all laws are equal. Which is what you are saying with your cocain comparison.


My argument is this for my own country at least;

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”

Unless you want to suggest Men only mean actual men and not women?
I know what Jason thinks 😆

If it’s really NOT about curtailing the behavior of women and it’s about population, then we can make test tube babies. The government can employ segregates
Someone said it’s not about the quality of the life, it’s about the numbers.
I’m purposely being a little ridiculous with this suggestion to make a point, but in my opinion it’s not any less ridiculous than telling western women (specifically American womn) they have no choice what they do with their sex lives because the future of the world depends on it.
I understand your point.

However, my response to that is that you cannot have every freedom in society or that society will collapse, fall into disarray, etc. Abortion "because I just feel like it" I'd count among them.

You also keep saying things like that last line about telling women "they have no choice over their sex lives" but again, no one, or at least not me, has advocated for that.

My point, is that the numbers and history itself show that when a society remains homogeneous, unified by values now called "traditional", free of propaganda that encourages nihilism, anti-natalism, narcissism, anti-nationalism, and the illegality of just being able to jettison a baby at will etc. Most people, women included, tend to make a different choice with their sex lives than the one you did.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1845
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 4600
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: What are your thoughts on abortion?

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 1 year ago

That Guy wrote:
1 year ago
My point, is that the numbers and history itself show that when a society remains homogeneous, unified by values now called "traditional", free of propaganda that encourages nihilism, anti-natalism, narcissism, anti-nationalism, and the illegality of just being able to jettison a baby at will etc. Most people, women included, tend to make a different choice with their sex lives than the one you did.
The conservative longing for the halcyon days of the idealized past most often have a single root failure: the past was never the romanticized utopia that they imagine.

Yes, women at the turn of the 20th century likely had fewer sexual partners. They got married at an earlier age, typically age 21, compared to 28 today, thus less frequently pursuing a "cock carousel" of "nihilism, anti-fatalism," etc. That sounds like a great place doesn't it?

Except that no, it wasn't.

Women got married younger in large part because they didn't have as much time. Life expectancy for women in 1900 was under 50. They had to hurry up and get on with life. The average woman was unlikely to see her last child through to adulthood, and thus it made sense to rush things a lot more. There just wasn't as much time. There was no "after the kids grow up", because they would be dead by that time.

Moreover they did not have washing machines, dryers, restaurants, canned foods, preservatives, frozen meals, refrigerators, freezers, microwaves, blenders, soup mixes, vacuum cleaners, disposable diapers, and so on. All of this work took actual time, a lot more time, and someone had to do it. Women today are estimated to be spending ~18 hours a week on house chores, whereas they spent 44 hours in the 1960s.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/women ... 1960s.html
Hours on housework per household may have been as high as ~80 hours a week in 1900:

https://econweb.ucsd.edu/~vramey/resear ... lished.pdf

Let's be honest: none of us would actually choose to live a life where life expectancy was in the 1940s, where we had to get married at 20 to have 8 kids, of whom 6 would survive to adulthood, and we would hardly get to know them because we spent 16 hours/day doing laundry and cooking overly complex meals. It wasn't paradise. It was a more difficult world that people suffered through so that we could live better and have more choices.

PS In case no-one caught it, I was quoting Frank Herbert:
Most believe that a satisfactory future requires a return to an idealized past, a past which never in fact existed.
― Frank Herbert, God Emperor of Dune
PhD in Internalized Incelism.

"I do still post to criticise others" - Rudiger.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1845
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 4600
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: What are your thoughts on abortion?

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 1 year ago

JasonStatham wrote:
1 year ago
npcwife.jpg
Kids need to be fed, clothed, sheltered, raised, sent to school, have their medical bills paid, etc.

The median income for 35-44 year-old men in the USA is US$55,000/year. Good luck raising a family of four, and supporting two adults, and saving a few hundred thousand for retirement, and paying over 500,000 house + property taxes + insurance + repairs, and saving up ~$200,000 for the post-secondary education of each kid, and spending on car insurance, registration, electricity, water, home insurance, life insurance, rogaine foam, car repairs, music lessons for the kids, soccer camp for the kids, etc etc etc on a single income.

Let me know how it goes.

Alternatively you can realize that one of the best things that a mother can do to better her children's future is to work. She might not need to work as hard as her great-grandmother did in 1900, but if she can go out into the capitalist world and augment the family income by say, 55,000/year, that will go a long way. That can mean wonderful things for the children, such a household without mould growing everywhere, such as regular doctor's visits, such as clean clothes, etc. Sounds helpful.

The woman in that backyard looks financially well-off by the way. Her kids are well-dressed and healthy. She's in good health and well-groomed in spite of recently having had two kids. She has a nice backyard. She can take time off for a picnic. Good stuff.
PhD in Internalized Incelism.

"I do still post to criticise others" - Rudiger.

User avatar
JasonStatham
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 915
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2034
Norwood: NW3.5

Re: What are your thoughts on abortion?

Post by JasonStatham » 1 year ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
1 year ago
The conservative longing for the halcyon days of the idealized past most often have a single root failure: the past was never the romanticized utopia that they imagine.

Yes, women at the turn of the 20th century likely had fewer sexual partners. They got married at an earlier age, typically age 21, compared to 28 today, thus less frequently pursuing a "cock carousel" of "nihilism, anti-fatalism," etc. That sounds like a great place doesn't it?

Except that no, it wasn't.

Women got married younger in large part because they didn't have as much time. Life expectancy for women in 1900 was under 50. They had to hurry up and get on with life. The average woman was unlikely to see her last child through to adulthood, and thus it made sense to rush things a lot more. There just wasn't as much time. There was no "after the kids grow up", because they would be dead by that time.
But the Biological aspect still remains the same than it was 1000 years ago. No one says that you have to have 5 children at age 23, but todays women still looking for "Mister Perfect" at age 35 is very absurd.

Yes we can live now way longer than in the middle age, and the oldest guy in your local Pub isn't just 35 but to have children and a family, it still more healthy and risk-free to do it early. A woman does have a limited time to make children. You can get into age 100 in a western country, but you can't magically make healthy children at a later age.
I mean let's be honest, look at us in this Forum for a moment.

You think its normal to hang out on a hair loss Forum talking about this subject as if our life depends on it? Wouldn't it be more healthy and fulfilling if we would actually raise children and tell them how the world works instead of counting our hairs? Is it healthy that we live in a society that men think they can't have a woman because they have not enough hair? You know that this situation is a by-product of the hedonist lifestyle we have right?

@Hairblues
I think if women have choices they will choose what they want. Simple. The ones who want kids can have them and the ones who don’t, won’t.
You are just proofing all my points about women. Love it.

What they want.

And who exactly is telling them what they want? Themselves? Yeah sure. Who is influencing young women a lot? Parents? Especially in your loveable USA. Your Media, Hollywood, Feminism and College is telling your women the truth? Do they?

https://nypost.com/2018/06/02/dating-co ... -her-life/

What people "want" isn't always the best thing..

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1845
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 4600
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: What are your thoughts on abortion?

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 1 year ago

JasonStatham wrote:
1 year ago
You think its normal to hang out in a hairloss Forum talking about this subject as if our life depends on it? Wouldnt it be more healthy and fulfilling if we would actually raise children and tell them how the world works instead of counting our hairs? Is it healthy that we live in a society that men think they can't have a woman because they have not enough hair? You know that this situation is a by-product of the hedonist lifestyle we have right?
There are a lot of reasons why men of previous generations didn't have to try as hard. Among them was that a lot of men died. Men historically are more likely to die young, either due to disease or more often to war. For example, the USSR had 23 million more females than males in 1946. I'm guessing that they had fewer incels. Likewise, Germany had a population of 65 million in 1946, and lost 4.5 million people in the war, mostly men.

In the Bible, King David saw a beautiful woman bathing on a rooftop, and he lusted for her. So he needed to have her husband die. He thus started a war, just to have her husband be on the front line, so that she would be available.
PhD in Internalized Incelism.

"I do still post to criticise others" - Rudiger.

User avatar
That Guy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1287
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2304
Norwood: NW2.5

Re: What are your thoughts on abortion?

Post by That Guy » 1 year ago

JasonStatham wrote:
1 year ago
But the Biological aspect still remains the same than it was 1000 years ago. No one says that you have to have 5 children at age 23, but todays women still looking for "Mister Perfect" at age 35 is very absurd.

You know that this situation is a by-product of the hedonist lifestyle we have right?
and this is exactly it.

My mom has a lucrative career and had her kids between the ages of 22 - 25 and was never a stay-at-home mom longer than she had to be.

Again: This idea that having kids at a younger age means you need to give up your career goals and never have fun again is a lie. In fact, at age 32, when you're now balls deep in your career, putting it off to raise kids for a few years is more detrimental than if you'd had them 10 years earlier.

As for the financial aspect: We can safely say that most pro-choice people are leftwingers and thus largely supportive of socialist programs, right? They've argued that birth control, abortions, etc. should be state funded.

What they seem to argue a lot less for, is social programs that could provide affordable housing to young citizens who have just started or are starting families. Though I distinctly remember seeing this foreigner in Quebec on TV around ten years ago and when they asked him why he chose Quebec, he said it was because they gave him more money based on how many kids he had, and he had six!

Where is the screeching and demanding of the same for our own, who should logically be the recipients of such benefits? Speaks volumes to me.

We don't need to revert to the middle ages to make this work for fuck's sake.

User avatar
Hairblues
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1264
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2393
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Topical minoxidil and finasteride

Re: What are your thoughts on abortion?

Post by Hairblues » 1 year ago

JasonStatham wrote:
1 year ago
But the Biological aspect still remains the same than it was 1000 years ago. No one says that you have to have 5 children at age 23, but todays women still looking for "Mister Perfect" at age 35 is very absurd.

Yes we can live now way longer than in the middle age, and the oldest guy in your local Pub isn't just 35 but to have children and a family, it still more healthy and risk-free to do it early. A woman does have a limited time to make children. You can get into age 100 in a western country, but you can't magically make healthy children at a later age.
I mean let's be honest, look at us in this Forum for a moment.

You think its normal to hang out in a hairloss Forum talking about this subject as if our life depends on it? Wouldnt it be more healthy and fulfilling if we would actually raise children and tell them how the world works instead of counting our hairs? Is it healthy that we live in a society that men think they can't have a woman because they have not enough hair? You know that this situation is a by-product of the hedonist lifestyle we have right?





You are just proofing all my points about women. Love it.

What they want.

And who exactly is telling them what they want? Themselves? Yeah sure. Who is influencing young women a lot? Parents? Especially in your loveable USA. Your Media, Hollywood, Feminism and College is telling your women the truth? Do they?

https://nypost.com/2018/06/02/dating-co ... -her-life/

What people "want" isn't always the best thing.

Now I’m confused is it what people want that isn’t always the best thing or just women? And if it’s people, then why should men be any more in charge of what women decide then they are themselves? You did say earlier women specifically make bad choices and needed their daddy’s to pick their men for them?
My dad invested a little change in some failing banks in 2008
I invested almost all my liquid savings in Apple when it hit its low.
:)


What you describe sounds like authoritarian to me. Or is it communism? Where the people must live their lives for their country not themselves.
Again I go back to my free speech analogy, you start with one thing it opens a can of worms.
Start with women’s traditional roles, then it’s telling people what music to lissten to, what tv show, which soda to buy, what they will study in school...
That’s dictating to people what they can choose.

I will give you this
Average men I’m sure are happier in Poland.
Less competition for better jobs and less likely a woman in Poland could financial divorce her husband since the church is so influential.

User avatar
That Guy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1287
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2304
Norwood: NW2.5

Re: What are your thoughts on abortion?

Post by That Guy » 1 year ago

Hairblues wrote:
1 year ago
Now I’m confused is it what people want that isn’t always the best thing or just women? And if it’s people, then why should men be any more in charge of what women decide then they are themselves? You did say earlier women specifically make bad choices and needed their daddy’s to pick their men for them?
Themistocles was the second Archon in Athens to carry on the mantle of democracy in its early years, he was also a general at the battle of marathon: the first time the greeks fought the Persians. His fear was that the barbarians would return.

Shortly after Themistocles ascended to archon, the trireme was invented; a powerful warship at the time. None shared his fear that the Persians would return, believing that the barbarians were just that and had been defeated and so he found it unlikely that they would vote to spend their newly acquired wealth from a nearby silver mine on the ships. So what did he do? He lied.

He told them that they should spend the money on the ships to prevent an attack from Argos, a city state to the south. The athenians voted in favour and it came not a moment to soon, as the Persians returned and would have conquered Athens had Themistocles not undermined the system with white lies. So no, the general public doesn't always know what's best.

Further, the Athenians had something called "ostracization" whereby if they felt politicians were getting to big for their boots, they could write his name on piece of pottery and those who had the most votes were exiled. Themistocles was himself, ostracized. There was just one curious matter...most of the greeks couldn't write, and so they needed someone else to write the name they wanted on the tile.

Democracy is wonderful in the sense that it is the only thing that gives the people a voice, but it's extremely open to subterfuge. Dictators are very good at restoring order, but they quickly outlive their usefulness. I believe it goes in cycles of democratic and authoritarian and right now, the west could do with some more authoritarians who have our best interests at the fore.

The trinity of communism, fascism, and capitalism are, respectively: Equality (of outcome), Unity, and Freedom.

Economically, you can have each by itself. You can also have Unity + Equality, and you can have Freedom + Unity. As for equality + freedom?

You can try.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1964
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 4353
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: 3 FUE hair transplants (5124 grafts), 5% minoxidil, Nizoral shampoo, hope.
Location: Belgium
Age: 30
Contact:

Re: What are your thoughts on abortion?

Post by Admin » 1 year ago

That Guy wrote:
1 year ago
So no, the general public doesn't always know what's best.
One has to be extremely careful with this, but indeed in rare occasions, you need to lie in order to do good in the long run.

But the lie has to be minimal and it was in the case you outlined. This is where politics come into play.

And I think in those cases, the government should come clean after the deed and explain why they had to lie.

I see it at my workplace at the moment, where our jobs are threatened and the managers are trying to be careful with what information they reveal as it could create utter chaos in the company.

This should be the exception though, never the rule. Dictators will flip this around and start lying about everything to make their people believe that their country is doing fine and that the regime is not oppressing and executing people left, right and center.

Speaking about totalitarian regimes, my best friend and I often discussed where we would go next on holiday together. And as a Muslim who sees nothing wrong with the Turkish regime, he would often be like "why not Istanbul?!" And being well-versed in politics and on totalitarian regimes, I told him: "that's impossible for me now, I've put way too many anti-Erdogan comments out there with my real name and I could be arrested at the airport."

And his predictable reaction was "ah come on! Paranoid much? That would never happen!"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-turk ... SKBN1L11HO
Reuters wrote:Turkish police have arrested another German citizen, a German foreign ministry source said on Thursday, and public broadcaster ARD said the man had been accused of “terrorist propaganda” after criticizing the Turkish government on social media.
Now let's wait for the Islamist Turkish regime to collapse, I can't believe I missed out on Istanbul.
"Along the way some boys started making fun of him by shouting, “Go away, baldy! Get out of here!” Elisha turned around and stared at the boys. Then he cursed them in the name of the Lord. At once two bears ran out of the woods and ripped to pieces 42 of the boys." - 2 Kings 23-24

User avatar
That Guy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1287
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2304
Norwood: NW2.5

Re: What are your thoughts on abortion?

Post by That Guy » 1 year ago

Admin wrote:
1 year ago
One has to be extremely careful with this, but indeed in rare occasions, you need to lie in order to do good in the long run.

But the lie has to be minimal and it was in the case you outlined. This is where politics come into play.

And I think in those cases, the government should come clean after the deed and explain why they had to lie.

I see it at my workplace at the moment, where our jobs are threatened and the managers are trying to be careful with what information they reveal as it could create utter chaos in the company.

This should be the exception though, never the rule. Dictators will flip this around and start lying about everything to make their people believe that their country is doing fine and that the regime is not oppressing and executing people left, right and center.

Speaking about totalitarian regimes, my best friend and I often discussed where we would go next on holiday together. And as a Muslim who sees nothing wrong with the Turkish regime, he would often be like "why not Istanbul?!" And being well-versed in politics and on totalitarian regimes, I told him: "that's impossible for me now, I've put way too many anti-Erdogan comments out there with my real name and I could be arrested at the airport."

And his predictable reaction was "ah come on! Paranoid much? That would never happen!"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-turk ... SKBN1L11HO



Now let's wait for the Islamist Turkish regime to collapse, I can't believe I missed out on Istanbul.
All true, but for me, the main take away of the story of Themistocles and how he lied to save Athens and how he was ostracized is that A) It's easy to fuck with democracy and B) A subverted public, apathy, uniformed people, or groups with foreign interests at heart can still participate in it.

That's why anyone is afraid of any European country becoming majority-minority, right? The way I always put it to people is: If your country becomes more than 50% muslims of voting age, and someone campaigns on bringing in Sharia Law, they can now vote that person in and there is nothing you can democratically do to stop them, or to stop them from repeatedly voting that person or someone just like them in. Will you still stand by that result then just "because democracy"?

Would we want herbalist "health nuts" voting on matters of public health? etc.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests