Well, I won the case; precedent is on my side.
Well, I won the case; precedent is on my side.
Call me a rapist all you want; at this point, all anti abortion capitas are rapists according to you. The word, "rapist" has become meaningless.
If me being politically anti abortion makes me a rapist, then I'm a rapist. If everyone who is anti abortion is a pedophile, then 40% of America are pedophilles. Call the cops, I don't care. Whoopdie freakin do.
These words mean nothing and any future insult the left tries to deliver will also mean nothing.
all we need to arrive at a reasonable consequence judgement are your posts themselves.
You can't define what reasonable is consistently.
You've spent all this time whining and complaining about, and being petty towards those who voted against you
You don't know what petty is. I'd start a debate that was trying to get you banned if I was petty. I'm not.
Until you can truly let this go you have no business attacking others for reacting emotionally to your posts.
Emotional people try and get others banned. I don't do that. YOU are the emotional one, not me. If you want me to let this thread go, then please don't respond. But neither one of us want to let it go.
Rapist allegations don't mean anything anymore.
Why not copy my opinion Remy.
Because killing babies is wrong even if it's done by a woman.
And what's with the trees and woods thing Remy...Where did you get that information from?
This may shock you, but trees and the woods are nature. Whether something is natural or not is irrelevent.
Only the woman should face punishment for abortion because men and women aren’t equal. Women are lesser than men (evidence is their support for Lindsay Clancy) so they get less respect and rights in society. They are old children who can consent to sex; that’s what a woman is.
That’s a surprise.
Which is why it is acceptable for the USA to blow up Iranian schools and for women to choose early term abortion.
Government gets a license to do bad shit. It’s the difference between kidnapping and imprisonment.
And nature itself regularly aborts zygotes and embryos
Nature is not an ethical guide. It’s the wilderness. Why do Irish and Scandinavians get their ethics from trees in the nature (aka the woods)?
Remy and I have varying opinions
Why not copy my opinion?
Well, there's a distinct difference between strangling three children and preventing a zygote from developing
Not to Lindsay Clancy supporters and feminists.
Obviously strict limits need applying to abortion.
Like what? Why not ban even for rape victims?
Though if the taking of life is so abhorrent to you, you will also necessarily be opposed to capital punishment, shoot to kill policing and military action, won't you?
Murderers deserve death; innocent children don't. I'm against using war with Canada to annex them.
are you typically selectively moral...Like most folk.
I mean, if I say, "Executing child rapists is acceptable, but executing 10 yr old kids isn't.", then are you going to say, "You're a hypocrite!". No. Not everyone gets the right to live.
And I'm guessing that you are also vegetarian.
I'm vegan.
Abortion is a practical solution to a perceived problem.
So is doing a Lindsay Clancy.
What we need is a greater authority to provide a definitive answer.
Yes; ban abortion even for rape victims and punish the women who get them.
I'll have to go back to a 2018 version of me. But although this nation has shifted more to the right since 2018, the modern day 2026 right doesn't want to do things like ban gay marriage or bring back state mandated segregation.
Me going on 2018 mode for current Craft users would be like you going to 2010 mode and trying to argue with people who want to ban gay marriage because they trust the word of God above any law of man. The only to persuade such capitas is to show them very subtly videos of gay characters that you know they would love right now and hope they don't change their opinion on realizing that they're gay. But this is using their emotions against them.
You would feel like such 2010 right wing homophobes are mentally slow. Well, that's how I see 2018 left wing TDS or Remy DS capitas as. How would you argue with someone who's a 2010 right wing homophobe?
Every time you've posted, people have assumed the worst of what you meant. You've seen this, there's not a need to debate theory here.
That could be because your generic capita here uses no political social media except for Debate Craft. It's not like the posts here are quick; they're usually essays.
That difference between not caring vs trying to make it look bad is the difference between someone who is rough around the edges vs a rage bait troll.
I just don't care about the appearance, therefore it looks bad. I don't try to make it look bad, I just don't care if it does look bad so it always looks bad. Most people talk polished. If I wanted to go out of my way to make it look bad, then I'd be saying the N word instead of American Blacks. I would not refer to Michael Jordan as the N word, I'd refer to him as an American black.
People are not emotionless robots
Well, they should be. You're a voter, therefore an adult; you should be talked too like an adult. If I aimed to make you angry, then I would be using the N word, the C word (there are multiple), etc.
You think you're better than everyone else
1 of 2 things are true:
I'm not saying I'm #1; but I'm in the top 1% in terms of value per human.
No, they're going to take you at face value and you know that.
If you said this in 2018, then you'd be correct. It's 2026; and social media has gone massively to the right.
Myron Gaines CLASHES with Furious Feminist is an example.
Purge Viral 🎭 - YouTube is Nick Fuentes with 86k subscribers.
In 2026, it's expected that a Nazi is a generic right winger now. We aren't in 2018 anymore when DEI was a thing. DEI is dead.
Eye for an eye works when the rules are clear. If eye for eye means you just confuse people as to what your point is, it doesn't work.
I didn't take it as confusing because I watch a lot of 2026 content in 2026 and the social media sphere has gone hard to the right. Even the democrat platform in 2026 is basically the GOP platform in 2024: "The GOP wants high gas prices and forever wars!". The GOP endorses xenophobia now. I understand if all your political content is from Debate craft, but that's not everyone (and we're very small). YT has 300 million Americans or so with a YT account; we got 300. None of us were highly selected or highly filtered. We just chose to be here. It's not like there is an IQ requirement to be here.
First you start with rape, then you switch to abortion when talking about women.
Some abortions are due to rape.
Abortion should be banned even when the woman gets raped.
Okay but if you call yourself a Nazi, that makes it harder to get your actual point across.
Maybe to some people. If I call myself a Nazi, then I'd expect a Jewish person to ask why and then I can say, "Because some minority groups deserve to be criticized." To the left, criticism and insults equal murder.
PS I literally think the GOP would rather be alone with a bear than have Remy be their spokesperson.
Who do you think is the GOP's favorite spokesperson? Trump? DeSantis? Vance? Left wingers have low IQs; the GOP doesn't want AOC as their spokeperson.
Okay but if you call yourself a Nazi, that makes it harder to get your actual point across. Maybe your ragebaiting is justified (for the purpose of revenge, I guess?), but it's still ragebaiting.
In 2020, you'd be right. In 2026, the mainstream left has accepted that the right are Nazis now (albeit the 2020s version of a Nazi, not 1940s). It's why they get angry a lot because in their minds, a mean word is equal to murder.
Eye for an eye revenge, there's a word for that; equality. Equal reciprocal treatment.
Also, side 52 Side walker is committing defamation by accusing my of having severed heads in the freezer.
But it has the same problem as talking in exaggerations, in that your words have multiple possible interpretations and the obvious one isn't the one you actually mean.
I was sort of put in that position (the right was for a while).
The left would call the right Nazis for years (and the right would deny it) until eventually, the right stopped caring about the negative label.
Before Man vs Bear, there were zero right wing men that would look at a woman saying no to sex and think, "Oh, she'd rather be with a bear than sleep with me". There would be men that would call the woman a prude (and if the woman embraced that label, then there wouldn't be much backlash over it). There would even be men that would call her a mud shark if she got with a black man (and if women massively embraced this label, then I wouldn't hate them for doing this).
Right wing men didn't make it about the bear; women did. So it's not the same as the right calling themselves Nazis now.
"I talk in generalizations" is basically your way of not being literal.
If I say, "Texans are to the right of Californians", then that is a generalization that is 100% literal. You can generalize and be literal at the same time, as (maybe) 55% of Texans vote red, 35% of Californians vote red, there is a 20 point gap. If I were to say, "NYers are to the right of Californians", then the gap (while present at maybe 5% if 35% of CA votes red and 40% of NY votes red), a gap of 5 % pts I don't comment on; a gap of 20 % pts I will.
The % of women who rape is maybe .1%. The % of men who rape is .9%. A .8% gap I'm certainly not going to comment on (I measure by % pts (as you should measure), not factors).
Liberals measure by factors, but people should measure by % pts.
If .1% of women raped and 20% of men did, THEN it makes sense for a woman to worry about men. But when it's .1% and .9%, a .8% gap is a nothing burger.
I think (for now) I don't comment unless there is a 15% gap or more (by % pt, not by a factor).
It's not your opinions that matter, it's how you're presenting them.
You have 2 options:
The quality of the water is identical and you know that.
You might prefer #1 or you might be indifferent. But the aesthetics of the water bottle is basically irrelevent compared to the water inside.
The aesthetics of the water bottle is how the water is presented; I care only about the quality of my water (and that means if I focus on a good-looking bottle, then it takes energy away from where it matters; the quality of the water).
If your options are:
Then you select option 2; every time.
A bunch of capitas decided here that abortion wouldn't be a topic of Rage Bait. Here we go:
Abortion should be banned even when the woman gets raped because a zygote's life matters more than a rape victim's pregnancy pain and being raped doesn't give you the excuse to murder someone else.
If someone has the view of, "legal only if raped", then the woman has to prove she got raped in order to get the abortion (which basically means illegal even for rape victims as proving rape is almost impossible).
My take (albeit it is rare at 10%), may make me a bad person in the eyes of the left. Good. I welcome their hatred once I've seen what they defend (Lindsay Clancy).
1 of 3 things are true:
I should also let you know that we have diverged from the topic.
But you see how quickly right wing speech turns into Rage Bait for the left? A capita is a human, bc you asked.
Post 40.
Also, Debby kinda just says random stuff.
Exactly; Debby is a woman. Women are really good at adapting to their surroundings (they had to be because from an evolutionary standpoint, a woman going against the herd meant expulsion (aka death)).
If a man or a woman went against the tribe, then they got expelled from the tribe. Men had a better chance of surviving from expulsion than women (especially if they teamed up with other men). Women couldn't do this; so a woman had to be more agreeable (aka adaptable) than men.
When your political opinions are adaptable, then you don't have principles.
Those with principles shouldn't vote. Women don't have principles because in the caveman days, having disagreeable principles meant expulsion (a death sentence for women).
So Remy is bears and rage bait, rather than fluffy kittens and hugs.
I'm neither; I'm painful medicine.
Fact is, thousands more women are killed by men than are killed by bears so their fears are rational.
Thousands more women are killed by cars annually than by mountain lions; would you rather have your mother be with a mountain lion or on the interstate driving? I'd rather have my mother driving.
Seeing as Sidewalker doesn't think women should literally choose the bear, I'm not sure there's anything for me to convince him of.
He's being literal; all political opinions should be interpreted as literal. Otherwise, I could say, "Men would rather legalize rape than be without sex for their whole life" and if you say, "That's crazy", then I can just say, "I'm not being literal; I'm saying men really want to have sex".
Assume every political opinion is literal.
He denies being literal; but when he advocates for it so strongly (the quote:
Fact is, thousands more women are killed by men than are killed by bears so their fears are rational.
Expect left wingers to lie about their positions to try and persuade the moderate.
You don't get to (as an example) make logical arguments extensively for why abortion should be banned and THEN say your support for abortion banning isn't serious.
You are a strange man to this woman. She chooses the bear over you.
Liberal men are obsessed with sex. Conservative men are obsessed with the truth.
Define, "Nazi".