You're defining "right-wing" exclusively as capitalism?
Right wing is pro free market capitalism. Historically, most fascist dictators were not pro free market. Hitler was even a socialist.
So you confuse fascism with right wing, when really, it can be left wing economically too.
That in no way equates half a million sexual violence cases to ~500k cases of butt grabbing.
Oh sure, 400k cases of butt grabbing, titty slap, or trump's "grab by pussy" - none of that is rape, its sexual assault. If you look at number of rape cases, its about 128k, assuming no false reports of course.
Anarcho-fascism isnt free market capitalism. try again, google AI.
this isnt fascism, and its definitely not anarcho-fascism.
You are conflating sexual violence to butt grabbing.
You said 500k victims per year. those are numbers of sexual assaults, not rape, and yeah, grabbing butt without consent is considered sexual assault. I dont see what confuses you here.
Anarcho-fascism is considered right wing because of the authoritarianism and ultranationalism it embraces.
Sorry, you dont know what fascism is. Authoritarianism isnt right wing, as all commies are authoritarian. Nationalism is something different, its not what defines right wing.
There are nearly 500k victims of sexual violence in the US each year.
Moving the goalpost, sexual assault isnt rape. Someone grabbing your butt would be sexual assault, but its still way better than entering a car with a drunk driver.
negligently driving under the influence (which doesn't necessarily cause harm)
Oh yeah, it only harms over 200,000 people in USA each year. No biggie.
Ah yes, the ol' "measure human suffering" contest.
Yes, that's the topic.
Your categories suck, and the fact that you're insisting that they are the only two that are defendable is dumb.
I mean, you can say that logic is dumb, that math is dumb, sure.
Idk where you got "equally" from anything I've said.
Because there are only 3 possible options:
A. Rapists are worse than drunk drivers
B. Drunk drivers are worse than rapists
C. Rapists and drunk drivers are equally bad
So pick and choose what you want to defend. A defends drunk drivers. B and C defends rapists.
If they were the same category, they'd be saying similar things
No, they would not be saying "similar things", they would be proving same category.
Both equally suck = Drunk drivers are not worse than rapists
Neither suck = Drunk drivers are not worse than rapists.
Also, on this particular topic, person either defends rapists or drunk drivers, because society's default position already is that rapists are worse than drunk drivers. Should society be convinced to change their mind, rapist's position would improve in comparison.
So if someone says "they both equally suck", he is actually defending rapists.
You're presenting a false dichotomy. Within B is a myriad of other positions that aren't the same.
thats not false dichotomy. those are just sub-categories of same category. Any of them true makes category true. In same way word "rapists" includes all rapists, and none of those rapists are same, but category includes them all in one.
A. Drunk drivers are worse than rapists
B. Drunk drivers are not worse than rapists
C. They both suck
C is not a 3rd option. If they both suck equally, then its B. If drunk drivers suck more, its A. And if rapists suck more, its still B.
Personally, I would rather enter a rapist's house than enter in a car with a drunk driver. If rapist rapes me, I can tell myself that it didnt actually happen. But if die in car crash due to drunk driver, then I die and cant tell anything anymore.
Nothing in the site's rules that disallow me from expressing a different opinion.
I mean, sure, but there are only two possible sides of the topic:
A. Drunk drivers are worse than rapists
B. Drunk drivers are not worse than rapists
Because the options are mutually exclusive, there is no "both", and because those are only logical options possible, there is no "neither".
But I checked your profile big issues, and we are in 66% agreement. So I cant see why we cant agree here.
Lets have neither of them.
the topic doesnt allow option "neither". the topic is comparing which is worse, with only 2 sides available. You either side with rapists or with drunk drivers. Society loves drunk drivers more, so it is expected for more people to side with drunk drivers.
No, anarcho-fascism is anarchy implemented by a dictator. And anarchy does involve a lot of socialist elements, because anarcho-fascism isnt anarcho-capitalism.
maybe I should have a drink
What "should" be done depends on what you want. But the topic is rapists vs. drunk drivers, and you are currently siding with drunk drivers.
Why do you call yourself a fascist?
I am anarcho-fascist, not fascist.
No, I firmly believe that rape is worse than drunk driving. You of course have no counterargument. Typical rapist - persuasion isn't their strong suit. It's somewhat atrophied as a faculty.
I cant tell if this is satire either.
Remy isn't worth actually making arguments for.
Freedom of speech does indeed allow you to not make arguments, and freedom of opinion likewise allows you to think that not making an argument counts as winning. But freedom of opinion likewise allows us to consider you a drunk driver. So yeah, win some, lose some.
People who work too much arent free. they are merely slaves.
Basic needs such as housing should be free for those who dont have them. Its not even expensive. All current homelessness in USA could be solved for mere 100 billion dollars, less than 2% of US budget.
the rent system likewise, if abolished, would greatly increase income of average person.
Work time should likewise be reduced to 6 hours per day. this encourages people more to get a job, as well as inviting foreign workers in too because everyone prefers shorter work time.
Minimum wage should be increased just enough so those receiving it are not living in poverty, but high minimum wage isnt necessary.
Basic income by government for all those who receive income smaller than some selected standard would eliminate all poverty.
Money provided to families per child likewise would reduce poverty significantly.
How much would all this cost, basic income, income for children, houses for homeless, all combined?
Less than 1 trillion in total.
to be more precise, about 700 to 800 billion.
Effects on poverty reduction?
A family of 4 would have, from this, a basic income of 1600$ per month, even if no person in family is employed. that means 19000 per year. If only one person in family is employed, this rises to over 26000$ per year, well above poverty line.
So it would effectively eliminate poverty.
Are you doing satire right now?
Plenty of drunk drivers out there. to an ordinary driver, what he is saying could seem like satire or a joke. to a drunk driver, those would look like good arguments for why he should drink and drive, because alcohol also reduces reasoning ability while person is drunk.
Aaaaand that's all anyone needs to read.
You havent presented any arguments, so you are probably a drunk driver like RexFavilla.
We are 55% in agreement.
Anarcho fascism agrees with all 😁
God isn't evil. He just hates humans, so he sends them pain.
We are 80% in agreement.
Drunk driving helps you improve a skill
I was gonna type what else helps you improve a skill, but I stopped myself before typing it.
We have 53% shared agreement.
