HighResolutionSleep
No bio...
User ID: 172
HighResolutionSleep
2yr ago
I think laws need to reflect facts like, for example, that women can get pregnant and men can't.
And I think that they should also reflect facts like, for example, women are the sole authority over the reproductive process from start to finish, where such facts are applicable.
(sic)
Get bent.
If you really are sincere about "Laws against rape, or laws recognizing only women get pregnant: choose one," well, that is certainly a take.
Get bent.
HighResolutionSleep
2yr ago
It's perfectly ingenuous.
I don't see anyone throwing their hands up and saying "well men are just stronger than women are so there's really no point in trying to resist that fact with law we just have to recognize biological reality" but people like yourself seem perfectly happy insisting that biology wrote our laws regarding paternity established family courts and decided their policy and there's just nothing we can do about it.
HighResolutionSleep
2yr ago
The double standard is one enforced by biology.
It's really strange how when this subject comes up so many people transform into BASED proponents of natural law.
Rape should be legal. Why would men be stronger than women if it wasn't to physically dominate them?
HighResolutionSleep
2yr ago
I've been seeing this rhetoric from certain factions of the right recently, but now I suppose it's being espoused by someone whose attention may be accessible to me—so maybe you can help me out understanding this one.
Who, pray tell, is the audience for this statement? Cads who are looking to get married and start a family? Married men who are looking to fuck around?
What is the thesis of this rant? "Sorry fellas, as long as there are promiscuous men out there, your married ass can't expect fair treatment from family courts."
I am deeply confused.
HighResolutionSleep
2yr ago
I can say from personal experience that the abortion issue did curb a lot of my enthusiasm, and I wound up not voting. I even got a ballot delivered directly to my house and I didn't bother.
Republicans don't seem to know the difference between consolidating power and spending it. I suspect that decades of cultural and religious hegemony robbed them of this knowledge. They will either learn, or perish.
HighResolutionSleep
2yr ago
Look, there's a version of the progressive position that might actually be respectable. You can make a compelling case that human beings in basically any context have a very poor track record of resisting the temptation to use real or imagined differences in cognitive ability as a basis for a stratification in worthiness of basically any kind. You could furthermore make the case that there's not good evidence that we've outgrown these tenancies.
But if you're going to take the discussion of such differences off the table, they must be fully taken off the table—not remain half on and half off the table as they are now. You can't take the half off the table that involves the study of ethnic differences in cognitive ability but then leave the half on the table that involves forming public policy on the basis of a lack thereof.
It must be all the way on, or come all the way off.
HighResolutionSleep
2yr ago
I miss the 2005-2012 inter-regime period where you could say almost whatever you wanted without the inquisitors showing up
HighResolutionSleep
2yr ago
Short and simple answer: because public policy is being made on the assumption that it's largely false.
HighResolutionSleep
2yr ago
I used to think that things like flags and symbols were silly and pointless but I now realize that they are extremely important touchstones for revealing people's true dispositions
HighResolutionSleep
2yr ago
I know that politics isn't supposed to makes sense, but this news cycle has made extra no sense. Everybody seems to be at peak rhetorical incompetence, from the left with stuff like the above, and the right with "Democrats are once again the real racists!"
Pound sand.
More options
Context Copy link