ObjectivityIncarnate

It’s unfortunate the Viagra and Cialis didn’t do the trick, but we do have an alternate treatment we can try.

That’s kind of a fucked up reason to decrease the rating of your driver, don’t you think?

“Female Dating Strategy”, at least, has been around on Reddit for years and years.

And millions of “smarts” were so “smart” that they decided they didn’t need to vote again after 2020, and as a result, the “dumbs” are in power.

So who’s really dumb, here?

Removed by mod

It’s also surprising how the pro life and pro death penalty people are the same people usually.

It shouldn’t be. There is actually no contradiction or mutual exclusivity between the two; it only seems that way because of how the former viewpoint is labeled (it was definitely a PR move to call it “pro life” instead of “anti abortion”, which is a more accurate description of the stance).

Pro lifers believe the unborn are morally equivalent to the newly born, and therefore believe killing/destroying (depending on your perspective) the unborn is equivalent to murder (defined as ‘undeserved killing/execution’), since the unborn is innocent by definition. And because they, like everyone else, believe murder is immoral, they also believe abortion is immoral.

This does not conflict at all with being in favor of the death penalty for someone guilty of a major crime against humanity, because such a person is not innocent, unlike the unborn child.

In fact, on another axis, these two stances are actually in perfect alignment (except in cases of rape, etc. which I believe is why many pro lifers do in fact make exceptions for those cases, being okay with abortion then), in that they both come from the mindset of ‘you must take responsibility and be held accountable for your actions’.

Hope that clears things up a bit.

Okay, “commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com”, lol.

You should admit you’re fucking around instead of insisting you actually believe that nonsense though, lol. You’ve already been caught.

Okay, you let the mask slip too much, now I know you’re just trolling, lol.

Wrong. All X are Y does not imply all Y are X.

It is racist to say “White people are Z”, period. If 100% of Z are white people, that changes nothing.

This is very basic logic you’re failing at. Think about it.

“All strawberries are fruits” does not imply “all fruits are strawberries” .

Saying “white people are a threat” is not the same as saying “these people who are a threat are white”.

The former is the statement you agreed with, and now you’re desperately trying to paint it as the latter.

It’s not. You’re rationalizing racism.

No value judgment about an entire race is a fact.

You’re racist.

how can you think it is even possible to be racist against white people?

Very easy. If you make or agree with sweeping generalizations about a race, you are racist.

That’s what racism is.

False analogy, no one said anyone was racist against white people for saying they don’t support the US.

If you’re agreeing with someone who literally maligned a race, you are racist too. Period.

Not much, what’s on with you?

Men prefer women to do it because women are the only ones with non-permanent options that are 99.x% effective.

Fact is, only the female body has a built-in ‘mode’ that naturally shuts off fertility, that pharmaceuticals can ‘trick’ the body into activating, making creating effective contraception for females extremely easy compared to the difficulty level for males.

There is no one to blame for these biological facts of the matter. They are as they are, all we can do is work with what we’ve got.

There’s another wrinkle: pregnancy is a health risk for females, and is the consequence for unprotected sex for them. Males have no equivalent thing that happens to their body as a result of unprotected sex. Contraception needs to be at least as safe as the alternative to be viable. Therefore, female contraceptives need only to be less risky than pregnancy to be viable, while male contraceptives need to be less risky than doing nothing, to be equivalently viable.

Again, this is not anyone’s fault. That’s just how it is.

Oncome

It’s exactly as long as it needed to be to explain everything it explained, and it is a completely dry comment with no real tone at all, the “rudeness” is of your own invention.

Ironically, “Firstly you could read user names before going off” is far ruder than anything I wrote. Also, you’re assuming I’m the one who downvoted you–have you considered that maybe your tone earned that from someone else, maybe?

But it has to be for something. And in Balatro, there simply isn’t any gambling. You never wager anything to win anything based on that wager. All you have are points, and you can neither wager them, nor lose them in any way, chance-based or otherwise.

There is zero gambling in Balatro.

Minor correction, the three stages in an “ante” are the “blinds”. The game instead uses “stake” to describe its ‘ascension’ system (a common mechanic in roguelixe games, where going to a higher ascension/“stake” adds difficulty modifiers to the game, for those who don’t know what I mean by that).

Going off? Yeah, you asked a question, and I answered it. What are you talking about?