Why is Nationalism stupid?

That's not a good enough answer.

You're the one throwing a temper tantrum.

I don't remember subhuman trash very well.

Only homosexuals and women attack a man's appearance. Which are you?

@The Bored Dude Can you explain to me why you're sperging so hard?

What got you so riled up?

I'm married.

Sometimes.

When she gets out of line

Sharpe knows my wife.

You used gay as an insult 3 minutes ago you fucking degenerate lmao

This is extremely boring; it's just some sperg sperging.

Yeah, I don't enjoy it when children throw temper tantrums.

No one does.

This server is kind of a dumpster fire, isn't it?

The arbitrary constitution or configuration of cells is not, in itself, sufficient to define what is and is not a property of human life.

What are categorical truths regarding the nature of those cells?
1: They are genetically distinct from both parents; amalgamated, yes, but also distinct through mutation (particularly on the Y chromosome)
2: They self-replicate and possess an individual metabolism

The question should never be "what constitutes life", because by all meaningful definitions even a zygote is "alive"; the question of whether or not it is self-sufficient or even self-aware is irrelevant; neo-natal infants do not develop self-awareness until they are 6-12 months old. Any argument that can justify the termination of a zygote can also be used to rationalize the murder of an infant; the difference is by degrees.

In fact; any argument used to justify abortion on the premise of life-utility or deontological/arbitrary definitions can be used to justify murder.

"A fetus feels no pain until X point in time"
By this rationale it should be moral for me to murder a quadriplegic as long as the killing blow falls below the neck.
"A fetus is not self-aware"
By this rationale it should be morally permissible for me to murder a severely retarded person, or a person in a vegetative state/coma.
"A fetus cannot survive by itself"
By this rationale, as previously stated, it should be morally permissible for me to murder a 1-12 month old child.

The only abortion question that is logically and morally consistent is "If this thing is a burden, why can I not kill it"
Everything else, literally every other argument, is an argument of convenience (which is ironic, because the whole subject, and act of abortion boils down to what is and is not convenient) to distance one's self from that nihilistic reality.

And I think, if framed in such a way, most people would understand that abortion is *wrong*; now the question is then... does that matter? Does it matter if it is categorically wrong? Window dressing the issue to divorce it from this single moral question doesn't change the fact that this is *the* moral question.
"Does it matter if it's wrong?"
In a round-about way, no, not really. But in every significant way, YES, it matters. It matters for the same reason we look down at, and are disgusted by, alcoholics getting liver transplants; it matters for the same reason we feel a grim sort of satisfaction when pedophiles are chemically castrated. People who make self-destructive choices which result in their own annihilation (be that physically or spiritually) are degenerate, in the purest most clinical sense of the word.

Therefore I hold that it is literally true that abortion is categorically immoral, strip away the varnish, gloss and embellishments of illusion and excuse and examine the thing as it is by it's own merits.
A person who has sex, with or without protection, must accept the potential consequences of this action. The same way a person who eats 5 big macs a day must accept obesity as the consequence of their actions. The same way heroin junkie who shares needles must accept AIDS as the consequences of their actions.
I see no reason on earth to legitimize such shameful things or to make excuses for them. Women who get abortions should be looked down on, the same way we look down on anyone who purposefully enters into a state of apoptosis.

There is no such thing as a pregnant virgin.

Does this mean abortion should be illegal? I personally think it should, but what does it matter? Really? There are plenty of immoral things which are perfectly legal. It's not illegal to drink one's self into a coma, it's not illegal to ride 40,000 miles of cock in college, it's not illegal to eat your own shit.
But no one should feel sympathy for, or attempt to legitimize or render unto subjectivity, the immorality of promiscuity, shit eating, or alcoholism. These things should be shamed, the people who engage in them should be made to feel bad about themselves.
Furry Fandom isn't illegal, but these people should be shamed and shunned, and made to feel inferior, because they are, they're disgusting creatures.

Women who get abortions should be made to feel the same way.

Did you just call the Tories "fascists"?

Are you retarded?

I miss Vlads too @Cobra Commander

He was in all of my servers. The only guy I could have a debate with on equal levels.

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

Fight me god damn it

Oh.

Well I hope he's dead then.

That's a completely different set of circumstances and I think it's reductive and Orwellian to describe them in the same breathe.
Murder is wrong, but if separating a retarded twin from his functional conjoined counterpart would kill the retard, even basic act-utility would say "go for it";

Although I would say that under at least some circumstances it would be better to let both the mother and the fetus die; clearly natural selection has spoken.

Or to put it succinctly, I don't think it's right or fair to present some iteration of the trolley problem; of course it would be morally correct to let.. say... a thousand homeless people die to save the life of an army general. Of course it would be morally right to let a hundred thousand kittens burn up to save one orphan from a burning building.
I think the two issues are mutually exclusive. Abortion, full stop; is morally different from medically necessary abortions. I think both issues need their own conversation.

What did I say that was false? @Cobra Commander

I don't like junkies getting liver transplants either therefore I must be against saving children. Right? Based on your logic?

I don't like whores getting 4 abortions a year so they can keep riding the cock carousal; therefore I must be against life saving operations.

@Dr.Cosby You're fucking stupid, did you know that?

Where's the lie?

Transsexual males, under actual Darwinian pressure, would; due to their passivity and inability to cope with masculine roles (assuming they are the rare, true-homosexual-transgender which make up approximately 5% of all "transsexual" cases) would die vey quickly.

Then again, under Darwinian pressures, most transsexuals wouldn't even exist in the first place; I'm talking about the roughly 95% who suddenly, and without warning, decide in late adolescence that they're transsexual; who have never shown outward signs of being transsexual, who are mostly autistic or bipolar. These people would not exist.

@SinOfDrip Why are "trans people" entitled to love? Are people who get full body tattoos to make themselves look like lizards or cats entitled to love? No! They're freaks, society doesn't like freaks; the same is true with transsexuals. No one likes a freak, no one is going to show an ugly, frankly disgusting looking, homunculus trapped between male and female any sort of love. 100% of men would rather fuck Rosie O'Donnell than a transsexual. Rosie may be ugly, she may be loud, she may have a full winter ready coat of barbed-wire-esque pubes covering her disgusting lesbonic sludgepot of a vagina, but 100% of men would rather have sex with HER than... (imgur link)
https://imgur.com/a/hzWK2jo

Why would anyone love this freak?

No, it's much more likely that people like this suddenly and abruptly develop self-awareness sometime in their 30s or 40s, look in the mirror and realize that they're an abomination and not the "UWU KAWAII little girl" they imagined themselves to be. They'll see their broad shoulders and masculine skeletal structure, they'll see their masculine face hidden under a few surgeries and hormonal effects, their man-ish hairline, their lank, unkempt male hair and they'll kill themselves. They kill themselves because they finally see themselves for what they are, rather than what they wished they could become. This is why the suicide rate increases in transsexuals who have their penises inverted into open wounds they call "vaginas" because, for them, there is no possibility of going back. The only answer is suicide.

You ignored everything I said and just piled on with emotional dogshit.

Answer me this question. Why is a person entitled to respect?

"okay dipshit"
Doesn't sound like you're following your own rules, which is why I don't see any reason to either.

"okay dipshit" to the mean ol' right-winger
"Kill yourself, tranny" to the confused degenerate. What's the difference.

My point exactly. Your beliefs are hypocritical. Either humans deserve basic respect or they don't. You disagree with my position therefore you don't respect me. I disagree with trannies therefore I don't respect them

You've just proven my point to the hilt.

You're not very bright, are you? Are trannies alone in their entitlement to basic respect? No, surely you must believe there is some universal basis for that respect; IE, all humans deserve respect regardless of their differences; correct? But here you've demonstrated clear disrespect towards me because I am different than you. This is the hypocrisy. You've disproven your own premise by your own actions.

You're a moron and beneath my time.

I never said that you said everyone was entitled to love, I said respect; and it necessarily follows logically that if it's "wrong" to honestly react to Trannies the way that one would naturally react to them, or burn victims, or other physically deformed/freakish people, and we're told we have to force ourselves to "tolerate" or "accept" them when this goes against our natural inclinations then there has to be some from of deontological rule that *must* apply to all people to remain paradox free.

I don't see any reason to respect trannies for the pure fact that they're trannies.

I was writing a paragraph about moral dichotomies; trannies are the object currently being discussed. I could just as easily use race, sexual orientation, birth defect, mental/physical dysfunctions, etc.

As my example.

Keep up, champ. The core of my argument is that people do not deserve respect by virtue of simply being people; trannies are no exception to this rule.

I see no reason to treat anyone with decency unless they're worthy of that treatment.

Exactly.

No one deserves respect and I think it's obnoxious to say that a person *must* be respectful to transsexuals for their life choices.

I don't respect their choices.

I'm not.

Don't project onto me.

That's clearly not what is meant within the framework of the current zeitgeist in regards to people's supposed identities and the demand to respect them.

You're being reductive.

"Hurr just don't punch them, that's all"

When this is categorically untrue in regards to the current social mode. "Transphobia" is more than just not beating up degenerates in the street and you know it.

No they don't.

Just based on pure numbers, no; they don't. Trannies make up less than 1% of the population, there are only 16,000(and change) murders in America in 2018. It's statistically impossible for a tranny to be murdered every day.

Yes, there's a chance that a tranny; lying about being a tranny, going to bed with a heterosexual man, of getting murdered.

Most instances of violence against trannies stems from this cause.

They lie about themselves

and get killed when they make people into involuntary homosexuals.

Humans aren't entitled to decency or respect.

I don't respect the choices trannies make.

That's correct; no one is entitled to decent treatment just for being born a human being.

@Suspicious_sean _100 It's actually "WHAT THE HELL IS EVEN THAT"

Go to sleep, permanently.

Gender is an arbitrary and synthetic concept which holds no useful purpose in the physical world. There are men, and there are women; the behaviours and attitudes of each are as ingrained in the psyche as the physical constitution is endemic to it's structure.
Behaviours are Darwinian. "Gender" or the "presentation of" or the "embodiment of" or the "social classification of" the physical sex is an artificial delineation.
There are categoric and universal definitions of manhood and womanhood which stand against both the test of time and distance. The only reason, today, that we believe otherwise is because we have been conditioned to believe that every expression is equally valid; that there is no real definition of man or woman, that these things can be whatever we will them to be and this simply isn't true.
If you strip away the soft-egalitarianism of modern identity then the entire argument of gender falls apart. A physical man behaves as a man because his biology dictates his behaviours; his genes have been selected over thousands of generations to fill a certain social role; the genes which were most successful at accomplishing this role proliferated, the genes which were inferior did not.

There is no argument to make against this. There is only self-delusion. Anything which could be said in rebuttal is nothing more than an emotional whine and/or a passive aggressive grab for attention and validation.
If you do not meet the measure of a man, then you are inferior.
If you do not meet the measure of a woman, then you are inferior.
You are not special; non-conformity does not engender support, not in this regard.