is conservatism woke?

Conservatism says stuff like *work hard and you'll succeed* as if success is directly proportional to effort but the actions people of the third world or LEDCs are way more entrepreneurial and have way more challenges to overcome on average then the average person of the US. So they don't really get rewarded for that and try to head for the US. So then when these people seek a new life in the US they are met with one of the most confusing and difficult emigration system and most of them start with less than 1% of a chance to succeed, The real reason seems to be that immigration is wholly a political rather than economic debate. If we were to take the libertarian approach to immigration then it would be evident to stop the state from interfering in the free market of labor. That would depress wages initially but the immigrants would start to create aggregate demand and that would improve this consumption based economy creating new jobs. So if conservatives are pro business, pro jobs and pro markets they should also be pro immigration? Regardless about legality, Illegal immigration isn't a problem but the symptom of an inefficient immigration system. It seems conservatism theory is not being put into practice.

that's a jump in logic tbh please explain that step by step

no i'm being honest
if you're pro choice then you must support the death penalty doesn't immediately sound like a logical follow-through.

there are other reasons to not support the death penalty for example if you give it to a suicide bomber then it doesn't make logical sense because they would've wanted to die anyways, giving the suicide bomber life in prison in this case is actually more of a punishment as they are humiliated by their failure to carry out their martyrdom.

death penalty can actually be less cruel then life in prison depending on context.

actually this i formally referred to as retributive justice.
The aim is to make the criminal feel as much pain as they caused to the victims. say the suicide bomber kills people but doesn't die themselves.

so would it be more painful to give them a relatively painless lethal injection or for them to have to contemplate their action?

fair punishment is subjective retributive justice is just one example

but that was only the physical aspect of it, this doesn't actually inflict any physical pain life in prision.

what it does it makes the person have to contemplate the reality of their action and how it might have affected other people.

So an argument against the death penalty is not that it is 'more cruel' infact one could argue that
It doesn't make the criminal think about their action for very long it's an 'easy way out'

so what if a pro-choice person have that train of thought

therefore it contradicts your original statement

because there's nothing conflicting about a pro-choice person having that opinion.

so that's why i think it's a jump in logic

because it's a fallacy of composition it assumes pro-choice people are monolithic and have all the same thought process on two seperate issues.

maybe because i'm less interested in 'slandering' the opposing side and more interested in the 'debate' and 'logic' side of it.

it's more about being intellectually honest to me than just saying things that make the other side look 'bad'

maximum security prisons can also protect people left behind so your argument is quite moot.

the medical definition of a child doesn't apply here if we're playing semantics

so you're making a appeal to emotion

rather then basing it in facts.

an unborn child is a logical non sequiter

the death penalty is nothing but an 'easy way out' for criminals who've done awful things

so nothing means anything?

i'm questioning the motive of using specific words to 'guide' the emotional debate

the problem is if you were to just outright ban abortion it would just make the practise illegal and start a black market. Also it goes against the principle of conservatism that is to stop the government intervening into the personal lives of people.

also they already tried that in other nations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_orphans

they banned abortion, the pill, condoms etc and it hardly worked out in the long term.

and in countries that banned abortion this is what happens instead:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_abortion

and the risk of both the baby and mother dying is increased

which is two lives 🤔

so you support potentially killing twice as many people 🤔

but if you support banning abortion

then it could end up in a scenario

that potentially kills twice as many people

yes

that's what unsafe abortions are like

stop the ad hominems

people for reasons other than 'education'

youre making another fallacy of composition

you're assuming that everyone is 'uneducated' abotu reality

who is pro-choice

and i would like evidence for that.

then evidence

pro choice people are 'uneducated' about this 'objective' reality that 'a child is not human or living'

i want evidence specifically for that

are they using the word *child* or are you spinning it again for emotion points.

because pro-choice pro-life is all about medical semanitics and economic realities

that's the only things you can argue in certainity

any emotional argument is just fluff around those.

it doesn't say anywhere in that

that 'a child is not human nor living'

all it says is terminate pregnancy which you're assuming means that a 'fetus' is a 'child' and does the medical definition really mean that?

young human when does something become human?

when does a gamete become a human?

yes so when do the male gamete and female gamete 'become' human

is it at the very inception?

why at conception?

can the cell even *think*

*is it conscious*

does it *feel pain*

these are all characteristics of a human

so you're saying to me 'something' that doesn't act at all like a human

is a human?

*because it will result in a person* so you're talking about consequences

so you're also going to ignore all the consequences that this puts on the woman?

you're not talking about it *being a human* at that very moment but

*it going to become a human*

so why consider these consequences without the consequences of the host?

so people do not get to choose how their socio-economic environment is affected if they have sex?

because remember

children are a socio-economic burden

well
A) if it's a poor family who can't even really afford children then it's actually not good for the development of the child anyways

B) socioeconomics affect every political and emotional choice people make.

I am from Africa

@An Elbow yes but in africa children can actually be an economic benefit because diffrent child labor laws

so it's a false equvilance

so no decisions are ever made with finances in mind?

abolishing child labour laws is a big no no in the west

but like original libertarians said it was 'interfering with the free market' and fought against it originally but we don't live in the 1800s

because morality is wishy washy and subjective

yes it is

there are two families of morality the objective one and the idealist one

under capitalism we follow an idealist set of morality

so yes morality right now is wishy washy

this set of morality doesn't really talk about material conditions.

it's wishy washy

it's based on how you define 'human'

or when 'gametes' become human

which is disagreeable

or when theyre 'alive'

or 'feel pain'

ok lets step it back why is murder wrong?

i'm gonna demonstrate how

why is murder wrong