Why should female bodily autonomy be respected when male body autonomy is not?

[Anonymous]

As you heard, Roe v Wade is about to be overturned and states will be able to ban abortion if they wish. Many have decried this as an attack on female body autonomy.

However we already have tossed bodily autonomy out the window with child support laws. Huge amounts of Americans, mostly men, are routinely imprisoned and their freedom taken away if they do not pay an amount set by a judge--even in some cases where a DNA test has proved it is not their child.

So why should female bodily autonomy be respected when our legal system already does not respect anyone's bodily autonomy, especially mens?

[Guy13]

Sounds like to me that women want to be able to kill but GOD FORBID YOU HAVE SEX WITH THEM AT A FRAT House. They’ll cry the hell out of rape
—BUT kill a heart-beating and fully formed genetically code life…IN THEIR OWN BODY. What’s the difference between serial killers and a whole Sex that thinks is their right to kill.
—There actually ought to be a genetic and psychological review of the Woman given the serial killer respective Female killing sprees.

[Asker]

Love your comment thumbs up.

[msc545]

Because women are "special" and men are garbage in modern society. You forgot the draft - men are compelled to risk their lives in combat for the whims of politicians and the weapons industry, and women... don't have to worry, as they will never beconscripted.

[Agape93]

That's not bodily autonomy, that's financial autonomy, and I do largely agree with you. I'm wholly willing to absolve every man of child support if our autonomy is left alone.

[Asker]

Hmm it would be financial auto only but a huge amount of people are imprisoned for non payment.

[Agape93]

Hence why I said I'm in favor of absolving them of the whole damn thing.

[SimpleGuy95]

In which incendents is male body anatomy not respected? Like you helped to create a child then live with the responsibility, if you can´t maybe you should prefer sex dolls to sleep with.
That´s not a good example you´ve brought up.

[sejla]

Just be celibate and don't make any babies so you never have to support your child.
It's as easy as that.

[Asker]

And now women will get to do the same lmao

[sejla]

It's ok. less drama. or women will find men who don't have a phobia of taking personal responsibility whether it's be using male contraception like condoms and spermicide or those who actually like taking care of their children.

[anylolone]

That's not their historical record.

[Asker]

True, and now men are seeing what women are okay being responsible adults and which women are terrified of being responsible adults.

[Subarugirl]

What does bodily autonomy have to do with child support? Last I checked child support has nothing do with it. No one can force you to sacrifice your organs.. People are also routinely imprisoned for crimes like child neglect.

[penteractgaming]

Child support isn't a violation of your bodily autonomy you stupid fuck.

[Asker]

Aww poor moron can't form coherent statements. So if I tell you that if you don't pay me x amount of dollars a month I'll kidnap you and imprison you, that's fine with you?

[Razp_Sorbet]

That's not bodily autonomy... Look up the definition before writing a post Jesus.

[Jamie05rhs]

You lost your bodily autonomy when you chose to stick your penis in someone else's body.

[Asker]

Ah, so women lost their bodily autonomy when they chose to accept someone else's penis in their body. (actual rape doesn't count since the woman didn't chose that.)

[OddBeMe]

That’s not bodily autonomy. No one is forcing you through a painful pregnancy or medical procedure.

[Asker]

Soooo if I tell you you need to pay be x amount of money a month or I'll kidnap you and imprisoned you, you still have your autonomy and freedom?

[OddBeMe]

No, that’s illegal as that “person’s” body is imprisoned.

[EnglishEuropean]

I don't think you understand the term "bodily autonomy" sonny.

[Chiarac2003]

It’s called “personal responsibility”

[Asker]

... kinda like if you have sex, be prepared to be responsible for a child instead of just killing it?

[Chiarac2003]

Yes. Exactly

[Asker]

Well hey sounds like women and men both will need to have personal responsibility soon.

[Chiarac2003]

Uhhhh… u think we don’t! I mean.. wow….. I can’t imagine how many times I’ve been told I don’t have condoms or I’ve even had guys take it off dirt and I find out when I feel him explode.

[Asker]

That sounds like you date trashy guys and guys who don't have brains to plan ahead.

[normalice]

Male bodily autonomy is respected.

[anylolone]

How? He just showed you that it isn't.
How's debt slavery (and it's actually slavery) over something you can't control (IE, someone else getting pregnant by someone else) not a violation of bodily autonomy?

Also, circumcision is legal. Only for male babies, of course.

[normalice]

No he didn't. He claimed it wasn't while listing examples that had nothing to do with bodily autonomy. I understand you people are just really desperate to believe you are justified in your spiteful wish that women should suffer for banging men besides you, but sadly spite is something the law is intended to correct, not enable..

[anylolone]

Actually he did cited examples that had everything to do with bodily autonomy.
Denying basic juridical science won't do you any good.

[normalice]

No he didn't. He did the far right thing of pretending words mean something other than what they mean to undercut someone else's point. If he has a problem with the things he listed, great, they are a problem. But they simply aren't called bodily autonomy. You're well aware of this. You're problem is not with anything he listed, but with the fact that pro choice people have an argument. You are, in short, a troll.

[anylolone]

Stop projecting. Bodily autonomy means exactly what's in the name, it means you own your own body therefore gets to make decisions about it provided they don't violate someone else's rights.
That means that the state and society at large can only infringe in your bodily autonomy if it's to reasonably prevent an infringement of someone else's rights based on your own past behavior.

[normalice]

I get the far right fake news has brainwashed you people into getting mad when you are accurately described, but we already know "projecting" is just your next iteration of "i know you are but what am i."
And your second paragraph is simply false. The far right fake news brainwashed its simps into believing that's what it means, but in real life we know you want to believe it because you can't admit you just want to make whores feel bad for taking someone's dick besides yours.

[anylolone]

Stop projecting and make an actual argument.
It's literally in the name "bodily autonomy", literally all arguments against slavery lean on that, that a man owns himself.

[normalice]

Again, you can't just call something projection because you wish you said it first.

And, as I already said, but I understand your troll training won't let you acknowledge, my argument is that you are here to push an agenda, not have a rational discussion. I have no incentive to take you seriously.

[anylolone]

Nope, I'm saying it's projection because it's projection.
You are desperate, you don't know what you are talking about so you just project instead of dealing with the argument.

That's why you need censorship, you can't hold yourself in an argument.

[normalice]

Nope, you're saying its projection because you wish you said it first. Doesn't matter that you don't even understand it, you just wish I didn't say it first.

Also, what does this have to do with censorship? I get the far right fake news brainwashed it's simps into blurting out censorship in every conversation, but it doesn't apply here.

[anylolone]

You are projecting and not tackling the argument.

No, it does apply here as an example of why you have to project and not tackle the argument.

Again, the concept of bodily autonomy is the concept that is use to justify why slavery is wrong and a sin against god. And free speech, and private property.

It's a bunch of British puritans telling benin they can't sell Africans to the portuguese because god told them that man belongs to itself and owns the product of the sweat of his brow.

[normalice]

You're not making an argument. You're just repeating "projecting" over and over and occasionally using far right talking points, pretending like it is real information.

[anylolone]

If you read what I said you'd see way more than that.

As the great African American elon musk once said "someone gotta expand those NPC dialogue trees!

[normalice]

I read what you said. It was a far right semantics arguments given in bad faith. You trolls are not being consistent about protecting the lives of children and thus you are not being honest about why you oppose abortions. You will say anything you have to to justify staying in the way. You're not trying to win arguments because you know everything you say is bullshit. The point is to contribute to the ambience and delay, not to seek any objective truth. You are hate addicts looking for your next fix and you will never amount to anything more.

[anylolone]

It's not a semantics argument, it's literally a building block, maybe the cornerstone of modern juridical science.
And you have such a lack of good faith that you still avoid dealing with the argument.

As I said, a bunch of British puritans told the king od benin that he couldn't trade in slaves through the atlantic because god told them that a man owns itself and products of the seat of it's brow.

[normalice]

No, it's a semantics arguments. You are arguing the meaning of the word bodily autonomy by extending the definition to include the things you believe suit you. That tells me you already know you lost and have nothing to contribute, but you want to stand in the way nonetheless and this is the best the far right fake news could equip you with on short notice.

[anylolone]

No, I'm arguing the juridical history of the word.
You said "it's not that" when it reality it's.
Gosh, it's the fucking basis of the 14th 13th amendment and of the 4th.

[normalice]

No, that's not what it is. You're arguing semantics. If you want to talk about the toll work places on people's bodies, great, that's a solid argument against capitalism but it is a different discussion. We are talking about the direct use of one person's body for the survival of someone else's. Trying to stretch the definition to fit what you want it to fit while also shrinking it so it doesn't fit what you don't want it to fit just says you already made up your mind and are reaching for whatever you can to keep your troll message going.

[anylolone]

You are arguing bad semantics, something A =/= A in your books.
There's no stretching the definition, it's the definition.

[normalice]

I already said you're arguing bad semantics. Don't copy me, it's lame.

[anylolone]

I'm not copying you, I'm just correctly pointing out you are projecting.
Because you are and it can be easily demonstrated.

[normalice]

No, you are incorrectly claiming I'm projecting because you still wish you had said it first.

[anylolone]

No, I'm correctly claiming you are projecting because I've demonstrated it.
You literally argued against yourself.
A semantic argument is an argument rooted on the technical meaning of a word, literally your first argument, and it's a wrong semantic argument to boot.

[normalice]

No, you're claiming I'm projecting because you wish you had said it first, with no interest in whether or not it would have made any sense to say it.

[anylolone]

You basically are resorting to repeating yourself at this point.
If I had no interest I wouldn't make coherent and cogent arguments with literally the textbook definition of a semantic argument.
Let me define semantics as well. Semantics is the study of the meaning of words, word-roots and particles/affixes, and expressions.

[normalice]

I'm repeating the same responses to your repeated responses, yes. Why would I have a different response to you saying the same incorrect thing over and over?

[anylolone]

My responses are quite diverse. I put the definition of a lot of words you used, as one example, one at a time, all furthering my claims.

You know we are doing this to an audience? And that anyone can do what I'm doing, right?
You understand how deep of a hole you dug to yourself with your life, right?

[normalice]

You're responses have just been saying "projecting" over and over.

[anylolone]

Nope, I also post what the words mean and how they relate to each other.
Like how the definition of "semantic argument" shows you are projecting and making a bad semantic argument.

And you just made an argument in favor of slavery with that. And ignored the genital mutilation issue.

[normalice]

Nope, you're just arguing semantics because you don't have a real argument.

[anylolone]

Again, you started arguing semantics, by the definition of arguing semantics, which is arguing about the meaning of a word as the core of an argument.

[normalice]

No, you argued semantics and when I pointed it out you said I was projecting and when I pointed out your only saying that because you wish you said it first you proceeded to say it second anyway.

[anylolone]

Do you understand how dumb you sound? Words have zero meaning for you, it like you believe they are magic spells.
I can't understand how someone like you can even breathe, you lack any internal consistency, at all.

Well, since you aren't arguing, what do you think of all of trump's recent wins, like all the primaries he won, all the NY case?

[normalice]

I understand you have to tell yourself that because you are terrified of admitting you are wrong but you aren't fooling anyone.

[anylolone]

Let's start this with trump's great victory in NY courts and primaries. Now that is out of the way and we can celebrate on twitter because elon bought it...

You are projecting here again. I have zero intentions to fool anyone, which is why I post the definitions of words and expression, their history. You just make blanket claims, which honestly works if people are not prepared.

[normalice]

Now you're just saying random stuff to distract yourself from your devastating loss.

[anylolone]

Gosh, you are projecting again, but to be honest, trump's victories are really hard for you to swallow.
It's must be really hard to follow goebbels ideology and discovering that repeating a thing over and over again doesn't really make people buy it.
You fail because you don't have the concepts of object permanence and theory of mind properly developed.

[normalice]

What does this have to do with trump all of the sudden? You're that desperate to change the subject to something you're not wrong about yet that you'd bring that pointless traitor into it?

[anylolone]

Well, trump's innumerous victories really leave a sour taste in your mouth, as with elon acquiring twitter.

But I haven't failed to tackle the argument after demoralizing you, after all, tackling the argument itself demoralizes you.
Like when I point out what words actually mean and their history.
Like how a semantic argument is an argument about the meaning of a word, which is exactly what you did, and did poorly, and then projected.

[normalice]

If it were more surprising, maybe, but the whole point of the republican party is to get away with scams and crimes so, really, the thing that sort of leaves a sour taste in my mouth is the fact that you people still want him to get away with his crimes. I'd ask why but I already know. Nothing flattering nor insulting - you're just weak like the rest of us but can't cope with it as well.

[anylolone]

So, lack of evidence is evidence? Look at the cope, lol! And yeah, trump committed and got away with the terrible crime of being popular by appealing to the people with practical proven solutions to real problems.

Also, I wasn't giving you a free red herring, back to the subject.
The definition of a semantic argument is arguing about the meaning of a word, which you did while being wrong about the definition.

[normalice]

There is an abundance of evidence incliding public confessions. You just want him to get away with it.

[anylolone]

Confessions of what? Well, elon just confirmed that trump will be reinstated into twitter and that he and dorsey agrees it was a terrible mistake to ban him for saying "peacefully and lawfully protest"

Let's not forget that you did made a semantic argument then you projected.

[normalice]

Confessions of his crimes, of course.

[anylolone]

You still failed to cite those, and to deal with the fact that you projected.
But hey, trump will soon be back on twitter, so that's a huge win!

[normalice]

We already discussed that it was you who was projecting. Thats what projecting is, after all. And I can list a crime for you if you can promise that in doing so you will promptly admit you were wrong. Otherwise there is no point in you asking other than to smear you confusion all over everyone else.

[anylolone]

Projecting more won't save from the fact that you started making a semantic argument.
It won't save you from mean tweets anymore as well.
Have you ever heard of the tale of gadhafi and mussolini? Because that's your fate.

[normalice]

Again, it was you who made semantics arguments. You just copied me pointing out that you made semantics arguments because you wish you had said it first. We already discussed this.

[anylolone]

You know that's not how that works, right? What defines a semantic argument is if it fits the definition.
You made an argument that fits the definition and the courts just rules trump to not be in contempt of court, overturning a ridiculous partisan rulling.

[normalice]

A semantics argument is basically an argument over the definition instead of the intended meaning. You've been trying to argue different definitions of bodily autonomy from the start, stretching the definition so it includes what you need it to, and shrinking it so it excludes what you need it to.

[anylolone]

First, I love how trump keeps winning for us all across the world, he's the hero he should have been when he joked that epstein was a pedo in national television in 2002.
Actually, if one's to be more specific, a semantic argument is about the specific meaning of the word which is not relevant to the core argument, or better put, trivial to the argument.

"Semantics began its life in the late 19th century as a technical word in the field of semiotics, referring to such topics as the relation between signs and the things to which they refer. It was quickly adopted by the field of linguistics, and applied to the study of the meaning of words. When it is encountered in general use today (among non-specialists) the word is often seen in the phrase just arguing semantics, which appears to indicate that the speaker intends for semantics to signify something unimportant and trivial, or unrelated to the discussion."

And I also showed with the history of the expression how "body autonomy" is meant exactly what OP meant.

[normalice]

Why do you keep bringing up trump? He hasn't really won much, for one thing. But to also bring up his close relationship with Epstein is weird. You miss him or something?

[anylolone]

Yes, it was weird how he called epstein a pedo on national TV back in 2002 while your mainstream media and your three letter agencies did everything to cover it up even in 2009.
It was weird how the MSN tried to paint trump's and epstein's beef to be just a business beef even though epstein was throwing money away to aggravate trump after being blocked from trump's estate for trying to groom one of his minor clients.

[normalice]

At least you admit you miss Epstein. It is weird you seem unwilling to blame Barr for his "suicide," though. As badly as you wanted more Epstein in your life you'd think you'd want his real killer brought to justice instead of some vague allusion to Hillary Clinton emails or such and such..

[anylolone]

I don't even know if I'd blame barr, I'd put it more to these soros law clerk figures and the three letter agencies that keep letting go and hiding people like him. Like the judge who hid the maxwell trial in exchange for a biden promotion.

But I wouldn't put beyond barr to help, at least not yet.
And Yes, I wanted him alive to pay for his crimes. We all want to know who's in those tapes, we want every single one of those tapes.

[normalice]

Well, I'm glad we could agree Trump and Barr had an understanding- Barr would shield Trump from criminal prosecution (his greatest fear) and Trump would let Barr kill Epstein so he couldn't blab on all the kids they raped together. I don't know why you support these pedos, though. Wait, yeah I do...

[anylolone]

No, not at all, trump and barr seemed to have zero understanding between each other, just like trump and miley. Even trump and faucci had more of an understanding, though barely anything at all.

And worst, I said I wouldn't put it beyond barr to help with the assassination but he's not the first suspect.

The first suspects are the corrupt DAs and the three letter agencies, like FBI and CIA, (specially CIA) since they have the demonstrable experience and clear will to do so, and would not even need the help of barr, and even be able to pull it off with barr being antagonistic.

[normalice]

Yeah, also find it weird the far right fake news managed to trick people into thinking it had anything to do with Clinton, who was not president. People believe what they want to, I guess..

[anylolone]

Who said anything about clinton in that? You mean clinton controls the CIA and FBI?
Gosh, look at the slip you just made! lol!

[normalice]

Right? It's like people don't even pretend like they are listening to what they are being asked to believe. I just find it odd that the instant Epstied died suddenly there were millions of "oh, he must have crossed the Clintons" memes. Like the far right troll farms were tipped off and prepared to direct people from the obvious fact that trump was in charge of the government and his pedo puppet in charge of the DOJ.

[anylolone]

No, no, that makes sense. It's not likely the case and in no way necessary.
His own existence alive was a threat to the Clintons, but he and Maxwell were a threat to way bigger fishes, like the CIA.

And it fits more the mode operandi of the CIA.

[normalice]

It is important to admit when you're wrong so I'm glad I could help you come to the light. No need to apologize or thank me.

[anylolone]

Admit I'm wrong? I do all the time, but not here, not with this.
Well, it's very important for you to constantly contradict yourself, which is equivalent for you to admit you are wrong and that you are so frequently wrong that you can't openly admit it.

[normalice]

Well, at least we came to an agreement though I don't understand why you keep bringing up bill Barr. I already conceded he possibility he asked for trumps permission to kill epstein, I only don't think that's mutually exclusive to trump asking Barr to do it. No doubt they both visited his island. Might have even shared a room.

[anylolone]

Why would barr ask permission from the guy he backstabbed all through his office? Sorry, front stabbed? Let me explain to you, this doesn't have Barr of Clinton signature on it, even though they could be involved, this does have the signature of the people who made the stele dossier, though.

Did clinton pay for the fake dossier? Yes. Did barr help? Yes.
Would the clintons pay these people to murder epstein? Yes.

But the CIA has even more reasons to murder him, as the judge on the epstein case said, after giving him a slap on the wrist in 2009 "you are property of the intelligentsia."

[normalice]

Yes, I too am convinced it was more Barr's idea than Trump's, as why would Trump bother when he could rape a screaming child in the middle of fifth avenue and not lose a single supporter?

[anylolone]

As I said, I'm not even convinced barr or clinton were necessarily involved in it.
There's literally no way to trace trump to the classic CIA modus opperandi.

The only avenue trump would have to be involved would be barr, and if barr is involved trump isn't.

[normalice]

I agree. It is weird how quickly right wingers were pressed into pretending it was the Clintons. It does seem like they must have known they were lying but thought it was hilarious. Or they were Russians who led the pretense..

[anylolone]

"pretending" as I said, it was a good bet.
Trump wasn't even on the race.

The actual culprits are worst for you.

[normalice]

Last Thursday, May 12, 2022, the New York Times reported that the Department of Justice has convened a federal grand jury to look into how former president Donald Trump and his associates handled the fifteen boxes of material, some of which was top secret, that they took improperly to Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago. Today, Frank Figliuzzi, a national security analyst for NBC News and MSNBC, explained that the convening of a grand jury means that this is not just an investigation into how things might have been mishandled, but that officers of the Department of Justice think a crime may have been committed. Noting that Trump’s businesses took in $2.4 billion during his presidency, Figliuzzi suggested that investigators will likely look into whether the documents were of monetary value to Trump or others.

[anylolone]

lol! You guys still wasting time on that?
Don't forget the hammers to the cellphones.

[normalice]

While the Supreme Court has not yet handed down the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision that is expected to overturn Roe v. Wade, it did yesterday hand down Federal Election Commission v. Cruz, in which, by a vote of 6 to 3, it struck down a limit on how much of their own money a political candidate could recoup after an election. Daniel Weiner of the Brennan Center for Justice explained that before this decision, the law capped reimbursement at $250,000. The court struck down that limit on the grounds that the limit on reimbursements violated the First Amendment right to free speech.
Joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent. Contributions after an election to repay a loan are not about free speech to influence an election, she said; they enrich the candidate personally “at a time when he can return the favor—by a vote, a contract, and appointment.” Post-election contributions “pose a special danger of corruption.”

Weiner noted that few candidates lend their campaigns more than $250,000, so the effects of the decision will be limited. But this case builds on the redefinition of our political world launched by the 2010 Citizens United decision, in which the Supreme Court argued that seeking influence over politicians was a positive good. As Roberts wrote: “Influence and access ‘embody a central feature of democracy,’ that constituents support candidates who share their beliefs and interests, and candidates who are elected can be expected to be responsive to those concerns.”

But while the court is protecting the access of wealthy donors to the democratic system, Weiner noted, it has shown no interest in protecting an individual’s right to vote

[anylolone]

Are you now just posting shitty articles?

Gosh, you are really brain dead.

Imagine conceding defeat to that point?

[normalice]

In 1870, white politicians in Georgia tried to undermine their new state constitution. The American people then ratified the Fifteenth Amendment protecting the right of Black men to vote. Congress also created the Department of Justice to enable the federal government to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, which it promptly did. Attorney General Amos Akerman, a former Confederate who had become a Republican, oversaw more than 1000 cases against the Ku Klux Klan.

With the federal government holding them to account for their racist attacks on Black Americans, southern white supremacists began to argue that their objections to Black equality were actually about voting. By 1871, they argued that Black men voted for leaders who promised roads and hospitals and schools. Those social investments would require tax levies, and since the Black population was poor almost by definition after enslavement, those taxes would fall almost entirely on the white men who owned property. In this telling, Black voting was essentially a redistribution of wealth from those with money to those without, from white men to Black men. It was socialism.

White supremacists began to say that they objected to Black voting and to the governments Black people elected not on racial grounds, but on economic ones. They promised to “redeem” the South from the profligate state governments that they said were bleeding tax dollars out of white landowners to provide services for the poor, generally characterized as Black, although there was no racial monopoly on poverty in the post–Civil War South.

[anylolone]

Seriously man, you are not even hiding it anymore.
Do you understand how much of a schizo you sound like, copying propaganda verbatum without source?

I guess you like the serbs, right?

[normalice]

Evil will not win in America, Biden promised. “Hate will not prevail. And white supremacy will not have the last word.”

“What happened here is simple and straightforward,” Biden said, “Domestic terrorism. Violence inflicted in the service of hate and a vicious thirst for power that defines one group of people being inherently inferior to any other group. A hate that through the media and politics, the Internet, has radicalized angry, alienated, lost, and isolated individuals into falsely believing that they will be replaced—that’s the word, “replaced”—by the “other”—by people who don’t look like them and who are therefore, in a perverse ideology that they possess and [are] being fed, lesser beings.”

Biden called on “all Americans to reject [that] lie.” He condemned “those who spread the lie for power, political gain, and for profit.” “[T]he ideology of white supremacy has no place in America,” he said. “Silence is complicity.”

“We have to refuse to live in a country where fear and lies are packaged for power and for profit."

[anylolone]

Seriously, you sound like a "sefs" fanboy.
Or I broke the bot. Lol, no, you aren't smart enough to be a bot.

[normalice]

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who represents Buffalo, today wrote a letter to Rupert Murdoch, chair of the Fox Corporation, along with another three of the corporation’s leaders, to urge them to stop “the reckless amplification of the so-called ‘Great Replacement’ theory on your network’s broadcasts.” He noted that people who watch the Fox News Channel are nearly three times more likely to believe in the replacement myth than those who watch other networks. He pointed out “the central role these themes have played in your network’s programming in recent years,” especially on Tucker Carlson’s show. He wrote: “I implore you to immediately cease all dissemination of false white nationalist, far-right conspiracy theories on your network.”

New York representative Elise Stefanik, the third-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives, who paid for ads pushing the replacement myth, today said: “It is not the time to politicize this tragedy. We mourn together as a nation.” Other Republicans insisted they did not know what the Great Replacement Theory is, although a number of them are on video articulating it.

Interviewed by Silvia Foster-Frau of the Washington Post, Buffalo resident James Baldwin dismissed the notion that it was the devil who inspired the Buffalo shooter. “That’s not the devil,” he said. “That’s America. They made him, they brought him up, they put him there.”

[anylolone]

Well, since you are coping, you know your ministry of truth just got disbanded, right?

[normalice]

Glenn Thrush and Luke Broadwater of the New York Times reported that on April 20, attorneys in the Department of Justice (DOJ) wrote to the lead investigator for the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U. S. Capitol, Timothy J. Heaphy, to ask if the committee would share transcripts from some of their interviews. Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Kenneth A. Polite Jr. and U. S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Matthew M. Graves told Heaphy that some of the transcripts might “contain information relevant to a criminal investigation we are conducting.”

The House committee is trying to figure out exactly what happened on January 6 and in the weeks around it. It is not conducting a criminal investigation. That ground is the turf of the Department of Justice, which has so far brought indictments against at least 828 people, more than 280 of whom have pleaded guilty. The four defendants who had a jury trial were each convicted on all counts. One defendant was acquitted by a Trump-appointed judge, who agreed with the defendant's statement that he had not seen a police line and had possibly been waved into the building. (Video shows the defendant was not screaming or attacking anyone inside the building).

[anylolone]

Well, don't forget that your ministry of truth is as dead a Sri lankan politicians.

[normalice]

I dont really feel like finding emails to copy paste right now. Can you tell me if youve learned how annoying it is when someone inserts random stuff into a conversation and then agree to stop doing it? Talking about bodily autonomy here and the fact that your only argument is to exclude women from the definition.

[anylolone]

First, I don't see much of a difference from this to before.
Second, You kept failing to make an argument. You started this all by making a wrong semantic argument then you just projected it. Also, your ministry of truth just got disbanded.

[normalice]

Whatever the far right fake news calls it when you aren't required to lend or give parts of your body to others for their survival, why do you feel men should have this protection but women should not?
And not sure what the disinformation board thing has to do with it. Yes, you people get to continue to dump your trash on others. I doubt the disinformation board, even if fully funded, would have been able to do anything about your hate addiction, anyway. Never had much hope for it but it does say something about how much the far right fake news must have felt threatened that their simps are so thoroughly brainwashed in such a short time to believe anyone besides them was taking it seriously. Just that is enough for me to think maybe they should take another crack at it.

[anylolone]

Actually you are. It's called your whole.
And it's worst, it's not even for their survival, as enslaving someone in jail cuts their productivity by a lot.
And it's not even a parent, it's not the father, enslaved in jail for not supporting a kid which isn't his.
It's just out of spite.

Of course, there's also the draft, there's the violation of consent that comes with infant genital mutilation.

The list is long.

[normalice]

So, again, that has nothing to do with my question. Do I have to go back to posting random emails?

[anylolone]

Everything to do with your question.
You fail, over and over, make a wrong semantic argument, project, and constantly stumble over your own words.
Also, your ministry of truth got disbanded.

[normalice]

I understand why you feel like you need to tell yourself that but it simply doesn't reflect reality.

What's a ministry of truth? Didn't know I had one.

[anylolone]

And again, you can't make an argument.
Now, when it comes to pregnancy, no it's not a violation of bodily autonomy, it's not your body, and your body is not being "forced" to do it, the baby isn't doing anything besides growing, the body of the mother is at it's own accord giving nutrients, so much that it necessitates a lot of trauma to induce labor. No organ is taken.

Also, you did have a ministry of truth, well, your masters had, and you just lost it.

[normalice]

I made an argument but you're trolling and thus it is against your protocol to admit it.

I still have no idea why you imagine I know what a ministry of truth is, or why keep thinking it's relevant to this "discussion." Do I have to go through my emails and post random excerpts again?

[anylolone]

You made no argument, you made unsupported semantic assertions, and that's why you keep losing.
You can't even handle two subjects at once, and you don't believe in objectivity, so it's kinda obvious.

[normalice]

I pointed out that the asker was wrong and male bodily autonomy was respected. You decided to attack the meaning of bodily autonomy to whatabout your way out of that simple observation. And when I called you on it you then started inserting random comments. I know you're trolling so I stopped really reading much of what you say like 5 days ago and just typing random responses back. Stopped briefly to give you the chance to course correct only to find, to no surprise, you're still going for the semantic whataboutism angle.

And that's pretty much all that has happened so far. My guess is that's what will continue to happen as you don't seem to be the type that tries to understand what people are saying, preferring instead to try to misunderstand it in such a way that it maximizes the feelings you are chasing. Kind of sad, really, but I guess when one has given up on being significant based on merits i suppose it makes sense to lean on more accessible means to feel good about oneself. I can't stop you. I can only caution you of the dangers of addiction, but never in history has cautioning an addict on the dangers of addiction actually resulted in the addict dropping said addiction, and I don't expect you will break that trend..

[anylolone]

Now read what you wrote, slowly.
"I attacked the author's definition of bodily autonomy with an internally inconsistent definition in the most retarded semantic argument ever made, and you used the historical context of the words to school me on why his use was correct and why my definition was not only historically and descriptively wrong, but also internally inconsistent. And to top it all off, you had the nerve of carrying two conversations with me at the same time!"

That's how easily I can translate you to "no bullshit" language.

[normalice]

You used quotation marks but aren't quoting anyone. Try again.

[anylolone]

Quotation marks have more than one use.
Actually they have a shit ton of uses. I literally told what use was in effect.
Try to guess.

[normalice]

It would take energy to guess or to even read anyrhing you wrote, and, as we've established, you're a troll, so that would be a waste of energy. Just say what you're trying to say without dipping in to parallel realities. If thats even something you are capable of at this point..

[anylolone]

You aren't made to spend any energy thinking, I know it, everyone knows it.
i'm going to give you a clue, it starts with the word "translation".

[normalice]

But like I said, you're a troll at best, brainwashed by far right fake news at worst. So, of course you would say that. Or rather, if you believe you are neither of those things, try to imagine what you would be saying differently if you weren't.

[anylolone]

Braiwashed people can't come with diverse arguments, which is exactly why you can't argue.
That's why I can cite the diverse history of the expression on a whim, and why you can't understand it.

[normalice]

You think the diversity of one's arguments matter? Sounds like the sort of thing a brainwashed person would believe, yeah. In real life you only generally need one argument. It's boring but that's how logic works.

But at least I have a better understanding of how someone can be as far gone as you but not be aware. You just don't get the chance to interface with reality, I guess.

[anylolone]

Man, you don't seem to understand logic.
What I know is that the internal consistency of one's claims is what makes a good argument.
Showing something is true in several internally consistent ways by following simple premisses is how any functional fact finding system works.
That's how the legal system works as well.

You must literally live through force, coercion and lies alone if you are incapable of understanding that.

[normalice]

Lol, let's not pretend you are some authority on logic. We've pretty much established you are brainwashed by far right infotainment. Logic is whatever they tell you it is. You don't have a choice in the matter.

[anylolone]

I never make arguments of authority, so you literally created a straw man.
Two, that's how logic was defined, it's authority comes with it's sheer utility.
That's why it's used in the judicial system which you clearly had runs with before.

[normalice]

That's literally the only thing you have done, lol.

But it is good that you caught the thing about logic not in fact being a choice. That speaks towards you being genuinely brainwashed instead of just trolling.

[anylolone]

You really must have an extensive rep sheet, don't you?

I find it amazing you can't understand such simple concepts like logic.
You don't understand the most basic stuff, like internal consistency or even evidentiation.

It's like I'm cross examining amber herd.

[normalice]

Lol, you're not examining anything. You're trying to spread your brainwashing to others. Your frustration stems from the fact that other people do not live inside youy bubble and thus all respond with the same 'wtf are you talking about?' so it takes less thinking to just write them all off as NPCs or whatever.

[anylolone]

Well, seems I got you all figured out, discount rosenbaun.

And I demonstrated this shit to you in a way a toddler could understand.

[normalice]

No, you blurted out as a toddler would. You have demonstrated nothing but how hopelessly addicted you are to your brainwashing.

[anylolone]

Yeah, coherent consistent multifaceted arguments with several different forms of evidence are blurted out toddler rants.

You basically told me "well, you think you are right because you have all these consistent evidence?"
And then you disproved your own point that abortion is about bodily autonomy by saying "no organs are taken"! lol!

[normalice]

Don't flatter yourself. Your statements are just regurgitating whatever the far right fake news told you to think. Nothing coherent about it.

And multifaceted is an attribute of entertainment, not logic.

[anylolone]

That would mean I have infinite memory and the right wing is infinite.
I can tell you both are impossible.

[normalice]

It doesn't mean that, as this conversation hasn't been infinite and you basically just said the same thing over and over.

[anylolone]

But given infinite time, I can still tackle your stupidity in this argument through different angles.
It's like proving the earth is round, I can't count the number of ways I can do it.
I can show that the horizon line changes with large ocean vessels.
I can show it with large bays or peninsulas.
I can show it with mountains.
And I can show the inconsistencies of their model with basic geometry.

And I've done it, by the way. Each peace of evidence cements my position, specially with third parties.

[normalice]

No, as I've explained repeatedly, you are brainwashed, so your definition of stupidity has been warped. You can't tackle anything the far right fake news hasn't brainwashed you into thinking blurting out nonsense is tackling. I even invited you to come up with your own term for people not being required to donate or lend their bodies for the survival of others. You could not, instead deflecting with some rambling about the draft - which by the say a congressional committee of 7 democrats and 4 republicans voted to include women in the draft. The vote was 7 to 4. Guess who voted against it - can't keep you brainwashed with no soap.

[anylolone]

You still can't argue, just make blanket statements that connect nowhere.
I literally just easily schooled you and connected all of this to proving the earth is curved to explain why having different evidence to prove the fame fact strengthens the argument.

It's like I literally just took you outside, showed you the world and said "your eyes aren't lying, you really are wrong, no matter where you look, they show you are wrong." and your response was sperging out and closing your eyes while shouting a stupid mantra.

[normalice]

As I mentioned repeatedly, you are brainwashed. Why would I argue with you? Surely you've heard the "talking to a brick wall" metaphor. I'm happy to expose you to the information that you are brainwashed as many times as you'll let me but I have no illusions about being able to help you.

[anylolone]

Exactly, you just repeat that, fails to make an argument but never fails to follow goebell's moto.
Which is extra evidence you only know to use force and coercion, logic ain't your forte.
You'll never know the "magic" of logic that will give you repeatable, precise answers to one's questions.

[normalice]

I repeat that which continues to be true. Every chance that the awareness of your brainwashing might permeate that bubble is a chance I'll take.

[anylolone]

It's weird how your truth doesn't stand to a diverse set of evidence, and it's literally goebells saying "if you repeat a lie a thousand times, it becomes truth!"

Now, one beautiful thing of logic is the importance of making something that approaches at much as possible a true plane.
You take three surfaces and your alternate them as you grind them against each other because the only way 3 surfaces can match is if they are true planes.
That's very important, because with something that approaches a true plane, you can make fairly accurate rulers which allow you to get really accurate squares.
I could explain why that works, and I likely will, but it certainly will go over your head.
But that will segway into me proving the importance of independence in the verification of facts, which will school you on how wrong you were when bitching that it's unfair how the consistency in the multiplicity of my evidentiation proves me right.

[normalice]

It's more a "repeat a truth over and over until it permeates that thick layer of brainwashing."

[anylolone]

First, that's literally goebbels' definition of truth, you repeat a lie until it sticks.
Eh, weird how your "truth" is one big unsupported claim that you couldn't provide evidence for if your life depended on it.

Again, you don't know how to interact with people outside of force, manipulation and coercion.

The proof that three mating surfaces can only be flat comes from the method that makes them, the grinding, the surfaces are ground into mating, that means that they slide across each other and still mate, that means two surfaces can only mate if one is concave and the other is convex or as a plane, and for a sliding surface, the mating ends up having to be hemispheric of the same curvature.

But as it's three mating surfaces, it would mean each pair formed by any of the three would have to be concave and convex hemispheres. Which means all surfaces would have to be convex and concave at the same time, which is a contradiction, or would have to be planes.

That's essentially just "parallel lines never meet".

Next I'm going to show how to turn a flat surface into consistent measurements.

[normalice]

You were already told lies over and over until you believed them. That's what brainwashing is. I'm only trying to help you come to terms with that by fighting fire with fire. It's the best I can do over the internet.

[anylolone]

It's weird how those "lies" are supported by easily verifiable facts, data, that all agree with each other.
The history of the term (prescriptive linguistics), it's use in law and jurisprudence (descriptive linguistics), the root of the words (etymology), the dictionary, and all across the world and time forming a consistent history. A whole diverse evidence body which is ever expanding and forms a coherent concept that can be used to predict the world and simplify legislation.

Now, with a flat surface you can use it to index a ruler, which is the simple application of the fact that in euclidian space, the shortest path between two points is a line, or we could say that the metric in a flat space is a line.

First, you make the edge of the ruler flat, then with the flat space, the straight ruler and a compass you create two intersecting circles with a line that goes through their center.
The line formed by the two points on the circles that intersect will form a right angle with the line going through the center of the circles.

You can use that to square and flatten the edges of the ruler, and then make several gauge blocks of identical dimensions in order to index the ruler and any measuring devise you want.

Next we gonna show how that's used to standardize metric systems, which allows facts to be independently verified with greater ease and higher precision.

[normalice]

But they aren't. They are only supported by more far right fake news. It's a whole world you've been brainwashed with.

[anylolone]

But they are easily verifiable facts, the sources are here, you just have to search for it.
For one example, the "far right" wikipedia that redirects bodily autonomy to bodily integrity (they are synonyms) and the obvious history of "bodily integrity" in adam's smith writings, including as an argument against slavery.

Now, the importance of repeatable measuring systems with high degree accuracy is in the ability to verify any experimental claims, where ever you are in the world, without access to the experimenter's tools, even while using tools made in completely different ways.
(as one example, you can use a low viscous fluid in order to attempt to approach a true plane to a lesser degree)

This means a person can make claims in india about objective reality and I can test them and reach the same results in brasil.

The value in that is the value of objective reality, the idea that there's an objective underlining reality that governs all of our experiences and the truth can be found by reconciling disparate data.
It's sorta based on both christian ethics (truth shall set you free, you can see god through his work) and historiographical practices of checking multiple disparate sources that disagree and clash, finding the truth where they agree, which also inspired common law.

The point is that inconsistent lies always clash with each other, but truth is always in harmony with itself.

[normalice]

No they aren't. They were just repeated to you over and over. That's what brainwashing is.

[anylolone]

Repeated them over and over, while infinitely adding to them over and over?
Like the reference to wikipedia, I haven't introduced that evidence before, how can I do this magic?

Now, did you get my lesson in metrology on the importance of having a lot of accurate evidence to see where they point out so you can find the truth?
You know, the thing you said doesn't matter, but I just used a basic lesson from memory to prove how retarded you are?

[normalice]

However you've been brainwashed to interpret it isn't really something I can exert any influence over.

[anylolone]

Weird, because I seem to have quite a bit influence over you in befuddling you by showing your obvious inconsistencies.

Also, interpretation should be based on the facts, not on what you want, if you can't support your inconsistent interpretation it's because it's inconsistent and ignores the evidence.
The literally purpose of your world view is to use force, coercion and dishonesty, you literally compulsively uses goebell's tactic.
Shit like that doesn't work with principled people like me.

[normalice]

Again, i get why you were so eager to be brainwashed into believing that sort of thing happens, but it just isn't what's going on here. What mystery there was was over whether you were acting brainwashed or actually were brainwashed, but that mystery has been solved pretty conclusively.

[anylolone]

Man, you just said brainwashed several times, barely a coherent sentence.
Oh, and no, I'm neither acting brain washed or was brainwashed, I picked my own principles, which is why I understand what they are.
Like the bodily autonomy principle which is one you clearly don't hold, and as you have no principles it means you are part of a cult. Cults have no respect for internal consistency in their rules, I can easily predict you have been part of a gang, honestly.

Gosh, you likely got even hazed to join it, pretty bad, and thought it was cool.
I doubt your little gang survived much, nothing with you in it does, but the cult mentality is still in there.

[Twalli]

Once a guy cums it's no longer his body.

[Asker]

It's his body that gets the threat of imprisonment haha. So women have choice? Men should too.

[NorthwestRider]

Roe vs Wade will not be overturned