What issues do you disagree with your ideology on?

[Nasur]

I identify as a libertarian socialist, but I have problems with the idea of completely dismantling the state. If the state can be run in a more democratic and equitable way, so that all people can benefit while also maintaining structure and stability, that is ultimately better than breaking up the state into smaller equitable communes.

[Kibbutz Unions]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegatio ... hmer_Rouge
The USA is assumed (Although the US government never admitted to it) to have supported the Khmer Rouge. It is supported by various accounts of people involved in the Khmer Rouge or the US military apparatus.

If they were, they sure were shitty supporters then. At least China invaded Vietnam over the issue then. Ah, but such is the great game. I'll give you this one because I'm to busy at the moment to follow through.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _Holocaust

IBM (An American company protected by the US government) profited from the holocaust, this list doesn't even include companies and industrialists that supported the Nazis (Like Ford) but didn't necessarily profit directly from the holocaust.

1. IBM =/= the US. Strike one.

Yay, the US wasn't involved in the Holodomor!!

You can drop the attitude there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_t ... n_Genocide
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/ ... usa.rwanda
Although the US wasn't supportive of the genocide nor was it involved but it specifically refused to act against it.

2. Not taking part =/= causing it. Was it bullshit? Sure. But nowhere near the same, and not really possible for the government to have carried out. Strike two.

The US was a primary sponsor of various nationalist movements in Yugoslavia which led to the outbreak of was and trained Bosnian troops (Supposedly also Croatians).

Source? And also not the main driver of the conflict. Strike three, you're out.

Yeah, not America in those ones.


Until 1964 the US supported Apartheid South Africa, when it became very unpopular to do so it ceased...... then Reagan came:
https://www.salon.com/2011/02/05/ronald ... th_africa/

3. Support =/= causing.

lol

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinicization_of_Tibet

Those were supposedly examples of the many things the US wasn't involved in and...... even in those instances you see this is not the case really.

No, you said caused. If we go down the rabbit hole of what a country is involved in then pretty much everyone is the bad guy.

1. The USA is an oligarchy and its' foreign policy is primarily based on maximizing profit for its' corporations, the American economy is inseparable from the USA as a whole.
2. The USA is a primary economic imperialist power and is at fault (Although less than the European Colonialists but still) for causing severe poverty in Africa, when among the reasons, they genocide also due to the poverty the USA with the most powerful military in the world and the largest economy in the world can't intervene in one of the most deadly genocides in recorded history?
3. It makes them culpable. If you actively support apartheid you are maintaining it by proxy.
4. I thought you jokingly referred to the ancient Han establishment of hegemony over historical China, my bad. Anyway, yeah, the USA isn't involved in that.

But, by the way, when I said the USA was responsible for the majority of the world's problems- I referred to today's problems. Not the past. But whatever.

[Ethel mermania]

Conservative, beleive in strong enviormental and health and safety regulation.

I also beleive in gay marriage, unregulated drugs, but I think those should be considered conservative issues.

So you're basically a New York/Trump-style Republican in terms of policy.

I've already answered this with regards to greenism/environmentalism, so I'll try to do this with everything else:

Progressives: I'm not actually pro-weed legalization (although I'm not against it either and strongly support medical marijuana), religion isn't necessarily bad for society, "diversity" isn't always a good thing, affirmative action is flawed because it doesn't address the root causes of societal inequity, a $15 minimum wage makes no sense outside of states with large metropolitan areas, GMOs aren't inherently bad (that's just Monsanto)

Centrists: "Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue", compromising on everything leads to inaction, neo-liberalism isn't necessarily good

Globalists: automation won't necessarily lead to a better quality of life, world peace is only really possible under a totalitarian world state, civic nationalism is a good thing

Trump is not a new york style republican. A new york republican is a big business finance guy. Trump is a new york real estate developer, their is a big difference, and there is quite a bit of antithapy between the two. An easy example would be they all support NAFTA, the WTO, and international finance. Trump campaigned on supporting none of it. I would be closer to his campaign view to what he has actually done.

I am not a fan of globalism, I agree with trump that the US has to put its own national interest first, bUT i am not fond of nationalism either

[Ethel mermania]

Conservative, beleive in strong enviormental and health and safety regulation.

I also beleive in gay marriage, unregulated drugs, but I think those should be considered conservative issues.

In what senses are you conservative then?

I don't believe in the nanny state, I think our educational system has gone down the toilet because of the left. I see groups like antifa as terrorist organizations. I think the American executive and judiciary need to stop legislating. I am not a feminist. .... and that is for a start.

[Sovaal]

If they were, they sure were shitty supporters then. At least China invaded Vietnam over the issue then. Ah, but such is the great game. I'll give you this one because I'm to busy at the moment to follow through.


1. IBM =/= the US. Strike one.


You can drop the attitude there.


2. Not taking part =/= causing it. Was it bullshit? Sure. But nowhere near the same, and not really possible for the government to have carried out. Strike two.


Source? And also not the main driver of the conflict. Strike three, you're out.


3. Support =/= causing.


4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinicization_of_Tibet


No, you said caused. If we go down the rabbit hole of what a country is involved in then pretty much everyone is the bad guy.

1. The USA is an oligarchy and its' foreign policy is primarily based on maximizing profit for its' corporations, the American economy is inseparable from the USA as a whole.
2. The USA is a primary economic imperialist power and is at fault (Although less than the European Colonialists but still) for causing severe poverty in Africa, when among the reasons, they genocide also due to the poverty the USA with the most powerful military in the world and the largest economy in the world can't intervene in one of the most deadly genocides in recorded history?
3. It makes them culpable. If you actively support apartheid you are maintaining it by proxy.
4. I thought you jokingly referred to the ancient Han establishment of hegemony over historical China, my bad. Anyway, yeah, the USA isn't involved in that.

But, by the way, when I said the USA was responsible for the majority of the world's problems- I referred to today's problems. Not the past. But whatever.

The majority of today's problems extend far into the past. You think the US is the reason why African and the ME have such a shitty geopolitical/economic situation? No, those problems have roots going back hundreds if not thousands of years. The present is interconnected to the past, not isolated from it. Human nature in general is the root cause of the majority of the worlds problems, and to place that blame on a single nation state is frankly intellectually dishonest.

[Lalaki]

If they were, they sure were shitty supporters then. At least China invaded Vietnam over the issue then. Ah, but such is the great game. I'll give you this one because I'm to busy at the moment to follow through.


1. IBM =/= the US. Strike one.


You can drop the attitude there.


2. Not taking part =/= causing it. Was it bullshit? Sure. But nowhere near the same, and not really possible for the government to have carried out. Strike two.


Source? And also not the main driver of the conflict. Strike three, you're out.


3. Support =/= causing.


4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinicization_of_Tibet


No, you said caused. If we go down the rabbit hole of what a country is involved in then pretty much everyone is the bad guy.

1. The USA is an oligarchy and its' foreign policy is primarily based on maximizing profit for its' corporations, the American economy is inseparable from the USA as a whole.
2. The USA is a primary economic imperialist power and is at fault (Although less than the European Colonialists but still) for causing severe poverty in Africa, when among the reasons, they genocide also due to the poverty the USA with the most powerful military in the world and the largest economy in the world can't intervene in one of the most deadly genocides in recorded history?
3. It makes them culpable. If you actively support apartheid you are maintaining it by proxy.
4. I thought you jokingly referred to the ancient Han establishment of hegemony over historical China, my bad. Anyway, yeah, the USA isn't involved in that.

But, by the way, when I said the USA was responsible for the majority of the world's problems- I referred to today's problems. Not the past. But whatever.

1) Nuance, nuance, nuance my friend. Economic gains have been a motivation for some of our interventions in history. So too have been attacks on our soil (Afghanistan, WWII), a desire to prevent Communism from spreading (Korea, Vietnam), pure humanitarian concerns (Somalia), etc. As to your point about the U.S. being an oligarchy, democratic elections are still at the cornerstone of government. We can probably agree that we need sweeping campaign finance reforms to get big money out of politics -- but I can't tell you how often races in my area have been decided by a just a few hundred votes (Northern Nevada). According to Freedom House, the U.S. has a Democracy Index of 7.98, placing us near France, Japan, and South Korea in terms of representative government. For many years before 2016 we were in the top cohort. As much as wealthy groups have a disproportionate influence on government, it is certainly possible for people to still make successful grassroots change happen. TL;DR -- your blanket dismissal of complexity disregards different perspectives that can color an issue.

2) The current situation in Africa is primarily the result of European empires drawing up flawed boundaries when granting their colonies independence, resulting in competing tribes having to share a state. The "divide and conquer" strategy exacerbated this problem. Mind you, the United States never had a colonial hand in Africa. When you critique our failure to respond to Rwanda, I actually agree with you. We should've done something. One of the reasons we didn't was because the public was still disenchanted over the Black Hawk Down disaster in Somalia, but nevertheless. I must ask then: are you supporting U.S. intervention into a conflict it wasn't involved with?

3) Not the biggest fan of Reagan, I don't disagree that we should've loudly condemned apartheid.

4) The U.S. is not the cause of the majority of the world's problems today. Some problems? Absolutely. But not a majority. Again, nuance.

[Nouveau Yathrib]

So you're basically a New York/Trump-style Republican in terms of policy.

I've already answered this with regards to greenism/environmentalism, so I'll try to do this with everything else:

Progressives: I'm not actually pro-weed legalization (although I'm not against it either and strongly support medical marijuana), religion isn't necessarily bad for society, "diversity" isn't always a good thing, affirmative action is flawed because it doesn't address the root causes of societal inequity, a $15 minimum wage makes no sense outside of states with large metropolitan areas, GMOs aren't inherently bad (that's just Monsanto)

Centrists: "Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue", compromising on everything leads to inaction, neo-liberalism isn't necessarily good

Globalists: automation won't necessarily lead to a better quality of life, world peace is only really possible under a totalitarian world state, civic nationalism is a good thing

Trump is not a new york style republican. A new york republican is a big business finance guy. Trump is a new york real estate developer, their is a big difference, and there is quite a bit of antithapy between the two. An easy example would be they all support NAFTA, the WTO, and international finance. Trump campaigned on supporting none of it. I would be closer to his campaign view to what he has actually done.

I am not a fan of globalism, I agree with trump that the US has to put its own national interest first, bUT i am not fond of nationalism either

I was mainly referring to Trump's relatively liberal/moderate stances on social issues and acknowledgement of the need for health and safety standards, as would be expected for someone who was born and raised in an urban area such as New York City. Wasn't really thinking of international trade or finance.
I don't consider myself to be a globalist (I'm apparently neutral on the globalization-protectionism axis for one thing), but my upbringing and education have trained me to see the world from a globalist perspective.

In what senses are you conservative then?

I don't believe in the nanny state, I think our educational system has gone down the toilet because of the left. I see groups like antifa as terrorist organizations. I think the American executive and judiciary need to stop legislating. I am not a feminist. .... and that is for a start.

You sound more like a Reagan Democrat who feels alienated from the Religious Right.

[Democratic Exodian Territories]

I consider myself a right-wing centrist and also very pro-capitalist, but I’ll definitely draw the line in some cases.

Despite my somewhat radical promotion of capitalism, I‘m mostly neutral on increased welfare spending and I also support the increase of the minimum wage. I see this as an opportunity for the common person to get ahead, pay their bills, and potentially as an incentive for them to get a better job or a raise on their own.

I’m quite the interventionist, to the point where I actually disagree with my own chosen president (Trump, supported him ever since the primaries) on foreign policy. I believe that every good-hearted part of mankind deserves the kind of freedom we have in America, even if we must kill for it. This somewhat has put me with odds with most of my right-wing, non-interventionist and libertarian friends.

I hate the LGBT community and identity politics in general, but I do support racial and gender diversity. It just shouldn’t seem so forced, though. Though this definitely doesn’t go against ideology ideals, the main reason for me being anti-gay marriage is because of my Roman Catholic beliefs.

I’ll acknowledge the fact that radical Islamic terrorism exists, but I’ll cringe when others say “fuck Islam” or something along those lines.

With extensive background checks, of course, I support the acceptance of Middle Eastern refugees into the United States. I will not support economic migrants, though. There’s a difference. Care about the former, hate the latter.

[Herzegovenia]

I'm an anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist, and hold anti-gay and anti-drug beliefs, but at the same time i am completely pro-sex, sex education, etc. and anti-religion.

So pretty much i am a somewhat conservative, anti-liberal, anti-NEW left, leftist atheist homophobic pro-science hardline far-left communist.

So, does anybody have any questions?

[Sovaal]

I'm an anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist, and hold anti-gay and anti-drug beliefs, but at the same time i am completely pro-sex, sex education, etc. and anti-religion.

So pretty much i am a somewhat conservative, anti-liberal, anti-NEW left, leftist atheist homophobic pro-science hardline far-left communist.

So, does anybody have any questions?

Wheee do the anti gay beliefs come from?

[Herzegovenia]

I'm an anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist, and hold anti-gay and anti-drug beliefs, but at the same time i am completely pro-sex, sex education, etc. and anti-religion.

So pretty much i am a somewhat conservative, anti-liberal, anti-NEW left, leftist atheist homophobic pro-science hardline far-left communist.

So, does anybody have any questions?

Wheee do the anti gay beliefs come from?

General disgust and a lot of bullying! I'll let you decide if i mean that i bullied a gay kid or i was called gay when i was a kid, but anyhow, the result would be the same: hate and pure disgust, heightened due to today's identity politics.
Do has you wish within your own home or in places like bars that clearly warn other citzens that such acts are allowed there, but not in public spaces. I don't want to have to see this type of stuff, and nor does my kid.

[Bakery Hill]

I'm an anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist, and hold anti-gay and anti-drug beliefs, but at the same time i am completely pro-sex, sex education, etc. and anti-religion.

So pretty much i am a somewhat conservative, anti-liberal, anti-NEW left, leftist atheist homophobic pro-science hardline far-left communist.

So, does anybody have any questions?

let the gays do what they want man, I got plenty of hard working gay comrades

[Nancivania]

I'm an anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist, and hold anti-gay and anti-drug beliefs, but at the same time i am completely pro-sex, sex education, etc. and anti-religion.

So pretty much i am a somewhat conservative, anti-liberal, anti-NEW left, leftist atheist homophobic pro-science hardline far-left communist.

So, does anybody have any questions?

You're almost everything I hate

[Chuukango]

God, I’m all over the place, but I just settle for left-leaning-centrist.
Though, left leaning is the key part of this. I’m pro-choice, but I myself would never get an abortion (mainly because I’m not able to get pregnant, because uh, I’m a dude), but I don’t like being all, “I don’t like this nobody so should enjoy it!”

I also find that I’m anti-gun control. I think it’s important to allow people weapons to defend themselves. Plus, I live in Maine, and hunting is a huge part of the way of life for a lot of people. Local hunters can supply local stores which makes it easier to buy locally which is good for for the State as a whole, but that’s beyond the point, and just one example of many argument I have against gun control.

[Sovaal]

Wheee do the anti gay beliefs come from?

General disgust

Gonna need more then that.

and a lot of bullying! I'll let you decide if i mean that i bullied a gay kid

If that's why I'm going to say that's pretty dickish.

or i was called gay when i was a kid, but anyhow, the result would be the same: hate and pure disgust,

Both possible reasons you gave aren't really good reasons to be honest.

heightened due to today's identity politics.

Identity politics are nothing new, only thing different today is that the minorities are getting in on it.

Do has you wish within your own home or in places like bars that clearly warn other citzens that such acts are allowed there, but not in public spaces. I don't want to have to see this type of stuff, and nor does my kid.

One can be against public sex and not be anti gay.

[Herzegovenia]

General disgust

Gonna need more then that.

and a lot of bullying! I'll let you decide if i mean that i bullied a gay kid

If that's why I'm going to say that's pretty dickish.

or i was called gay when i was a kid, but anyhow, the result would be the same: hate and pure disgust,

Both possible reasons you gave aren't really good reasons to be honest.

heightened due to today's identity politics.

Identity politics are nothing new, only thing different today is that the minorities are getting in on it.

Do has you wish within your own home or in places like bars that clearly warn other citzens that such acts are allowed there, but not in public spaces. I don't want to have to see this type of stuff, and nor does my kid.

One can be against public sex and not be anti gay.

I mean public GAY sex. Normal sexual stuff is pretty fine. People of opposite genders can kiss in public, i don't care.
I said today's identity politics because only in the recent times have they noticeably reached Brazil.
I unfortunately can't write too much right now because i need to go to sleep, but really resuming it and cutting the jokes (and the bullying thing, though truly the start of it all, was also meant to be mostly a joke), i belive PUBLIC (can't enforce this enough, i don't care what you do at home, i care what you do in public) homosexuality should be outlawed because it, in my eyes, is simply disgusting to see.
I would never be able too, and therefore never would make this a law in real life, but a man can dream. Even here in Brazil, a very religious country, there isn't enough anti-gay sentiment to get a law like this through.
I just like to dream, and in my perfect country, where everybody thinks like me, this is the case.

The type of anti-gay laws i would ACTUALLY make are instead of allowing them to marry, allowing them to make a legal union that reminds people of marriage, but only applies to legal levels. MAYBE i could get SOME laws about not allowing gay relationships to be showcased in public, but that's pretty far fetched already.
Hopefully this made what's a joke and what's not, and what i would really do in real life and what's simply wishful thinking a bit more clear.

Now BACK TO BEING A TOTALY NOT FUNNY BUT SORTA TRYING TO BE FUNNY AAAAAAA-HOOOOLE!!

[Bakery Hill]

Gonna need more then that.


If that's why I'm going to say that's pretty dickish.

Both possible reasons you gave aren't really good reasons to be honest.

Identity politics are nothing new, only thing different today is that the minorities are getting in on it.

One can be against public sex and not be anti gay.

I mean public GAY sex. Normal sexual stuff is pretty fine. Yay inconsistency(This is a joke)! People of opposite genders can kiss in public, i don't care.
I said today's identity politics because only in the recent times have they noticeably reached Brazil.
I unfortunately can't write too much right now because i need to go to sleep, but really resuming it and cutting the jokes (and the bullying thing, though truly the start of it all, was also meant to be mostly a joke), i belive PUBLIC (can't enforce this enough, i don't care what you do at home, i care what you do in public) homosexuality should be outlawed because it, in my eyes, is simply disgusting to see.
I would never be able too, and therefore never would make this a law in real life, but a man can dream. Even here in Brazil, a very religious country, there isn't enough anti-gay sentiment to get a law like this through.
I just like to dream, and in my perfect country, where everybody thinks like me, this is the case.

The type of anti-gay laws i would ACTUALLY make are instead of allowing them to marry, allowing them to make a legal union that reminds people of marriage, but only applies to legal levels. MAYBE i could get SOME laws about not allowing gay relationships to be showcased in public, but that's pretty far fetched already.
Hopefully this made what's a joke and what's not, and what i would really do in real life and what's simply wishfu thinking a bit more clear.

Now BACK TO BEING A TOTALY NOT FUNNY BUT SORTA TRYING TO BE FUNNY AAAAAAA-HOLE!!

Then your problem is not with gay people, but with public displays of sexuality.

[Ethel mermania]

Trump is not a new york style republican. A new york republican is a big business finance guy. Trump is a new york real estate developer, their is a big difference, and there is quite a bit of antithapy between the two. An easy example would be they all support NAFTA, the WTO, and international finance. Trump campaigned on supporting none of it. I would be closer to his campaign view to what he has actually done.

I am not a fan of globalism, I agree with trump that the US has to put its own national interest first, bUT i am not fond of nationalism either

I was mainly referring to Trump's relatively liberal/moderate stances on social issues and acknowledgement of the need for health and safety standards, as would be expected for someone who was born and raised in an urban area such as New York City. Wasn't really thinking of international trade or finance.
I don't consider myself to be a globalist (I'm apparently neutral on the globalization-protectionism axis for one thing), but my upbringing and education have trained me to see the world from a globalist perspective.

I don't believe in the nanny state, I think our educational system has gone down the toilet because of the left. I see groups like antifa as terrorist organizations. I think the American executive and judiciary need to stop legislating. I am not a feminist. .... and that is for a start.

You sound more like a Reagan Democrat who feels alienated from the Religious Right.

More of a goldwater republican, who nelieves in environmental regulation i would say.

[Herzegovenia]

I mean public GAY sex. Normal sexual stuff is pretty fine. Yay inconsistency(This is a joke)! People of opposite genders can kiss in public, i don't care.
I said today's identity politics because only in the recent times have they noticeably reached Brazil.
I unfortunately can't write too much right now because i need to go to sleep, but really resuming it and cutting the jokes (and the bullying thing, though truly the start of it all, was also meant to be mostly a joke), i belive PUBLIC (can't enforce this enough, i don't care what you do at home, i care what you do in public) homosexuality should be outlawed because it, in my eyes, is simply disgusting to see.
I would never be able too, and therefore never would make this a law in real life, but a man can dream. Even here in Brazil, a very religious country, there isn't enough anti-gay sentiment to get a law like this through.
I just like to dream, and in my perfect country, where everybody thinks like me, this is the case.

The type of anti-gay laws i would ACTUALLY make are instead of allowing them to marry, allowing them to make a legal union that reminds people of marriage, but only applies to legal levels. MAYBE i could get SOME laws about not allowing gay relationships to be showcased in public, but that's pretty far fetched already.
Hopefully this made what's a joke and what's not, and what i would really do in real life and what's simply wishfu thinking a bit more clear.

Now BACK TO BEING A TOTALY NOT FUNNY BUT SORTA TRYING TO BE FUNNY AAAAAAA-HOLE!!

Then your problem is not with gay people, but with public displays of sexuality.

Public displays of HOMOsexuality, i'm fine with normal displays of sexuality.

[Colorado-Kansas]

As a Libertarian I would say abortion... Life starts at conception, and I think by aborting an unborn individual you are depriving them of their right to freedom and liberty, abortion is murder.

[Kibbutz Unions]

I'm an anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist, and hold anti-gay and anti-drug beliefs, but at the same time i am completely pro-sex, sex education, etc. and anti-religion.

So pretty much i am a somewhat conservative, anti-liberal, anti-NEW left, leftist atheist homophobic pro-science hardline far-left communist.

So, does anybody have any questions?

Why do people hate LGBT people? It just doesn't make sense to me.
I mean, some who do hate LGBT people do so out of religion but in your case you are anti-religious so this is pure irrationality.

Also- being "Old Left" (Socialism, Unionizing) without being "New Left" (Social Justice, acceptance of the other, sexual liberation) at the same time (And vise-versa) is an inconsistent and anachronistic opinion I'd argue: what is this weirdly selective sense of justice?

[Kibbutz Unions]

As a Libertarian I would say abortion... Life starts at conception, and I think by aborting an unborn individual you are depriving them of their right to freedom and liberty, abortion is murder.

A zygote is an individual deserving of freedom and liberty?

[Colorado-Kansas]

As a Libertarian I would say abortion... Life starts at conception, and I think by aborting an unborn individual you are depriving them of their right to freedom and liberty, abortion is murder.

A zygote is an individual deserving of freedom and liberty?

Yes, like I said, life begins at conception.

[Kibbutz Unions]

Gonna need more then that.


If that's why I'm going to say that's pretty dickish.

Both possible reasons you gave aren't really good reasons to be honest.

Identity politics are nothing new, only thing different today is that the minorities are getting in on it.

One can be against public sex and not be anti gay.

I mean public GAY sex. Normal sexual stuff is pretty fine. People of opposite genders can kiss in public, i don't care.
I said today's identity politics because only in the recent times have they noticeably reached Brazil.
I unfortunately can't write too much right now because i need to go to sleep, but really resuming it and cutting the jokes (and the bullying thing, though truly the start of it all, was also meant to be mostly a joke), i belive PUBLIC (can't enforce this enough, i don't care what you do at home, i care what you do in public) homosexuality should be outlawed because it, in my eyes, is simply disgusting to see.
I would never be able too, and therefore never would make this a law in real life, but a man can dream. Even here in Brazil, a very religious country, there isn't enough anti-gay sentiment to get a law like this through.
I just like to dream, and in my perfect country, where everybody thinks like me, this is the case.

The type of anti-gay laws i would ACTUALLY make are instead of allowing them to marry, allowing them to make a legal union that reminds people of marriage, but only applies to legal levels. MAYBE i could get SOME laws about not allowing gay relationships to be showcased in public, but that's pretty far fetched already.
Hopefully this made what's a joke and what's not, and what i would really do in real life and what's simply wishful thinking a bit more clear.

Now BACK TO BEING A TOTALY NOT FUNNY BUT SORTA TRYING TO BE FUNNY AAAAAAA-HOOOOLE!!

You know, people eating avocado disgusts me. So how about I ban avocados- or the very least public avocados so that us normal people who hate avocados won't need to be bothered by their existence. /perfectlogic

[Kibbutz Unions]

A zygote is an individual deserving of freedom and liberty?

Yes, like I said, life begins at conception.

A zygote has no individuality, doesn't have any desires, doesn't have any identity, doesn't have any thoughts.
In what way is it an individual deserving rights more than its' mother who wishes to abort it?