2
Indipendepede 2 points ago +2 / -0

Jesus, that's an understatement and a half. OP wasn't kidding- it's literally the entire front page dedicated to seething.

0
Indipendepede 0 points ago +1 / -1

Very lawful, actually- as long as they do everything through legal means. Fortunately, legal != moral. So, what you should be asking is:

How moral is a society in which sentences are determined by gender, skin colour or political affiliation?

3
Indipendepede 3 points ago +3 / -0

abortion should be prohibited in all cases

You'd have a point if MargarineMongoose had said that at all. You can't argue the general concept of abortion for your side of the argument, but then apply the fringe cases to the other side.

Then I would not call the position morally bankrupt

That is literally the case in most places even where it's "banned" to one extent or another, but you made the point anyway.

I get to call him the same for supporting inflicting such massive trauma on some poor 12-year-old girl

And if you'd been arguing the fringe cases rather than the general concept, you'd be right. Instead, you took great pride in erecting a straw puppet of "things he never said" and knocking it down. Even if that is his opinion, the point stands that the baby is also innocent along with the victim, but that's another argument entirely.

2
Indipendepede 2 points ago +2 / -0

So, the rest of abortion should be okay because of the <0.5% of cases? You call that slight of hand persuasive? What if there's an allowance for rape/incest/life of mother like is allowed pretty much anywhere?

You're using an emotional, straw-man argument to justify baby murder.

4
Indipendepede 4 points ago +4 / -0

Non-Christian and anti-abortion? Of course I know him, he's me!

4
Indipendepede 4 points ago +4 / -0

It's funny that RGB waited because Hillary wasn't supposed to lose. Makes you think how many other plans were not only disrupted, but outright foiled just by Trump existing. HAHAHAHA

6
Indipendepede 6 points ago +6 / -0

Always love that bit at the end- especially the flash of purple that hints at the hobo guardsman being saved by the chaos gods. Alfa is comic genius.

4
Indipendepede 4 points ago +4 / -0

Can we find one more? I almost have "failed modern woman" Bingo

1
Indipendepede 1 point ago +1 / -0

So, if a wealthy millionaire accrues massive amounts of debt, the courts would saddle his trophy housewife with millions in debt- equally split?

[X]

I'm sure what you're talking about is the negotiation of splitting assets and finances, not what is legally mandated by courts and judges as "compensation" for being a housewife. We're talking about the unfairness of alimony, which is an extraction of wealth regardless of debt.

3
Indipendepede 3 points ago +3 / -0

Why should a man be able to dump his wife

.... not even gonna finish the whole thing- as if it's the men who initiate most divorce...

Heap fallacy

Fallacy doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't mean you wouldn't be able to do it accurately, I mean you shouldn't put a number on it at all. It's not a paid position or something requiring reimbursement. It's like billing your friend for a favour that didn't financially cost anything- you could put a number on it, but you shouldn't.

sacrificed work experience

That's your opinion. You've artificially deemed it a "sacrifice" instead of a choice. If she chooses to take a lower-paying job, is she entitled to the pay from her old job? No, that's dumb, and so is alimony. Divorcing is like quitting or getting fired- you don't get to keep a salary afterwards.

benefited the man

This isn't a 1-way street. The woman benefits too. Many would say the woman benefits more by not having to remain a corporate drone to put food on the table. You view marriage like a sacrifice of the woman that only benefits the man- I won't be able to make a convincing argument otherwise until you see marriage as equal partnership of 2 mutually consenting adults instead of "man inflicts spousal contract on woman".

She gets the earnings that expanded in the time that they were married, and debts acquired during the marriage, not pre-existing property or debts

Bull. Never heard of a woman having to pay after the man gets down on his luck.

Never said I supported that

That's what alimony is. Otherwise, why is alimony tied to the man's income?

5
Indipendepede 5 points ago +5 / -0

The choice is a social good

Yep. Point? Why does a man have to pay for it when it's no longer good?

Not enough to make it remotely fair

Alimony is not fair, and how the hell do you quantify what is "fair" repayment? Any number you could put on it is entirely arbitrary. It's a union, not employment.

Unless she is a housewife

No. You still haven't explained why that would entitle her to receive money after she ceases to be one.

We were talking about homemakers, not people who 'choose not to improve themselves'

My point there was you can improve yourself while also being a "homemaker". Wives get degrees, take up hobbies, DIY, whatever- they do have free time within which they can do or learn other things.

There's nothing rational about alimony- it's entirely based on men and women's bias towards women. It's at best a forced "charity" to help women long after they can get back on their own 2 feet.

Besides, you still haven't answered the most important argument: if a woman isn't forced to share the same debt after a divorce, why should she be able to take a share of the earnings? Why is a woman entitled to enough money to "maintain her lifestyle" even if the man is bankrupt, or the alimony puts him there? Nobody is entitled to comfort or safety at someone else's expense.

7
Indipendepede 7 points ago +7 / -0

Doesn't matter. It's a choice- willingly made. Why should anyone else have to pay for your choices? The husband supports the wife already- free food and board + whatever they want to spend money on.

If you have children, the husband is LEGALLY obliged to pay child support and morally obliged to keep them healthy and happy. If you don't have kids together, that's even less reason she should receive money.

Furthermore, if you choose not to improve yourself because you are happy being taken care of, that's also not a justification for receiving money. It's not as if the only way for a woman to increase employability or secure income is through being a career woman. Also, let's not pretend that a woman couldn't find another man to support her and that the previous husband would be off the hook for alimony if she did.

10
Indipendepede 10 points ago +10 / -0

Completely disagree. Alimony has never made sense because a women is equally as entitled to a man's earnings after divorce as she is burdened with his debt.

It's a very odd framing to say she is "sacrificing" a potential career/earnings. It's not as if only the woman loses something when starting a family and that the majority of a man's pay didn't go to supporting it.

12
Indipendepede 12 points ago +12 / -0

Fernbaby mom: when you're too incompetent and irresponsible to keep an actual animal alive.

Seems like a cry for attention- maybe they ran out of ideas for new pronouns.

8
Indipendepede 8 points ago +8 / -0

Agreed. Even then, I actually prefer leaving the joke in and explaining it elsewhere (like an editor's note); I end up learning something new and can better appreciate similar jokes later.

10
Indipendepede 10 points ago +10 / -0

legal*

*In Ukraine, but not in the US or they would have done it domestically.

3
Indipendepede 3 points ago +3 / -0

And they are obligated to you. Well said.

17
Indipendepede 17 points ago +17 / -0

It's much worse than that: people who enjoy foreign mediums consume it because it's different. If they wanted more of what's familiar, they could just watch any old crap that's easily and readily available from their own country.

This is why I despise the "wider audience" bullshit. They are depriving the opportunity for both the original fans to watch what they wanted, and potential new fans of finding something unique.

3
Indipendepede 3 points ago +3 / -0

That's a really good point. Some people are definitely sheep that need to be led, and most of it because they were never made to grow up in a nanny-state society.

2
Indipendepede 2 points ago +2 / -0

Doesn't he just do that so he can argue against lefties? "I'm using your sources. Look: newsguard rates them x"

8
Indipendepede 8 points ago +8 / -0

I think he's developed a much more complete world view where freedom has to be accompanied by responsibility. The free-er you are, the more responsible you are for maintaining your own moral standards.

view more: Next ›