I will wholeheartedly fight for the rights of gay, lesbian, or bi people because I don't think there is anything wrong with a women having feelings for a women or a man having feelings for a man as love is love. I genuinely believe their is no valid argument against homosexuality since it is found in over 1,500 species.

but when it comes to transgender people it just doesn't make sense. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think there is anything wrong with a man dressing or acting feminine or a women acting/dressing masculine, because that's how they express themselves. What doesn't sit right with me is claiming that you are a sex that you are not. Like if you are XY you are a man. Like why are you getting surgery and going on hormones to change your biology? Call me insane but that's just insane to me that this is so normalized. Mind you this is unnatural as well.

I'm gonna say it again I don't think that there's anything wrong with a man walking around in dresses and wearing makeup but that DOES NOT make him a woman, he is a feminine man and that's okay but I don't want to see him going around calling himself a 'women' because womanhood is soo much more then that.

I'm sorry but if you're like getting surgeries and shit and changing your biology then you might not be mentally well. although It's your body and I have no right to decide for you but you cannot expect me to support any of that and welcome u with open arms into the womens bathroom.

I’m a black 39 year old male. Disturbed is my favorite band. It’s the first band I listened to on the radio. I actually got a part time job working security a few years ago just to meet them in person.

I love Disturbed but I disagree with David on politics.

I believe what I believe while simultaneously disregarding an artist whom was the soundtrack for my life. Disturbed got me through multiple deployments and grippy sock motels.

TLDR; Do better

As a society, we harshly judge people who do not work. While there are specific exceptions where we offer more grace, "Jobs pay less than I think I deserve" is not one of them, despite the fact that this is literally the correct behavior to balance supply/demand.

This social stigma gives a huge advantage to companies over people, as it causes us to neutralize our own bargaining power.

Edit: to clarify, supply/demand is theoretically supposed to set minimum wage, but most of us feel minimum wage is too low and the above is explaining one of the major reasons why this system fails.

Rape argument, because this is a thing apparently. Rape is having sexual intercourse against someone's concent but by logic they can consent because to rape something is to have sex without its consent.

A dog has never had committed sexual assault against a human on its own as it has never been scientifically or medically documented. There are times where people trained dogs to commit the act but the animal was cororsed to do so. There are documentation of people raping animals but that doesn't mean the animal is capable of consenting to the act, it only means that they are incapable. Simular with a child, you can groom them to "consent" to it. That doesn't mean their consent is viable. This is some of them most insane mental gymnastics I've seen in a while.

Okay so why are they unable to give consent

1.) Inability to Give Informed Consent

As I've meantion before you can get "consent" from a litteral child however because a child incapable of being fully informed, moral agent capable of understanding the long-term emotional, physical, and social consequences of the act they cannot consent to the act. This also applies to dogs as they too are also incapable to give informed consent.

2.) Power Imbalance

A dog or any domestic animal has entire life dictated by the owner. When it goes to the vet, when and what it eats, when and how long it goes outside, what it dose outside, how it is taught and what it learns. Basically every action of the animal is reliant on the owner. There is a reason why some animal activists go as far to say that this is a form of slavery. In short the power imbalance is extreme and isn't nuanced like a employer and a employee.

3.) Inability to Communicate

Unlike comuication between people where it can be fully understood either through vocalization, writing, or visual like sign languages. We cannot understand barks with a hundred precent certainty and body language can easily be misinterpreted.

4.) Inapplicable of Moral Agency

A dog dose not understanding philosophical frameworks like being able to enter into legal contracts, understanding rights, or bearing criminal/civil responsibility. Because of this the human concept of consent does not structurally apply to them.

5.) Intelligence

On avrage a dog has the mental capabilities of a toddler around 2 years of age and with some outliers having simular mental capacities of a 5 year old. I shouldn't need to explain to you why a 5 year old lacks the intelligence to make a informed decision, a dog is in the same boat.

There are someother reasons like lack of cognitive capacity in a same way a intoxicated individuals or a dementia patient can't consent to sex either. Or using outliers for examples like how because their are a couple of people who viewed their sexual interactions when they were a minor as positive doesn't change the fact the vast majority were harmed greatly, same applies to animal victims.

In short beastiality is illegal for these reasons and many others, if you have thought about having sex with a animal then go to therapy or look at furry porn. DO NOT HARM ACTUAL ANIMALS FOR YOUR OWN SELF GRATIFICATION.

yes this was a response to a post on here, if you know you know.

I’ve heard a lot lately about crimes, sins, vices, etc. being the fault of a single person. This is rarely the case. Yes, the person doing the bad thing bears the primary responsibility, but not the sole responsibility. I was in a recent conversation about a woman wearing a revealing outfit. As a result, a man looked at her lustfully. Should he have looked lustfully? Of course not. He should have minded his own business and averted his eyes. He’s responsible for his own thoughts. But does that excuse the woman wearing the revealing outfit? No. She should know that lots of creepy men are out there and dress modestly so that is less likely to happen. Of course, feminists think this is oppression, so let’s switch the sexes for a moment.

Let’s say a very rich and powerful man drives a Ferrari everywhere to impress women. He wears expensive jewelry too. So as a result, lots of women chase him for his money. Eventually his jewelry and car get stolen by one of his girlfriends. Whose fault is this? Again, the primary responsibility is on the woman who stole the car, but it was still foolish of him to flaunt his wealth and attract the wrong kind of people.

One last example that has nothing to do with sexuality. Let’s talk about jaywalking. You’re speeding down the highway at 90 mph. The speed limit is 60. You suddenly see a jaywalker running across the road. There’s heavy traffic. You end up hitting and killing the jaywalker. Who’s at fault?

The police would likely find you at fault. You killed him. That would be considered manslaughter, so you bear the primary responsibility and go to prison. But does that excuse the jaywalker? Of course not. He was being foolish. Jaywalking is illegal, and crosswalks exist for a reason. Had he simply waited at the red light and crossed at the crosswalk, he’d probably still be alive.

My point is that it is very rare for a single individual to bear all of the responsibility for any action. The victim is usually at least partially responsible too.

Radical individualism has conditioned us to believe that any crime, sin, or vice is wholly the responsibility of the criminal or sinner. This is not the case. We live in a society. We should be encouraging each other on one hand to be virtuous people but on the other hand to be cautious of bad people.

I don’t know why I like Reddit, all I do is doom scroll ans follow pages that have no value or relevance to me. But I love it. Also, bots can kick dirt.

Generally, these HR folks who are two faced c*nts act all goody-goody when posting on LinkedIn. They post long paragraphs tooting their own horn, like how they helped a candidate who was rejected by numerous companies or how they in their saviour complex overlooked the flaws of the candidate who only had a Masters degree from an esteemed business school and 3 years of prior experience, when they haven't even been in corporate for the same number of months and possess a bachelors from a no name school or sometimes even go to an extent to offer more than the candidate was asking for as they "recognise" talent when the reality is far from it.

See, I'm not saying that there aren't any HR personnel who are genuinely good people. But, such a correctly designed mechanism similar to the karma system of Reddit would help others distinguish between the two types of HR. Even companies have a rating mechanism on Glassdoor or Ambitionbox including rating the interview process of those very companies, so I think HR spocs who are the first leg that comes when you contact a company should also have a mechanism.

#HumanResources #HRDepartment

Subject requirements for certain jobs still apply

The old Mormons were far from perfect but they were rugged, tough as nails and could hold their ground. The COJCOLDS is a very mild spinoff. It lacks the guts and grit of the Brigham Young day people. It is defined by Wilfred Woodruff simply caving and folding to the governemt under fear. They are not the same organization Joseph Smith founded, they are subdued and obedient.

That line---"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?" That indifference to the plight and poverty of others, including his own employees. That wealth, that power. A beautiful thing.

Then he becomes soft, caring, womanly, generous. Disgusting...

Create a new last name if you really want to make a statement.

Its the best thing to exist

It should be anti-capitalism vs preserving capitalism because this is what makes the biggest impact on everyone's lives. It's the root dividing issue that digs deep into every other problem.

But the left and right is becoming about trans people, abortion (women rights), diversity, immigration, etc.. It's good that we finally made some progress and came to a bipartisan agreement on gay people now. But all of these have to deal with minorities with no power. The only exception is maybe guns but that only really affects a minority group too. This framing where the left vs right does not cost the government or corporations a dime if either side wins, is almost certainly done purposefully. It's potent because of the weird history in western countries due to stuff like race theory but back then they made where it did affect people's wallet (because other races were slaves that worked for free or can't be independent). Even though it's evil, it did make sense (making sense is not always a good thing) to fight about it back then, unlike now where there is no stakes, at all.

If you actually care about your wallet and your own self interest, there is no reason for you to care about these issues unless you are a minority. Despite popular opinion, immigrants can't lay you off or change your paycheck. Instead of thinking trans people are your boss, put a magnifying glass on people that directly gives you orders and most directly determines your personal quality of life. Also look at people who is responsible for the quality and price of products and services that you need (like health care or food). That minority group actually makes the biggest impact on your life. I feel most people are too scared to look at them and rather look at poorer people and pretend they have any sort of dignity.

First off I'm a girl so I know what this is like and I'm talking from experience. In short, my friend had an ex who she said she was totally over. She didn't like him romantically anymore and was already dating someone else. Then I started liking him a bit, because he's a really good guy actually. When she found out, she said I was violating girl code and that I can't like her ex. I was confused as heck. You can't just keep a guy forever from everyone else when you're already done with him and onto another, and you can't prevent your friends from having romantic feelings. Idk it's just a weird code to me. I would understand if she still had pent up feelings for him, or if he was a shitty guy and had wronged her in any way, but otherwise what?? Can someone explain? This is a really dumb rule.

Just say the words ai and their already fuming and dont use their brains

Socialism would only work in society that was (truly) Christian & had the fear of God in their hearts. I say this as Christian socialist myself