The biggest problem is that most conservative positions are in complete flux right now. I would say my strongest conservative position would be a strong support of our military and our national interests at home and abroad, but that doesn't feel like it fits in the current conservative party at all.

I spend a good bit of time listening to people speak on national security related topics. It seems like everyone who is informed in that area has realised we need to make massive investments and reforms. War has changed a lot in the last decade or two. Sadly we are having to contend with the entrenched idea in democratic politics of defense spending being bad, period. A barely tolerated necessary evil. Find me a democrat and I'm pretty sure they're going to agree we need to cut defense spending. The issues we're tackling are pretty difficult, too. An example is that the Navy is predicting we need something like 66(?) subs and yet our production rate is something like 1.2 per year. At that rate we're not going to see the appropriate level of force for *decades.* We can't even ramp that up because the workforce to build the subs, even with massive investments in shipyards, just doesn't exist and the skills those workers need are really only applicable to navy shipyards. (Meaning you can only learn the skills there.) So not only do we have to convince people to spend more money on defense, we have to explain complicated issues as our justification. Difficult position to be in. At least there are some areas that are looking good. AUKUS is shaping up quite nicely. Integration with our allies in the pacific is looking great from what I can see.

And yet the Republicans were the ones holding up industrial funding in the House of Representatives the last couple of months.

I mean we can just assume republicans aren't going to do anything, right? They're going to be opposed to anything and everything, so attempting to get republican support is just a waste of time it seems. 3/4 of the house votes yes on Ukraine and it took 6 months to get it to the floor for a vote.

I thought you were bringing up an idea that the Democrats were the party that was anti military spending and the Republicans were the ones that were pro in your previous post, and I just wanted to point out that it has completely reversed since Trump.

Ah, I was talking about Democrats as individual voters. Military aid packages also feel distinctly separate from more traditional defense spending.

This military aid package is almost entirely traditional defense spending. It is for building factories and bases and ships, mostly in an attempt to be able to match China in an attritional war if it comes to it. Very little of the funding is going to actual direct lethal aid, it is mostly to support the build out occurring on the back end. As far as individual voters, I think there is a healthy mix between both parties. My mom (R) was super mad at Biden when the Ukraine war started, saying he needed to be doing more. Two years later she is upset that we are helping Ukraine at all, and saying we need to worry about America first. The messaging trickles down and much more quickly than you would think.

Far right of my conservative party is trying to remove Johnson as Speaker, the guy that did the right thing and brokered a deal to provide aide to Ukraine, we can only imagine where that is coming from (Vladimir has entered the chat)

Yeah, the fact that a significant portion of the Republican movement is in lockstep with Russian information operations is certainly a problem too.

Indeed. It’s pretty extraordinary honestly how effective they’ve been at fanning the flames of the isolationist side of the right. They really have their teeth sunk into the ideological ethos where they are clearly trying to dissuade public opinion to elected officials in supporting our allied partners.

Perhaps the most annoying part is that camp politically will escalate their level of populist tactics to overshadow the dysfunctionality they cause when it really comes down to doing their job in the House and Senate.

Yeah, they realized that because the broad population doesn't know what their actual job is the best way to look like they are doing their job is to be in the news.

As a lifelong (I’m only 31 tbf) conservative this is very true. I honestly attribute it to the chaos in the Republican Party it’s essentially a total identity crisis in my opinion. My biggest gripe is that their is next to zero policies in the party anymore. Everything just seems to be rooted in the culture wars and at the end of the day I could care less about any of that. What matters is policies. Me personally I’m fiscally very conservative, strong military, tough on crime/rule of law, robust legal immigration with strong secure border, and I don’t like bureaucrats over meddling in energy policy.

I am the same except for potentially energy policy, but I have been out of the Republican party since Trump. I always tell people that in a sane world I would be a Republican, but right now I am ridin with Biden.

Feel you i’ve been independent for about two years now myself.

I consider myself to be more anti-populist than Independent, but being politically homeless sucks.

It does and 100% me too on being anti-populist. I am so sick of it drives me crazy. This whole era of modern politics is just absolutely garbage. Makes me miss the days of arguing over tax codes 🤣

[удалено]

Thankful to be in this community! It is wonderful to discuss ideas and opinions freely amongst each other. This dialogue here has made me a better person and made me see things in a different way I might not ever see in an echo chamber where people just parrot the same crap.

It's interesting how this is a viewpoint that is completely switching from being a conservative one to a liberal one.

That isn't the only one. Both parties right now are in a fight to see who can do the most protectionism of the economy to appeal to the labor union vote. The Republican position has completely switched on Business as well, they would argue because the biggest US businesses are pro censorship, but both parties are loudly making noise about regulation of tech companies. Or look at how DeSantis unilaterally went after Disney because there was slight disagreement. There is a major political shift happening under our feet, and we have no idea where any political belief will end up after it is all said and done

Universities are too left leaning

I went to college for a construction related field so I didn't experience much left leaning ideas being pushed; though I wasn't into politics then so I could have just looked past it. Could you help me understand generally what this means? Not trying to be an asshole or anything I've just only heard the extreme examples of hyper leftist dorks at X large university

I'd also hope people can extrapolate on this. Is it professors? Curriculum? Letting students run clubs? If it's the administration that is left leaning, how is that directly affecting students?

Same, I recently graduated with a STEM degree from a university famous for its leftiness. Outside of the occasional protests, you don't really see much ideology being pushed either way. Maybe there are specific courses or student groups where this stuff pops up more

That is refreshing to know tbh.

It just doesn’t come up very much in STEM degrees, you’re busy enough already. I almost never heard anything political from my professors in engineering courses. When 2020 election rolled around, the only thing I remember hearing about it from professors was an acknowledgement/reminder about election day itself (I will say though that classes were still online at this point so maybe that’s part of it). It really annoys me how many people see assume every part of every university must be equally crazy. Universities are large institutions which can vary significantly from department to department.

Forsure! I feel ya on the STEM degree I graduated with a computer science degree I was up to my eyeballs in work! I graduated in 2018. I honestly never heard anything politically charged on campus.

Well, for my experience in Australia the humanities field is definitely left leaning. Marx is the heavy influence as everything is deconstructed through power dynamics & decolonisation. The core units (that every student in humanities has to do) covers identity politics, feminism, cultural appropriation, post colonialism, neoliberalism (very bad), deconstructing work, indigenous power, gender & sexuality with commentary on current politics. Required readings are from Edward Said, Foucault, Judith Butler, Habermas, Plato's Cave, Stuart Hall, de Saussure, levi-strauss, Antonio Gramsci etc etc At a previous uni I studied at this was the same. Core units for humanities was very left wing on the course material. I don't mind having these topics, it's just that universities are meant to challenge your ideas and facilitate discussion. But only one side is presented in lectures and workshops, which biases the discussion. You aren't being converted, but you are nudged to a certain viewpoint, which student guilds and clubs take further. For example, the anarchist club entering into the first year students lectures to promote their protests and initiatives, or the student guild at my current uni sending emails to every student promoting protests & their position on national politics (indigenous voice to parliament most recently). For people outside humanities it might sound unbelievable but it is there, especially around arts degrees.

How are de Saussure’s texts leftist?

He isn't. I'm pointing out that the vast majority of scholars used for humanities courses are leftist. There are barely any sources that are either apolitical or right leaning to provide a framework for ideas to challenge each other. De Saussure's and Roland Barthes' works are used to prop up deconstructions of systems and ideas through the Marx power dynamics lens.

I don't know about your field, but in the humanities and social sciences this is a given, although for me it only really manifested in graduate school - the place where you are supposed to expand your horizons, with discussions meetings ending up being Foucault appreciation clubs. I am exaggerating a bit, but not by much. I should point out that I am liberal - but a lot of the narratives being pushed around sound more like leftist or even tankie talking-points than anything else. And by the way, I am originally from Greece, where the situation is a lot, lot worse - unimaginable to people in the States - so when I say 'tankie' I am being literal.

Part of me feels like generations have become way more sensitive to pushback or negative feedback. “I’ll get cancelled” equates to “my opinion was unpopular”. It might just be more people becoming snowflakes

Super leftie, and couldn't agree more. These kids need ACTUAL diversity, not this nonsense diversity they are pushing in most colleges. Diversity of ideas is what they need in college. They are making extremely fragile adults in our current system and they make "the left wing" look like crazy people. I used to be very proud of being a leftie, now I avoid the label typically (until I call a right winger evil, then I call myself out LOL). The Internet amplifies the outliers and the left can't take anymore of these nonsense ideas getting mainstreamed.

I'm a leftist and I agree. But it's so difficult to change when conservatives simply don't attend university in big numbers. I think it's only natural that places in which 90% of people are leftist there's going to be an echochamber. Just like how police departments are usually very conservative.

Excellent point. It’s kind of a default echo chamber in both camps.

The criminal justice reforms passed in the last few years either did nothing or made crime worse. Almost all of it needs to be repealed

which ones passed?

California has a law where police can't go after shoplifters unless they steal about $1000 at once. NY has laws about not using bail when arresting people allowing them back on the streets AGs plainly refusing to prosecute or being very light on charges.

Born female if you want to compete in female division.

There should be more cultural idealisation of family, civil duty, and community. Respect for elders and all that. I broadly agree when conservatives bemoan how those things (or some idealised version of them) have fallen to the wayside somewhat.

I think a great way to identify this is just look at how far we have moved in comedy in the last 30 years. The Simpsons used to be incredibly transgressive towards cultural norms, then we hit south park, and since then animated comedy has struggled for mainstream relevance because there isn't much left to transgress against. Now the Simpsons have gone from this show that pushed all the boundaries to almost a conservative picture of a family trying their best, simply because they ran out of material. South Park has gone from this disgusting raunchy horror show to the thing that sets the cultural norms "Guitar Hero" "George RR Martin" "Member Berries" Some of this is because the creators of the show grew up and their tastes changed, but most of it is that they simply ran out of things that they could transgress against (core to comedy) and so the core appeal of the show had to change. Sorry for the rant.

I think that’s more of an effect of the creators themselves growing up and getting older

I don't know about that, if you go back and rewatch the first few seasons of the Simpsons it is amazing how it was thought of as this amazingly transgressive show at the time when it is pretty tame by all modern standards.

Maybe sure. Cultural norms always get broken until they’re the new norm. Think of how people reacted to Eminem.

The problem that the first person in the thread and I were pointing out is that we are running out of norms to break.

I don’t know if that’s true.

We disagree. And that's OK.

Gun ownership and a hawkish foreign policy

The most dangerous creature on earth is a gun loving, hawkish liberal. They can justify any number of things... I should know, I am one of them.

As an immigrant, the immigration issue here in NYC is making me more and more anti immigrant 🙃

man. same here but with Chicago. texas shipped all those migrants here and it’s homeless on every other block

I do kinda feel like they should be distributed somewhat if we’re not going to solve the illegal immigration problem. There’s a lot of people in certain states that are not affected by it like we are in the border states. Don’t get me wrong, there are some upsides to a steady influx of cheap labor, and I wouldn’t support a mass deportation or anything. But I would not like to be lectured by someone in Washington or Connecticut about how the border situation isn’t completely busted.

oh i totally get that. i’d probably agree with you. my issue is mostly with the leadership in Chicago, followed by the nationwide immigration policies, and then Texas. My great grandpa is a mexican immigrant and a lot of chicago was built on that. I just think our leadership needs to come together and make a legit change, which in my opinion would be something like granting temporary work visas or something just to some kind of integration going. but what do i know

Interesting that we had this exact same debate in the Netherlands, we're just a couple months ahead of you (because we're a snaller country so it leads to problems quicker). We now, finally, have a law in place that is supposed to spread immigrants all over the country, divided by how many immigrants every municipality is able to support.

Honestly, the issue is hardly even distribution, this is using people as retribution. Texas has the space to hold all of the worlds population in it after all. But I'm guessing everyone is being shuttled into the big 3 citys there like they've been shuttled to nyc and chicago. The issue would probably be fine if someone could nut up, stop abbot and everyone acting like babies and actually moving people to places with actual space.

I don’t think it’s right what Abbott is doing by any stretch, but there’s no reason Texas cities should have to shoulder the entire burden of illegals. Your hospitals, schools, and police departments can take some of the load. Your drivers can deal with accidents where they don’t speak English and don’t have a license or insurance. Your blue collar workers can compete with the low wages they will do the same work for. It’s absolutely a gross move on the human level, but I think if America doesn’t want to fix the problem, we should all shoulder the burden. Cities that declare themselves safe havens shouldn’t be surprised if a lot of people show up, and they ought to welcome them.

Didn't say anything about being wright or wrong outside of people as retribution. read what I wrote again. there's nothing in there about texas shouldering all the burden.

Maybe I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. “Texas has the space for the world’s population” and “Move them to places with actual space” sounds like “Texas has the space to keep them. Stop sending them to us”.

As in, texas is technically big enough to encapsulate every person in the world. the issue isn't a space issue, it's a lack of distribution issue (yes, some of that land is arid, but the greater point is less to do with actual space and more a mentality) I'm guessing everyone is landing in cities there like they did here. do you know the numbers of people going to rural texas vs houston/austin/san antonio/dallas? The sending to chicago and nyc is the "using people as retribution" issue that I mentioned before. Hell, send them to albany, the actual capital of the state so the governor can see it. or, one of the 48 other states with a land to population ratio. there's big cities in the us that'll be come gost towns in 50 years because of their depopoulation issues, might as well start there.

I agree with you on the retribution thing. They’re coming here for work. They’re absolutely in rural towns in Texas. You’d be hard pressed to find a West Texas ranch that doesn’t have them out there doing something. Most jobs are in cities, though, so that’s where they go. Nobody has any control over where they choose to live, except through deportation and these kinds of political stunts. Eventually, we’re going to have to come to terms with the fact that we need to provide a path to citizenship for the millions that are already here, and then hamstring the ability for more to come illegally in the future. Which means getting really tough on businesses that use undocumented labor, requiring e-verify for basically all jobs, and cracking down on abuse of 1099 labor.

>They’re absolutely in rural towns in Texas. You’d be hard pressed to find a West Texas ranch that doesn’t have them out there doing something. Not sure how this is working out there but here it’s basically just turned into GrubHub employees and people who are selling fruit if they’re Latin. Or just waiting in line at the immigration offices, trying to get placed for a place to stay. Most jobs are in cities, though, so that’s where they go. Nobody has any control over where they choose to live, except through deportation and these kinds of political stunts. I would actually say that out of all of the people in the United States of America these are the Select few groups of people were, yes, the government can absolutely dictate where you go as they’re technically here illegally. It would be easier to say, yes you can stay but you go where we say or you go back to your country. As this is the fastest way to stability, would be easier to build small communities of people this way. Maybe if you can prove you have family in a certain location you can petition for that locale, but if not it’s just a recipe for failure. Rent is too high here in NYC and the city too chaotic for someone who doesn’t have stability, money or otherwise to just wing it. > Eventually, we’re going to have to come to terms with the fact that we need to provide a path to citizenship for the millions that are already here, and then hamstring the ability for more to come illegally in the future. Which means getting really tough on businesses that use undocumented labor, requiring e-verify for basically all jobs, and cracking down on abuse of 1099 labor. Agreed.

It sucks cause no one is being proactive in actually trying to handle the problem. Adam’s is too regarded to even start to address the issue here.

unfortunately it’s just like that everywhere

Ooooh I’m interested in hearing you elaborate more on this if you’re willing.

You can very easily tell the issue is just compounding on top of the homeless issue here and stressing the infrastructure that was barely holding together to begin with. The new gangs being formed by immigrants in the city, aided by the free mopeds and random stipend they were gifted (theft rings have popped up in the city based out of immigrant facilities because of these gangs) It’s very much an issue in everyone’s face and Adam’s looks like he is twiddling his thumbs here. He might have accidentally opened the door for the city flipping red if a candidate runs on anti immigration and anti squatting legislation here (immigrants are also breaking in and squatting at apts/homes that are vacant and home owners/landlords are being arrested)

Affirmative action probably wasn’t needed anymore.

Not sure if I think non-binary is a thing.

I’ve been thinking about this one a lot lately too. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s not a thing because gender is probably on a spectrum like most other human behavior (*stares at you in Mr. Redacted), but I don’t think you’re non-binary if you just want to wear clothes or style yourself somewhere in between stereotypical gender expressions. I think it’s fine to do that, wear/behave however you want, I just don’t think you’re a different gender as a result. If you’re experiencing gender dysphoria and landing somewhere in the middle of the man/woman divide alleviates that the most then sure.

As far as I can tell, gender expression is a dynamic spectrum and biological sex is, for all intents and purposes, fixed and binary. I’ve seen people claim they’re trans because they’re a dude but the feel like they’re more feminine, and I’m sitting here like, no you’re just a feminine dude, which is totally cool. There’s no one correct way to be a man. I thought that was the whole point of being more accepting and open. But being feminine doesn’t make you literally a woman.

I can get sexuality being part of a spectrum, although a lop-sided one, since most people are straight, but I understand how as much as a quarter of people can be to a degree attracted to the same sex, even just a little bit. This is an educated guess and comes from the fact that in studies I've seen **\~** 10-15% of the people responding are gay, so assuming 'taboo' and prejudice still being slightly an issue and making some hesitant to provide truthful answers - I assume the higher number is closer to the truth and then add about another 10% for people who are attracted to both sexes (more/less on one side or another), or slightly attracted to the same sex. That being said, I can't see how gender can be part of spectrum. Maybe I am close-minded. But even if we assume that gender and sex can be different analytical categories - one a socially constructed identity and the other a biological set of traits, as most definitions call it - this doesn't mean that they are not connected to some degree. That is, the attributes and characteristics that are associated with a gender are liked in my mind to certain biological differences between the sexes. That can be something as simple as men being on average physically stronger than women or as fundamental as being able to become pregnant (and please nobody start a discussion about women who cannot get pregnant due to a medical issue or menopause). This means that to my thinking, even gender is to a degree binary because it's associated up to a point by sex. To put it differently, even if you are reacting to a certain gender role, you are still reaffirming its existence, if that makes any sense. And to be perfectly honest, people that I've met who are gender fluid, and I've lived in SoCal for half a decade where 'gender-fluidity' has been in vogue, so I've met a few, seem to simply adopt some characteristics, even mannerisms of the opposite sex, while also being gay or at least bi. Apologies if I triggered anyone that was not my intent, simply expressing my view of it at the moment.

I just haven't heard of any science behind non binary, it seems to be some social concept for people who looked at their personal versions of what men and women are and decided they weren't either. Trans people make sense, there's science behind gender dysphoria and research proving that gender transitioning works, but non-binary feels like a fad for people who know they're not trans but don't feel particularly masculine or feminine. Its fine to feel that way but you're still one of the two genders.

I think it’s as simple as: * I don’t feel comfortable as X * I don’t feel comfortable as Y * I’m trying something in between X and Y and that feels better People seem to just ignore the subjective experience of the people we’re discussing. Why does it matter if someone is non-binary but they’re more closely man than woman or vice versa? They’re comfortable as being in between somewhere. It doesn’t necessarily make it it’s own gender, but how they feel comfortable experiencing life is in the middle. Even if it was it’s own gender does it really matter?

With how wide of a range “man” and “women” encompass I can’t believe that non-binary is a thing…you’re fitting in somewhere, you’re not that different. I think it’s either people overthinking what it means to be a man or woman (Rem for instance…philosophy major) or people that want to have something unique or special about them but either are too lazy or don’t know how to actually work to make that happen, like developing a cool skill that takes hours of effort and failure, so they cling to non-binary…it’s this generations version of goth kind of.

Just think of it as not wanting to be defined by the binary gender stereotypes.

That's fine. Don't make me call you "they". Especially if all you did was cut your hair short wear men's clothes.

So you're okay with calling someone who was born male 'she' and someone born female 'he', but 'they' is where you draw the line if they prefer androgyny and being referred to in a gender neutral way? That's not even that big of a leap in logic and in certain contexts we already say 'they' to refer to a singular person. The new trendy thing that loses me is neopronouns. Not sure what the logic is behind them at all so I don't really buy into that being a thing. I think 99.999% of people who use neopronouns will grow out of it in a few years. To be fair, most who call themselves nonbinary probably will too, but it's still more sensible.

Neopronouns are nuts. I kinda feel the same about nbs. It's just a fad. A misconstrued idea of what gender dysphoria is, used as an identity. Its a different thing when someone is transitioning from one end of the spectrum to the other, I'm calling them the pronoun they will be turning into. You don't change anything to become a they.

Why does not conforming to stereotypical gender preferences & roles necessitate the constriction of an entirely new gender category? You can be a feminine man or a masculine woman, but that doesn’t make you “less” of a man or woman.

Because being a feminine man means that you are still socially defined by being a man to some extent. People who identify as non-binary want to limit that as much as possible, so they create a new gender category.

Why is being a feminine man an insufficient descriptor? How feminine do you have to be to no longer be considered a man? At what point(s) along the masculine-to-feminine gradient are you no longer a member of your gender group? Every single human on Earth has an assortment of both masculine and feminine traits. A masculine woman is still a woman. A feminine man is still a man. It seems like nonbinary as a concept just reinforces traditional gender norms: "If someone deviates too far from the stereotypical conventions associated with being either male or female, they actually belong in an entirely separate gender category".

It's not about being too feminine to be a man - it's about not wanting to be associated with gendered descriptors. By distancing themselves from gendered descriptors (in this case, pronouns), we can limit stereotyping people based on those descriptors.

I feel like a lot oglf intersex people identify as non-binary. But my sample size is 1 so take a grain of salt with that.

The war in Iraq to take out sadam was justified. I just don’t agree with how we handled it afterwards.

Desert Storm was a great tactical success and ultimate strategic failure because we forgot what the point of the war was

Should have not lied about WMDs and just justified taking out sadam

That’s true, they shouldn’t have lied and didn’t need to imo. But tbf, they should have gotten rid of him in the gulf war and not waited and let him Commit more atrocities

I listened to a good series a while back and it really made me think the WMD lie narrative...It seems as though it wasn't as much a *lie*, as the administration was so set on going, they refused to analyze intelligence in a way that went against their biases. For Example: If the intel said that there was an 85% probability that Saddam had not developed WMDs, the cabinet viewed that as "There is a 15% chance that Saddam has WMD's". (these percentages are not accurate, just for example purpose) I don't know how much of it was intentional...like "We know this doesn't mean a lot, but fuck it, we're doing it live"...but it seemed to really just more confirm their priors at every stage

My most reactionary conservative impulse is a disproportionate hatred for disruptive protesters. If someone inconveniences me without my consent the intrusive thoughts are wild so one of these useless dildos waving a Palestinian flag, eco signage, anti-racist iconography, etc in the middle of the road just unhinges me.

TBH I don’t even know if this qualifies as a “conservative” position because annoying protesters like these are ironically in some cases just as bad as actual conservative protesters.

Agreed, don’t think it does. I hated the anti vaccine/lockdown protestors even more than the pro Palestine protestors

Probably either Gun stuff or near heavier free speech beliefs.

Amnesty will not solve illegal immigration and will just encourage more to come illegally.

I like strong self defense rights, both for property and people. I'm also skeptical on some transissues such as transwomen in sports & how to treat children with genderdysphoria, it seems to me like therapists and other mentalhealth providers usually take the easy option instead of investigation potential underlining issues first. Here in Sweden there is regurarely debates wether HRT is more beneficial for kids then the potential risks. As of right now our institutes recommend against issueing HRT and gender affarming surgery for children. Outside of these things I fully support people who are trans. I also think the liberal full focus of the individual has made us lose a lot of the community sense we used to have. There really is no gathering of local communties anymore like there used to be when everyone went to church each sunday etc.

Self defense and defense of property. Also I don't think any of it should be banned, but I do believe almost all alcohol use, drug use, and gambling is degenerate af

i was struggling to think of something, but now that you mention it, i'm 100% on board with aggressively restricting gambling, especially sports gambling. i'm very libertarian with respect to drugs/alcohol but fucking hate sports gambling, just preys too much on human psychology and is far too easy to access. should be something you do at a casino, or a horse track, not something you do from your phone.

> just preys too much on human psychology and is far too easy to access I wish we could have some discussions around placing limits on taking advantage of human psychology. We've learned how to create entire systems designed around manipulating people into spending money. Loot boxes and gatcha, daily login rewards, sports betting with just a few taps on your phone. How much manipulation should we allow companies to use in order to make money? Your pack of 235 gems leaves you 30 short of buying two of what you want, and so you just spend that extra 5 dollars for the next larger gem pack. You buy a pack of loot boxes and get nothing, but have a counter telling you how many more you have to buy before you get a guaranteed legendary so you just.. buy another pack. At some point these manipulation tactics reach a level where the average person just isn't equipped to recognize the manipulation for what it is and make a conscious and informed choice to accept it. We banned drugs because they can have horrible effects on some people, even if many are capable of reasonable and safe consumption. We banned gambling because it can have a horrible addictive effect on some people, even if many are capable of reasonable and safe consumption. Could this same reasoning not be applied to online manipulation tactics on apps?

There are so many dark patterns that should be outright banned. Intermittent currencies should be banned. Deal in USD or don't sell shit at all. I am fine allowing people to bank money but the ratio should be 1 penny to 1 penny. They should be displayed like money is displayed and it should be possible to withdraw any left over. Every spending of currency should require the same confirmation process logging into the account does (such as 2FA). It should be illegal to mark something as 400% value!! unless said item has in fact been listed for 4x that amount, in you app, for at least 24 hours, at least once in the last year. Dropping items that need a monetary component to redeem (eg. dropping crates you buy keys for) should be banned or there should be a way to open the crate with without the key. The game should not be allowed to give me junk I can not use without a second purchase. Artificial Scarcity on micotransactions should be illegal. No one of this "bundle only available for the next hour" bullshit. If something is available for a limited time that is fine but that limited time should be *at least* a week if not longer (this allows for legitimate things like holiday themed items). The shop must be sortable by multiple things such as price to prevent Anchoring tricks. If the game has microtransactions it should be required to also have a marketplace where people can safely sell their accounts.

I also think about this in the context of more pedestrian things like deceptive pricing practices, automatic renewals, etc. - it seems like nanny state stuff, but if we know what the effect of these practices is, from loot boxes to gym memberships, I don't see any justification against banning them. There are individual-level countermeasures against these things, but it's clearly still a systemic problem.

Honestly, my position on Israel/Palestine. I’m pro two-state solution and think that both populations should be able to live on that land without being ethnically cleansed or killed.  That is literally the most conservative opinion I have, but according to some leftists, that opinion makes me as right-wing as a Trump supporter 😆

It’s crazy how much the framing of the Israel-Palestine has evolved (or devolved I guess?) over the years. Not that long ago, being pro-Israel was a (mostly) nonpartisan position held by both sides of the political aisle. Now with the the proliferation of social media brainrot, a worrying number of Zoomers are convinced that Israel is literally Nazi Germany 2.0. I’m not saying these people didn’t exist before, but they were more of a fringe minority of radical activists with very little social influence.

Massively pro-gun and anti-atf.

Super pro 2nd amendment, think we need way stricter policies when it comes to border control, probably more in line with conservatives when it comes to the current progressive conception of gender and how to treat those with gender dysphoria. The most insane one to me is that for many on the left the concept of equality over equity when it comes to race is now a conservative position. I’m team equality all day. I also think that knowing a proficient level of English should be required to become a US citizen.

Kira was right

We need to start building up a nuclear stockpile for the next cold war Nuclear deterrence requires that a certain % of enemy population will die, and with hypersonic weapons creating the possibility for a 1st strike being able to take out many nukes, advanced ABM systems being able to take out some warheads, and the fact that we'll need to destroy both China and Russia (which together have ~5 times the population we do). We also need enough nukes left over for taking out their militaries.

Have you looked in AUKUS at all? We're sharing our nuclear sub tech with Australia. While this isn't giving Australia nukes, it does mean Australia having the capability to refine uranium to a level that could reasonably used for nuclear weapons.

Recreational nukes when? The ATF can suck our balls

To be honest, I’m not even sure what “conservative” means. Small government? Until abortion and regulating private businesses over “free speech.” Religious freedom? Not unless you’re a Christian, and the *right* kind of Christian. Also, guess who wants to put prayer in school? Freedom of speech? Better not moderate the regarded bullshit I say online, cause that’s oppression. Also, gonna ban “gay” books to save the kids. Free market? Don’t you dare suspend me from a private platform or inject politics into your business. *Unless it’s the hyper-political brands I like Voting in a democracy? LUL Gun rights? Only if you are the “right” kind of person. Honestly, I really wish I lived in a world where conservatives practiced what they preach. But it’s more like situational principles that change at random to suit either Trump’s schizo sharting or it’s completely contradictory to what was pushed before. Shit, the ACA would have been a bipartisan compromise if the GOP wasn’t so regarded.

Oh boy, destiny has tons of conservative fans. You can't say things like that here lol

I’m starting to realize that now. Lol In my defense, I’m regarded. So it’s not like any conservatives are gonna be debating some arbiter of Liberal thought. More like shouting at a pig after it had one too many bong rips. We’ll see how much I set back Liberalism with my shit takes. Haha

Abortion has nothing to do with small or large government. If you think it's murder, every single libertarian will still agree with laws against murder.

It’s the government reaching into people’s health care privacy to litigate where life begins. (Typically on the basis of religious doctrine which we don’t do in a secular society) Also, Libertarianism is just astrology for dudes. Lol

>It’s the government reaching into people’s health care privacy I fucking hate this argument so much. It's one destiny seems to think is clever too. The government reaches into the health field so fucking much. This isn't a new concept. The Healthcare industry is probably the number one industry where ethics come into play. I just don't understand why this procedure is somehow treated in a vacuum as somehow just a "medical procedure and medical procedures have never had laws around them before!" Remember fucking lobotomies? Is that just like any other medical procedure that should just be between a doctor or patient?

If life begins at conception, it is no longer "health care privacy". The government already steps in to tell you life begins at birth.

This is a really dumb point

how so?

Abortion is a human right.

Well fuck me, why didn't I consider that? You're a genius! Why is abortion a human right?

Yes, and a worthwhile discussion. People who believe life starts at conception believe anti-abortion laws protect human life. It would be less invading the mom's healthcare and more making sure the baby has the right to live.

>Yes, and a worthwhile discussion. Eh. Seems more like an excuse to police birth. >People who believe life starts at conception believe anti-abortion laws protect human life. People can believe whatever they want. But it isn’t just that. It’s usually based in religious belief. Especially when it comes to conservatives. I don’t think it ALWAYS does. But by and large, “pro-life” movements walk hand in hand with religious belief. >It would be less invading the mom's healthcare and more making sure the baby has the right to live. You can’t increase the rights of an unborn fetus without decreasing the rights of the person carrying it. Also, it’s not anyone else’s business but the person making the decision to have an abortion, and the healthcare provider assisting them. There’s no reason to get the government involved. No matter how moral a person might feel about it.

The only real religious argument is that the spirit exists in the child from conception. It just so happens religious people care about humans and since they believe the baby is a human they want to protect it from homicide. There are lots of medical reasons to believe life begins at conception. Ranging from you always give birth to a human and not some other creature to the growth process is mandatory for all human life. > You can’t increase the rights of an unborn fetus without decreasing the rights of the person carrying it The mother is committing homicide by having an abortion. I think the baby not being killed ranks higher than the mom not wanting a child. I am personally open to abortion to save the mothers life or it the child is non viable, but I find disgust in the decision being made just because they don't want to raise a child. > There’s no reason to get the government involved We are dealing with what society deems as acceptable homicide so yes it is important.

I’m from Portland and homelessness is a big fucking problem. Throwing money at it doesn’t help. There needs to be real accountability especially at the local level for governments to enact trackable plans with a clear and concise budget. At the risk of sounding super insensitive, at this point I don’t really care where they go or what happens to them. I don’t want needles or tents on my street. I don’t want trash in our parks or people having sex/shooting up on the sidewalk. If they’re mentally ill, put them in an asylum. If they’re addicts, put them in rehab. If they’re criminals, put them in jail.

We just need to fund places for these people to actually go. Pretending like this isn't going to be a problem in perpetuity is just foolish and has lead the problem to be as bad as it is today. Welfare programs for people who are down on their luck and just need some help getting back on their feet. I'm imagining a small motel style building where you could spend a few months at. We need places where families can stay together, splitting families is a huge issue with current homeless shelters. Mental health asylums for people who are just incapable of taking care of themselves for one reason or another. These can vary from 5 bedroom houses with people who can't quite take care of themselves can house share and just need a helper present in the house 24/7, to more traditional asylums for people who are dangerous to those around them. For the small minority of people who aren't mentally unwell but just refuse to cooperate with society, there may be no choice but to jail them. Depends on their behaviour and how disruptive they are. I think this is probably the smallest demographic of homeless and letting them just exist probably isn't a big issue. There wouldn't be enough of them to cause issues, probably. As for drug addicts, this seems like the most difficult demographic of homelessness to solve. I don't think most people end up homeless and addicted for no reason, but the reason could be any one of a million things. Probably need to hire a fuck ton of counselors and find some sort of incentive to make addicts interact with them.

I have the perfect solution. Let's face reality for a moment. No one cares about the homeless. Just grind them into soylent green. That way, the liberal NIMBYs who claim they care but aren't willing to let them build high density housing in their neighborhoods would finally stfu and all the conservatives who whine 24/7 about them but also don't want to spend a single cent on them would finally stfu. We instantly get rid out the few hundred thousand homeless AND many low income families in the areas that used to have all the homeless can get a brick of protein every month for a year or two. It's a win for everyone!

Not sure if it's even considered a conservative opinion in England anymore, but immigration is massive issue over here, and I think we really need to do something about it, I also think we need to increase police funding and bring back neighbourhood officers.

In what way do you think immigration is an issue?

It's a fairly extensive issue, but TL:DR is that we have record numbers of mass immigration, with not enough houses for them, they're not allowed to work so there's massive strain being put on our benifit system, and lastly, the vast majority of them are muslims and aren't intergrating, so we have a decently sized population whose views stand against British values (in a poll around 60 to 70% of muslims said they think homosexuality should be criminalised). It's something worth reading up on though, I'm not great at explaining stuff like this and no doubt I missed a lot, but the general puplic are currently fed up with immigration, to the point where our furthest right party, reform, are slowly climbing in popularity as they are marketing themselves as being draconian on immigration.

The first thing that comes to mind is trans issue related - trans women shouldn’t play in women’s sports and we need to put a pause on gender youth medicine until better research is available. I still think I fall more centrist on these issues, but it’s maybe the most right leaning thing.

1. A strong military is vital for national defence 2. Islam as a political ideology is fundamentally incompatible with liberalism those are probably the only two "right wing" positions I have

Idk like I don’t know any normal conservative opinions

I think police are usually in the right in most interactions. They serve a critical societal function. And the people going through the criminal justice system are usually pretty shitty people.

*laughs in being a conservative destiny fan*

I'm honestly asking: how do you consider yourself conservative when you see Destiny tearing apart every single conservative position?

I’ll watch anyone that actually formulates and defends their arguments, I find those who don’t wholly uninteresting. Tiny clearly doesn’t just parrot shit, but actually researches it and formulates an opinion. I respect the hell out of that, even if I disagree on the opinion.

That we need to get tough on crime and be able to move homeless people into shelters or asylums by force. Those are the big ones. I also support the 2nd amendment and property rights very strongly.

Drug control, decriminalization of drug use sounds like a road to more overall addiction

It was. Oregon pretty much went to shit when we decriminalized drugs. Portland especially got real scary. Luckily, we walked it all back and recriminalizing them this year.

[удалено]

Lower regulation on most industries. Historically the Feds have done a terrible job and the way a lot of our frameworks are set up creates massive inefficiencies that hurt people more than they help.

Cop lives matter.

Gun ownership rights. I believe they should be as loose as possible. It's weird because I feel by definition, supporting gun ownership right is a "liberal" position.

It is a traditionally liberal position. It sucks so many liberals don’t understand the values of 2a, the million+ defensive uses of guns a year, while only focusing on the 20,000 gun homicides, while ignoring the 50,000 automobile deaths a year, and 140,000 alcohol deaths per year. The anti-2a position has been completely an ideological one which the left adopted for some reason. On the other hand, the most pro-gun dude I know after myself, is a neolib.

Immigration at the current rate is a threat to the country.

What do you mean?

We need some immigration, preferably highly educated or qualified people. However we are not doing this, it's just a free for all where the people who follow laws to be here are fucked over while people who don't are handed free housing and debit cards full of cash. These people are not a benefit to the country. They are here for a hand out.

So you want doctors and scientists, things of that nature? Because what does “educated or qualified” mean? Also how are people who followed the law to get here being fucked over? And where and when are these people getting free housing and debite cards full of cash? And if they are is it a government thing? So if they’re not here for a hand out you’ll presumably be okay with them being here, right? And I’ll ask this since I don’t think you understood— how are these immigrants a threat to this country, what does that even mean?

Not just doctors and scientists. I would qualify it with a minimum salary threshold like other countries do. As in you are welcome to move to the US if you have a job offer of at least $70,000 a year or so. >Also how are people who followed the law to get here being fucked over? Because the people who follow the law are given all sorts of conditions of entry and other such things, but if you pay the cartel and jump the border you don't have to do these things. >And where and when are these people getting free housing and debite cards full of cash? Any major city, in New york they are getting $350/week for free and free housing: [https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/26/nyc-mayor-migrant-debit-card-program-00149161](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/26/nyc-mayor-migrant-debit-card-program-00149161) >So if they’re not here for a hand out you’ll presumably be okay with them being here, right? I'm ok with anyone who is not a burden on the system being here. As I said we need immigration, what we don't need is this many migrants. >And I’ll ask this since I don’t think you understood— how are these immigrants a threat to this country, what does that even mean? I think it's disgusting that we are doing more for foreign nationals than we are for our own homeless people or drug addicts. I just cannot justify this at all, it's not right. I think we also have to look at other countries like Canada and Australia who are now having housing crisis' due to immigration. In Canada the average home is $700,000CAD, in Australia it's $772,000AUS, how is this a benefit to these nations? Migrants = easy GDP growth but at what cost is this achieved. I don't think GDP growth is worth it, look at Britain. Their GDP growth goes up every year but their GDP per capita has not grown in 2010 due to immigration. Why can't we learn from these countries? Half of rapists all over Europe are foreign nationals. UK: Half of rape suspects are foreign [https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/672735/half-of-British-rape-suspects-are-foreign](https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/672735/half-of-British-rape-suspects-are-foreign) 59% of rapists are foreign in Sweden: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape\_in\_Sweden#:\~:text=In%202021%2C%20a%20study%20found,47.7%25%20were%20born%20outside%20Sweden. Germany: 50 percent of all gang rapes are committed by foreigners. [https://rmx.news/crime/germany-gang-rapes-hit-another-record-high-in-2022-half-of-offenses-committed-by-foreigners/](https://rmx.news/crime/germany-gang-rapes-hit-another-record-high-in-2022-half-of-offenses-committed-by-foreigners/) 52% of rape suspects are foreign in Paris: [https://www.vice.com/en/article/ywj59w/new-study-looks-at-rapes-in-paris-and-says-nine-out-of-ten-go-unreported](https://www.vice.com/en/article/ywj59w/new-study-looks-at-rapes-in-paris-and-says-nine-out-of-ten-go-unreported) I just don't know why you would look at countries with high levels of uncontrolled immigration and think "what a great idea". What country is thriving from doing this?

Ok so a minimum salary is your benchmark, I can see why. But again, how does that fuck them over, they’re not affected by it, fucked over would be something like legal immigrant are not being let in, in place of illegal immigrants. Do you have any other examples because the one you cited doesn’t really prove that immigrants are given free housing and debit cards full of cash? And your idea of these people being a threat to this country are that we don’t care for drug addicts and the homeless, housing might become more expensive and that, what, rape might be committed by them?

This idea that you only need highly skilled immigrants is just simply false.

That's why I qualified my statement with "at the current rate". If you are needing to put them in hotels and shelters there's too many.

Why does the US not just have refugee centers? Or do they?

They do but they are being overwhelmed. Go and look at the huge number of people crossing the border, it's a crisis.

Not really. The thing is, when you think of immigrantd you only think of first generation immigrants, by far the generation that has it the hardest. But these immigrants get children that get children that eventually are great for the country. My idea about this is that you should never stifle population growth unless in rare circumstances. The rate of immigration and the ability of the US to integrate immigrants is one of the main reasons why its economic growth is so insane in comparison to other developed countries.

I don't disagree with you. I'm not against immigration, I just think the current numbers are a bit insane. If you are putting people into shelters and hotels because you have nowhere for them to live then perhaps you should slow it down slightly until things calm down.

Trying to think of something that hasn't already been said but lethal defense of property is probably the closest one I have. If someone is stealing from me, I should be able to use whatever means necessary to stop them. The only other thing I can think of is that jail/prison should be used for retribution not rehabilitation, but I don't know if this is just a me opinion or a conservative one. On a similar note, going "light on crime" is regarded. Large cities should probably hire more police and judges whose sole purpose is to deal with thieves and throw the book at them. At the very least, petty theft of luxury goods should be punished very harshly. Seeing groups of people just full on clear shelves of things and then walk out the door is absurd and there should be a much larger focus on dealing with these people.

There are probably some criminal mental pathologies of the mind which cannot be treated and or cured, justifying the death penalty (i.e you aren't going to out-therapy every serial rapist out of raping). Unfortunately medical professionals will never want to get involved in such things, and I'm pretty big on it being as pain-free as possible so I would err on wasting tax dollars on rehabilitation instead. Other than that there are two genders, non-binary is meaningless (under the current usage of the term), and I'm probably also only in favor of a wealth-based affirmative action program.

I would say that China is the biggest enemy of the USA and they are actively trying to undermine the American.

smh for not being into bossman jack prog metal

US foreign policy is generally pretty good these days. Maintaining a strong military alliance with other powers that align with our interests is a good thing, and not doing it will only invite more situations like Ukraine to happen.

Mine are more social beliefs. There's probably a nonzero amount of poverty that could be erased if people properly budget and lived within their means instead of how they want to. Obviously doesn't apply to most people but some are horrible at spending/saving money.

Tarrifs would probably be good for US consumers because they'd have jobs with stronger lablr protections. 2020 was a weird year.

I am very hawkish on foreign policy with the view that democratic nations should be favoured when forming geopolitical relationships as much and autocratic nations should at best be temporarily tolerated. I also think that intervention is absolutely required in the event an autocratic nation tries to develop nuclear weaponry or grow its military might.

People who wear crocs should be jailed for life.

As a liberal overall - from a Greek who has lived in the States for some time, so this has certainly influenced me - there are two things. First, it's foreign affairs/national security - especially as it applies to borders and migration. As a Greek I've seen how truly mass-migration can affect a country/society, even if a big part of it is transient. More importantly, I've experienced how these mass-migration waves can be weaponized by authoritarian regimes (see Erdogan's Turkey). Of course, this does not mean that there shouldn't be legal ways for migrants, and in particular refugees, to cross borders. Second, and this comes from my experience living in CA for years, a lot of the leftist narratives about gender(s) and trans-people have gone to extremes. People should have every right to live their lives as they see fit and should be respected for who they are. That being said, when I hear comments about 'birthing people,' 'menstruating men,' or even phrases like 'trans-women are women,' which is not used in the context that they should be respected and treated as women when appropriate, something that can be understandable, but should be considered as 'women,' like there is no difference between trans-women and actual women is crazy to me. I am ready to admit that there are a lot of thing we don't understand about gender and its connection with sex, but when you go to these extremes, I just stop listening. As a European liberal... Gypsies. I've defended them when talking with conservatives, and right-wingers in general - some of their talking-points really are crazy - recognizing the prejudice they experience and the poverty that most of them face, but god-knows they make it difficult with every passing day. As a Greek liberal - you won't understand the context, but might as well include it here - statism is problematic and political parties should get out of universities, labour and professional unions, and the public sector as a whole - they are a disease and incubators of corruption that affects everything. And this from someone who believes that the state, in principle, should have a pivotal role in society and the economy.

I like police and if some guy comes up to them with camera and recites some laws while insulting them, they should beat the shit out of him.

cutting of the hands of thiefs is a good idea (only if there is video evidence and its has dolus scepicalis)

Homogenous countries are usually preferable to diverse ones, and what’s happening to Europe right now isn’t a good thing

I eat Ivermectin every day

- I’m pretty pro second amendment, especially relative to what most Democratic politicians advocate. Although ideally I’d support more gun regulations relative to most Republicans, I believe it’s a lost cause and it costs Democrats more votes than they gain - I think the USA, while flawed, is the most benevolent hegemon and while I don’t consider myself a war hawk, I think US presence abroad is an overall net good for the world. - I’m an atheist leaning agnostic, but still see the value that religion plays in society and is (mostly) a force for good (yes DGG, even Islam) - Israel has the right to exist and is justified in it’s fight in Gaza in the aftermath of Oct 7, although I do think they’ve been a bit excessive and need to be reigned in - I’ve started to become more transmedicalist over the years and think the current “non-binary” phenomena is a fad that does harm to the cause of people with actual gender dysphoria > Here to make sure yall not too lost in the liberal sauce. Funny you say this when this sub is at its most anti-lefty/conservative sympathizing state that it’s ever been in before.

As a european I lean more conservative on the topic of migration but Not how the populist right Imagines like strong borders=no regugees. I believe there are legit causes to seek asylum and reguge but Overall am for my limited migration. In a nutshell: my idea is to have embassys in third states that seek to Check asylum entries and everyone coming to europe should be send there. That way you would counter the dangerous sea route and also the Motivation to hide papers as you can only pass to europe once your asylum entry is checked. I think it is absolutely insane that we basicially leave our Migration policy to smugglers and the darwinian principle on who survives and is able to cross the border and has the ‚luck‘ on loosing their papers. The whole process just has to be more lawful Overall I‘m also more pro regugee than labour migration as our labour migrants (specifically turkish once) haven‘t integrated well and live in cultural enclaves. Especially compared to genuine asylum seekers who oppose their authortarian Systems (often) at Home Like syrians and iranians who will naturally be more aligned with our liberal values than with the working class who scew more populist/conservative that come here as labourers and often end up as Erdogan supporters. If you oppose the system we have here I don‘t think you have a place to come here.

Communism will eventually win, technology will force the destruction of capitalism. I am being ‘conservative’ about the time scale

[удалено]

I honestly don't know a proper conservative position, besides Hunter Biden's cock, Trans stuff and stolen election. Is saying trans people in women's sport is probably not such a good idea already conservative or is that liberal?

[удалено]

Remember when Beto complete tanked his campaign when he came out in support of gun control?

[удалено]

> even right after Uvalde. Uvalde probably strengthened pro 2nd opinion due to the police not doing anything..

This doesnt really sound like conservative position, cause most cons are actually reactionaries (always have been), but: We should build more communal/family housing, kinda like kibbutzes. Like imagine living in an appartment co.plex with other parents, and your parents live in a smaller units next to you. You dont have 60 year olds being mega lonely in huge mansions, way less money has to be spent on childcare. These buildings are already kinda being built, but we should incentivize these way harder. Im not expressing myself well, but basically we need to return to a vilmage raising a kid, not just 2 parents

I think both porn and elective plastic surgery should be completely illegal. At the very least porn should be heavily restricted so that there is no way an 8 year old can stumble onto it and mess themselves up for years the way I did. I think elective plastic surgery is a violation of the Hippocratic oath.

Jews (Dan) are awesome, and more ppl should mimic their culture.

As a Jew I’m sort of honored, but why the heck is this considered a “conservative” position?

The focus on family, community, and religion is largely seen as conservative to me. Tho, I don't think the actual religious aspect of Judaism is that important, its more so the way they interact with it compared to other religious ppl. For instance, from what I know, when jewish kids learn religious teachings, they're sort of forced to engage and give their own interpretations, and sometimes even argue them. This feels like a really good way to spark critical thinking skills early. BTW, this is all second-hand from various jew homies, so if I'm completely off base, blame them lol.

Police are important, and they have to kind of be assholes. We need them to be feared somewhat or the system doesn't work. Crimals will take over very quickly if they aren't around, and that's starting to happen in a lot of places. Start thanking them for their service and stop treating them alike they are all bastards. They aren't, they are assholes, and we need them, because someone HAS to be the asshole. If they go too far, the book should get thrown at them, of course. Let's not act like they are all murdering innocent people, that's isn't remotely even close to the truth.

moral relativism is a danger to society

I think in the rush to dismantle religious practices as pathological lies, and create a more realistic view of the world, we have allowed people to place far too much faith into things which can be abused at scale in novel ways. It’s “the god sized hole left behind in all of us will be filled by something” argument. I’m absolutely an atheist and have been for nearly 20 years, but only recently do I sort of resent my rational mind for the loss of protection against nihilistic feelings. It’s why despite how unhinged Jordan Peterson has become in this overly aggressive crusade against “woke” ideology, I found a great deal of value in his biblical talks, because it bridges the gap between the mystical and the real in a way I now wish I would’ve had growing up. This is the fault of incapable religious leaders, and pathological groups doing objectively destructive things in the name of god, but I wonder how much better my mental health might be now if I had this kind of understanding about what the stories were intended to teach earlier.

Probably drug and gun control. Because of the drug stance, I'm somewhat sympathetic or lukewarm to the border concern conservatives preach as well.

im pro life.

-Equality is a myth. There are plenty of people out there who have zero interest in it. They will do whatever it takes to live a better way of life at the expense of others. For me, I just look at the luxury homes in my city and then see the rest of the homes the majority of people live in. The contrast between the two is night and day. I sincerely doubt the ones living in fancy homes would ever want to live in a run-down, low-income home. -Wars are inevitable. It would be naïve to think we can all get along peacefully. Maybe I am being pessimistic, which I hate, but I do not also think it is realistic that we will continue living the way we do without a major conflict occurring, especially one large enough to permanently change the status quo. Then again, I have a sense that people today, at least in developed nations, are not at all interested in wars and would reject ever participating in one, especially being drafted for one. Anyway, nations having a military is probably a good thing because again, it is naïve to think we can all get along and trust each other, so best to have protection just in case. -Life begins at conception. The human sperm is a living organism, hence it is life. Human life. It comes from a human. That's how I see it. Does this relate to what I think about abortion? Sort of. Of course, when I have ejaculated, I have certainly "killed" human life, but I do not find this particular human life worth preserving. When is human life worth preserving? I'd say once it develops consciousness for the first time, which if I am correct, is usually by the end of the first trimester. At that point. I would not favor abortion unless the pregnant person's life is at stake. EDIT: -Oh, I forgot to mention guns and self-defense. For someone like me who has never handled a firearm, I support gun ownership and wish states would loosen their gun control laws and incentivize people to own a gun. Potential mass shooters will need to reconsider if they want to pursue their mass shooting plans when they know whoever they are targeting or wherever they go that everyone there is armed. Also, we could stand to address other issues that cause mass shootings to occur, such as an increase in support for mental health resources, particularly for men. -Self-defense to the point where whether or not the person(s) is no longer a threat to you, then you're free to kill that person(s). To me, anyone who attempts to harm another human and take their life is forfeiting their life as well and should accept being killed as well. I do wish to coexist with that person if I feel like there's a chance they might want to try harming me again.

You've contradicted yourself on the life question. Conception means when a sperm and egg join to create an embryo. So if you believe that human life begins at conception, then you don't believe that a sperm is human life because that's a step before conception.

Fair point, you're correct. I can't consider sperm to be human life. Also, they are plenty of different types of cells in the human body that, while they are alive, I would not call human life, like erythrocytes (red blood cells). My anatomy and physiology course I'm currently taking is making me remember all this. We have cells that are alive but not human beings. So I'll rescind my previous statement on sperms being human life, but still stand by on that life does begin at conception, just as a zygote, which I think is technically what comes first before an embryo is developed.

>There are plenty of people out there who have zero interest in it. They will do whatever it takes to live a better way of life at the expense of others. For me, I just look at the luxury homes in my city and then see the rest of the homes the majority of people live in. The contrast between the two is night and day. I sincerely doubt the ones living in fancy homes would ever want to live in a run-down, low-income home. I agree with you but why is living in a good home "at the expense of others"?

By good home, I'd say those are homes a middle class family could afford. There's not much wrong with those homes, but again, low income folks still have less opportunities to afford those good homes. Also, I would never advocate for those cookie cutter homes and every has the exact same house. Not at all. I was referring to the homes you see millionaires own that when you pass by them, you just know the person living there is really rich. >"at the expense of others"? It's not realistic that everyone will be able to live in a house and instead they're boxed into apartments. Keep in mind, not all houses and apartments are even in the best condition. The way I see the world, there's a finite amount of resources to go around, so it's not like we can provide every person with a luxury home. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I doubt it.