thanks!

This post isn't actually jibberish but your previous post is imo.

I can be against abortions and not be religious at all and the same goes for borders.

@bobo @lolwhat

Right, and of course no one is arguing otherwise.

Don't know how I'm supposed to respond to this. If you have any sentences to articulate your thoughts more clearly, I'd be happy to respond.

Exactly, remember all the chicks at highschool arguing heavily against abortions? I do and that didn't have anything to do with religion it was something else imo. probably life itself. there are a lot of women who would never consider an abortion.

I just added the @ so you see what I meant. like on twitter you know? they just wtite something and then add # or @ or whatnot.

My experience is that those who call something 'gibberish' or 'nonsense' or whatever don't actually have a solid thought process behind why they don't like an idea.

I don't disagree, I'm just trying to be generous and accept their cover story

What about them?

I mean... good. I posted a graphic that showed that not 100% of all people who are against abortions are religious. Therefore there are some that are against abortions while not being religious at all. What is it you think your existence proves, or what is it you think I'm saying? The claim is merely that 'religious beliefs appear to be a good predictor for being against abortion'. The existence of people who are not in both boxes or neither does not disprove the idea, and it's really far from obvious why the two of you are so keen to die on this particular hill. Why and how is it controversial to suggest that there's a link between religious belief and being so-called pro-life?

No. But your anecdotes about "all the chicks" doesn't add anything to this conversation anyway.

Once again - No. One. Is. Arguing. Otherwise. In fact, everyone has gone out of their way to acknowledge that there are people against abortion for reasons completely unrelated to religion.

Going back once again to what I quoted earlier: "The 'issue' of abortion is rooted in religion." Note 'issue', as in the political issue that is being pushed by the GOP. That is most definitely rooted in religion, whether entirely or partially.

But even without that clarification, your statement that "it has nothing to do with religion" was always a ridiculous one.

Ok my bad, that is all true. Just wanted to chime in and say Lolwhats post was somewhat contradictive.

True that.

I think you tried to reply to wazz comment not mine.

Sometimes that's true.
Other times the idea being presented is so logically incoherent or absurd on its face, it defies belief that someone would actually present it and expect experienced, grown adults to take it seriously.

religion teaches us that white is good and non white is bad and needs to be cleaned. Religion teaches us that our tribe is good, but everyone else is going to hell.

religion these days allows groups of people to isolate and then many groups attack other groups.

this is clear with racist immigration laws that hurt brown and black people but offer preference to whites/europeans

Name a bill in the last 30 years, that was drafted and sponsored by GOP members, which was aimed at helping working class families.

I'll wait.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-s...spending-bill/

https://www.policygenius.com/taxes/w...-and-jobs-act/

The covid relief cash seemed like a smokescreen for the real grift, the PPP loans.

The policygenius link literally says in the subtitle:

Just one of the newer batchit crazy liberal policies

https://x.com/stillgray/status/16989...PIuckm92mbIriw

why is this bad policy?

It is of course a complete misrepresentation of the bill, which actually has nothing at all to do with making it illegal to confront shoplifters. What it does is make it illegal for employers to require non-security personnel to confront them - they can still hire security guards/loss prevention staff whose job it is to handle these situations and in no way are prevented from doing so by this bill.

Some people have genuine issues with the bill, mostly stemming from hiring dedicated security staff and the additional red tape from other aspects of the bill being infeasible requirements for small businesses, but the claims in that tweet are complete nonsense.

It's gotta be tough being gullible enough to believe this loser

Because it doesn’t fix the current problem or even address the issue. It just encourages crime even more. What they need to do is make crime illegal again in California and with much harsher penalties.

Crime should be crime, but harsher penalties are not a deterrent. They are proven to be ineffective. We just end up with more people in jail and higher recidivism rates. Penalties that include rehabilitation are effective. After all, that's what the justice system is for, to rehabilitate our fellow Americans and reintegrate into society.

Maybe for shoplifters, not so much for serial killers.

Yeah I am sure a small business has the cash to hire security. Basically the shop owners that beat the shoplifter with a stick would be charged

Why send your kid to collage just teach him to steal $900 worth of goods at stores .

California is a total mess

The first sentence of this is a reasonable issue that people have with the bill (albeit it's just repeating one of the same points I made in my post). The second sentence is complete bollocks and the result of your (not just you but you're a textbook example nowadays) type of passive consumption of conservative propaganda with zero effort spent to check if it has any basis in reality. Nothing in the bill has anything to do with consequences for a person who confronts a shoplifter. The only thing related to confronting shoplifters is that employers can't make it a requirement of untrained staff that they do so.

You think harsher penalties will deter serial killers? There are probably a handful to 10s of serial killers maximum and no laws are going to stop them. They're sick.

No, I just don't think you're going to rehabilitate them either.