4 ms·

The US is pretty bad, if you consider all of the wars from Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iraq, Afghanistan, all,of the CIA activities in South and Central America, the

The US is pretty bad, if you consider all of the wars from Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iraq, Afghanistan, all,of the CIA activities in South and Central America, the impact of drug prohibition, Racist policing and slavery and de facto slavery via prison labor (and the largest prison population). I think you could strangle a gnat on the different in ruined and lost lives between Russia, China, and America.

TimTheTinker 8y ago
All that may be bad, but it doesn’t hold a candle to Mao Zedong (49-78 million civilians killed) and Josef Stalin (23 million civilians killed). Hitler himself ranks third behind those two, at 17 million civilians killed.
- DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
  Not as bad as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao... could the bar be any lower? If the only way you compare favorably is considering the greatest mass killers of the last century, that should tell you something.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - TimTheTinker 8y ago
    Well, to our shame we have killed 60 million unborn babies since 1973... so no we don’t compare favorably, not at all.
    - DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
      Oh good, I was worried that this surreal conversation was missing the anti-abortion angle, but you totally brought it. Here’s a thought though, stop invading countries full of actual people and killing them before you worry about your foetus “kill count” ok? I listed Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iraq, Afghanistan, all,of the CIA activities in South and Central America, the impact of drug prohibition, Racist policing and slavery and de facto slavery via prison labor (and the largest prison population)... and your concern is that women in your country aren’t sufficiently controlled on religious grounds? It feels like maybe your issue with communist regimes is that they’re not theocratic enough for your tastes. Because of course theocracies offer such an excellent quality of life. If you really want to make a difference, stop selling arms to the worst regimes, like Saudi Arabia. Leave women’s reproductive rights alone.
      - TimTheTinker 8y ago
        > stop invading countries full of actual people and killing them before you worry about your foetus “kill count” ok? > your concern is that women in your country aren’t sufficiently controlled on religious grounds? > Leave women’s reproductive rights alone. It appears I’ve touched a nerve; I’m not here to antagonize/flame. But I named the issue in the US that I truly feel the most consternation about. Yes, the CIA’s methods are wrong, and yes — many of our wars have been unjust (and increasingly so as time goes on). But I think it’s right to feel the most angst about things that hurt/kill the most people. 60 million is an almost unimaginably big number. As for women’s rights — I have nothing against them, but a right is not valid or just if it grants one person an unjust privilege against others. We do not allow women (or men) to kill babies after they’re born — that would be an unjust right. How can we allow pre- and post-birth to be a delineator of personhood? That’s discrimination — against the weakest and least able to speak for themselves, and it’s over the right to live (not even a lesser issue like employment).
        DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
        It appears I’ve touched a nerve; But I named the issue in the US that I truly feel the most consternation about. That’s the nerve.
        TimTheTinker 8y ago
        If abortion were outlawed, what would women lose? Besides the difficulty of childbirth itself, if they didn’t feel able or didn’t want to raise another child, just about every hospital I know of has a “safe drop” where babies can be essentially abandoned to the state, from whence they are placed into adoption. Children would gain their lives, people longing to be parents would have the opportunity... about the only entity that would stand to lose is the abortion clinics themselves (and perhaps foreign adoption agencies). Note I have nothing against most forms of contraception. “Family planning” or preventing unwanted pregnancy is not the issue. But once a human zygote has formed, a new human being exists, and ethically speaking, should be treated as such.

TimTheTinker 8y ago

All that may be bad, but it doesn’t hold a candle to Mao Zedong (49-78 million civilians killed) and Josef Stalin (23 million civilians killed). Hitler himself ranks third behind those two, at 17 million civilians killed.

DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
Not as bad as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao... could the bar be any lower? If the only way you compare favorably is considering the greatest mass killers of the last century, that should tell you something.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- TimTheTinker 8y ago
  Well, to our shame we have killed 60 million unborn babies since 1973... so no we don’t compare favorably, not at all.
  - DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
    Oh good, I was worried that this surreal conversation was missing the anti-abortion angle, but you totally brought it. Here’s a thought though, stop invading countries full of actual people and killing them before you worry about your foetus “kill count” ok? I listed Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iraq, Afghanistan, all,of the CIA activities in South and Central America, the impact of drug prohibition, Racist policing and slavery and de facto slavery via prison labor (and the largest prison population)... and your concern is that women in your country aren’t sufficiently controlled on religious grounds? It feels like maybe your issue with communist regimes is that they’re not theocratic enough for your tastes. Because of course theocracies offer such an excellent quality of life. If you really want to make a difference, stop selling arms to the worst regimes, like Saudi Arabia. Leave women’s reproductive rights alone.
    - TimTheTinker 8y ago
      > stop invading countries full of actual people and killing them before you worry about your foetus “kill count” ok? > your concern is that women in your country aren’t sufficiently controlled on religious grounds? > Leave women’s reproductive rights alone. It appears I’ve touched a nerve; I’m not here to antagonize/flame. But I named the issue in the US that I truly feel the most consternation about. Yes, the CIA’s methods are wrong, and yes — many of our wars have been unjust (and increasingly so as time goes on). But I think it’s right to feel the most angst about things that hurt/kill the most people. 60 million is an almost unimaginably big number. As for women’s rights — I have nothing against them, but a right is not valid or just if it grants one person an unjust privilege against others. We do not allow women (or men) to kill babies after they’re born — that would be an unjust right. How can we allow pre- and post-birth to be a delineator of personhood? That’s discrimination — against the weakest and least able to speak for themselves, and it’s over the right to live (not even a lesser issue like employment).
      - DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
        It appears I’ve touched a nerve; But I named the issue in the US that I truly feel the most consternation about. That’s the nerve.
        TimTheTinker 8y ago
        If abortion were outlawed, what would women lose? Besides the difficulty of childbirth itself, if they didn’t feel able or didn’t want to raise another child, just about every hospital I know of has a “safe drop” where babies can be essentially abandoned to the state, from whence they are placed into adoption. Children would gain their lives, people longing to be parents would have the opportunity... about the only entity that would stand to lose is the abortion clinics themselves (and perhaps foreign adoption agencies). Note I have nothing against most forms of contraception. “Family planning” or preventing unwanted pregnancy is not the issue. But once a human zygote has formed, a new human being exists, and ethically speaking, should be treated as such.