The problem with betting on or against it is that you have to two factors to place your bet. What and when. You’re right about the what, but can you time the top? I’m not betting on that either.

Because when choosing where to build infrastructure projects like these, poor and minority neighborhoods are usually chosen over richer or white neighborhoods.

You’d leave the cocaine on the board?

Everything looks good here, perfect date. Wait, except… is that… unground coffee beans? What the fuck?

I know I wasn’t there. He said a few minutes changed his life permanently.

You joke, but I litterally know a guy who recently completely lost his hearing from firing his AR without hearing protection.

No, Biden is complicit. If enough voters make it clear he has two choices: abandon Israel or we’ll elect Trump, then it’s his fault when Trump is elected for continuing to support genocide.

Politicians work for us, they have a responsibility. Not the other way around.

Genocide is bad enough to outweigh all the good.

That comes after the election.

Stops trying to take attention from the genocide he’s actively supporting with our tax dollars.

That would make a great movie premise. Opening scene the klan is doing some occult ceremony.

You don’t have to consent to becoming a gay folk hero.

You’re talking sheer pregmatics here? Awesome, now you’re speaking my language.

Celebrate her relationship. Turn her into a gay folk hero for hooking up with women despite the upbringing / programming.

So you’re saying she should not be having bisexual threesomes? I think that’s fucked up, let her have whatever adult sex she wants.

No it’s not valid. That’s litterally the tu quoque fallacy a form of ad hominem.

People are attacking her for having bisexual threesoms. That’s a shitty thing to do. Let her have all the sex she wants with whoever she wants, it’s none of our business.

That’s a fallacy. If I say it’s bad to kill people, then I kill someone, was I wrong when I said it’s bad?

What someone does is separate from the validity of what they say.

You just defined ad hominem in the same sentence you said it’s not.

If they are making bad policy, then focus on that because it’s bad. Not because the individual doesn’t actually follow it.

I’m not saying it’s a debate, just be the change you want to be. If we sex shame them, we’re saying they’re right to be doing the same.

Try being the change you want to see. Celebrate their relationship.

Your first sentence, you state it’s not an appeal to hypocrisy, then you define hypocrisy in the same sentence.

The issue is not discriminating against the rights of others while giving yourself those same rights. The issue is discriminating. Period. There’s no other caveots there.

If you’re going to sex shame them, you’re just as bad as them. Let’s celebrate their sexuality instead.

Then your last sentence, “it is better to use a fallacy to force them to think logically”. C’mon what the fuck are you even saying? It’s self defeating since you’re already not thinking logically if you’re using fallacies. You’re talking about FORCING SOMEONE TO THINK? You are just as bad as them.