Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Aucontraire

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Questions & Debates / Re: Abortion = Kindness?
« on: January 20, 2026, 09:53:43 pm »
Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 20, 2026, 05:10:31 pm
Or I could check the vicinity for dangerous objects and put them elsewhere before the baby arrives. Moron.

What if you missed something? What if someone drops something? What if you're out and about?

You're living in fairytale land.

And you're ignoring the other examples I mentioned. I could easily list a hundred more examples of violence often necessary for "childcare". Not to mention all the animals killed to procure their food and clothes (even if they're plant-based).

Quote
How?

I've just explained how, "illiterate".
Birth is violent
"Childcare" is violent
Even just having to wake up is violent (note how often they cry upon waking)

2
True Left vs False Left / Transmisogyny
« on: January 20, 2026, 09:24:49 pm »
What do you get when you cross misandry with transphobia?

Transmisogyny! (bigotry against trans women)

No one's giving trans men flak, because they have "safer" female biology! They're "victims" of "internalized misogyny" or "violence by cis males when they enter male spaces". Whereas trans women are "aggressors" "imposing themselves on female spaces". What a colourful narrative about people just because they were born with penises or vaginas!

We're at a difficult crossroads in the queer freedom movement where we have to divorce from a large part of the feminist movement.

But good riddance I say! There's no place for misandry in an enlightened society.

When a TERF says "Those with male biology are not welcome in womens sports/womens restrooms"

Say: "It's wrong to judge people based on sex!"

When they say "If you were given a bowl of identical M&Ms, knowing one is laced with deadly poison, would you eat one?"

Say: "Is this a metaphor for black people? Poor people? People with tattoos? People with mesomorphic physiques? Teenagers? Or are you singling out biological males for prejudice because you're a sexist?"

As a biological female myself I say: TERFs do not speak for me! Trans women, you are welcome!

3
Questions & Debates / Re: Abortion = Kindness?
« on: January 19, 2026, 09:45:10 pm »
Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 19, 2026, 06:34:27 pm
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/abortion-kindness/msg31946/#msg31946

Relevance?

Quote
None of which I would do (or have ever done in the past).

I'm interested in preventing greater violence (which IS the path of least suffering, ultimately).

If you would not commit the violence of e.g. swiping a button battery out of a baby's mouth in order to prevent them dying an excruciating death, then you very clearly are not.

You are willing to leave them to a horrific fate just to keep your own hands clean.

Quote
Where do I support this? Please post an exact quote.

"Wait for their instruction."
This requires life preservation, which requires "repeated acts of violence". Your support is implicit, albeit temporal.

4
Questions & Debates / Re: Abortion = Kindness?
« on: January 18, 2026, 09:36:01 pm »
Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 18, 2026, 05:20:56 pm
There is no other preventive measure. Abortion, a response to conception, is remedial by definition.

How dishonest. We're cleary talking about preventing suffering and greater violence, not preventing conception (although, abortion is the only reliable, widely legal way to prevent the individual themselves conceiving).

Quote
I did not bring up gambling.

My question wasn't "who brought up gambling?"

Quote
I am worried about initiated violence.

If you were, then you'd be worried about the initiated violence of survival and birth, not just conception and death.

Quote
Of course I would try my best to never use force, but instead only act in response to cues from them. I may not be flawless in this. But so long as the infant is not my offspring, it is not my fault for being an imperfect carer, as I am dealing with a problem that I did not create. If I were the infant, I would feel respected by any carers who did not conceive me but who are sincerely trying to figure out what I want from them, certainly more than I would feel respected by aborters who (just like conceivers, and just like tyrannical parents) think they know better than I do.

"who think they know better than I do"
This is the position you take every single time you use force.

When you pin a baby down and force a diaper on them,

When you cram them into a carseat or force them into a jacket,

When you grab them from a dangerous ledge, stop them pulling a heavy piece of furniture onto themselves, or swipe a button battery out of their mouth,

They might be screaming and trying frantically to escape. That's clear communication. But you do it anyway, because you think you know better than they do.

I sincerely wonder why you think it's ok to commit violence to preserve life, but not to create it?

Quote
Now you sound like every tyrannical parent justifying prohibiting their offspring from dating.

This would mean ongoing violence and emotional pain. Again, this is far more similar to what you're supporting (repeated acts of violence for unrequested life preservation).

Quote
Then why am I opposed to conception?

Because you're inconsistent.

5
Questions & Debates / Re: Abortion = Kindness?
« on: January 17, 2026, 06:14:18 pm »
Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 17, 2026, 05:16:10 pm
Preventing conception is the genuine preventive measure.

So we shouldn't bother with others, when that is no longer available?

Your insane arguments come off as desperation.

Quote
If it is a gamble either way, what are you complaining about?

I could ask you the same question.

Quote
Again you sound like every tyrannical parent arguing that not forcing their offspring to learn XYZ before they themselves ask to learn it is equivalent to stealing from them.

Interesting analogy.

Because you are the one worried about something (life) being "stolen" from the child.

And are willing to let nature (and parents) force things on them so they might have a chance to gain.

If you intend on keeping an infant in your care alive, you yourself would have to repeatedly force things on them. Bathing, changing, any required medical treatments, and birth itself.

Your choice is between 1 additional consent violation, and many.
Between 1 (if performed early) painless procedure, and many painful, distressing, or uncomfortable ones.
Your fellow traveller Christian Bethel said Aryanists hate life, but you seem to worship it!

6
Questions & Debates / Re: Abortion = Kindness?
« on: January 17, 2026, 03:17:13 am »
Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 16, 2026, 10:18:11 pm
You were the one who brought it up!

That their suffering can usually be temporarily relieved non-lethally is irrelevant because they still have to suffer in the first place and what we're discussing is a preventative measure (abortion). And "usually" is far from adequate.

Quote
That's what you would be doing by killing them without permission.

I never denied that abortion would be a gamble. By forcing them out of the game, they might never "lose", but they also won't "win".

You are denying that letting nature force them to stay in is a gamble.
While you "wait" for their command, they'll have to suffer repeated consent violations.
After already being forced into the game in the first place!

7
Questions & Debates / Re: Abortion = Kindness?
« on: January 16, 2026, 09:25:49 pm »
Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 16, 2026, 08:35:08 pm
A crying baby can usually be relieved without killing them. (Also, I myself have never seen a baby crying prior to birth.)

Irrelevant.

Quote
I don't make a profit either way, therefore not a gamble.

Gambling on someone else's behalf is still gambling.

Quote
Each person decides for themselves.

Not an option for a baby who is literally still in the womb. Try again.

8
Questions & Debates / Re: Abortion = Kindness?
« on: January 16, 2026, 05:49:59 pm »
Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 16, 2026, 04:25:09 pm
You should debate with the person whose opinion you accuse me of valuing.

Debating with unempathetic people won't make them empathetic. Thankfully, most people understand a crying baby is usually distressed or uncomfortable and needs relief.

Quote
Wait for their instruction.

So, gamble on their suffering.

Quote
you should not get to decide how quickly it leaks into anyone else's room, except those who have explicitly requested you alone to decide for them.

Pick one:
- A compassionate human decides, despite not being explicitly requested to
- Nature decides, despite not being explicitly requested to

9
Questions & Debates / Re: Abortion = Kindness?
« on: January 16, 2026, 04:01:26 pm »
Quote from: christianbethel on January 15, 2026, 09:37:35 pm
It's not attachment, it's duty.

Do unborn babies have a duty to live?

That's the meaningful distinction. Not semantics around your personal reason to live.

10
Questions & Debates / Re: Abortion = Kindness?
« on: January 16, 2026, 03:50:52 pm »
Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 15, 2026, 04:48:49 pm
OK, so now both sides each accuse the other of having an unempathetic opinion. Now what?

I accuse you of valuing unempathetic opinions, now what?

Quote
Someone else says the individual will experience excitement, joy and pleasure. Now what?

Someone else says the room contains extreme opportunity. Now what?

Place your bet:
- Let them suffer in case the pleasure outweighs the pain
- End their suffering in case it doesn't

Quote
We were inside the same room once. We were not poisoned. How come we are now outside the room?

We were never inside their room (their life). We're inside our own. The poison gas is already leaking in, slowly, decaying us.

11
Questions & Debates / Re: Abortion = Kindness?
« on: January 15, 2026, 02:32:59 pm »
Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 14, 2026, 06:30:26 pm
You say it is. Someone else says the opposite. Now what?

Why should we value their unempathetic opinion?

Quote
If someone has been non-consensually locked inside a room with presently no way to communicate with those outside, but a window is timed to open tomorrow which will enable communication, should we wait until tomorrow to hear how the prisoner wants us to help, or should we release poison gas into the room today?

- The individual will almost inevitably experience bouts of unbearable panic, distress, and agony before they can communicate their wishes
- The room contains extreme danger, requiring luck and effort to avoid
- The release of poison gas is inevitable, and the only known way to escape. You would only be releasing it sooner.

This is about your opinion, not mine. What would you choose and why?

12
Questions & Debates / Re: Abortion = Kindness?
« on: January 14, 2026, 02:34:46 pm »
Quote from: christianbethel on January 14, 2026, 12:23:38 pm
We hate life. We only live to complete our mission.

Resentful attachment is still attachment.

Quote
Everything you just said is the opposite of what we believe in.

Yet you promote it anyway, even though criminalizing abortion doesn't serve as a "means to an end" (unlike selective conception).

13
Questions & Debates / Re: Abortion = Kindness?
« on: January 14, 2026, 02:55:52 am »
Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 13, 2026, 05:17:41 pm
If they have no preference, intervention is neither kindness nor unkindness towards them. It is initiated violence, though, since you have not been given permission by them to choose on their behalf.

Do you understand the difference between a signed contract with a declaration that the signer has no preference in a given matter (therefore passing the choice to others) and a similar contract without a signature? You are arguing in effect that the latter entitles you to choose on behalf of everyone who didn't sign.

I was referring to intervention in their suffering. The end (non-suffering) is their clear preference, they just can't answer which means they'd prefer. Just like if you were to choose "on their behalf" between non-lethal treatments, like different kinds of analgesic, or a warm bath or some milk and a cuddle.

But, besides (apparently) attacking an argument I didn't make, your reasoning has a major flaw: Babies have no "choice" they can "pass to others" in the first place. Nature is already choosing on their behalf, without their consent. Any intervention would be in violence which is already being committed — not in an individual's agency over whether they live or die.

14
Questions & Debates / Re: Abortion = Kindness?
« on: January 13, 2026, 03:55:56 am »
Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 13, 2026, 01:19:05 am
Pick one.

You're deflecting. Answer the questions.
Or don't. I don't care. It's clear babies don't want to suffer. If they don't prefer life or death, there's no need to let that question delay intervention.

15
Questions & Debates / Re: Abortion = Kindness?
« on: January 13, 2026, 12:44:20 am »
Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 11, 2026, 07:04:45 pm
It would be kinder to the conceived to keep them safe until they have expressed a preference one way or another, and only thereafter help them on whichever path they prefer.

Exposing them to life's cruelty is hardly "keeping them safe", is it? Do you listen when a newborn cries, or do think that's not a clear enough expression of preference?

Pages: [1] 2 3