based_person

The beginning of "life" is relevant as it marks the starting point wherein a living being has human rights (be they normative or legal): such as the right to life.

While you might be able to technically argue that abortion is not "murder" because of the current legal definition (in certain areas anyway), it ought be obvious that opponents of abortion are, in fact, arguing that an unborn human fetus has the right to life.

In other words, they are arguing that abortion is [morally synonymous with] murder.

If you genuinely did not realize that , I suppose my comment would end here.
But it seems more likely that you're implying that morality is defined by government, and abortion is not objectionable because it is legal in most US jurisdictions.

I would hope that we don't have to have a discussion about why that perspective is not only wrong, but dangerous. (Bear in mind the now-viewed-as-horrendous atrocities committed throughout history that were deemed "legal" by the relevant governing authorities of their time.)

Fun fact: There is legal precedent in the US that the murderer of a pregnant woman can be held liable for the murder of not only the woman, but her unborn child as well. So the notion that an unborn child has the right to life isn't even a purely moral argument.

The problem with this perspective is that it assumes that tasking the government with a task will magically solve problems, when most of the time there are no true solutions to most problems stemming from the principles of scarcity; only tradeoffs.

This flaw is observable in nearly every popular argument for the socialization of nearly any good or service.

Is it immoral? I can see the case for it.

Is it a valid way to make money? I mean, you're providing something that people value.

But I definitely think it's not the place of the state to dictate morality in scenarios where others rights are not being infringed upon. Immoral or not, it ought be legalized.

In the modern world, nations seldom declare formal war anymore; for better or for worse.

I could envision a comedy sketch of an all-female world where world-leaders are passive-aggressively bombing eachother and poisoning eachother's water supply's while offering sympathetic lip-service apologies.

"Feminism", technically speaking, just means the perspective that women ought be more "empowered". I will assume that you are referring to the worldview of people who derive identity from feminism, or "feminists".

Feminists will generally try to make egalitarian arguments to justify their position, but in order for those arguments to be relevant, you have to refuse to view women as anything more than eternal victims to a completely rhetorical interpretation of sexual discrimination.
This perspective is fundamentally flawed because sexual discrimination is a pragmatic problem, not a rhetorical one.

Feminism =/= Egalitarianism

Feminism can, however, be in alignment with Egalitarianism in temporal & specific scenarios, such as the US suffrage movement.

While "feminism" is not technically incompatible with any economic model, the perpetually-victimized and entitled worldview of most feminists in 21st century US is largely incompatible with free-market models, in that these people tend to ironically view the personal responsibility that comes with those economic models as a form of oppression, when it is quite literally a form of empowerment.

But if one were to strictly read your question at face-value, it's effectively the same as asking if oranges and good gas-mileage are incompatible: they have nothing to do with one-another.

Pretty much every point pertaining to "equality" in this comment could be logically contested depending on what exactly you mean by "equality".

"Equality" in outcome cannot exist so long as people have any freedom and control over their own lives, and because the US constitution promises both Freedom and Equality, the only logical conclusion is that you are not entitled to the same outcome as someone else; and are "equal" in the sense that you are free to make the same decisions as others, and reap the benefits without irrelevant factors (potentially such as biological sex) having an impact.

This is fundamentally distinct from the interpretation of "equality", or recently dubbed "equity", peddled by statist leftists, wherein they assert that people ought be treated differently based on irrelevant physical characteristics in order to achieve equal outcomes across popular delineations of those arbitrary physical characteristics.

In truth, even Marx acknowledged how equality of outcome was inevitably oppressive. In his critique of the Gotha Program, he discussed how laborers with different capabilities ought be paid differently (he haphazardly assumes everyone will also work to their full capability). He then goes on to rationalize this seemingly self-contradictory realization by saying what he really opposes is the concept of social classes; but in doing so he completely ignores that social classes are the direct result of people making different decisions when it comes to their labor, and the management of the fruit it bears.

People are ultimately individuals.
Their interests are distinct as individuals.
No amount of ignoring supply-related and moral issues, as Marx does in his doctrine, will change that.

1. Your perspective refuses to acknowledge that people are not defined by your prejudices surrounding their physical characteristics. Your insistence that your prejudices are relevant is no different than someone who insists that blacks ought be persecuted because they [as a collective] disproportionately commit violent crimes.
   You are, in letter and in spirit, both sexist and racist.

2. I could just as easily claim you're wrong and call your perspective dangerous (something which you've ironically failed to produce any evidence for). But let's bridge that into a conversation: what would you say "social classes" are, and what causes them?

3. People are indeed entitled to not be discriminated against under the law. What's more, over-compensative measures such as McDonnell-Douglass burden shifting actually discriminate in favor of groups you assert are collectively victims.
   Despite this, you continue asserting they are [relative] victims.

The only rational explanation that I can fathom to understand where you're coming from is that you view discrimination as a rhetorical problem.

But that perspective is fundamentally flawed, because discrimination is a pragmatic problem. Not a rhetorical one.
It does not just magically exist whenever you need to justify your opinions. If exists between individuals (or groups of specific individuals) where someone acts against another.

Can you help me understand what it was I said that constituted ad hominem?

Looking over my comment, it seems any comment I made about the individual was pertaining to their argument & trying to understand how they could rationalize their position; as the position seems to contradict itself.

What have other races done?
Built mounds out of dirt? Dig holes in the ground? Clumsily stack some sticks in the middle of a river?
Human race all the way, baby.

I believe people are ultimately individuals who should not be assumed to comply with stereotypes, but it's worth noting that James Watson, the scientist dubbed "the father of DNA", held the position that:

"there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to maintain equal powers of reason as the universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

Counterpoint: the christian doctrine of the bible asserts that man (that is, Adam, who is supposedly the first human to be created), was created in the image of God himself.
Eve (supposedly the first woman) was not created until Adam noticed the male-female dichotomy in other species.
There's more than just pronoun usage suggesting "God" would be "male"; at least in the christian doctrine.

As can be inferred from other comments, many people probably agree with this, but are disagreeing because what "helping" someone means is ill-defined.

Oftentimes what one would consider "help" in the short-term enables long-term self-destructive behavior.

Were the question phrased differently, perhaps something like "People should be willing to do anything to do what's best for a member their family", I suspect it would be much more agreeable.

Shareholder is economically preferable for most scenarios, thus Stakeholder replacing Shareholder is not achievable (as attempting to mandate stakeholder would just be State 'Capitalism'. One does not change this just by insisting the government ought impose disadvantages upon businesses who does not engage in the behaviors deemed preferable by the state ). Thus, the question is moot.

Much like Socialism, the "Stakeholder Capitalism" doctrine outright ignores the aspects of human nature that pose problems for their doctrine. (Oftentimes blaming models which leverage those aspects for the corresponding negative effects).

Ignoring those problems and effects on paper doesn't make them go away in reality, however, and failure is the inevitable result.

Change begins and ends with the people. Vote with your dollar. Customers ultimately hold all the power even in Shareholder Capitalism, as their business is the goal which defines the interests of shareholders.

You're right that it doesn't explicitly say that, but the phrasing of the question strongly implies that what is being asked.

That's a very charged way to phrase that, and thus people are arguing against more than what is being said. But let's make the case against the emotional reaction everyone is feeling when reading that.

Disclaimer: Bear in mind that people are ultimately individuals who may have developed learned behavior that can "overwrite" their natural tendencies, and that is not necessarily wrong (in many cases, it can be good).

You've probably heard the line from feminists that "there's nothing sexual about the female form".

This is scientifically false. Humans have evolved to be very sexual creatures who are biologically wired to view physical features in a sexual context.
While females have also evolved to recognize sexual attractiveness in the male form, this is further-removed from their evaluation of potential mates. This is because the correlation between being physically strong & being able to provide for a mate is further-removed (from our present society) than the correlation between having healthy/sexually attractive bodies & the ability to birth healthy children.

While it is surely not a bad thing to oppose sexual assault, we must also bear in mind that the driving-force behind sexual assault is an evolutionary trait, and that the notion that sexual assault is wrong is a learned trait that contradicts the natural evolved ones.

Therefore, while we obviously ought oppose sexual assault, it is unreasonable to assert that males ought not notice sexual features that are highlighted by certain attire choices.

Coupled with the reality that laws do not prevent crime, it is only responsible to acknowledge that attire choices may change the behavior of others in serious ways, even if you and I agree it'd be better if they didn't.

It is similar to counting hundred-dollar bills in a dark urban alley at night.

Should you be able to do so safely in a "perfect" world? Yes. But we've already established that theft and sexual assault are things you're not allowed to do by law...yet people do them.

Getting outraged at the fact that one exposes themselves to danger with these behaviors does not accomplish anything; and refusing to acknowledge the unsavory realities of the world only serves to subject more people to the theft & sexual assault that we both agree is bad.

If you are are taking the perspective that something does not exist unless it can be completely and perfectly defined and understood, then nothing exists, as our very understanding of reality is founded upon incomplete information and inherently subjective perceptions.

The fact this is so heavily weighted, coupled with recent political changes, is a direct testament to how much our worldviews are dictated by propaganda.

A) "Everyone speaks of dying for their country; but your country wants you to kill for your country."

B) I'm not aware of any large-scale military conflict the US military was recently involved in that I would consider to be founded upon the defense of American values, as defined by the Constitution of our Constitutional Republic. Thus, to view any "bravery" in the conflicts we've been a part of as a defining characteristic would not be constructive.

I could see fringe cases where you might be able to argue as much...

but if you're using parlia, absolutely not, lol...

The number of people where this might be justifiable is minimal compared to the number of people looking to justify their unwarranted entitlement.

Depends on what you mean by "religion".

Statist media outlets have done a very effective job at both:
A) Highlighting the negative aspects of religious entities, and
B) Completely ignoring the charity religious organizations perform

Are you specifically referring to the belief in a supernatural numen and the tenants of morality laid forth in popular religious doctrines?
Or do we include the actions that the religious would attribute to those beliefs?

Many people treat their belief in statist propaganda as a religion unto itself, whilst comically bashing "religion" all the while.

You can believe that you're doomed to live a miserable life of poverty;
or you can believe that with enough intelligent planning, self-investment, and hard work, you will succeed.

Either way, you're going to be right.
But it's not fate.

I would argue all people deserve some level of respect, but see no firm reason to afford someone additional respect according to how long they've existed.

Yet Germany buys into the social platforms wherein people are considered victims or oppressors based on physical traits like race.

"Remembering" history means nothing if we do not understand it was enacted by people not much different that you and I. Statist media outlets, rhetorical interpretations of pragmatic problems, manipulating the indoctrinated to expunge those who challenge this programming...

Public school systems have a ridiculous array of deeply rooted problems; and while one can reasonably consider homework to be one of them, the stress-level of students is of comparatively minimal importance.

Because humans only have a finite amount of energy to commit to positive change, I do not consider abolishing homework to be a worthwhile endeavor.

Scientifically? Yes, obviously.

Philosophically? That would depend on the metaphor you're going for here.

Very much so. Yet with that personal power comes personal responsibility.
Responsibility for any lives you create, and responsibility for any measures you take to ensure you create none.

It depends on the nature and severity of what's troubling you.

Being troubled means that your brain is telling you that you should be dealing with a problem right now.

Whether or not it's within the realm of possibility for you to devise and implement a worthwhile solution is what will determine whether it's best to ignore or embrace the unpleasant feelings of being troubled.

Depends on what you mean by "free".
If you mean "free" as in "the absence of government intervention", then yes.

But if there's only one snippet of my comment you remember, remember this: Capitalism works because competition.

Monopolies are bad for consumers, and empowering the government with socializing something is functionally just giving the state a monopoly, meaning you're paying for it whether you want to or not.

Therefore, the role of government in economic markets should optimally be focused on positive-reinforcement methods of incentivizing competition between businesses.

E.g: previous administration enacted legislation that allowed small business-owners to effectively act as one entity for business insurance, effectively allowing them to pool resources together with members of their community they trusted to produce societal value.

In the African-American community, small-business ownership spiked a ridiculous ~400% in response to this legislation, as it helped reduce barriers to entry while simultaneously drumming up additional business for insurers.

Whether by accident or by design, however, many of these newfound businesses we killed either by market pressure or by statist governments forcefully shutting them down in response to Covid-19 "safety" measures.

Healthcare isn't a free market because there is a complete detachment between the price of a good and a good itself: most people have absolutely no idea what their care costs.

If price-signals were commonplace and people were empowered to shop around for their own healthcare, prices would drop as providers competed with one-another.

Why do you think that? Are both not scarce resources that require labor to procure?

Virtually the entire population will agree with the original statement.

The controversy will arise when we have to define what we mean by what people's "rights" are.

For example: arguing that healthcare is a "right" asserts that you're entitled to the work of others whose time and labor constitute the product you claim you're entitled to.

Most advocates of socialization rationalize their position under the false notion that tasking the government with socializing the distribution of a given good/service magically eliminates the logistical, moral, and supply-related problems stemming from the scarcity & production of that good/service.

The reality is that those problems still exist, but people just feel better because the ownice of solving those problems is now upon the government, whose sole prerogative is to attain more power, not solve the problems affecting those subjugated to them.

Saying a "relationship" is "valid" is a very unclear claim.
What's the difference between a "valid" and "invalid" relationship?

Procreation is obviously necessary to continue the human race; and it is objective to say that it is the role of women to be mothers, and men to be fathers in that task.

What exactly that means, however, is much less objective.

It is important to acknowledge that people are ultimately individuals who ought not need to live the life you believe is appropriate for their biological sex; but it is equally important to acknowledge that there are biological differences between men and women that will certainly take part in defining who they are as an individual.

Attempting to condense everything the acting members of a country have done into a singularity upon which you deliver a singular position is both futile and dangerous.

It removes your ability to distinguish the good from the bad; it obliterates your ability to analyze current policies logically, and it all but ensures you will be manipulated by those with more power and resources than yourself.

Equity only makes sense if you refuse to acknowledge that people are anything more than the prejudiced assumptions you attach to their physical characteristics.

It is synonymous with racism, sexism, or whatever other term describing a discriminatory perspective is appropriate for the context.

Could very well be something to it, but bear in mind that government-funded studies will absolutely be biased towards coming to results that the government needs to take more of our money to "fight" the issue.

Approach combatting climate change from a perspective that bears this in mind: take steps to address climate change in ways that don't allow the government to further infringe upon the freedom and liberty we have left.

Once you do that, you'll find a lot of people who used to oppose you will be willing to join in!

To argue that an interpretation of gender, distinct from sex, holds any significance is to argue the validity of gender stereotypes.

Just freaking live your life the way you want to.

But realize you don't have the right to dictate how everyone else has to interact with you.

One of the largest and most well-funded sociopolitical collectives is actively preaching that people are marginalized victims or privileged oppressors in a rhetorical interpretation of racism...based entirely on their physical characteristics.

This is, both technically and functionally, definitive racism.

What's worse, advocates of this political ideology believe they're fighting the very problem they're perpetuating.