• 0 Posts
  • 40 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 21st, 2024

help-circle

  • Apparently they are not

    Charlie Kirk wasn’t empathetic himself. Literally look at the posted quote by OP. He was not a tolerant person, but intolerant of others.

    Neither are the people celebrating here

    The people on social media reacting to Charlie Kirk’s demise are not calling for violence towards each other. They are acting in unison, setting aside the MSM, and celebrating the death of a political influencer with destructive ideals. We The People are consistent in our peace treaty, for we all know Charlie violated it well before now.

    What they’re doing instead is using violence

    I’m sorry, are social media posts violence now? Are social media posts the same as a bullet to the neck? Are celebrations of death the same as calling for it? Can we not take pleasure in knowing vile, evil people have perished and can no longer spread their destructive ideals that will lead to pain and suffering of others?

    They’re them, we’re we, we’re better is what you’re describing and is parochial empathy.

    The test is empathy, man. Empathy is the gateway into breaking down racist and sexist walls and realizing that we all have more in common that in difference. Charlie actively advocated against that, reinforcing stereotypes and charging up the fascist belief of “the other”.





  • and don’t want the democracy

    and don’t feel that their government is democratic

    I read the Harvard source too, and nowhere were populations asked about democracy in their country. The researchers wanted to look at general satisfaction, and broke that down into surveys about the economy, government corruption, and environment.

    Based on the Harvard study alone, neither you nor the Original Commenter (OC) can make claims about perceptions and desires about democracy in China.

    However, OC did share the Democracy Perception Index. Looking at the 2024 report alone, Chinese people scored China at >75% democratic, and responded that democracy is >85% important to them. >50% of people believed that China had the right amount of democracy. Based on the data alone, we would believe that the majority of Chinese people 1) want democracy, 2) think China is democratic, and 3) don’t think the amount of democracy needs to change.

    We can debate over whether this data is trustworthy. DPI researchers asked surveyees over the internet, which automatically rules out more rural and poorer groups in each society. But this was done for each country, so you might be able to say that the entire survey is moot. Internet surveys are much more susceptible to censorship too, which is why the Harvard study that involved face-to-face interviews is better imo.

    Nonetheless, these are the sources that OC presented to support their claim. The majority of Chinese people want democracy, think they live in a democracy, and are satisfied with whatever government they live under, democracy or not.

    The original point that OC responded to was whether Chinese people feel coerced by their government. I think the corruption part in the Harvard study and the government accountability part in the DPI reports clearly imply that this is not the case.

    What evidence do you have to make the opposite case?






  • Consent is not only informed. There are other forms of consent, like express, implied, informed, substituted, etc.

    I want to say pretty much all of the research I’ve presented so far fall under the idea of implied consent. Females in the animal kingdom do absolutely consent to having sexual relations with males, but only after the males have demonstrated some sort of direct or indirect benefit that the females agree to. Females consent by selecting one mate over others. Literally this can mean that they change their body like in the case of hyenas or ducks, where if they don’t consent males literally cannot fuck them.

    The opposite is when rape does occur in the animal kingdom. Males will chase after females, alone or even in groups, then force themselves onto the females. Females can show signs of escape by trying to resist, or they may submit to avoid further injury. This is literally what legal counsel advises women to do in human rape.

    You’re restricting the idea of consent to make your argument. That isn’t a good argument


  • All of the sources I shared point to animals choosing their sexual mates, or choosing not to - and the consequences of doing that in many species: rape.

    Choice in this matter, and free choice at that, is the basis for consent. It matters not that the species in question understands what consent is for them to still exercise it.

    You’re trying to prove a negative. Where’s your evidence for that?





  • Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldNew idea
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    You aren’t shutting down the conversation. I never said that. Thanks for putting words in my mouth, idiot.

    You want me to voice my opinion in ways that are more palatable to your sensibilities. Ain’t doin’ shit for you bro.

    Good! Maybe you should date more vegans. Hell, even make more vegan friends. You’ll get over this hump of having your feelings hurt



  • Sure thing, bud

    Since this dialogue originally started with discussions on rape, or sexual coercion, we have to start with sexual selection, and then identify its main component, mate choice. This stands in contrast to sexual coercion where mate choice is suspended at often negative impacts to females.

    The main argument I want to draw out from the above, as well as from research syntheses like this or this, or this, is that there is choice of females to select males out of the benefits, direct or indirect, they perceive that copulation grants.

    With domesticated animals like cows where we rob that agency from them, it is forced insemination, which falls under forced penetration or rape. Cows cannot flee to escape forced insemination. They cannot team up with other cows to flee or fight back against the rapists, as we humans have thought of ways to isolate cows. We might have also drugged them so they show less resistance to our violations.

    Don’t defend rape dude. You look fucking weird


  • Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldNew idea
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Since this dialogue originally started with discussions on rape, or sexual coercion, we have to start with sexual selection, and then identify its main component, mate choice. This stands in contrast to sexual coercion where mate choice is suspended at often negative impacts to females.

    The main argument I want to draw out from the above, as well as from research syntheses like this or this, or this, is that there is choice of females to select males out of the benefits, direct or indirect, they perceive that copulation grants.

    With domesticated animals like cows where we rob that agency from them, it is forced insemination, which falls under forced penetration or rape. Cows cannot flee to escape forced insemination. They cannot team up with other cows to flee or fight back against the rapists, as we humans have thought of ways to isolate cows. We might have also drugged them so they show less resistance to our violations.

    Don’t defend rape dude. You look fucking weird