this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2026
127 points (98.5% liked)

Asklemmy

53558 readers
770 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Water usage is probably my biggest. Living in a high desert, my wife and MIL see no problem with filling one side of the sink with hot soapy water to wash a few dishes because “that’s just how I’ve always done it”, to watering the grass and plants for hours. All of this makes me mental.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

But, before I do that, I think you have lost what my original argument was about. I am asserting that the abortion debate will never end due to each side arguing about disparate things.

Since you're apparently lost, I'll make I'll summarize - the two sides talking past each other is how this issue was engineered. This is a manufactured debate designed for political purposes, and not for the welfare of kids. There's a reason this nonsense took hold in the US and nowhere else in the western world.

But this ignores one of their central beliefs; that abstinence only is the best education to reduce abortions.

They absolutely don't believe that lol. They believe it is the only acceptable option (even it demonstrably doesn't work).

Next you talk about dismantling social safety nets. From looking at a few Pro-life groups many of them do not really talk about changing social services for kids at all. The ones that do talk about increasing education, providing counseling, and promoting adoption as an option. I think what the misunderstanding might be is that many people who are Pro-life are also republican who also believe in a reduction of government social services in favor of private services. This assignment of belief is not transferable. What I mean by this is that being Pro-life does not necessarily equate to wanting to dismantle social safety nets.

I simply don't understand why you insist on taking what everyone says at face value while ignoring their actual actions - how they vote.

Last thing that you mentioned that I want to comment on is about single-issue voters. Of course I would encourage people to be aware about all the issues that affect them. But I do not agree with the demonization of single-issue voters.

I'm not demonizing them lol. I'm calling them stupid. If you're a single issue voter, you are completely captive. The guy who embodies your one key issue can do anything else they want because they know they have you. Single issue voters always end up being suckers in there end.

[–] Archr@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

You are more talking about how this debate came to be. My central argument is more about how the debate cannot end.

I am not sure how abstinence only being the only acceptable option is any better than it being the best option. If anything it just strengthens my argument by showing that the Pro-life side will not accept any other form of education. And the Pro-choice side will also not accept any other form of education. This topic is a nonsequiter for both sides.

Again being Pro-life does not necessarily mean that they will vote for dismantling social services.

I simply don't understand why you insist on assuming that they are lying.

Demonize: to portray (someone or something) as evil or as worthy of contempt or blame.

Is that not what you are doing? You are blaming them for voting how they do.

Ultimately I think we have reached that 3rd situation. I have decided that nothing I say is going to change your mind on this and am choosing to walk away.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 1 points 51 minutes ago

I am not sure how abstinence only being the only acceptable option is any better than it being the best option.

The distinction is important because perpetuating their only acceptable option despite it being demonstrably ineffective indicates that child welfare is not the primacy concern in play.

Again being Pro-life does not necessarily mean that they will vote for dismantling social services.

And yet, despite it not being necessarily true it is absolutely true in every practical sense in reality.

I simply don't understand why you insist on assuming that they are lying.

I simply don't understand why you insist on taking political talking points as 100 percent sincere instead of looking at the tangible actions being taken in this space.

Is that not what you are doing? You are blaming them for voting how they do.

You don't even know what to do with this definition after quoting it. If course I "blame" them for voting how they do. Is assigning someone responsibility for their actions "demonizing" them? Lol. You're lost in the sauce bruh.

Ultimately I think we have reached that 3rd situation. I have decided that nothing I say is going to change your mind on this and am choosing to walk away.

Other countries are able to have this discussion in far more healthy and productive ways. Instead of being content with your one insight that prolife and pro-choice are talking past each other, I suggest you ask yourself why that is, and why this positioning of the discussion is basically unique to the US. There's a whole wide world out there.