r/changemyview:

u/TheBodyPolitic1

Nobody wants to talk to a bot when they think they are talking to a person Nobody likes being experiment on without their consent Confessing to doing something to someone without their consent does not make it alright. Other people doing unethical things doesn’t another unethical thing okay. I hope you are not one of those silicon valley dolts who doesn’t understand anything except for their jobs. I would hate to think a sociopath ( like you ) is making decisions for other people.
u/xander707

I mean, your chances of dying in a fire are much higher than mine, because of conscious choices you are making. In fact, more firefighters die annually than protestors do by getting hit by cars. If firefighting is inherently more dangerous than protesting on roads, why should it be viewed any differently? Suppose the protestors set up cones and wear reflective vests? Has their attempt to make their action as safe as possible and mitigate the risks diminish your argument? Furthermore, when a firefighter dies, they die due to the non-sentient fire overwhelming them. Protestors killed by cars are often done so with intent by the driver – in fact OP makes that argument in his reasoning. Where you are missing the forest for the trees is failing to understand that people engage in, and sometimes die, doing inherently risky things all the time. Its never considered suicide unless the intent to die was a factor. And when another party is involved, especially with intent to kill, its homicide, or possibly manslaughter. This entire argument seeks to absolve murderers of their crime.
u/xander707

And yet, many firefighters still die annually – because fighting fires is inherently dangerous. Should their deaths be ruled a suicide? According to OPs logic – yes.
u/xander707

Go on
u/xander707

Whats easy isnt relevant to whats suicide or murder. It might be easier to kill your spouse than to get a divorce, for instance.
u/xander707

To paraphrase your original argument, you are arguing that someone who willingly puts themselves in a dangerous position is accepting an extreme and obvious risk. You further argue that they are consciously engaging in behavior that could easily result in death. How does those sentences not apply to fire fighters? That honestly applies to a whole range of activities which are inherently dangerous.
u/xander707

Well luckily for us, what constitutes justified homicide has nothing to do with your lack of sympathy. Fortunately, killing people causing you an inconvenience is still murder.
u/xander707

Most Redditors are from Christian dominated countries. Which means many of them are probably former Christians themselves, grew up in Christian households, have friends and family who are christian. That means their life experience with religion is going to be defined by Christianity above all other religions. So it makes sense that will be the religion they focus on the most, because its most familiar.
u/xander707

You did not give two examples. Your example of Obamas first debate was still considered a win by the majoritg of democrats. This is the third time youve ignored the statement – from your own source, proving you wrong on that. Why is that? No one cares about VP debates. Its pointless to bring this up when weve already covered presidential debates outlining exactly what Ive stated. But just for funsies, you are free to show me any presidential OR VP debate where the republicans were even within 10% of being as split as the democrats were in Obamas debate with Romney. Dont even need to bring up Bidens debate to show my point.
u/xander707

My entire point is simply that neither side says the opposition won a debate. And your entire point is wrong, as has been shown. I offered up a relatively current example of an arguably clear case of a vice presidential candidate winning (or at the very least not coming close to losing) and the majority of Democrats still gave their candidate the win. You dismissed it because you’re “only talking about presidential debates,” but the exact same dynamics are in play and the exact same reasoning applies. Then its irrelevant, because weve already gone over multiple examples of dems acknowledging a loss. If its the exact same reasoning, then Ive already proven my case and demonstrated your position is wrong. For clarity, I was clear in the beginning that both sides have their partisans/loyalists. That will always be true. But my position is its far worse for the republicans, and the reasoning for that is that you will never find a case where a majority of republicans agree that their presidential candidate lost. Meanwhile, you will find cases where democrats do, therefore proving democrats are capable of acknowledging a loss while republicans are not. That doesnt mean that a majority of democrats will always call a debate correctly ,but it does mean republicans will never call a lost debate correctly. I pointed out that even in the Obama versus Romney one you sited earlier, a majority of Democrats believed Obama won. The same source you provided said the following, The vast majority of Republican voters who watched the debate (95%) say that Romney did the better job, and many Democratic voters agree. Democrats are split in their assessment of who did better: 45% say Romney, 44% Obama. So youre wrong. And again I challenge you to find any presidential debate in the last 20 years where republicans even come close to being that split. I doubt youll ever find one where less than 70% believe their candidate won. And I know you will never find one where its less than 50%. You can argue until youre blue in the face, move the goalpost, strawman etc. but what Im telling you is that theres TWO examples in the last 20 years where democrats were able to acknowledge a loss either by majority or plurality. And I further state you will never see that from republicans. Period. And again, republicans are generally bad debaters anyways. Especially where Trump is concerned which covers every dem vs repub debate going back to 2016. But they appeal to a base that doesnt care.