When evil is seeking something and you are benevolent towards it, it does not read this as benevolence. It reads it as you are contemptuous you are nothing. We have nothing to fear from you. You are nothing.

There are plenty of other scenarios in which we obligate people to perform tasks and even risk their health and well being to protect others that they are responsible for, if not legally then at least morally.

And as for your example, I think the draft pretty clearly fits, no? Personally, I think any situation in which you're the responsible party and the risk to you is reasonably lower than the risk to others you have a moral obligation to act.

additionally in your example about being responsible for an infant, note that there is an alternative to murder. being, 'handing off care' as you said. you cant murder someone in defense of your bodily autonomy and safety if theres a better option that minimizes harm. i also exaggerated when i said 'if you truly believe your safety is in danger', the burden of proof is heavier than your assessment of the situation. if you didnt have to kill them, or if your life or safety could not reasonably be assumed to be threatened, thats an unjustified murder and would (or, in my opinion, should) be considered wrong

And shortly after that I had similar arguments presented to me again about our obligation to sacrifice bodily autonomy for the sake of others.

Also count "everyone who ever dies for any reason" as the death toll of capitalism

I just think when a homicide happens they shouldn't have to dig through paper to find the serial number.

I think we should be allowed to study gun violence.

What, exactly, do you mean by finding serial numbers?

We *are* allowed to study gun violence but the results don't pan out in your favor when examined honestly.

The state having a monopoly on proactive violence is a pragmatic necessity. The alternative involves abolishing the police, prisons and really most of the justice system which nobody likes as a prescription.

Most research on gun violence does not show strong meaningful value to propose gun regulations. I don't see why this means that we shouldn't do more research. If anything, that's a good reason for the 2A people to want more research to stronger prove their point.

Here is a joint Congress committee piece on federal funding freeze for gun regulation research (hopefully the link works).

Federally you're not allowed to keep an electronic database of firearms so to find sales records in homicide cases, you need to look up information on physical sheets of paper.

Slippery slope is a valid concern But there are ways to prevent that and it's worth noting it hasn't historically gone one way. The Supreme Court has reversed lots of gun regulation in their day and I would hope they continue to strike down unconstitutional regulations and I would hope common sense legislation comes with removing nonsense regulations like bump stock bans.

I am surprised you agree concerning gun regulations themselves, I could've sworn you've swung in favor of more restrictions in the past. However, I'm not sure why you bring up the subject of research itself. Is there something I missed in the OP?

The problem with the government keeping or having access to a firearms database, especially an electronic one, is that they've always historically been a tool of unconstitutional confiscations at some later point; if the feds or state police already know who has what, then they're already prepared to go conduct no-knock raids the moment some congressman manages to pass a ban. Even if they can be useful for catching violent criminals, the risk to the freedoms and privacy of the general public is too great.

It's true in the past I've thought less of the 2A and thought better of gun regulations but then looking into it I've softened a lot.

The OP doesn't reference research but my reblog is discussing broader policy that people associate with or claims slippery slopes into gun control which I think are defensible.

America hasn't had an electronic record of firearms so it couldn't have been used for illegitimate seizures. I'm curious what hypothetical or historic situations there have been in the US where records have been abused. That might give me a better idea why people are dubious of the concept.

Federally, I'm not sure there are a lot of new gun policies I would consider common sense, the two I mentioned (research and allowing electronic records) are the furthest I would go before I saw more info.

Nationally my understanding is gun violence is concentrated in certain areas so cooperation to have local or state policies and departments working together on solutions makes more sense.

Also count "everyone who ever dies for any reason" as the death toll of capitalism

I do not hate men but this statement tries to make it seem like the “gender wars” is an equal battle when only one side is being murdered on the daily. men get their feelings hurt by mean but valid critiques and women lose their lives at the hands of men just because they are women.

Last time I saw US or world stats, most murder victims were men. It wasn't even close.

Or are you one of those people who think that a woman being murdered by a man automatically becomes a gender issue, with no actual evidence of sexism?

>men get their feelings hurt by mean but valid critiques

"Absolutely no woman on Earth who hates man has ever had an invalid criticism. Not even serial killer Aileen Wurnos, or diagnosed schizophrenic gender terrorist Valerie Solanas."

>women lose their lives at the hands of men just because they are women.

Well, that answers my earlier question.

So, if a man killed a woman, and also killed a man, would that still be a gender issue?

Specifically for homicide statistics, just pulling from this FBI crime stats page, men are the victims of homicide 2.5-ish times more often than women like you said but these murders are massive majority by men. When asking the question "which gender could fear or dislike the other more legitimately based on these statistics", isn't the gender and relationships of the victim and culprit relevant? Can you see how "men are victims of homicide" might not counter someones "women are afraid of men" position?

Women are 5 times more likely to be killed by an intimate partner than men are. And these in theory should be the relationships where women feel most comfortable and safe with a man. Can we see how that would impact the discourse on gender relations?

Considering that it's always said with the implication - and sometimes explicit statement - that ONLY women are under real threat from men, no, I can't.

And there's really no way for a feminist to acknowledge the point without admitting men are bigger victims of something than women, which is rather difficult for the sort of feminist who makes these kind of arguments.

For various reasons.

Women are 5 times more likely to be killed by an intimate partner than men are. And these in theory should be the relationships where women feel most comfortable and safe with a man. Can we see how that would impact the discourse on gender relations?

As I've said elsewhere, I'd love to know why, exactly, those crimes are assumed to automatically be a gender issue.

Logically, there is almost certainly at least one bisexual person who killed male and female partners.

(There's a lot more than just one.)

And even if there wasn't, ignoring them even conceptually would be bigoted according to standard progressive frameworks.

This really feels like a Special Pleading standard feminists made up to push their narrative.

I literally named a serial killer who demonstrably hated, attacked, and killed men and women - mostly harming men, by far - and feminists ignored his misandry almost entirely.

So even when men demonstrably do kill men out of hatred, feminists don't care.

More broadly, I don't think this is really helpful. I challenged them on the basis of gendered assumptions. Nothing you've said really changes that.

And as we both know, bigots (classical/progressive definitions) regularly come up with beliefs and then cherry-pick evidence to support it.

I agree there are ways broadly in society that men suffer more than women and that not every killing of a woman or even a woman by a man is by default an act of hate or sexism.

I don't really consider either of those hot takes which makes me wonder if there is a more tempered form of feminist analysis that you'd find unobjectionable.

More broadly would you say you have a summary of how you see gender dynamics currently and maybe how you want to see gender play out ideally?

Like, do you see gendered issues as having existed but largely being resolved or non-existent now? Is there an ideal world where you would see gender conceptually abolished? Do you see genders as complimentary and one-sided gendered issues as largely exaggerated and your posts as mostly making people aware of both sides of the coin? Do you feel gendered issues were at one point male favored and have since flipped and we're looking to stop pendulum swinging?

These are all just examples- feel free to choose your own words obviously.

2) why exactly should a movement trying to stop the genocide of an ethinicity which includes LGBTQ people, which Israel does not care for since im bot sure they queer detection in their bombs, talk about a non lethal situation with zero deaths or violence?

3) Leaked video confirms the Israel state officials order A Hannibal Directive to kill Israelis so they wouldnt be captives Israel would have to strategize around

2) why exactly should a movement trying to stop the genocide of an ethinicity which includes LGBTQ people, which Israel does not care for since im bot sure they queer detection in their bombs, talk about a non lethal situation with zero deaths or violence?

3) Leaked video confirms the Israel state officials order A Hannibal Directive to kill Israelis so they wouldnt be captives Israel would have to strategize around

I do not hate men but this statement tries to make it seem like the “gender wars” is an equal battle when only one side is being murdered on the daily. men get their feelings hurt by mean but valid critiques and women lose their lives at the hands of men just because they are women.

Last time I saw US or world stats, most murder victims were men. It wasn't even close.

Or are you one of those people who think that a woman being murdered by a man automatically becomes a gender issue, with no actual evidence of sexism?

>men get their feelings hurt by mean but valid critiques

"Absolutely no woman on Earth who hates man has ever had an invalid criticism. Not even serial killer Aileen Wurnos, or diagnosed schizophrenic gender terrorist Valerie Solanas."

>women lose their lives at the hands of men just because they are women.

Well, that answers my earlier question.

So, if a man killed a woman, and also killed a man, would that still be a gender issue?

Specifically for homicide statistics, just pulling from this FBI crime stats page, men are the victims of homicide 2.5-ish times more often than women like you said but these murders are massive majority by men. When asking the question "which gender could fear or dislike the other more legitimately based on these statistics", isn't the gender and relationships of the victim and culprit relevant? Can you see how "men are victims of homicide" might not counter someones "women are afraid of men" position?

Women are 5 times more likely to be killed by an intimate partner than men are. And these in theory should be the relationships where women feel most comfortable and safe with a man. Can we see how that would impact the discourse on gender relations?

2) why exactly should a movement trying to stop the genocide of an ethinicity which includes LGBTQ people, which Israel does not care for since im bot sure they queer detection in their bombs, talk about a non lethal situation with zero deaths or violence?

3) Leaked video confirms the Israel state officials order A Hannibal Directive to kill Israelis so they wouldnt be captives Israel would have to strategize around

Why is the solution not putting up a defense of feminism?