Right

Thanks for your input.

You are unpleasant.

Are you implying that you know better than I my intent in using a word? I think that’s pretty absurd. If I wanted to use a pejorative, I would find one better than statist. I am simply making an observation, not an insult. You are defending state actions and assigning them moral superiority based only on the fact that the state decreed them. That is - definitionally - statism. You are an agent of the state and treat the state as an authority with moral superiority.

Once again, you’re arguing for a point I did not make. My point has nothing to do with people euthanizing themselves - it’s the effort to manipulate the language used when talking about it. This is intentional, and it is breaking the shared understanding of concepts that can only be communicated through language. In this way, we have effectively begun speaking a different language from one another. I’m being as clear and as direct as I possibly can be, and you are still likely going to assert that I expressed an idea that I did not simply because you have accepted this update to the language code and I have not.

Nice diss on the car mechanic by the way, bigot.

I do but you said you are “all about people having the freedom to make choices about their medical care.” I was just wondering how consistent you are in that approach. Does it extend to the public health sphere or just for euthanasia?

So tell me - do you support medical mandates?

Statist is not an insult any more than conservative is.

It is indeed English. But it is a different language. It’s like a software engineer and a car mechanic trying to tell each other what’s wrong with their respective machinery. They may have the technical understanding of the problem, but lack the shared language to communicate it to the other despite their competence in ability to understand.

Which comes back to my original point - stop abiding the destruction of language. It is driving a wedge between people that would perhaps otherwise agree.

I didn’t argue against that point because it’s absurd. And you are correct, that was not you - my mistake.

We’re speaking a different language - do you at least acknowledge that?

You mean like when you called me a masochist that supports grandpa’s suffering a tormented death?

I just thought for a moment you’d notice that you were projecting. A cultist can’t stand criticism of things the cult has told them to love… and yet in that long response to you five responses above - the ONE thing you took from it was that I dared to invoke Zelenskyy’s name in vain… you don’t see your reaction to that as a cultist’s impulse to reject criticism of something the cult loves?

Do you think that me calling you a statist is a personal attack?

Who are you talking to?

You’re correct, a cultist can’t stand criticism of things the cult has told them to love. Slava Ukraini, indeed.

Do you see how your argument relies on personal attack for effect? The name calling, the straw man, the appeals to emotion?

Look at you, defending the state again like a good little statist. You’re being used. And then you’re pointing at me and crying, “blasphemer! Don’t question the state - they’re granting me agency!”

What about anything I said has - oh Zelenskyy. Triggered you on that one, huh? You focused on that one point and tunnel-visioned the rest like a good little cultist, it seems. You don’t see the manipulation in that? That your immediate instinct is - oh this person doesn’t think like me, must be a Russian bot because otherwise maybe I’d have to consider their point without a lens of bias provided to me by my country’s military industrial complex.

I don’t know what you mean about nuance - I’ve provided a lot of nuance in my responses and so far you’ve ignored them because you’re afraid to acknowledge them.

Permitting the state to assist in the destruction of life rather than the sustainment of it is giving power to the individual? How do you figure? I thought that we were trying to do everything in our power to save grandma from the scary Covid bug - now, grandma can kill herself at her own delusional whim just so the state can save some money on Medicare? That’s awfully kind of you to support on behalf of the state.

I believe that’s subjective. Also, that was not my argument. My argument was aimed at the manipulation of language.

You’re giving the state too much power. The left has become the party of the state and it’s absolutely disgusting.

Call it euthanasia please, stop using language to manipulate people.

Okay.

Answer: engagement. Catches the eye, brings attention and disagreement is entertainment. And again, you led the topic statement with “politics,” which was clearly an attempt to instigate disagreement. Thus, entertainment.

Ah this was just an attempt to continue driving a political wedge into the conversation. The OP doesn’t actually care or know, they just want people to argue about politics because this is Reddit and folks in this sub might start pushing back on the narrative generation soon.