You ban it, because you don’t actually care that much about it and would rather cut taxes.

EVERYONE wants lower taxes and smaller government.

Second, if a Republican were to vote 100% with the Dems, when she was up for reelection, the Dems would still run a candidate against her, and make her out to be an extremist.

“Bipartisanship” is when people who don’t agree with me let people who do agree with me win.

It’s also not “moderate” to have positions on unrelated issues that don’ exactly align with either party. Not hating gay people doesn’t moderate your stance on taxes; it’s fully unrelated.

That commenter doesn’t believe in oppressive truths like “the common good.” If something commands enough support to gain power, it’s true and right and you must respect it.

Q: Is there any moral or political issue where only one side is obviously right?

Because if you disagree with fundamentally compassionate — and/or objectively true — positions, you’re either ignorant or a monster. There are plenty of political issues where competing perspectives are important: I want there to always be someone who thinks a given military action is a bad idea and someone who…

That’s the sort of thing you get up to when you’re tits-lit drunk.

No, I agree that both need one and neither has a good enough one; but for people who don’t think that about factory farming (a group that seemingly encompasses a majority of the public), there’s no reason to think it about bullfighting.

I think we’re talking past each other. I’m talking about the public conversation around “civility” in politics, which is being engaged in by ostensibly mainstream commentators. Couching the (very sensible) advice to focus on gettable votes in the language of “stopping screaming at them” is unnecessarily ceding…

After they win their sixth straight title, because The Process is so exquisitely designed that such an outcome is its only possible end.

To be clear, I don’t think European bullfighting can be morally justified, for all the obvious reasons.

Battery poultry farms exist. Bullfighting can justify itself by not being any more destructive than them in terms of animal suffering and monumentally better in terms of environmental impact and worker safety (even after this death).

Because people in southern Europe like watching it as much as Americans like eating cheap eggs and chicken breasts.

That’s kinda what makes it tragic: He died because some has to die sometime in bullfighting, and it was him by brute chance.

I dunno, it at least approaches tragedy. Tragic heroes regularly act to ensure their own untimely deaths under the misapprehension that they have a chance. Bullfighting is only a compelling pursuit if there’s a real possibility of the matador being killed; otherwise it’s just very inefficient butchery.

People being nice is all I’m about here.

It’s a little upsetting. Everyone turned into a forensic psychologist/ambitious Southern prosecutor.

Right, I’m just defending the general principle of holding adolescents less culpable than adults. The comment I was directly replying to suggested that it was illegitimate to have qualms about Carter’s culpability because she’s young, which is totally backwards.