American Ryan

Above all else I am an American and I believe in freedom, limited government, and personal responsibility.
obamadawn:

Good people disobey bad laws

I’ve got to disagree here, good people obey bad laws until they change or repeal them.

obamadawn:

Good people disobey bad laws

I’ve got to disagree here, good people obey bad laws until they change or repeal them.

If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else’s expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves.

The Twilight Zone (1959) S02E29 - The Obsolete Man (ending monologue)

(via laborstrifeandgrit)

I am not entirely sure what it is about the following positions that makes me so (perhaps because of how very, very racist I am?)

  • Slavery was horrible because it eliminated people’s rights based on the color of their skin
  • Abortion is horrible because it eliminates people’s rights based on if they have been born or not
  • The vast majority of pregnancies are a result of choices taken with pregnancy as a known potential consequence 
idk if anybody has pointed this out before, but your URL looks like us aryan rather than usa ryan. I just wanted to let you know since I was alarmed to see you reblogged, but upon further inspection of your blog you seem like somebody I'd like and not a nazi fag.
usaryan usaryan Said:

I sat on this for a while. I didn’t really feel all that much like posting that last sentence in particular. I also briefly considered changing the url of this tumblr because of this misunderstanding but then I decided a couple things.

  1. I like it as it is
  2. I believe in believing in people’s intelligence and trusting them to have the ability to quickly determine I am much more a patriot than I am an aryan
Also, why do you care more about the well-being of a fetus than you do about the well-being of a pregnant woman? The fact that you don't care how traumatic or harmful pregnancy would be for a woman, nor do you care how it could otherwise change a woman's life for the worse, just proves that you don't actually care about pregnant women, and that you value the well-being of a fetus more than the well-being of a pregnant woman. So why is that?
usaryan usaryan Said:

Let’s take this one piece by piece:

"why do you care more about the well-being of a fetus than you do about the well-being of a pregnant woman?"

I do not and never said I did.

"you don’t care how traumatic or harmful pregnancy would be for a woman"

I did not say I don’t care, because I actually do.

"nor do you care how it could otherwise change a woman’s life for the worse"

I did not say I do not care how a pregnancy could change a woman’s life for the worse, again, because I actually do care.

"proves that you don’t actually care about pregnant women, and that you value the well-being of a fetus more than the well-being of a pregnant woman"

As demonstrated above this conclusion is based on false assumptions and as such it is, unsurprisingly, inaccurate.

I do care about pregnant women and I do not value the well-being of the unborn more than the well-being of a pregnant woman. What you seem to be having trouble understanding is that I actually value their well-beings equally instead of discarding one all together. When you consider the two on equal footing it becomes startlingly clear that there is simply no amount of life change or personal difficulty that gives one person the right to forcefully take away the basic right of another to live. The only issue is the obvious one when a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, because, you see, their basic right to life is equal. So, your final question (corrected as well as I could for the previous misconceptions about my beliefs), why is it that I care the same about a pregnant woman as the baby she carries? Basically they are both human and they have certain inalienable rights which others do not have the right to take away.

Slightly unrelated here, but I think instead of naming things it seems what you are truly horrible at is simple reading comprehension. However, I do believe the reasoning for that is not so much a mental inability as it is an intentional ignorance of points contrary to your previously held beliefs that you posses no ability to logically contradict. I believe this is a pretty common problem actually.

Why do you think abortion is anything like slavery? A first-trimester fetus cannot even think, feel pain or emotions, or know that it exists. Slaves, on the other hand, felt immense amounts of pain, humiliation, anger, and fear. So why compare them to something that can't even feel at all, such as a first-trimester fetus? Do you really think that's a loving position to take on this issue? If so, then how is it loving at all to be so dismissive of slaves' experiences?
usaryan usaryan Said:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

usaryan:

I believe I have been pretty clear on this analogy already but I’ll go over the basics again. Abortion and slavery are similar in the basic idea of forcefully taking a fundamental right away from another due to something about them which is beyond their ability to control which should have no bearing whatsoever on their rights.

Why do you have the right to decide that a person’s lack of feeling pain or emotions means they lack the basic right to life? Are you, in fact, God?

I compared slaves to unborn children just as I mentioned before, to demonstrate that they were or are having their rights violated and taken from them when they have done nothing wrong to deserve that loss. The comparison is pretty straightforward and I believe I’ve explained it pretty simply yet you seem to be forcing yourself to not understand. The reason for comparing the two is simply to point out the obvious parallels in terms of rights being violated. I believe it was pretty clear that I was not making any claims that slaves are the same as aborted babies in any ways other than being the victims of losing their rights unfairly. I never claimed they experienced the same pain, humiliation, anger, fear, or anything else (though a surprisingly large percentage do share a skin color).

Your statement leads to the conclusion that you believe the problem with slavery was that it caused pain and discomfort for slaves and you therefor believe abortion is alright since those issues are not present. But such a belief demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues at hand. The problem with slavery was not how nice or mean a slave owner was but instead that that slave owner took away the slaves’ right to be free. Similarly abortion is evil not because it causes an unborn baby to feel pain or humiliation or anything else but instead that they are being stripped of the right to simply live. It truly baffles my mind that anyone could so fundamentally misunderstand the problem of denying people’s rights.

I honestly can not reply to the portions of the question about loving positions because they simply make no sense at all to me. Though I can certainly say that I do not think I was in any way dismissive of slaves’ experiences. My point was that what was done to slaves was horribly wrong just as abortion is horribly wrong. Is it possible that my use of sarcasm placed my post beyond your ability to comprehend? 

I love how hypocritical and oblivious pro lifers can be.
They fail to realise that forcing people to remain pregnant takes away their rights, their bodily autonomy. If you want to continue with the disgusting slave analogy, then you can compare the restriction of bodily autonomy of pregnant people to the restriction of bodily autonomy to slaves.

-Ash

Actually, no.

This stupid argument is based on an idiotic and unvoiced assumption, that there was no choice or ability to foresee pregnancy. The only possible way "forcing people to remain pregnant" could be considered taking away rights to their bodily autonomy would be if pregnancies happened forcibly or mysteriously to random people who did nothing to cause it.

The basic fact is that in the vast majority of cases a pregnant woman is not dealing with an issue that was created outside of her control but instead a potential known consequence of choices she made. 

To force that comparison onto the slavery issue, in order to be equal the slave would’ve had to become a slave through actively doing something that he/she was aware could result in them becoming a slave through no ill intent of others. The comparison is very weak and you end up comparing slavery to pregnancy which is not similar in pretty much any way. The original slavery comparison is much more apt than this one and actually makes some logical sense.

I also find it interesting how people who are perfectly fine with laws allowing people to kill other innocent humans are seemingly so disgusted by the topic of slavery. Can they really not see that both are disgusting and horrible practices? I don’t understand how a person could support one but loath the other. But that’s a bit off from the main point.

And to sum up that main point, the argument is completely undone by the basic fact that not allowing someone to end a pregnancy is not actually restricting their right to autonomy, only their right to not deal with foreseeable consequences of their own actions. Basically a complete lack of personal responsibility. And I really don’t think it should be at all acceptable to allow someone to legally kill another individual due just to a lack of personal responsibility.

Why do you think abortion is anything like slavery? A first-trimester fetus cannot even think, feel pain or emotions, or know that it exists. Slaves, on the other hand, felt immense amounts of pain, humiliation, anger, and fear. So why compare them to something that can't even feel at all, such as a first-trimester fetus? Do you really think that's a loving position to take on this issue? If so, then how is it loving at all to be so dismissive of slaves' experiences?
usaryan usaryan Said:

I believe I have been pretty clear on this analogy already but I’ll go over the basics again. Abortion and slavery are similar in the basic idea of forcefully taking a fundamental right away from another due to something about them which is beyond their ability to control which should have no bearing whatsoever on their rights.

Why do you have the right to decide that a person’s lack of feeling pain or emotions means they lack the basic right to life? Are you, in fact, God?

I compared slaves to unborn children just as I mentioned before, to demonstrate that they were or are having their rights violated and taken from them when they have done nothing wrong to deserve that loss. The comparison is pretty straightforward and I believe I’ve explained it pretty simply yet you seem to be forcing yourself to not understand. The reason for comparing the two is simply to point out the obvious parallels in terms of rights being violated. I believe it was pretty clear that I was not making any claims that slaves are the same as aborted babies in any ways other than being the victims of losing their rights unfairly. I never claimed they experienced the same pain, humiliation, anger, fear, or anything else (though a surprisingly large percentage do share a skin color).

Your statement leads to the conclusion that you believe the problem with slavery was that it caused pain and discomfort for slaves and you therefor believe abortion is alright since those issues are not present. But such a belief demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues at hand. The problem with slavery was not how nice or mean a slave owner was but instead that that slave owner took away the slaves’ right to be free. Similarly abortion is evil not because it causes an unborn baby to feel pain or humiliation or anything else but instead that they are being stripped of the right to simply live. It truly baffles my mind that anyone could so fundamentally misunderstand the problem of denying people’s rights.

I honestly can not reply to the portions of the question about loving positions because they simply make no sense at all to me. Though I can certainly say that I do not think I was in any way dismissive of slaves’ experiences. My point was that what was done to slaves was horribly wrong just as abortion is horribly wrong. Is it possible that my use of sarcasm placed my post beyond your ability to comprehend? 

Asker Anonymous Asks:
What's your opinion on nationalists healthcare, like canada?
usaryan usaryan Said:

The list of things that are handled better by large national governments than by the private sector or individuals is not very long and it most certainly does not include healthcare funding, I think systems like Canada’s and Britain’s and obamacare demonstrate that fact very well.

michelebachmann:

Ron Swanson explains taxes. [X]

Enjoy our voluntary (Reid said so) tax system on this tax day!

(via laborstrifeandgrit)

Asker Anonymous Asks:
I think we should euthanise people with diseases such as ADD and Downs but not necessarily a learning disability. Not all human lives are useful.
usaryan usaryan Said:

This statement makes it obvious that you are clearly far more useless and not worthy of life than any of those you wish to euthanize.

Yet, so long as you just state your disgusting views instead of actually following through to forcefully take another’s life I oppose your euthanization just as vehemently as I oppose that of people with ADD or Downs Syndrome.

You see, the basic problem with your statement is not that some lives are useful or useless but simply that you or I do not and should not have the right to decide that. Unlike marriage or health insurance or birth control basic life actually is a fundamental right and as such should most certainly not be taken from anyone on the grounds of them having a disease, not yet being born, or even being amazingly, amazingly stupid like you are.

Asker Anonymous Asks:
Too bad a fetus isn't a person and being pregnant isn't/shouldn't be a punishment to somebody who doesn't want to be pregnant. Also, abortion isn't synonymous to murder in legal or dictionary terms. Calling it murder is emotional manipulation.
usaryan usaryan Said:

fe·tus

  [fee-tuhs]

noun, plural fe·tus·es. Embryology 

(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

Hmm, seems like the definition of the word that is chosen by those in favor of murder in the womb actually describes specifically a young human. I am pretty sure that all young humans are actually people, if you disagree I know a few little kids who would be happy to demonstrate their individuality.

Also, saying being pregnant is a punishment is just a basic (and most likely intentional) lack of understanding. It is not a punishment, it is a known potential result of actions that people take by choice. Deciding later that one does not want to face the results of those actions chosen knowing that would be a potential outcome is a basic refusal to accept responsibility for one’s own actions and I’d say is a fundamental problem of character and morality.

I think we are all aware that abortion is not legally synonymous with murder, which is exactly the problem. However, as already pointed out a fetus is by definition a young human person, hence forcibly ending a fetus’s life is clearly the dictionary equivalent of murder. 

As for the comment about emotional manipulation from the side of the argument that refuses to call babies babies or let people know the details of abortion or abortion clinics because they are too grisly it would be laughable if this practice and those emotional manipulations used to continue it had not lead to the deaths of approximately 50 million babies in the USA since Roe v Wade.

Asker Anonymous Asks:
You must have forgotten about the Iran-Contra scandal? It's really too bad the actor Reagan is not around for you to suck his cock and swallow his load.
usaryan usaryan Said:

So I went back and looked at my old posts because I really didn’t understand at all what this was in response to. The best I could come up with is this, which is a simple gun control quote by Reagan. It seems pretty obvious someone has some very personal issues with the American president for the majority of the ’80s. 

The post was much more about the gun control quote than it was about the person who was being quoted. If some historic villain or liberal had said that I’d have still posted it, though perhaps with my surprise about them saying it since they don’t actually seem intelligent enough. I guess most people who lean left wouldn’t understand that concept that the post was actually about the idea more than about the person posing it.

I don’t want to go into great detail about the Iran-Contra issues, which I did not forget about and was really not particularly relevant to the original post. I will however say that the difference in response to the problem between Reagan then and obama after Benghazi is stunning and very telling about the type of individual each president is.

Finally, I’d just like to point out how a most likely very liberal person has once again thought it is perfectly fine to make references to homosexuality that any conservative would receive vast amounts of hate for. Then again, no conservative I know would be likely to use such a reference in the first place.

Asker Anonymous Asks:
You may have some valid points but denying climate change (I don't give a fuck what anyone calls it) in the face of scientific evidence is plain stupid, as if it's a liberal conspiracy about which no one is able to explain the beneficiaries.
usaryan usaryan Said:

Blindly accepting anything is fundamentally against the basic concepts of science. And speaking of science, when it is funded basically with the idea that the results will go a certain way those results become considerably less reliable. The way that the climatology community and those who fund it ostracize and defund anyone who comes up with any sort of result against what the political green movement wants to hear is plenty of reason to discount the majority of the supposed evidence. When you factor into that the admissions of falsifying results, the trend predictions that have been around long enough to be disproved by actual real world weather, the fact that our recorded weather information at the accuracy to determine the changes we’re discussing is less than a tenth of a percent of the planet’s weather history, the fact that there is no proven scientific reasoning or logic to support the conclusions that any changes are man caused instead of naturally occurring it becomes pretty clear that the science is shaky and inconclusive at best.

The political and governmental power that the green movement allows for those who support it (which they then use to fund more ‘research' to show more 'scientific evidence' of climate change) is a much more conclusive and powerful and obvious force than any of the supposed man-made climate factors. So, while I fully admit it is far from proven the evidence most certainly leans more powerfully toward a liberal conspiracy than any actual meteorological events occurring, and not realizing that is plain stupid.