|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 17 2015 06:01 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2015 05:55 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2015 05:54 puerk wrote:On May 17 2015 05:52 heliusx wrote:On May 17 2015 03:35 YoureFired wrote:On May 17 2015 03:25 Falling wrote:
I would not all mind if the societal focus shifted from abortion to birth control. There's all sorts of neat pre-conception birth control. It would be by province by province, but I don't think birth control is covered under our public healthcare, but I would gladly have it included, thereby causing me to partially pay for it, if it meant less abortions.
edit.
Looking around a little- it seems that private health insurance includes some forms of contraceptives, but the big companies have a pretty limited range of options. I strongly agree. Abortions are morally very difficult and are also physically taxing, just like Plan B, and contraceptives are to me an obvious and easy alternative. I find it ridiculous when conservative voices push for: A) Abstinence-only education B) Reduced access to birth control, because apparently that encourages sex C) Reduced access to abortions, because more unwanted pregnancies TOTALLY won't happen with A) and B) You forgot D. D) Bitch about the cost of welfare going to mothers who have no business getting pregnant. They have to suffer so they learn to be personally responsible in the future and change their behaviour of the past to not get children.... What about those who keep having children they can't afford? Should we torture them? But to be real: they will all start behaving rational if government just stops supporting their stupidity. They will pull themselfs up by their bootstraps and raise those kids to be reasonable successful adults. And who could be opposed to that?....
...please tell me that's sarcasm. It's really hard to tell.
|
On May 17 2015 06:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2015 06:01 puerk wrote:On May 17 2015 05:55 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2015 05:54 puerk wrote:On May 17 2015 05:52 heliusx wrote:On May 17 2015 03:35 YoureFired wrote:On May 17 2015 03:25 Falling wrote:
I would not all mind if the societal focus shifted from abortion to birth control. There's all sorts of neat pre-conception birth control. It would be by province by province, but I don't think birth control is covered under our public healthcare, but I would gladly have it included, thereby causing me to partially pay for it, if it meant less abortions.
edit.
Looking around a little- it seems that private health insurance includes some forms of contraceptives, but the big companies have a pretty limited range of options. I strongly agree. Abortions are morally very difficult and are also physically taxing, just like Plan B, and contraceptives are to me an obvious and easy alternative. I find it ridiculous when conservative voices push for: A) Abstinence-only education B) Reduced access to birth control, because apparently that encourages sex C) Reduced access to abortions, because more unwanted pregnancies TOTALLY won't happen with A) and B) You forgot D. D) Bitch about the cost of welfare going to mothers who have no business getting pregnant. They have to suffer so they learn to be personally responsible in the future and change their behaviour of the past to not get children.... What about those who keep having children they can't afford? Should we torture them? But to be real: they will all start behaving rational if government just stops supporting their stupidity. They will pull themselfs up by their bootstraps and raise those kids to be reasonable successful adults. And who could be opposed to that?.... ...please tell me that's sarcasm. It's really hard to tell.
I believe he's being sarcastic because he thinks I'm some kind of Christian conservative or something, which couldn't be further from the truth.
|
On May 17 2015 06:15 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2015 06:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 17 2015 06:01 puerk wrote:On May 17 2015 05:55 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2015 05:54 puerk wrote:On May 17 2015 05:52 heliusx wrote:On May 17 2015 03:35 YoureFired wrote:On May 17 2015 03:25 Falling wrote:
I would not all mind if the societal focus shifted from abortion to birth control. There's all sorts of neat pre-conception birth control. It would be by province by province, but I don't think birth control is covered under our public healthcare, but I would gladly have it included, thereby causing me to partially pay for it, if it meant less abortions.
edit.
Looking around a little- it seems that private health insurance includes some forms of contraceptives, but the big companies have a pretty limited range of options. I strongly agree. Abortions are morally very difficult and are also physically taxing, just like Plan B, and contraceptives are to me an obvious and easy alternative. I find it ridiculous when conservative voices push for: A) Abstinence-only education B) Reduced access to birth control, because apparently that encourages sex C) Reduced access to abortions, because more unwanted pregnancies TOTALLY won't happen with A) and B) You forgot D. D) Bitch about the cost of welfare going to mothers who have no business getting pregnant. They have to suffer so they learn to be personally responsible in the future and change their behaviour of the past to not get children.... What about those who keep having children they can't afford? Should we torture them? But to be real: they will all start behaving rational if government just stops supporting their stupidity. They will pull themselfs up by their bootstraps and raise those kids to be reasonable successful adults. And who could be opposed to that?.... ...please tell me that's sarcasm. It's really hard to tell. I believe he's being sarcastic because he thinks I'm some kind of Christian conservative or something, which couldn't be further from the truth.
No, why would i think that? Your posting record is quite clear.... currently we have only agreement on every issue. Nobody brings a genuine let them starve in the streets attitude anymore, thats why i helped fill the void.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
Seriously though conservatives, don't pile over yourselves to explain how there's a totally reasonable and acceptable compromise somewhere on the right?
Not even a compromise, just an idea of what to do about birth control and when it fails. Just a basic beginning for the issue. Otherwise you can't really complain when people take liberties to make caricatures out of the rhetoric tossed around in various states.
|
The way I see it, it's cheaper to hand out bc and abortions then it is to pay to raise them until 18. And then again if they become criminals and go to prison. As for cutoff dates, I can't really think of an alternate.
|
On May 17 2015 06:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seriously though conservatives, don't pile over yourselves to explain how there's a totally reasonable and acceptable compromise somewhere on the right?
Not even a compromise, just an idea of what to do about birth control and when it fails. Just a basic beginning for the issue. Otherwise you can't really complain when people take liberties to make caricatures out of the rhetoric tossed around in various states.
Its not a matter of having a reasonable and acceptable compromise its just good politics to portray yourself as against the tide of societal decline and the ills that come with it. In an ideal small town superamerica there isn't any teenage pregnancy or abortions in the first place regardless of a moral imperative to help solve the issue.
There isn't a need to have a reasonable and acceptable compromise when neither side is looking for a compromise.
|
On May 17 2015 06:52 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2015 06:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seriously though conservatives, don't pile over yourselves to explain how there's a totally reasonable and acceptable compromise somewhere on the right?
Not even a compromise, just an idea of what to do about birth control and when it fails. Just a basic beginning for the issue. Otherwise you can't really complain when people take liberties to make caricatures out of the rhetoric tossed around in various states. Its not a matter of having a reasonable and acceptable compromise its just good politics to portray yourself as against the tide of societal decline and the ills that come with it. In an ideal small town superamerica there isn't any teenage pregnancy or abortions in the first place regardless of a moral imperative to help solve the issue. There isn't a need to have a reasonable and acceptable compromise when neither side is looking for a compromise.
I am here and people like introvert indicated their were conservatives that would, save for it being about the rare cases of rape/incest be around also?
So, even though I was skeptical that was the case, I decided I'd give it a try. Alas, it appears that I am unfortunately right. But hey, maybe the usual suspects are all busy at the moment and soon a reasonable suggestion, that would pass muster on the right, is just around the corner.
|
I'd probably consider myself more conservative than liberal lately. My point of view, if someone is against abortions than don't fucking get one, I don't see where those people get off telling others they can't have abortions because their fictional book says a guy in the sky will be mad at them. Same for same sex marriage, and basically anything else where religious. Is the reason the oposition gives.
|
On May 17 2015 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2015 06:52 Sermokala wrote:On May 17 2015 06:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seriously though conservatives, don't pile over yourselves to explain how there's a totally reasonable and acceptable compromise somewhere on the right?
Not even a compromise, just an idea of what to do about birth control and when it fails. Just a basic beginning for the issue. Otherwise you can't really complain when people take liberties to make caricatures out of the rhetoric tossed around in various states. Its not a matter of having a reasonable and acceptable compromise its just good politics to portray yourself as against the tide of societal decline and the ills that come with it. In an ideal small town superamerica there isn't any teenage pregnancy or abortions in the first place regardless of a moral imperative to help solve the issue. There isn't a need to have a reasonable and acceptable compromise when neither side is looking for a compromise. I am here and people like introvert indicated their were conservatives that would, save for it being about the rare cases of rape/incest be around also? So, even though I was skeptical that was the case, I decided I'd give it a try. Alas, it appears that I am unfortunately right. But hey, maybe the usual suspects are all busy at the moment and soon a reasonable suggestion, that would pass muster on the right, is just around the corner.
That's not what I said. I said it was purely political that pro-choice people would constantly shout about rape and incest. I've said a bunch of times that I'm not going to discuss abortion right now.
You keep trying to tweak what I said. Please stop.
|
United States43533 Posts
On May 17 2015 07:24 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2015 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 17 2015 06:52 Sermokala wrote:On May 17 2015 06:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seriously though conservatives, don't pile over yourselves to explain how there's a totally reasonable and acceptable compromise somewhere on the right?
Not even a compromise, just an idea of what to do about birth control and when it fails. Just a basic beginning for the issue. Otherwise you can't really complain when people take liberties to make caricatures out of the rhetoric tossed around in various states. Its not a matter of having a reasonable and acceptable compromise its just good politics to portray yourself as against the tide of societal decline and the ills that come with it. In an ideal small town superamerica there isn't any teenage pregnancy or abortions in the first place regardless of a moral imperative to help solve the issue. There isn't a need to have a reasonable and acceptable compromise when neither side is looking for a compromise. I am here and people like introvert indicated their were conservatives that would, save for it being about the rare cases of rape/incest be around also? So, even though I was skeptical that was the case, I decided I'd give it a try. Alas, it appears that I am unfortunately right. But hey, maybe the usual suspects are all busy at the moment and soon a reasonable suggestion, that would pass muster on the right, is just around the corner. That's not what I said. I said it was purely political that pro-choice people would constantly shout about rape and incest. I've said a bunch of times that I'm not going to discuss abortion right now. You keep trying to tweak what I said. Please stop.
While rape and incest are obviously minority cases the purpose of bringing them up is to show that there is no absolute rule that is morally acceptable. The argument goes that it is morally unacceptable to force a woman to carry the pregnancy from when her father raped her to term and therefore abortion can be justified. Once exceptions exist the entire area becomes grey and therefore the pro-life stance falls apart. The pro-life stance only makes sense as an absolute one, where abortion is never okay, so the most extreme examples, like rape and incest, are useful because they show the problems with absolute stances.
|
On May 17 2015 07:24 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2015 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 17 2015 06:52 Sermokala wrote:On May 17 2015 06:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seriously though conservatives, don't pile over yourselves to explain how there's a totally reasonable and acceptable compromise somewhere on the right?
Not even a compromise, just an idea of what to do about birth control and when it fails. Just a basic beginning for the issue. Otherwise you can't really complain when people take liberties to make caricatures out of the rhetoric tossed around in various states. Its not a matter of having a reasonable and acceptable compromise its just good politics to portray yourself as against the tide of societal decline and the ills that come with it. In an ideal small town superamerica there isn't any teenage pregnancy or abortions in the first place regardless of a moral imperative to help solve the issue. There isn't a need to have a reasonable and acceptable compromise when neither side is looking for a compromise. I am here and people like introvert indicated their were conservatives that would, save for it being about the rare cases of rape/incest be around also? So, even though I was skeptical that was the case, I decided I'd give it a try. Alas, it appears that I am unfortunately right. But hey, maybe the usual suspects are all busy at the moment and soon a reasonable suggestion, that would pass muster on the right, is just around the corner. That's not what I said. I said it was purely political that pro-choice people would constantly shout about rape and incest. I've said a bunch of times that I'm not going to discuss abortion right now. You keep trying to tweak what I said. Please stop.
You seem to think I expect you to do it. I don't. It doesn't surprise me at all you don't want to talk about it. I'm simply saying you suggested there was a discussion to be had (by others) beyond the rape/incest example that Kwark summed up, and that avoiding it made you upset. So I took your critique and suggested we shift the discussion toward the main issues which are birth control and what to do when it fails.
It seems there isn't much discussion there, it's most people agreeing with the idea that birth control on some level and not forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies full term. And the other side saying little to nothing or refusing to engage on the sensible issues at all. (again they could be busy)
|
On May 17 2015 07:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2015 07:24 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2015 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 17 2015 06:52 Sermokala wrote:On May 17 2015 06:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seriously though conservatives, don't pile over yourselves to explain how there's a totally reasonable and acceptable compromise somewhere on the right?
Not even a compromise, just an idea of what to do about birth control and when it fails. Just a basic beginning for the issue. Otherwise you can't really complain when people take liberties to make caricatures out of the rhetoric tossed around in various states. Its not a matter of having a reasonable and acceptable compromise its just good politics to portray yourself as against the tide of societal decline and the ills that come with it. In an ideal small town superamerica there isn't any teenage pregnancy or abortions in the first place regardless of a moral imperative to help solve the issue. There isn't a need to have a reasonable and acceptable compromise when neither side is looking for a compromise. I am here and people like introvert indicated their were conservatives that would, save for it being about the rare cases of rape/incest be around also? So, even though I was skeptical that was the case, I decided I'd give it a try. Alas, it appears that I am unfortunately right. But hey, maybe the usual suspects are all busy at the moment and soon a reasonable suggestion, that would pass muster on the right, is just around the corner. That's not what I said. I said it was purely political that pro-choice people would constantly shout about rape and incest. I've said a bunch of times that I'm not going to discuss abortion right now. You keep trying to tweak what I said. Please stop. While rape and incest are obviously minority cases the purpose of bringing them up is to show that there is no absolute rule that is morally acceptable. The argument goes that it is morally unacceptable to force a woman to carry the pregnancy from when her father raped her to term and therefore abortion can be justified. Once exceptions exist the entire area becomes grey and therefore the pro-life stance falls apart. The pro-life stance only makes sense as an absolute one, where abortion is never okay, so the most extreme examples, like rape and incest, are useful because they show the problems with absolute stances.
That's not true at all (or at least it's not a given). There is a decent but small number of people who are absolute, but many many more who think rape, incest, and life of the mother is an acceptable reason.
The only reason it's mentioned in policy discussions is to paint people as extremists.
On May 17 2015 07:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2015 07:24 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2015 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 17 2015 06:52 Sermokala wrote:On May 17 2015 06:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seriously though conservatives, don't pile over yourselves to explain how there's a totally reasonable and acceptable compromise somewhere on the right?
Not even a compromise, just an idea of what to do about birth control and when it fails. Just a basic beginning for the issue. Otherwise you can't really complain when people take liberties to make caricatures out of the rhetoric tossed around in various states. Its not a matter of having a reasonable and acceptable compromise its just good politics to portray yourself as against the tide of societal decline and the ills that come with it. In an ideal small town superamerica there isn't any teenage pregnancy or abortions in the first place regardless of a moral imperative to help solve the issue. There isn't a need to have a reasonable and acceptable compromise when neither side is looking for a compromise. I am here and people like introvert indicated their were conservatives that would, save for it being about the rare cases of rape/incest be around also? So, even though I was skeptical that was the case, I decided I'd give it a try. Alas, it appears that I am unfortunately right. But hey, maybe the usual suspects are all busy at the moment and soon a reasonable suggestion, that would pass muster on the right, is just around the corner. That's not what I said. I said it was purely political that pro-choice people would constantly shout about rape and incest. I've said a bunch of times that I'm not going to discuss abortion right now. You keep trying to tweak what I said. Please stop. You seem to think I expect you to do it. I don't. It doesn't surprise me at all you don't want to talk about it. I'm simply saying you suggested there was a discussion to be had (by others) beyond the rape/incest example that Kwark summed up, and that avoiding it made you upset. So I took your critique and suggested we shift the discussion toward the main issues which are birth control and what to do when it fails. It seems there isn't much discussion there, it's most people agreeing with the idea that birth control on some level and not forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies full term. And the other side saying little to nothing or refusing to engage on the sensible issues at all. (again they could be busy)
Or people know what a crapshoot it can be, especially online. It's also a time sink, it's one of those topics that go on and on. And finally, guessing who is going to particulate in such a discussion can influence people to either talk or keep their mouth shut.
Anyway, I think I've made my point. Bringing up fringe cases is done for political reasons, not for moral ones (and not for argumentative reasons, as Kwark alluded to).
|
On May 17 2015 07:14 hunts wrote:
I'd probably consider myself more conservative than liberal lately. My point of view, if someone is against abortions than don't fucking get one, I don't see where those people get off telling others they can't have abortions because their fictional book says a guy in the sky will be mad at them. Same for same sex marriage, and basically anything else where religious. Is the reason the oposition gives.
Abortion need not be a religious issue nor does same sex marriage. Now saying that I am pro-choice, pro monogamous or polygamous healthy marriages (not cloistered semi-brainwashed 16 year olds). Side story: I said pro-abortion to my friend a few days ago she said :"Say pro-choice you idiot! You're not pushing pregnant woman down staircases!"
Religion has no place in political arguments (separation of state and church), morals instilled by religions sure, but they should be separate from a specific religion. Thus making arguments vs religions should be a non issue and hopefully hunts can make moral and ethical arguments instead of dismissing religion and consequently a healthy argument.
People can do whatever that is realistically possible. Laws are present to add consequences to actions which we deem unhealthy. From hunts argument, to my understanding, if I'm pro murder it should be fine for me to kill someone. That's not the point, the point is that their are laws to hinder people to do destructive societal actions and arguments need to be made if ultimately we deem abortion or gay marriage is unhealthy or not. Murder a pretty easy one to say is an unhealthy societal action. Some people be damned from a legal point;since, we are a society that is made of many moral views and people will be unhappy.
PS. Yes hunts I didn't fully represent your view correctly but basically don't bash religion, just say a religion isn't a source of moral and your argument is completely invalid, or the person expressing the view doesn't have a leg to stand on.
PSS Atheist here.
|
On May 17 2015 07:50 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2015 07:32 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2015 07:24 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2015 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 17 2015 06:52 Sermokala wrote:On May 17 2015 06:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seriously though conservatives, don't pile over yourselves to explain how there's a totally reasonable and acceptable compromise somewhere on the right?
Not even a compromise, just an idea of what to do about birth control and when it fails. Just a basic beginning for the issue. Otherwise you can't really complain when people take liberties to make caricatures out of the rhetoric tossed around in various states. Its not a matter of having a reasonable and acceptable compromise its just good politics to portray yourself as against the tide of societal decline and the ills that come with it. In an ideal small town superamerica there isn't any teenage pregnancy or abortions in the first place regardless of a moral imperative to help solve the issue. There isn't a need to have a reasonable and acceptable compromise when neither side is looking for a compromise. I am here and people like introvert indicated their were conservatives that would, save for it being about the rare cases of rape/incest be around also? So, even though I was skeptical that was the case, I decided I'd give it a try. Alas, it appears that I am unfortunately right. But hey, maybe the usual suspects are all busy at the moment and soon a reasonable suggestion, that would pass muster on the right, is just around the corner. That's not what I said. I said it was purely political that pro-choice people would constantly shout about rape and incest. I've said a bunch of times that I'm not going to discuss abortion right now. You keep trying to tweak what I said. Please stop. While rape and incest are obviously minority cases the purpose of bringing them up is to show that there is no absolute rule that is morally acceptable. The argument goes that it is morally unacceptable to force a woman to carry the pregnancy from when her father raped her to term and therefore abortion can be justified. Once exceptions exist the entire area becomes grey and therefore the pro-life stance falls apart. The pro-life stance only makes sense as an absolute one, where abortion is never okay, so the most extreme examples, like rape and incest, are useful because they show the problems with absolute stances. That's not true at all (or at least it's not a given). There is a decent but small number of people who are absolute, but many many more who think rape, incest, and life of the mother is an acceptable reason. The only reason it's mentioned in policy discussions is to paint people as extremists. Show nested quote +On May 17 2015 07:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 17 2015 07:24 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2015 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 17 2015 06:52 Sermokala wrote:On May 17 2015 06:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seriously though conservatives, don't pile over yourselves to explain how there's a totally reasonable and acceptable compromise somewhere on the right?
Not even a compromise, just an idea of what to do about birth control and when it fails. Just a basic beginning for the issue. Otherwise you can't really complain when people take liberties to make caricatures out of the rhetoric tossed around in various states. Its not a matter of having a reasonable and acceptable compromise its just good politics to portray yourself as against the tide of societal decline and the ills that come with it. In an ideal small town superamerica there isn't any teenage pregnancy or abortions in the first place regardless of a moral imperative to help solve the issue. There isn't a need to have a reasonable and acceptable compromise when neither side is looking for a compromise. I am here and people like introvert indicated their were conservatives that would, save for it being about the rare cases of rape/incest be around also? So, even though I was skeptical that was the case, I decided I'd give it a try. Alas, it appears that I am unfortunately right. But hey, maybe the usual suspects are all busy at the moment and soon a reasonable suggestion, that would pass muster on the right, is just around the corner. That's not what I said. I said it was purely political that pro-choice people would constantly shout about rape and incest. I've said a bunch of times that I'm not going to discuss abortion right now. You keep trying to tweak what I said. Please stop. You seem to think I expect you to do it. I don't. It doesn't surprise me at all you don't want to talk about it. I'm simply saying you suggested there was a discussion to be had (by others) beyond the rape/incest example that Kwark summed up, and that avoiding it made you upset. So I took your critique and suggested we shift the discussion toward the main issues which are birth control and what to do when it fails. It seems there isn't much discussion there, it's most people agreeing with the idea that birth control on some level and not forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies full term. And the other side saying little to nothing or refusing to engage on the sensible issues at all. (again they could be busy) Or people know what a crapshoot it can be, especially online. It's also a time sink, it's one of those topics that go on and on. And finally, guessing who is going to particulate in such a discussion can influence people to either talk or keep their mouth shut. Anyway, I think I've made my point. Bringing up fringe cases is done for political reasons, not for moral ones (and not for argumentative reasons, as Kwark alluded to).
I don't think your seeing what I'm talking about.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yrfqhFV.png)
It's not strictly political and I don't know what people are thinking "in all cases" (that just sounds too vague too me).
But the data shows either republicans are ignorant of what most abortions are actually a result of or when they take place, or, they are actually for making it mandatory for a pregnant woman to carry her unwanted pregnancy full term or face criminal punishment.
The question isn't whether there are reasonable republicans who understand those exceptions, the question is where is that position on the right politically? Who can articulate a position on "most abortions" that accounts for the reality and will still be acceptable on the right? As of yet there have been none here or elsewhere.
Simply calling all opposition political and refusing to engage on the substance of the matter because it takes too much time or courage to say "you know, I don't think we should force women who's birth control fails to carry the unwanted pregnancy to full term" seems disingenuous.
|
You failed to understand what I meant by "political." Hint: I didn't mean partisan.
And it does take too much time, which is a primary reason I was very specific in what I was talking about. I'm not being disingenuous, you are trying to change the subject and making demands of people here. When they don't answer you, you berate them and then guess why it is they are ignoring you. Which is normal. Ask question, answer it yourself.
I learned a long time ago that even when you are corrected on a "right-wing" viewpoint you don't actually accept what was said and continue to make (bad) guesses at someone's rationale for something. So I'm not going to go down that road yet again on another topic.
Edit: because I know you will want an example, I'll say immigration. Every time someone explains a position on immigration you seem to completely forget within 2 days. At least when Sub40 does it I get the distinct feeling he's just trolling.
So really, I don't have anymore to say.
|
On May 17 2015 08:22 Introvert wrote:
You failed to understand what I meant by "political." Hint: I didn't mean partisan.
And it does take too much time, which is a primary reason I was very specific in what I was talking about. I'm not being disingenuous, you are trying to change the subject and making demands of people here. When they don't answer you, you berate them and then guess why it is they are ignoring you. Which is normal. Ask question, answer it yourself.
I learned a long time ago that even when you are corrected on a "right-wing" viewpoint you don't actually accept what was said and continue to make (bad) guesses at someone's rationale for something. So I'm not going to go down that road yet again on another topic.
Really it would take more time to just say something about what you think should be done when contraception fails, just a loose idea, anything... instead of the several replies you've already put forth...?
Not that I was asking you specifically, but it's kind of bullshit to say there is a reasonable alternative on the right that we are ignoring or diverting attention from by talking about the more extreme positions (being legislated in certain states), and then suggest the reason conservatives don't mention it is because they don't like who's asking or the typical issues with internet discussion.
@EDIT: What the hell are you talking about with immigration?
This "I don't like the way you talk about conservative opinions on that issue, but conservatives refuse to opine because they don't like how you talk about the issue " is next level silly.
|
On May 17 2015 06:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seriously though conservatives, don't pile over yourselves to explain how there's a totally reasonable and acceptable compromise somewhere on the right?
Not even a compromise, just an idea of what to do about birth control and when it fails. Just a basic beginning for the issue. Otherwise you can't really complain when people take liberties to make caricatures out of the rhetoric tossed around in various states.
As a conservative I favor abortion, why the hell would anyone oppose it?
|
On May 17 2015 08:32 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2015 06:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seriously though conservatives, don't pile over yourselves to explain how there's a totally reasonable and acceptable compromise somewhere on the right?
Not even a compromise, just an idea of what to do about birth control and when it fails. Just a basic beginning for the issue. Otherwise you can't really complain when people take liberties to make caricatures out of the rhetoric tossed around in various states. As a conservative I favor abortion, why the hell would anyone oppose it?
You tell me? 57% of republicans want to make it illegal in most (about 20% all) cases. Yet I don't have a clue what they want to do about unwanted pregnancies from birth control failing (the most common reason). If there is a sensible solution somewhere on the right, what's keeping them from presenting it to the party and having majority support (or at least enough to do something with democrats)?
|
Why don't you go outside for a run instead of worrying about what conservatives around here are thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
