US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2038

On June 17 2015 06:22 Stratos_speAr wrote:


I can agree with most of this, to an extent. I agree that we should strive for equality of opportunity and that there are distinct disadvantages that men have in society.

My problem with your comments is that you quickly jumped to a conclusion about what I believed and then argued against that stock character. I never defended the "epidemic" idea. I was attacking your comments that insinuated that there was never a real problem with sexual assault in our society, which is why I mentioned your "head being in the sand".

Most everyone agrees with equality of opportunity. The difference is where you think that some people are arguing for equality of outcome, when they think differently. I haven't talked to very many feminists (or liberals in general) that want equality of outcome. The difference seems to be that you (and most conservatives) have different ideas about how to achieve equality of opportunity when compared to how your average liberal thinks we can achieve that.

I also think that you're exaggerating how often men have a disadvantage compared to women. Yes, there are certainly issues where men are at a disadvantage, and it really grinds my gears when feminists just dismiss them (e.g. men having to sign up for the draft but not women, women having a massive advantage in child custody battles just by virtue of being the mother, men being far more likely to be sentenced to prison time, men being pigeon-holed into "masculine" roles, etc.), but it's not like society has suddenly swung to the point where women have just as many areas in life where they get an advantage over men. The world has been male-dominated in pretty much every society for pretty much all of human history. It's not like we magically turned that around in the last 30 years. There's still work to do.

On June 17 2015 06:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

What happened in 1993 is a red herring. We're talking about the last decade or so. If a woman had a hard time getting justice while married in 1993, that's a shame, but it doesn't mean that women have a hard time getting justice while unmarried and on campus.

I'll also point out that many consider a woman having non-consentual sex with a man to not be rape (no penetration of the man) and that the man in the video could have been the one who was actually sexually assaulted.

As for society being dismissive of rape allegations I'd have to see figures on that. But bear in mind that false rape accusations do exist, and that society should be skeptical when it comes to any accusation.

Real victim blaming shouldn't happen, but what is classified as victim blaming has gone too far. 'Don't walk alone in dark alley' sounds like good advice for both men and women!

What I've written off is the need for a new social crusade. Rape and sexual assault have been on the decline. Moreover, the new social crusade has relied heavily on false statistics and has pushed for the new campus rules that you agree have gone too far. I really don't think it was necessary and I think the facts bear out my opinion.

Findings from the interviews revealed that detectives had two approaches to rape victims:
―innocent until proven guilty‖ and ―guilty until proven innocent.‖ The innocent until
proven guilty approach is characterized by: (1) a passion for working sex crimes; (2)
engaging the victim as an ally in the investigation; (3) expecting victim inconsistencies
based partially on extant law enforcement protocols and trauma-related factors; (4)
assertions that false reports are rare; (5) knowledge of the dynamics related to delayed
reporting; (5) a belief that cases involving alcohol, drugs, or prior/initially consensual sex
are serious cases and occur with more frequency than stranger rape; and (6) frustration
that departmental leadership does not take sexual assault as seriously as homicide (this
was emphasized more by LAPD detectives).
In contrast, the guilty until proven innocent approach is characterized by: (1) an emphasis
that stranger rape is the only ―real‖ rape; (2) a belief that nonstranger sexual assault is not
as serious as stranger rape and is often the victim‘s fault; (3) statements that any victim
inconsistency ruins her credibility; (4) an emphasis on the ubiquity of false reporting and
victims‘ lack of cooperation; (5) responses to interview questions based on the
―righteousness‖ of the victim; (6) reluctance to unwillingness to arrest in ―he said/she
said‖ cases

The Obama administration is ordering food companies to phase out the use of artery-clogging trans fats over the next three years, calling them a threat to public health.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced on Tuesday that it had finalized its determination that partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs), the main source of artificial trans fat in processed foods, are not “generally recognized as safe” for use in human food. Food manufacturers will have three years to remove PHOs from products, the FDA said.

“The FDA’s action on this major source of artificial trans fat demonstrates the agency’s commitment to the heart health of all Americans," said the FDA's Acting Commissioner Stephen Ostroff. “This action is expected to reduce coronary heart disease and prevent thousands of fatal heart attacks every year.”

Scientists say there are no health benefits to the fats, which are used in processing food and in restaurants, usually to improve texture, shelf life or flavor. They can raise levels of “bad” cholesterol and lower “good” cholesterol, increasing the risk of heart disease, the leading cause of death in the United States. The fats are created when hydrogen is added to vegetable oil to make it more solid, which is why they are often called partially hydrogenated oils.

Because companies have already eliminated trans fats from many processed foods, consumers are unlikely to notice a difference from the FDA ruling. Once a staple of the American diet, food companies have started using other kinds of oils to replace them. The FDA says that between 2003 and 2012, consumer trans fat consumption decreased by an estimated 78 percent. The FDA action will remove artificial trans fats from the food supply almost entirely.

But some foods still have them, and the FDA says those trans fats remaining in the food supply are a threat to public health. Some of the foods that commonly contain trans fats are pie crusts, biscuits, microwave popcorn, coffee creamers, frozen pizza, refrigerated dough, vegetable shortenings and stick margarines.

To phase the fats out, the FDA made a preliminary determination in 2013 that trans fats no longer fall in the agency's “generally recognized as safe” category, which covers thousands of additives that manufacturers can add to foods without FDA review. The agency made that decision final Tuesday.

On June 17 2015 07:05 Mercy13 wrote:


Here you go!


Source

You're not going to find a study looking at the entirety of human society, but there are many studies that look at particular jurisdictions which conclude that people often try to find reasons to blame victims for sexual assault.

Another stated: ―I feel bad for the victims. I call it buyer‘s remorse‘ where girls who have been partying and drinking have sex with a man
willingly. Is it a rape? In my opinion, no.70 But we take a report. There needs to be some
responsibility toward the victim as well. You are responsible for how much you drink and where
you spend your time.

On June 17 2015 06:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

What happened in 1993 is a red herring. We're talking about the last decade or so. If a woman had a hard time getting justice while married in 1993, that's a shame, but it doesn't mean that women have a hard time getting justice while unmarried and on campus.

I'll also point out that many consider a woman having non-consentual sex with a man to not be rape (no penetration of the man) and that the man in the video could have been the one who was actually sexually assaulted.

As for society being dismissive of rape allegations I'd have to see figures on that. But bear in mind that false rape accusations do exist, and that society should be skeptical when it comes to any accusation.

Real victim blaming shouldn't happen, but what is classified as victim blaming has gone too far. 'Don't walk alone in dark alley' sounds like good advice for both men and women!

What I've written off is the need for a new social crusade. Rape and sexual assault have been on the decline. Moreover, the new social crusade has relied heavily on false statistics and has pushed for the new campus rules that you agree have gone too far. I really don't think it was necessary and I think the facts bear out my opinion.

On June 17 2015 07:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

I don't think I said that there was never, in the entire course of human history, a real problem with sexual assault. My comments were that there wasn't a need when the latest social movement kicked in. Again, I think the statistics bear that out.

I think there is absolutely a demand for equality of outcomes. If you look at the 'more women in STEM' push, the rhetoric may very well be that equal opportunity is demanded and that 'discrimination' is cited as a barrier. But the reality is that they are asking for more equality in outcomes, since outcomes is the primary factual basis for the entire push. Women have special access to grants and are often given hiring preferences to get them into those fields and yet since a difference in outcomes remains, the push continues. Moreover, and I think tellingly, in science fields where women are the majority there doesn't seem to be a concern.

To your list of female advantages I'll add female over-representation in college, a bias towards higher grades for girls over boys in school, women control the majority of household spending, men are more likely to be homeless (and particularly die while homeless), less likely to receive domestic abuse support and that men are far more likely than women to die on the job. However I do not think that there's any good way to determine in all this which sex has a total advantage over the other (edit: as some men's rights groups might claim). Maybe women are more disadvantaged, but determining that seems far too messy and subjective for my taste.

As long as people are pushing for equality of opportunity I'm happy, but I from my perspective feminists are pushing for inequality of opportunity and equality in outcomes where women aren't already advantaged. It all seems very, very biased.

On June 17 2015 08:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Thanks, but this is a very long report and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to make of your small quote. From reading a bit, the differences between 'guilty until proven innocent' vs 'innocent until proven guilty' approaches are fairly subjective and one doesn't seem to be 'bad' in the author's eyes. Both are interviewing victims and suspects, checking evidence and credibility, and reporting to DA's. The 'guilty until proven innocent' group is generally more skeptical, and less likely to make an arrest, but the interview quotes are hardly atrocious.
I can absolutely see how this attitude could lead to problems when in sexual assault cases, but this doesn't seem to be inappropriate behavior either. Investigations do need to include tough questions and skepticism is generally healthy for a police detective. Wanting to strike a better balance is great, but from what I've read this doesn't seem damning.

But again it's a big document (535 pages) so if you think I'm wrong about something in it let me know.

Sen. Bernie Sanders is beginning to show some life against Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire with the Democratic presidential primary there less than eight months away, according to a Suffolk University poll of likely Granite State Democratic primary voters.

Clinton, the former secretary of state, was the choice of 41 percent, followed by Vermonter Sanders (31 percent), Vice President Joe Biden (7 percent), former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (3 percent), and former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee and former Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia tied at 1 percent. Fifteen percent of likely Democrats were undecided.

“Most political observers felt that Hillary Clinton’s large early lead among Democratic voters would eventually shrunk a bit over time,” said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center in Boston. “But in New Hampshire right now, the lead has shrunk a lot, and this is a much different Democratic primary race than we are seeing in other states so far.”

The poll depicts a clear gender gap, with Clinton carrying women 47 percent to 28 percent but trailing Sanders among men 35 percent to 32 percent. Geographically, Clinton easily carried the central and highly populated southern counties of Rockingham and Hillsborough, but Sanders led 47 percent to 26 percent in the five counties in northern and western New Hampshire, including Cheshire, Coos, Grafton, and Sullivan counties—which border his home state—and Carroll County.

Although Clinton enjoys a 10-point lead statewide, she leads Sanders 38 percent to 35 percent among those who “know both” of the candidates.

On June 17 2015 10:16 Danglars wrote:

I think that's the cusp of a very important topic on what left-leaning political talkers mean when they say, as Stratos_speAr puts it, [x] doesn't mean that we've achieved true equality. Would they know it if they saw it? What about all the points in quoted RE: fields in science that are women-advantaged, college enrollment, etc?

On June 17 2015 12:32 screamingpalm wrote:


Hey man, I might be left leaning on most things, but I have to agree with you two on this one. Admittedly the feminism serves us well anecdotally. I stay home and the wife works- at first because of my health issues, and now we see that she has much better opportunities (at least from an unskilled entry level PoV).

Why should I break my back doing hard labor when she can earn twice as much in a cushy office sitting at a cubicle- and get treated like an actual human being with benefits starting from day one? XD

DERRY, N.H. — Jeb Bush said Tuesday that the enhanced interrogation techniques deployed by his brother after Sept. 11 attacks were no longer appropriate, that he hoped the Supreme Court would rule against same-sex marriage, and mocked Hillary Rodham Clinton for passing few laws during her eight years in the Senate.

In an extensive interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News in New Hampshire, Mr. Bush was by turns serious and playful, at one point audibly chuckling at criticism from Donald Trump, who is now running for president.

“Sorry,” Mr. Bush said of his laughter. But he did not seem sorry.

The Fox interview will be broadcast on Tuesday night, but it could be overheard by reporters standing nearby.

Pressed on the same-sex marriage case before the Supreme Court, Mr. Bush said: “I believe in traditional marriage. I hope the Supreme Court rules that way.”

He added that the country should not discriminate against any American based on sexual orientation.

Mr. Bush, a two-term governor of Florida, was in New Hampshire for a town hall-style meeting a day after officially announcing his presidential candidacy in Miami. He repeatedly rebuked Mrs. Clinton, his biggest Democratic rival, in Tuesday’s interview. He called her record in Libya, where terrorists killed the American ambassador, “a complete failure.”

Recounting her legislative accomplishments, Mr. Bush said of his work in Florida, “I put that record up against Hillary Clinton’s any day of the week.”

But he offered words of praise, as well, calling Mrs. Clinton “smart” and “tough.”

On June 17 2015 12:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


Awesome! He's still got a looong way to go though.

Gawker: Why did you decide to speak at the fast food wage hearing today?

Nick Hanauer: I flew out to do testimony obviously because they asked me to, but [also] because I was at the forefront of the effort to pass $15 minimum wage in Seattle, and have been collaborating with the people who are trying to make that happen across the country.

Gawker: And your message is: it worked in Seattle, and it can work here?

NH: Yeah. My message is that the counterclaim—which is that if wages go up, employment will go down—is a scam. It’s a con job. It’s an intimidation tactic. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere that it’s true. On the contrary, where you find high wages you usually find low unemployment.

Gawker: It’s a bit of a chicken and egg situation though, isn’t it? Which came first, the high wages, or the strong economy in the place that has the high wages? The typical rejoinder is, “higher wages drive down employment.”

NH: Show me an example. Show me an example of where high wages drove down employment. You show me a high wage place, I’ll show you a low unemployment place. And this is because the fundamental law of capitalism is: when workers have more money, businesses have more customers, and need more workers. The idea that high wages equals low employment, it’s absurd. And you have to understand that when somebody like me tells somebody like you that [high wages equals low employment] is the case, the only thing that’s true about that statement is that if I can get you to believe it, it would be very good for me. Which is why people like me have been saying it, again and again and again, and why people like me have said it at every point at which workers’ rights have been advanced. You can go back 150 years and literally find the same people saying the same thing in the same way. “If we have to pay you more, it will be bad for you.” And that’s because saying that is a much more polite way of saying, “I’m rich, you’re poor, and I would prefer to keep it what way.”

On June 18 2015 03:45 screamingpalm wrote:
I still think Warren Buffet's solution of expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit is the more sensible one. Problems of inflation and other issues are well illustrated in the comments of that article. Usual bad solution to real problems from the left.

On June 18 2015 03:49 Gorsameth wrote:
beats the no solutions from the right?