| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46223 Posts
On January 03 2016 13:45 Nyxisto wrote: Yes. Contraceptives are essential healthcare products. If you don't believe me, believe the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists And certainly, absolutely the pill for women, as it helps them in so many more ways (health-wise, medically) than just "I don't want to get pregnant". | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On January 03 2016 14:45 TheTenthDoc wrote: This wouldn't be problem if employers gave employees vouchers for these other plans on the marketplace or compensated them additionally given that they are not paying for their plan. But they don't. And have insisted over and over again that they won't. Furthermore, businesses are given tax breaks for providing health insurance plans to their employers. They should not receive tax breaks for providing inadequate plans. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10924 Posts
On January 03 2016 15:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: And certainly, absolutely the pill for women, as it helps them in so many more ways (health-wise, medically) than just "I don't want to get pregnant". I hope that was sarcastic | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46223 Posts
Not at all. Why would it be? Birth control pills have a ton of non-contraceptive medical benefits for women, such as: regulating and lightening periods; lowering the risk of anemia, pelvic inflammator disease, ovarian cancer, and endometrial cancer; and lessening the effects of menstrual migraines, cramps, premenstrual dysphoric disorder, endometriosis, and polycystic ovarian syndrome. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10924 Posts
Never have i one heard say that it helps her with something. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10924 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24142 Posts
On January 03 2016 17:40 Velr wrote: dunno, i just know people that have stopped taking them for problems they became after taking them for years. Various forms of "the pill" are prescribed for a wide range of issues other than contraception. It was actually originally approved by the FDA to treat severe menstrual problems and specifically not for birth control. Bernie Sanders (and others) nail it when they say we wouldn't be having these problems if men gave birth. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22475 Posts
Are American's selectively blind and desperately trying to ignore this because "guns, patriots and all that" or what? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24142 Posts
On January 03 2016 19:39 Gorsameth wrote: Let me get this strait, armed militia's have occupied a government building, send disturbing goodbye video's and your talking about contraception? Are American's selectively blind and desperately trying to ignore this because "guns, patriots and all that" or what? Severe case of melanin deficiency. If they were majority brown/black it would be all over the 24 hour networks, but it's the weekend after new years and the story will be there Monday. For now they'll just call them "armed protesters" which is already an early contender for euphemism of the year. The Jade Helm folks will have an interesting reaction to this however it plays out I'm sure. | ||
|
aRyuujin
United States5049 Posts
On January 03 2016 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote: Severe case of melanin deficiency. If they were majority brown/black it would be all over the 24 hour networks, but it's the weekend after new years and the story will be there Monday. For now they'll just call them "armed protesters" which is already an early contender for euphemism of the year. The Jade Helm folks will have an interesting reaction to this however it plays out I'm sure. A lot of people here (TX) actually seem to support these imbecilic militants because #2ndAmendment, the same way they supported Cliven Bundy. Though thankfully I haven't ran into many who fell for the Jade Helm conspiracy bullshit | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11927 Posts
In the second case, the whole situation becomes very delicate. Obviously you need to get them out of there somehow. You probably don't want to start shooting them. And all of them should go to prison for at least a few years, as this is basically an armed robbery. But that only becomes relevant after you have solved the acute problem of getting them out of there. If they are not threatening anyone or keeping anyone hostage, i don't think shooting them would be justified. GH will point out that if they were black, they had already been shot, which might be true, but isn't solving the problem either, as he would also agree that the police is already shooting too many people, and the solution to "the police is shooting too many black people" isn't "Have them shoot more white people too!" What i really don't understand is what these guys are hoping to achieve. The best case they could possibly hope for is that they are annoying enough for long enough that they get offered a deal where they leave the building and don't have to go to prison. Which would already be the status quo if they simply hadn't occupied that building. The whole situation seems utterly irrational. So in my opinion, you need some negotiators that are good at talking to crazy people who can somehow convince them to leave that building. And the US should really think about how useful it is to have an armed militia, when the people who tend to join that militia are apparently very crazy. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4768 Posts
| ||
|
JumboJohnson
537 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24142 Posts
On January 03 2016 21:12 Simberto wrote: That situation is incredibly weird, and i honestly have no idea how a government should reasonably react to it. Do they have hostages? Or are they just basically occupying a federal building with shitloads of guns? In the second case, the whole situation becomes very delicate. Obviously you need to get them out of there somehow. You probably don't want to start shooting them. And all of them should go to prison for at least a few years, as this is basically an armed robbery. But that only becomes relevant after you have solved the acute problem of getting them out of there. If they are not threatening anyone or keeping anyone hostage, i don't think shooting them would be justified. GH will point out that if they were black, they had already been shot, which might be true, but isn't solving the problem either, as he would also agree that the police is already shooting too many people, and the solution to "the police is shooting too many black people" isn't "Have them shoot more white people too!" What i really don't understand is what these guys are hoping to achieve. The best case they could possibly hope for is that they are annoying enough for long enough that they get offered a deal where they leave the building and don't have to go to prison. Which would already be the status quo if they simply hadn't occupied that building. The whole situation seems utterly irrational. So in my opinion, you need some negotiators that are good at talking to crazy people who can somehow convince them to leave that building. And the US should really think about how useful it is to have an armed militia, when the people who tend to join that militia are apparently very crazy. The point is to gain credibility. They already fended off the federal government while pointing guns at them once. This is the natural escalation being that they know they don't have any claim to this land as opposed to listening to a delusional crackpot who told them his family homesteaded the land back in blah blah bullshit. If they don't go to prison than that will be twice they have told the federal government that they will break the law and the government can't do anything about it because they have guns and will use them against government officials who chose to enforce the law. There isn't a single ounce of integrity in any of the "law and order" crowd if they don't call for these terrorists to be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If they refuse we can just ask Republicans what enforcement agencies are supposed to do when someone refuses to comply with a lawful order and threatens them if they try to enforce the law... So far it's been ask them politely to stop breaking the law and wait. TIL it's safer to be a white guy engaging in an armed takeover of a government building than it is to be a black guy selling cigarettes on the corner. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22475 Posts
On January 03 2016 21:12 Simberto wrote: That situation is incredibly weird, and i honestly have no idea how a government should reasonably react to it. Do they have hostages? Or are they just basically occupying a federal building with shitloads of guns? In the second case, the whole situation becomes very delicate. Obviously you need to get them out of there somehow. You probably don't want to start shooting them. And all of them should go to prison for at least a few years, as this is basically an armed robbery. But that only becomes relevant after you have solved the acute problem of getting them out of there. If they are not threatening anyone or keeping anyone hostage, i don't think shooting them would be justified. GH will point out that if they were black, they had already been shot, which might be true, but isn't solving the problem either, as he would also agree that the police is already shooting too many people, and the solution to "the police is shooting too many black people" isn't "Have them shoot more white people too!" What i really don't understand is what these guys are hoping to achieve. The best case they could possibly hope for is that they are annoying enough for long enough that they get offered a deal where they leave the building and don't have to go to prison. Which would already be the status quo if they simply hadn't occupied that building. The whole situation seems utterly irrational. So in my opinion, you need some negotiators that are good at talking to crazy people who can somehow convince them to leave that building. And the US should really think about how useful it is to have an armed militia, when the people who tend to join that militia are apparently very crazy. Well the have a victory under their belt already from when they successfully prevented the government from acting on the grazing issue a year ago. It probably makes them think they can get another victory here by waving around a lot of guns and trusting that the government will rather give them what they want then risk a warzone. The problem with a group like this is that at some point you are going to have to say no and take them into custody, you cant keep giving them what they want. And then things get very tense. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6343 Posts
On January 03 2016 21:26 Silvanel wrote: Of course armed response should be on the table only if they become vilolent. Attacking them otherwise would play into this conpiracy/nutjob milita theory that govenemnt wants them dead and disarmed. Reading up on the backstory its really quite appalling how the federal government treated the Hammond family and other landowners in the area since the 70's. Really makes you think about how little you can do when the state gets an eye for your privet property. These people have been bankrupted and ruined by their own government but still I don't see how picking up guns and shoo-ing the fed's away will solve anything in the long term. edit: Maybe all of this will make people aware of how petty and abusive the BLM has become. And things can change. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46223 Posts
On January 03 2016 17:20 Velr wrote: All the women i ever talked to (and took/take the pill) tell otherwise, but i haven't read up on it myself. Never have i one heard say that it helps her with something. If we're speaking anecdotally... the very reason why my fiancee (and at least half of my female friends) first went on the pill were for actual health reasons stemming from my earlier list, and not because they were going to be sexually active. But I'd much rather appeal to real statistics: "MANY AMERICAN WOMEN USE BIRTH CONTROL PILLS FOR NONCONTRACEPTIVE REASONS One-Third of Teen Users Rely on the Pill Exclusively for These Purposes The most common reason U.S. women use oral contraceptive pills is to prevent pregnancy, but 14% of pill users—1.5 million women—rely on them exclusively for noncontraceptive purposes. The study documenting this finding, “Beyond Birth Control: The Overlooked Benefits of Oral Contraceptive Pills,” by Rachel K. Jones of the Guttmacher Institute, also found that more than half (58%) of all pill users rely on the method, at least in part, for purposes other than pregnancy prevention—meaning that only 42% use the pill exclusively for contraceptive reasons. The study—based on U.S government data from the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG)—revealed that after pregnancy prevention (86%), the most common reasons women use the pill include reducing cramps or menstrual pain (31%); menstrual regulation, which for some women may help prevent migraines and other painful “side effects” of menstruation (28%); treatment of acne (14%); and treatment of endometriosis (4%). Additionally, it found that some 762,000 women who have never had sex use the pill, and they do so almost exclusively (99%) for noncontraceptive reasons. Menstrual-related disorders and irregular periods are particularly common during adolescence. Not surprisingly, the study found that teens aged 15–19 who use the pill are more likely to do so for non-contraceptive purposes (82%) than for birth control (67%). Moreover, 33% of teen pill users report using oral contraceptive pills solely for noncontraceptive purposes." ~ http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/11/15/ | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46223 Posts
On January 03 2016 19:39 Gorsameth wrote: Let me get this strait, armed militia's have occupied a government building, send disturbing goodbye video's and your talking about contraception? Are American's selectively blind and desperately trying to ignore this because "guns, patriots and all that" or what? If you go back just 2 pages, you'll see that we talked about that other issue too. And the fact that some men still think that women don't frequently use birth control pills for reasons other than birth control means that this conversation needs to happen too. Both issues are extremely important to talk about. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Clem vs Lambo
Scarlett vs Cure
CranKy Ducklings
Epic.LAN
IPSL
Dragon vs Hawk
RSL Revival
Classic vs Trap
herO vs SHIN
Sparkling Tuna Cup
OSC
IPSL
Bonyth vs Ret
WardiTV Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
