|
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 October 21 2016 02:13 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 02:11 Hryul wrote:On October 21 2016 02:02 Logo wrote:On October 21 2016 01:59 Hryul wrote:On October 21 2016 01:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
This is Trump backpedaling while saying the same thing as fast as possible.
I honestly don't think this is really that bad. I mean, Austria has a reelection and with a proper ruling of judges I see no problem in holding a reelection. (Ofc over here all the lefts were nuts b/c the right wing party actually won the case, but thats a different issue.) What? You don't see the problem with calling an election rigged by the opponent before the election is held? Doubly so because if you had any actual evidence of such a rigging you could be making sure something it done about it. No, I don't see a problem with announcing that you will contest a rigged election given you put forth reasonable proof. It's also a bit hard to find proof beforehand. You'd need a mole inside the dems and some pretty elaborate planning. Coming back to Austria: it was mostly irregular opening of letters and abuse of mentally impaired old people. I doubt you could find enough proof for this beforehand. the problem is mostly that the election won't be rigged, and there's no proof of significant rigging, nor will there be afterwards. He's just lying and poisoning the well. re: thieving, yes it's not super-compromisey, but it's clearly somewhat of a compromise.
I've heard speculation that says the more Trump mentions the election will be rigged, the more likely that his supporters will stay at home and not vote since it's supposedly rigged anyway. Not sure if it will actually have that effect but it's an interesting thought if nothing else. For all the bullshit about how Trump is so damn honest unlike politicians, he certainly plays the deceit game at a high level just like Hillary. He hammers on the idea that the election is rigged because it seems like an effective way to play on the generalized distrust of Hillary and the idea that she's a crook and a "criminal".
Either way, really looking forward to this whole thing being over with. Think the world will miss Obama...
|
Obama is going to spearhead a national movement to push for electoral redistricting reform, so he won't be going anywhere for now 
|
On October 21 2016 02:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:
The fear of Trump's rhetoric is not that he will do something. He's a coward and will fold under any kind of actual pressure he can't just yell at.
I fear his supporters. I fear second amendment junkies who talk about wanting to be ready to revolt against a tyrannical government. I fear possible shootings. I fear people dying on the street. I fear the type of bravery the normally cowardly nut jobs might gain hearing someone in power has got their back.
Why? It's not like people have already planned plots based on the election's rhetoric or that police groups regularly identify anti-government groups as a concerning terrorist threat.
|
On October 21 2016 01:52 Dan HH wrote:
This guy has no concept of shame
It really is like a parody account except its real.
|
On October 21 2016 02:38 Probe1 wrote:It really is like a parody account except its real.
To defeat the parody you must become the parody.
|
|
|
On October 21 2016 02:14 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 01:56 oneofthem wrote:
large redistribution to the truly needy does not cost that much. it is the healthcare for boomers that is the big budget item. heeeeey welcome back, friend @zlefin yes i want more details you want to take every conceived fetus slated for abortion and birth it from a test tube? and then what? raise it as a ward of the state?
more details:
for technology, either an artificial womb, or a womb transplant system to a willing surrogate, could potentially work.
it's not meant to solve every problem, it's meant to be a compromise which can reduce the number of abortions.
There's also other technologies which could help reduce abortion rate.
legally, the extent of restrictions depends in part on what the alternative options available are. one of the reasons a lot of it is up to the mother is that up until pretty late, the fetus cannot be removed from the mother and survive.
some reasons for abortion:
population control, not helped, though with current trends in birthrates it may be possible to support the additional lives, especially in places where birthrate is below replacement levels.
(the below lifted from an online site)
Birth control (contraceptive) failure. Over half of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.
obviously technological improvements (as well as sociological ones) which reduce contraceptive failure rate will cut down on abortions. iirc the increased use of IUDs has had such an effect.
Inability to support or care for a child.
To end an unwanted pregnancy.
Obviosuly for those 2 cases the cost would be transferred to the state, or adoptive parents.
To prevent the birth of a child with birth defects or severe medical problems. Such defects are often unknown until routine second-trimester tests are done.
while this will always be an issue, advances in technology may allow for more of these to be fixed either in utero, or otherwise. thus reducing the number of cases where it would be applicable.
Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.
doesn't help much with this. (other than potentially removing some of the psychological burden from the victim)
Physical or mental conditions that endanger the woman's health if the pregnancy is continued.
It would nullify most of these reasons, so long as the procedure for transferring the embryo/fetus was about as safe as an abortion.
end of that section;
a safe alternate womb system would also mean that the ordinary maternal risks wouldn't apply. (which while not huge, aren't entirely negligible either)
if cryogenics or other suspended animation systems became useably safe, then it would be possible for fetuses to be stored until population support cost issues make it more feasible (not sure that would really help at all though).
there would be considerable additional costs to the state on the whole from the extra people; and that's a real issue. I'd want the pro-lifers to put up more effort to ensuring the extra lives are cared for and preferably adopted. of course some classes of infant are pretty easy to find adoptive parents for anyways.
are there any other additional details you'd like?
|
|
|
On October 21 2016 02:49 plasmidghost wrote:
What are the implications of the Philippines severing ties with the US and aligning with China?
it makes it somewhat harder for US to exert force in the area, as there would be fewer supporting airbases and well-positioned naval bases. it'd make it easier for china to claim south china sea areas.
it helps china's diplomatic position considerably (assuming it and phillipines come to a mutually satisfactory agreement on thier part of the disputed territories)
|
Japan and US become even friendlier.
|
Duterte is a worrying international figure, honestly I'm surprised the Philippines isn't discussed more.
|
On October 21 2016 02:53 farvacola wrote:
Duterte is a worrying international figure, honestly I'm surprised the Philippines isn't discussed more.
He's killing people who don't matter
|
On October 21 2016 02:31 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 02:26 farvacola wrote:On October 21 2016 02:24 Hryul wrote:On October 21 2016 02:13 zlefin wrote:On October 21 2016 02:11 Hryul wrote:On October 21 2016 02:02 Logo wrote:On October 21 2016 01:59 Hryul wrote:I honestly don't think this is really that bad. I mean, Austria has a reelection and with a proper ruling of judges I see no problem in holding a reelection. (Ofc over here all the lefts were nuts b/c the right wing party actually won the case, but thats a different issue.) What? You don't see the problem with calling an election rigged by the opponent before the election is held? Doubly so because if you had any actual evidence of such a rigging you could be making sure something it done about it. No, I don't see a problem with announcing that you will contest a rigged election given you put forth reasonable proof. It's also a bit hard to find proof beforehand. You'd need a mole inside the dems and some pretty elaborate planning. Coming back to Austria: it was mostly irregular opening of letters and abuse of mentally impaired old people. I doubt you could find enough proof for this beforehand. the problem is mostly that the election won't be rigged, and there's no proof of significant rigging, nor will there be afterwards. He's just lying and poisoning the well. re: thieving, yes it's not super-compromisey, but it's clearly somewhat of a compromise. the well is already overflowing with poison. it's just the next thing he uses to get on the headlines. Does anybody really believe this is anything more than hot air? Come to Ohio, we'll take a tour of the Toledo area, and then you'll be able to answer that last question yourself. i'll take that as an invitation  Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 02:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:
The fear of Trump's rhetoric is not that he will do something. He's a coward and will fold under any kind of actual pressure he can't just yell at.
I fear his supporters. I fear second amendment junkies who talk about wanting to be ready to revolt against a tyrannical government. I fear possible shootings. I fear people dying on the street. I fear the type of bravery the normally cowardly nut jobs might gain hearing someone in power has got their back. ok, but what's the worst on that end? some nuts reenacting the Waco siege? a 2nd UNA Bomber? I mean they are real threats but nothing that I would deem really threating the US as a nation.
You are correct that I do not expect Trump to be the rallying cry to a second civil war. What I don't want is the beginnings of normalizing violence during election day.
|
not surprising since he called the primary rigged until he won
|
Has the US drone program been mentioned at all in this race? Or has that issue been resolved already by Obama in the public's eye?
|
On October 21 2016 03:19 a_flayer wrote:
Has the US drone program been mentioned at all in this race? Or has that issue been resolved already by Obama in the public's eye?
I don't recall any significant mentions of it by anyone. I don't think the issue has been resolved, so much as neither candidate has much to say on the topic, and is not interested in getting into it.
|
Frankly, getting past the basic notion that more drones=fewer US lives in harms way is too much for either candidate to take advantage of the topic in a political way.
|
On October 21 2016 02:44 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 02:14 IgnE wrote:On October 21 2016 01:56 oneofthem wrote:
large redistribution to the truly needy does not cost that much. it is the healthcare for boomers that is the big budget item. heeeeey welcome back, friend @zlefin yes i want more details you want to take every conceived fetus slated for abortion and birth it from a test tube? and then what? raise it as a ward of the state? more details: for technology, either an artificial womb, or a womb transplant system to a willing surrogate, could potentially work. it's not meant to solve every problem, it's meant to be a compromise which can reduce the number of abortions. There's also other technologies which could help reduce abortion rate. legally, the extent of restrictions depends in part on what the alternative options available are. one of the reasons a lot of it is up to the mother is that up until pretty late, the fetus cannot be removed from the mother and survive. some reasons for abortion: population control, not helped, though with current trends in birthrates it may be possible to support the additional lives, especially in places where birthrate is below replacement levels. (the below lifted from an online site) Birth control (contraceptive) failure. Over half of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. obviously technological improvements (as well as sociological ones) which reduce contraceptive failure rate will cut down on abortions. iirc the increased use of IUDs has had such an effect. Inability to support or care for a child. To end an unwanted pregnancy. Obviosuly for those 2 cases the cost would be transferred to the state, or adoptive parents. To prevent the birth of a child with birth defects or severe medical problems. Such defects are often unknown until routine second-trimester tests are done. while this will always be an issue, advances in technology may allow for more of these to be fixed either in utero, or otherwise. thus reducing the number of cases where it would be applicable. Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. doesn't help much with this. (other than potentially removing some of the psychological burden from the victim) Physical or mental conditions that endanger the woman's health if the pregnancy is continued. It would nullify most of these reasons, so long as the procedure for transferring the embryo/fetus was about as safe as an abortion. end of that section; a safe alternate womb system would also mean that the ordinary maternal risks wouldn't apply. (which while not huge, aren't entirely negligible either) if cryogenics or other suspended animation systems became useably safe, then it would be possible for fetuses to be stored until population support cost issues make it more feasible (not sure that would really help at all though). there would be considerable additional costs to the state on the whole from the extra people; and that's a real issue. I'd want the pro-lifers to put up more effort to ensuring the extra lives are cared for and preferably adopted. of course some classes of infant are pretty easy to find adoptive parents for anyways. are there any other additional details you'd like?
i honestly think you fundamentally misunderstand the pro-life mindset. reducing abortion rate by providing technological alternatives for carrying fetuses to term is to miss the point. they preserve the sanctity of this fetus while ripping it out of the organic family unit from which it sprung. you are suggesting a technical compromise here with a position that asserts that life is fundamentally mysterious, something not to be meddled with by humans pretending to be god.
at its core it makes the mistake of thinking that the pro-life position is ends-oriented; that pro-lifers care about fetuses tout court. pro-choice policy has mostly worked through disciplining of biopower at the population level (i.e. contraceptives, education of women, incentives for marriage). the clumsy attempt to "compromise" with pro-lifers by attempting to improve the rate at which fetuses are carried to term is, i think, offensive in its singular focus on ends in themselves. focusing on the ends in themselves unravels the entire pro-life position, as kwark has attempted to show before (if fetuses are an end in themselves then every egg that is flushed out of of a woman's body is a sin against life itself, a missed opportunity, potential snuffed out).
the pro-life agenda is concerned with preserving the transcendental nature of human origins. it needs to preserve that mystery in order to maintain the order in pro-lifers' symbolic universe. suggestinng a technical compromise to avoid destroying fetuses still leads to the crumbling of this order and so is not a compromise at all. i do not think there is a compromise to be had.
|
On October 21 2016 03:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 02:31 Hryul wrote:On October 21 2016 02:26 farvacola wrote:On October 21 2016 02:24 Hryul wrote:On October 21 2016 02:13 zlefin wrote:On October 21 2016 02:11 Hryul wrote:On October 21 2016 02:02 Logo wrote:On October 21 2016 01:59 Hryul wrote:I honestly don't think this is really that bad. I mean, Austria has a reelection and with a proper ruling of judges I see no problem in holding a reelection. (Ofc over here all the lefts were nuts b/c the right wing party actually won the case, but thats a different issue.) What? You don't see the problem with calling an election rigged by the opponent before the election is held? Doubly so because if you had any actual evidence of such a rigging you could be making sure something it done about it. No, I don't see a problem with announcing that you will contest a rigged election given you put forth reasonable proof. It's also a bit hard to find proof beforehand. You'd need a mole inside the dems and some pretty elaborate planning. Coming back to Austria: it was mostly irregular opening of letters and abuse of mentally impaired old people. I doubt you could find enough proof for this beforehand. the problem is mostly that the election won't be rigged, and there's no proof of significant rigging, nor will there be afterwards. He's just lying and poisoning the well. re: thieving, yes it's not super-compromisey, but it's clearly somewhat of a compromise. the well is already overflowing with poison. it's just the next thing he uses to get on the headlines. Does anybody really believe this is anything more than hot air? Come to Ohio, we'll take a tour of the Toledo area, and then you'll be able to answer that last question yourself. i'll take that as an invitation On October 21 2016 02:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:
The fear of Trump's rhetoric is not that he will do something. He's a coward and will fold under any kind of actual pressure he can't just yell at.
I fear his supporters. I fear second amendment junkies who talk about wanting to be ready to revolt against a tyrannical government. I fear possible shootings. I fear people dying on the street. I fear the type of bravery the normally cowardly nut jobs might gain hearing someone in power has got their back. ok, but what's the worst on that end? some nuts reenacting the Waco siege? a 2nd UNA Bomber? I mean they are real threats but nothing that I would deem really threating the US as a nation. You are correct that I do not expect Trump to be the rallying cry to a second civil war. What I don't want is the beginnings of normalizing violence during election day.
The other dangerous thing is delegitimizing Hillary Clinton in order to make it more palatable for Republicans to be extremely obstructionist.
|
On October 21 2016 03:28 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 02:44 zlefin wrote:On October 21 2016 02:14 IgnE wrote:On October 21 2016 01:56 oneofthem wrote:
large redistribution to the truly needy does not cost that much. it is the healthcare for boomers that is the big budget item. heeeeey welcome back, friend @zlefin yes i want more details you want to take every conceived fetus slated for abortion and birth it from a test tube? and then what? raise it as a ward of the state? more details: for technology, either an artificial womb, or a womb transplant system to a willing surrogate, could potentially work. it's not meant to solve every problem, it's meant to be a compromise which can reduce the number of abortions. There's also other technologies which could help reduce abortion rate. legally, the extent of restrictions depends in part on what the alternative options available are. one of the reasons a lot of it is up to the mother is that up until pretty late, the fetus cannot be removed from the mother and survive. some reasons for abortion: population control, not helped, though with current trends in birthrates it may be possible to support the additional lives, especially in places where birthrate is below replacement levels. (the below lifted from an online site) Birth control (contraceptive) failure. Over half of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. obviously technological improvements (as well as sociological ones) which reduce contraceptive failure rate will cut down on abortions. iirc the increased use of IUDs has had such an effect. Inability to support or care for a child. To end an unwanted pregnancy. Obviosuly for those 2 cases the cost would be transferred to the state, or adoptive parents. To prevent the birth of a child with birth defects or severe medical problems. Such defects are often unknown until routine second-trimester tests are done. while this will always be an issue, advances in technology may allow for more of these to be fixed either in utero, or otherwise. thus reducing the number of cases where it would be applicable. Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. doesn't help much with this. (other than potentially removing some of the psychological burden from the victim) Physical or mental conditions that endanger the woman's health if the pregnancy is continued. It would nullify most of these reasons, so long as the procedure for transferring the embryo/fetus was about as safe as an abortion. end of that section; a safe alternate womb system would also mean that the ordinary maternal risks wouldn't apply. (which while not huge, aren't entirely negligible either) if cryogenics or other suspended animation systems became useably safe, then it would be possible for fetuses to be stored until population support cost issues make it more feasible (not sure that would really help at all though). there would be considerable additional costs to the state on the whole from the extra people; and that's a real issue. I'd want the pro-lifers to put up more effort to ensuring the extra lives are cared for and preferably adopted. of course some classes of infant are pretty easy to find adoptive parents for anyways. are there any other additional details you'd like? i honestly think you fundamentally misunderstand the pro-life mindset. reducing abortion rate by providing technological alternatives for carrying fetuses to term is to miss the point. they preserve the sanctity of this fetus while ripping it out of the organic family unit from which it sprung. you are suggesting a technical compromise here with a position that asserts that life is fundamentally mysterious, something not to be meddled with by humans pretending to be god. at its core it makes the mistake of thinking that the pro-life position is ends-oriented; that pro-lifers care about fetuses tout court. pro-choice policy has mostly worked through disciplining of biopower at the population level (i.e. contraceptives, education of women, incentives for marriage). the clumsy attempt to "compromise" with pro-lifers by attempting to improve the rate at which fetuses are carried to term is, i think, offensive in its singular focus on ends in themselves. focusing on the ends in themselves unravels the entire pro-life position, as kwark has attempted to show before (if fetuses are an end in themselves then every egg that is flushed out of of a woman's body is a sin against life itself, a missed opportunity, potential snuffed out). the pro-life agenda is concerned with preserving the transcendental nature of human origins. it needs to preserve that mystery in order to maintain the order in pro-lifers symbolic universe.
there are a few different bases for the pro-life belief, some of which would be more satisfied with my proposal, some of which aren't.
and if they'd prefer the status quo in america, I can live with that.
I'd also disagree with some of your philosophical points, at any rate, i'm not interested in arguing the philosophy or ethics of the points with you; my point was about the potentiality for compromise with some.
i'm going to assume there weren't any additional details you wanted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
