|
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 November 23 2016 09:59 zlefin wrote:
danglars -> yawn, that's just more of your hating on the left, while ignoring when the right does such things. yes there are some issues with some on the left going too far, but there are other legitimate concerns too. and the cases cited simply demonstrate the deep flaws in the argument, as they don't make the case that well to anyone who has looked at those cases closely.
also, you don't try to disavow the bad guys to satisfy the people on your own side, but to satisfy those that are concerned abotu what you're doing. why complain about "narrative lines" when you're also using different ones? the narratives of both sides continue even if flawed. are you condemning the flawed narrative lines your side uses?
Not to parrot your posting style, but would you mind explaining in detail what you consider hate, and specifically what things on the right you equate with more of the same? I tire of reading again and again
"that's just this"
"you're ignoring when the other side does it"
"yes there are some issues"
"there are other legitimate concerns too"
"your citations only reveal the deep flaws"
"they don't make the case"
"you don't disavow"
"your side does it too"
"your side's narratives do the same"
If everything is morally equivalent, permit me to also yawn. You've thrown banal gripes into a shotgun and sprayed them wide. If you can't bring a concise response demonstrating hypocrisy and specific concerns, I'll have no idea if you gave them a reading or a fair reading.
|
On November 23 2016 08:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Haha
One can only hope. As a foreigner, Trump's stance in relation to global warming is the one aspect of his platform that truly disturbs me.
|
Well scientist on the global warming subject all dissagree with eachoter. So i do think its fair to question how much mankind effects global warming.
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The consensus on climate change is pretty unanimous among people who work in any relevant field of science.
|
On November 23 2016 10:27 sertas wrote:
Well scientist on the global warming subject all dissagree with eachoter. So i do think its fair to question how much mankind effects global warming.
Did you miss the news when it was discovered that (almost) all the research that showed that climate chance might not be man made was bought to show that result by varies industries that produce lots of greenhouse gasses?
|
The more important questions are how much we affect climate change and our capacity to reverse said change. I don't know the answers to either.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 23 2016 10:34 biology]major wrote:
The more important questions are how much we affect climate change and our capacity to reverse said change. I don't know the answers to either.
Well a good start is the Paris Accords, and upholding them.
|
danglars -> I wasn't saying hate, but hating. though upon reviewing the definition it seems I'm not using the one used by urban dictionary.
What I refer to as "hating" is the frequent/near constant repeating of aspersions with inadequate justification. typically done by someone with an axe to grind who just keeps harping on them over and over.
conflating the left writ large with some people who go too far.
the so-called war on christmas. (I recognize it's not the best of examples as its one they feel they're losing)
I largely don't live in the areas where the issues are most prevalent, so I don't have many cases to cite offhand.
but it's not exactly long ago that the "right" were doing some very bad things in these regards.
I'll add voter suppression of people who don't vote like they do, which is something the right has been working some on lately.
on the cases cited, I consider it reasonable to say employers that provide health care for their employees have to provide all standard health care, and if they need a religious exemption, they can say so and get it. I don't consider it intolerant to require that people say they want an exemption from a rule requiring they provide health care.
my point on narratives stands on its own just fine, that doesn't really need more elaboration.
|
On November 23 2016 10:34 biology]major wrote:
The more important questions are how much we affect climate change and our capacity to reverse said change. I don't know the answers to either.
to the first, a lot; to the second, a lot, but it's very expensive.
The question is (or ought to be) what's the optimal mix of (and political feasibility of) accepting economic injury now vs avoiding that injury and using the wealth to increase teching to mitigate the later damage.
i.e. tech sometimes makes things cheaper to fix in the future. so how much to sacrifice now to slow down the change and buy time until tech can solve the problem; and how to optimally allocate resources to that teching and developing of necessary infrastructure.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
... Don't rely on tech to solve the problem of global warming any time within our lifetimes. We're basically on our own for the foreseeable future in that regard and have to do what we can. Including curbing emissions, making other countries do the same, and planting more trees.
Paris Accords are a good idea. Scrapping them would be bad. I'm glad that someone talked some sense into Trump on that matter.
|
Look there are problems with the right and there are problems with the left and they all need to be fixed.
The left have a very apparent problem in that they cultivate professional victims utilizing movements such as your BLM (those people needs to pay attention on how Koreans protest through peaceful means) and/or your third wave man-hating/gender dividing feminism (which is the dominant concept of feminism right now).
Right now the ruling party is the right so we have the power to focus on getting rid of the professional victimhood industry.
Simple as that.
|
On November 23 2016 10:55 RealityIsKing wrote:
Look there are problems with the right and there are problems with the left and they all need to be fixed.
The left have a very apparent problem in that they cultivate professional victims utilizing movements such as your BLM (those people needs to pay attention on how Koreans protest through peaceful means) and/or your third wave man-hating/gender dividing feminism (which is the dominant concept of feminism right now).
Right now the ruling party is the right so we have the power to focus on getting rid of the professional victimhood industry.
Simple as that.
I agree that there's a problem with victim mentality in some versions of some significant movements of the left. I'd note that there's also a few of them on the right.
though I think you're overstating the issues with third wave feminism. most of it isn't man-hating. there are considerable issues with it.
I'd be interested in your response to reading the wiki on it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 23 2016 08:08 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 07:57 Simberto wrote:On November 23 2016 07:33 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:51 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 06:47 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:41 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 06:38 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:24 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 05:59 biology]major wrote:
fox is actually not bad, because the people on that channel who are openly shilling for conservatives are proud of it. They aren't hiding behind any false pretense of journalism. That's what makes CNN and the like so disingenuous, because they pretend to be news networks. There's also quite a few people on fox who are balanced and give reasonable analysis. I disagree; cnn isn't actually shilling for people, despite unfounded accusations to the contrary. How can you distinguish good journalism? how do you tell which is which? do you understand the structural issues which make things the way they are? how do you prove to other people that these things are the case? not to say that cnn is that good these days, but they're not shilling, and they are trying to do journalism, just being generically kinda poor and clickbaity. Which people on fox do you consider to give balanced and reasonable analysis? also, fox is bad, because they lie about it, and pretend they're journalists sometimes when they're not. Back in the day when I used to be liberal many years ago, I used to watch fox with the same attitude most people in this thread have. Now I see them as reasonable, and I'm not sure if it's because I was ignorant then or I am ignorant now, or it's neither and I just like reinforcing my own narrative, but O'Reilly, megyn kelly, baier, CW are all good. On CNN the only person I can even tolerate is anderson cooper, I think he's pretty professional and unbiased. He was the only person who didn't have a fucking meltdown during the election night when everyone revealed their true colors. has your narrative/beliefs changed in that time? i.e. did you used to be liberal and now you are pretty conservative? yep, it's an odd feeling thinking about how if I had posted when I first made this account I would have probably been a Plansix. I'm glad I am now more conservative in my thinking. Whether you would be a plansix hasn't changed; that's largely separate from political affiliation/stance. How do you know you're more correct now than you used to be, rather than less correct or equally correct? Why are you glad about it? Surely many other people have gone either liberal to conservative or conservative to liberal and they all feel they were correct and are glad they changed. Have your standards in cleanliness changed too? I don't know if I'm more correct now or back then, but I can tell you that it takes a philosophical shift of epic proportions to go from liberal to conservative or vice versa. Conservative thinking is about individual responsibility, and liberal thinking is about society at large. One starts bottom up and the other is top down. For example: guy shoots up mall with a gun. Liberal thinking --> restrict weapons, ammunition etc. Conservative thinking --> protect yourself with either self defense or a weapon of your own. One attempts to change society, and the other is more about changing yourself. Conservative thinking: Everyone have guns constantly at ready. This will surely make us save. Especially once the shooting starts and everyone will surely be able to identify the person who started everything over all the other conservatives with guns shooting at other conservatives with guns.
Abortion --> Liberal thinking: woman's right to choose sometimes even up to third trimester. Conservative thinking: morally ambiguous ethical dilemma, why risk having to make this choice when there are ways to protect yourself in 99.9% of cases with contraceptive use? If you don't have access to contraception and don't want to get pregnant don't have sex. Same thing again, one is about changing the rules and society, the other is about changing yourself.
Conservative thinking: Also avoid teaching teenagers anything about contraceptives, and make them as hard as possible to get because Jesus told you so. No one is for abortions in the third trimester, EXCEPT in cases where there is major medical danger to the mother. Even in that case it is a hard question. Also, your conclusion is nonsensical. Why is not banning abortion about changing society? Why is preventing other people from doing what they want to do about changing yourself? The conservative stance on abortion is explicitly about telling other people what to do, not about changing yourself. You can always choose not to have an abortion for yourself, you don't need laws for that. Thus, i would posit that your conclusion that conservatism is about changing yourself, and american liberal thinking is about changing society is incorrect, as shown on your own examples, where the both positions swap sides on the changing yourself/changing society axis. I'm not christian and don't subscribe to any religion so I vehemently disagree with all of that jesus shit. People should be educated on contraceptive use. So this is an area where people will be limited by government and so you have to work around it, by making smart choices and taking responsibility. Not having a bail out. When I was a student in a OB/GYN clinic, the number of women I saw come in for their multiple abortions (sometimes even 5th) was staggering. It was essentially people using abortions as a contraceptive, and it made me sick. So many planned parenthood referrals.
That does sound like a sad state of affairs (5th abortion ), but then you have to consider the alternative is this person raising a child.
|
On November 23 2016 06:03 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 05:51 Kyadytim wrote:On November 23 2016 05:39 xDaunt wrote:
you aren't even willing to wait and see Hah. No one has to wait and see. He's already building up a queue of things that he's going to do ASAP which a portion of the country finds terrible. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/issues-of-importance-to-catholicshttps://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2802/textAssuming (quite reasonably) that he gets to nominate at least one Supreme Court justice, this is going to be law until either A) The composition of the Supreme Court changes enough that it leans against this law B) Democrats take control of the House in addition to the Senate and Presidency C) Enough House Republicans decide to vote with Democrats to repeal it D) Democrats get control of the Senate and basically attach repealing it to every bill the Senate passes. Those are listed in order of likelihood in my opinion. The First Amendment Defense Act is probably going to be law for at least 15 to 20 years. This is the same person who like 30 years ago said if the country needs him to president, he will put his business life on hold, become president and save it. Now the initial portion of that is reality despite every single prediction and "analysis". This is the last person you should be pre-judging or underestimating, he did something extraordinary and I'd wait and see how he does with his 4 years. Even democrats are already getting ready to work with him because he has some ideas for both sides.
So, uh, did you read the stuff I linked? I'm not pre-judging him, I'm judging him by his campaign promises which are still on his site. I'm not underestimating him, I'm expecting him to sign into law a bill that I think is terrible. It will allow stuff like people refusing to sell birth control products without the prospective buyer producing a marriage certificate, as well as any sort of discrimination anyone feels inclined to towards anyone who is LGBTQ. If you don't think he's going to sign this into law, if you think he's going to welch on his campaign promises, than what grounds do you have for presuming [i]anything[i] about what he'll do as president?
On November 23 2016 07:33 biology]major wrote:Abortion --> Liberal thinking: woman's right to choose sometimes even up to third trimester. Conservative thinking: morally ambiguous ethical dilemma, why risk having to make this choice when there are ways to protect yourself in 99.9% of cases with contraceptive use? If you don't have access to contraception and don't want to get pregnant don't have sex. Same thing again, one is about changing the rules and society, the other is about changing yourself.
Quick translation here of the part I bolded. This doesn't effect men at all because they can't get pregnant. Women of sufficient wealth can almost always get birth control (unless everyone in their area is refusing to sell it because of moral reasons). That leaves poor women. So what you just said is "Insufficiently wealthy women don't deserve to have sex with men, regardless of emotions or relationship status, without having to shoulder the risk of getting pregnant and being required by the government to carry that pregnancy to term." Are you still okay with this statement?
|
On November 23 2016 11:10 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 06:03 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 05:51 Kyadytim wrote:On November 23 2016 05:39 xDaunt wrote:
you aren't even willing to wait and see Hah. No one has to wait and see. He's already building up a queue of things that he's going to do ASAP which a portion of the country finds terrible. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/issues-of-importance-to-catholicshttps://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2802/textAssuming (quite reasonably) that he gets to nominate at least one Supreme Court justice, this is going to be law until either A) The composition of the Supreme Court changes enough that it leans against this law B) Democrats take control of the House in addition to the Senate and Presidency C) Enough House Republicans decide to vote with Democrats to repeal it D) Democrats get control of the Senate and basically attach repealing it to every bill the Senate passes. Those are listed in order of likelihood in my opinion. The First Amendment Defense Act is probably going to be law for at least 15 to 20 years. This is the same person who like 30 years ago said if the country needs him to president, he will put his business life on hold, become president and save it. Now the initial portion of that is reality despite every single prediction and "analysis". This is the last person you should be pre-judging or underestimating, he did something extraordinary and I'd wait and see how he does with his 4 years. Even democrats are already getting ready to work with him because he has some ideas for both sides. So, uh, did you read the stuff I linked? I'm not pre-judging him, I'm judging him by his campaign promises which are still on his site. I'm not underestimating him, I'm expecting him to sign into law a bill that I think is terrible. It will allow stuff like people refusing to sell birth control products without the prospective buyer producing a marriage certificate, as well as any sort of discrimination anyone feels inclined to towards anyone who is LGBTQ. If you don't think he's going to sign this into law, if you think he's going to welch on his campaign promises, than what grounds do you have for presuming [i]anything[i] about what he'll do as president? Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 07:33 biology]major wrote:Abortion --> Liberal thinking: woman's right to choose sometimes even up to third trimester. Conservative thinking: morally ambiguous ethical dilemma, why risk having to make this choice when there are ways to protect yourself in 99.9% of cases with contraceptive use? If you don't have access to contraception and don't want to get pregnant don't have sex. Same thing again, one is about changing the rules and society, the other is about changing yourself. Quick translation here of the part I bolded. This doesn't effect men at all because they can't get pregnant. Women of sufficient wealth can almost always get birth control (unless everyone in their area is refusing to sell it because of moral reasons). That leaves poor women. So what you just said is "Insufficiently wealthy women don't deserve to have sex with men, regardless of emotions or relationship status, without having to shoulder the risk of getting pregnant and being required by the government to carry that pregnancy to term." Are you still okay with this statement?
Yes, if you are unable to afford birth control, then you have more important things to worry about than casual sex. Your stance is basically, "these women are so poor, let's give them the chance to bail out with abortion when they have casual sex because that would make it fair".
I wasn't aware of his anti LGBTQ stuff, he seems like he doesn't give a shit about that area of politics.
|
On November 23 2016 11:10 Kyadytim wrote:
... This doesn't effect men at all because they can't get pregnant.
Not entirely true. The man has a responsibility, at the very least, to pay child support for the kid, which can negatively affect the rest of his life if the woman doesn't choose to abort, and he gets exactly 0 say in the matter. It's the one right I can think of that women have that men don't: The right to cancel an unwanted pregnancy.
Banning abortion would solve the unequal rights issue, but exacerbate the financial problem as well.
Feel free to correct me in the assumption that USA enforces child support laws of some kind.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 23 2016 10:55 RealityIsKing wrote:
Look there are problems with the right and there are problems with the left and they all need to be fixed.
The left have a very apparent problem in that they cultivate professional victims utilizing movements such as your BLM (those people needs to pay attention on how Koreans protest through peaceful means) and/or your third wave man-hating/gender dividing feminism (which is the dominant concept of feminism right now).
Right now the ruling party is the right so we have the power to focus on getting rid of the professional victimhood industry.
Simple as that.
Given how despised the (far) right is by the (far) left (and vice versa), I don't see how much change can happen.
What reason is there to believe we don't end up with the exact same situation that elected Trump but in the opposite direction? :/ Maybe not in terms of effect but in terms of feelings.
|
On November 23 2016 11:06 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 10:55 RealityIsKing wrote:
Look there are problems with the right and there are problems with the left and they all need to be fixed.
The left have a very apparent problem in that they cultivate professional victims utilizing movements such as your BLM (those people needs to pay attention on how Koreans protest through peaceful means) and/or your third wave man-hating/gender dividing feminism (which is the dominant concept of feminism right now).
Right now the ruling party is the right so we have the power to focus on getting rid of the professional victimhood industry.
Simple as that. I agree that there's a problem with victim mentality in some versions of some significant movements of the left. I'd note that there's also a few of them on the right. though I think you're overstating the issues with third wave feminism. most of it isn't man-hating. there are considerable issues with it. I'd be interested in your response to reading the wiki on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism
First of all, Wikipedia's social issue pages are astroturfed by professional victims so there the flag.
#MaleTears, #KillAllMen were all pushed by the current generation of feminism.
You can't convince people that it isn't about hating man.
Using fake statistics that women gets paid 79% of what a man makes by doing the same hr and job to guilt males into donating to their cause is certainly not beneficial.
When both parties get drunk and the female can just lie and say that she got sexual assaulted and the male's life is permanently ruined is certainly not about gender equality either.
So many issues with the current education system when they teach about feminism, flaming the war between genders.
|
On November 23 2016 11:31 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 11:06 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 10:55 RealityIsKing wrote:
Look there are problems with the right and there are problems with the left and they all need to be fixed.
The left have a very apparent problem in that they cultivate professional victims utilizing movements such as your BLM (those people needs to pay attention on how Koreans protest through peaceful means) and/or your third wave man-hating/gender dividing feminism (which is the dominant concept of feminism right now).
Right now the ruling party is the right so we have the power to focus on getting rid of the professional victimhood industry.
Simple as that. I agree that there's a problem with victim mentality in some versions of some significant movements of the left. I'd note that there's also a few of them on the right. though I think you're overstating the issues with third wave feminism. most of it isn't man-hating. there are considerable issues with it. I'd be interested in your response to reading the wiki on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism First of all, Wikipedia's social issue pages are astroturfed by professional victims so there the flag. #MaleTears, #KillAllMen were all pushed by the current generation of feminism. You can't convince people that it isn't about hating man. Using fake statistics that women gets paid 79% of what a man makes by doing the same hr and job to guilt males into donating to their cause is certainly not beneficial. When both parties get drunk and the female can just lie and say that she got sexual assaulted and the male's life is permanently ruined is certainly not about gender equality either. So many issues with the current education system when they teach about feminism, flaming the war between genders.
"First of all, Wikipedia's social issue pages are astroturfed by professional victims so there the flag."
could you clarify that? You're either using terms in ways I haven't seen or autocorrect hates you.
and just because ther eare some bad eggs in 3rd wave feminism doesn't mean the entire movement or even most of it is that way. you always hear about the extremes, not the work done by the reasonable folk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
