|
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 February 10 2017 04:22 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 04:19 Sermokala wrote:On February 10 2017 04:15 zlefin wrote:
re: abortion, pp and the democrats.
my impression is that the dems support PP in part, because it's been attacked alot unjustifiably by the republicans, so dems are strongly pro-PP as a counterbalance. if the reps were less strongly anti-PP, then the dems wouldn't feel a need to strongly defend PP.
it often seems like republicans make a political point of targetting PP specifically, rather than health/abortion clinics in general. Its almost like they named themselves specifically in order to be targeted by politicians in public in order to get more donations. Its a cheap political football for both sides to score points on. stop trying to read so much into it. I'm not sure of the origin of their name. but it seems like the name's origin is simple: to help people plan when to become parents, and to be able to follow their plan (i.e. get pregnant when they want to, and not pregnant when they don't want to). hence planned parenthood. it doesn't seem at all like a name chosen in order to be targeted by politicians, but a simple accurate descriptive name of the goal.
The far greater majority of the business that they do (a better term maybe the medicine that they practice?) has nothing to do with parenthood or the planning thereof of it. They're a clinic providing low cost medical services to the poor. A very slight fraction of that has to do with birth control or abortion. ochams razor or anyone that can appreciate a smart fund raiser when they see it could guess that there is something important about the choice they made with the name or they'd have changed it by now with all the controversy. But as the wrestling promoter once said "controversy creates cash".
|
On February 10 2017 04:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Oh for fuck sake... Show nested quote +
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In his first call as president with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call.
When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said.
Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity, the sources said.
The White House declined to comment. It referred Reuters to the official White House account issued after the Jan. 28 call, which did not mention the discussion about New START.
It has not been previously reported that Trump had conveyed his doubt about New START to Putin in the hour-long call.
New START gives both countries until February 2018 to reduce their deployed strategic nuclear warheads to no more than 1,550, the lowest level in decades. It also limits deployed land- and submarine-based missiles and nuclear-capable bombers.
During a debate in the 2016 presidential election, Trump said Russia had “outsmarted” the United States with the treaty, which he called “START-Up.” He asserted incorrectly then that it had allowed Russia to continue to produce nuclear warheads while the United States could not.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said he supported the treaty during his Senate confirmation hearings.
During the hearings Tillerson said it was important for the United States to “stay engaged with Russia, hold them accountable to commitments made under the New START and also ensure our accountability as well.”
Two of the people who described the conversation were briefed by current administration officials who read detailed notes taken during the call. One of the two was shown portions of the notes. A third source was also briefed on the call.
Reuters has not reviewed the notes taken of the call, which are classified.
The Kremlin did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Source
Stuff like this just makes me facepalm. Jesus christ, how much stupider can this get.
|
I love how any treaty that Trump finds out about is a bad deal. Anything that he didn't know about must be bad, especially if he had zero part in make the treaty.
And that he calls them all deals.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 10 2017 04:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 04:25 LegalLord wrote:On February 10 2017 04:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 04:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Oh for fuck sake...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In his first call as president with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call.
When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said.
Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity, the sources said.
The White House declined to comment. It referred Reuters to the official White House account issued after the Jan. 28 call, which did not mention the discussion about New START.
It has not been previously reported that Trump had conveyed his doubt about New START to Putin in the hour-long call.
New START gives both countries until February 2018 to reduce their deployed strategic nuclear warheads to no more than 1,550, the lowest level in decades. It also limits deployed land- and submarine-based missiles and nuclear-capable bombers.
During a debate in the 2016 presidential election, Trump said Russia had “outsmarted” the United States with the treaty, which he called “START-Up.” He asserted incorrectly then that it had allowed Russia to continue to produce nuclear warheads while the United States could not.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said he supported the treaty during his Senate confirmation hearings.
During the hearings Tillerson said it was important for the United States to “stay engaged with Russia, hold them accountable to commitments made under the New START and also ensure our accountability as well.”
Two of the people who described the conversation were briefed by current administration officials who read detailed notes taken during the call. One of the two was shown portions of the notes. A third source was also briefed on the call.
Reuters has not reviewed the notes taken of the call, which are classified.
The Kremlin did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Source So he didn't even know the name of the treaty, let alone what the treaty is used for, and then when talking to Putin about the treaty he needed to basically have his aides Google search whether or not he should agree with what Putin says about the treaty... and then at the end of the day, for all the sucking up to Putin that he did during his election campaign, he decided to talk about how popular he is(n't), he says he dislikes Putin's treaty, and hangs his new (unqualified) Secretary of State out to dry for supporting the treaty. I know. Hilarious, right? I really, really hope that Putin is asked how the call went and Putin says something politically incorrect like "Trump's a moron". Edit: The fact that the treaty is about fucking nuclear warheads is a pretty big deal too.
Putin isn't the type of person to use words that loosely - though I'm sure you already know that.
Expect all the Russian commentators to laugh to themselves at how stupid America's new president is, though. Lol.
|
On February 10 2017 04:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 04:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Oh for fuck sake...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In his first call as president with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call.
When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said.
Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity, the sources said.
The White House declined to comment. It referred Reuters to the official White House account issued after the Jan. 28 call, which did not mention the discussion about New START.
It has not been previously reported that Trump had conveyed his doubt about New START to Putin in the hour-long call.
New START gives both countries until February 2018 to reduce their deployed strategic nuclear warheads to no more than 1,550, the lowest level in decades. It also limits deployed land- and submarine-based missiles and nuclear-capable bombers.
During a debate in the 2016 presidential election, Trump said Russia had “outsmarted” the United States with the treaty, which he called “START-Up.” He asserted incorrectly then that it had allowed Russia to continue to produce nuclear warheads while the United States could not.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said he supported the treaty during his Senate confirmation hearings.
During the hearings Tillerson said it was important for the United States to “stay engaged with Russia, hold them accountable to commitments made under the New START and also ensure our accountability as well.”
Two of the people who described the conversation were briefed by current administration officials who read detailed notes taken during the call. One of the two was shown portions of the notes. A third source was also briefed on the call.
Reuters has not reviewed the notes taken of the call, which are classified.
The Kremlin did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Source So he didn't even know the name of the treaty, let alone what the treaty is used for, and then when talking to Putin about the treaty he needed to basically have his aides Google search whether or not he should agree with what Putin says about the treaty... and then at the end of the day, for all the sucking up to Putin that he did during his election campaign, he decided to talk about how popular he is(n't), he says he dislikes Putin's treaty, and hangs his new (unqualified) Secretary of State out to dry for supporting the treaty. What. And this is just Trump's first phone call with Putin.
And you better believe that Putin knows that Trump knew nothing. Going to your aides while on a phone call you better believe a psychopathic dictator sensed that shit a million miles away over the phone and absolutely will use Trump's incompetence against him. Anyone, friend or foe, can use Trump against himself with simple manipulation, expect Putin and others to put the screws to him when they want something.
|
On February 10 2017 04:19 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 04:08 biology]major wrote:gh I answered last page. Where does TL stand on abortion? + Show Spoiler +Poll: A woman should be able to abort her pregnancyanytime she chooses for any reason (23) 56% up to first trimester (7) 17% up to second trimester (6) 15% never (except in extreme situations) (4) 10% late term (1) 2% 41 total votes Your vote: A woman should be able to abort her pregnancy (Vote): never (except in extreme situations)
(Vote): up to first trimester
(Vote): up to second trimester
(Vote): late term
(Vote): anytime she chooses for any reason
None of those options represent my opinion. Personally, I don't think a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy at any time for any reason. At the same time, I don't see progression of the pregnancy is a singularly disqualifying factor. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is something that should be discussed with an experienced medical provider who helps the woman reach a decision that brings together the woman's personal feelings, the safety of herself and her baby, and various ethical issues. I don't think it's useful to legislate a blanket restriction on abortions after a particular point in time. This is where you and I are going to differ on principle toward legislation, because we have a similar disagreement about the Muslim ban. While we might agree on general principles, I don't think it's useful for a legislative body to draw arbitrary lines in the sand when individual circumstances vary so widely. Where there is room for a licensed professional to exercise professional judgment, this should be preferable to the government creating strict rules that have to be followed regardless of the specifics of the particular mother or immigrant in question. First/second trimester (in the case of abortion) or country of origin (in the case of Muslim immigration) are not useful as monolithic cutoff points, even though they may be useful as individual factors in a more complex process of assessment. TL;DR: Philosophically, I'm probably closer to pro-life than pro-choice, but I also don't think it's productive for the government to legislate on it, so from a practical perspective, I'm going to support the pro-choice position because the end result is closer to what I think is right.
That's fine. I'm just shocked that the choice "any time for any reason" is in the lead, since it was basically a troll choice I put for fun. In the tug of war between the rights of two different bodies, while the republicans use religion to heavily favor the fetus, quite a few TL posters completely neglect the fetus in favor of the mom. Interesting, good to know I guess, different from what I expected.
|
On February 10 2017 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 04:19 Danglars wrote:On February 10 2017 03:44 Nevuk wrote:The Daily Californian published 5 op-eds from Berkeley students defending violent riots. I agree with them and still think this is a really dumb move.
The major student-run paper of UC Berkeley ran five op-eds Tuesday defending the riots on campus, and arguing that violence was an acceptable response to a speech from Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos.
The Daily Californian editorial board published five op-eds from five students and former students, who uniformly believed the riot was justified. Nisa Dang demanded critics “check their privilege” before condemning the riots, blaming the violence on the appearance of the police. “I don’t care what Breitbart article or liberal bullshit listicle you’ve read, or what your experiences in white suburbia might have taught you — police are violent agents of the state.”
Juan Prieto insisted the violence was justified because Yiannopoloulos could have outed illegal immigrant students: “To me, the argument should not revolve just around freedom of speech but also around the hate speech that fails to respect the humanity of undocumented people. This speaker has never provided an insightful look at conservatism nor provided intellectual debate to the arena. He has fabricated a tool to sensationalize himself with while providing a platform for white supremacists to come together.”
“These were not acts of violence. They were acts of self defense,” wrote queer activist and former columnist Neil Lawrence. “And to Yiannopoulos and all your friends who invited you and hosted you and defended your ‘right’ to speak: I recommend you learn your lesson. Our shields are raised against you. No one will protect us? We will protect ourselves.”
“The violence that forms the foundation of Yiannopoulos’ ideology is far worse than any tactic the black bloc uses,” argued Desmond Meagley. “You don’t have to like property damage, but understand that without it, Yiannopoulos would have released private and sensitive information about innocent students and encouraged assault against them. If the fireworks or the damage done to the Amazon store scared you, know that every single person in that crowd was scared too, even (if not especially) those dressed in black.”
“Yiannopoulos and his supporters have a track record of actively targeting people in their hate speech, and the ideology they peddle perpetuates ideas that urgently endanger members of our community,” argued Josh Hardman. “In short: The principle of freedom of speech should not be extended to envelop freedom of hate speech, for the unchecked normalization of hate speech will have real consequences.”
http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/plurality-tactics-contributed-cancellation-milo-yiannopoulos-event/ Quite the arguments, indeed. Berkeley has really progressed far beyond the free speech firebrands of yesteryear. On February 10 2017 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 10 2017 02:58 farvacola wrote:
Trump appeared before a group of police chiefs today and stated that he will ramp up the war on drugs.
lol Gotta love Manchin ( R D) handing Republicans a bipartisan confirmation vote for Sessions. Now Sessions can take his total and complete ignorance about drugs and use "the laws passed by congress" to just completely mess up what little progress we've recently made. And you already know Democrats aren't going to fight on this, at best they try to use it as a "see black and brown America, we're trying to protect you" while Manchin (who already talked about ramping up the "war on drugs" just a couple months ago) and these other "real democrats" give him bipartisan cover. Like who would people like Kwiz, One, and Mag want in the Democratic party, Democrats like Manchin, or Independents like Bernie, because you're not going to be able to keep both (unless you correct people like Manchin for giving Republicans a vote they didn't even need against his party). Manchin's home state went Trump 63% to 35%. He's up for reelection in 2018. This is simple political adjustment. You know as well as anyone Trump and his supporters are going to bash Democrats over the head with "bipartisan" votes in favor of Trumps policy from the likes of Manchin. And as superficial and hollow as it is, it will be true because Democrats won't be able to keep him and others in line or have the balls to kick him to the curb and work for progressives to replace them. You also know Manchin and the Democrats knew what he was giving Trump and what that will mean in his alternative fact driven world and to his supporters/leaners.
Oh, I expect it. I also expect most Democratic senators to act in their narrow self interest if they're up for reelection in a red state in a year nine months. Who cares about the united 'racist' line on Sessions and Trump if it's the citizens of West Virginia that hold more leverage than whatever minority whip you're dealing with.
|
On February 10 2017 04:27 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 04:22 zlefin wrote:On February 10 2017 04:19 Sermokala wrote:On February 10 2017 04:15 zlefin wrote:
re: abortion, pp and the democrats.
my impression is that the dems support PP in part, because it's been attacked alot unjustifiably by the republicans, so dems are strongly pro-PP as a counterbalance. if the reps were less strongly anti-PP, then the dems wouldn't feel a need to strongly defend PP.
it often seems like republicans make a political point of targetting PP specifically, rather than health/abortion clinics in general. Its almost like they named themselves specifically in order to be targeted by politicians in public in order to get more donations. Its a cheap political football for both sides to score points on. stop trying to read so much into it. I'm not sure of the origin of their name. but it seems like the name's origin is simple: to help people plan when to become parents, and to be able to follow their plan (i.e. get pregnant when they want to, and not pregnant when they don't want to). hence planned parenthood. it doesn't seem at all like a name chosen in order to be targeted by politicians, but a simple accurate descriptive name of the goal. The far greater majority of the business that they do (a better term maybe the medicine that they practice?) has nothing to do with parenthood or the planning thereof of it. They're a clinic providing low cost medical services to the poor. A very slight fraction of that has to do with birth control or abortion. ochams razor or anyone that can appreciate a smart fund raiser when they see it could guess that there is something important about the choice they made with the name or they'd have changed it by now with all the controversy. But as the wrestling promoter once said "controversy creates cash".
could be, but we shouldn't reach a judgment too hastily on the origin of the word choice, and the decision not to change it.
especially since there's probably better factual info out there about the reasons they chose what they chose.
a name change wouldn't really help at all I think, because the high frequency of republican attacks means the new name would become known so quickly and be associated with the old one anyways.
it's also possible they started out focusing on family planning, and just expanded from there to other health services.
I do see there is some potential value to the name in terms of raising funds of course.
the name itself isn't really that controversial i'd say, it's only the current associations, it might not have been so charged at the time.
but mostly we should just look it up if we want to be sure. rash speculation is good for fun, as long as we're mindful of its inaccuracy.
|
From my understanding, my stance is essentially the same as the Tim Kaine "personally pro-life, but publicly pro-choice" position which got criticized for being wishy-washy by progressives and logically-inconsistent by conservatives, when from my perspective it's neither of those things and makes perfect sense.
|
United States42691 Posts
On February 10 2017 04:08 biology]major wrote:gh I answered last page. Where does TL stand on abortion? Assume extreme cases are allowed to be aborted. + Show Spoiler +Poll: A woman should be able to abort her pregnancyanytime she chooses for any reason (23) 56% up to first trimester (7) 17% up to second trimester (6) 15% never (except in extreme situations) (4) 10% late term (1) 2% 41 total votes Your vote: A woman should be able to abort her pregnancy (Vote): never (except in extreme situations)
(Vote): up to first trimester
(Vote): up to second trimester
(Vote): late term
(Vote): anytime she chooses for any reason
When you say anytime I'm unsure what that means. A sufficiently late term abortion would just be a c-section, surely? In that context I wouldn't support then killing the born infant just out of thoroughness. I'm fine with abortion by choice up to the window of viability and then delivery following that window, but it's not clear if that means I'm fine with abortion whenever, because the pregnancy can be terminated whenever, or not.
|
On February 10 2017 04:35 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 04:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 04:25 LegalLord wrote:On February 10 2017 04:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 04:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Oh for fuck sake...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In his first call as president with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call.
When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said.
Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity, the sources said.
The White House declined to comment. It referred Reuters to the official White House account issued after the Jan. 28 call, which did not mention the discussion about New START.
It has not been previously reported that Trump had conveyed his doubt about New START to Putin in the hour-long call.
New START gives both countries until February 2018 to reduce their deployed strategic nuclear warheads to no more than 1,550, the lowest level in decades. It also limits deployed land- and submarine-based missiles and nuclear-capable bombers.
During a debate in the 2016 presidential election, Trump said Russia had “outsmarted” the United States with the treaty, which he called “START-Up.” He asserted incorrectly then that it had allowed Russia to continue to produce nuclear warheads while the United States could not.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said he supported the treaty during his Senate confirmation hearings.
During the hearings Tillerson said it was important for the United States to “stay engaged with Russia, hold them accountable to commitments made under the New START and also ensure our accountability as well.”
Two of the people who described the conversation were briefed by current administration officials who read detailed notes taken during the call. One of the two was shown portions of the notes. A third source was also briefed on the call.
Reuters has not reviewed the notes taken of the call, which are classified.
The Kremlin did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Source So he didn't even know the name of the treaty, let alone what the treaty is used for, and then when talking to Putin about the treaty he needed to basically have his aides Google search whether or not he should agree with what Putin says about the treaty... and then at the end of the day, for all the sucking up to Putin that he did during his election campaign, he decided to talk about how popular he is(n't), he says he dislikes Putin's treaty, and hangs his new (unqualified) Secretary of State out to dry for supporting the treaty. I know. Hilarious, right? I really, really hope that Putin is asked how the call went and Putin says something politically incorrect like "Trump's a moron". Edit: The fact that the treaty is about fucking nuclear warheads is a pretty big deal too. Putin isn't the type of person to use words that loosely - though I'm sure you already know that. Expect all the Russian commentators to laugh to themselves at how stupid America's new president is, though. Lol.
Very true lol. I can't wait, though, for someone to superimpose Trump's face on that grizzly bear that Putin rides around on in all those memes. It's gonna be amazing.
On February 10 2017 04:35 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 04:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 04:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Oh for fuck sake...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In his first call as president with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call.
When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said.
Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity, the sources said.
The White House declined to comment. It referred Reuters to the official White House account issued after the Jan. 28 call, which did not mention the discussion about New START.
It has not been previously reported that Trump had conveyed his doubt about New START to Putin in the hour-long call.
New START gives both countries until February 2018 to reduce their deployed strategic nuclear warheads to no more than 1,550, the lowest level in decades. It also limits deployed land- and submarine-based missiles and nuclear-capable bombers.
During a debate in the 2016 presidential election, Trump said Russia had “outsmarted” the United States with the treaty, which he called “START-Up.” He asserted incorrectly then that it had allowed Russia to continue to produce nuclear warheads while the United States could not.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said he supported the treaty during his Senate confirmation hearings.
During the hearings Tillerson said it was important for the United States to “stay engaged with Russia, hold them accountable to commitments made under the New START and also ensure our accountability as well.”
Two of the people who described the conversation were briefed by current administration officials who read detailed notes taken during the call. One of the two was shown portions of the notes. A third source was also briefed on the call.
Reuters has not reviewed the notes taken of the call, which are classified.
The Kremlin did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Source So he didn't even know the name of the treaty, let alone what the treaty is used for, and then when talking to Putin about the treaty he needed to basically have his aides Google search whether or not he should agree with what Putin says about the treaty... and then at the end of the day, for all the sucking up to Putin that he did during his election campaign, he decided to talk about how popular he is(n't), he says he dislikes Putin's treaty, and hangs his new (unqualified) Secretary of State out to dry for supporting the treaty. What. And this is just Trump's first phone call with Putin. And you better believe that Putin knows that Trump knew nothing. Going to your aides while on a phone call you better believe a psychopathic dictator sensed that shit a million miles away over the phone and absolutely will use Trump's incompetence against him. Anyone, friend or foe, can use Trump against himself with simple manipulation, expect Putin and others to put the screws to him when they want something.
"Excuse me, Vlad. Can I use a 50/50 on a Yes or No question? I can't? Okay then, I'd like to phone a friend. Yes I spoke with Regis Philbin- he's a terrific guy. Got great ratings. Not as good as "The Ratings Machine" Presidente Trumpo, but still tremendous. Anyway, he says I should agree with your Head Start treaty. What do you mean Head Start is the American early childhood education and health program, and not your nuclear treaty? Someone needs to fire Regis Philbin! And no, Vlad, I'm tweeting right now that I don't approve of your Kick Starter treaty."
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 10 2017 04:41 TheYango wrote:
From my understanding, my stance is essentially the same as the Tim Kaine "personally pro-life, but publicly pro-choice" position which got criticized for being wishy-washy by progressives and logically-inconsistent by conservatives, when from my perspective it's neither of those things and makes perfect sense.
Honestly that's just plain old "pro-choice." You just make the choice not to do it yourself.
|
On February 10 2017 04:37 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 04:19 TheYango wrote:On February 10 2017 04:08 biology]major wrote:gh I answered last page. Where does TL stand on abortion? + Show Spoiler +Poll: A woman should be able to abort her pregnancyanytime she chooses for any reason (23) 56% up to first trimester (7) 17% up to second trimester (6) 15% never (except in extreme situations) (4) 10% late term (1) 2% 41 total votes Your vote: A woman should be able to abort her pregnancy (Vote): never (except in extreme situations)
(Vote): up to first trimester
(Vote): up to second trimester
(Vote): late term
(Vote): anytime she chooses for any reason
None of those options represent my opinion. Personally, I don't think a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy at any time for any reason. At the same time, I don't see progression of the pregnancy is a singularly disqualifying factor. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is something that should be discussed with an experienced medical provider who helps the woman reach a decision that brings together the woman's personal feelings, the safety of herself and her baby, and various ethical issues. I don't think it's useful to legislate a blanket restriction on abortions after a particular point in time. This is where you and I are going to differ on principle toward legislation, because we have a similar disagreement about the Muslim ban. While we might agree on general principles, I don't think it's useful for a legislative body to draw arbitrary lines in the sand when individual circumstances vary so widely. Where there is room for a licensed professional to exercise professional judgment, this should be preferable to the government creating strict rules that have to be followed regardless of the specifics of the particular mother or immigrant in question. First/second trimester (in the case of abortion) or country of origin (in the case of Muslim immigration) are not useful as monolithic cutoff points, even though they may be useful as individual factors in a more complex process of assessment. TL;DR: Philosophically, I'm probably closer to pro-life than pro-choice, but I also don't think it's productive for the government to legislate on it, so from a practical perspective, I'm going to support the pro-choice position because the end result is closer to what I think is right. That's fine. I'm just shocked that the choice "any time for any reason" is in the lead, since it was basically a troll choice I put for fun. In the tug of war between the rights of two different bodies, while the republicans use religion to heavily favor the fetus, quite a few TL posters completely neglect the fetus in favor of the mom. Interesting, good to know I guess, different from what I expected.
keep in mind that what you think when you write, and what people perceive when they read it, may differ.
and that your list of options may have been rather incomplete so missed important distinctions that would otherwise be made, or they made the best of the available choices. and of course some people may just troll answer.
|
United States42691 Posts
On February 10 2017 04:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:44 Nevuk wrote:The Daily Californian published 5 op-eds from Berkeley students defending violent riots. I agree with them and still think this is a really dumb move.
The major student-run paper of UC Berkeley ran five op-eds Tuesday defending the riots on campus, and arguing that violence was an acceptable response to a speech from Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos.
The Daily Californian editorial board published five op-eds from five students and former students, who uniformly believed the riot was justified. Nisa Dang demanded critics “check their privilege” before condemning the riots, blaming the violence on the appearance of the police. “I don’t care what Breitbart article or liberal bullshit listicle you’ve read, or what your experiences in white suburbia might have taught you — police are violent agents of the state.”
Juan Prieto insisted the violence was justified because Yiannopoloulos could have outed illegal immigrant students: “To me, the argument should not revolve just around freedom of speech but also around the hate speech that fails to respect the humanity of undocumented people. This speaker has never provided an insightful look at conservatism nor provided intellectual debate to the arena. He has fabricated a tool to sensationalize himself with while providing a platform for white supremacists to come together.”
“These were not acts of violence. They were acts of self defense,” wrote queer activist and former columnist Neil Lawrence. “And to Yiannopoulos and all your friends who invited you and hosted you and defended your ‘right’ to speak: I recommend you learn your lesson. Our shields are raised against you. No one will protect us? We will protect ourselves.”
“The violence that forms the foundation of Yiannopoulos’ ideology is far worse than any tactic the black bloc uses,” argued Desmond Meagley. “You don’t have to like property damage, but understand that without it, Yiannopoulos would have released private and sensitive information about innocent students and encouraged assault against them. If the fireworks or the damage done to the Amazon store scared you, know that every single person in that crowd was scared too, even (if not especially) those dressed in black.”
“Yiannopoulos and his supporters have a track record of actively targeting people in their hate speech, and the ideology they peddle perpetuates ideas that urgently endanger members of our community,” argued Josh Hardman. “In short: The principle of freedom of speech should not be extended to envelop freedom of hate speech, for the unchecked normalization of hate speech will have real consequences.”
http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/plurality-tactics-contributed-cancellation-milo-yiannopoulos-event/ Quite the arguments, indeed. Berkeley has really progressed far beyond the free speech firebrands of yesteryear.
I get routinely derided as a fascist on facebook for being in favour of individuals getting to decide for themselves whether they want to ignore Milo.
|
On February 10 2017 04:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 04:08 biology]major wrote:gh I answered last page. Where does TL stand on abortion? Assume extreme cases are allowed to be aborted. + Show Spoiler +Poll: A woman should be able to abort her pregnancyanytime she chooses for any reason (23) 56% up to first trimester (7) 17% up to second trimester (6) 15% never (except in extreme situations) (4) 10% late term (1) 2% 41 total votes Your vote: A woman should be able to abort her pregnancy (Vote): never (except in extreme situations)
(Vote): up to first trimester
(Vote): up to second trimester
(Vote): late term
(Vote): anytime she chooses for any reason
When you say anytime I'm unsure what that means. A sufficiently late term abortion would just be a c-section, surely? In that context I wouldn't support then killing the born infant just out of thoroughness. I'm fine with abortion by choice up to the window of viability and then delivery following that window, but it's not clear if that means I'm fine with abortion whenever, because the pregnancy can be terminated whenever, or not.
Yea so basically 22 weeks? That's where a fetus can be viable with the technology we have. I don't know how killing a viable fetus would be ethical.
|
United States42691 Posts
On February 10 2017 04:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 04:25 LegalLord wrote:On February 10 2017 04:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 04:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Oh for fuck sake...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In his first call as president with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call.
When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said.
Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity, the sources said.
The White House declined to comment. It referred Reuters to the official White House account issued after the Jan. 28 call, which did not mention the discussion about New START.
It has not been previously reported that Trump had conveyed his doubt about New START to Putin in the hour-long call.
New START gives both countries until February 2018 to reduce their deployed strategic nuclear warheads to no more than 1,550, the lowest level in decades. It also limits deployed land- and submarine-based missiles and nuclear-capable bombers.
During a debate in the 2016 presidential election, Trump said Russia had “outsmarted” the United States with the treaty, which he called “START-Up.” He asserted incorrectly then that it had allowed Russia to continue to produce nuclear warheads while the United States could not.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said he supported the treaty during his Senate confirmation hearings.
During the hearings Tillerson said it was important for the United States to “stay engaged with Russia, hold them accountable to commitments made under the New START and also ensure our accountability as well.”
Two of the people who described the conversation were briefed by current administration officials who read detailed notes taken during the call. One of the two was shown portions of the notes. A third source was also briefed on the call.
Reuters has not reviewed the notes taken of the call, which are classified.
The Kremlin did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Source So he didn't even know the name of the treaty, let alone what the treaty is used for, and then when talking to Putin about the treaty he needed to basically have his aides Google search whether or not he should agree with what Putin says about the treaty... and then at the end of the day, for all the sucking up to Putin that he did during his election campaign, he decided to talk about how popular he is(n't), he says he dislikes Putin's treaty, and hangs his new (unqualified) Secretary of State out to dry for supporting the treaty. I know. Hilarious, right? I really, really hope that Putin is asked how the call went and Putin says something politically incorrect like "Trump's a moron". Edit: The fact that the treaty is about fucking nuclear warheads is a pretty big deal too.
He'll almost certainly use the Theresa May defence.
When grilled over engaging with such a loathsome figure as Trump the British PM pointed out that after meeting with Trump she got him to walk back on undermining NATO and issue an unequivocal statement reaffirming the US commitment to the alliance. To all those who said she should have spurned him she replied that instead she played him, and won.
People in power have no real incentive to insult Trump's antics when they can instead exploit them.
|
On February 10 2017 04:41 TheYango wrote:
From my understanding, my stance is essentially the same as the Tim Kaine "personally pro-life, but publicly pro-choice" position which got criticized for being wishy-washy by progressives and logically-inconsistent by conservatives, when from my perspective it's neither of those things and makes perfect sense.
Its the same stance many take. You are pro-choice, you're for the woman having the choice to do it. Whether you'd do it yourself is beside the point. Much like being for legalizing drugs, just because you think people should be able to do stuff with their body it makes no difference that you've got zero interest in using drugs yourself. So you're pro-choice.
I'm the same way, I'd never ask for a woman I knocked up to get an abortion. But what I'd ask is irrelevant since I think she should have the option on the table. Many fall in the same camp, they might not take the choice themselves but they're for the choice existing. I know people that have gotten abortions, it's not taken lightly by anyone who doesn't have some sort of massive mental problem. Normal, non crazy folk don't do it brazenly or for shits and giggles which its often painted as.
On February 10 2017 04:42 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 04:41 TheYango wrote:
From my understanding, my stance is essentially the same as the Tim Kaine "personally pro-life, but publicly pro-choice" position which got criticized for being wishy-washy by progressives and logically-inconsistent by conservatives, when from my perspective it's neither of those things and makes perfect sense. Honestly that's just plain old "pro-choice." You just make the choice not to do it yourself.
Yeah this
|
On February 10 2017 04:41 TheYango wrote:
From my understanding, my stance is essentially the same as the Tim Kaine "personally pro-life, but publicly pro-choice" position which got criticized for being wishy-washy by progressives and logically-inconsistent by conservatives, when from my perspective it's neither of those things and makes perfect sense.
If I understand your position, it's similar to mine but I choose to clarify by differentiating between my stance on abortion and then the labels of pro-life and pro-choice. This is my position (which is really just pro-choice):
If I ever, personally, got pregnant, I would rather not have an abortion (unless, possibly, I were raped or there were pregnancy complications). I'm not a fan of abortions (and honestly, I don't think many pro-choice people are.) Barring those extenuating circumstances, I would probably choose to have the baby and then put him/ her up for adoption if I really couldn't afford to keep him/ her, rather than aborting for convenience.
Now that being said, I'm a man and I'm biologically incapable of getting pregnant, and furthermore I'd like anyone else to be able to make their own personal choices with their bodies the same way I could do for mine. So regardless of my personal beliefs on how I would hypothetically treat my own pregnancies, I'll leave it up to others to make their own decisions on how they would treat their own pregnancies.
|
United States42691 Posts
On February 10 2017 04:46 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 04:41 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 04:08 biology]major wrote:gh I answered last page. Where does TL stand on abortion? Assume extreme cases are allowed to be aborted. + Show Spoiler +Poll: A woman should be able to abort her pregnancyanytime she chooses for any reason (23) 56% up to first trimester (7) 17% up to second trimester (6) 15% never (except in extreme situations) (4) 10% late term (1) 2% 41 total votes Your vote: A woman should be able to abort her pregnancy (Vote): never (except in extreme situations)
(Vote): up to first trimester
(Vote): up to second trimester
(Vote): late term
(Vote): anytime she chooses for any reason
When you say anytime I'm unsure what that means. A sufficiently late term abortion would just be a c-section, surely? In that context I wouldn't support then killing the born infant just out of thoroughness. I'm fine with abortion by choice up to the window of viability and then delivery following that window, but it's not clear if that means I'm fine with abortion whenever, because the pregnancy can be terminated whenever, or not. Yea so basically 22 weeks? That's where a fetus can be viable with the technology we have. I don't know how killing a viable fetus would be ethical.
22 weeks then. With the date being pushed back as medical technology progresses. The primary goal is always to restore bodily autonomy to the mother by removing the fetus. If it's capable of independently surviving, so much the better.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 10 2017 04:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 04:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 04:25 LegalLord wrote:On February 10 2017 04:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 04:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Oh for fuck sake...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In his first call as president with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call.
When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said.
Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity, the sources said.
The White House declined to comment. It referred Reuters to the official White House account issued after the Jan. 28 call, which did not mention the discussion about New START.
It has not been previously reported that Trump had conveyed his doubt about New START to Putin in the hour-long call.
New START gives both countries until February 2018 to reduce their deployed strategic nuclear warheads to no more than 1,550, the lowest level in decades. It also limits deployed land- and submarine-based missiles and nuclear-capable bombers.
During a debate in the 2016 presidential election, Trump said Russia had “outsmarted” the United States with the treaty, which he called “START-Up.” He asserted incorrectly then that it had allowed Russia to continue to produce nuclear warheads while the United States could not.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said he supported the treaty during his Senate confirmation hearings.
During the hearings Tillerson said it was important for the United States to “stay engaged with Russia, hold them accountable to commitments made under the New START and also ensure our accountability as well.”
Two of the people who described the conversation were briefed by current administration officials who read detailed notes taken during the call. One of the two was shown portions of the notes. A third source was also briefed on the call.
Reuters has not reviewed the notes taken of the call, which are classified.
The Kremlin did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Source So he didn't even know the name of the treaty, let alone what the treaty is used for, and then when talking to Putin about the treaty he needed to basically have his aides Google search whether or not he should agree with what Putin says about the treaty... and then at the end of the day, for all the sucking up to Putin that he did during his election campaign, he decided to talk about how popular he is(n't), he says he dislikes Putin's treaty, and hangs his new (unqualified) Secretary of State out to dry for supporting the treaty. I know. Hilarious, right? I really, really hope that Putin is asked how the call went and Putin says something politically incorrect like "Trump's a moron". Edit: The fact that the treaty is about fucking nuclear warheads is a pretty big deal too. He'll almost certainly use the Theresa May defence. When grilled over engaging with such a loathsome figure as Trump the British PM pointed out that after meeting with Trump she got him to walk back on undermining NATO and issue an unequivocal statement reaffirming the US commitment to the alliance. To all those who said she should have spurned him she replied that instead she played him, and won. People in power have no real incentive to insult Trump's antics when they can instead exploit them.
He's just going to change his mind as soon as someone else says something else. Trump has a powerful ability to rationalize a very simplistic view of the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
