|
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. |
Canada11350 Posts
@RealityIsKing.
Your view of the entire issue seems rather like state-planning/ centralized population control.
|
On February 10 2017 13:03 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 12:51 ticklishmusic wrote:
how does the decision to have an abortion impact "another person" to nearly the same degree as the woman? How is such a question even supposed to be evaluated? What if you were aborted when you were a wee fetus, is the "impact" small then?
w/r/t to abortion you've literally never gotten past the WHAT ABOUT THE BABIES argument. it's not very compelling, at any rate.
there is obviously a massive downside to abortion to at least one individual or individual-to-be, but that doesn't deter from the fact that there are a vast number of other factors to consider, and an almost infinite number of combinations thereof. what about the mother's health? what if the fetus has some genetic condition that leads to a life of pain, suffering and mental retardation? what if there is no one to care for the child? what if the child was conceived from rape?
there is a net good to letting the baby live. but that's really only half the argument/ equation. if you put a rock on one side of the scale it's going to tilt that way, but that's not proof that a rock weights more than, say, a hunk of metal. it's just proof that the rock weighs something.
|
Canada11350 Posts
On February 10 2017 13:03 Plansix wrote:
Of course it isn't sufficient on its own, but is a consideration when the stated goal is to "save babies". How many babies would be saved is a reasonable thing to discuss. But we have to ask the moral question, are we better off with desperate women thawing themselves down flights of stairs to end their pregnancy? Do we want to be a nation that takes away rights from women and brings back the coat hanger abortions?
The hyper focus on the morality if terminating the pregnancy neglects the real world impacts of changing the laws. If abortion were outlawed, there would be mass civil unrest and outrage. Likely riots like almost took place in Poland. The discussion around this issue rarely goes into the real political and social consequences of what people asking for.
The same goes for illegal immigration. People want deportations, but don't consider what that looks like. These political footballs are used doe elections, but there is no discussion around the cost of fulling those campaign promises.
Certainly there would be massive unrest because the idea is not popular in the current society, and so I find it unlikely that pro-lifers will have much success in an outright ban. But civil unrest and outrage as a result, doesn't get to the heart of its rightness or wrongness (whether the government ought to ban or keep it legal.) Banning slavery was awfully unpopular in the South- a war was fought over it (yes, yes it was fought over States rights, but States rights in regards to their 'way of life' aka, slavery). And there was certainly a lot of civil unrest after it's abolition: KKK, lynch mobs, etc. But did unrest in the wake of an unpopular ban in the South negate the moralness of the abolition movement?
We do indeed have moral questions, but yours also presuppose that a woman is morally right in desiring to end the life of her offspring. If she desires it, does it make it right? Or if not, what does?
|
On February 10 2017 13:34 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 13:03 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 12:51 ticklishmusic wrote:
how does the decision to have an abortion impact "another person" to nearly the same degree as the woman? How is such a question even supposed to be evaluated? What if you were aborted when you were a wee fetus, is the "impact" small then? w/r/t to abortion you've literally never gotten past the WHAT ABOUT THE BABIES argument. it's not very compelling, at any rate. there is obviously a massive downside to abortion to at least one individual or individual-to-be, but that doesn't deter from the fact that there are a vast number of other factors to consider, and an almost infinite number of combinations thereof. what about the mother's health? what if the fetus has some genetic condition that leads to a life of pain, suffering and mental retardation? what if there is no one to care for the child? what if the child was conceived from rape? there is a net good to letting the baby live. but that's really only half the argument/ equation. if you put a rock on one side of the scale it's going to tilt that way, but that's not proof that a rock weights more than, say, a hunk of metal. it's just proof that the rock weighs something.
Then we are in agreement, I just don't know how you are weighing these two factors, and evaluating one to be a rock and the other to be a hunk of metal.
|
On February 10 2017 13:51 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 13:34 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 10 2017 13:03 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 12:51 ticklishmusic wrote:
how does the decision to have an abortion impact "another person" to nearly the same degree as the woman? How is such a question even supposed to be evaluated? What if you were aborted when you were a wee fetus, is the "impact" small then? w/r/t to abortion you've literally never gotten past the WHAT ABOUT THE BABIES argument. it's not very compelling, at any rate. there is obviously a massive downside to abortion to at least one individual or individual-to-be, but that doesn't deter from the fact that there are a vast number of other factors to consider, and an almost infinite number of combinations thereof. what about the mother's health? what if the fetus has some genetic condition that leads to a life of pain, suffering and mental retardation? what if there is no one to care for the child? what if the child was conceived from rape? there is a net good to letting the baby live. but that's really only half the argument/ equation. if you put a rock on one side of the scale it's going to tilt that way, but that's not proof that a rock weights more than, say, a hunk of metal. it's just proof that the rock weighs something. Then we are in agreement, I just don't know how you are weighing these two factors, and evaluating one to be a rock and the other to be a hunk of metal.
dictionary.com - analogy
|
On February 10 2017 11:21 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 11:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 08:40 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 08:32 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 08:27 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 08:21 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 07:38 Falling wrote:
Only Milo, in what way- the protests or the riots? Because the protests are absolutely happening to more than just Milo- bringing in amplification to blare white noise to drown out speeches or pulling fire alarms to shut down free speech conferences. That's more than Milo. The Berkley riot? Sure that's unique to Milo so far, but as antagonizing as he is, I have heard nothing that warrants or justifies a violent response. That has nothing to do with being apathetic or indifferent. He can be strongly and rigorously opposed without violence and without shutting him out of places to speak. Personally, a lot of my progressive friends have lost faith in any form of rational, serious discussion about issues or policy. Centrist democrats too. It is a feeling that talking has not worked. Explaining has not worked. Debate has not worked. There is a feeling that any debate with the "conservative side" is in bad faith. That they will just lie, deny or rely on post-fact politics to promote their message. My feeling is that people are finding other ways to get their point across. On February 10 2017 08:17 On_Slaught wrote:
I hope the 9th rules against him just so we get another damaging tweet. Just more evidence to use in his eventual impeachment hearings. Your wish has been granted. I would also point out the DOJ's request was stupid. They wanted a TRO against a 14 day TRO. You can't stay a stay. They could have just waited until the next hearing, but DT wanted it removed. That is quite the elitist and arrogant attitude you have there, and it doesn't even justify the reaction on college campuses. Just declare your opponents as arguing in "bad faith" and then shut down debate and resort to violence. Great strategy. But you will notice how you completely disregarded their views and blamed them? And me by extension. This is the root of the problem, we are not ready for good faith debate. Both sides have lost faith in the other. We are just being honest about it now. You basically said conservatives are irrational and not worth arguing with, and it is better to find "other ways" to get their point across. You are the problem. I'm not about to defend violence, or banning someone from speaking simply because I disagree with them, or that I consider them arguing in bad faith. The majority of the people in this thread who voted on my poll thought a woman should be able to abort a pregnancy at any time for any reason... That is a radical, extreme, progressive opinion rooted in ideological dogma the exact same way a conservative would say "life starts at conception". However if someone came to a college campus to give a talk on such a ridiculous position, banning that person from speaking, or starting fires and damaging buildings no matter how much I disagree is not something that should occur. We can end the debate by calling each other fascists, but we still have rights to speak and speak freely. We can't use someone's organs to save another human's life unless that owner of that dead body has already given expressed permission that their organs can be used. Stealing organs from dead bodies is even criminally punishable. If your argument is that dead people have more rights than women then we are not in the same conversation. What about the rights of the fetus? It has 0 rights according to you? Until what point? 22 weeks? 37? The second before delivery?
I am still asking for a woman to be given at least the same rights to her body as a dead person. If you believe she deserve less control of her body than a dead person then the problem with this world is you.
At what moment in time is a dead body more human than a living woman? Is it 0 seconds into pregnancy? 9 months into the pregnancy? Or should a living person be given as much control of their body as a dead person.
|
On February 10 2017 13:41 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 13:03 Plansix wrote:
Of course it isn't sufficient on its own, but is a consideration when the stated goal is to "save babies". How many babies would be saved is a reasonable thing to discuss. But we have to ask the moral question, are we better off with desperate women thawing themselves down flights of stairs to end their pregnancy? Do we want to be a nation that takes away rights from women and brings back the coat hanger abortions?
The hyper focus on the morality if terminating the pregnancy neglects the real world impacts of changing the laws. If abortion were outlawed, there would be mass civil unrest and outrage. Likely riots like almost took place in Poland. The discussion around this issue rarely goes into the real political and social consequences of what people asking for.
The same goes for illegal immigration. People want deportations, but don't consider what that looks like. These political footballs are used doe elections, but there is no discussion around the cost of fulling those campaign promises. Certainly there would be massive unrest because the idea is not popular in the current society, and so I find it unlikely that pro-lifers will have much success in an outright ban. But civil unrest and outrage as a result, doesn't get to the heart of its rightness or wrongness (whether the government ought to ban or keep it legal.) Banning slavery was awfully unpopular in the South- a war was fought over it (yes, yes it was fought over States rights, but States rights in regards to their 'way of life' aka, slavery). And there was certainly a lot of civil unrest after it's abolition: KKK, lynch mobs, etc. But did unrest in the wake of an unpopular ban in the South negate the moralness of the abolition movement? We do indeed have moral questions, but yours also presuppose that a woman is morally right in desiring to end the life of her offspring. If she desires it, does it make it right? Or if not, what does?
At not point did I say the questions of morality were not important. My argument is that they are not wholly persuasive in this discussion. The personal rights of the mother, the role of government in medical decisions, the cost of outlawing process and enforcement are all aspects are of the potential prohibition of abortion.
The pro-life arguments hing on the morality of abortion at the expense of the rest of these factors. And the reason for that is clear, it carries the most emotional weight. We are predisposed to like babies, both emotionally and physically. We don't want to see them harmed. Arguing the morality of terminating a pregnancy carries the most emotional punch. So of course the discussions of the rights and fetus and how defenseless it is. There arguments are used to convince people who are on the fence about abortion issues that is should be prohibited.
My points of the return of coat hanger abortions, back ally clinics and deaths related to unsafe abortions are simply an adaption of the pro-life's favorite tactic, go for the emotional punch. The harsh reality that outlawing abortions will not be all roses and sunshine. It will be the opposite. And people might not be that invested in that result.
The political and emotional costs of implementing a ban on abortion are simply not something most Americans are willing to pay. It comes at the expense of other things they may want. And political will matters, it is the currency of change. It mattered when we abolished slavery, because we went to war over it and it cost us. But we only paid after 100 years of slavery. Morality mattered, but the political will was not there when we signed the constitution. Our priorities were different. We paid for other things, like the right to tax and have a national bank. As standing army. The same with civil rights. The political will was necessary and had to be built up and then cashed in.
So when I talk about the results, its because I want to have a full discussion of abortion and its restriction. What that would look like and what the cost of that it.
|
It appears Flynn might in more trouble than anyone previously thought. I guess those speeches for Russia didn't work out like he planned.
|
On February 10 2017 14:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 11:21 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 11:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 08:40 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 08:32 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 08:27 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 08:21 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 07:38 Falling wrote:
Only Milo, in what way- the protests or the riots? Because the protests are absolutely happening to more than just Milo- bringing in amplification to blare white noise to drown out speeches or pulling fire alarms to shut down free speech conferences. That's more than Milo. The Berkley riot? Sure that's unique to Milo so far, but as antagonizing as he is, I have heard nothing that warrants or justifies a violent response. That has nothing to do with being apathetic or indifferent. He can be strongly and rigorously opposed without violence and without shutting him out of places to speak. Personally, a lot of my progressive friends have lost faith in any form of rational, serious discussion about issues or policy. Centrist democrats too. It is a feeling that talking has not worked. Explaining has not worked. Debate has not worked. There is a feeling that any debate with the "conservative side" is in bad faith. That they will just lie, deny or rely on post-fact politics to promote their message. My feeling is that people are finding other ways to get their point across. On February 10 2017 08:17 On_Slaught wrote:
I hope the 9th rules against him just so we get another damaging tweet. Just more evidence to use in his eventual impeachment hearings. Your wish has been granted. I would also point out the DOJ's request was stupid. They wanted a TRO against a 14 day TRO. You can't stay a stay. They could have just waited until the next hearing, but DT wanted it removed. That is quite the elitist and arrogant attitude you have there, and it doesn't even justify the reaction on college campuses. Just declare your opponents as arguing in "bad faith" and then shut down debate and resort to violence. Great strategy. But you will notice how you completely disregarded their views and blamed them? And me by extension. This is the root of the problem, we are not ready for good faith debate. Both sides have lost faith in the other. We are just being honest about it now. You basically said conservatives are irrational and not worth arguing with, and it is better to find "other ways" to get their point across. You are the problem. I'm not about to defend violence, or banning someone from speaking simply because I disagree with them, or that I consider them arguing in bad faith. The majority of the people in this thread who voted on my poll thought a woman should be able to abort a pregnancy at any time for any reason... That is a radical, extreme, progressive opinion rooted in ideological dogma the exact same way a conservative would say "life starts at conception". However if someone came to a college campus to give a talk on such a ridiculous position, banning that person from speaking, or starting fires and damaging buildings no matter how much I disagree is not something that should occur. We can end the debate by calling each other fascists, but we still have rights to speak and speak freely. We can't use someone's organs to save another human's life unless that owner of that dead body has already given expressed permission that their organs can be used. Stealing organs from dead bodies is even criminally punishable. If your argument is that dead people have more rights than women then we are not in the same conversation. What about the rights of the fetus? It has 0 rights according to you? Until what point? 22 weeks? 37? The second before delivery? I am still asking for a woman to be given at least the same rights to her body as a dead person. If you believe she deserve less control of her body than a dead person then the problem with this world is you. At what moment in time is a dead body more human than a living woman? Is it 0 seconds into pregnancy? 9 months into the pregnancy? Or should a living person be given as much control of their body as a dead person.
A living person should without a doubt be given more rights than a dead person, but with a pregnant woman you are dealing with 2 people. Initially it is 1 person and a sack of cells, that slowly progresses to 2 people at delivery. At what point does it become a person? I don't know, but I like how you completely ignore that aspect and pretend that your analogy covers the whole picture. Very dogmatic thinking.
|
On February 10 2017 13:41 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 13:03 Plansix wrote:
Of course it isn't sufficient on its own, but is a consideration when the stated goal is to "save babies". How many babies would be saved is a reasonable thing to discuss. But we have to ask the moral question, are we better off with desperate women thawing themselves down flights of stairs to end their pregnancy? Do we want to be a nation that takes away rights from women and brings back the coat hanger abortions?
The hyper focus on the morality if terminating the pregnancy neglects the real world impacts of changing the laws. If abortion were outlawed, there would be mass civil unrest and outrage. Likely riots like almost took place in Poland. The discussion around this issue rarely goes into the real political and social consequences of what people asking for.
The same goes for illegal immigration. People want deportations, but don't consider what that looks like. These political footballs are used doe elections, but there is no discussion around the cost of fulling those campaign promises. Certainly there would be massive unrest because the idea is not popular in the current society, and so I find it unlikely that pro-lifers will have much success in an outright ban. But civil unrest and outrage as a result, doesn't get to the heart of its rightness or wrongness (whether the government ought to ban or keep it legal.) Banning slavery was awfully unpopular in the South- a war was fought over it (yes, yes it was fought over States rights, but States rights in regards to their 'way of life' aka, slavery). And there was certainly a lot of civil unrest after it's abolition: KKK, lynch mobs, etc. But did unrest in the wake of an unpopular ban in the South negate the moralness of the abolition movement? We do indeed have moral questions, but yours also presuppose that a woman is morally right in desiring to end the life of her offspring. If she desires it, does it make it right? Or if not, what does?
Planned Parenthood was the best middle ground between both. You want there to be less abortion? Give everyone as much info and tools needed to know how to get pregnant and how to not get pregnant, teach the ever living shit out of everyone of the hardships and boons of it, and make sure that they know absolutely everything about it as young as possible. Heavy sex education starting at 5-6 years old would very quickly decrease the abortion rates.
But the GOP doesn't actually want less abortion, they want more helpless women. That is the difference between pro-life and pro-choice. The pro-choice crowd actually wants to solve the abortion issue at the source.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
So does anyone have an understanding of the endgame of the Muslim ban, by the way? I don't see the logic of it beyond his earlier "we have to figure out what's going on" statement.
|
He confirms his America-first stance and plays up well whether his advisors recommend more vetting procedures, a more permanent ban, or absolutely nothing at all.
He could totally undermine all this with tweeting at judges or normal flying off the handle message dilution like happened in the low points of his campaign. He stays on message and popular opinion polling will show America behind him.
|
On February 10 2017 14:55 LegalLord wrote:
So does anyone have an understanding of the endgame of the Muslim ban, by the way? I don't see the logic of it beyond his earlier "we have to figure out what's going on" statement.
If I were Bannon, I would LOVE the judges upholding the cease order as now he can emphasize the us vs them narrative that Trump has been pushing. Step two of the plan will be finding a way take over Pence's role as VP right before Trump is impeached.
|
I think the whole rebel image has a short half-life. Trump is the president now and thus part of 'the system'. He can't just play the maverick for four whole years, after all his base wants to see something productive at some point I assume.
|
On February 10 2017 14:55 LegalLord wrote:
So does anyone have an understanding of the endgame of the Muslim ban, by the way? I don't see the logic of it beyond his earlier "we have to figure out what's going on" statement.
I don't see it.
unless he genuinely believes it will in fact lead to a safer america. in which case the endgame is clear, but false.
|
On February 10 2017 11:21 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 11:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 08:40 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 08:32 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 08:27 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 08:21 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 07:38 Falling wrote:
Only Milo, in what way- the protests or the riots? Because the protests are absolutely happening to more than just Milo- bringing in amplification to blare white noise to drown out speeches or pulling fire alarms to shut down free speech conferences. That's more than Milo. The Berkley riot? Sure that's unique to Milo so far, but as antagonizing as he is, I have heard nothing that warrants or justifies a violent response. That has nothing to do with being apathetic or indifferent. He can be strongly and rigorously opposed without violence and without shutting him out of places to speak. Personally, a lot of my progressive friends have lost faith in any form of rational, serious discussion about issues or policy. Centrist democrats too. It is a feeling that talking has not worked. Explaining has not worked. Debate has not worked. There is a feeling that any debate with the "conservative side" is in bad faith. That they will just lie, deny or rely on post-fact politics to promote their message. My feeling is that people are finding other ways to get their point across. On February 10 2017 08:17 On_Slaught wrote:
I hope the 9th rules against him just so we get another damaging tweet. Just more evidence to use in his eventual impeachment hearings. Your wish has been granted. I would also point out the DOJ's request was stupid. They wanted a TRO against a 14 day TRO. You can't stay a stay. They could have just waited until the next hearing, but DT wanted it removed. That is quite the elitist and arrogant attitude you have there, and it doesn't even justify the reaction on college campuses. Just declare your opponents as arguing in "bad faith" and then shut down debate and resort to violence. Great strategy. But you will notice how you completely disregarded their views and blamed them? And me by extension. This is the root of the problem, we are not ready for good faith debate. Both sides have lost faith in the other. We are just being honest about it now. You basically said conservatives are irrational and not worth arguing with, and it is better to find "other ways" to get their point across. You are the problem. I'm not about to defend violence, or banning someone from speaking simply because I disagree with them, or that I consider them arguing in bad faith. The majority of the people in this thread who voted on my poll thought a woman should be able to abort a pregnancy at any time for any reason... That is a radical, extreme, progressive opinion rooted in ideological dogma the exact same way a conservative would say "life starts at conception". However if someone came to a college campus to give a talk on such a ridiculous position, banning that person from speaking, or starting fires and damaging buildings no matter how much I disagree is not something that should occur. We can end the debate by calling each other fascists, but we still have rights to speak and speak freely. We can't use someone's organs to save another human's life unless that owner of that dead body has already given expressed permission that their organs can be used. Stealing organs from dead bodies is even criminally punishable. If your argument is that dead people have more rights than women then we are not in the same conversation. What about the rights of the fetus? It has 0 rights according to you? Until what point? 22 weeks? 37? The second before delivery?
Age 2.
|
On February 10 2017 08:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 07:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 07:03 Danglars wrote:On February 10 2017 05:37 farvacola wrote:
That's nonsense, Danglars; Milo, perhaps even unintentionally, presents his ideas in venues and in circumstances that render substantive interaction impossible. While he most definitely has a 1st Amendment right to speak and present his ideas in a mostly unfettered manner, it's disingenuous to pretend that what gets said at these events is in any way helpful in furthering productive discourse. All sides represented at these Ted talk-comedian schtick hybrid events put their worst foot forward by function, and Milo's snide yelling shows are no exception.
The exact same thing can be said for talks led by Richard Dawkins; these events are nothing more than piñata factories with an ideological Quinceañera attached. The people who show up opposed are the sort to loudly proclaim their ideas without thinking, and those who show up in support do so specifically to see those people yell and get exposed as stupid. Performance, spectacle-based pats-on-the-back are not valuable. Nonsense. That's your ideology speaking about "helpful in furthering productive discourse." We can use any number of people railing against the current impediments of a true debate of ideas (beyond defending/accusing racism) until this republic is restored. For fuck's sake, your "perhaps even unintentionally" is an admission that it's all about your perception and not his motives. The nation's got a censorship problem in the culture and I don't care if it's antifa, college students, or academia shutting down invited speakers. I don't want Trump in the White House in 2020, but he's also a help for the sickness ... which would be totally unnecessary in a well patient. Let the speakers speak and don't justify violence against them and don't equate them to nazis or lynch squads or spread a "I'm too scared to walk on this campus that allows such hate, I'm fearful for my safety" sort of message. If Milo does his schtick and a mature audience can let that occur, he peters out in a year (except for maybe glbt idea homogeneity in the Democrat party, that might keep him relevant for longer). It's exactly a product of the front-and-center culture wars from the pendulum swinging too far past "openly calls for violence" (necessary abridgment) to "he speaks brashly and I disagree with it so it's hate speech." You want higher interaction and more substance, Lincoln/Douglas or New Deal era? Blow off the loudmouths to irrelevance and try returning to a defense of free speech ... you know, especially the speech you disagree with. You've lost the dialogue, the counter-culture is incensed and loud, wait it out and return to some more liberal first principles. That's the spirit. When people expound hate, only silent complicity will stop their message from normalizing. #areyoureallythisfuckingstupid As if shutting down the speakers is the way to stop a message from normalizing. I remember the criticism of Jimmy Fallon having Trump on and joking around ... various speakers condemned it as normalizing Trump. Now he's president. You're on the side of smearing things you don't politically like as hate. I hope someday you realize the hysteria is counterproductive and there's no wind in the sails of Milo if everyone can hear him if a campus group invites him and is free to, I don't know, reject Milo's message and the way they says it? Puritanism-nouveau, Thy name is Thieving Magpie.
being complacent of hate is to be complicit of hate. Just because you don't believe in stopping hate does not mean we should comply to your conclusions.
|
On February 10 2017 16:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 08:03 Danglars wrote:On February 10 2017 07:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 07:03 Danglars wrote:On February 10 2017 05:37 farvacola wrote:
That's nonsense, Danglars; Milo, perhaps even unintentionally, presents his ideas in venues and in circumstances that render substantive interaction impossible. While he most definitely has a 1st Amendment right to speak and present his ideas in a mostly unfettered manner, it's disingenuous to pretend that what gets said at these events is in any way helpful in furthering productive discourse. All sides represented at these Ted talk-comedian schtick hybrid events put their worst foot forward by function, and Milo's snide yelling shows are no exception.
The exact same thing can be said for talks led by Richard Dawkins; these events are nothing more than piñata factories with an ideological Quinceañera attached. The people who show up opposed are the sort to loudly proclaim their ideas without thinking, and those who show up in support do so specifically to see those people yell and get exposed as stupid. Performance, spectacle-based pats-on-the-back are not valuable. Nonsense. That's your ideology speaking about "helpful in furthering productive discourse." We can use any number of people railing against the current impediments of a true debate of ideas (beyond defending/accusing racism) until this republic is restored. For fuck's sake, your "perhaps even unintentionally" is an admission that it's all about your perception and not his motives. The nation's got a censorship problem in the culture and I don't care if it's antifa, college students, or academia shutting down invited speakers. I don't want Trump in the White House in 2020, but he's also a help for the sickness ... which would be totally unnecessary in a well patient. Let the speakers speak and don't justify violence against them and don't equate them to nazis or lynch squads or spread a "I'm too scared to walk on this campus that allows such hate, I'm fearful for my safety" sort of message. If Milo does his schtick and a mature audience can let that occur, he peters out in a year (except for maybe glbt idea homogeneity in the Democrat party, that might keep him relevant for longer). It's exactly a product of the front-and-center culture wars from the pendulum swinging too far past "openly calls for violence" (necessary abridgment) to "he speaks brashly and I disagree with it so it's hate speech." You want higher interaction and more substance, Lincoln/Douglas or New Deal era? Blow off the loudmouths to irrelevance and try returning to a defense of free speech ... you know, especially the speech you disagree with. You've lost the dialogue, the counter-culture is incensed and loud, wait it out and return to some more liberal first principles. That's the spirit. When people expound hate, only silent complicity will stop their message from normalizing. #areyoureallythisfuckingstupid As if shutting down the speakers is the way to stop a message from normalizing. I remember the criticism of Jimmy Fallon having Trump on and joking around ... various speakers condemned it as normalizing Trump. Now he's president. You're on the side of smearing things you don't politically like as hate. I hope someday you realize the hysteria is counterproductive and there's no wind in the sails of Milo if everyone can hear him if a campus group invites him and is free to, I don't know, reject Milo's message and the way they says it? Puritanism-nouveau, Thy name is Thieving Magpie. being complacent of hate is to be complicit of hate. Just because you don't believe in stopping hate does not mean we should comply to your conclusions.
This is so silly.
"Comply with"
Letting someone speak isn't being "complacent of hate." Cut the banalities and bullshit out of your posts.
One of the few positive things that can be said about Milo is that he is one of the more articulate defenders of a broad range of ideas we might call "Trumpism." If you care at all about understanding what is driving real people who support politicians like Trump you should at least be willing to investigate what Milo actually is. I have a strong suspicion that 80% of people in here saying things like, "Milo is just meanness and hate" are getting all of their very limited information about Milo from secondhand sources. "All meanness and hate" is what you use to describe a junkyard dog. Only the most one-dimensional human beings are "all meanness and hate."
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
yea no, give me 2 minutes and i can predict what milo says next on a particular topic. it's not rocket science. neither are you
|
On February 10 2017 16:30 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 16:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 08:03 Danglars wrote:On February 10 2017 07:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 07:03 Danglars wrote:On February 10 2017 05:37 farvacola wrote:
That's nonsense, Danglars; Milo, perhaps even unintentionally, presents his ideas in venues and in circumstances that render substantive interaction impossible. While he most definitely has a 1st Amendment right to speak and present his ideas in a mostly unfettered manner, it's disingenuous to pretend that what gets said at these events is in any way helpful in furthering productive discourse. All sides represented at these Ted talk-comedian schtick hybrid events put their worst foot forward by function, and Milo's snide yelling shows are no exception.
The exact same thing can be said for talks led by Richard Dawkins; these events are nothing more than piñata factories with an ideological Quinceañera attached. The people who show up opposed are the sort to loudly proclaim their ideas without thinking, and those who show up in support do so specifically to see those people yell and get exposed as stupid. Performance, spectacle-based pats-on-the-back are not valuable. Nonsense. That's your ideology speaking about "helpful in furthering productive discourse." We can use any number of people railing against the current impediments of a true debate of ideas (beyond defending/accusing racism) until this republic is restored. For fuck's sake, your "perhaps even unintentionally" is an admission that it's all about your perception and not his motives. The nation's got a censorship problem in the culture and I don't care if it's antifa, college students, or academia shutting down invited speakers. I don't want Trump in the White House in 2020, but he's also a help for the sickness ... which would be totally unnecessary in a well patient. Let the speakers speak and don't justify violence against them and don't equate them to nazis or lynch squads or spread a "I'm too scared to walk on this campus that allows such hate, I'm fearful for my safety" sort of message. If Milo does his schtick and a mature audience can let that occur, he peters out in a year (except for maybe glbt idea homogeneity in the Democrat party, that might keep him relevant for longer). It's exactly a product of the front-and-center culture wars from the pendulum swinging too far past "openly calls for violence" (necessary abridgment) to "he speaks brashly and I disagree with it so it's hate speech." You want higher interaction and more substance, Lincoln/Douglas or New Deal era? Blow off the loudmouths to irrelevance and try returning to a defense of free speech ... you know, especially the speech you disagree with. You've lost the dialogue, the counter-culture is incensed and loud, wait it out and return to some more liberal first principles. That's the spirit. When people expound hate, only silent complicity will stop their message from normalizing. #areyoureallythisfuckingstupid As if shutting down the speakers is the way to stop a message from normalizing. I remember the criticism of Jimmy Fallon having Trump on and joking around ... various speakers condemned it as normalizing Trump. Now he's president. You're on the side of smearing things you don't politically like as hate. I hope someday you realize the hysteria is counterproductive and there's no wind in the sails of Milo if everyone can hear him if a campus group invites him and is free to, I don't know, reject Milo's message and the way they says it? Puritanism-nouveau, Thy name is Thieving Magpie. being complacent of hate is to be complicit of hate. Just because you don't believe in stopping hate does not mean we should comply to your conclusions. This is so silly. "Comply with" Letting someone speak isn't being "complacent of hate." Cut the banalities and bullshit out of your posts. One of the few positive things that can be said about Milo is that he is one of the more articulate defenders of a broad range of ideas we might call "Trumpism." If you care at all about understanding what is driving real people who support politicians like Trump you should at least be willing to investigate what Milo actually is. I have a strong suspicion that 80% of people in here saying things like, "Milo is just meanness and hate" are getting all of their very limited information about Milo from secondhand sources. "All meanness and hate" is what you use to describe a junkyard dog. Only the most one-dimensional human beings are "all meanness and hate."
Let me be specific then.
Every article he has written that I've read, every interview of him that I have seen, and every single YouTube video of his speeches that gets praised by folks like you expresses nothing but hate, xenophobia, misogyny, and divisive anti-colored rhetoric designed to hurt other human beings with the intent to incite violence, incite division, and create, spread, and enforce hatred in human beings.
These are not analysis of his works. This is from
Watching and listening to the things he says with his own mouth.
If you are supportive of him, then you are either supportive of hate, or complacent of hate--and there is not much difference between those two stances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
