|
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 April 24 2017 15:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 15:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:17 Falling wrote:On April 24 2017 15:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 14:58 Falling wrote:On April 24 2017 14:19 Nyxisto wrote:
yes, obviously. Just like showing you highly emotional footage of some event can be used to change your political opinion. Trying to influence behaviour by provoking an emotional reaction is an age old trick. Say the pregnancy is actually dangerous for the woman and she sees this imagery of the ultra-sound and decides against an abortion although it would be medically reasonable, how is that not manipulation? There's no such thing as showing you "what is" Well, alright. So makes the ultrasound footage emotional and manipulative? It's not like people will be doctoring the footage, putting emotionally compelling music underneath and having a low voice saying "this is the BABY you are going to kill!" And what if the pregnancy is not dangerous... as are the majority of cases. What is it about seeing the sterile, clinical ultrasound footage sans soundtrack and voiceover that is emotional and manipulative? I hate that this topic even comes up here so a bunch of dudes can talk about what restrictions on women are fair without a sense of the problematic nature of them not being in the conversations, but it's not just the emotional stuff iirc, it's that this is used to delay the process in general as scheduling the ultrasound is an additional thing that must be completed increasing the potential for a woman to miss her window. I think leaving abortion up to women (meaning women, their doctors, and their faith) to decide would be a small concession in a country that didn't even let them vote for most of it's existence. You realize that what you are saying, assumes a certain position from the outset. To borrow from Louis CK: it's either like crapping or it's like killing a baby. It's only one of those two things. It's no other things. "A bunch of dudes can talk about restrictions on women" assumes the crapping position from the outset... but that's the entire point of the controversy because if it's the second, then it seems that men should speak out with women... unless you are like Louis CK and think it is the second, but women should be able to kill 'em anyways because life is overrated. I understand your point, but no. That was a great special but my point is that even if it is killing babies men kill countless babies every year so they should just let women at least have the final say on the ones inside of them and men can have the rest. On April 24 2017 15:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I'm just not sure >50% of the 67% that view the Democratic party as out of touch don't also view the second place finisher in the Democratic primary as not a member of the Democratic party.
Unless you're instead saying that a poll designed to measure aggregate public opinion is the best way to estimate election results which just baffles me There's a quote feature for a reason. That you're worried about that of all things speaks for itself though. It doubly speaks to the fact that the actual poll shows Clinton winning by 4% in everyone polled though that's getting 0 reporting ofc. That said I probably should have quoted you. I also just got back from a night out so apologies if I'm not really making sense. I really do wish that they had included a Sanders question in the poll though, it would validate a lot of other polls so sorry if that sounded overly snarky.
Fair enough, what the poll shows is that it's still way too close and that's after they've seen what Trump is actually doing, and more importantly:
The most basic takeaway (not just from this poll) is that Democrats need to be more like Bernie, not that Bernie and his supporters need to be more like Hillary/Democrats/Republicans/Trump. We're still waiting for Democrats to recognize that, are you there yet?
|
On April 24 2017 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 15:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 24 2017 15:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:17 Falling wrote:On April 24 2017 15:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 14:58 Falling wrote:On April 24 2017 14:19 Nyxisto wrote:
yes, obviously. Just like showing you highly emotional footage of some event can be used to change your political opinion. Trying to influence behaviour by provoking an emotional reaction is an age old trick. Say the pregnancy is actually dangerous for the woman and she sees this imagery of the ultra-sound and decides against an abortion although it would be medically reasonable, how is that not manipulation? There's no such thing as showing you "what is" Well, alright. So makes the ultrasound footage emotional and manipulative? It's not like people will be doctoring the footage, putting emotionally compelling music underneath and having a low voice saying "this is the BABY you are going to kill!" And what if the pregnancy is not dangerous... as are the majority of cases. What is it about seeing the sterile, clinical ultrasound footage sans soundtrack and voiceover that is emotional and manipulative? I hate that this topic even comes up here so a bunch of dudes can talk about what restrictions on women are fair without a sense of the problematic nature of them not being in the conversations, but it's not just the emotional stuff iirc, it's that this is used to delay the process in general as scheduling the ultrasound is an additional thing that must be completed increasing the potential for a woman to miss her window. I think leaving abortion up to women (meaning women, their doctors, and their faith) to decide would be a small concession in a country that didn't even let them vote for most of it's existence. You realize that what you are saying, assumes a certain position from the outset. To borrow from Louis CK: it's either like crapping or it's like killing a baby. It's only one of those two things. It's no other things. "A bunch of dudes can talk about restrictions on women" assumes the crapping position from the outset... but that's the entire point of the controversy because if it's the second, then it seems that men should speak out with women... unless you are like Louis CK and think it is the second, but women should be able to kill 'em anyways because life is overrated. I understand your point, but no. That was a great special but my point is that even if it is killing babies men kill countless babies every year so they should just let women at least have the final say on the ones inside of them and men can have the rest. On April 24 2017 15:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I'm just not sure >50% of the 67% that view the Democratic party as out of touch don't also view the second place finisher in the Democratic primary as not a member of the Democratic party.
Unless you're instead saying that a poll designed to measure aggregate public opinion is the best way to estimate election results which just baffles me There's a quote feature for a reason. That you're worried about that of all things speaks for itself though. It doubly speaks to the fact that the actual poll shows Clinton winning by 4% in everyone polled though that's getting 0 reporting ofc. That said I probably should have quoted you. I also just got back from a night out so apologies if I'm not really making sense. I really do wish that they had included a Sanders question in the poll though, it would validate a lot of other polls so sorry if that sounded overly snarky. Fair enough, what the poll shows is that it's still way too close and that's after they've seen what Trump is actually doing, and more importantly: The most basic takeaway is that Democrats need to be more like Bernie, not that Bernie and his supporters need to be more like Hillary/Democrats/Republicans/Trump. We're still waiting for Democrats to recognize that, are you there yet?
I would appreciate it if Democrats would just be better in that they would improve their capability to communicate a coherent and achievable meaningful message. This means the Dems need to avoid ideological purging of potential allies while not totally selling out (to blue dogs, not to corporations or w/e) and trying to keep things much much simpler when it comes to rhetoric. I think both chunks of the party need to learn lessons instead of screaming at one another ad infinitum, I guess.
Edit: It's not about deciding where the party should fall on some "liberality" tug of war to me, I think, which is what I feel like it ends up getting cast as over and over again
|
On April 24 2017 15:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 24 2017 15:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:17 Falling wrote:On April 24 2017 15:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 14:58 Falling wrote:On April 24 2017 14:19 Nyxisto wrote:
yes, obviously. Just like showing you highly emotional footage of some event can be used to change your political opinion. Trying to influence behaviour by provoking an emotional reaction is an age old trick. Say the pregnancy is actually dangerous for the woman and she sees this imagery of the ultra-sound and decides against an abortion although it would be medically reasonable, how is that not manipulation? There's no such thing as showing you "what is" Well, alright. So makes the ultrasound footage emotional and manipulative? It's not like people will be doctoring the footage, putting emotionally compelling music underneath and having a low voice saying "this is the BABY you are going to kill!" And what if the pregnancy is not dangerous... as are the majority of cases. What is it about seeing the sterile, clinical ultrasound footage sans soundtrack and voiceover that is emotional and manipulative? I hate that this topic even comes up here so a bunch of dudes can talk about what restrictions on women are fair without a sense of the problematic nature of them not being in the conversations, but it's not just the emotional stuff iirc, it's that this is used to delay the process in general as scheduling the ultrasound is an additional thing that must be completed increasing the potential for a woman to miss her window. I think leaving abortion up to women (meaning women, their doctors, and their faith) to decide would be a small concession in a country that didn't even let them vote for most of it's existence. You realize that what you are saying, assumes a certain position from the outset. To borrow from Louis CK: it's either like crapping or it's like killing a baby. It's only one of those two things. It's no other things. "A bunch of dudes can talk about restrictions on women" assumes the crapping position from the outset... but that's the entire point of the controversy because if it's the second, then it seems that men should speak out with women... unless you are like Louis CK and think it is the second, but women should be able to kill 'em anyways because life is overrated. I understand your point, but no. That was a great special but my point is that even if it is killing babies men kill countless babies every year so they should just let women at least have the final say on the ones inside of them and men can have the rest. On April 24 2017 15:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I'm just not sure >50% of the 67% that view the Democratic party as out of touch don't also view the second place finisher in the Democratic primary as not a member of the Democratic party.
Unless you're instead saying that a poll designed to measure aggregate public opinion is the best way to estimate election results which just baffles me There's a quote feature for a reason. That you're worried about that of all things speaks for itself though. It doubly speaks to the fact that the actual poll shows Clinton winning by 4% in everyone polled though that's getting 0 reporting ofc. That said I probably should have quoted you. I also just got back from a night out so apologies if I'm not really making sense. I really do wish that they had included a Sanders question in the poll though, it would validate a lot of other polls so sorry if that sounded overly snarky. Fair enough, what the poll shows is that it's still way too close and that's after they've seen what Trump is actually doing, and more importantly: The most basic takeaway is that Democrats need to be more like Bernie, not that Bernie and his supporters need to be more like Hillary/Democrats/Republicans/Trump. We're still waiting for Democrats to recognize that, are you there yet? I would appreciate it if Democrats would just be better in that they would improve their capability to communicate a coherent and achievable meaningful message. This means the Dems need to avoid ideological purging of potential allies while not totally selling out. I think both chunks of the party need to learn lessons instead of screaming at one another ad infinitum, I guess.
No offence, but that sounds a bit like empty platitudes, do you concede that the direction the party needs to go is away from Clinton and the policies/perspectives people don't like about her that she ingrained into the party or not?
EDIT: Let's take a concrete example, Hillary said medicare for all would "never happen" and that we couldn't afford to fight for it. Is that a position you think Democrats should hold onto or go towards Bernie on?
How about another, Campaign finance reform, HRC and Democrats think we should go away from Obama and Sanders and instead accept lobbyist money into the DNC, do you agree with Hillary and Co. on that or do you agree that we should again be moving the democratic party toward Bernie on this?
|
Canada11359 Posts
Put yet another way, Women don't and never have had the final say on anything (politically speaking) in this country. Are you and other men really so obnoxious that you can't give them autonomy over this one thing, being the contents of their own bodies?
Again, that assumes the first position. Suppose that those offspring being aborted are babies (second option), 50% of whom are female (more in the cases gender selected abortions in the case of China and the like.) So if it is the second case, then we are prioritizing the autonomy of one set of females, but being so obnoxious that we cannot give a second set of females (over 50% of those aborted) the autonomy over this one thing: a female's life. (Genetically speaking, the offspring is not the content of a women's body, though it is attached to and is within her. Unique DNA and all that- it's not the mother's DNA. Whatever it is, it is something else other than the mother because if we clone it, we aren't going to get another of the mother, but whatever it is that is in her.)
|
Abortion is one issue where I wish science was given a lot more credence. Philosophical discussion doesn't create consensus, if anything, it does the opposite. Peer-review and facts can create some consensus.
Late-term abortions are disturbing, because there is a brain there that, however abstract its thoughts may be, is conscious. A four-cell embryo, on the other hand, has no consciousness, and it seems to me that the consciousness is the crux that takes things from clinical to disturbing. If there is any line to be drawn on abortion, to me this is it.
"Sanctity" is a concept. On the other hand, you can detect consciousness with an EEG. If the fetus has a consciousness, then you're killing a conscious thing, and we should decide, strictly, clearly, for once, what that actually constitutes.
Until that line is drawn, or if we're not willing to draw it, then the obvious answer is to simply assume that the woman is making a choice in accordance to her conscience, and that's good enough.
What I'll never understand is the mainstream position of making abortion into some kind of sin, and then allowing it. Or making special cases for rape and incest. If it's a human baby, then it's a human baby. Any sort of "sacredness" one would apply to human life, even as an embryo, shouldn't carry "exceptions". Republican hypocrisy and certitude in a nutshell, imo.
|
On April 24 2017 15:38 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +Put yet another way, Women don't and never have had the final say on anything (politically speaking) in this country. Are you and other men really so obnoxious that you can't give them autonomy over this one thing, being the contents of their own bodies?
Again, that assumes the first position. Suppose that those offspring being aborted are babies (second option), 50% of whom are female (more in the cases gender selected abortions in the case of China and the like.) So if it is the second case, then we are prioritizing the autonomy of one set of females, but being so obnoxious that we cannot give a second set of females (over 50% of those aborted) the autonomy over this one thing: a female's life. (Genetically speaking, the offspring is not the content of a women's body, though it is attached to and is within her. Unique DNA and all that- it's not the mother's DNA. Whatever it is, it is something else other than the mother because if we clone it, we aren't going to get another of the mother, but whatever it is that is in her.)
It is most definitely the contents of the woman as if you remove it, it ceases to live. You might have a point when you're talking about later developmental stages, but for the first part of the pregnancy that falls apart. But still just let it go and let women work it out with their doctors and faith, I promise men will still control the final decision on everything else (and are probably still 2 out of three of those people regarding abortion).
Like even if it's murder men just don't need to be involved period. Like just concede this one place, or continue to be so domineering that you can't let this go.
EDIT: To try to make this more clear: Every person (man, woman, baby, and anyone in between) that dies as a result of a political decision by the US government, said decision was ultimately decided by men. This would carve out a single type of human (if we're conceding it's killing babies) that would not be up to men to make the final determination on. It would be predicated on the fact the the baby being killed would have to be INSIDE the person making the decision.
Can you see how obnoxious it is for men to continue to demand to have the final say on this?
|
On April 24 2017 15:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 15:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 24 2017 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 24 2017 15:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:17 Falling wrote:On April 24 2017 15:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 14:58 Falling wrote:On April 24 2017 14:19 Nyxisto wrote:
yes, obviously. Just like showing you highly emotional footage of some event can be used to change your political opinion. Trying to influence behaviour by provoking an emotional reaction is an age old trick. Say the pregnancy is actually dangerous for the woman and she sees this imagery of the ultra-sound and decides against an abortion although it would be medically reasonable, how is that not manipulation? There's no such thing as showing you "what is" Well, alright. So makes the ultrasound footage emotional and manipulative? It's not like people will be doctoring the footage, putting emotionally compelling music underneath and having a low voice saying "this is the BABY you are going to kill!" And what if the pregnancy is not dangerous... as are the majority of cases. What is it about seeing the sterile, clinical ultrasound footage sans soundtrack and voiceover that is emotional and manipulative? I hate that this topic even comes up here so a bunch of dudes can talk about what restrictions on women are fair without a sense of the problematic nature of them not being in the conversations, but it's not just the emotional stuff iirc, it's that this is used to delay the process in general as scheduling the ultrasound is an additional thing that must be completed increasing the potential for a woman to miss her window. I think leaving abortion up to women (meaning women, their doctors, and their faith) to decide would be a small concession in a country that didn't even let them vote for most of it's existence. You realize that what you are saying, assumes a certain position from the outset. To borrow from Louis CK: it's either like crapping or it's like killing a baby. It's only one of those two things. It's no other things. "A bunch of dudes can talk about restrictions on women" assumes the crapping position from the outset... but that's the entire point of the controversy because if it's the second, then it seems that men should speak out with women... unless you are like Louis CK and think it is the second, but women should be able to kill 'em anyways because life is overrated. I understand your point, but no. That was a great special but my point is that even if it is killing babies men kill countless babies every year so they should just let women at least have the final say on the ones inside of them and men can have the rest. On April 24 2017 15:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I'm just not sure >50% of the 67% that view the Democratic party as out of touch don't also view the second place finisher in the Democratic primary as not a member of the Democratic party.
Unless you're instead saying that a poll designed to measure aggregate public opinion is the best way to estimate election results which just baffles me There's a quote feature for a reason. That you're worried about that of all things speaks for itself though. It doubly speaks to the fact that the actual poll shows Clinton winning by 4% in everyone polled though that's getting 0 reporting ofc. That said I probably should have quoted you. I also just got back from a night out so apologies if I'm not really making sense. I really do wish that they had included a Sanders question in the poll though, it would validate a lot of other polls so sorry if that sounded overly snarky. Fair enough, what the poll shows is that it's still way too close and that's after they've seen what Trump is actually doing, and more importantly: The most basic takeaway is that Democrats need to be more like Bernie, not that Bernie and his supporters need to be more like Hillary/Democrats/Republicans/Trump. We're still waiting for Democrats to recognize that, are you there yet? I would appreciate it if Democrats would just be better in that they would improve their capability to communicate a coherent and achievable meaningful message. This means the Dems need to avoid ideological purging of potential allies while not totally selling out. I think both chunks of the party need to learn lessons instead of screaming at one another ad infinitum, I guess. No offence, but that sounds a bit like empty platitudes, do you concede that the direction the party needs to go is away from Clinton and the things people don't like about her that she ingrained into the party or not?
I wrote a whole bunch of stuff but it was pretty silly. I hope this is better.
I would like people to more clearly articulate what things we need to go away from Clinton and the DNC on, rather than throw everything out? And then I will concede the DNC needs to do so on a lot of things (aggressive stances on campaign finance reform, more clear and aggressive healthcare stances, and far better attempts to reconnect with both minorities and poor whites). After all, I fucking voted for Bernie in the primary, I believe he did have many good points over Clinton.
But the attitude of "purge all the Clinton relics" doesn't just mean doing this stuff, it means losing people who did organize an efficient machine in many places-but lacked information and executive orders on where to do it. It means losing policy experts and wonkishness in favor of simpler promises that have, on occasion, seemed nigh-Trumpian. And it seems to me to sometimes translate to "purge the right-leaning or not heavy-left Dems" which seems to me to be exactly what pissed off many people in the swing states in the first place.
Edit: Eep. It seems we (somewhat) agree I hope?. Sorry I responded before checking for your edit...what a disaster. I do think it's really funny I picked out campaign finance reform and healthcare as something to go away from Clinton on before seeing your post!
|
On April 24 2017 15:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 15:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 24 2017 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 24 2017 15:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:17 Falling wrote:On April 24 2017 15:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 14:58 Falling wrote:On April 24 2017 14:19 Nyxisto wrote:
yes, obviously. Just like showing you highly emotional footage of some event can be used to change your political opinion. Trying to influence behaviour by provoking an emotional reaction is an age old trick. Say the pregnancy is actually dangerous for the woman and she sees this imagery of the ultra-sound and decides against an abortion although it would be medically reasonable, how is that not manipulation? There's no such thing as showing you "what is" Well, alright. So makes the ultrasound footage emotional and manipulative? It's not like people will be doctoring the footage, putting emotionally compelling music underneath and having a low voice saying "this is the BABY you are going to kill!" And what if the pregnancy is not dangerous... as are the majority of cases. What is it about seeing the sterile, clinical ultrasound footage sans soundtrack and voiceover that is emotional and manipulative? I hate that this topic even comes up here so a bunch of dudes can talk about what restrictions on women are fair without a sense of the problematic nature of them not being in the conversations, but it's not just the emotional stuff iirc, it's that this is used to delay the process in general as scheduling the ultrasound is an additional thing that must be completed increasing the potential for a woman to miss her window. I think leaving abortion up to women (meaning women, their doctors, and their faith) to decide would be a small concession in a country that didn't even let them vote for most of it's existence. You realize that what you are saying, assumes a certain position from the outset. To borrow from Louis CK: it's either like crapping or it's like killing a baby. It's only one of those two things. It's no other things. "A bunch of dudes can talk about restrictions on women" assumes the crapping position from the outset... but that's the entire point of the controversy because if it's the second, then it seems that men should speak out with women... unless you are like Louis CK and think it is the second, but women should be able to kill 'em anyways because life is overrated. I understand your point, but no. That was a great special but my point is that even if it is killing babies men kill countless babies every year so they should just let women at least have the final say on the ones inside of them and men can have the rest. On April 24 2017 15:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I'm just not sure >50% of the 67% that view the Democratic party as out of touch don't also view the second place finisher in the Democratic primary as not a member of the Democratic party.
Unless you're instead saying that a poll designed to measure aggregate public opinion is the best way to estimate election results which just baffles me There's a quote feature for a reason. That you're worried about that of all things speaks for itself though. It doubly speaks to the fact that the actual poll shows Clinton winning by 4% in everyone polled though that's getting 0 reporting ofc. That said I probably should have quoted you. I also just got back from a night out so apologies if I'm not really making sense. I really do wish that they had included a Sanders question in the poll though, it would validate a lot of other polls so sorry if that sounded overly snarky. Fair enough, what the poll shows is that it's still way too close and that's after they've seen what Trump is actually doing, and more importantly: The most basic takeaway is that Democrats need to be more like Bernie, not that Bernie and his supporters need to be more like Hillary/Democrats/Republicans/Trump. We're still waiting for Democrats to recognize that, are you there yet? I would appreciate it if Democrats would just be better in that they would improve their capability to communicate a coherent and achievable meaningful message. This means the Dems need to avoid ideological purging of potential allies while not totally selling out. I think both chunks of the party need to learn lessons instead of screaming at one another ad infinitum, I guess. No offence, but that sounds a bit like empty platitudes, do you concede that the direction the party needs to go is away from Clinton and the things people don't like about her that she ingrained into the party or not? I wrote a whole bunch of stuff but it was pretty silly. I hope this is better. I would like people to more clearly articulate what things we need to go away from Clinton and the DNC on, rather than throw everything out? And then I will concede the DNC needs to do so on a lot of things (aggressive stances on campaign finance reform, more clear and aggressive healthcare stances, and far better attempts to reconnect with both minorities and poor whites). After all, I fucking voted for Bernie in the primary, I believe he did have many good points over Clinton. But the attitude of "purge all the Clinton relics" doesn't just mean doing this stuff, it means losing people who did organize an efficient machine in many places-but lacked information and executive orders on where to do it. It means losing policy experts and wonkishness in favor of simpler promises that have, on occasion, seemed nigh-Trumpian. And it seems to me to sometimes translate to "purge the right-leaning or not heavy-left Dems" which seems to me to be exactly what pissed off so many people in the swing states in the first place.
See the edit for specific examples (thought a response like this might come). I'm curious for your response.
The part that doesn't play well in swing states are the social stuff (race, abortion, etc) it's not the "heavy left" stuff Bernie supports as is evidenced by his wide appeal.
The grain of truth to the wall of smears against Bernie is that the Democrats do need to find some middle ground on how to talk about identity politics. Bernie doesn't do enough to focus on specific problems unique to underrepresented minorities, and Democrats overcompensate for their ineffectiveness to address them when in power with divisive, bombastic, and accusatory rhetoric.
EDIT: Yeah, I mean "more clear" isn't what I'm looking for when it comes to healthcare, but we're a hell of a lot closer than I feel much of the Democratic party is. Maybe folks like Kwiz, Plan, ticklish and the rest will surprise me though when they opine on all this.
On April 24 2017 16:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Good riddance to bad rubbish, though we must be careful not to just erase the confederacy and its history from existence.
|
|
|
On April 24 2017 15:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 15:38 Falling wrote:Put yet another way, Women don't and never have had the final say on anything (politically speaking) in this country. Are you and other men really so obnoxious that you can't give them autonomy over this one thing, being the contents of their own bodies?
Again, that assumes the first position. Suppose that those offspring being aborted are babies (second option), 50% of whom are female (more in the cases gender selected abortions in the case of China and the like.) So if it is the second case, then we are prioritizing the autonomy of one set of females, but being so obnoxious that we cannot give a second set of females (over 50% of those aborted) the autonomy over this one thing: a female's life. (Genetically speaking, the offspring is not the content of a women's body, though it is attached to and is within her. Unique DNA and all that- it's not the mother's DNA. Whatever it is, it is something else other than the mother because if we clone it, we aren't going to get another of the mother, but whatever it is that is in her.) It is most definitely the contents of the woman as if you remove it, it ceases to live. You might have a point when you're talking about later developmental stages, but for the first part of the pregnancy that falls apart. But still just let it go and let women work it out with their doctors and faith, I promise men will still control the final decision on everything else (and are probably still 2 out of three of those people regarding abortion). Like even if it's murder men just don't need to be involved period. Like just concede this one place, or continue to be so domineering that you can't let this go. EDIT: To try to make this more clear: Every person (man, woman, baby, and anyone in between) that dies as a result of a political decision by the US government, said decision was ultimately decided by men. This would carve out a single type of human (if we're conceding it's killing babies) that would not be up to men to make the final determination on. It would be predicated on the fact the the baby being killed would have to be INSIDE the person making the decision. Can you see how obnoxious it is for men to continue to demand to have the final say on this?
You keep implying that the reason why someone disagrees with you on that issue is because they're some kind of a control freak. You know very well that is not the case. Stop being so obnoxious.
Edit: Stop treating killing as a fucking privilege. "Let women have some fun, too, you control freak!" is basically what you're saying.
|
On April 24 2017 16:14 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 15:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:38 Falling wrote:Put yet another way, Women don't and never have had the final say on anything (politically speaking) in this country. Are you and other men really so obnoxious that you can't give them autonomy over this one thing, being the contents of their own bodies?
Again, that assumes the first position. Suppose that those offspring being aborted are babies (second option), 50% of whom are female (more in the cases gender selected abortions in the case of China and the like.) So if it is the second case, then we are prioritizing the autonomy of one set of females, but being so obnoxious that we cannot give a second set of females (over 50% of those aborted) the autonomy over this one thing: a female's life. (Genetically speaking, the offspring is not the content of a women's body, though it is attached to and is within her. Unique DNA and all that- it's not the mother's DNA. Whatever it is, it is something else other than the mother because if we clone it, we aren't going to get another of the mother, but whatever it is that is in her.) It is most definitely the contents of the woman as if you remove it, it ceases to live. You might have a point when you're talking about later developmental stages, but for the first part of the pregnancy that falls apart. But still just let it go and let women work it out with their doctors and faith, I promise men will still control the final decision on everything else (and are probably still 2 out of three of those people regarding abortion). Like even if it's murder men just don't need to be involved period. Like just concede this one place, or continue to be so domineering that you can't let this go. EDIT: To try to make this more clear: Every person (man, woman, baby, and anyone in between) that dies as a result of a political decision by the US government, said decision was ultimately decided by men. This would carve out a single type of human (if we're conceding it's killing babies) that would not be up to men to make the final determination on. It would be predicated on the fact the the baby being killed would have to be INSIDE the person making the decision. Can you see how obnoxious it is for men to continue to demand to have the final say on this? You keep implying that the reason why someone disagrees with you on that issue is because they're some kind of a control freak. You know very well that is not the case. Stop being so obnoxious.
No I fully understand that people may think it's murder and they want to stand up to stop the murdering of babies. I'm just saying pick any of the babies that aren't inside someone else's body to start with and leave the babies inside of women up to women to decide on.
That is being a control freak if men can't just focus on any other babies besides the ones inside of another persons's body as they have been and still are the final arbiters (politically speaking) on EVERY OTHER BEING OUTSIDE OF A WOMAN'S WOMB .
|
How about those women not put those babies in their bodies to start with.
|
On April 24 2017 16:20 maybenexttime wrote:
How about those women not put those babies in their bodies to start with.
How about you mind your own business and let women decide what they put/keep in their bodies?
|
On April 24 2017 15:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 15:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 24 2017 15:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 24 2017 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 24 2017 15:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:17 Falling wrote:On April 24 2017 15:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 14:58 Falling wrote:
[quote]
Well, alright. So makes the ultrasound footage emotional and manipulative? It's not like people will be doctoring the footage, putting emotionally compelling music underneath and having a low voice saying "this is the BABY you are going to kill!" And what if the pregnancy is not dangerous... as are the majority of cases. What is it about seeing the sterile, clinical ultrasound footage sans soundtrack and voiceover that is emotional and manipulative? I hate that this topic even comes up here so a bunch of dudes can talk about what restrictions on women are fair without a sense of the problematic nature of them not being in the conversations, but it's not just the emotional stuff iirc, it's that this is used to delay the process in general as scheduling the ultrasound is an additional thing that must be completed increasing the potential for a woman to miss her window. I think leaving abortion up to women (meaning women, their doctors, and their faith) to decide would be a small concession in a country that didn't even let them vote for most of it's existence. You realize that what you are saying, assumes a certain position from the outset. To borrow from Louis CK: it's either like crapping or it's like killing a baby. It's only one of those two things. It's no other things. "A bunch of dudes can talk about restrictions on women" assumes the crapping position from the outset... but that's the entire point of the controversy because if it's the second, then it seems that men should speak out with women... unless you are like Louis CK and think it is the second, but women should be able to kill 'em anyways because life is overrated. I understand your point, but no. That was a great special but my point is that even if it is killing babies men kill countless babies every year so they should just let women at least have the final say on the ones inside of them and men can have the rest. On April 24 2017 15:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I'm just not sure >50% of the 67% that view the Democratic party as out of touch don't also view the second place finisher in the Democratic primary as not a member of the Democratic party.
Unless you're instead saying that a poll designed to measure aggregate public opinion is the best way to estimate election results which just baffles me There's a quote feature for a reason. That you're worried about that of all things speaks for itself though. It doubly speaks to the fact that the actual poll shows Clinton winning by 4% in everyone polled though that's getting 0 reporting ofc. That said I probably should have quoted you. I also just got back from a night out so apologies if I'm not really making sense. I really do wish that they had included a Sanders question in the poll though, it would validate a lot of other polls so sorry if that sounded overly snarky. Fair enough, what the poll shows is that it's still way too close and that's after they've seen what Trump is actually doing, and more importantly: The most basic takeaway is that Democrats need to be more like Bernie, not that Bernie and his supporters need to be more like Hillary/Democrats/Republicans/Trump. We're still waiting for Democrats to recognize that, are you there yet? I would appreciate it if Democrats would just be better in that they would improve their capability to communicate a coherent and achievable meaningful message. This means the Dems need to avoid ideological purging of potential allies while not totally selling out. I think both chunks of the party need to learn lessons instead of screaming at one another ad infinitum, I guess. No offence, but that sounds a bit like empty platitudes, do you concede that the direction the party needs to go is away from Clinton and the things people don't like about her that she ingrained into the party or not? I wrote a whole bunch of stuff but it was pretty silly. I hope this is better. I would like people to more clearly articulate what things we need to go away from Clinton and the DNC on, rather than throw everything out? And then I will concede the DNC needs to do so on a lot of things (aggressive stances on campaign finance reform, more clear and aggressive healthcare stances, and far better attempts to reconnect with both minorities and poor whites). After all, I fucking voted for Bernie in the primary, I believe he did have many good points over Clinton. But the attitude of "purge all the Clinton relics" doesn't just mean doing this stuff, it means losing people who did organize an efficient machine in many places-but lacked information and executive orders on where to do it. It means losing policy experts and wonkishness in favor of simpler promises that have, on occasion, seemed nigh-Trumpian. And it seems to me to sometimes translate to "purge the right-leaning or not heavy-left Dems" which seems to me to be exactly what pissed off so many people in the swing states in the first place. See the edit for specific examples (thought a response like this might come). I'm curious for your response. The part that doesn't play well in swing states are the social stuff (race, abortion, etc) it's not the "heavy left" stuff Bernie supports as is evidenced by his wide appeal. The grain of truth to the wall of smears against Bernie is that the Democrats do need to find some middle ground on how to talk about identity politics. Bernie doesn't do enough to focus on specific problems unique to underrepresented minorities, and Democrats overcompensate for their ineffectiveness to address them when in power with divisive, bombastic, and accusatory rhetoric. EDIT: Yeah, I mean "more clear" isn't what I'm looking for when it comes to healthcare, but we're a hell of a lot closer than I feel much of the Democratic party is. Maybe folks like Kwiz, Plan, ticklish and the rest will surprise me though when they opine on all this.
I think pushing "Real Obamacare" with a Medicare for all is a good idea though Medicaid would be better because it doesn't involve premiums, SCOTUS made that impossible, so we would need an accompanying Medicare rework from the wonks. I definitely think it's worth reworking campaign finance, though public campaign financing and oaths to 1) not work with SuperPACs and 2) stop CU ASAP is more my speed; I do not know enough about the DNC shell games to say whether I think lobbyist money is really a key nut to crack (though making maximums actually maximums would be nice).
I think it just scares me that the whole rope (social and non-social alike) is going to be tugged left at once instead of trying to build a platform that fulfills all my silly platitudes. And the result will be a snap because moving much further left on social issues just does not seem like it will attract people, which means it will in turn hurt those social issues when the right moves forward.
Which means, of course, that I really hope the next poll asks people that think the Democrat party is out of touch WHY they think that (is it social issues? non-social issues?), because it would be nice to know and would really help shape the best ways to get in touch again without just making more people hate it.
Edit: This'll be it for me from the night, but I hope this helps explain why I've had hackles rise a few times when the direction of the Democrats comes up as a point of discussion. Maybe I need to have sangria+rum+tequila more often.
|
Canada11359 Posts
Like even if it's murder men just don't need to be involved period. Like just concede this one place, or continue to be so domineering that you can't let this go.
That isn't the case in any other murder case, so if it is murder, why would it be so here? In what way am I being domineering? I am simply asking questions and pointing out the underlying premises. I don't think I've been rude or insulting.
Every person (man, woman, baby, and anyone in between) that dies as a result of a political decision by the US government, said decision was ultimately decided by men. This would carve out a single type of human (if we're conceding it's killing babies) that would not be up to men to make the final determination on. Well, I mean it's not like it's a small number. Supposedly the US has killed more than 20 million people in 37 nations since WWII. Since 1970, 51 million offspring have been aborted in the US. If it's nothing, it's nothing, but if it's babies that's actually a fair amount of life and death power in the hands of women. That's about 25.5 million females to whom we are being obnoxious in denying autonomy of the body (from the premise of the second option).
"It would be predicated on the fact the the baby being killed would have to be INSIDE the person making the decision." Why would location matter if it is a baby being killed? You and I will change environments throughout our lives, granted none more significantly than from our mother's womb, does the ethics of killing depend on location change? Of course of it isn't baby, then everything changes, but if you assume the second option, I don't see how location matters much.
It is most definitely the contents of the woman as if you remove it, it ceases to live. Not really no- what you are talking about is dependency of which humans are by the most dependent of the mammals. Most mammals walk within the first couple hours. But at the point in which you have unique DNA, you do not have a part of the mother (else it would be her genetic code) but you have something else that is dependent upon the mother. What level of dependency allows ending a life vs not and why?
|
On April 24 2017 15:38 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +Put yet another way, Women don't and never have had the final say on anything (politically speaking) in this country. Are you and other men really so obnoxious that you can't give them autonomy over this one thing, being the contents of their own bodies?
Again, that assumes the first position. Suppose that those offspring being aborted are babies (second option), 50% of whom are female (more in the cases gender selected abortions in the case of China and the like.) So if it is the second case, then we are prioritizing the autonomy of one set of females, but being so obnoxious that we cannot give a second set of females (over 50% of those aborted) the autonomy over this one thing: a female's life. (Genetically speaking, the offspring is not the content of a women's body, though it is attached to and is within her. Unique DNA and all that- it's not the mother's DNA. Whatever it is, it is something else other than the mother because if we clone it, we aren't going to get another of the mother, but whatever it is that is in her.)
An early stage fetus is not alive and it is not female. It is a thing without a gender and you should have the right to destroy it if it lives inside your body, particularly if it threatens your health. Giving this thing the right to live is perversion.
|
On April 24 2017 16:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 15:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 24 2017 15:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 24 2017 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 24 2017 15:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:17 Falling wrote:On April 24 2017 15:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I hate that this topic even comes up here so a bunch of dudes can talk about what restrictions on women are fair without a sense of the problematic nature of them not being in the conversations, but it's not just the emotional stuff iirc, it's that this is used to delay the process in general as scheduling the ultrasound is an additional thing that must be completed increasing the potential for a woman to miss her window.
I think leaving abortion up to women (meaning women, their doctors, and their faith) to decide would be a small concession in a country that didn't even let them vote for most of it's existence. You realize that what you are saying, assumes a certain position from the outset. To borrow from Louis CK: it's either like crapping or it's like killing a baby. It's only one of those two things. It's no other things. "A bunch of dudes can talk about restrictions on women" assumes the crapping position from the outset... but that's the entire point of the controversy because if it's the second, then it seems that men should speak out with women... unless you are like Louis CK and think it is the second, but women should be able to kill 'em anyways because life is overrated. I understand your point, but no. That was a great special but my point is that even if it is killing babies men kill countless babies every year so they should just let women at least have the final say on the ones inside of them and men can have the rest. On April 24 2017 15:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I'm just not sure >50% of the 67% that view the Democratic party as out of touch don't also view the second place finisher in the Democratic primary as not a member of the Democratic party.
Unless you're instead saying that a poll designed to measure aggregate public opinion is the best way to estimate election results which just baffles me There's a quote feature for a reason. That you're worried about that of all things speaks for itself though. It doubly speaks to the fact that the actual poll shows Clinton winning by 4% in everyone polled though that's getting 0 reporting ofc. That said I probably should have quoted you. I also just got back from a night out so apologies if I'm not really making sense. I really do wish that they had included a Sanders question in the poll though, it would validate a lot of other polls so sorry if that sounded overly snarky. Fair enough, what the poll shows is that it's still way too close and that's after they've seen what Trump is actually doing, and more importantly: The most basic takeaway is that Democrats need to be more like Bernie, not that Bernie and his supporters need to be more like Hillary/Democrats/Republicans/Trump. We're still waiting for Democrats to recognize that, are you there yet? I would appreciate it if Democrats would just be better in that they would improve their capability to communicate a coherent and achievable meaningful message. This means the Dems need to avoid ideological purging of potential allies while not totally selling out. I think both chunks of the party need to learn lessons instead of screaming at one another ad infinitum, I guess. No offence, but that sounds a bit like empty platitudes, do you concede that the direction the party needs to go is away from Clinton and the things people don't like about her that she ingrained into the party or not? I wrote a whole bunch of stuff but it was pretty silly. I hope this is better. I would like people to more clearly articulate what things we need to go away from Clinton and the DNC on, rather than throw everything out? And then I will concede the DNC needs to do so on a lot of things (aggressive stances on campaign finance reform, more clear and aggressive healthcare stances, and far better attempts to reconnect with both minorities and poor whites). After all, I fucking voted for Bernie in the primary, I believe he did have many good points over Clinton. But the attitude of "purge all the Clinton relics" doesn't just mean doing this stuff, it means losing people who did organize an efficient machine in many places-but lacked information and executive orders on where to do it. It means losing policy experts and wonkishness in favor of simpler promises that have, on occasion, seemed nigh-Trumpian. And it seems to me to sometimes translate to "purge the right-leaning or not heavy-left Dems" which seems to me to be exactly what pissed off so many people in the swing states in the first place. See the edit for specific examples (thought a response like this might come). I'm curious for your response. The part that doesn't play well in swing states are the social stuff (race, abortion, etc) it's not the "heavy left" stuff Bernie supports as is evidenced by his wide appeal. The grain of truth to the wall of smears against Bernie is that the Democrats do need to find some middle ground on how to talk about identity politics. Bernie doesn't do enough to focus on specific problems unique to underrepresented minorities, and Democrats overcompensate for their ineffectiveness to address them when in power with divisive, bombastic, and accusatory rhetoric. EDIT: Yeah, I mean "more clear" isn't what I'm looking for when it comes to healthcare, but we're a hell of a lot closer than I feel much of the Democratic party is. Maybe folks like Kwiz, Plan, ticklish and the rest will surprise me though when they opine on all this. I think pushing "Real Obamacare" with a Medicare for all is a good idea though Medicaid would be better because it doesn't involve premiums, SCOTUS made that impossible, so we would need an accompanying Medicare rework from the wonks. I definitely think it's worth reworking campaign finance, though public campaign financing and oaths to 1) not work with SuperPACs and 2) stop CU ASAP is more my speed; I do not know enough about the DNC shell games to say whether I think lobbyist money is really a key nut to crack (though making maximums actually maximums would be nice). I think it just scares me that the whole rope (social and non-social alike) is going to be tugged left at once instead of trying to build a platform that fulfills all my silly platitudes. And the result will be a snap because moving much further left on social issues just does not seem like it will attract people, which means it will in turn hurt those social issues when the right moves forward. Which means, of course, that I really hope the next poll asks people that think the Democrat party is out of touch WHY they think that (is it social issues? non-social issues?), because it would be nice to know and would really help shape the best ways to get in touch again without just making more people hate it. Edit: This'll be it for me from the night, but I hope this helps explain why I've had hackles rise a few times when the direction of the Democrats comes up as a point of discussion.
Well you need to join the chorus of us desperately pleading with the Democrats to begin that type of reflection, because I'll tell you right now Perez and this unity tour, or the response from Democrats to Bernie isn't pointing that direction.
That jerking to the left you fear will be a direct result of Democrats refusing to engage in the introspection it will take to prevent it.
|
On April 24 2017 15:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 15:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 24 2017 15:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 24 2017 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 24 2017 15:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:17 Falling wrote:On April 24 2017 15:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 14:58 Falling wrote:
[quote]
Well, alright. So makes the ultrasound footage emotional and manipulative? It's not like people will be doctoring the footage, putting emotionally compelling music underneath and having a low voice saying "this is the BABY you are going to kill!" And what if the pregnancy is not dangerous... as are the majority of cases. What is it about seeing the sterile, clinical ultrasound footage sans soundtrack and voiceover that is emotional and manipulative? I hate that this topic even comes up here so a bunch of dudes can talk about what restrictions on women are fair without a sense of the problematic nature of them not being in the conversations, but it's not just the emotional stuff iirc, it's that this is used to delay the process in general as scheduling the ultrasound is an additional thing that must be completed increasing the potential for a woman to miss her window. I think leaving abortion up to women (meaning women, their doctors, and their faith) to decide would be a small concession in a country that didn't even let them vote for most of it's existence. You realize that what you are saying, assumes a certain position from the outset. To borrow from Louis CK: it's either like crapping or it's like killing a baby. It's only one of those two things. It's no other things. "A bunch of dudes can talk about restrictions on women" assumes the crapping position from the outset... but that's the entire point of the controversy because if it's the second, then it seems that men should speak out with women... unless you are like Louis CK and think it is the second, but women should be able to kill 'em anyways because life is overrated. I understand your point, but no. That was a great special but my point is that even if it is killing babies men kill countless babies every year so they should just let women at least have the final say on the ones inside of them and men can have the rest. On April 24 2017 15:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I'm just not sure >50% of the 67% that view the Democratic party as out of touch don't also view the second place finisher in the Democratic primary as not a member of the Democratic party.
Unless you're instead saying that a poll designed to measure aggregate public opinion is the best way to estimate election results which just baffles me There's a quote feature for a reason. That you're worried about that of all things speaks for itself though. It doubly speaks to the fact that the actual poll shows Clinton winning by 4% in everyone polled though that's getting 0 reporting ofc. That said I probably should have quoted you. I also just got back from a night out so apologies if I'm not really making sense. I really do wish that they had included a Sanders question in the poll though, it would validate a lot of other polls so sorry if that sounded overly snarky. Fair enough, what the poll shows is that it's still way too close and that's after they've seen what Trump is actually doing, and more importantly: The most basic takeaway is that Democrats need to be more like Bernie, not that Bernie and his supporters need to be more like Hillary/Democrats/Republicans/Trump. We're still waiting for Democrats to recognize that, are you there yet? I would appreciate it if Democrats would just be better in that they would improve their capability to communicate a coherent and achievable meaningful message. This means the Dems need to avoid ideological purging of potential allies while not totally selling out. I think both chunks of the party need to learn lessons instead of screaming at one another ad infinitum, I guess. No offence, but that sounds a bit like empty platitudes, do you concede that the direction the party needs to go is away from Clinton and the things people don't like about her that she ingrained into the party or not? I wrote a whole bunch of stuff but it was pretty silly. I hope this is better. I would like people to more clearly articulate what things we need to go away from Clinton and the DNC on, rather than throw everything out? And then I will concede the DNC needs to do so on a lot of things (aggressive stances on campaign finance reform, more clear and aggressive healthcare stances, and far better attempts to reconnect with both minorities and poor whites). After all, I fucking voted for Bernie in the primary, I believe he did have many good points over Clinton. But the attitude of "purge all the Clinton relics" doesn't just mean doing this stuff, it means losing people who did organize an efficient machine in many places-but lacked information and executive orders on where to do it. It means losing policy experts and wonkishness in favor of simpler promises that have, on occasion, seemed nigh-Trumpian. And it seems to me to sometimes translate to "purge the right-leaning or not heavy-left Dems" which seems to me to be exactly what pissed off so many people in the swing states in the first place. See the edit for specific examples (thought a response like this might come). I'm curious for your response. The part that doesn't play well in swing states are the social stuff (race, abortion, etc) it's not the "heavy left" stuff Bernie supports as is evidenced by his wide appeal. The grain of truth to the wall of smears against Bernie is that the Democrats do need to find some middle ground on how to talk about identity politics. Bernie doesn't do enough to focus on specific problems unique to underrepresented minorities, and Democrats overcompensate for their ineffectiveness to address them when in power with divisive, bombastic, and accusatory rhetoric. EDIT: Yeah, I mean "more clear" isn't what I'm looking for when it comes to healthcare, but we're a hell of a lot closer than I feel much of the Democratic party is. Maybe folks like Kwiz, Plan, ticklish and the rest will surprise me though when they opine on all this. Good riddance to bad rubbish, though we must be careful not to just erase the confederacy and its history from existence.
Should the Jefferson Memorial be taken down as well? What about all of the greek monuments depicting people of a time when slavery was legal there? Rome? What about the depictions of Kings and Queens when serfdom was a thing? Taking down memorials of history because some bad shit happened is not a good precedent and isn't a good teaching lesson. I'd feel the same thing if the USSR demolished all of its Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin statues. It's history to be learned from not to be hidden. ISIS doing the same shit in the middle east - destroying relics and monuments (and yes, slavery was a thing everywhere in antiquity).
|
On April 24 2017 16:22 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +Like even if it's murder men just don't need to be involved period. Like just concede this one place, or continue to be so domineering that you can't let this go. That isn't the case in any other murder case, so if it is murder, why would it be so here? In what way am I being domineering? I am simply asking questions and pointing out the underlying premises. I don't think I've been rude or insulting. Show nested quote +Every person (man, woman, baby, and anyone in between) that dies as a result of a political decision by the US government, said decision was ultimately decided by men. This would carve out a single type of human (if we're conceding it's killing babies) that would not be up to men to make the final determination on. Well, I mean it's not like it's a small number. Supposedly the US has killed more than 20 million people in 37 nations since WWII. Since 1970, 51 million offspring have been aborted in the US. If it's nothing, it's nothing, but if it's babies that's actually a fair amount of life and death power in the hands of women. That's about 25.5 million females to whom we are being obnoxious in denying autonomy of the body (from the premise of the second option). Show nested quote +"It would be predicated on the fact the the baby being killed would have to be INSIDE the person making the decision." Why would location matter if it is a baby being killed? You and I will change environments throughout our lives, granted none more significantly than from our mother's womb, does the ethics of killing depend on location change? Of course of it isn't baby, then everything changes, but if you assume the second option, I don't see how location matters much. Show nested quote +It is most definitely the contents of the woman as if you remove it, it ceases to live. Not really no- what you are talking about is dependency of which humans are by the most dependent of the mammals. Most mammals walk within the first couple hours. But at the point in which you have unique DNA, you do not have a part of the mother (else it would be her genetic code) but you have something else that is dependent upon the mother. What level of dependency allows ending a life vs not and why?
So one is unwilling to concede even this one thing, fine. One can't stop it by force of law, and trying to will only make it worse. One think's abortion is murder, they can't leave this up to women to decide, they insist that men must have the final determination on this, let's at least focus on effective strategies and not political stunts.
Basically, don't tell me they want to reduce abortions with something like this ultrasound crap, but they don't think sexual education should be required or when it is offered, doesn't have to be medically accurate or can only offer negative information on same-sex relationships and we're supposed to take them seriously.
On April 24 2017 16:27 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 15:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 24 2017 15:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 24 2017 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 24 2017 15:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:17 Falling wrote:On April 24 2017 15:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I hate that this topic even comes up here so a bunch of dudes can talk about what restrictions on women are fair without a sense of the problematic nature of them not being in the conversations, but it's not just the emotional stuff iirc, it's that this is used to delay the process in general as scheduling the ultrasound is an additional thing that must be completed increasing the potential for a woman to miss her window.
I think leaving abortion up to women (meaning women, their doctors, and their faith) to decide would be a small concession in a country that didn't even let them vote for most of it's existence. You realize that what you are saying, assumes a certain position from the outset. To borrow from Louis CK: it's either like crapping or it's like killing a baby. It's only one of those two things. It's no other things. "A bunch of dudes can talk about restrictions on women" assumes the crapping position from the outset... but that's the entire point of the controversy because if it's the second, then it seems that men should speak out with women... unless you are like Louis CK and think it is the second, but women should be able to kill 'em anyways because life is overrated. I understand your point, but no. That was a great special but my point is that even if it is killing babies men kill countless babies every year so they should just let women at least have the final say on the ones inside of them and men can have the rest. On April 24 2017 15:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I'm just not sure >50% of the 67% that view the Democratic party as out of touch don't also view the second place finisher in the Democratic primary as not a member of the Democratic party.
Unless you're instead saying that a poll designed to measure aggregate public opinion is the best way to estimate election results which just baffles me There's a quote feature for a reason. That you're worried about that of all things speaks for itself though. It doubly speaks to the fact that the actual poll shows Clinton winning by 4% in everyone polled though that's getting 0 reporting ofc. That said I probably should have quoted you. I also just got back from a night out so apologies if I'm not really making sense. I really do wish that they had included a Sanders question in the poll though, it would validate a lot of other polls so sorry if that sounded overly snarky. Fair enough, what the poll shows is that it's still way too close and that's after they've seen what Trump is actually doing, and more importantly: The most basic takeaway is that Democrats need to be more like Bernie, not that Bernie and his supporters need to be more like Hillary/Democrats/Republicans/Trump. We're still waiting for Democrats to recognize that, are you there yet? I would appreciate it if Democrats would just be better in that they would improve their capability to communicate a coherent and achievable meaningful message. This means the Dems need to avoid ideological purging of potential allies while not totally selling out. I think both chunks of the party need to learn lessons instead of screaming at one another ad infinitum, I guess. No offence, but that sounds a bit like empty platitudes, do you concede that the direction the party needs to go is away from Clinton and the things people don't like about her that she ingrained into the party or not? I wrote a whole bunch of stuff but it was pretty silly. I hope this is better. I would like people to more clearly articulate what things we need to go away from Clinton and the DNC on, rather than throw everything out? And then I will concede the DNC needs to do so on a lot of things (aggressive stances on campaign finance reform, more clear and aggressive healthcare stances, and far better attempts to reconnect with both minorities and poor whites). After all, I fucking voted for Bernie in the primary, I believe he did have many good points over Clinton. But the attitude of "purge all the Clinton relics" doesn't just mean doing this stuff, it means losing people who did organize an efficient machine in many places-but lacked information and executive orders on where to do it. It means losing policy experts and wonkishness in favor of simpler promises that have, on occasion, seemed nigh-Trumpian. And it seems to me to sometimes translate to "purge the right-leaning or not heavy-left Dems" which seems to me to be exactly what pissed off so many people in the swing states in the first place. See the edit for specific examples (thought a response like this might come). I'm curious for your response. The part that doesn't play well in swing states are the social stuff (race, abortion, etc) it's not the "heavy left" stuff Bernie supports as is evidenced by his wide appeal. The grain of truth to the wall of smears against Bernie is that the Democrats do need to find some middle ground on how to talk about identity politics. Bernie doesn't do enough to focus on specific problems unique to underrepresented minorities, and Democrats overcompensate for their ineffectiveness to address them when in power with divisive, bombastic, and accusatory rhetoric. EDIT: Yeah, I mean "more clear" isn't what I'm looking for when it comes to healthcare, but we're a hell of a lot closer than I feel much of the Democratic party is. Maybe folks like Kwiz, Plan, ticklish and the rest will surprise me though when they opine on all this. Good riddance to bad rubbish, though we must be careful not to just erase the confederacy and its history from existence. Should the Jefferson Memorial be taken down as well? What about all of the greek monuments depicting people of a time when slavery was legal there? Rome? What about the depictions of Kings and Queens when serfdom was a thing? Taking down memorials of history because some bad shit happened is not a good precedent and isn't a good teaching lesson. I'd feel the same thing if the USSR demolished all of its Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin statues. It's history to be learned from not to be hidden. ISIS doing the same shit in the middle east - destroying relics and monuments (and yes, slavery was a thing everywhere in antiquity).
All memorials aren't created equal. Comparing the removal of confederate memorials (I concede I don't know specifically what's going) to what ISIS is doing definitely undermines the seriousness I can take this with, but alas, I'll entertain the question.
No, that's why I said "though we must be careful not to just erase the confederacy and its history from existence." 
|
Canada11359 Posts
On April 24 2017 16:23 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 15:38 Falling wrote:Put yet another way, Women don't and never have had the final say on anything (politically speaking) in this country. Are you and other men really so obnoxious that you can't give them autonomy over this one thing, being the contents of their own bodies?
Again, that assumes the first position. Suppose that those offspring being aborted are babies (second option), 50% of whom are female (more in the cases gender selected abortions in the case of China and the like.) So if it is the second case, then we are prioritizing the autonomy of one set of females, but being so obnoxious that we cannot give a second set of females (over 50% of those aborted) the autonomy over this one thing: a female's life. (Genetically speaking, the offspring is not the content of a women's body, though it is attached to and is within her. Unique DNA and all that- it's not the mother's DNA. Whatever it is, it is something else other than the mother because if we clone it, we aren't going to get another of the mother, but whatever it is that is in her.) An early stage fetus is not alive and it is not female. It is a thing without a gender and you should have the right to destroy it if it lives inside your body, particularly if it threatens your health. Giving this thing the right to live is perversion.
How do you define alive and female and when does it become either? Furthermore, in what sense is something a perversion? What is your standard for determining perversity?
If I read aright for something to be alive, it requires three things 1) metabolism that captures energy and nutrients to link smaller molecules to make larger molecules. 2) potential to reproduce itself at some point in its life cycle 3) potential to change over time from generation to generation. 2 and 3 are true of the zygote given sufficient time and no mishap. It has all the necessary genetic information for a new individual. 1 is true due to fetal glucose metabolism.
Do you disagree with this definition? If so, why?
More controversially due to the nonbinary movement, but I would submit that as whatever it is in the womb has the XX chromosome, it would be fair to say that it is a female. Again, all the genetic information is there to map out development. Do you disagree? If so, why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
