EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7402
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18213 Posts
| ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On April 26 2017 03:22 GreenHorizons wrote: But how come men won't share the cost to deal with women's menstrual blood? I would really like you to expand this logic beyond a snark remark, because then you'd see how it doesn't really work. First of all, which men are you talking about specifically? I am pretty sure that forcing your partner to keep a separate account for menstrual equipment is quite unusual even where you live, so you surely mean the male part of the society as a whole? As "every man finds a woman whose tampoons he will finance" doesn't make any sense, you mean that menstrual accessories should be funded from taxes? Do you really find that reasonable in a country which doesn't even fund actual life-saving healthcare? Why would "not getting bloody stains on your clothes" suddenly get such a priority? Just because it happens only to a half of the people? Is equality more important than life? It just doesn't make that much sense. Different people are predisposed to need different amounts of nutrition, do you wish to subsidize food for those who have faster metabolisms? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23635 Posts
On April 26 2017 03:46 opisska wrote: I would really like you to expand this logic beyond a snark remark, because then you'd see how it doesn't really work. First of all, which men are you talking about specifically? I am pretty sure that forcing your partner to keep a separate account for menstrual equipment is quite unusual even where you live, so you surely mean the male part of the society as a whole? As "every man finds a woman whose tampoons he will finance" doesn't make any sense, you mean that menstrual accessories should be funded from taxes? Do you really find that reasonable in a country which doesn't even fund actual life-saving healthcare? Why would "not getting bloody stains on your clothes" suddenly get such a priority? Just because it happens only to a half of the people? Is equality more important than life? It just doesn't make that much sense. Different people are predisposed to need different amounts of nutrition, do you wish to subsidize food for those who have faster metabolisms? Yes I'm speaking about male part of society as a whole. If we wanted to do it tomorrow it would be the same way women pay for penis pumps. Otherwise, it would just be included in a universal healthcare plan. You wouldn't have a life (speaking to your life or death part) were it not for a woman maintaining her uterus/vagina, I think it's the least we could do. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
If you're confident that it's not human and can thus be destroyed, the thing becomes a women's health issue and a bunch of men discussing it, much less legislating it, becomes pointless. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On April 26 2017 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote: Yes I'm speaking about male part of society as a whole. If we wanted to do it tomorrow it would be the same way women pay for penis pumps. Otherwise, it would just be included in a universal healthcare plan. You wouldn't have a life (speaking to your life or death part) were it not for a woman maintaining her uterus/vagina, I think it's the least we could do. How do women pay for penis pumps? If you can get a penis pump for taxpayer money in the US, then I am very, very sorry for you having to live there, but could we not have such enormous idiocy used as a policy argument just because it exists? Or did you mean it in a way that eludes me? However you failed to respond to the meat of my argument. It is definitely not "the least" you can do, at least not in the US, where much more important things aren't done. I'd see no problem enacting publicly funded tampons in the EU, on top of all the public things we already have here it would make complete sense, but it makes absolutely zero sense to not have universal healthcare, yet free tampons, in a single country. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
My understanding is that condoms are subsidised because it's cheaper to do that than deal with even more unwanted pregnancies and stis, and that makes reasonable sense and is more complex than "condoms for men, tampons for women". Penis pumps are a different matter. I can certainly imagine the men in charge sneaking in frivolous male stuff, but at this point you need to provide an actual list for the discussion to be useful. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23635 Posts
On April 26 2017 03:59 opisska wrote: How do women pay for penis pumps? If you can get a penis pump for taxpayer money in the US, then I am very, very sorry for you having to live there, but could we not have such enormous idiocy used as a policy argument just because it exists? Or did you mean it in a way that eludes me? However you failed to respond to the meat of my argument. It is definitely not "the least" you can do, at least not in the US, where much more important things aren't done. I'd see no problem enacting publicly funded tampons in the EU, on top of all the public things we already have here it would make complete sense, but it makes absolutely zero sense to not have universal healthcare, yet free tampons, in a single country. Apparently they stopped covering penis pumps under medicare in 2015, now it only covers the much more expensive penile implant surgery. I use that to describe a mechanism through which we could have men pay, and illustrate how women already pay for far more frivolous things that are meant to treat an issue found exclusively in men. But I think we should have universal healthcare and uterus/vaginal maintenance would be covered for obvious reasons. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On April 26 2017 04:21 GreenHorizons wrote: Apparently they stopped covering penis pumps under medicare in 2015, now it only covers the much more expensive penile implant surgery. I use that to describe a mechanism through which we could have men pay, and illustrate how women already pay for far more frivolous things that are meant to treat an issue found exclusively in men. But I think we should have universal healthcare and uterus/vaginal maintenance would be covered for obvious reasons. Oh well, if that's the situation, then I can see where your outrage is coming from ... | ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11744 Posts
On April 26 2017 02:19 Leporello wrote: No. I don't have to define the consciousness itself, all I have to do is define the being that possesses said consciousness. And, for starters, it's not a pig. You guys are creating arbitrary goalposts that science can't define. And yet, what I'm continually asking us is to consider what science can define. And the difference in biology between a late-term fetus and a newborn is...? Not much. The biological differences are much greater during the middle-stages of pregnancy. Somewhere in there are developmental stages that we should consider, clinically. And the reason we should do so is not just create a more "humane" law, but to cool the discourse. One side wants to say, "all life is sacred", and the other seems to reject any notion that humanity exists at all, at least not until the person is walking and talking. LOL, I've honestly just been looking for middle-ground. LOL. It's so bad. Sorry, but if you want to be able to use words in a meaningful way, you need to be able to define what they mean. I am pretty sure that a large amount of disagreements could be resolved simply by people taking the effort to actually define what they mean when they say words, as opposed to saying "Well it is obvious!". If it is obvious, it shouldn't be hard to put it into words. If you can't put it into words, then it isn't obvious. And if your definition of "consciousness" is simply "Something that has something to do with the and, which a human has, but a pig does not", you are gonna run into tons of problems, because that is a shitty definition. Maybe it is just me coming from a maths background, but seriously, it is exhausting to talk to people who are unwilling to define the concepts they use, and then get angry that not everyone has the same view of that concept as they do. I am not even sure if i disagree with what you want to say, because it is very unclear what you actually want to say. You got lost in a semantic argument because you are using poorly defined terms. Discussions become way better, and are far less filled with semantics arguments if the words you use to describe stuff are well defined and clear. I don't think people honestly disagree with the end result you seem to be hinting at, namely that you probably shouldn't abort 8th month pregnancies, and that the point in time until which it is probably ok is somewhere in the middle of the pregnancy. Afaik most countries use something like 12 weeks, unless there are special circumstances. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 26 2017 04:36 farvacola wrote: It's worth noting that many US states continue to tax tampons and related female hygiene products as luxuries and at a rate higher than other items deemed necessities for sales tax purposes. Only around 10-15 states have fixed this iirc. Some states don’t tax first aid kits, gauze and band-aids, but they do tax tampons. Where you are bleeding from is a critical factor on if it is a luxury item. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On April 26 2017 05:03 Plansix wrote: Some states don’t tax first aid kits, gauze and band-aids, but they do tax tampons. Where you are bleeding from is a critical factor on if it is a luxury item. If you spontaneously bleed from the right places, could you get religious tax exemptions? | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28738 Posts
On April 26 2017 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote: jfc. Anyone here had or plan on having an abortion? Any chance we can nip this conversation until someone who can actually choose to have an abortion or not is engaged in the conversation? Not a woman, but my wife had one like 6 years ago. We were totally not ready for kids, she had was changing contraception and we used condoms in the meantime. One time the condom broke, and she got pregnant. Was a no-brainer for both of us, although obviously the decision was tougher on her, as the actual abortion is really physically taxing. (Of course, still nothing compared to pregnancy and child birth.) I remember the day it happened, where she took the pill to kill the fetus, she was in the worst shape of her life - and this was a really early term abortion, fetus was like, 1-2 cm long or something. Anyway, while the decision to abort was super easy, for both of us, the actual action of aborting was very tough and absolutely not something we'd (she'd) want to do again. The good part was that as part of the experience, my eternal love for her was totally confirmed. Because like, a little more than a year after, we were in bed hugging, and then she asked me 'so, do you ever think about how we could've had a tiny little Eivind crawling around now?'. I quickly replied no, leading her to say 'you're dead inside'. When I again replied 'I'm dead inside? You're dead, inside', and she started laughing, that was like, ok. Not letting you go girl. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 26 2017 05:33 WolfintheSheep wrote: If you spontaneously bleed from the right places, could you get religious tax exemptions? Of course. Religion is always tax free, so long as it is a Christianity. | ||
|
CorsairHero
Canada9491 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.dairyinfo.gc.ca/images/bal_e.jpg) | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal judge in San Francisco has blocked a Trump administration order to withhold funding from communities that limit cooperation with U.S. immigration authorities. U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued the temporary ruling Tuesday in a lawsuit over the executive order targeting so-called sanctuary cities. The decision will stay in place while the lawsuit moves through court. The Republican president’s administration and two California governments that sued over the order disagreed about its scope. San Francisco and Santa Clara County argued that it threatened billions of dollars in federal funding. But an attorney for the Justice Department, Chad Readler, said at a recent court hearing that it applied to a limited set of grants. Readler said less than $1 million was at stake nationally and possibly no San Francisco funding. http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/breaking-california-judge-blocks-trump-order-withholding-funding-for-sanctuary-cities/ | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On April 26 2017 06:40 LegalLord wrote: Any particular reason it's always the ninth? Do people just raise the case in the most sympathetic district or does no one else think that stopping Trump's policies is justified? It is probably a combination of the former and the fact that the ninth is the largest district by a massive margin. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 26 2017 06:51 Nevuk wrote: It is probably a combination of the former and the fact that the ninth is the largest district by a massive margin. Venue shopping is a valid legal tactic and used often. In what world would you not file your TRO the court most likely to rule in our favor? And the 9th is huge and has the most diverse case load. The best part is when congress bitches about the 9th. The chamber with the power to reshape the districts and they bitch that the 9th is to large or hears to many cases. | ||
| ||
