|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States42259 Posts
At least Stone’s wife would reliably be able to use the rape exception for her abortions.
|
So this is going to be the play with all the recent developments? Just completely ignore reality? Off the top of my head, I know it was well documented President Obama as well as Sally Yates warned him about Flynn, I'm sure there were others.
How do you defend this behavior? Seriously?
|
|
|
On May 18 2019 03:33 crms wrote:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1129394914427453442So this is going to be the play with all the recent developments? Just completely ignore reality? Off the top of my head, I know it was well documented President Obama as well as Sally Yates warned him about Flynn, I'm sure there were others. How do you defend this behavior? Seriously? He appointed the SC judge they wanted, which justifies everything he does.
|
|
|
On May 17 2019 22:10 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 15:03 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 17 2019 11:03 Gorgonoth wrote:
I am going to attempt to provide an argument against abortion.
The reason why I believe abortion to be wrong, is that if all life is to be valued; and if life also begins at conception, then abortion is murder.
I don't want to have anything to do with women's lives. I want to protect the unborn child's life. I get to have a say what she does if she is doing something which violates another person's life. We say this all the time when we lock up criminals, we don't want to say anything about their lives unless they do something which is illegal, then they face the consequences of their actions. Murder is illegal, thus abortion should be as well.
This is an argument about when life begins, not about women's reproductive health. All of our lives we are in a process of development, we are always changing and growing, and this process starts at conception. The unborn is clearly growing, starting out from cells and at the later stages of the pregnancy it resembles a human body and in many cases could survive outside of the womb. But all throughout this time of development, the unborn, at whatever stage in its growth; Just as a 1-year-old child and a 9-year-old are in radically different stages of growth; it is still alive, growing, and of the same species as us, human. If life begins at conception then I consider all life in whatever stage it is in to be equally valuable, and deserving of human rights.
Many people are comfortable with abortion 2 days after conception, but not after the unborn could survive outside of the womb. This has led many to state that human life begins at viability. There are many issues with this logically. Viability is a moving target, a premature baby in rural West-Virginia may not get the same chance of living as one born at a state of the art facility simply because of the technology available. Is the baby who was delivered successfully in one place not viable in WV, not a human life? Premature babies survive earlier and with a higher success rate, every year as the technology progresses.
I have argued with many people who consider that life begins at birth. I find this idea to be preposterous because obviously, a baby one, two, or three weeks before birth has a high chance of surviving outside of the womb. An unborn child two days before birth is not a human? If the moment they go through the birth canal is the only thing that makes us human we are ignoring all the developmental process those babies went through to get to that place where the exit the birth canal. It is like considering a tadpole to not be a tadpole until the moment it goes on land; despite the fact that it was underwater developing limbs for a significant time.
I believe in free choice. With the exception of rape, women can choose to become pregnant or not. Birth Control ( which is essentially a calculated risk because of course birth control is fallible), Not having sex, giving her child up for adoption are all options that she can make. While i sympathize with the situations behind why a woman feels she needs to have an abortion, they never outweigh the fact that the act is still murder. When do I believe abortion is acceptable? When the woman is in mortal peril ( I believe JimmiLC outlined some difficulties to determining this, and I accept that it is a difficult situation to determine and I will do more research about how that is legislated). Rape is a very difficult topic, and while I feel like it puts an enormous strain on a young woman to carry a child when they didn't choose it especially at a young age, taking another life is still not morally right even when a woman has been violated in such a heinous way. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Watching my twitter feed during the Alabama decision I knew that the only thing people would take away is, "LOOK a bunch of old white southern men are telling women what to do, they're trying to take us back to the medieval times!!" 1. It's not a woman's body we are talking about. 2. The race, sex, regional upbringing, religion, etc of those making the decision should not be the thing under question.
For the first issue, we are not talking about a part of the woman's body, but rather an unique life that is developing inside of her. Does a woman's body have twenty toes or two brains? No, the mother's body is playing the role of a special provider for the unborn child. This relationship, often incorrectly classified as parasitic, is a special symbiotic one but the child still retains its autonomy as a human life separate from the mother.
Secondly, I wish people would argue this issue on the basis of arguments for a different consideration of when life begins, rather than an emotional, sentimental, and tribal one. Do you disagree with the Alabama senate? Fine, then articulate how you think that a fetus isn't a human, but don't attack the religion or race of the state senators in Alabama. It is no different from me saying, "The black liberals in Philly raised the bridge tax again" That is a racist statement! Instead of arguing, "I think that raising taxes on the bridge toll negatively affects the working class who travel across this bridge multiple times a day." I attacked them on the basis of their race and political leaning. Saying White men should have no say in the politics of abortion is the same thing.
Sorry, this is un-exhaustive and rambly. If people respond to this I will do my best to give it a thought through reponse, but my response time may not be very fast. White men, historically (especially in American history) have had their fingers in just about everything, many of which were extremely harmful, controlling, and yes... murderous. That is simply an objective fact, rather than an emotional argument. For example, we have a factual history of the genocide of the native American people, the stealing of their land, the slavery of African Americans (also rape/murder of many of them), and the denial of much of American women's right... such as that to vote and have equal pay. White men don't really have a legitimate leg to stand on in almost any argument about rights, as they have historically in America been basically the primary offenders. I say this as an American white man . Well it's an odd thing to say considering the vastly higher in percentage terms of Black & Hispanic babies that are aborted.So it's white people wanting to bring those minority babies into the world. Personally I'm not going to hold Turkish people alive today responsible for the Armenian genocide either. Time to leave the identity politics stuff behind.
If Webster's dictionary doesn't have a definition for "white privilege" yet, I shall submit them your post asap.
You can take that position, though it's not accurate or complete in its understanding. You're comments only make sense if every generation is born on a completely equal playing field with a fresh balance and start relative to everyone else.
Which is objectively not at all true.
If one group commits genocide on another, it has crippled that group for generations to come, and therefore should have that responsibility inherited into future generations. Because they've skewed the playing field for an unknown amount of generations.
If you were born as a native people in America, you would be born into a long lineage of disadvantage that has extended all the way to the present day, through discrimination, being force to live on a particular small portion of the land that was stolen from you, and many years later after your were given "rights" to that land, the people that gave your those rights renege on that deal and run an oil pipeline through your land because they want to make money and don't care what you think about it.
Take for example the first generation of African Americans born after slavery. Their parents were put into slavery, and then freed and have free children. To say those children were on an equal playing field because they were "born free" is completely inaccurate. Societally they still had to deal with massive discrimination, the trauma of their parents being forced into slavery, probably they lived with some fear that things could go back to the way they were, and likely many other things a white person never had to worry about (hence white privilege). In other words, there was at the very least a ubiquitous trauma that an entire culture of African American people had to endure, because white people abused their power, out of laziness (didn't want to do the work themselves) and greed.
Let's not also forget that women have gone through a very similar path. Men told them when to work (or not work), or vote, or cook, or etc... and we've paid them less, based on nothing other than gender.
As for your first statement, white people might want to bring those babies into the world, and... historically white people have also shown they have 0% interest in anything that happens to those babies while/after they are born. The only thing white people seem to care about are that they are born.
Which is an extremely narrow view that shows a lack of willingness or ability to consider the larger and more complete picture of what will happen after the birth and if it will cause more suffering or not in the world.
|
On May 18 2019 03:33 crms wrote:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1129394914427453442So this is going to be the play with all the recent developments? Just completely ignore reality? Off the top of my head, I know it was well documented President Obama as well as Sally Yates warned him about Flynn, I'm sure there were others. How do you defend this behavior? Seriously?
Yates told him Flynn was vulnerable to Russian blackmail by lying about his contacts, Trump did nothing until Washington Post reported it several weeks later. And he didn't fire Flynn, he let him resign and defended Flynn's character after that several times...
Interestingly newly unredacted filing from prosecutors related to Flynn’s sentencing reveal that Flynn was contacted by not only by the Administration but also by someone connected to Congress in a way that would influence his cooperation. And there's a voicemail tape.
“The defendant informed the government of multiple instances, both before and after his guilty plea, where either he or his attorneys received communications from persons connected to the Administration or Congress that could’ve affected both his willingness to cooperate and the completeness of that cooperation,” according to the newly revealed portion of the filing. “The defendant even provided a voicemail recording of one such communication.”
source
|
On May 18 2019 03:39 ShambhalaWar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 17 2019 22:10 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 15:03 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 17 2019 11:03 Gorgonoth wrote:
I am going to attempt to provide an argument against abortion.
The reason why I believe abortion to be wrong, is that if all life is to be valued; and if life also begins at conception, then abortion is murder.
I don't want to have anything to do with women's lives. I want to protect the unborn child's life. I get to have a say what she does if she is doing something which violates another person's life. We say this all the time when we lock up criminals, we don't want to say anything about their lives unless they do something which is illegal, then they face the consequences of their actions. Murder is illegal, thus abortion should be as well.
This is an argument about when life begins, not about women's reproductive health. All of our lives we are in a process of development, we are always changing and growing, and this process starts at conception. The unborn is clearly growing, starting out from cells and at the later stages of the pregnancy it resembles a human body and in many cases could survive outside of the womb. But all throughout this time of development, the unborn, at whatever stage in its growth; Just as a 1-year-old child and a 9-year-old are in radically different stages of growth; it is still alive, growing, and of the same species as us, human. If life begins at conception then I consider all life in whatever stage it is in to be equally valuable, and deserving of human rights.
Many people are comfortable with abortion 2 days after conception, but not after the unborn could survive outside of the womb. This has led many to state that human life begins at viability. There are many issues with this logically. Viability is a moving target, a premature baby in rural West-Virginia may not get the same chance of living as one born at a state of the art facility simply because of the technology available. Is the baby who was delivered successfully in one place not viable in WV, not a human life? Premature babies survive earlier and with a higher success rate, every year as the technology progresses.
I have argued with many people who consider that life begins at birth. I find this idea to be preposterous because obviously, a baby one, two, or three weeks before birth has a high chance of surviving outside of the womb. An unborn child two days before birth is not a human? If the moment they go through the birth canal is the only thing that makes us human we are ignoring all the developmental process those babies went through to get to that place where the exit the birth canal. It is like considering a tadpole to not be a tadpole until the moment it goes on land; despite the fact that it was underwater developing limbs for a significant time.
I believe in free choice. With the exception of rape, women can choose to become pregnant or not. Birth Control ( which is essentially a calculated risk because of course birth control is fallible), Not having sex, giving her child up for adoption are all options that she can make. While i sympathize with the situations behind why a woman feels she needs to have an abortion, they never outweigh the fact that the act is still murder. When do I believe abortion is acceptable? When the woman is in mortal peril ( I believe JimmiLC outlined some difficulties to determining this, and I accept that it is a difficult situation to determine and I will do more research about how that is legislated). Rape is a very difficult topic, and while I feel like it puts an enormous strain on a young woman to carry a child when they didn't choose it especially at a young age, taking another life is still not morally right even when a woman has been violated in such a heinous way. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Watching my twitter feed during the Alabama decision I knew that the only thing people would take away is, "LOOK a bunch of old white southern men are telling women what to do, they're trying to take us back to the medieval times!!" 1. It's not a woman's body we are talking about. 2. The race, sex, regional upbringing, religion, etc of those making the decision should not be the thing under question.
For the first issue, we are not talking about a part of the woman's body, but rather an unique life that is developing inside of her. Does a woman's body have twenty toes or two brains? No, the mother's body is playing the role of a special provider for the unborn child. This relationship, often incorrectly classified as parasitic, is a special symbiotic one but the child still retains its autonomy as a human life separate from the mother.
Secondly, I wish people would argue this issue on the basis of arguments for a different consideration of when life begins, rather than an emotional, sentimental, and tribal one. Do you disagree with the Alabama senate? Fine, then articulate how you think that a fetus isn't a human, but don't attack the religion or race of the state senators in Alabama. It is no different from me saying, "The black liberals in Philly raised the bridge tax again" That is a racist statement! Instead of arguing, "I think that raising taxes on the bridge toll negatively affects the working class who travel across this bridge multiple times a day." I attacked them on the basis of their race and political leaning. Saying White men should have no say in the politics of abortion is the same thing.
Sorry, this is un-exhaustive and rambly. If people respond to this I will do my best to give it a thought through reponse, but my response time may not be very fast. White men, historically (especially in American history) have had their fingers in just about everything, many of which were extremely harmful, controlling, and yes... murderous. That is simply an objective fact, rather than an emotional argument. For example, we have a factual history of the genocide of the native American people, the stealing of their land, the slavery of African Americans (also rape/murder of many of them), and the denial of much of American women's right... such as that to vote and have equal pay. White men don't really have a legitimate leg to stand on in almost any argument about rights, as they have historically in America been basically the primary offenders. I say this as an American white man . Well it's an odd thing to say considering the vastly higher in percentage terms of Black & Hispanic babies that are aborted.So it's white people wanting to bring those minority babies into the world. Personally I'm not going to hold Turkish people alive today responsible for the Armenian genocide either. Time to leave the identity politics stuff behind. If Webster's dictionary doesn't have a definition for "white privilege" yet, I shall submit them your post asap. You can take that position, though it's not accurate or complete in its understanding. You're comments only make sense if every generation is born on a completely equal playing field with a fresh balance and start relative to everyone else. Which is objectively not at all true. If one group commits genocide on another, it has crippled that group for generations to come, and therefore should have that responsibility inherited into future generations. Because they've skewed the playing field for an unknown amount of generations. If you were born as a native people in America, you would be born into a long lineage of disadvantage that has extended all the way to the present day, through discrimination, being force to live on a particular small portion of the land that was stolen from you, and many years later after your were given "rights" to that land, the people that gave your those rights renege on that deal and run an oil pipeline through your land because they want to make money and don't care what you think about it. Take for example the first generation of African Americans born after slavery. Their parents were put into slavery, and then freed and have free children. To say those children were on an equal playing field because they were "born free" is completely inaccurate. Societally they still had to deal with massive discrimination, the trauma of their parents being forced into slavery, probably they lived with some fear that things could go back to the way they were, and likely many other things a white person never had to worry about (hence white privilege). In other words, there was at the very least a ubiquitous trauma that an entire culture of African American people had to endure, because white people abused their power, out of laziness (didn't want to do the work themselves) and greed. Let's not also forget that women have gone through a very similar path. Men told them when to work (or not work), or vote, or cook, or etc... and we've paid them less, based on nothing other than gender. As for your first statement, white people might want to bring those babies into the world, and... historically white people have also shown they have 0% interest in anything that happens to those babies while/after they are born. The only thing white people seem to care about are that they are born. Which is an extremely narrow view that shows a lack of willingness or ability to consider the larger and more complete picture of what will happen after the birth and if it will cause more suffering or not in the world.
I think the idea was neatly expressed when MLK said, in effect, that to tell black people in America to pull themselves up by their bootstraps is absurd, when you've purposely left them with no boots in the first place.
I think considering it in terms of a playing field which was uneven when we came in is apt. If you sit down to a board game where every player has the same goals and mechanics, but one player has a disadvantage because he happened to sit where the loser of the last game sat, it results in a stilted game that is the fault of no one currently sitting at the table, but if you try to ignore it, the disadvantaged player is in no better a position to compete. If you want to think that who wins and who loses is a reflection of fairness, and a reflection of who played the best game, then the game needs to start level for all the players. The disadvantage that this player did nothing to earn needs to be acknowledged and addressed before you find yourself with a fair game. Closing your eyes and pretending they aren't at a disadvantage only prolongs the situation.
|
On the latest Michael Flynn news, this quote has been making the rounds regarding Devin Nunes:
I wouldn't be even remotely shocked if the person in Congress referred to in that filing was Nunes. Around that period of time was when a lot of focus on him started due to his increasingly bizarre behaviour. He spent a good chunk of 2017 basically running defense for Trump while attempting to throw off the House Intelligence investigation and redirect it elsewhere. There was also that infamous nighttime trip he took to the Whitehouse that never was properly cleared up.
In general for this new Flynn news, I do think it's telling that Trump has already skipped ahead to blatantly lying about it. His literal only defense left for why he kept Flynn on appears to now be to lie about it and hope the public has forgotten about the events that transpired leading up to Flynn's resignation. It's public record that Trump was warned plural times both before and after the election about Flynn being likely compromised.
|
On May 17 2019 12:14 Gorgonoth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 11:18 KwarK wrote:
Gorgonoth, if you're going to invoke the rights of the fetus on its behalf then what is to stop me invoking the rights of your semen on its behalf? The fundamental principle of non-interference in the bodily autonomy of others is at stake here. As a rule we require individuals to advocate for themselves to receive protections. For example if pigs could compellingly argue against bacon we would all be much more reluctant to eat them. But they can't and so they don't receive protections.
Your argument is built upon the claim that while the fetus cannot invoke its own rights it still has those rights and therefore you are morally justified in using force against others to deny them their bodily autonomy to protect the rights of the fetus. Let's suppose that argument works. Why can others not do the same? Why can they not invoke the rights of things you don't acknowledge to provide moral justification for their violence against you? Hey. If I am understanding what you're saying, In order for something to be protected, it must be able to advocate and argue its value for itself. Would this by proxy also mean that any person unable to articulate a defense of himself lose rights? What is stopping the termination of those with mental disabilities since they are not able to advocate for themselves? What is stopping you from invoking my semen's rights on their behalf ( although thanks for the thought) is that they don't receive protection under U.S law, while human life does. I am invoking the right of the fetus because human life is protected In the Bill of Rights and I would mount a defense that life begins at conception. Also, a broader, personal reason being that I believe each human life is valuable. Show nested quote +Your argument is built upon the claim that while the fetus cannot invoke its own rights it still has those rights and therefore you are morally justified in using force against others to deny them their bodily autonomy to protect the rights of the fetus. Let's suppose that argument works. Why can others not do the same? Why can they not invoke the rights of things you don't acknowledge to provide moral justification for their violence against you? Yes, I believe while a fetus can not defend itself it possesses rights because it is human life. I am not sure where you got the idea I advocated using force to stop abortions. I do not believe abortion should be a legal procedure, but If I were to harm a pregnant woman trying to perform an abortion that would not be right either. Others can and do the same to me, and I am glad for it! If I, using my bodily autonomy, use a shotgun to kill someone, I will suffer the consequences for using my bodily autonomy in a way that is harmful to others. When a pregnant mother exercises bodily autonomy in a way that kills another human, that is wrong. The US functions in a way that certain rights are accepted and others not. Human life is accepted as protected, but pigs, or semen or pet rocks are not. If person A says that he acknowledges the rights of pigs, and that I shouldn't eat them, he is entitled to his opinion, but Article 14 of the constitution says human life is protected, not pigs; and if he tried to kill me for doing that, he will face a consequence himself.
What do you say in regard to the harm or suffering a child must endure, which is born into a life where there aren't the parents or resources necessary to provide care, education, a home, food, etc... ?
Is that not wrong by the same standard of harm that would be inflicted upon a fetus?
|
On May 18 2019 04:15 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2019 03:39 ShambhalaWar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 17 2019 22:10 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 15:03 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 17 2019 11:03 Gorgonoth wrote:
I am going to attempt to provide an argument against abortion.
The reason why I believe abortion to be wrong, is that if all life is to be valued; and if life also begins at conception, then abortion is murder.
I don't want to have anything to do with women's lives. I want to protect the unborn child's life. I get to have a say what she does if she is doing something which violates another person's life. We say this all the time when we lock up criminals, we don't want to say anything about their lives unless they do something which is illegal, then they face the consequences of their actions. Murder is illegal, thus abortion should be as well.
This is an argument about when life begins, not about women's reproductive health. All of our lives we are in a process of development, we are always changing and growing, and this process starts at conception. The unborn is clearly growing, starting out from cells and at the later stages of the pregnancy it resembles a human body and in many cases could survive outside of the womb. But all throughout this time of development, the unborn, at whatever stage in its growth; Just as a 1-year-old child and a 9-year-old are in radically different stages of growth; it is still alive, growing, and of the same species as us, human. If life begins at conception then I consider all life in whatever stage it is in to be equally valuable, and deserving of human rights.
Many people are comfortable with abortion 2 days after conception, but not after the unborn could survive outside of the womb. This has led many to state that human life begins at viability. There are many issues with this logically. Viability is a moving target, a premature baby in rural West-Virginia may not get the same chance of living as one born at a state of the art facility simply because of the technology available. Is the baby who was delivered successfully in one place not viable in WV, not a human life? Premature babies survive earlier and with a higher success rate, every year as the technology progresses.
I have argued with many people who consider that life begins at birth. I find this idea to be preposterous because obviously, a baby one, two, or three weeks before birth has a high chance of surviving outside of the womb. An unborn child two days before birth is not a human? If the moment they go through the birth canal is the only thing that makes us human we are ignoring all the developmental process those babies went through to get to that place where the exit the birth canal. It is like considering a tadpole to not be a tadpole until the moment it goes on land; despite the fact that it was underwater developing limbs for a significant time.
I believe in free choice. With the exception of rape, women can choose to become pregnant or not. Birth Control ( which is essentially a calculated risk because of course birth control is fallible), Not having sex, giving her child up for adoption are all options that she can make. While i sympathize with the situations behind why a woman feels she needs to have an abortion, they never outweigh the fact that the act is still murder. When do I believe abortion is acceptable? When the woman is in mortal peril ( I believe JimmiLC outlined some difficulties to determining this, and I accept that it is a difficult situation to determine and I will do more research about how that is legislated). Rape is a very difficult topic, and while I feel like it puts an enormous strain on a young woman to carry a child when they didn't choose it especially at a young age, taking another life is still not morally right even when a woman has been violated in such a heinous way. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Watching my twitter feed during the Alabama decision I knew that the only thing people would take away is, "LOOK a bunch of old white southern men are telling women what to do, they're trying to take us back to the medieval times!!" 1. It's not a woman's body we are talking about. 2. The race, sex, regional upbringing, religion, etc of those making the decision should not be the thing under question.
For the first issue, we are not talking about a part of the woman's body, but rather an unique life that is developing inside of her. Does a woman's body have twenty toes or two brains? No, the mother's body is playing the role of a special provider for the unborn child. This relationship, often incorrectly classified as parasitic, is a special symbiotic one but the child still retains its autonomy as a human life separate from the mother.
Secondly, I wish people would argue this issue on the basis of arguments for a different consideration of when life begins, rather than an emotional, sentimental, and tribal one. Do you disagree with the Alabama senate? Fine, then articulate how you think that a fetus isn't a human, but don't attack the religion or race of the state senators in Alabama. It is no different from me saying, "The black liberals in Philly raised the bridge tax again" That is a racist statement! Instead of arguing, "I think that raising taxes on the bridge toll negatively affects the working class who travel across this bridge multiple times a day." I attacked them on the basis of their race and political leaning. Saying White men should have no say in the politics of abortion is the same thing.
Sorry, this is un-exhaustive and rambly. If people respond to this I will do my best to give it a thought through reponse, but my response time may not be very fast. White men, historically (especially in American history) have had their fingers in just about everything, many of which were extremely harmful, controlling, and yes... murderous. That is simply an objective fact, rather than an emotional argument. For example, we have a factual history of the genocide of the native American people, the stealing of their land, the slavery of African Americans (also rape/murder of many of them), and the denial of much of American women's right... such as that to vote and have equal pay. White men don't really have a legitimate leg to stand on in almost any argument about rights, as they have historically in America been basically the primary offenders. I say this as an American white man . Well it's an odd thing to say considering the vastly higher in percentage terms of Black & Hispanic babies that are aborted.So it's white people wanting to bring those minority babies into the world. Personally I'm not going to hold Turkish people alive today responsible for the Armenian genocide either. Time to leave the identity politics stuff behind. If Webster's dictionary doesn't have a definition for "white privilege" yet, I shall submit them your post asap. You can take that position, though it's not accurate or complete in its understanding. You're comments only make sense if every generation is born on a completely equal playing field with a fresh balance and start relative to everyone else. Which is objectively not at all true. If one group commits genocide on another, it has crippled that group for generations to come, and therefore should have that responsibility inherited into future generations. Because they've skewed the playing field for an unknown amount of generations. If you were born as a native people in America, you would be born into a long lineage of disadvantage that has extended all the way to the present day, through discrimination, being force to live on a particular small portion of the land that was stolen from you, and many years later after your were given "rights" to that land, the people that gave your those rights renege on that deal and run an oil pipeline through your land because they want to make money and don't care what you think about it. Take for example the first generation of African Americans born after slavery. Their parents were put into slavery, and then freed and have free children. To say those children were on an equal playing field because they were "born free" is completely inaccurate. Societally they still had to deal with massive discrimination, the trauma of their parents being forced into slavery, probably they lived with some fear that things could go back to the way they were, and likely many other things a white person never had to worry about (hence white privilege). In other words, there was at the very least a ubiquitous trauma that an entire culture of African American people had to endure, because white people abused their power, out of laziness (didn't want to do the work themselves) and greed. Let's not also forget that women have gone through a very similar path. Men told them when to work (or not work), or vote, or cook, or etc... and we've paid them less, based on nothing other than gender. As for your first statement, white people might want to bring those babies into the world, and... historically white people have also shown they have 0% interest in anything that happens to those babies while/after they are born. The only thing white people seem to care about are that they are born. Which is an extremely narrow view that shows a lack of willingness or ability to consider the larger and more complete picture of what will happen after the birth and if it will cause more suffering or not in the world. I think the idea was neatly expressed when MLK said, in effect, that to tell black people in America to pull themselves up by their bootstraps is absurd, when you've purposely left them with no boots in the first place. I think considering it in terms of a playing field which was uneven when we came in is apt. If you sit down to a board game where every player has the same goals and mechanics, but one player has a disadvantage because he happened to sit where the loser of the last game sat, it results in a stilted game that is the fault of no one currently sitting at the table, but if you try to ignore it, the disadvantaged player is in no better a position to compete. If you want to think that who wins and who loses is a reflection of fairness, and a reflection of who played the best game, then the game needs to start level for all the players. The disadvantage that this player did nothing to earn needs to be acknowledged and addressed before you find yourself with a fair game. Closing your eyes and pretending they aren't at a disadvantage only prolongs the situation.
Yes, I especially like the MLK reference, and you did a good job of laying out a fair analogy for the same circumstances.
|
On May 17 2019 13:10 Gorgonoth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 12:42 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 12:35 Gorgonoth wrote:On May 17 2019 11:51 Kyadytim wrote:
My biggest issue with the "we need to protect the fetuses" argument is that if people were really passionate about protecting fertilized eggs as human beings to the extent that anti-abortion activism demonstrates, there would be some visible level of passion towards providing better neonatal care and better health care for pregnant women from those people. If anything, there's strong correlation between strong opposition to abortion and opposition to things like better access to better neonatal, laws that make it easier for a pregnant woman to shift to lighter work while pregnant, etc.
Gorgonoth may or may not really believe that a person is a person from conception, but the overwhelming majority of people professing that belief are lying through their teeth when they say that it's their primary motivation for wanting to ban abortion, as demonstrated by the anti-abortion movement's apathy towards other things that would help the not yet born while also improving the quality of life of the expectant mother. The "we need to protect the fetuses" argument is based on arguing for A) when life begins B) that human life is valuable. You seem to be insinuating that the validity of this argument is determined on the arguers' emotional response towards the issues of women's health (neonatal and pregnant health care) And you make a correlation, (one which I can neither refute or agree with because I have no data on whether that is true) between those who make pro-life arguments and opposition to these QOL laws for pregnant women. To be clear, Yes, yes and yes we should be doing way more for pregnant women and supporting them much more. However, the lack or abundance of this empathy does not itself mean affect the validity of the pro-life argument.
The same is true of me as well, If I am considering a principle, say UBI, my support or lack of support for it should not be based on the type of people who support it. Correlation is not causation. Just because all UBI supporters I come across seem arrogant( not true) and stuck up does not mean that this makes UBI any more or less valid. You can't live in America and have no data on whether pro-lifers are supportive of increasing access to medical care and maternity leave. Both issues are very clearly delineated by party and you know damn well how the pro-life party feels about Federally mandated maternity leave. You're pleading ignorance in lieu of conceding the point. The point stands either way, the plea of ignorance just makes you either stupid, dishonest, or both. So you are now just attacking my character, but it doesn't bother me because you are just proving my point that I laid out in my original argument. The reason I said that I had no data is the point I was making is irrelevant to the whatever the data would say. Even if we conceded that the GOP's entire policy is horrible towards pregnant women etc. That dosen't matter to the core of the argument about abortion. That is why I said To be clear, Yes, yes and yes we should be doing way more for pregnant women and supporting them much more. However, the lack or abundance of this empathy does not itself mean affect the validity of the pro-life argument.
Should pro-life supporters also support access to medical care for pregnant women? Yes! If they do not, does this mean that their pro-life argument is invalid? No! I am not going to sweepingly agree to data that I haven't looked carefully over yet. It really dosen't bother me that you think I am ignorant because I wouldn't clearly come down on one side or another about which party does the worst.
In this train of logic, if you are willing to enact legislation to prevent abortion prior to enacting legislation that would support all the pregnant women who will carry to term, then you are supporting all the pain and suffering that will result from not providing the needed support.
Which history has shown, will actually cause people to die from improper care.
I would argue that is what you are supporting to satisfy your morale stand point of where you think life actual begins.
|
This is all a plan to curb that growing population. If legislation is introducdd that instills fear and doubt of reproducing, then the food and water supply will last longer.
Easy conclusion to deduce once you lobotomize yourself to the actual truth.
|
On May 17 2019 23:49 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 21:20 iamthedave wrote:On May 17 2019 14:58 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 14:25 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 13:54 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 13:48 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 13:42 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 13:37 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 13:29 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 13:19 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Who are these reasonable people who believe that an embryo is the same thing as a fully grown human being? Care to name any? I gave you a number of outs. You can go with "an embryo is not a part of the mother because it has distinct DNA". You can go with "an embryo has value because of its potential to become a human being, given time and nutrients". But if you really want to play this game then please go on and quote the ones who believe that an embryo is already the same thing.
You attack me for dismissing the idea out of hand as obviously unreasonable. If I'm wrong then tell me why.
As for forfeiting rights, that's barely any better. Again, they clearly do not believe they have forfeited the castle and you clearly do not believe they have quit the castle because you're sending the police in to take them by force. Better to say that you believe that they should have forfeited and that based upon that belief you are sending armed men to strip them of the right. "Same thing" is vague and not really what I said. I didn't take the "outs" because you declared it unreasonable already. I wanted us to acknowledge the real issue and you came back it said it's not up for discussion, so ok then! You’re still not arguing your point. If you’re not going to argue it then what are you doing here? Apparently you believe so strongly in the humanness of fetuses that you want to send armed men to police the conduct of pregnant women, but you’re not willing to go into why? I made my main point (i.e. what the abortion debate is actually about) and you declared one of the premises flat out unreasonable. So no. And the bolded part more evidence. That's a caricature and you know it (yes, I totally want a police state). Carry on. It’s not a caricature. If you want the law enforced by police, as you do, then you’re arguing for state sanctioned violence to be used against those who break it. I know we’ve trodden this ground before. Last time you conceded that you did want the police to enforce it so I’m not sure why you’re now denying that you want the law enforced. The law I want doesn't involve roving bands of law enforcement officers, which is what your description implied. However, I do want laws that penalize doctors who perform abortions, yes. I hope we're clear and I need not say more. I note you’re still refusing to get into the discussion of the question and are still insisting on feigning outrage whenever I accurately characterize your position as one that requires enforcement. I’ll restate an earlier post. I think it’s unreasonable because I think we all instinctively know that there is a difference between a baby and a fertilized egg. That a miscarriage at 1 month after conception is less awful than the baby dying at 1 month after birth. That a test tube with two embryos in it should be left to burn if it allows us to save an infant. I said it’s unreasonable because I think we’re all agreed that while potential life is precious it’s not as precious as when it enters the world. Are we not agreed? I told you why I'm not going to discuss it with you. However your hypo is not as illuminating as it appears at first glance. By way of example: most pro-lifers support exceptions for (legitimate) life-of-the-mother concerns. Sometime choices must be made. I don't think potentiality has a lot to do with it. I think exposure to pain or other such concerns must be considered (I would not begrudge a man who asks the doctors to save his wife at the expense of his unborn child). It's not because one is worth less. It's not because one is worth more. It's because numbers are only one concern. As I said, it's a balancing act of rights. Under the position you were advocating previously, if there was one embryo in the blaze and no one else it would not be worth a firefighter risking his life to get it. Someone on my side would disagree strongly. The only absolutism here is "does a fetus have rights?" And as I have said, this is the question of the abortion debate. If that were agreed to everything else is merely a question of degree. Killing for convenience is murder. Going to bed a wee bit early today, I may or may not come back to this. Nonetheless, I hope I have at least plausibly addressed your hypothetical situation. No it isn't. The question of the debate is 'do the fetus's rights trump those of the mother'. This isn't 'does a woman have the right to murder a person' it's 'does a person have the right to take over the woman's body for nine months without her say so and then claim twenty odd years of her life, potentially leave her with all kinds of maladies and change her body chemistry personally'. And no, a fetus's rights should not trump those of its mother. The state has no right to claim the mother's body as its property once she's pregnant. Attempting to reframe the argument doesn't get Conservatives away from this central hypocrisy. Please tell me if I understand your position correctly. My impression is that you're attributing personhood to the being that "takes over the body" of its mother for nine months, and still saying that the being's existence is less important than the rights of the being's mother. I'm askimg because people who support abortion usually deny the personhood of the aborted.
In this instance I am because that is the current framing of the debate. The position of the Right is that the fetus is a person and has the unalienable rights that a person is meant to have. So my framing is in respect of that.
I disagree entirely with that position, but that is the question at the heart of the debate as I see it.
EDIT: Also what Kwark said.
|
Barr appears to have gone unabashedly political with this interview. By all appearances he applied for the job in order to take action against the Russia investigation. His approval of the phrase "witch hunt," and the way he worded this, implies that his own belief is that trump was set up under false pretenses. In other words, he has prejudged the evidence and intends to act as a counterweight to the investigation.
Last year he also stated to a reporter that if the DOJ isn't investigating Hillarys involvement in uranium one, it is "abdicating its responsibility." When Kamala Harris asked him in a hearing if anyone has suggested that he initiate any particular investigations, he said "I'm struggling with the word suggest and so I dont know." Which is an admission that someone has suggested that he initiate particular investigations.
|
According to court reports the NYPD supervisor (of the officer who killed Eric Garner) referred to the homicide of Eric Garner for allegedly selling loose cigarettes by Pantaleo as "not a big deal" because it was "lawful".
A New York Police Department supervisor called the death of Eric Garner — killed during an arrest for selling loose cigarettes — "not a big deal," according to testimony at the departmental trial of the officer who applied a deadly chokehold.
After Daniel Pantaleo choked Garner from behind before three officers tackled him, Sgt. Dhanan Saminath told Lt. Christopher Brannon in a text message that Garner was “most likely DOA ... he has no pulse,” according to evidence presented Thursday, the Staten Island Advance and New York Times both reported.
That's when Lt. Brannon responded, “Not a big deal, we were effecting a lawful arrest," both newspapers reported. When the text message was read out loud, gasps and cries could be heard from the courtroom audience, the papers said.
www.nbcnews.com
|
United States42259 Posts
|
On May 18 2019 10:54 Doodsmack wrote:Barr appears to have gone unabashedly political with this interview. By all appearances he applied for the job in order to take action against the Russia investigation. His approval of the phrase "witch hunt," and the way he worded this, implies that his own belief is that trump was set up under false pretenses. In other words, he has prejudged the evidence and intends to act as a counterweight to the investigation. Last year he also stated to a reporter that if the DOJ isn't investigating Hillarys involvement in uranium one, it is "abdicating its responsibility." When Kamala Harris asked him in a hearing if anyone has suggested that he initiate any particular investigations, he said "I'm struggling with the word suggest and so I dont know." Which is an admission that someone has suggested that he initiate particular investigations. https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1129527576064679936
I saw no such implication. A president in the position of a long, intrusive investigation who knows he is innocent of the charges would feel like he had been the subject of a witch hunt. I think people saying the president would have no reason to have those feelings in his position are really stretching. Obviously, many do still make these stretches, but that’s become more common and accepted in certain bubbles.
|
On May 18 2019 14:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2019 10:54 Doodsmack wrote:Barr appears to have gone unabashedly political with this interview. By all appearances he applied for the job in order to take action against the Russia investigation. His approval of the phrase "witch hunt," and the way he worded this, implies that his own belief is that trump was set up under false pretenses. In other words, he has prejudged the evidence and intends to act as a counterweight to the investigation. Last year he also stated to a reporter that if the DOJ isn't investigating Hillarys involvement in uranium one, it is "abdicating its responsibility." When Kamala Harris asked him in a hearing if anyone has suggested that he initiate any particular investigations, he said "I'm struggling with the word suggest and so I dont know." Which is an admission that someone has suggested that he initiate particular investigations. https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1129527576064679936 I saw no such implication. A president in the position of a long, intrusive investigation who knows he is innocent of the charges would feel like he had been the subject of a witch hunt. I think people saying the president would have no reason to have those feelings in his position are really stretching. Obviously, many do still make these stretches, but that’s become more common and accepted in certain bubbles.
Barr is a stooge who isnt even trying to hide how biased he is anymore. He has the audacity to sit there and lie to the country by saying the investigation actually proved Trump didnt conspire with the Russians (a Trump talking point/lie, like how he was exonerated on obstruction). Barr sure likes using WH talking points. Weird.
Still, I find your insistence on Trump knowing the charges from the start to be false amusing. You realize that since Trump stated it as a fact then there is like a 70% chance it's not true, right? Maybe you haven't noticed, despite us pointing it out constantly, but ALMOST EVERYTHING THE PRESIDENT SAYS IS FUCKING LIE. At what point do you stop giving him the benefit of the doubt? You really think he has lied about every subject he has ever talked EXCEPT this one? You really think he is perfectly clean on this issue, even after reading the report? Even you must see that he is a conman on some level. This is what conmen do.
Hell, he lies so much that when he says he didnt conspire with the Russians it should be presumed he did until he actively proves otherwise. That is a much more appropriate response to the unprecedented level of deception coming out of this WH.
Well, as someone said earlier he gave you a pair of SCOTUS seats, so I guess he gets a pass for life.
|
On May 18 2019 16:02 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2019 14:29 Danglars wrote:On May 18 2019 10:54 Doodsmack wrote:Barr appears to have gone unabashedly political with this interview. By all appearances he applied for the job in order to take action against the Russia investigation. His approval of the phrase "witch hunt," and the way he worded this, implies that his own belief is that trump was set up under false pretenses. In other words, he has prejudged the evidence and intends to act as a counterweight to the investigation. Last year he also stated to a reporter that if the DOJ isn't investigating Hillarys involvement in uranium one, it is "abdicating its responsibility." When Kamala Harris asked him in a hearing if anyone has suggested that he initiate any particular investigations, he said "I'm struggling with the word suggest and so I dont know." Which is an admission that someone has suggested that he initiate particular investigations. https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1129527576064679936 I saw no such implication. A president in the position of a long, intrusive investigation who knows he is innocent of the charges would feel like he had been the subject of a witch hunt. I think people saying the president would have no reason to have those feelings in his position are really stretching. Obviously, many do still make these stretches, but that’s become more common and accepted in certain bubbles. Barr is a stooge who isnt even trying to hide how biased he is anymore. He has the audacity to sit there and lie to the country by saying the investigation actually proved Trump didnt conspire with the Russians (a Trump talking point/lie, like how he was exonerated on obstruction). Barr sure likes using WH talking points. Weird. Still, I find your insistence on Trump knowing the charges from the start to be false amusing. You realize that since Trump stated it as a fact then there is like a 70% chance it's not true, right? Maybe you haven't noticed, despite us pointing it out constantly, but ALMOST EVERYTHING THE PRESIDENT SAYS IS FUCKING LIE. At what point do you stop giving him the benefit of the doubt? You really think he has lied about every subject he has ever talked EXCEPT this one? You really think he is perfectly clean on this issue, even after reading the report? Even you must see that he is a conman on some level. This is what conmen do. Hell, he lies so much that when he says he didnt conspire with the Russians it should be presumed he did until he actively proves otherwise. That is a much more appropriate response to the unprecedented level of deception coming out of this WH. Well, as someone said earlier he gave you a pair of SCOTUS seats, so I guess he gets a pass for life.
It's important to note - as unbelievable as it sounds - that there are plenty of people on the right who genuinely believe Trump is honest. XDaunt has advanced the claim that Trump has never told 'a significant' lie, which is a very powerful qualifier (how to define 'significant').
Truth has a liberal bias now has renewed meaning, because the right's outright decided they don't need it anymore. Lots of them aren't joking when they talk about alternate facts. That's their reality, and screw the one other people live in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
