• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015 |OT2| Pls print

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

User 406

Banned
Coriolanus said:
Did serve to get me curious about "conservative feminism", (since the expression "left-wing feminism" struck me as odd af) which i didn't even know was a thing. Concern trolling everywhere.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia said:
Posner tentatively argues for taxing housewives' at-home unpaid work to reduce a barrier to paid outside work [...] and argues for sex being a factor in setting wages and benefits in accordance with productivity, health costs with pregnancy, on-the-job safety, and longevity for pensions.
Click to expand...

dogdance5ez4jp.gif~original
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
QuiteWhittle said:
187039898Such views highlight the resonance and reach of the opiate epidemic — but also a persistent racial and geographic divide in American politics. The heroin epidemic has overwhelmingly hit whites. It has also skyrocketed to the top of voters’ lists of political priorities in the same bands of America — rural states, the suburbs and notably the early voting state of New Hampshire — that track directly with where Republicans must perform well to win back the White House next year.[/URL]
Click to expand...

Okay, how the heck are Republicans going to argue that it's okay to treat something like HEROINE as a medical issue, but treat something like weed, which I'm pretty sure everyone agrees is less harmful than heroine, as a criminal matter?



Makai said:
Good stuff. So...why do high profile Republicans want to get rid of it? This is the agency Rick Perry oopsed. I'm assuming Ted Cruz and gang are not supervillains. Is nuclear weapon and reactor development a free market issue?
Click to expand...

Clean energy. That's pretty much it.
 
D

Daniel B·

Banned
For those that can still see my posts ;), a couple awesome Bernie music vids (video links):

Bernie Sanders - Our Last Chance, by Sharon Grace Heiser, with the help of Matthew Grimm and featuring his excellent cover of Love Ire & Song:



Bernie Sanders - US, by Wautil. The sheer variety of characters in this video is awe inspiring:

 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Here's your feel good story of the day. CJ Pearson, the most recent little right-wing wunderkind has renounced his conservatism:

Washington (CNN)The 13-year-old Internet phenom who gained national attention criticizing President Barack Obama and briefly was a part of the Ted Cruz campaign is renouncing conservatism, saying he's looking to be a voice unbound by party ideology.

CJ Pearson told CNN on Friday that concerns about the Republican Party's viewpoints on racial and gender disparity as well as youth issues convinced him he could no longer be a mouthpiece for conservatism.

"I was tired of being a champion of a party that turned a blind eye to racial discrimination. Tired of being a champion of any cause that denies equal rights to every American. Tired of being a champion of a party that doesn't care about the issues important to young people," Pearson wrote in an email.

The 13-year-old, African-American YouTube star from Georgia said in an interview that he began considering the change after a conversation with another teen friend, who asked why he doesn't speak out on racial discrimination -- to which he replied he was concerned his followers wouldn't be pleased.
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/27/politics/cj-pearson-conservative-teen-renounces-republicans/index.html

Seems the incident with the kid who got shot 16 times by a cop pushed him over the edge.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
...okay, I'll admit I straight up died at this one. We just reached Peak Election, there is nothing left.

EDIT: Wow, and this is actually pretty decent quality, too.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
The day after a gunman killed three people and shot nine others at a Colorado Planned Parenthood office, officials tell NBC News a motive remains unclear, but say the suspect talked about politics and abortion.

Robert Lewis Dear, a North Carolina native who was living in a trailer in Colorado, made statements to police Friday at the scene of the Colorado Springs clinic and in interviews that law enforcement sources described as rantings.

In one statement, made after the suspect was taken in for questioning, Dear said "no more baby parts" in reference to Planned Parenthood, according to two law enforcement sources with knowledge of the case.

But the sources stressed that Dear said many things to law enforcement and the extent to which the "baby parts" remark played into any decision to target the Planned Parenthood office was not yet clear. He also mentioned President Barack Obama in statements.
Click to expand...

WE MAY NEVER KNOW WHY THIS GENTLEMEN WOULD DO THESE THINGS:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...spect-made-comment-about-no-more-baby-n470706
 
Tarkus

Tarkus

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
WE MAY NEVER KNOW WHY THIS GENTLEMEN WOULD DO THESE THINGS:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...spect-made-comment-about-no-more-baby-n470706
Click to expand...
It's right wing terrorism. Period.

I just spoke with a class 3 gun dealer about how this guy got a fully automatic AK-47. What's bad is how easy it is here in GA, with the laws being very similar in NC, where the terrorist is from. All you need to do is file a special form with a class 3 dealer that goes to the ATF, wait about 7 months for processing and background checking, and pay about $18K-$22K for a rifle with a $200 fee for a special tag,

Why the fuck can any Joe Blow citizen with no felonies or mental health issues legally buy and carry a machine gun, so long as you have the dough and time? I'm not a gun control advocate by any means, but this is just ridiculous.
 
D

dabig2

Member
Tamanon said:
To be fair, he could've been saying "no, more baby parts" and was there to encourage PP. Could just be a big misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking false flag attack. Not like Obama isn't known for them. He forced Dylann Roof to aid him in the ongoing race war, Adam Lanza in the ongoing gun control war, and now this in the ongoing Planned Parenthood war. I can only imagine what Obama thinks up for climate change!
 
P

pigeon

Banned
As with every time abortion comes up, I want to remind people that the topic is only 50/50 if the question is "do you identify as pro-choice or pro-life?"

When you get into detail, the majority position is that abortion should sometimes be legal and sometimes be illegal -- i.e., the topic is nuanced. Most Americans agree that abortion should be legal in the first trimester, in the event of a medical emergency, in the event of rape or incest, or if the baby is likely be disabled; most Americans agree that abortion should generally be illegal in the later trimesters or if the reason is primarily economic. (Unfortunately there's no crosstabs for, e.g. whether first trimester is more important than economic reasons, or whether a third-trimester abortion would be okay if the baby is incestuous, or whatever. But it's clear that it's nuanced.)

Unfortunately most Americans also support most laws that make abortion difficult -- waiting periods, notifications, ultrasounds, etc. I tend to think that a lot of this stuff is targeted at the theoretical woman who uses abortion as birth control -- as always, fear of the uncommon stranger drives policy much more than it should. But the point is that there's no reason to assume America is severely divided on abortion. It generally isn't. It thinks abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. And apparently somewhat painful.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Sea Manky said:
The best part is the stock photo of some dude's clasped hands complete with hairy forearms and watermark with the thumbs on the wrong end.

Everyone who was working on a debate OT, get lost. Retromelon is now in charge of all of them, powered by Deviantart.
Click to expand...
Everything about that photo is fucking awesome, and yes, another vote for Retromelon powered debate.
 
E

ElectricThunder

Member
icarus-daedelus said:
I realize that I'm taking these bits out of context and I don't particularly mean to comment on the rest of your post, but abortion of the kind practiced by your average Planned Parenthood doctor, versus a desperate woman in her bathroom with a coat hanger, is not actually a medically risky procedure at all, and in fact, is quite safe for a surgery (not requiring general anesthesia or anything of that nature.) Certainly first-term abortions - by far the most common - are safer and carry with them lower mortality rates for mothers than allowing a pregnancy to come to term.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was looking at abortion on the whole---the earlier it happens, definitely gets about as close to perfect as you can get in terms of mitigating risk(I mean, I've seen folks equate the morning after pill and the like to the lot of this, somehow~). Mid to late term though, from what I think is the current state of affairs on the presumption of competent care being duly rendered, definitely still ramps up quite a bit even if the medical science and understanding is waay beyond say, back in the 50's. I can't fathom the sort of breakthroughs that would allow for even late term to be on par with first trimester, but with time and research there's hope that it too will get there especially when the likes of emergency complications in pregnancy arise right towards the end are far from impossible.

Main crux of that, as it was, was tied to how making it merely illegal will lead to only the coat hanger and whatnot approach, or worse(you get into medical underground anything, especially involving young women, you get human trafficking in the mix which is a whole other layer of terrible...)---which while I suppose has been a "norm" in some parts of the world still doesn't make it a standard to at all be aspired to down there in the shit heap.

pigeon is right that much of this has been worked over by the PR machinations and whatnot in terms of framing as opposed to any sort of realistic pragmatism or even just taking it down to basic damned triage.
 
R

Retromelon

Member
You all are too nice.
Never been the type to clamor over thread making, but if the people demand it..If I make it, it won't have a theme. I don't dabble in that pop culture ish. (no shade)
Marco Rubio will get the treatment he deserves in a retro debate thread. Of that you can be sure

Manky I don't know how something like that would play out. Im not going to just shop a super saiyan hairstyle on top of trump, or jeb bush as dead yamcha, its not that easy. Im not trying to become the laughingstock of neogaf here.
 
U

User 406

Banned
Retromelon said:
You all are too nice.
Never been the type to clamor over thread making, but if the people demand it..If I make it, it won't have a theme. I don't dabble in that pop culture ish. (no shade)
Marco Rubio will get the treatment he deserves in a retro debate thread. Of that you can be sure
Click to expand...

The+Silence+of+the+Lambs+lotion+in+basket.jpg


IT PUTS THE SONIC/DBZ FANART ON THE THREAD OR ELSE IT GETS THE HOSE AGAIN
 
S

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
What about first reply as a rebuttal to the OP, like the State of the Union rebuttals.

Retromelon will come correct with a tiny little water bottle and everything to support Rubio.
 
R

Retromelon

Member
It's fine, makai wants it a great deal more than I do. I don't make threads very often.

And im afraid you have me all wrong scola, rubio is the worst of them all. (imo)
 
M

Makai

Member
Debate format just announced

Location – The Venetian, Las Vegas, Nevada

Moderators – Wolf Blitzer, Dana Bash, Hugh Hewitt

Who’s in – Main segment: All candidates with a recent polling average of at least 3.5 percent nationally, 4 percent in Iowa or 4 percent in New Hampshire. Secondary: Remaining candidates reaching at least 1 percent in four separate national, Iowa or New Hampshire polls.
Click to expand...
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Giant Panda said:
The fact that many people push for only one, and ignore or oppose the other, does show that for these people there is an interest or belief that is taking precedence over their purported belief of stopping murder. If reducing murder was their goal, then banning and sex education would be top priorities. When people don't advocate both, they show that really they care more about enforcing their narrow and burdensome religious on others.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. A person needn't support Liberal Policy X to oppose (what they view as) murder. It isn't hypocrisy to oppose both abortion and sex education, e.g.--a fact that becomes apparent when you stop and realize that sex education and carrying a baby to term are not the same thing. For instance, a person can oppose abortion, because they consider it murder, and oppose comprehensive sex education because they consider it to condone immoral behavior. There's no inconsistency in those two stances. This conflation of the two is liberal fantasy masquerading as thoughtful criticism.

Giant Panda said:
I also find it hypocritical that these conservatives are the same ones that say just adding laws to the books for guns will just push guns into the black market.
Click to expand...

Are they? Or might different conservatives believe different things about different subjects? And we could turn this argument around, of course: "I find it hypocritical that liberals who say abortion would only become more dangerous if it were illegal are the same ones that say just adding laws to the books for guns will eradicate gun violence." In any event, I find neither combination of beliefs hypocritical. In either case, a person can value the two (abortion and firearms) differently, so that the benefits of limiting availability to illegal markets outweigh the harms of doing so only with respect to one, and not the other. (E.g., "Abortion is murder, so it's more important to reduce its incidence than to provide a safe and easy method of procuring it; but guns empower the weak to defend themselves, so it's more important to provide for their safe and easy acquisition than to reduce their availability," or vice versa.)

ElectricThunder said:
This on the other hand: Holy shit that's a lot of agenda setting and putting words in my mouth as if I'd launched into a baseless personal attack on you! I know I don't post in here as often as I used to and am generally an outlier, but jeez come on now.
Click to expand...

It's nothing personal. You're just wrong.

ElectricThunder said:
[1]-First point: Wrong and suspect kind of imaginative---don't believe I said a word about banning abortion?

Abortion is risky business at the current state of modern medicine, but what is absolutely riskier by far is some shady back alley "provider" or D.I.Y. nonsense---the sum of it just "make it super illegal, case closed" is death and tremendous suffering, both absolutely needless and it takes a craven and callous mind to be okay with such a statistical damnation of women in general.

. . .

[2]Point 2: ...Um, both the "liberal" and "conservative" wings in the spectrum here in the US have been abject failure on eradicating poverty? Both should be working tirelessly for it/shouldn't have emboldened policies that exacerbate it for the last several decades, but it isn't quite the same sort of scenario on hand as if there were folks Worked Up About It the wrong way blowing up homeless shelters and food banks. Welcome to a highly disappointing America that has continued to fail to live up to the inherent potential for the good of the common public from the most vulnerable on up? You seem to think I'm something/somewhere else maybe?

[3]Our politics are so polarized, due in large part to the already troubling reductionist notion of The 2 Sides being a thing, mainly on account of each side's more powerful and active folks actually being relatively OK with the Status Quo for various, oft compartmentalized reasons or are stuck in paralysis faced with the towering mass of problems that've been heaped up for decades now while they await for winds on a weathervane to serve as an appeal to authority to make it all better. In this particular case, the "Pro-Life" side has pretty much consistently won out big time outside of not yet wiping Roe v Wade---both the general discourse and reactions to their catalytic events pretty much favor them to keep on with the Sisyphean routine, be an ever-useful voting bloc upon some magic words, and never really get any serious consequences heaped upon them beyond each lone-nut-in-a-vacuum sometimes getting caught/arrested and such. Lots of money and influence in the anti-abortion movement alongside all that emotional investment/exploitation makes for some sweet ass sunk cost misadventure.

[4]Final point: Oh. Well, the part where you say I said "religious instruction is child abuse" isn't the same thing at all as when I actually said "religious groups forcing their norms on the young". My, what I thought was a clearly branching point amidst the various other examples, was aimed squarely at those groups that have a penchant for the whole women as chattel thing and lean towards starting with the young flesh on that abusive nonsense.
Click to expand...

[1] So what? How does your criticism here affect this argument? The problem is that you're projecting your own beliefs about how abortion could be reduced on people who, at the outset, disagree with you about abortion. Through this unacknowledged sleight of hand, you pretend that their refusal to endorse your preferred policies reveals some ulterior motives on their part.

It goes without saying that pro-life individuals oppose back-alley abortions as strongly as abortions performed legally today. Analogously, that we could require all murders to be committed with painless lethal injection, if only murder were legal, is no argument for ending its prohibition.

[2] Again, so what? It's an analogy, and it works insofar as I used it. Whether poverty exists or not, and whether this-or-that policy is effective at alleviating it or not, is immaterial. What matters is the argument being made--claiming that a person doesn't really believe what he or she purports to believe because he or she doesn't further believe some additional disputed argument or another.

[3] What?

[4] If I misread you here, I apologize. You wouldn't be the first to make the religion-as-child-abuse argument.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
Nonsense. A person needn't support Liberal Policy X to oppose (what they view as) murder. It isn't hypocrisy to oppose both abortion and sex education, e.g.--a fact that becomes apparent when you stop and realize that sex education and carrying a baby to term are not the same thing. For instance, a person can oppose abortion, because they consider it murder, and oppose comprehensive sex education because they consider it to condone immoral behavior. There's no inconsistency in those two stances. This conflation of the two is liberal fantasy masquerading as thoughtful criticism.
Click to expand...

If you ignore what the results of opposing sex ed will be, sure. Forest, trees, etc.

But hey meta, now that El Jebo crashed and burned and The Rub seems to be going nowhere, excited for Trump? :D
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Coriolanus said:
If you ignore what the results of opposing sex ed will be, sure. Forest, trees, etc.
Click to expand...

No, he's technically right. They see abortion as morally wrong, but they also see sexual activity as wrong, so of course it wouldn't make any sense to promote sex education that embraces sexual activity even if you knew it would reduce abortion. Two wrongs don't make a right, after all. Therefore you have to try abstinence even if it is less effective at preventing abortion than more comprehensive sex eduation because it's the only morally acceptable solution.

I think the difference is that I can understand a secular argument that conception marks the start of rights-bearing, but I don't think there are any secular arguments for sexual abstinence that hold up at all. That means promoting abstinence at the cost of other forms of sex education is effectively imposing your religion on others, so I feel a lot more comfortable arguing in favour of comprehensive sex education than I do abortion.

As an aside, that doesn't mean I don't argue quite strongly in favour of allowing women access to abortions easily, I just am aware that it's a much more grey line than many other issues I defend.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
Crab said:
No, he's technically right. They see abortion as morally wrong, but they also see sexual activity as wrong, so of course it wouldn't make any sense to promote sex education that embraces sexual activity even if you knew it would reduce abortion. Two wrongs don't make a right, after all. Therefore you have to try abstinence even if it is less effective at preventing abortion than more comprehensive sex eduation because it's the only morally acceptable solution.
Click to expand...

Yes, i agree that he is correct as far as that specific regard goes, hence the "sure". The problem, as displayed, is that trying to avoid those two "wrongs" will only enhance the first (and i would assume, greater) wrong. Thus, forest, trees. Hence why these things must be conflated, because they are joined at the hip, and one's ability to notice that cannot be so simply dismissed as a masquerade of thoughtful criticism. After all, if one's only morally accepted choice increases baby-killing, it is morally accepted only thanks to one's refusal to acknowledge reality.

The problem with arguing these things with meta is that he is most likely well aware of that.
 
G

Giant Panda

Member
Metaphoreus said:
Nonsense. A person needn't support Liberal Policy X to oppose (what they view as) murder. It isn't hypocrisy to oppose both abortion and sex education, e.g.--a fact that becomes apparent when you stop and realize that sex education and carrying a baby to term are not the same thing. For instance, a person can oppose abortion, because they consider it murder, and oppose comprehensive sex education because they consider it to condone immoral behavior. There's no inconsistency in those two stances. This conflation of the two is liberal fantasy masquerading as thoughtful criticism.
Click to expand...
Your response just backs up what I said. They care more about forcing their religious views on sexual morals on others than they do about stopping what they view as "murder." I'd describe that as a flawed belief system.

Metaphoreus said:
Are they? Or might different conservatives believe different things about different subjects?
Click to expand...

I was talking about conservatives that believe both. Not all conservatives believe both but a fair amount do.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Coriolanus said:
Yes, i agree that he is correct as far as that specific regard goes, hence the "sure". The problem, as displayed, is that trying to avoid those two "wrongs" will only enhance the first (and i would assume, greater) wrong. Thus, forest, trees. Hence why these things must be conflated, because they are joined at the hip, and one's ability to notice that cannot be so simply dismissed as a masquerade of thoughtful criticism. After all, if one's only morally accepted choice increases baby-killing, it is morally accepted only thanks to one's refusal to acknowledge reality.

The problem with arguing these things with meta is that he is most likely well aware of that.
Click to expand...

That's a very utilitarian argument, though - you can prevent a greater wrong by doing a lesser wrong, so you should do it. From a deontic perspective, things don't work that way; and the problem we have here again is that consequentialism vs. deontology is something that is innately unproveable.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
Crab said:
That's a very utilitarian argument, though - you can prevent a greater wrong by doing a lesser wrong, so you should do it. From a deontic perspective, things don't work that way; and the problem we have here again is that consequentialism vs. deontology is something that is innately unproveable.
Click to expand...

Quite correct, but at that point we've left them "masquerade of thoughtful criticism" waters.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Coriolanus said:
Quite correct, but at that point we've left them "masquerade of thoughtful criticism" waters.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I don't think the argument I'm presenting is something unrecognisable to most on the right. Delivered at a higher level than is typical, perhaps, but deontology is innately intuitive to the religious, given religious morality is predicated on the following of religious rules. Comparatively, consequentialism is not all, and particularly not utilitarianism because it places human happiness above divine value. They wouldn't argue it in these terms, but when you make your argument, they don't understand the values that drive it, at all; it's anathema to them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Top Bottom