• 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.
D

disastermouse

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...

The problem is that we have to consider effects into account in any weighing of moral issues, and the effect of demonizing sex is almost always more heavily borne by women. Too frequently the 'moral' positions of socially conservative views on sex are poorly disguised means by which to control the behavior of women.
 
M

Makai

Member
The sperm toast thread is hilarious. It reads like OP and his buddy have the manufacturing process squared away but they just need to make sure legal is cool with classifying it as vegan. And somehow most of the posters care more about Cerium's breastmilk derail than OP's sperm toast pitch.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
I love how Meta can presume fucking as immoral behavior and take that as an assumption that isn't ridiculous and absurd. Christianity isn't any more true than the Aztec religion, dude.

Also, Jeb! will vote for Trump even though Trump has insulted him and his wife and his family through the whole campaign and Jeb! thinks Trump is a fascist:

https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/status/670981825427148800
Click to expand...

This is why I think people expecting a surge of moderate Republicans for Clinton are just dead wrong.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
I love how Jeb! and Kasich think that Trump will ruin the lives of 11 million Hispanic Americans and will put Muslims in concentration camps and they still think Hillary will be worse for the nation because she won't cut taxes on the rich or cut Medicaid and SS enough.
 
B

Butts-a-plenty

Banned
Crab said:
This is why I think people expecting a surge of moderate Republicans for Clinton are just dead wrong.
Click to expand...

I mean while that is certainly true there probably isn't anything that Trump could do for Bush to publicly say he will vote for Clinton. Especially after that loyalty pledge. Thankfully the actual votes are secret.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Coriolanus said:
If you ignore what the results of opposing sex ed will be, sure. Forest, trees, etc.
Click to expand...

Crab responded well to this line of posts (as you saw):

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...

ElectricThunder's conflation, which you (Coriolanus) later describe as necessary, projects the following onto abortion opponents to fabricate the alleged hypocrisy or ulterior motive: awareness of the claim that comprehensive sex education (or whatever other policy) reduces the incidence of abortion; acceptance that that claim is accurate; and a belief that comprehensive sex education (or whatever policy) is morally permissible and, therefore, something that can be supported. The allegation fails if any of those elements is missing. Your insistence that the allegation is true regardless is wishful thinking, and the result of refusing to accept that people who disagree with you, disagree with you. They don't believe the same things you do.

Giant Panda said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, a response that rebuts the claim that such people are hypocrites does not "back up" that very claim. There's no hypocrisy in applying the tenets of one's faith to multiple different policy proposals. In fact, that sounds like consistency, to me.

ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
I love how Meta can presume fucking as immoral behavior and take that as an assumption that isn't ridiculous and absurd. Christianity isn't any more true than the Aztec religion, dude.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure which part of my post set off the /r/atheism alarm in your brain, but reread what I wrote and you'll see I make no such assumption. The question is whether the failure of pro-life people to support Liberal Policy X reveals an ulterior motive or hypocrisy on their part. (The answer is "no," for the reasons I've explained.)
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Crab said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is a pretty insightful post, but I am still fundamentally doubtful that any deontological perspective is logically sustainable in the modern world, in which all of your choices are going to have knock-on effects that lead to something you would consider immoral. Do you shop at Wal-Mart if they use sweatshop labor? Ultimately you need to either severely restrict the list of immoral actions or deliberately avoid thinking about any effects past second-order or so.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Final polls forecast an Edwards victory. But rain on election day prompted fears among advisers that some of his voters might stay home. Indeed, turnout was below expectations by midafternoon, especially among African-Americans, the Democrats’ most reliable bloc.

The Edwards campaign had a final trump card: a robocall secretly recorded by President Obama urging African-American households to vote for him. The Edwards campaign had to trigger the robocall early enough to be effective but late enough to prevent the Vitter campaign from making hay from it. The call went out at 5:30 p.m.
Click to expand...

Brilliant.

See Southern Democrats, you can use Obama. You just have to be sneaky about it.

Also helps I suppose that Louisiana has a huge black population compared to a state like Kentucky where this probably wouldn't have worked, but that's the New South for you. Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, Florida pols should take note.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Aaron Strife said:
Brilliant.

See Southern Democrats, you can use Obama. You just have to be sneaky about it.

Also helps I suppose that Louisiana has a huge black population compared to a state like Kentucky where this probably wouldn't have worked, but that's the New South for you. Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, Florida pols should take note.
Click to expand...

Where is AL and MS on your list lol
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Metaphoreus said:
Crab responded well to this line of posts (as you saw):



ElectricThunder's conflation, which you (Coriolanus) later describe as necessary, projects the following onto abortion opponents to fabricate the alleged hypocrisy or ulterior motive: awareness of the claim that comprehensive sex education (or whatever other policy) reduces the incidence of abortion; acceptance that that claim is accurate; and a belief that comprehensive sex education (or whatever policy) is morally permissible and, therefore, something that can be supported. The allegation fails if any of those elements is missing. Your insistence that the allegation is true regardless is wishful thinking, and the result of refusing to accept that people who disagree with you, disagree with you. They don't believe the same things you do.



No, a response that rebuts the claim that such people are hypocrites does not "back up" that very claim. There's no hypocrisy in applying the tenets of one's faith to multiple different policy proposals. In fact, that sounds like consistency, to me.
Click to expand...

If abstinence only education was teaching kids about how premarital sex is immoral, then everything you said would make sense. But abstinence only education is teaching kids that birth control doesn't work, which is utilitarian in nature by hiding their real reasons for abstinence only education.

EDIT: And for the record, I don't think the two policies are hypocritical. I think "life at conception" and abstinence only education are two different utilitarian means for the same end, getting individuals (mostly women) to stop having recreational sex.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
pigeon said:
This is a pretty insightful post, but I am still fundamentally doubtful that any deontological perspective is logically sustainable in the modern world, in which all of your choices are going to have knock-on effects that lead to something you would consider immoral. Do you shop at Wal-Mart if they use sweatshop labor? Ultimately you need to either severely restrict the list of immoral actions or deliberately avoid thinking about any effects past second-order or so.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're arguing? The whole point of deontology is that it has no second-order effects to be worried about. There are a series of moral rules which must not be broken, everything else is morally permissible (although some formats have supererogatory rules which confer special moral status). In this case, "killing people" (with people defined as successful conceptions onwards), and "pre-marital sexual activity" are the rules which can't be broken. If anything, your post is more strongly directed at consequentialism rather than deontology - it becomes extremely difficult to calculate the repercussions of an action after a while.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Rand Paul should seriously focus on "decriminalize all drugs" right now (over everything else) with how much white people want heroin users to be treated better now.

I mean, if the general populace is okay with treating heroin usage kindly, it's going to be hard to logically argue that other drugs should still be criminalized... I mean, it's fucking heroin.
 
B

Basileus777

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Rand Paul should seriously focus on "decriminalize all drugs" right now (over everything else) with how much white people want heroin users to be treated better now.

I mean, if the general populace is okay with treating heroin usage kindly, it's going to be hard to logically argue that other drugs should still be criminalized... I mean, it's fucking heroin.
Click to expand...

There's actually scarier shit than heroine out there. You should read about some of these synthetic drugs.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Basileus777 said:
There's actually scarier shit than heroine out there. You should read about some of these synthetic drugs.
Click to expand...

But why are people lightening up on punishing heroine addicts? It sounds like it's because they're beginning to realize that jailing drug users doesn't do anything to solve drug addiction, not because they think it's harmless. And that argument should work on all drugs.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
thepotatoman said:
But why are people lightening up on punishing heroine addicts? It sounds like it's because they're beginning to realize that jailing drug users doesn't do anything to solve drug addiction, not because they think it's harmless. And that argument should work on all drugs.
Click to expand...

There's also a huge heroin problem in rural America lately, especially in rural New England.
 
A

AntoneM

Member
thepotatoman said:
But why are people lightening up on punishing heroine addicts? It sounds like it's because they're beginning to realize that jailing drug users doesn't do anything to solve drug addiction, not because they think it's harmless. And that argument should work on all drugs.
Click to expand...

Middle class/wealthy white people are using heroine. Kind of like how possession of crack cocaine lead to a harsher sentence than possession of cocaine in powder form.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
AntoneM said:
Middle class/wealthy white people are using heroine. Kind of like how possession of crack cocaine lead to a harsher sentence than possession of cocaine in powder form.
Click to expand...

Sadly, you're probably right. Thanks for killing my optimism.
 
V

Veritigo_X

Member
AntoneM said:
Middle class/wealthy white people are using heroine. Kind of like how possession of crack cocaine lead to a harsher sentence than possession of cocaine in powder form.
Click to expand...

thepotatoman said:
Sadly, you're probably right. Thanks for killing my optimism.
Click to expand...

NYT had an article about this that was posted in OT: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/us/heroin-war-on-drugs-parents.html

Not only are they getting lighter sentences, the families of the convicted are trying to change the system now that they are affected by it.
 
G

Giant Panda

Member
Metaphoreus said:
No, a response that rebuts the claim that such people are hypocrites does not "back up" that very claim. There's no hypocrisy in applying the tenets of one's faith to multiple different policy proposals. In fact, that sounds like consistency, to me.
Click to expand...

If you re-read my original post you'll see that I only called the conservatives hypocrites that claim banning guns won't end gun crime but banning abortion will baby end murder crime. You did essentially agree with my other point that conservatives that claim to be pro-life but don't support sex education, contraceptives, etc. actually care more about enforcing their religious morals than ending baby murder.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Veritigo_X said:
NYT had an article about this that was posted in OT: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/us/heroin-war-on-drugs-parents.html

Not only are they getting lighter sentences, the families of the convicted are trying to change the system now that they are affected by it.
Click to expand...

The lack of empathy among people, especially white Americans, never ceases to amaze me. My grandma used to say the only way to end the war on drugs would be to get dogs hooked on drugs. Getting white kids hooked isn't too far off.
 
M

Mrs. Manky

Banned
Sahil Kapur ‏@sahilkapur 52m52 minutes ago
Spoke to two Real Iowa Voters at a diner. One's a Dem who says she'd vote GOP over Hillary. Other likes “the colored gentleman—the doctor.”
Click to expand...

And now I have the image of Ben Carson as a Time Lord. Which explains so much:

That pic with Black Klingon Jesus was based on a real event.

Only a Time Lord would call Popeye's an "organization".

He visited a world where there was a Book of poverbs, and brought that plaque back.

He performed brain surgery with the sonic screwdriver.

B-Dubs said:
Kasich needs to look in the mirror, then at his poll numbers, before saying this shit.
Click to expand...

Maybe, just maybe, he /did/ look in the mirror. And he realized that 1) he wasn't going to win this and 2) his conscience wouldn't let him stay silent on Trump.
 
U

User 406

Banned
Mrs. Manky said:
And now I have the image of Ben Carson as a Time Lord. Which explains so much:

That pic with Black Klingon Jesus was based on a real event.

Only a Time Lord would call Popeye's an "organization".

He visited a world where there was a Book of poverbs, and brought that plaque back.

He performed brain surgery with the sonic screwdriver.
Click to expand...

Breaking -- Hidden chamber in Tutankhamen's tomb finally breached, first pics:

Davros_Wisher.png
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
NeoXChaos said:
CVAc-vDUYAAy-pX.png:large


J. Miles Coleman ‏@JMilesColeman 57m57 minutes ago Charlotte, NC
How every county voted in its most recent Gov. election.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind when looking at Ohio in this map that Ed FitzGerald was a uniquely horrible gubernatorial candidate.

Pretty much any Democratic candidate would have lost to Kasich in 2014, but you sure as hell wouldn't see all of Ohio's urban counties painted red if Ohio Dems had put up a legitimate candidate.

Ugh. Still pisses me off.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Democrats collapsed in NV. No blue spot whatsoever.

As long Democrats nominate good candidates in those blue states they should be able to take them back. Baker, Hogan and Rauner will have an incumbency advantage though.

Third Strike said:
For NC, I hope Mecklenburg (Charlotte) and Wake (Raleigh) don't fall for McCrory again. I have to believe that him and the General Assembly are unpopular enough that McCrory gets the boot at least. Unlike most other states, it's nice to have your gubernatorial election on a presidential year.
Click to expand...

definitely will give the Democrats in WV, MT & MO a fighting chance next year.

I do however wonder if you ran a Conway vs Bevin & a Edwards Vs Vitter in a presidential cycle would the results have been the same?

BertramCooper said:
Keep in mind when looking at Ohio in this map that Ed FitzGerald was a uniquely horrible gubernatorial candidate.

Pretty much any Democratic candidate would have lost to Kasich in 2014, but you sure as hell wouldn't see all of Ohio's urban counties painted red if Ohio Dems had put up a legitimate candidate.

Ugh. Still pisses me off.
Click to expand...

Democrats have not put up a legitimate candidate aside from Strickland in 06 since the 80's. Be happy you don't have a Ohioian Jindal as your governor.

EDIT: Ohio will have had 1 Democratic Governor between 1991-2019 and that is Strickland(2007-2011)
 
T

Third Strike

Member
NeoXChaos said:
CVAc-vDUYAAy-pX.png:large


J. Miles Coleman ‏@JMilesColeman 57m57 minutes ago Charlotte, NC
How every county voted in its most recent Gov. election.
Click to expand...

For NC, I hope Mecklenburg (Charlotte) and Wake (Raleigh) don't fall for McCrory again. I have to believe that him and the General Assembly are unpopular enough that McCrory gets the boot at least. Unlike most other states, it's nice to have your gubernatorial election on a presidential year.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
The lack of empathy among people, especially white Americans, never ceases to amaze me. My grandma used to say the only way to end the war on drugs would be to get dogs hooked on drugs. Getting white kids hooked isn't too far off.
Click to expand...
Same thing as anti-gay Republicans who change their minds after their son/brother/cousin/whatever comes out as gay. It has to hit home first.
 
C

Cerium

Member
QuiteWhittle said:
I feel like Iowa is going to go red by a huge margin one cycle and never come back.
Click to expand...

Iowa I think is one of those states that is drawn to personalities more than parties. They've had a longstanding romance with Obama, for example, and they've never been fond of politicians from the Northeast whether it be Romney or Kerry.
 
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