Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

GOP candidate: "God Intended" Pregnancies from RapeFollow

#52 Oct 25 2012 at 11:05 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,029 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
People who believe in god either believe that he's in the thick of it, guiding every action in the world, or that he's relatively indifferent to all the bad stuff that happens (or that he's not all-powerful, but I don't think many subscribe to that one). Something has to explain why bad things happen to good people. It's one of the hardest thing to reconcile about religion.

The standard argument would be that God is aware of what's going on but not making it happen (although he has that power and does use it as he wishes). Jesus says that God is aware when a sparrow falls, not that God individually crushes each tiny bird skull. Doing so would negate the premise of free will, sin and redemption.

Bad things happen to good people because that's life with free will. The promise of Christianity is that, although you're virtually guaranteed to find suffering in this life, your faith and actions (including how you react to the ills of the world) will reward you with a positive afterlife that lasts far longer than your time on Earth.


Aye, the "watchmaker theory", right? But that's just one notion.

I'm far removed from the religious scene, but the impression I've got is that many, if not most, religious folks subscribe to the other theory, or some wishy-washy combination of the two. Athletes and actors thank god for their wins, not because they're thankful that he gave humanity free will and then walked away, but because they believe he played some active role in process. Many cite god for miracles, and for horrors visited on people that they don't like.
Admittedly you're far removed from the religious scene, yet you're willing to make an argument based on your premise that many, if not all religious folks subscribe to the other theory.

You know who else tries to get away with that kind of bs on this forum?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#53 Oct 25 2012 at 11:09 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Elinda wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
I'm far removed from the religious scene, but the impression I've got is that many, if not most, religious folks subscribe to the other theory, or some wishy-washy combination of the two. Athletes and actors thank god for their wins, not because they're thankful that he gave humanity free will and then walked away, but because they believe he played some active role in process. Many cite god for miracles, and for horrors visited on people that they don't like.
Admittedly you're far removed from the religious scene, yet you're willing to make an argument based on your premise that many, if not all religious folks subscribe to the other theory.

You know who else tries to get away with that kind of bs on this forum?


You?
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#54 Oct 25 2012 at 11:11 AM Rating: Good
******
43,842 posts
Elinda wrote:
You know who else tries to get away with that kind of bs on this forum?
Screenshot
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#55 Oct 25 2012 at 11:27 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,029 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
I'm far removed from the religious scene, but the impression I've got is that many, if not most, religious folks subscribe to the other theory, or some wishy-washy combination of the two. Athletes and actors thank god for their wins, not because they're thankful that he gave humanity free will and then walked away, but because they believe he played some active role in process. Many cite god for miracles, and for horrors visited on people that they don't like.
Admittedly you're far removed from the religious scene, yet you're willing to make an argument based on your premise that many, if not all religious folks subscribe to the other theory.

You know who else tries to get away with that kind of bs on this forum?


You?
Your mom.


____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#56 Oct 25 2012 at 11:29 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Elinda wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
I'm far removed from the religious scene, but the impression I've got is that many, if not most, religious folks subscribe to the other theory, or some wishy-washy combination of the two. Athletes and actors thank god for their wins, not because they're thankful that he gave humanity free will and then walked away, but because they believe he played some active role in process. Many cite god for miracles, and for horrors visited on people that they don't like.
Admittedly you're far removed from the religious scene, yet you're willing to make an argument based on your premise that many, if not all religious folks subscribe to the other theory.

You know who else tries to get away with that kind of bs on this forum?


You?
Your mom.


Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#57 Oct 25 2012 at 12:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Don't do that to your mom Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#58 Oct 25 2012 at 1:13 PM Rating: Good
Elinda wrote:
You know who else tries to get away with that kind of bs on this forum?
Screenshot
This guy?
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#59 Oct 25 2012 at 1:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,247 posts
Quote:
Democrats are stupid for not attacking Republicans on this & spelling it out for moderate/liberals/non-crazy conservatives.


Honestly, I think the worse failure of the left in recent years has been to let the debate be framed in terms of abortion. The economic issues are much larger, and we've let those go completely unexamined and unchampioned.

I'm firmly pro-choice, but I am not willing to lose any more elections over it. It'd be easier to set up an underground railroad to Canada for women needing abortions, and take back issues of economic justice on the political front.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#60 Oct 25 2012 at 1:37 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,841 posts
The abortion debate at this point is barely about abortion. It has more to do with the sum of gender issues itself than anything else.

But no one is willing to pioneer the debate that actually has to happen--what right does a room full of men have to dictate the rights of women? As long as politicians keep ignoring that question, we aren't going to go anywhere.

We have had some people try and really ask the question, but they never get the support they need to actually run with it. Until then, the abortion question isn't moving--its too caught up in all women's issues right now, from sexuality to women's health.

Most people tend to think of the abortion debate like its new, like it's only come up in the last thirty years or so. In reality, this has been a nonstop debate in politics for well over a century, and WOMEN still have to argue by proxy. That's the biggest problem.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#61 Oct 25 2012 at 1:48 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
But no one is willing to pioneer the debate that actually has to happen--what right does a room full of men have to dictate the rights of women?

They were elected via our representative form of government? Next time, vote for a chick if it bothers you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#62 Oct 25 2012 at 1:49 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,841 posts
Jophiel wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
But no one is willing to pioneer the debate that actually has to happen--what right does a room full of men have to dictate the rights of women?

They were elected via our representative form of government? Next time, vote for a chick if it bothers you.

Right.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#63 Oct 25 2012 at 1:53 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's great that you know how to work Wiki and all but that's not an argument.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#64 Oct 25 2012 at 1:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,841 posts
I'm with diglett.

But I'm perfectly happy to put this in the same category with other girly issues, like whether or not to use the $1 off coupon to buy a package of 12 ultra heavy or 16 regular.

Jophiel wrote:
It's great that you know how to work Wiki and all but that's not an argument.


If it helps, think along the lines of women being disproportionally affected by the outcome. As most of the burden of child rearing (pregnancy included) is still firmly on their shoulders. If that could get better sorted out I'd have an easier time accepting both sexes having equal say in the matter.

Edited, Oct 25th 2012 1:03pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#65 Oct 25 2012 at 2:00 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
The internet is so feisty today. Hurricaneaggedon must be making us all tense.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#66 Oct 25 2012 at 2:02 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The entire point of a representative government is that you choose who you want to represent you in government and whoever gets the most votes gets to do the representing. By its very nature, that representative will differ from parts of their district -- gender, religion, race, income, military service, whatever. But our very form of government is what gives them the right to legislate for the people in their district.

If you don't like your representation, it's up to you to change it. Vote for someone else, both in the primaries and general elections. Run for office yourself. Move to a district with representation you like. But asking "what right" anyone has is ignoring the very premise of our government.

Hey, I like the question for political reasons. Hopefully, it helps make women concerned with these issues take a look at the parties and determine who'll best represent them (demographically, this has slanted Democratic). But logically, there's no question there.

Edit: Personally, I'd be a lot more worried about any given candidate's stance on an issue than what it is they have in their pants. Is the argument here really that a pro-choice woman would be happier with Michelle Bachman making these decisions than a rich old white pro-choice Democratic male? Just because both her and Michelle has a ******?

Edited, Oct 25th 2012 3:05pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#67 Oct 25 2012 at 2:05 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,841 posts
Your argument is that, as a representative government, the ability to vote negates the issue of improper representation, as it is the choice of the people as to who enters office. Therefore, they are being represented to the extent that they, as a collective, have chosen to be represented. Yes?

So, obviously, the reason that there are fewer women in Congress is that we want fewer women in Congress, yes? And we aren't talking about a small difference, we are talking about a group that is 52% of the population only making up 18% of the legislative body of government.

What your argument completely fails to account for is the impact of culture that systematically disenfranchises a group of people. If you are constantly teaching young women that they aren't as capable to enter politics, if you set up barriers to hinder their progress, if you expect them to work twice as hard to get half as far, and if you allow for a sexist culture that systematically teaches everyone to expect less of women, then it is no surprise that you would end up with a representative government that has failed to be representative.

Not because you've taken away a woman's right to vote for a woman, but because you've endorsed a system that does everything possible to teach people that voting for a woman is a bad idea.

It's closet sexism.

[EDIT]

And I want to point out that you made your claim in response to my opinion that we should finally have a DISCUSSION out in the open of what the real problem is. That's what male privilege is. I didn't call for laws to add quotas to Congress, I didn't demand or endorse any particular solution. You dismissed the idea that it was necessary because, in a perfect system, it would right itself.

But endorsing a system that teaches disenfranchisement is endorsing disenfranchisement, whether you want it or not.

Edited, Oct 25th 2012 4:08pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#68 Oct 25 2012 at 2:09 PM Rating: Decent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Your argument is that, as a representative government, the ability to vote negates the issue of improper representation, as it is the choice of the people as to who enters office. Therefore, they are being represented to the extent that they, as a collective, have chosen to be represented. Yes?

This is the point of a representative government, yes.

Quote:
So, obviously, the reason that there are fewer women in Congress is that we want fewer women in Congress, yes?

No, the reason is because fewer women are being elected. They may fail to be elected for any number of reasons. I would not vote for a female neo-conservative but that vote wouldn't be based on her gender.

Quote:
What your argument completely fails to account ...

Seeing as how you have misunderstood my argument, I think I'll wait for the revised version before discussing it further.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#69 Oct 25 2012 at 2:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,841 posts
Is where I chime in and point out the problems with women being assertive in mixed *** groups, not being seen as leadership types, or any of the other stereotypes or issues that would need to be overcome before you could say you have a system that's truly representative?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#70 Oct 25 2012 at 2:16 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If you would like but, given the ranks women have attained in government (especially in Congress where we recently had a woman Speaker of the House), I would suggest that the issue is not something systemic throughout all of woman-kind.

In any event, the question was "what right" our elected representatives have to be representing us. No one has actually made a counter-argument that being elected to represent the populace doesn't give you the right to represent select portions of the populace based on gender.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#71 Oct 25 2012 at 2:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
I would vote for more women, but it seems like the smart ones stay out of politics.
#72 Oct 25 2012 at 2:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,841 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If you would like but, given the ranks women have attained in government (especially in Congress where we recently had a woman Speaker of the House), I would suggest that the issue is not something systemic throughout all of woman-kind.


Kind of like how having a half-black president means people aren't racist?

Jophiel wrote:
In any event, the question was "what right" our elected representatives have to be representing us. No one has actually made a counter-argument that being elected to represent the populace doesn't give you the right to represent select portions of the populace based on gender.


Less about 'right' and more about perspective. It's a bit of a universal problem with a representative government. You have someone who really can't relate to a subset of their population. Along the same lines as "Romney can't relate to the poor" or something.

Edit: To be fair I'm not sure there really is a right answer. As many of the arguments feel similar to affirmative action in my mind, and correcting an imbalance of something that is fairly vaguely defined and hard to measure isn't a task I'd like to pin on anyone.

Edited, Oct 25th 2012 1:30pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#73 Oct 25 2012 at 2:30 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
Kind of like how having a half-black president means people aren't racist?

All people? It certainly suggests that people who view race as their primary voting factor (and are against African-Americans) make up a minority of the population.

Quote:
Less about 'right' and more about perspective. It's a bit of a universal problem with a representative government. You have someone who really can't relate to a subset of their population. Along the same lines as "Romney can't relate to the poor" or something.

Sure. As you said (and as I said), your elected representative will not relate to you in every way. It's up to you to decide which ways are most important and vote accordingly. Personally, political ideology trumps gender, race, religion, etc for me but if you think it's most important that it be a woman representing you then vote for the best woman on the ballot. If there's no women on the ballots (general or primary) then get to work getting some on there.

Edited, Oct 25th 2012 3:30pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#74 Oct 25 2012 at 2:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,841 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If there's no women on the ballots (general or primary) then get to work getting some on there.


I'm not sure most people are capable of doing so.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#75 Oct 25 2012 at 2:34 PM Rating: Decent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
People aren't capable of advocating for a candidate, collecting petition signatures or other forms of political activism? I'll admit most aren't willing but that's a separate issue.

Edited, Oct 25th 2012 3:34pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#76 Oct 25 2012 at 2:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,841 posts
Jophiel wrote:
People aren't capable of advocating for a candidate, collecting petition signatures or other forms of political activism? I'll admit most aren't willing but that's a separate issue.


Well largely, yeah. I bet if you just asked people, most wouldn't even know where to start. You also have to consider funding a campaign would be an uphill battle given things like the income disparity in an economically disadvantaged group.

ETA: I mean, even the difference between getting someone elected to a national office, and getting nominated to run for a city consul position is pretty stark. Your average Joe (Jane?) has a lot better chance of being able to manage the latter, but probably doesn't have the skills, money, or free time needed to pull off the bigger job.

Edited, Oct 25th 2012 2:11pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#77 Oct 25 2012 at 3:29 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,841 posts
Your solution, at best, allows for me to help address the problem with regards to local representation. What it doesn't help solve at all is the issue of a culture-wide system of oppression. Even if I was successful in getting a woman elected in my district, that doesn't actually address the core problem at all.

The lack of women in Congress is a symptom of the greater issue, not the problem itself. Which is precisely why I think it's imperative that our government and our culture recognize that this greater problem exists. Right now, it's fundamentally the same as the new racism that has taken hold of our culture.

But pretending like it isn't an issue we have to actively address because a representative system means we can address it ourselves is steeping with privilege. It's easy to take that stance when you aren't the one facing the oppression. When a good half the country (including many, many women) have been taught by their culture to think of feminism as a dirty word, that is a serious blow against ALL women.

It's irresponsible to charge a group, any group, with picking themselves up by the bootstraps when the systems in place do just about everything they can to keep that group from even believing that change is necessary, let alone desirable.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#78 Oct 25 2012 at 3:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,841 posts
Probably should also point out the irony of primarily having 3 men debating this issue atm... Smiley: lol

Edited, Oct 25th 2012 2:36pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#79 Oct 25 2012 at 3:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,708 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
At the point in which you can take some adult cells from my arm and manipulate them into a fully functional human embryo, such that if said embryo was implanted into a womb, it would grow into a complete human being *then* you'd have a point. But only with regard to the embryo once created. The cells in my arm don't count. And the stem cells you take from them don't count. And even the modified versions of those stem cells don't count. It's not an ethical issue until you create the embryo.


Right, and I see that as a meaningless and arbitrary distinction. If both are (assumption of course) fully capable of creating a whole person, why should someone's humanity be dependent on their location?


Except that you're inventing cases in which real distinctions become arbitrary. I could just as easily imagine that we could invent a matter transformation device capable of transforming any matter into any other matter of identical atomic weight. I could then imagine that the snickers bar I'm about to eat could be transformed into organic cells, which could then be genetically modified into human stem cells, which could then be grown into a human embryo, which could then be implanted and become a human being, and thus conclude that if I eat that snickers bar, I'm committing murder (and cannibalism!). But that would be kinda silly. We have to pick a point at which we distinguish between whether something is a human life or not. And it makes the most sense to put that distinction at some point where we're actually dealing with a complete human organism (in any stage of development). So a single adult cell is not a complete human organism. A collection of cells is not. Sperm is not. Eggs are not. Only if we're talking about Zygotes, Blastocysts, Embryos, fetus', children, teens, adults, etc are we talking about actual stages of complete human organisms.

I think that distinction is neither meaningless or arbitrary.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#80 Oct 25 2012 at 3:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,841 posts
gbaji wrote:
I think that distinction is neither meaningless or arbitrary.


I would have never guessed.

Just chalk my opinion up to someone who spends too much time in grey areas that don't exist for most people. Biochemistry is an odd profession at times. Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Oct 25th 2012 3:13pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#81 Oct 25 2012 at 4:02 PM Rating: Decent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Your solution, at best, allows for me to help address the problem with regards to local representation. What it doesn't help solve at all is the issue of a culture-wide system of oppression. Even if I was successful in getting a woman elected in my district, that doesn't actually address the core problem at all.

This suggests that there is a core problem.
I previously wrote:
In any event, the question was "what right" our elected representatives have to be representing us. No one has actually made a counter-argument that being elected to represent the populace doesn't give you the right to represent select portions of the populace based on gender.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#82 Oct 25 2012 at 4:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,029 posts
Nadenu wrote:
I would vote for more women, but it seems like the smart ones stay out of politics.

We need a binder.

My state has been represented in Senate by two women for years. There are still inequalities between the sexes that I don't think should exist, but women and others tackle the little issues and pushing the whole movement more towards equal. I don't feel unduly represented as a woman in our government as a whole.

Maine could use a woman gov. Smiley: grin


____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#83 Oct 25 2012 at 4:45 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,841 posts
Jophiel wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Your solution, at best, allows for me to help address the problem with regards to local representation. What it doesn't help solve at all is the issue of a culture-wide system of oppression. Even if I was successful in getting a woman elected in my district, that doesn't actually address the core problem at all.

This suggests that there is a core problem.


Did you forget what started this discussion?

Me wrote:
But no one is willing to pioneer the debate that actually has to happen--what right does a room full of men have to dictate the rights of women?


So your response to the question of whether or not its acceptable for a group of men to debate women's rights is to discard it because you don't know... if that's a problem?

Right, okay then. That makes perfect sense.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#84 Oct 25 2012 at 4:49 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Me wrote:
But no one is willing to pioneer the debate that actually has to happen--what right does a room full of men have to dictate the rights of women?

So your response to the question of whether or not its acceptable for a group of men to debate women's rights is to discard it because you don't know... if that's a problem?

My response was to give the justification under our government for those men to legislate the rights of women (or anyone else). You haven't explained yet why I'm wrong. I understand that you don't like the answer but that doesn't make it incorrect.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#85 Oct 25 2012 at 5:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,247 posts
Quote:
Your solution, at best, allows for me to help address the problem with regards to local representation. What it doesn't help solve at all is the issue of a culture-wide system of oppression. Even if I was successful in getting a woman elected in my district, that doesn't actually address the core problem at all.

The lack of women in Congress is a symptom of the greater issue, not the problem itself. Which is precisely why I think it's imperative that our government and our culture recognize that this greater problem exists. Right now, it's fundamentally the same as the new racism that has taken hold of our culture.


What you're missing, or ignoring, is that the solutions to these problems work in tandem. It isn't either/or, it's cumulative. Women running for office at the local level eventually means that more women will run for office at the state and national level. The culture changes all the time, but it isn't easily forced. Our inability to solve all problems right now does not excuse us from solving the problems we can.

There has always been sexism, and I suspect it will always be with us just due to the nature of heterosexual ***. Doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't confront it, but waiting for that to change is a fool's game.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#86 Oct 25 2012 at 5:21 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I just, and I'm sorry here maybe this will just get labeled as "You can't understand", but I just don't understand how having a ****** makes you innately more qualified to the point where the best argument against legislation you don't like is "They shouldn't let a man decide that". Again, would you rather pro-life, anti-universal healthcare Michelle Bachmann decide your woman's health issues than pro-choice, pro-UHC Barney Frank (just to pick a few names I assume will be familiar)? I mean, she has a ****** right so she's much more qualified? Doesn't it make more sense to worry less about the gender of the individual and worry more about what their platform is on women's health issues if those are important to you?

If I feel strongly about my right to attend Mass and there's a guy who wants to outlaw that and a guy who wants to preserve it, I don't care which one is Roman Catholic and which one is a Jewish-Wiccan-Druid-Muslim, I'm going to support the guy with the platform I want advanced.

Edited, Oct 25th 2012 6:22pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#87 Oct 25 2012 at 5:42 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,841 posts
Quote:
My response was to give the justification under our government for those men to legislate the rights of women (or anyone else). You haven't explained yet why I'm wrong. I understand that you don't like the answer but that doesn't make it incorrect.


I'm going to go ahead and quote this, again, because you're consistently missing the point.

Quote:
Quote:
But no one is willing to pioneer the debate that actually has to happen--what right does a room full of men have to dictate the rights of women?

They were elected via our representative form of government? Next time, vote for a chick if it bothers you.


I suggested that a debate on whether or not men had the right to dictate the rights of women was necessary.

You responded by taking a stance in the debate.

You never addressed why the discussion itself wouldn't be valuable, which is specifically why it's not necessary for me to tell you why you're wrong. You're arguing against a position I didn't make. If you want to have that discussion, then I'm game, but you have yet to address the point I originally brought up--that I think it's important for there to be a national debate on whether or not women are being fairly represented in our government.

Personally, I don't like the idea of legislative quotas. But there might be other options to help break social stigma I haven't even considered. And even if the debate led to nothing useful at a legislative level, it forces it into the public awareness. Right now, this issue is only discussed when the question of women's rights in particular comes up, so it never gets to be the subject of a discussion itself. But isn't that problematic? It keeps being used as a defense, primarily by the left, but we've never even had a concerted discussion on whether or not its a valid criticism?

I think that's a serious problem.

I also think a national debate would have serious social utility--it would put the question in people's minds, make it a part of public discourse in a way it hasn't been. It's a national issue that's gotten next to no airtime in the national discourse. Yet every person in America has an opinion on oil pipelines that largely don't affect us.

If you wanted justification on why I think a national-level debate is needed, there you go.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#88 Oct 25 2012 at 5:55 PM Rating: Decent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
You never addressed why the discussion itself wouldn't be valuable, which is specifically why it's not necessary for me to tell you why you're wrong.

Well, given that no one else has made a real counter-position on the rights of elected representatives, I guess I won the debate Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#89 Oct 25 2012 at 6:24 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Crap, missed out.. can we get back to abortion?

Jophiel wrote:

All people? It certainly suggests that people who view race as their primary voting factor (and are against African-Americans) make up a minority of the population.


But that population is small in comparison to the amount of people who did vote with race as their primary voting factor. Whether positive or negative, it demonstrated that race is still a big issue.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#90 Oct 25 2012 at 6:32 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
But that population is small in comparison to the amount of people who did vote with race as their primary voting factor. Whether positive or negative, it demonstrated that race is still a big issue.

lolwut?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#91 Oct 25 2012 at 7:06 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
But that population is small in comparison to the amount of people who did vote with race as their primary voting factor. Whether positive or negative, it demonstrated that race is still a big issue.

lolwut?


The original statement of voting for a half-black man mean that racism was over, with the implication that "race isn't an issue". You countered that the fact that there wasn't enough people who didn't want a black person in office to prevent a black person from getting in office, insinuating that "race isn't an issue". However, many people voted for President Obama simply because he was black, from all races, so race is still an issue. Just because his race wasn't used AGAINST him, but FOR him, doesn't mean that it wasn't a factor.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#92 Oct 25 2012 at 7:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
I just, and I'm sorry here maybe this will just get labeled as "You can't understand", but I just don't understand how having a ****** makes you innately more qualified to the point where the best argument against legislation you don't like is "They shouldn't let a man decide that".


I don't think it's so much that men shouldn't be allowed to make decisions on this particular issue, it's that it is incredibly frustrating when you have a group of old white men making health decisions that only affect women. Especially when they make the decision you disagree with. There was a picture of Bush signing the law or executive order or whatever it was, that made third trimester abortions illegal, and he was surrounded by a group of old white men and they were all grinning. I can't speak for other women, but that just felt like a slap in the face to me.

I agree with both of you, honestly. I get where Digg is coming from in that I wish there were more women politicians in the house and the senate. But I also agree with you that the actual stance of the politician is a lot more important. I'd definitely vote for Barney Frank over Michelle Bachmann, that's for **** sure.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#93 Oct 25 2012 at 7:23 PM Rating: Decent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
However, many people voted for President Obama simply because he was black, from all races, so race is still an issue.

Doesn't mean it was a majority issue. I'm sure some number of people voted for or against him on the basis of his race. Unless you can support that a majority of voters did so, you don't have much of an argument.

Edit: To get a jump on the "black vote" argument, a brief look shows that Kerry received 88% of the black vote. Gore received 90%. Obama 96%. If we take that 6-8% difference at face value (and ignore the fact that nearly all demographic groups voted more heavily Democratic that year), you're still a far way from positing that a majority of voters voted on the basis of race.

Edited, Oct 25th 2012 8:30pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#94 Oct 25 2012 at 7:25 PM Rating: Decent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
There was a picture of Bush signing the law or executive order or whatever it was, that made third trimester abortions illegal, and he was surrounded by a group of old white men and they were all grinning. I can't speak for other women, but that just felt like a slap in the face to me.

I can see where that would be frustrating emotionally. Logically, if those men were replaced with women from their districts, said women would probably have the same political ideology and have voted the same way.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#95 Oct 25 2012 at 7:59 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Pig wrote:
I don't think it's so much that men shouldn't be allowed to make decisions on this particular issue, it's that it is incredibly frustrating when you have a group of old white men making health decisions that only affect women.


Until men are able to "abort" child support, it affects them as well.

Jophiel wrote:
Doesn't mean it was a majority issue. I'm sure some number of people voted for or against him on the basis of his race. Unless you can support that a majority of voters did so, you don't have much of an argument.


There's no way of proving one way or another, but it does support the notion that it's still an issue.

Quote:
Edit: To get a jump on the "black vote" argument, a brief look shows that Kerry received 88% of the black vote. Gore received 90%. Obama 96%. If we take that 6-8% difference at face value (and ignore the fact that nearly all demographic groups voted more heavily Democratic that year), you're still a far way from positing that a majority of voters voted on the basis of race.


I was already aware of those numbers and given that the black population has been less than 15%, it's simply not enough to overcome the "white vote". At the same time, if you don't think there was a significant amount of non-blacks voting for President Obama, simply because he's black or voting for Hilary, simply because she's a woman, then you're sadly mistaken.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#96gbaji, Posted: Oct 25 2012 at 8:06 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Setting aside the canard that said health decisions only affect women, the underlying question was whether they had the right to do so. And as Joph has correctly argued, they do. We give it to them as part of our representative system. And it's not their *** that matters as much as their politics.
#97 Oct 25 2012 at 8:07 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,939 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
However, many people voted for President Obama simply because he was black, from all races, so race is still an issue.

Doesn't mean it was a majority issue. I'm sure some number of people voted for or against him on the basis of his race. Unless you can support that a majority of voters did so, you don't have much of an argument.

Edit: To get a jump on the "black vote" argument, a brief look shows that Kerry received 88% of the black vote. Gore received 90%. Obama 96%. If we take that 6-8% difference at face value (and ignore the fact that nearly all demographic groups voted more heavily Democratic that year), you're still a far way from positing that a majority of voters voted on the basis of race.

Edited, Oct 25th 2012 8:30pm by Jophiel


Blacks always vote overwhelmingly Democrat.

Obama did seem to bring a noticeably higher percentage of black voters to the polls though.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#98 Oct 25 2012 at 8:23 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,841 posts
gbaji, protip, if you "set aside" the most important factor of your opponent's defense, you're doing it wrong.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#99 Oct 25 2012 at 8:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Yeah, and rich white men tend to vote for rich white men issues... EVERYONE has a bias.

Alma, I agree with you that child support is a touchy issue. I agree that it is unfair for a man to have to pay child support for a child he did not want and has no interest in being involved in their life. However, there are ways around this. Wear a condom every time. It's not 100% effective, sure. But it drastically cuts down on pregnancy and STDs, and then you don't have to worry about whether the women you sleep with are lying to you when they say they're on birth control. Smiley: wink2 Also, I'm pretty sure that terminating your parental rights is a way of getting out of paying child support.

I also agree that it is unfair for a man to accidentally impregnate a woman, decide he actually wants said potential child, and then have her get an abortion without his say. However, it is also unfair to ask a woman to act as a human incubator for a child she does not want. It is also unfair that women make less money in comparison to men, it is unfair that we have to deal with stupid reports from CNN citing studies that claim that women vote with their periods, and it is unfair that we don't have a single payer health care system in this country. The day that men figure out how to get pregnant and carry a fetus to term, you can have a legitimate say in abortion rights. Until then, get the **** out of my uterus.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#100 Oct 25 2012 at 9:11 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
At the same time, if you don't think there was a significant amount of non-blacks voting for President Obama, simply because he's black or voting for Hilary, simply because she's a woman, then you're sadly mistaken.

For a worthless term like "significant", I'm sure that's true.
TirithRR wrote:
Obama did seem to bring a noticeably higher percentage of black voters to the polls though.

2% more than Kerry according to your numbers and the percentage of blacks in the voting population had been increasing every cycle. I would hesitate to read too much into it and it wasn't a huge swing in any event.

Edited, Oct 25th 2012 10:15pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#101 Oct 25 2012 at 10:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
The day that men figure out how to get pregnant and carry a fetus to term, you can have a legitimate say in abortion rights. Until then, get the @#%^ out of my uterus.
that's not a reasonable argument though. We collectively have a say in laws, and trying to restrict this is ******* stupid.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 39 All times are in CDT
lolgaxe, Omegavegeta, Samira, tribalfusion009, Anonymous Guests (35)