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
*****
16,595 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:
I lost my post
#53 Oct 25 2012 at 11:09 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 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?
#54 Oct 25 2012 at 11:11 AM Rating: Good
******
49,831 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
*****
16,595 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:
I lost my post
#56 Oct 25 2012 at 11:29 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 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
#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
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,345 posts
Elinda wrote:
You know who else tries to get away with that kind of bs on this forum?
Screenshot
This guy?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#59 Oct 25 2012 at 1:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 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
******
20,020 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
******
20,020 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
*****
13,407 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
****
6,471 posts
The internet is so feisty today. Hurricaneaggedon must be making us all tense.
#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
******
20,020 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
*****
13,407 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
*****
16,299 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
*****
13,407 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
*****
13,407 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
*****
13,407 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
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)