Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Oh, George.Follow

#52 Nov 20 2013 at 4:11 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Ah, there's nothing like an attempt to come off sounding intelligent, but instead expose yourself as an ignorant @#%^.

Edited, Nov 20th 2013 5:21pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#53 Nov 20 2013 at 4:18 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Ah, there's nothing like an attempt to come off sounding intelligent, but instead exposure yourself as an ignorant @#%^.


Provide an example.
#54 Nov 20 2013 at 4:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,381 posts
Randomly pick 5 of your own posts. At least 4 will be excellent examples.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#55 Nov 20 2013 at 4:19 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Almalieque wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
It's the new post #214 or whatever number it was.


That depends on how you look at it. For you in particular, they are conceptually similar, but in general they are not. I'm not sure why posters think I should continue to reiterate entire posts because they chose not to read it. If there is something that you don't understand, then quote specifically what you don't understand. Assuming that you can read English, there are parts of the post that you DO UNDERSTAND.
The problem isn't that people can't understand English, it's that you're making no sense whatsoever which is the case for both your favourite post and this new sentence you've thought of.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#56gbaji, Posted: Nov 20 2013 at 5:13 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Um... You realize though that you just confirmed exactly the point I was making, right? It's not really just about the right to control ones own body (ie: not being forced to go through the physical trauma/risks of pregnancy). It's also about the right to not have to care for the child. Currently, abortion is the only means to avoid both circumstances.
#57 Nov 20 2013 at 5:25 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
the earliest pushes for legalizing abortion had nothing to do with rights and everything to do with eugenics.


This is so ridiculously wrong, it's pathetic.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#58 Nov 20 2013 at 5:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Don't you know that no woman ever died from a back alley abortion, idiggory?

Eugenics relied far more on forced sterilization of "undesireables" than it did abortions, which were still largely illegal around the world.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#59 Nov 20 2013 at 5:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Planned Parenthood had some early ties into eugenics.

It's largely irrelevant though aside from an emotional appeal. The US space program came from **** rocketry. 20th century circumcision was tied into preventing ************* Should we stop exploring space or the medical benefits of circumcision?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#60gbaji, Posted: Nov 20 2013 at 5:49 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I agree with your position, but not because rights are absolute, but because a right should never be infringed upon merely to provide a benefit to others. I don't see those benefits as a right in the first place (although others will call them "positive rights"). It's not analogous to the abortion issue at all because both rights in question are real (negative) rights. The right of the fetus to not have its life taken from it, and the right of the mother to do what she wants with her body. So that is correctly identified as a conflict of rights, while your example is a conflict between rights and benefits.
#61 Nov 20 2013 at 5:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
If there is something that you don't understand, then quote specifically what you don't understand. Assuming that you can read English, there are parts of the post that you DO UNDERSTAND.


Alma wrote:
Quote:

People act like there doesn't exist a scenario in life to justify discrimination against homosexuality.


Besides for religious reasons, I don't know of any scenarios that justify discrimination against homosexuality that aren't bigoted. Do you?

____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#62gbaji, Posted: Nov 20 2013 at 6:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) What's ridiculously wrong is the idea that we started out thinking that pregnancy was some kind of terrible infringement of the rights of women. Seriously. That doesn't even make sense. People had to be taught, convinced, cajoled, and otherwise brought kicking and screaming into adopting the idea that pregnancy violated the rights of women. That was a means to an end, not the end itself.
#63 Nov 20 2013 at 6:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The end of the pro-abortion movement has always been about population control.

"Always"? Almost certainly not. You're allowed to ascribe whatever current motives you want to make up but I doubt you'll be able to support them beyond "You just know it's true!!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#64 Nov 20 2013 at 6:20 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The end of the pro-abortion movement has always been about population control.

"Always"? Almost certainly not. You're allowed to ascribe whatever current motives you want to make up but I doubt you'll be able to support them beyond "You just know it's true!!"


Pro-abortion is not the same as pro-choice. Pro-choice is a specific reason/argument for supporting legalized abortion. Pro-abortion is the broad position that abortion serves some social good and should be encouraged. It's the difference between why you think people should be allowed to do something, and why you think people should do that thing in the first place.

The two are often incorrectly assumed to be synonymous, but in this case my word choice was not accidental at all.


Oh. And yes, the reason someone would want people to have abortions (which is different than supporting their right to make that choice!) is for reasons of population control. Even the whole "she should be free of the burden of raising a child" is a population control argument if it's in support of abortion and not adoption. Which is why the whole artificial womb thing is interesting precisely because it would break the current cozy arrangement where pro-abortion folks can hide within a more socially acceptable rights movement. Take the rights issue away and what happens?

Edited, Nov 20th 2013 4:24pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#65 Nov 20 2013 at 6:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, when you're done making up definitions and laying down your No True Scotsman foundation, were you going to provide evidence for the current movement being about population control? I'm looking for sweeping evidence here, not "Well, this one person once said something on this blog so that means EVERYONE is like this!"

Edit: And, frankly, your "Well Pro-Abortion means you think everyone should do it" argument is ludicrous anyway. Whatever number of people out there are actively agitating to make/convince people have abortions is vanishingly small.

Edited, Nov 20th 2013 6:26pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#66 Nov 20 2013 at 6:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Even the whole "she should be free of the burden of raising a child" is a population control argument if it's in support of abortion and not adoption.

You probably don't get around girls much so this might be news to you: there's nine relatively uncomfortable months between conception and when you can give a child away for adoption. A woman making the decision not to undergo those months does not necessarily mean she gives a wet shit about "population control".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#67gbaji, Posted: Nov 20 2013 at 6:31 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) /shrug
#68gbaji, Posted: Nov 20 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Except that the argument I mentioned isn't about the 9 uncomfortable months of gestation, but specifically about the 18 years of responsibility that would follow that. Given that this argument has already specifically been singled out as different than the "woman has a right to control her own body" argument, it would seem relevant to point out that the two are dealing with those two very different things. One is about the woman opting out of pregnancy. The other is about the woman opting out of child rearing.
#69 Nov 20 2013 at 6:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I think there are two movements though.

Well, you're welcome to believe whatever you want, I guess. I'm already well aware that your mind is filled with all sorts of strange hobgoblins, bandersnatch and boogeymen so what's one more in the closet?

Quote:
I believe that there must be some people for whom this is a matter of population control and not really about rights

I believe there's people out there who sincerely believe that dinosaurs exist within a Hollow Earth. I don't give these people any special consideration or worry though. It's a big country; think of a viewpoint and someone has it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#70 Nov 20 2013 at 6:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Even the whole "she should be free of the burden of raising a child" is a population control argument if it's in support of abortion and not adoption.

You probably don't get around girls much so this might be news to you: there's nine relatively uncomfortable months between conception and when you can give a child away for adoption. A woman making the decision not to undergo those months does not necessarily mean she gives a wet shit about "population control".
Except that the argument I mentioned isn't about the 9 uncomfortable months of gestation, but specifically about the 18 years of responsibility that would follow that.

I'm sorry. I thought you knew where babies came from Smiley: frown
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#71 Nov 20 2013 at 7:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
What's ridiculously wrong is the idea that we started out thinking that pregnancy was some kind of terrible infringement of the rights of women. Seriously. That doesn't even make sense. People had to be taught, convinced, cajoled, and otherwise brought kicking and screaming into adopting the idea that pregnancy violated the rights of women. That was a means to an end, not the end itself.


I don't know where in the history books this happened. I do know that the Supreme Court ruled that a woman has the right to choose what she does to her own body, which isn't equivalent to brainwashing folks into believing that pregnancy was some kind of terrible infringement of the rights of women.

Quote:
The end of the pro-abortion movement has always been about population control. We can debate to what degree racist/eugenics played a role, but if you think this just sprang up out of nowhere as a rights issue, you are terribly confused (or terribly well indoctrinated)


Or you've put on your tinfoil hat again. Smiley: tinfoilhat

Edited, Nov 20th 2013 8:02pm by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#72 Nov 20 2013 at 7:13 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
I believe that there must be some people for whom this is a matter of population control and not really about rights

I believe there's people out there who sincerely believe that dinosaurs exist within a Hollow Earth. I don't give these people any special consideration or worry though. It's a big country; think of a viewpoint and someone has it.


Sure, but there aren't a whole lot of political debates on whether to pass or oppose a law having to do with dinosaurs living in Hollow Earth. Meanwhile, there are political debates and conflicts over whether or not we encourage or discourage abortion within our society.

You asked for an example of this, so here's one: The debate over requiring women to view a sonogram of the fetus before having an abortion. While I'm sure that there are many people who pick sides over the whole "right to choose" angle, we're not actually fighting over the right to make the choice, but whether we take or don't take some action which may influence the rate at which a choice is made. The argument for the sonogram requirement is because statistically fewer women will go through with having an abortion if they are shown a sonogram of the fetus. So by opposing it, you're not really fighting for the "right to have an abortion" but fighting to increase the number of abortions that occur.

That's a clear example of an action that is "pro-abortion" within the context of population control. And it also illustrates the point I made earlier about many people incorrectly conflating the positions of pro-choice versus pro-abortion. I'm quite sure that there are a lot of pro-choice folks who honestly believe that the sonogram issue is about the right to have an abortion itself rather than simply whether we take action to influence that choice. And I've personally been attacked for my position on the issue by people who clearly don't seem to grasp that one can be in favor of the right to make a choice, while opposing the choice itself (btw, this happens on all side of this issue).

So yes, I think there's ample evidence both of a true pro-abortion (population control) agenda *and* the use of the pro-choice argument as a means of concealing this less popular agenda from the public. I could probably find a whole list of examples of this sort of thing as well.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#73 Nov 20 2013 at 7:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Sure, but there aren't a whole lot of political debates on whether to pass or oppose a law having to do with dinosaurs living in Hollow Earth. Meanwhile, there are political debates and conflicts over whether or not we encourage or discourage abortion within our society.

I read a theory today that vaccines are ways for the government to implant tracking devices in us. NSA is a current debate, right? I still don't listen to the vaccine tracker folks.

Quote:
You asked for an example of this, so here's one: The debate over requiring women to view a sonogram of the fetus before having an abortion. While I'm sure that there are many people who pick sides over the whole "right to choose" angle, we're not actually fighting over the right to make the choice, but whether we take or don't take some action which may influence the rate at which a choice is made. The argument for the sonogram requirement is because statistically fewer women will go through with having an abortion if they are shown a sonogram of the fetus. So by opposing it, you're not really fighting for the "right to have an abortion" but fighting to increase the number of abortions that occur.

You're a nut Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#74 Nov 20 2013 at 7:17 PM Rating: Excellent
**
589 posts
You could spin that BS of population control right around to the say that the Rep. don't want the Middle class and upper class to have abortions so that the pool of tax payers doesn't decrease since we all know the poor have babies so they can buy a Lexus.
____________________________
.
#75 Nov 20 2013 at 7:23 PM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
I literally do not know a single pro-choice person who isn't highly interested in increasing access to birth control and sexual health education, specifically because it would help reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies (and by extension abortions) in the US. Major pro-choice organizations, like Planned Parenthood, which provides abortions, are generally strong, reliable sources of the information and products that help curb the number of unwanted pregnancies and, through that, reduce the demand for abortions.

In an ideal world, no one would be getting abortions, because no woman would be ending up with an unwanted pregnancy (be it by her "fault" or another's).

Very, VERY few abortions are performed because women change their mind about wanting to be pregnant, unless there's another medical reason the woman would want to terminate. Nearly all abortions occur because the woman never wanted to be pregnant in the first place.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#76 Nov 20 2013 at 8:07 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Quote:
What's ridiculously wrong is the idea that we started out thinking that pregnancy was some kind of terrible infringement of the rights of women. Seriously. That doesn't even make sense. People had to be taught, convinced, cajoled, and otherwise brought kicking and screaming into adopting the idea that pregnancy violated the rights of women. That was a means to an end, not the end itself.


I don't know where in the history books this happened. I do know that the Supreme Court ruled that a woman has the right to choose what she does to her own body, which isn't equivalent to brainwashing folks into believing that pregnancy was some kind of terrible infringement of the rights of women.


I challenge you to find anyone arguing that abortion was a "right" prior to sometime in the early-mid 20th century. That argument appeared right about the same time that the eugenics movements began suffering from image problems (which kinda reached a peak with that Adolf chap in Germany). I suppose we could say that it was a complete coincidence that the same people who 20 years earlier were arguing for enforced sterilization and abortions as means of population control and eugenics started arguing that abortion was a right and encouraging women to fight for that right along with other things like voting and equal pay. It's pretty darn obvious to anyone who isn't blind as a bat that the eugenics folks realized that they needed a new method to get people to adopt abortion, and found it in the suffragist movement.


Quote:
Quote:
The end of the pro-abortion movement has always been about population control. We can debate to what degree racist/eugenics played a role, but if you think this just sprang up out of nowhere as a rights issue, you are terribly confused (or terribly well indoctrinated)


Or you've put on your tinfoil hat again. Smiley: tinfoilhat


And yet, planned parenthood, the primary organization associated with "fighting for the reproductive rights of women", just happened to have been founded by a prominent eugenicist. I mean, I suppose it's possible that Margaret Sanger started out fighting for women's rights and then stumbled into the idea that encouraging poor colored women to use birth control and abortions would have the additional benefit of reducing the undesirable/unfit population, but it's far more likely that the process worked the other way. People tend to start with a goal and then look for ways to accomplish that goal rather than the other way around.

Doubly unlikely when you realize that for the claim that she started out as some kind of moral champion of women's rights to be true, we'd have to believe that someone who fought for those rights would then later adopt the position that society would be better off if those women hadn't been born in the first place, but then even later (after Adolph ruined it for everyone) change her mind and decide that they really were worthy of living, but just by coincidence she would focus her organizations efforts to encourage women to embrace their rights to abort in inner city neighborhoods with high minority populations. You know... just a coincidence.

Eugenics found in the women's rights movement a means to push their agenda forward without it being as obvious. Why is this so hard to get? Like I said, there are clear examples of cases where the agenda isn't about the right to abort, but the desire to increase the likelihood that someone will choose to abort. At that point, it's not really about rights anymore, is it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 52 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (52)