Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

jason1637 said:
CaptainExplosion said:

Then there's how Trump's America has been treating rape victims.

Ohio wants to force an 11 year old rape victim to deliver.

Georgia bans abortion after 6 weeks, even in some rape cases, and jails women who leave the state to have one.

Alabama bans abortions, even for rape and incest.

The Republican Party has given more power to rapists over a woman's body than women have over their own bodies.

This is America. -_-

Abortion is imoral though. These bills are a bit extreme but the intentions are good.

No, the intentions aren't good, these bills are about women being forced to live under rules decided by conservative white men. It's all about control. It's systemic oppression.

And furthermore putting "Abortion is imoral though. These bills are a bit extreme but the intentions are good." in my post is just insulting.



Some days I just blow up.

Around the Network
CaptainExplosion said:
jason1637 said:

No, the intentions aren't good, these bills are about women being forced to live under rules decided by conservative white men. It's all about control. It's systemic oppression.

And furthermore putting "Abortion is imoral though. These bills are a bit extreme but the intentions are good." in my post is just insulting.

Well we have laws that stop people from killing each other and killing animals so it makes sense that there are bills being made to stop abortions. Life is sacred and if someone does not want a child they don't have to keep the kid or they can just take  proper precautions to make sure that they don't have a kid while having sex.



jason1637 said:
CaptainExplosion said:

No, the intentions aren't good, these bills are about women being forced to live under rules decided by conservative white men. It's all about control. It's systemic oppression.

And furthermore putting "Abortion is imoral though. These bills are a bit extreme but the intentions are good." in my post is just insulting.

Well we have laws that stop people from killing each other and killing animals so it makes sense that there are bills being made to stop abortions. Life is sacred and if someone does not want a child they don't have to keep the kid or they can just take  proper precautions to make sure that they don't have a kid while having sex.

So you want rape or incest victims to just accept what happened to them and bare the child or face prison time?



Some days I just blow up.

CaptainExplosion said:
jason1637 said:

Well we have laws that stop people from killing each other and killing animals so it makes sense that there are bills being made to stop abortions. Life is sacred and if someone does not want a child they don't have to keep the kid or they can just take  proper precautions to make sure that they don't have a kid while having sex.

So you want rape or incest victims to just accept what happened to them and bare the child or face prison time?

No. That's why I pointed out that those bills are a bit too extreme.



jason1637 said:
CaptainExplosion said:

So you want rape or incest victims to just accept what happened to them and bare the child or face prison time?

No. That's why I pointed out that those bills are a bit too extreme.

Sorry, I missed that before.



Some days I just blow up.

Around the Network

o_O.Q said:

"There are Americans who want the exact thing.  So no that doesn't seem to be at odds with western culture."

and there are people in the middle east who want absolute freedom for women? does that mean both cultures are the same? are you really trying to make broad statements about culture based on observations of outliers?

I'm not talking about outliers.  

I also never said that both cultures are the same.  

Cultures are complicated structures.  They are driven by the people who are part of it, and the people that are a part of it are affected by it.  

If you're worried about the former, you shouldn't be.  It takes a huge number of people to affect the culture like that.  3 million people from an "incompatible" culture aren't going to radically change the culture of 300 million. 

The latter is good, because people from "incompatible" cultures tend to get absorbed in the new culture.  

o_O.Q said:

"My commentary there has no regard to "big" or "small" government."

it absolutely does, the size of government determines to what degree intrusion in the affairs of other countries(including aid) is possible

In a sense.  But you can have smaller governments that intrude more in the affairs of other countries, and you can have larger countries that don't.

"big" or "small" government is a somewhat meaningless phrase because size of the government doesn't have to correlate with actions. 

Republicans push for big protectionist government, Democrats push for big "welfare" government.

o_O.Q said:

""It is inevitable" is a slippery slope fallacy.  Just because there's a path from A to B, doesn't mean that it has to be taken.  "

its not a fallacy if every time something has occurred in the past it has lead to the same result

at that point its fair to say that you move beyond something being possible and maybe even past it being probable

It is a fallacy.

"its not a fallacy if every time something has occurred in the past it has lead to the same result"

This kind of logic, doesn't work in science, and it certainly doesn't work in math.  

In math, something can be true an infinite number of times, and you only need one counter example to have the statement be false.  

With that in mind, I have a higher bar for something not being a fallacy.  Just because something usually happens, doesn't mean it's inevitable or guaranteed to happen.  

And no, it hasn't happened every time.

Most governments today have far larger reach and do more than they ever have before.  And yet this is also the freest we've ever been.

o_O.Q said:

""security apparatus" is moreso something that "small government" people push forward."

this is nonsense, libertarians want the military to be reduced and its funding to be reduced

you are not referring to small government people but people who want government to be restructured and there is a difference between the two

"Most "small government" people here want a big government because they want it to keep them safe.  A militarized border, a large military, strong police force are things being pushed by "small government" advocates. "

wrong, wrong, wrong

I'm talking about Republicans.  They make up most of the conservative voting population.  And they talk hard about being small government advocates.

Libertarians are definitely the exception.  Notice the usage of "most".  

jason1637 said:
CaptainExplosion said:

Then there's how Trump's America has been treating rape victims.

Ohio wants to force an 11 year old rape victim to deliver.

Georgia bans abortion after 6 weeks, even in some rape cases, and jails women who leave the state to have one.

Alabama bans abortions, even for rape and incest.

The Republican Party has given more power to rapists over a woman's body than women have over their own bodies.

This is America. -_-

Abortion is imoral though. These bills are a bit extreme but the intentions are good.

The problem though is that illegalizing abortion is not the way to lower the rate.  

There's a reason that terms like "coat hanger" abortion exist.  If a woman is desparate enough, they are going to take things into their own hands.  

Even if you think that abortion should be legalized, it's not an easy thing to legislate.  

For example, some women purposely fall down stairs to miscarry.  How do you legislate that?  
"People who fall down stairs should go to jail" -> That's obvious nonsense.

"Pregnant people who fall down stairs should go to jail" ->Still nonsense.  Some people legitimately fall by accident.

"Pregnant people who are trying to miscarry by falling down the stairs should go to jail" -> how do you prove that someone was intentionally trying to miscarry?  Sure in some cases, you can figure it out, because they try another method.  

Or like the recent law that was trying to get passed.   That doctors could be charged if something happens to a baby that surivived an abortion.

How do you prove it was the doctor's fault?  Or how do you prove that the doctor could have done more to save the baby's life?  

That was the concern that Democrats had, that doctors could be charged with murder for a natural death.

Some of these women are endangering their lives to miscarry.  Illegalizing abortion isn't the 100% pro-life view it is cracked up to be.

Some states are giving away free contraception, and they've had great success with reducing the abortion rate.  

CaptainExplosion said:

And furthermore putting "Abortion is imoral though. These bills are a bit extreme but the intentions are good." in my post is just insulting.

I don't think that was intentional.  A lot of people accidentally put their post in the nearly invisible square (on mobile) they are quoting.

jason1637 said:

Well we have laws that stop people from killing each other and killing animals so it makes sense that there are bills being made to stop abortions. Life is sacred and if someone does not want a child they don't have to keep the kid or they can just take  proper precautions to make sure that they don't have a kid while having sex.

But we also have laws to allow killing animals, and in some cases people (mostly the death penalty, but you could argue that Euthanasia is also in that category.)



Machiavellian said:
EricHiggin said:

This is one of the main problems though. People like Trump and Ben put stuff out there and yet the media goes after them for those same things over and over. When you're the type of person who goes out of their way to lay things out as easily and clearly as possible in advance, and then you have opposition constantly ask you about those same things over and over, especially when it's beyond old news, it no doubt is really going to get on your nerves. The point in spending the time in advance was so you didn't have to waste time later, as well as trying to stop anyone from bringing it up later to use against you. If your audience requires your media platform to get Ben or Trumps view on things, they'll give you a shot if you're going to be legit, but if you're looking to make a fool of them, then your audience can pay money to find out more about them. As far as Ben would be concerned, it's their loss and it's mostly because of the platform, not him.

Ben put's info on his website and writes books, and then people want him to go over it all again. Now if it was legit and they just wanted to know what he meant, that's one thing, but when they are trying to make him look bad he's not going to have it. It's like Trump and his billions lost. Everyone already knows. He even laid it out on The Apprentice, that he was super deep in debt and crawled his way out. He even has a book called The Art of The Comeback. This is why they go on the offensive so quickly. They already have gone over this, and you can find out more for free in some ways, and pay in others, like for their books. Since their opposition likely wouldn't go to the trouble, or clearly hasn't, why should they go to the trouble of explaining what they already have over and over?

Lol, Don't even bother throwing Trump in with Ben.  On a daily basis we see that Trump is still the same person today as he has been every day of his life.  Not only does Trump doesn't promote to be different or changed from his past he relishes it.  He has always been a grifter and con man, a total idiot and straight up fraud and nothing today has changed any of that.  He still lies to his constituents like they are stupid and you still defend him.  I have read The Art o the Comeback just like I read the Art of the Deal, and both shows Trump hasn't changed a bit.  I ask if you have read either or are you still drinking the kool aid that Trump is somehow some great businessman.

At least with Ben you can say he is trying to make a change but talking about something and actually doing it are 2 different things.  When challenged he came up short.  The next time he should do better, definitely prepare better because no one takes anyone serious unless they can prove they have changed not just looking for others to change while they stay the same.

I wasn't talking about change, so I don't know where you got that from. I was talking about how they react and respond to those who typically aren't coming at them from a point of good faith. Now in terms of a reporter or interviewer, if they actually did their opposition homework, in terms of someone like Ben, they won't have much to throw at them, which is a problem since that's somehow their job, so it's no surprise how they go about their questioning. It's also no surprise how people like Ben respond to them because of this. While he could have handled it more professionally, it's not like what he did was totally uncalled for.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

jason1637 said:

Abortion is imoral though. These bills are a bit extreme but the intentions are good.

The problem though is that illegalizing abortion is not the way to lower the rate.  

There's a reason that terms like "coat hanger" abortion exist.  If a woman is desparate enough, they are going to take things into their own hands.  

Even if you think that abortion should be legalized, it's not an easy thing to legislate.  

For example, some women purposely fall down stairs to miscarry.  How do you legislate that?  
"People who fall down stairs should go to jail" -> That's obvious nonsense.

"Pregnant people who fall down stairs should go to jail" ->Still nonsense.  Some people legitimately fall by accident.

"Pregnant people who are trying to miscarry by falling down the stairs should go to jail" -> how do you prove that someone was intentionally trying to miscarry?  Sure in some cases, you can figure it out, because they try another method.  

Or like the recent law that was trying to get passed.   That doctors could be charged if something happens to a baby that surivived an abortion.

How do you prove it was the doctor's fault?  Or how do you prove that the doctor could have done more to save the baby's life?  

That was the concern that Democrats had, that doctors could be charged with murder for a natural death.

Some of these women are endangering their lives to miscarry.  Illegalizing abortion isn't the 100% pro-life view it is cracked up to be.

Some states are giving away free contraception, and they've had great success with reducing the abortion rate.  

I don't think that was intentional.  A lot of people accidentally put their post in the nearly invisible square (on mobile) they are quoting.

jason1637 said:

Well we have laws that stop people from killing each other and killing animals so it makes sense that there are bills being made to stop abortions. Life is sacred and if someone does not want a child they don't have to keep the kid or they can just take  proper precautions to make sure that they don't have a kid while having sex.

But we also have laws to allow killing animals, and in some cases people (mostly the death penalty, but you could argue that Euthanasia is also in that category.)

For rare instances such ad incest, rape, and health issues I think it makes sense to allow abortions. The issue I have with it is that the vast majority of abortions are not because of incest, rape, and/or health issues.

The falling down the stairs example is hard to prove but I believe that investigators have the capabilities to figure out if someone was purposely trying to get rid of their baby based on their past actions. 

And those laws are dumb. The only reasons that animals should be killed is for food and for self defense if you're attacked by a bear or something. Also the death penalty is also immoral imo.



Machiavellian said:

If the interviewer was trying to make viewers dismiss Ben, isn't it up to Ben not to make it so easy.  Its one thing to be baited, its something else to jump both feet into the trap knowing the results.  Here is the thing.  Ben has a book that talks about the very thing he promoted in the past.  Why would any interviewer not challenge him to prove that he has changed.  That is how I took the questions from the interviewer.  The question is Ben grandstanding or is he truly changed how he approached topics.  From that interview Ben failed the test.  Do we believe this will be the only time Ben will be challenged whether or not he isn't the same person who promoted toxic rhetoric, probably not.  There are many people who talk about change but they are only talking about everyone else besides themselves.  This was the take away from that interview.  Ben is only preaching about everyone else needs to change besides himself.

Everyone's responsible for their own actions.  I'm just saying that I don't much care for the constant scrutiny people have to go through in order to justify themselves.  To take this to a lower tier, how many times have you seen athletes caught up in drama over some quote that is exploded into more than it is by the sports press (which is probably the most parasitic of all forms of journalism) so that talking heads can morph these people (often barely more than kids themselves) into caricatures instead of real people?  Same thing goes for celebrities, particularly young ones.

I just don't believe that life is all about passing the tests set up by jerks with bad intent.  And, no, I don't believe that his appearance here changes what he's saying in his book or whether it holds any merit.  Frankly, it should be blindingly obvious that anger is hurting our politics.  At least in the United States, the division is as bad as it's been since the Civil War in terms of two sides just talking past each other and considering the other side evil.  Heck, Ben Shapiro spends a large portion of his time at least talking to the other side, and not just doing it in a shock jock way like the Milos or Coulters.



CaptainExplosion said:
jason1637 said:

Well we have laws that stop people from killing each other and killing animals so it makes sense that there are bills being made to stop abortions. Life is sacred and if someone does not want a child they don't have to keep the kid or they can just take  proper precautions to make sure that they don't have a kid while having sex.

So you want rape or incest victims to just accept what happened to them and bare the child or face prison time?

Another way to look at that is, should the child be killed because it was brought into the world due to rape or incest.  Of course this would mean that a person would believe on conception that the embryo is a living being or just a clump of cells.  It's difficult but if you value the sanctity of life then yes, even if the child was conceived through those means then it has a right to live just like any other living being.  If you do not believe in the sanctity of life and that the embryo is just a clump of cells, even if it has a heartbeat and developed brain then sure, get rid of it.  People preach about morals until they are faced with difficult situations and like the animals we all are throw those high minded morals out the window when its convenient.

Last edited by Machiavellian - on 16 May 2019