By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Hypocrisy on Abortion?

 

Democratic Support of UBI and Abortion at the same time is Hypocrisy

Yes 8 26.67%
 
No 22 73.33%
 
Total:30
JWeinCom on 19 May 2019
RolStoppable said:
JWeinCom said:

1.  Yes, I read what you said.  Which seemed like dodging the actual question.  So, please clarify for me.  Can one support abortion without thinking of a fetus as a parasite?  A simple yes or no will suffice.  

2.  I'm sorry, but you're just showing yourself to be profoundly ignorant on how the English language works.  If I say, "you have the Switch with the red and blue Joycon just like me", "your twin looks just like you", "these taste just like McDonald's fries", "I have a bag just like that one", or "I'll pay for you just like I did last time".  These are all literal statements that use the phrase just like. All of these phrases mean exactly what they say.  Having just like does not magically make something metaphorical.  You seem to want to just take sentences out of context, both with the articles and with these posts, but that's just not how reading works.  

An equation is a form of comparison.  It is comparing two things and finding them to be equal.  I'm not sure what you're on about there. 

By context, I obviously meant the context of the writing.  Not the context of a fetus.  That's just a weird concept.  

3.  "and allow their standard of living to collapse as a result... and you think this is a sensible argument?"

Yes.  It's a sensible argument for why the two situations are different.  There is a difference between being forced to do something and being compelled to do something by circumstance.  Banning abortion forces women to carry a fetus to term.  To use their body in a very particular way they may find objectionable, to risk serious bodily harm, etc. 

Raising taxes gives people a choice, based on how severe the increase is (you're assuming standard of living will collapse, but that may or may not be the case).  They can choose to work the same amount if the money is not important to them.  If they do decide it's worth working more, they have a choice of any number of ways they can go about earning the money, which may or may not involve working more, (they can also demand a raise, switch jobs, look for a more profitable company, etc.), may or may not involve bodily risk, etc.    

All of which is not to say that UBI is a good idea (I'm undecided on that) but that it is very different from a ban on abortion.  The idea that one's opinion on one matter has to inform their opinion on another is frankly stupid.  It's an argument by analogy fallacy.  

"that's just not how reading works."

Can you explain how reading works?

"UBI is a good idea"

Why are you convinced that that is the case?

Lol. Basically.



Around the Network
sethnintendo on 19 May 2019
WolfpackN64 said:
sethnintendo said:

Just don't let any priest near the children.  We need to protect the children.

Serious problems with the church aside, the fact they operate the most orphanages in the world is still a fact. And child abuse in Catholic institutions has dropped off sharply since internal reforms in the early 2000's. But since they didn't market that fact it seems the general public is still unaware.

Yea doesn't help when more old cases keep being brought up.  Seems like there are still bad apples being exposed from the 60s, 70s and 80s.  Not sure why they just don't allow them to marry which would hopefully cut the deviant behavior because I suspect most of it comes from being sexually suppressed.  Just takes a few bad ones to tarnish entire reputation.   Another prime example would be cops.  There are a lot of good cops but the bad ones make people dislike all of them.



WolfpackN64 on 19 May 2019
sethnintendo said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Serious problems with the church aside, the fact they operate the most orphanages in the world is still a fact. And child abuse in Catholic institutions has dropped off sharply since internal reforms in the early 2000's. But since they didn't market that fact it seems the general public is still unaware.

Yea doesn't help when more old cases keep being brought up.  Seems like there are still bad apples being exposed from the 60s, 70s and 80s.  Not sure why they just don't allow them to marry which would hopefully cut the deviant behavior because I suspect most of it comes from being sexually suppressed.  Just takes a few bad ones to tarnish entire reputation.   Another prime example would be cops.  There are a lot of good cops but the bad ones make people dislike all of them.

A 2000 year old institution doesn't just let priests marry because of abuse crisis. It's a very complicated theological issue. Even more complicated is the fact that ex-anglican priests who converted to being a catholic priest can remain married (they can't re-marry of course) and priests of the Eastern Catholic rite can marry as long as it's before their ordination (and the Church is looking if that's a possability for the latin rite as well). However, it seems they managed to assert better control of the clergy and better weed out rotten apples before they can cause any damage.

Taking care of their past rotten apples till now has been a problem, but Pope Francis enacted even stricter clerical laws where members from the lowest segments of the clergy can immediatly report abuse to the Vatican (which should quickly be followed by an investigation and possible suspension or even exclusion of the offending member).

As in most things, it's a very complicated matter and very few people know about the inner machinations of the church unless someting lands in the newspapers.



o_O.Q on 19 May 2019
JWeinCom said:
o_O.Q said:

"can you quote me directly where i said that?"

Yes.  "no i don't think that's a good way to assess this"

did you read this at all and comprehend it? why did you ignore the part afterwards that actually addresses my point of view?

"You can indeed use is without equating things.  Which was exactly the point I was making. "

and a point i never implied that i disagreed with so its a bit strange that you'd make the point to begin with

"You have to look at the context. "

not in cases where someone is using "just like" since its not an equation but a comparison

the definition of literal language is as follows "Literal language means exactly what it says"

what is the context for the development of a baby in the womb? and what is the context for the development of a parasite within the body?

"people have a choice when it comes to paying taxes? how do you get out of it?"

Never said that.  This is what happens when you pull one sentence out of a paragraph without context. 

" My point of view it that they have a choice.  They do not have to engage in any particular activity as a direct result of a UBI increase or any other tax. "

how do you pay taxes without working?

"They can choose whether or not they want to work more hours.  "

and allow their standard of living to collapse as a result... and you think this is a sensible argument?

1.  Yes, I read what you said.  Which seemed like dodging the actual question.  So, please clarify for me.  Can one support abortion without thinking of a fetus as a parasite?  A simple yes or no will suffice.  

2.  I'm sorry, but you're just showing yourself to be profoundly ignorant on how the English language works.  If I say, "you have the Switch with the red and blue Joycon just like me", "your twin looks just like you", "these taste just like McDonald's fries", "I have a bag just like that one", or "I'll pay for you just like I did last time".  These are all literal statements that use the phrase just like. All of these phrases mean exactly what they say.  Having just like does not magically make something metaphorical.  You seem to want to just take sentences out of context, both with the articles and with these posts, but that's just not how reading works.  

An equation is a form of comparison.  It is comparing two things and finding them to be equal.  I'm not sure what you're on about there. 

By context, I obviously meant the context of the writing.  Not the context of a fetus.  That's just a weird concept.  

3.  "and allow their standard of living to collapse as a result... and you think this is a sensible argument?"

Yes.  It's a sensible argument for why the two situations are different.  There is a difference between being forced to do something and being compelled to do something by circumstance.  Banning abortion forces women to carry a fetus to term.  To use their body in a very particular way they may find objectionable, to risk serious bodily harm, etc. 

Raising taxes gives people a choice, based on how severe the increase is (you're assuming standard of living will collapse, but that may or may not be the case).  They can choose to work the same amount if the money is not important to them.  If they do decide it's worth working more, they have a choice of any number of ways they can go about earning the money, which may or may not involve working more, (they can also demand a raise, switch jobs, look for a more profitable company, etc.), may or may not involve bodily risk, etc.    

All of which is not to say that UBI is a good idea (I'm undecided on that) but that it is very different from a ban on abortion.  The idea that one's opinion on one matter has to inform their opinion on another is frankly stupid.  It's an argument by analogy fallacy.  

"So, please clarify for me.  Can one support abortion without thinking of a fetus as a parasite?"

you know initially i would have said yes but now that i've actually thought a bit more on it i'd actually say no

what do you view the fetus as if not as a parasite? and obviously i'm not making a literal comparison

i should not have said that the context is irrelevant but this is getting so long and pedantic that its just ridiculous

you are taking examples where the comparison is being done between the exact same object and pretending that this is the same as a comparison between objects that are not the same

"you have the Switch with the red and blue Joycon just like me"

"these taste just like McDonald's fries"

in the case of "these taste" that could be referring to crackers, would you still argue that this is a literal comparison and not metaphorical?

as i already said comparisons between objects that are not the same cannot be literal comparisons, i clarified this multiple times even posting the definition of literal comparison

"Raising taxes gives people a choice, based on how severe the increase is"

nice bait an switch tactic there but this thread wasn't about taxes in general but the kind of taxes ubi calls for which raise the tax rate substantially

the country i can think of that is the closest to having something like ubi would be sweden which has a tax rate of 70%... which may actually be higher if applied in the states considering various factors like the us helping them with military spending

"All of which is not to say that UBI is a good idea"

i love how you dishonestly pretend i'm talking about a minimal tax initially then go back to talking about ubi afterwards



Chris Hu on 19 May 2019
o_O.Q said:
Chris Hu said:
So you want to talk about hypocrites most pro lifers are major hypocrites and aren't really that pro life. If all theses pro lifers where really pro life there would be no need for orphanages and a foster care system. Most pro lifers talk a good talk but would never actually adopt a kid or even a unwanted animal

"If all theses pro lifers where really pro life there would be no need for orphanages and a foster care system."

not necessarily, what their general goal is if I understand them correctly is to reduce the chances of unwanted conceptions by enforcing strict monogamy in women so that the births that do happen occur within a family unit that will take care of the children

in addition to that they are for shaming sex outside of marriage to reduce the chances of births occurring outside of the family unit

the puritans of the past had these values for a reason, they amazingly enough understood that allowing promiscuity comes with the price of unwanted children and maybe even beyond that the murder of unwanted unborn children

for all the flack they get for being "backwards" it is remarkable that they figured this stuff out back then and put a system in place to deal with these issues

"Most pro lifers talk a good talk but would never actually adopt a kid or even a unwanted animal"

you mean like socialists who never actually lift a finger to do anything for the poor and just spend their time online talking about how the rich need to be torn down?

Go back to worshiping Alex Jones you response is bunch of non sensible BS.  Not that I would expect anything better from someone that lives in a alternate universe where the Nazi's where socialist.  I'm pretty sure you one of those hypocritical pro lifers.


User was moderated for this post.
- Hiku

Last edited by Hiku - on 21 May 2019

Around the Network
Chris Hu on 19 May 2019
WolfpackN64 said:
Chris Hu said:
So you want to talk about hypocrites most pro lifers are major hypocrites and aren't really that pro life. If all theses pro lifers where really pro life there would be no need for orphanages and a foster care system. Most pro lifers talk a good talk but would never actually adopt a kid or even a unwanted animal

Arguably, the biggest pro-life organization (The Catholic Church), also operates the most orphanages in the world. The argument doesn't really fly.

Instead of operating a ton of crappy orphanages they should encourage their members to adopt more children.



o_O.Q on 19 May 2019
Chris Hu said:
o_O.Q said:

"If all theses pro lifers where really pro life there would be no need for orphanages and a foster care system."

not necessarily, what their general goal is if I understand them correctly is to reduce the chances of unwanted conceptions by enforcing strict monogamy in women so that the births that do happen occur within a family unit that will take care of the children

in addition to that they are for shaming sex outside of marriage to reduce the chances of births occurring outside of the family unit

the puritans of the past had these values for a reason, they amazingly enough understood that allowing promiscuity comes with the price of unwanted children and maybe even beyond that the murder of unwanted unborn children

for all the flack they get for being "backwards" it is remarkable that they figured this stuff out back then and put a system in place to deal with these issues

"Most pro lifers talk a good talk but would never actually adopt a kid or even a unwanted animal"

you mean like socialists who never actually lift a finger to do anything for the poor and just spend their time online talking about how the rich need to be torn down?

Go back to worshiping Alex Jones you response is bunch of non sensible BS.  Not that I would expect anything better from someone that lives in a alternate universe where the Nazi's where socialist.  I'm pretty sure you one of those hypocritical pro lifers.

"you response is bunch of non sensible BS."

how so?

"lives in a alternate universe where the Nazi's where socialist."

they were and i proved it... your only argument in response was that they admired henry ford if i remember correctly

"I'm pretty sure you one of those hypocritical pro lifers."

i've said multiple times that i don't believe i have the right to police the behavior of other people



WolfpackN64 on 19 May 2019
Chris Hu said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Arguably, the biggest pro-life organization (The Catholic Church), also operates the most orphanages in the world. The argument doesn't really fly.

Instead of operating a ton of crappy orphanages they should encourage their members to adopt more children.

1. Calling Catholic orphanages "crappy" just like that is unwarranted.

2. Your second point is following an poor first point so how do I even progress from there?



JWeinCom on 19 May 2019
o_O.Q said:
JWeinCom said:

1.  Yes, I read what you said.  Which seemed like dodging the actual question.  So, please clarify for me.  Can one support abortion without thinking of a fetus as a parasite?  A simple yes or no will suffice.  

2.  I'm sorry, but you're just showing yourself to be profoundly ignorant on how the English language works.  If I say, "you have the Switch with the red and blue Joycon just like me", "your twin looks just like you", "these taste just like McDonald's fries", "I have a bag just like that one", or "I'll pay for you just like I did last time".  These are all literal statements that use the phrase just like. All of these phrases mean exactly what they say.  Having just like does not magically make something metaphorical.  You seem to want to just take sentences out of context, both with the articles and with these posts, but that's just not how reading works.  

An equation is a form of comparison.  It is comparing two things and finding them to be equal.  I'm not sure what you're on about there. 

By context, I obviously meant the context of the writing.  Not the context of a fetus.  That's just a weird concept.  

3.  "and allow their standard of living to collapse as a result... and you think this is a sensible argument?"

Yes.  It's a sensible argument for why the two situations are different.  There is a difference between being forced to do something and being compelled to do something by circumstance.  Banning abortion forces women to carry a fetus to term.  To use their body in a very particular way they may find objectionable, to risk serious bodily harm, etc. 

Raising taxes gives people a choice, based on how severe the increase is (you're assuming standard of living will collapse, but that may or may not be the case).  They can choose to work the same amount if the money is not important to them.  If they do decide it's worth working more, they have a choice of any number of ways they can go about earning the money, which may or may not involve working more, (they can also demand a raise, switch jobs, look for a more profitable company, etc.), may or may not involve bodily risk, etc.    

All of which is not to say that UBI is a good idea (I'm undecided on that) but that it is very different from a ban on abortion.  The idea that one's opinion on one matter has to inform their opinion on another is frankly stupid.  It's an argument by analogy fallacy.  

"So, please clarify for me.  Can one support abortion without thinking of a fetus as a parasite?"

you know initially i would have said yes but now that i've actually thought a bit more on it i'd actually say no

what do you view the fetus as if not as a parasite? and obviously i'm not making a literal comparison

i should not have said that the context is irrelevant but this is getting so long and pedantic that its just ridiculous

you are taking examples where the comparison is being done between the exact same object and pretending that this is the same as a comparison between objects that are not the same

"you have the Switch with the red and blue Joycon just like me"

"these taste just like McDonald's fries"

in the case of "these taste" that could be referring to crackers, would you still argue that this is a literal comparison and not metaphorical?

as i already said comparisons between objects that are not the same cannot be literal comparisons, i clarified this multiple times even posting the definition of literal comparison

"Raising taxes gives people a choice, based on how severe the increase is"

nice bait an switch tactic there but this thread wasn't about taxes in general but the kind of taxes ubi calls for which raise the tax rate substantially

the country i can think of that is the closest to having something like ubi would be sweden which has a tax rate of 70%... which may actually be higher if applied in the states considering various factors like the us helping them with military spending

"All of which is not to say that UBI is a good idea"

i love how you dishonestly pretend i'm talking about a minimal tax initially then go back to talking about ubi afterwards

1.  So... then you view the fetus as a parasite?  Because you've said that you support a right to abortion.  

2.  If I said "these taste just like McDonald's fries" in reference to crackers, then I wouldn't be making a metaphorical statement, I would be making a weird and inaccurate statement.  Unless they made McDonald's fries flavored crackers or something. 

If I were talking about some other kind of fries, like fries I made at home, that would be a valid and literal comparison between two different things. At any rate, I'm not arguing that just like can't be used for a metaphor.  I'm arguing that it's not always the case, as you've been insisting. 

"as i already said comparisons between objects that are not the same cannot be literal comparisons"

Ummmmmmmmmm... what? Yes they can.  We compare objects that are not the same all the time.  That's usually the purpose of comparisons.  A tiger is bigger than a lion.  Ice is colder than water.  Whiskey is more alcoholic than beer.  Chocolate tastes better than cabbage.  A car is more expensive than a pack of peanuts.  Hydrox are just like Oreos.  Hey Arnold's head is shaped just like a football.  A clementine is just like a small orange.  A kiwi has vitamin C just like an orange.  The impressionist sounded just like Whitney Houston.  The Playstation Move is just like a Wiimote.  These are all comparisons between different objects and they're all literal.

This is getting pedantic because you keep demonstrating that you're really confused on this subject.  I'm sorry, just like does not necessarily indicate a metaphor.  I've given you about a dozen examples of it being used in a literal sense. 

3.  I honestly don't know the mechanics of a UBI and how it would work.  Which is the main reason I'm undecided on it.  It it's a tax on the super wealthy it might not necessarily raise taxes on an individual who has to work by all that much.  Which was really not the main point I was saying, which you completely blew by.  There is a big difference between raising a tax on people and banning them from being able to do something to their body.  Just not nearly the same. 



o_O.Q on 19 May 2019
JWeinCom said:
o_O.Q said:

"So, please clarify for me.  Can one support abortion without thinking of a fetus as a parasite?"

you know initially i would have said yes but now that i've actually thought a bit more on it i'd actually say no

what do you view the fetus as if not as a parasite? and obviously i'm not making a literal comparison

i should not have said that the context is irrelevant but this is getting so long and pedantic that its just ridiculous

you are taking examples where the comparison is being done between the exact same object and pretending that this is the same as a comparison between objects that are not the same

"you have the Switch with the red and blue Joycon just like me"

"these taste just like McDonald's fries"

in the case of "these taste" that could be referring to crackers, would you still argue that this is a literal comparison and not metaphorical?

as i already said comparisons between objects that are not the same cannot be literal comparisons, i clarified this multiple times even posting the definition of literal comparison

"Raising taxes gives people a choice, based on how severe the increase is"

nice bait an switch tactic there but this thread wasn't about taxes in general but the kind of taxes ubi calls for which raise the tax rate substantially

the country i can think of that is the closest to having something like ubi would be sweden which has a tax rate of 70%... which may actually be higher if applied in the states considering various factors like the us helping them with military spending

"All of which is not to say that UBI is a good idea"

i love how you dishonestly pretend i'm talking about a minimal tax initially then go back to talking about ubi afterwards

1.  So... then you view the fetus as a parasite?  Because you've said that you support a right to abortion.  

2.  If I said "these taste just like McDonald's fries" in reference to crackers, then I wouldn't be making a metaphorical statement, I would be making a weird and inaccurate statement.  Unless they made McDonald's fries flavored crackers or something. 

If I were talking about some other kind of fries, like fries I made at home, that would be a valid and literal comparison between two different things. At any rate, I'm not arguing that just like can't be used for a metaphor.  I'm arguing that it's not always the case, as you've been insisting. 

"as i already said comparisons between objects that are not the same cannot be literal comparisons"

Ummmmmmmmmm... what? Yes they can.  We compare objects that are not the same all the time.  That's usually the purpose of comparisons.  A tiger is bigger than a lion.  Ice is colder than water.  Whiskey is more alcoholic than beer.  Chocolate tastes better than cabbage.  A car is more expensive than a pack of peanuts.  Hydrox are just like Oreos.  Hey Arnold's head is shaped just like a football.  A clementine is just like a small orange.  A kiwi has vitamin C just like an orange.  The impressionist sounded just like Whitney Houston.  The Playstation Move is just like a Wiimote.  These are all comparisons between different objects and they're all literal.

This is getting pedantic because you keep demonstrating that you're really confused on this subject.  I'm sorry, just like does not necessarily indicate a metaphor.  I've given you about a dozen examples of it being used in a literal sense. 

3.  I honestly don't know the mechanics of a UBI and how it would work.  Which is the main reason I'm undecided on it.  It it's a tax on the super wealthy it might not necessarily raise taxes on an individual who has to work by all that much.  Which was really not the main point I was saying, which you completely blew by.  There is a big difference between raising a tax on people and banning them from being able to do something to their body.  Just not nearly the same. 

"So... then you view the fetus as a parasite?  Because you've said that you support a right to abortion.  "

its quite interesting to me how despite me asking you like 3 times at least you can't answer the question

"Ummmmmmmmmm... what? Yes they can."

i was referring to what i was speaking about previously that you conveniently ignored

"the definition of literal language is as follows "Literal language means exactly what it says"

what is the context for the development of a baby in the womb? and what is the context for the development of a parasite within the body?"

you've been spending this whole discussion moving away from your initial claim about babies and parasites to have an argument over linguistics which i'm not ashamed to say i haven't studied for a fairly long time

"I honestly don't know the mechanics of a UBI and how it would work."

so why have you been pretending that you do for the whole discussion?

 

" It it's a tax on the super wealthy it might not necessarily raise taxes on an individual who has to work by all that much."

and then they move their operations to another country and then you're fucked even more since you've then lost all the jobs they provided

"There is a big difference between raising a tax on people and banning them from being able to do something to their body. "

even if the taxes are so high that they don't have the money to do things to their body? suppose i want to put in extra large breast implants but i can't because all of my disposable income is being sucked away by taxes?