Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Are you actually kidding me? You don't define your standard for best then you call what I said a false equivalence? I am not using your standard because I don't know it. I am sure the most important standard as in who is the most electable as best but you don't understand. Care to tell me what you mean by best?
Best candidate means the one who would do the best job in that role, not who is most likely to be able to get the job.
Even if I agree with the bigger platform why even say it when it is not important to who is most electable?
Because it is critically important to who would make the best president. Biden's plan is essentially to just carry forward with the flawed policies that brought about Trump in the 1st place. Even if he were electable, which i do not concede, he would still be a terrible choice because he does not want to make significant improvements if given the job.
I am sorry how has she done that? Please show me a causal link.
Are you denying that the overton window has moved in the direction she advocates for? Are you denying that millions of americans aren't listening to what she is saying?
No one cares. If she isn't passing policy she isn't politically effective. Do you not understand that?
So you don't consider any politician at all to be politically effective? What is the point of categorizing people that way if it doesn't apply to anyone?
Perhaps you are not familiar with what has done as a congresswoman. Passed no policies.
Again, virtually no one has. That is why people like AOC, Sanders, and warren need to change the democratic party 1st.
Doesn't mean anything if it can't translate to passing a single policy. Also not even acknowledging that Twitter is a global platform so she can be getting followed by people not even in the US.
Again, no one is passing policy at the moment. So saying she is ineffective because no one is able to do anything is a weird metric to use. Do you have evidence to support the idea that she does not have millions of american twitter followers?
I don't care about your feelings. Please give me a causal link if not keep your feelings to yourself because I don't care.
Again, if you want to ignore reality, you go right ahead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Eh, my point of the last post was not to draw a correlation between Doves and happiness but to prove that Nations can exist just fine by only participating in defense wars and choosing not to play in endless proxy wars.America doesn't need to play these wargames.
If you want to cede your position as a world leader, sure you could. But that means that you become much less relevant in the world. Political alliances will re-shift without you. Most likely China would take over as the pre-eminent super power. And how long do you think it will be before china starts leaning into america hard once it has a global power base you let them take?
Withdrawing from the world will help you save some money and lives in the short term. But in the medium to long term it will cost you dearly as you lose your power and your allies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
List the top 5 happiest nations in the world, then list how many proxy wars they sent troops to die in.
I don't see any connection between those 2 things. The 5 happiest countries in the world are so because they take good care of the people. America prioritizes the wealth of rich people over the welfare of it's people.
You can have a strong presence in the world as well as take care of your people.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
And I did say mildly misogynistic, more in reference to the general make up of debaters who regularly debate this topic.
I haven't done a poll or anything, but in my experience, the majority of people who go on debating sites tend to be men. So it is more a reflection of the population of the site than of the misogyny of the people on it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
How is it a false equivalence? The best candidate is the most electable.
Best and most electable is also a false equivalence. Trump was quite electable. He was a terrible, terrible candidate and is now a terrible president. Most of the republicans who ran against him would have been better.
Bernie has a bigger platform and still losing?
Yes, because many people don't bother to learn what the candidates actually believe and will fight for.
Name me a bill she has passed.
She has been in congress for less than a year. Her power has not been in passing bills, which couldn't get past the republican senate anyway. Her power is in pushing the overton window back towards the rest of the modern world. Her power is in inspiring over 100 primary challenges to democrats who don't properly represent their constituents. Her power is in inspiring working class people that there are members of congress who don't only care about fundraising and appealing to the right wing.
Twitter followers doesn't equal politically effective.
Perhaps you are not familiar with what politics is. it is a popularity contest. Having twitter followers is a reflection of someone's popularity. Getting that many people to follow you and listen to your ideas is political effectiveness. The fact that no one wants to listen to most of the other democrats in congress shows that they are ineffective in appealing to voters.
I am sorry who did she motivate to win a race? If you can't find a causal link then she didn't motivate anyone.
There are over 100 primary challengers for democrats so far. Normal is 2 or 3. No one can definitively prove why every one of them chose to run. But AOC is the prime example showing that centrist dems are weak in their own districts and can be beaten by progressives. If you want to pretend like there is no relation between the 2, you can continue to believe that.
Please you have shown your bias here given you didn't even provide evidence for a single claim. If this wasn't your feelings you would have facts to back up your statements but all I see here are feelings. Are you going to lie again about how you feel about AOC or is there evidence behind your statements?
Are you aware of what modern politics has become? Virtually no one in congress has anything they can point to as legislative success lately. You want to be able to point to laws passed when virtually no significant positive laws get passed any more. She is successful in giving energy and drive to the democratic party which they have been completely lacking for years now. You want to restrict success to extremely limited metrics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That reference is only true for nuclear war. And even then, it is only true if the nuclear powers are directly attacking each other.
If russia gains more power over the middle east, they gain more control over critical resources that they can then use against you. If they crush your economy by spiking your oil costs, then they can cause huge damage while risking very little.
If you don't play the game, then you are ceding to the enemy. Just because you don't play, doesn't mean they stop playing. That doesn't mean you need to invade countries like iraq or afganistan. But if you pretend like you can just ignore the world, then you have already lost.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
This has inevitably become just another Pro/Con abortion debate with a slightly different introductory slant.
Pretty much. The main reason it became so was that it is extremely difficult to imagine a scenario where additional protections for a fetus could be introduced that would not be abused by people trying to ban abortion. So the abortion debate would need to be settled 1st to prevent this occurring.
Am I correct in assuming that it is usually men who instigate this sort of debate.
I am male. I cant speak for bmdrocks21
Some might even say that they detect a mildly misogynistic air about proceedings.!
I'm not certain how wanting women to be allowed to make whatever decision they want could be considered misogynistic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The best way to win a war is by not participating in it.
That is just patently untrue. The best way to lose a war is by not participating.
Several examples on your list are also untrue.
Intervening in Korea didn't strengthen China. It has greatly weakened North Korea and created an staunch ally in the region, South Korea. This pisses off and constrains China.
I will agree the Bay of pigs was a disaster. But Castro had already won. Not to mention that if it had succeeded it would have prevented the cuban missile crisis which almost ended human civilization.
US intervention in WW2 did not strengthen russia. By the time the US got around to actually helping Russia was already winning the war. The difference that staying out of it would have made was that the red army would have occupied all of europe. And at that point the soviets would likely have had the manpower and resources to destroy america.
Vietnam was definitely stupid. But mostly because most of vietnam didn't want them there. Most people respected Ho Chi Minh and despised the corrupt south Vietnamese regime.
Afganistan was stupid too, but the US didn't strengthen an enemy. The Taliban was already in power. They are still pretty much in power. The US has just been fighting and not accomplishing anything.
Iraq was just one giant war crime. But that is all bush and his neo-cons.
In syria you weren't fighting a war. You were largely acting a peace keepers preventing 2 us allies from killing each other. now that the US have left they are killing each other. The kurds have made a deal with Assad and russia. Leaving directly benefited Russia. It also screwed over an ally which will prevent any other people from trusting the US in the future. Who could trust a government that betrays people so easily?
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
fair enough.
not too bad. how are you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
It would appear that we do agree. But in places like Iraq and afganistan, it has become clear that america is not going to be able to maintain the current status quo.
Also, attempts by the US to escalate tensions with Iran are quite likely to lead to another "forever war" which will further destabilize the region. America should not be sending ground troops to Saudi Arabia.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Lol, of course you shouldn't help people in the way they want. If someone steals your bike and you want me to kill them and take it back, I'm not going to do that.
The help they want/need is to get their bike back. I would assume you would do that. The help a person who wants to terminate their pregnancy needs is to help to terminate the pregnancy. You are advocating for doing the exact opposite of that by forcing them to continue it against their will. So in your example that would be something along the lines of, they ask for help with their bike so you punch them and steal their wallet.
As soon as an egg is fertilized, it becomes a human. It has all the chromosomes and DNA to prove it. No scientist has ever said that having organs is what makes you human. Again, I don't have an appendix, but I am still a human.
Having human DNA doesn't make something a human. We can grow cells in a lab with unique human DNA, that doesn't make it a human. Your example is that you are missing one organ, but you have all of the rest. I don't think there are many scientists that would agree that a tiny cluster of cells with no organs whatsoever is a human.
You don't want to give value to a human life because it doesn't have kidneys, a stomach, etc. That is arbitrary.
I don't want to assign human value on a cluster of cells that have none of the characteristics of being human. It has no consciousness, it has no organs, it just a cluster of cells no different that any other cluster of cells except the DNA is slightly different. If that is your standard then any mutated cells, Parasitic twins etc would also be counted as a human even though they obviously aren't. Your definition is far too loose to be valid.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
No, I believe that you should help people that get hurt snowboarding. You should help people who have unwanted pregnancies to. I don't believe that help entails killing a baby.
Oh I understand. So you believe that people should get help when they make a poor choice, but only in the very specific way you want to help, not the help they want or need. So if they break their leg snowboarding, they would want a cast put on, but we aren't comfortable helping them that way. Instead we will cut off their leg.
Ok, if a fetus isn't a human, is it a dog? A cat? A mouse? It clearly has human DNA. You stated earlier that you value human life. It is alive and human.
It is alive. It has human DNA. But it isn't a person yet. Is an acorn a tree? no it is an acorn. Is a fetus a person, also no. An acorn might grow into a tree, a fetus might grow in to a person. But neither of them have passed that threshold yet.
So: either human lives matter or they do not. Any requirement other than being human is entirely arbitrary.
We disagree on what makes a clump of cells a human.
Anyone who said "kids who haven't reached puberty doesn't matter and can be killed for any reason" could base their entire argument from the same place that you are just as consistently if a culture puts arbitrary value on fertility.
You are picking an arbitrary point as well. You could extend the argument to include semen as a human, or an egg. You are picking a point and planting a flag saying that is a person. Most people disagree. The science does not support your position either. A fertilized egg has no brain, no organs. It is just a clump of cells. That isn't a person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What? We have a ceasfire and no war if we stay there
Sorry, maybe i have misunderstood your point. You appeared to be saying you wanted america to withdraw all it's troops from the area as it was a "forever war". Withdrawing US troops has triggered an invasion and killed a large number of people. Most of whom were US allies since both the kurds and Turkey are US allies.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I am not trying to abolish abortion. I am saying that there should be some sort of justification to have one.
You want to make it only permissible under extremely limited circumstances. That isn't quite abolishing it, but it is just a hair short of it.
We essentially disagree on when personhood should be attributed.
Yes. A fertilized egg is obviously not a person. It has none of the characteristics of being a person.
They protected slavery under their right to property. So, slaves were considered property, not people.
They knew they were people, they just didn't want them to be a legal person with the rights that go with that. Women weren't legal persons either but I don't think anyone was arguing they were a different species.
If I eat a cake, is that cake violating my right to have a slim body? Or is that decision the normal consequence of eating unhealthy food? By making bad life choices, you have become pregnant, which is the normal consequence of intercourse.
This is such a terrible argument that in any other circumstance would be laughed at. No one forced you to go snowboarding, so if you get hurt we should refuse to help you because that is the consequence of sports. No one forced you to smoke so we should refuse you medical care for cancer because that is the consequences of your bad choices. You see how silly that argument is? Everyone makes bad choices. Unless those bad choices are criminal in nature, that doesn't mean that your rights are suspended.
I don't think you have the right to end a life because you make poor decisions.
People end lives every single day. you have killed untold numbers of animals in your life time. So ending a life in general is nothing particularly significant. It is only significant if it is a human life. Which a fetus is not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I agree that america should not engage in endless wars. But american troops were not really fighting in Syria. They were there to support an ally. Abandoning them only hurts america's foreign policy objective. And ironically it put US troops lives in jeopardy. The US airforce was forced to airstrike their own munitions as they retreated because the withdrawal was not planned.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
no trump is great but he made a mistake, will go in further later
Go in further to what? To Syria? He has sold out our allies in Syria. They have already made an alliance with Assad and the russians in an attempt to survive the Turkish onslaught.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Trump is an idiot who is easily swayed by people. He had 1 call from the authoritarian leader of Turkey and he decided to sell out an american ally.
It isn't 100% clear why he did this though. There is a trump tower in Istanbul, so it could be financial.
Trump has been fighting hard to protect the Saudi's from any consequences for the murder of jamal khashoggi. He was murdered in turkey and they hold the evidence of the murder, so it is possible it has something to do with covering up evidence for the Saudis. The trumps get alot of money from Saudi investors and he doesn't want to lose that.
Or it could just be that the "great deal maker" just has the mind of a child and was talked into doing something monumentally stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Lol. If he was the best he would be winning. He isn't.
That is a false equivalence. The best candidate in an election doesn't always win. Often stupid arguments, fear, etc can play a large role and shift support to a worse candidate. For example, Biden (much like the republicans) is trying to make poor people fear getting better healthcare.
Please leave your utopia at the door and realize winning elections matters more than Bernie, one trick poney, Sanders. Says the same thing and expects to win.
I'm not certain what you are trying to argue. He has plans for a huge range of things. He has far more of a platform than Joe, remember me I worked for Barack, Biden.
I am not surprised either. She is so politically ineffective and this cries like to it.
Whether you like her or hate her, calling her politically ineffective is just an outright lie. She toppled Joe Crowley, a long time incumbent. She is easily one of the most high profile members of congress. She is an effective communicator and she has motivated alot of the grass roots base of the democratic party. She has been in office for less than a year and has had more of an impact than most of members of congress. You might believe that is a bad thing, but pretending it isn't happening would show your bias.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Bernie falls on the worst end of that scale out of all the progressives on the stage.
How do you figure that? His plans are essentially to help everyone while most other candidates want to help specific groups, sometimes. By that measure he would be the best. However, as I am not familiar with the term intersectionality justice, it is possible I have misunderstood your meaning.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Yes and the majority of people believe that third trimester abortions should be illegal. You probably agree with that.
Yes, i do.
My problem here is that you are saying that what the majority of people agree with or desire is what is best policy-wise.
No I'm not. I have already given arguments why your position is not the best policy wise. (a fetus isn't a person, forcing medical procedures on people etc). The unpopularity of your position is a secondary point. The fact that the vast majority of people disagree with you was just to highlight that your position of banning all abortion is extremely unpopular and cannot be implemented. So no one should look at that as a viable position.
Now, part of the reason that most people want to keep Roe v Wade is because they don't know what it is. They think that if it is overturned that abortion becomes illegal. All it would do is take the federal government out of the picture and states can pass any laws they wish.
I'm not aware of anyone that thinks that. Maybe there are lots and I just haven't met any. Roe v. Wade established that women have a right to an abortion without undue government interference. That includes from a state.
I'm treating this like the crime of murder, essentially. If you get an abortion because you would die, it is self-defense.
This is a problem. You are looking at a fetus as a person with the legal protections of a person when it is not. It cannot be a murder if the thing being terminated is not a person.
I don't think it is okay to get one for monetary reasons, just like I don't think you should kill your toddler because of financial reasons.
A toddler has passed the threshold of becoming a person. It now has the rights and protections of a person. A fetus has not.
"No one is forcing you to have an abortion" isn't quite a strong argument. Someone back in the 1800's could say "no one is forcing you to have slaves".
Lol no, they were forcing the slaves. Even during the high water point of american slavery they understood the slaves were people.
I thought we agreed earlier that the fetus wasn't part of the woman. That would mean that anti-abortion laws aren't violating what a woman can do with her own body. It is protecting against what a woman will do to her child's body.
Does she have to carry a pregnancy to term against her will? Does she have to undergo a medical procedure (the birth) against her will? Then that is violating her right to control her own body.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
they are totally different omg I can't believe you even said that. Letting something happen vs actively causing something is very different. Letting die vs killing. I'm just blow away you don't know the difference.
Both are examples of a medical procedure performed by a doctor that results in termination of something that was alive. I understand they are not 100% identical scenarios. But they are very similar scenarios.
why do you object to 3rd trimester killings
We need to draw the line somewhere. By the 3rd trimester they have all the characteristics of a person.
why don't know know precisely where it should be? because you could be mistaken?
We all could be mistaken. No one is perfect. I don't pretend I know exactly what the right answer is. Do you pretend that you do know precisely what the right answer is?
so you believe these rights are absolute?
There may be scenarios where those rights need to be suspended. Off hand I can't think of one.
are you pro death penalty?
No.
is that what it is or is it preventing the death of a child?
Even if I accepted that the fetus was a child, which I don't. It would still be forcing a medical procedure one a woman who doesn't want it. So yes, it is that.
if you are against 3rd trimesters and she changes her mind you'd force a medical procedure on her because she can't have on in the 3rd trimester.
Like I said, there needs to be a line somewhere. We decided that there is an age where it is ok to drink and when it is not. If you are day under that line then it is illegal for you to go to a bar. That 1 day doesn't change anything, but we need a cutoff line to be able to enforce a law. The law needs to be clear and to set the standard. A fertilized egg is obviously not a human. A baby 1 day before birth obviously is. No matter where we draw the line between those 2 points people will challenge it. But a line must be drawn somewhere. I don't pretend I know exactly where that line needs to be.
being killed has some serious negative impacts on health, more so than pregnancy and birth.
Correct. And you want to put the health of a person, the woman, at risk to protect something that is not a person, the fetus.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
that's true, DNR is far different that doing a procedure to kill them however, that would be murder. Letting "nature take its course" is not murder.
Either way it is a medical procedure that terminates something that was alive. They are not that different.
it should be restricted to a certain extent right? or are you ok with killing it the day before it's due?
No, of course not. There needs to be a restriction somewhere. I would argue it is before the 3rd trimester but I don't know precisely where it should be.
they are killing the woman's body? I thought you agreed it wasn't her body but a separate entity?
Forcing a women to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want is forcing a medical procedure on her IE the birth of the child. Going through a pregnancy and a birth can have serious negative impacts on a woman's health. Forcing that on someone against their will is cruel and brutal.
is causing pain to an animal because you don't want it anymore ok with youwhat do you think about people who toss a bag full of kittens into a river, that ok?
I don't think anyone is advocating for torturing the fetus. People do kill cats. People also kill dogs, and cows, and sheep etc. People kill things every single day. Are you saying that we shouldn't kill anything, ever, because they feel pain?
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Yes, but I feel as though the only consistent argument is a fertilized egg. That is the point at which it becomes a distinct human.
And that argument loses the vast majority of people. With that definition you are instituting an absolute ban on abortion. Even the morning after pill would be murder. It has no brain, no organs, nothing even close to resembling human life, but you want to grant it the rights of a human. That is not a line that would ever be acceptable to the majority of people. A recent poll I saw said 77% of people wanted Roe v Wade upheld. They varied on what the rules around abortion should be. But that means that only 23% of the public could possibly accept the complete ban you appear to advocating for.
That is why legally speaking I would only permit it in cases of rape and if the mother will die from the pregnancy not being terminated. These constitute precisely 3.5% of all current abortions. The rest are related to money and not thinking you are ready for parenthood, which I find to be unjustifiable reasons to have an abortion.
And if that is your belief, then no one is going to force you to have an abortion. But your beliefs do not give you the right to take away a woman's right to control her own body.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
If it has unique human DNA and is either male or female what is it?
A fetus. A life form that may, at some point, become a human being.
it's only a "dangerous metric" to those would advocate for killing.
No it is a dangerous metric in general because it will be changing constantly. The law will never be settled. The argument will continue on and on forever. Just because you can keep something alive with advanced medical techniques does necessarily mean it should have the rights and protections of a person. For example, people that are brain dead and being kept alive by medical science. It isn't murder to pull the plug. But you could easily keep them alive indefinitely. What happens if/when we invent some sort of medical womb? At that point any fertilized egg would have a significant chance of survival. Then, by your metric, all abortions would be illegal.
What if in x# of years we can detect that these babies feel pain earlier than we thought? Do you think we should err on the side of caution? Does that bother you that something with unique human dna, male or female, brain waves, heart beat and can feel pain could just summarily be killed?
Feeling pain is not a metric for determining what is a person. No, terminating a fetus does not bother me. Whether or not it is capable of feeling pain is in no way relevant.
I think it's rather barbaric.
So taking away a person's right to control their own body and forcing women to undertake medical procedures that will definitely cause them injury, possibly permanent injury, is perfectly fine. But terminating a fetus that has no idea it even exists is barbaric? We have very different interpretations of what the word barbaric means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Okay, this was completely unexpected and unpredicted by me. So far everything I had predicted was panning out just fine except for this. I can't fathom how or why or what motivated AOC to back an old white male when AOC is the flag banner carrier of the SJW movement for intersectional equality.
I don't understand the surprise. Bernie is by far the best candidate from the perspective of a progressive. I don't think there is any other candidate that would even have been an option except for warren. And she isn't as good as Bernie.
I agree there was a chance that AOC would wait longer to see which way the wind was blowing and then supporting warren. But i'm not sure why you would be surprised that she chose to support the candidate she has the most in common with ideologically.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
intent changes so that doesn't seem like a very realistic criteria, nor could it really be proven in this context.
I agree that intent can change. I don't see that we have any other criteria to go on.
if there's a 50/50 chance of survival after being removed from the female, would that gestational age be considered a person?
This is a dangerous metric to use because the point at which there is a 50/50 chance is always changing. 100 years ago a fetus at 25 weeks would have an extremely low chance of survival. Today it might be 50/50. 20 years from now it might be 90%. Tying the definition of a person to the current medical technology is a flawed metric.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
so the actual act of removing, detaching a baby from the female makes it a baby/person? And so long as it remains attached it's ok to kill it?
You seem to have missed my point. I was not saying that the act of being born makes it a person. i was saying that at conception it obviously isn't a person and at birth it is. At some point between those events it becomes a person. i am not saying definitively when that is. But we need that discussion to get ironed out or people will just continue going in circles over this issue.
so you agree it's a separate entity, but what it is you haven't or can't really say right?
More or less. It is alive. It is distinct form the woman it resides in. But that doesn't make it a person.
there is no reason that a pregnant females shouldn't be allowed to use drugs and alcohol while pregnant because it's not a person, correct?
Intent is always important in the law. It isn't only about what you do, it also about what you intended to do.
If the intent is to carry a pregnancy to term and have the child, and you take lots of alcohol or drugs that is obviously bad. If your intent is to abort the pregnancy and not carry it to term, then there is no problem with the woman drinking.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well I won't have a fully functioning brain until I am 25, but I still hope that I am a person. Am I less of a person because of my age? I don't have an appendix, either, so I don't fully meet the organ criteria.
You've sort of highlighted one of my points. We have no straight forward criteria for when a clump of cells becomes a person. I am quite certain that a fertilized egg is not a person. I am also quite sure that a baby on the day it is born is one. So at some point between those 2 events it becomes a person. When that point is, is the discussion that needs to be had. If we can find some agreement on when that point is alot of this partisan bickering could stop.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
So passing through the birthing canal gives your life value?
I believe being a person gives human life value. A fetus that does not have a fully functional brain or organs is not a person.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I say all humans have inherent value. If they don't, then that means the government can decide which humans matter and which don't.
I would agree that all human lives have value. I would disagree that a fetus is a human life. It may become a person some day, but at the fetal stage it is not yet.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Science says it is a person. It has DNA that is different from the mother. What kind of DNA? Human DNA. It is alive. Now, what a "legal person" is would depend on the laws of the country.
Human DNA and being alive doesn't make it a person. We can do that with a cluster of cells in a petri dish.
I said to leave bad marriages.
People do. That is why the divorce rate is so high.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Let's just totally forget that these people did the best they could under the social constraints and mores and scientific knowledge at the time. Far better than any of their peers.
These things were atrocious even by their standards. There is a reason that people didn't talk about the details of what he did. Europeans would have been shocked by the rape, murder and rape of children.
This isn't an example of someone doing something that was fine at the time that we later decided was wrong. This was a man who did things that were incredibly wrong even then. But people just ignored them because it was to savages on the other side of the world, so they didn't have to see it.
Columbus was a monster who murdered, raped and pillaged his way across the Caribbean. He does not deserve to be commemorated.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
the reason for my position is that I don't believe that a fetus is the woman. I don't believe that the science supports that.
I'm not sure anyone argues that the fetus is the woman. If some people do, I haven't heard that argument. The argument is that the fetus is alive, but it is not a legal person. The science does support that.
Well I think that promiscuity is a rather large problem. It breaks up marriages, leaving kids with only one parent.
Promiscuity is no more a problem today than it has ever been. The only thing that has changed is that people now have the ability to leave a bad marriage when before they were trapped in it. Is it better for people to remain unhappy in a bad marriage? That probably isn't doing much good for their children either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
We aren't talking about once. We are talking about multiple crimes. slavery, murder, rape, raping of children, torture. The list goes on and on. Columbus was a monster. If he had screwed up once but was otherwise a good guy, that would be fine. But he was a truly terrible person.Right, so let's erase every holiday because everyone fucked up once.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Indians did all that to each other before Columbus saw them.
There are still rapists and murderers in the world right now. that doesn't mean we should celebrate them and give them their own day.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I would say, "only eat when you are hungry". As in "only have sex when you want a kid". In both cases, if you do it more than you should, various problems will arise.
If you should only eat to sustain your life then we should have strict controls on when you are allowed to eat and how you are allowed to eat. I mean desert would definitely need to be illegal. If that is your world view then having strict laws about what a woman can do with their own body would make sense. But i doubt most people would be ok with that.
No, I'm saying that throwing money at the problem will result in more kids that are dependent on welfare. If you cannot afford a kid, don't have one. Sure, buy contraception, but if that fails, deal with the consequences of your actions like an adult.
Much of the problem is the structural issues with the economy. The american system rewards rich people who already have money while punishing poor people who dont have money. This pushes more and more people into more and more desperate situations. If you want people to be able to afford to have children, we desperately need structural economic reform.
I can see where the religious folks are coming from. They want you to wait until marriage, which is the best result. People have higher divorce rates based on how many sexual partners they have had before that marriage. So they try to prevent all of that. Realistically, I don't think that works, and we should avoid as many unwanted pregnancies as possible.
Is it the best result though? You may be more likely to stay in a marriage if you have never had any experience outside of a marriage. But that doesn't mean you are happy in your marriage. It just means you a culturally indoctrinated to believe you can't/shouldn't leave a bad marriage. i'm glad you agree that abstinence campaigns don't work. People are going to have sex. Nothing anyone can do will prevent that. Once you eliminate trying to stop people doing what their biology is telling them to do, you can move on to things that might actually work.
I think we will have to disagree on who poisoned what. In the future, we can discuss this more in general. I tried to hold back my strong opinions on the matter and just keep it about the drugs aspect.
Understood. Unfortunately, if the issues around women's rights are not settled 1st, I don't see any way a political discussion around drugs can happen. Both sides will assume the other is acting in bad faith and just dig in.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Republicans don't force people to have sex. If people don't want a child, there is a 100% chance method to not get pregnant: don't have sex.
This is a bit like saying, "you don't want to choke? Then don't eat. it is 100% successful". Sex is a part of life. It is a biological urge and part of the human experience. Telling people that they should just abstain from life is hardly a solution. Not only would that be draconian, it very obviously does not work. Abortion was illegal in alot of places for a long time. it never stopped abortions from taking place.
Throwing money at the problem doesn't fix it. When you do that, they can afford to have more kids. Especially when you provide more money per kid.
I'm not sure I understand your point. You say money wont' fix it, then explain how money would help fix it.
Sure, teach better sex ed. People need to cut the disconnect between sex and pregnancy and the responsibilities that come with it.
Totally agree. Alot of religious people are dead set against this though. They don't want their children to know how to have safe sex or the consequences if they should fail to do so. This is a massive part of the problem. If all children were taught this there would be less pregnancies.
I feel like we need an abortion thread, lol. Any other thoughts on using drugs during pregnancy?
Agreed. I think that your underling point is valid. Trying to find ways to prevent women from taking substances that would harm the development of a child would be a good thing. But since the republicans have poisoned the well for this topic, I seriously doubt any agreement could be reached until abortion rights are codified in law. Once those rights are protected, then I would imagine it would be much easier to make progress.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
"Right to have an abortion". No such thing exists.
Roe v. Wade would disagree. It establishes a women has the liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.
Again, how have Democrats made it "Safe, legal, and rare"? It is legal. It is kinda safe. But it is certainly not rare. Do you in any way discourage it?
Yes. If you want to avoid abortions, you need to give people better access to knowledge and ability to avoid pregnancy. Things like mandatory, proper sex ed for every student. Easy access to the morning after pill so that if they do make a mistake (or get raped) they have a way to prevent the pregnancy. The biggest factor would likely be financial support though. if a person cannot afford to have a child, they won't have the child. If you want more people to go through with pregnancies you need to significantly increase social spending.
But republicans are opposed to literally everything that might help to prevent abortions. They want to prevent women having the option to abort a pregnancy, but they don't actually want to do anything that might prevent the need for an abortion either.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Yes, yes I can. They are going out of their way to infringe on women's rights as much as they possibly can. In many cases in illegal ways. Often they know the laws they are passing are illegal and will get struck down, they just want to undermine abortion rights as much as they possibly can. Actions like that are completely poisonous. How can anyone possibly have a conversation about this issue? Everyone knows that if any ground was given at all the republicans would abuse it in every way they can get away with. This just forces the other side to dig in as much as possible making the situation worse.I think you put an undue amount of blame on Republicans. As you know, many of them consider it murder, so you can't really blame them for what they do.
But anyways, Virginia tried to make post-birth abortions legal. What ever happened to "Safe, Legal, and Rare"?
That is exactly my point. They did no such thing. They tried to relax the law to allow, in the extremely rare cases, where a woman with a nonviable pregnancy or severe fetal abnormalities went into labor the pregnancy could be aborted. The point was not to allow a mother to decide they didn't want the baby. The point was to allow non-viable pregnancies to be terminated. But republicans immediately went off like democrats were trying to murder newborns. How are you supposed to have an actual debate when one side is so actively lying and skewing the conversation?
And Roe v Wade was a false case. The woman lied about being gang raped!
I don't know anything about that. But whether or not a woman was raped should have no bearing on her right to an abortion.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Would you think that CPS involvement would be fair in these cases? I am quite concerned that their little regard for their child's safety during pregnancy would also translate in the same sort of disregard after birth.
Frankly, I think this whole area is one big mine field. Republicans have been doing everything in their power to try to find ways to make abortion impossible without technically banning abortion, since that would be illegal. So any attempts to increase protections for a fetus would absolutely be abused by republicans to undermine women's rights.
If both sides of the debate could be trusted to engage in it fairly then it might be possible to find an acceptable common ground. But it has been turned into a completely partisan issue where republicans will lie and cheat to get their way. I don't think there is any way the discussion can even be had in the current political climate.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
You have sort of touched on my point. In order for this law to work properly, you would need to settle other issues. Like when you can and cannot have an abortion. When the fetus becomes a person with rights etc. Otherwise you will create more legal hurdles such as the one you described where if a woman does drink during the pregnancy, she now has to choose between an abortion or jail.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I would have voted Democrat had Obama not said the 2% gdp economy was a new norm and the jobs were never coming back.
So you would rather be lied to? Those jobs aren't coming back. Not unless Americans start being willing to work for $2 a day. The US current GDP growth is at 2% even with trump's giveaways to the rich. Whether you vote republican or democrat won't change this.
Almost all of the Trump supporters I have talked to have gone through a "Holy Shit" moment, where they take a look at the policies and the results and you realize the country is better off.
Such as? He has started trade wars doing damage to the economy. He has pissed off all of america's allies hurting the US's ability to co-operate with others. He has seriously ramped up the deficit to 1 Trillion a year. He has cut tax write-offs for the middle class, so when the temporary tax breaks in his tax package expire soon everyone but the rich will be worse off. He has encouraged white supremacists and racists, further increasing the split in the country.
What policies and results make you think you are better off? From where i am sitting, virtually everything he has done has made you worse off.
an insanely unlikely President that kept his promises and delivered results from his policies.
What promises has he kept? He didn't "lock her up". He hasn't built much wall. He has damaged the economy and america's relationships with it's allies. I don't see him delivering on many policies.
Less illegal border crossings. Better trade deals. Less taxes.
In February 2019, 66,450 migrants were apprehended at the border. This is an 11 year high. He hasn't reduced border crossings, that is a right wing lie. What trade deals has he gotten? He negotiated minor changes to NAFTA and renamed it. But that hasn't been signed yet and didn't change very much. Less taxes for most people, temporarily. In a few years they go back up on everyone but the rich. The rich get their tax cuts permanently. This is because the tax cuts for the middle class were an afterthought. They added them so that poor people wouldn't realize they were getting screwed.
I really don't care who is in the Whitehouse. You deliver even half of that, you got my vote.
Trump hasn't delivered on half of that. You just choose to believe he has.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
This seems like it would get very tricky. The only way you could impose laws like that is if you legally establish the fetus to be a legal person. Therefore you are implementing the law to protect that legal person.
Trying to decide when a fetus becomes a legal person is a big issue that would have significant side effects. It would likely be used as a wedge to try to roll back abortion rights. IE if you decide that a fetus is a legal person that should be protected from smoking, then they can also ban abortions because now it is a legal person with rights and protections.
But if it is not a legal person, how can you punish a woman for ingesting toxins into her own body if there is no legal person being harmed. It would be a very divisive topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I want to believe the economy is doing well and that less illegal invaders are entering the country. That has nothing to do with Trump.
You are correct. that has nothing to do with trump. He inherited a strong economy and the lowest illegal immigration crossings in years. Yet somehow people think he has something to do with that happening. If you wanted those trends to continue you would vote democrat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
This assumes their audience is capable of being gaslighted by the media. You and I both know the left are highly educated.
On average, better educated than the right. But everyone has bias. Everyone is susceptible to buying into things that they want to believe. For example, you want to believe trump is a great president. So you ignore or look away from his crimes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I trust them to dig up negative dirt on Trump. Crony and biased means they are motivated, not incompetent.
Did they provide evidence of this? If they are biased then stories saying trump is losing money would sell well to their audience, even if it isn't true.
If Trump starts charging hotel rooms at the rates Hillary charges for speeches or Bernie charges for garbage books about greed, then I will start to show some concern.
How about foreign countries buying up entire blocks of hotel rooms but never staying in them? How about jared and ivanka making 10's of millions more from foreign money as soon as they got jobs in the white house. How about trump diverting military resources to his resorts so he can profit from them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That sentence makes no sense. You say they are biased, then say you trust them. Either they are trustworthy or they aren't.Sorry bud, I trust the biased crony MSM over your opinions.
Nearly all of them were cackling with glee over the billions of net worth he lost by running for president.
Considering Trump doesn't have billions in net worth, that cannot possibly be true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Are you kidding? He is diverting millions in government funds to his hotels and resorts. He is taking in massive amounts of money from foreign governments that dump money into his companies to buy influence with him.Trump lost money in Politics, so he is the only honest one there.
He is corrupt and he is getting richer selling access to the US government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You don't understand the meme.
I agree that alot of people go to the extremes. But this is eerily similar to Watergate. And I would agree that it is worse. A president committed a crime and is actively abusing the power of his office to try to win an election. That description would describe water gate and the current trump scandal.
But don't let exaggeration get in the way of reality.
I'm not exaggerating. I am accurately describing the situation.
Created: