Author Topic: NEWS & POLITICS MEGATHREAD: Shitposts, Reasoned Argument & Everything in Between  (Read 4731 times)

Grav

  • Posts: 828
  • Don't underestimate me.
    • GE
    • twitch
    • 2016SilverStar
    • 2017RankingsDev
    • 2017CommunityContributor
This thread is dedicated solely to news and politics in effort to encourage people to not make random threads about every random political thing. You can obviously still post whatever you want on this board but this should help consolidate some of the chaos. There are no rules, as there are no rules on this board.

Things you are encouraged to post about here:
-Daily world and national news and discussion that follows
-Discussion about existing and potential policy
-Sources to back up your claims whenever possible
-DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Have at it.


WR or Bust
Proof Policy Champion
Data Visualization Enthusiast

RTA/IL Rankings:
Doom 64 - https://goo.gl/LdWxjB || Blast Corps - https://goo.gl/RppsSH || Pilotwings 64 - https://goo.gl/WnS8Sh


Alec McDonald

  • Posts: 2596
  • TroubleClef92
    • GE
    • PD
    • twitch
    • 2016RankingsDev
Oh boy.

"Train smarter, not harder" -Mike O'Hearn
GoldenEye Proof Moderator as of February 2015

Rigger in Chief

  • Posts: 846
  • SC Host
    • Austin Perroux
    • GE
    • twitch
    • 2016CommunityContributor
    • 2017CommunityContributor
Me looking at every Trump executive order:

Rigging Contests One Round at a Time

Grav

  • Posts: 828
  • Don't underestimate me.
    • GE
    • twitch
    • 2016SilverStar
    • 2017RankingsDev
    • 2017CommunityContributor


WR or Bust
Proof Policy Champion
Data Visualization Enthusiast

RTA/IL Rankings:
Doom 64 - https://goo.gl/LdWxjB || Blast Corps - https://goo.gl/RppsSH || Pilotwings 64 - https://goo.gl/WnS8Sh



The man who trolled and lost everything

  • Posts: 19349
  • I'll be the backboost starring in your bad dreams
    • Goose
    • GE
    • PD
    • twitch
    • 2014CommunityContributor
    • http://www.twitch.tv/rwhitegoose
Headline: "Trump wears an even longer tie than usual to breakfast on Friday morning"
Op-ed: "This will certainly result in WWIII!!!!"
~ S T A Y ❄ T R U E ~   |   ~ S T A Y ❄ B L E S S E D ~   |   Verax Maneret

Carathorn

  • Posts: 4209
    • Cara
    • PD
    • twitch
I do wonder about the last thing the Australian PM said that made trump hang up the phone

The man who trolled and lost everything

  • Posts: 19349
  • I'll be the backboost starring in your bad dreams
    • Goose
    • GE
    • PD
    • twitch
    • 2014CommunityContributor
    • http://www.twitch.tv/rwhitegoose
Do you actually believe that happened?

The story comes from the same news agencies that said Hillary had a 99% chance of winning, there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, etc.

Why anyone believes anything any site or news agency other than Breitbart or Infowars says these days is beyond me.
~ S T A Y ❄ T R U E ~   |   ~ S T A Y ❄ B L E S S E D ~   |   Verax Maneret

Grav

  • Posts: 828
  • Don't underestimate me.
    • GE
    • twitch
    • 2016SilverStar
    • 2017RankingsDev
    • 2017CommunityContributor
the australia call was about some deal where america takes refugees from them i think


WR or Bust
Proof Policy Champion
Data Visualization Enthusiast

RTA/IL Rankings:
Doom 64 - https://goo.gl/LdWxjB || Blast Corps - https://goo.gl/RppsSH || Pilotwings 64 - https://goo.gl/WnS8Sh


Rigger in Chief

  • Posts: 846
  • SC Host
    • Austin Perroux
    • GE
    • twitch
    • 2016CommunityContributor
    • 2017CommunityContributor
The Australian PM call was related to a deal, as grav correctly stated, about bringing in refugees in detention centers from Australia to the US. Per Washington Post ""America would accept about 1,200 refugees (not, as Trump called them, "illegal immigrants") from Australia. The United States would prioritize families and children, and all candidates would be subjected to a thorough vetting process. America's Department of Homeland Security would conduct two rounds of interviews with each candidate."" Trump confirmed this meeting and referred to the deal as a "dumb deal."

On to matters that are actually relevant to the US right now. Iran, two days ago(?), tested a medium range ballistic missile, an action the Trump administration condemned and put Iran "on notice." Today, President Trump stated that military action is not out of the question. Hopefully this doesn't escalate to that point (I'd prefer to avoid war as much as possible) but as it stands right now thats a possibility. According to NBC News, sanctions will be placed on Iran as early as tomorrow

To the issue of the Milo riots yesterday. This behavior I detest and believe to be abhorrent. However, it is important to also note that the violent protesters, as far as I've read thus far, were independent to the university. President Trumps comments related to withholding federal funds from UC Berkeley because of them suppressing free speech is totally incorrect. UC Berkeley allowed Milo to speak and promised him security. As a result of these protests, adding to it being a waste of time for the radical anarchists to riot like this, Milo went on Tucker Carlson and reiterated his point of the radical left being suppressors of free speech. Very sad that the few anarchists out there give the radical left a bad name, much like the actions of extreme right-wing terrorism, such as what we saw in Quebec this last weekend, are twisted to be the poster child of that side by the opposing party.
Rigging Contests One Round at a Time

Carathorn

  • Posts: 4209
    • Cara
    • PD
    • twitch
my post was actually ment as an invitation for someone to make up something ridiculous about the last thing said in that convo.

I really don't care if it actually happened :nesquik:

Taylor

  • Posts: 608
    • TaylorTotFTW
    • GE
    • PD
    • twitch

Taylor

  • Posts: 608
    • TaylorTotFTW
    • GE
    • PD
    • twitch
To the issue of the Milo riots yesterday. This behavior I detest and believe to be abhorrent. However, it is important to also note that the violent protesters, as far as I've read thus far, were independent to the university. President Trumps comments related to withholding federal funds from UC Berkeley because of them suppressing free speech is totally incorrect. UC Berkeley allowed Milo to speak and promised him security. As a result of these protests, adding to it being a waste of time for the radical anarchists to riot like this, Milo went on Tucker Carlson and reiterated his point of the radical left being suppressors of free speech. Very sad that the few anarchists out there give the radical left a bad name, much like the actions of extreme right-wing terrorism, such as what we saw in Quebec this last weekend, are twisted to be the poster child of that side by the opposing party.

Did you know that Milo was going to publicly doxx undocumented students at UCB, including over livestream? pretending like this guy is just some harmless whacky right-wing epic troll isn't fooling anybody any more.

"Predictably, the mainstream media continues to perpetuate a narrative in which those resisting fascism are just as bad—if not worse—than the fascists themselves. It’s the same conversation we heard around the Trump campaign event shutdowns last winter: A definition of violence that considers broken windows to be more offensive than giving space at respected educational institutions to a person spewing hate speech that encourages violence towards marginalized communities. The people crying over Milo’s right to free speech being impinged in Berkeley are the same people that tried to get leftist educators like George Ciccariello-Maher, Norman Finkelstein, and Ward Churchill fired and also the same people pushing to defund and even outlaw Ethnic Studies programs. Theirs is anything but an argument over free speech.

Trump has already begun threatening retaliation over last night’s events, including cutting federal funding to UC Berkeley. This idea is especially absurd coming as it does on the heels of the US military’s murder of 8-year-old Nawar al-Awlaki in Yemen. Nawar’s father, Anwar al-Awlaki, was killed by a drone strike authorized by the Obama administration in 2011 because they didn’t like how he was using his right to free speech. Anwar’s death and the subsequent death of his two children make abundantly clear that the problem is merely where one’s “hate speech” is directed. If you’re a muslim threatening white people in the United States with violence, you may find yourself on the kill list; if you’re an educator promoting leftist ideals in the classroom, you may find yourself fired; but, if you’re a white person advocating for violence against muslims, the trans community, or people of color, you may find yourself speaking at universities with a book deal from Simon & Schuster."

did you know an antifa activist was SHOT at another milo event a few weeks ago, and the shooter was not held by the police or charged with anything? don't let people who say shit like this

Why anyone believes anything any site or news agency other than Breitbart or Infowars says these days is beyond me.

convince you that a few broken windows, tree fires and punched protestors is the problem here. it isnt, and pretending that somehow anarchists instantly lose some sort of moral high ground by not playing by the right rules is absurd.

better explanation than my dumb dutch apeman self could muster https://itsgoingdown.org/not-speech-milo-understanding-uc-berkeley-protests/
« Last Edit: February 03, 2017, 03:05:04 pm by bad cop no donut »

Hypnotoad

  • Posts: 141
    • GE
The strategy doesn't work, it simply raises his profile and grants him massive worldwide coverage. Here in the UK Milo was basically a nobody, with practically no media presence - he only really shot to fame after the collective sperg-outs on college campuses happened, it just increases his exposure and weakens the credibility of the opposition. It doesn't make sense to treat it like 'resistance' when it's completely counter productive and literally does nothing to resist his message being spread.

The man who trolled and lost everything

  • Posts: 19349
  • I'll be the backboost starring in your bad dreams
    • Goose
    • GE
    • PD
    • twitch
    • 2014CommunityContributor
    • http://www.twitch.tv/rwhitegoose
Did you know that Milo was going to publicly doxx undocumented students at UCB, including over livestream? pretending like this guy is just some harmless whacky right-wing epic troll isn't fooling anybody any more.

According to what exactly? Doxxing by itself is pretty minor compared to the damage you can do to a country by being an illegal immigrant.
~ S T A Y ❄ T R U E ~   |   ~ S T A Y ❄ B L E S S E D ~   |   Verax Maneret

Selenium Webdriver

  • Posts: 3838
    • Ace
    • 2017RankingsDev
    • 2017CommunityContributor
7 country ban already overturned and put on a restraining order by a "so-called" federal judge. :nesquik: Watch this and see the the DOJ attorney get BTFO by the judge at around 38 minutes in this video:

http://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/state-washington-vs-donald-j-trump-et-al

Shadow

  • Posts: 1221
  • The American Shadow
    • GE
    • PD
    • 2017SilverStar
I understand people's reaction of saying "nobody from those seven countries has been a terrorist" but let's be a bit rational about this: past things don't necessarily predict the future. In fact, that's a large part of TSA's problem: they always focus on methods that have been tried before, being reactive instead of proactive.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I think in some ways it's a bit weak to just rely on the past to predict the future. If that was the case, man-made climate change will never happen because it's never happened in the past :)

I posted this before but I think it's worth posting again: it's well worth reading and brings some possible sanity to looking at Trump's actions.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156532225711/the-persuasion-filter-and-immigration
« Last Edit: February 04, 2017, 12:03:41 pm by Shadow »

Selenium Webdriver

  • Posts: 3838
    • Ace
    • 2017RankingsDev
    • 2017CommunityContributor
There are already extreme vetting procedures for anyone applying for a US visa. I mean my own visa got rejected for christ's sake. This is probably why you see 0 terrorist attacks from refugees. The dude should focus on doing something about the home-grown radicalized terrorists instead who are the ones behind all of these incidents. He can ban people from as many countries as he likes but it won't get rid of the ones who are already there in the States.

The man who trolled and lost everything

  • Posts: 19349
  • I'll be the backboost starring in your bad dreams
    • Goose
    • GE
    • PD
    • twitch
    • 2014CommunityContributor
    • http://www.twitch.tv/rwhitegoose
Half of America are simply terrorism & radical Islam apologists.  That's it.  Half of Americans are either ignorant or supportive of things like female genital mutilation, throwing gays off building, women treated as property, etc.  And ironically it's not the Trump-supporting half.
~ S T A Y ❄ T R U E ~   |   ~ S T A Y ❄ B L E S S E D ~   |   Verax Maneret

Rigger in Chief

  • Posts: 846
  • SC Host
    • Austin Perroux
    • GE
    • twitch
    • 2016CommunityContributor
    • 2017CommunityContributor
Half of America are simply terrorism & radical Islam apologists.  That's it.  Half of Americans are either ignorant or supportive of things like female genital mutilation, throwing gays off building, women treated as property, etc.  And ironically it's not the Trump-supporting half.

Rigging Contests One Round at a Time

Grav

  • Posts: 828
  • Don't underestimate me.
    • GE
    • twitch
    • 2016SilverStar
    • 2017RankingsDev
    • 2017CommunityContributor
The dude should focus on doing something about the home-grown radicalized terrorists instead who are the ones behind all of these incidents. He can ban people from as many countries as he likes but it won't get rid of the ones who are already there in the States.

This is actually something more on the shoulders of the left and Muslims themselves than Trump or anyone else. What is Trump supposed to do about what people are thinking in their heads? These people show no warning signs until the day they decide to shoot up a gay club. Some government agency is probably already spearheading a persuasive meme war or some shit on the internet to counter the appeal of ISIS to American muslims, but other than that, there is really not much anyone in the government can or should do.

Islam needs a reformation. The only people preventing a reformation are the regressive leftists and the extremist muslims they are allied with who bully and shame into silence any moderate muslim who dares speak about the virulent jihadism in their religion they wish so much to purge. These people unironically praise Saudi Arabia for their women's rights while they simultaneously march on Washington for women's rights.

This is something even more sane liberals realize:

« Last Edit: February 04, 2017, 05:10:10 pm by Grav »


WR or Bust
Proof Policy Champion
Data Visualization Enthusiast

RTA/IL Rankings:
Doom 64 - https://goo.gl/LdWxjB || Blast Corps - https://goo.gl/RppsSH || Pilotwings 64 - https://goo.gl/WnS8Sh


Selenium Webdriver

  • Posts: 3838
    • Ace
    • 2017RankingsDev
    • 2017CommunityContributor
Right. That's a great video. I agree with everything both of them said. But then what exactly is Trump and his team accomplishing with this ban which isn't the root cause of the problem and instead engenders more protests from these leftists? If there aren't proper vetting procedures for refugees (which I think isn't the case given how long it takes to admit them and the number of attacks committed by them) then sure deny them entry until a proper procedure is in place. But that also doesn't mean you bar entry to those who already have valid visas, are students, teachers, etc. Just think for a second how absurd a full blanket ban is. You know what I see when the FBI and other similar organizations talk about terrorist incidents? Talking about how these guys were put on watch-lists, were known to have criminal records, interviewed after they said something nefarious in the past, etc. Is there any reason he can't get these people interrogated? I don't disagree with your comments, but you can't deny his ban was impractical and isn't really helping.

Grav

  • Posts: 828
  • Don't underestimate me.
    • GE
    • twitch
    • 2016SilverStar
    • 2017RankingsDev
    • 2017CommunityContributor
The full blanket ban is a 120 day temporary halt, not a permanent measure. It's purpose is to ensure the vetting process is doing its job and to make changes if necessary during this period to best protect American citizens from foreign terrorists.

"(a)  The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days.  During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures.  Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures.  Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States."


WR or Bust
Proof Policy Champion
Data Visualization Enthusiast

RTA/IL Rankings:
Doom 64 - https://goo.gl/LdWxjB || Blast Corps - https://goo.gl/RppsSH || Pilotwings 64 - https://goo.gl/WnS8Sh


Grav

  • Posts: 828
  • Don't underestimate me.
    • GE
    • twitch
    • 2016SilverStar
    • 2017RankingsDev
    • 2017CommunityContributor
Quote
You know what I see when the FBI and other similar organizations talk about terrorist incidents? Talking about how these guys were put on watch-lists, were known to have criminal records, interviewed after they said something nefarious in the past, etc. Is there any reason he can't get these people interrogated?

Well often times they are interrogated or questioned but nothing comes of it. Many people want to make it impossible for those on no-fly lists to purchase guns and stuff, but the problem is this can be applied pretty arbitrarily and it would automatically strip you of your rights without a fair trial. Also black market, etc.

To be honest though, I think when republicans mention terrorism as the reason they want restrictions of immigration from these nations, its actually more because of the values they bring to us instead of the threat of terror. The terrorism thing is used as the "reason" because its something more people agree with, but I and likely many Republican law makers believe that there is a danger in bringing in too many people who believe several things that fully contradict the ideals of western societies. Even if they are peaceful, their ideas can be as dangerous (long term) as literal terrorism imo. Thankfully America is the best nation in the world at assimilating its immigrants, but at a certain point that quality will start to diminish. As long as Muslims remain <2% of our country, there shouldn't be a problem.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2017, 05:31:53 pm by Grav »


WR or Bust
Proof Policy Champion
Data Visualization Enthusiast

RTA/IL Rankings:
Doom 64 - https://goo.gl/LdWxjB || Blast Corps - https://goo.gl/RppsSH || Pilotwings 64 - https://goo.gl/WnS8Sh


Alec McDonald

  • Posts: 2596
  • TroubleClef92
    • GE
    • PD
    • twitch
    • 2016RankingsDev
Even if they are peaceful, their ideas can be as dangerous (long term) as literal terrorism imo. Thankfully America is the best nation in the world at assimilating its immigrants, but at a certain point that quality will start to diminish. As long as Muslims remain <2% of our country, there shouldn't be a problem.


Yikes.
"Train smarter, not harder" -Mike O'Hearn
GoldenEye Proof Moderator as of February 2015

Grav

  • Posts: 828
  • Don't underestimate me.
    • GE
    • twitch
    • 2016SilverStar
    • 2017RankingsDev
    • 2017CommunityContributor


WR or Bust
Proof Policy Champion
Data Visualization Enthusiast

RTA/IL Rankings:
Doom 64 - https://goo.gl/LdWxjB || Blast Corps - https://goo.gl/RppsSH || Pilotwings 64 - https://goo.gl/WnS8Sh


Rigger in Chief

  • Posts: 846
  • SC Host
    • Austin Perroux
    • GE
    • twitch
    • 2016CommunityContributor
    • 2017CommunityContributor
Rigging Contests One Round at a Time

Selenium Webdriver

  • Posts: 3838
    • Ace
    • 2017RankingsDev
    • 2017CommunityContributor
Why does nothing come out of it? You know these people have past criminal records, call themselves Muslims, post whacky statements on Facebook a day before they go on a rampage and have made extreme statements in the past. That's already a massive red flag. They deserve no mercy nor do they need any fair trial. For example,

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/herald_bulldog/2016/06/fbi_director_omar_mateen_had_history_of_radical ... "First he claimed he had family connections to al-Qaeda," Comey said. "He also said he was a member of Hezbollah ... which is a bitter enemy of the so-called Islamic State - ISIL. He said he hoped law enforcement would raid his apartment and assault his wife and child so that he could martyr himself."". WTF. If I was his coworker informing the police would be one first things I'd have done. And if "nothing" came out of that, part of the onus should be on the police. They need to be strict with these sort of people. I feel like I read statements such as "X was known to the FBI" after every attack.

I don't disagree with the rest of your post provided you're talking about refugees. They do pose a threat, sure. But there are plenty of educated people who value your society and culture who are being unfairly screwed by a generic ban of an entire country even if just temporarily and that plays into the hands of regressive leftists. Also, when you take in the educated people none of the polls you posted become relevant anymore.

Shadow

  • Posts: 1221
  • The American Shadow
    • GE
    • PD
    • 2017SilverStar
One of the points made in the article I linked above is that Trump seems to be driving Muslim countries to better police those within, because otherwise they taint the Muslim "brand". That's interesting, could it now be more costly for Muslim countries to not care so much about extremists?

With this temporary immigration suspension, for example, it is extreme, but Trump has to negotiate with two extremes, so what does he do? Something that drives both to the middle: the left sees this as horrible and immigration should be drastically opened up. The far right sees this as too extreme (as evidenced by many protests) and will want to open it up more. The end result is probably going to be something in the middle.

So far, nearly all of his actions could seem horribly petty and wrong, OR they could be very intelligent strategic moves, leveraging his status as an "unknown". But so far it looks like extreme opening offer, leaving room to negotiate. Time will tell which they are, or if it is a combination of both. It's been fascinating to me how quickly people jump to conclusions based on what they want to see though, including on this board.

Rigger in Chief

  • Posts: 846
  • SC Host
    • Austin Perroux
    • GE
    • twitch
    • 2016CommunityContributor
    • 2017CommunityContributor
J U S T I C E
Rigging Contests One Round at a Time

The man who trolled and lost everything

  • Posts: 19349
  • I'll be the backboost starring in your bad dreams
    • Goose
    • GE
    • PD
    • twitch
    • 2014CommunityContributor
    • http://www.twitch.tv/rwhitegoose
R A I N S    F R O M    A B O V E
~ S T A Y ❄ T R U E ~   |   ~ S T A Y ❄ B L E S S E D ~   |   Verax Maneret

Selenium Webdriver

  • Posts: 3838
    • Ace
    • 2017RankingsDev
    • 2017CommunityContributor
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/feb/14/flynn-resigns-donald-trump-national-security-adviser-russia-links-live

Holy shit. This is HUGE. They weren't kidding when they said WWIII would happen soon.

Selenium Webdriver

  • Posts: 3838
    • Ace
    • 2017RankingsDev
    • 2017CommunityContributor
http://www.indiawest.com/news/global_indian/indian-american-engineer-fatally-shot-in-kansas-in-alleged-hate/article_cabbeea2-fa19-11e6-90fd-8be9cac28a53.html

Hate crimes like this have been on the rise since Trump instilled in a majority his supporters a drive to attack minority groups with his outspoken comments. This unfortunate victim could very well be me in about 5 or 10 years' time, and how Grav and his gang advocate a leader who wants to obliterate an entire population whilst also wanting to meet some of them (i.e. me) from the Untied States is truly despicable.

Basically I am just using this post as an excuse to say fuck you grav.

Rigger in Chief

  • Posts: 846
  • SC Host
    • Austin Perroux
    • GE
    • twitch
    • 2016CommunityContributor
    • 2017CommunityContributor
I wouldn't say a majority of his supporters are this kind of guy. Majority of people who voted for him just had serious economic anxiety. These guys are the minority
Rigging Contests One Round at a Time

Grav

  • Posts: 828
  • Don't underestimate me.
    • GE
    • twitch
    • 2016SilverStar
    • 2017RankingsDev
    • 2017CommunityContributor
If you want to blame Trump for radicalization of a fringe minority, that's fine. Just be intellectually consistent and place blame on the shoulders of everyone who is responsible for radicalizing. The media is almost entirely the reason racial division is as bad as it is today. Black Lives Matter only gained relevance because of a media lie (hands up don't shoot), and it has caused tens of millions of dollars in damage with rioting and has forced away police officers from neighborhoods that need them thus causing the deaths of far more inner city blacks (see: chicago, etc). I guarantee you this death toll exceeds the "Trump hate crime" death toll by a factor of 1000.

Have you ever wondered if maybe white supremacists wouldn't feel emboldened by Trump if he wasnt depicted as Hitler every day? Thats why they like him, because they think he is actually Hitler and will be saving the white race or some shit. Also, what about hate crimes during Obama's or Bush's or Clinton's or anyone elses presidency? Just a fluke then? Even if hate crimes are spiking now, which I have yet to see valid evidence that they have, I fail to see what Trump has said that can be directly or indirectly interpreted as endorsement for any semblance of this thing. What is he supposed to do, just accept open borders and unrestricted refugee limits because of some retard like you posted? Assume Trump is responsible for it. What should he do? Change his policies? Disavow racism for the 9000th time instead of 8999th? I'm curious to hear your solution.

Look I know you don't like me for some reason. You don't have to use politics as a carrier for your desire to lash out at me almost daily. It isn't your strong suit.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 04:42:12 pm by Grav »


WR or Bust
Proof Policy Champion
Data Visualization Enthusiast

RTA/IL Rankings:
Doom 64 - https://goo.gl/LdWxjB || Blast Corps - https://goo.gl/RppsSH || Pilotwings 64 - https://goo.gl/WnS8Sh


Scrambler Fanny

  • Posts: 7238
  • Shawn Johnson
    • GE
    • Shawn's Goldeneye Times Page


"And I mean, I'm the GE champ.  Did you actually expect I would have a normal relationship?" -David Clemens

Carathorn

  • Posts: 4209
    • Cara
    • PD
    • twitch
Saw you post that vid on your facebook as well Shawn. First of all, it's very frustrating that the people with the loudest voices against abortion are almost always men. Second, I believe that any country blocking the right for a woman/couple to have an unborn child aborted is socially backwards, you simply can't make that choice for someone else. It's their body. I don't see how this kind of freedom is any different to having freedom of speech or religion. Of course I respect people being against abortion and their opinion that every life no matter how young should be cherished, but to lay down the law on people and thus taking away the freedom of choice is backwards. But you probably won't find my opinion very surprising, this coming from someone who lives in a country that sends out boats with free abortion clinics around the world.

Also, obviously all people speaking out firmly against transgenderism are people who aren't dealing with it / anyone close to them. It's the unknown, it's scary and it's ruining their view on how they believe the world should be.

This video makes it even worse, a guy who has a good way with words and looks angry so called "destroys" people less gifted into debating. It's very shameful man. It's nothing but propoganda for Christian values.


Botched Movie Quotes

  • Posts: 4412
  • Frankly, my dear, I don't care
    • Karl
    • GE
    • PD
    • twitch
Cara your post kinda screams like you have no idea about what Ben Shapiro thinks or who he is.

Furthermore you are projecting a lot stuff onto people who speak out against transgenderism and don't actually bring anything of value to the discussion. Just kind of labelling the opposition as ignorant/afraid etc which is counter productive.

The reality is that Ben Shapiro has more credentials than could possibly be required to discuss such topics and if you want to rebut you should use actual points. Because you look like an ignorant leftist who doesn't actually know anything but just likes to label people as bigots etc.

Not that I really care to have a strong opinion because it doesn't really matter. But I'm pro abortion because I think if parents have made the decision to not have children it doesn't make a difference if they use contraception or get an (early) abortion, the net result is the same. Obviously abortions are not ideal and decent people seek to avoid it, because on some level it is also killing another human. I think both sides have valid points and neither side could claim the other is wrong. Probably religion plays a big part. So while I think abortion is ok it is not something that I think comes with no cost. I do not think that parents who do not want to have children should have children, period.

The main issue with the transgender thing is when it comes to creating policy about how others should treat transgenders. I.e requiring them to call them a particular pronoun, allowing them into different sex segregated areas etc. Also this may become a slippery slope when biological men are allowed into women's sports etc. The problem isn't really with people changing sex etc, the problem is that they then tell others how they should be treated and don't seem very tolerant to other views. Which is what Cara shows, if someone disagrees it is because they are ignorant/afraid/evil etc so they are 'bad' people, 'shameful' etc.

Also I don't care at all about transgender etc I'm just discussing the points so if anyone comes at me like I'm anti transgender or some shit they are a fucking moron.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2017, 07:54:24 am by Botched Movie Quotes »
*Creator of 'waiting half a sec more cutscene' on b2 agent*
*Creator of 'bounce boost' on streets agent*
*Creator of 'strafe change laser skip' on inves*

Carathorn

  • Posts: 4209
    • Cara
    • PD
    • twitch
Cara your post kinda screams like you have no idea about what Ben Shapiro thinks or who he is.

Furthermore you are projecting a lot stuff onto people who speak out against transgenderism and don't actually bring anything of value to the discussion. Just kind of labelling the opposition as ignorant/afraid etc which is counter productive.

The reality is that Ben Shapiro has more credentials than could possibly be required to discuss such topics and if you want to rebut you should use actual points. Because you look like an ignorant leftist who doesn't actually know anything but just likes to label people as bigots etc.

Well thanks for counterlabeling me then, I guess. "Good job" on poking holes into someones reasoning and then taking the moral highground like you always do. It's a cheap trick you pull off in about any discussion you participate in, you continuously talk about form and barely about the substance. You actually avoid discussing substance by staying things such as "i'm just debating points","look what Cara is doing" or "you are a fucking moron". You are in no way more productive in the discussion than I am.

The way you finish your post actually shows of less respect to other people than I did. I clearly stated in my post that I fully respect people thinking different on subjects as I do. The only thing I'm firmly against is people laying down the laws on others, taking away freedom of choice in this matter. The fact that I label things as backwards doesn't make me ignorant or a leftist, in fact there is nothing "leftish" about my views in the part of the world where I live. Advocating freedom of choices has absolutely nothing to do with left wing thoughts.

bye xoxo


Botched Movie Quotes

  • Posts: 4412
  • Frankly, my dear, I don't care
    • Karl
    • GE
    • PD
    • twitch
Cara please read my post again, but more carefully, because a lot of what you said was a lie about what I said.

I hope I don't have to go over the 10 or so things that you got completely wrong about my post. I hope that you reread, and then read your post again and realise the mistakes. To help you out though to understand I'll give you the first 3 things.

Well thanks for counterlabeling me then

I did not label you at any point in my post. Please outline where. You mentioned in your post that I said you were a leftist? I said ""Because you look like an ignorant leftist". If this is a language barrier because english isn't your first language let me know. This means that your post runs like an ignorant leftist, but I know that you are not. If I thought you were I would say "You are an ignorant leftist".

"Good job" on poking holes into someones reasoning and then taking the moral highground like you always do

Where did I take a moral highground?

you continuously talk about form and barely about the substance

Yes form is actually important. Breakdown of communication is the number 1 reason why relationships fail. So really stressing good communication is important if people aren't thinking about it. You misread, and misunderstand things I say all the time because you aren't even trying to understand or look carefully at the form I use. If your form is terrible, you don't even care to read sentences properly, you take things out of context, you twist words around etc I don't wish to have a conversation with you with deep substance because it's pointless and not enjoyable for me. Once it is clear that you have to ability to really understand what is said clearly I am more willing to talk substance.

The way you finish your post actually shows of less respect to other people than I did. I clearly stated in my post that I fully respect people thinking different on subjects as I do

I'm sorry, but saying that you respect someone doesn't mean shit if you generalise, give them negative labels without justification etc. How you act defines if you respect someone. Also I have no idea what post you read, but I said "I think both sides have valid points and neither side could claim the other is wrong." So I have no idea what you're going on about? And as for my final sentence, yes if someone reads my post and see this as antitrans they are a fucking moron. but notice in your post you said that I said ""you are a fucking moron". Which again is a flat out lie.

There are many more instances where you misconstrue, lie about what I said, or whatever. I'll say again though, if this is a language barrier issue let me know. Because you are just not understanding anything I say. OR you are just projecting a fuckload of negativity that doesn't actually exist in the post, and because you're blinded by that projection you actually read my sentences differently to how they are.





« Last Edit: February 25, 2017, 09:19:15 am by Botched Movie Quotes »
*Creator of 'waiting half a sec more cutscene' on b2 agent*
*Creator of 'bounce boost' on streets agent*
*Creator of 'strafe change laser skip' on inves*

Botched Movie Quotes

  • Posts: 4412
  • Frankly, my dear, I don't care
    • Karl
    • GE
    • PD
    • twitch
Also, I say stuff like "i'm just debating points" to try and defuse people getting emotional immediately and lash out at me. which, btw, you cannot deny is a real risk when discussing touchy issues like this.

I'm letting you know that I'm not emotionally invested in either side and am just interested in talking about it because I enjoy to discuss things. This is a very valid thing to do tbh and I have no idea why you would take that negatively. I really think that you see things in a very negative way, maybe it's just with me. Like it's impossible for me to disagree with you and state that without you appearing to get upset etc.

If you are wondering how I connected your post to an ignorant leftist, it's this sentence.

"Also, obviously all people speaking out firmly against transgenderism are people who aren't dealing with it / anyone close to them. It's the unknown, it's scary and it's ruining their view on how they believe the world should be."

This is a generalisation of everyone on a particular side which claims to understand all of their situations/motives etc. Which is something I saw leftists do A LOT in the last pres election.
*Creator of 'waiting half a sec more cutscene' on b2 agent*
*Creator of 'bounce boost' on streets agent*
*Creator of 'strafe change laser skip' on inves*

Carathorn

  • Posts: 4209
    • Cara
    • PD
    • twitch
I'm glad we can both agree that I'm not a ignorant leftist, and IMO saying someone "looks like x" is as much of a label as saying "I think you are x". Calling out a random on the street "hey you look like a faggot!" and "you are a faggot!" will usually result into the same reaction. You can't watch someone get mad and then say "hey man take it easy, I only said you look like one". I don't think its fair to hide behind the language barrier argument in this case. But whatever, you probably won't agree and still say you never labelled me.

I do agree that I generalized in the transgender comment, but apart from that I believe I did bring some value in the abortion discussion. I stated that I believe that everyone should have the right to choose for themselves, and that laws should never restrict ones options. My argument for that was, however shortly stated, that it concernes womens own body and therefor it's their decision what to do with it. I don't see how that is not a substancial contribution to the discussion. Which makes it a shame to me when you say I just label stuff and that it's counterproductive.

The transgender points you bring up I believe are indeed the grey areas that make things difficult to IMPLEMENT transgenderism into society, but it's not what Shapiro brings as an argument. He doens't support sex change at all as he says "men are not women and women are not men, don't mangle with the societies proper definition of sex". And yes, that reasoning I will label as backwards and scared of the unknown.

Also I agree with you that form of communication is incredibly important, but Shawn asking for thoughts on a video was exactly what I did. And yes, some of these thoughts are frustrations, I wouldn't say i'm crying behind my computer though  :v

Botched Movie Quotes

  • Posts: 4412
  • Frankly, my dear, I don't care
    • Karl
    • GE
    • PD
    • twitch
We are on the same page.

To clarify the sentence about not being productive to the discussion, it was directed at the transgender issue. As I saw 2 separate issues outlined in the vid (abortion and transgender, therefore 2 'separate' discussions). You did bring value to the discussion about abortion, I was just separating each issue into their own discussion. If that makes sense.

Also, I didn't say to take it easy. I was just pointing out how you misinterpreted what I said. I think that is much worse than disliking what I say if you actually are understanding correctly.

BTW, I don't use 'caring about form' as a crutch or a trick to win an argument. I've spent like 10 years studying social dynamics, sales, marketing etc (which are all forms of communication), and I've read books on how to argue etc because I genuinely enjoy the art of debate and I like to disect the communication and analyse it. This is from a genuine interest in it, it's not stemming just from my need to 'win' or anything like that.

I really wasns't meaning to be rude or anything in my initial post, and maybe upon rereading you might find that if you take the words literally that I said there is nothing really that wrong with it (i've reread it multiple times and cannot see any character attacks etc) and my last sentence was not aimed at you but rather the dregs of the boards that love to insult each other over disagreements and stuff like that.

But who care, we are now on the same page and we agree on the issues in the vid. I disagree that Shapiro's views are stemming from any ignorance etc. His reads A LOT , polical discussion is his profession(and has written 7 books, graduated from harvard law school). He is religious, however he points out a lot that he would not force his beliefs on others in the form of policy etc, and tries to argue points from logic.

In the video he mentions very high suicide rates among transgender though. I haven't checked the figures, but he stated 40%. Let's say though even if it's not 40%, but just much higher, that's a cause for concern. If it's not labelled as a mental issue because you think that's 'taboo' or just 'backwards' for some reason then it may be preventing research and more thought about the issue. I think Shapiro stresses to treat it as a mental illness because he believes that quality of life for these people is lower than normal people (which based on suicide rates may actually be true) and he wants more effort into helping these people rather than seeing them suffer because society doesn't think it's an issue.

http://www.vocativ.com/culture/lgbt/transgender-suicide/

Here is a link (probably gets the source from the same plan Ben did) where it cites 40% for suicide attempts with trans gender. So there may be a real issue.

SIDE NOTE TECHNICALITY: If you have a friend, who puts on a new shirt, and you say 'you look like a faggot', that is SOOO different from going up to a random person you don't know and saying they look like a faggot. Context is important. We've known each other for a long time so you have to factor that into the communication.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2017, 10:43:41 am by Botched Movie Quotes »
*Creator of 'waiting half a sec more cutscene' on b2 agent*
*Creator of 'bounce boost' on streets agent*
*Creator of 'strafe change laser skip' on inves*

Scrambler Fanny

  • Posts: 7238
  • Shawn Johnson
    • GE
    • Shawn's Goldeneye Times Page
Thanks for chiming in, fellas.

In all honesty, we all know that this is an emotionally charged topic(s) to discuss. I hesitate to post things like this too often as I feel that both sides too often scream from emotion and fail to use logic and statistics. I think that Ben Shapiro is great for opening himself up to "debate" or discuss these very important topics with a younger generation, but I agree with what I think Hugo meant by "smart" guy "destroying" "less smart" kid. I much prefer when people like Ben debate people of his equal in credentials or people that are even older for the simple fact that you couldn't label it "bullying." He certainly did not "bully" this young audience (at least from the what was evident in this clip), but I'm sure he disrupted the feelings of those in strong opposition. But he didn't do it with malice and foolishness, he did it with sound speech, logic, and intelligence. These are the capstone to a reasonable debate session.

I also appreciate how he states that he does not try to argue his faith against another's attempt against policy or law. This is the genius in his tactics I feel. Policy vs. policy. Faith (or set of beliefs) against faith. You don't see that much and it is VERY refreshing. This is coming from someone (as you both know very well) who is deeply rooted in my faith. For me, "because God clearly says so" does not disrupt any of my beliefs (I still struggle with obeying God daily), but I do VERY much like that he chooses not to argue from that podium.

I am in the United States Navy and it is now policy to allow people who identify as a particular gender to act as they identify (including operations to alter genitalia). I am seeing this in my own place of work. It's no surprise that I agree with Ben that it is a mental disorder and that I would push for a better treatment than to just "let them do what they want to do with their bodies." Don't immediately assume (I don't think anyone did - just stating my stance) that I have no sympathy or that I disrespect that particular person. I do not. I feel that every life is of value (from conception to death), which never excludes men who think they're women or women who think they're men.

The point of the video, as Karl stated, was the fallacy and absolute absurdness that because this small percentage of mentally unstable people want to do as THEY see fit (I unashamedly disagree with the behavior and act, but I do not think the government has the right to make it illegal), me and my family are now REQUIRED BY LAW to refer to them as they decide. This is absolute fantasy (not the good kind!) and will never be. I really do think that that was the key point of the debate.

As for the abortion part (which was pretty short), Ben asked a fundamental question that you BOTH kind of "side-stepped" in your posts. Karl said that "Obviously abortions are not ideal and decent people seek to avoid it, because on some level it is also killing another human." My question to you Karl is: is taking an innocent life murder? Is it a life at conception? If so, abortion is murder. If not, who decides WHEN it becomes a life? In my opinion, ONLY religion can answer this. What you believe answers this. Notice I didn't say my religion. Religion is simply your world-view and what you believe about existence, life, death, taxes, etc. I know that you both know this, but my world-view is that God has formed and knit-together the very fabric of life from the time of conception and holds every single child as valuable beyond our comprehension. He also says that murdering anyone (not capitol punishment - that's a different topic) is worthy of forfeiting your own life.

The biggest argument that I often see is (it was briefly mentioned in the video) "what about rape and incestuous unwanted acts?" For me it's easy. I agree that I have never been too close to this type of situation, thank God. And for those who have, I am solemnly and profoundly sorry. No words could ever undo something so horrific and gut-wrenchingly terrible. As someone with both a wife and a young daughter, to take myself there - even briefly - is a place I do not wish on anyone, EVER! But as I said, the justice piece is easy for me: rape = death to rapist. PERIOD. Ben mentions castration, but I disagree here. To teach the population a lesson, make a serious statement. A rapist has earned death. Then comes another issue. "Why should a single (often young) lady have to raise a baby that she never wanted? (Pro-Abortion argument)" This is where I call Christians and the "religious/spiritual" population to action - including myself. In THOSE cases (rape/incest), we need to put our faith in action and watch after the widows and orphans (not exactly widows, but the idea is the same). Christians should implement better methods to handle, care for, treat, and assist in the raising of children. But like Ben said, this constitutes such a small percentage of abortions today (at least in America).

The biggest percentage of abortions arise from two people making absolutely stupid decision. Unprotected sex leads to pregnancy. There are so many cheap, accessible methods to birth control, that there is literally no reason why "foolish mistakes" = killing a baby will make it better. As Karl said (who I believe is an atheist - correct me if I'm wrong) abortion is never ideal. I agree (shocking!), it shouldn't ever be a thought!

Thank you both for conveying your thoughts. Cheers.


"And I mean, I'm the GE champ.  Did you actually expect I would have a normal relationship?" -David Clemens

ohmss

  • Posts: 2074
  • OHMSS
    • GE
    • PD
    • twitch
    • My Youtube channel
I did not label you at any point in my post. Please outline where. You mentioned in your post that I said you were a leftist? I said ""Because you look like an ignorant leftist". If this is a language barrier because english isn't your first language let me know.

When assessed with common sense and not your textual hair-splitting, it is labeling! And challenging Cara's language skills for the sake of winning the discussion is cheap (from my experience, Dutchmen speak better official english than Australians anyway :P ).

That "debate" was quite asymmetric indeed, with an experienced professional debater owning an insecure hippie girl, haha. The video title is cringeworthy therefore.

I approve of how abortion laws are implemented in most decent countries and am relieved that the option exists in case of a terrible prenatal diagnosis. Because doing full-time care for a paralysed kid with a life expectancy of 20 years is not my idea of a good life, neither for me nor the kid. I actually told my past girlfriends explicitly that I'll be gone in case they'd decide pro-life in such a situation xD But I don't think I would ever agree to an abortion of my own healthy kid.

Also: the 40% suicide rate among transgenders, as stated in this debate, is shocking. Dafuq mane! Would be interesting to see a serious large-scale study that clarifies to which extend this is caused by social factors and/or whether severe psychological problems are more common among transgender people (which I can imagine).

The man who trolled and lost everything

  • Posts: 19349
  • I'll be the backboost starring in your bad dreams
    • Goose
    • GE
    • PD
    • twitch
    • 2014CommunityContributor
    • http://www.twitch.tv/rwhitegoose
Ben is owning this idiot SO HARD

"why can't you identify as 60"

"BUT MAH GENDER IS DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!!!!! WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH"

The good thing is that these cucked liberals don't ever really take up more than 50% of the population at most, even when heavily bandwagoned, so society isn't dead yet.

Also, I didnt read these long posts, but Ben Shapiro is a Jew, not a Christian, though I'm sure someone pointed that out to Cara.
~ S T A Y ❄ T R U E ~   |   ~ S T A Y ❄ B L E S S E D ~   |   Verax Maneret

Carathorn

  • Posts: 4209
    • Cara
    • PD
    • twitch
Haha incredibly troll post.

Also concerning Jewish/Christian, same God mate :nesquik:

Botched Movie Quotes

  • Posts: 4412
  • Frankly, my dear, I don't care
    • Karl
    • GE
    • PD
    • twitch
As for the abortion part (which was pretty short), Ben asked a fundamental question that you BOTH kind of "side-stepped" in your posts. Karl said that "Obviously abortions are not ideal and decent people seek to avoid it, because on some level it is also killing another human." My question to you Karl is: is taking an innocent life murder? Is it a life at conception? If so, abortion is murder. If not, who decides WHEN it becomes a life? In my opinion, ONLY religion can answer this. What you believe answers this. Notice I didn't say my religion. Religion is simply your world-view and what you believe about existence, life, death, taxes, etc. I know that you both know this, but my world-view is that God has formed and knit-together the very fabric of life from the time of conception and holds every single child as valuable beyond our comprehension. He also says that murdering anyone (not capitol punishment - that's a different topic) is worthy of forfeiting your own life.

Killing another person is only murder if it is unlawful. A US soldier who kills an armed combatant will not go to jail for murder, because it is lawful. The state executing a prisoner is not murder as the law allows it. So as long as an abortion is legal it is not murder. That's to answer your question specifically, as I did not side step anything. I actually said, as you quoted, that abortion is killing another human. Though I did say 'on some level', implying that it is not exactly the same as killing a fully independent human. So, killing other humans is never murder unless you factor in all details etc. So when you ask the question, is abortion murder, the answer depends on the current law. I know what you mean though and I think you're asking if killing the baby is morally wrong.

When it comes to what determines life, this is a biological question, not a question of morals/religion. Also there is no on/off switch for life because technically sperm is alive and so are eggs. To suggest things are so simple I think is naive. I think we have to acknowledge that there is no exact reference point you can use for certain as things flow on a continuum. Therefore all that is left is to negotiate and discuss different ideas about what the cut off point should be.

In my own opinion, I would use biological independence as a starting point. Basically, can the fetus survive independent of the mother if separated from the womb. If it cannot survive independently than I would not yet consider it an individual. I'm talking strictly biologically, as all babies need adults to survive, but only because they need food. Babies can survive if biologically separated from 22/23 weeks however the odds are low. But given that it's possible and you'd never know on an individual level you would need to abort at least before this time, and then with a further buffer to be sure. This is actually currently the legal standard when it comes to the cut off point...

Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 case legalizing abortion, made fetal viability an important legal concept. The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot put the interests of a fetus ahead of the interests of the pregnant woman until the fetus is "viable." The court defined viable to mean capable of prolonged life outside the mother's womb. It said this included fetuses that doctors expected to be sustained by respirators. The court accepted the conventional medical wisdom that a fetus becomes viable at the start of the last third of a pregnancy, the third trimester, sometime between the 24th and 28th week (a pregnancy usually lasts 38 weeks). Because the point of viability varies, the court ruled, it could only be determined case by case and by the woman's own doctor. Even if the fetus is viable, the court said, states could not outlaw an abortion if the woman's life or health was at stake.

TL:DR - Is abortion murder? Not if it's legal. When does a fetus become an individual with rights? When it can survive as a separate biological being. Until that point I don't see how it could be considered an individual that has its own rights etc.
*Creator of 'waiting half a sec more cutscene' on b2 agent*
*Creator of 'bounce boost' on streets agent*
*Creator of 'strafe change laser skip' on inves*

Scrambler Fanny

  • Posts: 7238
  • Shawn Johnson
    • GE
    • Shawn's Goldeneye Times Page
I agree that in a combat environment and in the case of capitol punishment, carrying out the duty of killing and justice does NOT constitute murder. *high five

I disagree that the law of land dictates what is life and what isn't. Since I would never willingly partake in, resort to, or support abortion in any circumstance for the sake of it being convenient (which nearly ALL abortions are done for), I am in no moral danger of committing a "crime." Therefore this instance doesn't really apply to myself and those who would claim to be "pro-life."

If a child "becomes" a life at (let's just use what you suggested) 22 weeks, this only contributes to killing, not promoting life. Again, the less than minuscule percentage of cases where baby endangers mom is something I am willing to even concede to for the sake of this discussion. As Ben said in the clip, and I agree with, "pro-choicers" often use this as an excuse for the killing of thousands of babies who do not pose a threat to a mother other than inconvenience.

Not sure if that was a direct quote from the actual Roe V. Wade decision, but I'll assume it was. I'd be curious as to how it came to that magical number. And to my understanding of that excerpt, this was, again, for the extremely small amount of cases that posed danger to a mother. Is there anything in there (admittedly I am not familiar with the verbatim transcript of Roe V. Wade - I know what most do about it) regarding taking a fetus' life when mother is NOT in danger?

Lastly, if "viability" is the standard to which you hold life, let's say for instance (I would never wish this on you or anyone in the world, and I mean no disrespect, harm, or ill will - I simply wish for you to invest in the decision emotionally so as to see it from those directly involved) that your mother or father went in to a coma. The doctor said that they did not know if they would ever regain conscientiousness. Does that make them non-viable? Based off what you said, it would be ok to kill them since they were literally as viable as baby still developing in the womb. Where would the cut-off point (as you mentioned) be in that case? That type of occurrence happens far more than unborn fetuses causing mothers mortal danger (again I agree that in THAT instance, the moral area is indeed gray and the unbearably difficult decision should be made on a personal level).

Back to the video. Ben's point is that if two consenting adults are going to make obviously poor decisions, why should they then get to destroy a life (at a minimum NOBODY can deny that it is potential life) simply because they were irresponsible in their actions?


"And I mean, I'm the GE champ.  Did you actually expect I would have a normal relationship?" -David Clemens

Botched Movie Quotes

  • Posts: 4412
  • Frankly, my dear, I don't care
    • Karl
    • GE
    • PD
    • twitch
OK to clarify I didn't say that law dictates what life is. I said that law dictates what is murder and what isn't. As murder is defined as 'an unlawful killing'. Given that killing something may or may not be acceptable depending on the context you can't argue from a place of principle that killing is wrong. You'd have to explain why it's wrong in any given context.

I didn't say that a child becomes life as 22 weeks or anything like that. My point regarding life was actually that there is no on/off switch and it's not black and white. It is a continuum because you're not going from something that is dead to something that is alive. Everything involved is already alive and just grows from that.

The standard I used in my last post was 'biological independence'. Meaning that it can survive as a biologically separate individual. The 22 weeks comes from the fact that babies simply cannot survive if removed from the womb before this point. This even considers the use of incubators which is required if they are born that early. Before this point the baby has not developed and if removed will die no matter what we do.  It has not grown to the point where it can satisfy the most basic thing which is being able to live. Before this point it is completely dependant on being biologically attached the mother so I would not consider it as its own person with its own rights.

People being on life support etc is a completely different case. First of all, they satisfy my definition of biological independence. They are alive as their own biological individual. Secondly, getting injured/sick etc does not forfeit your rights as an individual. The term 'viability' is used in a specific context and you cannot simply throw that term around and use it in other contexts in order to broaden its meaning.

Viability is important in human development to understand if a baby can be its own individual with its own rights. Because if it cannot be an individual it is still sitting under the umbrella of the rights of the mother. Until the baby can exist as its own individual it is only an extension of the mothers body. So viability states that if removed from the mother would the baby survive as a separate being. If the answer is yes then the baby deserves its rights as an individual, including the right to live.

You mentioned 'potential life' to which there is no logical argument against as the definition is vague and it's based on possibility rather than reality. There is always the potential for anything. Even contraception, abstinence etc prevents life and could be seen as preventing life from existing. There is always a cost/benefit to everything and a case can be made either way. For example, if a women who is poor/single gets an abortion it may allow her to financially recover and thus have more children later. Whereas having the baby now may financially cripple her forever meaning she can't support as many children in the future.

Like I said before I don't think this is a simple issue in that it's either wrong or right. If you feel as though abortion before the point of viability should be 'illegal' you'd need to make an argument why, and it has to be more than just 'it's morally wrong' etc. If you're claim is that it's an unjust killing you would need to establish exactly why. Humans kill living beings all the time (animals AND humans) so killing in of itself is not morally wrong.

But I just want to say in closing that I'm not saying you're wrong for being against abortions etc, and I'm not making the claim that people are morally correct for doing abortions. I'm more talking about what should or shouldn't be legal. People will always disagree on what the best course of action is, but when it comes to creating laws and punishing people for breaking them we need to be more concise and logical in our reasoning. Unless you believe that religion should also govern laws which is a big move from the system we use atm.

About Roe vs Wade, basically most abortions would be legal before the 3rd trimester because getting an abortion is statistically safer than giving birth. Therefore, given that the fetus has no rights as an individual under the 14th amendment but the mother DOES have rights, she is within her rights to make the decision to abort as it is safer for her. Once the fetus is in the 3rd trimester and becomes viable then the state basically says that it has rights as an individual under the 14th amendment and therefore may not be killed. Basically at that point the rights of the fetus overrides the mother's fear of well-being.

« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 12:16:18 pm by Botched Movie Quotes »
*Creator of 'waiting half a sec more cutscene' on b2 agent*
*Creator of 'bounce boost' on streets agent*
*Creator of 'strafe change laser skip' on inves*