This topic has been locked by a moderator.
Several different things that will just take us down the same path as before.
maybe, but I’d still like to hear what you have to say.
It’s already been said by many people many different times before.
Unless Frink told you what he original wrote, you don’t know that.
That’s a very favorable description of Hillary. She was a horrible candidate. There are plenty of people who hate Trump that hated Hillary. Trump can be horrible, but you can’t treat people that saw the 2016 election as a contest between two hideously intolerable candidates (in different ways and to different extents, I know) as though they’re simpletons that watched too many Alex Jones videos. Trump’s victory is almost entirely to blame on Hillary.
The Person in Question
Trump’s victory is almost entirely to blame on Hillary.
I think a teensy sliver of blame falls on the Electoral College.
Trump’s victory is almost entirely to blame on Hillary.
I think a teensy sliver of blame falls on the Electoral College.
The Electoral College is a reality that all presidential candidates are aware of, and this is the only time in which the Electoral College not aligning with the popular vote wasn’t due to crookedness. Her decision to ignore the rust belt and most of the swing states cost her the presidency.
The Person in Question
That’s a very favorable description of Hillary. She was a horrible candidate. There are plenty of people who hate Trump that hated Hillary. Trump can be horrible, but you can’t treat people that saw the 2016 election as a contest between two hideously intolerable candidates (in different ways and to different extents, I know) as though they’re simpletons that watched too many Alex Jones videos. Trump’s victory is almost entirely to blame on Hillary.
Look, I myself couldn’t stand Hillary one bit. But I still knew enough to know that she would have been much better than Trump.
Anyone that couldn’t see that when they went to the polls in Nov 2016 was blind and/or their judgment was clouded and/or they vote for the Republican no matter what even if Hitler himself was the Republican nominee. Hillary was the normal average corrupt politician, Trump is much worse than that. He has no business being anywhere near the oval office. What blows my mind are the idiots that voted for Trump in the primaries.
Is a boy more into sports because he has a penis or because his Dad liked sports and the other boys liked sports and they all looked down on him until he liked sports?
I’m guessing it’s the latter.
What about transgendered people? When they are young, aren’t they given the clothes and the toys of the gender everyone things they are and they sometimes reject them and prefer the toys and cloths of the other gender?
Often, yes.
Not sure what your point is, unless you’re just agreeing with me.
My point is that maybe there is something about what gender your brain is that affects what you like that don’t like. You said that maybe the only reason a boy likes sports is because his Dad did and how other boys would look down on him for not liking sports. If what you said is true, then a person born with the mind of girl but the body of a boy would still end up liking sports and the same would true of toys and clothes, yet we know it doesn’t work like that.
Newsflash: Some girls like football and Star Wars, some boys like My Little Pony Friendship is Magic. A person with the mind of a girl but the body of a boy absolutely can end up liking sports and “boy” toys and clothes. You may think it doesn’t work like that but I guarantee you are wrong.
Newsflash: More boys than girls like football and Star Wars, more girls than boys like My Little Pony Friendship is Magic.
But that doesn’t give someone license to outright tell girls that they aren’t employed in certain jobs because get-over-it. People can like what they do or dislike what they don’t. But that doesn’t excuse general meanness and bad attitude.
The point is, people should be made to feel welcome and respected in all walks of life, no matter their quirks. This man’s memo trivialized and belittled the women at his workplace. It doesn’t matter if he doesn’t agree with his employer’s cultural viewpoints. He should have kept his mouth shut.
If anyone here still feels bad for the Google guy getting fired, you should know that he recently did a long interview/discussion with Stefan Molyneux, the extremely popular with the alt-right commentator who has admitted to wanting to force women not to be involved with men he claims are “assholes” and has stated that evil is passed down through the mother, even joking that “it’s jewish.” Molyneux has also admitted that he wanted to murder his own mother. He believes that race is associated with IQ and intelligence and encourages his listeners to disown their families for political reasons. This is the man that the so-called “victim” of Google’s diversity policy has chosen to align himself with. So, if you think that Google firing this guy was unreasonable, please elaborate on why that’s the case.
The Person in Question
Is a boy more into sports because he has a penis or because his Dad liked sports and the other boys liked sports and they all looked down on him until he liked sports?
I’m guessing it’s the latter.
What about transgendered people? When they are young, aren’t they given the clothes and the toys of the gender everyone things they are and they sometimes reject them and prefer the toys and cloths of the other gender?
Often, yes.
Not sure what your point is, unless you’re just agreeing with me.
My point is that maybe there is something about what gender your brain is that affects what you like that don’t like. You said that maybe the only reason a boy likes sports is because his Dad did and how other boys would look down on him for not liking sports. If what you said is true, then a person born with the mind of girl but the body of a boy would still end up liking sports and the same would true of toys and clothes, yet we know it doesn’t work like that.
Newsflash: Some girls like football and Star Wars, some boys like My Little Pony Friendship is Magic. A person with the mind of a girl but the body of a boy absolutely can end up liking sports and “boy” toys and clothes. You may think it doesn’t work like that but I guarantee you are wrong.
Newsflash: More boys than girls like football and Star Wars, more girls than boys like My Little Pony Friendship is Magic.
But that doesn’t give someone license to outright tell girls that they aren’t employed in certain jobs because get-over-it. People can like what they do or dislike what they don’t. But that doesn’t excuse general meanness and bad attitude.
The point is, people should be made to feel welcome and respected in all walks of life, no matter their quirks. This man’s memo trivialized and belittled the women at his workplace. It doesn’t matter if he doesn’t agree with his employer’s cultural viewpoints. He should have kept his mouth shut.
If anyone here still feels bad for the Google guy getting fired, you should know that he recently did a long interview/discussion with Stefan Molyneux, the extremely popular with the alt-right commentator who has admitted to wanting to force women not to be involved with men he claims are “assholes” and has stated that evil is passed down through the mother, even joking that “it’s jewish.” Molyneux has also admitted that he wanted to murder his own mother. He believes that race is associated with IQ and intelligence and encourages his listeners to disown their families for political reasons. This is the man that the so-called “victim” of Google’s diversity policy has chosen to align himself with. So, if you think that Google firing this guy was unreasonable, please elaborate on why that’s the case.
Ok, Molyneux is a bigoted crazy a$$hole, and I no longer have any sympathy with the guy fired from google if he wants to have anything to do with a guy like Molyneux.
Not only is he associated with him but he’s being actively promoted and supported by Molyneux, seeking fundraising from his audience.
As for Hillary, I think most people who didn’t see her as the lesser of two evils just didn’t vote rather than vote for trump. My point wasn’t to defend them but rather to question why people are still defending Hillary.
The Person in Question
everybody likes choice
Not everybody. That’s the point isn’t it?
So if someone opposes abortion, that means they oppose choice?
Yes.
If you support taking abortion away, then you also support taking people’s choice to have said abortion away to. It can’t be any other way surely?
If you support taking the right to bear arms away, they you also support taking people’s choice to own said arms away. It can’t be any other way. And don’t call me Shirley.
(Assuming we are talking US politics here) That’s not a good analogy (but I think you are joking anyway) because the people you are talking about want “gun control”. Which is not the abolition of guns, it’s much stricter control of them. e.g.
Nobody is arguing for abortion without control but some want it stopped all together
v
Lots of people want guns without control, some want guns controlled more and nobody wants them banned all together.
So not a comparable issue.
I am anti-certain-choices. So are you. It’s called civilization.
Of course but we are only talking about abortion. I’m “pro-choice” because I think women should be able to choose for themselves on this issue, within reasonable limits (I don’t have to agree with it). As you say you are “anti-certain-choices” and the “certain-choice” we are talking about is abortion. So you are “anti-choice” on the abortion issue, which is what I originally said.
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
The same technicality can be applied to the terms pro-life and anti-life. It’s also true in a most literal sense that pro-choice people are against certain lives. If you’re in favor of a woman’s right to an abortion for reasons other than rape or medical conditions, then that is even more applicable. I don’t try to spell it out in a way that accuses pro-choice people of being anti human life because it’s incredibly cheap and unfair to do that. Pro-life and pro-choice are and have been the descriptors for a long time. Yes, neither are good when you want nuance, as one implies that the life of a fetus with minimal development is more important than the life of a pregnant woman who could potentially die from complications of giving birth, and pro-choice, without any explanation, implies that you’re in favor of a woman’s right to abort a healthy, viable baby as late as the third trimester. Most political labels are devoid of nuance, but they’re easy to say and slap on idiotic bumper stickers so people like them. Both also imply that their opponents have malintent (i.e. pro-death and anti-choice). My policy is, instead of assigning yourself a label, just explain what your position is.
For example, I’m in favor of a woman’s right to an abortion in the cases of rape, medical complications, and in general for the very early stages of development, but am otherwise opposed to it; I also think birth control and sex education should be much more emphasized and available to prevent abortion. Was that so hard? No. It’s way better than just saying, “I’m pro-life,” and hoping that everyone knows what I mean.
The Person in Question
Darth Ender, I wanted to say that I also share your frustration with the state of this thread and am beyond thrilled to see another moderate conservative speak his mind. It’s very refreshing to have you here and I am right with you on the position of abortion.
Even though we’ve come to part on certain topics, I’m glad you and I share a similar moral view 😃
I sort of missed my window (a lack of a womb with a view, if you will), so I’ll just say I appreciate _ender’s more reasoned responses this time around.
As you pointed out, I’m usually pretty level-headed. I just keep peeking in this thread and often get annoyed at the stereotypes of conservatives, and when it came to a topic I feel so passionately about, particularly considering how little sleep I’ve had the past few days, I was not in the mood to put up with it anymore.
I admit I generalize a lot on abortion but I have also seen the views I’m describing many, many times.
Of course. But you know, black people do in fact commit more crime than white people. Nevertheless, generalization easily leads to false conclusions. Statistically, a man who is racist against African-Americans could be right when believing that they might be more likely to steal the radio out of his car. But the reality is that the higher percentage does not represent an inherent trait, nor does it represent a majority of African-Americans. A generalization could easily lead to dangerously bigoted and false presumptions. But the intelligent mind (and I’m not suggesting you don’t have one) discerns what is portrayed compared to what is reality. If all I cared about was the news, I’d think nearly all Muslims wanted to behead me and my family. Thankfully, I know that the most vocal factions usually don’t represent the whole group.
There’s another angle no one has talked about, which is the woman’s right/choice to have an abortion for any reason at the very early stages of the pregnancy, as it is her body. A lot of men (and some women) don’t agree with that, and we also get into more well-trodden ground of the rights of the woman vs. the rights of the fetus, so it’s probably not worth bothering with (again) here.
I agree, I think we covered it. I appreciate your thoughts, though.
everybody likes choice
Not everybody. That’s the point isn’t it?
So if someone opposes abortion, that means they oppose choice?
Yes.
If you support taking abortion away, then you also support taking people’s choice to have said abortion away to. It can’t be any other way surely?
If you support taking the right to bear arms away, they you also support taking people’s choice to own said arms away. It can’t be any other way. And don’t call me Shirley.
(Assuming we are talking US politics here) That’s not a good analogy (but I think you are joking anyway) because the people you are talking about want “gun control”. Which is not the abolition of guns, it’s much stricter control of them. e.g.
Nobody is arguing for abortion without control but some want it stopped all together
v
Lots of people want guns without control, some want guns controlled more and nobody wants them banned all together.So not a comparable issue.
Well, it wasn’t intended as a joke, but hey, it’s probably better than my intentional humor anyway 😃 There are those who favor the abolition of all guns in the hands of the public (and I believe–correct me if I’m wrong–that Warbler is part of this crowd), and there are those who want certain restrictions…much like the abortion issue! I don’t want the abolition of all abortions, just such heavy restrictions that it is only done when a necessity, not for less important reasons. There are those who are even stricter in their beliefs that I, and there are those who are still pro-life, but looser in their restrictions. I think it’s a fair analogy.
I am anti-certain-choices. So are you. It’s called civilization.
Of course but we are only talking about abortion. I’m “pro-choice” because I think women should be able to choose for themselves on this issue, within reasonable limits (I don’t have to agree with it). As you say you are “anti-certain-choices” and the “certain-choice” we are talking about is abortion. So you are “anti-choice” on the abortion issue, which is what I originally said.
My point being that, okay, yes, I am anti-choice, but I feel the term is really not a fair term. I am against certain choices because I believe they maximize human freedom. You are also opposed to certain choices for the same ends, though the choices you oppose may be different and the freedom you believe is achieved may be a different ideal than mine. My point was simply that all of us oppose certain choices, so I’m not a fan of the term. It paints the pro-life crowd as infringing on individual liberty. In reality, all of us infringe on individual liberty when we support any law.
The same technicality can be applied to the terms pro-life and anti-life. It’s also true in a most literal sense that pro-choice people are against certain lives. If you’re in favor of a woman’s right to an abortion for reasons other than rape or medical conditions, then that is even more applicable. I don’t try to spell it out in a way that accuses pro-choice people of being anti human life because it’s incredibly cheap and unfair to do that. Pro-life and pro-choice are and have been the descriptors for a long time. Yes, neither are good when you want nuance, as one implies that the life of a fetus with minimal development is more important than the life of a pregnant woman who could potentially die from complications of giving birth, and pro-choice, without any explanation, implies that you’re in favor of a woman’s right to abort a healthy, viable baby as late as the third trimester. Most political labels are devoid of nuance, but they’re easy to say and slap on idiotic bumper stickers so people like them. Both also imply that their opponents have malintent (i.e. pro-death and anti-choice). My policy is, instead of assigning yourself a label, just explain what your position is.
For example, I’m in favor of a woman’s right to an abortion in the cases of rape, medical complications, and in general for the very early stages of development, but am otherwise opposed to it; I also think birth control and sex education should be much more emphasized and available to prevent abortion. Was that so hard? No. It’s way better than just saying, “I’m pro-life,” and hoping that everyone knows what I mean.
I think you raise a good point. I personally don’t mind the “pro-” labels. It’s the “anti-” labels that I think are unfair in the image they convey. But I see your point that even the “pro-” terms can imply the “anti-” meanings as well. Explanation is always a lot clearer. Thanks for the post.
There are those who favor the abolition of all guns in the hands of the public (and I believe–correct me if I’m wrong–that Warbler is part of this crowd)
I’m not sure I want a total ban or not. Perhaps a ban on auto and semi-auto rifles might be enough, or maybe a ban on all auto and semi-auto weapons. At the very least, I think a lot more training and psychological testing should be required before being allowed to own firearms. I also think maybe one shouldn’t allowed to own firearms if they live with someone with dangerous mental issues or if they live with someone who has a criminal record.
The key is cutting down the sheer number of guns in the country. There are so many that it’s relatively easy to track guns down through illegal means.
The Person in Question
This is real news, not the fact that right-wing sellout Democrats voted to spend $100 BILLION MORE on defense (which, let’s be honest, is just offense). This is the real story!
When I asked my Trump-voting friends “why?”, their answers were universally twofold: (1) how could I possibly vote for a murderer, and (2) what was so great about Obama? That tells me that negative campaigning is extremely effective, even when it is ridiculous. And, that one can say truly horrible things and that will actually appeal to a lot of people… even a lot of nice people. It’s why the election really has made me question what I thought the American people and the American system as a whole really are.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
There are those who favor the abolition of all guns in the hands of the public (and I believe–correct me if I’m wrong–that Warbler is part of this crowd)
I’m sure I want a total ban or not. Perhaps a ban on auto and semi-auto rifles might be enough, or maybe a ban on all auto and semi-auto weapons. At the very least, I think a lot more training and psychological testing should be required before being allowed to own firearms. I also think maybe one shouldn’t allowed to own firearms if they live with someone with dangerous mental issues or if they live with someone who has a criminal record.
Screw semi-auto, I’m for a full-on handgun ban. Plus auto and semi-auto. Plus ammunition. Sure it’s unconstitutional, I’m for repeal.
If you’re in favor of the government actually confiscating guns from law-abiding owners, there will be a significant amount of violence. A lot of police wouldn’t even enforce such a law.
The Person in Question
If you’re in favor of the government actually confiscating guns from law-abiding owners, there will be a significant amount of violence. A lot of police wouldn’t even enforce such a law.
They wouldn’t be law-abiding if they kept the guns after they were illegal, would they, and police who don’t enforce laws can easily look for more suitable jobs, right? 😉 (snark… kinda)
The complete ban is an ideal end state–I admit implementation isn’t easy and anything in between would be a good start. It could take hundreds of years–no confiscation at all, just the gradual reduction as generations don’t get new guns and the old ones slowly get destroyed. Luckily, the second amendment doesn’t protect any important rights, so nothing’s lost by its repeal. Modern gun ownership is mostly about entertainment, heirlooms, and fantasy scenarios, which can be easily managed via less dangerous means. But with a very rare practical use case of deer and varmints, which is why I’m still fine keeping basic rifles around (Winchesters, not AR-15s). As a Pest Control Amendment, I’m still all for the Second.
EDIT: Admittedly, I agree with the NRA’s interpretation of the 2nd amendment, which is why I feel it needs to be repealed ASAP. The amendment doesn’t mention guns at all, just “arms”. As written, it applies equally to handguns, machine guns, longbows, halberds, tanks, surface-to-air missiles, nuclear weapons, mustard gas, and anthrax. The second amendment says you have a right to keep and bear all of these things, all because of well-regulated militias that don’t really exist anymore but kinda sorta live on in the National Guard to some degree. With that interpretation, it’s a dangerously idiotic amendment, but frankly the other interpretations I’ve seen seem very preciously crafted with the purpose of reaching saner conclusions, rather than just interpreting it as written. The only thing protecting us from the full impact of this amendment is five justices looking the other way, and that may not last.
Goddamn that inflatable chicken is the funniest thing I’ve seen in days.
If you’re in favor of the government actually confiscating guns from law-abiding owners, there will be a significant amount of violence. A lot of police wouldn’t even enforce such a law.
They wouldn’t be law-abiding if they kept the guns after they were illegal, would they, and police who don’t enforce laws can easily look for more suitable jobs, right? 😉 (snark… kinda)
The complete ban is an ideal end state–I admit implementation isn’t easy and anything in between would be a good start. It could take hundreds of years–no confiscation at all, just the gradual reduction as generations don’t get new guns and the old ones slowly get destroyed. Luckily, the second amendment doesn’t protect any important rights, so nothing’s lost by its repeal. Modern gun ownership is mostly about entertainment, heirlooms, and fantasy scenarios, which can be easily managed via less dangerous means. But with a very rare practical use case of deer and varmints, which is why I’m still fine keeping basic rifles around (Winchesters, not AR-15s). As a Pest Control Amendment, I’m still all for the Second.
EDIT: Admittedly, I agree with the NRA’s interpretation of the 2nd amendment, which is why I feel it needs to be repealed ASAP. The amendment doesn’t mention guns at all, just “arms”. As written, it applies equally to handguns, machine guns, longbows, halberds, tanks, surface-to-air missiles, nuclear weapons, mustard gas, and anthrax. The second amendment says you have a right to keep and bear all of these things, all because of well-regulated militias that don’t really exist anymore but kinda sorta live on in the National Guard to some degree. With that interpretation, it’s a dangerously idiotic amendment, but frankly the other interpretations I’ve seen seem very preciously crafted with the purpose of reaching saner conclusions, rather than just interpreting it as written. The only thing protecting us from the full impact of this amendment is five justices looking the other way, and that may not last.
I agree with your ideal end game, as well as with the fact that firearm ownership today is almost entirely entertainment and fantasy. That said, the United States’ police force is way to well-armed, which, and this may sound crazier than I think it is, justifies the armed population of our citizenry to an extent. Heirlooms are important; I don’t think anyone’s possessions that they’ve had for decades should be taken away, nor should collections be broken up. Heirloom also implies that it’s an antique, which is important to consider also. It’s only the modern, mass-produced guns that need to be destroyed. You also overlook the genuine need for self-defense in rural areas in which the police can’t get to your property in any helpful time, as well as in cities with terrible police departments and high crime rates like Detroit.
The Person in Question
There are those who favor the abolition of all guns in the hands of the public (and I believe–correct me if I’m wrong–that Warbler is part of this crowd)
I’m sure I want a total ban or not. Perhaps a ban on auto and semi-auto rifles might be enough, or maybe a ban on all auto and semi-auto weapons. At the very least, I think a lot more training and psychological testing should be required before being allowed to own firearms. I also think maybe one shouldn’t allowed to own firearms if they live with someone with dangerous mental issues or if they live with someone who has a criminal record.
Screw semi-auto, I’m for a full-on handgun ban. Plus auto and semi-auto. Plus ammunition. Sure it’s unconstitutional, I’m for repeal.
If you want to ban semi-auto’s, then I always press the question of why not just ban handguns too since they kill more people in the U.S. every year than semi’s? I still have not figured out the gun issue and think that there are convincing things on both sides. For one thing, an actually successful eradication of guns from ALL citizens sounds like a utopia. But the point brought up by the pro-gun side of how criminals will still get the guns illegally has always made sense to me. I need to set aside a few days to mull over some research/data and come to a well reasoned conclusion cause I am still absolutely lost on what to think of this issue.