Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[feelotraveller]

Although in many respects different there is an interesting overlap with euthanasia where similarly the state steps in and says, "no you do not have a right to do what you want with your body".  If anything it is bit more blunt since there are not the same concerns about others, however we characterise that otherness.

[Vector]

To be clear I brought that up to make a point about differences in belief between Abrahamic religions, NOT to argue yet again about abortion. Clearly I shoulda known better >:/

[Rolan7]

Yeah I'm not even jumping in either because I feel like I made my points just fine last time.  Maybe I was heard, I certainly listened.  But I was busy today and now I have no interest in reopening the issue.

At least it's been pretty civil this time around.

Edit: Also we just had a pretty crazy off-year election that got very little attention here. Purple Virginia (just north of me) has a calm extremist in power.  So that's great.

[Lord Shonus]

This year's election came very close to the standard historic trends. Both Virginia and New Jersey have a long history of electing a governor from which ever party does not have the White House (Precisely one out of the last 11 Virginia elections have aligned with the Oval Office), which puts the results close to what you would expect in a "normal" year.

Indeed, the biggest divergence from the trend is how well the Democrats did - VA was a narrow loss (after some major campaign errors), and NJ was a narrow win (after some moderate campaign errors). Equally important, Youngkin's victory relied heavily on keeping Trump at arm's length, not embracing him.

[MaxTheFox]

What.

I'm really worn out of arguments where it's really a matter of interpretation and thus opinion, but one side is being dense about how they are enthralled by a speficic spin or narrrative, oftentimes down to a particular set of formulations, and the other can throw the dictionnary at a brick wall. I do not inculpate you nor starver, in your case I consider it the curiosity of the young, and I consider starver to be second thought incarnate. But I am mad that this wedge issue keeps getting brought up as if it wasn't a solved subject, fully explored medically, ethically and philosophically. Because that lends credence to that particular set of formulations mentionned earlier in this paragraph.

To clarify my work rants:

I think it should be entirely in the discretion of the doctor wether he does and when. Let them explain how they consider it their duty to put something so developped under lifesupport, "mam I put babies in the incubator that were younger than that, I can refer you to a butcher without scrupules if you want to though, but personally I don't care about having PTSD"... At least there, there is some wiggleroom. Prevention is allways better, but let's say a mother shows up who lost a limb in her 8th month, FCOL listen the woman out.


I think the bar of admission to being licensed to do abortions is sufficiently high for me not to be paranoid about abuse*, and in a weird twist I trust that this particular one, the market could actually figure out by itself. I know that on a surface level that sounds like abortions if you're wealthy enough, but I feel like I'm not likely to be overly dissappointed by whatever the medical consensus turns out to be.

*I know I know there still are crooks and sheicesters, aaand lunatics as we keep finding out recently, but so long as the procedures are executed correctly, and both parties consent, I do not give a rats ass about the legal protection of an unborn person, sounds like sueing for projected earnings to me.



edit: To me it is completely asinine how all the great savants must unite to discuss the faith of unborn children, but the second children can talk we treat their opinions like dogshit for a solid decade at least if not two. Call me a jaded asshole who is pulling up the bridge behind me if you will.

Honestly reasonable-- I just don't want it done without a good reason especially after the fetus is well-developed.

[MrRoboto75]

This year's election came very close to the standard historic trends. Both Virginia and New Jersey have a long history of electing a governor from which ever party does not have the White House (Precisely one out of the last 11 Virginia elections have aligned with the Oval Office), which puts the results close to what you would expect in a "normal" year.

Indeed, the biggest divergence from the trend is how well the Democrats did - VA was a narrow loss (after some major campaign errors), and NJ was a narrow win (after some moderate campaign errors). Equally important, Youngkin's victory relied heavily on keeping Trump at arm's length, not embracing him.

Youngkin Donuts proves they've found ways to market CRT education 'outrage' into something electable.  Frankly by high school my VA education was already pushing "states rights" over the civil war anyways...

Also abortion being a big ticket position for Donuts, speaking of the devil.

[Rolan7]

Yeah, exactly.  "Culture war" stuff (Ben Shapiro constantly lying about Critical Race Theory) had real world consequences.

There's a reason that the right whines constantly about "cancel culture".  Their only hope at this point, in an age of easily-accessible information, is to lie louder and more often than the truth.  And to play the victim when called out - what they call "cancel culture".

People being fired for wrong opinions is bad too.  You know who suffers from that?  Everyday workers who dare to talk about unionizing.  THAT is cancelling.

Rich ideologues getting called out for punching down deserve to be cancelled.  They do not deserve pity.
They are not that one lady who made an unfortunate tweet with no malice.  They know exactly what they are doing, and they cravenly hide behind a shield of "cancel culture" because their ideas are dogshit.

They cannot survive the marketplace of ideas.

[wierd]

Until we (as a nation) start holding "Political Entertainers" (You know, all those noisy heads on Fox?) accountable for the real harm they cause, this problem will never go away.

"But muh free speachez and stuffs! I'z not haz tuh be legit, I'z intertainer!"
(2)

Is the dodge that the radical right is using to escape cuplability for setting the house on fire, repeatedly.

[MaxTheFox]

Cancelling... honestly my stance on it depends on who is being cancelled. Couldn't care less if actual Nazis are, for example. Someone saying something innocuous that was misinterpreted, then I have a problem.

[wierd]

Here's the deal.

Poe's Law is a thing.  If you are going to be, eg, The Onion, you need to be overly bombastic about it, and openly assert that YOU ARE DOING PARODY.  (EG, Entertainment)


Hannity and Carlson do not do those things.  They pretend to be "Extreme right wing Walter Cronkite", and to "Tell the TRUTH about Politics!!"  Hiding behind " I iz INTERTAINER!!" is bullshit, to cover for the fact that you are lighting the fucking house on fire, and doing it because you can, and your operation is funded by wealthy right-wing thinktanks.

IT IS NOT ENTERTAINMENT.  IT IS OUTRIGHT LIES, PANDERED TO STIR UP THE MASSES, FOR POLITICAL GAIN.

It needs to be punished as such.  Until Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson open their shows with "The proceeding is not intended to be taken as factual; The events and positions taken by this program are fictional, and intended purely for entertainment purposes."  Similar to what is on the fucking Onion, comes before SouthPark, et al--- They do not get to use that protection, IMO.

[Eschar]

the Onion says itself is parody? "America's Finest News Source"

[wierd]

It used to-- I see they have been more bold in their lampooning of Fox, that they dont offer one anymore.

[MaxTheFox]

Here's the deal.

Poe's Law is a thing.  If you are going to be, eg, The Onion, you need to be overly bombastic about it, and openly assert that YOU ARE DOING PARODY.  (EG, Entertainment)


Hannity and Carlson do not do those things.  They pretend to be "Extreme right wing Walter Cronkite", and to "Tell the TRUTH about Politics!!"  Hiding behind " I iz INTERTAINER!!" is bullshit, to cover for the fact that you are lighting the fucking house on fire, and doing it because you can, and your operation is funded by wealthy right-wing thinktanks.

IT IS NOT ENTERTAINMENT.  IT IS OUTRIGHT LIES, PANDERED TO STIR UP THE MASSES, FOR POLITICAL GAIN.

It needs to be punished as such.  Until Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson open their shows with "The proceeding is not intended to be taken as factual; The events and positions taken by this program are fictional, and intended purely for entertainment purposes."  Similar to what is on the fucking Onion, comes before SouthPark, et al--- They do not get to use that protection, IMO.

Yeah for them it's more-or-less justified.

[Rolan7]

It's important to me that anyone, or any entity, be clear when they're joking.  I've known people who IRL would say the stupidest stuff just "as a test".

In my case they were pretty liberal, they just liked mind-games.  But the thing about a mind-game is that it ends when you call it out, right?

Anyway, Fox is not The Onion.  The Onion is parody.  Fox's entertainers were presented as news.  They were technically "entertainment" if you looked closely enough, but that's not how they presented themselves.  As they pushed DEADLY narratives over and over and over.

They love to present Comedy Central as their opposite...  that should tell you something.

Cowards.

[LordBaal]

But free speech just allows you to say whatever you want, does not protects you from the consequences, is that right? I mean I could and have the right to stand in front of the white house (if I were a US citizen anyway) and shout death treats to the president all day long, this does not mean I can't get jailed and investigated for doing so?