Print

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

[Trekkin]

I really fail to see the point in taking "pro-life" people seriously.

Well, people didn't take Trump seriously, and now he's President. Opponents you don't bother to acknowledge have an odd way of winning without opposition.

[PTTG??]

You're saying it's a lesser-evil scenario? One would think they'd grumble considerably in that case. But I don't know, maybe they have been grumbling.

If PTTG?? is correct, they've made arguments for how Trump could be an instrument of God's will, which IMO does validly lead to the statement "their claimed moral code is in shambles and can support pretty much anything they twist it to." It's just... who is They?

You have found the core of the satirical point I intended to make, yes. Not that the evangelicals aren't powerful, but rather that they no longer have any consistent ideology.

[Trekkin]

You have found the core of the satirical point I intended to make, yes. Not that the evangelicals aren't powerful, but rather that they no longer have any consistent ideology.

Except the one dictating the issues that invariably determine their votes, I guess?

[Max™]

You have found the core of the satirical point I intended to make, yes. Not that the evangelicals aren't powerful, but rather that they no longer have any consistent ideology.

Except the one dictating the issues that invariably determine their votes, I guess?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/13/why-evangelicals-love-trump-243769

The worst best part is that they're open about being ok with his bullshit, they even get to claim they're doing the good christian thing by forgiving his endless litany of sins!

[Kagus]

Well, technically, the bible does say to respect and cow to your leaders, secular or otherwise. If someone is in a position of authority over you, you should defer to them as you would defer to God; because God placed them in that position.

...which is a whole 'nother ball of wax for the "TFDTMB 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto God what is God's" discussion.

[scriver]

Every thread needs its Francesco Schettino.

Was he the drunk Italian captain who Did Not Go Down With His Ship after he ran it around a couple of years ago or so?

[hector13]

I thought he was the lusty captain what did same, but yeah.

[Reelya]

Man "drunk captain of cruise ship hits a rock and sinks" sounds like classic scapegoating by the cruise company, not a plausible explanation for why a 50 ton ship sank. It's not like he was a drunk driver or anything, but that's what that makes it sound like they're trying to say. "Drunk" and "drink" don't actually trigger any hits in the wikipedia articles on him or the case, so it sounds like that's just baseless media badmouthing rather than an actual fact related to the story.

"lusty captain" also sounds like media defamation. Was he fucking some cruise slut too hard over the steering wheel of the ship or something, which cause the shipwreck?. e.g. what evidence do we have that he was more "lusty" than anyone else, and even then, how's it relevant to the ship sinking.

e.g. he was criticized for being in a life-boat and not on the ship, but the ship was 90-degrees sideways so it was sort of impossible to actually be on the ship when he was admonished for being in the life-boat. I haven't looked into the case closer however, but several of the things they pointed at him do sound like either classic media "blame" bullshit or the cruise ship company trying to weasel out of them being responsible, by throwing one man to the wolves.

[Frumple]

Man "drunk captain of cruise ship hits a rock and sinks" sounds like classic scapegoating by the cruise company, not a plausible explanation for why a 50 ton ship sank. It's not like he was a drunk driver or anything, but that's what that makes it sound like they're trying to say.

I mean... it's plausible. Drunkenly ramming a ship into something that'll tear it open isn't exactly a wild flight of fancy or somethin'.

... it's just stupid, and says things about the company behind the ship if they're not making sure to have someone else around to keep an eye on the captain, or screening for people that would get drunk when piloting a cruise ship, or etc.

[Reelya]

I also just picked up that other people heard he's "lusty" as if that's a case-relevant detail. Smear campaign for sure.

Now i'm picturing a drunk Italian guy, captain's cap askew, with a bottle in one hand, steering the ship with the other hand while banging a prostitute bent over the console. Clear nonsense.

[scriver]

According to the Wikipedia article, one of the reasons behind the lusty accusations might be that it was given as one of the possible reasons behind the why of "why the fuck is this person driving this close to the rocks" that he wanted to impress a Moldovan lady friend he had brought to the bridge.

Regardless, the man is despised because he abandoned his sinking ship in to save his own skin while his passengers were still on it, not because of drunkenness or lustfulness.

[MorleyDev]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44324565

Analysts at IHS Markit expect the effects to be distributed across a wide range of markets, limiting the effect on steel prices outside the US.

That leaves America to bear the brunt of the economic impact, which economists say will appear in the form of higher prices and job losses - as many as 470,000 by one estimate.

Steel prices in the US have already risen due to the uncertainty and may increase as the tariffs hit imports.

Consumers outside the US could see prices of some goods fall, while those in America may end up paying more.

So much winning, so much winning -_-

[Reelya]

That's expected. A tariff wall can do that: cause prices inside and out to go in different directions. e.g. suppliers can't sell as much of the goods to people behind the tariff wall, so more is diverted to markets outside of it. The big problem here is that while this might boost domestic production of the high-tariff nation, that production will be even less competitive in export markets than it is already. e.g. so you'll be rebuilding an American steel industry, that's 100% dependent on the domestic market, too expensive to compete in the export markets, and even more reliant on the tariff wall to remain in place lest the whole thing collapse. Plus, of course, the domestic market for steel will just shrink anyway due to high prices, and this will drive down overall investment.

And there's also the problem that by erecting tariffs against imports to the USA on steel etc, other countries will retaliate with tariffs against imports from the USA. The end result will be the Chinese selling steel to Europe more and buying more advanced European products, cutting the USA out of both deals.

e.g. don't do the trade war thing when you have multiple competitors who just might decided to trade with each other instead.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

That sounds suspiciously like the common "Pro-lifers don't actually think abortion is murder, they just want women punished for daring to have sex!" strawman. A big part of pro-life argument is that anti-abortion laws are not gender discriminatory, because it is already illegal for men to murder their children out of convenience.

...that seems, while coherent, the sort of thing which Proves Too Much. If men were all sperm donors and first saw their children at age 18, then men would have no legal custody of their children. Should that mean that the mothers, who keep the children, shouldn't have legal custody of their children either?

It only works if there's no legal difference between an unborn child and a born child, which is exactly the underlying issue here. It's not very effective to make arguments that only work if the person you're trying to convince already agrees with you where it matters. I suppose it might convince some pro-lifers that they don't need to worry about being discriminatory, but that's only in-group-corralling.

[Reelya]

I'm having trouble parsing what you just wrote and how it's supposed to be logically equivalent to what Lord Shonus wrote.

If men were all sperm donors and first saw their children at age 18, then men would have no legal custody of their children

Well people who are donors don't have custody.

Should that mean that the mothers, who keep the children, shouldn't have legal custody of their children either?

Well no, but women who give their children up for adoption don't have custody. You're comparing apples and oranges here of people who do not keep the child vs those who do then assuming some fictional fantasy world that assumes all men are sperm donors and all women are caretakers, then saying that sperm donors and caretakers must have equal rights, so as not to be gender discriminatory. There are too many logical sleights of hand pulled there.

What Lord Shonus is saying is totally different. He's saying that the argument goes that "males do not get to choose to kill a baby so therefore females shouldn't get to choose kill a baby". I'm pro-choice but I'm having trouble seeing how your analogy fits that.

e.g. if you forced all men to be sperm donors only, and disallowed them custody, it would in fact be discriminatory to not also make that ruling for women, therefore in that case women should not be awarded custody, and the children would need to be provided for by the state. e.g. the sleight of hand there is that you mixed up "sperm donor" which is a voluntary thing with the idea of forcibly taking women's children away, which is an involuntary thing. It's discriminatory if either gender is subject to a forced ruling that the other is not. It's not discriminatory if both are forced to abide by the same ruling, no matter how shitty that ruling is.

however, to expand out the pro-choice side of the argument:

it could be argued that it's discriminatory that the mother can choose to terminate a baby, but the father cannot choose to terminate a baby, but the courts still hold each one equally responsible. A good principle here would be to make people responsible for decisions they could make, and not be responsible for decisions that other people made, which they disagreed with.

Also, when a woman gets pregnant she didn't consent to having a baby because of the act of sex. So she can choose to terminate it, or adopt it out and have no responsibility thereafter. However, equally, when a man has sex he hasn't consented to having a baby, either. e.g. the "take responsibility" thing is entirely unfeminist in itself. The guy is in fact under no obligation to be responsible for a baby because someone got pregnant, any more than the mother is under an obligation to be responsible for the baby. e.g. any justification here is just as good for the mother or father. e.g. you could say "the guy should take responsibility because he knew the risks when he had sex" but this is in fact no different at all to saying a woman shouldn't be allowed to terminate a baby because she "knew the risks when she had sex". e.g. that wouldn't fly under pro-choice logic for women, so why should it fly for men?