Print

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

[Micro102]

Micro seems to be willfully ignoring EJ’s point in favour of their own anti-Republican stance, which is fine, Republicans are by and large horrible, but it just bothers me when people argue past someone like that and then expect to be taken seriously by the other party.

Well then let's be more specific here. Step by step. I think EJ's point is that the analogy justifies the republican party's actions because they say that they think abortion is murder, and want to stop murder. Do you agree, and if not, what is their point?

[hector13]

Micro seems to be willfully ignoring EJ’s point in favour of their own anti-Republican stance, which is fine, Republicans are by and large horrible, but it just bothers me when people argue past someone like that and then expect to be taken seriously by the other party.

Well then let's be more specific here. Step by step. I think EJ's point is that the analogy justifies the republican party's actions because they say that they think abortion is murder, and want to stop murder. Do you agree, and if not, what is their point?

I’m pretty sure I’ve said what I read EJ as saying in every post we’ve made since I called you out:

EJ was saying religious conservatives could use your analogy as justification to cheat because abortion is murder.

EJ was not using it to justify that position.

Do you accept the difference in those two statements?

[Micro102]

I do see the difference. But I find it to be a bizarre shift in topic. The republican party as a whole is fudging supreme court pick allowances, pushing the removal of Roe v. Wade, and criminalizing abortion. Someone suggested that Biden takes action to undo the actions of the republican party. EJ says that two wrongs don't make a right, directly connecting the actions of the GOP to those of Biden's, and then when I give an analogy, suddenly, it's not Biden vs the republican party, but Biden vs specifically religious conservatives who honestly believe abortion is murder and that's it? That just doesn't make sense. Why narrow in on such a fine-tuned example when clearly no one was talking about that? Why not clarify when I specifically mention republicans and actions by republicans as a party? Again. This all needs clarification. That's why it's bad to just ignore massive chunks of what someone says.

[wierd]

A delineation needs to be made.

'The GOP' is 'Leadership + Supporters'

The GOP leadership is a crooked band of swindlers, hustlers, hypocrites, and liars. They preach sexual morality while hosting orgies. They preach 'fair market' while choosing winners and propping up oligarchs. They preach 'state rights' while enacting onerous federal legislation.

The GOP supporters are, statistically poorly educated, highly religious, conditioned through purposefully targeted media to feel ostracized as a group, distrustful of education (as education contradicts religious dogma, and thus group identity, making it an existential threat), easily manipulated, and beholden to very simplified, authoritarian views of the world.  They see abortion, and see baby murder, the end.

When you talk about 'the GOP', and mean party leadership, you should specify.

The latter is a toxic culture in the US, but is not purposefully toxic. They have been 'selectively bred' (ahem) to be that way, by the former, for more than 3 generations now. They simply want their idea of utopia. The reality that it is dystopic to ~50% of the public is ignored. They have been told they are oppressed, believe it, and are acting out. Just as the party leaders want them to.

 

[martinuzz]

In El Salvador, a woman has been convicted for murder, and sentenced to 30 years in prison.... Because she had a miscarriage.

[Frumple]

You see cases like that in the US fairly regularly, too. It's one of the myriad things that puts anti-abortion rhetoric about caring about the unborn to a lie, makes it clear the point really is just to ruin the lives of folks that get pregnant.

It's even got an unsurprising intersection with racism and anti-poor sentiment, as it (highly) disproportionately abuses minorities and lower income people.

[martinuzz]

A judge and jurors that convict a poor woman who had a miscarriage do not belong in court, they belong in a psych ward for the criminally insane, strapped to a wheelchair with anti bite and spitting mask. They have no conscience.

[dragdeler]

What a drain on society that would be. I keep saying, blunt weapons are the perfect amount of violence and all violence should be restricted to those outbursts, can be lethal but dont have to be, I mean punitive justice is such a joke who actually feels the need to retaliate after two long years of juristic consideration it's a joke, do it when you mean it or let it go, as if we monkeys could process such indirect feedback it's an utter joke.

Go to therapy and get medicated, dedicate your paycheck and your time to be the least disruptive, and learn to manage your problem via the institutions instead tihi... For what? So we can carry out our conflicts in ever larger groups and more lethal ways. Meh I'd rather take street justice, you'll manage to argue with a bloodthirsty mob before you'll manage to nudge some apathic institution.

[McTraveller]

I'm all for reducing copyright durations, even if it is for the wrong reasons.  No institution should be able to extract rent indefinitely for work with essentially zero cost of manufacturing.

I agree that if a judge convicts someone for murder because of their own miscarriage they need to be disbarred.

As for welfare - I don't think I'm for just giving people food and housing. I want the government to set up programs so the welfare people can produce their own food and housing - that is, how do we move them from being renters to being owners?  This doesn't mean to not give them what they need now, but don't stop there!

[Frumple]

As for welfare - I don't think I'm for just giving people food and housing. I want the government to set up programs so the welfare people can produce their own food and housing - that is, how do we move them from being renters to being owners?  This doesn't mean to not give them what they need now, but don't stop there!

The thing is that 110% two of the most effective immediate steps you can take to support someone moving towards that is... make sure they have a roof over their head and aren't food insecure. It's one of the reasons I'm entirely in favor of just giving people food and shelter (and healthcare, education, basic infrastructure access, etc.), because it's shit that works and works better than just about bloody anything to permanently pull folks out of poverty, and in the interim massively reduces human suffering. Good stuff, y'know?

Plus one way to sidestep the renter thing is to just, y'know. Provide housing. Outright and owned. Fuck the landlords, cut out the middleman, just give folks a home with a guarantee nothing short of it burning down is going to take it from them, and rebuild the damn thing if it does. It's remarkably effective shit, as demonstrated by all the folks that inherit housing free from family instead of society in general

[martinuzz]

Or just get rid of house ownership altogether. Provide housing as a service, just like education, healthcare and infrastructure.
A roof over your head should in any case be a primary human right.

[LordBaal]

Hahahahhahahaha sorrry Martinuzz... I do get what you mean and that would be awesome, but there are like a thousand reasons why that would got south quickly.

[McTraveller]

I want to hear actual details about how such a housing system without ownership would be implemented, not just "wouldn't it be nice if..."

[martinuzz]

Start by getting rid of inheritance of real estate over generations.
When a home owner dies, the property is freed up for the rental pool.
The rest of the system is already present, it's called housing corporations (or social housing corporations, like we have here)

[McTraveller]

I don't see how getting rid of home inheritance will solve the problem of massive real estate conglomerates buying up all the housing units and simply earning rent instead of actually producing more housing.  And all the companies that do build units are building cheap-materials high-sale-price McMansions, which don't actually add supply for first-time home buyers or low-income rentals.

I'm not familiar with the mechanics of the housing corporations, any good references for it?