Print

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

[Vector]

Piers Anthony.

Yeah, I'm kind of distressed by this.  I read one of his books when I was in elementary school and ended up not wanting to read it for many of the same reasons.  Not that it was clear in my mind, but... there was something that felt off about the women, and the five pages of credits for terrible puns in the back didn't impress me any more.

Oh, well.  Anyway, thanks for the link.

That's not actually what he's saying at all.

I think that's the point, Leafsnail =)  Nikov is being sneaky.


Good to have you on board.

[Nikov]

Neither side has a monopoly on good ideas, after all.

[Bauglir]

Wait, so which side is Smart Uncle Pennybrains on?

Also, I just want to say how ridiculous it is that he believes health insurance isn't a valid step in "preparing" for rape, but that having life insurance is a valid step in preparing for death. I mean, no, you shouldn't be responsible for being prepared for rape, but even if we were to grant his ludicrous reasoning as valid, he's still being a bigoted ass.

[Criptfeind]

Man, that guys logic was all sorta screwy. I mean, I understand what he was getting at, which in of itself is not... Well terrible, even if I don't support it. But to use it in such a thing that has nothing at all to do with it. How screwed up can you get?

[Leafsnail]

I think that's the point, Leafsnail =)  Nikov is being sneaky.

I guess that's one way of putting it.  "Bringing in an irrelevant issue in order to mask misogyny" is another.

[Nikov]

I think that's the point, Leafsnail =)  Nikov is being sneaky.

I guess that's one way of putting it.  "Bringing in an irrelevant issue in order to mask misogyny" is another.

I would say "agreeing with you, jackass".

Edit: Ahem. Although I find it a bit of a twist a man defending misogynist Rep. Weiner's ability to still do his job is accusing me of misogyny when I advocate women being empowered to shoot rapists in the face.

[Vector]

Gun control is an entire other can of worms, which I would like to refrain from discussing here--at least for now.


Anyway, Mr. Jackass is presumably a republican, though I don't presume that he represents the true desires of his constituency.

[Leafsnail]

I would say "agreeing with you, jackass".

...Your post effectively echoed what Pete DeGraaf said, except replacing "should buy insurance for rape-abortions" with "should buy guns to protect themselves from rapists".  The "women are responsible for their own rapes and should plan ahead for them" message remained, although I guess this could have been unintentional?  In any case, that's not "agreeing", except in that we both agree that what Pete DeGraaf said was flawed.

Edit: Ahem. Although I find it a bit of a twist a man defending misogynist Rep. Weiner's ability to still do his job is accusing me of misogyny when I advocate women being empowered to shoot rapists in the face.

Gun control is irrelevant.  The issue is about "should women have to plan ahead for their rapes".  The Weiner thing is irrelevant, and also incorrect (I've never defended Rep. Weiner, due to the unsolicited nature of his privacy.  I've referred only to consensual affairs not necessarily affecting a politician's ability to represent their electorate).

[Criptfeind]

Actually I believe the true issue is closer to him saying women should be forced to buy separate 'abortion insurance' which is ludicrous.

The 'being prepared' seems like a smoke screen really. Or a sound bite, it's snappy and it sums something up, but it is not really representative of what one should be thinking about.

[Vector]

Actually I believe the true issue is closer to him saying women should be forced to buy separate 'abortion insurance' which is ludicrous.

So far as I can tell, it's that he wants

a. Abortion to be covered by no insurance, because it is a social ill--it'd be like getting "tattoo insurance" or "insurance to help you buy an AK in case you wanted one."

b. Women to put money aside in case they're raped.

But, please explain, if you have a reason to think otherwise.  I may have misread him.

[Criptfeind]

It says right in the article

The bill, which the governor signed into law last week, would require a woman to carry a separate policy for abortions.

[Vector]

It says right in the article

The bill, which the governor signed into law last week, would require a woman to carry a separate policy for abortions.

Bah, I read coverage elsewhere that didn't say that, then.  Sorry for my laziness.

[Criptfeind]

Bleh. After a bit more link clicking, I found two more bits of repugnance about it.

1: It was made sorta to give businesses that offer their employes health insurance the ability to make is that their employes are not covered for abortions. That... Pretty bad.

2 Which makes 1 looks like a good thing: Apparently "The new law says no state or federally administered health-insurance exchange in Kansas established under last year's federal health care overhaul law can offer coverage for abortions, other than to save a woman's life."

Number two is... Really really fucking screwed up. Also, I am not sure if they can even do that to a federal plan, my gut says they can not so this bill is illegal, but I am by no means a expert in the state rights/fed rights thing.

[Leafsnail]

Actually I believe the true issue is closer to him saying women should be forced to buy separate 'abortion insurance' which is ludicrous.

The 'being prepared' seems like a smoke screen really. Or a sound bite, it's snappy and it sums something up, but it is not really representative of what one should be thinking about.

...Except that's almost exactly how DeGraaf justified it.

DeGraaf: "We do need to plan ahead, don't we, in life?"
...
DeGraaf: "I have a spare tire on my car."

I don't see much difference between "plan ahead" and "be prepared", personally.

The sexist element of the legislation is that women will have to pay more than men if they want to be able to have abortions after rape (even though their medical costs overall aren't likely to be higher than those of men).  The sexist element of what the DeGraaf said goes far deeper.

[Criptfeind]

...Except that's almost exactly how DeGraaf justified it.

Right see, like I said his reasoning is so fucked up what he said had nothing to do with it really.