Print

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

[chaoticag]

5. Evolutionary psychology arguments do not belong here. Keep them out.

I would like to contest this rule on the grounds that it provides an accurate description of many mental processes such as appetite, perception, language acqusition, reflex action, memeory and so forth. As long as we don't get mired in excessive debate over nature v. nurture, avoid conflating is and ought problems and maintain the board's no bigotry rules, there should not be any issues with allowing evidence brought up by evolutionary psychologists be brought forward.

I'd also like to see the progressivist bingo card.

The problem with Evolutionary psychology is simply that a lot of it is pretty much untested. It's more or less a field of speculation, and there are some odd ideas floating around there. I have yet to meet a biologist that puts much certainty in evolutionary psycology, but that debate is for another thread.

Anyway, abortion also goes far beyond a matter of just "Sbhould babies be allowed to live". When a pregnancy goes wrong, sometimes it's needed to save the mother's life. At the very least, those abortions should be preformed, since you have a choice between the mother surviving or the mother and the baby dying. Plus banning abortions is very different from stopping abortions. You can ban all you want, but you can't stop people from doing things. You just make them more dangerous, more likely to kill people and more likely to stigmatize them. That's why abortion laws are considered a women's right issue.

[Vector]

There should not be any issues with allowing evidence brought up by evolutionary psychologists be brought forward.

Ah, I should make myself more clear--and thank you in advance for your contribution.  There is a very special kind of evolutionary psychology which often comes into play in these debates.  It'll often compare human sexual dimorphism to animal dimorphism in the animal kingdom, say that "men and women just evolved this way" (to be sexually active and sexually receptive), pigeonhole women in a nurturing role and men in an aggressive one.

Another piece is often in terms of rape apologia, where sex is framed as "necessary to continue the species" and women dressing up are assumed to be "donning brightly colored plumage to attract potential mates."

And, frankly, it just goes on and on like that, 100% nature while ignoring all reciprocal determinism or evidence for nurtured traits.  If you have any idea as to how I can say "keep evopsych douchebaggery out" without a total ban on the parts which are valid, then feel free to float them.

I'd also like to see the progressivist bingo card.

There's a lot of different ones, but for example--here's one of the feminist bingo cards (... some are better than others, and I expect some arguments more than I do others.  You should read the second one, too, because it is a bit more subtle).  Usually you just type in the topic and "bingo card."

I find this far more problematic, and I'd like you to clarify your position before I make any more assumptions about it.

I would also like to add that the problem with not providing funding for abortion is that this is not an equal society, where lack of funding still means reasonable access.

[Africa]

There should not be any issues with allowing evidence brought up by evolutionary psychologists be brought forward.

Ah, I should make myself more clear--and thank you in advance for your contribution.  There is a very special kind of evolutionary psychology which often comes into play in these debates.  It'll often compare human sexual dimorphism to animal dimorphism in the animal kingdom, say that "men and women just evolved this way" (to be sexually active and sexually receptive), pigeonhole women in a nurturing role and men in an aggressive one.

Another piece is often in terms of rape apologia, where sex is framed as "necessary to continue the species" and women dressing up are assumed to be "donning brightly colored plumage to attract potential mates."

And, frankly, it just goes on and on like that, 100% nature while ignoring all reciprocal determinism or evidence for nurtured traits.  If you have any idea as to how I can say "keep evopsych douchebaggery out" without a total ban on the parts which are valid, then feel free to float them.

That would be more just saying "don't use bad science." I'm not sure what it is about EP that attracts so many people that don't understand science and like to try and use it to bolster bad arguments, but EP is a legitimate and productive field if you actually understand what it's supposed to be about. Of course sometimes it does produce findings that some "progressive" people find offensive, but that's a different story.

Also, I generally think it's not the government's job to legislate morality, including on abortion, BUT, at some point the government has to decide what's a threat to society - like theft and murder. Abortion opponents could just as easily say that abortion violates human rights the same way murder does, hence it is murder. It wouldn't have to be a moral case.

To that I'd say that non-conscious beings don't have the rights that conscious humans do, which is why I say it's OK to mercy-kill coma victims who aren't going to recover, but then that only applies to less-developed fetuses. I'm less sure about the late periods of pregnancy and I don't have a problem with restricting abortion during the last months, for that same reason.

[Darkmere]

Ah, I should have been a bit more clear and not typing when sleep-deprived.

What I meant was, to me there's a subtle difference between pro-choice arguments and laissez-faire policy. (spelling? meh). Pro-choice is a political stance which revolves around legislating personal freedom with regards to that decision.

Between pro-life and pro-choice, I will side with pro-choice 100% of the time. However, I don't think it should even be a legislative issue, as those decisions fall outside of government purview, as it's tromping on personal beliefs of either side no matter which way the laws go. The only government involvement should be protecting people on either side of the argument from violence and harassment.

Does that make more sense?

[Angle]

Personally, I think that abortion should be legal in cases of rape or incest, and should be generally legal during the first trimester. When it's after the first trimester and does not involve rape or incest, then things get fuzzy and I just don't know.

I also wish people would learn to make use of this strange idea called BIRTH CONTROL. That is one of the most important services planned parenthood provides, educating people about birth control.

edit- or heck, if you can't get your hands on any form of contraceptive, then just have some kind of sex that doesn't risk pregnancy! It's not that hard.

[Bauglir]

Ah, I should have been a bit more clear and not typing when sleep-deprived.

What I meant was, to me there's a subtle difference between pro-choice arguments and laissez-faire policy. (spelling? meh). Pro-choice is a political stance which revolves around legislating personal freedom with regards to that decision.

Between pro-life and pro-choice, I will side with pro-choice 100% of the time. However, I don't think it should even be a legislative issue, as those decisions fall outside of government purview, as it's tromping on personal beliefs of either side no matter which way the laws go. The only government involvement should be protecting people on either side of the argument from violence and harassment.

Does that make more sense?

Not to me, at least. I'm not sure what difference there is between a laissez-faire attitude in the law and requiring that a laissez-faire attitude in the law be mandatory, except that the latter accounts for the unfortunately significant number of people that don't want that attitude to exist and see legislation as a valid avenue toward making it happen. As far as I can tell, pro-choice is "There shouldn't have to be laws about this, but apparently we don't live in a world that nice."

[ggamer]

Goddamn South.

Goddamn everyone else, jumping on the goddamn South. Welp, I can't say much for most Southern states, but Georgia has managed to not fuck up fairly well so far.

agreed.

[Duke 2.0]

3.  Do not treat people as though they do not exist, or as though they are inhuman or subhuman.  There will be no "othering" here.

Remember folks, the South, politicians and religions likely fall under this. Unless the thing you take offense to is 100% one of the things that define the faction forever and is the purpose of it, name the specific sub-faction that supports such things and leave the rest of it alone. If you can't point out specific sources and groups without resorting to larger groups uninvolved in it then do some extra homework on the issue. The three groups I first listed are good examples of having a ton of people and groups within them that don't have a single thing related to what people take offense to.

 I feel kinda bad about derailing this topic to schematics, but the first few pages of a thread like this are always about defining where our boundaries and rules lay so we can have a smoother conversation later. Hopefully this rule will encourage people to look for credible sources to narrow down just what and who you take offense to.

[RedKing]

Damn skippy. Being a Southern progressive is a bit like being a pro-Palestinian Jew sometimes -- you're just gonna catch the shit from both sides, regardless.

That said, I do feel like progressivism in the South is losing ground in a big way. North Carolina used to be a haven of the "New South", where we were always out ahead of the curve on race issues, gender issues, education, etc. But since the last election and the handover of the legislature to the GOP, things have started looking distinctly ugly. State government is being slashed, education funding is being slashed, and I have it on inside authority that state agencies are being instructed to outsource as much of their operations as possible, even if it costs more than the current operations. In other words, it's not about saving money. It's about offloading government work to the private contractor buddies of the new legislators. At taxpayer expense. Classic neoconservative economics -- socialize the cost, privatize the profit. 

My one ray of hope is that it's being done pretty hamfisted, so that it's blatantly obvious to a lot of people. Which in turn is disenchanting a lot of the voters that brought the GOP into power in the first place. So it may be a short stint. The grey lining to that silver cloud though, is that the state Democratic apparatus has more than its fair share of corruption problems as well. It's enough to make me consider running for office. 

[freeformschooler]

I'm very confused here. Who are we talking about when we say "the South"? I live in the south and am personally fed up to the brim with all the rebel flags and fundamentalist groups.... but at the same time, drive 30 minutes from here and you're still in the south, but also in a city about as progressive as San Fran. I think what you want to say instead of "the South" is "the bible belt".

State government is being slashed, education funding is being slashed

Definitely two of the biggest problems in NC. I never went to public school but each year it seems like they get more and more pitiful. Not to mention all the outsources led to the last major town project here disrupting the city center and taking forever, just because the hired lot didn't have a care in the world for who (shopkeepers or otherwise) was being affected by the sidewalks being ripped out and just left that way indefinitely.

[chaoticag]

I also wish people would learn to make use of this strange idea called BIRTH CONTROL. That is one of the most important services planned parenthood provides, educating people about birth control.

edit- or heck, if you can't get your hands on any form of contraceptive, then just have some kind of sex that doesn't risk pregnancy! It's not that hard.

The problem with contraceptives is that they don't work all the time. Pretty much any contraceptive mechanism is bound to fail, even those implants they stick in women only have a 99% success rate. Other than that, people tend to end up having unprotected sex because of a poor sex ed system. Kids are smart, don't get me wrong, it's just that sometimes being smart means not asking about those things in certain regions of the world, and so they have no idea of how things work, and what the risks are. It's pretty unfair to expect these people to know better because you do.

[Vector]

I feel kinda bad about derailing this topic to schematics, but the first few pages of a thread like this are always about defining where our boundaries and rules lay so we can have a smoother conversation later. Hopefully this rule will encourage people to look for credible sources to narrow down just what and who you take offense to.

Don't.  I was going to call it but I'm bloody tired of feeling like the morality police around here.  So thank you.

[RedKing]

On a side note, there was a story the other day about an Indian pharmaceutical company that has developed a polymer-based injectable birth control that lasts about 10 years and is virtually 100% effective. Involves two shots to the scrotum (it's okay...breathe...) which inject an ionized polymer into the vas deferens. If I understand the science of it correctly, sperm carry a mild electrical charge. The polymer is charged with the opposite polarity. So when the sperm pass near it...ZAP. They get cancelled out and this apparently kills the sperm's motility. The polymer eventually degrades with no side effects (as yet detected).


When I saw this, my first thought was "Can we make this mandatory for all males at say, age 15?" 

[Knight of Fools]

So all conservatives and Republicans are corrupt, evil people, RedKing?  I'm not condoning their actions, but generalizations, misunderstanding, and lack of anything other than "insider information" - On both sides - is what's tearing America in two.  Also, isn't this more about Abortion and Gay Rights than every little thing that makes the "others" evil?


Well, I'm in the middle with this certain topic.  I know people are going to throw me on the opposite side of where they stand rather than reading what I have to say, but...  Might as well.  It's an important topic to discuss, even if I might blunder a bit.  *Deep, calming breath.*

Abortion is one of those fuzzy areas where people get "What I would do" mixed up with "What everyone should do".  People are making generalizations without realizing that things should be handled on a case-by-case basis.  I have the rather idealistic view that people are capable of making their own choices when they know enough to make a good one.

For minors, parents need to be responsible teaching their own morals to their children, rather than relying totally on Big Bro to do it.  The government is liable to anger everyone while simultaneously trying to please them.  It probably needs to be brought up in schools because most parents won't take full responsibility, but it needs to be touched on lightly without shoving a particular ideal on other people's children.

Situations where a woman does become pregnant should be handled very delicately.  It's a situation that should be handled discreetly, and decided quickly without anyone pushing anyone else towards a decision.  It's not something where a single, rigid moral should dominate, whether it be "you can choose whatever" or "you already chose".


Personally, I lean a little - Key word little - closer to the "you already chose" department, but I don't go to the extreme of prosecuting and hating those that do things that I wouldn't do.  As I see things, decisions have consequences.  That doesn't mean the decision making should stop, of course.  Pregnancy is an uncomfortable and sometimes unwanted result of an action.  If the person does not want the child, then the government already has a large system set up for unwanted or homeless children, as it should.  I'm not saying that all women who can go through the entire pregnancy without a problem must do so - Just that the fear of "dealing with it", treating pregnancy as a minor inconvenience to be cast aside at a whim, shouldn't be a justifiable reason for an abortion.  Again, it's too clouded to have a end-all moral direction for us to go to every single time.

Victims of incest, rape, or those in danger of losing their life or the life of the child should definitely have the option of aborting.  I wouldn't force any woman or family to go through that kind of situation.  They are totally within their rights to have an abortion.


I have a deep respect for life and choice.  This is one of the more difficult topics for me to talk about because it's a situation where both can be in conflict.  I'm okay with how things stand in the general populace, though - There's not much I can do about people going out to have an abortion, so we might as well make it safe for the women in question.  We've come to as good of a balance was we're going to come to, and I'm satisfied with that.  Now people just need to stop throwing crap because it goes against their moral or political ideal.



Touching briefly on homosexuality, which has been discussed quite extensively: I don't agree with what you do, but I'm not going to stop you.  I can be friends with homosexuals as long as they don't make their sexuality the entirety of who they are.  I won't force my morals on them if they don't do it to me.

No one should be forcing anyone to go through a "rehabilitation".  If things like the story with the girl really are happening, they should be shut down - Hard.  That's not what our country was founded on, and it's a violation of human rights.

When I saw this, my first thought was "Can we make this mandatory for all males at say, age 15?" 

I wouldn't be directly opposed to it. 

[RedKing]

So all conservatives and Republicans are corrupt, evil people, RedKing?  I'm not condoning their actions, but generalizations, misunderstanding, and lack of anything other than "insider information" - On both sides - is what's tearing America in two.

At this point, I'm prepared to say "yes" if we toss in a qualifier that we're talking about legislators rather than rank-and-file citizens. My father-in-law (who I think very highly of) is a diehard Republican from a centuries-long line of Republicans. He's also utterly disgusted with the Republican Party at this juncture, especially on the state level.

And frankly, the indignation at someone speaking ill of the Republican Party is stale and tired to me. If you don't want to be tarred by association, associate with better people.