Print

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

[NinjaBoot]

So you did assume for that first post that when someone else said 'leaving the house' they were referring to adultery? Seems understandable, given your current mental and emotional state (i.e. stoned and having recently been cheated on)

True, but I blame my tin-foil hat for failing me in that regard! 

Now with that hopefully cleared up!

Lack of contraception harms everyone. It's not just a women thing.


Women or no, they're only harming their own interests if they're preventing access to contraception that they, themselves, would use. It's a bit silly to say they're harming themselves because they're harming people in a group they happen to belong to.

(ignoring of course social issues like welfare/etc that is exacerbated by unwanted children, and ultimately harms everyone)

It comes down to actually being responsible for the actions you take.  It is not actively harming women to expect them to pay for something that will let them live the lifestyle they choose.  Contraception is already widely available, so it comes down to whether government should fund Contraceptives or not. 

Now, as mind boggling as this sounds, Santorum by belief would be against the funding of Contraceptives.  Does this mean he actually is?  Well, according to Santorum himself... no?  I guess he flip-flopped to appease the left!

He flip-flopped to appease "the right" not the left.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/santorum-is-for-federal-funding-of-birth-control-except-when-he-isnt/2012/02/23/gIQAPt1UVR_story.html

His "flip" was to say he was against the funding of Title-X funding which he'd previously voted for, and publically stated he supported  - this was to a crowd of republicans after he'd already said he supported it to other journalists.

Ha, I see!  No backbone to take a firm stance one way or the other!  Is it too late to toss in with Mittens again?

[Max White]

Really? We are taking the stance that a middle of the road stance is a sign of weakness? Highly polarised opinions are never a sign of wisdom...

[G-Flex]

Really? We are taking the stance that a middle of the road stance is a sign of weakness? Highly polarised opinions are never a sign of wisdom...

Yes, it often is a sign of weakness. Trying to pander to as many people as possible instead of taking a strong stance on something can definitely be a sign of weakness, and the idea that the "wisest" opinions/answers always fall dead-center of the two opposing sides is just plain silly.

[Reelya]

I hope Mittens is wearing his magical Mormon undergarments. Like a superhero or something. While munching on celestial vegetables so he can have spirit children. Go Mormons!

@Max White, read the Washington Post. The main point is that Santorum blatantly lied about his previous stance and voting record. He didn't take a "middle road". He's trying to play both sides and claiming "i never said that" about the other viewpoint.

[Max White]

I'm Australian, I'm not drowning in your media.

[Reelya]

I'm Australian, I'm not drowning in your media.

Lol, I'm australian too, reading the article i linked above wasn't hard. Basically i checked the story before i commented :/ is that so hard?

[NinjaBoot]

Mormon or not, just think of how super effective Mittens would be at dismantling the government and selling off essential services! 

I'm Australian, I'm not drowning in your media.

Basically, flopping around on any issue when running for the office of presidency is required.  You have to please everyone and every single vote is crucial!  Offer the world and give them a pile of dirt.  Just ask the majority of people who voted in Obama on "Hope and Change!"

[Reelya]

Well the other choice was McCain / Palin. So people who voted for Obama and are disappointed - who else were they meant to vote for?

[Heliman]

I'm Australian, I'm not drowning in your media.

Lol, I'm australian too, reading the article i linked above wasn't hard. Basically i checked the story before i commented :/ is that so hard?

I'm American and what even is an Australian government? By my own ignorance I deem his viewpoint valid.
((Basically, don't punch people when they're down, it makes for bad sportsmanship!))

[Reelya]

I was partly responding to being labelled an American, and also pointing out i'd linked the article he could easily check, he didn't have to be drowning in anything. The links on this very page he's reading.

[kaijyuu]

Really? We are taking the stance that a middle of the road stance is a sign of weakness? Highly polarised opinions are never a sign of wisdom...

Yes, it often is a sign of weakness. Trying to pander to as many people as possible instead of taking a strong stance on something can definitely be a sign of weakness, and the idea that the "wisest" opinions/answers always fall dead-center of the two opposing sides is just plain silly.

To both of you...


Erm, well, really your position along the line is irrelevant to how "weak" or "strong" your opinion/argument is.

What IS relevant though is if you try to justify/attack an opinion based on its position. Claiming your argument is "best" because it's in the middle is indeed, a fallacy, which is what g-flex is saying. As is attacking an argument just because it's in the middle, which is what max is saying. I'll take it a step farther and say that an extremist view isn't necessarily wrong (or weak, or whatever) simply because it's extreme, either. The premises and logic are what need to be attacked or defended, nothing else.

[GlyphGryph]

So did Gingrich really attempt to push through a law to execute anyone who sells drugs?

I just read this recently, was wondering if anyone had more info. Gonna look it up when I get the chance.

[RedKing]

I would argue though, IMHO, that extreme opinions (particularly ones that are strongly held) derive from a lesser degree of consideration. There's sort of a bell curve of "opinionization" that goes along with education about a subject. When you know nothing about a subject, you're naturally going to be pretty ambivalent. When you start learning about it, you start forming your opinions and become increasingly more rigid in your opinion. But at some point, you find enough ambiguity and contradictory information regarding the subject that (if you're a fully rational and intellectually honest actor) begins to create doubt. Thus, your opinion becomes more and more circumspect.

Average, uninterested party: "Yeah, I guess God exists. Or maybe not. Who cares?"

Somewhat educated party: "There is absolutely a God, because I've read (some of) the Bible!"
--or--
"There is absolutely no such thing as God, because I've read Richard Dawkins!"

Theologian who's spent their whole life considering the question: "I believe there is a God, but there is certainly room for human error and our innate desire for one to have misled us."
--or--
Scientist like Stephen Hawking: "There probably isn't a God, but I could be wrong."

So....yeah. Not a fan of zealotry on any "big issue", but having an ambivalent stance doesn't necessarily mean you're smarter/better, especially if it just derives from laziness.

[EveryZig]

I would argue though, IMHO, that extreme opinions (particularly ones that are strongly held) derive from a lesser degree of consideration.

Thing is, 'extreme opinions' is relative. Any point can be portrayed as an extreme point given sufficiently crazy opposition.

For example, gay rights. Some people say homosexuals should have equal rights, while others say they should be persecuted, imprisoned, etc. There was a time, not so long ago, when the equality opinion would have been considered highly extreme and radical (and it still is in some places).
Is the position that homosexuals should definitely have equal rights automatically less worthy of consideration than the position that they should maybe not be discriminated against?

[Andir]

Somewhat educated party: "There is absolutely a God, because I've read (some of) the Bible!"
--or--
"There is absolutely no such thing as God, because I've read Richard Dawkins!"

That's not a weighted comparison by any measure...

I don't see where you accounted for:

"There isn't a God because there isn't a Flying Unicorn of a FSM and there's no point in worshiping any of them until one or more of those comes forth."

Unless you consider me an educated scientist type.