A Futile and Stupid Gesture: The History of the First Trump Presidency & Q-Anon

Not all morality comes from religion. Many people feel that abortion isn't really 'right' (aside from health risks and cost) but still see it as a lesser of two evils in some circumstances.
 
Dropbear said:
Not all morality comes from religion. Many people feel that abortion isn't really 'right' (aside from health risks and cost) but still see it as a lesser of two evils in some circumstances.
Click to expand...

I was just going to point out that morality =/= religion.

Though for 99% of the people protesting outside of Planned Parenthood, it probably does, because what the shit is Confucianism or Humanism?
 
InstaHate said:
I was just going to point out that morality =/= religion.

Though for 99% of the people protesting outside of Planned Parenthood, it probably does, because what the shit is Confucianism or Humanism?
Click to expand...

Humanism is Awesomeism, that's what.
 
Pro choice is an element of feminism. Feminism doesn't mean much anymore beyond the fact that a lot of money floats around the word. Femenists are aligning themselves with muslims, so that right there tells you movement is out of whack.
 
OfficePants said:
Pro choice is an element of feminism. Feminism doesn't mean much anymore beyond the fact that a lot of money floats around the word. Femenists are aligning themselves with muslims, so that right there tells you movement is out of whack.
Click to expand...
I have my own theory, both extremes are absolutely moronic idiots. That means climate change deniers on one hand and feminists on the other.

Make what you will of this sentence.
 
It's legal in a number of countries in which there is no history or semblance of a feminist movement.

In an American context, the only reason that women care more about it than men is that it affects them disproportionately. As a pro-choicer once explained to me, "if you are against government involvement in your life, imagine the government telling you that you can't do something to your own body, especially something which has major implications for your life." Again, their perspective is that the embryo is not a life but a part of their body (just as a pro-lifer sees it as an separate life). It's less a matter of feminism than it is the right to do what we want with our bodies and our lives.
 
InstaHate said:
It's legal in a number of countries in which there is no history or semblance of a feminist movement.

In an American context, the only reason that women care more about it than men is that it affects them disproportionately. As a pro-choicer once explained to me, "if you are against government involvement in your life, imagine the government telling you that you can't do something to your own body, especially something which has major implications for your life." Again, their perspective is that the embryo is not a life but a part of their body (just as a pro-lifer sees it as an separate life). It's less a matter of feminism than it is the right to do what we want with our bodies and our lives.
Click to expand...

What do you imagine the percentage of women that label themselves feminists which are also pro-choice?
 
The overlap of proponents is irrelevant as to whether one belief is an element of another. Most strong feminists are liberal and are probably in favor of environmental restrictions, but we'd never argue that environmentalism is a facet of feminism. The overlap isn't as great, of course, but even were it one for one, it's irrelevant unless the conceptual elements which comprise the belief are related (and the tenets of feminism have little to do with the tenets of autonomy of body).

An ideology or argument is comprised of ideas/propositions/etc which should be evaluated independently of its proponents. White supremacists all love anti-immigration measures, but an anti-immigration stance exists independently of white supremacy, and the MSM going wild arguing anti-immigration = white supremacy because of that overlap are retarded for doing so (or very smart, given all the ad revenue that type of headline makes).

You can dislike an ideology's proponents and agree with an ideology, and you can like the proponents but dislike the ideology. The fact that America has forgotten how to do this is really a sign that we've become straight up stone fuck retarded.

I am pleasantly surprised that the Bernie Bro contingent of the Democratic Party has been happy with the economic protectionism of Trump even though its Trump doing it, not Bernie. I fully expected them to lambast those policies, despite the fact that they are in ideological alignment, just because of ole Donnie Johnny in the WH
 
Last edited:
Support for abortion across all demographics has fallen from the 1990's but support is on the uptick. Complex issue

IMG_7853.webp
IMG_7854.webp
IMG_7855.webp
IMG_7856.webp
 
InstaHate said:
The overlap of proponents is irrelevant as to whether one belief is an element of another. Most strong feminists are liberal and are probably in favor of environmental restrictions, but we'd never argue that environmentalism is a facet of feminism. The overlap isn't as great, of course, but even were it one for one, it's irrelevant unless the conceptual elements which comprise the belief are related (and the tenets of feminism have little to do with the tenets of autonomy of body).

An ideology or argument is comprised of ideas/propositions/etc which should be evaluated independently of its proponents. White supremacists all love anti-immigration measures, but an anti-immigration stance exists independently of white supremacy, and the MSM going wild arguing anti-immigration = white supremacy because of that overlap are retarded for doing so (or very smart, given all the ad revenue that type of headline makes).

You can dislike an ideology's proponents and agree with an ideology, and you can like the proponents but dislike the ideology. The fact that America has forgotten how to do this is really a sign that we've become straight up stone fuck retarded.

I am pleasantly surprised that the Bernie Bro contingent of the Democratic Party has been happy with the economic protectionism of Trump even though its Trump doing it, not Bernie. I fully expected them to lambast those policies, despite the fact that they are in ideological alignment, just because of ole Donnie Johnny in the WH
Click to expand...

So now it's irrelevant? Should be evaluated independently? I'm curious why.

Do you understand that drawing connections is the fundamental meaning of a correlation, and that that's rather important to science?
 
It's always been irrelevant. Adherents of an ideology are not an element of the content of an ideology (though they may create it). If you are saying X belief is a facet of Y ideology, you are speaking to the content and comparing the content (specifically, that the content of X is a subset of the content of Y).

If you want to make the argument that the abortion debate is one which is ideologically centered on feminism, you speak to the content and tenets of both arguments. Supporters are not relevant in that particular connection.

The basic argument of feminism is that women should be treated equally to me. Alternatively, it's fuck men let's cut off their dicks. Or it is somewhere in between. Nothing to do with the government having any say over what its citizens do with their bodies.

In general, the only way supporters ARE relevant to evaluating an ideology is when you judge the actions of the supporters motivated by the ideology, assuming the ideology isn't being perverted (as it would if Orthodox Jews start stoning people to death for not being Jewish, a very clear command in the Torah.) Even then, the root motivation of the actions are embedded in the content of the ideology, so action isn't necessary to evaluate it (we can recognize that an ideology which calls for the extermination of all life on earth is a bad ideology even if it has no adherents.

The tldr:
- You were comparing the content of prochoice arguments to feminist ideology
- Supporters are irrelevant when comparing the content itself.

This is not to say that the abortion debate has been taken up as a feminist cause by feminists. It absolutely has, and maybe that's what you were suggesting. But when LGBT people in England supported the year long miners strike, welfare benefits for miners didn't become an LGBT issue, and wouldn't have been if every homosexual on Earth dedicated themselves to the strike.
 
Last edited:
So several months ago was a "womens march" in DC. It was an expression of feminism.

But interestingly, pro life groups were dis-invited from the rally. By your logic, this was a random event.

https://www.sba-list.org/newsroom/news/fox-news-womens-march-excludes-pro-life-women

By this measure, not being pro-choice excludes you from feminism, therefore no longer an element. It's kind of like saying you can still be a muslim and not believe in allah.

Feminism has not been about equality for a very long time, bub.
 
Like I said, it can be about chopping off dicks. The abortion debate has been around a long time (and the foundational feminists opposed it), the debate exists in places entirely independent of any feminist movement, and it is legal without debate in very patriarchal countries that have never even sniffed feminism.

Allah is a central tenet of Islam. A better analogy would be that if you do not believe that Abu Bakr is the rightful heir to Muhammad, you aren't Muslim.

By my logic, it isn't random. As I said, feminists are hostile towards pro-lifers. They are also hostile towards racism. Both race and abortion played a role in third wave feminism.

Even in the weird fourth wave stuff, feminists justify their arguments with equality, whether they are right to do so or not. That's been the one core element tying the various waves of feminism together as it evolved (equality as a stated goal). That's the equivalent of believing in Allah to be a Muslim. I've never seen a argument over abortion where the central issue was not the ability to control what happens to your body.
 
I am neither pro abortion nor pro choice. Those terms are poorly chosen and have somehow lingered on. I am not against abortion and it should remain legal; however I know it is a traumatic process for a woman to undergo both physically and psychologically. I firmly believe birth control/plan B/emergency contraception must be widely and readily available, a position in which I disagree with the Republicans.

Radicals are nuts on both sides and are arguing only for the sake of arguing. I definitely do think that libs are more radicalized than the right.
 
Last edited:
I saw some clips at UC Berkeley, never thought that campus was a haven for leftism radicalization
 
When I was in LA two weekends ago, I was surprised to find that there are more conservatives than what the state indicates.
 
InstaHate said:
Like I said, it can be about chopping off dicks. The abortion debate has been around a long time (and the foundational feminists opposed it), the debate exists in places entirely independent of any feminist movement, and it is legal without debate in very patriarchal countries that have never even sniffed feminism.

Allah is a central tenet of Islam. A better analogy would be that if you do not believe that Abu Bakr is the rightful heir to Muhammad, you aren't Muslim.

By my logic, it isn't random. As I said, feminists are hostile towards pro-lifers. They are also hostile towards racism. Both race and abortion played a role in third wave feminism.

Even in the weird fourth wave stuff, feminists justify their arguments with equality, whether they are right to do so or not. That's been the one core element tying the various waves of feminism together as it evolved (equality as a stated goal). That's the equivalent of believing in Allah to be a Muslim. I've never seen a argument over abortion where the central issue was not the ability to control what happens to your body.
Click to expand...

A central feminist argument is body control, and abortion is the lightning rod. It can be about chopping dicks, but it isn't, now is it? Foundational feminists may have opposed it, but it was soon adopted as cause celeb and maintains that status along with the equal pay lie now.

in 20 years it may not be the case, but today a girl is indoctrinated into feminism understanding pro-choice is a must have to be in the club. If that changes, the correlation goes with it, and you can correlate something new, because you better bet this tired ass gender terrorism will never end.

The official policy platform of the march even states it.

We believe in Reproductive Freedom. [...] This means open access to safe, legal ,affordable abortion and birth control for all people, regardless of income, location or education.
Click to expand...

And it sure seems to the belief of the twitterali:





 
OfficePants said:
Pro choice is an element of feminism.
Click to expand...

I suspect our wires crossed here.

What makes X belief a subset of Y ideology? I think both Rambo and I read this as X would need to primarily draw from Y to motivate its arguments for it to be considered an element of Y ideology. You are arguing that if Y adopts X, X is now an element of Y, right?

Both are reasonable. I think I read into your proposition too much: that if Y adopts X, X is now primarily an aspect of Y...which is not what you said. Though perhaps it was implied in your immediate association between the two.

From my perspective pro-choice arguments don't draw on feminist ideology broadly (the core stated justification of gender equality). Some might draw on 3rd and 4th wave feminist ideology, but that doesn't address the two other ideologies/beliefs which primarily and substantively motivate pro-choice arguments: government nobinterference with our bodies (Tomi Lahren) and bioethical principles. I say primarily because I can't believe that the half of America are pro-choice because of the content of Rebecca Walker's arguments.

However, if you are only arguing that 3rd wave's adoption of reproductive rights as a cause makes it an element of 3rd/4th wave feminism, then I'm not disagreeing, provided you are not suggesting abortion is exclusively or even primarily an element of it (which is how I first read your comment).
 
The problem of healthcare that is unique to the US, in my opinion, is the individualist sense of entitlement and the mentality of the "magic pill". Preventive care among the general population is very low, even those who are stricken with multitude of chronic illnesses often resort back to their bad damaging habits. I think to fix our system, few things fundamentally have to change: 1) education: particularly among the low socioeconomic class. 2) remove some of the entitle programs, forcing people to change their behavior. 3) more community outreach programs, low cost and effective.

I am somewhat for a universal program, however it won't work here until everyone chips a bit into the system as well as gaining a deeper understanding to individual responsibility. I have seen countless amount of people clogging the ER within a large inner city hospital because of a headache or toothache, and their balance at the end was merely 5 dollar admin fee while others including myself pay enormous amount of monthly payment for a plan with high deductible. The system is not going to survive with such fashion.

To be honest, I prefer less central government involvement in the healthcare management and relinquishing that control back to the states.
 
Pauly Chase said:
The problem of healthcare that is unique to the US, in my opinion, is the individualist sense of entitlement and the mentality of the "magic pill". Preventive care among the general population is very low, even those who are stricken with multitude of chronic illnesses often resort back to their bad damaging habits. I think to fix our system, few things fundamentally have to change: 1) education: particularly among the low socioeconomic class. 2) remove some of the entitle programs, forcing people to change their behavior. 3) more community outreach programs, low cost and effective.

I am somewhat for a universal program, however it won't work here until everyone chips a bit into the system as well as gaining a deeper understanding to individual responsibility. I have seen countless amount of people clogging the ER within a large inner city hospital because of a headache or toothache, and their balance at the end was merely 5 dollar admin fee while others including myself pay enormous amount of monthly payment for a plan with high deductible. The system is not going to survive with such fashion.

To be honest, I prefer less central government involvement in the healthcare management and relinquishing that control back to the states.
Click to expand...


This is all stuff I agree with, except the last sentence, primarily because there are sick and healthy states and the wider the pool, the higher the efficiency and lower the cost. Plus, I don't think Mississippi should be in charge of anything.
 
The fundamental blocker with healthcare is that it's tied to employment. Get rid of that and it becomes much more possible.
 
InstaHate said:
I suspect our wires crossed here.

What makes X belief a subset of Y ideology? I think both Rambo and I read this as X would need to primarily draw from Y to motivate its arguments for it to be considered an element of Y ideology. You are arguing that if Y adopts X, X is now an element of Y, right?

Both are reasonable. I think I read into your proposition too much: that if Y adopts X, X is now primarily an aspect of Y...which is not what you said. Though perhaps it was implied in your immediate association between the two.

From my perspective pro-choice arguments don't draw on feminist ideology broadly (the core stated justification of gender equality). Some might draw on 3rd and 4th wave feminist ideology, but that doesn't address the two other ideologies/beliefs which primarily and substantively motivate pro-choice arguments: government nobinterference with our bodies (Tomi Lahren) and bioethical principles. I say primarily because I can't believe that the half of America are pro-choice because of the content of Rebecca Walker's arguments.

However, if you are only arguing that 3rd wave's adoption of reproductive rights as a cause makes it an element of 3rd/4th wave feminism, then I'm not disagreeing, provided you are not suggesting abortion is exclusively or even primarily an element of it (which is how I first read your comment).
Click to expand...

You've worn me out, brother.
 
So, the American taxpayer is footing the bill for makeovers at Trump properties, and they're ok with that?


Congress conceded this week there’s little it can do to stop Trump, earmarking $61 million in the omnibus spending bill that the president signed into law on Friday to reimburse local governments in New York, South Florida, New Jersey and Northern Virginia for overtime police work while Trump has spent down-time since the election in their areas. The law also includes $23 million for the Secret Service to begin major security makeovers at Trump Tower, Mar-a-Lago, Bedminster and other popular presidential properties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 12 (members: 0, guests: 12)
Back
Top Bottom