Since G-bingo had some very interesting comments in the Bullying thread, but everyone there felt bullied by derailment, I thought I'd pull his comments over here for discussion:
Fascism is hard to define precisely, and no two fascist movements are ever exactly the same. But they have some common properties.
Fascism movements are always sexually repressive. They oppose rights for women. They condemn homosexuality. They are obsessively concerned with what people do in their bedrooms, even when they are hypocritically libertine. The modern conservative movement is extremely homophobic, always ranting about the dreaded "gay agenda," and fiercely anti-woman. They seek to strip away women's right to control their own reproduction, making it the government's business to insure that every baby born of even rape and incest makes it into the world. Fascism movements are racist and nationalistic. This can be seen in the right's assault on immigrants and Muslims as dangerous, predatory threats to "real Americans," to white, Christian Americans.
Fascism movements are anti-democratic and opposed to parlimentary democracy. This can be seen in the increasing refusal of the GOP to play ball with the democratically elected majority, and in the threats of far-right candidates like Sharron Angle to seek out "second amendment remedies" should they not win at the ballot box.
Fascist movements are anti-labor. They attack the left as dangerously socialist or communist, they attack labor unions and worker's rights, they attack anything that goes against the will of their corporate overlords. Which brings us naturally to: Fascist movements are corporatist. Mussolini wrote that a better name for fascism would be corporatism. The movement is supported almost entirely by a handful of extremely wealthy industrialists, and it is the agenda of those industrialists that the movement is primarily interested in advancing (throwing women, gays, Muslims and immigrants under the bus is just a means to an end).
There is more, but those are the big points. The conservative movement is made up primarily of disillusioned and dissatisfied middle class workers who want someone to blame for their vague feeling that they've been screwed, and the leadership of the conservative movement is a bunch of corporate lackeys willing to feed them women, gays and minorities in order to secure their vote to advance a radical pro-corporate, oligarchic agenda. And that is fascism. That is what you call a political movement that uses fear of the powerless (gays, immigrants, muslims, women) to turn people who have lost power (the white middle class) into supporters of the very policies that have disempowered them (corporatism).
This is certainly not a traditional indicator of fascism, and it's not really even corellated by chance. For example, Mussolini gave women the vote in Italy.
The world was extremely sexist in 1940, as compared to the modern first world. Given that context, fascist governments end up being fairly "typical" when it comes to "accepted" sexual practices.
However, like all aggressive, militaristic ideologies, fascists have definitely supported the oppression of gays. No argument there.
The modern conservative movement is extremely homophobic, always ranting about the dreaded "gay agenda," and fiercely anti-woman.
Watch the overuse of scare adjectives. They're just sloppy when you're trying to make a reasoned argument.
The conservative movement is homophobic. It's not "extremely" homophobic at all. The standard line is "do what you want in your own bedroom, but marriage is between a man and a woman." There's a big difference between thinking what somebody is doing is wrong, and thinking you have a duty to go out and stop it. If the American right was proposing that we STOP gays from having homosexual relationships, then I might buy the "extremely" label. In reality, they simply find it immoral.
The conservative movement is not "anti-woman" at all, certainly not "fiercely." Look at all the women running as Republicans this November. Look at the success of Sarah Palin. I mean, seriously, what appeal does she have BESIDES being a woman? None. It speaks to how frustrated the American right is with being mislabled as mysoginists, that they get excited about any woman they can get into office.
They seek to strip away women's right to control their own reproduction
This is a bad argument on so many levels...
Let me preface this by saying that I'm pro-choice...
But the "woman's right to choose" is one of the most bogus lines of propaganda ever. Women have no "right" to "choose." What we're talking about is killing a baby. It's not "her body." It's a baby's body. We, as a society, have decided that it's really better for all involved if we allow people to kill babies in certain situations. I agree, it is better for all involved. But it's still killing a baby.
On top of that, there's the simple fact that the Republicans are NOT trying to strip anybody's imaginary rights away. They had control of the White House, the Senate and the House. They will never have a better chance to overturn abortion than that, and they made no effort to do so.
Abortion is a done issue. Republicans talk about it to rile up their base, and Democrats use scare tactics about it going away to rile up theirs. Just like you're doing right now. It's not going away. Period.
P.S. Funny how Republicans are the ones "scaring" everyone, but Democrats promise an end to Roe every November, unless you vote for them. Everyone uses scare tactics. Get over it.
This can be seen in the increasing refusal of the GOP to play ball with the democratically elected majority
This is a symptom of the current American political climate. The Democrats played delaying tactics, the Republicans did it. Neither party has a clear conscience here. If this makes the Republicans fascists, it makes the Democrats fascists too.
Yes, I know, "the Republicans did it more!!!" So what? The Nazis were the Nazis because they burned 4 million Jews. It's not like everyone else only burned 3 million, so they were cool. In order to be "anti-Democratic" you have to actually be "anti-Democratic." Not just "marginally more anti-Democratic than the other guy, who I arbitarily decided is JUST democratic enough that he's NOT anti-Democratic!"
The movement is supported almost entirely by a handful of extremely wealthy industrialists
Like who, George Soros? Oh, right, he made his money in currency manipulation. But he does have a strange, scary accent...
Again, you're pretending that everything bad in American politics is "what Republicans do." Everyone in DC is tied up with corporate interests. Obama got more in donations from BP than any other President. We're a corporatized country. Since we've mostly been run by Democrats over the years, what's up with that?
It's also worth noting that you keep referring to corporate power, you quote Mussolini as saying that a better name for his movement would be "corporatism," and yet you persist in referring to it as "fascism." It's clear that you're more interested in the propaganda value of the word, than in the actual accuracy of its application.
Since it hasn't been touched on yet, let's get into corporatism. All modern states are corporatist to some degree. Hell, Sweden, one of the most socialist states in the world, is also probably the most corporatist one; unions (used euphemistically, Swedish unions are very little like American ones) are literally given legislative power with respect to trade wages. Even Spain, the birthplace of Mondragon, is highly corporatist.; after all, that's what all those proffered cooperative tax breaks are based on.
While corporatism is a defining characteristic of fascism, it is not something that fascism has a monopoly on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phryxis wrote:
The movement is supported almost entirely by a handful of extremely wealthy industrialists
Like who, George Soros? Oh, right, he made his money in currency manipulation. But he does have a strange, scary accent...
While we're at it, what movement has ever been supported primarily by the populace? Poor people are the least revolutionary group in the world. They only tend to rebel when their social structure is independent of the dominant one; note the American Civil Rights movement, and just about every indigenous conflict in South America.
In almost every case revolution is a matter of elites against slightly lesser elites. The poor, huddled masses simply get caught up and swept along for the ride.
dogma wrote:Since it hasn't been touched on yet, let's get into corporatism. All modern states are corporatist to some degree. Hell, Sweden, one of the most socialist states in the world, is also probably the most corporatist one; unions (used euphemistically, Swedish unions are very little like American ones) are literally given legislative power with respect to trade wages. Even Spain, the birthplace of Mondragon, is highly corporatist.; after all, that's what all those proffered cooperative tax breaks are based on.
While corporatism is a defining characteristic of fascism, it is not something that fascism has a monopoly on.
Other defining characteristics of Fascism are nationalism, militarism and its authoritarianism. Rarely do ideologies have one distinct characteristic.
This is certainly not a traditional indicator of fascism, and it's not really even corellated by chance. For example, Mussolini gave women the vote in Italy.
Really? Are you sure about that? Was that before or after 1925, when democracy in Italy officially ended? That was three years after he came to power, so even if it did happen (and I can't find any evidence of it) it didn't last very long. Or matter much, since its widely acknowledge the fascists rigged all the elections between 1922 and 1925.
What Mussolini did do though was pass a series of laws that at first appeared to grant new rights to working women, such as maternity leave, but at the same time stripped them of other rights (the same bill that introduced maternity leave also barred women from holding any political office or management position). Eventually women were denied any right to work at all, as the doctrine of the Italian fascists declared motherhood the biological destiny of women, and asserted their only proper role was that of mother and homemaker.
But he did let them join the Fascist Party. Which meant they got to wear a button! No power within the party, no right to hold office in the party, but they could declare themselves officially Fascists. So clearly, that entirely makes up for having your right to work stripped from you, and being reduced in law to a baby-factory.
The world was extremely sexist in 1940, as compared to the modern first world. Given that context, fascist governments end up being fairly "typical" when it comes to "accepted" sexual practices.
Read the work of Wilhelm Reich, Psychology of Fascism, and he goes into the connection between fascism and sexual repression quite a bit. His work was part of what set of the sexual revolution, and he was a major proponent of a sexual revolution as a defense against fascism. At any rate, you can see this same weird obsession with weird sex (and sex in general) coming from the right. From Rick Santorum talking about gay marriage will lead to men fething turtles to Christine O'Donnell asking what possible use a man could have for her if he knows how to pleasure himself, the right wing is just a giant bucket of sexual repression and weirdness.
The modern conservative movement is extremely homophobic, always ranting about the dreaded "gay agenda," and fiercely anti-woman.
The conservative movement is homophobic. It's not "extremely" homophobic at all. The standard line is "do what you want in your own bedroom, but marriage is between a man and a woman." There's a big difference between thinking what somebody is doing is wrong, and thinking you have a duty to go out and stop it. If the American right was proposing that we STOP gays from having homosexual relationships, then I might buy the "extremely" label. In reality, they simply find it immoral.
Here's the party platform of the Texas GOP:
Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.
And heck, here is Montana's:
We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal.
So, extremely homophobic it is then.
Of course, this is just where it starts. See, you don't run on "We must arrest all the gays and put them to death." You don't get votes that way. You don't even start out with that as a goal. You -- you being the fascist politician, not you Phyrxis -- say "There is a radical gay agenda that wants to destroy the family, and we must protect the family by denying rights to homosexuals. We must not allow homosexuality to be normalized." And you don't even have to believe it (and really, why would you, it's complete nonsense), you just have to be willing to say it to get elected.
But what happens when you get into power? Now you have to actually do something on some of these agenda items. You have to stop the gays from getting married. But then what? Now you've lost fear of gay marriage to get votes, so you can't go back to that well. But you've also legitimized the treatment of gays as second-class citizens, so it becomes easier to find new ways to present gay rights as a threat to "the family." And so you get calls for legalized discrimination.
And the real danger is that at the same time this is happening, the economy is collapsing, and rights are being shredded, and people are getting angrier and angrier -- all because they allow themselves to be convinced that it is the weak (gays, minorities, women) that are at fault for the "failures" of society to reward them for their privileged position, instead of recognizing that the people scapegoating the weak work for the very powerful, and that the system is working perfectly: concentrating wealth and power into the hands of an oligarchy.
It's when people start to realize they've been had, that it was never about freedom and liberty, that it was never about smaller government, that it was never about "restoring honor" or "preserving traditions," but always about the power and wealth of a tiny few, that's when the gays become a threat to the fabric of society. That's when the government starts monitoring us to find out who the gays are, builds the camps to hold them, and finally finds a solution to the problem -- the problem of how to terrify a hoodwinked populace into accepting your eternal rule -- in genocide.
That's my real fear. That by the time it becomes inarguable that this conservative movement is fascist at its core, and that it will only get worse, it will be too late. Because too many people won't believe it until after the war, when we've been conquered by a world terrified of our power, and the leaders are being hung at trials, and the bodies are exhumed, and then it will be too fething late, won't it?
The conservative movement is not "anti-woman" at all, certainly not "fiercely." Look at all the women running as Republicans this November. Look at the success of Sarah Palin. I mean, seriously, what appeal does she have BESIDES being a woman? None. It speaks to how frustrated the American right is with being mislabled as mysoginists, that they get excited about any woman they can get into office.
Look at what you've just said. That is completely cynical. Are you sure that the right is being mislabeled as misogynists? Because I think it can be argued that a bunch of patriarchs using a telegenic airhead with no qualifications and a meager talent for demagoguery to shield themselves from accusations of misogyny is, in itself, misogynist.
But the "woman's right to choose" is one of the most bogus lines of propaganda ever. Women have no "right" to "choose." What we're talking about is killing a baby. It's not "her body." It's a baby's body. We, as a society, have decided that it's really better for all involved if we allow people to kill babies in certain situations. I agree, it is better for all involved. But it's still killing a baby.
No, what we're talking about is aborting a fetus. Calling it "killing a baby" is sensationalizing it. And being pro-choice means recognizing that the decision as to when it stops being aborting a fetus and becomes killing a baby is a choice we leave to the mother, as we recognize that no one can be certain when a cell becomes a person.
On top of that, there's the simple fact that the Republicans are NOT trying to strip anybody's imaginary rights away. They had control of the White House, the Senate and the House. They will never have a better chance to overturn abortion than that, and they made no effort to do so.
Abortion is a done issue. Republicans talk about it to rile up their base, and Democrats use scare tactics about it going away to rile up theirs. Just like you're doing right now. It's not going away. Period.
No, the old Republicans did that. That's not what the Sharron Angles, the Joe Millers, the Christine McDonnels, etc. want. The base has clued in (finally) to the game being played on them, and they want results.
I think what Gailbraithe means by calling republicans fascists is that he doesnt like them. he really really really doesnt like them. Its a caracture. Fascism is a historically localized phenomena, roughly 1920s-40s. Here's a few things republicans do not have in common with fascists:
1. fascists were for extensive state intervention in the market place. partially thats what dogma brought up: corporatism, or the attempt to use the state as a mediator between competing economic interests. Partially also its economic planning. Franco and Mussolini had long running programs in this area, Hitler less so but he did experiment with it. Republicans are virulently opposed to state intervention in the market place - thats whats driving this whole tea party business.
2. authoritarianism. Franco Mussolini and Hitler all advocated authoritarian, top down despotisms based on the traditional props of all despotic power: the urban poor and the military. The republicans, by contrast, are in favor of democracy. They dont always like the results of elections, but they are not involved in an extensive attack on the core premise of the government, which is democratic elections.
3. militarism. Franco Mussolini and Hitler all came to power with the help of paramilitary (Hitler, Mussolini) or actual military (Franco) organizations. While republicans do occasionally join militias and they do occasionally talk about overthrowing the government, no prominent republican that I'm aware of has so far advocated using such militias to overthrow the state. There are always people on the fringe, but if it is not the party platform or even a large minority view its unfair to apply this label to republicans.
Gailbraithe's position is nothing more than a caracture based on what are, doubtless, his own extreme political positions. Conservatives have some things in common with fascists its true - they're both on the right it is to be expected, just as liberals have some things in common with communists. But thats as far as it goes. liberals are not communists, and conservatives are not fascists.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Of course, this is just where it starts. See, you don't run on "We must arrest all the gays and put them to death." You don't get votes that way. You don't even start out with that as a goal. You -- you being the fascist politician, not you Phyrxis -- say "There is a radical gay agenda that wants to destroy the family, and we must protect the family by denying rights to homosexuals. We must not allow homosexuality to be normalized." And you don't even have to believe it (and really, why would you, it's complete nonsense), you just have to be willing to say it to get elected.
But what happens when you get into power? Now you have to actually do something on some of these agenda items. You have to stop the gays from getting married. But then what? Now you've lost fear of gay marriage to get votes, so you can't go back to that well. But you've also legitimized the treatment of gays as second-class citizens, so it becomes easier to find new ways to present gay rights as a threat to "the family." And so you get calls for legalized discrimination.
And the real danger is that at the same time this is happening, the economy is collapsing, and rights are being shredded, and people are getting angrier and angrier -- all because they allow themselves to be convinced that it is the weak (gays, minorities, women) that are at fault for the "failures" of society to reward them for their privileged position, instead of recognizing that the people scapegoating the weak work for the very powerful, and that the system is working perfectly: concentrating wealth and power into the hands of an oligarchy.
Honestly.
The Republican Party is ushering in a Gay Holocaust? This is a link to the only LGBT Organization with an active challenge of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Oh wow, they're Republicans.
sulla1080 wrote:1. fascists were for extensive state intervention in the market place. partially thats what dogma brought up: corporatism, or the attempt to use the state as a mediator between competing economic interests. Partially also its economic planning. Franco and Mussolini had long running programs in this area, Hitler less so but he did experiment with it. Republicans are virulently opposed to state intervention in the market place - thats whats driving this whole tea party business.
TARP was a Republican plan. The Republicans have extensively interfered in the market, from privatizing government functions to create new profit sectors for corporate allies (from military support roles to prisons), to creating a prescription drug program that was blatant welfare for big pharma, to aggressively protecting and defending the agenda of the wealthiest elites.
2. authoritarianism. Franco Mussolini and Hitler all advocated authoritarian, top down despotisms based on the traditional props of all despotic power: the urban poor and the military. The republicans, by contrast, are in favor of democracy. They dont always like the results of elections, but they are not involved in an extensive attack on the core premise of the government, which is democratic elections.
Right, that's why right-wingers are always so quick to correct me when I make the outrageous claim that America is a democracy (no, it's a republic they shout). It's also why we saw the massive expansion of executive power under Bush. Because the GOP is totally anti-authoritarian. Sure.
3. militarism. Franco Mussolini and Hitler all came to power with the help of paramilitary (Hitler, Mussolini) or actual military (Franco) organizations. While republicans do occasionally join militias and they do occasionally talk about overthrowing the government, no prominent republican that I'm aware of has so far advocated using such militias to overthrow the state. There are always people on the fringe, but if it is not the party platform or even a large minority view its unfair to apply this label to republicans.
"I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry. This not for someone who's in the military. This not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical...And you know, I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems." - Sharron Angle, Republican/Tea Party candidate for US Senate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:Honestly.
The Republican Party is ushering in a Gay Holocaust?
Using demagoguery to stir up fear and hatred against a relatively powerless minority group has consequences. It is a tactic that always, inevitabely, leads to a very bad place. Because it has to lead there. The road will never go anywhere else except that very bad place. The only way to not end up in that very bad place is to not go down that road. To refuse to engage in that kind of demagoguery.
Because the more you beat that drum, the more you inflame people with fear and hatred, the more you convince them that there is a threat from within, from their own fellow citizens, the more people demand relief. The more they need something to happen so they can stop being afraid.
Mussolini: "Fascists do not belong to the crowd of the vain and skeptical who undervalue women's social and political importance. Who cares about voting? You will vote!"
The fascists gave women the right to vote before they abolished voting altogether.
So clearly, that entirely makes up for having your right to work stripped from you, and being reduced in law to a baby-factory.
You're confusing an authoritarian state with a state that hates women. Men were expected to be macho warriors. Women were expected to be homemakers. This isn't pro-men, anti-women. This is just authoritarianism. Honestly, is it better to be pressed into the military than it is to being a homemaker? Forcing EVERYONE into gender roles isn't anti-woman. It's anti-freedom.
The only reason you can't see that EVERYONE is imposed upon by such a system is that you're a modern American liberal, who is only capable of seeing victimization when it's the victimization of one of the protected classes that you're taught to revere.
Also, AGAIN, this is 1940, where the perspective of woman as homemaker is not at all unusual. I'm not trying to tell you that fascists were progressive when it came it gender issues, I'm showing you that they were not especially concerned with gender issues in any noteworthy fashion. In some cases they were progressive, in others they were retroactive.
On the whole a lack of gender equality is not really a key identifier of fascism.
the right wing is just a giant bucket of sexual repression and weirdness.
That's very helpful. Try to go ten minutes without spouting something hateful and petty about "the right." Just as a thought experiment. Push your limits.
But, whatever the right is sexually confused now. A bunch of closet degenerates. It's amazing how this massive group of people manage to all exhibit such a large and uniform assortment of negative traits. At least we have you here to list them for us.
Seriously dude THINK about what you're saying. You've got this group of people. "The right." They're subhuman. They're evil. They're confused. They're a THREAT! You're doing EXACTLY what you claim "the right" is going to do to gays. Only you're ACTUALLY doing it, and you're doing it RIGHT NOW. Not in some hypothetical (imaginary) future.
You have literally BECOME the thug that tormeting you in highscool. You're an artist in dehumanizing and demonizing people categorically, refusing to understand them except as a carricature.
Why become the thing you hate?
It's actually a common trend in psychology that people most hate in others what they hate in themselves. They could write a book about this with you as the primary subject.
See, you don't run on "We must arrest all the gays and put them to death." You don't get votes that way.
Why not? The right is "extremely homophobic," won't they vote for that? No, they won't, because they're NOT. They're mildly homophobic.
why would you, it's complete nonsense
Except that it's not. There is absolutely an agenda to change the conception of the family to include "alternative" structures. Two daddies, two mommies, etc. etc. The only questionable part of your hypothetical politician's comment is the obvious negativity he attaches to it. He's saying its BAD. Whether it is BAD or not, it's a fact. There is a movement to "normalize homosexuality." There's no question that this is the case.
Again, dude, learn to speak the truth, instead of just being loudly disgusted with anything you don't like.
You're a lot more credible when you admit things that don't support your argument. I freely admit that the right is homophobic. You said they're homophobic, and they are. As usual you hyperobolize and exaggerate, but in general, you're correct. You're, let's say, half correct. You can't let anybody that disagrees with you be even FRACTIONALLY right. Everything the right says is "complete nonsense." It's not, dude. What it is is their perspective on reality.
It's when people start to realize they've been had, that it was never about freedom and liberty, that it was never about smaller government, that it was never about "restoring honor" or "preserving traditions," but always about the power and wealth of a tiny few, that's when the gays become a threat to the fabric of society.
This is one of the cuter tactics that you employ. When you can find a way that "the right" is vaguely like fascism, then, DUH, they're like fascism. And when they're NOT like fascism... Well, that's because they're just hiding it until they have the power to the OPPOSITE of what they're doing now, because they're fascists! Circular logic RULES!
When they're a puppy, they're a WOLF! And when they're a sheep, they're a WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING! MAGIC THINKING! BUT ALWAYS A WOLF!
At some point you're going to need to be honest with yourself and admit that you decided that the right is fascists FIRST, and then you started coming up with a set of rationalizations why it's true.
Here's a secret: It's very, very easy to reach a conclusion if you start by assuming it's true, and then refuse to acknowledge anything that isn't confirming data, plus lie a lot. That's how the 9-11 Truthers get started.
That's my real fear. That by the time it becomes inarguable that this conservative movement is fascist at its core, and that it will only get worse, it will be too late.
That's your fear, but I promise, it's not real.
Seriously dude, I'M SORRY that some people beat you up in high school. It sounds like it was a seriously bad deal. But now you've made yourself a world where fascists are going to take over your country and murder everyone, and you're SERIOUSLY worrying about it. Seriously. How happy is that making you?
I'll give you a hint: NOT AT ALL HAPPY.
Look, I don't like Obama. I don't like his ideas, I don't like what he stands for, I don't like where he's taking the country. But, at the end of the day, he's basically just trying to make us into England. You'll notice that there are a lot of people from England in these forums, and in general they seem pretty cheerful (drunk). I don't want America to be England. AT ALL. But if it turned into England, I could still play 40K, program computers, hug my kids. England is not so bad.
Settle down. Seriously. Just give it a try.
Because I think it can be argued that a bunch of patriarchs using a telegenic airhead with no qualifications and a meager talent for demagoguery to shield themselves from accusations of misogyny is, in itself, misogynist.
Right, I know. As we already established, when the right is "acting fascist" it's because they are. And when they're not, it's because they're hiding the fact that they are. All roads lead to Rome. Mussolini's Rome.
Calling it "killing a baby" is sensationalizing it.
No, it's being honest. I've seen two 20 week ultrasounds. What it looks like in there is... A F-ING BABY. It's a baby. It has fingers, toes, a heart with valves that you can see beating, and a face that looks, not coincidentally, like the baby it's going to be when it's born. If you want to kill it, cowboy up and admit you're killing it.
Now, I'm not trying to extreme here. A morning after pill is not "killing a baby." I certainly don't know when it's officially "a human life" but it's a LONG time before 20 weeks. Current science can pretty consistently save a baby that's 25 weeks old. We allow abortions up 28 weeks. That's a baby.
Man up. Accept the gravity of what's being done. If you're going to kill a baby, then know you're doing it, and do it. Being ignorant doesn't make you moral. Teaching people to be ignorant doesn't make you moral.
No, the old Republicans did that.
Wonderful. Yet again, if they're not doing it now, then the obvious answer is that they soon will.
By your standards, I would like to suggest that the Democrats are baby eating Communists. Oh, I know, they're not doing it YET, but they're vaguely like Communists, and they're going to do it all the way tomorrow.
The Republican Party is ushering in a Gay Holocaust?
Using demagoguery to stir up fear and hatred against a relatively powerless minority group has consequences. It is a tactic that always, inevitabely, leads to a very bad place. Because it has to lead there. The road will never go anywhere else except that very bad place. The only way to not end up in that very bad place is to not go down that road. To refuse to engage in that kind of demagoguery.
Because the more you beat that drum, the more you inflame people with fear and hatred, the more you convince them that there is a threat from within, from their own fellow citizens, the more people demand relief. The more they need something to happen so they can stop being afraid.
I'll take the fact that you've dodged my link to the Log Cabin Republicans twice as your admission that it completely destroys your argument.
Right, that's why right-wingers are always so quick to correct me when I make the outrageous claim that America is a democracy (no, it's a republic they shout).
That's not so much of a "right-wing" idea as a "fact."
The United States is a Republic. That's what it was founded as. And, because of the way it functions, that's what it IS. We don't directly vote on issues. We instead vote for people who (ostensibly) represent our views on those issues.
That's called a "Republic."
Words don't care if you know what they mean. They still mean what they mean.
Because the GOP is totally anti-authoritarian.
There's no question that the Republican party is not living up to its promises of anti-authoritarianism. However, the Democrats are even more authoritarian. They want to control what you're allowed to eat, what kind of lightbulbs you're allowed to own, what sort of car you're allowed to drive, what people are allowed to say on the radio, etc. etc. etc.
That's why there's a Tea Party. They're a bunch of people who are confusedly rejecting the authoritarianism of both parties.
And you know, I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.
I'd love for you to try (and fail) to explain how what she's saying is any different than the apocalyptic musings you just blurted about the Republican sponsored gay purge followed by worldwide fascist takeover?
Using demagoguery to stir up fear and hatred against a relatively powerless minority group has consequences.
Again, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING?
You're using demagoguery to stir up fear and hatred. Why is it ok for you to do it?
sulla1080 wrote:1. fascists were for extensive state intervention in the market place. partially thats what dogma brought up: corporatism, or the attempt to use the state as a mediator between competing economic interests. Partially also its economic planning. Franco and Mussolini had long running programs in this area, Hitler less so but he did experiment with it. Republicans are virulently opposed to state intervention in the market place - thats whats driving this whole tea party business.
TARP was a Republican plan. The Republicans have extensively interfered in the market, from privatizing government functions to create new profit sectors for corporate allies (from military support roles to prisons), to creating a prescription drug program that was blatant welfare for big pharma, to aggressively protecting and defending the agenda of the wealthiest elites.
yes.... and the republicans are paying for those policies right now, within their own party moderates like Charlie Christ and Mike Castle are being forced out by tea partiers like Rubio and Odonnell. There is broad support for those policies within the American electorate, but the republican party is deeply divided over them. Even moderate republicans viewed the TARP and similar programs as distasteful but necessary. That's not the same thing as extensive state intervention. That is limited, targetted intervention. Traditionally it is the democrats, through programs like OSHA, through minimum wage laws, and through advocacy for labor unions, who have been most in favor of state intervention in the market place. Republicans opposed these programs when they were introduced and continue to advocate for their limitation if not outright appeal. On the balance it is democrats, not republicans, who are the party of state intervention in the market place.
gailbraithe wrote:
sulla1080 wrote:2. authoritarianism. Franco Mussolini and Hitler all advocated authoritarian, top down despotisms based on the traditional props of all despotic power: the urban poor and the military. The republicans, by contrast, are in favor of democracy. They dont always like the results of elections, but they are not involved in an extensive attack on the core premise of the government, which is democratic elections.
Right, that's why right-wingers are always so quick to correct me when I make the outrageous claim that America is a democracy (no, it's a republic they shout). It's also why we saw the massive expansion of executive power under Bush. Because the GOP is totally anti-authoritarian. Sure.
Authoritarianism would be abolishing congress and other representative bodies, appointing governors to the states, and ruling by executive decree. What president bush, and presidents generally do, is not authoritarianism - it is expansion of the executive power. The difference is one of degree, you might argue, but so is the difference between a mountain and a mole hill.
gailbraithe wrote:
sulla1080 wrote:3. militarism. Franco Mussolini and Hitler all came to power with the help of paramilitary (Hitler, Mussolini) or actual military (Franco) organizations. While republicans do occasionally join militias and they do occasionally talk about overthrowing the government, no prominent republican that I'm aware of has so far advocated using such militias to overthrow the state. There are always people on the fringe, but if it is not the party platform or even a large minority view its unfair to apply this label to republicans.
"I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry. This not for someone who's in the military. This not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical...And you know, I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems." - Sharron Angle, Republican/Tea Party candidate for US Senate.
I looked into Mrs. Angle.
1. she's not a prominent republican. she's a former state representative who is running for office. If she was a sitting or x senator, representative, governor, president, etc., a cabinet member, a senior political strategist, etc. - that would be a prominent republican. sarah angle is just someone who'se running for office.
2. she's an extremist who does not represent the majority view of the party or even a prominent minority view. You need to be able to quote more than 1 person to argue that a party as a whole supports a certain proposition.
Monster Rain wrote:I'll take the fact that you've dodged my link to the Log Cabin Republicans twice as your admission that it completely destroys your argument.
I accept your apology.
The Log Cabin Republicans are a minority group within the GOP with no power or influence. I had taken your constant flogging of the LCR in lieu of actually addressing the homophobia of the Republican party as an admission you had no actual counterargument. At any rate, pointing out a tiny outlier group while ignoring the actual policies and rhetoric of the majority of the GOP hardly destroys my argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phryxis wrote:
Right, that's why right-wingers are always so quick to correct me when I make the outrageous claim that America is a democracy (no, it's a republic they shout).
That's not so much of a "right-wing" idea as a "fact."
The United States is a Republic. That's what it was founded as. And, because of the way it functions, that's what it IS. We don't directly vote on issues. We instead vote for people who (ostensibly) represent our views on those issues.
It's a democratic republic. It is entirely appropriate to call America a democracy. Only someone deeply afraid of the potential of democracy feels a need to "correct" people and pretend that democracy always and only means direct democracy.
There's no question that the Republican party is not living up to its promises of anti-authoritarianism. However, the Democrats are even more authoritarian. They want to control what you're allowed to eat, what kind of lightbulbs you're allowed to own, what sort of car you're allowed to drive, what people are allowed to say on the radio, etc. etc. etc.
The Democrats want to regulate the market in the common interest. For example, the Democrats do not want to "control what you're allowed to eat," they want to protect consumers from agricorps that don't care how crappy the food they sell is by limiting the ability of those business to stuff food full of unhealthy additives that are killing this country. You should go to eastern europe and find one of the old soviet era restaurants, with the government approved menu that proscribed exactly what could be served. That's controlling what you eat.
And at the end of the day, these things are not essential liberties. Your life is not any less free if corporations can't fill junk food with trans-fats. Your life is not any less free if government regulation makes the incandescent bulb non-viable compared to energy saving fluorescents. However, when the government says you can't marry the person you love, or have custody of your children, or that you have to bear your rapists baby, those are attacks on essential liberties.
Light bulb regulation = not life changing
denying marriage rights = life changing
Get it?
I'd love for you to try (and fail) to explain how what she's saying is any different than the apocalyptic musings you just blurted about the Republican sponsored gay purge followed by worldwide fascist takeover?
Actually, I'd really like you to explain how there is any similarity between the comments.
Using demagoguery to stir up fear and hatred against a relatively powerless minority group has consequences.
Again, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING?
You're using demagoguery to stir up fear and hatred. Why is it ok for you to do it?
George Bernard Shaw put it best: "But though there is no difference in this respect between the best demagogue and the worst, both of them having to present their cases equally in terms of melodrama, there is all the difference in the world between the statesman who is humbugging the people into allowing him to do the will of God, in whatever disguise it may come to him, and one who is humbugging them into furthering his personal ambition and the commercial interests of the plutocrats who own the newspapers and support him on reciprocal terms."
I notice that you quietly dropped the "against a relatively powerless minority group" part. Which is an important caveat. Because there is a huge difference between railing against the king and railing against the pauper.
Monster Rain wrote:I'll take the fact that you've dodged my link to the Log Cabin Republicans twice as your admission that it completely destroys your argument.
I accept your apology.
The Log Cabin Republicans are a minority group within the GOP with no power or influence. I had taken your constant flogging of the LCR in lieu of actually addressing the homophobia of the Republican party as an admission you had no actual counterargument. At any rate, pointing out a tiny outlier group while ignoring the actual policies and rhetoric of the majority of the GOP hardly destroys my argument.
You said that the Republicans are setting up the Homosexuals to be the scapegoat for America's problems. Here are a faction of Gay Republicans. So they're just not hip to the impending Gay Genocide then?
Monster Rain wrote:I'll take the fact that you've dodged my link to the Log Cabin Republicans twice as your admission that it completely destroys your argument.
I accept your apology.
The Log Cabin Republicans are a minority group within the GOP with no power or influence. I had taken your constant flogging of the LCR in lieu of actually addressing the homophobia of the Republican party as an admission you had no actual counterargument. At any rate, pointing out a tiny outlier group while ignoring the actual policies and rhetoric of the majority of the GOP hardly destroys my argument.
Riiiight. Don't try to wiggle out of this one, G. Power and influence aren't even relevant, though you saying that they have none is certainly debatable.
Why exactly aren't power and influence relevant?
You said that the Republicans are setting up the Homosexuals to be the scapegoat for America's problems. Here are a faction of Gay Republicans. So they're just not hip to the impending Gay Genocide then?
Republicans aren't setting up gaysto be the scapegoat for America's problems, they are currently using gays as a scapegoat, blaming gays for the "destruction" of the American family (when it's actually a combination of the right's anti-labor policies and the expanded opportunities for women that are destroying the family).
Only someone deeply afraid of the potential of democracy feels a need to "correct" people and pretend that democracy always and only means direct democracy.
That, or somebody who knows what words mean.
Seriously, LISTEN TO YOURSELF. You hear mundane statements of fact, and you conclude that the ONLY reason that somebody could make such a statement is because they're an oppression minded enemy of freedom.
SERIOUSLY. You make such huge, terrifying, illogical leaps. You're not living in reality.
Get it?
Right, got it. You're an apologist for authoritarianism you like, and prone to massive freakouts over authoritarianism you don't.
Actually, I'd really like you to explain how there is any similarity between the comments.
You're both describing ridiculous apocalyptic scenarios in which violence and madness rule the land.
Honestly, her version is more realistic than yours. The US is not going to turn into a world spanning fascist aggressor on the backs of an anti-gay holocaust.
On the other hand, the government shows a disquieting level of willingness to run up the debt and break our financial system, which could lead to a level of social unrest wherein shooting looters might become a very real proposition.
George Bernard Shaw put it best
I'll take that as an answer to the question I posed (and you ignored) in the "Republican" thread. You're lying, you know it, and you feel it's justifiable.
Honestly, dude, if you REALLY cared about the issues, you REALLY wanted to spread the word, you'd find a way to stop being so vitriolic and insane, and start being measured and logical.
But you don't. You don't REALLY care about the issues. What you care about is a fight. You're still looking for revenge for injustices of the past. The football players are now "the right." You just want to fight. The issues are just the excuse.
Dude, seriously, go talk to somebody. Go get some help. This is not me trying to insult you. This is me telling you, SERIOUSLY, with all honesty and with your best interests in mind, you NEED HELP. The world is just NOT as bad as you think it is.
Stop fighting with people. Stop fighting with people who don't actually exist.
Gailbraithe wrote:The Democrats want to regulate the market in the common interest. For example, the Democrats do not want to "control what you're allowed to eat," they want to protect consumers from agricorps that don't care how crappy the food they sell is by limiting the ability of those business to stuff food full of unhealthy additives that are killing this country.
This amounts to a desire to control what you're allowed to eat, if done through prohibition (outright or in a roundabout manner, such as through increased taxation) rather than through, say, the mandatory disclosure of information. You rob consumers of choice; that you think they may make the wrong the choice if allowed doesn't enter into it.
You should go to eastern europe and find one of the old soviet era restaurants, with the government approved menu that proscribed exactly what could be served. That's controlling what you eat.
It is, to an even greater extent. However, things can always be worse, that doesn't make for much of a justification.
And at the end of the day, these things are not essential liberties. Your life is not any less free if corporations can't fill junk food with trans-fats. Your life is not any less free if government regulation makes the incandescent bulb non-viable compared to energy saving fluorescents.
Yes it is. To have the government rescind your choices takes away freedom to some degree, even if these choices are trivial. That's what freedom and choice are all about.
However, when the government says you can't marry the person you love, or have custody of your children, or that you have to bear your rapists baby, those are attacks on essential liberties.
The first is a bit of an odd example, since all that the government can deny concerning marriage are the legal rights associated with it. Insofar as the denial of these rights is an imposition solely on the will of the couple (hospital visitation or inheritance rights, for example) I would agree that it's a denial of liberty (possibly essential liberty, as the ability to make legal arrangements with another is pretty important). Insofar as the denial brings the rights of third parties into the mix, it can't necessarily be an infringement upon their liberty (tax breaks, for example, redirect costs towards everyone else who supports the government). Of course, the denial of the later rights may still be arbitrary, and hence unjust. The second and third examples seem pretty clear-cut cases of essential liberty, although I would contend that the left is about as bad at handling custody cases as the right is.
All in all though, I have to admit I find your tendency to apologize for the Democratic party's impositions to be strange for a self-identified libertarian, much less an anarchist. Then again, if the Republicans are attempting to exterminate millions of people I suppose nearly any action the Democrats take may be excused...
Only someone deeply afraid of the potential of democracy feels a need to "correct" people and pretend that democracy always and only means direct democracy.
That, or somebody who knows what words mean.
Seriously, LISTEN TO YOURSELF. You hear mundane statements of fact, and you conclude that the ONLY reason that somebody could make such a statement is because they're an oppression minded enemy of freedom.
SERIOUSLY. You make such huge, terrifying, illogical leaps. You're not living in reality.
Correcting someone who says America is a democracy is demonstrating a failure to understand what words mean. America is a democracy. Do you deny it? Go grab a couple of dictionaries. I'll bet you a dollar that more than half of them will cite America as an example of a democracy under the entry for democracy. So why do right wingers, and only right wingers, constantly "correct" me and deny that America is a democracy? Is it because they wish it weren't? I think so.
Get it?
Right, got it. You're an apologist for authoritarianism you like, and prone to massive freakouts over authoritarianism you don't.
Regulating light bulbs is not authoritarianism. You accuse me of huge, terrifying, illogical leaps and not living in reality, yet you're the one who apparently believes the encouraging energy savings in the midst of a global energy crises is a curtailing of personal liberties no different in scale or type than forcing a teenage girl to bear the child of a man who raped her, or denying a loving couple the right to marriage for no reason.
Actually, I'd really like you to explain how there is any similarity between the comments.
You're both describing ridiculous apocalyptic scenarios in which violence and madness rule the land.
No, I'm describing the inevitable end result of pursuing the demonization of a minority group as a means to political ends. She was threatening violence if free elections didn't get her into power.
Honestly, her version is more realistic than yours. The US is not going to turn into a world spanning fascist aggressor on the backs of an anti-gay holocaust.
That's probably true, but that is where conservative tactics will lead if not checked.
On the other hand, the government shows a disquieting level of willingness to run up the debt and break our financial system, which could lead to a level of social unrest wherein shooting looters might become a very real proposition.
Meh. Debt doesn't matter that much, really, and it can be made up easily. Debt wouldn't even be a problem if we didn't keep our taxes so ridiculously low. They are way below where they need to be.
I'll take that as an answer to the question I posed (and you ignored) in the "Republican" thread. You're lying, you know it, and you feel it's justifiable.
What?
Honestly, dude, if you REALLY cared about the issues, you REALLY wanted to spread the word, you'd find a way to stop being so vitriolic and insane, and start being measured and logical.
But you don't. You don't REALLY care about the issues. What you care about is a fight. You're still looking for revenge for injustices of the past. The football players are now "the right." You just want to fight. The issues are just the excuse.
Dude, seriously, go talk to somebody. Go get some help. This is not me trying to insult you. This is me telling you, SERIOUSLY, with all honesty and with your best interests in mind, you NEED HELP. The world is just NOT as bad as you think it is.
Stop fighting with people. Stop fighting with people who don't actually exist.
Screw you.
No, seriously. That was a fething cheap shot, and you're a scuzzbucket for going there. Don't you dare pretend like you give a gak about my well-being, because you don't. You're just taking cheap, sleazy shots at what you hope are weak points. You're a bully of the worst sort, Phyrxis, the kind that smiles and pretends to not be a gak-eating creepazoid. You want to compare this to my experience in high school? You're the donkey-cave who pretended to be friendly and got me into that car. That's you. All fake concern and smiles, hiding a vicious and nasty blackguard. Screw you to hell.
You're right, I do want a fight. The time for being reasonable is long past. The conservative movement can't be reasoned with. People like you can't be reasoned with. You're a vile, nasty, gak-stain on humanity, and there is no point in trying to reason with filthy creeps like you. All that can be done is to expose you for the vile thing you are.
To reveal you as the kind of sleazey piece of crap who would say this kind of gak.
It says: "Government: Federal constitutional presidential republic"
Seriously, you're calling me a "right winger" for agreeing with Wikipedia. That's mental.
Regulating light bulbs is not authoritarianism.
Yes. It is. As has already been explained to you, it's a very low grade form of authoritarianism, but it's still authoritarianism.
No, I'm describing the inevitable end result of pursuing the demonization of a minority group as a means to political ends.
So, if we persecute gay people, the INEVITABLE end result is a fascist state that dominates the world assassinating all opposition?
Dude, NO. WRONG ANSWER. Come on.
No, seriously. That was a fething cheap shot, and you're a scuzzbucket for going there.
I should have known that was how you'd respond, and I'm a bit irritated with myself for not seeing it coming.
I'm not taking cheap shots at you, dude. I LITERALLY think you have trust issues, conflict issues, a need to right injustices in your past that simply can't be righted.
I'm not saying that to hurt your feelings. I'm saying it because, based on the facts presented to me, it seems like the most helpful thing I can tell you.
I'm not omniscient, I don't know what's REALLY going on in your mind, but it sure seems to add up. You described a scenario in which you were repeatedly physically assaulted, in some cases severely, and were punished in place of the actual offenders. That's how you described it, so that's how you perceive it. That sort of thing will have a SERIOUS impact on somebody, particularly somebody young. It's certainly possible that that experience isn't a major contributor to your worldview, but from where I'm sitting, it really looks like it is.
You've specifically SAID IT YOURSELF. You said that the football players that abused you are who grow up to be "right wingers." You've made the connection explicitly yourself. I don't even need to imagine that you're making it, you, yourself, said it's made.
You're finding a place for me in the climax of your bad experience. I'm the false friend. You're STILL drawing parallels, making everything orient back to that experience.
Can you not see yourself doing it? It's not even a question, you ARE doing it. And this isn't then. I'm not driving you in a car anywhere. I'm suggesting that you go talk to a professional about your feelings, and see if you can't find a way to live a happier life. How the HELL am I going to use that to hurt you? I'm not in contact with every counsellor in the Seattle area. Find somebody YOU trust, and see if they can help.
You're saying very angry things at me. That's fine. I'm not what you think I am. I don't think the place you are, and the way you think is good for you. Go downstairs and ask your roomate if he thinks you're a happy person. Go ask him if he thinks you have a hard time trusting people. Ask him if he thinks you're projecting your own past onto today's politics, and if it's poisoning you and making you unhappy.
I don't know, I could be totally wrong, he might disagree with me. Since you'll be presenting me as a jerk who's trying to hurt you, I'm sure he'll probably disagree with me. But seriously, ask the guy if he thinks you should go talk to somebody, see if they can help you improve your outlook.
Don't take my word for it, talk to somebody you trust.
Yes. It is. As has already been explained to you, it's a very low grade form of authoritarianism, but it's still authoritarianism.
Nope. Not authoritarianism. Go wiki it.
No, I'm describing the inevitable end result of pursuing the demonization of a minority group as a means to political ends.
So, if we persecute gay people, the INEVITABLE end result is a fascist state that dominates the world assassinating all opposition?
I never said that, so no.
What I said was that if a state uses the persecution of a minority as a means of gaining power, then in order to keep in power that state will have to keep increasing the persecution in order to keep in power. Which eventually leads to holocaust. I used the example of gays, but it works for any minority group -- gays, muslims, blacks, immigrants, etc.
Persecuting a minority group is never the solution to society wide problems. We can not improve the economy -- the actual source of our woes -- by persecuting any minority group, for what I hope are obvious reasons. So what happens when a party comes to power riding a wave of misplaced fear and hatred against a minority group, and doesn't actually address the problems that are causing all the woe? Or worse, implements policies that make the woes worse?
Well, as things get worse, the party of fear has only two options: More fear, or change direction. But changing direction is showing weakness and doubt, so that option isn't really available -- especially not when its the strength of your conviction that is maintaining people's loyalties.
Consider the example of Nazi Germany. Hitler rides a wave of anti-semitism to power, blaming the Jew, the socialist, the liberal, the homosexual, for all of Germany's woes. But the real source of German woes was economic anxiety and loss of power on the international stage. Hitler didn't address the economic woes, he made things worse by destroying unions and expelling socialists, using government power to protect and expand the fortunes of those capitalists loyal to the Nazi Party -- the same sort of cronyism suggested by the Republican's "K Street Project."
At first the persecution of Jews is relatively minor. The yellow stars of David. But the economy isn't improving, and people are still unhappy, so the persecution of the Jews increases -- taking away businesses, forced relocation to the ghettos. But still things aren't improving, people are still unhappy. So the persecution increases -- Nazi High Command decides on a Final Solution. The camps open, the trains start running. By this point almost everyone realizes that they've been had, that the Nazis are bad for Germany. But its too late. They're in complete power, and as they've demonstrated, they are happy to send anyone who has complaints to concentration camps.
I don't know where you're getting this world assassination stuff.
No, seriously. That was a fething cheap shot, and you're a scuzzbucket for going there.
I should have known that was how you'd respond, and I'm a bit irritated with myself for not seeing it coming.
Yeah dude, most people tend to get hostile when you take an event you know almost nothing about and use it to justify completely dismissing that person's ability to think for themselves.
I am not a slave to my past. I am not living in constant reaction to things that happened twenty years ago. Those experiences helped form who I am, but they are not even remotely the sum total of who I am, and for you -- a complete stranger who has never met me -- to try to turn what little you know about me into a dismissal of my beliefs is deeply, deeply insulting.
I'm not taking cheap shots at you, dude.
Internet psychology is always a cheap shot. Always. And it demonstrates exactly how little character you have.
This is certainly not a traditional indicator of fascism, and it's not really even corellated by chance. For example, Mussolini gave women the vote in Italy.
The world was extremely sexist in 1940, as compared to the modern first world. Given that context, fascist governments end up being fairly "typical" when it comes to "accepted" sexual practices.
However, like all aggressive, militaristic ideologies, fascists have definitely supported the oppression of gays. No argument there.
The modern conservative movement is extremely homophobic, always ranting about the dreaded "gay agenda," and fiercely anti-woman.
Watch the overuse of scare adjectives. They're just sloppy when you're trying to make a reasoned argument.
The conservative movement is homophobic. It's not "extremely" homophobic at all. The standard line is "do what you want in your own bedroom, but marriage is between a man and a woman." There's a big difference between thinking what somebody is doing is wrong, and thinking you have a duty to go out and stop it. If the American right was proposing that we STOP gays from having homosexual relationships, then I might buy the "extremely" label. In reality, they simply find it immoral.
The conservative movement is not "anti-woman" at all, certainly not "fiercely." Look at all the women running as Republicans this November. Look at the success of Sarah Palin. I mean, seriously, what appeal does she have BESIDES being a woman? None. It speaks to how frustrated the American right is with being mislabled as mysoginists, that they get excited about any woman they can get into office.
They seek to strip away women's right to control their own reproduction
This is a bad argument on so many levels...
Let me preface this by saying that I'm pro-choice...
But the "woman's right to choose" is one of the most bogus lines of propaganda ever. Women have no "right" to "choose." What we're talking about is killing a baby. It's not "her body." It's a baby's body. We, as a society, have decided that it's really better for all involved if we allow people to kill babies in certain situations. I agree, it is better for all involved. But it's still killing a baby.
On top of that, there's the simple fact that the Republicans are NOT trying to strip anybody's imaginary rights away. They had control of the White House, the Senate and the House. They will never have a better chance to overturn abortion than that, and they made no effort to do so.
Abortion is a done issue. Republicans talk about it to rile up their base, and Democrats use scare tactics about it going away to rile up theirs. Just like you're doing right now. It's not going away. Period.
P.S. Funny how Republicans are the ones "scaring" everyone, but Democrats promise an end to Roe every November, unless you vote for them. Everyone uses scare tactics. Get over it.
This can be seen in the increasing refusal of the GOP to play ball with the democratically elected majority
This is a symptom of the current American political climate. The Democrats played delaying tactics, the Republicans did it. Neither party has a clear conscience here. If this makes the Republicans fascists, it makes the Democrats fascists too.
Yes, I know, "the Republicans did it more!!!" So what? The Nazis were the Nazis because they burned 4 million Jews. It's not like everyone else only burned 3 million, so they were cool. In order to be "anti-Democratic" you have to actually be "anti-Democratic." Not just "marginally more anti-Democratic than the other guy, who I arbitarily decided is JUST democratic enough that he's NOT anti-Democratic!"
The movement is supported almost entirely by a handful of extremely wealthy industrialists
Like who, George Soros? Oh, right, he made his money in currency manipulation. But he does have a strange, scary accent...
Again, you're pretending that everything bad in American politics is "what Republicans do." Everyone in DC is tied up with corporate interests. Obama got more in donations from BP than any other President. We're a corporatized country. Since we've mostly been run by Democrats over the years, what's up with that?
It's also worth noting that you keep referring to corporate power, you quote Mussolini as saying that a better name for his movement would be "corporatism," and yet you persist in referring to it as "fascism." It's clear that you're more interested in the propaganda value of the word, than in the actual accuracy of its application.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Yeah dude, most people tend to get hostile when you take an event you know almost nothing about and use it to justify completely dismissing that person's ability to think for themselves.
Such as you comparing Republicans to Nazi's. Oh the irony.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Yeah dude, most people tend to get hostile when you take an event you know almost nothing about and use it to justify completely dismissing that person's ability to think for themselves.
Such as you comparing Republicans to Nazi's. Oh the irony.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Yeah dude, most people tend to get hostile when you take an event you know almost nothing about and use it to justify completely dismissing that person's ability to think for themselves.
Such as you comparing Republicans to Nazi's. Oh the irony.
That's not even remotely the same thing.
It's actually the exact same thing. You just would never admit it because it makes you a hypocrite.
No, sorry. You're criticizing Republicans because they apparently behave as fascists. Phyxis is criticizing you because you behave as though you are defined by the fact that you were bullied. You're both operating on the premise that the way someone acts if definitive with respect to what they are; according to standards defined by things that are not associated with the present.
They're exactly the same thing. You can argue that his argument has less support than the one you're mounting regarding Nazis, but that's not what you're contending.
And hey, even if you don't accept that both arguments are predicated on similar logic, I have at least indicated how they are remotely related.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
It's actually the exact same thing. You just would never admit it because it makes you a hypocrite.
Hypocrisy is tough to prove. For example, one who lacks the ability to live up to his own standards (for whatever reason) is not a hypocrite.
Gailbraithe wrote:Yeah dude, most people tend to get hostile when you take an event you know almost nothing about and use it to justify completely dismissing that person's ability to think for themselves.
Such as you comparing Republicans to Nazi's. Oh the irony.
That's not even remotely the same thing.
It's actually the exact same thing. You just would never admit it because it makes you a hypocrite.
No, it's not remotely the same thing.
No, sorry. You're criticizing Republicans because they apparently behave as fascists. Phyxis is criticizing you because you behave as though you are defined by the fact that you were bullied. You're both operating on the premise that the way someone acts if definitive with respect to what they are; according to standards defined by things that are not associated with the present.
They're exactly the same thing. You can argue that his argument has less support than the one you're mounting regarding Nazis, but that's not what you're contending.
And hey, even if you don't accept that both arguments are predicated on similar logic, I have at least indicated how they are remotely related.
Your ability to post specious nonsense has already been noted, no need to provide further evidence of how disingenuous you are.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Yeah dude, most people tend to get hostile when you take an event you know almost nothing about and use it to justify completely dismissing that person's ability to think for themselves.
Such as you comparing Republicans to Nazi's. Oh the irony.
That's not even remotely the same thing.
Yeah they are, you have little understanding about Fascism in Germany (like claiming that Nazis did little for Germany's economy untrue, they changed it from an economic depression to a
war-time economy) and then you compared them to Republicans and people are mad at you because can't tell the difference between Nazism and American Conservatism. And you
dismiss the person's ability to think for themselves by ignoring any criticism your opinions receive.
Cheesecat wrote:Yeah they are, you have little understanding about Fascism in Germany (like claiming that Nazis did little for Germany's economy untrue, they changed it from an economic depression to a war-time economy) and then you compared them to Republicans and people are mad at you because can't tell the difference between Nazism and American Conservatism.
First of all, I've said the Republicans are fascists, not Nazis. Nazism is one manifestation of fascism, but far from the only one.
Second, I didn't say the Nazis did little for Germany's economy. I said they didn't do anything that made the economy better for those who were suffering. Much like the policies pursued by Republicans over the last decade, the policies pursued by the Nazis grew the wealth of Germany, but all of the growth was captured by the oligarchy. And much like the average worker in America under Republicans, the average worker if Germany saw an overall decrease in wages while the Nazis were in power -- even as the fortunes of the wealthiest capitalists expanded.
Third, all of you are completely ignoring the huge difference between the two argument. Phyrxis is insulting and dismissing me. That's a personal attack. I am only trying to point out that the policies and tactics pursued by the Republicans are properly identified as fascism.
That's not a personal attack, because I'm speaking broadly about a political movement and the direction it is trending. That's my opinion on politics.
And this bs attempt to draw an equivalency between my perception that the American conservative movement is a fascist movement and Phryxis dismissing my ability to have real thoughts because I am a slave to my freshman year in highschool is nothing but doubling down on Phryxis original personal attack.
Which, I might point out, came exactly when I pointed out that he was drawing an equivalency between light bulb regulations and forcing women to bear rape babies. So no wonder he resorted to personal attacks, and frankly, its no wonder that Monster Rain and dogma are dogpiling on with him.
Yeah, I've attacked you on a personal level. But I haven't done so in some time. For example, in the two threads we are currently participating in.
I don't agree with you on much, but I'm willing to admit that you have interesting things to say. I think we could have some rewarding conversations, but if all you're going to do is insult people and draw equivalence to past foolishness (something I have also done), then we can't do that.
Also, no, that's not 'doubling down' on Phryxis' statement. Cheesecat did not reiterate anything.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Your ability to post specious nonsense has already been noted, no need to provide further evidence of how disingenuous you are.
Nice. Instead of demonstrating why my argument is specious, you have chosen to mock me.
Clearly you are a paragon of intellectual virtue.
Your argument is specious because your premise is nonsense.
Your premise: "You're both operating on the premise that the way someone acts if definitive with respect to what they are; according to standards defined by things that are not associated with the present."
This is complete rubbish. Neither Phryxis or I is operating on that premise, nor are we both operating on the same premise. You're not comparing are arguments, you're comparing two straw men you've created to look identical.
Gailbraithe wrote:Yeah dude, most people tend to get hostile when you take an event you know almost nothing about and use it to justify completely dismissing that person's ability to think for themselves.
Such as you comparing Republicans to Nazi's. Oh the irony.
That's not even remotely the same thing.
It's actually the exact same thing. You just would never admit it because it makes you a hypocrite.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Your argument is specious because your premise is nonsense.
Your premise: "You're both operating on the premise that the way someone acts if definitive with respect to what they are; according to standards defined by things that are not associated with the present."
This is complete rubbish. Neither Phryxis or I is operating on that premise, nor are we both operating on the same premise. You're not comparing are arguments, you're comparing two straw men you've created to look identical.
Disingenuous nonsense.
No, that's not demonstration. You basically just wrote a long version of your original comment. Quoting something, and then calling it rubbish, is no different from simply calling it rubbish.
I commented from generalization in order to show how your arguments can be compared, and regarded as related. The implication being that they are "remotely related" at the very least.
Cheesecat wrote:Yeah they are, you have little understanding about Fascism in Germany (like claiming that Nazis did little for Germany's economy untrue, they changed it from an economic depression to a war-time economy) and then you compared them to Republicans and people are mad at you because can't tell the difference between Nazism and American Conservatism.
Second, I didn't say the Nazis did little for Germany's economy. I said they didn't do anything that made the economy better for those who were suffering. Much like the policies pursued by Republicans over the last decade, the policies pursued by the Nazis grew the wealth of Germany, but all of the growth was captured by the oligarchy. And much like the average worker in America under Republicans, the average worker if Germany saw an overall decrease in wages while the Nazis were in power -- even as the fortunes of the wealthiest capitalists expanded.
I highly doubt that during the Great Depression, where there were thousands of homeless Germans doing odd jobs for people so they could get paid in shelter, food or water would
be making higher wages than the common soldier in the German Wehrmacht army during World War II. Also woman were working instead of doing house duties as they were the
major work force behind the home front. In fact one of the major problems with the Great Depression was not being able to find work something that World War II solved, plus how
can an unemployed person have higher wages than a employed person?
I guess it kind of escapes the left that the typical American doesn't give a flying fish fcuk about skin color. The vast majority of so called racism is simply cultural differences.
Yes, I have a little bit of a problem when someone (white, black, hispanic, asian, indian, arab, jewish, american indian, green, blue, grey, whatever) on welfare refuses to work because they are too good for a job when I go out and bust my ass everyday shoveling gak as a plumber.
Shadowbrand wrote:No but I am honored to be another persons favorite.
But seriously everyone, CALM DOWN AND LOOK AT THIS KITTEN.
I hate cats they scratch and bite me all the time (Except your mom's cats your mom's cats are awesome) dogs (beside everyone knows that dog spelt backwards = god) are way better!
Which, I might point out, came exactly when I pointed out that he was drawing an equivalency between light bulb regulations and forcing women to bear rape babies. So no wonder he resorted to personal attacks, and frankly, its no wonder that Monster Rain and dogma are dogpiling on with him.
You believe that my motivation is to categorically deny your conclusions could be right. That's not my motivation. I'm not trying to say that "you're damaged goods, so you can't be right." Even though that IS your goal when you speak about "the right," it's NOT my goal when I suggest that you could use some help. You're projecting your tactics onto me, and it's simply not accurate.
I think you are in an unhappy place, and you're doggedly defending it, entrenching yourself in it, forcing everything to fit a worldview that was forcibly beaten into you as a high schooler. It's not healthy. Go get some help, get past it.
AND PLEASE UNDERSTAND: There's a lot of room for opinions in this world. Have your opinions. There are many people who agree with you and who don't have some dark event in their past. I don't agree with their views any more than I do with yours, but I am IN NO WAY suggesting that your views are impossible without your history.
The pain of your history reads so transparently in everything you're saying in these forums that it makes it incredibly obvious that you need to be proactive in dealing with it. I'm not saying that it would change your outlook. I'm saying that it really looks like you need help.
Go get some help. Come back emotionally clear. Say whatever you believe. It's only MORE credible when it's spoken by somebody who has their emotional state under control. If what you believe is true and right, it will survive the process of you dealing with demons of the past.
If you respond to ONE thing in this thread, please let it be this: If what you believe is true, how will it stop being true when you are more happy with yourself and with life?
Phryxis wrote:I think you are in an unhappy place, and you're doggedly defending it, entrenching yourself in it, forcing everything to fit a worldview that was forcibly beaten into you as a high schooler. It's not healthy. Go get some help, get past it.
Phryxis, do yourself a favor and stop pretending that you are magnanimous and benevolent.
Everything you have said in this comment is a giant personal attack. It is all character assassination, all of it forcing me into a position of defending myself. And not defending my positions, defending my self. You are positioning yourself as this nice, caring, sympathetic dude, but the reality is that you are taking that position in order to make deeply offensive personal attacks on my character in a public forum.
You are being a world class jerk, and if we were at a bar, I would be throwing a whiskey sour in your face in right now. You have no idea how much it sickens me that you are attacking me in this way and acting as it you are doing me a favor. You are, in my opinion, a complete scumball.
Seriously, every time you post this kind of bs, you are only making me hate you. You say you want me to be happy, but then you talk to me in this condescending and offensive manner, painting me as some poor, pathetic wretch, and it is obnoxious beyond the pale. Stop trying to be nice, you jackass. You fail at it miserably.
In all fairness Gailbraithe, you DO seem kind of an angry guy.
In all fairness Phryxis, using revelations of a traumatic event in someone's past as part of a rhetorical stratagem is pretty poor form. And that IS what you are doing.
Libertarian populism is being used to advance fascism. That's actually one of the hallmark's of fascism, using leftist rhetoric to advance right wing causes. And libertarianism -- which was originally a synonym for anarchism and socialism -- is very much leftist rhetoric.
I also don't think that most movement conservatives are cognizant of the implicit fascism of the movement. I think most are simply "useful idiots," which is why I think its important to point out that modern conservatism is fascism and has nothing at all to do with the dictionary definition of conservative (really, going by the dictionary, the vast majority of Democrats are the actual conservatives -- dedicated to preserving the establishment and maintaining the post-WW2 status quo).
I mean keep in mind that the Tea Party attracts a lot of the "keep the government's hands off my medicare" crowd, and one suspects that the libertarian populism holds little rational appeal for them, and rather they are responding to the rhetoric of freedom and liberty.
In all fairness Gailbraithe, you DO seem kind of an angry guy.
I prefer to think of myself as righteous rather than angry, but I will certainly cop to being very passionate about my positions.
And thanks for calling Phyrxis out on his shenanigans.
hatein order to make deeply offensive personal attacks on my character in a public forum.
Huh. I tried to make a haiku and it didn't work.
There are several ways to engage in conversation that do not involve the methods you use, Gailbrathe.
Ignoring all other references to your personal situation made by others, you seem angry on the face of it. There are probably a lot of massage parlors in Seattle, not a bad idea IMO.
Alternatively, Yoga is nice. You could find a place to get some acupuncture as well, I've heard that it can help you deal with stress.
You could be much calmer in your responses, even with the substance being much the same. There is no reason to assume that everyone that disagrees with you is a Troll, that much seems obvious enough to me.
Gailbraithe wrote:Yeah dude, most people tend to get hostile when you take an event you know almost nothing about and use it to justify completely dismissing that person's ability to think for themselves.
Such as you comparing Republicans to Nazi's. Oh the irony.
That's not even remotely the same thing.
It's actually the exact same thing. You just would never admit it because it makes you a hypocrite.
No, it's not remotely the same thing.
Gailbraithe wrote:
I also don't think that most movement conservatives are cognizant of the implicit fascism of the movement. I think most are simply "useful idiots," which is why I think its important to point out that modern conservatism is fascism and has nothing at all to do with the dictionary definition of conservative (really, going by the dictionary, the vast majority of Democrats are the actual conservatives -- dedicated to preserving the establishment and maintaining the post-WW2 status quo)
Gailbraithe wrote: conservatism is fascism and has nothing at all to do with the dictionary definition of conservative (really, going by the dictionary, the vast majority of Democrats are the actual conservatives -- dedicated to preserving the establishment and maintaining the post-WW2 status quo).
No, conservatism is about maintaining what is, and returning to what was. That is what follows from an embrace of tradition.
Libertarian populism is being used to advance fascism. That's actually one of the hallmark's of fascism, using leftist rhetoric to advance right wing causes. And libertarianism -- which was originally a synonym for anarchism and socialism -- is very much leftist rhetoric.
I also don't think that most movement conservatives are cognizant of the implicit fascism of the movement. I think most are simply "useful idiots," which is why I think its important to point out that modern conservatism is fascism and has nothing at all to do with the dictionary definition of conservative (really, going by the dictionary, the vast majority of Democrats are the actual conservatives -- dedicated to preserving the establishment and maintaining the post-WW2 status quo).
I mean keep in mind that the Tea Party attracts a lot of the "keep the government's hands off my medicare" crowd, and one suspects that the libertarian populism holds little rational appeal for them, and rather they are responding to the rhetoric of freedom and liberty.
The part I'm having difficulty with (and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone here) is accepting that the Tea Party movement, which is explicitly 'anti-state', (in as much as the state has direct involvement the lives of it's citizens) would naturally lead to the kind of all-powerful state that fascism would lead to.
Also collectivism vs. individualism. The Tea party seems to skew towards the latter, fascism to the former. American conservatives have an almost pathologocal belief in self-determination and individualism.
Now don't get me wrong, I wouldn't piss on Sarah Palin if she was on fire. I regard the Tea Party movement with a mix of disgust and snorting derision. But I don't think they're fascist, at least not in a doctrinal sense. But a baying mob, with a baying mob mentality?
Yes, undoubtedly.
In all fairness Gailbraithe, you DO seem kind of an angry guy.
I prefer to think of myself as righteous rather than angry, but I will certainly cop to being very passionate about my positions.
There's righteous, and then there's rude. You fall on the side of rudeness far more often than is necessary, in my opinion. But hey, that's your business. Perhaps it's unintentional.
And thanks for calling Phyrxis out on his shenanigans.
I'm not on anyone's side in this. I think you're both acting like fething idiots, truth be told.
I'll say this like it or not. Pop and hip hop and rap and the other repulsive gak I listen to at school that makes me wana pull out my fingernails and bathe in vinegar basically a song is made that EVERYONE loves that year is thrown away and disregarded as soon as the next "hit" comes in.
Metal has never done that. We even cherish our legends onto death.
Phryxis, do yourself a favor and stop pretending that you are magnanimous and benevolent.
I'm not pretending anything like that. I'm responding to the information presented to me in the way that I feel is most appropriate.
I'm not doing you any favors. I'm not your friend. I don't expect anybody to read my posts and say "wow, that guy is so nice." I'm just telling you what I think the truth is. It's what I do. I do it more than is useful. It's become clear that you're going to respond negatively to my version of the truth, which is not what I want to have happen, and yet I'm still telling it to you how I see it.
The fact is, I was happy to beat on you, humiliate you, mock your ideas. Then you tell a story about people beating you up in high school, and I realize you're THAT guy, and I have a choice between being the guy kicking you while you're down, and not. I don't want to be the guy kicking you. I'm not some angelic figure, I'm just a normal person that doesn't want to beat somebody while they're down. And, honestly, I'm probably not going to live up to my own goals. You say a lot of really annoying crap. If you keep talking, I'm sure I'll be the guy kicking you while you're down, because I'm just not nice enough not to.
You keep baiting people to kick you. I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I'm quite prone to take that bait.
It's fine if you think I'm a jerk. It's fine if you refuse to listen to me. But if you tell me I am thinking things that I am not thinking, or doing things that I am not doing, I'm going to correct it. You don't have to listen. If you repeat yourself enough times, I'll probably give up correcting it. You seem to have more patience than I do, and I could be spending my time doing actual paid work, instead of arguing with you about what my intentions are.
And that IS what you are doing.
I know what my intentions are, and that is not my intention.
It may come across as my intention, and if so I apologize for not conveying things in a way that's true to my actual intention, but my intention is not what you describe.
I am not trying to use the guy's past to discredit his ideas. Honestly, I don't think anybody here takes his ideas at all seriously. I don't think I need to undermine anything he's saying any more than he does with his own tone and attitude. He's discredited himself. I don't need to resort to underhanded tactics to discredit him any further.
There's simply nothing to be gained by attacking the guy. It's what he wants, and it's only going to further entrench him in a mentality that is painful to read and probably even more painful to live with.
You are positioning yourself as this nice, caring, sympathetic dude, but the reality is that you are taking that position in order to make deeply offensive personal attacks on my character in a public forum.
Dude, I took it to PM. I TOLD YOU in a PM, BEFORE I even knew about your history, that I didn't want to gang up on you. You basically ignored me. You then posted it in the public forum, and proceeded to get ganged up on.
You're FORCING people to repeat your own dark history. You WANT it.
Last night I took it to PM again, and you ignored me. I'm trying NOT to have this discussion in public, but you refuse to respond in private and instead resort to misrepresenting me in public.
You want to be ganged up on. It's apprently a behavior you've learned, internalized, and now seek to repeat, consciously or otherwise. Perhaps you associated being ganged up on with being morally correct, I don't know.
You are being a world class jerk, and if we were at a bar, I would be throwing a whiskey sour in your face in right now.
Stop bringing it back to a fight. It's always a fight with you, always a confrontation where you're the moral victim, and the other guy is the "right wing thug."
"I didn't throw the first punch, officer, I merely splashed him with a drink, as his impertinence demanded!"
"Tough luck, buddy, you're going to jail, and he's not! Look how bad you beat him up!"
Oh, and the injustice continues! You are wronged, you prove your individual prowess in debate and in violence, and the system punishes you for righteousness, yet again.
That's a graphic novel, that's not reality. In reality you're very angry, you started fights with people, and it made you unhappy. Stop doing it.
I'm not asking you to stop because I'm some noble soul. I'm asking you to stop because I don't want to kick you while you're down, and if you don't stop, I probably will.
And to be clear, I'm saying that you should stop starting fights. You don't just have opinions. You have opinions that you use to start fights. You don't care about the opinions as much as you care about finding a fight. That's what you should stop. Have opinions all day long. Stop using them to start fights.
I'll say this like it or not. Pop and hip hop and rap and the other repulsive gak I listen to at school that makes me wana pull out my fingernails and bathe in vinegar basically a song is made that EVERYONE loves that year is thrown away and disregarded as soon as the next "hit" comes in.
Metal has never done that. We even cherish our legends onto death.
Yeah, you didn't watch the video. And anyone who can dismiss Rakim, Nas, MosDef, Talib Kweli, Black Thought, Grandmaster Flash, Jurassic 5, Common, KRS-One, the Geto Boys, Outkast, The Fugees, Fort Minor, and more like that obviously doesn't know what the feth they are talking about.
Considering that Blue Oyster Cult, one of the forerunners of metal, doesn't get jack gak for respect I'd have to say your talking out your ass.
Albatross wrote:The part I'm having difficulty with (and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone here) is accepting that the Tea Party movement, which is explicitly 'anti-state', (in as much as the state has direct involvement the lives of it's citizens) would naturally lead to the kind of all-powerful state that fascism would lead to.
The Tea Party isn't anti-state, they are anti-liberal state. They're not anarchists, they don't want to see the state dissolved. They don't want liberals to have any power in the government, they want it to be organized only and entirely on their terms. But the only state intervention they are afraid of is intervention that affects them. It's entirely acceptable for the government to oppress others in their view. Not that any of them actually think that hard about any of this.
Consider abortion. The conservative movement is strongly pro-life, and wants to criminalize abortion. That would require far more government intervention in people's personal lives. The government would need to know who is pregnant and who doesn't deliver and why. It would be completely unenforceable without serious invasions into people's lives. So either the entire movement is based on complete bs, and none of these people are actually pro-life, or there is a serious disconnect going on between their limited government rhetoric and what they actually think they can accomplish.
This is why you can send these people into a tizzy by simply asking them HOW they would criminalize abortion, how that would be enforced and what the punishment would be. As soon as you point that out, the cognitive dissonance becomes unbearable, because there is no way to resolve the libertarian rhetoric with the conservative goals. This is because libertarianism is fundamentally a rejection of tradition. Tradition is fundamentally authoritarian. The further back one goes, the more authoritarian things become. The libertarian impulse is the one that dissolves that tradition, so embracing liberation to maintain tradition can never work.
That is what makes their position so laughable. They claim they want freedom, but we are more free now than at any time in history. We would not be more free if we dissolved the liberal state. Instead the very rich and powerful would be less constrained to act in a moral fashion, while the greater masses would suffer under more oppression. Because that's what it was like 100 years ago.
Also collectivism vs. individualism. The Tea party seems to skew towards the latter, fascism to the former. American conservatives have an almost pathologocal belief in self-determination and individualism.
And what I'm suggesting is that this is mostly rhetoric. It is borrowed liberal rhetoric, and it is fundamentally incompatible with conservative goals.
Consider gay rights. The gay rights movement is predictable in a society that values self-determination and individualism. As soon as Thomas Jefferson wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." the changes wrought by feminism, the civil rights movement, and the gay rights movement became inevitable.
Jeremy Bentham, a contemporary of Jefferson's, was one of the first to argue for the decriminalization of sodomy. The Vinbdication of the Rights of Women, the first recognizable work of feminism in the English language, was published in 1792. Jefferson himself recognized that slavery was immoral and knew the government they had laid out would lead to abolition.
And yet, conservatism wants to preserve this tradition of homophobia, of denouncing homosexuality as immoral. But without the state force of sodomy laws to oppress gays and keep them in the closet, there is no way to stop gay people from joining women and other minorities as part of the democratic franchise. Either you use the state to oppress them, or they take a seat at the table. If one really believes in the virtue of self-determination and the value of individualism, then one logically has to support the right of gays to participate fully in society.
A government that doesn't respect that right is never going to be a government that respect individualism and self-determination. It's a paradox, you can't have a government that controls people's sexuality (and let's be honest, there is nothing quite so fundamental to a person's well-being as the healthy expression of their sexuality) and a government that respects people's freedom. The two are completely incompatible.
Now don't get me wrong, I wouldn't piss on Sarah Palin if she was on fire. I regard the Tea Party movement with a mix of disgust and snorting derision. But I don't think they're fascist, at least not in a doctrinal sense. But a baying mob, with a baying mob mentality?
That's the thing though: fascism isn't doctrinal. Fascism is emotional. Fascism isn't really an ideology, not in the way that say feminism or marxism is an ideology. Ideologies, even when they are divorced from reality, at least make sense internally. Fascism doesn't make any sense internally.
Fascism is also dishonest. Consider the Nazis. The National Socialists. Who rounded up and killed all the socialists, and who supported the existing capitalist class. There are two ways to interpret this. One is to believe that the Nazis really were socialists and to create some sort of elaborate explanation as to how that makes sense given their policy of disenfranchising the working class and killing socialists. The other is to note that the vague notion of "socialism" was very popular amongst the poorly educated working class, and that the fascists more likely borrowed some leftist rhetoric and words to appeal to the unsavvy masses. In short: they were lying. Because that's what fascist do. They lie. Constantly.
And you're mistaken in thinking that all conservatives are anti homosexual rights. I honestly don't give a feth. Marriage is only what the individual makes it out to be. It's a joke now anyways, people getting divorced 2-3 times in their lifetime.
Amaya wrote:Abortion should only be allowed for rape victims.
I disagree. Rape is bad, probably the worst crime in the world, but why pass a fathers sins onto his son? Give the kid up for adoption, for all we know the kid may become the worlds greatest cop because of it.
The number of pregnancies from rapes, thank heaven, are pretty rare from my understanding. Also, since SOP for rape victims is a Plan B pill, there's even less of a chance of that happening.
I don't much care for the idea of abortion, but I don't think a lot of the women that get them do either.
It's an ugly result of living in an ugly world. It's such a matter of personal morality I choose not to vote based on that subject.
Amaya wrote:Yes and put the mother through 9 months of hell carrying her assailant's child?
No good can come of either abortion or birth in that situation, but it's the only situation where abortion should be legal.
Aborting in other situations is no different then Spartans throwing babies into the wilderness.
Isn't life supposed to be hell? For doesn't it take a journey through hell for people to truly appreciate heaven?
And yes, it is different. Spartans threw disfigured kids to the wilds, not every kid. Not that it was right, but it was different. At the time, disfigured kids just couldn't survive in Spartan Society. Again, it's not right, but it is different.
Monster Rain wrote:The number of pregnancies from rapes, thank heaven, are pretty rare from my understanding. Also, since SOP for rape victims is a Plan B pill, there's even less of a chance of that happening.
I don't much care for the idea of abortion, but I don't think a lot of the women that get them do either.
It's an ugly result of living in an ugly world. It's such a matter of personal morality I choose not to vote based on that subject.
It has nothing do with an ugly world. It's pretty simple. Don't do it without protection. Don't do it when you can get pregnant. Don't do it if you're afraid to have the kid.
But yes, punish the kid because you can't keep your junk in your pants or have an urge to spread your legs for every other guy you meet.
They don't want liberals to have any power in the government, they want it to be organized only and entirely on their terms.
As opposed to every other political movement? People want things done the way they think they should be done. That's not oppression, that's having an opinion.
The government would need to know who is pregnant and who doesn't deliver and why.
No they wouldn't... All they have to do is outlaw it, and then 99% of all legitimate healthcare providers would stop doing it. Certainly there would be people going to Canada, or backroom abortions. That's how it was before Roe.
This is why you can send these people into a tizzy by simply asking them HOW they would criminalize abortion
Ok, I assume I'm one of "these people," and I just told you, you make it illegal and healtcare providers will stop doing it. People generally will not do illegal things simply due to the inconvenience involved. Healthcare providers have a lot of paperwork and oversight relative to other businesses.
The punishment would be against the healthcare provider, and would be similar to any other punishment for carrying out unapproved medical procedures. Fines, censure, jail time, etc. It's not hard to figure out, and causes no tizzies.
And, for the record again, I'm pro-choice. I'm just saying, this whole notion that it can't be enforced is a fabrication.
All laws get broken, and not all offenders are caught. That doesn't invalidate the law. Banning abortion would vastly reduce the number of abortions carried out in the US. It's that simple. If you don't think abortions are a good thing, it makes sense.
It's a paradox, you can't have a government that controls people's sexuality (and let's be honest, there is nothing quite so fundamental to a person's well-being as the healthy expression of their sexuality) and a government that respects people's freedom.
You're so entrenched in the correctness of your own worldview that you don't even realize you've made judgements along the way.
You've decided that homosexuality is an acceptable form of sexuality. I happen to agree, but because I think about things, I understand that I've made that judgement.
I have also decided that pedophelia is unacceptable. I'm assuming you think the same. But that's really just a manifestation of people's sexuality, some people find children sexually arousing. We choose (rightly) to not respect these people's freedom.
The reason this matters, is because you've decided that the the DEFINITION of freedom includes respect for homosexual relationships, and any worldview which does not agree is the in the "anti-freedom" category.
Your argumentation is very much based around categorization and polarization. Because conservatives don't support gay marriage, they are in the "anti-freedom" category, and because all things are either black or white, that is a black category of evil and oppression.
This is perspective designed for a poltical gutter fight. It's not particularly illuminating or truthful.
The fact is, the conservative position is LESS respectful of gay freedoms. That much is absolutely true. But being LESS respectful in a given category does not make an ideology fundamentally incompatible with a generally freedom loving government.
You have shown a clearcut case where conservatives are less respectful of freedom. That's all. Leave it at that. Don't make it a categorical proof that conservative ideology is fundamentally incompatible with respect for any freedom. It's not that. You're not going to get a rhetorical "kill shot" every time you say something.
Fascism doesn't make any sense internally.
Why not?
Fascism is also dishonest. Consider the Nazis.
No it's not. The Nazis were dishonest. Fascism isn't inherantly dishonest. It often requires dishonesty to be implemented, but there's nothing fundamentally dishonest about it.
There's no need to demonize fascism falsely. It's a very poor ideology, it doesn't need to be misrepresented to be shown for a poor ideology.
Monster Rain wrote:The number of pregnancies from rapes, thank heaven, are pretty rare from my understanding. Also, since SOP for rape victims is a Plan B pill, there's even less of a chance of that happening.
I don't much care for the idea of abortion, but I don't think a lot of the women that get them do either.
It's an ugly result of living in an ugly world. It's such a matter of personal morality I choose not to vote based on that subject.
It has nothing do with an ugly world. It's pretty simple. Don't do it without protection. Don't do it when you can get pregnant. Don't do it if you're afraid to have the kid.
But yes, punish the kid because you can't keep your junk in your pants or have an urge to spread your legs for every other guy you meet.
Meh. I'm not going to get into a theological debate but I think it goes a little deeper than that.
Though, on a superficial level, you have a point.
Like I said though, I don't base my voting on the issue. Mainly because it's a done deal. Politicians pander about it one way or the other, but Abortion is here to stay.
Yeah, actually, you can. In fact it was done all the way up until emancipation. Its still done, implicitly, given the differentiation between dogs and people.
Don't pretend the line you're drawing are clear, it doesn't become your argument.
dogma wrote:Yeah, actually, you can. In fact it was done all the way up until emancipation. Its still done, implicitly, given the differentiation between dogs and people.
Don't pretend the line you're drawing are clear, it doesn't become your argument.
Really? Legislation made slaves inhuman?
We had to actually change it to make them human?
A little piece of paper is meaningless and it can never change the truth.
Amaya wrote:
Really? Legislation made slaves inhuman?
We had to actually change it to make them human?
A little piece of paper is meaningless and it can never change the truth.
Unfortunately we ascribe meaning to little pieces of paper. Note all the furor over the Constitution, the Bible, the Koran, and every other key document in human history.
Papers mean things. Words mean things. Social practicum means things. The fac that you disagree might be noble, and even illustrative, but it doesn't remove the meaning from the documents in question.
No one cares about whether or not you believe person X has rights. They care about whether or not they believe person X has rights, and their belief is often compelled by institutional (documented) statements.
On this site? None. And I don't find much reason to friend people that I will probably never meet.
In real life? Many. It's really simple, don't talk politics to people you know get pissed off about it. The only friends I have that I very, very, VERY, rarely discuss politics with agree with me on abortion.
Amaya wrote:In real life? Many. It's really simple, don't talk politics to people you know get pissed off about it. The only friends I have that I very, very, VERY, rarely discuss politics with agree with me on abortion.
But would they agree with you on Abortion if Abortion had been legal.... how-ever-old odd some years ago and their parents decided they didn't want them?
While I am not against abortion, hell so long as it doesn't affect me I could care less. I think there are better ways to prevent pregnancy then abortion.
Because you can't legislate humanity. You can't arbiterly decide when someone comes into existence. You shouldn't allow people to act stupid and get off with a slap wrist.
Seriously, if you want to feth around, get snipped or get your tubes died.
It's not like they can't extract sperm'n'eggs and cook up petri dish babies.
Edit: Abortion is potentially lethal, not to mention bad for your mental health.
Also, even if we cannot legislate what constitutes a human, we can absolutely legislate what is proper with respect to humans. In fact, that's basically what legislation is about.
dogma wrote:Also, even if we cannot legislate what constitutes a human, we can absolutely legislate what is proper with respect to humans. In fact, that's basically what legislation is about.
I'm a bit hazy on what constitutes valid grounds for abortion in America right now. Is it legal for anyone to do it, say a fallback for contraception? Or must there be medical reasons (such as the mother's life being in danger). It wouldn't hurt to know what term abortion is acceptable into as well.
Amaya wrote:Abortion should only be allowed for rape victims.
That's actually a less logical position than the more extreme position of disallowing abortion in all cases, assuming you oppose abortion on the grounds of some theoretical rights of the fetus. If abortion is wrong because the fetus has rights, then it wrong regardless of the circumstances that caused that fetus to come into being.
More pragmatically, criminalizing abortion but allowing a rape exception isn't going to work. Here's why: If there is a rape exception and no proof of rape is required, then any woman seeking an abortion will simply claim to have been raped. So rather than end abortions, all such a law will do is encourage women to lie about rape. If there is a rape exception and proof of rape is required, then most women who have been raped will be forced to bear their rapists child -- only 8.5% of rapes lead to a conviction. In addition it can take months to go to trial, which means that by the time a woman has proven she was raped, it may be too late to perform an abortion.
It just doesn't work.
And you're mistaken in thinking that all conservatives are anti homosexual rights. I honestly don't give a feth. Marriage is only what the individual makes it out to be. It's a joke now anyways, people getting divorced 2-3 times in their lifetime.
Movement conservatives are either anti-homosexual rights, or perfectly willing to throw gay people under a bus in pursuit of some other goal. If you vote for the movement, if you donate to the movement, if you rally for the movement, then you are giving support to a homophobic agenda, whether you want to admit it or not.
Gailbraithe wrote:
That's actually a less logical position than the more extreme position of disallowing abortion in all cases, assuming you oppose abortion on the grounds of some theoretical rights of the fetus. If abortion is wrong because the fetus has rights, then it wrong regardless of the circumstances that caused that fetus to come into being.
That depends on where the rights of the fetus are thought to emanate from.
Gailbraithe wrote:
If there is a rape exception and proof of rape is required, then most women who have been raped will be forced to bear their rapists child -- only 8.5% of rapes lead to a conviction.
It is difficult to prove who raped whom, but it is relatively easy to prove who was, or was not, raped. You can't lay rape convictions against abortion law as a solid barometer of prediction.
Amaya wrote:It has nothing do with an ugly world. It's pretty simple. Don't do it without protection. Don't do it when you can get pregnant. Don't do it if you're afraid to have the kid.
But yes, punish the kid because you can't keep your junk in your pants or have an urge to spread your legs for every other guy you meet.
Having children is not an appropriate punishment for being sexually irresponsible. Children should never be a punishment. And that is exactly what you are describing, children as a punishment for "having an urge to spread your legs for every other guy you meet."
And considering how much more intensely women suffer that punishment, it's also a deeply misogynistic position. But still, I commend you for at least mentioning the father not keeping his junk in his pants. Most men who oppose abortion on these sort of grounds only seem to think women should be punished for being sexually active.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:It is difficult to prove who raped whom, but it is relatively easy to prove who was, or was not, raped.
No, it's really not. But please, do explain how this determination can be made with relative ease.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:I don't give any money to any movements. I don't support any politicians. They are all corrupt and all obsessed with their own power.
Republicans want to keep immigrants out to maintain their power.
Democrts want to remove voter id requirements so they can get votes from them.
They are all fething bastards.
Then you are not a conservative by any definition I care about.
People who don't participate in the political system can hardly be said to have a meaningful position politically.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
dogma wrote:Also, even if we cannot legislate what constitutes a human, we can absolutely legislate what is proper with respect to humans. In fact, that's basically what legislation is about.
I'm a bit hazy on what constitutes valid grounds for abortion in America right now. Is it legal for anyone to do it, say a fallback for contraception? Or must there be medical reasons (such as the mother's life being in danger). It wouldn't hurt to know what term abortion is acceptable into as well.
Abortion is completely legal for any reason up to the third trimester. During the third trimester it varies from state to state, but is legal in most.
In many states however it is very difficult or impossible to get an abortion, sometimes due to parental notification laws, but more often due simply to a lack of providers. In many parts of the country right wing violence and terrorism, whether it be bombing clinics or shooting doctors, has cowed local medical establishments into not offering the service.
Gailbraithe wrote:
If there is a rape exception and proof of rape is required, then most women who have been raped will be forced to bear their rapists child -- only 8.5% of rapes lead to a conviction.
It is difficult to prove who raped whom, but it is relatively easy to prove who was, or was not, raped. You can't lay rape convictions against abortion law as a solid barometer of prediction.
That's what I thought.
So what state has the most 'liberal' abortion laws and what state has the least, or bans it outright?
Gailbraithe wrote:
No, it's really not. But please, do explain how this determination can be made with relative ease.
I assume you've heard of rape kits, so and the associated metrics that involve their use, so I won't demean you by detailing their explicit contents. Wikipedia has adecent entry on the matter if you are really ignorant of anything related to them.
Anyway, rape is easy to prove because the violence associated with non-consent produces consistent, and clear, paterns of distress on the body of the victim (man, or woman). It isn't as though the DoJ produces its rape estimates via pure guesswork. They actually examine hospital visits and lay them against reported rape cases.
Amaya wrote:I don't give any money to any movements. I don't support any politicians. They are all corrupt and all obsessed with their own power.
Republicans want to keep immigrants out to maintain their power.
Democrts want to remove voter id requirements so they can get votes from them.
They are all fething bastards.
Then you are not a conservative by any definition I care about.
People who don't participate in the political system can hardly be said to have a meaningful position politically.
Heh. Funny it's...nevermind. I'll probably get yelled at.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
dogma wrote:Also, even if we cannot legislate what constitutes a human, we can absolutely legislate what is proper with respect to humans. In fact, that's basically what legislation is about.
I'm a bit hazy on what constitutes valid grounds for abortion in America right now. Is it legal for anyone to do it, say a fallback for contraception? Or must there be medical reasons (such as the mother's life being in danger). It wouldn't hurt to know what term abortion is acceptable into as well.
Abortion is completely legal for any reason up to the third trimester. During the third trimester it varies from state to state, but is legal in most.
In many states however it is very difficult or impossible to get an abortion, sometimes due to parental notification laws, but more often due simply to a lack of providers. In many parts of the country right wing violence and terrorism, whether it be bombing clinics or shooting doctors, has cowed local medical establishments into not offering the service.
So when is a fetus considered to have rights? Somewhere in the third trimester? Even so, having a law that allows abortion out of convenience rather than any other reason rubs me the wrong way.
Gailbraithe wrote:
In many states however it is very difficult or impossible to get an abortion, sometimes due to parental notification laws, but more often due simply to a lack of providers. In many parts of the country right wing violence and terrorism, whether it be bombing clinics or shooting doctors, has cowed local medical establishments into not offering the service.
Right, or not. Dude, I'm the first person to note the problems that the right has with abortion, but it isn't bombing that has kept providers from offering the service. Not int my experience (having paid for 2 abortions, not my children) in Minnesota, Illinois, or Missouri. In my experience the issue is one of a lack of funding for non-paying clients.
Still a result of political pressure, but not a result of bombing.
LordofHats wrote:The people with money to pay for abortions generally don't want them.
You'd think that's why there's so much lobbying for government funding for it.
More or less. Point is that conservative terrorism isn't why places don't offer abortions. The demographic group most likely to want one is also the group least likely to have the money to pay for one.
Gailbraithe wrote:
No, it's really not. But please, do explain how this determination can be made with relative ease.
I assume you've heard of rape kits, so and the associated metrics that involve their use, so I won't demean you by detailing their explicit contents. Wikipedia has adecent entry on the matter if you are really ignorant of anything related to them.
I have worked in a rape crises center, and have trained people on the use of rape kits. So yes, I am familiar with them. Rape kits cannot be used to prove a rape occurred. That is not what rape kits are for, that is not how they are used, and that is not what they do.
Anyway, rape is easy to prove because the violence associated with non-consent produces consistent, and clear, paterns of distress on the body of the victim (man, or woman).
Hah hah hah hah. Yeah, no. Sorry, doesn't work like that at all. Completely consensual sex can leave the exact same kind of marks, especially if its the good kind of sex, and many women do not struggle or resist their rapist out of fear. Except in case where rape is accompanied by violent assault (which, btw, is NOT most cases) they are rarely clear cut. No one who has any actual experience in this field would ever describe such evidence as easy to obtain or easy to use to prove rape.
It isn't as though the DoJ produces its rape estimates via pure guesswork. They actually examine hospital visits and lay them against reported rape cases.
The DoJ, as it points out on that page you linked to, determines it statistics via the National Crime Victimization Survey. Which is done over the telephone, and relies entirely on self-reporting. They do not actually examine hospital visits, which (duh) would require the violation of doctor-patient privilege.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:So when is a fetus considered to have rights? Somewhere in the third trimester? Even so, having a law that allows abortion out of convenience rather than any other reason rubs me the wrong way.
A fetus never has rights in America. Not until its born.
Gailbraithe wrote:
I have worked in a rape crises center, and have trained people on the use of rape kits. So yes, I am familiar with them. Rape kits cannot be used to prove a rape occurred. That is not what rape kits are for, that is not how they are used, and that is not what they do.
Link wrote:
The Sexual Offense Evidence Collection Kit was developed to create a standard protocol for hospital personnel to follow in the collection of evidence from persons involved in any criminal incident involving a sexual offense. It was established through the cooperative efforts of the State Crime Laboratories, the Division of Criminal Justice Services, the State Police and the Department of Health.
Dependent upon reporting, but I already noted that.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Hah hah hah hah. Yeah, no. Sorry, doesn't work like that at all. Completely consensual sex can leave the exact same kind of marks, especially if its the good kind of sex, and many women do not struggle or resist their rapist out of fear. Except in case where rape is accompanied by violent assault (which, btw, is NOT most cases) they are rarely clear cut. No one who has any actual experience in this field would ever describe such evidence as easy to obtain or easy to use to prove rape.
Involuntary clenching does not follow from the 'good kind of sex'. If you want to get explicit about this, then I'm willing to d oso, but I doubt this is the proper forum.
Gailbraithe wrote:
The DoJ, as it points out on that page you linked to, determines it statistics via the National Crime Victimization Survey. Which is done over the telephone, and relies entirely on self-reporting. They do not actually examine hospital visits, which (duh) would require the violation of doctor-patient privilege.
No, the DoJ agregates it statistics, which is what the page that I linked to notes. The NCVS is one of the components of that aggregate, but not the only one. Note that there are multiple citations that do not read "ibid".
And, by the way, doctor patient confidentiality only applies to statistics that include names. Anonymous stats are not subject to that regulation.
In 2003, 38.5 percent of rapes and sexual assaults were reported to the police
That statement implies that statistics are collected that do not involve reporting, which is clear given the support mechanism that exists for rape victims. They don't need to say they were raped, they only need to enter the support group.
Gailbraithe wrote:
A fetus never has rights in America. Not until its born.
Gailbraithe wrote:
I have worked in a rape crises center, and have trained people on the use of rape kits. So yes, I am familiar with them. Rape kits cannot be used to prove a rape occurred. That is not what rape kits are for, that is not how they are used, and that is not what they do.
Link wrote:The Sexual Offense Evidence Collection Kit was developed to create a standard protocol for hospital personnel to follow in the collection of evidence from persons involved in any criminal incident involving a sexual offense. It was established through the cooperative efforts of the State Crime Laboratories, the Division of Criminal Justice Services, the State Police and the Department of Health.
Dependent upon reporting, but I already noted that.
Yes, rape kits collect evidence that may be useful in proving a rape has occurred in a court of law, but they do not prove that a rape has occurred.
Gailbraithe wrote:Hah hah hah hah. Yeah, no. Sorry, doesn't work like that at all. Completely consensual sex can leave the exact same kind of marks, especially if its the good kind of sex, and many women do not struggle or resist their rapist out of fear. Except in case where rape is accompanied by violent assault (which, btw, is NOT most cases) they are rarely clear cut. No one who has any actual experience in this field would ever describe such evidence as easy to obtain or easy to use to prove rape.
Involuntary clenching does not follow from the 'good kind of sex'. If you want to get explicit about this, then I'm willing to d oso, but I doubt this is the proper forum.
Involuntary clenching is not proof of rape. In fact there is no real correlation between involuntary vaginal clenching and rape. Involuntary vaginal clenching, or vaginismus, occurs regardless of whether the sex is consensual or not. Rape does not, despite your claims, produce consistent, and clear, patterns of distress on the body of the victim.
In 2003, 38.5 percent of rapes and sexual assaults were reported to the police
That statement implies that statistics are collected that do not involve reporting, which is clear given the support mechanism that exists for rape victims. They don't need to say they were raped, they only need to enter the support group.
They determine the number of unreported rapes by comparing the number of rapes reported in the NCVS with the number of rapes reported to the police.
Gailbraithe wrote:A fetus never has rights in America. Not until its born.
That depends on who you talk to.
No, it doesn't. That's the current standing of the law. People may be of the opinion that fetuses have rights, but in American law fetuses have no legal standing and are not recognized as person, and thus have no rights.
Link wrote:The Sexual Offense Evidence Collection Kit was developed to create a standard protocol for hospital personnel to follow in the collection of evidence from persons involved in any criminal incident involving a sexual offense. It was established through the cooperative efforts of the State Crime Laboratories, the Division of Criminal Justice Services, the State Police and the Department of Health.
Dependent upon reporting, but I already noted that.
Yes, rape kits collect evidence that may be useful in proving a rape has occurred in a court of law, but they do not prove that a rape has occurred.
Woah, what?
"Rape kits collect evidence that can be used to show someone was raped, but they cannot prove that a rape has occurred."
Gailbraithe wrote:
Yes, rape kits collect evidence that may be useful in proving a rape has occurred in a court of law, but they do not prove that a rape has occurred.
Proof varies according to context. In law, and most social sciences, 'proof' is discussed euphemistically because it is basically a bogeyman. That's the the sense in which I was using the word 'proof'; ie. a significant piece of significant evidence.
I was not using it to refer to 'proof' in the sense of logic, or mathematics.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Involuntary clenching is not proof of rape. In fact there is no real correlation between involuntary vaginal clenching and rape. Involuntary vaginal clenching, or vaginismus, occurs regardless of whether the sex is consensual or not. Rape does not, despite your claims, produce consistent, and clear, patterns of distress on the body of the victim.
Actually, there is a strong correlation between vaginal clenching and rape. No, it isn't a causal relationship, but it correlates strongly; above .75.
Gailbraithe wrote:
They determine the number of unreported rapes by comparing the number of rapes reported in the NCVS with the number of rapes reported to the police.
And the number of rapes reported to the NCVS is determined by people observing people coming in for rape counseling; ie. it has nothing to do with what thing are reported (where reporting is based on response to police) as rape.
Gailbraithe wrote:
No, it doesn't. That's the current standing of the law. People may be of the opinion that fetuses have rights, but in American law fetuses have no legal standing and are not recognized as person, and thus have no rights.
No, the law takes no stance of when someone becomes a person, not as an aggregate. For example, you aren't a person according to the law, nor am I. The law doesn't care.
Link wrote:The Sexual Offense Evidence Collection Kit was developed to create a standard protocol for hospital personnel to follow in the collection of evidence from persons involved in any criminal incident involving a sexual offense. It was established through the cooperative efforts of the State Crime Laboratories, the Division of Criminal Justice Services, the State Police and the Department of Health.
Dependent upon reporting, but I already noted that.
Yes, rape kits collect evidence that may be useful in proving a rape has occurred in a court of law, but they do not prove that a rape has occurred.
Woah, what?
"Rape kits collect evidence that can be used to show someone was raped, but they cannot prove that a rape has occurred."
No, rape kits don't collect evidence to show someone was raped, they collect evidence that may be used to identify the rapist. You can use a rape kit to determine if someone has had sex, but not if they were raped. The evidence collected by a rape kit can determine whether a person has had sex, and can be used to identify that person (when the evidence is processed by a DNA identification lab), but a rape kit cannot determine if that sex was consensual or non-consensual.
Dogma's claim that rape can be easily proven by the vaginal exam part of a rape kit procedure is absolute nonsense. It has no factual validity at all. The external injuries documented can be caused by any rough or exuberent sex, and the internal injuries he is referring to can be caused by any number of factors, from improper use of lubrication, to vaginismus (an extremely common condition, especially with younger women), to the male having too large of a member.
More importantly, the lack of such injuries is no way proof that a rape did not occur, which is the far more insidious implication of what dogma is saying. The reality is that many women who are raped respond exactly as they would to consensual sex, even achieving orgasm. If a woman lubricates naturally, which is an involuntary response, then there will be little or no evidence of trauma. What dogma is saying, though he may not realize it, is that rape is always violent. But the opposite is true. Rape is often not violent. Rape often occurs because a woman is too scared to say no and too intimidated to resist. And there won't be evidence of resistance if she does not resist.
It's also important to note that a rape kit is useless after 72, and that's assuming the victim wears the same clothes and does not shower or bathe for those three days. After 72 hours, there is no evidence to collect. I bring that up because we are talking about proving a rape occurred in the context of a rape exclusion for abortion.
Here's my concern. A young woman meets a man at a party. They are both drinking, she is not thinking clearly. She allows herself to be separated from the crowd and taken somewhere secluded, where the man begins making sexual advances. She is drunk, confused, and scared, and she doesn't resist, even though she doesn't want to have sex. She lubricates normally and orgasms, and like many women who have this experience when raped she feels tremendous shame. She is deeply conflicted and confused, and she doesn't know if she was raped or not. This shame is so intense that she pushes the experience out of her mind, doing nothing in response to it. She simply can't cope with it, so she engages in avoidance behavior. Because she's traumatized. Three weeks later she realizes she's missed her period and she's pregnant.
I want her to be able to go get an abortion, and I don't want her to have to tell anyone why, or provide any proof, or ask anyone's permission. I don't want to compound her trauma by forcing her to revisit it again and again. I don't want her to have to prove to someone, especially some man, that it was rape and not just sex she regrets. And that's why I think a rape exclusion is a bad idea, and that abortion should simply be legal with no questions asked.
It's also why dogma assertion that it's "relatively easy" to prove a rape occurred is ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Actually, there is a strong correlation between vaginal clenching and rape. No, it isn't a causal relationship, but it correlates strongly; above .75.
Do you have any citations in support of that, because I have researched this stuff pretty thoroughly and never came across anything like that in the literature. Which is why I find the claim highly suspicious.
Gailbraithe wrote:They determine the number of unreported rapes by comparing the number of rapes reported in the NCVS with the number of rapes reported to the police.
And the number of rapes reported to the NCVS is determined by people observing people coming in for rape counseling; ie. it has nothing to do with what thing are reported (where reporting is based on response to police) as rape.
No, as I said earlier, the NCVS is a phone poll that randomly samples the population and depends entirely on self-reporting. Its conducted by the Census bureau. I participated in the one they did in the mid-nineties.
This thing you're claiming about rape counseling is made-up, it's completely fictitious. Never happened.
Gailbraithe wrote:No, the law takes no stance of when someone becomes a person, not as an aggregate. For example, you aren't a person according to the law, nor am I. The law doesn't care.
Yeah, well, the stack of criminal law books I read while obtaining my criminal justice degree says otherwise. So there.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Dogma's claim that rape can be easily proven by the vaginal exam part of a rape kit procedure is absolute nonsense. It has no factual validity at all.
The word that you want is 'relevance'.
Gailbraithe wrote:
What dogma is saying, though he may not realize it, is that rape is always violent. But the opposite is true. Rape is often not violent. Rape often occurs because a woman is too scared to say no and too intimidated to resist. And there won't be evidence of resistance if she does not resist.
No, that isn't what I am saying. Do not put words in my mouth.
If, as you claim, rape is entirely involuntary, then the woman should not self-lubricate on an unwelcome penetration; ie. if it feels bad, then it is bad.
Gailbraithe wrote:
, and she doesn't know if she was raped or not.
Was she?
It is a central question,
Gailbraithe wrote:
It's also why dogma assertion that it's "relatively easy" to prove a rape occurred is ridiculous.
Sure, when 'rape' is basically any sex that isn't demanded by the woman.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Do you have any citations in support of that, because I have researched this stuff pretty thoroughly and never came across anything like that in the literature. Which is why I find the claim highly suspicious.
Gailbraithe wrote:
No, as I said earlier, the NCVS is a phone poll that randomly samples the population and depends entirely on self-reporting. Its conducted by the Census bureau. I participated in the one they did in the mid-nineties.
This thing you're claiming about rape counseling is made-up, it's completely fictitious. Never happened.
The NCVS uses a stratified cluster sample. That means they attempt to qualify, aesthetically by necessity, and control their results for various social lines.
But hey, keep talking about my lying, I'm sure that it will eventually become a valid argument.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Yeah, well, the stack of criminal law books I read while obtaining my criminal justice degree says otherwise. So there.
It's also important to note that a rape kit is useless after 72, and that's assuming the victim wears the same clothes and does not shower or bathe for those three days. After 72 hours, there is no evidence to collect. I bring that up because we are talking about proving a rape occurred in the context of a rape exclusion for abortion.
Well, itis pretty clear it wouldn't be useful as an allowance for abortion then. What were you guys arguing about?
I want her to be able to go get an abortion, and I don't want her to have to tell anyone why, or provide any proof, or ask anyone's permission. I don't want to compound her trauma by forcing her to revisit it again and again. I don't want her to have to prove to someone, especially some man, that it was rape and not just sex she regrets. And that's why I think a rape exclusion is a bad idea, and that abortion should simply be legal with no questions asked.
So...when, in your opinion, should a baby/fetus have a right to life? Becuase by demanding a 'no questions asked' abortion policy you are going to make it available for everyone who can't be bothered to take the correct precuations or close their legs.
If you research the abortion laws of western nations you will find the answers to your question.
Back on to the topic of abortion only for rape victims.
1. Why does a child of rape have less right to life than a child of love or of a failure of contraception?
2. How would a rape victim be judged? Do we wait for the result of the court case? What if it is innocent? What if the man involved was never discovered? How do these points affect the woman's rights?
If a woman wants an abortion, frankly, she should get one. A teenager's sense of outrage should not be a reason to disallow it.
Wow, overreaction? I didn't think I was coming across as outrageous. I just think the abortion issue is a lot more complicated than it being "the womans body, womans choice".
If a woman wants an abortion, frankly, she should get one. A teenager's sense of outrage should not be a reason to disallow it.
Wow, overreaction? I didn't think I was coming across as outrageous. I just think the abortion issue is a lot more complicated than it being "the womans body, womans choice".
The word is 'outraged', not 'outrageous' - and it wasn't just directed at you. It was directed at the other people who made 'can't keep their legs closed'-type statements (some of whom are undoubtedly virgins, interestingly enough).
Now, I don't think abortion is SuperFunTime!!!! or anything, don't get me wrong. My ex and I nearly aborted our son, and let me tell you, it's not a decision one takes lightly. It's fething grim. We didn't go through with it and I'm glad, but if we had have done I would have no regrets. A foetus is not a baby, it's a foetus. If a woman decides to abort her foetus, then that should be her decision, as she will have to live with that for the rest of her life - don't make the mistake of thinking it's an easy decision to make.
Emperors Faithful wrote:So...when, in your opinion, should a baby/fetus have a right to life? Becuase by demanding a 'no questions asked' abortion policy you are going to make it available for everyone who can't be bothered to take the correct precuations or close their legs.
18 months after birth. It's when humans are capable of demonstrating self-awareness via the mirror test.
I don't believe that any significant number of women use abortion in lieu of birth control. In my experience, there are some women who are sexually licentious, irresponsible, and consequently have multiple abortions over the course of their life, but I have never met such a woman who wasn't also the victim of serious sexual trauma, addicted to drugs, and generally extremely unfit to be a mother (though most of them were).
And again, forcing someone to have children because they behaved irresponsibly is never an appropriate punishment. Any argument that is predicated on a desire to punish the mother for sexual licentiousness and irresponsibility is a fundamentally misogynistic attitude, arising not out of a concern for the rights of the child, but out of a generalized hatred for women.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:No, that isn't what I am saying. Do not put words in my mouth.
It's the implication of many of your comments, which are all quite disturbing.
If, as you claim, rape is entirely involuntary, then the woman should not self-lubricate on an unwelcome penetration; ie. if it feels bad, then it is bad.
What? I never said rape was involuntary. The response to sexual stimulation is involuntary. That's why some women lubricate and orgasm when raped, regardless of whether the penetration is welcome or not. Just as some women do not lubricate or orgasm no matter how welcome the penetration is.
Sure, when 'rape' is basically any sex that isn't demanded by the woman.
That is exactly what rape is, dogma. Rape is non-consensual sex.
Gailbraithe wrote:Do you have any citations in support of that, because I have researched this stuff pretty thoroughly and never came across anything like that in the literature. Which is why I find the claim highly suspicious.
So that's a no? I'm not sure what a document about the g-spot is supposed to demonstrate. There is no mention of vaginal clenching anywhere in that document according to a search for the term. Am I supposed to read the whole thing? Because I don't really see how a document about helping women achieve earth-shattering orgasms is really relevant to this discussion at all.
Gailbraithe wrote:
No, as I said earlier, the NCVS is a phone poll that randomly samples the population and depends entirely on self-reporting. Its conducted by the Census bureau. I participated in the one they did in the mid-nineties.
This thing you're claiming about rape counseling is made-up, it's completely fictitious. Never happened.
Um, dogma? That's not the NCVS. That the NVAWS. And once again, the link doesn't substantiate what you're claiming at all.
The NCVS uses a stratified cluster sample. That means they attempt to qualify, aesthetically by necessity, and control their results for various social lines.
'kay. Never said it didn't. The rape counseling thing still has jack to do with the NCVS. Or the NVAWS either, as that is also a telephone based poll that uses self-reporting.
But hey, keep talking about my lying, I'm sure that it will eventually become a valid argument.
I'm not saying you're lying. I'm saying that the things you are claiming as facts have no basis in reality.
Gailbraithe wrote:Yeah, well, the stack of criminal law books I read while obtaining my criminal justice degree says otherwise. So there.
Appeal to authority.
Yes, that's right. I am appealing to the authority of my education in criminal law on a question of the law. Appeals to authority are only a fallacy when the authority being appealed to is irrelevant to the question being asked.
Emperors Faithful wrote:So...when, in your opinion, should a baby/fetus have a right to life? Becuase by demanding a 'no questions asked' abortion policy you are going to make it available for everyone who can't be bothered to take the correct precuations or close their legs.
18 months after birth. It's when humans are capable of demonstrating self-awareness via the mirror test.
Wait did you just say it should be ok to murder children up to 18 months old? I've known kids who could talk at that point.
I am not going to say that statement is insane. I will say that that qualifies the doctor for the needle.
Emperors Faithful wrote:So...when, in your opinion, should a baby/fetus have a right to life? Becuase by demanding a 'no questions asked' abortion policy you are going to make it available for everyone who can't be bothered to take the correct precuations or close their legs.
18 months after birth. It's when humans are capable of demonstrating self-awareness via the mirror test.
Wait did you just say it should be ok to murder children up to 18 months old? I've known kids who could talk at that point.
I am not going to say that statement is insane. I will say that that qualifies the doctor for the needle.
Would I be remiss in saying that someone who actually thinks this way(18 months? You're fething sick in the head.) doesn't have a soul, and shouldn't really be considered a human being at all?
Albatross wrote:The word is 'outraged', not 'outrageous'
Truly outrageous.
I think that the "keep your legs closed" crowd could do with a bit more tact, but I think that the point they are trying to make is that it's not all that hard to avoid unwanted pregnancies.
Emperors Faithful wrote:So...when, in your opinion, should a baby/fetus have a right to life? Becuase by demanding a 'no questions asked' abortion policy you are going to make it available for everyone who can't be bothered to take the correct precuations or close their legs.
18 months after birth. It's when humans are capable of demonstrating self-awareness via the mirror test.
Wait did you just say it should be ok to murder children up to 18 months old? I've known kids who could talk at that point.
I am not going to say that statement is insane. I will say that that qualifies the doctor for the needle.
I'm not saying its okay to murder children up to 18 months old. I'm saying that an infant doesn't have rights. Or more accurately, shouldn't be treated as a rights bearing individual. Much like animals under the current law. For example, a dog has no right to life under US law. But that doesn't mean its legal to kill dogs all willy-nilly. A veterinarian or animal shelter may euthanize dogs, but you can't go down to the pound, buy a dog, take it home and then beat it to death with a stick. You'll go to jail. But not because a dog has rights, but because the law says that you can't beat dogs to death in your backyard.
So just because an infant doesn't have rights doesn't mean it's acceptable to kill it. There are plenty of people who can't have children who would like children, and once a child is born I would argue that the desire of those people to have a child trumps any desire of the biological parents to not have a child, and thus a transfer of guardianship should occur. While that desire for children is insufficient to compel a woman to bear a child a term against her will, once the child is born there is really no way to justify killing it if its healthy so long as there are other people who would want the child.
But let's say that a mother gives birth to a child, and due to a lack of access to prenatal care (perhaps she lives in the third world), it is only discovered after birth that the child has some horrific birth defect that ensures it will live a short and painful life, never maturing into adulthood. Perhaps it's life expectancy is measured in weeks. Is it murder to euthanize such a child? I don't think so. I don't see any value in preserving a doomed life that will experience nothing but suffering, and I see no reason to force parents to endure the agony of watching a child slowly deteriorate and die when euthanasia would clearly be more merciful.
Gailbraithe wrote:
It's the implication of many of your comments, which are all quite disturbing.
Give an example, and show how my words imply what you're claiming.
I'm inclined to think that you're simply making inferences regarding my comments, as it is highly unlikely that a series of comments, even related ones, can imply the same thing.
Gailbraithe wrote:
What? I never said rape was involuntary. The response to sexual stimulation is involuntary. That's why some women lubricate and orgasm when raped, regardless of whether the penetration is welcome or not. Just as some women do not lubricate or orgasm no matter how welcome the penetration is.
Yes, that was an error of speech on my part.
In any case, I'm not claiming a perfect causal relationship between rape and self-lubrication. I'm claiming a high incidence of correlation; producing individual incidences of alternate conditions does not disprove correlation.
Gailbraithe wrote:
That is exactly what rape is, dogma. Rape is non-consensual sex.
That's not what I said. There is a difference between that which is not demanded and that which is not consensual. Consent can be given without demanding.
Also, I should correct myself. Gender has no bearing on rape. Rape occurs whenever one of the participants does not consent.
Gailbraithe wrote:
So that's a no? I'm not sure what a document about the g-spot is supposed to demonstrate. There is no mention of vaginal clenching anywhere in that document according to a search for the term. Am I supposed to read the whole thing? Because I don't really see how a document about helping women achieve earth-shattering orgasms is really relevant to this discussion at all.
Honestly, I just wanted to see if you would read it. But it does, particularly in regards to the respondent section, indicate a role of psychological choice regarding the response to sex.
If you can't access it I'll dig around and see if I can find it in another archive.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Um, dogma? That's not the NCVS. That the NVAWS. And once again, the link doesn't substantiate what you're claiming at all.
Yes, I'm aware that it isn't the NCVS. It does, however, use the same methodology as the NCVS, and since methodology is what we're talking, and this survey is more usefully presented, it seemed better to use it. The bit that substantiates my claim does so obliquely, but it is support none the less; in particular I am referring to the discussion of sample construction.
Gailbraithe wrote:
'kay. Never said it didn't. The rape counseling thing still has jack to do with the NCVS. Or the NVAWS either, as that is also a telephone based poll that uses self-reporting.
NCVS uses multiple modes of interview, including computer assisted phone interview, face-to-face interview, and nominal phone interview. The NVAWS is entirely phone based, but the clusters created in order to perform the phone interviews are defined by census regions, chosen in accordance with rape reporting by police and counseling centers. This is a common criticism of the survey's methodology, and it stems from the fact that randomization did not enter the methodological picture until the consideration of 100-banks.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Yes, that's right. I am appealing to the authority of my education in criminal law on a question of the law. Appeals to authority are only a fallacy when the authority being appealed to is irrelevant to the question being asked.
No, appeals to authority are always fallacious. They're formal fallacies because you aren't establishing the truth of your claim, you're establishing the truth of what someone else says about your claim. You aren't even doing it particularly well, because no one here knows anything about your criminal law books.
There would be no fallacy were you to argue that the assertion of an auority is true; eg. you can defend the position of an authority. It is a fallacy when, as you have here, you use the authority as a shield to exempt your argument from criticism.
Albatross wrote:A foetus is not a baby, it's a foetus. If a woman decides to abort her foetus, then that should be her decision, as she will have to live with that for the rest of her life - don't make the mistake of thinking it's an easy decision to make.
And therein lies the core of the arguement. I'm not entirely convinced that this is true. Truth be told I don't know what to think, but then there's this...
Gailbraithe wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:So...when, in your opinion, should a baby/fetus have a right to life? Becuase by demanding a 'no questions asked' abortion policy you are going to make it available for everyone who can't be bothered to take the correct precuations or close their legs.
18 months after birth. It's when humans are capable of demonstrating self-awareness via the mirror test.
...
I don't believe that any significant number of women use abortion in lieu of birth control. In my experience, there are some women who are sexually licentious, irresponsible, and consequently have multiple abortions over the course of their life, but I have never met such a woman who wasn't also the victim of serious sexual trauma, addicted to drugs, and generally extremely unfit to be a mother (though most of them were).
I doubt many (if any) use abortion in lieu of birth control rather than just as a fallback from birth control.
And again, forcing someone to have children because they behaved irresponsibly is never an appropriate punishment. Any argument that is predicated on a desire to punish the mother for sexual licentiousness and irresponsibility is a fundamentally misogynistic attitude, arising not out of a concern for the rights of the child, but out of a generalized hatred for women.
I never said having children should be a punishment, by all means take the child away from an irresponsible mother and put it up for adoption. It's incredibly hard to adopt here in Australia at the moment, there are hundreds of couple waiting for the chance to adopt. I'm not arguing that women should be punished, I'm arguing that the child should have a shot at life. Which is exactly what abortion denies them.
I'm not saying its okay to murder children up to 18 months old. I'm saying that an infant doesn't have rights. Or more accurately, shouldn't be treated as a rights bearing individual. Much like animals under the current law. For example, a dog has no right to life under US law. But that doesn't mean its legal to kill dogs all willy-nilly. A veterinarian or animal shelter may euthanize dogs, but you can't go down to the pound, buy a dog, take it home and then beat it to death with a stick. You'll go to jail. But not because a dog has rights, but because the law says that you can't beat dogs to death in your backyard.
So it's not immoral to beat a dog to death in your backyard, it's just that the law says you can't. (BTW, dogs and other domestic pets do have a degree of rights. At least here in QLD)
So just because an infant doesn't have rights doesn't mean it's acceptable to kill it. There are plenty of people who can't have children who would like children, and once a child is born I would argue that the desire of those people to have a child trumps any desire of the biological parents to not have a child, and thus a transfer of guardianship should occur. While that desire for children is insufficient to compel a woman to bear a child a term against her will, once the child is born there is really no way to justify killing it if its healthy so long as there are other people who would want the child.
And you haven't even considered the child's basic right to life...oh that's right. According to you it doesn't exist.
But let's say that a mother gives birth to a child, and due to a lack of access to prenatal care (perhaps she lives in the third world), it is only discovered after birth that the child has some horrific birth defect that ensures it will live a short and painful life, never maturing into adulthood. Perhaps it's life expectancy is measured in weeks. Is it murder to euthanize such a child? I don't think so. I don't see any value in preserving a doomed life that will experience nothing but suffering, and I see no reason to force parents to endure the agony of watching a child slowly deteriorate and die when euthanasia would clearly be more merciful.
Gailbraithe wrote:[That rape is always violent] is the implication of many of your comments, which are all quite disturbing.
Give an example, and show how my words imply what you're claiming.
"Anyway, rape is easy to prove because the violence associated with non-consent produces..."
The obvious implication of this statement is that rape is inherently violent.
Gailbraithe wrote:In any case, I'm not claiming a perfect causal relationship between rape and self-lubrication. I'm claiming a high incidence of correlation; producing individual incidences of alternate conditions does not disprove correlation.
You're right, but that's not the point. The point is that correlation (which you haven't proven) is not proof. The point is that you can't prove a rape has occurred by this means.
Gailbraithe wrote:That's not what I said. There is a difference between that which is not demanded and that which is not consensual. Consent can be given without demanding.
This is an example of the sort of thing I would call a disturbing comment. A failure to say no is not consent. Consent can never be assumed, and if you are operating under the assumption that consent can be assumed without being expressed, then there exists the possibility that you have raped someone by assuming consent where it was not given. This sort of comment is disturbing because if one acts on this maxim, then one will do harm.
But I don't believe you've raped anyone. That would imply you've had sex.
Gailbraithe wrote:So that's a no? I'm not sure what a document about the g-spot is supposed to demonstrate. There is no mention of vaginal clenching anywhere in that document according to a search for the term. Am I supposed to read the whole thing? Because I don't really see how a document about helping women achieve earth-shattering orgasms is really relevant to this discussion at all.
Honestly, I just wanted to see if you would read it. But it does, particularly in regards to the respondent section, indicate a role of psychological choice regarding the response to sex.
If you can't access it I'll dig around and see if I can find it in another archive.
Is this another test to see if I'll actually click the link? Because that doesn't support your claim either.
Yes, I'm aware that it isn't the NCVS. It does, however, use the same methodology as the NCVS, and since methodology is what we're talking, and this survey is more usefully presented, it seemed better to use it. The bit that substantiates my claim does so obliquely, but it is support none the less; in particular I am referring to the discussion of sample construction.
You're evading.
Evidence in support of your claim that the NCVS data used as the basis of DoJ crime statistics is collected by observing the number of persons seeking rape counseling. You have presented nothing that supports this claim (or any of your claims), and are attempting to shift the goal posts here.
Either provide evidence that the DoJ monitors patient intakes for rape counseling or retract the claim.
Gailbraithe wrote:'kay. Never said it didn't. The rape counseling thing still has jack to do with the NCVS. Or the NVAWS either, as that is also a telephone based poll that uses self-reporting.
NCVS uses multiple modes of interview, including computer assisted phone interview, face-to-face interview, and nominal phone interview. The NVAWS is entirely phone based, but the clusters created in order to perform the phone interviews are defined by census regions, chosen in accordance with rape reporting by police and counseling centers. This is a common criticism of the survey's methodology, and it stems from the fact that randomization did not enter the methodological picture until the consideration of 100-banks.
That is a very different claim than your original claim.
Gailbraithe wrote:Yes, that's right. I am appealing to the authority of my education in criminal law on a question of the law. Appeals to authority are only a fallacy when the authority being appealed to is irrelevant to the question being asked.
No, appeals to authority are always fallacious. They're formal fallacies because you aren't establishing the truth of your claim, you're establishing the truth of what someone else says about your claim. You aren't even doing it particularly well, because no one here knows anything about your criminal law books.
There would be no fallacy were you to argue that the assertion of an auority is true; eg. you can defend the position of an authority. It is a fallacy when, as you have here, you use the authority as a shield to exempt your argument from criticism.
Consider the possibility I was dismissing you because I think you're an argumentative twit who doesn't know what he's talking about.
The doctrine of natural persons defines you and I as persons under the law. I learned that in college.
Albatross wrote:A foetus is not a baby, it's a foetus. If a woman decides to abort her foetus, then that should be her decision, as she will have to live with that for the rest of her life - don't make the mistake of thinking it's an easy decision to make.
And therein lies the core of the arguement. I'm not entirely convinced that this is true.
Based on what exactly? Your massive amount of life experience? Know a lot of girls who've had abortions do you? And they're what, fine with it?
How old are you? Because it sounds like you (and others) take the position of 'oh, it's just a substitute for contraception, why can't they just keep their legs closed?' so you can sound macho with a touch of world-weariness. You're a child. A child trying to display manly opinions.
But all you're really displaying is childish ignorance. Do you actually KNOW what an abortion entails?
Amaya wrote:@Monster Rain
Exactly.
What the feth do you mean 'exactly'? You can't just piggy-back Monster Rain because he knows how to discuss such a delicate topic with the appropriate level of tact. You had the chance to use your 'big boy voice' and you blew it.
Amaya wrote:Yes, you are calm. That is why you are throwing out insults.
But hey, I'll throw something into this little ring of fire.
You feel bad about aborting your son and you are now simply trying to justify it.
Reading failures aside, why would I attempt to justify something I felt bad about? Why would I support abortion if I had aborted a child and felt terrible about it? Surely I would be warning people off abortion, no?
All you're doing by saying stuff like that showing is that I hurt your feelings, man. You're an amateur at this.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Amaya - Just read your other post. Yep, touched a nerve.
Lesson: You haven't got the temprament for flaming. The idea is to make the OTHER person mad, not yourself. I'm laughing as I type this, therefore you lose.
Albatross wrote:What the feth do you mean 'exactly'? You can't just piggy-back Monster Rain because he knows how to discuss such a delicate topic with the appropriate level of tact. You had the chance to use your 'big boy voice' and you blew it.
Meh.
Not exactly necessary.
These are my big boy shoes.
Before you all start, I am perfectly calm.
Like 3 pints calm? Don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with a few drinks.
Albatross wrote:A foetus is not a baby, it's a foetus. If a woman decides to abort her foetus, then that should be her decision, as she will have to live with that for the rest of her life - don't make the mistake of thinking it's an easy decision to make.
And therein lies the core of the arguement. I'm not entirely convinced that this is true.
Based on what exactly? Your massive amount of life experience? Know a lot of girls who've had abortions do you? And they're what, fine with it?
How old are you? Because it sounds like you (and others) take the position of 'oh, it's just a substitute for contraception, why can't they just keep their legs closed?' so you can sound macho with a touch of world-weariness. You're a child. A child trying to display manly opinions.
But all you're really displaying is childish ignorance. Do you actually KNOW what an abortion entails?
I never said it was a substitute for contraception. Most women who get abortions are very likely to have good reasons, but some don't and there's no denying that to some an abortion is the answer to the 'worst case scenario'. I do know a girl whose mum was in favour of getting a later term abortion procedure, and she's never forgiven her for that. So I know a child of someone who wanted an abortion, but no I don't know anyone who has actually had an abortion.
And I don't know where you're getting this "world-weariness" stuff from.
You lost because you got angry. But keep on ploughing ahead, I'm sure you can pull it back.
Or do you really expect me to care what someone who actually considered killing his son thinks?
Maybe you should take him aside and be like, "Hey, boy, me and your selfish mother considered killing you because we have no self discipline."
You realise you are a mouse-click away from probably getting banned, yeah? That's why you lose. You over-reached in your attempts to make me mad.
Banned? For voicing an opinion.
Oh, okay. I see how it is. Everyone who is against the wholesale slaughter of our youth please report immediately so we can revoke your posting privileges.
Albatross wrote:A foetus is not a baby, it's a foetus. If a woman decides to abort her foetus, then that should be her decision, as she will have to live with that for the rest of her life - don't make the mistake of thinking it's an easy decision to make.
And therein lies the core of the arguement. I'm not entirely convinced that this is true.
Based on what exactly? Your massive amount of life experience? Know a lot of girls who've had abortions do you? And they're what, fine with it?
How old are you? Because it sounds like you (and others) take the position of 'oh, it's just a substitute for contraception, why can't they just keep their legs closed?' so you can sound macho with a touch of world-weariness. You're a child. A child trying to display manly opinions.
But all you're really displaying is childish ignorance. Do you actually KNOW what an abortion entails?
I never said it was a substitute for contraception. Most women who get abortions are very likely to have good reasons, but some don't and there's no denying that to some an abortion is the answer to the 'worst case scenario'. I do know a girl whose mum was in favour of getting a later term abortion procedure, and she's never forgiven her for that. So I know a child of someone who wanted an abortion, but no I don't know anyone who has actually had an abortion.
And I don't know where you're getting this "world-weariness" stuff from.
Well, because originally it seemed like you were trying to make it sound like you were drawing on a wealth of experience to come to the conclusion that abortion is an easy way out for some girls. You said you weren't 'convinced that it is true' that deciding to have an abortion is a difficult decision, but as you've demonstrated, that really isn't based on anything.
It's just a guess. Which is fine, but be honest about that.
I would be keen to find out exactly how old you and Amaya are, and how much sexual experience you have, because the pair of you seem ill-informed. For starters, it's possible to get pregnant whilst on the birth-control pill (or injection/implant) and to not realise for quite some time. It's not just a case of lack of restraint or discipline in applying contraceptive measures.
You lost because you got angry. But keep on ploughing ahead, I'm sure you can pull it back.
Or do you really expect me to care what someone who actually considered killing his son thinks?
Maybe you should take him aside and be like, "Hey, boy, me and your selfish mother considered killing you because we have no self discipline."
You realise you are a mouse-click away from probably getting banned, yeah? That's why you lose. You over-reached in your attempts to make me mad.
Banned? For voicing an opinion.
Oh, okay. I see how it is. Everyone who is against the wholesale slaughter of our youth please report immediately so we can revoke your posting privileges.
Yes you are the REAL victim in all this.
Won't SOMEBODY think of the children (I've flushed)?!!?
Well, because originally it seemed like you were trying to make it sound like you were drawing on a wealth of experience to come to the conclusion that abortion is an easy way out for some girls. You said you weren't 'convinced that it is true' that deciding to have an abortion is a difficult decision, but as you've demonstrated, that really isn't based on anything.
It's just a guess. Which is fine, but be honest about that.
Holy crap! No, I meant this bit.
Albatross wrote:A foetus is not a baby, it's a foetus.
I would be keen to find out exactly how old you and Amaya are, and how much sexual experience you have...
lol pedo.
Seriously though, while not a virgin my experience is not what it could be for a young lad of 17.
For starters, it's possible to get pregnant whilst on the birth-control pill (or injection/implant) and to not realise for quite some time. It's not just a case of lack of restraint or discipline in applying contraceptive measures.
How do I know this? Have a wild stab in the dark.
Yeah, I know that as well (Not from experience). Pretty long shot though, no?
Well, because originally it seemed like you were trying to make it sound like you were drawing on a wealth of experience to come to the conclusion that abortion is an easy way out for some girls. You said you weren't 'convinced that it is true' that deciding to have an abortion is a difficult decision, but as you've demonstrated, that really isn't based on anything.
It's just a guess. Which is fine, but be honest about that.
Holy crap! No, I meant this bit.
Albatross wrote:A foetus is not a baby, it's a foetus.
I would be keen to find out exactly how old you and Amaya are, and how much sexual experience you have...
lol pedo.
Seriously though, while not a virgin my experience is not what it could be for a young lad of 17.
For starters, it's possible to get pregnant whilst on the birth-control pill (or injection/implant) and to not realise for quite some time. It's not just a case of lack of restraint or discipline in applying contraceptive measures.
How do I know this? Have a wild stab in the dark.
Yeah, I know that as well (Not from experience). Pretty long shot though, no?
If you say so. It happened to both me and my sister.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Won't SOMEBODY think of the children (I've flushed)?!!?
Probably not the BEST choice of pic - I bet he's got a few in the bucket...
For starters, it's possible to get pregnant whilst on the birth-control pill (or injection/implant) and to not realise for quite some time. It's not just a case of lack of restraint or discipline in applying contraceptive measures.
How do I know this? Have a wild stab in the dark.
Yeah, I know that as well (Not from experience). Pretty long shot though, no?
If you say so. It happened to both me and my sister.
You were on the pill?
BTW, I hope you realise that this is what I was unsure about.
Albatross wrote:A foetus is not a baby, it's a foetus.
Not whether or not abortion is a difficult choice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Won't SOMEBODY think of the children (I've flushed)?!!?
Probably not the BEST choice of pic - I bet he's got a few in the bucket...
For starters, it's possible to get pregnant whilst on the birth-control pill (or injection/implant) and to not realise for quite some time. It's not just a case of lack of restraint or discipline in applying contraceptive measures.
How do I know this? Have a wild stab in the dark.
Yeah, I know that as well (Not from experience). Pretty long shot though, no?
If you say so. It happened to both me and my sister.
You were on the pill?
Smart-arse. No, my ex GF was on the pill. So was my sister. Not that I fethed my sister, you understand. Someone else did.
BTW, I hope you realise that this is what I was unsure about.
Albatross wrote:A foetus is not a baby, it's a foetus.
Not whether or not abortion is a difficult choice.
Coolio. All's well that ends well, I guess. Sort of like abortion.
Gailbraithe wrote:
This is an example of the sort of thing I would call a disturbing comment.
Wow. Coming from you?
Yes, I find it disturbing when people make arguments that provide justification for raping women.
Don't you?
I find it disturbing when someone says that a child of 18 months has no rights and is technically not human.
First of all, I never said that a child of 18 months is not human. Saying a infant has no rights implies that it is not a person under the law, not that it is not human.
Also, you and I may have very different ideas about what rights are and what it means to say a thing has rights. I have studied the law, and possibly have a better understanding of the implications of these statements than you do. Trust me, the implications of ascribing personhood before birth are far, far more disturbing. For example, if we define all human life as being a person and having rights, we have just sentenced women to eternal slavery to their own biology. It would literally strip all freedoms from women.
Gailbraithe wrote:
This is an example of the sort of thing I would call a disturbing comment.
Wow. Coming from you?
Yes, I find it disturbing when people make arguments that provide justification for raping women.
Don't you?
I find it disturbing when someone says that a child of 18 months has no rights and is technically not human.
First of all, I never said that a child of 18 months is not human. Saying a infant has no rights implies that it is not a person under the law, not that it is not human.
Also, you and I may have very different ideas about what rights are and what it means to say a thing has rights. I have studied the law, and possibly have a better understanding of the implications of these statements than you do. Trust me, the implications of ascribing personhood before birth are far, far more disturbing. For example, if we define all human life as being a person and having rights, we have just sentenced women to eternal slavery to their own biology. It would literally strip all freedoms from women.
THIS THREAD HAS CEASED TO BE ABOUT POLITICS AND WHATNOT
Gailbraithe wrote: For example, if we define all human life as being a person and having rights, we have just sentenced women to eternal slavery to their own biology. It would literally strip all freedoms from women.
Shadowbrand wrote:Oh dude. I'm so twisted /b/ spat me out and said I was delicious.
You mad?
Wait if you're so delicious the why would /b/ spit you out? Also more songs about sex!
Teenage baby you're a sweet young thing,
Still tied to Mommy's apron strings,
I don't even dare to ask your age,
It's enough to know you're here backstage,
You're Jailbait, and I just can't wait,
Jailbait baby come on
One chase baby, all I need,
My decision made at lightning speed,
I don't even want to know your name,
It's enough to know you feel the same,
Jailbait, and I just can't wait,
Jailbait baby get down
Tell you baby oh you look so fine,
Sending quivers up and down my spine,
I don't care about our different ages,
I'm an open book with well thumbed pages,
Jailbait, oh and I ain't too late,
Jailbait baby get down
[youtube][/youtube]
You know I'm bad, the times I've had,
I've got a bad reputation,
I don't care, I get my share,
Don't feel no deprivation,
The more I get the better it is,
I like it fine, I like a little whizz,
Treat 'em like ladies, that's a fact,
You know The Chase Is Better Than The Catch
The silver tongued devil, demon lynch,
I know just what I'm doing,
I like a little innocent bitch,
You know I ain't just screwing,
I ain't.
I love you baby, know you're too much,
I like it fine, I feel your touch,
But your appearance don't hold no class,
You know The Chase Is Better Than The Catch
A little beauty, I love you madly,
Come on home with me,
I know you're hot, I know what you've got,
You know I want to shake your tree,
Come on honey, touch me right there,
Come on honey, don't you get scared,
Come on honey, let me get you in the sack,
You know The Chase Is Better Than The Catch
Gailbraithe wrote: For example, if we define all human life as being a person and having rights, we have just sentenced women to eternal slavery to their own biology. It would literally strip all freedoms from women.
How so?
All of the available science indicates that a woman's health and fitness three months prior to conception is one the greatest contributing factors to the viability of a fertilized egg, which means that if we treat developing blastocytes as humans with full rights, then a woman who does not keep herself in good physical condition, refraining from alcohol, cigarettes, fatty foods, etc, is guilty of criminally negligent endangerment of another person. It means that miscarriages are manslaughter.
Because of this, and because no woman can ever know for certain whether she will become pregnant within the next three months (especially given the possibility of rape), it can be (and has been) argued that all women of breeding age must always treat themselves as pre-pregnant. In other words by asserting that a blastocyte is a human with the rights of a human, you have created all the legal groundwork necessary to draft laws that strip women of the right to engage in a huge range of behaviors that men won't be denied, all in the name of protecting a "person" who doesn't even exist yet.
Here's more on the subject of pre-pregnancy. Under current law, while doctors recommend that all women of childbearing age treat themselves as pre-pregnant it is not criminal negligence to do so, because a fetus has no rights, and thus its death due to accident or negligence on the part of the mother (i.e. a miscarriage) is of no concern to the law. Grant that fetus rights, and suddenly the law is obligated to step in a protect those rights.
Gailbraithe wrote:
First of all, I never said that a child of 18 months is not human. Saying a infant has no rights implies that it is not a person under the law, not that it is not human.
Even if true (and the idea of 'human' rights comes into this I guess) that claim isn't any less disturbing.
Also, you and I may have very different ideas about what rights are and what it means to say a thing has rights. I have studied the law, and possibly have a better understanding of the implications of these statements than you do. Trust me, the implications of ascribing personhood before birth are far, far more disturbing. For example, if we define all human life as being a person and having rights, we have just sentenced women to eternal slavery to their own biology. It would literally strip all freedoms from women.
So you studied a double degree in Arts/Law. Which University?
Secondly, the implication of declaring that children under 18 have no rights under the law is far, far more disturbing. And I don't know where you're getting this biological slavery argument from.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Even if true (and the idea of 'human' rights comes into this I guess) that claim isn't any less disturbing.
Why do you find it disturbing?
Also, you and I may have very different ideas about what rights are and what it means to say a thing has rights. I have studied the law, and possibly have a better understanding of the implications of these statements than you do. Trust me, the implications of ascribing personhood before birth are far, far more disturbing. For example, if we define all human life as being a person and having rights, we have just sentenced women to eternal slavery to their own biology. It would literally strip all freedoms from women.
So you studied a double degree in Arts/Law. Which University?
Shoreline Community College.
Secondly, the implication of declaring that children under 18 have no rights under the law is far, far more disturbing. And I don't know where you're getting this biological slavery argument from.
Gailbraithe wrote:
First of all, I never said that a child of 18 months is not human. Saying a infant has no rights implies that it is not a person under the law, not that it is not human.
Even if true (and the idea of 'human' rights comes into this I guess) that claim isn't any less disturbing.
That's exactly why what he's saying is, if you'll allow me to use the expression, cobblers.
Gailbraithe wrote: For example, if we define all human life as being a person and having rights, we have just sentenced women to eternal slavery to their own biology. It would literally strip all freedoms from women.
How so?
All of the available science indicates that a woman's health and fitness three months prior to conception is one the greatest contributing factors to the viability of a fertilized egg, which means that if we treat developing blastocytes as humans with full rights, then a woman who does not keep herself in good physical condition, refraining from alcohol, cigarettes, fatty foods, etc, is guilty of criminally negligent endangerment of another person. It means that miscarriages are manslaughter.
Because of this, and because no woman can ever know for certain whether she will become pregnant within the next three months (especially given the possibility of rape), it can be (and has been) argued that all women of breeding age must always treat themselves as pre-pregnant. In other words by asserting that a blastocyte is a human with the rights of a human, you have created all the legal groundwork necessary to draft laws that strip women of the right to engage in a huge range of behaviors that men won't be denied, all in the name of protecting a "person" who doesn't even exist yet.
Here's more on the subject of pre-pregnancy. Under current law, while doctors recommend that all women of childbearing age treat themselves as pre-pregnant it is not criminal negligence to do so, because a fetus has no rights, and thus its death due to accident or negligence on the part of the mother (i.e. a miscarriage) is of no concern to the law. Grant that fetus rights, and suddenly the law is obligated to step in a protect those rights.
You do understand the concept of a reasonable person, standard of care and duty of care right?
You would have to be able to legally prove that the woman had a reasonable assumption that she would get pregnant within 3 months. Contraception and other preventative measures would be the equivalent of taking reasonable measures. It is not reasonable for a woman to assume that she will get raped in the next three months, and you should know better than to suggest that. It is also not reasonable to make the assumption that every preventative measure will fail. If a woman was to drink, do drugs etc before having sex with protection she would not be held liable for criminal negligence as assuming the protection would work is a reasonable assumption. If you have studied law you really should know this.
If however the woman drinks, smokes, does drugs and has repeated unprotected sex over a period of three months it is reasonable to assume a high chance of pregnancy. Then it becomes a problem.
Emperors Faithful wrote:You do understand the concept of a reasonable person, standard of care and duty of care right?
Yes.
A reasonably prudent woman who had a duty to maintain a standard of care for the unborn persons residing in her ovaries would follow the guidelines suggested by the medical establishment -- that is what reasonable people do after all.
Emperors Faithful wrote:You do understand the concept of a reasonable person, standard of care and duty of care right?
Yes.
A reasonably prudent woman who had a duty to maintain a standard of care for the unborn persons residing in her ovaries would follow the guidelines suggested by the medical establishment -- that is what reasonable people do after all.
Or you could take reasonable preventative measures. That is what reasonable people do after all.
Gailbraithe wrote:[That rape is always violent] is the implication of many of your comments, which are all quite disturbing.
Give an example, and show how my words imply what you're claiming.
"Anyway, rape is easy to prove because the violence associated with non-consent produces..."
The obvious implication of this statement is that rape is inherently violent.
Yes, it is. Pretty much by definition. Rape is an act of force against consent, which makes it violent. Violence does not have to involve something like battery, which is what you seem to be assuming.
Gailbraithe wrote:
You're right, but that's not the point. The point is that correlation (which you haven't proven) is not proof. The point is that you can't prove a rape has occurred by this means.
Yes, correlation is a type of proof. That's its purpose in statistics. Can the presence of a correlate prove, on its own, that a certain thing has occurred? No, but I didn't argue to that fact. I said that rape is relatively easy to prove because there are many easily discernible correlates, the issue, from the perspective of criminal law, is that very few of those correlates are useful in the course of identifying a perpetrator.
Gailbraithe wrote:
dogma wrote:That's not what I said. There is a difference between that which is not demanded and that which is not consensual. Consent can be given without demanding.
Gailbraithe wrote:
This is an example of the sort of thing I would call a disturbing comment. A failure to say no is not consent.
Nor did I say that it was. I said that not demanding something is not the same as not consenting to it. To illustrate, I would absolutely consent to someone giving me 2 million dollars, but I'm not demanding that they do so. More directly, a person may consent to sex without demanding it, in fact its fair to say that most instances of sexual consent do not involve a demand for sex on the part of either party.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Consent can never be assumed, and if you are operating under the assumption that consent can be assumed without being expressed, then there exists the possibility that you have raped someone by assuming consent where it was not given. This sort of comment is disturbing because if one acts on this maxim, then one will do harm.
Again, I didn't say anything like what you're describing.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Is this another test to see if I'll actually click the link? Because that doesn't support your claim either.
It discusses the role that fear plays in determining genital response; where response is defined by increased blood flow and vaginal contraction (in women only, obviously). The emotional significance of this is a well documented cause of vaginismus, which allows vaginismus to be regarded as a reliable predictor of rape specifically, and sexual assault in general.
If you have access to JSTOR, or something similar, I can find more.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Evidence in support of your claim that the NCVS data used as the basis of DoJ crime statistics is collected by observing the number of persons seeking rape counseling. You have presented nothing that supports this claim (or any of your claims), and are attempting to shift the goal posts here.
No, that's not moving the goalposts. Moving the goalposts requires that one party to the argument dismiss a given type of evidence in the course of demanding greater evidence.
Offering something in evidence that you do not feel is valid is not moving the goalposts. Fallacies have very specific definitions.
In any case, you're correct, the NCVS does not include data derived from the observation of people who seek rape counseling.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Either provide evidence that the DoJ monitors patient intakes for rape counseling or retract the claim.
It looks like you're correct, the DoJ doesn't collect those statistics. I was thinking of the CALCAS survey, and some of the other research on sexual victimization.
Gailbraithe wrote:
That is a very different claim than your original claim.
My original claim was in regard to the NCVS, not the NVAWS. Methodologically they're the same, they only differ in the way that methodology is executed; though that is only due to their varying scope.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Consider the possibility I was dismissing you because I think you're an argumentative twit who doesn't know what he's talking about.
If that's the case, then why didn't you say that the first time? It would have saved us both some time, and you wouldn't have been forced to demonstrate a poor grasp of what constitutes a fallacious appeal to authority.
Gailbraithe wrote:
The doctrine of natural persons defines you and I as persons under the law. I learned that in college.
The doctrine of natural person is not statutory. Its an assumed property, which was the thing I was attempting to illustrate.
Emperors Faithful wrote:You do understand the concept of a reasonable person, standard of care and duty of care right?
Yes.
A reasonably prudent woman who had a duty to maintain a standard of care for the unborn persons residing in her ovaries would follow the guidelines suggested by the medical establishment -- that is what reasonable people do after all.
Or you could take reasonable preventative measures. That is what reasonable people do after all.
You seem to be missing the point.
Currently a woman who doesn't take reasonable preventative measures and has a miscarriage is not guilty of any crime. Grant the fetus rights, and now she's guilty of manslaughter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:
dogma wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:[That rape is always violent] is the implication of many of your comments, which are all quite disturbing.
Give an example, and show how my words imply what you're claiming.
"Anyway, rape is easy to prove because the violence associated with non-consent produces..."
The obvious implication of this statement is that rape is inherently violent.
Yes, it is. Pretty much by definition. Rape is an act of force against consent, which makes it violent. Violence does not have to involve something like battery, which is what you seem to be assuming.
'kay. Feel free to join us in the 21st century any time you like, where rape doesn't require any act of force, only a lack of consent.
Gailbraithe wrote:You're right, but that's not the point. The point is that correlation (which you haven't proven) is not proof. The point is that you can't prove a rape has occurred by this means.
Yes, correlation is a type of proof. That's its purpose in statistics. Can the presence of a correlate prove, on its own, that a certain thing has occurred? No, but I didn't argue to that fact. I said that rape is relatively easy to prove because there are many easily discernible correlates, the issue, from the perspective of criminal law, is that very few of those correlates are useful in the course of identifying a perpetrator.
Yes, actually, that is exactly the fact you were arguing.
Gailbraithe wrote:
dogma wrote:That's not what I said. There is a difference between that which is not demanded and that which is not consensual. Consent can be given without demanding.
Gailbraithe wrote:
This is an example of the sort of thing I would call a disturbing comment. A failure to say no is not consent.
Nor did I say that it was. I said that not demanding something is not the same as not consenting to it. To illustrate, I would absolutely consent to someone giving me 2 million dollars, but I'm not demanding that they do so. More directly, a person may consent to sex without demanding it, in fact its fair to say that most instances of sexual consent do not involve a demand for sex on the part of either party.
Splitting hairs.
It discusses the role that fear plays in determining genital response; where response is defined by increased blood flow and vaginal contraction (in women only, obviously). The emotional significance of this is a well documented cause of vaginismus, which allows vaginismus to be regarded as a reliable predictor of rape specifically, and sexual assault in general.
What? No, vagisimus is not a reliable predictor of rape.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Evidence in support of your claim that the NCVS data used as the basis of DoJ crime statistics is collected by observing the number of persons seeking rape counseling. You have presented nothing that supports this claim (or any of your claims), and are attempting to shift the goal posts here.
No, that's not moving the goalposts. Moving the goalposts requires that one party to the argument dismiss a given type of evidence in the course of demanding greater evidence.
Whatever you pedantic little freak.
In any case, you're correct, the NCVS does not include data derived from the observation of people who seek rape counseling.
Oh my god, someone alert the media, after a half dozen messages, dogma finally admits he's full of gak.
Gailbraithe wrote:Consider the possibility I was dismissing you because I think you're an argumentative twit who doesn't know what he's talking about.
If that's the case, then why didn't you say that the first time? It would have saved us both some time, and you wouldn't have been forced to demonstrate a poor grasp of what constitutes a fallacious appeal to authority.
Because normal people would recognize that without needing to be told it.
Apparently you're socially maladjusted brain can't comprehend normal human interaction, Probably why you're such a pedantic and obnoxious little freak.
Emperors Faithful wrote:You do understand the concept of a reasonable person, standard of care and duty of care right?
Yes.
A reasonably prudent woman who had a duty to maintain a standard of care for the unborn persons residing in her ovaries would follow the guidelines suggested by the medical establishment -- that is what reasonable people do after all.
Or you could take reasonable preventative measures. That is what reasonable people do after all.
You seem to be missing the point.
Currently a woman who doesn't take reasonable preventative measures and has a miscarriage is not guilty of any crime. Grant the fetus rights, and now she's guilty of manslaughter.
No, Gailbraithe, YOU are missing the point. It would be impossible to manslaughter or ciminal negligence in most cases of miscarriage, becuase most women do NOT try to purposefully get pregnant and have a miscarriage. In addition to this, your previous arguments on the threat of "biological slavery" and "stripping women of all rights" holds no weight at all. So far I have been content to give you a chance to extrapolate your arguement and try to justify them. Having done that, I can only come to the conclusion that you are either talking out of your arse, have a warped sense of logic or both.
