Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Without any surprise, Trump the ineffective, inefficient incompetent, bigoted president has actually strengthened the IRI regime.
jasper76 wrote: Really, I was just responding to Peregrine's assertion that abandoning identity politics would make the Democrats the Party of the "Christian white male...no thanks" as though Christian white males were some sort of boogeyman.
Let me translate that for you. Christian white male are the dominant force in the US. They don't need more help because they are christian white males, it's the opposite: they are less in need of help than blacks, atheists, women.
Here, giving up “identity politics” is a codeword for “keeping the status quo and not bothering to work for more equality”, and the status quo favor only christians, whites, males, and rich peoples.
jasper76 wrote: My opinion is that the Democrats should be the party of ALL Americans, and that the demonization of Christians, and whites, and males as espoused by certain elements of the left needs to go.
This demonization happens only in your head. You still have not answered my question about the elected Democrats, by the way. Answering it would prove you that this demonization only happens in your head, and that all actual facts point otherwise.
jasper76 wrote: See Clinton's demonization of Trump supporters as deplorable, irredeemable, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, you name it...as a recent example of identity politics gone wrong.
But Trump does have some deplorable, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic fans. He even got some on his government. Saying so is not an attack on “white christian males”, it's an attack specifically on Trump and Bannon and other terrible people from the alt-right. You do realize that Clinton herself is a white christian, do you?
Well, maybe I misread what Peregrine was meaning then.
There is a strain of the left that seeks to silence and in some cases demonize whites and males. See Bernie Sanders getting shut down at his own speech. See the lady who thinks no white person should be the head of the DNC. See conspiracy theories about a white male patriarchy. See the more extreme elements of the Black Lives Matter movement. See uber-progressive academic propaganda.
By the way, by mentioning these things, I am not drawing comparisons to or legitimizing discrimination that other groups experience...I am just saying NONE of it is any good.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AdeptSister wrote: Jasper, the problem I think people are having you use of the term "identity politics" is that you seem to be using as "things that white male Christians don't care about." One could accurately say the Republican party is the party of "identify politics" as the promote the ideals of a decidedly white Christian nation. Just look at the Republican platform that was approved at their national convention. Why are you not condemning the Republican party as identify politics gone wrong?
Because Republicans aren't my team. But yes, I'd love it if they too ditched identity politics, and yes I do think so of them play the same game in many respects.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/11 18:24:27
It's a simple matter of when you believe life begins. For my part, once a genetically distinct being is formed, that is where a new life begins, and my own personal position proceeds from that, with ,"bend over backwards" accommodations for threats to life of the mother, and victims of incest and rape.
I figure you take a different view, and that is fine. I think the Democrat Party should be big enough a tent to accommodate both viewpoints. Your point is taken about numbers of supporters. Maybe you'ee right and doing this would turn off more people for the Dems than it would gain. I don't know.
Define "genetically distinct being"
A being with a unique genome, in this case as distinct from the genome of the mother and father.
Define "being". What constitutes a being? What is the difference between a collection of biological cells and a being?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/11 18:42:56
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
It's a simple matter of when you believe life begins. For my part, once a genetically distinct being is formed, that is where a new life begins, and my own personal position proceeds from that, with ,"bend over backwards" accommodations for threats to life of the mother, and victims of incest and rape.
I figure you take a different view, and that is fine. I think the Democrat Party should be big enough a tent to accommodate both viewpoints. Your point is taken about numbers of supporters. Maybe you'ee right and doing this would turn off more people for the Dems than it would gain. I don't know.
Define "genetically distinct being"
A being with a unique genome, in this case as distinct from the genome of the mother and father.
Define "being". What constitutes a being? What is the difference between a collection of biological cells and a being?
I'm talking about a genetically distinct human being. The thing we both were when daddy's sperm fertilized mommy's egg to form a new and genetically unique life. The thing (collection of biological cells or whatever you'd like to call it) that began the process of its human development at that moment.
If you have a point to make here, it might be better for the conversation if you just make it plainly.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/11 18:52:14
Can we take the 'definition of life' conversation elsewhere? It's largely off topic.
In regards to white Christian male hate, I find it interesting that the same people who decry Clinton for the deplorables comment being an over-generalization based on a few extremes are perfectly happy to generalize Democrats the same way.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/11 18:59:49
You know just because one supports a pro-choice position, doesn't mean that one personally supports abortion.
It just means leave the decision to the ones who are affected. Heck Obama tried to get concensus that we as a country should try to get to a position where this choice is rare.
jasper76 wrote: Well, maybe I misread what Peregrine was meaning then.
Definitely. Also you consistently misread my sarcasm. I strongly suspect that your view that this position is widespread is mostly due to misreading and missing obvious sarcasm.
jasper76 wrote: I'm talking about a genetically distinct human being.
Clones are all fair game?
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
jasper76 wrote: I'm talking about a genetically distinct human being.
Clones are all fair game?
Depends on what you mean by "fair game". I don't think we should be cloning humans or human hybrids. I'm not educated on or familiar with the cloning process. But if a new human life is formed by whatever method, my gut reaction is that it would be unethical to kill it unless it posed a mortal threat to another human.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: When does a collection of cells become a human being? What are the criteria by which you are determining life?
Cloning issues aside, in my view, the collection of cells becomes a human being when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell and kicks off the process of human development.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AdeptSister wrote: You know just because one supports a pro-choice position, doesn't mean that one personally supports abortion.
It just means leave the decision to the ones who are affected. Heck Obama tried to get concensus that we as a country should try to get to a position where this choice is rare.
I definitely understand that this is the position that many people take. Personally pro-life, but pro-choice for everyone else. I think this is a very common position. In fact, this was my very position for a long time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: Can we take the 'definition of life' conversation elsewhere? It's largely off topic.
In regards to white Christian male hate, I find it interesting that the same people who decry Clinton for the deplorables comment being an over-generalization based on a few extremes are perfectly happy to generalize Democrats the same way.
I'm happy to just say I think that Democrats should be more welcoming to pro-lifers and be done with it. But I keep getting asked these types of questions about where I think life starts.
On the other note, I've been trying consciously not to generalize all Democrats together by using phrases like "elements of the Democrats", "strains of the left", etc. Sorry if I haven't been doing this 100%.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2017/02/11 19:50:45
A Town Called Malus wrote: When does a collection of cells become a human being? What are the criteria by which you are determining life?
Cloning issues aside, in my view, the collection of cells becomes a human being when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell and kicks off the process of human development.
So you think the emergency contraceptive pill is murder?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: But I keep getting asked these types of questions about where I think life starts.
If you are trying to advocate a policy position for abortion based on the preservation of life rather than the current policy which is based on viability of the foetus outside of the mother then you should be able to:
1) Define what constitutes human life. How is a fertilised egg different to a cancerous cell, for example.
and
2) Show when human life begins such that it meets that criteria.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/02/11 19:54:22
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
I don't define life by viability. For example, I think someone on life support is still a life. And I think a baby that cannot survive without outside help is still a life. So too do I think a fertilized egg is still alive, despite the fact that it could not survive on its own.
Maybe it is time to stop these questions. I've hear all this before, and never encountered any argument anywhere that convince me that a fertilized egg is not in fact a life, so we will likely get nowhere unless you have some new and novel argument to make.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/11 19:54:51
jasper76 wrote: I think that emergency contraceptive is abortive.
I don't define life by viability. For example, I think someone on life support is still a life. And I think a baby that cannot survive without outside help is still a life.
So life support should never be turned off.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
jasper76 wrote: I think that emergency contraceptive is abortive.
I don't define life by viability. For example, I think someone on life support is still a life. And I think a baby that cannot survive without outside help is still a life.
So life support should never be turned off.
I think if a person has made a DNR decision for themselves, it should be turned off because the individual made that decision.
I'm honestly not sure how I feel about others making the decision for the person.
My only point was dependency kn life support does not mean the affected indivudial is no longer a life, that's the only point I was trying to make. Viability is not a prerequisite for life IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm gonna follow NinthMusketeers advice and stop discussing what I think constitutes a life. I've seen no new arguments here, and we are getting nowhere.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/11 19:59:59
jasper76 wrote: My only point was dependency kn life support does not mean the affected indivudial is no longer a life, that's the only point I was trying to make. Viability is not a prerequisite for life IMO.
When someone is dead and their heart and lungs are only working because a machine is making them, they are not alive. They had a life but that life has ended.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
jasper76 wrote: But if a new human life is formed by whatever method, my gut reaction is that it would be unethical to kill it unless it posed a mortal threat to another human.
I was reacting to the whole “different genetics” thing that seemed pretty weird. What about twins too?
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
jasper76 wrote: My only point was dependency kn life support does not mean the affected indivudial is no longer a life, that's the only point I was trying to make. Viability is not a prerequisite for life IMO.
When someone is dead and their heart and lungs are only working because a machine is making them, they are not alive. They had a life but that life has ended.
The problem with that is we are woefully innacurate at determining death. By our own reckoning, a good portion of people on this earth are technically zombies.
But that's off-topic. Back to the insufferable man-child that is our president, who can't take any offense or slight at all well, even those wholly imagined. Proving as always that a whole bunch of rich adults are just spoiled rich kids, merely older. Half his twitter retorts can be confused with a teenager's..
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/11 20:22:37
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
jasper76 wrote: In my vision here, the pro-choices could still advocate for pro-choice policies, and the pro-lifers could still advocate for pro-life policies. I don't see that ever changing. There should be room for opposing viewpoints within a single party.
Opposing viewpoints is why parties split. It's one thing to disagree on the exact priorities or tactics but another to have fractions within the party that have straight up incompatible beliefs. For some large, sweeping goals such contradictions can be ignored and a coalition can be formed but eventually there will have to be a reckoning. The two sides will struggle and one will emerge victorious.
I would but apparently I hate myself by being white, from a Christian background who gets annoyed by jerks being jerks who uses a guy whose entire thing was focused about not being jerks to each other as an excuse to be jerks to people.
jasper76 wrote: I'm happy to just say I think that Democrats should be more welcoming to pro-lifers and be done with it.
Which is a ridiculous position to take. You can't be welcoming to a group that is directly opposed to one of your policy goals, and even if you personally are fine with the democrats giving up on abortion (leaving us with an anti-abortion party and a really anti-abortion party) it would be political suicide to write off all the pro-choice voters who would suddenly have much less reason to vote for democrats. In an era where the primary factor in determining elections is whether the democrats have high turnout or low turnout it's insane to give up on an issue that reliably gets people voting D.
As for when life begins, if you don't consider (natural) miscarriages to be the greatest tragedy in all of humanity, and the single most important project that should be given all of our funding and research efforts, you don't consider life to begin at conception. You might say you believe that as an excuse for banning abortion, but your actions speak louder than words.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: There is a strain of the left that seeks to silence and in some cases demonize whites and males.
And it's a small and irrelevant strain that actually wants to demonize and silence white men. What is far more common is people telling the truth about injustice in society and having it dismissed as "demonizing whites and males" because certain white men have very fragile feelings and shouldn't be confronted with uncomfortable facts. And therefore anything that doesn't directly apply to white Christian men is dismissed as "identity politics".
See conspiracy theories about a white male patriarchy.
The only conspiracy theory here is that patriarchy is just a weird thing made up by OMG TUMBLR SJW FEMINAZIS instead of an accurate description of the world.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/11 21:27:55
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
I respectfully disagree with you, but I not going to go any further than this. You've clearly made up your mind on the issue, as have I. There is no point in further discussion.
NP. I know I can be rather pushy on this particular issue.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Steelmage99 wrote: So Presidential Nominee Donald Trump argued that the US should have committed war crimes by pillaging other countries.
Here is President Trump suggesting that again;
Start at the 5 min mark.
I'm still wondering what all these "burdensome" regulations are that are holding everything for everyone up, but that don't also serve a reasonable purpose, that he's going to plan to get rid of?
For the most part, it looks like he's just gutting consumer protections that were enacted in response to industry malfeasance and environmental regulations that are intended to keep industrial operations from gaking where we all eat/drink/etc.
Not seeing any movement on stuff like 922(r), or equivalents in other areas of law.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/11 21:35:57
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
I'm still wondering what all these "burdensome" regulations are that are holding everything for everyone up, but that don't also serve a reasonable purpose, that he's going to plan to get rid of?
For the most part, it looks like he's just gutting consumer protections that were enacted in response to industry malfeasance and environmental regulations that are intended to keep industrial operations from gaking where we all eat/drink/etc.
Not seeing any movement on stuff like 922(r), or equivalents in other areas of law.
In my experience what they're really complaining about is all the federal regulations they have to spend money circumventing
One of the things I learned working for FedEx is that the trucking industry bitches and moans about any number of federal regulations, and then follows absolutely none of them until a 78 year old woman gets pancaked by a tractor trailer when the brakes fail. Paying mechanics to sign off on paperwork is pricey man. If they didn't spend that money, they'd actually have to do their safety maintenance. Clearly that's just unreasonable.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/11 21:57:10
]See conspiracy theories about a white male patriarchy.
The only conspiracy theory here is that patriarchy is just a weird thing made up by OMG TUMBLR SJW FEMINAZIS instead of an accurate description of the world.
There are countries that are run by actual patriarchies, where we can identify who the patriarchs are, where they convene, and by what institutions and mechanisms they exercise control. So if there's a patriarchy in the United States, I don't like that one bit, and I want to know who they are.
So who are the members of the patriarchy in the United States? Where do they convene? By what institutions and mechanisms do they exercise patriarchal control over us?
Patriarchy is not a government. It's a system of social conventions.
Good rule of thumb; If you hear things like "women's work" and "don't be a girl" (or variations there in including those not to be used in polite company) used as a derogatory, chances are you're living in one.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/11 22:22:45
LordofHats wrote: Patriarchy is not a government. It's a system of social conventions.
Good rule of thumb; If you hear things like "women's work" and "don't be a girl" (or variations there in including those not to be used in polite company) used as a derogatory, chances are you're living in one.
As far as I understand it, women are allowed to take any job that a man is. We even have anti-discrimination laws that protect women from discrimination in the workforce and in hiring.
"Don't be a girl" is something I've rarely heard. "Don't be a b---" I've heard, and "Don't be a p----", but I hear "Don't be a d-----" just as much.
Since the phrase "toxic masculinity" is gaining ground, and "don't be a d---" is a common expression, does that mean we also live in a matriarchy?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/11 22:28:42
18.000 
3.500 
8.200 
3.300 
3.100 
5.500 
3.200 
3.000
