The argument and scare tactics of this Hobby ruling and focusing on Christianity is one of the sadder and clear cut cases of propaganda, Where looking at the context clarifies things.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which was held higher then Obamacare, was created specifically for the situation of Native American's (Not Christians) and their ability to practice their culture against Government encroachment of their land, the Act expanded to 'All religions are protected' so Native Americans could be covered.
It is one of the few cases where both Leftists and Conservatives banded together and supported this Act against the Government (again dispelling the absurd stereotypes of both sides).
The Supreme Court as a general guideline has ruled that Religious practices cannot be violated by Statutory law unless a Higher law (ie ones falling under Justice) or a very clear, strict and heavy Government Interest is allowable to offset the burden of the claimant.
In their Ruling (prior to this case) the Supreme Court upheld and as precedent that the courts should strive for the 'least damaging ruling' to any conflict between Government interest and civil liberties.
In this case, it was decided (in my view correctly) that the Governments interest of providing health-care was not sufficient in this case of forcing companies to pay for peoples contraceptives against violating civil liberties because contraceptives is often used for recreational purposes and alternative courses of action are completely possible to satisfy both Government and civil liberties (In this case Government should either redo their passage or absorb the cost themselves).
In addedum to this, the Supreme Court noted that Obamacare already allowed non-profit Organizations to exempt themselves on religious grounds, and that there is no compelling reason why this should not be applied to profit-organizations under the rule of equity.
So if you read the rulings and Gorsuch, It had nothing to do with preferencing a religion but clearly upholding prior precedent on how to rule on Civil liberties vs Government Interest.
And contraceptives are often used to control irregular periods and any number of other issues as well. Furthermore, what if I start a business and at the same time start my own religion that is against, say, surgery or blood tests?? How would my religious views be any less valid than those of the Hobby Lobby owner, other than the popularity of our faiths?? And again, the mind-blowing hypocrisy of the anti-abortion movement is on full display here, and, again, reveals their true motives. They are against abortions, AND against medication or devices that prevent pregnancy from happening in the first place. Which reveals the true intent of the movement, which is punishing women for having sex.
As for non-profit and profit based organizations, yeah. Neither of them should be exempt. That was a concession they needed to pass the bill I disagree with. If religious organizations want to be exempt from such things, they can start paying goddamn taxes like the rest of us.
And contraceptives are often used to control irregular periods and any number of other issues as well. Furthermore, what if I start a business and at the same time start my own religion that is against, say, surgery or blood tests?? How would my religious views be any less valid than those of the Hobby Lobby owner, other than the popularity of our faiths?? And again, the mind-blowing hypocrisy of the anti-abortion movement is on full display here, and, again, reveals their true motives. They are against abortions, AND against medication or devices that prevent pregnancy from happening in the first place. Which reveals the true intent of the movement, which is punishing women for having sex.
As for non-profit and profit based organizations, yeah. Neither of them should be exempt. That was a concession they needed to pass the bill I disagree with. If religious organizations want to be exempt from such things, they can start paying goddamn taxes like the rest of us.
Your point was already addressed in my post.
In their Ruling (prior to this case) the Supreme Court upheld and as precedent that the courts should strive for the 'least damaging ruling' to any conflict between Government interest and civil liberties.
In this case, it was decided (in my view correctly) that the Governments interest of providing health-care was not sufficient in this case of forcing companies to pay for peoples contraceptives against violating civil liberties because contraceptives is often used for recreational purposes and alternative courses of action are completely possible to satisfy both Government and civil liberties (In this case Government should either redo their passage or absorb the cost themselves).
The Supreme Court recommended amending the Obamacare passage or Government to absorb the cost themselves.
As to your point of 'what if my religion said i could violate any law because of X' the Supreme Court, as i clearly outlined, already weighed in and said that the laws on Justice are higher and where there is strong Government Interest that can outweigh civil liberties.
In other words, its a case-by-case basis.
I don't really care about the whole 'conservative/Christian/Anti-Abortion' conspiracy angle, thats always been an exaggerated partisan issue to me.
And contraceptives are often used to control irregular periods and any number of other issues as well. Furthermore, what if I start a business and at the same time start my own religion that is against, say, surgery or blood tests?? How would my religious views be any less valid than those of the Hobby Lobby owner, other than the popularity of our faiths?? And again, the mind-blowing hypocrisy of the anti-abortion movement is on full display here, and, again, reveals their true motives. They are against abortions, AND against medication or devices that prevent pregnancy from happening in the first place. Which reveals the true intent of the movement, which is punishing women for having sex.
As for non-profit and profit based organizations, yeah. Neither of them should be exempt. That was a concession they needed to pass the bill I disagree with. If religious organizations want to be exempt from such things, they can start paying goddamn taxes like the rest of us.
Your point was already addressed in my post.
In this case, it was decided (in my view correctly) that the Governments interest of providing health-care was not sufficient in this case of forcing companies to pay for peoples contraceptives against violating civil liberties because contraceptives is often used for recreational purposes and alternative courses of action are completely possible to satisfy both Government and civil liberties (In this case Government should either redo their passage or absorb the cost themselves).
The Supreme Court recommended amending the Obamacare passage or Government to absorb the cost themselves.
I don't really care about the whole 'conservative/Christian/Anti-Abortion' conspiracy angle, thats always been an exaggerated partisan issue to me.
Yeah, in the view of the 5 males who will never, ever have to worry about getting pregnant, I'm sure it did seem like there would be easy, reasonable alternative courses of action, because they don't have a clue, and, furthermore, they don't care.
And contraceptives are often used to control irregular periods and any number of other issues as well. Furthermore, what if I start a business and at the same time start my own religion that is against, say, surgery or blood tests?.
I've heard this sentiment elsewhere. Not about BLM, but about evidence. I've heard a lot of people say "I'm not going to do your homework for you" when people ask them to back up their claims. I think we should establish a basic standard for argumentation in this thread:
If somebody asks you for proof, it's your responsibility to provide your evidence for your argument.
HELL NO! I refuse to participate to such a lob-sided "house rule" and I will name just a few reasons why:
1. No one else in this thread seems to be doing much of this 2. Sometimes the point doesn't even need such reinforced 3. Sometimes it won't be possible and/or it will be too time consuming 4. I'm not here to educate people nor am I here to force people to trust me. If someone chooses to dismiss my claim under nothing more than mere suspicion then I honestly don't care. 5. Most importantly, this will be used in an attempt to illogically dismiss entire posts by spamming a 2 word counter called "prove it" (It is almost as bad as @FinneousPJ one word dismissals i.e I can't argue the point so instead I will say "woosh" to try win via snide instead)
Now if myself or someone else makes a highly suspicious or outlandish claim then I can understand citation is needed. However if it is common knowledge and/or easy to find such as political movement leaders then no they can stop being lazy and start "doing their homework". Do note that many times I will actually provide citation without even being asked however this is optional and to my discretion not theirs.
[For the record I was merely told "I don't know XYZ" which is far different from being asked for citation...]
I agree with this, no Government law should force companies to pay for someones contraceptive pills, even on basic principle I would oppose this. That the companies owner was religious has no bearing on this overreach of Government. Just because a lawful decision was made that happened to validate a religious person's civil complaint, is not proof of religious preference one way or the other.
1. I have no problem with paying for women's contraceptive pills. Apparently they pay for men's Viagra. BOTH are also used off-label. You see how this "everybody pays in" works?
WHOAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!?!? I dunno about America but their is no way on earth I will be willing to pay for a females contraceptive. Their sex life is not my concern
I am all for government funded health care (Australia's health care system is so much better then America). However I draw the line in the sand when it comes to medicine regarding recreational sex lmao...
And again, the mind-blowing hypocrisy of the anti-abortion movement is on full display here, and, again, reveals their true motives. They are against abortions, AND against medication or devices that prevent pregnancy from happening in the first place. Which reveals the true intent of the movement, which is punishing women for having sex.
This imo is true... but keep in mind this is only some, not all are overly religious and/or extreme. (FTR I still consider them mild when compared them to the anti-abortion extremist opposites who want to be able to lawfully murder babies AFTER they are born. Even up to one year old ffs!!)
Back on topic many people against the "pro-choice" movement are secular, many don't mind contraceptive measures such as condoms, many don't mind abortion in extreme circumstances e.g woman's life endangered, rape victim etc. Some rare ultra moderates are even half-accepting of termination if it is done VERY early.
The pro-choice/pro-feminist movement ignore the fact that after 6 weeks the baby can feel, after 18 weeks the baby has pain receptors. At some point the baby is a damn innocent human being and deserves to be treated as such. This is the main reason why I am (for now) against the pro-choice movement as they have no set time-limit for the abortion
I don't normally get into to political discussion unless I find something that catches my professional interests. Internet exchanges are not the best environment (as opposed to face to face and properly structured) to have a 'productive discussion' in regards to politics but sometimes it is the only outlet.
Not sure how much I will get involved here but it is interesting to see different reactions to various issues.
The recent personality profile(Myers briggs) that has been on the board brought me in as INTJ(i knew from study), which means I like to see all the players in the room from a good vantage point. It also means I need to SEE it in order to be convinced, pulling highly from personal experience to make a decision, but once I'm there, I'm there with loyalty. This can help alot with understanding why ppl have different points of view and helping to get to an agreement, or at least an acknowledgement of why another may think the way they do.
I actually think that a background in role-playing games, such as those on this site have, has the potential to help understand other viewpoints (depending on how willing one is to play varying races, class, and alignments, hehheh).
If nothing else, this thread can really get one to 'thinking' on something.
ANYHOO
@vanatos With regards to chemical and biological weaponry and letting the 'Genie out of the bottle', the bottle is most definitely there and there have been some leaks. I especially liked how for ex. some Australian scientists (like many others, not picking on them) released their research on combining mouse DNA into Mousepox, in order to reduce the mouse resistance to mousepox. But that is the beauty(and danger) of the internet.
The same can be done, and I would not have been surprised if it has not already been done, to the smallpox version for humans. It does not take much. For ex., the Anthrax attacks on the Senate Hart building around 2001 used micronized glass in order to actually give it the ability to 'climb' in a sense, being responsive to every single vibration. AS technology increases along with a terrorists 'learning curve' , we will see previously methods fall by the wayside. Like chaos, everything tends to adapt. Many terrorists are intelligent, well educated, and have a good family life (PR'ed research). They are not crazy or have some mental illness (all for the most part). It is a means to an end when every other avenue 'for them' seems closed off, and actually is a reasoned and logical approach to change (looking at it from THEIR shoes, to coin a phrase). ( I have been writing and reading too much on the subject as of late I think)
As to the Russians and Syria, I really hope the current govt. will keep the discussions going and not just use PREVIOUS playbooks and impose sanctions on Russia, backing them into a corner. Last admin seemed to like that method. Shut down the respectful discussions or willingness to talk, and future cooperation is hendered.
I actually laughed out loud (not funny, just ludicrous) when David Brooks (lawd) said in regards to chemical weapons use, ppl need to have some common decency in war. Well, like what (me thinking here), OF COURSE, blowing them up, burning them,starving them, and shooting( etc) them WOULD be the DECENT thing to do. Jeeze. And as to the innocents thing, ALL methods get innocents at some point or another, in one way or another.
I guess play on ppls fears of chemical and biological (invisible methods for the most part) is a way to convince others and get one's way in terms of an action agenda.
Friggin oil & power interests. What can ya do, after such a long involvement. I didn't like the US appointing itself the sheriff of the world(for a long time now).
Thinking on it, both (edit: ALL) presidents have weaknesses, but it would be interesting to see some of Trump's outgoing and 'have a meeting' personality( the jury is still seriously out on this one yet) combined with Obama's gift as an orator combined (one thing I could appreciate, but wish he hadnt thought his way was the only way). I am sorry to see however, how Trump's ego is could be easily manipulated, and also to the way he reacts to some things. I respect the fact that he brings fresh views to some things in govt. but am almost embarrassed in the way a president can react. For that matter, most presidents all have good and bad qualities ,but embarrass me at some point in time all the back to the Vietnam War (bout as far as my own 'living' memory goes). I can understand why many just get tired of voting for anyone.
Wouldn't it be nice to be to design a made to order president, combinations of various different ones of the past? Course even that would bring up probably an infinite number of variations as well, as we all consider different things to agree on.
This United Airlines stuff brings up an issue that has long been ignored by the media. Any airline that overbooks flights should be subject to harsh punitive punishment and immediately open to lawsuits from everyone booked on that flight.
I just read that. It's like something out of the 1880's, back when corporations would hire "detective agencies" to murder and maim people they didn't like.
That is a much better way to handle things. Shoot, I'm ready to start bookin Delta flights in busy times just to have a 'side' job. Pack a sleepin bag,computer, and some Cliff Bars, and bam, I'd be happy.
'Fly the friendly skies' Humph!
Anyway, keep the discussions going. Headin back to my cave, but watchin, hehheh Ya'll keep it up.
So Sean Spicer just totally imploded today, which was inevitable. In the end, aside from everything else, there is something to be said for not have the stupidest people imaginable running the country.
So Sean Spicer just totally imploded today, which was inevitable. In the end, aside from everything else, there is something to be said for not have the stupidest people imaginable running the country.
Gotta be stressful to go out there everyday and lie your butt off with a straight face.
Didn't @Nonnahswriter post something similar saying, "lets not go down this rabbit hole"
and I agree completely. You need to criticize the ideas being presented and not the presenters themselves. Once you start labeling the presenters of arguments with names and dismissing them as such, you are not adding anything to the debate.
@Teo_live The *wooosh* comment was in response to you ignoring this post, albeit, you might have been typing at the same time as I.
And yes, citations are needed when you start making claims such as "(BLM) their leaders also demand for racial segregation. BLM might as well be allies with the KKK who have been demanding racial segregation for years."
Which leader? Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi the three original co-founders, or some regional group piggy-backing the name brand? Citation is needed to know which leader you are talking about, especially about a group that has multiple branches that do not necessarily talk to each other.
It's also good to cite sources so participants of the thread can come to their own conclusion about what has happened, such as this tweet being taken out of context to change the story:
Like a lot of people on the internet like to do. Find one meaningless phrase, take it out of context and demean the person instead of their current message.
So Sean Spicer just totally imploded today, which was inevitable. In the end, aside from everything else, there is something to be said for not have the stupidest people imaginable running the country.
So Sean Spicer just totally imploded today, which was inevitable. In the end, aside from everything else, there is something to be said for not have the stupidest people imaginable running the country.
I cannot remember the last time I DID like the press secretaries. This guy, however, is worse than terrible in tact, and in his personality for that particular job just ain't there. Some staffers need to quit trying to think in their own limited abilities and just report the actions of what is going on in the admin.
Likely a terrorist attack directed against the most popular sport in Europe in a country where one of the main issues in the upcoming election is the policy over refugees (much like here). I personally believe ISIS and other terrorist groups relish the idea of anti-immigrant politicians taking power (Trump, LePen). But the thing is, the greatest threat to Merkel in Germany is Schultz, who might be to her left. The AfD has been floundering in the polls. Possibly because Germany has been down this road before.
I think the attack on the bus wasn't a terrorism (as in ISIS related) related incident as only 1 person with very minor injuries. Probably work of AfD supporters to try and project fear with the upcoming elections, yet they know ISIS will claim responsibility.
ISIS is better with bomb construction so this would seem to be either a VERY POOR effort or as mentioned, another group or individual. Of course, and just thinking aloud (so to speak) if I was a terrorist in one group and wanted OTHER groups to blame each other instead of myself, to promote in-fighting, I might do something similar. The situation in Europe has certainly stirred up the right (and the left for that matter) with all the concerns and logistics of handling the large influx of refugees.
@deltago Exactly! He should be smart enough to realize that as a possibility of us missing each others posts.
Even if I genuinely somehow "missed the point" then I guess he doesn't talk to many human beings as this in does not necessarily mean that it went over someone's head. Discussions commonly "miss the point" and tend to take many different turns and directions. Anyway I think I made an example of that type of behavior enough now so hopefully it won't happen again here anytime soon.
I don't want to siderail the discussion away from actual politics for much longer so here is my final point regarding a redundant lob-sided citation house rule. Here is JUST the Philadelphia protest example of BLM racial segregation.
Now this took... 10 seconds to find? I had so many hits from just Philadelphia that my computer froze AND atleast 50% the hits were on the money. Keep in mind this is just one mere example out of the dozens (some much worse) that I could use. So yeah that is the last time I will do common knowledge homework for anyone. Citation always has and always will be optional reinforcement rather than prerequisite.
[Yet again, I point out that he did not even ask for citation so why is this an issue atm?]
Now if you want to argue that segregation "is not racist", or it is "justified" or whatever then fine. Regardless there is no doubt both BLM and the KKK movement segregates people according to their race this almost common knowledge by now (unless you are a white person in denial like Rachel Dolezal in which case the rules don't apply lol)
You can not take one incident from one branch (from one unnamed organizer to boot) and label the whole movement as such. But that is the issue with movements, they move away from their original purpose rather quickly.
@Teo_live: The citations are exactly what we were looking for. Now we have something more concrete to discuss.
If it only took you 10 seconds, why not do so in the future? @vanatos for one has been very diligent about providing sources, and people take his posts very seriously.
Until Black Lives Matter starts holding publically attended lynchings of white people in the town square (and then getting away with it, or having law enforcement INVOLVED), or they start killing civil rights workers and burying them in a Mississippi swamp, maybe we should refrain from such patently ridiculous and ahistorical comparisons to the goddamn KKK. Even in the realm of right-wing talking points, this one is on a whole other level on the horseshit scale.
maybe we should refrain from such patently ridiculous and ahistorical comparisons to the goddamn KKK. Even in the realm of right-wing talking points, this one is on a whole other level on the horseshit scale.
No thanks
- There is no political party/movement too politically-incorrect to talk about here. - Nor is their a political party/movement so precious that it has to kept in a "safe-space" away from hard line comparisons.
I have done a small amount of research into the modern day equivalent of the KKK as I was curious to see their stance on certain issues including a Trump presidency. So I am interested in to know why you think the "horseshit scale" is off charts when comparing the Neo-KKK to black lives Matter?
You can not take one incident from one branch (from one unnamed organizer to boot) and label the whole movement as such. But that is the issue with movements, they move away from their original purpose rather quickly.
Teo_live: "Keep in mind this is just one mere example out of the dozens (some much worse) that I could use".
Thanks however for giving me another reason to add to the list against lob-sided citation rules:
6. Once forced citation has been given, the next obvious counter from "prove it" will be "not enough". This inevitably provides the citation-demanding person a never ending circle of excuses to continuously dismiss the OP's points and examples at hand.
If you can't be bothered talking about one easy example then there is no chance in hell I will waste hours on end finding and posting a multitude of examples.
This has nothing to do with being "anti-PC" nor do "safe-spaces" exist anywhere outside your own head. This has to do with you making comparisons that are blatantly historically inaccurate. The KKK has been a white terrorist organization in the United States since the end of the Civil War, and held such power in the South that politicians and police officers (agents of state) were members. They held lynchings in public squares. They bombed black churches. Members of police departments participated in and then covered up the murder of Civil Rights workers. It was a 100 year reign of terror used to keep newly emancipated black citizens in their place. Black Lives Matter is a disparrate movement that has opinions and holds no actual positions of authority, much less controlling the entire power apparatus of the former Confederacy the way the Klan did.
Once again, the anti-PC mindset is pretty clear. Any pushback on ideas is being "politically correct" or seeking some kind of mythical "safe-space" that apparently exists in a land of fairy dust and unicorns. I'm countering your argument saying the KKK is analogous to Black Lives Matter not because I'm some "SJW warrior" (though I'll proudly wear the hat if accused) but because the comparison holds absolutely no basis in historical reality and is deliberately meant to dismiss BLM out of hand. You didn't even mention the "Neo-KKK" until this post, and regardless, if you are going to throw out the accusation that a group or organization is analogous to the Klan, you better be able to provide examples that put them on a comparable level to the historical record of the group you are comparing them to.
This has nothing to do with being "anti-PC" nor do "safe-spaces" exist anywhere outside your own head. This has to do with you making comparisons that are blatantly historically inaccurate.
So how exactly was my comparison "historically inaccurate"? My comparison had nothing to do with their history, it merely had to do with one seemingly similar end goal.
The KKK has been a white terrorist organization in the United States since the end of the Civil War, and held such power in the South that politicians and police officers (agents of state) were members. They held lynchings in public squares. They bombed black churches. Members of police departments participated in and then covered up the murder of Civil Rights workers. It was a 100 year reign of terror used to keep newly emancipated black citizens in their place. Black Lives Matter is a disparrate movement that has opinions and holds no actual positions of authority, much less controlling the entire power apparatus of the former Confederacy the way the Klan did.
....so what?
Yes the distasteful KKK has some very disgusting roots sure... ...so does the Nazi party, ...so does the democrats, ...so does several monarchies, ...so does the Communists, etc...
Once again, the anti-PC mindset is pretty clear. Any pushback on ideas is being "politically correct" or seeking some kind of mythical "safe-space" that apparently exists in a land of fairy dust and unicorns. I'm countering your argument saying the KKK is analogous to Black Lives Matter not because I'm some "SJW warrior" (though I'll proudly wear the hat if accused) but because the comparison holds absolutely no basis in historical reality and is deliberately meant to dismiss BLM out of hand.
"Historical reality"...?
So by that logical I am not allowed compare a Trump policy to a current day (aka neo) Nazi policy because it is "deliberately dismissive" and/or because of the "historical reality" that the Nazi party used to throw jews in an oven?
You keep saying a safe space is a myth, well if that is the case then why are you virtue signalling a parties former history just because I pointed out one mere singular comparison? If it makes you feel better I can always rephrase what I said to something more politically correct for your tastebuds: "BLM supports racial segregation, by pure coincidence so does the KKK! [insert shock here]"
Safe spaces do exist in the American college circuit at least, let me tell you by experience, a lot of the horror stories you hear about this overly sensitive campus culture are based in reality.
This has nothing to do with being "anti-PC" nor do "safe-spaces" exist anywhere outside your own head. This has to do with you making comparisons that are blatantly historically inaccurate.
So how exactly was my comparison "historically inaccurate"? My comparison had nothing to do with their history, it merely had to do with one seemingly similar end goal.
The KKK has been a white terrorist organization in the United States since the end of the Civil War, and held such power in the South that politicians and police officers (agents of state) were members. They held lynchings in public squares. They bombed black churches. Members of police departments participated in and then covered up the murder of Civil Rights workers. It was a 100 year reign of terror used to keep newly emancipated black citizens in their place. Black Lives Matter is a disparrate movement that has opinions and holds no actual positions of authority, much less controlling the entire power apparatus of the former Confederacy the way the Klan did.
....so what?
Yes the distasteful KKK has some very disgusting roots sure... ...so does the Nazi party, ...so does the democrats, ...so does several monarchies, ...so does the Communists, etc...
Once again, the anti-PC mindset is pretty clear. Any pushback on ideas is being "politically correct" or seeking some kind of mythical "safe-space" that apparently exists in a land of fairy dust and unicorns. I'm countering your argument saying the KKK is analogous to Black Lives Matter not because I'm some "SJW warrior" (though I'll proudly wear the hat if accused) but because the comparison holds absolutely no basis in historical reality and is deliberately meant to dismiss BLM out of hand.
"Historical reality"...?
So by that logical I am not allowed compare a Trump policy to a current day (aka neo) Nazi policy because it is "deliberately dismissive" and/or because of the "historical reality" that the Nazi party used to throw jews in an oven?
You keep saying a safe space is a myth, well if that is the case then why are you virtue signalling a parties former history as a method to dismiss a minor singular comparison? If it makes you feel better I can always rephrase what I said to something more politically correct for your tastebuds: "BLM supports racial segregation, by pure coincidence so does the KKK [insert shock here]"
I don't need to be patronized with your amorphous definition of what I would consider a proper "politcally correct" statement. I happen to think the term itself has become utterly meaningless.
Safe spaces do exist in the American college circuit at least, let me tell you by experience, a lot of the horror stories you hear about this overly sensitive campus culture are based in reality.
Apparently....and virtually nowhere else on Earth. There are many things that occur in college that bear no comparison to the real world, such as sleeping til noon and drinking beer through an oil funnel.
I think that discussion should be about specific ideas, behaviours and political mechanisms, not buzzwords like "political correctness", "fascism", "feminazism", "bigotry", and so on.
I think that discussion should be about specific ideas, behaviours and political mechanisms, not buzzwords like "political correctness", "fascism", "feminazism", "bigotry", and so on.
That is certainly not an easy thing given the current political climate.
@jjstraka34 What do you want then? I already provided an example and may provide many more if BLM becomes a hotter topic than Sean Spicer >.>
Your entire issue with me comparing a KKK goal with a BLM goal doesn't seem to be it's inaccuracy but rather that it is just merely too "taboo" of a comparison due to the KKK's history? (This is what people mean by the words "politically incorrect")
If we are not allowed to discuss and compare political parties and movements based on bad history, well then there won't be much to talk about in a thread about politics lol....
I think that discussion should be about specific ideas, behaviours and political mechanisms, not buzzwords like "political correctness", "fascism", "feminazism", "bigotry", and so on.
Hehe maybe in a few hundred years who knows!
The left are clearly losing the Buzzword/meme war they need to change tactics. Or at the very least they should come up with something more catchy than "ist/ism/phobia" words... and before you say it Misogyny, Nazi, Privilege, white-supremacist and "literally Hitler" aren't exactly any better
France's election has become quite interesting, there are now 4 candidates with credible support, each occupying quite different points on the right/ left, open / closed axes. The latest candidate to emerge is Melenchon, a populist/ socialist who advocates the abolition of nuclear power, reducing retirement age, higher taxes on the wealthy, and closer ties to Russia. He even has a video game called Fiscal Combat...
Comments
As for non-profit and profit based organizations, yeah. Neither of them should be exempt. That was a concession they needed to pass the bill I disagree with. If religious organizations want to be exempt from such things, they can start paying goddamn taxes like the rest of us.
In their Ruling (prior to this case) the Supreme Court upheld and as precedent that the courts should strive for the 'least damaging ruling' to any conflict between Government interest and civil liberties.
In this case, it was decided (in my view correctly) that the Governments interest of providing health-care was not sufficient in this case of forcing companies to pay for peoples contraceptives against violating civil liberties because contraceptives is often used for recreational purposes and alternative courses of action are completely possible to satisfy both Government and civil liberties (In this case Government should either redo their passage or absorb the cost themselves).
The Supreme Court recommended amending the Obamacare passage or Government to absorb the cost themselves.
As to your point of 'what if my religion said i could violate any law because of X' the Supreme Court, as i clearly outlined, already weighed in and said that the laws on Justice are higher and where there is strong Government Interest that can outweigh civil liberties.
In other words, its a case-by-case basis.
I don't really care about the whole 'conservative/Christian/Anti-Abortion' conspiracy angle, thats always been an exaggerated partisan issue to me.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/girl-s-forced-blood-transfusion-didn-t-violate-rights-top-court-1.858660
I refuse to participate to such a lob-sided "house rule" and I will name just a few reasons why:
1. No one else in this thread seems to be doing much of this
2. Sometimes the point doesn't even need such reinforced
3. Sometimes it won't be possible and/or it will be too time consuming
4. I'm not here to educate people nor am I here to force people to trust me. If someone chooses to dismiss my claim under nothing more than mere suspicion then I honestly don't care.
5. Most importantly, this will be used in an attempt to illogically dismiss entire posts by spamming a 2 word counter called "prove it" (It is almost as bad as @FinneousPJ one word dismissals i.e I can't argue the point so instead I will say "woosh" to try win via snide instead)
Now if myself or someone else makes a highly suspicious or outlandish claim then I can understand citation is needed. However if it is common knowledge and/or easy to find such as political movement leaders then no they can stop being lazy and start "doing their homework". Do note that many times I will actually provide citation without even being asked however this is optional and to my discretion not theirs.
[For the record I was merely told "I don't know XYZ" which is far different from being asked for citation...]
I am all for government funded health care (Australia's health care system is so much better then America). However I draw the line in the sand when it comes to medicine regarding recreational sex lmao... This imo is true... but keep in mind this is only some, not all are overly religious and/or extreme.
(FTR I still consider them mild when compared them to the anti-abortion extremist opposites who want to be able to lawfully murder babies AFTER they are born. Even up to one year old ffs!!)
Back on topic many people against the "pro-choice" movement are secular, many don't mind contraceptive measures such as condoms, many don't mind abortion in extreme circumstances e.g woman's life endangered, rape victim etc. Some rare ultra moderates are even half-accepting of termination if it is done VERY early.
The pro-choice/pro-feminist movement ignore the fact that after 6 weeks the baby can feel, after 18 weeks the baby has pain receptors. At some point the baby is a damn innocent human being and deserves to be treated as such. This is the main reason why I am (for now) against the pro-choice movement as they have no set time-limit for the abortion
Internet exchanges are not the best environment (as opposed to face to face and properly structured) to have a 'productive discussion' in regards to politics but sometimes it is the only outlet.
Not sure how much I will get involved here but it is interesting to see different reactions to various issues.
The recent personality profile(Myers briggs) that has been on the board brought me in as INTJ(i knew from study), which means I like to see all the players in the room from a good vantage point. It also means I need to SEE it in order to be convinced, pulling highly from personal experience to make a decision, but once I'm there, I'm there with loyalty.
This can help alot with understanding why ppl have different points of view and helping to get to an agreement, or at least an acknowledgement of why another may think the way they do.
I actually think that a background in role-playing games, such as those on this site have, has the potential to help understand other viewpoints (depending on how willing one is to play varying races, class, and alignments, hehheh).
If nothing else, this thread can really get one to 'thinking' on something.
ANYHOO
@vanatos With regards to chemical and biological weaponry and letting the 'Genie out of the bottle', the bottle is most definitely there and there have been some leaks. I especially liked how for ex. some Australian scientists (like many others, not picking on them) released their research on combining mouse DNA into Mousepox, in order to reduce the mouse resistance to mousepox. But that is the beauty(and danger) of the internet.
The same can be done, and I would not have been surprised if it has not already been done, to the smallpox version for humans. It does not take much. For ex., the Anthrax attacks on the Senate Hart building around 2001 used micronized glass in order to actually give it the ability to 'climb' in a sense, being responsive to every single vibration.
AS technology increases along with a terrorists 'learning curve' , we will see previously methods fall by the wayside. Like chaos, everything tends to adapt.
Many terrorists are intelligent, well educated, and have a good family life (PR'ed research). They are not crazy or have some mental illness (all for the most part). It is a means to an end when every other avenue 'for them' seems closed off, and actually is a reasoned and logical approach to change (looking at it from THEIR shoes, to coin a phrase).
( I have been writing and reading too much on the subject as of late I think)
As to the Russians and Syria, I really hope the current govt. will keep the discussions going and not just use PREVIOUS playbooks and impose sanctions on Russia, backing them into a corner. Last admin seemed to like that method. Shut down the respectful discussions or willingness to talk, and future cooperation is hendered.
I actually laughed out loud (not funny, just ludicrous) when David Brooks (lawd) said in regards to chemical weapons use, ppl need to
have some common decency in war.
Well, like what (me thinking here), OF COURSE, blowing them up, burning them,starving them, and shooting( etc) them WOULD be the DECENT thing to do. Jeeze.
And as to the innocents thing, ALL methods get innocents at some point or another, in one way or another.
I guess play on ppls fears of chemical and biological (invisible methods for the most part) is a way to convince others and get one's way in terms of an action agenda.
Friggin oil & power interests. What can ya do, after such a long involvement. I didn't like the US appointing itself the sheriff of the world(for a long time now).
Thinking on it, both (edit: ALL) presidents have weaknesses, but it would be interesting to see some of Trump's outgoing and 'have a meeting' personality( the jury is still seriously out on this one yet) combined with Obama's gift as an orator combined (one thing I could appreciate, but wish he hadnt thought his way was the only way). I am sorry to see however, how Trump's ego is could be easily manipulated, and also to the way he reacts to some things. I respect the fact that he brings fresh views to some things in govt. but am almost embarrassed in the way a president can react. For that matter, most presidents all have good and bad qualities ,but embarrass me at some point in time all the back to the Vietnam War (bout as far as my own 'living' memory goes).
I can understand why many just get tired of voting for anyone.
Wouldn't it be nice to be to design a made to order president, combinations of various different ones of the past? Course even that would bring up probably an infinite number of variations as well, as we all consider different things to agree on. That is a much better way to handle things. Shoot, I'm ready to start bookin Delta flights in busy times just to have a 'side' job. Pack a sleepin bag,computer, and some Cliff Bars, and bam, I'd be happy.
'Fly the friendly skies' Humph!
Anyway, keep the discussions going.
The *wooosh* comment was in response to you ignoring this post, albeit, you might have been typing at the same time as I.
And yes, citations are needed when you start making claims such as "(BLM) their leaders also demand for racial segregation. BLM might as well be allies with the KKK who have been demanding racial segregation for years."
Which leader? Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi the three original co-founders, or some regional group piggy-backing the name brand? Citation is needed to know which leader you are talking about, especially about a group that has multiple branches that do not necessarily talk to each other.
It's also good to cite sources so participants of the thread can come to their own conclusion about what has happened, such as this tweet being taken out of context to change the story:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/yusra-khogali-twitter-the-star-1.3529105
Like a lot of people on the internet like to do. Find one meaningless phrase, take it out of context and demean the person instead of their current message.
Some staffers need to quit trying to think in their own limited abilities and just report the actions of what is going on in the admin.
Borussia Dortmund's team bus was hit by three explosions while on its way to the Champions League semi-final against Monaco on Tuesday evening, leaving one player injured in hospital.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/04/11/borussia-dortmund-vs-monaco-champions-league-live-score-updates/
Wonder what this is about.
Even if I genuinely somehow "missed the point" then I guess he doesn't talk to many human beings as this in does not necessarily mean that it went over someone's head. Discussions commonly "miss the point" and tend to take many different turns and directions. Anyway I think I made an example of that type of behavior enough now so hopefully it won't happen again here anytime soon.
I don't want to siderail the discussion away from actual politics for much longer so here is my final point regarding a redundant lob-sided citation house rule. Here is JUST the Philadelphia protest example of BLM racial segregation.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3710701/White-people-march-Black-Lives-Matter-protest-leader-calls-racial-segregation-demonstration-outside-DNC-Philadelphia.html
frontpagemag.com/point/266331/black-lives-matter-no-white-people-allowed-daniel-greenfield
https://wearechange.org/segregation-returns-black-lives-matter-bans-white-people-philadelphia-event/
philly.com/philly/columnists/jenice_armstrong/Black-Lives-Matter-blacks-only-meeting-policy-rankles-.html
dailycaller.com/2017/04/03/black-lives-matter-philly-bans-white-people-from-its-meetings/
occidentaldissent.com/2017/04/03/black-lives-matter-philly-endorses-segregation/
breitbart.com/pre-viral/2017/04/03/white-people-banned-black-lives-matter-philly/
https://heatst.com/culture-wars/black-lives-matter-bans-white-people-from-attending-open-meeting-event/
theblaze.com/news/2017/04/04/black-lives-matter-philly-bans-white-people-from-open-meeting/
https://billypenn.com/2017/04/05/how-black-lives-matter-philly-is-responding-to-36-hours-of-right-wing-media-attacks/
philly.com/philly/blogs/real-time/Breitbart-calls-out-Black-Lives-Matter-Philly-for-blacks-only-meetings.html
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/04/05/whites-banned-from-black-lives-matter-event-in-philadelphia/
Now this took... 10 seconds to find? I had so many hits from just Philadelphia that my computer froze AND atleast 50% the hits were on the money. Keep in mind this is just one mere example out of the dozens (some much worse) that I could use. So yeah that is the last time I will do common knowledge homework for anyone. Citation always has and always will be optional reinforcement rather than prerequisite.
[Yet again, I point out that he did not even ask for citation so why is this an issue atm?]
Now if you want to argue that segregation "is not racist", or it is "justified" or whatever then fine. Regardless there is no doubt both BLM and the KKK movement segregates people according to their race this almost common knowledge by now (unless you are a white person in denial like Rachel Dolezal in which case the rules don't apply lol)
You can not take one incident from one branch (from one unnamed organizer to boot) and label the whole movement as such. But that is the issue with movements, they move away from their original purpose rather quickly.
If it only took you 10 seconds, why not do so in the future? @vanatos for one has been very diligent about providing sources, and people take his posts very seriously.
- There is no political party/movement too politically-incorrect to talk about here.
- Nor is their a political party/movement so precious that it has to kept in a "safe-space" away from hard line comparisons.
I have done a small amount of research into the modern day equivalent of the KKK as I was curious to see their stance on certain issues including a Trump presidency. So I am interested in to know why you think the "horseshit scale" is off charts when comparing the Neo-KKK to black lives Matter? Teo_live: "Keep in mind this is just one mere example out of the dozens (some much worse) that I could use".
Thanks however for giving me another reason to add to the list against lob-sided citation rules:
6. Once forced citation has been given, the next obvious counter from "prove it" will be "not enough". This inevitably provides the citation-demanding person a never ending circle of excuses to continuously dismiss the OP's points and examples at hand.
If you can't be bothered talking about one easy example then there is no chance in hell I will waste hours on end finding and posting a multitude of examples.
Once again, the anti-PC mindset is pretty clear. Any pushback on ideas is being "politically correct" or seeking some kind of mythical "safe-space" that apparently exists in a land of fairy dust and unicorns. I'm countering your argument saying the KKK is analogous to Black Lives Matter not because I'm some "SJW warrior" (though I'll proudly wear the hat if accused) but because the comparison holds absolutely no basis in historical reality and is deliberately meant to dismiss BLM out of hand. You didn't even mention the "Neo-KKK" until this post, and regardless, if you are going to throw out the accusation that a group or organization is analogous to the Klan, you better be able to provide examples that put them on a comparable level to the historical record of the group you are comparing them to.
Yes the distasteful KKK has some very disgusting roots sure...
...so does the Nazi party,
...so does the democrats,
...so does several monarchies,
...so does the Communists, etc...
So... what is your point exactly? "Historical reality"...?
So by that logical I am not allowed compare a Trump policy to a current day (aka neo) Nazi policy because it is "deliberately dismissive" and/or because of the "historical reality" that the Nazi party used to throw jews in an oven?
You keep saying a safe space is a myth, well if that is the case then why are you virtue signalling a parties former history just because I pointed out one mere singular comparison? If it makes you feel better I can always rephrase what I said to something more politically correct for your tastebuds:
"BLM supports racial segregation, by pure coincidence so does the KKK! [insert shock here]"
I don't need to be patronized with your amorphous definition of what I would consider a proper "politcally correct" statement. I happen to think the term itself has become utterly meaningless.
Apparently....and virtually nowhere else on Earth. There are many things that occur in college that bear no comparison to the real world, such as sleeping til noon and drinking beer through an oil funnel.
Your entire issue with me comparing a KKK goal with a BLM goal doesn't seem to be it's inaccuracy but rather that it is just merely too "taboo" of a comparison due to the KKK's history?
(This is what people mean by the words "politically incorrect")
If we are not allowed to discuss and compare political parties and movements based on bad history, well then there won't be much to talk about in a thread about politics lol.... Hehe maybe in a few hundred years who knows!
The left are clearly losing the Buzzword/meme war they need to change tactics. Or at the very least they should come up with something more catchy than "ist/ism/phobia" words... and before you say it Misogyny, Nazi, Privilege, white-supremacist and "literally Hitler" aren't exactly any better