1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: Today at 04:19:40 PM »

My objection was a based on giving out financial benefits to people who want the recognition of marriage without providing equal benefit to society, not that they shouldn't be together or receive recognition.

What financial benefits do married people get? You've heard of the "marriage" penalty, right?

Joe Biden's objection was because he doesn't like the idea of two men or two women being married to each other. Again, Biden's reasoning in the video is "Marriage is between a man and a woman and states must respect that!" and "Marriage is between a man and a woman. What's the game going on here?"

Why was Biden's reasoning better than mine?

Yes, Joe Biden's reasoning is better than yours as he evolved and changed his stance a decade ago. You're still living in the 1840's.

As well, the study you keep citing is not without controversy:

Major academic organizations including the American Sociological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics and American Medical Association dispute the validity of Regnerus's data and conclusions reached thereof, arguing that unlike previous studies, the statistically tiny number of same sex couples in a study whose sample group largely consisted of failed heterosexual marriages where one of the parents was allegedly homosexual, make it impossible to extrapolate any information about same sex parenting. A review carried out by the American Medical Association noted that:[20]

... The data does not show whether the perceived romantic relationship ever in fact occurred; nor whether the parent self-identified as gay or lesbian; nor whether the same sex relationship was continuous, episodic, or one-time only; nor whether the individual in these categories was actually raised by a homosexual parent (children of gay fathers are often raised by their heterosexual mothers following divorce), much less a parent in a long-term relationship with a same-sex partner. Indeed, most of the participants in these groups spent very little, if any, time being raised by a “same-sex couple.”[20]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Regnerus#Same-sex_relationships_controversy

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: May 26, 2022, 08:10:56 PM »

I don't know what his impact was, but for the record, Biden “came out” on same sex marriage way before the SCOTUS ruling in 2015. Specifically, in May of 2012 (Granted, an election year, go figure):

Biden was asked by anchor David Gregory on May 4, 2012, whether he had rethought his longstanding opposition to same-sex marriage. “I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties,” Biden responded. “Who do you love? And will you be loyal to the person you love? And that’s what people are finding out is what all marriages, at their root, are about, whether they’re marriages of lesbians or gay men or heterosexuals.”

And even before Obama “came out”.

Were Biden’s statements genuine? Anyone’s guess.

Yes, such an early adopter, even before Obama, because no one was thinking about gay rights until the year 2012. 

What point are you failing to make? That Biden didn't come around to advocating for same-sex marriage until 10 years ago? So what? Why do you care?

You've never come around to it and are just as old. So you stand on the wrong side of history and humanity. Good for you. Regardless of motivation, at least he evolved a decade ago. You've never evolved. You're stuck in the 1840's. At least Biden is operating in the 21st century.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: May 26, 2022, 08:04:44 PM »

I'm not super up on the student loan forgiveness thing. But it was a Biden campaign promise. Apparently, something has been done since then:

Biden has forgiven debt for some disabled and defrauded borrowers, and made it easier for those already in the public service loan forgiveness program to have their debt forgiven. So far, his administration has forgiven over $17 billion of student loan debt. Still, borrowers owe over $1.74 trillion, collectively, with federal loans comprising over $1.6 trillion of that.
https://fortune.com/2022/05/04/will-biden-forgive-student-loan-debt-where-things-stand/

I think the thinking now is some sort of $10k forgiveness per borrower. But a bunch of stuff needs to still be worked out like the final amount, qualifications for forgiveness, retroactiveness, etc.

But, to your point, his polling is disaterously low. Mid-terms are 20 minutes away. So the genuiness of motivation behind any of this is certainly questionable. But maybe the ends justify the means. Pretty much every first term president in modern times loses the mid-terms, so it will be interesting to see how many of these populist policies come to the fore to try and break the cycle of a somewhat guaranteed mid-term gutting of the executive branch party in Congress.

Yes, those are the token loans I mentioned. To put it another way, he ran on forgiving $10,000 in student debt per debtor and then forgave about 0.98% of all student debt. It was very much a "look, I did something!" move in an effort to appease voters. It's better than nothing, but he continually pulls that $10,000 number back out of the bag in time for midterms while knowing that it's not an achievable number.

Yeah, I agree. He may be genuine, he may not be or somewhere in between. But I'm sure he himself and/or his handlers have a whole bag of stuff they are holding on to for the run-up to the mid-terms. Just waiting to pull something out to dangle in front of voters. And be all carrot/stick, "Look, see! If you don't vote Dem you won't get $10k, you won't get this other thing I said I would do that I haven't even mentioned since the campaign either..."

I'm pretty sure that's the tried and true gameplan for every politician.

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: May 25, 2022, 04:57:56 PM »

I don't disagree with your assessment. But there is know way to really know the motivation. We can speculate, but we don't know.

Yes, but the point is to assess which politicians are more likely to pull this stunt. They're all liars and thieves, but just how much they lie and thieve is on a spectrum of lying and thieving.

You'll get no argument from me on that. To be a politician, especially at the higher levels, you have to be basically a narcissistic borderline personality disordered individual. Then it's a sliding scale within that diagnosis.

As far as appeasing voters, isn't that kinda part of the job description? After all, they are supposed to represent their constituents. As voter sentiment changes, I would expect, for the most part, my governmental proxies that I voted for to represent me to evolve as well.

Regardless of motivation, did Biden land on the correct side of history? In my mind, as a voter, a constituent, yes.

The thing is, he didn't. His stated support for gay marriage now doesn't retroactively help it pass in the first place.

I don't know what his impact was, but for the record, Biden “came out” on same sex marriage way before the SCOTUS ruling in 2015. Specifically, in May of 2012 (Granted, an election year, go figure):

Biden was asked by anchor David Gregory on May 4, 2012, whether he had rethought his longstanding opposition to same-sex marriage. “I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties,” Biden responded. “Who do you love? And will you be loyal to the person you love? And that’s what people are finding out is what all marriages, at their root, are about, whether they’re marriages of lesbians or gay men or heterosexuals.”

And even before Obama “came out”.

Were Biden’s statements genuine? Anyone’s guess.

This is a case of all-too-often mentioned "virtue signaling". Biden is willing to state popular beliefs in order to garner support but he doesn't seem interested in fighting for those beliefs (because, all too likely, they're not genuine). This is why I brought up the student loan debacle. His support for student loan forgiveness likely isn't genuine (as well as most of the DNC's support). He's had a D majority in Congress for two years now. They forgave a few token loans and said "job done, lads!" Bringing it up again at this point is spitting on your supporters and laughing about it.

I'm not super up on the student loan forgiveness thing. But it was a Biden campaign promise. Apparently, something has been done since then:

Biden has forgiven debt for some disabled and defrauded borrowers, and made it easier for those already in the public service loan forgiveness program to have their debt forgiven. So far, his administration has forgiven over $17 billion of student loan debt. Still, borrowers owe over $1.74 trillion, collectively, with federal loans comprising over $1.6 trillion of that.
https://fortune.com/2022/05/04/will-biden-forgive-student-loan-debt-where-things-stand/

I think the thinking now is some sort of $10k forgiveness per borrower. But a bunch of stuff needs to still be worked out like the final amount, qualifications for forgiveness, retroactiveness, etc.

But, to your point, his polling is disaterously low. Mid-terms are 20 minutes away. So the genuiness of motivation behind any of this is certainly questionable. But maybe the ends justify the means. Pretty much every first term president in modern times loses the mid-terms, so it will be interesting to see how many of these populist policies come to the fore to try and break the cycle of a somewhat guaranteed mid-term gutting of the executive branch party in Congress.

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: May 25, 2022, 06:57:52 AM »

It's interesting to see people who are themselves firmly opposed to gay rights criticize politicians for having not always supported gay rights. It might seem completely nonsensical at first, but you have to remember that right-wing political discourse isn't so much focused on reason and logic as it on just trying to own the libs in any way possible.

The point is that it's less likely that Biden changed his mind and more likely that he restated certain positions based on popularity. The old guard of the DNC by and large flipped the switch on their gay rights stances in order to appease voters and not necessarily because they think gay marriage is acceptable. You should always be incredibly suspicious of some politician that changes their mind on an incredibly controversial subject after one side becomes much more favorable to their voter base than the other.

It's the same reason he keeps bringing up things like student loan forgiveness. It's popular. It brings in votes. He doesn't actually care about it one way or another and he isn't going to run around fighting for it.

I don't disagree with your assessment. But there is know way to really know the motivation. We can speculate, but we don't know.

As far as appeasing voters, isn't that kinda part of the job description? After all, they are supposed to represent their constituents. As voter sentiment changes, I would expect, for the most part, my governmental proxies that I voted for to represent me to evolve as well.

Regardless of motivation, did Biden land on the correct side of history? In my mind, as a voter, a constituent, yes.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question

« on: May 24, 2022, 11:08:15 PM »

I dare to say that despite pretending to know so much about the moon and the hoaxes surrounding it, flat Earthers cannot make a single prediction about the moon. Am I wrong?

You think a group of people could keep track of the behavior of the moon over a period of months or years and not be able to make a single prediction about its behavior? I dare to say I don't think you are actually using your head at all if you'd suggest such a thing. Anyone can take notes on the cycles of waxing and waning and look for patterns that repeat.

Yet, they don't. Isn't it strange? Everything is there. Whole tables of the positions of the stars and the moon and the sun, spanning centuries, and yet, they cannot put them down, study them, figure out the way they move, and make predictions. Why don't they even try? What do they luck? Would that be education, or proper understanding? For people who try to understand how the world works they put way too little effort on it.

What specific prediction do you think an FEr lacks?

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: May 24, 2022, 05:30:38 PM »

Yes, because the claim here is that it has a 100% near term fatality rate. 

What are you referring to as a 100% near term fatality rate?

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: May 24, 2022, 09:46:57 AM »

So the athlete deaths increase by a few every year, but then in 2021 it suddenly increases multiple fold in a single year like the FIFA increase, and coincidentally increasing in number throughout the year as the vaccines are rolled out in number throughout the year, sure. 

If the vaccine lowers bodily immunity as it is alleged then it could result in things like infection or cancer. Many of those are heart issues. It takes a professional denialist to blindly deny athletes clutching their chest at cup tournaments as normal and expected.

Well, this is strange:

Andy Murray beats Nikoloz Basilashvili in five-set thriller at Australian Open
https://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/33090267/andy-murray-beat-nikoloz-basilashvili-five-set-thriller-australian-open

Murray beats Basilashvili a week or so later after the Sydney ATP tourney where he dropped out of because he had trouble breathing.

Looks like he recovered from whatever was going on in just about 10 days. Must be some sort of miracle. Even more of a miracle, he has gone on to compete in:

Feb
- Dubai

March
- Indian Wells
- Miami Masters

April
- Monte Carlo
- Barcelona
- Munich

May
- Madrid
- Rome
- Geneva

All the run-up during Clay Season to Roland Garros, where he has since won his first round match. Truly a miracle.

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: May 24, 2022, 06:42:54 AM »

If you scroll down to the bottom of that page the authors provide over a thousand linked sources for the data, of each person who died. It's clearly not fake.

Seems like cardiac events for young athletes have been on the rise since 1980:


https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circulationaha.108.804617

I looked at a bunch of the links to news stories about some of the deaths. Couldn't find a single one that attributed a death to vaccines. One of the news stories even said, "According to the medical examiner's office in Roanoke, Va., the athlete, 20, died by suicide."

Another one, "Former Auburn QB Jeff Klein Dead Shortly After Stage 4 Cancer Diagnosis: 'We Lost a Good One'"

"The 52-year-old WWE Hall of Famer noted that he experienced health issues back in September. Receiving a procedure for what has been discovered to be a genetic heart issue that caused heart failure, Triple H now has a defibrillator in his chest."

"Winger Maddy Lawrence, 20, had been playing for the University of West England Women's second team against the University of Bristol on March 7 when she was injured. The first-year student later died in hospital on Friday, March 25. Her family say she had contracted an infection and her rugby injury was not life-threatening."

"The body of a teenager has been pulled from the water at Mugdock Country Park."

Here's one where Covid infection was the cause of death:

"Case in point, newly acquired Dutch attacker Delano Burgzorg. The Rheinhessen club confirmed on Tuesday that the 23-year-old was diagnosed with mild heart inflammation during a routine post-COVID exam. Much like--among many others--Bayern fullback winger Alphonso Davies, Burgzorg's COVID infection has left him with some lingering effects."

There doesn't seem to be any correlation presented between athlete deaths and vaccination.

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: May 24, 2022, 04:12:54 AM »

Joe Biden was 70 years old in 2012. Kind of late there. Why did it take him 70 years to accept gay rights?

Because it took him 70 years to accept gay rights. (Though I'd be surprised if he was thinking about gay rights at age, say, 10 - So let's go with 60 years) Better late than never.

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: May 24, 2022, 04:08:41 AM »

Your chart is from "Good Sciencing". Interesting back-story:

How the falsehood of athletes dying of coronavirus vaccines spread

She (Sen. Ron Johnson's (R-Wis.) spokeswoman, Alexa Henning) provided a link to a website called Good Sciencing, maintained by anonymous people, that has a blog post with the headline, as of Jan. 31: “577 Athlete Cardiac Arrests, Serious Issues, 352 Dead, After COVID Shot.”

Here’s the rub: This claim has been debunked repeatedly. The story of athletes dropping dead from coronavirus vaccines has its roots in mysterious Austrian websites with ties to that country’s far-right populist party, the Freedom Party. Those stories were then recycled by right-wing media in the United States and then eventually came out of the mouth of a U.S. senator.

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: May 24, 2022, 04:00:52 AM »

That clip is from I think around 2006.

Behind Joe Biden’s Evolution on L.G.B.T.Q. Rights
Mr. Biden’s support for same-sex marriage in 2012 was a reversal for him and a watershed moment in his shift — and the nation’s — on L.G.B.T.Q. issues.

Mr. Biden’s shifting views over the course of his political career illustrate the extent to which the Democratic Party has changed as it sought to keep pace with Americans, especially younger ones, who have dismissed traditional stances on issues like same-sex marriage. Mr. Biden has managed to not only keep pace with these evolving views, but on same-sex marriage, he was a step ahead of many of his fellow Democrats.

I guess you are anti-enlightenment and anti-human ideological progression/evolution.

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: May 15, 2022, 08:28:17 PM »

And what do bird eggs have to do with humans?

That's a simple one. If we recognize the life of a developing bird egg at any stage of development and are banning their destruction, then by this level of the recognition of life the we should also recognize human life at any stage of development.

I guess by that logic, State governments should mandate everyone should be a vegetarian. No more eggs over easy for anyone. No more hamburgers. Save the chickens! Meat is murder!

If you're gonna go all the way over to endangered animals, I might as well bring up more human "my body, my choice" issues. Ironically, are you against vaccine mandates? Or are you ok with States and municipalities determining vaccine mandate laws?

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: May 15, 2022, 06:14:43 PM »

How hard is it to keep your legs shut until you are at a point that you are ready to be responsible for your actions?

Wow! Someone is living in the 1800's.

And what do bird eggs have to do with humans? Maybe there should be state laws charging birds with abandonment when they kick a chick out of the nest.

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: May 15, 2022, 05:07:34 PM »

Not everywhere:

"States that allow for late-term abortions with no state-imposed thresholds are Alaska, Colorado, District of Columbia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont."
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/what-states-allow-late-term-abortion

That's 8 out of 50, and DC is not a state. Even liberal cesspits like California and New York impose bans on abortion after a certain number of weeks. Most areas have decided that women do not have a right over their bodies.

It's obviously murkier than that. In essence, they do have body autonomy up to a certain point, then they don't. And in some cases they have full body autonomy.

And it looks like all States currently allow autonomy under certain circumstances:

And if we were to examine the overall issue based on consensus, the national majority consensus is that RvW should remain in place.

That might hold water if the US was founded to combine state health laws into a unified national laws, but it was decided that states would be largely independent entities with its own laws on a state level. The states decide on their own abortion laws, as illustrated by the xx week bans and other abortion laws already in place.

In theory, you are incorrect:

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution

Under the Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, both the Constitution and federal law supersede state laws. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution defines the powers of the U.S. Congress. It grants some powers exclusively to Congress, such as legislation regarding immigration, bankruptcy, and currency. States do not have the authority to create their own immigration or bankruptcy systems, or to mint their own currency.

The Supreme Court got rid of the errant national precedent from RvW and rightly turned it over to the states to decide for themselves democratically.

Not yet.

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: May 15, 2022, 03:42:03 PM »

Yes, it's the woman's body and therefore the woman's right to choose, not the man's.

This argument assumes that women have absolute right over their body. They do not. It is widely illegal in most areas to abort after a certain number of weeks, even in very liberal areas in the US. The woman is forced by the law to carry the baby and is forced to give birth, even if she doesn't want to. This shows that the consensus is that women do not have the right to do what they want with their bodies.

Not everywhere:

"States that allow for late-term abortions with no state-imposed thresholds are Alaska, Colorado, District of Columbia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont."
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/what-states-allow-late-term-abortion

And if we were to examine the overall issue based on consensus, the national majority consensus is that RvW should remain in place.

U.S. Public Continues to Favor Legal Abortion, Oppose Overturning Roe v. Wade

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: May 15, 2022, 05:50:21 AM »

Somehow it is acceptable for a woman to abandon responsibility to her unborn child, but it is unacceptable for a man to do it.

You’re not making any sense.

How is it acceptable for a woman to abandon responsibility to her unborn child via abortion when people like you in society think that is an unacceptable act? As you’re screaming at her that she is baby killer as she’s walking into planned parenthood.

18

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: May 14, 2022, 05:33:55 PM »

A woman gets pregnant and aborts her unborn child to "do what was best for herself". This is considered acceptable.

A man learns that his girlfriend is pregnant and immediately abandons her and his unborn child to "do what was best for himself". This is considered unacceptable.

Why?

There are no medical or social consequences for the man. She might have to suffer medical complications, she might be unable to work at some point over the 9 mth pregnancy and thereafter, and a whole host of other downsides that will not affect the man at all.

In simplistic terms, he's not walking away from the same things as she is. He's shirking support and financial issues only, far lesser issues than the mother.

There are social consequences for a man abandoning his unborn child, that is incorrect.

Sure, there is a difference, and a woman may suffer medical complications. But you are now arguing that abortion is only acceptable for medical reasons. Since we know that this is not what you believe, we can see that this is a disingenuous line of reasoning.

I don't know what you mean by "social" ramifications. But I'm unclear if there are ramifications if a man abandons an unborn child. But there are certainly ramifications if a man abandons a born child.

What are the ramifications, "social" or otherwise, for abandoning an unborn child?

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: May 12, 2022, 06:48:15 AM »

That site has one sad story after the next, from people who were pressured into it, or who thought that abortion was the easy way out but forgot that they had a conscience.

50 or so negative testimonials in 14 years?

From the CDC :
In 2019, 629,898 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. Among 48 reporting areas with data each year during 2010–2019, in 2019, a total of 625,346 abortions were reported, the abortion rate was 11.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 195 abortions per 1,000 live births.

From 2010 to 2019, the number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 18%, 21%, and 13%, respectively. However, compared with 2018, in 2019, the total number increased 2%, the rate of reported abortions increased by 0.9%, and the abortion ratio increased by 3%.

With maybe 8.5 million abortions over the past 14 years, I would expect more negative testimonials than just 50. I guess only 50 people have a conscience.

I wonder if I submitted a non-negative story regarding an abortion would they post it? Something like, "Drs said I would die if I tried to carry to term..." or "My uncle raped me and I was suicidal at the thought of having to birth his child..."

20

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: May 11, 2022, 05:55:42 PM »

I didn't know this when I wrote the above, but Morning After Pills (ex., "Plan B") aren't abortion pills, they are simply contraceptives. RU-486, in contrast, is an "abortion" pill. It induces a miscarriage and the results are pretty much indistinguishable from a "natural" miscarriage.

So then "Plan B" is fine but RU-486 is not in that case.

And if somehow found to be induced, what sort of penalties would you levy against the woman?

Premeditated murder.

I don't see a difference between a woman purposefully ending her pregnancy because it inconveniences her versus a woman killing her toddler because it inconveniences her. Collectively, many have decided the former is fine while the latter is atrocious. I don't see how one can think of a toddler as independent (or, to put it to Roosroos' argument, not-a-parasite) versus a child still in the womb. They're all children, the only difference is age.

I'm struggling with rape & incest falling into the "inconvenience" bucket. But I see your point if you go down the path of anything after the point of conception is life, therefore, murder. I disagree, but that's why we have differences of opinion.

So therein lies the Premeditated murder as a charge and ensuing penalty - Murder 1, life in prison without parole or death penalty.
Back to the first part of my question, in States that, let's say, ban abortions altogether, would you advocate that all reported miscarriages be vetted by some authority to make sure they weren't induced, that they weren't murder?