The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: mister bickles on August 25, 2015, 01:55:50 PM

Title: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: mister bickles on August 25, 2015, 01:55:50 PM
these filthy baby butchers will be torn apart by demons of blood and murder in the pits and belly of HELL!   >:(

unless they fall down on their knees and repent in dust and ashes before the Most High God

(a likely occurrence? not really!....therefore....their fate shall be unspeakable.....better that they had ne'er been born or cast into the sea with a mill-stone 'round their necks!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSaraiCxtvA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjCs_gvImyw

their ultimate destination.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5gv-V9axtg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWXkBBIaiVc

Almighty God is watching them....with eyes of blazing anger!  >:(
(because the angels of these little ones are ever before His Face)

http://chick.com/reading/tracts/1009/1009_01.asp ;



 
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 25, 2015, 03:07:06 PM
If you don't like abortions, then you won't like those Planned Parenthood videos, but there's nothing "incriminating" about them, and the recent fervor to "defund" the organization is dumb and needs to go away soon.  Planned Parenthood largely reduces the number of abortions that are needed, anyway.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: jroa on August 25, 2015, 03:10:49 PM
Saddam does not realize that they are selling fetuses on the black market. 
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Thork on August 25, 2015, 03:17:06 PM
Can't say I like abortion. Yes in extreme cases like foetal abnormality or rape you can see an argument, but for a dumb teenager who is worried about going to college, ending someone else's life because it is inconvenient to your own isn't far removed from the motives of a murderer. Doctors performing such abortions is like being a licensed hitman who only picks the weakest of all targets - ripping unborn children from the wombs of their mothers. Nasty business, all of it. 
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 25, 2015, 04:00:43 PM
Saddam does not realize that they are selling fetuses on the black market.

No, they transport them to people for use in medical research.  It's entirely legal.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: jroa on August 25, 2015, 04:19:14 PM
Saddam does not realize that they are selling fetuses on the black market.

No, they transport them to people for use in medical research.  It's entirely legal.

For a profit, which is actually illegal.  You can't sell human bodies legally, cop.  You should have learned this in your criminal justice classes.  Or, were you just making that up too? 
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Thork on August 25, 2015, 04:47:25 PM
Saddam does not realize that they are selling fetuses on the black market.

No, they transport them to people for use in medical research.  It's entirely legal.

For a profit, which is actually illegal.  You can't sell human bodies legally, cop.  You should have learned this in your criminal justice classes.  Or, were you just making that up too? 
I'm sure he knows the going rate for a cop to turn a blind eye to fetus trafficking.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: rooster on August 25, 2015, 04:57:14 PM
Thork how do you feel about abortion if it's not technically a fetus yet?
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Thork on August 25, 2015, 05:03:44 PM
Thork how do you feel about abortion if it's not technically a fetus yet?
Life is life. I don't kill spiders even though I can't stand them. They have less brain cells than a very small fetus. It is just disrespect for nature. Once the sperm enters the egg and that protective shield to stop other sperms getting in is made, that's everything needed to make a human. It is complete. It's a person, just a very small and undeveloped one. Their destiny is your hands then ... their chances of being born, of getting educated, finding love, career, hopes, dreams ... its all in the pipeline. Taking all that from someone who doesn't know any better and never will because you are afraid your parents will go mad ... the ultimate selfish act. Contraception is fine. Morning after pills and everything after I feel are morally questionable.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Pongo on August 25, 2015, 06:23:05 PM
Thork how do you feel about abortion if it's not technically a fetus yet?
Life is life. I don't kill spiders even though I can't stand them. They have less brain cells than a very small fetus. It is just disrespect for nature. Once the sperm enters the egg and that protective shield to stop other sperms getting in is made, that's everything needed to make a human. It is complete. It's a person, just a very small and undeveloped one. Their destiny is your hands then ... their chances of being born, of getting educated, finding love, career, hopes, dreams ... its all in the pipeline. Taking all that from someone who doesn't know any better and never will because you are afraid your parents will go mad ... the ultimate selfish act. Contraception is fine. Morning after pills and everything after I feel are morally questionable.

Do you eat food that's killed for you to consume?  Life is life, yo.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Thork on August 25, 2015, 06:23:54 PM
Thork how do you feel about abortion if it's not technically a fetus yet?
Life is life. I don't kill spiders even though I can't stand them. They have less brain cells than a very small fetus. It is just disrespect for nature. Once the sperm enters the egg and that protective shield to stop other sperms getting in is made, that's everything needed to make a human. It is complete. It's a person, just a very small and undeveloped one. Their destiny is your hands then ... their chances of being born, of getting educated, finding love, career, hopes, dreams ... its all in the pipeline. Taking all that from someone who doesn't know any better and never will because you are afraid your parents will go mad ... the ultimate selfish act. Contraception is fine. Morning after pills and everything after I feel are morally questionable.

Do you eat food that's killed for you to consume?  Life is life, yo.
I don't consume people.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Pongo on August 25, 2015, 06:25:26 PM
That's not really what I asked, was it?
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Thork on August 25, 2015, 06:47:24 PM
Extinguishing the dreams of a lamb so I can eat it is a necessary evil. It's very existence is so that one day someone could consume it. It is the reason someone bred and reared it in the first place. Without animal husbandry, the animal would never have existed. And I need to eat in order to survive. Vegetarians will argue I can live on vegetables, but I don't have 4 stomachs and I do have incisor teeth and a digestive system build to cope with meat. Meat and animal fats are part of a healthy diet.

Extinguishing the future of a person is a little bit different. To me, anyway.  :-\

Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Pongo on August 25, 2015, 08:04:45 PM
Extinguishing the dreams of a lamb so I can eat it is a necessary evil. It's very existence is so that one day someone could consume it. It is the reason someone bred and reared it in the first place. Without animal husbandry, the animal would never have existed. And I need to eat in order to survive. Vegetarians will argue I can live on vegetables, but I don't have 4 stomachs and I do have incisor teeth and a digestive system build to cope with meat. Meat and animal fats are part of a healthy diet.

Extinguishing the future of a person is a little bit different. To me, anyway.  :-\

That's the naturalistic fallacy.  Just because you evolved to do something does not mean it's inherently right or even moral.  However, I want to address your reason for not killing spiders.  "Life is life," and, "It is just disrespect for nature."  It would seem that raising animals to kill them is in direct violation of both of these reasons.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: jroa on August 25, 2015, 08:30:20 PM
Planned Parenthood largely reduces the number of abortions that are needed, anyway.

How many abortions are needed, and by what percentage do they reduce it?  Oh, that is right, you are just making things up again.  ::)
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 25, 2015, 10:24:15 PM
For a profit, which is actually illegal.

I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that anyone is profiting from this, and I doubt it would be feasible for anyone to make a profit off of what Planned Parenthood does at all.

Quote
You can't sell human bodies legally

I know.  But transporting fetal matter to researchers for a fee isn't the same thing as selling human bodies.

Both of these points are analyzed here:

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/

How many abortions are needed, and by what percentage do they reduce it?

It's estimated that they reduce abortions and unwanted pregnancies by about 60% each year, at least according to this (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2015/07/21/index.html).
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: jroa on August 25, 2015, 10:38:16 PM
When someone haggles over the price of a fetus, then states that they need more money because they want to buy a Lamborghini, then I would say they are trying to profit off the say of the human body, would you not say the same?  Or, maybe you have your blinders on again? 
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: rooster on August 26, 2015, 12:09:16 AM
Extinguishing the dreams of a lamb so I can eat it is a necessary evil.
Sounds a lot like the reasoning of anyone getting an abortion.
"If I can kill this embryo in order to preserve my own quality of life, it is a necessary evil."
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 26, 2015, 01:42:15 AM
When someone haggles over the price of a fetus, then states that they need more money because they want to buy a Lamborghini, then I would say they are trying to profit off the say of the human body, would you not say the same?  Or, maybe you have your blinders on again?

You can't seriously think that the Lamborghini line was anything but a joke.  That's been Exhibit A for how cruel and callous Planned Parenthood clearly are on every right-wing webshite that's been covering this.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 26, 2015, 06:35:13 AM
Extinguishing the dreams of a lamb so I can eat it is a necessary evil. It's very existence is so that one day someone could consume it. It is the reason someone bred and reared it in the first place. Without animal husbandry, the animal would never have existed. And I need to eat in order to survive. Vegetarians will argue I can live on vegetables, but I don't have 4 stomachs and I do have incisor teeth and a digestive system build to cope with meat. Meat and animal fats are part of a healthy diet.

Extinguishing the future of a person is a little bit different. To me, anyway.  :-\
You (inadvertently, I think) just uncovered my main objection to the pro-life people. Many vegetarians do indeed argue that we shouldn't kill animals for food, and they try as hard as they can to suggest healthy alternatives. What they don't do is try to outlaw eating meat1.

You're morally objected to abortions. That's fine. It's a sensible stance to hold, and you're well within your rights to try to convince others that it's immoral or unethical. However, it's clear to me that this is not a unanimous stance within society, and I don't see why we would impose restrictive laws based on the views that aren't widely agreed upon.

That said, there's also an argument to be made against the government funding of Planned Parenthood. Pretending to be a pro-lifer for a moment: why should my tax dollars support something that I'm morally objected to? I mean, sure, we can just respond to that with "ur dumb" and move swiftly on, but as far as I know that's not how Western liberal democracies work.


1 - Okay, some do (http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-eating-meat-be-illegal), but they appear to be a very insignificant minority. It's definitely not as widespread an issue as among American "progressives" or pro-lifers.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Thork on August 26, 2015, 08:00:33 AM
Addressing PizaaPlanet ... I can reason it any way I like. Not everything is logical, I'm not a Vulcan. I don't like the idea of having ginger children, but if I met a gorgeous strawberry blonde woman with a nasty streak of ginger relatives, it wouldn't stop me trying to start a family with such a person.
I just don't like the idea of deliberately ending someone's life. I think it is so unfair and usually unnecessary. Yes, the mother's quality of life is diminished, but she still has a life. I don't think one person should be able to choose to end the life of someone else because it is inconvenient to them and because they happened to be here on earth first. It still sounds like the motive for murder to me. And yes, there are exceptions pro-lifers will always throw up like rape and deformity and incest etc, and you do need mechanisms to deal with those adverse cases ... but I think it is too easy for women to do under normal unplanned circumstances. Statistics show most births are unplanned. Before contraception, the natural birth rate in the UK was 2.4 children. You need 2.1 to maintain a population. The birth rate in the UK is now 1.4. It is the real reason we have immigrants ... to prop up the pension Ponzi scheme. It shows when you let people choose how many children they want, they choose the wrong number. It is beyond our collective cognitive powers to make the right choice ... people are supposed to be born unplanned, it is the way nature designed us.

And this isn't a legal issue to me. It is a moral one. You should be able to choose, but you should have a bloody good reason and it should be based on the future of the child, not on your own ambitions to be a pop star or because you don't want stretch marks. A woman's view on how to deal with this is the type of thing I use to judge character. If a woman has had 2 abortions ... I'm usually not interested in her. Why would I want to be with a woman who may choose to kill off my children? Its about morality, not legality. I'm probably just a bit old fashioned, but I think the sanctity of human life is important.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 26, 2015, 10:36:56 AM
And this isn't a legal issue to me. It is a moral one. You should be able to choose, but you should have a bloody good reason and it should be based on the future of the child, not on your own ambitions to be a pop star or because you don't want stretch marks. A woman's view on how to deal with this is the type of thing I use to judge character. If a woman has had 2 abortions ... I'm usually not interested in her. Why would I want to be with a woman who may choose to kill off my children? Its about morality, not legality. I'm probably just a bit old fashioned, but I think the sanctity of human life is important.
That's fine. I can respect that. You're well within the rights to make your own decisions. However, you shouldn't be able to force your morality unto others. So long as your objection is purely moral and not backed up by intention of pushing for legal changes, I have no beef with you.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: jroa on August 26, 2015, 03:39:19 PM
When someone haggles over the price of a fetus, then states that they need more money because they want to buy a Lamborghini, then I would say they are trying to profit off the say of the human body, would you not say the same?  Or, maybe you have your blinders on again?

You can't seriously think that the Lamborghini line was anything but a joke.  That's been Exhibit A for how cruel and callous Planned Parenthood clearly are on every right-wing webshite that's beebeetlesn covering this.

Regardless of whether the Lamborghini line was a joke or not, the individual who said it was trying to up the price, which means they were haggling.  They wanted more money, i.e. more profit.  They are profiting over the sale of murdered human bodies, and there is no way for you to deny this, Saddam.  Did they teach you anything at all about law at your criminal justice school?
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 26, 2015, 03:52:58 PM
That said, there's also an argument to be made against the government funding of Planned Parenthood. Pretending to be a pro-lifer for a moment: why should my tax dollars support something that I'm morally objected to?

If you're talking about abortion specifically, they don't (http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/).

Regardless of whether the Lamborghini line was a joke or not, the individual who said it was trying to up the price, which means they were haggling.  They wanted more money, i.e. more profit. 

That doesn't follow.  They try to offset their expenditures by charging a fee, but that doesn't mean that they're personally profiting from it.  The lady in the video makes that clear, and the link from FactCheck also explains that it would be impossible to profit from the fees that they charge.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: garygreen on August 26, 2015, 03:53:27 PM
more money, i.e. more profit.

i see that you've never encountered the definitions of "gross" and "net"
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 26, 2015, 04:46:52 PM
If you're talking about abortion specifically, they don't (http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/)
This article explicitly states that some state governments do do that. Seems like the federal government has got its shit together, but some states don't, and neither do you. What did you think you'd accomplish by posting an article that directly dismisses your claim?
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 27, 2015, 12:29:14 AM
Yes, that's true.  I suppose we don't really talk about funding from the states simply because there's very little the federal government can do to regulate that kind of thing, and so it's not a particularly useful subject for national politicians to touch on.  The better answer to your question is that the moral (and mostly religious) objections of a minority of people to a legal practice that's important to the overall medical health of the nation is no reason to stand in its way.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 27, 2015, 01:06:27 AM
Yes, that's true.  I suppose we don't really talk about funding from the states simply because there's very little the federal government can do to regulate that kind of thing, and so it's not a particularly useful subject for national politicians to touch on.
Sure, but state governments can. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was led to believe that your political parties operate at both levels.

The better answer to your question is that the moral (and mostly religious) objections of a minority of people to a legal practice that's important to the overall medical health of the nation is no reason to stand in its way.
You insist on calling people you disagree with the minority. In this case, this seems to be unsupported by data. You could play the pedant card and say it's technically the minority right now, but I'd say it's much fairer to say that America is split on the issue 50/50.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170249/split-abortion-pro-choice-pro-life.aspx
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/29/pro-choice-americans_n_7471690.html

Again, the very principle of a republic is that its elected representatives remain truthful to the people they're meant to represent. When half of the nation considers a practice to be highly unethical, and yet its being funded by the government, there is a valid cause for concern.

I'm interested in what you meant by your "overall medical health" claim. Most pro-lifers that I'm familiar with do not propose an outright ban on all abortion, so I'm not quite sure what you're hinting at here.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: garygreen on August 27, 2015, 01:58:27 AM
that america is nationally split on the issue of abortion funding doesn't preclude some state populations from being heavily tilted toward one side or the other.  the former doesn't really have anything to do with the latter. 

there's nothing concerning about state legislators (presumably) acting in interests of the citizens of their states in this way.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Tau on August 27, 2015, 03:43:38 AM
If you're talking about abortion specifically, they don't (http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/)
This article explicitly states that some state governments do do that. Seems like the federal government has got its shit together, but some states don't, and neither do you. What did you think you'd accomplish by posting an article that directly dismisses your claim?

I think state funding is a different issue from federal funding. The whole point of states is to represent a smaller subset of the population, to better suit their needs and wants. If the population of a state, in general, doesn't mind funding abortion why is it a problem?
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on August 27, 2015, 02:49:29 PM
If you're opposed to abortion because it's murder, then why would you allow it in cases of rape or incest? it isn't the 'child's' fault they were conceived in such a shitty way. If abortion is murder, then it's murder full stop. Allowing it in the case of rape is just a means of punishing the woman for having sex that you don't approve of.

Thork, the population of humans is close to 8 billion. I think we can survive a birth-rate of 1.4 for a few years.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: markjo on August 27, 2015, 03:09:02 PM
Just out of curiosity, why does it seem like everyone assume that Planned Parenthood's sole function is to perform abortions?  From what I understand, abortions are only around 6% of their business.  Most of the rest is women's healthcare, STD testing, contraception and education.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 27, 2015, 04:23:13 PM
Just out of curiosity, why does it seem like everyone assume that Planned Parenthood's sole function is to perform abortions?  From what I understand, abortions are only around 6% of their business.  Most of the rest is women's healthcare, STD testing, contraception and education.

Just because they might pass out 20 pamphlets or condoms for every abortion they perform doesn't take away the fact that their primary business is abortion.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: garygreen on August 27, 2015, 04:44:17 PM
pass out 20 pamphlets or condoms for every abortion

i absolutely love that you think this is what planned parenthood does.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: markjo on August 27, 2015, 06:24:57 PM
Just out of curiosity, why does it seem like everyone assume that Planned Parenthood's sole function is to perform abortions?  From what I understand, abortions are only around 6% of their business.  Most of the rest is women's healthcare, STD testing, contraception and education.

Just because they might pass out 20 pamphlets or condoms for every abortion they perform doesn't take away the fact that their primary business is abortion.
Since when is 3% of what you do considered your primary business?  BTW, you do realize that Planned Parenthood is forbidden by law to use government funds to perform abortions, don't you?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/04/how-planned-parenthood-actually-uses-its-federal-funding/
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2015/08/Planned-Parenthood-Services.png&w=480)
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: jroa on August 27, 2015, 06:46:36 PM
BTW, you do realize that Planned Parenthood is forbidden by law to use government funds to perform abortions, don't you?

They are also forbidden by law to sell human bodies for profit, but the law does not seem to stop them from doing that, now does it? 
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Thork on August 27, 2015, 07:00:16 PM
If you're opposed to abortion because it's murder, then why would you allow it in cases of rape or incest? it isn't the 'child's' fault they were conceived in such a shitty way. If abortion is murder, then it's murder full stop. Allowing it in the case of rape is just a means of punishing the woman for having sex that you don't approve of.
I didn't rule out rape. ???

Thork, the population of humans is close to 8 billion. I think we can survive a birth-rate of 1.4 for a few years.
That is because you are shit at maths. Only 9% of people on earth are white. We've had a birth rate like that for nearly 60 years. The population halves every two generations at that rate. Other places are not halving their birth rates. So in two generations white people will be around 4%.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 27, 2015, 07:14:53 PM
Oh no, future generations won't have the same racial statistics that we do.  This will certainly be a major problem for them, and we totally need to worry about it on their behalf.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Thork on August 27, 2015, 07:27:55 PM
Oh no, future generations won't have the same racial statistics that we do.  This will certainly be a major problem for them, and we totally need to worry about it on their behalf.
You'll still be alive to see it. America will be a very different land when white people aren't the majority any more. You'll be out voted on every election. The nation won't be geared towards you. If you have a look at African countries, those from the Middle East and poor Hispanic countries and how they are all run, you'll have a glimpse at the future of America.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: garygreen on August 27, 2015, 07:38:31 PM
They are also forbidden by law to sell human bodies for profit, but the law does not seem to stop them from doing that, now does it?

i see that you still haven't looked up the definitions of "gross" and "net."

here's an example: i'm bob, and i sell apples.  it costs me $1 to grow and pick an apple from my orchard.  alice comes to me and says, "hey, i'll buy a bunch of apples from you for $0.75."  i tell alice that that isn't enough money: "i fucking love it when people use fetal tissue for medical research eat apples, though, so i'll be a super cool dude and sell them to you at cost for $1 each, that way i don't lose any money providing you with the aborted fetuses apples we all love so much.  lol maybe i'll buy a labmbo with all my apples cash huh alice???"

this is the part where you come in and for some reason assert that bob is negotiating the price of apples to buy lambos with all his profits because you don't know the difference between gross and net income or apparently how finances work.

Oh no, future generations won't have the same racial statistics that we do.  This will certainly be a major problem for them, and we totally need to worry about it on their behalf.
You'll still be alive to see it. America will be a very different land when white people aren't the majority any more. You'll be out voted on every election. The nation won't be geared towards you. If you have a look at African countries, those from the Middle East and poor Hispanic countries and how they are all run, you'll have a glimpse at the future of America.

wow.  i hate you even more now than i did like 20 seconds ago.  jesus christ.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Thork on August 27, 2015, 07:41:25 PM
wow.  i hate you even more now than i did like 20 seconds ago.  jesus christ.
I have no idea who you are. Have you been at this site long? I nothing you. :-\
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: jroa on August 27, 2015, 07:57:19 PM
They are also forbidden by law to sell human bodies for profit, but the law does not seem to stop them from doing that, now does it?

i see that you still haven't looked up the definitions of "gross" and "net."

here's an example: i'm bob, and i sell apples.  it costs me $1 to grow and pick an apple from my orchard.  alice comes to me and says, "hey, i'll buy a bunch of apples from you for $0.75."  i tell alice that that isn't enough money: "i fucking love it when people have abortions eat apples, though, so i'll be a super cool dude and sell them to you at cost for $1 each, that way i don't lose any money providing you with the abortions apples we all love so much.  lol maybe i'll buy a labmbo with all my apples cash huh alice???"

this is the part where you come in and for some reason assert that bob is negotiating the price of apples to buy lambos with all his profits because you don't know the difference between gross and net income or apparently how finances work.

You do realize that the abortion had already been paid for, government subsidy money collected, etc. well before selling the resulting fetus and haggling over the price, right?  You make it sound like they have to sell fetuses in order to afford to pay for the abortions.  :-\
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 27, 2015, 10:22:32 PM
Just out of curiosity, why does it seem like everyone assume that Planned Parenthood's sole function is to perform abortions?  From what I understand, abortions are only around 6% of their business.  Most of the rest is women's healthcare, STD testing, contraception and education.

Just because they might pass out 20 pamphlets or condoms for every abortion they perform doesn't take away the fact that their primary business is abortion.
Since when is 3% of what you do considered your primary business?  BTW, you do realize that Planned Parenthood is forbidden by law to use government funds to perform abortions, don't you?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/04/how-planned-parenthood-actually-uses-its-federal-funding/
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2015/08/Planned-Parenthood-Services.png&w=480)


For Planned Parenthood abortion stats, ‘3 percent’ and ’94 percent’ are both misleading (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/08/12/for-planned-parenthood-abortion-stats-3-percent-and-94-percent-are-both-misleading/)
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: garygreen on August 27, 2015, 11:10:05 PM
You do realize that the abortion had already been paid for, government subsidy money collected, etc. well before selling the resulting fetus and haggling over the price, right?  You make it sound like they have to sell fetuses in order to afford to pay for the abortions.  :-\

fair enough, i should have said "fetuses" and not "abortion" in my jokey strikethroughs.  i still don't see what's so hard to understand about gross vs net income.

biologists want fetal tissue.  planned parenthood can produce and distribute fetal tissue for a cost.  biologists offer to pay for the cost of production in exchange for fetal tissue.  this is, operationally, sort of the definition of a non-profit firm.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Rushy on August 28, 2015, 12:02:44 AM
Thork has a good point here, too.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Thork on August 28, 2015, 06:55:46 AM
Thork has a good point here, too.
Quoted to be preserved for all time.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: xasop on August 28, 2015, 09:51:23 AM
You'll still be alive to see it. America will be a very different land when white people aren't the majority any more. You'll be out voted on every election.

I wasn't aware that "White" was one of the major parties in the US.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on August 28, 2015, 12:25:01 PM
If you're opposed to abortion because it's murder, then why would you allow it in cases of rape or incest? it isn't the 'child's' fault they were conceived in such a shitty way. If abortion is murder, then it's murder full stop. Allowing it in the case of rape is just a means of punishing the woman for having sex that you don't approve of.
I didn't rule out rape. ???

 
Quote
Yes in extreme cases like foetal abnormality or rape you can see an argument

Quote
Thork, the population of humans is close to 8 billion. I think we can survive a birth-rate of 1.4 for a few years.
That is because you are shit at maths. Only 9% of people on earth are white. We've had a birth rate like that for nearly 60 years. The population halves every two generations at that rate. Other places are not halving their birth rates. So in two generations white people will be around 4%.

O noes! The future won't be as white as it is now. Forgive me if I fail to panic.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Thork on August 28, 2015, 12:47:00 PM
You'll still be alive to see it. America will be a very different land when white people aren't the majority any more. You'll be out voted on every election.

I wasn't aware that "White" was one of the major parties in the US.
It is called "Republican".
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 28, 2015, 01:17:58 PM
I think state funding is a different issue from federal funding. The whole point of states is to represent a smaller subset of the population, to better suit their needs and wants. If the population of a state, in general, doesn't mind funding abortion why is it a problem?
If that's the case, that's more or less fine by me.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: xasop on August 28, 2015, 01:29:31 PM
You'll still be alive to see it. America will be a very different land when white people aren't the majority any more. You'll be out voted on every election.

I wasn't aware that "White" was one of the major parties in the US.
It is called "Republican".

Putting aside the fact that my IQ dropped about 50 points from reading that post, a Democrat is currently sitting in the White House. It seems to me like "white people" are already being outvoted, so your hysteria is misplaced.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 28, 2015, 01:32:10 PM
Restricting my analysis to just the two major American parties, all non-white candidates in the current presidential race are Republicans.

Checkmate, atheists.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Thork on August 28, 2015, 01:37:03 PM
You'll still be alive to see it. America will be a very different land when white people aren't the majority any more. You'll be out voted on every election.

I wasn't aware that "White" was one of the major parties in the US.
It is called "Republican".

Putting aside the fact that my IQ dropped about 50 points from reading that post, a Democrat is currently sitting in the White House. It seems to me like "white people" are already being outvoted, so your hysteria is misplaced.
It has begun!  :o
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: xasop on August 28, 2015, 01:48:57 PM
It has begun!  :o

Yeah, about 186 years ago when the first Democratic President was elected. White America didn't last very long, did it?
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Thork on August 28, 2015, 01:55:49 PM
It has begun!  :o

Yeah, about 186 years ago when the first Democratic President was elected. White America didn't last very long, did it?
Democratic party wasn't always the black party. The split used to be between people who liked country music and those who liked rock music. Now it is country vs rap.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: xasop on August 28, 2015, 02:38:00 PM
Democratic party wasn't always the black party. The split used to be between people who liked country music and those who liked rock music. Now it is country vs rap.

Yes, Thork, that's exactly it. Everyone in America is bisected by a line with white Republican country fans on one side and non-white Democratic rappers on the other. That's why there are no white rappers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminem), no black Republicans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson) and no Democratic country musicians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_McGraw#Politics).
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Pongo on August 28, 2015, 02:38:09 PM
It has begun!  :o

Yeah, about 186 years ago when the first Democratic President was elected. White America didn't last very long, did it?
Democratic party wasn't always the black party. The split used to be between people who liked country music and those who liked rock music. Now it is country vs rap.

How interesting it would be to believe,
the ideas you take as canonical.
I suppose I just can't perceive,
life though a Thork-tinted monocle.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: jroa on August 28, 2015, 05:12:43 PM
Parsifal got trooolllled
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 22, 2015, 05:15:53 PM
A few days old, obviously, but:

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/254181-house-votes-to-freeze-funding-for-planned-parenthood

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/254458-senate-gop-starts-fast-track-on-bill-to-block-planned-parenthood

What exactly will cutting off Planned Parenthood's federal funding do to the abortion rate?  It certainly won't reduce it, and in fact will most likely increase it - which is something that members of Congress would definitely know, seeing how they're the ones responsible for giving Planned Parenthood federal funding and telling them what they can or can't do with it.  It's almost as if the GOP don't really care about their pro-life base's values at all, only their votes.  Otherwise, why bother with superficial but unhelpful political stunts like this?
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 22, 2015, 08:24:24 PM
According to Republicans, they're not doing this for pro-life reasons at all. Indeed, many of them suggested moving the funds to other women's health organisations. That might be related to the fact that the move doesn't seem to have much to do with pro-life beliefs.

In fact, the sources that most prominently claim that this move has anything to do with the pro-choice vs pro-life debate appear to be very Democratic in their nature, with the Fair and Balanced™ CNN spearheading the efforts. How very peculiar that they'd be so quick to decide what's going on in the Republicans' minds.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 23, 2015, 05:11:31 PM
Bernie Sanders is a Jew.
His father's religious background doesn't affect his skin tone all that much. Being of Polish ancestry, if anything, makes him more white :^)
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 28, 2015, 04:19:01 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/us/colorado-springs-planned-parenthood-shooting.html
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: garygreen on November 28, 2015, 06:44:33 PM
https://youtu.be/9bb6kMzyVu4?t=30s

the most fucking ironic thing anyone has ever said in the history of ever at 0:30
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 28, 2015, 06:59:02 PM
the most fucking ironic thing anyone has ever said in the history of ever at 0:30
Are you referring to the part where he asks people not to conflate peaceful PP opponents with violent crazies, or the part where he suggests that we shouldn't jump to conclusions while the bodies are still warm?

Or, to offer you a more open-ended question: What about his statement strikes you as ironic?
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: garygreen on November 28, 2015, 11:00:48 PM
Or, to offer you a more open-ended question: What about his statement strikes you as ironic?

that there is no universe in which a republican would ever say anything so magnanimous about islam and its adherents
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Blanko on November 28, 2015, 11:13:29 PM
wow all republicans think one thing and one thing only
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: garygreen on November 28, 2015, 11:57:18 PM
wow all republicans think one thing and one thing only

the simplest way to get me to eat my hat would be to demonstrate a gop politician going on tv just hours into an islamist terror attack to explain how important it is not to assume that muslims support violence, even those with extreme disdain for the west.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Blanko on November 29, 2015, 12:02:46 AM
So the point is, preconceived notions being wrong = irony?
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: garygreen on November 29, 2015, 12:20:03 AM
hahahaha oh i get it now yes the point of my post was to say that the thing i am saying is wrong an dum hahaha ur so funny!

goddamn i hate it when people choose to argue via sarcasm.  either make an argument or demonstrate some evidence of me being wrong or something.  "hahaha don't you think u agree that ur wrong???" is uncompelling and only makes me less sympathetic to whatever reasonability underpins what you actually think.

for instance, i found an example of gw bush calling islam a religion of peace six days after 9/11.  something like that would be more persuasive to me than "lol but wouldn't you agree with me that ur so wrong??? hahaha got you with my sweet sarc."
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Blanko on November 29, 2015, 12:20:50 AM
Why are you suddenly typing like you're on tumblr?
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: garygreen on November 29, 2015, 12:23:26 AM
what's a tumblr?
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Blanko on November 29, 2015, 12:24:33 AM
It's this website that I think you would really like.

Anyway, what was sarcastic about what I said? A republican said something that didn't fit your preconceived notion of what a republican is, and you labelled that as ironic. What exactly am I being wrong about?
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 29, 2015, 12:41:59 AM
Ah, the good ol' "not all Muslims follow the Koran" trope.

In one corner, you have an ideology whose ultimate authority (a book allegedly dictated word by word by Allah) decries the absolute necessity of killing people until said ideology has conquered the world. In the other corner, a bunch of people engaged in a legal battle over what they perceive to be a scandalous wrongdoing and a number of loosely-related wackos bringing their guns into the discussion.

One extremist group has the official and unmistakable approval of someone they can consider an authority (Allah). The other receives very little other than condemnation from what you're trying to pinpoint as their authority (Republicans).

One group rushes into buildings whilst yelling "Allahu ackbar" and puts out media releases making it abundantly clear that they're responsible, the other is hardly even an organised group, remains silent, and their motives need to be established after each case. Yeah, how dare people request that we wait for evidence before throwing around accusations...

What a shit analogy. This is a new low, even for you.

That said, I find your specific choice of words to be particularly entertaining. It's really surprising how precisely you described Dubya's response to 9/11. Were you intentionally setting yourself up for a "dayum those dumb lib'ruls" rant, or are you just very forgetful? [EDIT: Damn, you beat me to it]

Anyway, what was sarcastic about what I said? A republican said something that didn't fit your preconceived notion of what a republican is, and you labelled that as ironic. What exactly am I being wrong about?
If I understand correctly, he thinks it's ironic that Republicans defend themselves when accused of being terrorists by immediately denouncing crazy attackers, because they wouldn't rush to the same kind of defence if it was someone else that's on the receiving end of the accusation. He used Muslims as an example.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: garygreen on November 29, 2015, 02:15:58 AM
Ah, the good ol' "not all Muslims follow the Koran" trope.

In one corner, you have an ideology whose ultimate authority (a book allegedly dictated word by word by Allah) decries the absolute necessity of killing people until said ideology has conquered the world. In the other corner, a bunch of people engaged in a legal battle over what they perceive to be a scandalous wrongdoing and a number of loosely-related wackos bringing their guns into the discussion.

One extremist group has the official and unmistakable approval of someone they can consider an authority (Allah). The other receives very little other than condemnation from what you're trying to pinpoint as their authority (Republicans).

What a shit analogy.

this discussion probably can't go anywhere if you really believe that islam is an ideology of global domination because the koran says so.  it also can't go anywhere if you're unwilling to entertain the possibility that the decision to massacre an abortion clinic maybe intersects with christianity and the bible at some point.

whoops, i almost missed the best part: you're doing the ironic thing right here in this very paragraph.  you're saying that in one corner we have the most violent subset of islam, and in the other corner we have the total population of peaceful adherents and few wackos.  why does christianity get to count all of its peaceful adherents in its "corner," but islam's corner is only represented by the most violent folks you could pick out of the whole?

That said, I find your specific choice of words to be particularly entertaining. It's really surprising how precisely you described Dubya's response to 9/11. Were you intentionally setting yourself up for a "dayum those dumb lib'ruls" rant, or are you just very forgetful? [EDIT: Damn, you beat me to it]

no, but i'm willing to be wrong about things.  it's no big deal.  in this case we're all going a bit overboard since i figured it would obvious that i was being at least somewhat flippant in my assessment that it was literally the most ironic thing to ever happen in the history of everything.  it probably wasn't.  also, i agree that it's not true that literally every republican wants to murder every muslim alive today or whatever y'all are saying my argument is.  i sort of can't believe that i have to point that out, but here we are.

gw's nice comment notwithstanding, i'm not sure i'm going too far out on a limb when i say that gop rhetoric toward islam is overwhelmingly intolerant and negative.  it certainly doesn't delineate violent extremists from non-violent extremists like they're doing here with christians.  and other than gwb's comments after 9/11, i can't actually find any examples of republican candidates imploring their constituency to dissociate violent islamist extremists from the enormous and largely peaceful population in which they reside.  especially not literally just hours after an islamist terror attack.

Anyway, what was sarcastic about what I said? A republican said something that didn't fit your preconceived notion of what a republican is, and you labelled that as ironic. What exactly am I being wrong about?
If I understand correctly, he thinks it's ironic that Republicans defend themselves when accused of being terrorists by immediately denouncing crazy attackers, because they wouldn't rush to the same kind of defence if it was someone else that's on the receiving end of the accusation. He used Muslims as an example.

almost.  i'm comparing muslims with extremist views to christians with extremist views.  you're saying it like i'm comparing muslims to republicans.

here's what i'm saying: both christianity and islam have fundamentalist/extremist subsets.  religious fundamentalism/extremism does not necessitate belief in violence in either religion.  that extremism does not necessitate belief in violence in christianity is a delineation that i do not think he gop is generally willing to apply to islam, even though it's valid.  this, to me, is ironic; i would expect someone who makes that delineation once to make it in all cases.  it's the opposite of what i expect.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: garygreen on November 29, 2015, 02:55:42 AM
i just thought of a better way to explain what i mean, so i'm going to make it a separate post.

kinzinger is acting as a christian apologist.  i take him to be explaining that there are many christians who feel that abortion is evil and contrary to the will of god, just like the assailants, but they don't believe that violence is a morally justifiable means of defeating that evil.  in other words, he's cautioning us against assuming that people with religious and political beliefs identical to those of the terrorists also condone/accept/believe in terrorism and violence.  he's completely right on this point.

that's why i think it's ironic that the gop is absolutely unwilling to say similar things about islam.  gw was cool about saying that islam is a religion of peace, but that's not quite on point to what i find ironic.  i find it ironic that no gop candidate would ever make the delineation kinzinger did for christians.  i can't find any examples of a gop politician explaining that there is a fundamental difference between a muslim who believes for religious reasons that america is an evil and immoral force, and those who also advocate violence and terror as a means of responding to that evil.  i've never seen any gop rhetoric concede such a distinction; but, like the one kinzinger made for christians opposed to abortion, it's equally true.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Blanko on November 29, 2015, 03:12:25 AM
So it's ironic because you're assuming Kinzinger would not say a particular thing, or you're conflating Kinzinger's views with GOP as a whole? I'm not expecting you to not use hyperbole, but I'm beginning to wonder whether you actually know what irony is.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 29, 2015, 04:08:15 AM
this discussion probably can't go anywhere if you really believe that islam is an ideology of global domination because the koran says so.
If you'd like to propose an alternative standard for establishing what Islam is, you're welcome to try. But yeah, I doubt you'll be able to get anywhere there without making up a new Islam.

it also can't go anywhere if you're unwilling to entertain the possibility that the decision to massacre an abortion clinic maybe intersects with christianity and the bible at some point.
I'm happy to entertain the possibility. I'm not happy to assume it and take it for granted while the bodies are still warm. We're also discussing Republicans, not Christianity. Sure, they "intersect" to some extent, but the focus is important.

whoops, i almost missed the best part: you're doing the ironic thing right here in this very paragra ph.  you're saying that in one corner we have the most violent subset of islam, and in the other corner we have the total population of peaceful adherents and few wackos.  why does christianity get to count all of its peaceful adherents in its "corner," but islam's corner is only represented by the most violent folks you could pick out of the whole?
My correction on Christianity vs GOP still stands. I will take the liberty to assume that you'd make the same point anyway. If that's incorrect, ignore the rest of this paragraph. I will also apply a filter to your hyperbole ("Islam's corner is only represented by the most violent folks you could pick out of the whole" becomes "the attention given to mujahideen is undue and unfairly disadvantageous to peaceful self-identifying Muslims") to attempt to fish out some semi-reasonable point there.

To answer your question with the above revisions: The two are fundamentally different in their core tenets. The Koran is the final authority on the tenets of Islam. Conservatism doesn't really have an ultimate authority. One is a religion, and one that's (relative to other religions) not very open to interpretation, while the other is a political stance. The latter is much more flexible, while Islam is largely inseparable from the Koran.

no, but i'm willing to be wrong about things.  it's no big deal.
You're doing an extremely bad job of demonstrating that. Just look at your responses to Blanko.

]in this case we're all going a bit overboard since i figured it would obvious that i was being at least somewhat flippant in my assessment that it was literally the most ironic thing to ever happen in the history of everything.  it probably wasn't.
It was quite clear [to me] what you were trying to say. That said, I still think you're horribly wrong. There's nothing surprising, controversial, ironic, hypocritical or whatever going on here. As usual, liberals decided to turn a tragedy into their usual "lol Republicans are the biggest terrorist group in America xDDDD" shtick, and Republicans have to defend themselves. How is this ironic? If you think this kind of attempts at saving face are "ironic", then surely the same goes for the accusations?

also, i agree that it's not true that literally every republican wants to murder every muslim alive today or whatever y'all are saying my argument is.  i sort of can't believe that i have to point that out, but here we are.
I already said what my understanding of your argument is, and you agreed that I had it [kinda, sorta] right.

it certainly doesn't delineate violent extremists from non-violent extremists like they're doing here with christians.
At this point, it's clear that you're trying to conflate "Republicans", "Christians" and "Planned Parenthood opponents".

Justify this.


almost.  i'm comparing muslims with extremist views to christians with extremist views.  you're saying it like i'm comparing muslims to republicans.
Well, yes. You linked to a video of a Republican talking about Republicans. You're the only person who mentioned Christianity, and you only mentioned it this late in the discussion. You're making up the contents of a video and then calling your own fantasy ironic. That doesn't strengthen your argument, it weakens it.

here's what i'm saying: both christianity and islam have fundamentalist/extremist subsets.
The sizes and impacts of each subset are absolutely crucial here. Unsurprisingly, you chose to entirely omit that. Once we start seeing vigilante western Christian groups crashing into buildings in Saudi Arabia and blowing themselves up in Turkey trying to kill as many people as they can, I might start taking your point more seriously. Of course, that's never going to happen, because western culture does not rely on the Koran.

religious fundamentalism/extremism does not necessitate belief in violence in either religion.  that extremism does not necessitate belief in violence in christianity is a delineation that i do not think he gop is generally willing to apply to islam, even though it's valid.  this, to me, is ironic; i would expect someone who makes that delineation once to make it in all cases.  it's the opposite of what i expect.
Yeah, I suppose if you ignore a whole lot of reality, that kind of makes sense.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: garygreen on November 29, 2015, 04:11:06 AM
So it's ironic because you're assuming Kinzinger would not say a particular thing, or you're conflating Kinzinger's views with GOP as a whole? I'm not expecting you to not use hyperbole, but I'm beginning to wonder whether you actually know what irony is.

it's not possible for me to demonstrate in this thread that kinzinger doesn't believe something or didn't say something.  you, though, can demonstrate my error with a single quote.   since the gop is, by definition, a political party whose operational goal is to unify like-minded politicians into a single platform, i don't think it's super unreasonable to suppose that his view of islam is relatively aligned with gop rhetoric as a whole.

whatever he personally believes isn't what i find ironic.  i'm talking about gop rhetoric, not kinzinger's personal beliefs.

irony is often defined as the opposite of what's expected.  in one sense, it's not ironic at all for a gop lawmaker to defend the christian beliefs of his constituents.  to me, though, the irony is that a member of a group known for failing to delineate between violent and nonviolent islamists in the best case, and outright castigating those who suggest such a distinction in the worst case, is advocating for such a distinction when it involves a different religion.  it's ironic to me because i think the situations are nearly identical (and the differences superfluous).

in other words, all else equal, i would expect people who say, "many people share the underlying political/religious/social beliefs of this terrorist while also explicitly rejecting violence as justifiable or moral, and these two groups should not be conflated with one another" to advocate such a view regardless of the political/religious/social beliefs of the terrorist.  that the gop does not is the opposite of what i expect, so i find it ironic.

i'm seriously running out of ways to explain it.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 29, 2015, 04:18:45 AM
kinzinger is acting as a christian apologist.
An argument from false premise is not particularly useful from a pragmatic standpoint, even if it can be technically valid.

in other words, all else equal, i would expect people who say, "many people share the underlying political/religious/social beliefs of this terrorist while also explicitly rejecting violence as justifiable or moral, and these two groups should not be conflated with one another" to advocate such a view regardless of the political/religious/social beliefs of the terrorist.  that the gop does not is the opposite of what i expect, so i find it ironic.
And why do you focus your flak on Republicans? Democrats do the same thing.

Christian no want bake gay cake? Bad.
Muslim no want handle pork? Good.

How very "ironic" that you would rant and rave about "delineation" or whatever you want to call it in one case, but not the other. Nice sarcasm, bro (◕‿◕✿)
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Blanko on November 29, 2015, 04:30:55 AM
So it's ironic because you're assuming Kinzinger would not say a particular thing, or you're conflating Kinzinger's views with GOP as a whole? I'm not expecting you to not use hyperbole, but I'm beginning to wonder whether you actually know what irony is.

it's not possible for me to demonstrate in this thread that kinzinger doesn't believe something or didn't say something.  you, though, can demonstrate my error with a single quote.   since the gop is, by definition, a political party whose operational goal is to unify like-minded politicians into a single platform, i don't think it's super unreasonable to suppose that his view of islam is relatively aligned with gop rhetoric as a whole.

whatever he personally believes isn't what i find ironic.  i'm talking about gop rhetoric, not kinzinger's personal beliefs.

irony is often defined as the opposite of what's expected.  in one sense, it's not ironic at all for a gop lawmaker to defend the christian beliefs of his constituents.  to me, though, the irony is that a member of a group known for failing to delineate between violent and nonviolent islamists in the best case, and outright castigating those who suggest such a distinction in the worst case, is advocating for such a distinction when it involves a different religion.  it's ironic to me because i think the situations are nearly identical (and the differences superfluous).

in other words, all else equal, i would expect people who say, "many people share the underlying political/religious/social beliefs of this terrorist while also explicitly rejecting violence as justifiable or moral, and these two groups should not be conflated with one another" to advocate such a view regardless of the political/religious/social beliefs of the terrorist.  that the gop does not is the opposite of what i expect, so i find it ironic.

i'm seriously running out of ways to explain it.

So you are conflating Kinzinger's views with GOP's. Got it.

In any case, what you're describing is not irony. The term you're actually looking for is "double standard". The best thing you could have done is say "okay i didnt literally mean it and i cant believe i have to explain that", except in a context that's actually appropriate.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: garygreen on November 29, 2015, 05:59:25 PM
this discussion probably can't go anywhere if you really believe that islam is an ideology of global domination because the koran says so.
If you'd like to propose an alternative standard for establishing what Islam is, you're welcome to try. But yeah, I doubt you'll be able to get anywhere there without making up a new Islam.

The Koran is the final authority on the tenets of Islam...Islam is largely inseparable from the Koran.

Once we start seeing vigilante western Christian groups crashing into buildings in Saudi Arabia and blowing themselves up in Turkey trying to kill as many people as they can, I might start taking your point more seriously. Of course, that's never going to happen, because western culture does not rely on the Koran.

ok.  this conversation isn't going to go anywhere.

it certainly doesn't delineate violent extremists from non-violent extremists like they're doing here with christians.
At this point, it's clear that you're trying to conflate "Republicans", "Christians" and "Planned Parenthood opponents".

Justify this.

we absolutely can't get anywhere in this discussion if you don't see the relationship between the christian belief, pro-life belief, and 20th century american conservatism in general.  on what do you think the pro-life platform is based?

As usual, liberals decided to turn a tragedy into their usual "lol Republicans are the biggest terrorist group in America xDDDD" shtick, and Republicans have to defend themselves.

sorry, but you'll have to point me to the passage where i said anything at all like "Republicans are the biggest terrorist group in America."  or even intimated that.  the most negative thing i've said about the gop so far is "lol irony" and "gop rhetoric toward islam is p negative tbqh."  wow i can just feel the vitriol...

So you are conflating Kinzinger's views with GOP's. Got it.

he's a gop politician.  your argument at this point is that i should not assume that a gop politician shares common political beliefs with the gop.  jesus christ.

In any case, what you're describing is not irony. The term you're actually looking for is "double standard".

the double standard is what i find ironic, dummy.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 29, 2015, 08:18:38 PM
ok.  this conversation isn't going to go anywhere.
Fair enough, I'll chalk it down to you having redefined "Islam" in your mind. It's such a worrisome trend among American neoprogressives.

we absolutely can't get anywhere in this discussion if you don't see the relationship between the christian belief, pro-life belief, and 20th century american conservatism in general.
To remind you, you already said this, and I already explained why I'm not okay with you shifting the goalposts:
it also can't go anywhere if you're unwilling to entertain the possibility that the decision to massacre an abortion clinic maybe intersects with christianity and the bible at some point.
I'm happy to entertain the possibility. I'm not happy to assume it and take it for granted while the bodies are still warm. We're also discussing Republicans, not Christianity. Sure, they "intersect" to some extent, but the focus is important.

on what do you think the pro-life platform is based?
Once again you remind yourself of the substance of my objection. The pro-life platform is irrelevant here until evidence to the positive is presented. The burden of proof lies on liberals as the accusers, which Kinzinger pointed out. You find this "ironic" for some reason, but you seem to be completely unable to justify your assumptions without first taking them for granted.

"Pro-lifers are all Christian and this guy was a Christian and therefore a pro-lifer. How do I know he was a Christian? Well, he was a Republican. How do I know he was a Republican? Well, duh, where do you think pro-lifers come from?"

No, Gary, this is not how this works. If you have absolutely no evidence, then you shouldn't be making dumb accusations. If you can't justify your accusations, just admit it. After all, you're okay with being wrong.

sorry, but you'll have to point me to the passage where i said anything at all like "Republicans are the biggest terrorist group in America."  or even intimated that.
You, sir, need to stop trying to twist everyone's words around. It never ends well for you. It's not just that it reflects very poorly on your sense of integrity, you're simply not skilled enough to trick people.

I never suggested that you, personally, prompted Kinzinger's response. As far as I can tell, it was the executive team of Planned Parenthood who invoked this very common trope. See, the problem here is that you see me talking about "liberals", but you think "oh shit, he must be talking about me!". You then respond as if I targeted you personally. In other words, you fail to "delineate" between groups, subgroups, and individuals. How "ironic".

he's a gop politician.  your argument at this point is that i should not assume that a gop politician shares common political beliefs with the gop.  jesus christ.
Are you really stupid enough to assume that all Republicans agree on all issues? You're talking about half of your country's political spectrum.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: garygreen on November 29, 2015, 08:47:01 PM
Quote from: SexWarrior
Were you intentionally setting yourself up for a "dayum those dumb lib'ruls" rant, or are you just very forgetful?

That said, I still think you're horribly wrong. There's nothing surprising, controversial, ironic, hypocritical or whatever going on here. As usual, liberals decided to turn a tragedy into their usual "lol Republicans are the biggest terrorist group in America xDDDD" shtick, and Republicans have to defend themselves.

Fair enough, I'll chalk it down to you having redefined "Islam" in your mind. It's such a worrisome trend among American neoprogressives.

Once again you remind yourself of the substance of my objection. The pro-life platform is irrelevant here until evidence to the positive is presented. The burden of proof lies on liberals as the accusers

See, the problem here is that you see me talking about "liberals", but you think "oh shit, he must be talking about me!".

yeah i can't imagine how i got that idea

it took you longer than usual this time to make up a bogus reason to call me dishonest
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 29, 2015, 08:52:50 PM
yeah i can't imagine how i got that idea
I genuinely can't, so if you can come up with a reason which doesn't involve you spectacularly fucking up, please go ahead. Alternatively, please put some action behind your words of "I'm okay with being wrong", and simply apologise for the clearly unintended confusion you've been causing.

It seems like you're committing the exact fallacy you were originally accusing Kinzinger of. In all the sentences you've quoted, I went out of my way to make it abundantly clear when I refer to you specifically, an when I cast general judgement upon liberals/neoprogressives/Democrats. It would take some serious mental gymnastics to conflate the two.

it took you longer than usual this time to make up a bogus reason to call me dishonest
Oh, no, I thought you were being dishonest from the get-go. But, as you may remember, we have an agreement under which I give you undue amounts of the benefit of the doubt to allow you to defend yourself.

This is also why I focused on your ineptitude, rather than lack of integrity. The latter is already sufficiently well established.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: garygreen on November 29, 2015, 09:45:04 PM
In all the sentences you've quoted, I went out of my way to make it abundantly clear when I refer to you specifically, an when I cast general judgement upon liberals/neoprogressives/Democrats. It would take some serious mental gymnastics to conflate the two.

i disagree.  to me, statements like, "Were you intentionally setting yourself up for a "dayum those dumb lib'ruls" rant, or are you just very forgetful?" sound pretty strongly as if you're grouping me in with "liberals," the group of people you identify as calling republicans terrorists.

the sentence in question reads like this to me: "I think you're wrong: there's nothing ironic here. As usual, liberals decided to turn a tragedy into their usual "lol Republicans are the biggest terrorist group in America xDDDD" shtick."

it may be obvious to you that you're not lumping me in with the "usual" liberal rhetoric of "lol republicans are terrorists," but since i'm not in your brain reading your thoughts, the statement is at best ambiguous, and it absolutely reads to me as "i think you're wrong; as usual, a liberal is calling republicans terrorists." i can only interpret what you write, not what you think.  this is especially true since, up to this point, we haven't been talking about any other "liberal" response to the video other than my one snarky remark.  so if you're not talking about my remark in the context of liberals being overly critical of conservatives or calling them terrorists or whatever, who were you talking about?  what are liberals saying in the wake of this attack that you believe is overly critical/labeling them as terrorists?

but cool, i accept that you're not grouping me in with the folks who call republicans terrorists.  done deal.  as usual, you could have resolved this with the sentence, "I'm not saying that you personally call republicans terrorists."  that would have cleared things up nicely.

it took you longer than usual this time to make up a bogus reason to call me dishonest
Oh, no, I thought you were being dishonest from the get-go. But, as you may remember, we have an agreement under which I give you undue amounts of the benefit of the doubt to allow you to defend yourself.

This is also why I focused on your ineptitude, rather than lack of integrity. The latter is already sufficiently well established.

haha no u

you don't actually have to give me the benefit of any doubts or whatever agreement you're talking about.  you just say, "that's not what i said; i said x/y/z."  try it sometime.  i assure you, as i've assured you before, that i'll never respond with "no you can't do that you already said it haha gotcha."  i'll always respond, as i have this time, with "here's why i thought you meant that, but nbd let's just move on from here."

as usual, though, i suspect that this is less about the argument and more about derailing the conversation into an abyss you know i'll fall for.  your next post will prove me right by being just a string of personal attacks.  watch it happen.  it's almost...formulaic.

Are you really stupid enough to assume that all Republicans agree on all issues? You're talking about half of your country's political spectrum.

this to me is where you and blanko are fundamentally misunderstanding my snarky remark.  it doesn't matter what kinzinger's specific beliefs are, it doesn't matter than the gop is has some ideological diversity, it doesn't matter what the assailants specific religious beliefs were, and it doesn't matter if democrats also do ironic things.

the irony to me is that a member of a group widely regarded as being unwilling to distinguish between violent and non-violent muslims is extolling folks to make that distinction for christians.  it's funny to me because i so very, very often hear the gop, and conservative pundits, lambast democrats precisely for trying to make that distinction.  not universally, but very often.  it's ironic to me because i think neither christians, nor muslims, nor their respective religious texts, are inherently violent.

none of the other shit about how not all republicans are the same, or how the koran's core tenant is violence, or how we don't we don't know x/y/z about the assailant, is relevant to what i find ironic about kinzinger's statement.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Blanko on November 29, 2015, 09:47:04 PM
In all the sentences you've quoted, I went out of my way to make it abundantly clear when I refer to you specifically, an when I cast general judgement upon liberals/neoprogressives/Democrats. It would take some serious mental gymnastics to conflate the two.

i disagree.  to me, statements like, "Were you intentionally setting yourself up for a "dayum those dumb lib'ruls" rant, or are you just very forgetful?" sound pretty strongly as if you're grouping me in with "liberals," the group of people you identify as calling republicans terrorists.

the sentence in question reads like this to me: "I think you're wrong: there's nothing ironic here. As usual, liberals decided to turn a tragedy into their usual "lol Republicans are the biggest terrorist group in America xDDDD" shtick."

it may be obvious to you that you're not lumping me in with the "usual" liberal rhetoric of "lol republicans are terrorists," but since i'm not in your brain reading your thoughts, the statement is at best ambiguous, and it absolutely reads to me as "i think you're wrong; as usual, a liberal is calling republicans terrorists." i can only interpret what you write, not what you think.  this is especially true since, up to this point, we haven't been talking about any other "liberal" response to the video other than my one snarky remark.  so if you're not talking about my remark in the context of liberals being overly critical of conservatives or calling them terrorists or whatever, who were you talking about?  what are liberals saying in the wake of this attack that you believe is overly critical/labeling them as terrorists?

but cool, i accept that you're not grouping me in with the folks who call republicans terrorists.  done deal.  as usual, you could have resolved this with the sentence, "I'm not saying that you personally call republicans terrorists."  that would have cleared things up nicely.

Quote
it took you longer than usual this time to make up a bogus reason to call me dishonest
Oh, no, I thought you were being dishonest from the get-go. But, as you may remember, we have an agreement under which I give you undue amounts of the benefit of the doubt to allow you to defend yourself.

This is also why I focused on your ineptitude, rather than lack of integrity. The latter is already sufficiently well established.

haha no u

you don't actually have to give me the benefit of any doubts or whatever agreement you're talking about.  you just say, "that's not what i said; i said x/y/z."  try it sometime.  i assure you, as i've assured you before, that i'll never respond with "no you can't do that you already said it haha gotcha."  i'll always respond, as i have this time, with "here's why i thought you meant that, but nbd let's just move on from here."

as usual, though, i suspect that this is less about the argument and more about derailing the conversation into an abyss you know i'll fall for.  your next post will prove me right by being just a string of personal attacks.  watch it happen.  it's almost...formulaic.

This post is the most ironic thing in the history of everything.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Rushy on November 29, 2015, 10:07:25 PM
People like garygreen are the reason we're going to end up with Donald "The Unstumpable" Trump.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: garygreen on November 29, 2015, 10:24:36 PM
[Idiots] like garygreen are the reason we're going to end up with Donald "The Unstumpable" Trump.

this make no sense.  even if i granted you that i'm an idiot, my brand of idiocy gets us bernie, not trump.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Fortuna on November 29, 2015, 11:06:43 PM
Carrying children is a social responsibility, like paying taxes or registering for selective service.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Blanko on November 29, 2015, 11:11:09 PM
Carrying children is a social responsibility, like paying taxes or registering for selective service.

Not according to law.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Rushy on November 29, 2015, 11:19:36 PM
[Idiots] like garygreen are the reason we're going to end up with Donald "The Unstumpable" Trump.

this make no sense.  even if i granted you that i'm an idiot, my brand of idiocy gets us bernie, not trump.

Sanders' supporters are, hilariously enough, preventing Sanders from getting into office.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: garygreen on November 29, 2015, 11:41:57 PM
frankly i'll be happy with anyone who isn't named ted cruz
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 30, 2015, 12:12:51 AM
i disagree. [...]
Your behaviour reflects on other liberals. The behaviour of other liberals does not (by default) reflect on you. This is common sense, and your lack of understanding of this simple concept is the root of this entire discussion.

but cool, i accept that you're not grouping me in with the folks who call republicans terrorists.  done deal.  as usual, you could have resolved this with the sentence, "I'm not saying that you personally call republicans terrorists."  that would have cleared things up nicely.
No, it wouldn't have. More importantly, no, it didn't. Me saying that "I never suggested that you, personally, prompted Kinzinger's response. As far as I can tell, it was the executive team of Planned Parenthood who invoked this very common trope. See, the problem here is that you see me talking about 'liberals', but you think 'oh shit, he must be talking about me!'. You then respond as if I targeted you personally. In other words, you fail to "delineate" between groups, subgroups, and individuals. How 'ironic'." resulted in you immediately dismissing my clarification, and then complaining that I should have provided it.

As usual, this could have been resolved by you responding to what people are actually saying, and not to strawmen you constructed.

haha no u

you don't actually have to give me the benefit of any doubts or whatever agreement you're talking about.  you just say, "that's not what i said; i said x/y/z."  try it sometime.  i assure you, as i've assured you before, that i'll never respond with "no you can't do that you already said it haha gotcha."  i'll always respond, as i have this time, with "here's why i thought you meant that, but nbd let's just move on from here."
Please review the following chain of events. Here's me telling you what I didn't and did say.

I never suggested that you, personally, prompted Kinzinger's response. As far as I can tell, it was the executive team of Planned Parenthood who invoked this very common trope. See, the problem here is that you see me talking about "liberals", but you think "oh shit, he must be talking about me!". You then respond as if I targeted you personally. In other words, you fail to "delineate" between groups, subgroups, and individuals. How "ironic".

And here is your response. Compare and contrast it to "no you can't do that you already said it haha gotcha." as well as "here's why i thought you meant that, but nbd let's just move on from here."

Quote from: SexWarrior
Were you intentionally setting yourself up for a "dayum those dumb lib'ruls" rant, or are you just very forgetful?

That said, I still think you're horribly wrong. There's nothing surprising, controversial, ironic, hypocritical or whatever going on here. As usual, liberals decided to turn a tragedy into their usual "lol Republicans are the biggest terrorist group in America xDDDD" shtick, and Republicans have to defend themselves.

Fair enough, I'll chalk it down to you having redefined "Islam" in your mind. It's such a worrisome trend among American neoprogressives.

Once again you remind yourself of the substance of my objection. The pro-life platform is irrelevant here until evidence to the positive is presented. The burden of proof lies on liberals as the accusers

See, the problem here is that you see me talking about "liberals", but you think "oh shit, he must be talking about me!".

yeah i can't imagine how i got that idea
You see, the problem here is that you're a living contradiction. You went well out of your way to try and shit on me clarifying what I did and didn't say, only to then suggest that this clarification would have sorted everything out. It's really not hard to conclude that you're dishonest and that you have a very poor recollection of the conversation to date.

as usual, though, i suspect that this is less about the argument and more about derailing the conversation into an abyss you know i'll fall for.  your next post will prove me right by being just a string of personal attacks.  watch it happen.  it's almost...formulaic.
Yes. You will ignore the facts of the matter and the arguments that I brought to the table. You will ignore that you were entirely wrong about whether or not a clarification on my part would have helped, even though we know it actually didn't. You will not reflect on your character, your assumptions, or your accusations. Instead, you will point out that I called you dishonest and that I claimed your memory is a bit shit.  Or you'll pick on that little "living contradiction" rant, objecting to some of the words used rather than the meaning behind them. Finally, you might go super-meta on me and claim that this very paragraph is one huge personal attack!

It really is rather formulaic, but I'm not the one at fault here.

the irony to me is that a member of a group widely regarded as being unwilling to distinguish between violent and non-violent muslims is extolling folks to make that distinction for christians.
He is not doing that. At the time of your posting, we didn't even know that the assailant was a Christian. Right now, the dominant theory is that he was shocked with the leaked PP videos, but even that isn't completely confirmed yet.

You simply made up a story in your mind, and you're trying to spread it ahead of the facts. This is dangerous, because it creates interesting beliefs along the lines of "Mike Brown dindu nuttin". That's why you're getting called out on your shit.

it's ironic to me because i think neither christians, nor muslims, nor their respective religious texts, are inherently violent.
Have you read either of them?

It's a bit like me saying that I don't think Harry Potter lived in England at some point during his life. It's not a claim I can honestly make, having read at least one of the HP books.

Your wishy-washy feels and thoughts about what a book says are quite insignificant when contrasted with the actual printed book.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: garygreen on November 30, 2015, 01:22:24 AM
Here's me telling you what I didn't and did say.
I never suggested that you, personally, prompted Kinzinger's response. As far as I can tell, it was the executive team of Planned Parenthood who invoked this very common trope. See, the problem here is that you see me talking about "liberals", but you think "oh shit, he must be talking about me!". You then respond as if I targeted you personally. In other words, you fail to "delineate" between groups, subgroups, and individuals. How "ironic".

except that that's not precisely what happened.  you conveniently left out the part where you call me a liar with no integrity.  that's pretty relevant.  your actual response was,

"You, sir, need to stop trying to twist everyone's words around. It never ends well for you. It's not just that it reflects very poorly on your sense of integrity, you're simply not skilled enough to trick people....I never suggested..."

i told you that "what's not what i meant" will merit a positive response from me.  i didn't say that "that's not what i meant you liar" would elicit the same.  like most people, being inaccurately called a liar it tends to evoke sarcasm and vitriol from me.

either way, i still didn't stop you from clarifying what you wanted to say.  i pointed to the specific things you said that made me think you were grouping me with the gop=terrorists folks.  you were calling me dishonest, so it seemed pretty apropos to point out that my response was based on specific things you said, not just some shit i made up in my head.  i did this very sarcastically because you were being a dick.  hence the sentence, "yeah i can't imagine how i got that idea," or, put another way, "here are the things that gave me that idea."  but fair enough, i forgot to add the "but fine let's move on from here" explicitly to the end of that post.  i figured it was implied by the lack of any sentence like "gotcha haha can't take it back now" or anything else of the sort.  it wasn't a gotcha; it was a very sarcastic explanation that no, i was not just making things up.

you're not actually such a brilliant writer that it's impossible for anyone to misunderstand you. 

Compare and contrast it to "no you can't do that you already said it haha gotcha." as well as "here's why i thought you meant that, but nbd let's just move on from here."

my response was closest to "here's why i thought you meant that" while omitting the nbd let's just move on from here, although that was also said in my very next post.

You simply made up a story in your mind, and you're trying to spread it ahead of the facts. This is dangerous, because it creates interesting beliefs along the lines of "Mike Brown dindu nuttin". That's why you're getting called out on your shit.

whether or not the assailant was christian isn't relevant to what i find ironic.  let's forget about religion for the moment and just talk about specific beliefs.  kinzinger is saying that very many people believe abortion is a moral evil, a belief they share with the assailant, and we should not conflate them with people who also advocate and commit violence.  likewise, there are very many people who believe that america is a moral evil, a belief they share with jihadists, and we should not conflate them with people who also advocate and commit violence.  i find it ironic that a lawmaker from a group known for lambasting people who say the latter would say the former.

it's ironic to me because i think neither christians, nor muslims, nor their respective religious texts, are inherently violent.
Have you read either of them?

It's a bit like me saying that I don't think Harry Potter lived in England at some point during his life. It's not a claim I can honestly make, having read at least one of the HP books.

Your wishy-washy feels and thoughts about what a book says are quite insignificant when contrasted with the actual printed book.

i don't think any books have inherent meaning.  that's nonsense.

even if i did, your sole argument reduces to "the koran says kill infidels in it somewhere so that's what mulsims believe," which is pathetic and stupid.  it simply ignores the 1.5 billion counterexamples who aren't jihadists.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: garygreen on November 30, 2015, 01:43:38 AM
a more tangible example: if keith ellison, literally just hours after the paris attacks, "while the bodies were still warm," while police and fire resuce was still ongoing, had gone on cnn and said, "If somebody is targeting west, it’s not indicative of what folks that are opposed to what some of the practices the west commits, of how we feel. We see these practices and that is something many of us have a legitimate concern about. That doesn’t mean we’re gonna take guns and walk into a suburb of paris."

the gop would have crushed ellison.  mercilessly.  i don't even get how that's deniable.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Blanko on November 30, 2015, 01:48:47 AM
It is deniable if it doesn't happen.
Title: Re: "Planned Parenthood"
Post by: Fortuna on November 30, 2015, 08:42:29 AM
We love to exploit things that are less intelligent than us. It's just in our genes.