Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - honk

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 65  Next >
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: May 15, 2022, 09:56:53 PM »
Yes, it's the woman's body and therefore the woman's right to choose, not the man's.

This is an argument 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. They do not have a choice. This shows that women do not have the right to do what they want with their bodies.

This is a really bizarre argument. We are currently discussing abortions that happen, not hypothetical abortions that don't happen because it's too late in the pregnancy. I explained - correctly - that women are allowed to "abandon" their unborn children through abortions while men aren't because it's the woman's body and therefore her right to choose. That is the reason why abortion - legal abortions that happen, not hypothetical abortions that don't happen - is legal. A woman's right to an abortion doesn't need to be "absolute" for it to exist generally, no more than any other right or freedom does.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: May 15, 2022, 05:27:39 AM »
It is considered unacceptable for a man to abandon his unborn child upon learning that his partner was pregnant regardless of whether the child is later born or killed by abortion.

Yes, because of the assumption that the child will be born; hence his abandoning her in the first place. If it were clearly understood beforehand that she was getting an abortion, than any "abandonment" of her on his part would be entirely unnotable and no different to any other breakup. We don't hear about those cases precisely because of their lack of notability. This isn't any sort of tacit societal admission that fetuses are important whether they're born or not.

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

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

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: May 15, 2022, 04:11:57 AM »
Nobody would care about a man abandoning an unborn child without the prior assumption that the child will be born, and therefore the man will be expected to be a father. That's why they're doing the abandoning in the first place, isn't it?

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: May 13, 2022, 03:47:42 AM »
Well, I'm glad it's not some weird kind of self-imposed nerdy "obligation" on your part, but I think when faced with a potential third viewing, none of your friends would think any less of you if you just said, "You know, guys, I saw this one twice already, and I really wasn't a fan. I think I'll sit this one out," or even suggested an alternative.

Also, the Marvel Cinematic Universe and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: May 13, 2022, 01:37:50 AM »
Tell me more.

I've watched it three times now and it is still shit, but less shit than the initial viewing. You still should not pay to watch it, but if you do make sure it is on discount Tuesday or something.

Why? Why are you spending your time and money on going to see a move you don't even like multiple times? I don't get theatrical repeat viewers. I mean, if it's first and foremost a social event, then fine, but going to see a movie in theaters again specifically because you want to see that same movie again is just weird to me. No matter how much I might love a movie, I don't want to see it again within a few days or weeks. That makes the movie feel stale, and wears it out in my mind. I'd much rather watch a movie for the second time after at least a few months' time. And I wouldn't waste my time on rewatching a movie I especially disliked at all.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: May 11, 2022, 02:04:36 AM »
If you need a continuous line of excuses for why you are not a murderer... it's murder.

Evidence of not being a murderer is actually evidence of being a murderer. Very Kafkaesque.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: May 10, 2022, 01:58:55 AM »
I don't know why you're even bothering to ask. Of course his answers are no to the first category and yes to the second. Rushy is deliberately arguing from the most extreme position he can. You're not actually having a heart-to-heart discussion with him.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: May 09, 2022, 02:17:20 PM »

This is the future Republicans are envisioning for us. Ordinarily, it would be political suicide to push an incredibly unpopular agenda like this so aggressively, but Republicans will find a way to cling to power, and probably even expand it.

Also, whenever anyone pro-choice "just admits" or "just owns" that, yes, they totally support killing babies, the discussion immediately turns into "Aha! They admit it! How old does a child have to be before their parents lose the right to murder them at will, you sicko? Three? Four?" It's not a good-faith debate tactic. The distinction between terminating a pregnancy and killing a baby is there to establish scope. It's not simply something that pro-choice people frantically tell themselves to soothe their consciences.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: May 07, 2022, 01:34:22 AM »
Yes, I'm sure that'll stop the GOP from passing the federal abortion ban they're already working on:

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: May 07, 2022, 12:33:53 AM »
This has nothing to do with stimulating birth rates. Republicans want to turn back the clock and remove all of the important rights relating to privacy and sexual freedom that courts have recognized over the past several decades. Removing the right to an abortion isn't a means to an end of having more babies, it is the end of simply removing the right to have an abortion. The same goes for their upcoming plans to remove protections for LGBT rights and contraceptive use. Their ideal society is one where LGBT people hide in the closet and sex is only something that happens between married people when they want to have a baby. It's hard to imagine many people being onboard for such a future, but that doesn't matter, because, you know, minority rule.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: May 06, 2022, 04:28:21 AM »
Tell me more.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: May 03, 2022, 03:16:22 PM »
Obergefell will be next to be overturned, then Lawrence, then Griswold. We're racing back to the past. The majority of Americans support these rights and don't want to see them rolled back, but I don't expect it'll make a difference in any upcoming elections. Republicans have perfected the art of minority rule, and they're simply better at politics than Democrats.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« on: April 25, 2022, 04:32:46 AM »
Grace Randolph isn't exactly a reliable source, and I question if she actually qualifies as an "insider" rather than just a prominent and vocal fangirl - I mean, come on, anyone who watched the Oscars could have told you that the whole "fan favorite" segment was an awkward and embarrassing moment for everyone present. No inside information was needed to figure that one out. Nevertheless, the Samba TV information seems legit, and it makes sense. It's a vocal minority that somehow bluffed WB's new owners into thinking that Snyder was a widely beloved director, and given Snyder's lucrative new deal with Netflix where he's now once again making expensive blockbusters with what appears to be his usual full creative freedom, it looks like Netflix fell for it too. I'll admit that I'm a little annoyed by it. In a perfect world, everyone would be free to make all the movies they like exactly the way they want to and all that, but this is a world with limited resources, there are only so many seats at the table, and the opportunities that Snyder continues to receive must necessarily come at the expense of someone else. Private companies can do what they want with their own money, of course, but I think it's a shame that the guy with half a dozen major critical and commercial failures (or at the very least, underperformances) to his name is being given yet another chance when there are so many aspiring directors and writers out there who never even get one chance.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« on: April 22, 2022, 03:15:44 AM »
04/11: Tangentially related to capeshit:

I'm not sure if I can ever forgive Spielberg and Brad Bird for unleashing Colin Trevorrow on the world. Of all the bad directors out there who owe their careers almost entirely to their privilege and connections rather than to any real merit of their own, Trevorrow is probably the worst.


In other news, Ezra Miller has apparently lost their mind:

Who knows what this will mean for the upcoming Flash movie?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 21, 2022, 03:14:06 PM »
Piers Morgan is a piece of shit. I'm not surprised that his show would deceptively edit an interview with anyone, and I feel no compunction to defend him or take responsibility for him just because the interview was with Trump.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: April 17, 2022, 04:06:17 AM »
I still can't get over the "Tyler Durden" byline. It really tells us everything we need to know about the maturity and outlook of the author. Why would you ever trust news and analysis coming from someone who's publicly advertising that he's still in the teenage edgelord phase of his life?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: GOP are petulant crybabies
« on: April 09, 2022, 12:25:43 AM »
Right. Anyway, white men should be barred from the SC forever, discuss.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: GOP are petulant crybabies
« on: April 08, 2022, 10:40:01 PM »
You flatter me, but my views unfortunately seem to have no bearing on how the Democrats run themselves or their approach to future elections. I question how much they could even be considered "my side" at this point. They're preferable to Republicans, but at a certain point their favored brand of quiet don't-rock-the-boat centrism becomes indistinguishable from conservatism. junker tried to warn me.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: GOP are petulant crybabies
« on: April 08, 2022, 09:07:57 PM »
The outcome does remain the same, yes. Republicans will fight dirty and act in bad faith regardless of what Democrats do or don't do, and the sooner Democrats realize that, the better off they'll be. The same thing applies to the media and their desperate efforts to both-sides what's going on. I'm not happy about the state of politics in this country, but it's the reality.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: GOP are petulant crybabies
« on: April 08, 2022, 08:07:59 PM »
Democrats should expand the court to punish Republicans for their sleazy partisanship over Barrett, just saying.
Yes, that would go about as well as the last time they successfully compromised SCOTUS. It would be fun to watch, if nothing else!

Okay, so presumably you're referring to the thing about the nuclear option that was discussed in the Trump thread after Ginsburg died. First, Democrats did not use the nuclear option to remove the 60-vote requirement for Supreme Court nominees, Republicans did. Democrats had previously used the nuclear option to remove the 60-vote requirement for confirming Cabinet posts and federal judges. But to put it as simply as possible, that doesn't matter. Democrats removing the 60-vote requirement for confirming Cabinet posts was in no way a requirement or a necessary first step for removing the 60-vote requirement for SC justices. As the article I linked discusses, Republicans were ready to use the nuclear option over the SC back in the Bush years, long before the Democrats ever did anything comparable, and it's ludicrous to think that they, having grown far more determined and unscrupulous in recent years, would have hesitated to be the first to use the nuclear option nowadays. And more importantly, nobody was criticizing Barrett's nomination for not requiring 60 votes to be confirmed. They were criticizing it for being shoved through in the last few weeks of a Republican presidency when Republicans had just a few years previously refused to allow a Democratic president to nominate someone in the last several months of their presidency. This only happened a couple of years ago, and it's easy to check what people were actually saying. This tit-for-tat, Democrats-should-blame-themselves narrative simply is not an accurate reflection of what really happened.

Biden specifying it must be a black woman means her other qualities are merely coincidence.

What a strange thing to say. That doesn't logically follow at all.

As Saddam explained earlier, the court isn't one of merit, so I suppose her qualifications shouldn't matter to anyone anyway.

I said it's not purely based on merit, which is absolutely true. If ideology and youth can and should be taken into account, then why not race and gender?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 65  Next >