Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 157

even the libertarian champ Ron Paul is a huge religious nut lol

I wouldn't call life beginning at conception to be entirely dogmatic. I'm an atheist, grew up in an atheist household, and have never stepped foot in a church outside of funerals/weddings, and I'd consider it to be the 2nd most plausible theory behind only life beginning with brain activity. I'd say life definitely begins well before viability (roughly 22-24 weeks). A fetus that can't survive outside the womb can still be considered alive. If it weren't alive then the word "survive" doesn't even make sense in that context as surviving just means continuing to be alive. Without developed lungs it would die quite quickly but it would still have life for a short moment.

I'm still pro-choice though cause I think society is better off with fewer unwanted babies and I never bought into the whole sanctity of life thing

yes it makes sense biologically but not morally, its dogmatic to think that a cygote has the same value than a full grown human being and I dont think there is a magic point we can chose, brain being developed, heart or whatever, its simply a compromise in the greyness of a grey moral area.

Dogmatic people on both sides make this social compromise impossible and hold this important subject hostage while most reasonable people would agree on a compromise but crazy people say a cygote is a full life and other kind of crazy people say vacuuming a 9mo minutes before its birth is still vacuumable.

Extremist fringe ideas are so loud that they take over, blame the center for inaction and divide the country as Drone pointed out the republicans and the liberals are almost identical yet the country is fractured and antifa and proudboys bash their heads in the streets while the majority of the people despise both groups yet they grow stronger every day, I mean the absense of Loco on this thread is palpable, his extremist views make dialogue very difficult and everybody just gets in the trenches which can be enjoyed by a maniac like me who just like to argue ad-naseum but it certainly isn't productive and it is divisive and radicalizing.

Late second trimester abortions where it's more and more looking like a baby becomes increasingly tougher, 'viability' might not coincide with 'life', but to me, that's where the mother loses the right to end it. Like virtually everyone will prefer doing it in the first trimester (where the appearance really is just a lump of blood) and if it's done later, there's always a very good reason.

On August 18 2019 08:09 Baalim wrote: yes it makes sense biologically but not morally, its dogmatic to think that a cygote has the same value than a full grown human being and I dont think there is a magic point we can chose, brain being developed, heart or whatever, its simply a compromise in the greyness of a grey moral area. Dogmatic people on both sides make this social compromise impossible and hold this important subject hostage while most reasonable people would agree on a compromise but crazy people say a cygote is a full life and other kind of crazy people say vacuuming a 9mo minutes before its birth is still vacuumable.

The status quo isn't a compromise. The idea that a human life is formed somewhere between conception and birth IS the liberal/democratic position. Sure you can find whatever random blue-haired protester that supports abortion at any level regardless of reason but those people don't ever have a sniff of power. But the opposite is not true. Staunch pro-lifers who hold that abortion is immoral and should be illegal at any level have the senate, presidency, supreme court, and many governorships. Legalized abortion is actually hanging on by a thin thread. The way to defend it is to vote out Republicans (which essentially requires a vote for Democrats) , merely pointing out that extremes exist (somewhere) on both sides has no political relevance.

Not saying people need to be single-issue voters but the principle applies to other issues like gun control. Actually seen the same pattern on this forum a number of times: "The extreme right does this... the extreme left does that... but what I is support is:" *embraces standard left-wing position*.

On August 18 2019 08:09 Baalim wrote: yes it makes sense biologically but not morally, its dogmatic to think that a cygote has the same value than a full grown human being and I dont think there is a magic point we can chose, brain being developed, heart or whatever, its simply a compromise in the greyness of a grey moral area. Dogmatic people on both sides make this social compromise impossible and hold this important subject hostage while most reasonable people would agree on a compromise but crazy people say a cygote is a full life and other kind of crazy people say vacuuming a 9mo minutes before its birth is still vacuumable. Extremist fringe ideas are so loud that they take over, blame the center for inaction and divide the country as Drone pointed out the republicans and the liberals are almost identical yet the country is fractured and antifa and proudboys bash their heads in the streets while the majority of the people despise both groups yet they grow stronger every day, I mean the absense of Loco on this thread is palpable, his extremist views make dialogue very difficult and everybody just gets in the trenches which can be enjoyed by a maniac like me who just like to argue ad-naseum but it certainly isn't productive and it is divisive and radicalizing.

Chances are no matter what views you hold there are people that hold more extreme views on either side. Is it a coincidence that the "compromise" lines up exactly with your views? Or are you just using the extremists to highlight your opinion as the reasonable one? Maybe it's like the old George Carlin line - "Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?"

Some people are vegans that think animals shouldn't be used/killed for human consumption and some people think animals are akin to property and humans should be able to do whatever they want to do with them. Is it a reasonable compromise to have a few animal welfare laws but still slaughter millions of them? I think if you ask the vegans they would probably not think that's reasonable at all, and honestly I kind of agree with them. Being against causing pain/suffering/death to living beings shouldn't be a fringe idea. It's one that makes a lot of sense morally. But I still eat a ton of meat because it's delicious. Does that make me a hypocrite and an asshole? Probably
(edit: to clarify this isn't meant to be an analogy to the abortion debate. This just always pops into my head because eating meat while being against harming animals seems just as absurd as my position of being pro-choice while believing life begins before many abortions. I usually just conclude that I'm an asshole but I often wonder if other people struggle with this or if they just internalize their beliefs differently.)

I wouldn't say the two extremes on the abortion debate are the people that think killing full-term fetuses is okay vs every single pro-lifer. I'd say the extreme on the right are the ones that think abortion is wrong even in the cases of rape/incest. I see a lot more merit in protecting a zygote than in vacuuming a fully developed fetus.

I meant a moral compromise not a compromise between two extreme ideologies (even if the result is alike) and that should be the framing of this difficult moral debate, when its "too immoral" to negate the benefits an abortion can bring to the mother/society, but things arguments like "my uterus my choice, all life is precious, its a baby, its a fetus et al are vacuous and sadly they dominate the discourse on this topic.

@blackjacki2 I usually don't think on those terms, I dont think people who drive faster than me are maniacs slow ones are indeed idiots LOL, if anything I tend to hold extreme views myself in general and I agree with vegans that consuming animal meat is immoral.

New subject... as poker players what odds would you give that Epstein death was murder.

I would give it 66%

I think the huge motivations for him to die alone make it a srong possibility unless there is proof otherwise, and added that there is no footage of the corridor, and the authopsy revealed a broken neck but he hanged himself from a bunkbed make it more likely on the other hand just sheer incompetence and a shitty penitenciary system where suicide watch means nothing is also quite plausible.

On August 17 2019 15:55 Liquid`Drone wrote: Yeah, my wife had one (after like 6 weeks or something. it was basically just a small lump of blood according to her, I didn't go look myself). We're both really happy about that decision.

That's good everything was fine, sounds like it was a pill induced one with no complications so I'm glad everything went okay. we had also but it really affected her badly afterwards psychologically and that was hard to watch

So maybe I'm too queasy now, but when you said like, it's not a baby, it's a fetus, I don't think that makes sense - it can be both - and I'm pro-choice but I wouldn't presume to tell someone it's not a baby or it's just a clump of cells or any other pejorative stuff like that (not implying that you did, just so you can see my point), when there are people who feel quite deeply about that. It's like atheism, I don't care what people believe really unless some obnoxious fuck asks me who created me. I wish people could educate about abortion without encouraging it, I get queasy again the people who use it as birth control

On August 23 2019 04:20 Baalim wrote: New subject... as poker players what odds would you give that Epstein death was murder. I would give it 66% I think the huge motivations for him to die alone make it a srong possibility unless there is proof otherwise, and added that there is no footage of the corridor, and the authopsy revealed a broken neck but he hanged himself from a bunkbed make it more likely on the other hand just sheer incompetence and a shitty penitenciary system where suicide watch means nothing is also quite plausible.

as a poker player? okay... there was a 5% chance he was murdered which means 99% of the time he gets there on the river. wtf kind of question is that "as a poker player" like cards invented probability? apologize to Loco

yea was pill induced one. I mean my wife said it was a pretty hellish experience for some hours but once the abortion was 'done' then she immediately felt way way better.

It happened because of a broken condom used while she was changing birth control from one to another, we were not ready to have a baby at that time (nearly 10 years ago). I don't want people to use abortion as birth control at all - but then my impression is that it's the same people saying abortions are okay that are also saying here are free condoms and let's subsidize actual birth control, while the people who want abortions to be illegal (as you say you're pro choice so you're not in that group) are also restricting access to other types of birth control and don't want to focus as much on sex ed, favoring abstinence.

On August 25 2019 14:08 Santafairy wrote: Show nested quote + On August 17 2019 15:55 Liquid`Drone wrote: Yeah, my wife had one (after like 6 weeks or something. it was basically just a small lump of blood according to her, I didn't go look myself). We're both really happy about that decision. That's good everything was fine, sounds like it was a pill induced one with no complications so I'm glad everything went okay. we had also but it really affected her badly afterwards psychologically and that was hard to watch So maybe I'm too queasy now, but when you said like, it's not a baby, it's a fetus, I don't think that makes sense - it can be both - and I'm pro-choice but I wouldn't presume to tell someone it's not a baby or it's just a clump of cells or any other pejorative stuff like that (not implying that you did, just so you can see my point), when there are people who feel quite deeply about that. It's like atheism, I don't care what people believe really unless some obnoxious fuck asks me who created me. I wish people could educate about abortion without encouraging it, I get queasy again the people who use it as birth control   On August 23 2019 04:20 Baalim wrote: New subject... as poker players what odds would you give that Epstein death was murder. I would give it 66% I think the huge motivations for him to die alone make it a srong possibility unless there is proof otherwise, and added that there is no footage of the corridor, and the authopsy revealed a broken neck but he hanged himself from a bunkbed make it more likely on the other hand just sheer incompetence and a shitty penitenciary system where suicide watch means nothing is also quite plausible. as a poker player? okay... there was a 5% chance he was murdered which means 99% of the time he gets there on the river. wtf kind of question is that "as a poker player" like cards invented probability? apologize to Loco

I mean trying to be accurate, people who don't deal with statistics are usually like "99% this... or 1% that" they aren't used to.

So basically what I mean is "dont be a retard with your numbers"



Also I just discoverd that Canada allows third tremester abortions... thoughts on this Drone?

I'm fine with it because I am confident people pretty much only ever do third trimester abortions if there are very serious health complications involved. People aren't casually deciding to have an abortion after 6 months; at that point they have spent 3+ months preparing for parenthood and looking forward to it. I know couples who have lost their kids at that point and in those cases and they've had actual funerals. At 'worst', it's a 'guy left me / died in an accident 3 months before birth and I can't be a single mother', but I think even that one is very rare for third trimester.

Like, find me stats saying that canadian ladies are taking a lot of third trimester abortions without there being serious health implications for either baby or mother, and maybe I'll change my mind, but my impression is that it's virtually never (definitely less than 5%, I'm guessing less than 1%) done for 'frivolous' reasons, and I prefer a late term abortion over a kid being born and spending 1-5 years in a hospital and then dying. Downs syndrome etc is a bit trickier (I think that's aborted in second trimester though) but at the same time I'd hate to have a kid with downs or similarly impacting difficulty, so not gonna judge.

On August 25 2019 14:08 Santafairy wrote: as a poker player? okay... there was a 5% chance he was murdered which means 99% of the time he gets there on the river. wtf kind of question is that "as a poker player" like cards invented probability? apologize to Loco

this was a good one :D

Haven't read this thread since I left and don't plan to resume posting, but I thought this was worth sharing. Closure for me I guess.

A liberal activist disguised as a member of Patriot Prayer released footage from a May riot and claimed it plainly showed that Ngo didn’t turn his camera on as the group discussed their plans for an attack, just smiled along as they cracked jokes. Hours after the Portland Mercury ran the story, Ngo removed “Intellectual Dark Web” op-ed site Quillette from his bio. The same day the “platform for free thought” removed Ngo’s name as an editor. Quillette’s editor-in-chief Claire Lehmann insisted that Ngo’s employment termination had nothing to do with the Portland Mercury story or the undercover footage which had been circulating Twitter beforehand.

https://www.mediaite.com/news/writer-...illette-after-damning-video-surfaces/

But footage taken by an undercover liberal activist in May and described on Monday by the Portland Mercury showed Ngo witnessing activists from the far-right group Patriot Prayer planning a violent confrontation at a bar associated with left-wing activists. Ngo never reported on what he had seen the Patriot Prayer members planning, and some of the people involved in the attack at the bar now face felony riot charges.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/andy-ng...tte-after-incriminating-video-appears

Most recent Twitter thread with details and clips:

so just like the catholic high school kid, Andy Ngo is guilty of... smiling?

and that picture is your guilty verdict? wow what a monster... he's like vietnamese hitler!

I don't think anyone wants to watch 18 minutes of video to find the fake issue, including you or you would have posted the timestamp instead of just a bunch of articles parroting the same thing

here's why that's not relevant anyway:
-you can't physically attack people for smiling
-you can't physically attack people for no reason, then hope months later a picture of them smiling will come out, which somehow retroactively justifies and vindicates you physically attacking a person, when you didn't know about it
-you can't physically attack people who disagree with you. disagreeing with you doesn't warrant someone being hurt, no.


'If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."

we wouldn't know about portland's antifa goons if it wasn't for someone like andy constantly documenting and exposing them

New article on this by VICE (someone who actually doesn't suck at VICE, Tess Owen, who specializes in extremist violence):

"But now video has surfaced of Ngo smiling and laughing with members of the far-right group Patriot Prayer shortly before they allegedly orchestrated an attack on a group of antifascists at a leftist bar in a separate incident in May. A female bar patron was knocked unconscious and said she suffered a fractured vertebrae.

In his coverage, Ngo framed the incident as an “antifa brawl” and did not mention that he was with members of Patriot Prayer as they donned body armor, helmets, and weapons before launching their alleged attack.

To Ngo’s critics, the footage confirms what they’ve argued all along: that far from a victim of political violence in Portland, he’s a willing participant. He’s been repeatedly accused of selectively editing videos from protests in a manner that absolves far-right activists of responsibility and skews blame towards antifa."

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/d3...cameo-in-video-of-plot-against-antifa

On August 28 2019 14:50 Santafairy wrote: so just like the catholic high school kid, Andy Ngo is guilty of... smiling? and that picture is your guilty verdict? wow what a monster... he's like vietnamese hitler! I don't think anyone wants to watch 18 minutes of video to find the fake issue, including you or you would have posted the timestamp instead of just a bunch of articles parroting the same thing

"Fake issue" ... you don't even bother looking at what I posted before claiming that it's a fake issue. It's from a lawsuit you fucking Neo-Nazi sympathizer. 6 people have been indicted already for the attack. It's good that you know that it's not an issue without looking into it, but a grand jury actually think it is. A perfect reminder of why posting on this website is a complete waste of time.

The most damning clip is literally at the beginning of the Twitter thread that I posted. It would have taken you 10 seconds to find out if you had any intention of finding out the truth.

On August 27 2019 07:52 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm fine with it because I am confident people pretty much only ever do third trimester abortions if there are very serious health complications involved. People aren't casually deciding to have an abortion after 6 months; at that point they have spent 3+ months preparing for parenthood and looking forward to it. I know couples who have lost their kids at that point and in those cases and they've had actual funerals. At 'worst', it's a 'guy left me / died in an accident 3 months before birth and I can't be a single mother', but I think even that one is very rare for third trimester. Like, find me stats saying that canadian ladies are taking a lot of third trimester abortions without there being serious health implications for either baby or mother, and maybe I'll change my mind, but my impression is that it's virtually never (definitely less than 5%, I'm guessing less than 1%) done for 'frivolous' reasons, and I prefer a late term abortion over a kid being born and spending 1-5 years in a hospital and then dying. Downs syndrome etc is a bit trickier (I think that's aborted in second trimester though) but at the same time I'd hate to have a kid with downs or similarly impacting difficulty, so not gonna judge.

I think you are making wild assumptions based on little info, and shouldn't you think the law should specify that late-term abortions require a medical reason behind it?

I really don't think it's a wild assumption that most people would rather have an abortion in the first trimester than the third trimester. I challenge you to ask any woman in your life which one of those they would prefer, I don't think you'd find a single one who preferred being pregnant for 6+ months over being pregnant for ~1-2 months.. Like have you talked to women that are 6+ months pregnant? They're all ready for motherhood at that point, I can't imagine someone changing from wanting the baby at 2 months to wanting an abortion after 6+ unless there's a very good reason for it. I've heard data but data from places where it's only legal with medical reasons is pretty useless for determining the ratio of people doing it for medical reasons.

So basically I feel this is a 'let this mother whom overwhelmingly likely has just been given the information that the baby she was looking forward to having is going to either be severely handicapped to the point where there's no pleasure in life or where the birth will cause herself severe health problems have some solace and ability to take this most difficult decision in her life without added suspicion and bureaucracy' type of thing? I haven't read about the law and don't care that much tbh, because I find the concept of lots of women going around frivolously aborting their 6 month old fetuses fairly absurd.. If those women exist I wouldn't want them to be mothers anyway, I think.

On August 28 2019 18:08 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On August 28 2019 14:50 Santafairy wrote: so just like the catholic high school kid, Andy Ngo is guilty of... smiling? and that picture is your guilty verdict? wow what a monster... he's like vietnamese hitler! I don't think anyone wants to watch 18 minutes of video to find the fake issue, including you or you would have posted the timestamp instead of just a bunch of articles parroting the same thing "Fake issue" ... you don't even bother looking at what I posted before claiming that it's a fake issue. It's from a lawsuit you fucking Neo-Nazi sympathizer. 6 people have been indicted already for the attack. It's good that you know that it's not an issue without looking into it, but a grand jury actually think it is. A perfect reminder of why posting on this website is a complete waste of time. The most damning clip is literally at the beginning of the Twitter thread that I posted. It would have taken you 10 seconds to find out if you had any intention of finding out the truth.

oh wow a lawsuit... scary... so question by the way, six people have been indicted for the attack... has andy ngo? so the video is from a LAWSUIT oh my god wow so scary a lawsuit... is andy ngo a target of the lawsuit?

I clicked every article you linked and wasted a valuable sight more than 10 seconds, if you knew what the most "damning" clip was you should have posted that instead of that asinine picture, shouldn't you have?