Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 160

You can try and force rules of "GTO" for life, except people simply won't care and still do "mistakes", whether you like it or not.

Sacrificing personal freedom in an attempt to keep the nuclear family together is a very conservative position, interesting

It's really not. I'm not saying you should sacrifice personal freedom, I'm saying you should take responsibility for a child thats yours whether you like it or not, otherwise if everyone in that position bails society will have a huge problem.


In the first case, you abort an embryo (which contrary on GoTunk's beliefs isn't an actual human being), in the second you abandon an actual child. It's that simple, and no this can't really be an equal situation or gives "equal opportunities" to both sides since you're referring to two completely different things. Except in the second you deny help to people that actually need it. Safety nets in society must exist. Yes, there will be people abusing them, but the other alternative is ... well you can see the USA (the situation we're referring to is probably the only "safety net" that exists there)

On September 09 2019 07:39 Spitfiree wrote: You can try and force rules of "GTO" for life, except people simply won't care and still do "mistakes", whether you like it or not. Show nested quote + Sacrificing personal freedom in an attempt to keep the nuclear family together is a very conservative position, interesting It's really not. I'm not saying you should sacrifice personal freedom, I'm saying you should take responsibility for a child thats yours whether you like it or not, otherwise if everyone in that position bails society will have a huge problem. In the first case, you abort an embryo (which contrary on GoTunk's beliefs isn't an actual human being), in the second you abandon an actual child. It's that simple, and no this can't really be an equal situation or gives "equal opportunities" to both sides since you're referring to two completely different things. Except in the second you deny help to people that actually need it. Safety nets in society must exist. Yes, there will be people abusing them, but the other alternative is ... well you can see the USA (the situation we're referring to is probably the only "safety net" that exists there)

At what exact point do you evolve from an embryo to a child that can't be killed?

I was just making fun of the line of reasoning "omg woman have it so bad so the least we can do is grant them the right to abort" which is incredibly stupid in multiple fronts to be honest.
Defining when you become a human being, with full human rights, is the only valid answer to the abortion question. I'll refraint to post my own personal belief on this for now

Because there's no right answer heh
it's all going to differ on societal norms etc.

Some cultures killed newborns to maintain balance in the tribe and it was widely accepted.


The right or wrong of abortion at what point is just an arbitrary man made construct, much like god or human rights, it's whatever the right people and the collective believe and the right answer will shift as societal norms do

On September 09 2019 20:16 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Because there's no right answer heh it's all going to differ on societal norms etc. Some cultures killed newborns to maintain balance in the tribe and it was widely accepted. The right or wrong of abortion at what point is just an arbitrary man made construct, much like god or human rights, it's whatever the right people and the collective believe and the right answer will shift as societal norms do

Well that depends if you agree with the non-agression-principle or natural law or you are just a moral relativist, with you implying the latter is right and me strongly disagreeing.

The fact that past cultures did barbaric stuff does not mean it is okay to do them now. I would concede the caveat that human rights in general, not killing and even not having slaves is a luxury we can afford because we live in a somewhat wealthy society.
But the "there is no right or wrong other than current society norms" is a really terrible line of thinking.

On September 09 2019 16:20 GoTuNk wrote: I was just making fun of the line of reasoning "omg woman have it so bad so the least we can do is grant them the right to abort" which is incredibly stupid in multiple fronts to be honest.

Never heard of that argument ever.

Women should have the right to abort since it's their own body and there is not a shred of evidence pointing to the embryo having consciousness. Any argument that supports anti-abortion are deeply rooted into religion, which speaks for itself.

Funnily enough, the anti-abortion people are also the first ones to not give a fuck about the actual development of the child upon birth.

On September 09 2019 21:15 GoTuNk wrote: Show nested quote + On September 09 2019 20:16 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Because there's no right answer heh it's all going to differ on societal norms etc. Some cultures killed newborns to maintain balance in the tribe and it was widely accepted. The right or wrong of abortion at what point is just an arbitrary man made construct, much like god or human rights, it's whatever the right people and the collective believe and the right answer will shift as societal norms do Well that depends if you agree with the non-agression-principle or natural law or you are just a moral relativist, with you implying the latter is right and me strongly disagreeing. The fact that past cultures did barbaric stuff does not mean it is okay to do them now. I would concede the caveat that human rights in general, not killing and even not having slaves is a luxury we can afford because we live in a somewhat wealthy society. But the "there is no right or wrong other than current society norms" is a really terrible line of thinking.

I mean what is barbatic is defined by society in the first place isn't it
What you believe is largely molded by your environment and what others tell you to believe
It made perfect sense that some nomadic tribes in the Amazon even in the 60s would murder their old women that couldn't keep up for the wellbeing of their society for example...
To them at least

Morality is largely arbitrary set by society itself, the same should be applied to abortion and stage of the fetus, there's no one ultimately right righteous answer.

And you can see e.g. domesticating wheat that lead to burning of forest and destroying entire ecosystems as barbaric, yet people happily eat cereal or soy without giving it a second thought because society tells them it's okay and the ecosystems are already fucked and forests burnt down.

Morality will change, maybe a few hundred years from now when brain evolution starts catching up to the rapid change in the environment sex itself will be an obsolete of barbaric age where people were still driven by their animalistic urges

On September 09 2019 21:30 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On September 09 2019 16:20 GoTuNk wrote: I was just making fun of the line of reasoning "omg woman have it so bad so the least we can do is grant them the right to abort" which is incredibly stupid in multiple fronts to be honest. Never heard of that argument ever. Women should have the right to abort since it's their own body and there is not a shred of evidence pointing to the embryo having consciousness. Any argument that supports anti-abortion are deeply rooted into religion, which speaks for itself. Funnily enough, the anti-abortion people are also the first ones to not give a fuck about the actual development of the child upon birth.

That you have a certain opinion does not make it a fact.
Here is a short list of the unsubstantiated claims you managed to make in a single line of text. I'd love some clarifications.
1) fetus/baby body = woman body
a) At what point the fetus stops being an appendix and becomes it's own living creature?
b) At what point the fetus is human?

I've always found the "woman's body" such a stupid mantra, it's obviously another living creature by any reasonable definition. You COULD SAY it's not actually human, it's not human yet, or something else, but claiming it is part of the woman's body does not have any logic or true in it. At worse you could say the fetus is IN the body? Def not part of the body.

2) consciousness = being a human/right to not get killed
Conciousness does not concede "humanness" that's just your arbitrary assumption. Plenty of humans are not currently conscious, all of us were not conscious at some point, and will not be conscious at a point in the future. If you are refering to self aware, then that's problematic too because how is a 6 month baby different than a 2 month baby prior to birth? Maybe you are ok with abortion up to a certain point? or with killing babies until they can speak or do math?
How about mentally ill people?

3) All arguments against abortion = not religious
First human right, right to life as in, right to not get killed. Life begins with heartbeat, brain activy or any other arbitrary point in pregnancy -> abortion = murder = wrong.
Nothing religious in that argument.

And in a second line:
anti abortion = not care about kids after birth
This is obviously typical false leftist hating. Religious people donate way more to charity and adopt way more children.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...eople-more-likely-give-charity-study/

On average, religiously affiliated households donate $1,590 to charity annually, while households with no religious affiliation contribute $695. And in 2016 religious institutions received more than twice as much charitable giving, $122.94 billion, as any other industry in the nonprofit sector. The next-highest category, education, received $59.77 billion in contributions. Religious giving accounts for 32 percent of all U.S. charitable giving, the study found, but that number may underestimate the influence that religious belief has on charity. The study used a narrow definition of “religious giving” that does not include donations to faith-based nonprofits that provide human services, such as Catholic hospitals or universities.

On September 09 2019 07:39 Spitfiree wrote: You can try and force rules of "GTO" for life, except people simply won't care and still do "mistakes", whether you like it or not. Show nested quote + Sacrificing personal freedom in an attempt to keep the nuclear family together is a very conservative position, interesting It's really not. I'm not saying you should sacrifice personal freedom, I'm saying you should take responsibility for a child thats yours whether you like it or not, otherwise if everyone in that position bails society will have a huge problem. In the first case, you abort an embryo (which contrary on GoTunk's beliefs isn't an actual human being), in the second you abandon an actual child. It's that simple, and no this can't really be an equal situation or gives "equal opportunities" to both sides since you're referring to two completely different things. Except in the second you deny help to people that actually need it. Safety nets in society must exist. Yes, there will be people abusing them, but the other alternative is ... well you can see the USA (the situation we're referring to is probably the only "safety net" that exists there)

I'm not trying to make optimal rules for a flawless society, I'm making rules based on the principles of freedom and fairness, you are making rules for what you think its the best for society trampling over these two principles, which I guess would put us again in the right vs left ideologies, but at least you should be able to recognize this.

Its the same as the student debt, the left doesn't care if its fair to the ones who were responsible and went to trade school and didn't go into debt, or the ones who worked hard and paid their debts off, fairness and justice comes after helping the suffering, so they want society to bail them out and let society take on their burden and distribute evenly their suffering, I disagree, I think the corrup debt system in place should be changed and watch the financial institutions crumble under its greed as students default on their debts.

It's easy to think that I simply don't have empathy and don't care about others suffering , nothing easier than thinking your enemy as evil, but that is no different than conservatives calling leftists just lazy degenerates.

You say men should take responsibility for the child, but women don't have to, that is obviously a double standard, that is very clear evey to peope who agree with your overall position.


The embryo argument is dishonest, we talked about this a few pages back I dunno where you were but lets not get into that again.

I agree that safety-nets are desirable, but people shouldn't be forced unjustly into providing them, there are many safety nets that aren't provided by state force, for example: every time I go to the US I get shocked by how many homeless people there are, how come in poor country like México doesn't have this big of an issue? it should be the other way around? well because Mexico has a family safety net, people who fall in hardtimes will find a bed and a meal in their family's house every time, your parents, if not an uncle, a brother or even a friend, this is a phenomenom that happens in most of the 3rd world, you probably see this in Bulgaria compared to the US, so these nets don't have to be state provided especially if that net in particular is inherently unjust

my wife, having lived in poland, norway and malaysia (in order of length), hypothesized (with a significant amount of facetiousness) that people's care for their fellow man is negatively proportional with the perceived quality of the institutions of their country.

in the US you have the social disenfranchisement of a country with functional institutions and safety net, without really having the functional institutions and safety net.

From what I know about the US - I don't really see their safety nets in any sector.

Their healthcare is a topic not worth even diving into.
There is no paid maternity leave
There is no paid paternity leave(obv...)
There is no paid time off
You get 13 days sick leave

Americans will now say 'hurr durr but no employer is that harsh' - thats not the point. The point is if an employer wants to be that harsh, they can do it.

Their law enforcement are among the most deadly in the world (they beat Angola woohoo)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...law_enforcement_officers_by_countries

Their judicial system im not really informed on, but considering that prisons are a business and they are full and they have the most prisoners per capita, I'm assuming its also a joke.

No idea about pension in the USA, but considering they are basically a corporation I doubt its any good


With that being said, the quality of almost any of their services is probably (if not) the best in the world in most of the above. So there's that



@GoTunk

As I said, you dont get to choose the answer to any of those question, neither do I, neither side has enough information to conclude that they are right. Thus everything is happening in a woman's body so they should be free to do as they wish.

And donating to charity means literally nothing.

@Baal no I'm not saying men should take responsibility but women don't ... thats the whole argument. As I've repeated myself 3 times already. The woman aborts a fetus, the fetus is not a human being. The man abandons a human being that needs him. You may believe you have empathy on this but your stance proves otherwise, so what am i to think ? Its not really a dishonest argument, as much as it is unsolvable at the moment. You cannot treat the cause, thus you have to treat the result, there s no other option in this case.

Safety nets in Bulgaria are a joke, unless you're a gipsy - then you get social help, you don't pay any taxes, you don't pay any utility bills ( everyone else does for you, my taxes go towards that yay), you get new housing which you then destroy cause you're fucking retarded. Your children are pushed into schools so they can become actual human beings, but gipsies take em out of school cause 'its pointless'

The only good part coming out of communism is that family values are high and like 99.9% of families own at least one home, many more than 2, cause houses/flats during socialism were a joke price. That tendency is following the West now though and people my age have to get into slavery of debt to get a 80square flat for example ( prices even in my town run at 400-600euro per m3 with average monthly salary of 500eu.. guess its better than Swiss where they run at 4000$/m3 but then again we're not Swiss :D )

On September 10 2019 15:50 Liquid`Drone wrote: my wife, having lived in poland, norway and malaysia (in order of length), hypothesized (with a significant amount of facetiousness) that people's care for their fellow man is negatively proportional with the perceived quality of the institutions of their country.

Interesting theory but it feels a bit incomplete/unprecise, for example India that has abysmal institution quality seems to be very empathetic to their fellow man.

But theres seems to be some truth to it for example in México people usually favor barbaric punishment for crimes, for example when its on the news that people caught a thief in a poor town and a mob poured gasoline on him and burned him to death (happens somewhat often here) most people in the comments will be happy about it and hope that happens to every thief.

One time you said that if somebody stole from you, you would rather allow it than to use lethal force to defend your property and I remember distinctively thinking that's because you don't experience crime, if you get hurt by it and your loved ones enough times you will shoot the motherfucker gladly, which kind of supports a bit your GFs theory, if the law has failed you, your stance about justice will be a more brutal one.

That was my point when I discussed with loco about his/my biases, my perception of what an average human being is like is very different from what is to you or him by simply living in cultures with very different levels of civility.

On September 10 2019 20:51 Spitfiree wrote: @Baal no I'm not saying men should take responsibility but women don't ... thats the whole argument. As I've repeated myself 3 times already. The woman aborts a fetus, the fetus is not a human being. The man abandons a human being that needs him. You may believe you have empathy on this but your stance proves otherwise, so what am i to think ? Its not really a dishonest argument, as much as it is unsolvable at the moment. You cannot treat the cause, thus you have to treat the result, there s no other option in this case.

The man would have to relinquish its parenting responsibilities and rights early in the pregnancy, so he is abandoning a fetus, not a human being (using your own logic).

- If a woman can abort it because its not a human being, then a man can also abandon him because its not a human being.
- If the man has to be held accountable becuse the fetus will become a human being then women has to be also held accountable and can harm something that will become a human being.

--------

BTW I mean Bulgarian social safety nets like family taking in relatives and not letting live in the streets, I assume that also happens in eastern europe, less than in latinamerica, but way more than in the US.

TRUMP JUST FIRED JOHN BOLTON!

He also made it clear he doesn't want a regime change in Iran and was going to meet with the Taliban, is this the pre-election anti-interventionism Trump that was promised? lets fucking hope so.

On September 10 2019 23:41 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On September 10 2019 15:50 Liquid`Drone wrote: my wife, having lived in poland, norway and malaysia (in order of length), hypothesized (with a significant amount of facetiousness) that people's care for their fellow man is negatively proportional with the perceived quality of the institutions of their country. Interesting theory but it feels a bit incomplete/unprecise, for example India that has abysmal institution quality seems to be very empathetic to their fellow man. But theres seems to be some truth to it for example in México people usually favor barbaric punishment for crimes, for example when its on the news that people caught a thief in a poor town and a mob poured gasoline on him and burned him to death (happens somewhat often here) most people in the comments will be happy about it and hope that happens to every thief. One time you said that if somebody stole from you, you would rather allow it than to use lethal force to defend your property and I remember distinctively thinking that's because you don't experience crime, if you get hurt by it and your loved ones enough times you will shoot the motherfucker gladly, which kind of supports a bit your GFs theory, if the law has failed you, your stance about justice will be a more brutal one. That was my point when I discussed with loco about his/my biases, my perception of what an average human being is like is very different from what is to you or him by simply living in cultures with very different levels of civility.

I meant that people care more in countries where the institutions are worse. So India backs it up. (and her impression was in particular colored by living in malaysia).

that violence begets violence and that people living in brutal societies are much more likely to themselves be brutal is another thing, which is also true. And Norway is a country where most people are very unlikely to resort to violence in any type of conflict, but also where most people would just walk right past an adult they saw crying in the street or sitting on a bench or whatever.

On September 10 2019 23:54 Baalim wrote: TRUMP JUST FIRED JOHN BOLTON! He also made it clear he doesn't want a regime change in Iran and was going to meet with the Taliban, is this the pre-election anti-interventionism Trump that was promised? lets fucking hope so.

IMO you don't get credit for being an anti-interventionist because you fired someone you should never have hired and would rather tweet and play golf than engage in foreign policy.

Also its a good thing many of Trump's requests have been flatly ignored, the fact that we aren't withdrawing from Syria has likely prevented additional war and is saving thousands of lives.
https://beta.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/10/score-one-american-diplomacy/

Bolton says he told Trump the previous night that he will be resigning, so Trump went ahead and 'fired' him instead the next morning via tweet

Circus either way

On September 11 2019 15:58 NMcNasty wrote: Also its a good thing many of Trump's requests have been flatly ignored, the fact that we aren't withdrawing from Syria has likely prevented additional war and is saving thousands of lives. https://beta.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/10/score-one-american-diplomacy/

This is a "false pretense".. the USA has aided the Kurds for decades now. They've been proxy using them in that region. They can't really abandon them right now, cause thats a good way to keep Erdogan at bay since he s been swaying towards Russia for quite a while. Good thing is, Erdogan is starting slowly but surely to lose ground in the country. The whole thing around the elections for Istanbul's mayor completely undermined him and his power.


On a side note I was hoping that bookies would be giving good odds for Trump getting a 2nd term, but they're pretty low actually. Feelsbad

I dont understand this:

- In a generally unfriendly country like Norway (compared to other countries i travelled to) the cars will stop for people trying to cross the street.
- In countries with mostly nice people when you get to talk to them person to person, the cars will rarely stop for people trying to cross the street... the people are aggressive towards each other in traffic situations. But in most other spots they are laidback.

I dont get it

You confuse with being extreoverted and friendly with being civil, they are not correlated at all.

On September 11 2019 15:58 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On September 10 2019 23:54 Baalim wrote: TRUMP JUST FIRED JOHN BOLTON! He also made it clear he doesn't want a regime change in Iran and was going to meet with the Taliban, is this the pre-election anti-interventionism Trump that was promised? lets fucking hope so. IMO you don't get credit for being an anti-interventionist because you fired someone you should never have hired and would rather tweet and play golf than engage in foreign policy. Also its a good thing many of Trump's requests have been flatly ignored, the fact that we aren't withdrawing from Syria has likely prevented additional war and is saving thousands of lives. https://beta.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/10/score-one-american-diplomacy/

I'm not giving him credit at all, I"m just hopeful that his 2nd term will be.

You seem displeased that Trump wasn't an anti-interventionalist but you have consitently supported wars for many years of discussions now, so which is it?

On September 12 2019 03:52 Baalim wrote: You confuse with being extroverted and friendly with being civil, they are not correlated at all.

Hm this makes a lot of sense for what he said, but I feel like it's a bias as well, since you could give Asian countries as an example for the same case, but they are the most "non-extroverted" ones from all and behave the exact same manner.... Guess its a tough thing to measure since it will relate to a bunch of factors