|
evilmiera posted:Liberal teachings, such as accepting homosexuality and downplaying the sanctity of life and are undeniably one of the major causes of suicide. Countries such as France, Denmark, and Canada all have much more liberal tendencies than the US as well as higher suicide rates." just to point out how ridiculous this is. The suicide rate in France is 16.3, Denmark 11.9, Canada 11.3 and USA 11.8. Male suicide is by the way higher in the USA than both Canada and Denmark. The dispropotion between male and female is fairly interesting (Male suicide is much higher than female.) *All the numbers are persons killed per 100,000 the source was of course http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate Atreiden fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Jan 25, 2012 |
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:06 |
|
|
Gunt McBadpost posted:Did they provide a source for this?* *This actually happened. Remember, this IS Conservapedia, after all. Sources are liberal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 02:20
|
|
|
Their source is http://fathersforlife.org/health/who_suicide_rates.htm in turn their source is WHO data from 1999. So they're real on the ball.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 04:04
|
|
|
So liberalism causes suicide and I guess conservatism causes murder? Or how do they account for the fact that Americans kill each other more than France, Denmark, and Canada combined? Either way I'm guessing the answer is ultimately "liberalism causes it".
Lassitude fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Jan 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
Lassitude posted:So liberalism causes suicide and I guess conservatism causes murder? Or how do they account for the fact that Americans kill each other more than France, Denmark, and Canada combined? Either way I'm guessing the answer is ultimately "liberalism causes it". The people who believe this load of gently caress:  Don't consider logic a useful thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 04:37
|
|
|
I was going through the links from that suicide page, trying to find something equally amusing. But for the most part the pages are just sparse and rewritten Wikipedia pages at best, so I tried visiting random pages instead. And found even more sparse pages with little to no interesting content. And then I came upon the article discussing John Galt. You'd think the article would just give a quick rundown of the character and what it accomplishes, but instead it is wall after wall of boring text, reading like it was being written while someone was reading the novel, combing it for any mention of Galt. It did however, have this gem near the end: Present day With the election of Ronald Reagan, any thought of replicating the John Galt Strike was abandoned. The Objectivists had only one quarrel with Reagan, and that concerned the issue of abortion. On every other point, they agreed with his stated principles, and many rejoiced to see the Reagan principles in operation. Sadly, George H. W. Bush did not follow those principles, and neither did his immediate successor, Bill Clinton, or even his son, George W. Bush. But not until the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama did any Objectivist think seriously that the time might have come to do in real life what John Galt does in the novel. Today, the Ayn Rand Institute has enjoyed frequent citations on the Fox News Channel and especially by commentator Glenn Beck, who has interviewed its current head several times on his program. Beck has not been known to mention the name of John Galt, but he has mentioned the name of Henry Rearden, the novel's hero who becomes a reluctant member of John Galt's strike and the society that he builds. More to the point, "to go Galt" has now become a catch phrase for quitting a system that now begins to look like the extremely collectivistic system that Ayn Rand projected in her novel. The most salient case-in-point today is the finding, published in Investors' Business Daily, that forty-five-percent of doctors surveyed would seriously consider quitting their profession if the Obama Administration's proposed socialization of health care were to be enacted into law.[3] Regardless of multiple accusations in the liberal media, no one has—yet—proposed to "go Danneskjold", i.e. turn privateer and make an active, not merely a passive, war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 09:33
|
|
|
Godddd slightly off topic, but nothing is more petulant and childish than people who insist on calling him Barack  HUSSEIN Obama.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 09:45
|
|
|
C.C.C.P. posted:Godddd slightly off topic, but nothing is more petulant and childish than people who insist on calling him Barack Ann Coulter only refers to him in print as "B. Hussein Obama." I wish I were making that up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 10:06
|
|
|
Zewle posted:Even this doesn't make anyone bat an eye? I know it's conservapedia but jeez. I mean, I know being a conservative means dogmatically observing and trying to enforce social norms, but wow. It's like these people see Christianity as nothing more than another badge of social norms ensuring they're the most conformist. The bible has bad stuff in it but "gently caress the more vulnerable members of society cause THEY'RE GONNA GET IT" is kind of hosed up. I don't really "get" the opposition to the It Gets Better stuff. Isn't killing yourself far worse than simply being gay, if only because suicide is a mortal sin? Shouldn't these people just say, "You know, we're a bunch of loving bigots who hate gays, but I'd rather these kids be gay than dead." At least then they can later approach these gay people and try to make them "ex-gay" or whatever they call that bullshit. And it's also a pretty big public relations faux pas if they really want more people to adopt their hardline anti-gay positions. I'm betting they're turning off a lot of mildly homophobic people who don't viscerally hate gay people, but rather are just uncomfortable around them. Honestly, would you want to be associated with anyone who would rather have their bigotry and persecution cause children and teens to kill themselves, than to begrudgingly accept gays even if they never express approval for them? Equester posted:just to point out how ridiculous this is. The suicide rate in France is 16.3, Denmark 11.9, Canada 11.3 and USA 11.8. Male suicide is by the way higher in the USA than both Canada and Denmark. The dispropotion between male and female is fairly interesting (Male suicide is much higher than female.) According to a few physician friends who have worked in ERs and in mental health, generally, males tend to use relatively "violent" suicide methods that are usually pretty lethal (e.g. hanging, gunshot, etc.), while females are more likely to use less violent methods that end up being somewhat less likely to actually kill (e.g. overdosing, cutting, etc.). Obviously this is just anecdotal (and therefore statistically useless), but it might be that attempted suicide rates are similar for both sexes, but "successful" suicide rates are higher for males due to a propensity to use certain methods. The "interesting" thing would be to compare rates of suicide across sex with respect number of attempts before the final "successful" one and methods used. StealthArcher posted:The people who believe this load of gently caress: Are they loving serious? Are they honestly implying that children are going to become homicidal or even patricidal if they don't believe in God? Isn't it a fundamentally disturbing thing that these people believe that a belief in God and/or fear of God's punishment is the only thing keeping children (and probably adults, too) from straight up murdering people because they feel like it? I've always felt that the people who believe such things about other people are probably just projecting and they themselves are pretty terrible human beings who don't act on their sociopathic impulses only because they fear divine retribution. Binowru posted:Ann Coulter only refers to him in print as "B. Hussein Obama." I wish I were making that up. I get a lot of poo poo from conservative friends and family members if I ever mention that something is a dogwhistle for racism or other bigotry, but how is that not a dogwhistle? I know that it's just his actual name, but with the amount of Islamophobia and racism in the US, it seems a bit odd to keep emphasizing the president's middle name so much if there wasn't a point being made about Obama and his name. I mean, how often did something similar happen in the past 40 years? I don't recall many mentions of presidents by their middle names (excluding when Clinton was impeached and the official documents circulating in the media listed him by his full name) in all the time I've been interested in politics since I was a little kid (I was a weird kid). How often were any of the following written or spoken: Richard Milhouse Nixon/R. Milhouse Nixon Gerald Rudolph Ford/G. Rudolph Ford Jimmy Earl Carter/J. Earl Carter Ronald Wilson Reagan/R. Wilson Reagan George Herbert Walker Bush/G. Herbert Walker Bush William Jefferson Clinton/W. Jefferson Clinton George Walker Bush/G. Walker Bush
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 13:26
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:George Walker Bush/G. Walker Bush Yeah, people never shortened it to W or Dubya. Or 'shrub'. It's childish and it's also A Thing That Happens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 13:39
|
|
|
RPZip posted:Yeah, people never shortened it to W or Dubya. Or 'shrub'. It's childish and it's also A Thing That Happens. But weren't the "W" and, to a lesser extent, "Dubya" less derisive and more friendly and usually meant to distinguish between him and his father? Obviously, "shrub" is just childish and uncreative.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 13:42
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:But weren't the "W" and, to a lesser extent, "Dubya" less derisive and more friendly and usually meant to distinguish between him and his father? Exactly. Before the 2000 election, H.W. was just called "George Bush".
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 15:07
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:But weren't the "W" and, to a lesser extent, "Dubya" less derisive and more friendly and usually meant to distinguish between him and his father? Yeah, this bumper sticker wasn't put out by John Kerry:  And even if "shrub" was childish, it wasn't borderline racist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 15:07
|
|
|
Elim Garak posted:Yeah, this bumper sticker wasn't put out by John Kerry: I'd even say that a number of those are downright cute nicknames and meant to be folksy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 18:06
|
|
|
Writing out his full name is just one step away from bolding his middle name, or like adding in some *wink, wink*s when they write it. Barack Hussein Obama (can we even trust this guy??? Listen to how Muslim-sounding his name is!) They called George W Bush "George W" for the same reason they said "John Quincy Adams"
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
Binowru posted:Ann Coulter only refers to him in print as "B. Hussein Obama." I wish I were making that up. you mean "A. Hart Coulter", yes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 18:22
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:I don't really "get" the opposition to the It Gets Better stuff. Suicide is a mortal sin, but gays are ICKY. They have ICKY BUTT SEX WITH THEIR ICKY BUTTS THAT THEY USE FOR SEX. And, since they believe that The Gay is "catching," it stands to reason that some people might inwardly breathe a sigh of relief when there's one less homosexual out there potentially "recruiting" people. They may not even be consciously aware of this reaction, and its origin. quote:Honestly, would you want to be associated with anyone who would rather have their bigotry and persecution cause children and teens to kill themselves, than to begrudgingly accept gays even if they never express approval for them? Well, hardliners and fundies as a rule tend to be people who, to quote Dr. Phil, would rather be right than happy. They pick over-arching principles over people, every time. quote:Are they honestly implying that children are going to become homicidal or even patricidal if they don't believe in God? Because a lot of people principally see their faith as a moral compass, they assume that atheists must naturally be baby-rapers. Then, there are people who are maybe a bit more savvy--they realize, or have to concede, that Richard Dawkins' basement is probably not filled with bodies--but who are still perfectly willing to keep parroting that line, to keep the first group properly whipped up. Personally, either way, I agree that it says more about people making that claim, than the people about whom the claim's being made. quote:I get a lot of poo poo from conservative friends and family members if I ever mention that something is a dogwhistle for racism or other bigotry, but how is that not a dogwhistle? Don't see how it couldn't be. If it's not racist, it's at least xenophobic, and I can't imagine any other reason you'd want to accentuate the HUSSEIN. I'd say they're probably just pissed and uncomfortable about being called out on it. Nixon's middle name is sort of fun, but that's only thanks to the Simpsons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 19:01
|
|
|
Binowru posted:Ann Coulter only refers to him in print as "B. Hussein Obama." I wish I were making that up. She also has/had a habit of 'accidentally' confusing Obama and Osama live on air.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 19:03
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:I don't really "get" the opposition to the It Gets Better stuff. It's tough for people to understand that you can express support for one aspect of a thing without expressing support for the whole. Or that you can disapprove of behavior and yet not work to prohibit that behavior. It takes a lot of thought and intellectualism to actually make that connection. It's a very nuanced opinion that you can only reach if you think about it a lot. Many people don't want to do that -- gays are icky, God says gays are icky, therefore supporting a homosexual in any way opens you up to the risk of the firey pits of Hell. Better to just not think about it too much. Here's an article you should read: I'm Christian Unless You're Gay quote:Are they loving serious? Couple that with the fact that "evil" isn't something that men do, it's something that men do when they've fallen out of grace with God and have been tempted by the Devil. If you don't have the Lord to guide you, you must surely be taken by the wiles of Satan, and thus, must be precluded to do bad things. Again, in their vocabulary a-theist effectively means a-moral. They can't think of it any other way because their upbringing steers them into this way of thinking. I know because I grew up surrounded by these people. I read their books, their pamphlets, and every once in a while, my mother would get a bug up her butt and decide that I couldn't play Dungeons and Dragons anymore or that my rock music was Satanic and I couldn't listen to that anymore either. She still struggles with the idea that I'm atheist and feels it must have been a failing on her part. She can't reconcile that I'm a good person and a person who just happens to not believe in a mythical angry sky daddy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
Also, they don't object to the "It Gets Better" campaign because they want gay kids to kill themselves, they object because they think that if you make being gay less terrible then more kids will end up gay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
They're opposed to the 'It Gets Better" campaign because they see pro-gay (or even pro-tolerance) anti-bullying efforts as infringing on their religious freedom (to hate gays).
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 19:46
|
|
|
Senator Kirkquote:
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 19:50
|
|
|
StealthArcher posted:The people who believe this load of gently caress: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 20:38
|
|
|
nsaP posted:Senator Kirk
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:Also, they don't object to the "It Gets Better" campaign because they want gay kids to kill themselves, they object because they think that if you make being gay less terrible then more kids will end up gay. You can't have any tacit approval of gayness, or someone who was thinking about being gay will think it's ok and that's a bad thing. Your God will also know that you're aiding and providing comfort to the enemy and He will smite you if not drat you to Hell for all eternity. Just better not to support anything like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 21:35
|
|
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:Also, they don't object to the "It Gets Better" campaign because they want gay kids to kill themselves, they object because they think that if you make being gay less terrible then more kids will end up gay. I'm not saying that they necessarily want gay kids to kill themselves, just that they are indifferent to these kids' suffering and completely ignore that it is their own behavior that causes these kids to become so depressed and anxious that they commit suicide. I understand that they have bizarre ideas on how and why people are gay (I read Right Wing Watch daily), but I'm just a bit astounded that at the cognitive dissonance they must have from being indifferent to a suffering they are actually causing and the absurd rationalizations they make to divest any responsibility, e.g. claiming that homosexuality inherently causes mental illness, drug use, and suicide. einTier posted:Mostly that. Plus, if you say the "It Gets Better" project is ok, then you're supporting gays and their gayness, and you are sinning in God's eyes. But what about all that "hate the sin, love the sinner" stuff?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 01:40
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:Yeah and if that was a Democrat with a Republican appointing replacements they'd say it was an act of God. Did you read the whole thing? The second two posters showed some sense and told the first guy off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 01:57
|
|
|
evilmiera posted:More to the point, "to go Galt" has now become a catch phrase for quitting a system that now begins to look like the extremely collectivistic system that Ayn Rand projected in her novel. The most salient case-in-point today is the finding, published in Investors' Business Daily, that forty-five-percent of doctors surveyed would seriously consider quitting their profession if the Obama Administration's proposed socialization of health care were to be enacted into law. You know, I've always considered the end of Atlas Shrugged to be a happy ending in disguise. "Congratulations! You've rejected the collectivist system, and set up an objectivist utopia! You can now spend the rest of your life with other rear end in a top hat libertarians who are exactly like you."
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 02:08
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:
Most likely just relegated as a liberal mistranslation that Conservapedia's Bible translation project will edit to it's more accurate, more conservative bend. Probably something along the lines of "gently caress THOSE SINNING BASTARDS! ROUND THEM UP AND DROWN THEM IN PUS!" That's just a guess on my part though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 02:27
|
|
|
Blarghalt posted:You know, I've always considered the end of Atlas Shrugged to be a happy ending in disguise. Haha, I have to ask because I couldn't make it past about four chapters of Atlas Shrugged, but is this actually how it ends? Before trying Atlas Shrugged, I read a book by Rand that contained a bunch of her letters, addresses to audiences, etc. After reading it, I was rather dumbfounded by it's oddity. I couldn't quite explain or define what made it so stupid, but I tried to read Atlas since that was supposed to be her great work. I just couldn't finish it. And now I really don't mind that I didn't waste my time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 02:29
|
|
|
einTier posted:That's a fine moral distinction you're making that is lost on a great many people -- in fact, I'd even say a majority of people. That's an interesting article, but frankly I don't think he's being criticial enough of these organizations. The fact that they hate people is not bug, it is a feature. The Slacktivist recently posted an article on arbotion that touches on some of this. People who passionately hate gays or abortion or jewish bankers are not good people getting fooled. Or if they are, they are willfully allowing themselves to be fooled.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 02:36
|
|
|
downout posted:Haha, I have to ask because I couldn't make it past about four chapters of Atlas Shrugged, but is this actually how it ends? Basically, John Galt engineers the collapse of society to set up a libertarian paradise that celebrates individualism and capitalism and all that stuff. He also gives an infamously long speech, which is about 70 pages long: http://galtse.cx/ Blarghalt fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Jan 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
I can't think of a more appropriate URL for a floodgate of poo poo being opened.andrew smash posted:Did you read the whole thing? The second two posters showed some sense and told the first guy off. Roguelike posted:That's an interesting article, but frankly I don't think he's being criticial enough of these organizations. The fact that they hate people is not bug, it is a feature. The Slacktivist recently posted an article on arbotion that touches on some of this. It definitely isn't a pro-choice argument, it's an argument that people on both ends of it should be more open to concessions for the sake of more important issues. Bruce Leroy posted:But what about all that "hate the sin, love the sinner" stuff? The second problem is it's identical to hate in practice anyway, telling someone that you're seriously concerned that their homosexuality is going to get them sent to hell had the exact same effect as waving a "GOD HATES FAGS" sign around, it tells them that they're doing something wrong and that they will not stop being bothered until they stop doing it. OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Jan 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 03:04
|
|
|
kissekatt posted:If that's not a quote from Metalocalypse it should be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
redmercer posted:If that's not a quote from Metalocalypse it should be. It'd be more fitting for Norway since that's where Toki's from. Lassitude posted:Skwisgar is from Sweden though. 
muike fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Jan 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 03:51
|
|
|
Skwisgar is from Sweden though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 03:53
|
|
|
einTier posted:It's tough for people to understand that you can express support for one aspect of a thing without expressing support for the whole. Or that you can disapprove of behavior and yet not work to prohibit that behavior. It takes a lot of thought and intellectualism to actually make that connection. It's a very nuanced opinion that you can only reach if you think about it a lot. Many people don't want to do that -- gays are icky, God says gays are icky, therefore supporting a homosexual in any way opens you up to the risk of the firey pits of Hell. Better to just not think about it too much. Actually, you and GrumpyDoctor are probably closer to the nose than I was---they aren't thinking things through, or they don't have the cognitive flexibility to realize that you can approve of some aspect of a thing, without approving of the other, or both. Oh, and I don't think humans have the cognitive sophistication to be able truly hate the sin, while also loving the sinner. Usually, if you're pissed at the act, you're pissed at the person. I think the closest you can get is feeling sadness or disappointment over someone's act, because at least in that situation, there can still be some empathy there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
Roguelike posted:That's an interesting article, but frankly I don't think he's being criticial enough of these organizations. The fact that they hate people is not bug, it is a feature. The Slacktivist recently posted an article on arbotion that touches on some of this. I was recently trying to engage a relative on what "life" means in Reagan's quote: President Reagan posted:Simple morality dictates that unless and until someone can prove the unborn human is not alive, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is (alive). And, thus, it should be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How's that for hand wavy self-righteousness? Someone recently told me that I should be glad my parents were pro-life, implying, I suppose, that pro-choice people abort all of their unborn babies. Human cells that are some kind of "alive" should have rights. Well, of course, that makes sense. I'm a bunch of human (and other) cells that are alive, and I should have rights. So should you. I don't think it's funny to ask if the type of cells mattered, as that seems to be point on which the argument rests. Is it the biochemical pluripotency that is what matters? It's pretty clear that a blastocyst doesn't have a brain, but it could make one under the right set of circumstances. I'm sure Catholic doctrine outlines that religious point of view, but memory says the doctrine seems to go back to claiming that the fertilized egg itself possesses special human importance, and that is not what Reagan was arguing. What do we do about all of the zygotes that don't implant in the uterine wall? Memorial services? Manslaughter charges? If given a definition of "alive", it seems, contrary to Reagan, that we can prove something is not alive, and it also seems clear that we don't consider all embryos equal, whether we're pro-choice or pro-life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 04:44
|
|
|
Fly posted:What do we do about all of the zygotes that don't implant in the uterine wall? Memorial services? Manslaughter charges? If given a definition of "alive", it seems, contrary to Reagan, that we can prove something is not alive, and it also seems clear that we don't consider all embryos equal, whether we're pro-choice or pro-life. I asked a pro-life person about this, and she said that because those abortions were 'natural' that meant they were different from 'artificial' abortions. So I guess it's God's will that some zygotes get a soul for a few days only to die because it didn't implant into the uterus. I wonder if there is an area in Heaven where all these are kept?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 09:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:06 |
|
|
Konstantin posted:I asked a pro-life person about this, and she said that because those abortions were 'natural' that meant they were different from 'artificial' abortions. So I guess it's God's will that some zygotes get a soul for a few days only to die because it didn't implant into the uterus. I wonder if there is an area in Heaven where all these are kept?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 10:22
|
|
