|
Trying to think of good things about Alabama and all I can come up with is 'space camp' and 'not Mississippi'
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
Mister Bates posted:e: ^^^^^ Why does a guy calling himself an 'anarchist' seem to think the minimum wage is a bad thing? Anarcho-capitalist, probably. The weird creepy uncle of anarchism. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
Blarghalt posted:Anarcho-capitalist, probably. The weird creepy uncle of anarchism.  then a minimum wage is unnecessary, because the rulers/exploiters have been eliminated or expropriated back into the masses, and a humane standard of living for all has been established in place of a wage system.If they're advocating for the removal of the minimum wage without all the rest of that, then yeah, probably an-caps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
Mitchicon posted:I was reading about the differences between Vermont (the most liberal state) and Mississippi (the most conservative) and came across this (although it used Alabama instead): "Where would you rather live?" reminds me of one of my favorite tweets from the 2012 election cycle: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
Dr Creflo A Dollar posted:Trying to think of good things about Alabama and all I can come up with is 'space camp' and 'not Mississippi' Cool archaeology.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
re: Alabama In 2009 my husband and I visited his relatives there. While picking up things for family at Wal Mart, I bought Dreams from My Father. The cashier, an elderly black woman, saw it and asked, "Do you like Barack?" I told her I voted for him. She asked if I was from around there. She seemed very disappointed when I said no. She then urged me to check out the Civil Rights tour and museum. My husband said she was probably surprised because white people don't buy that book there. Later we had to visit his grandparents. I don't recall his grandfather actually speaking a single word to me, but he did talk about how black people love rap music because "it's like when they used to beat on trees in the jungle." He also punched a black woman during a lunch counter sit in. So Alabama, totally not racist ever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:I believe this is a local Oklahoma group. They try to paint themselves as "abolitionists" and name-drop MLK, Lincoln and other luminaries to try to link their fight to ban abortion as a holy crusade. When I engage someone who is being self-righteous and calling people murderers, baby-killers, etc; rather than trying to argue that zygotes aren't people (it's a religious belief that I'm unlikely to change, and it just gives him more ammunition to call me bloodthirsty) or convince him of women's rights (he'll never accept that a woman has the right to commit what he thinks of as murder), I take him at his word that abortion has killed 50 million people. What a terrible holocaust! Rather than banning abortion and pushing women into illegal back alley places that still kill embryos (and sometimes the mothers too), we need to bend all our efforts to solving the problems that cause unwanted pregnancies. We need comprehensive sex education, free contraceptives, full pre-natal care, WIC, child welfare, etc etc. He'll usually start in on  not with my tax dollars or  those sluts don't deserved it and then I can throw his words back in his face: "But I thought you said this was a modern-day holocaust that kills more Americans than every war we've ever had combined. If it's a crisis, we need to use the most effective remedies available It's curiously convenient that the slaughter is just bad enough for coercion and moralizing, yet somehow not bad enough to spend any money to actually fix."
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:When I engage someone who is being self-righteous and calling people murderers, baby-killers, etc; rather than trying to argue that zygotes aren't people (it's a religious belief that I'm unlikely to change, and it just gives him more ammunition to call me bloodthirsty) or convince him of women's rights (he'll never accept that a woman has the right to commit what he thinks of as murder), I take him at his word that abortion has killed 50 million people. What a terrible holocaust! Rather than banning abortion and pushing women into illegal back alley places that still kill embryos (and sometimes the mothers too), we need to bend all our efforts to solving the problems that cause unwanted pregnancies. We need comprehensive sex education, free contraceptives, full pre-natal care, WIC, child welfare, etc etc. I met one of these guys at uni (unlucky enough to be from the same state), and took it in a different direction. Namely, I asked him what his opinion on John Brown was. Then Nat Turner (he didn't know who that was, sadly). At least John Brown was enough to make him visibly uncomfortable. I went on to ask that, if this is really the worst act of genocide that has ever been committed and it's happening right now, isn't it a moral imperative to resist it in any way possible, including violence? If you really believe what you say, if you're actually being sincere, isn't bombing abortion clinics and murdering doctors a very short and very logical step away? I really wish he had reacted in an amusing or outrageous fashion so I could relate it to you, or had at least tried to debate with me, but he just mumbled something and walked away very quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
Dear goons, You ever have that friend you knew in high school who was a little weird but seemed mostly OK? He wasn't your best bud but was a friend of a friend? Then, when you meet him again 12 years later you find out he is a spergy, right-wing, Glenn Beck regurgitating waste of a person? I did! Now he sends me all kinds of fun stuff he's learned from such fascinating sites as The Drudge Report! Breitbart! FOOOOOOX News! Others that I don't even want to click on! I've asked him to stop but he keeps sending them! Sometimes I try to reply seriously and then my blood boils as the argument goes on. Now I've decided he's not really a friend, so let's have some fun. Let's see how this turns out: just heard about this and i want to EXPLODE posted:http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/teenagers-poured-gasoline-boy-walking-home-school-set-fire-cops-article-1.1033062 To which I replied: quote:1 - The kid didn't die.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
Dr Creflo A Dollar posted:Trying to think of good things about Alabama and all I can come up with is 'space camp' and 'not Mississippi' "Cool things about Alabama" is a pro google search term, I tell you hwhat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 05:39
|
|
VitalSigns posted:When I engage someone who is being self-righteous and calling people murderers, baby-killers, etc; rather than trying to argue that zygotes aren't people (it's a religious belief that I'm unlikely to change, and it just gives him more ammunition to call me bloodthirsty) or convince him of women's rights (he'll never accept that a woman has the right to commit what he thinks of as murder), I take him at his word that abortion has killed 50 million people. What a terrible holocaust! Rather than banning abortion and pushing women into illegal back alley places that still kill embryos (and sometimes the mothers too), we need to bend all our efforts to solving the problems that cause unwanted pregnancies. We need comprehensive sex education, free contraceptives, full pre-natal care, WIC, child welfare, etc etc. Why don't you think that zygotes are people?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 05:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:When I engage someone who is being self-righteous and calling people murderers, baby-killers, etc; rather than trying to argue that zygotes aren't people (it's a religious belief that I'm unlikely to change, and it just gives him more ammunition to call me bloodthirsty) or convince him of women's rights (he'll never accept that a woman has the right to commit what he thinks of as murder), I take him at his word that abortion has killed 50 million people. What a terrible holocaust! Rather than banning abortion and pushing women into illegal back alley places that still kill embryos (and sometimes the mothers too), we need to bend all our efforts to solving the problems that cause unwanted pregnancies. We need comprehensive sex education, free contraceptives, full pre-natal care, WIC, child welfare, etc etc. I have never had this experience. Instead, they mainly hem and haw and dissemble but don't really answer. I would love to find a hardcore choicer who's willing to move the discussion forward once I call them out on this, but usually raising thoughtful evidence-based opposition just leads to a dead end. The best one-punch I employ is (1) Q: "Is abortion murder?" A: "Of course." (2) Q: "What should the punishment be for women who get abortions?" It is so frustrating that that second question is never answered with anything besides "Hmmmmm, haven't thought about that one. I need to pray on that."
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 05:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Rather than banning abortion and pushing women into illegal back alley places that still kill embryos (and sometimes the mothers too), we need to bend all our efforts to solving the problems that cause unwanted pregnancies. We need comprehensive sex education, free contraceptives, full pre-natal care, WIC, child welfare, etc etc. I agree 100% with this, which is why I get so frustrated with the Vatican trying to have it both ways. People, including teenagers, are going to have sex. Without birth control/condoms, unwanted pregnancies will happen. If the church is really so opposed to abortion, why can't they accept that human nature isn't going to magically change?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 06:03
|
|
|
Idiot Kicker posted:I agree 100% with this, which is why I get so frustrated with the Vatican trying to have it both ways. People, including teenagers, are going to have sex. Without birth control/condoms, unwanted pregnancies will happen. If the church is really so opposed to abortion, why can't they accept that human nature isn't going to magically change? You are asking a lot of a wealthy and powerful organization composed of (putative) virgins who expect complete moral authority on the issue of the wonderously complex beast that is human sexuality, a topic about which they are supposed to have zero firsthand experience. The whole premise is illogical from the get-go. VVVVVV EDIT: I get that pro-choice people are in favor of not punishing women. I'm talking about the fact that anti-choice people really try to avoid questions about punishments for the allegedly murderous women who get abortions. pig slut lisa fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 06:05
|
|
Nice Davis posted:I have never had this experience. Instead, they mainly hem and haw and dissemble but don't really answer. I would love to find a hardcore choicer who's willing to move the discussion forward once I call them out on this, but usually raising thoughtful evidence-based opposition just leads to a dead end. No punishment. We let people die all day long around the world without really caring about it. I look at abortion the same way. A person starts at conception and the benefits of killing them via abortion outweigh the drawbacks. Women are going to have them regardless, and it encourages a criminal element to have them be illegal.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 06:05
|
|
|
Another fairly easy response to anti-choice folks is to ask what they're doing to support other forms of mandatory organ donation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 07:05
|
|
|
Idiot Kicker posted:I agree 100% with this, which is why I get so frustrated with the Vatican trying to have it both ways. People, including teenagers, are going to have sex. Without birth control/condoms, unwanted pregnancies will happen. If the church is really so opposed to abortion, why can't they accept that human nature isn't going to magically change? It's actually about logical consistency with their general stance on sexuality as being something that's primarily for reproduction, though I've read texts that accept that the closeness and intimacy of a loving sexual relationship are also part of the intended divine purpose of the act. The church fears that if it allows birth control, it concedes that the closeness and intimacy are potentially the real purpose of the act, and thus its stance on homosexual sex (that it is immoral because it cannot lead to reproduction and is solely about physical pleasure/emotional intimacy, in their view) falls apart.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 08:15
|
|
|
It would be so easy to fit gay people into their system as well. Gay people can get married, they can only have sex after marriage, and they are encouraged to adopt as many kids as they can, since adoption is what they push as an alternative to abortion. Not that there's even the slightest chance of this ever happening.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
ponzicar posted:It would be so easy to fit gay people into their system as well. Gay people can get married, they can only have sex after marriage, and they are encouraged to adopt as many kids as they can, since adoption is what they push as an alternative to abortion. Not that there's even the slightest chance of this ever happening. With Pope Francis around? I give it 5 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 09:18
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:With Pope Francis around? I give it 5 years. Francis isn't pro-gay. He's spoken out against gay marriage. He's just not calling to murder them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 10:08
|
|
|
Nice Davis posted:The best one-punch I employ is (1) Q: "Is abortion murder?" A: "Of course." (2) Q: "What should the punishment be for women who get abortions?" In High School government class we had a mock Senate for a couple of weeks. My genius class voted in one bill that declared abortion to be a first-degree murder charge for both the mother and the doctor, and another bill that gave an automatic death sentence to anyone convicted of first-degree murder, with the bonus that they had to be killed in the same way they killed their victims. I questioned the logic of executing women who get abortions by forcibly re-inserting them into their own mothers' womb and aborting them, but apparently I just wasn't taking the class seriously. Personally I think I was the only one who was.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 10:42
|
|
|
I don't know they sound like they are perfectly in line with the average GOP state level representative.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 12:49
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:it concedes that the closeness and intimacy are potentially the real purpose of the act Wait, are there studies or groups that conclude that closeness and intimacy are the primary purpose of sex acts? The way I understood it, the primary purpose is reproduction but our amazing bodies and brains recognize that we like to do things that feel good, so they reward us with all the physiological benefits of the orgasm. I thought secular society was what told us that being naked with each other and having sexual relations was a time for feelings of intimacy and closeness with our partner. I understand where you're coming from because some of the things we consider sex acts are unrelated to reproduction (oral sex, anal sex, foot jobs, etc), but that's a physiological/psychological matter that's mostly above my understanding. I'm not trolling or anti-homosexual, I've just never heard this idea expressed this way. Eulogistics fucked around with this message at 13:31 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 13:26
|
|
|
Eulogistics posted:Wait, are there studies or groups that conclude that closeness and intimacy are the primary purpose of sex acts? The way I understood it, the primary purpose is reproduction but our amazing bodies and brains recognize that we like to do things that feel good, so they reward us with all the physiological benefits of the orgasm. I thought secular society was what told us that being naked with each other and having sexual relations was a time for feelings of intimacy and closeness with our partner. Society and people don't exist in an abiological vacuum-- there's a reason that pair-bonding is so strong. There's a huge amount of chemicals involved in sex/orgasm, and some of them do spur intimacy with your partner. It's a pretty radical idea to a decent slice of society (since it directly shows how free will is a joke) but it's pretty well known scientifically. Here would be a good quick source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin The same chemical used to create orgasm in humans also has to do with pair bonding, trust, and empathy. I'm not a biologist, so someone with more education on the area can feel free to correct any mistakes I have made.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 13:54
|
|
|
My feed is usually pretty tame, so I was shocked when I ran across this from my coworker. I always thought he was more liberal about these sorts of things. I don't know if he actually liked that page or is just sharing stuff from his feed, but some of the stuff in there is pretty  worthy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 14:26
|
|
|
This is true, if you just ignore the fact it's not true since the original study done on this used research between 1987-1992 when the HIV epidemic was more out of control and Antiretroviral drugs much less effective http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jun/07/bob-marshall/bob-marshall-says-homosexual-behavior-cuts-life-ex/ It's also another one of those instances where anti gay people seriously can't stop focusing on gay men while ignoring the half of gay people who are women. rkajdi posted:Society and people don't exist in an abiological vacuum-- there's a reason that pair-bonding is so strong. There's a huge amount of chemicals involved in sex/orgasm, and some of them do spur intimacy with your partner. It's a pretty radical idea to a decent slice of society (since it directly shows how free will is a joke) but it's pretty well known scientifically. Anecdotes never beat evidence, but, anyone who has been in bed with someone they didn't love and someone they did love can also probably vouch for the fact that while sex feeling really good is part of it, the intimacy felt with someone you love is also another part of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:It's also another one of those instances where anti gay people seriously can't stop focusing on gay men while ignoring the half of gay people who are women. It's cool because they're hott bro, I just don't want them gays touching my dick.  A lot of it is deep fear that gay men will dominate and be aggressive in the same way straight men behave towards women. Hypocricy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
^ also beaten by this guyAmused to Death posted:
whoa there cowboy. Women aren't people! Plus that'd be hot anyway so
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Society and people don't exist in an abiological vacuum-- there's a reason that pair-bonding is so strong. There's a huge amount of chemicals involved in sex/orgasm, and some of them do spur intimacy with your partner. It's a pretty radical idea to a decent slice of society (since it directly shows how free will is a joke) but it's pretty well known scientifically. I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that "the primary purpose of sex acts is/are feelings of intimacy and closeness with your partner", which is the actual claim that I've never heard before and am objecting to. The article on pair-bonding even talks about the behavior of bank swallows being less than monogamous immediately after successful reproduction has been guaranteed: "For about four days immediately prior to egg-laying, when copulations lead to fertilizations, the male bank swallow is very busy, attentively guarding his female. Before this time, as well as after—that is, when her eggs are not ripe, and again after his genes are safely tucked away inside the shells—he goes seeking extra-pair copulations with the mates of other males…who, of course, are busy with defensive mate-guarding of their own." It seems more to me that the body and brain use drugs like Oxytocin to cause behaviors like feelings of closeness to ensure successful reproduction, not the other way around. However, I'm not actually learned in this field, so I'll take my derail and go home. Eulogistics fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Anecdotes never beat evidence, but, anyone who has been in bed with someone they didn't love and someone they did love can also probably vouch for the fact that while sex feeling really good is part of it, the intimacy felt with someone you love is also another part of it. That's also sort of backwards from what I was arguing. Oxytocin is released during orgasm and helps with pair bonding, empathy, and general "be a good person" thought. Sex actually makes you feel more intimate with your partner afterwards, though I guess it's also true the other way around as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 15:11
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:That's also sort of backwards from what I was arguing. Oxytocin is released during orgasm and helps with pair bonding, empathy, and general "be a good person" thought. Sex actually makes you feel more intimate with your partner afterwards, though I guess it's also true the other way around as well. I would actually be curious if there's a study showing oxytocin release during sex between people in a long term relationship and those not. Even simple things like friendly touching release oxytocin and people in love tend to touch each other in a friendly manner a whole lot. I wonder if it creates a situation of perpetually higher levels of the hormone that increase sexual attraction to each other and in effect increase the pleasure and effects of sex itself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 15:29
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:I would actually be curious if there's a study showing oxytocin release during sex between people in a long term relationship and those not. Even simple things like friendly touching release oxytocin and people in love tend to touch each other in a friendly manner a whole lot. I wonder if it creates a situation of perpetually higher levels of the hormone that increase sexual attraction to each other and in effect increase the pleasure and effects of sex itself. I agree that would be interesting to look at. But in this current climate, I'd figure it's harder to get funded because a) it has to do with sex in a realistic way, versus just telling kids not to gently caress, and b) falls into the category of research showing free will isn't really that free, which makes lots of otherwise sensible people irate for no good reason. That latter is actually a much bigger problem than the former, in that you'll even get college educated otherwise rational people to derail the train on it, or immediately start poo-pooing the methodology if they have a scientific background.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
Guys, I found the most ironic image macro on facebook(this week). edit: Doesn't seem to be showing up, lemme host it. 
Zeitgueist fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
Eh, at least image macros don't take five minutes or longer to read like the old fashioned emails everyone's grandma seems to forward around. Efficiency in bigotry!
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
I have the strongest urge to take the quote on that macro and flip the parts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Guys, I found the most ironic image macro on facebook(this week). I told my grandpa one time that the debt has increased under every Republican president since Reagan, and he just flat out refused to believe me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
zoux posted:I told my grandpa one time that the debt has increased under every Republican president since Reagan, and he just flat out refused to believe me. Not only increased, but increased hugely. Like, more than 100%.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
Confirmation bias is a bitch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
zoux posted:I told my grandpa one time that the debt has increased under every Republican president since Reagan, and he just flat out refused to believe me. And it started to level during the Clinton years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
We were in the car so I couldn't bust out charts or anything, but I don't think that it would've mattered. I honestly think that if a person is swayed by good evidence, they are more likely to be a liberal. I've seen so many debates "well you can make a study/survey/expert say whatever you want" or "liberal bias" that I don't believe that it's even worth trying to prove an ideological issue to most conservatives. There is literally no evidence they'd except that will modify their opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 18:51
|
|