|
Don't forget the part where the Dark Enlightenment people think that we would be better off under feudal monarchies.
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
Ah yes, the well known fact that the Republican party of the 19th century held the same values as our 21st century parties.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:I have shared that quote with people, including my father, who immediately responded with "So Republicans are all racist now huh?" "No dad, it's just that racists tends to be Republicans" 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:I have shared that quote with people, including my father, who immediately responded with "So Republicans are all racist now huh?" "Yes."
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Guys, lay off the Republicans. They're fighting for racial equality to be at the same level that they always have. The level we had in the 19th Century
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Here you go, have some craziness that was forwarded to me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvA1lWQ-iT8
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
That's an hour and 7 minutes long. Jesus christ, he is gonna ramble like that for an hour.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
I'm imagining that he is actually a koala. I wish the sovereign citizen thread had more movement. The crazy is delicious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:That's an hour and 7 minutes long. Jesus christ, he is gonna ramble like that for an hour. Yeeeeeeup.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
The part about the whole sovereign citizen thing I never got was the expectation they have that the unlawful state with it's unlawful power that it uses for unlawful and nefarious purposes won't just ignore your mastery of the true secret law and gently caress you regardless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:The part about the whole sovereign citizen thing I never got was the expectation they have that the unlawful state with it's unlawful power that it uses for unlawful and nefarious purposes won't just ignore your mastery of the true secret law and gently caress you regardless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:The part about the whole sovereign citizen thing I never got was the expectation they have that the unlawful state with it's unlawful power that it uses for unlawful and nefarious purposes won't just ignore your mastery of the true secret law and gently caress you regardless. The idea is that the puppetmasters of the illegitimate state are aware of and still rely on the true secret law, so they are forced to acknowledge you if you invoke it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Why do I keep seeing this guy pop up? Who the gently caress is he in 200 words or less?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:I have shared that quote with people, including my father, who immediately responded with "So Republicans are all racist now huh?" Appropriate response. "'your words' but yeah pretty much." If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and you stuff it into a turkey then...
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Foyes36 posted:Why do I keep seeing this guy pop up? Who the gently caress is he in 200 words or less? TL;DR from reading up on this poo poo today: He's an rear end in a top hat who wants to change the rules of society so that he doesn't get poo poo on for being an rear end in a top hat. Also a racist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:I have shared that quote with people, including my father, who immediately responded with "So Republicans are all racist now huh?" Hey, they don't actually hate black people, they just regard them as subhuman political scapegoats. That's not racist at all!
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Wait...how are they contrasting Obamacare to the reconstruction amendments?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Wait...how are they contrasting Obamacare to the reconstruction amendments? Terrible application of the transitive property. In the past the Dems did not support the objectively good bills that Reps passed (because it was objectively good, which is all they will support). Fast forward many, many years and you see that Reps did not support O-care at all. As previously established this means O-care was bad, QED.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Dr Christmas posted:Hey, they don't actually hate black people, they just regard them as subhuman political scapegoats. That's not racist at all! hey, Republicans love black folks, so long as black folks are content to stick to their appointed positions within society (shoe-shine boy, trumpeteer, maid-turned-mistress, etc). it's when people get ~uppity~ that there are problems
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Abortion stuff ahead: Pro-lifers on my wall are getting upset because apparently parents can sue doctors (and win) for not detecting a genetic abnormality, because had the parents known the kid was going to have a defect, he would have been aborted. Here's such a case (warning: pro-life site): https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/jury-awards-couple-50-million-in-wrongful-birth-lawsuit In Israel, people who were born with genetic defects tried to sue when they were adult claiming they should have aborted, too. While I laugh at the outrage, it is pretty hardcore to try and claim your child should have been aborted after they were born. I want to send the parents a baby shirt saying "my parents wished they could abort me" after hearing that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Crain posted:Terrible application of the transitive property. That and the Democrats are the real racists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:Abortion stuff ahead: For a lot of people, that is much worse than a miscarriage. I mean, there are totally parents out there that will say they're so happy to do that for a child, but that's, like, a lifetime of care you're giving for someone who--even in a best-case scenario--is largely going to be a child for the rest of their life. It's horrifically tragic. You can certainly make an argument that since they knew about the possibility of having a kid with this sort of disability, they probably should have adopted, but adoption is loving expensive, and they're both teachers. So, instead, they opted to have all the necessary and proper testing and screening done... which the hospital and lab failed at. It's hard to say whether $50 million is an appropriate verdict or not, but we're talking about a lifetime of having to take care of a child.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
What is a good counter-argument for "maybe voter ID laws drove down turnout because there was less fraud and therefore fewer overall votes" besides "you're racist"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Buzkashi posted:What is a good counter-argument for "maybe voter ID laws drove down turnout because there was less fraud and therefore fewer overall votes" besides "you're racist"? I would say "show them the actual numbers on voter fraud", but those numbers were probably compiled by liebrals or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Buzkashi posted:What is a good counter-argument for "maybe voter ID laws drove down turnout because there was less fraud and therefore fewer overall votes" besides "you're racist"? The stats on voter fraud over the last 20 years. Or just this: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/upshot/vote-fraud-is-rare-but-myth-is-widespread.html?abt=0002&abg=0
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Buzkashi posted:What is a good counter-argument for "maybe voter ID laws drove down turnout because there was less fraud and therefore fewer overall votes" besides "you're racist"? Link them to any one of those articles about legitimate voters (usually sympathetic old people) who have trouble meeting the requirements.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
Buzkashi posted:What is a good counter-argument for "maybe voter ID laws drove down turnout because there was less fraud and therefore fewer overall votes" besides "you're racist"? Point out that there's no push for more scrutiny of absentee ballots even though they're a larger source of vote fraud. Incidentally, absentee ballots lean heavily republican.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:Link them to any one of those articles about legitimate voters (usually sympathetic old people) who have trouble meeting the requirements. I'm on my phone so I can't get it for you, but in the Texas gubernatorial primaries, neither Wendy Davis nor Voter ID supporting Greg Abbott met the requirements. It's not great in terms of raw data, but it's a good emotional/ "common sense" appeal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:The kid has a sub-70 IQ and can barely walk. He will be forever incapable of even reading the t-shirt if you gave it to him, let alone understanding the concepts behind it. He's not ever going to be remotely functional in society; the parents are either going to have to take care of him (which is pretty much a 24/7 job, 365 days a year), or hire someone to do it for the rest of his life. There's a really good documentary on netflix called Hot Coffee it's all about cases like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Mr E posted:Ah yes, the well known fact that the Republican party of the 19th century held the same values as our 21st century parties. I've always liked using this one after someone here offered it up: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Eh young Republicans often support a lot of things the actual party doesn't. Republicans really weren't a friend of labor back then(along with many Democrats, see the Taft-Hartly vote), it's just you have to pay more lip service when 30%+ of the population is in a union and they've never been eagerly in favor of SS, at least compared to the other side. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/89-1965/h35 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/89-1965/s151 http://www.ssa.gov/history/tally.html e: of course this doesn't change the fact the parties have in many regards drastically changed ideology, and have become more polarized.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
homerlaw posted:There's a really good documentary on netflix called Hot Coffee it's all about cases like that. I've also heard good things about that documentary, but this actually involves a very different set of issues. seiferguy posted:Abortion stuff ahead: This sort of lawsuit (there are two variants, "wrongful birth" and "wrongful life") are actually quite controversial, beyond the pro- and anti- abortion debate. I'll explain the wrongful birth controversy first. Aside from the pro-life "this will increase the abortion rate" arguments, there are legitimate concerns that this creates eugenic pressure- as such, disability rights groups are frequently opposed to these lawsuits. Part of the problem is that there isn't a good way to create a clear standard for what sort of abnormality should qualify, so there are slippery slope issues. The other problem is that it's a counterfactual assertion ("if you had told me, I would have taken this course of action")- it's harder to present meaningful evidence on one side or another of assertions like this, so case outcomes seem arbitrary. "wrongful birth" suits are legal in about half the country. The "wrongful life" ones are the really controversial, though, because the parents in those cases are suing on behalf of the child. The child (who is usually dead by that point) is the one who is nominally starting the lawsuit. They're effectively saying that children with the disability shouldn't be permitted to live. This turns up the eugenics undertones to eleven, and very few jurisdictions across the world have permitted this sort of suit. "wrongful life" suits are admissible in a handful of jurisdictions in the US. This is probably going to become a major political issue in coming years as genetic testing for various conditions becomes more accurate, and potential eugenic applications become more routinized. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Oct 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
I'm not really cool with the worst case scenario of 'wide-spread eugenics' but I can't imagine a solution that wouldn't flagrantly violate women's rights. At the end of the day it's still her body, her choice. People used to use that silly 'gotcha' argument on me long ago since I'm pro-choice and pro-LBGT, 'What if parents could find out the sexuality of the child and abort it?' Well, I guess I'd think they're lovely parents making a lovely choice but I'm not about to step in and legally prevent an abortion just because I don't like the circumstances surrounding it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:'What if parents could find out the sexuality of the child and abort it?' And then you get into the genetics v. choice debate.  e: vvv Well yeah, the correct answer is 'who cares? I still support LGBT rights'. There's no genetic test for sexuality currently, and no reason that there should be due to what you said. But if you have to debate people who believe in prepartum eugenics on the basis of sexuality, then you might as well throw in identity self-determination. Or a cascade of psyducks. Guavanaut fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:
That's a stupid debate and the aetiology of human sexual orientation ought not to have any bearing on discussions of ethics or legality surrounding it. You can only lose by engaging in this debate with opponents of LBGT-rights: If you could prove it's genetic, they can simply say it needs to be cured like any other genetic condition; if you convince them it's a choice/sociocultural, they say you can choose not to be that way. It all buys into the idea that there's some distinction between choice/biology anyway, when it's a lot more complicated than that. Is it necessarily a 'choice' if overwhelming psychosocial pressures encourage you to behave in, or believe in certain ways?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
quote:Subject: Fw: At a Tennessee Football Game---no joke Please disregard the content of this message. It is standard Christian glurge; there is nothing interesting about the message itself. What makes me present this is the truly disastrous formatting. Firstly, because I love you, the Something Awful goons, I have omitted about twenty (20) lines of pointless whitespace. Furthermore, I have trimmed 5 messages from Avast! Antivirus declaring the email virus-free. I also spent some time removing the newlines that swamp the poorly-formatted document. The formatting, by the way, has been preserved to the best of my abilities. However, due to the blessed limitations of the forums software, I have been unable to present it in its proper matter. Thus, please take note of the following. That which precedes the subject line is my blessed grandmother's comment on the story. Below, however, provides a startling change. All below the subject line is bolded, as I have preserved. However, it is also in a large font, making each letter difficult to read. Now, take careful note of the BAD tags that I have provided, because between these tags the formatting grows dramatically more annoying. The BAD tags are centered, randomly colored, and peppered with inexplicable breaks in formatting and inexplicable punctuation errors. That is all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
tinkerttoy posted:Please disregard the content of this message. It is standard Christian glurge; there is nothing interesting about the message itself. What makes me present this is the truly disastrous formatting. I love how she thinks that because Snopes confirms that the described event and the speech described in the letter actually happened is the same as it confirming that Christianity is being persecuted, particularly in light of the fact that no one came in busting heads when the crowd "decided" to pray of their own volition. "What the state can't force those heathens to participate in my religious rituals, why are you oppressing me you statists?" 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
Skex posted:I love how she thinks that because Snopes confirms that the described event and the speech described in the letter actually happened is the same as it confirming that Christianity is being persecuted, particularly in light of the fact that no one came in busting heads when the crowd "decided" to pray of their own volition. Don't forget that they're so persecuted that a sitting member of Congress read that speech into the Congressional Record less than three weeks later. They are truly oppressed, these people who can have federal legislators pulling useless stunts simply to garner their favor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Earth demonstrably exists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:I'm not really cool with the worst case scenario of 'wide-spread eugenics' but I can't imagine a solution that wouldn't flagrantly violate women's rights. At the end of the day it's still her body, her choice. The problems that are currently being discussed in the bioethics community don't have to do with sexual orientation (there's not any meaningful evidence that sexual orientation is genetic or biologically determined, and as you say, such discussions tend to be traps). The present concern is largely over sex-selective abortion, although evidence of such practices is debated. There are also issues regarding other genetic conditions and statistical associations between genotype and phenotype. The primary problem is that selective prenatal screening practices, like a lot of services in the area, go almost completely unregulated and un-monitored, so the bioethics community is going to be playing catchup. Perhaps thankfully, genetic testing so far has proven to be way, way more complicated than researchers had initially anticipated, so we likely have a few years before such eugenic practices become common. The debate over this isn't pro-choice concern trolling- the issue isn't about the abortion, it's about social, and potentially structural and legal, discrimination toward the class of individuals who are subject to abortion. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 01:45
|
|