--> Jump to content

Official Thread for Abortion Demagoguery


bad_teammate

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

If I lived in a state that didn't stand hard on the following two stances at the exact same time, maybe I could: 1) NO abortion, and 2) abstinence-only sex education.

Dude.  Come on.  The exact same people pushing item 1 are the exact same people who insist on item 2, and typically oppose birth control (or at the very least, any dissemination of information about birth control) to boot.

It's about puritanical morality -- that's LITERALLY what their positions are.  There is no "we must eliminate abortion, so let's do everything possible to get rid of it" approach, because that approach would CHAMPION sex education and contraception.

So, no, we cannot agree to your last sentence, because there is no such position of "we want to eliminate abortion, but not take measures that are puritanical controlling bullshit."

 I will agree that when you believe that humans are being murdered at an astronomical rate, that there is a moral dilemma. You don't care who it hurts to stop innocent people from being killed. The fastest way to do that is top down government, which I don't think is good.

People who say that those people couldn't care about babies after they are born probably only think government is the only correct way to give. Most seem to think that there aren't private charities that do what they're asking for already, and since no one on the right is asking for more government intervention that way, they must not care. 

I'd argue that they don't believe that would get rid of abortion, or even reduce abortion. It would give more money towards a government program that would suck away thier charity donatiotn, and actually be run down by the beuracracy that is the government to end up to be less useful to the people they want to help. 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I will agree that when you believe that humans are being murdered at an astronomical rate, that there is a moral dilemma. You don't care who it hurts to stop innocent people from being killed. The fastest way to do that is top down government, which I don't think is good.
People who say that those people couldn't care about babies after they are born probably only think government is the only correct way to give. Most seem to think that there aren't private charities that do what they're asking for already, and since no one on the right is asking for more government intervention that way, they must not care. 
I'd argue that they don't believe that would get rid of abortion, or even reduce abortion. It would give more money towards a government program that would suck away thier charity donatiotn, and actually be run down by the beuracracy that is the government to end up to be less useful to the people they want to help. 

 

You might want to sit this one out, pard.
  • Like 7
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

 I will agree that when you believe that humans are being murdered at an astronomical rate, that there is a moral dilemma. You don't care who it hurts to stop innocent people from being killed. The fastest way to do that is top down government, which I don't think is good.

People who say that those people couldn't care about babies after they are born probably only think government is the only correct way to give. Most seem to think that there aren't private charities that do what they're asking for already, and since no one on the right is asking for more government intervention that way, they must not care. 

I'd argue that they don't believe that would get rid of abortion, or even reduce abortion. It would give more money towards a government program that would suck away thier charity donatiotn, and actually be run down by the beuracracy that is the government to end up to be less useful to the people they want to help. 

 

 

It's astonishing how committed to the bit you are.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

People who say that those people couldn't care about babies after they are born probably only think government is the only correct way to give. Most seem to think that there aren't private charities that do what they're asking for already, and since no one on the right is asking for more government intervention that way, they must not care. 

% children living below the poverty level:  14.4%

% adults (18-64) living below the poverty level:  9.4%

% adults (65-older) living below the poverty level:  8.9%

 

I suppose this could be construed by seed and his buddies that 1/3 of those children eventually pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get out of poverty.  Yay.

Lesson:  Republicans don't give a flying fuck about children living in poverty.  They care about controlling women and dark people.  This includes every single one of our resident conservative trolls, including @workswithseed, @Johnny Sack, @immortal13 and the rest of them.  Fuck every single one of you, and Happy Fucking New Year, assholes.  Oh, wait.  Strike that.  I hope you meet with severe  misfortune so you can finally see just how fucked up your world view is.  Is that wrong?  I don't think that's wrong.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

% children living below the poverty level:  14.4%

% adults (18-64) living below the poverty level:  9.4%

% adults (65-older) living below the poverty level:  8.9%

 

I suppose this could be construed by seed and his buddies that 1/3 of those children eventually pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get out of poverty.  Yay.

Lesson:  Republicans don't give a flying fuck about children living in poverty.  They care about controlling women and dark people.  This includes every single one of our resident conservative trolls, including @workswithseed, @Johnny Sack, @immortal13 and the rest of them.  Fuck every single one of you, and Happy Fucking New Year, assholes.  Oh, wait.  Strike that.  I hope you meet with severe  misfortune so you can finally see just how fucked up your world view is.  Is that wrong?  I don't think that's wrong.

I guess I'm living rent free in your tiny brain, as I haven't ever posted on this thread. You should get a hobby or something 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, workswithseed said:

 I will agree that when you believe that humans are being murdered at an astronomical rate, that there is a moral dilemma. You don't care who it hurts to stop innocent people from being killed. The fastest way to do that is top down government, which I don't think is good.

People who say that those people couldn't care about babies after they are born probably only think government is the only correct way to give. Most seem to think that there aren't private charities that do what they're asking for already, and since no one on the right is asking for more government intervention that way, they must not care. 

I'd argue that they don't believe that would get rid of abortion, or even reduce abortion. It would give more money towards a government program that would suck away thier charity donatiotn, and actually be run down by the beuracracy that is the government to end up to be less useful to the people they want to help. 

 

 

Man I’m gonna refrain from flipping you off bc zork RIP.  You may really be this naive.  Educate yourself.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Man I’m gonna refrain from flipping you off bc zork RIP.  You may really be this naive.  Educate yourself.  

Hey, I live in the hell-hole that is the PNW where I have to take vitamin D to keep from getting SAD (seasonal affective disorder). I don't think you or anyone else on here would be the reason I kill myself. I do appreciate the sentiment.

I'm trying to be as honest on this subject, without getting my elephant riled up. I could just lash out and call y'all murders, I just don't think that would be conducive. I really do think that there could be common ground with some stuff that @Sawbonz said (just noticed there's a sawbonz, and sawbones). I would be willing to say that a strong safety net would be good if abortion rates in general went down. The first trimester argument will persuade most people. I would say those who believe life starts at conception don't want to control women, but it would be getting closer to people who just think women are property, which are horrible.   

I'm not wanting to outright ban abortion, since I don't think it will work out, I only think changing hearts and minds the best way to have fewer abortions.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Hey, I live in the hell-hole that is the PNW where I have to take vitamin D to keep from getting SAD (seasonal affective disorder). I don't think you or anyone else on here would be the reason I kill myself. I do appreciate the sentiment.

I'm trying to be as honest on this subject, without getting my elephant riled up. I could just lash out and call y'all murders, I just don't think that would be conducive. I really do think that there could be common ground with some stuff that @Sawbonz said (just noticed there's a sawbonz, and sawbones). I would be willing to say that a strong safety net would be good if abortion rates in general went down. The first trimester argument will persuade most people. I would say those who believe life starts at conception don't want to control women, but it would be getting closer to people who just think women are property, which are horrible.   

I'm not wanting to outright ban abortion, since I don't think it will work out, I only think changing hearts and minds the best way to have fewer abortions.

 

And yet...you vote for Republicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites




I'm not wanting to outright ban abortion, since I don't think it will work out, I only think changing hearts and minds the best way to have fewer abortions.
 


I sometimes forget how much younger you are than many of the posters on this board. I know that sounds condescending, but sometimes your posts come across as trolling and too often you're arguing alongside trolls.

The reason I mention that is because this quote makes me think you're genuine open to learning and discussion. It also reminds me that you're in a place that many of us reformed conservatives once were. The things we're trying to tell you is that we've learned (based on experience and shifting perspectives) that changing hearts and minds shouldn't be your goal. It just ain't in the cards. Instead you should focus on preventing abortions. It's already been mentioned ad nauseam, but it boils down to education and opportunity (ie - actual sex education and easier access to birth control)

Unfortunately, you're siding with (and more importantly voting for) people that consider outlawing abortions as the only way to prevent abortions.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Guess which administrations have had the lowest abortion rates since RvW

To be fair, that has less to do with which party is in the White House and more to do with who is running education at the state level. Of course, who is running education at the state level is generally pretty strongly correlated with which party is in the White House. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, workswithseed said:

I would say those who believe life starts at conception don't want to control women, but it would be getting closer to people who just think women are property, which are horrible.   

You're describing typical evangelical churchgoers here man. Those are the people who ardently and unshakably believe that life starts at conception. Haven't you seen all the purity culture shit that's been happening for decades?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Captainant said:

You're describing typical evangelical churchgoers here man. Those are the people who ardently and unshakably believe that life starts at conception. Haven't you seen all the purity culture shit that's been happening for decades?

It's not even that complicated.  You have elected leaders of the GQP calling women mere "earthen vessels," and how pregnancy after rape isn't a thing if it's "legitimate rape," because the female body "has ways of shutting things down."  All responsibility  - and burden - for sex, conception, pregnancy, and birth, falls on women.  Because that is what women are -- earthen vessels.  Receivers, not actors.  If you can't see that the modern "pro-life" movement is DEEPLY anti-woman, you aren't paying any attention.

I'll say it one more time, so the people in back can hear me: if your ACTUAL goal is to reduce unwanted pregnancies (that is, the starting point for most abortions), then you wouldn't just be okay with, you'd be CRUSADING for 1) comprehensive and realistic sex education, and 2) easy/free access to birth control for all.  It seems silly to have to say this, but reducing unwanted pregnancies is absolutely the most effective way to slash the number of abortions.

And again, we won't even get to the care and safety net for the kids born to unprepared/poor mothers.  Most of the modern "pro-life" movement opposes that as well.*

* I actually award some points here to the Catholics, at least in my experience/perspective.  I have seen firsthand Catholic communities 1) not judge young women in a crisis pregnancy, but instead, support her, and 2) work actively to support and help the mother and child going forward, whether that be by facilitating adoption, ensuring that the mother's education is not interrupted, etc.  At least on that front, the Catholic church (again, in my personal experience) hasn't been hypocritical.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

can you expound a bit on that for those of us who are dumb?

The problem with this statute is, "who do you sue"?  Normally, you sue the state for enacting and enforcing a statute by suing a or the state official charged with enforcing the statute. If it's criminal, then the local DA, etc. Legally, that official embodies the state.  When that person loses the lawsuit, they, and in turn the state that they embody, are permanently enjoined from enforcing the unconstitutional statute.

Because the state is actually barred from enforcing it, potential plaintiffs are limited to individual officers, like judges, court clerks, etc. who aren't really charged with the enforcement of the statute, but play a major role when a private plaintiff sues someone for "abortioning."  Those officers, although they are state officials, do not embody the state in the same way that an official who actually enforces the statute does.

But, if a case hasn't been brought under the statute, there are questions about whether one can maintain a lawsuit against a state judge, or a clerk of court who is not currently, actively participating in such a suit.  There are also questions about whether all state judges and all district clerks can be permanently enjoined from participating in the enforcement of the statute.

So, the plaintiffs here have been trying to play "pin the tail on the donkey" to find the right party to sue and have enjoined from participating in the enforcement of SB 8.  And the Supreme Court and 5th Circuit seem to be narrowing that pool of possible people to sue down to nothing.  It is a tricky question, legally, but as Roberts, the dissenters, and commentators have opined, this statute needs to be enjoined, period, without paying attention to the niceties of who can properly be sued.  If nothing else, the attempt to evade judicial review should be ruled unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of powers and federal supremacy.

So, what might happen is that in each individual case, until Roe is overruled, the statute as applied to the "abortioner" will be held unconstitutional, but the case still gets to be filed, and the defendant still has to make the motion to dismiss, and there may be no statewide injunction against the enforcement of SB 8.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

We shouldn’t need charities to solve our societal problems.

This is an interesting thought.

Let me abstract it a layer.  Do we need charitY to solve our societal problems?  Or, to use another word, some form of individual and societal altruism?

I'm going to guess that your answer to that question is yes.

And, I assume that you might admit that the ability of individual altruism to solve societal problems is limited, in reach if nothing else.

So then that individual altruism must be harnessed into some sort of collective effort if it is to have the wide-ranging effect that is desired.

Is government the only acceptable way to harness that individual altruism into collective action necessary to solve national/societal problems?

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

This is an interesting thought.

Let me abstract it a layer.  Do we need charitY to solve our societal problems?  Or, to use another word, some form of individual and societal altruism?

I'm going to guess that your answer to that question is yes.

And, I assume that you might admit that the ability of individual altruism to solve societal problems is limited, in reach if nothing else.

So then that individual altruism must be harnessed into some sort of collective effort if it is to have the wide-ranging effect that is desired.

Is government the only acceptable way to harness that individual altruism into collective action necessary to solve national/societal problems?

No the government is not the only way. But we only need charities to fix our problems because our government  spends its money on 500 million dollar fighter jets instead of investing money in our citizens 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

No the government is not the only way. But we only need charities to fix our problems because our government  spends its money on 500 million dollar fighter jets instead of investing money in our citizens 

This.  We have a fucked up view of "national security," focussing solely on military might, and ignoring things like disease, lack of access to healthcare including prenatal care, and climate change, all of which have killed far more Americans over the last decade than foreign governments or foreign born terrorism.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The problem with this statute is, "who do you sue"?  Normally, you sue the state for enacting and enforcing a statute by suing a or the state official charged with enforcing the statute. If it's criminal, then the local DA, etc. Legally, that official embodies the state.  When that person loses the lawsuit, they, and in turn the state that they embody, are permanently enjoined from enforcing the unconstitutional statute.

Because the state is actually barred from enforcing it, potential plaintiffs are limited to individual officers, like judges, court clerks, etc. who aren't really charged with the enforcement of the statute, but play a major role when a private plaintiff sues someone for "abortioning."  Those officers, although they are state officials, do not embody the state in the same way that an official who actually enforces the statute does.

But, if a case hasn't been brought under the statute, there are questions about whether one can maintain a lawsuit against a state judge, or a clerk of court who is not currently, actively participating in such a suit.  There are also questions about whether all state judges and all district clerks can be permanently enjoined from participating in the enforcement of the statute.

So, the plaintiffs here have been trying to play "pin the tail on the donkey" to find the right party to sue and have enjoined from participating in the enforcement of SB 8.  And the Supreme Court and 5th Circuit seem to be narrowing that pool of possible people to sue down to nothing.  It is a tricky question, legally, but as Roberts, the dissenters, and commentators have opined, this statute needs to be enjoined, period, without paying attention to the niceties of who can properly be sued.  If nothing else, the attempt to evade judicial review should be ruled unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of powers and federal supremacy.

So, what might happen is that in each individual case, until Roe is overruled, the statute as applied to the "abortioner" will be held unconstitutional, but the case still gets to be filed, and the defendant still has to make the motion to dismiss, and there may be no statewide injunction against the enforcement of SB 8.

 

Yet we've got Shelley v. Kraemer on the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

It's not even that complicated.  You have elected leaders of the GQP calling women mere "earthen vessels," and how pregnancy after rape isn't a thing if it's "legitimate rape," because the female body "has ways of shutting things down."  All responsibility  - and burden - for sex, conception, pregnancy, and birth, falls on women.  Because that is what women are -- earthen vessels.  Receivers, not actors.  If you can't see that the modern "pro-life" movement is DEEPLY anti-woman, you aren't paying any attention.

I'll say it one more time, so the people in back can hear me: if your ACTUAL goal is to reduce unwanted pregnancies (that is, the starting point for most abortions), then you wouldn't just be okay with, you'd be CRUSADING for 1) comprehensive and realistic sex education, and 2) easy/free access to birth control for all.  It seems silly to have to say this, but reducing unwanted pregnancies is absolutely the most effective way to slash the number of abortions.

And again, we won't even get to the care and safety net for the kids born to unprepared/poor mothers.  Most of the modern "pro-life" movement opposes that as well.*

* I actually award some points here to the Catholics, at least in my experience/perspective.  I have seen firsthand Catholic communities 1) not judge young women in a crisis pregnancy, but instead, support her, and 2) work actively to support and help the mother and child going forward, whether that be by facilitating adoption, ensuring that the mother's education is not interrupted, etc.  At least on that front, the Catholic church (again, in my personal experience) hasn't been hypocritical.  

This right here.  And 1) and 2) go a long way to helping with unwanted pregnancies.  But here is the rub, no birth control is 100% effective.  Accidents happen.  Ergo, women will still always need the right to choose in order to be fully in control over their reproduction.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

But here is the rub, no birth control is 100% effective.  Accidents happen.  Ergo, women will still always need the right to choose in order to be fully in control over their reproduction.  

Ha ha, you had the choice not to have sex, you made your choice, vessel!!!  It's baby time!!!

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

No the government is not the only way. But we only need charities to fix our problems because our government  spends its money on 500 million dollar fighter jets instead of investing money in our citizens 

 

3 hours ago, lemonlime said:

This.  We have a fucked up view of "national security," focussing solely on military might, and ignoring things like disease, lack of access to healthcare including prenatal care, and climate change, all of which have killed far more Americans over the last decade than foreign governments or foreign born terrorism.

I don't disagree about misplaced piorities, at all. 

But I think we do need charity and charities to help address certain problems in our society and to supplement the efforts of government.

And, I do think that delegating or abdicating altruism and charity to the government probably overall lowers it across society.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

 

I don't disagree about misplaced piorities, at all. 

But I think we do need charity and charities to help address certain problems in our society and to supplement the efforts of government.

And, I do think that delegating or abdicating altruism and charity to the government probably overall lowers it across society.

Maybe I should rephrase. My point isn’t that charities are bad or anything. They are great and I hope everyone donates everything they can to the charities they support. I just mean that we pretend charities should solve these problems for us when we all know they aren’t capable. Charities should supplement the support the government provides its citizens not the other way around.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

 

tl/dr if you want to reduce the number of abortions, vote for people who are for easy access to birth control, sec education in schools, and expanded social services for single parents and working class families

SEC! SEC! SEC!

Edited by Mole
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My mother used to be on a board for a pregnant women’s shelter in Dallas. One day she mentioned that the women in the shelter were required to attend daily Bible class. She insisted the shelter was a charity, and did not like any statement to the contrary. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe a daily responsibility that requires your presence and attention in order to receive something of value isn’t more a job than it is charity. What do y’all think?
 

Still, a single data point, sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Willfully Horn said:

My mother used to be on a board for a pregnant women’s shelter in Dallas. One day she mentioned that the women in the shelter were required to attend daily Bible class. She insisted the shelter was a charity, and did not like any statement to the contrary. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe a daily responsibility that requires your presence and attention in order to receive something of value isn’t more a job than it is charity. What do y’all think?
 

Still, a single data point, sure.

at least they've improved a bit from forcing starving irish to convert on the spot in order to get a ration of soup

Edited by elfenix
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, I do think that delegating or abdicating altruism and charity to the government probably overall lowers it across society.

Capitalism takes care of lowering the amount of altruism across society. All government does is help ensure access to said altruism isn't reserved for the rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The problem with this statute is, "who do you sue"?  Normally, you sue the state for enacting and enforcing a statute by suing a or the state official charged with enforcing the statute. If it's criminal, then the local DA, etc. Legally, that official embodies the state.  When that person loses the lawsuit, they, and in turn the state that they embody, are permanently enjoined from enforcing the unconstitutional statute.

Because the state is actually barred from enforcing it, potential plaintiffs are limited to individual officers, like judges, court clerks, etc. who aren't really charged with the enforcement of the statute, but play a major role when a private plaintiff sues someone for "abortioning."  Those officers, although they are state officials, do not embody the state in the same way that an official who actually enforces the statute does.

But, if a case hasn't been brought under the statute, there are questions about whether one can maintain a lawsuit against a state judge, or a clerk of court who is not currently, actively participating in such a suit.  There are also questions about whether all state judges and all district clerks can be permanently enjoined from participating in the enforcement of the statute.

So, the plaintiffs here have been trying to play "pin the tail on the donkey" to find the right party to sue and have enjoined from participating in the enforcement of SB 8.  And the Supreme Court and 5th Circuit seem to be narrowing that pool of possible people to sue down to nothing.  It is a tricky question, legally, but as Roberts, the dissenters, and commentators have opined, this statute needs to be enjoined, period, without paying attention to the niceties of who can properly be sued.  If nothing else, the attempt to evade judicial review should be ruled unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of powers and federal supremacy.

So, what might happen is that in each individual case, until Roe is overruled, the statute as applied to the "abortioner" will be held unconstitutional, but the case still gets to be filed, and the defendant still has to make the motion to dismiss, and there may be no statewide injunction against the enforcement of SB 8.

 

I understood most of those words. thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

If the government took over the abortion industry there would be fewer abortions and greater abortion related expenditures. 
 

 

.....and Republicans would find a way to funnel most of those expenditures into the pockets of their cronies (while simultaneously spouting some rationale for why abortion now ain't so bad).  Don't forget that part.  It's an important part.  "Profit" is the only moral value that they won't ever compromise.

Kill a shitload of people with bombs made and sold by your buddy's company?  Morally good.

Kill a bunch of fetuses, but your buddy and you can't profit from it?  Morally bad.

Find a way to make abortion wildly profitable for private industry, and you'll suddenly have all the Republican support you need to keep it legal.

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, capnamerca said:

Capitalism takes care of lowering the amount of altruism across society. All government does is help ensure access to said altruism isn't reserved for the rich.

I don't actually believe that to be true.

It's something else.  Lack of community, lack of conscience, lack of morality.  Not capitalism per se.

"Enforced altruism" through government taxing and spending is not actually altruism at all.  Although the policy that brought it on might be influenced by altruism.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't actually believe that to be true.

It's something else.  Lack of community, lack of conscience, lack of morality.  Not capitalism per se.

"Enforced altruism" through government taxing and spending is not actually altruism at all.  Although the policy that brought it on might be influenced by altruism.

You know why we have child labor laws? You know why we have 40-hour/5-day work weeks? Social security? Retirement accounts with favorable tax options? State colleges?  Capitalism doesn't care about the poor, the sick, the elderly, the dying. The government had to step in so that our economy didn't treat actual, living human beings like fodder. Maybe we don't call it capitalism - it's probably more accurately called "human nature." A person or a group of people are perfectly fine and nice. PEOPLE are assholes, and power congregates as does wealth. There MUST be a social construct with governing power to protect rights.

This isn't up for debate. Look at human rights in any theocracy or dictatorship. They don't exist for any outside of the halls of money and power. Fuck, they barely exist HERE and we're the best the human race has ever invented in trying to prevent that sort of nonsense.

FOH with your "enforced altruism" label. I willingly choose for my tax dollars to go to the less fortunate, and I want those tax dollars aggregated and then applied where they can do the most good. I ALSO give locally in my community and to chosen causes, but I can't impact how a low-income neighborhood gets access to fresh running water or sewage service, or how electricity is routed, or prevent housing permits from being redlined, without a LARGE aggregation of power and money working towards these goals, driven by my elected officials.

That last sentence, btw, is NOT me saying it's perfect. It's simply pointing out that "tithe 10% to your church" doesn't do SHIT for underserved communities in this country. NOr, to keep this on topic, does it help prevent abortion.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't actually believe that to be true.
It's something else.  Lack of community, lack of conscience, lack of morality.  Not capitalism per se.
"Enforced altruism" through government taxing and spending is not actually altruism at all.  Although the policy that brought it on might be influenced by altruism.


The widespread systemic lack of community, lack of conscience, lack of morality can all be traced back to capitalism as a root cause.
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

 


The widespread systemic lack of community, lack of conscience, lack of morality can all be traced back to capitalism as a root cause.

 

Yup. Capitalism destroys any notion of community and reduces everyone to cogs in the machine, which must be kept running at any cost.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^ there is so much wrong w this post I don’t know where to start. You’re equating capitalism with dictatorships and theocracies? Wtf?

 

edit meant to quote captain America but applies to many other posts. I think y’all mean unfettered capitalism. Carry on

Edited by Sawbonz
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...