Explain to me the in's, out's and your motives behind the inane (moral clarity :chuckle
uttering of "moral murder" ...then we'll go from there.
Why are liberals so CLUELESS? (want to take our rights away?)
- Thread starter lighthouse99
- Start date
Explain to me the in's, out's and your motives behind the inane (moral clarity :chuckle
uttering of "moral murder" ...then we'll go from there.
A failure to factor distinctions that matter, that could collectively and individually account for much of the inference, so to some extent yes.
Where your consideration seemed to be entirely that consideration, which is why I noted a different and uniform outcome for the unborn.
I'm fairly sure I haven't concentrated on that at all.
Well, the biology is consistent, so...sure. Propensity can run with access and that's part of the point.
I don't think that's shown at all, outside of working in concert with other important and impactful factors, which was again my point about the assumptive weakness in the link's use of numbers/source materials.
With certain fatality, again, where the unborn are concerned. I'm sure fewer women die in childbirth where abortion is easily had. I'm equally sure more unborn children would die.
I think that's demonstrably false as a premise. Speed limits don't slow everyone down, but they have impacted highway fatalities. Laws aren't in place merely to make us feel safer. To one extent or another they actually do make us safer.
We've done studies on restraining orders and domestic violence, by way of. While the effectiveness of them varies by study most come away with acknowledging a demonstrable decrease in repeat violence where those orders are in place (from 15, to 85% depending). That's statistically significant even at the low end.
I'm not being snarky and I appreciate the prose, but if you don't ask in a sufficiently particular fashion as to allow my answering neither of us is getting more than finger exercise out of the inquiry.
Depends on what you mean by provincially. Given we're still talking about the states, where there isn't and no effort is being made to impede contraceptives, where sex education efforts in safe sex have been ongoing, the linkage really isn't there.
It's a matter of different perspectives, cultures, laws and traditions. Impactful and significant distinctions that make causal relations a bit harder to weed and distinguish in terms of contribution and make comparisons across those lines of distinction problematic at best.
I'd have to know what you meant by it, again. Set higher in what respect? We're better educated than most of the third world countries used to attempt a rule. We have access to a variety of contraceptives and education in relation to sexual practices than those countries. But when it comes to protecting the unborn, we fail comparatively. So it depends on the bar.
We'd have to have a serious study of abortion before and after to be more certain, though there's more than a reasonable suggestion that laws impact behavior in our compact and do so significantly.
Simply not the case. Prima facie we have sex education and access to a variety of contraceptives. There's no inherent bar to that found in the belief that the unborn should be protected from having their existence ended.
Actually, outside of federal funding you won't find much objection. Some Catholics and fundamentalists might have principled objections to contraception, but they're a dwindling minority.
That's not remotely true either. Your statement is predicated on the notion that illegality will not impact the decision to abort. That's an assumption that isn't confirmed in any meaningful way.
More, the numbers in our compact relating to abortion strongly suggest, and unsurprisingly, that once the practice was legalized and normalized to a large extent, the rates of abortions increased significantly above the simple increase in population, year after year for some time.
Simply not established and, as argued, contrary to a reasonable analysis of what we can say about our compact at present.
PureX
Well-known member
Studies correlate low IQ with rabidly racist and right-wing views
Does talking to a Teabully leave you asking: What’s wrong with this person? Do Teabully posts and memes make you wonder if people who believe those things could be crazy? Take heart! A 2012 Canadian study suggests conservatives with racist and extreme views just might be born that way.
Psychology Today featured psychologists Gordon Hodson and Michael A. Busseri’s findings in its April 22 issue. Hodson and Busseri work at Borck University in St. Catherine’s, Ontario, Canada. They concluded?the following:
and
and
According to University of Virginia psychologist Brian Nosek:
And the studies making the connections to low IQ and to the racists and far right wing views–that seem to be at the root of the views expressed by the GOP/Teabully party of today–go back to 1970 and to 1958. Psychological studies have also linked a Conservative political point of view to an authoritarian upbringing.
Psychological studies have longed linked the appeal to political points of view, such as Fascism, to an authoritarian upbringing. The current rise of the Christian Right embedding itself into the present GOP/Teabully Party is proof that there’s a link between authoritarianism and these political points of view. The Christian Fundamentalist Nation, of which Teabullies dream, has been referred to as an ideology that is:
We should be careful not to conclude all liberals are smart and all right-wing conservative/Teabully types are stupid. And, we must also be careful not take IQ tests at face value. They’ve long been suspected of being culturally biased. But, the studies connecting low IQs to racist, homophobic, bigoted, and conservative thinking are there.
Conservative Teabully types will no doubt scream and stomp, yelling, “Liberal bias!” That, of course, wouldn’t be surprising. They deny facts and have very little interest in science. But, like the Affordable Care Act and other legislation about which John Boehner’s GOP/Teabully House of Representatives whines, why bother?? It’s too hard, and reading is for Liberals.
Link HERE
Does talking to a Teabully leave you asking: What’s wrong with this person? Do Teabully posts and memes make you wonder if people who believe those things could be crazy? Take heart! A 2012 Canadian study suggests conservatives with racist and extreme views just might be born that way.
Psychology Today featured psychologists Gordon Hodson and Michael A. Busseri’s findings in its April 22 issue. Hodson and Busseri work at Borck University in St. Catherine’s, Ontario, Canada. They concluded?the following:
Lower intelligence in childhood is predictive of greater racism in adulthood, with this effect being mediated (partially explained) through conservative ideology.
and
Poor abstract reasoning skills were related to homophobic attitudes which was mediated through authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact.
and
For those who lack a cognitive ability to grasp complexities of our world, strict-right wing ideologies may be more appealing. And people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies.
According to University of Virginia psychologist Brian Nosek:
Reality is complicated and messy… Ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simpler solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies.
And the studies making the connections to low IQ and to the racists and far right wing views–that seem to be at the root of the views expressed by the GOP/Teabully party of today–go back to 1970 and to 1958. Psychological studies have also linked a Conservative political point of view to an authoritarian upbringing.
Psychological studies have longed linked the appeal to political points of view, such as Fascism, to an authoritarian upbringing. The current rise of the Christian Right embedding itself into the present GOP/Teabully Party is proof that there’s a link between authoritarianism and these political points of view. The Christian Fundamentalist Nation, of which Teabullies dream, has been referred to as an ideology that is:
A form of debilitating shortsightedness. It replaces reality with an idealized version that usually has too little to do with the real world to be workable.
We should be careful not to conclude all liberals are smart and all right-wing conservative/Teabully types are stupid. And, we must also be careful not take IQ tests at face value. They’ve long been suspected of being culturally biased. But, the studies connecting low IQs to racist, homophobic, bigoted, and conservative thinking are there.
Conservative Teabully types will no doubt scream and stomp, yelling, “Liberal bias!” That, of course, wouldn’t be surprising. They deny facts and have very little interest in science. But, like the Affordable Care Act and other legislation about which John Boehner’s GOP/Teabully House of Representatives whines, why bother?? It’s too hard, and reading is for Liberals.
Link HERE
You are not seeing it because it doesn't further your agenda.
When you accuse me of not being concerned about the deaths of ALL the unborn, I don't need to insist. It's obvious.
Oh. You still have no coherent answer in regards to your accusation. Noted.
lighthouse99
New member
your post is narrow-minded and racist
(not that i read beyond the first few sentences. I don't like Garbage In)
:rapture:
lighthouse99
New member
I was told years ago (by an IQ test administrator) that i have a high IQ
of course there are different kinds of intelligence, verbal, nonverbal, etc. But in any case, while i tend to distrust such tests, i tend to believe that that test i was given was correct-- because in my life i have run into just SO many people who do not really "get" things that i easily get. True, there are things others get easily that i don't-- (physics, for example) but in any case, the point is that we "ultra-conservatives" are not low IQ. It is absolutely absurd (and "racist"/classist) to put forth this kind of nonsense
Sorry to burst your (apparnetly malicious) little bubble
of course there are different kinds of intelligence, verbal, nonverbal, etc. But in any case, while i tend to distrust such tests, i tend to believe that that test i was given was correct-- because in my life i have run into just SO many people who do not really "get" things that i easily get. True, there are things others get easily that i don't-- (physics, for example) but in any case, the point is that we "ultra-conservatives" are not low IQ. It is absolutely absurd (and "racist"/classist) to put forth this kind of nonsense
Sorry to burst your (apparnetly malicious) little bubble
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Your thread is narrow minded and garbage. Regardless of what you might 'think' - white supremacy groups are comprised of far right nutcases and 'ideology' reflected. It's not a case of Conservatism being any the more 'dumb' than liberalism but rather the extremist mindset that isn't open to reason or rationale, from either side. The article alluded to this if you'd actually bothered to read.
PureX
Well-known member
"Readin's fer liberals."
brewmama
New member
Since you are so intelligent and well-read, you surely know these quotes?
"So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot."
"One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool."
"Particularly on the Left, political thought is a sort of masturbation fantasy in which the world of facts hardly matters."
"So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot."
"One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool."
"Particularly on the Left, political thought is a sort of masturbation fantasy in which the world of facts hardly matters."
WizardofOz
New member
Sure it is. I've had this discussion with you in the past when you've went on with this asinine non-point.
What law can prevent humans from dying of natural causes? It's the unnatural preventable deaths pro-lifers are arguing against.
You likely realize this but for some reason you find this particular red herring compelling...:idunno:
This has nothing to do with laws in regard to natural abortions.
You've simply read some selective snippets of a protracted discussion and drew an unimformed conclusion.
Again, feel free to get yourself up to speed or simply remove yourself from the discussion.
WizardofOz
New member
Are you telling me that nearly 50% of humanity perishing dosesn't mean anything to you...a pro-lifer?! :shocked:
Just think of all those mewling babies being allowed to die a natural death! You'd think more would be done by the pro-life crowd to curb this massive carnage.
Kind of puts to question the very pro-life premise...doesn't it? :think:
There's nothing compelling or mystifying about your argument other than your tendency to trot it out regularly in the hope that is may someday grow legs.
Right...the other point being legal proscription, will it significantly solve those impetuous propensities?
Noted. A respective disagreement..also to note.
I believe we both agree that abortion would not cease if rendered illegal.What level of abortion decrease would you consider justification against the increased risk to woman? Does this even hold consideration to you at all?
I could as easily cite prohibition laws and subsequent motives as a counter-point though, you probably know the drill. For now it only remains speculative yet, one must at least ask whether a - marginal - reduction in abortion deaths can be qualitatively comparable to the revocation of extant personal rights and liberties; moreso, the state's compelling interest in the health and welfare of women, relative to those rights, is a just, legal and reasonable proposition. Let alone comparable to a selective "feel good" moral advance.
At least admit that there are significant movements to remove sexual education/contraception out of the public/social realm. Public schools and Planned Parenthood come easily to mind.
I agree studies would need to be done prior to legislation. Though, this begs further inquiry as to the precise factors involved in the choice to abort. Factors of wealth, status, entitlement ..etc. could conceivably have as much if not more bearing on the decision to abort than education.
The vocal minority perhaps. Many of the understated resent their taxes being used to fund social programs aimed at such.
Not exactly, my position is predicated on the notion that a marginal reduction in abortion deaths do not justify the negative social impact, as noted prior.
Perhaps, it's an arguable point. One I don't see an overriding need to roll the dice with.
The don't have to curb propensity, only actualization. And as I noted using other examples of law, they tend to, as you'd expect.
I don't think you can approach it that way, but I'd say a look at that statistical climb should put the numbers on the side of the angels and unborn.
What happened in the twenties was complicated.
Spoiler
The rule is that laws tend to impact behavior. The path of least resistance is still the preferred path for most people and in the case of law not without good reason.
Marginal? A little over a million souls last year.
The counter is that the unborn should have the same consideration and that feeling good about reducing the killing of them isn't something that should trouble anyone.
The objection to PP is mostly tied to their support for abortion. Sex education caused hardly a ripple here in the heart of the most conservative part of the country until some attempted to use it to advance an agenda. Responsible information on reproduction, risks, etc. isn't something you'll find a great deal of push back on from most people. It's the step beyond into near advocacy for irresponsible behavior that has more than a few resisting it.
Education's impact is mostly on the preventative end of things. I was looking at a study done in 2004.
The principle reasons, by percent, for abortion were given as: 25% said they weren't ready. 23% said they couldn't afford a child. 19% said they already had all the children they wanted. 8% said they didn't want to be single parents. 7% said they were too young. 4% said it would interfere with their education and career plans. 4% cited health problems. 3% cited fetal health problems. .5% didn't want others to know they were pregnant. .5% said their partner or husband wanted the abortion. .5% said their parents wanted the abortion. .5% cited rape or incest as the reason.
Apply the least of them to the million plus lives lost to abortion last year and the number is staggering. Or would be to most if you aged them and put them in a schoolyard.
The President himself would weep over the loss. And he should.
It's human nature to resent a thing you earn being taken from you, especially given how poorly people feel they're being represented by the people they put their public trust in.
Marginal hasn't been established numerically. Else, we don't enter into just wars only if we're reasonably sure we'll lose fewer people that way. Some people might use your approach to suggest the monumental and negative drain on resources needed to revisit cases on appeal isn't worth the relatively few people who find their fortunes reversed or lives spared.
Most things are arguable, especially where the subject is value and principle. I'd say human life and fundamental right is worth the interference with other rights, in balance. It happens all the time with each of us in any number of ways and without as dire a consequence in the balance that we find with the unborn.
Last edited:
zoo22
Well-known member
Here's an awesome exchange with lightouse99 (then TruthSetsFree), where she clearly demonstrates how much she cares about whether or not what she says is true:
What a treat. I'm so thankful for this exchange. I've consolidated it into one post so we can always come back to re-read and to ponder on it. Hopefully a publisher will discover it and it will wind up being incorporated into future versions of Alice in Wonderland, where it belongs.
EDIT: Because this fantastical story really isn't complete without the illustration, here's a screenshot of the link. It needed to be included here, for posterity:
Spoiler
The thread is sadly gone, but fortunately the conversation has been saved, for times like this
I don't know that I've ever seen a more perfect, to-the-point demonstration of willful ignorance.
Last edited:
Careful. Such suggestions may leave you with an apt accusation of being a god hating, fag loving, bleeding-heart liberal.
lain:
And never the twain shall meet?
Why ever not? Most rational decisions are defined via an incorporated risk-to-reward evaluation.
Not sure of the origin nor accurate reflection of this number as abortion - as yet - remains legal.
Well, there is indeed trouble in paradise. Ignoring those issues may serve you satisfaction on some personal level ...then again, this narrative is more broad than singular personal assessments may allow. This illustrates the collective value of choice i.e. the continued pro-life valuation of the matter.
I'm not in disagreement over the importance of education and prevention...my point serves well after the fact. The factors representing those statistics simply don't disappear by way of anti-abortion legislation. The abortion debate incurs more than a simple moral command to save unborn lives may solve....
....all the more reason this heart-tugging narrative serves no more purpose than the artful mode of emotive manipulation it's predicated upon.
Spoken like a true neo-conservative....at least on popular levels.
Likewise the efficacy of legal proscription.
On the contrary. Rights (due process) and liberties simply cannot be easily placed upon a linear scale of comparision ...monetary or otherwise.
This falls under the presumption that the right to human life is non-impeachable yet, we both know that legal praxis shows this not to be true. As such and by default, you simply refuse argument where a conflicting aggregation of rights exist (re: abortion); effectively denying a woman her moral right to apply her own set of values and principles to the circumstances at hand....the same woman you'd hold no reservations against her active role within a theater of war nor her duty as selected juror deciding the fate of a convicted murderer.
Can this categorical lack of deliberation be justly acceptable to you?
PureX
Well-known member
I am a fag-loving, bleeding-heart liberal, and proud of it!Careful. Such suggestions may leave you with an apt accusation of being a god hating, fag loving, bleeding-heart liberal.
I don't hate God, though. Just people who think they are God.
We'll have to settle for "less often".
It depends on the principle. If you believe the unborn are entitled to life, that principle trumps the potential risk to those who thumb nose at the law, who willfully enter into risk against the defense of right?
Can't find it. The estimate I saw at the time was 1.2 million. I think that's the average CDC per year response from a year ago.
Prior I noted both Guttmacher and the CDC for a high/low set of figures. But take the lowest known CDC figure of 700,000 from 2012 rounded down. And let's simply credit the "No thanks, I've got as many as I want" as a poor justification from the earlier survey I noted. That would translate to nearly 140,000 dead for no better or other reason.
I'm not ignoring an issue. Peculiar that you'd try that angle with me, but you won't find purchase for the charge. Go to.
Else, if you believe the unborn are entitled to life and that entitlement is rooted in rights arbitrarily denied them then you see the unborn as human beings and saving the life of a human being, or hundreds of thousands of human beings, should be satisfying, rationally so. I was meeting your notion that feeling in this matter is somehow suspect. It needn't be.
My response would be that while you can lay much of the unwanted pregnancies at the feet of ignorance in those third world nations where a simple prohibition of abortion stands without concerted efforts to undo the thing that gives rise to the problem, you can't make that same claim here, where contraceptives are readily available and education has been a sustained and ongoing effort.
Ignorance isn't even one of the main reasons for abortion here. Mostly, to one extent of another, it's convenience. "I'm not ready, it would interfere with my education or career, I've had all I want, just not ready"...those aren't the answers of women who weren't aware of the means to minimize the chance of pregnancy.
Rather, I think it's informative to take a thing usually presented in a sanitized, removed fashion and mostly addressed in terms of examining a woman's right to control of her body and putting it in another light, one illustrative of another human cost.
Some weep for children slaughtered in a schoolyard while supporting a principle that takes the life of hundreds of thousands of children each year. There's a disconnect in it that should be troubling.
Rather, spoken like someone capable of understanding the response. I didn't say I shared it.
Legalization of any particular has always swelled the ranks of participants, if for no other reason than access (though I'd argue additional factors). And I've noted/illustrated the rule of impact with regard to a law and answered on the potential exception of Prohibition, which had nothing like the force of argument behind it that the pro-life movement can muster.
The comparison was in complaint, not value and I was answering on the cost/benefit you suggested.
No one has an absolute right to their person. No such right has ever existed in this country. That's why you can't ingest anything you want, can't end your life legally when you want and can't do any number of things with your body that might suit your inclination. But the argument here is about where and when the rights we have vest, utlimately.
No, it's founded on the principle that absent some grotesque violation of the compact that protects and balances right, you are entitled to your life.
I don't refuse argument at all. We agree as a society that fundamental rights exist which cannot be abrogated absent the willful violation of the compact. None of the unborn have met that standard. Beyond that, here I stand, inarguably fully vested in right and protected by law. Looking back across my life in being you cannot separate me from that right without applying an arbitrary line of demarcation. That should be insufficient to abrogate my right.
Again, there is no moral right to complete autonomy of self. That's a myth. And beyond that is the assumption that her right to control should be of greater value and singular consideration than the right by which every other right obtains meaning and without which no right is more than an utterance or idea, the right to life itself. The life of the unborn child.
There's no real parallel there. It isn't her ability to follow the law that's in question.
I can't discuss a thing until we do, but there's no lack of deliberation on my part.
Or....in short, they won't.
Since circumstances exist as a physical union, the entitlement itself must involve some measure of the woman's risks involved. Especially so, since sectarian considerations in favor of "defaulted entitlement" serves as further risk expounder; viewed as effective moral administrator ...a just and acceptable circumstancial requital.
Her moral role certainly isn't minimized by the pro-life crowd, as such how can one justly ignore her physical risks for the same?
Then I'm doubly curious about your parsed deletion of my quote that included the importance of the pro-life valuation as weighed option and its general effect upon the uninhibited choice to abort. I'd "Go to" the quote...but apparently compromise is an angle of little concern to you.
Your response failed to address my concerns. Add ignorance to the mixture of impulsiveness, passion, social/peer-pressure, hedonistic pleasures...etc. and you concoct an admixture of unintended pregnancies that simply aren't alleviated by a law which mandates abortion unlawful...though as a consequent, many such situations will be "alleviated" in spite of such demands.
"Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection."
In the spirit of Justice Blackmun's court delivered statement above, our goal should likewise include an objective rational discourse on the matter. Leave the impassioned pleas to the politician's soap-box and ideologues. One can't approach objective exchange with interjected (unqualifed) images of mewling babies and axe murdering villains.
Yet, mayhap lesser opposition against the suppression of liberties than the pro-choice faction argues.
There's no right-to-life requirement at the expense of another's life... in part or whole. One cannot hold such a requirement of enslavement upon another via either chains or umbilical cord. A woman does indeed hold the right to presume permission preceding any trespass upon her body. To the point, she's a just, moral right to deny permission to any existing fetus.
Your assertion of "complete autonomy of self" myth simply does not hold here.
.
The parallel is patently obvious.... it resides in her ability to freely choose a course of action that subsequently ends the life of another. Again, have you any qualms regarding these particular modes of choice or explanation of moral antinomy regarding these succumbed lives? Why not?
You, more importantly your rights, are not being juxtaposed against the backdrop of the womb. Such unopposed rights remain fully vested ...they exist absent threat of abrogation, protected by law, save specific exceptions noted above. A discordant comparative fact you continually ignore by way of a non-impeachable right-to-life presumption you've bestowed on behalf of the unborn.
A wilful denial of existing contingencies is simply an emblematic condition of an inflexible ideology...no use in arguing to the contrary.
Ditto..and Supra.
Last edited: