Political Memes/Sayings you wish would die.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

What are some popular political memes or arguments you just wish would go away, for whatever reason? And I mean specific ones, not 'anything against X'.

First for me it would be that gay marriage will destroy straight marriage despite not actually effecting a straight couple's ability to get married (well OK maybe a gay couple might reserve a wedding spot at the same time a straight couple wanted it).

And I really don't want this to turn into "let's bash conservatives" echo chamber, so here's one you hear from liberals a lot.

"Pro-Lifers are anti-women"

First off there are lots of pro-lifers who are women. Second if you actually listen to their arguments you'll see that the anti women claim isn't true. Their arguments are that fetuses should have basic legal protections from not being killed because they are technically human life.

To them the argument 'it's my body, and I'll get an abortion if I please' holds about as much weight as 'of course I had a right to shoot my kid, it's my house'. Disagree all you want but claims that they are doing this out of an anti-women agenda are just crap.

Father Time:
"Pro-Lifers are anti-women"
First off there are lots of pro-lifers who are women. Second if you actually listen to their arguments you'll see that the anti women claim isn't true. Their arguments are that fetuses should have basic legal protections from not being killed because they are technically human life.

Sorry, but that makes no sense. Why people who are anti-abortion are also anti-women is perfectly defensible, and religious dogma (the same which holds that women are inferior) is the sole cause of anti-abortion sentiments.

For one thing there's the human right of integrity of the own body. The anti-abortion lobby wants to deny women this right as they want to interfere in decisions about their own body. This is very gender-specific; men never have to fear for that. Thus it's anti-women.

Secondly, it has nothing to do with fetuses or life at all. Otherwise the pro-lifers would be hardcore backers of stuff like free healthcare, childcare, daycare for everyone. But most of them are heavily opposed to extending such services. It's not about life for them, it's about forcing their religious views onto others.

The argument that women are also sometimes pro-lifers is invalid: Women can also want to impose religious values onto other women by force. Some women also vote for political parties that want to opress women. The Dutch SGP party for instance has about 40% of their voters female. Does that make them any less a bunch of sad women haters? No. They still hate women, and that some indoctrinated women also vote for them doesn't change anything about that. Some for pro-lifers, they're still anti-women.

The 'pro-life' mob is just frustrated because it's something that can't refute, but sounds very damning about their point of view.

It's perfectly defensible a term, and that pro-lifers hate being shown for what they truly are isn't an argument against the term.

Blablahb:

Father Time:
"Pro-Lifers are anti-women"
First off there are lots of pro-lifers who are women. Second if you actually listen to their arguments you'll see that the anti women claim isn't true. Their arguments are that fetuses should have basic legal protections from not being killed because they are technically human life.

Sorry, but that makes no sense. Why people who are anti-abortion are also anti-women is perfectly defensible, and religious dogma (the same which holds that women are inferior) is the sole cause of anti-abortion sentiments.

You can be anti abortion and an atheist.

Blablahb:

For one thing there's the human right of integrity of the own body. The anti-abortion lobby wants to deny women this right as they want to interfere in decisions about their own body. This is very gender-specific; men never have to fear for that. Thus it's anti-women.

Are you even reading what I wrote or do you just have a pre-baked response? They think the fetus should have more or less the same legal protections as a baby. This includes not being allowed to kill it. The fact that it's living inside someone doesn't change that.

Blablahb:

Secondly, it has nothing to do with fetuses or life at all. Otherwise the pro-lifers would be hardcore backers of stuff like free healthcare, childcare, daycare for everyone.

Why? There is a large gulf between 'we shouldn't be allowed to kill them' and 'we should pay for their healthcare'.

Blablahb:

But most of them are heavily opposed to extending such services. It's not about life for them, it's about forcing their religious views onto others.

Pro-life is a shitty name for them, just pretend it's pro fetus.

That Thor-I-Don't-See-Any-Ice-Giants meme, or really any meme that bashes religion. It's childish and it's getting old.

Father Time:

"Pro-Lifers are anti-women"

First off there are lots of pro-lifers who are women. Second if you actually listen to their arguments you'll see that the anti women claim isn't true. Their arguments are that fetuses should have basic legal protections from not being killed because they are technically human life.

In this case, this persists because it's always men who are the forefront of the anti-abortion movement. Every anti-abortion piece of legislation? It's a man signing it, surronded by other men and maybe one token woman (and the last major piece of legislation didn't even have that). For all of those pro-life women, none of them actually play a prominant part in the political processes. So you can trump those lines all you want, but the pro-life movement does itself no favours by having the ones with all the attention on them being white, old men, preachers and politicions.

I can't see this thread working if I'm honest. I can't see how it will avoid devolving into separate debates on the validity of opposition to the different memes.

It's not as if you can just call a moratorium on nitpicking either, as then people will take the opportunity to poopoo perfectly valid arguments they just dislike.

Ah well, I'll try anyway. To avoid the pitfalls I mentioned, these aren't arguments, they're stupid political sound bites which don't mean anything.

'All in this together'
'political correctness gone mad!' 'Mad I tell you!' (alright, I added the second bit, but it is a bit hysterical and ott).
'Broken Britain' way to big the country up dickhead, stupid moral panic propaganda playing on the 'oh the youth today' sentiment which has been around since before cicero.

'Green (x)' Now, I'm massively in favour of doing what we have to for the environment, which is why politicians (and business) tacking the word green onto everything as though it actually makes it so pisses me off so much. It's also become a synonym for ethical, which it isn't. Technically, going on a slaughtering rampage is one of the 'greenest' things you can do (See the environmental benefits if Genghis Khan) its still pretty unethical.

Environmental issues require a lot of hard work and coordinated planning and investment. Throwing the word green into your manifesto a couple of times without any concept of how to tackle the issues is a fig leaf designed to get votes and nothing more. It would be like saying 'Yes we have lots of economic policies, ours will be the most economic government ever' without having any actual plans or policies about the economy.

That was cathartic, good to have it off my chest.

Realitycrash:
That Thor-I-Don't-See-Any-Ice-Giants meme, or really any meme that bashes religion. It's childish and it's getting old.

Children sometimes challenge our long held and weaker assumptions with very simple but cutting observations. If that is the sense of 'childish' that you mean, then I agree. It is a sort of childishness, however, that should be celebrated rather than condemned. The idea that socially privileged views should be evaluated just like any other view (such as belief in Thor, 2012 doomsday predictions) is an incredibly good one. It helps us cut through bullshit.

As far as what is getting old, the comparison is too obvious. Augustine or Aquinas or Anselm is a lot further back than r/atheism.

Seanchaidh:

Realitycrash:
That Thor-I-Don't-See-Any-Ice-Giants meme, or really any meme that bashes religion. It's childish and it's getting old.

Children sometimes challenge our long held and weaker assumptions with very simple but cutting observations. If that is the sense of 'childish' that you mean, then I agree. It is a sort of childishness, however, that should be celebrated rather than condemned. The idea that socially privileged views should be evaluated just like any other view (such as belief in Thor, 2012 doomsday predictions) is an incredibly good one. It helps us cut through bullshit.

As far as what is getting old, the comparison is too obvious. Augustine or Aquinas or Anselm is a lot further back than r/atheism.

Problem is that many of these memes don't hold up upon further, logical inspection. They don't hold as either necessarily true, or they only hold up if you are a fundamentalist that believes the Bible is true in a literal sense.

Take this kind of crap for instance

It implies that those who are not Atheists believe such things are moral and right. And it's honestly rather silly. If you want to debunk religion, go ahead, but don't try to debunk it by proving that the Bible is inconsistent, because most people assume (even if they are Christians) that it is written by men as a guide-line, or that the Old Testament is overruled by the New Testament (despite that part where Jesus says 'I have not come to end the law of Prophets' or similar, CBA to find the actual quote right now, but it is used by people to claim that the Old Testament - or parts of it - still applies).
It's rude, and it's silly, and I am frankly rather tried of it, even though I personally am Agnostic and hold no strong belief in God.

Realitycrash:
It implies that those who are not Atheists believe such things are moral and right.

It's a riposte to the far older, far more widespread idea that "atheists don't have a moral compass" or "are immoral" because they lack the redemptive influence of Biblical teaching or fear of God. I'm not sure of the motivation behind imputing a less tenable point than that to such a sarcastic gibe.

Father Time:
You can be anti abortion and an atheist.

You can be an atheist and still be lead by religious dogma. This has come past before, and it turned out that there were no secular reasons to want to ban abortion.
First you got there was 'wanting to protect life', but it was quickly shown those people didn't want to protect life at all, and only made an exception in the case of clumps of cells that are stuck in other people. (or in short: hypocrisy)

Father Time:
Are you even reading what I wrote or do you just have a pre-baked response? They think the fetus should have more or less the same legal protections as a baby.

And this claim is a smokescreen, a fraud, something they don't mean, and is meant only to mask the more nefarious underlying reason of wanting to impose religious values, and not being able to leave well enough alone in general.

Father Time:
Why? There is a large gulf between 'we shouldn't be allowed to kill them' and 'we should pay for their healthcare'.

Ah yes, the libertarian approach to an abortion ban. To answer your question: No, there is not. Wanting to make abortion self-paid and banning it are effectively the same, because nobody can afford it.

Again: Don't fall for trickery and smokescreens, look at what the measures will actually do.

Also, I keep asking, but it keeps turning out nobody is serious about that point of view. Ask them if you can rape them, they'll say no. Hypocrisy. If you want others to undergo that and be victimised again, one must be willing to have it done to himself as well. Anyone who's anti-abortion must either be a rape victim, must be willing to become a rape victim, or is a hypocrite who can't be taken seriously. Needless to say the latter category contains about 99,99% of all those who are anti-abortion.
Ask them if you can break their legs and they won't visit a hospital and fix it up themselves, and they'll not want that. Hypocrisy. Why do they want healthcare, but deny it to others?

As a result, the libertarian version of the abortion ban can't be taken seriously. It's just imposing religion and abolishing women's rights, coated in some libertarian rhetoric.


I mean, the debate against the anti-abortion mob is basically like creationism: It's a done deal. It's some religious radicals with no real argument other than "I've been told to think this" against the rest of the world.

Claiming that you can't ridicule them accurately like you did in the OP is just not justified. That's like saying creationism can't be ridiculed since it's a genuine branch of science.

Blablahb:
And this claim is a smokescreen, a fraud, something they don't mean, and is meant only to mask the more nefarious underlying reason of wanting to impose religious values, and not being able to leave well enough alone in general.

And that is where i disagree. While many may use it as a smokescreen i'm convinced there are other people who genuinely believe it.

You know, sometimes i get the feeling you just like to dismiss everyone with an opinion other than yours by caricaturing them.

generals3:
You know, sometimes i get the feeling you just like to dismiss everyone with an opinion other than yours by caricaturing them.

If you think that, have another look at how I pierce the rhetoric, and use a pure measure of what a political idea will effectively do.

For instance if someone says they want people to pay for themselves, so abortion must be banned, and then that person isn't even willing to pay for themselves, then we have to conclude it wasn't a sincere idea. And even if it was, it'd still be an attempt at banning abortion.

I just dismiss ideas that aren't logically consistent. If I said "I want taxes to rise for everyone so we can afford more government services. Except for me, all my taxes must be lowered, but I do want those better services for myself.", would you count me as someone in favour of raising taxes? I hope not.

It's one of my biggest pet peeves; in order to be correct in criticizing [x] controversial topic, you must belong to [y] group to which the topic pertains. An example would be the pride parade. I don't know how it is in other places but where I live you could rename it the 'Sex Parade' and the title would be 100% accurate. Yet apparently there's some sort of mystical rule that if you're straight and say something negative about the pride parade then you're a bigot, but if an LGBT person says the exact same thing then they're just either 'naive' or 'have a different point of view'.

Blablahb:

Father Time:
Why? There is a large gulf between 'we shouldn't be allowed to kill them' and 'we should pay for their healthcare'.

Ah yes, the libertarian approach to an abortion ban. To answer your question: No, there is not. Wanting to make abortion self-paid and banning it are effectively the same, because nobody can afford it.

Actually no, they are quite different. The latter is the want to take the choice away from someone on what they can do with their own body. The former is not wanting to be responsible for the wants and needs of strangers. And to say that 'nobody' can afford it is a downright lie and completely presumptuous statement. You can't afford it, maybe, but that doesn't give you the right to speak for everyone else on the matter. Many people can afford, and there are most likely many groups and private funds with a willingness to help with the payments. If worse comes to worst, there's always the option of getting a loan.

TKretts3:
Actually no, they are quite different.

Actually, yes, because in both cases abortion becomes unavailable to those who need it.

And screw whatever silly rhetoric is used to cover that fact up or apologize for it.

Which doesn't mean to say I dismiss everything you wrote. On the contrary, I look forward to your calculations on how 100% of the people who have an abortion now, would afford it by themselves, without using fallacies like 'charity will cover it', or 'they'll find some way, somehow'. Untill then we can safely assume that pretty much all people won't be able to afford that by themselves, because you're talking from starting at a thousand dollars for the abortion pill, to a lot more, and even more and more in case of complications.

Nobody can be expected to just have $ 1000-5000 in spare change on them at all times.

Blablahb:

TKretts3:
Actually no, they are quite different.

Actually, yes, because in both cases abortion becomes unavailable to those who need it.

And screw whatever silly rhetoric is used to cover that fact up or apologize for it.

Which doesn't mean to say I dismiss everything you wrote. On the contrary, I look forward to your calculations on how 100% of the people who have an abortion now, would afford it by themselves, without using fallacies like 'charity will cover it', or 'they'll find some way, somehow'.

I am not covering anything up, nor am I apologizing for anything. Make no mistake, what I post is what I mean. I am pro-abortion. I am not using that as a cover or shield for saying that I or anyone else should not be paying for everyone's healthcare, or vice versa.

And no, I am not saying that everyone will be able to afford it. The truth is that not everyone is able to afford healthcare. Whether it's an abortion, a broken bone, or an organ transplant. There will always be people who cannot afford medical procedures. But that is only an appeal to the emotions, not an excuse for saying that complete strangers should be funding their wants and needs.

Accessibility and legality are two different things. Making it illegal means that you are banning it. In that scenario the surgery will not be available. If it is legal and self-funded, then it will be available, but people will have to take it upon themselves to access it. They will not have other people be forced to pay for their procedures for them. There are private organizations that might be willing, but they would have to seek them out. They also have the option to take out a loan to pay for it.

Does this mean that every single person who needs the procedure will get one? No. Some charities will not have enough funds for everyone, and some people will not be able to take out a loan. Some people will be denied a payment plan. Some insurance agencies will either not cover it, or not accept everyone. But it will be available to everyone, and accessible to most. There is no surgery or procedure that everyone single person who needs it will be able to afford, but that doesn't give them the right to force everyone else to pay for the procedure for them.

EDIT - Didn't see this the first time I looked at your post.

Nobody can be expected to just have $ 1000-5000 in spare change on them at all times.

You're completely right. A medical procedure on the level of an abortion is not a common thing. People don't expect every day to be hit by cars and need to get surgery. People don't expect every day to be shot and need a transplant. People don't expect every day to be raped and need an abortion. Most people don't have a 'heart transplant fund', or an 'abortion fund' and often have to either dip into their savings, or seek money elsewhere.

Blablahb:

generals3:
You know, sometimes i get the feeling you just like to dismiss everyone with an opinion other than yours by caricaturing them.

If you think that, have another look at how I pierce the rhetoric, and use a pure measure of what a political idea will effectively do.

For instance if someone says they want people to pay for themselves, so abortion must be banned, and then that person isn't even willing to pay for themselves, then we have to conclude it wasn't a sincere idea. And even if it was, it'd still be an attempt at banning abortion.

I just dismiss ideas that aren't logically consistent. If I said "I want taxes to rise for everyone so we can afford more government services. Except for me, all my taxes must be lowered, but I do want those better services for myself.", would you count me as someone in favour of raising taxes? I hope not.

Yes but what about those who use the "a foetus/embryo is a human being" argument? There is no logical inconsistency there. maybe a difference of interpretation of what makes a human being. Unfortunately there is no way to tell when foetus can be considered a "human being". It's pretty arbitrary (many countries have different rules on how many months/weeks into pregnancy you can get an abortion). At most you can try to convince them they are and you're right but since it's a grey area you can't just dismiss their point of view with "You're a women-hating religious fanatic!"

Blablahb:

TKretts3:
Actually no, they are quite different.

Actually, yes, because in both cases abortion becomes unavailable to those who need it.

And screw whatever silly rhetoric is used to cover that fact up or apologize for it.

Blablahb:

generals3:
You know, sometimes i get the feeling you just like to dismiss everyone with an opinion other than yours by caricaturing them.

If you think that, have another look at how I pierce the rhetoric, and use a pure measure of what a political idea will effectively do.

You're hopelessly entangling the issues of universal healthcare, health insurance, and bans on medical procedures. We don't have federal funding for cancer treatments (that I know of?) but that doesn't mean we have a de facto ban on radiation treatments and chemo-therapy. Now if we say that cancer patients have a right to life, does that mean that others must pay for that right? Perhaps you think it does; it would seem the most consistent way for you to approach the issue. But it is a distinct issue from the banning of cancer treatments.

I think we should have universal healthcare and I think abortion should be entirely legal and included in that universal healthcare. But I don't think the two issues are one and the same. And they really aren't. There is a difference between saying that people should expect to pay in order to have an abortion and people should just have it as a free option. I like free option, but I won't make the untenable claim that a lack of funding from people other than the patient is the same thing as a ban. Obviously if society as a whole can afford abortions for anyone who wants them, then there are at least some people who can afford abortions on their own. It is not 'nobody' who can afford an abortion.

Blablahb:
blah

Your point of view on abortion is, predictably, incredibly narrow-minded. First off, I am not technically "pro-life" as I'm not a social conservative.

However, if it looks like a duck and says "quack", it's a duck. Abortion ends a life, and half of people are women. Liberals have absolutely no room to be sanctimonious about abortion. So it's not okay to hit and rape women, but it is okay to vacuum them, basically. Don't even try to pretend like you're "pro-woman" because of this belief. That "anti-women" thing is a VERY thinly-veiled attempt to paint Republicans as a negative light because of a relatively unimportant issue and thus draw more female voters who are gullible enough to believe your horseshit.

That's one thing your side does very well - using manipulative language to hide the ugly truth of your beliefs. We really should be calling you "pro-death" if we're to start winning this culture war again.

And it certainly should not be supplemented by the government in non-essential cases. It is not something that should be encouraged. Available, yes. Subsidized? No, that's insanity.

Back on topic...

The biggest culprit that we're all guilty of is associating one set of beliefs with an entire template/platform. Too many times someone has heard me say one minor fiscally conservative thing to immediately then assume that I'm unintelligent, racist, sexist, and xenophobic due to associations.

Well this Cracked article is a good place to start.

In the interests of not just turning into a Republican bashing post, I also hate the idea that anything 'green' or 'organic' or 'natural' is automatically better than a man-made[1] alternative. Cancer is natural. Robots are man-made. Which would you rather have?

The idea that racism/discrimination against white people is 'reverse racism/discrimination' also gets on my balls. The reverse of being a dick on the basis of race is not being a dick on the basis of race.

Finally, 'X is doing Y because X hates Z'. No, X is doing whatever they are doing because they think it is the right thing to do, not because they get their jollies from pissing you off, no matter how self-righteously indignant it makes you.

[1] Don't even get me started on how dumb the idea that things made by people aren't 'natural' by the usual definition of the word id

harmonic:
Your point of view on abortion is, predictably, incredibly narrow-minded.

Yeah, I mean, supporting human rights, equality before the law, secularity, giving people the choice to live their life... All just incredibly narrowminded and old-fashioned stuff.

Wanting to deny women human rights, rule their life, and force their life to be ruined if anything ever goes wrong, and traumatising rape victims for no reason other than "The pastor told me to think this, and I can't think for myself" on the other hand, now that's really openminded progressive thinking.

harmonic:
Abortion ends a life

Uhm, nope. Don't know where you got that idea.

Although maybe in my particular case it could be true. Since I saw Rick Santorum in action I support abortion untill 51 years after conception in some exceptional cases.

In my view (which i nicked off a doug stanhope video i just watched) whatever you do with your body, be it shooting it full of heroin or vacuuming out an unwanted squatter is your business and your business only

"Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship with God!"

Want to flip the bitch switch, that's the finger to flex right there.

Seanchaidh:

Realitycrash:
It implies that those who are not Atheists believe such things are moral and right.

It's a riposte to the far older, far more widespread idea that "atheists don't have a moral compass" or "are immoral" because they lack the redemptive influence of Biblical teaching or fear of God. I'm not sure of the motivation behind imputing a less tenable point than that to such a sarcastic gibe.

Both are childish, both need to stop.

Here's my list of depression US political phrases that you need to get rid of (either they are abnormally deceptive, or are blatant emotional appeals):

Job Creators

Small Government

Big Government

Supply-side

Small Business (really needs to either be qualified or eliminated altogether)

States-rights

Tyranny

Socialism (at least until you're actually talking about real socialism)

Communism (ditto)

Stalin

Mao

Hitler

Tax-cuts/hikes for millionaires (you're going to need to raise it on everybody eventually)

Pro-life (at least until the same groups seek to expand insurance coverage, fix your schools, expand contraception, ban the death penalty, ban guns in their entirety, become reflexively anti-war, and support massive public health campaigns dealing with obesity and other diseases)

War on [X]

WalMart Moms

Support the Troops

Liberal/Conservative/[party] pollsters

Capcha: Living Things

Yeah, that one too

Blablahb:
Yeah, I mean, supporting human rights, equality before the law, secularity, giving people the choice to live their life... All just incredibly narrowminded and old-fashioned stuff.

Wanting to deny women human rights, rule their life, and force their life to be ruined if anything ever goes wrong, and traumatising rape victims for no reason other than "The pastor told me to think this, and I can't think for myself" on the other hand, now that's really openminded progressive thinking.

This is strawmany even for you. No such thing was said. I said that you people use this relatively minor issue to divide people based on gender, claiming your opponents are "anti-women" which is hilarious. Though, I guess enough people actually believe that shit.

Fathers have rights too. Anyone ever care about that? I had a colleague once who was divorced by his wife while she was pregnant. He was given absolutely no say in his own child's death as it was aborted. Even without divorce, fathers simply don't have rights to protect their own child.

Here's the thing. If you're a pregnant woman, yeah, the baby is inside you, but it's not you. It's something else. You're just the apartment building that in which that baby is currently residing. Again, I'm not as liberals say "pro-life" but the fact that liberals are able to claim moral superiority on this issue speaks to how gullible voters are.

harmonic:
So it's not okay to hit and rape women, but it is okay to vacuum them, basically.

...yeah, it is. If they want to. Did you seriously just imply that Liberals want to force abortions on women?

...because of a relatively unimportant issue and thus draw more female voters who are gullible enough to believe your horseshit.

That's the thing, it's not a "relatively unimportant issue" to a lot of people, women especially. So it should come as no surprise that the Republicans garner no favour on it whenever some Social Conservative idiot is too dumb to at least keep his mouth shut until after the election. This isn't just about parties, this is about policies. And the fact that you don't seem to find these women's rights in regard to such policies to be more than "relatively unimportant" may go quite far in explaining why women favour Democrats.

Skeleon:

harmonic:
So it's not okay to hit and rape women, but it is okay to vacuum them, basically.

...yeah, it is. If they want to. Did you seriously just imply that Liberals want to force abortions on women?

No, I didn't. Where the fuck are you pulling that from?

That's the thing, it's not a "relatively unimportant issue" to a lot of people, women especially. So it should come as no surprise that the Republicans garner no favour on it whenever some Social Conservative idiot is too dumb to at least keep his mouth shut until after the election. This isn't just about parties, this is about policies. And the fact that you don't seem to find these women's rights in regard to such policies to be more than "relatively unimportant" may go quite far in explaining why women favour Democrats.

Calling you out for your thinly-veiled attempt to equate one issue (abortion) with all women's rights. No, abortion by itself is not nearly as important as it's made out to be.

Blablahb:

TKretts3:
Actually no, they are quite different.

Actually, yes, because in both cases abortion becomes unavailable to those who need it.

And screw whatever silly rhetoric is used to cover that fact up or apologize for it.

Which doesn't mean to say I dismiss everything you wrote. On the contrary, I look forward to your calculations on how 100% of the people who have an abortion now, would afford it by themselves, without using fallacies like 'charity will cover it', or 'they'll find some way, somehow'. Until then we can safely assume that pretty much all people won't be able to afford that by themselves, because you're talking from starting at a thousand dollars for the abortion pill, to a lot more, and even more and more in case of complications.

Nobody can be expected to just have $ 1000-5000 in spare change on them at all times.

You're telling him to stop his rhetoric yet you continue to spout your own. Hypocrisy at its best. You make these comments about libertarianism which are just your rhetoric but when we try to defend it, our rhetoric is silly and we should apologize for our stupidity.

No.

Stop.

Every argument you make about this stuff is the same.

"Cutting costs is always the same as banning"

If you want to play word games, I can.

A rich person wants an abortion that is self paid. They pay for it themselves. They got an abortion. Is it still banned?

Same argument, same failures.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. .. That to me is just an inane statement cause usually when used its just some platitude about war/violence rather than a statement of policy or position.

Seanchaidh:

Realitycrash:
It implies that those who are not Atheists believe such things are moral and right.

It's a riposte to the far older, far more widespread idea that "atheists don't have a moral compass" or "are immoral" because they lack the redemptive influence of Biblical teaching or fear of God. I'm not sure of the motivation behind imputing a less tenable point than that to such a sarcastic gibe.

My favorite is when they are atheists and were raised religious and people consider them to have no morals. You were raised Catholic but are Atheist. You lost your morals!

harmonic:
No, I didn't. Where the fuck are you pulling that from?

Well, from the bit I quoted, obviously:

So it's not okay to hit and rape women, but it is okay to vacuum them, basically.

"Hit and rape women" is usually without consent. Why put "vacuum them" in that context unless it's meant to occur without consent as well? Or did you mean to include consensual BDSM in the "hit and rape women"-part of your sentence? Be more clear next time.
Here, let me extend your brilliant point:
"So it's not okay to hit and rape women, but it's okay to cut them open, rip out their innards and pump them full of poisons, basically."
Well, yeah. When we're talking about, say, breast cancer treatment after having given informed consent.

Calling you out for your thinly-veiled attempt to equate one issue (abortion) with all women's rights. No, abortion by itself is not nearly as important as it's made out to be.

It goes way beyond that. It's about control, it's about self-determination. It's also linked to issues of contraception, equal pay etc.. Don't act like the Republicans stand against abortion but for the equal pay act, for instance. It's tied together with the Social Conservative view of women. It's a view that is - thankfully - costing the Republicans more and more in elections. About time, if you ask me. It's time for them to change on Social Conservatism.

Also when did people start to say "I could care less" when they mean "I couldnt care less"

adamsaccount:
Also when did people start to say "I could care less" when they mean "I couldnt care less"

I could care less about that issue.

recruit00:

adamsaccount:
Also when did people start to say "I could care less" when they mean "I couldnt care less"

I could care less about that issue.

Could we all

Skeleon:

harmonic:
No, I didn't. Where the fuck are you pulling that from?

Well, from the bit I quoted, obviously:

So it's not okay to hit and rape women, but it is okay to vacuum them, basically.

It was clear as crystal, just not to you. "Hit and rape" was just an example of a bad thing to do to women, as is using the Hoover to slurp them up when they're a fetus. There is no room for liberal moral superiority on this issue whatsoever.

It goes way beyond that. It's about control, it's about self-determination. It's also linked to issues of contraception, equal pay etc.. Don't act like the Republicans stand against abortion but for the equal pay act, for instance. It's tied together with the Social Conservative view of women. It's a view that is - thankfully - costing the Republicans more and more in elections. About time, if you ask me. It's time for them to change on Social Conservatism.

It is not about women's rights, it's about political blackmail, nothing more. "If you don't agree with abortion, or if you're okay with it and simply don't like OUR rules, you are anti-woman." And it is a shame that these wedge issues are so stubbornly tied to party lines, as if you are okay with abortion, you also have to be okay with liberal criminal incompetence in financial matters (at best) or deliberate economic rape of America (at worst).

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here