Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 03-01-2019, 05:56 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
A racist who aligns more with black voters and politicians than any other group. Who has gone on record repeatedly stanning for reparations for slavery, universal always-on body cameras for police, and increased funding for heavily minority schools. Who practices a personal form of reparations by cutting my black tenants (who are now both my current tenants) more slack than white ones. Even if you don't like some of the things I believe, none of it precludes my being a "sincere good-spirited guy".
__________________
Some people on TV are nice.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 03-01-2019 at 05:57 AM.
  #52  
Old 03-01-2019, 06:05 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Even if you don't like some of the things I believe, none of it precludes my being a "sincere good-spirited guy".
No, the racism definitely does.
  #53  
Old 03-01-2019, 06:12 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Well, that's, just, like, your opinion, man.
__________________
Some people on TV are nice.
  #54  
Old 03-01-2019, 06:15 AM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
You're aware he's an openly self-admitted racist, right?
As in he supports better funding for black schools because black kids are genetically less intelligent and so need more resources and lower expectations so that we can get them to functional. That's not being a good guy. That's being a paternalistic, consescending asshole who uses pseudo-sympathy to balance out his smug, superiority boner.

It's the exact same reason he goes into FGM threads so her can be so sorry and sympathetic about ither people's poor, mangled penes and go on (and on) about all the reasons why his is better.

Or go into any creative venture threax and talk about how is taste is more enlightened than everyone else's and how baffled and disappointed he is that everyone else is missing out on his elevated aesthetic experience.

Going into political threads and explaining that he's one of us, only more enlightened than the rest of us, is just the same pattern. He's only happy if he thinks he's the Most Specialist in the room, and he uses feeling sorry for his inferiors as some weird cherry on top.
  #55  
Old 03-01-2019, 06:15 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
A racist who aligns more with black voters and politicians than any other group. Who has gone on record repeatedly stanning for reparations for slavery, universal always-on body cameras for police, and increased funding for heavily minority schools. Who practices a personal form of reparations by cutting my black tenants (who are now both my current tenants) more slack than white ones. Even if you don't like some of the things I believe, none of it precludes my being a "sincere good-spirited guy".
Given your personality, if you were an asshole, you wouldn't notice.
  #56  
Old 03-01-2019, 06:31 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
True!

ETA: I am obviously an asshole as far as a lot of people are concerned. But other people really like me. When I was staying with squatters in the Netherlands, a majority of the group got so fed up with me, they demanded that I be kicked out (something they rarely did to anyone). But there was a contingent of about 20-25% who really liked me, partied with me every night; and those guys found other places for me to stay until my flight went back to the U.S.
__________________
Some people on TV are nice.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 03-01-2019 at 06:34 AM.
  #57  
Old 03-01-2019, 06:45 AM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,331
Being liked doesn't mean you aren't an asshole. Any asshole can find people who don't care. Being a bad person makes you an asshole. Liked or not is irrelevant.
  #58  
Old 03-01-2019, 06:51 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Well, I'm a good person so that doesn't apply
__________________
Some people on TV are nice.
  #59  
Old 03-01-2019, 07:01 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
(2) Your implicit assertion is that the only way issues flip votes is...single issue voters? Uh, no. There ARE swing voters--look at the changing composition of our government over the past 20 years for evidence of that--but they operate based on a mosaic of influences, not just one. But this is a heavyweight within that mosaic.
So-called swing voters are generally not going to fall prey to "Republican traps" like this. The ones who scream "ZOMG! Baby Killers" aren't even remotely 'swing' voters; they're toxic conservatives - full stop.

And in any case, I'm not worried about losing true swing voters who might be so gullible as to fall victim to what amounts to a political scam. If we lose an election because idiots fall for that nonsense, well, I guess that's tough shit, but that's not going to stop me from supporting the principles I believe in.

I've read that, ironically, as much of a douche bag as Donald Trump has been to Latinos, some Hispanic voters are in alignment with his anti-abortion positions, so I suppose there's a kernel of truth to what you're saying. Even so, I don't care, and it doesn't matter. Democrats can make the case that they're interested in the welfare of babies just as much as Republicans can. It's their job to do it and to point out how in Republican utopia, 13 year-old kids who get raped and impregnated by their sick uncle are forced to endure 9 months of emotional agony. Like, point that shit out more.
  #60  
Old 03-01-2019, 07:02 AM
Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Well, I'm a good person so that doesn't apply
Says the self confessed "benevolent" racist who would be happy to fuck a drunk, knowing they'd regret it the next day.

Self awareness and you just don't overlap, do they?
  #61  
Old 03-01-2019, 07:22 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
But other people really like me.
This is one of those sentences, like, "I'm not racist" and "I'm really smart," that are rarely said when they're actually true.
  #62  
Old 03-01-2019, 07:32 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
So-called swing voters are generally not going to fall prey to "Republican traps" like this. The ones who scream "ZOMG! Baby Killers" aren't even remotely 'swing' voters; they're toxic conservatives - full stop.

It’s like people can’t read the poll numbers I post. 66 percent want to ban all abortions after 20 weeks (I believe that’s in addition to those who want to ban them earlier than that). I will bet you anything that if and when this Senate bill gets polled, it will get even more support than that. When almost all Senate Democrats vote for something that is overwhelmingly rejected by the public at large, that’s not a good look for us.


Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Democrats can make the case that they're interested in the welfare of babies just as much as Republicans can. It's their job to do it and to point out how in Republican utopia, 13 year-old kids who get raped and impregnated by their sick uncle are forced to endure 9 months of emotional agony. Like, point that shit out more.

Yes. Yes, exactly. THAT is their job. Not to wander haplessly into Republican traps so they can get portrayed on local news here in Minnesota (and presumably across the “Northern Path” Democrats must retake) as ghoulish abortion extremists who aren’t content with just abortion on demand but want to move on to infanticide. Keep the messaging on OUR turf.
  #63  
Old 03-01-2019, 07:35 AM
Vinyl Turnip is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
True!

ETA: I am obviously an asshole as far as a lot of people are concerned. But other people really like me. When I was staying with squatters in the Netherlands, a majority of the group got so fed up with me, they demanded that I be kicked out (something they rarely did to anyone). But there was a contingent of about 20-25% who really liked me, partied with me every night; and those guys found other places for me to stay until my flight went back to the U.S.
"Mom! Dad! I got an F minus on my social likability test!"
  #64  
Old 03-01-2019, 07:38 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
It’s like people can’t read the poll numbers I post.
Granted, you fucked up the only link to polls that I found in the previous thread (this post), and you haven't repeated any link here. But that link you fucked up shows that
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pew Forum
58% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases
Maybe you should read your own links--and post them correctly!--before you whine about people not reading them.

If there's a different poll you posted that you'd like us to look at, which one?
  #65  
Old 03-01-2019, 07:42 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,122
For others who are interested, Here's a good roundup of polls on abortions. Search for "weeks".

You can cherry-pick a poll from 2014 and misread its results to get the number Slacker claims. But he is, of course, misrepresenting the gist of polling on the subject.

I don't think it's deliberate.
  #66  
Old 03-01-2019, 07:55 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Well, that's, just, like, your opinion, man.
Lazy Lebowski quotes really improve my opinion of you. No, really.
  #67  
Old 03-01-2019, 07:55 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
I’m not misrepresenting anything, and my link works just fine. It really is like it’s invisible to you. Try looking again at post 48 in this thread, describing (and linking to a writeup of) a Marist poll conducted in...wait for it...February 2019. Maybe if you stare at it really hard this time, it will get through your thick skull.

Also, what does “all or most” abortions mean to you? Which abortions would you be okay with prohibiting? Yeah, that’s what I thought.
  #68  
Old 03-01-2019, 08:11 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
For others who are interested, Here's a good roundup of polls on abortions.


Thanks for the link. I looked at all the results from 2018 or 2019. The numbers for “Abortion should always be legal” varied from 21 to 27 percent. A lot of people, perhaps most Democrats, but very far from a majority. And then there was the CBS News poll, which happened to be the last one I was going to look at as it was conducted in January 2018. Here’s the question wording:

Quote:
Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now. OR, Abortion should not be permitted.

The first option garnered 45%, the second 32%, and the third 21%. Now, I know you’d like to spin that as “77 percent support abortion, la la la everything’s fine.” But in fact what it shows is that only a minority of respondents think abortion should be “generally available”, while a majority would like to restrict it more than it is already restricted at the moment. Whereas the energy in the Democratic Party is toward loosening the restrictions that exist in many states. Which I’m not necessarily against across the board, but you’ve got to stop with this Pollyanna shit and acknowledge that you’ve got the public against you when it comes to later term abortions (not just the last trimester but after 20 weeks).
  #69  
Old 03-01-2019, 08:14 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Maybe if you stare at it really hard this time, it will get through your thick skull.
It never does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Orwell
Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.
Regards,
Shodan
  #70  
Old 03-01-2019, 08:23 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
It never does.


Regards,
Shodan
It's always easiest to assume one's own arguments, logic, and position are perfect, and anyone who disagrees is just too stupid (or otherwise incapable) to understand. The difficulty comes in trying to understand why others might reasonably have disagreements.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-01-2019 at 08:24 AM.
  #71  
Old 03-01-2019, 08:30 AM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,331
Shodan,

Do you agree with SlackerInc that people of African American descent are much less likely to be intellectually capable?
  #72  
Old 03-01-2019, 08:45 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Manda, not sure you are “steelmanning” my thesis there. Why don’t you link to one of my posts and ask about that? Just, you know, if you actually want to be fair and honest. (You did at least invite me to this thread instead of talking about me behind my back like everyone else apparently was.)
  #73  
Old 03-01-2019, 08:46 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It's always easiest to assume one's own arguments, logic, and position are perfect, and anyone who disagrees is just too stupid (or otherwise incapable) to understand. The difficulty comes in trying to understand why others might reasonably have disagreements.

This is hilarious. Care to link to the posts where you demonstrated this ability?
  #74  
Old 03-01-2019, 08:53 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
This is hilarious. Care to link to the posts where you demonstrated this ability?
What ability? Trying to understand why others disagree? That's not an "ability", that's a decision. I want to understand why others disagree, and usually the answer is not as simple as "they're just too stupid, or too stubborn, etc.". So I try to dig and ask, and usually start from an assumption of good faith disagreement, and I only abandon that if it's become clear as crystal to me that it's impossible. And I'll note that there's only a very small number of Dopers (and neither you nor Shodan are among them) who I don't believe usually argue in good faith, even as I have harsh criticisms for both of you.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-01-2019 at 08:53 AM.
  #75  
Old 03-01-2019, 08:55 AM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Manda, not sure you are “steelmanning” my thesis there. Why don’t you link to one of my posts and ask about that? Just, you know, if you actually want to be fair and honest. (You did at least invite me to this thread instead of talking about me behind my back like everyone else apparently was.)
I actually didn't invite you into this thread, though I also don't consider it behind your back.


And no, I don't want to engage with you on this. If you feel I've mischaracterized your position, you're free to clarify.
  #76  
Old 03-01-2019, 09:10 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Oh, that’s rich. “I don’t want to engage you, I just want to mischaracterize your stances. You can clean up the mess.”

I’ll just make a blanket statement: if someone makes a claim about something I have supposedly said, but does not actually cite a post, take it with a grain of salt. Same if they take snippets of stuff I said out of context without linking to the post it was taken from.
  #77  
Old 03-01-2019, 09:20 AM
Babale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Okay, how to count the stupid? (You asked for this.)

(1) In the scenario presented, the only difference (allegedly) was that the baby is going to die quickly, or after resuscitation efforts. Right? So it's a disturbing thing happening right before the baby dies, or a more calm but still very sad setup. This is not about the baby living or dying. (Or if it is, it's because the scenario is not honest and we really are talking about infanticide by inaction.) A little extra unpleasantness added to a deeply tragic and rare scenario is not worth walking right into a Republican trap that could have ripple effects through races up and down the ballot if Democrats get smeared with this kind of extremist image.
What in the actual fuck is wrong with you? Do you have any empathy at all for other human beings?

Quote:

(3) You seem to have completely disregarded the information I provided about Minnesota and other states to illustrate. How about some more polling data that completely destroys your last claim, about "most Americans". So put this in your pipe and smoke it:




Sol you are sitting there among your 18 percent (probably higher, maybe much higher, where you live and especially among your social group), and generalizing your POV to the other 82 percent. That's not good politics.
You keep mixing up statistics. You grab a number talking about "late term abortions" here, another number regarding "twenty weeks" there, whatever makes your point. Newsflash: this bill has NOTHING to do with late term abortion. It has to do with babies that are born with some kind of life sign, even if they're born naturally but are sick for other causes.

And despite your posturing, I DON'T believe that all abortions should be legal. Once you're in the third trimester, you shouldn't be having an abortion unless it's to save the life or health of the mother, or possibly other rare cases. But this law is NOT about that, as you would know if you bothered to learn about it. And yeah -- your ignorance is power because most people are ignorant -- that's the dumbest argument I've ever heard to justify anything. The solution there is to educate people, not shove your head up your own ass and surrender to the republicans.

Quote:
The dangerous thing, though, is that while 18 percent is very far from a majority, it's not tiny either. It might be half of all Democrats, perhaps more of the activist wing of women who have risen up against Trump. So they (you) are influential to the party. But that also makes you a menace. Your extremism threatens, as I said in my OP, to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
As I said, I don't believe abortion should always be legal, so if you're done playing with your straw man, we can get back to the discussion at hand. Did you read any summary of the law involved? Because if so, you'd either comprehend that what your Minnesota media is reporting is totally dishonest, because this isn't what the law is about, or you would ignore the facts and keep spewing your bullshit, because you are just a concern troll. So which is it?

Quote:
You don't take strong stands on principle in politics when the public is three to one against you, not when the harm is to make a few grieving parents feel a little worse than they already feel. Not when the risk is getting years more of Donald fucking Trump (or Mike Pence). Get a grip.
You don't stand by and let evil laws pass, either. And the public is 3 to 1 against third trimester abortions, as am I, but this law HAS. NOTHING. TO. DO. WITH. THIRD. TRIMESTER. ABORTIONS.
  #78  
Old 03-01-2019, 09:30 AM
Babale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,813
For anyone so inclined, here is SlackerInc's first post in the "Bell Curve & Sam Harris" thread, where he spends many posts explaining how black people are genetically less intelligent than whites (but he can't be racist, because Asians are better than whites!). I wouldn't recommend reading it, it's long and pretty gross, but... he asked for a cite.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...4&postcount=48
  #79  
Old 03-01-2019, 09:46 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
True!

ETA: I am obviously an asshole as far as a lot of people are concerned. But other people really like me. When I was staying with squatters in the Netherlands, a majority of the group got so fed up with me, they demanded that I be kicked out (something they rarely did to anyone). But there was a contingent of about 20-25% who really liked me, partied with me every night; and those guys found other places for me to stay until my flight went back to the U.S.
Just curious, why did the majority of squatters get fed up with you? What specifically was it about you that teed them off, or have you even reflected on that yet?
  #80  
Old 03-01-2019, 09:52 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
It’s like people can’t read the poll numbers I post. 66 percent want to ban all abortions after 20 weeks (I believe that’s in addition to those who want to ban them earlier than that). I will bet you anything that if and when this Senate bill gets polled, it will get even more support than that. When almost all Senate Democrats vote for something that is overwhelmingly rejected by the public at large, that’s not a good look for us.
I guarantee you that conservatives will make a lot of noise about it, just like they have over the past several decades. That's one reason why higher-IQ conservatives don't want to overturn Roe v Wade, because they know the second they do they won't have shit else to talk about on the matter.

But as for the issue itself, abortion is now, and always has been, mostly a local issue for local voters. It doesn't really move the needle nationally one way or the other, which isn't to say that it can't be a factor - it could in a close race. But if Democrats talk about economics and all of the myriad other things that people are really worried about, they will have done their job.
  #81  
Old 03-01-2019, 10:07 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
Shodan,

Do you agree with SlackerInc that people of African American descent are much less likely to be intellectually capable?
No, no, you have it all wrong. Blacks are perfectly capable - it's just that Whites (Especially some Jews) and Asians are super-capable. Totally not the same thing.
  #82  
Old 03-01-2019, 10:34 AM
Chingon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 566
He's a classic Concern Troll.
  #83  
Old 03-01-2019, 10:39 AM
Babale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chingon View Post
He's a classic Concern Troll.
Yup.
  #84  
Old 03-01-2019, 10:41 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I guarantee you that conservatives will make a lot of noise about it, just like they have over the past several decades. That's one reason why higher-IQ conservatives don't want to overturn Roe v Wade, because they know the second they do they won't have shit else to talk about on the matter.

But as for the issue itself, abortion is now, and always has been, mostly a local issue for local voters. It doesn't really move the needle nationally one way or the other, which isn't to say that it can't be a factor - it could in a close race. But if Democrats talk about economics and all of the myriad other things that people are really worried about, they will have done their job.
Who are you? And what did you do to asahi?

So I agree, and I have to point out that on issues like alleged origins about the differences of intelligence among "races", lukewarm climate chance, and "centrist" anti-GMO stance, the evidence shows that Slacker is even unaware of how the "centrist" media he relies on grossly misleads people like him.

What happens here is that most people in the SDMB came here with the basic "citation needed" ingrained and like to point out things like "that cite sucks! And we will tell you how or that we do know *"

When evidence is considered in reality the Slacker falls for the idea that popularity makes right. And even when the popularity of a position can be debated, he doubles down into a position that ignores the best evidence.







* Because, as the Slacker seems to miss, many posters are experts or scientists in the proper or related fields pointing what it is obvious to them.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 03-01-2019 at 10:42 AM.
  #85  
Old 03-01-2019, 10:49 AM
Knowed Out's Avatar
Knowed Out is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Kakkalakee
Posts: 14,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
True!

ETA: I am obviously an asshole as far as a lot of people are concerned. But other people really like me. When I was staying with squatters in the Netherlands, a majority of the group got so fed up with me, they demanded that I be kicked out (something they rarely did to anyone). But there was a contingent of about 20-25% who really liked me, partied with me every night; and those guys found other places for me to stay until my flight went back to the U.S.
When you say "squatters," do you mean actual homeless? Could it be you're talking about a campground, or just hanging around with outside people? If so, I technically squat when I go to hippie parties, because there's no indoor plumbing.
  #86  
Old 03-01-2019, 11:24 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
It’s like people can’t read the poll numbers I post. 66 percent want to ban all abortions after 20 weeks (I believe that’s in addition to those who want to ban them earlier than that).
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I’m not misrepresenting anything, and my link works just fine. It really is like it’s invisible to you. Try looking again at post 48 in this thread, describing (and linking to a writeup of) a Marist poll conducted in...wait for it...February 2019. Maybe if you stare at it really hard this time, it will get through your thick skull.
Ah--I didn't look in this thread, I looked in the thread that was actually about abortions.

So let's look at your claim about that poll, that 66% want to ban all abortions after 20 weeks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatholicPhilly
About 66 percent of adults said abortion should be banned after 20 weeks except to save the life of the mother
(emphasis added) So right out the door you're lying.

But I was a little suspicious, given that this is a website designed to inspire others in the Catholic Faith. So I went to the poll, where I found that it was sponsored by the Knights of Columbus.

Second, the wording of the question is REALLY INTERESTING:

Quote:
Several states have recently passed laws to allow abortion during the last three months of pregnancy. Which comes closer to your view:
...
Abortion should be banned after 20 weeks except to save the life of the mother.
(emphasis added)

Did you catch that shitty little trick? Prime people to think about the last three months -- usually from week 26-27 of the pregnancy--and then ask them about after 20 weeks.

That's an awful question, and any pollster who let it through should be ashamed.

Edit: This article raises some similar points about why you shouldn't freak out (or smirk smugly) over this poll.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 03-01-2019 at 11:27 AM.
  #87  
Old 03-01-2019, 11:49 AM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 34,756
Won't somebody think of the johns?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
It's definitely weird that he went to a strip mall for any reason. And I hate the Patriots like most people.

BUUUT...the CBS Evening News led with this story, and the anchor talked about it with the somber tones and gravely serious face of someone describing a torture dungeon being discovered under Kraft's house or something. "Stunning" and "shocking" were bandied about. Srsly? I'm not able to muster any outrage, personally.

And to hide video comeras in this place? Jesus. Whatever you think of the morality of any of this, is this a good priority for taxpayers to fund?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
If they were able to rescue women who were trafficked and forced into prostitution, yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I don't have hard facts to bring to bear here, but on a recent episode of the Slate feminist podcast "The Waves" (which used to be called "DoubleX" before they changed it so as not to exclude XY transwomen) they made a convincing case that most of the talk of "human trafficking" is just cover for the same old moralistic criminalizing of sex work, and that the vast majority of female sex workers are not enslaved and would benefit more than anything from legalization and licensing.

ETA: Furthermore, if that is what the sting is about, why arrest the johns?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
Reportedly the women weren’t allowed to leave the premises and were forced to work and live there.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/orchids...aft-sex-sting/
“Authorities described how the women worked in deplorable conditions, were lured into the sex trade, and averaged 1,500 men a year.

https://www.businessinsider.com/robe...st-will-2019-2
The victims were forced to live in the spas for days, sometimes months, "for the purpose of sexual servitude," according to the charges. Many of them came from China on temporary work visas, believing they'd get legitimate jobs in the US, Vero Beach Police Chief David Currey said in a press conference.

"These girls are there all day long, into the evening. They can't leave and they're performing sex acts," he said. "Some of them may tell us they're OK, but they're not."


These aren’t just women making a choice to go into prostitution and being treated like victims/criminals for bad choices. They’re sex slaves, or at least indentured servants according to law enforcement.


By arresting Johns they are trying to curb the demand, which will hopefully hinder the sex trafficking industry. And it’s not just the criminal charges that will dissuade johns, but the public humiliation and destruction of reputations. Especially for a powerful person like Kraft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
People clucking their tongues and agreeing with the johns getting arrested are no different from those who agreed with the harsh NY State drug laws, with stiff penalties even for possession of small amounts of marijuana. Buying black market weed funded bad guys who committed murders. That doesn't make weed users morally culpable: it's the government at fault for prohibition laws that create an illicit market and associated violence. The real answer is to legalize, license, and regulate.
  #88  
Old 03-01-2019, 12:10 PM
Babale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,813
What a sick human being. He's right that keeping prostitution illegal does more harm then good, but seriously? His next leap in logic is that we should allow human trafficking to continue because women forced into sex work = weed dealers?
  #89  
Old 03-01-2019, 03:02 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
(1) In the scenario presented, the only difference (allegedly) was that the baby is going to die quickly, or after resuscitation efforts. Right? So it's a disturbing thing happening right before the baby dies, or a more calm but still very sad setup. This is not about the baby living or dying. (Or if it is, it's because the scenario is not honest and we really are talking about infanticide by inaction.) A little extra unpleasantness added to a deeply tragic and rare scenario is not worth walking right into a Republican trap that could have ripple effects through races up and down the ballot if Democrats get smeared with this kind of extremist image.

So when your child has a cleft palate, one eye, and a nose that's a shriveled up proboscis situated on its forehead, you're going to say that trying to rescusitate is just a "little extra unpleasantness"? It's better to give birth to a child that's going to come out gasping and choking, and die with in seconds, and it's just "a little extra unpleasantness?"

Go to hell.
  #90  
Old 03-01-2019, 03:34 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,510
Here's what the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has to say about third-trimester abortions:
Quote:
The need for an abortion later in pregnancy could arise for a number of reasons, including fetal anomalies or complications that threaten a woman’s health. Women, in consultation with their physicians, must be able to evaluate all appropriate treatments and make informed choices about what’s best for their health and their pregnancies. Depending on the circumstance, this might include abortion care, induction of labor, or cesarean delivery. Women’s access to accurate, full information and care must never be constrained by politicians.

Many abortions that occur later in pregnancy involve fetal anomalies incompatible with life, such as anencephaly, the absence of the brain and cranium above the base of the skull, or limb-body wall complex, when the organs develop outside of the body cavity.ii In these cases, where death is likely before or shortly after birth, patients may decide whether to continue the pregnancy and deliver a nonviable fetus or have an abortion. In any case, the focus of medically-appropriate, compassionate care must be on the patient and what she feels is best for her health and her family.

Abortion later in pregnancy may also be necessary when complications severely compromise a woman’s health or life, conditions which may also reduce the possibility of fetal survival. These might include premature rupture of membranes and infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and placenta accreta. Women in these circumstances may risk extensive blood loss, stroke, and septic shock that could lead to maternal death. Politicians must never require a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients, including an abortion.
So SlackerInc and his ilk can fuck off out of here with their cavalier selfish disregard for the unnecessary suffering of patients and fetuses because they're scared that standing up against such suffering might facilitate Republican smear campaigns against Democrats (which it likely won't, by the way---ETA: as LHoD already pointed out).

SlackerInc's ill-informed panic attack is an excellent example of why abortion decisions should be made by pregnant women and their doctors, not pre-empted by callous politicians whose only real concern is trying to make their political opponents look bad. I am writing to my reps today to thank them for not caving in to that kind of Chicken Little attitude.

Last edited by Kimstu; 03-01-2019 at 03:35 PM.
  #91  
Old 03-01-2019, 06:39 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
You guys are so full of shit. You try to attack me for not knowing every detail of this bill, but your takes on it are fundamentally ignorant, dishonest, or both.

Here, let's hear from someone who worked in the Obama White House:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...e-2020/583873/
Quote:
By focusing on abortion rights, Democrats ended up arguing a lot about what was not explicitly in the bill, while neglecting to make clear to the American people that they do, in fact, oppose infanticide and believe babies born alive after a botched abortion deserve medical care consistent with similarly situated babies who are born under any other circumstance. Not one Democrat uttered the phrase born alive during the floor debate. Not one Democrat referred to the 2002 act or expressed support for it during the floor debate. If Democrats truly believe the bill is a disingenuous attempt in a long game to end access to abortion, they could at least have been clear while voting against it that they endorse its sponsors’ stated intent. They could have also proposed, or tried to propose, amendments to the legislation, as the writer Charles Camosy has suggested.[...]

Our politicians spend so much time with people who agree with them, using talking points cleared by or provided by entrenched advocacy groups and pursuing electoral strategies more reliant on base turnout than persuasion, that it has become difficult to tell if they have simply forgotten how to speak with people who hold a different viewpoint or if they simply do not care.[...]

Former Governor Mike Huckabee accused Democrats of wanting to “murder freshly born babies.” Senator Chuck Schumer said during floor debate that “the bill is solely meant to intimidate doctors and restrict patients’ access to care and has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with protecting children.” There is no sense that anti-abortion Republicans are influenced by the stories of women like Dr. Jen Gunter or Erika Christensen. There is no sense that pro-choice Democrats are aware of sincere pro-life Americans, or take seriously the claim that abortion is an attack on the very human dignity Democrats rightly invoke (and, yes, many anti-abortion Republicans ignore) when discussing immigration, poverty, or human rights. Now our politics are only for the absolutists, those who deny any place for doubt or humility.[...]

Regardless of concerns about the political motives driving the conversation, if Democrats can’t support a bill that penalizes denying proper care to a baby who survives an abortion because it might undermine other commitments, or offer a serious alternative proposal that protects those commitments, perhaps those commitments require further examination. If the penalties in Sasse’s bill for situations that Democrats say are either rare or non-existent are capable of impeding the entire medical field’s capacity to conduct abortions, what does that say about how thin the line is between proper care and negligence?[...]

Trump’s anti-abortion stance appears to be one of political convenience, not deeply-rooted conviction, and I am uninterested in the transparently self-interested appeals to morality of a man whose life and presidency have been so thoroughly immoral. He has no standing to lecture Democrats or anyone else on how to uphold human dignity and advance justice in our politics. Democrats do have an obligation, though, to provide a clear answer to Americans who are not so cynical, who are concerned that our approach to abortion is one sign, along with policies espoused by Trump and Republicans, that we have lost our moral bearings as a country in pursuit of political power.

Bolding mine.

Let's also note the absurdity of claiming this has nothing to do with late term abortion. How could it possibly apply to anything else? It's about aborted fetuses who survive the procedure. That only applies to late term abortions, duh.
__________________
Some people on TV are nice.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 03-01-2019 at 06:40 PM.
  #92  
Old 03-01-2019, 07:11 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knowed Out View Post
When you say "squatters," do you mean actual homeless? Could it be you're talking about a campground, or just hanging around with outside people?

No, this was in the 1990s when squatting was legal in the Netherlands (I only just learned from Wikipedia that it was, sadly, banned in 2010): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_squatting_ban

At the time I lived with them, squatters could legally take over control of an unoccupied space by sneaking in and putting a bed, table, and chair of their own in the space (based on court rulings that established this litmus test). I went along on one of their "occupations", although this was not where I lived. They went in in the early morning, quickly but their lightweight "furniture" inside, and called a special division ol the police to come certify their legal status. Meanwhile the owner of the building and his two very preppy sons stood outside fuming, in stark contrast to the bearded, dreadlocked anarchists who were doing the squatting.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
Won't somebody think of the johns?

Thank you for fairly representing my views. I have no problem standing behind all of that, which was quoted appropriately.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
What a sick human being. He's right that keeping prostitution illegal does more harm then good, but seriously? His next leap in logic is that we should allow human trafficking to continue because women forced into sex work = weed dealers?

You really are tremendously stupid. I can understand why Manda was loath to be taken for you!

It is, obviously, the human traffickers, not the sex workers themselves, who are the analogue to the weed dealers here (perhaps not to the street level dealers, but to those above them). Both the weed dealers and human traffickers are providing an illicit product/service that many people want and which in and of itself infringes on no one's rights. But when these trades are made illegal and driven underground, they are managed by organized crime syndicates. And those syndicates engage in all kinds of nasty violence in the pursuit of their black market profits.

So if johns are morally culpable for funding a sex worker industry that engages in some degree of human trafficking (again, the experts cited by the Waves podcasters say the extent this is true has been exaggerated), then weed smokers in states where it is illegal are culpable for funding organized crime syndicates that smuggle and sell marijuana. There's really no way around it. And I settle on "neither" rather than "both".
__________________
Some people on TV are nice.
  #93  
Old 03-01-2019, 07:12 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You guys are so full of shit. You try to attack me for not knowing every detail of this bill, but your takes on it are fundamentally ignorant, dishonest, or both.
To recap:

-You cite multiple polls, at least one of which contradicts your thesis.
-When called on that, you point toward a poll contracted by a highly partisan organization, with a leading question that should shame any pollster. You cite it using a highly partisan analysis. And you lie about that analysis.
-When called on that, rather than address any of the multiple idiocies you conducted and I pointed out, you freak out and call me ignorant, dishonest, or both.
-In the process, you misrepresent what you're being attacked for.

Yeah, you call me whatever names you want, dumbass.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 03-01-2019 at 07:14 PM.
  #94  
Old 03-01-2019, 07:39 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
[snip]
Here, let's hear from someone who worked in the Obama White House:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...e-2020/583873/

Bolding mine.

Let's also note the absurdity of claiming this has nothing to do with late term abortion. How could it possibly apply to anything else? It's about aborted fetuses who survive the procedure. That only applies to late term abortions, duh.
Well, that bolded part in that opinion was bullshit too. Specifically the part about the Democrats in congress not being clear.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ing-democrats/
Quote:
Broadly, critics of the bill said that it would take decisions out of the hands of parents and medical professionals and hand it to politicians. Democrats also argued that the number of relevant cases is vanishingly small, and usually involve heartbreaking situations that often have specific, unusual factors at play that are hard to accommodate in advance. Because of this, they saw the bill as a chance for Republicans to embarrass Democrats rather than as a genuine piece of legislation aiming to solve a significant problem.

Perhaps the Democrats’ most basic argument in the context of Trump’s charge, however, is that laws already exist to cover the scenario the bill would seek to prevent, making the new bill redundant.

In a floor speech before the vote, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said, "It has always been illegal to harm a newborn infant. This vote has nothing—nothing—to do with that. Read the language."

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the ranking Democrat on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, echoed that argument. "This bill is not about protecting infants, as Republicans have claimed, because that is not up for debate and it is already the law," she said.
What is the law currently?

Most legal experts we contacted agreed with this much of the Democrats’ argument: Killing a baby after birth is already against the law.

....


Our ruling

Trump said, "The Democrat(ic) position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth."

There’s little question that the vote on the Senate bill was uncomfortable for Democrats: They effectively voted against a bill whose principles they said they support, arguing that the bill would be redundant because those principles are already enshrined in law.

However, Trump overreached when he described Democrats as tolerating "executing" newborns. No one supports actively killing newborns, much less "executing" them; the contested terrain concerns what efforts should be made to extend the lives of babies who are not expected to survive long with severe disabilities.

We rate the statement False.
  #95  
Old 03-01-2019, 07:52 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
GIGO, you are playing your usual strawman game. No one here that I have seen has endorsed Trump's rhetoric. The excerpts from the Atlantic piece in my post that you responded to included the following:

Quote:
Trump’s anti-abortion stance appears to be one of political convenience, not deeply-rooted conviction, and I am uninterested in the transparently self-interested appeals to morality of a man whose life and presidency have been so thoroughly immoral. He has no standing to lecture Democrats or anyone else on how to uphold human dignity and advance justice in our politics.


You strawman more than anyone here that I can think of. Which is a truly low, dishonorable way to debate--worse in some ways than Trump's crass insults.
__________________
Some people on TV are nice.
  #96  
Old 03-01-2019, 07:57 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
GIGO, you are playing your usual strawman game. No one here that I have seen has endorsed Trump's rhetoric. The excerpts from the Atlantic piece in my post that you responded to included the following:





You strawman more than anyone here that I can think of. Which is a truly low, dishonorable way to debate--worse in some ways than Trump's crass insults.
Piffle, your chicken little act on that issue depends on thinking that most will listen to Trump's rhetoric.

BTW nowhere I have said that you are saying that, that was directed to the opinion's bolded part, so in reality this is about the third time that you show all that you do not even know what a straw man is. As Left Hand of Dorkness says, you are a dumbass.

And at logic too.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 03-01-2019 at 07:59 PM.
  #97  
Old 03-01-2019, 08:14 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Now you're back to the word salad, your other defining trait.
__________________
Some people on TV are nice.
  #98  
Old 03-01-2019, 08:25 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Now you're back to the word salad, your other defining trait.
Too late, I already noticed in this thread about your 'going grammar Nazi' act so as to not reply to what was posted. Unless you are so inept and incapable of reading what Politifact posted about this, it is actually a general reply to your chicken little act and I did reply directly to the bolded part of the opinion that you linked too. So, not a straw man.

Again: you are not only a dumbass at logic but a coward too. *












* Something that I noticed a long time ago too.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 03-01-2019 at 08:29 PM.
  #99  
Old 03-01-2019, 09:03 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
La la la!
__________________
Some people on TV are nice.
  #100  
Old 03-01-2019, 09:25 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
La la la!
Of course, last time you tried that same toddler reply it did not work with everyone else in the threads, you just show gross inmaturity; so, meh.

I prefer to have grammar trouble rather than what you do, that falls for lukewarm climate change denial, paternalistic racism, "middle of the road" anti-GMO talking points, and even gross illogical replies about what experts are actually saying.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 03-01-2019 at 09:27 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017