World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[jp1]

I'm baffled every day at how many people feel it is their business to dictate to other folks what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

It's stupid to be opposed to free birth control and also opposed to abortion. Then while opposing abortion you also oppose the social programs to help care for the kid you want to force them to have. It is just one long string of stupid shit that is self contradictory and that frankly you shouldn't have a say in at all.

Of course I'm pro-life, I'm also pro-choice because I can't possibly know the circumstances of a woman's personal choice in the matter and quite frankly...it's none of my fucking business.

It's a whole new level of stupid to be "pro-life" because it's "murder" and be "for the death penalty". Murder is murder, that is all there is to it. On abortion the subject is at least debatable, with the death penalty it is cut and dry.

I swear if you don't stop whining about "personal attacks" in between being a Neanderthal my head might explode. Why don't you make some well reasoned and well thought out points before expecting other people to do so on your behalf.

[marurun]

Why don't you make some well reasoned and well thought out points before expecting other people to do so on your behalf.

See, this is important, here. CRT, most of what you post is not news. It's either some random person's opinion or its fake news. You do sometimes slip some legitimate news in there, but you rarely provide any context of any of it it short of making insulting and poorly-thought comments. You keep insisting that WE watch or read the content you post and voice OUR opinions, but you give us such shallow content to work with and your own opinions, when voiced, are so often predicated on misinformation, why should we extend the time and courtesy? If you cannot bother to research a proper factual foundation for what you share, why should we care to comment on it?

Besides, you keep dodging substantive inquiries from DS.

We keep getting involved just to make sure that false information, that false narrative doesn't pass unnoticed and unaddressed.

Cause here's the kicker. It's one thing to differ on opinions or political views (pro-life vs pro-choice, death penalty: yes or no, stuff like that). It's another to disagree on factual information. Because when it comes to factual information, one side is going to end up being wrong. Just wrong. And so far, you're hitting that side hard. You are presenting to us so much incorrect data, so many views and opinions that completely ignore a contrary factual underpinning, and when those are corrected you blindly stumble forward as it that changes nothing. We (many of us) worry about your ability to come to conclusions grounded in factual information. Just as Chuck Todd said, alternate facts are falsehoods.

[Blu]

Yeah, first I've heard of that.

Yeah, I've definitely heard the "the children will be gay" argument as well. It's more of in the line of reasoning with gender inclusive bathrooms and transgender folk molesting/assaulting women and children in restrooms. Seems to be the prevailing fear-driven logic.

[Sarge]

I certainly don't prefer some of the sources that CRT uses, but I've seen other folks linking to left-leaning sites of dubious quality as well, so I don't know that he's doing anything egregious other than perhaps oversaturating.

I also don't think it's altogether necessary to rebut everything posted. If the conversation feels counterproductive (as it generally is in this thread, sadly), just ignore it. I've gotten to the point where I honestly don't even care anymore. I used to post political stuff pretty often on Facebook and other places, but I finally figured out that honestly, no one cares. They have their own biases they bring in, their own blind spots, and "winning" ends up actually losing because all folks do is end up ticked off at each other.

[prfsnl_gmr]

"winning" ends up actually losing because all folks do is end up ticked off at each other.

Not true. I always win, and everyone always loves me when I am done explaining to them why they are wrong.

[Sarge]

"winning" ends up actually losing because all folks do is end up ticked off at each other.

Not true. I always win, and everyone always loves me when I am done explaining to them why they are wrong.

Hahaha! Whatever helps you sleep at night!

EDIT: This seems appropriate.

[Blu]

Sarge, I don't think that winning is the objective. I don't particularly care for debate. I actually quite honestly care about dialogue. I believe a message board is particularly challenging for debate, discussion, or dialogue. The three communication styles themselves are pretty unique and varied. The truth is though, that dialogue best helps people understand others' perspectives, show empathy and appreciation, and work towards dismantling oppression and seeking solutions. I think it's truly debatable if you can get there on a passive platform like a message board.

I tend to go by BBC or The Guardian -- BBC requires three sources to be published, which I feel is a pretty good standard of quality. I like them as they can't be accused of the same narrative of our US "corrupt" sources. NPR is noteworthy too.

What we're experiencing right now with our president is not a condition of liberal leaning or slanting, we're talking about a concern that literally refutes logic, facts, or reasoning, I hope that's where you can see we're taking an issue with.

Because right now, we're facing a man who claims that 3-5M people voted illegally, which in the case of any logical conclusion should be something that prompts an emergency election right or some action of recourse? This being a claim that Trump has offered no burden of proof for. So why's he going on about it? Why call into question a mechanism in the very election that saw you elected? This is the calibur of Donald Trump, and the posts we have seen by CRT tend to fall in that vein of quality. Of note, CRT's sources are dubious at best, and agreed that it's over-saturated. These things are not rooted in fact, evidence, or even something that might be preponderant. We are talking about how Trump feels something in his gut, and now it's become national policy.

[Jmustang1968]

I'm baffled every day at how many people feel it is their business to dictate to other folks what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

It's stupid to be opposed to free birth control and also opposed to abortion. Then while opposing abortion you also oppose the social programs to help care for the kid you want to force them to have. It is just one long string of stupid shit that is self contradictory and that frankly you shouldn't have a say in at all.

Of course I'm pro-life, I'm also pro-choice because I can't possibly know the circumstances of a woman's personal choice in the matter and quite frankly...it's none of my fucking business.

It's a whole new level of stupid to be "pro-life" because it's "murder" and be "for the death penalty". Murder is murder, that is all there is to it. On abortion the subject is at least debatable, with the death penalty it is cut and dry.

I swear if you don't stop whining about "personal attacks" in between being a Neanderthal my head might explode. Why don't you make some well reasoned and well thought out points before expecting other people to do so on your behalf.

You have really boiled this thing down into being much more simple than it is.

The pro-life and murder statement is garbage, even more for you saying it is a whole new level of stupid. Pro-life is just a shortened moniker for the abortion political stance. Most would agree a child, infant, unborn fetus, whatever you want to describe it, is innocent and thus deserves a chance at life. Whereas, most convicted of murder, have done horrendous crimes and are being removed from society. Yet you will connect the 2 and boil it down to the wordrink usage of prolife.

While I believe government should stay out of out personal lives, I can understand those who are religious and believe conception is life, by wanting to outlaw abortions for the unspoken rights of the unborn. This is obviously why it is such a contentious issue. It isn't like they are just getting a tattoo or piercing, with the controlling ones body statements.

And of course voters have a measure of a say. The politicians elected decide where federal funding is slotted to, and the politicians are supposed to decide based on the wishes of their constituents.

This is one of those almost perfect dilemma situations that hurts my head to even get into. Ultimately, I am not a religious person and am for less government in private life, but I can easily sympathize or at least understand those with a pro-life abortion stance, and they aren't all a bunch of fucking morons like you want to swin it.

[Sarge]

An interesting thought, Blu. If I may play devil's advocate for a second (this is where I get into trouble!): while there is certainly a lack of evidence of extensive voter fraud (seriously, that is a really high number that Trump threw out there), one could very much argue that we don't have very effective mechanisms by which to detect such fraud in the first place. So even if it was going on at that scale, we wouldn't have adequate means to know it. So in a lot of ways, both sides are kind of stuck with a gut reaction. Those on the left are generally dismissive of claims of widespread voter fraud, those on the right are generally more accepting that it may be happening, and none of us really have much data to prove it either way.

Certainly, you are correct that the burden of proof is on Pres. Trump. If he really does go forward with some major investigations, then it will be interesting if anything turns up. I suspect that he won't blow a lot of political capital on such a move, given that he's already elected, but who knows? He's nothing if not unpredictable.

[Ack]

Of course I'm pro-life, I'm also pro-choice because I can't possibly know the circumstances of a woman's personal choice in the matter and quite frankly...it's none of my fucking business.

Of course. I'd also like to point out that as Americans, we're generally pretty bad about banning things. Women have abortions regardless of whether they are illegal, just as people commit murder, smoke marijuana, drive too fast without their seat belts on, illegally download copyrighted material, etc. We have bans on all these things...and yet, people still do them, though often at risk of serious injury or death due to having to keep it hidden from law enforcement.

Instead of simply installing some sort of blanket ban, I feel there are better ways to go about tackling the issue of abortion. The most important first step is to ask "Why?" And once the reasons are discerned, go after those. Instead of treating the symptom, go after what causes it, be it economic factors, lack of education, disease or sickness, sexual assault or incest, the problems with the adoption system in the US, societal views towards unmarried mothers, the high cost of raising a child, etc. By working to resolve these issues, abortions will naturally decline as a result. If you really want to end abortion, this is the best way to go about it.

And you'll most likely never truly end abortion...but you won't end it by banning it either. Instead you can attempt to reduce its use as an option and ensure that those who do end up using that option receive better treatment from fully trained healthcare professionals in sanitary conditions.

In truth, abortion feels like an issue we shouldn't really be fighting over; it's all the problems behind abortion that we should be examining.