/baw/ - General Discussion

Hillary will win because she’ll be the lesser of two evils.

(Hey, we all know Bernie Sanders is never going to get the Dem nomination.)

For a moment, let's say guns are a good thing and that we benefit from more people having guns. But not everyone can reasonably afford to buy guns. I propose that the answer to this is a welfare system much like food stamps for guns, ammunition, and training. If the public is in fact to unskilled to wield guns, actual purchase of could require the redeemer have a certain amount of range time and level of training, which gun stamps could also cover.

But then, instead of spending training and equipment from the same stamp pool, it might make more sense to have people receive safety course/range time stamps for joining the program, and gun equipment credit as a reward for attending. I get the feeling it wouldn't be ideal to have gun purchases rely on range time per purchase of ammunition, but I can't quite place why. Maybe it'd give more power to safety courses than they ought to have? But if gun credit is given out even if they didn't use gun stamps to purchase the range time, it could be used as a way of restricting all gun purchase to people who spend a certain amount of time at the range. I have no idea wether taking it that far would be a good idea. Also, the basic idea resembles a level up system in video games, doesn't it?

>>399528
>tl;dr She's disloyal, dishonorable and incompetent. Any presidential opponents she fights have a mountain of historical dirt to throw at her if they want to. Her only hope is that they take pity on her and pull their punches.
The only Republican who even has a chance against her is Jeb, and even he's got an uphill battle.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/08/politics/donald-trump-cnn-megyn-kelly-comment/

It's refreshing to see both political parties agree Donald Trump is scum. The Republican party and Fox News want Trump out of the race pronto, before he causes any more harm to the conservative movement.

>Donald and Hillary both win the primaries somehow
>we end up with a Green Party president

>>399539

Trump won’t get the nomination because he cannot win a national election. He can rile up the GOP base all he wants—and they’re eating his particular brand of bullshit with a smile, judging from the polling numbers—but he is way too toxic a personality for a national election, especially one where whoever wins the White House could end up naming four new Justices to the Supreme Court.

The other GOP candidates have their own issues, but they’re nowhere near as openly toxic to the party as Trump. Jeb! will probably get the nomination in the end, though as >>399535 said, he’ll still have an uphill battle against Hillary.

>>399541
If he does last long enough, the GOP will just Ron Paul him and pretend he doesn't exist when it comes time to cast votes for the final candidate.

>>399542
That requires media complicity, which the GOP won't get--Trump is ratings gold.

Which isn't to say he'll ever get the nomination--he has pretty much no chance of that, and fivethirtyeight explained why pretty succinctly recently. But they're not going to Ron Paul him.

>>399545

And the Weekly Sift hit along another reason why Trump isn't likely to go national, even if he loses the nomination: Sinking shitloads of money into a national campaign means investing in said campaign with no hope of any sort of financial returns. For a guy like Trump, a simple cost-benefit analysis would tell him that a long-term national campaign—whether he runs as Republican or independent—is a money pit.

>>399550
Okay, but you need to remember that just because you believe a fiction doesn't mean the majority of the world does. You're going to have to get outside of the Fox News Bubble if you want an honest assessment of the different candidates' chances.

>>399563
Maybe to court the Progressive wing of the Democratic party, Hilary will declare Liz Warren as her running mate.

>>399564
>Liz Warren
1000s of times better candidate than Hillary.

#TyroneHarris, friend of Michael Brown opened fire on police with a stolen handgun, and got shot. He's in a hospital now, status unknown.

Possible revenge shooting gone wrong?

>>399567

Damn shame she doesn't want to run.

http://mashable.com/2015/08/10/hillary-clinton-jeb-bush-twitter/

Politics in the 2015.

Hillary trying and failing hard to recall accomplishments in her record:
//youtube.com/watch?v=bMWZeLqwllY

Hillary defending a guy she knew was a child rapist.
//youtube.com/watch?v=9QnmilCVzdw

>>399587
Couple things

1. These posts are 3 minutes apart. Just go gather all your shit and post it in one post.

2. I didn't watch the video but did skim the vid description. You do realize that her job was to defend the guy, right? You do also realize that everyone deserves their day in court, even the scummiest of the scum, right? That's how the system works. That's how it should work. And while it's not perfect, it's something that sets us apart from countries with fuckawful court systems.

>>399588
>>399587
Yeah, she was a public defender. I would be more offended if she *didn't* defend him. It would mean she wasn't capable of doing difficult things even when they're her duty.

My heavily religious, conservative cousin posted a link to this video on Facebook: //youtube.com/watch?v=KKIOBOFaVYs

It uses incredibly bad logic and a misrepresentation of statistics as "evidence" that the claim of "only 3% of Planned Parenthood's services are abortions" is a myth.

I think try to explain simple statistics to him, how the video is flat out wrong, and he refuses to directly engage and instead quotes Bible verses and talks about baby murder. I almost had a fucking aneurism trying to a straight answer out of him, I swear.

>>399594
You're not *going* to get a straight answer out of him. People like that claim to be basing their arguments on morals, but in reality they just believe that women should be punished for having sex.

>>399597
I was hoping I could at least get pure facts acknowledged, regardless of ideology.

>>399588
>>399589
She didn't have to laugh about it to the victims face, who was just a little kid at the time. How are you not seeing a difference between being professional, and being completely unprofessional and evil.
Also why respond to both posts if you ignore the one where she can't even recall an accomplishment?

>>399594
>>399597
>>399598
Both sides are doing statistical tricks.
Planned parenthood says 300k abortions for 30 million services, gives 3%. The video presented is the stance of the evangelists, giving %90+ abortions. In reality, 300k abortions performed per 3 million customers, giving around 10% abortions.
Reality is closer to the planned parenthood numbers, but both sides are trying to trick people.

Also why are we talking about this? It's a distraction in the middle of elections, might as well discuss the Kardashians.
//youtube.com/watch?v=T1fuoOH7Dw8

>>399599
PP specifically says "3% of all services". They never claimed 3% of all clients/patients. It's not necessarily that ~10% of patients, either, as there could be repeat patients.

If someone is against abortion, it doesn't matter if it's 3% of services or 92% that the video claims, there are still more than 0 abortions performed. The video is just intellectually dishonest, and I was hoping to explain that to my cousin so he would argue his side using actual facts and not propaganda.

Trump fucking donated to Hillary's campaign.

Honor among thieves?

>>399606
Perhaps he thinks he has a better chance of winning against her, so he wants to see her get the Democrat nomination.

>>399606
>Trump fucking donated to Hillary's campaign.

Trump doesn't give a shit about being president. He's doing this for attention, or as you might say in his line of work, marketing.

>>399599
Goalpost status: moved.

Your first post was attacking her about her defending the rapist, not how she carried herself. Stick to one story.

>>399603
>If someone is against abortion
They want their tax money to stop funding abortions. That's pretty much it, they know they can't stop people from buying this shit, even banning them would just create an illegal market. Anti-abortion people just want to stop being forced to participate in what they consider to be a sin, and as long as they use their votes to fight it I have no problem with it.

Both He and She Were Too Drunk to Recall Sex, So the University of Tennessee Expelled Only Him

http://www.prlog.org/12482984-yes-means-yes-date-rape-consent-rule-unconstitutional-judge.html

In what may foreshadow the end to a new "yes means yes" standard of consent for date rape, already been adopted in California and New York as well as on many other campuses, a judge has ruled - in a case in which both parties were so drunk they did not even know if sex had actually occurred - that the new standard violated the U.S. Constitution.

This follows an earlier decision in which another judge had also ruled that the federal Constitution applies to date rape proceedings at all state colleges, and that it requires that the accused be provided with all the procedural protections required by Due Process.

The Tennessee court held that it was unconstitutional for the University, under its "yes means yes" standard, to require the male student to establish his own innocence with proof that consent had been given, rather than putting the burden of proof on the accuser or the University as is always the case in both criminal and civil proceedings.

"If both students were too drunk to even remember if intercourse occurred, much less the circumstances under which it happened, it is obviously fundamentally unfair to require only one student but not the other to prove that there was consent," argued Banzhaf.

>>399612

>They want their tax money to stop funding abortions.

But PP doesn't use any government money to directly fund abortion procedures. Yes, it uses that money to help keep PP clinics open and pay staff, but PP does a hell of a lot more than abortion procedures, and the higher-ups know even one cent going directly towards abortion would be the downfall of the entire organization.

>>399615
>Yes, it uses that money to help keep PP clinics open and pay staff
PP uses government money to pay for clinics and staff that perform abortion, but in order to fund abortion materials they sell aborted baby parts.

Neither of this is exactly moral, even by non-christian values of morality, and IMO people have a right to vote against them getting tax money. That's what democracies are all about.

>>399619
>in order to fund abortion materials they sell aborted baby parts.
No they don't, and you're retarded and easily lead if you believe they do.

>>399619

>PP uses government money to pay for clinics and staff that perform abortion

As I said, PP doesn't just do abortion procedures. PP provides—amongst other services—contraceptives, screening for several types of cancers (breast, cervical, and testicular), pregnancy testing, STD testing and treatment, vasectomies, and tubal ligations. If we defund PP over abortion, we defund all of those services as a result. PP can be the only such provider of those services in low-income areas, so defunding PP would potentially lead to more pregnancies, more abortions, more STDs, and a general decline in the health of a populace. That is why PP makes sure that none of the government’s money goes directly towards abortion procedures.

>in order to fund abortion materials they sell aborted baby parts

I won't dignify that with a full-bore rebuttal.

Based God has cursed Hillary, she cannot win.

Also FWIW

>As I said, PP doesn't just do abortion procedures. PP provides—amongst other services—contraceptives, screening for several types of cancers (breast, cervical, and testicular), pregnancy testing, STD testing and treatment, vasectomies, and tubal ligations. If we defund PP over abortion, we defund all of those services as a result. PP can be the only such provider of those services in low-income areas, so defunding PP would potentially lead to more pregnancies, more abortions, more STDs, and a general decline in the health of a populace. That is why PP makes sure that none of the government’s money goes directly towards abortion procedures.
Not even getting into the abortion debate, every time this argument comes up it feels like political blackmail.

Planned Parenthood isn't funded in a big block grant. Pretty much all of its federal funding comes from reimbursement for performing Title X services. In other words, they do non-abortion service X, they get Y dollars from the government as a result.

So, no, federal taxpayer money is not going to pay for abortions through Planned Parenthood. The abortion services they do perform are funded through other means. Wanting to defund PP is wanting to stop paying them to do non-abortion services.

Also, no, they are not running a black market in fetal body parts, remove your head from Breitbart's putrefacting ass.

>>399628

It's blackmail to point out the real consequences of bad policy now? Is your skin seriously that thin?

>>399628
And every time someone tries to defund Planned Parenthood because they know it's illegal to outlaw abortion but they might at least be able to punish poor women for having sex, it feels like a political three-card monte.

>>399636
OK. If this is just the consequences, and we agree the situation is dire, how come every time this situation comes up, no one is all that interested in making sure women have access to medical care NOT linked to Planned Parenthood?

And in turn, given that Planned Parenthood has absolutely no vested interest in keeping women's health services in jeopardy, you'd think every time this possibility came up, they'd seek to divest and separate their abortion services.

This is the same fucking game the Republicans play when they try to shut down the federal government. "Hey, well if you Veto our legislation you're also vetoing federal funding for everything!"


>>399637
You know, if you have to resort to a conspiracy theory to delegitimate the other side in a political debate, maybe you should take that as a sign that the other side isn't so bad?

>>399638
>how come every time this situation comes up, no one is all that interested in making sure women have access to medical care NOT linked to Planned Parenthood?

People are interested, you fucking clown, you just only tune in when people start screeching about abortion. That's no good reason to get rid of a proven provider who've been extremely effective.

>And in turn, given that Planned Parenthood has absolutely no vested interest in keeping women's health services in jeopardy, you'd think every time this possibility came up, they'd seek to divest and separate their abortion services.

Why the fuck would they do that?

1. Abortion services are an essential part of women's health care and family planning services. Since that's the business Planned Parenthood is in (it's right there in the fucking name!), it would make no sense for them to get rid of those services.

2. If they just spin off their abortion services into a separate business, they now have a different problem. Namely, abortion-specific providers have proven severely vulnerable to harassment by organized groups of nuts and interference by godbothering right-wing politicians who like to pass laws making it functionally impossible for them to operate. There's a reason why there are so many huge swathes of land across the US where there are no abortion providers. So if they spin off their abortion services, before long there probably won't be any abortion services. Which, once again, is an essential part of the business they're in.

3. Because if they do that, the terrorists win. I mean, Jesus Christ, why should a medical facility be forced to divest itself of performing a basic medical procedure?

>This is the same fucking game the Republicans play when they try to shut down the federal government. "Hey, well if you Veto our legislation you're also vetoing federal funding for everything!"

I...what? No! That is perpendicular to reality. Republicans in Congress aren't trying to defund Planned Parenthood's abortion services. They cannot defund planned parenthood's abortion services, because they do not fund them in the first place. What they are trying to do is burn down everything else out of spite. So, unsurprisingly, it turns out that the ones acting like Republicans in Congress are...the Republicans in Congress. How about that.

>>399626
OK let me put this to you in another way: If an organization performed abortions without getting any taxpayer funds even for unrelated services, far fewer people would be voting the other way.

If PP split into PP and PPA, literally no one would give a fuck.

>>399639
>Why the fuck would they do that?
Its kind of like running an organization that provides services for the disabled AND murders people, so every time a critic mentions the second part the organization can say "hey what do you have against the disabled??!". Critics of the second part are not going to care that government only gives their tax money to the first part, because they consider murder deeply immoral. The same critics are also going to vote people into office who want to kill the organization, which would actually harm the legitimate disabled aid part of it.
In this way, by choosing not to divest, PP harms women.

And before you bring it up, it's considered murder by your opposition, they aren't faking their feelings, and they're going to vote based on that. So best start treating it as a real thing instead of ignoring it or sweeping it under the carpet.

>the terrorists win
Thanks for bringing the discussion to a new low btw, here let me try to reach your depth:
>they do not fund them in the first place
Even oblique funds are still funds. Giving harmless food aid to Al Qaeda is unethical because the money they save on not buying their own food goes into murdering more people. Same moral situation with Planned Parenthood.

>>399639
>People are interested, you fucking clown
Wow, that was a huge jump in tone. And yet,
>2. If they just spin off their abortion services into a separate business, they now have a different problem. Namely, abortion-specific providers have proven severely vulnerable to harassment by organized groups of nuts and interference by godbothering right-wing politicians who like to pass laws making it functionally impossible for them to operate. There's a reason why there are so many huge swathes of land across the US where there are no abortion providers. So if they spin off their abortion services, before long there probably won't be any abortion services.
Comes with an admission that I'm basically right. That the reason these services have to be coupled is that it would be politically and socially non-viable for the abortion programs to stand on their own, so they have to be coupled with the other programs to protect the abortion programs.

>>399643

>If PP split into PP and PPA, literally no one would give a fuck.

Except the politicians who draft TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws in an attempt to shut down abortion clinics. You know those laws you hear about that say abortion clinics must have hallways of a certain width to stay open? That’s a TRAP law—it’s designed to regulate legal abortion providers into oblivion. If PP split off its abortion services into a standalone organization/standalone abortion centers, “PPA” would be shut down sooner rather than later because of TRAP laws.

PP keeping abortion services wrapped into its complete package assures that the entire range of medical procedures are offered without sacrificing one really…really…really fucking controversial-yet-legal service in order to keep the less controversial services afloat.

>Thanks for bringing the discussion to a new low btw

Yeah, uh, you might be forgetting that abortion clinics are routinely targeted by violent anti-choice zealots—as are the doctors who perform them. Late-term abortion providers are exceptionally high-priority targets; just ask the family of the late George Tiller, who was killed in church by an anti-abortion activist.

>Giving harmless food aid to Al Qaeda is unethical because the money they save on not buying their own food goes into murdering more people. Same moral situation with Planned Parenthood.

As has been noted, PP’s state-sponsored funding is reimbursement from the government for providing specific medical/health services. Your analogy is flawed because the government doesn't say “Here’s your dosh, don’t use it on abortion” and wag its shaming finger at PP execs. The only service PP can’t be reimbursed for is abortion.

>>399644

>the reason these services have to be coupled is that it would be politically and socially non-viable for the abortion programs to stand on their own

Yes. It's true. But so fucking what? Abortion is a legal medical procedure and women should have the right to decide for themselves if they want one. Taking away their choice—whether by TRAP laws or by acts of violence against abortion providers—only serves to drive them towards the black market that springs up in the face of a prohibition. If PP coupling abortion services with its other medical/health services means those clinics stay open and a woman’s right to choose remains intact, I can accept and support that.

>>399644
>Comes with an admission that I'm basically right. That the reason these services have to be coupled is that it would be politically and socially non-viable for the abortion programs to stand on their own, so they have to be coupled with the other programs to protect the abortion programs.

Except for the big missing statement that abortion services are a key part of family planning services - Planned Parenthood's raison d'etre. That option needs to be there for PP to do their jobs. They aren't just protecting abortion services out of spite or whatever it is you think they're saying.

>>399643

Why would I treat it as a real thing when it clearly isn't? People also truly believe that tax is theft and that all illness can be cured by drinking enough water. That doesn't mean I have to take them seriously or that their beliefs are legitimate grounds for public policy.

>Even oblique funds are still funds. Giving harmless food aid to Al Qaeda is unethical because the money they save on not buying their own food goes into murdering more people. Same moral situation with Planned Parenthood.

Not even remotely a correct analogy, and also taking the obviously tongue-in-cheek line 'the terrorists win' way too seriously.

>>399645
No one would care about PP, but everyone would care about PPA. Come on he was clear on that.

>abortion clinics are routinely targeted by violent anti-choice zealot
And everyone who is against our presence in the middle east is a terrorist, because some terrorists blow themselves up to get us out of there.

Can we as a board stop engaging in these false equivalency? If we're talking about people voting against abortion, why the fuck would you bring up terrorists? Voting is the literal opposite of terrorism!]

>>399652
>Voting is the literal opposite of terrorism!

Am I missing something here or are you ignoring the abortion clinics and doctors that have been bombed and or killed?

Abortion doctors have had a target on them by zealots for a long fucking time. Decades. I dunno if I missed something or if you're being willfully dense, but it's not particularly cute. If this is the case, you've no position to talk about bringing down the level of discourse on this site if you can't even read 20 years into the past on the history of your country.

>People complained that the Iraq war was just an excuse to get at their oil.
>Bush was actually just super emotional and acted rashly despite his better judgement.
>Obama tried to be diplomatic for everything and pulled out because he wanted to keep his promises.
>Now the media is giving all the attention to Trump, who says we need to take the oil to stop ISIS.
>Illumernati remain unseen, utilizing predictable human structures that look like conspiracies but aren't.

>>399669
>>Illumernati remain unseen, utilizing predictable human structures that look like conspiracies but aren't.

Hey man, this one's not on us. We were busy laying the groundwork for Project Antivaxx. It's probably the Bilderbergers.

Some humor for my fellow fun lovers ITT:
//youtube.com/watch?v=eYuE27RR9XY

I think I've figured it out. All the Republican state governors running for President aren't actually trying to be president. They're trying to overwhelm Bernie Sanders by sheer numbers. They think by flooding the election with candidates they'll make Bernie less popular.

>>399702
Unless Bernie gets the nomination, Bernie is completely irrelevant to the Republican candidates right now, and they're completely irrelevant to him.

>>399706
I wasn't being completely serious

Politics are gay

>>399706

Yeah, Sanders must win the nomination from Hillary for the GOP to even dare take him seriously. (And yes, I phrased that right. Hillary is the Democrat nominee unless a more viable candidate or a major scandal dethrones her.)

>>399719

>If I support abortion and bomb a church

When was the last time you heard about someone who identifies as pro-choice committing an act of violence against a “pro-life” organization on behalf of an aborted fetus?

>>399719
No one called all people who are pro-life terrorists. The only thing he said was that letting the viewpoint of pro-life win would make it so that those extremists (extremists here are referring to actual, literal, murdering terrorists here) won. And it does.

You dingus.

>>399725

When abortion opponents talk about abortion, they rarely talk about how the procedure is one of the safest in the country (more people die in dentist’s chairs than women do from abortion). They rarely bring up the fact that a majority of women who make the decision to have an abortion are ultimately okay with the decision afterwards. “Pro-life” people don’t even call abortion a medical procedure, really.

You know what they call it? Murder.

“Pro-life”—well, more “anti-choice”, when you get down to it—activists routinely refer to abortion as an act of murder, as the taking of a life. They see themselves as protectors of lives yet to be born. To keep that idea alive, they tailor their rhetoric to shame the pro-choice crowd as killers of innocent lives (or supporters of such killing). “Anti-choice” activists will show you pictures of aborted fetuses and ask you to “stop the killing” of the unborn, the innocent, the defenseless.

Knowing that, do you really find it surprising that some whackjobs would take up the cause of using violence to prevent abortions? If so, you’re woefully naïve. But more to the point: If stopping abortion is the ultimate goal of violent anti-abortion protestors, and a combination of continued violence and legislative action—all spurred on by that “defenders of innocent sacred unborn lives” rhetoric—drives abortion back into the back-alleys, would you be surprised if those violent protestors counted that as “victory”?

>>399725
>Honestly you have something wrong with your brain
top kek

I don't know where you hobos keep coming from or how you end up on +4.

>>399725

That equivalency will make start to make some sense the day prominent pro-choice groups start passing around anti-choice organizer's (or whatever equivalent to abortion providers you think is most appropriate) personal information, including home addresses, while referring to them as baby murderers (or, again, your preferred equivalent) who need to be stopped at any cost, knowing full well that this will inevitably result in harassment and violence and probably murder. All with a wink and a nudge.

The violent extremists cannot be treated as separate from the rest of the "pro-life" movement, because they are very much a part of it, and used as tools (with plausible deniability built in) by the movement's leaders.

Simply put your moral equivalence falls flat on its face because no pro-choice organization does anything even remotely equivalent to the repugnant shit anti-choice organizations do regularly.

A main argument against abortion being part of planned parenthood is that affiliating it like that is in fact a political trick. But given that one of the obstacles to abortion independent of planned parenthood is anti-abortion officials pulling their own political tricks by using quickly shifting, arbitrary regulations to effectively put an illegitimate ban on legal activity, I would think part of the solution here would be to regulate the issuance of regulations such that there is less for abortion clinics to defend against and thus less reason to need planned parenthood for said defense.

Also, having a movement that's specifically "anti abortion but also anti-violence-against-abortionists" would really help separate people from the terrorism that we know a lot of abortion opposition isn't a part of, but not really how many when looking at the large scale politics of it. Getting people who look too hard for excuses to retaliate against perceived threats is a problem that happens when a group puts too much emphasis on a with-us-or-against-us policies, and it helps for leadership to explicitly call that it get reigned in.

>>399729

>having a movement that's specifically "anti abortion but also anti-violence-against-abortionists" would really help separate people from the terrorism that we know a lot of abortion opposition isn't a part of

If such a movement could stop using the sort of “defend the defenseless”/“abortion is murder” rhetoric that drives violent anti-abortion “activists” to do what they do, we’d have something to talk about. But the pirmary arguments against abortion (and a woman’s right to choose whether to have an abortion) all sit in that entire “fetal lives matter” sphere of thought. Condemning violence wouldn’t much matter if the base rhetoric that inspires the violence stayed the same.

>>399730
While not meaningless, I find the line of reasoning from that to "but then the terrorists win" too much of a stretch for me to really get behind it. The subject matter is inherently inflammatory, being more inflammatory for one side than the other doesn't inherently invalidate the more fervently inflamed side. Sharing base rhetoric isn't something I qualify as indemnifying the way supporting specific leaders such as those described by >>399728 is, and the idea behind condemning violence would be to remove the support of those leaders so that they no longer represent the movement in the minds of the public, which would hopefully reduce violence.

>>399731

>I find the line of reasoning from that to "but then the terrorists win" too much of a stretch for me to really get behind it.

Non-violent anti-abortion activists use “abortion is murder“/“save the innocent” rhetoric to defend their anti-abortion positions. Lawmakers opposed to abortion use similar rhetoric when discussing TRAP laws and regulations on abortion. Violent anti-abortion activists use that rhetoric to justify their violent acts (“I was protecting the innocent!”). If lawmakers succeed in effectively outlawing abortion by removing any legal access to it, anti-abortion activists “win”…and that means the violent activists, who support the cause and the rhetoric associated with it, “win” as well.

>the idea behind condemning violence would be to remove the support of those leaders so that they no longer represent the movement in the minds of the public, which would hopefully reduce violence

Condemning violence while continuinally using the same rhetoric held up as a justification for such violence makes that condemnation all but worthless.

>>399732
>to defend their anti-abortion positions
Defending their positions, what a crime.

>Condemning violence while continuinally using the same rhetoric held up as a justification for such violence makes that condemnation all but worthless.
I disagree.

>>399733
The thing I have to question is this:

If you GENUINELY believe abortion is murder, as opposed to saying it to get an emotional reaction and get people on your side, why AREN'T you committing murder to stop it like the anti-abortion terrorists? You are allowing murder to be committed against "the helpless." If you believe that this is a genuine, A:A comparison to murder, then in what sense do you justify not killing the people who carry out these murders--it's unquestionable that in a genuine case of murder, the person attempting to commit murder is generally seen to be of lower priority for saving than the people being murdered.

That's why I don't really buy it when people say that abortion is murder unless they're terrorists. The terrorists, sure, I believe they're telling the truth--they've shown the strength of their convictions. They think murders are being committed and they are doing what any compassionate person would do in the face of the murder of the helpless--preventing it by any means necessary. Now because I DON'T believe abortion is murder, I think those people are crazy and need to go to jail forever because they're unstable and unable to operate in a society....but I at least respect them as being honest. The people who DON'T pull that shit....either they don't actually believe that abortion is murder (in which case they're liars) or they DO genuinely believe it's murder, but don't consider saving those "people" their problem (in which case they're just disgusting people).

Which is why it's pretty impossible for me to respect anti-choice people. Because there are pretty much only four ways to be--crazy, dishonest, misogynistic, or willing to look the other way in the face of murder for the sake of convenience. None of those four paints a very good picture of you as a person.

>>399735
>If you GENUINELY believe abortion is murder
I don't, at least not early term abortion. Late term I'd consider closer to something like animal abuse, as it makes sense to have a buffer area like that in lieu of a singular moment of easily measured development to point at. But really, I'm just bringing up points I think make sense because I figured it'd be good for quality of discussion, wasn't meaning to appear otherwise. Feel free to disregard the following if you've no interest in refuting devil's advocates who jump into anonymous political discussions uninvited:
>The people who DON'T pull that shit....either they don't actually believe that abortion is murder (in which case they're liars) or they DO genuinely believe it's murder, but realize how hard it'd be to prevent abortions if they got themselves called crazy and thrown in jail forever while defaming their entire cause by association.

I'll try to focus on other issues in the near future, preferably ones I actually have more personal interest in.

>>399736
>but realize how hard it'd be to prevent abortions if they got themselves called crazy and thrown in jail forever while defaming their entire cause by association.
Then you consider those "people" to be acceptable losses. You're not winning any points here in my book. Either they're people, in which case no amount of punishment from society makes protecting their lives not worth it, or they're not people, in which case you have no case. There's no "It would be politically unwise to prevent these murders."

>>399738
And you aren't on a terrorist campaign against abortion protestors because the doctors they lead to the death of are acceptable losses? Just gonna let people who specifically vow to help others and do no harm die like that? Not politically viable I guess.

>>399735
Ad hominem.

>>399739

>And you aren't on a terrorist campaign against abortion protestors because the doctors they lead to the death of are acceptable losses?

…what?

>>399740
No, an Ad Hominem attack would be bringing something irrelevant to your argument up to discredit you without addressing your argument. Saying that any justification you make to support your argument is morally depraved is not an ad hominem attack, because it is an attack against your argument--it is saying that your argument is either intellectually dishonest, emotionally manipulative, or being made in bad faith.

>>399742
Fine, it's not an ad hominem, it's just a ridiculous standard. Pro-lifers don't go out and kill abortion doctors because (a) that's a morally reprehensible idea, (b) that's a really crappy way of effecting any kind of desired change (ie. making abortion illegal), and (c) unless they work in law-enforcement, personally stopping crimes from happening isn't their responsibility. It's their responsibility to report crimes to the proper authorities whose job is personally stopping them, but in the case of abortion they can't because it's not illegal. Thus, they support efforts to make it illegal.

>>399761
So then you're saying that if you saw someone else getting stabbed, you wouldn't try to stop it?

>>399762
Actually, know what? Forget my last post. It most definitely is an ad hominem. You're discounting the argument that abortion is murder not because you have a counter-argument, but because of something you dislike about the people who make it. That's the definition of an ad hominem. Pro-lifers could all be intellectually dishonest, emotionally manipulative people who make claims in bad faith, and they could still be right about abortion being murder.

Abortion isn't murder because a fetus isn't a person.

Everyone is on the same page here but you, pal.

>>399741
I'm saying, if pro-life advocates are obliged to go out and personally murder murders of what they see as the innocent as >>399735 describes, then pro-lifers are as well, and since they see the doctors as innocent then they need to go and personally murder the murderers of those doctors, because otherwise they're saying those doctors are acceptable losses the way non-terrorist pro-lifers consider the fetuses to be acceptable losses. Or maybe sane people on both sides just realize the points made by >>399761 *

>>399762
People who protect each other form getting stabbed get legal protection via good Samaritan laws, and aren't called crazy or thrown in jail.

>>399764
I get that the transition from non-person to person occurs sometime after multi-cellularity, but I'm pretty sure that being taken out of the womb or separated from the placenta isn't the deciding factor. Personally, I have more of an interest in seeing no-kill pet shelters get funded than because they involve animals that are more developed already, but that doesn't mean I see a position against abortion as inherently insane or evil. I just think focusing instead on preventing situations where abortion would be sought is the better solution.

*Though legally speaking, the US doesn't compel police to actively defend anyone.

>>399765

Non-medical abortions which occur after the point where the fetus is anywhere near viability are so rare that they are practically a myth. It's an ethical red herring.

>>399765

>focusing instead on preventing situations where abortion would be sought is the better solution

That means focusing on contraception (e.g. condoms, the morning-after pill) to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and plenty of anti-choice people see that as a big no-no. In their eyes, sex is meant only for procreation between a loving couple who want to bring a child into the world, and anything that prevents the natural outcome of sex—pregnancy—is just as bad as abortion.

>>399764
Why? At what point is "personhood" achieved? Remember, we're talking about when we recognize the most essential of human rights, so you'd better have some rock solid reasoning here.

>>399767
Contraception is already widely available and nobody is trying to make it illegal.

>>399769

>At what point is "personhood" achieved?

This is actually one of the sticking points of the whole abortion debate. There is no one universal “personhood moment” where a fetus becomes a person; if there was, we could probably do a better job of placing legal restrictions on abortions. But since we don’t have a scientific consensus on the issue (and probably never will), we have to deal with the differeing theories and beliefs on when we can regard a fetus as a person. A fair number of anti-abortion activists will usually go for 24 weeks (six months) as the earliest restriction date for legal abortion, while others shoot for 20 weeks (five months), and others still believe the moment of conception itself is so sacrosanct that all abortion should be illegal.

>Contraception is already widely available and nobody is trying to make it illegal.

I wouldn’t be so sure about the latter point. Plenty of rabid anti-choice activists want to outlaw contraception, as they don't want anything getting between sex and its intended purpose (procreation). The Hobby Lobby decision wasn’t about outlawing contraception, but it was about employers having to pay for health care plans that included contraception, which is just as bad to the anti-contraception crowd.

(If you squint your eyes, you can also see how the anti-contraception fight miiiiiiiiiiiiiight be a little bit sexist, seeing as how it’s ultimately about a woman's right to choose if/when she gets pregnant in the first place.)

In all honesty you're not a person until about five years old. Before then babies are basically just animals. Five or so is when individuality and personalities really start establishing themselves. "Personhood" arguments are silly because babies aren't people. They should be less about personhood and more about when the fetus becomes its own organism. In which case I think it's pretty obvious that it's not its own organism until it can survive being removed from the mother.

>>399773
Well they're not. They're humans, but they're not people. They don't have individual personalities or thoughts and they're no more mentally capable than a dog. There's a reason you can't remember anything before age six or so--it's because your brain literally hadn't started working like a person's brain until then.

>>399774
Funny, my first memory dates back to when I was about three years old and having a gabbleygook conversation with my then-one year old brother. I haven't been paying attention to this thread much because it's basically the same rightwing troll shitting these threads up with a handful of smaller buddies versus everyone else and I don't see a point in engaging trolls, but claiming that babies don't have any elements of personhood until that late in life is just ignorant and would get you laughed out of any basic behavioral neuroscience lecture.

>>399775
For the note I'm pro-choice without age limits, I just think the claim that post-natal individuals take that long to develop personhood is ludicrous.

>>399770
The trouble with all those cut-off dates is that they are completely arbitrary. Our legal system has a lot of arbitrary dates; 16 to drive, 18 to vote, 21 to drink. Those we put up with because, in the long run, they don't really matter that much. On this issue, however, I feel ask for something more concrete. We're talking about the difference between being treated as a human being and being treated as a tumor. If we really believe that all humans do have "unalienable rights," then you'd better have a pretty good reason for denying those rights to someone. Being conceived 23 weeks and 4 days ago instead of 24 weeks isn't an acceptable rational for treating two almost entirely identical beings by two completely different standards.

Being forced to provide contraception when you have a moral objection to the use of contraception is an entirely different issue than making contraception illegal for everyone. The Hobby Lobby people weren't trying to prevent their employees from using contraception, they just didn't want to be forced to provide a service that violated their religious beliefs.

>>399771
>>399774
I feel confident in saying that not calling a baby a person is a very unpopular opinion. As for your definition of when a fetus becomes a human being, that comes with its own problems. By only considering a fetus a human only after it can be removed from the mother and still survive, you're basing "humanity" not on an innate attribute of being human, but on the quality of medical assistance readily available. A premature birth in a New York hospital has a much higher chance of the baby surviving than an equally premature birth in a hut in Africa. Is one baby a human and the other one not? For that matter, a premature birth today has a much higher chance than an equally premature birth in the same place 120 years ago, so are we also basing humanity on the current level of medical science? The right to life is sounding less "unalienable" by the minute.

>>399766
>>399767
See, I think these points are pretty reasonable, and because of that important to bring up in conversations about things like "how much of PP activity involves abortions".

>>399774
I'm pretty sure I have some memories from before that. I do know it took me a while to learn keeping most memories distinct from each other, and I honestly still have trouble with order of events further back than a day, but I remember that empty room where I stood up and walked to the other end on my first try. When you're a baby, I can only presume it's easy for a lot of things to be embarrassments you don't want to put much effort into remembering in the first place.

But yeah, I could see a buffer zone where the minimum sentencing is halved might be useful, I just don't know when that would be either.

>>399778
>By only considering a fetus a human only after it can be removed from the mother and still survive, you're basing "humanity" not on an innate attribute of being human, but on the quality of medical assistance readily available.

No, I'm basing it on the same scientific rules that apply to counting something as a distinct organism in any other situation. Like cells that are, for all intents and purposes, alive are not considered their own organisms unless they can be removed from the creature they're part of and survive. if you scrape of skin cells, they don't survive being separated from you because they're not separate organisms. But if you scrape off bits of a Man O' War, they do. That's what defines an organism--the ability to maintain homeostasis.

>>399778

>If we really believe that all humans do have "unalienable rights," then you'd better have a pretty good reason for denying those rights to someone. Being conceived 23 weeks and 4 days ago instead of 24 weeks isn't an acceptable rational for treating two almost entirely identical beings by two completely different standards.

This is the actual heart of the argument about abortion itself—and the question that drives everyone mad: "When does life begin?" Some people see the moment of conception as the moment where life begins, while others see it as either some arbitrary point during pregnancy or after the moment of birth. As I mentioned before, there is no scientific consensus on the subject (and likely never will be), so we have to use our best judgment and come up with regulations to ensure the likelihood that a child wanted by its mother/parents will be brought to term in as healthy a state as possible. Sweden seems to have the right idea; via Wikipedia:

The current legislation is the Abortion Act of 1974 (SFS 1974:595). This states that up until the end of the eighteenth week of the pregnancy the choice of an abortion is entirely up to the woman, for any reason whatsoever. After the 18th [week], a woman needs a permission from the National Board of Health and Welfare […] to have an abortion. Permission for these late abortions is usually granted for cases in which the fetus or mother are unhealthy. Abortion is not allowed if the fetus is viable, which generally means that abortions after the 22nd week are not allowed. However, abortions after the 22nd week may be allowed in the rare cases where the fetus can not survive outside the womb even if it is carried to term.

The issue is largely settled in Sweden and the question of the legality of abortion is not a highly controversial political issue. […] Consensus in Sweden is in favour of preventing unwanted pregnancies by the use of birth control and the primary goal is not to lower the amount of abortions, but rather the goal is that all children that are born should be wanted.

This is probably the best pro-choice argument for abortion: Every woman, every family, and every pregnancy is different. In an ideal world, the decision to carry a fetus to term would be made only by the people involved. Since that decision's moral weight increases as the fetus develops, the law should push women to decide promptly—and it should demand higher levels of justification for later-term abortions.

>The Hobby Lobby people weren't trying to prevent their employees from using contraception, they just didn't want to be forced to provide a service that violated their religious beliefs.

Then you could make an argument that doing so violates the First Amendment rights of their employees, as the employer themselves is forcing their religious beliefs upon the employees. (It might not be a compelling or even legally sound argument, but it's there.) There's also something to be said about employers getting involved in healthcare decisions that they have no real business getting involved with; after all, why is it Hobby Lobby's business if one of its female employees uses her company's healthcare plan to legally obtain contraception?

>>399778
>The Hobby Lobby people weren't trying to prevent their employees from using contraception, they just didn't want to be forced to provide a service that violated their religious beliefs.
They *weren't* providing a service that violated their religious beliefs. They were compensating their employees as much as much as every other business in the country is required to. They wanted a way to get away with paying their employees less than everyone else does.

Also, the fact that Hobby Lobby's owners have heavy investments in contraceptive companies proves that they are perfectly willing to contribute to contraceptive companies' business. This was purely an effort for them to fuck over their employees because they knew if they blamed it on Jesus they could probably get away with it. They're mercenary douchebags, and no one should hold them up as heroes of religious freedom or even as decent human beings--their only goal was to exploit their workers and get away with it.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2015/08/21/molly-shattuck-ravens-cheerleader-sentenced-rape-boy/32108039/
Sure would be nice if judges would treat women and men equally.

>>399769

Does it look like a person? Does it have the characteristics of a person? Does it behave like a person? Does it resemble a person in any way?

No, no, no, and no. Look at how easy that was.

>>399785
>Does it look like a person?
Pretty much? A smiley face can look like a person. Anthropomorphizing things is incredibly easy.
>Does it have the characteristics of a person?
That is is pretty much just asking to summarize an unwritten list of things that should actually be in this list.
>Does it behave like a person?
Given an environment of "tiny sack where you don't have to eat but there's virtually no stimulus", yeah.
I'd expect a person to sit there and arbitrarily kick at stuff.
>Does it resemble a person in any way?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the behavior answer above holds well enough.

To get the thread somewhat back on track, is anyone up to date with the Hillary campaign... she committed perjury, destroyed evidence, sold some 300 pieces of classified info....
Patraeus got canned for being SUSPECTED of sharing classified into with a journalist he was banging, who wants to bet if Hillary can shake these charges?

//youtube.com/watch?v=gN6sNp0b1WE

>>399784
>Ex-Ravens cheerleader Molly Shattuck must spend every other weekend in a Delaware work-release detention center for nearly two years
Damn that's some HARD TIME.

>>399803
>Patraeus got canned for being SUSPECTED of sharing classified into with a journalist he was banging
Patraeus was treated far better than Chelsea Manning, who did much the same thing he did only she did it in what she saw as the service of the nation's best interests, while he did it in service of his dick.

>>399806

And Chelsea Manning almost got sent to fucking solitary confinement for…well, basically for the rest of her life over a fucking expired roll of toothpaste.

>>399806
>>399807
Rank and connections matter, that's why Patraeus makes a better comparison. Yeah if Clinton was a low level flunky she would get thrown into solitary over a tube of toothpaste or whatever.... but she isn't.

Hence the question remains, is she more powerful with better connections than a US general, real life test incoming lol.

>>399773
Legally? A corporation is more of a person than a 13 year old kid. If someone can make all their medical decisions for them, then they are just as dependent on those people as fetuses in the womb are dependent on their mothers. So that kind of distinction is retarded.

Biologically? A new individual human is created with the act of conception. After the two haploid cells merge to produce a diploid zygote, which then starts to metabolize... that's a brand new human. Making a distinction based on the scale of development is also retarded.

Morally? Well I'm not a philosopher, priest or a rabbi, you'll have to talk to them for an answer on that. Just don't expect the answer to be rational coming from people who think we're made of clay or that reality is illusion.

>>399780
>No, I'm basing it on the same scientific rules that apply to coun-BLAA BLAA BLITHERHY BLOO IM AN IDIOT
LoL!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa
>The line was derived from cervical cancer cells taken on February 8, 1951,[2] from Henrietta Lacks, a patient who eventually died of her cancer on October 4, 1951. The cell line was found to be remarkably durable and prolific — which has led to its contamination of many other cell lines used in research.[3][4]
By your definition this cancer is more of a person than a fetus, in fact according to your FLAWLESS logic this cancer should have had the right to vote in 1969. Stop failing so hard at making a logically consistent argument.

>>399778
This Nintendo faggot seems to be the only guy in this thread that gets it.

>>399810
>By your definition this cancer is more of a person than a fetus, in fact according to your FLAWLESS logic this cancer should have had the right to vote in 1969. Stop failing so hard at making a logically consistent argument.
More of an organism than a fetus, certainly. The fact that you use "human" and "person" interchangeably is pretty clear evidence that you have no idea what you're talking about in regards to this though. The terms are not interchangeable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood

So, the entire point of parties and primaries is that there's only so many people that you can reasonably expect people to keep track of for an election. But that amount is much more than two, and I don't know of anything that binds those primaries to work in a particular way. What if a political party was made not around a particular policy for governance, but around holding primaries with a particular voting method?

>>399821
Actually: Given the sheer size of the largest political parties currently, in contrast to the population of the entire country when it was decided it would be a good idea to have parties with primaries as a way to manage elections, wouldn't we need state primaries to get preceded by pre-primaries in which subdivisions within each party choose candidates to run in the actual primaries, or else not actually need primaries or parties?

>>399848
Maybe they actually won't end up like the libertines, only remembered for their poetry and sex dungeons.

>>399848
Why would you ever read Breitbart?

>>399855
Because it was retweeted by David Lillie (who I respect immersly). And whatever terrible horrible things that site published in the past, it does not change the fact that the article is gr8.

I hate being labeled a liberal or a conservative. Why am I not allowed to see positive aspects of both sides? Winston Churchill once said if you're not a liberal at age 20 you have no heart, and if you're not a conservative at age 40 you have no brain. It's so accurate it hurts.

>>399871
bipartisanship and stuff

though there are conservative democrats and shit

honestly, i'm a liberal through and through, but don't identify as one. i'm an issues person. it just so happens that i lean left on 95% of everything.

>>399872
to clarify, i'm not talking about the two parties, but saying that the same idea leads us to strict labels.

>>399871
>It's so accurate it hurts.
Except it isn't. Recent studies have shown pretty conclusively that people tend to get no more or less conservative with age. The reason old people seem to be conservative more often than young people is just that older generations, such as the baby boomers, were always more conservative. People tend to think that the baby boomers were all hippies when they were kids, and then grew up into the raging douchebags they are now, but the fact is that the hippie movement was actually a very small fraction of the Baby Boomers--something like 80-90% of all hippies were at Woodstock.

People don't get more conservative as they get older. The closest that they come, is that as the prefrontal cortex shrinks your inhibitions are reduced (much like when drunk), so you become less capable of controlling your impulses. So old racists get worse at hiding their racism than young racists are. But that's about as far as it goes in terms of becoming more conservative. Their views don't change, just their willingness to care about how saying their opinions affect other people.

>>399861

It's great if you're totally ignorant of all the issues involved and of the history of almost every single person named in it.

So basically, this is a classic Mister Twister post.

>>399871
That is a nice quote.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/please-shut-up-fox-newsers-defend-megyn-kelly-from-trumps-latest-attack/

Fox News is getting tired of Trump's bullshit.

>>399892
"Yes...At long last, does the man who accused the vast majority of Mexican immigrants to be drug-addicted rapists have no sense of decency?"
-Jon Stewart

>>399894
Hey, the hobo is back.

>>399895
Way to discourage discrimination by using class discrimination.

>>399898
>They go after Bernie because he is the one person they have access to.
They crashed a Jeb bush session, too, you ignorant fuckwad.

You're that same idiot that didn't bother to read 20 years into the past on anti abortion doctor violence, aren't you? Let me ask you a question: Do the librarians care that you come in to shitpost on a knockoff Mongolian Puppet Theater board or do they welcome it?

>>399898

Those protestors went after Bernie first because he was both the easiest target and the man who would have the most sympathy for the movement. In the end, they got results—a few days after the protest, the Sanders campaign website posted a plan on how Sanders would address racial justice if elected President.

They're not going after Republicans (as hard) because they know those candidates and the GOP base would have no sympathy for/react negatively to them. Imagine what would happen if a BLM group crashed a Trump campaign stop.

>>399909

>psychopath shoots three people and BLM supports him because he's black

Would you mind telling me which national BLM leaders support the shooter? Can you show me a statement from the top of the BLM organization that supports the shooter?

…no, you can’t, because BLM isn’t a top-down organization with designated national leaders. It is an amorphous grassroots movement with “leaders” in the loosest sense working with larger groups in various cities and regions—groups whose members may not always agree on how far to take the BLM movement in terms of messaging and protesting or who to support under the BLM “banner”. So before you go spouting that kind of horseshit again, you’d do well to take a minute and think about what the fuck you’re talking about…

>BLM is a bunch of uncultured swine

…instead of immediately going for the tactic of dehumanizing the people with whom you disagree for the sake of winning an argument on the Internet.

>>399910
>Mr. Stone
I don't care one way or another about your internet arguments, but aren't you the guy who criticized another amorphous grassroots movement called Gamergate for a pretty damn similar situation? Can't have your cake and eat it too bruv.

>>399910
>2015
>Still responding to hobos on the internet

Come on, son.

>>399913

GamerGate was an amorphous grassroots movement dedicated to harassing women in/associated with gaming that used the guise of “ethics in videogame journalism” to rope in unsuspecting dupes who could easily give the harassers cover while simultaneously helping the harassers carry out their plans.

GamerGate didn’t discover journalistic ethics, nor did it start the first conversation on the subject. (Especially not on ethics in gaming journalism.) GamerGate as a loosely-affiliated group of people uniting under a single banner didn’t exist until Zoe Quinn's sex life was outed. The “movement’s” primary targets were women (e.g. Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu). Fuck GamerGate—and fuck any attempt to make it seem like it was anything but angry nerds trying to harass women off the Internet/out of gaming.

>>399916
>GamerGate was an amorphous grassroots movement dedicated to harassing women

Stopped reading there. Plus4 is contaminated with brainwashed liberals like you.

Someone told me they hope Trump gets elected, because it will be such a disaster that the politician dynasty system will have to be completely reworked. I have to admit, I never thought of it that way.

>>399919
>>399920

I'll be more than happy to discuss the matter with you when you stop comparing black people to pigs.

>>399921
They aren't presuming that black people support BLM by default, or that while people don't.

>>399918
I think I'd still rather try to get a third party win if he makes it to the polls and I don't like the democrat candidate either, even though it's been a long time since we've had one.

>>399921
>BLM is a bunch of uncultured swine
>when you stop comparing black people to pigs.

>BLM
>black people

Spot the difference.

Funny to see the mental hoops you'll jump to in order to insulate yourself from reality.

>>399916
Stone, I'm legitimately interested in hearing your rebuttal to the points presented in this post (written by a woman) http://thespectacularspider-girl.tumblr.com/post/100433941529/zoe-quinn-and-gamergate-genesis-myths

>>399926
Written by a woman? Well by gum, that must make anything she says okay then.

Her "facts" don't seem to be based on fact. Zoe Quinn is still brought up by gators any time they start on one of their schpiels about corruption, yet she specifically says Zoe Quinn is irrelevant to GamerGate now.

Look also how this first thing she posts where she tries to prove that this is all "okay" (Subtitled "The Start") she doesn't give evidence of corruption or anything else GamerGate claims to be about--she starts attacking Quinn's character. She provides evidence that Zoe Quinn was a bad girlfriend who was emotionally abusive to her ex boyfriend and somehow we're supposed to give a shit--which would be fine if GamerGate were about Zoe Quinn and proving how bad she is. But this woman is claiming that's not what GamerGate is about while using an essay to do exactly that. At best you can say she is rationalizing why it was okay to attack Zoe Quinn, not proving that GamerGate was ever about corruption.

Okay, so we already see where her first two paragraphs completely negate the argument that she's arguing for any reason other than to attack Zoe Quinn.

Next, the evidence of corruption she provides in the "Why Zoe Quinn is Still Wrong" section is....what? One of the guys she is alleged to have slept with included her in an interview with a bunch of other people who he presumably wasn't sleeping with who had the same credentials she did? STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES. And then Zoe, among several other people, alleged misconduct in the Pepsi games jam thing and because one of the witnesses was her, this is an example of corruption?

"Corruption Outside of 5 Guys" — No corruption in Games Journalism is addressed at all in this section. This is 100% hit piece on Zoe Quinn. So....hooray? I mean even if we allow this woman her point, that Zoe Quinn is the devil or nothing, GamerGate is still coming off as an organization that exists for no other reason than to attack Zoe Quinn. Also, the Fine Young Capitalists thing has been examined to death, and a screenshot of a reddit post where one of them is whining doesn't count as proof of anything.


tl;dr: The link you posted does nothing but demonstrate GamerGate has never cared about Journalism Ethics and still doesn't--this is entirely about Zoe Quinn and trying to make her cry. You've just found one woman who happens to think it's justified because she's decided Zoe Quinn is a dirty slut--what you haven't found is any evidence that GamerGate has ever given a shit about anything other than attacking a specific woman, then fanning out to attack other women when they realized it would make them look bad if they only talked about Zoe Quinn.

In a bit of good news, the Sixth Circuit (the same circuit court that sent Obergefell to SCOTUS, I believe) denied Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis’s request for an emergency stay from being forced to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

Davis had tried to hang her hat on the “religious freedom” argument by claiming the state would put too heavy a burden on her if it forced her to sign a same-sex marriage license (or have her signature appear on one). The judge presiding over her case ruled against her, but gave her a temporary reprieve—which expires on Monday—to file an appeal with the Sixth Circuit. As the circuit court denied her appeal, if she refuses to let same-sex couples get a marriage license after the stay expires, she’ll be found in contempt of court and possibly face jail time.

It’ll be interesting to see whether she capitulates and tells her office to follow the law or goes to jail because Jesus told her so.

>>399931
She probably also has the opportunity to file for resignation.

>>399933

Her son—who is a county clerk in the same office—claimed in an interview that he’d go to jail or “die” for the right to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Makes me wonder what he’d choose to do if his mother resigns or gives in to the court order.

>>399931
Why are liberals so obsessed with forcing people to accept gay marriage? It's already legal...

>>399942

Yes. It is legal. Which is why that woman needs to do her job and carry out the law.

>>399943
Or you could just go to another clerk.

>>399944
You can't just go hire any clerk sign a marriage certificate.

>>399945
Sure you can. Go to the next country over. If she was elected to serve her county, then she can't violate her constituents' wishes.

>>399946
>Go to the next county over
>To do something that is legal anywhere in the US of A

Going against her constituents wishes is bullshit when it's literally unconstitutional.

>>399941
LOL

Not with you, at you.

>>399947
What are you lolling at specifically?

>>399942

No one is obsessed with forcing Kim Davis or anyone in her office to “accept” same-sex marriage (i.e. to like the idea of same-sex marriage), least of all me. She can think gay people are the evil mutant offspring of Satan and Lady Gaga for all I give a shit. But she is a civil servant, and as such, she is expected to do her job and follow the laws of the land. Last I checked, gay couples can legally marry, so her refusal to do her job by issuing marriage licenses to gay couples is a flat refusal to follow the law—an act of discrimination based only on the sexual orientation of the couple trying to marry. Her religious beliefs do not allow her to flout the law she swore to follow.

>>399942
Why are conservatives so obsessed with letting government employees break the law?

>>399948
You. I'm laughing at you. I just said this.

>>399950
There's a joke about corporations somewhere in here.

>>399953
Funny how the only speech Rightists ever seem interested in protecting is Hate Speech.

>>399954

Unpopular speech is the only speech that really needs protection.

>>399931
>>399953
>>399954
While we're on that topic,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11827256/Vester-Lee-Flanagan-Inside-the-home-of-gunman-Bryce-Williams-where-he-prepared-for-murder.html
>latest spree killer is a gay man
>both his victims are straight
>manifesto says he did it because of homophobia at the hands of “black men and white women.”
>had a gay flag in his apartment
>no one is calling for it being banned

//youtube.com/watch?v=Ja_hDxivKrI

>>399956
Hate Speech is not the only kind of unpopular speech, though. Rightists never seem to be lobbying hard for people to have the right to say "fuck" in public or air pornography on television. The only form that "Free Speech" protection ever seems to take when it's someone on the right arguing it is "I should be allowed to call people niggers and faggots."

>>399955
>they could give up their guns
I've never owned a gun and I never plan to. So I don't really follow your logic here.

>>399962
White people are trying to take attention off of problems facing other people by making it all about themselves? Stop the presses!

>>399957
>no one is calling for it being banned

Well the gay flag hasn't had a history of being used by oppressors of straight people. Also, this is one example of some dude having a gay flag. And again, the gay flag wasn't used by traitors who fought to continue oppressing people. So...

Yeah, duders, I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. Is this low tier trollbait or are you really this dumb? I'd think with you being a hobo in the library, you'd take some time to read the books there. No, they aren't all "liberal propaganda".

>>399962
... tweeted by 12 year olds no doubt.

>>399966
You're not doing yourself any favors by using words like "nignogs." You're revealing your hand too early. If you want to troll people into thinking you're arguing from a legitimate place, and actually engage the things you're saying, you can't be an OBVIOUS klansman. You've got to keep that subtle so that people don't realize until several pages in that you're a crazy person who doesn't deserve to be treated like a legitimate participant in a discussion. All you're going to get behaving the way you are is people critiquing your trolling technique, like I'm doing right now.

I mean, we could address the real issues here - inner-city crime, by uneducated, ignorant minorities, and the fact that we're importing millions more of these types of people per year... but for some reason people would rather ban flags. It's fucked up.

They need jobs, and education, but we're shoving millions of new thirdworlders into our countries faster than we can fix the Chicagos and Detroits of the world, and if you say hey maybe we should lower those numbers, you get called a racist. WTF?

>>399969

Get out of the library, hobo, that isn't where you take showers.

>>399971
>Implying he takes showers

>>399968
The flag isn't the cause. It's a symptom.

I don't know why you think any of this is new. You guys sure are acting like it is.

>>399973
I've heard people making some pretty legit and/or frightening comparisons between Trump's rise and the rise of Mussolini and Hitler. And while I know everyone's going to cite Godwin's Law at a comparison like that, I don't know that it's necessarily a stretch to compare a highly capitalist/corporatist, profoundly xenophobic "outsider" politician with a fervent base of voters interested in ousting the establishment and "correct" the ways the country has "gone wrong," while celebrating militarism and warmongering...

...I mean is it really so wrong to call Trump and his followers fascists? Is there some major way in which they do not fit the label of fascism?

>>399975
lol remember when it was uncivil to compare politicians to Hitler?

ahahahahahaahaha

>>399976
Thanks for avoiding the question. I take it then that you have no reasons why Trump shouldn't be considered a fascist other than that it goes against The Internet Rules?

>>399975

Let’s not forget how Trump is promoting a form of “national purification” by ranting about the deportation of undocumented immigrants and generalizing those immigrants as rapists, murderers, and drug dealers to make his case more palatable to the xenophobic/racist GOP voting base (and thus secure more support from said base).

>>399980

The generalization and demonization of undocumented immigrants is the more worrisome part of Trump’s messaging.