Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Do you agree with this sentiment?

Do you agree with this sentiment? (Page 5)
Thread Tools
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2015, 11:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
It doesn't seem very "Christian" to, at the point of a gun, confiscate the property of others and to spend it for purposes you see fit.
The government isn't supposed to be Christian.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2015, 11:41 AM
 
The government is not supposed to be antichristian as well.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2015, 12:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
It doesn't seem very "Christian" to, at the point of a gun, confiscate the property of others and to spend it for purposes you see fit. I would generally associate that socioeconomic model to the mostly secular(and violently anti-religious) communist movements throughout recent history. (And we can all witness how well they turned out.) If, however, one were to donate a portion of their own earning and/or wealth to the "poor" voluntarily, that would seem "Christian" to me.
If you donate with conviction, with your heart, you're giving much more than you would in taxes or tithes anyway. Recently I was being grilled by a socialist acquaintance, they asked why I hate the poor (they were trying to connect paying taxes with love for your fellow man) and I told her, "If I hated the poor I wouldn't be voluntarily giving them almost 70% of my net income". At that point she abruptly STFU. Presumptuous dweebs.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2015, 02:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
It doesn't seem very "Christian" to, at the point of a gun, confiscate the property of others and to spend it for purposes you see fit. I would generally associate that socioeconomic model to the mostly secular(and violently anti-religious) communist movements throughout recent history. (And we can all witness how well they turned out.) If, however, one were to donate a portion of their own earning and/or wealth to the "poor" voluntarily, that would seem "Christian" to me.
Arthur Brooks wrote a book debunking that myth.
Brooks's first foray into the limelight was in 2006 with Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism.[5] Originating in his research on philanthropy and drawing on survey data, he articulates a charity gap between the 75 percent of Americans who donate to charitable causes and the rest who do not. Brooks argues that there are three cultural values that best predict charitable giving: religious participation, political views, and family structure. Ninety-one percent of people who identify themselves as religious are likely to give to charity, writes Brooks, as opposed to 66 percent of people who do not. The religious giving sector is just as likely to give to secular programs as it is to religious causes. Those who think government should do more to redistribute income are less likely to give to charitable causes, and those who believe the government has less of a role to play in income redistribution tend to give more. Finally, people who couple and raise children are more likely to give philanthropically than those who do not. The more children there are in a family, the more likely that a family will donate to charity. One of Brooks's most controversial findings was that political conservatives give more, despite having incomes that are on average 6 percent lower than liberals.
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2015, 02:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
The government isn't supposed to be Christian.
I was addressing the original post, seeing as how it was trying to use Christianity to justify thuggery, theft and violence against individuals by bullies. Last i checked "Thou shall not steal" is still a commandment (Not "Thou shall not steal, unless you have a really really good reason to") and a tenant of the Judeo-Christian world, as opposed to the secular communist world who seem to think it's alright to do so, just to meet their ends.

1. The "poor" are not a sufficient reason to suspend the rights of any individual.
2. If all are equal in the eyes of the government, the rights of A would not be suspended to benefit B, because C&D think it's alright to do so. (mob rule).

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
If you donate with conviction, with your heart, you're giving much more than you would in taxes or tithes anyway. Recently I was being grilled by a socialist acquaintance, they asked why I hate the poor (they were trying to connect paying taxes with love for your fellow man) and I told her, "If I hated the poor I wouldn't be voluntarily giving them almost 70% of my net income". At that point she abruptly STFU. Presumptuous dweebs.
It is strange that someone, who would otherwise never consider stealing from anyone, no matter how noble the cause in their head is, doesn't gives a second thought to getting someone else to do it for them instead. Is one degree of separation all it takes for their entire value system to break down?

The ironic thing about "liberals"(who are anything but that), is their love of guns and violence, just so long as it is used against those who disagree with them, or to get the property of others who would otherwise not hand it over to them. "tolerance", "respect", "individualism"?

If someone is honestly interested in improving the lives of the poor, they would advocate for the removal of minimum wage laws. To watch a rather long public debate about it, watch this, featuring Ben Shapiro: AM 770 KTTH $15 Minimum Wage Debate (YouTube).
( Last edited by Hawkeye_a; Sep 19, 2015 at 02:52 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2015, 03:13 PM
 
I'll be one of the first to say redistribution of wealth is legalized theft. It was awhile ago, but I made a thread declaring exactly this. I have no philosophical issues to take with position.

However, when the rubber meets the road, things get complicated.

The biggest problem is freedom of movement. This is the most important tool a person has to keep them from getting sucked under. How free you are to move is flat-out correlated with how much money you have. Less money, worse tool. Worse tool, the harder it is to dig money out of the ground. Less money you dig up, the worse the tool gets.

This is death spiral.

Charity can help you out of the spiral, but you can't count on it being available the way a safety net is available.

I can't say I love the idea of paying for the safety net via RoW, and coming from a pretty extreme right wing philosophy, I'm going to design my safety net differently than the Bern would, but that said, I don't really see another choice. A death spiral is a death spiral.
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2015, 03:25 PM
 
I think, in the context of this argument, we need to define what a "right" is.

I find Walter E William's definition of "rights" line up with my concept. Walter E Williams - What is a Right? (YouTube length 4:11)
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2015, 03:30 PM
 
I did a minute's worth. I dig your jazz. We seem to be on the same page WRT the definition.

That said, I didn't mention rights, so I'm not sure where you're going.
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2015, 03:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I did a minute's worth. I dig your jazz. We seem to be on the same page WRT the definition.

That said, I didn't mention rights, so I'm not sure where you're going.
I understood that from your previous post .

I posted the thing about rights, because i think those on the other side of the argument don't seem to understand what a "right" is to begin with; and maybe that's why it's so easy for them to trample on them at will.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2015, 01:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
The government is not supposed to be antichristian as well.
Where is it being antichristian?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2015, 04:02 PM
 
Looks like the Center for Medical Progress is having its own issues with being open and transparent.
Judge Reminds Anti-Abortion Corporation It Is Not A Person, Cannot Plead The Fifth

I don't even know what they're trying to plead the fifth over.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2015, 04:05 PM
 
A HuffPo story which lacks the details you need. Knock me over with a feather.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2015, 04:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
A HuffPo story which lacks the details you need. Knock me over with a feather.
It was the most non-partisan source I could find.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2015, 04:12 PM
 
Well, first seal is broken. Only six moar!
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 12:51 PM
 
@mmurraypolitics
Planned Parenthood's fav/unfav in NBC/WSJ poll also unchanged:
July: 45% fav, 30% unfav
Sept: 47% fav, 31% unfav
Ha.

WSJ/NBC Poll: On Planned Parenthood Funding, Voters Split by Party - Washington Wire - WSJ
The poll found that a strong majority of Americans — 61% — oppose eliminating federal funding for the women’s health group, but among Republicans, 55% support a funding cut-off. By contrast, only 19% of Democrats and 34% of independents favor stripping the group’s funding. Overall, 35% support a cutoff.
Looks like the videos aren't working. Gun-rights and abortion-rights – nothing can alter them.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 01:28 PM
 
But the MSM went out of its way to limit where you could even see the PP vids. Many have no idea what the details of the story is about.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 01:36 PM
 
My cynical view (I'm very cynical this afternoon) is PP turned the hose on Carly as a means to divert attention away from them.

"Carly is wrong about the videos, therefore the videos are wrong".
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 01:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My cynical view (I'm very cynical this afternoon) is PP turned the hose on Carly as a means to divert attention away from them.

"Carly is wrong about the videos, therefore the videos are wrong".
I think that has been as effective as the videos. Which is to say not at all.

(Also, I don't think it's PP – Occam's Razor: The MSM likes to catch politicians in a lie, particularly during Presidential campaign season)
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 01:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I think that has been as effective as the videos. Which is to say not at all.
Are you seeing other aspects of the story being covered? I'm getting full-court press on "Carly's a liar".
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 01:49 PM
 
1. Gun-rights and the NRA: privately funded special interest groups lobbyists (NRA), whose membership and funding base is privately(voluntarily) funded to uphold the law.

2. PP &"abortion rights": a publicly funded organization which involves taking taxpayer dollars to fund an activity which violates the constitutional right to freedom of religion(the practice of religion). Please note the funds given to this organization and not voluntarily obtained from individuals, but rater coerced through the political system.


Kind of ironic that the gun toting "hill billies" voluntarily organize and fund their interest group, which upholds the law. And the elitist-know-it-alls go out of their way to violate those very individual freedoms they swore to uphold. But what do i know?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 01:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Are you seeing other aspects of the story being covered? I'm getting full-court press on "Carly's a liar".
I'm not, but I see a difference between coverage and effectiveness. When the GOP candidates start ragging on her for lying or her poll numbers dip, then I'll say its been effective.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 01:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
1. Gun-rights and the NRA: privately funded special interest groups lobbyists (NRA), whose membership and funding base is privately(voluntarily) funded to uphold the law.

2. PP &"abortion rights": a publicly funded organization which involves taking taxpayer dollars to fund an activity which violates the constitutional right to freedom of religion(the practice of religion). Please note the funds given to this organization and not voluntarily obtained from individuals, but rater coerced through the political system.


Kind of ironic that the gun toting "hill billies" voluntarily organize and fund their interest group, which upholds the law. And the elitist-know-it-alls go out of their way to violate those very individual freedoms they swore to uphold. But what do i know?
I'd call it extortion.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 01:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
coerced through the political system.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 01:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'm not, but I see a difference between coverage and effectiveness. When the GOP candidates start ragging on her for lying or her poll numbers dip, then I'll say its been effective.
I'm claiming the goal is to keep damning evidence from the video out of the discussion.

Since the discussion isn't on damning evidence, I claim it's being effective.

PP isn't worried about those tummy sniffers Republicans, they're worried about Democrats turning on them
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 01:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm claiming the goal is to keep damning evidence from the video out of the discussion.

Since the discussion isn't on damning evidence, I claim it's being effective.
In a world of 24 hour news and both left and right-wing new media, I disagree.


Originally Posted by subego View Post
PP isn't worried about those tummy sniffers Republicans, they're worried about Democrats turning on them
The poll numbers I just posted would indicate if they actually have those fears, they are unfounded
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 02:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The poll numbers I just posted would indicate if they actually have those fears, they are unfounded
Huh?

subego: I'm going to plug up the dyke so it doesn't leak.
Dakar: I see no leaks now, your fear was unfounded.
subego: Huh?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 02:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Huh?

subego: I'm going to plug up the dyke so it doesn't leak.
Dakar: I see no leaks now, your fear was unfounded.
subego: Huh?
I think that's a simplistic conclusion. If you think one week of grilling Fiorina on her description of the video (which, BTW, is a terrible strategy because it keeps PP in the news, as well as her go-to repsonse is to tell people to watch them) undid almost two months of anti-PP videos in the public opinion polls, all I can say is I really disagree.

I think it's more likely stances on abortion are just that immutable (Because that's what this is really about).
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 02:29 PM
 
The polls would mean something if they spent the same amount of time on the CMP videos and Cecile the Lyin' as they did Cecil the Lion.

Nets Covered Cecil the Lion More in 1 Day Than Abortion Videos in 2 Weeks
CENSORED: Networks Spent 0.008% of News Shows on Planned Parenthood Footage
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 02:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
The polls would mean something if they spent the same amount of time on the CMP videos and Cecile the Lyin' as they did Cecil the Lion.
If it was a matter of coverage, then logically Fiorina's numbers should be going down for misrepresenting the truth. Something else is at play.

As for Cecil, coverage didn't fuel the outrage, outrage fueled the coverage.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 02:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I think that's a simplistic conclusion. If you think one week of grilling Fiorina on her description of the video (which, BTW, is a terrible strategy because it keeps PP in the news, as well as her go-to repsonse is to tell people to watch them) undid almost two months of anti-PP videos in the public opinion polls, all I can say is I really disagree.

I think it's more likely stances on abortion are just that immutable (Because that's what this is really about).
I'm saying Fiorina is the latest round. Previous to that the strategy was to smear the messenger, and claim edits somehow made the entirety of the videos invalid. They jumped to Fiorina because it makes the focus her being an idiot, which is both an easier sell and it takes the discussion another degree away from the actual issue.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 02:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm saying Fiorina is the latest round. Previous to that the strategy was to smear the messenger, and claim edits somehow made the entirety of the videos invalid. They jumped to Fiorina because it makes the focus her being an idiot, which is both an easier sell and it takes the discussion another degree away from the actual issue.
That still wouldn't explain how PPs approval went up.
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 02:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That still wouldn't explain how PPs approval went up.
Just so were clear, im not arguing the merits/morals of gun ownership or abortion, here.

But assuming what you say is true, that the majority of the public support PP. why cant said supporters fund the organization themselves? Why does their zealous belief and practices need to be imposed and forced on those who disagree with them through the political system?

That is what i take issue with. They are using government to violate the individual rights of those who disagree with them.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 03:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
Just so were clear, im not arguing the merits/morals of gun ownership or abortion, here.

But assuming what you say is true, that the majority of the public support PP. why cant said supporters fund the organization themselves? Why does their zealous belief and practices need to be imposed and forced on those who disagree with them through the political system?

That is what i take issue with. They are using government to violate the individual rights of those who disagree with them.
Because if something is important, you don't leave it to chance.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 03:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That still wouldn't explain how PPs approval went up.
Is that bump even outside the margin of error?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 03:26 PM
 
Yeah you have it backwards. The government legislates for whats right in cases where the majority of the public wouldn't.

Its why gay marriage and abortion are both legal, because they are freedoms that some people object to and would ban for all on religious grounds and your country isn't supposed to do that. Defunding PP is no different because the arguments are religious in basis so denying those rights to all citizens would forcing the religion of others on them and thats a fairly fundamental violation of the constitution.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 03:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is that bump even outside the margin of error?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Obviously I can't convince you.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 03:31 PM
 
That a 2% bump is statistically significant?

I guess you probably can't.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 03:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
Just so were clear, im not arguing the merits/morals of gun ownership or abortion, here.

But assuming what you say is true, that the majority of the public support PP. why cant said supporters fund the organization themselves? Why does their zealous belief and practices need to be imposed and forced on those who disagree with them through the political system?

That is what i take issue with. They are using government to violate the individual rights of those who disagree with them.
Most large companies that are not tied into The United Way allow employees to have money deducted from their paycheck and sent to the organization of their choice. When Motorola/Freescale had a United Way Campaign, I designated my money go to Chicano por La Causa. Those who are ardent PP supporters can designate their money to go to PP whether through UW or their company's HR department.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 03:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That a 2% bump is statistically significant?

I guess you probably can't.
No, everything else before that.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 03:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Yeah you have it backwards. The government legislates for whats right in cases where the majority of the public wouldn't.

Its why gay marriage and abortion are both legal, because they are freedoms that some people object to and would ban for all on religious grounds and your country isn't supposed to do that. Defunding PP is no different because the arguments are religious in basis so denying those rights to all citizens would forcing the religion of others on them and thats a fairly fundamental violation of the constitution.
If we're talking about Title X funding, PP pretty consistently has excess revenue larger than what they get from Title X.

If this wasn't the case, I'd agree wholeheartedly with your argument.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 03:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
They are using government to violate the individual rights of those who disagree with them.
That reminds me, government funds don't get used for abortion, either.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 03:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm saying Fiorina is the latest round. Previous to that the strategy was to smear the messenger, and claim edits somehow made the entirety of the videos invalid. They jumped to Fiorina because it makes the focus her being an idiot, which is both an easier sell and it takes the discussion another degree away from the actual issue.
Ironically, by the specifics outlined in the new "online abuse" narrative, that was pitched at the UN last week by noted Feminists, what the Left is doing to Fiorina is blatant harassment.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 04:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
No, everything else before that.
Which part.

My basic argument is when PP gets hammered they hammer back.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 04:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Which part.

My basic argument is when PP gets hammered they hammer back.
Yeah. Mine was it takes more than accusations to change people's minds on abortion.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 05:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Yeah. Mine was it takes more than accusations to change people's minds on abortion.
Like pictures?

America Won’t Reject Abortion Until It Sees Abortion
Father Frank Pavone, Priests for Life.
Abortion - Pro Life - See What Abortion Looks Like
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 05:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Like pictures?
Nope. We tried a similar idea with putting diseased lungs on cigarette boxes. It didn't have a meaningful effect.

I mean, that was general idea with having forced ultrasounds, right?

Plus, this is a blatant emotional appeal. Just because I can't stomach looking at something doesn't mean it must necessarily be a bad thing.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 05:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Nope. We tried a similar idea with putting diseased lungs on cigarette boxes. It didn't have a meaningful effect.

I mean, that was general idea with having forced ultrasounds, right?

Plus, this is a blatant emotional appeal. Just because I can't stomach looking at something doesn't mean it must necessarily be a bad thing.
Like theses ads from the CDC.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...4B81EA3136E9FE

I'm sure ABC, NBC, and CBS would allow similar ads from profile groups to air, Maybe they could broadcast "The Silent Scream" featuring NARAL founder Dr. Bernard Nathanson
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 05:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Like theses ads from the CDC.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...4B81EA3136E9FE

I'm sure ABC, NBC, and CBS would allow similar ads from profile groups to air, Maybe they could broadcast "The Silent Scream" featuring NARAL founder Dr. Bernard Nathanson
"The other side does it!" Do you have a response to my actual point?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 06:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
"The other side does it!" Do you have a response to my actual point?
It's more like the other side gets to do it. Has any OTA network aired The Silent Scream?
Yes, that's the point of requiring an ultrasound and cooling off period. Why do you think abortionist fight ultrasound requirements? Because when a woman sees that it's a baby and not a "clump of tissue," many opt not have an abortion, and the abortionist loses money.
78% of Pregnant Women Seeing an Ultrasound Reject Abortions | LifeNews.com
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2015, 08:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That reminds me, government funds don't get used for abortion, either.
Then why all the brouhaha for the "government to defund PP"?

If it's so important to not leave "to chance" write the "right to abortion" into the constitution, and do so without violating the already existing right to freedom of religion (which is already being done anyway). IF you find the "right to abortion" greater than the right to an individual's freedom of religion, take it to a referendum.

"Pro Choice" to have an abortion does not mean nor imply, "pro choice into the pockets of those who find my choices and behaviors immoral to subsidize my choice/lifestyle".

"Rights" which impose an obligation of others are not "rights" they're impositions, which violate individual rights; All done without consent through the use of threats and force.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum 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 On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:06 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,