Real World Event Discussions

...and still the war against women continues

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Friday, August 5, 2011 05:21
VIEWED: 6652
PAGE 5 of 11

KWICKO

Saturday, July 30, 2011 4:50 PM

Quote:
...and your remark about Firefly is stupid. Virtually every other forum here is about Firefly or Firefly related, etc., you can go to those if you wish. This one is about events which we're interested in.

Excellent point, Niki. To paraphrase DT, "You know what drew me into Firefly? All the talk of hydraulic fracturing and deforestation."

We get it, DT: Women's reproductive rights aren't your thing. But you are absolutely free to NOT comment on them. You have that power.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, July 30, 2011 7:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
...and your remark about Firefly is stupid. Virtually every other forum here is about Firefly or Firefly related, etc., you can go to those if you wish. This one is about events which we're interested in.

Excellent point, Niki. To paraphrase DT, "You know what drew me into Firefly? All the talk of hydraulic fracturing and deforestation."

We get it, DT: Women's reproductive rights aren't your thing. But you are absolutely free to NOT comment on them. You have that power.

Notice me not commenting on them, but please don't lie: this has nothing to do with women's reproductive rights, which, like all women's rights are perpetually stamped on by the proponents of this recurrent wedge issue. Just see how the support for that issue among the core abortionists holds up when it comes to quiverfull, flds, eugenics or issues like abolishing one child policies. Rather, they seem to tend to criticize those who choose to reproduce quite harshly, i've seen a fair number of references to breeding idiots, etc. I exempt Frem and Magon from this snark, as I can't recall them ever taking this position. But it's a common one. Anyone who really csred a out "reproductive rights" would be really concerned about eugenics. I think a limitation on the number of children you can have, or on custody, or stealth coersion and forced sterilizations are an issue, as is adoption, a very major one: if you can't afford to support the child but with to have it, then they absolutely have the right to have it, as we all know there are many out there willing and able to take care of it.

So, yes, I have and will call rigt-to-lifers who don't support a comprehensive world view hypocrites, but I damn well am going to do the same to pro-choicers. If someone's not comprehensive and consistent, you're left with two possibilities: they're either a hypocrite, and are hiding some other agenda, or they are dupes of some agenda monkey and should really think about it more, one side or the other.

I suspect there are a couple depopulationists here on the board, but if they claim that their position is womens rights, that's hypocritical, iow they're lying.

I don't think niki really has a position, i think she's playing a political game, because i think she's far more like finn than like anyone else. That's perfectly okay with me, but I reserve the right to point it out to you guys when she does it, just as I do when anyone does it. You remember my systematic deconstruction of Finn's right wing power gaming political threads, right? That's all I'm doing here: shooting skeets.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

KWICKO

Saturday, July 30, 2011 7:09 PM

Can you show me any instances of Planned Parenthood sponsoring legislation which would, BY LAW, restrict the number of children a woman may have?

By the way, I reserve the right to point out when you're pushing an agenda as well.

And you've consistently lied and invented facts in your narrative against reproductive rights. As you yourself said, you have no intention of being fair when it comes to this issue.

NIKI2

Saturday, July 30, 2011 7:30 PM

Now you're starting to really piss me off, so this will be the last thing I have to say before I start sounding like Sig or Mike:

Quote:
this has nothing to do with women's reproductive rights

BULLSHIT!!! It's about just that, the right to choose what to do with our bodies, whether we wish to procreate or not. That's what it's about for ME, and "quiverfull, flds, eugenics" don't come into it for me; I don't even know what the first two ARE and eugenics is your obsession, not everyone's, not mine, and I don't believe it's anything LIKE the issue you obviously do. You've never, EVER heard "breeding idiots" from me, or anything even close to it!

Quote:
If someone's not comprehensive and consistent, you're left with two possibilities: they're either a hypocrite, and are hiding some other agenda, or they are dupes of some agenda monkey and should really think about it more, one side or the other.

Gawd, that really makes me madder than hell: YOU judge that unless someone is what YOU consider "comprehensive and consistent", they're a hypocrite hiding something or a dupe. Your judgments are YOURS, and yours alone, they are not fact, and I don't give a SHIT about comprehensive and consistent (tho' my position on choice has always been consistent and always will be).

Although I recognize the many aspects of the issue, some valid, some not, it's a very simple issue for me: Women should have the right to choose whether to have a child or not. I recognize that right would be abused by some, but consider them the minority, and I have the brains to recognize that abortion WILL HAPPEN, whether legal or not, whether pro-lifers' efforts to circumvent the law of the land is successful or not, whether they find a MILLION ways to minimize women's access to abortion. It's just plain WRONG, period. Certainly I'm as prejudiced about the issue as you are about MANY, for the same reason: Your relatives endured the holocaust, so things related to that are things you feel strongly about. My mother had an illegal abortion in her youth; it screwed her up and affected our family seriouly. If abortion was legal then, I'd have sisters and/or brothers. It's what she wanted and I'd have loved it, so the issue is personal to me as others are personal to you. Tho' I chose not to have children and am too old to choose otherwise now, my heart is with women like my mother and their RIGHT to have children or not.

I'm playing a political game, eh? I don't play games. It should be obvious to anyone here with half a brain by now that I say what I think, whether anyone agrees with me or not. Mike plays games with others; I don't. I believe Raptor plays (and I KNOW Kane played) games. It sickens me when people play games, political or otherwise, and it's part of the reason I'm not very social anymore. I've been around long enough to see games of all kinds, too many kinds to list, and a lot of them aren't even intentional, they're subconscious; I don't want to play them, so I don't. I'm really seething now; I KNOW you do these things, make flat statements that you believe (or say?) "everyone knows", which are actually so far out of reality NOBODY actually believes them, but now it's getting personal, you're accusing me of lying and being a hypocrite.

I have NEVER accused you of deliberately being anything negative, I've said I think you make flat statements which are in reality only your opinion; I've lamented that you don't put up facts and figures to back up your points; I've disagreed heartily with some of the things you've said; I've also agreed with you at times, and I believeD (past tense) that a lot of the things you write come from a subconscious bias, not a conscious desire to harm. Wwhat you've perceived many times as "pe

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, July 30, 2011 9:28 PM

Considering I defended the FLDS, up to and including personal involvement to the point of on-site, hands-on (I drove some of em back to their folks) - despite the fact that I seriously despise them, which is entirely mutual I assure you...

You're damn well told I don't have any position on reproduction other than one should have that choice, and my opinion on stealth or forced sterilization - which no one bloody asked me, but to end any possibility of assumption, is that it's downright evil, ESPECIALLY when done under cover of vaccination cause that also demeans and undermines the trust of the medical establishment and further discredits the idea of vaccination itself, which despite there obviously being better alternatives, still does have a use in much of the third world since we've not invested the proper time and research into those alternatives to make them viable.

Far as it goes, my position is what it ALWAYS is - you gotta right to do your thing, what you AIN'T got, is the right to *force* OTHERS to, whether you deliver that force yourself or misuse the machinery of Government as your fucking proxy.

When it comes to civil rights infringement, I'll stand up for anyone, Fred Phelps, the FLDS, Rightwing sorta-nazi wackjobs - ANYONE.

Because to do *any* less is to reduce civil rights to a fucking caste system, which we already have regarding youth, which we did at one time regarding women, and the folks behind this wish to roll back the clock to that time.

What you DO with those rights, is up to you, no matter how offensive your use of em, no matter that the manner in which you express em makes me grind my teeth - cause for damn sure the way *I* express and use mine prolly drives a lotta folk batshit, but hey, that's ok, so long as it's a level playing field.

Either the rules apply to EVERYONE, or they apply to NO ONE.
Break that maxim, and you'll wind up crossing irons with me, guaranteed.
Is *THAT* clear enough ?

Frem
PS. Seriously, DT, don't be such a whiner, it makes you look like a petulant little brat and does no wonders for your own credibility.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, July 31, 2011 12:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

As for the issue? I posted a thread on women's issues, and only Byte and Magon were at all interested in the topic, and both also went on to post about abortion. It just derails the conversation. Everyone posting is looking to gain an upper hand against their fellow browncoats by doing so. This is not a constructive way for us to collectively behave.

I'm not like you, DT. I don't mind threads that meander on and off topic. Thread hijacks don't worry me. I basically reply to posts as they come up and interest me.

I've started a number of threads that have had no or little response, which is disappointing but that is just the nature of these boards. There are also numerous threads which don't interest me and I don't often comment in them.

I don't find the abortion issue to be any more or less destructive than any other thread, it's just that its one that people tend to feel passionate about, one way or another. We may never persuade one another of anything on these boards, but most of us still enjoy coming in for the debate. I get that you are tired of the issue and don't think it is a useful conversation to have. Well, don't have it and leave it to those who wish to do so. Sounds easy to me.

Quote:

Me and Byte off board came to the conclusion that ultrasound basically served as a form of female infanticide. This argument might not work if you're not RTL, but statistically, it's worth measuring in to your equation.

They might lead to infanticide, but they are not a form of it. They can be useful for other reasons. As someone who had an ectopic pregnancy, I had lots of them, not always with happy results. But they saved my health and possible my life on a number of occasions.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, July 31, 2011 2:31 AM

Quote:
Mike,

Me and Byte off board came to the conclusion that ultrasound basically served as a form of female infanticide. This argument might not work if you're not RTL, but statistically, it's worth measuring in to your equation.

...I don't remember that at all... Are you sure it was me? Maybe it was CTS.

But, I'm against this vaginal ultrasound law thing anyway I think, so I'd definitely be open to hearing the specifics.

1KIKI

Sunday, July 31, 2011 3:52 AM

"... presented with an ultrasound image of the fetus under an informed consent law passed on Thursday ..."

I thought informed consent was about MEDICAL things you needed to know before a treatment or procedure. Couldn't the legislature be held liable for practicing medicine without a license?

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, July 31, 2011 4:18 AM

Firefly, by post count, is clearly mostly about abortion. It's just gorram pathetic.

It is not that I am personally tired of the subject, it's that it's an emotional and manipulative topic. I recall posting an abortion thread with a spoiler up top that said "If you respond to this post you are a mindless sheep" and it got a good few hundred responses posted. Around post 100, I reposted that line without the spoiler brackets, and the next 100 posts rolled on anyway without a hitch.

My problem is while y'all are busy being mindless sheep, you're not out solving the world's problems, whatever they might be, you're being manipulated.

Frem,

I did exempt you and Magon that snark.

But I'm *so* not interested in the wedge issue, only in that it silences intelligent debate, as it does routinely.

Magon

Threadjacks don't worry me either. It was rather the somewhat totalitarian stamping out of them I was referring to.

Ectopic pregnancy is pretty rare, but sure, good point, but I thought they had some pretty obvious secondary symptoms.

Since ultrasound is already well established to cause mental deficiencies in the child I think it is generally now avoided unless there is already a complication; the reference was to third world applications. Anyway, statistically, it's worth noting that 75% of abortions that follow an ultrasound are, or would have been, girls.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

STORYMARK

Sunday, July 31, 2011 7:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

But I'm *so* not interested in the wedge issue,

that you can't stop responding to
Quote:
only in that it silences intelligent debate,
so in defense of debate, you'll demand this topic be off limits

Quote:
as it does routinely.

Psycho.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."