Todd Akin

High Voltage wrote: Can we get some mods to do their friggin jobs? We ignored his spammy crap here for a couple pages until BB just had to respond and now look at the thread. This discussion was making progress. Please, mods, please. Just moderate already!

I'm sorry, if you can teach me the strength to ignore, I will, sensei.

Baiting the troll?  He's a master.

jmac3 wrote: And clearly every website you read and news you see is right Wong. They don't even come close to hiding it.

I don't know what this is and I am afraid to ask.

High Voltage wrote: Please, mods, please. Just moderate already!

I can't speak for the other mods, but I am not "moderating already" because after having looked back through the pages of this thread it got to this point through the natural progression from Idiot-reps statement through an observation on the difference in the way the general media treats the opposite sides of the political spectrum.

Part of moderating is knowing when not to interfere.

As pointed out by someone else, those that wish to keep the topic closer to the original subject can always refrain from responding to the non-applicable posts.

Part of foruming is knowing when not to post.


Edited by Mack - 25 August 2012 at 12:04pm

This forum is making my run at political apathy difficult.

Fact of the matter is-

Todd Akin's a dope- enough that the main stream Republicans want to distance themselves from him and his idiocy.
But the left doesn't want to recognize that because they've got gold in their hands and will do anything they can to make sure that the public thinks that's how ALL people on the right think.

Its turned something as serious and disgusting as rape into a political game, another reason I'm finished with all of it.

Now let me put my head back in the sand. Wake me when this November's auction is over.

You know, as much as it pains me I'm going to say that FE has a point here.

It goes back to my original statement-if you believe that abortion is baby murder then there's going to be very little that excuses such an act. That's the bottom line for pro-life voters.

BARREL BREAK wrote: Which makes it a very intolerant bottom line with little to no consideration for womens' health (mental and physical) or rights.

I'd agree that it's not conducive to women's rights intolerant might be strongly worded. Again, if you're point of view dictates that abortion is murder then murder is unacceptable.

That's the trouble with abortion-there's no black and white like you see with gay marriage or civil rights. The science behind abortion is less science and more a shift in ideology-does a different stage in the life process somehow being with it a higher value in society?

Abortion beliefs lie in the defining of the life process, and such a thing can't be simply dismissed as intolerant.

Me? I'm pro abortion because I don't care. I think its silly to be pro life yet pro war and anti welfare. I find that sometimes life must be disregarded for the overall good of society. It's natural selection on an economic scale. But that's how my ideology dictates my beliefs-I'm pro welfare not because I'm necessarily a caring individual but because I think that there are non progressive elements of society that are either unable to shift their economic position or are unwilling and that a small amount of the overall GDP donated to these groups can either A:) prove to be a rewarding economic initiative or B:) keep them alive enough to satisfy the sociological need to promote human life and possibly prevent crime.

But not everybody will find my mindset appealing (most just think I'm a jerk) so I tend to be non dismissive to opposing viewpoints, especially on issues of human life

 

stratoaxe wrote: I find that sometimes life must be disregarded for the overall good of society. It's natural selection on an economic scale. But that's how my ideology dictates my beliefs-I'm pro welfare not because I'm necessarily a caring individual but because I think that there are non progressive elements of society that are either unable to shift their economic position or are unwilling and that a small amount of the overall GDP donated to these groups can either A:) prove to be a rewarding economic initiative or B:) keep them alive enough to satisfy the sociological need to promote human life and possibly prevent crime.

Social darwinism is an erroneous reading of both sociology and darwin's theories. And yes, there is an enormous segment of the population that will not shift economic position; social mobility in the US is largely a fantasy. The naive notion that hard work begets success and that all 'the poor' need to do is get off their keisters and work to get rich is one of the most harmful myths of capitalism. The entire system is predicated upon a large, economically indentured class which generates increasing wealth for the upper class.

stratoaxe wrote: Me? I'm pro abortion because I don't care. I think its silly to be pro life yet pro war and anti welfare. I find that sometimes life must be disregarded for the overall good of society. It's natural selection on an economic scale. But that's how my ideology dictates my beliefs-I'm pro welfare not because I'm necessarily a caring individual but because I think that there are non progressive elements of society that are either unable to shift their economic position or are unwilling and that a small amount of the overall GDP donated to these groups can either A:) prove to be a rewarding economic initiative or B:) keep them alive enough to satisfy the sociological need to promote human life and possibly prevent crime. But not everybody will find my mindset appealing (most just think I'm a jerk) so I tend to be non dismissive to opposing viewpoints, especially on issues of human life

stratoaxe wrote: I think that, above all other reasoning, it's important to apply all of your ideas universally. If you can't, I feel that a logic system is flawed and therefore a poor foundation for the building blocks of society. With that in mind I feel that America's current ideological war consists of two sides that exercise very poor logic and I think that this instability of ideas had translated to economic and sociological instability.

Maybe I'm missing something, but how is it illogical, for example, for me to be Pro-life/anti-welfare, but not for you to be pro-choice/pro-welfare?

Edited by usafpilot07 - 28 August 2012 at 4:01pm

usafpilot07 wrote: stratoaxe wrote: Me? I'm pro abortion because I don't care. I think its silly to be pro life yet pro war and anti welfare. I find that sometimes life must be disregarded for the overall good of society. It's natural selection on an economic scale. But that's how my ideology dictates my beliefs-I'm pro welfare not because I'm necessarily a caring individual but because I think that there are non progressive elements of society that are either unable to shift their economic position or are unwilling and that a small amount of the overall GDP donated to these groups can either A:) prove to be a rewarding economic initiative or B:) keep them alive enough to satisfy the sociological need to promote human life and possibly prevent crime. But not everybody will find my mindset appealing (most just think I'm a jerk) so I tend to be non dismissive to opposing viewpoints, especially on issues of human life stratoaxe wrote: I think that, above all other reasoning, it's important to apply all of your ideas universally. If you can't, I feel that a logic system is flawed and therefore a poor foundation for the building blocks of society. With that in mind I feel that America's current ideological war consists of two sides that exercise very poor logic and I think that this instability of ideas had translated to economic and sociological instability. Maybe I'm missing something, but how is it illogical, for example, for me to be Pro-life/anti-welfare, but not for you to be pro-choice/pro-welfare?

It depends on your ideology.

If you follow the Republican platform of the sanctity of life you run into a huge ideological contradiction. There are a million reasons to be pro or anti abortion,but the common Republican standby of value of life becomes self defeating when you're violently anti-welfare nd blindly pro-war.

There are a myriad of reasons you could be both and not self contradicting. Social responsibility and so forth. But the Republican platform, and really the Democrat platform as well, has made such an effort to appeal to everyone that their own reasoning has become self defeating.

As far as my own beliefs, I feel that both welfare programs and abortion are beneficial in the long run. I could be wrong, in fact odds are that most of us are in some way wrong.

Again, I'm attacking the political platforms of both parties, but in this case the Republican party in specific. I should probably have been more specific in stating that.

Also, like I said, it's very difficult to speak in absolutes and argue abstract thought. I don't feel that my opinions better than yours, it just suits my outlook better. From a moral perspective I can only think of a few reasons you'd be morally justified in having an abortion but arguing individual moral outlooks is tiring. It's more fun to delve into socioeconomics and play with variables.

Edited by stratoaxe - 28 August 2012 at 4:16pm