Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 54

Thread: "White Athletes Still Standing For The Anthem Are Standing For White Supremacy"

  1. #21
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    5,132
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneV2.0 View Post
    I feel your pain, Alan, having to support us and all.

    Back when I was paying outsized federal taxes, I never minded contributing my share for anything that made people's lives a little better, but I resented the hell out of helping to finance endless wars, killing actual full-fledged human non-combatants around the world. So I can see how you would be peeved to be forced--as we all are as taxpayers--to foot the bill for programs you don't approve of.

    (I've read repeatedly that 99% of females will/do use birth control in their lifetimes. That seems a little high to me, but I'm surprised that anyone would seriously contest a development so overwhelmingly embraced by so many.)
    Except that other than being forced to purchase a product you do not want or a level of service you do not need, money doesn't come into play. It's the encroachment of government into every life without the ability for an individual to opt out. At that point you're not a citizen, you're a slave, and some people are good with that. It's odd, not only because so many approve of their new role, but use those emotional triggers to chastise those who'd rather live their own life by their own standards. There's no opportunity for honest and open debate under those conditions, and that's the point.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  2. #22
    Senior Member razz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    4,293
    I can understand your point to some extent but not in the funding of birth control access for women who otherwise cannot obtain.

    When it is realized that women carry the cost of bearing a child to term and not men, impacting their education, health, life, care of their families, etc, how many men around the world especially in the undeveloped world have been willing to totally give up sex or had a vasectomy? Until men do give up sex or supplying the sperm at all times, why shouldn't they contribute to the cost of birth control?

    Of course, a judge in Alberta trying a charge of rape, accused the young woman that was raped that she should have kept her knees together to prevent the rape. The Judicial Council did not agree and Robin Camp was removed from the bench.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/just...ncil-1.4017233

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    Except that other than being forced to purchase a product you do not want or a level of service you do not need, money doesn't come into play. It's the encroachment of government into every life without the ability for an individual to opt out. At that point you're not a citizen, you're a slave, and some people are good with that. It's odd, not only because so many approve of their new role, but use those emotional triggers to chastise those who'd rather live their own life by their own standards. There's no opportunity for honest and open debate under those conditions, and that's the point.
    Gandhi: Happiness is when what you think, what you say and what you do are in harmony .

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,750
    I can understand why many people would consider birth control important. I might even be inclined to agree. But should everything that's important be a responsibility of government?

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    3,069
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    I can understand why many people would consider birth control important. I might even be inclined to agree. But should everything that's important be a responsibility of government?

    Really it comes down to an argument about do you want the government to tell you what you can believe or not (government verses religion). They have done so in the past with religion and polygamy, they are doing so now with Catholic's and birth control. (or the ones who believe the pope is the supreme leader)

  5. #25
    Senior Member JaneV2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,292
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    Except that other than being forced to purchase a product you do not want or a level of service you do not need, money doesn't come into play. It's the encroachment of government into every life without the ability for an individual to opt out. At that point you're not a citizen, you're a slave, and some people are good with that. It's odd, not only because so many approve of their new role, but use those emotional triggers to chastise those who'd rather live their own life by their own standards. There's no opportunity for honest and open debate under those conditions, and that's the point.
    That's the way I feel about a lot of "services" we take for granted--mandatory insurances for everything from cars to houses to health care (mortgage insurance has to be the worst--don't the banksters absorb the risk for anything?) Pet immunizations are mandatory, paired with licenses...Want a kid? Pony up for a hundred-dollar steel-cage car seat you are mandated to have. The list goes on and on. I guess it's the price we pay for living in a quasi-civilized society.

  6. #26
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    5,132
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneV2.0 View Post
    Want a kid? Pony up for a hundred-dollar steel-cage car seat you are mandated to have. The list goes on and on. I guess it's the price we pay for living in a quasi-civilized society.
    Not quite the same, in my example it would be requiring people without children to purchase the car seats.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    3,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    Not quite the same, in my example it would be requiring people without children to purchase the car seats.
    Which we do with things like school taxes already.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,750
    Quote Originally Posted by ToomuchStuff View Post
    Really it comes down to an argument about do you want the government to tell you what you can believe or not (government verses religion). They have done so in the past with religion and polygamy, they are doing so now with Catholic's and birth control. (or the ones who believe the pope is the supreme leader)
    I don't see cases like that being so much a case of telling people what to believe as much as telling them what to do: kick in for abortion funding, bake the wedding cake, and so forth.

    I think we may drift a bit in the direction of thought policing when people like Dianne Feinstein question whether orthodox Catholics should serve on the Federal bench, but she's a fairly silly outlier. I think it's more about power than belief.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    6,422
    people that oppose birth control are willing viscous to women period (whether or not they mean to be, that is the REAL WORLD effect), so I don't have to have much tolerance for their f'ed up thoughts (which I am suppose to reason with apparently, when their only recourse is the catholic church told them so, and most Catholic women don't even listen to it. Time for women priests already and that would change maybe). I don't think it's possible to reason with a person about a situation they will never face if they really don't care to listen to those who are actually faced with that issue, which is the case with males who would oppose birth control. It's not about reason, it's about males having power over women which they do in some societies at some points.

    Which is different than standing or not standing for the anthem, which may very well be for reasons I don't approve of, but standing for the anthem itself does not mean something like: "I support xyz bad things", it could but it doesn't etc, that's why I think that one is complex, because it is NOT itself taking a clear position, it's too ambiguous. No wonder women want women in power, when some men would so willingly deny them something so basic as control over whether they have kids or not, they don't care a @#$# about them apparently. Lucky not all men are such jerks.
    Last edited by ApatheticNoMore; 9-29-17 at 11:08am.
    If you want something to get done, ask a busy person. If you want them to have a nervous breakdown that is.

  10. #30
    Senior Member JaneV2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,292
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    I don't see cases like that being so much a case of telling people what to believe as much as telling them what to do: kick in for abortion funding, bake the wedding cake, and so forth.

    I think we may drift a bit in the direction of thought policing when people like Dianne Feinstein question whether orthodox Catholics should serve on the Federal bench, but she's a fairly silly outlier. I think it's more about power than belief.
    Congress has prohibited public funding of abortions (Hyde act) for some time. Planned Parenthood provides birth control services on a sliding scale--where they are allowed to exist.

    I'm troubled by the number of Catholic ideologues on the bench, too--I'm with Ron Reagan on the separation of church and state. And I'm nominally Catholic...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •