Kansas Crimson

Ah, you hate money.

TDub wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 5:24 pm I certainly dont run around trying to be wrong.

But then again, when most sentences start with "have we talked about x" its pretty low risk. But, somehow, you pull it off.

dub needs a codpiece wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 5:51 pm Ah, you hate money.

I wouldn’t say I hate it.

But I start suggesting things like maybe money should be more equitably distributed across the economy and society, and of course the bored capitalists come outta the woodwork to shit all over fry cooks.

I mean I don't eat fried food, so what have the fry cooks done for me lately?

^^^^

It’s their own fault they’re poor.

And if they’re so poor they can’t make rent, it’s their fault the slum lord is poor too.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 3:59 pm bro there’s a pill for that now.

But for real, curious about your post.

I’d like to understand if I did make some false equivalence. Your points seem to venture a lot further than anything I thought I said.

I don't think a church's stance on abortion should be used to make laws either, but do you think the church thinks that?

It seems they view abortion less as some nuanced and complex public policy issue, and more as some black and white moral mandate. That view seems to influence the public policy, at the very least.

But maybe I’m wrong. And it feels weird to say, but I’m not afraid to be wrong? Im honestly not trying to be “right,” either, so much as just trying to gain insight from dialogue either way.

To the bolded part, they don't do it with other things.


To the italics, a black and white moral code makes sense. Laws have to consider more things.

dub needs a codpiece wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 5:51 pm Ah, you hate money.

Its not that he "shared it" its that he admantly demanded his "theories" were the only truths and he was the only sane person. Im not talking about progressive things...but things like....pro life people only exist because of a massive propaganda machine put forth by the ultra rich to ensure a cheap labor pool which would otherwise be subverted by access to abortion. All landlords are all inherently evil and if they can afford a second house to put up for rent then they should be giving that house to someone else instead of renting it.....that CEOs and Owners have less responsibility and less stress than the guy working the cashier....

I mean, thats just scratching the surface of his treasure trove of oddities. I'm missing some of the crazier ends of the spectrum....hes the alex jones of the left.

I’d like to address all the points you mentioned, but to keep in the context of this thread for now - at the very least, the “pro life” religious right and the don’t-care-about-anything-but-my-own-money conservatives are sorta strange bedfellows.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 6:08 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 3:59 pm bro there’s a pill for that now.

But for real, curious about your post.

I’d like to understand if I did make some false equivalence. Your points seem to venture a lot further than anything I thought I said.

I don't think a church's stance on abortion should be used to make laws either, but do you think the church thinks that?

It seems they view abortion less as some nuanced and complex public policy issue, and more as some black and white moral mandate. That view seems to influence the public policy, at the very least.

But maybe I’m wrong. And it feels weird to say, but I’m not afraid to be wrong? Im honestly not trying to be “right,” either, so much as just trying to gain insight from dialogue either way.

To the bolded part, they don't do it with other things.


To the italics, a black and white moral code makes sense. Laws have to consider more things.

Yeah, laws do have to consider more things.

But whether the laws are considering more things, and whether - or rather, to what degree - the church’s black and white moral mandate is shaping the laws, is much of the crux of the Texas law everyone’s worked up about, and of this entire thread.

Actually I started this thread to expand on a “pro-life” worldview that went beyond the issue of abortion. Cuz, regarding that: lulz

Have churches ever gotten their flocks so worked up about other political issues quite like they do about abortion?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 6:44 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 6:08 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 3:59 pm bro there’s a pill for that now.

But for real, curious about your post.

I’d like to understand if I did make some false equivalence. Your points seem to venture a lot further than anything I thought I said.

I don't think a church's stance on abortion should be used to make laws either, but do you think the church thinks that?

It seems they view abortion less as some nuanced and complex public policy issue, and more as some black and white moral mandate. That view seems to influence the public policy, at the very least.

But maybe I’m wrong. And it feels weird to say, but I’m not afraid to be wrong? Im honestly not trying to be “right,” either, so much as just trying to gain insight from dialogue either way.

To the bolded part, they don't do it with other things.


To the italics, a black and white moral code makes sense. Laws have to consider more things.

Yeah, laws do have to consider more things.

But whether the laws are considering more things, and whether - or rather, to what degree - the church’s black and white moral mandate is shaping the laws, is much of the crux of the Texas law everyone’s worked up about, and of this entire thread.

Actually I started this thread to expand on a “pro-life” worldview that went beyond the issue of abortion. Cuz, regarding that: lulz

I think you have Catholicism confused with American Christianity.

American Christianity isn’t exactly monolithic.

I mean shit, some Christians don’t even hate the homos!

I think if you wanna blame a sect. It's the protestant megachurches.

I don't think the pope pays attention to local Texas politics.

And I don't think the rednecks in Texas with dually trucks and tandem Trump and USA flags follow the pope

sdoyel wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:17 pm

Good for them.

Jeebus, I fucking hate Texas

Employees of companies who are contemplating moving to Texas need to act, and challenge their employers to speak up against the law.

Any change has to come from the youth vote. As I said before, hope this is the beginning of the end of the Republicans in Texas much the same way Prop 187 was in California

sdoyel wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:17 pm

Eh, this is a PR play. Uber and Lyft made the calculation that it’s too attenuated to let ride share folks take the fall, so they built this fake system to signal support and get good press. Doesn’t mean much.

I just read this. Not bad. Except one major factor that is being ignored.
Putting your child up for adoption is an option. Of course I wouldn't suggest that for many/most of these scenarios but I sure as heck MIGHT suggest it to Brittany.

I'm not pro-murdering babies.
I'm pro-Becky who found out at her 20 week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs.
I'm pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.
I'm pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child.
I'm pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11 year old body isn't mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal.
I'm pro-Melissa who's working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her.
I'm pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or physically able to raise a child.
I'm pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction in order to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE amount of fetuses.
I'm pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster's child.
I'm pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat.
I'm pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.
I'm pro-Courtney who just found out she's already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding.
You can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:
I'm pro-life.
Their lives.
Women's lives.
You don't get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted.
It's not about which stories you don't agree with. It's about fighting for the women in the stories that you do agree with and the CHOICE that was made.
Women's rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!

not bad.

except one other major factor is being ignored:

there's a lot of Courtneys and Linsdays and Emilys in there.

if we're gonna protect ALL women, mention some Marias and Alejandras and Aaliyahs and Lafawnduhs and such too