They voted for a guy who cheated on all of his wives unrepentantly. They need to be quiet about "oh no the gays" when they voted for the degeneracy candidate, half of whose friends are child molesters.
Advertisement
by Borderlands of Rojava » Tue Jan 19, 2021 7:57 am
by Fahran » Tue Jan 19, 2021 12:23 pm
Borderlands of Rojava wrote:I mean they basically do. It's like saying "are you suggesting people who don't believe in life vests support letting people drown?"
by Fahran » Tue Jan 19, 2021 12:25 pm
Agarntrop wrote:In the case of American pro lifers I think it's less 'Iet's cause human suffering' and more 'let's punish people for having unprotected sex with making them have children because that's what the Bible says!!!'
There's a methodical logic to it.
by Kowani » Tue Jan 19, 2021 12:50 pm
Fahran wrote:Agarntrop wrote:In the case of American pro lifers I think it's less 'Iet's cause human suffering' and more 'let's punish people for having unprotected sex with making them have children because that's what the Bible says!!!'
There's a methodical logic to it.
I think this is less than charitable given the self-described position of pro-lifers. It's also not as though they have to be secretive about misogyny in the same way that racists have to be secretive about racism. People on both sides of the political aisle often make outright sexist remarks on a routine basis - whether they're describing Sarah Palin as a bimbo or calling Nancy Pelosi a bitch.
by Esheaun Stroakuss » Wed Jan 20, 2021 12:57 am
They’re not pro-life. You know what they are? They’re anti-woman. Simple as it gets, anti-woman. They don’t like them. They don’t like women. They believe a woman’s primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state.
by Fahran » Wed Jan 20, 2021 1:55 am
Esheaun Stroakuss wrote:I'll let George handle this one:They’re not pro-life. You know what they are? They’re anti-woman. Simple as it gets, anti-woman. They don’t like them. They don’t like women. They believe a woman’s primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state.
by Fahran » Wed Jan 20, 2021 1:58 am
Kowani wrote:I mean
It’s probably not the way they think of it
But it is, essentially, the inevitable result of the policy they espouse
Which is, I think, far more important
by Kowani » Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:15 am
Fahran wrote:Kowani wrote:I mean
It’s probably not the way they think of it
But it is, essentially, the inevitable result of the policy they espouse
Which is, I think, far more important
And, as I said, the inevitable result of the alternative, in their eyes, is murder. Most people on either side don't really envision their own view that uncharitably though. The real issue is that there's a fundamental disagreement about the nature of personhood and basic rights. You don't have to hate someone to disagree about where those lines are drawn. It's much easier to believe someone is wrong than to believe that someone is simply hateful for no sane reason, and we should offer the benefit of the doubt until we no longer can.
And I'll reiterate that I'm not a diehard on this issue. I just dislike a lot of the venom I see being hurled at pro-life people and the lack of fair characterizations of the arguments they routinely make. It's gotten to the point that a lot of people won't even bring the subject up anymore because of the immediate accusations that they hate women. It hasn't changed anyone's mind. Oddly enough, a lot of those people are women and otherwise pretty pro-women's rights. My opinion is that it's just stifled conversation and is, as I said, not really a moral or logical way to carry on a debate. You can't talk to someone who is going to assume you're an awful person regardless of what you say.
by Fahran » Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:21 am
Kowani wrote:hm
from my perspective, what they believe it to be is less important than the policy they espouse to actually prevent that thing
Kowani wrote:in much the same way that a person who is heavily pro-police may support them because of their perceived effect on crime, but reject any other possible solution to the issue of crime, so do most people who consider themselves "pro-life" reject almost any other policy that would reduce the number of abortions
that is, in hamlet's words, the rub
you don't get to claim to be pro-life if you reject every attempt to prevent abortion from happening in the first place except for criminalizing it
you're just anti-abortion
by Kowani » Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:29 am
Fahran wrote:Kowani wrote:hm
from my perspective, what they believe it to be is less important than the policy they espouse to actually prevent that thing
That's a fair distinction and one I tried to address last minute. The issue with the term misogyny, which is the one that I believe was employed, is that it doesn't neatly align with the term systemic racism in how it's used - either in academic or in political circles. It almost always entails hostile, socially constraining, or dismissive attitudes about women. In the case of pro-life activists, one could describe them as reinforcing patriarchy by defining personhood and rights as they do since it disproportionately disadvantages women as a class. But the philosophical arguments they use to get there, on the whole, don't strike me as misogynistic.Kowani wrote:in much the same way that a person who is heavily pro-police may support them because of their perceived effect on crime, but reject any other possible solution to the issue of crime, so do most people who consider themselves "pro-life" reject almost any other policy that would reduce the number of abortions
that is, in hamlet's words, the rub
you don't get to claim to be pro-life if you reject every attempt to prevent abortion from happening in the first place except for criminalizing it
you're just anti-abortion
Pro-life, much like pro-choice, is a neat little slogan/label. It doesn't really work if you move beyond the immediate context of abortion in a lot of cases. There are plenty of choices pro-choice folks won't accept for instance. As for the police example, see above. Systemic racism isn't really tantamount to misogyny - which is the word that got me worked up in the first place. Patriarchy might work best. Sexism could potentially work if we defined it more narrowly. The problem with a lot of these words is that meaning isn't consistent across audiences. Without spelling out specific meaning, you might well be accused of an ad hominem. Even more so because some people on one side are clearly using them as an ad hominem.
by Suomalainem » Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:30 am
by The Blaatschapen » Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:00 am
by Des-Bal » Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:33 am
Istoreya wrote:"Are you suggesting that people who don't support providing people with access to food think it's okay to let people starve?" Yes that's exactly what I'm suggesting.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Stellar Colonies » Wed Jan 20, 2021 10:40 am
Floofybit wrote:Your desired society should be one where you are submissive and controlled
Primitive Communism wrote:What bodily autonomy do men need?
Techocracy101010 wrote:If she goes on a rampage those saggy wonders are as deadly as nunchucks
Parmistan wrote:It's not ALWAYS acceptable when we do it, but it's MORE acceptable when we do it.
Theodorable wrote:Jihad will win.
Distruzio wrote:All marriage outside the Church is gay marriage.
I try to be objective, but I do have some biases.
North Californian.
Stellar Colonies is a loose galactic confederacy.
The Confederacy & the WA.
Add 1200 years.
by Wink Wonk We Like Stonks » Wed Jan 20, 2021 10:45 am
according to legend, i once wrote:agender mars-colony automated decadent libertarian anti-statist degrowth
by Fahran » Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:02 am
by Fahran » Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:05 am
The Blaatschapen wrote:Going for abortion because the foetus doesn't have the (assigned) gender you want.
by Suriyanakhon » Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:07 am
by Fahran » Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:08 am
Kowani wrote:anyway!
yeah, I'd agree that patriarchy is probably the best term to describe the position that comes from holding pro-life positions on a societal level (though that word has its own unfortunate cultural connotations that a lot of them would also probably disagree with)
by Northern Socialist Council Republics » Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:09 am
Fahran wrote:If that's argued, I don't see why the gender (or probable gender) of the fetus should matter. No one's rights are being violated.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Anarcopia, Benuty, Dogmeat, El Lazaro, Fartsniffage, Hidrandia, Nothreen, Shearoa, The Jamesian Republic, Tungstan
Advertisement