2019-2020 US Election Megathread II: Tim Ryan's Empire

[Ifreann]

Criminalising murder causes harm, too. Sometimes causing harm is acceptable when defending people's rights.

I don't care if its harmless. It's a significant and largely irreversible cosmetic procedure, and thus should require the informed consent of the patient.

Indeed, all people should be prohibited from unnecessarily having circumcisions performed on their children, not just Jews.

I mean, I would have liked the option. I'm not even remotely Jewish.

Which is why you aren't a big Hollywood director.

---

Criminalising murder causes harm, too. Sometimes causing harm is acceptable when defending people's rights.

I don't care if its harmless. It's a significant and largely irreversible cosmetic procedure, and thus should require the informed consent of the patient.

Indeed, all people should be prohibited from unnecessarily having circumcisions performed on their children, not just Jews.

1: Criminalizing Murder is justified unlike banning this.

Throwing a few mohels in prison would be entirely justified.

2: Disagree, their religion mandates they do it to children that young.

I don't care.

It's harmless so fine.

I don't care if it's harmless. It's a significant and largely irreversible cosmetic procedure, and thus should require informed consent of the patient.

Sick of closeted Anti-Semitic Bullshit.
3: Maliciously interpreting my quote to justify discrimination/Anti-Semitic Views. Classy.

Excuse me? I literally just said that unnecessary infant circumcision should be banned for everyone. What's anti-Semitic about that?

[Ifreann]

Which is why you aren't a big Hollywood director.

---

Throwing a few mohels in prison would be

I don't care.

I don't care if it's harmless. It's a significant and largely irreversible cosmetic procedure, and thus should require informed consent of the patient.

Excuse me? I literally just said that unnecessary infant circumcision should be banned for everyone. What's anti-Semitic about that?

2: So discriminatory anti-semitic bullshit discriminating against Jews for a religious practice at that age non-optional no religious way around it.

I don't think you know what "discrimination" means.

Yeah the rest I could care less what you said since I already made my point clear.

You'll have a great future in politics if you carry on throwing out random accusation of anti-Semitism without any justification.

[Ifreann]

I don't think you know what "discrimination" means.


You'll have a great future in politics if you carry on throwing out random accusation of anti-Semitism without any justification.

Banning a mandatory religious practice is discriminatory and in this sense anti-semitic.

The Aztec religion requires human sacrifice in order to ensure that the sun continues to rise and set. This is a mandatory religious practice. Tell me that Aztecs should be allowed to murder people, if you really think it is wrong to ban mandatory religious practices.

I, however, do not believe that "It's my religion!" is a valid justification for violating the rights of another person. And I do believe that children and babies have rights.

[Cannot think of a name]

I don't think you know what "discrimination" means.


You'll have a great future in politics if you carry on throwing out random accusation of anti-Semitism without any justification.

Banning a mandatory religious practice is discriminatory and in this sense anti-semitic.

Bronze age traditions should be evaluated in the light of the modern world. The comparison to the burka is flawed because by choosing the religion the person is choosing the precepts with informed consent. The difference being issues where the religious choices are forced, where women are not given the choice to choose the religious practice or not. Similarly, an infant can't even give consent to take a shit. It's not anti-semetic, it's not an attack on Jewish people for being Jewish, it's questioning a specific practice that is performed on people who have no way to understand or articulate any kind of opinion on the matter in a way that effects them for the rest of their lives.

[Shrillland]

I don't think you know what "discrimination" means.


You'll have a great future in politics if you carry on throwing out random accusation of anti-Semitism without any justification.

Banning a mandatory religious practice is discriminatory and in this sense anti-semitic.

SCOTUS already ruled back in 1878 in Reynolds v. US that whilst the 1st Amendment protects the right to believe what one wishes, it does not bar the United States from outlawing any religious actions deemed detrimental or harmful to the person or society. Whilst other practices have been restored that could arguably be considered harmful such as the Sun Dance among the Plains Nations, a ban, if imposed, would not technically violate the 1st Amendment.

On top of that, it attacks the idea of bodily autonomy. Changing a person's body without their own consent isn't a good thing no matter what grounds are used. At least with the Sun Dance, the participants involved are consenting adults, not(in most cases) infants that can't make these decisions on their own.

[Galloism]

I don't think you know what "discrimination" means.


You'll have a great future in politics if you carry on throwing out random accusation of anti-Semitism without any justification.

Banning a mandatory religious practice is discriminatory and in this sense anti-semitic.

Female Genital Mutilation is a mandatory religious practice in some religions.

[Galloism]

The point is it's religiously non-optional for them not to do it.

Just like female genital mutilation.

It again harms nobody if performed properly

It quite literally harms every person who experiences it, whether they remember it or not.

[Shrillland]

Just like female genital mutilation.


It quite literally harms every person who experiences it, whether they remember it or not.

No long-term damage that stops one from living a healthy life on average.

Banning that is tantamount to banning Judaism, same as banning Hijabs, Burqas, Ramadan, etc. is to banning Islam.

Banning circumcision is technically tantamount to that anyway since the Quran requires it as well. In any event, we're not calling for banning it altogether, just limiting its use to those who can consent to it. Religions can and do change if circumstances end up requiring them, just look at the LDS Church.

[Zurkerx]

Hmm, Warren will win, but I do think O'Rourke, Booker, or Klobuchar have the potential to gain.

[Galloism]

Just like female genital mutilation.


It quite literally harms every person who experiences it, whether they remember it or not.

No long-term damage that stops one from living a healthy life on average.

Well, it creates long term pain intolerance compared to not having it done.

http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio2/

It raises your risk of erectile dysfunction by almost five times:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130831161 ... e19fb&pi=4

It also causes various psychological effects, which are not good.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... cal-damage

Banning that is tantamount to banning Judaism, same as banning Hijabs, Burqas, Ramadan, etc. is to banning Islam.

I’m not opposed to banning people from mutilating nonconsenting children’s genitals. If you need to mutilate children’s genitals for your religion, then you shouldn’t be allowed to raise children.

[Ifreann]

The point is it's religiously non-optional for them not to do it.

Their religion can be changed.

And the Aztec comparison is offensive, anti-semitic in it's ridiculous comparison(Like comparing black culture to Neanderthal culture, not overtly racist comparison but read in between the lines), and a ridiculous retort.

You're offended because you assume that I think that the Aztecs are "backwards" or "primitive". But that's a stupid way to talk about civilisations. The real world doesn't work like a video game. There isn't some simple scale of advancement, high to low. Tenochtitlan in its day was a better planned city than anything that existed in Europe.

It again harms nobody if performed properly and overseen properly

How many times do I have to tell you that I don't care if it's harmless when it is being done without consent? If you're not going to read my posts then just yell insults at your computer screen and don't bother posting.

so it's their human right(freedom of religion).

There is no right to force other people to participate in a religion.

It's like banning a non-optional non-harmful part of Islam and calling it not Islamophobic, or Hinduism, etc.

Every part of every religion is optional. You said it yourself, it's the human right of freedom of religion. People don't give that up by being raised Jewish.

[The Andromeda Archipelago]

Here's the debate card for the two debates:
The first debate on Wednesday, June 26, in Miami will include:

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke
New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker
Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro
Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio
Former Maryland Rep. John Delaney
Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan

The second debate on Thursday, June 27 will include:

Former Vice President Joe Biden
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg
California Sen. Kamala Harris
New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet
Author Marianne Williamson
California Rep. Eric Swalwell
Businessman Andrew Yang
Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper


That puts four of the top five candidates on one night with Warren by herself with a bunch of also rans on the first night. The whole thing was done by a drawing. The question now is does this give Warren a clean stage to shine on Wednesday before the rumble or does it make her debate the unofficial kids table that will be ignored for the more headline grabbing showdown the next day?

Would we be expecting too much if a few of these candidates drop out of the Presidential sweepstakes by, say, September?
You figure the Democrats should have a nominee, or at least two finalists by this time next year.

[Cannot think of a name]

Here's the debate card for the two debates:
The first debate on Wednesday, June 26, in Miami will include:

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke
New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker
Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro
Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio
Former Maryland Rep. John Delaney
Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan

The second debate on Thursday, June 27 will include:

Former Vice President Joe Biden
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg
California Sen. Kamala Harris
New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet
Author Marianne Williamson
California Rep. Eric Swalwell
Businessman Andrew Yang
Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper


That puts four of the top five candidates on one night with Warren by herself with a bunch of also rans on the first night. The whole thing was done by a drawing. The question now is does this give Warren a clean stage to shine on Wednesday before the rumble or does it make her debate the unofficial kids table that will be ignored for the more headline grabbing showdown the next day?

Would we be expecting too much if a few of these candidates drop out of the Presidential sweepstakes by, say, September?
You figure the Democrats should have a nominee, or at least two finalists by this time next year.

By this time next year the last primary will have been held and we'll have a 'presumptive nominee' heading to the convention which will begin on July 13, 2020.

EDIT: Actually, on this day specifically next year the last primary contest will be held in Washington D.C.

[The Andromeda Archipelago]

Would we be expecting too much if a few of these candidates drop out of the Presidential sweepstakes by, say, September?
You figure the Democrats should have a nominee, or at least two finalists by this time next year.

By this time next year the last primary will have been held and we'll have a 'presumptive nominee' heading to the convention which will begin on July 13, 2020.

EDIT: Actually, on this day specifically next year the last primary contest will be held in Washington D.C.

I suspect this crowded field will be down to a good baker's dozen by Iowa.

[Thuzbekistan]

Symptom of FPTP I think

This isn't even an election though.

No, I think the debates and the celebrity of candidates is due to the system of voting we have. When you only get two choices, the whole thing becomes a spectacle from choosing who will run to the election itself. Politics as entertainment. In a proportional voting system, that would be less of an issue.

[Cannot think of a name]

By this time next year the last primary will have been held and we'll have a 'presumptive nominee' heading to the convention which will begin on July 13, 2020.

EDIT: Actually, on this day specifically next year the last primary contest will be held in Washington D.C.

I suspect this crowded field will be down to a good baker's dozen by Iowa.

The requirements to qualify for the debates will tighten as they go on, which is the DNC's way to suggest that if you haven't gotten your shit together by then, maybe this isn't your year.

[Corrian]

The point is it's religiously non-optional for them not to do it.

Well then maybe religious practices should be evaluated worldwide and changed, since there's apparently so many shitty practices in religion.

[Zurkerx]

I suspect this crowded field will be down to a good baker's dozen by Iowa.

The requirements to qualify for the debates will tighten as they go on, which is the DNC's way to suggest that if you haven't gotten your shit together by then, maybe this isn't your year.

And not surprisingly, a lot of the low tier candidates (except Klobuchar) despise that, although I would have made it more difficult; at least narrow the field down to 8-10.

[Tarsonis]

The point is it's religiously non-optional for them not to do it.

Their religion can be changed.

No. It can’t. Circumcision is the mark of the Mosaic Covenant. It is mandated by God, and is necessary for admittance into the Tribe of Israel and covenant with God. If they don’t do it, effectively they can’t rightfully be considered Jewish. For them to change this would essentially be them overriding God, which is not how this train operates.

[Ifreann]

Their religion can be changed.

No. It can’t.

Aren't you a Christian? Your is entirely based on changing Judaism. Surely it's foulest blasphemy for you to say that Judaism can't be changed.

[Tarsonis]

No. It can’t.

Aren't you a Christian? Your is entirely based on changing Judaism. Surely it's foulest blasphemy for you to say that Judaism can't be changed.

Only from the point of view of abject ignorance you’re staking your claim on. Like how you cropped out everything i wrote that expressly states why you’re wrong, and then ask why?

[Ifreann]

Aren't you a Christian? Your is entirely based on changing Judaism. Surely it's foulest blasphemy for you to say that Judaism can't be changed.

Only from the point of view of abject ignorance you’re staking your claim on. Like how you cropped out everything i wrote that expressly states why you’re wrong, and then ask why?

I'm not especially familiar with the finer points of the tenets of Judaism. But that's irrelevant, because the idea that Judaism can't be changed because Judaism says it can't is just obviously silly. Jews can believe whatever they want. They can get together and establish a religion with any kind of tenets they want. No one is going to stop them if they establish a new tradition of getting circumcised as adults.

[Vassenor]

Only from the point of view of abject ignorance you’re staking your claim on. Like how you cropped out everything i wrote that expressly states why you’re wrong, and then ask why?

I'm not especially familiar with the finer points of the tenets of Judaism. But that's irrelevant, because the idea that Judaism can't be changed because Judaism says it can't is just obviously silly. Jews can believe whatever they want. They can get together and establish a religion with any kind of tenets they want. No one is going to stop them if they establish a new tradition of getting circumcised as adults.

Isn't debate and reinterpretation of the texts kind of a big part of Judaism?

[Tarsonis]

Only from the point of view of abject ignorance you’re staking your claim on. Like how you cropped out everything i wrote that expressly states why you’re wrong, and then ask why?

I'm not especially familiar with the finer points of the tenets of Judaism. But that's irrelevant, because the idea that Judaism can't be changed because Judaism says it can't is just obviously silly. Jews can believe whatever they want. They can get together and establish a religion with any kind of tenets they want. No one is going to stop them if they establish a new tradition of getting circumcised as adults.

Of course you approach religion from the usual pretentiousness of atheists assuming religions are mere fan troops with entirely made up doctrines, and not legitimate beliefs governed by a higher authority, never mind the pretentiousness of just assuming two religious populations, that make up around 15 Million Americans, can just change their doctrine on whim, because you don’t like something they do.

[Tarsonis]

I'm not especially familiar with the finer points of the tenets of Judaism. But that's irrelevant, because the idea that Judaism can't be changed because Judaism says it can't is just obviously silly. Jews can believe whatever they want. They can get together and establish a religion with any kind of tenets they want. No one is going to stop them if they establish a new tradition of getting circumcised as adults.

Isn't debate and reinterpretation of the texts kind of a big part of Judaism?

Yes and no. While the Rabbinic model does lend itself to certain avenues of change, there are limits. Circumcision is one of those things that would be off limits, they can’t change it. It’s such a foundational practice to the belief structure that to alter it in anyway would be unthinkable. Even Christians didn’t do away with the concept, we replaced it with Baptism, and that was only permissible because of God’s decree of a New Covenant.