Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Phank on "truly terrible political policy"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Phank on "truly terrible political policy"

    Rather than derail the Wendy Davis thread, I would like to know why Phank believes that Texas Senate Bill 5 is "truly terrible political policy".

    Originally posted by phank View Post
    As far as I can tell, Davis became newsworthy for mounting a well-covered effort to filibuster away a truly terrible political policy. But perhaps most people here simply cannot grasp any difference between hating the policy, and hating the person promoting it.


    My sincere apologies to Whag --- MY error!
    Last edited by Cow Poke; 01-27-2014, 08:01 PM.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  • #2
    As your quote shows that was phank who said it and not whag

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      As your quote shows that was phank who said it and not whag
      I am TERRIBLY sorry -- my fault... do you have mod powers to fix it?
      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

      Comment


      • #4
        Nope. Still seriously pondering if I even want to become a mod again.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          Rather than derail the Wendy Davis thread, I would like to know why Phank believes that Texas Senate Bill 5 is "truly terrible political policy".
          Well, see, I'm a firm believer in individual rights and liberties. Freedom. Stuff like that. So if I see what I regard as individual rights being whittled away, I consider that bad policy.

          I see this happening in two places: abortion and gun ownership. Since both have been declared individual rights, and since there are strong lobbies against these rights, we see what I regard as disturbing trends toward ideological limitations. What kind of "liberty" is it, if you are free to buy a gun, except you just can't carry it or have it when you need it? What good is the right to an abortion if nobody can legally provide one? If we do not fight to protect our rights against those who would take them away from us because they don't think our rights are good for us, we will lose them. And that's what Texas was trying to do (and I guess they succeeded).

          And as I read it, the goal of such infringements isn't to improve society incrementally, but rather to eliminate our rights altogether. The incremental approach is bad policy because it pretends to be an upgrade, a modest improvement, but that's not what it is at all. The gun-grabbers want to eliminate ALL guns and make ownership illegal and do door-to-door confiscation. The anti-abortion fanatics want to eliminate ALL abortions. So the pious claim that "we're only trying to make things safer" is a crock. They're trying to strip our rights away, one step at a time.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by phank View Post
            Well, see, I'm a firm believer in individual rights and liberties. Freedom. Stuff like that. So if I see what I regard as individual rights being whittled away, I consider that bad policy.

            I see this happening in two places: abortion and gun ownership. Since both have been declared individual rights, and since there are strong lobbies against these rights, we see what I regard as disturbing trends toward ideological limitations. What kind of "liberty" is it, if you are free to buy a gun, except you just can't carry it or have it when you need it? What good is the right to an abortion if nobody can legally provide one? If we do not fight to protect our rights against those who would take them away from us because they don't think our rights are good for us, we will lose them. And that's what Texas was trying to do (and I guess they succeeded).

            And as I read it, the goal of such infringements isn't to improve society incrementally, but rather to eliminate our rights altogether. The incremental approach is bad policy because it pretends to be an upgrade, a modest improvement, but that's not what it is at all. The gun-grabbers want to eliminate ALL guns and make ownership illegal and do door-to-door confiscation. The anti-abortion fanatics want to eliminate ALL abortions. So the pious claim that "we're only trying to make things safer" is a crock. They're trying to strip our rights away, one step at a time.
            OK, thanks.

            Now, how do you reconcile (if you do) the fact that ONE of those "rights" (abortion) necessarily ends in the death of a human being, and the other does not.

            And I might add that the "abortion rights" group is fighting just as hard to make all abortions LEGAL as the "right to life" groups are to make them illegal. There are, of course, some more moderate positions on both sides. Some right to life folks who do not contest abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger, or perhaps where rape or incest occurred, and some abortion rights people who don't try to push for late term abortions.
            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              OK, thanks.

              Now, how do you reconcile (if you do) the fact that ONE of those "rights" (abortion) necessarily ends in the death of a human being, and the other does not.
              I don't recognize a fetus as a person. I know some folks do. I'm not going to argue that they're wrong. I'm going to argue that this is a sincere difference of opinion, and if freedom means anything, it means tolerating sincere differences of opinion. Freedom MEANS choices.

              And I might add that the "abortion rights" group is fighting just as hard to make all abortions LEGAL as the "right to life" groups are to make them illegal. There are, of course, some more moderate positions on both sides. Some right to life folks who do not contest abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger, or perhaps where rape or incest occurred, and some abortion rights people who don't try to push for late term abortions.
              Yes, I know. The freedom to make choices necessarily means the freedom to make STUPID choices. So long as you don't interpret legal abortions to mean mandatory abortions (or legal gun ownership to mean mandatory gun ownership), we're fine.

              (Though I'd be very nervous if my neighbor were able to go out and buy himself a canister of poison gas. He has a way of drinking too much from time to time...)

              Comment


              • #8
                I don't recognize phank as a person. I know some folks do. I'm not going to argue that they're wrong. I'm going to argue that this is a sincere difference of opinion, and if freedom means anything, it means tolerating sincere differences of opinion. Freedom MEANS choices.
                "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by phank View Post
                  I don't recognize a fetus as a person.
                  Understood. So we're on opposite ends of the spectrum, and I doubt very seriously that either of us will budge. That doesn't mean I see you as an enemy, though.

                  I know some folks do. I'm not going to argue that they're wrong. I'm going to argue that this is a sincere difference of opinion, and if freedom means anything, it means tolerating sincere differences of opinion. Freedom MEANS choices.
                  Yes, and I believe that the "fetus" is a human being who ALSO should be FREE to make CHOICES. To grow up, choose a favorite color, flavor of ice cream, favorite sport or dance, etc.....

                  Yes, I know. The freedom to make choices necessarily means the freedom to make STUPID choices.
                  So, yeah, the child should be allowed to grow up to be a democrat!

                  So long as you don't interpret legal abortions to mean mandatory abortions (or legal gun ownership to mean mandatory gun ownership), we're fine.
                  Yeah, neither of us is arguing anything like that.

                  (Though I'd be very nervous if my neighbor were able to go out and buy himself a canister of poison gas. He has a way of drinking too much from time to time...)
                  So, as a fellow gun rights advocate, would you argue for an individual's right to own a howitzer?
                  "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    "So Bubba-Jo Johnson Jr. the Fifth, you're saying that it should be legal to kill black people?"

                    "Well, I don't recognize black people as 'persons.' I know some folks do. I'm not going to argue that they're wrong. I'm going to argue that this is a sincere difference of opinion, and if freedom means anything, it means tolerating sincere differences of opinion. Freedom MEANS choices."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      So, as a fellow gun rights advocate, would you argue for an individual's right to own a howitzer?
                      Yes, I would. Mind you, other than as an addition to a collection, I don't know what he'd DO with a howitzer. The way I see it, there are four things people do with guns and other weapons: collect them, hunt with them, compete with them (or just plink), and use them for self-defense. I don't see a howitzer fitting into anything here but collecting, but he should be able to collect military weapons if he wishes. Some of them (like the poison gas, or live nukes, or such) strike me as requiring very careful handling, and I might like to see some sort of qualification to collect those. How about you?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by CMD View Post
                        "So Bubba-Jo Johnson Jr. the Fifth, you're saying that it should be legal to kill black people?"

                        "Well, I don't recognize black people as 'persons.' I know some folks do. I'm not going to argue that they're wrong. I'm going to argue that this is a sincere difference of opinion, and if freedom means anything, it means tolerating sincere differences of opinion. Freedom MEANS choices."
                        Why try to distort the point I made? Do you think it's an effective rebuttal of one point, to mock some different point? We as a society decide what constitutes a legal person. If we decide a corporation qualifies, then a corporation is a legal person. If we decide a fetus doesn't qualify, then a fetus is not a legal person. These aren't entirely arbitrary distinctions, they are often made because alternatives have serious practical disadvantages. As many have pointed out, outlawing guns certainly doesn't make guns go away, it only makes LEGAL guns go away. The side-effects of anti-abortion laws are twofold - loss of individual liberty, and a boost for organized crime. It's just like outlawing drugs - we simply shift the distribution channels into unsafe places we can't control.

                        In any case, when I spoke of sincere differences of opinion, I clearly was not referring to idiots. Cow Poke is not an idiot, and doesn't pretend to be one on the internet.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by phank View Post
                          We as a society decide what constitutes a legal person.
                          Actually, your society does. Inconsistently, admittedly, but it does all the same.

                          Originally posted by Unborn Victims of Violence Act
                          (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.
                          ...
                          [exception for abortion]
                          ...
                          (d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
                          Originally posted by phank
                          The side-effects of anti-abortion laws are twofold - loss of individual liberty, and a boost for organized crime. It's just like outlawing drugs - we simply shift the distribution channels into unsafe places we can't control.
                          Just about all laws reduce liberty so that first objection doesn't really do anything. IMO, a boost for organised crime may be more than outbalanced due to the net drop in abortion.

                          Another example: "The side-effects of anti-child-pornography laws are twofold - loss of individual liberty, and a boost for organized crime. It's just like outlawing drugs - we simply shift the distribution channels into unsafe places we can't control."
                          Last edited by Paprika; 01-28-2014, 01:37 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by phank View Post
                            Yes, I would. Mind you, other than as an addition to a collection, I don't know what he'd DO with a howitzer. The way I see it, there are four things people do with guns and other weapons: collect them, hunt with them, compete with them (or just plink), and use them for self-defense. I don't see a howitzer fitting into anything here but collecting, but he should be able to collect military weapons if he wishes. Some of them (like the poison gas, or live nukes, or such) strike me as requiring very careful handling, and I might like to see some sort of qualification to collect those. How about you?
                            OK, bad example... (on my part) a little too extreme... but I'm guessing you'd say the same thing about RPGs? With an ample supply of Gs?

                            Second question... In your world, at what point does a fetus become a human?
                            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                              I don't recognize phank as a person. I know some folks do. I'm not going to argue that they're wrong. I'm going to argue that this is a sincere difference of opinion, and if freedom means anything, it means tolerating sincere differences of opinion. Freedom MEANS choices.
                              I am with you on that one, bro. Phank is obviously a bot. We should send drones over to his location to um, shut him down.

                              (also, CP, notice how Phank changed "human being" to "person" in his reply? "person" can be a legal definition and can be bestowed on non-human beings. A corporation is a "person" under the law, for instance. But a "human being" is a scientific designation. Phank can't deny that a fetus is a human being.)

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Ronson, Yesterday, 10:59 PM
                              11 responses
                              48 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by seer, Yesterday, 02:50 PM
                              14 responses
                              73 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 02:18 PM
                              3 responses
                              42 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Whateverman, 10-21-2020, 07:17 PM
                              59 responses
                              276 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                              Started by Whateverman, 10-21-2020, 04:39 PM
                              3 responses
                              42 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Whateverman  
                              Working...
                              X