|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 12, 2014 10:22 PM |
|
|
I agree, but at the state level they try to make actual abortions more difficult to obtain.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 12, 2014 10:24 PM |
|
|
I don't think states are obligated to provide abortion pills, but if they prevent the private sale of those or anything like that, then that's really despicable.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 12, 2014 10:48 PM |
|
Edited by Shyranis at 22:49, 12 Jul 2014.
|
xerox said:
I know Republicans support that Supreme Court ruling that employers wouldn't be forced to hand out like abortion pills to heir employees. Democrats complain that's restricting access to abortion, but I think it's fair that employers are not forced to give stuff away to their employees.
Believe it or not but abortion pills were not covered already under Obamacare. The 4 items Hobby Lobby was against were contraceptives. Things that prevent fertilization. Not things that kill/remove fertilized eggs.
The Hobby Lobby decision is scary for 3 reasons:
1. It makes corporations even more so into people that have more rights than normal people and can only be sued (usually for peanuts) but not arrested.
2. The whole case revolved around what the owners of Hobby Lobby believed to be true and not what is factual in reality.
3. The decision's ruling was based on the wording of the Religious Freedom Restoration act, not on the constitution itself.
Now companies are suing based on it to not be able to provide ANY contraception and to be able to deny coverage to gay people.
I'd dig up some links but I don't have much time right now. 
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 12, 2014 11:06 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 23:07, 12 Jul 2014.
|
1. It's not about the corporation having rights, it's about the employer having the right not to be forced by government to provide contraception to employees. Imo, employers should not be forced to provide ANYTHING for their employees.
2. Which is entirely justified. Their business, their rules.
3. Of course they shouldn't have to do things that go against their beliefs when it's their business.
btw, I think I support obamacare. I find it immoral to force people to buy a private insurance, but I see the reasoning behind it and it might be the least worst solution given the healthcare insurance situation in the US. Especially since the better alternatives, an entirely free market or basic universal healthcare, seem politically impossible to implement.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 12, 2014 11:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Imo, employers should not be forced to provide ANYTHING for their employees.
Quote:
2. Which is entirely justified. Their business, their rules.
Fair pay?
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 12, 2014 11:35 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 23:35, 12 Jul 2014.
|
nope
that's what unions are for, maybe you should stop banning them
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 13, 2014 12:37 AM |
|
|
What a load of commie tripe.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 13, 2014 03:15 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
It also happens to be true, Corribus. They're the ones who want to build a wall on the Mexican border, not give amnesty to illegal immigrants, not increase legal immigration, etc.
Even if that were true to the letter, it still wouldn't mean they're against people immigrating into the country. Calling them "anti-immigrant" is as disingenuous as people who take the name "pro-life" or "pro-choice" in the abortion issue. Just because you support abortion does not make you "anti-life".
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2014 03:30 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Calling them "anti-immigrant" is as disingenuous as people who take the name "pro-life" or "pro-choice" in the abortion issue. Just because you support abortion does not make you "anti-life".
Yes, it's as disingenuous a label as "pro-life" or "pro-choice" - which is to say, not disingenuous at all. If you think that the only position that can be called "anti-immigrant" is one that's totally opposed to all immigration, then Republicans aren't anti-immigrant, but that doesn't seem like a reasonable definition - if they said "We'll allow exactly 1 person to come to the US per year", would you say that's an anti-immigrant position? More reasonably, they're called "anti-immigrant" because they favor immigration restrictions.
As for "pro-life" vs "pro-choice", you're right to say that supporting abortion doesn't mean that you're anti-life, but it does mean that you advocate for policies that favor freedom of choice more than they favor preservation of life (at least in this area). It's not disingenuous to label yourself as "pro-choice" in this case, because you're not saying that people who disagree with you are anti-choice, you're saying that for you, choice>life when it comes to abortion.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 13, 2014 03:55 AM |
|
|
Absolutely wrong, and laughably so. People deliberately chose the label "pro-life" for the very same reason people deliberately choose now to call Republicans anti-immigrant: because winning an argument, particularly in the political sphere, is all about how you frame your position and your opponent's position to win over popular opinion.
This type of cognitive bias is such a basic part of psychology that I'm not sure what else there is to say here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_effect_(psychology)
The only conclusion I can come to is that you're as guilty of it as most of the rest of the rank and file. I would have thought this kind of intellectual dishonesty was beneath you. Which makes be wonder what your agenda is.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2014 05:45 AM |
|
|
It may have initially been done for framing reasons, but these days no one thinks of "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as having their literal meanings and of their opponents holding a position of the opposite meaning. "Pro-life" is semantically read as one concept, meaning "opposed to the legality of abortion" and hardly anyone on either side of the issue interprets it as literally pro-life. Something similar applies to "pro-choice" - no one thinks of it as being in favor of choice in general, it just means "supports the legality of abortion".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 13, 2014 06:23 AM |
|
|
He doesn't mean people don't know what they refer to and take the words literally. There is a difference between calling a prison "a correcting facility" or "an inescapable hell hole." In both cases people are very well aware, you refer to the prison but what the presentation rings to the ear is very different.
I don't know about the specifics of Republican politics about immigrants in the US but what he means is, supporting some regulations about immigrant traffic is not deservedly named anti-immigrantism and it's a political maneuver to make it sound bad.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2014 12:44 PM |
|
|
How is restricting immigration not anti-immigration???
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2014 12:55 PM |
|
|
|
"restricting" in this sense, means keeping a better eye on things; slowing the process so that the influx of immigrants is not helter-skelter, and making the process more difficult, to try to cut down on the amount of people coming into the states. "anti" is completely against the idea of ANY immigrants coming over the border. that should be apparent, i would think...
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 13, 2014 01:02 PM |
|
|
As I said, I don't know about the specifics but you can simply call it regulating instead of restricting, which doesn't necessarily have to be euphemism. You can believe that allowing immigrants in, at a slower pace would be with less issues for both them and the locals. ...or you can be against a certain type of illegal immigrant flow associated with crime zones and have no problem with the regular immigrants. If I think a little more, I can come up with many more cases in which you are not anti-immigrant but support restriction under certain circumstances.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2014 01:10 PM |
|
|
but there's a diffrence, albeit imo a small one, between being anti-immigration and anti-immigrants
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 13, 2014 01:14 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 13:15, 13 Jul 2014.
|
|
I think that's just word-play. Even if you come up with a technical nuance, it will be of no relevance to his argument since he talks about the negative impact and the association of the word, which will by-pass any nuance among common people.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2014 01:17 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 13:18, 13 Jul 2014.
|
Of course it frames a negative association, but if you want to prevent people from crossing the border to "your" country, then I can't see how that's not anti-immigrant. Of course, a lot of moderate anti-immigrant people aren't going to call themselves that, but that's objectively what they are.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2014 01:24 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
Of course, a lot of moderate anti-immigrant people aren't going to call themselves that, but that's objectively what they are.
reminds me of the reverse: how the "Patriot Act" is labeled as such, while being anything BUT something to be labeled as patriotism in the U.S. ...
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 13, 2014 01:31 PM |
|
|
So the post about the possible situations in which you are not anti-immigrant but can still have your reasons to control immigration, flew right over your head and hit the wall...
I imagine (educated guess), not all Republicans but most Tea Party members are anti-immigrant, extremely conservative people are usually nationalists, especially in a country like US where they haven't historically suffered from nationalism and they think it's something sweet, dandy and just about innocently loving your country.
However... In almost every developed and even developing country, there is an amount of immigration, yet nobody supports a situation where part of the border is totally without control and there's massive amount population flow without any restriction. Why should the Mexican border be any different?
|
|
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
