>pointsoutoppostionislyingtocoverupfordeeperisssue s
>accusedofnotunderstandingthepsychologyoftheopposi tion
pick one
Printable View
It's both, you're just misattributing what the deeper position is.
These guys are still "the hero of their own movie", they're not consciously "punishing women who have sex". They're pushing a narrative about "personal responsibility" first and foremost, possibly with some post hoc rationalizations about subsidization of negative behaviors.
Is this caught up in Biblical moralism? Sure! But without understanding the psychology of your opponent, how can you probe the weak points? How can we put the issue on a continuum and then come to some compromise between sides?
Example: Let me tell you, you're not flipping anyone on abortion. I've sat in a 20 week ultrasound with my wife, and logic be damned you'll never move me off the emotion state that abortion at that state is murderous enough to be morally wrong. I'm certainly not a hard-liner @ conception, but I'd set the cutoff pretty early, 12 weeks or so.
There's a ton of evidence that abstinence only education doesn't work (duh), and free childcare is way too big an economic ask to be realistic.
I'd say that free birth control (preferably as depo-provera or iud) is the most preferable (actionable) risk reduction mechanism, and I can't find a good conservative argument against it. I'd use that specifically as a litmus test of reasonability in the debate space. Of course, even if free, this will be underutilized (it is already).
This article is old, and let me apologize up front for it being crazy long, but it documents the process whereby a very adamant pro life christian came to support comprehensive sex education and abortion. And while it's a layman's article, it's filled with references and statistics that helped shape her beliefs.
THIS is how you convince people to change their position on abortion:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejo...-movement.html
Quote:
What I want to share here is how I came to this realization. And if you, reader, are one of those who opposes abortion because you believe it is murder and you want to save the lives of unborn babies, well, I hope to persuade you that the pro-life movement is not actually your ally in this, that you have been misled, and that you would be more effective in decreasing the number of abortions that occur if you were to side with pro-choice progressives. If this is you, please hear me out before shaking your head.
To be clear, I'm not here to change anyone's mind. I'm here to bludgeon people with their own bullshit as much as possible.
consciously or not, doesn't mean the core reason is any different. again, most people will claim they arnt racist too, despite many (if not all) to some degree have done, or hold some position that is racist. we all like to think we arn't shitty humans, that doesn't make us not shitty humans.
self examination is a really fucking hard thing for people to do.
ie, wanting to punish women for having sex is a sentence that describes a system by which women who have sex freely, will eventually get pregnant and be economically and socially linked, and not independent. this fits really nicely with slut shamming (any woman who wants to go it alone faces social costs), and keeps women from becoming more politically and economically free. this gives men huge power over the woman, because she is economically, politically and socially paired to him. in a pro-lifers mind are they thinking "hahaha, lets punish this woman for having sex!" probably not .... but that doesn't mean the deeper motivation isn't punishing women for having sex. it still is.
also this explains why methods to avoid pregnancy that are ridiculously cheap and effective, and proven to reduce abortions significantly, arn't the obvious solution to them. because if you can have sex without pregnancy, then there very little ability to control the woman. so that can't possibly be the correct solution, because abortion was never the problem needing solving in the first place. its also the reason why they are perfectly fine with using government power to stop things they don't think are right, something that if used on them, is inhuman "dont tread on me" and all that stupidity.
my personal thoughts on abortion is that there is plenty of time to draw a line that all reasonable people can agree and gives choice and freedom to the humans closest to the pregnancy to decide what is morally right to do. but because the other side isn't honest, and want it banned full stop, no if ands or buts about it, why even bother? its not an honest conversation. if you get a group of pro-choice people together, i bet a pretty reasonable time/milestone could be agreed on by a 3 sigma distribution, and that would be that. but the other side isn't actually interested in that discussion, so why even bother?
we are one court case from losing the right to choose period, what are we arguing about this week or that week?
Dems need to abandon all this high road bullshit. Obama's wrong. They go low, we need to go lower. Pain seems to be the only language the GoP knows how to talk.
When the civil rights march happened, the vast majority of the country saw it as setting back the "cause of the negro". Now MLK has been whitewashed and Fox News uses him as the emblem of passive protest to keep people feeling guilty and quiet, all the while mantaining their position opposed to leaders like MLK that protests set back "race relations". Fuck that.
most importantly, what did playing by the rules get us? it got us fucked. thats what it got us. because we thought we were having an honest conversation with the right. we weren't. it was never an honest conversation.
they never intended to fight fairly. they never intended on letting the best ideas win. this isn't democracy, this is rule by boxing match, and the other guy is paying the ref.
Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!
This Thanksgiving, The Trump Administration Is Taking Land From The Tribe That Welcomed The Pilgrims
I can't wait for Josh to tell us how he knows better than professionals.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...friday/576589/
Surprise, using tragedy to abuse the environment.Quote:
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, in a conference call with reporters, said litigation by environmentalists has prevented the federal government from implementing common-sense projects that would thin out trees and reduce wildfire hazards. Their comments came as the death toll in the Camp Fire in Butte County has reached 79, with 699 people still unaccounted for as if Monday night. Zinke was insistent on blaming *the radical environmental groups who would rather burn down the entire forest than cut a single tree or thin the forests.* He and Perdue urged Congress to pass pending legislation that would give their agencies greater latitude to remove trees without doing exhaustive environmental reviews first.
Let's see what the California Forestry Association (lobbying group) has to say:
This hypocritical bullshit is too predictable.Quote:
*The vast majority of the mainstream environmental community is on board,* said Rich Gordon, president of the California Forestry Association, the industry*s main lobbying group in Sacramento. *We*ve been working hard together * and have good partnerships.*
....
Gordon faulted the federal government for not spending enough on forest management. McClatchy reported in August that the Trump administration has been proposing carving millions out of the federal budget for management.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/11/...try-practices/