Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   The GOP is trying to roll back protections for abused women. Why? No reason. Apparently they just like pissing you off   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 353
    More: Stupid, GOP, rollbacks, tributes, no reason  
•       •       •

4242 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 May 2012 at 1:32 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



353 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-06 06:00:36 AM  

Captain Dan: I don't know enough to have an informed opinion


QFT.
 
2012-05-06 08:28:53 AM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Do you know about the ignore-ignore feature in your profile settings?


No.....

o_O
 
2012-05-06 09:08:11 AM  

Captain Dan: 99% of conservatives support legal birth control. There does not exist even one shred of evidence that there is an anti-contraceptive element within conservatism.


Other than that the entire conservative judicial philosophy sees it as a made up right like abortion, and that Mitt Romney felt he gained politically by passively denying the right to contraception, while Rick Santorum felt he gained politically by actively denying the right to contraception. You are entirely disingenuous on this point.

Scott Walker did not legalize wage discrimination. He shifted jurisdiction for such cases to the federal courts. You don't even dispute this.


Scott Walker legalized wage discrimination under Wisconsin law, making it harder for Wisconsin victims of wage discrimination to obtain relief. You've admitted both of these points.

It's very common for Supreme Court observers to break the court into its liberal and conservative wings. And the "some dissenter" I cited was the entire liberal contingent of the Supreme Court.

No, you are completely wrong, and making this up. The majority's interpretation effectively capped damages at six months worth of pay discrimination. But that interpretation directly contradicted the statute's own textual limitation capping damages at two years of pay discrimination. The majority's interpretation was anti-textual, and the dissent's decision was textual. The majority's interpretation was novel, ideology driven, and the most pro-corporate, anti-woman interpretation it could select.

You once again fail to understand even your own arguments! Let me help. Every single liberal Supreme Court justice, by their own pronouncement, argued that Roberts was too beholden to the text of the Constitution. Conservatives agree, but consider that a good thing.

Not a single educated person has argued that John Roberts' ruling was extratextual. If you could find even a 1st year law school student that agreed with you, I'd be bowled over.


You are not an educated person. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
 
2012-05-06 09:14:47 AM  

SkinnyHead: hubiestubert: SkinnyHead: Weaver95: SkinnyHead: I'd say Senate democrats are the ones playing political games. They're the ones who inserted this new illegal alien provision into the VAWA in order to make the VAWA a political football.

let me ask you this question - what mistakes, if any, have the Republicans made over the past year? has the GOP ever, in your opinion, done ANYTHING wrong?

Is that your answer to the charge that this whole controversy has been manufactured by Senate democrats who added illegal alien provisions to the VAWA in order to draw fire.

Actually, I think that we are all interested if you just answered the question. Straight up. Consider it an opportunity to show the folks how free thinking and well considered you are.

But that would be off topic. I'm not the subject of this thread. The topic is how Senate democrats are playing politics with the VAWA by deliberately adding provisions they know will draw fire, instead of crafting a bill that everyone can support.


Typical idiocy I'd come to expect from you.

Because illegal aliens aren't people, and making it against the law to beat illegal immigrant women was a purely political move just to get in the craw of all them hard-working job-creating GOP wife-beating illegal-alien hating rednecks.

/You don't have to be a racist asshole to think offering legal protection for beaten women is wrong
//But you probably are.
 
2012-05-06 11:04:23 AM  

Captain Dan: Dan the Schman: Every single one negatively effects women exclusively, or significantly more than men. That's not by coincidence, it's by design.

Disparate impact is not the same thing as discrimination. If you believe that the compelling factor behind this legislation is misogyny, rather than anti-abortion sentiment, then you are faced with the daunting task of explaining its overwhelming support amongst conservative women.

Secondly, to this point in particular, you are so incredibly wrong that you lose all credibility. Either you're lying with this blatantly false explanation...

Look, if I were going to to lie, I'd do so in a way that would ingratiate me to the Fark readership. There's little upside in offering the minority report. I'm not lying, not trolling, and not trying to get a rise.

Georgetown isn't a church, it's a university which receives millions of dollars from the government, which means it doesn't have the same freedoms as churches.

The enduring constitutional consensus has held that the wall of separation between church & state is not actually limited to a physical church. Georgetown is a religious institution.

The fact that Republicans tried to falsely frame this as a "religious freedom" issue, and falsely claimed that Georgetown has "moral objections" to "providing birth control" proves that they know they'd lose if people knew the facts of the matter.

Georgetown does have moral objections to providing birth control! In the majority of cases, even. They approve of birth control only for medical necessity, and reject it as a method of preventing pregnancy, hence why 2/3rds of petitions for birth control were rejected.


Oh look, more ignorance and bullsh*t. First of all, you do realize that when you delete the majority of my post it makes you look like an intellectually dishonest asshole, right? You should realize that.

1. Overwhelming support among conservative women? Are You Sure?

And sure, "disparate impact" wouldn't necessarily mean "discrimination" if we were just talking about the Fluke/contraception issue, but this is hundreds of bills at the State and Federal level, ranging from abortion to contraception to domestic violence, with different "reasoning" as well.

2. See, this is that "intellectually dishonest" stuff I was talking about. You deleted the parts of my post that point out A) Georgetown doesn't actually provide contraception (the reason it's in quotes in the segment you let stand), and B) it does provide employees with insurance that covers contraception, and then you to make the bare assertion that Georgetown *does* have a moral objection to providing contraception, which you have to know is bullsh*t since I pointed it out in the parts you deleted. Not to mention the fact that Georgetown claims their moral objection is rooted in their Catholic beliefs and the Catholic Church has firmly stated they have no moral objection to contraception used for non-"contraceptive" purposes.

In other words, you're making an argument you know is false, which is the literal definition of a troll.
 
2012-05-06 12:03:47 PM  

PsiChick: THERE IS NO WAR ON WOMEN!

THERE IS NO WAR ON WOMEN!

THERE IS NO WAR ON WOMEN!

THERE IS NO WAR ON WOMEN!


TL;DR.

Sorry.
 
2012-05-06 12:17:34 PM  
bugontherug

Thank you for this thread. I've enjoyed watching you eviscerate Captain_Dan. In case it matters to you, at least one person saw through him misrepresenting things you said, changing the subject, moving the goalposts, and more.

As to the issue of Ledbetter v. Goodyear being non-textual, you are absolutely right. The majority ignored plain language which settled the question outright. It was a terrible decision, but on par for the Roberts Court.

Oh, and I'm a conservative. I'm just sick of the dishonesty of most of today's conservatives at all levels of government.
 
2012-05-06 01:45:09 PM  
Dan the Schman: Oh look, more ignorance and bullsh*t. First of all, you do realize that when you delete the majority of my post it makes you look like an intellectually dishonest asshole, right? You should realize that.

The reason I've selectively responded to most of the posts in this thread is because a large number of paragraphs, such as the one above, do not actually contain a logical argument. "Look, more ignorance and bullsh*t" is not an argument that can even be responded to. It is an ad hominem attack.

I've passed over the worst logical fallacies, as well as the paragraphs which would make no sense with the fallacies omittted. I consider this a favor, not a disservice, to the offending posts.

1. Overwhelming support among conservative women? Are You Sure?

Yes. There is empirical evidence that the majority of conservative women oppose the contraception mandate. Opinion polling (relax: it's not a Rasmussen poll).

Citing two female Republican Senators, even as admirable and esteemed as Sens. Murkowski and Snowe, is anecdotal. Your third link - about the VAWA - doesn't even offer so much as an anecdote!

If you can find a poll, survey, or any research at all, that supports your contention, please post it. That would convince me to change my mind.

And sure, "disparate impact" wouldn't necessarily mean "discrimination" if we were just talking about the Fluke/contraception issue, but this is hundreds of bills at the State and Federal level, ranging from abortion to contraception to domestic violence, with different "reasoning" as well.

The fundamental distinction in viewpoint here is what we view as more important: the motives behind a piece of legislation, or the possibly disparate impact that the legislation has.

Abortion is an issue that affects women more than men. Women tend to support legalized abortion; men are less supportive. But that does not mean that men's opposition to abortion is based in opposition to women.

Most Wall Street bankers are male. When President Obama signs legislation to regulate the practices of these bankers, his regulation is disproportionately affecting men. That does not indicate, even to the slightest degree, that Obama's regulation was motivated by the gender of the bankers.

Similarly, there is no reason to assume that Republicans are motivated by misogyny. They have not said or done anything to merit that assumption.

2. See, this is that "intellectually dishonest" stuff I was talking about. You deleted the parts of my post that point out A) Georgetown doesn't actually provide contraception (the reason it's in quotes in the segment you let stand), and B) it does provide employees with insurance that covers contraception, and then you to make the bare assertion that Georgetown *does* have a moral objection to providing contraception, which you have to know is bullsh*t since I pointed it out in the parts you deleted. Not to mention the fact that Georgetown claims their moral objection is rooted in their Catholic beliefs and the Catholic Church has firmly stated they have no moral objection to contraception used for non-"contraceptive" purposes.

Let me rephrase with less nuance.

False: "Georgetown has a moral objection to providing contraception for any reason."

True: "Georgetown has a moral objection to providing contraception to be used for birth control."

I asserted the latter, and you have interpreted me to be saying the former. I hope that this clarifies the matter.

In other words, you're making an argument you know is false, which is the literal definition of a troll.

I've given my honest thoughts. There's no way of proving this, so I hope that you will honor the traditional debating courtesy of assuming good faith until there is reason to believe otherwise.

I value a good, logical argument from a dyed-red Communist more than I do a logically shabby argument from someone I agree with. With no offense intended, let me say that I consider many of the arguments in this thread to be logically shabby. "Look, more bullsh*t" and "scum sucking Fox News viewer" are not claims that can be intellectually engaged with.
 
2012-05-06 02:45:17 PM  
Hey Captain_Dan,

You know what convinced me you're playing games? It was this exchange:

Bugontherug:
No Women's Rights Group would deny that it is appropriate to say that a woman who was in fact raped is a victim.

You:
Wrong. "Carol Tracy, director of the Women's Law Center, an advocacy organization, agreed with the call for neutral language, but said neither "victim" nor "accuser" are appropriate. In Pennsylvania, where she lives, the law references "complaintants," she said."

Now, I underlined those words "in fact," because they were crucial to the exchange. Given the full context of the dialogue, those words "in fact" were intended to convey a specific meaning, that meaning being "in all contexts, including those in which the guilt of the accuser has been established by exceptionally reliable, redundant evidence, and all avenues of appeal have been exhausted."

I know this because I read the full exchange, and watched carefully how the conversation evolved. I won't repost the entire dialogue, but it involved an exchange, repeatedly using the phrases "in fact" and "regardless of context" to divorce the issue from the legal context. Given that in the course of that exchange, bugontherug posted this remark:

Fantastic. So now you say it's "prejudicial" to call a woman whose attacker has been convicted of rape, whose conviction was established by eyewitness testimony, security camera footage, and DNA evidence, and whose conviction has been upheld in exhaustion of all appeals, a "victim."


it is implausible for you to claim the intended purpose of his use of the phrase "in fact" escaped you. You affirmatively agreed with that proposition, by the way.

In short, he was talking about a non-legal context, where the fact of rape has been established to a moral certainty. Yet when bugontherug made the uncontroversial assertion that no women's rights group would claim, under those circumstances, that it is prejudicial to refer to a rape victim as a victim, you posted your now irrelevant link about "victims" vs. "accusers" in pre-conviction, pre-appeal legal context.

"Well, I didn't see the words 'in fact,' or they didn't register."

Not plausible. The whole course of the conversation up to that point was to establish the absurdity of your position, and divorce your position from the pre-conviction, pre-appeal legal context. Even if you didn't see the words "in fact," you could not have plausibly have believed he suddenly changed gears to talk about the pre-conviction, pre-appeal legal context.

This is the kind of thing I'm sick of out of my fellow conservatives. You're obviously playing games, twisting words to try to make yourself look right when you're arguing a ridiculous proposition. If this practice were limited to you, it wouldn't bother. But this is exactly what today's conservatives do all the time, and it's why I'm committed to exposing the dishonesty of those in the movement whenever I can. It is more important for the long term to cure conservatives of their character defects than it is to win in the short term.

Stop trolling, conservatroll.
 
2012-05-06 02:59:18 PM  

Captain Dan: I've given my honest thoughts. There's no way of proving this, so I hope that you will honor the traditional debating courtesy of assuming good faith until there is reason to believe otherwise.


It's possible "reason to believe otherwise" has been established when pretty much everyone in the thread with whom you've engaged has called you dishonest.
 
2012-05-06 03:09:04 PM  
bugontherug: Other than that the entire conservative judicial philosophy sees it as a made up right like abortion.

That's not responding to what I've said. You have confused opposition to a "right" to contraception with opposition to contraception itself. Conservatives support contraception while opposing the existence of a right to contraception.

... and that Mitt Romney felt he gained politically by passively denying the right to contraception, while Rick Santorum felt he gained politically by actively denying the right to contraception.

Your rhetorical shift to "denying the right to contraception" is a far cry from your earlier claim about the "anti-contraceptive conservative base." It's more accurate, though, so that's progress.

Many conservatives deny the right to contraception. Yet 98-99% support legal contraception. These 99% are pro-contraception. No rhetoric can disguise that.

Captain Dan: Scott Walker did not legalize wage discrimination. He shifted jurisdiction for such cases to the federal courts.

Scott Walker legalized wage discrimination under Wisconsin law, making it harder for Wisconsin victims of wage discrimination to obtain relief.


Both of these claims are simultaneously true.

The majority's interpretation effectively capped damages at six months worth of pay discrimination. But that interpretation directly contradicted the statute's own textual limitation capping damages at two years of pay discrimination.

"A charge under this section shall be filed within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred"

The relevant statutory provision, concerning the time for filing charges, is unambiguously clear on the matter. 180 days after the practice occurred. The liberal dissent on this case argued that the effects of wage discrimination take place well beyond the 180 day timeframe.

Unfortunately, the text does not say "within 180 days after the effects of wage discrimination are felt." It says: "within 180 days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred." The Lily Ledbetter Act of 2009 amended the text from the latter to the former.

If your argument were based on fact, rather than whimsy, you would be looking for parts of the law (the Equal Pay Act or Civil Rights Act that Ledbetter sued under) that support your interpretation.

You are not an educated person. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

The first claim is empirically false. I have the degrees and black eye circles to prove it.

The second claim is subject to opinion, so I'll defer to the Justices of the Supreme Court. Their writings exactly agree with my assertion that Roberts' ruling was based in the text of the law. Do you think the Supreme Court Justices have no idea what they're talking about?

I'll make it easier for you. If you can cite a single legal authority who has argued that Roberts's ruling was extratextual, I will treat that view as credible.
 
2012-05-06 03:17:21 PM  

Captain Dan: Keizer_Ghidorah: Denying medical care to people because of your personal religious beliefs is where your "freedom" ends. The health and well-being of fellow humans trumps archaic doctrine every single time.

Are you dismissing the Constitution as archaic doctrine? It's the 1st Amendment, not Catholic dogma, that ultimately protects the freedom of the Catholic Church to do what it wants without interference from the federal government.


fark the Catholic Church. They do everything they can to control as many people as possible while demonizing women, homosexuals, and anyone who doesn't follow their doctrine, while they continue to shelter and protect pedophile clergy and deliberately spread AIDS through Africa with their anti-sex education and anti-protection bullshiat. The proof that there is no God is how they continue to get away with their shiat without their Almighty smiting them on the spot.

Their religion is free to do what they want as long as it remains a religion. When they go into business, they're subject to all the rules and regulations that all other business have to follow, including giving complete medical coverage regardless of their pissy personal feelings, and especially when it affects non-Catholics. If you put your narrow-minded idiocy in front of the health and lives of others, then you can eat a dick and die.
 
2012-05-06 03:32:30 PM  
anindependent: Now, I underlined those words "in fact," because they were crucial to the exchange. Given the full context of the dialogue, those words "in fact" were intended to convey a specific meaning, that meaning being "in all contexts, including those in which the guilt of the accuser has been established by exceptionally reliable, redundant evidence, and all avenues of appeal have been exhausted."

A woman's raped or not-raped status is irrelevant to my assertion: she should not be called a "victim" in any legal or journalistic context until the defendant has been found guilty of that crime and exhausted his appeals.

Using the term "victim" in a courtroom, or in the media, prejudices people against the defendant.

It is implausible for you to claim the intended purpose of his use of the phrase "in fact" escaped you. You affirmatively agreed with that proposition, by the way.

Even if a woman were 100%, in-fact, no-doubt-about-it, I saw-it-with-my-own-eyes-and-so-did-10,000-witnesses, raped - I still oppose using the term "victim" before a verdict is reached. Even though she obviously is a victim.

As I've said above, I favor the same approach to all crimes.

In short, he was talking about a non-legal context, where the fact of rape has been established to a moral certainty. Yet when bugontherug made the uncontroversial assertion that no women's rights group would claim, under those circumstances, that it is prejudicial to refer to a rape victim as a victim, you posted your now irrelevant link about "victims" vs. "accusers" in pre-conviction, pre-appeal legal context.

You have misinterpreted what I've written. I care only about the legally prejudicing effect of the term. That effect ceases to occur when the defendant has been found guilty and his appeals exhausted.

After that point, it is obviously right for a court or newspaper to refer to the rape victim as a rape victim.

The whole course of the conversation up to that point was to establish the absurdity of your position, and divorce your position from the pre-conviction, pre-appeal legal context.

The "in fact" scenario referred to a pre-conviction context. Read it again.

Not a single person, ever, has suggested that we can never call a victim a "victim."

Stop trolling, conservatroll.

Stop misinterpreting what I've written.
 
2012-05-06 03:51:51 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: [Raving, anti-Catholic rant]


Your opposition to the First Amendment makes more sense now.

Their religion is free to do what they want as long as it remains a religion. When they go into business, they're subject to all the rules and regulations that all other business have to follow, including giving complete medical coverage regardless of their pissy personal feelings, and especially when it affects non-Catholics. If you put your narrow-minded idiocy in front of the health and lives of others, then you can eat a dick and die.

Let me rephrase your paragraph without changing any of its underlying logic:

"Catholics are free to do what they want as long as it's inside a Church. When they start forming Catholic schools, they're subject to all the regulations that all other schools have to follow, including no school prayer, no crucifix displays, and no preference towards Catholic teachings - especially if there are non-Catholic students enrolled. If you value Catholic teachings more than secular education, then I want you to die."

You're probably just venting, but if not, you're as hate-filled as I've ever read on Fark.
 
2012-05-06 04:08:47 PM  

anindependent: This is the kind of thing I'm sick of out of my fellow conservatives. You're obviously playing games, twisting words to try to make yourself look right when you're arguing a ridiculous proposition.


What's interesting about this comment to me is that I'm very liberal, but I read this thread and came to the opposite conclusion. I think Captain Dan is being pretty reasonable and most of the word-twisting, question-dodging, and ad hominem attacks are coming from the other side.
 
2012-05-06 04:24:16 PM  

Skyrmion: anindependent: This is the kind of thing I'm sick of out of my fellow conservatives. You're obviously playing games, twisting words to try to make yourself look right when you're arguing a ridiculous proposition.

What's interesting about this comment to me is that I'm very liberal, but I read this thread and came to the opposite conclusion. I think Captain Dan is being pretty reasonable and most of the word-twisting, question-dodging, and ad hominem attacks are coming from the other side.


Well, that explains why I had you favorited in retard red as "misogynist farktard". Thanks for reminding me. Oh, and it's hilarious that you consider yourself to be very liberal. Even lurkers like me can see through that bullshiat.
 
2012-05-06 04:31:06 PM  

ShuyaNanahara: Well, that explains why I had you favorited in retard red as "misogynist farktard". Thanks for reminding me. Oh, and it's hilarious that you consider yourself to be very liberal. Even lurkers like me can see through that bullshiat.


Yep, no unreasonable assumptions or ad homenim attacks from your side. Clearly. I'm sure you've convinced all the other "lurkers".
 
2012-05-06 04:58:24 PM  
Captain Dan:

I wasn't able to quote the full section, so I'll leave it be.

A. Omitting logical fallacies? Like the fact that Georgetown offers covered contraception for some but not all?

B. The third link was 31 Republican men and 0 women voting against the VAWA. And every national poll shows majority support for not overturning Roe v. Wade.

C. Once again, its not about one single thing, its a pattern. Abortion, female contraception (not condoms or viagra), domestic violence. Collectively it displays a pattern of attacking issues that effect women solely or significantly moreso than men.

D. More weasel words. What's the point of arguing "Georgetown morally objects to covering contraception for birth control" if the issue at hand (Fluke) was about non-bc treatments? Its obfuscation. Since Georgetown doesn't have a problem offering insurance to employees that covers contraception (and doesn't seem to care about the intent), then they have no excuse to deny the same to their student body, and they don't have First Amendment protections; the Republican line framing it this way is bogus.
 
2012-05-06 05:33:24 PM  

Dan the Schman: A. Omitting logical fallacies? Like the fact that Georgetown offers covered contraception for some but not all?


You're confusing "I disagree with it" and "it is fallacious." Selectively providing access to contraception is not a fallacy of any type.

B. The third link was 31 Republican men and 0 women voting against the VAWA. And every national poll shows majority support for not overturning Roe v. Wade.

You are mistaking two different claims, both of which are true:

1. Amongst all women: a majority support legal abortion
2. Amongst all conservative women: a majority do not

I have posted several polls which all demonstrate that there is not majority support, amongst conservative women, for legal abortion.

C. Once again, its not about one single thing, its a pattern. Abortion, female contraception (not condoms or viagra), domestic violence. Collectively it displays a pattern of attacking issues that effect women solely or significantly moreso than men.

This claim - that disparate impact provides evidence of discrimination - has come up at least 10 times in this thread, and every time I've disagreed with it.

The reason it's wrong is because you haven't accounted for confounding variables. Every piece of contentious legislation can be better explained by opposition to abortion than opposition to women.

The people who oppose abortion are not doing so because they are men, but because they are religiously conservative. The only possible case to the contrary would be if conservative men and conservative women consistently behaved differently, which they don't.

D. More weasel words. What's the point of arguing "Georgetown morally objects to covering contraception for birth control" if the issue at hand (Fluke) was about non-bc treatments? Its obfuscation. Since Georgetown doesn't have a problem offering insurance to employees that covers contraception (and doesn't seem to care about the intent), then they have no excuse to deny the same to their student body, and they don't have First Amendment protections; the Republican line framing it this way is bogus.

Georgetown cares greatly about the intent. There is a panel that reviews applications for contraception, and ~70% of applicants are rejected. The only exceptions are made for medical necessity.

The point of arguing this is that Sandra Fluke, and the Democrats, are pulling a sleight of hands. Neither are arguing for contraception to cover medical cases (that already exists), but for a universal contraception mandate, one that could also be used for birth control.

The Catholic Church is opposed to that. Fluke, Obama, and Democrats, are arguing in effect: "It doesn't matter that the Church is against birth control, we're going to force them to cover it."

This is the heart of the issue. Should the government be allowed to tell a religious institution how to conduct its affairs? I strongly feel that it should not, with very rare exception. Our constitutional heritage was designed to afford the broadest latitude to religious freedom.
 
2012-05-06 05:38:08 PM  

Captain Dan: Dan the Schman: A. Omitting logical fallacies? Like the fact that Georgetown offers covered contraception for some but not all?

You're confusing "I disagree with it" and "it is fallacious." Selectively providing access to contraception is not a fallacy of any type.


Scratch that, please. It just now occurred to me that you probably weren't inventing a new fallacy, but were critiquing my decision to not respond to the Georgetown decision.

However, I must disagree with that: if you'll scroll up, you'll see that I've written at least a dozen posts explaining my position on the Georgetown case. If I missed another chance to do so in response to one of your posts, I apologize.
 
2012-05-06 05:46:15 PM  

Captain Dan: Keizer_Ghidorah: [Raving, anti-Catholic rant]

Your opposition to the First Amendment makes more sense now.

Their religion is free to do what they want as long as it remains a religion. When they go into business, they're subject to all the rules and regulations that all other business have to follow, including giving complete medical coverage regardless of their pissy personal feelings, and especially when it affects non-Catholics. If you put your narrow-minded idiocy in front of the health and lives of others, then you can eat a dick and die.

Let me rephrase your paragraph without changing any of its underlying logic:

"Catholics are free to do what they want as long as it's inside a Church. When they start forming Catholic schools, they're subject to all the regulations that all other schools have to follow, including no school prayer, no crucifix displays, and no preference towards Catholic teachings - especially if there are non-Catholic students enrolled. If you value Catholic teachings more than secular education, then I want you to die."

You're probably just venting, but if not, you're as hate-filled as I've ever read on Fark.


You're one of the worst trolls on Fark, right up there with Bevets and Skinnyhead.

I'm the one filled with hate? I'm not the one stripping women, homosexuals, minorities, poor people, and other religions of their basic rights and freedoms. I'm not the one trying to shut down Planned Parenthood. I'm not the one withholding both sex education AND methods of protection from Africa to force my religion on the people while encouraging the spread of AIDS at the same time. I'm not the one sheltering child molesters.

If you want to be on the side of filth and evil, go right ahead. Just stay the hell away from me.
 
2012-05-06 06:07:21 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: I'm the one filled with hate?


I don't know, but you're the only one wishing for other people to die.

I'm not... [anti-Catholic screed]... If you want to be on the side of filth and evil, go right ahead. Just stay the hell away from me.

If you actually believe that the Catholic Church is evil, then you shouldn't allow them to "go right ahead." You should do everything in your power to outlaw and incarcerate them. Tolerating evil is cowardly.
 
2012-05-06 06:10:09 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: You're one of the worst trolls on Fark, right up there with Bevets and Skinnyhead.


Also, if you honestly think that I'm trolling (bad news: I'm not), then you should place me on ignore. You'll be happier.
 
2012-05-06 06:22:59 PM  

Captain Dan: Keizer_Ghidorah: You're one of the worst trolls on Fark, right up there with Bevets and Skinnyhead.

Also, if you honestly think that I'm trolling (bad news: I'm not), then you should place me on ignore. You'll be happier.


With everything you've said in here, I doubt you typed that with a straight face. I don't put people on ignore, it's better to be reminded of human stupidity than pretend it doesn't happen.

I don't know, but you're the only one wishing for other people to die.

As opposed to the Catholic Church actively causing people to die and doing everything it can to ensure more do as well. Do unhappy thoughts make you that queasy?

If you actually believe that the Catholic Church is evil, then you shouldn't allow them to "go right ahead." You should do everything in your power to outlaw and incarcerate them. Tolerating evil is cowardly.

I was talking YOU, dipshiat. You really like to weasel word and insinuate, don't you. If I had that kind of power, I would. Unfortunately I have to rely on the strength of others, and hopefully more and more people will realize the sham they live in. Maybe you should tell those Catholics and Christians in general who aren't assholes that, since they don't seem to be doing anything to rein in their fringe lunatics.

I have no problems with Christians, of any kind, who don't try to stomp on people for their own gains. When you pervert your faith to push yourself and your views on others, then there's a problem.
 
2012-05-06 06:52:42 PM  
Keizer_Ghidorah: With everything you've said in here, I doubt you typed that with a straight face. I don't put people on ignore, it's better to be reminded of human stupidity than pretend it doesn't happen.

Everything I've typed has been genuine. I have no desire to get a reaction from other people, which is why I advocated that you ignore me if my posts are causing you angst.

As opposed to the Catholic Church actively causing people to die and doing everything it can to ensure more do as well.

The Catholic Church's opposition to birth control is counterproductive. All the same, I'd rather be on the side of a group that values life, even if their policies are counterproductive, than on the side with better policies but a professed death-wish for others.

If I had that kind of power [to outlaw the Catholic Church], I would.

Then you are intolerant and illiberal.

I have no problems with Christians, of any kind, who don't try to stomp on people for their own gains. When you pervert your faith to push yourself and your views on others, then there's a problem.

Are you trying to pivot from wishing death on me, as well as wishing to outlaw other people's religions, to "live and let live"?

I'm not even mad; that's amazing.
 
2012-05-06 07:08:58 PM  

Captain Dan: HighOnCraic: Kinda interested in your response to Fluke's testimony (see above), but I gotta check the laundry. Later!

I'm not qualified to comment. Let me check with my friends who know more about birth control.

*assembles panel of 10 guys*


Sigh. Let's try this one more time:

Captain Dan: quatchi: Calling it an entitlement is a misnomer that makes it sound like women want something for nothing when in reality they just want their access to health services not dictated by religious whim.

If that's the case, then why in God's name did Sandra Fluke attend a Catholic university that was morally opposed to providing the service she desires?

The real question here "is should a business be allowed to disallow access to contraception based on their beliefs or does a woman's right to access to basic health care (which includes various forms of BC) trump those concerns?"

I say yes, yes they do.

The rest of the civilized world tends to agree.

What do you say?

In cases of conflicting values, I grant the broadest tolerance towards religious freedom. Although I support birth control, and think that Catholic universities should offer it, I'm not going to compel them to do so. That strikes me as wrong, and unconstitutional.

For the record, I really don't care what the civilized world has to say about this. I'll make up my own mind.

For the record, Georgetown isn't morally opposed to letting its staff use their prescription drug benefit to pay for birth control, and they claim that they allow students to use their insurance (which the school does not pay for) to cover it; they just reject most of the claims.

From her testimony:

A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it's not intended to prevent pregnancy. Under many religious institutions' insurance plans, it wouldn't be, and under Senator Blunt's amendment, Senator Rubio's bill, or Representative Fortenberry's bill, there's no requirement that an exception be made for such medical needs. When they do exist, these exceptions don't accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren't, a woman's health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.

In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She's gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn't afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of her final exam period she'd been in the emergency room all night in excruciating pain. She wrote, "It was so painful, I woke up thinking I'd been shot." Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary. On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she sat in a doctor's office. Since last year's surgery, she's been experiencing night sweats, weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She's 32 years old. As she put it: "If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no chance at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy that I paid for totally unsubsidized by my school wouldn't cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it."

Link

It has nothing to do with any moral obligation to provide birth control coverage, otherwise they wouldn't be providing it to their employees:


In a letter obtained by ThinkProgress dated April 26, 2012, President John J. DeGioia informs the Georgetown community that the University will offer contraception "for students who require them for health reasons unrelated to birth control," and will institute "no change to the University's approach to contraceptive coverage for employees":


After thoughtful and careful consideration, we will continue our current practice for contraceptive coverage in our student health insurance for the coming year, as allowed for under the current rules issued by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

There will also be no change to the University's approach to contraceptive coverage for employees for 2013.

We will be monitoring further regulatory and judicial developments related to the Affordable Care Act. I hope this is helpful in clarifying a matter of concern to many of you.

In February, a Georgetown University spokesperson confirmed to ThinkProgress that employees "have access to health insurance plans offered and designed by national providers to a national pool. These plans include coverage for birth control."

Link

You seem to be arguing that Georgetown is being forced to do something against their morals. They're not. They already let their employees and many of their students use their prescription drug benefit to cover birth control pills. The issue is that they sometimes arbitrarily tell students that they can't, even when the students have proof of a medical need for the pills. They approved 80% of the claims (long before the health care law was even passed). Fluke's friend was among the unlucky 20%
 
2012-05-06 08:15:54 PM  

Captain Dan: Keizer_Ghidorah: With everything you've said in here, I doubt you typed that with a straight face. I don't put people on ignore, it's better to be reminded of human stupidity than pretend it doesn't happen.

Everything I've typed has been genuine. I have no desire to get a reaction from other people, which is why I advocated that you ignore me if my posts are causing you angst.

As opposed to the Catholic Church actively causing people to die and doing everything it can to ensure more do as well.

The Catholic Church's opposition to birth control is counterproductive. All the same, I'd rather be on the side of a group that values life, even if their policies are counterproductive, than on the side with better policies but a professed death-wish for others.

If they valued life so much, maybe they should stop denying condoms and education to Africa and stop molesting children. Also laughing that you're using me as a basis for the entirety of people not on your side.

If I had that kind of power [to outlaw the Catholic Church], I would.

Then you are intolerant and illiberal.

Good. If it gets rid of hypocrites who turn a parable of love, peace, and selflessness into a weapon of hatred, fear, and oppression, so be it.

I have no problems with Christians, of any kind, who don't try to stomp on people for their own gains. When you pervert your faith to push yourself and your views on others, then there's a problem.

Are you trying to pivot from wishing death on me, as well as wishing to outlaw other people's religions, to "live and let live"?

I'm not even mad; that's amazing.

Are you really bad at reading comprehension, or are you that bad of a troll?

You can be fine with some members of a group and against other members of that group. I have no problem with the Christians who follow the message of their God and love and care about others, and I'm against those Christians who use the message of their God to oppress and punish. At the moment, those who oppress and punish have the power and the voice and they're making no bones about doing what they can to force their views on the entire country while oppressing people. Maybe the Christians who aren't assholes could do something about their wayward brethren, before something happens.

 
2012-05-06 08:18:42 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Captain Dan: Keizer_Ghidorah:

With everything you've said in here, I doubt you typed that with a straight face. I don't put people on ignore, it's better to be reminded of human stupidity than pretend it doesn't happen.

Everything I've typed has been genuine. I have no desire to get a reaction from other people, which is why I advocated that you ignore me if my posts are causing you angst.

As opposed to the Catholic Church actively causing people to die and doing everything it can to ensure more do as well.

The Catholic Church's opposition to birth control is counterproductive. All the same, I'd rather be on the side of a group that values life, even if their policies are counterproductive, than on the side with better policies but a professed death-wish for others.

If they valued life so much, maybe they should stop denying condoms and education to Africa and stop molesting children. Also laughing that you're using me as a basis for the entirety of people not on your side.

If I had that kind of power [to outlaw the Catholic Church], I would.

Then you are intolerant and illiberal.

Good. If it gets rid of hypocrites who turn a parable of love, peace, and selflessness into a weapon of hatred, fear, and oppression, so be it.

I have no problems with Christians, of any kind, who don't try to stomp on people for their own gains. When you pervert your faith to push yourself and your views on others, then there's a problem.

Are you trying to pivot from wishing death on me, as well as wishing to outlaw other people's religions, to "live and let live"?

I'm not even mad; that's amazing.

Are you really bad at reading comprehension, or are you that bad of a troll?

You can be fine with some members of a group and against other members of that group. I have no problem with the Christians who follow the message of their God and love and care about others, and I'm against those Christians who use the message of their God to oppress and punish. At the moment, those who oppress and punish have the power and the voice and they're making no bones about doing what they can to force their views on the entire country while oppressing people. Maybe the Christians who aren't assholes could do something about their wayward brethren, before something happens.


Damned Fark screwing up my post.
 
2012-05-06 08:43:57 PM  

Captain Dan: Keizer_Ghidorah: You're one of the worst trolls on Fark, right up there with Bevets and Skinnyhead.

Also, if you honestly think that I'm trolling (bad news: I'm not), then you should place me on ignore. You'll be happier.


I think you're intentionally refusing to respond in kind to clear, honest arguments (possibly for the sake of getting attention).

why in God's name did Sandra Fluke attend a Catholic university that was morally opposed to providing the service she desires?


Georgetown ALREADY OFFERS birth control coverage to all its staff. According to Fluke's testimony, 35% of the students get their claims approved without getting questioned by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these prescriptions (she was complaining about the 65% that did get questioned).

It's the arbitrary nature of approval birth control access for some women but not other that clearly shows that it's not a moral issue. A reasonable person would admit that portraying it as a moral issue is completely dishonest.
 
2012-05-06 09:04:47 PM  

HighOnCraic: I think you're intentionally refusing to respond in kind to clear, honest arguments...

Georgetown ALREADY OFFERS birth control coverage to all its staff. According to Fluke's testimony, 35% of the students get their claims approved without getting questioned by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these prescriptions (she was complaining about the 65% that did get questioned).

It's the arbitrary nature of approval birth control access for some women but not other that clearly shows that it's not a moral issue. A reasonable person would admit that portraying it as a moral issue is completely dishonest.


Executive summary: It's not exactly a moral issue so much as a legal issue. Although Georgetown does morally opposes contraceptive birth control, that opposition carries no legal weight in itself (e.g. the American Catholic Church opposes the death penalty, but it still exists). The important issue is the First Amendment, which is understood to protect a religious institution's ability to set norms according to its values.

I'd like Georgetown to change their policy. What I don't want is for the federal government to impose that change upon them. No matter how good an idea it is, no matter how fair it is, it is a breach of the wall of separation, which is something I oppose except for in the most extreme cases.
 
2012-05-06 09:39:00 PM  

Captain Dan: HighOnCraic: I think you're intentionally refusing to respond in kind to clear, honest arguments...

Georgetown ALREADY OFFERS birth control coverage to all its staff. According to Fluke's testimony, 35% of the students get their claims approved without getting questioned by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these prescriptions (she was complaining about the 65% that did get questioned).

It's the arbitrary nature of approval birth control access for some women but not other that clearly shows that it's not a moral issue. A reasonable person would admit that portraying it as a moral issue is completely dishonest.

Executive summary: It's not exactly a moral issue so much as a legal issue. Although Georgetown does morally opposes contraceptive birth control, that opposition carries no legal weight in itself (e.g. the American Catholic Church opposes the death penalty, but it still exists). The important issue is the First Amendment, which is understood to protect a religious institution's ability to set norms according to its values.

I'd like Georgetown to change their policy. What I don't want is for the federal government to impose that change upon them. No matter how good an idea it is, no matter how fair it is, it is a breach of the wall of separation, which is something I oppose except for in the most extreme cases.


How is it a breach of the wall of separation? They already allow ALL of their staff and some of their students to use their prescription drug benefits to get birth control, so it's obviously not that big a deal.

Nice deflection, though.

As you know, like most universities, Georgetown requires that students have health insurance. Students are not required to purchase their health insurance through Georgetown University and are free to acquire health insurance through a third party. The student plan offered by Georgetown is consistent with our Catholic and Jesuit identity and does not cover prescription contraceptives for birth control. It does provide coverage for these prescriptions for students who require them for health reasons unrelated to birth control, as determined by a physician.

After thoughtful and careful consideration, we will continue our current practice for contraceptive coverage in our student health insurance for the coming year, as allowed for under the current rules issued by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

There will also be no change to the University's approach to contraceptive coverage for employees for 2013.


We will be monitoring further regulatory and judicial developments related to the Affordable Care Act. I hope this is helpful in clarifying a matter of concern to many of you.

You have my very best wishes as we conclude our academic year.

Sincerely,
John J. DeGioia (President of Georgetown)

Link

See also:

For instance, a Georgetown University spokesperson told ThinkProgress yesterday that employees "have access to health insurance plans offered and designed by national providers to a national pool. These plans include coverage for birth control."

Similarly, an informal survey conducted by Our Sunday Visitor found that many Catholic colleges have purchased insurance plans that provide contraception benefits:

University of Scranton, for example, appears to specifically cover contraception. The University of San Francisco offers employees two health plans, both of which cover abortion, contraception and sterilization...Also problematic is the Jesuit University of Scranton. One of its health insurance plans, the First Priority HMO, lists a benefit of "contraceptives when used for the purpose of birth control."

DePaul University in Chicago covers birth control in both its fully insured HMO plan and its self-insured PPO plan and excludes "elective abortion," said spokesman John Holden, adding that the 1,800 employee-university responded to a complaint from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission several years ago and added artificial contraception as a benefit to its Blue Cross PPO.

Christian Brothers University in Memphis, Tenn., offers employee health insurance via the Tennessee Independent Colleges and Universities Association, a consortium of Christian Bible and other private college and universities. Its plan excludes abortion, but probably covers artificial contraception as a prescription drug, said C. Gregg Conroy, the executive director of the TICUA Benefit Consortium.

Boston College, the six former Caritas Christi Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts, and other Catholic organizations that are located in one of the 28 states that already require employers to provide contraception benefits could have self-insured or stopped offering prescription drug coverage to avoid the mandate - but didn't do so. Instead, they - like many Catholic hospitals and health care insurers around the country - chose to meet the needs of the overwhelming majority of Catholic women and offer these much needed services.

Link
 
2012-05-06 10:31:28 PM  

HighOnCraic: How is it a breach of the wall of separation? They already allow ALL of their staff and some of their students to use their prescription drug benefits to get birth control, so it's obviously not that big a deal.


It's a breach because the government is telling the religious institution to do something, not because of what the government is telling them to do.

- If the government tells Georgetown to offer birth control: it's unconstitutional
- If the government tells Georgetown to not offer birth control: it's unconstitutional
- If the government tells Georgetown to offer to only certain students: it's unconstitutional
- If the government tells Georgetown to be consistent about who they offer birth control to: it's unconstitutional

The only case in which the government can restrict a fundamental right (e.g. by mandating that a religious institution violate its conscience) is when the government is pursuing a compelling interest that can only be accomplished by that action.

Forcing Georgetown to offer contraception fails that test. Even if you were to make the argument that expanding contraceptive access was a compelling government interest, there are less restrictive ways of accomplishing that.

For example: there are 3 Planned Parenthood clinics in Washington D.C., all within 3 miles of Georgetown, which provide free, taxpayer-subsidized contraception.
 
2012-05-06 10:40:43 PM  
Captain Dan:

Way to troll the thread. You made the whole thing about you, distorted almost everything your opponents said beyond recognition, and maintained a shrill tone condescending faux civility throughout.

10/10
 
2012-05-06 10:49:48 PM  
I liked Baz743 better.
 
2012-05-06 10:55:56 PM  

Captain Dan: HighOnCraic: How is it a breach of the wall of separation? They already allow ALL of their staff and some of their students to use their prescription drug benefits to get birth control, so it's obviously not that big a deal.

It's a breach because the government is telling the religious institution to do something, not because of what the government is telling them to do.

- If the government tells Georgetown to offer birth control: it's unconstitutional irrelevant; they already offer it.
- If the government tells Georgetown to not offer birth control: it's unconstitutional irrelevant; they already offer it.
- If the government tells Georgetown to offer to only certain students: it's unconstitutional irrelevant; they already offer it, they're just consistent about who they offer birth control to.
- If the government tells Georgetown to be consistent about who they offer birth control to: it's unconstitutional (How can it be unconstitutional to say, "Stop holding back access that you give to other students, leading, in the case of Fluke's friend, to further medical complications!"?)

The only case in which the government can restrict a fundamental right (e.g. by mandating that a religious institution violate its conscience) is when the government is pursuing a compelling interest that can only be accomplished by that action.

Forcing Georgetown to offer contraception fails that test. Even if you were to make the argument that expanding contraceptive access was a compelling government interest, there are less restrictive ways of accomplishing that.

For example: there are 3 Planned Parenthood clinics in Washington D.C., all within 3 miles of Georgetown, which provide free, taxpayer-subsidized contraception.


How is it unconstitutional when they already offer it to their students, they're just sloppy about the way they approve of allowing access to.

How can you claim they'd be forced to violate their own conscience when they already offer access to birth control to their staff and most of their students? And they've been doing so for years--before Obama was even elected!

Again, according to Fluke's testimony, 65% of women get questioned before getting a yes or no answer on approval, which means that 35% DON'T GET QUESTIONED AT ALL. They get access, no problem, no violation of conscience. Of the ones that get questioned, 20% (including Fluke's friend) get denied, which means the remaining 80% get access, no problem, no violation of conscience.

Unless you've got some citation to disprove her numbers, you've got nothing, and you'd still have to deal with the fact that 100% of the staff gets access, no problem, no violation of conscience.
 
2012-05-06 11:00:50 PM  
@HighonCraic

I've directly responded to your question 4 times now. Each time, you've asked it again in almost the exact same form. Please re-read my last post, because I have nothing further to say on that matter.
 
2012-05-06 11:10:00 PM  

Captain Dan: @HighonCraic

I've directly responded to your question 4 times now. Each time, you've asked it again in almost the exact same form. Please re-read my last post, because I have nothing further to say on that matter.


Yeah, you keep saying that allowing access violates their conscience, even though they already allow access for the staff and most of the students. I'm kinda glad you have have nothing further to say on that matter. Have a nice life!
 
2012-05-06 11:14:14 PM  

Captain Dan: @HighonCraic

I've directly responded to your question 4 times now. Each time, you've asked it again in almost the exact same form. Please re-read my last post, because I have nothing further to say on that matter.


Why should they have to go to PP locations when the health care that THEY'RE PAYING FOR can give it to them as part of the complete and concise health care package that THEY'RE PAYING FOR?
 
2012-05-06 11:26:40 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Captain Dan: @HighonCraic

I've directly responded to your question 4 times now. Each time, you've asked it again in almost the exact same form. Please re-read my last post, because I have nothing further to say on that matter.

Why should they have to go to PP locations when the health care that THEY'RE PAYING FOR can give it to them as part of the complete and concise health care package that THEY'RE PAYING FOR?


Exactly!

And in all these Fluke threads, I've yet to hear any sort of explanation of why the students should be treated differently from the staff when it comes to getting access.

This thread needs less trolling and more:

Link
 
2012-05-06 11:27:21 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Why should they have to go to PP locations when the health care that THEY'RE PAYING FOR can give it to them as part of the complete and concise health care package that THEY'RE PAYING FOR?


Because of the least restrictive means test, which is a legal requirement in cases like this.
 
2012-05-06 11:31:41 PM  

quatchi: Keizer_Ghidorah: Gyrfalcon: Kome: In the world of Republicans, someone gaming the system to become a citizen (have they any proof that this actually happens?) is the worse sin than a woman being abused and terrified and unable to get any help from the legal system (something we know happens every goddamned day). You can not spin this any other way. And if you can understand that concept and still think the Republican party is the party worth voting for this election, you are a monster. Plain and simple.

Good. Destroy all monsters.

[electrokami.com image 590x400]

The best of the Showa-era movies.

[i293.photobucket.com image 262x400]

DAM straight!

I lived for the day that came on back when I was a tinier individual.

Creme de la freaking creme.


Those were good times! D.A.M. was usually the Friday showing during "Monster Week" on WABC's "4:30 Movie" back in the 70s.
 
2012-05-06 11:36:15 PM  
Captain Dan:

Dan The Schman: C. Once again, its not about one single thing, its a pattern. Abortion, female contraception (not condoms or viagra), domestic violence. Collectively it displays a pattern of attacking issues that effect women solely or significantly moreso than men.

This claim - that disparate impact provides evidence of discrimination - has come up at least 10 times in this thread, and every time I've disagreed with it.

The reason it's wrong is because you haven't accounted for confounding variables. Every piece of contentious legislation can be better explained by opposition to abortion than opposition to women.

The people who oppose abortion are not doing so because they are men, but because they are religiously conservative. The only possible case to the contrary would be if conservative men and conservative women consistently behaved differently, which they don't.


PATTERN. You keep trying to weasel away by singling out one or two things and tying them together, ignoring the other dozen that are unrelated to each other; looking at all of these pieces, the only thing in common is who is negatively affected. Domestic violence has nothing to do with abortion. Female contraception has nothing to do with abortion. Well, technically one could link the two issues, however it would be in the Republicans' best interest not to link them since contraception prevents the need for abortion, so they would expose themselves as inconsistent on the issue of "preventing abortions". Denying women in a hearing on the subject of contraception isn't about abortion.

Not only is it absurd to claim that it's about going after abortion not women because so many of these bills aren't related to abortion, but it's also a steaming load of humbug because all of these efforts cause far more health problems as well as impeding a woman's lawful right to seek an abortion.

Which brings us to another example of you being obscenely intellectually dishonest. Your defense that Republicans aren't singling out and attacking women with their legislation is that their legislation targets "abortion". A) Abortion only effects women. It can tangentially effect others, but strictly speaking it is a female issue, especially in regard to the legislation that is the topic of our discussion, B) It is 100% legal. You're defending Republicans attempting to curtail the legal rights of millions of women. You're not only defending it, but you're using it as evidence that they don't hate women.

Go ahead and keep saying that Republicans are just following their "Christian morals", and aren't "misogynistic", but the fact is that Christianity is extremely sexist. In fact, most misogyny is rooted in religious beliefs.

The only case in which the government can restrict a fundamental right (e.g. by mandating that a religious institution violate its conscience) is when the government is pursuing a compelling interest that can only be accomplished by that action.

I'm sorry, but since when is a university which receives millions of dollars from the government considered a "religious institution"?

Also, you still can't worm you way out of the fact that Georgetown is behaving in an arbitrary fashion that directly contradicts its claim of "moral opposition". You know what Georgetown would do if it truly had moral objections? It would follow the policy set by Baylor over a decade ago:

this

Settled quickly and internally, without drawing national attention and congressional hearings denying women to speak about female contraceptives.
 
2012-05-07 12:04:08 AM  
Dan the Schman: Collectively it displays a pattern of attacking issues that effect women solely or significantly moreso than men... the only thing in common is who is negatively affected...

Your defense that Republicans aren't singling out and attacking women with their legislation is that their legislation targets "abortion". A) Abortion only effects women...


I'm lumping these together, because they're thematically identical.

Many pieces of Republican legislation have disparate impact on women. Abortion obviously affects women more than men.

None of this indicates discrimination. Just because a policy affects one group more than another, it does not mean that the policy was crafted with the intention of affecting that group.

Here's a thought experiment: let's say that President Obama introduces a Millionaire Tax: 100%. The overwhelming majority of American millionaires are white men. In this hypothetical, white men would have their taxes raised much more than other groups.

Does this mean that Obama raised taxes as part of a War on White Men? Of course not. Because their whiteness or maleness is not the reason he raised their taxes. Their wealth is the reason.

Even if this came in the context of a string of tax hikes and business regulations, all of which disproportionately affected white men, it still wouldn't amount to a War on White Men.

B) It is 100% legal. You're defending Republicans attempting to curtail the legal rights of millions of women.

Obviously, the Republican Party is going to do everything legally possible to curtail abortion.

I'm sorry, but since when is a university which receives millions of dollars from the government considered a "religious institution"?

Since always. Federal funding doesn't change the religious status of Georgetown. It only gives the federal government a potential method for compelling change (if the proposed change passes certain tests of legal scrutiny).

Also, you still can't worm you way out of the fact that Georgetown is behaving in an arbitrary fashion that directly contradicts its claim of "moral opposition". You know what Georgetown would do if it truly had moral objections? It would follow the policy set by Baylor over a decade ago.

I've already said that I think the Georgetown policy is arbitrary, counterproductive, and in some cases harmful. I think it is a bad policy. Nevertheless, the federal government does not have the legal authority to alter Georgetown's policy.
 
2012-05-07 12:32:17 AM  

Captain Dan: Here's a thought experiment: let's say that President Obama introduces a Millionaire Tax: 100%. The overwhelming majority of American millionaires are white men. In this hypothetical, white men would have their taxes raised much more than other groups.

Does this mean that Obama raised taxes as part of a War on White Men? Of course not. Because their whiteness or maleness is not the reason he raised their taxes. Their wealth is the reason.

Even if this came in the context of a string of tax hikes and business regulations, all of which disproportionately affected white men, it still wouldn't amount to a War on White Men.


They wouldn't call it a "war on white men", but you can be sure Republicans would be crying about "class warfare" if Obama attempted a slight alteration to the graduated income tax structure, or even allowed an existing high-income tax cut to lapse.

Republicans have no moral high ground whatsoever when it comes to complaining about the term "war" used in excessive political rhetoric.
 
2012-05-07 12:38:55 AM  

Captain Dan: Keizer_Ghidorah: Why should they have to go to PP locations when the health care that THEY'RE PAYING FOR can give it to them as part of the complete and concise health care package that THEY'RE PAYING FOR?

Because of the least restrictive means test, which is a legal requirement in cases like this.


I have a much easier and simpler solution: The Catholic Church keeps its nose out of others' business, women are allowed to receive the health care coverage they paid for, and we all focus on much more important things like saving this sinking country before it completely implodes.
 
2012-05-07 12:40:18 AM  

Captain Dan: Dan the Schman: Collectively it displays a pattern of attacking issues that effect women solely or significantly moreso than men... the only thing in common is who is negatively affected...

Your defense that Republicans aren't singling out and attacking women with their legislation is that their legislation targets "abortion". A) Abortion only effects women...

I'm lumping these together, because they're thematically identical.

Many pieces of Republican legislation have disparate impact on women. Abortion obviously affects women more than men.


Sure, it doesn't look like an attack on women when you only address the legislation regarding abortion and contraceptives. But that's not what's going on, there are many many other issues at hand that you are repeatedly, intentionally ignoring.

Abortion, domestic violence, congressional hearings, contraceptives, pay parity.

What do these, and dozens of other pieces of legislation have in common?

Well, they aren't all religious or moral issues; they aren't all sexual, or economic, or matters of national security or education or big government versus small government; they aren't all health issues or Constitutional issues.

The common thread is women, not abortion or sex or religious freedom. Your repeated attempts to edit and ignore the same parts of my argument over and over gives the overwhelming impression that you're a troll. Would you care to offer a different explanation for why you would repeatedly delete a vital point of an argument, then offer a rebuttal that is voided by the deleted point?

Your defense that the legislation and votes are based on their moral compass and the negative effect on women is coincidental is disputed by the legislation that takes away protections for equal pay for equal work, it's disputed by denying women a voice in a hearing specifically on female contraception, it's disputed by the votes against VAWA.

I bet that for every piece of legislation I offer up, you can conjure an innocent explanation for why Republicans care about it and feel the need to vote in a way that harms women, so how many pieces of legislation would it take for you to admit there's a pattern? That it's not just coincidence that so many bills and amendments, on a broad spectrum of issues, negatively effect women?
 
2012-05-07 12:51:46 AM  

Captain Dan: Lionel Mandrake: I completely disagree with your take. You seem eager to make excuses. All of these "concerns" have been absent for 30, 40, 50 years, but all of a sudden they are deeply critical issues for "conservatives."

The Republican Party has become more religiously conservative in the past 30 years, and it has shifted more and more of its energy in that time towards eliminating abortion.

The past two years have feature some of the numerically greatest Republican state-legislature majorities in history. They are implementing conservative legislation that never had a chance before, and some of that includes legislation designed to limit abortion.

What the hell is the motive you understand for trans-vaginal ultrasounds?

Preventing abortions. I don't agree, but I see the logic.

All these laws you "understand" boil down to "You aren't capable of making a decision on your own, darling, so the government is going to force you through a painful procedure to help you, OK, sweetheart?" And why is contraception all of a sudden a religious liberty issue? What's up with this sudden deluge of government intrusion into the sex life of women??

The government is not doing anything, at all, to change the status of contraception. Democrats want to change the status quo to force religious institutions to provide birth control. Republicans oppose this change, because they view it as an infringement on religious liberty.

As I have stated above, I am pro-choice and disagree with the Republican anti-abortion initiatives. But I understand why they are being passed. It's not misogyny or sadism, just a desire to abolish abortion.


You're a liar and an asshole.
 
2012-05-07 01:04:57 AM  

Skyrmion: Republicans have no moral high ground whatsoever when it comes to complaining about the term "war" used in excessive political rhetoric.


I've consistently opposed this type of language, and I realize that Republicans are more guilty of it than are Democrats. Responsible people from both parties need to speak out against demagoguery.

This isn't a Prisoner's Dilemma. We can coordinate with each other. It doesn't have to be this way.
 
2012-05-07 01:29:05 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: I bet that for every piece of legislation I offer up, you can conjure an innocent explanation for why Republicans care about it and feel the need to vote in a way that harms women, so how many pieces of legislation would it take for you to admit there's a pattern? That it's not just coincidence that so many bills and amendments, on a broad spectrum of issues, negatively effect women?


There are hundreds of thousands of bills proposed each year. Finding 10 of them that result in adverse impact against women isn't convincing. In fact, I am positive that I could find at least 10 Republican bills which primarily harm men (e.g. longer prison sentences for violent crime).

Any of the following would convince me of misogyny within the GOP:

1) A Republican legislator who acknowledged harming women as a goal.

2) Evidence that conservative women disagree with conservative men, and are being overruled.

3) A leaked memo from a Republican strategy session that reads: "All hail Overlord Koch. The time is right. Commence the War on Women. ...P.S. Don't let those Maine chicks read this."
 
2012-05-07 01:36:50 AM  

Captain Dan: Keizer_Ghidorah: I bet that for every piece of legislation I offer up, you can conjure an innocent explanation for why Republicans care about it and feel the need to vote in a way that harms women, so how many pieces of legislation would it take for you to admit there's a pattern? That it's not just coincidence that so many bills and amendments, on a broad spectrum of issues, negatively effect women?

There are hundreds of thousands of bills proposed each year. Finding 10 of them that result in adverse impact against women isn't convincing. In fact, I am positive that I could find at least 10 Republican bills which primarily harm men (e.g. longer prison sentences for violent crime).

Any of the following would convince me of misogyny within the GOP:

1) A Republican legislator who acknowledged harming women as a goal.

2) Evidence that conservative women disagree with conservative men, and are being overruled.

3) A leaked memo from a Republican strategy session that reads: "All hail Overlord Koch. The time is right. Commence the War on Women. ...P.S. Don't let those Maine chicks read this."


Uh, dude, I didn't say that, you're quoting Dan the Schman. But I'll answer them.

1) You'll only believe something if the person doing it outright says he's doing it for that reason? Neon lights, blaring buzzers, and a booming voice saying "I AM DOING IT, THAT'S ME, MR. GUILTY" are required for you to see that what they're doing is targeted at women?

2) Why just conservative women? Plenty of other women have protested this and are being ignored.

3) Again, there's all of this legislature aimed at strictly or mainly women issues stripping them of their rights and freedoms, right now, staring you in the face, and what you want is a signed and sealed confession before you'll admit that something fishy is going on?

If this was a horror movie, you'd be the character that does nothing but deny and demand proof until the moment the monster eats you. And Dan the Schman is right, you really like to snip apart posts and delete everything that renders your rebuttal void.
 
Displayed 50 of 353 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report