That’s a mighty silly hobby horse that you chose to jump up and ride around on. Makes you look silly too.
Here’s one difference: by and large, the people who claim “abortion is murder” oppose unrestricted access to birth control, which has long been shown to be the most effective way to reduce the number of abortions. Gun control advocates rarely oppose measures proven to be highly effective at reducing gun deaths.
Do you enjoy paying ten dollars for fifty cents’ worth of snap-frozen ice cream?
Hey, can’t we at least all agree it beats the heck out of “astronaut ice cream?” That shit isn’t even cold.
Well, yeah, that’s generally going to be true of any group wanting to do something.
Again… yeah, but that’s a truism in the case of any large group that supports something, it’s not much of a similarity.
Even if we set that aside, it’s a thin, thin thread to hang any kind comparison on. Any increased support for abortion rights has to also deal with increased support against it that is raised by having a government largely made up of people who have promised bans. Like others have noted, there has actually been success on removing access to abortion from a large portion of the country, and there’s a situation where even more success is highly likely. Which really makes the two topics not at all similar.
I’ve yet to see a gun store bombed. Or, really, just about any other tactic used against abortion providers being used against gun providers…
And even if we just stick to politics, well… the Democratic party platform has consistently contained a recognition of the rights of gun owners, and focuses on things like background checks, mental health issues, funding scientific research, etc. Whereas the Republican platform has consistently not included any recognition of abortion rights, and focuses on banning types of abortion, removing public funds from groups that have the slightest amount of contact with abortion, and even modifying the constitution to do away with abortion.
Yeah, they’re totally alike. If you squint real hard.
I thought all night about this, what’s a good thing I can say about Trump’s presidency?
People use all kinds of terrible, self-destructive behaviours to deal with their intolerable emotions. Addiction, self-mutilation, eating disorders, stuff I haven’t even contemplated. As someone who has done some of this I feel like there is no sense in talking about the issue without recognizing the utility of the self-destructive behaviour to the people doing it. When people self-mutilate it gives them relief. We can disagree that it’s something they should be doing, we can think the harm they are doing to themselves is wrong, but I don’t think we get anywhere if we don’t recognize that the relief it gives them is a good thing. It’s better that a person doesn’t have to suffer, even if momentarily. Whether it’s worth the cost and the damage done is a separate discussion from acknowledging that the relief of suffering is good.
Well, many people in America feel some temporary relief from Trump’s election and inauguration. Setting aside the obvious fact that the emotional relief experienced by those people comes at a cost that will fantastically outweigh the that good, I can acknowledge that it’s good that they are temporarily relieved.
For clarity, I am not likening voting for Donald Trump to self-harming (though I did think a lot about that), I’m only using that as a way of clearly separating the concept of emotional gains from cost of those gains, so that I can be recognize one as good without condoning the other.
Michael Moore pleaded with people not to vote for Trump saying it would feel good for one day. Feeling good for one day is good. I don’t agree that killing yourself to get that feeling is worth it. I wish people could tolerate their feelings well enough to care better for themselves, and to then look outside themselves and care for others as well.
No, because then he’d lose the NRA support.
Not all anime!
Earth and Jupiter are both planets; they are exactly the same!
I understand that you are stuck in the mindset that gun control is good, while abortion restrictions are evil, so the two campaigns are completely different to you. I suppose a “pro-life” person would have some equivalent set of arguments.
My point was only that the two campaigns are similar in their tactics, and that they receive public support when perceived to be under threat. some observations:
Supporters of both causes feel that they are literally saving lives
Supporters of both causes deny that they advocate a total ban, but their most fervent supporters want just that.
Common sense restrictions, you know, for safety.
Both campaigns manipulate statistics for their followers, who generally lack comprehensive knowledge of the subject.
Both campaigns are, at their core, very concerned with restricting what other people can do.
Banning types of abortion is a tactic for incremental prohibition, just like banning types of guns or ammunition. “partial-birth abortions” and “cop killer” bullets are both arguments used to sway the ignorant to support a portion of your platform.
But the bottom line is that President Obama helped sell millions of guns, and Trump got millions of people motivated to support women’s rights. I would prefer that neither were needed, but it is what it is.
It makes me irrationally angry that I agree with that man about anything, but dippin dots are fucking terrible.
Excuse me? You can just stop putting words into my mouth right there. I’m not going to put up with that.
You understand no such thing. You might wish I was in that mindset, because it would be far easier for you to argue against such a black-and-white strawman, but I have clearly said absolutely nothing that so much as implies that kind of viewpoint, and you’re just talking out your ass right now.
And my point was that they’re not, and I gave clear evidence of that, complete with references to the official party platforms.
One of the big stories to come out of the early republican debates was whether or not the candidates supported a ban on abortion even if the health of the mother was threatened! There is absolutely no denial that the anti-abortion side wants to ban abortion. As I pointed out, the fricking official Republican Party platform states outright that they want to modify the Constitution to do so! What fantasy world are you living in?!?!
Hey, can you two make a new topic?
I am out.
My apologies. Did not mean to hijack the topic.
A positive thing to say about the Trump presidency is that now that he has office, a GOP controlled Congress, and soon will have a GOP controlled SCOTUS there are no more excuses for policy failures. Trump owns every choice 100% and there’s nobody he can blame.
But gun are just like fourth trimester abortions, right? By using TrumpLogic™ he’s just expanding on what Obama was trying to do, but better.
ETA: I’m done derailing as well. I didn’t see @singletona082’s plea to “take it outside” before replying.
The TPP is dead? I guess we’ll see if that’s ultimately good or not, since it might make individual countries create even more draconian treaties between each other now.
Also, the whole threat of a tariff thing may actually be more effective than a tariff at all - companies are rethinking where they set up shop because the threat is nebulous. I’m all for local products and if the threat of tariffs means more local production, great - provided it doesn’t make products even more unaffordable to those without means by removing any alternative.
As a Canadian, I don’t take issue with the idea of a global rethink of trade and protection policies as a whole. What I fear is that process being undertaken by those with either 1) ulterior motives or 2) no clue as to what sound policy would look like. But those are just potential futures at the moment. The actual act of navel gazing going on with trade partners around the world right now is not necessarily a bad thing.
Conversely, there are many more reasons for policy failures.
I think it’s a qualified good. The TPP and other agreements of its kind are called “trade” agreements, but they’re really not about trade. Trade barriers from tariffs/excises/etc. are largely a legacy of the past and getting rid of those (which generally is sound economic policy) is just a fig leaf. They’re designed to limit the regulatory rights and autonomy of individual nations by forcing local/national regulations, intellectual property disputes, patent disputes, and other things megacorps love to use to siphon capital out of the proles into WIPO where the multinationals have a much stronger suit at overturning them.
The reason I’m less worried about individual countries (for the short term) is that the big player in this was US based multinationals wanting to push the worst of draconian US corporate anti regulatory and IP-maximalism onto the globe. With the US out, we’re all better off. For all that Trump’s brand of ignorant zero-sum nationalism is toxic for trade and a problem in itself, the US isn’t likely to be starting up those kind of TPP-style vampiric “trade” partnerships for a while.