CoughcoughGunControlcoughcough
3 Likes
{Note sarcasm}
4 Likes
5 Likes
What is a better term for people who are against any form of public prenatal or well-baby care, workplace protections for pregnant women or new mothers, factual sex ed to protect the health and even life of teens (as well as prevent unwanted pregnancies), religious freedom for any citizen who doesnât adhere to their particular beliefs, legally-protected reproductive medical care, etc.?
âAnti-choiceâ is the least inflammatory, most polite option available.
27 Likes
âŚis a bad idea. What I do, and try to teach kids to do, is always model more possible positions on an issue. Like at least six different sides. This can help to avoid polarization, and perhaps result in more considered discussion.
6 Likes
There you go again, sucked all the fun outâa that.
6 Likes
When I talk to you, should I first decide what it is I want to call you, or should I accept your choice of chgoliz and move forward with the discussion?
The least inflammatory most polite option is the one that shows respect for the person you are speaking to.
Gun laws are contentious, yes. And there are a number of pacifists here that really donât appreciate arms proliferation.
And there are also individuals like @Mister44 and @slybevel who debate in a sensible, non shouty way about contentious issues. Such as gun laws.
So I guess what I am sayingâand I am not accusing you of this, just the larger pointâdont confuse rational discourse for hive mind and donât confuse disagreement for shouting.
Edit
I have long called the Internet the Great Decontextualizer. It is immensely easy for all debates to miss each others points.
17 Likes
How would you approach the subject of pro-choice vs pro-life with your kids? There may indeed be six sides to the issue, the two most opposite sides are so loud, they drown out any debate among those inhabiting the middle ground.
To BoingBoing, of course!
When it comes to the legality of abortion, I am solidly pro-choice. Much like alcohol or drugs, regardless of how people feel morally about them, itâs a fact that driving them into the shadows will only make things worse, not better.
That said, Iâm on the fence about the morality of abortion. Itâs funny that it was an OKCupid question that pointed out my own cognitive dissonance about this issue.
The question was (something to the effect of): âTrue or false: All human life has equal value.â I answered âTrueâ to that question. After all, I think that peopleâs lives are of equal value, regardless of their race, creed, gender, disability, or even the actions they may have taken in the past.
Months after answering this question, I proceeded to argue against someone, where I took a moral argument for abortion, and the other person took a moral argument against, and I found myself arguing that no, all human life doesnât have equal value (conceding that a foetus is, by many definitions, âhuman lifeâ). I, coincidentally, came back to that OKCupid question soon after, and it shoved the cognitive dissonance right in my face.
As for my current beliefs, all I can say is that Iâm conflicted about the morality of abortion. Again, regardless of what I come to believe about its morality, I believe that criminalizing it will only lead to further tragedy, but I find neither the argument for abortion, nor the argument against, wholly convincing.
7 Likes
When someone tells me that taking away basic human and civil rights is a good thing, and furthermore they condone murder, why would I show them any respect? Being polite is quite enoughâŚmore than they deserve, actually.
15 Likes
I had to make an account. This thread makes me angry.
And itâs hard to have a reasonable debate when the other side screams âretarded religious idiotsâ.
So rioters in < insert police brutality riot here > are violent, horrible people. No ifs, ands, or buts. Violent, horrible people. Letâs start calling them anti-whities. Oh wait, you say theyâre doing what they have to because they feel theyâve been pushed to the edge? Well damn!
Itâs almost like groups of humans have violent extremists who do not represent the majority of said group, and the majority is actually human beings who believe their viewpoint is logical and are deserving of rational discourse instead of mud flinging. How about engaging in some of that love and tolerance you say the âconservative Christiansâ canât do, but seem to be incapable of yourselves?
Peace and love, motherfuckers! Practice it! You think youâre better than your opponent? Prove it.
1 Like
You kinda lost me thereâŚ
19 Likes
I sense much projection there.
20 Likes
I do, and it does take practice.[quote=âZeroGravitas, post:32, topic:70667â]
So rioters in < insert police brutality riot here > are violent, horrible people. No ifs, ands, or buts. Violent, horrible people.
[/quote]
I did not say that or imply that. I am sorry if it sounded like I did, but I didnât.
You are absolutely right.
6 Likes
Yeah, whatâs up with that?
You sound pretty disappointed in boingboing. Something I will never understand is why someone would go to a message board to complain about the quality of discussion on the message board. Is âanti-choiceâ even a negative moniker? I mean, if we were debating murder, and someone called me âanti-choiceâ I would say, âYeah, I donât think people should be able to choose to kill other people.â Itâs certainly not more misleading than using âpro-lifeâ to describe an unrepentant multiple murderer, or politicians and media personalities who largely oppose the provision of health care (Iâm not just talking about abortions here, what is the overlap between âpro-lifeâ rhetoric and opposition to single-payer health care?) and support wars.
I do. I tried to kill someone once. I think I could have definitely been recruited to bomb financial institutions in my late teens. It didnât turn out that way, Iâll admit. I walk down the street and see the faces of people who would be 50/50 in support of rounding up Muslims or Aboriginal people and sending them to camps if there was one significant domestic terror attack and a demagogue leader to exploit it. And even if Iâm not on the side of violence or the side of racism or hate, why arenât I? Do I think Iâm special because of how I was born, or because of my upbringing that made me think differently? Iâm not even American, but I see myself in these killers, and I see myself as responsible for what they are doing.
8 Likes
For starters Iâd say that people who call themselves âpro-lifeâ who also feel that murdering a doctor or anyone else associated with providing abortions is acceptable are asking to be labelled in a way thatâs intentionally misleading.
21 Likes
8 Likes
Assuming that there are two extremes with odd bits in the middle is exactly what I mean by âpolarizationâ. What I do is not frame issues as being between two opposites. People seem to love dichotomies, but my experience is the they exist more in peopleâs lazy thinking than they do in the real world.
Consider how committing to be âfor healthâ doesnât do much to prepare one for practicing as a medical doctor - the real issues are the millions of details. A position chosen to merely âidentify withâ is going to lack those details.
1 Like
Lizz Winstead remains a national treasure.
(edit: EXTRA Z!)
5 Likes
