Donald Trump and US politics
"Bias is a separate concept from accuracy. Hypothetically, let's say the issue is abortion. Person A is openly pro-life and argues abortion is murder, and all evidence this person cites is quoted fairly without distortion. Person B is openly pro-choice in a way which says it's up to the woman to decide to abort or not, allowing for strictly personal religious beliefs that abortion is murder... but, intentionally or unintentionally, cites evidence in a misleading manner. In this case, Person A is both more biased and more accurate. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Feb 10, 2017, 12:33:57 AM
|
|
" Without numbers to back it up, your claim is no better than "My gut tells me they lie more". Also this makes me wonder what you consider a "lie", are half-truths considered "lies"? Are claims made without disclosing their sources a "lie"? Are ambiguous information also "lies"? Because I see people calling those "lies" and then saying that they are the same as outright lies that we see in infowars, and no, I don't think they are the same, and yes, in my opinion they can be very harmful, but still not the same. It's like when people say "insert politician here" = Hitler, most of the time is BS. " If I tell only "my side of the story" while pretending that there is no "other side" of this same story, I'm being more accurate than if I tell "my side of the story" while messing up with the "other side" of the story to fit my narrative is what you telling us? Doesn't seem any better to me to be honest. By the way, I want ask your opinion in regards to something. Let's say there is a building on fire, someone you love is outside and that person wants do go in to save someone important to him/her, would you let that person go in even knowing that both of them might not come back? Now, on a little different situation, the building is on fire but this time you know that the person inside is already dead, would you let the person you love go inside even knowing that? Then if the story was a little more different than that, the building is on fire, whoever is inside is dead, and you all know it, the person you love doesn't want to go inside because she knows that she will die if she goes, would you force her to go in? |
|
"Yes. Unless she's a child, then no. "Ultimately, same as above. Although I'd have words of strong disagreement if she's an adult. Be pretty upset if she wouldn't wait to hear me out. Might pursue. "No. Maybe you can spot the pattern. I'm not sure where you meant to go with this, but the way I see it, the principle at play here doesn't involve information. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Feb 10, 2017, 2:23:12 AM
|
|
" Being biased distort information. Murder is a legal term. It isn't murder if it is legal. Society allow death penalty, they also allow abortion. PS: Pro-life is misnomer, they should be correctly defined as pro-birth. Last edited by deathflower#0444 on Feb 10, 2017, 3:07:03 AM
|
|
" I agree with you on your 3 responses, and I believe most people would answer the same, specially for the 3rd case. I only asked this questions because you cited abortion, and I was curious about your opinion on that matter (since I know that you lean to the right). If you re-read what I wrote having abortion in mind I think my stance is clear. If it's a risky pregnancy, my opinion is that it's okay to give the mother the ability to choose for herself, and never to force her, I had this mindset before, but it solidified even more after I saw this interview:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9finqZJJNA8 I guess that would make me a "pro-choice dude" right? But then just thinking about the idea of people using abortion as a means of contraception makes me mad, like someone having 4 or more abortions because one is sloppy with their means of contraception. A future where this is normal is disgusting to me. So that would make me half pro-life? What do you consider yourself @ScrotieMcB? I think that it would be nice if there was a party called "Flexibility and Common-sense party", where no extremists where accepted, and people would judge situations without alarm or exaggeration. I think GOP lacks that flexibility, maybe only when the "younger right wingers" take place of the "old right wingers" in power (maybe in 10 or 20 years), there will be calmer times in the US politics. |
|
|
I'm not against abortions, and honestly couldn't care less if someone gets one. It's always been my position that there are too many people with too many problems in the world. And less humans isn't a bad thing. I understand why people have abortions for financial reasons. It costs too much money/time/effort to raise a kid, and many people would rather live their life for themselves. I don't want kids. Ever.
I'm actually a believer in eugenics. And this is coming from someone who suffers from a number of mental health issues, many of which are inherited traits. These are traits that don't need to be passed on indefinitely. Last edited by MrSmiley21#1051 on Feb 10, 2017, 4:15:06 AM
|
|
" It can be argued if your particular issues are actual issues. Kevin Dutton gives a compelling argument it's an evolutionary trait which is necessary in certain conditions, even if it's the source of a lot of unpleasantness. It could be a strength and a benefit to society if properly harnessed. You have to be realistic about these things. Logen Ninefingers Last edited by Bars#2689 on Feb 10, 2017, 7:07:11 AM
| |
|
Ethically, I consider abortion to be fair game if performed as quickly as reasonably possible. The further developed the pregnancy, the more human the growth inside. I have absolutely no objections to the morning after pill; I consider third-trimester and even second-trimester abortions to be clear murder, justifiable only as a matter of self-defense.
Ideally, the law I'd like to see is: 1. Abortion is fully legal during the first trimester (12 weeks after the menstration preceding conception). 2. Red tape created by state legislatures, in order to discourage abortion by delaying it until after 12 weeks pregnant, should be prohibited on a federal level. A woman coming in for an initial inquiry for an abortion should be able to receive the procedure within days, if not hours; the law shouldn't get in the way of this. 3. Additionally, federal law should prohibit state regulation of the method of abortion, applying only federal regulations on method; the idea here is to keep costs to the patient down by not enforcing excessive demands on how abortions are performed. 4. Starting with the second trimester, abortion is still legal within 7 days of a medical expert first determining the baby to be of significant risk to the life of the mother IF AND ONLY IF during the 11th week of pregnancy or up to 4 weeks sooner (again, measured from the menstration preceding conception) the mother received an examination from a medical expert determining that bringing the baby to term did not constitute a significant risk to the life of the mother. (TL;DR: Get seen after you miss your period, or waive your right to abortion in self-defense.) The issue, I imagine, would having police or prosecutors determining weeks of pregnancy. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Feb 10, 2017, 12:40:45 PM
|
|
|
You can't base abortion laws on the menstruation preceding conception. That would be a legal nightmare.
There are too many health issues that can cause irregular, absent, or missed menstruation cycles (for some women going months, a year+, or forever without a period is normal for them, but they can still get pregnant): endocrine disorders, various illnesses (lupus, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, crohn's, etc etc etc), birth defects, polycystic ovarian syndrome, athletic competition/preparation, obesity, rapid weight changes, some medications/supplements. Women on birth control can miss periods and still get pregnant. What you're trying to accomplish is fine but you need a different measuring stick. Never underestimate what the mod community can do for PoE if you sell an offline client. Last edited by Vhlad#6794 on Feb 10, 2017, 1:03:56 PM
|
|
" Can you get pregnant? If not, why do you talk about abortion as if you got a right to tell a person that can get pregnant what to do with their own body? Also, those who are against abortion are usually also against contraception. They simply want people to multiply. Thats the corporate way of getting more workers and consumers. |
|
