Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

[welch]

Or there's the flipside, of the woman not wanting to carry the child to term, and the man more than willing to become a father and take care of it. Is it appropriate to shit all over the woman and call her an irreponsible slut then? "Oh boohoo, the child is INCONVENIENT for you? Welp if one wants to play, one needs to be willing to pay." Hilariously sexist.

Cry a little louder. I think there's a whale in the indian ocean that didn't hear you. COme on man, squirt a few more. Hell, I don't even need the basket ball at this point, you're full on crybaby. Come on, cry scott. Let me taste your tears.

lemme guess, you got "fucked over" by a woman, didn't you. Come on, cry it out, tell us alllll about the evil bitch and how feminism makes you live on the run with only your crusade and your internet connection to keep you warm. Cry it out, you'll feel so much better.

I think your strawman is showing. Sorry to disapoint you, but no, I never personally suffered from this issue. Amazingly people can care about things without being affected by them. Although maybe tangentially, from a close friend that did get completely fucked over by a particularly vindictive borderline personality nut. Also, I wasn't aware debating with morons like yourself on an internet forum was a "crusade", but thanks for the info. You may also have noticed at no point did I ever say anything about feminism, if you weren't arguing with a construct in your head.

It wasn't a strawman, it was a possible reason for your towering impotent butthurt crying over life being unfair. Clearly, your parents missed a few crucial discussions with you.

And yeah dude, it's a crusade with you. Looking at the language you use, and the way you frame it? Crusade. You constantly, constantly frame it in revenge terms against "the bitches" or "the women" who evidently do nothing all day long but plot to control your precious bodily fluids.

The problem you're running into here is you assumed this was some kind of MRA haven, and ruh-roh, it's not, and no, people aren't going to stand up, by and large and say "you should only assume responsibility for the things it is convenient for you to do so for."

So cry a little louder. Come on, you're so sexy when you whine.

You're an idiot. The disgustingly sexist arguements that seem to have gotten your panties in a twist are just YOUR OWN ARGUEMENTS reversed. Yes, they pissed me off, so I thought I'd reverse them to see if you thought they sounded any better that way. Nope, still ridiculous, offensive bullshit. You're apparently too stupid to realize that and take them at face value.

No, you keep acting as though if you just keep pointing out that they are sexist arguments that I'll suddenly "see the light", because there's no way, no way at all I could think any other way, right?

Well, again, this isn't about the male OR the female adult here. It's about the kid, and no, I don't think 'Fuck the kid, the state will take care of them" is a valid fucking argument. It's taking your butthurt out on the one person in the equation who is literally *blameless*.

The kid didn't ask to be born. The kid didn't "trick" you, and misuse your precious bodily fluids. The kid is the only person entitled to anything here, and unfortunately, unfairly for them, they're stuck with two fucking idiots for parents, and I think the fucking least, the fucking LEAST you can do is, if you can't man up enough to be a father, is at least take your widdle hand and your widdle pen and write the fucking check so that there's some vauge chance they might have a roof over their head that isn't a cardboard box.

you're making this all about THE MAN DESERVES BETTER, and I don't give a *fuck* about either adult. I'm sorry that your ability to choose women is so fucking bad, and your precious bodily fluids are so elevated in your world that you are incapable of giving a fuck about the kid, but it is the kid I care about in this case, because, again, they are the innocent, and deserve better than what you're so generously willing to provide, as long as you're never even slightly inconvenienced by it.

[welch]

Tsk tsk rayshul, haven't you heard from the likes of welch? Talking about the inequalities in parental and conception rights in modern society is the equivalent of shitting on an innocent woman and curbchecking her child. It's impossible that you could disagree and not be woman-hating MGTOW. Teh welch has mansplained, and you must submit.

Eh. I just think that we should expect better from our government and our society. If we can't trust our government to look after our children that's the problem, and it isn't really getting solved by forcing people to financially support children they never intended or wanted to have. It's just another form of punishing people for having sex.

Separate issue, and I mostly agree. However, even if the various foster care systems weren't as bad as they are, the idea that "oh, this child is inconvenient for me, I shall let everyone else but me take responsibility and care for them" would still be bullshit writ large. If one wants to play, one needs to be willing to pay.

It's more "this child is inconvenient for me, and I had absolutely no choice in the matter, as opposed to the other party who quite clearly did". So much fucking irony. If one wants to play, one needs to be willing to pay indeed. I'm going to start saying that to women with unwanted pregnancies. You wanna keep the kid? Own up to the consequences. If the father is willing to pitch in, fucking great for you. He isn't, or doesn't have the capacity/maturity for it? Well shit, maybe you should have been more careful who you fucked. It's clearly "slut shaming" and "sexism", at least when aimed at one sex. It's apparently just deserts when aimed at the other one.

But fuck it, this is just going around and around now, and we're clearly not going to agree. So go fuck yourself, or your significant other. Make sure to use a condom.

Well we have not even got into the other issues where it would appear that within a certain socioeconomic group it makes sense to have children and thus qualify for various benefits.

Also another sector where the woman leaves the man and his attitude is to drop support period. I am not sure how large this one is but no amount of sanctions, jail, loss of driver's license is ever going to make him pay. He then works under the table if at all after that.

I recall a study done in Michigan with recommendations to address the issues related to the underground economy and child support.

I do not know how much traction if any of the recommendations made but it is clear that someone is aware of some of the issues.

http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/SCA ... F-2010.pdf

We acknowledge that many people who work in the underground economy do not earn
enough to pay their debts, and some struggle just to support themselves. But every member of
our task force understands the importance of bringing these individuals aboveground and
making them active members of their families, our society, and our economy. Therefore, we
have not focused exclusively on collections and enforcement. Some underground parents feel,
with justification, that they were forced into the underground economy by an excessive child
support order or an insurmountable debt. We should offer these parents reasonable means of
debt relief and encourage them to come into the fold, to become true parents to their children,
and to reconcile with their families. But none of those good things can happen unless we first
find the parents so we can begin to engage them in discussions about their ability and
responsibility to support their children.

I suggest reading the entire report. It gives some idea of the scale and consequences of the current system. Naturally despite the stated aims I really do not see how some penalties are going to be effective.

For bonus points see how many MRA and/or MGTOW talking points you can spot.

P.S.
One of the benefits of registration is you can put welsh on ignore when he suffers one of his attacks of baboonitist. It is almost impossible to have any sort of discussion with him once he goes full Setar.

are you still butthurt that every time i check your sources, they turn out to be worthless?

[rpguest]

i just wish everyone to know i wear only the manliest of burqas

[welch]

Or there's the flipside, of the woman not wanting to carry the child to term, and the man more than willing to become a father and take care of it. Is it appropriate to shit all over the woman and call her an irreponsible slut then? "Oh boohoo, the child is INCONVENIENT for you? Welp if one wants to play, one needs to be willing to pay." Hilariously sexist.

Cry a little louder. I think there's a whale in the indian ocean that didn't hear you. COme on man, squirt a few more. Hell, I don't even need the basket ball at this point, you're full on crybaby. Come on, cry scott. Let me taste your tears.

lemme guess, you got "fucked over" by a woman, didn't you. Come on, cry it out, tell us alllll about the evil bitch and how feminism makes you live on the run with only your crusade and your internet connection to keep you warm. Cry it out, you'll feel so much better.

Behold, welch once more in the throes of baboonitist. Predictable. Once this boyo runs out of arguments, or someone fails to comply 100% with his viewpoint you may as well be at FreeFromThoughBlaghs.

welch, seriously. Get a grip.You are not doing yourself any favours at this point.

Awww, didums get his diaper twisted because I don't give idiotic opinions any respect?

Good. I see no reason to pretend idiocy is anything but. It was like your moronic sources on a few occasions, which showed me that you don't actually give a fuck about the details of what those sources say, as long as the headline and lede support your opinion, or seem to, you'll quote them. Fuck, I forget which one, but you suck so bad at research, you listed as separate sources an article, and then another post that did nothing but point at the first article and quote it almost in its entirety.

"I have sources" is not a magic spell. They have to not suck, and your argument has to not be fucking stupid to begin with. A poorly sourced argument that is not stupid is still better than idiocy with a steersman-sized list of references.

I think far too many people are wrapped up in sources and not what the person is actually saying, which, mind you, would be why watson, zvan, et al run fucking rings around folks like you. You're almost pathetically easy to manipulate.

[welch]

Just to add on to what Welch said. This subject (parentage) is NEVER EVER going to be fair. It's IMPOSSIBLE for it to be fair because there are such significant differences biologically at play here. So it's not about fairness, it's about creating a system that works the best for the most amount of people, with an added emphasis in this case being given to children.

We can debate about what this system would be....but it's never going to be about fairness as the essential goal.

There is one case I'd say the father shouldn't have to pay. The *extremely* rare case, (and I found an example of one), wherein a guy is raped, and a kid results from it. In the case I found, the guy was passed out, and the woman in question got him hard and then basically used him like a turkey baster. (contrary to popular belief, consciousness is not required for erection or ejaculation.)

The only reason I make that exception is for the same reason we insist on a rape allowance for abortion, because it's the same thing. If the guy was raped, and his sperm used to conceive a child, then I do think he should be able to walk away from any and all form of custodial and/or fiscal responsibility for that child, for the same reason that rape is considered a necessary exemption in anti-abortion laws.

Then again, I also think in such cases, the woman should lose custody of the child automatically, and the father be given the option to take custody of the child if he so chooses, but if he refuses, then again, no harm, no foul. Rape is a special situation, and I think it deserves such an exemption for both sides equally.

And if the "father" is a minor?

Woman, 36, charged after having baby fathered by 11-year-old boy
http://www.theage.com.au/world/woman-36 ... 2oapu.html

Though the woman was given name suppression, Judge Connell said it was a close-run thing and "the public should be aware she could well be a predator in terms of this sexual offending".

At the time clinical psychologist Luanda Young said she would not be surprised if the case was "just the tip of the iceberg" and there would be more incidents of older women preying on boys.

As I recall she can not be charged with rape. Note her name is withheld.

Oh apparently she can not be charged with rape I understand. Only men can rape in New Zealand it seems.

Spot any MRA talking point?

See, this is where you lose it.

you bring up what is, regardless of POV, an interesting problem. What DO you do in that situation. For example, how does an 11-year old boy take care of a kid, even just writing the check? How do you deal with such a thing? There's a number of possible solutions, all of them bad and good in different ways. Do you come up with a standard answer, or have a list and apply as appropriate to the situation?

But before anyone can do that, you have to turn it into a SEE, THE MRAs ARE RIGHT, as if people here have said they are always wrong. Well, no one has, and that includes me. I've said over and over that they have a number of good points, but those points are buried by the whiny butthurt loons like elam who get all the fucking press.

And, by reducing the entire thing to "see a talking point", it shows you have no interest in anything but winning a point for your side. At this point, I don't think you give a single picofuck about ever solving any problem for real on any level. You just want to win points for your side.

Now, if someone else wants to have a chat about "what do you do when the father is a child himself", I'm fully open to that, it could be interesting. But if all you want to do is add to your MRAs ARE RIGHT score, well, off. You can fuck "off".

[welch]

welch, seriously. Get a grip.You are not doing yourself any favours at this point.

I love it when you come down from the mountain and throw your stone tablets.

"See any MRA talking points?"

[welch]

Just to add on to what Welch said. This subject (parentage) is NEVER EVER going to be fair. It's IMPOSSIBLE for it to be fair because there are such significant differences biologically at play here. So it's not about fairness, it's about creating a system that works the best for the most amount of people, with an added emphasis in this case being given to children.

We can debate about what this system would be....but it's never going to be about fairness as the essential goal.

What? Government enforced child-support has nothing to do with biology. It is very much a determined attempt to balance out biological facts, i.e attempting to reach a goal of "fairness". Looking at stats for single parent households, it also quite clearly doesn't work best for the most amount of people.

But you're so in favor of the government taking over for paying for the inconvenient kids that the evil women sucker you into having. Well, they did. They just did so in a way that's inconvenient for you. Funny how demanding government "do something" bits you in the ass.

The thing is, I'm actually kinda fine with it. I'm OK with the idea of that we should ease up on parental support and increase the amount of government support that exists. I'm not sure if it's the BEST idea, but it's a valid idea.

The problem is that all too often people who espouse the things of the Lurker here are Conservative/Libertarian who don't want to pay for that sort of structure.

Well obvious point is obvious but the money has to come from somewhere. Not to mention that we will all pay one way or the other.

I do understand that some people do not want to pay to resolve a situation that they had no hand in creating in the first place. I think if we showed the indirect costs that might go somewhere.

But I live in a country where it seems that people are more open to that sort of thinking so I guess it is easy for me to say.

It's a "safety net" not a "i don't wanna, you deal with this shit" net. There's a difference.

[Badger3k]

In my feed: PZ says that sexist and misogynistic writing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is ok, because the whole thing is a joke. So, it is a case of two-legs good, four-legs bad.here. Why expect consistency?

Also, Stefunny brags about having Michael "misogynist" Shermer on her world famous radio show (here). Not sure if this is hypocrisy or not - I can't recall if she joined in on the witch hunt. I expect Ophelia will issue a statement condemning this move at any minute.

[rpguest]

Just to add on to what Welch said. This subject (parentage) is NEVER EVER going to be fair. It's IMPOSSIBLE for it to be fair because there are such significant differences biologically at play here. So it's not about fairness, it's about creating a system that works the best for the most amount of people, with an added emphasis in this case being given to children.

We can debate about what this system would be....but it's never going to be about fairness as the essential goal.

There is one case I'd say the father shouldn't have to pay. The *extremely* rare case, (and I found an example of one), wherein a guy is raped, and a kid results from it. In the case I found, the guy was passed out, and the woman in question got him hard and then basically used him like a turkey baster. (contrary to popular belief, consciousness is not required for erection or ejaculation.)

The only reason I make that exception is for the same reason we insist on a rape allowance for abortion, because it's the same thing. If the guy was raped, and his sperm used to conceive a child, then I do think he should be able to walk away from any and all form of custodial and/or fiscal responsibility for that child, for the same reason that rape is considered a necessary exemption in anti-abortion laws.

Then again, I also think in such cases, the woman should lose custody of the child automatically, and the father be given the option to take custody of the child if he so chooses, but if he refuses, then again, no harm, no foul. Rape is a special situation, and I think it deserves such an exemption for both sides equally.

i would extend this consideration to include 'theft' as well

such as: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of- ... 40516.html

basically situations that result in pregnancy during the course of a crime, and would have had a 0% chance of resulting in pregnancy without additional actions leading to it. so also including things like stealing from a sperm bank, or their insemination errors. the child should be cared for, but the fiscal responsibility should be reassigned

does not change the rarity of circumstance and narrow range, but thats the kind of thing i think should also not result in forced child support for the male dna source

[BarnOwl]

It has to do with some English minister made a comment about having to build on environmentally boring fields - from what I read, it seems like his comments are concerned with an increasing population and no room for housing, and having to decide where to build. Not sure of the backstory on it, but the fact is that something has to give if people need room for housing, even if we want to build something like Mega-City One's blocs (or Warhammer's Hives).

Still, the main point is...wtf is up with poetry? Are we going to see ads for Hemp shoes next?

Where are people supposed to live? The article that inspired Clarke's poem is about England - has he paid any attention to the increasing population? London and surrounds are much more crowded than when I lived there 20 years ago: shops, streets, public transport, museums, every place. I'll admit I have a pretty stubborn and annoying green treehugger component, but at least I'm open to practical reality and necessary compromises, and I recognize that people outside the US might want to enjoy a comfortable standard of living too, and might object to living in something like this.

Clarke and Myers don't want to make any concessions in their standards of living, but then turn around and moan about other people wanting suburban houses, solar arrays in the desert, and wind farms. You can't expect to reduce fossil fuel use significantly, unless you provide some alternatives. Increasing numbers of humans have to live somewhere - if you don't want to contribute to increasing numbers of humans, then don't reproduce. Once the kids are here, then they also have a right to a comfortable standard of living. Good luck telling them that they can't reproduce, because they have to compensate for your error. I'm fine with taking the time and thought to reduce my food miles, but if I'm going to grow a meaningful proportion of my own food, then I need some backyard space to do so. So yeah, I live in a suburb of a large city (the same suburb where my workplace is located). I'm not about to tell other people that they shouldn't want suburban homes.

[Skep tickle]

re: Radio Show
Is privilege really the same as patriarchy? You can have privilege in certain fields and then be at a disadvantage in others. I don't doubt the disadvantages women have and continue to face, but patriarchy implies some kind of system across the board. I know some feminists respond with "patriarchy hurts men too," but that seems a lot like say A = not-A. If the patriarchy doesn't cater to men or puts them at a disadvantage, then it's not really a patriarchy.

Just my honest thoughts on why I have a problem with patriarchy while I still accept male privilege in certain contexts and situations.

Ditto, don't see them as the same, think "patriarchy" hasn't been well described & evidenced - but decided not to ask further about it in my first time as a hanger-on guest host :)

It's weird that a Dongle joke got more comments than an actual lawsuit alleging a hostile workplace. There's just no set standard at that place other then "us good, them bad."

A-yup. Continue to be amazed that that isn't obvious to more people.

[rpguest]

or a situation like this which is crazy all around and is the state badgering all the parents involved into actions none of them want, and for a spurious legal technicality

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12 ... ld-support

though again its more a situation of unfortunate edge cases that get mangled in law all the time, in all areas of life

[AndrewV69]

No one has claimed that being fucked over doesn't happen. But the answer is clearly not giving a free pass to knock up random women and then have a get out of jail free card for 30 days after you started a growth inside them and then telling them.. hey you can ru486 or abort your problem. Again the better options are taking precautions against creating said growth or making sure your on the same page in the eventual case of that happening. You know being responsible for the choices you made that affect both you, your partner, and the product of that coupling.

Some people are mentioning the use of RU486 like it is a pill you take for a headache or something. Taking Mifepristone is not an easy breezy procedure. We are not talking about Plan B here; it is a proper abortive method and requires monitoring, recovery and the same risks as a D&C.
Going back to a commentary about both men and women being responsible for pregnancy after consensual sex. Yes, it is that simple. You fuck from someone of the opposite sex there's a big chance of pregnancy resulting from the exchange of fluids. So, if you want to 100% sure that you don't want to deal with pregnancy: don't have sex. This discussion's being around men; but it also applies to women.

I'll give that to the MGTOW separatists; at least they acknowledge that one of the consequences of heterosexual sex is a possible pregnancy and that's they want to avoid it.

I doubt that the "separatist" are going to catch on in a big way if it pits them against biology. But I could be wrong. Last I heard a survey (It is a survey, not a study and so the usual caveats apply) of 300 Japanese men showed that 40% had no interest in getting married much less having children.

So I looked some more and found this article from Time:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 04,00.html

"Not dating," "single" and "no real need to get married" were the surprising majority of responses in a government-sponsored 2011 survey of men and women ages 18 to 34. A record-high 61.4% of unmarried men had no girlfriend, up 9.2 points since the previous survey in 2005. Unmarried women with no boyfriend hit a record 49.5%, up nearly 5 points. Among the 40% who said there was no need to get married, 45% of the men said they have no particular interest in "dating the opposite sex." (Comparable figures on same-sex relationships are not available.) This ambivalence has sparked fears that Japan's birthrate and, indeed, its economy, will continue to flag.

Well this one says survey also, but it is a government one. It would be nice to see a study of what is going on in Japan. I doubt it is feminism though.

[deLurch]

Am I just too cynical or does it look like Silverman is trying to build a ready-made support network should the day come that this discrimination suit threatens his sinecure?

Perhaps. But I think a more plausible explanation is that he probably genuinely has considered himself a feminist. He probably has tried to stay out of the fray. Perhaps he has subscribed to the theory for a while because it is good PR for his position. He made a lot of noise about hiring a bunch of women when he first became the American Atheist's President which predates this lawsuit.

Now it is possible that he is trying to up his game on the feminist position to get a good support network to have his back during this lawsuit. Who knows. It is near impossible to imagine what someone's motivation is.

[Skep tickle]

...There is inequality in reproduction between the genders, and that's not going to change. But I think you can make it as fair as possible legally.

Just to add on to what Welch said. This subject (parentage) is NEVER EVER going to be fair. It's IMPOSSIBLE for it to be fair because there are such significant differences biologically at play here. …

^ ^ both above QFT ^^

...Going back to a commentary about both men and women being responsible for pregnancy after consensual sex. Yes, it is that simple. You fuck from someone of the opposite sex there's a big chance of pregnancy resulting from the exchange of fluids. So, if you want to 100% sure that you don't want to deal with pregnancy: don't have sex. This discussion's being around men; but it also applies to women.

I'll give that to the MGTOW separatists; at least they acknowledge that one of the consequences of heterosexual sex is a possible pregnancy and that's they want to avoid it.

Admitting to a pet peeve here: talk about sex and pregnancy as if "sex" and "reproduction" are each limited to penis-in-vagina intercourse between 2 fertile people. Obviously that's a practical shortcut; it's how reproduction almost always happens and that's what sex often is...but even so, pet peeve activated, I've been gritting my teeth through the pregnancy discussion, also recognizing that it gets pedantic if I join the conversation and keep pointing that out.

So, codelette, thanks from me for including "opposite sex" and "heterosexual sex" in your comment above.

[LurkerPerson]

I think it's just generaly related to their views on overpopulation. It's trendy in certain sociology disciplines these days to have a kind of neo-malthusian outlook on it. Which is not a bad thing necessarily, the exponential human population growth since the industrial revolution is just not sustainable, even being generous with scientific advances in agriculture, energy generation, etc...but it can also be taken too far into full on misanthropy.
Populations in countries with "first world" living standards have a tendency to have exactly or barely replaceable population through births. Maybe as living standards in traditionally "third world" countries rise there will be a similar slowdown. So the best solution would be to do our best to meet, at very least, the base material needs of everyone. Kind of idealistic I know, but hopefully human ingenuity will find a way.

[LurkerPerson]

Sex is the theater of the poor type of thing, and really this forum needs an edit button

[Karmakin]

Sex is the theater of the poor type of thing, and really this forum needs an edit button

You get one when you register.

[John Greg]

cunt said:

What's really not acceptable to me is for people to claim that because EBW made a claim that it must be true. The best we can say is that she made a claim which (tellingly) nobody argued against.

Precisely.

Steerspedant said:

And if she's made a claim that isn't true then that looks like lying. Hard to see how anyone could think that that is acceptable. And even making such a statement without providing proof hardly seems acceptable - like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Considering the ramifications of the claim it seems important to know which.

All of which is, to some degree, true. However, the primary weakness in your ongoing and remarkably stuffy and inflexible pedantry is that you are clearly assuming, and arguing for, the dishonest implication. You, no more than any of us, know wether or not what she said is true, but your are poisoning the well by implying, with prejudice, that she is lying. Knock it off. Grow up.

[AndrewV69]

No one has claimed that being fucked over doesn't happen. But the answer is clearly not giving a free pass to knock up random women and then have a get out of jail free card for 30 days after you started a growth inside them and then telling them.. hey you can ru486 or abort your problem. Again the better options are taking precautions against creating said growth or making sure your on the same page in the eventual case of that happening. You know being responsible for the choices you made that affect both you, your partner, and the product of that coupling.

Some people are mentioning the use of RU486 like it is a pill you take for a headache or something. Taking Mifepristone is not an easy breezy procedure. We are not talking about Plan B here; it is a proper abortive method and requires monitoring, recovery and the same risks as a D&C.
Going back to a commentary about both men and women being responsible for pregnancy after consensual sex. Yes, it is that simple. You fuck from someone of the opposite sex there's a big chance of pregnancy resulting from the exchange of fluids. So, if you want to 100% sure that you don't want to deal with pregnancy: don't have sex. This discussion's being around men; but it also applies to women.

I'll give that to the MGTOW separatists; at least they acknowledge that one of the consequences of heterosexual sex is a possible pregnancy and that's they want to avoid it.

RU486 isn't even that easy to get and anti-choice Republicans are trying their damndest to keep it out of the hands of low income women. Gotta make it really expensive, and really hard to get so that by the time a woman CAN take it she is well past the date at which it would be useful. They also don't like the fact that women might have access to Plan B.

Republicans craziness aside:
RU486 should be difficult to obtain without being given and monitored by a medical facility. Plan B is a different deal as Plan B is a preventive measure not a reactive one like RU 486.

PS. The legislation is not passed to stop low-income women from having children; but middle class white women. As a Hispanic from a poor background, I can attest that BC and other forms of natal control are very VERY easy to obtain. I even received instructions back in the 90s on how to use regular low-dose BC as Plan B (from ProFamilia, which is the PuertoRican version of Planned Parenthood). My mom and all her sisters were given BC and sterilizations for free.

Any ideas on why that would be? That is a very interesting point of view. I would really like to see you expand a bit more on this.

[John Greg]

MKG said:

Oh, and whilst we are 'at it', why are you unable to be significantly less prolix?n You seem to wear, as a badge of honour, unnecessary "circumlocution" to an alarming extent.

No fucking kidding. He positively wears my eyes and brain out to a pustulated frazzle. And most of the time, most of what he says could be shortened, and actually made more effective and specific, by about 75%. I no longer have Steers on ignore -- I decided that the ignore function represents intellectual dishonesty, in a sense -- but fuck me, he can be tiring.

Jesus, Steers. Try a little editorial precision and concision for a change.

[Skep tickle]

Does wearing a NARAL button help show what a good feminist you are?

Obviously that's the widespread assumption, but aren't reproductive rights "pro-bodily-autonomy" rather than "pro-gender-equality"? (because of the inherent differences in male & female reproductive systems, risks, & opportunities).

National Abortion Rights Action League: pro-reproductive rights for women (particularly, access to elective termination of pregnancy)
- No attention, AFAIK, to reproductive rights for men.
- Obviously, men & women have different reproductive systems and significantly different risk of, and opportunity for, pregnancy.
- People who are "pro-choice" tend to strongly favor bodily autonomy for existing (already-born) people (perhaps particularly adults).
- People who are "pro-life" tend to strongly favor preservation of "human life" (at least before birth), seeing it/them as human and vulnerable (in many but not all cases, with a religious viewpoint).

Feminism: said to be about achieving equality for women and men
- However most commonly seeming to focus on achieving equality for women with men
- Sometimes said to be focused on institutional (legal, etc) sexism
- Other times, aiming to address sexism (against women, particularly) anywhere & everywhere it occurs in society

[TheMudbrooker]

i just wish everyone to know i wear only the manliest of burqas

MKG's behavior has all the hallmarks of someone who spent his childhood being called a retard and is trying desperately to prove how clever he is as an adult. The only thing one needs to do is give the slightest hint that his idiot savant babblings aren't the greatest display of thinkiosity in history and he goes into a tizzy. All in all, he makes for good entertainment.

[AndrewV69]

I do agree with you about the 'no abortions for white women'. I love debating abortion, and have spent a lot of time on various right wing forums, and they always let slip the fact that 'there would be no need for (non-white) immigrants if those selfish white bitches didn't keep killin' all those precious white babees.'

But that ship has sailed already is my understanding. Even if immigration was curtailed right now, my understanding is that white births will be a minority by as early as 2014.

I fail to see how any measure taken right now short of forced sterilization is going to reverse that trend. The horse has already bolted.

The writing is on the wall. Whites are going to be a decreasing minority in the USA from now on.

[another lurker]

PS. The legislation is not passed to stop low-income women from having children; but middle class white women. As a Hispanic from a poor background, I can attest that BC and other forms of natal control are very VERY easy to obtain. I even received instructions back in the 90s on how to use regular low-dose BC as Plan B (from ProFamilia, which is the PuertoRican version of Planned Parenthood). My mom and all her sisters were given BC and sterilizations for free.

Any ideas on why that would be? That is a very interesting point of view. I would really like to see you expand a bit more on this.[/quote]


Check out this book if you have the time:

Pregnancy And Power:
A Short History of Reproductive Politics in America

"A sweeping chronicle of women's battles for reproductive freedom throughout American history, Pregnancy and Power explores the many forces—social, racial, economic, and political—that have shaped women’s reproductive lives in the United States.

Leading historian Rickie Solinger argues that a woman’s control over her body involves much more than the right to choose an abortion. Reproductive politics were at play when slaveholders devised breeding schemes, when the U.S. government took Indian children from their families in the nineteenth century, and when doctors pressed Latina women to be sterilized in the 1970s. Tracing the diverse plot lines of women’s reproductive lives throughout American history, Solinger redefines the idea of reproductive freedom, putting race and class at the center of the effort to control sex and pregnancy in America over time"

http://books.google.ca/books/about/Preg ... edir_esc=y


There is also a fear that muslims and other non-whites will 'out-breed' whites and that whites will no longer wield the same political power - not just in the USA, but worldwide.

[H. Korban]

EllenBeth Wachs on June 21, 2013 at 10:07 pm said:

You don’t have to just believe me about them wanting to replace Lindsay with Watson or Hensley. I have proof. I haven’t wanted to pull it out yet until they deny it.

I am definitely looking forward to the day when EBW publishes that proof. The frantic scrambling and doubling down that it will surely produce will be gloriously entertaining.

Yeah, it'll be fun, but I don't expect scrambling from Zvan. She'll post one her lumbering doorstops explaining evidence isn't evidence and the very words she just wrote don't mean what they mean. Methodically cold-blooded, that one. Some hellhole dictator is missing the press secretary he should've had.

There is an old British comedy "Yes, Minister" with a follow on "Yes, Prime Minister" with a Civil Servant character Humphrey Appleby. He is a champion of obfuscation, a pompous, arrogant and elitist ass, driving people insane with his prolix speech. A choice quote from wikipedia:

"In view of the somewhat nebulous and inexplicit nature of your remit, and the arguably marginal and peripheral nature of your influence within the central deliberations and decisions within the political process, there could be a case for restructuring their action priorities in such a way as to eliminate your liquidation from their immediate agenda."

Many such Humphrey Applebys exist in the online spin world, including in the atheist digital universe.

Eschew Obfuscation.

[Whig]

Good news everyone! White lady feminists informs the crowd that Ron Lindsay is still bad (cause "notpology") but David Silverman is good (cause "notpology").
http://freethoughtblogs.com/blackskepti ... -movement/

Remember, it's a jungle out there...bitches!
http://www.fwweekly.com/wp-content/imag ... /books.jpg

It's weird that a Dongle joke got more comments than an actual lawsuit alleging a hostile workplace. There's just no set standard at that place other then "us good, them bad."

Great comment. I posted something similar on the Silverman rawstory interview:

Sounds like Mr.Silverman is trying to placate the entryist gender feminist part of the atheist community that has been on a boycott-spree against anyone who won't pay their convention fees. It's understandable when you learn that American Atheists is being sued for racial discrimination and wrongful termination. Rebecca Watson called for a boycott of CFI for a speech that's critical of her tactics (and also because they didn't give her a job) but sticks up for AA's possible racism because Silverman sucks up to the gender feminists like he does in this interview.

[John Greg]

Gumby at http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 58#p102758, brafuckingvo! Excellent. Truly one of your best yet. So glad you returned to share your wit and wisdom.

[deLurch]

OK, Bill Maher is acting like it's SO RIDICULOUS to suggest a fetus can masturbate. I thought the ridiculous part was using fetus masturbation to hang some cockamamie anti-abortion argument on.
So...help me out, people. Do fetuses masturbate?

I have serious doubts that this is true, but I am open to seeing evidence.

Especially since babies can't even grasp anything when they are shot out.
http://baby.about.com/od/growthanddevel ... babies.htm

It could be that someone saw some sonigraphic images of a hand flailing around and did the whole cloud interpretation game with what they saw. In a claim like that, I want to see some hard evidence.

[AndrewV69]

welch, seriously. Get a grip.You are not doing yourself any favours at this point.

I love it when you come down from the mountain and throw your stone tablets.

Oh man you really do not know? Go to other sites and welsh will make perfectly reasonable comments.

But here in the pit from time to time he goes "DID YOU CLAM AT ME BITCH!!!" and then it is on.

Gets tedious after awhile.

[another lurker]

OK, Bill Maher is acting like it's SO RIDICULOUS to suggest a fetus can masturbate. I thought the ridiculous part was using fetus masturbation to hang some cockamamie anti-abortion argument on.
So...help me out, people. Do fetuses masturbate?

I have serious doubts that this is true, but I am open to seeing evidence.

Especially since babies can't even grasp anything when they are shot out.
http://baby.about.com/od/growthanddevel ... babies.htm

It could be that someone saw some sonigraphic images of a hand flailing around and did the whole cloud interpretation game with what they saw. In a claim like that, I want to see some hard evidence.

Glad you brought that up deLurch. A very will informed and scientifically minded yahoo commenter offered this explanation: "fetuses can masturbate in the womb while babies outside the womb cannot because the womb is a weightless environment."

[codelette]

Any ideas on why that would be? That is a very interesting point of view. I would really like to see you expand a bit more on this.

By reading various monographies, articles and watching documentaries I truly believe that what we are experiencing today are just the remnants of various programs from the 30s-40s. Even back then, I don't think the people pushing for natality control were inherently evil, racist or xenophobic. It was mostly a class thing and a combination of disgust and pity from the upper social classes at why they thought was non-civilized.
Margaret Sanger was very open about her ideas of population control. Yes, her ideas were shaped in part because of what happened to her mother; but she also believed that certain "types of people" should not have children (neo-Malthusian ideas).
Here are some interesting articles you can read and analyze regarding that topic:
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2011/ ... erto-rico/
http://www.youngchicagoauthors.org/girl ... medina.htm
http://newint.org/features/1987/10/05/call/
http://womenst.library.wisc.edu/bibliogs/puerwom.htm

[deLurch]

OK, Bill Maher is acting like it's SO RIDICULOUS to suggest a fetus can masturbate. I thought the ridiculous part was using fetus masturbation to hang some cockamamie anti-abortion argument on.
So...help me out, people. Do fetuses masturbate?

I have serious doubts that this is true, but I am open to seeing evidence.

Especially since babies can't even grasp anything when they are shot out.
http://baby.about.com/od/growthanddevel ... babies.htm

It could be that someone saw some sonigraphic images of a hand flailing around and did the whole cloud interpretation game with what they saw. In a claim like that, I want to see some hard evidence.

Glad you brought that up deLurch. A very will informed and scientifically minded yahoo commenter offered this explanation: "fetuses can masturbate in the womb while babies outside the womb cannot because the womb is a weightless environment."

You know what. We honestly don't know much on the topic. Here is a blog post from time magazine, which is at least a starter for gaining a more educated basis for what facts are known and not known.

http://healthland.time.com/2013/06/19/d ... asturbate/

[another lurker]

OK, Bill Maher is acting like it's SO RIDICULOUS to suggest a fetus can masturbate. I thought the ridiculous part was using fetus masturbation to hang some cockamamie anti-abortion argument on.
So...help me out, people. Do fetuses masturbate?

I have serious doubts that this is true, but I am open to seeing evidence.

Especially since babies can't even grasp anything when they are shot out.
http://baby.about.com/od/growthanddevel ... babies.htm

It could be that someone saw some sonigraphic images of a hand flailing around and did the whole cloud interpretation game with what they saw. In a claim like that, I want to see some hard evidence.

Glad you brought that up deLurch. A very will informed and scientifically minded yahoo commenter offered this explanation: "fetuses can masturbate in the womb while babies outside the womb cannot because the womb is a weightless environment."

You know what. We honestly don't know much on the topic. Here is a blog post from time magazine, which is at least a starter for gaining a more educated basis for what facts are known and not known.

http://healthland.time.com/2013/06/19/d ... asturbate/

http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness- ... s-practice

Pretty exhaustive study here on the subject.

[Gefan]

But that ship has sailed already is my understanding. Even if immigration was curtailed right now, my understanding is that white births will be a minority by as early as 2014.

Too late: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18100457

The writing is on the wall. Whites are going to be a decreasing minority in the USA from now on.

This is a source of concern for you?

[bovarchist]

OK, Bill Maher is acting like it's SO RIDICULOUS to suggest a fetus can masturbate. I thought the ridiculous part was using fetus masturbation to hang some cockamamie anti-abortion argument on.
So...help me out, people. Do fetuses masturbate?

I have serious doubts that this is true, but I am open to seeing evidence.

Especially since babies can't even grasp anything when they are shot out.
http://baby.about.com/od/growthanddevel ... babies.htm

It could be that someone saw some sonigraphic images of a hand flailing around and did the whole cloud interpretation game with what they saw. In a claim like that, I want to see some hard evidence.

Since when does masturbation require grasping?

[Tribble]

Good news everyone! White lady feminists informs the crowd that Ron Lindsay is still bad (cause "notpology") but David Silverman is good (cause "notpology").
http://freethoughtblogs.com/blackskepti ... -movement/

Remember, it's a jungle out there...bitches!
...
It's weird that a Dongle joke got more comments than an actual lawsuit alleging a hostile workplace. There's just no set standard at that place other then "us good, them bad."

Tribalism at its finest.

[codelette]

Good news everyone! White lady feminists informs the crowd that Ron Lindsay is still bad (cause "notpology") but David Silverman is good (cause "notpology").
http://freethoughtblogs.com/blackskepti ... -movement/

Remember, it's a jungle out there...bitches!
...
It's weird that a Dongle joke got more comments than an actual lawsuit alleging a hostile workplace. There's just no set standard at that place other then "us good, them bad."

Tribalism at its finest.

Just noticed I linked the wrong blog post: http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymille ... y-apology/

[codelette]

Good news everyone! White lady feminists informs the crowd that Ron Lindsay is still bad (cause "notpology") but David Silverman is good (cause "notpology").
http://freethoughtblogs.com/blackskepti ... -movement/

Remember, it's a jungle out there...bitches!
...
It's weird that a Dongle joke got more comments than an actual lawsuit alleging a hostile workplace. There's just no set standard at that place other then "us good, them bad."

Tribalism at its finest.

Just noticed I linked the wrong blog post: http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymille ... y-apology/

From the blog post:

Most of my criticism of Ron Lindsay and, by extension, the CFI, has been about terrible communication in response to an initial mis-step. Ron Lindsay had the good sense to apologize for writing a nasty blog post about Rebecca Watson, though he continued to be quite adversarial in tone, even in the apology.
In the world of public figure and corporate responses, you have a lot of options: Ignore, deny, obfuscate, non-apology apology, tactical apology, and a full apology. All of these play out differently depending on whether the organization thinks they’ve done anything wrong, what the level of public backlash is, and whether there are legal issues involved.
For a lesson in contrasts, we can look at how American Atheists responded to the lawsuit being filed by AJ Johnson and how CFI has responded to the complaints about Ron Lindsay.
AA released a long, detailed refutation of claims of racism, providing evidence and a rebuttal to all major points made. This despite the fact that they are dealing with a legal matter, which often makes organizations become very tight-lipped. It should be noted that this doesn’t mean that AA is innocent from any and all accusations, I am not privy to any special knowledge here, but it does mean that they are willing to publicly engage openly and clearly with those who are criticizing them.
CFI on the other hand released a statement that functionally just acknowledged that people were unhappy with them and that that was sad. No acknowledgment of the claims or who was involved, certainly no detailed response to any of the criticisms, and no indication that they cared at all about the feedback that they had been getting — either to be indignant or apologetic about it. Greta has a much more thorough parsing of just how bad this statement was.

[Tribble]

In my feed: PZ says that sexist and misogynistic writing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is ok, because the whole thing is a joke. So, it is a case of two-legs good, four-legs bad.here. Why expect consistency?

I thought he'd have learned his lesson over the bunny cartoon that humor is not an excuse for misogyny....

Also, Stefunny brags about having Michael "misogynist" Shermer on her world famous radio show (here). Not sure if this is hypocrisy or not - I can't recall if she joined in on the witch hunt. I expect Ophelia will issue a statement condemning this move at any minute.

I can only hope... :)

[Metalogic42]

I now have a blog: http://skepticismfirst.wordpress.com/

[Tribble]

Sex is the theater of the poor type of thing, and really this forum needs an edit button

You get one when you register.

Mine never works.

[bhoytony]

Sex is the theater of the poor type of thing, and really this forum needs an edit button

You get one when you register.

Mine never works.

You need enter the code to enable it. Just ask for one in the secret back channel.

[cunt]

Sex is the theater of the poor type of thing, and really this forum needs an edit button

You get one when you register.

Mine never works.

That sometimes happens, some bug. PM Lsuoma for a fix.

[Kareem]

Good news everyone! White lady feminists informs the crowd that Ron Lindsay is still bad (cause "notpology") but David Silverman is good (cause "notpology").
http://freethoughtblogs.com/blackskepti ... -movement/

Remember, it's a jungle out there...bitches!
...
It's weird that a Dongle joke got more comments than an actual lawsuit alleging a hostile workplace. There's just no set standard at that place other then "us good, them bad."

Tribalism at its finest.

Just noticed I linked the wrong blog post: http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymille ... y-apology/

Wow, that's actually worse.
Someone accused of something said they didn't do it? How amazing!

[AndrewV69]

Does wearing a NARAL button help show what a good feminist you are?

Obviously that's the widespread assumption, but aren't reproductive rights "pro-bodily-autonomy" rather than "pro-gender-equality"? (because of the inherent differences in male & female reproductive systems, risks, & opportunities).

National Abortion Rights Action League: pro-reproductive rights for women (particularly, access to elective termination of pregnancy)
- No attention, AFAIK, to reproductive rights for men.
- Obviously, men & women have different reproductive systems and significantly different risk of, and opportunity for, pregnancy.
- People who are "pro-choice" tend to strongly favor bodily autonomy for existing (already-born) people (perhaps particularly adults).
- People who are "pro-life" tend to strongly favor preservation of "human life" (at least before birth), seeing it/them as human and vulnerable (in many but not all cases, with a religious viewpoint).

Feminism: said to be about achieving equality for women and men
- However most commonly seeming to focus on achieving equality for women with men
- Sometimes said to be focused on institutional (legal, etc) sexism
- Other times, aiming to address sexism (against women, particularly) anywhere & everywhere it occurs in society

On the surface I would say yes.

Now I am debating if I should mention what happened when my pro-choice position was confronted with reality.

[another lurker]

Does wearing a NARAL button help show what a good feminist you are?

Obviously that's the widespread assumption, but aren't reproductive rights "pro-bodily-autonomy" rather than "pro-gender-equality"? (because of the inherent differences in male & female reproductive systems, risks, & opportunities).

National Abortion Rights Action League: pro-reproductive rights for women (particularly, access to elective termination of pregnancy)
- No attention, AFAIK, to reproductive rights for men.
- Obviously, men & women have different reproductive systems and significantly different risk of, and opportunity for, pregnancy.
- People who are "pro-choice" tend to strongly favor bodily autonomy for existing (already-born) people (perhaps particularly adults).
- People who are "pro-life" tend to strongly favor preservation of "human life" (at least before birth), seeing it/them as human and vulnerable (in many but not all cases, with a religious viewpoint).

Feminism: said to be about achieving equality for women and men
- However most commonly seeming to focus on achieving equality for women with men
- Sometimes said to be focused on institutional (legal, etc) sexism
- Other times, aiming to address sexism (against women, particularly) anywhere & everywhere it occurs in society

On the surface I would say yes.

Now I am debating if I should mention what happened when my pro-choice position was confronted with reality.

Lemme guess...you saw an abortion vid on youtube or maybe some fetus porn at a pro-life rally and you were like 'ZOMG ABORTION IS SO GROSS IT SHOULD BANNED.'

Ok, I am kidding. Surely you aren't that stupid - but a lot of pro-lifers believe that 'abortion is icky' is a valid argument against it.

[katamari Damassi]

OKay everyone: Lighten up:

25 Funniest Five-Second Films Ever

Some of those were actually quite funny. "Gettin' Laid" was a howler.

Don't you know that every time you laugh at a rape joke, somewhere a feminist is triggered?

[deLurch]

Since when does masturbation require grasping?

I would assume it requires at least a minimal level of dexterity. That said, I had made a false assumption that fetus masturbating story had to do with a male baby. I have since learned otherwise.

[Deo Vacuus]

I had made a false assumption that fetus masturbating story had to do with a male baby. I have since learned otherwise.

You're privilege is showing

[Parody Accountant]

Sex is the theater of the poor type of thing, and really this forum needs an edit button

You get one when you register.

Mine never works.

That sometimes happens, some bug. PM Lsuoma for a fix.

Try logging in from a few different IP addresses that you use (phone, home, office, etc.) PM Lsuoma from each, so he can patch them all together.

[katamari Damassi]

Speaking of rape jokes; one of my fave comedians, Patton Oswalt has stated that he understands the problem with rape jokes and will avoid telling them in the future. The feminists are crowing about it but still don't like him because he hasn't donned sack-cloth and ashes and begged forgiveness. I think he's made a huge mistake by opening himself up to the SJW thought police. As Bill Maher once said: "if you make a joke about an egg, you'll get an angry letter from some guy telling you it isn't funny because his father was killed by a chicken"*

* paraphrased, I don't recall the quote exactly

[Metalogic42]

Does wearing a NARAL button help show what a good feminist you are?

Obviously that's the widespread assumption, but aren't reproductive rights "pro-bodily-autonomy" rather than "pro-gender-equality"? (because of the inherent differences in male & female reproductive systems, risks, & opportunities).

National Abortion Rights Action League: pro-reproductive rights for women (particularly, access to elective termination of pregnancy)
- No attention, AFAIK, to reproductive rights for men.
- Obviously, men & women have different reproductive systems and significantly different risk of, and opportunity for, pregnancy.
- People who are "pro-choice" tend to strongly favor bodily autonomy for existing (already-born) people (perhaps particularly adults).
- People who are "pro-life" tend to strongly favor preservation of "human life" (at least before birth), seeing it/them as human and vulnerable (in many but not all cases, with a religious viewpoint).

Feminism: said to be about achieving equality for women and men
- However most commonly seeming to focus on achieving equality for women with men
- Sometimes said to be focused on institutional (legal, etc) sexism
- Other times, aiming to address sexism (against women, particularly) anywhere & everywhere it occurs in society

On the surface I would say yes.

Now I am debating if I should mention what happened when my pro-choice position was confronted with reality.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6PM3B43yBNU/T ... linist.jpg

[Mykeru]

welch, seriously. Get a grip.You are not doing yourself any favours at this point.

I love it when you come down from the mountain and throw your stone tablets.

"See any MRA talking points?"

Of course, as I have seen here and on AVfM disagreeing with MGTOW extrapolation of butthurt from legitimate issues means I have rejected the MRM, goodness and apple pie. Where have I heard that before?

[AndrewV69]

Check out this book if you have the time:

Pregnancy And Power:
A Short History of Reproductive Politics in America

Thanks. Bookmarked.

There is also a fear that muslims and other non-whites will 'out-breed' whites and that whites will no longer wield the same political power - not just in the USA, but worldwide.

*shrug*

I seem to recall that 90% of the 11 million Muslims killed since 1948 were killed by other Muslims. So those fears might be a bit misplaced. After one set has completely eliminated all others you might have some pause for concern. But till then, not so much.

As for whites not wielding political power as far as I can that is more of a domestic class issue. To wit, white elites appear to despise lower class whites. They long since stopped even pretending to care, and appear to be pretty much ok with replacing them.

The American empire if that is what you appear to be inferring is also on a downhill slide. I expect China to be the next super power. Russia not so much. My current supposition for the next 200 years is for China to eventually establish their own empire starting with and probably limited to strategic land masses relative to the South China Sea but not much more than that.

I will include Australia as falling under their influence as well as significant sectors of Africa but again, not much more beyond that.

As for the rest of it I believe there will be some violence associated with multi-ethnic conflict.

I can not say exactly how much but offhand to me anyway, it is pretty much of a given that unless some sort of mutual inter-group cooperation and dependance is established early and maintained then violence is pretty much inevitable. Too early to tell the scale and scope right now I think.

Anyway, see Northern Ireland, Rawanda, Canada, Nigeria etc. etc. etc. unlimited number of examples to pick from really.

[AndrewV69]

Any ideas on why that would be? That is a very interesting point of view. I would really like to see you expand a bit more on this.

By reading various monographies, articles and watching documentaries I truly believe that what we are experiencing today are just the remnants of various programs from the 30s-40s. Even back then, I don't think the people pushing for natality control were inherently evil, racist or xenophobic. It was mostly a class thing and a combination of disgust and pity from the upper social classes at why they thought was non-civilized.
Margaret Sanger was very open about her ideas of population control. Yes, her ideas were shaped in part because of what happened to her mother; but she also believed that certain "types of people" should not have children (neo-Malthusian ideas).
Here are some interesting articles you can read and analyze regarding that topic:
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2011/ ... erto-rico/
http://www.youngchicagoauthors.org/girl ... medina.htm
http://newint.org/features/1987/10/05/call/
http://womenst.library.wisc.edu/bibliogs/puerwom.htm

OK thanks. I have not looked at any of them yet but I will when I get home later on this afternoon.

[Walter Ego]

Here's a video I made today for anyone who's interesting in watching. Viewing is of course optional.

[AndrewV69]

But that ship has sailed already is my understanding. Even if immigration was curtailed right now, my understanding is that white births will be a minority by as early as 2014.

Too late: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18100457

The writing is on the wall. Whites are going to be a decreasing minority in the USA from now on.

This is a source of concern for you?

Not in the slightest. But very interesting from a population genetics point of view, very much so.

[Steersman]

MKG said:

Oh, and whilst we are 'at it', why are you unable to be significantly less prolix?n You seem to wear, as a badge of honour, unnecessary "circumlocution" to an alarming extent.

No fucking kidding. He positively wears my eyes and brain out to a pustulated frazzle. And most of the time, most of what he says could be shortened, and actually made more effective and specific, by about 75%. I no longer have Steers on ignore -- I decided that the ignore function represents intellectual dishonesty, in a sense -- but fuck me, he can be tiring.

Jesus, Steers. Try a little editorial precision and concision for a change.

Sorry about that Chief. But I’m working on it.

[AndrewV69]

Does wearing a NARAL button help show what a good feminist you are?

Obviously that's the widespread assumption, but aren't reproductive rights "pro-bodily-autonomy" rather than "pro-gender-equality"? (because of the inherent differences in male & female reproductive systems, risks, & opportunities).

National Abortion Rights Action League: pro-reproductive rights for women (particularly, access to elective termination of pregnancy)
- No attention, AFAIK, to reproductive rights for men.
- Obviously, men & women have different reproductive systems and significantly different risk of, and opportunity for, pregnancy.
- People who are "pro-choice" tend to strongly favor bodily autonomy for existing (already-born) people (perhaps particularly adults).
- People who are "pro-life" tend to strongly favor preservation of "human life" (at least before birth), seeing it/them as human and vulnerable (in many but not all cases, with a religious viewpoint).

Feminism: said to be about achieving equality for women and men
- However most commonly seeming to focus on achieving equality for women with men
- Sometimes said to be focused on institutional (legal, etc) sexism
- Other times, aiming to address sexism (against women, particularly) anywhere & everywhere it occurs in society

On the surface I would say yes.

Now I am debating if I should mention what happened when my pro-choice position was confronted with reality.

Lemme guess...you saw an abortion vid on youtube or maybe some fetus porn at a pro-life rally and you were like 'ZOMG ABORTION IS SO GROSS IT SHOULD BANNED.'

Ok, I am kidding. Surely you aren't that stupid - but a lot of pro-lifers believe that 'abortion is icky' is a valid argument against it.

Quite simply I was and still am pro-choice.

One day many years ago before I got married, my girlfriend at the time informed me that she thought she was pregnant.

I recoiled when she said she wanted an abortion. Nonetheless I offered to pay my share of the costs. Fortunately it turned out she was not preggers, but we broke up shortly after that because among other things I could not get over the fact that she would have aborted my child.

I am still pro-choice. I was just shaken out of a certain complacency (and really quite astonished at my visceral reaction) and I think I have some measure of understanding at where the pro-life crowd are coming from nowadays as a result.

One thing to talk the talk, quite another to walk it.

YMMV