When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
If I were a feminist, then I'd probably be trans-exclusionary, however.
That's the whole point of feminism; the rights of women. Men are free to wear dresses and makeup, get breast implants, and even go so far as to take estrogen and have their penises cut off, but none of that makes them women.
Last edited by Joe Perez; Apr 14, 2022 at 02:03 PM.
Reason: Added chicken joke
If I were a feminist, then I'd probably be trans-exclusionary, however.
That's the whole point of feminism; the rights of women. Men are free to wear dresses and makeup, get breast implants, and even go so far as to take estrogen and have their penises cut off, but none of that makes them women.
Whoa. Next you'll tell me I can't murder my 27 day old baby?
Whoa. Next you'll tell me I can't murder my 27 day old baby?
Honestly, I don't have a terribly strong opinion on that one. A 27 day old baby hasn't attained sapience, and so realistically, I don't see how killing it can be equated with murder in the same sense as if you were to kill your wife, or the Prime Minister of Canada.
But as I said, it's not something I'm strongly passionate about. So you're about as unlikely to see me marching in support of California Assembly Bill 2223 as for... pretty much anything else. I'm a shockingly apathetic person at the core.
My son at 27 days old had a handful of people wrapped around his finger. And other than breathing, eating, and excreting waste, the only other thing he knew how to do was cry. And he knew what crying was for.
I'd say his sapience was working quite well.
He's now 11 and change, and has taught me more about being a parent than I've taught him to be a human being.
Honestly, I don't have a terribly strong opinion on that one. A 27 day old baby hasn't attained sapience, and so realistically, I don't see how killing it can be equated with murder in the same sense as if you were to kill your wife, or the Prime Minister of Canada.
But as I said, it's not something I'm strongly passionate about. So you're about as unlikely to see me marching in support of California Assembly Bill 2223 as for... pretty much anything else. I'm a shockingly apathetic person at the core.
California legislature recently had a bill come up for debate that--based on poor wording--would have allowed for the killing of babies, post-delivery.
At least they're blaming the oversight on poor wording...
This is just one end of the spectrum. By the time I'm retired and forgetful, it won't surprise me if my existence can be "regulated" out of existence, based on something the government has cooked up.
California legislature recently had a bill come up for debate that--based on poor wording--would have allowed for the killing of babies, post-delivery.
Yes, California Assembly Bill 2223 which I mentioned in my last post.
Section 7 of the bill relieves mothers from criminal and civil liability in the event of "perinatal death due to a pregnancy-related cause." This specific line has been revised, as it originally read merely "perinatal death.", and that's what the right jumped on and translated as legalizing infanticide. In its revised form, it does not legalize the murder of an otherwise healthy newborn.
At its core, the bill has nothing to do with infanticide, and is merely an extension of the currently popular trend of painting illegal immigrants as victims "who experience adverse pregnancy outcomes as a result of systemic racial inequities and are more likely to be under scrutiny of state systems like child welfare or immigration." (quoting directly from Section 1 of the bill.)
At its core, the bill has nothing to do with infanticide, and is merely an extension of the currently popular trend of painting illegal immigrants as victims "who experience adverse pregnancy outcomes as a result of systemic racial inequities and are more likely to be under scrutiny of state systems like child welfare or immigration." (quoting directly from Section 1 of the bill.)
Any pejoratives aimed at illegal aliens by Sacramento are there to increase the size and power of government, and to denigrate the second class citizen....errr......taxpayers. That said, "slips" in verbiage like this are features, not bugs. All blue states see potential major changes to the Roe v. Wade standing, and they're getting ready for it.
The individual isn't really well-regarded in California, unless you're from a protected class. Then you get paid to be "oppressed."
That's the whole point of feminism; the rights of women. Men are free to wear dresses and makeup, get breast implants, and even go so far as to take estrogen and have their penises cut off, but none of that makes them women.
Nah, I haven't seen a single feminist stand next to a conservative and decry any trans athlete from competing as a woman. They obviously don't want women's "rights".
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
Honestly, I don't have a terribly strong opinion on that one. A 27 day old baby hasn't attained sapience, and so realistically, I don't see how killing it can be equated with murder in the same sense as if you were to kill your wife, or the Prime Minister of Canada.
Being apathetic has no bearing on comprehension of human life. You took an odd turn toward societal value (??) as being related to knowledge or wisdom, so by that logic, the idiots screaming "TRUST THE SCIENCE" haven't attained sapience.
California legislature recently had a bill come up for debate that--based on poor wording--would have allowed for the killing of babies, post-delivery.
At least they're blaming the oversight on poor wording...
This is just one end of the spectrum. By the time I'm retired and forgetful, it won't surprise me if my existence can be "regulated" out of existence, based on something the government has cooked up.
Yup. I equate this more with the reality that big government wants to control everything, including end of life. A nasty, cynical part of my brain thinks that Covid was engineered in part because it targets the old, weak, and those who during the end stages of life cause the most expense. I'm sure China (and Bill Gates?) would love the idea of the old and enfeebled dying off quickly, thereby freeing up their land and capital for taxation. Plus, if you're going to invade Taiwan it's good to not have to worry about the burden and expense of old folks on the public dole while at the same time using their newly laundered cash for weaponry.
You'd think that, by now, white male Republican politicians would have figured out that citing Adolph Hitler in a positive way (and not just incidentally, but as, like, the actual moral of an uplifting, rags-to-riches story), while debating a bill on the floor of the State Senate, is not a good idea.
But nobody told Tennessee State Senator Frank Nicely (R-Strawberry Plains) that.
"I wanna give you a little history lesson on homelessness. In 1910, Hitler decided to live on the streets for a while. So for two years, Hitler lived on the streets and practice his oratory and body language and how to connect with the masses and then went on to lead a life that got him in the history books. So a lot of these people, it's not a dead-end. They can come out of this. These homeless camps and have a productive life... or in Hitler's case a very unproductive life. I support this bill."
You'd think that, by now, white male Republican politicians would have figured out that citing Adolph Hitler in a positive way (and not just incidentally, but as, like, the actual moral of an uplifting, rags-to-riches story), while debating a bill on the floor of the State Senate, is not a good idea.
But nobody told Tennessee State Senator Frank Nicely (R-Strawberry Plains) that.
"I wanna give you a little history lesson on homelessness. In 1910, Hitler decided to live on the streets for a while. So for two years, Hitler lived on the streets and practice his oratory and body language and how to connect with the masses and then went on to lead a life that got him in the history books. So a lot of these people, it's not a dead-end. They can come out of this. These homeless camps and have a productive life... or in Hitler's case a very unproductive life. I support this bill."
I guess I'm missing where he cited Hitler's "riches".
Moving on =/= riches
Notoriety =/= riches
Perhaps I should simplify, for those here who are strict literalists unable to project with their imaginations into how other people may perceive things:
Using Hitler as an example of how homeless people can make positive changes in their own lives, to justify a bill which you support in the senate, is a bad idea.
But running a city/state into the ground, and enabling the homelessness and crime within it to skyrocket, is totally ok. As long as you are politically correct.
Perhaps I should simplify, for those here who are strict literalists unable to project with their imaginations into how other people may perceive things:
Using Hitler as an example of how homeless people can make positive changes in their own lives, to justify a bill which you support in the senate, is a bad idea.
Unless (hear me out here) he did it on purpose knowing how folks view Hitler or any reference to same, knowing it would turn people against the legislation so that he could be on record as being for it while secretly trying to sabotage it.
Or, like most politicians, he could just be a fidiot.
Unless (hear me out here) he did it on purpose knowing how folks view Hitler or any reference to same, knowing it would turn people against the legislation so that he could be on record as being for it while secretly trying to sabotage it.
Or, like most politicians, he could just be a fidiot.
0
