Export thread

The latest:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/21/politics/akin-controversy/index.html

And that 4pm deadline today has passed, so it would require a court order to get him off the ballot.

Great. No late term aborting of his campaign.

This is worse than what that idiot had to say.

http://news.yahoo.com/todd-akin-republican-abortion-plank-bad-timing-164630360.html

In a more serious note, his statement is almost universally panned as just fucking stupid. I get what he's trying to say about there being different levels of rape (with the obvious other type being statutory rape between kids who are only a year or two apart and it's consensual), but (a) his knowledge of rape/pregnancy is very 18th century and has been disproven by that weird science thing and (b) we can't start parsing something like rape or it leads us into dangerous territory such as "she was raped but it wasn't a violent rape, so she should be okay" kind of thinking.

Interestingly, I feel the same way about "hate crimes". While I understand them from a legal standpoint, I think that a white guy being murdered for his wallet during a robbery is just as valid as a black man who is murdered because someone doesn't like the color of his skin. The penalties should be the same, regardless of intent as long as the severity (ie, first degree, second degree) remains the same.

I think we haven't really talked about this because I can't see anyone sticking up for him.

Considering the last two (three, even?) threads involving rape have escalated to the point where they had to be locked, are you really surprised?

HowDroll said:

Considering the last two (three, even?) threads involving rape have escalated to the point where they had to be locked, are you really surprised?

Click to expand...

Another excellent point!

That being said, I can't WAIT to vote against this motherfucker in a few months.

Oh yeah! I forgot you moved to that area! I always think of you as a Chicagoan. Chicagoite. Chica.

Someone from Chicago.

Dave said:

Oh yeah! I forgot you moved to that area! I always think of you as a Chicagoan. Chicagoite. Chica.

Someone from Chicago.

Click to expand...

You were right the first time

I'm hoping to be a Chicagoan again soon, but for now, I get to live in the crystal meth/puppy mill capital of the world. Yay!

"No thread yet on Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin?"

Were you expecting some contention about his comments or something? Even Republicans think his comments were moronic.

Clearly what he said is indefensible. What more is there to be said? I've always said republicans are backwards on social issues, and this is certainly an extreme example of that. But let's also keep this in perspective - it's no more stupid than the other politician who was worried (seriously and honestly) about Guam capsizing and sinking because there were too many troops stationed on it. Or just about anything said by Joe Biden on a biweekly basis. It's just that this is a hot button because it involves America's Favorite Political Controversy and one of the two most deplored criminal acts (whether it comes first or second varies from person to person asked).

It'll probably lead to his defeat, and I don't think anybody would argue that's a horrible thing. Frankly, I wish we had an easy method of calling a vote of no confidence on any politician who does something so boneheaded. Maybe a lot of seats would go empty for a time, but I fail to see how that could be worse off than having a confident idiot occupy said seat.

Honestly it's not even close to the dumbest thing I've heard a politician say, and I am frankly surprised that the Republican party dropped him. I've heard far dumber/more offensive things said by them many times.

Dave said:

Great. No late term aborting of his campaign.

Click to expand...

Lines like that makes me want to have an Ed Mcmahon button in this forum. I just think "HI OHH!" is the most appropriate response possible in situations like this.

Also this Todd Akin guy...What a scumbag!




'nuff said.

I know it's horrible, but it's more interesting to discuss in terms of the Presidential campaign and how it might shape the national narrative on women's rights / abortion / rape, etc etc.

I'm really interested if Obama will hardline tie him to Paul Ryan, among other things.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

I know it's horrible, but it's more interesting to discuss in terms of the Presidential campaign and how it might shape the national narrative on women's rights / abortion / rape, etc etc.

I'm really interested if Obama will hardline tie him to Paul Ryan, among other things.

Click to expand...

We can only hope. I can not understand for the life of me why anyone with a womb would ever vote republican.

Timmus said:

We can only hope. I can not understand for the life of me why anyone with a womb would ever vote republican.

Click to expand...

Because Jeebus told them to.

HowDroll said:

Because Jeebus told them to.

Click to expand...

Which just makes me all kinds of sad.

I honestly struggle to even talk about this guy. It's just depressing.

HowDroll said:

Considering the last two (three, even?) threads involving rape have escalated to the point where they had to be locked, are you really surprised?

Click to expand...

This, coupled with knowing that me posting something negative about American politics, no matter how mucgh of an idiot they're being, will result in yet another "you're anti-american" crapporoony, has kept me from posting this.

That said, he's an idiot, and I'm out of this thread again.

Yes, I'm self-censoring because some [redacted] feel the need to attack each and every time. That's how friendly andi nviting to discussion HF is these days.

Guys, guys. He 'misspoke'. It's all good now.[DOUBLEPOST=1345641403][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, The Onion has been handling this wonderfully:

Pregnant Woman Relieved To Learn Her Rape Was Illegitimate

Republicans Condemn Akin's Comments As Blemish On Party's Otherwise Spotless Women's Rights Record

Women Voters Can't Help Fawning Over Sexist GOP

whoa, bubble, it must be really hard to post up on that cross

Charlie Don't Surf said:

whoa, bubble, it must be really hard to post up on that cross

Click to expand...

Oh it gets better and better....

Rep. King (R) from Iowa has never heard of a woman getting pregnant from incest or statutory rape.

Missouri Republican leader says anyone getting pregnant during a rape it's a blessing.

Oh yeah, these Republicans are wonderful people. Ha!

Gah. Fucking Missouri.

BananaHands said:

Guys, guys. He 'misspoke'. It's all good now.[DOUBLEPOST=1345641403][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, The Onion has been handling this wonderfully:

Pregnant Woman Relieved To Learn Her Rape Was Illegitimate

Republicans Condemn Akin's Comments As Blemish On Party's Otherwise Spotless Women's Rights Record

Women Voters Can't Help Fawning Over Sexist GOP

Click to expand...

You forgot this one

Dave said:

Oh it gets better and better....

Rep. King (R) from Iowa has never heard of a woman getting pregnant from incest or statutory rape.

Missouri Republican leader says anyone getting pregnant during a rape it's a blessing.

Oh yeah, these Republicans are wonderful people. Ha!

Click to expand...

When uneducated conservative figureheads of bass ackwards religions somewhere in the most secluded parts of Africa say things like this, I facepalm. When higher educated, successful people in one of the most educated, progressive, tolerant, what-have-you countries of the world says something like that and gets praise for it, I weep for mankind, and realise that we're slowly heading straight for a second Dark Ages.

Akin responds!

You read that right - it's the "liberal media" who is trying to get him to resign. Liberal media now = Romney, Paul Ryan, John Ashcroft, Rush Limbaugh...and this is the short bus list.

These liberal elite are a constant thorn in his side. He said he was sorry! What more do they want?!?

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3ql9rh/

Akin was told by the party to stay home from the convention.[DOUBLEPOST=1345661516][/DOUBLEPOST]I must admit that the GOP would rather lose the seat, than walk in step with this nut job.

It's so funny how such a reality deficient man could rise to such a high position.

I mean the part where he won't acknowledge that he's killed himself politically . His own party doesn't even want him and he just says everyone overreacted.

Listening to the folks complaining about the RINO's, the schism might be coming.

Gared said:

One almost has to wonder if a major split in the Republican party would open up the doors to the idea of a more than two party system. It could be interesting, at least.

Click to expand...

I've actually been rooting for this since the Tea Party started having a bigger and bigger influence. Fiscal conservatives breaking away from the party would be the best thing to happen to this country. It'd open the door for additional parties, which would be great.

If we could just isolate the zealots and knee-jerk social conservatives so they can't infect others with their stupidity, that would be great.

There's some people starting to accuse him of being bought off to say what he said and stay in the running. And it turns out his democrat opponent spent a lot of money on campaign ads in Akin's favor during the primary.

I'd rather run against an idiot too...

Another problem that would be solved by instant runoff elections.

GasBandit said:

Another problem that would be solved by instant runoff elections.

Click to expand...

Yep, we would not have found out what an ignorant fuck Akin actually is until after the runoff.

GasBandit said:

There's some people starting to accuse him of being bought off to say what he said and stay in the running. And it turns out his democrat opponent spent a lot of money on campaign ads in Akin's favor during the primary.

Click to expand...

You'd have to be a moron not to though. All she's saying is, "Please do my work for me."[DOUBLEPOST=1345674605][/DOUBLEPOST]

Gared said:

I'm much less opposed than I probably should be to a joke told by Gabriel Iglasias becoming true life, with a few additions. Let the DNC and RNC put together small groups of people that they think are qualified to run the country, hold very brief primary election cycles, giving the candidates a month at most to get their platforms explained to the masses, then, once we're down to 2 candidates left, hold an American Idol-esque 2 hour TV show called "Who's gonna run this bitch?" and open the phone lines for votes after the show, tabulate all of the votes, and announce the winner the next night.

Click to expand...

Great idea, but, who's gonna MC that bitch?

GasBandit said:

There's some people starting to accuse him of being bought off to say what he said and stay in the running. And it turns out his democrat opponent spent a lot of money on campaign ads in Akin's favor during the primary.

Click to expand...

DarkAudit said:

Click to expand...

If it’s a legitimate citation, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Gared said:

Reality has very little to do with political elections. Similarly, there's no guarantee that he actually believes what he said. He could very well have been attempting to appeal to the religious conservative base and not cared that the statement made him look foolish to the secular base, because he doesn't expect the secular base to vote for him in November anyway; and it just backfired on him because either he or his speech writer couldn't figure out a way to say what he said without pissing so many people off. On the other hand, it's also possible that the only reason he wanted to get onto the science committee was so he could weigh in on debates and discussions from the religious perspective.

Click to expand...

Does...does anyone actually seriously believe that the average church-going person believes this sort of thing?

Terrik said:

Does...does anyone actually seriously believe that the average church-going person believes this sort of thing?

Click to expand...

The average church-going person? No. The shrill, crazy religious right? Abso-fucking-lutely.

HowDroll said:

The average church-going person? No. The shrill, crazy religious right? Abso-fucking-lutely.

Click to expand...

Based on what? Where else have you heard it before?

I think Akin said something idiotic on his own. I don't see how/why that ties it to anyone else or why it would mean anyone in any large number shares his beliefs.

I agree Terrik , the type of people HowDroll is talking about usually believe in stupider and worse ideas than Akins.

For more and more every day jobs, you need to take psychotechnical tests, psychosocial tests, assessment after assessment, leadership skill tests, you have to have X years of experience, etc etc.
For politics and running a country, you just need opposition that's more incompetent than you. Or enough idiots of one type to get elected, either way.
No, vetting by the press, that oh so independent and controlled-by-the-people organisation with as their only goal to improve life for everyone, doesn't count.
No, having some government bureau check the applicants for all politically important jobs isn't the solution - far from it.

Still, it's odd that you have to prove your intelligence and leadership skills and so on and so forth to get into middle management of a random company, but not to get into Senate or House or worse.

Gilgamesh said:

I agree Terrik , the type of people HowDroll is talking about usually believe in stupider and worse ideas than Akins.

Click to expand...

I read a story yesterday about a school that started using biometrics to identify students to make it easier and more efficient to pay for school lunch and get them through the line. A bunch of parents threw a hissy fit because biometrics is the precursor to marking our children with the "mark of the beast" from revelations.

Think that's crazy? Google "mark of the beast biometrics". 116,000 hits. Droll is spot on.

Just what would it cost Disney to tell Pat Robertson he's not getting a free ride for the 700 Club on ABC Family anymore? Isn't there anyone in that company with enough balls to tell that senile, bigoted piece of excrement to just dry up and blow away?

What'd I miss? Disney? Pat Robertson?

Dave said:

What'd I miss? Disney? Pat Robertson?

Click to expand...

Just riffing on the religious whackjobbery...

Pat Robertson put in a clause that whoever purchased the latest incarnation of what started life as CBN (The Family Channel, Fox Family, now ABC Family) was contractually bound to air the 700 Club in perpetuity. So you buy the network, you're stuck with Pat, even though he sold his interest in it decades ago.

Who has the cojones to tell him to fuck off and tear up that contract in the name of common decency?

DarkAudit said:

Just riffing on the religious whackjobbery...

Pat Robertson put in a clause that whoever purchased the latest incarnation of what started life as CBN (The Family Channel, Fox Family, now ABC Family) was contractually bound to air the 700 Club in perpetuity. So you buy the network, you're stuck with Pat, even though he sold his interest in it decades ago.

Who has the cojones to tell him to fuck off and tear up that contract in the name of common decency?

Click to expand...

Well, you can't just tear it up, but there has to be an end to it somewhere. If there's not then you're stuck with him unless you want them to get sued and give them lots of money that way.

Dave said:

I read a story yesterday about a school that started using biometrics to identify students to make it easier and more efficient to pay for school lunch and get them through the line. A bunch of parents threw a hissy fit because biometrics is the precursor to marking our children with the "mark of the beast" from revelations.

Think that's crazy? Google "mark of the beast biometrics". 116,000 hits. Droll is spot on.

Click to expand...

Wow...

It still amazes me that this kind of thing can happen in the US. I guess it clashes hard with the image I had as a kid of the US being the most advanced country in the world, which must still be there somewhere.

We are the most advanced society, but we still have a large number of kooks. It just comes from being such a large nation.

GasBandit said:

5 reasons Todd Akin actually still might win.

Click to expand...

They could run a chimp with an (R) by their name and a great lot of idiots would vote for them. We could say the same for the (D) but I'd be willing to bet that the number would be far, far lower.

We are the most advanced society, but we still have a large number of kooks. It just comes from being such a large nation.

Click to expand...

I think you don't do yourselves any favor by just dismissing bigotry as a natural consequence of being so many people. The US has about 300 million people, whereas Europe has about 700 million*, and I'd say we don't have nearly as much religious bigotry, or at least it doesn't have as much impact on politics...

(Maybe we have a more racism instead, and that has its own causes we need to address)

*If you prefer we can compare to individual countries. France has about 60M people, Spain 46M. Ratio of 5 and about 7 respectively, the comparison still works. I don't have news of creationism almost being taught in Science class here...

In the same vein, a more nuanced view in which you aren't THE most advanced society but perhaps more advanced in some respects. That's the way to keep advancing.

tegid said:

I think you don't do yourselves any favor by just dismissing bigotry as a natural consequence of being so many people. The US has about 300 million people, whereas Europe has about 700 million*, and I'd say we don't have nearly as much religious bigotry, or at least it doesn't have as much impact on politics...

(Maybe we have a more racism instead, and that has its own causes we need to address)

*If you prefer we can compare to individual countries. France has about 60M people, Spain 46M. Ratio of 5 and about 7 respectively, the comparison still works. I don't have news of creationism almost being taught in Science class here...

In the same vein, a more nuanced view in which you aren't THE most advanced society but perhaps more advanced in some respects. That's the way to keep advancing.

Click to expand...

While I agree with you, I think you're forgetting such lovely new European countries as Poland and throwbacks like Italy, where the Catholic Church still has waaaayyyy too much power.

What I don't understand is why practically all large and institutionalized versions of Christianity (not all) end up in the far-right-wing nutjob fringe on the ethical scale. Antisemitism? Anti-women? Anti-gay? And so on and so on - none of that has anything to do with what Christ taught. Eh well.

I think it has to do with large and instituzionalized, more than with Christianity. Or with these organizations being traditional and bringing in more the traditional sort of people.

On Europe and the church: I live in Spain, for Chrissake, and still don't feel this kind of thing happens nearly as much.

PS.: Ok, I see there was controversy about creationism in schools some years ago in Poland. My point is weakened but I think it still stands.

Dave said:

They could run a chimp with an (R) by their name and a great lot of idiots would vote for them. We could say the same for the (D) but I'd be willing to bet that the number would be far, far lower.

Click to expand...

I'd be willing to take that bet. 　I haven't seen any great evidence that those on the left are any less fervent in voting for "their guy/party/ideology/dude who's against the dude who believes things you hate for some reason".

It's hard to tell if Europe has less religious bigotry for a couple reasons

1) There are almost zero immigrants in a lot of Europe when compared to the US. Comparing cultural tolerances in places which have different quantities of immigrants is really hard.

2) On the other hand, Europe is simply geographically closer to a lot of foreign cultures, like the middle east, which means that the influences you feel from them may be stronger than we do. Similar to the immigrant thing, but different side of the coin. Americas southern border brings in a strong Catholic influence, but it's northern border is culturally insignificant. There's a reason we call Canada our hat.

3) While Europe may have less religious bigotry, it also may have less religious tolerance. France is a good example of the kind of laws that would NEVER be accepted in the US (outlawing Burka's in public or religious symbols in public schools.)

Terrik said:

I'd be willing to take that bet. 　I haven't seen any great evidence that those on the left are any less fervent in voting for "their guy/party/ideology/dude who's against the dude who believes things you hate for some reason".

Click to expand...

Hmmm. I dunno. I think there's a lot more "moderates" and "undecideds" who vote mostly Democrat, and therefore, wouldn't vote for the chimp. Let's say there's (ass-pulled figures incoming!) 10% who will vote Democrat no matter what, because Republicans are soulless moneywhores who want to force unwanted babies on minority semi-slave workers. I'd guess there's at least double the amount of people who'll vote Republican no matter what, because Democrats are heathen communists who want to take your guns, kill your babies, and turn the States into a big socialist welfare camp, paid for out of the pockets of the working man. More undecided/moderate votes go to the Democrats, but those are always more fickle and more prone to running away - and they won't vote for a chimp.

I don't think the Akin situation reveals anything about the right wing as specific as his view. What I DO think it brings to light is the misogynistic undertones that seem to have permeated the conservative right for a long time now. I find it very disturbing. I think view like his are very prevalent in a lot of Christianity and in many parts of America.

There are some attitudes towards women in this country that I really think the right wing needs to shake off if they want to be able to not be looked at as nuts.

Dave said:

Well, you can't just tear it up, but there has to be an end to it somewhere. If there's not then you're stuck with him unless you want them to get sued and give them lots of money that way.

Click to expand...

That's just it. Disney's legal team could just destroy him, if they really wanted to make an effort. Even if he eventually "won", it would more likely be his estate's estate's estate that would ever collect any settlement.

Necronic said:

It's hard to tell if Europe has less religious bigotry for a couple reasons

1) There are almost zero immigrants in a lot of Europe when compared to the US. Comparing cultural tolerances in places which have different quantities of immigrants is really hard.

Click to expand...

Dude, that's been untrue for almost 20 years. The idea of the USA as the big melting pot vs the monocultural Europe is complete nonsense. Almost 40% of people in Belgium (and we're smack-dab in the heart of the EU, not on the borders, so compare us to, say, Kansas or Colorado, geographically speaking) has roots in the last 2 generations outisde of the EU. It goes up to over 60% if you include other EU countries (and yes, Spain or Finland or Poland have a different culture than Belgium or each other.) Literally over 50% of children born last year had parents of a non-EU origin. There are now more practicing muslims than practising Christians in Belgium (according to official figures from 2010).

Necronic said:

2) On the other hand, Europe is simply geographically closer to a lot of foreign cultures, like the middle east, which means that the influences you feel from them may be stronger than we do. Similar to the immigrant thing, but different side of the coin. Americas southern border brings in a strong Catholic influence, but it's northern border is culturally insignificant. There's a reason we call Canada our hat.

Click to expand...

Meh, you're saying Canada and the US are one and the same culture throughout? I don't agree at all, but let's agree to disagree.

Necronic said:

3) While Europe may have less religious bigotry, it also may have less religious tolerance. France is a good example of the kind of laws that would NEVER be accepted in the US (outlawing Burka's in public or religious symbols in public schools.)

Click to expand...

On the other hand, school books presenting creationism as a valid scientific theory on the same level as evolution would NEVER be accepted in practically all of Western Europe. Different emphasis placed on different things. Outlawing religious symbols in public schools, to me, points in entirely the opposite direction: it's a sign of acceptance, plurality and tolerance, not the other way around. Public schools, run and paid for by the state, have to be neutral, open and inviting to everyone. Loading them up with crucifixes, praying before the school day, taking the class to mass,... are not acceptable when you're dealing with people of dozens of religions.
Anyway, the difference in what would be "acceptable" and what not, is mostly one of the way you look at religion. In (Western) Europe, it's quickly becoming generally accepted that religion is perfectly fine, but no religion whatsoever should meddle with/interfere in public life on any level. Do whatever you want in name of your religion - but do it at home, out of sight, and without showing it or forcing it on anyone else. Be it slaughtering a sheep according to religious rites, fasting a month, covering your hair, circumsizing your children, baptising your babies, or whatever.
In the USA, just like in most of the Middle East, there's still a significant part of the population which believes a church (no matter which one - the one those people happen to belong to) has a right/obligation to try and enforce their ethical and moral views on the rest of society. Whether you're a muslim stoning a woman for not covering her hair, or a christian threatening women who need an abortion, it's equally disgusting and dispicable. Your religion is your concern, not mine. Don't force it on me and I won't force mine on you. Living according to the Sharia or according Leviticus is equally backwards and against my - and many Europeans - principles.

That pic reminds me of the Conservatives in Britain during WWI. They wanted the Army to recall all of the steel helmets, because they were causing more head wounds.

Not to say that the death rate from shrapnel fell significantly, but because those that would have died without the helmet is now costing us more money because they have more wounded.

Always be wary of politicians when they throw around baseless statistics.

Bubble181 said:

Republicans ... want to force unwanted babies on minority semi-slave workers.

Click to expand...

I know this is hyperbole, but this sentence is literally a plank of the Republican platform.

I don't know if the above has to do with anything, but it always seems to me that those who are the most backwards on social issues are the least well traveled. Doesn't seem to help with being backwards on fiscal issues though.

[DOUBLEPOST=1345735004][/DOUBLEPOST]

Charlie Don't Surf said:

I know this is hyperbole, but this sentence is literally a plank of the Republican platform.

Click to expand...

Someone forgot what literally means! And is also a Charlie.

Bubble181 said:

Dude, that's been untrue for almost 20 years. The idea of the USA as the big melting pot vs the monocultural Europe is complete nonsense. Almost 40% of people in Belgium (and we're smack-dab in the heart of the EU, not on the borders, so compare us to, say, Kansas or Colorado, geographically speaking) has roots in the last 2 generations outisde of the EU. It goes up to over 60% if you include other EU countries (and yes, Spain or Finland or Poland have a different culture than Belgium or each other.) Literally over 50% of children born last year had parents of a non-EU origin. There are now more practicing muslims than practising Christians in Belgium (according to official figures from 2010).

Click to expand...

Understand that I'm speaking EU wide. In the EU as a whole the foreign born population is 9.4%. In the US it's 12.5%. That's roughly a 30% difference. On top of that the US has been so open to immigrants for so long that, in many major cities, non-hispanic whites are now in a minority.

Meh, you're saying Canada and the US are one and the same culture throughout? I don't agree at all, but let's agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

I was just saying that Europes physical proximity to foreign cultures may have a significant impact on cultural diversity that you don't really see in America, since we only share a border with one truly "foreign" culture (mexico)

On the other hand, school books presenting creationism as a valid scientific theory on the same level as evolution would NEVER be accepted in practically all of Western Europe. Different emphasis placed on different things. Outlawing religious symbols in public schools, to me, points in entirely the opposite direction: it's a sign of acceptance, plurality and tolerance, not the other way around. Public schools, run and paid for by the state, have to be neutral, open and inviting to everyone. Loading them up with crucifixes, praying before the school day, taking the class to mass,... are not acceptable when you're dealing with people of dozens of religions.

Click to expand...

Maybe I misunderstood the law, but it's not about the schools not showing off religious items, but about the students. There is nothing that rings "acceptance, plurality, and tolerance" in a culture that doesn't allow a child to wear a cross, hijab, or a skullcap.

In the USA, just like in most of the Middle East, there's still a significant part of the population which believes a church (no matter which one - the one those people happen to belong to) has a right/obligation to try and enforce their ethical and moral views on the rest of society. Whether you're a muslim stoning a woman for not covering her hair, or a christian threatening women who need an abortion, it's equally disgusting and dispicable. Your religion is your concern, not mine. Don't force it on me and I won't force mine on you. Living according to the Sharia or according Leviticus is equally backwards and against my - and many Europeans - principles.

Click to expand...

You say they should not have the power to affect how you act. Yet you feel totally fine in restricting how they act (obviously this does not apply to murder.)

I have a border with two foreign cultures, Mexico and Louisiana.

sixpackshaker said:

I have a border with two foreign cultures, Mexico and Louisiana.

Click to expand...

And it's hard to get more foreign'nin dem luzianans, ah geh ron tee.

Necronic said:

Maybe I misunderstood the law, but it's not about the schools not showing off religious items, but about the students. There is nothing that rings "acceptance, plurality, and tolerance" in a culture that doesn't allow a child to wear a cross, hijab, or a skullcap.

You say they should not have the power to affect how you act. Yet you feel totally fine in restricting how they act (obviously this does not apply to murder.)

Click to expand...

It's both in France, only teachers/administrators/staff in Belgium. Both are, of course, partially based in the "I dun wan' no woman in a scarf teachin' mah children" mentality of the retarded part of the population, but also about, yes, openness. It's a different view on how to adapt and live together. Understand that, for a very large percentage of pthe population in more and more European countries, it's clear that the "multicultural society" as a model has failed. Both left and right are looking more and more into "assimilation" instead of "living together" again. The right would like nothing better than all immigrants assimilating completely and without a ripple into local culture. The left is shifting mostly towards "allow everybody their freedom to do what they want, and avoid all offense given/taken by all keeping it separated from work and state".
Religious symbolism, hatred, oppression,... have caused more deaths than anything else in the world (yes, "humans" probably comes first, but don't be anal ). The freedom of religion is pretty serious around here. Not being forced into a confrontation with others' views on religion is quicjkly becoming an essential right as well.

For the rest, it's a matter of "being intolerant to the intolerant" and whatever.

Bubble181 said:

The freedom of religion is pretty serious around here. Not being forced into a confrontation with others' views on religion is quicjkly becoming an essential right as well.

Click to expand...

And apparently that second right supercedes the first.

GasBandit said:

And it's hard to get more foreign'nin dem luzianans, ah geh ron tee.

Click to expand...

Well YOU try to get them to speak English! Damn Frenchies and their crazy food. Their crazy, delicious food...

AshburnerX said:

Well YOU try to get them to speak English! Damn Frenchies and their crazy food. Their crazy, delicious food...

Click to expand...

Who you callin' crazy?

Bubble181 said:

Religious symbolism, hatred, oppression,... have caused more deaths than anything else in the world (yes, "humans" probably comes first, but don't be anal ).

Click to expand...

This is simply because theocracies were the political norm in the past. We're more or less beyond religious governments in most "1st world" countries, and guess what. We're STILL killing each other. Was WWI or WWII about religion? Was the Vietnam war about religion? What about the French Revolution? Or the Khmer Rouge? Stalin was an ATHEIST and he murdered MILLIONS.

Where's your church to blame for this? Religion isn't the reason we've had wars. Greed, hatred, and stupidity are why we've had wars. Religion is just one of many motivating scapegoats that's slapped on top of a war by a subhuman piece of crap that is instigating the war for his own inhuman desires.

Thinking that religion is the cause of war and death is like saying that being black causes crime.

Bubble is demonstrating what I like to call a practicing member of the Church of Atheism.

I think that's a bit unfair.

Why because bubble thinks that anyone with a religious belief is a crazy bigoted whackjob and feels that if they're displaying religious affiliation that he just has to confront them?

Bubble181 said:

Not being forced into a confrontation with others' views on religion is quicjkly becoming an essential right as well.

Click to expand...

Probably the best example against the whole "Religion is the root cause of wars" is to simply look at Asia. By our western concepts of religion most of these cultures have been historically quite secular. Yet the country of China has been in a state of near constant war for all of recorded history. Japan as well, while paying lip service to a divinity in the Emperor, waged a constant internal civil war during the highly secular Shogunate, and is thoroughly hated by their neighbours for their history of war-mongering.

everyone knows the important part of the world ends west of Moscow.

Gared said:

And you're sure he's talking about having to confront people displaying their religion, and not talking about having people confront him with their religion (like, say, door to door missionaries, the Jehovah's Witnesses, protesters like the WBC showing up at military funerals with signs that say "GOD Hates Fags" and implying that the reason said service member died is because the US hasn't done enough to strike down the "unholy abomination" that is homosexuality, etc.) how?

Damn... I'm sorry, I didn't know that it was my fault for going out of my way to confront religious people who showed up uninvited to my house to preach their beliefs to me and refuse to leave when I politely ask them to. I promise I'll stop hanging out at home having a nice day, if it'll stop provoking people of different religious beliefs into descending upon my house with pamphlets and bibles in hand, in order to convert me to their beliefs. Will that be enough to stop people from firebombing mosques, or do I need to sacrifice my first born son as well?

Click to expand...

well the quote came upon talking about France's laws outlawing Burka's in public or religious symbols in public schools, so no I don't think he's talking about Mormons going door to door.

Can we just rename the site from "Halforums" to "Project Onto Bubble181" and get it over with?

Terrik said:

Based on what? Where else have you heard it before?

I think Akin said something idiotic on his own. I don't see how/why that ties it to anyone else or why it would mean anyone in any large number shares his beliefs.

Click to expand...

I live in the Bible Belt (in the same state as Akin, in fact), and I'm exposed all the time to uneducated people with backwards beliefs. I haven't ever heard anyone make his exact argument about "legitimate rape," but since I've moved down here I've heard some shockingly dumb things come out of people's mouths about religion/education/abortion/homosexuality/poverty/etc. Christians are VERY different down here than even Chicago, where I grew up and attended parochial school for 13 years -- and I imagine Shanghai Christians are even more different. I'm not trying to insult Christians as a whole, but if you experienced firsthand the craziness that is extreme southern American evangelicalism, you'd get it. There are a lot of evangelical preachers that hang out on my campus. I am exposed to their brand of crazy on a pretty regular basis.

Also, as of a poll that was released today, 38% of my neighbors still plan on voting for this man. As far as I'm concerned, that means they're endorsing him and his beliefs about women's bodies.

I always took door to door evangelicals as a nice nuisance. They are paying you the complement that your soul is worth saving. Then I poke holes in their dogma...

then let my dog out...

simple really.

Terrik said:

Based on what? Where else have you heard it before?

I think Akin said something idiotic on his own. I don't see how/why that ties it to anyone else or why it would mean anyone in any large number shares his beliefs.

Click to expand...

This has kinda been around for a while. Actually, it goes back to ancient times, but for a more recent sampling:

I would hope that when a woman goes into a physician, with a rape issue, that that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage, or was it truly caused by a rape.​

• Senator Chuck Winder, R- Idaho, 2012

Most women either are not fertile during assault or do not become pregnant because the trauma prompts a hormonal response that prevents ovulation.​

• Dr. Richard Dobbins, 20-year GOP contributor, 2006

Concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami.​

• Judge James Leon Holmes, Bush appointee

The facts show that people who are raped — who are truly raped — the juices don't flow, the body functions don't work and they don't get pregnant. Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever . . . to get pregnant, it takes a little cooperation. And there ain't much cooperation in a rape.​

• Rep. Henry Aldridge, R- North Carolina, 1995

The odds that a woman who is raped will get pregnant are one in millions and millions and millions [...] The traumatic experience of rape causes a woman to secrete a certain secretion that tends to kill sperm.​

• Delaware state Rep. Stephen Freind, R-Delaware County, 1988

Click to expand...

Gared said:

And you're sure he's talking about having to confront people displaying their religion, and not talking about having people confront him with their religion (like, say, door to door missionaries, the Jehovah's Witnesses, protesters like the WBC showing up at military funerals with signs that say "GOD Hates Fags" and implying that the reason said service member died is because the US hasn't done enough to strike down the "unholy abomination" that is homosexuality, etc.) how?

Damn... I'm sorry, I didn't know that it was my fault for going out of my way to confront religious people who showed up uninvited to my house to preach their beliefs to me and refuse to leave when I politely ask them to. I promise I'll stop hanging out at home having a nice day, if it'll stop provoking people of different religious beliefs into descending upon my house with pamphlets and bibles in hand, in order to convert me to their beliefs. Will that be enough to stop people from firebombing mosques, or do I need to sacrifice my first born son as well?

And this is why we can't discuss religion; everyone starts throwing accusations around like mad and then the personal insults start flying. Seriously. Before you post something in a moment of hot-blooded fury, re-read what you're posting in response to. Think it over. Ask yourself "Is there a way that this comment could be taken that can be construed as anything other than a personal attack against all of (insert group/status here)?" Take into account the person who made the comment. Do you know them to be a troll, a hate-filled ass-hat, or a nice person most of the time? Once you've taken the time to review all of these considerations, try posting again in a clearer head, instead of jumping the gun and assuming that people mean the worst.

Click to expand...

The irony of this post is simply too much for me. I believe we have crossed the streams here people.

Your post indicated you weren't really even following the conversation. It made huge assumptions about what was being said and was generally a really angry non-sequitor.

Which was hilarious because you said we need to re-read what we were responding to and not make angry non-sequitors.

Covar said:

Why because bubble thinks that anyone with a religious belief is a crazy bigoted whackjob and feels that if they're displaying religious affiliation that he just has to confront them?

Click to expand...

Exactly because he didn't say that and you assumed far too much. That part you are quoting is a description of where these bannings of burkhas or even hiyabs and other veils that don't cover the face are coming from (one of the places they're coming from).

Really, the part that you maybe could hold against him is the "Religion main reason of war throughout history" point and that: 1- can be discussed to hold some truth 2- in any case is more a common misconception than being "practicing member of the Church of Atheism.[DOUBLEPOST=1345754741][/DOUBLEPOST]

HowDroll said:

Also, as of a poll that was released today, 38% of my neighbors still plan on voting for this man. As far as I'm concerned, that means they're endorsing him and his beliefs about women's bodies.

Click to expand...

Well, in the mindset of a two party system that can't be true can it? But I guess you could say that, if they don't approve of this bullshit, they at least don't think it's too bad.

(Does endorse mean share beliefs and positions, or am I misunderstanding?)[DOUBLEPOST=1345755031][/DOUBLEPOST]As a comment on the veil/cross/whatever ban in public schools in france (it really was all at the same time I believe): I think it's a matter of coming from a trend where they were forbidding religious symbols in schools on the school's part such as crucifixes on the walls and whatnot (which I think is totally right), and took it way too far. On the other hand you have places where schools, courthouses or whatever have christian symbols and that's totally fine and legal, such as Spain or Italy or I guess the US, which isn't right either. I guess it's very hard to get to the right point as a society, because there are always opposite forces tugging in either direction, and usually one of them will win by a little bit or by a lot.

To pu

Necronic said:

This is simply because theocracies were the political norm in the past. We're more or less beyond religious governments in most "1st world" countries, and guess what. We're STILL killing each other. Was WWI or WWII about religion? Was the Vietnam war about religion? What about the French Revolution? Or the Khmer Rouge? Stalin was an ATHEIST and he murdered MILLIONS.

Where's your church to blame for this? Religion isn't the reason we've had wars. Greed, hatred, and stupidity are why we've had wars. Religion is just one of many motivating scapegoats that's slapped on top of a war by a subhuman piece of crap that is instigating the war for his own inhuman desires.

Thinking that religion is the cause of war and death is like saying that being black causes crime.

Click to expand...

To put it in d and d terms wars are the result of leaders that rolled high charisma and nothing else.

"Endorse" doesn't necessarily mean "share," but it does mean "support or approve of." Yeah, some of those people are going to be voting for him because a) he's Republican and b) they think that he's better than the alternative (our current senator, Claire McCaskill, who is actually quite moderate and regularly votes against her party) -- you are correct that the two-party system is largely to blame. But, frankly, if a Democrat senator had said something that outrageous and stupid about one of the highly-targeted groups I identify as (female and atheist being the big two), I'd probably either not vote or go out and vote for the alternative because that person has made it clear they don't represent me. I tend to vote Democrat, but I've voted Republican and Libertarian before (mostly when I was living in Chicago), and I'll do it again.

Well, it seems I missed a bit of drama here. Perhaps all for the best

Anyway, without wanting to provoke, let me say a few things. Do bear in mind that I haven't seen any of the posts that were removed (except excerpts still in quotes).

Firstly, I wasn't necessarily stating my own personal point of view. While I do think burkas are a serious problem, I don't think a law forcing the issue is the solution. I was trying to point out where the sentiment is coming from and what lies at the basis of it. It's too easy to say "France hates muslims and is forcing everyone to abandon their faiths because burkas are illegal, there's no freedom of religion". A lot of muslims consider it an insult to have to be brought to court in a building that prominently displays signs of Christian faith. I personally think it's a shame to remove 200+-year-old crucifixes from courthouses, just like I think it's a shame to destroy Buddha statues in Afghanistan or any other antique/ancient art works. I agree with the sentiment at the basis of said removal (religion needs to butt out of our law system), but I don't think taking down the symbols is necessary - as long those crucifixes/bibles/whatever are considered works of antique art, and not in any way an endorsement or whatever of the faith they represent. Similarly, I'm technically a republican (in the older form of the word - I think our royal house should be abolished), but that doesn't mean I think we should tear down the royal palace. Just turn it into a museum.
Secondly, I'll concede that, yes, there are plenty of reasons to go to war, and perhaps religion isn't the biggest one. If I state "abuse of religion is an important factor in casing hate and hate crimes, and religion has been (ab)used as a reason to go to war and/or villify the enemy far too many times over the course of history", can you accept that?
Thirdly, I'm definitely not of the Church of Atheism, considering I'm not an atheist. I'm agnostic. If stating that I insist upon a complete separation of church and state (be it Sharia, be it Leviticus, be it I-don't-care-what) makes me suddenly a hard-line atheist zealot in your eyes, I'm not the one with a problem in modern democratic society.
Fourth, I'll try to rephrase my "confrontation" point. It's not something I, personally, usually feel very strongly about. I don't care if the woman behind the counter is wearing a small cross on her neck, or has a bindi, or is wearing a headscarf. On the other hand, some people are. Yes, many of them for xenophobic reasons. My grandmother wore a scarf on her head to churh every sunday, and nobody complained back then. Forcing all civil servants to hide their personal beliefs (and it goes beyond strictly religious items - you're not allowed to wear a badge proclaiming a political view either, for example) was the "easy" way out.
Since most people get most of their information on other countries from prejudiced media sources, let's state clearly what is and isn't legal.
In France and Belgium, the niqab and burka are illegal to be worn in public, because they disguise identity and hide the face. Yes, all face-covering apparel is illegal. There are a few exceptions, but they're surprisingly limited. Carnaval in a few cities, but, in case you're wondering, yes, it is illegal to wear a face-covering mask to a children's party or whatever outside of carnaval season. this was done because, both in Paris and in Brussels, there have been serious riots over problems with people with covered faces. Just a few weeks ago, there were riots against the police in a neighbourhood a 10minutes walk from me. Police officers wanted to check the identity of a woman in niqab (they weren't even giving her a ticket for wearing it, mind!), they asked her to come to their car and, privately, show her face to a female, muslim officer (yes, we do bend over backwards to accomodate everyone, why?). The officer got a head-butt and several striks to the face for her trouble, and riots broke out because the police shouldn't have been allowed to force her to show her face and had been "too aggressive". Camera footage shows they weren't, though. Anyway, this is with this restriction in place. Yes, we have detained men in burkas hiding explosives, and yes, we have had people abusing these clothing items to smuggle/hide identity of burglars/etc.
For civil servants on duty, it's illegal to display any sign of personal religious or philosophical beliefs. No cross on your neck, no swastika-tattoo on your forehead, no badge proclaiming "I'm socialist and proud of it". This to ensure neutrality. As has been said - some people object to being treated by someone of another way of life - that damn conservative ass won't give me the aid I need and should get, that damn bleeding heart leftie won't consider my complaint about noise from the neighbours, that muslim won't note down my complaint about the stench of slaughtering sheep in the backyard,... Prejudice and bigotry, on all sides. Easier to force a semblance of neutrality than trying to change everyone. In schools, as far as belgium goes, it's made legal to specify whether or not face-covering apparel is illegal. Most schools already had rules against caps/hats/head coverings indoor, but there was the problem that such rules were sometimes being treated as banning headscarves, sometimes just burkas, sometimes none of them because of religious freedom. Law was made to clarify that a school can explicitly ban them. Since burka and niqab are illegal anyway (public space), this only concerns regular hair coverings...Schools are free to make their rules, but generally speaking, they're allowed.

Anyway. My point wasn't "I'm a bigot", nor "all religious people are bigots". I wasn't saying "Americans are backwards for their stance on religion", either. I was syaing "some people think this way ,and it led to these laws". I was trying to explain where these laws are coming from - whether or not I agree with them is completely irrelevant to that matter. There's a very big difference in interpretation of freedoms of religion/speech/etc between cultures. Especially between the US and continental Europe, but even on a smaller basis. To give a silly and non-related example, in Flanders, the public opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of allowing street cameras to be used against crime (both using ATM cameras and security cameras to track, and placing specific cameras to register what happens on "hot spots" such as tourist attractions with a lot of pickpockets). In Wallonia, the public opinion is strongly against, as they see it as a horrible breach of privacy. I'm not saying one or the other is right - jsut that the balance of freedom/security is different for every person, and these views are influenced more by surroundings and local culture than people seem to think.

Necronic said:

Probably the best example against the whole "Religion is the root cause of wars" is to simply look at Asia. By our western concepts of religion most of these cultures have been historically quite secular. Yet the country of China has been in a state of near constant war for all of recorded history. Japan as well, while paying lip service to a divinity in the Emperor, waged a constant internal civil war during the highly secular Shogunate, and is thoroughly hated by their neighbours for their history of war-mongering.

Click to expand...

Which isn't to say that they haven't had religiously-inspired wars, it's more that they've had just as many, if not more, wars inspired by much more mundane reasons.

True enough. Taiping rebellion was horrific.

Necronic said:

True enough. Taiping rebellion was horrific.

Click to expand...

Economic issues, and nationalist sentiment certainly contributed to the conflict. Hard to attribute any war on any one factor.

I guess we'll just contain all rape stuff here for now, though this really deserves its own thread:

Detroit prosecutor combing through thousands of untested rape kits left dormant since 2009

I'm glad someone's doing something about this, and even better, is already getting results.

Quotemander Prime said:

I guess we'll just contain all rape stuff here for now, though this really deserves its own thread:

Detroit prosecutor combing through thousands of untested rape kits left dormant since 2009

I'm glad someone's doing something about this, and even better, is already getting results.

Click to expand...

That woman is awesome. I had no idea that untested rape kits were even a problem. I mean... What the shit, that's what they're for!

surly we can come up with a better phrasing than "untested rape kits."

Unprocessed rape evidence?

GasBandit said:

Unprocessed rape evidence?

Click to expand...

It's like I'm back in the Army when we had "Sexual Harassment Training."