The New, and very Dangerous "Left" - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15031639
@Hindsite Try reading the whole thing and not simply cherry-picking.

@Unthinking Majority 60 million abortions. They were not babies. You are making an argument based entirely on belief and emotion.

Also...
Researchers suggested that increased use of long-term birth control, such as intrauterine devices and contraceptive implants, contributed to the most recent decline. In particular, the proportion of clients at federally funded family planning clinics who sought such methods increased to 11 percent in 2014 from 7 percent in 2011. Because women who rely on these clinics are disproportionately young and poor and account for a majority of unintended pregnancies, researchers said, even a moderate increase in reliance on these methods could have an effect on the abortion rate.

The impact of restrictive anti-abortion laws and the shuttering of clinics on abortion rates was unclear. For example, the abortion rate rose modestly in six states: Kansas, Arkansas, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina and Vermont. Yet between 2001 and 2014, with the exception of Vermont, all of these states introduced more restrictive abortion laws.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/heal ... -wade.html
#15031700
Reichstraten wrote:@Finfinder,

You're not boldly saying what you mean, because you don't want to sound too harsh?


Huh...What? :?:


Reichstraten wrote:@Finfinder,

You're not boldly saying what you mean, because you don't want to sound too harsh?

Most abortions are executed in an early phase of pregnancy. That's not murder.


"Early phase" is a pretty wide term. If it looks like a baby no matter if it is in the womb or not, it is murder IMO. Crazy place we are at when we give illegal aliens more rights than the unborn..... check that, it is sickening. It does not make any sense to me that a person in Nicaragua on his way to USA has more representation than the unborn in America. Why do I feel this way?... Because I wasn't aborted. Seems to me the least I can do in return is to be against most common forms of abortion and especially in late term. With the progress we are seeing in science it is getting harder and harder to justify killing what looks to me and everyone else being honest, a tiny human being inside the womb.
#15031701
foxdemon wrote:Progressive means a person pushing for social change toward what they think is new or modern. Eugenics was considered progressive at one time. So progressives aren’t always in the right.

Would you dispute that?


The fact that progressives are as imperfect as other humans does not make your list of insults correct or relevant.
#15031737
Go watch the new Dave Chappelle stand-up special on Netflix called "Sticks and Stones". He basically hands the "new left" their collective asses and doesn't give a f**k!

All hail Dave Chappelle! Takes a man with his media power to not be afraid of the moral bullies because no way Netflix is going to ban that money-maker for hurting some people's feelings.
#15031750
Finfinder wrote: "Early phase" is a pretty wide term.

Pre-viability, then.
If it looks like a baby no matter if it is in the womb or not, it is murder IMO.

Even if medical imaging shows it suffers internal malformations that would make it impossible for it to survive birth?
Crazy place we are at when we give illegal aliens more rights than the unborn..... check that, it is sickening.

Illegal aliens are individual human beings. A pre-viable fetus is not, because an organism that can't live separately from another organism is not a separate life from that organism. All anti-abortion nonsense dies on the hill of separate viability.
It does not make any sense to me that a person in Nicaragua on his way to USA has more representation than the unborn in America.

It does to me, as explained above.
Why do I feel this way?... Because I wasn't aborted.

That's called a non sequitur.
Seems to me the least I can do in return is to be against most common forms of abortion and especially in late term.

I agree that abortion of a separately viable fetus would have to take its rights as a separate human being into account. Only a clear and undeniable threat to the woman's health would justify it.
With the progress we are seeing in science it is getting harder and harder to justify killing what looks to me and everyone else being honest, a tiny human being inside the womb.

What it looks like is not particularly relevant. What it is is relevant.
#15031753
Godstud wrote: 60 million abortions. They were not babies.

A handful probably were. We need to be clear on the difference between a fetus and a not-yet-delivered baby.
You are making an argument based entirely on belief and emotion.

That appears to be true.
#15031758
Truth To Power wrote:Pre-viability, then.
Even if medical imaging shows it suffers internal malformations that would make it impossible for it to survive birth?


You completely moved the goal posts however I covered that already.

Finfinder wrote: to be against most common forms of abortion and especially in late term. .


Truth To Power wrote:Pre-viability, then?


That is not what the current 2020 Democrats presidential candidates support, they support through post birth, you need to look into this.

Truth To Power wrote:Illegal aliens are individual human beings. A pre-viable fetus is not, because an organism that can't live separately from another organism is not a separate life from that organism. All anti-abortion nonsense dies on the hill of separate viability.

It does to me, as explained above.

That's called a non sequitur.

What it looks like is not particularly relevant. What it is is relevant.


I don't believe you provided any facts to disprove my opinion so Ill just say I do not agree with yours, furthermore I do not agree you used the term non sequitur properly.
Last edited by Finfinder on 04 Sep 2019 20:52, edited 1 time in total.
#15031767
Pants-of-dog wrote:The fact that progressives are as imperfect as other humans does not make your list of insults correct or relevant.



Would you say the same for conservatives, or do you think they are not human?


White progressives actually have a long history of racism.

https://nypost.com/2016/03/21/the-progressive-movements-horrible-racist-history/

During the heyday of the Progressive movement in the early 20th century, people on the left were in the forefront of those promoting doctrines of innate, genetic inferiority of not only blacks but also of people from Eastern Europe and Southern Europe, as compared to people from Western Europe.

Liberals today tend to either glide over the undeniable racism of Progressive President Woodrow Wilson or else treat it as an anomaly of some sort. But racism on the left at that time was not an anomaly, either for Wilson or for numerous other stalwarts of the Progressive movement.

An influential 1916 best-seller, ‘‘The Passing of the Great Race” — celebrating Nordic Europeans — was written by Madison Grant, a staunch activist for Progressive causes such as endangered species, municipal reform, conservation and the creation of national parks.



We should recognise that two recent white supremacist attacks claimed to be eco-fascists. Technically, fascists are progressive. Eco-fascists being white supremacists who employ deep ecology ideas to justify themselves. Of course, we couldn’t describe the far right as main stream progressives.


This guy argues modern main stream progressive ideas are a direct descendent of the ‘white mans burden’ idea.

https://medium.com/@eamonfalloon/the-white-mans-burden-and-modern-politics-16c246f6e6b4

The European Imperialists viewed the White Mans role in the world as that of a Father. Treating the sicknesses of the more child like races, feeding and clothing them, and all the while never expecting or getting thanks, but instead getting the lot of so many Fathers, the scorn and blame of their thankless children.

The modern progressive, Black, White, or any other race, also sees White men as a father figure, but one who physically, mentally and sexually abused them, worked their fingers to the bone and hit their mother in a drunken rage. And for his crimes he has now forfeited the right to be leader of the household and has been exiled. But he must still pay child support and be constantly reminded of his sins so that he never forgets them. The analogy of that of parent is a good one because undoubtedly the history of colonialism is full of ‘parents’ who perpetrated horrible abuse against their ‘children’. And yet in the progressives mind the correct evolution of these roles is not abandonment of the parent/child dichotomy at all, but simply the adapting of it so that White people now possess all the responsibility but none of the power. This can be seen from affirmative action, to calls for reparations for slavery, or apartheid.



As was explained in Gad Saad’s video, the white progressive there was claiming to be morally pure, thus having power to speak for other white people and then explained white people’s place on her moral hierarchy. If they reject her power over them, then they are bad. This parallels sentiments expressed by people such as Ayanna Pressley in regard to POC having to accept her as their voice or they are bad.


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ayanna-pressley-unrepentant-after-black-voice-furor-i-am-black-with-a-capital-b


Given they support what is a racial hierarchy, which they propose to control, then it is entirely reasonable to describe them as racists. But hey, People are imperfect, right?
#15031774
foxdemon wrote:Would you say the same for conservatives, or do you think they are not human?


Okay.

The fact that conservatives are as imperfect as other humans does not make your list of insults correct or relevant.

White progressives actually have a long history of racism.

https://nypost.com/2016/03/21/the-progressive-movements-horrible-racist-history/


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

    The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue)[1] is a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. In other words, a claim is ignored in favor of attacking its source.

    The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question.[2] Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are not conclusive in determining its merits.[3]

We should recognise that two recent white supremacist attacks claimed to be eco-fascists. Technically, fascists are progressive. Eco-fascists being white supremacists who employ deep ecology ideas to justify themselves. Of course, we couldn’t describe the far right as main stream progressives.


No, fascists are not progressive in any sense.

The fact that some of them also embrace environmental issues is irrelevant.

This guy argues modern main stream progressive ideas are a direct descendent of the ‘white mans burden’ idea.

https://medium.com/@eamonfalloon/the-white-mans-burden-and-modern-politics-16c246f6e6b4


Well, his “argument” seems to be unverifiable speculation about the psychology if progressives.

I will dismiss it as such.

As was explained in Gad Saad’s video, the white progressive there was claiming to be morally pure, thus having power to speak for other white people and then explained white people’s place on her moral hierarchy. If they reject her power over them, then they are bad. This parallels sentiments expressed by people such as Ayanna Pressley in regard to POC having to accept her as their voice or they are bad.


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ayanna-pressley-unrepentant-after-black-voice-furor-i-am-black-with-a-capital-b


Given they support what is a racial hierarchy, which they propose to control, then it is entirely reasonable to describe them as racists. But hey, People are imperfect, right?


I have no idea what all of this is about.

It seems like you are accusing some US political figure of some sort of moral failing and then using that accusation to smear all progressives.
#15031909
Finfinder wrote:You completely moved the goal posts however I covered that already.

Just stating my position, not defending anyone else's.
That is not what the current 2020 Democrats presidential candidates support, they support through post birth, you need to look into this.

I couldn't care less what Democrats say. The great majority of abortions are of pre-viable fetuses. A pre-viable fetus is not a separate individual life, and therefore does not have individual rights separate from the woman's.
I don't believe you provided any facts to disprove my opinion

Sure I did. I proved that a pre-viable fetus is not a separate individual and therefore does not have separate individual rights.
so Ill just say I do not agree with yours, furthermore I do not agree you used the term non sequitur properly.

You're wrong. It was definitely a non sequitur.
#15031919
Pants-of-dog wrote:It seems like you are accusing some US political figure of some sort of moral failing and then using that accusation to smear all progressives .

I am not aware of any "progressive" that does not have some sort of moral failing. However, I am not sure if Elyzabeth is including all "progressives" in the new and very dangerous "left" of the thread title. But, to me, those radical progressives that have taken up the "Antifa" banner do seem dangerous and should be declared domestic terrorists.
#15033683
Pants-of-dog wrote:“Moral bullies”.

Lol.


Moral bullies are like the new churchmarms, they use their contrived bullshit morality to bully people into submission. Culture babbitts weaponized uptight cuntery as a means of social domination thousands of years ago, it's not anything new.
#15033709
@Finfinder,

You're not boldly saying what you mean, because you don't want to sound too harsh?

Most abortions are executed in an early phase of pregnancy. That's not murder.

They are now aborting babies after they have been born, [b]unimaginable, but true[/b]
Lookit up
#15033710
They are now aborting babies after they have been born, unimaginable, but true
Lookit up
No. You're making the claim. You support it with real sources and not some bullshit conspiracy theory site. It's not up to others to make your arguments for you.

You probablty mean stupid shit like this...

Hannity promotes dangerous conspiracy theory that Democrats want to let parents kill babies in hospitals like in gladiator-style entertainment
https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hanni ... ill-babies

ALEX JONES, JOE ROGAN WAR LEADS TO CONSPIRACY THEORY MELTDOWN, INFOWARS HOST SAYS BABIES HARVESTED FOR ORGANS
https://www.newsweek.com/alex-jones-joe ... ed-1347887

Republicans pound abortion ‘infanticide’ message
Under criticism, Republicans' language has only continued to escalate, including President Donald Trump’s charge this week that Democrats “don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth.”

Democrats argue that current law already protects infants, and that Republicans are creating a false narrative about doctors routinely allowing healthy, full-term babies to die, when in fact abortions late in pregnancy are rare and most involve severe fetal anomalies or risks to the life of the mother. Under the legislation, they warn, doctors could risk a felony conviction if they don’t hospitalize and resuscitate a newborn who is only going to live for a few hours, possibly in pain.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/ ... de-1231437


In other words... RUBBISH!!!
#15033953
Elyzabeth wrote:I will not be talked to in that disgusting manner.
Your argument is completely worthless. I am not insulting you or talking to you in a disgusting manner. Your speech is as disgusting when you refer to some mysterious and unproven "left" that's, supposedly, dangerous.

Elyzabeth wrote:I have no desire to interact with you on anything,
People with no argument often try to use this as an argument in, and of, itself. You cannot prove your point, and when someone tears your argument apart, you cannot accept it, so you use a "Snowflake defense", or a very childish defense, wherein you don't respond because it's not in the manner you prefer.

Elyzabeth wrote:until you get some manners and learn how to speak to people
This is civilized, and as much so as your previous statements.

You must learn that someone telling you that your argument is "rubbish", is not someone actually insulting you. You're taking personally, what is not a personal attack. You are making a terrible argument, with no actual sources to support it. Your argument, therefore is rubbish.

Rubbish
criticize severely and reject as worthless.

INFORMAL•BRITISH
very bad; worthless or useless.

That does not, in any way, reflect upon you, other than your inability to make a decent argument.

There. Is that civil enough for you, or should I apologize for having a superior vocabulary, and for using actual source material?

Luke 22:36 ... These words of Christ are not[…]

He is a politician who is saying what he thinks t[…]

That's witty. But I would say that until all mi[…]

An August article in the New England Journal of M[…]