Sounds like trump is planning on nominating someone named Amy Coney Barrett to the supreme court.

[Trunkage]

Inshallah.

Edit: Also cries in Avocato

 

[Iron]

Inshallah.

hamdulillah, soon

Uh huh. You'll understand if I'm not holding my breath on this.

Watch France with intent. Belgium, Germany, Sweden, UK, are in a similar position.

JEFFERSON"S FUCKING WALL. Please for the love of god learn what it is, why its important, and what Trump, and in particular Pence, has done to destroy it. Banning all religious nonsense from the secular state ENSURES Sharia law cannot be put in place. Including Sharia law. IF you benefit one religion, then it becomes a race to the bottom to see which religion wins... and nobody wins. Because you get something like the Christian Ayatollah. Or maybe the 100 years war again, with denominations fighting for power. Religion does not belong anywhere near government

mushrikeen have no power over the teachings of Allah. Soon.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Watch France with intent. Belgium, Germany, Sweden, UK, are in a similar position.

To google!

Muslims are apparently about 5% of the UK's population, 4-6.5% in Belgium, 8% in Sweden, 5.5ish% in Germany, 8.8% in France.

So, unless 1 Muslim is worth 10-20 people who aren't Muslims, they are rather in the minority there.

 

[Iron]

To google!

Muslims are apparently about 5% of the UK's population, 4-6.5% in Belgium, 8% in Sweden, 5.5ish% in Germany, 8.8% in France.

So, unless 1 Muslim is worth 10-20 people who aren't Muslims, they are rather in the minority there.

Check their share of ages 0-18.
They're the future.

 

[Seanchaidh]

You didn't have to sit there as week after week, months on end, the party gifted its critics with a massive cudgel to beat it with.

Utterly lost.

You appear to want a Labour leader who would weakly accept any criticism lobbed at the party, no matter how ludicrous.

Louise Mensch is a moron, and the very idea that someone from her party could lecture Labour on racism is despicable nonsense.

And yet here you are endorsing actions that suggest that very same despicable nonsense.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

So, should we send back the LGBT Muslims too? Have the government openly mock Muslims who left their countries who knows how long ago to escape religious fundamentalists? Because I don't see either of those options as being particularly effective. Would be like banning contraceptives along with abortions. Just a pile of extra dead people for no benefi.

I wouldn't say contraceptives are healthcare, in my opinion.

Contraceptive use (or non-use) often results in a *lot* of healthcare costs. Abortions, checkups, births, miscarriages, etc, etc, etc.
Hell, effective and freely available contraceptives are the #1 way to reduce abortion rates. Not that religious pro-lifers actually give a shit.

 

[Iron]

So, should we send back the LGBT Muslims too? Have the government openly mock Muslims who left their countries who knows how long ago to escape religious fundamentalists? Because I don't see either of those options as being particularly effective. Would be like banning contraceptives along with abortions. Just a pile of extra dead people for no benefi.

Contraceptive use (or non-use) often results in a *lot* of healthcare costs. Abortions, checkups, births, miscarriages, etc, etc, etc.
Hell, effective and freely available contraceptives are the #1 way to reduce abortion rates. Not that religious pro-lifers actually give a shit.

Your sexual activity shouldn't be covered by your health-insurance. Contraceptives, the pill, etc. shouldn't be something all insurances must cover. Buy them if you have an active sex-life and need them. Over here birth control pills are covered only for teenagers (under 20).

 

[Seanchaidh]

Your sexual activity shouldn't be covered by your health-insurance.

Why not?

 

[Iron]

Why not?

It shouldn't be something all insurances are obliged to cover

 

[Seanchaidh]

It shouldn't be something all insurances are obliged to cover

Why not?

 

[Iron]

Why not?

because if it were they'd need to charge a premium for homosexuals, and that's bad optics.

Sexually Transmitted Diseases Among Gay and Bisexual Men | CDC

Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) have been increasing among gay and bisexual men.

www.cdc.gov

Your sexual preferences, and therefore your sex life, should remain private. You can pick the insurance company that'd cover your costs. It shouldn't be forced upon all insurances.

 

[Silvanus]

And yet here you are endorsing actions that suggest that very same despicable nonsense.

No, you're just lumping all criticism into the same bag, rather than offering the slightest self-reflection after a colossal defeat.

Aside from the fact that, as I've pointed out twice now, I didn't endorse what she's advocated anyway: I'm against what's happened. I think a lesser censure without suspension would have been enough. But that's not enough, is it? It's only enough if we don't criticise at all, make an exception for him to break explicitly laid-out rules, and then just blithely try to run the same campaign again in four years.

because if it were they'd need to charge a premium for homosexuals, and that's bad optics.

An issue that would be avoided perfectly well by publicly-provided, non-profit-driven healthcare, of course.

 

[Agema]

Utterly lost.

You appear to want a Labour leader who would weakly accept any criticism lobbed at the party, no matter how ludicrous.

I want a Labour leader who is able to enact left-wing policy, for which a precondition is getting elected.

 

[happyninja42]

The pro-choice argument rests on the belief that a foetus is not conscious or self-aware, and by extension that another's right supersedes it. Even someone who's pro-life must recognise that the entity under consideration-- whether we call it a person yet or not-- does not have the same level of consciousness.

Except they DON'T recognize that the entity under consideration does not have the same level of consciousness. The pro-life camp is often a religiously based one, and they often frame their disagreement on the "soul at conception"...well...concept. They believe the little energy ball that makes you the You beyond the meat, is in there from second number 1, and it doesn't matter what the level of meat development is at. It's the same mindset that is often used to prevent taking people off life support after massive, permanent brain injury. They often think that the You is somehow distinct from the organs that make up you, and cause you to function, despite plenty of evidence that doing things like messing with the functionality of the brain, causes permanent, and radical alterations in the You that is operating the meat. In fact they view it very much like a "You" that is piloting the meat, instead of You being an emergent property OF the organs that make you up, completely inseparable from the body. Like how people who have had to undergo split lobe surgery, usually due to severe seizures, develop 2 distinct personalities, often directly opposed to each other.

 

[Silvanus]

Except they DON'T recognize that the entity under consideration does not have the same level of consciousness. The pro-life camp is often a religiously based one, and they often frame their disagreement on the "soul at conception"...well...concept. They believe the little energy ball that makes you the You beyond the meat, is in there from second number 1, and it doesn't matter what the level of meat development is at. It's the same mindset that is often used to prevent taking people off life support after massive, permanent brain injury. They often think that the You is somehow distinct from the organs that make up you, and cause you to function, despite plenty of evidence that doing things like messing with the functionality of the brain, causes permanent, and radical alterations in the You that is operating the meat. In fact they view it very much like a "You" that is piloting the meat, instead of You being an emergent property OF the organs that make you up, completely inseparable from the body. Like how people who have had to undergo split lobe surgery, usually due to severe seizures, develop 2 distinct personalities, often directly opposed to each other.

Well, if that's the case, then I don't accept the premise, in which case I still don't accept the analogy Houseman made here.

He's saying I should understand it [the denial of rights] because I do the same thing; but if I don't accept that it is the same (which I don't, since I don't accept the 'soul' premise), then the argument falls flat.

 

[happyninja42]

Well, if that's the case, then I don't accept the premise, in which case I still don't accept the analogy Houseman made here.

He's saying I should understand it [the denial of rights] because I do the same thing; but if I don't accept that it is the same (which I don't, since I don't accept the 'soul' premise), then the argument falls flat.

I agree, I'm just saying that your assumption of what they "must" accept is fundamentally wrong, and at the core of the divide between the two sides. Because they very much do NOT think that about the level of sophistication of consciousness, and when it starts.

 

[Seanchaidh]

No, you're just lumping all criticism into the same bag, rather than offering the slightest self-reflection after a colossal defeat.

Aside from the fact that, as I've pointed out twice now, I didn't endorse what she's advocated anyway: I'm against what's happened. I think a lesser censure without suspension would have been enough. But that's not enough, is it? It's only enough if we don't criticise at all, make an exception for him to break explicitly laid-out rules, and then just blithely try to run the same campaign again in four years.

I'm happy with criticism of Corbyn, just make the right one: that he never should have apologized to any of the jackals who couldn't give the first shit about antisemitism but cynically deployed allegations of it because they break out in hives at the idea of making progress toward social equality, whether that's in the UK or Israel.

I want a Labour leader who is able to enact left-wing policy, for which a precondition is getting elected.

And how does endorsing a nonsense narrative against one's own party help in that endeavor?

I'm especially annoyed because indulging that bullshit over there has helped it to migrate here:

because if it were they'd need to charge a premium for homosexuals, and that's bad optics.

No, they wouldn't. There are plenty of cases where insurance companies do not use actuarial math to determine price, often because prohibited by law.

Even so, this is better:

An issue that would be avoided perfectly well by publicly-provided, non-profit-driven healthcare, of course.

 

[Revnak]

OK, but that as the motive doesn't really match with the chain of events (not to mention Starmer being a socialist).

The party had already explicitly said it wouldn't be acceptable to say that antisemitism was overblown. Whether or not you think that was a shitty rule to implement, it was there before this week. Corbyn broke it, and did so at the worst possible time: in immediate response to the EHRC report, when all eyes will be on whether the party is dealing with the crisis in a decisive way or not.

He wouldn't have been suspended had he not given the response yesterday. This is specifically about that, because it broke an explicit rule that had been given; it was not about what went on while he was leader.


The fact that any disciplinary action within the party is tied back to "right v left", regardless of whether both people involved are firmly socialists, is indicative of the problem. What, exceptions should be made to the rules if the rule-breaker is a left-winger, in order to not piss people off? What kind of principled stance is that?

Fuck rules, rules are dumb. But in any case I’m tired of terf island. Fuck terf island. The cultural, political, and economic influence of terf island is overblown. No more terf island.

 

[tstorm823]

Except they DON'T recognize that the entity under consideration does not have the same level of consciousness. The pro-life camp is often a religiously based one, and they often frame their disagreement on the "soul at conception"...well...concept. They believe the little energy ball that makes you the You beyond the meat, is in there from second number 1, and it doesn't matter what the level of meat development is at. It's the same mindset that is often used to prevent taking people off life support after massive, permanent brain injury. They often think that the You is somehow distinct from the organs that make up you, and cause you to function, despite plenty of evidence that doing things like messing with the functionality of the brain, causes permanent, and radical alterations in the You that is operating the meat. In fact they view it very much like a "You" that is piloting the meat, instead of You being an emergent property OF the organs that make you up, completely inseparable from the body. Like how people who have had to undergo split lobe surgery, usually due to severe seizures, develop 2 distinct personalities, often directly opposed to each other.

They irony of the description you're making here is that you have it backwards. For centuries, the legal standards for life started at the "quickening" the first time the fetus moves. That legal standard was inherited from centuries of religion and philosophy all the way back to Aristotle that viewed the moment a fetus starts moving as indication of the soul entering it. While there were also Christians who took the position of life at conception, it was not the prevailing wisdom before the rise of medical science.

It's the 20th century doctors who said "ummm, there's really no difference here before and after moving, that fetus is definitely a living human being" that ended up leading to bans on abortion and the modern pro-life movement.

 

[Silvanus]

I'm happy with criticism of Corbyn, just make the right one: that he never should have apologized to any of the jackals who couldn't give the first shit about antisemitism but cynically deployed allegations of it because they break out in hives at the idea of making progress toward social equality, whether that's in the UK or Israel.

OK, so we're just fully in "none of it happened" territory.