Everything else Chekov was talking about: Election thread

[AndreiChekov]

Tariffs making it harder the run factories outside the US, help because you need people to maintain those robots, and you also make sure that no other country can have a monopoly on a product you buy.

BLM being labeled a terrorist organization helps in the way that public perspective of it helps. In that, if people realize that it is a hate group, then they might think twice about what it is saying.

Yes, any rioting or looting that gets out of hand should be broken up, and if the police force isn't able, then add National Guard. WTO protests that devolved into looting were broken up with tear gas, and that was the right thing to do.

As for abortion. It is murder, and I think that murder is worse than slavery. So, yes, while rape is a terrible thing, if you are going to kill someone for it, kill the person who did the raping, not the child. The child is innocent.
I believe in letting people do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt others. Abortion is hurting others, which is why I am against it.

[Dr_Noface]

who are you dude

[Shrapnel]

Are you trolling? That's literally the only reason I can think of that this much stupid would be vomited out of one person's anus.

Either way... fuck you, trash.

[Mask_De_H]

Are you drunk or have you just lost your fool mind?

Whatever it is, stop posting. More for your own sake.

[Lich-Loved]

Chekov -

Disclaimer: I don't participate in US elections. My political views are my own and do not always align (nor differ) with others that post here. I very (very) rarely post in MPSIMS at all.

Seriously man, read this board a bit. Coming here to effectively shit in someone else's bed is bad form. You might as well post misogynistic shit on Tumbler or wear a white sheet to a BLM rally. Yeah yeah, you have an opinion, but at this point it is just trolling.

If you disagree this strongly with the prevailing opinion, fine, whatever. My advice is to stop doing damage to yourself and just participate in the gaming threads or at least shut up about your vision of reality already. It literally adds nothing to this board. No one here is lost soul that needs saving; no one here is in need of a missionary.

[Voss]

Tariffs making it harder the run factories outside the US, help because you need people to maintain those robots, and you also make sure that no other country can have a monopoly on a product you buy.

BLM being labeled a terrorist organization helps in the way that public perspective of it helps. In that, if people realize that it is a hate group, then they might think twice about what it is saying.

Yes, any rioting or looting that gets out of hand should be broken up, and if the police force isn't able, then add National Guard. WTO protests that devolved into looting were broken up with tear gas, and that was the right thing to do.

As for abortion. It is murder, and I think that murder is worse than slavery. So, yes, while rape is a terrible thing, if you are going to kill someone for it, kill the person who did the raping, not the child. The child is innocent.
I believe in letting people do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt others. Abortion is hurting others, which is why I am against it.

Suggestion: Don't be a self-contradictory idiot.

Tariffs making it harder the run factories outside the US, help because you need people to maintain those robots, and you also make sure that no other country can have a monopoly on a product you buy.

Also: what?

[Whipstitch]

BLM being labeled a terrorist organization helps in the way that public perspective of it helps. In that, if people realize that it is a hate group, then they might think twice about what it is saying.

I would call that a hilariously bad plan, but it's not actually all that funny. BLM focuses on profiling and police overreach/brutality. Trying to stretch the definition of terrorism to cover a decentralized national movement that engages principally in non-violent protest is playing into their hands even if you can round up a handful opportunistic dipshits willing to loot and murder and thus are an embarrassment to their communities.

[Leress]

Whip, I think Andrei is talking about some of the ones that talk about killing cops or the ones that tried to get the cops removed from a gay pride parade, including the ones that were marching because they were gay or an ally, in Canada.

I personally have a problem with those in BLM with that behavior because it undermines the movements cause and makes things worse. I would not label a terrorist group, since there is no clear cut definition of what defines one.

[spongeknight]

Whip, I think Andrei is talking about some of the ones that talk about killing cops or the ones that tried to get the cops removed from a gay pride parade, including the ones that were marching because they were gay or an ally, in Canada.

I personally have a problem with those in BLM with that behavior because it undermines the movements cause and makes things worse. I would not label a terrorist group, since there is no clear cut definition of what defines one.

Uh, I think he is talking about the Black Lives Matter supporters who are actually murdering cops in the the name of BLM.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/us/da ... oting.html

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07 ... criminals/

There is a group of BLM supporters who are peaceful and advocating for institutional change. There is a group of BLM supporters who want to murder white people for being white. Obviously, if some of your members are actual domestic terrorists going on killing rampages, that's something people take note of.

[Mask_De_H]

You can claim to be many things and act in the service of many things, but not be representative of the thing in total.

Going after domestic terrorists is fine. Labelling an entire movement as domestic terrorists, whether intentionally, explicitly, or otherwise, isn't.

[Occluded Sun]

Abortion hurts no one. Hell, if we were truly dispassionate enough to face facts, we would probably condone killing newborns, because they're only human in a physiological sense. Our "protect the baby!" instincts are too strong for most people to be honest, though.

It's not something I'm thrilled about, but it has to be tolerated. Much like alcohol consumption: it's unwise generally, but most people can handle it, and trying to outlaw it is a terrible idea that leads to terrible results.

[Leress]

Uh, I think he is talking about the Black Lives Matter supporters who are actually murdering cops in the the name of BLM.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/us/da ... oting.html

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07 ... criminals/

Yeah, those as well.

There is a group of BLM supporters who are peaceful and advocating for institutional change. There is a group of BLM supporters who want to murder white people for being white. Obviously, if some of your members are actual domestic terrorists going on killing rampages, that's something people take note of.

I agree.

[Occluded Sun]

It's very, very tempting to label your opponents based on their nuttiest and most unappealing fringes. It's not very realistic or fair, though. Or practical, since then you can't address or evaluate the actual movement.

[AndreiChekov]

Abortion hurts no one. Hell, if we were truly dispassionate enough to face facts, we would probably condone killing newborns, because they're only human in a physiological sense. Our "protect the baby!" instincts are too strong for most people to be honest, though.

It's not something I'm thrilled about, but it has to be tolerated. Much like alcohol consumption: it's unwise generally, but most people can handle it, and trying to outlaw it is a terrible idea that leads to terrible results.

Um.... This is the part where we will just have to disagree on that. You should be able to understand why I am against abortion from what I have said, and it should also then make sense for why I think it should be illegal.


About BLM. Yes, the people who are nutcases are the most notable in any given situation. And the solutions that I have seen proposed by the peaceful BLM members are silly.
From what I have seen of the plight of blacks in the US, they need less poverty, their kids to stay in school, and some way for convicted criminals to get back on their feet. Which I think could be accomplished by more black owned business. What Leress linked about black owned business showed that the majority of them are one person businesses, and that is not a real help yet.
And obviously some redress of the school system, because the current design is obviously not working for them. I have no idea what that would be, but throwing more money at schools hasn't been working.

And mostly my posting here, is because this is the only place I have found where people are actually capable of explaining their why while disagreeing with me. Everywhere else I talk about these things, everyone else is a yesman, or just responds with buzzwords and feelings. I am genuinely curious as to how left wingers justify their views.

[Kaelik]

And obviously some redress of the school system, because the current design is obviously not working for them. I have no idea what that would be, but throwing more money at schools hasn't been working.

Money does in fact noticeably improve outcomes. It's not the only problem that needs fixing, but "throwing" frankly tiny amounts of money at schools that are well behind other schools shows improvements across the board, even when that money is used for regular things, even before you get into special programs tailored to the problems of the school.

[Whipstitch]

I understand who is being talked about. I'm not arguing that no one who sympathizes with or identifies as a BLM activist is a bad person--Micah Johnson is pretty infamous at this point and I didn't exactly lose sleep when he got blown up by a police drone. I'm not even inclined to argue against calling him a terrorist. What I'm arguing is is that labeling the entire movement as a terrorist organization is stupid for many of the same reasons that labeling all Muslims as Jihadists is stupid. Having to deal with nuance in the face of horrific violence is deeply frustrating but attempting to oversimplify your problems inevitably leads to blowback, so unfortunately that is the hand we've been dealt. I hate to "Both sides!" things here, but seriously, this is going to be harder than treating suicide-by-cop scenarios as evidence of malicious officers or fronting like Opal Tometi is fucking Osama bin Laden. And FWIW, the BLM leadership acknowledges that as well. One of their big struggles has been transitioning to the message that the movement needs to have bigger fish to fry than securing convictions in police violence cases. They haven't been entirely successful on that front, but again, that's kinda what happens with movements that are largely decentralized.

[deaddmwalking]

Um.... This is the part where we will just have to disagree on that. You should be able to understand why I am against abortion from what I have said, and it should also then make sense for why I think it should be illegal.

Let's start with an understanding that currently, abortion can be used in a variety of situations. On the one end of the spectrum, it could in theory be used as a form of birth control where a woman is having sex with multiple partners multiple times and getting pregnant multiple times a year, ending each of them with an abortion.

Sure, lots of people have problems with the morality of that situation. Some people believe that sex should only happen within marriage, for instance. And choosing to engage in promiscuous behavior should indicate a willingness to accept the consequences, whatever they happen to be, right?

But what about the other end of the spectrum. What about a situation where a 9 year old girl has been repeatedly raped by her father and has gotten pregnant just before she would otherwise have had her first period? What if the doctors indicate that while her body is physically CAPABLE of getting pregnant, her body is not physically capable of carrying the child to term. And, just for fun, let's assume for a moment that medical tests determine the unborn child will have severe chromosomal deficiencies and will never live a normal life.

At this point, we have to admit that we can't be certain what would happen if the pregnancy progressed. Maybe the 9-year-old would survive. We could argue that carrying the baby to term is the morally upright thing to do, but we also have to recognize that you and I will NEVER have to confront that 'moral duty'. Do you want to be like the scribes and pharisees, tying heavy burdens, hard to bear, and laying them on other's shoulders?

Let's take another situation... The woman claims to have been raped, possibly repeatedly. Maybe she was caged and chained like a dog, for instance, but escaped. The pregnancy is not far advanced, but there are reasons to think that it could kill her (she has obvious trauma from her ordeals). What gives you the right to decide?

Abortion needs to be legal because innocent victims become pregnant against their will and it endangers their life and well-being. Trying to decide how much 'blame' and how much 'risk' to assign to make some legal and others illegal is impossible - it really has to be 'all or nothing' in part because you won't always be able to verify the story and time may be of the essence - there is certainly no time for a lengthy trial.

If you don't think people should get abortions, you shouldn't try to make them illegal. They used to be illegal, and they still happened. If you want to make it so abortions don't happen, you should work to make sure that unwanted pregnancies don't happen - protecting the most vulnerable from sexual assault and rape. You should also work to make sure that women, regardless of social status or circumstances have access to excellent pre-natal care. Finally, you should work to ensure that every child born finds a loving home, regardless of the circumstances of birth. Maybe if you do all those things, even if abortion is legal, it will never happen.

[maglag]

If you don't think people should get abortions, you shouldn't try to make them illegal. They used to be illegal, and they still happened.

If you want to make it so abortions don't happen, you should work to make sure that unwanted pregnancies don't happen - protecting the most vulnerable from sexual assault and rape. You should also work to make sure that women, regardless of social status or circumstances have access to excellent pre-natal care. Finally, you should work to ensure that every child born finds a loving home, regardless of the circumstances of birth. Maybe if you do all those things, even if abortion is legal, it will never happen. Maybe if you do all those things, even if abortion is legal, it will never happen.

In India, most abortions happen just because the baby would be a girl.

Indian clinics even offer you a deal-if they identify you're gonna have a baby girl, you can terminate it on the spot. Rape? Health? Screw that noise, millions of abortions just happen because the mother doesn't want a girl.

Cue India having less and less women. I'm sure that's perfectly ok and will lead to a stable and healthy society, right?

Rape is an horrible thing, but you can't stop it by just treating the symptoms, it's much better if women don't get raped in the first place. Increase public awareness, increase raper punishment to the point they won't take the risk.

As for health issues, that's for why we need to keep advancing medicine. Cesarian for starters allows a lot of safe baby deliveries that would've otherwise met messy ends in the past. Nowadays several women even do cesarian when they don't need it because they find it more convenient than a "normal" birth. Everybody wins!

Human health does not progress if we just go "kill it". We need to find new ways to make it viable instead.

[Shiritai]

Human health does not progress if we just go "kill it". We need to find new ways to make it viable instead.

So, can I put you down as valuing the existence of a fetus over the life of a person?

[DSMatticus]

Maglag, you're a genius! If only we lived in a rape-free world of test-tube babies, we wouldn't have to worry about abortion! Unwanted pregnancies wouldn't happen, and even if they did, we could just slurp that little sucker right out of there and shove 'em in a vat until they're ready for the world outside! It's brilliant! What a perfect solution! So practical too!

I always knew you were stupid, but I'm honestly surprised to find out that you were actually a social conservative the entire time. The anti-abortion/anti-Islam shpiel you've got going on between these two threads actually surprises me. But then again this is basically the week of "the world has more shitbags in it than I realized," so now's as good a time as any.

The fact is that criminalizing abortion means more unsafe abortions means more dead women. Access to birth control means less unwanted pregnancies means less abortions means less dead women and less dead fetuses. Spoiler: the same people who are fighting to criminalize abortion are fighting to make birth control harder to acquire. It's the exact same fucking fundamentalist crusaders championing against both things (and promoting abstinence-only sex-ed, and etcetera etcetera et-fucking-cetera). It's a misguided attempt to discourage sexuality by punishing it with unwanted children, because sexuality is clearly evil. And it also has the added benefit of reducing women's agency, what with increasing the likelihood that they'll end up a domestic spitting out babies.

[Blasted]

Access to birth control means less unwanted pregnancies means less abortions means less dead women and less dead fetuses. Spoiler: the same people who are fighting to criminalize abortion are fighting to make birth control harder to acquire

This really does my head in with the abortion stuff. The last argument I had with someone on it literally come down to them saying "you should only have sex for procreation".

[Chamomile]

It's weird that the guy who constantly sucks Chaos' dick in 40k conversations is repeating conservative talking points. The Imperium is a parody of extreme conservatism that is now being written by people who didn't get the joke. Generally speaking people who think the woman's body has ways of shutting the whole thing down are on board with it.

[Maj]

I am sick of being a person who's health is held hostage by a life that's not named, acknowledged, or even capable of existing without my support. I am not a womb sack. I am a citizen with rights. As much as babies are cute and fuzzy and smell nice, and the thought of babies dying is horrifying, so is the thought of being investigated for murder because I having a miscarriage, or have my mid-section cut open by court order because a judge doesn't think I can make my own medical decisions.

[Thaluikhain]

Rape is an horrible thing, but you can't stop it by just treating the symptoms, it's much better if women don't get raped in the first place. Increase public awareness, increase raper punishment to the point they won't take the risk.

While I obviously support reducing the number of rapes, doing so merely to reduce abortions seems very misguided.

Likewise, trying to do so by increasing punishment. Not a bad idea in of itself, but not going to do much of anything to reduce the number of rapes. The vast majority of rapists receive no punishment, it's rare for them to even be considered rapists, including by themselves and often even their victims.

In that, public awareness must certainly be improved, yes.

[Username17]

The whole thing where people are advocating slave labor of teenage girls seems to have been handled by other people.

Tariffs making it harder the run factories outside the US, help because you need people to maintain those robots, and you also make sure that no other country can have a monopoly on a product you buy.

No. A Tariff is a tax. When a specific good is sold, someone has to pay an amount to the government. That's it. That's all it is.

So there are many things that can happen when a tariff is enacted, and it is determined by the people selling the goods.

• Option 1: Pass All Costs to Consumer. This raises the cost at the market of the tariffed good. If the good is not an essential one, and the price is now not too high for anyone to accept it, what will probably happen at this point is that the number of units sold will decrease and the consumers who do get the goods will be out more money with the extra money going to the state. Pretty much exactly as if the government had raised taxes on their own citizens, with the caveat being that 100% of the tax is paid by people who want the tariffed goods.
• Option 2: Producer Absorbs all Costs. This reduces the profitability of the good and increases the revenue of the state. If the profitability falls below zero, the good would be no longer produced (and the producer would therefore not select this option). The lower profitability makes the industry less attractive to invest in, but as long as profits are non-zero there is no effect on current sales.
• Option 3: Producers and Consumers Split Costs. Profts go down to some degree, costs at the market increase to some degree. Both the product and the industry are less attractive relative to other goods and investments, and some amount of money goes to the state.

Those are the only choices, and no amount of ranting about the values of protectionism or local industry or whatever the fuck is going to add an option four. Now, a tariff can have positive effects, but it has to be through one of the following channels:

• A tariff is a tax which is itself a source of revenue for the state. If the state then spends that revenue on programs of positive social worth, there can be net benefit.
• Any response to a tariff makes the tariffed industry less attractive, whether from the investment or consumption side. If an industry is something that you genuinely want less of for health or environmental reasons (such as cigarettes or coal), then a tariff can help shrink that industry.
• It is possible (though by no means assured) that people will respond to a tariff by some form of substitution - devoting resources towards other investments or purchasing other goods once their original first choice has become more expensive. If you have some reason to believe that peoples' second choice goods and investments would be better for society in some way (ex.: taking the bus rather than driving a private car), then there can be benefit.

Again, that's it. There is no other magical channel by which positive outcomes from tariffs can happen. If you are advocating a tariff, you are implicitly making the argument that taxes plus government spending is a net good or that peoples' natural preferences in a free market produce poor societal outcomes and that government incentives are necessary to correct market failures. Interestingly, I rather suspect that you disagree with both of those propositions, based on your other espoused views.

-Username17