Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Sandra Fluke and "Slut Shaming" Revisited

BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 1:29:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
A few relevant questions and points:

- Sandra Fluke.

Her testimony had absolutely nothing to do with her right to do what she wishes with her body. Instead, she was demanding others be coerced to fund her sexual activities.

People were outraged with Limbaugh's comments. But, there was no similar outrage at the very fact that Fluke demands taxpayers fund activities that many find immoral to begin with. There was no outrage about the utter hypocrisy of feminists who claim to want the government to stay out of the bedroom but then demand the government pay for what they do in the bedroom.

Calling Sandra Fluke a slut, as Limbaugh did, is an insult to sluts. At least sluts don't (usually) demand others be coerced into paying for their birth control. A better word for Fluke may be prostitute.

- Slut Shaming.

Slut shaming is only wrong if the person being shamed is not actually a slut. In that case, it is defamation.

If the "slut" in question is actually a slut, "slut shaming" is an excellent way to encourage moral behavior without government force. I do not favor using government to force people to adhere to moral standards. However, I do believe such moral standards should exist and shame is a good mechanism to enforce a moral code.

Call me old fashioned, but I think being a slut is wrong. That applies to both sexes, by the way.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 3:14:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 1:29:21 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
A few relevant questions and points:

- Sandra Fluke.

Her testimony had absolutely nothing to do with her right to do what she wishes with her body. Instead, she was demanding others be coerced to fund her sexual activities.

People were outraged with Limbaugh's comments. But, there was no similar outrage at the very fact that Fluke demands taxpayers fund activities that many find immoral to begin with. There was no outrage about the utter hypocrisy of feminists who claim to want the government to stay out of the bedroom but then demand the government pay for what they do in the bedroom.

Calling Sandra Fluke a slut, as Limbaugh did, is an insult to sluts. At least sluts don't (usually) demand others be coerced into paying for their birth control. A better word for Fluke may be prostitute.

Your man Rush is a major poop head, ergo all ditto heads are major poop heads.

- Slut Shaming.

Slut shaming is only wrong if the person being shamed is not actually a slut. In that case, it is defamation.

Rather simplistic reasoning here. Thinking in terms such as "slut" is both sexist and unkind, which is far more reprehensible than being a promiscuous women.

If the "slut" in question is actually a slut, "slut shaming" is an excellent way to encourage moral behavior without government force.

Verbally stoning women for being sexually prolific, or treating human beings in a hurtful fashion for any reason whatsoever is not, and therefore does not promote, moral behavior.

I do not favor using government to force people to adhere to moral standards. However, I do believe such moral standards should exist and shame is a good mechanism to enforce a moral code.

One inculcates fundamental moral values such as compassion by being compassionate, inflicting shame is merely a way that individuals and societies attempt to assert social control.


Call me old fashioned, but I think being a slut is wrong. That applies to both sexes, by the way.

But alas "slut" is an egregiously and atavistically sexist term that expresses, validates, and fosters not merely moral judgmentalism, which is quite bad enough, but also a the sexist mentality that gravitates to such terms. And although you attempt to disown the hypocrisy of judging promiscuous women more harshly than men, the use of the term "slut" certainly helps to reinforce the ole double standard. And as I've already observed, it's also an insensitive and mean term, which makes it morally reprehensible. (Furthermore, it's also a bit immature and unsophisticated.)
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 4:08:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 1:29:21 AM, BigDave80 wrote:

Call me old fashioned,

I've literally never understood how people are okay with being identifying themselves in this way.

but I think being a slut is wrong.

Why doth thou protest?

That applies to both sexes, by the way.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 7:02:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Actually, Fluke wasn't demanding taxpayer funding for birth control. She wanted insurance plans -- include her Georgetown plan -- to cover it, as there were reasons other than sexual activity for wanting contraceptive access. She cited a friend of hers, for instance, who had ovarian cancer, and would rely on birth control pills as medication, but ultimately lost her ovaries because she couldn't afford them.

I think we can have a reasonable debate on whether or not this is the government's rightful purview. I tend to think that we would disagree on that. But I don't think it is nearly productive to throw around such a hateful pejorative, not to mention that coming down on the same side of this as Rush Limbaugh is a credibility-killer. I've got one word for Rush: viagra.
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 8:00:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 7:02:23 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Actually, Fluke wasn't demanding taxpayer funding for birth control. She wanted insurance plans -- include her Georgetown plan -- to cover it, as there were reasons other than sexual activity for wanting contraceptive access. She cited a friend of hers, for instance, who had ovarian cancer, and would rely on birth control pills as medication, but ultimately lost her ovaries because she couldn't afford them.

She was still asking for the government to coerce Georgetown into paying for her birth control.

Also, it's hard to seriously say that she wanted birth control for reasons other than safe sex. Fluke clearly wanted them for this reason and that, to me, is vile that she demands somebody else be forced to pay for them.


I think we can have a reasonable debate on whether or not this is the government's rightful purview. I tend to think that we would disagree on that. But I don't think it is nearly productive to throw around such a hateful pejorative, not to mention that coming down on the same side of this as Rush Limbaugh is a credibility-killer. I've got one word for Rush: viagra.

If the label fits...
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 8:08:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 8:00:39 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 7:02:23 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Actually, Fluke wasn't demanding taxpayer funding for birth control. She wanted insurance plans -- include her Georgetown plan -- to cover it, as there were reasons other than sexual activity for wanting contraceptive access. She cited a friend of hers, for instance, who had ovarian cancer, and would rely on birth control pills as medication, but ultimately lost her ovaries because she couldn't afford them.



She was still asking for the government to coerce Georgetown into paying for her birth control.

As I said, we can have a reasonable argument as to whether this is coercive. I happen to think that it's not, because I think the role of government is to ensure minimum standards and look out for consumers -- perhaps we can even agree on this notion. My question for, then, becomes why you think this mandate -- which many studies have demonstrated will actually lower health care costs, as I've mentioned to you before, since preventive medicine costs less than paying for a pregnancy, or for an ailment once it comes to fruition -- is coercive. Are all mandates coercive? Where do you draw the line?

Also, it's hard to seriously say that she wanted birth control for reasons other than safe sex. Fluke clearly wanted them for this reason and that, to me, is vile that she demands somebody else be forced to pay for them.

Fluke actually said that she herself can afford birth control, but was speaking out in favor of her friends, classmates, and fellow women who cannot afford it, and obviously there are many. There are many reasons to want birth control other than safe sex. But, ultimately, why does it even matter what the birth control is for? In past discussions we've had -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- you've come across to me as a libertarian. Shouldn't people be able to do whatever they want so long as they don't harm others? If you want to argue against the mandate, be my guest, but I don't think a plausible argument against it is that "she wants to use it for sex."

Coverage of viagra is mandated, actually -- which Rush Limbaugh has benefited from. Do you oppose that? It's funny that Rush has never come out against that.



I think we can have a reasonable debate on whether or not this is the government's rightful purview. I tend to think that we would disagree on that. But I don't think it is nearly productive to throw around such a hateful pejorative, not to mention that coming down on the same side of this as Rush Limbaugh is a credibility-killer. I've got one word for Rush: viagra.


If the label fits...

But it doesn't, and I trust that you're not a spiteful person, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this. Surely you must know that people rely on birth control. Most people use birth control -- many of whom are religious, actually -- and a majority of women want coverage of it. Are they all "sluts?" I don't think so.
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 8:16:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 8:08:34 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 8:00:39 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 7:02:23 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Actually, Fluke wasn't demanding taxpayer funding for birth control. She wanted insurance plans -- include her Georgetown plan -- to cover it, as there were reasons other than sexual activity for wanting contraceptive access. She cited a friend of hers, for instance, who had ovarian cancer, and would rely on birth control pills as medication, but ultimately lost her ovaries because she couldn't afford them.



She was still asking for the government to coerce Georgetown into paying for her birth control.

As I said, we can have a reasonable argument as to whether this is coercive. I happen to think that it's not, because I think the role of government is to ensure minimum standards and look out for consumers -- perhaps we can even agree on this notion. My question for, then, becomes why you think this mandate -- which many studies have demonstrated will actually lower health care costs, as I've mentioned to you before, since preventive medicine costs less than paying for a pregnancy, or for an ailment once it comes to fruition -- is coercive. Are all mandates coercive? Where do you draw the line?

First off, I find it very hard to believe that this mandate will lower health care costs. If so, please provide studies.

Yes, mandates, by definition, are coercive. If they will seriously benefit society, I'm willing to look at it, but I don't think minimum standards on insurance are a good thing even from a utilitarian point of view as overly comprehensive insurance is a problem right now.


Also, it's hard to seriously say that she wanted birth control for reasons other than safe sex. Fluke clearly wanted them for this reason and that, to me, is vile that she demands somebody else be forced to pay for them.

Fluke actually said that she herself can afford birth control, but was speaking out in favor of her friends, classmates, and fellow women who cannot afford it, and obviously there are many. There are many reasons to want birth control other than safe sex. But, ultimately, why does it even matter what the birth control is for? In past discussions we've had -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- you've come across to me as a libertarian. Shouldn't people be able to do whatever they want so long as they don't harm others? If you want to argue against the mandate, be my guest, but I don't think a plausible argument against it is that "she wants to use it for sex."

My argument isn't that it is used for sex and therefore bad. Instead, I am arguing that it is primarily used for sex and therefore a private matter... not something to be funded by mandates or public spending. I'm against mandates in general.

But, the mandate for birth control is particularly appalling to me because nobody should be forced to pay for someone else's sex. If someone uses them for purposes other than sex, the burden should be on them to prove that.


Coverage of viagra is mandated, actually -- which Rush Limbaugh has benefited from. Do you oppose that? It's funny that Rush has never come out against that.

I am 100% against that. Viagra should NOT be mandated.




I think we can have a reasonable debate on whether or not this is the government's rightful purview. I tend to think that we would disagree on that. But I don't think it is nearly productive to throw around such a hateful pejorative, not to mention that coming down on the same side of this as Rush Limbaugh is a credibility-killer. I've got one word for Rush: viagra.


If the label fits...

But it doesn't, and I trust that you're not a spiteful person, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this. Surely you must know that people rely on birth control. Most people use birth control -- many of whom are religious, actually -- and a majority of women want coverage of it. Are they all "sluts?" I don't think so.

It's not slutty to use birth control.

It is slutty to go in front of congress to demand that a Religious institute be coerced into funding birth control.

The two are not the same and that distinction needs to be made.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 8:27:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 8:16:06 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 8:08:34 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 8:00:39 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 7:02:23 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Actually, Fluke wasn't demanding taxpayer funding for birth control. She wanted insurance plans -- include her Georgetown plan -- to cover it, as there were reasons other than sexual activity for wanting contraceptive access. She cited a friend of hers, for instance, who had ovarian cancer, and would rely on birth control pills as medication, but ultimately lost her ovaries because she couldn't afford them.



She was still asking for the government to coerce Georgetown into paying for her birth control.

As I said, we can have a reasonable argument as to whether this is coercive. I happen to think that it's not, because I think the role of government is to ensure minimum standards and look out for consumers -- perhaps we can even agree on this notion. My question for, then, becomes why you think this mandate -- which many studies have demonstrated will actually lower health care costs, as I've mentioned to you before, since preventive medicine costs less than paying for a pregnancy, or for an ailment once it comes to fruition -- is coercive. Are all mandates coercive? Where do you draw the line?



First off, I find it very hard to believe that this mandate will lower health care costs. If so, please provide studies.

I'm currently on my phone, but I'll find a few studies for you as soon as I get back to my computer.
Yes, mandates, by definition, are coercive. If they will seriously benefit society, I'm willing to look at it, but I don't think minimum standards on insurance are a good thing even from a utilitarian point of view as overly comprehensive insurance is a problem right now.

That's fair.



Also, it's hard to seriously say that she wanted birth control for reasons other than safe sex. Fluke clearly wanted them for this reason and that, to me, is vile that she demands somebody else be forced to pay for them.

Fluke actually said that she herself can afford birth control, but was speaking out in favor of her friends, classmates, and fellow women who cannot afford it, and obviously there are many. There are many reasons to want birth control other than safe sex. But, ultimately, why does it even matter what the birth control is for? In past discussions we've had -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- you've come across to me as a libertarian. Shouldn't people be able to do whatever they want so long as they don't harm others? If you want to argue against the mandate, be my guest, but I don't think a plausible argument against it is that "she wants to use it for sex."




My argument isn't that it is used for sex and therefore bad. Instead, I am arguing that it is primarily used for sex and therefore a private matter... not something to be funded by mandates or public spending. I'm against mandates in general.

But your argument, so far as I can glean, is that insurance itself is a private matter, and that would preclude any type of mandate. Please tell me if I'm wrong. And, again, her case was not that it allows for safe sex. Even Obama, when speaking of this, argued not only that it ensured reproductive freedom for low-income women who can't afford it, but protects them against disease. I think even if this is an ancillary benefit of birth control -- and I'm not sure if it is, but if you'd like to source your argument that preventing sex is the primary use of birth control, please do -- the fact that it is a way to treat various forms of cancer is enough of a case for covering it.

But, the mandate for birth control is particularly appalling to me because nobody should be forced to pay for someone else's sex. If someone uses them for purposes other than sex, the burden should be on them to prove that.




Coverage of viagra is mandated, actually -- which Rush Limbaugh has benefited from. Do you oppose that? It's funny that Rush has never come out against that.



I am 100% against that. Viagra should NOT be mandated.

Fair enough. So you agree with me that Rush is a hypocrite, correct?






I think we can have a reasonable debate on whether or not this is the government's rightful purview. I tend to think that we would disagree on that. But I don't think it is nearly productive to throw around such a hateful pejorative, not to mention that coming down on the same side of this as Rush Limbaugh is a credibility-killer. I've got one word for Rush: viagra.


If the label fits...

But it doesn't, and I trust that you're not a spiteful person, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this. Surely you must know that people rely on birth control. Most people use birth control -- many of whom are religious, actually -- and a majority of women want coverage of it. Are they all "sluts?" I don't think so.


It's not slutty to use birth control.

It is slutty to go in front of congress to demand that a Religious institute be coerced into funding birth control.

The two are not the same and that distinction needs to be made.

But, again, this isn't a religious institution funding birth control. Simply, they would use an insurance plan -- which the students pay for, mind you -- that provides coverage for birth control. A federal judge, actually, ruled that the birth control mandate in its original form was perfectly constitutional under the logic that a boss cannot decide how employees spend their money -- in this case, a boss cannot decide what type of insurance a person can have, or how they choose to use that insurance, whether it is for birth control pills or not.

I think it's actually a reasonable case to exempt religious institutions, as the Obama Administration has agreed to do. So let me ask you this: do you support the mandate in its current form, or do you have still issues with it on religious grounds?

I also find the religious argument, honestly, to be quite silly, since it's effectively a case for an employer imposing religion on his or her customers. Moreover -- and since about 80% of the country is Christian, and Christianity always seems to find its way into American politics, this is relevant -- Jesus never actually spoke about contraceptives at all. In fact, the Bible itself has often been misinterpreted so as to oppose contraception. It's not exactly a relevant argument by any means, since equating logic with a literal interpretation of the Bible is extremely difficult, but just an interesting anecdote I thought it would be wise to provide.
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 9:29:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 8:27:54 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
She was still asking for the government to coerce Georgetown into paying for her birth control.

As I said, we can have a reasonable argument as to whether this is coercive. I happen to think that it's not, because I think the role of government is to ensure minimum standards and look out for consumers -- perhaps we can even agree on this notion. My question for, then, becomes why you think this mandate -- which many studies have demonstrated will actually lower health care costs, as I've mentioned to you before, since preventive medicine costs less than paying for a pregnancy, or for an ailment once it comes to fruition -- is coercive. Are all mandates coercive? Where do you draw the line?



First off, I find it very hard to believe that this mandate will lower health care costs. If so, please provide studies.

I'm currently on my phone, but I'll find a few studies for you as soon as I get back to my computer.

Okay.

Yes, mandates, by definition, are coercive. If they will seriously benefit society, I'm willing to look at it, but I don't think minimum standards on insurance are a good thing even from a utilitarian point of view as overly comprehensive insurance is a problem right now.

That's fair.

Okay.




Also, it's hard to seriously say that she wanted birth control for reasons other than safe sex. Fluke clearly wanted them for this reason and that, to me, is vile that she demands somebody else be forced to pay for them.

Fluke actually said that she herself can afford birth control, but was speaking out in favor of her friends, classmates, and fellow women who cannot afford it, and obviously there are many. There are many reasons to want birth control other than safe sex. But, ultimately, why does it even matter what the birth control is for? In past discussions we've had -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- you've come across to me as a libertarian. Shouldn't people be able to do whatever they want so long as they don't harm others? If you want to argue against the mandate, be my guest, but I don't think a plausible argument against it is that "she wants to use it for sex."




My argument isn't that it is used for sex and therefore bad. Instead, I am arguing that it is primarily used for sex and therefore a private matter... not something to be funded by mandates or public spending. I'm against mandates in general.

But your argument, so far as I can glean, is that insurance itself is a private matter, and that would preclude any type of mandate. Please tell me if I'm wrong. And, again, her case was not that it allows for safe sex. Even Obama, when speaking of this, argued not only that it ensured reproductive freedom for low-income women who can't afford it, but protects them against disease. I think even if this is an ancillary benefit of birth control -- and I'm not sure if it is, but if you'd like to source your argument that preventing sex is the primary use of birth control, please do -- the fact that it is a way to treat various forms of cancer is enough of a case for covering it.

I don't think true health insurance is necessarily a private matter. True insurance meaning catastrophic coverage that only applies for unexpected, large health expenses that are not the fault of the individual.

Paying the monthly birth control bill is NOT such an expense.

But, yes, I do find something particularly vile about demanding others be forced to finance birth control. Sex is a private matter. And, it should not be paid for by public dollars.

If somebody can't afford birth control (which is actually quite cheap), perhaps they shouldn't be having sex in the first place. The risk for pregnancy is never 0% even with birth control and if somebody can't afford birth control on their own, they definetely cannot afford a child.


But, the mandate for birth control is particularly appalling to me because nobody should be forced to pay for someone else's sex. If someone uses them for purposes other than sex, the burden should be on them to prove that.




Coverage of viagra is mandated, actually -- which Rush Limbaugh has benefited from. Do you oppose that? It's funny that Rush has never come out against that.



I am 100% against that. Viagra should NOT be mandated.

Fair enough. So you agree with me that Rush is a hypocrite, correct?

Rush Limbaugh is a hypocrite if, and only if, he has come out in support of the viagra mandate. If not, I see no hypocrisy.







I think we can have a reasonable debate on whether or not this is the government's rightful purview. I tend to think that we would disagree on that. But I don't think it is nearly productive to throw around such a hateful pejorative, not to mention that coming down on the same side of this as Rush Limbaugh is a credibility-killer. I've got one word for Rush: viagra.


If the label fits...

But it doesn't, and I trust that you're not a spiteful person, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this. Surely you must know that people rely on birth control. Most people use birth control -- many of whom are religious, actually -- and a majority of women want coverage of it. Are they all "sluts?" I don't think so.


It's not slutty to use birth control.

It is slutty to go in front of congress to demand that a Religious institute be coerced into funding birth control.

The two are not the same and that distinction needs to be made.

But, again, this isn't a religious institution funding birth control. Simply, they would use an insurance plan -- which the students pay for, mind you -- that provides coverage for birth control. A federal judge, actually, ruled that the birth control mandate in its original form was perfectly constitutional under the logic that a boss cannot decide how employees spend their money -- in this case, a boss cannot decide what type of insurance a person can have, or how they choose to use that insurance, whether it is for birth control pills or not.

If the government is telling the boss they have to offer insurance that covers certain things, that is a HUGE violation of rights and quite inefficient as well. The boss has every right to offer plans that include birth control. But, they should not be forced to offer such plans.


I think it's actually a reasonable case to exempt religious institutions, as the Obama Administration has agreed to do. So let me ask you this: do you support the mandate in its current form, or do you have still issues with it on religious grounds?

I do not support the mandate at all. It is both immoral and inefficient from my point of view.

Forcing anyone to pay for someone else's birth control strikes me as very wrong.

There are a lot of reasons I oppose the mandate, though.


I also find the religious argument, honestly, to be quite silly, since it's effectively a case for an employer imposing religion on his or her customers. Moreover -- and since about 80% of the country is Christian, and Christianity always seems to find its way into American politics, this is relevant -- Jesus never actually spoke about contraceptives at all. In fact, the Bible itself has often been misinterpreted so as to oppose contraception. It's not exactly a relevant argument by any means, since equating logic with a literal interpretation of the Bible is extremely difficult, but just an interesting anecdote I thought it would be wise to provide.

It has nothing to do with Religion. It's about not forcing others to pay for your own sexual activities.

Boss's have every righ
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 9:34:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 8:00:39 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 7:02:23 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Actually, Fluke wasn't demanding taxpayer funding for birth control. She wanted insurance plans -- include her Georgetown plan -- to cover it, as there were reasons other than sexual activity for wanting contraceptive access. She cited a friend of hers, for instance, who had ovarian cancer, and would rely on birth control pills as medication, but ultimately lost her ovaries because she couldn't afford them.



She was still asking for the government to coerce Georgetown into paying for her birth control.

I take it then that you hold the view that it's immoral for the government to coerce payment for *anything* then correct?

Also, it's hard to seriously say that she wanted birth control for reasons other than safe sex. Fluke clearly wanted them for this reason and that, to me, is vile that she demands somebody else be forced to pay for them.

And the conservative ignores reasonable commentary for a pre-packaged narrative, taken from a fat, ignorant drug addict. Classic.



I think we can have a reasonable debate on whether or not this is the government's rightful purview. I tend to think that we would disagree on that. But I don't think it is nearly productive to throw around such a hateful pejorative, not to mention that coming down on the same side of this as Rush Limbaugh is a credibility-killer. I've got one word for Rush: viagra.


If the label fits...

Dude yer sexual repression hurts my brain.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 9:43:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago


I don't think true health insurance is necessarily a private matter. True insurance meaning catastrophic coverage that only applies for unexpected, large health expenses that are not the fault of the individual.

But where exactly does your definition of true insurance stem? Insurance covers a whole lot of things that people will never use because, at some point, someone may need it.

Paying the monthly birth control bill is NOT such an expense.

Is this true even if birth control is a medication for Ovarian Cancer?

But, yes, I do find something particularly vile about demanding others be forced to finance birth control. Sex is a private matter. And, it should not be paid for by public dollars.

But if I can prove to you that this ultimately lower health care costs, this point becomes invalid. So I will provide you with those studies.

If somebody can't afford birth control (which is actually quite cheap), perhaps they shouldn't be having sex in the first place. The risk for pregnancy is never 0% even with birth control and if somebody can't afford birth control on their own, they definetely cannot afford a child.

Well, the problem is, people are still going to have sex. Whether they be teenagers or adults, they're still going to do it, and this simply acts as a precaution. That's honestly a problem I have with libertarianism: it presumes that people are rational actors. That is, if someone can't afford birth control, it's rational not to have intercourse because you can't afford a baby. But people are still going to do it. I'm interested in who is going to support that child because, unlike my supposedly pro-life Republican friends, I genuinely want to reduce abortion, and this is one way of doing it.

Also, could you please cite the figures saying that birth control is cheap? I saw $9 an hour thrown around on right-wing radio at the time of this controversy, but I've seen studies and figures to the contrary.




But, the mandate for birth control is particularly appalling to me because nobody should be forced to pay for someone else's sex. If someone uses them for purposes other than sex, the burden should be on them to prove that.

There have been bills to this effect in certain states requiring women to prove to their employers that they intend to use the birth control for something other than to prevent pregnancy. I don't know about you, but I find that to be repugnant and degrading, as though women can't make these decisions for themselves and that they ought to be treated like children. I think the key difference between us is that I believe people have a fundamental right to quality health care, which is part and parcel of the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.



Coverage of viagra is mandated, actually -- which Rush Limbaugh has benefited from. Do you oppose that? It's funny that Rush has never come out against that.



I am 100% against that. Viagra should NOT be mandated.

Fair enough. So you agree with me that Rush is a hypocrite, correct?




Rush Limbaugh is a hypocrite if, and only if, he has come out in support of the viagra mandate. If not, I see no hypocrisy.

But that's hypocrisy on your part, because you and Rush have been spent so much time condemning the birth control mandate, but have no focused nearly enough on viagra -- in Rush's case, he's ignored it entirely, so I do give you credit for coming out in opposition to it.

As I told you, Rush actually benefited from the viagra mandate. I don't want to be uncouth so I'm not going to go into much more detail, but I think you know what I'm getting at.








I think we can have a reasonable debate on whether or not this is the government's rightful purview. I tend to think that we would disagree on that. But I don't think it is nearly productive to throw around such a hateful pejorative, not to mention that coming down on the same side of this as Rush Limbaugh is a credibility-killer. I've got one word for Rush: viagra.


If the label fits...

But it doesn't, and I trust that you're not a spiteful person, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this. Surely you must know that people rely on birth control. Most people use birth control -- many of whom are religious, actually -- and a majority of women want coverage of it. Are they all "sluts?" I don't think so.


It's not slutty to use birth control.

It is slutty to go in front of congress to demand that a Religious institute be coerced into funding birth control.

The two are not the same and that distinction needs to be made.

But, again, this isn't a religious institution funding birth control. Simply, they would use an insurance plan -- which the students pay for, mind you -- that provides coverage for birth control. A federal judge, actually, ruled that the birth control mandate in its original form was perfectly constitutional under the logic that a boss cannot decide how employees spend their money -- in this case, a boss cannot decide what type of insurance a person can have, or how they choose to use that insurance, whether it is for birth control pills or not.




If the government is telling the boss they have to offer insurance that covers certain things, that is a HUGE violation of rights and quite inefficient as well. The boss has every right to offer plans that include birth control. But, they should not be forced to offer such plans.

Again, even if providing it lowers health care costs, saves lives -- literally as well financially -- and contributes to the minimum standard that we may be able to agree on?




I think it's actually a reasonable case to exempt religious institutions, as the Obama Administration has agreed to do. So let me ask you this: do you support the mandate in its current form, or do you have still issues with it on religious grounds?


I do not support the mandate at all. It is both immoral and inefficient from my point of view.

That's fair.
Forcing anyone to pay for someone else's birth control strikes me as very wrong.

But is it not worse for to pay for the children who result from lack of birth control because their families have not the funds or resources to care for a baby on their own? You can argue that they shouldn't have had sex, and you may be right. But the fact is, they're going to anyway. You could say that you're opposed to public assistance, but then I'd ask: why punish a child for the sins of his or her parents?

There are a lot of reasons I oppose the mandate, though.

Feel free to list them off.

progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 9:46:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, since for some reason I can't quote the last bit, here's my response:

It has everything to do with religion, actually, because that's the only argument for opposing birth control. Bosses aren't paying for their employee's birth controls -- employees are receiving health insurance through their employer as part of their benefits package, and likely pay into it, as well. My point is that a boss should not be able to arbitrarily dictate the type of insurance plan he can offer when it does not impact him in any way, shape, or form.

Now, if you want to make the case that health insurance should be separated from your employer, I would completely agree with you -- and the ACA is a step in that direction.
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 10:46:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 9:34:26 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/24/2014 8:00:39 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 7:02:23 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Actually, Fluke wasn't demanding taxpayer funding for birth control. She wanted insurance plans -- include her Georgetown plan -- to cover it, as there were reasons other than sexual activity for wanting contraceptive access. She cited a friend of hers, for instance, who had ovarian cancer, and would rely on birth control pills as medication, but ultimately lost her ovaries because she couldn't afford them.



She was still asking for the government to coerce Georgetown into paying for her birth control.

I take it then that you hold the view that it's immoral for the government to coerce payment for *anything* then correct?

Not exactly. Non excludables and public goods are not immoral.

But, as far as mandating people to pay for certain benefits, then yes.

Also, it's hard to seriously say that she wanted birth control for reasons other than safe sex. Fluke clearly wanted them for this reason and that, to me, is vile that she demands somebody else be forced to pay for them.

And the conservative ignores reasonable commentary for a pre-packaged narrative, taken from a fat, ignorant drug addict. Classic.

That's constructive.




I think we can have a reasonable debate on whether or not this is the government's rightful purview. I tend to think that we would disagree on that. But I don't think it is nearly productive to throw around such a hateful pejorative, not to mention that coming down on the same side of this as Rush Limbaugh is a credibility-killer. I've got one word for Rush: viagra.


If the label fits...

Dude yer sexual repression hurts my brain.

Look. Women have every right to do what they wish with their body. So do men. But, there are consequences to their decisions... Shame is one.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 10:49:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 10:46:35 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 9:34:26 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/24/2014 8:00:39 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 7:02:23 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Actually, Fluke wasn't demanding taxpayer funding for birth control. She wanted insurance plans -- include her Georgetown plan -- to cover it, as there were reasons other than sexual activity for wanting contraceptive access. She cited a friend of hers, for instance, who had ovarian cancer, and would rely on birth control pills as medication, but ultimately lost her ovaries because she couldn't afford them.



She was still asking for the government to coerce Georgetown into paying for her birth control.

I take it then that you hold the view that it's immoral for the government to coerce payment for *anything* then correct?


Not exactly. Non excludables and public goods are not immoral.

Why

But, as far as mandating people to pay for certain benefits, then yes.

Why

Also, it's hard to seriously say that she wanted birth control for reasons other than safe sex. Fluke clearly wanted them for this reason and that, to me, is vile that she demands somebody else be forced to pay for them.

And the conservative ignores reasonable commentary for a pre-packaged narrative, taken from a fat, ignorant drug addict. Classic.

That's constructive.

So is slut-shaming.



I think we can have a reasonable debate on whether or not this is the government's rightful purview. I tend to think that we would disagree on that. But I don't think it is nearly productive to throw around such a hateful pejorative, not to mention that coming down on the same side of this as Rush Limbaugh is a credibility-killer. I've got one word for Rush: viagra.


If the label fits...

Dude yer sexual repression hurts my brain.

Look. Women have every right to do what they wish with their body. So do men. But, there are consequences to their decisions... Shame is one.

Look. Arseholes have every right to be arseholes and say arsehole things. But, there are consequences to their decisions...
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 10:55:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 9:43:45 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:


I don't think true health insurance is necessarily a private matter. True insurance meaning catastrophic coverage that only applies for unexpected, large health expenses that are not the fault of the individual.

But where exactly does your definition of true insurance stem? Insurance covers a whole lot of things that people will never use because, at some point, someone may need it.

Insurance is supposed to only apply when a large, unexpected expense comes up. INsurance has NOTHING to do with routine expenses. That is just prepaying for such expenses, which is highly innefficient.


Paying the monthly birth control bill is NOT such an expense.

Is this true even if birth control is a medication for Ovarian Cancer?

If someone gets Ovarian Cancer, and if a doctor determines that that is the best medication for Ovarian Cancer (having nothing to do with sex) and it is a large and unexpected expense, insurance should cover it. But, I don't think any doctor would presibe birth control as the central treatment method for Ovarian Cancer.


But, yes, I do find something particularly vile about demanding others be forced to finance birth control. Sex is a private matter. And, it should not be paid for by public dollars.

But if I can prove to you that this ultimately lower health care costs, this point becomes invalid. So I will provide you with those studies.

I'm still waiting for the studies. But, regardless, it is wrong for taxpayers to finance people's sex life.


If somebody can't afford birth control (which is actually quite cheap), perhaps they shouldn't be having sex in the first place. The risk for pregnancy is never 0% even with birth control and if somebody can't afford birth control on their own, they definetely cannot afford a child.

Well, the problem is, people are still going to have sex. Whether they be teenagers or adults, they're still going to do it, and this simply acts as a precaution. That's honestly a problem I have with libertarianism: it presumes that people are rational actors. That is, if someone can't afford birth control, it's rational not to have intercourse because you can't afford a baby. But people are still going to do it. I'm interested in who is going to support that child because, unlike my supposedly pro-life Republican friends, I genuinely want to reduce abortion, and this is one way of doing it.

Also, could you please cite the figures saying that birth control is cheap? I saw $9 an hour thrown around on right-wing radio at the time of this controversy, but I've seen studies and figures to the contrary.

Anyone who buys birth control knows it is cheap. I know lots of people who buy birth control and they aren't rich. They never complain that somebody else isn't being forced to pay for it.

And, I want to help kids too. I want to help them by leaving them a society in which they aren't forced to pay for other people's casual sex.



There have been bills to this effect in certain states requiring women to prove to their employers that they intend to use the birth control for something other than to prevent pregnancy. I don't know about you, but I find that to be repugnant and degrading, as though women can't make these decisions for themselves and that they ought to be treated like children. I think the key difference between us is that I believe people have a fundamental right to quality health care, which is part and parcel of the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

What I find repugnant is the fact that employers are forced to cover anything. Employers are just that... employers. They should not be coerced into providing birth control regardless of situation.





Rush Limbaugh is a hypocrite if, and only if, he has come out in support of the viagra mandate. If not, I see no hypocrisy.

But that's hypocrisy on your part, because you and Rush have been spent so much time condemning the birth control mandate, but have no focused nearly enough on viagra -- in Rush's case, he's ignored it entirely, so I do give you credit for coming out in opposition to it.

I hate the viagra mandate just as much. Although, I'm not even sure it exists. Do you have evidence?


As I told you, Rush actually benefited from the viagra mandate. I don't want to be uncouth so I'm not going to go into much more detail, but I think you know what I'm getting at.

I mean, if insurance is forced to cover viagra, he didn't benefit by choice.







If the government is telling the boss they have to offer insurance that covers certain things, that is a HUGE violation of rights and quite inefficient as well. The boss has every right to offer plans that include birth control. But, they should not be forced to offer such plans.

Again, even if providing it lowers health care costs, saves lives -- literally as well financially -- and contributes to the minimum standard that we may be able to agree on?

But it doesn't. Minimum standards INCREASE health care costs.





I think it's actually a reasonable case to exempt religious institutions, as the Obama Administration has agreed to do. So let me ask you this: do you support the mandate in its current form, or do you have still issues with it on religious grounds?


I do not support the mandate at all. It is both immoral and inefficient from my point of view.

That's fair.
Forcing anyone to pay for someone else's birth control strikes me as very wrong.

But is it not worse for to pay for the children who result from lack of birth control because their families have not the funds or resources to care for a baby on their own? You can argue that they shouldn't have had sex, and you may be right. But the fact is, they're going to anyway. You could say that you're opposed to public assistance, but then I'd ask: why punish a child for the sins of his or her parents?

Maybe public assistance is the problem...


There are a lot of reasons I oppose the mandate, though.

Feel free to list them off.



Immoral, Innefficient. I'll expand on these later.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 11:14:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 10:55:19 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 9:43:45 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:


I don't think true health insurance is necessarily a private matter. True insurance meaning catastrophic coverage that only applies for unexpected, large health expenses that are not the fault of the individual.

But where exactly does your definition of true insurance stem? Insurance covers a whole lot of things that people will never use because, at some point, someone may need it.


Insurance is supposed to only apply when a large, unexpected expense comes up. INsurance has NOTHING to do with routine expenses. That is just prepaying for such expenses, which is highly innefficient.

Actually, that's incorrect -- which is why I find your use of condescending use of capitalization amusing. You're speaking only of a catastrophic insurance plan. In fact, every time you attend a medical check-up, the only out-of-pocket cost is a co-pay. This is even applicable to Medicare. The rest is covered by insurance. You're entitled to your opinion as to how the system ought to run -- as unrealistic and counter-factual as it may be -- but not your own facts as to how the system is currently devised. And, yes, routine check-ups are covered, as is the purchase of viagra.



Is this true even if birth control is a medication for Ovarian Cancer?


If someone gets Ovarian Cancer, and if a doctor determines that that is the best medication for Ovarian Cancer (having nothing to do with sex) and it is a large and unexpected expense, insurance should cover it. But, I don't think any doctor would presibe birth control as the central treatment method for Ovarian Cancer.

There are enough studies to this end, but I'm glad that you agree that a medical necessity should be covered. Again, it seems that our disagreement is rooted almost primarily in how broad insurance ought to be. To me, purely out-of-pocket costs are harmful to low-income people who simply can't afford it.

I'm still waiting for the studies. But, regardless, it is wrong for taxpayers to finance people's sex life.

For the last time, taxpayers are not financing other people's sex life. This is a lie pushed by Rush and the right-wing media. I can't help you when you continuously ignore the facts. And as I said, I'm on my phone. Google is a powerful tool, though.



Anyone who buys birth control knows it is cheap. I know lots of people who buy birth control and they aren't rich. They never complain that somebody else isn't being forced to pay for it.

This is so anecdotal and baseless it's hilarious. It reminds me of Rand Paul saying that, because there are so many women in his highly privileged life who are successful, there must not be a legislative war on women, or any disparities remaining.

I asked you for evidence. A baseless anecdote isn't evidence. You also punted on my critique of rational expectations.

And, I want to help kids too. I want to help them by leaving them a society in which they aren't forced to pay for other people's casual sex.


So let's eliminate coverage of viagra, circumcision, erectile dysfunction drugs, vasectomies, and penile implants. We can play this game all day. You and Rush only want to focus on birth controls.

And, again, nice punt on my argument that less birth control begets more children begets more public assistance outlays.


What I find repugnant is the fact that employers are forced to cover anything. Employers are just that... employers. They should not be coerced into providing birth control regardless of situation.

So you're against the health care mandate, I can see. To be honest with you, I'm not for health insurance through one's employer. Single-payer solves that problem. How about it?



I hate the viagra mandate just as much. Although, I'm not even sure it exists. Do you have evidence?

Of course I do: http://www.rawstory.com...

If you need more evidence, ask Rush -- because apparently anecdotes are adequate.



I mean, if insurance is forced to cover viagra, he didn't benefit by choice.

Yet you're still defending Limbaugh.

Of course he did. His insurance covered it, and he choose to purchase viagra. He chose to benefit from it. This is the same situation with religious charities and hospitals. They were -- and I say "were" because the Obama Administration's compromise which exempted them -- obligated to cover birth control only if they offered health insurance to their employees. That was their choice; they didn't have to. Employees then get to decide whether or not they utilize that coverage.



But it doesn't. Minimum standards INCREASE health care costs.


Ahh, non-nuanced, bare-bones, libertarian fictions, oh how I've missed you.

The only thing I'll say for now is that minimum standards increase health care costs ceteris paribus (all factors remaining equal). There are a number of other variables to consider. I


I think it's actually a reasonable case to exempt religious institutions, as the Obama Administration has agreed to do. So let me ask you this: do you support the mandate in its current form, or do you have still issues with it on religious grounds?


I do not support the mandate at all. It is both immoral and inefficient from my point of view.

That's fair.
Forcing anyone to pay for someone else's birth control strikes me as very wrong.

But is it not worse for to pay for the children who result from lack of birth control because their families have not the funds or resources to care for a baby on their own? You can argue that they shouldn't have had sex, and you may be right. But the fact is, they're going to anyway. You could say that you're opposed to public assistance, but then I'd ask: why punish a child for the sins of his or her parents?


Maybe public assistance is the problem...

Oh, so not only do you want to deny people birth control access, but you also want to cut off public assistance so we have people dying in the street. At the same time, you're defending employer's rights to provide their employees with literally zero health care. It's nice to know which side you're on -- as though I didn't already know.


There are a lot of reasons I oppose the mandate, though.

Feel free to list them off.




Immoral, Innefficient. I'll expand on these later.

Inefficient is incorrect, as I'll show you later. And, you're saying immoral because it's an act of government, correct? So then you must condemn literally every single conceivable mandate forcing anybody to do anything. In essence, taxation is a mandate, is it not? You're being forced against your will to pay for other people's stuff. Hey, I'm being taxed to pay for Exxon's subsidies, and that sucks. Do you see how this logic fails?
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 11:20:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
As for those studies:

Institutes of Medicine report: http://www.iom.edu...

http://www.guttmacher.org... -- this speaks of family planning more broadly, but is obviously inclusive of contraception.

I can post more later.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 6:25:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here's Fluke's (unfortunate but fitting name) rationale:

"Paying 9 dollars for a prescription for contraceptive drugs is an "untenable burden" for a law student and, in the absence of hormonal contraception, I am not intelligent enough to find and pay for condoms, which are considerably cheaper than that and, in the absence of either hormonal contraception or condoms, I'm somehow going to be inexplicably stricken with pregnancy which is going to stop me from becoming an academic success."

It's pretty obvious that Ms. Fluke has to keep her asinine arguments in the realm of the emotional for in the realm of the logical they are revealed to be laughable.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 6:57:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 6:25:44 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Here's Fluke's (unfortunate but fitting name) rationale:

"Paying 9 dollars for a prescription for contraceptive drugs is an "untenable burden" for a law student and, in the absence of hormonal contraception, I am not intelligent enough to find and pay for condoms, which are considerably cheaper than that and, in the absence of either hormonal contraception or condoms, I'm somehow going to be inexplicably stricken with pregnancy which is going to stop me from becoming an academic success."

It's pretty obvious that Ms. Fluke has to keep her asinine arguments in the realm of the emotional for in the realm of the logical they are revealed to be laughable.

You do realize that literally alleged thought in that has already been rebutted, of course. Not that you care.
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 6:26:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 3:14:13 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/24/2014 1:29:21 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
A few relevant questions and points:

- Sandra Fluke.

Her testimony had absolutely nothing to do with her right to do what she wishes with her body. Instead, she was demanding others be coerced to fund her sexual activities.

People were outraged with Limbaugh's comments. But, there was no similar outrage at the very fact that Fluke demands taxpayers fund activities that many find immoral to begin with. There was no outrage about the utter hypocrisy of feminists who claim to want the government to stay out of the bedroom but then demand the government pay for what they do in the bedroom.

Calling Sandra Fluke a slut, as Limbaugh did, is an insult to sluts. At least sluts don't (usually) demand others be coerced into paying for their birth control. A better word for Fluke may be prostitute.

Your man Rush is a major poop head, ergo all ditto heads are major poop heads.

Sorry, but that makes you a complete sh!thead.

- Slut Shaming.

Slut shaming is only wrong if the person being shamed is not actually a slut. In that case, it is defamation.

Rather simplistic reasoning here. Thinking in terms such as "slut" is both sexist and unkind, which is far more reprehensible than being a promiscuous women.

It is not sexist, because the word can be applied to either a male or a female. It is not unkind, because if the person being called a "slut" really is a slut, than it is simply fact. Fact does not equal unkind. You politically correct people out there need to face the facts and stop sh!tting yourself over stuff like this.

If the "slut" in question is actually a slut, "slut shaming" is an excellent way to encourage moral behavior without government force.

Verbally stoning women for being sexually prolific, or treating human beings in a hurtful fashion for any reason whatsoever is not, and therefore does not promote, moral behavior.

Look, I don't call anyone "slut," but I also don't give a rat's a$$ if someone else does. It's wrong to call someone who's not a slut a "slut," but if someone's going around fuckin everyone they can, then I'd say they're a slut. It's simple: if you don't want to be called a slut, don't be a slut.

I do not favor using government to force people to adhere to moral standards. However, I do believe such moral standards should exist and shame is a good mechanism to enforce a moral code.

One inculcates fundamental moral values such as compassion by being compassionate, inflicting shame is merely a way that individuals and societies attempt to assert social control.

It is not about social control, it's about calling it as you see it. You see a moron and you call him a moron, that has nothing to do with social control.

Call me old fashioned, but I think being a slut is wrong. That applies to both sexes, by the way.

But alas "slut" is an egregiously and atavistically sexist term that expresses, validates, and fosters not merely moral judgmentalism, which is quite bad enough, but also a the sexist mentality that gravitates to such terms.

So you're complaining that calling someone a slut is judgmental, yet you're sitting here being a bit judgmental yourself?

And although you attempt to disown the hypocrisy of judging promiscuous women more harshly than men, the use of the term "slut" certainly helps to reinforce the ole double standard.

Again, "slut" can be used against a male or a female.

And as I've already observed, it's also an insensitive and mean term, which makes it morally reprehensible. (Furthermore, it's also a bit immature and unsophisticated.)

I always laugh when people say "mean" as you did here. It is immature and unsophisticated.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 6:40:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 8:08:34 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
But it doesn't, and I trust that you're not a spiteful person, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this. Surely you must know that people rely on birth control. Most people use birth control -- many of whom are religious, actually -- and a majority of women want coverage of it. Are they all "sluts?" I don't think so.

That's fine if women use birth control, but it's not fine with me that they want it funded by taxpayers. I want my tax dollar to go to the military, or infrastructure, not someone's sex life. I don't think that's the proper use of the money I worked hard to earn. If you want to have safe sex, that's fine, but that should be up to you. If someone can't afford the pill, it's not my responsibility to pay for it. It's called independence, and it disgusts me that people can't be financially independent in their sex life.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 8:00:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 6:26:02 PM, ironmaiden wrote:

Your man Rush is a major poop head, ergo all ditto heads are major poop heads.

Sorry, but that makes you a complete sh!thead.

Hardly. But perhaps your response pegs you as a ditto head.

It is not sexist,

Oy vey and lol!

because the word can be applied to either a male or a female.

But of course usually isn't. No, it's normally used as a sexist term to condemn and deter the sexual liberation and self-expression of women. If you can't admit that this is the case then you're simply not arguing in good faith.

It is not unkind, because if the person being called a "slut" really is a slut, than it is simply fact. Fact does not equal unkind. You politically correct people out there need to face the facts and stop sh!tting yourself over stuff like this.

The S-word in question, like the N-word, is intrinsically unkind and has no legitimate use, not even to express disapproval of or curb irresponsible sexual conduct. Yes, just as hurling a racial epithet or stereotype would not be justified even if the person of color on the receiving end had done something to somehow fit the characterization, inflicting a cruel derogatory descriptor such as "slut" on a sexually overactive woman is always morally reprehensible. Why? Well that would be because cruelty is contrary to the fundamental moral value of compassion. Mm-hmm, using the S-word isn't merely "politically incorrect", it's downright immoral; but of course you'd prefer to frame the issue in terms of people of my viewpoint trying to impose politcal correctness on people of your mentality because that allows you to evade the moral facts and moral censure; and what's more, it allows you to play the victim of intolerance, or even to play the part of someone courageously standing up to intolerance. In other words, you approach the whole question in a bad faith fashion.

Look, I don't call anyone "slut," but I also don't give a rat's a$$ if someone else does.

How kindhearted of you.

It's wrong to call someone who's not a slut a "slut," but if someone's going around fuckin everyone they can, then I'd say they're a slut.

No one ever actually deserves to be called a "slut", for the simple reason that the term doesn't merely designate "A woman who is promiscuous"; rather, it designates a woman who is promiscuous and therefore deserves contempt, and since in light of the moral value of compassion no human being ever deserves contempt, ergo no woman ever deserves to be denounced as a "slut". Also, again, the term is ineluctably sexist and no one ever deserves to be designated by a sexist term, any more than one can deserve to be designated by a racially disparaging term.

It's simple: if you don't want to be called a slut, don't be a slut.

How about instead of putting the burden on the victim we all try to outgrow immature cruelty?

It is not about social control, it's about calling it as you see it.

So you see and think about other human beings whose behavior you disapprove of in uncompassionate terms that deny their inalienable human right to respect and kindness.

You see a moron and you call him a moron, that has nothing to do with social control.

It's cruel, that's quite bad enough. And cruel language can clearly be used to apply peer pressure to influence and control behavior. Moreover, when societies and those in charge of the social and cultural agenda of societies frame issues in cruel and bigoted terms this can most certainly tie in with, be done to justify, and to promote social control and conformity.

So you're complaining that calling someone a slut is judgmental, yet you're sitting here being a bit judgmental yourself?

I never advocated an amorally, nihilistically nonjudgmental point of view that never sees fit to disapprove of or criticize anything.

Again, "slut" can be used against a male or a female.

But in the normal, vernacular usage the term is a sexist word of contempt used only to describe individuals of the female sex.

I always laugh when people say "mean" as you did here. It is immature and unsophisticated.

I was trying to speak to people whose vocabulary includes the word "slut" at their own level.

Here, check out this post, http://www.debate.org...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 10:12:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 6:40:02 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 2/24/2014 8:08:34 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
But it doesn't, and I trust that you're not a spiteful person, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this. Surely you must know that people rely on birth control. Most people use birth control -- many of whom are religious, actually -- and a majority of women want coverage of it. Are they all "sluts?" I don't think so.

That's fine if women use birth control, but it's not fine with me that they want it funded by taxpayers. I want my tax dollar to go to the military, or infrastructure, not someone's sex life. I don't think that's the proper use of the money I worked hard to earn. If you want to have safe sex, that's fine, but that should be up to you. If someone can't afford the pill, it's not my responsibility to pay for it. It's called independence, and it disgusts me that people can't be financially independent in their sex life.

You really should check your facts on this one. Taxpayers will NOT be funding birth control. Tax dollars will not be allocated to this end. Rather, insurance companies will be required to cover it at no copay because (1) it lowers health care costs; (2) is used for things other than safe sex, which right-wingers can't seem to grasp; and (3) is no different than vigra and the many other things for men that are covered.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 11:56:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I listened to Rush throughout this whole thing, and in fact heard the comment live.

What he said is "she wants you to pay for her to have sex, you know what that makes her right? A slut."

Now of course for me, this kind of outrage is the inevitable result of involuntary taxation. Nobody would 'pay for her to have sex' if they didn't want to.

From her point of view she no doubt simply believes women have a right to health no matter what they may be doing.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 12:05:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 8:08:34 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Fluke actually said that she herself can afford birth control, but was speaking out in favor of her friends, classmates, and fellow women who cannot afford it, and obviously there are many. There are many reasons to want birth control other than safe sex. But, ultimately, why does it even matter what the birth control is for? In past discussions we've had -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- you've come across to me as a libertarian. Shouldn't people be able to do whatever they want so long as they don't harm others?

Stealing is harm

Coverage of viagra is mandated, actually -- which Rush Limbaugh has benefited from. Do you oppose that? It's funny that Rush has never come out against that.

Lol, this is what happens when you don't tune in from 12-3 :p Rush has specifically said he pays for medical care without insurance and jokes about how doctors look at him like he's crazy.

He doesn't make use of any such mandate, and even if he did that does not make him a hypocrite. You are only a hypocrite if you advocate a contradiction or behave in a contradictory manner. It is the government that enforces such rules, not Rush; unless he claimed insurance companies were wrong it wouldn't matter what the government forced them to cover.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
kiryasjoelvillage
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 3:45:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 8:16:06 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 8:08:34 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 8:00:39 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 7:02:23 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Actually, Fluke wasn't demanding taxpayer funding for birth control. She wanted insurance plans -- include her Georgetown plan -- to cover it, as there were reasons other than sexual activity for wanting contraceptive access. She cited a friend of hers, for instance, who had ovarian cancer, and would rely on birth control pills as medication, but ultimately lost her ovaries because she couldn't afford them.



She was still asking for the government to coerce Georgetown into paying for her birth control.

As I said, we can have a reasonable argument as to whether this is coercive. I happen to think that it's not, because I think the role of government is to ensure minimum standards and look out for consumers -- perhaps we can even agree on this notion. My question for, then, becomes why you think this mandate -- which many studies have demonstrated will actually lower health care costs, as I've mentioned to you before, since preventive medicine costs less than paying for a pregnancy, or for an ailment once it comes to fruition -- is coercive. Are all mandates coercive? Where do you draw the line?



First off, I find it very hard to believe that this mandate will lower health care costs. If so, please provide studies.

Yes, mandates, by definition, are coercive. If they will seriously benefit society, I'm willing to look at it, but I don't think minimum standards on insurance are a good thing even from a utilitarian point of view as overly comprehensive insurance is a problem right now.




Also, it's hard to seriously say that she wanted birth control for reasons other than safe sex. Fluke clearly wanted them for this reason and that, to me, is vile that she demands somebody else be forced to pay for them.

Fluke actually said that she herself can afford birth control, but was speaking out in favor of her friends, classmates, and fellow women who cannot afford it, and obviously there are many. There are many reasons to want birth control other than safe sex. But, ultimately, why does it even matter what the birth control is for? In past discussions we've had -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- you've come across to me as a libertarian. Shouldn't people be able to do whatever they want so long as they don't harm others? If you want to argue against the mandate, be my guest, but I don't think a plausible argument against it is that "she wants to use it for sex."




My argument isn't that it is used for sex and therefore bad. Instead, I am arguing that it is primarily used for sex and therefore a private matter... not something to be funded by mandates or public spending. I'm against mandates in general.

But, the mandate for birth control is particularly appalling to me because nobody should be forced to pay for someone else's sex. If someone uses them for purposes other than sex, the burden should be on them to prove that.




Coverage of viagra is mandated, actually -- which Rush Limbaugh has benefited from. Do you oppose that? It's funny that Rush has never come out against that.



I am 100% against that. Viagra should NOT be mandated.







I think we can have a reasonable debate on whether or not this is the government's rightful purview. I tend to think that we would disagree on that. But I don't think it is nearly productive to throw around such a hateful pejorative, not to mention that coming down on the same side of this as Rush Limbaugh is a credibility-killer. I've got one word for Rush: viagra.


If the label fits...

But it doesn't, and I trust that you're not a spiteful person, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this. Surely you must know that people rely on birth control. Most people use birth control -- many of whom are religious, actually -- and a majority of women want coverage of it. Are they all "sluts?" I don't think so.


It's not slutty to use birth control.

It is slutty to go in front of congress to demand that a Religious institute be coerced into funding birth control.

The two are not the same and that distinction needs to be made.

The most shocking part was how could she ask for the government to coerce Georgetown into paying for her birth control.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 6:40:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 12:05:16 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/24/2014 8:08:34 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Fluke actually said that she herself can afford birth control, but was speaking out in favor of her friends, classmates, and fellow women who cannot afford it, and obviously there are many. There are many reasons to want birth control other than safe sex. But, ultimately, why does it even matter what the birth control is for? In past discussions we've had -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- you've come across to me as a libertarian. Shouldn't people be able to do whatever they want so long as they don't harm others?

Stealing is harm

But where's the stealing? Is it stealing every time the government mandates anything? Again, these are not taxpayer subsidies for birth control.
Coverage of viagra is mandated, actually -- which Rush Limbaugh has benefited from. Do you oppose that? It's funny that Rush has never come out against that.

Lol, this is what happens when you don't tune in from 12-3 :p Rush has specifically said he pays for medical care without insurance and jokes about how doctors look at him like he's crazy.

Of course I don't listen to that ignorant, sexist jerk. The fact of the matter is he has used viagra, which is covered, yet has never complained about it. Even using the term "slut" focuses the discussion away not from the fact that this is a government mandate -- feel free to oppose a mandate -- but that it's birth control itself, and birth control allows people to have sex without consequences (barring catastrophe), which his magic book condemns. So naturally, of course he should be able to impose his dogma on everyone else, because, merica!
He doesn't make use of any such mandate, and even if he did that does not make him a hypocrite. You are only a hypocrite if you advocate a contradiction or behave in a contradictory manner. It is the government that enforces such rules, not Rush; unless he claimed insurance companies were wrong it wouldn't matter what the government forced them to cover.

It's hypocritical because he has not condemned the viagra mandate, or the mandates covering penile implants, vasectomies, etc. He sure focuses on birth control and abortion, though -- and loves to cling to the myth that taxpayers are funding either of them, which is patently false.

When you start to believe Rush's garbage, there really isn't any limit to what you'll believe.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 8:05:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 4:08:00 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/24/2014 1:29:21 AM, BigDave80 wrote:

Call me old fashioned,

I've literally never understood how people are okay with being identifying themselves in this way.
appeal to novelty

but I think being a slut is wrong.

Why doth thou protest?
Unless what BigDave80 said gave you the impression that he really believes that being a slut is morally right, you misused that Shakespearean phrase.

That applies to both sexes, by the way.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 8:41:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 6:40:02 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/26/2014 12:05:16 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/24/2014 8:08:34 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Fluke actually said that she herself can afford birth control, but was speaking out in favor of her friends, classmates, and fellow women who cannot afford it, and obviously there are many. There are many reasons to want birth control other than safe sex. But, ultimately, why does it even matter what the birth control is for? In past discussions we've had -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- you've come across to me as a libertarian. Shouldn't people be able to do whatever they want so long as they don't harm others?

Stealing is harm

But where's the stealing?

Taxation and mandated coverage.

Is it stealing every time the government mandates anything?

Nope, only when they mandate that somebody give something or they mandate that they give a certain thing if they give anything at all.

Again, these are not taxpayer subsidies for birth control.

Quite possible, the government only feels like it needs to subsidies the most absolutely unprofitable @$*@. They probably figured those fat cat insurance companies can take the hit.

Coverage of viagra is mandated, actually -- which Rush Limbaugh has benefited from. Do you oppose that? It's funny that Rush has never come out against that.

Lol, this is what happens when you don't tune in from 12-3 :p Rush has specifically said he pays for medical care without insurance and jokes about how doctors look at him like he's crazy.

Of course I don't listen to that ignorant, sexist jerk.

He's not sexist.

The fact of the matter is he has used viagra, which is covered, yet has never complained about it.

He has said that he doesn't use health insurance. That may have changed, but I would like a link. If your connection is "he uses a same drug that the government mandates is covered even though he doesn't have insurance" I can only laugh out loud. Two layers of separation each of which alone is enough to remove any possibility of hypocrisy.

'Government protects trees in national parks, you like trees, therefore you are a hypocrite for not supporting the extortion of money for national parks'

Even using the term "slut" focuses the discussion away not from the fact that this is a government mandate -- feel free to oppose a mandate --

I do, always. Where there is no objective moral justification there should be no law, where there is no law there should be no force. The government is morally obligated to act as a mediator and facilitator alone when it cannot identify a violation of rights to act against. There is no room for a 'mandate' in just governance.

but that it's birth control itself, and birth control allows people to have sex without consequences (barring catastrophe)

That is something many of his listeners especially do not feel the duty to subsidize or require.

which his magic book condemns.

From where I'm standing a lot of people's magic books condemns it to the point of totally making up consequences when none really exist.

So naturally, of course he should be able to impose his dogma on everyone else, because, merica!

He's not the one with the guns and the legal sanction to use them against insurance companies.

He doesn't make use of any such mandate, and even if he did that does not make him a hypocrite. You are only a hypocrite if you advocate a contradiction or behave in a contradictory manner. It is the government that enforces such rules, not Rush; unless he claimed insurance companies were wrong it wouldn't matter what the government forced them to cover.

It's hypocritical because he has not condemned the viagra mandate or the mandates covering penile implants, vasectomies, etc. He sure focuses on birth control and abortion, though --

This is a bit like bladerunners complaint about me huh? "I don't care if your beliefs are actually consistent, you didn't whine consistently!"

Rush isn't a God he's just a man, a man with his 'stack of stuff.' He probably knew nothing about any Viagra mandates when he was talking, but I can assure you he would have the same things to say about them, and anyone who got up and testified about the victim-hood of someone whose insurance wouldn't cover it.

and loves to cling to the myth that taxpayers are funding either of them, which is patently false.

Insurance companies are taxpayers pal.

When you start to believe Rush's garbage, there really isn't any limit to what you'll believe.

Yet as someone posted on my profile, I am Con to almost everything.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.