Say Something Completely Random And Off Topic

napacat posted:
g-man posted:
napacat posted:
bman posted:

This discussion is getting pretty deep. When can we go back to random and off-topic comments, and picking on Trump and those who love him?   Where are Mimik, w + a and PH when you need them? 

Happy to comply!  Still happy with Trump and current state of affairs.  No mention of the Smolett case here yet?  Sad.  I never heard of him before this...yet Van Jones says he is the Jackie Robinson of the day...oh God, that is a giant overstatement.  Good for the Chicago PD...they really shone brightly this week...especially today.

Smolett?  you mean the guy who faked an emergency because he couldn't get enough money for something?

Wait.. that sounds oddly familiar.

You know who else we didnt talk about?  Christopher Paul Hasson.

"Hasson also expressed admiration for Russia. "Looking to Russia with hopeful eyes or any land that despises the west's liberalism," he wrote in the draft email. Prosecutors say during the past two years he had regularly searched online for pro-Russian as well as neo-Nazi literature."

What happened napacat?  how come you didnt talk about him?  Selective vision?  Sad.

Gman,


Happy to talk about that nut job Hasson.  And the strongest possible action should be taken that the law allows.  Not a problem with a life sentence.  Same for the Alabama ISIS wife who wants to return...no way should she come back to the U.S.  

okay, there we caught up on current "news"?   see how boring that was?  it offered no insight/no depth of discussions nor any other stimulating thought except to note.

I really don't understand the pro-choice crowd.  They have passed or tried to pass initiatives that would allow for abortions up to the time of birth in various states.  They also voted down in Congress a bill that would prevent letting babies live if born alive after an abortion procedure.   A majority of people are supportive of abortions through the first trimester but it changes to a strong majority who disapprove of abortion as the pregnancy moves towards the third trimester.  It's almost like they are asking for Roe-Wade to be overturned, when there seems to be a general acceptance of the current status of abortions.

thistlintom posted:

I really don't understand the pro-choice crowd.  They have passed or tried to pass initiatives that would allow for abortions up to the time of birth in various states.  They also voted down in Congress a bill that would prevent letting babies live if born alive after an abortion procedure.   A majority of people are supportive of abortions through the first trimester but it changes to a strong majority who disapprove of abortion as the pregnancy moves towards the third trimester.  It's almost like they are asking for Roe-Wade to be overturned, when there seems to be a general acceptance of the current status of abortions.

A lot of this is either a gross misrepresentation or else true but in very limited context. For example, laws allowing for third trimester abortions where the mother’s life or health are put in danger, or laws allowing it when the fetus has, for example, spina bifita, are different from laws allowing it at whim three weeks before the due date. Over 99% of abortions after 22 weeks are for some sort of medical issue. 

winetarelli posted:
thistlintom posted:

I really don't understand the pro-choice crowd.  They have passed or tried to pass initiatives that would allow for abortions up to the time of birth in various states.  They also voted down in Congress a bill that would prevent letting babies live if born alive after an abortion procedure.   A majority of people are supportive of abortions through the first trimester but it changes to a strong majority who disapprove of abortion as the pregnancy moves towards the third trimester.  It's almost like they are asking for Roe-Wade to be overturned, when there seems to be a general acceptance of the current status of abortions.

A lot of this is either a gross misrepresentation or else true but in very limited context. For example, laws allowing for third trimester abortions where the mother’s life or health are put in danger, or laws allowing it when the fetus has, for example, spina bifita, are different from laws allowing it at whim three weeks before the due date. Over 99% of abortions after 22 weeks are for some sort of medical issue. 

It is my understanding that some the new proposals by the states are much less restrictive than current laws on third trimester abortions.

thistlintom posted:
winetarelli posted:
thistlintom posted:

I really don't understand the pro-choice crowd.  They have passed or tried to pass initiatives that would allow for abortions up to the time of birth in various states.  They also voted down in Congress a bill that would prevent letting babies live if born alive after an abortion procedure.   A majority of people are supportive of abortions through the first trimester but it changes to a strong majority who disapprove of abortion as the pregnancy moves towards the third trimester.  It's almost like they are asking for Roe-Wade to be overturned, when there seems to be a general acceptance of the current status of abortions.

A lot of this is either a gross misrepresentation or else true but in very limited context. For example, laws allowing for third trimester abortions where the mother’s life or health are put in danger, or laws allowing it when the fetus has, for example, spina bifita, are different from laws allowing it at whim three weeks before the due date. Over 99% of abortions after 22 weeks are for some sort of medical issue. 

It is my understanding that some the new proposals by the states are much less restrictive than current laws on third trimester abortions.

Well, I would have to look in to those, but I would caution against believing the framing or narratives surrounding this on Fox or other Conservative media. Please remember that no woman who is not a masochist would ever *choose* to have a third trimester abortion.  (Not that anyone chooses to have an unplanned pregnancy.)  

Tom - please provide a link to those laws or proposals that allow third-trimester abortions.  As winetarelli noted, there is probably a gross misrepresentation of those laws in the TV shows you are watching. 

Conversely, I find it difficult to understand why many pro-lifers support politicians who want to cut social programs or loosen environmental laws that benefit the babies that pro-lifers appear to protect.  

It's pretty fruitless to debate abortions on a wine forum, since no one is going to change anyone's mind about this quite sensitive and emotional topic.  I am not going to set forth my opinions nor my interpretation of someone else's opinions.  But, here is the Maryland law, but it's a bit more complicated than this:

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, the State may not interfere with the decision of a woman to terminate a pregnancy:
(1) Before the fetus is viable; or
(2) At any time during the woman's pregnancy, if:
(i) The termination procedure is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or
(ii) The fetus is affected by genetic defect or serious deformity or abnormality.
MD Code, Health - General, § 20-209, et seq.
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, the State may not interfere with the decision of a woman to terminate a pregnancy:
(1) Before the fetus is viable; or
(2) At any time during the woman's pregnancy, if:
(i) The termination procedure is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or
(ii) The fetus is affected by genetic defect or serious deformity or abnormality.


Md. Code Ann., Health-Gen. § 20-209 (West)
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, the State may not interfere with the decision of a woman to terminate a pregnancy:
(1) Before the fetus is viable; or
(2) At any time during the woman's pregnancy, if:
(i) The termination procedure is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or
(ii) The fetus is affected by genetic defect or serious deformity or abnormality.


Md. Code Ann., Health-Gen. § 20-209 (West)
irwin posted:

It's pretty fruitless to debate abortions on a wine forum, since no one is going to change anyone's mind about this quite sensitive and emotional topic.  I am not going to set forth my opinions nor my interpretation of someone else's opinions.  But, here is the Maryland law, but it's a bit more complicated than this:

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, the State may not interfere with the decision of a woman to terminate a pregnancy:
(1) Before the fetus is viable; or
(2) At any time during the woman's pregnancy, if:
(i) The termination procedure is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or
(ii) The fetus is affected by genetic defect or serious deformity or abnormality.
MD Code, Health - General, § 20-209, et seq.
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, the State may not interfere with the decision of a woman to terminate a pregnancy:
(1) Before the fetus is viable; or
(2) At any time during the woman's pregnancy, if:
(i) The termination procedure is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or
(ii) The fetus is affected by genetic defect or serious deformity or abnormality.


Md. Code Ann., Health-Gen. § 20-209 (West)
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, the State may not interfere with the decision of a woman to terminate a pregnancy:
(1) Before the fetus is viable; or
(2) At any time during the woman's pregnancy, if:
(i) The termination procedure is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or
(ii) The fetus is affected by genetic defect or serious deformity or abnormality.


Md. Code Ann., Health-Gen. § 20-209 (West)

and 2(ii) for those talking about "if baby was born alive after a failed abortion"

That baby is going to be seriously deformed/physically and mentally disabled if it was born alive after a failed abortion.

thistlintom posted:

https://m.washingtontimes.com/...imits-abortion-bill/

My point was not to argue for or against abortion.  My point was that pushing the envelope of current abortion laws may go against public opinion and also could result in the Supreme Court revisiting Roe v Wade, which I would expect pro-choice people to want to retain as law of the land.

state laws though still dont supercede federal laws.  The point of the VT bill was simply saying we won't add extra restrictions on top of existing federal laws.  Partial abortion procedure (procedure during teh 2nd and 3rd trimesters) is still banned via federal law, 

flwino posted:

Trump pulled a Ronnie.  Walked out of the "love Fest" in Hanoi.  At least nothing was given away this time.

Whether or not you agree with Reagan’s policies or ideology he was a billion times more presidential than the current incompetent, moronic and lowlife dickhead. 

mneeley490 posted:
flwino posted:

Trump pulled a Ronnie.  Walked out of the "love Fest" in Hanoi.  At least nothing was given away this time.

I was afraid he'd give away Alaska for a bag of magic beans.

Ok, that actually made me laugh out loud...

Bravo!

winetarelli posted:

https://people.com/books/dr-se...-racist-problematic/

 

I had to double check that it wasn’t The Onion. 

Dr seuss certainly had a change of heart later on in his career, (as all intelligent folks i hope would) from my understanding of his still fascinating story of how he came about writing and drawing.  Horton hear's a who though was most certainly satirical representation of racism, as you can see his later political newsprint sketches showing what he really felt.

https://nordic.businessinsider...preset=article-image

However there is no question how he originally felt about foreignors earlier on in his career and i can certainly see being caught up in a real war, the pull of nationalism is quite strong.

https://library.ucsd.edu/specc...owar/#ark:bb6792686z

Personally, i don't think it's fair to either dr. seuss nor many of history's most famous authors by viewing them with a modern 20/20 hindsight without understanding the context in which the story was being told.  The stories are there to be told, but on the flip side, there's nothing wrong with requesting current teachers to explain about stereotyping and /or prejudices that went on during the period the story was written.

g-man posted:
winetarelli posted:

https://people.com/books/dr-se...-racist-problematic/

 

I had to double check that it wasn’t The Onion. 

Dr seuss certainly had a change of heart later on in his career, (as all intelligent folks i hope would) from my understanding of his still fascinating story of how he came about writing and drawing.  Horton hear's a who though was most certainly satirical representation of racism, as you can see his later political newsprint sketches showing what he really felt.

https://nordic.businessinsider...preset=article-image

However there is no question how he originally felt about foreignors earlier on in his career and i can certainly see being caught up in a real war, the pull of nationalism is quite strong.

https://library.ucsd.edu/specc...owar/#ark:bb6792686z

Personally, i don't think it's fair to either dr. seuss nor many of history's most famous authors by viewing them with a modern 20/20 hindsight without understanding the context in which the story was being told.  The stories are there to be told, but on the flip side, there's nothing wrong with requesting current teachers to explain about stereotyping and /or prejudices that went on during the period the story was written.

Most Dr. Seuss books are about inclusion and tolerance or other liberal values. I’m thinking of The Lorax (environmentalism), The Butter Battle Book (world peace and non-demonization of other cultures, as well as being opposed to nuclear weapons), Green Eggs and Ham (experimentation), How the Grinch Stole Christmas (love and inclusion over consumerism), The Cat in the Hat (an ode to mischief).  And, of course, you point out that Horton Hears a Who is broadly understood and intended as anti-racist. (His wartime work is obviously an issue and I am very thankful he had a change of heart.  But, of course, it is easy enough not to show children books with gross representations of Asians. I’m not certain anything he did in that regard is in the canon.)  

Of his canonical work, I do question whether whatever people think they see in some of his most beloved books is there; or even if it is (narrator: it isn’t), if it would ever be picked up by a 6 year old, especially in light of all the positive and overt messages of his books.

Some literature is genuinely racist. But anyone can find anything “problematic” if looking. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t terrible racism still in the country. Just today, for example, the U.S. Justice Department is declining to persue civil rights charges against the Tulsa cop who shot and killed an unarmed Black man with his hands up — and it is caught on video. Racism and xenophobia, generally, but specifically anti-Black racism is the greatest challenge/threat/problem in this country, imo. Well, that and this President and his enablers. (Hasn’t directly caused a catastrophe yet, but his assaults on decency, tolerance and inclusion, truth, the free press, coherent thought, civil rights, and hisobvious desire for dictatorial rule are... problematic.)  But spending energy dissecting these children’s books, at least most of which have overt messages of love, experimentation, and inclusion, to me says a lot more about the person writing the article than about Dr. Seuss. 

winetarelli posted:

  But, of course, it is easy enough not to show children books with gross representations of Asians. I’m not certain anything he did in that regard is in the canon.)  

 

what would you have had him do in regards to the caricature?  Simply color them yellow?

g-man posted:
winetarelli posted:

  But, of course, it is easy enough not to show children books with gross representations of Asians. I’m not certain anything he did in that regard is in the canon.)  

 

what would you have had him do in regards to the caricature?  Simply color them yellow?

Not certain I understand this. I had forgotten that he had a period of real racial resentment. Obviously those things should not be shown to children. 

winetarelli posted:
g-man posted:
winetarelli posted:

  But, of course, it is easy enough not to show children books with gross representations of Asians. I’m not certain anything he did in that regard is in the canon.)  

 

what would you have had him do in regards to the caricature?  Simply color them yellow?

Not certain I understand this. I had forgotten that he had a period of real racial resentment. Obviously those things should not be shown to children. 

I am simply saying that willful ignorance doesnt born understanding.  I'd rather a teacher address it straight on.  You can't educate if you ignore.

g-man posted:
winetarelli posted:
g-man posted:
winetarelli posted:

  But, of course, it is easy enough not to show children books with gross representations of Asians. I’m not certain anything he did in that regard is in the canon.)  

 

what would you have had him do in regards to the caricature?  Simply color them yellow?

Not certain I understand this. I had forgotten that he had a period of real racial resentment. Obviously those things should not be shown to children. 

I am simply saying that willful ignorance doesnt born understanding.  I'd rather a teacher address it straight on.  You can't educate if you ignore.

Hmm. Ok, maybe then the distinction I would make is age. I think the scope of how literature is viewed by those in the process of learning to read is probably different from how it is fully capable of being viewed at age 8 or 9. I’m not saying compexity of people or the existence of racism or our country’s past bad acts should not be taught or discussed.  (And, certainly, when discussing things in history class it is vital to discuss public sentiment; and literature and paintings are likely to play a vital role in that.)

winetarelli posted:
g-man posted:
winetarelli posted:
g-man posted:
winetarelli posted:

  But, of course, it is easy enough not to show children books with gross representations of Asians. I’m not certain anything he did in that regard is in the canon.)  

 

what would you have had him do in regards to the caricature?  Simply color them yellow?

Not certain I understand this. I had forgotten that he had a period of real racial resentment. Obviously those things should not be shown to children. 

I am simply saying that willful ignorance doesnt born understanding.  I'd rather a teacher address it straight on.  You can't educate if you ignore.

Hmm. Ok, maybe then the distinction I would make is age. I think the scope of how literature is viewed by those in the process of learning to read is probably different from at age 8 or 9. I’m not saying compexity of people or the existence of racism or our country’s past bad acts should not be taught or discussed. 

my greatest fear is having my young ones being approached on the subject from a stranger and not knowing how to respond or having an understanding when i'm not around to talk to them about it.  

As you typed that I was adding to mine. 

 

We’re pretty far off from Dr. Seuss at this point, but the entire thread is off-topic. I would say this about your fear: the premise that not every subject lesson or course at every age is or can be about racism — or that I’m not certain it is appropriate to combine certain aspects of that discussion with learning to read — is not a stance that racism should not be discussed in school from an early age.

winetarelli posted:

As you typed that I was adding to mine. 

 

We’re pretty far off from Dr. Seuss at this point, but the entire thread is off-topic. I would say this about your fear: the premise that not every subject lesson or course at every age is or can be about racism — or that I’m not certain it is appropriate to combine certain aspects of that discussion with learning to read — is not a stance that racism should not be discussed in school from an early age.

Of course!  I've believe the first time i met you almost 10? years ago,  I recall enjoying random conversation.

No, not every subject lesson / course can nor should be able racism.  It's not even about a proper distinct discussion about racism with the child.  It's as simple as "do people really look like that?"  and the kid will most likely say "no that's silly"  And that alone, goes a long way in separating caricature vs ingrained stereotyping.

g-man posted:
winetarelli posted:

As you typed that I was adding to mine. 

 

We’re pretty far off from Dr. Seuss at this point, but the entire thread is off-topic. I would say this about your fear: the premise that not every subject lesson or course at every age is or can be about racism — or that I’m not certain it is appropriate to combine certain aspects of that discussion with learning to read — is not a stance that racism should not be discussed in school from an early age.

Of course!  I've believe the first time i met you almost 10? years ago,  I recall enjoying random conversation.

No, not every subject lesson / course can nor should be able racism.  It's not even about a proper distinct discussion about racism with the child.  It's as simple as "do people really look like that?"  and the kid will most likely say "no that's silly"  And that alone, goes a long way in separating caricature vs ingrained stereotyping.

Totally fair. And of course I loved hanging out with you, too!  That was a great night!

 

seaquam posted:
winetarelli posted:

I didn’t fuck my cat.

 

 

Well... I guess that makes you a better man than I.

My “Not involved in human trafficking” t-shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Credit to Mike Ginn, whomever he is, for that one.)

Yes, this is an Internet thing.  Check Twitter if you dare. 2019: the stupidest year. 

"“It’s deplorable what he said,” Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said in an interview with Atlanta-based Georgia Public Broadcasting earlier Wednesday, referring to previous Trump attacks on McCain. “It will be deplorable seven months from now, if he says it again, and I will continue to speak out. . . . We should never reduce the service that people give to this country, including the offering of their own life.”"

Even senior Republicans vulnerable to primary challenges are appalled by Trump's repeated attacks on a revered dead war hero who refused to be rescued from the Hanoi Hilton if his colleagues had to stay, while Trump's bone spurs kept him safe and warm in his little bed in New York.

Wondering if Trump's apologists here have any thoughts on their hero's repeated abuse over several days of McCain?  Napa?  mikemann?  Anyone else?  Or does the damage he is doing to your country, which you apparently support, justify anything he says?

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×