Poll of the Day > its been years but i still cant get over Born in the USA being played at MAGA

(+) Yeah! (+)

adjl posted...

Not wanting to get an abortion yourself is not fascist. Wanting to make it impossible for anyone else to get one, however, very much is.

I don't side with their position. I think life is wretched as it is and it benefits no one to have a child raised by a parent who didn't want them. Abortion spares them from that. Further, the rights of a current citizen and current member of society should have greater legal standing than the rights of someone who is not yet any of those.

However, I don't so blatantly dismiss their argument against it. They believe in the sanctity of life and defending a human that is unable to defend them self. They extend the same rights they hold to someone who is not yet in a position to assert them on their own. They don't think the rights of one individual can supersede the rights of another. I haven't seen an effort to put forth a counter-argument in their terms.

In contrast, fascism is characterized by disregard for both the sanctity of life and the rights of the individual alike. The benefit is not to another individual but to the nation, or to the state, or to the party.

In the Dee Snider article the point is raised that the song being used "was written by a <omitted> who HATES everything <republicans> stand for." I don't think republicans have a problem with that. People should be free to do what they want and support the party they prefer if it's not infringing on the rights of others. Where as the "lib"s I omitted from the quote believe people should not be free to support the other party.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

People should be free to do what they want and support the party they prefer if it's not infringing on the rights of others.

but the right to bodily autonomy IS a very important right for women, and restricting that is inherently infringing on women's rights

the "libs" you're talking about seek to deny neither option. the "decision" they're forcing on women is to let them have a choice

if you believe in the indiscriminate sanctity of life, that's great, you can put that opinion into action the next time you get pregnant

agesboy posted...

but the right to bodily autonomy IS a very important right for women, and restricting that is inherently infringing on women's rights

Yeah, I agree. The rights of someone who has been born should come before the rights of someone who hasn't. Republicans don't agree with that, but I don't think it's fascism that they don't agree with me.

agesboy posted...

the "libs" you're talking about seek to deny neither option. the "decision" they're forcing on women is to let them have a choice

Stop making me defend positions I don't agree with. The view of the republicans is that the decision being made infringes on the rights of another individual.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The view of the republicans is that the decision being made infringes on the rights of another individual.

And, to prevent that, they're willing to infringe upon the rights of a different individual. Fascism often uses the pretense of protecting one group's rights to strip those of another. As such, invoking that pretense to claim it's not fascism makes very little sense.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

People should be free to do what they want and support the party they prefer if it's not infringing on the rights of others.

The problem is that that's an idealistic fantasy that will never actually be relevant to the real world. Politics affects people's rights. So long as governments make any sort of laws, that will always be true. Therefore, you cannot support a political party without having some impact on people's rights.

Now, that doesn't mean people shouldn't be free to vote or voice support as they choose. That freedom, however, does not mean they are above being judged for, held accountable for, or asked to defend those decisions, which is what a lot of "free speech advocates" seem to think it should. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence, and it's certainly not freedom from having to deal with people that don't like the things you say.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Where as the "lib"s I omitted from the quote believe people should not be free to support the other party.

Where are you getting that? Did they suggest republican voters should be jailed? Assaulted? Killed? Or just that they shouldn't vote republican for reasons which they're generally happy to share (also known as "supporting the party they prefer," to use your wording)?

More specifically, the actual issue at hand was not wanting their intellectual property used to promote a cause with which they vehemently disagree. That's 100% fair game, as dictated by intellectual property laws and basic respect for artists and their art. Free speech does not protect the use of copyrighted material against the wishes of the copyright holder.

I thought it was hilarious when Trump left the podium to the tune of YMCA when he gave his.last speech.

adjl posted...

And, to prevent that, they're willing to infringe upon the rights of a different individual. Fascism often uses the pretense of protecting one group's rights to strip those of another.

I understand that to be their reasoning and I accept that they believe it. As for how they decide which rights to prioritize you would have to ask one of them. Likewise democrats prioritize the needs of those entering the country when the needs of those already in the country haven't been met. So I guess both parties are fascists.

adjl posted...

The problem is that that's an idealistic fantasy that will never actually be relevant to the real world. Politics affects people's rights. So long as governments make any sort of laws, that will always be true.

Then let's not make laws and not have any government. That's more of a fantasy than anything I suggested.

adjl posted...

Therefore, you cannot support a political party without having some impact on people's rights.

Not what I meant. I was talking about the support not infringing on the rights of others. Like if there were a bunch of masked individuals hospitalizing people if they don't vote a certain way or don't support a certain policy. That would be their support infringing on the rights of others.

If the policies are infringing on rights then that's a problem with the politicians making them failing to adequately represent the people they serve. Like if they campaigned on being a fairly moderate individual only to start calling for their political opponents to be jailed once they take office. That's not the fault of the people who supported them. That's not what they voted for. That's the fault of the politician for deceiving them about how they would use their position.

adjl posted...

what a lot of "free speech advocates" seem to think it should. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence, and it's certainly not freedom from having to deal with people that don't like the things you say.

What do you think the consequence of speech is? For me the consequence of speech is more speech. When people don't like the things you say you have a discussion about why that is.

adjl posted...

Where are you getting that? Did they suggest republican voters should be jailed? Assaulted? Killed?

Yes, yes, and yes. Are you aware of the hearings that are currently going on? Have you heard about the collusion between social media companies and departments of the federal government? Did you hear about how residents of Ohio deserve what is currently happening there because they voted for Trump? They have a blatant disregard for anyone who didn't vote the way they want them to.

adjl posted...

as dictated by intellectual property laws and basic respect for artists and their art. Free speech does not protect the use of copyrighted material against the wishes of the copyright holder.

Copyright and such have been so abused with disregard for fair use that I'm sick of it. I think anything in the public consciousness should be free to use in any way someone wants.