First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last
Post Reply Why don't pro-life people advocate defunding the NRA instead?
Posted 4/28/16 , edited 4/28/16

kamaitachi5587 wrote:



INTP Here




This is how it usually feels when I'm arguing with them. Not that I'm confident I can win, but just the amount of time put in is...taxing.

11213 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Clinton, NY
Offline
Posted 4/28/16


That's a good way to describe it.
16371 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / east coast. Let t...
Offline
Posted 4/28/16
Just sittin' around waiting for things to get out of hand. I'm sure one of you will slip up and start flinging insults. I'll proceed to swoop in and try and stop it. It'll start with a warning. Failure to listen to this warning will result in a report. At this point a moderator will decide your fate.
16739 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 4/28/16

PrinceJudar wrote:

You're making a logical mistake to assume 'people owning guns causes them to more likely shoot themselves'.

It is circular. People who pursue death obtain guns for the purpose of shooting themselves and people who own guns are more likely to pursue death--more so through the use of a gun.

I would not be so quick to assign the causation of suicides by their methodology. You're discounting too many variables. Suicide rates are pretty stagnate, even in comparison with other countries that do heavily restrict guns.



You also do little for your argument by shaming others into saying they have blood on their hands.


Besides most people get guns so that they can LIVE when they face a horrible situation. You buy a gun to protect yourself, your family, and your friends. 99.95% of gun owners buy a gun and never commit a crime with it.
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 4/28/16 , edited 4/28/16

sundin13 wrote:


maxgale wrote:

Let us look at the facts:


NRA was literally founded in part to help protect black people from the lynch mob.



Planned Parenthood was literally founded to commit genocide against black people.


Now which group do you want to defend, again?

They received "compensation" FAR higher than the market costs for transportation and storage.

They were selling the parts, plain and simple.


-NRA was literally founded to promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis
-Planned Parenthood was literally founded to promote knowledge and use of birth control, and one of its most influential presidents was a black woman.

Do you actually have any proof that they obtained a compensation higher than what would be legal? As Politifact states, "experts largely agree" that the fees were within the scope of the law.





Here is the founder of Planned Parenthood:



“While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit. They are excellent means of meeting a certain phase of the situation, but I believe in regard to these, as in regard to other eugenic means, that they do not go to the bottom of the matter.” (“Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” Feb. 1919, The Birth Control Review).





In a letter to Clarence Gable in 1939, Sanger wrote: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members” (Margaret Sanger commenting on the ‘Negro Project’ in a letter to Gamble, Dec. 10, 1939).




http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/5/grossu-margaret-sanger-eugenicist/





edit: reply got posted before I could add the other part.


Regarding higher than average "compensation":



http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/summarizing-the-strongest-evidence-that-pp-is-selling-not-donating/


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/03/video-shows-planned-parenthood-accounting-tricks-to-hide-profits-from-baby-parts-sales/







13127 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 4/28/16 , edited 4/28/16

maxgale wrote:
Here is the founder of Planned Parenthood:



“While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit. They are excellent means of meeting a certain phase of the situation, but I believe in regard to these, as in regard to other eugenic means, that they do not go to the bottom of the matter.” (“Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” Feb. 1919, The Birth Control Review).



In a letter to Clarence Gable in 1939, Sanger wrote: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members” (Margaret Sanger commenting on the ‘Negro Project’ in a letter to Gamble, Dec. 10, 1939).




http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/5/grossu-margaret-sanger-eugenicist/




While she was a supporter of Eugenics, the latter quote is her saying that she doesn't want people to get the wrong idea about the movement, not that she was secretly trying to exterminate the black population.

“No serious scholar and none of the dozens of black leaders who supported Sanger’s work have ever suggested that she tried to reduce the black population or set up black abortion mills, the implication in much of the extremist anti-choice material.”

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/11/cains-false-attack-on-planned-parenthood/

EDIT: At your edit, I don't see how the Breitbart article proves anything other than them not wanting to lose money on the deal and the other link shows a few quotes which are hard to get a read on out of context, but even out of context, most of them don't imply any illegal activity.

EDIT2: Sawyer (director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,”), July 20: In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.
Posted 4/28/16

JustineKo2 wrote:

Actually I'm not sure if you can really "defund" the NRA because I don't know whether it receives funds from the government like Planned Parenthood. This question is in reaction to all the conservatives wanting to defund PP for accusing them of using taxpayer money to subsidize costs of actual abortions performed for low income women.

The reason I suggested DEfunding the NRA instead is because isn't the NRA technically pro-DEATH? If you own a gun, it is actually 30 times more likely that you'll shoot yourself than an invader will. They advocate the use of deadly force by a private individual as a means to ensure one's protection from whatever they feel they need protection from. Think about it, every time a person dies from being shot equals another buck for the NRA and gun makers. Every dollar in their bank accounts and thick wallets has blood tied to it.


I totally disagree with you OP, stop talking out of your ass insulting the NRA. We have the right to have guns and use them when necessary. Of course there are a bunch of bad apples who like to take matters into their own hands but I believe in people killing people and they'll do it in any way even with a damn toothpick. So, leave my guns alone.
Posted 4/28/16
wow things getting a little heated in here
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/28/16

WeeabooWarrior wrote:



This is how it usually feels when I'm arguing with them. Not that I'm confident I can win, but just the amount of time put in is...taxing.



We don't go down easy.



2346 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27
Offline
Posted 4/28/16

JustineKo2 wrote:

Actually I'm not sure if you can really "defund" the NRA because I don't know whether it receives funds from the government like Planned Parenthood. This question is in reaction to all the conservatives wanting to defund PP for accusing them of using taxpayer money to subsidize costs of actual abortions performed for low income women.

The reason I suggested DEfunding the NRA instead is because isn't the NRA technically pro-DEATH? If you own a gun, it is actually 30 times more likely that you'll shoot yourself than an invader will. They advocate the use of deadly force by a private individual as a means to ensure one's protection from whatever they feel they need protection from. Think about it, every time a person dies from being shot equals another buck for the NRA and gun makers. Every dollar in their bank accounts and thick wallets has blood tied to it.


The troll is strong in this one.
51169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 4/28/16

Nogara-san wrote:

I mean, even the leader admitted it...


Source?

I tried searching for this, but I only found misleading headlines. The articles themselves only say that he used images from outside sources. He said nothing about faking the interviews.


geauxtigers1989 wrote:

They weren't doing that. The videos were discredited almost immediately.


If by "discredited" you mean people who support PP complained that the videos had some edits, then sure. You can call them "discredited" even though the Center for Medical Progress has the full videos (with the exception of bathroom and meal breaks) on their YouTube channels right next to the shorten videos that some people claim are too edited to be credible. Unless the CMP is incredibly skillful in manipulating voices to have these PP employees say words they didn't really say, I can't see how anyone can claim those videos are fake. PP's president herself acknowledged her employees said those things and apologized for their tone, but then claimed her organization doesn't sell fetal tissues. So either the president is lying when she says she didn't break the law or her employees just happen to casually do this stuff on their own without the president or other higher ups knowing beforehand (which should still result in someone getting arrested for the illegal sales). She can't claim she's innocent and at the same time claim her employees caught on camera are innocent. You can't just say "yeah, my employees in that video did say they were charging money for those fetuses, but they didn't really mean it."

I can take out my phone, record someone telling me they killed their neighbor and burned all evidence, cut some unnecessary parts to show just the part where the killer talks about that, and show it to the police. Will the police say a video taped confession isn't credible even when they can clearly see and hear the murderer admitting they did it? When you have a video of a PP official haggling over the price of fetal tissues aside from transportation fees and another one detailing how they purposely dissect more developed fetuses for more profits, it's pretty hard to deny these people ever said those things. You would need some extremely advanced tech to fake that and fool the professionals who say it's real.

There's no analysis of the videos that debunks them. The results have actually been the opposite, but the media rarely reports the results and only continues the baseless narrative that the videos are fake. When Planned Parenthood consulted with a research firm (that has close ties with the Democratic Party) to analyze the videos, they tried making it sound like the videos were faked but ultimately concluded there was no evidence of significant editing. An independent cybersecurity company that had access to more footage also found that the videos are authentic. If anything, the claim that the videos are fake is what's been debunked but you won't see that in news headlines. You can't say the videos are discredited unless you have proof, which really doesn't exist.

Regardless, it looks like most of us agree that the OP comparing PP to the NRA is a pretty bad comparison...
590 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / The Ivory Tower
Online
Posted 4/28/16
If social justice warrior functions poorly as a real term and messes up conversation, then this whole subject here is so puffed up with extraneous human bullshit that it's basically impossible to go anywhere discussing it. So I'll make a neutral comment:

Science works only if most of its practitioners all believe in the same dogmatic foundation - which is the lesson of Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. This does not exist for a lot of the sociological studies done today: depending on the underlying interpretation and the other data considered, you can draw very different conclusions from the same data. Add to that the egregious ignorance of statistics rampant in the social sciences and the human affinity for partisanship and blowing-up at each other, and I wonder how many of these studies we can really trust. As a scientist myself I'd like to trust them, but I really don't know. Keep this in mind when citing studies from a field not your own.

Okay, fine - it was neutral except for my incredible annoyance with scientists who don't know statistics but are analyzing data. The impression I get from my friends who've done social science research is that the lack of knowledge of statistics is an attitudinal problem within the field itself.
46 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Nebraska
Offline
Posted 4/28/16
Does anyone else see the moral problem with the statement of "They are selling dead baby parts and are being compensated for it"? That just doesn't sound right.

Getting rid of the NRA to stop gun deaths is like Getting rid of car manufacturers to stop drunk driving deaths.
It's not the Organization or companies' fault these deaths are happening, but rather the poor decisions of the people who either decide to use a gun to kill someone/themselves or drink and become intoxicated before operating a motorized vehicle.

People get mad at me because I refer to abortions as baby killings. "An abortion is just child homicide, but 9 or less months early"

Sorry, does my conservative fire burn you?
17179 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 4/28/16

JustineKo2 wrote:


PrinceJudar wrote:

You're making a logical mistake to assume 'people owning guns causes them to more likely shoot themselves'.

It is circular. People who pursue death obtain guns for the purpose of shooting themselves and people who own guns are more likely to pursue death--more so through the use of a gun.

No it's a real statistic. You're assuming I was referring to people with suicidal thoughts and those who have committed suicide. This group I doubt even fits into the statistic to any significant degree. What it refers to is ACCIDENTAL incidents of being shot by oneself as opposed to the actual numbers of people shot by a home invader.

Sorry I apparently worded in a way that made you misunderstand.


I would not be so quick to assign the causation of suicides by their methodology. You're discounting too many variables. Suicide rates are pretty stagnate, even in comparison with other countries that do heavily restrict guns.



You also do little for your argument by shaming others into saying they have blood on their hands.

I'm shaming the gun companies and the rich NRA execs, not the consumers or people such as yourself who might be a gun enthusiast.
Kind of the same way we it might be fine to shame Wall Street Bank execs for corrupt business practices and outrageous interest rates, not the people who bank at those banks.

And please realize what this thread is ACTUALLY about: the hypocrisy of Pro-Lifers with their "oh life is sacred" mantra yet it's very common for the same people to support the NRA and their pro-death messages.

well most people who are pro life probably didn't know this information until you pointed it out....
11505 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/28/16

JustineKo2 wrote:

Actually I'm not sure if you can really "defund" the NRA because I don't know whether it receives funds from the government like Planned Parenthood. This question is in reaction to all the conservatives wanting to defund PP for accusing them of using taxpayer money to subsidize costs of actual abortions performed for low income women.

The reason I suggested DEfunding the NRA instead is because isn't the NRA technically pro-DEATH? If you own a gun, it is actually 30 times more likely that you'll shoot yourself than an invader will. They advocate the use of deadly force by a private individual as a means to ensure one's protection from whatever they feel they need protection from. Think about it, every time a person dies from being shot equals another buck for the NRA and gun makers. Every dollar in their bank accounts and thick wallets has blood tied to it.


The difference is, guns have a probability of SAVING people from people who were probably going to die on death row anyway or be locked up for life or some shiz like htat.

Abortions 100% kill babies, and sometimes, mommies too! :D

And don't even try with: "Oh but how about those medical complications where the baby and mom's lives are in danger" -- dude that kind of abortion is a legal medical procedure that wasn't ever against the law to begin with -_-
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.