3,623 Forum Posts by "Ravariel"
SUNDAY, MAY 20, 2012
THE PATH TO AUGMENTATION
There are two major problems that I see people having with the concept of technological augmentation. The first, while easy to extrapolate the answer for, is still very difficult for people to comprehend (even for those of us interested in these things, or even in the same fields... heck, there is debate among scientists and engineers about whether the Singularity is actually something that could happen); that of "how". They see big clumsy robots that can mimic (poorly) the natural ability to walk or climb stairs, or the lump of immobile plastic that often replaces a lost, flexible, functional limb, and wonder how we can make it even close to as good as the original. How do we make artificial limbs with sensory feedback, much less natural control, movement, and appearance? And even if we can do that, how in the world can we use technology to improve something as complicated as the brain? Unfortunately all of the answers to those questions lie in trends and theory and conjecture (even if it is well-documented). We aren't there yet. Not even close.
The second problem, which is the one I want to discuss here, is that of "by what path" will these augments come into the social consciousness. How will we come to accept the artificial replacements of our natural functions? I believe that it will happen through the medical field. Included below are some videos that show some of the remarkable advances in function replacement through technology that have happened in the last few years.
There are real hurdles to having technology improve our natural performance. As Dean Kamen mentions in the fourth video in this post; "(Our arm) is way, way, way better than a plastic stick with a hook on it, but there's nobody here who would rather have it than the one they got." Our technology is still trying to catch up to natural function, and lags behind in many crucial aspects.
However, we have been able to take some amazing first steps. Remember, in most of our lifetimes we have gone from computers that took up entire rooms to ones that can fit in your hand and out-perform those early models by several orders of magnitude. Just recently, in 2010, doctors in Britain and China have independently produced photosensitive chips that can restore sight to people with retinitis pigmentosa, a disease that causes the light-sensitive rods and cones in the retina to deteriorate. Below is a video of a Finnish man, who had been completely blind, now able to recognize table settings and even read! Image, in 40 years, what the smartphone version of this technology could do.
Also, in breaking news, brought to us by the guys who made BrainGate, which allowed people to control a cursor on a computer screen by thought alone, comes BrainGate2, which allows people to move a robotic arm just like they would their own limb. In the video below, a paralyzed woman who hasn't moved her limbs of her own volition in 15 years is able to pick up a thermos and take a sip of coffee. Technology like this could revolutionize treatment for paralysis, and is likely a first step to full-on cybernetic bodies, especially when paired with the work done by Dean Kamen and Darpa (see next videos). Also, they hope to be able to use the decoding software that translates the brain's impulses to bridge spinal cord faults, possibly allowing paralyzed people to use their own limbs again... in a rough estimation of a technological nervous system.
In this report, the capabilities of DARPA's newest prosthetic arm is showcased. These arms are controlled by nerve impulse rather than directly by the brain. This results in a more precise and natural level of control than that of the BrainGate system, because it's one less set of logistical hurdles to overcome. It works well for people who have lost limbs, and would not work well for people suffering from various forms of paralyzation. They are even working on a rough approximation of haptic feedback by moving nerves that would transmit touch sensation to places on the shoulder and side that mechanisms in the prosthesis could then press on in order to let the wearer gauge the amount of force applied by the arm, or even gain improved fine motor coordination through more delicate control of individual fingers. Imagine the eventual combination of these two technologies, and the eventual use of similar techniques for leg prosthesis.
In this video, which is quite long, but worth it to watch in full (if you just want the technical stuff, the first 7 minutes cover the meat of it), Dean Kamen, the creator of the DARPA arm, talks about the challenges, triumphs and reasons he is so passionate about this work. The desire to replace what was lost, especially for those who have served in the military, I believe will propel this research into the realm of augmentation. As Dr. Kamen said; "I'll stop when your buddies are envious of your LUKE arm."
And in a similar vein, here is a TED talk given by Aimee Mullins, a paralympic athlete (and main guinea pig for the sprinting prosthetic legs that Oscar Pistorius uses, who I'll talk about next), and model. She talks about the ability of prosthesis to not only be functional, but beautiful as well. She talks about how, through the imagination of children, and the envy of friends ("You're so tall! That's not fair!"), prosthesis can possibly take us from merely human into the superhuman.
Finally, Oscar Pistorius is a paralympic athlete from South Africa, dubbed the Blade Runner and The Fastest Man on No Legs. He was born without tibias (similar to Aimee Mullins above) and had his legs amputated below the knee when he was less than a year old. He is currently one qualifying race away from making the 2012 London Olympics in the 400m. Yes Olympics, not Paralympics (he'll be competing there, too), but the real thing, against the most able of able-bodied men. A man with no legs, with the use of technology may soon be competing in the most prestigious athletic competition in the world. He was actually banned for a short time from the Beijing Olympics because the IAAA thought his prosthetic legs gave him an unfair advantage. Here is an excellent interview with Pistorius in which he talks about all of the things that have brought him to a place where he can make such spectacular history.
We are verging, in many ways, on the ability to match or exceed human ability with our technology, and it is my firm belief that through our attempts to give back to people what they have lost, we will slide unbeknownst into augmentation. When the first person chooses to replace a natural limb with an artificial one, or the first person decides to implant a chip which lets him surf the web or use an external computer, we will have truly entered the time of the cyborg. Once that happens I don't think there's going to be much that can slow it down.
There are many hurdles, however. Next time I will be talking about those hurdles, and what we may be able to do to clear them.
New Cyborg Apologist post. Read comment and discuss, if you like.
Otherwise, just groove.
At 5/18/12 04:25 PM, AcetheSuperVillain wrote: ^Actually, this segways into somewhat obscure argument. One of the largest barriers to alternative energy is the gasoline subsidy. If biofuels can remove this subsidy, it opens the doors for other alternative fuel technologies to start truly competing fairly.
Except, if we look at this one step farther, we run into serious problems. If, for some reason, ethanol production (and it's inherent drawbacks) makes enough of an impact on the economy to challenge, and ultimately remove, subsidies, then what happens?
1) Gasoline reverts to it's "real" price, be it $8.00/gal or more.
2) If what you say is true that ethanol can be manufactured for the equivalent of $4.00/gal, then there is a massive power and economic shift.
3) The Oil industry collapses overnight (remember, the US uses as much oil per day as the next 5 top-consuming countries combined, and nearly a quarter of all oil worldwide) as we switch wholesale to Ethanol.
4) The Middle East (and Canada) shits itself and god only knows what happens.
Gasoline subsidies, much like farm subsidies, artificially boost individual's estimations of their own wealth. When those are stripped (especially if they are stripped suddenly), the shockwaves could be economically catastrophic. I agree that subsidies are unhealthy and harm us in the long run, making it more difficult to set real prices, and artificially shifting the focus of employment away from agricultural and the less-glamorous jobs. These things are all tied together in a way that would be impossible to untangle in order to remove a subsidy, even if we feel that it is an overall detriment.
Again, this is a shift that will have to occur gradually, to a point where we can phase out subsidies, as we purchase less oil (by such actions, forcing down prices worldwide) and let the major oil producers down slowly so they can find new, profitable, industries to take the weight off of their monoculture moneymaker.
At 5/15/12 10:05 PM, djack wrote: No, it's about supporting a non-existent right to end someone else' life without any kind of valid reasoning or due process of law. There's a reason the most common argument for abortion is the false claim that these children aren't alive, and that reason isn't a matter of health or safety for anyone, it's to remove guilt by denying the life and therefore rights of the unborn.
Did you want a match for that straw-man? I'd hate to see you want to burn it down and be unable. By the way, do tell me more about what I and Camaro believe, and what our stances on this issue are. It's very enlightening.
At 5/6/12 08:55 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: From what I've read of Hollande, if he gets his way he'll turn France into Greece, and given how France is a major economy, that would likely ruin all of Europe since Germany can only do so much.
Really? Because what I've read has suggested the opposite. He ran on a platform of distance from Merkel, Greece, NATO, and the austerity measures imposed thereby. Granted, it looks like he'll have an opposition parliament, so they'll be able to keep each other in check.
At 5/3/12 11:21 PM, Ravariel wrote: On a completely different note: Holy shit, Junior Seau! :(
And now MCA. :-( RIP.
Look out Tracy Jordan, the Rule of 3s is coming for you!
At 5/4/12 01:40 PM, TheMason wrote: According to the Discovery article you linked to...the reality is it too early to make either claim (that cosmic rays are significan...or they are not). By itself this study does not go far enough, it is a first step.
Exactly, which is why claiming "cosmic rays" disprove AGW is premature. The data in the study is conclusively not enough to account for our warming trend. It may be an additional factor, but it is provably not the whole story.
We have only had the ability to take global measurements of temperatures for 100 years.
True, but we also have methods of tracking global temperature retroactively through ice cores, tree rings, and other factors. That data is sufficient to corroborate the less-accurate readings early in the last century, and while the error range is greater than our current one, the trend still arises.
Now you may still want to argue that we still have enough data to make an educated guess. But remember that up until the 1970s climatologists looked at this data and predicted cooling instead of warming.
1) The biodiversity on a biochemical level is actually irrelevent given that some geologists believe that what has led to these extinction events are based on climate...not disease or biochemistry. The climate warms or cools and creatures that are ill suited to survive die off and the survivor species thrive. I mean I guess there is some biochemical changes that would have to be made in response to climate changes...but that would be indirect to cosmic rays.
Fair enough, I guess. Problem is, extinction-level events require massive changes in climate that happen very rapidly (geologically-speaking). The amount of radiation necessary (per the previous experiment's levels of nucleation) to alter "natural" cloudcover enough to produce these events is too great to be produced by galactically-local supernovae. Like Gravity, the amount of energy that would reach Earth is related to the inverse cube root of the distance between the nova and earth. So while Novae are arguably the second most powerful emitters of gamma rays and other radiation, the amount of that energy that could effect earth would be minuscule (galactically-speaking).
2) You talk about correlational data and the lack of causal factors. It is really just as strong as the CO2 theory. Climatologists base their theory on a correlation of a changing dataset and explain it by greenhouse theory. Cosmoclimatologists are examining cosmic rays and the formation of clouds as the causal relationship. While the results of experimentation are weak right now...they do point towards theory validation with more experimentation.
"Cosmoclimatology" needs far more than "more study" to be a workable theory. It needs local help in order to actually create a climate-wide tipping point. See: Studies of the Little Ice Age and it's relationship to the Maunder Minimum, a significantly dormant period where the Sun produced little to no sunspots, and thus may have contributed to the cooling. However, as the article states it does not have enough punch to make that much of a difference. It is far more likely that Extinction events were triggered by things like Volcanoes and asteroid impacts, and may have been exacerbated, or extended by the increased nucleation from cosmic events, but those events were not enough in and of themselves.
Also, another issue: we have probes measuring all sorts of things around multiple planets and moons in the solar system. If cosmic rays were to blame for Global Warming, we should see similar rises in temperature across the solar system (at least on those planets with atmospheres and clouds). We don't. We have had rovers on Mars for 30+ years, we have had probes around Venus (the best place to confirm such a theory) since 2006, and the Cassini Spacecraft is currently studying Saturn and it's moons. There has been no indication from any of these missions that any similar change in these planets' and moons' climates are changing in a similar way to ours.
There is also the non-model (i.e. empirical) data of HOW the Earth is warming, specifically that our nights are warming faster than our days, which is in direct opposition to the idea that cloud cover is the main culprit, as it is the retention of heat, not the increase in acquisition of heat, that is the problem. If Cosmoclimatology were correct, it would be the other way around.
Cosmic rays may be a factor in climate change, but if it is, it's a small one; not enough to account for the entirety of the change we are experiencing. Considering we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we know that we put 100 times more of it into the atmosphere than Volcanoes (hell, the recent Eyjafjallajökull eruption in Icelend ended up being carbon-neutral just from the flights it grounded in England and Europe), and 97% of the scientists who actually study climate believe that we are the main driver behind the change, and the evidence of other possible agents being so weak (so far), there is only one logical position to hold. Granted, if Svensmark's research starts to turn up some more compelling data, we may need to look more closely at the relationship between these disparate factors.
Also something to note: of these two factors... one we can control and mitigate, the other, notsomuch. So if it happens that it is a combination of the two (or more), then really the only thing we can do... is what we're already trying to do. Much like it is unlikely that evidence will rule out evolution as the driving force behind specation, it is unlikely that evidence will completely eliminate the Human effect on climate change, and if there is only one factor we can control, it should be the one on which we focus (not to the exclusion of others, mind, but it should still get more of our attention).
At 5/4/12 06:02 AM, Camarohusky wrote: The Avengers.
Best Marvel movie, hands down.
So much ass kicked, the triage will take days.
Agreed. Who'd'a thunk the Hulk would be the best part of the movie?
At 5/3/12 08:43 PM, djack wrote: To be fair, "the gender gap" was a misnomer for this thread. Until Captain showed up and pulled arguments out of his cornhole without reading anything other than the thread title it was about the "War on Women".
Well, I was talking about the gap in support for the two candidates based upon the actions taken by one party to harm the interests of women. I think "war on women" is a bit harsh, and implies a more intelligent coordination than I believe is actually happening. I think this is just the "traditional values" of one party seeping to the forefront of national politics, and republicans being caught out for doing things they actually believe in, but are unable to usually do so because it would generally create a ton of political pushback (which hasn't really happened here, aside from the shift in support.
Also, Rydia, as one of the few female regulars I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts about the issues at hand: PP, Walker's actions in Wisconsin, various abortion laws across the country, and the instances of slut-shaming that make all of these issues very difficult for women to bring to light.
At 5/3/12 08:37 AM, djack wrote: According to imbd Chicken Run is from 2000 and Pirates only has a score of 7.1 (for reference Star Wars episode II got a 6.7 and III got a 7.7).
Yes, 7 months from now a movie based on a book is being released that a lot of people are looking forward to. It's also a 2 part movie just like the final Harry Potter movie. Thus the classification of "crap based on books". Until it's out I'll have no idea how well they used the source material and how they deviated from the book's story.
So, you only want to see movies that score extremely high (in other people's opinion), that are not based on any previous material? I guess movies just aren't for you, then. 'S too bad, because if I'd listened to reviews and scores, I would never have watched many movies I consider to be some of my favorites (same for movies based on other material).
On a completely different note: Holy shit, Junior Seau! :(
At 5/2/12 10:12 PM, TheMason wrote: Cosmoclimatology states that cosmic rays have an impact on cloud formation. Cloud formation leads to cooler temperatures because the Earth is covered by shade.
No, they don't. The amount by which cosmic rays effect aerosolization and cloud formation is not sufficient to account for our current warming trend.
Furthermore...this theory accounts for several extinction events.
So, he has some correlational data that seems compelling. It is interesting, no doubt, but I would like to see some CAUSAL factors in there as well. An actual link between cosmic rays and biodiversity on a biochemical level.
At 4/25/12 11:15 AM, AcetheSuperVillain wrote: So what do real people actually think of Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney? It's plainly apparent that the rabid dogs of the conservative media don't care for the fellow, but the Romney has won the Republican Primary, so he seems to have curried favor with enough real republicans.
ROn Paul has, under the radar, been scooping up delegates left and right, and many people think he may be able to garner enough of them to be on the floor at the convention. The mainstream media, even places such as RealClearPolitics, have been ignoring Paul, and even deliberately miscounting delegates. This fight ain't over yet, and establishment types are even attempting to shut down caucus venues that have been seen to support Paul.
At 4/28/12 12:37 AM, Korriken wrote: I was toying with the idea of trying to figure out what style of music I want for my cartoon. what the hell style should a semi post apocalyptic fantasy world use? *shrug* what kind of music would play as an elf walks past the ruins of New York City?
This? :P
At 4/27/12 03:29 PM, TheMason wrote: Premature...probably yes. Fun and a guilty pleasure...definately yes!
Fair enough! :P
At 4/27/12 11:48 AM, TheMason wrote: Farewell Intercourse: Based upon a cleric saying marriage goes past death, the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo is now pushing legislation that would allow ppl to have sex with their spouse up to 6hrs after their death.
Other legislation includes allowing child brides as young as 14 to be given away in arranged marriages. And they have also warned the population to prepare for war with Israel.
There are rumblings that this is probably a hoax, based on one blog post by a Mubarak loyalist, so pointing any fingers at Obama for such events is premature.
At 4/25/12 08:06 PM, Camarohusky wrote: As far as Republicans go, Romney is pretty harmless.
I think you may be right. And that is both the nicest, and saddest, thing you can say about him.
At 4/22/12 09:36 PM, AcetheSuperVillain wrote: Like I said, cellulosic biofuels don't compete with food crops. They can work with grass, which doesn't require arable land, or garbage, which isn't grown on farms at all, or even the garbage created from food crops, for example, you can eat the corn kernels and throw the husk, stalk and cob into the distiller.
Maybe so, but on a political level, this is unlikely to be the course that American Ethanol production would take. The Corn Lobby knows that it's one of the best, and largest sources of Ethanolable material in the US, and also is the most powerful agricultural lobby (why do you think we use corn syrup instead of sugar to sweeten everything here?). And the instant Corn farmers are looking towards fuel uses of their crops, we will see sharp rises in prices of every food that uses corn (and that's a lot of them). Secondary sources, such as trash and grasses (Hemp, oddly enough, is a great source of this, but good luck getting that in mainstream production) will have a hard time competing with what will likely be a ton of government subsidies (like they don't get enough already... but who wants to pay $5 for a potato? I digress) headed to the corn industry.
I agree that more technological solutions to Ethanol will someday appear, but I don't think we should hold out for Hydrogen or Battery power to work. During the Cold War, people assumed we'd have jet packs, full on VR and cold fusion by 2012, where instead we've got GPS, Twitter and the Prius. We know that Ethanol works, and that it's made definite progress in the last decade.
True, I don't think "holding out" for a future technology will be in any way beneficial, but I see a lot of people talk about ethanol like it's the second coming of burnable Jesus, claiming it can solve all our oil problems. I like to nip the over-enthusiastic ones in the bud. Like I said, it's a good stop-gap for easing the pain of the downhill side of peak oil, but I worry that if we get too involved in it's production, we will lengthen the time until we have truly environmentally stable solutions.
While Ethanol is certainly a good alternative, it is not without it's flaws. The main two being that it cannot be piped due to it's miscibility with water, and competition between fuel sources and food sources that would necessarily arise. There are also reports that ethanol combustion results in significantly volatile compounds like formaldehyde, which result in increased ground-level ozone and local smog. It may be a good stopgap to help us not feel the pinch of decreasing oil reserves, but it is not a good permanent solution. The best solution, of course, is a non-internal-combustion engine in most cars, be it fuel cell, solar or battery-powered. Hopefully rising fuel prices will put the squeeze on governments and private companies to start funding more research in that area.
At 4/20/12 11:11 PM, TheMason wrote: Finally, since 2007 there has only been one filibuster.
So I'm sorry...but this "fact" is a manipulation of the data, definition and history.
If you'll allow me to pick one nit here. Filibusters don't really happen anymore. They are threatened, and the other side folds. It's more of a symbolic thing, now. One of the problems with the Dems, is that they haven't made the Reps actually DO the filibusters, rather than just back down once one is threatened.
At 4/20/12 11:26 AM, TheMason wrote: From the look of it the Republicans stand to pick-up at least five new Senate seats. This would give the Republicans a 51 member majority.
Yeah, I just saw this today, citing a Times article, that says that, due to redistricting and retirements, Dems would most likely have to pick up 35 seats in the House to regain control, and are at risk of losing the Senate as well. That will bode poorly for Obama if he tries to run against congress. He will need to be crafty to tie congress and Romney together, and use them to weigh each-other down. He has shown himself to be a very savvy campaigner, but right now it's looking like the Dems are suffering a bit of overconfidence.
Also, This article nicely outlines how conventional wisdom as it applies to elections is bound to fail this year, no matter how things go. Rmember: statistics are a decent predictive tool, but they are not prescient.
At 4/20/12 12:22 PM, Ravariel wrote: For everything except condoms and diaphragms there is no connection between number of sexual partners and cost of contraception.
That should say "number of sexual incidents," sorry. Number of partners is completely irrelevant.
At 4/20/12 11:36 AM, TheMason wrote: She was making ancedotal statements based upon her own experiences and expenses. She made the claim that her costs for contraception was going to be $3,000 for all three years of law school. Rydia brought it up earlier...that's WAY more expensive than BC should be.
No, that's not what she said. She said that contraception costs COULD reach $3000 during a Law-school term, and cited several instances of contraception costing $100-ish a month. Transcript of her actual testimony here. After looking it up online, it seems like depending on the method, it can cost anywhere from $300-$1100/yr pre-tax, pre-doctor visits. This is obviously lower than $3000 for 3 years of law school, but this is also without estimating the additional cost of the procedures that go along with some of the issues Fluke talked about (Polycistic Ovarian Syndrome, etc). Those numbers also represent the bare minimums that many people may not be able to take due to allergy/medical condition/personal efficacy. So more-expensive medications (brand-name BC Pills can cost up to $90.00/month) may be required in some cases. Regardless, even something as "cheap" as $50.00/month can be completely unaffordable to a student or low-income woman. A rundown of the monthly/yearly costs of birth control.
This is where Rush's comments stemmed from...that her numbers don't add up for a law school student. She would have to be having sex multiple times each day with multiple partners to have such an expensive contraceptive bill.
Um, no. There is no reason to make that claim, and it's just as preposterous for you to make it as it was for Rush. For everything except condoms and diaphragms there is no connection between number of sexual partners and cost of contraception. You don't take a pill for every time you have sex. And NONE of them are dependent on the number of partners. That is one of the more flagrant examples of the slut-shaming that the right loves to use to try and make it more difficult/expensive for women to get good reproductive health care.
The example I made was an obscure state legislator doing something stupid. Normally I wouldn't have heard about it, the legislation was probably squashed in committee. But, this is a presidential election year and it fit a larger narrative.
Yet the examples I gave were not from obscure state legislators... they were from the federal government and state governors, and about bills with widespread support in state senates. As far as I can tell, none of them have had any pushback from the "moderate right". All of these instances have the full support of the republican party, regardless of their efficacy or general human interest.
Yet national figures like Bill Mahr and Hillary Rosen can make mysoginist comments about conservative women with impunity...until Rush says something stupid and the hypocracy becomes way too sharp to ignore.
Equating Maher and Rush is a fallacy. Maher is a douche, and an idiot. He does not speak for any but the most left of the left. He also does so on a 1-hour show once a week on HBO, which you not only have to pay for cable/satellite to get, but then have to buy the premium package. Equating him with Rush, who is a Republican powerhouse with a 3-hour per DAY show on the radio, syndicated across hundreds of stations, is frankly ridiculous. The left has nothing like Rush. And Rosen's comments were... indelicate, yes, but hardly misogynistic. Ann hasn't worked... pretty much ever. She's never had to budget in the way that most families have, and she's never faced economic hardship. She really is the last person that Mitt should look to to get his views on how women and the economy interact. Again, here is an instance of someone left-of-center easily denouncing the comments and actions of someone on his side of the aisle while the Right rushes (pun intended) to defend one of their own.
At 4/20/12 09:28 AM, TheMason wrote: I think Limbaugh's comments about Fluke were blown out of proportion. He's a shock-jock, not an elected official nor an official officer of the Republican party. (Yes...I know he's outspoken as a Republican and all that jazz. But he's still not some all-powerful overlord who can make the Republicans do whatever he wants, nor is his above reproach by the party.)
Now Rush is a shock-jock first and foremost, but that's hardly ALL he is. He may not be all-powerful, but to poo-poo his actual power in the republican party is a bit disingenuous. His power is significant, though it does seem to have been blunted a bit by his attacks on Fluke.
First off, as a student activist going before Congress to participate in political theater does not make her an off-limits private citizen...much as many Democratic/Liberal supporters would like to claim she is.
Off limits? No, not for her TESTIMONY. That people can discuss and disagree with. Undeserving of being called a slut and a prostitute, and to be humiliated on one of the largest radio shows on the planet by a man who asked her to put up sex tapes online? Absolutely. Don Imus was fired for less.
Secondly, my wife (who largely ignores politics) asked me about it and I explained why she was testifying before Congress and what she said...the substance of Fluke's testimony didn't pass muster. She asked if she was testifying concerning proposed laws to make abortion & contraception illegal. When she found out that what Fluke was testifying for was essentially give-me BC...and how much she claimed to pay for it...she called BS.
Well, I don't know where she got her math, but I doubt it was a falsehood (I would like to see it, however). You don't testify to congress and lie blatantly unless you're a Baseball star.
BUT there are ways I think the Republicans are screwing the pooch. I heard some state lawmaker somewhere wants to make being a single parent a form of neglect. I think that kindof shit should be stomped out by the more mainstream leadership of the Republicans.
See, that's where I'm not seeing the reaction: from the mainstream Republicans. And that's the biggest problem in a nutshell. While the Dems fall over each-other to denounce (strongly) any controversial remarks their compatriots make (see: Hillary Rosen), the republican group-think is so ingrained that the best we get is a weak "not the words I would have used" from Romney, and most of the republican establishment was all "what was so bad about it?" while it took advertisers fleeing in droves for anyone on the right to give a damn. The right is deathly afraid of talking bad about any of the people in their group, and will tacitly approve of even the foulest of language in order to keep their status quo. While the mainstream republican person may not approve of what the GOP as a whole is doing to harm women... where are they? Where are their voices shouting "That's fucking stupid, don't say/do that!"?
The silence of the moderate republican is, to my mind, the most damning part of the whole issue.
At 4/18/12 03:18 PM, djack wrote: When the argument is about cost it's cheaper for taxpayers to have people purchase their own contraceptives and avoid abortion altogether.
No, it's not.
You believe that no one uses abortion as a form of birth control?
An argument from incredulity is no argument at all. No one would rather abort than prevent a pregnancy. No. One. However, as the saying goes (paraphrased): Doo-doo occurs.
No, I mean something proactive rather than reactive. There might be trouble getting a proper sex education system but it's better than waiting until after someone gets pregnant to point out that pregnancy is one of the dangers of sex without contraception.
Hey, how about we have BOTH, so that people to whom the message doesn't get in time, or who make mistakes that will harm them, their child, and society have options. What a great idea that would be!
There are other options than providing free contraception and paying pp with government funds. The decision seems easy because you're ignoring the alternatives.
What reasonable alternatives exist? Burdening an already creaking Medicaid system with either more unfit/poor mothers and their children? Hoping against hope that charity will take care of it all, all historical evidence aside? "Just put them up for adoption" when our foster/adoption system is broken, too? Give me an alternative that we can discuss realistically and we'll do it.
Condoms are more likely to prevent catching STDs than contraceptive pills because the pill doesn't stop STDs from being passed on.
True, but my point was that there is more to contraception and the education that PP provides than just stopping fertilization.
C) Insurance coverage of contraception is CHEAPER than ANY realistic alternative.Cheaper than people buying their own?
Yes.
Cheaper than using a pre-existing education system to warn people against the dangers of unprotected sex so that they know enough to use contraception in the first place?
Yes.
Cheaper than not giving money to pay for other people's stupid decisions?
Yes.
Public education is FREE even to middle and low income families. Public education already includes a sex ed class. Even the dumbest, laziest kid has access to this information at some point in their life and everyone can find money for contraception of some form or another.
But there IS NO GOOD curriculum anywhere in our public schools that deals with sex in a rational way. You're proposing we replace a system that works with one that might, if we did it, if we had the political will, and if we could convince retards that someone could speak to kids about the boogiest of all boogie men. You know what? Get me a public education system that is as good at sex education as PP, and a foster/adoption system that isn't terrible, and a serious effort in our health system for preventative care... get me those three things and I'll agree that we can save the $450 million we spend on PP per year.
Until then, all these hypothetical "better options" are nothing more than mental calisthenics.
Interesting survey, and quite well-formed. I submitted a response for you, and while my views are often more complex than can be stated in such things, I hope I gave you a good point or two of data. I expect this may be locked due to the "do your own homework" rule, but if so I would encourage other members to fill out the questionnaire while it is visible on the front page.
Best of luck (if you ever return to see this).
At 4/18/12 03:01 PM, Ravariel wrote:At 4/18/12 02:22 PM, djack wrote: How many of those poor families could have bought condoms instead of that 6 pack of beer and had access to a contraceptive that works more than 99% of the time?A) when it costs the taxpayers approximately $1 per year to fund all of PP, this argument is pretty weak. Not to mention insulting.
D'oh, there was supposed to be more here:
B) Buying condoms does not guarantee against catching many STDs (crabs, herpes)
C) Insurance coverage of contraception is CHEAPER than ANY realistic alternative.
and D) that assumes there is enough education in middle- and low-income areas for people to be aware of the benefits, dangers, and options for contraception available to them. Often it is through medical checkups at PP clinics that women (and men) are educated on their contraception choices. Eliminating funding will eliminate this, as well as that icky 3% that makes everyone so squeamish.
At 4/18/12 02:22 PM, djack wrote: How many of those poor families could have bought condoms instead of that 6 pack of beer and had access to a contraceptive that works more than 99% of the time?
A) when it costs the taxpayers approximately $1 per year to fund all of PP, this argument is pretty weak. Not to mention insulting.
Perhaps instead of wasting that money by letting people use abortion as a form of birth control...
No one does that. It's like rainbow parties and Santa Clause: a myth cooked up by the right to demonize and shame women away from what must be a terrible decision.
the government should use it for something that slows the birth rate without killing people like a better education system.
You mean like PP? Considering all the kerfluffle that gets raised every time people try to get comprehensive sex education onto the public school curriculum, this is a silly, and disingenuous tack, as you should know that such things will not fly in our increasingly puritan right-wing society.
Name one portable MP3 player...
Aaaand I think we're officially off-track. Can we get back to the topics at hand, please?
If everyone did what they could this conversation wouldn't be happening because those lower income families would think before they acted and use the contraception they can afford. If everyone got on board there'd be no octomoms who give birth to 8 kids when they already have 4 they can't afford or druggies who spend too much time getting high to keep a job.
Exactly. One is possible, the other not. So the decision seems an easy one to me.
Well, this is getting a little off-topic, but I'll do one more just for the kicks.
At 4/18/12 01:42 AM, Memorize wrote: Once again: How do you feel about the Government using money for what you don't want?
Eh, I'm not always happy about it (earmarks, etc) but I understand that in a democracy I don't get to choose where each and every one of my Tax dollars go. I deal. And vote for those who will spend money on programs I like and not spend it on programs I don't. It's an ingenious system some dudes dreamed up a short while ago.
Funding the NRA.
Hypothetical.
Subsidizing Faith based groups.
Hypothetical.
Bailing out favored industries.
I live in Michigan. The Auto bailouts were a smashing success. The Financial ones less so, but necessary. The followup was extremely poor, however.
Starting wars without declaring them.
Don't care, really. Lybia wasn't a war. Iraq I've gotten over.
Ha! Okay, I'll bite. Prove it.You're the one claiming we need to do it.
You're one of the types of people who implemented it.
Prove to me where you get the authorization from.
Maybe for the other 90% of the shit they do?Once again: If it's such a small number, why do they need it?
Small number for the Federal Government. 50% of PPs budget.
So... contraception is good, but getting it to those who most need it and are least able to afford it is bad? Gotcha.How am I responsible for other people's actions?
"Society."
What's fair about punishing me for it?
We're actually saving you money. You can go ahead and spend more if you want.
First off, because it's now "free", then just like how people abuse insurance by over-using it (and just simply using it) on routine doctors visits, they will abuse the "free" part and "purchase" more contraception than they would otherwise need.
Umm... that's just retarded. Prescription contraception is just that: prescribed. By a doctor. There is no reason to "purchase" more than you need. Nor is there any benefit to doing so.
Secondly, because it's now "free", people will start buying the more expensive contraceptives (increasing premiums even further!).
Um, no. Contraception is not "pick one off the shelf and go home". You consult with your OBGYN or family doctor in order to determine which one is correct for you. Co-pays and deductibles still apply, also, so "free" is a misnomer.
Third, because women are now being covered by this, employers will see them as even more of a liability and will either A) be less likely to hire women, or B) reduce their pay to their male counter-parts.
Wow. That's a stretch. Any change in premiums would be negligible.
And don't give me this Bullshit that birth control and contraceptives "aren't affordable." If high school teenagers without jobs can obtain them, then you don't have an excuse.
High school teenagers without jobs have an interesting method of affording things. It's called "Parents." I'm surprised you haven't met one yet. They're fairly common.
At 4/18/12 12:34 AM, RacistBassist wrote: That isn't an argument. We do not go and subsidize just because it decreases costs and benefits tax payers. That's just dumb. It ends being the majority foot the bill for the few who benefit and use it.
Yeah. Exactly. Again, welcome to this thing we call "society" where you help pay for everyone's benefit, be it for roads they use and you don't, for police protection others need and you don't, or for insurance for medical procedures and other programs they may need and you may not. That's how this whole thing works.
Maybe for the other 90% of the shit they do?So basically you're saying the federal aid only goes for abortion?
Pretty much the opposite, actually. Which is actually how the law already works.
ITT: Every person opposed to abortion is Catholic.
ITP, you miss the point.
So... contraception is good, but getting it to those who most need it and are least able to afford it is bad? Gotcha.No, it's pretty simple.
Contraception good. Being forced to pay for others or for others to pay for yours bad.
By this logic, the ultimate outcome is no taxes whatsoever, and a completely anarchic society. Now I know Mez is one of our crazier An-Cappers. Are you joining the ranks of him, Sadistic and Smilez (with apologies to Smilez)?
You really didn't listen to her testimony at all did you?You mean her vastly bloated numbers? Her whole reason for enrolling was to bitch about the program not covering it?
...apparently not.
At 4/17/12 09:52 PM, Memorize wrote: You still have to also deal with the fact that you're taking money from people who equate abortion to murder and using their money to fund those "murderers", regardless of how the money is spent.
Yeah, welcome to living in a democratic society. You have to pay for shit you don't want. It's the price of entry.
Besides, "public benefit" is subjective. Anyone could also make the case that gun promotion is a public benefit by virtue of the Second Amendment (and legally speaking, this would have a much better chance of being argued since it's actually listed as a "right")
When a program's existence decreases costs to taxpayers, while increasing the health and well-being of people in the society, then there's not much "subjective" about it.
But even still, money to either organization is unconstitutional. Even to faith based groups.
Ha! Okay, I'll bite. Prove it.
Explain to me how contraception equals insurance.
I think you need to educate yourself on the benefits of family planning, education, and prophylactics in general if you're really unsure where the connections lie. It's not a difficult journey.
Explain to me how other people I've never met who voluntarily decide to do stupid things, is somehow my fault and I should have to pay for it.
Again, welcome to this thing we call "society". If you want it to thrive, you spread the costs of public benefit around, so that those who are more likely to need it can afford it when they do.
So do other organizations, and none of them were started by black hating, anti-Semites who spoke at KKK rallies.... your point?
Ooh, a red herring! Should I chase it?
Most of the crap they do that the right has a problem with is paid for out-of-pocket by clients or through charitable donations.So why do they need Federal Assistance?
Maybe for the other 90% of the shit they do?
The point was that they still provide abortions. So telling people who consider abortion murder that they MUST have their tax dollars go to the very people whom they consider "murderers" will cause blowback.
Those same people happily pay thousands of dollars to, and give millions in tax breaks to organizations that harbor and encourage pedophiles. Their feelings are irrelevant. See? I can do this, too!
No, I'm all for contraception.
What pisses me off is someone demanding that others pay for their contraception.
So... contraception is good, but getting it to those who most need it and are least able to afford it is bad? Gotcha.
Especially someone who goes to a prestigious law school who will be making a starting salary of $160,000 upon graduation WHILE claiming to be a VICTIM because the school isn't giving her "Free" birth control.
You really didn't listen to her testimony at all did you?
At 4/17/12 02:22 PM, Memorize wrote: 2) Any organization, Planned Parenthood or otherwise shouldn't receive Federal Funding to begin with. I think it would be wildly entertaining to see how liberals would respond to a Federally Funded NRA.
Likely with a huge shit-storm, I don't disagree. However, there's a lot of false-equivalency in that statement, even if you don't realize it. The problem with the comparison comes in the realms in which those two organizations act, and their effect on the wider population. PP has a very real public health benefit that is something they would have a difficult time doing without Federal help, as nearly half of their funding comes from that area. It would cost taxpayers more if PP were not around... it just wouldn't be as obvious a line to draw between cause and effect.
Then, you use the government to forcibly take their money and fund abortion providers (regardless of whether or not that money is used for abortions isn't the point; you're basically giving THEIR money to the "murderers" as they see it).
Well, I don't see that as such a fine distinction, but I do acknowledge the point.
And now on top of that, you're demanding they subsidize other people's sex lives. Which got major headlines when a woman who attends one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, and who will make over $160,000 starting salary, claimed she was a "victim" because she didn't receive any free birth control provided by her school.
Yeaaaaah, and here's where you jump your libertarian rails. That's not what she argued at all. Nor is the issue even about sex. Yes sex is involved, and it's all sexy and scandalous to think about people having sex all the time and it's taboo and sex sex sexsexsexsex. Oh my god, my puritan heart may just flutter it's way out of my chest at the thought of all this sex.
The issue is HEALTH. Not sex, though, as I said, sex is a part of health (both physical and mental/emotional). PP also provides counselling to expecting mothers, resources that allow low-income families to feed, house, clothe and educate their children. Most of the crap they do that the right has a problem with is paid for out-of-pocket by clients or through charitable donations.
Federal budgetary concerns are also irrelevant as the amount of money involved is minuscule (relatively speaking).
Considering these events, why are you surprised by religious groups and pro-lifers responding in the way they're doing?
Surprised? Only at their blatant gall. And their bullshit "who, me!?" act afterward. And disappointed in mans inhumanity toward (wo)man *sniff*. </bleedingheart>
This isn't so much about a GOP war on women as it is Liberals demanding free shit.
Yeeeah, no. Of course, I notice you mentioned nothing of the other examples posted, many of which had nothing to do with PP or abortion. Curious, that.
