Be a Supporter!

The Gender Gap

  • 3,427 Views
  • 103 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-19 03:15:25 Reply

At 4/19/12 01:06 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote:
So you mean to tell me that instead of going with what the vast majority of people think, we should listen to what 40% or less of what the American public thinks and put a stop to this overwhelmingly popular policy?

So the Patriot Act should've been passed when it did because it had popular support at the time?

Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-19 03:24:40 Reply

At 4/19/12 02:45 AM, digiman2024 wrote: i for one dont take polls as facts. polls are easily munipulated to pretty much give you want ever numbers u want.

ex: i can get a 90 -10 poll in favor of free housing paid for by the government. just by calling or polling in an area that is low income.

so dont bring in polls and stating them as facts

Wow, what an incredibly stupid thing to say.

Ok, so you don't trust polls because if you were trying to intentionally skew the results of a poll by overrepresenting a certain demographic, your poll might not accurately reflect the views of the overall public as a whole.

Fabulous.

So, let me ask you; don't you think it's strange that three different polling agencies arrive at around the same result when asking different variations of the same question? Do you suppose that all three of them are conspiring to skew the results of their polling in favor of Planned Parenthood? Why on earth would these very reputable polling agencies do such a thing, and where is your evidence of this?

The real fact of the matter is that you have absolutely no understanding of how polling is conducted and how polls can be used to interpret with a certain degree of confidence the opinions and habits of a population. Polling can never be 100% accurate, for fairly obvious reasons, but when several individual pollsters ask a question to a random sample of people and independently arrive at basically the same number, you can be fairly certain that the actual number is within that range.


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

digiman2024
digiman2024
  • Member since: Apr. 16, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-19 04:35:04 Reply

At 4/19/12 03:24 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote:
At 4/19/12 02:45 AM, digiman2024 wrote: i for one dont take polls as facts. polls are easily munipulated to pretty much give you want ever numbers u want.

ex: i can get a 90 -10 poll in favor of free housing paid for by the government. just by calling or polling in an area that is low income.

so dont bring in polls and stating them as facts
Wow, what an incredibly stupid thing to say.

not really i just was stating that you cant call it a fact


Ok, so you don't trust polls because if you were trying to intentionally skew the results of a poll by overrepresenting a certain demographic, your poll might not accurately reflect the views of the overall public as a whole.

Fabulous.

So, let me ask you; don't you think it's strange that three different polling agencies arrive at around the same result when asking different variations of the same question? Do you suppose that all three of them are conspiring to skew the results of their polling in favor of Planned Parenthood? Why on earth would these very reputable polling agencies do such a thing, and where is your evidence of this?

im not stating that they all intensionally skew the polls, i never said that

i have already stated that i dont think the government shound be funding any NGO. they dont have the power to do it.

Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-19 11:07:29 Reply

At 4/19/12 04:35 AM, digiman2024 wrote:
At 4/19/12 03:24 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Wow, what an incredibly stupid thing to say.
not really i just was stating that you cant call it a fact

What does that even mean? The only fact that any opinion poll demonstrates is what a certain percentage of the people responding to the poll think about a given issue, that's it. You can then use a poll to interpret with a varying degree of certainty what the opinion of the population at large is. Depending on the quality of the poll, that certainty can be very high, or very low.

Polls are only as good as its sample size, methodology for obtaining that sample, and how objective the questions it asks are. Good polls will use a large sample of people that is as representative of the overall population as possible, and the questions will be as neutral as possible. If you want to call into question the quality of any given poll, you have to demonstrate that one or more of these quality standards have not been met.

Are you saying that these particular polls are inaccurate? Prove it.

im not stating that they all intensionally skew the polls, i never said that

No, what you said was that a polling agency COULD skew the results by using a highly targeted sample, and that's why you can't trust ANY poll. That is a ridiculous position to hold, and it speaks to your ignorance to how high quality polls are conducted and used.

i have already stated that i dont think the government shound be funding any NGO. they dont have the power to do it.

Alright, sure. You are entitled to your opinion, but you should realize that you are in the minority in holding that view.


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-19 11:25:43 Reply

At 4/19/12 01:01 AM, Camarohusky wrote: The thing is, we already pay for their mistakes. We pay a great deal for their mistakes. Why should we pay out our hind quarters for their mistakes when we can toss a penny here and then to prevent them? As a pure economic matter subsidizing abortion and contracpetion is a no brainer. The economic argument against it just falt out fails.

Subsidizing abortion is a no-brainer? Why? There is easy to access free to extreeemely cheap contraceptives. Shit, I can walk to the local store, and pick up enough change off the ground to BUY condoms, let alone go to a free health clinic that doesn't receive federal money that hands them out for free. There are people who's job it is is to hand out free condoms to people.

We already do!!!! Either way, who would we be punishing by not paying for these services? Not those who fucked up. Nope. We'd be punishing their innocent children.

How so? For a few of the first few years of my life I grew up poor, not starving poor, but poor. It is not that bad. The only problem comes when parents don't accept responsibility and end up on government assistance programs and they end up dead beats because they don't have to work, yet they still get money. They don't bother with contraceptives since they know they can get abortions for free or, at the very least, cheap.

I have a hard time believing that you're truly this selfish and have this little ability to understand society as a whole. Your luxury is NOT a benefit to society, whereas basic health services are, especially when these basic services can prevent the need for expensive services down the line. How the hell does your iPod example come anywhere close to this? Really? Come on.

Since when did basic health services ever equate to people being given access to free abortions or contraceptives being paid for by those who don't want to pay for it? Seriously. This isn't medication, this is people wanting to get their fuck on. It is a luxury. Nowhere does it say you have the right to have government issued condoms.

Oh, you got me! Seriously. Mammograms, paps, hygiene, contraception, and the occasional abortion are equivalent to iPods. I get it. Bitches don't deserve these things. Damn, every second they aren't making me my fucking pie in the kitchen whilst pregant, they're just sucking up air that us men could be using to listen to shitty music on some fucking fad of a system, right?

Odd, because this has been about abortions and contraceptives. If PP didn't provide for those, then fuck it, I'd be ok with it.

But guess what, that is not the case.

Who cares about health when it's only the equivalent of a piece of technology that most people live without, and even fewer use on a monthly basis?

ITT: Not wanting government funds to go to a company that is the biggest killer of black babies in the US=Not wanting health care.

Your iPod example is beautiful. You know why? It epitomizes the war on women. Women's health needs are as important as your minor luxury item.

Having sex is not a health need, the same way mentally stimulating your brain is not a health need.

Because they cannot afford that medical procedure somewhere else? Because they, and society, cannot afford to fork over the coin to raise the child properly?

Or, here's an idea: Spend 50c on a condom from those nifty little dispensers. Or, for the cheaper long term method, spend $7 for a months supply of the Pill at Target. We should not be responsible for your kid.

Here's a brand spanking new idea:

Maybe the parent should raise the child, and unless the kid is starving, why the fuck should they get monetary assistance? (Well, except for medical emergencies and shit)

When you know that other people will take care of your mistakes, you end up being more careless. It's a simple fact of life.

So money is fungible, let's cut off all of the good stuff they do just becuase we have a qualm with the one bad thing we don't like. A few more cases of cancer, and some infections, and some STDs are a small price to pay for ensuring that women have a harder time getting contraceptives and abortions, right?

Yeah, pretty much. Divert the funds to places that actually test for those things and not a company that gives you referrals to said places.

You have a sound system right there. massive consequences for the promiscuous and no ripple effects upon innocent people... None at all.
No. Paying for just you isn't a large enough sample to break even. Playing the odds requires a large number of people.

So basically: I'm ok with PP getting funds because other people will pay for it, but I will not spend the few bucks to prove I am willing to do the same.

Also, I advocate higher taxes for all. Still with the brackets, but we all fail to pay our share.
If you're trying to say let's drop the kiddos from Medicaid and get rid of child welfare, just say it. Otherwise you keep tiptoeing around the expensive elephants in the room.

You want to know something funny? Kids will be treated no matter what the circumstances. Insured or not, nobody will ever turn them down. That said, I am for their medical costs being partly covered, but I am not for child welfare because it grows to the rise of people who pop out babies for the extra money, the people who are horrible parents who only look for 3 jobs a week because that is the minimum.

Contraception is both as grave and as immediate as murder. You heard here first: Sex IS murder! How many times will you make these bad analogies and think you have won? Please, please please please, put at least ONE ounce of thought into these next response. It's quite annoying getting responses back that claim to be related but miss out on key points.

No, you think that biological impulse means everyone should pay for it. If you cannot think of a reason besides that, then you shouldn't be part of society because us resisting those impulses and thinking beyond the F's of nature is what made us rise.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-19 19:18:43 Reply

At 4/19/12 11:25 AM, RacistBassist wrote: Subsidizing abortion is a no-brainer? Why? There is easy to access free to extreeemely cheap contraceptives. Shit, I can walk to the local store, and pick up enough change off the ground to BUY condoms, let alone go to a free health clinic that doesn't receive federal money that hands them out for free. There are people who's job it is is to hand out free condoms to people.

And the vast majority of those people get money from the government.

How so? For a few of the first few years of my life I grew up poor, not starving poor, but poor. It is not that bad.

Guess what? If that is true, you were eligible for, and likely got, Medicaid. If we took away medicaid you would've had no health insurance whatsoever. None. Do you ever remember a time when you had to go see a doctor because you were hurt or sick? Yeah, take that away. That's the only way you could truly hold the parents accountable for their mistakes.

The only problem comes when parents don't accept responsibility and end up on government assistance programs and they end up dead beats because they don't have to work, yet they still get money. They don't bother with contraceptives since they know they can get abortions for free or, at the very least, cheap.

You want to deprive them of both.

Since when did basic health services ever equate to people being given access to free abortions or contraceptives being paid for by those who don't want to pay for it? Seriously. This isn't medication, this is people wanting to get their fuck on. It is a luxury. Nowhere does it say you have the right to have government issued condoms.

Well then fuck most medicine. I mean shit, where does it say you have the right to any standard of living above mere life? We subsidize healthcare for people who have smoked forever, those who have drank forever, and fat people. Nowhere does it say you have the right to smoke, or to drink like a fish, or to eat whatever you want.

Odd, because this has been about abortions and contraceptives. If PP didn't provide for those, then fuck it, I'd be ok with it.

So you think it's A-OK to remove all of these health benefits just because you don't like one small thing the group does? Well the military pissed on dead people and then took pictures with others' limbs, so let's stop funding them. religions have sections that overtly persecute, and the catholics had some members who buggered some children, so let's remove all faith based funding and gtax breaks. Money is fungible, right? I don't want my tax dollars going to fund soldiers being stupid, churches persecuting, or priests molesting.

ITT: Not wanting government funds to go to a company that is the biggest killer of black babies in the US=Not wanting health care.

No. Not wanting funds to go to Planned Parenthood = not wanting health care.

Having sex is not a health need, the same way mentally stimulating your brain is not a health need.

Actually, BOTH are health needs.

Or, here's an idea: Spend 50c on a condom from those nifty little dispensers. Or, for the cheaper long term method, spend $7 for a months supply of the Pill at Target. We should not be responsible for your kid.

But the kid should responsible for the mistakes of the parents?

So basically: I'm ok with PP getting funds because other people will pay for it, but I will not spend the few bucks to prove I am willing to do the same.

Someone doesn't listen.

You want to know something funny? Kids will be treated no matter what the circumstances. Insured or not, nobody will ever turn them down.

Yeah, and we all pay the cost.

That said, I am for their medical costs being partly covered, but I am not for child welfare because it grows to the rise of people who pop out babies for the extra money, the people who are horrible parents who only look for 3 jobs a week because that is the minimum.

I don't think you know what child welfare is. I'm talking about neglecting and abusive parents who get their children removed from them. It's not Welfare payments for those with children.

No, you think that biological impulse means everyone should pay for it. If you cannot think of a reason besides that, then you shouldn't be part of society because us resisting those impulses and thinking beyond the F's of nature is what made us rise.

No, you think in rosy little terms, whereas I think in reality. You can do everything short of mandatory chastity belts to keep people from fucking, but you will have wasted your money and time. You can try to add logic all you want, but you're not going to change a damn thing. Either deal with it the proper way, or you can try to Jesus up everyone and fail and cost all of us more money. So, instead of setting the bar higher than society can reach at MY expense. Let's use MY tax dollars to prevent as much of the nasty byproducts of their mistakes. Would I like everyone to be repsonible? Yes. Would I like there to be no abortions in the end? Yes. Am I stupid enough to think taking a hard line will achieve EITHER of these? Fuck no.

Your choice:

Naivete or more of your money spent properly.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-19 19:41:50 Reply

At 4/19/12 07:18 PM, Camarohusky wrote: And the vast majority of those people get money from the government.

[Citation Needed]

Guess what? If that is true, you were eligible for, and likely got, Medicaid. If we took away medicaid you would've had no health insurance whatsoever. None. Do you ever remember a time when you had to go see a doctor because you were hurt or sick? Yeah, take that away. That's the only way you could truly hold the parents accountable for their mistakes.

Didn't get Medicaid, and people will always be allowed to see a doctor and get treatment. Every single hospital does not turn patients away, they may relocate however once the immediate danger is taken care of.

You want to deprive them of both.

Self-determination is awesome. When you have every single thing handed to you, you end up never doing anything yourself. It applies to every single end of the spectrum. Why should we care about STDs or getting pregnant when I can just have somebody else pay for it? No need to take the preventative measures.

Well then fuck most medicine. I mean shit, where does it say you have the right to any standard of living above mere life? We subsidize healthcare for people who have smoked forever, those who have drank forever, and fat people. Nowhere does it say you have the right to smoke, or to drink like a fish, or to eat whatever you want.

ITT: Things that actively help your health=Condoms.

So you think it's A-OK to remove all of these health benefits just because you don't like one small thing the group does? Well the military pissed on dead people and then took pictures with others' limbs, so let's stop funding them. religions have sections that overtly persecute, and the catholics had some members who buggered some children, so let's remove all faith based funding and gtax breaks. Money is fungible, right? I don't want my tax dollars going to fund soldiers being stupid, churches persecuting, or priests molesting.

I'd think if PP actually were the ones to provide those benefits and not just refer you, or if they ONLY provided those benefits, I wouldn't see a problem with it. Since when did churches get funding from the federal government?

No. Not wanting funds to go to Planned Parenthood = not wanting health care.

If you're so idiotic that that is what your view is, then I guess we are done here. You truly lack in intelligence if you equate those two things together.

Actually, BOTH are health needs.

Therefore, buy me an iPod.

But the kid should responsible for the mistakes of the parents?

The kid doesn't end up responsible. No matter what happens, there are ways for the kid to end up being taken care of.

Someone doesn't listen.

Seriously, buy me one box of condoms to show you actually believe in what you say.

Yeah, and we all pay the cost.

[Citation needed]

I don't think you know what child welfare is. I'm talking about neglecting and abusive parents who get their children removed from them. It's not Welfare payments for those with children.

Oh, you see. It confuses me when you shift from talking about the monetary costs to how the child is treated without indication. Neglectful and abusive parents will always exist. There has been absolutely zero correlation between PP and a drop in abuse.

No, you think in rosy little terms, whereas I think in reality. You can do everything short of mandatory chastity belts to keep people from fucking, but you will have wasted your money and time. You can try to add logic all you want, but you're not going to change a damn thing. Either deal with it the proper way, or you can try to Jesus up everyone and fail and cost all of us more money. So, instead of setting the bar higher than society can reach at MY expense. Let's use MY tax dollars to prevent as much of the nasty byproducts of their mistakes. Would I like everyone to be repsonible? Yes. Would I like there to be no abortions in the end? Yes. Am I stupid enough to think taking a hard line will achieve EITHER of these? Fuck no.

I like how you're using the vivid religious imagery to an Atheist.

Here's an idea. Instead of babying people and telling them to go ahead and do whatever the fuck they want since we'll pay for it, we don't do that. Again, you're avoiding the whole "I'm ok with PP other services, but I do not want tax dollars going to an organization that does abortions" that I've been getting at

Here, I'll repeat it a few times so you'll understand:

"I'm ok with PP other services, but I do not want tax dollars going to an organization that does abortions."
"I'm ok with PP other services, but I do not want tax dollars going to an organization that does abortions."
"I'm ok with PP other services, but I do not want tax dollars going to an organization that does abortions."
"I'm ok with PP other services, but I do not want tax dollars going to an organization that does abortions."
"I'm ok with PP other services, but I do not want tax dollars going to an organization that does abortions."
"I'm ok with PP other services, but I do not want tax dollars going to an organization that does abortions."
"I'm ok with PP other services, but I do not want tax dollars going to an organization that does abortions."
"I'm ok with PP other services, but I do not want tax dollars going to an organization that does abortions."
"I'm ok with PP other services, but I do not want tax dollars going to an organization that does abortions."
"I'm ok with PP other services, but I do not want tax dollars going to an organization that does abortions."

Your choice:

Naivete or more of your money spent properly.

Or: Let people actually be self-sufficient and responsible for what they do.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
digiman2024
digiman2024
  • Member since: Apr. 16, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-19 20:03:20 Reply

At 4/19/12 11:07 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote:
what you said was that a polling agency COULD skew the results by using a highly targeted sample, and that's why you can't trust ANY poll. That is a ridiculous position to hold, and it speaks to your ignorance to how high quality polls are conducted and used.

lets look at at these polls one from cnn (do i really have to go in to the bias they show. hell its worse then fox news' bias)

second from national journal reading the artical show they slant left (all be it my opinion) put in as an afterthought that some pp perform abortions.

and i cant even say anything about the third one.( i dont know enough about them. never even heard of them till now)

i have already stated that i dont think the government shound be funding any NGO. they dont have the power to do it.
Alright, sure. You are entitled to your opinion, but you should realize that you are in the minority in holding that view.

im olny in the minority because i dont jump up and elect somebody because they promise me free stuff.

RydiaLockheart
RydiaLockheart
  • Member since: Nov. 21, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 31
Gamer
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-19 20:49:29 Reply

I'm on the Pill and have been since I was 16. But I actually do take it for health reasons, hence the 16 part. The contraception is just a bonus.

I go the pharmacy when I need it and use my insurance through work, which covers it. Even when I didn't have any insurance, I took it. And you know what? I paid for it myself. One, because I needed it. Two, because I don't believe in being a burden on others.

This makes me think: that girl who supposedly pays over $1K for her birth control per year? She's seriously getting ripped off unless she needs that particular brand/kind. Because mine is only $20 a month. What the hell is she doing?

I dunno about public funding, but Planned Parenthood also does stuff like mammograms and annual exams, not just birth control, or abortions (which don't happen at all locations, especially rural ones). And sure, it provides birth control for those who want to be responsible. But as was previously mentioned in this thread, people can be really fucking stupid. There are plenty of folks who just don't use any birth control, or who buy $100 in scratch off lottery tickets and then whine that they don't have enough money for it.

Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-19 22:23:36 Reply

At 4/19/12 08:03 PM, digiman2024 wrote: lets look at at these polls one from cnn (do i really have to go in to the bias they show. hell its worse then fox news' bias)

second from national journal reading the artical show they slant left (all be it my opinion) put in as an afterthought that some pp perform abortions.

and i cant even say anything about the third one.( i dont know enough about them. never even heard of them till now)

And as you've so aptly demonstrated just now, you have absolutely nothing of substance to criticize any of these polls for. Nothing whatsoever about the methodology of the polls being faulty, just that they were conducted by what you regard to be "liberal" organizations. You are arguing against the messenger instead of the message, a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem.

Alright, sure. You are entitled to your opinion, but you should realize that you are in the minority in holding that view.
im olny in the minority because i dont jump up and elect somebody because they promise me free stuff.

Weird. So although you are arguing that the polls I've provided are inaccurate, you are still conceding that you are in the minority when it comes to supporting federal financing of NGO's such as Planned Parenthood?


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-20 00:25:22 Reply

At 4/19/12 07:41 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Didn't get Medicaid, and people will always be allowed to see a doctor and get treatment. Every single hospital does not turn patients away, they may relocate however once the immediate danger is taken care of.

Do you think these doctors visits grow on trees? When people go to the doctor and do not pay we all absorb the cost. Also, EMTALA does not mandate much treatment. It only applies to emergencies and they can kick you out the moment you are 'stable'. So, no, hospitals don't have to treat everything. Even when they do. We all pay for it.

Self-determination is awesome. When you have every single thing handed to you, you end up never doing anything yourself. It applies to every single end of the spectrum. Why should we care about STDs or getting pregnant when I can just have somebody else pay for it? No need to take the preventative measures.

Being a parent, I can tell you that money is only one of many obligations involving children. I am pretty sure the D in STD is enough reason to protect against them.

I'd think if PP actually were the ones to provide those benefits and not just refer you, or if they ONLY provided those benefits, I wouldn't see a problem with it. Since when did churches get funding from the federal government?

Faith based charity initiatives. Tax exempt status.

If you're so idiotic that that is what your view is, then I guess we are done here. You truly lack in intelligence if you equate those two things together.

Actually, BOTH are health needs.
Therefore, buy me an iPod.

To quote you: "If you're so idiotic that that is what your view is, then I guess we are done here. You truly lack in intelligence if you equate those two things together."

The kid doesn't end up responsible. No matter what happens, there are ways for the kid to end up being taken care of.

Like? What things are there to help kids, that can help ALL of the unplanned kiddos in lieu of Medicaid?

Seriously, buy me one box of condoms to show you actually believe in what you say.

Buying one person contracpetives does not even out mathmatically enough to cover the cost. If you fail to understand this, learn basic statistics.

[Citation needed]

When people fail to pay providers, providers have to raise their rates across the board to cover the costs.

Oh, you see. It confuses me when you shift from talking about the monetary costs to how the child is treated without indication. Neglectful and abusive parents will always exist. There has been absolutely zero correlation between PP and a drop in abuse.

This IS a cost. Child welfare is extremely expensive. Also, seeing as the vast majority of child welfare children come from very poor families, and most of those come from parents who lack the stability to plan for a child, the connect between contraception and abortion for the poorest, and child welfare is pretty evident.

Here's an idea. Instead of babying people and telling them to go ahead and do whatever the fuck they want since we'll pay for it, we don't do that. Again, you're avoiding the whole "I'm ok with PP other services, but I do not want tax dollars going to an organization that does abortions" that I've been getting at

And we're back to a situation where you vehemently deny a conclusion yet fight like a fucking maniac to ensure that the outcome you deny you support, is the only option available. Either, you are not very bright and think there are no consequences to your positions, or you are just a disingenuous person.

Here, I'll repeat it a few times so you'll understand:

You can repeat it until you're blue in the face, but you'll still never realize how your statement contradicts itself.


Or: Let people actually be self-sufficient and responsible for what they do.

OK. You're just not getting it.

Here's how it works now.

2 options:
Pay for contraceptives/abortion at a low rate. No bad results. OR,
Pay for the bad results at a much higher rate. Contraception/abortion not paid for.

If you truly wanted self-sufficiency here you would support the removal of Medicaid and child Welfare and other such services. So either admit to this, or realize you're contradicting yourself at every turn. Cause right now you're advocating for 'saving money' and 'promoting responsibility' by not paying for the preventative measures whilst spending more money to cover the work and costs for the cases where people don't get the preventative services.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-20 09:28:35 Reply

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.)

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.

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.

This is why I think the GOP WoW will fizzle out and Obama will only get historic levels of the women vote. As women find out what's behind the dust-up over federally funded contraception...their passions will settle down. Afterall, not every woman thinks that free contraception is a right...nor do all women support healthcare reform/Obamacare.

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.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-20 11:08:31 Reply

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.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-20 11:26:55 Reply

At 4/20/12 12:25 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Do you think these doctors visits grow on trees? When people go to the doctor and do not pay we all absorb the cost. Also, EMTALA does not mandate much treatment. It only applies to emergencies and they can kick you out the moment you are 'stable'. So, no, hospitals don't have to treat everything. Even when they do. We all pay for it.

I see no problem in non-life threatening things going untreated. Besides, I've never once seen a minor get turned away or relocated from a hospital, unless it was for legal reasons. You keep shifting the goal posts. PP does not, in anyway whatsoever affect those people who use the ER for their doctor and don't pay

Being a parent, I can tell you that money is only one of many obligations involving children. I am pretty sure the D in STD is enough reason to protect against them.

Because as we all know, those people with multiple kids who rely on government assistance are the most responsible bunch.

Faith based charity initiatives. Tax exempt status.

I don't see the problem with faith based charity or tax exempt status. As long as they break no laws, what is the problem?

To quote you: "If you're so idiotic that that is what your view is, then I guess we are done here. You truly lack in intelligence if you equate those two things together."

You just said both are health needs, unless you were being snarky.

Like? What things are there to help kids, that can help ALL of the unplanned kiddos in lieu of Medicaid?

Other types of welfare. MANY community outreach programs. Churches. The schools and shit. CPS.

Buying one person contracpetives does not even out mathmatically enough to cover the cost. If you fail to understand this, learn basic statistics.

There's 300~ million people. They receive ~1/2 billion. Send me one condom and pay the money to stamp it and send it to me. That should be less then the cost per person

When people fail to pay providers, providers have to raise their rates across the board to cover the costs.

Wait, so you're saying that the government money lowers the costs of abortions?

This IS a cost. Child welfare is extremely expensive. Also, seeing as the vast majority of child welfare children come from very poor families, and most of those come from parents who lack the stability to plan for a child, the connect between contraception and abortion for the poorest, and child welfare is pretty evident.

PP already exists. So why aren't those numbers going down?

And we're back to a situation where you vehemently deny a conclusion yet fight like a fucking maniac to ensure that the outcome you deny you support, is the only option available. Either, you are not very bright and think there are no consequences to your positions, or you are just a disingenuous person.

Right. Because there is consequences to switch funding to a place that does everything PP says they do (You know, actually do the mammograms and screenings instead of outsource), and whose entire goal wasn't eugenics. But fuck it, I'm against poor people and women because I don't want others to pay for their abortions.

You can repeat it until you're blue in the face, but you'll still never realize how your statement contradicts itself.

Point out absolutely anything contradictory that I said. How is being ok with what PP does, minus the abortions, and wanting to send that government money to a place that actually provides the services they advertise, contradictory?

2 options:
Pay for contraceptives/abortion at a low rate. No bad results. OR,
Pay for the bad results at a much higher rate. Contraception/abortion not paid for.

OR

Not pay for peoples bad results. If PP is so damn effective, then why do the aforementioned bad results still happen at the rate they do, instead of at extremely low numbers that can be chalked up things like BC not being 100% effective?

If you truly wanted self-sufficiency here you would support the removal of Medicaid and child Welfare and other such services. So either admit to this, or realize you're contradicting yourself at every turn. Cause right now you're advocating for 'saving money' and 'promoting responsibility' by not paying for the preventative measures whilst spending more money to cover the work and costs for the cases where people don't get the preventative services.

ITT: Wanting the adults to be self sufficient means cutting everything for the kid also.

Here, let's break it down for you:

Cut the welfare for the parents. Keep the child care for the kid.

Savvy?

Still, you have shown absolutely zero correlation between PP and lowering medical costs.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-20 11:36:46 Reply

At 4/20/12 11:08 AM, Ravariel wrote: 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.

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.

I respectfully disagree. It was her testimony that led Rush to make his statements. I'll explain below.


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.

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.

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. It's the math/economics of her testimony that has made her into a joke. In reality it is what she said that opened her up to ridicule.


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.

Here's one of the differences:
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 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.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-20 11:39:39 Reply

At 4/20/12 12:25 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Do you think these doctors visits grow on trees? When people go to the doctor and do not pay we all absorb the cost. ... We all pay for it.

Semi-off-topic:
Thanks for making my point in regards to why government involvement in healthcare on increases the cost of healthcare for everyone else! :)


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-20 12:22:25 Reply

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.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-20 12:25:33 Reply

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.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

bismuthfeldspar
bismuthfeldspar
  • Member since: Mar. 2, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-20 13:44:04 Reply

The only ethical reason to have paid maternity leave is to encourage intelligent high earning women to breed.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-20 22:22:54 Reply

At 4/20/12 11:39 AM, TheMason wrote: Semi-off-topic:
Thanks for making my point in regards to why government involvement in healthcare on increases the cost of healthcare for everyone else! :)

How does this principle of market economics prove government involvment increases the cost?

You're going to have to explain your logic on that one.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-20 22:51:18 Reply

At 4/20/12 11:26 AM, RacistBassist wrote: I see no problem in non-life threatening things going untreated. Besides, I've never once seen a minor get turned away or relocated from a hospital, unless it was for legal reasons. You keep shifting the goal posts. PP does not, in anyway whatsoever affect those people who use the ER for their doctor and don't pay

You keep think I'm shifting the goal posyts because you are having trouble understanding a simple concept. One which I will go into later.

Because as we all know, those people with multiple kids who rely on government assistance are the most responsible bunch.

And yet, you're trying to make them responsible by robbing them of access to contraceptives and abortions, thus forcing all of us to pay the costs for the results? I'm surprised you haven't seen this yet.

I don't see the problem with faith based charity or tax exempt status. As long as they break no laws, what is the problem?

This wasn't saying that their getting money was a problem. It was saying that if we should remove all funding because of the little dark portion, then all religions should lose all of these benefits.

Other types of welfare. MANY community outreach programs. Churches. The schools and shit. CPS.

Government. Too few and far between. Not as friendly as they seem. Government. Government.

You're still advocating for the government providing them with free rides, but instead of free prevention, you want to pay the higher expenses for the government to provide care for their kids.

There's 300~ million people. They receive ~1/2 billion. Send me one condom and pay the money to stamp it and send it to me. That should be less then the cost per person

If the chance of concieving is say 1 in 100, sending stuff to 1 person isn't enough to cover the odds.

Wait, so you're saying that the government money lowers the costs of abortions?

When someone goes to a hospital and ends up not paying, we all cover the cost. This comes from the cost, and sometimes insurance, rasising the prices for everyone else to make up for the loss.

Contraception and abortions prevent children from being born. The families that cannot afford this care cannot afford regular care for their children. So either they get their kids preventative care and fail to pay, thus passing the cost to the rest of us, or they don't get preventative care raising the risk that the child will need extreme care, on our dime.

The moral of the story is that for those who cannot pay, we pay EITHER WAY. So you can turn them down for the cheap stuff, as you wish to do, thus forcing everyone to eat the massive costs fo their mistakes, or you can pay for the cheap stuff thus lowering the amount of mistakes, and lowering the overall cost pushed onto the rest of us.

PP already exists. So why aren't those numbers going down?

For one PP cannot reach all of those in need, which is why this discussion is about coverage for contraception in all cases. Second, PP does a great deal in keeping the numbers as low as they are.

Point out absolutely anything contradictory that I said. How is being ok with what PP does, minus the abortions, and wanting to send that government money to a place that actually provides the services they advertise, contradictory?

Talk about shifting goal posts...

Not pay for peoples bad results. If PP is so damn effective, then why do the aforementioned bad results still happen at the rate they do, instead of at extremely low numbers that can be chalked up things like BC not being 100% effective?

Because, some people will always fuck up. Also, the rate now is very low compared to the amount of people under the poverty line. Remove access to contraceptives and abortions and these numbers will rise.

ITT: Wanting the adults to be self sufficient means cutting everything for the kid also.

That's how it works under our system. When self sufficiency fails and the results are children, then yes.

Cut the welfare for the parents. Keep the child care for the kid.

Which puts MORE cost on the taxpayer becuase you want to make a failed message about self sufficiency.

Still, you have shown absolutely zero correlation between PP and lowering medical costs.

What do you think contraception and abortion do? Remove facial hair? Sad to break it to you, but that's not it. They PREVENT CHILDREN. What do children from families that can't even afford contraception get? Lots of governmental services on the taxpayers' dime. Get it now? There is no simpler way to explain this.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-20 22:52:54 Reply

At 4/20/12 01:44 PM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: The only ethical reason to have paid maternity leave is to encourage intelligent high earning women to breed.

Actually, it's to encourage fertile women to continue working.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-20 23:21:06 Reply

At 4/20/12 10:51 PM, Camarohusky wrote: And yet, you're trying to make them responsible by robbing them of access to contraceptives and abortions, thus forcing all of us to pay the costs for the results? I'm surprised you haven't seen this yet.

ITT: Not paying for something someone else uses is robbing that person.

This wasn't saying that their getting money was a problem. It was saying that if we should remove all funding because of the little dark portion, then all religions should lose all of these benefits.

With religious organizations, it is up to the individual, so I see no problem with it. If they received public funds, then yes, it would be a problem.

Government. Too few and far between. Not as friendly as they seem. Government. Government.

Directly helps. No kid will ever be turned down. Still helps a lot. Directly helps. Directly helps.

You're still advocating for the government providing them with free rides, but instead of free prevention, you want to pay the higher expenses for the government to provide care for their kids.

Paying for kids to have food, and if need be, be placed into care=Free ride.

If the chance of concieving is say 1 in 100, sending stuff to 1 person isn't enough to cover the odds.

Same odds, smaller scale.

When someone goes to a hospital and ends up not paying, we all cover the cost. This comes from the cost, and sometimes insurance, rasising the prices for everyone else to make up for the loss.

The difference is hospital visits are actually a need and not a form of birth control

Contraception and abortions prevent children from being born. The families that cannot afford this care cannot afford regular care for their children. So either they get their kids preventative care and fail to pay, thus passing the cost to the rest of us, or they don't get preventative care raising the risk that the child will need extreme care, on our dime.

I'm sorry, but who cannot afford an extra 50 cents here and there to get their fuck on? Or, $7 over a month time frame if need be. Shit, you can literally find that much money over the course of a month if you bother to pick it up. Abortion is not preventative care.

The moral of the story is that for those who cannot pay, we pay EITHER WAY. So you can turn them down for the cheap stuff, as you wish to do, thus forcing everyone to eat the massive costs fo their mistakes, or you can pay for the cheap stuff thus lowering the amount of mistakes, and lowering the overall cost pushed onto the rest of us.

Or, here's an idea:

We don't pay EITHER WAY. (Caps lock is cruise control for cool)

Massive costs? Show me those massive costs, and the correlation that PP has and lowering those costs.

For one PP cannot reach all of those in need, which is why this discussion is about coverage for contraception in all cases. Second, PP does a great deal in keeping the numbers as low as they are.

Cities are the ones most stricken with low income. PP has clinics set up in almost every major city. PP has over 820 locations. Where is the correlation. You keep saying they do that, but you don't have anything to back it up.

Talk about shifting goal posts...

Really? It's been pretty clear from the start.

Because, some people will always fuck up. Also, the rate now is very low compared to the amount of people under the poverty line. Remove access to contraceptives and abortions and these numbers will rise.

Then have them deal with the consequences, and only help the kid directly. Also, you keep jumping off the slippery slope. Not wanting PP=Wanting contraceptives gone.

That's how it works under our system. When self sufficiency fails and the results are children, then yes.

Because as we all know, I have not said I want to change that part of the system

Which puts MORE cost on the taxpayer becuase you want to make a failed message about self sufficiency.

Think about it. Welfare queens stop getting their monthly checks and popping out kids. Amount of money going to welfare and amount of kids being popped out to the low income decreases. You have not witnessed it first hand. Everybody likes to gloss it over and ignore it, but at the end of the day, people will be more safe and be less inclined to take the risks if they know nobody will pick up their slack.

What do you think contraception and abortion do? Remove facial hair? Sad to break it to you, but that's not it. They PREVENT CHILDREN. What do children from families that can't even afford contraception get? Lots of governmental services on the taxpayers' dime. Get it now? There is no simpler way to explain this.

PP: Only contraception and abortions ever.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-20 23:36:49 Reply

At 4/20/12 12:22 PM, Ravariel wrote: 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.

I want to re-read the testimony and digest the article you linked me to, and I've got family coming over. But I feel the need to respond to this.

You know...both Ann and Mitt came from wealthy parents. However, we don't know how much they were supported when they started out. As someone who has been Mormon (a year when I was trying to save my 1st marriage), I knew some wealthy families but they all shared the value of teaching a man to fish rather than giving him a fish.

But what we do know is they were married while they were undergrads at BYU and lived in a basement apartment. I'm pretty sure they didn't have a maid or a trustfund or a nice car. And I'm pretty sure they lived on a tight budget.

Then rather than getting comfy job working directly for a major firm he decided to go into consulting which incurs a serious financial risk. You don't do well and your advice sucks...or no one trusts you...you don't get paid. So as the campaign slogs on I think ppl will come out and talk about the family next door who slugged it out in the economic downturns of the 1970s and then 1982...just like everyone else.

So while yes, they both came from rich families I'm pretty sure they had some very lean years when they started out that stretched until he got hired on by Baine.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
bismuthfeldspar
bismuthfeldspar
  • Member since: Mar. 2, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-21 11:49:38 Reply

At 4/20/12 10:52 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 4/20/12 01:44 PM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: The only ethical reason to have paid maternity leave is to encourage intelligent high earning women to breed.
Actually, it's to encourage fertile women to continue working.

If a woman earns more she gets paid more for being preggers. Right? So we're paying intelligent women more for the use of their baby chute because they produce superior humans.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-21 14:15:48 Reply

At 4/21/12 11:49 AM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: If a woman earns more she gets paid more for being preggers. Right? So we're paying intelligent women more for the use of their baby chute because they produce superior humans.

Again, the purpose is not to encourage intelligent woman to have kids. Anyone who's intelligent, is smart enough to know that it would take a shit load of money to make having a break even, let alone enough money to incentivize it. The purpose of maternity leave and paid maternity leave is to ensure women that their job will still be there when they get back, and to encourage them to come back.

One of largest reasons women don't hold nearly as many high level positions as men is children. There are more than enough qualified women and a great deal more workplaces willing to bringthem upo that the numbers let on. However, when succcessful women reach a certain age, they are usually forced to choose between being a mother or working. By giving women a plus they hope to keep them on the job.

morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-29 12:21:20 Reply

While those who protest abortion, do so loudly ,visably & vocally....they never present solutions to all these unwanted fetuses...like who will adopt them ?
Or , how will society come up with the funds for the orphanges that would be needed ?

I have never seen an anti abortion, protestor waving a sign &/or publicly announcing they will take responsibility for your unborn child if you carry it to term for them .
Has anyone else seen such a claim by an anti abortionist ?

Then there is the problem of many low paid/ young women who can't afford to have a child, so they abort...if they had the child, what choice besides welfare would they have ?
What would that do to the already overburdened welfare system ?

Just some areas of concern I personally have never seen addressed by those who are rabidly antiabortion !


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-30 21:20:29 Reply

At 4/29/12 12:21 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Just some areas of concern I personally have never seen addressed by those who are rabidly antiabortion !

This is all one huge diverting of responsibility. It reminds me of that woman who had 15 kids and was demanding people care for them.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-30 22:39:27 Reply

At 4/29/12 12:21 PM, morefngdbs wrote: While those who protest abortion, do so loudly ,visably & vocally....they never present solutions to all these unwanted fetuses...like who will adopt them ?

All of that is entirely pointless.

None of this welfare nonsense matters. The only thing that does matter is whether or not a fetus constitutes a person.

You bringing up welfare and being a "burden" (purely hypothetical... i'm sure you wouldn't argue to put children in prisons based on their personalities and 'likelihood' of committing violent acts when they become older) is nothing more than a weak person's attempt to evoke sympathy over a factual argument.

It's only so you can avoid potentially being labeled a "killer/murderer/ supporter.

theburningliberal
theburningliberal
  • Member since: Jul. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-30 23:56:26 Reply

At 4/17/12 04:34 PM, Ravariel wrote:
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.

Moreover, Planned Parenthood helps carry out sections of federal law that are meant to help protect women's rights (like Title X) instead of just simply providing abortion services. Planned Parenthood also has services that encourage adoption instead of abortion and family planning before pregnancy to avoid the issue altogether (birth control pills/devices, condoms, abstinence education, safe sex practices). Because of the basic anatomical differences between men and women (and the centuries of patriarchal domination of society), certain laws are needed to ensure that women are able to get access to these services, and are able to afford access to those same services.


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).

So if I believe in adoption over abortion, it is somehow wrong for my tax dollars to be used to support adoption services and abstinence education (things I support) because of one thing I don't? Sounds like a bad example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

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.

Abstaining from that since I don't have enough information about the issues to comment.

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.

Indeed. PP's funding is not solely Title X funds. They receive insurance payments for providing legitimate medical services (Ob-gyn, anyone?), as well as funds collected as donations and payments from clients.

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.

I am honestly wondering whether the 'War on Women' that we are perceiving is not simply just an errant arm of the right's continued opposition to Roe v. Wade. Maybe conservatives think that if we start by repealing the laws that protect them and just generally treat women like shit, we can effectively nullify Roe v. Wade since there won't be anymore women around to worry about the effects of it. O_O /sarcasm