|
Fried Chicken posted:Setting aside the emotional pain of betraying your partners trust and the social humiliation they will suffer if your stepping out behind their back becomes public knowledge, the prevalence of STDs means you are actively putting their health at risk and they don't know to protect themselves from you. I would argue that the cultural expectation to only have sex with one person for decades is unhealthy for most people, actually, but oh man is this getting off-topic.
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:15 |
|
|
No! For you see, implicitly assuming a relationship is monogamous is a social construct that bubbled out of our puritanical heritage. If we could only cast these chains away I...I mean we...could freely gently caress whomever. I mean you arnt some bio truths regressive suggesting that the species is "naturally" monagomous are you. I can only assume this is trolling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:All I'm getting from this is you're afraid of commitment and are resentful of the women who've dumped you for sleeping around. Haven't been dumped for sleeping around and currently am married right now (haven't cheated on her before it gets asked), so horribly wrong on both counts. Shockingly, looking at the concept of infidelity as the framework that has been used to oppress women historically seems the only accurate way to view it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:You sound like every idiot man I've ever met who had to gaurd his woman's virtue like it was a national treasure. It's seriously objectification and you should stop it. Also, saying that everyone who works a relationship out after infidelity is a "roly-poly goon doormat" is seriously messed up. As a public example, does that seem like what Hillary Clinton is to you? She's still married to Bill, and go knows how many times he's slept with someone else. How does any of what I said lead you to conclude that I believe I have to somehow actively safeguard my partner's fidelity? Also the Clintons are the exact opposite of what anyone would consider a healthy relationship and by most metrics both could be considered lovely people (at least one a bad president too).
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Shockingly, the people I've seen do it from haven't been guys. Screw this marriage bullshit. I wanna hear what sweet negs you've come up with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Haven't been dumped for sleeping around and currently am married right now (haven't cheated on her before it gets asked), so horribly wrong on both counts. Shockingly, looking at the concept of infidelity as the framework that has been used to oppress women historically seems the only accurate way to view it. Infidelity as women's lib -- Nice!
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:I would argue that the cultural expectation to only have sex with one person for decades is unhealthy for most people, actually, but oh man is this getting off-topic. Then terminate the relationship or discuss it with your partner and come to an agreement. But yeah, getting real E/N in here
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Will you all please stop talking about relationships in the US Politics June thread?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Besides, our ruling class is gung-ho for adultery (exhibit A: John McCain. Exhibit B:  ).
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
I don't see why I have to stick to just one USPol thread a month. I don't mean to get all  here but evo-psych has shown that we are simply not programmed to just post in one thread at a time,
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Keep downplaying it rear end in a top hat. Obviously the burden should be thrown on the woman. No it shouldn't?  quote:A bad SCOTUS decision could easily place religious liberty at a place that allows it to trump basic rights. Not unless you get a court inclined to revisit Employment Division v. Smith. quote:A group currently protected by the CRA is fired/refused service under religious freedom from this law. So say single women with kids or Jews. They sue, and then end up losing up top 5-4 because we have 4 regressives and a libertarian, none of which believe we should be doing the thing the state is best at, loving over uncooperative people. I'd say that would be impossible ten years ago, but we have a court that just gutted the VRA, so there's no reason to assume they wouldn't do the same to the CRA. Without that, every small community in the US turn in a rural hellhole for minorities in quick fashion. I can't find a single case where someone tried to use RFRA against the CRA and I seriously doubt it would be sustained given that the CRA has been repeatedly upheld even before Smith. It's hypothetical upon hypothetical. Munkeymon posted:I'll grant you that's less bad than I thought, but it's still a hell of a long way from where it should be. Yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Haven't been dumped for sleeping around and currently am married right now (haven't cheated on her before it gets asked), so horribly wrong on both counts. Shockingly, looking at the concept of infidelity as the framework that has been used to oppress women historically seems the only accurate way to view it. Oh for gently caress's sake you're being such a cartoon, strawman, 'I just read some Dorkins and boy do I have opinions' internet feminist here there's no way this is serious at this point, right? Infidelity is bad because it's a betrayal of trust, for either gender, if you gently caress someone else while in a relationship not explicitly said to be open you're probably going to hurt your partner.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Does anyone have more background on what's going on in Louisiana regarding the ongoing effects of the BP oil spill? Saw this article this morning: http://theadvocate.com/home/9383128-125/jindal-signs-bill-that-would. Apparently Jindal just approved a bill basically exempting BP and other oil and/or gas companies from ever being sued over damage done to wetlands as the result of drilling or extraction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Yea Lousiana's basically never going to recover from it and Jindal has been sucking BP's dick to keep them around because that's his priority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
anonumos posted:Monogomy is not something to be legislated. Immorality cannot be legislated, especially when it's built on religious principles that are far from universal. In short, a religious minority wants to legislate their beliefs, imposing them on the rest of the country. gently caress anyone who supports this. You seem to support legislating religious principles, so gently caress you, too. Nobody in this thread is suggesting legislating morality you idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
The various criminal codes are based on morality as it most other legislation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:This does work sometimes but the more studied and practiced ones will reply with "The rights of one person end where the rights of another begin". And while that's true, it's also a lovely argument and then it takes us right back to "is a fetus a baby?" and they'll never, ever concede on that issue. They don't have to concede that. Grant them the assumption. No person has the right to take human flesh/blood/calcium/etc from an unwilling donor. Not even to save their own lives. Then rub their face in how pregnancy shrinks the brain and leeches away bone mass. Her right to abort is this basic self defense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Then terminate the relationship or discuss it with your partner and come to an agreement. Oh, agreed, but I'm also glad there seems to be some cultural momentum behind making reasonable exceptions to monogamy in long-term relationships. Anyway, I'm not going to mention it again. Acelerion posted:No! For you see, implicitly assuming a relationship is monogamous is a social construct that bubbled out of our puritanical heritage. If we could only cast these chains away I...I mean we...could freely gently caress whomever. I mean you arnt some bio truths regressive suggesting that the species is "naturally" monagomous are you. If you were talking to me, I think you misread my post.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Besides, our ruling class is gung-ho for adultery (exhibit A: John McCain. Exhibit B: Those two have less to do with adultery and more to do with leaving a (possibly sick) wife for one with a larger fortune though, which is actually way worse than just cheating on your spouse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
the difference between this thread and the right-wing media thread is pretty striking
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
My gif made the OP!  I forgot Norm Coleman existed still until I read a lovely Op Ed piece by him about how we don't negotiate with terrorists and therefore Obama bad, so I went looking in his twitter to see if he too had swapped views on leaving men behind. While I'm looking, I see this gem (emphasis mine): quote:Obamacare 4 yrs old today.It's a pretty big 4yr old,adding over 6.8 billion in regulatory costs@AAF.We'd be better off it it was never born  Thank gently caress you aren't a U.S. Senator anymore you spiteful tool.e: quote:As I sit in my lake cabin- and yes, it is minus33 outside, I do wonder if Global Warming died in 2013. R.I.P. Global Warming, we hardly knew ye. Man I'm glad Franken beat Norm for his seat. Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
MrUnderbridge posted:It's a drill. Been scheduled and announced for a week or so. OK, strike up the band for horrendous coincidence! The drill was yesterday. Today it was some PO3 who stabbed another guy outside the Exchange on the PNH grounds. I live about a mile from there and they have yet to catch the guy, and helicopters are buzzing all around. I wonder how many "Now's my chance!" gun guys in the neighborhood are sitting and drooling waiting for him to set foot in their yard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Personally I think sex should be outlawed entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:Does anyone have more background on what's going on in Louisiana regarding the ongoing effects of the BP oil spill? Saw this article this morning: http://theadvocate.com/home/9383128-125/jindal-signs-bill-that-would. Apparently Jindal just approved a bill basically exempting BP and other oil and/or gas companies from ever being sued over damage done to wetlands as the result of drilling or extraction. I'm surprised he took the oil dick out of his mouth long enough to sign this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
So, to get away from adultery-chat... What do people think are going to be the biggest internal debates in the Democratic party if/when Hillary decides to run? I think the liberal agenda in the U.S. hinges on getting control of the House back at some point and the nominee in the White House is going to be largely, but not totally, irrelevant from a legislative policy perspective. I think the party has pretty much come to consensus on most issues with 90-100% of the caucus being in favor of gay rights, abortion rights, Medicaid expansion, minimum wage increases, expansion of healthcare benefits, universal background checks, climate change, criminal sentencing reforms, judges, etc. The only issues I can think of that are still being seriously debated in the party are: 1) Education policy and to a lesser degree, 2) Foreign policy 3) Civil liberty issues Is a Hillary candidacy vs. a liberal upstart going to change a lot? And where are the biggest splits in terms of policy going to come from? I don't mean splits in terms of degree, like "I want expanded gun control, but only a little" vs. "I want severely expanded gun control.", but issues where there is a legitimate debate on opposite sides within the party. Education is really the only one I can think of and the pro-reform movement seems to be winning, but neither side seems to be able to actually succeed and the issue is always in the background instead of a big debate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Democratic primary topics... For one, I think it'll depend on what Congress looks like going into the election. A GOP House + Senate means Dem presidential nominees need to play up their bipartisanship and pragmatism rather than ideology. I think it'll also depend on who runs/picks up momentum. If Barney Frank or Elizabeth Warren decide to run, they might shift the discussion to focus against corporate financial irresponsibility, justice for the Great Recession, and income/wealth inequality. If Bernie Sanders were to run on a Dem. ticket, the discussion might shift more towards VA and general healthcare. Hillary is a bit of a wildcard in my view but she's also one of the more moderate/pragmatic candidates. To me it's less likely she'd focus on inequality in terms of minimum wage or 99%/1% dichotomy and focus more on jobs growth, international trade/treaties, immigration reform and education. EDIT: But I agree with you that by-and-large the Dems seem to be pretty well aligned in terms of social issues. I think in the general election they might come up, but I can't imagine much emphasis on them in the primary unless we get some Dixiecrats in the mix. EDIT2: I guess my response wasn't so much geared at internal debates so much as topics/projects of interest. For debates I'd agree with you: education will be up there. I also think that certain topics of the economy (tax reform, subsidies) might be debated, as well as environmental topics, energy and foreign policy. Amergin fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
A lot of blue dogs have lost their seats (unsurprisingly) to Republicans so it shouldn't be too surprising that the dems are pretty in lockstep these days.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
I think the war on drugs and marijuana legalization is going to be a big upcoming internal debate. Some Democrats are very progressive on these issues while some are worse than Republicans, there's really a big difference in opinion and I think that's going to come to the forefront more and more. From a quick google search it seems that Hillary is pretty similar to Obama on the issue, I hope she gets some real pressure from the left over it although that's probably being overly optimistic.
MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I think the war on drugs and marijuana legalization is going to be a big upcoming internal debate. Some Democrats are very progressive on these issue while some are worse than Republicans, there's really a big difference in opinion and I think that's going to come to the forefront more and more. From a quick google search it seems that Hillary is pretty similar to Obama on the issue, I hope she gets some real pressure from the left over it although that's probably being overly optimistic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I think the war on drugs and marijuana legalization is going to be a big upcoming internal debate. Some Democrats are very progressive on these issues while some are worse than Republicans, there's really a big difference in opinion and I think that's going to come to the forefront more and more. From a quick google search it seems that Hillary is pretty similar to Obama on the issue, I hope she gets some real pressure from the left over it although that's probably being overly optimistic. I'm not so sure. I think most Dems are okay with letting Colorado and Washington act as guinea pigs and going with the usual "Let the states decide" schtick. At most it might be a quick discussion on whether it should stay Schedule I or whether the DOJ should care (or whether the FBI should care). MAAAAYBE there would be a discussion on drug testing for jobs given the recent issue in Colorado over the paraplegic guy being fired from Dish for marijuana in his system. But again, I would think most would just waive it away as a states issue. EDIT: Student loan debt is another good possibility for internal debate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
So on top of the school shooting in Seattle yesterday, we now have a court house shooting in Florida today. This time it's one of our favorite political philosophies represented: Sovriegn Citizens. Some one post that video that says that you can expect 3-4 copy cat shootings after a major mass shooting event again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
If there's one domestic policy that'll wedge into the Democratic Party it'll be charter schools. Privileged assholes love their charters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
What are major areas/cities that aren't going for charter schools though? Maybe it's media effects but everywhere from New York to Chicago it sounds like the Dems are supporting charter schools.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
How about some good news for once. Wisconsin's gay marriage ban has been struck down. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-strikes-wisconsin-gay-marriage-ban-24035296 Still not clear if they can marry immediately but that's another state down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:If there's one domestic policy that'll wedge into the Democratic Party it'll be charter schools. Privileged assholes love their charters. And the real estate industry hates them because it takes away one of their best selling points for expensive areas. It took me forever because of work and the First post isn't nearly as good as Fried Chicken's but I did finally make that housing thread if people are still interested in discussing the hosed up situation there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
RevKrule posted:How about some good news for once. I'm going to take this as a glimmer of hope that Wisconsin won't become a regressive poo poo-hole after all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I hope she gets some real pressure from the left over it although that's probably being overly optimistic.  What was the last time the left was actually able to pressure a democrat into anything? I wouldn't even count marriage equality there because that's just the whole country that shifted and Obama followed suit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
So we've got 4 straight months of job growth over 200k. Somebody help me out here. Do the job creators not know that Obama's enacted his job killing tax hikes already? It seems like the only logical explanation for why they haven't gone on strike yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Hey Girl posted:
You would have to define "the left" first because apparently it's a variable definition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:15 |
|
|
computer parts posted:What are major areas/cities that aren't going for charter schools though? Maybe it's media effects but everywhere from New York to Chicago it sounds like the Dems are supporting charter schools. I'm thinking more so with voter disenfranchisement from the left rather than city or state-wide policy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:47
|
|