Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Election 2012

Postby Malthrax » Fri Nov 02, 2012 6:34 am

Klaudandus wrote:Again, it's sorites paradox... and not entirely hypocritical...

I'm still unsure why it's bad for a woman to have a choice as long as you haven't crossed the viability line.


So, you admit that you are in-favor of restricting a woman's right-to-choose.


The Party platform is pretty clear on that topic:
2012 Democratic National Party Platform wrote:Protecting A Woman’s Right to Choose: The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.
User avatar
Malthrax
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:23 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Nov 02, 2012 6:49 am

Klaudandus wrote:Again, it's sorites paradox... and not entirely hypocritical...
It is. It's saying that you can control a woman's body at the point in which you believe that the fetus has rights. At the same time you chastise others for wanting the same control under the guise of woman's rights when it's not a woman's rights issue at all, its because you disagree with them as to when the fetus has rights.

Klaudandus wrote: I'm still unsure why it's bad for a woman to have a choice as long as you havent crossed the viability line.

I never said that it was bad for a woman to have that choice.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:35 am

I thought the point of declaring a state of emergency/disaster area was so that you could ignore the government bureaucracy that hampers the process of getting work done while vital services are down. I guess not...

http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/news/ ... lang=en-US

Is this going to garner the attention that it should?
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Malthrax » Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:21 am

Fridmarr wrote:I thought the point of declaring a state of emergency/disaster area was so that you could ignore the government bureaucracy that hampers the process of getting work done while vital services are down. I guess not...

http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/news/ ... lang=en-US

Is this going to garner the attention that it should?


Don't hold your breath.
User avatar
Malthrax
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:23 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Cogglamp » Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:42 am

That is really quite sad given the state that NJ/NY are currently in. That gives me additional fuel to flame my irrational loathing towards unionized labor.

Sidenote: I voted today on my absentee ballot. Democracy is pretty freakin' awesome.
Cogglamp
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:04 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Malthrax » Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:44 am

Cogglamp wrote:...irrational loathing towards unionized labor.


I am 100% in favor of unionized labor. I don't think its in the workers' best interests that they be indiscriminately ionized.
User avatar
Malthrax
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:23 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:54 am

I think it's completely stupid what happened in NY/NJ

indiscriminately ionized.


What about Gamma Rays?
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9349
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Election 2012

Postby Brekkie » Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:02 am

Malthrax wrote:
Fridmarr wrote:I thought the point of declaring a state of emergency/disaster area was so that you could ignore the government bureaucracy that hampers the process of getting work done while vital services are down. I guess not...

http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/news/ ... lang=en-US

Is this going to garner the attention that it should?


Don't hold your breath.


Yes but let's use some critical thinking here. What facts does this article actually report?

It reports that one southerner told one southern newspaper an anecdote. No other witnesses, no corraborating evidence, no statement by the Union involved, and no other cases of it occuring.
We should be suspicious when someone with a bias relates an anecdote that seems to confirm their stereotype.

We should be asking questions like:
Is this actually official union policy? Or were a few individual workers just being idiots? Did it even happen at all, or was there just some kind of isolated misunderstanding?
If this kind of event was in any way significant or widespread, how come we have heard no more reports of it anywhere, from anyone, except this short, obscure yahoo article? Why no additional anecdotes from other people? Why no anecdotes from crew members originating from states that don't have a political bias against unions? Why no complaints from frustrated residents?


The only other fact reported was that another crew was asked to stand down by a certain town. No context whatsoever given. Why were they asked to stand down? Surely the town made some kind of statement. Why was a quote from that statement not included? No one from the town leadership could be interviewed for comment? No official representative from the company whose crews were asked to stand down could be interviewed for comment?
What on Earth are we supposed to conclude from this?


This is an extremely sloppy peice of journalism, and should be viewed with extreme skepticism unless they produce a great deal more evidence to support their assertions.
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Aubade » Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:05 am

Malthrax wrote:
Cogglamp wrote:...irrational loathing towards unionized labor.


I am 100% in favor of unionized labor. I don't think its in the workers' best interests that they be indiscriminately ionized.



Why are you in favor of unionized Labor? I believe they had a place at one point in history, but no longer. They really serve little to no purpose. At least in the Blue-collar job community.
Image
- Awbade Level 85 Human Paladin - <Tsunami> Frostmourne - Retired.
Deliriously wrote:I prefer the, "Lonely Hand Approach" (trademark pending)
User avatar
Aubade
Moderator
 
Posts: 4030
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:51 am
Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Election 2012

Postby Brekkie » Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:09 am

Aubade wrote:
Malthrax wrote:
Cogglamp wrote:...irrational loathing towards unionized labor.


I am 100% in favor of unionized labor. I don't think its in the workers' best interests that they be indiscriminately ionized.



Why are you in favor of unionized Labor? I believe they had a place at one point in history, but no longer. They really serve little to no purpose. At least in the Blue-collar job community.


He was making a pun on the fact that the word "ionized" is contained in the word "unionized".
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Paxen » Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:20 am

Aubade wrote:Why are you in favor of unionized Labor? I believe they had a place at one point in history, but no longer. They really serve little to no purpose. At least in the Blue-collar job community.


Labour unions have a place as long as owners are looking to maximize profits above all else.

What needs reform is the specific labour unions in the US, who looks like pretty shitty examples.

Stuff unions can do:
- Prevent owners from sacking you for missing work one day when you were sick
- Enable workers to get higher pay, instead of ownership playing them off against each other
- Generally help you if managers try dirty tricks
- Fund legal aid if necessary in a conflict between an employee and the employer
- Lobby for legislation that benefits workers. Unless you think big business isn't lobbying for legislation that benefits them?
Paxen
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Aubade » Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:28 am

Paxen wrote:
Aubade wrote:Why are you in favor of unionized Labor? I believe they had a place at one point in history, but no longer. They really serve little to no purpose. At least in the Blue-collar job community.


Labour unions have a place as long as owners are looking to maximize profits above all else.

What needs reform is the specific labour unions in the US, who looks like pretty shitty examples.

Stuff unions can do:
- Prevent owners from sacking you for missing work one day when you were sick
- Enable workers to get higher pay, instead of ownership playing them off against each other
- Generally help you if managers try dirty tricks
- Fund legal aid if necessary in a conflict between an employee and the employer
- Lobby for legislation that benefits workers. Unless you think big business isn't lobbying for legislation that benefits them?


Maybe it's different in other parts of the country but for the most part here in WA state, these are things (outside of the lobbying) that you can do on your own with little-to-no financial pressure on yourself. There are government organizations, Bureaus, and organizations you can talk to WITHOUT joining a union.
Image
- Awbade Level 85 Human Paladin - <Tsunami> Frostmourne - Retired.
Deliriously wrote:I prefer the, "Lonely Hand Approach" (trademark pending)
User avatar
Aubade
Moderator
 
Posts: 4030
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:51 am
Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Election 2012

Postby Malthrax » Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:38 am

Aubade wrote:
Paxen wrote:
Aubade wrote:Why are you in favor of unionized Labor? I believe they had a place at one point in history, but no longer. They really serve little to no purpose. At least in the Blue-collar job community.


Labour unions have a place as long as owners are looking to maximize profits above all else.

What needs reform is the specific labour unions in the US, who looks like pretty shitty examples.

Stuff unions can do:
- Prevent owners from sacking you for missing work one day when you were sick
- Enable workers to get higher pay, instead of ownership playing them off against each other
- Generally help you if managers try dirty tricks
- Fund legal aid if necessary in a conflict between an employee and the employer
- Lobby for legislation that benefits workers. Unless you think big business isn't lobbying for legislation that benefits them?


Maybe it's different in other parts of the country but for the most part here in WA state, these are things (outside of the lobbying) that you can do on your own with little-to-no financial pressure on yourself. There are government organizations, Bureaus, and organizations you can talk to WITHOUT joining a union.

Unless you happen to be a teacher.
User avatar
Malthrax
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:23 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Aubade » Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:17 am

Mm Yeah, that is true. Although I don't think Unions can do everything that teachers need to get the respect and pay they actually deserve.

Lets use an example here. I am a machinist. It's what I do, and there are machinist unions. Now I am a certified programmer and I have passed many safety courses. I am eligible to join the Machinist union here in the NW.

Pros: It opens a few doors for me as far as employment (not relevant since I'm already employed)
I might get paid more, (Not likely since most jobs around here are non-union, and the union jobs pay the same after you consider union dues.)
Job security, Not relevant since I don't slack off at work anyways and I am respected by my co-workers and boss.

Cons: Union dues
I'm not allowed to do better than my co-workers for fear of making them look bad (this is EXTREMELY relevant in the machining world.)
I have to constantly answer to someone outside of my boss
If I work to my full potential and finish a job quickly I get harrassed/looked down upon by my fellow union members who can't perform as well as I can.
I am looked down upon by employers.
Image
- Awbade Level 85 Human Paladin - <Tsunami> Frostmourne - Retired.
Deliriously wrote:I prefer the, "Lonely Hand Approach" (trademark pending)
User avatar
Aubade
Moderator
 
Posts: 4030
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:51 am
Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Election 2012

Postby Malthrax » Fri Nov 02, 2012 12:29 pm

User avatar
Malthrax
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:23 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Nov 02, 2012 12:35 pm

Paxen That's not at all how things work here. First, each state really has their own laws, but it basically breaks down in a couple of way. Right to work states, have laws that keep the unions in check. Employees do not have to pay union dues or join a union. Governments can award work to the best fitting contractor. Unions have to be competitive.

Non right to work states means that unions can take dues from you whether you join or not. (Aubade, that's what Malthrax was talking about. In WA as a teacher you have to pay union dues. So in a sense you can't do anything without joining a union as a teacher, because you legally have to join. The reality is that you don't actually have to join, but you have to pay dues, there's little difference). Also in non right to work states government typically must award work to union shops if a union exists for the trade. Most large corporations are pressured quite hard to do the same.

Obviously, in right to work states, unions are not competing on a level playing field. As a result, unions are absolutely not associated with making profits for the corporation. Just the opposite, because of the lack of competition, those sorts of union workers tend to do very bad work for very high pay in aggregate. We have example after example of that, from state governments to large corporations who have been hamstrung by employee costs making it so they have a very hard time competing.

That's not to say that unions don't have a place. Collective bargaining is reasonable, IF the employees want it (I would not, as it inevitibly results in a situation where you don't get rewarded for doing good work, and slowly output degrades). The ability for employees to pool resources to fight against employers who are acting improperly is likely a union's most effective tool. Lobbying government as a collective voice is another solid benefit. Of course, you don't really need a trade union for that, a general "employee" union would suffice and it's true we do have other options there too.

Aubade, although I'm no union fan, and your logic is pretty sound about how they function here, it's probably in your best interest to join.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Nov 02, 2012 1:00 pm

Brekkie wrote:Yes but let's use some critical thinking here. What facts does this article actually report? Snip...


That's all true, it's a poorly written article with very little real evidence. Certainly, that's not going to be NJ's position given who their governor is. It wouldn't suprise much if it wasn't true, but then again it wouldn't surprise me if it was. It certainly isn't unprecedented.

Whether it's true or not, I apologize for stooping to the same level as almost every other linked article in this thread. If I'm going to be critical of those then I shouldn't do the same.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Koatanga » Fri Nov 02, 2012 4:38 pm

Fridmarr wrote:No, it totally is. It proves that this isn't a woman's rights issue at all for folks who take that point of view. It's a baby's rights issue, which is exactly what it is for most pro-lifers. The disagreement then is when the fetus is a baby, and while that's an interesting debate, it's probably not something we should dive too deeply into in this thread (or on these forums).

Zalaria correctly points out, viability is not based on any concept of sentience, it's based on when our current technology could keep the baby alive if it were born. A lot has to do with size and lung maturity, and quite little about cognitive ability or sentience.

Of course that point in time is really the latest point one could argue that the fetus is not a human, since then you'd have to make the claim that women who do give birth at such a point gave birth to something that was not human...and man does that have all kinds of nasty ramifications. Anyhow, at least the discussion about when the fetus is human is an honest discussion. Whereas this notion of it being a woman's rights issue, from someone who is willing to take control of her body at a technologically determined phase of pregnancy, is hypocritical at best.


No.

It is a woman's rights issue the entire way. The woman has the right to do what she wants with her body the entire way. However, her action cannot be allowed to violate rights of another person, which becomes the case once the fetus is independently viable.

Prior to that, the fetus has no more rights than a tumour, because neither can survive outside of the host.

But it is the introduction of another independently viable person with rights of its own that changes what the woman can decide to do with her body. The woman retains the right to do what she wants with her portion of the symbiosis the entire way.

This is proven by women who legally smoke and drink during pregnancy, or participate in physically dangerous activities. It is not illegal to do so and does not violate the rights of the independently viable person in her womb, although it has been shown that those activities can damage that person in apparently legal ways.

So it is established that a woman has rights to do as she will with her body throughout the pregnancy. The only consideration to the fetus is whether or not it can be aborted, which as I have repeatedly expressed, changes when an independently viable being with rights of its own enters the picture.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Torquemada » Fri Nov 02, 2012 6:15 pm

Koatanga wrote:No.

It is a woman's rights issue the entire way. The woman has the right to do what she wants with her body the entire way. However, her action cannot be allowed to violate rights of another person, which becomes the case once the fetus is independently viable.

Prior to that, the fetus has no more rights than a tumour, because neither can survive outside of the host.

But it is the introduction of another independently viable person with rights of its own that changes what the woman can decide to do with her body. The woman retains the right to do what she wants with her portion of the symbiosis the entire way.

This is proven by women who legally smoke and drink during pregnancy, or participate in physically dangerous activities. It is not illegal to do so and does not violate the rights of the independently viable person in her womb, although it has been shown that those activities can damage that person in apparently legal ways.

So it is established that a woman has rights to do as she will with her body throughout the pregnancy. The only consideration to the fetus is whether or not it can be aborted, which as I have repeatedly expressed, changes when an independently viable being with rights of its own enters the picture.


That may be your take on the issue, but it isn't the official platform of the Democratic or Republican parties this time around. So hopefully single issue voters realize that neither major candidate has that position. Unless you're stating that the candidates can think independently of their party platforms, even though I've heard a lot of people trying to Romney down to the Republican platform even when he espouses differences from it (i.e., supporting abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and to protect the life of the mother when the platform doesn't make those allowances).

My own personal take is actually not that far from your own, save that while I think the procedure should be legal I don't support any funding for it from the government except for rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother. I support a woman's right to do what she wants, but I don't support paying for it. It is indeed a choice, and the man and woman involved (Or parents of the children who couldn't be more responsible) can choose to fork out the money.
User avatar
Torquemada
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:00 am
Location: Virginia

Re: Election 2012

Postby Paxen » Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:24 pm

Fridmarr wrote:Of course, you don't really need a trade union for that, a general "employee" union would suffice and it's true we do have other options there too.


What's the difference between a trade union and an "employee" union?
Paxen
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Dantriges » Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:09 pm

Seems american unions are a bit weird.
Dantriges
 
Posts: 657
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:39 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Aubade » Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:19 pm

I could be wrong, but I think a trade union is tied to a specific trade, I.E. Teachers union, Machinist union, carpenter union, Aeronautical Engineer's union, Etc.

I'm not completely sure what an "Employee" union is.
Image
- Awbade Level 85 Human Paladin - <Tsunami> Frostmourne - Retired.
Deliriously wrote:I prefer the, "Lonely Hand Approach" (trademark pending)
User avatar
Aubade
Moderator
 
Posts: 4030
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:51 am
Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Election 2012

Postby Brekkie » Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:57 pm

Fridmarr wrote:Paxen That's not at all how things work here. First, each state really has their own laws, but it basically breaks down in a couple of way. Right to work states, have laws that keep the unions in check. Employees do not have to pay union dues or join a union. Governments can award work to the best fitting contractor. Unions have to be competitive.

Non right to work states means that unions can take dues from you whether you join or not. (Aubade, that's what Malthrax was talking about. In WA as a teacher you have to pay union dues. So in a sense you can't do anything without joining a union as a teacher, because you legally have to join. The reality is that you don't actually have to join, but you have to pay dues, there's little difference). Also in non right to work states government typically must award work to union shops if a union exists for the trade. Most large corporations are pressured quite hard to do the same.


That's one perspective.
It's not the only one.

Red states love demonizing unions and talking about how they lead to mediocre worker performance, stifle competition, an suck business owners dry.
They congratulate themselves on their "Right To Work" state laws.

Blue states view things differently.
To many liberals, "Right To Work" is a sick farce. It is really "Right To Get Fired/Exploited". Blue states love demonizing greedy corporate leaders who will pursue profits to the point of socially destructive immoral behavior.

They congratulate themselves on the social good of their unions by telling anecdotes about WalMart, etc, raping their work force by turning 1 full time job into 2 part time jobs for no other reason than so they can squeeze just as much work out, while not providing any benefits at all to anyway, and providing no livable-wage jobs to that community.


So what is the truth?
As with most issues, probably somewhere in the middle.

My only personal experience with unions was back in my days of doing work as a theater stage manager and lighting designer.

In professional theater, there is a labor union called IATSE, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees. It served mainly as an indicator of excellence, and the barrier of entry was relatively high.

In order to qualify to join IATSE, you had to accrue a set number of hours of work on productions which were crewed by IATSE members. Effectively, this meant you had to be good enough at your job to be hired independently over any potential union-member competitors.
This was pretty difficult, and thus an IATSE member card was a great way of separating the true professionals from the wannabe amateurs, which is an important thing from a hiring standpoint in something as subjective as the arts. A producer may not know enough about lighting design or sound equipment operation to be able to figure out who to hire, and a resume is just going to be a list of plays each candidate participated in which doesn't always tell you a whole lot.

The benefits of being an IATSE member were largely networking and expanded job opportunities, which is a big factor in theater as work is so temporary. Additionally, all the IATSE members of the crew would have the advantage of having a professional contract negotiator to help represent them during the hiring process, instead of having to fend for themselves. A talented stage manager or props craftsman isn't necessarily also going to be talented at negotiating contracts.

Union rules protect members from abuse by producers or directors, which is also important in a field as high-pressure as the arts, where the temptation is high to make unreasonable demands of your cast and crew. If a particular producer or director got a reputation for being abusive, IATSE member technicians would simply not work for him any more, which would likely have a huge impact on the quality of productions they could put on in the future and likely drive them out of business. Can't get much more free market than that.


I have no experience and precious little knowledge on how unions function in the manufacturing field, though my tendency is to say "who cares?". Manufacturing jobs are dying, and they are not coming back. If you don't like the way manufacturing trade unions operate, don't worry about replacing union workers with non-union workers, just replace them both with robots.
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Brekkie » Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:02 pm

Fridmarr wrote:
Brekkie wrote:Yes but let's use some critical thinking here. What facts does this article actually report? Snip...


That's all true, it's a poorly written article with very little real evidence. Certainly, that's not going to be NJ's position given who their governor is. It wouldn't suprise much if it wasn't true, but then again it wouldn't surprise me if it was. It certainly isn't unprecedented.

Whether it's true or not, I apologize for stooping to the same level as almost every other linked article in this thread. If I'm going to be critical of those then I shouldn't do the same.


Agreed, there's been quite a bit of liberal-slanted hyperbolic linking in this thread too.

I'm just saying, a spade is a spade regardless of who posts it, and I didn't expect that kind of thing to come from you.
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Melathys » Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:05 pm

without going to deep into the abortion thing (my wife is a post partum nurse, and my sister in law is a NICU nurse) so I hear about it a lot....

anti-abortion AND anti-birth control is just ridiculous...
Image
User avatar
Melathys
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:08 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest