• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Tea Partier: Impregnated Rape Victims Who Abort Should Be Jailed As Long As Rapist

Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course not. Judge the person, not the group and say that's the views of the group, especially when the group doesn't identify itself that way. There was a lot of feminists against prohibition but that doesn't mean it's a prohibitionist movement. The director said something dumb as a shit and I'm saying we should judge the director for his words. I'm not sure why that is so hard and people have trouble using rational discourse.

Please, point me to the many Tea Party leaders claiming that those who are speaking in their name on issues like abortion don't actually represent the core of the party.

I would love to read what their actual platform on the matter is.

If someone in a position of visibility and importance claims to speak for your group and you don't refute them, its not my responsibility to "determine" if they're "real Scotsmen" or not.
 
So there is absolutely no one but religious authoritarians in this at all? These is no merit in any of these ideas here?
http://www.teaparty-platform.com/

I'm sorry but I grew up learning that there are two sides to an issue. These kinds of generalizations just kill me when anyone uses them. People can shows crazies all in a group but you shouldn't generalize those actions onto the group as a whole. You need to look at that group's core values to make those judgements. Anything else is unfair and why we have so many people fighting feminists, atheists, and the religious nowadays. It's a mess and not something we should justify in any way.

There are, but that does not mean that each side has equal merit.
 
Of course not. Judge the person, not the group and say that's the views of the group, especially when the group doesn't identify itself that way. There was a lot of feminists against prohibition but that doesn't mean it's a prohibitionist movement. The director said something dumb as a shit and I'm saying we should judge the director for his words. I'm not sure why that is so hard and people have trouble using rational discourse.

He's the representative of this particular Tea Party sect...
 
Uh, no. What? Are you saying we should judge them not on the actions they take and the things that they say but based on what their "core values" statement is? Why on earth would you refrain from judging someone based on what they do in favor of what they say they stand for?

Words speak louder than actions...

wait...
 
I'm sorry but I grew up learning that there are two sides to an issue. These kinds of generalizations just kill me when anyone uses them. People can shows crazies all in a group but you shouldn't generalize those actions onto the group as a whole. You need to look at that group's core values to make those judgements. Anything else is unfair and why we have so many people fighting feminists, atheists, and the religious nowadays. It's a mess and not something we should justify in any way.

that is CNN Crossfire bullshit

Does everything have to be a panel with two talking heads debate one side and the other. That is a load of crap.

A wrong is a wrong. Blaming victims of rape and making them feel like criminals = Taliban. There is no ''good side or right side'' when siding with the Taliban
 
Of course not. Judge the person, not the group and say that's the views of the group, especially when the group doesn't identify itself that way. There was a lot of feminists against prohibition but that doesn't mean it's a prohibitionist movement. The director said something dumb as a shit and I'm saying we should judge the director for his words. I'm not sure why that is so hard and people have trouble using rational discourse.

I assume you mean it wasn't a "feminist movement." And women being against alcohol consumption because of the rate of DV isn't a great comparison.
 
I'm slowly starting to understand why so many people volunteered to be the first to make a colony on Mars.

pD3EQ.gif
 
Of course not. Judge the person, not the group and say that's the views of the group, especially when the group doesn't identify itself that way. There was a lot of feminists against prohibition but that doesn't mean it's a prohibitionist movement. The director said something dumb as a shit and I'm saying we should judge the director for his words. I'm not sure why that is so hard and people have trouble using rational discourse.

Because the director's views are only slightly more extreme than the Tea Party as a whole.

Actually, it's pretty consistent with it. The Tea Party wants to make abortion illegal, and many want to make it illegal in any situation, including rape (think Rick Santorum's "gift from God" comments). That would result in the victims of rape being treated as criminals if they were caught having an abortion.

Really, all Hughes said that is different is suggest a sentence duration, one equal to rape.
 
I can see the logic in the statement even though I don't agree with it. But I will say it's an absolutely cold and insensitive stance (obviously ignoring the emotional and psychological pain a women goes through in these situations).
 
Please, point me to the many Tea Party leaders claiming that those who are speaking in their name on issues like abortion don't actually represent the core of the party.

Can you spot me the place where it is said that are saying those views represent the Tea Party? The initial claim was the generalization and I provided proof by showing their platform. This is getting ridiculous. I mean, it's a republican. Why shouldn't we give him personal responsibilty?

Edit: It's been ridiculous.

Dude, this is the Tea Party.
Just because you don't like it doesn't excuse you from using logic and reason.
 
Of course not. Judge the person, not the group and say that's the views of the group, especially when the group doesn't identify itself that way. There was a lot of feminists against prohibition but that doesn't mean it's a prohibitionist movement. The director said something dumb as a shit and I'm saying we should judge the director for his words. I'm not sure why that is so hard and people have trouble using rational discourse.

Dude, this is the Tea Party. For fuck's sake yes a large portion of the hardcore religious right that call themselves the Tea Party absolutely believes this. These people voted for Rape babies are a gift from God' Santorum. The base believes this shit, the politicians just don't generally bring it up because the majority of people are against that sort of extremism. When asked they try and weasel around it or come up with off the wall fucking excuses like Todd 'legitimate rape' Akin and Joe 'there is no exception for life' Walsh. Look at the fucking dance of words Michelle Bachmann has when asked about life and rape exceptions.

The whole movement is a bunch of fucking nutters from their stupid ass views on abortion to their dumbfuck views on the debt.
 
Can you spot me the place where it is said that are saying those views represent the Tea Party? The initial claim was the generalization and I provided proof by showing their platform. This is getting ridiculous. I mean, it's a republican. Why shouldn't we give him personal responsibilty?

....so....your claim...is that we can't take the speech of leaders and prominent figures of a political party...to actually represent that party?

I mean, why should we trust that values statement then? After all, whatever group of people who wrote it might not represent "the real party"
 
While it was a dumb comment, it was a dumb hypothetical.

FUGELSANG: “Let’s say Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion becomes illegal. If a woman is raped and she goes to a doctor, and the doctor terminates the pregnancy – Please tell me who deserves the longest jail sentence? The rapist,the doctor or the woman? In order.”

HUGHES: “Across the board.”

FUGELSANG: “All three of them?”

HUGHES: “Go for it!”



Taken out off context. People need to read the links instead of the inflammatory headlines.

In what context does this become okay?
 
I think someone needs to liberate the USA from the Tea Party before they become the theocratic dictatorship they plan to be.
 
....so....your claim...is that we can't take the speech of leaders and prominent figures of a political party...to actually represent that party?
Of course not. People are allowed to be in a party and have differing views that are outside of the party's views. Obama would be a big spokesperson for democrats to many but senate democrats and Obama were at odds on student loan interest rates. You don't use a person to generalize a group.


I mean, why should we trust that values statement then? After all, whatever group of people who wrote it might not represent "the real party
The party's core values are written down. What a person says doesn't change what is written down and should be judged as the individual. This is fair, right? Can we drop this now?
 
Can you spot me the place where it is said that are saying those views represent the Tea Party? The initial claim was the generalization and I provided proof by showing their platform. This is getting ridiculous. I mean, it's a republican. Why shouldn't we give him personal responsibilty?

Please find one example of a pro-choice Tea Partier.
 
The party's core values are written down. What a person says doesn't change what is written down and should be judged as the individual. This is fair, right? Can we drop this now?

So, you are arguing that none of the individuals in the Tea Party who say things like this should be taken as a representation of the group, and that no conclusions can be drawn about the Tea Party, regardless of how many people make comments about criminalizing abortion in the instances of rape? Is this your argument?

How would you characterize the Tea Party's position on abortion?
 
How would you characterize the Tea Party's position on abortion?

Pretty much this.

If we agree that there is a group called the "Tea Party", then we assume that there are a set of discriminators that are likely to differentiate a member of the Tea Party from a member of the Democratic party.
 
So there is absolutely no one but religious authoritarians in this at all? These is no merit in any of these ideas here?
http://www.teaparty-platform.com/

I'm sorry but I grew up learning that there are two sides to an issue. These kinds of generalizations just kill me when anyone uses them. People can shows crazies all in a group but you shouldn't generalize those actions onto the group as a whole. You need to look at that group's core values to make those judgements. Anything else is unfair and why we have so many people fighting feminists, atheists, and the religious nowadays. It's a mess and not something we should justify in any way.

Of course, all these groups and parties have wonderful and delightful ideals right up until the very moment they start trying to actively implement them, and you realize what those ideals really mean.

As we can see by now, the Tea Party movement is defined in turn by extreme ignorance - ignorance about history, about fiscal policy, about women, about the constitution. About everything. And when you actually look at how they're applying these so-called "ideals", it's hilarious.

Let's just take a look at a bare handful:

8. Believe in the People - The American people, given their guaranteed freedoms, will thrive in a democratic, capitalist environment which allows individuals to strive toward ever greater achievements, innovations and the efficient production of needed and valued goods and services.

“Industry need not wish.” --Benjamin Franklin

“Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.” --Abraham Lincoln

“The people will save their government, if the government itself will allow them.” --Abraham Lincoln

Wow, I think believing in people is cool too! The Tea Party must not be so bad! Up until you realize that "believing in the people" really means pretending immigrants are bad and take advantage of everyone, that anyone on welfare is a social drag who deserves damnation,that gays shouldn't have the right to marry, that women shouldn't have rights to do with their body as necessary, that - surprise of surprise - the tea party brand of goverment is actually in many ways just the religious right movement re-branded. The White American Ideal. It's bullshit, "believe in the people."

They may not put "homosexuals shall not marry" as one of their movements "platforms", but that doesn't matter since 90% of their members support that and actively push that agenda, and it is associated with the vast majority of high level individuals within the movement.

You may say "aha, so there is still a certain percentage that wouldn't agree with that! See, you there are two sides to every story", but the point is the energy of the organization consistently bends toward these ends and it uses its considerable might and energy to nominate candidates that are actively destructive toward social progress and a million other essential things. Ask why Michelle Bachmann became the de facto lead Tea Party representative in Congress when her husband ran an "gay re-education" clinic and when she herself says things like this:

"If you're involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it's personal bondage, despair and enslavement."

"You have a teacher talking about gayness. That's child abuse."

"Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted."

"It isn't that some gay will get some rights. It's that everyone else in our state will lose rights."


And this is just what came to the surface in five seconds! It's far rarer when you have someone high up in the movement that actually supports not discriminating against this group of people just for being who they are, like when one of the Kock Brothers said he supports gay marriage.

9. Avoid the Pitfalls of Politics - American politics is burdened by big money from lobbyists and special interests with an undue influence on the peoples’ representatives. The Tea Party movement is seen as a threat to the entrenched political parties and thus is the continual target of smear campaigns and misrepresentation of its ideals. We choose not to respond to these attacks except to strongly and explicitly disavow any and all hate speech, any and all violence as well as insinuations of violence, and any and all extreme and fringe elements that bring discredit to the Tea Party Movement. We are a peaceful movement and respect other's opinions and views even though they do not agree with our own. We stand by the Tea Party beliefs and goals and choose to focus our energies on ensuring that our government representatives do the same.

“I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.” --Abraham Lincoln

“Honesty is the best policy.” --Benjamin Franklin

“Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.” --George Washington

Wow, another wonderful ideal! I support this, we all should respect others opinions even when we don't agree with them! America is burdened by lobbyists and special interests and big money!

Which is totally awesome, right up until the very second you realize the Tea Party is practically defined by big money, that the entire movement is basically been hijacked by the Koch Brothers and pointed in whatever direction they feel will cause the maximum damage to whatever cause they don't like. Money from within this money from HUGE rich donors has gone to fund tons of horrific candidates that ended up in office and immediately set to work actively pushing anti-intellectual agendas which simultaneously just so happened to ALSO do things like limit women's reproductive rights.

And let me not even get started on how little the Tea Party actually respects opposing views. Holy fucking shit. It may not be in their platform, and you may be right that 100% of all tea party members are not like the "bad" I'm implying, but most are, and that has been demonstrated by their behavior at rallies, on talk shows. The Tea Party movement is frequently made fun of for being precisely as exclusionary as anyone with more than one brain cell to rub together have already concluded: they can talk their high ideals, but it's really about disenfranchising anyone who isn't WHITE AMERICA. The few individuals they trot out to show "see, we like blacks and latinos as well" are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Why do you think this happened?

5. Abide by the Constitution of the United States - The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and must be adhered to without exception at all levels of government. This includes the Bill of Rights and other Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and their provisions designed to protect states’ rights and individual liberties.

“A general Dissolution of Principles & Manners will more surely overthrow the Liberties of America than the whole Force of the Common Enemy.” --Samuel Adams, 1779

“The Constitution is the guide which I will never abandon.” --George Washington

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” --Abraham Lincoln

I wanted to include this one because it's on the other end of the list spectrum... not objectionable per say, but just absurd and if anything just continues to contribute to the low idea about the tea party.

I mean, this is a thing? They need to state this in their platform? How fucking absurd is this, anyway? The idea that they actually completely fucking misunderstand the founders intent with the constitution is hilarious enough, though, without even needing to evaluate further .

You see, it's not actually about the constitution. Neither is their bullshit about the free markets actually being about the free market. What it's about is branding. By draping themselves in the American flag and pretending to hold a monopoly on what the founders true "intent" was (even though I've literally never seen a single case of a member of the tea party accurately describing what a founding father thought on any particular subject) is a way of disarming your rivals. It says "see, we're the patriotic ones, after all our groups tea party name has the word Patriot on it!" It says "I told you our movement has the American spirit at heart, I wear a tricorne and hold copies of the Bill of Rights!"

This gives their message an underlying core value that many Americans can associate with and, by extension, be brainwashed by.

Nothing the tea party does is in any way sound. All political groups like this are seriously suspect, but I don't engage in false equivalencies - the tea party is by one of the worst.
 
I...kind of was thinking about writing a point by point takedown of the platform like that, but Amir0x said it far better than I could have.
 
I love how conservative defense force in every GAF thread boils down to "don't judge conservatives by our crazy ass representatives, who we vote for and support!"
 
I love how conservative defense force in every GAF thread boils down to "don't judge conservatives by our crazy ass representatives, who we vote for and support!"

But all conservatives are granted immunity by the proposed reasonable ones who don't get into office or influence policy, you see.
 
I love how conservative defense force in every GAF thread boils down to "don't judge conservatives by our crazy ass representatives, who we vote for and support!"

The same could be said of religion topics. The no true scotsman fallacy is very useful when people of the group you choose to be in do or say crazy shit
 
Okay lets step back here for a second. How does this make sense to ANYONE? How can they SERIOUSLY say this stuff?

It's not even a joke anymore, this is just fucking stupid.
 
Okay lets step back here for a second. How does this make sense to ANYONE? How can they SERIOUSLY say this stuff?

It's not even a joke anymore, this is just fucking stupid.

If you believe in your heart of hearts that life begins at conception and that destroying anything after that is murder, then this follows logically.
 
Okay lets step back here for a second. How does this make sense to ANYONE? How can they SERIOUSLY say this stuff?.

it makes perfect sense if you come at the situation with their set of assumptions, especially the assumption that abortion is morally equal to murder.
 
Just have that rape baby you stupid whores.

/privileged asshole

They can couch it in all the rhetoric they want, that's what I hear every time.
 
If you believe in your heart of hearts that life begins at conception and that destroying anything after that is murder, then this follows logically.

I can understand that line of thinking for a regular abortion.

But I can't for a rape pregnancy...there is no sympathy for the victim at all. It's even worse that this BS is coming from a woman.
 
I can understand that line of thinking for a regular abortion.

But I can't for a rape pregnancy...there is no sympathy for the victim at all. It's even worse that it this BS is coming from a woman.

I dunno, why would it be ok to murder someone just because you were raped?
 
I dunno, why would it be ok to murder someone just because you were raped?

Well that view is more consistent with the crowd blaming women for having sex. So they might have some compassion for the rape victim. Don't punish her with a kid, what did she do wrong?

Then the other view is "all embryos must go to term no compromises."

Both disgust me and I don't care to pretend either one is more logical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom