PDA

View Full Version : Warning: Oklahoma wants to put up anti-abortion signs in all public restrooms



Bo-4
12-13-2016, 12:57 PM
But they're not gonna pay for it --> Busy Busy! :rolleyes:

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Oklahoma plans to force hospitals, nursing homes, restaurants and public schools to post signs inside public restrooms directing pregnant women where to receive services as part of an effort to reduce abortions in the state.

The State Board of Health will consider regulations for the signs on Tuesday. Businesses and other organizations will have to pay an estimated $2.3 million to put up the signs because the Legislature didn't approve any money for them.

https://apnews.com/c76e852b4ec948f7be4ccf9eda02a8a1/Oklahoma-may-require-restroom-signs-in-anti-abortion-effort?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

Private Pickle
12-13-2016, 12:58 PM
But they're not gonna pay for it --> Busy Busy! :rolleyes:

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Oklahoma plans to force hospitals, nursing homes, restaurants and public schools to post signs inside public restrooms directing pregnant women where to receive services as part of an effort to reduce abortions in the state.

The State Board of Health will consider regulations for the signs on Tuesday. Businesses and other organizations will have to pay an estimated $2.3 million to put up the signs because the Legislature didn't approve any money for them.

https://apnews.com/c76e852b4ec948f7be4ccf9eda02a8a1/Oklahoma-may-require-restroom-signs-in-anti-abortion-effort?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

Again...you're now the champion of businesses and organizations? It just doesn't seem to be genuine now does it?

Cigar
12-13-2016, 01:04 PM
Stuck on Stupid :laugh:

They just can't get their heads out of Women's .... you know what?

Who about doing some Governing?

Cletus
12-13-2016, 01:05 PM
But they're not gonna pay for it --> Busy Busy! :rolleyes:

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Oklahoma plans to force hospitals, nursing homes, restaurants and public schools to post signs inside public restrooms directing pregnant women where to receive services as part of an effort to reduce abortions in the state.

The State Board of Health will consider regulations for the signs on Tuesday. Businesses and other organizations will have to pay an estimated $2.3 million to put up the signs because the Legislature didn't approve any money for them.

https://apnews.com/c76e852b4ec948f7be4ccf9eda02a8a1/Oklahoma-may-require-restroom-signs-in-anti-abortion-effort?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

If you owned a business, you would know that businesses are required to post a number of signs and notices regarding everything from rules regarding polygraph examinations to fair labor practices to accident reporting and a whole plethora of other nonsense, none of which are paid for by government. In fact, there are companies out there that specialize in producing and selling all those mandated compliance posters and notices.

I don't think it is right, but this Oklahoma thing is by no means unique. It is in fact, pretty much the norm.

Bo-4
12-13-2016, 01:12 PM
Again...you're now the champion of businesses and organizations? It just doesn't seem to be genuine now does it?

If i was a restaurant owner - I'd be pissed and wouldn't spend a nickel for their stupid abortion sign.

Then we'd see how that goes for 'em in court.

F 'em - tards

Bo-4
12-13-2016, 01:13 PM
If you owned a business, you would know that businesses are required to post a number of signs and notices regarding everything from rules regarding polygraph examinations to fair labor practices to accident reporting and a whole plethora of other nonsense, none of which are paid for by government. In fact, there are companies out there that specialize in producing and selling all those mandated compliance posters and notices.

I don't think it is right, but this Oklahoma thing is by no means unique. It is in fact, pretty much the norm.

Perhaps you could name one other state requiring anti-abortion signs in restrooms.

Jesus

Cigar
12-13-2016, 01:14 PM
If you owned a business, you would know that businesses are required to post a number of signs and notices regarding everything from rules regarding polygraph examinations to fair labor practices to accident reporting and a whole plethora of other nonsense, none of which are paid for by government. In fact, there are companies out there that specialize in producing and selling all those mandated compliance posters and notices.

I don't think it is right, but this Oklahoma thing is by no means unique. It is in fact, pretty much the norm.

Really Dude ... you're stretching :laugh:

Cletus
12-13-2016, 01:16 PM
If i was a restaurant owner - I'd be pissed and wouldn't spend a nickel their stupid sign.

Then we'd see how that goes for 'em in court.

F 'em - tards

You would lose. You would end up paying whatever fine the state orders you to pay and you would hang the signs as directed.

Private Pickle
12-13-2016, 01:17 PM
If i was a restaurant owner - I'd be pissed and wouldn't spend a nickel their stupid sign.

Then we'd see how that goes for 'em in court.

F 'em - tards
Now you know how most Conservatives feel about taxes in general...

Bo-4
12-13-2016, 01:19 PM
You would lose. You would end up paying whatever fine the state orders you to pay and you would hang the signs as directed.

I highly doubt that. And if Texas courts ruled against me i'd take it a rung higher.

They can make me hang signs about washing hands and such - simple public safety.

They have no right to impose their views about abortion on me or my customers.

nic34
12-13-2016, 01:21 PM
Unfunded mandates?

Cletus
12-13-2016, 01:21 PM
I highly doubt that. And if Texas courts ruled against me i'd take it a rung higher.

They can make me hang signs about washing hands and such - simple public safety.

They have no right to impose their views about abortion on me or my customers.

Go open a business in Oklahoma and we will see who is right. :grin:

Bo-4
12-13-2016, 01:23 PM
Go open a business in Oklahoma and we will see who is right. :grin:

I'll pass on that - Sorry, but this isn't going to go anywhere - even if the state pays.

What next - Are they going to force business to post Biblical messages? :rollseyes:

Cletus
12-13-2016, 01:34 PM
I'll pass on that - Sorry, but this isn't going to go anywhere - even if the state pays.

What next - Are they going to force business to post Biblical messages? :rollseyes:

Hysterical much?

This is what the signs will say.

Under the law, the signs would state: "There are many public and private agencies willing and able to help you carry your child to term and assist you and your child after your child is born, whether you choose to keep your child or to place him or her for adoption. The State of Oklahoma strongly urges you to contact them if you are pregnant." The signs would also include a link to the Health Department's website.

Now, it may just be me, but I don't see a whole lot of forcing any kind of views on anyone in that statement. Tell me what you find offensive about it.

hanger4
12-13-2016, 01:39 PM
Although I disagree with a mandate without some sort of recompense I see absolutely nothing ANTI in the verbiage.

"There are many public and private agencies willing and able to help you carry your child to term and assist you and your child after your child is born, whether you choose to keep your child or to place him or her for adoption. The State of Oklahoma strongly urges you to contact them if you are pregnant."

Bo-4
12-13-2016, 01:45 PM
Hysterical much?

This is what the signs will say.

Under the law, the signs would state: "There are many public and private agencies willing and able to help you carry your child to term and assist you and your child after your child is born, whether you choose to keep your child or to place him or her for adoption. The State of Oklahoma strongly urges you to contact them if you are pregnant." The signs would also include a link to the Health Department's website.

Now, it may just be me, but I don't see a whole lot of forcing any kind of views on anyone in that statement. Tell me what you find offensive about it.

Any mandate that tells women what to do with their constitutionally and SCOTUS protected reproductive rights should be offensive to everyone.

The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution guarantees individuals the right to personal autonomy, which means that a person's decisions regarding his or her personal life are none of the government's business. That right, which is part of the right to privacy, encompasses decisions about parenthood, including a woman's right to decide for herself whether to complete or terminate a pregnancy, as well as the right to use contraception, freedom from forced sterilization and freedom from employment discrimination based on childbearing capacity.

As early as 1923, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution protects personal decisions regarding marriage and the family from governmental intrusion. In 1965, the Court ruled that a state cannot prohibit a married couple from practicing contraception. In 1972, it extended the right to use birth control to all people, married or single. And in its 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, the Court held that the Constitution's protections of privacy as a fundamental right encompass a woman's decision to have an abortion.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con17.htm

decedent
12-13-2016, 01:46 PM
This is about money. They were clogging the pipes.

hanger4
12-13-2016, 01:49 PM
Any mandate that tells women what to do with their constitutionally and SCOTUS protected reproductive rights should be offensive to everyone.

The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution guarantees individuals the right to personal autonomy, which means that a person's decisions regarding his or her personal life are none of the government's business. That right, which is part of the right to privacy, encompasses decisions about parenthood, including a woman's right to decide for herself whether to complete or terminate a pregnancy, as well as the right to use contraception, freedom from forced sterilization and freedom from employment discrimination based on childbearing capacity.

As early as 1923, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution protects personal decisions regarding marriage and the family from governmental intrusion. In 1965, the Court ruled that a state cannot prohibit a married couple from practicing contraception. In 1972, it extended the right to use birth control to all people, married or single. And in its 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, the Court held that the Constitution's protections of privacy as a fundamental right encompass a woman's decision to have an abortion.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con17.htm

The verbiage mandates nor tells the woman what to do. It simply informs of other options.

Beevee
12-13-2016, 01:57 PM
Hysterical much?

This is what the signs will say.

Under the law, the signs would state: "There are many public and private agencies willing and able to help you carry your child to term and assist you and your child after your child is born, whether you choose to keep your child or to place him or her for adoption. The State of Oklahoma strongly urges you to contact them if you are pregnant." The signs would also include a link to the Health Department's website.

Now, it may just be me, but I don't see a whole lot of forcing any kind of views on anyone in that statement. Tell me what you find offensive about it.

Then if you find nothing wrong with it, you wouldn't object to a sign alongside of it pointing out the doctors and clinics prepared to offer abortions in The State of Oklahoma?

Bo-4
12-13-2016, 02:00 PM
The verbiage mandates nor tells the woman what to do. It simply informs of other options.

Beevee just nailed it:

Then if you find nothing wrong with it, you wouldn't object to a sign alongside of it pointing out the doctors and clinics prepared to offer abortions in The State of Oklahoma?

Bo-4
12-13-2016, 02:04 PM
Then if you find nothing wrong with it, you wouldn't object to a sign alongside of it pointing out the doctors and clinics prepared to offer abortions in The State of Oklahoma?

And out come the crickets ;-)

http://www.vomzi.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/cute-crickets-gif-254.gif

hanger4
12-13-2016, 02:29 PM
Then if you find nothing wrong with it, you wouldn't object to a sign alongside of it pointing out the doctors and clinics prepared to offer abortions in The State of Oklahoma?

I find the signage mandate wrong to start with as previously stated. Also find Bo-4's anti-abortion assertion wrong as previously stated.

hanger4
12-13-2016, 02:30 PM
And out come the crickets ;-)

http://www.vomzi.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/cute-crickets-gif-254.gif

As usual you speak before you think.

Cletus
12-13-2016, 02:35 PM
Any mandate that tells women what to do with their constitutionally and SCOTUS protected reproductive rights should be offensive to everyone.

Feel free to point what part of that statement tells women what to do with their "reproductive rights".

Before you do it, though, breathe into a paper bag for a while. It will help with the hyperventilating you are doing.

Cletus
12-13-2016, 02:40 PM
Then if you find nothing wrong with it, you wouldn't object to a sign alongside of it pointing out the doctors and clinics prepared to offer abortions in The State of Oklahoma?

I can't quite condone killing for convenience. The only thing I find wrong with that sign is the same thing I find wrong with the dozen or so other signs employers are forced to post, most of which are mandated by the Feds... that they are mandated, at all.

FindersKeepers
12-13-2016, 02:53 PM
Beevee just nailed it:

Then if you find nothing wrong with it, you wouldn't object to a sign alongside of it pointing out the doctors and clinics prepared to offer abortions in The State of Oklahoma?


I wouldn't mind either sign, both are just informational, after all. No coercion.

If a young woman is in trouble and wants to abort, odds are, she can get the info from the school nurse. It's tougher to find assistance to keep the baby, however, so the first sign might actually offer the girl a chance to have a baby, and keep it, or give it up for adoption -- if that's what she really wants to do.

No harm.
No foul.

It's still the young woman's choice after all.

Captain Obvious
12-13-2016, 03:14 PM
"No coat hanger zones"

Common Sense
12-13-2016, 03:19 PM
Oooooklahoma where the wind comes whistling through their ears....

Beevee
12-13-2016, 03:25 PM
I wouldn't mind either sign, both are just informational, after all. No coercion.

If a young woman is in trouble and wants to abort, odds are, she can get the info from the school nurse. It's tougher to find assistance to keep the baby, however, so the first sign might actually offer the girl a chance to have a baby, and keep it, or give it up for adoption -- if that's what she really wants to do.

No harm.
No foul.

It's still the young woman's choice after all.

If it was as you claim, the same sign would offer an alternative. It doesn't.

FindersKeepers
12-13-2016, 04:17 PM
If it was as you claim, the same sign would offer an alternative. It doesn't.
I thought we were talking about putting both signs side-by-side.

There's your alternative.

Standing Wolf
12-13-2016, 05:29 PM
But they're not gonna pay for it --> Busy Busy! :rolleyes:

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Oklahoma plans to force hospitals, nursing homes, restaurants and public schools to post signs inside public restrooms directing pregnant women where to receive services as part of an effort to reduce abortions in the state.

The State Board of Health will consider regulations for the signs on Tuesday. Businesses and other organizations will have to pay an estimated $2.3 million to put up the signs because the Legislature didn't approve any money for them.

https://apnews.com/c76e852b4ec948f7be4ccf9eda02a8a1/Oklahoma-may-require-restroom-signs-in-anti-abortion-effort?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

What, no compulsory signs in private homes...yet?

Small government in action.

Texas' new state motto: "Hey, we're not Oklahoma!"

del
12-13-2016, 05:32 PM
government small enough to fit in your vagina

awesome conservative values

Standing Wolf
12-13-2016, 05:33 PM
Hysterical much?

This is what the signs will say.

Under the law, the signs would state: "There are many public and private agencies willing and able to help you carry your child to term and assist you and your child after your child is born, whether you choose to keep your child or to place him or her for adoption. The State of Oklahoma strongly urges you to contact them if you are pregnant." The signs would also include a link to the Health Department's website.

Now, it may just be me, but I don't see a whole lot of forcing any kind of views on anyone in that statement. Tell me what you find offensive about it.

Would you classify something like this as "social engineering"? If not - why not?

Beevee
12-13-2016, 05:33 PM
I thought we were talking about putting both signs side-by-side. There's your alternative.But one sign would indicate a lack of bias.

FindersKeepers
12-13-2016, 06:22 PM
But one sign would indicate a lack of bias.

Both signs -- by themselves -- show bias. Not huge bias. Not bias that will harm anyone. But, granted, bias. I really don't care if either or both of them are posted, because, frankly -- I just don't care. But, the question was asked if it would be okay if the second sign was posted by the first and my answer is ...yes.

I'm pro choice and that means I support a female's right to choose the best course of action for her. I do believe, however, because I worked with unwed teen mothers in the past, that many -- if given the opportunity -- would choose to have their babies rather than abort. If posting a sign gives a young woman the information she needs to get help so she can have her baby -- why would you oppose that? Why would anyone oppose that? It's not like anyone's taking away her choice -- just letting her know that she has more than one choice.

Beevee
12-13-2016, 06:25 PM
I don't oppose it.

resister
12-13-2016, 06:28 PM
If i was a restaurant owner - I'd be pissed and wouldn't spend a nickel for their stupid abortion sign.

Then we'd see how that goes for 'em in court.

F 'em - tardsIf, but you ain't , good theoretical luck with that...LOL...:kiss:

resister
12-13-2016, 06:31 PM
government small enough to fit in your vagina

awesome conservative valuesTrolls small enough to fit in an emu's beak, awesome liberal values

Safety
12-13-2016, 06:36 PM
Again...you're now the champion of businesses and organizations? It just doesn't seem to be genuine now does it?

Appealing to hypocrisy?

Safety
12-13-2016, 06:38 PM
Unfunded mandates?

It's only bad when Obama does it.

Grizz
12-13-2016, 06:39 PM
I highly doubt that. And if Texas courts ruled against me i'd take it a rung higher.

They can make me hang signs about washing hands and such - simple public safety.

They have no right to impose their views about abortion on me or my customers.

Priceless leftwing hypocrisy :)
....and yet you have no trouble making a Christian Business owner sell a cake with an Adam and Steve on top.

Safety
12-13-2016, 06:40 PM
Would you classify something like this as "social engineering"? If not - why not?

It's only social engineering when it pertains to something they don't like.

Cletus
12-13-2016, 06:49 PM
Would you classify something like this as "social engineering"? If not - why not?

All it is saying is that if you are pregnant and don't want the child, help is available to you. What is objectionable about that to you?

How many times have you seen on this very forum, the "It's okay to just kill your kid" crowd talk about how "heart wrenching" and "traumatic" abortion is the survivor? (Of course they never mention the victim). This tells women there are alternatives to that trauma. It is not saying abortion is right or wrong. It is not passing judgment. All it is saying that there is help available.

Every year, I have to post signs about EEO (in English and Spanish) and a whole herd of other federal and state compliance requirements. They are considered "informational", so my employees can make well informed decisions about various issues.

How is this any different? Would you prefer they NOT know there are options and help is available?

hanger4
12-13-2016, 06:56 PM
Would you classify something like this as "social engineering"? If not - why not?

The State mandating the signs ?? or the signs themselves ??

Bo-4
12-13-2016, 07:02 PM
Priceless leftwing hypocrisy :)
....and yet you have no trouble making a Christian Business owner sell a cake with an Adam and Steve on top.

Yes, that IS a problem.

The fact that you don't see it as such attempt a seriously lame analogy is false equivalency X1000

Do continue however, you're endlessly entertaining.. ;)

Grizz
12-13-2016, 07:05 PM
Yes, that IS a problem.

The fact that you don't see it as such attempt a seriously lame analogy is false equivalency X1000

Do continue however, you're endlessly entertaining.. ;)
Your lack of any real intelligence is a bit entertaining also.....your desire to force your beliefs on everyone else is duly noted.

Common Sense
12-13-2016, 07:06 PM
Lol...

Bo-4
12-13-2016, 07:06 PM
Oooooklahoma where the wind comes whistling through their ears....

Sure looks sweet to my honey-lamb and I! ;-)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKhHjbtjzCY

Private Pickle
12-13-2016, 07:35 PM
Appealing to hypocrisy?
No... I simply asked a question. Study up:

Tu quoque (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy, I'm rubber and you're glue) – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position.[94] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#cite_note-FOOTNOTEPirie2006164-94)

Safety
12-13-2016, 07:45 PM
No... I simply asked a question. Study up:

Tu quoque (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy, I'm rubber and you're glue) – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position.[94] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#cite_note-FOOTNOTEPirie2006164-94)

Oh, no need to study up, for you asked the question if Bo-4 was "now you're now the champion of businesses and organizations? It just doesn't seem to be genuine now does it?"

I mean, it's just like the textbook example given on wiki....


An example would be

Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong?

So, what exactly do I need to "study up" for, when I correctly called you appealing to hypocrisy?

Private Pickle
12-13-2016, 07:52 PM
Oh, no need to study up, for you asked the question if Bo-4 was "now you're now the champion of businesses and organizations? It just doesn't seem to be genuine now does it?"

I mean, it's just like the textbook example given on wiki....



So, what exactly do I need to "study up" for, when I correctly called you appealing to hypocrisy?

Perhaps study up on the answer? Oh wait...no answer...huh...

All I did was ask an obvious question and certainly didn't call him specifically on anything. If you want to classify that as a logical fallacy it would mean that there is no applicable answer to the question I asked. Is that what you're saying?

del
12-13-2016, 07:54 PM
if backpedaling was an olympic sport...

Safety
12-13-2016, 07:56 PM
Perhaps study up on the answer? Oh wait...no answer...huh...

All I did was ask an obvious question and certainly didn't call him specifically on anything. If you want to classify that as a logical fallacy it would mean that there is no applicable answer to the question I asked. Is that what you're saying?

I could honestly care less what you do, I just wanted to give back some of that medicine that you and several others like to with me. Maybe now you'll just sit quietly and not try to call me out on it...or not and then complain that I am focusing on you.

del
12-13-2016, 07:56 PM
don't hold your breath

Safety
12-13-2016, 07:57 PM
if backpedaling was an olympic sport...


Natural talent.

Private Pickle
12-13-2016, 07:58 PM
I could honestly care less what you do, I just wanted to give back some of that medicine that you and several others like to with me. Maybe now you'll just sit quietly and not try to call me out on it...or not and then complain that I am focusing on you.

Oh you care. Otherwise you wouldn't have responded or wanted to give me the "medicine" you speak of.

By the way... I'm right and you're wrong so I am quite content on continuing to call you out on your logical fallacies and you are welcome to try and pin me down on those same fallacies. Just don't be surprised when you come up short...like in this case...

Private Pickle
12-13-2016, 07:59 PM
don't hold your breath
For you to stop trolling? Gave that up awhile ago. But I do enjoy you being banned for a few days here and there. Although you're like HIV and will always be there, at least there is a medication for you now...

Safety
12-13-2016, 08:01 PM
Oh you care. Otherwise you wouldn't have responded or wanted to give me the "medicine" you speak of.

By the way... I'm right and you're wrong so I am quite content on continuing to call you out on your logical fallacies and you are welcome to try and pin me down on those same fallacies. Just don't be surprised when you come up short...like in this case...

If your contention that you're right and I'm wrong is on the same level as your perception that I came up short in calling out your tu quoque, then I'm not the one that needs "studying up".

Safety
12-13-2016, 08:02 PM
For you to stop trolling? Gave that up awhile ago. But I do enjoy you being banned for a few days here and there. Although you're like HIV and will always be there, at least there is a medication for you now...


Nothing like complaining about someone focusing you you, to only turn around and ad homm another member....

Private Pickle
12-13-2016, 08:04 PM
If your contention that you're right and I'm wrong is on the same level as your perception that I came up short in calling out your tu quoque, then I'm not the one that needs "studying up".
You had no idea that what you were trying to portray was a tu quoque until I pointed it out to you but obviously that is just semantics. Like I said...look for the answer or perhaps even take a stab at the answer yourself. Until then I'll just write this off as a failed attempt by you to be intelligent. Enjoy.

Private Pickle
12-13-2016, 08:06 PM
Nothing like complaining about someone focusing you you, to only turn around and ad homm another member....

One Ad Homm {sic} deserves another no? You were a moderator on this board (kinda) and you allowed this type of stuff to go on while thanking the offenders. Look in the mirror once in awhile. From time to time you may not see an entitled black man but rather a part of the problem. Enjoy.

Safety
12-13-2016, 08:08 PM
You had no idea that what you were trying to portray was a tu quoque until I pointed it out to you but obviously that is just semantics. Like I said...look for the answer or perhaps even take a stab at the answer yourself. Until then I'll just write this off as a failed attempt by you to be intelligent. Enjoy.

You mean I had no idea that an appeal to hypocrisy and a tu quoque was the same thing? I have no idea what you are partaking in this evening, but maybe you should return after you have finished. Write off anything you wish to, that does not change the events that unfolded in this thread. Want to give it a third shot?

Safety
12-13-2016, 08:10 PM
One Ad Homm {sic} deserves another no? You were a moderator on this board (kinda) and you allowed this type of stuff to go on while thanking the offenders. Look in the mirror once in awhile. From time to time you may not see an entitled black man but rather a part of the problem. Enjoy.


So now you've decided to pull all the stops and play the mod card and the race card? I'm pretty sure the board can see how desperate a person has to be in order to resort to insults. I would say stop while you're ahead, but that was never a position you held.

Private Pickle
12-13-2016, 08:13 PM
You mean I had no idea that an appeal to hypocrisy and a tu quoque was the same thing? I have no idea what you are partaking in this evening, but maybe you should return after you have finished. Write off anything you wish to, that does not change the events that unfolded in this thread. Want to give it a third shot?
Correct. You had no idea.

By the way: Ad Hom:

Argumentum ad hominem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem) – the claim that a position is incorrect or an argument invalid because of something not about the position but about the person taking it.

You made it about me...not about my argument. Enjoy.

resister
12-13-2016, 08:14 PM
So now you've decided to pull all the stops and play the mod card and the race card? I'm pretty sure the board can see how desperate a person has to be in order to resort to insults. I would say stop while you're ahead, but that was never a position you held.
Say's the insulter and race card chucker

Safety
12-13-2016, 08:16 PM
Correct. You had no idea.

By the way: Ad Hom:

Argumentum ad hominem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem) – the claim that a position is incorrect or an argument invalid because of something not about the position but about the person taking it.

You made it about me...not about my argument. Enjoy.

Nope, I made it about your fallacy you brought into the thread. After the point you tried to deflect from it and resorted to lashing out in defense, then it became about you, just like you wanted it to be.

Safety
12-13-2016, 08:17 PM
Say's the insulter and race card chucker

Free time is almost over.

Private Pickle
12-13-2016, 08:19 PM
So now you've decided to pull all the stops and play the mod card and the race card? I'm pretty sure the board can see how desperate a person has to be in order to resort to insults. I would say stop while you're ahead, but that was never a position you held.

I insulted you? Obviously my post rubbed you the wrong way so I suppose you might have been offended. That wasn't my intention. I was just trying to show you how you're stretching to make a point where none exists. I'm sorry if I've uncovered a personal issue within you. It wasn't my intention but perhaps you can grow from this event.
And you're not a mod now for a reason. Perhaps that reason is that you didn't moderate the forum rather spent your time trolling and protecting the trolls everyone on this forum knows about. I apologize if that stings. Perhaps some introspection is in order. Either way you're certainly not in a position now or even when you were a mod to tell a member to stop giving opinions you disagree with.

Perhaps as a VIP you can change the rules to suit the obvious bias you displayed as a mod. Good luck with that.

Bethere
12-13-2016, 08:25 PM
One Ad Homm {sic} deserves another no? You were a moderator on this board (kinda) and you allowed this type of stuff to go on while thanking the offenders. Look in the mirror once in awhile. From time to time you may not see an entitled black man but rather a part of the problem. Enjoy.

Rule 9, kinda.

Good times!

Private Pickle
12-13-2016, 08:25 PM
Nope, I made it about your fallacy you brought into the thread. After the point you tried to deflect from it and resorted to lashing out in defense, then it became about you, just like you wanted it to be.

While that is an interesting sentiment it doesn't defer from the fact that you had no idea. As far as deflecting I am assuming you mean that I require an answer to the question I posed. To me and any discernable human being in existence, my question still stands yet no one has answered it. Until that time you're welcome to continue you're failed attempt at recognizing a logical fallacy but you will be lacking until that answer has been given.
I'll stand by for it but it's not like I'm gonna hold my breath.

Private Pickle
12-13-2016, 08:28 PM
Rule 9, kinda.

Good times!

Rule 9: 9. Do not question moderation on the public forum. If you have a question regarding moderation, please use the private message function to contact the moderator of your choice to discuss the matter. Moderator decisions require a consensus whenever possible, and are often based on information that is not publicly available to members. If you have an issue with a specific moderator, another moderator is available to hear your concerns.


So are you questioning moderation by not moderating me?

Bethere
12-13-2016, 08:30 PM
Rule 9: 9. Do not question moderation on the public forum. If you have a question regarding moderation, please use the private message function to contact the moderator of your choice to discuss the matter. Moderator decisions require a consensus whenever possible, and are often based on information that is not publicly available to members. If you have an issue with a specific moderator, another moderator is available to hear your concerns.


So are you questioning moderation by not moderating me?

No, I am laughing at your folly.

Private Pickle
12-13-2016, 08:39 PM
No, I am laughing at your folly.

Not as hard as I'm laughing at your stretches and reaches. It's been bliss watching knee jerk liberals crying over the loss...needing therapy...and ultimately completely hopeless for at least the next two years...most likely the next 8. It just gives me a giddy/I'm laughing non-stop at the panic I see within both parties. Especially the libs... Watching them think that they are not going to be a product of what most liberal leaders like Stalin, Mao, Polpot and their ideals of executing those that disagree with them just tickles me to death! Although figuratively and not (despite your highest aspirations) literally.

Bethere
12-13-2016, 08:42 PM
Not as hard as I'm laughing at your stretches and reaches. It's been bliss watching knee jerk liberals crying over the loss...needing therapy...and ultimately completely hopeless for at least the next two years...most likely the next 8. It just gives me a giddy/I'm laughing non-stop at the panic I see within both parties. Especially the libs... Watching them think that they are not going to be a product of what most liberal leaders like Stalin, Mao, Polpot and their ideals of executing those that disagree with them just tickles me to death! Although figuratively and not (despite your highest aspirations) literally.

Lol.

Safety
12-13-2016, 08:56 PM
I insulted you? Obviously my post rubbed you the wrong way so I suppose you might have been offended. That wasn't my intention. I was just trying to show you how you're stretching to make a point where none exists. I'm sorry if I've uncovered a personal issue within you. It wasn't my intention but perhaps you can grow from this event.
And you're not a mod now for a reason. Perhaps that reason is that you didn't moderate the forum rather spent your time trolling and protecting the trolls everyone on this forum knows about. I apologize if that stings. Perhaps some introspection is in order. Either way you're certainly not in a position now or even when you were a mod to tell a member to stop giving opinions you disagree with.

Perhaps as a VIP you can change the rules to suit the obvious bias you displayed as a mod. Good luck with that.

Still can't see how your character inventory of me has no bearing on this discussion, can you. That is your problem, you get defensive and lash out, trying to cut down your target, instead of just manning up and admit you were wrong. My decision to leave the moderation team was based upon my personal time I had to give to the board and that's it. Instead of understanding that simple fact that would be common sense to most decent sentient beings, you instead try to make it about my biases. Yet, out of the handful of members here who have ever accused me of having "said bias", none have been able to show or quantify it in a post or thread. Maybe you can be the anointed one and provide proof of your claim.

See if you can back it up, or will you choose to continue to make baseless accusations that has been your go to persona lately.

del
12-13-2016, 08:57 PM
gimme $50 on the go to

Private Pickle
12-13-2016, 08:58 PM
Lol.

Yeah. That's what I thought.

Private Pickle
12-13-2016, 09:08 PM
Still can't see how your character inventory of me has no bearing on this discussion, can you. Was this a question?


That is your problem, you get defensive and lash out, trying to cut down your target, instead of just manning up and admit you were wrong. My decision to leave the moderation team was based upon my personal time I had to give to the board and that's it. Instead of understanding that simple fact that would be common sense to most decent sentient beings, you instead try to make it about my biases. Yet, out of the handful of members here who have ever accused me of having "said bias", none have been able to show or quantify it in a post or thread. Maybe you can be the anointed one and provide proof of your claim.


Well you haven't debated me on why I'm wrong... You've just assumed it because you believe it... I suppose that's "your problem". I'm sure "your" decision to leave the moderation team is you're own business. But let's face it...you never moderated anything... I simply can't remember a moderation act you made outside of perhaps defending the constant trolls to the rest of the moderators.

But the fact remains that you are extremely biased in both your opinions and your perspectives on different posters. Unlike some of the mods you let this affect your judgment. The most likely reason that no one has been able to "show or quantify" your moderation bias is simply because you really didn't moderate. You let people like Pete do that for you...who by the way got so sick of the status quo he left moderation and created his own site that more closely resembles a place where people are allowed to express their bias without trolling or insulting. Something you as a mod was never able to do. Don't blame me...that is simply fact.

The board would be turned upside down if I was a moderator. Because I would make it more like Pete's vision of what a board should be. Simply put the trolls would be gone and the purposeful and meaningful posters would remain. While I understand not wanting to drop 50% of this board's population, in my opinion, it would be like emptying the litter box. No one likes to do it but it has to be done.



See if you can back it up, or will you choose to continue to make baseless accusations that has been your go to persona lately.

Just did.

Dr. Who
12-13-2016, 09:31 PM
To every member talking about/attacking another member, stop immediately or more serious action will follow.

resister
12-13-2016, 09:38 PM
Not as hard as I'm laughing at your stretches and reaches. It's been bliss watching knee jerk liberals crying over the loss...needing therapy...and ultimately completely hopeless for at least the next two years...most likely the next 8. It just gives me a giddy/I'm laughing non-stop at the panic I see within both parties. Especially the libs... Watching them think that they are not going to be a product of what most liberal leaders like Stalin, Mao, Polpot and their ideals of executing those that disagree with them just tickles me to death! Although figuratively and not (despite your highest aspirations) literally.
I'm still laughing my ass off at the heartbroken flakes

resister
12-13-2016, 09:40 PM
Was this a question?



Well you haven't debated me on why I'm wrong... You've just assumed it because you believe it... I suppose that's "your problem". I'm sure "your" decision to leave the moderation team is you're own business. But let's face it...you never moderated anything... I simply can't remember a moderation act you made outside of perhaps defending the constant trolls to the rest of the moderators.

But the fact remains that you are extremely biased in both your opinions and your perspectives on different posters. Unlike some of the mods you let this affect your judgment. The most likely reason that no one has been able to "show or quantify" your moderation bias is simply because you really didn't moderate. You let people like Pete do that for you...who by the way got so sick of the status quo he left moderation and created his own site that more closely resembles a place where people are allowed to express their bias without trolling or insulting. Something you as a mod was never able to do. Don't blame me...that is simply fact.

The board would be turned upside down if I was a moderator. Because I would make it more like Pete's vision of what a board should be. Simply put the trolls would be gone and the purposeful and meaningful posters would remain. While I understand not wanting to drop 50% of this board's population, in my opinion, it would be like emptying the litter box. No one likes to do it but it has to be done.




Just did.
That stings like a bundle of yellajackets

Private Pickle
12-13-2016, 09:42 PM
To every member talking about/attacking another member, stop immediately or more serious action will follow.
This is extremely vague. I guess I'll just get the serious action before I know what exactly you're talking about.

Chris
12-13-2016, 10:00 PM
This is extremely vague. I guess I'll just get the serious action before I know what exactly you're talking about.



TBed, at least, for violating rule 9. But by way of explanation at least 4 of your were engaged in what used to be called a flame war, baiting and provoking and insulting each other.

Safety
12-13-2016, 10:43 PM
Was this a question?


It was a statement.



Well you haven't debated me on why I'm wrong... You've just assumed it because you believe it... I suppose that's "your problem". I'm sure "your" decision to leave the moderation team is you're own business. But let's face it...you never moderated anything... I simply can't remember a moderation act you made outside of perhaps defending the constant trolls to the rest of the moderators.

But the fact remains that you are extremely biased in both your opinions and your perspectives on different posters. Unlike some of the mods you let this affect your judgment. The most likely reason that no one has been able to "show or quantify" your moderation bias is simply because you really didn't moderate. You let people like Pete do that for you...who by the way got so sick of the status quo he left moderation and created his own site that more closely resembles a place where people are allowed to express their bias without trolling or insulting. Something you as a mod was never able to do. Don't blame me...that is simply fact.

The board would be turned upside down if I was a moderator. Because I would make it more like Pete's vision of what a board should be. Simply put the trolls would be gone and the purposeful and meaningful posters would remain. While I understand not wanting to drop 50% of this board's population, in my opinion, it would be like emptying the litter box. No one likes to do it but it has to be done.

Yes, everyone has an opinion about how they would handle the position, yet, that position was not afforded to them, so it is just another hypothetical "what/if". Plus, if you had actually held the position, you would know that the entire team "moderates", so it was not an individual based action. Furthermore, I don't think anyone is holding a gun to a member's head to force them to participate in a forum they don't like, so that's another point shot down.





Just did.

Didn't think you had anything but the usual baseless accusation. Nothing more than "I feel like you're being unfair to my ideology, therefore you have to be biased".

Standing Wolf
12-13-2016, 11:18 PM
All it is saying is that if you are pregnant and don't want the child, help is available to you. What is objectionable about that to you?

How many times have you seen on this very forum, the "It's okay to just kill your kid" crowd talk about how "heart wrenching" and "traumatic" abortion is the survivor? (Of course they never mention the victim). This tells women there are alternatives to that trauma. It is not saying abortion is right or wrong. It is not passing judgment. All it is saying that there is help available.

Every year, I have to post signs about EEO (in English and Spanish) and a whole herd of other federal and state compliance requirements. They are considered "informational", so my employees can make well informed decisions about various issues.

How is this any different? Would you prefer they NOT know there are options and help is available?

My workplace has the same signs, and probably more. They all have to do with the rights and rules that pertain to the employees of whatever company or agency or government office they are posted in - grievance procedures, who to report suspected violations of this right or rule to. Not a single one of them has anything to do with personal choices - reproductive, sexual or how long one should wait to go swimming after eating a meal. That's the difference.

Captain Obvious
12-13-2016, 11:20 PM
My workplace has the same signs, and probably more. They all have to do with the rights and rules that pertain to the employees of whatever company or agency or government office they are posted in - grievance procedures, who to report suspected violations of this right or rule to. Not a single one of them has anything to do with personal choices - reproductive, sexual or how long one should wait to go swimming after eating a meal. That's the difference.

Hooray for lawyers, feel safer now?

Cletus
12-13-2016, 11:30 PM
My workplace has the same signs, and probably more. They all have to do with the rights and rules that pertain to the employees of whatever company or agency or government office they are posted in - grievance procedures, who to report suspected violations of this right or rule to. Not a single one of them has anything to do with personal choices - reproductive, sexual or how long one should wait to go swimming after eating a meal. That's the difference.

That is a distinction without a difference. ALL of those signs have to do with personal choices. They are just choices regarding different issues. The text in that proposed notice makes no recommendations. It does nothing other than provide information, just as the others do. You are acting like they are saying "Do this or be condemned to eternal damnation!" They're not. They are saying "If you want help, here are some options" It would seem that any responsible person should be in favor of that.

del
12-13-2016, 11:31 PM
it's funny how the jackboot of government is okay if it's on somebody else's neck

gamewell45
12-13-2016, 11:42 PM
But they're not gonna pay for it --> Busy Busy! :rolleyes:

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Oklahoma plans to force hospitals, nursing homes, restaurants and public schools to post signs inside public restrooms directing pregnant women where to receive services as part of an effort to reduce abortions in the state.

The State Board of Health will consider regulations for the signs on Tuesday. Businesses and other organizations will have to pay an estimated $2.3 million to put up the signs because the Legislature didn't approve any money for them.

https://apnews.com/c76e852b4ec948f7be4ccf9eda02a8a1/Oklahoma-may-require-restroom-signs-in-anti-abortion-effort?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

In the beginning businesses will nail up the signs, they'll collect dust and that'll be it; furthermore, has the state allocated funding for enforcement as well? If the law is enacted, I suspect it will go the way of the old civil defense shelter signs eventually.

Captain Obvious
12-13-2016, 11:43 PM
it's funny how the jackboot of government is okay if it's on somebody else's neck

If it's your neck, I'm in

del
12-13-2016, 11:44 PM
If it's your neck, I'm in

imagine my shocked expression of disbelief

Captain Obvious
12-13-2016, 11:46 PM
imagine my shocked expression of disbelief
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/25/ef/c3/25efc33ec6c7cbf19041c4756e840929.jpg

Safety
12-13-2016, 11:48 PM
If you owned a business, you would know that businesses are required to post a number of signs and notices regarding everything from rules regarding polygraph examinations to fair labor practices to accident reporting and a whole plethora of other nonsense, none of which are paid for by government. In fact, there are companies out there that specialize in producing and selling all those mandated compliance posters and notices.

I don't think it is right, but this Oklahoma thing is by no means unique. It is in fact, pretty much the norm.

Um...those department of labor signs that show the minimum wage, fair labor practice, sexual harassment, etc., etc. are free from the DOL website.

donttread
12-14-2016, 06:03 AM
But they're not gonna pay for it --> Busy Busy! :rolleyes:

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Oklahoma plans to force hospitals, nursing homes, restaurants and public schools to post signs inside public restrooms directing pregnant women where to receive services as part of an effort to reduce abortions in the state.

The State Board of Health will consider regulations for the signs on Tuesday. Businesses and other organizations will have to pay an estimated $2.3 million to put up the signs because the Legislature didn't approve any money for them.

https://apnews.com/c76e852b4ec948f7be4ccf9eda02a8a1/Oklahoma-may-require-restroom-signs-in-anti-abortion-effort?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

The public sector should say "go abort yourself" to the state. Those dependent upon state funds will have to women up and take it. That's a trick from the lib playbook in the control freak race. Nice to see the socials cons ( probably banging their maid and on their 4th Martini of the night) want to promote what they feel to be "moral behavior".
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for reducing abortions and , thats's part of why they make condoms and BCP , but not via these strong arm government , control freak tactics. Showing women other options is a good idea too, but forcing the local diner to put up signs completely unrelated to their business is Bullshit!

Standing Wolf
12-14-2016, 08:23 AM
That is a distinction without a difference. ALL of those signs have to do with personal choices. They are just choices regarding different issues. The text in that proposed notice makes no recommendations. It does nothing other than provide information, just as the others do. You are acting like they are saying "Do this or be condemned to eternal damnation!" They're not. They are saying "If you want help, here are some options" It would seem that any responsible person should be in favor of that.

In the past, you have frequently asked (paraphrasing), "Where does the State get the power and authority to do that?" Well...where does the State get the power and authority to advertise, publicize and push what is clearly a religion-based agenda vis-à-vis pregnancy on the citizenry, and make business owners pay for it?

All of those posters and notices that you, as a business owner and employer, are required to post now deal with employment law and workers' rights; of course there's a difference between that and this. This proposed signage is an attempt to influence the off-work personal choices and behavior of citizens in a way that conforms to the personal beliefs of a group of lawmakers and has nothing whatsoever to do with being a worker, a customer or a patient.

What if the New Mexico state legislature decided that they really needed to get a message out to the citizenry regarding the dangers of owning a pitbull, or the health benefits to be derived from peeing sitting down, or breastfeeding your infant, or they felt that it would be a good thing if every business just posted a map showing the locations of all the churches in the area...and they were requiring that you pay for the signage and they'd fine you heavily if you failed to comply? Good with that, too?

Crepitus
12-14-2016, 08:30 AM
If you owned a business, you would know that businesses are required to post a number of signs and notices regarding everything from rules regarding polygraph examinations to fair labor practices to accident reporting and a whole plethora of other nonsense, none of which are paid for by government. In fact, there are companies out there that specialize in producing and selling all those mandated compliance posters and notices.

I don't think it is right, but this Oklahoma thing is by no means unique. It is in fact, pretty much the norm.

One big difference: The rest of the signs pertain to either all businesses or the specific business you are in, not the states inability to keep their collective head out of women's "you know" as cigar said.

hanger4
12-14-2016, 08:32 AM
In the past, you have frequently asked (paraphrasing), "Where does the State get the power and authority to do that?" Well...where does the State get the power and authority to advertise, publicize and push what is clearly a religion-based agenda vis-à-vis pregnancy on the citizenry, and make business owners pay for it?

All of those posters and notices that you, as a business owner and employer, are required to post now deal with employment law and workers' rights; of course there's a difference between that and this. This proposed signage is an attempt to influence the off-work personal choices and behavior of citizens in a way that conforms to the personal beliefs of a group of lawmakers and has nothing whatsoever to do with being a worker, a customer or a patient.

What if the New Mexico state legislature decided that they really needed to get a message out to the citizenry regarding the dangers of owning a pitbull, or the health benefits to be derived from peeing sitting down, or breastfeeding your infant, or they felt that it would be a good thing if every business just posted a map showing the locations of all the churches in the area...and they were requiring that you pay for the signage and they'd fine you heavily if you failed to comply? Good with that, too?

"where does the State get the power and authority to advertise, publicize and push what is clearly a religion-based agenda"

You're more than welcome to show the faith based and or religious connotations in the verbage.

"There are many public and private agencies willing and able to help you carry your child to term and assist you and your child after your child is born, whether you choose to keep your child or to place him or her for adoption. The State of Oklahoma strongly urges you to contact them if you are pregnant."

hanger4
12-14-2016, 08:40 AM
One big difference: The rest of the signs pertain to either all businesses or the specific business you are in, not the states inability to keep their collective head out of women's "you know" as cigar said.

The state is in nothing. Of course you're more than welcome to read the signs verbage and explain yourself.

Crepitus
12-14-2016, 08:43 AM
The state is in nothing. Of course you're more than welcome to read the signs verbage and explain yourself.

I read it, and you are wrong.

Now explain how this sign would be related to the business as the other mandated signs are please.

hanger4
12-14-2016, 09:45 AM
I read it, and you are wrong.

Now explain how this sign would be related to the business as the other mandated signs are please.

Just because you say so means nothing. I asked for your explanation how the sign giving options was the states collective head in the women's "you know".

Have aready disagreed with the state's mandated sign law.

Tahuyaman
12-14-2016, 10:27 AM
L
But they're not gonna pay for it --> Busy Busy! :rolleyes:

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Oklahoma plans to force hospitals, nursing homes, restaurants and public schools to post signs inside public restrooms directing pregnant women where to receive services as part of an effort to reduce abortions in the state.

The State Board of Health will consider regulations for the signs on Tuesday. Businesses and other organizations will have to pay an estimated $2.3 million to put up the signs because the Legislature didn't approve any money for them.

https://apnews.com/c76e852b4ec948f7be4ccf9eda02a8a1/Oklahoma-may-require-restroom-signs-in-anti-abortion-effort?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

What's the problem?

Crepitus
12-14-2016, 10:34 AM
Just because you say so means nothing. I asked for your explanation how the sign giving options was the states collective head in the women's "you know".

Have aready disagreed with the state's mandated sign law.

Only gives one set of options.

Bo-4
12-14-2016, 10:38 AM
Only gives one set of options.

Yep - a map and phone number for the closest clinic location nakedly absent.

Standing Wolf
12-14-2016, 02:20 PM
"where does the State get the power and authority to advertise, publicize and push what is clearly a religion-based agenda"

You're more than welcome to show the faith based and or religious connotations in the verbage.

"There are many public and private agencies willing and able to help you carry your child to term and assist you and your child after your child is born, whether you choose to keep your child or to place him or her for adoption. The State of Oklahoma strongly urges you to contact them if you are pregnant."

Since you asked...the medical term is "fetus". The idea that a "child" (word used four times in a single sentence) exists in the womb from the moment of conception is a religious concept and belief.

If you choose - despite all evidence and history to the contrary - to believe that the purpose of this proposal is not sufficiently "religious" - okay. Take one of my other examples, then. Breastfeeding, peeing sitting down, pitbulls are dangerous? Hey, how about a big poster explaining how owning a gun increases your chances of dying in a firearms-related incident?

If enough legislators decide that they have an important message to get out to the public and they need to use your wall space and your bank account to get that message out, should they be allowed to do that? Again, where does the power and authority to do something like that come from?