Difference between revisions of "User:RahalMccall69"

From eplmediawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Leonid Bershidsky, Bloomberg View- Why the Ice Bucket Challenge was big)
(Seattle City Councilman Bruce Harrell wants you to pay for abortions_0)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
@@@  
 
@@@  
鈥淪ince narcissists believe their status increases when they are associated with other special or high-status people, posting pictures of desirable friends may give narcissists a means of bolstering their egos,鈥?psychologist Shawn Bergman and collaborators wrote in a 2010 paper on the subject.
+
Taken from Monday's edition of  
The Ice Bucket Challenge is a narcissist鈥檚 bonanza. You get to show yourself doing something marginally daring. Everybody will see how fit, handsome or witty you are 鈥?and how altruistic! Though the original deal was to donate to the ALS Association or pour a bucket of ice water over one鈥檚 head, people have <a href=http://www.aec-ist.com/css/Gucci-Belts-Sale-Shorts-Ballet-Flats-Loafers.html>Gucci Loafers</a>  typically done both and made no secret of it. What鈥檚 more, you get to associate yourself with all the famous people who are doing the same thing. There鈥檚 Bill Gates, who probably didn鈥檛 need the extra publicity or attention to his charity work but still built an elaborate contraption to douse himself, probably figuring he could up the ante in the ALS collection drive. There鈥檚 also Justin Bieber, who showed off his body and nominated all his fans and President Obama to upend those buckets.
+
Seattle City Councilman Bruce Harrell wants you all to pay for women's abortions.
There鈥檚 safety in crowds. If you鈥檙e bragging about doing something lots of others 鈥?and all those important people 鈥?are doing, you鈥檙e not really boasting. You鈥檙e showing that you fit in with the right bunch of people.
+
He <a href=http://www.symbiose.ca/images/christianlouboutin.gwij.php>Christian Louboutin Outlet</a>  , along with a couple co-authors, that they are  asking Obama and Congress to overturn all federal bans on public coverage of abortion.
Don鈥檛 your motives still look shallow or self-serving, though?
+
They write...
鈥淚t is surprising to see so many people advertise their good deeds in that there exists a strong norm to be modest about prosocial behavior,鈥?London Business School professor Jonathan Berman and a group of researchers wrote in a 2014 article. After running various experiments, some of which involved posting <a href=http://www.aec-ist.com/css/Cheap-Gucci-Outlet-Scarves-Tee-Shirt-Rimless-Sunglasses.html>Gucci Rimless Sunglasses</a>  reports of one鈥檚 good deeds on social networks, the group concluded that 鈥渂ragging about prosocial behavior is special because it directly undermines the information that an individual is trying to convey.鈥?If you boast about your altruism, you are seen as less altruistic. To avoid this unwelcome effect, 鈥減eople may create an appropriate context to discuss good deeds by steering a conversation in a direction that makes it appropriate to discuss prosocial behavior.鈥?
+
"Over 41 years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that every woman has a constitutionally protected right to make her own personal medical decisions about when and if to become a mother. For almost as long 锟?nearly 38 years 锟?the Hyde Amendment has undermined Roe v. Wade by barring public funds from covering abortion care, effectively cutting off access for most women enrolled in public government insurance. Many of those most affected are low-income women, women of color, and immigrant women, who already face significant challenges to accessing safe, respectful, timely health care. This isn't just a matter of reproductive freedom 锟?it's an issue of racial and economic justice."
Trademarking?
+
This is apparently another social justice cause. Everything is about social justice, racial justice, economic justice. Not paying for a voluntary medical procedure when the vast majority of people who want the procedure are only getting it as a result of behavior they consensually engaged in, well, that's another racial and economic justice cause.
The Ice Bucket Challenge provides the perfect context: You don鈥檛 talk about giving money to fight Lou Gehrig鈥檚 disease. You discuss the feel of that icy water on your pate, or Bieber鈥檚 narcissism, or Gates鈥檚 geekiness. It solves the 鈥渂raggart鈥檚 dilemma鈥?鈥?whether to tell others about your altruism 鈥?by removing the suspicion that your motives are selfish.
+
Now, I want to frame this conversation in a way it's almost never framed in, certainly not from people in the same ideological camp as Harrell.
It鈥檚 such a perfect bit <a href=http://www.aec-ist.com/css/Gucci-Sale-Online-Authentic-Wallet-Group-Coupons.html>Gucci Sale Online</a>  of social engineering that the ALS Association鈥檚 effort to trademark it is perfectly understandable. Who cares about niceties, or Matthew 6:3, when something works to raise lots of money for a good cause? This is a case where the end may well justify the means 鈥?as long as no one gets killed.
+
Let's talk about it from the perspective of someone who doesn't support funds going to abortions. A lot of people don't want to pay for abortions, myself included, because we think life starts at conception. Now, people have varying degrees of passion on this. Here's my take: I'm not 100 percent positive life starts at conception. I've got no idea. I do believe in God, and I believe in science, and science can't answer this question, only God can, and God isn't giving us an answer. So until I have that answer, I have to err on the side of life, just to be safe.
Have I taken the Ice Bucket Challenge? No. Have I donated to the ALS Association? None of your business.
+
I <a href=http://www.symbiose.ca/images/christianlouboutin.gwij.php>Christian Louboutin Outlet</a>  understand where the other side comes from, where they either don't think life begins at conception or don't care. I understand that position and I respectfully disagree. And since this is my money we're talking about, I hope you'll recognize my position.
Leonid Bershidsky is a Bloomberg View contributor. He is a Berlin-based writer, author of three novels and two nonfiction books.
+
The Stranger article continues:
 +
"If we pass this resolution, Seattle will become the first jurisdiction in the Northwest 锟?and the sixth nationally 锟?to declare its support for overturning the Hyde Amendment and restoring access to reproductive health care for every woman, regardless of her income or what kind of insurance she has."
 +
But wait. No one's reproductive health care is limited under the Hyde Amendment. Abortions aren't banned. You just have to pay for them yourselves or go through a service that is subsidized via donations. You can still get your abortion. You just have to pay for it, just like if I want an elective procedure of some kind, I can get it, I just have to pay for it.
 +
Harrell's piece continues:
 +
"As women's reproductive rights are deliberately and strategically eroded in other states, passing the resolution shows that the Hyde Amendment and attacks on women's health do not reflect Seattle's values."
 +
Can we stop referring to this having to do with reproductive rights? This is not an attack on women's health. You're not unhealthy if you can't get an abortion done. And the problem here, which is why I wanted to frame it with a clear understanding of why people are in favor of the Hyde Amendment, is because Harrell and other activists treat this like you just hate women if you don't pay for services they want.
 +
You often hear the slogan "my body, my choice!" Ok fine, your body your choice, but it's not your choice when you're using my money. It ceases to be your choice. <a href=http://capstone.edu.sg/images/guccioutlet.onlinesalecc.php>Gucci Outlet</a>  If you want me to pay for it, I get a say in it.
 +
What they really mean is "MY BODY, MY CHOICE, YOU PAY FOR IT!" It doesn't work that way. If you want an abortion and you're morally okay with it, go for it. I won't stop you. I won't try to close down a clinic and I won't prevent you from getting one, but I'm not paying for it because I find it in the morally ambiguous zone to say the least. We shouldn't have to violate our religious beliefs because you can't pay for something that is an elective medical procedure.
 +
Taken from Monday's edition of

Revision as of 04:34, 26 September 2014

@@@ Taken from Monday's edition of Seattle City Councilman Bruce Harrell wants you all to pay for women's abortions. He <a href=http://www.symbiose.ca/images/christianlouboutin.gwij.php>Christian Louboutin Outlet</a> , along with a couple co-authors, that they are asking Obama and Congress to overturn all federal bans on public coverage of abortion. They write... "Over 41 years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that every woman has a constitutionally protected right to make her own personal medical decisions about when and if to become a mother. For almost as long 锟?nearly 38 years 锟?the Hyde Amendment has undermined Roe v. Wade by barring public funds from covering abortion care, effectively cutting off access for most women enrolled in public government insurance. Many of those most affected are low-income women, women of color, and immigrant women, who already face significant challenges to accessing safe, respectful, timely health care. This isn't just a matter of reproductive freedom 锟?it's an issue of racial and economic justice." This is apparently another social justice cause. Everything is about social justice, racial justice, economic justice. Not paying for a voluntary medical procedure when the vast majority of people who want the procedure are only getting it as a result of behavior they consensually engaged in, well, that's another racial and economic justice cause. Now, I want to frame this conversation in a way it's almost never framed in, certainly not from people in the same ideological camp as Harrell. Let's talk about it from the perspective of someone who doesn't support funds going to abortions. A lot of people don't want to pay for abortions, myself included, because we think life starts at conception. Now, people have varying degrees of passion on this. Here's my take: I'm not 100 percent positive life starts at conception. I've got no idea. I do believe in God, and I believe in science, and science can't answer this question, only God can, and God isn't giving us an answer. So until I have that answer, I have to err on the side of life, just to be safe. I <a href=http://www.symbiose.ca/images/christianlouboutin.gwij.php>Christian Louboutin Outlet</a> understand where the other side comes from, where they either don't think life begins at conception or don't care. I understand that position and I respectfully disagree. And since this is my money we're talking about, I hope you'll recognize my position. The Stranger article continues: "If we pass this resolution, Seattle will become the first jurisdiction in the Northwest 锟?and the sixth nationally 锟?to declare its support for overturning the Hyde Amendment and restoring access to reproductive health care for every woman, regardless of her income or what kind of insurance she has." But wait. No one's reproductive health care is limited under the Hyde Amendment. Abortions aren't banned. You just have to pay for them yourselves or go through a service that is subsidized via donations. You can still get your abortion. You just have to pay for it, just like if I want an elective procedure of some kind, I can get it, I just have to pay for it. Harrell's piece continues: "As women's reproductive rights are deliberately and strategically eroded in other states, passing the resolution shows that the Hyde Amendment and attacks on women's health do not reflect Seattle's values." Can we stop referring to this having to do with reproductive rights? This is not an attack on women's health. You're not unhealthy if you can't get an abortion done. And the problem here, which is why I wanted to frame it with a clear understanding of why people are in favor of the Hyde Amendment, is because Harrell and other activists treat this like you just hate women if you don't pay for services they want. You often hear the slogan "my body, my choice!" Ok fine, your body your choice, but it's not your choice when you're using my money. It ceases to be your choice. <a href=http://capstone.edu.sg/images/guccioutlet.onlinesalecc.php>Gucci Outlet</a> If you want me to pay for it, I get a say in it. What they really mean is "MY BODY, MY CHOICE, YOU PAY FOR IT!" It doesn't work that way. If you want an abortion and you're morally okay with it, go for it. I won't stop you. I won't try to close down a clinic and I won't prevent you from getting one, but I'm not paying for it because I find it in the morally ambiguous zone to say the least. We shouldn't have to violate our religious beliefs because you can't pay for something that is an elective medical procedure. Taken from Monday's edition of

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
extras
Toolbox