Will You Anti-romney People Apologize?

[dUSt]

[quote name='MissScripture' timestamp='1351732489' post='2501601']
That's a silly argument.
[/quote]
I do agree that this is a particularly silly argument.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1351730787' post='2501567']
Okay, besides my last half-serious post, I feel the need to point out how ridiculous this argument has become. The President is not directly responsible for the number of abortions, but he can help prevent them, lower the number.

The question is misleading and would require him being directly responsible, but then we'd have to be talking about civilian casualties and that's not an easy thing to compare directly to abortion.

A better situation would be: a nasty regime is going to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Would you vote for the person who will not say anything against this regime, but might do a bit here and there to mitigate the numbers, or would you vote for someone who will speak out against the regime (limitedly) and might do a bit more here and there to mitigate the numbers. Or do you remain silent?
[/quote]
I have specifically said that the analogy is NOT about abortion. Abortion is a non-issue when it comes to the difference between Romney and Obama; the abortion rate has been remaining relatively steady since 2005 so Obama has not enacted anything to increase the number of abortions, and Romney has specifically said he has nothing related to abortion on his agenda. ergo, there will be no difference between the two, other than perhaps different kinds of skirmishes regarding where and how the money is coming from; the same rates of abortions will actually be taking place and Obama's not increasing them and Romney's not decreasing them.

It's more adequately compared to the ACTUAL KILLING being done around the world in our name--drone strikes that have huge percentages of "collateral damage", for instance.

The two choices are between two people who will do different types of indiscriminate bombings around the world, who will escalate tensions towards disastrous wars in different ways; the analogy to the 100,000 guy vs the 90,000 guy is totally accurate... but those numbers were actually just thrown out there to make a point that the lesser of two evils is never morally obligatory.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351733252' post='2501622']
so Obama has not enacted anything to increase the number of abortions, [/quote]
Do you not consider the morning after pill to be abortion? How can you even make this claim? Amazing.

[quote]and Romney has specifically said he has nothing related to abortion on his agenda.[/quote]
This is simply not true. A flat out lie. He said he'd reinstate the Mexico City policy and end the HHS mandate. Two huge things relating to abortion.

[quote] it's more adequately compared to the ACTUAL KILLING being done around the world in our name--drone strikes that have huge percentages of "collateral damage", for instance.[/quote]
So disregard church teaching on making abortion a higher priority? I didn't expect this from you. And Obama is the drone strike master.

[Anomaly]

Al you keep denying the immediate question. There will not be any other President other than Barak or Mitt in 2013. That is the only possible outcome.

You want to have a pro abortion President and party in power instead of a Romney that gives Mir power to the Republicans, the Party with power that is least pro a oration and whee any resistance to additional pro abortion policies.

Great plan.

[dUSt]

He continually denies the coin must land on either heads or tails. He wants it to roll on it's side until the next election where he hopes that a three sided coin may exist, simply due to the fact that he refused to call heads or tails this time.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351733252' post='2501622']
I have specifically said that the analogy is NOT about abortion. Abortion is a non-issue when it comes to the difference between Romney and Obama; the abortion rate has been remaining relatively steady since 2005 so Obama has not enacted anything to increase the number of abortions, and Romney has specifically said he has nothing related to abortion on his agenda. ergo, there will be no difference between the two, other than perhaps different kinds of skirmishes regarding where and how the money is coming from; the same rates of abortions will actually be taking place and Obama's not increasing them and Romney's not decreasing them.

It's more adequately compared to the ACTUAL KILLING being done around the world in our name--drone strikes that have huge percentages of "collateral damage", for instance.

The two choices are between two people who will do different types of indiscriminate bombings around the world, who will escalate tensions towards disastrous wars in different ways; the analogy to the 100,000 guy vs the 90,000 guy is totally accurate... but those numbers were actually just thrown out there to make a point that the lesser of two evils is never morally obligatory.
[/quote]
You made that clear, but I'm not sure how the argument got started. I don't think it was just about civilian casualties.

Anyways, civilian casualties aren't directly comparable in numbers like you have them. If we end up in World War III because Romney tells other nations to back down (let's say for a moment that he uses only rhetoric and some form of diplomacy), but they refuse and attack us, civilian casualties could be much, much greater in our counter attacks than under Obama, who might sit off to the side and let a country continue to amass its army and resources and bully other nations. If we limited those civilian casualties as much as possible, the numbers still don't mean that Romney is more responsible for those deaths than Obama. This is why I think any arguments about possible civilian casualties must be thought out much more carefully.

If Romney uses drones that limit (now I know the facts, but I want to throw out a hypothetical) civilian casualties more than another attack, but they still cause more civilian casualties overall than the (less effective) other options, that still doesn't mean that civilian casualties caused by Romney are a greater evil. It's not always the numbers, but also that we take the greatest care to reduce them. Thing is, the more prudent and just course of action might cause greater civilian casualties than the less prudent action. I can create any number of hypothetical situations to demonstrate this.

I'm not sure how this has any relevance to lesser of two evils as morally obligatory or not.

[Aloysius]

actual abortions have not increased under Obama's administration. they rates have been stagnant since 2005.

I don't have any numbers on morning after pills, but I don't know of any Obama policy that has caused them to be used more than they were being used otherwise. financial squabbles over where the money comes from, though they are important issues because we do not want to fund things that we disagree with, are not affecting their actual instances.

the Mexico City Policy moves funds from one place to another; in the end, the funds still end up balancing up and the same number of abortions keep happening. Some studies actually find more abortions taking place when the Mexico City Policy is in place. these are financial squabbles that don't deal with actual issues, and since all funds are fungible, the Mexico City Policy might as well be a gender-selective abortion ban for how much of a useless distraction it is.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351733614' post='2501631']

[b]So disregard church teaching[/b] on making abortion a higher priority? I didn't expect this from you. And Obama is the drone strike master.
[/quote]

You are doing it again. Stop that. We have been over this.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1351733912' post='2501647']
You made that clear, but I'm not sure how the argument got started. I don't think it was just about civilian casualties.

Anyways, civilian casualties aren't directly comparable in numbers like you have them. If we end up in World War III because Romney tells other nations to back down (let's say for a moment that he uses only rhetoric and some form of diplomacy), but they refuse and attack us, civilian casualties could be much, much greater in our counter attacks than under Obama, who might sit off to the side and let a country continue to amass its army and resources and bully other nations. If we limited those civilian casualties as much as possible, the numbers still don't mean that Romney is more responsible for those deaths than Obama. This is why I think any arguments about possible civilian casualties must be thought out much more carefully.

If Romney uses drones that limit (now I know the facts, but I want to throw out a hypothetical) civilian casualties more than another attack, but they still cause more civilian casualties overall than the (less effective) other options, that still doesn't mean that civilian casualties caused by Romney are a greater evil. It's not always the numbers, but also that we take the greatest care to reduce them. Thing is, the more prudent and just course of action might cause greater civilian casualties than the less prudent action. I can create any number of hypothetical situations to demonstrate this.

I'm not sure how this has any relevance to lesser of two evils as morally obligatory or not.
[/quote]
it's relevant because we can't know which one is lesser... just too many variables, so both of their morally repugnant policies are equally unsupportable.

the numbers game I started because I wanted to illustrate a hypothetical point unrelated to our current election biases, but it eventually morphed into that because I wanted to show the real life scenario it more closely imitated. the hypothetical scenario was supposed to illustrate that while an argument may be made for choosing the hypothetical 90,000 guy over the hypothetical 100,000 guy, it is lunacy to act like it is EVER morally obligatory to pick the 90,000 guy; they're both morally repugnant and we have every right to simply not support either one.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351733614' post='2501631']
So disregard church teaching on making abortion a higher priority? I didn't expect this from you. And Obama is the drone strike master.
[/quote]
sigh, I thought we'd been over this again and again; Church teaching ALLOWS us to choose a lesser of two evils, but NEVER REQUIRES it.

Stop accusing people who disagree with your political strategy of contradicting Church teaching. For the good of your own soul if no one else's, it's a serious sin against the unity of the Church.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351734206' post='2501658']
I don't have any numbers on morning after pills, but I don't know of any Obama policy that has caused them to be used more than they were being used otherwise.[/quote]
The HHS mandate forces insurance policies to provide free morning after pills, Do you believe that this decreases the usage? Your defense of Obama's pro-abortion record is getting laughable now.

I have these arguments with my family every day. They are all voting for Obama. I have a few of them convinced otherwise, but if they spent 5 minutes with you they'd be back to voting for Obama again.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351734401' post='2501664']
it's relevant because we can't know which one is lesser... just too many variables, so both of their morally repugnant policies are equally unsupportable.

the numbers game I started because I wanted to illustrate a hypothetical point unrelated to our current election biases, but it eventually morphed into that because I wanted to show the real life scenario it more closely imitated. the hypothetical scenario was supposed to illustrate that while an argument may be made for choosing the hypothetical 90,000 guy over the hypothetical 100,000 guy, it is lunacy to act like it is EVER morally obligatory to pick the 90,000 guy; they're both morally repugnant and we have every right to simply not support either one.
[/quote]
Part of my point though is that while a lot of these issues may come close to even (though I have a hard time really believing that entirely about abortion since I find Obama more radical than even Hilary Clinton), there are still other issues at play. Did you catch my point about marriage up above? The Obamas sent my wife (not really me as I indicated above) information on supporting gay marriage. I think that's to the detriment of our society. I'm also worried about Obama's views on religion. While Romney may or may not defend religion, I feel that Obama actively campaigns against it at times. He's more vehement in this area and I've watched my archbishop go after him a few times. I just learned today that my school will have to pay $62 million/year to defy HHS. While Romney may not overturn the mandate (though not to do so would be political suicide and odd since he can appoint his own head of HHS who, in this wildly, awful administrative state can easily reverse course), I don't think it would be in place nationally had he been president before. The HHS mandate is a radical, singular person trumping all other forms of government in icky, disgusting ways. What concerns me isn't just whether or not the mandate will be overturned, but with someone like Obama in office, I really feel like he could and might do even worse.

But let me be frank. At this point I distrust Obama so much I might be willing to vote for Hilary Clinton over him. I find him that extreme.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351734524' post='2501669']
sigh, I thought we'd been over this again and again; Church teaching ALLOWS us to choose a lesser of two evils, but NEVER REQUIRES it.

Stop accusing people who disagree with your political strategy of contradicting Church teaching. For the good of your own soul if no one else's, it's a serious sin against the unity of the Church.
[/quote]
You keep taking my comments out of context. I am not accusing anyone of contradicting church teaching for not voting for Romney. My church teaching comment was a direct reply to your attempt at equalizing Romney and Obama.

If you just came out and said "Between Romney and Obama, Romney is the less evil choice--but I still believe voting third party is the more moral choice". That is fine. The church says that is fine. I have no problem with that.

My arguments were against you attempting to defend Obama by making Romney seem equally as evil--and when you started to make abortion seem like a lesser issue than the Church says it should be, that's when I brought up Church teaching.

[Aloysius]

Fair enough dUSt, I was lashing out against that because I know plenty of people who have really felt attacked for not towing a particular political strategy's line, you can see it in all the jokes about going to Hell and bringing garlic fries with them, so my number one concern is to keep Catholicism from becoming nothing more than the mere glue of a voting block.

I'm really not sure if I would say the morning after pill is necessarily going to be used more or less by being covered under a certain insurance... if it's used less that's probably because abortificient contraceptives (a very particular type of drug) are being used, it could even be that more bona fide abortions are replacing it. it's hard to pinpoint the statistics on something like that though; suffice it to so, I absolutely disagree with requiring that to be covered by insurance (like Romney care did) or requiring hospitals to dispense it (like Romney care did, and there's a thread somewhere around here that discusses both sides of explanation as to whether he really supported that or not, I come down on thinking he totally sold out on it because he doesn't care)

Q, on gay marriage, even when he came out in its support he said it should be left to the states, which is also Romney's position; if you're getting mail supporting your state recognizing gay marriage... well, if it wasn't Obama it'd be someone else, it'd be the DNC or whoever... chances are Obama's mindset in sending out those things is far less that he cares about your state supporting gay marriage, chances are he cares far more about getting people that already support gay marriage to go to the polls because they will be likely to vote for him as well. issues like gay marriage and abortion are used in that kind of sleazy way by both side.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351735616' post='2501699']
Fair enough dUSt, I was lashing out against that because I know plenty of people who have really felt attacked for not towing a particular political strategy's line, you can see it in all the jokes about going to Hell and bringing garlic fries with them, so my number one concern is to keep Catholicism from becoming nothing more than the mere glue of a voting block.[/quote]I don't think I've really said much on this particular point, but at this point I'd like to point out quickly that this has been an exception more than a rule on here, people-wise. Sure a few here or there have said something, but overall the general tone recently has actually been pretty hostile toward Romney supporters in general because of the more flagrant attacks of a few individuals (not you in particular).

[quote]Q, on gay marriage, even when he came out in its support he said it should be left to the states, which is also Romney's position; if you're getting mail supporting your state recognizing gay marriage... well, if it wasn't Obama it'd be someone else, it'd be the DNC or whoever... chances are Obama's mindset in sending out those things is far less that he cares about your state supporting gay marriage, chances are he cares far more about getting people that already support gay marriage to go to the polls because they will be likely to vote for him as well. issues like gay marriage and abortion are used in that kind of sleazy way by both side.
[/quote]
You won't get an argument from me about how sleazy Obama is (or politicians in general). I think I remember his comments about North Carolina though, and Obama is one to use the bully pulpit to great detriment. I think his words carry a lot of sway. I about every time I hear someone get caught up in his rhetoric over his words. I'm not swayed by politicians' rhetoric and make it a point not to listen to them for that reason. I'm crazy like that.