As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Canada] Politics of the Democratic Friedmanite Republic of the Government of Harper

12467100

Posts

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    The reason I'm not trying to be friendly about this is because he doesn't fucking learn. There is no damned reason to spam like he does but he seems to get off on it and why should I be nice to him when he does that? He can say whatever he wants, but don't be surprised when I point out that he's acting like a self important asshole. Hell you're calling me out and I'm not pouting about it.

    It's not 'spamming' to provide links & citations to back-up your claims. Heck, you asked him to do it.

    It's not that I think you should be nice - I just don't understand what you think you accomplish by being belligerent & rude. Do you think it makes you a more effective communicator?

    You get angry whenever someone mentions their credentials or accomplishments. Why? I mention that I've done work in Africa to substantiate my own credibility after you attacked it (claiming that I've probably never left my basement), you call that 'dick waving'. Darkphoenix meets your challenge of being the equivalent someone screaming on a street corner with links demonstrating that he Tweets with Mr. Clement (and I don't know why you'd find that remarkable), you call it 'spamming' and 'being a self-important asshole'.

    This is how it goes with you: You challenge someone's credibility, and when they meet that challenge you attack them for being arrogant.


    It's nonsense.

    You are compleletly missing the point though. The biggest threat to abortion rights has always been the feasibility of getting one, not the legality of it. Banning it altoghter might not even stand up legally.

    But you don't need to go that far or act tha boldly. You can easily destroy the practical ability to get an abortion without ever putting it to a vote. And that is and always has been the danger to abortion and women's rights in general. It happens quietly, behind the scenes where the public isn't watching.

    When you can't reasonibly get an abortion when you need one, it's legality is irrelevant. An up and down vote in the House of Commons is a red hearing.

    ...Well, in fairness, you don't exactly need a PM in a majority position to make it unfeasible for a young woman to get an abortion. You can see this in the states all of the time: a fundamentalist group will go out and drum-up a mob to harass anyone who either gets an abortion or provides one (as well as occasionally getting a psycho geared-up to actually shoot a doctor).

    I see abortion as an issue that has much more to do with the Zeitgeist than the political arena. Not to say that Harper can't do very damaging things to women's rights (de-funding clinics, for example), but I don't think that even an NDP majority would see massive improvement in that area. We need a good decade or two of solid criticism to erode away all of the negative connotations surrounding the issue before it gets much better (...and, frankly, we need a lot of the geriatrics to finally go finish-up the tail end of their lives. Kind of ironic in a way; I'm a big supporter of the public system that keeps these people around, while they themselves fight tooth and nail against it).

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • darkphoenix22darkphoenix22 Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    -- Deleted --

    darkphoenix22 on
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I have direct contact with the Liberal Policy Manager, so if they were in government, I would just go to him.

    But they aren't. And the Conservatives hate the Internet. So I'm forced to go to the corps directly and ask them to update their software to include a single extra file.

    =====

    We just need to convince Microsoft/Mozilla/Google/OpenSSL to include the CAcert root certificate in an software update and we're golden. It's the addition of one file in the program directory.
    As of January 2010[update], certificates issued by CAcert are not as useful in web browsers as certificates issued by commercial CAs such as VeriSign, because most installed web browsers do not distribute CAcert's root certificate. Thus, for most web users, a certificate signed by CAcert behaves like a self-signed certificate. There was discussion for inclusion of CAcert's root certificate in Mozilla and derivatives (such as Mozilla Firefox) but CAcert withdrew its request for inclusion at the end of April 2007. This was after an audit was suspended in December 2006 because CAcert needed to improve their management system. There has been progress toward this and a new request for inclusion may be expected in the future. Getting the CAcert root cert included into Mozilla is probably CAcert's largest challenge right now, but one in which they are actively engaged. CAcert is committed to giving more transparency in its management system.

    The following operating systems or distributions include the CAcert root certificate:

    * Arch Linux
    * Ark Linux
    * CentOS
    * Debian
    * FreeWRT
    * Gentoo
    * Maemo (installed on Nokia Internet Tablets)(not on Nokia N900)
    * Knoppix
    * Mandriva Linux
    * MirOS BSD
    * OpenBSD

    Afterwards, we can make modules for cPanel, Plesk, and Webmin to generate CAcerts directly within the website control panels, to allow web developers to EASILY switch their pages over to HTTPS, even if it's encryption only.

    After these modules are done, we can lobby all the major webhosts to include these modules by default in their setup. We can supplement this with addons for Firefox/Chrome that allow users to report any websites that have not switched to HTTPS to a non-profit consortium.

    We need to start now because if Harper gets away with Bill C-51, other countries will surely follow. It's best to be pre-emptive and encrypt now, rather than later.

    The key point in that paragraph is that they withdrew their own request for inclusion and will likely re-request it in the future; until they're ready the Mozilla Foundation won't do anything, so I think you're petitioning the wrong people. I would think that Google would probably include it when Mozilla does, and Microsoft will do whatever it wants

    I don't think that writing your posts to convince the "hundreds" (probably way less, definitely if the views counter is accurate) of lurkers is really that conducive to convincing people; combined with your flitting from issue to issue, well the lurkers won't respond and, from personal experience as I lurked for years, I don't think they're here to see people soapbox either.

    You've got some good ideas, the broadband thing is good, I like the idea of encouraging the use of SSL (but mandating it 100% everywhere for everything is still silly), but if anything you may have too many, so many projects and proposals and petitions that I would be surprised if you get any of them done

    Phyphor on
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I feel that the mother should be highly coaxed into giving the kid up for adoption. But I believe that last resort should always be there, so we don't have women getting abortions with coathangers again.

    I don't see the benefit of insisting on carrying a healthy pregnancy to term. If we had some sort of problem with their being too few people on Earth, okay, I guess I could see the reasoning behind it - but we have the opposite problem right now.

    There's nothing to be gained from trying to tell a woman, regardless of how gentle your words are, how she should or should not be using her uterus. If she wants to have a child, fine. If she does not want to have a child, fine. That should more or less be the end of the discussion (aside from, say, letting her know the medical health pros & cons of having a baby vs having an abortion).

    Aside from that, giving children over to an adoption agency has a lot of problems of it's own - the primary issue being that there are currently a lot of children up for adoption and very few parents interested in adopting any.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • darkphoenix22darkphoenix22 Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    -- Deleted --

    darkphoenix22 on
  • darkphoenix22darkphoenix22 Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    -- Deleted --

    darkphoenix22 on
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I'm sorry, but I'm still quite uncomfortable with the idea of abortion. I do believe that banning it will do more harm than good. But I also believe that there are better options, especially preventive.

    I'd agree that preventing an unwanted pregnancy in the first place is always the best idea, and these days with all of the measures available (including the new-ish 'morning after' pills), prevention is pretty fool-proof: but it's still a complex issue and still, ultimately, up to a woman what she wants to do with her own anatomy.

    For example: what if a woman decides that she does want a child, has sex intending to become pregnant and starts to carry the pregnancy to term... and then suddenly loses most or all of her financial security? Shall we still try to coax her out of an abortion that she quite traumatically realizes is perhaps the ohly ethical option she realistically has?

    I don't even see how that's a liberal or conservative position.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • darkphoenix22darkphoenix22 Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    -- Deleted --

    darkphoenix22 on
  • ImperfectImperfect Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    That is is pretty heavy populist rhetoric, there.

    "Nationalising" our oil and uranium resources is an incredibly difficult and long process, assuming you could even get the well-vested folks in office these days to recognize it as anything useful. It'd take years, if not decades, to go into effect.

    In the meantime, what do you do about the very real problems we face that your nationalization windfall is supposed to fix?

    Also, the scenario raised fall ENTIRELY under the purview of the law, and NOT under religion. Religion can say all it wants about how to conduct its rites, but when they a religion steps into "What shall pregnant mothers in grey areas do with their own damn bodies?", I get huffy.

    The fact that it is a question of subjective personal beliefs means that it must be protected by law, and not allowed to be robbed from by people, whether by a religion being allowed to enforce itself on people, or by a lack of access caused by eroded funding and availability.

    Again, I'd like to point this out, because it derailed one of the last threads pretty badly, your nationalisation scenario is not feasible, and if it were, it wouldn't be feasible for quite some time. So before you go spouting how it would fix things, you need to address what to do in the meantime. That's going to be very important to a couple of hundred thousand people.

    Imperfect on
  • darkphoenix22darkphoenix22 Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    -- Deleted --

    darkphoenix22 on
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Again, I'd like to point this out, because it derailed one of the last threads pretty badly, your nationalisation scenario is not feasible, and if it were, it wouldn't be feasible for quite some time. So before you go spouting how it would fix things, you need to address what to do in the meantime. That's going to be very important to a couple of hundred thousand people.

    This is not necessarily true: in Chile, for example, Allende's government was able to nationalize the copper resources of his country in an incredibly short amount of time and to incredibly beneficial immediate effects. Unfortunately, between copper prices plummeting on the world market and CIA efforts to undermine the Allende government, his economic plan ultimately failed - so we never were able to see what Vuskovic's ambitious ideas might've brought about (if anything).

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • CorporateGoonCorporateGoon Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Phyphor wrote: »
    You've got some good ideas, the broadband thing is good, I like the idea of encouraging the use of SSL (but mandating it 100% everywhere for everything is still silly), but if anything you may have too many, so many projects and proposals and petitions that I would be surprised if you get any of them done

    My goal is to direct and inspire so that others will go ahead with many of the details.

    I was one of the first people after the election calling for a new electoral system based on preferential voting and MMP. I continue to provide information to the people organizing events such as the "National Day of Action for Electoral Reform". But I step back and let others organize it and thus delegate a great deal of the work.

    http://nationaldayofaction.ca/

    I took a similar role with OpenMedia.ca.


    The above approach is VERY effective at getting influence but is also quite ineffective at getting my name to be well known, outside of politicos.

    I'm kind of a politician's politician in this sense, a political version of Gary Oldman. All the politicians and organizers know who I am and respect me (though not all of them explicitly *like* me). So when I go to talk to the public, I kinda get repeatedly questioned, even though I *actually* was behind all the stuff I claim to be behind.

    Okay... again, you're not a politician. At most, you're some kind of activist. And saying you were one of the first people calling for electoral reform after the election is bullshit of the highest order. Thousands of people have been calling for electoral reform for years now. You hopped on the bandwagon. You're not driving it.

    CorporateGoon on
  • SilexSilex Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I would just like to point out that Tony Clement has an almost 1:1 follower-following ratio on Twitter, so having him follow doesn't make you so special or "have his ear" so to speak.

    Silex on
  • darkphoenix22darkphoenix22 Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    -- Deleted --

    darkphoenix22 on
  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Not to be mean here but Cory Doctorow is someone important that has the ear of the internet... You can't even jump in this thread without people getting the virtual tar and pitchforks out.

    Reddit and Facebook like me.

    I have so much Reddit Karma that anything I post on /r/Canada/ goes to the front page for the entire day (if I post it between 9am and 10am). I can also push posts to the front page of /r/Canada/ with my single epic upvote. :P

    https://pay.reddit.com/user/darkp22/

    Though I've mostly stopped using Reddit as I feel bad about manipulating the media when I'm running for election.

    497 link karma
    321 comment karma

    Yeah, Reddit just loves you.

    Edith_Bagot-Dix on


    Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
  • darkphoenix22darkphoenix22 Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    -- Deleted --

    darkphoenix22 on
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    But ya, let's PLEASE stop talking about me.

    I'm Richy and I endorse this post.

    Richy on
    sig.gif
  • ImperfectImperfect Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Richy wrote: »
    But ya, let's PLEASE stop talking about me.

    I'm Richy and I endorse this post.

    Best and most constructive idea this thread!

    Three cheers for DP!

    Imperfect on
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    So Harper has been handed an opportunity to stack the [strike]Santa[/strike]Supreme Court with party hacks. Will he take it?

    Also, I thought this was funny.
    Traditionally, the sitting prime minister and justice minister chose Supreme Court judges in secret and announced their selections with the barest explanation.

    However, Mr. Harper abandoned that backroom process in 2006 with the appointment of Judge Rothstein, who became the first nominee to be screened in public by a parliamentary committee that had a limited ability to probe the candidate’s previous legal clients, court rulings and political affiliations. Mr. Harper also added a procedure for future nominees under which an all-party committee would provide a short list of candidates.

    But when he appointed Mr. Justice Thomas Cromwell to the court in 2008, he simply announced his final candidate, on the grounds that the committee was paralyzed by infighting. Then he short-circuited the public hearing process because he felt it would take too long.

    Richy on
    sig.gif
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    The Ender wrote: »
    Again, I'd like to point this out, because it derailed one of the last threads pretty badly, your nationalisation scenario is not feasible, and if it were, it wouldn't be feasible for quite some time. So before you go spouting how it would fix things, you need to address what to do in the meantime. That's going to be very important to a couple of hundred thousand people.

    This is not necessarily true: in Chile, for example, Allende's government was able to nationalize the copper resources of his country in an incredibly short amount of time and to incredibly beneficial immediate effects. Unfortunately, between copper prices plummeting on the world market and CIA efforts to undermine the Allende government, his economic plan ultimately failed - so we never were able to see what Vuskovic's ambitious ideas might've brought about (if anything).

    We belong to NAFTA. Many of the big mining firms in North America have fiscal connections between Canada and America, as well we are a developed country and as such the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO would all take issue.

    If we look to Newfoundland and their attempt to seize the assets of a corporate entity they viewed as acting against the interests of the province, we can see clearly that nationalization has HUGE costs. Unless we are willing to simply flout the law and act American, we wouldn't be "nationalizing" as such. Rather, we'd be buying out their assets at fair market cost and compensating them for lost future income. For some of the major mines out there, this would represent a cost higher then our current deficit.

    The only option for us to "Norway"-ize our resources is for our nation to start running the concept of GOCO-management over existing resources that have not been allocated, meaning the large part of the mineral wealth of the Rockies. Alberta have been smart here - they've leased the rights to the oil sands rather then letting people buy them. Credit where credit is due.

    Robman on
  • Torso BoyTorso Boy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Richy wrote: »
    So Harper has been handed an opportunity to stack the [strike]Santa[/strike]Supreme Court with party hacks. Will he take it?

    Also, I thought this was funny.
    Traditionally, the sitting prime minister and justice minister chose Supreme Court judges in secret and announced their selections with the barest explanation.

    However, Mr. Harper abandoned that backroom process in 2006 with the appointment of Judge Rothstein, who became the first nominee to be screened in public by a parliamentary committee that had a limited ability to probe the candidate’s previous legal clients, court rulings and political affiliations. Mr. Harper also added a procedure for future nominees under which an all-party committee would provide a short list of candidates.

    But when he appointed Mr. Justice Thomas Cromwell to the court in 2008, he simply announced his final candidate, on the grounds that the committee was paralyzed by infighting. Then he short-circuited the public hearing process because he felt it would take too long.

    This was made worse in a sense by the fact that IIRC Cromwell was well-received and generally thought to be a sound decision, so there wasn't much of a fuss. I haven't heard anything about vetting any future appointees, so Harper's even dropped the pretense of fairness.

    I do not like the way this is going, and I hate that it's happening quickly enough to potentially affect the Insite decision.

    Torso Boy on
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Regarding the abortion debate:

    I'll restate what I did earlier. The more restrictions that are placed on abortion, the more you make family planning the luxury of the rich. Birth control fails. A lot. That's a fact of life.

    For an example of abortion restriction in Canada, fucking New Brunswick. An administrative decision was made to fund abortion procedures in hospitals only. Well, only a few hospitals do voluntary abortion procedures. This creates a geographical barrier to abortion access - only people with means to cross that barrier are able to have "free" access to abortion. People who are poor, the people who would be hurt most by an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy, are the least able to access these services.

    ---

    Why is abortion an important case example? Because it's a fucking textbook example of a socially volatile issue that is being re-worked in accordance with the minority opinion through administrative means. The Federal Halocarbon Regulation act of 2003 - the thing that governs the halocarbon industry in Canada - is run by a total of four people in Ottawa. The entirety of the refrigerant gas industry is regulated by a team of four people. There are hundreds - thousands - of similar cases of opaque administrative decisions to reshape Canada in-line to fringe views without attracting the attention of the public.

    Abortion is a great thing to toss around because it illustrates well how ignorant most people are - the idea of driving to a hospital doesn't seem so ridiculous, until you consider how most households are single car owners, and how hospitals only offer abortion services during the day (those that do) so any abortion would require taking 1-2 days off work . Suddenly the cost of an abortion is you and your partner's jobs. But that's cool, Harper isn't going to touch abortion. He's also not going to take provinces to task for doing sneaky shit like this. It's cool though guys, provincial self-determination. People might start giving a fuck when this happens in Ontario, and it's their friend who faces the decision of "do I lose my job and drive four hours to get an abortion, or do I have this baby?".

    Robman on
  • psyck0psyck0 Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Honestly, I don't think Harper will deliberately stack the court. He's going to choose people with records in some agreement with his views but I don't think he'll be so blindly partisan as to stack it with party hacks. I don't think he's that kind of politician.

    psyck0 on
    Play Smash Bros 3DS with me! 4399-1034-5444
    steam_sig.png
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    psyck0 wrote: »
    Honestly, I don't think Harper will deliberately stack the court. He's going to choose people with records in some agreement with his views but I don't think he'll be so blindly partisan as to stack it with party hacks. I don't think he's that kind of politician.

    Harper made an unremarkable, safe choice last time. But his Senate appointments kind of fly in the face of the idea that he wouldn't use this to promote an agenda - it may not be obvious. He might, for example, be looking for Supremes who will defer routinely to Parliament. That way he won't have to worry about the eventual fight in the court over the vote subsidies.

    Robman on
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Robman wrote: »
    psyck0 wrote: »
    Honestly, I don't think Harper will deliberately stack the court. He's going to choose people with records in some agreement with his views but I don't think he'll be so blindly partisan as to stack it with party hacks. I don't think he's that kind of politician.

    Harper made an unremarkable, safe choice last time. But his Senate appointments kind of fly in the face of the idea that he wouldn't use this to promote an agenda - it may not be obvious. He might, for example, be looking for Supremes who will defer routinely to Parliament. That way he won't have to worry about the eventual fight in the court over the vote subsidies.

    How would the vote subsidies even end up in court? It's not like they're a constitutional right or anything.

    Richy on
    sig.gif
  • darkphoenix22darkphoenix22 Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    -- Deleted --

    darkphoenix22 on
  • psyck0psyck0 Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Robman wrote: »
    psyck0 wrote: »
    Honestly, I don't think Harper will deliberately stack the court. He's going to choose people with records in some agreement with his views but I don't think he'll be so blindly partisan as to stack it with party hacks. I don't think he's that kind of politician.

    Harper made an unremarkable, safe choice last time. But his Senate appointments kind of fly in the face of the idea that he wouldn't use this to promote an agenda - it may not be obvious. He might, for example, be looking for Supremes who will defer routinely to Parliament. That way he won't have to worry about the eventual fight in the court over the vote subsidies.

    I'm not even looking at his last appointment, I'm looking at his entire pattern of behaviour. He has strong principles which he is willing to sideline temporarily but never give up, and although I despise those principles and think he is a moron, I think he'll continue to stick by them.

    psyck0 on
    Play Smash Bros 3DS with me! 4399-1034-5444
    steam_sig.png
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Richy wrote: »
    His previous nominations were not all that bad. Frankly I'll be extremely surprised if there's an Antonin Scalia type douchebag who is even remotely senior enough to actually get in there. Our justice system isn't quite so politicized.

    Just about anyone can be a Senator, but there are probably less than a hundred people in the country who can become Supreme Court Justices.

    Azio on
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    We belong to NAFTA. Many of the big mining firms in North America have fiscal connections between Canada and America, as well we are a developed country and as such the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO would all take issue.

    ...And Chile had trade agreements with the USSR, China & Eastern Europe (And America, though these agreements were immediately severed once Allende came to power). Rather than breaking the agreements, they amended them.


    I should note that I'm not personally a proponent for nationalizing our resources; I think that trade promotes cooperation, and there are more constructive ways of providing for the least fortunate. I'm just noting that there is at least one example where country did nationalize it's resources very quickly, and to an immediately positive effect.


    EDIT:
    I'll restate what I did earlier. The more restrictions that are placed on abortion, the more you make family planning the luxury of the rich. Birth control fails. A lot. That's a fact of life.

    I'm a proponent for pro-choice, but the bolded part of this statement is ridiculous. Modern contraceptives do not fail a lot - even extremely rudimentary birth control techniques like wearing a condom and/or diaphragm without any spermicide only has a failure rate of 2-15% per year per individual, and even then not every slippage or breakage results in pregnancy.

    Pharmaceutical birth control is all but 100% effective. The only documented cases of pills not working were the result of user negligence (taking expired pills, not taking the pills as instructed, etc).


    Abortion should absolutely be an option that is always on the table, but don't throw out this garbage about contraceptives being ineffective. I've heard enough of it from religious nutjobs.

    Contraceptives are very effective.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • JeanJean Heartbroken papa bear Gatineau, QuébecRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Vote Compass results, riding per riding

    Interesting how differently Québec and the rest of the country think on most issues. In a few topics, Québec actually bring the national average to the right mainly when it comes to economic relationships with the US and healthcare.

    Jean on
    "You won't destroy us, You won't destroy our democracy. We are a small but proud nation. No one can bomb us to silence. No one can scare us from being Norway. This evening and tonight, we'll take care of each other. That's what we do best when attacked'' - Jens Stoltenberg
  • Torso BoyTorso Boy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    The Ender wrote: »
    I'll restate what I did earlier. The more restrictions that are placed on abortion, the more you make family planning the luxury of the rich. Birth control fails. A lot. That's a fact of life.

    I'm a proponent for pro-choice, but the bolded part of this statement is ridiculous. Modern contraceptives do not fail a lot - even extremely rudimentary birth control techniques like wearing a condom and/or diaphragm without any spermicide only has a failure rate of 2-15% per year per individual, and even then not every slippage or breakage results in pregnancy.

    Pharmaceutical birth control is all but 100% effective. The only documented cases of pills not working were the result of user negligence (taking expired pills, not taking the pills as instructed, etc).


    Abortion should absolutely be an option that is always on the table, but don't throw out this garbage about contraceptives being ineffective. I've heard enough of it from religious nutjobs.

    Contraceptives are very effective.

    I interpreted "birth control fails a lot" to mean in practice, it fails enough to warrant alternative options, not that it has an inherently high rate of failure. I don't think he was claiming that properly used contraceptives are ineffective.

    Underlined: I'm inclined to believe that this is generally the case, and your claim doesn't strike me as implausible, but you put it in such absolute terms that I can't help but ask for a source.

    Torso Boy on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    The Ender wrote: »
    I'll restate what I did earlier. The more restrictions that are placed on abortion, the more you make family planning the luxury of the rich. Birth control fails. A lot. That's a fact of life.

    I'm a proponent for pro-choice, but the bolded part of this statement is ridiculous. Modern contraceptives do not fail a lot - even extremely rudimentary birth control techniques like wearing a condom and/or diaphragm without any spermicide only has a failure rate of 2-15% per year per individual, and even then not every slippage or breakage results in pregnancy.

    Pharmaceutical birth control is all but 100% effective. The only documented cases of pills not working were the result of user negligence (taking expired pills, not taking the pills as instructed, etc).


    Abortion should absolutely be an option that is always on the table, but don't throw out this garbage about contraceptives being ineffective. I've heard enough of it from religious nutjobs.

    Contraceptives are very effective.

    I think it's rather silly you act like user error somehow doesn't count.

    If user error makes birth control fail and user error is common, then birth control commonly fails.

    shryke on
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Jean wrote: »
    Vote Compass results, riding per riding

    Interesting how differently Québec and the rest of the country think on most issues. In a few topics, Québec actually bring the national average to the right mainly when it comes to economic relationships with the US and healthcare.
    The results for "Quebec should become an independent state" are unsurprising but they still made me laugh.

    EDIT: and the results for gay marriage... I did not expect that.

    EDIT2: "Possession of marijuana should be a criminal offence" is just sad :(

    But "Speaking English or French should be a requirement for immigration to Canada" -- funny to see Québec and Alberta together against the rest of Canada :D

    Richy on
    sig.gif
  • ImperfectImperfect Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Hey, cool.

    I guess we get to pay a levy on media cards too, like we pay on blank CDs and tapes.

    You know, because I store so much music on the media card in my camera.

    Imperfect on
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I think it's rather silly you act like user error somehow doesn't count.

    If user error makes birth control fail and user error is common, then birth control commonly fails.

    Except:

    A) User error is not common

    B) It's ridiculous to claim that improper use of a product makes the product defective.
    Underlined: I'm inclined to believe that this is generally the case, and your claim doesn't strike me as implausible, but you put it in such absolute terms that I can't help but ask for a source.

    The 19th Edition of Robert A. Hatcher's Contraceptive Technology.


    Here's the table the author's have on their website for contraceptive effectiveness:

    http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/table.html


    If a woman takes pills as directed on the packaging, her chance of an unwanted pregnancy in a year is 0.3%.

    Calling that 'a lot of failure' on the part of the product is a gross distortion of the truth.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    The Ender wrote: »
    I think it's rather silly you act like user error somehow doesn't count.

    If user error makes birth control fail and user error is common, then birth control commonly fails.

    Except:

    A) User error is not common

    B) It's ridiculous to claim that improper use of a product makes the product defective.

    No one said anything about a specific product. He said "birth control fails". No one said anything about a product being defective.

    Using a condom improperly means your birth control has failed. User behavior is a part of birth control.

    And you are gonna need some sort of cite to claim A.

    shryke on
  • AegisAegis Fear My Dance Overshot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Imperfect wrote: »
    Hey, cool.

    I guess we get to pay a levy on media cards too, like we pay on blank CDs and tapes.

    You know, because I store so much music on the media card in my camera.

    I don't mind an extension of these sorts of levies if it results in the continued legalization of file-sharing like it used to, back in the early millennium.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • Torso BoyTorso Boy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    The Ender wrote: »
    Underlined: I'm inclined to believe that this is generally the case, and your claim doesn't strike me as implausible, but you put it in such absolute terms that I can't help but ask for a source.

    The 19th Edition of Robert A. Hatcher's Contraceptive Technology.


    Here's the table the author's have on their website for contraceptive effectiveness:

    http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/table.html


    If a woman takes pills as directed on the packaging, her chance of an unwanted pregnancy in a year is 0.3%.

    Fair enough. I was thrown off because you said, "The only documented cases of pills not working were the result of user negligence," and I didn't know if it was hyperbole or excessively absolute.
    Calling that 'a lot of failure' on the part of the product is a gross distortion of the truth.

    But it isn't. It's vague, which was my point. You were reading Robman to mean "high rate of failure," and I'm saying I wasn't certain that's what he meant. Three in a thousand, given the number of users, could easily be considered "a lot." It could also be fairly described as "not much at all." Either way, I find it sufficient to necessitate having abortion as an option.

    Torso Boy on
  • darkphoenix22darkphoenix22 Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    -- Deleted --

    darkphoenix22 on
  • ImperfectImperfect Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Aegis wrote: »
    Imperfect wrote: »
    Hey, cool.

    I guess we get to pay a levy on media cards too, like we pay on blank CDs and tapes.

    You know, because I store so much music on the media card in my camera.

    I don't mind an extension of these sorts of levies if it results in the continued legalization of file-sharing like it used to, back in the early millennium.

    Yeah, except that it won't be. This is a government that's tried to ram many a bill through that would have us adopt America-style DMCA laws.

    I expect those to show up AND the media levies to stay.

    Pessimist, realist... Potayto, potahto.

    Imperfect on
This discussion has been closed.