You do realize that's exactly what I said? I bet that no one was going to raise their hand and say "I'm against a women controlling her own reproductive freedom", and as such it was easy to dismiss such people as idiots, but then immediately went on to explain why this lacked any substance, because idiot simply meant someone who disagreed with me. But how far does this go?
So you're stating a thesis just to contradict it? What is
I'm also puzzled by your attempts to honour objections. "disease issues of promiscuity" is a pretty pure excuse to deny someone's freedom on, and similarly, what religious beliefs could lead you to oppose subsidized birth control without infringing on others? If its against your religion, don't take them, subsidy doesn't make them mandatory. As for taxation, there's always going to be something the government funds through tax you disagree with (the police, bonuses to public sector management, legal settlements, war, certain medicle treatment), so that isn't an argument in of itself.
We're wandering astray, but in brief: birth control - in particular the pill - limits some repercussions of sexual activity, but not all; the logic of sociology indicates fewer negatives will increase a behavior, thereby increasing incurable and terminal STDs, which are more strictly negative than the pregnancies that were prevented. Birth control is against orthodox Catholic belief, at least, but is too large a topic to cover here - do some research; and not providing subsidies isn't necessarily infringing on rights, certainly not in the same way as not allowing access. Subsidies don't make taking birth control mandatory, but they do make paying for it
mandatory, and thereby do infringe upon the rights of everyone (specifically, to keep their property). I'm completely confused why the use of one's property for something one disagrees with/simply doesn't value isn't a valid argument; as an example, I don't agree with mandatory taxes to buy Trump a new mansion, not because I'm ethically against his living in one but because I see no personal or social benefit to it that outweighs my right to use my money as I wish.
That's not shades of grey. The black and white is yes vs. no. If no, the above questions are meaningless, so how is that shades of grey? In order to get to the shades of grey (which I do not think are that hard to decide: you subsidize it from age of consent for as long as they need it, yes permanently, yes for health issues, the only real issue there is what brand, and I am unqualified to discuss that), you first have to pass the black and white test and choose white, white being yes.
So you would pay for Paris Hilton's birth control, but wouldn't for a 13 year old being raped by her stepfather? Interesting. Honestly, if you don't see any complexity in any of those questions then I feel you're very ignorant regarding the issue and I suggest reading something written by the moderate opposition.
On some issues, people who disagree with me are plain wrong. But how do I know when they are plain wrong, and when they may have a point?
I'd say that, barring insanity, they're never plain wrong. They may be uninformed, misinformed, more informed, have different values, or simply reach different conclusions, but dismissing anyone as "stupid", "idiot", or "just plain wrong" only because their view differs from yours reveals your own shortcomings, not theirs.
As for what they can disagree with, I rather like Thomas Inman: First, do no harm
. It may seem ridiculous to believe the moon is a spaceship, but as long as no one is harmed by it, why can't they disagree? Let's not imprison Galileo. Issues like racism are more difficult, but again - as long as they don't act upon them to inflict harm, others do have a right to their beliefs. I also dislike allowing someone to disagree based on ignorance of a fact (in the literal sense: something which can be disproved
). Beyond that, people can disagree all they like, and it's up to you to determine if your own beliefs are justified or not - generally by becoming informed, which is conveniently done by listening to what the other person is saying.
The points I saw there:
1. White men are, in fact, vastly overrepresented in spree killings and hate-motivated violence.
2. These killings happen all the damn time (seriously, those examples were from just over one month.) This is the 'context' you felt was lacking.
3. Despite (1) and (2), we continue to treat white male killers as 'isolated incidents', and pretend there's nothing in our culture that contributes to it. This includes concerted efforts to ignore, gloss over, or erase hate-based motivations in many cases.
4. We do (3) and simultaneously give special consideration to white spree killers that we wouldn't give to their victims - including pretending that they're isolated and unconnected to anything that might fuel their hatred and violence.
I disagree. Per the FBI
, in 2013 in the US there were 189 blacks killed by whites, 2245 blacks killed by blacks, 409 whites killed by blacks and 2509 whites killed by whites, all of which are well established patterns, indicating that most violence is actually confined within racial groups and violent white on black hate murders are in fact limited, contrary to what the talking heads try to imply during skewed news coverage of dramatic events. In fact, considering the comparison of population (13.2% black and 77.7% white) blacks are much more likely to kill and also much more likely to kill a white than a white is to kill a black. In my opinion there are a ton of socioeconomic reasons for this, rather than innate racial characteristics, but if simply making blanket statements based on skin pigment then the numbers are not what the article is trying to imply.
There are 11 examples provided. Per the 2010 census
there are 223,553,265 white Americans, 49.2% of which are male, so .00001% (1 in 10,000,000) of white American males was involved in those shootings. Running the 2013 numbers (and not even correcting for multiple murders by the same individuals) a typical white American male has a .0025% chance of committing murder. That is 1 in 400,000, or about 1.5 in a population equivalent to the state of Wyoming, which is, I submit, a pretty isolated incident. I agree, however, that culture is certainly an issue, although I'm more concerned with the result of beliefs based on anecdotal evidence and dramatic media influencing the behavior of isolated psychotics.