Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

[ameretrifle]

I know I'm going to get lots of flak for this, but I feel obligated to point out that there's a free way to prevent pregnancy with 100% success rate (other than rape).

Hmm. A relatively minor point, but let's experiment. The instigating incident of this article was a woman testifying that "birth control" is not always used for contraception. People in this thread have reiterated that "birth control" is not always used for contraception. I can tell you that I have been on "the Pill" and it was not for contraception. I can link you to an article that includes stories about birth control being necessary as something other than contraception just off the top of my head.

If this was about blood transfusions, or psychiatric medication-- both of which are even more against certain religions-- would you be telling people how easy it is to avoid accidents and not be born with hemophilia, or how exercise and sunshine are free? You are against medical marijuana, right? How about Viagra? They're trying to ban that too, right? I mean, back in the old days, when a guy had "erectile dysfunction", he just stopped having sex. Perfectly free. Natural order of things. So they're making a huge thing out of not covering that, either, right?

What if someone is married and getting pregnant will threaten her life? Should *she* never have sex again? Or should she die in pregnancy or childbirth, leaving her kids and her spouse alone and in poverty? Is that what happens if you don't have the good sense to have money or choose an employer (out of the oh-so-many available) who isn't Catholic?

Are you at least perfectly clear yet that this is not only about women wanting to have sex without getting pregnant--which they damn well have the right to do, but I'm hoping the current pileon has handled that well enough-- but also sometimes about women not wanting to be denied coverage for medication they will DIE or be SERIOUSLY ill WITHOUT?

[CorruptUser]

[Devils_Advocate]
Viagra increases the chance for procreation, so religion would allow it without being inherently misogynist/contradictory.
[/Devils_Advocate]

Personally, I'm of the belief that morals are subjective, based entirely on whatever we think would be best for us rather than society as a whole. Philosophy is generated after the fact; we start with the conclusion of 'best for us' and then work backwards to the basics. Understand that, and half of the arguments of the world make a lot more sense. "This would not bring maximum benefit to me." "Well, doing that helps me and my friends less than doing this, so you are a heathen!" "But you aren't supporting the system that maximizes the power of the people that use said power to ostensibly help me, so what you say is anathema!"

So people arguing for less birth control are of the belief that somehow, restrictions on birth control help them somehow. I just wish I could figure out who benefits from that. As a sum total, society doesn't, though I'm sure there are people here disagree with me and are willing to argue that Society + Children Born out of Wedlock > Society.

If I seem to be spouting nonsense, I should let you know that I am currently drunk as I type this. Not just drunk, but really drunk, just not drunk enough to be slurring my typing. I think. I realize that being drunk is not an excuse for being a complete jerk to everyone else, and I would apologize except apologies imply I wish I hadn't been drunk in the first place...

[sourmìlk]

Do you mean "morals" as in the ideal "what should we do?" or the more realistic "What do I want us to do?"

I've seen people far less lucid sober. Me, for instance.

[CorruptUser]

Morals as in "should". The old "ought" instead of "is".

Ideally, people should take a course of action that does benefit both to society as a whole and to themselves. To themselves, because realistically, even socialist societies aren't perfect when it comes to that. For society because, well, I'd rather (perhaps arbitrarily) live in a world where people that cause more external 'harm' than external 'good' don't exist. Yes, as much of an asshole as that makes me, I said it; I'd like it if all people were a 'net positive'. In keeping with what I said before, yes, this is based on what is 'best' for me. I suspect we all, on some level, agree with that "ought". I suspect Socialists just think that society can help you more than you can by yourself, while Libertarians think that you can help yourself more than society can. Perhaps we all have the same goal, even if we don't agree on the means.

I get too philosophical/existential when I drink. First time I binged drank since last year; now I remember why I usually don't.

[mike-l]

Sourmilk already has one thread derailed on the definition of morals among other thinks. This one is already tangential enough without getting into that

[sourmìlk]

Perhaps we all have the same goal, even if we don't agree on the means.

Dude, this is exactly what I was saying in the other thread with the emotions and the reason. Why do only drunk people agree with me?

I get too philosophical/existential when I drink. First time I binged drank since last year; now I remember why I usually don't.

Why did you binge drink this time?

[CorruptUser]

I get too philosophical/existential when I drink. First time I binged drank since last year; now I remember why I usually don't.

Why did you binge drink this time?

Boredom and apathy, mostly.

Sourmilk already has one thread derailed on the definition of morals among other thinks. This one is already tangential enough without getting into that

Actually that was me. Sorry about that.

Re-railing the thread, does anyone know which advertisers were pulled, other than "some"?

[22/7]

NPR has a regularly updated post. Unfortunately, as a hugely popular, nationally syndicated talk show, 9 advertisers is practically nothing, even though they are national. Also, he'll have other advertisers lining up for their slots by the end of the month.

[sourmìlk]

I think that's just on NPR. Rush has lost over 40 advertisers total.

[pizzazz]

Short-ish reply.

Belial, your plan seems short sighted and risky. Forsaking principles of liberty for supposed quick, practical solutions is a fast way to totalitarianism, the way Germany did leading up to WWII. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Pointing out that some supposed solution is suboptimal is hardly the same as a Nirvana Fallacy. Perhaps you should stop pretending that you can have everything you want without any negative side effects.

I admit I totally screwed up on the rape figures. Wasn't relevant to my point though, more curiosity.

There's a lot of comparisons of the United States to other countries. I'm not sure they are entirely valid; health care systems are not the only difference. And I'm not defending the US system here (well, not in it's entirety).

The instigating incident of this article was a woman testifying that "birth control" is not always used for contraception.

I made that statement specifically in response to a comment about pregnancy.

If this was about blood transfusions, or psychiatric medication-- both of which are even more against certain religions-- would you be telling people how easy it is to avoid accidents and not be born with hemophilia, or how exercise and sunshine are free? You are against medical marijuana, right? How about Viagra? They're trying to ban that too, right? I mean, back in the old days, when a guy had "erectile dysfunction", he just stopped having sex. Perfectly free. Natural order of things. So they're making a huge thing out of not covering that, either, right?

What if someone is married and getting pregnant will threaten her life? Should *she* never have sex again? Or should she die in pregnancy or childbirth, leaving her kids and her spouse alone and in poverty? Is that what happens if you don't have the good sense to have money or choose an employer (out of the oh-so-many available) who isn't Catholic?

Put fewer words in my mouth, doing so makes you look like an idiot.
And on a more general note, "refuse to pay for" is not the same thing as a ban.

Are you at least perfectly clear yet that this is not only about women wanting to have sex without getting pregnant--which they damn well have the right to do, but I'm hoping the current pileon has handled that well enough-- but also sometimes about women not wanting to be denied coverage for medication they will DIE or be SERIOUSLY ill WITHOUT?

I have to focus on the underlined part (emphasis mine). Am I actually the only one here who finds this totally ridiculous? Where does this right come from? I'm not even sure it's even medically possible to accomplish this, at least not without significant risk. And doing so requires a fair investment of resources. Are you saying women have an undeniable right to these resources, even if they must be taken from others? Because that seems to constitute slavery to me.

Finally, none of these arguments about who or what has had sex when or why or for how long, is convincing me that it is so necessary, that it is a travesty and a violation of human rights that we do not force people to pay so others can have sex without getting pregnant. That is just so utterly ridiculous in my opinion.

[Garm]

Here's a vague hypothetical situation that I haven't seen mentioned. Two hospitals (or hospital companies) merge. One Catholic (there are lots of Catholic hospitals), the other secular. Catholic hospital is bigger or more influential so it forces the religious exemption on all its new employees. Religious Freedom, right? The merger of hospitals is not hypothetical, the invoking of the exemption is, but it's a concerning situation.

Abstinence also has the bad side-effect of not preparing people for actual sexual relationships. Kids who have gone through abstinence only sex-ed have a much higher pregnancy rate.

Edit: I also wanted to respond to whomever mentioned Bill Maher or other people from the "left" who made misogynistic comments. For the most part, the left does a much better job of policing themselves. Ed Schultz, for instance, was suspended for a week and spent a long time apologizing for his on air screed against some conservative lady. Also, the left generally doesn't spend nine hours trying to slut shame some woman for her congressional testimony. Nine hours. I can't even talk about something like that for nine minutes.

[Princess Marzipan]

Are you at least perfectly clear yet that this is not only about women wanting to have sex without getting pregnant--which they damn well have the right to do, but I'm hoping the current pileon has handled that well enough-- but also sometimes about women not wanting to be denied coverage for medication they will DIE or be SERIOUSLY ill WITHOUT?

I have to focus on the underlined part (emphasis mine). [...]

You focused on it quite well, even to the exclusion of the actual question you were asked. A nearly flawless dodge.

[mike-l]

Are you at least perfectly clear yet that this is not only about women wanting to have sex without getting pregnant--which they damn well have the right to do, but I'm hoping the current pileon has handled that well enough-- but also sometimes about women not wanting to be denied coverage for medication they will DIE or be SERIOUSLY ill WITHOUT?

I have to focus on the underlined part (emphasis mine). Am I actually the only one here who finds this totally ridiculous?

Yes, you are. And you seem to continue to ignore the bolded part.

Why aren't you complaining about the 'right' this law grants people to eat McDicks every day, and we now have to pay for their Diabetes meds? This focus on birth control is a very thinly veiled attack on women. I find it totally ridiculous that you feel this is OK.

[Zamfir]

Belial, your plan seems short sighted and risky. Forsaking principles of liberty for supposed quick, practical solutions is a fast way to totalitarianism, the way Germany did leading up to WWII. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Reporting in from totalitaristan, I am wondering why you consider access to healthcare an example of a 'little temporary safety'. Do you personally intend to give up health insurance in return for some 'essential liberty', or do you want other people to lose insurance for your essential liberties? I don't think the second is particularly brave.

Also, they have pills nowadays that solve that 'little and temporary' problem. Limbaugh recommends them.

[Malice]

Finally, none of these arguments about who or what has had sex when or why or for how long, is convincing me that it is so necessary, that it is a travesty and a violation of human rights that we do not force people to pay so others can have sex without getting pregnant. That is just so utterly ridiculous in my opinion.

As I mentioned (and cited) earlier in the thread, including contraception in health insurance saves money. Is it a travesty and a violation of human rights to force people to pay less?

[Zamfir]

I presume pizzazz doesn't want to pay those other costs of unwanted pregnancies either.

[Bharrata]

It appears theRonPaul is strong in this thread.

[pizzazz]

Are you at least perfectly clear yet that this is not only about women wanting to have sex without getting pregnant--which they damn well have the right to do, but I'm hoping the current pileon has handled that well enough-- but also sometimes about women not wanting to be denied coverage for medication they will DIE or be SERIOUSLY ill WITHOUT?

I have to focus on the underlined part (emphasis mine). Am I actually the only one here who finds this totally ridiculous?

Yes, you are. And you seem to continue to ignore the bolded part.

Why aren't you complaining about the 'right' this law grants people to eat McDicks every day, and we now have to pay for their Diabetes meds? This focus on birth control is a very thinly veiled attack on women. I find it totally ridiculous that you feel this is OK.

I most certainly would be, if this were the appropriate thread (in fact, I'm pretty sure I have). My position has nothing to do with women, and I am not singling out birth control (though in the case of birth control being used solely to prevent procreation, it is a particularly egregious example of what I dislike about the health care bill).

I already addressed the bolded part. Several times, in fact.

[clockworkmonk]

dead-air on Rush Limbaugh's show.
I believe this might be scoot-n-froody.

[aeki]

My position has nothing to do with women, and I am not singling out birth control (though in the case of birth control being used solely to prevent procreation, it is a particularly egregious example of what I dislike about the health care bill).

You keep focusing on how you don't want medicine that prevents pregnancy-related medical problems to be covered, the consequences of which fall solely on women. I don't know whether your insistence on treating sex like an indulgence rather than an integral part of human relationships comes from inexperience, willful ignorance, spite, or latent misogyny, but your position has everything to do with women whether you intended it to or not.

[Diadem]

I believe this might be scoot-n-froody.

Thank you, that one made me laugh.

How do English speakers pronounce that word anyway? I know how it's pronounced in German, of course, but the proper German pronunciation is probably not easy for English speakers.

[mike-l]

Shad in froid

[sardia]

Are you at least perfectly clear yet that this is not only about women wanting to have sex without getting pregnant--which they damn well have the right to do, but I'm hoping the current pileon has handled that well enough-- but also sometimes about women not wanting to be denied coverage for medication they will DIE or be SERIOUSLY ill WITHOUT?

I have to focus on the underlined part (emphasis mine). Am I actually the only one here who finds this totally ridiculous?

Yes, you are. And you seem to continue to ignore the bolded part.

Why aren't you complaining about the 'right' this law grants people to eat McDicks every day, and we now have to pay for their Diabetes meds? This focus on birth control is a very thinly veiled attack on women. I find it totally ridiculous that you feel this is OK.

I most certainly would be, if this were the appropriate thread (in fact, I'm pretty sure I have). My position has nothing to do with women, and I am not singling out birth control (though in the case of birth control being used solely to prevent procreation, it is a particularly egregious example of what I dislike about the health care bill).

I already addressed the bolded part. Several times, in fact.

Your position on an egregious health care proposal seems to spring from conservatives who bring it up. We have 0 conservatives who bring up say... condoms and viagra dispensers from insurance companies. How do you compare your different reactions towards both. One has outrage, and the other has apathetic disapproval at best. Your logic is that sex isn't a right, so we shouldn't have to pay for anything that is related to it.
You're going with the religious freedom and sex isn't a right lines of argumentation right? Or are you adding in the libertarian "get government out of my healthcare" line? The last one has to do with social compact, everyone voted for it, and your side lost. We had to pay for a war on terrorism, now everyone gotta help pay for health care.

[drash]

I know I shouldn't dive back into this, but when there's such universality of opinion, someone has to explain the other side, lest you become lazy in your thinking.

This event, and many others that have occurred and are to come, show the problem with universal health care and even the premise that health care is a right. The practical upshot of that conclusion (and practical upshots are what we go by, if the repeated declarations in this thread that the conservative position is all about misogyny) is that we can force people to pay for anything that the health-care establishment thinks is desirable regardless if the payor doesn't want it, thinks it's too expensive, believes it to be murder, etc. At which point it's just a question of who controls the establishment. Get enough devout Catholics on the AMA boards and it's birth control out, priestly consultations in.

But, you say, our position is not arbitrary, but based on reason and experience. Choosing reason and experience over other standards is arbitrary. When the first amendment says that you have the right to not have a religion established that has control over you, it does not mean that you have the obligation to be controlled by a nullifidian system of reason.

When a Catholic says that this is not about sex or misogyny but his beliefs, and you conclude that he's being disingenuous, you open yourself up for the same line of logic, and so I assume that Ms. Fluke's position is not based on a genuine belief that universal health care is good policy, but instead comes from hatred of religion and promiscuity. Why shouldn't I or Rush Limbaugh (Seriously, will no one edit the title? If that's the standard, then note to self: be the first to post the next thread about left-wing NY Times columnist Charles Blow) work from that premise both for humor and for debate position?

But even the most extreme case of moral dissent for nationalized healthcare- "I believe my tax dollars are paying for abortion"- already has an extant analogue. War. We go to war all the time, often in ways that a large percentage of the coutry thinks is unjust. Religious dissenters to military service (Quakers, etc.) are numerous. But even those who object to any waging of war will often pay taxes to a government that maintains an army.

So you're conflating two separate ideas. One, the religious objection to certain medicines. Two, paying taxes to a government that may at times act in ways counter to your moral system. Although the United States goernment was founded with a great deal of respect for individual religious liberty, there were still Quakers around when that government used tax dollars to help wage their early wars and other armed conflicts.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that while the moral dilemma may be legitimate, it represents a massive and very new escalation in the idea of what religious liberty actually entails. One that is not reflected in precedent or any kind of clear intent by the author of any law that I know of, constitution included. Hence, a more reasonable interpretation of these objections is not one of religious liberty but of mysogyny and general partisanship.

[22/7]

I think that's just on NPR. Rush has lost over 40 advertisers total.

Looks like they just didn't keep updating it...

I have to focus on the underlined part (emphasis mine). Am I actually the only one here who finds this totally ridiculous? Where does this right come from? I'm not even sure it's even medically possible to accomplish this, at least not without significant risk. And doing so requires a fair investment of resources. Are you saying women have an undeniable right to these resources, even if they must be taken from others? Because that seems to constitute slavery to me.

It's a right in the same way I have the right to take baths instead of showers. It's none of anyone else's business and there's no reason for it to be in any way restricted. Also, you're not seriously in a discussion about hormonal birth control and claiming that it's not medically possible for women to have sex as much as they want without getting pregnant, are you? Really? And comparing taxes or insurance pools to slavery? Really?

Finally, none of these arguments about who or what has had sex when or why or for how long, is convincing me that it is so necessary, that it is a travesty and a violation of human rights that we do not force people to pay so others can have sex without getting pregnant. That is just so utterly ridiculous in my opinion.

Can we please go back to the LIE that someone else is paying for this? THEY'RE ALREADY PAYING FOR THE COVERAGE. And the insurance companies are happy to do it because women/families who have kids when they want to have them instead of whenever they happen to have sex at the wrong time of the month do so more responsibly, generally further apart, fewer times over all, and in a more healthy manner. All around, good things that lead to less money paid out by the insurer.

[Fantastic Idea]

I think that's just on NPR. Rush has lost over 40 advertisers total.

Looks like they just didn't keep updating it...

I have to focus on the underlined part (emphasis mine). Am I actually the only one here who finds this totally ridiculous? Where does this right come from? I'm not even sure it's even medically possible to accomplish this, at least not without significant risk. And doing so requires a fair investment of resources. Are you saying women have an undeniable right to these resources, even if they must be taken from others? Because that seems to constitute slavery to me.

It's a right in the same way I have the right to take baths instead of showers. It's none of anyone else's business and there's no reason for it to be in any way restricted. Also, you're not seriously in a discussion about hormonal birth control and claiming that it's not medically possible for women to have sex as much as they want without getting pregnant, are you? Really? And comparing taxes or insurance pools to slavery? Really?

SERIOUSLY. Looks like maybe he is? I don't get this part, at the fuck all.
Seriously dude. What are you saying here, Pizzazz.
It's health insurance. It pays for medication. Hormonal BC is medication that does things other than prevent pregnancy. Like save lives. But you're saying... what, that this equates to making everyone pay to keep all women alive as long as possible? Is that what you're saying when you're talking about resources? I am pretty sure that doesn't even make sense.
INsurance pays for healthcare. Birth control is healtcare. Where do you see slavery in this.
Is it in your asshole?

[Malice]

No, see, slavery is the end result of this ride down the slippery slope of doom! Allow me to demonstrate:

1. Free birth control is declared a right.
2. The money to pay for birth control is taken from taxes.
3. People refuse to pay their taxes.
4. Those people are forced by the government at gunpoint to work to earn the money to pay for the birth control, because calling something a "right" apparently means it gets precedence over all other rights, because we're totally not a society with many rights that we try to keep in careful balance with one another for the good of all. Nope.

[22/7]

Where do you see slavery in this.
Is it in your asshole?

I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.

[gmalivuk]

People still have porn on DVDs? I mean, I guess at least it's not VHS, but still.

[22/7]

People still have porn on DVDs? I mean, I guess at least it's not VHS, but still.

You don't get rid of the classics.

[jareds]

I believe this might be scoot-n-froody.

Thank you, that one made me laugh.

How do English speakers pronounce that word anyway? I know how it's pronounced in German, of course, but the proper German pronunciation is probably not easy for English speakers.

I've mostly heard it more or less as given on the English Wikipedia, except that it is very common for the final "e" to be completely silent.

I think you're forgetting to take into account how many loanwords English has and how irregular its pronounciation is in the first place. Most speakers who would use a word like schadenfreude have at least a half-baked grasp of how to pronounce the major Western European languages.

[mike-l]

English is also a germanic language, as is, unsurprisingly, German. In fact they're both west germanic

[sourmìlk]

People still have porn on DVDs? I mean, I guess at least it's not VHS, but still.

You don't get rid of the classics.

Of course not, you pirate them from the internet.

[22/7]

I think you're forgetting to take into account how many loanwords English has and how irregular its pronounciation is in the first place. Most speakers who would use a loaf like schadenfreude have at least a half-baked grasp of how to pronounce the major Western European languages.

Speaking of "loan words", Ninja Warrior was on the other day (I hadn't seen this show in years) and it reminded me that, at least on TV, the Japanese seem to pepper normal English words into their shows, and not where it would make sense to me. English borrows a lot of words from other languages, too, but on NW, instead of saying "spider climb" in Japanese, they'll just say it in English. Surely Japanese already contains words for both concepts. Anybody have any idea why they do this?

Sorry for the (further) OT.

[sourmìlk]

Why is 'words' now 'words'.

[22/7]

I miss this place.

[gmalivuk]

Why is 'words' now 'loaves'.

Because we already wordfiltered wordfilter to breadcrumbs, so it only makes sense that words should become loaves.

[sourmìlk]

Testing: letter word

Wait, what turns into breadcrumb?

It's still better than the could / should switch.

[gmalivuk]

Testing: letter loaf

Wait, what turns into breadcrumb?

It's still better than the could / should switch.

You probably shouldn't have said that. Or, so this will remain understandable a few minutes from now, it was probably not a good idea to mention that.

[sourmìlk]

I don't think I was the first to suggest that. But I think I'm going to duck out of a few ethical discussions if those two terms are going to be conflated.