happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,882
|
Post by happyhoix on May 9, 2019 10:43:49 GMT -5
Is there an exception in the law to allow the removal of an ectopic pregnacy, a blighted ovum, or an incomplete natural miscarriage? You do realize those medical procedures are called abortions even though the fetus is not viable? I haven't read the whole thing, but it's based on whether or not there is still a fetal heartbeat. Even if a miscarriage has occurred, no medical proceedings can be started until there is no longer a heart beat.
Until recently Ireland had the same law, there was a big stink a few years back when a woman began to miscarriage at 17 weeks. She waited days until they would do any medical procedures due to the heartbeat law and she died the next day of septicemia.
www.nytimes.com/2018/05/27/world/europe/savita-halappanavar-ireland-abortion.html
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on May 9, 2019 10:43:59 GMT -5
Is there an exception in the law to allow the removal of an ectopic pregnacy, a blighted ovum, or an incomplete natural miscarriage? You do realize those medical procedures are called abortions even though the fetus is not viable? Yes.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,393
|
Post by thyme4change on May 9, 2019 10:50:44 GMT -5
It isn’t buying political opinion. It’s saying we can’t get women to work in your state if they may be threatened with prison for a miscarriage or be unable to leave the state to get an abortion without legal acton against them... And individuals are always able to exert pressure through boycot. I do not understand how a state can restrict an individual's travel. That is fucking insane. I know there are other problems with this bill (and they are also quite terrible) but being arrested for going to another state and doing something legal has got to be unconstitutional. If I go to Vegas and gamble, should AZ be able to arrest me? If I go to Wyoming, buy and gun and sell it and then go home to California, should they be allowed to arrest me because I bought a gun without a license? If I go to Texas and drive 85 miles per hour and go home to Baltimore, the State of Maryland can give me a speeding ticket? Removing the abortion discussion, is that really the kind of control we want to give our governments? Meanwhile, corporations can toxic waste into any waterways, say Republicans. WTF?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 9, 2019 11:08:43 GMT -5
It might also irritate people who want businesses of all types to stick with what they know, their business, rather than trying to turn every business (and I think in particular, entertainment businesses) into platforms for politics. In the same way that I don't want to tune in to entertainment (sports, movies, music, etc) and see a bunch of political talk, I don't want to tune into a political show on CNN or similar network and hear their uneducated opinions on sports. Nor do I want them to say "we're not going to cover the Senate race in New York this year because we think the owner of the Knicks is a travesty". I don't want the NFL to "take a stand" on any political/legislation issue, they can barely handle football issues like CTE (disciplining their players over things like violence against women is different IMO, it's not political, it is regulating their own players and the commission of crimes or actions which hurt the team/league...that's very different than trying to get involved in legislation which doesn't actually impact their product, which is football). NFL is supported by fans. If the NFL decides to have the superbowl in Atlanta, and the majority of their fans support a boycott against Georgia due to this law (or any law) that the majority of the fans think is worth boycotting Georgia for, the NFL runs the risk of having a bunch of their fans fail to show up for the superbowl, and refuse to watch it on TV. The whole problem is fixed if the NFL decides to switch and have their superbowl in Texas, instead - fans are happy, and the NFL gets the cash.
It's always all about the money. It isn't whether the NFL as a group approves of the legislation or not, it's whether the NFL thinks this issue is important enough to their fans that a certain percentage of them refuse to come.
My point was that there aren't just 2 sides, there are 3. In general, when "Thing A" occurs. There are people who will support an unrelated company who says "we support Thing A". There are people who will support an unrelated company who says "we oppose Thing A". And there are people who want the company to shut up and focus on their business and will only support the company if they stay in their lane. So it's not just "what side do most of our fans fall on", there's also the question of "do our fans even want us to be involved at all". Really I'm also simply indicting fan/consumer intellect. I don't have any doubt that huge majority's of fans of all things will develop a mob mentality over things like legislation that they actually don't understand at ALL. Consumers would be much better off understanding that they should prefer businesses to focus on their business, rather than trying to guess which stance might make for a better PR move. In general neither the businesses nor the consumers actually understand the issues well enough to make an intelligent decision. Consumers base their opinions off of whoever they happen to hear spin the issue, and businesses make their decisions based on which group of stupid consumers happens to be larger. But then that also goes back to the post I responded to, which was that the NFL hasn't done a good job of handling the issue of violence against women. That's a social judgement by the poster. It's not a monetary indictment (I agree that socially they have done a poor job of the issue, but monetarily I think they've probably done quite well...they punish folks based on how much bad publicity there is as opposed to what actually occurred).
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on May 9, 2019 11:14:38 GMT -5
It isn’t buying political opinion. It’s saying we can’t get women to work in your state if they may be threatened with prison for a miscarriage or be unable to leave the state to get an abortion without legal acton against them... And individuals are always able to exert pressure through boycot. I do not understand how a state can restrict an individual's travel. That is fucking insane. I know there are other problems with this bill (and they are also quite terrible) but being arrested for going to another state and doing something legal has got to be unconstitutional. If I go to Vegas and gamble, should AZ be able to arrest me? If I go to Wyoming, buy and gun and sell it and then go home to California, should they be allowed to arrest me because I bought a gun without a license? If I go to Texas and drive 85 miles per hour and go home to Baltimore, the State of Maryland can give me a speeding ticket? Removing the abortion discussion, is that really the kind of control we want to give our governments? Meanwhile, corporations can toxic waste into any waterways, say Republicans. WTF? Anyone that knows me knows that I am very much pro-life (but I also know that I am not in the majority and would not be against voting for a candidate that believed in early abortion because again, I know I am not in the majority...later abortionists can rot in hell). Having said that, no, I am 100% against government involvement in deciding where I can travel to or for what reasons I can travel. I also believe attempting to do so would have to be unconstitutional.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 9, 2019 11:16:23 GMT -5
It might also irritate people who want businesses of all types to stick with what they know, their business, rather than trying to turn every business (and I think in particular, entertainment businesses) into platforms for politics. In the same way that I don't want to tune in to entertainment (sports, movies, music, etc) and see a bunch of political talk, I don't want to tune into a political show on CNN or similar network and hear their uneducated opinions on sports. Nor do I want them to say "we're not going to cover the Senate race in New York this year because we think the owner of the Knicks is a travesty". I don't want the NFL to "take a stand" on any political/legislation issue, they can barely handle football issues like CTE (disciplining their players over things like violence against women is different IMO, it's not political, it is regulating their own players and the commission of crimes or actions which hurt the team/league...that's very different than trying to get involved in legislation which doesn't actually impact their product, which is football). I do understand what you're saying and perhaps I would agree with you if I didn't feel so strongly about this issue . The Georgia flag was redesigned to remove the confederate symbol when the NCAA threatened boycotts; the African-American population is roughly 12% in this country. The Religious Freedom bill was vetoed when both businesses and sporting events said they wouldn't open businesses here or hold tournaments. An estimated 10% of the US population are gay. Why is it different for an issue that affects 50% of the population? Incidentally, although this is technically about access to legal abortion the ramifications for women's health go way beyond the termination of unwanted pregnancies. It's not, they should have stayed out of those issues as well. Especially an organization like the NCAA who can't walk and chew gum at the same time. I think that's actually a great example, the NCAA spends a ton of money and time on PR, while being totally incompetent at the issues which form the core of their actual business. I'm just saying there will always be a portion of consumers who'd rather a company spend their resources being good at their actual business, and letting other issues be resolved by those involved...rather than making PR stands (even if the result of the PR stand is something we want to see happen).
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,393
|
Post by thyme4change on May 9, 2019 11:17:21 GMT -5
I do not understand how a state can restrict an individual's travel. That is fucking insane. I know there are other problems with this bill (and they are also quite terrible) but being arrested for going to another state and doing something legal has got to be unconstitutional. If I go to Vegas and gamble, should AZ be able to arrest me? If I go to Wyoming, buy and gun and sell it and then go home to California, should they be allowed to arrest me because I bought a gun without a license? If I go to Texas and drive 85 miles per hour and go home to Baltimore, the State of Maryland can give me a speeding ticket? Removing the abortion discussion, is that really the kind of control we want to give our governments? Meanwhile, corporations can toxic waste into any waterways, say Republicans. WTF? Anyone that knows me knows that I am very much pro-life (but I also know that I am not in the majority and would not be against voting for a candidate that believed in early abortion because again, I know I am not in the majority...later abortionists can rot in hell). Having said that, no, I am 100% against government involvement in deciding where I can travel to or for what reasons I can travel. I also believe attempting to do so would have to be unconstitutional. I was so hoping that would be your answer.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,882
|
Post by happyhoix on May 9, 2019 11:21:01 GMT -5
NFL is supported by fans. If the NFL decides to have the superbowl in Atlanta, and the majority of their fans support a boycott against Georgia due to this law (or any law) that the majority of the fans think is worth boycotting Georgia for, the NFL runs the risk of having a bunch of their fans fail to show up for the superbowl, and refuse to watch it on TV. The whole problem is fixed if the NFL decides to switch and have their superbowl in Texas, instead - fans are happy, and the NFL gets the cash.
It's always all about the money. It isn't whether the NFL as a group approves of the legislation or not, it's whether the NFL thinks this issue is important enough to their fans that a certain percentage of them refuse to come.
My point was that there aren't just 2 sides, there are 3. In general, when "Thing A" occurs. There are people who will support an unrelated company who says "we support Thing A". There are people who will support an unrelated company who says "we oppose Thing A". And there are people who want the company to shut up and focus on their business and will only support the company if they stay in their lane. So it's not just "what side do most of our fans fall on", there's also the question of "do our fans even want us to be involved at all". Really I'm also simply indicting fan/consumer intellect. I don't have any doubt that huge majority's of fans of all things will develop a mob mentality over things like legislation that they actually don't understand at ALL. Consumers would be much better off understanding that they should prefer businesses to focus on their business, rather than trying to guess which stance might make for a better PR move. In general neither the businesses nor the consumers actually understand the issues well enough to make an intelligent decision. Consumers base their opinions off of whoever they happen to hear spin the issue, and businesses make their decisions based on which group of stupid consumers happens to be larger. But then that also goes back to the post I responded to, which was that the NFL hasn't done a good job of handling the issue of violence against women. That's a social judgement by the poster. It's not a monetary indictment (I agree that socially they have done a poor job of the issue, but monetarily I think they've probably done quite well...they punish folks based on how much bad publicity there is as opposed to what actually occurred). I agree with what you're saying - in theory, businesses should stick to their own business - but in reality, businesses live or die on PR. Not that long ago, Proctor and Gamble had a prolonged fight due to their logo, which some Christian groups identified as a 'devil worshipping' symbol. (The moon and stars). For decades that fake news cropped up and prompted boycotts - there was even a story going around that the head of P and G went on Donahue and talked about worshipping Satan - all fake, but it refused to die. It impacted their business. Eventually they had to change their logo.
If enough NFL fans organize a boycott against the sport for holding the superbowl in Atlanta, the NFL either has to ignore the issue and live with the boycott, making the NFL fans against the boycott happy, but angering those fans who are boycotting. Or, move the game and hope both sides are fairly happy.
I don't know if there are many women in the NFL fan base, or if women would be successful in getting a boycott organized, but right or wrong, the NFL would have to make an assessment of how much damage it could do to them in bad PR.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 9, 2019 11:24:51 GMT -5
It isn’t buying political opinion. It’s saying we can’t get women to work in your state if they may be threatened with prison for a miscarriage or be unable to leave the state to get an abortion without legal acton against them... And individuals are always able to exert pressure through boycot. I do not understand how a state can restrict an individual's travel. That is fucking insane. I know there are other problems with this bill (and they are also quite terrible) but being arrested for going to another state and doing something legal has got to be unconstitutional. If I go to Vegas and gamble, should AZ be able to arrest me? If I go to Wyoming, buy and gun and sell it and then go home to California, should they be allowed to arrest me because I bought a gun without a license? If I go to Texas and drive 85 miles per hour and go home to Baltimore, the State of Maryland can give me a speeding ticket? Removing the abortion discussion, is that really the kind of control we want to give our governments? Meanwhile, corporations can toxic waste into any waterways, say Republicans. WTF? Honestly, sometimes I have very serious thoughts about whether some of these kinds of inclusions are the ideas of people who secretly don't support legislation but know that it's going to pass and know that if they don't vote with their party they're going to fail upon re-election. Do they just toss out these very extreme ideas on one-side because they think secretly that extreme idea is what's going to make it declared unconstitutional and have the whole thing thrown out when they actually oppose the idea? I liken it to when my wife starts talking about how "we should eat healthier" and starts tossing out ideas on all the things I like that we should stop eating. I can't just say "no, I don't want to eat healthier" because that's not a side I can really argue. So instead I just super support her side, like "yeah, you're totally right, we should also cut out borderline things A, B, & C" which just happen to be all her favorite things. The only way to get what I want is to go so over the top ridiculous in supporting her that her more reasonable opinion becomes untenable and she backs off the entire thing.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,510
|
Post by chiver78 on May 9, 2019 11:25:18 GMT -5
okay, some of the posts are pushing the inferno line. if you guys can edit that out, that'd be great. otherwise I'm going to have to move whole posts.
thanks in advance! -chiver mod
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 9, 2019 11:38:35 GMT -5
My point was that there aren't just 2 sides, there are 3. In general, when "Thing A" occurs. There are people who will support an unrelated company who says "we support Thing A". There are people who will support an unrelated company who says "we oppose Thing A". And there are people who want the company to shut up and focus on their business and will only support the company if they stay in their lane. So it's not just "what side do most of our fans fall on", there's also the question of "do our fans even want us to be involved at all". Really I'm also simply indicting fan/consumer intellect. I don't have any doubt that huge majority's of fans of all things will develop a mob mentality over things like legislation that they actually don't understand at ALL. Consumers would be much better off understanding that they should prefer businesses to focus on their business, rather than trying to guess which stance might make for a better PR move. In general neither the businesses nor the consumers actually understand the issues well enough to make an intelligent decision. Consumers base their opinions off of whoever they happen to hear spin the issue, and businesses make their decisions based on which group of stupid consumers happens to be larger. But then that also goes back to the post I responded to, which was that the NFL hasn't done a good job of handling the issue of violence against women. That's a social judgement by the poster. It's not a monetary indictment (I agree that socially they have done a poor job of the issue, but monetarily I think they've probably done quite well...they punish folks based on how much bad publicity there is as opposed to what actually occurred). I agree with what you're saying - in theory, businesses should stick to their own business - but in reality, businesses live or die on PR. Not that long ago, Proctor and Gamble had a prolonged fight due to their logo, which some Christian groups identified as a 'devil worshipping' symbol. (The moon and stars). For decades that fake news cropped up and prompted boycotts - there was even a story going around that the head of P and G went on Donahue and talked about worshipping Satan - all fake, but it refused to die. It impacted their business. Eventually they had to change their logo.
If enough NFL fans organize a boycott against the sport for holding the superbowl in Atlanta, the NFL either has to ignore the issue and live with the boycott, making the NFL fans against the boycott happy, but angering those fans who are boycotting. Or, move the game and hope both sides are fairly happy.
I don't know if there are many women in the NFL fan base, or if women would be successful in getting a boycott organized, but right or wrong, the NFL would have to make an assessment of how much damage it could do to them in bad PR.
Yes, I just don't think you can mix the 2 ideas of social responsibility and PR. When people say the NFL has done a poor job of handling violence against women...they're talking social responsibility (I assume). And in general, I think consumers have no real concept of the separation of real social responsibility and good PR. At some level, it's selfish interest on my part. And on some level it is quite the opposite. If you and I both love watching the NFL on Sunday, I don't want the NFL to take a stance on something I am so vehemently opposed to that I can't bring myself to support them anymore even though I enjoy their actual product. Likewise, I don't want you to feel the same if they take a stance on something I support and you oppose. And maybe I feel that way more when the organization is kind of the "only game in town". You want to put out a super political movie? Ok, I'll go see another movie, there are hundreds, thousands, more. You want to make a song that's political, ok. The NFL is about the only real professional football going. In those kinds of situations I'm much more just like "stay out of it, let everyone who likes football just watch football in peace, don't ruin the whole thing for half of them on some non-football related stuff that probably isn't even based on actual moral views by the NFL but just on backing 51% and alienating 49%". At a conceptual level I do think businesses should just stay out of it. On a practical level, it's almost more like there's so much shit in the world, just don't mess with people's entertainment and relaxation. Politicize your car dealership or bakery or clothing store or whatever. Leave the monopoly on specific entertainment alone and just let people enjoy it and relax. Don't politicize the thing that so many people have as their break from all the issues of the real world.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 9, 2019 11:53:42 GMT -5
There aren’t multiple sides of human rights I care a fuck about...
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 9, 2019 12:20:53 GMT -5
There aren’t multiple sides of human rights I care a fuck about... Does anybody? I feel like about 90% of the population thinks that whatever exact point on the spectrum of "rights" they think is correct think their particular data point is the only reasonable opinion. They take a spectrum and create 2 sides...with me or against me. And whether someone is with you today or tomorrow depends on which viewpoint you happen to be comparing to at that particular time and who the "opponent" of those viewpoints is.
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,303
|
Post by gs11rmb on May 9, 2019 12:22:56 GMT -5
hoops902 because it's not really about social issues it's about human rights. I am not a gay man but I'll be damned if I pay money to stay in a hotel that has connections to Brunei. I really have no interest/knowledge about social issues in Brunei, e.g. poverty, education, immigration but such an egregious violation of human rights most certainly got my attention. If a company takes a stance on an actual social issue and I disagree I may or may not continue to give them my business but I won't be outraged. Denying people basic human rights? Organizations should take a stance.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 9, 2019 12:29:43 GMT -5
hoops902 because it's not really about social issues it's about human rights. I am not a gay man but I'll be damned if I pay money to stay in a hotel that has connections to Brunei. I really have no interest/knowledge about social issues in Brunei, e.g. poverty, education, immigration but such an egregious violation of human rights most certainly got my attention. If a company takes a stance on an actual social issue and I disagree I may or may not continue to give them my business but I won't be outraged. Denying people basic human rights? Organizations should take a stance. How are you defining "social issues", because almost every significant social issue that would ever cause someone to take a stand boils down to someone thinking it's a human rights issue in some way. Poverty, education, and immigration are all things lots of people take issue with on a human rights basis. The only real difference between "social issue" and "human rights issue" seems to largely be "how much do I care about it" or "where on the spectrum do I stand on the issue".
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 9, 2019 12:33:55 GMT -5
If the 'difference of opinion' means one of us walks away with less rights than the other... then no... its not agree to disagree...
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 9, 2019 12:36:21 GMT -5
If the 'difference of opinion' means one of us walks away with less rights than the other... then no... its not agree to disagree... Are there posts being moved over to inferno that you're replying to? Because the last 2 posts you've written haven't matched up to anything anyone in this thread has said.
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,303
|
Post by gs11rmb on May 9, 2019 12:52:45 GMT -5
hoops902 because it's not really about social issues it's about human rights. I am not a gay man but I'll be damned if I pay money to stay in a hotel that has connections to Brunei. I really have no interest/knowledge about social issues in Brunei, e.g. poverty, education, immigration but such an egregious violation of human rights most certainly got my attention. If a company takes a stance on an actual social issue and I disagree I may or may not continue to give them my business but I won't be outraged. Denying people basic human rights? Organizations should take a stance. How are you defining "social issues", because almost every significant social issue that would ever cause someone to take a stand boils down to someone thinking it's a human rights issue in some way. Poverty, education, and immigration are all things lots of people take issue with on a human rights basis. The only real difference between "social issue" and "human rights issue" seems to largely be "how much do I care about it" or "where on the spectrum do I stand on the issue". I think of social issues as having a lot of cultural flexibility, for example what is considered poverty in the developed world versus the developing world or basic levels of education. Human rights don't have such flexibility. Life, liberty, freedom from torture or slavery, etc. That's why this is a human rights issue that should sponsor boycotts and financial penalties. I'm 45 years old. I have maybe 3 good eggs left and I got fixed after my youngest child was born. This law is very unlikely to personally impact my life. In addition, I work in downtown Atlanta, in a city that's powered by tourist dollars. I think individuals and our corporations need to stand up and say no.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,510
|
Post by chiver78 on May 9, 2019 12:58:05 GMT -5
If the 'difference of opinion' means one of us walks away with less rights than the other... then no... its not agree to disagree... Are there posts being moved over to inferno that you're replying to? Because the last 2 posts you've written haven't matched up to anything anyone in this thread has said. not yet. but there have posts talking about pro-life vs pro-choive and discussing other countries laws on abortion, which are coming up on Inferno topics. the rest of this, business, rights, boycotts is fine per Moon's rule in the topic. I'd hate to see the while thread go poof to the Inferno bc otherwise the discussion is solid. HTH.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on May 9, 2019 13:06:41 GMT -5
Are there posts being moved over to inferno that you're replying to? Because the last 2 posts you've written haven't matched up to anything anyone in this thread has said. not yet. but there have posts talking about pro-life vs pro-choive and discussing other countries laws on abortion, which are coming up on Inferno topics. the rest of this, business, rights, boycotts is fine per Moon's rule in the topic. I'd hate to see the while thread go poof to the Inferno bc otherwise the discussion is solid. HTH. Is the Inferno at all active, or is it just a place posts go to die?
If it is active, how does one obtain access?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 9, 2019 13:11:50 GMT -5
How are you defining "social issues", because almost every significant social issue that would ever cause someone to take a stand boils down to someone thinking it's a human rights issue in some way. Poverty, education, and immigration are all things lots of people take issue with on a human rights basis. The only real difference between "social issue" and "human rights issue" seems to largely be "how much do I care about it" or "where on the spectrum do I stand on the issue". I think of social issues as having a lot of cultural flexibility, for example what is considered poverty in the developed world versus the developing world or basic levels of education. Human rights don't have such flexibility. Life, liberty, freedom from torture or slavery, etc. That's why this is a human rights issue that should sponsor boycotts and financial penalties. I'm 45 years old. I have maybe 3 good eggs left and I got fixed after my youngest child was born. This law is very unlikely to personally impact my life. In addition, I work in downtown Atlanta, in a city that's powered by tourist dollars. I think individuals and our corporations need to stand up and say no. I think you'd likely find a lot of people linking things such as poverty directly to "life and liberty", probably similarly to slavery. Poor people are all far more subject to things like death, slavery, etc. I think where you draw the line is fine, it's just probably more of a reflection of your specific beliefs. People tend to associate "human rights" with "things I really care the most about". That's why I think it's hard to draw a line between social issue and human rights...that line is different for everyone. So I think it's fine to say "we should protect human rights more than we protest social issues"...but in practice all that ends up meaning is "protest the things you personally care about more than the things you don't care about as much". That's why we care SO much about certain things right? Because those things we care fanatically about, we're fanatics about them because we feel they are basic human rights. Like if I'm fanatical about keeping kids in 3rd world countries out of poverty, it's not because I'm like "meh, it'd be cool to do, but if not oh well", if I'm fanatical about it it's probably because I think "this world has so many resources, it's a human right that they shouldn't be living in absolute squalor and poverty". I know we've had threads on here before talking about "what's a human right" and honestly, the lists people have are insane in how different they are. So I agree with you in that it only really makes sense to protest to that extent on human rights issues...but given that many people have such different thoughts on what human rights issues are...I'm not sure that practically speaking it provides much of a line for the population as a whole. That's goes double when you start mixing in very broad ideas like "liberty" and what that means for individuals. Similarly "life" tends to go very broad in terms of what a human right to "life" is over and above the simple measure of being biologically alive.
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,303
|
Post by gs11rmb on May 9, 2019 13:50:11 GMT -5
hoops902 I don't entirely disagree! This bill, however, is (in my opinion) a flagrant violation of human rights. So, yes I am outraged.
|
|
sheilaincali
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 17:55:24 GMT -5
Posts: 4,131
|
Post by sheilaincali on May 9, 2019 14:19:52 GMT -5
www.cnbc.com/2017/03/27/bathroom-bill-to-cost-north-carolina-376-billion.html
When North Carolina proposed a bathroom ban relating to transgendered people they faced a lot of boycotts and lost revenue. Georgia should, realistically, expect similar consequences to their recent abortion bill.
Without getting political- I pay attention to things like this and react to them. I've been boycotting Hobby Lobby since 2014, I've never eaten a single sandwich from Chick fil a, I don't order pizza from Papa John's, etc. It's not a huge enough amount of money that anyone would notice my one person boycott but it adds up. We order pizza once a month for our production employees- At an average cost of $200 that's $2,400 a year that they don't get from us. The Hubs and I both have crafting based hobbies and spend probably $2,000 a year on our various hobbies that HL doesn't get from us. CFA is a moot point since there isn't a local one in my town.
I'm one person so if my minor boycotts are costing companies say $5,000 in lost revenue imagine how that increases when you factor in more people boycotting. That's the reality that Georgia will have to face. Long term how much are they going to lose financially? It's pretty obvious which side of the fence I lean on but I can pretty much safely say I won't be considering a vacation to Georgia anytime soon or ever.
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,303
|
Post by gs11rmb on May 9, 2019 14:24:24 GMT -5
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 9, 2019 14:36:38 GMT -5
www.cnbc.com/2017/03/27/bathroom-bill-to-cost-north-carolina-376-billion.html
When North Carolina proposed a bathroom ban relating to transgendered people they faced a lot of boycotts and lost revenue. Georgia should, realistically, expect similar consequences to their recent abortion bill.
Without getting political- I pay attention to things like this and react to them. I've been boycotting Hobby Lobby since 2014, I've never eaten a single sandwich from Chick fil a, I don't order pizza from Papa John's, etc. It's not a huge enough amount of money that anyone would notice my one person boycott but it adds up. We order pizza once a month for our production employees- At an average cost of $200 that's $2,400 a year that they don't get from us. The Hubs and I both have crafting based hobbies and spend probably $2,000 a year on our various hobbies that HL doesn't get from us. CFA is a moot point since there isn't a local one in my town.
I'm one person so if my minor boycotts are costing companies say $5,000 in lost revenue imagine how that increases when you factor in more people boycotting. That's the reality that Georgia will have to face. Long term how much are they going to lose financially? It's pretty obvious which side of the fence I lean on but I can pretty much safely say I won't be considering a vacation to Georgia anytime soon or ever. Just my opinion, but I think there's a significant difference between saying "I'm going to boycott this group because they've clearly taken a stance (or the person who essentially IS the company has taken a stance) which I completely disagree with on such a level that I cannot give them my business" and "I'm going to boycott this group because they are focusing on their business and not getting involved in political disputes on either side". If you disagree with Georgia on this, I think it makes all the sense in the world to say "I'm not going to go to Georgia on vacation" or even (making this up to assign a company we all know) "McDonalds has openly and publicly supported this bill, given money to it, and I cannot support that, so I'm boycotting McDonald's". I don't think it makes any sense to say "McDonald's has stores in Atlanta, and they aren't closing them, so I'm boycotting McDonald's now based solely on that". I don't want to politicize entities that haven't voluntary politicized themselves on an issue simply because we want to pressure them into pressuring others on our behalf or because we want some target for our outrage. I'm all for expressing personal beliefs with your dollars for companies that have chosen to make themselves political on an issue. Your examples certainly seem like companies who have either politicized themselves, or publicly had issues that they were directly involved in...as opposed to simply being bystanders trying to do business.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,393
|
Post by thyme4change on May 9, 2019 14:48:19 GMT -5
I do not understand how a state can restrict an individual's travel. That is fucking insane. I know there are other problems with this bill (and they are also quite terrible) but being arrested for going to another state and doing something legal has got to be unconstitutional. If I go to Vegas and gamble, should AZ be able to arrest me? If I go to Wyoming, buy and gun and sell it and then go home to California, should they be allowed to arrest me because I bought a gun without a license? If I go to Texas and drive 85 miles per hour and go home to Baltimore, the State of Maryland can give me a speeding ticket? Removing the abortion discussion, is that really the kind of control we want to give our governments? Meanwhile, corporations can toxic waste into any waterways, say Republicans. WTF? Honestly, sometimes I have very serious thoughts about whether some of these kinds of inclusions are the ideas of people who secretly don't support legislation but know that it's going to pass and know that if they don't vote with their party they're going to fail upon re-election. Do they just toss out these very extreme ideas on one-side because they think secretly that extreme idea is what's going to make it declared unconstitutional and have the whole thing thrown out when they actually oppose the idea? I liken it to when my wife starts talking about how "we should eat healthier" and starts tossing out ideas on all the things I like that we should stop eating. I can't just say "no, I don't want to eat healthier" because that's not a side I can really argue. So instead I just super support her side, like "yeah, you're totally right, we should also cut out borderline things A, B, & C" which just happen to be all her favorite things. The only way to get what I want is to go so over the top ridiculous in supporting her that her more reasonable opinion becomes untenable and she backs off the entire thing. I am 92.4% sure that a part or parts of a bill can be declared unconstitutional, while the other parts can stand. But I like the way you are thinking. Maybe they put super extreme things in thinking that some group will vote against the whole bill or whatever.
|
|
sheilaincali
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 17:55:24 GMT -5
Posts: 4,131
|
Post by sheilaincali on May 9, 2019 15:31:16 GMT -5
Hubs and I were talking about this last night. He figures these states are pushing these statewide bills to try to force it to get kicked to the US supreme court. They think they now have the numbers to overturn Roe v Wade. At least that's his assumption.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,436
|
Post by Tennesseer on May 9, 2019 15:41:15 GMT -5
Hubs and I were talking about this last night. He figures these states are pushing these statewide bills to try to force it to get kicked to the US supreme court. They think they now have the numbers to overturn Roe v Wade. At least that's his assumption. BINGO! Your husband's assumption is probably correct. The SCOTUS justice to watch would be John Roberts. He is not as dependable as conservatives think he is.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,350
|
Post by NastyWoman on May 9, 2019 15:58:15 GMT -5
www.cnbc.com/2017/03/27/bathroom-bill-to-cost-north-carolina-376-billion.html
When North Carolina proposed a bathroom ban relating to transgendered people they faced a lot of boycotts and lost revenue. Georgia should, realistically, expect similar consequences to their recent abortion bill.
Without getting political- I pay attention to things like this and react to them. I've been boycotting Hobby Lobby since 2014, I've never eaten a single sandwich from Chick fil a, I don't order pizza from Papa John's, etc. It's not a huge enough amount of money that anyone would notice my one person boycott but it adds up. We order pizza once a month for our production employees- At an average cost of $200 that's $2,400 a year that they don't get from us. The Hubs and I both have crafting based hobbies and spend probably $2,000 a year on our various hobbies that HL doesn't get from us. CFA is a moot point since there isn't a local one in my town.
I'm one person so if my minor boycotts are costing companies say $5,000 in lost revenue imagine how that increases when you factor in more people boycotting. That's the reality that Georgia will have to face. Long term how much are they going to lose financially? It's pretty obvious which side of the fence I lean on but I can pretty much safely say I won't be considering a vacation to Georgia anytime soon or ever. Just my opinion, but I think there's a significant difference between saying "I'm going to boycott this group because they've clearly taken a stance (or the person who essentially IS the company has taken a stance) which I completely disagree with on such a level that I cannot give them my business" and "I'm going to boycott this group because they are focusing on their business and not getting involved in political disputes on either side". If you disagree with Georgia on this, I think it makes all the sense in the world to say "I'm not going to go to Georgia on vacation" or even (making this up to assign a company we all know) "McDonalds has openly and publicly supported this bill, given money to it, and I cannot support that, so I'm boycotting McDonald's". I don't think it makes any sense to say "McDonald's has stores in Atlanta, and they aren't closing them, so I'm boycotting McDonald's now based solely on that". I don't want to politicize entities that haven't voluntary politicized themselves on an issue simply because we want to pressure them into pressuring others on our behalf or because we want some target for our outrage. I'm all for expressing personal beliefs with your dollars for companies that have chosen to make themselves political on an issue. Your examples certainly seem like companies who have either politicized themselves, or publicly had issues that they were directly involved in...as opposed to simply being bystanders trying to do business. True, but if I feel strongly enough about an issue I will do everything I can to make sure that the (in this case) state in question does not get any of my money. And that includes letting comanies a,b,c, etc., know that if they continue to do business there I won't be doing business with them. If enough people take that stance, the company may not feel strongly about the issue, but they will feel strongly about their bottomline to take action. The power of the purse strings is not solely in the hand of the government → "we the people" can and do have the same power.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 9, 2019 16:32:03 GMT -5
Just my opinion, but I think there's a significant difference between saying "I'm going to boycott this group because they've clearly taken a stance (or the person who essentially IS the company has taken a stance) which I completely disagree with on such a level that I cannot give them my business" and "I'm going to boycott this group because they are focusing on their business and not getting involved in political disputes on either side". If you disagree with Georgia on this, I think it makes all the sense in the world to say "I'm not going to go to Georgia on vacation" or even (making this up to assign a company we all know) "McDonalds has openly and publicly supported this bill, given money to it, and I cannot support that, so I'm boycotting McDonald's". I don't think it makes any sense to say "McDonald's has stores in Atlanta, and they aren't closing them, so I'm boycotting McDonald's now based solely on that". I don't want to politicize entities that haven't voluntary politicized themselves on an issue simply because we want to pressure them into pressuring others on our behalf or because we want some target for our outrage. I'm all for expressing personal beliefs with your dollars for companies that have chosen to make themselves political on an issue. Your examples certainly seem like companies who have either politicized themselves, or publicly had issues that they were directly involved in...as opposed to simply being bystanders trying to do business. True, but if I feel strongly enough about an issue I will do everything I can to make sure that the (in this case) state in question does not get any of my money. And that includes letting comanies a,b,c, etc., know that if they continue to do business there I won't be doing business with them. If enough people take that stance, the company may not feel strongly about the issue, but they will feel strongly about their bottomline to take action. The power of the purse strings is not solely in the hand of the government → "we the people" can and do have the same power. A few points (let's keep using McDonald's as our fictional example): 1. I don't want McDonald's to start laying off employees because people are protesting the fact that they refuse to get involved in politics. 2. I don't want to politicize non-political organizations any more than they already are, because I don't want to politicize things like hiring and firing of folks who also avoid voicing their politics. 3. This concept works really well when you end up in the majority of financial power, when you end up in the minority you basically get run over by huge companies with huge amounts of money to actively spend against your position, even if the position you hold is held by the vast majority of the population but the minority of the wealth. 4. Ignoring that we already have money driving so much of politics, I don't want to ADD to that concept by essentially forcing the companies who DON'T want to drive politics with money to do so because it's the only way to sustain their business. It just makes very little sense to me to say "Hey McDonald's, unless you get involved in politics, I'm not going to eat your food...or your other option is to stop doing business in Georgia and absolutely ruin all of your franchisees there who probably had absolutely nothing to do with the legislation in the first place". I find it...unseemly...in general to threaten people who aren't taking sides that you're going to punish them for staying neutral in something that actually isn't any of their business to begin with. Yes, it can be effective, threatening people with monetary damages often is. And people tend to find the whole thing just fine when it's their side, and when it's not supporting their side tend to think the corporation is evil. It's like fighting with your neighbor about loud music and pulling in the guy who cuts both your lawns to pick a side. You threaten to fire him unless he picks your side. It's not his business, he doesn't want to be involved, and the side he picks has nothing to do with how well he provides the service he is paid to do. Yes threatening to fire him might make him pick your side, but it doesn't make you any more or less right than you already were. You just blackmailed a guy who was uninvolved and trying to make a living into doing your dirty work because you either didn't want to or couldn't. And it seems like even more of a bad idea to get him involved if you're one of the least wealthy people in the neighborhood, which compared to the wealthy, most of us on this board fall into that least-wealthy (or at least frugal enough to have little impact) crowd.
|
|