Whatever. As far as I'm concerned, Santorum is an extremist religious geek who should be selling hamburgers at McDonalds. (Not that they filter for extremist religious geeks in their hiring practices, but I'm supposing that there's less chance of an extremist religious geek spitting on my hamburger than a wannabe gangsta.)turbo said:Apparently, it is.
I don't think that geeky extremist religious fanaticism implies out and out bigotry. Unless it does. In which case, that's what I think. But I'm not sure.mathwonk said:Out and out bigots always have a good chance to win a few contests, but hopefully not the big one.
ThomasT said:I don't think that geeky extremist religious fanaticism implies out and out bigotry. Unless it does. In which case, that's what I think. But I'm not sure.
russ_watters said:Can you say why you think he's a bigot?
David Pennock said:Santorum immediately enjoyed a small but significant boost in the prediction markets, nearly doubling his chance of winning the South Carolina Republican primary next Saturday from about 2.5 percent to almost 6 percent.
I agree with your assessment, except that I'd substitute something like 'ridiculous' for 'amazing' (wrt the lack of depth). Basically saying the same thing, but in a more pejorative way.Jimmy Snyder said:I'm not quoting this to criticize Santorum, but to criticize Yahoo.com which seems to be on a mission. Nearly double? Does this mean he's going to get nearly 200% of the votes? You can read the entire article in a few seconds. It shows an amazing lack of depth.
Yahoo.com
In that case then, yes, it would seem that geeky extremist religious fanaticism does imply out and out bigotry.Number Nine said:I would imagine that mathwonk is referring to Santorum's open disgust with gay people, and his habit of attributing sensational danger to them as a social group (for instance, it's become fashionable among a number of figures within the religious right, and a number of candidates, to suggest that gays are in some way responsible for the current economic crisis).
turbo said:Santorum wants to deny abortion rights in all cases. He says that rape-victims should just get over it and make the best of it. What a monster.
He's also against contraception and pre-marital sex.Greg Bernhardt said:link?
Rick Santorum On Opposition To Abortion In Cases Of Rape: 'Make The Best Out Of A Bad Situation'
ThomasT said:Santorum is, clearly enough, imho, a geeky extremist religious fanatic bigot. Which, minus the geekiness, is, afaik, and wrt my personal experience, pretty much the norm in some regions of the US.
I grew up in a time and place where extremist religious fanatical bigotry was the status quo. It was what laws were based on.
It makes me a bit sad that the US still produces Rick Santorums by the millions. But I wouldn't call them monsters. Just victims of a certain socialization. That is, I think that people, like Santorum, who hold extremist religious fanatical bigoted views, aren't, just because they hold those views, psychopaths or sociopaths or in any way bad people.
But because Santorum holds the views that he does he can't, imho, be considered a serious contender for the highest administrative office in the country.
AFAIK, no pregnant women are being abducted and given abortions against their will.lisab said:But forced pregnancies are as appalling as forced abortions - I put both of those actions in the "monstrous" category.
Afaik, I think you're right. But I think that lisab was just making a point. Wrt which I agree ... except for the "monstrous" characterization. I think that 'misguided' or 'ignorant' or some such characterization would be more correct. Religious zealots, bigots, etc., aren't, imho, monsters. They're just ignorant, somewhat backward. There's no crime wrt that. They are, as are we all, simply products of their socialization. Some of us have been fortunate enough to have had a wider range of influences than others, and therefore have a wider, and maybe deeper, view of things.Evo said:AFAIK, no pregnant women are being abducted and given abortions against their will.
Me too. Just wanted to make sure no one got the impression that abortions were forced.ThomasT said:Afaik, I think you're right. But I think that lisab was just making a point. Wrt which I agree.
Evo said:AFAIK, no pregnant women are being abducted and given abortions against their will.
Yes, and outlawing abortion, means women will be forced to seek dangerous, illegal abortions, except for the rich will simply send their daughters abroad to where abortions are legal.lisab said:True, forced abortions don't happen in the West.
But my point is, by outlawing abortion, society is forcing women to go through with the pregnancy, i.e., a forced pregnancy. And forced pregnancies are the flip side of forced abortions. Both are abhorrent in a civilized society, IMO.
I don't think that abortions will be outlawed, ie., that pregnancies will be forced. Roe vs Wade was a landmark wrt the progression of civilization. And it doesn't seem likely that Western civilization would outlaw certain pregnancies, thus forcing abortion in certain circumstances. Your points are taken, and it seems to me that any freely thinking person, not constrained by the archaic doctrines of traditional theistic religions, would agree with the position that whether to abort or not is decision best left to the prospective mother, and not a matter for politicians to decide.lisab said:True, forced abortions don't happen in the West.
But my point is, by outlawing abortion, society is forcing women to go through with the pregnancy, i.e., a forced pregnancy. And forced pregnancies are the flip side of forced abortions. Both are abhorrent in a civilized society, IMO.
The wealthy will be able to afford this option. The poor will not, which would set us back several decades, at least.Evo said:Yes, and outlawing abortion, means women will be forced to seek dangerous, illegal abortions, except for the rich will simply send their daughters abroad to where abortions are legal.
So, a good reason, imho, to not vote for Santorum (and his ilk) ... for any public office.turbo said:The wealthy will be able to afford this option. The poor will not, which would set us back several decades, at least.
ThomasT said:So, a good reason, imho, to not vote for Santorum (and his ilk) ... for any public office. Beside the fact that the dude is just so ... dickish.
Done (I deleted the offending statement.). However, I do think that categorical characterizations can be economically useful.Greg Bernhardt said:Let's stick to constructive arguments rather than name calling. This thread is full of it.
You don't think Santorum has extreme views? You agree with his views on rape victims, against contraception of any kind, including condoms, against pre-marital sex, etc...?jduster said:I'm not a Republican, but I personally favor Santorum over the more extreme candidates like Obama, Newt, and RonPaul.
Evo said:You don't think Santorum has extreme views? You agree with his views on rape victims, against contraception of any kind, including condoms, against pre-marital sex, etc...?