Kane's a bit of a twat isn't he?

[garynysmon]

 

[eugenespeed]

Yes. Yes he is. 

[BomberPat]

Everyone used to say he was smart because he was always reading a book, they just never mentioned that it was the Turner Diaries.

[Love-Wilcox]

I’m willing to believe he’s somewhat intelligent but unfortunately religious dogma can lead people to say and do some pretty fucked up things.

[Merzbow]

 

So, the libertarian is in favour of the state having more control over women's bodies?

[Guest]

When xpac went for him re the gun stuff a few weeks ago, you knew this was coming from him. A lost cause and an embarrassment of a man 

[FLips]

I know Undertaker gets a bad rep but he's just some old fella getting ignored at basketball games. Kane being in a position of power is actually scary.

[westlondonmist]

13 minutes ago, Louch said:

When xpac went for him re the gun stuff a few weeks ago, you knew this was coming from him. A lost cause and an embarrassment of a man 

I figured lots of wrestlers would have similar views, I thought most of the ones pre 2000 were propper right wingers. 

Some of the responses Rosemary has gotten, while unsurprising, are abhorrent. 

[Chris B]

Glenn Jacobs is one of the most openly hypocritical people to ever seek office. 

[Tommy!]

To be fair to him he does say "just don't hurt other people". If he firmly believes life begins at conception then that's not as hypocritical as you make out surely, because in his understanding it's then balancing individual choice and freedom against murder. 

I'm not defending him, because I disagree with him on this completely in seemingly every way, but I'm not sure that's as solid and clean cut a dunk as you make out. 

[Chris B]

That assumes taking him on good faith, which I don't.

[Ronnie]

10 minutes ago, Chris B said:

That assumes taking him on good faith, which I don't.

Why? He's from the South of the most evangelically extreme country in the Western world. The emotive and counterfactual is entirely what many of them believe. And given that they do tend to be thoroughly convinced that a zygote is a human being, I can, like @Tommy!, fully understand their framing that nothing justifies the murder of a defenceless baby, even in the extreme case that it was conceived without the consent of the person carrying it.

Their initial beliefs are wrong, of course, but they're theirs, nonetheless, and are what underwrite their views. It's far too simplistic just to write it off as men trying to tell women what to do with their bodies, as the default response can often seem to be. Once you start off convinced that that tiny ball of parasitic cells is actually a baby, terminating it becomes as unpalatable as ending its life a week after birth is universally accepted as being. None of us believe that having carried a baby grants one the privilege to murder it; they just apply that logic to prior to the birth, too. That view will never change and this argument therefore never end for as long as fact and reason aren't the basis of beliefs. Making the argument about it being individuals' rights to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy won't resolve anything; you've somehow got to convince these people that the entity developing within the host isn't, at least in the early stages, a human being. 

[choccygirl]

57 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

Why? He's from the South of the most evangelically extreme country in the Western world. The emotive and counterfactual is entirely what many of them believe. And given that they do tend to be thoroughly convinced that a zygote is a human being, I can, like @Tommy!, fully understand their framing that nothing justifies the murder of a defenceless baby, even in the extreme case that it was conceived without the consent of the person carrying it.

Their initial beliefs are wrong, of course, but they're theirs, nonetheless, and are what underwrite their views. It's far too simplistic just to write it off as men trying to tell women what to do with their bodies, as the default response can often seem to be. Once you start off convinced that that tiny ball of parasitic cells is actually a baby, terminating it becomes as unpalatable as ending its life a week after birth is universally accepted as being. None of us believe that having carried a baby grants one the privilege to murder it; they just apply that logic to prior to the birth, too. That view will never change and this argument therefore never end for as long as fact and reason aren't the basis of beliefs. Making the argument about it being individuals' rights to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy won't resolve anything; you've somehow got to convince these people that the entity developing within the host isn't, at least in the early stages, a human being. 

That’s all well and good until you consider that in some cases they are choosing for women to die if they continue with a pregnancy.  In those cases, they are choosing to ignore the rights of the actual human carrying the baby, for the sake of the baby, when they know the outcome is death.

I don’t care where you’re from, there should be no reasoning for that. And yet, it’s happening and they’re celebrating it.

And sorry, but it is often “men” deciding this for women.  Literally it is that.  Worse, it’s often the same men who don’t understand the details involved and aren’t interested in it.  It seems that we’re ignoring the general will of a large chunk of men to erode women’s rights and health, and control what we can or can’t do.

To answer the thread title, yes Kane is a twat.

Edited June 25, 2022 by choccygirl

[mim731]

54 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

Why? He's from the South of the most evangelically extreme country in the Western world.

Bit harsh on Spain. 

[Ronnie]

15 minutes ago, choccygirl said:

That’s all well and good until you consider that in some cases they are choosing for women to die if they continue with a pregnancy.

I purposefully didn't mention ectopic pregnancies and similar threats to the mother's life precisely because I can see some (even if not all) of the most fervent opponents agreeing, if presented with such a scenario, that things aren't perhaps quite as cut and dried as they would otherwise state. Those unfortunate situations don't detract from the main point, though, that those individuals are against abortion on principle because it is, to them, murder of a defenceless human being, even if their position wouldn't prove to be so entrenched if somebody they knew's life were threatened by a zygote implanting outside the womb.