Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

heidismiles t1_j9pz00j wrote

>Mr Eastman asked the experts how they would respond to what he said was
an argument that "in the case where child abuse is fatal, obviously it's
not good for the child, but it's actually a benefit to society because
there aren't needs for government services and whatnot over the whole
course of that child's life?"

​

Later:

>"The outrageous accusation that somehow I and members of my district
support the extermination of people or support child abuse when I've
staked my entire political career arguing for the opposite is not
acceptable in this body," he said.

​

If you didn't want to be accused of saying those horrible things, then you shouldn't have said those horrible things. 🧠

458

9035768555 t1_j9q3zq7 wrote

Why don't they seem to get this? My father is still boycotting coke because he thinks they were mean and told him he was racist a couple years ago.

If you want me to believe you aren't racist, maybe you shouldn't have told me shit like if I ever came home with a black boyfriend to not bother coming home.

166

InsuranceToTheRescue t1_j9q4lln wrote

These people fail to realize that 99% of the time a statement starts with, "I'm not racist, but . . .", that it's racist to begin with. Non-racist statements very rarely, if ever, need a qualifier explaining that they're not.

84

aecarol1 t1_j9qc0yi wrote

I'm not racist, but hearing the laughter of playing children makes me smile.

49

amibeingadick420 t1_j9qiqlx wrote

Why all the hatred towards mute children that are incapable of laughter?

28

MoonChild02 t1_j9rozjl wrote

Not just mute children, but children who physically can't smile, like those with Moebius syndrome.

That was a huge story when I was a kid. IIRC, Michael Jackson helped Chelsey Thomas's family pay for her surgery, and the Ronald McDonald House Charities helped her family out, too.

3

submittedanonymously t1_j9r5ngf wrote

I’m not racist or nothin…. But Dualie drivers that roll coal are assholes.

Hey, this is a fun trend.

8

mces97 t1_j9r48g3 wrote

Someone did that to me the other day. Saw a post and somehow it got back to Jews. And this guy kept saying they. I tried to explain why it's wrong to say they. And he said, I'm not antisemitic, two of my good friends are Jewish.

9

Xaxxon t1_j9ru4zb wrote

“I’m sorry but…”

You’re not sorry.

3

Rs90 t1_j9qd1nh wrote

Because they believe others feel the same but are too afraid to say it. That's what people meant when they talked about Trump and the GOP emboldening these kinda people. They genuinely believe everyone WANTS to say it out loud but are afraid people will "be a bummer a bout it".

Everyone has dealt with people like this. As a Virginian and a male I certainly have. I've had men come say some sexist shit to me only to act all pissy the moment I tell em I won't have that kinda talk around me. Same with racists. Come up and say some shit just to get all butthurt when they realize I'm not a racist fuckstick just cause I'm Virginian.

These people wait til they feel safe then show their true colors. Not cause they believe they're wrong. But cause they believe YOU will think it's wrong and make a thing out of it. Which I will til the day I die.

57

thraelen t1_j9qpqox wrote

My husband experiences this all the time. I’ve never heard his dad or brother say anything bad, but when I’m not around, he comes home and tells me all the terrible stuff they say. He constantly tells them he doesn’t agree and that it’s super wrong, but they just keep doing it. If they know they should censor themselves around me, they clearly know they are saying vile things.

23

Rs90 t1_j9rkfik wrote

Sorry to hear it. My father was the kind to take me to bars as a kid to flirt with bartenders and say shit like "woof, look at the tits on her". So I know the types. Took me a long time to shake it off and speak up about it. It sounds like it really bothers him too. I hope he finds a way to broach the subject someday but I know not every battle is worth fighting.

7

DarkWasp14 t1_j9rxbe3 wrote

I’ve personally ended relationships with people over this, it becomes a boundaries issue since they can’t stop bringing up terrible subjects. If they know it makes him uncomfortable and they keep doing it, I wouldn’t blame him for wanting to spend less time with them.

6

mces97 t1_j9r438b wrote

Because he thinks it's a good thing when children die of abuse.

When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. - Maya Angelou.

10

MoonChild02 t1_j9rrgy1 wrote

I didn't know that was a Maya Angelou quote. I've heard it for a long time, and thought it was just one of those quotes passed around by civil rights organizations. I had no clue it was Dr. Angelou who said it. Thank you for naming who said it.

5

mces97 t1_j9rro4k wrote

No problem. 🙂

Looks like we both learned something today. I had no idea she had a PhD. I always knew her as Maya Angelou. Never heard the title doctor when people spoke of her.

6

MoonChild02 t1_j9rykc6 wrote

She had over 50 doctorates. They were honorary, but she definitely deserves the title for all the work she did. She even taught both guest classes and semester-long classes on civil rights and writing at a few universities.

3

mces97 t1_j9s59h4 wrote

I must be honest, I knew very little about her. I just always liked that quote. I knew she was big on civil rights.

4

washington_jefferson t1_j9q7l2g wrote

Your dad should track down the ad team at the ad agency that came up with the commercial. Maybe a Coke marketing exec as well. For Coca Cola itself, it’s time to move on.

Hell, I think people got “mad” at Pepsi foe when they did a Super Bowl ad where Kendall Jenner hands a cop a Pepsi to “smooth over” police brutality. So, maybe your father shouldn’t drink Pepsi either?

8

DerCatrix t1_j9q9q1u wrote

People did get mad but that’s cuz the ad was tone deaf as hell

24

9035768555 t1_j9qi723 wrote

My father doesn't care about police brutality.

9

walkandtalkk t1_j9q5w66 wrote

I listened to his comments. I did not listen to 30 minutes of context, but I considered his tone of voice and the fact that he doubled down after a clearly shocked person in the room asked him to repeat his comments.

He was not simply playing devil's advocate. He wasn't just paraphrasing some opponent's argument. He was suggesting that the position was correct: That fatal child abuse is better than severe but non-fatal abuse, since the latter will cost the state money in lifetime therapy and medical care.

136

CheeseStandsAlone262 t1_j9qu8cc wrote

That's exactly the calculation that insurance companies make though. I work as an internal auditor and I've audited an insurance company. Cases where the patient almost died but then lived a long time afterwards by far cost the most money.

But holy shit, that's the sort of thing you bury in a comment on like the seventeenth sheet of a government budget Excel spreadsheet. Not say in a public meeting.

But perhaps most importantly, it's also not supposed to be an argument for killing those people, holy fuck

72

walkandtalkk t1_j9qv5e2 wrote

One would also hope there's a difference between the actuarial considerations of an insurer and the priorities of a lawmaker.

49

DefinitelyNotAliens t1_j9r65p4 wrote

There's been some studies that show preventative care costs more in some instances, because memory care and drawn out end of life care is more expensive than people dying early of massive heart attacks. Like, a healthy person with Alzheimers is hella expensive, y'all. My grandma was super healthy and literally the only thing wrong with her for the last 20+ years of her life was Parkinsons. She cost someone a whole lot of money.

That isn't a reason to cut preventative care. Also, there's the argument it doesn't actually cost more because increased productivity in their healthy years and things like adults may have been caring for them in other situations in lieu of work, etc.

Still, 'it's cheaper if they die quickly at 68 and not at 96 years old after nearly 25 years of Parkinsons care' isn't an excuse to not give people good healthcare. It just means we need to plan for aging populations and allocate funding for it.

And if preventative care leads to longer lifespans, the government needs to change pension allocations because the average pension is drawn on for 18 months. My grandpa draw for like 40+ years. They may need to plan on longer retirements, not advocate for people to die.

Just because those numbers are there doesn't make them a cost-savings suggestion.

17

ScienceLivesInsideMe t1_j9rwwru wrote

Not a chance. When you have every poor person in the country using the er as primary care, and then when they go onto renal failure stay on dialysis, or having heart attacks and living on a vent for 20 years. No way.

1

MidLifeHalfHouse t1_j9qevf8 wrote

Ironically, this would be a perfectly accurate and reasonable statement if phrased:

>"in the case where child abuse is fatal, an unwanted “child fetus” is aborted, obviously it's not good for the child, but it's actually a benefit to society because there aren't needs for government services and whatnot over the whole course of that child's life?"

But I guess it is more moral to wait until a child is born and then beat them to death which will obviously be on the rise with more people having kids they don’t want and thus abuse.

Party of “family values” indeed.

r/selfawarewolves

31

zsreport t1_j9qcayu wrote

I bet this guy is also very anti-choice and applauded the Dobbs decision.

27

MidLifeHalfHouse t1_j9qfv83 wrote

That’s what bothers me the most is his lack of self awareness of it all. If tax money is the most important thing to him and most Republicans, make abortion more accessible so dependence on public aid would decrease, not to mention future incarceration.

When I say this to conservatives their usual response is “why should I have to pay for someone else’s kid?” Lol. Basically “I want everyone to do what I say without me having any consequences” they say as they accuse women for needing to “suffer consequences” for having sex.

25

Pure-Kaleidoscope759 t1_j9rez2b wrote

It’s not about the sanctity of life. It’s about punishing women for sex and poverty.

11

smitrovich t1_j9sofsa wrote

> I bet this guy is also very anti-choice and applauded the Dobbs decision.

It's almost like being "pro-life" has nothing to do with protecting life and everything to do with controlling women.

2

EasterBunnyArt t1_j9qjfl5 wrote

Devil’s advocate:

While he is technically correct that a dead child does save the taxpayer money, why stop there? Why not just remove all government support and taxation the . Let people fend for themselves?

Oh wait, we are supposed to be civilized and care for each other….. that awkward moment when you publicly reveal your contempt for human life is awkward…..

15

Valyrian_Kobolds t1_j9qkk2p wrote

It doesn't save money though, people produce more in value than they take on average. That's kind of how productivity works.

8

EasterBunnyArt t1_j9qmq1s wrote

I mean, tell him that. Clearly he believes in magically productivity….

2

ScienceLivesInsideMe t1_j9rxd8c wrote

These people believe on literal supernatural fairy gods. They are not living in the same reality as many of us

3

Astrium6 t1_j9qsk9i wrote

Clearly the most effective method of reducing government spending is omnicide.

4

Danivelle t1_j9q71y6 wrote

That is utterly disgusting! What is wrong with this fool?!?

9