US Politics: Cancelling Democracy

[James Arryn]

17 minutes ago, JGP said:

 

It's such a manipulative way to argue. You say child, I see my kids learning to ride their bikes. It's the equation of the two that's insidious and I reject it completely. 

At the stage when someone is made aware they're pregnant, it's a pregnancy. And that's usually where the choice is made to continue, or not, with support, without. But they have that choice. Otherwise it's a big nunya.   

Well, again, you are saying that my not agreeing with your exclusive definition of child is me being manipulative…but you not agreeing with mine, in much more hostile and absolute terms, is not? 
 

One of our ‘pregnancies’ showed a marked response to the sound of my voice. We both read to our ‘pregnancies’ because studies show ‘pregnancies’ as young as 18 weeks are beginning to learn to structure thoughts that translate to greater literacy/speech when they are less pregnancy-like. 

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1302159110

If I wanted to be manipulative, I would ask how dare you mock my and my wife’s foolishness for mourning for our lost ‘pregnancy’. 

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I don’t know how many ways I can answer it; the risk of ending potential life can also be phrased as the potential risk to human life. If we are ending a potential human life we are potentially ending a human life. Not sure why you’re trying to go down this semantic route. 

Because those "semantics" are obviously crucial in a legal sense.  You pose as being ambivalent on the question of when life begins, but your argument is that even rape victims' rights do not outweigh the fetus' human right to life.  Which means you are not treating them, legally, as potential human life, you are treating them as human life with human rights -- and accordingly imposing that decision on others.  Stop trying to act like you aren't.

[JGP]

 

10 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

If I wanted to be manipulative, I would ask how dare you mock my and my wife’s foolishness for mourning for our lost ‘pregnancy’. 

I'm not mocking it, is the thing. 

When I was married we didn't miscarry, we had two children. If we'd miscarried I've no doubt that would've hurt. I just refuse to recognize the swing.

Our choices about our bodies are our own. Everyone's should be. You can go get tripped out on when the soul takes root or when life can stake a claim to right, or whatever. I'm with Party No One Should Give A Fuck.

There's one person that makes this decision [maybe two, depending on their relationship] that's just the way it needs to be. 

 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

....and you think public negotiations would have been better because?

Honestly from what I remember you've really turned around on this.  When Manchin killed the bill right before Christmas, and even in the weeks leading up to that, my recollection is we were in agreement that the public negotiations were doing more harm than good and Schumer et al. should just go along with whatever Manchin will give them.  Maybe I'm wrong about that, but, well, this delay and specifications is the realization of going along with whatever Manchin will give them - which, btw, I maintained at the time his apparent openness to any climate provisions was a flop of horseshit.

I don't think they should do any negotiations with Manchin. He should come with a proposal, dems should accept it, and that is it.

I don't trust Manchin with anything else. He is a bad faith negotiator who wastes time and runs out the clock. You shouldn't bother - secret or no.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I will again reiterate Biden's biggest failing overall is his unwillingness to use the bully pulpit, to publicly pressure people as is required and to twist every arm necessary behind closed doors. His passiveness is incredibly frustrating. 

Maybe in general, but this would do nothing positive with respect to Manchin and would likely make things just worse. Manchin for now holds all the power, and turning dems against Manchin in WV is a real good way to ensure he is either more against you or another republican is even more against you in his place.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, KalVsWade said:

I don't think they should do any negotiations with Manchin. He should come with a proposal, dems should accept it, and that is it.

I don't trust Manchin with anything else. He is a bad faith negotiator who wastes time and runs out the clock. You shouldn't bother - secret or no.

Ok.  Then..I don't get what your objection is.  A few days ago you were complaining that Schumer/Biden weren't trying hard enough to get Manchin on board the last six months.  Now you're saying they shouldn't have even tried to negotiate with Manchin?  I'm genuinely confused.  And no that's just cuz the weed I got tonight is really good!

[James Arryn]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Because those "semantics" are obviously crucial in a legal sense.  You pose as being ambivalent on the question of when life begins, but your argument is that even rape victims' rights do not outweigh the fetus' human right to life.  Which means you are not treating them, legally, as potential human life, you are treating them as human life with human rights -- and accordingly imposing that decision on others.  Stop trying to act like you aren't.

No, I keep qualifying it and you keep sidestepping that. For example, you objected similarly to this, bonding yours:

I’m not imposing my decision on anyone, I am saying that until the scientific world CAN make that decision, I think we should limits choicesthat kill or might kill humans like the law does in so many other ways.

I would have bolded the might in that line to show you that it’s qualified. Similarly you said that I said until we know we should err on the side of not ending human life, and again you thought that meant I was saying they are human when I am talking about the repercussions of erring both ways, and obviously if we erred in terms of not recognizing life that is…ie if we discover later life begins at, say, 3 weeks, then that error would have resulted in killing countless humans. If. 
 

I am saying, short of that knowledge, we should err on the side of potential/mostly probable human suffering over potential killing. Do you see what I mean? There are two possibilities, a fetus is a stage of human life, like baby/infant, toddler, etc. which all embody different levels of action, thought, autonomy, etc. or fetuses are something else and at some point transform into human life. In the first instance any abortion would be ending human life, in the second it would depend on knowing the transformation point. The risks are huge whichever way we err in the meantime, but imo the risks of mass killings outweigh the risks of mass suffering and temporary ~ dehumanization. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

I am saying, short of that knowledge, we should err on the side of potential/mostly probable human suffering over potential killing. Do you see what I mean?

I do!  What you fail to get is that in "erring" on that side, you are imposing that decision on everybody else.  Whereas "erring" on the other side allows everybody to make the decision of when life begins on their own, instead of the government or you deciding for them.

[James Arryn]

13 minutes ago, JGP said:

 

I'm not mocking it, is the thing. 

When I was married we didn't miscarry, we had two children. If we'd miscarried I've no doubt that would've hurt. I just refuse to recognize the swing.

Our choices about our bodies are our own. Everyone's should be. You can go get tripped out on when the soul takes root or when life can stake a claim to right, or whatever. I'm with Party No One Should Give A Fuck.

There's one person that makes this decision [maybe two, depending on their relationship] that's just the way it needs to be. 

 

I wasn’t really accusing you of mocking, I was giving an example of what a manipulative post could have looked like. Beyond again reiterating that the only human being involved in a pregnancy is the parent, despite knowing full well I don’t agree, do you have any response to my post before the example of mocking I gave? If not, allow me to reiterate that I recognize that you think the only human and/or human rights involved in a pregnancy is the mother/‘s, and from that flows all your reasoning. If I was certain children weren’t human until they are post-natal or third trimester or 2 1/2 years old or w/e I would be able to agree with you at least to some extent. I don’t have your certainty, or else I am less comfortable with potentially killing humans based on an uncertainty. 

[James Arryn]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

I do!  What you fail to get is that in "erring" on that side, you are imposing that decision on everybody else.  Whereas "erring" on the other side allows everybody to make the decision of when life begins on their own, instead of the government or you deciding for them.

Do you think the humanity or non humanity of the fetus is materially affected by the opinions of it’s parents?

[Ran]

 

@James Arryn

Thank you for being willing to talk about a view I personally strongly disagree. 

I do have to say I agree with @DMC that there's something of a semantic confusion in the way you frame your view. But I think that confusion is possibly at the heart of your conception of the situation.

Until something is a human life, it can't be the case that you are ending a human life. Now, I know you are unsure where life begins, and you suggest that even a zygote may be a human life. And I will allow that I can't say that that is not true. Nor can anyone else, really, however certain some may be.

But I'm not sure that matters. Because to me the question is what is a reasonable position that balances the uncertainties we have in relation to the inherent rights of self-determination of a person who is without question a person: the woman who is pregnant. 

You allow, after all, for abortions in case of medical emergencies that endanger the life of the woman. Why? Why is her life more precious than the life of the child she carries, in your mind? 

It seems to me to make more sense of viewing life within the womb as a a cone of probability, and so a zygote is a very improbable potential for life and a just-shy-of-full-term healthy fetus is a very probable potential for life, and then find a point in between these these two where the probability of life is balanced against the probability of causing harm to the mother (including the potential harms of denying an abortion, psychological, social, economic, etc.). There's a reason that many countries that allow abortion, even quite liberal ones, do in fact place some sort of limit on how late into a pregnancy a woman is allowed to end a pregnancy on request.

It's no coincidence that most jurisdictions with legal abortion limit abortion on request to that 15-20 week period that used to be called the "quickening" -- the point where a fetus can be felt to move. For many people in the past and it seems today, that was really the first and most obvious proof of life in a fetus. And as it happens, a good majority of Americans say they would support abortion on request at up to 15 weeks, with the support falling progressively the further up you try to go.

 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

Do you think the humanity or non humanity of the fetus is materially affected by the opinions of it’s parents?

No, but then I don't think a fetus up to viability has human rights, which is effectively what you mean by "humanity."

[Kalbear]

16 minutes ago, DMC said:

Ok.  Then..I don't get what your objection is.  A few days ago you were complaining that Schumer/Biden weren't trying hard enough to get Manchin on board the last six months.  Now you're saying they shouldn't have even tried to negotiate with Manchin?  I'm genuinely confused.  And no that's just cuz the weed I got tonight is really good!

My objection is that they should be just telling Manchin to do what he wants and they'll vote for it. And spend otherwise no fucking time on it at all, and go after other things. If there are multiple things Manchin would go for go after them - but do not waste any more fucking time on negotiating a single thing. 

They shouldn't publicly shame because that won't work.

They shouldn't privately waste time with trying to bargain.

They should have told him, months ago, that he gets what he wants, he should propose it, that they want certain areas but go for it otherwise, and let him do it. And then just leave it the fuck alone.

 

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, but then I don't think a fetus up to viability has human rights, which is effectively what you mean by "humanity."

I think its materially affected by the thoughts of society and what we decide to view as human. Some cultures thought kids weren't human until 2 years old - until then they didn't get a name. Others view semen as sacred. Others don't fucking care about humans at any age as far as sacred of life, unless you're born from special parents.

There is no objective or scientific viewpoint that says humans are more or less human that can differentiate my cum from my dandruff or from that to a clump of cells to a baby that cannot survive without a massive investment in resources. Anything you choose is arbitrary. That @James Arryn favors the undifferentiated clump of cells' humanity over a person able to get successfully pregnant is definitely a choice, but it is no more obvious than making the choice that sucking a dude off is cannibalism.

[JGP]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

I wasn’t really accusing you of mocking, I was giving an example of what a manipulative post could have looked like. Beyond again reiterating that the only human being involved in a pregnancy is the parent, despite knowing full well I don’t agree, do you have any response to my post before the example of mocking I gave? If not, allow me to reiterate that I recognize that you think the only human and/or human rights involved in a pregnancy is the mother/‘s, and from that flows all your reasoning. If I was certain children weren’t human until they are post-natal or third trimester or 2 1/2 years old or w/e I would be able to agree with you at least to some extent. I don’t have your certainty, or else I am less comfortable with potentially killing humans based on an uncertainty. 

I was just trying to pin you down.

You keep dipping into these little equivocating routines, like people just randomly decide to abort because willy nilly saw a double rainbow or something. People aren't out suddenly deciding nah, might not be my bag after all in later trimesters. Abortions at that point are medical procedures, and the lives involved are [one would hope] centered. A decision there might also have to be made. And that, again, this is the business of no one else.

You can reiterate if you want, but you're right. We're not going to agree.   

 

 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, KalVsWade said:

And spend otherwise no fucking time on it at all, and go after other things.

...What other things?  I mean, Biden surely has plenty of other things, but the negotiations were left to Schumer (which, again, you were complaining Biden wasn't involved in the other day, but whatever).  And even for Schumer, it's not like there's some other major legislative priority he could turn his attention to and suddenly get passed. 

5 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

They should have told him, months ago, that he gets what he wants, he should propose it, that they want certain areas but go for it otherwise, and let him do it. And then just leave it the fuck alone.

Well, if they told him that then they definitely wouldn't get anything more than what they just got -- and there's a very real chance they wouldn't have gotten anything at all because Manchin does seem like the type that enjoys getting his ego fed.  Either way, don't see any reason to complain about what did happen.

3 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

That @James Arryn favors the undifferentiated clump of cells' humanity over a person able to get successfully pregnant is definitely a choice

....Right.  That's what I've been saying.  That he's made a choice and further is asserting that choice should be imposed on everyone else.

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

...What other things?  I mean, Biden surely has plenty of other things, but the negotiations were left to Schumer (which, again, you were complaining Biden wasn't involved in the other day, but whatever).  And even for Schumer, it's not like there's some other major legislative priority he could turn his attention to and suddenly get passed. 

Pretty sure the senate can and has done things other than legislation. Their own j6 investigation, or maybe working out what they were going to do about Roe getting killed, or maybe working out what more they could do about inflation, or working on attacking more Republicans.

Instead, as far as I can tell what they've been doing is secretly negotiating with Manchin to get fuckall.

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, if they told him that then they definitely wouldn't get anything more than what they just got -- and there's a very real chance they wouldn't have gotten anything at all because Manchin does seem like the type that enjoys getting his ego fed.  Either way, don't see any reason to complain about what did happen.

What is going to happen now is that progressives are going to fuck over the deal and nothing will happen.

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

....Right.  That's what I've been saying.  That he's made a choice and further is asserting that choice should be imposed on everyone else.

Yep, I agree. I was using you as a stepping off point and pointing out that it is a societal normative behavior and is not particularly universal; if anything, the most universal behavior would be seeing how mammals behave around their young, and I'm pretty sure that is not the place that James arryn wants to emulate. 

I'm surprised yall haven't pushed him on what his views imply about using birth control mean, or any non piv sex. Even the most basic arguments about potential human life get real stupid real fast, and that's before you throw in tech to help things along. 

[DMC]

24 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Their own j6 investigation, or maybe working out what they were going to do about Roe getting killed, or maybe working out what more they could do about inflation, or working on attacking more Republicans.

Setting up a J6 committee would have been way more complicated in the Senate due to the 50/50 organizing resolution.  Even if it wasn't, not really sure what added benefit the Dems get from two select committees in each chamber doing the same thing.  On abortion, again, they can't even get Manchin on board to win an up or down vote on the WHPA.  The fuck else is Schumer supposed to do?  Nothing on abortion is going to pass cloture nor be allowed into reconciliation by MacDonough.  The other two are just vague complaints.

35 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

What is going to happen now is that progressives are going to fuck over the deal and nothing will happen.

I dunno, maybe, but no reason to jump to that conclusion unless you just wanna be reflexively cynical.

[Jace, Extat]

At what point does it stop being reflexive and become learned cynicism? 

[mormont]

2 minutes ago, Babblebauble said:

At what point does it stop being reflexive and become learned cynicism? 

Reflexive or learned, cynicism is (again) an emotional coping mechanism, not good political analysis.