Jump to content

US Politics: Cancelling Democracy


DanteGabriel

Recommended Posts

Surely you must recognise that your argument isn't strong if the best you can come up with in support for it is 'what if a pregnant woman decided to murder her way through doctors until she finds one that will abort her child' and 'what if I wanted to leave my own child to die' ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

If you take that out of the equation, let’s talk about a 6 month old baby. Who are you, or the state, or anyone to tell me I can’t choose whether or not to leave my unwanted baby on a hillside? How can we live in a society where you get to decide what choices I make about MY children? Just because you choose to not leave your child on a mountaintop, good for you but what the fuck gives you the right to make me act according to your choices?

 

It's not complicated.

You're asserting right to life at whatever, but you won't say exactly when. Others say Body Autonomy trumps, so you project that outward as license to kill.

It's not just logical inconsistency, it's bad logic.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

This hinges on choice because you don’t agree about human life/rights being potentially present. If you take that out of the equation, let’s talk about a 6 month old baby. Who are you, or the state, or anyone to tell me I can’t choose whether or not to leave my unwanted baby on a hillside? How can we live in a society where you get to decide what choices I make about MY children? Just because you choose to not leave your child on a mountaintop, good for you but what the fuck gives you the right to make me act according to your choices?

Once a baby has been born, it can be given up for adoption. The situation has changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

This hinges on choice because you don’t agree about human life/rights being potentially present. If you take that out of the equation, let’s talk about a 6 month old baby. Who are you, or the state, or anyone to tell me I can’t choose whether or not to leave my unwanted baby on a hillside? How can we live in a society where you get to decide what choices I make about MY children? Just because you choose to not leave your child on a mountaintop, good for you but what the fuck gives you the right to make me act according to your choices?

You see? It’s not a logical inconsistency, it’s entirely consistent with the prioritization of ‘first, do not kill’. But if you don’t think that exists, as I stated in my op on the topic, of course choice and autonomy are the next priorities on the list. 

" first, do not kill"  In relation to lifeguard post: we as a society kill all the time in not providing enough organ/blood donors to the critical ill. But still we do not force people to donate. Why is it differnt with potential  mothers? Why should they be forced?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As observed above, all this blathering from the Autocracy above that WE ARE NOT READING otherwise Autocrat insists we'd agree to his DOUBLE TALK that women are nothing more than livestock who have no choice over having sex whether or not wanted, etc. (though study after study shows females of all sorts of species specifically rejecting specific males even during their estrus periods), and must must must give birth no matter what, is echoing other forced birthers who have found that the nation at large is outraged at the very idea of a 10 year old child being told she has the moral and legal obligation to have a baby -- well now, we've got this, as Heather Cox Richards states clearly and plainly -- clear and plain enough that Autocrats are trying to get off the hook from murdering living breathing women and children -- by suddenly abortions not being abortions.

Quote

Since few people can stomach the idea of a 10-year-old rape victim forced to bear a child, other anti-abortion activists are suddenly saying that such an abortion is not an abortion at all because it is necessary to save the life of the mother, although many of the new state laws make no such exception. They have also suddenly begun to say that abortion care for an ectopic pregnancy, which is never viable and which poses a deadly threat to the pregnant person, is not an abortion either. In both cases, this is a sudden carve out that is inaccurate: both of these medical procedures are abortion, and both are illegal now in certain states.

We are not noticing all these forced birthers standing up and declaring THEY will raise the forced birth result.

How in hell can the Autoarch declare anyone is forcing HIM to leave HIS babies on a hill to die?  Of course, in the societies where this was a rule of thumb, MEN made this decision primarily, because the resulting baby wasn't to the MAN's liking for whatever reasons the AUTOARCH MAN held.  But society didn't care.  Because, you know MAN deciding. And now MAN deciding just the opposite, because you know, MAN deciding.

Just a bunch word salad that pulls in various phrases and locutions in a pattern that carries no meaning beyond, I SAY SO.  Right down now to calling abortions that MAN wants not abortion.  Gimme a frackin' break.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[mod] Folks: I appreciate that there are strong opinions on the matter and that this is very relevant to US politics right now. However, we've had the theoretical moral debate for a few pages now without any real reference to current events. And most of us have debated it at length over the course of our lives - often as an immediate issue in our lives. So, rather than have the thread turn into one user defending his views against a panoply of objections, I'm going to say let's acknowledge that this is a difficult question on which people may differ and move on now. Thank you. [/mod]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

1)Did it occur to you your post doesn't actually say what you think we are supposed to think it says?  That it is the same damned doubletalk the forced birthers have used forever? 
 

2)And your chosen handle is VP of the Autocracy, which says a whole lot not pretty about your thinking right there, thinking that says because YOUR family suffered a miscarriage, no women have the right to not be forced to give birth.  Damned autocratic all right. 3) While, of course, perfectly happy with euthanasia -- which is an arm, many believe, to eugenic cleansing.

Just as my handle says a whole lot about me. 4);Do you even know that throughout history everywhere there was no legal, criminal bs talk by the state whether in antiquity, or any other time until in Europe in the 19th C about abortion at all?  5) Which isn't the case, for say, slavery, which has existed throughout history, because throughout history there were those who on the grounds of humanity, ethics, philosophy and religion did argue that slavery was wrong and should be illegal, though these were certainly in the minority until quite, quite late in the game.

6) So why do you think you have the right to declare that something that saves women's lives at all levels is not to be provided? You are not arguing for the 'good', you are arguing for the death and suffering of untold numbers.

 

1) Well, for example it clearly and explicitly stated that no 10 year old should be forced to term and went into great detail about how I find the majority of the people/positions on ‘my side’ bankrupt. And you responded by chiding me about supporting forcing a 10 year old to term and showed me a picture of ‘my people’, so yeah, I’m assuming you didn’t read it before initially responding. But I do appreciate that you deleted the line about me suggesting women deciding to abort on a whim or the weather, which would have obviously required me to ask you to point out where I said anything remotely, like within a galaxy or 3, like that. That you edited makes me feel toy did go back and read, or read more closely, but you can see how in your initial post, that inclusion was more support for my contention that you weren’t responding to my points, but rather Generic Anti-Abortion Guy.

2) I am slightly embarrassed for you here. An autocracy is rule by one. The VP of an autocracy would be, by definition, exactly the same as everyone else but with delusions of grandeur. It’s an ironic and self-deprecating handle. That you tried to build that into…well, par for the course so far. Your handle says about you w/e you think it does, I don’t think it has much bearing on this discussion. 

3) Again, I specifically stated if it’s the adult’s sustained wish, past treatment and soberly maintained. Eugenic cleansing would relate, how? And this is not something I’m ‘yay’ about, this is something I concede a mature individual might have the right to decide for themselves. It breaks my top priority, so I wish it would not occur, but the person whose life is in question that is making the decision, so I concede that might be their moral right. 
 

4) I don’t see what bearing this has on the moral question, and as specifically stated from a legal standpoint I think the SC replaced bad law that was incongruently wrong with worse law that is congruently wrong. I furthermore stated that most anti-abortion arguments are imo seriously misguided, bigoted or just thoughtless/selfish. You keep talking to me here like I am making their arguments, which is why you keep doing weird stuff like above. I get that this is incredibly important to you, and you feel very strongly about this, so I am not replying in kind and trying to respect your feelings. I’d appreciate reciprocity, but it’s not required to further my behaviour here. 
 

That said, you are wrong about ancient and medieval law on abortion. This is not remotely central to my point, but to be clear, laws and opinions were as varied as currently. The following link cites several examples, concludes that it was various, but that abortion was generally treated as a crime in many regions but punishment depended on the grounds for aborting the fetus OR KILLING THE NEWBORN***, stating that inability to feed the child was much more mitigating, punished by say exile instead of death. Other regions would list it as a crime but not prosecute (at least any recorded), etc. 

***That you raise history does in fact bring some relevant support to my position that post-natal infanticide can be rationalized along the same lines of reasoning/priority. Some seemed to feel this was insultingly obtuse, yet oddly medieval courts often agreed with me, for example as stated in a case of maternal infanticide in Brno in the 14thC:

“Muller also points to a court case from the town of Brno in Moravia from the year 1353, which offers some interesting insights into medieval views on a woman’s control over her own body (and her offspring). A woman had been arrested while trying to drown her newborn child in a river, and the case went to 24 male jurors. The jurors concluded that she was not guilty of infanticide, stating:

[i]The woman is not to be punished by any means. And this is so because she bore a baby boy and had her own right to him. Thus, she may kill him and make him perish, for everyone is free to do with what is his, or hers, that which he, or she, pleases to do.[/i]

https://www.medievalists.net/2013/12/birth-control-and-abortion-in-the-middle-ages/

6) As stated, I don’t think you have remotely established this but I am open to your argument if you can actually back it up. If abortion killed fewer than non-abortion, I would be a million % on board with you. If you can show that it does, you will make my position morally easier. 
 

I will come back to continue my anti-dog pile/abortion discussion when I get more time. Many have responded, some have made very thoughtful posts and I’d like to respond in kind when I get a chance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mormont said:

[mod] Folks: I appreciate that there are strong opinions on the matter and that this is very relevant to US politics right now. However, we've had the theoretical moral debate for a few pages now without any real reference to current events. And most of us have debated it at length over the course of our lives - often as an immediate issue in our lives. So, rather than have the thread turn into one user defending his views against a panoply of objections, I'm going to say let's acknowledge that this is a difficult question on which people may differ and move on now. Thank you. [/mod]

Thank you.  And if anyone wants to talk tax policy, I’m here for that.  I’m actually moderating a panel on Sunday with Krishna Vallabhaneni, who is Tax Legislative Counsel at Office of Tax Policy.  We are debating a lot of the proposals that were (until yesterday night) on the table for this session.  It is still worth discussion (and Krishna can probably speak more freely) because ideas never die, they just get stuck in a binder for another administration.  Some of the ideas are just rotten policy, but honestly no one in Congress cares….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

This hinges on choice because you don’t agree about human life/rights being potentially present

Even if one accepts, for the sake of argument, that a fetus is a live human being deserving of legal protection, the argument hardly ends there. Over a million human lives would be saved every year if we outlawed private vehicles (this is only in accidents, which kill mainly pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists, I'm not counting the pollution which they cause and loss of life from that). Should we? Cars might be convenient to many, but surely they're not worth a million human lives a year? Note I'm not including trucks, ambulances or even buses, simply privately owned automobiles. If the right of a human being to live is the highest and most sacred (or important), right, then how can we condone the existence of cars? Surely the rights to own stuff we want or to get to places faster or even to commute in order to keep a job must cede before the right to live of a million people a year.

Outlawing abortion, not only creates a physically dangerous and economically ruinous environment for women via illegal abortions and mafias without being a very effective means of curtailing abortions themselves (much like the prohibition re alcohol), it also makes it impossible to live in a world where women and men can be equals in freedom and dignity. Think what you want of fetal life, it's worth the sacrifice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I will come back to continue my anti-dog pile/abortion discussion when I get more time. Many have responded, some have made very thoughtful posts and I’d like to respond in kind when I get a chance. 

See above. Thank you for being civil about it, and I appreciate the desire to respond, but do so by PM if you feel you must: it's time to move this thread on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manchin says no to reconciliation bill again after he decided to reopen talks.

Specifically, he's against climate provisions and, you know, something we all can universally agree is wrong: taxing rich people.

All this to say, I am here to rub all your faces in it. Back in 2020 you told me I had to vote for Manchin, that it was required because Trump is an existential threat to the U.S. But Manchin and his refusal to address climate change seems just as existentially...wait, what? No one told me to vote for Manchin? Why is this POS dictating how our country is run? 

It's almost like he fell out of the news spotlight, reopened negotiations he never intended to truly negotiate, just so he could get back in the news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KalVsWade said:

Emotional reactions are learned all the time. Thats obviously incorrect.

LOL, no they're not.  Again, at least not if your definition of "learned" is "having knowledge acquired by study."  Your certainty the progressives will blow up such a deal is not based on any knowledge you have - and definitely not any acquired by study.  Is it possible the progressives blow up the deal?  Sure!  Just as it's possible Manchin renegs on the deal, again.

But nobody can be certain about that - especially considering the progressives have always went along with what the Dems want when push comes to shove, and as I argued with many on here last year the responsibility for the delays and blowing up of these bills is predominately on Manchin and not on the progressives at all.  Moreover, while progressives, and really most Dems, are obviously disappointed in Manchin's position, they're still acknowledging they'll support the deal anyway:

Quote

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., called Democrats' legislation “our last chance to prevent the most catastrophic-and costly-effects of climate change.” But he said the party must "salvage as much of this package as possible. The expression that failure is not an option is overused, but failure really is not an option here.”

Could "the Squad" blow up the deal.  Maybe!  But their pattern of behavior is clearly voting against measures they disagree with as much as possible while NOT actually blowing up any bill the leadership has put forth the last two years.

Anyway, the certainty of your knee-jerk reaction isn't learned, it's just your reflexive cynicism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Babblebauble said:

But I then immediately returned to the track at hand, regarding Manchin and the complete insanity of expecting to accomplish anything worthwhile with this man as your fulcrum.

LOL, you can't even get this right.  What you were originally objecting to (this time) in terms of "learned cynicism" wasn't that we shouldn't trust Manchin, it's that we should assume the progressives will blow up the deal he's agreed to.  Moreover, again, I've been the one arguing for a year now that this failure is predominately on Manchin and Sinema, thus that's where any anger should be directed towards -- and since he blew up the deal in December I've been the one saying he's never gonna agree to any climate provisions.  His opposition to tax reform is relatively new though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

LOL, no they're not.  Again, at least not if your definition of "learned" is "having knowledge acquired by study."  Your certainty the progressives will blow up such a deal is not based on any knowledge you have - and definitely not any acquired by study.  Is it possible the progressives blow up the deal?  Sure!  Just as it's possible Manchin renegs on the deal, again. 

But nobody can be certain about that - especially considering the progressives have always went along with what the Dems want when push comes to shove, and as I argued with many on here last year the responsibility for the delays and blowing up of these bills is predominately on Manchin and not on the progressives at all.  Moreover, while progressives, and really most Dems, are obviously disappointed in Manchin's position, they're still acknowledging they'll support the deal anyway:

Learning probabilities is learning something. Statistics is, after all, an actual discipline. I really don't want to get into a semantic debate but in general the notion that you cannot learn an emotional reaction to something is belied by the entire psychological discipline and every idea behind parenting ever. If you like, you can replace 'learn' with 'condition' if you're really interested in mansplaining it away. 

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Could "the Squad" blow up the deal.  Maybe!  But their pattern of behavior is clearly voting against measures they disagree with as much as possible while NOT actually blowing up any bill the leadership has put forth the last two years.

Anyway, the certainty of your knee-jerk reaction isn't learned, it's just your reflexive cynicism.

You're doing super well on getting back the condescending asshole title, by the way. Grats!

My prediction - not my certainty, my prediction - is that progressives are not particularly happy with this administration at this point and are not going to just go along with Pelosi and Biden at their say-so, especially since the last time they did so (the infrastructure bill) they lost whatever small leverage they had over Manchin in exchange for nothing. That Biden also has a low  approval rating among progressives doesn't help matters here either. Getting small concessions for ACA and medicine is not something that they're going to easily accept after months of negotiations, especially with the milquetoast response to things like gutting EPA power and Roe.

If they do go along with it I think it'll be because they are getting something in return somewhere else.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

LOL, no they're not.  Again, at least not if your definition of "learned" is "having knowledge acquired by study." 

Just to point out -- that is not the definition of "Learning" used by psychologists who are experts on the subject. The definition of learning used by people who try to study the general processes of learning scientifically is "a relatively permanent change in behavior as a result of experience." One of the three main categories of learning is classical conditioning, which often quite specifically deals with emotional reactions.  The great majority of what human beings learn through their everyday experience is not the result of deliberate "study".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

LOL, you can't even get this right.  What you were originally objecting to (this time) in terms of "learned cynicism" wasn't that we shouldn't trust Manchin, it's that we should assume the progressives will blow up the deal he's agreed to.  Moreover, again, I've been the one arguing for a year now that this failure is predominately on Manchin and Sinema, thus that's where any anger should be directed towards -- and since he blew up the deal in December I've been the one saying he's never gonna agree to any climate provisions.  His opposition to tax reform is relatively new though.

So, to be clear, what was proposed in the BBBA was FAR from tax reform.  It wasn’t even in the same zip code (TCJA actually did more “reform” particularly in the international area.  This is in fact truth).  Some of the particular proposals had a lot of merit (including the taxability of transfers by devise/at death), but some of them were headline nonsense sauce and would be disastrous if enacted (like the book minimum tax - not talking about the OECD Pillar Two version, which is also disastrous, but also diabolically clever, but the version in the BBBA - was basically a version of the unlamented BURP from the 80s and that lasted about 2 years before it collapsed under its own weight.  But, to put it differently, if you think giving FASB the power to set tax policy is a good idea, I would like to sell you a bridge).  Anyhow, real reform (like Wyden’s proposals on partnerships, many of which are good ideas, several of which are garbage, but at least real reform) was off the table quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genuine question, given that this Manchin fellow seems to be a Republican in all but name who exists only to hamstring the Democratic party can't the party do anything to shank him politically? Like how the fuck is he even a member of the party if he does nothing to support the party? Can't they take away his toys, refuse to give him money, tell him he can't have a D next to his name and run a different candidate for his seat? Why do democrats at the grassroots level support and vote for him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Learning probabilities is learning something. Statistics is, after all, an actual discipline.

Yep!  I'm even trained in that discipline!  But we're not talking about probabilities, I was referring to your certainty/jumping to the conclusion that progressives will blow up the deal.  Certainty is not probability.

3 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

You're doing super well on getting back the condescending asshole title, by the way. Grats!

I'll never beat the king, Mr. 64 Warning Points.

7 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

My prediction - not my certainty, my prediction

Ok, then.  If you said that to begin with we wouldn't be having this conversation.

1 minute ago, Ormond said:

Just to point out -- that is not the definition of "Learning" used by psychologists who are experts on the subject.

Not sure why that needs pointing out when I clarified the definition I was using in the text you quoted.

3 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

So, to be clear, what was proposed in the BBBA was FAR from tax reform.

Man, everyone's the semantic police today.  Manchin's opposition to any tax provisions targeting the rich is relatively new.  Manchin was emphasizing tax reform as he key priority as recently as April.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DMC said:

Not sure why that needs pointing out when I clarified the definition I was using in the text you quoted.

Because, while that might have been the definition you were using, it was not the definition bauble and Kal were using and you were disagreeing with the use of. You can't mock people for using a term wrong that they're using perfectly correctly and then complain when someone points that out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...