Post by: Nick_Miller on April 13, 2018, 08:16:20 AM
Example: I've known "Mike" since high school. He works hard, supports his family, loves his kids. We used to play lots of video games together, and go on adventures in high school. He can be funny, and he does lots of little things that I respect (tips servers well, gives to charity, etc).
BUT...
We don't see eye-to-eye on virtually ANY "big picture" issue:
He's very religious, and one of those types who is more than happy to impose his religious beliefs on others through legislation (transgender bathroom issue, abortion, opposing "fairness" laws to protect LGBTQ folks, etc. I am an atheist who believes that religion has many more cons than pros. I haven't had the courage to straight up ask him "So you think me and my wife and kids are going to burn in hell, huh?" because I pretty much know that would end the relationship.
He's what I would call a "gun nut." I can't even keep track of how many guns he owns. I think he gets sexually aroused shooting off guns at the range. He's always talking about it. I don't own any guns, although I am considering buying one for personal protection. I wouldn't fetishize it though. It would just be a tool, not an object of desire. He views every effort at gun control as "the government is taking my guns!" I think he would be okay with people walking around with bazookas, although I think that's partially because most of those folks doing that would be white guys (like him) and that makes him feel comfortable.
He has what I view as very backwards views on men and women. I don't know how his wife puts up with it. He's always bashing women's groups for seeking equality. He has a victim mentality, thinking that all PoC and all women and gay people are all trying to gang up on the poor straight white Christian males, like he's the oppressed. He doesn't understand when I tell him, YES he and I both enjoy white male privilege.
I could go on and on and on...
And "Mike" is not the only example I could give. I have a few more friends with similar viewpoints.
So my bigger question is, are you really "friends" with someone when you share virtually no common values?
I mean, when Friend A thinks Friend B is going to burn in eternity, how in the world can they really be "friends" in any sense of the term?
When two "friends" can't agree on basic stuff like treating people different than themselves (in our case, women, PoC, gay people, etc) with respect, is there any point in keeping the relationship going, just because there is history, and a basic level of trust?
I'm curious what people think about this. I don't necessarily want to only have an echo chamber of friends, because I like to be challenged intellectually, but I don't think having friends who disagree about almost everything is really the way to go either.
Post by: jimmymango on April 13, 2018, 08:27:49 AM
In both my childhood and college group of friends, there's a pretty even divide politically, but we either make fun of each other for it, or have heated debates and then move on. We know we're not going to change each others' minds, but we blow off steam having discussions, and most importantly we don't let our politics define our friendships. I think the important thing to remember is that you were friends for a reason before you were voting for different people/parties.
Obviously it's one thing if the differences have driven you apart to the point that you don't share any interests any longer, but if you still have a lot in common, don't let the differences come between you. Besides, being close to people is how differences are bridged because there's a willingness to get past them in order to maintain relationships.
Post by: netskyblue on April 13, 2018, 08:32:51 AM
If their views on certain things were so vastly different from what I believed was right, I can't imagine I'd be able to really like the person. I can interact with and treat just about anyone respectfully, as long as they are willing to do the same to me. But that's not friendship. That's just not being a dick.
Post by: scantee on April 13, 2018, 08:51:33 AM
I have extended family who are very religious evangelical conservatives (I’m an atheist) and we have a very cordial and friendly relationship. No fights or animosity on either side, but their is a sustained superficiality to our interactions. Our differences present a barrier that seems impassable. That’s not to say we hate or dislike each other, we get along fine, but we’ll never be close.
These family have mentioned to other family members that they think I’m distant and they wish we could be closer. They also have absolutely no problem being open about the fact that they believe I will burn in hell for all eternity because of my beliefs. That they think that doesn’t bother me, however it makes it hard for me to truly trust them in more intimate ways. That’s is, we can have casual fun together, but when shit gets real they are not the people I would go to for support.
And I think that is okay. Not every relationship is appropriate for higher levels of closeness. My approach is to take people where they are at, enjoy the relationships for what they are, and not try to force closeness that has not developed organically.
Back to your friend, I think you can probably continue to be friends with him in the original way you bonded: over video games. Enjoy that for what it is. If at some point your differences make even that low level interaction unpleasant, then you might think about severing the connection.
Post by: Nick_Miller on April 13, 2018, 09:01:16 AM
And I wonder, if we hadn't known each other for 30 years, would I punch him in the mouth* for some of the crap he says? (I'm constantly tempted to, trust me)
It's like when you realize that some of your "friends" are pretty racist...I mean, what do you do with that? Where is the line?
*I wouldn't really punch anyone unless in an emergency, as I am non-violent
Post by: Kris on April 13, 2018, 09:22:11 AM
This is the core issue with me. I grew up in what is now Trump country. A ton of my relatives and people I know from high school voted for him.
Ultimately, I have a very difficult time respecting their hypocrisy and the values they profess to hold dear while voluntarily turning a blind eye to all sort of things that three years ago they would have never accepted in this or any president, for example.
There are people whose values I don't share, but whom I can be friends with, no problem. But when I see values that are out and out disgusting to me, and when I see blatant hypocrisy and disregard for one's fellow human, I am unable to feel much positivity toward that person. So, it would be hypocrisy for me to be friends with someone I don't respect at all.
Post by: Travis on April 13, 2018, 10:56:10 AM
Post by: Sibley on April 13, 2018, 11:33:00 AM
If both of you have the mindset that you have different beliefs, then yes. But if just one of you has the mindset that the other has the wrong belief, then probably not.
I love talking to people that have different beliefs than I do. I find it fascinating. I often wish they believed different, but it is not my place to try to change anyone's beliefs. I do feel that we should share our beliefs in order to have a better understanding of each other.
If someone is into <activity> that I don't believe in and they engage in <activity> at my house, I should be able to say "please don't do that at my house" and that is the end of it. If I am at their house and they engage in <activity>, then it is my place to shut the hell up or leave.
This. I have friends who have very different beliefs and opinions, even lifestyles, than me. What makes it work is that we each respect the other even if we don't agree. I have also found that if we really dig into specifics, we frequently agree on a lot more than we disagree on.
Example:
I'm pro-choice. My friend is pro-life. We once had a discussion where we determined that we were 100% in alignment on absolutely everything except that I was ok with abortions and she wasn't. We agreed on sex ed, birth control access and availability, social supports for women from the time they were pregnant all the way through the kid growing up, etc. In fact, my view was and is that if we do that, pretty much the only times an abortion might happen would be in case of medical need or rape/incest (which also shouldn't happen cause it's a crime...), and she thought that in those cases abortions would be ok. Once we figured that out, we laughed. In the ideal situation, we're 100% in agreement. It's only in the real world that we have a difference.
Post by: netskyblue on April 13, 2018, 11:41:07 AM
Example:
I'm pro-choice. My friend is pro-life. We once had a discussion where we determined that we were 100% in alignment on absolutely everything except that I was ok with abortions and she wasn't. We agreed on sex ed, birth control access and availability, social supports for women from the time they were pregnant all the way through the kid growing up, etc. In fact, my view was and is that if we do that, pretty much the only times an abortion might happen would be in case of medical need or rape/incest (which also shouldn't happen cause it's a crime...), and she thought that in those cases abortions would be ok. Once we figured that out, we laughed. In the ideal situation, we're 100% in agreement. It's only in the real world that we have a difference.
Theoretical disagreement is one thing. If all your friend does is walk around saying, "I don't support abortion," well that's her belief and whatever, it's not affecting anyone. If she's actively trying to prevent you from getting the abortion you are trying to seek, that's something else entirely. And like it or not, people who vote for politicians who will try to enact policies that will affect you or someone else in a way that you think is wrong, ARE actively trying to ---- do whatever thing it is.
It's the difference between "I think people should/don't think people should (fill in the blank) but it's not actually any of my business what they choose to do" and "I'm going to try to make it so people must/can't (fill in the blank)."
Post by: Kyle B on April 13, 2018, 12:00:45 PM
We evolved for in-person relationships. In person, people won't really ever tell you you're living incorrectly. On social media, you will realize they have those negative judgements about people like you, because now we're all eavesdropping on each other 24/7.
It's a big part of why people feel so alone, despite being more connected than ever.
I have a friend who, before we made a specific agreement that he wouldn't do it, had nothing to say that wasn't angry, red-faced dialog he'd heard on Fox and Friends an hour before. Even with the agreement, I am never particularly excited to hang out with him.
I want to make the effort to do so, though, as he is a very nice person when he's not repeating talking points.
Post by: Jrr85 on April 13, 2018, 12:07:52 PM
I have thought about this a LOT over the last 18 months.
Example: I've known "Mike" since high school. He works hard, supports his family, loves his kids. We used to play lots of video games together, and go on adventures in high school. He can be funny, and he does lots of little things that I respect (tips servers well, gives to charity, etc).
BUT...
We don't see eye-to-eye on virtually ANY "big picture" issue:
He's very religious, and one of those types who is more than happy to impose his religious beliefs on others through legislation (transgender bathroom issue, abortion, opposing "fairness" laws to protect LGBTQ folks, etc. I am an atheist who believes that religion has many more cons than pros. I haven't had the courage to straight up ask him "So you think me and my wife and kids are going to burn in hell, huh?" because I pretty much know that would end the relationship.
He's what I would call a "gun nut." I can't even keep track of how many guns he owns. I think he gets sexually aroused shooting off guns at the range. He's always talking about it. I don't own any guns, although I am considering buying one for personal protection. I wouldn't fetishize it though. It would just be a tool, not an object of desire. He views every effort at gun control as "the government is taking my guns!" I think he would be okay with people walking around with bazookas, although I think that's partially because most of those folks doing that would be white guys (like him) and that makes him feel comfortable.
He has what I view as very backwards views on men and women. I don't know how his wife puts up with it. He's always bashing women's groups for seeking equality. He has a victim mentality, thinking that all PoC and all women and gay people are all trying to gang up on the poor straight white Christian males, like he's the oppressed. He doesn't understand when I tell him, YES he and I both enjoy white male privilege.
I could go on and on and on...
And "Mike" is not the only example I could give. I have a few more friends with similar viewpoints.
So my bigger question is, are you really "friends" with someone when you share virtually no common values?
I mean, when Friend A thinks Friend B is going to burn in eternity, how in the world can they really be "friends" in any sense of the term?
When two "friends" can't agree on basic stuff like treating people different than themselves (in our case, women, PoC, gay people, etc) with respect, is there any point in keeping the relationship going, just because there is history, and a basic level of trust?
I'm curious what people think about this. I don't necessarily want to only have an echo chamber of friends, because I like to be challenged intellectually, but I don't think having friends who disagree about almost everything is really the way to go either.
I'm guessing you as an individual can't be friends with people who have different political beliefs because you are unwilling to engage somebody's opinion in good faith and instead attribute a cartoonish version of their beliefs to them. For example, how did you end up friends with somebody that bashes women's groups for "seeking equality". Certainly those people exist, but most of the time, when somebody is accusing a person of not wanting women to have equality, it's not because they are making a claim like "women shouldn't be allowed in public without a hijab", but more likely along the lines of "the average/typical woman is more inclined than the average/typical man to time with children over career advancement.
But again, those people do exist, so maybe it's the opposite of what I am guessing, and you are the outlier in that you have been willing to continue your friendship when he actually believes women shouldn't have equality.
Post by: MasterStache on April 13, 2018, 12:08:09 PM
Post by: Philociraptor on April 13, 2018, 12:33:09 PM
Post by: Imma on April 13, 2018, 12:34:05 PM
We used to not agree on a lot of things, but we were always able to discuss them. And we shared the same core values, like freedom of speech, freedom of religion and free press. He has always been conservative (wants his wife to be a homemaker, is pro-death penalty, etc) but he used to believe that everyone should live their own life on their own terms and the government should avoid interfering.
He hasn't changed his views that much, but he has become a hypocrite. These days, he believes taxation and guns still aren't the government's business, but suddenly abortion, bathroom politics and gay marriage are.
Post by: Ynari on April 13, 2018, 03:45:19 PM
It's the difference between "I think people should/don't think people should (fill in the blank) but it's not actually any of my business what they choose to do" and "I'm going to try to make it so people must/can't (fill in the blank)."
I have a lot of good friends with views I don't also hold - from politics to religion to veganism. Across the board, the common denominator is that their actions and words towards me (and I towards them) are centered around "I'd love it if you came around to my side of things, but I appreciate and respect you as an individual with your own opinions and needs." There are people who hold similar views who use it as a veil for their asshattery - people who demand that I "pray for them" (an actual thing that has happened to me) or who make heavy use of emotional manipulation while they judge my choices are going to be shuffled to a "polite acquaintance" category at best. People who have thought out their opinions and can hold civil discourse on the matter? Wish I had more friends like that!
And, of course, sometimes there are single issues that are totally worth "breaking up" a friendship over for your personal mental health. If you can't trust someone due to their beliefs, that's plenty of reason not to be friends with them! Live your life. I am not judging. ;)
Post by: LWYRUP on April 13, 2018, 04:05:19 PM
I can, but expect the people I am thinking of are not as extreme in their views as the examples proffered and that I am more laid back about politics than the OP to begin with.
Also, I agree with PP that people frequently (but not always) caricaturize / distort the beliefs of their political opponents as part of rhetorical posturing. Drives me nuts.
Anyways I hate debating politics on the internet so I am going to leave it there, but yes it's possible.
Post by: HPstache on April 13, 2018, 04:49:09 PM
My closest friends are about half and half what was described in the original post. My wife and I even have different views from each other on many areas of politics, she is my best friend and we have a wonderful marriage. I am baffled as to why differing beliefs would be a bad thing, let alone a deal breaker for a friendship.
Post by: PoutineLover on April 13, 2018, 04:56:12 PM
I honestly find it shocking that so many people can't be friends with someone who thinks differently. Am I really hearing this correctly? What a close-minded community I am a part of, that's kind of embarrassing to be honest.For me it's because certain beliefs deny basic equality and human rights to groups of people. I don't want to be friends with someone who believes that women, LGBT people, people of other races, refugees, etc. are less worthy humans. Differing opinions on economic policy is one thing, but plenty of people hold dehumanizing views that would make me lose respect for them and be unable to carry on a friendship.
My closest friends are about half and half what was described in the original post. My wife and I even have different views from each other on many areas of politics, she is my best friend and we have a wonderful marriage. I am baffled as to why differing beliefs would be a bad thing, let alone a deal breaker for a friendship.
Post by: scantee on April 13, 2018, 05:01:24 PM
Quote
In person, people won't really ever tell you you're living incorrectly
This has not been my experience. My conservative in-laws seem to have no problem being judgemental about my life to my face. Sure, they are passive aggressive rather than direct about it, but someone would have to be completely daft not to grasp their intent.
Example: I am a mom and I’ve always worked. When my kids were young, they would talk in front of me about how very SAD and unnatural it is when women choose their careers over being home with their children. How messed up kids in these homes (their grandkids!) turn out to be. What a shame it is that some women are so selfish. I’ve never engaged in these barbs, or spoken negatively of their life choices in any way, I’ve always just exited the conversations and attempted to keep things friendly and civil.
This has mostly worked and now they make far fewer comments like this. But now these same people complain that I don’t try to have a closer relationships with them! Why in the world would I want to be close to people who put down me down and disrespect me?
Anyway, I have been burned repeatedly by giving people like this very generous extensions of good faith only to have them use it against me. It’s not my job to continue to try to engage in close relationships with people who lack basic respect for me and I would never expect that of anyone else either.
Post by: Travis on April 13, 2018, 05:04:23 PM
I honestly find it shocking that so many people can't be friends with someone who thinks differently. Am I really hearing this correctly? What a close-minded community I am a part of, that's kind of embarrassing to be honest.
My closest friends are about half and half what was described in the original post. My wife and I even have different views from each other on many areas of politics, she is my best friend and we have a wonderful marriage. I am baffled as to why differing beliefs would be a bad thing, let alone a deal breaker for a friendship.
Most of the examples here appear to be the other party being "close minded." The example right before yours, the other person opened the conversation with "you're going to hell." You're asking what's wrong with us?
I've tried to break the ice or find other things to talk about, but when they allow that different opinion to define them that the friendship kind of hits a wall. I used to work with a guy who I got along with great and we discussed home lives, work, and a few other odd topics. Then we got ourselves a new president and from that point on every Facebook post of his was a meme of why Obama was a traitor, and every conversation practically started with "fuck Obama." His attitude didn't turn me off from the friendship because I'm a Democrat (I'm not), but rather how that became the only thing he could talk about. When Bush was President, I could ask him about the weather and he'd start talking about his motorcycle. With Obama it became "man, don't even get me started" and it would turn to the latest political outrage.
Post by: Travis on April 13, 2018, 05:07:49 PM
QuoteIn person, people won't really ever tell you you're living incorrectly
This has not been my experience. My conservative in-laws seem to have no problem being judgemental about my life to my face. Sure, they are passive aggressive rather than direct about it, but someone would have to be completely daft not to grasp their intent.
My uncle's wife pretty much introduced herself to my mother with "you're a Native American heathen and you need to be saved." Great way to break the ice, right? They never got along because everything in my aunt's life revolved around how more Christian than everybody else she was and to this day she can't make a Facebook post without praise or a prayer being in there somewhere. As I mentioned in an earlier post, how can you become friends with someone despite their political/cultural/religious opinions if they are those opinions?
Post by: wenchsenior on April 13, 2018, 05:13:17 PM
I honestly find it shocking that so many people can't be friends with someone who thinks differently. Am I really hearing this correctly? What a close-minded community I am a part of, that's kind of embarrassing to be honest.For me it's because certain beliefs deny basic equality and human rights to groups of people. I don't want to be friends with someone who doesn't believe that women, LGBT people, people of other races, refugees, etc. are less worthy humans. Differing opinions on economic policy is one thing, but plenty of people hold dehumanizing views that would make me lose respect for them and be unable to carry on a friendship.
My closest friends are about half and half what was described in the original post. My wife and I even have different views from each other on many areas of politics, she is my best friend and we have a wonderful marriage. I am baffled as to why differing beliefs would be a bad thing, let alone a deal breaker for a friendship.
Pretty much. I personally think literal belief in most tenants of religion is silly, and often damaging to society. However, I have plenty of religious friends and I recognize the personal and community-level benefits of religion, and how it positively affects my friends and my town in some social arenas. So as long as their religious beliefs don't lead them to subscribe to e.g., what PoutineLover listed, or something to the effect that their deity said it was ok to use and destroy natural resources with no thought to the long term consequences or effects on other species, or that we should teach creationism in science class rather than comparative religion, etc etc etc then I have no problem being friends with them. Even then, I have some family and friends that I still care about, and have areas of closeness to, yet who hold views that I absolutely despise and feel contempt toward them for having (e.g., racism). We try not to talk about those areas and enjoy our commonalities, but I absolutely feel less respect for them than I otherwise would. Probably they also feel less respect for me than if I agreed with them. Some people have many strict deal breakers for potential marriage partners, others have fewer, and everyone's are different. It's the same with friends, IMO.
Post by: Kris on April 13, 2018, 05:18:38 PM
QuoteIn person, people won't really ever tell you you're living incorrectly
This has not been my experience.
Nor mine. I have been told by many, many people that my life was not "correct."
Including a former boyfriend who was a "strong Christian." Yet his girlfriend before me was actually married. And he was with her for two years WHILE they were married. But he was a "Christian." And went to church frequently.
My "crime"? Being an atheist. He had sex with me, out of wedlock, frequently. Even though he "knew" it was wrong, he kept doing it. Over and over. I have no issue with premarital sex -- I am a person who believes in monogamy but I don't feel that marriage has to be part of it -- so I was living fully within my morals. He was someone who believes that sex outside of marriage is a sin. Yet he kept doing it. And judged ME for being a woman of loose morals.
So, yeah. Hypocrisy is absolute freaking bullshit. Believe what you want. But when you impose your beliefs on others -- especially when you don't walk your talk -- is ridiculous, and you should not expect people to "tolerate" your hypocrisy.
Post by: DreamFIRE on April 13, 2018, 08:12:28 PM
I honestly find it shocking that so many people can't be friends with someone who thinks differently. Am I really hearing this correctly? What a close-minded community I am a part of, that's kind of embarrassing to be honest.
My closest friends are about half and half what was described in the original post. My wife and I even have different views from each other on many areas of politics, she is my best friend and we have a wonderful marriage. I am baffled as to why differing beliefs would be a bad thing, let alone a deal breaker for a friendship.
This is exactly what I was thinking!
Post by: Cwadda on April 13, 2018, 10:01:16 PM
I honestly find it shocking that so many people can't be friends with someone who thinks differently. Am I really hearing this correctly? What a close-minded community I am a part of, that's kind of embarrassing to be honest.
My closest friends are about half and half what was described in the original post. My wife and I even have different views from each other on many areas of politics, she is my best friend and we have a wonderful marriage. I am baffled as to why differing beliefs would be a bad thing, let alone a deal breaker for a friendship.
I couldn't have put it better, v8rx7guy.
If we weren't able to put our differences aside, how would we ever engage in productive conversation and make eventual progress? This is a major issue America is facing.
Post by: Syonyk on April 13, 2018, 10:35:10 PM
I honestly find it shocking that so many people can't be friends with someone who thinks differently. Am I really hearing this correctly? What a close-minded community I am a part of, that's kind of embarrassing to be honest.
I mean... based on your username, you're a heretic anyway. Just because your LS1 makes 50% more power, more reliably, doesn't have the rat's nest of unlabeled vacuum lines with random restrictor pills, doesn't really affect the weight balance that much, doesn't require a complex twin turbo setup, lasts nearly forever, and improves fuel economy doesn't mean it has any business in an RX-7! :p
But, yes, you're hearing it correctly. It's pretty common on the left. "Either you think exactly like me, who is obviously right and true and correct about all things, or you're one of them." Look at the animosity between the Hillary supporters and the Bernie supporters. I'd say it was before the election, but it's still going on from what I've seen. You see a bit of a "circular firing squad" going on where everyone is just lashing out at everyone else, even though they're theoretically on the same side.
Look at all the people (again, mostly on the left) who were, during and after the 2016 elections, unfriending anyone they thought might be not their particular brand of left.
So it's quite common. I agree it's a good bit disconcerting how many people on this particular forum seem to agree with the assertion that you can't be friends with someone you disagree with politically, but it shouldn't be surprising if you pay attention. In my experience, forums like this tend to be more heavily left leaning, with people who have more conservative opinions either not expressing them because it's not worth dealing with the dogpile and bannings, or simply not as active on the internet because they'd rather be out, say, ruining a perfectly good RX-7. :p Most of the conservatives I know don't spend that much time on internet forums, or at least not the left leaning forums. There are plenty of good places to hang out that are open to a wide range of viewpoints.
Quote
I am baffled as to why differing beliefs would be a bad thing, let alone a deal breaker for a friendship.
Because it requires one to be able to actually back one's beliefs and have a solid debate/discussion about them. Which is, sadly, harder and harder to find - on both sides.
For me it's because certain beliefs deny basic equality and human rights to groups of people. I don't want to be friends with someone who believes that women, LGBT people, people of other races, refugees, etc. are less worthy humans. Differing opinions on economic policy is one thing, but plenty of people hold dehumanizing views that would make me lose respect for them and be unable to carry on a friendship.
Are you making the common mistake of confusing "equality" with "sameness"? It's been a thing on the left for a while now (at least in certain circles) to insist at the top of their lungs that gender is a social construct and that men and women are identical in all ways, so any difference in outcome must be the result of the evil patriarchy and oppression (insert your preferred group's terms for the same general concept here if you don't like those). Yet, at the same time, they're going on about how hormone replacement therapy must be covered by every sort of health insurance and it's cruel if that's not covered. You can't have both. Either men and women are the same and there's no difference, or there are fundamental chemical differences between men and women that require changing the chemical balance of a human to "change" from one to the other.
A particular source of annoyance, at least for me, is the insistence that physical standards for physically demanding jobs need to be different for men and women. Firefighters, police officers, etc. A fire hose or unconscious person does not magically get easier to handle if it detects that a woman is handling it, so there's no good reason that the physical standards should be different. Yes, that puts you at odds with the fact that, in general, women aren't as physically strong as men. The bell curves certainly overlap, but the centers differ, and the absolute values are not even remotely close. The absolute deadlift record for men is 1102lb, the same record for women is 672lb (61% of the male record). That's by no means even remotely close to "same" - even if they both are (and should be) equal under the law.
And on the topic of refugees, an opinion of "I don't believe we should let millions of people from a radically different culture, who show no interest in assimilating, into our country" doesn't mean one thinks that they're subhuman. It just means that one sees this as, based on history, a really dumb idea. Even some of the people on the left who initially supported it have been rethinking the wisdom of that.
In general, I see a trend (again, heavily from the left) of assuming that anyone who holds opposing (or even slightly differing) views must hold the worst possible version of them, for purely evil reasons, and therefore they are an evil person. There's no nuance, and there's especially no attempts (anymore) to find some common ground and actually understand the other people's point of view and reasons for it. It's a lost art in the age of snippy social media responses, and phones have made it far worse, because you don't even have a proper keyboard to type on. A good computer keyboard is 4-5x as fast as even a fast phone keyboard, so it leads to more expanded responses. You may be able to, for instance, guess that I'm typing this response on a computer, not a phone.
The correct approach, IMO, is to have the discussions in person. And, no, not everyone you know with an opposing viewpoint will be up for that, or will be interested in an actual discussion/debate. But some will. And it's far harder to decide a person is irredeemably evil when you're sitting across a table from them (preferably over a few pints - even better from a pitcher, because then you know you have some common ground).
If we weren't able to put our differences aside, how would we ever engage in productive conversation and make eventual progress? This is a major issue America is facing.
Unfortunately, one of the fairly common things that happens in an empire/nation in decline is an increase in political polarization. We're certainly seeing that, and, based on history, it doesn't resolve. So... good luck!
Post by: NorCal on April 13, 2018, 10:59:37 PM
If someone disrespects you because of your beliefs, then the problem is theirs.
I have plenty of friends on the left, and plenty of friends on the right. I don't respect any of them any less for their views.
Personally, I'm a Trump voting, gun-loving corpratist republican, and my wife is a tree-hugging Obama loving hippie. While we certainly have our disagreements, it doesn't get between us.
Some specific advice about getting along with those you disagree with:
1. Always have a sense of humor. Be willing to joke about your own politics the same you would joke about the other sides politics.
2. You are allowed to keep your opinion to yourself. It doesn't hurt.
3. Always be respectful of others opinions, no matter how much you disagree.
4. Don't take politics too seriously.
5. Remind yourself that considering the world from someone else's point of view is good for your mental well being.
Post by: Travis on April 13, 2018, 11:33:57 PM
I will never understand why someone "can't be around" people with different ideas or lifestyles. I live in the Bay Area, so I see this a lot. I just don't get it. If you respect someone less because of their opinions, the problem is you.
If someone disrespects you because of your beliefs, then the problem is theirs.
I have plenty of friends on the left, and plenty of friends on the right. I don't respect any of them any less for their views.
Personally, I'm a Trump voting, gun-loving corpratist republican, and my wife is a tree-hugging Obama loving hippie. While we certainly have our disagreements, it doesn't get between us.
Some specific advice about getting along with those you disagree with:
1. Always have a sense of humor. Be willing to joke about your own politics the same you would joke about the other sides politics.
2. You are allowed to keep your opinion to yourself. It doesn't hurt.
3. Always be respectful of others opinions, no matter how much you disagree.
4. Don't take politics too seriously.
5. Remind yourself that considering the world from someone else's point of view is good for your mental well being.
In other words, just be polite. I think most of us get that. Polite only gets you so far when the other person walks into the room convinced you might not be a person because of this difference in beliefs. Monkeyjenga's friend's father doesn't think she's his political equal due to her biology. My former coworker can't hold a conversation without shouting his gun-nut anti-left conspiracies, and my aunt used to think we were all going to hell for being non-Baptists with a moderate amount of Lakota bloodline. I get the stink eye from the same group of college students when I run past them at lunch wearing a US Army t-shirt. There's only so far these relationships are going to go no matter how far we extend the olive branch. On the other hand, my wife is quite religious and I'm not in the slightest. We've made it work for nearly 16 years. I'm probably light years apart politically from some of my friends. Either we just don't know it, or it's acknowledged and we all love and respect each other enough to not care.
Post by: Kyle Schuant on April 13, 2018, 11:40:48 PM
Quote
Can you really be friends if your political beliefs are much different?This is a question that, of all Western countries, would only be asked in the USA.
Post by: Sailor Sam on April 13, 2018, 11:41:20 PM
I will never understand why someone "can't be around" people with different ideas or lifestyles. I live in the Bay Area, so I see this a lot. I just don't get it. If you respect someone less because of their opinions, the problem is you.
If someone disrespects you because of your beliefs, then the problem is theirs.
I have plenty of friends on the left, and plenty of friends on the right. I don't respect any of them any less for their views.
Personally, I'm a Trump voting, gun-loving corpratist republican, and my wife is a tree-hugging Obama loving hippie. While we certainly have our disagreements, it doesn't get between us.
Some specific advice about getting along with those you disagree with:
1. Always have a sense of humor. Be willing to joke about your own politics the same you would joke about the other sides politics.
2. You are allowed to keep your opinion to yourself. It doesn't hurt.
3. Always be respectful of others opinions, no matter how much you disagree.
4. Don't take politics too seriously.
5. Remind yourself that considering the world from someone else's point of view is good for your mental well being.
In other words, just be polite. I think most of us get that. Polite only gets you so far when the other person walks into the room convinced you might not be a person because of this difference in beliefs. Monkeyjenga's friend's father doesn't think she's his political equal due to her biology. My former coworker can't hold a conversation without shouting his gun-nut anti-left conspiracies, and my aunt used to think we were all going to hell for being non-Baptists with a moderate amount of Lakota bloodline. I get the stink eye from the same group of college students when I run past them at lunch wearing a US Army t-shirt. There's only so far these relationships are going to go no matter how far we extend the olive branch. On the other hand, my wife is quite religious and I'm not in the slightest. We've made it work for nearly 16 years. I'm probably light years apart politically from some of my friends. Either we just don't know it, or it's acknowledged and we all love and respect each other enough to not care.
Really good post @Travis. I've been typing for 30 minutes, trying to make the exact same points but my proto-post was a convoluted mess. Your's is much more eloquent, so I'll just hang on your coat tails.
Post by: expatartist on April 13, 2018, 11:48:34 PM
He's no longer a "friend".
Post by: Imma on April 14, 2018, 04:41:19 AM
I honestly find it shocking that so many people can't be friends with someone who thinks differently. Am I really hearing this correctly? What a close-minded community I am a part of, that's kind of embarrassing to be honest.
I mean... based on your username, you're a heretic anyway. Just because your LS1 makes 50% more power, more reliably, doesn't have the rat's nest of unlabeled vacuum lines with random restrictor pills, doesn't really affect the weight balance that much, doesn't require a complex twin turbo setup, lasts nearly forever, and improves fuel economy doesn't mean it has any business in an RX-7! :p
But, yes, you're hearing it correctly. It's pretty common on the left. "Either you think exactly like me, who is obviously right and true and correct about all things, or you're one of them."QuoteI am baffled as to why differing beliefs would be a bad thing, let alone a deal breaker for a friendship.
Because it requires one to be able to actually back one's beliefs and have a solid debate/discussion about them. Which is, sadly, harder and harder to find - on both sides.If we weren't able to put our differences aside, how would we ever engage in productive conversation and make eventual progress? This is a major issue America is facing.
Unfortunately, one of the fairly common things that happens in an empire/nation in decline is an increase in political polarization. We're certainly seeing that, and, based on history, it doesn't resolve. So... good luck!
I was one of the people who said that under certain circumstances, I have a hard time continuing a friendship with someone. But I think you've turned what I've said and what others have said in this thread into a caricature.
First of all, I don't really consider myself to be on the left. Secondly, I hang out with a lot of people with different views and I'm totally fine with people having different opinions. You can agree to disagree about almost anything and still get along. I have plenty of friends (and a partner) that vote for different parties than I do or have a different religion. I'm not offended when my religious relatives / friends tell me that I will go to hell, because it's not a threat or an offence. It's what they sincerely believe and they are sad about it because they care about me.
But to me there are a few things that are just too sacred to not discuss. When my college friend is talking about banning free press or outlawing religions (and this is literally what he says, I wish I was exaggerating) , I will never let that go just to preserve our friendship. Fascism / neo-nazism are on the rise in Europe (where I live). Many people admire authoritarian leaders like Trump and Duterte ( I have family connections to the Philippines). I believe this is a very dangerous development and as a citizen of my country it is my duty to uphold the values in our constitution. When someone says 'all Muslims should be deported out of this country' or ' the Quran should be completely banned' (and again, those are real things that people say, banning of the Quran is actually one of the main goals of one of our biggest political parties) I don't believe that's something you can agree to disagree about. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are very important constitutional values. If you want to actively ban a religious book, what you are trying to do is undermining our constitution and the core values of our society. I care too much about our society to just shrug that off.
My grandparents' generation tried to stay friends with everyone 70 years ago, regardless of their political beliefs because everyone was entitled to their own. I don't have to tell you what happened back then.
Post by: Freedom2016 on April 14, 2018, 05:56:13 AM
*Close* friends are ones I can bare my soul to, and be unguarded with, and for that, a certain set of shared values and beliefs seems to be necessary.
Post by: scantee on April 14, 2018, 06:21:07 AM
Quote
What a close-minded community I am a part of, that's kind of embarrassing to be honest.
Person A: This characteristic of yours make you [or people you care about] makes you inferior to me [ or people I care about].
Person B: I don’t like how you’re treating me [or people I care about] and a result I don’t want to be around you much anymore.
Person A: Well lookie at the close-minded person we have here!
It’s not close-minded to expect to be treated respectfully as a full human being. I can, and am, able to live and coexist with people who are very different from me. Not just politically, but people of different ethnicities, countries of origin, religions, etc. However, I only want to be close to people who respect me as a human being. My politics are an important part of my values so usually the place I choose to devote my limited emotional energy is towards people who share similar values.
Post by: ender on April 14, 2018, 06:33:24 AM
This is across the board. My father and I agree on a relatively large number of political topics yet I still actively avoid conversation with him because his position often becomes, "how can someone be so <fill in blank with favorite pejorative> to believe this?" which is more or less a reflection of the problem here. I have an inlaw who stopped talking to other family members because of who they voted for.
This scorched earth was particularly bad this election, where you pretty much were viewed as a complete trash of a human being if you voted for <insert mainstream candidate here>. Both sides did this to some level and it's amplified by social/electronic media where grandstanding can become an echo chamber.
For what it's worth, I straight up don't even bother with anything close to politics on this forum purely because of this problem and my historical negative experiences with it here. Folks who want an echo chamber and treat anyone who disagrees as <favorite pejorative> will end up with an echo chamber. This is true in real life, it's true online, and it's true in the context of friendship.
Post by: Nick_Miller on April 14, 2018, 11:24:55 AM
I reflected on this more last night, and really, I think ANYONE and EVERYONE has their breaking point when it comes to being friends with folks of different beliefs. Some of us might take longer to get to our breaking point, but I challenge anyone to say that we don't all have one. After all, our political beliefs are manifestations of our closely and vigorously held beliefs. They aren't trivial.
It just becomes a matter of degree. Also, some people will differentiate between opinions and actions, but frankly opinions almost always lead to actions, even if the action is "just" something like voting for a politician who has promised to make the voters' opinions into public policy.
Examples:
1) Your friend says things that reveal he is a racist. He calls blacks by the "n" word, says that the country went downhill after civil rights, views them as inferior to white folks and says they should all be removed to Africa. Who among us would be this person's friend after learning he feels this way? Speak up.
2) Your friend says that she believes everyone who does not share her religion will (rightfully) burn in fiery torment for all eternity. Not only does she believe this will happen, but she believes you deserve it (unless, of course, you come around to her way of thinking). Who would be this person's friend after learning she feels this way? Speak up.
3) Your friend says that homosexuals should all be gathered up and put in a special colony because they are "abominations" per her reading of the Bible. Who would be this person's friend after learning she feels this way? Speak up.
Post by: MasterStache on April 14, 2018, 11:38:10 AM
QuoteWhat a close-minded community I am a part of, that's kind of embarrassing to be honest.
Person A: This characteristic of yours make you [or people you care about] makes you inferior to me [ or people I care about].
Person B: I don’t like how you’re treating me [or people I care about] and a result I don’t want to be around you much anymore.
Person A: Well lookie at the close-minded person we have here!
It’s not close-minded to expect to be treated respectfully as a full human being. I can, and am, able to live and coexist with people who are very different from me. Not just politically, but people of different ethnicities, countries of origin, religions, etc. However, I only want to be close to people who respect me as a human being. My politics are an important part of my values so usually the place I choose to devote my limited emotional energy is towards people who share similar values.
Excellent point. It's easier for people to put labels on something they don't understand in order to evoke some sort of stance. I tend to distance myself from folks who undoubtedly are not accepting of others based on outward appearances and/or sexual preferences, etc. People will see that as closed minded, but ho well. I think the company you keep around you is a reflection of yourself.
Post by: Kyle B on April 14, 2018, 12:16:47 PM
To spend time with people who think you're going to hell makes zero sense to me. Likewise if they think that because you voted differently your character is suspect.
Perhaps see them sparingly, if they're immediate family. Perhaps.
Post by: Psychstache on April 14, 2018, 01:05:57 PM
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Post by: BlueMR2 on April 14, 2018, 01:36:53 PM
I mean, when Friend A thinks Friend B is going to burn in eternity, how in the world can they really be "friends" in any sense of the term?
I'm not sure why that's a problem? "B" either doesn't believe in Hell (in which case there's no conflict at all), or disagrees on burning there (which doesn't seem like a friendship destroying even to me). "A" could have a problem with association with those Hell-bound, but not necessarily. One is not directly responsible for another's route, but can be a friend to present as best an example as possible.
Post by: Syonyk on April 14, 2018, 04:54:35 PM
To spend time with people who think you're going to hell makes zero sense to me.
That dude Jesus was pretty clear with his last instructions (emphasis mine).
Quote
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."
Pretty clear that one is not supposed to hang out in a "holy huddle."
Post by: Kyle B on April 14, 2018, 05:17:47 PM
To spend time with people who think you're going to hell makes zero sense to me.
That dude Jesus was pretty clear with his last instructions (emphasis mine).QuoteGo therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."
Pretty clear that one is not supposed to hang out in a "holy huddle."
Did you mean to post this on a religious forum somewhere?
Post by: Syonyk on April 14, 2018, 05:33:23 PM
Did you mean to post this on a religious forum somewhere?
Nope. It was quite directed at you.
You said, "To spend time with people who think you're going to hell makes zero sense to me."
I explained why someone might think it makes sense.
Post by: Kyle B on April 14, 2018, 05:39:13 PM
Did you mean to post this on a religious forum somewhere?
Nope. It was quite directed at you.
You said, "To spend time with people who think you're going to hell makes zero sense to me."
I explained why someone might think it makes sense.
I think you are proving the point of a lot of people in this thread.
Post by: DreamFIRE on April 14, 2018, 06:21:44 PM
The OP looks like he has some issues to work out. I would have never posted to an internet forum just to rant about a friend of mine having a different opinion asking others whether we can still be friends.
Post by: Syonyk on April 14, 2018, 06:53:04 PM
I think you are proving the point of a lot of people in this thread.
How? You said "you couldn't understand how someone could..." and I offered an explanation from their point of view about why they might value doing that.
Post by: MasterStache on April 14, 2018, 07:43:34 PM
I think you are proving the point of a lot of people in this thread.
How? You said "you couldn't understand how someone could..." and I offered an explanation from their point of view about why they might value doing that.
They "might" value doing it based on some religious text which not coincidentally is also the justification for suggesting they burn in eternity. Sounds like a friendship based on circumstance rather than choice.
Post by: DreamFIRE on April 14, 2018, 08:45:12 PM
I would stay friends with someone despite them having very different opinions about things than me and speaking out about them. I don't care if they are a left wing nut jobs or a radical right wingers as long as they aren't doing anything illegal, unethical, or otherwise not respecting me and the friendship. I will voice my own opinion as well. I haven't ever had a friendship end under the circumstances discussed in this thread.
As a bi, agnostic, Jewish woman, the friend OP described would not respect me in multiple ways, due to their beliefs and actions. That's the point. Maybe you fall into the acceptable category for people who want to discriminate, maybe you have a very thick skin, maybe you enjoy arguing. But I would take the constant bashing of women, non-Christians, and LGBTQ people as "not respecting me and the friendship." Even though you do not have a problem with it, can you understand how someone else would?
We're in agreement, it sounds like, just as you emphasized my comment about disrespecting. I haven't experienced that personally, but of course, I understand.
Post by: Abe on April 14, 2018, 09:51:11 PM
Example: I was friends with someone who had certain beliefs that superficially seemed quite different from mine, but we hung out because both of us didn't feel too strongly about politics. Over time we realized our beliefs were quite similar in many respects. Time passed and he moved to a different state and we stayed in touch over the internet. Then, around the time of the last presidential elections heating up, he became very anti-immigration (I'm an immigrant). I stayed out of it because frankly agreed with some of his arguments. At any rate, he became more virulently anti-immigrant and essentially delved into racism. At that point I figured we couldn't be friends anymore because of his belief in white superiority, by definition, prevented him from respecting me as a person. It kind of sucked, but people drift apart. I feel bad for him that he's gotten sucked into this vortex of hate, but we were never close enough for me to devote that much effort to helping him with whatever issues were driving these feelings. I guess in the end we weren't friends after all, since neither of us helped the other out.
There are lines of disrespect that can end a friendship. But anything before that I think is fair game, as long as you all are civil towards each other. Also, people change and that's life. If you are good friends, make the effort to reconcile your beliefs and friendship as two separate things. If you can't, your friendship wasn't that strong in the first place.
Post by: Mezzie on April 15, 2018, 03:14:36 AM
I'll give one example. I am a bleeding-heart, godless liberal union rep. My good friend is a conservative gun-toting, confederate-loving evangelist. What a pair!
The thing is, we have both grown and changed over the past 14 or so years because we didn't give up on our friendship despite some major differences in opinion. He has realized that being anti-gay is stupid (his words); I've realized the gun issue in our country is way more complex than my political groups like to say; he's realized that some celebrations that seem innocuous to him as a white male can cause real harm to others; I've realized that not every Trump supporter is an idiot or racist (that one is tough!).
We still butt heads on plenty of issues, but we are absolutely dedicated friends. We trust each other, confide in each other, and are there for each other. The fact that he is an example of someone who should be my political enemy and yet is someone incredibly dear to me keeps me from painting half of America with too broad a brush. If more people could do this, I think we could do some real healing in our country. It worries me how few friends I have of his persuasion; I am definitely part of the problem when it comes to division in America.
Post by: Davnasty on April 15, 2018, 02:29:31 PM
I think you are proving the point of a lot of people in this thread.
How? You said "you couldn't understand how someone could..." and I offered an explanation from their point of view about why they might value doing that.
Did you read "To spend time with people who think you're going to hell" as "To spend time with people who you think are going to hell"?
Very different statements
Post by: Davnasty on April 15, 2018, 02:59:38 PM
QuoteCan you really be friends if your political beliefs are much different?This is a question that, of all Western countries, would only be asked in the USA.
First, not true. Most of your US bashing is fair but people are people everywhere.
The title of this thread may have been a little off point but I hope you've taken the time to read through OP's whole question and some of the responses to further define what is being asked. It's not as simple as person A thinks x and person B thinks y so they're incompatible. If you break up over your tax policy disagreement, you might be a shallow person. But the way OP described the person in question makes it sound like they just don't have much to talk about anymore.
Maybe we should think about it from the other direction, why do we choose to be friends with the people we're friends with?
Post by: SwordGuy on April 15, 2018, 03:25:00 PM
I wrote to him and said that if folks seceded over Obama's election, I would do everything in my power to make Sherman's march to the sea look like a Sunday school outing.
He said then we couldn't be friends anymore.
I told him, "If you participate in secession, we can still be friends. Friendship has nothing to do with that. When they put the rope around your traitor's neck and I pull the lever that hangs you for the traitor you've become, we'll still be friends."
He said that worked for him.
We're still friends.
Post by: Syonyk on April 15, 2018, 04:17:14 PM
Did you read "To spend time with people who think you're going to hell" as "To spend time with people who you think are going to hell"?
Very different statements
... yes. Apparently I did. Apologies around, ignore that little sidetrack.
Post by: ender on April 15, 2018, 04:28:58 PM
We still butt heads on plenty of issues, but we are absolutely dedicated friends. We trust each other, confide in each other, and are there for each other. The fact that he is an example of someone who should be my political enemy and yet is someone incredibly dear to me keeps me from painting half of America with too broad a brush. If more people could do this, I think we could do some real healing in our country. It worries me how few friends I have of his persuasion; I am definitely part of the problem when it comes to division in America.
If you want real fun, tell people you didn't vote for Trump OR Clinton.
Then both parties have cause to consider you a terrible human being.
Post by: Syonyk on April 15, 2018, 05:39:04 PM
If you want real fun, tell people you didn't vote for Trump OR Clinton.
Then both parties have cause to consider you a terrible human being.
No, then you get accused of helping Trump win.
Post by: expatartist on April 15, 2018, 11:02:44 PM
With social media many formerly taboo topics are out in the open and it's debatable whether our societies are better for it. Topics can easily devolve into interrogation / name-calling territory and benefit no one.
Post by: formerlydivorcedmom on April 16, 2018, 10:19:19 AM
I know that one of them is dating a guy who is a virulent open-carry advocate (I know this because she told me and asked if it was okay to bring him to my house; I said sure as long as his gun stayed locked in the car because we have young kids and no way to secure guns in the house). I declined his request to be friends on Facebook, because that would make it much harder to be friends in real life.
I have other friends who have very different political beliefs, and we do discuss them - to find common ground, to understand, and to give each other a hard time.
All of us share the same core values, and all of us are committed to respect each other. I would not be okay being friends with some who displayed anti-semitism, racism, or anti-LGBT attitudes. I'm not okay with people who advocate violence. Those people get cut out of my life. I haven't encountered anyone who is blatantly anti-woman (not wanting women to vote????), but that would be a deal-breaker too.
I've been dropped by a lot more friends, mostly online ones although including extended family and neighbors, who decided their line in the sand was for anyone to question their narrative about either people of color or guns.
Post by: Kris on April 16, 2018, 11:15:12 AM
I have very very good friends who have very very very different political beliefs than I do [I'm the die-hard liberal embarrassment to the family]. We don't talk about politics.
I know that one of them is dating a guy who is a virulent open-carry advocate (I know this because she told me and asked if it was okay to bring him to my house; I said sure as long as his gun stayed locked in the car because we have young kids and no way to secure guns in the house). I declined his request to be friends on Facebook, because that would make it much harder to be friends in real life.
I have other friends who have very different political beliefs, and we do discuss them - to find common ground, to understand, and to give each other a hard time.
All of us share the same core values, and all of us are committed to respect each other. I would not be okay being friends with some who displayed anti-semitism, racism, or anti-LGBT attitudes. I'm not okay with people who advocate violence. Those people get cut out of my life. I haven't encountered anyone who is blatantly anti-woman (not wanting women to vote????), but that would be a deal-breaker too.
I've been dropped by a lot more friends, mostly online ones although including extended family and neighbors, who decided their line in the sand was for anyone to question their narrative about either people of color or guns.
I’ve had a number of conservative “friends” unfriend me on FB. I never unfriend people, short of actual harassment of myself or a friend. I believe in the whole time I’ve been on FB I’ve unfriended or blocked exactly three people. But I get unfriended quite often by conservatives when they post some fake nonsense in a meme and I respond with a source that corrects their facts.
I can think of one real-life example of me removing myself from a friendship based on political beliefs. It was a woman I went to high school with, in my core group of friends, though she thought of me as more of a close friend than I did her. I was even her maid of honor at her wedding.
She got more conservative as she got older, and post-9/11 started espousing a lot of opinions I didn’t enjoy, but when necessary I would either just flat-out tell her I disagreed or ask her to agree to disagree and drop the matter. But then she and her husband got married... I’m pretty sure that my high school friends and I were some of the only people on the left that he knew, and he took great glee in saying shitty things to us whenever we were together, insulting our beliefs, etc. It got worse and worse the longer they were together. Eventually, one day when I was hanging out with them, he said some things that were so mean and insulting — with his wife simply nodding along — that I just couldn’t take it anymore. I had a very frank conversation with the two of them, saying that it was honestly extremely insulting and off-putting and asking him to please be respectful of our beliefs, and we would be respectful of his. He seemed to back off a bit, and I thought I’d gotten through to him.
The next time I saw him was at another friend’s wedding. I mostly managed to avoid this guy during the event. But the next day, a bunch of us got together at a restaurant. He was so awful that day — just plain mean. There’s no other way to put it. And once again, his wife (my friend) was not at all bothered by anything he was saying, and basically implied that we were all just way too sensitive. When we left the restaurant, I told my fiancé that I couldn’t handle that guy anymore and that I couldn’t invite them to our wedding. Coincidentally, on the way home, we ran into another couple who had been there who were getting married a month before we were. They said the exact same thing: they were done. Finito.
This was ten years ago. I haven’t seen my ex-friend or her husband since. And frankly, my life is better for it.
Post by: gentmach on April 16, 2018, 11:31:00 AM
The "working class" liberals can understand the practicality of my politics.
The "college educated" liberals seem to believe that us peasants need to shut up and listen to their betters.
Unfortunately they are all entangled together making life difficult.
Post by: Davnasty on April 16, 2018, 12:15:04 PM
I think the line gets blurred when a political stance relates to marginalizing a group of people. A number of "friends" who've been discussed in this thread openly denigrate groups of people and that makes them jerks. In other cases they may support policy which to them is fair, but to someone else is racist because it disproportionately effects a specific race, such as drug laws.
And one other issue that I don't think has been discussed yet, I have trouble being friends even with someone who agrees with my political views when they have strong opinions that they can't back up. I've got no problem at all if someone wants to abstain from consuming news media and be indifferent, but when you shout it from the rooftops and get all worked up about that thing that just happened, you really ought to have some understanding of what you're talking about.
Post by: Barbaebigode on April 16, 2018, 12:30:21 PM
Also, I think it's pretty ok not wanting to be friends with a actual nazi, for example. There are beliefs that are just too toxic to be comfortable around, even if you're not the target.
Post by: OccamsPhaco on April 16, 2018, 01:37:53 PM
Post by: gentmach on April 16, 2018, 03:08:58 PM
It seems most of the responses giving examples have really been about losing friendships over people who act like jerks rather than because they disagree on political issues. Disagreeing on the best course of action for the government to take is politics. Calling people names and making assumptions about their motives is something else.
I think the line gets blurred when a political stance relates to marginalizing a group of people. A number of "friends" who've been discussed in this thread openly denigrate groups of people and that makes them jerks. In other cases they may support policy which to them is fair, but to someone else is racist because it disproportionately effects a specific race, such as drug laws.
And one other issue that I don't think has been discussed yet, I have trouble being friends even with someone who agrees with my political views when they have strong opinions that they can't back up. I've got no problem at all if someone wants to abstain from consuming news media and be indifferent, but when you shout it from the rooftops and get all worked up about that thing that just happened, you really ought to have some understanding of what you're talking about.
This actually. People refuse to realize that their political platform isn't just their pet cause. It comes bundled with a bunch of other things. People act like you are supposed to act against your interests to promote theirs. Then they are outraged that you would act in your own interests.
I wish it was as easy to make friends as it was in grade school and middle school. Nobody had any real opinions about religion or politics, and nobody was interested in the opposite sex just yet. That probably removes 90% of all reasons for adult conflict right there.
It can be that simple. People have to learn to set politics aside to accomplish things.
And yes, things didn't get bad til the opposite sex got involved. Then it was Jerry Springer all the way down.
Post by: NorCal on April 16, 2018, 06:31:33 PM
If one of your information filters is a feed of things to be outraged about, you will become a less happy person.
In the context of Facebook, you don't have to unfriend them, just unfollow them.
I did this during the election, and it made a material difference in my outlook on the world.
Post by: Nick_Miller on April 17, 2018, 08:02:52 AM
I also agree about some areas of disagreement being more personal and more likely to lead to losing friendships. Viewing people as inferior because of gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc., is just wrong on every basic level. It's a human rights and respect thing. But yeah I can see more give and take on things like taxes, foreign policy, business regulations, etc.
Post by: Pigeon on April 17, 2018, 12:28:05 PM
I have an old friend from childhood who is also very politically different. We were raised in the same church and I left long ago. Despite reminders, she wants to assume that I share her opinions about religion and most political issues and seems genuinely surprised when I disagree about things. I think it boils down to whether or not you have enough in common or of mutual interest to enjoy spending time together. At some point, it can get to be a chore if your worldviews are incompatible.
Post by: bugbaby on May 06, 2018, 10:11:29 AM
I agree with others about jerkiness being a big issue, but let's be honest, there's no 'nice' way to spouse certain beliefs. I mean, can you really be a 'nice' racist or a 'nice' misogynist? I suppose you can be polite on the outside, but that ugliness in your heart is going to show itself sooner or later.This view is unfortunately not too helpful. What do you define as 'racist?' 'misogynist' or 'jerky'? Are these not vague, subjective terms?
I also agree about some areas of disagreement being more personal and more likely to lead to losing friendships. Viewing people as inferior because of gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc., is just wrong on every basic level. It's a human rights and respect thing. But yeah I can see more give and take on things like taxes, foreign policy, business regulations, etc.
The problem with this decidedly far-left MMM forum is this right here. No one can have conservative views or they suck, and to prove it we have all these anecdotal examples from our conservative religious relatives who also suck.
I have very good long time friends with vastly different political views. We love and respect one another.
Sent from my KIW-L24 using Tapatalk
Post by: HPstache on May 06, 2018, 10:36:46 AM
Post by: Kris on May 06, 2018, 01:44:36 PM
I also love the implied assumption throughout this thread that only Republicans are racists & misogynists
I very much doubt that many people think that. Racism and sexism are structural problems in society. They are much larger than any one person. Most, if not all, of us have been acculturated to have certain racist/sexist beliefs, that one has to actually fight consciously and persistently to resist/remove from one's thought/unconscious belief system. Almost all of us is guilty of having said and done sexist or racist things.
Deliberately hateful -- even proud -- acts of sexism and racism are another thing.
And I will say, it has been quite a long time since I've seen an American spew deliberately vile, racist speech who isn't today a proud Trump supporter. Sadly.
Post by: calimom on May 06, 2018, 01:58:37 PM
And just to add, even if a Trump supporter doesn't consider themselves to be racist, misogynistic or homophobic, voting for #45 shows that those things are not off the table. Seriously just seeing the clip of him mocking the disabled reporter is so inhumane and embarrassing.
Post by: sui generis on May 07, 2018, 12:36:07 PM
I am finding it much harder to be friends with people of significantly different political beliefs because I spend so much of my time now in political activism. Therefore, a lot of what I learn, experience and engage with physically and intellectually is about that political activism. With an acquaintance, I can engage in discussions on other topics, but to really be friends with someone, I want them to be able to share and I want to be able to share much more of our lives and thoughts and experiences. I want to be willing and enthusiastic to be vulnerable. That doesn't happen with people with significantly different political beliefs for me. The country is too polarized and sharing information about each other's views just entrenches each person further in their own beliefs, so even if I wasn't looking for just interpersonal engagement, but thought this person and I might be doing something valuable for society, it would be a waste of time. All the conversations I've seen where people try to be nice and engage and end up "well, thanks for this civil conversation and I know we may have differences of opinion, but I appreciate we all just want what's best for the country" end up with the people complaining about the asshole later behind the other person's back (including the "other side" - I see this when I lurk on their forums or end up unintentionally overhearing when people don't realize I'm not on their side) so from everything I've seen those "conversations" are pretty fake and just make the people hate each other more. I honestly think absence makes the heart grow fonder here and many of us will do less damage to ourselves, each other, and society if we avoid each other/those topics with each other. And that means not a true friendship.
Post by: Sibley on May 07, 2018, 12:56:46 PM
I also love the implied assumption throughout this thread that only Republicans are racists & misogynists
Interestingly enough, in my personal experience, while both Republicans and Democrats are racist and misogynist, it shows up does differently. I see Republicans being more "traditional" in those views, so the stereotypical n-word and gender roles, etc. Democrats still have problems with racism and misogyny, but it tends to be much subtler. It really just shows how ingrained these things are in our culture.
Before anyone jumps down my throat - this is just based on the people I know.
Post by: Nick_Miller on May 07, 2018, 01:04:40 PM
I also love the implied assumption throughout this thread that only Republicans are racists & misogynists
Modifiers like "only" or "all" rarely stand up to scrutiny, no?
That being said, just consider Trump's MAGI slogan. "Make America Great...Again." That implies that America was greater at some unspecified time in the past. As compared to present times, when were things "greater" for women? For PoC? For gay folks? For non-religious folks?
Point me to that magical time where things were "greater" for them.
My point is that I hear "MAGI" as a dog whistle for "Make America Great Again for Straight White Christian Men, Because We Are Slowly Losing Our Stranglehold On Power."
I know some (many?) may disagree with this analysis, but it's the way I see things. And it makes me ill.
Post by: sui generis on May 07, 2018, 01:10:35 PM
Some may disagree, but research is showing this is correct. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/04/18/1718155115
My point is that I hear "MAGI" as a dog whistle for "Make America Great Again for Straight White Christian Men, Because We Are Slowly Losing Our Stranglehold On Power."
I know some (many?) may disagree with this analysis, but it's the way I see things. And it makes me ill.
Post by: GuitarStv on May 07, 2018, 01:57:55 PM
Some may disagree, but research is showing this is correct. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/04/18/1718155115
My point is that I hear "MAGI" as a dog whistle for "Make America Great Again for Straight White Christian Men, Because We Are Slowly Losing Our Stranglehold On Power."
I know some (many?) may disagree with this analysis, but it's the way I see things. And it makes me ill.
Might also go some way in explaining why every Trump fanboi on this forum is a straight white male.
Post by: mm1970 on May 07, 2018, 03:51:08 PM
+1 @KrisI think you can be friends with people of the opposite political spectrum...but I also prefer people who aren't radical on either side, because life is nuanced.
And just to add, even if a Trump supporter doesn't consider themselves to be racist, misogynistic or homophobic, voting for #45 shows that those things are not off the table. Seriously just seeing the clip of him mocking the disabled reporter is so inhumane and embarrassing.
As someone who used to be in the Navy, and who has relatives in a red area of a blue state, I know me some Trump supporters. And Trump voters.
I am still able to respect people who held their nose when they voted for him - especially some who are still in the government industry who maybe had actual reasons to not want to have Hillary as president. Even if I don't agree with their reasons, they weren't dumb reasons.
I am unable to respect the people who love love love everything that Trump is doing...but when asked to say why, point out things that he's not doing, or hasn't done. Like they aren't even trying to be educated on the topic.
I am unable to respect the obvious racists. (ahem, family - loss of status and all that).
I am unable to respect people who do nothing but bash Obama with random rants about how he did this and that, but essentially cherry pick. Why do people cherry pick? Why aren't people able to dig up ALL the facts?
I mean, there are still Trump supporters out there who go on and on about Benghazi and ignore the fact that they voted against additional $$ for embassy protection, and caused multiple govt shutdowns, and deny that a sequester even happened! Denying it to friends of mine that work for the effing government and had to quit work, or take a pay cut. Like, what??
So, stupidity. I don't like stupidity. And polarization.
Like homelessness:
"Can't afford to live here, leave. You don't belong here. Go."
"It's our duty to take care of every living being in every way."
Post by: Nick_Miller on May 07, 2018, 03:52:49 PM
Some may disagree, but research is showing this is correct. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/04/18/1718155115
My point is that I hear "MAGI" as a dog whistle for "Make America Great Again for Straight White Christian Men, Because We Are Slowly Losing Our Stranglehold On Power."
I know some (many?) may disagree with this analysis, but it's the way I see things. And it makes me ill.
Might also go some way in explaining why every Trump fanboi on this forum is a straight white male.
True.
Now being a fellow straight white male, it's not like I hate "our kind" or anything. Some of the most awesome people I know are straight white males. But I don't think many SWMs, especially those age 40+, want to acknowledge that we have been VERY privileged for a VERY long time, at the expense of women, PoC, gay folks, etc. I mean, just take a look at a book of US presidents. I don't really have to say more than that.
Post by: Syonyk on May 07, 2018, 10:23:29 PM
I am finding it much harder to be friends with people of significantly different political beliefs because I spend so much of my time now in political activism.
How useful is "political activism" if you're actively isolating yourself from anyone who thinks differently?
Post by: sui generis on May 07, 2018, 11:27:03 PM
I am finding it much harder to be friends with people of significantly different political beliefs because I spend so much of my time now in political activism.
How useful is "political activism" if you're actively isolating yourself from anyone who thinks differently?
Super useful! My goal in being politically active is not to engage with people who think differently, but to help and encourage those who are already generally aligned to make their voices heard more effectively. Research shows that engagement doesn't change people's minds very effectively (in fact, it can be more effective in only further entrenching them) so if I was trying to engage with the other side my political activism is likely to be significantly less useful than if I do isolate myself to like minded folks.
Post by: Milizard on May 08, 2018, 07:52:47 AM
Post by: valsecito on May 08, 2018, 09:39:35 AM
So my bigger question is, are you really "friends" with someone when you share virtually no common values?Two of my uncles:
* uncle A: youngest uncle, anarcho socialist hippie atheist divorced, 1.95m, 150kg old beater van, folk musician. If you ask him what he does for work, he answers "As little as possible." He sells second hand books at fairs to survive.
* uncle B: oldest, Stanford PhD, 65kg, 1.65m, long distance runner, religious, tesla, electronics engineer. If you ask him what he does for work, he'll explain about specific high tech at the company he's taken public.
They're much much much closer than one would expect. They both 100% trust eachother to do the right thing when push comes to shove, and they're right about it. As a silly example, uncle A heard of a friend of his gf's being beaten by her husband. He didn't hesitate for a sec to organise for her to move to a safe place, up to the point of physically helping her to move out. Uncle B regularly works with disadvantaged Latino youth.
My point being... If you look at what people actually _do_ when confronted with a real world situation, it will tell you a lot about them.
Think of my grandmother, devout catholic, learning that her daugther is being beaten by her son-in-law. Suddenly, she realises she has to make a 180° turn in her point of view on divorce, and tries to support her daughter in any way she can. Same thing when her favourite granddaughter turns out to love women more than men. When things get really close, good people will have the mental flexibility to do what's right. You can't always feel who will be able to make that u-turn, but very often you'll be able to guess correctly....
I have a real friend who happens to be a Trump supporter. But! My friend isn't a narcissistic sociopath. Other things that distinguish him from Trump are things like politeness, friendliness, humbleness, and respect for all including poor, colored, LGBT, and atheist people. Again, if push comes to shove, I know my friend will do the right thing.
Distrust people who make a lot of headless chicken noise. But very often you can trust the ones that honestly follow their conscience without making much noise. Or, as an old Latvian proverb says: "Tukša muca tālu skan". An empty barrel will sound very far.
Post by: FenderStrat on May 08, 2018, 11:21:53 AM
Post by: Plina on May 08, 2018, 02:49:50 PM
I have unfollowed, not unfriended, most of my FB contacts because I realised I didn’t need to know all that crap about people I don’t really care about. I am only following about ten people that are relatives or people who I really like.
Post by: valsecito on May 09, 2018, 12:30:26 AM
I have a real friend who happens to be a Trump supporter. But! My friend isn't a narcissistic sociopath. Other things that distinguish him from Trump are things like politeness, friendliness, humbleness, and respect for all including poor, colored, LGBT, and atheist people. Again, if push comes to shove, I know my friend will do the right thing.QuoteWhat are your friend's reasons for supporting him?Something to do with religion and Pence I suppose. Plus a lack of thorough understanding of the situation in the US (not living in the US, not a US citizen), and a large influence from religious right acquaintances in the US .QuoteI'm sure they have nothing to do with hating poor people or gay people, and he may not discriminate against people he meets on a daily basis. But why should push coming to shove apply only to relatives or friends?It's not just them. Just I've observed that real life challenges to long held beliefs can be really effective eye openers. Think Dick Cheney's position on gay marriage for another example...QuoteWhat about everyone else in the country who would be harmed by the politicians he supports?He's got no US voting rights. Not sure about his voting preferences in his native country.QuoteIf he supports a person who promotes discriminatory policies and anti-X sentiment, how does he square that with his personal beliefs?Like everybody else who isn't very critical, on whatever side of the political spectrum. He focuses on the bits aligned with his beliefs, and doesn't strongly notice the rest.QuoteBtw, I would avoid using the term "colored" people, especially in conversations where you're advocating for someone not being racist. It's not as bad as some other terms, but it's antiquated and many do see it as offensive.....within the US/anglo saxon cultural sphere. Noted. What other word would you suggest? "non-white"?
It's sometimes difficult to navigate these cultural sensitivities protruding so deeply into the language space. It makes me wonder how people in the US should get started speaking about this. There's not even a shared vocabulary...
Post by: CindyBS on May 09, 2018, 02:53:50 PM
Many people I know are middle to upper middle class and may not like the current government and current situation, but the reality is, their lives have not changed dramatically because of it. Then it is more of "I disagree with you" type thing.
For us it is a different story. Without the protections of the ACA, most especially the prohibition on lifetime caps on insurance, we would be financially ruined. We have had more than $2 Million in medical expenses in the past 20 months - more than our pre-ACA lifetime limit. Republicans did not offer a plan that included these protections when they voted on it last. Same thing with Betsy DeVos saying the IDEA (individuals with disabilities in Education Act, which guarantees all kids with disabilities a public education) should be optional and left up to the state.
If you advocate for taking my critically ill child's health insurance away or think it is ok to jeopardize my child's right to an education - then it has gone way past an "I disagree with you" thing and no, we cannot be friends. It is made even worse when we explain how important the ACA is to us and what sort of bills we get, and the person still doesn't change their minds. We have severed contact with several people over this issue.
I am ok with not liking the ACA, it certainly is a flawed law. But if you support full repeal without a replacement that includes prohibiting lifetime caps, I cannot be friends with you and you certainly will have no contact with my child. It shows that your belief is more important that us, and more important that my critically ill kid.
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on May 10, 2018, 10:19:48 AM
So often times if you look at a particular group of male high school friends, you'll find out they all had class with a particularly sexist history or math teacher at some point, and while they attribute their friendship to other things, that initial experience is what forced them to initially rely on each other, and that they could rely on each other gave them trust, and that is all that was needed.
There are men out there in the world I haven't spoken to in twenty years, but if you were in Mrs. Dunphy's class in seventh grade, you are welcome to sleep on my couch anytime, sort of thing. We didn't recognize that was why it was happening, and over the intervening years there were incompatibilities surfaced that fractured the group, but that core trust is still there.
So there's two things here, two ideas to think about:
1. Losing touch with people is a natural part of life.
Perhaps the least healthy thing about things like facebook is that it artificially prolongs relationships that had run their due course, and died of natural causes. You may be losing touch with this friend, and its up to you to decide if they are worth keeping in your life. It's up to you to decide if you can be adults that agree to disagree, if people are more than their beliefs. If you aren't particularly good friends, maybe its no great loss. But if they're a "help you move a body" type friend maybe you can tolerate a little bigotry.
2. Every argument is a choice you made. If the primary gripe is that you don't want to argue, stop arguing. Let them be wrong in their wrongness and get over thinking its your responsibility to engage.
The last bit I'll add is that my best friend and I agree on almost nothing. The one thing that keeps us going as friends is that we both have our shit together, which is a helluva lot more rare than either of us expected, so we can afford to meet and have a drink and not be doing something horribly irresponsible, and almost none of the other people we know have that luxury. I show up when he really needs help, and he shows up when I really need help. About the only thing we agree on is that we both really enjoy well crafted jokes about our own race. We disagree on religion, politics, some finer points of history. We enjoy discussions, not arguments. He and his wife will invite me over for dinner when there's been some particularly distressing spin put out by liberals on how conservatives have run amok, to hear my take on it, because I offer a perspective they don't get from their liberal friends. We don't agree, but they are reasonable thinking people, and we're able to lay out and dissect which points we don't agree. And for the most part, that willingness to really get down into the details, with that foundation of reliance and trust, such that the discussion doesn't turn to personal attacks questioning motivations for the argument, that's constructive.
I am better at everything else I do because of the interaction I have with them, and I have learned far more from them than from anyone who agrees with me.
Neither of us is particularly authoritarian though, so that helps. It might be different if they were more militant liberals, wanting to force their shit on me, or if I was a more militant conservative. My personal brand of Christianity includes a healthy dose of humility and non violence so I'm free to judge your wanton sinfulness but am not particularly required to make up laws about that shit.
Find common ground, focus on that. Avoid the mines, behave like adults when they come up. If either can't, especially if neither can't, better a former friend that an eventual prison sentence.
Post by: sui generis on May 10, 2018, 10:24:21 AM
Often times? Really? That sounds like a very specific experience that happened to you. Is there some reason to think this is something very common for high school males throughout America? I've never heard of it being "a thing" before.
So often times if you look at a particular group of male high school friends, you'll find out they all had class with a particularly sexist history or math teacher at some point, and while they attribute their friendship to other things, that initial experience is what forced them to initially rely on each other, and that they could rely on each other gave them trust, and that is all that was needed.
Post by: GuitarStv on May 10, 2018, 02:01:18 PM
Often times? Really? That sounds like a very specific experience that happened to you. Is there some reason to think this is something very common for high school males throughout America? I've never heard of it being "a thing" before.
So often times if you look at a particular group of male high school friends, you'll find out they all had class with a particularly sexist history or math teacher at some point, and while they attribute their friendship to other things, that initial experience is what forced them to initially rely on each other, and that they could rely on each other gave them trust, and that is all that was needed.
Not the specific example of course, but I'd agree that a shared hardship is a very common way to make a lasting friendship.
Post by: NorCal on May 10, 2018, 06:30:40 PM
I have a real friend who happens to be a Trump supporter. But! My friend isn't a narcissistic sociopath. Other things that distinguish him from Trump are things like politeness, friendliness, humbleness, and respect for all including poor, colored, LGBT, and atheist people. Again, if push comes to shove, I know my friend will do the right thing.
What are your friend's reasons for supporting him?
I'm sure they have nothing to do with hating poor people or gay people, and he may not discriminate against people he meets on a daily basis. But why should push coming to shove apply only to relatives or friends? What about everyone else in the country who would be harmed by the politicians he supports? If he supports a person who promotes discriminatory policies and anti-X sentiment, how does he square that with his personal beliefs?
I'm honestly curious.
Btw, I would avoid using the term "colored" people, especially in conversations where you're advocating for someone not being racist. It's not as bad as some other terms, but it's antiquated and many do see it as offensive.
As a Trump supporter, I have to admit I have some general problems with this line of thinking. I am answering this in good faith due to your general curiosity, and I really really do not want to open the whole can-of-worms of political nastiness.
Why do you assume that all Trump supporters automatically hate poor people or gay people? Why do you assume a Trump supporter will discriminate unless proven otherwise? I'm a Trump supporter and I've never thought that way. Of all the Trump supporters I've met, none have been racist, hated poor people or hated gay people.
Post by: Syonyk on May 10, 2018, 06:54:52 PM
Why do you assume that all Trump supporters automatically hate poor people or gay people? Why do you assume a Trump supporter will discriminate unless proven otherwise? I'm a Trump supporter and I've never thought that way. Of all the Trump supporters I've met, none have been racist, hated poor people or hated gay people.
The usual argument from the left is that, well, even if a Trump supporter isn't one of those things (and they probably secretly are), they're OK voting for someone who is clearly all of those things. And that's just as bad as being one of those yourself. For all variety of snarl words hurled. "Racist-bigot-sexist-homophobic-transphobic..." (you can fill in the list here, it changes weekly). Trump is, of course, self-evidently all those things because all those things are evil and Trump is Evilly Evil, so clearly he has to support all that stuff. Bonus points for taking things he says out of context to prove the point.
"Hates poor people" takes a bit more work, but if you start from the perspective that the best thing for poor people is clearly Democrat policies (despite them not working in nearly any large city that's been controlled by Democrats for a long time), then anyone who is poor and votes Trump is "voting against their own best interests." And, logically, since Trump is not a Democrat (well, don't look back too far in time...), his policies are opposite those of Democrats, so clearly poor people will be worse off under his policies. The opinion of anyone poor who doesn't hate Trump is obviously wrong, since they're deluded.
And you go on like that to prove that anyone who doesn't spend all their time Hating Trump is clearly in favor of him. Look at the attacks on the Bernie supporters coming from the left!
Post by: Sailor Sam on May 10, 2018, 07:25:09 PM
I have a real friend who happens to be a Trump supporter. But! My friend isn't a narcissistic sociopath. Other things that distinguish him from Trump are things like politeness, friendliness, humbleness, and respect for all including poor, colored, LGBT, and atheist people. Again, if push comes to shove, I know my friend will do the right thing.
What are your friend's reasons for supporting him?
I'm sure they have nothing to do with hating poor people or gay people, and he may not discriminate against people he meets on a daily basis. But why should push coming to shove apply only to relatives or friends? What about everyone else in the country who would be harmed by the politicians he supports? If he supports a person who promotes discriminatory policies and anti-X sentiment, how does he square that with his personal beliefs?
I'm honestly curious.
Btw, I would avoid using the term "colored" people, especially in conversations where you're advocating for someone not being racist. It's not as bad as some other terms, but it's antiquated and many do see it as offensive.
As a Trump supporter, I have to admit I have some general problems with this line of thinking. I am answering this in good faith due to your general curiosity, and I really really do not want to open the whole can-of-worms of political nastiness.
Why do you assume that all Trump supporters automatically hate poor people or gay people? Why do you assume a Trump supporter will discriminate unless proven otherwise? I'm a Trump supporter and I've never thought that way. Of all the Trump supporters I've met, none have been racist, hated poor people or hated gay people.
I'm not @MonkeyJenga, but I'll take a stab at answering in my own way since this is something I think about fairly often. Politically I lean left, but I exist inside a fairly conservative world people like to call the US military. I know many Trump supporters, and I fully, wholeheartedly, without reservation or purpose of evasion agree with you; being a supporter of Trump does not automatically make a person racist bigots who hate poor people and gay people. You and I are on solid ground, my brother!
Here's the caveat though. I'm gay. The night Trump was elected I felt real and genuine fear. Trump was sworn in, and he signed EO 13769, aka: the travel ban. People started talking about making lists of Islamics. I thought about the lead up to the holocaust, and the way frogs are boiled slowly. I asked people, without a scrap of irony or attempt at humor, if they were the type who would hide me under their floorboards should push come to shove. I am not neutral towards the president. I am afraid of him.
I fully believe that many, many good people voted for Trump. From what I've been told by Trump supporters, most voted for him out of a genuine hope to force America out of what feels like an endless political morass. No doubt their enthusiasm for the man himself varies. Ranging from hold-your-nose-and-swallow-quick, to true excitement. And that's cool. You chose your man, and I believe you chose him for reasons that have nothing to do with being a racist, homophobic, etc, etc, jerk. But the fact remains; I am gay, and I am afraid. I fully believe you hold no malice towards me, but I'm also aware that you don't care about my fear.
Edit: clarity
Post by: Syonyk on May 10, 2018, 09:33:51 PM
Here's the caveat though. I'm gay. The night Trump was elected I felt real and genuine fear.
Why? I'm genuinely curious what Trump did during the campaign that made you feel he was a real threat to your existence.
Post by: HPstache on May 10, 2018, 10:16:18 PM
Here's the caveat though. I'm gay. The night Trump was elected I felt real and genuine fear.
Why? I'm genuinely curious what Trump did during the campaign that made you feel he was a real threat to your existence.
Maybe it when he said, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."?
Oh wait, that was Obama in 2008...
Post by: sui generis on May 10, 2018, 10:27:41 PM
Here's the caveat though. I'm gay. The night Trump was elected I felt real and genuine fear.
Why? I'm genuinely curious what Trump did during the campaign that made you feel he was a real threat to your existence.
Maybe it when he said, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."?
Oh wait, that was Obama in 2008...
Nah, it was probably when he offered to pay the legal bills for people that committed violence against non-supporters. An indeed, as if it wasn't a coincidence, violence against people Trump and his supporters are on record against has surged. And ya know, those poor people - I'm concerned they didn't even get their legal bills paid for like he promised!
One example: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lgbtq-violence-trump_us_5a625035e4b002283002897b
Post by: Dancin'Dog on May 10, 2018, 10:45:32 PM
Since I realize that they are wrong, I am automatically right. That makes me morally superior, and since they subconsciously realize that they are wrong, they also subconsciously realize that I am correct....
It's like being friends with your dog. You can still love him, but you both know he's a butt-licking slobbery dog. So, I say enjoy your stupid racist, sexist, friends. Forgive their flaws and encourage them to change and open their minds. Be their friend and help them grow. If you don't, who will? Keep it fun, let them laugh at you, and get plenty of laughs from their ways. However, if the relationship gets too uncomfortable it's okay to forget em'.
Post by: GuitarStv on May 11, 2018, 07:44:49 AM
Here's the caveat though. I'm gay. The night Trump was elected I felt real and genuine fear.
Why? I'm genuinely curious what Trump did during the campaign that made you feel he was a real threat to your existence.
Maybe it when he said, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."?
Oh wait, that was Obama in 2008...
Nah, it was probably when he offered to pay the legal bills for people that committed violence against non-supporters. An indeed, as if it wasn't a coincidence, violence against people Trump and his supporters are on record against has surged. And ya know, those poor people - I'm concerned they didn't even get their legal bills paid for like he promised!
One example: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lgbtq-violence-trump_us_5a625035e4b002283002897b
There's also the actual anti-LGBTQ policy that his administration has supported/implemented:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43525549 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43525549)
http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/365784-advocacy-group-nearly-a-third-of-trump-judicial-nominees-are-anti (http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/365784-advocacy-group-nearly-a-third-of-trump-judicial-nominees-are-anti)
https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/834553755869777922 (https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/834553755869777922)
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/10/5/16429800/trump-sessions-transgender-workers (https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/10/5/16429800/trump-sessions-transgender-workers)
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article136818138.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article136818138.html)
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-rescinds-lgbtq-protections-obamacare-3f6315b0ca52/ (https://thinkprogress.org/trump-rescinds-lgbtq-protections-obamacare-3f6315b0ca52/)
. . . etc.
Post by: Davnasty on May 11, 2018, 07:52:22 AM
Here's the caveat though. I'm gay. The night Trump was elected I felt real and genuine fear.
Why? I'm genuinely curious what Trump did during the campaign that made you feel he was a real threat to your existence.
On statements specifically hateful to gay people I'm not sure I remember much from his campaign however he said and tweeted lots of things that were hateful towards immigrants, Muslims, Mexicans, and there was plenty of this going on before his campaign as well. Throughout history gay people have typically been looked down on by the same people that have these feelings towards minority races, religions, and immigrants. It's not that much of a stretch.
There's been a significant rise in the number of hate crimes in the US since the beginning of his campaign. Is Trump the one who committed those hate crimes? no. But why is it that the perpetrators of those crimes feel emboldened by his existence? Many have made reference to Trump during or after the crime was committed. So maybe it's not just liberal bias that makes people think Trump is hateful, it's also the KKK and the people who really do feel hate towards these groups that think Trump is on their side. Why do they think that?
More anecdotally I can look at people I know who support Trump. They are not well informed about what gay people deal with and have no reservations about making gay jokes or jokes about some of the other groups I've mentioned. And no, these jokes are often not just jokes. Sometimes these jokes are followed by words like "but seriously". At least one of these people thinks being gay is a choice and that people choose to be gay for the attention. Another example I can think of was while traveling in Texas I was waiting in line to get a rental car and the black man in front of me who was admittedly being a little rude was clearly upsetting the employee, who was also pretty rude, and when they were done I stepped up. The first thing the employee said to me was, "that's why I'm glad we elected Trump, he's going to take care of those people". What am I supposed to think about that exchange?
And if we're talking specifically about the worries of gay people after this election, frankly Pence may be more concerning than Trump.
Post by: Kris on May 11, 2018, 08:26:16 AM
Here's the caveat though. I'm gay. The night Trump was elected I felt real and genuine fear.
Why? I'm genuinely curious what Trump did during the campaign that made you feel he was a real threat to your existence.
Maybe it when he said, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."?
Oh wait, that was Obama in 2008...
Nah, it was probably when he offered to pay the legal bills for people that committed violence against non-supporters. An indeed, as if it wasn't a coincidence, violence against people Trump and his supporters are on record against has surged. And ya know, those poor people - I'm concerned they didn't even get their legal bills paid for like he promised!
One example: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lgbtq-violence-trump_us_5a625035e4b002283002897b
There's also the actual anti-LGBTQ policy that his administration has supported/implemented:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43525549 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43525549)
http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/365784-advocacy-group-nearly-a-third-of-trump-judicial-nominees-are-anti (http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/365784-advocacy-group-nearly-a-third-of-trump-judicial-nominees-are-anti)
https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/834553755869777922 (https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/834553755869777922)
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/10/5/16429800/trump-sessions-transgender-workers (https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/10/5/16429800/trump-sessions-transgender-workers)
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article136818138.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article136818138.html)
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-rescinds-lgbtq-protections-obamacare-3f6315b0ca52/ (https://thinkprogress.org/trump-rescinds-lgbtq-protections-obamacare-3f6315b0ca52/)
. . . etc.
And then there's also the fact of his vice-president's record of opposition to gay rights as a member of Congress and as governor of Indiana and an approving reference to conversion therapy in the 2016 Republican Party platform.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/us/politics/mike-pence-and-conversion-therapy-a-history.html
Post by: Davnasty on May 11, 2018, 08:44:54 AM
Here's the caveat though. I'm gay. The night Trump was elected I felt real and genuine fear.
Why? I'm genuinely curious what Trump did during the campaign that made you feel he was a real threat to your existence.
Oh, and he hired Steve Bannon as his campaign chair. Have you ever read Breitbart?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/gay-rights-have-made-us-dumber-its-time-to-get-back-in-the-closet/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/23/take-down-the-fascist-anti-christian-gay-pride-flag/
https://www.instapaper.com/text?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fbig-government%2F2015%2F07%2F03%2Fhate-wins-oregon-state-issues-gag-order-against-opposing-gay-marriage%2F
And arguably worse than these articles about gay issues is the fact that Breitbart reports on instances of gay/transgender people committing crimes across the country. Sure, gay people break the law too, but by over representing the number of these crimes, news outlets like Breitbart gives their readers the idea that their gayness has something to do with their criminal activities. Anecdotal events that one is familiar with weigh much heavier than the real statistics which many Breitbart readers aren't familiar with anyway. This undoubtedly encourages their readers to think less of gay people.
Post by: Sailor Sam on May 11, 2018, 06:01:57 PM
Here's the caveat though. I'm gay. The night Trump was elected I felt real and genuine fear.
Why? I'm genuinely curious what Trump did during the campaign that made you feel he was a real threat to your existence.
Everything, and nothing. I've been thinking about your question all day, and that's what I've come up with.
It's been long enough since the campaign that memory has faded, so I went looking on the internet to jog my memory towards any particular highlights. Rea Cary sums it up best, as quoted on Wikipedia, saying Trump's public statements on LGBT issues as 'confusing and conflicting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_policy_of_Donald_Trump#LGBT_issues).' Probably because Trump doesn't give a good goddam about gay folks, for either love or hatred. So, there's my nothing.
What Trump does have to do is occasionally relax the absolute stranglehold he's got on the GOP's balls, else his handle will drop right off. Gay people happen to be one of the bones Trump is willing to throw the conservative party. He took Pence as his running mate, and Pence is pretty goddamn terrifying*. Two hours after Trump was sworn in, a slew of social issues simply disappeared from whitehouse.com. I doubt Trump pushed the button. I'm willing to believe that Trump didn't even know the button was being pushed. It was just a button he gave the GOP leaders, so they could feel like they still had things like spines. So, there's my everything. Trump is perfectly willing to use my life, and my job, and my marriage as a bargaining chip.
The neglect isn't benign, though. Once, when I was a very young adult a full grown man punched me in the face, and informed me that I was a faggot. Honestly, it was news to me because I am not, in fact, a faggot and the language was very confusing. But I was too busy bleeding and falling down to engage in much discourse. What I do remember is that there were different kinds of bystanders. The kind that rushed in, the kind that edged away, and the kind that nodded. The nod's were too civilized to punch me themselves, but they sure didn't mind when it happened. Trump has given the floor to the nod's, and that is why I am afraid.
Have I illuminated anything at all, @Syonyk?
*Then made that running mate the Vice President of the United States. Leaving me praying to a god I actually believe in to keep Trump hale and healthy, and alive. Live, you glorious bastard! Proving the universe is, in fact, made entirely of green cheese and irony.
Edit: wrong word
Post by: Syonyk on May 11, 2018, 07:12:19 PM
Have I illuminated anything at all, @Syonyk?
Somewhat, and I appreciate the response.
Trump doesn't seem to care much for anyone in particular, though, and is still governing like the dog that finally caught the car, got his teeth stuck in the bumper, and has realized that the car is pulling onto the interstate. I don't think he ever expected to win.
But, sadly, we'll get more leaders like him. That sort of thing shows up in a dying empire. Along with the ever increasing political polarization we see.
Post by: Travis on June 12, 2020, 10:59:54 PM
I'm about to cut out a few other high school friends and former coworkers. They've staked out their positions pretty clearly, with almost no room for debate. For one of them 90% of what he posts are copy/paste from anti-BLM discussions and Foxnews clips while claiming to be out for equality. I've fact checked him into a corner several times and he blows off his obvious ignorance as "I'm just trying to get all sides of the debate" (and then goes right back to the one-sided rants). He's upset that BLM is causing changes in society and cries about "mob rule." He hasn't explicitly come out in support of the Army showing up, but he's razor close to saying it (and is retired Army himself). Another friend is the wife of a cop in Texas and has been going nonstop about Blue Lives Matter. I get it, she's concerned about her husband; however, she claims everybody on the street protesting is a vandal and a rioter who is out to get her as well as her husband. I haven't engaged her directly, but by her tone I have a feeling that if I pointed out the number of people her husband's department have nearly killed or flagrantly violated their Constitutional rights she'd be just fine with those outcomes. My wacky religious aunt is still at it, this time her mantra is "the protesters aren't reading the bible and welfare should be cut."
I held my tongue on Facebook for the first 10 days of these events because I didn't want to overreact, I was hoping some of them were just venting and we'd go back to normal conversations, and there are aspects of this issue I simply can't say in public due to my job. After dipping my toes into the discussion, I find that I can't reconcile their beliefs with my own. Some of them believe sincerely that Antifa, BLM, protesters, journalists, bystanders, vandals, looters, and arsonists are all terrorists, solely responsible for society's problems, and all deserve the same fate. I can't look past.
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 13, 2020, 05:51:31 AM
Post by: Nick_Miller on June 13, 2020, 06:00:32 AM
I've struggled for years with this (hence why I created the thread) because I didn't want to be accused of "living in an echo chamber."
But I've learned to draw boundaries. Hard right-wingers get blocked. My FB feed is delightful now without all the garbage. In the past month, I've parted ways with someone I had long considered one of my very closest friends. He has just grown to be intolerable. We all have the right to draw boundaries for our mental health, for our families, and for society at large.
I am always up for conversation/debate re: movies, books, sports, etc., but I will not be "debating" whether or not black lives matter, whether trans folks matter, etc.
I think many white men just cringe at the thought that maybe "we" (white guys) have historically used our power in incredibly cruel and ignorant ways. Maybe we're the "bad guys?" I mean, as I read more about folks like Churchill and Leopold II and Woodrow Wilson (and more, and more), I realize how much history teachers/professors hid from us.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 13, 2020, 06:07:31 AM
He is a good person. He is not racist, sexist, gun-nut or a bible-thumper (indeed he is not even a Christian by birth) and flinches at some of the things the orange one spews.
Why did he still vote for him? Because he wants American to be a "normal" country, and thinks that we pay too much a price for our "manifest destiny" legacy.
I vehemently disagree with him on this. To me, American has always been the country of Manifest Destiny - i.e. an young, abnormal (or super-normal), idealistic country. It's meant to be an idea more than a fixed set of people and the land. I don't believe it can survive without this!!
Even though I disagree with his desire to drag American to become a "normal" country, there is nothing immoral with his desire. So there is nothing in either of our thinking that would make us inferior or immoral in the other's eyes.
We simply don't talk about this topic any more. We agree to disagree, and still consider each other friends.
Post by: DadJokes on June 13, 2020, 06:15:32 AM
I just tell people that I don't discuss politics, and things work out just fine.
Post by: Buffaloski Boris on June 13, 2020, 06:40:02 AM
In answer to the original question of "can you really be friends if your political beliefs are different?" then I'd say that's very much a YES. It comes at a price, though: it generally means stowing your own views about politics and leaving them there when dealing people who are very political. And if it does come down to a discussion of politics either gently moving the discussion elsewhere or simply biting your tongue if you disagree. The friendship of people who are basically good individuals is worth more to me than any transient political silliness. But that's also easier for me than for most: I'm apolitical for the most part, I think our political faction duopoly in the US is a scam, and I refuse to vote*. Having no dog in the fight makes it pretty easy to listen to the arguments of others, see where they have merit, and nod my head politely when they don't. I won't be participating so why should I get worked up?
A saddening thing I've noticed over time is the death of tolerance when it comes to views other than your own. And overreacting at the mildest perceived slight. Those who profess to be Officially Tolerant are about the worst. Of late it seems most acute when it comes to race issues. If you don't agree with the latest version of the evolving orthodoxy, you're cast as a "nazi." Which is particularly ironic given that few if any of those throwing the invective have ever spoken to or interacted with a national socialist.
Frankly I think a lot of it's a lack of empathy and emotional maturity. Further, people seem to be trying to fill the hole in their psyche that used to be filled with religion and trying to use politics intead. Its a piss-poor substitute.
*(A long and boring story that I'm tired of re-telling and debating. Over the years I was heavily involved in partisan politics for both major factions and one minor one, and over time I came to realize it was a bunch of crap. So I ended up in the zone of conscientious objection when it comes to partisan politics and voting. Realizing that you've wasted thousands of hours of your life on something will do that.)
Post by: Buffaloski Boris on June 13, 2020, 07:00:37 AM
If you take politics (something generally outside of your circle of control) so seriously that you can't be friends with people who disagree with you, then you might need to reassess how much you care about politics.Amen.
I just tell people that I don't discuss politics, and things work out just fine.
Post by: Kris on June 13, 2020, 07:08:15 AM
If you take politics (something generally outside of your circle of control) so seriously that you can't be friends with people who disagree with you, then you might need to reassess how much you care about politics.
I just tell people that I don't discuss politics, and things work out just fine.
When “politics” turns into excusing the blatant murder of a black man by four policemen, it’s no longer politics, it’s about morality.
Post by: GuitarStv on June 13, 2020, 07:11:07 AM
If you take politics (something generally outside of your circle of control) so seriously that you can't be friends with people who disagree with you, then you might need to reassess how much you care about politics.
I just tell people that I don't discuss politics, and things work out just fine.
When “politics” turns into excusing the blatant murder of a black man by four policemen, it’s no longer politics, it’s about morality.
This is a good point. Most of the complaints in this thread really aren't about politics. They're about ignoring folks who act like assholes.
Post by: Imma on June 13, 2020, 07:15:08 AM
If you take politics (something generally outside of your circle of control) so seriously that you can't be friends with people who disagree with you, then you might need to reassess how much you care about politics.Amen.
I just tell people that I don't discuss politics, and things work out just fine.
In most cases you're right, but of course there are some exceptions. A friend of mine is a decent person and voted for Trump. No problem with that. We have some orthodox Christian relatives who are good people and don't share my views on gay marriage or abortion. That happens and I'm fine with that.
But it depens on how people act on their beliefs. The second my relatives would start to send threatening letters to abortion clinics, or worse, get violent, I'd be done with them. One of my relatives is a racist and treats his black neighbours terribly because of those views. I severed ties with them (over this and many other things).
Civil disagreement is totally fine and I would never server ties with anyone over that - besides those orthodox Christians and Trump supporter I also have socialists and animal rights activists among my friends - but in our current climate people quickly choose violence and mafia tactics to impose their view on everyone else. And that's not the kind of person I want to hang out with. Another exception is neo-nazi's. My family fought nazi's last time they ruled, I do deeply object to nazism and I don't think nazi's can be decent people.
Post by: js82 on June 13, 2020, 07:23:59 AM
Travis, I'm right there with you.
I've struggled for years with this (hence why I created the thread) because I didn't want to be accused of "living in an echo chamber."
But I've learned to draw boundaries. Hard right-wingers get blocked. My FB feed is delightful now without all the garbage. In the past month, I've parted ways with someone I had long considered one of my very closest friends. He has just grown to be intolerable. We all have the right to draw boundaries for our mental health, for our families, and for society at large.
I am always up for conversation/debate re: movies, books, sports, etc., but I will not be "debating" whether or not black lives matter, whether trans folks matter, etc.
I think many white men just cringe at the thought that maybe "we" (white guys) have historically used our power in incredibly cruel and ignorant ways. Maybe we're the "bad guys?" I mean, as I read more about folks like Churchill and Leopold II and Woodrow Wilson (and more, and more), I realize how much history teachers/professors hid from us.
I view it this way: There are different degrees in closeness when it comes to friends. The closer the friend, the more important it is that their values align with your own. (Note: I said "values", not politics/party affiliation). I haven't unfriended anyone - but I'm very selective on when and how to engage with those whose values are vastly different from my own.
I have more distant, situational "friends" with whom I share an activity (softball league, trivia night, etc.) that we both enjoy. Some of the friends in these groups have political views/values that differ vastly from my own - but it generally doesn't come up during that activity. It's definitely possible to enjoy spending time with people who have different politics/values, but have certain things in common - but these people are generally not close friends and I don't spend much time with them outside of our shared activity.
On the flip side, when I look at my closest circle of friends we are much more closely aligned in terms of values: the differences are generally much more in terms of perspectives on how to best address a certain issue, than whether a problem actually exists/whether we care about it. I think this is typical - we tend to gravitate towards those with whom we have sufficient common interests to enjoy spending larger amounts of time together.
Finally, it bears repeating the bolded part above - values and party affiliation are not the same thing. I have my non-negotiables, but party affiliation most certainly is not one of them.
Post by: OtherJen on June 13, 2020, 08:04:16 AM
If you take politics (something generally outside of your circle of control) so seriously that you can't be friends with people who disagree with you, then you might need to reassess how much you care about politics.
I just tell people that I don't discuss politics, and things work out just fine.
When “politics” turns into excusing the blatant murder of a black man by four policemen, it’s no longer politics, it’s about morality.
This. We’re dealing with this issue with one of our long-time friends right now. We could deal with the political differences, but this is more fundamental.
Post by: Buffaloski Boris on June 13, 2020, 08:19:27 AM
If you take politics (something generally outside of your circle of control) so seriously that you can't be friends with people who disagree with you, then you might need to reassess how much you care about politics.
I just tell people that I don't discuss politics, and things work out just fine.
When “politics” turns into excusing the blatant murder of a black man by four policemen, it’s no longer politics, it’s about morality.
This. We’re dealing with this issue with one of our long-time friends right now. We could deal with the political differences, but this is more fundamental.
Really? So is this a case where someone thinks that police murder is acceptable, or is it more along the lines of them not drawing the same conclusions of cause and effect as you do?
Post by: OtherJen on June 13, 2020, 08:28:19 AM
If you take politics (something generally outside of your circle of control) so seriously that you can't be friends with people who disagree with you, then you might need to reassess how much you care about politics.
I just tell people that I don't discuss politics, and things work out just fine.
When “politics” turns into excusing the blatant murder of a black man by four policemen, it’s no longer politics, it’s about morality.
This. We’re dealing with this issue with one of our long-time friends right now. We could deal with the political differences, but this is more fundamental.
Really? So is this a case where someone thinks that police murder is acceptable, or is it more along the lines of them not drawing the same conclusions of cause and effect as you do?
Do you mean to be hostile and belittling?
Post by: Buffaloski Boris on June 13, 2020, 08:41:19 AM
If you take politics (something generally outside of your circle of control) so seriously that you can't be friends with people who disagree with you, then you might need to reassess how much you care about politics.
I just tell people that I don't discuss politics, and things work out just fine.
When “politics” turns into excusing the blatant murder of a black man by four policemen, it’s no longer politics, it’s about morality.
This. We’re dealing with this issue with one of our long-time friends right now. We could deal with the political differences, but this is more fundamental.
Really? So is this a case where someone thinks that police murder is acceptable, or is it more along the lines of them not drawing the same conclusions of cause and effect as you do?
Do you mean to be hostile and belittling?
Absolutely not. And I’m sorry if you took it that way.
There is this tendency that I’ve seen of late of people taking the worst possible interpretation of motivations when someone disagrees with them or asks an uncomfortable question. It’s exacerbated by being online. You can’t see facial expressions, or tone.
To restate the question: are you giving up a friendship over what you think are the persons views on murder or race? Are your perceptions reflective of their actual views? Or is it because you disagree on the cause and effect?
It’s quite possible to be horrified by a police murder but not draw the same conclusions as it being a direct result of race or other cause.
Post by: Kris on June 13, 2020, 08:48:01 AM
If you take politics (something generally outside of your circle of control) so seriously that you can't be friends with people who disagree with you, then you might need to reassess how much you care about politics.
I just tell people that I don't discuss politics, and things work out just fine.
When “politics” turns into excusing the blatant murder of a black man by four policemen, it’s no longer politics, it’s about morality.
This. We’re dealing with this issue with one of our long-time friends right now. We could deal with the political differences, but this is more fundamental.
Really? So is this a case where someone thinks that police murder is acceptable, or is it more along the lines of them not drawing the same conclusions of cause and effect as you do?
Do you mean to be hostile and belittling?
Absolutely not. And I’m sorry if you took it that way.
There is this tendency that I’ve seen of late of people taking the worst possible interpretation of motivations when someone disagrees with them or asks an uncomfortable question. It’s exacerbated by being online. You can’t see facial expressions, or tone.
To restate the question: are you giving up a friendship over what you think are the persons views on murder or race? Are your perceptions reflective of their actual views? Or is it because you disagree on the cause and effect?
It’s quite possible to be horrified by a police murder but not draw the same conclusions as it being a direct result of race or other cause.
In which case, it is a question of police brutality. Which is still a moral issue.
Post by: Travis on June 13, 2020, 09:01:45 AM
If you take politics (something generally outside of your circle of control) so seriously that you can't be friends with people who disagree with you, then you might need to reassess how much you care about politics.
I just tell people that I don't discuss politics, and things work out just fine.
When “politics” turns into excusing the blatant murder of a black man by four policemen, it’s no longer politics, it’s about morality.
This. We’re dealing with this issue with one of our long-time friends right now. We could deal with the political differences, but this is more fundamental.
Really? So is this a case where someone thinks that police murder is acceptable, or is it more along the lines of them not drawing the same conclusions of cause and effect as you do?
Boris, that's the exact tangent some of my friends have been taking. I have a serious problem right now with how blatantly and violently the police have been violating the Constitutional rights of these protesters. Being an active duty soldier, the idea that there are people out there who are demanding that my brothers and sisters show up and gun them all down sickens me. By pointing that out, I'm told I must love cop killers and police lives don't matter.
That's a pretty big line I'm not willing to budge on.
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 13, 2020, 09:20:24 AM
The people at the extremes are mostly excluded from this; it's unlikely to have productive conversation with extremists on either side and they don't warrant the energy expenditure.
But for everyone else, it's necessary to have dialogue. Politics is usually about compromise, so negotiation will have to occur. As Naval Ravikant said: "if all your beliefs are the same as your neighbors and friends, you're not a clear thinker. Your beliefs are socialized; they're taken from other people."
So you do need to make an effort to stay friends with people you disagree with, within reason, and also to know that the greater political cause has limited relevance to your day-to-day life. Both of these will be difficult. Don't hurry to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Post by: Laserjet3051 on June 13, 2020, 09:31:57 AM
Yes.......I can and do. My positions on many issues are far from mainstream/middle of the road, however I respect people I disagree with and this includes family as as well as friends. As an ardent atheist, decades ago I married a devout evangelical Christian, yet we have remained married all these years and as a result, we both have had to learn to respect profound philospohical differences between each other. This type of day to day "practice" in respecting others despite fundamental differences has cultivated my respect for others with all kinds of differences, including political. We are also an interracial family and the current race riots have afforded us additional tests of compassion, empathy and respect. Just yesterday we walked right through a BLM riot downtown and were engaged in discussion with passers by. We negotiated the political melee successfully. In the end, it is important to "agree to disagree." However, so many people I know have the most profound enmity for others who do not belong to their political "tribe." We see it here on MMM and everywhere in life. Hate for people of different persuasions, really has no place in my life, whether persuasion refers to race, religion, politics, philosophy or otherwise.
Post by: OtherJen on June 13, 2020, 10:08:38 AM
If you take politics (something generally outside of your circle of control) so seriously that you can't be friends with people who disagree with you, then you might need to reassess how much you care about politics.
I just tell people that I don't discuss politics, and things work out just fine.
When “politics” turns into excusing the blatant murder of a black man by four policemen, it’s no longer politics, it’s about morality.
This. We’re dealing with this issue with one of our long-time friends right now. We could deal with the political differences, but this is more fundamental.
Really? So is this a case where someone thinks that police murder is acceptable, or is it more along the lines of them not drawing the same conclusions of cause and effect as you do?
Do you mean to be hostile and belittling?
Absolutely not. And I’m sorry if you took it that way.
There is this tendency that I’ve seen of late of people taking the worst possible interpretation of motivations when someone disagrees with them or asks an uncomfortable question. It’s exacerbated by being online. You can’t see facial expressions, or tone.
To restate the question: are you giving up a friendship over what you think are the persons views on murder or race? Are your perceptions reflective of their actual views? Or is it because you disagree on the cause and effect?
It’s quite possible to be horrified by a police murder but not draw the same conclusions as it being a direct result of race or other cause.
It’s husband’s friend, someone he’s known more than half his life and someone who has always been welcome in our home. I’ve known this person for nearly 20 years. Husband is probably the most tolerant person I know when it comes to the viewpoints of what his loved ones believe. I wasn’t part of last week’s conversation so I don’t know what exactly made husband get up and leave before he said something he couldn’t take back, but I know that the friend in question claims that the cops were just doing their job because racism doesn’t exist, and therefore cops can’t ever be racist, except that black people are all racist against white people and Obama was the most racist president ever. Whatever was said after all of that pushed Husband over the edge.
This friend has been sliding deeper and deeper into overt racism and conspiracy theory mode over the last 3 years. Husband may have finally hit his breaking point. He’s been agonizing over how to handle this because every get-together turns into a nasty political debate fueled by Fox News and Breitbart (I’ve been witness to several of friend’s rants, some directed at me in my house over dinners that I’ve cooked). He really has only two options: continue with boundaries about what he’s willing to discuss, or end the friendship. He’s leaning toward the former but struggling with what that would look like in practice.
Post by: sui generis on June 13, 2020, 12:34:13 PM
One of my closest friends, my roommate from college, and I had been growing more distant over recent years. We have a lot less in common than we used to (she has young kids, I don't, she is not frugal and is motivated by money and status, I'm not, etc.) and she's much more conservative than me. Like I used to wonder if she voted for Trump. I was absolutely shocked to see her post an explainer about "defund the police" on an even more conservative mutual friend's post asking if defund the police was actually a real thing. The first friend wasn't exactly out advocating and championing, but at least implied that it was an idea that was worth getting to know. WOW!
It feels like I'm witnessing history and a real inflection point. Like, whether or not Jews were inferior or crooked or whatever the reputation was used to be a subject that people thought was worthy of "hearing all sides of the issue" and on which "there should be open debate" and that some would not want to get involved in because "politics"! Now, we know it's not politics. It's just not ok period. Not open for good faith discussion. That change in our morality happened*, and I think we're witnessing a similar one here, and 20 or 60 years from now, people will be disgusted that we dismissed some things with "I don't talk about politics". It's fascinating to watch the change in real time.
*Not to say that this doesn't still happen at all, because there are always crazies out there genuinely butt hurt that they can't have open discussion about how evil Jews are! But it's just clearly a distinct change at the societal level.
Post by: Imma on June 13, 2020, 01:14:29 PM
Post by: sui generis on June 13, 2020, 01:45:27 PM
@sui generis without wanting to turn this into a political thing, what I've noticed is that what you describe is certainly true around racism based on skin colour, but that racism based on religion (i.e. Muslims and Jews in my country) is not viewed in a similar way. Religion is seen as a choice and a pretty backwards choice too. So if you choose to belong to this group, you have to face the consequences. There has been lots of media attention in my country around violence towards black people - which is totally justified of course - but violence against Jews is increasing as well and no one cares much about that. Whether it's ok to attack Jews still something up for debate - arguments include the Jewish world conspiracy who apparantly are behind Covid too, and Israel's foreign policy.
Yes, I shouldn't attempt to speak broadly about anything at any time and my perspective is really only applicable to my own country and even then my perspective and experience is limited. So I have no doubt there are places where my examples just don't apply.
It's interesting, though, to think of Europeans considering religion as a choice now. I'm currently watching a TV series called "A French Village" and it reminded me of how clear it was in WWII that being a Jew wasn't a choice or about what religion you actually practiced, but was about race. And I still think where there is anti-semitism, it is so much more about what people would characterize as racial or genetic aspects rather than, like, the rituals or tenets of the belief system? I feel like the people who are anti-semites would still hate Jews, even if they all started *practicing* Christianity or Islam or no religion at all. I could be wrong.
Nevertheless, there are many other examples of things that we simply don't debate nowadays, whether for factual or moral reasons. I can just imagine people a few hundred years ago sighing and saying, "I don't like to talk politics!" when the topic of the flat vs. round earth came up. And to be sure, there is STILL a Flat Earth Society! But, it's not something that people are willing to have a "good faith debate" on. Someday (and increasingly so in the last decade, though much less swift than the recent change in poll numbers on BLM), I think it will be the same for climate change.
Post by: Imma on June 13, 2020, 02:17:16 PM
I think one major difference between my country and yours is that atheism is the norm here now. Most people believe in 'nothing' or 'something' but not in organised religion. So we think of all religions as niche clubs. There's actually a lot less knowledge about religion than I'd expect there to be in the US. If you identify as Christian (which I do) people associate that with American rightwing evangelicals because that's the only type of church they know. So I'm not super open about it to strangers. Catholic churches are perceived as quaint and oldfashioned, something that reminds them of their grandparents.
Of course Jews who are attacked are ethnically profiled by their attackers and I doubt their attackers asked if they were actually practicing Jews or just when culturally Jewish. But because Jews are considered 'bad guys' there's little sympathy for them when they get attacked. I actually had a (civil) discussion about this with a BLM-activist acquintance, who is also a firm believer in the Jewish world domination conspiracy. This was long before the current events and it was civil, but in the end we agreed to disagree.
Post by: Dicey on June 13, 2020, 02:17:25 PM
Post by: HBFIRE on June 13, 2020, 02:32:07 PM
Post by: js82 on June 13, 2020, 02:46:57 PM
Totally depends. Two authentic intellectuals can be friends regardless of differences in opinions as they are able to have real conversations on tough topics (i.e. the intellectual dark web). The problem is, this is a rare quality. I like to seek out these types of friends even if we don't see eye to eye on every topic. I'd much rather have a friend I disagree with but is able to have deep conversations than one that provides an echo chamber. Challenging my positions is healthy and is how growth happens.
This is a very good point. There is a fundamental difference between serious, good-faith debate on the best way to address an issue, and bombarding each other with partisan talking points.
The starting point for that sort of discussion is for everyone involved to have sufficient intellectual maturity to be able to separate fact from fiction(and from opinion), such that when the discussion happens, everyone is working from the same set of facts, and the discussion is around the broader implications of those facts rather than what the facts themselves are.
I also think separating logic from emotion when debating is something that some personality types find easier than others.
Post by: Shane on June 13, 2020, 03:47:18 PM
Right now, we have a next door neighbor who has totally bought in to the whole Trump narrative. I wouldn't say he is my "friend," but we're neighbors, and we regularly talk on the sidewalk in front of our houses and, also, electronically by text message and email, mostly about current political issues. I definitely want to remain on good terms with our neighbor. Sometimes, he messages me and asks us to hold a package that's been delivered to his front porch for him until he gets home, and he does the same for us sometimes. Our neighbor lives alone, and is not a young man, so I've offered to him that if he ever needs help to let me know. I would gladly walk his dog for him if he ever got sick and couldn't do it himself. I've given him rides to go pick up his car from the shop when it was being worked on, and he would do the same for me. Our neighbor is extremely religious. I am not, at all. His whole worldview seems to be mostly motivated by a few core issues: abortion, gun rights, and prayer in schools, things I care little about. When I skim some of the articles our neighbor sends me and read his comments on them, I think of it almost like I'm an anthropologist, looking from the outside at a culture that is very, very different from my own. I mostly disagree with almost everything my neighbor says about politics but, yet, somehow, I find it hard to look away and just ignore him and his ideas.
I feel the same about FB friends who, recently, have been regularly posting things along the lines of #bluelivesmatter. I completely disagree with them but, somehow, it's never occurred to me that I would be better off blocking them on social media. I feel like keeping those lines of communication open allows me a glimpse into another culture of people who are very different from me but, yet, in the past, sometimes the distant past, we have shared something. Maybe we played sports together or went to school together or worked together.
Post by: Buffaloski Boris on June 13, 2020, 05:35:13 PM
It’s husband’s friend, someone he’s known more than half his life and someone who has always been welcome in our home. I’ve known this person for nearly 20 years. Husband is probably the most tolerant person I know when it comes to the viewpoints of what his loved ones believe. I wasn’t part of last week’s conversation so I don’t know what exactly made husband get up and leave before he said something he couldn’t take back, but I know that the friend in question claims that the cops were just doing their job because racism doesn’t exist, and therefore cops can’t ever be racist, except that black people are all racist against white people and Obama was the most racist president ever. Whatever was said after all of that pushed Husband over the edge.
This friend has been sliding deeper and deeper into overt racism and conspiracy theory mode over the last 3 years. Husband may have finally hit his breaking point. He’s been agonizing over how to handle this because every get-together turns into a nasty political debate fueled by Fox News and Breitbart (I’ve been witness to several of friend’s rants, some directed at me in my house over dinners that I’ve cooked). He really has only two options: continue with boundaries about what he’s willing to discuss, or end the friendship. He’s leaning toward the former but struggling with what that would look like in practice.
Im sorry you’re going through this.
In candor, this looks to me more like a “not willing to behave in a polite manner” kind of issue to me. If someone is invited to my home, I expect them to behave in at least as polite a manner as they would with any stranger on the street. I’m not going to walk up to a stranger and berate them. I expect guests to respect my wife, as they should expect me to with someone they cared about. And as you would expect your friends and acquaintances to respect your husband. So really this doesn’t sound to me so much as a differing perspective issue as a behavioral one. Only you and your husband can decide if that’s reconcilable. It might not be. Some level of respect is necessary for any ongoing friendship or relationship.
Unfortunately we seem to live in times where people just aren’t willing to let it go and agree to politely disagree. Where they end up viewing ideology as more important than good behavior and relationships. It’s a crying shame. Again I’m sorry that you’re having to go through this with someone you and you husband care about.
Post by: Pigeon on June 13, 2020, 10:15:23 PM
Post by: Kyle Schuant on June 13, 2020, 10:46:13 PM
I don't see how it is possible to support Trump and be a decent human being. It just isn't. I'm done having anything other than the most superficial contact with even my own sister.I don't see how it's possible to be a decent human being and cut off contact with close family.
Note: in all these stories of conservatives and progressives disagreeing, it's always the progressive who cuts off contact. You're not treating it as a political party, then, but a cult. That's not healthy, and it's also a really, really shitty way to effect progressive change. Social change comes from engaging with people, not cutting them off.
[MOD NOTE: This appears to be a misrepresentation, which is what got the poster upset below. It is not a simple difference of opinion to believe that some people don't deserve basic human rights.]
Post by: Pigeon on June 13, 2020, 10:56:42 PM
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 14, 2020, 12:00:38 AM
Post by: Kyle Schuant on June 14, 2020, 12:08:45 AM
Seems to me that regardless of which side you're on, you should always leave the door open to being wrong, and to hearing the other side. It's not good to have people hold their tongue around you.It may be necessary if they wish to keep their employment.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself
Post by: Travis on June 14, 2020, 12:16:37 AM
I don't see how it is possible to support Trump and be a decent human being. It just isn't. I'm done having anything other than the most superficial contact with even my own sister.I don't see how it's possible to be a decent human being and cut off contact with close family.
Note: in all these stories of conservatives and progressives disagreeing, it's always the progressive who cuts off contact. You're not treating it as a political party, then, but a cult. That's not healthy, and it's also a really, really shitty way to effect progressive change. Social change comes from engaging with people, not cutting them off.
They don't cut off contact because they don't think they're doing anything wrong. They're classifying their pronouncements that racial profiling doesn't exist and that all liberals should be jailed or shot as "a difference of opinion." She's always been super opinionated and digs in her heels very easily. The area she lives in is openly racist with the small black population receiving numerous death threats over the last couple weeks, but she insists that our black friends are blowing everything out of proportion.
But apparently I'm supposed to keep this friendship going because someday she might change her mind...
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 14, 2020, 01:21:09 AM
Seems to me that regardless of which side you're on, you should always leave the door open to being wrong, and to hearing the other side. It's not good to have people hold their tongue around you.It may be necessary if they wish to keep their employment.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself
Some jobs aren't worth keeping, although I know that's easier to state than to act out.
Post by: Dancin'Dog on June 14, 2020, 05:34:16 AM
I don't see how it is possible to support Trump and be a decent human being. It just isn't. I'm done having anything other than the most superficial contact with even my own sister.I don't see how it's possible to be a decent human being and cut off contact with close family.
Note: in all these stories of conservatives and progressives disagreeing, it's always the progressive who cuts off contact. You're not treating it as a political party, then, but a cult. That's not healthy, and it's also a really, really shitty way to effect progressive change. Social change comes from engaging with people, not cutting them off.
Progressives are decent people that don't enjoy associating with shitty people.
[MOD NOTE: Let's not make generalizations like this. Thank you]
Post by: skp on June 14, 2020, 06:01:07 AM
Post by: Sailor Sam on June 14, 2020, 06:01:27 AM
Note: in all these stories of conservatives and progressives disagreeing, it's always the progressive who cuts off contact. You're not treating it as a political party, then, but a cult. That's not healthy, and it's also a really, really shitty way to effect progressive change. Social change comes from engaging with people, not cutting them off.
Progressives are decent people that don't enjoy associating with shitty people. Conservatives are shitty people that enjoy having decent people around to shit on.
Oh ho!
Personally, I’m fairly progressive for a military officer. Conversely, and I’m pretty conservative for being a raging gaywad. I exist in the in between, and everyone behaves badly.
Post by: Shane on June 14, 2020, 06:24:52 AM
I don't see how it is possible to support Trump and be a decent human being. It just isn't. I'm done having anything other than the most superficial contact with even my own sister.I don't see how it's possible to be a decent human being and cut off contact with close family.
Note: in all these stories of conservatives and progressives disagreeing, it's always the progressive who cuts off contact. You're not treating it as a political party, then, but a cult. That's not healthy, and it's also a really, really shitty way to effect progressive change. Social change comes from engaging with people, not cutting them off.
They don't cut off contact because they don't think they're doing anything wrong. They're classifying their pronouncements that racial profiling doesn't exist and that all liberals should be jailed or shot as "a difference of opinion." She's always been super opinionated and digs in her heels very easily. The area she lives in is openly racist with the small black population receiving numerous death threats over the last couple weeks, but she insists that our black friends are blowing everything out of proportion.
But apparently I'm supposed to keep this friendship going because someday she might change her mind...
Our Right-wing neighbor is constantly sending me emails and texts, some written by him and others just copied and pasted, which casually say things like, "I HATE liberals, now, more than ever!," "Nancy Pelosi should crawl under a rock and die." "It would be great if Meghan McCain got the Corona and died." etc. Since our neighbor has told me he considers me a liberal, I've asked him why he keeps talking with me if he hates me so much. To which he said, "Oh, no, I don't hate any individual personally. I just hate liberals in general." I pointed out to him that he regularly singles out individuals for hatred and gave him examples: "Meghan McCain, Whoopi Goldberg, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren." (interestingly, it's usually women he singles out for hate). To which he said, "Oh, I didn't really mean that I want them to actually die. I just hate liberals so much!" He also regularly espouses hate for "Godless atheists," "communists," and anyone who is willing to tolerate not locking women who get abortions up. Then he'll change the subject and mention that he just made some chili or soup or bread and ask if we want to try some...
OTOH, I know "liberals" who believe strongly that people on the Right, who hold beliefs they consider to be reprehensible, should be arrested and put into "re-education camps," where they would stay, until they agreed with all the Left-wing talking points. The same liberals believe strongly the US should enact hate speech laws that would make it illegal to misgender someone or to say other mean or racist things to people. One of them's FB profile shows him wearing a t-shirt that says, "Make Racists Afraid Again."
Post by: Buffaloski Boris on June 14, 2020, 06:39:07 AM
I don't see how it is possible to support Trump and be a decent human being. It just isn't. I'm done having anything other than the most superficial contact with even my own sister.I don't see how it's possible to be a decent human being and cut off contact with close family.
Note: in all these stories of conservatives and progressives disagreeing, it's always the progressive who cuts off contact. You're not treating it as a political party, then, but a cult. That's not healthy, and it's also a really, really shitty way to effect progressive change. Social change comes from engaging with people, not cutting them off.
Progressives are decent people that don't enjoy associating with shitty people. Conservatives are shitty people that enjoy having decent people around to shit on.
My, my. You're painting with a very broad brush indeed. Why don't you take the word "Conservatives" out of your remark and substitute it with "Women" or "Hispanics" or "Jews" and see how that sounds?
Post by: Buffaloski Boris on June 14, 2020, 06:44:21 AM
After reading this thread and being on this site for a while Hate has no home here signs outside homes and coexist bumper stickers make me laugh.
Yeah, it is laughable, isn't it? There's nothing quite like the intolerance of the Officially Tolerant.
Post by: Dancin'Dog on June 14, 2020, 07:10:28 AM
I don't see how it is possible to support Trump and be a decent human being. It just isn't. I'm done having anything other than the most superficial contact with even my own sister.I don't see how it's possible to be a decent human being and cut off contact with close family.
Note: in all these stories of conservatives and progressives disagreeing, it's always the progressive who cuts off contact. You're not treating it as a political party, then, but a cult. That's not healthy, and it's also a really, really shitty way to effect progressive change. Social change comes from engaging with people, not cutting them off.
Progressives are decent people that don't enjoy associating with shitty people. Conservatives are shitty people that enjoy having decent people around to shit on.
My, my. You're painting with a very broad brush indeed. Why don't you take the word "Conservatives" out of your remark and substitute it with "Women" or "Hispanics" or "Jews" and see how that sounds?
That would be calling Women, Hispanics, or Jews shitty people. That would be wrong.
Post by: DadJokes on June 14, 2020, 07:36:47 AM
Seems to me that regardless of which side you're on, you should always leave the door open to being wrong, and to hearing the other side. It's not good to have people hold their tongue around you.It may be necessary if they wish to keep their employment.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself
People say they want to "have a conversation" about racism, but they don't. They just want to shout down anyone who doesn't toe the line. Ostracizing this journalist for asking that question doesn't bring more people to their side. As a result, they are hurting the cause instead of helping it.
Post by: OtherJen on June 14, 2020, 08:24:02 AM
I don't see how it is possible to support Trump and be a decent human being. It just isn't. I'm done having anything other than the most superficial contact with even my own sister.I don't see how it's possible to be a decent human being and cut off contact with close family.
Note: in all these stories of conservatives and progressives disagreeing, it's always the progressive who cuts off contact. You're not treating it as a political party, then, but a cult. That's not healthy, and it's also a really, really shitty way to effect progressive change. Social change comes from engaging with people, not cutting them off.
You've never had a toxic friend or family member, then. Lucky you. One of my parents cut off contact with a physically and emotionally abusive sibling. I had to cut off contact with a formerly good friend after that person escalated to stalking behavior against me.
I haven't cut off people for differing political or religious beliefs. I'd lose most of my extended family if I did. If their beliefs cause them to behave like disrespectful jerks toward me, yeah, I'm going to minimize contact. I don't cut all contact until my safety is threatened.
Post by: sui generis on June 14, 2020, 08:54:09 AM
I don't see how it is possible to support Trump and be a decent human being. It just isn't. I'm done having anything other than the most superficial contact with even my own sister.I don't see how it's possible to be a decent human being and cut off contact with close family.
Note: in all these stories of conservatives and progressives disagreeing, it's always the progressive who cuts off contact. You're not treating it as a political party, then, but a cult. That's not healthy, and it's also a really, really shitty way to effect progressive change. Social change comes from engaging with people, not cutting them off.
They don't cut off contact because they don't think they're doing anything wrong. They're classifying their pronouncements that racial profiling doesn't exist and that all liberals should be jailed or shot as "a difference of opinion." She's always been super opinionated and digs in her heels very easily. The area she lives in is openly racist with the small black population receiving numerous death threats over the last couple weeks, but she insists that our black friends are blowing everything out of proportion.
But apparently I'm supposed to keep this friendship going because someday she might change her mind...
Our Right-wing neighbor is constantly sending me emails and texts, some written by him and others just copied and pasted, which casually say things like, "I HATE liberals, now, more than ever!," "Nancy Pelosi should crawl under a rock and die." "It would be great if Meghan McCain got the Corona and died." etc. Since our neighbor has told me he considers me a liberal, I've asked him why he keeps talking with me if he hates me so much. To which he said, "Oh, no, I don't hate any individual personally. I just hate liberals in general." I pointed out to him that he regularly singles out individuals for hatred and gave him examples: "Meghan McCain, Whoopi Goldberg, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren." (interestingly, it's usually women he singles out for hate). To which he said, "Oh, I didn't really mean that I want them to actually die. I just hate liberals so much!" He also regularly espouses hate for "Godless atheists," "communists," and anyone who is willing to tolerate not locking women who get abortions up. Then he'll change the subject and mention that he just made some chili or soup or bread and ask if we want to try some...
OTOH, I know "liberals" who believe strongly that people on the Right, who hold beliefs they consider to be reprehensible, should be arrested and put into "re-education camps," where they would stay, until they agreed with all the Left-wing talking points. The same liberals believe strongly the US should enact hate speech laws that would make it illegal to misgender someone or to say other mean or racist things to people. One of them's FB profile shows him wearing a t-shirt that says, "Make Racists Afraid Again."
Again? When were they ever afraid before?
Post by: Buffaloski Boris on June 14, 2020, 09:01:09 AM
Seems to me that regardless of which side you're on, you should always leave the door open to being wrong, and to hearing the other side. It's not good to have people hold their tongue around you.It may be necessary if they wish to keep their employment.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself
People say they want to "have a conversation" about racism, but they don't. They just want to shout down anyone who doesn't toe the line. Ostracizing this journalist for asking that question doesn't bring more people to their side. As a result, they are hurting the cause instead of helping it.
Yeah, they really are. But it really isn’t about racism, is it? Its about power.
Post by: bacchi on June 14, 2020, 09:33:48 AM
Seems to me that regardless of which side you're on, you should always leave the door open to being wrong, and to hearing the other side. It's not good to have people hold their tongue around you.It may be necessary if they wish to keep their employment.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself
People say they want to "have a conversation" about racism, but they don't. They just want to shout down anyone who doesn't toe the line. Ostracizing this journalist for asking that question doesn't bring more people to their side. As a result, they are hurting the cause instead of helping it.
Yeah, they really are. But it really isn’t about racism, is it? Its about power.
It's a virtual mob. In this case, because of the youthful nature of the internet, it's a "liberal" mob of trendsters. It's not much different from past mobs made up of conformist conservatives. Mobs are dangerous because one misstep can make the mob turn against you, even if you're on the same side.
Mob is a funny word.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 14, 2020, 09:43:11 AM
It’s an accident. But there are some genetically passed on physical features that catch our eye. Our eye can’t detect that genetic differences don’t follow race lines. So these “visible markers” are arbitrary. If you are white, another random white person is not much likely to be genetically closer to you than a black. There is peer reviewed research to this effect (which I’m too lazy to google up).
So, as long as someone is aware of this ‘flaw’ in how ALL human brain operates, including his/her own, and consciously works on correcting it, he/she is a good and ethical human being in my book. I would not consider him/her to be inferior in any way.
If however, that is not the case (as it seems to be the case with almost all ‘conservatives’ today), then i doubt it is ever possible to cross that moral chasm. Most ‘conservatives’ I see are uniquely incapable of any introspection. So I don’t quite see how you can get them to be aware of a ‘flaw’ in the hardware design in their brain that they must attempt to override with software (I.e. conscious thinking).
Post by: Shane on June 14, 2020, 10:14:04 AM
Thanks for sharing Matt Taibbi's article. It was good. Had never heard of him before. Signed up for updates.Seems to me that regardless of which side you're on, you should always leave the door open to being wrong, and to hearing the other side. It's not good to have people hold their tongue around you.It may be necessary if they wish to keep their employment.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself
Post by: Shane on June 14, 2020, 10:16:26 AM
Probably back when things were great?I don't see how it is possible to support Trump and be a decent human being. It just isn't. I'm done having anything other than the most superficial contact with even my own sister.I don't see how it's possible to be a decent human being and cut off contact with close family.
Note: in all these stories of conservatives and progressives disagreeing, it's always the progressive who cuts off contact. You're not treating it as a political party, then, but a cult. That's not healthy, and it's also a really, really shitty way to effect progressive change. Social change comes from engaging with people, not cutting them off.
They don't cut off contact because they don't think they're doing anything wrong. They're classifying their pronouncements that racial profiling doesn't exist and that all liberals should be jailed or shot as "a difference of opinion." She's always been super opinionated and digs in her heels very easily. The area she lives in is openly racist with the small black population receiving numerous death threats over the last couple weeks, but she insists that our black friends are blowing everything out of proportion.
But apparently I'm supposed to keep this friendship going because someday she might change her mind...
Our Right-wing neighbor is constantly sending me emails and texts, some written by him and others just copied and pasted, which casually say things like, "I HATE liberals, now, more than ever!," "Nancy Pelosi should crawl under a rock and die." "It would be great if Meghan McCain got the Corona and died." etc. Since our neighbor has told me he considers me a liberal, I've asked him why he keeps talking with me if he hates me so much. To which he said, "Oh, no, I don't hate any individual personally. I just hate liberals in general." I pointed out to him that he regularly singles out individuals for hatred and gave him examples: "Meghan McCain, Whoopi Goldberg, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren." (interestingly, it's usually women he singles out for hate). To which he said, "Oh, I didn't really mean that I want them to actually die. I just hate liberals so much!" He also regularly espouses hate for "Godless atheists," "communists," and anyone who is willing to tolerate not locking women who get abortions up. Then he'll change the subject and mention that he just made some chili or soup or bread and ask if we want to try some...
OTOH, I know "liberals" who believe strongly that people on the Right, who hold beliefs they consider to be reprehensible, should be arrested and put into "re-education camps," where they would stay, until they agreed with all the Left-wing talking points. The same liberals believe strongly the US should enact hate speech laws that would make it illegal to misgender someone or to say other mean or racist things to people. One of them's FB profile shows him wearing a t-shirt that says, "Make Racists Afraid Again."
Again? When were they ever afraid before?
Post by: HBFIRE on June 14, 2020, 10:58:28 AM
It's a virtual mob. In this case, because of the youthful nature of the internet, it's a "liberal" mob of trendsters. It's not much different from past mobs made up of conformist conservatives. Mobs are dangerous because one misstep can make the mob turn against you, even if you're on the same side.
Mob is a funny word.
Yes, it's basically becoming a "purity spiral" -- Here is a fascinating article on this phenomenon. (https://unherd.com/2020/01/cast-out-how-knitting-fell-into-a-purity-spiral/)
Interestingly, as you pointed out, this phenomenon has traditionally been rooted in conservative religious/cult atmospheres but now we're seeing it manifest from the left. It would be an interesting study to look into the modern demise of religion being replaced with other forms of group think entities -- this is what I think is happening. The book "Sapiens" gets into this subject.
I've seen all sorts of examples of this in a wide range of online communities. This is why having a good mix and range of opinions/views/backgrounds is so important for a healthy community. Echo chambers with mob mentality are dangerous.
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 14, 2020, 11:12:17 AM
It's a virtual mob. In this case, because of the youthful nature of the internet, it's a "liberal" mob of trendsters. It's not much different from past mobs made up of conformist conservatives. Mobs are dangerous because one misstep can make the mob turn against you, even if you're on the same side.
Mob is a funny word.
Yes, it's basically becoming a "purity spiral" -- Here is a fascinating article on this phenomenon. (https://unherd.com/2020/01/cast-out-how-knitting-fell-into-a-purity-spiral/)
Interestingly, as you pointed out, this phenomenon has traditionally been rooted in conservative religious/cult atmospheres but now we're seeing it manifest from the left. It would be an interesting study to look into the modern demise of religion being replaced with other forms of group think entities -- this is what I think is happening.
I've seen all sorts of examples of this in a wide range of online communities. This is why having a good mix and range of opinions/views/backgrounds is so important for a healthy community. Echo chambers with mob mentality are dangerous.
That is a very interesting article, thanks.
Post by: HBFIRE on June 14, 2020, 11:48:11 AM
That is a very interesting article, thanks.
Sure, this is a good listen as well. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000d70h
Post by: AnnaGrowsAMustache on June 14, 2020, 01:14:29 PM
Post by: bacchi on June 14, 2020, 02:28:26 PM
I have a friend that I've known for nearly 20 years who is flat-out skinhead style racist. What allows me to be friends with him is the fact that he does not put his beliefs on other people, including those he is racist against. I have never seen or heard of him being anything other than courteous to people of other ethnicities. Yes, he wholeheartedly believes that races should not mix and the rest of that shit, but he also wholeheartedly believes that manners make the man. It's a bizarre combination. Since he keeps it to himself, I reckon he's entitled to his opinion.....as misguided as I think he is. We used to talk about his/my beliefs more, but actually he's never going to change and neither am I, so now we just let that bit lie.
What if you were in the minority group, though? As in, the skinhead goes on a rant about black people and thugs, etc., etc., and then ends it with,
"Well, not you. You're one of the few good ones."
Sure, you can make a good faith effort to change their mind and cure their hate but, after a few years of them calling out n* thugs, surely you can be excused from being "intolerant" if you drop that person from your life.
Post by: Travis on June 14, 2020, 05:24:22 PM
It's a virtual mob. In this case, because of the youthful nature of the internet, it's a "liberal" mob of trendsters. It's not much different from past mobs made up of conformist conservatives. Mobs are dangerous because one misstep can make the mob turn against you, even if you're on the same side.
Mob is a funny word.
Yes, it's basically becoming a "purity spiral" -- Here is a fascinating article on this phenomenon. (https://unherd.com/2020/01/cast-out-how-knitting-fell-into-a-purity-spiral/)
Interestingly, as you pointed out, this phenomenon has traditionally been rooted in conservative religious/cult atmospheres but now we're seeing it manifest from the left. It would be an interesting study to look into the modern demise of religion being replaced with other forms of group think entities -- this is what I think is happening. The book "Sapiens" gets into this subject.
I've seen all sorts of examples of this in a wide range of online communities. This is why having a good mix and range of opinions/views/backgrounds is so important for a healthy community. Echo chambers with mob mentality are dangerous.
I enjoy a healthy debate - when the other side wants to have an actual discussion. When I was in college a writer for the campus newspaper went on regular rants about the military and ROTC with blatant lies and arguments that might have held water 40 or 50 years ago. Any attempt to debate her was met with silence - and a new article with fresh bullshit accusations. Right after I graduated, a group of students crashed several guest lectures by walking right up to the podium chanting and shouting. And some of these were events people paid to attend. They weren't interested in debate, just drowning out any contrary opinions.
There are people in my workplace and personal life who I am engaging with on these issues. We don't agree on every point. The people I described when I resurrected this thread are like the liberal students mentioned above. They're shouting at the world and have no desire to hear from anybody else. Their positions range from "there is no racism, stop complaining" to "I'm the one being terrorized! Why hasn't Trump had them all shot yet?!" I had what I thought was a meaningful discussion with one of them the other day. I brought up how I thought the police violence against the protesters was illegal and he said "there should be reform." The next day he made ten separate posts screaming that the police are the victims and they're doing nothing wrong. This morning it was the claim that he's the victim of terrorism because protesters are getting laws changed. How long am I supposed to keep debating a brick wall?
Maybe I'm taking this issue more personally than I would in other circumstances. Some of these people I served with. We took oaths to defend the entire Constitution, but they seem to think the 2nd Amendment is the only one that matters. We fought actual terrorists together, but they think peaceful Americans should be shot in the streets by the Army. They're retired. I'm still serving in this Army. I'm having a tough time figuring out how long I'm supposed to keep this line of communication open with someone who has his fingers stuck in his ears and advocates for me murdering his neighbors because he doesn't think they have a right to be upset about something that should have been fixed 40 years ago.
Post by: AnnaGrowsAMustache on June 14, 2020, 06:56:32 PM
I have a friend that I've known for nearly 20 years who is flat-out skinhead style racist. What allows me to be friends with him is the fact that he does not put his beliefs on other people, including those he is racist against. I have never seen or heard of him being anything other than courteous to people of other ethnicities. Yes, he wholeheartedly believes that races should not mix and the rest of that shit, but he also wholeheartedly believes that manners make the man. It's a bizarre combination. Since he keeps it to himself, I reckon he's entitled to his opinion.....as misguided as I think he is. We used to talk about his/my beliefs more, but actually he's never going to change and neither am I, so now we just let that bit lie.
What if you were in the minority group, though? As in, the skinhead goes on a rant about black people and thugs, etc., etc., and then ends it with,
"Well, not you. You're one of the few good ones."
Sure, you can make a good faith effort to change their mind and cure their hate but, after a few years of them calling out n* thugs, surely you can be excused from being "intolerant" if you drop that person from your life.
I certainly would not be friends with someone who went on rants like that or used that kind of terminology. My friend is racist ... but he's not rude. He will happily chat with people other racists would refuse to talk to or be exceptionally rude to. He simply has his own beliefs. I have another friend who is a very committed Catholic, who undoubtedly things I'm sinful and going to hell, but manages not to tell me that! It's her private belief. People are entitled to their beliefs, as long as they don't inflict them on others.
Post by: Plina on June 14, 2020, 11:29:21 PM
I have a friend that I've known for nearly 20 years who is flat-out skinhead style racist. What allows me to be friends with him is the fact that he does not put his beliefs on other people, including those he is racist against. I have never seen or heard of him being anything other than courteous to people of other ethnicities. Yes, he wholeheartedly believes that races should not mix and the rest of that shit, but he also wholeheartedly believes that manners make the man. It's a bizarre combination. Since he keeps it to himself, I reckon he's entitled to his opinion.....as misguided as I think he is. We used to talk about his/my beliefs more, but actually he's never going to change and neither am I, so now we just let that bit lie.
What if you were in the minority group, though? As in, the skinhead goes on a rant about black people and thugs, etc., etc., and then ends it with,
"Well, not you. You're one of the few good ones."
Sure, you can make a good faith effort to change their mind and cure their hate but, after a few years of them calling out n* thugs, surely you can be excused from being "intolerant" if you drop that person from your life.
I certainly would not be friends with someone who went on rants like that or used that kind of terminology. My friend is racist ... but he's not rude. He will happily chat with people other racists would refuse to talk to or be exceptionally rude to. He simply has his own beliefs. I have another friend who is a very committed Catholic, who undoubtedly things I'm sinful and going to hell, but manages not to tell me that! It's her private belief. People are entitled to their beliefs, as long as they don't inflict them on others.
The last sentence pretty much summarize my thinking. I have relatives with opinions I don’t support but we rarely talk about these issues so no ranting.
Most of the so called ”friends” on FB I don’t really consider being friends rather acquiantances so I have no problems to unfollowing them or taking of the feed. But politics is not so polarisen here as it seems to be in US so I don’t see that much of the crap.
Post by: AnnaGrowsAMustache on June 15, 2020, 12:50:45 AM
I have a friend that I've known for nearly 20 years who is flat-out skinhead style racist. What allows me to be friends with him is the fact that he does not put his beliefs on other people, including those he is racist against. I have never seen or heard of him being anything other than courteous to people of other ethnicities. Yes, he wholeheartedly believes that races should not mix and the rest of that shit, but he also wholeheartedly believes that manners make the man. It's a bizarre combination. Since he keeps it to himself, I reckon he's entitled to his opinion.....as misguided as I think he is. We used to talk about his/my beliefs more, but actually he's never going to change and neither am I, so now we just let that bit lie.
What if you were in the minority group, though? As in, the skinhead goes on a rant about black people and thugs, etc., etc., and then ends it with,
"Well, not you. You're one of the few good ones."
Sure, you can make a good faith effort to change their mind and cure their hate but, after a few years of them calling out n* thugs, surely you can be excused from being "intolerant" if you drop that person from your life.
I certainly would not be friends with someone who went on rants like that or used that kind of terminology. My friend is racist ... but he's not rude. He will happily chat with people other racists would refuse to talk to or be exceptionally rude to. He simply has his own beliefs. I have another friend who is a very committed Catholic, who undoubtedly things I'm sinful and going to hell, but manages not to tell me that! It's her private belief. People are entitled to their beliefs, as long as they don't inflict them on others.
The last sentence pretty much summarize my thinking. I have relatives with opinions I don’t support but we rarely talk about these issues so no ranting.
Most of the so called ”friends” on FB I don’t really consider being friends rather acquiantances so I have no problems to unfollowing them or taking of the feed. But politics is not so polarisen here as it seems to be in US so I don’t see that much of the crap.
I remember a guy I knew trying to explain to me (in a room full of people of various ethnicities) why black people couldn't concentrate for long periods of time (?!). I had no trouble telling that guy where to fuck off to. And how often.
Post by: js82 on June 15, 2020, 05:03:39 AM
I don't see how it is possible to support Trump and be a decent human being. It just isn't. I'm done having anything other than the most superficial contact with even my own sister.I don't see how it's possible to be a decent human being and cut off contact with close family.
Note: in all these stories of conservatives and progressives disagreeing, it's always the progressive who cuts off contact. You're not treating it as a political party, then, but a cult. That's not healthy, and it's also a really, really shitty way to effect progressive change. Social change comes from engaging with people, not cutting them off.
Progressives are decent people that don't enjoy associating with shitty people. Conservatives are shitty people that enjoy having decent people around to shit on.
You do realize that this is the kind of attitude that will invariably undermine what you're trying to accomplish, right?
You are using some tremendously broad brush strokes here. I have some relatives in the deep south who are quite religious and hold more conservative views on certain issues (abortion) in association with that. They're also very aware of racial injustices and have been vocally on the side of the protesters and the need for police reform. When you try to force-fit everyone into two categories you're mischaracterizing most of the world. And that's one of the things that's wrong with our partisan environment - the "conform or be cast out" attitude of both the modern Republican Party, as well as a growing segment of the Democratic Party.
In the context of certain issues, it's important to differentiate whether someone is coming from a place of malevolence, or simply ignorance. In my experience it's usually the latter - and that's a condition that's curable, *if* people choose to engage. The racism discussion is a prime example - I know relatively few people who are overtly racist, but I know huge numbers of people who are in the "Racism doesn't exist in this country"/"America doesn't have race issues" camp, and are largely unaware of their unconscious biases. These are generally not terrible people; they're usually coming from the perspective of a white person who lives in an overwhelmingly white area, and hasn't had the kinds of experiences/discussions with people of other races to understand that what is "normal" for one person may be vastly different from "normal" for another. THOSE are the people that you need to engage with if you're looking to make progress - people who aren't jerks, but who are unaware of certain aspects of a particular issue, but are open to hearing new perspectives.
Post by: Dancin'Dog on June 15, 2020, 08:02:58 AM
I don't see how it is possible to support Trump and be a decent human being. It just isn't. I'm done having anything other than the most superficial contact with even my own sister.I don't see how it's possible to be a decent human being and cut off contact with close family.
Note: in all these stories of conservatives and progressives disagreeing, it's always the progressive who cuts off contact. You're not treating it as a political party, then, but a cult. That's not healthy, and it's also a really, really shitty way to effect progressive change. Social change comes from engaging with people, not cutting them off.
Progressives are decent people that don't enjoy associating with shitty people. Conservatives are shitty people that enjoy having decent people around to shit on.
You do realize that this is the kind of attitude that will invariably undermine what you're trying to accomplish, right?
You are using some tremendously broad brush strokes here. I have some relatives in the deep south who are quite religious and hold more conservative views on certain issues (abortion) in association with that. They're also very aware of racial injustices and have been vocally on the side of the protesters and the need for police reform. When you try to force-fit everyone into two categories you're mischaracterizing most of the world. And that's one of the things that's wrong with our partisan environment - the "conform or be cast out" attitude of both the modern Republican Party, as well as a growing segment of the Democratic Party.
In the context of certain issues, it's important to differentiate whether someone is coming from a place of malevolence, or simply ignorance. In my experience it's usually the latter - and that's a condition that's curable, *if* people choose to engage. The racism discussion is a prime example - I know relatively few people who are overtly racist, but I know huge numbers of people who are in the "Racism doesn't exist in this country"/"America doesn't have race issues" camp, and are largely unaware of their unconscious biases. These are generally not terrible people; they're usually coming from the perspective of a white person who lives in an overwhelmingly white area, and hasn't had the kinds of experiences/discussions with people of other races to understand that what is "normal" for one person may be vastly different from "normal" for another. THOSE are the people that you need to engage with if you're looking to make progress - people who aren't jerks, but who are unaware of certain aspects of a particular issue, but are open to hearing new perspectives.
My reply to Kyle was broad on purpose. His question was about progressives cutting off contact with conservatives, but not conservatives cutting off contact with progressives.
I just meant that progressives get tired of trying to deal with closed-minded people, while conservatives enjoy insulting progressives.
I know there are a lot of gray areas between us all. I have plenty of conservative friends & family that I continue close relationships with, but it's not always easy knowing that we have such different political views. Tiptoeing around topics is uncomfortable, but that's the compromise we choose to accept in order to remain friends.
Post by: LaineyAZ on June 15, 2020, 08:19:55 AM
However, if I proposed that many of these things could be handled at a policy level, e.g., increase the minimum wage, or use some tax money to provide affordable housing, or change Medicare to be available for all, they would absolutely be against it.
That's the part that still baffles me: they would rather contribute individually forever than strengthen the social safety net for everyone across the board. Which means they would never vote for any politician who supports the latter. Which means in effect they are telling that school-age kid that they'll chip in to buy her a new backpack when school starts, but will never increase their taxes to make sure those same kids have access to a school nurse, or counselor, or even functional heat or air conditioning in that same school.
So yes, the political is personal no matter how "nice" these people are to your face.
Post by: Chris22 on June 15, 2020, 08:29:32 AM
As many have said here, their friends or acquaintances who have hard conservative or even racist beliefs can actually be very polite and helpful on an individual basis. I worked with many folks like this: they would gladly do things like donate blood, or volunteer at a food bank, or give money to a local individual in need.
However, if I proposed that many of these things could be handled at a policy level, e.g., increase the minimum wage, or use some tax money to provide affordable housing, or change Medicare to be available for all, they would absolutely be against it.
That's the part that still baffles me: they would rather contribute individually forever than strengthen the social safety net for everyone across the board. Which means they would never vote for any politician who supports the latter. Which means in effect they are telling that school-age kid that they'll chip in to buy her a new backpack when school starts, but will never increase their taxes to make sure those same kids have access to a school nurse, or counselor, or even functional heat or air conditioning in that same school.
So yes, the political is personal no matter how "nice" these people are to your face.
A lot of conservatives feel that A) government tends to have a ton of waste so if you pay an extra $1 in taxes you only get $0.XX in benefit, B) that these things are the best dealt with in the private sector because government should only be so big or C) both.
Also, your post is essentially saying “some people contribute individually but because they won’t vote the way I demand I think they are racists.” And then people wonder why they are pushing people away.
Post by: GuitarStv on June 15, 2020, 01:07:48 PM
Also, your post is essentially saying “some people contribute individually but because they won’t vote the way I demand I think they are racists.” And then people wonder why they are pushing people away.
Race wasn't mentioned in the post at all.
But since you wanted to bring it up . . . which political party has been caught multiple times in the past ten years working to prevent black people from voting in the US? (If you're having trouble finding the answer to this, it rhymes with Depublican.) It's the same party that put an overtly racist person into the white house and fully supported him every step of the way. Maybe if Republicans would stop being racist, people would stop telling them they're racist . . .
Post by: Chris22 on June 15, 2020, 01:24:48 PM
Also, your post is essentially saying “some people contribute individually but because they won’t vote the way I demand I think they are racists.” And then people wonder why they are pushing people away.
Race wasn't mentioned in the post at all.
It’s in the first sentence...
Quote
But since you wanted to bring it up . . . which political party has been caught multiple times in the past ten years working to prevent black people from voting in the US? (If you're having trouble finding the answer to this, it rhymes with Depublican.) It's the same party that put an overtly racist person into the white house and fully supported him every step of the way. Maybe if Republicans would stop being racist, people would stop telling them they're racist . . .
Given that the left has moved the goalposts so many times and screamed “racist” at literally every political opponent, I don’t even have the energy to debate the point with you. Obama was against illegal immigration too, but as soon as Trump came out against it it was al racism all the time. Etc etc etc.
Post by: MonkeyJenga on June 15, 2020, 01:34:01 PM
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on June 15, 2020, 02:43:27 PM
I reckon he's entitled to his opinion.
I enjoy simpatico relationships with my polar opposites because of my cognizance that our polarities are rooted in the exercise of our freedom to choose where we situate ourselves on the political spectrum.
The primacy of the value I affix to this freedom to choose supersedes any need for like-mindedness as a prerequisite for enduring, cordial relations.
Post by: Michael in ABQ on June 15, 2020, 03:19:57 PM
The person I would still consider my best friend, even though we've only seen each other in person maybe 2-3 times in the last decade, has very different political beliefs from me. But we can still talk about plenty of other things without arguing about our political beliefs. We respect each others opinions and don't waste our infrequent conversations on trying to prove the other person wrong of convince them that our beliefs are better. He's the socially conscious urban liberal and I've become the conservative religious family man. But, we can still laugh at how the rent for his 1-bedroom apartment is three times the rent for my 5-bedroom house or how he can't imagine having six young kids.
So I think it all depends on the people involved.
Post by: GuitarStv on June 15, 2020, 03:51:55 PM
Also, your post is essentially saying “some people contribute individually but because they won’t vote the way I demand I think they are racists.” And then people wonder why they are pushing people away.
Race wasn't mentioned in the post at all.
It’s in the first sentence...
The first sentence where he drew a distinction between conservatives and racists? I meant racism as it pertains to who you voted for . . . the thing you were complaining about. Which was not mentioned in the post at all.
Quote
QuoteBut since you wanted to bring it up . . . which political party has been caught multiple times in the past ten years working to prevent black people from voting in the US? (If you're having trouble finding the answer to this, it rhymes with Depublican.) It's the same party that put an overtly racist person into the white house and fully supported him every step of the way. Maybe if Republicans would stop being racist, people would stop telling them they're racist . . .
Given that the left has moved the goalposts so many times and screamed “racist” at literally every political opponent, I don’t even have the energy to debate the point with you. Obama was against illegal immigration too, but as soon as Trump came out against it it was al racism all the time. Etc etc etc.
I don't think anyone said Trump was racist for preventing illegal immigration. It was HOW he went about doing it. Things like changing policy to seperate people from their children who aren't old enough to talk and wasting money on a wall that is completely ineffective at preventing immigration but works great as an imaginary deterrent to the imaginary Mexican rapists swarming the borders come immediately to mind.
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on June 15, 2020, 03:55:32 PM
We respect each others opinions and don't waste our infrequent conversations on trying to prove the other person wrong of convince them that our beliefs are better.
Respect for my polar opposites' political opinions is a corollary of the high value I place on their freedom to choose and express them.
Post by: renata ricotta on June 15, 2020, 03:56:26 PM
When a political matter is also a moral issue, I have a hard time remaining close with someone who has shown that under the surface, they have some opinions that I cannot square with my moral code. In 2016, I and a lot of other [often white] folks had the uncomfortable realization that a lot of people in our lives with whom we didn't "talk politics" had pretty ugly assumptions or beliefs once that surface was cracked. I have cousins I will never see the same way again once I realized they were ok with statements like all Mexicans are rapists, or thought the infamous pussy grabbing tape was no big deal/sorta funny. I cannot be close with someone who is willing to accept that level of casual racism and misogyny without alarm. And for the people who are actively pressing racism and misogyny (rather than just minimizing it), it's more than not being "close," I'm not sure I could stomach being around them on even a more casual basis.
Right now, the much harder call to me socially is the pervasive and common passive racism of apathy, ignorance, and privilege that allows [mostly white] folks to brush the current moment away as not a big deal and something that doesn't concern them, or who focus more on the inconvenience or relatively minor property damage as more important than centuries of oppression and terror. I truly honestly believe that we are all living in our generation's version of slavery/the Holocaust/the Civil Rights movement, but it will only be seen that way in retrospect. As a kid, I couldn't understand the people who sat idly by during those times, going about their days without feeling like it was their job to do anything about it. I have lots and lots of those people in my life, and I think it's my job to stay close to them and do my part to activate and motivate them to see and understand what they'd prefer to ignore. It's the "white moderate" from MLK's passage from Letter from a Birmingham Jail that has been weighing heavily on my heart lately:
Quote
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
Post by: Imma on June 15, 2020, 04:12:34 PM
But I was raised with the idea that the central message of the Gospel is love. Lately it seems that our politics have been very divided and that both sides of the spectrum lack a spirit of love and community. I think those hard attitudes are the main issue in our current political landscape.
You can't just go around and ban things (like abortion, just to use that as an example) without addressing the causes and helping out the people who are affected. I don't want to point to you specifically, but for example, if someone is a member of a church that actively opposes abortion, does that church make sure that a young girl who falls pregnant is supported by the community, mentally and practically, so she can raise the child, or would the girl be an outcast? This is something I've seen so many times in churches. And this is just one example, I could come up with dozens from both sides of the political spectrum, but it all boils down to hating is easier than loving, and we need to hate each other less and love each other more.
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on June 15, 2020, 04:18:48 PM
There is a lot overlap on the Venn diagram of "political beliefs" and "moral values." I think there are plenty of things that reasonable people can disagree about when it comes to politics, even when their values are more or less aligned. Often they agree on bedrock principles, but differ as to strategy for implementation or priorities. Zero qualms about remaining close with those people, even if we have pretty different ideas on "politics."
When a political matter is also a moral issue, I have a hard time remaining close with someone who has shown that under the surface, they have some opinions that I cannot square with my moral code. In 2016, I and a lot of other [often white] folks had the uncomfortable realization that a lot of people in our lives with whom we didn't "talk politics" had pretty ugly assumptions or beliefs once that surface was cracked. I have cousins I will never see the same way again once I realized they were ok with statements like all Mexicans are rapists, or thought the infamous pussy grabbing tape was no big deal/sorta funny. I cannot be close with someone who is willing to accept that level of casual racism and misogyny without alarm. And for the people who are actively pressing racism and misogyny (rather than just minimizing it), it's more than not being "close," I'm not sure I could stomach being around them on even a more casual basis.
Right now, the much harder call to me socially is the pervasive and common passive racism of apathy, ignorance, and privilege that allows [mostly white] folks to brush the current moment away as not a big deal and something that doesn't concern them, or who focus more on the inconvenience or relatively minor property damage as more important than centuries of oppression and terror. I truly honestly believe that we are all living in our generation's version of slavery/the Holocaust/the Civil Rights movement, but it will only be seen that way in retrospect. As a kid, I couldn't understand the people who sat idly by during those times, going about their days without feeling like it was their job to do anything about it. I have lots and lots of those people in my life, and I think it's my job to stay close to them and do my part to activate and motivate them to see and understand what they'd prefer to ignore. It's the "white moderate" from MLK's passage from Letter from a Birmingham Jail that has been weighing heavily on my heart lately:QuoteI must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
It's been a while since I read Letter from a Birmingham Jail.
It is rhetorical brilliance, a matchlessly persuasive tour de force.
Post by: LaineyAZ on June 15, 2020, 06:02:33 PM
As many have said here, their friends or acquaintances who have hard conservative or even racist beliefs can actually be very polite and helpful on an individual basis. I worked with many folks like this: they would gladly do things like donate blood, or volunteer at a food bank, or give money to a local individual in need.
However, if I proposed that many of these things could be handled at a policy level, e.g., increase the minimum wage, or use some tax money to provide affordable housing, or change Medicare to be available for all, they would absolutely be against it.
That's the part that still baffles me: they would rather contribute individually forever than strengthen the social safety net for everyone across the board. Which means they would never vote for any politician who supports the latter. Which means in effect they are telling that school-age kid that they'll chip in to buy her a new backpack when school starts, but will never increase their taxes to make sure those same kids have access to a school nurse, or counselor, or even functional heat or air conditioning in that same school.
So yes, the political is personal no matter how "nice" these people are to your face.
A lot of conservatives feel that A) government tends to have a ton of waste so if you pay an extra $1 in taxes you only get $0.XX in benefit, B) that these things are the best dealt with in the private sector because government should only be so big or C) both.
Also, your post is essentially saying “some people contribute individually but because they won’t vote the way I demand I think they are racists.” And then people wonder why they are pushing people away.
I would believe A) and B) if that principle was ever applied to our gargantuan military. Alas, it's only ever mentioned for any program that's part of our societal safety net. How many times have we all heard, "I'm tired of throwing money at [social or medical benefit]", while that same phrase is never used for corporate bailouts?
Not buying it.
And my first sentence in my original post did have the word "or" in there.
Post by: Travis on June 15, 2020, 06:32:53 PM
As many have said here, their friends or acquaintances who have hard conservative or even racist beliefs can actually be very polite and helpful on an individual basis. I worked with many folks like this: they would gladly do things like donate blood, or volunteer at a food bank, or give money to a local individual in need.
However, if I proposed that many of these things could be handled at a policy level, e.g., increase the minimum wage, or use some tax money to provide affordable housing, or change Medicare to be available for all, they would absolutely be against it.
That's the part that still baffles me: they would rather contribute individually forever than strengthen the social safety net for everyone across the board. Which means they would never vote for any politician who supports the latter. Which means in effect they are telling that school-age kid that they'll chip in to buy her a new backpack when school starts, but will never increase their taxes to make sure those same kids have access to a school nurse, or counselor, or even functional heat or air conditioning in that same school.
So yes, the political is personal no matter how "nice" these people are to your face.
A lot of conservatives feel that A) government tends to have a ton of waste so if you pay an extra $1 in taxes you only get $0.XX in benefit, B) that these things are the best dealt with in the private sector because government should only be so big or C) both.
Also, your post is essentially saying “some people contribute individually but because they won’t vote the way I demand I think they are racists.” And then people wonder why they are pushing people away.
I would believe A) and B) if that principle was ever applied to our gargantuan military. Alas, it's only ever mentioned for any program that's part of our societal safety net. How many times have we all heard, "I'm tired of throwing money at [social or medical benefit]", while that same phrase is never used for corporate bailouts?
Not buying it.
And my first sentence in my original post did have the word "or" in there.
My holier than thou aunt posted this morning that she supports defunding the police, but only if every program that benefits poor people goes too. Aside from her "Christian" credentials, I get a laugh whenever she complains about taxes and government spending. She's never worked a day in her life. She's been a corporate executive's wife from the start.
Post by: MudPuppy on June 15, 2020, 06:37:01 PM
Post by: rocketpj on June 15, 2020, 06:55:57 PM
One of my closest high school friends has also become a hardcore conservative, but not in the 'thinking, discussing' sense but more just sharing racist memes and wishing death on those of our countrymen who are treasonous enough to vote for other parties. I've tried engaging with him but he or one of his friends just calls me a liberal fucktard (or whatever). So we're done.
I currently have a good friend that is very much politically polar to my point of view. We both coach baseball teams (in normal years) and have had a health competition going for a long time. We're both also quite involved in the community (we organize the ball league and have both been heavily involved in the minor hockey leagues). We play sports together, and hang out for a couple of beers together quite often. We often discuss politics and rarely agree - but we are both open to discussion and also open to not necessarily winning the other one over. He despises our current Prime Minister as a softie liberal, I think he isn't left enough. We disagree and get on with things. This I can handle and I'm always happy to engage in a political discussion that involves actual facts and events (and not just randomly spun up hatred memes).
Post by: Travis on June 15, 2020, 06:58:36 PM
Do you believe that the only “contribution” to society is in the form of wage labor? Because that’s how I’m reading your post.
She's led a very privileged life and spent my entire life reminding us about her moral and religious superiority. Taken separately, no I'm not complaining about her lack of wage labor history. I see the two combined as a level of hypocrisy from her.
Post by: MudPuppy on June 15, 2020, 07:12:26 PM
Post by: Travis on June 15, 2020, 07:20:08 PM
That’s fair. The original statement gives me not great vibes.
Since the day I was born she's been under the impression my 1/8 Lakota bloodline makes me a heathen who needs to be "saved." My mother wasn't welcome at church, but she thought us kids needed to be there. Christmas and family reunions were always very trying times around her.
Post by: MudPuppy on June 15, 2020, 07:25:03 PM
Post by: Travis on June 15, 2020, 07:44:51 PM
I had what I thought was a meaningful discussion with one of them the other day. I brought up how I thought the police violence against the protesters was illegal and he said "there should be reform." The next day he made ten separate posts screaming that the police are the victims and they're doing nothing wrong. This morning it was the claim that he's the victim of terrorism because protesters are getting laws changed.
So this guy again...
Yesterday he announced "Why should police be perfect? Society isn't."
Someone other than me started the debate going back and forth with him. He claimed there's never been a case where a guilty cop got away with murder. He also claimed every police shooting was justified. He backpedaled a bit saying "Okay, not everyone is a criminal. And not every situation calls for deadly force." When confronted with data that 7% of police shootings involve unarmed suspects and that our military rules of engagement are stricter than the police, he simply "liked" the post and stopped talking. Just when you think he might have acknowledged that reality isn't as absolute as his opinion on this, he went on another multi-post rant today that the police are never at fault and they're the only ones hurt by recent events. It's like we never even had that conversation.
Post by: Travis on June 15, 2020, 07:48:50 PM
You can join my church? We’re catholic but most of us aren’t the kind that set your house on for abortions
Thanks for the offer, but I'm atheist who attends a bible study, my wife's conservative family is Methodist, but she attends Catholic mass and a Protestant 'not specifically denominational' service back to back and has liberal views on most subjects.
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 15, 2020, 09:29:18 PM
I wish that more forums could be like this one, where diversity is mostly encouraged (although I feel even here, there is strong groupthink around frugality, and I wish we could be more self-reflective about that - it's fine to endorse something without thinking it's the only acceptable view). A lot of other communities are just complete circle jerks that I can't tolerate because the people there become blind to other views and quite self-righteous.
Post by: Travis on June 15, 2020, 09:46:57 PM
As someone who's socially very progressive (yay for abortion, gay marriage, income-based affirmative action, etc) and economically quite neoliberal (I believe in a safety net to ensure no one starves or lacks shelter, and I believe in free education and healthcare, but I would want a government that otherwise does not redistribute at all), I very rarely come across anyone whose beliefs align with mine. And that's fine. A diversity of views is good for discussion and it keeps you honest.
I wish that more forums could be like this one, where diversity is mostly encouraged (although I feel even here, there is strong groupthink around frugality, and I wish we could be more self-reflective about that - it's fine to endorse something without thinking it's the only acceptable view). A lot of other communities are just complete circle jerks that I can't tolerate because the people there become blind to other views and quite self-righteous.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/our-mustachian-sacred-cows/ (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/our-mustachian-sacred-cows/)
Let the self reflection begin!
Post by: sherr on June 16, 2020, 08:18:45 AM
I've found over time that most of my friends from high school and college as well as most of my immediate and extended family are way to the left of me politically. I've considered myself libertarian most of my life but I definitely don't agree with big L libertarians on a lot of issues. A big part of that is the influence of my wife. It took close to a decade, but she finally brought me back to the Catholic faith I had nominally been raised in - even though I considered myself an atheist for many years. That was a case where we had very different beliefs, hers being much more conservative, but we still loved each other. I changed my mind from callously thinking that abortion is a great way to get rid of all the worthless people in the world to recognizing that it is inherently wrong and an evil act. That's probably not a topic I'm going to discuss with that random cousin on Facebook who posts nothing but left-wing political talking points. Although I have been able to have some of those discussions with old friends and family because they can't easily dismiss me as some random person on the internet. But we're not going to have the same friendship we did 15-20 years ago.
The person I would still consider my best friend, even though we've only seen each other in person maybe 2-3 times in the last decade, has very different political beliefs from me. But we can still talk about plenty of other things without arguing about our political beliefs. We respect each others opinions and don't waste our infrequent conversations on trying to prove the other person wrong of convince them that our beliefs are better. He's the socially conscious urban liberal and I've become the conservative religious family man. But, we can still laugh at how the rent for his 1-bedroom apartment is three times the rent for my 5-bedroom house or how he can't imagine having six young kids.
So I think it all depends on the people involved.
I think this is accidentally a very good example of why it's sometimes hard for liberals to be friends with conservatives.
I have no problem with you believing that abortion is a sin. None at all. I don't agree, but that's fully within your right to believe, and to order your life around that belief. As you correctly note, that's a religious belief (not a scientific fact), and you have your freedom of religion written into the foundation of the constitution.
The problem comes when conservatives support banning abortion for other people who need them. That is them, taking their religious belief, and trying to force everyone else to abide by them. That is them taking away other people's freedom of religion. See also gay marriage, or any host of other social issues.
Would you still be friends with your liberal buddy if he was trying to get the government to force you to abort your 6th child? Probably not. That would be the opposite of abortion bans though.
It seems to me that generally "liberals" take the side of liberty, and "conservatives" take the side of illiberal "you have to do what I say and you don't have any rights only my rights matter". The one obvious exception is gun rights, where sure, conservatives are definitely more on the side of liberty.
I have no problem being friends with people that disagree with me as long as we agree on the core tenet of liberty, and their actions (including who they vote for) reflects that. And no I'm not some "taxation is theft" libertarian nut either. But if someone is actively trying to remove the constitutional freedoms from people not like them, that's something I would struggle to look past.
Post by: DadJokes on June 16, 2020, 08:39:51 AM
I've found over time that most of my friends from high school and college as well as most of my immediate and extended family are way to the left of me politically. I've considered myself libertarian most of my life but I definitely don't agree with big L libertarians on a lot of issues. A big part of that is the influence of my wife. It took close to a decade, but she finally brought me back to the Catholic faith I had nominally been raised in - even though I considered myself an atheist for many years. That was a case where we had very different beliefs, hers being much more conservative, but we still loved each other. I changed my mind from callously thinking that abortion is a great way to get rid of all the worthless people in the world to recognizing that it is inherently wrong and an evil act. That's probably not a topic I'm going to discuss with that random cousin on Facebook who posts nothing but left-wing political talking points. Although I have been able to have some of those discussions with old friends and family because they can't easily dismiss me as some random person on the internet. But we're not going to have the same friendship we did 15-20 years ago.
The person I would still consider my best friend, even though we've only seen each other in person maybe 2-3 times in the last decade, has very different political beliefs from me. But we can still talk about plenty of other things without arguing about our political beliefs. We respect each others opinions and don't waste our infrequent conversations on trying to prove the other person wrong of convince them that our beliefs are better. He's the socially conscious urban liberal and I've become the conservative religious family man. But, we can still laugh at how the rent for his 1-bedroom apartment is three times the rent for my 5-bedroom house or how he can't imagine having six young kids.
So I think it all depends on the people involved.
I think this is accidentally a very good example of why it's sometimes hard for liberals to be friends with conservatives.
I have no problem with you believing that abortion is a sin. None at all. I don't agree, but that's fully within your right to believe, and to order your life around that belief. As you correctly note, that's a religious belief (not a scientific fact), and you have your freedom of religion written into the foundation of the constitution.
The problem comes when conservatives support banning abortion for other people who need them. That is them, taking their religious belief, and trying to force everyone else to abide by them. That is them taking away other people's freedom of religion. See also gay marriage, or any host of other social issues.
Would you still be friends with your liberal buddy if he was trying to get the government to force you to abort your 6th child? Probably not. That would be the opposite of abortion bans though.
It seems to me that generally "liberals" take the side of liberty, and "conservatives" take the side of illiberal "you have to do what I say and you don't have any rights only my rights matter". The one obvious exception is gun rights, where sure, conservatives are definitely more on the side of liberty.
I have no problem being friends with people that disagree with me as long as we agree on the core tenet of liberty, and their actions (including who they vote for) reflects that. And no I'm not some "taxation is theft" libertarian nut either. But if someone is actively trying to remove the constitutional freedoms from people not like them, that's something I would struggle to look past.
Rather than thinking that abortion is a sin, it's a case where people believe that abortion is murder (and murder is a sin).
No one wants to actually debate the real issue, which is when life begins. I'm generalizing here, but people on the right believe that it begins at conception, while people on the left believe that it begins at some point after that (I'm not sure if there is a consensus on the particular time).
So someone on the left saying that banning abortion infringes upon their liberties sounds no different than saying that banning the murder of children infringes upon liberties.
I don't know enough to have a strong opinion on the issue (though I could never conceive aborting a fetus), but I can see why some conservatives would refuse to be friends with someone that they believe supports legalized murder.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 16, 2020, 08:45:46 AM
Rather than thinking that abortion is a sin, it's a case where people believe that abortion is murder (and murder is a sin).
No one wants to actually debate the real issue, which is when life begins. I'm generalizing here, but people on the right believe that it begins at conception, while people on the left believe that it begins at some point after that (I'm not sure if there is a consensus on the particular time).
So someone on the left saying that banning abortion infringes upon their liberties sounds no different than saying that banning the murder of children infringes upon liberties.
I don't know enough to have a strong opinion on the issue (though I could never conceive aborting a fetus), but I can see why some conservatives would refuse to be friends with someone that they believe supports legalized murder.
It seems no clear, scientific evidence is going to rescue the "real issue" as you say. Is the fetus a "person"? Is the sperm a person? The Ova? Certain extreme interpretation of this would categorize almost all males as mass murderers.
So - no "clear scientific interpretation" is possible!!
Shouldn't you, then, leave it up to the women whose body you are debating over? Or are you of the opinion that the religious wing-nuts have jurisdiction to legislate over other people's body?
Post by: MudPuppy on June 16, 2020, 08:47:28 AM
Post by: ctuser1 on June 16, 2020, 08:48:44 AM
I don’t think dad jokes was taking that position personally, just that he was trying to illustrate
Hmmmm... When you are casually flinging accusations of "murder" - I'd think certain manner of illustration should be considered very ill-mannered and deserve proportionate response.
Post by: GuitarStv on June 16, 2020, 08:55:14 AM
You can join my church? We’re catholic but most of us aren’t the kind that set your house on for abortions
Thanks for the offer, but I'm atheist who attends a bible study, my wife's conservative family is Methodist, but she attends Catholic mass and a Protestant 'not specifically denominational' service back to back and has liberal views on most subjects.
You would fit right in at Canada's United Church. There are some atheist ministers, and they're pretty chill on the dogma. :P
Post by: sherr on June 16, 2020, 08:59:00 AM
I think this is accidentally a very good example of why it's sometimes hard for liberals to be friends with conservatives.
I have no problem with you believing that abortion is a sin. None at all. I don't agree, but that's fully within your right to believe, and to order your life around that belief. As you correctly note, that's a religious belief (not a scientific fact), and you have your freedom of religion written into the foundation of the constitution.
The problem comes when conservatives support banning abortion for other people who need them. That is them, taking their religious belief, and trying to force everyone else to abide by them. That is them taking away other people's freedom of religion. See also gay marriage, or any host of other social issues.
Would you still be friends with your liberal buddy if he was trying to get the government to force you to abort your 6th child? Probably not. That would be the opposite of abortion bans though.
It seems to me that generally "liberals" take the side of liberty, and "conservatives" take the side of illiberal "you have to do what I say and you don't have any rights only my rights matter". The one obvious exception is gun rights, where sure, conservatives are definitely more on the side of liberty.
I have no problem being friends with people that disagree with me as long as we agree on the core tenet of liberty, and their actions (including who they vote for) reflects that. And no I'm not some "taxation is theft" libertarian nut either. But if someone is actively trying to remove the constitutional freedoms from people not like them, that's something I would struggle to look past.
Rather than thinking that abortion is a sin, it's a case where people believe that abortion is murder (and murder is a sin).
No one wants to actually debate the real issue, which is when life begins. I'm generalizing here, but people on the right believe that it begins at conception, while people on the left believe that it begins at some point after that (I'm not sure if there is a consensus on the particular time).
So someone on the left saying that banning abortion infringes upon their liberties sounds no different than saying that banning the murder of children infringes upon liberties.
I don't know enough to have a strong opinion on the issue (though I could never conceive aborting a fetus), but I can see why some conservatives would refuse to be friends with someone that they believe supports legalized murder.
Right, but again, regardless of which way you lean that's a religious opinion. And you cannot make laws purely based on religious opinion in a society that holds freedom of religion as a core value. The government must enable freedom of religion, and allow conservatives to believe what they want and to order their lives around their beliefs, and allow other people to disagree.
Post by: DadJokes on June 16, 2020, 09:01:20 AM
I don’t think dad jokes was taking that position personally, just that he was trying to illustrate
Hmmmm... When you are casually flinging accusations of "murder" - I'd think certain manner of illustration should be considered very ill-mannered and deserve proportionate response.
I'm stating what people on the right think. Some might call it playing devil's advocate. It helps to actually understand your opponent's thought process.
There are debate points against what you and @sherr have said, but this isn't a thread about abortion, so I'll drop it.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 16, 2020, 09:07:28 AM
I don’t think dad jokes was taking that position personally, just that he was trying to illustrate
Hmmmm... When you are casually flinging accusations of "murder" - I'd think certain manner of illustration should be considered very ill-mannered and deserve proportionate response.
I'm stating what people on the right think. Some might call it playing devil's advocate. It helps to actually understand your opponent's thought process.
There are debate points against what you and @sherr have said, but this isn't a thread about abortion, so I'll drop it.
The most important point that needs to be understood is whether the "opponent" is trying to impost their religious beliefs on others or not. If they are, they are against the constitution and the basis on which America is founded.
It is a constitutional question, not an "abortion" question.
Can we agree on this much?
As long as the "opponent" is not trying to impost their religious beliefs on other people via legislation, I'm sure a reasoned discussion should be possible.
Post by: sherr on June 16, 2020, 09:13:35 AM
There are debate points against what you and @sherr have said, but this isn't a thread about abortion, so I'll drop it.
That's fine and I don't mean to be picking a fight, but I think my main point got dropped in the mean time. It's not a matter of abortion in particular being right or wrong. It's a general trend of liberty vs illiberalism. No one is trying to force anyone else to have an abortion, for example. No one is trying to force people to marry someone of the same sex, or even pastors to officiate gay weddings (although yes I know that was a common talking point / lie from the right a few years ago).
If we can agree on the core tenet of liberty then I have no problem with being friends with people who disagree with me. You don't believe in gay marriage? Fine, you probably shouldn't marry someone of the same sex. Oh you're trying to force everyone else in the country to comply with your religious beliefs? Now we have a problem.
There simply is no equivalent "from the left". The closest you can come is saying that restrictions on guns are similar, but that just seems not convincing to me.
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 16, 2020, 09:17:37 AM
I don’t think dad jokes was taking that position personally, just that he was trying to illustrate
Hmmmm... When you are casually flinging accusations of "murder" - I'd think certain manner of illustration should be considered very ill-mannered and deserve proportionate response.
I'm stating what people on the right think. Some might call it playing devil's advocate. It helps to actually understand your opponent's thought process.
There are debate points against what you and @sherr have said, but this isn't a thread about abortion, so I'll drop it.
Some people believe that their religious beliefs are simply inviolable. That either because god tells them it's wrong, or because abortion involves killing of a "living human" and that is wrong, that the ethical equation stops there.
Call that a rule-based moral code. There's a hard and fast rule and that's just how it applies.
Others believe that life doesn't start till X time (say, third trimester) and therefore their application of the rule is different. But it's still a rule-based code.
Others (like me) look at certain decisions in a more utilitarian sense. For example, I don't think life starts at any given point. It's a sliding scale. In my ideal world a parent would be able to kill an infant of a few months' age if there were really good grounds. But a parent without any good grounds would not be able to do that, but would be able to abort an early-term foetus for no reason at all because I consider the foetus has no sentience. But you could argue the facts and you could also argue whether the ends justify the means.
Point is, people approach issues from different mindsets. Some are heavily "rule based" and some are heavily "outcome based" and it can be hard to align the two, though there are good arguments for both approaches.
What really shits me is when one camp fails to acknowledge the internal validity and consistency of the other.
This especially annoys me when it comes to politics. There are very few political positions (outside of, I guess, outright racist/fascist ideologies) that cannot be justified. I wish people would be better able to argue a point which is contrary to their own.
Before you try to argue your own point, make sure that you can argue the opposing point just as fervently. If you can't, you have no business putting forth either point.
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 16, 2020, 09:21:50 AM
There are debate points against what you and @sherr have said, but this isn't a thread about abortion, so I'll drop it.
That's fine and I don't mean to be picking a fight, but I think my main point got dropped in the mean time. It's not a matter of abortion in particular being right or wrong. It's a general trend of liberty vs illiberalism. No one is trying to force anyone else to have an abortion, for example. No one is trying to force people to marry someone of the same sex, or even pastors to officiate gay weddings (although yes I know that was a common talking point / lie from the right a few years ago).
If we can agree on the core tenet of liberty then I have no problem with being friends with people who disagree with me. You don't believe in gay marriage? Fine, you probably shouldn't marry someone of the same sex. Oh you're trying to force everyone else in the country to comply with your religious beliefs? Now we have a problem.
Not really. Many people on the "left" would not be comfortable with:
- Exploitative market conditions
- Paying your way into a school or job
- Nepotism
Yet those are things which do not require any breaking of anyone's consent.
You argue against the use of "religious beliefs", which I understand because I take religion to be an essentially irrational and dogmatic construct, but to someone who's religious, (and even in a larger sense), there's not much difference between religious dogma and a philosophical tenet (like the importance of liberty or the notion that all men are created equal). In a way, they all boil down to first principles that are not supported by anything else, but are mere dogma.
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 16, 2020, 09:22:07 AM
Right, but again, regardless of which way you lean that's a religious opinion. And you cannot make laws purely based on religious opinion in a society that holds freedom of religion as a core value. The government must enable freedom of religion, and allow conservatives to believe what they want and to order their lives around their beliefs, and allow other people to disagree.It's a scientific and ethical question, not a religious one. Conception is not a religious concept. I don't believe that a fertilized human egg is a person, but it's probably a person at 8+months. Late term elective abortions are generally banned for this reason. The problem is there's no hard line during development from conception to birth.
The unborn that are soon to be born should have all the considerations of a sovereign life unless a VERY strong argument is made to the contrary. Those unborn are protected with force, to the point of the conversation.
Personally I don't think the abortion debate will ever be resolved because of the greyness of fetal development.
An analogy would be trans rights--am I required to recognize someone's personal identification with a gender that conflicts with their genetic chromosomal makeup? Should I call this a religious position?
I don't think characterizing the conflict as a religious vs. scientific one is useful, since there are subjective areas which aren't so simple.
Post by: DadJokes on June 16, 2020, 09:30:41 AM
I don’t think dad jokes was taking that position personally, just that he was trying to illustrate
Hmmmm... When you are casually flinging accusations of "murder" - I'd think certain manner of illustration should be considered very ill-mannered and deserve proportionate response.
I'm stating what people on the right think. Some might call it playing devil's advocate. It helps to actually understand your opponent's thought process.
There are debate points against what you and @sherr have said, but this isn't a thread about abortion, so I'll drop it.
The most important point that needs to be understood is whether the "opponent" is trying to impost their religious beliefs on others or not. If they are, they are against the constitution and the basis on which America is founded.
It is a constitutional question, not an "abortion" question.
Can we agree on this much?
As long as the "opponent" is not trying to impost their religious beliefs on other people via legislation, I'm sure a reasoned discussion should be possible.
I don't think they'd agree that the belief that life starts at conception is a religious belief.
They'd consider it a logical belief that aligns with their religion. There are atheists who also believe that life begins at conception. Is that a religious belief?
Anyway, I won't speak again on abortion. My point is that people must be willing to view things from others' perspective, or nothing is ever going to change.
Post by: sherr on June 16, 2020, 09:35:40 AM
There are debate points against what you and @sherr have said, but this isn't a thread about abortion, so I'll drop it.
That's fine and I don't mean to be picking a fight, but I think my main point got dropped in the mean time. It's not a matter of abortion in particular being right or wrong. It's a general trend of liberty vs illiberalism. No one is trying to force anyone else to have an abortion, for example. No one is trying to force people to marry someone of the same sex, or even pastors to officiate gay weddings (although yes I know that was a common talking point / lie from the right a few years ago).
If we can agree on the core tenet of liberty then I have no problem with being friends with people who disagree with me. You don't believe in gay marriage? Fine, you probably shouldn't marry someone of the same sex. Oh you're trying to force everyone else in the country to comply with your religious beliefs? Now we have a problem.
Not really. Many people on the "left" would not be comfortable with:
- Exploitative market conditions
- Paying your way into a school or job
- Nepotism
Yet those are things which do not require any breaking of anyone's consent.
You argue against the use of "religious beliefs", which I understand because I take religion to be an essentially irrational and dogmatic construct, but to someone who's religious, (and even in a larger sense), there's not much difference between religious dogma and a philosophical tenet (like the importance of liberty or the notion that all men are created equal). In a way, they all boil down to first principles that are not supported by anything else, but are mere dogma.
I really don't understand your point at all. Did I say that there should be no constraints on liberty at all (nepotism, etc)? No I didn't.
Okay sure, let's assume that assume that "liberty" and "all men are created equal" is "mere dogma", exactly the same as conservative religions beliefs. Those are the dogmatic axioms that are written into the constitution, and therefore the ones the government must orient itself around protecting.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 16, 2020, 09:37:28 AM
I don't think they'd agree that the belief that life starts at conception is a religious belief.
They'd consider it a logical belief that aligns with their religion. There are atheists who also believe that life begins at conception. Is that a religious belief?
Anyway, I won't speak again on abortion. My point is that people must be willing to view things from others' perspective, or nothing is ever going to change.
Great.
So it seems to me that the decision(s) should be left to the women whose body is in question!! At least till consensus evolves on whether the belief is religious, logical, scientific or something else!!
Or, perhaps you want to lend some sort of credence to those "opponents" arguing that they can legislate over someone else's body based on unsettled beliefs and anybody else who thinks otherwise, including the women in question, don't matter?
What was the definition of Fascism again?
Post by: sherr on June 16, 2020, 09:38:14 AM
My point is that people must be willing to view things from others' perspective, or nothing is ever going to change.
And my point is that "liberals" are willing to do that, and "conservatives" generally aren't. Or at least liberals are willing to allow other people to act differently than them, even if they don't understand it.
Post by: jeninco on June 16, 2020, 09:55:38 AM
My point is that people must be willing to view things from others' perspective, or nothing is ever going to change.
And my point is that "liberals" are willing to do that, and "conservatives" generally aren't. Or at least liberals are willing to allow other people to act differently than them, even if they don't understand it.
A clearer way to put this point might be this:
Do you view all other adult human beings as equal to you in terms of their rights and responsibilities? Even though they make decisions regarding themselves that you don't agree with?
If yes (or generally yes), then we can have a respectful conversation, although we may not be "friends". If no, then ... honestly, you need to go do some self examination. I see no reason to waste time having a "respectful" conversation with someone who views me (or people I love, or other people in general) as less then fully human. Even if it's couched as somehow "rational" or "biblical" (or "thugs") or whatever lame-ass dog-whistle excuse is in vogue today.
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 16, 2020, 10:00:58 AM
In the normative case, a conceived human will be born as a sovereign individual in nine months. There are exceptions to this, but they do not compromise the general rule. The territory between the variance and the mean will be fraught.
In the normative case, XY chromosomes produce a male mammal. There are exceptions to this, but the do not compromise the general rule. The territory between the variance and the mean will be fraught.
Liberals see conservatives as blind to the tails of the curve(rigid and unyielding), and conservatives see liberals as blind to the vast middle(incoherent and lacking clear boundaries).
Post by: ctuser1 on June 16, 2020, 10:07:27 AM
There's an algorithm at work here. Liberals defer to the variance, conservatives defer to the mean.
In the normative case, a conceived human will be born as a sovereign individual in nine months. There are exceptions to this, but they do not compromise the general rule. The territory between the variance and the mean will be fraught.
In the normative case, XY chromosomes produce a male mammal. There are exceptions to this, but the do not compromise the general rule. The territory between the variance and the mean will be fraught.
Liberals see conservatives as blind to the tails of the curve(rigid and unyielding), and conservatives see liberals as blind to the vast middle(incoherent and lacking clear boundaries).
I don't know which "conservatives" you have encountered, and where.
If I was to play along with your analogy, then the ones out in the wild in the US behave very differently than you say. They use the "mean", with a (barely) hidden agenda to preserve and propagate the interests of the billionaires and the religious patriarchy.
Fascism anyone? Or at least Oligarchy if we don't want to go that far!!
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 16, 2020, 10:16:42 AM
I don't know which "conservatives" you have encountered, and where.
If I was to play along with your analogy, then the ones out in the wild in the US behave very differently than you say. They use the "mean", with a (barely) hidden agenda to preserve and propagate the interests of the billionaires and the religious patriarchy.
Fascism anyone? Or at least Oligarchy if we don't want to go that far!!
Most conservatives are not pro-life without exceptions. Instances of rape, or risk to the mother, or severe deformity etc. They do not like abortion that functions as a post-contraceptive or enables irresponsibility.
Most liberals are not trans-absolutists. They don't support trans-children, or athletes that "transition" for the sake of a short term performance advantage.
There's a toxic switcheroo that occurs. It's the media's fault, and probably a psychological artifact too.
Antifa is leftist therefore liberals are my enemy. Liberal: "I don't really like antifa; who is your enemy?"
Pro-lifers are conservative therefore conservatives are my enemy. Conservative: "I don't really like pro-life; who is your enemy?"
We put each other in boxes, defined by the margins, and assume people in those boxes are completely diverged from our opinions, even though there is considerable overlap.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Post by: PoutineLover on June 16, 2020, 10:29:18 AM
With other political beliefs, it's my right to choose not to associate with or like people who are racist or homophobic or any other "political" belief that dehumanizes others. I'm happy to discuss real political beliefs like taxation, social services, immigration, or health care, but when it comes to the rights of all human beings to live in peace and enjoy full access to their rights in society, that's non-negotiable and I can't be friends with someone who doesn't believe in equality for all human beings.
Post by: GuitarStv on June 16, 2020, 10:31:45 AM
And it's not because I don't believe a fetus is alive, it's because a woman is a fully autonomous human being who cannot be forced to carry a not-yet-independent, potential human being that cannot survive without her consent and life support.
Yeah, this is where I come from on the abortion topic too. I don't care when life starts - it's a debate that's beside the point. The life of a fetus doesn't override the life of the woman carrying the fetus, so abortions have to be legal.
Post by: Chris22 on June 16, 2020, 10:39:34 AM
I am definitely on the left and my line is drawn where someone's beliefs start to affect other people's rights. You can believe whatever you want in the privacy of your own home and your own body, but that right stops where it starts to affect other people. For abortion, if you don't want one, don't get one. Same with gay marriage. But don't tell me I can't, or that no one can just because you don't think it's right. And it's not because I don't believe a fetus is alive, it's because a woman is a fully autonomous human being who cannot be forced to carry a not-yet-independent, potential human being that cannot survive without her consent and life support.
With other political beliefs, it's my right to choose not to associate with or like people who are racist or homophobic or any other "political" belief that dehumanizes others. I'm happy to discuss real political beliefs like taxation, social services, immigration, or health care, but when it comes to the rights of all human beings to live in peace and enjoy full access to their rights in society, that's non-negotiable and I can't be friends with someone who doesn't believe in equality for all human beings.
But there are plenty of situations where this isn’t cut and dried. For instance, the trans bathroom debate. How do you square up a trans persons right to use facilities they are comfortable with a non-trans persons right to not be confronted by a person with the opposite equipment in a locker room? Or the sports question? Or the gay wedding cake debate?
These are highly nuanced positions and situations, but the left loves to claim if you don’t agree with their position fully you are homophobic/transaphobic and don’t believe in equality.
Post by: Kris on June 16, 2020, 10:43:09 AM
I don't know which "conservatives" you have encountered, and where.
If I was to play along with your analogy, then the ones out in the wild in the US behave very differently than you say. They use the "mean", with a (barely) hidden agenda to preserve and propagate the interests of the billionaires and the religious patriarchy.
Fascism anyone? Or at least Oligarchy if we don't want to go that far!!
Most conservatives are not pro-life without exceptions. Instances of rape, or risk to the mother, or severe deformity etc. They do not like abortion that functions as a post-contraceptive or enables irresponsibility.
Most liberals are not trans-absolutists. They don't support trans-children, or athletes that "transition" for the sake of a short term performance advantage.
On the first point: If most conservatives are okay with "murder" in instances of rape, or risk to the mother, or severe deformity, doesn't that make them kind of hypocrites?
On the second point... I don't know what you mean by "trans-children," but I think you're wrong. Most liberals I know who believe in trans rights support children not being forced to present as the gender they strongly do not believe themselves to be, because it is so traumatic for them to do so.
If what you mean is that they don't support children going through gender reassignment surgery, there are medical reasons for this. It's not some sort of "belief" issue.
And as far as athletes that "transition" for the sake of a short-term performance advantage... pretty sure that's just a made-up boogeyman scenario by the right.
Post by: sherr on June 16, 2020, 10:53:28 AM
I am definitely on the left and my line is drawn where someone's beliefs start to affect other people's rights. You can believe whatever you want in the privacy of your own home and your own body, but that right stops where it starts to affect other people. For abortion, if you don't want one, don't get one. Same with gay marriage. But don't tell me I can't, or that no one can just because you don't think it's right. And it's not because I don't believe a fetus is alive, it's because a woman is a fully autonomous human being who cannot be forced to carry a not-yet-independent, potential human being that cannot survive without her consent and life support.
With other political beliefs, it's my right to choose not to associate with or like people who are racist or homophobic or any other "political" belief that dehumanizes others. I'm happy to discuss real political beliefs like taxation, social services, immigration, or health care, but when it comes to the rights of all human beings to live in peace and enjoy full access to their rights in society, that's non-negotiable and I can't be friends with someone who doesn't believe in equality for all human beings.
But there are plenty of situations where this isn’t cut and dried. For instance, the trans bathroom debate. How do you square up a trans persons right to use facilities they are comfortable with a non-trans persons right to not be confronted by a person with the opposite equipment in a locker room? Or the sports question? Or the gay wedding cake debate?
These are highly nuanced positions and situations, but the left loves to claim if you don’t agree with their position fully you are homophobic/transaphobic and don’t believe in equality.
Has anyone here claimed that they couldn't be friends with someone who had differing views on those positions? I haven't seen one. There's grey areas on every issue. What people have trouble accepting is the illiberalism when it is cut and dried.
And let's be honest, how many people were there really that were on the side of the bakers in the "gay wedding cake" issue who weren't also opposed to gay marriage in general? I'm sure there are a few. But probably not many. People are not fooled by a "well I'm opposed to your rights in general and in all ways, but THIS! THIS is a bridge too far!" position.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 16, 2020, 11:04:11 AM
I don't know which "conservatives" you have encountered, and where.
If I was to play along with your analogy, then the ones out in the wild in the US behave very differently than you say. They use the "mean", with a (barely) hidden agenda to preserve and propagate the interests of the billionaires and the religious patriarchy.
Fascism anyone? Or at least Oligarchy if we don't want to go that far!!
Most conservatives are not pro-life without exceptions. Instances of rape, or risk to the mother, or severe deformity etc. They do not like abortion that functions as a post-contraceptive or enables irresponsibility.
Most liberals are not trans-absolutists. They don't support trans-children, or athletes that "transition" for the sake of a short term performance advantage.
There's a toxic switcheroo that occurs. It's the media's fault, and probably a psychological artifact too.
Antifa is leftist therefore liberals are my enemy. Liberal: "I don't really like antifa; who is your enemy?"
Pro-lifers are conservative therefore conservatives are my enemy. Conservative: "I don't really like pro-life; who is your enemy?"
We put each other in boxes, defined by the margins, and assume people in those boxes are completely diverged from our opinions, even though there is considerable overlap.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
The "confusion" exists if you go by what people "say" (0).
Look at what they do (1). Look at the implications, and their willingness to consider the implication and adjust their positions accordingly (2).
(1) would indicate their actual positions, more so than (0).
(2) would indicate if they are zealots or reasonable.
If someone is a zealot, he would be automatically wrong in scenarios that his worldview did not consider. This is a mathematical truth - I can set up a formal system with axioms and rules of inferences and prove it trivially.
Once you start following this algorithm, and then decide how to treat points of views, the confusion you wrote about largely disappears.**
**This is not to say the approach I outlined is perfect. There is no such thing. It is just the best available approach to navigate the logical confusion in the world.
Post by: Chris22 on June 16, 2020, 11:12:22 AM
I am definitely on the left and my line is drawn where someone's beliefs start to affect other people's rights. You can believe whatever you want in the privacy of your own home and your own body, but that right stops where it starts to affect other people. For abortion, if you don't want one, don't get one. Same with gay marriage. But don't tell me I can't, or that no one can just because you don't think it's right. And it's not because I don't believe a fetus is alive, it's because a woman is a fully autonomous human being who cannot be forced to carry a not-yet-independent, potential human being that cannot survive without her consent and life support.
With other political beliefs, it's my right to choose not to associate with or like people who are racist or homophobic or any other "political" belief that dehumanizes others. I'm happy to discuss real political beliefs like taxation, social services, immigration, or health care, but when it comes to the rights of all human beings to live in peace and enjoy full access to their rights in society, that's non-negotiable and I can't be friends with someone who doesn't believe in equality for all human beings.
But there are plenty of situations where this isn’t cut and dried. For instance, the trans bathroom debate. How do you square up a trans persons right to use facilities they are comfortable with a non-trans persons right to not be confronted by a person with the opposite equipment in a locker room? Or the sports question? Or the gay wedding cake debate?
These are highly nuanced positions and situations, but the left loves to claim if you don’t agree with their position fully you are homophobic/transaphobic and don’t believe in equality.
Has anyone here claimed that they couldn't be friends with someone who had differing views on those positions? I haven't seen one. There's grey areas on every issue. What people have trouble accepting is the illiberalism when it is cut and dried.
Like I said, lots of liberals say things like “I can’t be friends with a bigot/homophobe/etc” but then draw that line pretty far over.
Quote
And let's be honest, how many people were there really that were on the side of the bakers in the "gay wedding cake" issue who weren't also opposed to gay marriage in general? I'm sure there are a few. But probably not many. People are not fooled by a "well I'm opposed to your rights in general and in all ways, but THIS! THIS is a bridge too far!" position.
Disagree. I think there are plenty of “silent majority” Conservatives who really aren’t opposed to gay rights and marriage at all, but find things like trans sports, gay wedding cakes, etc, as pushing past the “gay rights” and into the “minority dictating to the majority”.
Post by: MonkeyJenga on June 16, 2020, 11:13:33 AM
There's an algorithm at work here. Liberals defer to the variance, conservatives defer to the mean.
In the normative case, a conceived human will be born as a sovereign individual in nine months. There are exceptions to this, but they do not compromise the general rule. The territory between the variance and the mean will be fraught.
40-60% of fertilized eggs do not survive through a live birth. (source (http://"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5443340/#:~:text=Leridon's%20table%20therefore%20indicates%20an,mortality%20has%20been%20widely%20cited."))
Antifa is leftist therefore liberals are my enemy. Liberal: "I don't really like antifa; who is your enemy?"
Pro-lifers are conservative therefore conservatives are my enemy. Conservative: "I don't really like pro-life; who is your enemy?"
We put each other in boxes, defined by the margins, and assume people in those boxes are completely diverged from our opinions, even though there is considerable overlap.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Antifa is not equivalent to being anti-abortion. 75% of Republicans identify as pro-life, and 32% believe abortion should be illegal with zero exceptions. (source (http://"https://news.gallup.com/poll/246278/abortion-trends-party.aspx")) I can't find any numbers on antifa, but nobody would seriously argue that their numbers come close to anti-abortion sentiment on the right.
Anti-abortion pledges are in the GOP platform, and they have worked for decades to restrict access to family planning services. Democrats have not done the same with antifa.
Post by: Fishindude on June 16, 2020, 11:14:59 AM
Both sides know they aren't going to change the others mind, and I really don't want to lose friends over politics.
And in reality, you can piss and moan all you want about what's going on in DC, but so far nothing too serious has come out of that place that has really negatively impacted our lives.
The media tries to yank all of our chains and keep us upset and mad so we keep watching their drivel. Shut that crap off and you'll find that things really aren't too bad, and most people are pretty good folks.
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on June 16, 2020, 11:17:19 AM
Right, but again, regardless of which way you lean that's a religious opinion. And you cannot make laws purely based on religious opinion in a society that holds freedom of religion as a core value. The government must enable freedom of religion, and allow conservatives to believe what they want and to order their lives around their beliefs, and allow other people to disagree.
Under Everson's Establishment Clause analysis, "neither [a state nor the Federal Government] can force nor influence a person...to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs."
The liberty of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause extends to one's positions on social issues such as a woman's right to choose abortion. This extension means that all have the option of basing their positions on "religious beliefs or disbeliefs."
Post by: sherr on June 16, 2020, 11:28:36 AM
QuoteAnd let's be honest, how many people were there really that were on the side of the bakers in the "gay wedding cake" issue who weren't also opposed to gay marriage in general? I'm sure there are a few. But probably not many. People are not fooled by a "well I'm opposed to your rights in general and in all ways, but THIS! THIS is a bridge too far!" position.
Disagree. I think there are plenty of “silent majority” Conservatives who really aren’t opposed to gay rights and marriage at all, but find things like trans sports, gay wedding cakes, etc, as pushing past the “gay rights” and into the “minority dictating to the majority”.
Wow, I just, entirely disagree. Those are exactly the same phrases that virtually all conservatives were using a few years ago when gay marriage was the issue of the day. I don't remember any significant pushback from conservatives towards allowing gay marriage, and certainly not from their elected representatives / commentators / talking heads. Which we would expect to see if they really were the "silent majority" of conservatives, right? The RNC decided 5 days ago to keep their anti-gay-marriage position as an official part of party platform.
This is nothing more that revisionist history. Many conservatives nowadays realize that they already lost on this issue, and have made their peace with it. That is very different from taking a principled stand towards liberty from the beginning.
Post by: sherr on June 16, 2020, 11:39:23 AM
Right, but again, regardless of which way you lean that's a religious opinion. And you cannot make laws purely based on religious opinion in a society that holds freedom of religion as a core value. The government must enable freedom of religion, and allow conservatives to believe what they want and to order their lives around their beliefs, and allow other people to disagree.
Under Everson's Establishment Clause analysis, "neither [a state nor the Federal Government] can force nor influence a person...to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs."
The liberty of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause extends to one's positions on social issues such as a woman's right to choose abortion. This extension means that all have the option of basing their positions on "religious beliefs or disbeliefs."
That's great. Under the first amendment itself:
Quote
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
If "marriage" is a religious institution then preventing gay people from getting married is prohibiting them from exercising their religion. If "marriage" is not a religious institution then there is literally no argument against allowing gay marriage. Plain and simple and obvious from the text itself.
You can go down the "state's rights" path if you want, but the same logic also applies to any state which guarantees the freedom of religion in the state constitution, and frankly I'm not interested in that argument anyway. I'm interested in what should be protected by law based on the principles of liberty, not in the particulars of how we arrive there.
Edit: Here's the relevant part from my state's constitution if you care:
Quote
All persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences, and no human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.
I think that's actually a fairly good representation of the freedom of religion, if we ignore the poor atheists/non-monotheists for a minute. All I'm asking is that conservatives start practicing what they claim to believe.
Post by: Michael in ABQ on June 16, 2020, 12:15:16 PM
I've found over time that most of my friends from high school and college as well as most of my immediate and extended family are way to the left of me politically. I've considered myself libertarian most of my life but I definitely don't agree with big L libertarians on a lot of issues. A big part of that is the influence of my wife. It took close to a decade, but she finally brought me back to the Catholic faith I had nominally been raised in - even though I considered myself an atheist for many years. That was a case where we had very different beliefs, hers being much more conservative, but we still loved each other. I changed my mind from callously thinking that abortion is a great way to get rid of all the worthless people in the world to recognizing that it is inherently wrong and an evil act. That's probably not a topic I'm going to discuss with that random cousin on Facebook who posts nothing but left-wing political talking points. Although I have been able to have some of those discussions with old friends and family because they can't easily dismiss me as some random person on the internet. But we're not going to have the same friendship we did 15-20 years ago.
The person I would still consider my best friend, even though we've only seen each other in person maybe 2-3 times in the last decade, has very different political beliefs from me. But we can still talk about plenty of other things without arguing about our political beliefs. We respect each others opinions and don't waste our infrequent conversations on trying to prove the other person wrong of convince them that our beliefs are better. He's the socially conscious urban liberal and I've become the conservative religious family man. But, we can still laugh at how the rent for his 1-bedroom apartment is three times the rent for my 5-bedroom house or how he can't imagine having six young kids.
So I think it all depends on the people involved.
I think this is accidentally a very good example of why it's sometimes hard for liberals to be friends with conservatives.
I have no problem with you believing that abortion is a sin. None at all. I don't agree, but that's fully within your right to believe, and to order your life around that belief. As you correctly note, that's a religious belief (not a scientific fact), and you have your freedom of religion written into the foundation of the constitution.
The problem comes when conservatives support banning abortion for other people who need them. That is them, taking their religious belief, and trying to force everyone else to abide by them. That is them taking away other people's freedom of religion. See also gay marriage, or any host of other social issues.
Would you still be friends with your liberal buddy if he was trying to get the government to force you to abort your 6th child? Probably not. That would be the opposite of abortion bans though.
It seems to me that generally "liberals" take the side of liberty, and "conservatives" take the side of illiberal "you have to do what I say and you don't have any rights only my rights matter". The one obvious exception is gun rights, where sure, conservatives are definitely more on the side of liberty.
I have no problem being friends with people that disagree with me as long as we agree on the core tenet of liberty, and their actions (including who they vote for) reflects that. And no I'm not some "taxation is theft" libertarian nut either. But if someone is actively trying to remove the constitutional freedoms from people not like them, that's something I would struggle to look past.
First I would argue that nobody "needs" an abortion anymore than somebody needs to kill their own children.
Second, the Constitution calls for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". You can't really have any of that if your life is snuffed out before you're born.
I consider life to begin at conception, sperm and egg uniting and become a unique new human being with a distinctive genetic code. That's not a religious belief, just basic biology. That single unique cell is a human being just as much as a fetus at 3 months of gestation or a at 9 months of gestation, or one second after birth. They're simply different stages of growth and development.
Post by: PoutineLover on June 16, 2020, 12:21:09 PM
Those issues to me feel like cherry-picked gotcha questions to bait people into having ridiculous debates about almost nothing. I can guarantee you that the vast majority of the time you would have no idea if the person in the bathroom next to you is anything but the gender they present as, and if you tried to find out the "truth", you'd be the one acting inappropriately. We can all agree that it's illegal to molest people or indecently expose yourself to them in the bathroom or anywhere, so let's use those laws if needed instead of inventing fake outrage.I am definitely on the left and my line is drawn where someone's beliefs start to affect other people's rights. You can believe whatever you want in the privacy of your own home and your own body, but that right stops where it starts to affect other people. For abortion, if you don't want one, don't get one. Same with gay marriage. But don't tell me I can't, or that no one can just because you don't think it's right. And it's not because I don't believe a fetus is alive, it's because a woman is a fully autonomous human being who cannot be forced to carry a not-yet-independent, potential human being that cannot survive without her consent and life support.
With other political beliefs, it's my right to choose not to associate with or like people who are racist or homophobic or any other "political" belief that dehumanizes others. I'm happy to discuss real political beliefs like taxation, social services, immigration, or health care, but when it comes to the rights of all human beings to live in peace and enjoy full access to their rights in society, that's non-negotiable and I can't be friends with someone who doesn't believe in equality for all human beings.
But there are plenty of situations where this isn’t cut and dried. For instance, the trans bathroom debate. How do you square up a trans persons right to use facilities they are comfortable with a non-trans persons right to not be confronted by a person with the opposite equipment in a locker room? Or the sports question? Or the gay wedding cake debate?
These are highly nuanced positions and situations, but the left loves to claim if you don’t agree with their position fully you are homophobic/transaphobic and don’t believe in equality.
Sports might be a little more complicated, but there's a difference between saying people are equal, now let's make sure the rules apply fairly, vs some people don't deserve to compete because of who they are.
If there are legitimate questions of discrimination, like can someone be denied service on the basis of their sexual orientation or race, or lose their job for it, then you either believe in gay/trans/minority rights or you don't.
If you don't believe that everyone is equal and deserves equal rights, I don't want to be friends with you, but I can't force you to change your beliefs. If you want to have a good faith discussion on where the line is drawn on an fringe case, or how far we should go to correct existing discrimination, cool, but we have to come at it from the perspective that we are all people and we all deserve to live our lives free of discrimination. That's what I mean when I said "I can't be friends with someone who doesn't believe in equality for all human beings"
Post by: PoutineLover on June 16, 2020, 12:35:35 PM
Sometimes abortions are needed, to protect the life of the mother, or of a twin, or for the mental health of a mother, or for any other valid reason as determined by the women carrying the fetus or her medical doctor. It's not for you to decide. Babies can be given up for adoption. Fetuses can't.
First I would argue that nobody "needs" an abortion anymore than somebody needs to kill their own children.
Second, the Constitution calls for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". You can't really have any of that if your life is snuffed out before you're born.
I consider life to begin at conception, sperm and egg uniting and become a unique new human being with a distinctive genetic code. That's not a religious belief, just basic biology. That single unique cell is a human being just as much as a fetus at 3 months of gestation or a at 9 months of gestation, or one second after birth. They're simply different stages of growth and development.
The constitution only applies once you are a "person" and you need to be born to get your birth certificate/citizenship. Moot point.
(Edit: forgot to mention the priority of the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" of the person carrying said fetus, which would be infringed upon if she were forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term)
You believe that, good for you. Nobody is making you abort one of your babies. All we are saying is that you can't dictate what happens to someone else's body. Get back to me when you are signed up for mandatory organ donation even while alive to save somebody who really needs one of your kidneys or eyes or even heart. Don't want to sign up? Didn't think so.
Post by: sherr on June 16, 2020, 12:35:59 PM
I've found over time that most of my friends from high school and college as well as most of my immediate and extended family are way to the left of me politically. I've considered myself libertarian most of my life but I definitely don't agree with big L libertarians on a lot of issues. A big part of that is the influence of my wife. It took close to a decade, but she finally brought me back to the Catholic faith I had nominally been raised in - even though I considered myself an atheist for many years. That was a case where we had very different beliefs, hers being much more conservative, but we still loved each other. I changed my mind from callously thinking that abortion is a great way to get rid of all the worthless people in the world to recognizing that it is inherently wrong and an evil act. That's probably not a topic I'm going to discuss with that random cousin on Facebook who posts nothing but left-wing political talking points. Although I have been able to have some of those discussions with old friends and family because they can't easily dismiss me as some random person on the internet. But we're not going to have the same friendship we did 15-20 years ago.
The person I would still consider my best friend, even though we've only seen each other in person maybe 2-3 times in the last decade, has very different political beliefs from me. But we can still talk about plenty of other things without arguing about our political beliefs. We respect each others opinions and don't waste our infrequent conversations on trying to prove the other person wrong of convince them that our beliefs are better. He's the socially conscious urban liberal and I've become the conservative religious family man. But, we can still laugh at how the rent for his 1-bedroom apartment is three times the rent for my 5-bedroom house or how he can't imagine having six young kids.
So I think it all depends on the people involved.
I think this is accidentally a very good example of why it's sometimes hard for liberals to be friends with conservatives.
I have no problem with you believing that abortion is a sin. None at all. I don't agree, but that's fully within your right to believe, and to order your life around that belief. As you correctly note, that's a religious belief (not a scientific fact), and you have your freedom of religion written into the foundation of the constitution.
The problem comes when conservatives support banning abortion for other people who need them. That is them, taking their religious belief, and trying to force everyone else to abide by them. That is them taking away other people's freedom of religion. See also gay marriage, or any host of other social issues.
Would you still be friends with your liberal buddy if he was trying to get the government to force you to abort your 6th child? Probably not. That would be the opposite of abortion bans though.
It seems to me that generally "liberals" take the side of liberty, and "conservatives" take the side of illiberal "you have to do what I say and you don't have any rights only my rights matter". The one obvious exception is gun rights, where sure, conservatives are definitely more on the side of liberty.
I have no problem being friends with people that disagree with me as long as we agree on the core tenet of liberty, and their actions (including who they vote for) reflects that. And no I'm not some "taxation is theft" libertarian nut either. But if someone is actively trying to remove the constitutional freedoms from people not like them, that's something I would struggle to look past.
First I would argue that nobody "needs" an abortion anymore than somebody needs to kill their own children.
Second, the Constitution calls for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". You can't really have any of that if your life is snuffed out before you're born.
I consider life to begin at conception, sperm and egg uniting and become a unique new human being with a distinctive genetic code. That's not a religious belief, just basic biology. That single unique cell is a human being just as much as a fetus at 3 months of gestation or a at 9 months of gestation, or one second after birth. They're simply different stages of growth and development.
These are not universally accepted truths, but are actually religious / philosophical beliefs. You even said so yourself. "I used to be pro-choice, but then my wife brought me back into the Catholic fold and I changed my mind".
Beyond that I have no problem with you believing that if you want. I personally think it's logically inconsistent. Especially given how pro-lifers use "conception" to mean "fertilization" instead of "implantation" which happens like a week later and is the medical definition of when pregnancy begins, which makes a difference for legislation. By that definition trying to have kids is one of the most immoral things a regular person is ever going to do, given that 40-60% of fertilized eggs do not implant.
But that's fine, you are free to believe that. Others are free to believe differently than you.
Post by: Chris22 on June 16, 2020, 12:39:09 PM
Those issues to me feel like cherry-picked gotcha questions to bait people into having ridiculous debates about almost nothing. I can guarantee you that the vast majority of the time you would have no idea if the person in the bathroom next to you is anything but the gender they present as, and if you tried to find out the "truth", you'd be the one acting inappropriately. We can all agree that it's illegal to molest people or indecently expose yourself to them in the bathroom or anywhere, so let's use those laws if needed instead of inventing fake outrage.I am definitely on the left and my line is drawn where someone's beliefs start to affect other people's rights. You can believe whatever you want in the privacy of your own home and your own body, but that right stops where it starts to affect other people. For abortion, if you don't want one, don't get one. Same with gay marriage. But don't tell me I can't, or that no one can just because you don't think it's right. And it's not because I don't believe a fetus is alive, it's because a woman is a fully autonomous human being who cannot be forced to carry a not-yet-independent, potential human being that cannot survive without her consent and life support.
With other political beliefs, it's my right to choose not to associate with or like people who are racist or homophobic or any other "political" belief that dehumanizes others. I'm happy to discuss real political beliefs like taxation, social services, immigration, or health care, but when it comes to the rights of all human beings to live in peace and enjoy full access to their rights in society, that's non-negotiable and I can't be friends with someone who doesn't believe in equality for all human beings.
But there are plenty of situations where this isn’t cut and dried. For instance, the trans bathroom debate. How do you square up a trans persons right to use facilities they are comfortable with a non-trans persons right to not be confronted by a person with the opposite equipment in a locker room? Or the sports question? Or the gay wedding cake debate?
These are highly nuanced positions and situations, but the left loves to claim if you don’t agree with their position fully you are homophobic/transaphobic and don’t believe in equality.
Sports might be a little more complicated, but there's a difference between saying people are equal, now let's make sure the rules apply fairly, vs some people don't deserve to compete because of who they are.
If there are legitimate questions of discrimination, like can someone be denied service on the basis of their sexual orientation or race, or lose their job for it, then you either believe in gay/trans/minority rights or you don't.
If you don't believe that everyone is equal and deserves equal rights, I don't want to be friends with you, but I can't force you to change your beliefs. If you want to have a good faith discussion on where the line is drawn on an fringe case, or how far we should go to correct existing discrimination, cool, but we have to come at it from the perspective that we are all people and we all deserve to live our lives free of discrimination. That's what I mean when I said "I can't be friends with someone who doesn't believe in equality for all human beings"
The locker room thing is very real. This is the school district in the town next to mine. The high school is the one my wife attended. Bathrooms are more cut and dried because agree, there’s a certain amount of privacy in bathrooms. But locker rooms, especially in high school where the expectation is you will change for gym, is very different. And people have absolutely been called bigots for having a problem with this.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-palatine-district-211-votes-transgender-lockerroom-20191115-25upotav5jckzg3iwwwrcrkr2y-story.html
The cake thing may be cherry picked but it was national news for quite a while.
Post by: GuitarStv on June 16, 2020, 02:10:45 PM
Those issues to me feel like cherry-picked gotcha questions to bait people into having ridiculous debates about almost nothing. I can guarantee you that the vast majority of the time you would have no idea if the person in the bathroom next to you is anything but the gender they present as, and if you tried to find out the "truth", you'd be the one acting inappropriately. We can all agree that it's illegal to molest people or indecently expose yourself to them in the bathroom or anywhere, so let's use those laws if needed instead of inventing fake outrage.I am definitely on the left and my line is drawn where someone's beliefs start to affect other people's rights. You can believe whatever you want in the privacy of your own home and your own body, but that right stops where it starts to affect other people. For abortion, if you don't want one, don't get one. Same with gay marriage. But don't tell me I can't, or that no one can just because you don't think it's right. And it's not because I don't believe a fetus is alive, it's because a woman is a fully autonomous human being who cannot be forced to carry a not-yet-independent, potential human being that cannot survive without her consent and life support.
With other political beliefs, it's my right to choose not to associate with or like people who are racist or homophobic or any other "political" belief that dehumanizes others. I'm happy to discuss real political beliefs like taxation, social services, immigration, or health care, but when it comes to the rights of all human beings to live in peace and enjoy full access to their rights in society, that's non-negotiable and I can't be friends with someone who doesn't believe in equality for all human beings.
But there are plenty of situations where this isn’t cut and dried. For instance, the trans bathroom debate. How do you square up a trans persons right to use facilities they are comfortable with a non-trans persons right to not be confronted by a person with the opposite equipment in a locker room? Or the sports question? Or the gay wedding cake debate?
These are highly nuanced positions and situations, but the left loves to claim if you don’t agree with their position fully you are homophobic/transaphobic and don’t believe in equality.
Sports might be a little more complicated, but there's a difference between saying people are equal, now let's make sure the rules apply fairly, vs some people don't deserve to compete because of who they are.
If there are legitimate questions of discrimination, like can someone be denied service on the basis of their sexual orientation or race, or lose their job for it, then you either believe in gay/trans/minority rights or you don't.
If you don't believe that everyone is equal and deserves equal rights, I don't want to be friends with you, but I can't force you to change your beliefs. If you want to have a good faith discussion on where the line is drawn on an fringe case, or how far we should go to correct existing discrimination, cool, but we have to come at it from the perspective that we are all people and we all deserve to live our lives free of discrimination. That's what I mean when I said "I can't be friends with someone who doesn't believe in equality for all human beings"
The locker room thing is very real. This is the school district in the town next to mine. The high school is the one my wife attended. Bathrooms are more cut and dried because agree, there’s a certain amount of privacy in bathrooms. But locker rooms, especially in high school where the expectation is you will change for gym, is very different. And people have absolutely been called bigots for having a problem with this.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-palatine-district-211-votes-transgender-lockerroom-20191115-25upotav5jckzg3iwwwrcrkr2y-story.html
The cake thing may be cherry picked but it was national news for quite a while.
But what exactly is the problem with transgender people changing in a locker room though? I read the article you linked and didn't see any issue identified.
The argument always appears to hinge on the assumption that trans people will assault/attack others in a locker room because *unspecified*. Is there some research I'm unaware of that says a trans person is more likely to assault someone in a locker room than a straight person that is causing this uproar?
Post by: sherr on June 16, 2020, 02:32:29 PM
The locker room thing is very real. This is the school district in the town next to mine. The high school is the one my wife attended. Bathrooms are more cut and dried because agree, there’s a certain amount of privacy in bathrooms. But locker rooms, especially in high school where the expectation is you will change for gym, is very different. And people have absolutely been called bigots for having a problem with this.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-palatine-district-211-votes-transgender-lockerroom-20191115-25upotav5jckzg3iwwwrcrkr2y-story.html
The cake thing may be cherry picked but it was national news for quite a while.
But what exactly is the problem with transgender people changing in a locker room though? I read the article you linked and didn't see any issue identified.
The argument always appears to hinge on the assumption that trans people will assault/attack others in a locker room because *unspecified*. Is there some research I'm unaware of that says a trans person is more likely to assault someone in a locker room than a straight person that is causing this uproar?
The theory goes, which I am unfortunately very familiar with thanks to NC's "bathroom bill" debacle a few years ago, that non-trans perverts will simply claim to be trans so they can get in the girls locker room. Or simply that having trans-girls in the girls locker room would make cis-girls uncomfortable.
The "perverts" part turns out in practice to be a non-issue every time trans people are allowed to chose their bathrooms. And besides, the legal infrastructure already exists to punish voyeurs / sexual assaulters. It just requires a case-by-case evaluation, which really is as the system should work.
As for the "uncomfortable" part, I mean, I get it. But I also get that NC's "bathroom bill" was 100% motivated by Republicans trying to fabricate a moral panic to drive their base out to vote in 2016 after they had finally thoroughly lost on the gay marriage issue, not by any real problem. And what is the alternative? A bathroom bill that forces you to use the locker room corresponding with the sex on your birth certificate, in a state where you can change the sex on your birth certificate? It was obviously just the conservatives finding a smaller, more vulnerable, more misunderstood, more "icky" minority to hate monger against. A better solution for all involved is to simply fix locker rooms to give people some damn privacy.
Post by: MudPuppy on June 16, 2020, 02:42:15 PM
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 16, 2020, 02:47:20 PM
On the first point: If most conservatives are okay with "murder" in instances of rape, or risk to the mother, or severe deformity, doesn't that make them kind of hypocrites?Would it be hypocritical for a liberal to suggest that a nine year old shouldn't be permitted to undergo gender reassignment surgery? Same same.
Quote
If what you mean is that they don't support children going through gender reassignment surgery, there are medical reasons for this. It's not some sort of "belief" issue.This is what I meant, apologies for the lack of clarity. And I don't buy that it's simply a medical reason--a child does not have sufficient self-determination to make dramatic possibly irreversible changes like a prepubescent gender transition. If it were a medical issue, we wouldn't permit adults to do it either. It's not that a child's life is in danger, rather that their quality of life is in danger if they make a hasty decision.
Quote
And as far as athletes that "transition" for the sake of a short-term performance advantage... pretty sure that's just a made-up boogeyman scenario by the right.This strategy should be avoided--subjectively diminishing the opponent's argument is a way of closing yourself into an echo chamber. See Hannah Mouncey and the AFL's decision to decline her participation in the 2017 draft. When gender and chromosomes do not align, it will cause problems.
40-60% of fertilized eggs do not survive through a live birth.This is a pretty good argument, but it's akin to the trolley problem. Nature "choosing" for a fetus to die is not the same as a human choosing to do so. At least I don't equivocate them.
Quote
Antifa is not equivalent to being anti-abortion. 75% of Republicans identify as pro-life, and 32% believe abortion should be illegal with zero exceptions. (source (http://"https://news.gallup.com/poll/246278/abortion-trends-party.aspx")) I can't find any numbers on antifa, but nobody would seriously argue that their numbers come close to anti-abortion sentiment on the right.
To be fair, 55% of Republicans believe abortion should be legal under certain circumstances, although you make a good point. 32% opposition is pretty strong.
For those that support more liberal abortions, I haven't heard a specific timeline outlined. At what age--from conception, can a fetus be terminated? Three months/Six months/Nine months/Two years? If you want capitulation from conservatives, you need to draw a line somewhere. At some point this fetus becomes a sovereign individual with rights, yes?
Post by: MonkeyJenga on June 16, 2020, 02:58:10 PM
40-60% of fertilized eggs do not survive through a live birth.This is a pretty good argument, but it's akin to the trolley problem. Nature "choosing" for a fetus to die is not the same as a human choosing to do so. At least I don't equivocate them.
You said: "In the normative case, a conceived human will be born as a sovereign individual in nine months. There are exceptions to this, but they do not compromise the general rule."
I was pointing out that it's not just rare exceptions, it's extremely common and possibly the majority of cases. So anti-abortion advocates are not just going by the normal situation.
Post by: MudPuppy on June 16, 2020, 02:59:55 PM
Post by: sherr on June 16, 2020, 03:01:45 PM
For those that support more liberal abortions, I haven't heard a specific timeline outlined. At what age--from conception, can a fetus be terminated? Three months/Six months/Nine months/Two years? If you want capitulation from conservatives, you need to draw a line somewhere. At some point this fetus becomes a sovereign individual with rights, yes?
The current US Supreme Court Roe V Wade compromise is actually pretty good: viability of the fetus. With exceptions for rape / incest / health of the mother. If you make that the bright dividing line then you still are giving the woman body autonomy / full personhood, while still recognizing that fetal development is a spectrum and that fetal life has value.
As technology improves and we are able to implement "artificial wombs" or similar then "viability of the fetus" will inch earlier and earlier. But it is and probably always will be the best dividing line that balances the (definite, concrete, factual) rights of the mother with the (possible?) life of the fetus.
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 16, 2020, 03:12:39 PM
You said: "In the normative case, a conceived human will be born as a sovereign individual in nine months. There are exceptions to this, but they do not compromise the general rule."
I was pointing out that it's not just rare exceptions, it's extremely common and possibly the majority of cases. So anti-abortion advocates are not just going by the normal situation.
Point taken, however, does this reduce the moral hazard of obtaining an abortion? Does the act of sex not impose culpability on the participants? I'm having a hard time understanding how the possible failure of a fetus absolves someone of agency if they want to get an abortion.
The current US Supreme Court Roe V Wade compromise is actually pretty good: viability of the fetus. With exceptions for rape / incest / health of the mother. If you make that the bright dividing line then you still are giving the woman body autonomy / full personhood, while still recognizing that fetal development is a spectrum and that fetal life has value.
As technology improves and we are able to implement "artificial wombs" or similar then "viability of the fetus" will inch earlier and earlier. But it is and probably always will be the best dividing line that balances the (definite, concrete, factual) rights of the mother with the (possible?) life of the fetus.
Seems reasonable to me.
Post by: OtherJen on June 16, 2020, 03:12:57 PM
For those that support more liberal abortions, I haven't heard a specific timeline outlined. At what age--from conception, can a fetus be terminated? Three months/Six months/Nine months/Two years? If you want capitulation from conservatives, you need to draw a line somewhere. At some point this fetus becomes a sovereign individual with rights, yes?
The current US Supreme Court Roe V Wade compromise is actually pretty good: viability of the fetus. With exceptions for rape / incest / health of the mother. If you make that the bright dividing line then you still are giving the woman body autonomy / full personhood, while still recognizing that fetal development is a spectrum and that fetal life has value.
As technology improves and we are able to implement "artificial wombs" or similar then "viability of the fetus" will inch earlier and earlier. But it is and probably always will be the best dividing line that balances the (definite, concrete, factual) rights of the mother with the (possible?) life of the fetus.
This has always made the most sense to me. I am also hugely in favor of expanded access to affordable, safe birth control and science-based sex ed because both can help reduce the demand for abortion. I further favor national healthcare, an expanded social safety net, and worker protections to support women who decide not to abort.
Making abortion illegal will only drive it back underground, where it can't be regulated, and could cost women their lives and health. It won't change the culture and society. However, if we give both women and men proper education and actual viable options for preventing pregnancy and supporting their children, we could reduce the number of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions by default.
Post by: MonkeyJenga on June 16, 2020, 03:23:48 PM
You said: "In the normative case, a conceived human will be born as a sovereign individual in nine months. There are exceptions to this, but they do not compromise the general rule."
I was pointing out that it's not just rare exceptions, it's extremely common and possibly the majority of cases. So anti-abortion advocates are not just going by the normal situation.
Point taken, however, does this reduce the moral hazard of obtaining an abortion? Does the act of sex not impose culpability on the participants? I'm having a hard time understanding how the possible failure of a fetus absolves someone of agency if they want to get an abortion.
Not sure where I talked about moral hazard. You said there is an algorithm - liberals go to the variances, conservatives go to the means, and that fertilization > baby is the norm. I was narrowly focusing on that assertion, not arguing anything else about abortion. That example went against your assertion.
I have thoughts on moral hazard and culpability as it pertains to pushing abstinence-only sex ed and restricting access to birth control, but this thread is already off-topic enough.
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on June 16, 2020, 03:36:51 PM
Second, the Constitution calls for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". You can't really have any of that if your life is snuffed out before you're born.
This phrase is not written in the Constitution.
It is part of the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence.
I think of the phrase as a "destination" arrived at by following the directions of a "road map" known as the Constitution.
Post by: Imma on June 16, 2020, 03:46:14 PM
For those that support more liberal abortions, I haven't heard a specific timeline outlined. At what age--from conception, can a fetus be terminated? Three months/Six months/Nine months/Two years? If you want capitulation from conservatives, you need to draw a line somewhere. At some point this fetus becomes a sovereign individual with rights, yes?
The current US Supreme Court Roe V Wade compromise is actually pretty good: viability of the fetus. With exceptions for rape / incest / health of the mother. If you make that the bright dividing line then you still are giving the woman body autonomy / full personhood, while still recognizing that fetal development is a spectrum and that fetal life has value.
As technology improves and we are able to implement "artificial wombs" or similar then "viability of the fetus" will inch earlier and earlier. But it is and probably always will be the best dividing line that balances the (definite, concrete, factual) rights of the mother with the (possible?) life of the fetus.
This has always made the most sense to me. I am also hugely in favor of expanded access to affordable, safe birth control and science-based sex ed because both can help reduce the demand for abortion. I further favor national healthcare, an expanded social safety net, and worker protections to support women who decide not to abort.
Making abortion illegal will only drive it back underground, where it can't be regulated, and could cost women their lives and health. It won't change the culture and society. However, if we give both women and men proper education and actual viable options for preventing pregnancy and supporting their children, we could reduce the number of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions by default.
I was going to say, any idea why abortion is only a very minor issue in my country (the Netherlands)? And adoptions are very rare too.
It's because unwanted pregnancies don't happen a lot. Access to sex ed and reliable forms of birth control is not an issue. And it's certainly not true that this somehow invites teens to be sexually active at a younger age or be more promiscuous either, I think the average age teens lose their virginity is like 18 now. When they do it's usually with a long-term partner, in a safe environment and protection is discussed beforehand.
That doesn't mean unwanted pregnancies don't happen at all but the rates are so low that the average person is hardly aware of it. Actually, the group with the highest teen pregancy rate are probably the conservative churches where any kind of dialogue about pre-marital sex is impossible. Of course they don't have abortions, they just get married young. I think the age category with the highest abortion rate is actually women over the age of 35 who already have families and are so busy they forget to take the pill or who think they're no longer able to conceive. And then find themselves expecting another child and know they can't cope with another one. I think better support for parents could prevent a lot of these abortions as well.
Post by: Kris on June 16, 2020, 03:57:17 PM
For those that support more liberal abortions, I haven't heard a specific timeline outlined. At what age--from conception, can a fetus be terminated? Three months/Six months/Nine months/Two years? If you want capitulation from conservatives, you need to draw a line somewhere. At some point this fetus becomes a sovereign individual with rights, yes?
The current US Supreme Court Roe V Wade compromise is actually pretty good: viability of the fetus. With exceptions for rape / incest / health of the mother. If you make that the bright dividing line then you still are giving the woman body autonomy / full personhood, while still recognizing that fetal development is a spectrum and that fetal life has value.
As technology improves and we are able to implement "artificial wombs" or similar then "viability of the fetus" will inch earlier and earlier. But it is and probably always will be the best dividing line that balances the (definite, concrete, factual) rights of the mother with the (possible?) life of the fetus.
This has always made the most sense to me. I am also hugely in favor of expanded access to affordable, safe birth control and science-based sex ed because both can help reduce the demand for abortion. I further favor national healthcare, an expanded social safety net, and worker protections to support women who decide not to abort.
Making abortion illegal will only drive it back underground, where it can't be regulated, and could cost women their lives and health. It won't change the culture and society. However, if we give both women and men proper education and actual viable options for preventing pregnancy and supporting their children, we could reduce the number of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions by default.
I was going to say, any idea why abortion is only a very minor issue in my country (the Netherlands)? And adoptions are very rare too.
It's because unwanted pregnancies don't happen a lot. Access to sex ed and reliable forms of birth control is not an issue. And it's certainly not true that this somehow invites teens to be sexually active at a younger age or be more promiscuous either, I think the average age teens lose their virginity is like 18 now. When they do it's usually with a long-term partner, in a safe environment and protection is discussed beforehand.
That doesn't mean unwanted pregnancies don't happen at all but the rates are so low that the average person is hardly aware of it. Actually, the group with the highest teen pregancy rate are probably the conservative churches where any kind of dialogue about pre-marital sex is impossible. Of course they don't have abortions, they just get married young. I think the age category with the highest abortion rate is actually women over the age of 35 who already have families and are so busy they forget to take the pill or who think they're no longer able to conceive. And then find themselves expecting another child and know they can't cope with another one. I think better support for parents could prevent a lot of these abortions as well.
In the US, we prefer to pretend that the only people having sex out of wedlock are immoral people, act as though birth control and sex ed is freely and equally available to everyone, and then punish the people who fall through the cracks.
Post by: jeninco on June 16, 2020, 04:30:20 PM
<snip>
This has always made the most sense to me. I am also hugely in favor of expanded access to affordable, safe birth control and science-based sex ed because both can help reduce the demand for abortion. I further favor national healthcare, an expanded social safety net, and worker protections to support women who decide not to abort.
Making abortion illegal will only drive it back underground, where it can't be regulated, and could cost women their lives and health. It won't change the culture and society. However, if we give both women and men proper education and actual viable options for preventing pregnancy and supporting their children, we could reduce the number of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions by default.
I was going to say, any idea why abortion is only a very minor issue in my country (the Netherlands)? And adoptions are very rare too.
It's because unwanted pregnancies don't happen a lot. Access to sex ed and reliable forms of birth control is not an issue. And it's certainly not true that this somehow invites teens to be sexually active at a younger age or be more promiscuous either, I think the average age teens lose their virginity is like 18 now. When they do it's usually with a long-term partner, in a safe environment and protection is discussed beforehand.
That doesn't mean unwanted pregnancies don't happen at all but the rates are so low that the average person is hardly aware of it. Actually, the group with the highest teen pregancy rate are probably the conservative churches where any kind of dialogue about pre-marital sex is impossible. Of course they don't have abortions, they just get married young. I think the age category with the highest abortion rate is actually women over the age of 35 who already have families and are so busy they forget to take the pill or who think they're no longer able to conceive. And then find themselves expecting another child and know they can't cope with another one. I think better support for parents could prevent a lot of these abortions as well.
In the US, we prefer to pretend that the only people having sex out of wedlock are immoral people, act as though birth control and sex ed is freely and equally available to everyone, and then punish the people who fall through the cracks.
And they're more like chasms then cracks, in a lot of places. We don't teach sex ed in lots of places (and it's laughably easy for your parents to get you out of the class even in places where it is taught) and lots of places birth control is EXPENSIVE by the standards of teenaged salaries.
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 16, 2020, 05:35:05 PM
And I'm sad to see so many people in this thread just taking one side of the debate and not doing what I suggested which is to put the opposing argument, in good faith, at its absolute highest before you try to get to your own point.
It's so easy to argue for your own side if you fail to take the other person's point, correct any perceived deficiencies and see the good faith reasons for the belief.
It's something I hate about MMM's blog posts too. The reason that someone drives a clown car might be that he or she has a health condition that prevents extended walking/biking, or maybe he or she has suffered through trauma and needs the security of an SUV?
Any ideology or political stance that "defines" you and excludes others is almost always going to become corrosive and morally imbalanced.
Post by: sui generis on June 16, 2020, 07:57:43 PM
I consider life to begin at conception, sperm and egg uniting and become a unique new human being with a distinctive genetic code. That's not a religious belief, just basic biology. That single unique cell is a human being just as much as a fetus at 3 months of gestation or a at 9 months of gestation, or one second after birth. They're simply different stages of growth and development.
So is it ok to kill an identical twin? They don't have a unique genetic code, so does that mean they aren't a "life"? Any definition people come up with always fails to include or over-includes something.
To @Bloop Bloop's point, abortion is one issue I have consistently been the most passionate about over my lifetime. I literally just got off my shift volunteering for an abortion fund, one of the things I have devoted my time to in FIRE. And it's work that I find valuable and meaningful. And yet, I've certainly come to understand a bit more about how anti-abortionists feel about it. I know how I feel about murder.
And if I saw fetuses as persons or (more pertinently) if I saw them as persons more than I see the women whose uteri they occupy as persons, I would be against abortion, too. Ultimately, it's a battle of two inalienable rights. A right to bodily autonomy is never abridged in our society unless that person has committed a crime (or, temporarily, if the person is suspected of committing a crime), and even then the punishment may be much less than what some women have suffered carrying a fetus to term (whether actual death, as happens if the woman has the misfortune to seek help at a Catholic hospital, or just the high and ever-increasing risk, in America, of pregnancy and delivery). And remember, the woman has not committed a crime. So what right do we have to abridge her bodily autonomy?
Of course, the right to life is also an inalienable right, for which there are a *number* of exceptions. Whoever decided that the latter is a more important right than the former...well, let's just say I've never heard it argued explicitly. It's just assumed. But people don't acknowledge that the right to bodily autonomy is at least as sacrosanct as to life. And so when two inalienable rights conflict, yes it can be hard. But again, this assumes a fetus has the same or greater moral agency as the woman in whose uterus it resides and depends on for life. I do not ascribe even the same moral agency to a fetus, much less a small collection of cells, as a woman and certainly would not ascribe the greater moral agency to it such that abortion is the greater wrong than violating the inalienable right to bodily autonomy.
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 16, 2020, 08:28:24 PM
I think if a fully fledged adult human has a moral weight of 1.0, a first trimester foetus has about a 0.1, a third trimester maybe 0.6 and an infant maybe 0.8? And a zygote 0.01. Not trying to be exact here, but you get the picture.
But a lot of people aren't comfortable dealing in those shades of grey, particularly when it's impossible to properly quantify those decimal points. And also because a lot of people have a rule against making non-binary value judgments. For example they will pose the tough questions, do sentient animals have moral agency? (My view - yes, but normally less than a human.) Do severely disabled people have moral agency? (My view - yes, but depending on their level of consciousness, less than a fully conscious human being.) Etc etc. Some people would rather not have to deal with these questions or they see the assignment of non-binary values to "life" to be repulsive because it tries to judge things like level of sentience/understanding that they think we shouldn't judge.
So, it can be hard to bridge the chasm. Especially when often advocates on either side are not entirely intellectually honest about their positions.
Post by: sherr on June 16, 2020, 08:32:36 PM
I wouldn't ascribe the same moral agency to a foetus either. That's why I'm pro-abortion (I hate the term pro-choice and pro-life. You're either pro-killing foetuses/babies or you're anti-it. But I understand why in today's disingenuous and politically charged climate, euphemisms have to be employed on both sides.)
You are distasteful and you're wrong. There is very little chance that I would ever personally choose an abortion. But I'm not arrogant enough to think that I can make that decision for everyone else in every other situation. I am pro-choice.
Post by: LaineyAZ on June 16, 2020, 09:33:37 PM
I've been browsing some survivalist/prepper sites lately, and oh boy, a number of the rural folks have very deeply held beliefs about the federal government basically being the enemy, and how the government is planning on taking their property or their water when the drought hits, and that the United Nations is trying to overpower our sovereign government, etc. Of course these comments would be more prevalent on the prepper sites, but the underlying message - that the government is the enemy - seems to be widely held. Therefore any political party who wants to expand government programs in any way is a "communist" and must be stopped.
I don't know how anyone outside of this mindset could even begin to change this way of thinking.
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 16, 2020, 09:48:49 PM
I wouldn't ascribe the same moral agency to a foetus either. That's why I'm pro-abortion (I hate the term pro-choice and pro-life. You're either pro-killing foetuses/babies or you're anti-it. But I understand why in today's disingenuous and politically charged climate, euphemisms have to be employed on both sides.)
You are distasteful and you're wrong. There is very little chance that I would ever personally choose an abortion. But I'm not arrogant enough to think that I can make that decision for everyone else in every other situation. I am pro-choice.
If you're pro-choice then you're pro-killing foetuses. You might not be pro-killing-a-particular-foetus (your own, or your partner's, or the foetus of anyone who doesn't want to kill it) but obviously I am not pro-killing all babies either. I never said that I could make the decision for anyone else, only that I would generally leave the decision open depending on various ethical factors.
Your position as I understand it is that you believe abortion in some cases is justified (but you would be unlikely to ever choose it for yourself). I could easily agree with that position, except that you and I seem to use a different dividing line when it comes to sentience, and I don't believe there's ever a bright-line that ought to be adopted separating yes from no.
Post by: Dancin'Dog on June 16, 2020, 10:40:01 PM
Post by: ministashy on June 17, 2020, 12:50:54 AM
In regards to the original thread--similarly, my bar for 'friends' is fairly high. I will not trust someone as a true friend if they do not believe I deserve bodily autonomy, whether women and POC deserve to be treated equally, or that LGBTQA folks should not be discriminated against, or other policies that actively do real, living people significant harm. I may keep them as an acquaintance, friendly or otherwise, as long as they're not jerks about it. Other differences of opinion, political or otherwise, I grant more leeway in--for example, I am perfectly willing to argue with my closest friend about the necessity of bicycle lanes and the right to bike in the road without being harassed by drivers, while he has a much more typical driver-centric view. Or the size of national parks. Or whether a soda tax is a good idea or not. Etcetera, etcetera.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 17, 2020, 03:32:10 AM
I wouldn't ascribe the same moral agency to a foetus either. That's why I'm pro-abortion (I hate the term pro-choice and pro-life. You're either pro-killing foetuses/babies or you're anti-it. But I understand why in today's disingenuous and politically charged climate, euphemisms have to be employed on both sides.)
You are distasteful and you're wrong. There is very little chance that I would ever personally choose an abortion. But I'm not arrogant enough to think that I can make that decision for everyone else in every other situation. I am pro-choice.
If you're pro-choice then you're pro-killing foetuses. You might not be pro-killing-a-particular-foetus (your own, or your partner's, or the foetus of anyone who doesn't want to kill it) but obviously I am not pro-killing all babies either. I never said that I could make the decision for anyone else, only that I would generally leave the decision open depending on various ethical factors.
Your position as I understand it is that you believe abortion in some cases is justified (but you would be unlikely to ever choose it for yourself). I could easily agree with that position, except that you and I seem to use a different dividing line when it comes to sentience, and I don't believe there's ever a bright-line that ought to be adopted separating yes from no.
Your logic skills are failing you. Pro-choice = you stay out of other people's business.
Her body, her choice!! It's none of your business to poke your nose into any moral/ethical implications *for her to consider and her only*. That is between her and her conscience/god/whatever with no role for you, me or a pussy-grabbing-conservative.
Anything else you imply is putting words in other people's mouth.
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 17, 2020, 04:05:33 AM
In which case I mostly agree with you, except I'd argue that instead of having a line drawn at birth, the burden that the mother needs to prove - to herself, her conscience, God, or society* - grows progressively heavier from the first trimester to post-birth. There is no justification apart from a pragmatic one to draw the line at birth, or particularly at any stage at all. After all it's not like a foetus 5 minutes before birth has a materially different level of sentience from a 5 minute old infant.
*Just because an individual exercises a right over his or her own body doesn't mean that the individual doesn't have to justify it externally. Every right carries with it the obligation of justification.
Also, not sure why so much defensiveness when I label pro-choice "pro-killing foetuses" (or babies, if you subscribe to my view that there's no bright line distinction). That's just what it is. There's nothing wrong with it. It's an ethical dilemma that you have to resolve one way or another. In many cases if you do not kill the foetus you will endanger the mother, violate her autonomy perhaps unnecessarily or cause some other accumulated loss of utility that outweighs the death of the foetus.
Post by: js82 on June 17, 2020, 04:46:22 AM
And to that, I'll echo Bloop Bloop's statement of "it's messy". Until you have hard scientific evidence that the consciousness/the ability to feel pain begins at precisely day X it's impossible to rationally declare that this is a black-and-white issue. The existing body of scientific evidence generally supports the more moderate positions on the issue(including the "viability" point per Roe v. Wade) as opposed to the far-left or the far-right - but again, there's not a hard line given that we can't measure consciousness. And so we have the legal standard that is much more clear and practically implementable - the "viability" standard of Roe v. Wade.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 17, 2020, 05:28:06 AM
In which case you are pro each mother having the right - whether or not exercised - to kill her foetus up to some point in time.
In which case I mostly agree with you, except I'd argue that instead of having a line drawn at birth, the burden that the mother needs to prove - to herself, her conscience, God, or society* - grows progressively heavier from the first trimester to post-birth. There is no justification apart from a pragmatic one to draw the line at birth, or particularly at any stage at all. After all it's not like a foetus 5 minutes before birth has a materially different level of sentience from a 5 minute old infant.
*Just because an individual exercises a right over his or her own body doesn't mean that the individual doesn't have to justify it externally. Every right carries with it the obligation of justification.
Also, not sure why so much defensiveness when I label pro-choice "pro-killing foetuses" (or babies, if you subscribe to my view that there's no bright line distinction). That's just what it is. There's nothing wrong with it. It's an ethical dilemma that you have to resolve one way or another. In many cases if you do not kill the foetus you will endanger the mother, violate her autonomy perhaps unnecessarily or cause some other accumulated loss of utility that outweighs the death of the foetus.
>>*Just because an individual exercises a right over his or her own body doesn't mean that the individual doesn't have to justify it externally. Every right carries with it the obligation of justification.
I think the obligation(s) have already been decided by the court(s) in the US. I'd be surprised if it is any different anywhere else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case
The husband was the legal guardian, where the wife was in a vegetative condition with life support. It was his decision, and his alone, to decide whether to pull the feeding tube or not.
If/when the baby requires support from the womb, it looks like a similar situation to me.
What makes you think anyone other than the mother has any locus standi in this matter?
What you or I think as right or wrong has zero pertinence on this topic. We are not parties to this "discussion" - unless you are carrying a baby in which case you and you alone are the relevant party who needs to take the decision.
>>Also, not sure why so much defensiveness when I label pro-choice "pro-killing foetuses"
Why stop at the fetus?
Every human cell can potentially act as the starting point for a genetic clone. If not now, maybe in 5 years. Are you pro-killing-clone-seeds if you like to brush your hair every day?
Yes, it is messy. So the mothers burdened with this decision deserve support, not nosy judgement from the likes of you or me.
Post by: DadJokes on June 17, 2020, 05:37:53 AM
Some people are going to reach different conclusions than you on political issues. They usually have a logical (to them) reason for reaching that conclusion, and it isn't generally because they hate (women, black people, babies, etc.).
If you can't accept that people will disagree with you on things that neither of you have any control over and are intent on arguing your point (despite the fact that you won't change anyone's mind), then the answer to the thread's question is no for you.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 17, 2020, 05:59:30 AM
I think some people are missing the point of this thread. It's not another excuse to argue about politics.
Some people are going to reach different conclusions than you on political issues. They usually have a logical (to them) reason for reaching that conclusion, and it isn't generally because they hate (women, black people, babies, etc.).
If you can't accept that people will disagree with you on things that neither of you have any control over and are intent on arguing your point (despite the fact that you won't change anyone's mind), then the answer to the thread's question is no for you.
Thanks for your summation. One of the beliefs that I hold most dearly is that abortion is killing an innocent life. I rarely talk about it on these forums because, as this has shown, no one will ever be convinced of anything, and people who take my stance are almost always denigrated or have not just their views questioned but the reasoning for their views questioned with people making assumptions about not just what they think but why they're thinking it. Yes, it's based in part on a religious belief, and please don't give me any of the BS of how it's ok for me to believe it personally but not want anything to be imposed on others because it's based off of a religions belief. We all base things we want as laws off of our own moral beliefs, religious or not, so to claim that just because someone wants laws or policies based off of a morality informed by religion, that their reasoning is unsound is just ridiculous. I've worked extremely hard to see the other side, even on this issue. I realize that very, very, very few people will ever change their mind on this. I have friends and can have conversations with people who don't believe the way I do on this. It's how I've chosen to handle things, and it's helped me see that most all other people aren't the heartless monsters who want to just be jerks to everyone else/troll them/whatever that both sides make their opponents out to be. YMMV
Post by: OtherJen on June 17, 2020, 06:16:23 AM
I am a liberal agnostic who was raised strictly Catholic (K-8 school with nuns and plaid skirts, 3-hour liturgies on Good Friday, various forms of media declared “evil” by Mom, Dad, and parish). I personally find abortion sad and would not choose it for myself, but recognize that it isn’t a choice I get to make for others. Because I tried to remain Catholic into adulthood, I have Catholic friends who believe that abortion is murder. We can recognize that we have the shared goal of reducing the demand for abortion through education and improving the societal conditions that result in too many unwanted pregnancies, and that such efforts would be far more effective than declaring abortion to be illegal without changing anything else. There’s enough common respect and ethical agreement to remain friends.
I wasn’t able to remain friends with the ones who called me a baby-killer for voting Democrat (yes, that happened, and on multiple occasions) and refused to listen to my rationale. Those people didn’t respect me as a person and had no interest in thoughtful dialogue.
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 17, 2020, 06:30:35 AM
I think the obligation(s) have already been decided by the court(s) in the US. I'd be surprised if it is any different anywhere else.
Courts are fallible. The US courts have made plenty of shitty rulings. No, the ethical obligation remains on each person to justify his or her decisions at large. That is the burden of freedom and consciousness.
To be clear, I agree with a lot of the reasoning in Roe v Wade. But it's rather suspect reasoning to call upon an external council (a Court) as some sort of moral arbiter - particularly when US legislatures and courts have made so many shitty decisions, both in the past and more recently.
"What makes you think anyone other than the mother has any locus standi in this matter?"
This goes back to your belief that until a foetus leaves the mother, only the mother has an ethical interest in the foetus's survival. While I mostly agree with that, there are very, very many arguments (both from a religious and a secular perspective) that go against your assertion. And even if we take for granted that the mother's needs are paramount, not every mother is going to make an informed or rational choice. We don't, for example, allow a mother or father to make uninformed decisions about things like access to IVF, or about post-birth care. To draw a fine-line distinction at the moment of birth can only be a pragmatic and not a logical exercise.
Again, your insistence that only the bearer of a baby can have a choice in the matter is dogmatic. Everyone has a dogma; I at least accept that my views come from it. You seem to ascribe some sort of universality to your starting point. For example, I would have thought that the mother needs to consider the needs of the unborn when weighing up the ethical choice, and since the unborn can't speak, society may have to speak for it.
Quote
Why stop at the fetus?I don't follow what you're saying. Yeah, every cell can reproduce. But if you kill it while it's still a cell then you've only killed a cell. If you kill a foetus you've killed a foetus. If you've killed a baby you've killed a baby. What I am asking you to do is to:
Every human cell can potentially act as the starting point for a genetic clone. If not now, maybe in 5 years. Are you pro-killing-clone-seeds if you like to brush your hair every day?
1. Use direct and accurate terminology
2. Consider the opposing viewpoint at its highest before engaging with it
Quote
Yes, it is messy. So the mothers burdened with this decision deserve support, not nosy judgement from the likes of you or me.I could easily say that foetuses subject to their mother's sole whims also deserve support from the state to ensure that there is some form of oversight. After all, no one - mother or not - is infallible.
While I personally am very pro-abortion and believe that mothers should, in most cases, have the absolute say, I can very easily see the argument coming from the other side.
Perhaps before setting down your opinion you should try to do the same. Take the best faith position you can of any opposing view.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 17, 2020, 07:05:47 AM
...
Yes, it's based in part on a religious belief, and please don't give me any of the BS of how it's ok for me to believe it personally but not want anything to be imposed on others because it's based off of a religions belief. We all base things we want as laws off of our own moral beliefs, religious or not, so to claim that just because someone wants laws or policies based off of a morality informed by religion, that their reasoning is unsound is just ridiculous. I've worked extremely hard to see the other side, even on this issue. I realize that very, very, very few people will ever change their mind on this. I have friends and can have conversations with people who don't believe the way I do on this. It's how I've chosen to handle things, and it's helped me see that most all other people aren't the heartless monsters who want to just be jerks to everyone else/troll them/whatever that both sides make their opponents out to be. YMMV
It is perfectly fine for you to have your opinion, as long as you don't demand big government regulation into other people's bodies. When you do so, you become a fascist, which is evil!
FYI, your religion seems to have been quite ambivalent about the sins of abortion in the historical periods:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_abortion
(not that it is of any actual relevance to the key issues at hand, but interesting FYI for those arguing the religious angle)
Quote
While the Church has always condemned abortion, changing beliefs about the moment the embryo gains a human soul have led to changes in canon law in the classification of the sin of abortion.[27][28] In particular, several historians have written[29][30][31] that prior to the 19th century most Catholic authors did not regard as an abortion what we call "early abortion"—abortion before "quickening" or "ensoulment."
Not only did they not view early abortions as being abortions, but it is argued that some Catholics saw nothing wrong with compiling lists of known abortifacient herbs and discovering new ones. In the 13th century physician and cleric Peter of Spain wrote a book called Thesaurus Pauperum (literally Treasure of the Poor) containing a long list of early-stage abortifacients, including rue, pennyroyal, and other mints.[17]:205–211 It is believed by some that Peter of Spain became Pope John XXI in 1276.
Some prominent theologians, such as John Chrysostom and Thomas Sanchez, believed that post-quickening abortion was less sinful than deliberate contraception.[16]:161[32]:172,180 John Chrysostom believed that late-stage abortion was not as bad as deliberately killing an already-born person, whereas contraception was definitely worse than murder, according to him.[17]:98–99
As Koblitz writes,[15]:16
Catholic theologians have long wrestled with the question of whether one can truly be forgiven for a sin that one confesses while either still engaged in the sinful practice or else fully intending to resume the action as soon as absolution has been obtained. When a woman confesses to having had an abortion, she can make a sincere act of contrition if she believes that she will never commit the sin again. "It only happened once" is a frequent (though not necessarily accurate) refrain when an unintended pregnancy occurs. Daily use of contraception, on the other hand, is impossible to rationalize to oneself in this manner, and so it is a sin that, to many Catholics, cannot be satisfactorily expunged.
Post by: sherr on June 17, 2020, 07:39:47 AM
I think some people are missing the point of this thread. It's not another excuse to argue about politics.
Some people are going to reach different conclusions than you on political issues. They usually have a logical (to them) reason for reaching that conclusion, and it isn't generally because they hate (women, black people, babies, etc.).
If you can't accept that people will disagree with you on things that neither of you have any control over and are intent on arguing your point (despite the fact that you won't change anyone's mind), then the answer to the thread's question is no for you.
Thanks for bringing us back to my original point, which was not about abortion per se, but rather the general trend of conservatives trying to force others to do what they want. You can't "agree to disagree" when one side says "I disagree but you do you" and the other side says "I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs". The latter is not "agreeing to disagree". If conservatives could learn to "agree to disagree" then there would be far less friendship blockers.
Post by: GuitarStv on June 17, 2020, 08:06:21 AM
I think some people are missing the point of this thread. It's not another excuse to argue about politics.
Some people are going to reach different conclusions than you on political issues. They usually have a logical (to them) reason for reaching that conclusion, and it isn't generally because they hate (women, black people, babies, etc.).
If you can't accept that people will disagree with you on things that neither of you have any control over and are intent on arguing your point (despite the fact that you won't change anyone's mind), then the answer to the thread's question is no for you.
Thanks for bringing us back to my original point, which was not about abortion per se, but rather the general trend of conservatives trying to force others to do what they want. You can't "agree to disagree" when one side says "I disagree but you do you" and the other side says "I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs". The latter is not "agreeing to disagree". If conservatives could learn to "agree to disagree" then there would be far less friendship blockers.
I'm not entirely sure that this is fair to conservatives. At least from their point of view.
Take every American conservatives favorite fetish - guns - as an example. Most liberals want greater controls and restrictions placed on purchasing and selling guns. Most conservatives do not. From a conservative point of view, this is an 'I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs' situation.
(Yes, granted there is an argument to be made that easy access to firearms forces everyone in the country to live in a perpetual state of fear/heightened tension, but let's leave that aside for a bit.)
Post by: Kris on June 17, 2020, 08:22:06 AM
I think some people are missing the point of this thread. It's not another excuse to argue about politics.
Some people are going to reach different conclusions than you on political issues. They usually have a logical (to them) reason for reaching that conclusion, and it isn't generally because they hate (women, black people, babies, etc.).
If you can't accept that people will disagree with you on things that neither of you have any control over and are intent on arguing your point (despite the fact that you won't change anyone's mind), then the answer to the thread's question is no for you.
Thanks for bringing us back to my original point, which was not about abortion per se, but rather the general trend of conservatives trying to force others to do what they want. You can't "agree to disagree" when one side says "I disagree but you do you" and the other side says "I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs". The latter is not "agreeing to disagree". If conservatives could learn to "agree to disagree" then there would be far less friendship blockers.
I'm not entirely sure that this is fair to conservatives. At least from their point of view.
Take every American conservatives favorite fetish - guns - as an example. Most liberals want greater controls and restrictions placed on purchasing and selling guns. Most conservatives do not. From a conservative point of view, this is an 'I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs' situation.
(Yes, granted there is an argument to be made that easy access to firearms forces everyone in the country to live in a perpetual state of fear/heightened tension, but let's leave that aside for a bit.)
Except that the "liberal" point of view (insofar as there is one) isn't to outlaw guns.
Post by: sherr on June 17, 2020, 08:24:43 AM
I think some people are missing the point of this thread. It's not another excuse to argue about politics.
Some people are going to reach different conclusions than you on political issues. They usually have a logical (to them) reason for reaching that conclusion, and it isn't generally because they hate (women, black people, babies, etc.).
If you can't accept that people will disagree with you on things that neither of you have any control over and are intent on arguing your point (despite the fact that you won't change anyone's mind), then the answer to the thread's question is no for you.
Thanks for bringing us back to my original point, which was not about abortion per se, but rather the general trend of conservatives trying to force others to do what they want. You can't "agree to disagree" when one side says "I disagree but you do you" and the other side says "I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs". The latter is not "agreeing to disagree". If conservatives could learn to "agree to disagree" then there would be far less friendship blockers.
I'm not entirely sure that this is fair to conservatives. At least from their point of view.
Take every American conservatives favorite fetish - guns - as an example. Most liberals want greater controls and restrictions placed on purchasing and selling guns. Most conservatives do not. From a conservative point of view, this is an 'I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs' situation.
(Yes, granted there is an argument to be made that easy access to firearms forces everyone in the country to live in a perpetual state of fear/heightened tension, but let's leave that aside for a bit.)
I already stated upthread that guns are the one and only obvious example where conservatives are definitely more pro-liberty. Anything else? "General trend" does not mean "in every conceivable example", it means general trend.
Post by: Nick_Miller on June 17, 2020, 08:35:25 AM
"Politics" really displays a person's worldview, their priorities, and how they view other people. "Politics" is not trivial. It can really show a person's true nature. Sure, there are some areas that are more just about making the trains run on time, but some issues are just too vital to ignore vast disagreements. I don't get how many people say, "Oh, well that's just a political disagreement" when it comes to things like protections for LGBTQ folks, as an example. Would I be close friends with a person who thinks gay folks ought to be able to be fired just for...wait for it...being gay?
Hell no. I have no room for bigots in my life.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 17, 2020, 08:40:56 AM
...
Yes, it's based in part on a religious belief, and please don't give me any of the BS of how it's ok for me to believe it personally but not want anything to be imposed on others because it's based off of a religions belief. We all base things we want as laws off of our own moral beliefs, religious or not, so to claim that just because someone wants laws or policies based off of a morality informed by religion, that their reasoning is unsound is just ridiculous. I've worked extremely hard to see the other side, even on this issue. I realize that very, very, very few people will ever change their mind on this. I have friends and can have conversations with people who don't believe the way I do on this. It's how I've chosen to handle things, and it's helped me see that most all other people aren't the heartless monsters who want to just be jerks to everyone else/troll them/whatever that both sides make their opponents out to be. YMMV
It is perfectly fine for you to have your opinion, as long as you don't demand big government regulation into other people's bodies. When you do so, you become a fascist, which is evil!
FYI, your religion seems to have been quite ambivalent about the sins of abortion in the historical periods:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_abortion
(not that it is of any actual relevance to the key issues at hand, but interesting FYI for those arguing the religious angle)QuoteWhile the Church has always condemned abortion, changing beliefs about the moment the embryo gains a human soul have led to changes in canon law in the classification of the sin of abortion.[27][28] In particular, several historians have written[29][30][31] that prior to the 19th century most Catholic authors did not regard as an abortion what we call "early abortion"—abortion before "quickening" or "ensoulment."
Not only did they not view early abortions as being abortions, but it is argued that some Catholics saw nothing wrong with compiling lists of known abortifacient herbs and discovering new ones. In the 13th century physician and cleric Peter of Spain wrote a book called Thesaurus Pauperum (literally Treasure of the Poor) containing a long list of early-stage abortifacients, including rue, pennyroyal, and other mints.[17]:205–211 It is believed by some that Peter of Spain became Pope John XXI in 1276.
Some prominent theologians, such as John Chrysostom and Thomas Sanchez, believed that post-quickening abortion was less sinful than deliberate contraception.[16]:161[32]:172,180 John Chrysostom believed that late-stage abortion was not as bad as deliberately killing an already-born person, whereas contraception was definitely worse than murder, according to him.[17]:98–99
As Koblitz writes,[15]:16
Catholic theologians have long wrestled with the question of whether one can truly be forgiven for a sin that one confesses while either still engaged in the sinful practice or else fully intending to resume the action as soon as absolution has been obtained. When a woman confesses to having had an abortion, she can make a sincere act of contrition if she believes that she will never commit the sin again. "It only happened once" is a frequent (though not necessarily accurate) refrain when an unintended pregnancy occurs. Daily use of contraception, on the other hand, is impossible to rationalize to oneself in this manner, and so it is a sin that, to many Catholics, cannot be satisfactorily expunged.
Hey, it took about an hour five minutes this time! That's slightly above what I was expecting, but close enough.
On a discussion that's literally on whether or not you can have friends of different beliefs, and an overall theme is that yes, as long as you're not a jerk about it, do you realize how condescending it sounds to say "FYI, your religion says this that or the other..."? I was mentally prepared for it, so it didn't really bother me, but dang, dude, lol. First, my religion is not Catholocism. Second, the part of my religion that influences my opinion is not specifically related to historical church doctrine on this issue. It is on other issues but not so much on this one, for different reasons that aren't worth discussing in this context except to say that, yes, I actually did know what you said (shocker, I might know as much as you do about it), and two, it doesn't influence me, because that's not a huge part of how religion influences my belief on the subject.
Finally, I'm not going to argue with you about the fascism or not thing, because, again, it goes nowhere. I will simply reiterate what I said above. To claim that someone's moral views that influence the laws that they want to go into affect are to be disregarded because they're based off of religion is a ridiculous argument.
Post by: GuitarStv on June 17, 2020, 08:42:19 AM
I think some people are missing the point of this thread. It's not another excuse to argue about politics.
Some people are going to reach different conclusions than you on political issues. They usually have a logical (to them) reason for reaching that conclusion, and it isn't generally because they hate (women, black people, babies, etc.).
If you can't accept that people will disagree with you on things that neither of you have any control over and are intent on arguing your point (despite the fact that you won't change anyone's mind), then the answer to the thread's question is no for you.
Thanks for bringing us back to my original point, which was not about abortion per se, but rather the general trend of conservatives trying to force others to do what they want. You can't "agree to disagree" when one side says "I disagree but you do you" and the other side says "I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs". The latter is not "agreeing to disagree". If conservatives could learn to "agree to disagree" then there would be far less friendship blockers.
I'm not entirely sure that this is fair to conservatives. At least from their point of view.
Take every American conservatives favorite fetish - guns - as an example. Most liberals want greater controls and restrictions placed on purchasing and selling guns. Most conservatives do not. From a conservative point of view, this is an 'I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs' situation.
(Yes, granted there is an argument to be made that easy access to firearms forces everyone in the country to live in a perpetual state of fear/heightened tension, but let's leave that aside for a bit.)
I already stated upthread that guns are the one and only obvious example where conservatives are definitely more pro-liberty. Anything else? "General trend" does not mean "in every conceivable example", it means general trend.
Face masks. Conservatives in the US are much more pro-facemask choice in the middle of a pandemic than liberals are.
Taxation of the rich as well. Conservatives are upset when the rich need to pay a fair share in taxes. Environmental controls/regulation for business. Conservatives don't like it when businesses don't have the option to pollute indiscriminately.
These are areas where conservatives are more pro-liberty.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 17, 2020, 08:47:04 AM
Everyone has their limits, and that's going to be a personal decision.
"Politics" really displays a person's worldview, their priorities, and how they view other people. "Politics" is not trivial. It can really show a person's true nature. Sure, there are some areas that are more just about making the trains run on time, but some issues are just too vital to ignore vast disagreements. I don't get how many people say, "Oh, well that's just a political disagreement" when it comes to things like protections for LGBTQ folks, as an example. Would I be close friends with a person who thinks gay folks ought to be able to be fired just for...wait for it...being gay?
Hell no. I have no room for bigots in my life.
Your last argument is a stretch and illustrative of how these political principles that start out as "it's a moral issue" morph into a way to denigrate others beyond the actual issue - it's an issue of creep. I believe that there are people who believe that the government ought to not legislate a private company from not firing someone for that issue. It doesn't mean they would do it or even think it's right. They just believe that the government shouldn't use the law to stop it from happening. I think we all think there are things that are bad that the government shouldn't make illegal. I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying I agree with them. I'm just saying to call them bigots is an assumption on your part that may very well not be true and is an example of how these conversations morph from I won't befriend someone who goes on racist rants or something that's clear cut into something that's not nearly as clear cut.
Post by: sherr on June 17, 2020, 08:49:18 AM
I already stated upthread that guns are the one and only obvious example where conservatives are definitely more pro-liberty. Anything else? "General trend" does not mean "in every conceivable example", it means general trend.
Face masks. Conservatives in the US are much more pro-facemask choice in the middle of a pandemic than liberals are.
Taxation of the rich as well. Conservatives are upset when the rich need to pay a fair share in taxes. Environmental controls/regulation for business. Conservatives don't like it when businesses don't have the option to pollute indiscriminately.
These are areas where conservatives are more pro-liberty.
Huh. You're not wrong, but I guess it's the social issues are where illiberalism really kills me, not economic / environmental ones. And I guess I don't see wearing a facemask as an onerous burden that cannot be tolerated from this tyrannical government of ours.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 17, 2020, 08:56:33 AM
I already stated upthread that guns are the one and only obvious example where conservatives are definitely more pro-liberty. Anything else? "General trend" does not mean "in every conceivable example", it means general trend.
Face masks. Conservatives in the US are much more pro-facemask choice in the middle of a pandemic than liberals are.
Taxation of the rich as well. Conservatives are upset when the rich need to pay a fair share in taxes. Environmental controls/regulation for business. Conservatives don't like it when businesses don't have the option to pollute indiscriminately.
These are areas where conservatives are more pro-liberty.
Huh. You're not wrong, but I guess it's the social issues are where illiberalism really kills me, not economic / environmental ones. And I guess I don't see wearing a facemask as an onerous burden that cannot be tolerated from this tyrannical government of ours.
Requirements for wearing seat belts. Requirements on business licenses/rules to start up a new business. Maybe not core Republican platforms but ideas that a non-insignificant amount of conservative people would either out and out espouse or support if brought up.
Post by: boy_bye on June 17, 2020, 08:57:53 AM
It's like when your best friend is dating a real asshole. You can be there for her, but she has to make the decision to leave him and there's nothing you can do other than remind her of who she is and who he is and why the way he's acting is unacceptable. At some point you might even need to put up a boundary like "I love you but I cannot talk about your asshole boyfriend anymore." If she can't stop, then you might have to walk away for a bit until she comes to her senses.
At this point, I've walked away, and I'm waiting for the Trumpies to come to their senses, but I'm not holding my breath.
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on June 17, 2020, 09:04:41 AM
One of the beliefs that I hold most dearly is that abortion is killing an innocent life. Yes, it's based in part on a religious belief, and please don't give me any of the BS of how it's ok for me to believe it personally but not want anything to be imposed on others because it's based off of a religions belief. We all base things we want as laws off of our own moral beliefs, religious or not, so to claim that just because someone wants laws or policies based off of a morality informed by religion, that their reasoning is unsound is just ridiculous.
I agree.
Furthermore, it is illiberalism writ largest to shun believers' opinions and arguments merely because it is believers who advance them.
OTOH, legitimacy of a secular State's legislation and court-established law is enhanced when supportable on bases other than conformity to religious tenets which is abundantly the case with respect to Roe.
Post by: sherr on June 17, 2020, 09:12:37 AM
One of the beliefs that I hold most dearly is that abortion is killing an innocent life. Yes, it's based in part on a religious belief, and please don't give me any of the BS of how it's ok for me to believe it personally but not want anything to be imposed on others because it's based off of a religions belief. We all base things we want as laws off of our own moral beliefs, religious or not, so to claim that just because someone wants laws or policies based off of a morality informed by religion, that their reasoning is unsound is just ridiculous.
I agree.
It is illiberalism writ largest to shun believers' opinions and arguments merely because it is believers who advance them.
OTOH, legitimacy of a secular State's legislation and court-established law is enhanced when supportable on bases other than conformity to religious tenets which is abundantly the case with respect to Roe.
It is not "merely because it is believers who advance them". I for example, am a Christian. But religious beliefs cannot be the sole underpinning of laws designed to prevent other people from practicing their religious beliefs. That is absolutely illiberalism. (This applies more to the anti-gay issues than it does to abortion in particular.)
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 17, 2020, 09:33:24 AM
I think some people are missing the point of this thread. It's not another excuse to argue about politics.
Some people are going to reach different conclusions than you on political issues. They usually have a logical (to them) reason for reaching that conclusion, and it isn't generally because they hate (women, black people, babies, etc.).
If you can't accept that people will disagree with you on things that neither of you have any control over and are intent on arguing your point (despite the fact that you won't change anyone's mind), then the answer to the thread's question is no for you.
Thanks for bringing us back to my original point, which was not about abortion per se, but rather the general trend of conservatives trying to force others to do what they want. You can't "agree to disagree" when one side says "I disagree but you do you" and the other side says "I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs". The latter is not "agreeing to disagree". If conservatives could learn to "agree to disagree" then there would be far less friendship blockers.
I'm not entirely sure that this is fair to conservatives. At least from their point of view.
Take every American conservatives favorite fetish - guns - as an example. Most liberals want greater controls and restrictions placed on purchasing and selling guns. Most conservatives do not. From a conservative point of view, this is an 'I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs' situation.
(Yes, granted there is an argument to be made that easy access to firearms forces everyone in the country to live in a perpetual state of fear/heightened tension, but let's leave that aside for a bit.)
One thing I really dislike about American politics on both ends of the spectrum - both fervent conservatives and fervent liberals do this - is their desire to pigeonhole things into "good" and "bad", "us" and "them". I think it's a really disingenuous habit.
Someone can have 70% liberal beliefs and 30% conservative beliefs or vice versa. Some beliefs could be neither liberal nor conservative. When you get into red state versus blue state and my team is better than yours type discussions, you are no longer arguing in good faith. You are also most likely de-humanising people whom you disagree with.
As I said earlier, in most debates (death penalty, abortion, gun rights etc) I can totally empathise with and understand why someone might take the completely opposing view to me. That doesn't mean I accept it or agree with it, but I can inhabit that stand and humanise it.
Sure, there are some things that are hard to humanise. Overt racism, fascism, etc.
But for the things I listed, I would suggest that if you cannot humanise opposing views, to the extent that you would at least tolerate a friendship with someone who holds those views in good faith, then that reflects very poorly on you.
Post by: boy_bye on June 17, 2020, 09:41:11 AM
I think some people are missing the point of this thread. It's not another excuse to argue about politics.
Some people are going to reach different conclusions than you on political issues. They usually have a logical (to them) reason for reaching that conclusion, and it isn't generally because they hate (women, black people, babies, etc.).
If you can't accept that people will disagree with you on things that neither of you have any control over and are intent on arguing your point (despite the fact that you won't change anyone's mind), then the answer to the thread's question is no for you.
Thanks for bringing us back to my original point, which was not about abortion per se, but rather the general trend of conservatives trying to force others to do what they want. You can't "agree to disagree" when one side says "I disagree but you do you" and the other side says "I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs". The latter is not "agreeing to disagree". If conservatives could learn to "agree to disagree" then there would be far less friendship blockers.
I'm not entirely sure that this is fair to conservatives. At least from their point of view.
Take every American conservatives favorite fetish - guns - as an example. Most liberals want greater controls and restrictions placed on purchasing and selling guns. Most conservatives do not. From a conservative point of view, this is an 'I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs' situation.
(Yes, granted there is an argument to be made that easy access to firearms forces everyone in the country to live in a perpetual state of fear/heightened tension, but let's leave that aside for a bit.)
One thing I really dislike about American politics on both ends of the spectrum - both fervent conservatives and fervent liberals do this - is their desire to pigeonhole things into "good" and "bad", "us" and "them". I think it's a really disingenuous habit.
Someone can have 70% liberal beliefs and 30% conservative beliefs or vice versa. Some beliefs could be neither liberal nor conservative. When you get into red state versus blue state and my team is better than yours type discussions, you are no longer arguing in good faith. You are also most likely de-humanising people whom you disagree with.
As I said earlier, in most debates (death penalty, abortion, gun rights etc) I can totally empathise with and understand why someone might take the completely opposing view to me. That doesn't mean I accept it or agree with it, but I can inhabit that stand and humanise it.
Sure, there are some things that are hard to humanise. Overt racism, fascism, etc.
But for the things I listed, I would suggest that if you cannot humanise opposing views, to the extent that you would at least tolerate a friendship with someone who holds those views in good faith, then that reflects very poorly on you.
To me the defining line is how fundamentalist is this person? Are they willing to keep learning and growing and allowing their beliefs to change as they take in new information? Or are they convinced they know everything already and unwilling to evolve?
Completely uninterested in friendships with the second kind of person. What is the point?
Post by: Nick_Miller on June 17, 2020, 10:05:20 AM
Everyone has their limits, and that's going to be a personal decision.
"Politics" really displays a person's worldview, their priorities, and how they view other people. "Politics" is not trivial. It can really show a person's true nature. Sure, there are some areas that are more just about making the trains run on time, but some issues are just too vital to ignore vast disagreements. I don't get how many people say, "Oh, well that's just a political disagreement" when it comes to things like protections for LGBTQ folks, as an example. Would I be close friends with a person who thinks gay folks ought to be able to be fired just for...wait for it...being gay?
Hell no. I have no room for bigots in my life.
Your last argument is a stretch and illustrative of how these political principles that start out as "it's a moral issue" morph into a way to denigrate others beyond the actual issue - it's an issue of creep. I believe that there are people who believe that the government ought to not legislate a private company from not firing someone for that issue. It doesn't mean they would do it or even think it's right. They just believe that the government shouldn't use the law to stop it from happening. I think we all think there are things that are bad that the government shouldn't make illegal. I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying I agree with them. I'm just saying to call them bigots is an assumption on your part that may very well not be true and is an example of how these conversations morph from I won't befriend someone who goes on racist rants or something that's clear cut into something that's not nearly as clear cut.
Nah I don't accept your argument.
Because I think it's bigoted and privileged as hell for someone, probably someone who's straight/white to say, "Oh let businesses discriminate against workers for any reason."
"Black? fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."
"Gay? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."
"Pregnant? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out!"
"Trans? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort them out."
"A woman? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."
Again, privileged as hell, and bigoted imo. It's easy when a certain group holds most of the cards, most of the money, most of the institutional power, most of the political clout, etc., to say, "Oh let's just focus on rugged individualism!"
It's not an even playing field, and its not even close.
Post by: lexde on June 17, 2020, 10:14:36 AM
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 17, 2020, 10:15:14 AM
Everyone has their limits, and that's going to be a personal decision.
"Politics" really displays a person's worldview, their priorities, and how they view other people. "Politics" is not trivial. It can really show a person's true nature. Sure, there are some areas that are more just about making the trains run on time, but some issues are just too vital to ignore vast disagreements. I don't get how many people say, "Oh, well that's just a political disagreement" when it comes to things like protections for LGBTQ folks, as an example. Would I be close friends with a person who thinks gay folks ought to be able to be fired just for...wait for it...being gay?
Hell no. I have no room for bigots in my life.
Your last argument is a stretch and illustrative of how these political principles that start out as "it's a moral issue" morph into a way to denigrate others beyond the actual issue - it's an issue of creep. I believe that there are people who believe that the government ought to not legislate a private company from not firing someone for that issue. It doesn't mean they would do it or even think it's right. They just believe that the government shouldn't use the law to stop it from happening. I think we all think there are things that are bad that the government shouldn't make illegal. I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying I agree with them. I'm just saying to call them bigots is an assumption on your part that may very well not be true and is an example of how these conversations morph from I won't befriend someone who goes on racist rants or something that's clear cut into something that's not nearly as clear cut.
Nah I don't accept your argument.
Because I think it's bigoted and privileged as hell for someone, probably someone who's straight/white to say, "Oh let businesses discriminate against workers for any reason."
"Black? fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."
"Gay? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."
"Pregnant? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out!"
"Trans? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort them out."
"A women? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."
Again, privileged as hell, and bigoted imo. It's easy when a certain group holds most of the cards, most of the money, most of the institutional power, most of the political clout, etc., to say, "Oh let's just focus on rugged individualism!"
It's not an even playing field, and its not even close.
Fair enough, I don't accept your opinion either, lol. And it's a shame, because you actually do articulate the middle ground in my mind. Is that opinion privileged? Sure. Is it (or could it be) naïve, absolutely? Is it bigoted? Not necessarily. How do I know? Because I've believed that the government should not restrict these things, and it was not from a bigoted perspective. I've had to improve on that issue, myself, as well, but not in regards to what the government should legislate companies do or not do. It didn't factor into that logical argument in my mind. Now I can't prove it to you, but I know what I thought.
You've actually illustrated a big part of the issue. You jump from a logically defendable and rational position - a person advocating that is privileged to not have to deal with it, to an assumption based position not provable - that they are bigoted. This is not helpful or healthy for dialogue. Your position is part of the problem.
Post by: Nick_Miller on June 17, 2020, 10:24:05 AM
Everyone has their limits, and that's going to be a personal decision.
"Politics" really displays a person's worldview, their priorities, and how they view other people. "Politics" is not trivial. It can really show a person's true nature. Sure, there are some areas that are more just about making the trains run on time, but some issues are just too vital to ignore vast disagreements. I don't get how many people say, "Oh, well that's just a political disagreement" when it comes to things like protections for LGBTQ folks, as an example. Would I be close friends with a person who thinks gay folks ought to be able to be fired just for...wait for it...being gay?
Hell no. I have no room for bigots in my life.
Your last argument is a stretch and illustrative of how these political principles that start out as "it's a moral issue" morph into a way to denigrate others beyond the actual issue - it's an issue of creep. I believe that there are people who believe that the government ought to not legislate a private company from not firing someone for that issue. It doesn't mean they would do it or even think it's right. They just believe that the government shouldn't use the law to stop it from happening. I think we all think there are things that are bad that the government shouldn't make illegal. I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying I agree with them. I'm just saying to call them bigots is an assumption on your part that may very well not be true and is an example of how these conversations morph from I won't befriend someone who goes on racist rants or something that's clear cut into something that's not nearly as clear cut.
Nah I don't accept your argument.
Because I think it's bigoted and privileged as hell for someone, probably someone who's straight/white to say, "Oh let businesses discriminate against workers for any reason."
"Black? fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."
"Gay? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."
"Pregnant? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out!"
"Trans? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort them out."
"A women? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."
Again, privileged as hell, and bigoted imo. It's easy when a certain group holds most of the cards, most of the money, most of the institutional power, most of the political clout, etc., to say, "Oh let's just focus on rugged individualism!"
It's not an even playing field, and its not even close.
Fair enough, I don't accept your opinion either, lol. And it's a shame, because you actually do articulate the middle ground in my mind. Is that opinion privileged? Sure. Is it (or could it be) naïve, absolutely? Is it bigoted? Not necessarily. How do I know? Because I've believed that the government should not restrict these things, and it was not from a bigoted perspective. I've had to improve on that issue, myself, as well, but not in regards to what the government should legislate companies do or not do. It didn't factor into that logical argument in my mind. Now I can't prove it to you, but I know what I thought.
You've actually illustrated a big part of the issue. You jump from a logically defendable and rational position - a person advocating that is privileged to not have to deal with it, to an assumption based position not provable - that they are bigoted. This is not helpful or healthy for dialogue. Your position is part of the problem.
You still don't get it. It's bigoted to not care about all of the inequities I listed above (and many more). It's bigoted to adopt a position ("let employers do whatever the f they want") that puts these already marginalized groups in even more tenuous positions than they're already in.
Post by: Kris on June 17, 2020, 10:33:53 AM
Everyone has their limits, and that's going to be a personal decision.
"Politics" really displays a person's worldview, their priorities, and how they view other people. "Politics" is not trivial. It can really show a person's true nature. Sure, there are some areas that are more just about making the trains run on time, but some issues are just too vital to ignore vast disagreements. I don't get how many people say, "Oh, well that's just a political disagreement" when it comes to things like protections for LGBTQ folks, as an example. Would I be close friends with a person who thinks gay folks ought to be able to be fired just for...wait for it...being gay?
Hell no. I have no room for bigots in my life.
Your last argument is a stretch and illustrative of how these political principles that start out as "it's a moral issue" morph into a way to denigrate others beyond the actual issue - it's an issue of creep. I believe that there are people who believe that the government ought to not legislate a private company from not firing someone for that issue. It doesn't mean they would do it or even think it's right. They just believe that the government shouldn't use the law to stop it from happening. I think we all think there are things that are bad that the government shouldn't make illegal. I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying I agree with them. I'm just saying to call them bigots is an assumption on your part that may very well not be true and is an example of how these conversations morph from I won't befriend someone who goes on racist rants or something that's clear cut into something that's not nearly as clear cut.
LOL. I literally talked to two people yesterday who said they would fire someone for being gay and think it's right.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 17, 2020, 10:36:28 AM
Everyone has their limits, and that's going to be a personal decision.
"Politics" really displays a person's worldview, their priorities, and how they view other people. "Politics" is not trivial. It can really show a person's true nature. Sure, there are some areas that are more just about making the trains run on time, but some issues are just too vital to ignore vast disagreements. I don't get how many people say, "Oh, well that's just a political disagreement" when it comes to things like protections for LGBTQ folks, as an example. Would I be close friends with a person who thinks gay folks ought to be able to be fired just for...wait for it...being gay?
Hell no. I have no room for bigots in my life.
Your last argument is a stretch and illustrative of how these political principles that start out as "it's a moral issue" morph into a way to denigrate others beyond the actual issue - it's an issue of creep. I believe that there are people who believe that the government ought to not legislate a private company from not firing someone for that issue. It doesn't mean they would do it or even think it's right. They just believe that the government shouldn't use the law to stop it from happening. I think we all think there are things that are bad that the government shouldn't make illegal. I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying I agree with them. I'm just saying to call them bigots is an assumption on your part that may very well not be true and is an example of how these conversations morph from I won't befriend someone who goes on racist rants or something that's clear cut into something that's not nearly as clear cut.
Nah I don't accept your argument.
Because I think it's bigoted and privileged as hell for someone, probably someone who's straight/white to say, "Oh let businesses discriminate against workers for any reason."
"Black? fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."
"Gay? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."
"Pregnant? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out!"
"Trans? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort them out."
"A women? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."
Again, privileged as hell, and bigoted imo. It's easy when a certain group holds most of the cards, most of the money, most of the institutional power, most of the political clout, etc., to say, "Oh let's just focus on rugged individualism!"
It's not an even playing field, and its not even close.
Fair enough, I don't accept your opinion either, lol. And it's a shame, because you actually do articulate the middle ground in my mind. Is that opinion privileged? Sure. Is it (or could it be) naïve, absolutely? Is it bigoted? Not necessarily. How do I know? Because I've believed that the government should not restrict these things, and it was not from a bigoted perspective. I've had to improve on that issue, myself, as well, but not in regards to what the government should legislate companies do or not do. It didn't factor into that logical argument in my mind. Now I can't prove it to you, but I know what I thought.
You've actually illustrated a big part of the issue. You jump from a logically defendable and rational position - a person advocating that is privileged to not have to deal with it, to an assumption based position not provable - that they are bigoted. This is not helpful or healthy for dialogue. Your position is part of the problem.
You still don't get it. It's bigoted to not care about all of the inequities I listed above (and many more). It's bigoted to adopt a position ("let employers do whatever the f they want") that puts these already marginalized groups in even more tenuous positions than they're already in.
No, you still don't get it, because you've painted people in a box that makes you feel better about yourself becuase you think you know their motivations (see ctuser's post to me above). I get it, it's easy to classify someone who doesn't believe the same as you as a bigot. But you're not proving anything with your arguments - you're just throwing out the term bigot as a catch all for someone not viewing things the way you want them too.
Some people are naive and don't realize how much trouble not having these laws can cause. That alone disproves your guarantee of bigotry. It's also not necessarily bigoted to not care as much about digging into how much someone else's suffering to inform your opinion. It's certainly and clearly privileged, which is why I said that was a great point. It's selfish and not an admirable characteristic by any stretch. It's something I've strove to fight against in myself. But it's not bigotry following any definition I've ever seen- i.e. looking down on someone else for the group they are in unless you count "anyone but me" as a group.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 17, 2020, 10:39:27 AM
Everyone has their limits, and that's going to be a personal decision.
"Politics" really displays a person's worldview, their priorities, and how they view other people. "Politics" is not trivial. It can really show a person's true nature. Sure, there are some areas that are more just about making the trains run on time, but some issues are just too vital to ignore vast disagreements. I don't get how many people say, "Oh, well that's just a political disagreement" when it comes to things like protections for LGBTQ folks, as an example. Would I be close friends with a person who thinks gay folks ought to be able to be fired just for...wait for it...being gay?
Hell no. I have no room for bigots in my life.
Your last argument is a stretch and illustrative of how these political principles that start out as "it's a moral issue" morph into a way to denigrate others beyond the actual issue - it's an issue of creep. I believe that there are people who believe that the government ought to not legislate a private company from not firing someone for that issue. It doesn't mean they would do it or even think it's right. They just believe that the government shouldn't use the law to stop it from happening. I think we all think there are things that are bad that the government shouldn't make illegal. I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying I agree with them. I'm just saying to call them bigots is an assumption on your part that may very well not be true and is an example of how these conversations morph from I won't befriend someone who goes on racist rants or something that's clear cut into something that's not nearly as clear cut.
LOL. I literally talked to two people yesterday who said they would fire someone for being gay and think it's right.
That's great that you have anecdotal evidence of two people that don't fit into my example. I never once said that all people didn't think that. The bolded text clearly states that their belief that the government shouldn't make a law to stop it from happening doesn't mean that they would do it. Clearly if you would do it, you want the government to not outlaw it. I didn't think I needed to state that.... I am saying one doesn't necessarily equal the other, and getting back to the overall topic, it's the belief that it does that is part of the problem.
Post by: Kris on June 17, 2020, 10:50:51 AM
Everyone has their limits, and that's going to be a personal decision.
"Politics" really displays a person's worldview, their priorities, and how they view other people. "Politics" is not trivial. It can really show a person's true nature. Sure, there are some areas that are more just about making the trains run on time, but some issues are just too vital to ignore vast disagreements. I don't get how many people say, "Oh, well that's just a political disagreement" when it comes to things like protections for LGBTQ folks, as an example. Would I be close friends with a person who thinks gay folks ought to be able to be fired just for...wait for it...being gay?
Hell no. I have no room for bigots in my life.
Your last argument is a stretch and illustrative of how these political principles that start out as "it's a moral issue" morph into a way to denigrate others beyond the actual issue - it's an issue of creep. I believe that there are people who believe that the government ought to not legislate a private company from not firing someone for that issue. It doesn't mean they would do it or even think it's right. They just believe that the government shouldn't use the law to stop it from happening. I think we all think there are things that are bad that the government shouldn't make illegal. I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying I agree with them. I'm just saying to call them bigots is an assumption on your part that may very well not be true and is an example of how these conversations morph from I won't befriend someone who goes on racist rants or something that's clear cut into something that's not nearly as clear cut.
LOL. I literally talked to two people yesterday who said they would fire someone for being gay and think it's right.
That's great that you have anecdotal evidence of two people that don't fit into my example. I never once said that all people didn't think that. The bolded text clearly states that their belief that the government shouldn't make a law to stop it from happening doesn't mean that they would do it. Clearly if you would do it, you want the government to not outlaw it. I didn't think I needed to state that.... I am saying one doesn't necessarily equal the other, and getting back to the overall topic, it's the belief that it does that is part of the problem.
Actually, no, it's not great that there are people who would fire someone for being gay and think it's right. It's pretty shitty.
And sure, there are people who don't think there needs to be a law about it who wouldn't actually do it themselves. But those people are likely not the people who would be discriminated against, so yeah, why should they care, right?
Passive complacency isn't bigotry, true. But it sure isn't the opposite of bigotry.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 17, 2020, 11:14:28 AM
Hey, it took about an hour five minutes this time! That's slightly above what I was expecting, but close enough.
On a discussion that's literally on whether or not you can have friends of different beliefs, and an overall theme is that yes, as long as you're not a jerk about it, do you realize how condescending it sounds to say "FYI, your religion says this that or the other..."? I was mentally prepared for it, so it didn't really bother me, but dang, dude, lol. First, my religion is not Catholocism. Second, the part of my religion that influences my opinion is not specifically related to historical church doctrine on this issue. It is on other issues but not so much on this one, for different reasons that aren't worth discussing in this context except to say that, yes, I actually did know what you said (shocker, I might know as much as you do about it), and two, it doesn't influence me, because that's not a huge part of how religion influences my belief on the subject.
Finally, I'm not going to argue with you about the fascism or not thing, because, again, it goes nowhere. I will simply reiterate what I said above. To claim that someone's moral views that influence the laws that they want to go into affect are to be disregarded because they're based off of religion is a ridiculous argument.
>> do you realize how condescending it sounds to say "FYI, your religion says this that or the other..."?
Yes, I see how my own dogma (of having an active dislike for all the organized, exclusivist religions) + my own stereotyping (of assuming you must be a part of one such exclusivist denominations - e.g. Christian/Jewish/Muslim) resulted in a condescending reply. I should have phrased things differently. Apologies for that.
Since we are on this topic, let me turn the same question around assuming my stereotype is correct (which it may not be, e.g. say if you are a follower of the Japanese Shinto religion, or some denomination of Buddhist, or Hindu).
Assuming you are part of one of the exclusivist religious faiths, do you realize how condescending and arrogant it sounds when I hear:
1. There is only one true god, and it is the one I have a monopoly agency over, granted by my holy book.
2. If you don't believe in my god, then you are a heathen who is going to hell. I better do you a favor as a missionary and save your soul by converting you.
3. Since you are a sinner, my moral code is the only one that applies and you should obey that. If you don't, I will try to get the government to force you to obey that.
If someone is of a different religious faith, or of no faith at all, and does not subscribe to your "religiously informed" morality, will they be forced to abide by that moral code?
Yes, I am guilty of having responded negatively based on assuming you are a part of a certain stereotype. I can improve on that - for sure. But this "I" am an insignificant nobody. Do you think, perhaps, that the source of that negative stereotype also has a responsibility to improve, and that forcing their moral code on everybody is not the way to do that??
Post by: MudPuppy on June 17, 2020, 11:23:05 AM
Post by: boy_bye on June 17, 2020, 11:28:41 AM
Everyone has their limits, and that's going to be a personal decision.
"Politics" really displays a person's worldview, their priorities, and how they view other people. "Politics" is not trivial. It can really show a person's true nature. Sure, there are some areas that are more just about making the trains run on time, but some issues are just too vital to ignore vast disagreements. I don't get how many people say, "Oh, well that's just a political disagreement" when it comes to things like protections for LGBTQ folks, as an example. Would I be close friends with a person who thinks gay folks ought to be able to be fired just for...wait for it...being gay?
Hell no. I have no room for bigots in my life.
Your last argument is a stretch and illustrative of how these political principles that start out as "it's a moral issue" morph into a way to denigrate others beyond the actual issue - it's an issue of creep. I believe that there are people who believe that the government ought to not legislate a private company from not firing someone for that issue. It doesn't mean they would do it or even think it's right. They just believe that the government shouldn't use the law to stop it from happening. I think we all think there are things that are bad that the government shouldn't make illegal. I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying I agree with them. I'm just saying to call them bigots is an assumption on your part that may very well not be true and is an example of how these conversations morph from I won't befriend someone who goes on racist rants or something that's clear cut into something that's not nearly as clear cut.
Nah I don't accept your argument.
Because I think it's bigoted and privileged as hell for someone, probably someone who's straight/white to say, "Oh let businesses discriminate against workers for any reason."
"Black? fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."
"Gay? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."
"Pregnant? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out!"
"Trans? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort them out."
"A women? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."
Again, privileged as hell, and bigoted imo. It's easy when a certain group holds most of the cards, most of the money, most of the institutional power, most of the political clout, etc., to say, "Oh let's just focus on rugged individualism!"
It's not an even playing field, and its not even close.
Fair enough, I don't accept your opinion either, lol. And it's a shame, because you actually do articulate the middle ground in my mind. Is that opinion privileged? Sure. Is it (or could it be) naïve, absolutely? Is it bigoted? Not necessarily. How do I know? Because I've believed that the government should not restrict these things, and it was not from a bigoted perspective. I've had to improve on that issue, myself, as well, but not in regards to what the government should legislate companies do or not do. It didn't factor into that logical argument in my mind. Now I can't prove it to you, but I know what I thought.
You've actually illustrated a big part of the issue. You jump from a logically defendable and rational position - a person advocating that is privileged to not have to deal with it, to an assumption based position not provable - that they are bigoted. This is not helpful or healthy for dialogue. Your position is part of the problem.
You still don't get it. It's bigoted to not care about all of the inequities I listed above (and many more). It's bigoted to adopt a position ("let employers do whatever the f they want") that puts these already marginalized groups in even more tenuous positions than they're already in.
No, you still don't get it, because you've painted people in a box that makes you feel better about yourself becuase you think you know their motivations (see ctuser's post to me above). I get it, it's easy to classify someone who doesn't believe the same as you as a bigot. But you're not proving anything with your arguments - you're just throwing out the term bigot as a catch all for someone not viewing things the way you want them too.
Some people are naive and don't realize how much trouble not having these laws can cause. That alone disproves your guarantee of bigotry. It's also not necessarily bigoted to not care as much about digging into how much someone else's suffering to inform your opinion. It's certainly and clearly privileged, which is why I said that was a great point. It's selfish and not an admirable characteristic by any stretch. It's something I've strove to fight against in myself. But it's not bigotry following any definition I've ever seen- i.e. looking down on someone else for the group they are in unless you count "anyone but me" as a group.
The intent that people have when they engage in behaviors that harm others is IRRELEVANT, or at least far less relevant than the fact the others are being harmed. And being ignorant of how one's actions contribute to the oppression of others is not an excuse. Voting for a bigot IS bigotry. Never taking the time to put oneself in the shoes of a less privileged person IS bigotry. Thinking that you being called bigoted is in any way comparable to experiencing actual bigotry? ALSO BIGOTRY.
A person doesn't have to walk around going "I hate [group]" in order to act in a bigoted way.
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 17, 2020, 12:03:50 PM
A black person might not be hired to represent a company in Japan.
A gay person might not be hired to represent a company in Saudi Arabia.
A pregnant or trans person might not be hired in private security/military deployment.
A woman might not be hired to be a piano mover.
Is this bigotry?
Post by: MudPuppy on June 17, 2020, 12:06:12 PM
Post by: sui generis on June 17, 2020, 12:09:45 PM
Post by: sherr on June 17, 2020, 12:13:00 PM
Let's assume this is an American company involved here.
A black person might not be hired to represent a company in Japan.
A gay person might not be hired to represent a company in Saudi Arabia.
A pregnant or trans person might not be hired in private security/military deployment.
A woman might not be hired to be a piano mover.
Is this bigotry?
Some of them possibly, some definitely not. The dividing line is if the discrimination is position-related and a business necessity.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Section 703.k.1.A
An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact is established under this subchapter only if-
(i) a complaining party demonstrates ... disparate impact ... and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity
Post by: skp on June 17, 2020, 12:13:33 PM
Post by: renata ricotta on June 17, 2020, 12:17:40 PM
And, courts have held that real or perceived biases of your clientele/customers/vendors/donors cannot be the basis of a BFOQ. For example, Southwest Airlines in a lawsuit argued that their customers preferred to see flight attendants who were young, attractive women, so it was a BFOQ. Courts roundly reject this reasoning, and for similar reasons reject arguments like "we can't have women on our team supporting the Saudi Arabian project because the Saudis wouldn't like it."
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 17, 2020, 12:21:19 PM
Yes.
Awesome. I like clarity.
Bethesda is a video game development company, headquartered in Maryland. They've created Fallout, and the new Doom game, among others. Very popular.
This month is Pride Month. Bethesda experienced a controversy earlier this month because their Twitter logos were changed to support Pride, with the exception of a few regions. See the attached image.
What should be done about this bigoted company? Are the people that buy and enjoy their games also complicit in the bigotry?
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 17, 2020, 12:24:10 PM
Let's assume this is an American company involved here.
A black person might not be hired to represent a company in Japan.
A gay person might not be hired to represent a company in Saudi Arabia.
A pregnant or trans person might not be hired in private security/military deployment.
A woman might not be hired to be a piano mover.
Is this bigotry?
Some of them possibly, some definitely not. The dividing line is if the discrimination is position-related and a business necessity.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Section 703.k.1.A
An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact is established under this subchapter only if-
(i) a complaining party demonstrates ... disparate impact ... and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity
Interesting. Your post suggests that there could be lawful subjective elements that could separate bigotry from business necessity.
Perhaps an average American female would not be a good candidate for a piano mover? Perhaps a pregnant woman should not be serving on the front lines of a war zone? Am I a bigot for considering this?
Post by: Chris22 on June 17, 2020, 12:27:09 PM
Yes.
Awesome. I like clarity.
Bethesda is a video game development company, headquartered in Maryland. They've created Fallout, and the new Doom game, among others. Very popular.
This month is Pride Month. Bethesda experienced a controversy earlier this month because their Twitter logos were changed to support Pride, with the exception of a few regions. See the attached image.
What should be done about this bigoted company? Are the people that buy and enjoy their games also complicit in the bigotry?
It’s almost like they know where virtue signaling is important and where it isn’t.
Also for the record, this is the kind of shit that pushes people away. If they had done nothing there would likely be little controversy. But instead they do something small, and it’s open season on why they didn’t do more, or different, or whatever.
If you want an ally, maybe first step isn’t to push away people who are taking their first steps down the road, they are just as likely to just turn around and walk the other way.
Post by: sherr on June 17, 2020, 12:29:50 PM
As my boss informed us all at a staff meeting the other day, Ohio is an at will employment state. We can be fired for any or no reason whatsoever. Should this apply only to white males?
Obvious strawman. NC is an at-will state too, anyone can be fired for no reason. If the fired person believes that "no reason" was actually because of their status in a protected class, and they think they have enough evidence to prove it, then they can sue under Title VII and their case will be evaluated on its merits. Everything is exactly how it should be, stop whining.
Post by: GuitarStv on June 17, 2020, 12:33:27 PM
Yes.
Awesome. I like clarity.
Bethesda is a video game development company, headquartered in Maryland. They've created Fallout, and the new Doom game, among others. Very popular.
This month is Pride Month. Bethesda experienced a controversy earlier this month because their Twitter logos were changed to support Pride, with the exception of a few regions. See the attached image.
What should be done about this bigoted company? Are the people that buy and enjoy their games also complicit in the bigotry?
None of the previous points you mentioned
Let's assume this is an American company involved here.
A black person might not be hired to represent a company in Japan.
A gay person might not be hired to represent a company in Saudi Arabia.
A pregnant or trans person might not be hired in private security/military deployment.
A woman might not be hired to be a piano mover.
Is this bigotry?
that MudPuppy said were bigoted actions are related to the argument you're putting forth now.
Fundamentally I think the question can come down to 'If Bethesda did nothing on any website to support gay pride would they be bigoted?'. My response to that would be no. So it's hard for me to see them as bigoted for partially supporting gay pride on some websites.
Let's assume this is an American company involved here.
A black person might not be hired to represent a company in Japan.
A gay person might not be hired to represent a company in Saudi Arabia.
A pregnant or trans person might not be hired in private security/military deployment.
A woman might not be hired to be a piano mover.
Is this bigotry?
Some of them possibly, some definitely not. The dividing line is if the discrimination is position-related and a business necessity.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Section 703.k.1.A
An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact is established under this subchapter only if-
(i) a complaining party demonstrates ... disparate impact ... and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity
Interesting. Your post suggests that there could be lawful subjective elements that could separate bigotry from business necessity.
Perhaps an average American female would not be a good candidate for a piano mover? Perhaps a pregnant woman should not be serving on the front lines of a war zone? Am I a bigot for considering this?
On average Asian men are smaller and less strong than black men. Is the average asian man therefore a bad candidate for a piano mover?
I'd argue that pregnancy is a debilitating but fully treatable medical condition. We don't usually put men on the front line in war zones when they have debilitating but treatable medical conditions, so I wouldn't expect us to put women there either.
I think that your consideration for employment should include the requirements for the job. If there are some women who can lift the weight necessary to move a piano, then you should not reject all women out of hand. A pregnant woman shouldn't be serving on the front line of a war . . . but there's no reason a fit and able woman can't serve on the front line of a war. Bigotry only really comes into play when you decide to exclude women entirely because of these concerns . . . rather than approaching and judging each situation by it's individual merits.
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 17, 2020, 12:34:12 PM
Yes.
Awesome. I like clarity.
Bethesda is a video game development company, headquartered in Maryland. They've created Fallout, and the new Doom game, among others. Very popular.
This month is Pride Month. Bethesda experienced a controversy earlier this month because their Twitter logos were changed to support Pride, with the exception of a few regions. See the attached image.
What should be done about this bigoted company? Are the people that buy and enjoy their games also complicit in the bigotry?
It’s almost like they know where virtue signaling is important and where it isn’t.
Also for the record, this is the kind of shit that pushes people away. If they had done nothing there would likely be little controversy. But instead they do something small, and it’s open season on why they didn’t do more, or different, or whatever.
If you want an ally, maybe first step isn’t to push away people who are taking their first steps down the road, they are just as likely to just turn around and walk the other way.
What pushes people away is moving goalposts.
I agree with your last paragraph, but the irony in the context of this bigger conversation is not lost on me.
Doing business with a bigoted culture has the potential upside of teachable moments. "Soft power", essentially.
Again, this is why people have to be careful of treating the other side as irredeemable. We allow murders to repent and reintegrate, but I see a puritanism on the left that excludes and denigrates. I haven't seen it in any of the conservative arguments in this thread, feel free to prove me wrong with quotes.
Post by: sherr on June 17, 2020, 12:34:53 PM
Let's assume this is an American company involved here.
A black person might not be hired to represent a company in Japan.
A gay person might not be hired to represent a company in Saudi Arabia.
A pregnant or trans person might not be hired in private security/military deployment.
A woman might not be hired to be a piano mover.
Is this bigotry?
Some of them possibly, some definitely not. The dividing line is if the discrimination is position-related and a business necessity.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Section 703.k.1.A
An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact is established under this subchapter only if-
(i) a complaining party demonstrates ... disparate impact ... and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity
Interesting. Your post suggests that there could be lawful subjective elements that could separate bigotry from business necessity.
Perhaps an average American female would not be a good candidate for a piano mover? Perhaps a pregnant woman should not be serving on the front lines of a war zone? Am I a bigot for considering this?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I stand by @renata ricotta's explanation, they did a better job than I and sound like they know what they're talking about better anyway. And I'd be willing to hazard a guess that there is no country on Earth that sends pregnant women to the front lines, including the USA, so no you're obviously not a bigot for considering this. This is also an obvious strawman.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 17, 2020, 12:42:16 PM
What pushes people away is moving goalposts.
I agree with your last paragraph, but the irony in the context of this bigger conversation is not lost on me.
Doing business with a bigoted culture has the potential upside of teachable moments. "Soft power", essentially.
Again, this is why people have to be careful of treating the other side as irredeemable. We allow murders to repent and reintegrate, but I see a puritanism on the left that excludes and denigrates. I haven't seen it in any of the conservative arguments in this thread, feel free to prove me wrong with quotes.
Your house is on fire and you seem to worry a lot about the neighbors who complains loudly about the fire-fighter's attire because it offends them and offers no help!!
Interesting priorities...
Dude. Folks who look a certain way are disproportionate recipients of police violence. That is the "house in fire" problem. Can we please stop worrying about which snowflake's delicate sensibilities are hurt because of which slight?
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 17, 2020, 12:43:29 PM
None of the previous points you mentioned that MudPuppy said were bigoted actions are related to the argument you're putting forth now.
Fundamentally I think the question can come down to 'If Bethesda did nothing on any website to support gay pride would they be bigoted?'. My response to that would be no. So it's hard for me to see them as bigoted for partially supporting gay pride on some websites.
You're smarter than that!
"A gay person might not be hired to represent a company in Saudi Arabia."
Don't pretend that choosing to exclude the Middle Eastern demographic from showing support for Pride is not related conceptually to the example I described above.
Quote
On average Asian men are smaller and less strong than black men. Is the average asian man therefore a bad candidate for a piano mover?Yes. And it is only coincidence that their race would manifest in a study of the racial makeup of piano movers.
Quote
I'd argue that pregnancy is a debilitating but fully treatable medical condition. We don't usually put men on the front line in war zones when they have debilitating but treatable medical conditions, so I wouldn't expect us to put women there either.Yes. This doesn't seem too difficult. So we are left with the issue--if a survey is done and virtually all piano movers are NOT women, do we attribute this to bigotry or a natural consequence of a healthy selection method?
I think that your consideration for employment should include the requirements for the job. If there are some women who can lift the weight necessary to move a piano, then you should not reject all women out of hand. A pregnant woman shouldn't be serving on the front line of a war . . . but there's no reason a fit and able woman can't serve on the front line of a war. Bigotry only really comes into play when you decide to exclude women entirely because of these concerns . . . rather than approaching and judging each situation by it's individual merits.
To summarize--the assumption of bigotry is a dangerous one and alternative causes should be considered before people get disparaged or denigrated. Fair?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I stand by @renata ricotta's explanation, they did a better job than I and sound like they know what they're talking about better anyway. And I'd be willing to hazard a guess that there is no country on Earth that sends pregnant women to the front lines, including the USA, so no you're obviously not a bigot for considering this. This is also an obvious strawman.
Definitely not a strawman(gendered language????).
See my underlined summary above.
Post by: MudPuppy on June 17, 2020, 12:47:00 PM
Yes.
Awesome. I like clarity.
Bethesda is a video game development company, headquartered in Maryland. They've created Fallout, and the new Doom game, among others. Very popular.
This month is Pride Month. Bethesda experienced a controversy earlier this month because their Twitter logos were changed to support Pride, with the exception of a few regions. See the attached image.
What should be done about this bigoted company? Are the people that buy and enjoy their games also complicit in the bigotry?
While bullshot, that is not a bigoted hiring practice
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 17, 2020, 12:47:34 PM
We were discussing discrimination when it comes to employment. Sometimes people are discriminated against unfairly, sometimes they are discriminated against fairly. I am not arguing against the idea that "Folks who look a certain way are disproportionate recipients of police violence".What pushes people away is moving goalposts.
I agree with your last paragraph, but the irony in the context of this bigger conversation is not lost on me.
Doing business with a bigoted culture has the potential upside of teachable moments. "Soft power", essentially.
Again, this is why people have to be careful of treating the other side as irredeemable. We allow murders to repent and reintegrate, but I see a puritanism on the left that excludes and denigrates. I haven't seen it in any of the conservative arguments in this thread, feel free to prove me wrong with quotes.
Your house is on fire and you seem to worry a lot about the neighbors who complains loudly about the fire-fighter's attire because it offends them and offers no help!!
Interesting priorities...
Dude. Folks who look a certain way are disproportionate recipients of police violence. That is the "house in fire" problem. Can we please stop worrying about which snowflake's delicate sensibilities are hurt because of which slight?
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 17, 2020, 12:48:16 PM
Yes.
Awesome. I like clarity.
Bethesda is a video game development company, headquartered in Maryland. They've created Fallout, and the new Doom game, among others. Very popular.
This month is Pride Month. Bethesda experienced a controversy earlier this month because their Twitter logos were changed to support Pride, with the exception of a few regions. See the attached image.
What should be done about this bigoted company? Are the people that buy and enjoy their games also complicit in the bigotry?
While bullshot, that is not a bigoted hiring practice
Fair enough. Do you think it is the enabling of bigotry more generally?
Post by: MudPuppy on June 17, 2020, 12:49:46 PM
Let's assume this is an American company involved here.
A black person might not be hired to represent a company in Japan.
A gay person might not be hired to represent a company in Saudi Arabia.
A pregnant or trans person might not be hired in private security/military deployment.
A woman might not be hired to be a piano mover.
Is this bigotry?
Some of them possibly, some definitely not. The dividing line is if the discrimination is position-related and a business necessity.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Section 703.k.1.A
An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact is established under this subchapter only if-
(i) a complaining party demonstrates ... disparate impact ... and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity
Interesting. Your post suggests that there could be lawful subjective elements that could separate bigotry from business necessity.
Perhaps an average American female would not be a good candidate for a piano mover? Perhaps a pregnant woman should not be serving on the front lines of a war zone? Am I a bigot for considering this?
If moving X number of pounds is required for a job, a physical should be a condition of employment. I had to prove I could move 50 pounds from the floor to a standard table height and also go from lying to sitting standing without using my hands.
Post by: MudPuppy on June 17, 2020, 12:52:46 PM
Yes.
Awesome. I like clarity.
Bethesda is a video game development company, headquartered in Maryland. They've created Fallout, and the new Doom game, among others. Very popular.
This month is Pride Month. Bethesda experienced a controversy earlier this month because their Twitter logos were changed to support Pride, with the exception of a few regions. See the attached image.
What should be done about this bigoted company? Are the people that buy and enjoy their games also complicit in the bigotry?
While bullshot, that is not a bigoted hiring practice
Fair enough. Do you think it is the enabling of bigotry more generally?
I think it's false allyship.
Post by: sherr on June 17, 2020, 12:56:29 PM
Yes. This doesn't seem too difficult. So we are left with the issue--if a survey is done and virtually all piano movers are NOT women, do we attribute this to bigotry or a natural consequence of a healthy selection method?
To summarize--the assumption of bigotry is a dangerous one and alternative causes should be considered before people get disparaged or denigrated. Fair?I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I stand by @renata ricotta's explanation, they did a better job than I and sound like they know what they're talking about better anyway. And I'd be willing to hazard a guess that there is no country on Earth that sends pregnant women to the front lines, including the USA, so no you're obviously not a bigot for considering this. This is also an obvious strawman.
Definitely not a strawman(gendered language????).
See my underlined summary above.
You're barking up the wrong tree with your "gendered language" mockery, I care a lot more about communicating clearly with standard and accepted terminology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) than I do about forcing everything into linguistically-gender-neutral buckets.
No one was talking about doing statistical analysis on various careers to accuse employers of bigotry, that's something you invented whole cloth. Nor was anyone talking about sending pregnant woman to the front lines, besides you. So yes, that is an obvious strawman.
What was being said was that firing someone for a bigoted reason is obviously bigotry, and that standing around on the sideline seeing the situation and telling yourself that "there's no problem here" is a sort of second-hand bigotry. Which I don't necessarily agree with, but that's miles away from whatever you've degenerated the conversation into.
Post by: GuitarStv on June 17, 2020, 01:00:19 PM
None of the previous points you mentioned that MudPuppy said were bigoted actions are related to the argument you're putting forth now.
Fundamentally I think the question can come down to 'If Bethesda did nothing on any website to support gay pride would they be bigoted?'. My response to that would be no. So it's hard for me to see them as bigoted for partially supporting gay pride on some websites.
You're smarter than that!
"A gay person might not be hired to represent a company in Saudi Arabia."
Don't pretend that choosing to exclude the Middle Eastern demographic from showing support for Pride is not related conceptually to the example I described above.
I'm not pretending anything.
The token rainbow flag graphic on a twitter account really doesn't amount to anything of note when we're talking about gay rights. Failing to hire someone for being gay on the other hand is quite serious.
Conceptually there is little to no overlap between the two that I'm seeing.
Quote
QuoteOn average Asian men are smaller and less strong than black men. Is the average asian man therefore a bad candidate for a piano mover?Yes. And it is only coincidence that their race would manifest in a study of the racial makeup of piano movers.
You don't hire the average person when hiring someone. You hire the individual. If you post a listing for piano movers saying 'asian men need not apply' that's bigoted . . . and stupid. There are plenty of asian men who are strong enough to lift pianos, and there are plenty of women who are strong enough to do the same. This kind of thing tends to be self-selecting anyway . . . I suspect that the type of asian man or woman who applied for such a job would likely be stronger than the average.
Quote
QuoteI'd argue that pregnancy is a debilitating but fully treatable medical condition. We don't usually put men on the front line in war zones when they have debilitating but treatable medical conditions, so I wouldn't expect us to put women there either.
I think that your consideration for employment should include the requirements for the job. If there are some women who can lift the weight necessary to move a piano, then you should not reject all women out of hand. A pregnant woman shouldn't be serving on the front line of a war . . . but there's no reason a fit and able woman can't serve on the front line of a war. Bigotry only really comes into play when you decide to exclude women entirely because of these concerns . . . rather than approaching and judging each situation by it's individual merits.
Yes. This doesn't seem too difficult. So we are left with the issue--if a survey is done and virtually all piano movers are NOT women, do we attribute this to bigotry or a natural consequence of a healthy selection method?
We can't make any conclusion because there isn't enough data. If you want to determine bigotry, you need to find out the attitudes common in the industry under study. It's possible that there are few women because women simply don't apply to that kind of job, because there are few women able to do it, or because the people doing hiring out of hand reject women's applications. More data is needed to determine what we're dealing with.
But to take an example from your previous list . . . if a black person is not hired to represent a company in Japan, simply because he's black . . . then yeah. That's a clearly bigoted cause. He's not being passed over because he is unable to do the job, but because racial bigotry exists and is being kowtowed to.
Quote
To summarize--the assumption of bigotry is a dangerous one and alternative causes should be considered before people get disparaged or denigrated. Fair?
Agreed.
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 17, 2020, 01:09:38 PM
You're barking up the wrong tree with your "gendered language" mockery, I care a lot more about communicating clearly with standard and accepted terminology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) than I do about forcing everything into linguistically-gender-neutral buckets.
No one was talking about doing statistical analysis on various careers to accuse employers of bigotry, that's something you invented whole cloth. Nor was anyone talking about sending pregnant woman to the front lines, besides you. So yes, that is an obvious strawman.
What was being said was that firing someone for a bigoted reason is obviously bigotry, and that standing around on the sideline seeing the situation and telling yourself that "there's no problem here" is a sort of second-hand bigotry. Which I don't necessarily agree with, but that's miles away from whatever you've degenerated the conversation into.
I was joking about the gendered language thing. But I was using this comment as a template:
Quote
The intent that people have when they engage in behaviors that harm others is IRRELEVANT, or at least far less relevant than the fact the others are being harmed. And being ignorant of how one's actions contribute to the oppression of others is not an excuse. Voting for a bigot IS bigotry. Never taking the time to put oneself in the shoes of a less privileged person IS bigotry. Thinking that you being called bigoted is in any way comparable to experiencing actual bigotry? ALSO BIGOTRY.
Intent matters. That's what I'm trying to get at. And an allegation of bigotry is serious which requires investigation, not assumptions.
Quote
What was being said was that firing someone for a bigoted reason is obviously bigotryIf someone gets fired for x, we can assume they were fired for x. No problem. It's when there are allegations of x that may or may not be true that are problematic.
To steelman the argument further, one could say that a conservative(or more accurately, libertarian) should be free to fire someone in a bigoted way, since it would be inefficient. If you fire someone who's really good at their job simply because they are gay or a certain skin color, then another company will hire them and the first company will suffer. Whether or not the state should get involved is a more difficult issue due to error. Obviously you run the risk of upholding systemic discrimination with a strategy like this. So, along with many political matters, it's an issue of compromise.
In any case, I think @Wolfpack Mustachian and @DadJokes addressed all this pretty well on the last page, and I've humored a conversation that I probably didn't need to.
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 17, 2020, 01:19:07 PM
The token rainbow flag graphic on a twitter account really doesn't amount to anything of note when we're talking about gay rights. Failing to hire someone for being gay on the other hand is quite serious.The rainbow flag was meaningful enough to use in Western regions, but not meaningful enough to use in the Middle Eastern, Russian and Turkish regions? Or was it a case of selective kowtowing? Could just be coincidence I suppose--the social media managers in those regions might be entrenched in their own cultures and not even aware of Pride month. Assuming those social media managers are located in those regions. If a memo were sent out stating that these regions should be selectively left out of the Pride logo, it would be bigotry I think. We will never know.
Conceptually there is little to no overlap between the two that I'm seeing.
Quote
We can't make any conclusion because there isn't enough data. If you want to determine bigotry, you need to find out the attitudes common in the industry under study. It's possible that there are few women because women simply don't apply to that kind of job, because there are few women able to do it, or because the people doing hiring out of hand reject women's applications. More data is needed to determine what we're dealing with.Not just data, but an assessment of intent. Data alone doesn't prove causation. I'm agreeing with you here, just want to be clear about intent.
Post by: Chris22 on June 17, 2020, 01:31:36 PM
The token rainbow flag graphic on a twitter account really doesn't amount to anything of note when we're talking about gay rights. Failing to hire someone for being gay on the other hand is quite serious.The rainbow flag was meaningful enough to use in Western regions, but not meaningful enough to use in the Middle Eastern, Russian and Turkish regions? Or was it a case of selective kowtowing? Could just be coincidence I suppose--the social media managers in those regions might be entrenched in their own cultures and not even aware of Pride month. Assuming those social media managers are located in those regions. If a memo were sent out stating that these regions should be selectively left out of the Pride logo, it would be bigotry I think. We will never know.
Conceptually there is little to no overlap between the two that I'm seeing.
So we know that especially in the Middle East, there are cultures that are very much opposed to homosexuals, to the point where they are thrown from buildings as state-sponsored punishment.
But the expectation is that a video game company who signals support in the US/Western Europe must signal that same support in these countries or it is considered bigoted? Seriously? Why would they torpedo their business and maybe get themselves in legal trouble over a Twitter avatar in places where the message isnt welcome?
Is that not mildly insane to have as an expectation?
Post by: boy_bye on June 17, 2020, 01:33:36 PM
QuoteThe intent that people have when they engage in behaviors that harm others is IRRELEVANT, or at least far less relevant than the fact the others are being harmed. And being ignorant of how one's actions contribute to the oppression of others is not an excuse. Voting for a bigot IS bigotry. Never taking the time to put oneself in the shoes of a less privileged person IS bigotry. Thinking that you being called bigoted is in any way comparable to experiencing actual bigotry? ALSO BIGOTRY.
Intent matters. That's what I'm trying to get at. And an allegation of bigotry is serious which requires investigation, not assumptions.
I dunno ... what are the consequences of someone being an alleged bigot? As far as I can tell, it makes you more likely to be president and that's about it?
Sure, some folks are losing contracts and jobs over their racist behavior but that's only when it's documented so clearly that it can't be missed.
Other than that -- what's the consequence? Embarrassment? Feeling shocked and incredulous that a nice person like you could be considered to have done something imperfect? Having the opportunity to confront your own blind spots and potentially grow into a better human being?
OH THE HORROR
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 17, 2020, 01:59:20 PM
Everyone has their limits, and that's going to be a personal decision.
"Politics" really displays a person's worldview, their priorities, and how they view other people. "Politics" is not trivial. It can really show a person's true nature. Sure, there are some areas that are more just about making the trains run on time, but some issues are just too vital to ignore vast disagreements. I don't get how many people say, "Oh, well that's just a political disagreement" when it comes to things like protections for LGBTQ folks, as an example. Would I be close friends with a person who thinks gay folks ought to be able to be fired just for...wait for it...being gay?
Hell no. I have no room for bigots in my life.
Your last argument is a stretch and illustrative of how these political principles that start out as "it's a moral issue" morph into a way to denigrate others beyond the actual issue - it's an issue of creep. I believe that there are people who believe that the government ought to not legislate a private company from not firing someone for that issue. It doesn't mean they would do it or even think it's right. They just believe that the government shouldn't use the law to stop it from happening. I think we all think there are things that are bad that the government shouldn't make illegal. I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying I agree with them. I'm just saying to call them bigots is an assumption on your part that may very well not be true and is an example of how these conversations morph from I won't befriend someone who goes on racist rants or something that's clear cut into something that's not nearly as clear cut.
LOL. I literally talked to two people yesterday who said they would fire someone for being gay and think it's right.
That's great that you have anecdotal evidence of two people that don't fit into my example. I never once said that all people didn't think that. The bolded text clearly states that their belief that the government shouldn't make a law to stop it from happening doesn't mean that they would do it. Clearly if you would do it, you want the government to not outlaw it. I didn't think I needed to state that.... I am saying one doesn't necessarily equal the other, and getting back to the overall topic, it's the belief that it does that is part of the problem.
Actually, no, it's not great that there are people who would fire someone for being gay and think it's right. It's pretty shitty.
And sure, there are people who don't think there needs to be a law about it who wouldn't actually do it themselves. But those people are likely not the people who would be discriminated against, so yeah, why should they care, right?
Passive complacency isn't bigotry, true. But it sure isn't the opposite of bigotry.
Wow, way to take what I said and read into it every possible negative thing you could read. Of course it's not great that people think like that. Have you seriously never heard someone say that's great in the same vein as "congratulations" i.e. "congratulations, you found a situation where two people were jerks." That doesn't negate my point.
Glad you agree that it's not bigotry. I never idolized or held up the viewpoint of not wanting the government to make laws that protect people. I was trying to provide insight into people's minds who think differently. Throwing around the phrase bigotry helter skelter like I find progressives do in situations such as this is not helpful.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 17, 2020, 02:08:02 PM
Everyone has their limits, and that's going to be a personal decision.
"Politics" really displays a person's worldview, their priorities, and how they view other people. "Politics" is not trivial. It can really show a person's true nature. Sure, there are some areas that are more just about making the trains run on time, but some issues are just too vital to ignore vast disagreements. I don't get how many people say, "Oh, well that's just a political disagreement" when it comes to things like protections for LGBTQ folks, as an example. Would I be close friends with a person who thinks gay folks ought to be able to be fired just for...wait for it...being gay?
Hell no. I have no room for bigots in my life.
Your last argument is a stretch and illustrative of how these political principles that start out as "it's a moral issue" morph into a way to denigrate others beyond the actual issue - it's an issue of creep. I believe that there are people who believe that the government ought to not legislate a private company from not firing someone for that issue. It doesn't mean they would do it or even think it's right. They just believe that the government shouldn't use the law to stop it from happening. I think we all think there are things that are bad that the government shouldn't make illegal. I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying I agree with them. I'm just saying to call them bigots is an assumption on your part that may very well not be true and is an example of how these conversations morph from I won't befriend someone who goes on racist rants or something that's clear cut into something that's not nearly as clear cut.
Nah I don't accept your argument.
Because I think it's bigoted and privileged as hell for someone, probably someone who's straight/white to say, "Oh let businesses discriminate against workers for any reason."
"Black? fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."
"Gay? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."
"Pregnant? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out!"
"Trans? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort them out."
"A women? Fire them! That's fine, the market will sort it out."
Again, privileged as hell, and bigoted imo. It's easy when a certain group holds most of the cards, most of the money, most of the institutional power, most of the political clout, etc., to say, "Oh let's just focus on rugged individualism!"
It's not an even playing field, and its not even close.
Fair enough, I don't accept your opinion either, lol. And it's a shame, because you actually do articulate the middle ground in my mind. Is that opinion privileged? Sure. Is it (or could it be) naïve, absolutely? Is it bigoted? Not necessarily. How do I know? Because I've believed that the government should not restrict these things, and it was not from a bigoted perspective. I've had to improve on that issue, myself, as well, but not in regards to what the government should legislate companies do or not do. It didn't factor into that logical argument in my mind. Now I can't prove it to you, but I know what I thought.
You've actually illustrated a big part of the issue. You jump from a logically defendable and rational position - a person advocating that is privileged to not have to deal with it, to an assumption based position not provable - that they are bigoted. This is not helpful or healthy for dialogue. Your position is part of the problem.
You still don't get it. It's bigoted to not care about all of the inequities I listed above (and many more). It's bigoted to adopt a position ("let employers do whatever the f they want") that puts these already marginalized groups in even more tenuous positions than they're already in.
No, you still don't get it, because you've painted people in a box that makes you feel better about yourself becuase you think you know their motivations (see ctuser's post to me above). I get it, it's easy to classify someone who doesn't believe the same as you as a bigot. But you're not proving anything with your arguments - you're just throwing out the term bigot as a catch all for someone not viewing things the way you want them too.
Some people are naive and don't realize how much trouble not having these laws can cause. That alone disproves your guarantee of bigotry. It's also not necessarily bigoted to not care as much about digging into how much someone else's suffering to inform your opinion. It's certainly and clearly privileged, which is why I said that was a great point. It's selfish and not an admirable characteristic by any stretch. It's something I've strove to fight against in myself. But it's not bigotry following any definition I've ever seen- i.e. looking down on someone else for the group they are in unless you count "anyone but me" as a group.
The intent that people have when they engage in behaviors that harm others is IRRELEVANT, or at least far less relevant than the fact the others are being harmed. And being ignorant of how one's actions contribute to the oppression of others is not an excuse. Voting for a bigot IS bigotry. Never taking the time to put oneself in the shoes of a less privileged person IS bigotry. Thinking that you being called bigoted is in any way comparable to experiencing actual bigotry? ALSO BIGOTRY.
A person doesn't have to walk around going "I hate [group]" in order to act in a bigoted way.
If intent doesn't matter, then the word bigotry has lost its meaning, which it seems to be after this conversation. If intent doesn't matter, then we should never have conversations with anyone to convince them of anything. We should shout them down, beat them over the head, not care about why they think what they think, and tell them what to think. That's what I'm seeing some progressives seem to want to do here. Everyone can feel free to assume the worst of people's motivations or truly not care about why they thought something and label them evil if they want. That's a sad world to live in, but you're welcome to it. Didn't you just say you wanted to engage people who want to be willing to change their views. I have changed my views and am trying to tell you that no, looking down on others wasn't why I used to think that way. It was an excessive belief in what the market can do, a distrust of the government, and many other things - none of which is looking down on others. I'm glad I've (maybe) now passed your litmus test from evil to a little less evil...
P.S. In addition to your attacking tone, putting words in my mouth like "Thinking that you being called bigoted is in any way comparable to experiencing actual bigotry?" isn't really cool
Post by: boy_bye on June 17, 2020, 02:13:12 PM
What matters more?
1 - a debate about whether person A meant to run over person B's foot, or
2 - making sure that person B gets their foot taken care of and possibly getting person A to pay more attention in the future so they don't run over anyone else's foot?
Y'all keep arguing 1 when it's at least an order of magnitude LESS IMPORTANT than 2. That is what I'm saying. Intent of the injurer maybe matters a teensy little bit compared to care for the injured. I don't see how that is at all a controversial point.
Post by: sherr on June 17, 2020, 02:17:46 PM
Question -- let's say person A is in a car and runs over person B's foot.
What matters more?
1 - a debate about whether person A meant to run over person B's foot, or
2 - making sure that person B gets their foot taken care of and possibly getting person A to pay more attention in the future so they don't run over anyone else's foot?
Y'all keep arguing 1 when it's at least an order of magnitude LESS IMPORTANT than 2. That is what I'm saying. Intent of the injurer maybe matters a teensy little bit compared to care for the injured. I don't see how that is at all a controversial point.
That is not the only thing you were saying, because you were also very clearly attributing motivations to 3rd party bystanders. Or at least saying their motivations were irrelevant and calling them names. I think that Wolfpack has you beat here, and that you need to take your lumps, apologize, and try to do better next time.
Post by: boy_bye on June 17, 2020, 02:21:03 PM
Question -- let's say person A is in a car and runs over person B's foot.
What matters more?
1 - a debate about whether person A meant to run over person B's foot, or
2 - making sure that person B gets their foot taken care of and possibly getting person A to pay more attention in the future so they don't run over anyone else's foot?
Y'all keep arguing 1 when it's at least an order of magnitude LESS IMPORTANT than 2. That is what I'm saying. Intent of the injurer maybe matters a teensy little bit compared to care for the injured. I don't see how that is at all a controversial point.
That is not the only thing you were saying, because you were also very clearly attributing motivations to 3rd party bystanders. Or at least saying their motivations were irrelevant and calling them names. I think that Wolfpack has you beat here, and that you need to take your lumps, apologize, and try to do better next time.
Where did I attribute motivation to 3rd party bystanders again?
I said intention doesn't matter and impact does. I don't see anything to apologize for in that.
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 17, 2020, 02:24:12 PM
So we know that especially in the Middle East, there are cultures that are very much opposed to homosexuals, to the point where they are thrown from buildings as state-sponsored punishment.
But the expectation is that a video game company who signals support in the US/Western Europe must signal that same support in these countries or it is considered bigoted? Seriously? Why would they torpedo their business and maybe get themselves in legal trouble over a Twitter avatar in places where the message isnt welcome?
Is that not mildly insane to have as an expectation?
Mildly insane is the territory we're in! I think you can make a case either way, but if you want to be a bigotry-absolutist then you won't consider the idea that some cultures have entrenched bigotry that might make it more difficult for company to support a progressive movement.
Your argument essentially suggests that enabling bigotry is acceptable in certain circumstances. I can see that being controversial, not that I disagree.
I dunno ... what are the consequences of someone being an alleged bigot? As far as I can tell, it makes you more likely to be president and that's about it?
Sure, some folks are losing contracts and jobs over their racist behavior but that's only when it's documented so clearly that it can't be missed.
Other than that -- what's the consequence? Embarrassment? Feeling shocked and incredulous that a nice person like you could be considered to have done something imperfect? Having the opportunity to confront your own blind spots and potentially grow into a better human being?
OH THE HORROR
It undermines the management of people who are actually bigots. If you want people to "grow into [being] a better human being", you might want to accurately assess whether they are doing something wrong in the first place.
Post by: boy_bye on June 17, 2020, 02:27:11 PM
I dunno ... what are the consequences of someone being an alleged bigot? As far as I can tell, it makes you more likely to be president and that's about it?
Sure, some folks are losing contracts and jobs over their racist behavior but that's only when it's documented so clearly that it can't be missed.
Other than that -- what's the consequence? Embarrassment? Feeling shocked and incredulous that a nice person like you could be considered to have done something imperfect? Having the opportunity to confront your own blind spots and potentially grow into a better human being?
OH THE HORROR
It undermines the management of people who are actually bigots. If you want people to "grow into [being] a better human being", you might want to accurately assess whether they are doing something wrong in the first place.
You can spend your time worrying about the "management of bigots" if you want to. I'd rather work to protect the folks they are harming.
Post by: sherr on June 17, 2020, 02:28:47 PM
Where did I attribute motivation to 3rd party bystanders again?
I said intention doesn't matter and impact does. I don't see anything to apologize for in that.
Well I guess it was mostly Nick, but in your initial reply on the subject you were joining him in attacking the 3rd party bystanders, not the "driver".
Post by: boy_bye on June 17, 2020, 02:30:45 PM
Where did I attribute motivation to 3rd party bystanders again?
I said intention doesn't matter and impact does. I don't see anything to apologize for in that.
Well I guess it was mostly Nick, but in your initial reply on the subject you were joining him in attacking the 3rd party bystanders, not the "driver".
I will say this -- if the 3rd party bystanders are more concerned with Person A's feelings about hitting Person B than with Person B's care, they are spun around the wrong way, and their actions contribute to additional harm against Person B.
Post by: Chris22 on June 17, 2020, 02:34:13 PM
Where did I attribute motivation to 3rd party bystanders again?
I said intention doesn't matter and impact does. I don't see anything to apologize for in that.
Well I guess it was mostly Nick, but in your initial reply on the subject you were joining him in attacking the 3rd party bystanders, not the "driver".
I will say this -- if the 3rd party bystanders are more concerned with Person A's feelings about hitting Person B than with Person B's care, they are spun around the wrong way, and their actions contribute to additional harm against Person B.
In the immediate moment, sure.
But bigger picture, if you don’t ever understand the motivations (or lack thereof) of Person A (accident versus intentional) how are you going to prevent it from occurring again in the future?
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 17, 2020, 02:37:47 PM
You can spend your time worrying about the "management of bigots" if you want to. I'd rather work to protect the folks they are harming.
The victim/perpetrator and nature of the harm have to be defined, otherwise the protector runs the risk of becoming the harmer.
Post by: sherr on June 17, 2020, 02:38:06 PM
Where did I attribute motivation to 3rd party bystanders again?
I said intention doesn't matter and impact does. I don't see anything to apologize for in that.
Well I guess it was mostly Nick, but in your initial reply on the subject you were joining him in attacking the 3rd party bystanders, not the "driver".
I will say this -- if the 3rd party bystanders are more concerned with Person A's feelings about hitting Person B than with Person B's care, they are spun around the wrong way, and their actions contribute to additional harm against Person B.
You still aren't listening. Everyone agrees that bigots who fire people for bigoted reasons are bigots, except for perhaps some hedging from some corners about "assuming motivations". But no one cares about the bigot's feelings. What people don't like, and which is a reasonable complaint, is people attacking the bystanders as "bigots" for not doing "something".
Bystanders probably should do something, sure. But they don't normally have an obligation to. And there may be reasons why they don't. And that's a different shade of morality than causing direct harm in the first place, and doesn't deserve to be painted with a broad brush. That's all people are saying.
Post by: GuitarStv on June 17, 2020, 02:43:03 PM
The token rainbow flag graphic on a twitter account really doesn't amount to anything of note when we're talking about gay rights. Failing to hire someone for being gay on the other hand is quite serious.The rainbow flag was meaningful enough to use in Western regions, but not meaningful enough to use in the Middle Eastern, Russian and Turkish regions? Or was it a case of selective kowtowing? Could just be coincidence I suppose--the social media managers in those regions might be entrenched in their own cultures and not even aware of Pride month. Assuming those social media managers are located in those regions. If a memo were sent out stating that these regions should be selectively left out of the Pride logo, it would be bigotry I think. We will never know.
Conceptually there is little to no overlap between the two that I'm seeing.
I don't see it (the rainbow flag) as having much to do with bigotry in your example. The company decided to put a rainbow flag in places where they thought it would increase their sales. Maybe it's just my cynicism speaking here, but I doubt it was much more than a marketing decision.
You can certainly argue that the bigotry of some countries caused the company to not show a rainbow flag. I'm not sure if I buy the argument that this makes the company bigoted though . . . because again . . . the rainbow flag isn't really taking any kind of stance on homosexuality at all. If the company failed to hire programmers who were gay because they thought that this would offend the Saudis then I think a case can be made that the company is acting in a bigoted manner to please other bigots.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 17, 2020, 02:48:10 PM
Hey, it took about an hour five minutes this time! That's slightly above what I was expecting, but close enough.
On a discussion that's literally on whether or not you can have friends of different beliefs, and an overall theme is that yes, as long as you're not a jerk about it, do you realize how condescending it sounds to say "FYI, your religion says this that or the other..."? I was mentally prepared for it, so it didn't really bother me, but dang, dude, lol. First, my religion is not Catholocism. Second, the part of my religion that influences my opinion is not specifically related to historical church doctrine on this issue. It is on other issues but not so much on this one, for different reasons that aren't worth discussing in this context except to say that, yes, I actually did know what you said (shocker, I might know as much as you do about it), and two, it doesn't influence me, because that's not a huge part of how religion influences my belief on the subject.
Finally, I'm not going to argue with you about the fascism or not thing, because, again, it goes nowhere. I will simply reiterate what I said above. To claim that someone's moral views that influence the laws that they want to go into affect are to be disregarded because they're based off of religion is a ridiculous argument.
>> do you realize how condescending it sounds to say "FYI, your religion says this that or the other..."?
Yes, I see how my own dogma (of having an active dislike for all the organized, exclusivist religions) + my own stereotyping (of assuming you must be a part of one such exclusivist denominations - e.g. Christian/Jewish/Muslim) resulted in a condescending reply. I should have phrased things differently. Apologies for that.
Since we are on this topic, let me turn the same question around assuming my stereotype is correct (which it may not be, e.g. say if you are a follower of the Japanese Shinto religion, or some denomination of Buddhist, or Hindu).
Assuming you are part of one of the exclusivist religious faiths, do you realize how condescending and arrogant it sounds when I hear:
1. There is only one true god, and it is the one I have a monopoly agency over, granted by my holy book.
2. If you don't believe in my god, then you are a heathen who is going to hell. I better do you a favor as a missionary and save your soul by converting you.
3. Since you are a sinner, my moral code is the only one that applies and you should obey that. If you don't, I will try to get the government to force you to obey that.
If someone is of a different religious faith, or of no faith at all, and does not subscribe to your "religiously informed" morality, will they be forced to abide by that moral code?
Yes, I am guilty of having responded negatively based on assuming you are a part of a certain stereotype. I can improve on that - for sure. But this "I" am an insignificant nobody. Do you think, perhaps, that the source of that negative stereotype also has a responsibility to improve, and that forcing their moral code on everybody is not the way to do that??
Thanks for the apology. I wasn't upset in the sense of I'm emotionally upset by this or whatever. I just put that phrase on any number of other situations where the same type of thing could be said to a different group and was like, Dang, that would probably not go over well in those...
I won't go into clarifying how my points are different than what you're saying, because if there's one thing that you can convince people less to change their opinion on in an internet forum than abortion, it's religion :-). I will specifically address point 3, though.
For item 3, no, I don't see that as being a legitimate line of argument against a religiously informed opinion on something unless you're already negatively biased against religions. Everyone has their own moral code and wants to use that moral code to have the government enforce something on someone (I guess unless they're total anarchists). The line of argument - I'm fine with you having your own religious beliefs as long as you don't use them when you're wanting the government to make a law is just straight up ridiculous when everyone does the exact same thing, religious beliefs or not.
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 17, 2020, 03:02:01 PM
the rainbow flag isn't really taking any kind of stance on homosexuality at all.
Yeah, we're not going to agree on that one.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 17, 2020, 03:17:22 PM
Thanks for the apology. I wasn't upset in the sense of I'm emotionally upset by this or whatever. I just put that phrase on any number of other situations where the same type of thing could be said to a different group and was like, Dang, that would probably not go over well in those...
I won't go into clarifying how my points are different than what you're saying, because if there's one thing that you can convince people less to change their opinion on in an internet forum than abortion, it's religion :-). I will specifically address point 3, though.
For item 3, no, I don't see that as being a legitimate line of argument against a religiously informed opinion on something unless you're already negatively biased against religions. Everyone has their own moral code and wants to use that moral code to have the government enforce something on someone (I guess unless they're total anarchists). The line of argument - I'm fine with you having your own religious beliefs as long as you don't use them when you're wanting the government to make a law is just straight up ridiculous when everyone does the exact same thing, religious beliefs or not.
>>because if there's one thing that you can convince people less to change their opinion on in an internet forum than abortion, it's religion
Hmmm. Aren't you trying to convince everyone should be forced to follow your religious moral compass, theirs be damned!!
>>I'm fine with you having your own religious beliefs as long as you don't use them when you're wanting the government to make a law is just straight up ridiculous when everyone does the exact same thing
Last I heard, Rastafarians aren't proposing a law that will force everyone to wear a colander everywhere they go. What makes your religion special??
Coming back to more serious note, mixing religion with state affairs is fairly strong no-no as per the constitution, AND women's right to do as they choose with their body is also a very strong right. So, on both counts, you need extraordinary support shove down your morality (religious or not) down the throat of the unwilling.
What can that extraordinary support look like? Let's say 100% of the population believes abortion is a crime - then perhaps that should hold. What happens if one woman, directly affected does not subscribe to that religious view and does not want to give up her bodily autonomy? Can the rest of the population force her to go along?
Huh! I don't know. That seems like a tough call!!
But till we have such extraordinary level of support from the populace, any attempt to shove your religion (or religious morality) down the throat of other non-believers (like yours truly) would likely not go well. It may not go well even then!!
Post by: Chris22 on June 17, 2020, 03:18:10 PM
the rainbow flag isn't really taking any kind of stance on homosexuality at all.
Yeah, we're not going to agree on that one.
I think he meant any meaningful stance. It’s a benign show of support at best, marketing/virtue signaling at worst.
Post by: boy_bye on June 17, 2020, 03:29:41 PM
Where did I attribute motivation to 3rd party bystanders again?
I said intention doesn't matter and impact does. I don't see anything to apologize for in that.
Well I guess it was mostly Nick, but in your initial reply on the subject you were joining him in attacking the 3rd party bystanders, not the "driver".
I will say this -- if the 3rd party bystanders are more concerned with Person A's feelings about hitting Person B than with Person B's care, they are spun around the wrong way, and their actions contribute to additional harm against Person B.
You still aren't listening. Everyone agrees that bigots who fire people for bigoted reasons are bigots, except for perhaps some hedging from some corners about "assuming motivations". But no one cares about the bigot's feelings. What people don't like, and which is a reasonable complaint, is people attacking the bystanders as "bigots" for not doing "something".
Bystanders probably should do something, sure. But they don't normally have an obligation to. And there may be reasons why they don't. And that's a different shade of morality than causing direct harm in the first place, and doesn't deserve to be painted with a broad brush. That's all people are saying.
I dunno, I think that's actually what you are saying, not "people," and you seem to be fighting with me about a point that I never made, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 17, 2020, 04:50:49 PM
Where did I attribute motivation to 3rd party bystanders again?
I said intention doesn't matter and impact does. I don't see anything to apologize for in that.
Well I guess it was mostly Nick, but in your initial reply on the subject you were joining him in attacking the 3rd party bystanders, not the "driver".
I will say this -- if the 3rd party bystanders are more concerned with Person A's feelings about hitting Person B than with Person B's care, they are spun around the wrong way, and their actions contribute to additional harm against Person B.
You still aren't listening. Everyone agrees that bigots who fire people for bigoted reasons are bigots, except for perhaps some hedging from some corners about "assuming motivations". But no one cares about the bigot's feelings. What people don't like, and which is a reasonable complaint, is people attacking the bystanders as "bigots" for not doing "something".
Bystanders probably should do something, sure. But they don't normally have an obligation to. And there may be reasons why they don't. And that's a different shade of morality than causing direct harm in the first place, and doesn't deserve to be painted with a broad brush. That's all people are saying.
I dunno, I think that's actually what you are saying, not "people," and you seem to be fighting with me about a point that I never made, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You may not be making that point, but what you are doing is denying the importance of intent at all. In a conversation about if we can and how do we have conversation with people that disagree with us. Not a conversation about how to handle gay rights or whatever the case may be, but a literal conversation about if and how to have a conversation with people that don't see eye to eye with us. In that context you're talking about how intent doesn't matter at all. If you can't see a little irony in that, I'm not sure how to ever have a conversation with you...
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 17, 2020, 05:08:54 PM
Thanks for the apology. I wasn't upset in the sense of I'm emotionally upset by this or whatever. I just put that phrase on any number of other situations where the same type of thing could be said to a different group and was like, Dang, that would probably not go over well in those...
I won't go into clarifying how my points are different than what you're saying, because if there's one thing that you can convince people less to change their opinion on in an internet forum than abortion, it's religion :-). I will specifically address point 3, though.
For item 3, no, I don't see that as being a legitimate line of argument against a religiously informed opinion on something unless you're already negatively biased against religions. Everyone has their own moral code and wants to use that moral code to have the government enforce something on someone (I guess unless they're total anarchists). The line of argument - I'm fine with you having your own religious beliefs as long as you don't use them when you're wanting the government to make a law is just straight up ridiculous when everyone does the exact same thing, religious beliefs or not.
>>because if there's one thing that you can convince people less to change their opinion on in an internet forum than abortion, it's religion
Hmmm. Aren't you trying to convince everyone should be forced to follow your religious moral compass, theirs be damned!!
>>I'm fine with you having your own religious beliefs as long as you don't use them when you're wanting the government to make a law is just straight up ridiculous when everyone does the exact same thing
Last I heard, Rastafarians aren't proposing a law that will force everyone to wear a colander everywhere they go. What makes your religion special??
Coming back to more serious note, mixing religion with state affairs is fairly strong no-no as per the constitution, AND women's right to do as they choose with their body is also a very strong right. So, on both counts, you need extraordinary support shove down your morality (religious or not) down the throat of the unwilling.
What can that extraordinary support look like? Let's say 100% of the population believes abortion is a crime - then perhaps that should hold. What happens if one woman, directly affected does not subscribe to that religious view and does not want to give up her bodily autonomy? Can the rest of the population force her to go along?
Huh! I don't know. That seems like a tough call!!
But till we have such extraordinary level of support from the populace, any attempt to shove your religion (or religious morality) down the throat of other non-believers (like yours truly) would likely not go well. It may not go well even then!!
You keep going into an abortion argument, but I'm really not going to bite. There's just no point.
The issue with your argument is you're putting two separate arguments together that have significant differences. One is the argument of mixing religious and state affairs as you call it. The US Constitution rightly prevents the government from forcing people to observe a religion. If we were having a discussion about the government mandating people to go church on Sunday or school prayer or a variety of issues, that would be applicable.
You then take this point and make the untenable logical leap that a moral compass informed by religious teachings is the same as forcing religion on some one. It is not. We're not talking about religious observations, tithing, going to church, etc. etc. We're talking about a moral compass that guides someone into what they see as right and wrong.
Listen, I've debated with you before. You've always struck me as pretty logical. I truly cannot see how you think you've made any logical point to justify how someone shouldn't be able to have religion inform their morality and then vote in regards to that morality. You have things you think are moral. I have things I think are moral. They differ. You're going to vote on yours in a way that has been influenced by whatever it is that's influenced you over the course of your how many ever years of life you've had. That's the lens you see the world through, and I've seen enough of your posts to know that you are fine with voting for people that have the government do things that you feel are right based on what you feel is right. I'm doing the same thing. Unless you can provide any sort of rational of why the fact that the things I think the government should or should not do or should or should not compel others to do is informed by religion is different or less than your opinions, which are informed by life experiences or whatever, I'm going to continue to call out your incorrect logic on it.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 17, 2020, 05:19:06 PM
You keep going into an abortion argument, but I'm really not going to bite. There's just no point.
The issue with your argument is you're putting two separate arguments together that have significant differences. One is the argument of mixing religious and state affairs as you call it. The US Constitution rightly prevents the government from forcing people to observe a religion. If we were having a discussion about the government mandating people to go church on Sunday or school prayer or a variety of issues, that would be applicable.
You then take this point and make the untenable logical leap that a moral compass informed by religious teachings is the same as forcing religion on some one. It is not. We're not talking about religious observations, tithing, going to church, etc. etc. We're talking about a moral compass that guides someone into what they see as right and wrong.
Listen, I've debated with you before. You've always struck me as pretty logical. I truly cannot see how you think you've made any logical point to justify how someone shouldn't be able to have religion inform their morality and then vote in regards to that morality. You have things you think are moral. I have things I think are moral. They differ. You're going to vote on yours in a way that has been influenced by whatever it is that's influenced you over the course of your how many ever years of life you've had. That's the lens you see the world through, and I've seen enough of your posts to know that you are fine with voting for people that have the government do things that you feel are right based on what you feel is right. I'm doing the same thing. Unless you can provide any sort of rational of why the fact that the things I think the government should or should not do or should or should not compel others to do is informed by religion is different or less than your opinions, which are informed by life experiences or whatever, I'm going to continue to call out your incorrect logic on it.
>> I truly cannot see how you think you've made any logical point to justify how someone shouldn't be able to have religion inform their morality and then vote in regards to that morality. You have things you think are moral. I have things I think are moral. They differ.
When they correlate strongly with religion, then that is a religious artifact.
No need to trust me, how about pew poll?
https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and all that.
You are telling me you want to shove your "religious views" (as evidenced by the correlation evidenced in the data above) down the throat of those who don't agree with the force of a state mandate. The morality of those stupid "unaffiliated", Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu be damned!! You are the only arbiter of the "true path" after all!
I have a problem with that.
Perhaps if you could get all those pesky "other religions" to agree with you a bit more then it wouldn't be considered a "religious artifact". No? Or do you think they are by genetics or culture or something pre-disposed to be "immoral"??
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 17, 2020, 05:45:06 PM
You keep going into an abortion argument, but I'm really not going to bite. There's just no point.
The issue with your argument is you're putting two separate arguments together that have significant differences. One is the argument of mixing religious and state affairs as you call it. The US Constitution rightly prevents the government from forcing people to observe a religion. If we were having a discussion about the government mandating people to go church on Sunday or school prayer or a variety of issues, that would be applicable.
You then take this point and make the untenable logical leap that a moral compass informed by religious teachings is the same as forcing religion on some one. It is not. We're not talking about religious observations, tithing, going to church, etc. etc. We're talking about a moral compass that guides someone into what they see as right and wrong.
Listen, I've debated with you before. You've always struck me as pretty logical. I truly cannot see how you think you've made any logical point to justify how someone shouldn't be able to have religion inform their morality and then vote in regards to that morality. You have things you think are moral. I have things I think are moral. They differ. You're going to vote on yours in a way that has been influenced by whatever it is that's influenced you over the course of your how many ever years of life you've had. That's the lens you see the world through, and I've seen enough of your posts to know that you are fine with voting for people that have the government do things that you feel are right based on what you feel is right. I'm doing the same thing. Unless you can provide any sort of rational of why the fact that the things I think the government should or should not do or should or should not compel others to do is informed by religion is different or less than your opinions, which are informed by life experiences or whatever, I'm going to continue to call out your incorrect logic on it.
>> I truly cannot see how you think you've made any logical point to justify how someone shouldn't be able to have religion inform their morality and then vote in regards to that morality. You have things you think are moral. I have things I think are moral. They differ.
When they correlate strongly with religion, then that is a religious artifact.
No need to trust me, how about pew poll?
https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and all that.
You are telling me you want to shove your "religious views" (as evidenced by the correlation evidenced in the data above) down the throat of those who don't agree with the force of a state mandate. The morality of those stupid "unaffiliated", Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu be damned!! You are the only arbiter of the "true path" after all!
I have a problem with that.
Perhaps if you could get all those pesky "other religions" to agree with you a bit more then it wouldn't be considered a "religious artifact". No? Or do you think they are by genetics or culture or something pre-disposed to be "immoral"??
Lol, I actually was wrong. I'm not going to keep pointing out how illogical you are, because you don't even care about being logical.
You keep bringing this stuff up like it's some "gotcha" moment. I've never argued that a religious view wouldn't influence you to think a certain thing was right or wrong. In fact, I've explicitly said that from the very beginning! Multiple times! You're not surprising me that people who have a similar background will think similar things are bad and good. Good grief Charlie Brown....
But yes, I'm done arguing with you on this because you clearly have no reason why people who have morality guided by religion are shoving their morality down others throats and yet you who have no religion but have your own morality are not shoving your own morality down someone else's throats by voting what you think moral. I can tell you why you have no reason. Because there is no reason. From all I can see (and I admit I'm implying motivations now, but it's really hard not to given what you've given me), you're an athiest who is really angry at religions or just thinks very lowly of them. You think it's bad for religion to guide people in what they think are right and wrong but everything is A-Ok when you are guided by whatever guides you to shove your beliefs down others throats in the form of governmental laws that actually do things because you're so much more enlightened than everyone else who is religious. There's no point in arguing with this line of reasoning, so I'm done. I will repeat one more time. If you an actually come up with some reasoning why you using your morality vote for governmental people to do what you think is right is fine but me using religiously guided morality to vote for people to do what I think is right is wrong, I might actually respond. Otherwise, this is an exercise in frustration that I'm too tired for.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 17, 2020, 06:00:24 PM
Lol, I actually was wrong. I'm not going to keep pointing out how illogical you are, because you don't even care about being logical.
You keep bringing this stuff up like it's some "gotcha" moment. I've never argued that a religious view wouldn't influence you to think a certain thing was right or wrong. In fact, I've explicitly said that from the very beginning! Multiple times! You're not surprising me that people who have a similar background will think similar things are bad and good. Good grief Charlie Brown....
But yes, I'm done arguing with you on this because you clearly have no reason why people who have morality guided by religion are shoving their morality down others throats and yet you who have no religion but have your own morality are not shoving your own morality down someone else's throats by voting what you think moral. I can tell you why you have no reason. Because there is no reason. From all I can see (and I admit I'm implying motivations now, but it's really hard not to given what you've given me), you're an athiest who is really angry at religions or just thinks very lowly of them. You think it's bad for religion to guide people in what they think are right and wrong but everything is A-Ok when you are guided by whatever guides you to shove your beliefs down others throats in the form of governmental laws that actually do things because you're so much more enlightened than everyone else who is religious. There's no point in arguing with this line of reasoning, so I'm done. I will repeat one more time. If you an actually come up with some reasoning why you using your morality vote for governmental people to do what you think is right is fine but me using religiously guided morality to vote for people to do what I think is right is wrong, I might actually respond. Otherwise, this is an exercise in frustration that I'm too tired for.
Stand back a bit and you will see the arrogance of the religious.
You think nothing of shoving your views down others, whether they agree or not.
When have you seen an atheist shove his her view(s) down yours? Can you show me one example please?
It is not specific to one religion. All do it - when they are a majority.
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 17, 2020, 06:00:39 PM
So on one hand, you have many people (including me) who believe in not violating bodily autonomy, for the most part.
On the other hand, you have many people (including me) who think that the moral weight of a thing/person should be measured by its level of sentience, which then precludes "bodily autonomy" from being the only consideration.
Those considerations can conflict, in the case of abortion. And one principle can conflict with the other and create moral discord.
To only focus on one of the principles is your prerogative. But I would suggest that for a healthy viewpoint you should acknowledge the other. The clash between them, after all, is why many well-meaning people have drastic divergence of views on abortion.
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 17, 2020, 06:03:18 PM
Lol, I actually was wrong. I'm not going to keep pointing out how illogical you are, because you don't even care about being logical.
You keep bringing this stuff up like it's some "gotcha" moment. I've never argued that a religious view wouldn't influence you to think a certain thing was right or wrong. In fact, I've explicitly said that from the very beginning! Multiple times! You're not surprising me that people who have a similar background will think similar things are bad and good. Good grief Charlie Brown....
But yes, I'm done arguing with you on this because you clearly have no reason why people who have morality guided by religion are shoving their morality down others throats and yet you who have no religion but have your own morality are not shoving your own morality down someone else's throats by voting what you think moral. I can tell you why you have no reason. Because there is no reason. From all I can see (and I admit I'm implying motivations now, but it's really hard not to given what you've given me), you're an athiest who is really angry at religions or just thinks very lowly of them. You think it's bad for religion to guide people in what they think are right and wrong but everything is A-Ok when you are guided by whatever guides you to shove your beliefs down others throats in the form of governmental laws that actually do things because you're so much more enlightened than everyone else who is religious. There's no point in arguing with this line of reasoning, so I'm done. I will repeat one more time. If you an actually come up with some reasoning why you using your morality vote for governmental people to do what you think is right is fine but me using religiously guided morality to vote for people to do what I think is right is wrong, I might actually respond. Otherwise, this is an exercise in frustration that I'm too tired for.
Stand back a bit and you will see the arrogance of the religious.
You think nothing of shoving your views down others, whether they agree or not.
When have you seen an atheist shove his her view(s) down yours? Can you show me one example please?
It is not specific to one religion. All do it - when they are a majority.
You keep doing it in this very thread. You saying that a woman has a strong right to bodily autonomy is an example of shoving your views down others' throats. Because the concept of bodily autonomy is an axiomatic one. It's something that is self-justifying (that we all have a right to bodily autonomy) but it just comes from your convictions. A religious person might have a different set of axiomatic beliefs including the view that for example once conception occurs there is a separate "life" with a separate "autonomy".
To be clear, I agree with your axiom much more than the religious one. But I can at least see that there is dogma in both beliefs. Which is okay. Everyone needs a starting point. But you have to acknowledge your roots. And I don't see you doing that much in this thread.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 17, 2020, 06:07:06 PM
Lol, I actually was wrong. I'm not going to keep pointing out how illogical you are, because you don't even care about being logical.
You keep bringing this stuff up like it's some "gotcha" moment. I've never argued that a religious view wouldn't influence you to think a certain thing was right or wrong. In fact, I've explicitly said that from the very beginning! Multiple times! You're not surprising me that people who have a similar background will think similar things are bad and good. Good grief Charlie Brown....
But yes, I'm done arguing with you on this because you clearly have no reason why people who have morality guided by religion are shoving their morality down others throats and yet you who have no religion but have your own morality are not shoving your own morality down someone else's throats by voting what you think moral. I can tell you why you have no reason. Because there is no reason. From all I can see (and I admit I'm implying motivations now, but it's really hard not to given what you've given me), you're an athiest who is really angry at religions or just thinks very lowly of them. You think it's bad for religion to guide people in what they think are right and wrong but everything is A-Ok when you are guided by whatever guides you to shove your beliefs down others throats in the form of governmental laws that actually do things because you're so much more enlightened than everyone else who is religious. There's no point in arguing with this line of reasoning, so I'm done. I will repeat one more time. If you an actually come up with some reasoning why you using your morality vote for governmental people to do what you think is right is fine but me using religiously guided morality to vote for people to do what I think is right is wrong, I might actually respond. Otherwise, this is an exercise in frustration that I'm too tired for.
Stand back a bit and you will see the arrogance of the religious.
You think nothing of shoving your views down others, whether they agree or not.
When have you seen an atheist shove his her view(s) down yours? Can you show me one example please?
It is not specific to one religion. All do it - when they are a majority.
Of course some religious people are arrogant.
Cool, thanks for confirming that I was right. It boils down to you not liking religion. The whole conversation is not about converting someone to a religion or atheism (which is the only context where your comparison of atheism not shoving their views down others throats compared to religion would come into play). The conversation was about a person voting for a policy that they feel is right. You don't like it if someone uses religion to guide what they vote for, but you're fine with using what you want to guide you to vote for the government to also do things. Your continued lack of anything but attacks on religion without providing any reason why you voting for an issue guided by your morality is not shoving it down my throat but mine is. So, yeah, you don't like religion. Got it.
Post by: MudPuppy on June 17, 2020, 06:09:27 PM
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 17, 2020, 06:20:06 PM
In the difference of the already-delivered infant versus the still gestating one, the woman is. Not forced to parent or care for the one that has already been born. They can legally renounce claim to the child and it can be cared for and patented by someone else. An embryo or fetus before viability cannot be given to anyone else to care for. If the woman wants her autonomy back, termination is the only option. Maybe someday there will be a medical transporter type device that can swiftly and easily transfer the pregnancy to someone willing, but until then this is where we are. In the meantime we just have to focus on reducing unwanted conception and improving social and economic support for parents and children so that fewer people will want to seek terminations.
All of that only considers the rights of the woman - and not that of the child. It also only considers one particular legal framework, which is contingent on whatever laws society has made. It's hardly a universal approach to a difficult ethical question.
Post by: Kris on June 17, 2020, 06:20:27 PM
The concept that a woman has a very strong right to bodily autonomy (in the case of a foetus) is not one that is undisputed. I agree with it, but there are logical and compelling arguments to the contrary. For example, the fact that a foetus is 'inside' a woman cannot be a logically complete argument because there is little difference in sentience between an 8-month foetus that is in utero and an 8-month (slightly premature) infant that has been delivered. They have the same level of consciousness and understanding as sentient beings.
So on one hand, you have many people (including me) who believe in not violating bodily autonomy, for the most part.
On the other hand, you have many people (including me) who think that the moral weight of a thing/person should be measured by its level of sentience, which then precludes "bodily autonomy" from being the only consideration.
Those considerations can conflict, in the case of abortion. And one principle can conflict with the other and create moral discord.
To only focus on one of the principles is your prerogative. But I would suggest that for a healthy viewpoint you should acknowledge the other. The clash between them, after all, is why many well-meaning people have drastic divergence of views on abortion.
The notion that the world is flat is not entirely undisputed, either.
Arguments are not logical and compelling just because they exist.
Give me an argument disputing the idea that a man has a very strong right to bodily autonomy.
Then maybe we can talk about the relative logic and compelling nature of both.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 17, 2020, 06:24:20 PM
Of course some religious people are arrogant.
Cool, thanks for confirming that I was right. It boils down to you not liking religion. The whole conversation is not about converting someone to a religion or atheism (which is the only context where your comparison of atheism not shoving their views down others throats compared to religion would come into play). The conversation was about a person voting for a policy that they feel is right. You don't like it if someone uses religion to guide what they vote for, but you're fine with using what you want to guide you to vote for the government to also do things. Your continued lack of anything but attacks on religion without providing any reason why you voting for an issue guided by your morality is not shoving it down my throat but mine is. So, yeah, you don't like religion. Got it.
Yes, I don't like religion, and my like/dislike has nothing to do with my position.
When you want to take everyone's liberty away, it should have a reason and reasoning that applies to all citizens, not just religion-A, or sect-B, or denomination-C. Arguing you and your sect have the only key to a "moral point of view", and that other's views be damned so much so that their autonomy to decide about their own body be snatched away against their will is the height of arrogance at best.
It's unfortunate you are not able to see that.
Post by: MudPuppy on June 17, 2020, 06:24:44 PM
In the difference of the already-delivered infant versus the still gestating one, the woman is. Not forced to parent or care for the one that has already been born. They can legally renounce claim to the child and it can be cared for and patented by someone else. An embryo or fetus before viability cannot be given to anyone else to care for. If the woman wants her autonomy back, termination is the only option. Maybe someday there will be a medical transporter type device that can swiftly and easily transfer the pregnancy to someone willing, but until then this is where we are. In the meantime we just have to focus on reducing unwanted conception and improving social and economic support for parents and children so that fewer people will want to seek terminations.
All of that only considers the rights of the woman - and not that of the child. It also only considers one particular legal framework, which is contingent on whatever laws society has made. It's hardly a universal approach to a difficult ethical question.
If we want to give equal weight to both, right now viability is the only reasonable marker we have. We cannot compel organ donation or blood donation or other methods that force people to bodily sustain the life of another, even after their death. Why is a living woman who happens to be pregnant different?
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 17, 2020, 06:32:01 PM
In the difference of the already-delivered infant versus the still gestating one, the woman is. Not forced to parent or care for the one that has already been born. They can legally renounce claim to the child and it can be cared for and patented by someone else. An embryo or fetus before viability cannot be given to anyone else to care for. If the woman wants her autonomy back, termination is the only option. Maybe someday there will be a medical transporter type device that can swiftly and easily transfer the pregnancy to someone willing, but until then this is where we are. In the meantime we just have to focus on reducing unwanted conception and improving social and economic support for parents and children so that fewer people will want to seek terminations.
All of that only considers the rights of the woman - and not that of the child. It also only considers one particular legal framework, which is contingent on whatever laws society has made. It's hardly a universal approach to a difficult ethical question.
If we want to give equal weight to both, right now viability is the only reasonable marker we have. We cannot compel organ donation or blood donation or other methods that force people to bodily sustain the life of another, even after their death. Why is a living woman who happens to be pregnant different?
Viability is quite different from whether a foetus is in utero or not. You can have an 8-month foetus in utero that is viable - if only it were delivered. You can deliver a 5-month pre-term foetus that's not viable.
As for compelling organ donation, blood donation etc, once again you are working based on existing frameworks and approaches. To be clear, those frameworks might be valid, but they are not universal, and they need to be unpacked. Someone might believe that there is no ethical duty to take a positive step (make an organ donation) to sustain another sentient life (because otherwise, as a reductio, we would all be forced to donate our organs since one person's organs might save 7 other people's lives), but there is a duty to not take a positive step to end another sentient life, whether that life is inside or outside you. After all the location of the life does not affect its sentience.
Your position might be that your right to bodily autonomy trumps any 'right' conferred upon a not-completely sentient being, at least in many cases. I agree with that. But, again, the counter-position needs to be acknowledged.
Post by: MudPuppy on June 17, 2020, 06:37:53 PM
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 17, 2020, 06:41:10 PM
Of course some religious people are arrogant.
Cool, thanks for confirming that I was right. It boils down to you not liking religion. The whole conversation is not about converting someone to a religion or atheism (which is the only context where your comparison of atheism not shoving their views down others throats compared to religion would come into play). The conversation was about a person voting for a policy that they feel is right. You don't like it if someone uses religion to guide what they vote for, but you're fine with using what you want to guide you to vote for the government to also do things. Your continued lack of anything but attacks on religion without providing any reason why you voting for an issue guided by your morality is not shoving it down my throat but mine is. So, yeah, you don't like religion. Got it.
Yes, I don't like religion, and my like/dislike has nothing to do with my position.
When you want to take everyone's liberty away, it should have a reason and reasoning that applies to all citizens, not just religion-A, or sect-B, or denomination-C. Arguing you have the only key to a "moral point of view", and that other's views be damned so much so that their autonomy to decide about their own body be snatched away is the height of arrogance.
It's unfortunate you are not able to see that.
Gah! I have such a hard time letting go :-).
Your disdain of religion has nothing to do with your opinion! Sure it doesn't. Lol!
I have no problem seeing part of your point. I think what I think is right is right. I think what I think is wrong is wrong. It's no more or less arrogant than you thinking what you think is right is right and what you thinking is wrong is wrong. Like it or not, you're version of right and wrong is going to influence your votes which will give or take away everyone's liberty away (It's kind of the function of a what a government does. You're a reasonably intelligent person; I really hope you can see that....) You must be assuming you're guided by something more pure and perfect and better than someone who is guided by religion, because you make value statements with the assumption that you're somehow the only objective person in the world (or maybe only people without religion are actually objective or...um...something)? Idk
I'll give it one more try. It's a simple question. If you don't answer it this time, I really am going to stop responding.
Why is whatever guides you to find something right and something wrong inherently more valid than someone whose view is informed by religion?
Post by: ctuser1 on June 17, 2020, 06:53:46 PM
Why is whatever guides you to find something right and something wrong inherently more valid than someone whose view is informed by religion?
Which religion?
I'm pretty sure I can find an opposite POV to whatever you propose, in some other religion from somewhere else, and I can probably find at least one American citizen following that religion.
Are we to take whatever you say, informed by your religion to be such a sure-shot and sanguine thing that it can take other people's bodily autonomy away? After all, you are proposing to take everyone's liberty away when you are proposing a legislation - no?
Would you be okay if, say, a Jew or a Hindu or someone else tried to legislate something unpalatable to you "informed by" their religious POV. How about, for example, a ban on cow slaughter that most Hindu's find immoral and abhorrent, or say Orthodox Jews tried to impose Kosher on everyone (no pork, huh!)?
You okay with that?
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 17, 2020, 07:18:56 PM
If you want to understand an opposing view, the first thing to do is to accept it in good faith and stand in that person's shoes.
That is what I dislike so much about current political discourse. It's all me versus you, red state versus blue state, secular versus religion.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 17, 2020, 07:28:19 PM
I am someone who even agrees with your argument but I think you're failing to empathise with the stand that Wolfpack is taking.
If you want to understand an opposing view, the first thing to do is to accept it in good faith and stand in that person's shoes.
That is what I dislike so much about current political discourse. It's all me versus you, red state versus blue state, secular versus religion.
One of the major contributions that CS made to the world of mathematics is the concept of "zero knowledge proof" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof).
Basically, sometimes you do not need to know the substance of an argument to show it would or would not apply, because a higher principle applies that would supersede even the extreme success/failure case of the underlying argument.
Wolfpack Mustachian, in all likelihood, may have an excellent argument. As long as it is an argument advanced by one specific religion/sect/group/ethnicity - it should not be a reason to take fundamental personal liberty away from other people who do not share the same point of view. Anybody arguing otherwise is arguing against some of the very fundamental democratic principles. It will be viewed as an attack by anybody not in the "privileged majority" (a stereotype, but I am assuming it applies to Wolfpack Mustachian), AND the results won't look pretty when that "priviledged majority" is no longer a majority.
Look up how some of the less mature democracies in former colonial countries erode, and you will see what I mean.
Post by: Shane on June 17, 2020, 07:41:38 PM
I've found over time that most of my friends from high school and college as well as most of my immediate and extended family are way to the left of me politically. I've considered myself libertarian most of my life but I definitely don't agree with big L libertarians on a lot of issues. A big part of that is the influence of my wife. It took close to a decade, but she finally brought me back to the Catholic faith I had nominally been raised in - even though I considered myself an atheist for many years. That was a case where we had very different beliefs, hers being much more conservative, but we still loved each other. I changed my mind from callously thinking that abortion is a great way to get rid of all the worthless people in the world to recognizing that it is inherently wrong and an evil act. That's probably not a topic I'm going to discuss with that random cousin on Facebook who posts nothing but left-wing political talking points. Although I have been able to have some of those discussions with old friends and family because they can't easily dismiss me as some random person on the internet. But we're not going to have the same friendship we did 15-20 years ago.
The person I would still consider my best friend, even though we've only seen each other in person maybe 2-3 times in the last decade, has very different political beliefs from me. But we can still talk about plenty of other things without arguing about our political beliefs. We respect each others opinions and don't waste our infrequent conversations on trying to prove the other person wrong of convince them that our beliefs are better. He's the socially conscious urban liberal and I've become the conservative religious family man. But, we can still laugh at how the rent for his 1-bedroom apartment is three times the rent for my 5-bedroom house or how he can't imagine having six young kids.
So I think it all depends on the people involved.
I think this is accidentally a very good example of why it's sometimes hard for liberals to be friends with conservatives.
I have no problem with you believing that abortion is a sin. None at all. I don't agree, but that's fully within your right to believe, and to order your life around that belief. As you correctly note, that's a religious belief (not a scientific fact), and you have your freedom of religion written into the foundation of the constitution.
The problem comes when conservatives support banning abortion for other people who need them. That is them, taking their religious belief, and trying to force everyone else to abide by them. That is them taking away other people's freedom of religion. See also gay marriage, or any host of other social issues.
Would you still be friends with your liberal buddy if he was trying to get the government to force you to abort your 6th child? Probably not. That would be the opposite of abortion bans though.
It seems to me that generally "liberals" take the side of liberty, and "conservatives" take the side of illiberal "you have to do what I say and you don't have any rights only my rights matter". The one obvious exception is gun rights, where sure, conservatives are definitely more on the side of liberty.
I have no problem being friends with people that disagree with me as long as we agree on the core tenet of liberty, and their actions (including who they vote for) reflects that. And no I'm not some "taxation is theft" libertarian nut either. But if someone is actively trying to remove the constitutional freedoms from people not like them, that's something I would struggle to look past.
"Liberals" sure seem to be doing their best to out compete conservatives at trying to force everyone to abide by their beliefs. Authoritarian liberal used to sound like an oxymoron to me, but not any more.
Post by: Shane on June 17, 2020, 07:48:00 PM
Last summer, while traveling across the country, I noticed some Walmarts keep condoms locked up, so people who want to buy them have to find an employee with a key and ask them to open the case for them. Seems like a pretty good way to discourage sales if you ask me. The only reason I can think of that Walmart would keep condoms locked in a case would be if people were stealing them. We should be giving them away for free, not charging such high prices that desperate people have to risk stealing to get them.For those that support more liberal abortions, I haven't heard a specific timeline outlined. At what age--from conception, can a fetus be terminated? Three months/Six months/Nine months/Two years? If you want capitulation from conservatives, you need to draw a line somewhere. At some point this fetus becomes a sovereign individual with rights, yes?
The current US Supreme Court Roe V Wade compromise is actually pretty good: viability of the fetus. With exceptions for rape / incest / health of the mother. If you make that the bright dividing line then you still are giving the woman body autonomy / full personhood, while still recognizing that fetal development is a spectrum and that fetal life has value.
As technology improves and we are able to implement "artificial wombs" or similar then "viability of the fetus" will inch earlier and earlier. But it is and probably always will be the best dividing line that balances the (definite, concrete, factual) rights of the mother with the (possible?) life of the fetus.
This has always made the most sense to me. I am also hugely in favor of expanded access to affordable, safe birth control and science-based sex ed because both can help reduce the demand for abortion. I further favor national healthcare, an expanded social safety net, and worker protections to support women who decide not to abort.
Making abortion illegal will only drive it back underground, where it can't be regulated, and could cost women their lives and health. It won't change the culture and society. However, if we give both women and men proper education and actual viable options for preventing pregnancy and supporting their children, we could reduce the number of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions by default.
I was going to say, any idea why abortion is only a very minor issue in my country (the Netherlands)? And adoptions are very rare too.
It's because unwanted pregnancies don't happen a lot. Access to sex ed and reliable forms of birth control is not an issue. And it's certainly not true that this somehow invites teens to be sexually active at a younger age or be more promiscuous either, I think the average age teens lose their virginity is like 18 now. When they do it's usually with a long-term partner, in a safe environment and protection is discussed beforehand.
That doesn't mean unwanted pregnancies don't happen at all but the rates are so low that the average person is hardly aware of it. Actually, the group with the highest teen pregancy rate are probably the conservative churches where any kind of dialogue about pre-marital sex is impossible. Of course they don't have abortions, they just get married young. I think the age category with the highest abortion rate is actually women over the age of 35 who already have families and are so busy they forget to take the pill or who think they're no longer able to conceive. And then find themselves expecting another child and know they can't cope with another one. I think better support for parents could prevent a lot of these abortions as well.
In the US, we prefer to pretend that the only people having sex out of wedlock are immoral people, act as though birth control and sex ed is freely and equally available to everyone, and then punish the people who fall through the cracks.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 17, 2020, 07:58:32 PM
Why is whatever guides you to find something right and something wrong inherently more valid than someone whose view is informed by religion?
Which religion?
I'm pretty sure I can find an opposite POV to whatever you propose, in some other religion from somewhere else, and I can probably find at least one American citizen following that religion.
Are we to take whatever you say, informed by your religion to be such a sure-shot and sanguine thing that it can take other people's bodily autonomy away? After all, you are proposing to take everyone's liberty away when you are proposing a legislation - no?
Would you be okay if, say, a Jew or a Hindu or someone else tried to legislate something unpalatable to you "informed by" their religious POV. How about, for example, a ban on cow slaughter that most Hindu's find immoral and abhorrent, or say Orthodox Jews tried to impose Kosher on everyone (no pork, huh!)?
You okay with that?
I would expect everyone to try to legislate what they feel is right and wrong based on whatever background they had. If they feel strongly enough about cow slaughter and want to try to legislate it, I would not be shocked by it. I might argue against it and why I think it's wrong to make that restriction. That's an argument based on the actual details of the issue. I would not say, your opinion is taking others (mine) rights and I disregard it just because you're using what you think is right and wrong. Of course you are. Everyone does that. You keep missing that point. You're not just arguing the issue. You're arguing a person's right to have an opinion on the issue and to act on it based on why they have that opinion. The term bigoted has gotten thrown around a lot in this thread. I think this is a pretty good example of being bigoted if anything on here that's been talked about is.
In summary, you did not answer the question of why ETA: "acting on" yours or anyone's belief of right and wrong is not shoving their belief down people's throats but mine is simply because it's informed by religion. You didn't answer it. You can't answer it. I'm done.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 17, 2020, 08:12:33 PM
In summary, you did not answer the question of why yours or anyone's belief of right and wrong is not shoving their belief down people's throats but mine is simply because it's informed by religion. You didn't answer it. You can't answer it. I'm done.
You seem to be ignoring the answer.
1. "Religiously informed opinion" is a bs, call it religious opinion and spare me the political correctness as long as only one religion seem to care for that opinion. I've specified many good reasons above why religious opinion does not mix well with the state affairs. Better yet, many of the founding fathers of US spoke at length about many good reasons.
2. There is no belief of "mine", that "you" did not hold, and that resulted in "you" losing control over your bodily autonomy because "I" forced a legislation that way, or ever attempted to do it that way. Here "I" is a generic liberal, and "you" is a generic conservative, or some other such combination. It is just not done. The only laws that impede bodily liberty are criminal laws. You mean to say "I" (i.e. liberals) imposed that on unwitting conservatives??
I am guessing you have never spent time as the "minority" anywhere, even a privileged one (as most Americans would be in many other countries). If you did, the problems with your POV would have been easier to understand, and you would not have been proposing taking peoples bodily liberty away so casually and blithely.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 17, 2020, 08:14:51 PM
"Liberals" sure seem to be doing their best to out compete conservatives at trying to force everyone to abide by their beliefs. Authoritarian liberal used to sound like an oxymoron to me, but not any more.
Yes, Pelosi is going to become president and force all Christian babies to be aborted.
Quick!! Grab your gun or hide behind a rock! Maybe both!!
Post by: Shane on June 17, 2020, 08:31:26 PM
A "liberal" friend posted to FB the other day:I think some people are missing the point of this thread. It's not another excuse to argue about politics.
Some people are going to reach different conclusions than you on political issues. They usually have a logical (to them) reason for reaching that conclusion, and it isn't generally because they hate (women, black people, babies, etc.).
If you can't accept that people will disagree with you on things that neither of you have any control over and are intent on arguing your point (despite the fact that you won't change anyone's mind), then the answer to the thread's question is no for you.
Thanks for bringing us back to my original point, which was not about abortion per se, but rather the general trend of conservatives trying to force others to do what they want. You can't "agree to disagree" when one side says "I disagree but you do you" and the other side says "I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs". The latter is not "agreeing to disagree". If conservatives could learn to "agree to disagree" then there would be far less friendship blockers.
I'm not entirely sure that this is fair to conservatives. At least from their point of view.
Take every American conservatives favorite fetish - guns - as an example. Most liberals want greater controls and restrictions placed on purchasing and selling guns. Most conservatives do not. From a conservative point of view, this is an 'I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs' situation.
(Yes, granted there is an argument to be made that easy access to firearms forces everyone in the country to live in a perpetual state of fear/heightened tension, but let's leave that aside for a bit.)
I already stated upthread that guns are the one and only obvious example where conservatives are definitely more pro-liberty. Anything else? "General trend" does not mean "in every conceivable example", it means general trend.
Face masks. Conservatives in the US are much more pro-facemask choice in the middle of a pandemic than liberals are.
Taxation of the rich as well. Conservatives are upset when the rich need to pay a fair share in taxes. Environmental controls/regulation for business. Conservatives don't like it when businesses don't have the option to pollute indiscriminately.
These are areas where conservatives are more pro-liberty.
"Maybe we need to start arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating people who aren't properly observing rules about social distancing. We should start charging them with attempted murder. What do you guys think?"
Post by: GuitarStv on June 17, 2020, 09:09:40 PM
A "liberal" friend posted to FB the other day:I think some people are missing the point of this thread. It's not another excuse to argue about politics.
Some people are going to reach different conclusions than you on political issues. They usually have a logical (to them) reason for reaching that conclusion, and it isn't generally because they hate (women, black people, babies, etc.).
If you can't accept that people will disagree with you on things that neither of you have any control over and are intent on arguing your point (despite the fact that you won't change anyone's mind), then the answer to the thread's question is no for you.
Thanks for bringing us back to my original point, which was not about abortion per se, but rather the general trend of conservatives trying to force others to do what they want. You can't "agree to disagree" when one side says "I disagree but you do you" and the other side says "I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs". The latter is not "agreeing to disagree". If conservatives could learn to "agree to disagree" then there would be far less friendship blockers.
I'm not entirely sure that this is fair to conservatives. At least from their point of view.
Take every American conservatives favorite fetish - guns - as an example. Most liberals want greater controls and restrictions placed on purchasing and selling guns. Most conservatives do not. From a conservative point of view, this is an 'I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs' situation.
(Yes, granted there is an argument to be made that easy access to firearms forces everyone in the country to live in a perpetual state of fear/heightened tension, but let's leave that aside for a bit.)
I already stated upthread that guns are the one and only obvious example where conservatives are definitely more pro-liberty. Anything else? "General trend" does not mean "in every conceivable example", it means general trend.
Face masks. Conservatives in the US are much more pro-facemask choice in the middle of a pandemic than liberals are.
Taxation of the rich as well. Conservatives are upset when the rich need to pay a fair share in taxes. Environmental controls/regulation for business. Conservatives don't like it when businesses don't have the option to pollute indiscriminately.
These are areas where conservatives are more pro-liberty.
"Maybe we need to start arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating people who aren't properly observing rules about social distancing. We should start charging them with attempted murder. What do you guys think?"
Honestly, I'm not sure that's a left/right thing there.
It's reasonable to expect repercussions for purposely doing something that is likely to cause the deaths of others. We don't tolerate drunk drivers, we shouldn't tolerate people who fail to observe rules regarding social distancing and mask wearing. Arrest/attempted murder/incarceration certainly seems like the wrong way to go about showing people how serious you are about trying to get a pandemic under control though.
Post by: Shane on June 17, 2020, 09:38:35 PM
A "liberal" friend posted to FB the other day:I think some people are missing the point of this thread. It's not another excuse to argue about politics.
Some people are going to reach different conclusions than you on political issues. They usually have a logical (to them) reason for reaching that conclusion, and it isn't generally because they hate (women, black people, babies, etc.).
If you can't accept that people will disagree with you on things that neither of you have any control over and are intent on arguing your point (despite the fact that you won't change anyone's mind), then the answer to the thread's question is no for you.
Thanks for bringing us back to my original point, which was not about abortion per se, but rather the general trend of conservatives trying to force others to do what they want. You can't "agree to disagree" when one side says "I disagree but you do you" and the other side says "I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs". The latter is not "agreeing to disagree". If conservatives could learn to "agree to disagree" then there would be far less friendship blockers.
I'm not entirely sure that this is fair to conservatives. At least from their point of view.
Take every American conservatives favorite fetish - guns - as an example. Most liberals want greater controls and restrictions placed on purchasing and selling guns. Most conservatives do not. From a conservative point of view, this is an 'I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs' situation.
(Yes, granted there is an argument to be made that easy access to firearms forces everyone in the country to live in a perpetual state of fear/heightened tension, but let's leave that aside for a bit.)
I already stated upthread that guns are the one and only obvious example where conservatives are definitely more pro-liberty. Anything else? "General trend" does not mean "in every conceivable example", it means general trend.
Face masks. Conservatives in the US are much more pro-facemask choice in the middle of a pandemic than liberals are.
Taxation of the rich as well. Conservatives are upset when the rich need to pay a fair share in taxes. Environmental controls/regulation for business. Conservatives don't like it when businesses don't have the option to pollute indiscriminately.
These are areas where conservatives are more pro-liberty.
"Maybe we need to start arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating people who aren't properly observing rules about social distancing. We should start charging them with attempted murder. What do you guys think?"
Honestly, I'm not sure that's a left/right thing there.
It's reasonable to expect repercussions for purposely doing something that is likely to cause the deaths of others. We don't tolerate drunk drivers, we shouldn't tolerate people who fail to observe rules regarding social distancing and mask wearing. Arrest/attempted murder/incarceration certainly seems like the wrong way to go about showing people how serious you are about trying to get a pandemic under control though.
The only voices I've heard advocating for heavy-handed authoritarian responses to social-distancing violations have been from the Left. IMHO, it's pretty hard to make a strong moral argument, one week, that ReOpen protesters should be arrested and charged with attempted murder, because some of them weren't properly social distancing, and then, just a week later, to try to argue that night after night after night of much bigger crowds protesting with BLM are totally fine. Our mayor and governor both marched with hundreds of BLM protesters, while our county was still in the yellow zone, where groups of >25 people weren't supposed to gather.
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 18, 2020, 01:09:43 AM
But those two areas are likely to have significant overlap with the other side. And they involve other factors. I suspect that pro-mask and "pro-mask-choice" have a stronger divide between the young&healthy and the older&compromised groups. Or risk-tolerant and risk-averse. (or, in some cases, ignorant and less ignorant. The elderly at my grandmother's retirement community initially thought this whole lockdown was a joke and a waste of time, now they are angered that anyone would consider NOT wearing a mask!)
Just in case the conversation wasn't getting complicated enough :)
Post by: ctuser1 on June 18, 2020, 04:50:55 AM
The conservative/liberal divide seems to follow rough libertarian/authoritarian lines, but not entirely. Conservatives tend to be authoritarian on abortion and libertarian on firearms/masks. Liberals tend to be libertarian on abortion and authoritarian on firearms/masks.
But those two areas are likely to have significant overlap with the other side. And they involve other factors. I suspect that pro-mask and "pro-mask-choice" have a stronger divide between the young&healthy and the older&compromised groups. Or risk-tolerant and risk-averse. (or, in some cases, ignorant and less ignorant. The elderly at my grandmother's retirement community initially thought this whole lockdown was a joke and a waste of time, now they are angered that anyone would consider NOT wearing a mask!)
Just in case the conversation wasn't getting complicated enough :)
Seems to me like liberals would like to protect liberty of people's innate rights - a person's own body, for example. They don't care that much about the liberty of "possessions" - like guns, money etc - where they would happily trade these liberty for (perceived) social welfare.
Conservatives today (i.e. stress on the fact the second part of the equation was not always so) don't seem to value human liberty, but seem care a lot about economic liberty. This sounds confusing until you realize it coincides very neatly with the interests of the billionaire class.
Wearing the mask falls into this confusing grey area for liberals. Liberals are again worried about the perceived social welfare, even an uncertain one (there is/was much ambivalence about the benefit of mask usage among WHO/CDC). The loss of liberty of not wearing a mask (i.e. deciding what to do with one's own body) is deemed insignificant compared to the perceived benefit (saved lives due to lower virus spread) and hence the liberal stance.
The conservative stance is less confusing, and driven primarily by the economic concerns and lack of concerns about human lives as you would expect/predict.
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 18, 2020, 06:00:35 AM
Seems to me like liberals would like to protect liberty of people's innate rights - a person's own body, for example. They don't care that much about the liberty of "possessions" - like guns, money etc - where they would happily trade these liberty for (perceived) social welfare.
Conservatives today (i.e. stress on the fact the second part of the equation was not always so) don't seem to value human liberty, but seem care a lot about economic liberty. This sounds confusing until you realize it coincides very neatly with the interests of the billionaire class.
Wearing the mask falls into this confusing grey area for liberals. Liberals are again worried about the perceived social welfare, even an uncertain one (there is/was much ambivalence about the benefit of mask usage among WHO/CDC). The loss of liberty of not wearing a mask (i.e. deciding what to do with one's own body) is deemed insignificant compared to the perceived benefit (saved lives due to lower virus spread) and hence the liberal stance.
The conservative stance is less confusing, and driven primarily by the economic concerns and lack of concerns about human lives as you would expect/predict.
A viable fetus being at risk of abortion deserves protection via the state in the same way that an at-risk potential COVID contractor deserves protection via the state. The arguments against both of these are libertarian. Mandating masks isn't a great example, as you point out, since masks have a low cost to wear. But a shutdown and mandate of social distancing has serious implications for restauranteurs, club owners, etc. Small businesses where viability requires density. So this has to be weighed against the cost of the damage of the virus, which is fairly difficult to measure.
From the University of Calgary--for every 1% drop in employment, 16 people die from suicide in my province:
https://www.ucalgary.ca/news/sixteen-more-albertans-die-suicide-every-one-cent-increase-unemployment
Conservatives are not solely concerned with economics, they are also concerned with second-order economic consequences, among other considerations.
As for billionaires, there are many neo-liberal policies that are beneficial to billionaires. It's another area where a simple bifurcation of conservative/liberal is not sufficient.
Post by: sherr on June 18, 2020, 06:37:38 AM
I've found over time that most of my friends from high school and college as well as most of my immediate and extended family are way to the left of me politically. I've considered myself libertarian most of my life but I definitely don't agree with big L libertarians on a lot of issues. A big part of that is the influence of my wife. It took close to a decade, but she finally brought me back to the Catholic faith I had nominally been raised in - even though I considered myself an atheist for many years. That was a case where we had very different beliefs, hers being much more conservative, but we still loved each other. I changed my mind from callously thinking that abortion is a great way to get rid of all the worthless people in the world to recognizing that it is inherently wrong and an evil act. That's probably not a topic I'm going to discuss with that random cousin on Facebook who posts nothing but left-wing political talking points. Although I have been able to have some of those discussions with old friends and family because they can't easily dismiss me as some random person on the internet. But we're not going to have the same friendship we did 15-20 years ago.
The person I would still consider my best friend, even though we've only seen each other in person maybe 2-3 times in the last decade, has very different political beliefs from me. But we can still talk about plenty of other things without arguing about our political beliefs. We respect each others opinions and don't waste our infrequent conversations on trying to prove the other person wrong of convince them that our beliefs are better. He's the socially conscious urban liberal and I've become the conservative religious family man. But, we can still laugh at how the rent for his 1-bedroom apartment is three times the rent for my 5-bedroom house or how he can't imagine having six young kids.
So I think it all depends on the people involved.
I think this is accidentally a very good example of why it's sometimes hard for liberals to be friends with conservatives.
I have no problem with you believing that abortion is a sin. None at all. I don't agree, but that's fully within your right to believe, and to order your life around that belief. As you correctly note, that's a religious belief (not a scientific fact), and you have your freedom of religion written into the foundation of the constitution.
The problem comes when conservatives support banning abortion for other people who need them. That is them, taking their religious belief, and trying to force everyone else to abide by them. That is them taking away other people's freedom of religion. See also gay marriage, or any host of other social issues.
Would you still be friends with your liberal buddy if he was trying to get the government to force you to abort your 6th child? Probably not. That would be the opposite of abortion bans though.
It seems to me that generally "liberals" take the side of liberty, and "conservatives" take the side of illiberal "you have to do what I say and you don't have any rights only my rights matter". The one obvious exception is gun rights, where sure, conservatives are definitely more on the side of liberty.
I have no problem being friends with people that disagree with me as long as we agree on the core tenet of liberty, and their actions (including who they vote for) reflects that. And no I'm not some "taxation is theft" libertarian nut either. But if someone is actively trying to remove the constitutional freedoms from people not like them, that's something I would struggle to look past.
"Liberals" sure seem to be doing their best to out compete conservatives at trying to force everyone to abide by their beliefs. Authoritarian liberal used to sound like an oxymoron to me, but not any more.
Do they? Are you talking about ctuser trying to "force" wolfpack to "leave everyone else alone"? That... does not seem like the same thing to me.
The problem I have with "religion informing your morality, and voting as such", is that those same people suddenly have a huge problem with the concept when it's people of a different religion doing exactly the same thing. Does anyone else remember the conspiracy theories / screaming from the right about "Sharia Law" during the Obama years? Because I do.
They themselves know that that's not a viable way to make laws in a country that is based around Freedom of Religion, they are just unwilling to give up their grasp on power. If religion informs your morality and is supported by other rational reasons why you think that a secular law should be put in place, which very well may be the case for abortion, then fine. But if the issue is solely religious? Unacceptable.
Post by: Kris on June 18, 2020, 06:40:44 AM
A "liberal" friend posted to FB the other day:I think some people are missing the point of this thread. It's not another excuse to argue about politics.
Some people are going to reach different conclusions than you on political issues. They usually have a logical (to them) reason for reaching that conclusion, and it isn't generally because they hate (women, black people, babies, etc.).
If you can't accept that people will disagree with you on things that neither of you have any control over and are intent on arguing your point (despite the fact that you won't change anyone's mind), then the answer to the thread's question is no for you.
Thanks for bringing us back to my original point, which was not about abortion per se, but rather the general trend of conservatives trying to force others to do what they want. You can't "agree to disagree" when one side says "I disagree but you do you" and the other side says "I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs". The latter is not "agreeing to disagree". If conservatives could learn to "agree to disagree" then there would be far less friendship blockers.
I'm not entirely sure that this is fair to conservatives. At least from their point of view.
Take every American conservatives favorite fetish - guns - as an example. Most liberals want greater controls and restrictions placed on purchasing and selling guns. Most conservatives do not. From a conservative point of view, this is an 'I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs' situation.
(Yes, granted there is an argument to be made that easy access to firearms forces everyone in the country to live in a perpetual state of fear/heightened tension, but let's leave that aside for a bit.)
I already stated upthread that guns are the one and only obvious example where conservatives are definitely more pro-liberty. Anything else? "General trend" does not mean "in every conceivable example", it means general trend.
Face masks. Conservatives in the US are much more pro-facemask choice in the middle of a pandemic than liberals are.
Taxation of the rich as well. Conservatives are upset when the rich need to pay a fair share in taxes. Environmental controls/regulation for business. Conservatives don't like it when businesses don't have the option to pollute indiscriminately.
These are areas where conservatives are more pro-liberty.
"Maybe we need to start arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating people who aren't properly observing rules about social distancing. We should start charging them with attempted murder. What do you guys think?"
A conservative friend posted on FB the other day (in reference to the riots) that anyone who causes property damage should be arrested and receive the death penalty.
Post by: sherr on June 18, 2020, 06:44:30 AM
The only voices I've heard advocating for heavy-handed authoritarian responses to social-distancing violations have been from the Left. IMHO, it's pretty hard to make a strong moral argument, one week, that ReOpen protesters should be arrested and charged with attempted murder, because some of them weren't properly social distancing, and then, just a week later, to try to argue that night after night after night of much bigger crowds protesting with BLM are totally fine. Our mayor and governor both marched with hundreds of BLM protesters, while our county was still in the yellow zone, where groups of >25 people weren't supposed to gather.
Did you hear that from Left politicians, or just from Facebook nutjobs? It seems quite unfair to compare real factual governmental Right authoritarianism with theoretical internet-crazy-only Left authoritarianism.
Post by: Kris on June 18, 2020, 06:46:57 AM
Seems to me like liberals would like to protect liberty of people's innate rights - a person's own body, for example. They don't care that much about the liberty of "possessions" - like guns, money etc - where they would happily trade these liberty for (perceived) social welfare.
Conservatives today (i.e. stress on the fact the second part of the equation was not always so) don't seem to value human liberty, but seem care a lot about economic liberty. This sounds confusing until you realize it coincides very neatly with the interests of the billionaire class.
Wearing the mask falls into this confusing grey area for liberals. Liberals are again worried about the perceived social welfare, even an uncertain one (there is/was much ambivalence about the benefit of mask usage among WHO/CDC). The loss of liberty of not wearing a mask (i.e. deciding what to do with one's own body) is deemed insignificant compared to the perceived benefit (saved lives due to lower virus spread) and hence the liberal stance.
The conservative stance is less confusing, and driven primarily by the economic concerns and lack of concerns about human lives as you would expect/predict.
A viable fetus being at risk of abortion deserves protection via the state in the same way that an at-risk potential COVID contractor deserves protection via the state. The arguments against both of these are libertarian. Mandating masks isn't a great example, as you point out, since masks have a low cost to wear. But a shutdown and mandate of social distancing has serious implications for restauranteurs, club owners, etc. Small businesses where viability requires density. So this has to be weighed against the cost of the damage of the virus, which is fairly difficult to measure.
From the University of Calgary--for every 1% drop in employment, 16 people die from suicide in my province:
https://www.ucalgary.ca/news/sixteen-more-albertans-die-suicide-every-one-cent-increase-unemployment
Conservatives are not solely concerned with economics, they are also concerned with second-order economic consequences, among other considerations.
As for billionaires, there are many neo-liberal policies that are beneficial to billionaires. It's another area where a simple bifurcation of conservative/liberal is not sufficient.
Viable fetuses are not really at risk for abortion, though. Viability is generally considered by everyone, on both sides of the debate, as the point where the fetus becomes a baby. Despite what propaganda people including the president will try to feed you, no one is aborting a baby a month or a week or a day before birth.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 18, 2020, 07:11:51 AM
A viable fetus being at risk of abortion deserves protection via the state in the same way that an at-risk potential COVID contractor deserves protection via the state.Nobody argued otherwise. If the state creates artificial wombs, then I think you'll find many liberals in favor of increasing taxes to support the fetuses who don't have any willing owner of Fallopian tubes to connect to.
Conservatives, however, are arguing that the unwilling mother should be forced to give up the choice as to what she should do with her body as mandated by a certain religious belief..
<edited to add> Ah! I missed the "viable" part. No - nobody other than conservative gun-nuts are allowed to murder a baby who can survive on his/her own (with medical assistance if required).
From the University of Calgary--for every 1% drop in employment, 16 people die from suicide in my province:There are FAAAAR more well established studies showing life expectancy increased during depression. Its easy to google them out if you want to.
https://www.ucalgary.ca/news/sixteen-more-albertans-die-suicide-every-one-cent-increase-unemployment
Conservatives are not solely concerned with economics, they are also concerned with second-order economic consequences, among other considerations.
If conservatives were concerned about second order consequences, then they would welcome economic depressions.
In reality, they would have taken the same stance as liberals *if* they were not practicing billionaire-wing politics.
As for billionaires, there are many neo-liberal policies that are beneficial to billionaires. It's another area where a simple bifurcation of conservative/liberal is not sufficient.There is a crop of billionaires who profit from inflaming racial politics. Murdoch, Koch, Mercers etc and most other "old economy" billionaires are in this category.
Yes, there is a set of "new economy" billionaires, mostly younger, who don't seem to engage in this. That may be because they see no profit in it, or maybe they are just not sufficiently callous and evil - I can't tell!!
It's not a stretch to say that the conservative politics is controlled by these old economy liberals. Heck, just Murdoch (Fox), Koch (various super-PACs), Mercer (Breitbart) and the intentionally obscure controllers of Sinclair Broadcast Group control 99% of conservative political messaging in the US.
Post by: GuitarStv on June 18, 2020, 08:01:08 AM
A "liberal" friend posted to FB the other day:I think some people are missing the point of this thread. It's not another excuse to argue about politics.
Some people are going to reach different conclusions than you on political issues. They usually have a logical (to them) reason for reaching that conclusion, and it isn't generally because they hate (women, black people, babies, etc.).
If you can't accept that people will disagree with you on things that neither of you have any control over and are intent on arguing your point (despite the fact that you won't change anyone's mind), then the answer to the thread's question is no for you.
Thanks for bringing us back to my original point, which was not about abortion per se, but rather the general trend of conservatives trying to force others to do what they want. You can't "agree to disagree" when one side says "I disagree but you do you" and the other side says "I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs". The latter is not "agreeing to disagree". If conservatives could learn to "agree to disagree" then there would be far less friendship blockers.
I'm not entirely sure that this is fair to conservatives. At least from their point of view.
Take every American conservatives favorite fetish - guns - as an example. Most liberals want greater controls and restrictions placed on purchasing and selling guns. Most conservatives do not. From a conservative point of view, this is an 'I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs' situation.
(Yes, granted there is an argument to be made that easy access to firearms forces everyone in the country to live in a perpetual state of fear/heightened tension, but let's leave that aside for a bit.)
I already stated upthread that guns are the one and only obvious example where conservatives are definitely more pro-liberty. Anything else? "General trend" does not mean "in every conceivable example", it means general trend.
Face masks. Conservatives in the US are much more pro-facemask choice in the middle of a pandemic than liberals are.
Taxation of the rich as well. Conservatives are upset when the rich need to pay a fair share in taxes. Environmental controls/regulation for business. Conservatives don't like it when businesses don't have the option to pollute indiscriminately.
These are areas where conservatives are more pro-liberty.
"Maybe we need to start arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating people who aren't properly observing rules about social distancing. We should start charging them with attempted murder. What do you guys think?"
Honestly, I'm not sure that's a left/right thing there.
It's reasonable to expect repercussions for purposely doing something that is likely to cause the deaths of others. We don't tolerate drunk drivers, we shouldn't tolerate people who fail to observe rules regarding social distancing and mask wearing. Arrest/attempted murder/incarceration certainly seems like the wrong way to go about showing people how serious you are about trying to get a pandemic under control though.
The only voices I've heard advocating for heavy-handed authoritarian responses to social-distancing violations have been from the Left. IMHO, it's pretty hard to make a strong moral argument, one week, that ReOpen protesters should be arrested and charged with attempted murder, because some of them weren't properly social distancing, and then, just a week later, to try to argue that night after night after night of much bigger crowds protesting with BLM are totally fine. Our mayor and governor both marched with hundreds of BLM protesters, while our county was still in the yellow zone, where groups of >25 people weren't supposed to gather.
That's certainly an example of hypocrisy that I've seen as well, and that I don't like.
I suspect that the reason you're only seeing advocates for a response to social distancing violations from the left is that the right in the US is still busy arguing that there was never any reason for social distancing to begin with, that coronavirus is basically the flu, and that worst case a little injection of bleach will clear all that up for you. :P
Post by: Chris22 on June 18, 2020, 08:23:28 AM
A "liberal" friend posted to FB the other day:I think some people are missing the point of this thread. It's not another excuse to argue about politics.
Some people are going to reach different conclusions than you on political issues. They usually have a logical (to them) reason for reaching that conclusion, and it isn't generally because they hate (women, black people, babies, etc.).
If you can't accept that people will disagree with you on things that neither of you have any control over and are intent on arguing your point (despite the fact that you won't change anyone's mind), then the answer to the thread's question is no for you.
Thanks for bringing us back to my original point, which was not about abortion per se, but rather the general trend of conservatives trying to force others to do what they want. You can't "agree to disagree" when one side says "I disagree but you do you" and the other side says "I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs". The latter is not "agreeing to disagree". If conservatives could learn to "agree to disagree" then there would be far less friendship blockers.
I'm not entirely sure that this is fair to conservatives. At least from their point of view.
Take every American conservatives favorite fetish - guns - as an example. Most liberals want greater controls and restrictions placed on purchasing and selling guns. Most conservatives do not. From a conservative point of view, this is an 'I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs' situation.
(Yes, granted there is an argument to be made that easy access to firearms forces everyone in the country to live in a perpetual state of fear/heightened tension, but let's leave that aside for a bit.)
I already stated upthread that guns are the one and only obvious example where conservatives are definitely more pro-liberty. Anything else? "General trend" does not mean "in every conceivable example", it means general trend.
Face masks. Conservatives in the US are much more pro-facemask choice in the middle of a pandemic than liberals are.
Taxation of the rich as well. Conservatives are upset when the rich need to pay a fair share in taxes. Environmental controls/regulation for business. Conservatives don't like it when businesses don't have the option to pollute indiscriminately.
These are areas where conservatives are more pro-liberty.
"Maybe we need to start arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating people who aren't properly observing rules about social distancing. We should start charging them with attempted murder. What do you guys think?"
Honestly, I'm not sure that's a left/right thing there.
It's reasonable to expect repercussions for purposely doing something that is likely to cause the deaths of others. We don't tolerate drunk drivers, we shouldn't tolerate people who fail to observe rules regarding social distancing and mask wearing. Arrest/attempted murder/incarceration certainly seems like the wrong way to go about showing people how serious you are about trying to get a pandemic under control though.
The only voices I've heard advocating for heavy-handed authoritarian responses to social-distancing violations have been from the Left. IMHO, it's pretty hard to make a strong moral argument, one week, that ReOpen protesters should be arrested and charged with attempted murder, because some of them weren't properly social distancing, and then, just a week later, to try to argue that night after night after night of much bigger crowds protesting with BLM are totally fine. Our mayor and governor both marched with hundreds of BLM protesters, while our county was still in the yellow zone, where groups of >25 people weren't supposed to gather.
That's certainly an example of hypocrisy that I've seen as well, and that I don't like.
I suspect that the reason you're only seeing advocates for a response to social distancing violations from the left is that the right in the US is still busy arguing that there was never any reason for social distancing to begin with, that coronavirus is basically the flu, and that worst case a little injection of bleach will clear all that up for you. :P
Hey if you’re going to say that, I’m going to reply the reason the Left is so hyper-focused on the virus is because it hurts the economy and a bad economy makes it easier/possible for their absolutely senile and terrible candidate to maybe beat Trump.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 18, 2020, 08:48:53 AM
That's certainly an example of hypocrisy that I've seen as well, and that I don't like.
I suspect that the reason you're only seeing advocates for a response to social distancing violations from the left is that the right in the US is still busy arguing that there was never any reason for social distancing to begin with, that coronavirus is basically the flu, and that worst case a little injection of bleach will clear all that up for you. :P
Hey if you’re going to say that, I’m going to reply the reason the Left is so hyper-focused on the virus is because it hurts the economy and a bad economy makes it easier/possible for their absolutely senile and terrible candidate to maybe beat Trump.
Most of my opinions would be considered liberal (many would line up with old style conservatives like Teddy R or Eisenhower - an extinct breed today). I definitely was not super-thrilled in March that my 401k will nosedive - Trump or no. Remember, most of the tax-paying "middle and upper middle class" in HCOL locations is liberal. I just don't buy that they would want to tank their self-interest for this reason.
Now, it turns out that the stock market did not really correlate with the underlying economy. But that was definitely not expected when liberals came down hard in favor of lockdown.
Taking the self-interest theme further - the liberal white collar workers can work remotely, and I think it can be reasonably argued that they were not sufficiently sensitive to the needs of poorer (conservative leaning) blue collar workers.
Post by: boy_bye on June 18, 2020, 09:01:35 AM
I've found over time that most of my friends from high school and college as well as most of my immediate and extended family are way to the left of me politically. I've considered myself libertarian most of my life but I definitely don't agree with big L libertarians on a lot of issues. A big part of that is the influence of my wife. It took close to a decade, but she finally brought me back to the Catholic faith I had nominally been raised in - even though I considered myself an atheist for many years. That was a case where we had very different beliefs, hers being much more conservative, but we still loved each other. I changed my mind from callously thinking that abortion is a great way to get rid of all the worthless people in the world to recognizing that it is inherently wrong and an evil act. That's probably not a topic I'm going to discuss with that random cousin on Facebook who posts nothing but left-wing political talking points. Although I have been able to have some of those discussions with old friends and family because they can't easily dismiss me as some random person on the internet. But we're not going to have the same friendship we did 15-20 years ago.
The person I would still consider my best friend, even though we've only seen each other in person maybe 2-3 times in the last decade, has very different political beliefs from me. But we can still talk about plenty of other things without arguing about our political beliefs. We respect each others opinions and don't waste our infrequent conversations on trying to prove the other person wrong of convince them that our beliefs are better. He's the socially conscious urban liberal and I've become the conservative religious family man. But, we can still laugh at how the rent for his 1-bedroom apartment is three times the rent for my 5-bedroom house or how he can't imagine having six young kids.
So I think it all depends on the people involved.
I think this is accidentally a very good example of why it's sometimes hard for liberals to be friends with conservatives.
I have no problem with you believing that abortion is a sin. None at all. I don't agree, but that's fully within your right to believe, and to order your life around that belief. As you correctly note, that's a religious belief (not a scientific fact), and you have your freedom of religion written into the foundation of the constitution.
The problem comes when conservatives support banning abortion for other people who need them. That is them, taking their religious belief, and trying to force everyone else to abide by them. That is them taking away other people's freedom of religion. See also gay marriage, or any host of other social issues.
Would you still be friends with your liberal buddy if he was trying to get the government to force you to abort your 6th child? Probably not. That would be the opposite of abortion bans though.
It seems to me that generally "liberals" take the side of liberty, and "conservatives" take the side of illiberal "you have to do what I say and you don't have any rights only my rights matter". The one obvious exception is gun rights, where sure, conservatives are definitely more on the side of liberty.
I have no problem being friends with people that disagree with me as long as we agree on the core tenet of liberty, and their actions (including who they vote for) reflects that. And no I'm not some "taxation is theft" libertarian nut either. But if someone is actively trying to remove the constitutional freedoms from people not like them, that's something I would struggle to look past.
"Liberals" sure seem to be doing their best to out compete conservatives at trying to force everyone to abide by their beliefs. Authoritarian liberal used to sound like an oxymoron to me, but not any more.
lol sure because demanding that people have rights to live their lives in the way they want to without impacting others in any way is super authoritarian *giant eye roll*
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 18, 2020, 09:45:31 AM
In summary, you did not answer the question of why yours or anyone's belief of right and wrong is not shoving their belief down people's throats but mine is simply because it's informed by religion. You didn't answer it. You can't answer it. I'm done.
You seem to be ignoring the answer.
1. "Religiously informed opinion" is a bs, call it religious opinion and spare me the political correctness as long as only one religion seem to care for that opinion. I've specified many good reasons above why religious opinion does not mix well with the state affairs. Better yet, many of the founding fathers of US spoke at length about many good reasons.
2. There is no belief of "mine", that "you" did not hold, and that resulted in "you" losing control over your bodily autonomy because "I" forced a legislation that way, or ever attempted to do it that way. Here "I" is a generic liberal, and "you" is a generic conservative, or some other such combination. It is just not done. The only laws that impede bodily liberty are criminal laws. You mean to say "I" (i.e. liberals) imposed that on unwitting conservatives??
I am guessing you have never spent time as the "minority" anywhere, even a privileged one (as most Americans would be in many other countries). If you did, the problems with your POV would have been easier to understand, and you would not have been proposing taking peoples bodily liberty away so casually and blithely.
OK, since you're seemingly trying to engage my actual question by at least acknowledging it and then disregarding it, lol, I'll respond (although I may regret it).
I think you are being deliberately obtuse.
Religiously informed opinion is not politically correct BS. You dismissing it out of hand is simply a sign of your inherent bias against religion and your lack of willingness to see the difference between forcing someone to worship in a certain way and the moral compass we all have. It's intellectual laziness. Religiously informed opinion is a specific (made up, admittedly) term I'm using to try to help people understand the point I'm making (i.e. the part I think you're being deliberately obtuse about). I won't go into the Founding Fathers much, because that's neither here nor there, but suffice it to say, they had religiously informed opinions as well, despite strongly wanting to prevent a state sponsored church or forced worship of any faith. These are not mutually exclusive regardless of whether you admit it or not.
Ok, so let me try to explain this another way. Forewarning, it will be a little condescending because, again, I feel like you are trying at least a little bit to not see what I'm saying, but I'll try to keep that to a minimum.
When you were a young ctuser, you no doubt did some things wrong. You hit another child who took your toy. You screamed at a person for not getting you your food fast enough. You were given moral guidance that this is not OK. Some of the items you were taught, you disregarded because you felt, for whatever reason, that they weren't correct. You began to develop your system of morality that guides you in everything, including what you want to restrict others from doing via laws. Your background informs your opinion on what rights you wish the government to give others, deprive others, etc.
I have my own background and happen to have a religious background that informs what I believe is right and wrong, including what I believe a government should or should not do in regards to people's rights. My religion informs that moral understanding. It is not a static process. I've dynamically come to different conclusions as I've gotten older and hopefully learned some. My religion still informs my morality, but I understand things differently and therefore have changed my perspective on things.
Let's give an example of a religiously informed opinion. My religiously informed opinion says that everyone has innate worth regardless of what they do with their actions, regardless of what I personally think of them or the actions, how much I like them, etc. I have no leeway given for ever devaluing someone else. This influences how I interact with people (on my good days :-) ), what laws I think should be in the books, etc. There are people whose opinions are not religiously informed that believe this. There are also people whose opinions are not religiously informed that believe completely that they/their race/etc. are superior to others. Is my religiously informed opinion and me acting upon that in how I vote of lesser value than those other opinions simply because it's religiously informed? Of course not. I am no perfect person by any stretch, but you are condemning the very concept of my religion informing my opinion and me voting in accordance with that just because. Because what? Because it's religiously based? That's crap. That's bigoted. Does it mean I'm persecuted or I somehow know what it's like to be a minority or oppressed person because you're treating me this way. Of course not! I have and have had tons of advantages. I don't deny that, and this conversation is what it is - two random people arguing over the internet. But just because I don't have that experience doesn't make your opinion in this matter any less dumb or offensive.
So in summary, yes, your opinion on what rights should be restricted are secularly informed whether you like the term or not. Mine are religiously informed. Everyone's opinions are informed by something unless they don't take a stance on anything, which would kind of be sad. Argue the issues if you will. Stop acting superior just because what you want the country to do is not based on any religion. It's kind of you acting with the very same "religious arrogance" that you so claim to hate.
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 18, 2020, 10:03:56 AM
lol sure because demanding that people have rights to live their lives in the way they want to without impacting others in any way is super authoritarian *giant eye roll*
The central theme in most of these arguments is that these issues are not so simple.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 18, 2020, 10:51:53 AM
Religiously informed opinion is not politically correct BS. You dismissing it out of hand is simply a sign of your inherent bias against religion and your lack of willingness to see the difference between forcing someone to worship in a certain way and the moral compass we all have. It's intellectual laziness. Religiously informed opinion is a specific (made up, admittedly) term I'm using to try to help people understand the point I'm making (i.e. the part I think you're being deliberately obtuse about). I won't go into the Founding Fathers much, because that's neither here nor there, but suffice it to say, they had religiously informed opinions as well, despite strongly wanting to prevent a state sponsored church or forced worship of any faith. These are not mutually exclusive regardless of whether you admit it or not.No objection to the main theme. I did not refuse to "see the difference between forcing someone to worship in a certain way and the moral compass we all have". You are missing my point - I'll get to it later.
Ok, so let me try to explain this another way. Forewarning, it will be a little condescending because, again, I feel like you are trying at least a little bit to not see what I'm saying, but I'll try to keep that to a minimum.You have every right to have religiously informed opinion, just as much as I have my secularly informed one.
When you were a young ctuser, you no doubt did some things wrong. You hit another child who took your toy. You screamed at a person for not getting you your food fast enough. You were given moral guidance that this is not OK. Some of the items you were taught, you disregarded because you felt, for whatever reason, that they weren't correct. You began to develop your system of morality that guides you in everything, including what you want to restrict others from doing via laws. Your background informs your opinion on what rights you wish the government to give others, deprive others, etc.
I have my own background and happen to have a religious background that informs what I believe is right and wrong, including what I believe a government should or should not do in regards to people's rights. My religion informs that moral understanding. It is not a static process. I've dynamically come to different conclusions as I've gotten older and hopefully learned some. My religion still informs my morality, but I understand things differently and therefore have changed my perspective on things.
Let's give an example of a religiously informed opinion. My religiously informed opinion says that everyone has innate worth regardless of what they do with their actions, regardless of what I personally think of them or the actions, how much I like them, etc. I have no leeway given for ever devaluing someone else. This influences how I interact with people (on my good days :-) ), what laws I think should be in the books, etc. There are people whose opinions are not religiously informed that believe this. There are also people whose opinions are not religiously informed that believe completely that they/their race/etc. are superior to others. Is my religiously informed opinion and me acting upon that in how I vote of lesser value than those other opinions simply because it's religiously informed? Of course not. I am no perfect person by any stretch, but you are condemning the very concept of my religion informing my opinion and me voting in accordance with that just because. Because what? Because it's religiously based? That's crap. That's bigoted. Does it mean I'm persecuted or I somehow know what it's like to be a minority or oppressed person because you're treating me this way. Of course not! I have and have had tons of advantages. I don't deny that, and this conversation is what it is - two random people arguing over the internet. But just because I don't have that experience doesn't make your opinion in this matter any less dumb or offensive.
So in summary, yes, your opinion on what rights should be restricted are secularly informed whether you like the term or not. Mine are religiously informed. Everyone's opinions are informed by something unless they don't take a stance on anything, which would kind of be sad. Argue the issues if you will. Stop acting superior just because what you want the country to do is not based on any religion. It's kind of you acting with the very same "religious arrogance" that you so claim to hate.
You have every right to take your opinion, curry support for it and lobby/petition action for it, in general. If your "religiously informed opinion" coincides with other peoples opinions (which it should, assuming you don't claim some sort of special ownership of morality that can *only* be informed by *your* religion and nothing else), then it will even likely become the law of the land. Sunday as holiday, for example. Or Friday as the same holiday in the Muslim countries - as a counter-example!! I doubt anyone is going to raise an questions about these minor mis-alignments fueled by local historical norms.
However, certain rights/situations are not "general". Criminal law clearly falls in this category. You don't want Capital punishment meted out per religious standards - if nothing else, due to practical concerns. How do you reconcile the gap between the Jewish/Roman position that Jesus should be crucified vs worshipping him? of stoning adulterers vs electing him president? etc. etc. etc.
Laws that limit a person's ownership of his/her own body falls in this *very special* category, that should require an extraordinary set of support from poeple/logic etc. A "religiously informed opinion" that is supported by *only one group* and not by others is not the right tool to call for such fundamental change to human liberty. Most stark such examples are your call for limiting freedom of women over their body, and the sharia law calling for capital punishment for various stupid reasons.
A religiously informed opinion that is not shared by others may be much less offensive, and yet limit some (economic) freedoms. e.g. Hindu cow slaughter laws and if the Jewish wanted all food served everywhere in the US to be Kosher. I'd still consider it a stupid idea to lobby for legislating based on those - but won't find it as repulsive as your stance.
Now, there is a category of quite inoffensive religiously informed opinion that is not shared by others. Maybe an Alaskan city wants to mark an Inuit holiday, or a NJ town with heavy Indian-American populate wants to somehow specially facilitate the Diwali Festival. I don't see anyone would object to any of that.
In short, I will find a Muslim's call for Sharia law in the US just as offensive as I find your call for banning abortion via legislation.
(No offense especially intended to Muslims. I will equally oppose laws set in bible, specially old testament, Torah, the Vedas, Tripitaka or the Sikh Grantha).
If you don't find your position at least as offensive/inoffensive as a Muslim's call for Sharia law because both are "religiously informed" by only one religion AND calls for limiting basic human liberty, then you are probably a teensy weensy bit bigoted. And if you support both - then I have no idea what to think of you.
Let's give an example of a religiously informed opinion. My religiously informed opinion says that everyone has innate worth regardless of what they do with their actions, regardless of what I personally think of them or the actions, how much I like them, etc. I have no leeway given for ever devaluing someone else. This influences how I interact with people (on my good days :-) ), what laws I think should be in the books, etc.This is a perfect example of a very acceptable religious opinion that I, a bloody stupid secularist, will support every day of the week and then in the weekend too!!
Now, if you were espousing something that *only* one religion supports, and that leads to people (everybody, not *just* people of that religion, irrespective of their religious stance on this issue) losing autonomy over their own body, then...... well let's just not go there!!
Post by: HBFIRE on June 18, 2020, 11:41:01 AM
Yes, it's basically becoming a "purity spiral" -- Here is a fascinating article on this phenomenon. (https://unherd.com/2020/01/cast-out-how-knitting-fell-into-a-purity-spiral/)
Interestingly, as you pointed out, this phenomenon has traditionally been rooted in conservative religious/cult atmospheres but now we're seeing it manifest from the left. It would be an interesting study to look into the modern demise of religion being replaced with other forms of group think entities -- this is what I think is happening. The book "Sapiens" gets into this subject.
I've seen all sorts of examples of this in a wide range of online communities. This is why having a good mix and range of opinions/views/backgrounds is so important for a healthy community. Echo chambers with mob mentality are dangerous.
And now, a sort of purity spiral in our community: FinCon (https://medium.com/@boylan.mm/cancel-fincon-2b768c8ccbe4)
Post by: Shane on June 18, 2020, 11:52:55 AM
Sounds like we don't disagree. My comment was not specifically targeted towards any of the back and forth in this thread. It was more of just a general observation of what seems like a trend I've been noticing, since probably 2016. I'm not religious at all, so I wouldn't say that any of my moral convictions are based on religion. Agreed, it's okay for people to make moral decisions based on religious teachings, as long as they also have rational reasons to back them up. I'd oppose both, but I wouldn't give more credence to a claim that we should make a law against killing and eating cows, for example, just because it came from a vegan rather than a Hindu. The vegan's argument is secular and the Hindu's is based on religion. To me, the secular argument isn't, necessarily, better.I've found over time that most of my friends from high school and college as well as most of my immediate and extended family are way to the left of me politically. I've considered myself libertarian most of my life but I definitely don't agree with big L libertarians on a lot of issues. A big part of that is the influence of my wife. It took close to a decade, but she finally brought me back to the Catholic faith I had nominally been raised in - even though I considered myself an atheist for many years. That was a case where we had very different beliefs, hers being much more conservative, but we still loved each other. I changed my mind from callously thinking that abortion is a great way to get rid of all the worthless people in the world to recognizing that it is inherently wrong and an evil act. That's probably not a topic I'm going to discuss with that random cousin on Facebook who posts nothing but left-wing political talking points. Although I have been able to have some of those discussions with old friends and family because they can't easily dismiss me as some random person on the internet. But we're not going to have the same friendship we did 15-20 years ago.
The person I would still consider my best friend, even though we've only seen each other in person maybe 2-3 times in the last decade, has very different political beliefs from me. But we can still talk about plenty of other things without arguing about our political beliefs. We respect each others opinions and don't waste our infrequent conversations on trying to prove the other person wrong of convince them that our beliefs are better. He's the socially conscious urban liberal and I've become the conservative religious family man. But, we can still laugh at how the rent for his 1-bedroom apartment is three times the rent for my 5-bedroom house or how he can't imagine having six young kids.
So I think it all depends on the people involved.
I think this is accidentally a very good example of why it's sometimes hard for liberals to be friends with conservatives.
I have no problem with you believing that abortion is a sin. None at all. I don't agree, but that's fully within your right to believe, and to order your life around that belief. As you correctly note, that's a religious belief (not a scientific fact), and you have your freedom of religion written into the foundation of the constitution.
The problem comes when conservatives support banning abortion for other people who need them. That is them, taking their religious belief, and trying to force everyone else to abide by them. That is them taking away other people's freedom of religion. See also gay marriage, or any host of other social issues.
Would you still be friends with your liberal buddy if he was trying to get the government to force you to abort your 6th child? Probably not. That would be the opposite of abortion bans though.
It seems to me that generally "liberals" take the side of liberty, and "conservatives" take the side of illiberal "you have to do what I say and you don't have any rights only my rights matter". The one obvious exception is gun rights, where sure, conservatives are definitely more on the side of liberty.
I have no problem being friends with people that disagree with me as long as we agree on the core tenet of liberty, and their actions (including who they vote for) reflects that. And no I'm not some "taxation is theft" libertarian nut either. But if someone is actively trying to remove the constitutional freedoms from people not like them, that's something I would struggle to look past.
"Liberals" sure seem to be doing their best to out compete conservatives at trying to force everyone to abide by their beliefs. Authoritarian liberal used to sound like an oxymoron to me, but not any more.
Do they? Are you talking about ctuser trying to "force" wolfpack to "leave everyone else alone"? That... does not seem like the same thing to me.
The problem I have with "religion informing your morality, and voting as such", is that those same people suddenly have a huge problem with the concept when it's people of a different religion doing exactly the same thing. Does anyone else remember the conspiracy theories / screaming from the right about "Sharia Law" during the Obama years? Because I do.
They themselves know that that's not a viable way to make laws in a country that is based around Freedom of Religion, they are just unwilling to give up their grasp on power. If religion informs your morality and is supported by other rational reasons why you think that a secular law should be put in place, which very well may be the case for abortion, then fine. But if the issue is solely religious? Unacceptable.
Post by: Shane on June 18, 2020, 11:55:03 AM
Unfortunately, there seem to be crazies on both sides of the culture wars in our country. :(A "liberal" friend posted to FB the other day:I think some people are missing the point of this thread. It's not another excuse to argue about politics.
Some people are going to reach different conclusions than you on political issues. They usually have a logical (to them) reason for reaching that conclusion, and it isn't generally because they hate (women, black people, babies, etc.).
If you can't accept that people will disagree with you on things that neither of you have any control over and are intent on arguing your point (despite the fact that you won't change anyone's mind), then the answer to the thread's question is no for you.
Thanks for bringing us back to my original point, which was not about abortion per se, but rather the general trend of conservatives trying to force others to do what they want. You can't "agree to disagree" when one side says "I disagree but you do you" and the other side says "I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs". The latter is not "agreeing to disagree". If conservatives could learn to "agree to disagree" then there would be far less friendship blockers.
I'm not entirely sure that this is fair to conservatives. At least from their point of view.
Take every American conservatives favorite fetish - guns - as an example. Most liberals want greater controls and restrictions placed on purchasing and selling guns. Most conservatives do not. From a conservative point of view, this is an 'I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs' situation.
(Yes, granted there is an argument to be made that easy access to firearms forces everyone in the country to live in a perpetual state of fear/heightened tension, but let's leave that aside for a bit.)
I already stated upthread that guns are the one and only obvious example where conservatives are definitely more pro-liberty. Anything else? "General trend" does not mean "in every conceivable example", it means general trend.
Face masks. Conservatives in the US are much more pro-facemask choice in the middle of a pandemic than liberals are.
Taxation of the rich as well. Conservatives are upset when the rich need to pay a fair share in taxes. Environmental controls/regulation for business. Conservatives don't like it when businesses don't have the option to pollute indiscriminately.
These are areas where conservatives are more pro-liberty.
"Maybe we need to start arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating people who aren't properly observing rules about social distancing. We should start charging them with attempted murder. What do you guys think?"
A conservative friend posted on FB the other day (in reference to the riots) that anyone who causes property damage should be arrested and receive the death penalty.
Post by: mathlete on June 18, 2020, 11:56:32 AM
I also don't like guns and I think our gun culture costs lots of lives in the US, but I can be friends with people who own an arsenal. I "get it" that toxic gun culture isn't the problem of any one, individual, responsible gun owner.
I'm pro choice, but I think I can largely be friends with pro life people. To me, it's about a woman's agency over her own body. If you find abortion distasteful, or if you think a fetus is a human life, I find it very difficult to argue with that. It's not my call when a life begins. So again, I "get it".
I find it very difficult to tolerate people who have differing opinions on social justice issues though. I hardly even consider these to be differences in opinion.
Post by: HBFIRE on June 18, 2020, 12:03:32 PM
I'm pro choice, but I think I can largely be friends with pro life people. To me, it's about a woman's agency over her own body. If you find abortion distasteful, or if you think a fetus is a human life, I find it very difficult to argue with that. It's not my call when a life begins. So again, I "get it".
Abortion is a tough issue for me, I find myself still undecided. I suppose this is why it's remained such a difficult debate. There are extremely compelling arguments from both sides. I try my best to look at the issue from a purely rational and logical perspective but remain annoyingly undecided as I've read extremely well presented arguments from both sides (I disregard any argument from an emotional or religious standpoint). Basically I remain sympathetic to all views on this topic at this point.
Post by: Shane on June 18, 2020, 12:04:28 PM
Again, I don't disagree with you, sherr. While I wouldn't say all of my FB friends are "nutjobs," some of them, arguably, probably fall into that category. Most, though, are highly educated left-leaning progressives. It seems like every day, at least for the past 3.5 years, one of them comes out with what to me seem like crazy, authoritarian ideas, like locking people who disagree with their far-left identity politics up in "re-education camps," until they agree to use everyone's preferred gender pronouns or wear masks or whatever. In my state, the actual government officials, i.e., our governor and health secretary, are pretty reasonable. Seems like another reason to avoid social media, get outside and talk face to face with people irl. It's just been hard to do that, recently, so I've been spending more than the normal amount of time on social media. This MMM forum is better, IMHO, than FB, for sure. People are willing to actually discuss ideas in a lot more detail.The only voices I've heard advocating for heavy-handed authoritarian responses to social-distancing violations have been from the Left. IMHO, it's pretty hard to make a strong moral argument, one week, that ReOpen protesters should be arrested and charged with attempted murder, because some of them weren't properly social distancing, and then, just a week later, to try to argue that night after night after night of much bigger crowds protesting with BLM are totally fine. Our mayor and governor both marched with hundreds of BLM protesters, while our county was still in the yellow zone, where groups of >25 people weren't supposed to gather.
Did you hear that from Left politicians, or just from Facebook nutjobs? It seems quite unfair to compare real factual governmental Right authoritarianism with theoretical internet-crazy-only Left authoritarianism.
Post by: mathlete on June 18, 2020, 12:09:05 PM
Abortion is a tough issue for me, I find myself still undecided. I suppose this is why it's remained such a difficult debate. There are extremely compelling arguments from both sides. I try my best to look at the issue from a purely rational and logical perspective but remain annoyingly undecided as I've read extremely well presented arguments from both sides (I disregard any argument from an emotional or religious standpoint).
Same (on it being a tough issue). Ultimately, I decided how I did because I don't think it's right that mostly male governments can compel women to give birth if they don't want to.
I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on when life begins, but if you truly believe it's at conception or something, then I can see why you'd fight so hard against abortion. If you truly believe you're saving lives, then a lot seems justifiable.
Post by: HBFIRE on June 18, 2020, 12:17:31 PM
Same (on it being a tough issue). Ultimately, I decided how I did because I don't think it's right that mostly male governments can compel women to give birth if they don't want to.
I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on when life begins, but if you truly believe it's at conception or something, then I can see why you'd fight so hard against abortion. If you truly believe you're saving lives, then a lot seems justifiable.
Agreed. I tend to be libertarian leaning so this leads me to be in favor of abortion rights. Still, the moral implications bother me even as an atheist. Even if we can somehow agree on when a fetus becomes sentient, there is another argument that is tough to deal with -- why is it okay to take the life of a non-sentient being that will definitely become sentient? I don't know the answer to this, as it's really a moral/ethical question. Morals and ethics, in my view, are human constructs -- so I suppose we decide as a society. And this is why there is an issue, we can't agree on what is the correct set of ethics.
Post by: sherr on June 18, 2020, 12:19:08 PM
Again, I don't disagree with you, sherr. While I wouldn't say all of my FB friends are "nutjobs," some of them, arguably, probably fall into that category. Most, though, are highly educated left-leaning progressives. It seems like every day, at least for the past 3.5 years, one of them comes out with what to me seem like crazy, authoritarian ideas, like locking people who disagree with their far-left identity politics up in "re-education camps," until they agree to use everyone's preferred gender pronouns or wear masks or whatever. In my state, the actual government officials, i.e., our governor and health secretary, are pretty reasonable. Seems like another reason to avoid social media, get outside and talk face to face with people irl. It's just been hard to do that, recently, so I've been spending more than the normal amount of time on social media. This MMM forum is better, IMHO, than FB, for sure. People are willing to actually discuss ideas in a lot more detail.The only voices I've heard advocating for heavy-handed authoritarian responses to social-distancing violations have been from the Left. IMHO, it's pretty hard to make a strong moral argument, one week, that ReOpen protesters should be arrested and charged with attempted murder, because some of them weren't properly social distancing, and then, just a week later, to try to argue that night after night after night of much bigger crowds protesting with BLM are totally fine. Our mayor and governor both marched with hundreds of BLM protesters, while our county was still in the yellow zone, where groups of >25 people weren't supposed to gather.
Did you hear that from Left politicians, or just from Facebook nutjobs? It seems quite unfair to compare real factual governmental Right authoritarianism with theoretical internet-crazy-only Left authoritarianism.
I didn't mean that in a way to denigrate your friends, I'm sure some people here consider *me* to be an internet crazy. My point was just that the "enlightened centrists" use this kind of comparison as an excuse to inevitably claim that "both sides are the same". "Well sure Donald Trump is bad, but look what this crazy SJW said on their blog! Both sides are just as crazy!"
It's just fundamentally not a fair comparison. You will always be able to find someone on either side of you that you think is crazy. Compare president to presidents, politicians to politicians, policies to policies, and then decide.
Post by: Cassie on June 18, 2020, 12:21:58 PM
Post by: Shane on June 18, 2020, 12:23:54 PM
Yeah, that's pretty sad. Fuck cancel culture.
Yes, it's basically becoming a "purity spiral" -- Here is a fascinating article on this phenomenon. (https://unherd.com/2020/01/cast-out-how-knitting-fell-into-a-purity-spiral/)
Interestingly, as you pointed out, this phenomenon has traditionally been rooted in conservative religious/cult atmospheres but now we're seeing it manifest from the left. It would be an interesting study to look into the modern demise of religion being replaced with other forms of group think entities -- this is what I think is happening. The book "Sapiens" gets into this subject.
I've seen all sorts of examples of this in a wide range of online communities. This is why having a good mix and range of opinions/views/backgrounds is so important for a healthy community. Echo chambers with mob mentality are dangerous.
And now, a sort of purity spiral in our community: FinCon (https://medium.com/@boylan.mm/cancel-fincon-2b768c8ccbe4)
"Taylor sincerely apologized and took full responsibility for his insensitivity. He provided additional context for his original Tweet and clarified that it was part of an ongoing discussion with his friend about media-generated outrage. This apology was not enough; it was never going to be enough...In the end, there are no winners in this battle, only losers. We must ask ourselves, what is the path to redemption for those who have tweeted something offensive, and immediately apologized? There must be a better way; something other than retreating completely from public life or giving up on your own business.
The offender can delete the tweets, issue a heartfelt apology, and then pray for absolution. The offender can lay prostrate at the feet of the online mob, begging for his sins to be forgiven. And sometimes, it’s just not enough.
We need to make room in public spaces for people to air their opinions, even bad ones. We need to provide opportunities for bad opinions to change. We need to accept apologies. We need a path to redemption."
It seems like no matter how sincere the apology, it's never enough for the online mobs. There has to be some path towards redemption that people can follow and know that their life can continue. One tweet shouldn't mean the end of an entire career.
Post by: sherr on June 18, 2020, 12:28:53 PM
I am definitely for freedom of choice in regard to abortion. I can see that a woman that was raped or having a severely disabled child might choose it. It’s a terrible tough choice and I don’t think most women take it lightly.
Quote
No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg.
-Frederica Mathewes-Green of Feminists for Life of America
Post by: Shane on June 18, 2020, 12:34:43 PM
I think you're right, Steve. Most likely, it's related to the fact that the hardest hit parts of our country have been the cities, which are mostly left-leaning. Much of the interior of the US has been, so far anyway, relatively unaffected by Covid, so it's understandable that conservatives living there are skeptical about how bad Covid can get. Hopefully not, but as states begin to reopen, probably some of those conservatives in more rural parts of the country are going to get to see for themselves what the people in NYC already know from firsthand experience.A "liberal" friend posted to FB the other day:I think some people are missing the point of this thread. It's not another excuse to argue about politics.
Some people are going to reach different conclusions than you on political issues. They usually have a logical (to them) reason for reaching that conclusion, and it isn't generally because they hate (women, black people, babies, etc.).
If you can't accept that people will disagree with you on things that neither of you have any control over and are intent on arguing your point (despite the fact that you won't change anyone's mind), then the answer to the thread's question is no for you.
Thanks for bringing us back to my original point, which was not about abortion per se, but rather the general trend of conservatives trying to force others to do what they want. You can't "agree to disagree" when one side says "I disagree but you do you" and the other side says "I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs". The latter is not "agreeing to disagree". If conservatives could learn to "agree to disagree" then there would be far less friendship blockers.
I'm not entirely sure that this is fair to conservatives. At least from their point of view.
Take every American conservatives favorite fetish - guns - as an example. Most liberals want greater controls and restrictions placed on purchasing and selling guns. Most conservatives do not. From a conservative point of view, this is an 'I disagree and you must conform to my beliefs' situation.
(Yes, granted there is an argument to be made that easy access to firearms forces everyone in the country to live in a perpetual state of fear/heightened tension, but let's leave that aside for a bit.)
I already stated upthread that guns are the one and only obvious example where conservatives are definitely more pro-liberty. Anything else? "General trend" does not mean "in every conceivable example", it means general trend.
Face masks. Conservatives in the US are much more pro-facemask choice in the middle of a pandemic than liberals are.
Taxation of the rich as well. Conservatives are upset when the rich need to pay a fair share in taxes. Environmental controls/regulation for business. Conservatives don't like it when businesses don't have the option to pollute indiscriminately.
These are areas where conservatives are more pro-liberty.
"Maybe we need to start arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating people who aren't properly observing rules about social distancing. We should start charging them with attempted murder. What do you guys think?"
Honestly, I'm not sure that's a left/right thing there.
It's reasonable to expect repercussions for purposely doing something that is likely to cause the deaths of others. We don't tolerate drunk drivers, we shouldn't tolerate people who fail to observe rules regarding social distancing and mask wearing. Arrest/attempted murder/incarceration certainly seems like the wrong way to go about showing people how serious you are about trying to get a pandemic under control though.
The only voices I've heard advocating for heavy-handed authoritarian responses to social-distancing violations have been from the Left. IMHO, it's pretty hard to make a strong moral argument, one week, that ReOpen protesters should be arrested and charged with attempted murder, because some of them weren't properly social distancing, and then, just a week later, to try to argue that night after night after night of much bigger crowds protesting with BLM are totally fine. Our mayor and governor both marched with hundreds of BLM protesters, while our county was still in the yellow zone, where groups of >25 people weren't supposed to gather.
That's certainly an example of hypocrisy that I've seen as well, and that I don't like.
I suspect that the reason you're only seeing advocates for a response to social distancing violations from the left is that the right in the US is still busy arguing that there was never any reason for social distancing to begin with, that coronavirus is basically the flu, and that worst case a little injection of bleach will clear all that up for you. :P
Post by: OtherJen on June 18, 2020, 12:42:57 PM
I think you're right, Steve. Most likely, it's related to the fact that the hardest hit parts of our country have been the cities, which are mostly left-leaning. Much of the interior of the US has been, so far anyway, relatively unaffected by Covid, so it's understandable that conservatives living there are skeptical about how bad Covid can get. Hopefully not, but as states begin to reopen, probably some of those conservatives in more rural parts of the country are going to get to see for themselves what the people in NYC already know from firsthand experience.
Sadly, this is probably true. Arizona reports single-day high of 2,519 new coronavirus cases (https://ktar.com/story/3284314/arizona-reports-single-day-high-of-2519-new-coronavirus-cases/). That number is higher than Michigan's highest daily rate in early April, back when we were the third-worst COVID-19 state in the country. CNN reports that Alabama, California, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina and Texas are also seeing record daily case numbers. Hopefully people in those states will benefit from medical advances over the last few months.
Post by: boy_bye on June 18, 2020, 12:52:03 PM
Yeah, that's pretty sad. Fuck cancel culture.
Yes, it's basically becoming a "purity spiral" -- Here is a fascinating article on this phenomenon. (https://unherd.com/2020/01/cast-out-how-knitting-fell-into-a-purity-spiral/)
Interestingly, as you pointed out, this phenomenon has traditionally been rooted in conservative religious/cult atmospheres but now we're seeing it manifest from the left. It would be an interesting study to look into the modern demise of religion being replaced with other forms of group think entities -- this is what I think is happening. The book "Sapiens" gets into this subject.
I've seen all sorts of examples of this in a wide range of online communities. This is why having a good mix and range of opinions/views/backgrounds is so important for a healthy community. Echo chambers with mob mentality are dangerous.
And now, a sort of purity spiral in our community: FinCon (https://medium.com/@boylan.mm/cancel-fincon-2b768c8ccbe4)
"Taylor sincerely apologized and took full responsibility for his insensitivity. He provided additional context for his original Tweet and clarified that it was part of an ongoing discussion with his friend about media-generated outrage. This apology was not enough; it was never going to be enough...In the end, there are no winners in this battle, only losers. We must ask ourselves, what is the path to redemption for those who have tweeted something offensive, and immediately apologized? There must be a better way; something other than retreating completely from public life or giving up on your own business.
The offender can delete the tweets, issue a heartfelt apology, and then pray for absolution. The offender can lay prostrate at the feet of the online mob, begging for his sins to be forgiven. And sometimes, it’s just not enough.
We need to make room in public spaces for people to air their opinions, even bad ones. We need to provide opportunities for bad opinions to change. We need to accept apologies. We need a path to redemption."
It seems like no matter how sincere the apology, it's never enough for the online mobs. There has to be some path towards redemption that people can follow and know that their life can continue. One tweet shouldn't mean the end of an entire career.
Really, this guy's entire career is ended?
Or he just had to step down from one job after a bunch of people pointed out how his probably unconscious but still real bias had been playing out in FinCon for years?
Articles like these are ridiculous -- they paint the accused as a victim when really what we're seeing is <checks notes> the free market working as capitalism says it should. Enough of his community had a problem with his behavior that he had to step down, but you know what? He's gonna be FINE. It's not like he had a cop kneeling on his neck until he died. He's gonna be fine.
The fact is that most members of this community -- the MMM forums -- insist on centering the (small, momentary) pain of the powerful over the (massive, centuries-long) pain of the oppressed, and that tells me a lot about the type of people y'all are.
Post by: Shane on June 18, 2020, 12:52:16 PM
Flattening the curve was the rationale they gave, initially, for the shutdowns, so that the healthcare industry could gear up and get ready for the onslaught of Covid patients, without getting overwhelmed. Over time, the narrative seems to have morphed into something along the lines of, "avoid the curve completely by staying shut down until there's a vaccine." While that may work fine for people who can WFH, it's not too surprising that others are pretty unhappy with what they see as pretty blatant dishonesty by the elites.I think you're right, Steve. Most likely, it's related to the fact that the hardest hit parts of our country have been the cities, which are mostly left-leaning. Much of the interior of the US has been, so far anyway, relatively unaffected by Covid, so it's understandable that conservatives living there are skeptical about how bad Covid can get. Hopefully not, but as states begin to reopen, probably some of those conservatives in more rural parts of the country are going to get to see for themselves what the people in NYC already know from firsthand experience.
Sadly, this is probably true. Arizona reports single-day high of 2,519 new coronavirus cases (https://ktar.com/story/3284314/arizona-reports-single-day-high-of-2519-new-coronavirus-cases/). That number is higher than Michigan's highest daily rate in early April, back when we were the third-worst COVID-19 state in the country. CNN reports that Alabama, California, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina and Texas are also seeing record daily case numbers. Hopefully people in those states will benefit from medical advances over the last few months.
Post by: GuitarStv on June 18, 2020, 12:57:17 PM
Yeah, that's pretty sad. Fuck cancel culture.
Yes, it's basically becoming a "purity spiral" -- Here is a fascinating article on this phenomenon. (https://unherd.com/2020/01/cast-out-how-knitting-fell-into-a-purity-spiral/)
Interestingly, as you pointed out, this phenomenon has traditionally been rooted in conservative religious/cult atmospheres but now we're seeing it manifest from the left. It would be an interesting study to look into the modern demise of religion being replaced with other forms of group think entities -- this is what I think is happening. The book "Sapiens" gets into this subject.
I've seen all sorts of examples of this in a wide range of online communities. This is why having a good mix and range of opinions/views/backgrounds is so important for a healthy community. Echo chambers with mob mentality are dangerous.
And now, a sort of purity spiral in our community: FinCon (https://medium.com/@boylan.mm/cancel-fincon-2b768c8ccbe4)
"Taylor sincerely apologized and took full responsibility for his insensitivity. He provided additional context for his original Tweet and clarified that it was part of an ongoing discussion with his friend about media-generated outrage. This apology was not enough; it was never going to be enough...In the end, there are no winners in this battle, only losers. We must ask ourselves, what is the path to redemption for those who have tweeted something offensive, and immediately apologized? There must be a better way; something other than retreating completely from public life or giving up on your own business.
The offender can delete the tweets, issue a heartfelt apology, and then pray for absolution. The offender can lay prostrate at the feet of the online mob, begging for his sins to be forgiven. And sometimes, it’s just not enough.
We need to make room in public spaces for people to air their opinions, even bad ones. We need to provide opportunities for bad opinions to change. We need to accept apologies. We need a path to redemption."
It seems like no matter how sincere the apology, it's never enough for the online mobs. There has to be some path towards redemption that people can follow and know that their life can continue. One tweet shouldn't mean the end of an entire career.
Really, this guy's entire career is ended?
Or he just had to step down from one job after a bunch of people pointed out how his probably unconscious but still real bias had been playing out in FinCon for years?
Articles like these are ridiculous -- they paint the accused as a victim when really what we're seeing is <checks notes> the free market working as capitalism says it should. Enough of his community had a problem with his behavior that he had to step down, but you know what? He's gonna be FINE. It's not like he had a cop kneeling on his neck until he died. He's gonna be fine.
The fact is that most members of this community -- the MMM forums -- insist on centering the (small, momentary) pain of the powerful over the (massive, centuries-long) pain of the oppressed, and that tells me a lot about the type of people y'all are.
So, I have no idea what actually happened (other than my suspicion that there's probably more to this story than the single extremely sympathetic to Taylor's case opinion non-fact checked piece linked). My two cents on the matter . . .
Nobody has a gun to your head forcing you to post anything on twitter, facebook, or any other social media platform. Your actions are your own. People are completely free to judge you based on your actions. If you're the kind of person who occasionally says controversial stuff about controversial issues and stands to lose a lot because you've tied your livelihood up with projecting an image - it's probably wise to avoid social media entirely. If you're concerned that online mobs might wipe you out, then opt out.
I don't condone the outrage against this guy. Neither do I decry it. I simply don't have the information necessary to make a judgement. What I do know for sure is . . . it never would have been a problem if he didn't decide to broadcast his every thought to the rest of the world. We need to stop pretending that putting intimate aspects of your life on display to millions of strangers is a good or normal thing to do.
Post by: mathlete on June 18, 2020, 01:00:14 PM
It seems like no matter how sincere the apology, it's never enough for the online mobs. There has to be some path towards redemption that people can follow and know that their life can continue. One tweet shouldn't mean the end of an entire career.
And it won't be. How many people actually have their career's ruined? Louis CK masturbated in front of women. He contributed to making a male dominated industry even more hostile to women than it already was. Was his career ruined? Maybe he lost a special or two. I doubt he's been approached for a TV development deal recently. But pre-COVID, he was selling out stand up shows.
I'm sure Phillip Taylor's career will go on.
"How one tweet disrupted a tightly knit personal finance community" is pretty disingenuous too, IMO. I've been sounding the alarm on these kinds of issues in the PF community for years. The community is heavily over represented by rich white guys who make a lot of money sitting at computers all day and are extremely high on their own supply. That describes me too, by the way.
Being rich does not entitle you to saying incredibly dumb, selfish and tone deaf things while having the state of your career preserved exactly as it was before. Lots of bloggers and personalities do an incredible amount of hand waving on privilege in an effort to try to sell FI to as broad a consumer base as possible. MMM, who seems like a nice guy, has said some incredibly stupid things about privilege. arebelspy, who seems like an even nicer guy, made a thread a few years back trying to recruit people of color to be in a documentary about FI, and got a little bit indignant when the thread turned into a conversation about how the PF community is very uncomfortable confronting the fact that systemic inequities benefit its members while often closing the doors to people of color.
The common theme is rich people getting indignant when systemic oppression draws attention away from their blog, their conference, or their film project.
Post by: mathlete on June 18, 2020, 01:03:22 PM
Researching that second one. I'll report back if I find anything.
edit to add: I'm pretty confident in her "realness" now. Apologies if I misled. My statements about outside agitating remain. The medium post was reductive and exists to suck air out of the room.
Post by: GuitarStv on June 18, 2020, 01:06:06 PM
Same (on it being a tough issue). Ultimately, I decided how I did because I don't think it's right that mostly male governments can compel women to give birth if they don't want to.
I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on when life begins, but if you truly believe it's at conception or something, then I can see why you'd fight so hard against abortion. If you truly believe you're saving lives, then a lot seems justifiable.
Agreed. I tend to be libertarian leaning so this leads me to be in favor of abortion rights. Still, the moral implications bother me even as an atheist. Even if we can somehow agree on when a fetus becomes sentient, there is another argument that is tough to deal with -- why is it okay to take the life of a non-sentient being that will definitely become sentient? I don't know the answer to this, as it's really a moral/ethical question. Morals and ethics, in my view, are human constructs -- so I suppose we decide as a society. And this is why there is an issue, we can't agree on what is the correct set of ethics.
It's not a question of life/sentience. It's a question of autonomy. A woman should not be held hostage to keep a fetus alive, any more than you should be tied down and forcibly have a blood removed to save the life of your neighbour. Even though in both cases the person giving up autonomy (probably) won't die. Even though in both cases you will be saving a life by taking away the donors autonomy.
Until we're comfortable with enforced blood donation for medical necessity, we should not be OK with enforced births to save the life of a fetus.
Post by: Shane on June 18, 2020, 01:07:14 PM
This is just one example, of many. The editor at the NYT who recently lost his job for approving an op-ed by US Senator Tom Cotton, expressing an opinion (that the US military should be used to get riots under control) that, arguably, a majority of Americans agreed with. Also, the Philadelphia Enquirer editor who lost his job, because he approved an, admittedly tone deaf, headline for an article that said, "Building matter too," which, again, is a position supported by a majority of Americans, including blacks. The whole virtuous spiral phenomenon just seems like too much. People should be able to express unpopular opinions, without it costing them their livelihoods.It seems like no matter how sincere the apology, it's never enough for the online mobs. There has to be some path towards redemption that people can follow and know that their life can continue. One tweet shouldn't mean the end of an entire career.
And it won't be. How many people actually have their career's ruined? Louis CK masturbated in front of women. He contributed to making a male dominated industry even more hostile to women than it already was. Was his career ruined? Maybe he lost a special or too. I doubt he's been approached for a TV development deal recently. But pre-COVID, he was selling out stand up shows.
I'm sure Phillip Taylor's career will go on.
"How one tweet disrupted a tightly knit personal finance community" is pretty disingenuous too, IMO. I've been sounding the alarm on these kinds of issues in the PF community for years. The community is heavily over represented by rich white guys who make a lot of money sitting at computers all day and are extremely high on their own supply. That describes me too, by the way.
Being rich does not entitle you to saying incredibly dumb, selfish and tone deaf things while having the state of your career preserved exactly as it was before. Lots of bloggers and personalities do an incredible amount of hand waving on privilege in an effort to try to sell FI to as broad a consumer base as possible. MMM, who seems like a nice guy, has said some incredibly stupid things about privilege. arebelspy, who seems like an even nicer guy, made a thread a few years back trying to recruit people of color to be in a documentary about FI, and got a little bit indignant when the thread turned into a conversation about how the PF community is very uncomfortable confronting the fact that systemic inequities benefit its members while often closing the doors to people of color.
The common theme is rich people getting indignant when systemic oppression draws attention away from their blog, their conference, or their film project.
Post by: MudPuppy on June 18, 2020, 01:21:31 PM
People should be able to express unpopular opinions, without it costing them their livelihoods.
I see this xkcd is again relevant
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png)
Post by: mathlete on June 18, 2020, 01:22:42 PM
This is just one example, of many. The editor at the NYT who recently lost his job for approving an op-ed by US Senator Tom Cotton, expressing an opinion (that the US military should be used to get riots under control) that, arguably, a majority of Americans agreed with. Also, the Philadelphia Enquirer editor who lost his job, because he approved an, admittedly tone deaf, headline for an article that said, "Building matter too," which, again, is a position supported by a majority of Americans, including blacks. The whole virtuous spiral phenomenon just seems like too much. People should be able to express unpopular opinions, without it costing them their livelihoods.
Within the context of the national situation, Tom Cotton was advocating for using the military to aid the cops in beating, maiming and gassing people expressing their first amendment rights. For an institution that lives or dies by the first amendment, I think platforming that was a pretty egregious error. People can express whatever opinions they want, but the Times doesn't have to platform every shitty opinion that comes along.
James Bennet's decision was pretty horrendous. But I'm willing to accept that he may have survived it had we been in less contentious times. So it's maybe 90/10. 90% a dumb decision to platform a fascist crackdown on free speech when you're an editor for a newspaper. 10% unfairness.
There are 10,000 vectors of unfairness that I could come up with on any given day. I don't typically think cancel culture is the one is worth getting hung up on.
Post by: HBFIRE on June 18, 2020, 01:23:29 PM
It's not a question of life/sentience. It's a question of autonomy. A woman should not be held hostage to keep a fetus alive, any more than you should be tied down and forcibly have a blood removed to save the life of your neighbour. Even though in both cases the person giving up autonomy (probably) won't die. Even though in both cases you will be saving a life by taking away the donors autonomy.
Until we're comfortable with enforced blood donation for medical necessity, we should not be OK with enforced births to save the life of a fetus.
That’s an interesting take/analogy. I’ll have to think it over. I’m not sure yet if I can intellectually equate voluntarily ending another life with giving blood to preserve one. The notion of autonomy is a difficult one for me as there are two lives involved both arguably with rights. To reiterate, I’m undecided where I stand on this issue.
Post by: MudPuppy on June 18, 2020, 01:27:39 PM
Post by: ctuser1 on June 18, 2020, 01:29:29 PM
It's not a question of life/sentience. It's a question of autonomy. A woman should not be held hostage to keep a fetus alive, any more than you should be tied down and forcibly have a blood removed to save the life of your neighbour. Even though in both cases the person giving up autonomy (probably) won't die. Even though in both cases you will be saving a life by taking away the donors autonomy.
Until we're comfortable with enforced blood donation for medical necessity, we should not be OK with enforced births to save the life of a fetus.
That’s an interesting take/analogy. I’ll have to think it over. I’m not sure yet if I can intellectually equate voluntarily ending another life with giving blood to preserve one.
My point is a bit more meta on this topic than what GuiterStv argued.
Unless you are the woman mulling over this decision - you should have no locus-standi on the initial decision of whether she can disconnect her from the baby or not.
Saving the baby earlier and earlier in the fetal-development stage, that is where the state/government/laws should interfere. If, 5 years down, a 4 month-old fetus can now be saved in an artificial womb, then not doing that should be considered immoral and possibly criminal. This should happen irrespective of whatever the mother may think - it is no longer her body.
Post by: GuitarStv on June 18, 2020, 01:33:59 PM
It's not a question of life/sentience. It's a question of autonomy. A woman should not be held hostage to keep a fetus alive, any more than you should be tied down and forcibly have a blood removed to save the life of your neighbour. Even though in both cases the person giving up autonomy (probably) won't die. Even though in both cases you will be saving a life by taking away the donors autonomy.
Until we're comfortable with enforced blood donation for medical necessity, we should not be OK with enforced births to save the life of a fetus.
That’s an interesting take/analogy. I’ll have to think it over. I’m not sure yet if I can intellectually equate voluntarily ending another life with giving blood to preserve one.
Think of the abortion as an eviction, rather than a murder. The fetus can't survive after being evicted and dies because nobody is providing it the freshly oxygenated blood that it needs to survive. So really, the fetus becomes the neighbour after you abort, shortly before dying.
I agree that once it's possible for the government to remove and keep a fetus alive without the mother then the fetus should be kept alive by the state because it's no longer imposing on the mother's rights/freedoms.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 18, 2020, 01:36:55 PM
Religiously informed opinion is not politically correct BS. You dismissing it out of hand is simply a sign of your inherent bias against religion and your lack of willingness to see the difference between forcing someone to worship in a certain way and the moral compass we all have. It's intellectual laziness. Religiously informed opinion is a specific (made up, admittedly) term I'm using to try to help people understand the point I'm making (i.e. the part I think you're being deliberately obtuse about). I won't go into the Founding Fathers much, because that's neither here nor there, but suffice it to say, they had religiously informed opinions as well, despite strongly wanting to prevent a state sponsored church or forced worship of any faith. These are not mutually exclusive regardless of whether you admit it or not.No objection to the main theme. I did not refuse to "see the difference between forcing someone to worship in a certain way and the moral compass we all have". You are missing my point - I'll get to it later.Ok, so let me try to explain this another way. Forewarning, it will be a little condescending because, again, I feel like you are trying at least a little bit to not see what I'm saying, but I'll try to keep that to a minimum.You have every right to have religiously informed opinion, just as much as I have my secularly informed one.
When you were a young ctuser, you no doubt did some things wrong. You hit another child who took your toy. You screamed at a person for not getting you your food fast enough. You were given moral guidance that this is not OK. Some of the items you were taught, you disregarded because you felt, for whatever reason, that they weren't correct. You began to develop your system of morality that guides you in everything, including what you want to restrict others from doing via laws. Your background informs your opinion on what rights you wish the government to give others, deprive others, etc.
I have my own background and happen to have a religious background that informs what I believe is right and wrong, including what I believe a government should or should not do in regards to people's rights. My religion informs that moral understanding. It is not a static process. I've dynamically come to different conclusions as I've gotten older and hopefully learned some. My religion still informs my morality, but I understand things differently and therefore have changed my perspective on things.
Let's give an example of a religiously informed opinion. My religiously informed opinion says that everyone has innate worth regardless of what they do with their actions, regardless of what I personally think of them or the actions, how much I like them, etc. I have no leeway given for ever devaluing someone else. This influences how I interact with people (on my good days :-) ), what laws I think should be in the books, etc. There are people whose opinions are not religiously informed that believe this. There are also people whose opinions are not religiously informed that believe completely that they/their race/etc. are superior to others. Is my religiously informed opinion and me acting upon that in how I vote of lesser value than those other opinions simply because it's religiously informed? Of course not. I am no perfect person by any stretch, but you are condemning the very concept of my religion informing my opinion and me voting in accordance with that just because. Because what? Because it's religiously based? That's crap. That's bigoted. Does it mean I'm persecuted or I somehow know what it's like to be a minority or oppressed person because you're treating me this way. Of course not! I have and have had tons of advantages. I don't deny that, and this conversation is what it is - two random people arguing over the internet. But just because I don't have that experience doesn't make your opinion in this matter any less dumb or offensive.
So in summary, yes, your opinion on what rights should be restricted are secularly informed whether you like the term or not. Mine are religiously informed. Everyone's opinions are informed by something unless they don't take a stance on anything, which would kind of be sad. Argue the issues if you will. Stop acting superior just because what you want the country to do is not based on any religion. It's kind of you acting with the very same "religious arrogance" that you so claim to hate.
You have every right to take your opinion, curry support for it and lobby/petition action for it, in general. If your "religiously informed opinion" coincides with other peoples opinions (which it should, assuming you don't claim some sort of special ownership of morality that can *only* be informed by *your* religion and nothing else), then it will even likely become the law of the land. Sunday as holiday, for example. Or Friday as the same holiday in the Muslim countries - as a counter-example!! I doubt anyone is going to raise an questions about these minor mis-alignments fueled by local historical norms.
However, certain rights/situations are not "general". Criminal law clearly falls in this category. You don't want Capital punishment meted out per religious standards - if nothing else, due to practical concerns. How do you reconcile the gap between the Jewish/Roman position that Jesus should be crucified vs worshipping him? of stoning adulterers vs electing him president? etc. etc. etc.
Laws that limit a person's ownership of his/her own body falls in this *very special* category, that should require an extraordinary set of support from poeple/logic etc. A "religiously informed opinion" that is supported by *only one group* and not by others is not the right tool to call for such fundamental change to human liberty. Most stark such examples are your call for limiting freedom of women over their body, and the sharia law calling for capital punishment for various stupid reasons.
A religiously informed opinion that is not shared by others may be much less offensive, and yet limit some (economic) freedoms. e.g. Hindu cow slaughter laws and if the Jewish wanted all food served everywhere in the US to be Kosher. I'd still consider it a stupid idea to lobby for legislating based on those - but won't find it as repulsive as your stance.
Now, there is a category of quite inoffensive religiously informed opinion that is not shared by others. Maybe an Alaskan city wants to mark an Inuit holiday, or a NJ town with heavy Indian-American populate wants to somehow specially facilitate the Diwali Festival. I don't see anyone would object to any of that.
In short, I will find a Muslim's call for Sharia law in the US just as offensive as I find your call for banning abortion via legislation.
(No offense especially intended to Muslims. I will equally oppose laws set in bible, specially old testament, Torah, the Vedas, Tripitaka or the Sikh Grantha).
If you don't find your position at least as offensive/inoffensive as a Muslim's call for Sharia law because both are "religiously informed" by only one religion AND calls for limiting basic human liberty, then you are probably a teensy weensy bit bigoted. And if you support both - then I have no idea what to think of you.Let's give an example of a religiously informed opinion. My religiously informed opinion says that everyone has innate worth regardless of what they do with their actions, regardless of what I personally think of them or the actions, how much I like them, etc. I have no leeway given for ever devaluing someone else. This influences how I interact with people (on my good days :-) ), what laws I think should be in the books, etc.This is a perfect example of a very acceptable religious opinion that I, a bloody stupid secularist, will support every day of the week and then in the weekend too!!
Now, if you were espousing something that *only* one religion supports, and that leads to people (everybody, not *just* people of that religion, irrespective of their religious stance on this issue) losing autonomy over their own body, then...... well let's just not go there!!
Hey, I actually feel a little bit better about the conversation and am glad that it continued, because I see a little bit more of where you are coming from. I think you've really gotten to the heart of the issue. I still disagree and think part of your ideas are not very cool, but not as bad as I did, lol.
I'll respond by answering your question. Muslim Sharia law is a little bit closer to "forcing religion on others" than what I'm talking about because it's a whole system of laws pulled straight out of canonical text (I think.....I'm open to being educated) or at least from scholars in the religion or something of that nature. So, I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison to single issues that people are supporting based on overall themes of their religion, but it's got enough similarities that I'll bite. If a Muslim tried to propose Sharia law or whatever, I would address it based on the merits of it. If it's proposing capital punishment, I would address it as a debate on capital punishment and see what they're reasoning is. If there reasoning is solely based off of their scripture, and I don't believe their scripture, then I'll probably disregard the argument and won't be swayed by it at all. People of secular and religious faiths abound in using narrow reasoning to explain why they want to do something. People of secular and religious faiths abound in not doing that as well. From a religious side, it's because very few issues that are contentiously debated on today are perfectly black and white in religious texts. So if I were to argue for or against an issue or just have an opinion on it that makes me want to vote for someone because they will work towards my opinion, it's most likely informed by religious reasoning, some scientific understanding, some statistics, and so on depending on the issue.
If I were to say to you, I want this to be the law of the land, and you were to ask me why with my response solely being quoting a religious text, from your secular perspective, I wouldn't expect you to give that weight. Why would I? That would be moronic. We don't come from the same perspective. I wouldn't even bring it up. I would bring up a theme I feel is a moral guideline that you could agree or disagree on, facts of the issue as I see them, and then go from there as to why I believe what I believe. You would look at it with your moral compass and say this is right or wrong.
So let's sum up the problem with your line of logic as I understand what you're saying. You're not just saying that you disregard a religious basis for why a person wants to something to be enforced a certain way. That would be understandable. Again, you're not religious, why would I expect you to think that way? The issue is, you go beyond that. You, as I see it, are doing what many pro-abortion people do, and that's take the path of intellectual laziness and say that because you're arguing with something that was informed by your religious beliefs, I'm not only going to disregard any arguments that exclusively say, my scripture says do this so I'm doing it. No, you go beyond that. You disregard any argument about it at all because the person has opinions that were shaped by religion. Sure, do some pro-life people say the Bible says this, so that's that? Of course. Many, however, will argue why they think what they think with nuance and logic only to have their ideas shut down with cliched responses of "oh, you're just trying to shove your religion down my throat." That's what I was meaning by intellectual laziness. In your responses, you've been extremely generalizing of religious people, extremely dismissive of any argument if religion shaped it at all. You're looking at an argument and not just disregarding the specific religious rationale, but assigning demerits to it because it has any sort of religious foundation to it, while also throwing in some inflammatory language for good measure. That's where you've crossed the line into bigotry. Your posts are showing a clear bias against someone of a religious background and are therefore bigoted.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 18, 2020, 01:49:37 PM
You disregard any argument about it at all because the person has opinions that were shaped by religion.
You are missing about 80% of my regard/disregard.
1. It is shaped by *one specific* religion.
2. People of other religions, or no religion don't support it, despite this having been a potboiler political issue for 40 years. i.e. they have more likely than not considered and rejected it.
3. Like criminal law, it inhibits some people's (something < 50%) autonomy over their body.
4. Most of the more vociferous champions of "it" are not in the 50% who are ever likely to be impacted, even less are in their childbearing age likely to get pregnant. i.g. the victims of "it" are a tiny minority who will not be able to push back effectively.
#1, #2, #3 are ALL necessary pillars in my argument. Take any one away, and my objection is no longer absolute, but much more conditional and negotiable.
#4 strengthens it.
You somehow pick half of #1 and construct your entire response.
Why?
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 18, 2020, 02:19:38 PM
You disregard any argument about it at all because the person has opinions that were shaped by religion.
You are missing about 80% of my regard/disregard.
1. It is shaped by *one specific* religion.
2. People of other religions, or no religion don't support it, despite this having been a potboiler political issue for 40 years. i.e. they have more likely than not considered and rejected it.
3. Like criminal law, it inhibits some people's (about 50%) autonomy over their body.
4. Most of the more vociferous champions of "it" are not in the 50% who are ever likely to be impacted, even less are in their childbearing age likely to get pregnant. i.g. the victims of "it" are a tiny minority who will not be able to push back effectively.
#1, #2, #3 are ALL necessary pillars in my argument. Take any one away, and my objection is no longer absolute, but much more conditional and negotiable.
#4 strengthens it.
You somehow pick half of #1 and construct your entire response.
Why?
I didn't miss 80% of your arguments. I've addressed them several times now by saying that I'm not arguing the issue of abortion. 2-4 are all specific arguments tied to abortion. I'm not bothered by your opinion on how you think abortion is no problem. I'm a little bothered at your extremely low opinion of anyone on the other side of the issue, because if you truly have done as much digging into people's perspectives on the issue as I have and have that low of an opinion of anyone on the other side, I would say it shows your lack of ability to empathize with people who have a different view than yours. I'm not focusing on them, in short because they're not what I have the biggest issue with.
I'm focusing on 1 because your argument # 1 alone meets the definition of bigotry regardless of any of the rest. You are looking down and disregarding people's opinions because they are informed by a religion, beyond the merits of the argument that may or may not have anything to do with religion. If it's an opinion like I mentioned above that you happen to agree with it, you "graciously" give it a pass, so I guess it's not a hard and fast rule you hold to. Still, you looking down on people that want to do something simply because their perspective is informed by religion regardless of their holistic perspective is really looking down on them as people. It's kind of saying I don't care what you think because your thoughts have the stain of religion on them. It's a really crappy thing to do to people. It's also frustrating that you don't see it as a problem.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 18, 2020, 02:42:25 PM
You disregard any argument about it at all because the person has opinions that were shaped by religion.
You are missing about 80% of my regard/disregard.
1. It is shaped by *one specific* religion.
2. People of other religions, or no religion don't support it, despite this having been a potboiler political issue for 40 years. i.e. they have more likely than not considered and rejected it.
3. Like criminal law, it inhibits some people's (about 50%) autonomy over their body.
4. Most of the more vociferous champions of "it" are not in the 50% who are ever likely to be impacted, even less are in their childbearing age likely to get pregnant. i.g. the victims of "it" are a tiny minority who will not be able to push back effectively.
#1, #2, #3 are ALL necessary pillars in my argument. Take any one away, and my objection is no longer absolute, but much more conditional and negotiable.
#4 strengthens it.
You somehow pick half of #1 and construct your entire response.
Why?
I didn't miss 80% of your arguments. I've addressed them several times now by saying that I'm not arguing the issue of abortion. 2-4 are all specific arguments tied to abortion. I'm not bothered by your opinion on how you think abortion is no problem. I'm a little bothered at your extremely low opinion of anyone on the other side of the issue, because if you truly have done as much digging into people's perspectives on the issue as I have and have that low of an opinion of anyone on the other side, I would say it shows your lack of ability to empathize with people who have a different view than yours. I'm not focusing on them, in short because they're not what I have the biggest issue with.
I'm focusing on 1 because your argument # 1 alone meets the definition of bigotry regardless of any of the rest. You are looking down and disregarding people's opinions because they are informed by a religion, beyond the merits of the argument that may or may not have anything to do with religion. If it's an opinion like I mentioned above that you happen to agree with it, you "graciously" give it a pass, so I guess it's not a hard and fast rule you hold to. Still, you looking down on people that want to do something simply because their perspective is informed by religion regardless of their holistic perspective is really looking down on them as people. It's kind of saying I don't care what you think because your thoughts have the stain of religion on them. It's a really crappy thing to do to people. It's also frustrating that you don't see it as a problem.
#1 does not stand in isolation. Please show me once where I have mentioned it in isolation.
1. Rules sometimes apply in conjunction. #1 and #2 and #3 is one atomic, complete argument. Take any one of them apart and it becomes a logically inconsistent statement.
2. Context is important. I was arguing in the context where the issue of abortion is being discussed. I have a low opinion of people taking a specific side in this debate for the *same* reason I have a low opinion of the Islamic State.
3. For the record, I do not look down on religious people. I have multiple people in my family who are *very* religious. After I grew up, I realized how absolutely fortunate I am that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM is extremely liberal in their worldview and are people I look up to. The couple of people in my extended family (and I have a BIG one) who espouse bigoted views and wants to shove their views down other people's throats are not religious. I suspect that most of the proponents of "abortion ban" would neatly fit in the second category.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 18, 2020, 03:12:41 PM
You disregard any argument about it at all because the person has opinions that were shaped by religion.
You are missing about 80% of my regard/disregard.
1. It is shaped by *one specific* religion.
2. People of other religions, or no religion don't support it, despite this having been a potboiler political issue for 40 years. i.e. they have more likely than not considered and rejected it.
3. Like criminal law, it inhibits some people's (about 50%) autonomy over their body.
4. Most of the more vociferous champions of "it" are not in the 50% who are ever likely to be impacted, even less are in their childbearing age likely to get pregnant. i.g. the victims of "it" are a tiny minority who will not be able to push back effectively.
#1, #2, #3 are ALL necessary pillars in my argument. Take any one away, and my objection is no longer absolute, but much more conditional and negotiable.
#4 strengthens it.
You somehow pick half of #1 and construct your entire response.
Why?
I didn't miss 80% of your arguments. I've addressed them several times now by saying that I'm not arguing the issue of abortion. 2-4 are all specific arguments tied to abortion. I'm not bothered by your opinion on how you think abortion is no problem. I'm a little bothered at your extremely low opinion of anyone on the other side of the issue, because if you truly have done as much digging into people's perspectives on the issue as I have and have that low of an opinion of anyone on the other side, I would say it shows your lack of ability to empathize with people who have a different view than yours. I'm not focusing on them, in short because they're not what I have the biggest issue with.
I'm focusing on 1 because your argument # 1 alone meets the definition of bigotry regardless of any of the rest. You are looking down and disregarding people's opinions because they are informed by a religion, beyond the merits of the argument that may or may not have anything to do with religion. If it's an opinion like I mentioned above that you happen to agree with it, you "graciously" give it a pass, so I guess it's not a hard and fast rule you hold to. Still, you looking down on people that want to do something simply because their perspective is informed by religion regardless of their holistic perspective is really looking down on them as people. It's kind of saying I don't care what you think because your thoughts have the stain of religion on them. It's a really crappy thing to do to people. It's also frustrating that you don't see it as a problem.
#1 does not stand in isolation. Please show me once where I have mentioned it in isolation.
1. Rules sometimes apply in conjunction. #1 and #2 and #3 is one atomic, complete argument. Take any one of them apart and it becomes a logically inconsistent statement.
2. Context is important. I was arguing in the context where the issue of abortion is being discussed. I have a low opinion of people taking a specific side in this debate for the *same* reason I have a low opinion of the Islamic State.
3. For the record, I do not look down on religious people. I have multiple people in my family who are *very* religious. After I grew up, I realized how absolutely fortunate I am that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM is extremely liberal in their worldview and are people I look up to. The couple of people in my extended family (and I have a BIG one) who espouse bigoted views and wants to shove their views down other people's throats are not religious. I suspect that most of the proponents of "abortion ban" would neatly fit in the second category.
I stand by my statement. If you have a low opinion of people and have clearly looked into the reason people are against abortions are against them (not politicians that can be hypocrites, but genuine every day people who think it's wrong), then you are not being very empathetic.
Your first argument has no place in being an argument whatsoever. It shouldn't matter regardless of the context. That's the problem. Whether or not someone thinks that something is wrong because of a chain of logic that has some ties to religion should not matter. I don't know how to spell it out any clearer. You keep throwing out the term of "shoving religion down people's throats." The only one involved in the abortion discussion that's shoving anything down anyone's throat is you, and what you're forcing is your own narrative about religion. That's the problem. You make assumptions again and again, like in this one, where you assume that a majority of people who want to ban abortions also want to shove other views down people's throats. Maybe you're right or maybe you're wrong, but even if you're right, it's immaterial. Call people out when all there logic is flawed. You can say you don't look down on people for religion, and yet you keep trying to make an overall argument that something having any ties to a religion is a basis for not listening to them about the issue. That's using religion as a punching bag.
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 18, 2020, 04:24:03 PM
A viable fetus being at risk of abortion deserves protection via the state in the same way that an at-risk potential COVID contractor deserves protection via the state.Nobody argued otherwise. If the state creates artificial wombs, then I think you'll find many liberals in favor of increasing taxes to support the fetuses who don't have any willing owner of Fallopian tubes to connect to.
Conservatives, however, are arguing that the unwilling mother should be forced to give up the choice as to what she should do with her body as mandated by a certain religious belief..
<edited to add> Ah! I missed the "viable" part. No - nobody other than conservative gun-nuts are allowed to murder a baby who can survive on his/her own (with medical assistance if required).From the University of Calgary--for every 1% drop in employment, 16 people die from suicide in my province:There are FAAAAR more well established studies showing life expectancy increased during depression. Its easy to google them out if you want to.
https://www.ucalgary.ca/news/sixteen-more-albertans-die-suicide-every-one-cent-increase-unemployment
Conservatives are not solely concerned with economics, they are also concerned with second-order economic consequences, among other considerations.
If conservatives were concerned about second order consequences, then they would welcome economic depressions.
In reality, they would have taken the same stance as liberals *if* they were not practicing billionaire-wing politics.As for billionaires, there are many neo-liberal policies that are beneficial to billionaires. It's another area where a simple bifurcation of conservative/liberal is not sufficient.There is a crop of billionaires who profit from inflaming racial politics. Murdoch, Koch, Mercers etc and most other "old economy" billionaires are in this category.
Yes, there is a set of "new economy" billionaires, mostly younger, who don't seem to engage in this. That may be because they see no profit in it, or maybe they are just not sufficiently callous and evil - I can't tell!!
It's not a stretch to say that the conservative politics is controlled by these old economy liberals. Heck, just Murdoch (Fox), Koch (various super-PACs), Mercer (Breitbart) and the intentionally obscure controllers of Sinclair Broadcast Group control 99% of conservative political messaging in the US.
You say:
Conservatives, however, are arguing that the unwilling mother should be forced to give up the choice as to what she should do with her body as mandated by a certain religious belief..
That's true of many conservatives, but not all, and it's not true of all people who are against abortion.
Hell, I'm pro-abortion (pro-killing babies) yet I still struggle with the ethical implications of it, because a late-term foetus is arguably sentient (if it's not, then there's nothing compelling us to ban infanticide - in my moral worldview, it's only sentient things that have the right not to be killed/consumed), and the rights of a sentient being need to be weighed against the right to bodily autonomy. And there will be different ethical calculi for each situation. And I don't accept that it is only the woman's wishes that are paramount in each situation.
You might disagree with me. But you ought to understand that it's not just religious belief which compels people to feel queasy about abortions, either in the general or the specific case.
And as I've said so many times - I'm being a devil's advocate here. For the most part I do believe in the right to bodily autonomy.
I just don't understand why some liberal voices in this thread can write so condescendingly and pigeonhole opposing views.
And I think if I - as a libertarian who's not afraid of debate - find that atmosphere stifling, then many others - who are more wary of being talked down to, and who might have more conservative roots - would become resentful of it. And that's how people like Trump get into power.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 18, 2020, 04:36:24 PM
I stand by my statement. If you have a low opinion of people and have clearly looked into the reason people are against abortions are against them (not politicians that can be hypocrites, but genuine every day people who think it's wrong), then you are not being very empathetic.1. I lack empathy for people in positions of privilege (in this case middle-aged white male being some of the most ardent proponents) that want to legislate away the rights of more vulnerable group of people. Upper middle class and upwards women won't be impacted if they wanted to get an abortion. But someone like this will get charged with feticide for getting shot in the stomach: https://www.thecut.com/2019/06/alabama-woman-shot-in-stomach-charged-with-manslaughter.html
2. Politicians are generally a good reflection of the population - despite whatever politically correct bs you may have been fed. For good or bad, for an example that I can personally vouch, AOC is a very typical New Yorker of her age group including her points of view.
3. But don't you worry, I have similarly low opinion on ISIS foot soldiers and various other tools of mass subjugation devised by the priviledged.
Your first argument has no place in being an argument whatsoever. It shouldn't matter regardless of the context. That's the problem. Whether or not someone thinks that something is wrong because of a chain of logic that has some ties to religion should not matter. I don't know how to spell it out any clearer.You clearly have a big problem with the US Constitution.
You keep throwing out the term of "shoving religion down people's throats." The only one involved in the abortion discussion that's shoving anything down anyone's throat is you, and what you're forcing is your own narrative about religion. That's the problem.Got it. Who cares about a couple of stupid uppity black women jailed like Ms Jones in the news story above. The religious ordained abortion is sin, so she needs to pay for being shot in her tummy regardless of whether she agrees with that POV or not!!
Your's is the only true path after all. How dare I question it being shoved down anybody's throat?
You can say you don't look down on people for religion, and yet you keep trying to make an overall argument that something having any ties to a religion is a basis for not listening to them about the issue. That's using religion as a punching bag.
"US Constitution"
"Separation of church of state"
(Yes, they come into play when you are talking about legislating based on a "religious view")
And, the religious do a much better job of showing religion in a bad light. I don't have to make any effort on that front. How many younger people was repulsed from Christianity - you'd think - based on the Christian Right's embrace of everything vulgar about the orange one? I don't think I, or any other non-religious idiot could have been anywhere near as effective in using religion as a punching bag.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 18, 2020, 04:42:48 PM
You might disagree with me. But you ought to understand that it's not just religious belief which compels people to feel queasy about abortions, either in the general or the specific case.
How do you explain the strong correlation with religion in this study:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/22/american-religious-groups-vary-widely-in-their-views-of-abortion/
Are you arguing that the Atheist, Agnostic, Jewish, Buddhist, members of Episcopal Church and United Church of Christ, Hindu's are particularly prone to immoral views?
Are they just not informed enough (after 30-40 years of this being a wedge issue)?
And why the hell do you need to have a moral/scientific/legal/martial/whatever position on it? Why not leave it up to the mother until and up to the moment it is a question of her body?
Post by: Travis on June 18, 2020, 04:47:33 PM
This is just one example, of many. The editor at the NYT who recently lost his job for approving an op-ed by US Senator Tom Cotton, expressing an opinion (that the US military should be used to get riots under control) that, arguably, a majority of Americans agreed with. Also, the Philadelphia Enquirer editor who lost his job, because he approved an, admittedly tone deaf, headline for an article that said, "Building matter too," which, again, is a position supported by a majority of Americans, including blacks. The whole virtuous spiral phenomenon just seems like too much. People should be able to express unpopular opinions, without it costing them their livelihoods.
Within the context of the national situation, Tom Cotton was advocating for using the military to aid the cops in beating, maiming and gassing people expressing their first amendment rights. For an institution that lives or dies by the first amendment, I think platforming that was a pretty egregious error. People can express whatever opinions they want, but the Times doesn't have to platform every shitty opinion that comes along.
Tom Cotton almost gleefully advocated for the 101st to swoop in on New York City guns a-blazing. The editor of the Times admitted to pretty much rubber stamping the OpEd without reading it while NYT employees were being beaten by the police.
Post by: mathlete on June 18, 2020, 05:02:13 PM
Tom Cotton almost gleefully advocated for the 101st to swoop in on New York City guns a-blazing. The editor of the Times admitted to pretty much rubber stamping the OpEd without reading it while NYT employees were being beaten by the police.
Exactly. It is disingenuous to characterize the episode as people not being able to handle a difference in opinions. As much as I have hated Trump from the beginning, I had always balked at the allusions to fascism. I don't balk anymore. Tom Cotton is a fascist and he advocated for further decent into a police state. He can do that if he wants, but no self-respecting paper should just hand him a platform to do so.
The piece was published just days after the President or his AG ordered police to gas and beat protesters and members of the press to clear the way for a propaganda video to be shot.
There is no flashing neon sign that says when fascism is happening. A full 40% of this country would have rolled over for the Nazis and I think that really sucks.
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 18, 2020, 05:50:11 PM
You might disagree with me. But you ought to understand that it's not just religious belief which compels people to feel queasy about abortions, either in the general or the specific case.
How do you explain the strong correlation with religion in this study:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/22/american-religious-groups-vary-widely-in-their-views-of-abortion/
Are you arguing that the Atheist, Agnostic, Jewish, Buddhist, members of Episcopal Church and United Church of Christ, Hindu's are particularly prone to immoral views?
Are they just not informed enough (after 30-40 years of this being a wedge issue)?
And why the hell do you need to have a moral/scientific/legal/martial/whatever position on it? Why not leave it up to the mother until and up to the moment it is a question of her body?
You are blind to your own axiomatic view that the mother is the one and only arbiter of anything that happens to her own body.
You can't even acknowledge the lack of logical/scientific basis to say that one minute before delivery, the mother knows best 100% of the time, but one minute after delivery, suddenly you have a living breathing sentient being that has the equivalent moral weight of any other human.
Keep in mind, I mainly agree with your position. Even if there are shades of grey, it can be useful to draw a dividing line somewhere, and delivery is the easiest and clearest such line. There are many reasons why self-autonomy is a policy that should be followed where possible. Etc, etc, etc. As a supporter of killing foetuses where the mother wants it done for her own reasons, I have no difficulty aligning myself with your position and endorsing it.
I'm trying to get you to see that contrary views do have a coherent basis, and aren't simply based on a disregard for female autonomy. Yet you won't even budge an inch. You won't acknowledge that anyone who doesn't share your exact view might have any worth to his or her argument whatsoever. To me, that displays a lack of empathy and intellectual rigour.
To use a different example, I think the death penalty is wrong, but I can list at least 4 or 5 good reasons why someone might believe in, and support, the death penalty. I don't agree with those reasons on balance, but they're valid reasons.
I think it's a good thing to be able to see both sides of most debates.
There's no point arguing with you. You come across as extremely fixed and condescending.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 18, 2020, 06:22:19 PM
You might disagree with me. But you ought to understand that it's not just religious belief which compels people to feel queasy about abortions, either in the general or the specific case.
How do you explain the strong correlation with religion in this study:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/22/american-religious-groups-vary-widely-in-their-views-of-abortion/
Are you arguing that the Atheist, Agnostic, Jewish, Buddhist, members of Episcopal Church and United Church of Christ, Hindu's are particularly prone to immoral views?
Are they just not informed enough (after 30-40 years of this being a wedge issue)?
And why the hell do you need to have a moral/scientific/legal/martial/whatever position on it? Why not leave it up to the mother until and up to the moment it is a question of her body?
You are blind to your own axiomatic view that the mother is the one and only arbiter of anything that happens to her own body.
You can't even acknowledge the lack of logical/scientific basis to say that one minute before delivery, the mother knows best 100% of the time, but one minute after delivery, suddenly you have a living breathing sentient being that has the equivalent moral weight of any other human.
Keep in mind, I mainly agree with your position. Even if there are shades of grey, it can be useful to draw a dividing line somewhere, and delivery is the easiest and clearest such line. There are many reasons why self-autonomy is a policy that should be followed where possible. Etc, etc, etc. As a supporter of killing foetuses where the mother wants it done for her own reasons, I have no difficulty aligning myself with your position and endorsing it.
I'm trying to get you to see that contrary views do have a coherent basis, and aren't simply based on a disregard for female autonomy. Yet you won't even budge an inch. You won't acknowledge that anyone who doesn't share your exact view might have any worth to his or her argument whatsoever. To me, that displays a lack of empathy and intellectual rigour.
To use a different example, I think the death penalty is wrong, but I can list at least 4 or 5 good reasons why someone might believe in, and support, the death penalty. I don't agree with those reasons on balance, but they're valid reasons.
I think it's a good thing to be able to see both sides of most debates.
There's no point arguing with you. You come across as extremely fixed and condescending.
I can be too direct on many topics where I see a combination of:
1. massive degree of social harm
2. the privileged blithely legislating away the right of the under-privileged
3. religion
I can intellectually see the other point of view, and yes I can acknowledge the logical problem with treating the fetus differently from one minute to the next.
I just don't see the utility of discussing nuances of fetal development where the bigger, deciding issue is one level above that topic, and that topic will likely only muddle the waters and may cause negative social utility.
Perhaps the other disconnect is that I don't believe it is possible, ever, to change a religious point of view, irrespective of the human and social cost caused by that view. My response to such views is hence colored by the assumption that the discussion is only for the benefit of the onlookers. The communication style change when that is the case.
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 18, 2020, 06:32:21 PM
But to get to that sort of society we have to firstly engage with opposing views as equals.
You'll never get through to the hellfire-and-brimstone crowd, but there are plenty of anti-abortion folks who aren't arguing solely from religious dogma.
Post by: Buffaloski Boris on June 18, 2020, 07:33:20 PM
I just don't understand why some liberal voices in this thread can write so condescendingly and pigeonhole opposing views.
And I think if I - as a libertarian who's not afraid of debate - find that atmosphere stifling, then many others - who are more wary of being talked down to, and who might have more conservative roots - would become resentful of it. And that's how people like Trump get into power.
I’m happy to explain it. What we’re talking about isn’t so much political views but the secular version of cherished religious beliefs. Politics has become a substitute for faith in a lot of people’s lives. It’s not just a “liberal” thing, either. “Conservatives” do the same thing as well.
So what the believers in the faith of politics are looking for is not debate, but a sort of mutual validation of various tenets of their respective faith.
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 18, 2020, 07:37:37 PM
It's quite sad to see that it happens here, too. There is a lot of strange and petty discourse on MMM about face punches and clown cars and all that stuff.
The in-group/out-group thing can be really divisive.
Does it really matter if someone else buys an SUV? Yes it does, if it's hurting his or her finances, but otherwise, give it a fucking break already.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 18, 2020, 07:59:10 PM
That's why I so dislike online echo chambers of any persuasion. As you say, people don't go there to challenge their views or even expound them in good faith. They go there for validation, just like sheeple in an evangelical church.
It's quite sad to see that it happens here, too. There is a lot of strange and petty discourse on MMM about face punches and clown cars and all that stuff.
The in-group/out-group thing can be really divisive.
Does it really matter if someone else buys an SUV? Yes it does, if it's hurting his or her finances, but otherwise, give it a fucking break already.
Did you buy an SUV?
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 18, 2020, 08:53:14 PM
That's why I so dislike online echo chambers of any persuasion. As you say, people don't go there to challenge their views or even expound them in good faith. They go there for validation, just like sheeple in an evangelical church.
It's quite sad to see that it happens here, too. There is a lot of strange and petty discourse on MMM about face punches and clown cars and all that stuff.
The in-group/out-group thing can be really divisive.
Does it really matter if someone else buys an SUV? Yes it does, if it's hurting his or her finances, but otherwise, give it a fucking break already.
Did you buy an SUV?
Heck no. I hate SUVs. But I can totally understand why someone else might like them!
Post by: Buffaloski Boris on June 18, 2020, 10:09:35 PM
That's why I so dislike online echo chambers of any persuasion. As you say, people don't go there to challenge their views or even expound them in good faith. They go there for validation, just like sheeple in an evangelical church.That the two factions were as polite as an evangelical church! The irony is that the “salvation” to be had here is that their preferred gang of kakistocrats wins political office over the other gang of kakistocrats.
It's quite sad to see that it happens here, too. There is a lot of strange and petty discourse on MMM about face punches and clown cars and all that stuff.
The in-group/out-group thing can be really divisive.
Does it really matter if someone else buys an SUV? Yes it does, if it's hurting his or her finances, but otherwise, give it a fucking break already.
I do like the community here. There are a few twits, which you’ll find anywhere. I would prefer that politics and religious discussions were banned as they are over at bogleheads. I do think it coarsens a lot of the interactions. But I’m just a guest here so of course it’s not my call. I appreciate the access to the forum.
As for SUVs, I drive an ancient one. And if it dies, I may well get another ancient one. It’s environmentally friendly and budget friendly.
Post by: HBFIRE on June 18, 2020, 10:37:12 PM
Did you buy an SUV?
guilty Full overlander build
Post by: Kyle Schuant on June 19, 2020, 01:32:48 AM
https://www.thaienquirer.com/13861/foreign-affairs-unrest-continues-for-a-seventh-day-in-former-british-colony/
Post by: mathlete on June 19, 2020, 09:31:49 AM
I just don't understand why some liberal voices in this thread can write so condescendingly and pigeonhole opposing views.
And I think if I - as a libertarian who's not afraid of debate - find that atmosphere stifling, then many others - who are more wary of being talked down to, and who might have more conservative roots - would become resentful of it. And that's how people like Trump get into power.
If I can offer some commentary as a pretty darn liberal American.
I'm very pro-choice. In fact, just a few weeks ago I gave $100 to planned parenthood, basically out of spite after a conversation with someone. But I accept and understand the concept of a fetus being human life as a strong motivating factor for folks against abortion. I don't like guns, but I accept that for some people, ~30K deaths a year in exchange for freedom to own guns is worth it. I'm pro-regulation and pro-taxation, but I enjoy debate on these topics with those who disagree with me.
But I've also been a liberal on the Internet for about half my life now. And I've seen conservative people in my country move more and more towards anti-intellectualism, and aggressive racism and sexism. These topics suck up a majority of the air in political discussions and I consider them pretty non-negotiable.
I definitely recognize that I'm one of the condescending posters that you're talking about. I used to have more patience, but I'm older now. Just the other week, I replied to a poster on the BLM stuff and simply told him to "eat shit". This probably looks from the outside, like bad discourse, but in my experience, engaging and entertaining that person would have been the worst of discourse. Because the poster was appealing to, "But what about black on black violence in Chicago??" meme. And I've had this discussion discussion countless times over the past decade with people who are 100 times less well read on these topics than I am. Engaging in civil discussion on those pretenses puts history and research on the same footing with shot-form-the-hip, talk radio talking points.
It also happened in the "how to fix racism" thread. I have a really solid knowledge of the history of black oppression in the United States, so I started by giving a rough outline on it. But even I, who am growing very salty, got duped into a long back-and-forth about, "Well you know that gangster rap sure is a bad influence on black men".
The US President is a racist, a sexist and a habitual liar. I do not know how to engage in good faith debate on these issues when 90% of US conservatives support him. I am truly at a loss.
Post by: mathlete on June 19, 2020, 09:34:44 AM
Post by: Shane on June 19, 2020, 10:25:01 AM
While I completely disagreed with Tom Cotton's op-ed, as a sitting US Senator, expressing an opinion held by tens, if not hundreds, of millions of Americans, I felt like the NYT had an obligation to print it. The proper response should have been to also publish other opinion pieces that made better arguments for not bringing in the military, not firing the editor who agreed to publish Cotton's piece. I read the NYT every day, and even when I disagree, I want them to publish opinions held by people from very different backgrounds, with different perspectives. I don't want to only read messages from people with whom I agree.This is just one example, of many. The editor at the NYT who recently lost his job for approving an op-ed by US Senator Tom Cotton, expressing an opinion (that the US military should be used to get riots under control) that, arguably, a majority of Americans agreed with. Also, the Philadelphia Enquirer editor who lost his job, because he approved an, admittedly tone deaf, headline for an article that said, "Building matter too," which, again, is a position supported by a majority of Americans, including blacks. The whole virtuous spiral phenomenon just seems like too much. People should be able to express unpopular opinions, without it costing them their livelihoods.
Within the context of the national situation, Tom Cotton was advocating for using the military to aid the cops in beating, maiming and gassing people expressing their first amendment rights. For an institution that lives or dies by the first amendment, I think platforming that was a pretty egregious error. People can express whatever opinions they want, but the Times doesn't have to platform every shitty opinion that comes along.
James Bennet's decision was pretty horrendous. But I'm willing to accept that he may have survived it had we been in less contentious times. So it's maybe 90/10. 90% a dumb decision to platform a fascist crackdown on free speech when you're an editor for a newspaper. 10% unfairness.
There are 10,000 vectors of unfairness that I could come up with on any given day. I don't typically think cancel culture is the one is worth getting hung up on.
Post by: HBFIRE on June 19, 2020, 10:34:23 AM
P.S., it's been 3.5 years now and I'm still not sold on the idea that Trump could have been avoided if only we had coddled conservatives a little bit more. Most of Trump's victory is explained by people wanting tax breaks and conservative justices.
You're right. There is a pretty sizable portion of the population that just wants lower taxes and voted for Trump just for that reason. That said, Trump is not a conservative. He's a big spending nationalist. Even people who lean libertarian such as myself are growing tired of the massive spending. Then of course, for low taxes you have to be willing to put up with the "Trump package" -- you have all of his major issues. I think there is a pretty sizable % of the conservative population that has grown very tired of him. In my ideal world it shouldn't matter who is president and he/she shouldn't have enough power for it to matter. Maybe both sides can agree Trump has been a disaster -- so let's make sure the system doesn't allow a dangerous president to have too much power in the future even if they get elected. It's been a bit scary to see our checks and balances system not always operate as it should. My view is that most Americans really fall somewhere in the middle -- but you wouldn't know it because the politicians push extremes as it's better for getting votes. The media perpetuates this as well as it's better for clicks. I've always felt there should be a political uprising of the moderate position to appeal to the majority but it seems the way our system is set up that it doesn't really encourage it. Division is rewarded in the political and media world and that's the major issue.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 19, 2020, 10:54:59 AM
I just don't understand why some liberal voices in this thread can write so condescendingly and pigeonhole opposing views.
And I think if I - as a libertarian who's not afraid of debate - find that atmosphere stifling, then many others - who are more wary of being talked down to, and who might have more conservative roots - would become resentful of it. And that's how people like Trump get into power.
If I can offer some commentary as a pretty darn liberal American.
I'm very pro-choice. In fact, just a few weeks ago I gave $100 to planned parenthood, basically out of spite after a conversation with someone. But I accept and understand the concept of a fetus being human life as a strong motivating factor for folks against abortion. I don't like guns, but I accept that for some people, ~30K deaths a year in exchange for freedom to own guns is worth it. I'm pro-regulation and pro-taxation, but I enjoy debate on these topics with those who disagree with me.
But I've also been a liberal on the Internet for about half my life now. And I've seen conservative people in my country move more and more towards anti-intellectualism, and aggressive racism and sexism. These topics suck up a majority of the air in political discussions and I consider them pretty non-negotiable.
I definitely recognize that I'm one of the condescending posters that you're talking about. I used to have more patience, but I'm older now. Just the other week, I replied to a poster on the BLM stuff and simply told him to "eat shit". This probably looks from the outside, like bad discourse, but in my experience, engaging and entertaining that person would have been the worst of discourse. Because the poster was appealing to, "But what about black on black violence in Chicago??" meme. And I've had this discussion discussion countless times over the past decade with people who are 100 times less well read on these topics than I am. Engaging in civil discussion on those pretenses puts history and research on the same footing with shot-form-the-hip, talk radio talking points.
It also happened in the "how to fix racism" thread. I have a really solid knowledge of the history of black oppression in the United States, so I started by giving a rough outline on it. But even I, who am growing very salty, got duped into a long back-and-forth about, "Well you know that gangster rap sure is a bad influence on black men".
The US President is a racist, a sexist and a habitual liar. I do not know how to engage in good faith debate on these issues when 90% of US conservatives support him. I am truly at a loss.
I am probably more guilty than you for being condescending. So maybe a cooler "explanation" might be in order.
It's part personal....
I've never displayed the virtue of patience in my life, even for causes that are close to my heart. While going through her MS in CS program, DW was working with underprivileged kids and adults by tutoring them math as part of a state sponsored program. Well, I wholeheartedly champion the cause. But I lasted a whole of 30 minutes when she tried to rope me in.
So that lack of patience shows up in discussions. I fit in nicely in the aggressive work-culture of NYC. I think I will feel very stifled in any other kind of culture (except perhaps the aggressive SV culture).
But then, along with that negative, comes a positive. When interacting with people like us, you won't have to guess what we're thinking. WYSWYG - What you see is what you get. You can rest assured someone like me won't back-stab anyone, anywhere, in any context.
And it is also a part environment...
Like mathlete explained above. I feel more and more despondent every day that I see the vulgarity of the 45th, fully supported by the "conservatives". On a tiny bit of digging, I discover this is just a symptom of a much broader disease that has been extant at least since Nixon.
In this context the fuse tends to be even shorter than usual.
Post by: js82 on June 19, 2020, 03:44:25 PM
I just don't understand why some liberal voices in this thread can write so condescendingly and pigeonhole opposing views.
And I think if I - as a libertarian who's not afraid of debate - find that atmosphere stifling, then many others - who are more wary of being talked down to, and who might have more conservative roots - would become resentful of it. And that's how people like Trump get into power.
I’m happy to explain it. What we’re talking about isn’t so much political views but the secular version of cherished religious beliefs. Politics has become a substitute for faith in a lot of people’s lives. It’s not just a “liberal” thing, either. “Conservatives” do the same thing as well.
So what the believers in the faith of politics are looking for is not debate, but a sort of mutual validation of various tenets of their respective faith.
I'm not sure it's strictly a substitute for "faith" - I think there's another aspect of organized religion that politics are replacing. In the past(and still in the present, in many areas), churches tended to be the center of communities. And while faith is nominally the reason religious institutions exist, churches performed the critical role of helping their members meet a very important human need - the need for community, belonging, etc. - the social part of being human, being part of something bigger than oneself.
With fewer people attending churches, people are looking elsewhere for a sense of belonging/being part of a group. For some people, being part of Team Red or Team Blue helps satisfy that need.
Would that other organizations stepped in and helped fill people's need for belonging, community, etc. While that's technically not the reason for churches' existence, it's an major part of their role in communities that other organizations have not yet fully filled in some communities.
Post by: Buffaloski Boris on June 19, 2020, 03:58:18 PM
I just don't understand why some liberal voices in this thread can write so condescendingly and pigeonhole opposing views.
And I think if I - as a libertarian who's not afraid of debate - find that atmosphere stifling, then many others - who are more wary of being talked down to, and who might have more conservative roots - would become resentful of it. And that's how people like Trump get into power.
I’m happy to explain it. What we’re talking about isn’t so much political views but the secular version of cherished religious beliefs. Politics has become a substitute for faith in a lot of people’s lives. It’s not just a “liberal” thing, either. “Conservatives” do the same thing as well.
So what the believers in the faith of politics are looking for is not debate, but a sort of mutual validation of various tenets of their respective faith.
I'm not sure it's strictly a substitute for "faith" - I think there's another aspect of organized religion that politics are replacing. In the past(and still in the present, in many areas, churches tended to be the center of communities. And while faith is nominally the reason religious institutions exist, churches performed the critical role of helping their members meet a very important human need - the need for community, belonging, etc. - the social part of being human, being part of something bigger than oneself.
With fewer people attending churches, people are looking elsewhere for a sense of belonging/being part of a group. For some people, being part of Team Red or Team Blue helps satisfy that need.
Would that other organizations stepped in and helped fill people's need for belonging, community, etc. While that's technically not the reason for churches' existence, it's an major part of their role in communities that other organizations have not yet fully filled in some communities.
Politics is a piss-poor substitute for religion. I think you're right: people are getting their community "fix" through the red team or the blue team. It's a shame that other sorts of fraternal or charitable organizations haven't focused on the loneliness epidemic to the mutual benefit of their organizations and the lonely. There is an army of people out there who could move mountains for the cost of some kind words and intentional community.
Maybe it's something I should focus on in retirement; building apolitical community. Sounds like great fun: we'll all get together and not vote. :-P
Post by: Buffaloski Boris on June 19, 2020, 03:59:52 PM
It's useful to occasionally look at things from a different perspective.
https://www.thaienquirer.com/13861/foreign-affairs-unrest-continues-for-a-seventh-day-in-former-british-colony/
That was a really cool article, Kyle. Thanks for posting it.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 19, 2020, 08:18:16 PM
I stand by my statement. If you have a low opinion of people and have clearly looked into the reason people are against abortions are against them (not politicians that can be hypocrites, but genuine every day people who think it's wrong), then you are not being very empathetic.1. I lack empathy for people in positions of privilege (in this case middle-aged white male being some of the most ardent proponents) that want to legislate away the rights of more vulnerable group of people. Upper middle class and upwards women won't be impacted if they wanted to get an abortion. But someone like this will get charged with feticide for getting shot in the stomach: https://www.thecut.com/2019/06/alabama-woman-shot-in-stomach-charged-with-manslaughter.html
2. Politicians are generally a good reflection of the population - despite whatever politically correct bs you may have been fed. For good or bad, for an example that I can personally vouch, AOC is a very typical New Yorker of her age group including her points of view.
3. But don't you worry, I have similarly low opinion on ISIS foot soldiers and various other tools of mass subjugation devised by the priviledged.Your first argument has no place in being an argument whatsoever. It shouldn't matter regardless of the context. That's the problem. Whether or not someone thinks that something is wrong because of a chain of logic that has some ties to religion should not matter. I don't know how to spell it out any clearer.You clearly have a big problem with the US Constitution.You keep throwing out the term of "shoving religion down people's throats." The only one involved in the abortion discussion that's shoving anything down anyone's throat is you, and what you're forcing is your own narrative about religion. That's the problem.Got it. Who cares about a couple of stupid uppity black women jailed like Ms Jones in the news story above. The religious ordained abortion is sin, so she needs to pay for being shot in her tummy regardless of whether she agrees with that POV or not!!
Your's is the only true path after all. How dare I question it being shoved down anybody's throat?You can say you don't look down on people for religion, and yet you keep trying to make an overall argument that something having any ties to a religion is a basis for not listening to them about the issue. That's using religion as a punching bag.
"US Constitution"
"Separation of church of state"
(Yes, they come into play when you are talking about legislating based on a "religious view")
And, the religious do a much better job of showing religion in a bad light. I don't have to make any effort on that front. How many younger people was repulsed from Christianity - you'd think - based on the Christian Right's embrace of everything vulgar about the orange one? I don't think I, or any other non-religious idiot could have been anywhere near as effective in using religion as a punching bag.
I get it, you're clearly upset. And you're all over the place. At this point, no further progress will be made, so this time, there really truly is no point in continuing the conversation. I will, however, leave you with this.
You are extremely biased against religion. I'm not wanting to argue about this, because there is nothing to argue. I'm just pointing out an observation that I'm pretty sure anyone reading this can see.
It's like as soon as the word religion came up, you were like a train heading for one destination, regardless of anything else that would be brought up henceforth. How do I know this? Because your bias against religion has lead you to make assumptions throughout this argument. Assumptions that have been wrong.
You assumed I was a Catholic. You were wrong.
You assumed you knew more about Christianity than I knew. I have a masters degree in the topic. It's extremely unlikely that you know more about it than I do. You were wrong.
You assume you know more about the Constitution, how it was founded, what the amendments were intended to do in regards to religion, etc. I am not as confident in this as I don't have as much study as I do in the former, but from the way you're posting on it, I doubt this as well.
You assume you know exactly what I want to happen in regards to abortion from the perspective of the government. Given the general accusations you've made (you kind of lump me/politicians/general Christians/etc. together, so I'm going to do the same here), you're wrong.
Are you noticing a theme here? You are "fill in the blank whatever negative mindset you have" biased against religion. You have a person opening a dialogue with you, and your mindset is leading you to numerous assumptions about that person.......that are wrong. Ergo, no real dialogue can take place.
You can blame it on a short fuse/lack of patience/that you're just a stereotypical New Yorker that doesn't put up with BS or whatever it is that you want to use to excuse your poor behavior. It doesn't really matter. I mean, shoot, you've even pulled the "I have some people I really respect that are religious" card right in line with the "I have a black friend; I'm not racist" card, lol (caveat before I'm accused of something, no these are not comparable because I'm not being oppressed, it's just that the line of logic is the same). If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny.
You can go through your whole life looking down on people who come from a religious background or thinking their opinions are suspect or disregarding what people think about things because they don't look at them the same way you do. And I'll be clear here; I'm under no impression that this will make any difference to you whatsoever. I will only say that I was very much like you on the other end of things. I looked down on liberals/athiests/etc. I didn't really give their perspectives attention or decreased the merit of their thoughts because of where they were coming from. When they disagreed with me, the one fact that they were coming from a liberal perspective, for example, was all I needed to demean, at least in my mind, their beliefs and not even pay it a bit of attention. I didn't care because I knew - I just knew that they were liberals, so their ideas were this or that or the other and all they wanted to do was this or that, and I already knew that all of that was wrong. Why did I even need to listen? If they happened to agree with me perfectly enough to satisfy my strong opinions, then great, see that was proof I was open minded....except it wasn't because I wasn't. I wasn't listening to learn from them because I knew they were wrong. If I listened at all, it was to confirm opinions I already have (this all being kind of the point of topic of this whole thread). Fortunately I've grown out of that at least a little. I hope that one day, you can do the same. Have a good one.
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 19, 2020, 08:49:56 PM
We must all try to be more equable.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 20, 2020, 04:55:14 AM
You assume you know exactly what I want to happen in regards to abortion from the perspective of the government. Given the general accusations you've made (you kind of lump me/politicians/general Christians/etc. together, so I'm going to do the same here), you're wrong.
This is the crux!
Are you, or are you not looking to legislate to take away other people's rights irrespective of whether they have the same moral stance or not in this topic?
This "you" is a generic anti-pro-choice person.
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 20, 2020, 05:17:15 AM
You assume you know exactly what I want to happen in regards to abortion from the perspective of the government. Given the general accusations you've made (you kind of lump me/politicians/general Christians/etc. together, so I'm going to do the same here), you're wrong.
This is the crux!
Are you, or are you not looking to legislate to take away other people's rights irrespective of whether they have the same moral stance or not in this topic?
This "you" is a generic anti-pro-choice person.
The crux of the abortion debate is whether an unborn person has rights, and how those rights are balanced with the rights of the host mother. A moral stance is necessary. If you choose to beat a dog in your backyard, society will have a problem with that, even though it's not their yard and it's not their dog.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 20, 2020, 08:05:06 AM
You assume you know exactly what I want to happen in regards to abortion from the perspective of the government. Given the general accusations you've made (you kind of lump me/politicians/general Christians/etc. together, so I'm going to do the same here), you're wrong.
This is the crux!
Are you, or are you not looking to legislate to take away other people's rights irrespective of whether they have the same moral stance or not in this topic?
This "you" is a generic anti-pro-choice person.
The crux of the abortion debate is whether an unborn person has rights, and how those rights are balanced with the rights of the host mother. A moral stance is necessary. If you choose to beat a dog in your backyard, society will have a problem with that, even though it's not their yard and it's not their dog.
Great. So you have arrived at some conclusion/answer to this question, and some other person has come to the opposite conclusion. How do we try to determine which one is right?
Zooming out, we see that one religion (Christianity) has arrived at a certain conclusion, and several others have arrived at the opposite. Reference : pew poll I have linked above in this thread.
Are we SO SURE that the Christian position is the right one that we want to legislate to take the unbeliever’s bodily autonomy away?
Note: autonomy over one’s own body is a fundamental human right. So you better be pretty damn sure here!!
Are you sure you want to live in a society that does that?? Or one that leave people alone without imposing the belief system of the ‘true faith’?
Post by: LWYRUP on June 20, 2020, 09:48:26 AM
I just don't understand why some liberal voices in this thread can write so condescendingly and pigeonhole opposing views.
And I think if I - as a libertarian who's not afraid of debate - find that atmosphere stifling, then many others - who are more wary of being talked down to, and who might have more conservative roots - would become resentful of it. And that's how people like Trump get into power.
I’m happy to explain it. What we’re talking about isn’t so much political views but the secular version of cherished religious beliefs. Politics has become a substitute for faith in a lot of people’s lives. It’s not just a “liberal” thing, either. “Conservatives” do the same thing as well.
So what the believers in the faith of politics are looking for is not debate, but a sort of mutual validation of various tenets of their respective faith.
I'm not sure it's strictly a substitute for "faith" - I think there's another aspect of organized religion that politics are replacing. In the past(and still in the present, in many areas, churches tended to be the center of communities. And while faith is nominally the reason religious institutions exist, churches performed the critical role of helping their members meet a very important human need - the need for community, belonging, etc. - the social part of being human, being part of something bigger than oneself.
With fewer people attending churches, people are looking elsewhere for a sense of belonging/being part of a group. For some people, being part of Team Red or Team Blue helps satisfy that need.
Would that other organizations stepped in and helped fill people's need for belonging, community, etc. While that's technically not the reason for churches' existence, it's an major part of their role in communities that other organizations have not yet fully filled in some communities.
Politics is a piss-poor substitute for religion. I think you're right: people are getting their community "fix" through the red team or the blue team. It's a shame that other sorts of fraternal or charitable organizations haven't focused on the loneliness epidemic to the mutual benefit of their organizations and the lonely. There is an army of people out there who could move mountains for the cost of some kind words and intentional community.
Maybe it's something I should focus on in retirement; building apolitical community. Sounds like great fun: we'll all get together and not vote. :-P
I wrote a lengthy reply to this but then decided to delete it, because I didn't want to deal with lots of arguments. So I did want to chime in to say I agree with virtually everything written above.
The only exception is that I think respectful debates about real political philosophies between people who are actually open minded can be great fun. And I do vote, though I always recognize it is for the lesser of two evils.
I frequently describe myself to my friends as "apolitical" but that's not actually true. It's something I take seriously and have well informed opinions about. I just find the tone of political arguments to be very unpleasant and declaring myself apolitical is a way of trying to block the negativity out of my life. I also tend to be very adverse to extremism, but because it shuts down debate and because so frequently in the past when taken too far it has lead to piles of dead bodies. So, usually, the more I hear from the ardent advocates of a particular political philosophy, the LESS I want to vote for the politicians they are backing.
My dad's family fled the USSR and my dad still has a limp from poor medical treatment he got as a child in a refugee camp, so this is very personal for me.
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 20, 2020, 10:11:35 AM
Great. So you have arrived at some conclusion/answer to this question, and some other person has come to the opposite conclusion. How do we try to determine which one is right?There isn't going to be a right answer with regard to abortion as far as I can tell. We use democracy to dictate policy.
Quote
Zooming out, we see that one religion (Christianity) has arrived at a certain conclusion, and several others have arrived at the opposite. Reference : pew poll I have linked above in this thread.I'm not making an argument from a religious basis so I won't speak to that. But again, bodily autonomy is not so clear when a body contains another human within it.
Are we SO SURE that the Christian position is the right one that we want to legislate to take the unbeliever’s bodily autonomy away?
Note: autonomy over one’s own body is a fundamental human right. So you better be pretty damn sure here!!
Quote
Are you sure you want to live in a society that does that?? Or one that leave people alone without imposing the belief system of the ‘true faith’?Again, sometimes impositions are unavoidable.
Personally I believe pro-lifers have the moral absolutist high ground, since after conception there is no hard line that can be drawn to distinguish a conceived egg from a sovereign individual. So as a pro-choicer you have to--at some point during the development of a baby--make a 180 degree turn and say that now this clump of cells is a person. Whether that change occurs in utero or post utero.
However, the pro-life argument fails on pragmatic and functional grounds--it's not fair to subject all women to carry a baby to term under all circumstances.
So if the Christian argument leads to the first position--the moralist pro-life position--then your debate should center around the pragmatic and utilitarian rebuttal, not a moral rebuttal.
I think Bloop Bloop said it best a few pages back:
Quote
I think if a fully fledged adult human has a moral weight of 1.0, a first trimester foetus has about a 0.1, a third trimester maybe 0.6 and an infant maybe 0.8? And a zygote 0.01. Not trying to be exact here, but you get the picture.
Luckily, we have democracy to help navigate compromises, which I like to highlight frequently, since most contentious political issues revolve around relative problems and situations that require compromise.
I wouldn't dwell on trying to change the mind of a moral absolutist, your energy would be better spent elsewhere. If I have misconstrued the Christian perspective here then someone advocating that can correct me. I don't believe the pro-life argument comes from Christianity persay, rather it comes from the moral absolutist position I outlined above.
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on June 20, 2020, 10:20:37 AM
My own view is that we as a society would be better off if abortion was free, readily available and heavily encouraged. Heck, I'd love for the government to pay people to have an abortion (to cover the cost of seeking leave from work, and pre- and post-counselling) to give an extra incentive. Though politically that would be a tough sell, I have no doubt that incentivising and facilitating abortion is in the best interests of society overall.
But to get to that sort of society we have to firstly engage with opposing views as equals.
You'll never get through to the hellfire-and-brimstone crowd, but there are plenty of anti-abortion folks who aren't arguing solely from religious dogma.
I resolutely concur for the reasons below set forth in Roe.
The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying [her the choice to legally terminate her pregnancy] is apparent.
Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future.
Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it.
In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved.
All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.
To the reasons above I add that overpopulation continues.
Post by: LWYRUP on June 20, 2020, 10:25:25 AM
I think Bloop Bloop said it best a few pages back:QuoteI think if a fully fledged adult human has a moral weight of 1.0, a first trimester foetus has about a 0.1, a third trimester maybe 0.6 and an infant maybe 0.8? And a zygote 0.01. Not trying to be exact here, but you get the picture.
I don't think it is wise to declare an infant life as less than an adult life (or what that says about, say, the disabled, those with lower IQ, etc.). I think it would be reasonable to have a sliding scale from conception through viability from 0.01% to 100% etc. I always find it surprising when people advocate for absolute discretion for abortion from viability through the moment of birth. It is a basically moral absolutist argument that says "a human life is worth zero until it is outside of the womb." And I agree that pro-lifers actually have the better argument from the moral absolutist standpoint, and the advantage of a reasonable pro-choice policy is that from a practical standpoint it's the most effective way to deal with unpleasant and ethically difficult issues.
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 20, 2020, 10:36:48 AM
Certainly, and I don't mean to suggest that those numbers should be written in stone. The viability is a good place to start.I think Bloop Bloop said it best a few pages back:QuoteI think if a fully fledged adult human has a moral weight of 1.0, a first trimester foetus has about a 0.1, a third trimester maybe 0.6 and an infant maybe 0.8? And a zygote 0.01. Not trying to be exact here, but you get the picture.
I don't think it is wise to declare an infant life as less than an adult life (or what that says about, say, the disabled, those with lower IQ, etc.). I think it would be reasonable to have a sliding scale from conception through viability from 0.01% to 100% etc. I always find it surprising when people advocate for absolute discretion for abortion from viability through the moment of birth. It is a basically moral absolutist argument that says "a human life is worth zero until it is outside of the womb." And I agree that pro-lifers actually have the better argument from the moral absolutist standpoint, and the advantage of a reasonable pro-choice policy is that from a practical standpoint it's the most effective way to deal with unpleasant and ethically difficult issues.
We have a similar issue with forced sterilizations in Canada. The argument plays out similarly. A woman has a right to her own bodily autonomy vs. how many FASD children should a woman produce before her autonomy is outweighed by the tragedy of those children? Should IQ be a factor, etc.
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on June 20, 2020, 10:46:03 AM
The crux of the abortion debate is whether an unborn person has rights, and how those rights are balanced with the rights of the host mother. A moral stance is necessary. If you choose to beat a dog in your backyard, society will have a problem with that, even though it's not their yard and it's not their dog.
Under Roe, a fetus is not a person; thus, the rights that appertain to a person do not appertain to a fetus.
Roe v. Wade (1973)
The Constitution does not define 'person' in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to 'person.' The first, in defining 'citizens,' speaks of 'persons born or naturalized in the United States.'
The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause.
'Person' is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators,...in the Apportionment Clause,...in the Migration and Importation provision,...in the Emoulument Clause,...in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, ...in the Extradition provisions,...[in]the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause, and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally.
None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible prenatal application.
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on June 20, 2020, 11:18:06 AM
Note: autonomy over one’s own body is a fundamental human right.
Autonomy is inseparable from personal privacy, a fundamental right established and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court that forms the underpinning of the Court's rationale in Roe.
Roe v. Wade (1973)
The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy.
In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as [1891] the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution.
In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment,...in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments,...in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights,...in the Ninth Amendment,...or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.
These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed 'fundamental' or 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,' are included in this guarantee of personal privacy.
They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage,...procreation,...contraception,...family relationships,...and child rearing and education.
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
Post by: LWYRUP on June 20, 2020, 11:30:06 AM
Interestingly, the Roe decision set up the trimester system, which more or less is getting to what many of us have proposed -- a sliding scale of protections as the fetus grows. My main problem with the trimester system is that it is only loosely scientific. Replacing "trimesters" with "pre-viability vs. post-viability" would be an improvement, IMO.
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on June 20, 2020, 11:47:06 AM
@John Galt incarnate! if you agree with the Supreme Court that is great, but you are writing as if the opinion of a handful of judges are a dispositive response to a complex philosophical question.
Doubtless, Roe does not and must not extinguish the philosophical debate among physicians, philosophers, theologians, and the body politic.
Interestingly, the Roe decision set up the trimester system, which more or less is getting to what many of us have proposed -- a sliding scale of protections as the fetus grows. My main problem with the trimester system is that it is only loosely scientific.
Replacing "trimesters" with "pre-viability vs. post-viability" would be an improvement, IMO.
I agree.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 20, 2020, 12:48:05 PM
There isn't going to be a right answer with regard to abortion as far as I can tell.This is a massive step. Once we are here - reasonable discussion can start.
We use democracy to dictate policy.Do you use democracy to impose the majorities moral standard on the minority to the point where someone may effectively get a death sentence?
That is what happened here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar !!
(Thankfully, the Irish were sufficiently horrified about this such that they passed a constitutional amendment to fix this).
I'm pretty certain you probably wouldn't want the kind of democracy that legislates away the fundamental rights with zero regard for the moral standards held by the minority.
But again, bodily autonomy is not so clear when a body contains another human within it.How do you know? Have you scientifically determined when human life begins?
Just a minute ago - you expressed that there is going to be no right answer. What changed in half a minute that you are again falling back into the Christian absolutist position?
What if I am a Buddhist who believes that the concept of "self" itself is an illusion https://historyofphilosophy.net/buddhism-gethin (https://historyofphilosophy.net/buddhism-gethin)? Or perhaps an ardent believer in Richard Dawkin's theories that the genes are the real beings and human body is just a vessel? Are these any less valid than your moral axioms?
Again, sometimes impositions are unavoidable.Sure... But based on what? I am sure you must have a very high bar for any such involuntary imposition.
Personally I believe.....What??? You mean to say imposition is unavoidable based on your personal belief??
It's not just a fast gotcha that I am pulling. Think about it.
You express the ambiguity of the situation in the first sentence. You are generally sincere. What happened after that to lead you to absolutist positions like "imposition is unavoidable" - especially in the context where autonomy of a almost disenfranchised minority is being discussed. Are you able to spot the inconsistency and fallacy in what you are implying in your post (more so than saying)?
Post by: ctuser1 on June 20, 2020, 01:07:05 PM
I get it, you're clearly upset. And you're all over the place. At this point, no further progress will be made, so this time, there really truly is no point in continuing the conversation. I will, however, leave you with this.
You are extremely biased against religion. I'm not wanting to argue about this, because there is nothing to argue. I'm just pointing out an observation that I'm pretty sure anyone reading this can see.
It's like as soon as the word religion came up, you were like a train heading for one destination, regardless of anything else that would be brought up henceforth. How do I know this? Because your bias against religion has lead you to make assumptions throughout this argument. Assumptions that have been wrong.
You assumed I was a Catholic. You were wrong.
You assumed you knew more about Christianity than I knew. I have a masters degree in the topic. It's extremely unlikely that you know more about it than I do. You were wrong.
You assume you know more about the Constitution, how it was founded, what the amendments were intended to do in regards to religion, etc. I am not as confident in this as I don't have as much study as I do in the former, but from the way you're posting on it, I doubt this as well.
You assume you know exactly what I want to happen in regards to abortion from the perspective of the government. Given the general accusations you've made (you kind of lump me/politicians/general Christians/etc. together, so I'm going to do the same here), you're wrong.
Are you noticing a theme here? You are "fill in the blank whatever negative mindset you have" biased against religion. You have a person opening a dialogue with you, and your mindset is leading you to numerous assumptions about that person.......that are wrong. Ergo, no real dialogue can take place.
You can blame it on a short fuse/lack of patience/that you're just a stereotypical New Yorker that doesn't put up with BS or whatever it is that you want to use to excuse your poor behavior. It doesn't really matter. I mean, shoot, you've even pulled the "I have some people I really respect that are religious" card right in line with the "I have a black friend; I'm not racist" card, lol (caveat before I'm accused of something, no these are not comparable because I'm not being oppressed, it's just that the line of logic is the same). If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny.
You can go through your whole life looking down on people who come from a religious background or thinking their opinions are suspect or disregarding what people think about things because they don't look at them the same way you do. And I'll be clear here; I'm under no impression that this will make any difference to you whatsoever. I will only say that I was very much like you on the other end of things. I looked down on liberals/athiests/etc. I didn't really give their perspectives attention or decreased the merit of their thoughts because of where they were coming from. When they disagreed with me, the one fact that they were coming from a liberal perspective, for example, was all I needed to demean, at least in my mind, their beliefs and not even pay it a bit of attention. I didn't care because I knew - I just knew that they were liberals, so their ideas were this or that or the other and all they wanted to do was this or that, and I already knew that all of that was wrong. Why did I even need to listen? If they happened to agree with me perfectly enough to satisfy my strong opinions, then great, see that was proof I was open minded....except it wasn't because I wasn't. I wasn't listening to learn from them because I knew they were wrong. If I listened at all, it was to confirm opinions I already have (this all being kind of the point of topic of this whole thread). Fortunately I've grown out of that at least a little. I hope that one day, you can do the same. Have a good one.
Ok, now you are gas-lighting. Most probably from a position of sincerity - but still!!
Yes, I am very much aware of many foibles that I possess. I appreciate your constructive feedback, it'll keep my "daily time for reflection" occupied for some time.
Are you aware of the "philosophical arrogance" (possibly from a position of ignorance) that you are displaying here?
I can understand that you have grown up in a moral world-view where "my god is the only true god and everyone else are sinners" background persisted. This informs your worldview so that you think your moral positions are what should be imposed on everybody with the force of law. Why else would you want to restrict other people's personal freedom (i.e. the most fundamental kind of freedom that can exist) based on your faith? You obviously can't know when life begins by any other means other than your faith. Why should that be the arbiter of truth for the unbeliever?
I blame this on the renaissance-era bifurcation of European philosophy caused by the secular philosophers. Christian Theology bifurcated and failed to benefit from the new thought processes and spirituality that the secular philosophers were bringing into play.
This dude makes a fantastic podcast about the history of philosophy of the entire world:
https://historyofphilosophy.net/
(He is missing China. I don't have a good reference for that. Maybe someone else would know.)
I'm just sampling through this from the vast number of episodes that he has posted there.
Since you seem to come from a position of sincerity, I am quite hopeful that your position of imposing your faith on others will go away if you are able to go through some other philosophical traditions with an open mind.
Theology -> spirituality is a fantastic journey, and it strips you of moral arrogance.
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 20, 2020, 02:44:13 PM
Do you use democracy to impose the majorities moral standard on the minority to the point where someone may effectively get a death sentence?Liability is a serious problem in medicine and there is no easy solution. The doctors in that case--from what I have read--were in a liable situation where they could not legally perform an abortion.
That is what happened here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar !!
(Thankfully, the Irish were sufficiently horrified about this such that they passed a constitutional amendment to fix this).
I'm pretty certain you probably wouldn't want the kind of democracy that legislates away the fundamental rights with zero regard for the moral standards held by the minority.
From the wiki,
"Peter Boylan, of the Irish Institute of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said: "The current situation is like a sword of Damocles hanging over us. If we do something with a good intention, but it turns out to be illegal, the consequences are extremely serious for medical practitioners."
I do agree that this was a failure of clear policy that lead to this woman's unnecessary death and suffering.
It should also be noted, however, that(again) the rights of the unborn are nonzero, and I would say that good-faith legislation led to this outcome. There are questions about the involvement of Catholic influence in that case, as well as more general failures of monitoring of the patient. I don't believe it was a simple case. Nothing surrounding the conception and carriage of new life will be simple. Perhaps this comes across as cold, but laws around this issue will be written, and they will likely be complied with, and I don't think we can simply discard that process simply because we are looking backward from a horrific outcome in a specific case. There is moral hazard on both sides.
Quote
I don't know when human life begins, but scientifically it would appear this occurs at conception, otherwise you open the door to relativistic arguments that are weak(if the unborn are not people because they don't have a heartbeat, then people will pacemakers can be aborted, same with iron-lungs, etc).But again, bodily autonomy is not so clear when a body contains another human within it.How do you know? Have you scientifically determined when human life begins?
Just a minute ago - you expressed that there is going to be no right answer. What changed in half a minute that you are again falling back into the Christian absolutist position?
Quote
What if I am a Buddhist who believes that the concept of "self" itself is an illusion https://historyofphilosophy.net/buddhism-gethin (https://historyofphilosophy.net/buddhism-gethin)? Or perhaps an ardent believer in Richard Dawkin's theories that the genes are the real beings and human body is just a vessel? Are these any less valid than your moral axioms?I think they are not practical since humans do not behave as if the human body is solely a vessel. We have a large collection of laws that acknowledge the sovereignty of individuals and human life, and it is not convincing to apply a morally relativistic argument solely when it suits your interests. I have a question for you: should a man be required by law to financially support a child he does not want after birth? If the human body is simply a vessel, this should be an easy "no". More generally, if a man is required to support a child/parent due to paternity, but a woman can acquire a pre-birth abortion in any case, then I would say this argument is not particularly functional because it lacks consistency. Again, we're back to Roe v. Wade.
Quote
Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. Imposition is unavoidable not because of the requirement of an absolutist position, but rather because a pragmatic solution needs to be instated which will never satisfy both parties in all cases. There is no winning/losing or win-win, there is only a lose-lose in this debate since:Again, sometimes impositions are unavoidable.Sure... But based on what? I am sure you must have a very high bar for any such involuntary imposition.Personally I believe.....What??? You mean to say imposition is unavoidable based on your personal belief??
It's not just a fast gotcha that I am pulling. Think about it.
You express the ambiguity of the situation in the first sentence. You are generally sincere. What happened after that to lead you to absolutist positions like "imposition is unavoidable" - especially in the context where autonomy of a almost disenfranchised minority is being discussed. Are you able to spot the inconsistency and fallacy in what you are implying in your post (more so than saying)?
1.the sovereignty of a woman and her body is paramount, and
2. the sovereignty of the unborn is paramount, and
3. abortion lands on the conflict between these two, and has to be addressed by general laws yet the application of the law occurs in the most intimate and specific sense.
So we have to write laws surrounding abortion, and that means hard lines will be drawn, and there will be exceptions on either side of that hard line that will not be ideal. I don't see how this can be resolved.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 20, 2020, 03:46:32 PM
Perhaps this comes across as cold, but laws around this issue will be written, and they will likely be complied with, and I don't think we can simply discard that process simply because we are looking backward from a horrific outcome in a specific case. There is moral hazard on both sides.
No, there isn't!!
When life begins is a matter of faith. No scientific evidence/deadline(s) exist.
Ownership of one's own body is NOT a matter of faith.
When you equate the two, you use your faith to override someone else's liberty. That is not a done thing anywhere outside theological states!! I definitely don't want to live in such a society.
I don't know when human life begins, but scientifically it would appear this occurs at conception, otherwise you open the door to relativistic arguments that are weak(if the unborn are not people because they don't have a heartbeat, then people will pacemakers can be aborted, same with iron-lungs, etc).
Again, this strengthens my point. You can not use your "faith" (i.e. something that is uncertain, that you have to say "it would appear") to override someone else's definite human right!!
A mother can, on the other hand, user *her* faith, to inform on what rights she would like to voluntarily choose to exercise.
1. The sovereignty of a woman and her body is paramount -> True.
2. The sovereignty of the unborn is paramount -> Not true. This is subservient to #1 since it can't be practically determined and is a matter of faith. Nobody gave you the *moral* right to legislate away the life of Savita Halappanavar based on *your* faith. I don't like living in a theocracy.
So we have to write laws surrounding abortion, and that means hard lines will be drawn, and there will be exceptions on either side of that hard line that will not be ideal. I don't see how this can be resolved.The legal answer should be simple. Stop asking for a theocracy and don't legislate on someone else's rights based on your "faith" (= something other than scientifically proven truth).
I have a question for you: should a man be required by law to financially support a child he does not want after birth? If the human body is simply a vessel, this should be an easy "no". More generally, if a man is required to support a child/parent due to paternity, but a woman can acquire a pre-birth abortion in any case, then I would say this argument is not particularly functional because it lacks consistency.Absolutely and resoundingly yes!!
Let's see - the only rights being "taken" from the man is those of his possession, his money. Who cares about "rights" concerning money when we are dealing with autonomy over one's own body? Money are just tokens of faith issued by some government. Benefits of child support are also extremely real and not a matter of uncertain "faith". I and everyone else I know support re-distributive policies every day, i.e. forcibly taking money away from one group for the benefit of the other. The conservatives in US do the same, just they want the flow in the other direction.
Why would you ever think these two situations are even comparable? Dude, you are equating someone's autonomy over her own body with that of some money in bank!! I find this extremely perplexing. Completely different standard's do and should apply. It's like equating the standards of legal proof required for a murder trial vs. a landlord-tenant dispute.
but a woman can acquire a pre-birth abortion in any case, then I would say this argument is not particularly functional because it lacks consistency. Again, we're back to Roe v. Wade.You probably did not intend it so, but it reads like a strawman. I have never heard anyone argue for a pre-birth abortion. As soon as the fetus *can* survive with medical assistance - it should.
I am intentionally staying off responding to your comment on relativistic philosophy since that will open another can of worms.
Post by: ysette9 on June 20, 2020, 04:11:16 PM
To run another analogy. You need an extra kidney. I could give you one. Without a donated kidney you would die. I would not die if I gave one but would undergo some period of pain and discomfort, recovery, and the risks associated with surgery. (very much like my c-sections.....) It doesn’t matter how badly you need that kidney or how dead you would be without it, you cannot force me to do anything to keep alive. You cannot even take organs from cadavers without consent even if it would improve your life/save you/whatever.
So again, if a fetus had rights and those rights end up superseding the bodily autonomy right of its host, then you are arguing that a woman has fewer rights than even a cadaver.
Back to the chicken thing, I’d love for anyone who wants to force a woman to continue a pregnancy to be told “ok, you think this is valuable? Then you sit on the egg/carry the pregnancy to term”.
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 20, 2020, 07:18:08 PM
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 20, 2020, 08:54:01 PM
Few people can see it unemotionally.
I am almost certain there would be utilitarian net gain if we mainly saw abortion as a positive thing, something to be encouraged any time a woman has any reluctance about carrying her child to term. If we encouraged it and paid mothers to have abortions we'd have better societal outcomes.
At the same time I also see abortion, or at least some of the later abortions, as killing a life form that is quickly approaching sentience.
I don't have any problem at all dealing with the conflict in the above - sometimes you just have to make tough calls. But it's impossible to state either of the above propositions in today's political discourse. Which I think is sad, and ridiculous.
Just pay women to get abortions and leave it at that. No mother is ever going to voluntarily get pregnant just to abort her child. But the financial support will be an incentive for some mothers who otherwise would be too scared to make the call.
Post by: ysette9 on June 20, 2020, 09:19:24 PM
Post by: Shane on June 20, 2020, 10:11:58 PM
Post by: bacchi on June 20, 2020, 11:03:44 PM
There are obviously some strong pro-life people out there that support birth control, like your friend, but they're never the ones to show up at school district meetings.
* Hobby Lobby was not only against Plan B but also against IUDs.
Post by: Shane on June 20, 2020, 11:32:26 PM
Post by: yakamashii on June 20, 2020, 11:55:20 PM
Until a couple of years ago, I always thought of myself as being pro-abortion. After some recent conversations with an adamantly anti-abortion friend, I thought about it and realized that, like my friend, I am also against killing babies. I mean, aside from Bloop Bloop, and I'm pretty sure he's not being totally serious, do any of us really think the world would be a better place if only we could get more women to have abortions? Of course not, right? My pro-life friend and I agreed on just about everything: that minimizing the number of abortions would be a good thing; that providing people with free birth control and education on how to use it would be a good way to help minimize the number of babies killed; the only thing we didn't agree on was whether or not it made sense to criminalize abortion for healthcare providers and/or patients. I argued that the criminalization of abortion would only penalize poor people and probably wouldn't really cut down the number of abortions much, if at all. My friend voted for Trump in 2016 and is planning on voting for him again in 2020, pretty much only because she's hoping he'll appoint enough anti-abortion judges to the SCOTUS, so that they can overturn Roe v Wade. Rather than endless philosophical debates over abortion, which don't really seem to accomplish much, why not just agree to disagree about some things and, then, work together to accomplish the things we can agree on to try to cut down the number of abortions? If those of us who consider ourselves to be pro-choice could bring ourselves to humbly approach pro-life friends and relatives and share with them the fact that, "You know what? I'm with you. Killing babies is a horrible thing. Let's work together to try to cut down the number of abortions in our city or county or state or country." Many of the anti-abortion people who are holding their noses and voting for Trump probably wouldn't do so if they didn't feel like he was their only chance to "save the babies."
Bloop Bloop's proposal would virtually eliminate unwanted children (which is often what unwanted pregnancies turn into). We could even give pregnant girls and women a stipend to use on an abortion or keep to help pay for their maternal and/or child care. Seems like a net benefit for society.
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 21, 2020, 12:21:31 AM
Sure, we'd also be better off if birth control and the morning after pill and contraception were readily available, free, and held no stigma. We could eliminate the need for abortions that way. But that's never going to happen due to people's squeamishness about sex and the limited discipline that many people have in using contraception.
Post by: Plina on June 21, 2020, 01:58:32 AM
Say that you are a 35 year old woman with a birth control failure that results in a pregnancy. You don’t want to have children so abortion is your only resonable option if it is not illegal in your country. In theory you could give up the child for adoption but I would guess the condemnation from society if you told that you don’t want to have the child would be pretty harsh so to pull it through you would need to dissappear during the pregnancy or move. Your choice to give the baby up for adoption would go against all societal expectations of women. Or you could have the child that you don’t want. It would take a pretty amazing person to do it without feeling resentment towards the kid during the next 19 years.
I think all woman should be able to choose for themselves but I also think it is important with sex education and availability of birth control. Here birth control is free up to 21 years old. I remember that we had open discussions among friends about different options 20 years ago when I was in high school.
Post by: Kyle Schuant on June 21, 2020, 03:33:33 AM
Associating only with those you agree with leads to being in a cult waiting for the end of the world coming at some precise date. Less extremely, it leads to political polarisation and jamming up the machinery of government as nobody will ever compromise with anyone because they are just so damned sure they're right.
In the army, one of the things we did was, if two guys couldn't get along on recruit course, they were put in adjacent bunks, and told, "Smith and Jones, you are now best mates - if you fuck up, Smith, then Jones will be punished, and vice versa - we suggest you work together and neither of you gets punished, but that's up to you." Interestingly, almost all of those pairings ended up being able to work productively together.
More people need an experience like that, it stops you being intellectually lazy and becoming stupid.
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 21, 2020, 04:08:02 AM
Now, looking at this otherwise irrelevant abortion discussion, consider: by engaging in discussions with people you disagree with, you have learned something - if only how to better argue for what you believe.
Associating only with those you agree with leads to being in a cult waiting for the end of the world coming at some precise date. Less extremely, it leads to political polarisation and jamming up the machinery of government as nobody will ever compromise with anyone because they are just so damned sure they're right.
In the army, one of the things we did was, if two guys couldn't get along on recruit course, they were put in adjacent bunks, and told, "Smith and Jones, you are now best mates - if you fuck up, Smith, then Jones will be punished, and vice versa - we suggest you work together and neither of you gets punished, but that's up to you." Interestingly, almost all of those pairings ended up being able to work productively together.
More people need an experience like that, it stops you being intellectually lazy and becoming stupid.
I agree with this and it's why I like these forums. For the most part, there is a healthy divergence of opinions.
It's also why I'm really leery of sub-forums like the Anti-Mustachian forum and other forums where group-think (about clown cars, riding bikes, blah blah blah) can readily go from a helpful sharing of ideas to a haven for proselytising.
When I was younger I used to attend political clubs and events and I couldn't understand why people kept on trying to find consensus and discuss commonalities. It's much better to discuss points of disagreement. You're not going to grow or learn by bonding with people who think exactly like you.
Post by: Kris on June 21, 2020, 06:18:37 AM
I think the debate get unnecessarily hung up on late term abortions when they are vanishingly rare. Women who don’t want to be pregnant and can get an abortion don’t hang around forever to get one if they have a choice. Pregnancy sucks, after all. The instances where there are late abortions are when there are grave medical issues that come up that mean that either survival isn’t likely or the quality of life would be so bad that the choice is made that the better thing to do is terminate.
Yes, that was by design. A deliberate misdirection by the right.
Post by: Kris on June 21, 2020, 06:22:41 AM
Until a couple of years ago, I always thought of myself as being pro-abortion. After some recent conversations with an adamantly anti-abortion friend, I thought about it and realized that, like my friend, I am also against killing babies. I mean, aside from Bloop Bloop, and I'm pretty sure he's not being totally serious, do any of us really think the world would be a better place if only we could get more women to have abortions? Of course not, right? My pro-life friend and I agreed on just about everything: that minimizing the number of abortions would be a good thing; that providing people with free birth control and education on how to use it would be a good way to help minimize the number of babies killed; the only thing we didn't agree on was whether or not it made sense to criminalize abortion for healthcare providers and/or patients. I argued that the criminalization of abortion would only penalize poor people and probably wouldn't really cut down the number of abortions much, if at all. My friend voted for Trump in 2016 and is planning on voting for him again in 2020, pretty much only because she's hoping he'll appoint enough anti-abortion judges to the SCOTUS, so that they can overturn Roe v Wade. Rather than endless philosophical debates over abortion, which don't really seem to accomplish much, why not just agree to disagree about some things and, then, work together to accomplish the things we can agree on to try to cut down the number of abortions? If those of us who consider ourselves to be pro-choice could bring ourselves to humbly approach pro-life friends and relatives and share with them the fact that, "You know what? I'm with you. Killing babies is a horrible thing. Let's work together to try to cut down the number of abortions in our city or county or state or country." Many of the anti-abortion people who are holding their noses and voting for Trump probably wouldn't do so if they didn't feel like he was their only chance to "save the babies."
It won’t work. It’s been tried. Remember “safe, legal, and rare”?
We’ve been cast as baby killers with no soul. It’s part of their identities to believe they are crusading for babies’ lives and protecting them against heartless murderers.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 21, 2020, 08:31:27 AM
I get it, you're clearly upset. And you're all over the place. At this point, no further progress will be made, so this time, there really truly is no point in continuing the conversation. I will, however, leave you with this.
You are extremely biased against religion. I'm not wanting to argue about this, because there is nothing to argue. I'm just pointing out an observation that I'm pretty sure anyone reading this can see.
It's like as soon as the word religion came up, you were like a train heading for one destination, regardless of anything else that would be brought up henceforth. How do I know this? Because your bias against religion has lead you to make assumptions throughout this argument. Assumptions that have been wrong.
You assumed I was a Catholic. You were wrong.
You assumed you knew more about Christianity than I knew. I have a masters degree in the topic. It's extremely unlikely that you know more about it than I do. You were wrong.
You assume you know more about the Constitution, how it was founded, what the amendments were intended to do in regards to religion, etc. I am not as confident in this as I don't have as much study as I do in the former, but from the way you're posting on it, I doubt this as well.
You assume you know exactly what I want to happen in regards to abortion from the perspective of the government. Given the general accusations you've made (you kind of lump me/politicians/general Christians/etc. together, so I'm going to do the same here), you're wrong.
Are you noticing a theme here? You are "fill in the blank whatever negative mindset you have" biased against religion. You have a person opening a dialogue with you, and your mindset is leading you to numerous assumptions about that person.......that are wrong. Ergo, no real dialogue can take place.
You can blame it on a short fuse/lack of patience/that you're just a stereotypical New Yorker that doesn't put up with BS or whatever it is that you want to use to excuse your poor behavior. It doesn't really matter. I mean, shoot, you've even pulled the "I have some people I really respect that are religious" card right in line with the "I have a black friend; I'm not racist" card, lol (caveat before I'm accused of something, no these are not comparable because I'm not being oppressed, it's just that the line of logic is the same). If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny.
You can go through your whole life looking down on people who come from a religious background or thinking their opinions are suspect or disregarding what people think about things because they don't look at them the same way you do. And I'll be clear here; I'm under no impression that this will make any difference to you whatsoever. I will only say that I was very much like you on the other end of things. I looked down on liberals/athiests/etc. I didn't really give their perspectives attention or decreased the merit of their thoughts because of where they were coming from. When they disagreed with me, the one fact that they were coming from a liberal perspective, for example, was all I needed to demean, at least in my mind, their beliefs and not even pay it a bit of attention. I didn't care because I knew - I just knew that they were liberals, so their ideas were this or that or the other and all they wanted to do was this or that, and I already knew that all of that was wrong. Why did I even need to listen? If they happened to agree with me perfectly enough to satisfy my strong opinions, then great, see that was proof I was open minded....except it wasn't because I wasn't. I wasn't listening to learn from them because I knew they were wrong. If I listened at all, it was to confirm opinions I already have (this all being kind of the point of topic of this whole thread). Fortunately I've grown out of that at least a little. I hope that one day, you can do the same. Have a good one.
Ok, now you are gas-lighting. Most probably from a position of sincerity - but still!!
Yes, I am very much aware of many foibles that I possess. I appreciate your constructive feedback, it'll keep my "daily time for reflection" occupied for some time.
Are you aware of the "philosophical arrogance" (possibly from a position of ignorance) that you are displaying here?
I can understand that you have grown up in a moral world-view where "my god is the only true god and everyone else are sinners" background persisted. This informs your worldview so that you think your moral positions are what should be imposed on everybody with the force of law. Why else would you want to restrict other people's personal freedom (i.e. the most fundamental kind of freedom that can exist) based on your faith? You obviously can't know when life begins by any other means other than your faith. Why should that be the arbiter of truth for the unbeliever?
I blame this on the renaissance-era bifurcation of European philosophy caused by the secular philosophers. Christian Theology bifurcated and failed to benefit from the new thought processes and spirituality that the secular philosophers were bringing into play.
This dude makes a fantastic podcast about the history of philosophy of the entire world:
https://historyofphilosophy.net/
(He is missing China. I don't have a good reference for that. Maybe someone else would know.)
I'm just sampling through this from the vast number of episodes that he has posted there.
Since you seem to come from a position of sincerity, I am quite hopeful that your position of imposing your faith on others will go away if you are able to go through some other philosophical traditions with an open mind.
Theology -> spirituality is a fantastic journey, and it strips you of moral arrogance.
I'm sure I am displaying some arrogance here. It's really hard to not come at anything with arrogance or ego. I can assure you that I am completely sincere in what I'm saying.
I am actually kind of glad that I've engaged somewhat on abortion somewhat here. it's been very informative. On the one hand, I've been pleased at the actual discussion that's taken place amongst most people. Good back and forth, and arguments that have helped me again to refine my point of view as I've seen the point of view of others. On the other side of things, your arguments have shown me why it's still best not to engage in these discussions. There's always at least one person that does what you're doing.
It's a common practice of someone to accuse someone of something like gaslighting or logical fallacies like straw manning or whatever just to deflect the issue. Sometimes it's true sometimes it isn't. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're doing it sincerely, but it really doesn't matter when I'm not trying to psych you out. I'm actually trying to get you to see something that you're refusing to see.
In this case, I'm not arguing with you on the abortion issue because you're proven to be inflexible. Note I say proven. It's beyond a doubt at this point.
You commented earlier something about religious people not being willing to change opinions or anything (something like that, I don't feel like going back to read it again). This was, yet another assumption you've made. And another one that you are wrong on. I've changed my opinion on dozens of issues from social safety nets to flag burning to taxation to issues I hold very strong opinions like gun control and abortion. These changes have ranged from total 180's to more changes of nuance, but I have changed my opinions on them. I'm no perfect person. I just know that I have grown and am willing to grow more.
I don't know you, but I do know that on this issue, you have proven yourself to be as completely inflexible as I've ever seen in any argument on this site. It's so inflexible not just because you're not willing to change your opinion - I've seen that plenty of times. It's because you're not willing to consider the other side has any well-reasoned thoughts on why you might be wrong. You can't see it, because you're too busy classifying any reasoning on the issue other than your own as religious so that you can then disregard them. You've already been called out by Bloop Bloop and commented by wrenchturner that there's no reason for arguing further. They've tried to show you there's another side, and you've totally disregarded them. These two people are coming from the same or similar philosophical background as you (as far as I can tell) either against banning abortions or atheist or both.
And yet you still plow right on. No one is defending your arguments. They might agree with your points, but no one is really defending how you're going about doing it. At some point, it behooves us to look around and say, wow, maybe the issue is actually with me. Further arguments with you in on this would be the intellectual equivalent of banging my head against a wall. I'm trying to get better about walking away when it gets to that point on stuff. Again, have a good one.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 21, 2020, 08:40:19 AM
Until a couple of years ago, I always thought of myself as being pro-abortion. After some recent conversations with an adamantly anti-abortion friend, I thought about it and realized that, like my friend, I am also against killing babies. I mean, aside from Bloop Bloop, and I'm pretty sure he's not being totally serious, do any of us really think the world would be a better place if only we could get more women to have abortions? Of course not, right? My pro-life friend and I agreed on just about everything: that minimizing the number of abortions would be a good thing; that providing people with free birth control and education on how to use it would be a good way to help minimize the number of babies killed; the only thing we didn't agree on was whether or not it made sense to criminalize abortion for healthcare providers and/or patients. I argued that the criminalization of abortion would only penalize poor people and probably wouldn't really cut down the number of abortions much, if at all. My friend voted for Trump in 2016 and is planning on voting for him again in 2020, pretty much only because she's hoping he'll appoint enough anti-abortion judges to the SCOTUS, so that they can overturn Roe v Wade. Rather than endless philosophical debates over abortion, which don't really seem to accomplish much, why not just agree to disagree about some things and, then, work together to accomplish the things we can agree on to try to cut down the number of abortions? If those of us who consider ourselves to be pro-choice could bring ourselves to humbly approach pro-life friends and relatives and share with them the fact that, "You know what? I'm with you. Killing babies is a horrible thing. Let's work together to try to cut down the number of abortions in our city or county or state or country." Many of the anti-abortion people who are holding their noses and voting for Trump probably wouldn't do so if they didn't feel like he was their only chance to "save the babies."
It won’t work. It’s been tried. Remember “safe, legal, and rare”?
We’ve been cast as baby killers with no soul. It’s part of their identities to believe they are crusading for babies’ lives and protecting them against heartless murderers.
If you're fair though, there's people on both sides that stereotype, denigrate, and demean the other. Case in point, ctuser.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 21, 2020, 08:52:58 AM
I'm sure I am displaying some arrogance here. It's really hard to not come at anything with arrogance or ego. I can assure you that I am completely sincere in what I'm saying.
I am actually kind of glad that I've engaged somewhat on abortion somewhat here. it's been very informative. On the one hand, I've been pleased at the actual discussion that's taken place amongst most people. Good back and forth, and arguments that have helped me again to refine my point of view as I've seen the point of view of others. On the other side of things, your arguments have shown me why it's still best not to engage in these discussions. There's always at least one person that does what you're doing.
It's a common practice of someone to accuse someone of something like gaslighting or logical fallacies like straw manning or whatever just to deflect the issue. Sometimes it's true sometimes it isn't. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're doing it sincerely, but it really doesn't matter when I'm not trying to psych you out. I'm actually trying to get you to see something that you're refusing to see.
In this case, I'm not arguing with you on the abortion issue because you're proven to be inflexible. Note I say proven. It's beyond a doubt at this point.
You commented earlier something about religious people not being willing to change opinions or anything (something like that, I don't feel like going back to read it again). This was, yet another assumption you've made. And another one that you are wrong on. I've changed my opinion on dozens of issues from social safety nets to flag burning to taxation to issues I hold very strong opinions like gun control and abortion. These changes have ranged from total 180's to more changes of nuance, but I have changed my opinions on them. I'm no perfect person. I just know that I have grown and am willing to grow more.
I don't know you, but I do know that on this issue, you have proven yourself to be as completely inflexible as I've ever seen in any argument on this site. It's so inflexible not just because you're not willing to change your opinion - I've seen that plenty of times. It's because you're not willing to consider the other side has any well-reasoned thoughts on why you might be wrong. You can't see it, because you're too busy classifying any reasoning on the issue other than your own as religious so that you can then disregard them. You've already been called out by Bloop Bloop and commented by wrenchturner that there's no reason for arguing further. They've tried to show you there's another side, and you've totally disregarded them. These two people are coming from the same or similar philosophical background as you (as far as I can tell) either against banning abortions or atheist or both.
And yet you still plow right on. No one is defending your arguments. They might agree with your points, but no one is really defending how you're going about doing it. At some point, it behooves us to look around and say, wow, maybe the issue is actually with me. Further arguments with you in on this would be the intellectual equivalent of banging my head against a wall. I'm trying to get better about walking away when it gets to that point on stuff. Again, have a good one.
There are only two sides:
One posits, with zero flexibility, that it somehow has the right to legislate over women's body based on unproven cultural/religious beliefs, irrespective of whether the woman in question shares those beliefs.
I point out that you have no such right.
I don't see *any* flexibility from you and many others on this topic - at least not on the core issue. That would be expected when you are brainwashed to view women as chattel. Are you?
Again, I don't post this with an aim to convince you. From what I have read from your posts, you most likely can not logically arrive at the conclusion that women's body is not your legislative playground. It is more to clarify the point of contention for the sake of the record, because you are thoroughly confusing the real issue that I have pointed out many time - intentionally or not.
Post by: Shane on June 21, 2020, 09:20:55 AM
Now, looking at this otherwise irrelevant abortion discussion, consider: by engaging in discussions with people you disagree with, you have learned something - if only how to better argue for what you believe.For these reasons, as well as others, I think mandatory military service for all Americans would be a good thing.
Associating only with those you agree with leads to being in a cult waiting for the end of the world coming at some precise date. Less extremely, it leads to political polarisation and jamming up the machinery of government as nobody will ever compromise with anyone because they are just so damned sure they're right.
In the army, one of the things we did was, if two guys couldn't get along on recruit course, they were put in adjacent bunks, and told, "Smith and Jones, you are now best mates - if you fuck up, Smith, then Jones will be punished, and vice versa - we suggest you work together and neither of you gets punished, but that's up to you." Interestingly, almost all of those pairings ended up being able to work productively together.
More people need an experience like that, it stops you being intellectually lazy and becoming stupid.
Post by: LWYRUP on June 21, 2020, 09:31:36 AM
Now, looking at this otherwise irrelevant abortion discussion, consider: by engaging in discussions with people you disagree with, you have learned something - if only how to better argue for what you believe.For these reasons, as well as others, I think mandatory military service for all Americans would be a good thing.
Associating only with those you agree with leads to being in a cult waiting for the end of the world coming at some precise date. Less extremely, it leads to political polarisation and jamming up the machinery of government as nobody will ever compromise with anyone because they are just so damned sure they're right.
In the army, one of the things we did was, if two guys couldn't get along on recruit course, they were put in adjacent bunks, and told, "Smith and Jones, you are now best mates - if you fuck up, Smith, then Jones will be punished, and vice versa - we suggest you work together and neither of you gets punished, but that's up to you." Interestingly, almost all of those pairings ended up being able to work productively together.
More people need an experience like that, it stops you being intellectually lazy and becoming stupid.
Mandatory service, perhaps. Mandatory military service, no. I fail to see how marching around with a gun for a year would have made me a better person.
Post by: Shane on June 21, 2020, 09:34:47 AM
As I said in my comment, some people aren't worth worrying about, but there are others who are open to reason, and I think it's worthwhile to engage with those people. I don't know that there has been a concerted effort to make birth control freely available to Americans. As we drove and camped our way across the US last summer, I noticed that in some Walmarts where we stopped for supplies, condoms were locked up in glass cases. When I looked at the prices they were charging for them, I realized why. Desperate people who can't afford condoms are willing to risk going to jail to steal them. A rich person like Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer or Bill Gates could afford to just bypass the normal political obstacles to providing free birth control to everyone, and just do it. Maybe we could even get some anti-abortion billionaire to fund free condoms for all. Seems like it couldn't hurt to try.Until a couple of years ago, I always thought of myself as being pro-abortion. After some recent conversations with an adamantly anti-abortion friend, I thought about it and realized that, like my friend, I am also against killing babies. I mean, aside from Bloop Bloop, and I'm pretty sure he's not being totally serious, do any of us really think the world would be a better place if only we could get more women to have abortions? Of course not, right? My pro-life friend and I agreed on just about everything: that minimizing the number of abortions would be a good thing; that providing people with free birth control and education on how to use it would be a good way to help minimize the number of babies killed; the only thing we didn't agree on was whether or not it made sense to criminalize abortion for healthcare providers and/or patients. I argued that the criminalization of abortion would only penalize poor people and probably wouldn't really cut down the number of abortions much, if at all. My friend voted for Trump in 2016 and is planning on voting for him again in 2020, pretty much only because she's hoping he'll appoint enough anti-abortion judges to the SCOTUS, so that they can overturn Roe v Wade. Rather than endless philosophical debates over abortion, which don't really seem to accomplish much, why not just agree to disagree about some things and, then, work together to accomplish the things we can agree on to try to cut down the number of abortions? If those of us who consider ourselves to be pro-choice could bring ourselves to humbly approach pro-life friends and relatives and share with them the fact that, "You know what? I'm with you. Killing babies is a horrible thing. Let's work together to try to cut down the number of abortions in our city or county or state or country." Many of the anti-abortion people who are holding their noses and voting for Trump probably wouldn't do so if they didn't feel like he was their only chance to "save the babies."
It won’t work. It’s been tried. Remember “safe, legal, and rare”?
We’ve been cast as baby killers with no soul. It’s part of their identities to believe they are crusading for babies’ lives and protecting them against heartless murderers.
If you're fair though, there's people on both sides that stereotype, denigrate, and demean the other. Case in point, ctuser.
Post by: Shane on June 21, 2020, 09:41:38 AM
Offering two tracks - military and civilian service - would defeat the purpose, because Americans would divide themselves up roughly along the current lines in the culture war. Every one of us has a responsibility to defend our country. Learning how to safely use guns would be a good thing for all Americans. Although everyone learns how to use guns in basic training, not all of them are "marching around with a gun," everyday. Many are cooks or software engineers or work in a warehouse. If Americans of all stripes were required to work together for a common goal (defense of our country), I think we would all be better off.Now, looking at this otherwise irrelevant abortion discussion, consider: by engaging in discussions with people you disagree with, you have learned something - if only how to better argue for what you believe.For these reasons, as well as others, I think mandatory military service for all Americans would be a good thing.
Associating only with those you agree with leads to being in a cult waiting for the end of the world coming at some precise date. Less extremely, it leads to political polarisation and jamming up the machinery of government as nobody will ever compromise with anyone because they are just so damned sure they're right.
In the army, one of the things we did was, if two guys couldn't get along on recruit course, they were put in adjacent bunks, and told, "Smith and Jones, you are now best mates - if you fuck up, Smith, then Jones will be punished, and vice versa - we suggest you work together and neither of you gets punished, but that's up to you." Interestingly, almost all of those pairings ended up being able to work productively together.
More people need an experience like that, it stops you being intellectually lazy and becoming stupid.
Mandatory service, perhaps. Mandatory military service, no. I fail to see how marching around with a gun for a year would have made me a better person.
Post by: partgypsy on June 21, 2020, 09:46:11 AM
Post by: ysette9 on June 21, 2020, 12:18:56 PM
I am late coming onto the scene. For the original question I would say "it depends". I might disagree with someone about various poltical issues (how much taxation is fair, how much military do we need etc) and if it was a matter of degree, but not absolutes and they defended their reasoning, I would be OK with it. On other matters (which has been recently discussed, abortion) as well as whether climate change is real or not, I find those people very inflexible. In part because their belief stems from dogma or religious beliefs, which I don't feel has a place in what rights people should have in this society, where we have freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. In those cases I have found it is nonproductive to engage those people because they aren't going to listen to what I have to say, either. I feel my opinion of abortion is hard-won. I was born a female, had to deal with all the stuff females have to, have had periods for x decades, have had near misses, know people who have had abortions (none whom regretted it) have known people who decided to keep the pregnancy and either give up for adoption or keep. It's not pro abortion. It is pro-CHOICE. That the choice to keep or terminate the pregnancy is the person who is bearing the pregnancy. If you strip away that right to a choice, or the right to birth control from a woman, you are OK with half the population being a 2nd class citizen, having less rights over her own body and bodily integrity than the other half (talk about interference of the government in one's personal life!). There is no way around our view of the world being incompatible. I also have a strong emotional feeling about it, because people who are anti-choice often are the same people who are trying to push planned parenthood and other women's health clinics out of business or out of their states. These clinics don't just provide abortions. They also provide gynecological healthcare services to low income women and yes, birth control. So the same people who say they are pro "babies", are by their actions when a low income woman gets pregnant, increases the danger and decreases the health and positive outcomes of the woman and the fetus during pregnancy. Which I find horrible and hypocritical.So much this. I try not to engage or even think about this too much in my privileged bubble because it ENRAGES me to think of someone trying to deny me my fundamental human right to bodily autonomy. I don’t have words to express how awful that concept is.
On a personal note, in the second trimester of my first pregnancy I got a call saying that my 2nd tri blood screen came up positive for some rare and debilitating genetic disorder. We were whisked into a genetic counselor’s office to learn what this was about and what steps we needed to take next to confirm or rule out the diagnosis. They were very calm, informative, and supportive, but there was an underlying urgency. You have to collect data and make shockingly difficult and long-lasting decisions of profound importance quickly because the clock is ticking and you have to make these choices by X date or you are out of luck. Thank gods we lived in a state where that choice was on the table.
In our case it was “easier” in that the fetus had already died in utero and that led to a false genetic disorder test result. So next choice was what to do medically. Again, thankfully I lived in a good state that gave me options of inducing in a normal L&D ward (horrifying for me personally) or surgery (“therapeutic abortion”). This was a dark and unspeakably difficult time and the only solace I had was that I had full CHOICE over my own medical care. You would be horrified by the stories on this very forum of the bullshit women have to go through in other states that restrict access to mastic medical care. Traveling out of state and paying out of pocket for abortions to end non-viable fetuses, choosing not to risk future bad experiences by not having a wanted additional child due to living in a shitty state, etc.
I am appreciative of the fact that it is a tough subject and there is nuance. I am not insensitive to the arguments of the other side. When I took a philosophy class the type of moral system that most resonated with me was something along the lines of “that which is right is that which brings the most good to the most people”. Clearly it is not always easy to figure out what the best good for the most people is, but in this case to me it is very clear. The unintended consequences of restricting access to birth control and choice are vast and vicious. There is a reason why pretty much all other rich countries in the world aren’t arguing about that anymore and the US is one of the few holdouts in the archaic culture wars: everyone has figured out that society is better for everyone when women are first class citizens will full human rights. Period.
Post by: bacchi on June 21, 2020, 01:10:26 PM
Yes, for sure there are some anti-abortion people who are also anti birth control and anti sex education but, as far as I'm concerned, people like that a lost cause. Some anti-abortion people, though, are more reasonable, like my friend. If Democrats worked harder to help those rational, reasonable anti-abortion people feel like there was an alternative to holding their noses and voting for Trump, some of them might agree to work with us. A highly educated, Left-leaning friend told me recently that, "Anti-abortion people are terrorists. They blow up abortion clinics." It's attitudes like her's that drive otherwise reasonable people into the arms of Trump.
So...these reasonable anti-abortion people can't work with Democrats on increased access to birth control and sex education because some liberal, somewhere on social media, doesn't like them? And that drives them to vote for Trump? That's some weak sauce that won't even win an honorable mention at the county fair.
Quote from: https://www.revrobschenck.com/blog/2020/2/17/why-i-will-not-vote-for-donald-trump
I’ve decided to work for Trump’s defeat in November.
That’s not easy for me to type. I have several friends who work for Mr. Trump. I have many more who support him. I voted only Republican for 40 years. In myriad ways it seems Trump is fulfilling all the social and political dreams I harbored for more than 35 years.
But I just can’t vote for him because doing so would be to vote for only my tribe’s triumph while it would be a vote against the wellbeing of too many others.
Many friends are now grinding their teeth, seething with anger, and will no doubt unfriend me everywhere they can. Most won’t go, though, until they’ve posted something—possibly vitriolic—on one of my social media pages.
(The "friends" in the last sentence ^^ are not liberals, if you don't know who Bob Schenck is.)
Post by: Kyle Schuant on June 21, 2020, 06:24:23 PM
It's much better to discuss points of disagreement.Well, you are a lawyer after all :p
But obviously I agree with you there. I was reading elsewhere about the the religious right in the US about 1980-2000 or so, where every disagreement was greeted with "why do you hate America?" and "don't you support the troops?" or even "why do you hate Jesus?", and how they had a list of books you couldn't read, and so on. And now that's the left in the US.
Our version in Australia is somewhat watered down from that distilled manichaeism, but we still get it here a bit. "Why do you hate women and aboriginals?", books and films being "cancelled", and so on. And of course, people fervently blocking one another on social media.
It's seems that some amount of psychological and ideological fragility is inherent in Western culture, the only question is whether it's left, right, or whatever. Odd, really.
Post by: Abe on June 21, 2020, 08:16:18 PM
It's much better to discuss points of disagreement.Well, you are a lawyer after all :p
But obviously I agree with you there. I was reading elsewhere about the the religious right in the US about 1980-2000 or so, where every disagreement was greeted with "why do you hate America?" and "don't you support the troops?" or even "why do you hate Jesus?", and how they had a list of books you couldn't read, and so on. And now that's the left in the US.
Our version in Australia is somewhat watered down from that distilled manichaeism, but we still get it here a bit. "Why do you hate women and aboriginals?", books and films being "cancelled", and so on. And of course, people fervently blocking one another on social media.
It's seems that some amount of psychological and ideological fragility is inherent in Western culture, the only question is whether it's left, right, or whatever. Odd, really.
I think that’s both sides over here now. It was such an effective tactic for the right that now the far left has adopted it. We’re just great. I’m ok with disagreements on economics and social liberties, but a lot of that has been steeped in identity politics by both sides to avoid constructive discussion.
Post by: Buffaloski Boris on June 21, 2020, 08:43:34 PM
It's much better to discuss points of disagreement.Well, you are a lawyer after all :p
But obviously I agree with you there. I was reading elsewhere about the the religious right in the US about 1980-2000 or so, where every disagreement was greeted with "why do you hate America?" and "don't you support the troops?" or even "why do you hate Jesus?", and how they had a list of books you couldn't read, and so on. And now that's the left in the US.
Our version in Australia is somewhat watered down from that distilled manichaeism, but we still get it here a bit. "Why do you hate women and aboriginals?", books and films being "cancelled", and so on. And of course, people fervently blocking one another on social media.
It's seems that some amount of psychological and ideological fragility is inherent in Western culture, the only question is whether it's left, right, or whatever. Odd, really.
It’s not that odd if you look it as history rhyming. We saw the rise of neo-McCarthyism on the right. And right on cue, here’s the rise of neo-Stalinism on the left.
Post by: Kris on June 21, 2020, 08:50:25 PM
It's much better to discuss points of disagreement.Well, you are a lawyer after all :p
But obviously I agree with you there. I was reading elsewhere about the the religious right in the US about 1980-2000 or so, where every disagreement was greeted with "why do you hate America?" and "don't you support the troops?" or even "why do you hate Jesus?", and how they had a list of books you couldn't read, and so on. And now that's the left in the US.
Our version in Australia is somewhat watered down from that distilled manichaeism, but we still get it here a bit. "Why do you hate women and aboriginals?", books and films being "cancelled", and so on. And of course, people fervently blocking one another on social media.
It's seems that some amount of psychological and ideological fragility is inherent in Western culture, the only question is whether it's left, right, or whatever. Odd, really.
It’s not that odd if you look it as history rhyming. We saw the rise of neo-McCarthyism on the right. And right on cue, here’s the rise of neo-Stalinism on the left.
Neo-Stalinism is...
Transgender rights and Black Lives Matter?
...
Am I missing something?
Or is Neo-Stalinism pulling down confederate statues?
Not quite sure.
Post by: Buffaloski Boris on June 21, 2020, 09:03:05 PM
It's much better to discuss points of disagreement.Well, you are a lawyer after all :p
But obviously I agree with you there. I was reading elsewhere about the the religious right in the US about 1980-2000 or so, where every disagreement was greeted with "why do you hate America?" and "don't you support the troops?" or even "why do you hate Jesus?", and how they had a list of books you couldn't read, and so on. And now that's the left in the US.
Our version in Australia is somewhat watered down from that distilled manichaeism, but we still get it here a bit. "Why do you hate women and aboriginals?", books and films being "cancelled", and so on. And of course, people fervently blocking one another on social media.
It's seems that some amount of psychological and ideological fragility is inherent in Western culture, the only question is whether it's left, right, or whatever. Odd, really.
I think that’s both sides over here now. It was such an effective tactic for the right that now the far left has adopted it. We’re just great. I’m ok with disagreements on economics and social liberties, but a lot of that has been steeped in identity politics by both sides to avoid constructive discussion.
Constructive discussion isn’t the objective. Power is. If viewed through that lens, having a never-ending screaming match that is very light on actual dialogue makes some sense. It serves to keep the existing pecking order in place.
If the heat is on other people, it isn’t on you.
Post by: partgypsy on June 21, 2020, 09:05:47 PM
Post by: Kris on June 22, 2020, 06:21:59 AM
One YouTuber whom was shared with me recently is good at popping balloons on the right AND left side. Look up contrapoints.
I really like Contrapoints. I haven’t watched them all because I generally prefer reading to watching videos. But they’re excellent.
Post by: Shane on June 22, 2020, 09:11:01 AM
I've also enjoyed a couple of Contrapoints' videos. One thing I've struggled with when recommending Contrapoints to friends is which gender pronouns to use when talking about them. I understand the reasoning but still find it really fucking awkward to use plural pronouns to refer to one person.One YouTuber whom was shared with me recently is good at popping balloons on the right AND left side. Look up contrapoints.
I really like Contrapoints. I haven’t watched them all because I generally prefer reading to watching videos. But they’re excellent.
Post by: Kris on June 22, 2020, 09:22:48 AM
I've also enjoyed a couple of Contrapoints' videos. One thing I've struggled with when recommending Contrapoints to friends is which gender pronouns to use when talking about them. I understand the reasoning but still find it really fucking awkward to use plural pronouns to refer to one person.One YouTuber whom was shared with me recently is good at popping balloons on the right AND left side. Look up contrapoints.
I really like Contrapoints. I haven’t watched them all because I generally prefer reading to watching videos. But they’re excellent.
I believe she uses she, does she not?
Post by: Shane on June 22, 2020, 09:34:54 AM
I've also enjoyed a couple of Contrapoints' videos. One thing I've struggled with when recommending Contrapoints to friends is which gender pronouns to use when talking about them. I understand the reasoning but still find it really fucking awkward to use plural pronouns to refer to one person.One YouTuber whom was shared with me recently is good at popping balloons on the right AND left side. Look up contrapoints.
I really like Contrapoints. I haven’t watched them all because I generally prefer reading to watching videos. But they’re excellent.
I believe she uses she, does she not?
Not sure. I've used she/her to refer to Contrapoints in the past, but wasn't sure if that was right. Re-reading your comment above, I think I misread it the first time. Your use of they was referring to videos, not the person.
Post by: Kris on June 22, 2020, 10:01:59 AM
I've also enjoyed a couple of Contrapoints' videos. One thing I've struggled with when recommending Contrapoints to friends is which gender pronouns to use when talking about them. I understand the reasoning but still find it really fucking awkward to use plural pronouns to refer to one person.One YouTuber whom was shared with me recently is good at popping balloons on the right AND left side. Look up contrapoints.
I really like Contrapoints. I haven’t watched them all because I generally prefer reading to watching videos. But they’re excellent.
I believe she uses she, does she not?
Not sure. I've used she/her to refer to Contrapoints in the past, but wasn't sure if that was right. Re-reading your comment above, I think I misread it the first time. Your use of they was referring to videos, not the person.
Yes, exactly. I'm pretty sure (like 99%) that she uses she/her pronouns.
Post by: sherr on June 22, 2020, 10:23:29 AM
One thing I've struggled with when recommending Contrapoints to friends is which gender pronouns to use when talking about them. I understand the reasoning but still find it really fucking awkward to use plural pronouns to refer to one person.
A side note, but I just wanted to point out that using they/them to refer to singular people has been standard English since forever, it's merely normally used when referring to a singular non-concrete person whose gender is not necessarily known in the context. "Whoever the next Secretary of Energy is, I hope they do something about our degrading nuclear weapon stockpile." "The CEO of Disney exercised their stock options last night and made forty trillion dollars."
The only thing that's different with using they/them as pronouns is that you didn't used to do it when looking at someone's face, only when talking about them in abstract. But that's not that much of a stretch, IMO.
Post by: bacchi on June 22, 2020, 11:57:45 AM
One thing I've struggled with when recommending Contrapoints to friends is which gender pronouns to use when talking about them. I understand the reasoning but still find it really fucking awkward to use plural pronouns to refer to one person.
A side note, but I just wanted to point out that using they/them to refer to singular people has been standard English since forever, it's merely normally used when referring to a singular non-concrete person whose gender is not necessarily known in the context. "Whoever the next Secretary of Energy is, I hope they do something about our degrading nuclear weapon stockpile." "The CEO of Disney exercised their stock options last night and made forty trillion dollars."
The only thing that's different with using they/them as pronouns is that you didn't used to do it when looking at someone's face, only when talking about them in abstract. But that's not that much of a stretch, IMO.
While true, it is awkward to discuss someone that uses a "they/them" as singular. It's changing years of patterns.
For example, my duplex tenants were she/her and they/them. If a friend dropped by and saw me in the yard, they'd ask about...them. "They went to the store real quick. They'll be right back." Did I mean one person or both of them? I'd correct myself, "Both of them went to the store," but there's initial uncertainty.
Like latinx for latino/latina, the US language need gender neutral pronouns.
Post by: sherr on June 22, 2020, 12:05:00 PM
One thing I've struggled with when recommending Contrapoints to friends is which gender pronouns to use when talking about them. I understand the reasoning but still find it really fucking awkward to use plural pronouns to refer to one person.
A side note, but I just wanted to point out that using they/them to refer to singular people has been standard English since forever, it's merely normally used when referring to a singular non-concrete person whose gender is not necessarily known in the context. "Whoever the next Secretary of Energy is, I hope they do something about our degrading nuclear weapon stockpile." "The CEO of Disney exercised their stock options last night and made forty trillion dollars."
The only thing that's different with using they/them as pronouns is that you didn't used to do it when looking at someone's face, only when talking about them in abstract. But that's not that much of a stretch, IMO.
While true, it is awkward to discuss someone that uses a "they/them" as singular. It's changing years of patterns.
For example, my duplex tenants were she/her and they/them. If a friend dropped by and saw me in the yard, they'd ask about...them. "They went to the store real quick. They'll be right back." Did I mean one person or both of them? I'd correct myself, "Both of them went to the store," but there's initial uncertainty.
Like latinx for latino/latina, the US language need gender neutral pronouns.
Right, that is exactly why people are starting to use they/them that way, because it's needed. Sure, any transition period for any possible solution is going to be awkward. That doesn't mean this isn't the best proposed solution to a real problem. Would dedicated made-up words be better?
Post by: bacchi on June 22, 2020, 12:15:32 PM
Like latinx for latino/latina, the US language need gender neutral pronouns.
Right, that is exactly why people are starting to use they/them that way, because it's needed. Sure, any transition period for any possible solution is going to be awkward. That doesn't mean this isn't the best proposed solution to a real problem. Would dedicated made-up words be better?
Yes, of course. Using the same word for plural and singular is silly and inefficient. Why create another problem when we're trying to get rid of one?
It's not a matter of letting others know that you're non-binary. If you declare yourself to be they/them, it's already a statement of what you believe/who you are to some extent. It could just as easily be Ze/zir instead of taking over a plural pronoun already in use and understood by 1 billion english speakers.
Post by: sherr on June 22, 2020, 12:23:06 PM
Like latinx for latino/latina, the US language need gender neutral pronouns.
Right, that is exactly why people are starting to use they/them that way, because it's needed. Sure, any transition period for any possible solution is going to be awkward. That doesn't mean this isn't the best proposed solution to a real problem. Would dedicated made-up words be better?
Yes, of course. Using the same word for plural and singular is silly and inefficient. Why create another problem when we're trying to get rid of one?
It's not a matter of letting others know that you're non-binary. If you declare yourself to be they/them, it's already a statement of what you believe/who you are to some extent. It could just as easily be Ze/zir instead of taking over a plural pronoun already in use and understood by 1 billion english speakers.
Okay, I guess this is a good agree-to-disagree moment. There is 0% chance that ze/zir would ever become commonly used, for starters because there's no way to come to a consensus about which made-up word should be used. A solution that is implemented is by definition better than a solution that cannot be implemented. And they aren't just plural pronouns, they are already "plural, or singular given an unknown gender" pronouns. So the only change is extending the concept of "singular w/ unknown gender" a bit. Which sure, requires an awkward transition period, but will actually work.
Edit to say: English is not and never has been a perfectly-precise language. Neither is any other natural language. Nor is it static, the meanings of words have always changed over time. I see nothing special or unique about this situation to justify the overall levels of consternation about it.
Post by: ericrugiero on June 22, 2020, 12:50:00 PM
I am late coming onto the scene. For the original question I would say "it depends". I might disagree with someone about various poltical issues (how much taxation is fair, how much military do we need etc) and if it was a matter of degree, but not absolutes and they defended their reasoning, I would be OK with it. On other matters (which has been recently discussed, abortion) as well as whether climate change is real or not, I find those people very inflexible. In part because their belief stems from dogma or religious beliefs, which I don't feel has a place in what rights people should have in this society, where we have freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. In those cases I have found it is nonproductive to engage those people because they aren't going to listen to what I have to say, either. I feel my opinion of abortion is hard-won. I was born a female, had to deal with all the stuff females have to, have had periods for x decades, have had near misses, know people who have had abortions (none whom regretted it) have known people who decided to keep the pregnancy and either give up for adoption or keep. It's not pro abortion. It is pro-CHOICE. That the choice to keep or terminate the pregnancy is the person who is bearing the pregnancy. If you strip away that right to a choice, or the right to birth control from a woman, you are OK with half the population being a 2nd class citizen, having less rights over her own body and bodily integrity than the other half (talk about interference of the government in one's personal life!). There is no way around our view of the world being incompatible. I also have a strong emotional feeling about it, because people who are anti-choice often are the same people who are trying to push planned parenthood and other women's health clinics out of business or out of their states. These clinics don't just provide abortions. They also provide gynecological healthcare services to low income women and yes, birth control. So the same people who say they are pro "babies", are by their actions when a low income woman gets pregnant, increases the danger and decreases the health and positive outcomes of the woman and the fetus during pregnancy. Which I find horrible and hypocritical.
I think that I can be friends with anyone who is willing to discuss things reasonably. We don't have to agree, but we should each be able to defend our beliefs logically and to be respectful of the other person. I would not want to be a CLOSE friend with someone who's beliefs I have moral problem with (such as an outspoken racist) but I could still be friends with most of them. (They might not want to be friends with me after I challenge the racism a few times)
There are some beliefs that are a challenge because there really isn't much (if any) middle ground. On abortion, you either want to restrict the rights of women to do what they want with their bodies OR you think it's OK to kill babies. There really isn't a middle ground. The best we can do is try to understand that the other side DOES have logical reasons for their beliefs IF you start with their initial belief. For example: Pro-Choice people typically either believe that before delivery it's a fetus and therefore not murder or they believe killing a baby is OK for the greater good. Pro-Life people believe that an unborn baby is a human being and is worth as much as you or me. PartGypsy and I disagree on this particular discussion. But, I would still be willing to discuss, be civil and probably be friends if we were to ever meet. It's very unlikely that either of us would change our minds but it is helpful to understand the logic and empathy of the other person.
PartGypsy did an excellent job of laying out her reasons for being pro-choice above. She points out some very real challenges that sometimes those of us on the pro-life side don't do a good enough job recognizing and helping with. I would like to point out that not all pro-life people are hypocrites. Most of the pro-life people I know are very sympathetic to the challenges of pregnant women and many donate their time and/or money to organizations that help them. They also DO NOT see women as 2nd class citizens. They just can't get on board with what they see as killing an innocent human being. Because planned parenthood supports abortion as well as some beneficial things, most pro-life people will not support them. They would be very willing to support other organizations that provide many of the same services.
Post by: bacchi on June 22, 2020, 12:56:49 PM
Edit to say: English is not and never has been a perfectly-precise language. Neither is any other natural language. Nor is it static, the meanings of words have always changed over time. I see nothing special or unique about this situation to justify the overall levels of consternation about it.
One can similarly say the same about creating a new word. :)
There's nothing sacred about using a currently existing word. It's all a matter of which word people decide to use and which word becomes popular.
It's not unheard of, after all, because latinx activists popularized their new gender neutral word. The term "nonbinary" is fairly new, too. It came from a different field -- computer science -- but we know when we're talking about computer chips or people.
Post by: Kris on June 22, 2020, 01:08:47 PM
I am late coming onto the scene. For the original question I would say "it depends". I might disagree with someone about various poltical issues (how much taxation is fair, how much military do we need etc) and if it was a matter of degree, but not absolutes and they defended their reasoning, I would be OK with it. On other matters (which has been recently discussed, abortion) as well as whether climate change is real or not, I find those people very inflexible. In part because their belief stems from dogma or religious beliefs, which I don't feel has a place in what rights people should have in this society, where we have freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. In those cases I have found it is nonproductive to engage those people because they aren't going to listen to what I have to say, either. I feel my opinion of abortion is hard-won. I was born a female, had to deal with all the stuff females have to, have had periods for x decades, have had near misses, know people who have had abortions (none whom regretted it) have known people who decided to keep the pregnancy and either give up for adoption or keep. It's not pro abortion. It is pro-CHOICE. That the choice to keep or terminate the pregnancy is the person who is bearing the pregnancy. If you strip away that right to a choice, or the right to birth control from a woman, you are OK with half the population being a 2nd class citizen, having less rights over her own body and bodily integrity than the other half (talk about interference of the government in one's personal life!). There is no way around our view of the world being incompatible. I also have a strong emotional feeling about it, because people who are anti-choice often are the same people who are trying to push planned parenthood and other women's health clinics out of business or out of their states. These clinics don't just provide abortions. They also provide gynecological healthcare services to low income women and yes, birth control. So the same people who say they are pro "babies", are by their actions when a low income woman gets pregnant, increases the danger and decreases the health and positive outcomes of the woman and the fetus during pregnancy. Which I find horrible and hypocritical.
I think that I can be friends with anyone who is willing to discuss things reasonably. We don't have to agree, but we should each be able to defend our beliefs logically and to be respectful of the other person. I would not want to be a CLOSE friend with someone who's beliefs I have moral problem with (such as an outspoken racist) but I could still be friends with most of them. (They might not want to be friends with me after I challenge the racism a few times)
There are some beliefs that are a challenge because there really isn't much (if any) middle ground. On abortion, you either want to restrict the rights of women to do what they want with their bodies OR you think it's OK to kill babies. There really isn't a middle ground. The best we can do is try to understand that the other side DOES have logical reasons for their beliefs IF you start with their initial belief. For example: Pro-Choice people typically either believe that before delivery it's a fetus and therefore not murder or they believe killing a baby is OK for the greater good. Pro-Life people believe that an unborn baby is a human being and is worth as much as you or me. PartGypsy and I disagree on this particular discussion. But, I would still be willing to discuss, be civil and probably be friends if we were to ever meet. It's very unlikely that either of us would change our minds but it is helpful to understand the logic and empathy of the other person.
PartGypsy did an excellent job of laying out her reasons for being pro-choice above. She points out some very real challenges that sometimes those of us on the pro-life side don't do a good enough job recognizing and helping with. I would like to point out that not all pro-life people are hypocrites. Most of the pro-life people I know are very sympathetic to the challenges of pregnant women and many donate their time and/or money to organizations that help them. They also DO NOT see women as 2nd class citizens. They just can't get on board with what they see as killing an innocent human being. Because planned parenthood supports abortion as well as some beneficial things, most pro-life people will not support them. They would be very willing to support other organizations that provide many of the same services.
Sorry, I just have to point out your very erroneous description of what pro-choice people believe. It’s almost comically offensive.
Post by: sui generis on June 22, 2020, 01:21:12 PM
I am late coming onto the scene. For the original question I would say "it depends". I might disagree with someone about various poltical issues (how much taxation is fair, how much military do we need etc) and if it was a matter of degree, but not absolutes and they defended their reasoning, I would be OK with it. On other matters (which has been recently discussed, abortion) as well as whether climate change is real or not, I find those people very inflexible. In part because their belief stems from dogma or religious beliefs, which I don't feel has a place in what rights people should have in this society, where we have freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. In those cases I have found it is nonproductive to engage those people because they aren't going to listen to what I have to say, either. I feel my opinion of abortion is hard-won. I was born a female, had to deal with all the stuff females have to, have had periods for x decades, have had near misses, know people who have had abortions (none whom regretted it) have known people who decided to keep the pregnancy and either give up for adoption or keep. It's not pro abortion. It is pro-CHOICE. That the choice to keep or terminate the pregnancy is the person who is bearing the pregnancy. If you strip away that right to a choice, or the right to birth control from a woman, you are OK with half the population being a 2nd class citizen, having less rights over her own body and bodily integrity than the other half (talk about interference of the government in one's personal life!). There is no way around our view of the world being incompatible. I also have a strong emotional feeling about it, because people who are anti-choice often are the same people who are trying to push planned parenthood and other women's health clinics out of business or out of their states. These clinics don't just provide abortions. They also provide gynecological healthcare services to low income women and yes, birth control. So the same people who say they are pro "babies", are by their actions when a low income woman gets pregnant, increases the danger and decreases the health and positive outcomes of the woman and the fetus during pregnancy. Which I find horrible and hypocritical.
I think that I can be friends with anyone who is willing to discuss things reasonably. We don't have to agree, but we should each be able to defend our beliefs logically and to be respectful of the other person. I would not want to be a CLOSE friend with someone who's beliefs I have moral problem with (such as an outspoken racist) but I could still be friends with most of them. (They might not want to be friends with me after I challenge the racism a few times)
There are some beliefs that are a challenge because there really isn't much (if any) middle ground. On abortion, you either want to restrict the rights of women to do what they want with their bodies OR you think it's OK to kill babies. There really isn't a middle ground. The best we can do is try to understand that the other side DOES have logical reasons for their beliefs IF you start with their initial belief. For example: Pro-Choice people typically either believe that before delivery it's a fetus and therefore not murder or they believe killing a baby is OK for the greater good. Pro-Life people believe that an unborn baby is a human being and is worth as much as you or me. PartGypsy and I disagree on this particular discussion. But, I would still be willing to discuss, be civil and probably be friends if we were to ever meet. It's very unlikely that either of us would change our minds but it is helpful to understand the logic and empathy of the other person.
PartGypsy did an excellent job of laying out her reasons for being pro-choice above. She points out some very real challenges that sometimes those of us on the pro-life side don't do a good enough job recognizing and helping with. I would like to point out that not all pro-life people are hypocrites. Most of the pro-life people I know are very sympathetic to the challenges of pregnant women and many donate their time and/or money to organizations that help them. They also DO NOT see women as 2nd class citizens. They just can't get on board with what they see as killing an innocent human being. Because planned parenthood supports abortion as well as some beneficial things, most pro-life people will not support them. They would be very willing to support other organizations that provide many of the same services.
Sorry, I just have to point out your very erroneous description of what pro-choice people believe. It’s almost comically offensive.
Thousand times this. To say pro choice people think it's ok to kill babies is like saying our entire society thinks murder is ok, just because *under certain circumstances* we do not criminalize killing another human.
I mean, seriously.
Post by: ericrugiero on June 22, 2020, 01:30:30 PM
I am late coming onto the scene. For the original question I would say "it depends". I might disagree with someone about various poltical issues (how much taxation is fair, how much military do we need etc) and if it was a matter of degree, but not absolutes and they defended their reasoning, I would be OK with it. On other matters (which has been recently discussed, abortion) as well as whether climate change is real or not, I find those people very inflexible. In part because their belief stems from dogma or religious beliefs, which I don't feel has a place in what rights people should have in this society, where we have freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. In those cases I have found it is nonproductive to engage those people because they aren't going to listen to what I have to say, either. I feel my opinion of abortion is hard-won. I was born a female, had to deal with all the stuff females have to, have had periods for x decades, have had near misses, know people who have had abortions (none whom regretted it) have known people who decided to keep the pregnancy and either give up for adoption or keep. It's not pro abortion. It is pro-CHOICE. That the choice to keep or terminate the pregnancy is the person who is bearing the pregnancy. If you strip away that right to a choice, or the right to birth control from a woman, you are OK with half the population being a 2nd class citizen, having less rights over her own body and bodily integrity than the other half (talk about interference of the government in one's personal life!). There is no way around our view of the world being incompatible. I also have a strong emotional feeling about it, because people who are anti-choice often are the same people who are trying to push planned parenthood and other women's health clinics out of business or out of their states. These clinics don't just provide abortions. They also provide gynecological healthcare services to low income women and yes, birth control. So the same people who say they are pro "babies", are by their actions when a low income woman gets pregnant, increases the danger and decreases the health and positive outcomes of the woman and the fetus during pregnancy. Which I find horrible and hypocritical.
I think that I can be friends with anyone who is willing to discuss things reasonably. We don't have to agree, but we should each be able to defend our beliefs logically and to be respectful of the other person. I would not want to be a CLOSE friend with someone who's beliefs I have moral problem with (such as an outspoken racist) but I could still be friends with most of them. (They might not want to be friends with me after I challenge the racism a few times)
There are some beliefs that are a challenge because there really isn't much (if any) middle ground. On abortion, you either want to restrict the rights of women to do what they want with their bodies OR you think it's OK to kill babies. There really isn't a middle ground. The best we can do is try to understand that the other side DOES have logical reasons for their beliefs IF you start with their initial belief. For example: Pro-Choice people typically either believe that before delivery it's a fetus and therefore not murder or they believe killing a baby is OK for the greater good. Pro-Life people believe that an unborn baby is a human being and is worth as much as you or me. PartGypsy and I disagree on this particular discussion. But, I would still be willing to discuss, be civil and probably be friends if we were to ever meet. It's very unlikely that either of us would change our minds but it is helpful to understand the logic and empathy of the other person.
PartGypsy did an excellent job of laying out her reasons for being pro-choice above. She points out some very real challenges that sometimes those of us on the pro-life side don't do a good enough job recognizing and helping with. I would like to point out that not all pro-life people are hypocrites. Most of the pro-life people I know are very sympathetic to the challenges of pregnant women and many donate their time and/or money to organizations that help them. They also DO NOT see women as 2nd class citizens. They just can't get on board with what they see as killing an innocent human being. Because planned parenthood supports abortion as well as some beneficial things, most pro-life people will not support them. They would be very willing to support other organizations that provide many of the same services.
Sorry, I just have to point out your very erroneous description of what pro-choice people believe. It’s almost comically offensive.
Thousand times this. To say pro choice people think it's ok to kill babies is like saying our entire society thinks murder is ok, just because *under certain circumstances* we do not criminalize killing another human.
I mean, seriously.
Read it again. My comment says "Pro-Choice people typically either believe that before delivery it's a fetus and therefore not murder or they believe killing a baby is OK for the greater good". The OR is important. I think (correct me it I'm wrong) that most are in the first camp.
Post by: Kris on June 22, 2020, 01:36:06 PM
I am late coming onto the scene. For the original question I would say "it depends". I might disagree with someone about various poltical issues (how much taxation is fair, how much military do we need etc) and if it was a matter of degree, but not absolutes and they defended their reasoning, I would be OK with it. On other matters (which has been recently discussed, abortion) as well as whether climate change is real or not, I find those people very inflexible. In part because their belief stems from dogma or religious beliefs, which I don't feel has a place in what rights people should have in this society, where we have freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. In those cases I have found it is nonproductive to engage those people because they aren't going to listen to what I have to say, either. I feel my opinion of abortion is hard-won. I was born a female, had to deal with all the stuff females have to, have had periods for x decades, have had near misses, know people who have had abortions (none whom regretted it) have known people who decided to keep the pregnancy and either give up for adoption or keep. It's not pro abortion. It is pro-CHOICE. That the choice to keep or terminate the pregnancy is the person who is bearing the pregnancy. If you strip away that right to a choice, or the right to birth control from a woman, you are OK with half the population being a 2nd class citizen, having less rights over her own body and bodily integrity than the other half (talk about interference of the government in one's personal life!). There is no way around our view of the world being incompatible. I also have a strong emotional feeling about it, because people who are anti-choice often are the same people who are trying to push planned parenthood and other women's health clinics out of business or out of their states. These clinics don't just provide abortions. They also provide gynecological healthcare services to low income women and yes, birth control. So the same people who say they are pro "babies", are by their actions when a low income woman gets pregnant, increases the danger and decreases the health and positive outcomes of the woman and the fetus during pregnancy. Which I find horrible and hypocritical.
I think that I can be friends with anyone who is willing to discuss things reasonably. We don't have to agree, but we should each be able to defend our beliefs logically and to be respectful of the other person. I would not want to be a CLOSE friend with someone who's beliefs I have moral problem with (such as an outspoken racist) but I could still be friends with most of them. (They might not want to be friends with me after I challenge the racism a few times)
There are some beliefs that are a challenge because there really isn't much (if any) middle ground. On abortion, you either want to restrict the rights of women to do what they want with their bodies OR you think it's OK to kill babies. There really isn't a middle ground. The best we can do is try to understand that the other side DOES have logical reasons for their beliefs IF you start with their initial belief. For example: Pro-Choice people typically either believe that before delivery it's a fetus and therefore not murder or they believe killing a baby is OK for the greater good. Pro-Life people believe that an unborn baby is a human being and is worth as much as you or me. PartGypsy and I disagree on this particular discussion. But, I would still be willing to discuss, be civil and probably be friends if we were to ever meet. It's very unlikely that either of us would change our minds but it is helpful to understand the logic and empathy of the other person.
PartGypsy did an excellent job of laying out her reasons for being pro-choice above. She points out some very real challenges that sometimes those of us on the pro-life side don't do a good enough job recognizing and helping with. I would like to point out that not all pro-life people are hypocrites. Most of the pro-life people I know are very sympathetic to the challenges of pregnant women and many donate their time and/or money to organizations that help them. They also DO NOT see women as 2nd class citizens. They just can't get on board with what they see as killing an innocent human being. Because planned parenthood supports abortion as well as some beneficial things, most pro-life people will not support them. They would be very willing to support other organizations that provide many of the same services.
Sorry, I just have to point out your very erroneous description of what pro-choice people believe. It’s almost comically offensive.
Thousand times this. To say pro choice people think it's ok to kill babies is like saying our entire society thinks murder is ok, just because *under certain circumstances* we do not criminalize killing another human.
I mean, seriously.
Read it again. My comment says "Pro-Choice people typically either believe that before delivery it's a fetus and therefore not murder or they believe killing a baby is OK for the greater good". The OR is important. I think (correct me it I'm wrong) that most are in the first camp.
Lol. I can’t believe you repeated it.
You’re wrong.
Post by: ericrugiero on June 22, 2020, 01:39:18 PM
I am late coming onto the scene. For the original question I would say "it depends". I might disagree with someone about various poltical issues (how much taxation is fair, how much military do we need etc) and if it was a matter of degree, but not absolutes and they defended their reasoning, I would be OK with it. On other matters (which has been recently discussed, abortion) as well as whether climate change is real or not, I find those people very inflexible. In part because their belief stems from dogma or religious beliefs, which I don't feel has a place in what rights people should have in this society, where we have freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. In those cases I have found it is nonproductive to engage those people because they aren't going to listen to what I have to say, either. I feel my opinion of abortion is hard-won. I was born a female, had to deal with all the stuff females have to, have had periods for x decades, have had near misses, know people who have had abortions (none whom regretted it) have known people who decided to keep the pregnancy and either give up for adoption or keep. It's not pro abortion. It is pro-CHOICE. That the choice to keep or terminate the pregnancy is the person who is bearing the pregnancy. If you strip away that right to a choice, or the right to birth control from a woman, you are OK with half the population being a 2nd class citizen, having less rights over her own body and bodily integrity than the other half (talk about interference of the government in one's personal life!). There is no way around our view of the world being incompatible. I also have a strong emotional feeling about it, because people who are anti-choice often are the same people who are trying to push planned parenthood and other women's health clinics out of business or out of their states. These clinics don't just provide abortions. They also provide gynecological healthcare services to low income women and yes, birth control. So the same people who say they are pro "babies", are by their actions when a low income woman gets pregnant, increases the danger and decreases the health and positive outcomes of the woman and the fetus during pregnancy. Which I find horrible and hypocritical.
I think that I can be friends with anyone who is willing to discuss things reasonably. We don't have to agree, but we should each be able to defend our beliefs logically and to be respectful of the other person. I would not want to be a CLOSE friend with someone who's beliefs I have moral problem with (such as an outspoken racist) but I could still be friends with most of them. (They might not want to be friends with me after I challenge the racism a few times)
There are some beliefs that are a challenge because there really isn't much (if any) middle ground. On abortion, you either want to restrict the rights of women to do what they want with their bodies OR you think it's OK to kill babies. There really isn't a middle ground. The best we can do is try to understand that the other side DOES have logical reasons for their beliefs IF you start with their initial belief. For example: Pro-Choice people typically either believe that before delivery it's a fetus and therefore not murder or they believe killing a baby is OK for the greater good. Pro-Life people believe that an unborn baby is a human being and is worth as much as you or me. PartGypsy and I disagree on this particular discussion. But, I would still be willing to discuss, be civil and probably be friends if we were to ever meet. It's very unlikely that either of us would change our minds but it is helpful to understand the logic and empathy of the other person.
PartGypsy did an excellent job of laying out her reasons for being pro-choice above. She points out some very real challenges that sometimes those of us on the pro-life side don't do a good enough job recognizing and helping with. I would like to point out that not all pro-life people are hypocrites. Most of the pro-life people I know are very sympathetic to the challenges of pregnant women and many donate their time and/or money to organizations that help them. They also DO NOT see women as 2nd class citizens. They just can't get on board with what they see as killing an innocent human being. Because planned parenthood supports abortion as well as some beneficial things, most pro-life people will not support them. They would be very willing to support other organizations that provide many of the same services.
Sorry, I just have to point out your very erroneous description of what pro-choice people believe. It’s almost comically offensive.
Thousand times this. To say pro choice people think it's ok to kill babies is like saying our entire society thinks murder is ok, just because *under certain circumstances* we do not criminalize killing another human.
I mean, seriously.
Read it again. My comment says "Pro-Choice people typically either believe that before delivery it's a fetus and therefore not murder or they believe killing a baby is OK for the greater good". The OR is important. I think (correct me it I'm wrong) that most are in the first camp.
Lol. I can’t believe you repeated it.
You’re wrong.
OK. I'd like to learn. How would you describe it?
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 22, 2020, 01:47:46 PM
Is it because it's confusing to call someone latin if they are Colombian vs an early inhabitant of Rome?
Post by: MudPuppy on June 22, 2020, 01:55:13 PM
Post by: ysette9 on June 22, 2020, 02:26:27 PM
I can’t speak for all pro-choice people but here is my stance.I am late coming onto the scene. For the original question I would say "it depends". I might disagree with someone about various poltical issues (how much taxation is fair, how much military do we need etc) and if it was a matter of degree, but not absolutes and they defended their reasoning, I would be OK with it. On other matters (which has been recently discussed, abortion) as well as whether climate change is real or not, I find those people very inflexible. In part because their belief stems from dogma or religious beliefs, which I don't feel has a place in what rights people should have in this society, where we have freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. In those cases I have found it is nonproductive to engage those people because they aren't going to listen to what I have to say, either. I feel my opinion of abortion is hard-won. I was born a female, had to deal with all the stuff females have to, have had periods for x decades, have had near misses, know people who have had abortions (none whom regretted it) have known people who decided to keep the pregnancy and either give up for adoption or keep. It's not pro abortion. It is pro-CHOICE. That the choice to keep or terminate the pregnancy is the person who is bearing the pregnancy. If you strip away that right to a choice, or the right to birth control from a woman, you are OK with half the population being a 2nd class citizen, having less rights over her own body and bodily integrity than the other half (talk about interference of the government in one's personal life!). There is no way around our view of the world being incompatible. I also have a strong emotional feeling about it, because people who are anti-choice often are the same people who are trying to push planned parenthood and other women's health clinics out of business or out of their states. These clinics don't just provide abortions. They also provide gynecological healthcare services to low income women and yes, birth control. So the same people who say they are pro "babies", are by their actions when a low income woman gets pregnant, increases the danger and decreases the health and positive outcomes of the woman and the fetus during pregnancy. Which I find horrible and hypocritical.
I think that I can be friends with anyone who is willing to discuss things reasonably. We don't have to agree, but we should each be able to defend our beliefs logically and to be respectful of the other person. I would not want to be a CLOSE friend with someone who's beliefs I have moral problem with (such as an outspoken racist) but I could still be friends with most of them. (They might not want to be friends with me after I challenge the racism a few times)
There are some beliefs that are a challenge because there really isn't much (if any) middle ground. On abortion, you either want to restrict the rights of women to do what they want with their bodies OR you think it's OK to kill babies. There really isn't a middle ground. The best we can do is try to understand that the other side DOES have logical reasons for their beliefs IF you start with their initial belief. For example: Pro-Choice people typically either believe that before delivery it's a fetus and therefore not murder or they believe killing a baby is OK for the greater good. Pro-Life people believe that an unborn baby is a human being and is worth as much as you or me. PartGypsy and I disagree on this particular discussion. But, I would still be willing to discuss, be civil and probably be friends if we were to ever meet. It's very unlikely that either of us would change our minds but it is helpful to understand the logic and empathy of the other person.
PartGypsy did an excellent job of laying out her reasons for being pro-choice above. She points out some very real challenges that sometimes those of us on the pro-life side don't do a good enough job recognizing and helping with. I would like to point out that not all pro-life people are hypocrites. Most of the pro-life people I know are very sympathetic to the challenges of pregnant women and many donate their time and/or money to organizations that help them. They also DO NOT see women as 2nd class citizens. They just can't get on board with what they see as killing an innocent human being. Because planned parenthood supports abortion as well as some beneficial things, most pro-life people will not support them. They would be very willing to support other organizations that provide many of the same services.
Sorry, I just have to point out your very erroneous description of what pro-choice people believe. It’s almost comically offensive.
Thousand times this. To say pro choice people think it's ok to kill babies is like saying our entire society thinks murder is ok, just because *under certain circumstances* we do not criminalize killing another human.
I mean, seriously.
Read it again. My comment says "Pro-Choice people typically either believe that before delivery it's a fetus and therefore not murder or they believe killing a baby is OK for the greater good". The OR is important. I think (correct me it I'm wrong) that most are in the first camp.
Lol. I can’t believe you repeated it.
You’re wrong.
OK. I'd like to learn. How would you describe it?
Abortion should ideally be safe, legal, and rare. Rare, because we should live in a society that values women and their autonomy, making safe and easy access to all medical care universal and affordable. So you should be able to avoid a lot of unwanted pregnancies in the first place (many other countries do a better job of this than the US).
Pro-choice rests on the notion that women are full-fledged first class humans with full human rights, first and foremost of which is bodily autonomy. Personally I see a clear difference between a fetus that cannot survive on its own and one that can. I think it is perfectly reasonable to have debates over where to draw a line on when to allow and not allow abortion as pregnancy progresses; as discussed above, this is mostly a corner case used to inflame tempers as late-term abortions are very rare and pretty much exclusively the realm of grave birth defects. I think drawing the line at viability is good, though as the mother of preemies I know that the current definition of 24 weeks is scary, scary early if you actually care about the health and welfare of the person born.
I agree that yes, i believe that prior to some point it is a fetus, not a baby. I disagree fully with your implication that anytime prior to delivery is ok. No one in the pro-choice camp would agree with your second posit, that killing a baby is ok for the greater good.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 22, 2020, 02:37:57 PM
Read it again. My comment says "Pro-Choice people typically either believe that before delivery it's a fetus and therefore not murder or they believe killing a baby is OK for the greater good". The OR is important. I think (correct me it I'm wrong) that most are in the first camp.
Lol. I can’t believe you repeated it.
You’re wrong.
OK. I'd like to learn. How would you describe it?
Your question assumes that the pro-choice people subscribes to the BS that "life begins at conception". That is a catholic/evangelical speciality that even the church before 19th century did not uniformly subscribe to (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_human_personhood). Last I checked, US was not defined as a Catholic or Evangelical country in it's constitution.
It's like asking "Why are Trump Supporters Nazis?"
Most pro-choice people believes in basic human rights and do not like to meddle into other people's lives based on their own unproven beliefs.
If I was going to describe the so-called "pro-life"s the way you described pro-choice people, I'd say "the so-called pro-life people does not consider human rights to be very important and would like to trample the rights of and commit violence against other people with an aim towards propagating their faith that has no basis in facts or reality".
fair?
P.S. You are right that "There are some beliefs that are a challenge because there really isn't much (if any) middle ground". People who would trample on other people's human rights to further their unproven faith (how is "terrorism" defined again?) are not befriend-able.
Post by: sherr on June 22, 2020, 02:42:21 PM
Sorry, I just have to point out your very erroneous description of what pro-choice people believe. It’s almost comically offensive.
Thousand times this. To say pro choice people think it's ok to kill babies is like saying our entire society thinks murder is ok, just because *under certain circumstances* we do not criminalize killing another human.
I mean, seriously.
Read it again. My comment says "Pro-Choice people typically either believe that before delivery it's a fetus and therefore not murder or they believe killing a baby is OK for the greater good". The OR is important. I think (correct me it I'm wrong) that most are in the first camp.
Lol. I can’t believe you repeated it.
You’re wrong.
OK. I'd like to learn. How would you describe it?
Siiigh.
1) "Pro-Choice people typically either believe that before delivery it's a fetus and therefore not murder."
Well first of all it is a fetus, that's not a "belief" it's a fact. Or perhaps its a zygote if it's not yet a fetus. What it's not is a "baby", not by any dictionary definition I've ever seen, nor by common usage outside of the pro-lifer side when specifically talking about abortion.
And regardless it doesn't follow that killing it would be "murder". Murder is a legal designation for an unlawful premeditated killing. Abortion is definitely not murder in the US. Maybe you'd like it to be, but factually it's not.
But to finally wind our way down to addressing the meat of what you're saying, you are claiming that pro-choicers are okay with abortion because they view a fetus as a qualitatively different thing than a baby.
A more correct way of viewing this is to say that pro-choicers understand development of a fetus to be a spectrum, ranging all the way from a single cell with no brain all the way up to something that is characteristically indistinguishable from a 1-minute-old baby. Which is factually true, and indeed something that pro-choicers generally acknowledge. And you will indeed find people who are more morally okay with ending the life of a fetus at the brainless stage than you are at the negative-one-minute-old stage, because it is a spectrum. So I suppose that is part of it.
2) "or they believe killing a baby is OK for the greater good"
What greater good are we even talking about here? Life/health of the mother? Life/health of the fetus with soon-fatal deformities? Greater good of a rape victim to not be forced to bear her rapist's child for 9 months? Greater good of society to not have unwanted babies born homes where they can't / wont be taken care of? All of the above?
I suppose regardless you will in fact find people who do believe that abortion is the lesser of those two evils. But it's obviously not that they "believe that killing a baby is OK for the greater good", because they don't believe that for already-born babies, do they?
The huge reason that you completely miss here is that of the woman's right to self-determination / body autonomy. In no other situation do we ever tell a human that they have to donate blood, or they must donate a kidney, or they are required to get a vaccine. The closest thing I can think of is schools requiring kids to be vaccinated if they want to attend there, but that's very very different from requiring it flat out. Never, even if it means other people will definitely die.
So the more correct way to phrase this is as a conflict of rights. Fetuses ideally would have the right to life, sure. But also women have the right to body autonomy, which is something so critical - so essential to being human - that we even grant it to corpses that didn't want to be organ donors, even if people die as a result. And when those two rights conflict what is to be done? Pro-choicers say that it's unfortunate, undesirable, sad, but that the woman's body autonomy must take precedence, just as it would in every similar situation. To do anything else would be to strip her of something essential to being a human and reduce her to nothing more than a breeding sow.
There is no pro-abortion side. There is a pro-choice side, because the ability to choose is the essential part. The ability to choose for themselves whether they want to bear their rapist's child, or whatever. No one would be upset if everyone chose to not abort, perhaps because of all the actual support they received from their pro-life friends.
Finally let's loop back around to talking about your language. I have never met an ardent pro-lifer who couldn't help but keep on using incorrect, dishonest, and intentionally-incendiary language, like "baby", "murder", and "genocide" (you have not used this one yet, I know). Why is that? Why - in this post where your ostensible point was "try to understand the other side at least so you can at least have empathy with their logic" - did you simultaneously display a complete and utter lack of understanding and empathy with the other side? Why the explicit appeals to emotion in a post that is ostensibly talking about logical arguments?
Everyone understands why pro-lifers are pro-life. It's not complicated. But that seems to be almost entirely one-sided. Virtually no pro-lifers seem to have made an honest effort to understand why pro-choicers are pro-choice.
Post by: LWYRUP on June 22, 2020, 02:55:48 PM
I just listened to a really great podcast on this exact subject.
A black musician who lives very near me convinced 200 KKK members to give up their robes, and basically shut down the KKK in my state, by befriending them.
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes (https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGTQ0Wj6yIg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGTQ0Wj6yIg)
So maybe the answer is yes, and maybe we even have a moral duty to do so, but we need to respectfully speak the truth at all times? Make it clear where you stand and why, but do it from a place that shows you care about them as a person and want to at least try to understand why they feel how they do?
If you are just friends and then try to turn a blind eye towards bad behavior, that obviously does not seem to work. But if you just confront hate with hate, or if everyone walls off into their own (political, religious, ethnic, etc.) tribe, that also does not seem to work.
Respectful dialogue, based on treating everyone how you would like to be treated (even if they aren't doing the same to you), based on a well-formed conscience and well-educated mind and courage to stand behind your convictions -- that seems like the path forward.
Post by: Buffaloski Boris on June 22, 2020, 05:58:55 PM
I just listened to a really great podcast on this exact subject.
A black musician who lives very near me convinced 200 KKK members to give up their robes, and basically shut down the KKK in my state, by befriending them.
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes (https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGTQ0Wj6yIg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGTQ0Wj6yIg)
So maybe the answer is yes, and maybe we even have a moral duty to do so, but we need to respectfully speak the truth at all times? Make it clear where you stand and why, but do it from a place that shows you care about them as a person and want to at least try to understand why they feel how they do?
If you are just friends and then try to turn a blind eye towards bad behavior, that obviously does not seem to work. But if you just confront hate with hate, or if everyone walls off into their own (political, religious, ethnic, etc.) tribe, that also does not seem to work.
Respectful dialogue, based on treating everyone how you would like to be treated (even if they aren't doing the same to you), based on a well-formed conscience and well-educated mind and courage to stand behind your convictions -- that seems like the path forward.
Thanks for sharing that really cool story. I’d love to get his book, but the price on Amazon was well over $1000.00. Guess I’ll have to see about getting a copy from the library.
I view this as less a duty and more as an opportunity. Wow. What an opportunity for someone of my persuasion.
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 22, 2020, 06:49:17 PM
I just listened to a really great podcast on this exact subject.
A black musician who lives very near me convinced 200 KKK members to give up their robes, and basically shut down the KKK in my state, by befriending them.
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes (https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGTQ0Wj6yIg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGTQ0Wj6yIg)
So maybe the answer is yes, and maybe we even have a moral duty to do so, but we need to respectfully speak the truth at all times? Make it clear where you stand and why, but do it from a place that shows you care about them as a person and want to at least try to understand why they feel how they do?
If you are just friends and then try to turn a blind eye towards bad behavior, that obviously does not seem to work. But if you just confront hate with hate, or if everyone walls off into their own (political, religious, ethnic, etc.) tribe, that also does not seem to work.
Respectful dialogue, based on treating everyone how you would like to be treated (even if they aren't doing the same to you), based on a well-formed conscience and well-educated mind and courage to stand behind your convictions -- that seems like the path forward.
Thanks for sharing that really cool story. I’d love to get his book, but the price on Amazon was well over $1000.00. Guess I’ll have to see about getting a copy from the library.
I view this as less a duty and more as an opportunity. Wow. What an opportunity for someone of my persuasion.
It went mostly unsaid in the Rogan podcast, but I found Daryl to be uniquely strong, open minded and kind. And he didn't act like it was remarkable but I found his temperament in the context of those stories to be exceptional. We could all learn from him.
The recent Bret Weinstein episode was quite good too.
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 22, 2020, 08:12:26 PM
There is no pro-abortion side. There is a pro-choice side, because the ability to choose is the essential part. The ability to choose for themselves whether they want to bear their rapist's child, or whatever. No one would be upset if everyone chose to not abort, perhaps because of all the actual support they received from their pro-life friends.
I'm pro-abortion. I've said it before, I'm all for killing foetuses if the mother makes that choice and there's some subjectively reasonable justification for the choice. Heck, I'd even be okay with killing infants if there's a very huge justification.
I don't relish abortions but I would be upset if everyone chose to not abort, because that's completely unnatural. People make mistakes all the time and we should do everything we can to (1) de-stigmatise abortion, (2) facilitate it (ban abortion protests, make it as cheap/easy as possible) and (3) encourage it (via cash payments for pre- and post-counselling etc, to make sure that no one's ethical choice is constrained by financial or practical constraints.
I'm not sure why so many "pro-choice" people try to pussy foot around it. I support abortion because I think in most cases where the mother chooses it, it's for the greater good. I also don't draw an absolute line at birth. Go read some of Peter Singer's philosophy if you want to explore the difficult ethical conundrums in more detail.
It does us no good to simply avoid difficult ethical questions by taking a "pure" stance that then makes it harder in practice for people in exactly those difficult situations to find self-compassion and understanding.
Calling it "pro-choice" still leads to guilt for mothers who exercise that choice. I'm out, I'm proud, I'm fucking pro-abortion.
Post by: ysette9 on June 22, 2020, 08:26:55 PM
In a au your stance reminds me of me on another issue. I am anti-guns. I think the right to bear arms isn’t done sacred thing enshrined in the constitution, but an embarrassing aberration to be fixed, like when slavery was legal or women didn’t have the right to vote. Unfortunately I also see that the pro side is so entrenched and the NRA has done such a good job of spouting nonsense that any even slight move towards sanity is greeted with “omg, they are coming to get out guns!”. I see that me speaking an actual anti-gun stance will probably only further stoke the flames of unreason and not move us a millimeter closer to having a safer society. America is just too immature and illogical for that.
There is no pro-abortion side. There is a pro-choice side, because the ability to choose is the essential part. The ability to choose for themselves whether they want to bear their rapist's child, or whatever. No one would be upset if everyone chose to not abort, perhaps because of all the actual support they received from their pro-life friends.
I'm pro-abortion. I've said it before, I'm all for killing foetuses if the mother makes that choice and there's some subjectively reasonable justification for the choice. Heck, I'd even be okay with killing infants if there's a very huge justification.
I don't relish abortions but I would be upset if everyone chose to not abort, because that's completely unnatural. People make mistakes all the time and we should do everything we can to (1) de-stigmatise abortion, (2) facilitate it (ban abortion protests, make it as cheap/easy as possible) and (3) encourage it (via cash payments for pre- and post-counselling etc, to make sure that no one's ethical choice is constrained by financial or practical constraints.
I'm not sure why so many "pro-choice" people try to pussy foot around it. I support abortion because I think in most cases where the mother chooses it, it's for the greater good. I also don't draw an absolute line at birth. Go read some of Peter Singer's philosophy if you want to explore the difficult ethical conundrums in more detail.
It does us no good to simply avoid difficult ethical questions by taking a "pure" stance that then makes it harder in practice for people in exactly those difficult situations to find self-compassion and understanding.
Calling it "pro-choice" still leads to guilt for mothers who exercise that choice. I'm out, I'm proud, I'm fucking pro-abortion.
So while I won’t say I disagree with you necessarily (or agree either), I fear your position would be take by the fanatics as proof that those trying to push America to be slightly less backwards are actually all immoral baby killers in disguise. (Who want to take your guns while they are at it.)
Post by: ctuser1 on June 22, 2020, 08:58:08 PM
I'm pro-abortion. I've said it before, I'm all for killing foetuses if the mother makes that choice and there's some subjectively reasonable justification for the choice. Heck, I'd even be okay with killing infants if there's a very huge justification.You can of course speak for yourself. I am pro-choice, but anti-abortion.
I don't know if you have a child or not. FYI, I started shoving in the college fund (529) for my daughter once I had the first ultrasound of the fetus in hand, at 3 weeks. Your stance leads me to assume that you lack the life experiences necessary to understand the nuances of this issue.
I don't relish abortions but I would be upset if everyone chose to not abort, because that's completely unnatural.If this indicated that the Homo Sapience has now evolved to become much more responsible in general, then I'd be ecstatic. So, please don't conflate your stance with those of pro-choice people.
I'm not sure why so many "pro-choice" people try to pussy foot around it. I support abortion because I think in most cases where the mother chooses it, it's for the greater good. I also don't draw an absolute line at birth. Go read some of Peter Singer's philosophy if you want to explore the difficult ethical conundrums in more detail.Fantastic, now please keep all that knowledge and opinion to yourself. It is none of your business what the mother will choose to do with her body and what ethics/religion/philosophy she will use to arrive at that. It's most definitely none of your business (unless you are the father, or your opinion is specifically asked for by the mother).
See, that was not pussyfooting. I just told you to bugger off when you thought you should poke your nose where it does not belong.
It does us no good to simply avoid difficult ethical questions by taking a "pure" stance that then makes it harder in practice for people in exactly those difficult situations to find self-compassion and understanding.
It is the mother's "difficult" ethical question! Again, anyone who has a child knows there is no fucking way to make it not difficult.
Because it is so difficult, you/some-bible-nut/society/government should shove their opinion on this matter to where the sun does not shine.
How difficult is to just bloody leave the woman in question alone!!
Calling it "pro-choice" still leads to guilt for mothers who exercise that choice.And again, there is nothing you can do to change any of this. There are biological components to it.
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 22, 2020, 09:06:27 PM
Post by: ctuser1 on June 22, 2020, 09:09:43 PM
Ctuser, I think you are incapable of seeing anything from a perspective that is not your own. Some day, if you learn to, feel free to resume this discussion.
And my opinion is that you fail to move beyond your flawed assumption on this topic - which is surprising for a lawyer. When you say things like "I'm all for killing foetuses" - it pre-supposes that everyone agrees that "life begins at conception" or something similar. Take that away, and most of what you posted on this thread becomes male-cow-manure.
I did not intend to discuss with you. When you are trying to "shame" others by boxing them into "killing fetuses" etc language, god knows with what intent (trolling?), then that should be responded to when I fancy.
Please feel free to post when you are comfortable with the fact that this is a public forum.
Post by: sherr on June 23, 2020, 07:13:58 AM
There is no pro-abortion side. There is a pro-choice side, because the ability to choose is the essential part. The ability to choose for themselves whether they want to bear their rapist's child, or whatever. No one would be upset if everyone chose to not abort, perhaps because of all the actual support they received from their pro-life friends.
I'm pro-abortion. I've said it before, I'm all for killing foetuses if the mother makes that choice and there's some subjectively reasonable justification for the choice. Heck, I'd even be okay with killing infants if there's a very huge justification.
I don't relish abortions but I would be upset if everyone chose to not abort, because that's completely unnatural. People make mistakes all the time and we should do everything we can to (1) de-stigmatise abortion, (2) facilitate it (ban abortion protests, make it as cheap/easy as possible) and (3) encourage it (via cash payments for pre- and post-counselling etc, to make sure that no one's ethical choice is constrained by financial or practical constraints.
I'm not sure why so many "pro-choice" people try to pussy foot around it. I support abortion because I think in most cases where the mother chooses it, it's for the greater good. I also don't draw an absolute line at birth. Go read some of Peter Singer's philosophy if you want to explore the difficult ethical conundrums in more detail.
Okay, so there is at least one person in the world who would be upset. Perhaps people are not pussy-footing Bloop, perhaps there are just very few people who are like you.
Post by: Kris on June 23, 2020, 07:27:52 AM
There is no pro-abortion side. There is a pro-choice side, because the ability to choose is the essential part. The ability to choose for themselves whether they want to bear their rapist's child, or whatever. No one would be upset if everyone chose to not abort, perhaps because of all the actual support they received from their pro-life friends.
I'm pro-abortion. I've said it before, I'm all for killing foetuses if the mother makes that choice and there's some subjectively reasonable justification for the choice. Heck, I'd even be okay with killing infants if there's a very huge justification.
I don't relish abortions but I would be upset if everyone chose to not abort, because that's completely unnatural. People make mistakes all the time and we should do everything we can to (1) de-stigmatise abortion, (2) facilitate it (ban abortion protests, make it as cheap/easy as possible) and (3) encourage it (via cash payments for pre- and post-counselling etc, to make sure that no one's ethical choice is constrained by financial or practical constraints.
I'm not sure why so many "pro-choice" people try to pussy foot around it. I support abortion because I think in most cases where the mother chooses it, it's for the greater good. I also don't draw an absolute line at birth. Go read some of Peter Singer's philosophy if you want to explore the difficult ethical conundrums in more detail.
Okay, so there is at least one person in the world who would be upset. Perhaps people are not pussy-footing Bloop, perhaps there are just very few people who are like you.
Yeah, Bloop is definitely an outlier in this. The kind of outlier so far from the mean that you remove it from the data set.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 23, 2020, 07:28:13 AM
There is no pro-abortion side. There is a pro-choice side, because the ability to choose is the essential part. The ability to choose for themselves whether they want to bear their rapist's child, or whatever. No one would be upset if everyone chose to not abort, perhaps because of all the actual support they received from their pro-life friends.
I'm pro-abortion. I've said it before, I'm all for killing foetuses if the mother makes that choice and there's some subjectively reasonable justification for the choice. Heck, I'd even be okay with killing infants if there's a very huge justification.
I don't relish abortions but I would be upset if everyone chose to not abort, because that's completely unnatural. People make mistakes all the time and we should do everything we can to (1) de-stigmatise abortion, (2) facilitate it (ban abortion protests, make it as cheap/easy as possible) and (3) encourage it (via cash payments for pre- and post-counselling etc, to make sure that no one's ethical choice is constrained by financial or practical constraints.
I'm not sure why so many "pro-choice" people try to pussy foot around it. I support abortion because I think in most cases where the mother chooses it, it's for the greater good. I also don't draw an absolute line at birth. Go read some of Peter Singer's philosophy if you want to explore the difficult ethical conundrums in more detail.
Okay, so there is at least one person in the world who would be upset. Perhaps people are not pussy-footing Bloop, perhaps there are just very few people who are like you.
Crying "baby murder" or "killing fetus" in the abortion debate is extremely offensive and ignorant.
The reason it is offensive is easy to see. It is ignorant because it presupposes that everyone else has the same assumptions (cultural/religious) like you do.
Bloop Bloop is acting here like the stereotypical redneck who called someone the n-word and can't figure out why there seems to be a blowback.
Post by: GuitarStv on June 23, 2020, 07:58:25 AM
There is no pro-abortion side. There is a pro-choice side, because the ability to choose is the essential part. The ability to choose for themselves whether they want to bear their rapist's child, or whatever. No one would be upset if everyone chose to not abort, perhaps because of all the actual support they received from their pro-life friends.
I'm pro-abortion. I've said it before, I'm all for killing foetuses if the mother makes that choice and there's some subjectively reasonable justification for the choice. Heck, I'd even be okay with killing infants if there's a very huge justification.
I'm with you on the first two sentences here I think. People should be free to choose an abortion if they feel that one is necessary. The wording is a little confusing though . . . as you're not saying that you want more abortions no matter what (pro-abortion) you're saying that you want people to have the ability to choose when an abortion is correct (typically described as pro-choice). Are you merely using this imprecise language to get a rise out of people?
The third sentence is confusing to me. After a child is born, the child can be given up for adoption with no loss of liberty/minimal hassle for the mother. Why would there be a need to kill an infant?
Post by: ericrugiero on June 23, 2020, 08:25:31 AM
OK. I'd like to learn. How would you describe it?
Siiigh.
1) "Pro-Choice people typically either believe that before delivery it's a fetus and therefore not murder."
Well first of all it is a fetus, that's not a "belief" it's a fact. Or perhaps its a zygote if it's not yet a fetus. What it's not is a "baby", not by any dictionary definition I've ever seen, nor by common usage outside of the pro-lifer side when specifically talking about abortion.
And regardless it doesn't follow that killing it would be "murder". Murder is a legal designation for an unlawful premeditated killing. Abortion is definitely not murder in the US. Maybe you'd like it to be, but factually it's not.
But to finally wind our way down to addressing the meat of what you're saying, you are claiming that pro-choicers are okay with abortion because they view a fetus as a qualitatively different thing than a baby.
A more correct way of viewing this is to say that pro-choicers understand development of a fetus to be a spectrum, ranging all the way from a single cell with no brain all the way up to something that is characteristically indistinguishable from a 1-minute-old baby. Which is factually true, and indeed something that pro-choicers generally acknowledge. And you will indeed find people who are more morally okay with ending the life of a fetus at the brainless stage than you are at the negative-one-minute-old stage, because it is a spectrum. So I suppose that is part of it.
2) "or they believe killing a baby is OK for the greater good"
What greater good are we even talking about here? Life/health of the mother? Life/health of the fetus with soon-fatal deformities? Greater good of a rape victim to not be forced to bear her rapist's child for 9 months? Greater good of society to not have unwanted babies born homes where they can't / wont be taken care of? All of the above?
I suppose regardless you will in fact find people who do believe that abortion is the lesser of those two evils. But it's obviously not that they "believe that killing a baby is OK for the greater good", because they don't believe that for already-born babies, do they?
The huge reason that you completely miss here is that of the woman's right to self-determination / body autonomy. In no other situation do we ever tell a human that they have to donate blood, or they must donate a kidney, or they are required to get a vaccine. The closest thing I can think of is schools requiring kids to be vaccinated if they want to attend there, but that's very very different from requiring it flat out. Never, even if it means other people will definitely die.
So the more correct way to phrase this is as a conflict of rights. Fetuses ideally would have the right to life, sure. But also women have the right to body autonomy, which is something so critical - so essential to being human - that we even grant it to corpses that didn't want to be organ donors, even if people die as a result. And when those two rights conflict what is to be done? Pro-choicers say that it's unfortunate, undesirable, sad, but that the woman's body autonomy must take precedence, just as it would in every similar situation. To do anything else would be to strip her of something essential to being a human and reduce her to nothing more than a breeding sow.
There is no pro-abortion side. There is a pro-choice side, because the ability to choose is the essential part. The ability to choose for themselves whether they want to bear their rapist's child, or whatever. No one would be upset if everyone chose to not abort, perhaps because of all the actual support they received from their pro-life friends.
Finally let's loop back around to talking about your language. I have never met an ardent pro-lifer who couldn't help but keep on using incorrect, dishonest, and intentionally-incendiary language, like "baby", "murder", and "genocide" (you have not used this one yet, I know). Why is that? Why - in this post where your ostensible point was "try to understand the other side at least so you can at least have empathy with their logic" - did you simultaneously display a complete and utter lack of understanding and empathy with the other side? Why the explicit appeals to emotion in a post that is ostensibly talking about logical arguments?
Everyone understands why pro-lifers are pro-life. It's not complicated. But that seems to be almost entirely one-sided. Virtually no pro-lifers seem to have made an honest effort to understand why pro-choicers are pro-choice.
First, thank you for taking the time to give a rational explanation of your beliefs. You and Ysette9 gave the most rational and logical explanations I have heard. It's unusual to have calm rational discussions of this very divisive topic.
My wording of the second reason "for the greater good" was poorly done and wasn't the wording I would normally have used. I think I was influenced by the posts from BloopBloop which others have pointed out are not representative. Your explanation of conflict of rights helps me to understand your stance and it makes sense that it would be a more common (and logical) stance.
It seems like there is a lot of overlap in our beliefs. We both believe there are rights to bodily autonomy and that a fetus/baby has rights. We are both sad that either side must lose any of the rights they would ideally have. We just come down on different sides of the argument on whose rights take precedence. I do disagree with the comment that without abortion a woman is nothing but a breeding sow. I believe women should have the right to choose when, how, and with whom to have sex. They should also have control (with input from a husband) of what birth control to use.
To answer your question about language, I would never use terms like baby or murder to try to make you or anyone else mad. I use baby because that is what I truly believe we are talking about and calling it a fetus seems disrespectful. Therefore, I will continue to use the term baby. Please understand I'm not doing it to offend anyone. The term murder is harder to defend because since Roe vs Wade you are correct that it's not legally murder. Morally, I still believe it is wrong but I can see why the word would offend you and as such I will refrain from using the term.
Post by: sherr on June 23, 2020, 08:59:29 AM
First, thank you for taking the time to give a rational explanation of your beliefs. You and Ysette9 gave the most rational and logical explanations I have heard. It's unusual to have calm rational discussions of this very divisive topic.
My wording of the second reason "for the greater good" was poorly done and wasn't the wording I would normally have used. I think I was influenced by the posts from BloopBloop which others have pointed out are not representative. Your explanation of conflict of rights helps me to understand your stance and it makes sense that it would be a more common (and logical) stance.
To answer your question about language, I would never use terms like baby or murder to try to make you or anyone else mad. I use baby because that is what I truly believe we are talking about and calling it a fetus seems disrespectful. Therefore, I will continue to use the term baby. Please understand I'm not doing it to offend anyone. The term murder is harder to defend because since Roe vs Wade you are correct that it's not legally murder. Morally, I still believe it is wrong but I can see why the word would offend you and as such I will refrain from using the term.
Fine, and thank you for the response. One final note: "fetus" cannot be a "disrespectful" term, it is the medically correct term for what we are talking about. "Baby" by contrast isn't really a medical term, it's a squishy non-scientific word with lots of emotional overtones. But they can overlap, you are free to consider a fetus a baby too if you want, I suppose. But by insisting on calling it a "baby" you are intentionally refusing to use more neutral, more correct language, and instead insisting on inserting your own presuppositions and emotions into the debate. Which is not helpful for either side if your intent is to argue honestly, it only is helpful if your intent is to emotionally manipulate.
It seems like there is a lot of overlap in our beliefs. We both believe there are rights to bodily autonomy and that a fetus/baby has rights. We are both sad that either side must lose any of the rights they would ideally have. We just come down on different sides of the argument on whose rights take precedence. I do disagree with the comment that without abortion a woman is nothing but a breeding sow. I believe women should have the right to choose when, how, and with whom to have sex. They should also have control (with input from a husband) of what birth control to use.
As for this bit, you have the right to navigate your own marriage however you and your spouse both see fit. However in general, when talking about governments and laws, I don't think this is really defensible. You can't legislate that women have to have their husband's permission for what birth control they themselves are allowed to use without by definition reducing them to 2nd class citizens, less equal than the men.
And maybe they are not "reduced to a breeding sow" for all time, but that is what you are doing for the 9ish months of pregnancy. That is the trade-off that you are advocating. That the fetus's rights are paramount, and so the woman's rights are reduced to something less than fully-human. Something less than a human corpse even. 2nd class humans, at least for the next 9 months.
Post by: GuitarStv on June 23, 2020, 09:03:08 AM
To answer your question about language, I would never use terms like baby or murder to try to make you or anyone else mad. I use baby because that is what I truly believe we are talking about and calling it a fetus seems disrespectful. Therefore, I will continue to use the term baby. Please understand I'm not doing it to offend anyone. The term murder is harder to defend because since Roe vs Wade you are correct that it's not legally murder. Morally, I still believe it is wrong but I can see why the word would offend you and as such I will refrain from using the term.
Belief shouldn't play into the use of term at all. Baby is factually incorrect when referring to a fetus.
Baby - a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.
Fetus - an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception
Using the term 'baby' instead of 'fetus' (if not done purposely to inflame emotion) demonstrates an ignorance of the English language.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 23, 2020, 09:03:47 AM
I do disagree with the comment that without abortion a woman is nothing but a breeding sow. I believe women should have the right to choose when, how, and with whom to have sex. They should also have control (with input from a husband) of what birth control to use.
First,
Consider birth control failure. Anyone with a few kids will likely have a surprise baby.
Also consider that you are contemplating taking the mother's innate rights and NOT the father's even though he had an equal "choice" in this matter. Yes, there is child support. But that is a money question, that does not equate to loss of ownership of one's own body.
Secondly,
You have considered all these and arrived at your own moral standard. That is a perfect guidepost for yourself and likely also your loved ones.
Do you allow for the fact that someone from a different culture/religion/background could legitimately arrive at a different standard/conclusion here?
Therefore, I will continue to use the term baby. Please understand I'm not doing it to offend anyone.I personally believe "intent" is the most important part here. You do say you don't want to offend, and I find no reason to disbelieve that after the last post. The post before that did not make that apparent (hence my snarky response earlier).
The second part of the "intent" concerns cultural sensitivity. If you are talking to someone waiting in a Planned Parenthood waiting hall and calling it a "baby" - then it is offensive because you are intentionally imposing your moral standard on that other person. As long as it is clear that you want to be respectful, then I doubt an honest misstep here or there, especially when accompanied by a correction/apology, should be offensive (and I have a strong opinion of the cancel-mongers who don't seem to differentiate by intent, I consider them to be just as fascist as the bible-thumpers using the term "baby murder").
So yes, using the word baby is perfect in some contexts. e.g. asking "When is your baby due?" to your sister, that same question asked of a pregnant woman who you know is contemplating an abortion for a known genetic defect is definitely not kosher.
At the end of the day, it comes down to whether you believe other people have a right to their cultural/moral beliefs or whether everyone has to toe your side because you believe certain things to be absolute truth as a matter of faith.
Post by: ericrugiero on June 23, 2020, 09:17:05 AM
As for this bit, you have the right to navigate your own marriage however you and your spouse both see fit. However in general, when talking about governments and laws, I don't think this is really defensible. You can't legislate that women have to have their husband's permission for what birth control they themselves are allowed to use without by definition reducing them to 2nd class citizens, less equal than the men.
I'm just saying that a husband and wife should decide together as a team when to have kids and what steps to take to allow or prevent that. I'm NOT saying that a wife must have a husbands permission to use birth control. I absolutely don't think there should be a law saying women need permission to take birth control (not sure where that came from).
Post by: ericrugiero on June 23, 2020, 09:29:05 AM
You have considered all these and arrived at your own moral standard. That is a perfect guidepost for yourself and likely also your loved ones.
Do you allow for the fact that someone from a different culture/religion/background could legitimately arrive at a different standard/conclusion here?
Absolutely. Anyone can reach their own standards and conclusions. The only reason I think it's OK for me to impose my standard in this case is that it protects someone else who is oppressed. That's the same reason you should confront me if you see me doing something racist rather than thinking "That's his moral standard so I shouldn't interfere".
I have my own beliefs and standards. I may discuss them with you and try to convince you they are right, but I won't try to force you to comply with them unless you are hurting someone else.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 23, 2020, 09:55:58 AM
You have considered all these and arrived at your own moral standard. That is a perfect guidepost for yourself and likely also your loved ones.
Do you allow for the fact that someone from a different culture/religion/background could legitimately arrive at a different standard/conclusion here?
Absolutely. Anyone can reach their own standards and conclusions. The only reason I think it's OK for me to impose my standard in this case is that it protects someone else who is oppressed. That's the same reason you should confront me if you see me doing something racist rather than thinking "That's his moral standard so I shouldn't interfere".
I have my own beliefs and standards. I may discuss them with you and try to convince you they are right, but I won't try to force you to comply with them unless you are hurting someone else.
The bolded part itself is a matter of faith. Isn't it? You don't have any scientific definition outside of faith when life begins. The current legal definition is that it begins at birth. The laws and courts have 200+ years of precedent on this. You become a citizen by "birth", not by "conception".
However strongly you hold you faith, that still is no excuse for you to "impose" it on others. That leads to Theocracy, which I don't think is what you intend.
This is not to question your truth. You believe in something, and you should absolutely be guided by that. You even have the "right" to look down on others holding a different belief (for which you will likely get blowback), but you have zero right of imposing your faith on others with the force of state sponsored violence (which is what deprivation of ownership of one's own body is).
Being racist (in your example) is not a matter of religion. The existence of the subject of racism (a black person, for example), and whether he is alive or not, is not a matter of faith. His rights, hence, are mandated by the constitution and all moral laws I can think of and hence supersedes any religious concerns. The two situations are not comparable.
Post by: Chris22 on June 23, 2020, 10:31:42 AM
In a au your stance reminds me of me on another issue. I am anti-guns. I think the right to bear arms isn’t done sacred thing enshrined in the constitution, but an embarrassing aberration to be fixed, like when slavery was legal or women didn’t have the right to vote. Unfortunately I also see that the pro side is so entrenched and the NRA has done such a good job of spouting nonsense that any even slight move towards sanity is greeted with “omg, they are coming to get out guns!”. I see that me speaking an actual anti-gun stance will probably only further stoke the flames of unreason and not move us a millimeter closer to having a safer society. America is just too immature and illogical for that.
There is no pro-abortion side. There is a pro-choice side, because the ability to choose is the essential part. The ability to choose for themselves whether they want to bear their rapist's child, or whatever. No one would be upset if everyone chose to not abort, perhaps because of all the actual support they received from their pro-life friends.
I'm pro-abortion. I've said it before, I'm all for killing foetuses if the mother makes that choice and there's some subjectively reasonable justification for the choice. Heck, I'd even be okay with killing infants if there's a very huge justification.
I don't relish abortions but I would be upset if everyone chose to not abort, because that's completely unnatural. People make mistakes all the time and we should do everything we can to (1) de-stigmatise abortion, (2) facilitate it (ban abortion protests, make it as cheap/easy as possible) and (3) encourage it (via cash payments for pre- and post-counselling etc, to make sure that no one's ethical choice is constrained by financial or practical constraints.
I'm not sure why so many "pro-choice" people try to pussy foot around it. I support abortion because I think in most cases where the mother chooses it, it's for the greater good. I also don't draw an absolute line at birth. Go read some of Peter Singer's philosophy if you want to explore the difficult ethical conundrums in more detail.
It does us no good to simply avoid difficult ethical questions by taking a "pure" stance that then makes it harder in practice for people in exactly those difficult situations to find self-compassion and understanding.
Calling it "pro-choice" still leads to guilt for mothers who exercise that choice. I'm out, I'm proud, I'm fucking pro-abortion.
So while I won’t say I disagree with you necessarily (or agree either), I fear your position would be take by the fanatics as proof that those trying to push America to be slightly less backwards are actually all immoral baby killers in disguise. (Who want to take your guns while they are at it.)
Are you saying that you want to abolish gun ownership (comparison to getting rid of them like slavery was gotten rid of) but pro-gun people are wrong when we think that the other side wants to take our guns?
Also, one of the main planks of the so-called “common sense gun laws” is to ban ownership of semi-automatic rifles (AR-15s and others) and hand guns with “high capacity” magazines. These two groups encompass most of the most popular guns owned. Aside from an old shotgun, every gun I own falls into one of those two groups. So if you try and ban me from owning them, which is a very popular Democratic plank, yes, you are quite literally trying to take away my guns.
Post by: ysette9 on June 23, 2020, 10:48:52 AM
It seems like there is a lot of overlap in our beliefs. We both believe there are rights to bodily autonomy and that a fetus/baby has rights. We are both sad that either side must lose any of the rights they would ideally have. We just come down on different sides of the argument on whose rights take precedence. I do disagree with the comment that without abortion a woman is nothing but a breeding sow. I believe women should have the right to choose when, how, and with whom to have sex. They should also have control (with input from a husband) of what birth control to use.
I wish we in society could have a more rational discussion of common ground. If we could do away with the inflammatory language and the absolutism that unfortunately has permeated our society thanks to religious fundamentalism, we could see that there is plenty of shared goals. For example: I'm pretty sure that most people in the debate can agree that a good goal is for all children to be born healthy and wanted, and grow up in loving homes with parents and/or guardians who want to and can provide for them. I expect there are extremists who feel that the goal should be all life no matter what ("every sperm is sacred"), but I posit those are fringe cases and not part of the normal distribution.
I also propose that we could find common ground on wanting society to be made up of productive, independent, self-sufficient, healthy, happy adults (and smaller people on their way to becoming such).
If we can take those assumptions as a foundation, then we could use facts and data to figure out how best to achieve that. For example, if we would like children to be born wanted to parents who are capable of raising them well, then birth control should be universally available, free, stigma-free, and encouraged to be used by people who have received fact-based sex education. We can look at data that show us that in countries where this is the case, teen birth rate is dramatically lower than in the US, for example. If we want productive, self-sufficient, happy adults, we can see a wealth of data from economists showing that in countries where women are educated and have bodily autonomy (i.e. can control their own reproductive choices), those economies are richer.
One of my biggest frustrations with the US in general and government in particular is that we seem too immature to make fact-based policy decisions. So instead of looking at data that say sex education reduces harm and unwanted side effects, dogma and wishful thinking rule the day and we have damaging and counter productive "abstinence-only" programs. Policy is enacted that gives lip service to reducing abortion, but in fact results in higher unwanted pregnancies and drives abortion underground, making it more dangerous (but not for rich people, of course, who always can get the medical services they need).
I think this high-minded philosophical debate is important, and I'm glad we are discussing it, but we can't forget that we live in the real world, messy, imperfect, and unintended consequences are very important to consider.
Post by: ysette9 on June 23, 2020, 10:56:13 AM
In a au your stance reminds me of me on another issue. I am anti-guns. I think the right to bear arms isn’t done sacred thing enshrined in the constitution, but an embarrassing aberration to be fixed, like when slavery was legal or women didn’t have the right to vote. Unfortunately I also see that the pro side is so entrenched and the NRA has done such a good job of spouting nonsense that any even slight move towards sanity is greeted with “omg, they are coming to get out guns!”. I see that me speaking an actual anti-gun stance will probably only further stoke the flames of unreason and not move us a millimeter closer to having a safer society. America is just too immature and illogical for that.
There is no pro-abortion side. There is a pro-choice side, because the ability to choose is the essential part. The ability to choose for themselves whether they want to bear their rapist's child, or whatever. No one would be upset if everyone chose to not abort, perhaps because of all the actual support they received from their pro-life friends.
I'm pro-abortion. I've said it before, I'm all for killing foetuses if the mother makes that choice and there's some subjectively reasonable justification for the choice. Heck, I'd even be okay with killing infants if there's a very huge justification.
I don't relish abortions but I would be upset if everyone chose to not abort, because that's completely unnatural. People make mistakes all the time and we should do everything we can to (1) de-stigmatise abortion, (2) facilitate it (ban abortion protests, make it as cheap/easy as possible) and (3) encourage it (via cash payments for pre- and post-counselling etc, to make sure that no one's ethical choice is constrained by financial or practical constraints.
I'm not sure why so many "pro-choice" people try to pussy foot around it. I support abortion because I think in most cases where the mother chooses it, it's for the greater good. I also don't draw an absolute line at birth. Go read some of Peter Singer's philosophy if you want to explore the difficult ethical conundrums in more detail.
It does us no good to simply avoid difficult ethical questions by taking a "pure" stance that then makes it harder in practice for people in exactly those difficult situations to find self-compassion and understanding.
Calling it "pro-choice" still leads to guilt for mothers who exercise that choice. I'm out, I'm proud, I'm fucking pro-abortion.
So while I won’t say I disagree with you necessarily (or agree either), I fear your position would be take by the fanatics as proof that those trying to push America to be slightly less backwards are actually all immoral baby killers in disguise. (Who want to take your guns while they are at it.)
Are you saying that you want to abolish gun ownership (comparison to getting rid of them like slavery was gotten rid of) but pro-gun people are wrong when we think that the other side wants to take our guns?
Also, one of the main planks of the so-called “common sense gun laws” is to ban ownership of semi-automatic rifles (AR-15s and others) and hand guns with “high capacity” magazines. These two groups encompass most of the most popular guns owned. Aside from an old shotgun, every gun I own falls into one of those two groups. So if you try and ban me from owning them, which is a very popular Democratic plank, yes, you are quite literally trying to take away my guns.
I realize my clarity there wasn't so great. I'll blame it on trying to type out complex ideas on my phone. Let me have another take.
But yes. I recognize that in the US this will come across as a fringe idea, but I think we have no business owning guns privately. There are likely some cases in places like Alaska where you genuinely need to protect yourself from wild animals, but the average person living in a townhouse in some small city has zero need. Most average citizens in most rich countries don't have firearms and don't need them. As a result they have far lower rates of suicide, homicide, and other violence from guns. But be that as it may; I'm not trying to convince anyone of that because I realize it is a non-starter in this country.
What I was trying to say is that people with my position mostly sit back and shut up, and for good reason. Advancing that idea will go nowhere in this country, and will likely damage the more centrist people who are trying to put some slight restrictions on the current situation in attempts of slightly reducing the massive violence we have become inured to. But I have almost no hope for that either. We as a nation clearly stated that gun ownership was more important than anything else when droves of innocent young children were murdered at school, and we collectively threw up our hands and said "bummer, dude".
Post by: LWYRUP on June 23, 2020, 11:16:05 AM
It seems like there is a lot of overlap in our beliefs. We both believe there are rights to bodily autonomy and that a fetus/baby has rights. We are both sad that either side must lose any of the rights they would ideally have. We just come down on different sides of the argument on whose rights take precedence. I do disagree with the comment that without abortion a woman is nothing but a breeding sow. I believe women should have the right to choose when, how, and with whom to have sex. They should also have control (with input from a husband) of what birth control to use.
I wish we in society could have a more rational discussion of common ground. If we could do away with the inflammatory language and the absolutism that unfortunately has permeated our society thanks to religious fundamentalism, we could see that there is plenty of shared goals. For example: I'm pretty sure that most people in the debate can agree that a good goal is for all children to be born healthy and wanted, and grow up in loving homes with parents and/or guardians who want to and can provide for them. I expect there are extremists who feel that the goal should be all life no matter what ("every sperm is sacred"), but I posit those are fringe cases and not part of the normal distribution.
I also propose that we could find common ground on wanting society to be made up of productive, independent, self-sufficient, healthy, happy adults (and smaller people on their way to becoming such).
If we can take those assumptions as a foundation, then we could use facts and data to figure out how best to achieve that. For example, if we would like children to be born wanted to parents who are capable of raising them well, then birth control should be universally available, free, stigma-free, and encouraged to be used by people who have received fact-based sex education. We can look at data that show us that in countries where this is the case, teen birth rate is dramatically lower than in the US, for example. If we want productive, self-sufficient, happy adults, we can see a wealth of data from economists showing that in countries where women are educated and have bodily autonomy (i.e. can control their own reproductive choices), those economies are richer.
One of my biggest frustrations with the US in general and government in particular is that we seem too immature to make fact-based policy decisions. So instead of looking at data that say sex education reduces harm and unwanted side effects, dogma and wishful thinking rule the day and we have damaging and counter productive "abstinence-only" programs. Policy is enacted that gives lip service to reducing abortion, but in fact results in higher unwanted pregnancies and drives abortion underground, making it more dangerous (but not for rich people, of course, who always can get the medical services they need).
I think this high-minded philosophical debate is important, and I'm glad we are discussing it, but we can't forget that we live in the real world, messy, imperfect, and unintended consequences are very important to consider.
I both agree with much of this and am stunned to see "inflammatory language and the absolutism" chalked up to solely to religious fundamentalism. I see tons of inflammatory language and absolutism coming from both left and right, religious and non-religious.
I think this is a really important issue because a lot of people can easily see the "inflammatory language and the absolutism" from people of opposing viewpoints but are literally blind to the "inflammatory language and the absolutism" coming from people who have the same viewpoint as them. And around and around we spin in circles of perpetual outrage.
I could point out a zillion examples of "inflammatory language and the absolutism" from secular progressives. But then this thread is just sure to erupt in another round of recriminations and I just get exhausted by it. It's enough to make one want to throw up their hands and just become apolical (paging @Buffaloski Boris).
Post by: ctuser1 on June 23, 2020, 11:20:47 AM
Are you saying that you want to abolish gun ownership (comparison to getting rid of them like slavery was gotten rid of) but pro-gun people are wrong when we think that the other side wants to take our guns?
Also, one of the main planks of the so-called “common sense gun laws” is to ban ownership of semi-automatic rifles (AR-15s and others) and hand guns with “high capacity” magazines. These two groups encompass most of the most popular guns owned. Aside from an old shotgun, every gun I own falls into one of those two groups. So if you try and ban me from owning them, which is a very popular Democratic plank, yes, you are quite literally trying to take away my guns.
I'm not ysette. But, taking a break from work, in this thread, so what the heck.
I don't think anyone wants to ban ALL guns.
To me, the question of guns is the same equation as the abortion debate - life vs. rights.
A. 20 kids lost their lives less than 30 miles from my home (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting). There are countless others. The magnitude of the loss of life could be lessened if the perp had zero access to automatic or semi-automatic weapons.
B. Now, to make that happen, you need to take people's rights to own an automatic or semi-automatic away.
It is the exact same equation as abortion - life (as per the faith of many people) vs. liberty.
In my book:
1. The lost lives are not a matter of "faith"/"uncertainty" - so the cost is much higher and much more definite.
2. The "right" being questioned is not a fundamental human right. It is a right pertaining your possessions (like your money).
i.e. the cost in lives is higher (this is debatable, based on your faith), and the right being debated is faaaaaar less important than the ownership of one's own body.
Hence I, personally, clearly fall on the side of life in this case.
Of course what I wrote above is simplistic. Handguns kill more people, just not in a media-hype-friendly way. Hunting Rifles, on the other hand, has very little role in killing people, so I doubt anybody would be extremist enough to try to ban that. If guns could be made such that only verified owners could use them (fingerprint?) - then a lot of the objection will likely go away. etc. etc. etc.
i.e. the goal of public policy, IMO, should be to minimize loss of life, and maximize freedom. It is when they conflict that compromises become necessary.
Post by: Chris22 on June 23, 2020, 11:33:27 AM
Are you saying that you want to abolish gun ownership (comparison to getting rid of them like slavery was gotten rid of) but pro-gun people are wrong when we think that the other side wants to take our guns?
Also, one of the main planks of the so-called “common sense gun laws” is to ban ownership of semi-automatic rifles (AR-15s and others) and hand guns with “high capacity” magazines. These two groups encompass most of the most popular guns owned. Aside from an old shotgun, every gun I own falls into one of those two groups. So if you try and ban me from owning them, which is a very popular Democratic plank, yes, you are quite literally trying to take away my guns.
I'm not ysette. But, taking a break from work, in this thread, so what the heck.
I don't think anyone wants to ban ALL guns.
To me, the question of guns is the same equation as the abortion debate - life vs. rights.
A. 20 kids lost their lives less than 30 miles from my home (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting). There are countless others. The magnitude of the loss of life could be lessened if the perp had zero access to automatic or semi-automatic weapons.
B. Now, to make that happen, you need to take people's rights to own an automatic or semi-automatic away.
It is the exact same equation as abortion - life (as per the faith of many people) vs. liberty.
In my book:
1. The lost lives are not a matter of "faith"/"uncertainty" - so the cost is much higher and much more definite.
2. The "right" being questioned is not a fundamental human right. It is a right pertaining your possessions (like your money).
i.e. the cost in lives is higher (this is debatable, based on your faith), and the right being debated is faaaaaar less important than the ownership of one's own body.
Hence I, personally, clearly fall on the side of life in this case.
Of course what I wrote above is simplistic. Handguns kill more people, just not in a media-hype-friendly way. Hunting Rifles, on the other hand, has very little role in killing people, so I doubt anybody would be extremist enough to try to ban that. If guns could be made such that only verified owners could use them (fingerprint?) - then a lot of the objection will likely go away. etc. etc. etc.
i.e. the goal of public policy, IMO, should be to minimize loss of life, and maximize freedom. It is when they conflict that compromises become necessary.
Lots to disagree with, but most notably that the founding fathers do consider the 2A a “fundamental human right”. It is what allows you to defend your life, family, property, and livelihood, and overthrow a tyrannical government if necessary.
Post by: ericrugiero on June 23, 2020, 11:35:06 AM
I both agree with much of this and am stunned to see "inflammatory language and the absolutism" chalked up to solely to religious fundamentalism. I see tons of inflammatory language and absolutism coming from both left and right, religious and non-religious.
I think this is a really important issue because a lot of people can easily see the "inflammatory language and the absolutism" from people of opposing viewpoints but are literally blind to the "inflammatory language and the absolutism" coming from people who have the same viewpoint as them. And around and around we spin in circles of perpetual outrage.
I could point out a zillion examples of "inflammatory language and the absolutism" from secular progressives. But then this thread is just sure to erupt in another round of recriminations and I just get exhausted by it. It's enough to make one want to throw up their hands and just become apolical (paging @Buffaloski Boris).
This is an excellent point. What one side sees as a normal statement (example: my reference of an unborn as a baby wasn't intended to be offensive) the other side sees as inflammatory. Plus, there are people on both sides who are intentionally offensive. There are MANY examples of this on BOTH sides.
I have two facebook friends (one on each side of the political spectrum) that are CONSTANTLY posting inflammatory and absolutist things that have zero chance of convincing anyone to switch to their side because they are designed to be offensive. Productive discussions can help us see common ground and at least understand the reasoning of people who disagree. We might even realize that some of the terms we view as inflammatory aren't intended that way or that some of the terms we use can be interpreted as inflammatory. But, we have way to many people who are sure they are right and the other side is evil. They just post inflammatory comments with the intention to insult the other side.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 23, 2020, 11:46:35 AM
Are you saying that you want to abolish gun ownership (comparison to getting rid of them like slavery was gotten rid of) but pro-gun people are wrong when we think that the other side wants to take our guns?
Also, one of the main planks of the so-called “common sense gun laws” is to ban ownership of semi-automatic rifles (AR-15s and others) and hand guns with “high capacity” magazines. These two groups encompass most of the most popular guns owned. Aside from an old shotgun, every gun I own falls into one of those two groups. So if you try and ban me from owning them, which is a very popular Democratic plank, yes, you are quite literally trying to take away my guns.
I'm not ysette. But, taking a break from work, in this thread, so what the heck.
I don't think anyone wants to ban ALL guns.
To me, the question of guns is the same equation as the abortion debate - life vs. rights.
A. 20 kids lost their lives less than 30 miles from my home (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting). There are countless others. The magnitude of the loss of life could be lessened if the perp had zero access to automatic or semi-automatic weapons.
B. Now, to make that happen, you need to take people's rights to own an automatic or semi-automatic away.
It is the exact same equation as abortion - life (as per the faith of many people) vs. liberty.
In my book:
1. The lost lives are not a matter of "faith"/"uncertainty" - so the cost is much higher and much more definite.
2. The "right" being questioned is not a fundamental human right. It is a right pertaining your possessions (like your money).
i.e. the cost in lives is higher (this is debatable, based on your faith), and the right being debated is faaaaaar less important than the ownership of one's own body.
Hence I, personally, clearly fall on the side of life in this case.
Of course what I wrote above is simplistic. Handguns kill more people, just not in a media-hype-friendly way. Hunting Rifles, on the other hand, has very little role in killing people, so I doubt anybody would be extremist enough to try to ban that. If guns could be made such that only verified owners could use them (fingerprint?) - then a lot of the objection will likely go away. etc. etc. etc.
i.e. the goal of public policy, IMO, should be to minimize loss of life, and maximize freedom. It is when they conflict that compromises become necessary.
Lots to disagree with, but most notably that the founding fathers do consider the 2A a “fundamental human right”. It is what allows you to defend your life, family, property, and livelihood, and overthrow a tyrannical government if necessary.
Agreed that there is a lot to disagree with. I just wanted to clarify a typical stance (or my stance).
Also agreed that a constitutionally mandated freedom isn't something to be "wished away", just like a "religious belief".
People get angry when they suspect motives:
e.g.1 - I suspect the motives of Justice Scalia when he chose to overturn 200 years of precedents based on sketchy reasoning that actually took the "law" further away from the "text" of the constitution)
e.g.2 - I see people flip stances and sides completely on the life vs. liberty equation from one discussion to another (abortion vs. gun rights).
I believe the gun debate should not be as polarizing as the abortion debate.
Post by: sherr on June 23, 2020, 11:54:53 AM
Lots to disagree with, but most notably that the founding fathers do consider the 2A a “fundamental human right”. It is what allows you to defend your life, family, property, and livelihood, and overthrow a tyrannical government if necessary.
The founding fathers were intentionally drawing up a governmental structure that did not have a standing army and where individual-state militias were the only means of national defense. Nor were there any police forces in the country at the time, save the one in the city of Philadelphia. To talk about the 2nd amendment without acknowledging that seems intentionally misleading at best.
Post by: Chris22 on June 23, 2020, 11:56:33 AM
Lots to disagree with, but most notably that the founding fathers do consider the 2A a “fundamental human right”. It is what allows you to defend your life, family, property, and livelihood, and overthrow a tyrannical government if necessary.
The founding fathers were intentionally drawing up a governmental structure that did not have a standing army and where individual-state militias were the only means of national defense. Nor were there any police forces in the country at the time, save the one in the city of Philadelphia. To talk about the 2nd amendment without acknowledging that seems intentionally misleading at best.
The founding fathers also lived in a time where basically everyone had a “weapon of the battlefield” in their own home and many had just used theirs to overthrow an oppressive government.
Post by: sherr on June 23, 2020, 12:07:07 PM
Lots to disagree with, but most notably that the founding fathers do consider the 2A a “fundamental human right”. It is what allows you to defend your life, family, property, and livelihood, and overthrow a tyrannical government if necessary.
The founding fathers were intentionally drawing up a governmental structure that did not have a standing army and where individual-state militias were the only means of national defense. Nor were there any police forces in the country at the time, save the one in the city of Philadelphia. To talk about the 2nd amendment without acknowledging that seems intentionally misleading at best.
The founding fathers also lived in a time where basically everyone had a “weapon of the battlefield” in their own home and many had just used theirs to overthrow an oppressive government.
Right, and those "weapons of the battlefield" were single-shot 30-second-to-reload ball muskets. I doubt that there are many people on the left today who want to outlaw muskets.
My point is merely that this particular issue has changed enormously since the 2nd amendment was written, both in how the government/society has evolved and how gun technology has evolved. Have the gun debate all you want to, but referencing "what the founding fathers would think" without first acknowledging that today's situation has almost nothing in common with the founding fathers' actual intentions seems dishonest to me.
Post by: partgypsy on June 23, 2020, 12:11:24 PM
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 23, 2020, 12:23:12 PM
(Feel free to disregard this request if it's considered an imposition)
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 23, 2020, 12:24:46 PM
I really do wonder what the founding fathers would say, if they could see 20th century America and our gun situation. I think they would not be supportive. That and the political influence corporations have.
I'm pretty sure if the founding fathers saw our country, the gun situation wouldn't make their top 50 of concerns. One of the first things they would probably be shocked about is our military presence and policing of the world imo.
Post by: Kris on June 23, 2020, 12:26:54 PM
I believe I read that @Kris owns a firearm, which surprised me. I'd love to hear what her rationale is, considering her and I often disagree on issues like this. I do support private firearm ownership.
(Feel free to disregard this request if it's considered an imposition)
I own three. And have my carry permit, as well.
To be honest, I decided to arm myself in 2016, when I started to see the inflamed fanaticism of the most rabid Trump supporters. He and the extreme right-wing publications and orgs that support him have been urging their people toward civil war for some time now. I think many of them are on a hair trigger, if you’ll pardon the metaphor.
My plan is to be a better shot than they are.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 23, 2020, 12:28:40 PM
Lots to disagree with, but most notably that the founding fathers do consider the 2A a “fundamental human right”. It is what allows you to defend your life, family, property, and livelihood, and overthrow a tyrannical government if necessary.
The founding fathers were intentionally drawing up a governmental structure that did not have a standing army and where individual-state militias were the only means of national defense. Nor were there any police forces in the country at the time, save the one in the city of Philadelphia. To talk about the 2nd amendment without acknowledging that seems intentionally misleading at best.
The founding fathers also lived in a time where basically everyone had a “weapon of the battlefield” in their own home and many had just used theirs to overthrow an oppressive government.
Right, and those "weapons of the battlefield" were ball muskets. I doubt that there are many people on the left today who want to outlaw ball muskets.
My point is merely that this particular issue has changed enormously since the 2nd amendment was written, both in how the government/society has evolved and how gun technology has evolved. Have the gun debate all you want to, but to referencing "what the founding fathers would think" without first acknowledging that today's situation has almost nothing in common with the founding fathers' actual intentions seems dishonest to me.
This dishonesty is step 1 when my BS-meter starts rising. But there are two more fundamental issues here that raises a higher degree of BS-alarm.
1. The rights the gun-rights-gang want to hold on to was a legislation from the bench. For 200+ years judges ruled one way and interpreted the constitution to mean one thing. And now, 200 years later, Scalia claimed to know better than all of them, so much as to ignore parts of the written text of the constitution itself.
2. The constitution is supposed to serve the people. When kids die from preventable deaths because someone likes their constitutional rights, I think lives of the Sandy Hook kids are more important than the (questionable) constitutional right.
And then, of course, the gun gang turn around and suddenly discover the sanctity of life in the abortion debate.
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 23, 2020, 12:35:30 PM
Sounds fair.I believe I read that @Kris owns a firearm, which surprised me. I'd love to hear what her rationale is, considering her and I often disagree on issues like this. I do support private firearm ownership.
(Feel free to disregard this request if it's considered an imposition)
I own three. And have my carry permit, as well.
To be honest, I decided to arm myself in 2016, when I started to see the inflamed fanaticism of the most rabid Trump supporters. He and the extreme right-wing publications and orgs that support him have been urging their people toward civil war for some time now. I think many of them are on a hair trigger, if you’ll pardon the metaphor.
My plan is to be a better shot than they are.
Post by: Chris22 on June 23, 2020, 12:38:58 PM
Lots to disagree with, but most notably that the founding fathers do consider the 2A a “fundamental human right”. It is what allows you to defend your life, family, property, and livelihood, and overthrow a tyrannical government if necessary.
The founding fathers were intentionally drawing up a governmental structure that did not have a standing army and where individual-state militias were the only means of national defense. Nor were there any police forces in the country at the time, save the one in the city of Philadelphia. To talk about the 2nd amendment without acknowledging that seems intentionally misleading at best.
The founding fathers also lived in a time where basically everyone had a “weapon of the battlefield” in their own home and many had just used theirs to overthrow an oppressive government.
Right, and those "weapons of the battlefield" were ball muskets. I doubt that there are many people on the left today who want to outlaw ball muskets.
My point is merely that this particular issue has changed enormously since the 2nd amendment was written, both in how the government/society has evolved and how gun technology has evolved. Have the gun debate all you want to, but to referencing "what the founding fathers would think" without first acknowledging that today's situation has almost nothing in common with the founding fathers' actual intentions seems dishonest to me.
This dishonesty is step 1 when my BS-meter starts rising. But there are two more fundamental issues here that raises a higher degree of BS-alarm.
1. The rights the gun-rights-gang want to hold on to was a legislation from the bench. For 200+ years judges ruled one way and interpreted the constitution to mean one thing. And now, 200 years later, Scalia claimed to know better than all of them, so much as to ignore parts of the written text of the constitution itself.
2. The constitution is supposed to serve the people. When kids die from preventable deaths because someone likes their constitutional rights, I think lives of the Sandy Hook kids are more important than the (questionable) constitutional right.
And then, of course, the gun gang turn around and suddenly discover the sanctity of life in the abortion debate.
FWIW, two points:
1. There are more guns than people in the US. You can’t simply un-ring that bell. See war on drugs, crime, etc. None of those things have gone away. So this whole “oh if we outlawed gun Sandy Hook would never have happened so that means people who like guns just don’t care about children” is all bullshit. Has any kid ever gotten high at school? Drugs are illegal, yes?
2. As a straight white married man with 2 kids and a vasectomy, I really don’t have an opinion on abortion and wouldn’t expect anyone to care if I did. “Safe legal rare” sounds good to me but I don’t know. This is a pretty big area of divergence for me versus the GOP, it’s just an issue I don’t care about and seems to me a pretty silly hill to die on for Republicans/Conservatives.
Post by: ericrugiero on June 23, 2020, 12:42:40 PM
Are you saying that you want to abolish gun ownership (comparison to getting rid of them like slavery was gotten rid of) but pro-gun people are wrong when we think that the other side wants to take our guns?
Also, one of the main planks of the so-called “common sense gun laws” is to ban ownership of semi-automatic rifles (AR-15s and others) and hand guns with “high capacity” magazines. These two groups encompass most of the most popular guns owned. Aside from an old shotgun, every gun I own falls into one of those two groups. So if you try and ban me from owning them, which is a very popular Democratic plank, yes, you are quite literally trying to take away my guns.
I'm not ysette. But, taking a break from work, in this thread, so what the heck.
I don't think anyone wants to ban ALL guns.
To me, the question of guns is the same equation as the abortion debate - life vs. rights.
A. 20 kids lost their lives less than 30 miles from my home (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting). There are countless others. The magnitude of the loss of life could be lessened if the perp had zero access to automatic or semi-automatic weapons.
B. Now, to make that happen, you need to take people's rights to own an automatic or semi-automatic away.
It is the exact same equation as abortion - life (as per the faith of many people) vs. liberty.
In my book:
1. The lost lives are not a matter of "faith"/"uncertainty" - so the cost is much higher and much more definite.
2. The "right" being questioned is not a fundamental human right. It is a right pertaining your possessions (like your money).
i.e. the cost in lives is higher (this is debatable, based on your faith), and the right being debated is faaaaaar less important than the ownership of one's own body.
Hence I, personally, clearly fall on the side of life in this case.
Of course what I wrote above is simplistic. Handguns kill more people, just not in a media-hype-friendly way. Hunting Rifles, on the other hand, has very little role in killing people, so I doubt anybody would be extremist enough to try to ban that. If guns could be made such that only verified owners could use them (fingerprint?) - then a lot of the objection will likely go away. etc. etc. etc.
i.e. the goal of public policy, IMO, should be to minimize loss of life, and maximize freedom. It is when they conflict that compromises become necessary.
The question of gun ownership is complicated because there are multiple reasons people own guns and lots of questions about how we would go about effectively removing them from our society.
People own guns for many reasons including hunting, target shooting, self defense and to provide checks and balances on the government.
We are good friends with a wonderful young lady of ~23 who was getting out the shower last spring when a man broke into the house. She heard something and went to investigate when he attacked her. She broke free and got her handgun while he got a pair of kitchen shears. When he came at her with the kitchen shears raised, she shot and killed him. The police say it was a random crime by someone who was high on drugs at the time. He was wearing nothing but boxer shorts so we don't know for sure if he intended rape, murder or something else. This is a good example of how guns can equalize things for someone who is smaller and weaker. Self defense is the biggest reason I'm in favor of gun ownership.
Another big one is to provide checks and balances on governments who try to do bad things to their people. This is a good reason, but as time goes on, even an assault rifle becomes less effective against the tools of modern warfare. Still, it's much better than nothing if there is ever something like the holocaust.
One major logistical problem with making guns illegal is that we wouldn't be able to get the guns away from the criminals. If all law abiding citizens turn in their guns then only the criminals will own them. There are just to many guns in this country to get them all out.
Statistically, most places in the US with high gun ownership and lax gun laws have lower crime rates than more strict cities and states. Also, the crime rate for people with a concealed carry license is one of the lowest rate you will find for any large group of people.
If I truly thought outlawing guns would make our country and my family safer then I would turn mine in tomorrow. Yes, it could prevent some terrible acts of violence. But, it would also open us up to other violence by our criminals or our government. A large powerful man would have little to fear attacking most other people
My personal opinion is that we should look hard at other things like violent video games or movies. Could playing hundreds or thousands of hours of video games shooting people on a screen make it easier to shoot people in real life? Maybe, the military switched to human shaped targets to help soldiers get used to shooting at people so they would be able to do it in combat.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/killing-does-not-come-easy-for-soldiers/2017/10/13/6008e742-ae26-11e7-9b93-b97043e57a22_story.html
Whatever the reason, we had lots of guns 50-100 years ago and no school shootings. What changed?
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 23, 2020, 12:45:31 PM
Most people shouldn't need to own firearms to feel safe, but they should have the right to own them. Unfortunately this leads to collateral damage and a sort of Mexican standoff where lots of people have guns and you can't rely on de-escalation.
Post by: Chris22 on June 23, 2020, 12:52:11 PM
I see some similarities with abortion and firearm ownership. Ideally, both would be rare. And if they are not rare, it's a symptom of an unhealthy society(Edit: with the exceptions of firearm ownership for recreational or hunting purposes). Then if you ban their "possession", you are banning a symptom.
Most people shouldn't need to own firearms to feel safe, but they should have the right to own them. Unfortunately this leads to collateral damage and a sort of Mexican standoff where lots of people have guns and you can't rely on de-escalation.
I’m going to ask you to bring the tech on that statement. When was the last time two legal gun owners, or CCW permit holders, got into a “Mexican standoff” and couldn’t de-escalate? Has it ever happened? And don’t give me a situation where one of them is a cop because that’s a whole ‘nother ball of wax.
Post by: sherr on June 23, 2020, 12:55:01 PM
I see some similarities with abortion and firearm ownership. Ideally, both would be rare. And if they are not rare, it's a symptom of an unhealthy society(Edit: with the exceptions of firearm ownership for recreational or hunting purposes). Then if you ban their "possession", you are banning a symptom.
Most people shouldn't need to own firearms to feel safe, but they should have the right to own them. Unfortunately this leads to collateral damage and a sort of Mexican standoff where lots of people have guns and you can't rely on de-escalation.
I’m going to ask you to bring the tech on that statement. When was the last time two legal gun owners, or CCW permit holders, got into a “Mexican standoff” and couldn’t de-escalate? Has it ever happened? And don’t give me a situation where one of them is a cop because that’s a whole ‘nother ball of wax.
He's talking about a societal Mexican Standoff. Where the "good guys" "have" to own guns because the "bad guys" do.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 23, 2020, 01:02:31 PM
Are you saying that you want to abolish gun ownership (comparison to getting rid of them like slavery was gotten rid of) but pro-gun people are wrong when we think that the other side wants to take our guns?
Also, one of the main planks of the so-called “common sense gun laws” is to ban ownership of semi-automatic rifles (AR-15s and others) and hand guns with “high capacity” magazines. These two groups encompass most of the most popular guns owned. Aside from an old shotgun, every gun I own falls into one of those two groups. So if you try and ban me from owning them, which is a very popular Democratic plank, yes, you are quite literally trying to take away my guns.
I'm not ysette. But, taking a break from work, in this thread, so what the heck.
I don't think anyone wants to ban ALL guns.
To me, the question of guns is the same equation as the abortion debate - life vs. rights.
A. 20 kids lost their lives less than 30 miles from my home (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting). There are countless others. The magnitude of the loss of life could be lessened if the perp had zero access to automatic or semi-automatic weapons.
B. Now, to make that happen, you need to take people's rights to own an automatic or semi-automatic away.
It is the exact same equation as abortion - life (as per the faith of many people) vs. liberty.
In my book:
1. The lost lives are not a matter of "faith"/"uncertainty" - so the cost is much higher and much more definite.
2. The "right" being questioned is not a fundamental human right. It is a right pertaining your possessions (like your money).
i.e. the cost in lives is higher (this is debatable, based on your faith), and the right being debated is faaaaaar less important than the ownership of one's own body.
Hence I, personally, clearly fall on the side of life in this case.
Of course what I wrote above is simplistic. Handguns kill more people, just not in a media-hype-friendly way. Hunting Rifles, on the other hand, has very little role in killing people, so I doubt anybody would be extremist enough to try to ban that. If guns could be made such that only verified owners could use them (fingerprint?) - then a lot of the objection will likely go away. etc. etc. etc.
i.e. the goal of public policy, IMO, should be to minimize loss of life, and maximize freedom. It is when they conflict that compromises become necessary.
The question of gun ownership is complicated because there are multiple reasons people own guns and lots of questions about how we would go about effectively removing them from our society.
People own guns for many reasons including hunting, target shooting, self defense and to provide checks and balances on the government.
We are good friends with a wonderful young lady of ~23 who was getting out the shower last spring when a man broke into the house. She heard something and went to investigate when he attacked her. She broke free and got her handgun while he got a pair of kitchen shears. When he came at her with the kitchen shears raised, she shot and killed him. The police say it was a random crime by someone who was high on drugs at the time. He was wearing nothing but boxer shorts so we don't know for sure if he intended rape, murder or something else. This is a good example of how guns can equalize things for someone who is smaller and weaker. Self defense is the biggest reason I'm in favor of gun ownership.
Another big one is to provide checks and balances on governments who try to do bad things to their people. This is a good reason, but as time goes on, even an assault rifle becomes less effective against the tools of modern warfare. Still, it's much better than nothing if there is ever something like the holocaust.
One major logistical problem with making guns illegal is that we wouldn't be able to get the guns away from the criminals. If all law abiding citizens turn in their guns then only the criminals will own them. There are just to many guns in this country to get them all out.
Statistically, most places in the US with high gun ownership and lax gun laws have lower crime rates than more strict cities and states. Also, the crime rate for people with a concealed carry license is one of the lowest rate you will find for any large group of people.
If I truly thought outlawing guns would make our country and my family safer then I would turn mine in tomorrow. Yes, it could prevent some terrible acts of violence. But, it would also open us up to other violence by our criminals or our government. A large powerful man would have little to fear attacking most other people
My personal opinion is that we should look hard at other things like violent video games or movies. Could playing hundreds or thousands of hours of video games shooting people on a screen make it easier to shoot people in real life? Maybe, the military switched to human shaped targets to help soldiers get used to shooting at people so they would be able to do it in combat.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/killing-does-not-come-easy-for-soldiers/2017/10/13/6008e742-ae26-11e7-9b93-b97043e57a22_story.html
Whatever the reason, we had lots of guns 50-100 years ago and no school shootings. What changed?
Setting aside other good points that you've made about it offsetting a smaller/physically weaker person defending themselves, this is the perspective that the extreme gun control proponents fail to see. You could have whatever percent (I could do an estimate, but I don't feel like it and the percentage would be in dispute of course) let's say 75-85% of people give up every gun they own and it wouldn't change a thing. So the moral argument is made to a gun owner that you need to give up your guns so that others can be safe when in reality the chances of them giving up their guns making anyone safer is staggeringly small - just like the chances of them using it to defend themselves, of course, but it doesn't change the fact that you're asking someone who has done nothing wrong to give up their guns when that person or family giving up their guns will almost certainly not help anything.
Post by: GuitarStv on June 23, 2020, 01:05:11 PM
I see some similarities with abortion and firearm ownership. Ideally, both would be rare. And if they are not rare, it's a symptom of an unhealthy society(Edit: with the exceptions of firearm ownership for recreational or hunting purposes). Then if you ban their "possession", you are banning a symptom.
Most people shouldn't need to own firearms to feel safe, but they should have the right to own them. Unfortunately this leads to collateral damage and a sort of Mexican standoff where lots of people have guns and you can't rely on de-escalation.
I’m going to ask you to bring the tech on that statement. When was the last time two legal gun owners, or CCW permit holders, got into a “Mexican standoff” and couldn’t de-escalate? Has it ever happened? And don’t give me a situation where one of them is a cop because that’s a whole ‘nother ball of wax.
Philando Castile immediately springs to mind.
Castile was legally executed by a legal gun using police officer entirely because Castile legally owned a gun and had it on his person.
Not making any excuses at all for the officer, but the way that police behave towards citizens is heavily impacted by whether or not the police expect a gun to be pulled out and used on them every time they stop.
Post by: Chris22 on June 23, 2020, 01:06:57 PM
I see some similarities with abortion and firearm ownership. Ideally, both would be rare. And if they are not rare, it's a symptom of an unhealthy society(Edit: with the exceptions of firearm ownership for recreational or hunting purposes). Then if you ban their "possession", you are banning a symptom.
Most people shouldn't need to own firearms to feel safe, but they should have the right to own them. Unfortunately this leads to collateral damage and a sort of Mexican standoff where lots of people have guns and you can't rely on de-escalation.
I’m going to ask you to bring the tech on that statement. When was the last time two legal gun owners, or CCW permit holders, got into a “Mexican standoff” and couldn’t de-escalate? Has it ever happened? And don’t give me a situation where one of them is a cop because that’s a whole ‘nother ball of wax.
Philando Castile immediately springs to mind.
Castile was legally executed by a legal gun using police officer entirely because Castile legally owned a gun and had it on his person.
Not making any excuses at all for the officer, but the way that police behave towards citizens is heavily impacted by whether or not the police expect a gun to be pulled out and used on them every time they stop.
Did you read my last line? I absolutely think cops need to be much better versed in de-escalation, but that’s unrelated to private gun owners who don’t tend to have that issue.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 23, 2020, 01:17:43 PM
If I truly thought outlawing guns would make our country and my family safer then I would turn mine in tomorrow.
I don't want to bias your own research (if you choose to take it up) so I won't name names, but this part - whether banning automatics will make the country safer or not - is easy to determine.
There are other countries that has had this debate, and has done a real ban on assault weapons.
(Hint: there are many posters from one of those countries on MMM.)
There have been much studies and research done to determine if the rate of gun deaths have decreased following those ban. Unfortunately there are also propaganda groups (like NRA) which has published much garbage. So you would need to determine which sources you would trust. I, personally, look for peer reviewed research on social sciences that does data crunching. An alternative is to rely on government reported data from their websites, and doing your own number crunching.
If you do the above honestly, I am pretty sure you will conclude that banning certain types of guns (even assuming < 100% compliance) still makes the country safer.
Raw data usually don't lie.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 23, 2020, 01:21:12 PM
Setting aside other good points that you've made about it offsetting a smaller/physically weaker person defending themselves, this is the perspective that the extreme gun control proponents fail to see. You could have whatever percent (I could do an estimate, but I don't feel like it and the percentage would be in dispute of course) let's say 75-85% of people give up every gun they own and it wouldn't change a thing. So the moral argument is made to a gun owner that you need to give up your guns so that others can be safe when in reality the chances of them giving up their guns making anyone safer is staggeringly small - just like the chances of them using it to defend themselves, of course, but it doesn't change the fact that you're asking someone who has done nothing wrong to give up their guns when that person or family giving up their guns will almost certainly not help anything.
Do you have any peer reviewed research/studies (that is not NRA published/funded) showing that a 75-80% change in the number of guns + certain type of guns being outlawed "won't change a thing"?
I remember having seen data/research that would most probably conclude the opposite.
(I'm not very motivated by the gun debate, so have not spent a ton of time researching it compared to, say, healthcare. But I remember I saw enough to clearly discern a conclusion emerging.)
Post by: Wrenchturner on June 23, 2020, 01:27:45 PM
I see some similarities with abortion and firearm ownership. Ideally, both would be rare. And if they are not rare, it's a symptom of an unhealthy society(Edit: with the exceptions of firearm ownership for recreational or hunting purposes). Then if you ban their "possession", you are banning a symptom.
Most people shouldn't need to own firearms to feel safe, but they should have the right to own them. Unfortunately this leads to collateral damage and a sort of Mexican standoff where lots of people have guns and you can't rely on de-escalation.
I’m going to ask you to bring the tech on that statement. When was the last time two legal gun owners, or CCW permit holders, got into a “Mexican standoff” and couldn’t de-escalate? Has it ever happened? And don’t give me a situation where one of them is a cop because that’s a whole ‘nother ball of wax.
He's talking about a societal Mexican Standoff. Where the "good guys" "have" to own guns because the "bad guys" do.
This and what @GuitarStv was saying is what I was getting at.
Did you read my last line? I absolutely think cops need to be much better versed in de-escalation, but that’s unrelated to private gun owners who don’t tend to have that issue.I don't have stats for you--not to say they don't exist--but I think increasing the quantity of firearms in society does increase collateral damage. A big part of this is how we deal with proximal vs distal risk. Kind of like how people will road-rage in the moment even though it might get them imprisoned.
Post by: Chris22 on June 23, 2020, 01:29:45 PM
If I truly thought outlawing guns would make our country and my family safer then I would turn mine in tomorrow.
I don't want to bias your own research (if you choose to take it up) so I won't name names, but this part - whether banning automatics will make the country safer or not - is easy to determine.
There are other countries that has had this debate, and has done a real ban on assault weapons.
(Hint: there are many posters from one of those countries on MMM.)
There have been much studies and research done to determine if the rate of gun deaths have decreased following those ban. Unfortunately there are also propaganda groups (like NRA) which has published much garbage. So you would need to determine which sources you would trust. I, personally, look for peer reviewed research on social sciences that does data crunching. An alternative is to rely on government reported data from their websites, and doing your own number crunching.
If you do the above honestly, I am pretty sure you will conclude that banning certain types of guns (even assuming < 100% compliance) still makes the country safer.
Raw data usually don't lie.
First bolded: automatics are already essentially banned if made after 1986, and super expensive made before that. The number of crimes committed with automatic weapons is essentially zero.
On the second bolded, the raw data is widely available from the FBI and others. Semi-automatic (what I assume you actually meant) rifles are lumped in with all rifles, and all rifles are generally responsible for ~700 deaths annually out of ~30-35k firearms deaths, ~2/3rds of which are suicides.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 23, 2020, 01:34:17 PM
Setting aside other good points that you've made about it offsetting a smaller/physically weaker person defending themselves, this is the perspective that the extreme gun control proponents fail to see. You could have whatever percent (I could do an estimate, but I don't feel like it and the percentage would be in dispute of course) let's say 75-85% of people give up every gun they own and it wouldn't change a thing. So the moral argument is made to a gun owner that you need to give up your guns so that others can be safe when in reality the chances of them giving up their guns making anyone safer is staggeringly small - just like the chances of them using it to defend themselves, of course, but it doesn't change the fact that you're asking someone who has done nothing wrong to give up their guns when that person or family giving up their guns will almost certainly not help anything.
Do you have any peer reviewed research/studies showing that a 75-80% change in the number of guns + certain type of guns being outlawed "won't change a thing"?
I remember having seen data/research that would most probably conclude the opposite.
(I'm not very motivated by the gun debate, so have not spent a ton of time researching it compared to, say, healthcare. But I remember I saw enough to clearly discern a conclusion emerging.)
I probably wasn't articulating myself well. Let me start again.
There were roughly 393,000,000 guns in America in 2017 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership.
It's not super easy with a quick Google search to find numbers of guns used in crimes. One quick one I found was that there were 467,321 victims of a non fatal firearm crime in America in 2011 - https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/gun-violence-america.
Throw in some more for fatal ones and we'll say an even 500,000. This is assuming that each firearm crime was using a different gun, which I highly doubt, but again, we're spitballing here.
This means that (putting the two years together for simplicity) 99.8% of firearms possessed weren't used in crimes.
Is this back of the napkin math? Of course. But I hope it's illustrative of my point that if you're talking about confiscating guns in America, you're asking tens of millions of people to give up their guns when the chances for any individual person who gives up their guns of those guns actually being used in anything wrong is staggeringly small. Thus for a huge majority of gun owners, you're saying, give up your guns, not because you did anything wrong, and with the foreknowledge that you giving up your specific guns will help nothing.
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 23, 2020, 01:38:07 PM
There is no pro-abortion side. There is a pro-choice side, because the ability to choose is the essential part. The ability to choose for themselves whether they want to bear their rapist's child, or whatever. No one would be upset if everyone chose to not abort, perhaps because of all the actual support they received from their pro-life friends.
I'm pro-abortion. I've said it before, I'm all for killing foetuses if the mother makes that choice and there's some subjectively reasonable justification for the choice. Heck, I'd even be okay with killing infants if there's a very huge justification.
I'm with you on the first two sentences here I think. People should be free to choose an abortion if they feel that one is necessary. The wording is a little confusing though . . . as you're not saying that you want more abortions no matter what (pro-abortion) you're saying that you want people to have the ability to choose when an abortion is correct (typically described as pro-choice). Are you merely using this imprecise language to get a rise out of people?
The third sentence is confusing to me. After a child is born, the child can be given up for adoption with no loss of liberty/minimal hassle for the mother. Why would there be a need to kill an infant?
I'm not saying I want more abortions no matter what, but I'm saying that in an ideal society there will inevitably be more abortions than there are currently in the U.S., since in the U.S. there are currently financial, practical, and cultural/societal, and sometimes legal, obstacles to people who want abortions getting abortions. Get rid of those obstacles and there will be more abortions. And that's a good thing.
My language is not to get a rise out of people. It is to highlight the salient fact that when a mother wants an abortion i.e. she has subjectively good reason to want it, it is a good thing. It is not something to be spoken of in hushed, regretful tones by society. It is a good thing full stop. And should be encouraged and facilitated to the maximum extent possible.
As for the need to kill an infant, this could be a number of compelling reasons. The first that springs to mind is overwhelming disabilities incompatible with a happy life. E.g. anencephaly.
Critics will start saying "where do you draw the line? You are judging the value of a life." Those same critics will say of abortion, "Where do you draw the line? You are killing a life, which begins at conception."
Whenever you talk about killing zygotes/foetuses/babies you necessarily have to deal with shades of grey. There is never a handy line to be drawn.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 23, 2020, 01:48:29 PM
Setting aside other good points that you've made about it offsetting a smaller/physically weaker person defending themselves, this is the perspective that the extreme gun control proponents fail to see. You could have whatever percent (I could do an estimate, but I don't feel like it and the percentage would be in dispute of course) let's say 75-85% of people give up every gun they own and it wouldn't change a thing. So the moral argument is made to a gun owner that you need to give up your guns so that others can be safe when in reality the chances of them giving up their guns making anyone safer is staggeringly small - just like the chances of them using it to defend themselves, of course, but it doesn't change the fact that you're asking someone who has done nothing wrong to give up their guns when that person or family giving up their guns will almost certainly not help anything.
Do you have any peer reviewed research/studies showing that a 75-80% change in the number of guns + certain type of guns being outlawed "won't change a thing"?
I remember having seen data/research that would most probably conclude the opposite.
(I'm not very motivated by the gun debate, so have not spent a ton of time researching it compared to, say, healthcare. But I remember I saw enough to clearly discern a conclusion emerging.)
I probably wasn't articulating myself well. Let me start again.
There were roughly 393,000,000 guns in America in 2017 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership.
It's not super easy with a quick Google search to find numbers of guns used in crimes. One quick one I found was that there were 467,321 victims of a non fatal firearm crime in America in 2011 - https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/gun-violence-america.
Throw in some more for fatal ones and we'll say an even 500,000. This is assuming that each firearm crime was using a different gun, which I highly doubt, but again, we're spitballing here.
This means that (putting the two years together for simplicity) 99.8% of firearms possessed weren't used in crimes.
Is this back of the napkin math? Of course. But I hope it's illustrative of my point that if you're talking about confiscating guns in America, you're asking tens of millions of people to give up their guns when the chances for any individual person who gives up their guns of those guns actually being used in anything wrong is staggeringly small. Thus for a huge majority of gun owners, you're saying, give up your guns, not because you did anything wrong, and with the foreknowledge that you giving up your specific guns will help nothing.
# of guns is not the only factor. Right now, you don't know whether the scary dude with a semi-automatic is a generic 2nd amendment demonstrator, or an active shooter. When everyone knows that a semi-automatic is banned, that scary dude is immediately identified as a threat by potential victims as well as the police. The perps know this, so the incidence of taking a gun out to commit crime would also go down. This leads to a virtuous cycle.
But we don't have to spit-ball and you don't have to believe me.
Why don't we take a look at Australia. They banned semi-automatics. ONLY a third of the guns were confiscated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_of_Australia#:~:text=In%20two%20federally%20funded%20gun,3%20of%20the%20national%20stock.), and yet gun related deaths decreased 57% from 1989 to 2013.
All of these are easily verifiable using publicly available data.
Post by: Chris22 on June 23, 2020, 01:52:48 PM
Setting aside other good points that you've made about it offsetting a smaller/physically weaker person defending themselves, this is the perspective that the extreme gun control proponents fail to see. You could have whatever percent (I could do an estimate, but I don't feel like it and the percentage would be in dispute of course) let's say 75-85% of people give up every gun they own and it wouldn't change a thing. So the moral argument is made to a gun owner that you need to give up your guns so that others can be safe when in reality the chances of them giving up their guns making anyone safer is staggeringly small - just like the chances of them using it to defend themselves, of course, but it doesn't change the fact that you're asking someone who has done nothing wrong to give up their guns when that person or family giving up their guns will almost certainly not help anything.
Do you have any peer reviewed research/studies showing that a 75-80% change in the number of guns + certain type of guns being outlawed "won't change a thing"?
I remember having seen data/research that would most probably conclude the opposite.
(I'm not very motivated by the gun debate, so have not spent a ton of time researching it compared to, say, healthcare. But I remember I saw enough to clearly discern a conclusion emerging.)
I probably wasn't articulating myself well. Let me start again.
There were roughly 393,000,000 guns in America in 2017 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership.
It's not super easy with a quick Google search to find numbers of guns used in crimes. One quick one I found was that there were 467,321 victims of a non fatal firearm crime in America in 2011 - https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/gun-violence-america.
Throw in some more for fatal ones and we'll say an even 500,000. This is assuming that each firearm crime was using a different gun, which I highly doubt, but again, we're spitballing here.
This means that (putting the two years together for simplicity) 99.8% of firearms possessed weren't used in crimes.
Is this back of the napkin math? Of course. But I hope it's illustrative of my point that if you're talking about confiscating guns in America, you're asking tens of millions of people to give up their guns when the chances for any individual person who gives up their guns of those guns actually being used in anything wrong is staggeringly small. Thus for a huge majority of gun owners, you're saying, give up your guns, not because you did anything wrong, and with the foreknowledge that you giving up your specific guns will help nothing.
# of guns is not the only factor. Right now, you don't know whether the scary dude with a semi-automatic is a generic 2nd amendment demonstrator, or an active shooter. When everyone knows that a semi-automatic is banned, that scary dude is immediately identified as a threat by potential victims as well as the police. The perps know this, so the incidence of taking a gun out to commit crime would also go down. This leads to a virtuous cycle.
But we don't have to spit-ball and you don't have to believe me.
Why don't we take a look at Australia. They banned semi-automatics. ONLY a third of the guns were confiscated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_of_Australia#:~:text=In%20two%20federally%20funded%20gun,3%20of%20the%20national%20stock.), and yet gun related deaths decreased 57% from 1989 to 2013.
All of these are easily verifiable using publicly available data.
So you’re either talking about ALL semi-automatics, which means the vast vast vast majority of guns (basically everything that isn’t a shotgun, revolver, or bolt/lever-action hunting rifle), in which case that’s an untenable amount of guns you want to just wave your magic wand and ban, or you’re talking about all semi-automatic rifles in which case you are talking about millions of guns which are responsible for <700 deaths a year.
Either way...uhh...good luck?
Plus I defy you to quickly and easily identify a gun as semi automatic or not at a glance in the heat of the moment from more than 10 feet away.
Post by: slackmax on June 23, 2020, 02:01:07 PM
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 23, 2020, 02:02:15 PM
Setting aside other good points that you've made about it offsetting a smaller/physically weaker person defending themselves, this is the perspective that the extreme gun control proponents fail to see. You could have whatever percent (I could do an estimate, but I don't feel like it and the percentage would be in dispute of course) let's say 75-85% of people give up every gun they own and it wouldn't change a thing. So the moral argument is made to a gun owner that you need to give up your guns so that others can be safe when in reality the chances of them giving up their guns making anyone safer is staggeringly small - just like the chances of them using it to defend themselves, of course, but it doesn't change the fact that you're asking someone who has done nothing wrong to give up their guns when that person or family giving up their guns will almost certainly not help anything.
Do you have any peer reviewed research/studies showing that a 75-80% change in the number of guns + certain type of guns being outlawed "won't change a thing"?
I remember having seen data/research that would most probably conclude the opposite.
(I'm not very motivated by the gun debate, so have not spent a ton of time researching it compared to, say, healthcare. But I remember I saw enough to clearly discern a conclusion emerging.)
I probably wasn't articulating myself well. Let me start again.
There were roughly 393,000,000 guns in America in 2017 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership.
It's not super easy with a quick Google search to find numbers of guns used in crimes. One quick one I found was that there were 467,321 victims of a non fatal firearm crime in America in 2011 - https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/gun-violence-america.
Throw in some more for fatal ones and we'll say an even 500,000. This is assuming that each firearm crime was using a different gun, which I highly doubt, but again, we're spitballing here.
This means that (putting the two years together for simplicity) 99.8% of firearms possessed weren't used in crimes.
Is this back of the napkin math? Of course. But I hope it's illustrative of my point that if you're talking about confiscating guns in America, you're asking tens of millions of people to give up their guns when the chances for any individual person who gives up their guns of those guns actually being used in anything wrong is staggeringly small. Thus for a huge majority of gun owners, you're saying, give up your guns, not because you did anything wrong, and with the foreknowledge that you giving up your specific guns will help nothing.
# of guns is not the only factor. Right now, you don't know whether the scary dude with a semi-automatic is a generic 2nd amendment demonstrator, or an active shooter. When everyone knows that a semi-automatic is banned, that scary dude is immediately identified as a threat by potential victims as well as the police. The perps know this, so the incidence of taking a gun out to commit crime would also go down. This leads to a virtuous cycle.
But we don't have to spit-ball and you don't have to believe me.
Why don't we take a look at Australia. They banned semi-automatics. ONLY a third of the guns were confiscated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_of_Australia#:~:text=In%20two%20federally%20funded%20gun,3%20of%20the%20national%20stock.), and yet gun related deaths decreased 57% from 1989 to 2013.
All of these are easily verifiable using publicly available data.
You're right that we don't have to spitball, but I'm spitballing because the point is so incredibly numerically obvious that it doesn't need anything more than general numbers. I'm spitballing how likely it is if you or your friend or whomever in your home owns a gun that it is never going to cause any trouble. Total number of guns is not the only factor, but it shows the point I was trying to make that no gun control proponent can make an argument against (except I don't care or it doesn't matter in the bigger picture or something equally dismissive without really saying why I'm wrong). That argument is that you're taking guns away (if that is your desire) and are depriving people of the ability to defend themselves, when taking the guns from tens of millions of people will not mean anything because hundreds of millions of guns are not used crime and will never be used for crime. You're saying give up your guns when the chances are infinitismal that your guns will be used for crime, but do it because, um, because, um, because by taking away your guns and your friend's guns and your family's guns and so on, eventually we'll get a few that are used to cause problems.
Additionally, I'm much more interested in overall crime statistics than gun related crime statistics (I don't care if I'm killed/robbed/whatever by a person with a ball bat or a gun, I'm still in a bad way). One final thing, there are tons of variables in even overall crime statistics, and the US has a much better crime rate than, let's say, the 90's even with tons more guns.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 23, 2020, 02:03:33 PM
So you’re either talking about ALL semi-automatics, which means the vast vast vast majority of guns (basically everything that isn’t a shotgun, revolver, or bolt/lever-action hunting rifle), in which case that’s an untenable amount of guns you want to just wave your magic wand and ban, or you’re talking about all semi-automatic rifles in which case you are talking about millions of guns which are responsible for <700 deaths a year.
Either way...uhh...good luck?
Plus I defy you to quickly and easily identify a gun as semi automatic or not at a glance in the heat of the moment from more than 10 feet away.
Now we are again getting dangerously close to a bad-faith discussion.
Nobody is an absolutist. Absolutes don't exist in the real world. Maybe US can't succeed to the same degree that Australia. Maybe US will only be able to collect 1/10 of the semi-automatics vs. the 1/3 that the crazy Aussies did. Maybe firearm related death will only reduce in the US by 30% vs. their 50+%.
Is that worth it? Seems to me like a poster above thought so when he said he will give up his gun tomorrow if it benefited the country.
And if you think that can't happen, google up some polls about the millenial and younger folks attitudes towards firearms, especially the ones born around or after Columbine!! I'd give it, maybe 30 years based on demographic trends (i.e. till 2050). If extremist organizations like NRA learn to compromise, then US will have softer gun control, if not, it will be much harder due to backlash.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 23, 2020, 02:10:05 PM
So you’re either talking about ALL semi-automatics, which means the vast vast vast majority of guns (basically everything that isn’t a shotgun, revolver, or bolt/lever-action hunting rifle), in which case that’s an untenable amount of guns you want to just wave your magic wand and ban, or you’re talking about all semi-automatic rifles in which case you are talking about millions of guns which are responsible for <700 deaths a year.
Either way...uhh...good luck?
Plus I defy you to quickly and easily identify a gun as semi automatic or not at a glance in the heat of the moment from more than 10 feet away.
Now we are again getting dangerously close to a bad-faith discussion.
Nobody is an absolutist. Absolutes don't exist in the real world. Maybe US can't succeed to the same degree that Australia. Maybe US will only be able to collect 1/10 of the semi-automatics vs. the 1/3 that the crazy Aussies did. Maybe firearm related death will only reduce in the US by 30% vs. their 50+%.
Is that worth it? Seems to me like a poster above thought so when he said he will give up his gun tomorrow if it benefited the country.
And if you think that can't happen, google up some polls about the millenial and younger folks attitudes towards firearms, especially the ones born around or after Columbine!! I'd give it, maybe 30 years based on demographic trends (i.e. till 2050). If extremist organizations like NRA learn to compromise, then US will have softer gun control, if not, it will be much harder due to backlash.
One, I think it's pretty clear the poster was meaning they knew it wouldn't help, so they weren't going to turn them in (otherwise he would have done it already or be hypocritical....?)
Two, this goes back to my point above that him giving it up almost certainly wouldn't make anyone safer.
Post by: Chris22 on June 23, 2020, 02:12:02 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/TO8BGgw_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)
Post by: ctuser1 on June 23, 2020, 02:21:04 PM
Additionally, I'm much more interested in overall crime statistics than gun related crime statistics (I don't care if I'm killed/robbed/whatever by a person with a ball bat or a gun, I'm still in a bad way). One final thing, there are tons of variables in even overall crime statistics, and the US has a much better crime rate than, let's say, the 90's even with tons more guns.
I spreadsheeted out the homicide incidence rate. Between 1990-2013, in the US, it decreased from 9.4 to 4.5 (per 100,000 per year).
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
It also decreased in Australia, from 1.6 to 1.
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/
Australia homicide rates were already low (probably something to do with them having less guns to begin with) and went even lower. US declined from 6 times higher to merely 4.5 times higher.
So, on this metric, it does not seem to conclusively point one way or the other.
Post by: Chris22 on June 23, 2020, 02:22:49 PM
Additionally, I'm much more interested in overall crime statistics than gun related crime statistics (I don't care if I'm killed/robbed/whatever by a person with a ball bat or a gun, I'm still in a bad way). One final thing, there are tons of variables in even overall crime statistics, and the US has a much better crime rate than, let's say, the 90's even with tons more guns.
I spreadsheeted out the homicide incidence rate. Between 1990-2013, in the US, it decreased from 9.4 to 4.5 (per 100,000 per year).
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
It also decreased in Australia, from 1.6 to 1.
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/
Australia homicide rates were already low (probably something to do with them having less guns to begin with) and went even lower. US declined from 6 times higher to merely 4.5 times higher.
So, on this metric, it does not seem to conclusively point one way or the other.
Except one thing: you ignore that from 1994 to 2004 we had an “assault weapons” ban. And then in 2004 it was rescinded.
Sooo we continued to drop with or without the ban. Suggesting the ban did squat. Which is what most experts had already determined.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 23, 2020, 02:25:02 PM
Ah, the old “gun rights people won’t compromise”. What is a compromise? That’s where I give something and you give something, right? What are you giving me in exchange for what you ask? You’re asking me to give up rights in exchange for what?
Again, you are going dangerously close to NRA propaganda land.
You seriously mean to say the life of even one child saved in Sandy Hook is not worth your gun ownership to you!! No semi-automatic = less death. That linkage is quite beyond any reasonable doubts.
I seriously hope that's not your stance.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 23, 2020, 02:26:43 PM
Additionally, I'm much more interested in overall crime statistics than gun related crime statistics (I don't care if I'm killed/robbed/whatever by a person with a ball bat or a gun, I'm still in a bad way). One final thing, there are tons of variables in even overall crime statistics, and the US has a much better crime rate than, let's say, the 90's even with tons more guns.
I spreadsheeted out the homicide incidence rate. Between 1990-2013, in the US, it decreased from 9.4 to 4.5 (per 100,000 per year).
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
It also decreased in Australia, from 1.6 to 1.
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/
Australia homicide rates were already low (probably something to do with them having less guns to begin with) and went even lower. US declined from 6 times higher to merely 4.5 times higher.
So, on this metric, it does not seem to conclusively point one way or the other.
I will say that bolded is very much a guess on your part.
I've looked at various statistics from various times and come to the same conclusion of inconclusivity. I'm not a rabid proponent that I guarantee overall crime will decrease if there's more guns. I do think it's worth noting that, for example, concealed carrying people have an extremely low rate of crime, but again, I'm not necessarily saying that more guns = less crime. I am saying that anyone that says that taking guns away = less crime and claims an extreme degree of confidence is conveniently looking the other way on a lot of contradictory data. And, if you're wanting ot take guns away from people, the burden of proof is on you not only that it will make things better but that it will make things better enough to merit taking it away from someone who, not to beat a dead horse, but almost certainly won't do anything wrong with their guns and can occasionally use them for good.
Post by: Chris22 on June 23, 2020, 02:29:40 PM
Ah, the old “gun rights people won’t compromise”. What is a compromise? That’s where I give something and you give something, right? What are you giving me in exchange for what you ask? You’re asking me to give up rights in exchange for what?
Again, you are going dangerously close to NRA propaganda land.
You seriously mean to say the life of even one child saved in Sandy Hook is not worth your gun ownership to you!! No semi-automatic = less death. That linkage is quite beyond any reasonable doubts.
I seriously hope that's not your stance.
This is an oddly emotional response likely due to all of your statistical “analysis” been proven junk, and isn’t worth responding to.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 23, 2020, 02:30:01 PM
Ah, the old “gun rights people won’t compromise”. What is a compromise? That’s where I give something and you give something, right? What are you giving me in exchange for what you ask? You’re asking me to give up rights in exchange for what?
Again, you are going dangerously close to NRA propaganda land.
You seriously mean to say the life of even one child saved in Sandy Hook is not worth your gun ownership to you!! No semi-automatic = less death. That linkage is quite beyond any reasonable doubts.
I seriously hope that's not your stance.
*Sigh*...
Chris is still posting here. Therefore not only is there a 100% chance that taking away his guns wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook, there's a 99.8% chance that it wouldn't stop anything because Chris's guns to that high degree of certainty (and more so if we dug deeper given information from previous discussions) won't be used for a crime, certainly not to murder an innocent child. You talk about a BS meter, this is worthy of a BS meter going up.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 23, 2020, 02:30:59 PM
Except one thing: you ignore that from 1994 to 2004 we had an “assault weapons” ban. And then in 2004 it was rescinded.
Sooo we continued to drop with or without the ban. Suggesting the ban did squat. Which is what most experts had already determined.
No, I did not ignore it. I clearly mentioned that the numbers of this specific thing did not indicate one way or the other.
Why?
Because assault weapon ban existed, that correlated with a reduction, at much lower end of the numbers (auzzies only killed 1.6 of their people per 100k, we killed 6 times as many). If you know how these numbers would typically work, reducing in the tail of curve (i.e. when murder rate is already low = 1.6) is much harder than when it is much higher (=9.6). So these numbers (that I crunched myself, and honestly reported the outcomes) do not conclusively prove anything.
Can I please request you not engage in dishonest point scoring BS? I generally have very little tolerance for that stuff.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 23, 2020, 02:32:32 PM
Ah, the old “gun rights people won’t compromise”. What is a compromise? That’s where I give something and you give something, right? What are you giving me in exchange for what you ask? You’re asking me to give up rights in exchange for what?
Again, you are going dangerously close to NRA propaganda land.
You seriously mean to say the life of even one child saved in Sandy Hook is not worth your gun ownership to you!! No semi-automatic = less death. That linkage is quite beyond any reasonable doubts.
I seriously hope that's not your stance.
*Sigh*...
Chris is still posting here. Therefore not only is there a 100% chance that taking away his guns wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook, there's a 99.8% chance that it wouldn't stop anything because Chris's guns to that high degree of certainty (and more so if we dug deeper given information from previous discussions) won't be used for a crime, certainly not to murder an innocent child. You talk about a BS meter, this is worthy of a BS meter going up.
I explained the virtuous spiral a few posts ago. So that 99.8% is fresh of the butt male-cow-manure.
Post by: Chris22 on June 23, 2020, 02:34:48 PM
Except one thing: you ignore that from 1994 to 2004 we had an “assault weapons” ban. And then in 2004 it was rescinded.
Sooo we continued to drop with or without the ban. Suggesting the ban did squat. Which is what most experts had already determined.
No, I did not ignore it. I clearly mentioned that the numbers of this specific thing did not indicate one way or the other.
Why?
Because assault weapon ban existed, that correlated with a reduction, at much lower end of the numbers (auzzies only killed 1.6 of their people per 100k, we killed 6 times as many). If you know how these numbers would typically work, reducing in the tail of curve (i.e. when murder rate is already low = 1.6) is much harder than when it is much higher (=9.6). So these numbers (that I crunched myself, and honestly reported the outcomes) do not conclusively prove anything.[/b]
Except that the numbers of “assault weapons” shot way way up after 2004, due to the ban ending and people going on a buying spree, and the killing continued to decline. So the AWB provably did fuck all.
Quote
Can I please request you not engage in dishonest point scoring BS? I generally have very little tolerance for that stuff.
This is rich coming from the guy who just said I was in favor of dead kids if it meant I get to keep my guns.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 23, 2020, 02:36:30 PM
Additionally, I'm much more interested in overall crime statistics than gun related crime statistics (I don't care if I'm killed/robbed/whatever by a person with a ball bat or a gun, I'm still in a bad way). One final thing, there are tons of variables in even overall crime statistics, and the US has a much better crime rate than, let's say, the 90's even with tons more guns.
I spreadsheeted out the homicide incidence rate. Between 1990-2013, in the US, it decreased from 9.4 to 4.5 (per 100,000 per year).
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
It also decreased in Australia, from 1.6 to 1.
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/
Australia homicide rates were already low (probably something to do with them having less guns to begin with) and went even lower. US declined from 6 times higher to merely 4.5 times higher.
So, on this metric, it does not seem to conclusively point one way or the other.
I will say that bolded is very much a guess on your part.
I've looked at various statistics from various times and come to the same conclusion of inconclusivity. I'm not a rabid proponent that I guarantee overall crime will decrease if there's more guns. I do think it's worth noting that, for example, concealed carrying people have an extremely low rate of crime, but again, I'm not necessarily saying that more guns = less crime. I am saying that anyone that says that taking guns away = less crime and claims an extreme degree of confidence is conveniently looking the other way on a lot of contradictory data. And, if you're wanting ot take guns away from people, the burden of proof is on you not only that it will make things better but that it will make things better enough to merit taking it away from someone who, not to beat a dead horse, but almost certainly won't do anything wrong with their guns and can occasionally use them for good.
Again, all so-called liberals I know respect data driven research. If that is the conclusion, then you will generally see the gun-control enthusiasm to go down a lot!!
I don't know enough on this topic because it never motivated me as much. My BS meter, however, goes to high alarm when I see the following bs from the gun lobby, and indemnity and so on and so forth .....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/04/gun-violence-research-has-been-shut-down-for-20-years/
If gun lovers keep this BS up, I am pretty convinced that we will likely have a very different rate of gun ownership by 2050...
Post by: ctuser1 on June 23, 2020, 02:38:50 PM
Except one thing: you ignore that from 1994 to 2004 we had an “assault weapons” ban. And then in 2004 it was rescinded.
Sooo we continued to drop with or without the ban. Suggesting the ban did squat. Which is what most experts had already determined.
No, I did not ignore it. I clearly mentioned that the numbers of this specific thing did not indicate one way or the other.
Why?
Because assault weapon ban existed, that correlated with a reduction, at much lower end of the numbers (auzzies only killed 1.6 of their people per 100k, we killed 6 times as many). If you know how these numbers would typically work, reducing in the tail of curve (i.e. when murder rate is already low = 1.6) is much harder than when it is much higher (=9.6). So these numbers (that I crunched myself, and honestly reported the outcomes) do not conclusively prove anything.[/b]
Except that the numbers of “assault weapons” shot way way up after 2004, due to the ban ending and people going on a buying spree, and the killing continued to decline. So the AWB provably did fuck all.
And except the number started going up along with the firearms with a lag.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ft_19-08-14_gundeaths_2/
Rich, indeed!!
Post by: Chris22 on June 23, 2020, 02:41:03 PM
Additionally, I'm much more interested in overall crime statistics than gun related crime statistics (I don't care if I'm killed/robbed/whatever by a person with a ball bat or a gun, I'm still in a bad way). One final thing, there are tons of variables in even overall crime statistics, and the US has a much better crime rate than, let's say, the 90's even with tons more guns.
I spreadsheeted out the homicide incidence rate. Between 1990-2013, in the US, it decreased from 9.4 to 4.5 (per 100,000 per year).
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
It also decreased in Australia, from 1.6 to 1.
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/
Australia homicide rates were already low (probably something to do with them having less guns to begin with) and went even lower. US declined from 6 times higher to merely 4.5 times higher.
So, on this metric, it does not seem to conclusively point one way or the other.
I will say that bolded is very much a guess on your part.
I've looked at various statistics from various times and come to the same conclusion of inconclusivity. I'm not a rabid proponent that I guarantee overall crime will decrease if there's more guns. I do think it's worth noting that, for example, concealed carrying people have an extremely low rate of crime, but again, I'm not necessarily saying that more guns = less crime. I am saying that anyone that says that taking guns away = less crime and claims an extreme degree of confidence is conveniently looking the other way on a lot of contradictory data. And, if you're wanting ot take guns away from people, the burden of proof is on you not only that it will make things better but that it will make things better enough to merit taking it away from someone who, not to beat a dead horse, but almost certainly won't do anything wrong with their guns and can occasionally use them for good.
Again, all so-called liberals I know respect data driven research. If that is the conclusion, then you will generally see the gun-control enthusiasm to go down a lot!!
I don't know enough on this topic because it never motivated me as much. My BS meter, however, goes to high alarm when I see the following bs from the gun lobby, and indemnity and so on and so forth .....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/04/gun-violence-research-has-been-shut-down-for-20-years/
If gun lovers keep this BS up, I am pretty convinced that we will likely have a very different rate of gun ownership by 2050...
You mean right up until they realize it doesn’t prove their point and they start screaming how their opponents want more dead kids, right?
Post by: ctuser1 on June 23, 2020, 02:42:34 PM
Additionally, I'm much more interested in overall crime statistics than gun related crime statistics (I don't care if I'm killed/robbed/whatever by a person with a ball bat or a gun, I'm still in a bad way). One final thing, there are tons of variables in even overall crime statistics, and the US has a much better crime rate than, let's say, the 90's even with tons more guns.
I spreadsheeted out the homicide incidence rate. Between 1990-2013, in the US, it decreased from 9.4 to 4.5 (per 100,000 per year).
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
It also decreased in Australia, from 1.6 to 1.
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/
Australia homicide rates were already low (probably something to do with them having less guns to begin with) and went even lower. US declined from 6 times higher to merely 4.5 times higher.
So, on this metric, it does not seem to conclusively point one way or the other.
I will say that bolded is very much a guess on your part.
I've looked at various statistics from various times and come to the same conclusion of inconclusivity. I'm not a rabid proponent that I guarantee overall crime will decrease if there's more guns. I do think it's worth noting that, for example, concealed carrying people have an extremely low rate of crime, but again, I'm not necessarily saying that more guns = less crime. I am saying that anyone that says that taking guns away = less crime and claims an extreme degree of confidence is conveniently looking the other way on a lot of contradictory data. And, if you're wanting ot take guns away from people, the burden of proof is on you not only that it will make things better but that it will make things better enough to merit taking it away from someone who, not to beat a dead horse, but almost certainly won't do anything wrong with their guns and can occasionally use them for good.
Again, all so-called liberals I know respect data driven research. If that is the conclusion, then you will generally see the gun-control enthusiasm to go down a lot!!
I don't know enough on this topic because it never motivated me as much. My BS meter, however, goes to high alarm when I see the following bs from the gun lobby, and indemnity and so on and so forth .....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/04/gun-violence-research-has-been-shut-down-for-20-years/
If gun lovers keep this BS up, I am pretty convinced that we will likely have a very different rate of gun ownership by 2050...
You mean right up until they realize it doesn’t prove their point and they start screaming how their opponents want more dead kids, right?
You mean you don't? Why didn't you tell me?
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 23, 2020, 02:42:40 PM
Ah, the old “gun rights people won’t compromise”. What is a compromise? That’s where I give something and you give something, right? What are you giving me in exchange for what you ask? You’re asking me to give up rights in exchange for what?
Again, you are going dangerously close to NRA propaganda land.
You seriously mean to say the life of even one child saved in Sandy Hook is not worth your gun ownership to you!! No semi-automatic = less death. That linkage is quite beyond any reasonable doubts.
I seriously hope that's not your stance.
*Sigh*...
Chris is still posting here. Therefore not only is there a 100% chance that taking away his guns wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook, there's a 99.8% chance that it wouldn't stop anything because Chris's guns to that high degree of certainty (and more so if we dug deeper given information from previous discussions) won't be used for a crime, certainly not to murder an innocent child. You talk about a BS meter, this is worthy of a BS meter going up.
I explained the virtuous spiral a few posts ago. So that 99.8% is fresh of the butt male-cow-manure.
You explained a hypothetical "virtuous cycle" that you envision happening (hey, we all have imaginations, amirite?) when even you've admitted the statistics are inconclusive at best. Yeah, that shoots down my argument big time.
I've actually given you numbers, you call them bull crap but don't actually argue them away. Congrats.
The fact is that you are asking Chris to give up his guns when no matter which way you look at it, there's an infinitismally small chance that his guns will ever be used to kill a small child (you use the worst possible example for emotional leverage) and an extremely extremely small chance they'll ever be used in a crime at all.
The only conclusion I can come up with for you (or with anyone in the past who comes up with this point of view) is you're asking him to give up his guns because you don't care about having a gun so it's really super easy to demand others to give them up.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 23, 2020, 02:46:15 PM
Additionally, I'm much more interested in overall crime statistics than gun related crime statistics (I don't care if I'm killed/robbed/whatever by a person with a ball bat or a gun, I'm still in a bad way). One final thing, there are tons of variables in even overall crime statistics, and the US has a much better crime rate than, let's say, the 90's even with tons more guns.
I spreadsheeted out the homicide incidence rate. Between 1990-2013, in the US, it decreased from 9.4 to 4.5 (per 100,000 per year).
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
It also decreased in Australia, from 1.6 to 1.
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/
Australia homicide rates were already low (probably something to do with them having less guns to begin with) and went even lower. US declined from 6 times higher to merely 4.5 times higher.
So, on this metric, it does not seem to conclusively point one way or the other.
I will say that bolded is very much a guess on your part.
I've looked at various statistics from various times and come to the same conclusion of inconclusivity. I'm not a rabid proponent that I guarantee overall crime will decrease if there's more guns. I do think it's worth noting that, for example, concealed carrying people have an extremely low rate of crime, but again, I'm not necessarily saying that more guns = less crime. I am saying that anyone that says that taking guns away = less crime and claims an extreme degree of confidence is conveniently looking the other way on a lot of contradictory data. And, if you're wanting ot take guns away from people, the burden of proof is on you not only that it will make things better but that it will make things better enough to merit taking it away from someone who, not to beat a dead horse, but almost certainly won't do anything wrong with their guns and can occasionally use them for good.
Again, all so-called liberals I know respect data driven research. If that is the conclusion, then you will generally see the gun-control enthusiasm to go down a lot!!
I don't know enough on this topic because it never motivated me as much. My BS meter, however, goes to high alarm when I see the following bs from the gun lobby, and indemnity and so on and so forth .....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/04/gun-violence-research-has-been-shut-down-for-20-years/
If gun lovers keep this BS up, I am pretty convinced that we will likely have a very different rate of gun ownership by 2050...
You have no data and act like you do....I'm not here to defend the NRA as an organization (one I don't particularly like), so beating up on that straw man is not going to accomplish anything. Argue against my points. If they happen to align with the NRA's, I assure you it's incidental because I haven't followed them other than to roll my eyes in years. And if you're argument against my points is only that it coincides with the NRA's points, that's pathetic logic, but I'm beginning to come to expect it....
Post by: Shane on June 23, 2020, 02:48:15 PM
Post by: ctuser1 on June 23, 2020, 02:48:49 PM
You explained a hypothetical "virtuous cycle" that you envision happening (hey, we all have imaginations, amirite?) when even you've admitted the statistics are inconclusive at best. Yeah, that shoots down my argument big time.
I've actually given you numbers, you call them bull crap but don't actually argue them away. Congrats.
The fact is that you are asking Chris to give up his guns when no matter which way you look at it, there's an infinitismally small chance that his guns will ever be used to kill a small child (you use the worst possible example for emotional leverage) and an extremely extremely small chance they'll ever be used in a crime at all.
The only conclusion I can come up with for you (or with anyone in the past who comes up with this point of view) is you're asking him to give up his guns because you don't care about having a gun so it's really super easy to demand others to give them up.
1. The bolded is possible.
2. I, personally, could be easily convinced once the NRA bullshit subsided and real social science research started, and indicated one way or the other ("concluded" is generally not possible in social sciences, hence I say indicated).
3. I am not motivated by this debate, so can't be bothered to look up dis-ambiguating data and research. Guns simply do not kill as many people as the "free market" healthcare does, for example. Maybe a liberal (heh, weird politics, I'm labeling myself a liberal now - couldn't imagine that 5 years ago) with more knowledge can chime in.
Post by: Chris22 on June 23, 2020, 02:52:42 PM
You explained a hypothetical "virtuous cycle" that you envision happening (hey, we all have imaginations, amirite?) when even you've admitted the statistics are inconclusive at best. Yeah, that shoots down my argument big time.
I've actually given you numbers, you call them bull crap but don't actually argue them away. Congrats.
The fact is that you are asking Chris to give up his guns when no matter which way you look at it, there's an infinitismally small chance that his guns will ever be used to kill a small child (you use the worst possible example for emotional leverage) and an extremely extremely small chance they'll ever be used in a crime at all.
The only conclusion I can come up with for you (or with anyone in the past who comes up with this point of view) is you're asking him to give up his guns because you don't care about having a gun so it's really super easy to demand others to give them up.
1. The bolded is possible.
2. I, personally, could be easily convinced once the NRA bullshit subsided and real social science research started, and indicated one way or the other ("concluded" is generally not possible in social sciences, hence I say indicated).
3. I am not motivated by this debate, so can't be bothered to look up dis-ambiguating data and research. Guns simply do not kill as many people as the "free market" healthcare does, for example. Maybe a liberal (heh, weird politics, I'm labeling myself a liberal now - couldn't imagine that 5 years ago) with more knowledge can chime in.
Yet you did care enough to tell me I don’t care about dead kids. Got it.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 23, 2020, 02:53:30 PM
I personally knew one of the dads of the Sandy Hook kids.You explained a hypothetical "virtuous cycle" that you envision happening (hey, we all have imaginations, amirite?) when even you've admitted the statistics are inconclusive at best. Yeah, that shoots down my argument big time.
I've actually given you numbers, you call them bull crap but don't actually argue them away. Congrats.
The fact is that you are asking Chris to give up his guns when no matter which way you look at it, there's an infinitismally small chance that his guns will ever be used to kill a small child (you use the worst possible example for emotional leverage) and an extremely extremely small chance they'll ever be used in a crime at all.
The only conclusion I can come up with for you (or with anyone in the past who comes up with this point of view) is you're asking him to give up his guns because you don't care about having a gun so it's really super easy to demand others to give them up.
1. The bolded is possible.
2. I, personally, could be easily convinced once the NRA bullshit subsided and real social science research started, and indicated one way or the other ("concluded" is generally not possible in social sciences, hence I say indicated).
3. I am not motivated by this debate, so can't be bothered to look up dis-ambiguating data and research. Guns simply do not kill as many people as the "free market" healthcare does, for example. Maybe a liberal (heh, weird politics, I'm labeling myself a liberal now - couldn't imagine that 5 years ago) with more knowledge can chime in.
Yet you did care enough to tell me I don’t care about dead kids. Got it.
Post by: Chris22 on June 23, 2020, 02:58:52 PM
I personally knew one of the dads of the Sandy Hook kids.You explained a hypothetical "virtuous cycle" that you envision happening (hey, we all have imaginations, amirite?) when even you've admitted the statistics are inconclusive at best. Yeah, that shoots down my argument big time.
I've actually given you numbers, you call them bull crap but don't actually argue them away. Congrats.
The fact is that you are asking Chris to give up his guns when no matter which way you look at it, there's an infinitismally small chance that his guns will ever be used to kill a small child (you use the worst possible example for emotional leverage) and an extremely extremely small chance they'll ever be used in a crime at all.
The only conclusion I can come up with for you (or with anyone in the past who comes up with this point of view) is you're asking him to give up his guns because you don't care about having a gun so it's really super easy to demand others to give them up.
1. The bolded is possible.
2. I, personally, could be easily convinced once the NRA bullshit subsided and real social science research started, and indicated one way or the other ("concluded" is generally not possible in social sciences, hence I say indicated).
3. I am not motivated by this debate, so can't be bothered to look up dis-ambiguating data and research. Guns simply do not kill as many people as the "free market" healthcare does, for example. Maybe a liberal (heh, weird politics, I'm labeling myself a liberal now - couldn't imagine that 5 years ago) with more knowledge can chime in.
Yet you did care enough to tell me I don’t care about dead kids. Got it.
So your argument comes from a position of emotion based on that relationship, understood.
None of that means you get to tell me I want dead kids. None of it.
Post by: OtherJen on June 23, 2020, 02:59:53 PM
One thing that might help both to reduce the number of abortions and, also, gun homicides would be policies that led to a reduction in income/wealth inequality, e.g., a wealth tax, similar to what has been proposed by both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. If all Americans had easy access to good paying jobs, good quality, free healthcare, birth control, and education, I'm pretty sure abortions and most negative consequences of guns would both go down dramatically, without our having to restrict anyone's bodily autonomy or 2nd Amendment rights. IMHO, both of these issues are intentionally being used by elites to distract us from the fact that people on both sides of these debates have more in common than they seem to think.
Yes, and also, a quick perusal of this Wikipedia list tells me that we've had 225 school shootings in the last decade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States)
Contrast that with 54 in the 1980s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(before_2000) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(before_2000))), when I was an elementary school student. We had tornado drills and fire drills. My niece and nephew have active shooter drills. Companies sell bulletproof backpacks. This is really, really fucked up. So what happened?
Clearly we're doing something wrong, but making guns illegal will have the same effect as making abortion illegal. It won't fix the underlying problem and will sweep much of it underground where there's no hope of tracking it. So why aren't most of us working together to fix the underlying problems that you indicated?
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on June 23, 2020, 03:12:50 PM
To answer your question about language, I would never use terms like baby or murder to try to make you or anyone else mad. I use baby because that is what I truly believe we are talking about and calling it a fetus seems disrespectful. Therefore, I will continue to use the term baby. Please understand I'm not doing it to offend anyone. The term murder is harder to defend because since Roe vs Wade you are correct that it's not legally murder. Morally, I still believe it is wrong but I can see why the word would offend you and as such I will refrain from using the term.
Elsewhere, I've argued with anti-abortion activists who asserted "abortion is murder."
"Murder" is the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being who kills with malice aforethought.
Since under Roe a fetus is not a human being, the abortion of a fetus, that is, the killing of a fetus, cannot be the crime of murder.
Post by: Shane on June 23, 2020, 03:28:37 PM
One thing that might help both to reduce the number of abortions and, also, gun homicides would be policies that led to a reduction in income/wealth inequality, e.g., a wealth tax, similar to what has been proposed by both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. If all Americans had easy access to good paying jobs, good quality, free healthcare, birth control, and education, I'm pretty sure abortions and most negative consequences of guns would both go down dramatically, without our having to restrict anyone's bodily autonomy or 2nd Amendment rights. IMHO, both of these issues are intentionally being used by elites to distract us from the fact that people on both sides of these debates have more in common than they seem to think.
Yes, and also, a quick perusal of this Wikipedia list tells me that we've had 225 school shootings in the last decade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States)
Contrast that with 54 in the 1980s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(before_2000) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(before_2000))), when I was an elementary school student. We had tornado drills and fire drills. My niece and nephew have active shooter drills. Companies sell bulletproof backpacks. This is really, really fucked up. So what happened?
Clearly we're doing something wrong, but making guns illegal will have the same effect as making abortion illegal. It won't fix the underlying problem and will sweep much of it underground where there's no hope of tracking it. So why aren't most of us working together to fix the underlying problems that you indicated?
Maybe because these issues have become so polarizing that many on both sides don't even seem to see those who disagree with them as fully human? Increasing use of social media seems like it may be at least part of the problem, IMHO.
Post by: Buffaloski Boris on June 23, 2020, 04:55:12 PM
One thing that might help both to reduce the number of abortions and, also, gun homicides would be policies that led to a reduction in income/wealth inequality, e.g., a wealth tax, similar to what has been proposed by both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. If all Americans had easy access to good paying jobs, good quality, free healthcare, birth control, and education, I'm pretty sure abortions and most negative consequences of guns would both go down dramatically, without our having to restrict anyone's bodily autonomy or 2nd Amendment rights. IMHO, both of these issues are intentionally being used by elites to distract us from the fact that people on both sides of these debates have more in common than they seem to think.
I don't know that a wealth tax would help much as the ultra wealthy would figure out a way around it or to absolutely minimize it.
People are usually pretty nice once you get away from partisan politics. So, you stow it. Something that I've noticed recently is that when I wear an openly apolitical/ anti-politics T shirt*, I end up getting into great conversations with folks. I think there is a significant proportion of the population who is just done with it.
* (I own a grand total of two and infrequently wear them in public.)
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on June 23, 2020, 05:25:31 PM
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on June 23, 2020, 05:26:55 PM
Something that I've noticed recently is that when I wear an openly apolitical/ anti-politics T shirt*, I end up getting into great conversations with folks. I think there is a significant proportion of the population who is just done with it.
Among the polity I am sensing what I call "partisanship fatigue."
Post by: ctuser1 on June 23, 2020, 05:42:29 PM
You have no data and act like you do....I'm not here to defend the NRA as an organization (one I don't particularly like), so beating up on that straw man is not going to accomplish anything. Argue against my points. If they happen to align with the NRA's, I assure you it's incidental because I haven't followed them other than to roll my eyes in years. And if you're argument against my points is only that it coincides with the NRA's points, that's pathetic logic, but I'm beginning to come to expect it....
Point scoring aside, do you have links to peer-reviewed articles that have studied this?
I tried to google and it is swarmed with BS from NRA/Heritage/Rand etc., or funded by them.
This is an extremely important social science topic. So I bet a few PhD students in sociology must have done good data crunching and got publications somewhere.
The first such publication that I found (without the stench of libartarian/right-wing BS) in a medical journal does not bode too well for gun rights:
https://www.csus.edu/faculty/m/fred.molitor/docs/firearms%20and%20violent%20crime.pdf
But again, that level of correlation(s) they are showing is not conclusive, yet. The paper posits a negative hypothesis (which is easier to prove when you have indicative, but not conclusive data).
However, If multitude of independent studies, looking at many different angles mostly indicate the same thing, THEN it will be conclusive and actionable.
Why don't you put links to such studies that can be used to persuade ignorant liberals like myself?
Post by: sui generis on June 23, 2020, 05:45:30 PM
Perhaps so, but that would mean we are at an inflection point and at peak partisan, since partisanship has been increasing steadily and is more intense than ever. I do hear a lot of people complain, but there are also a lot of things that incentivize it remaining. It's hard to know when you are living through an inflection point. I'm not seeing the thing that would make this one, but perhaps we'll see it in retrospect.
Something that I've noticed recently is that when I wear an openly apolitical/ anti-politics T shirt*, I end up getting into great conversations with folks. I think there is a significant proportion of the population who is just done with it.
Among the polity I am sensing what I call "partisanship fatigue."
Post by: Buffaloski Boris on June 23, 2020, 05:54:26 PM
Something that I've noticed recently is that when I wear an openly apolitical/ anti-politics T shirt*, I end up getting into great conversations with folks. I think there is a significant proportion of the population who is just done with it.
Among the polity I am sensing what I call "partisanship fatigue."
It's a great opportunity for those of my persuasion. Plus it's just plain fun to talk to nice people.
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on June 23, 2020, 06:19:02 PM
Perhaps so, but that would mean we are at an inflection point and at peak partisan, since partisanship has been increasing steadily and is more intense than ever. I do hear a lot of people complain, but there are also a lot of things that incentivize it remaining. It's hard to know when you are living through an inflection point. I'm not seeing the thing that would make this one, but perhaps we'll see it in retrospect.
[/quote]
I think you're right that the nation is not yet at the inflection point.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 23, 2020, 06:59:22 PM
You have no data and act like you do....I'm not here to defend the NRA as an organization (one I don't particularly like), so beating up on that straw man is not going to accomplish anything. Argue against my points. If they happen to align with the NRA's, I assure you it's incidental because I haven't followed them other than to roll my eyes in years. And if you're argument against my points is only that it coincides with the NRA's points, that's pathetic logic, but I'm beginning to come to expect it....
Point scoring aside, do you have links to peer-reviewed articles that have studied this?
I tried to google and it is swarmed with BS from NRA/Heritage/Rand etc., or funded by them.
This is an extremely important social science topic. So I bet a few PhD students in sociology must have done good data crunching and got publications somewhere.
The first such publication that I found (without the stench of libartarian/right-wing BS) in a medical journal does not bode too well for gun rights:
https://www.csus.edu/faculty/m/fred.molitor/docs/firearms%20and%20violent%20crime.pdf
But again, that level of correlation(s) they are showing is not conclusive, yet. The paper posits a negative hypothesis (which is easier to prove when you have indicative, but not conclusive data).
However, If multitude of independent studies, looking at many different angles mostly indicate the same thing, THEN it will be conclusive and actionable.
Why don't you put links to such studies that can be used to persuade ignorant liberals like myself?
I'm not trying to score points. I'm saying that you're showing a tendency in this argument that you've had *cough cough* in previous arguments where you assign a line of logic to something else, say they're bad, and then disregard it out of hand. In this case it's the NRA. Chris had a whole post post about why gun rights supporters think compromise is a misused word by gun control supporters arguing in bad faith. Now, you can agree or disagree with this and state reasons why. Instead, you didn't deal with it at all. You said "Again, you are going dangerously close to NRA propaganda land." First, you didn't show that that was something the NRA especially said. And even if it was, you didn't disprove the arguments. You did the equivalent of saying, um, um, um the NRA is bad and that sounds like the NRA. Irrelevant and not helpful.
Then, you continued on saying "You seriously mean to say the life of even one child saved in Sandy Hook is not worth your gun ownership to you!! No semi-automatic = less death. That linkage is quite beyond any reasonable doubts." Aside from the offensive nature of that, you actually say that the linkage is "quite beyond any reasonable doubts" and go back on it later.
I don't expect you to admit your faults in any of this. Nobody likes to admit they are wrong. But, if you want to have an actual discussion on this and learn (you admit multiple times you're ignorant and have a lot to learn), discuss the arguments people make. The NRA should play absolutely no role in discussion unless you're arguing against gun lobbying specifically.
So, where are we now? You have now admitted that the data is inconclusive (going back on your beyond a reasonable doubt statement). The study you presented, again, you admit is inconclusive. You challenge me to educate you. I already have in two ways. First, our discussion has brought out statistics showing that gun ownership going down has coincided with decreasing crime rates, and gun ownership going up has coincided with decreasing crime rates. This isn't a study, but it's the reality of things. Gun ownership has exploded in the US and yet the US has not become the wild wild west. Instead, crime rates have dropped from 20 years ago. In addition to this, you've brought up a study, yourself, that shows there's no solid link between increasing gun ownership and increasing crime.
Second, I've brought up the point that you have never explained why it's irrelevant (feel free to actually respond to this if you have any way you justify it to yourself). That is, if you take away guns in America, you're taking away from tens of millions of people who have done nothing. You phrase it as some heroic sacrifice, where you're giving something up for the greater good, but it's not. I'm trying to think of an analogy and can't come up with a really good one, but maybe this will do. You're acting like it's a sacrifice like donating blood. You make a sacrifice of time and, well, blood to donate blood, and someone is helped...directly...by the blood you give up. So yes, there are sacrifices that we make that help others. In this case, it's not like this at all. You are asking people to "sacrifice" their guns which with an extremely high degree of certainty will never be used in a crime. John Smith in Nebraska who has a couple of guns in a small safe in his basement is giving up two guns that will not be used in a crime. Multiply this times 30 million people/families. We know that there are literally hundreds of millions of guns that aren't used in crimes. Why? Because there's not that much freakin' gun crime. There's not enough gun crime for all of those guns to be used in crime. So yea, the burden of proof is on you, who is proposing the government demand by force of law and criminal punishment for its citizens to give up their guns, and yet you're asking me to prove why not? That's quite a perspective when you're wanting significant government intervention.
You ask me for studies to prove my point. No, that's not how this works. You give me the studies that prove your point. And they better be dang convincing, because you're proposing tens of millions of families giving up guns. That could be used to defend themselves. That will never be used in crimes. That burden's on you.
Post by: LWYRUP on June 23, 2020, 07:23:52 PM
Perhaps so, but that would mean we are at an inflection point and at peak partisan, since partisanship has been increasing steadily and is more intense than ever. I do hear a lot of people complain, but there are also a lot of things that incentivize it remaining. It's hard to know when you are living through an inflection point. I'm not seeing the thing that would make this one, but perhaps we'll see it in retrospect.
Something that I've noticed recently is that when I wear an openly apolitical/ anti-politics T shirt*, I end up getting into great conversations with folks. I think there is a significant proportion of the population who is just done with it.
Among the polity I am sensing what I call "partisanship fatigue."
I remember in the 90s people would complain "oh both parties are the same."
In retrospect, that wasn't so bad.
Post by: ctuser1 on June 23, 2020, 07:45:14 PM
I'm saying that you're showing a tendency in this argument that you've had *cough cough* in previous arguments where you assign a line of logic to something else, say they're bad, and then disregard it out of hand. In this case it's the NRA. Chris had a whole post post about why gun rights supporters think compromise is a misused word by gun control supporters arguing in bad faith.
The post that I responded to, saying "NRA land" had a propaganda cartoon in it. You probably missed it, maybe because I removed it in my quote to save space.
When there is a plausible connection (which is yet to be proven "up to the actionable level", based on what I dug up on my 30 minute googling) and the gun rights response is to shut down research on it then it is clear where bad faith is coming from, and it is not from "gun control enthusiasts".
Gun ownership has exploded in the US and yet the US has not become the wild wild west. Instead, crime rates have dropped from 20 years ago. In addition to this, you've brought up a study, yourself, that shows there's no solid link between increasing gun ownership and increasing crime.
Any specific reason you ignored the data showing increase in gun violence that I posted upthread?
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ft_19-08-14_gundeaths_2/
We can continue the tete-a-tete till the cows come home. I generally respond with mockery and such when I see that you are not exactly trying to analyze the available information and data and impartially to arrive at a conclusion.
You ask me for studies to prove my point. No, that's not how this works. You give me the studies that prove your point. And they better be dang convincing, because you're proposing tens of millions of families giving up guns. That could be used to defend themselves. That will never be used in crimes. That burden's on you.I'll try to respond to this continuing BS with as much politeness as I can muster, at least this one time:
1. The AUS vs. US crime data was inconclusive.
2. The pew research data shows correlation in # of guns (based on time period) vs crime, in time.
3. The medical journal study again shows correlation by state level data.
So you have three separate data points here. Two of them show correlation (US based), one does not (US/Australia comparison). This, to any self respecting rational person would indicate that it is more likely than not that more guns -> more crime. However, it does not yet reach actionable level of certainty or "statistical significance".
Please note that I am trying to follow as much scientific process here and not trying to point score (like you are) with "2 for me, 1 inconclusive, so I win". If you have seen my posts, I don't like cheap point scoring BS like you are doing here. I either follow data/logic with integrity, or plain mock people when it is apparent they are not interested in trying to figure out the truth.
You seem very sure in your stance. Why don't you show the data/studies that prove it out? Aren't you interested in figuring out if you can stop the next Sandy Hook from happening? Or have you already figured it out? If so - where is the data/study?
While you are at it, please also spare me the BS that you need a semi-automatic to defend yourself.
Post by: GuitarStv on June 23, 2020, 08:27:42 PM
I personally knew one of the dads of the Sandy Hook kids.You explained a hypothetical "virtuous cycle" that you envision happening (hey, we all have imaginations, amirite?) when even you've admitted the statistics are inconclusive at best. Yeah, that shoots down my argument big time.
I've actually given you numbers, you call them bull crap but don't actually argue them away. Congrats.
The fact is that you are asking Chris to give up his guns when no matter which way you look at it, there's an infinitismally small chance that his guns will ever be used to kill a small child (you use the worst possible example for emotional leverage) and an extremely extremely small chance they'll ever be used in a crime at all.
The only conclusion I can come up with for you (or with anyone in the past who comes up with this point of view) is you're asking him to give up his guns because you don't care about having a gun so it's really super easy to demand others to give them up.
1. The bolded is possible.
2. I, personally, could be easily convinced once the NRA bullshit subsided and real social science research started, and indicated one way or the other ("concluded" is generally not possible in social sciences, hence I say indicated).
3. I am not motivated by this debate, so can't be bothered to look up dis-ambiguating data and research. Guns simply do not kill as many people as the "free market" healthcare does, for example. Maybe a liberal (heh, weird politics, I'm labeling myself a liberal now - couldn't imagine that 5 years ago) with more knowledge can chime in.
Yet you did care enough to tell me I don’t care about dead kids. Got it.
So your argument comes from a position of emotion based on that relationship, understood.
None of that means you get to tell me I want dead kids. None of it.
Do you keep loaded and unsecured guns in a home with a child Chris? I seem to remember you mentioning that in a previous gun thread.
Post by: calimom on June 23, 2020, 08:39:12 PM
I personally knew one of the dads of the Sandy Hook kids.You explained a hypothetical "virtuous cycle" that you envision happening (hey, we all have imaginations, amirite?) when even you've admitted the statistics are inconclusive at best. Yeah, that shoots down my argument big time.
I've actually given you numbers, you call them bull crap but don't actually argue them away. Congrats.
The fact is that you are asking Chris to give up his guns when no matter which way you look at it, there's an infinitismally small chance that his guns will ever be used to kill a small child (you use the worst possible example for emotional leverage) and an extremely extremely small chance they'll ever be used in a crime at all.
The only conclusion I can come up with for you (or with anyone in the past who comes up with this point of view) is you're asking him to give up his guns because you don't care about having a gun so it's really super easy to demand others to give them up.
1. The bolded is possible.
2. I, personally, could be easily convinced once the NRA bullshit subsided and real social science research started, and indicated one way or the other ("concluded" is generally not possible in social sciences, hence I say indicated).
3. I am not motivated by this debate, so can't be bothered to look up dis-ambiguating data and research. Guns simply do not kill as many people as the "free market" healthcare does, for example. Maybe a liberal (heh, weird politics, I'm labeling myself a liberal now - couldn't imagine that 5 years ago) with more knowledge can chime in.
Yet you did care enough to tell me I don’t care about dead kids. Got it.
So your argument comes from a position of emotion based on that relationship, understood.
None of that means you get to tell me I want dead kids. None of it.
Do you keep loaded and unsecured guns in a home with a child Chris? I seem to remember you mentioning that in a previous gun thread.
What could possibly go wrong?
Post by: ysette9 on June 23, 2020, 08:49:05 PM
I’m looking at this gun violence per 100k capita image: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#/media/File%3AList_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate.jpg
The good news is that the US isn’t as bad as places like El Salvador or Swaziland, but you don’t see any first-world country as neighbors in the same amount of violence. The other thing to keep in mind is that the majority of deaths by guns are suicide. (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/).
So removing guns from law-abiding citizens may not prevent murder (though statistics from other countries tell the opposite story), but removing a gun from a household will sure make it less easy for someone hitting a rough patch in life from making an irreversible decision to end it all.
Post by: Shane on June 23, 2020, 08:59:01 PM
I'm not trying to score points. I'm saying that you're showing a tendency in this argument that you've had *cough cough* in previous arguments where you assign a line of logic to something else, say they're bad, and then disregard it out of hand. In this case it's the NRA. Chris had a whole post post about why gun rights supporters think compromise is a misused word by gun control supporters arguing in bad faith. Now, you can agree or disagree with this and state reasons why. Instead, you didn't deal with it at all. You said "Again, you are going dangerously close to NRA propaganda land." First, you didn't show that that was something the NRA especially said. And even if it was, you didn't disprove the arguments. You did the equivalent of saying, um, um, um the NRA is bad and that sounds like the NRA. Irrelevant and not helpful.
It's almost as if his arguments are being informed by some kind of...religion. wtf? But, of course, we all know that couldn't be possible, as religions are all just a bunch of BS. :)
Post by: Buffaloski Boris on June 23, 2020, 09:05:40 PM
Perhaps so, but that would mean we are at an inflection point and at peak partisan, since partisanship has been increasing steadily and is more intense than ever. I do hear a lot of people complain, but there are also a lot of things that incentivize it remaining. It's hard to know when you are living through an inflection point. I'm not seeing the thing that would make this one, but perhaps we'll see it in retrospect.
Something that I've noticed recently is that when I wear an openly apolitical/ anti-politics T shirt*, I end up getting into great conversations with folks. I think there is a significant proportion of the population who is just done with it.
Among the polity I am sensing what I call "partisanship fatigue."
I remember in the 90s people would complain "oh both parties are the same."
In retrospect, that wasn't so bad.
The factions are corporatist to their core, and govern very similarly when in power. Both factions embraced a divide and conquer the population strategy starting in the 80's and 90's. E.g. Lee Atwater. That strategy is in full flower now.
I agree that it was much more pleasant when the two factions made some attempts to behave themselves.
Post by: sherr on June 24, 2020, 09:26:43 AM
Quote from: -Trump_in_Arizona
“[Democrats] hate our history, they hate our values, and they hate everything we prize as Americans. Our country didn’t grow great with them. It grew great with you and your thought process and your ideology. The left-wing mob is trying to demolish our heritage, so they can replace it with a new oppressive regime that they alone control."
Boris:
"Both sides are exactly the same and are exactly equally responsible for the growing partisan divide."
Post by: Travis on June 24, 2020, 04:17:06 PM
Post by: OtherJen on June 24, 2020, 04:47:14 PM
One of the friends I mentioned earlier has been going on a nonstop tear the last couple weeks posting 10 times a day examples of police being hurt, black people disagreeing with BLM, or black people causing trouble. He pays lip service to the violent overreactions of some police forces, but is focused almost exclusively on disproving the BLM movement. I just don't have the energy to argue with him on every single post. I have to wonder what he does with his day. Yesterday he posted 20 times, which now includes simple cookie cutter "Socialism Bad!" rants. His friends and I caught him a couple times posting from a satire site or simple having no idea the background of the incident he was posting. He grabbed one of the first conservative media headlines about CHAZ and start ranting. One of his Seattle-based friends piped in and said "it's not really that bad." He instantly backed off and said "I didn't know, tell me more." The next day he posted another conservative media CHAZ rant. He's clearly not reading any of this stuff, just re-posting from his Blue Lives Matter group or wherever he gets his Republican talking points (he loves Tucker Carlson, btw). At this point I just can't take him seriously anymore, which strangely enough doesn't make me want to unfriend him. Just when I'm tired of his rants filling my facebook feed and I want to hide him for the next month, he posts a video of a baby panda which turns out to be the highlight of my day. He's a frustrating creature.
Might be worth muting him on your feed for 30 days. I do that with friends on both sides of the spectrum when I just need a break.
Post by: js82 on June 24, 2020, 04:47:38 PM
Quote from: -Trump_in_Arizona“[Democrats] hate our history, they hate our values, and they hate everything we prize as Americans. Our country didn’t grow great with them. It grew great with you and your thought process and your ideology. The left-wing mob is trying to demolish our heritage, so they can replace it with a new oppressive regime that they alone control."
Boris:
"Both sides are exactly the same and are exactly equally responsible for the growing partisan divide."
Eh, while they're not exactly the same(and I would argue, not equally to blame), each is problematic in its own way.
Unlike Boris, I'm not apolitical (I vote as an independent), and I'm definitely not neutral on the left-right spectrum, but there's a lot to be said about the inherent problems in a system where "The other guy is bad" is as powerful a motivator to vote a certain way as "I will do my best to represent you".
If there were more than 2 parties with a significant national presence the dynamic would be dramatically different. Those running for office would have to give voters a good reason to vote FOR them, rather than merely voting against the other person. Unfortunately, the structure of the political system in the US provides a powerful driving force towards consolidation to 2 parties.
Until people are willing to call out the bad behavior within their own factions and recognize the good things done by others(or enact reform toward a system that favors a multi-party environment), we'll remain stuck exactly where we are right now(or worse).
Post by: ctuser1 on June 24, 2020, 05:20:52 PM
Until people are willing to call out the bad behavior within their own factions and recognize the good things done by others(or enact reform toward a system that favors a multi-party environment), we'll remain stuck exactly where we are right now(or worse).
The first part at least is not as uncommon as you think:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/new-jersey-democratic-partisan-gerrymandering-amendment-is-dead-progressive-activists-killed-it.html (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/new-jersey-democratic-partisan-gerrymandering-amendment-is-dead-progressive-activists-killed-it.html)
I'm struggling myself with the second part. So it may be a real problem.
Post by: Buffaloski Boris on June 24, 2020, 05:44:28 PM
Quote from: -Trump_in_Arizona“[Democrats] hate our history, they hate our values, and they hate everything we prize as Americans. Our country didn’t grow great with them. It grew great with you and your thought process and your ideology. The left-wing mob is trying to demolish our heritage, so they can replace it with a new oppressive regime that they alone control."
Boris:
"Both sides are exactly the same and are exactly equally responsible for the growing partisan divide."
That’s interesting. So now I’m being misquoted? I must admit that’s a really nice compliment. Thank you!
Post by: Dancin'Dog on June 24, 2020, 06:35:49 PM
Quote from: -Trump_in_Arizona“[Democrats] hate our history, they hate our values, and they hate everything we prize as Americans. Our country didn’t grow great with them. It grew great with you and your thought process and your ideology. The left-wing mob is trying to demolish our heritage, so they can replace it with a new oppressive regime that they alone control."
Boris:
"Both sides are exactly the same and are exactly equally responsible for the growing partisan divide."
Eh, while they're not exactly the same(and I would argue, not equally to blame), each is problematic in its own way.
Unlike Boris, I'm not apolitical (I vote as an independent), and I'm definitely not neutral on the left-right spectrum, but there's a lot to be said about the inherent problems in a system where "The other guy is bad" is as powerful a motivator to vote a certain way as "I will do my best to represent you".
If there were more than 2 parties with a significant national presence the dynamic would be dramatically different. Those running for office would have to give voters a good reason to vote FOR them, rather than merely voting against the other person. Unfortunately, the structure of the political system in the US provides a powerful driving force towards consolidation to 2 parties.
Until people are willing to call out the bad behavior within their own factions and recognize the good things done by others(or enact reform toward a system that favors a multi-party environment), we'll remain stuck exactly where we are right now(or worse).
I recently found https://represent.us/ (https://represent.us/) which is a group with the goal of fighting government corruption. They say that 90% of Americans, regardless of political view, agree on voting against corruption. Represent Us says that our votes don't count because corporations & the elite, finance political campaigns, and basically own the politicians. They tell the politicians what they want, and regardless of what the public wants, politicians give it to them. They also say that most lobbyists are retired from government jobs, adding to the corporate money / political favor equation.
Represent Us has been working towards passing anti-corruption laws at the local and state level, which over time will gain more and more support. Eventually there will be a tipping point, and all of the states will enact anti corruption laws. Then we can change the federal government. Since this is a nonpartisan issue it something that has a real chance.
Check out their website. They explain it all in depth.
Post by: Buffaloski Boris on June 24, 2020, 06:42:06 PM
Quote from: -Trump_in_Arizona“[Democrats] hate our history, they hate our values, and they hate everything we prize as Americans. Our country didn’t grow great with them. It grew great with you and your thought process and your ideology. The left-wing mob is trying to demolish our heritage, so they can replace it with a new oppressive regime that they alone control."
Boris:
"Both sides are exactly the same and are exactly equally responsible for the growing partisan divide."
Eh, while they're not exactly the same(and I would argue, not equally to blame), each is problematic in its own way.
Unlike Boris, I'm not apolitical (I vote as an independent), and I'm definitely not neutral on the left-right spectrum, but there's a lot to be said about the inherent problems in a system where "The other guy is bad" is as powerful a motivator to vote a certain way as "I will do my best to represent you".
If there were more than 2 parties with a significant national presence the dynamic would be dramatically different. Those running for office would have to give voters a good reason to vote FOR them, rather than merely voting against the other person. Unfortunately, the structure of the political system in the US provides a powerful driving force towards consolidation to 2 parties.
Until people are willing to call out the bad behavior within their own factions and recognize the good things done by others(or enact reform toward a system that favors a multi-party environment), we'll remain stuck exactly where we are right now(or worse).
Hope springs eternal. Unfortunately in this case, misplaced hope that either of the existing factions is going to embrace meaningful reform or allow competition is just another tool being used against us.
The red team and the blue team have been in power nonstop since the 1860’s. In that time neither of the factions has been displaced. Think about what that means. There have been no shortage of third factions trying to challenge the duopoly. The socialists in the early 20th century, the Bull Moose Party, the Libertarians, the Reform party, the Greens, and the Democratic Socialists. And I’m probably forgetting a half dozen others. None of these small factions have ever been able to gain traction to displace or even meaningfully compete in our partisan political system. There’s a reason for that: the duopoly has been doing this for a long time and is very, very good at staying in power.
Let’s briefly examine some of the methods the duopoly uses to retain power and deny access to would be usurpers. Like restrictive ballot access requirements. Did you know that any new political party has to spend significant amounts of time and revenue just to get ballot access? That in itself is an almost insurmountable task for any small faction to overcome. So instead of debating issues or presenting their views, small factions spend their time and resources circulating petitions just to get on the ballot. Now the small faction could always sue. But guess who appoints the judges? That same duopoly that the small faction is trying to displace. The results are predictable. So let’s say your small faction somehow spends the resources and manages to get on the ballot. Woo hoo! Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean you’ll actually get to argue your ideas against the duopoly, because you know we can’t allow competitors on the debate stage unless they get X % in a poll. Sorry small faction. It sucks to be you.
In the end the duopoly makes the rules for elections, selects the candidates, decides what competitors may be allowed to participate, runs the elections, and counts the votes. And we really think that a multi faction system is in our future? I guess it’s possible. But there are about 160 years of history that say that it won’t be.
Post by: Buffaloski Boris on June 24, 2020, 06:46:27 PM
Quote from: -Trump_in_Arizona“[Democrats] hate our history, they hate our values, and they hate everything we prize as Americans. Our country didn’t grow great with them. It grew great with you and your thought process and your ideology. The left-wing mob is trying to demolish our heritage, so they can replace it with a new oppressive regime that they alone control."
Boris:
"Both sides are exactly the same and are exactly equally responsible for the growing partisan divide."
Eh, while they're not exactly the same(and I would argue, not equally to blame), each is problematic in its own way.
Unlike Boris, I'm not apolitical (I vote as an independent), and I'm definitely not neutral on the left-right spectrum, but there's a lot to be said about the inherent problems in a system where "The other guy is bad" is as powerful a motivator to vote a certain way as "I will do my best to represent you".
If there were more than 2 parties with a significant national presence the dynamic would be dramatically different. Those running for office would have to give voters a good reason to vote FOR them, rather than merely voting against the other person. Unfortunately, the structure of the political system in the US provides a powerful driving force towards consolidation to 2 parties.
Until people are willing to call out the bad behavior within their own factions and recognize the good things done by others(or enact reform toward a system that favors a multi-party environment), we'll remain stuck exactly where we are right now(or worse).
I recently found https://represent.us/ (https://represent.us/) which is a group with the goal of fighting government corruption. They say that 90% of Americans, regardless of political view, agree on voting against corruption. Represent Us says that our votes don't count because corporations & the elite, finance political campaigns, and basically own the politicians. They tell the politicians what they want, and regardless of what the public wants, politicians give it to them. They also say that most lobbyists are retired from government jobs, adding to the corporate money / political favor equation.
Represent Us has been working towards passing anti-corruption laws at the local and state level, which over time will gain more and more support. Eventually there will be a tipping point, and all of the states will enact anti corruption laws. Then we can change the federal government. Since this is a nonpartisan issue it something that has a real chance.
Check out their website. They explain it all in depth.
That’s interesting. Thanks for posting that link.
Post by: js82 on June 24, 2020, 08:07:55 PM
In the end the duopoly makes the rules for elections, selects the candidates, decides what competitors may be allowed to participate, runs the elections, and counts the votes. And we really think that a multi faction system is in our future? I guess it’s possible. But there are about 160 years of history that say that it won’t be.
I don't disagree. To sustainably have more than 2 viable parties requires a fundamental, structural change to the way we run our elections - and possibly to the structure of government itself. Changing that is a heavy lift, to say the least.
Practically, I think it's much more realistic to attempt to break partisan conventions(not necessarily in terms of party affiliations, but in terms of the strict Red vs. Blue mentality and adherence to party orthodoxy) at the local level than at the federal. Local representatives are much more likely to live in the same communities and deal with the same problems as their constituents, and hence pragmatism will sometimes override partisan ideology when representatives are much more directly affected by the consequences of their decisions. And in general, local representatives are less likely to be hardcore institutionalists who will put party loyalty ahead of their constituents when compared with those in the upper echelons of their party.
Post by: Buffaloski Boris on June 25, 2020, 10:35:28 AM
In the end the duopoly makes the rules for elections, selects the candidates, decides what competitors may be allowed to participate, runs the elections, and counts the votes. And we really think that a multi faction system is in our future? I guess it’s possible. But there are about 160 years of history that say that it won’t be.
I don't disagree. To sustainably have more than 2 viable parties requires a fundamental, structural change to the way we run our elections - and possibly to the structure of government itself. Changing that is a heavy lift, to say the least.
Practically, I think it's much more realistic to attempt to break partisan conventions(not necessarily in terms of party affiliations, but in terms of the strict Red vs. Blue mentality and adherence to party orthodoxy) at the local level than at the federal. Local representatives are much more likely to live in the same communities and deal with the same problems as their constituents, and hence pragmatism will sometimes override partisan ideology when representatives are much more directly affected by the consequences of their decisions. And in general, local representatives are less likely to be hardcore institutionalists who will put party loyalty ahead of their constituents when compared with those in the upper echelons of their party.
You might be able to change minds. I'm skeptical, but sure, anything is possible. I think the question to ask is : so what's your Return On Investment (ROI) here?
Results matter. If you toss money, time, or resources at something, I should think it reasonable to expect that you're going to get something desirable in return. Money, time, joy, etc. So where is the ROI here for the average Jane or Joe? If you spend your time and resources to effect a change in the political infrastructure, what is the likely return? It looks to me to be less than zero. It's not like dissatisfaction with how the political parties operate or how money is used in politics is anything new. These debates and even legislation to "correct" the problems have been around all of my adult life. So at what point do you decide that this is a waste of time and resources? For most people it seems the answer is "never". There is no shortage of people who will spend money, passion, and countless hours of their time trying to persuade others that if we spent just one more hour, got just one more vote, gave the political class just one more chance that we will somehow enter the Promised Land of Milk n' Honey.
My very unpopular opinion is that you should evaluate politics much the same way you would any other investment. If you're getting nothing out of politics then you shouldn't throw any more resources at it.
Does that mean I can't be friends with someone who doesn't see it the same way? Of course not. But we'd be smart to avoid talking about politics as they're not going to convince me to spend my time with it, and I'm just going to piss them off.
Post by: partgypsy on June 25, 2020, 11:19:28 AM
People who want to leave the police out of the debate on gun rights and ownership, I don't think you can. Police has been becoming more militarized. At least one big reason for that is the number of guns in this country, and the vastly higher likelihood when they stop someone being met with gunpower. There is presumption they are in danger versus being there to protect citizens. Our lax gun control contributes to urban violence. Contributes to our police violence problem. Also for what research has been done, yes removing a gun from the house immediately increases the safety of members in the household; by dropping accidental gun injuries and deaths (especially by kids) and suicide by guns. If you remove a highly lethal way to kill yourself, suicide from any means goes down. That's why coal gas ovens were removed in the UK, mainstream protocol in US and elsewhere is to remove guns in patients vulnerable to suicide. We are going in the opposite direction, gun control wise from a public health perspective. Our gun deaths are like 25 x higher than deaths in other advanced countries, and the rate of gun homicides and suicides is only going up. But, we can't even talk about the toll this has taken in our country. Congress ruled you can't even do research on gun deaths (which is insane).
Post by: LWYRUP on June 25, 2020, 12:54:51 PM
My problem with politics on the ground is that politicians say, "We have all these huge problems, give me power and I will fix them." This is mostly impossible. Many of the problems have to do either with resource constraints, deep rooted cultural issues or human nature. I believe more issues than people think can be chalked up to the last of these. Politicians and political changes can make a difference, however usually they just improve or mitigate an issue, rather than solve it, and usually there are positive AND countervailing negative effects to any particular course of action. But no politician says, "I will take efforts to mitigate this problem and believe that the positive impacts of these efforts will outweigh the countervailing negative effects and so it is a net positive for the polity." I understand why, they would never get elected. To get elected, they need to promise big.
Typically there are people that support the politician and people that don't. Those that don't are getting in the way of the agenda (and, of course, the consolidation of power). So when the politician fails to deliver (either because the platform is stalled, or because it is implemented and doesn't work fully or has a number of negative side effects), he or she needs someone to blame. So the system demands scapegoats. Pretty convenient, because the politician and his or her supporters already don't like the people that don't support the politician and consolidation of power with him or her.
So then we are told that the politician and his or her party are wonderful, and all of the problems are a result of the scapegoat and the scapegoat's ill-will, malfeasance, idiocy, hatefulness, lack of patriotism, etc. In most democracies, it is usually (though not always) left at that. In autocracies, the scapegoats can find themselves barred from employment (aka. the concept formerly known as "blacklisted"), jailed, tortured, genocided, etc. I was born in the USA because my family escaped the Soviet Union, so I am particularly sensitive to this, but this process happens in all sorts of places among all sorts of political ideologies. In my opinion, it's embedded in human nature, basically. For an analysis of scapegoating from someone much smarter than me, focusing more on the religious elements than the political ones, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Girard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Girard)
I like discussing political philosophies. I find scapegoating counterproductive, tedious and immoral (because of how all of this has played out in historical cycles, one would think people would be more careful). So, I say I am apolotical, when I really mean is "I enjoy discussing political philosophy but not partisan politics, because most political factions contain large groups of people whose behavior falls below the standard of decency I set for myself and I don't want to be associated with them, and also strategically I prefer not to be scapegoated by whatever group is currently in power, and while I think political platforms have utility, most current suffering will likely continue at about the same rate due to resource constraints, deep rooted cultural issues and human nature with slow improvements over time that are mostly the result of small efforts by billions of people and not the identity of the person who happens to hold the most political power at this moment in time."
Relating to the original subject, who can I be friends with?
Pretty much anyone of any political background that isn't an extremist (for philosophical reasons -- these are the people most likely to mess things up terribly if actually given power, and then kill their scapegoats after the fact) or a jerk (who likes jerks?).
Post by: Buffaloski Boris on June 25, 2020, 07:24:10 PM
Relating to these discussions of political duopoly:
My problem with politics on the ground is that politicians say, "We have all these huge problems, give me power and I will fix them." This is mostly impossible. Many of the problems have to do either with resource constraints, deep rooted cultural issues or human nature. I believe more issues than people think can be chalked up to the last of these. Politicians and political changes can make a difference, however usually they just improve or mitigate an issue, rather than solve it, and usually there are positive AND countervailing negative effects to any particular course of action. But no politician says, "I will take efforts to mitigate this problem and believe that the positive impacts of these efforts will outweigh the countervailing negative effects and so it is a net positive for the polity." I understand why, they would never get elected. To get elected, they need to promise big.
Typically there are people that support the politician and people that don't. Those that don't are getting in the way of the agenda (and, of course, the consolidation of power). So when the politician fails to deliver (either because the platform is stalled, or because it is implemented and doesn't work fully or has a number of negative side effects), he or she needs someone to blame. So the system demands scapegoats. Pretty convenient, because the politician and his or her supporters already don't like the people that don't support the politician and consolidation of power with him or her.
So then we are told that the politician and his or her party are wonderful, and all of the problems are a result of the scapegoat and the scapegoat's ill-will, malfeasance, idiocy, hatefulness, lack of patriotism, etc. In most democracies, it is usually (though not always) left at that. In autocracies, the scapegoats can find themselves barred from employment (aka. the concept formerly known as "blacklisted"), jailed, tortured, genocided, etc. I was born in the USA because my family escaped the Soviet Union, so I am particularly sensitive to this, but this process happens in all sorts of places among all sorts of political ideologies. In my opinion, it's embedded in human nature, basically. For an analysis of scapegoating from someone much smarter than me, focusing more on the religious elements than the political ones, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Girard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Girard)
I like discussing political philosophies. I find scapegoating counterproductive, tedious and immoral (because of how all of this has played out in historical cycles, one would think people would be more careful). So, I say I am apolotical, when I really mean is "I enjoy discussing political philosophy but not partisan politics, because most political factions contain large groups of people whose behavior falls below the standard of decency I set for myself and I don't want to be associated with them, and also strategically I prefer not to be scapegoated by whatever group is currently in power, and while I think political platforms have utility, most current suffering will likely continue at about the same rate due to resource constraints, deep rooted cultural issues and human nature with slow improvements over time that are mostly the result of small efforts by billions of people and not the identity of the person who happens to hold the most political power at this moment in time."
Relating to the original subject, who can I be friends with?
Pretty much anyone of any political background that isn't an extremist (for philosophical reasons -- these are the people most likely to mess things up terribly if actually given power, and then kill their scapegoats after the fact) or a jerk (who likes jerks?).
Well put. It is nice to just have friends and not have politics act as a wedge. The crazy season is upon us, and it’ll just get crazier.
As the apolitical numbers grow over time, I think it’s likely that we’ll start being scapegoated as well.