|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 24 2017 16:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 16:22 Falling wrote:Like even if it's murder men just don't need to be involved period. Like just concede this one place, or continue to be so domineering that you can't let this go. That isn't the case in any other murder case, so if it is murder, why would it be so here? In what way am I being domineering? I am simply asking questions and pointing out the underlying premises. I don't think I've been rude or insulting. Every person (man, woman, baby, and anyone in between) that dies as a result of a political decision by the US government, said decision was ultimately decided by men. This would carve out a single type of human (if we're conceding it's killing babies) that would not be up to men to make the final determination on. Well, I mean it's not like it's a small number. Supposedly the US has killed more than 20 million people in 37 nations since WWII. Since 1970, 51 million offspring have been aborted in the US. If it's nothing, it's nothing, but if it's babies that's actually a fair amount of life and death power in the hands of women. That's about 25.5 million females to whom we are being obnoxious in denying autonomy of the body (from the premise of the second option). "It would be predicated on the fact the the baby being killed would have to be INSIDE the person making the decision." Why would location matter if it is a baby being killed? You and I will change environments throughout our lives, granted none more significantly than from our mother's womb, does the ethics of killing depend on location change? Of course of it isn't baby, then everything changes, but if you assume the second option, I don't see how location matters much. It is most definitely the contents of the woman as if you remove it, it ceases to live. Not really no- what you are talking about is dependency of which humans are by the most dependent of the mammals. Most mammals walk within the first couple hours. But at the point in which you have unique DNA, you do not have a part of the mother (else it would be her genetic code) but you have something else that is dependent upon the mother. What level of dependency allows ending a life vs not and why? So one is unwilling to concede even this one thing, fine. One can't stop it by force of law, and trying to will only make it worse. One think's abortion is murder, they can't leave this up to women to decide, they insist that men must have the final determination on this, let's at least focus on effective strategies and not political stunts. Basically, don't tell me they want to reduce abortions with something like this ultrasound crap, but they don't think sexual education should be required or when it is offered, doesn't have to be medically accurate or can only offer negative information on same-sex relationships and we're supposed to take them seriously. Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 16:27 Wegandi wrote:On April 24 2017 15:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 24 2017 15:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 24 2017 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 24 2017 15:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:17 Falling wrote:
[quote]
You realize that what you are saying, assumes a certain position from the outset. To borrow from Louis CK: it's either like crapping or it's like killing a baby. It's only one of those two things. It's no other things. "A bunch of dudes can talk about restrictions on women" assumes the crapping position from the outset... but that's the entire point of the controversy because if it's the second, then it seems that men should speak out with women... unless you are like Louis CK and think it is the second, but women should be able to kill 'em anyways because life is overrated. I understand your point, but no. That was a great special but my point is that even if it is killing babies men kill countless babies every year so they should just let women at least have the final say on the ones inside of them and men can have the rest. On April 24 2017 15:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I'm just not sure >50% of the 67% that view the Democratic party as out of touch don't also view the second place finisher in the Democratic primary as not a member of the Democratic party.
Unless you're instead saying that a poll designed to measure aggregate public opinion is the best way to estimate election results which just baffles me There's a quote feature for a reason. That you're worried about that of all things speaks for itself though. It doubly speaks to the fact that the actual poll shows Clinton winning by 4% in everyone polled though that's getting 0 reporting ofc. That said I probably should have quoted you. I also just got back from a night out so apologies if I'm not really making sense. I really do wish that they had included a Sanders question in the poll though, it would validate a lot of other polls so sorry if that sounded overly snarky. Fair enough, what the poll shows is that it's still way too close and that's after they've seen what Trump is actually doing, and more importantly: The most basic takeaway is that Democrats need to be more like Bernie, not that Bernie and his supporters need to be more like Hillary/Democrats/Republicans/Trump. We're still waiting for Democrats to recognize that, are you there yet? I would appreciate it if Democrats would just be better in that they would improve their capability to communicate a coherent and achievable meaningful message. This means the Dems need to avoid ideological purging of potential allies while not totally selling out. I think both chunks of the party need to learn lessons instead of screaming at one another ad infinitum, I guess. No offence, but that sounds a bit like empty platitudes, do you concede that the direction the party needs to go is away from Clinton and the things people don't like about her that she ingrained into the party or not? I wrote a whole bunch of stuff but it was pretty silly. I hope this is better. I would like people to more clearly articulate what things we need to go away from Clinton and the DNC on, rather than throw everything out? And then I will concede the DNC needs to do so on a lot of things (aggressive stances on campaign finance reform, more clear and aggressive healthcare stances, and far better attempts to reconnect with both minorities and poor whites). After all, I fucking voted for Bernie in the primary, I believe he did have many good points over Clinton. But the attitude of "purge all the Clinton relics" doesn't just mean doing this stuff, it means losing people who did organize an efficient machine in many places-but lacked information and executive orders on where to do it. It means losing policy experts and wonkishness in favor of simpler promises that have, on occasion, seemed nigh-Trumpian. And it seems to me to sometimes translate to "purge the right-leaning or not heavy-left Dems" which seems to me to be exactly what pissed off so many people in the swing states in the first place. See the edit for specific examples (thought a response like this might come). I'm curious for your response. The part that doesn't play well in swing states are the social stuff (race, abortion, etc) it's not the "heavy left" stuff Bernie supports as is evidenced by his wide appeal. The grain of truth to the wall of smears against Bernie is that the Democrats do need to find some middle ground on how to talk about identity politics. Bernie doesn't do enough to focus on specific problems unique to underrepresented minorities, and Democrats overcompensate for their ineffectiveness to address them when in power with divisive, bombastic, and accusatory rhetoric. EDIT: Yeah, I mean "more clear" isn't what I'm looking for when it comes to healthcare, but we're a hell of a lot closer than I feel much of the Democratic party is. Maybe folks like Kwiz, Plan, ticklish and the rest will surprise me though when they opine on all this. On April 24 2017 16:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Good riddance to bad rubbish, though we must be careful not to just erase the confederacy and its history from existence. Should the Jefferson Memorial be taken down as well? What about all of the greek monuments depicting people of a time when slavery was legal there? Rome? What about the depictions of Kings and Queens when serfdom was a thing? Taking down memorials of history because some bad shit happened is not a good precedent and isn't a good teaching lesson. I'd feel the same thing if the USSR demolished all of its Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin statues. It's history to be learned from not to be hidden. ISIS doing the same shit in the middle east - destroying relics and monuments (and yes, slavery was a thing everywhere in antiquity). All memorials aren't created equal. Comparing the removal of confederate memorials (I concede I don't know specifically what's going) to what ISIS is doing definitely undermines the seriousness I can take this with, but alas, I'll entertain the question. No, that's why I said "though we must be careful not to just erase the confederacy and its history from existence." 
Look I understand. I get it. You're black and slavery in the US consisted of African blacks, so naturally you'd feel an impulse to not want anything related to that time period be in a public sphere. What I'm saying is that is counterproductive and that if the burden of a statues ability to have a place in the public is contemporary morality then the shelf life isn't that long as I'm sure in 100 years there are going to be a lot of things society in 2117 will look down on us for. Perhaps all statues and public displays should be taken down and stashed away in museums and footnotes in history books. I think that would be a travesty as that path tends to erase the things contemporary society deems unworthy, which in turn means a greater chance to repeat itself. I also think something as substantial as the Confederacy to southern states history should always be up to display, just like the Jefferson and Lincoln memorials, even as much as I am not a Lincoln fan.
Should the French be demanding that Caesar's statues in Rome be taken down? Should the people in Russia demolish the Lenin and Trotsky statues?
People through whole of time have done terrible things, but statues and memorials are there to mark history bad and good and impart some reflection. Of where we've been and where we're going. As much as you say that we shouldn't erase history, taking down Confederate memorials does just that. There's no way around it.
|
On April 24 2017 17:06 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 16:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 16:22 Falling wrote:Like even if it's murder men just don't need to be involved period. Like just concede this one place, or continue to be so domineering that you can't let this go. That isn't the case in any other murder case, so if it is murder, why would it be so here? In what way am I being domineering? I am simply asking questions and pointing out the underlying premises. I don't think I've been rude or insulting. Every person (man, woman, baby, and anyone in between) that dies as a result of a political decision by the US government, said decision was ultimately decided by men. This would carve out a single type of human (if we're conceding it's killing babies) that would not be up to men to make the final determination on. Well, I mean it's not like it's a small number. Supposedly the US has killed more than 20 million people in 37 nations since WWII. Since 1970, 51 million offspring have been aborted in the US. If it's nothing, it's nothing, but if it's babies that's actually a fair amount of life and death power in the hands of women. That's about 25.5 million females to whom we are being obnoxious in denying autonomy of the body (from the premise of the second option). "It would be predicated on the fact the the baby being killed would have to be INSIDE the person making the decision." Why would location matter if it is a baby being killed? You and I will change environments throughout our lives, granted none more significantly than from our mother's womb, does the ethics of killing depend on location change? Of course of it isn't baby, then everything changes, but if you assume the second option, I don't see how location matters much. It is most definitely the contents of the woman as if you remove it, it ceases to live. Not really no- what you are talking about is dependency of which humans are by the most dependent of the mammals. Most mammals walk within the first couple hours. But at the point in which you have unique DNA, you do not have a part of the mother (else it would be her genetic code) but you have something else that is dependent upon the mother. What level of dependency allows ending a life vs not and why? So one is unwilling to concede even this one thing, fine. One can't stop it by force of law, and trying to will only make it worse. One think's abortion is murder, they can't leave this up to women to decide, they insist that men must have the final determination on this, let's at least focus on effective strategies and not political stunts. Basically, don't tell me they want to reduce abortions with something like this ultrasound crap, but they don't think sexual education should be required or when it is offered, doesn't have to be medically accurate or can only offer negative information on same-sex relationships and we're supposed to take them seriously. On April 24 2017 16:27 Wegandi wrote:On April 24 2017 15:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 24 2017 15:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 24 2017 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 15:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 24 2017 15:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I understand your point, but no. That was a great special but my point is that even if it is killing babies men kill countless babies every year so they should just let women at least have the final say on the ones inside of them and men can have the rest.
[quote]
There's a quote feature for a reason.
That you're worried about that of all things speaks for itself though. It doubly speaks to the fact that the actual poll shows Clinton winning by 4% in everyone polled though that's getting 0 reporting ofc. That said I probably should have quoted you. I also just got back from a night out so apologies if I'm not really making sense. I really do wish that they had included a Sanders question in the poll though, it would validate a lot of other polls so sorry if that sounded overly snarky. Fair enough, what the poll shows is that it's still way too close and that's after they've seen what Trump is actually doing, and more importantly: The most basic takeaway is that Democrats need to be more like Bernie, not that Bernie and his supporters need to be more like Hillary/Democrats/Republicans/Trump. We're still waiting for Democrats to recognize that, are you there yet? I would appreciate it if Democrats would just be better in that they would improve their capability to communicate a coherent and achievable meaningful message. This means the Dems need to avoid ideological purging of potential allies while not totally selling out. I think both chunks of the party need to learn lessons instead of screaming at one another ad infinitum, I guess. No offence, but that sounds a bit like empty platitudes, do you concede that the direction the party needs to go is away from Clinton and the things people don't like about her that she ingrained into the party or not? I wrote a whole bunch of stuff but it was pretty silly. I hope this is better. I would like people to more clearly articulate what things we need to go away from Clinton and the DNC on, rather than throw everything out? And then I will concede the DNC needs to do so on a lot of things (aggressive stances on campaign finance reform, more clear and aggressive healthcare stances, and far better attempts to reconnect with both minorities and poor whites). After all, I fucking voted for Bernie in the primary, I believe he did have many good points over Clinton. But the attitude of "purge all the Clinton relics" doesn't just mean doing this stuff, it means losing people who did organize an efficient machine in many places-but lacked information and executive orders on where to do it. It means losing policy experts and wonkishness in favor of simpler promises that have, on occasion, seemed nigh-Trumpian. And it seems to me to sometimes translate to "purge the right-leaning or not heavy-left Dems" which seems to me to be exactly what pissed off so many people in the swing states in the first place. See the edit for specific examples (thought a response like this might come). I'm curious for your response. The part that doesn't play well in swing states are the social stuff (race, abortion, etc) it's not the "heavy left" stuff Bernie supports as is evidenced by his wide appeal. The grain of truth to the wall of smears against Bernie is that the Democrats do need to find some middle ground on how to talk about identity politics. Bernie doesn't do enough to focus on specific problems unique to underrepresented minorities, and Democrats overcompensate for their ineffectiveness to address them when in power with divisive, bombastic, and accusatory rhetoric. EDIT: Yeah, I mean "more clear" isn't what I'm looking for when it comes to healthcare, but we're a hell of a lot closer than I feel much of the Democratic party is. Maybe folks like Kwiz, Plan, ticklish and the rest will surprise me though when they opine on all this. Good riddance to bad rubbish, though we must be careful not to just erase the confederacy and its history from existence. Should the Jefferson Memorial be taken down as well? What about all of the greek monuments depicting people of a time when slavery was legal there? Rome? What about the depictions of Kings and Queens when serfdom was a thing? Taking down memorials of history because some bad shit happened is not a good precedent and isn't a good teaching lesson. I'd feel the same thing if the USSR demolished all of its Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin statues. It's history to be learned from not to be hidden. ISIS doing the same shit in the middle east - destroying relics and monuments (and yes, slavery was a thing everywhere in antiquity). All memorials aren't created equal. Comparing the removal of confederate memorials (I concede I don't know specifically what's going) to what ISIS is doing definitely undermines the seriousness I can take this with, but alas, I'll entertain the question. No, that's why I said "though we must be careful not to just erase the confederacy and its history from existence." Look I understand. I get it. You're black and slavery in the US consisted of African blacks, so naturally you'd feel an impulse to not want anything related to that time period be in a public sphere. What I'm saying is that is counterproductive and that if the burden of a statues ability to have a place in the public is contemporary morality then the shelf life isn't that long as I'm sure in 100 years there are going to be a lot of things society in 2117 will look down on us for. Perhaps all statues and public displays should be taken down and stashed away in museums and footnotes in history books. I think that would be a travesty as that path tends to erase the things contemporary society deems unworthy, which in turn means a greater chance to repeat itself. I also think something as substantial as the Confederacy to southern states history should always be up to display, just like the Jefferson and Lincoln memorials, even as much as I am not a Lincoln fan. Should the French be demanding that Caesar's statues in Rome be taken down? Should the people in Russia demolish the Lenin and Trotsky statues? People through whole of time have done terrible things, but statues and memorials are there to mark history bad and good and impart some reflection. Of where we've been and where we're going. As much as you say that we shouldn't erase history, taking down Confederate memorials does just that. There's no way around it.
I might be more receptive to this argument if removing memorials and statues etc wasn't standard operating procedure for most of human history, particularly of the losers. There's some memorials I would keep and some we're fine without.
I should have went with my gut that this was going off the rails when it started with what I presume is the new Godwin of immediately comparing something to ISIS.
That said, I think they are fine to exist in museum type settings with appropriate context. Which is what's happening as I understand it more or less. They aren't tearing down the statue with sledge hammers (or pulling it down like those famous Iraqi's we celebrated) they're just moving it out of a place where people don't want it.
EDIT: So again No, they shouldn't be demolished, but that's not what's happening. And no removing/relocating some memorials doesn't remove the confederacy from history. Frankly I'd be fine with just putting some more context around the memorial to make it clear he's (at least viewed contemporarily) as a stain on their history and not a point of pride.
|
On April 24 2017 15:45 Leporello wrote:
Abortion is one issue where I wish science was given a lot more credence. Philosophical discussion doesn't create consensus, if anything, it does the opposite. Peer-review and facts can create some consensus.
Late-term abortions are disturbing, because there is a brain there that, however abstract its thoughts may be, is conscious. A four-cell embryo, on the other hand, has no consciousness, and it seems to me that the consciousness is the crux that takes things from clinical to disturbing. If there is any line to be drawn on abortion, to me this is it.
"Sanctity" is a concept. On the other hand, you can detect consciousness with an EEG. If the fetus has a consciousness, then you're killing a conscious thing, and we should decide, strictly, clearly, for once, what that actually constitutes.
Until that line is drawn, or if we're not willing to draw it, then the obvious answer is to simply assume that the woman is making a choice in accordance to her conscience, and that's good enough.
What I'll never understand is the mainstream position of making abortion into some kind of sin, and then allowing it. Or making special cases for rape and incest. If it's a human baby, then it's a human baby. Any sort of "sacredness" one would apply to human life, even as an embryo, shouldn't carry "exceptions". Republican hypocrisy and certitude in a nutshell, imo.
An EEG cannot detect consciousness in any meaningful way. It can detect brain activity. However, neurons firing has never been a significant reason to not kill shit. We slaughter cattle by the millions. We kill unwanted dogs by the thousands. We rejoice when rats are exterminated. All animals with brain function detectable with EEG. Yet we don't attribute full consciousness to them? So why attribute consciousness to brain function in a fetus? Hell, if you really want to go there, what we recognize as consciousness only develops after birth, so if that is your sole criterium, it should be legal to murder babies up to around 6 months - 1 year of age.
|
this is more of an english vocabulary question than anything else but isn't something that's conscious just something that's... kind of alive? As in, "he's conscious"... I always wondered. So a dog, a goose are all conscious unless you knock them unconscious or is there dual meaning to the word?
Or is it that it's about self-consciousness? Dogs, cats etc are not as far as I know (but could be incorrect for all we know). At the same time some of the more intelligent animals are. I've heard of elefants and dolphins being self-consciousness iirc. And I'm pretty sure (human) babys aren't even until at least some point later into their lifes.
So I guess I'm taking a bit of a stance on it after all. I don't think there's really a hard line to draw with science and at least to me it boils down to an arbitrary line we draw due to practicality and a sense of morality. And I'm frankly speaking fine with that since neither side really convinces me if we're going all the way.
Like, let's take that argument from GH about dependency from earlier about how since it can't survive by itself it's part of the mother. Then what's with actual babys or even kids. I'm pretty sure if you leave a baby by itself it's not going to walk into a store to get food.
tl;dr: I do think this is a philosophical question and not convinced by trying to solve it otherwise.
|
Oh joy, the abortion debate part of this threads cycle.
Just want to add 2 things.
On when abortion becomes murder, how about America once again stops trying to invent the wheel and instead looks towards the rest of the world who seem to have settled on when it is ok and when its not. You guys do this all the time.
And secondly I get the feeling some people believe that if it is not made difficult to get an abortion that women will walk in and out of a clinic every few months while banging away. And sure your always going to have some psychos but again, the rest of the world seems to have discovered that regardless of how little humps you put in the way the women tend to find the experience traumatic and difficult. You don't need to shower them with artificial guilt to make it even worse.
|
On April 24 2017 17:49 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 15:45 Leporello wrote:
Abortion is one issue where I wish science was given a lot more credence. Philosophical discussion doesn't create consensus, if anything, it does the opposite. Peer-review and facts can create some consensus.
Late-term abortions are disturbing, because there is a brain there that, however abstract its thoughts may be, is conscious. A four-cell embryo, on the other hand, has no consciousness, and it seems to me that the consciousness is the crux that takes things from clinical to disturbing. If there is any line to be drawn on abortion, to me this is it.
"Sanctity" is a concept. On the other hand, you can detect consciousness with an EEG. If the fetus has a consciousness, then you're killing a conscious thing, and we should decide, strictly, clearly, for once, what that actually constitutes.
Until that line is drawn, or if we're not willing to draw it, then the obvious answer is to simply assume that the woman is making a choice in accordance to her conscience, and that's good enough.
What I'll never understand is the mainstream position of making abortion into some kind of sin, and then allowing it. Or making special cases for rape and incest. If it's a human baby, then it's a human baby. Any sort of "sacredness" one would apply to human life, even as an embryo, shouldn't carry "exceptions". Republican hypocrisy and certitude in a nutshell, imo. An EEG cannot detect consciousness in any meaningful way. It can detect brain activity. However, neurons firing has never been a significant reason to not kill shit. We slaughter cattle by the millions. We kill unwanted dogs by the thousands. We rejoice when rats are exterminated. All animals with brain function detectable with EEG. Yet we don't attribute full consciousness to them? So why attribute consciousness to brain function in a fetus? Hell, if you really want to go there, what we recognize as consciousness only develops after birth, so if that is your sole criterium, it should be legal to murder babies up to around 6 months - 1 year of age.
There are tribal cultures where babies don't have a (linguistic) gender and where there are no funeral rites if the baby dies a few months after birth. I had to study them for an anthropology assignment.
On April 24 2017 16:49 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 16:23 Grumbels wrote:On April 24 2017 15:38 Falling wrote:Put yet another way, Women don't and never have had the final say on anything (politically speaking) in this country. Are you and other men really so obnoxious that you can't give them autonomy over this one thing, being the contents of their own bodies?
Again, that assumes the first position. Suppose that those offspring being aborted are babies (second option), 50% of whom are female (more in the cases gender selected abortions in the case of China and the like.) So if it is the second case, then we are prioritizing the autonomy of one set of females, but being so obnoxious that we cannot give a second set of females (over 50% of those aborted) the autonomy over this one thing: a female's life. (Genetically speaking, the offspring is not the content of a women's body, though it is attached to and is within her. Unique DNA and all that- it's not the mother's DNA. Whatever it is, it is something else other than the mother because if we clone it, we aren't going to get another of the mother, but whatever it is that is in her.) An early stage fetus is not alive and it is not female. It is a thing without a gender and you should have the right to destroy it if it lives inside your body, particularly if it threatens your health. Giving this thing the right to live is perversion. How do you define alive and female and when does it become either? Furthermore, in what sense is something a perversion? What is your standard for determining perversity? If I read aright for something to be alive, it requires three things 1) metabolism that captures energy and nutrients to link smaller molecules to make larger molecules. 2) potential to reproduce itself at some point in its life cycle 3) potential to change over time from generation to generation. 2 and 3 are true of the zygote given sufficient time and no mishap. It has all the necessary genetic information for a new individual. 1 is true due to fetal glucose metabolism. Do you disagree with this definition? If so, why? More controversially due to the nonbinary movement, but I would submit that as whatever it is in the womb has the XX chromosome, it would be fair to say that it is a female. Again, all the genetic information is there to map out development. Do you disagree? If so, why?
I mean alive as in conscious, obviously insects or plants are alive in a more literal sense but they have no sanctity of life.
I call it a perversion because its logical consequence is to worship a clump of cells with an XX chromosome as a human female, with equal rights as the mother. For instance, you had an ideal of motherhood in older stories where a pregnant woman would sacrifice herself for the live of her unborn child and this was held up as an ideal. To me it seems really sick.
Yes, we can debate where exactly to draw the line, and at which point it becomes too morally disturbing to kill it. And this line can be drawn anywhere from right after conception to a few months after birth, but in most modern countries it's around 20 weeks and that seems a reasonable starting point for discussion. (personally I think after birth is a better cut off point though) Starting at conception just seems idiotic and with the same logic you should become a Jainist constantly frightened of harming microbiotic life by breathing too harshly, who won't go outside at night because you can't see what insects you might step on etc.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/in-liberal-europe-abortion-laws-come-with-their-own-restrictions/278350/
Europe isn't perfect, by the way, even in the Netherlands we have belittling restrictions imposed on women. We have a party called the Christenunie which poses as a credible leftwing party from a compassionate Christian perspective, but it seems they mainly care not about policies that might actually help people, but about restricting abortion rights. That's the extent of their Christian activism. I personally detest them because I once picked them in a mock-vote when I was in high school only to later better understand them.
|
On April 24 2017 16:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
So one is unwilling to concede even this one thing, fine. One can't stop it by force of law, and trying to will only make it worse. One think's abortion is murder, they can't leave this up to women to decide, they insist that men must have the final determination on this, let's at least focus on effective strategies and not political stunts.
Perhaps in your fantasy world women have no say in politics and unanimously support abortion. That is not the case in the real world, however.
Your argument is the equivalent of saying that it should be okay for you to kill another person for trespassing after having lured them into your house.
|
On April 24 2017 18:15 Toadesstern wrote:
this is more of an english vocabulary question than anything else but isn't something that's conscious just something that's... kind of alive? As in, "he's conscious"... I always wondered. So a dog, a goose are all conscious unless you knock them unconscious or is there dual meaning to the word?
Or is it that it's about self-consciousness? Dogs, cats etc are not as far as I know (but could be incorrect for all we know). At the same time some of the more intelligent animals are. I've heard of elefants and dolphins being self-consciousness iirc. And I'm pretty sure (human) babys aren't even until at least some point later into their lifes.
So I guess I'm taking a bit of a stance on it after all. I don't think there's really a hard line to draw with science and at least to me it boils down to an arbitrary line we draw due to practicality and a sense of morality. And I'm frankly speaking fine with that since neither side really convinces me if we're going all the way.
Like, let's take that argument from GH about dependency from earlier about how since it can't survive by itself it's part of the mother. Then what's with actual babys or even kids. I'm pretty sure if you leave a baby by itself it's not going to walk into a store to get food.
tl;dr: I do think this is a philosophical question and not convinced by trying to solve it otherwise.
Consciousness isn't really a linguistic (English) question, it's a philosophical (or religious, or neuroscientific) one. What consciousness is not completely clear. What is pretty much clear is that Cartesian dualism is mostly dead + Show Spoiler +Abrahamic religions, and in fact, most religions, do require such a categorical distinction between "base" animals and humans. And there are some philosophers that (desperately) cling to this idea: see literature on Chinese room problem
Consciousness is a rather nebulous concept, though. Whether you try to define it from a philosophy of mind point (in fact, some philosophers have gone so far as to dismiss the entire concept as hogwash due to problems of definition), neurological (pinpointing what in the brain give rise to consciousness), medical (what can happen to "break" consciousness and what could we do to repair it), or in a religious fashion, you run into contradictions.
Some of my favourite authors on the subject are Dennett, Hofstadter, Sacks, Damasio and Pincker. As amazing books that I suggest anybody remotely interested reads just to get an idea of the questions that are being asked, I suggest:
Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid (Hofstadter)
The Mind's I (editors: Dennett and Hofstadter)
and basically any collection of Sacks' essays just to realize how much we take for granted about our mind, and the bizar things that can go wrong with it.
|
On April 24 2017 19:34 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 16:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
So one is unwilling to concede even this one thing, fine. One can't stop it by force of law, and trying to will only make it worse. One think's abortion is murder, they can't leave this up to women to decide, they insist that men must have the final determination on this, let's at least focus on effective strategies and not political stunts. Perhaps in your fantasy world women have no say in politics and unanimously support abortion. That is not the case in the real world, however. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that it should be okay for you to kill another person for trespassing after having lured them into your house.
All sorts of things wrong with this, but I'll bite. Not "my fantasy", political decisions in the US regarding what we are going to do with any living being are always and have always been finally authorized by men, that's just a matter of fact.
As for women being able to determine what they put/keep in their bodies being equivalent to luring someone onto your property to murder them, that's comically absurd.
EDIT: But just to be clear, what I think is "moral" or whatever is different than what I think should be enshrined in law.
|
Consciousness in english has the same dual meaning that the German "Bewusstsein" has. Meaning "awake" and something like "with a soul"
Weirdly enough, english "selfconsciousness" has nothing to do with being conscious of your self, it means being unsure of your own worth. It is thus diametrically opposed to the german "selbstbewusstsein", which means being sure of yourself, but also does not really have anything to do with consciousness per se.
Language is weird. But the problem above stands true. I personally am not even sure if consciousness is not just something we make up to feel better about ourselves. We are humans with consciousness, and thus better than animals without one. And thus we will try to find anything that we can do that animals can't, and ascribe that to consciousness. Then we find animals that can do that thing, and it is no longer part of consciousness.
|
On April 24 2017 19:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 19:34 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 16:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
So one is unwilling to concede even this one thing, fine. One can't stop it by force of law, and trying to will only make it worse. One think's abortion is murder, they can't leave this up to women to decide, they insist that men must have the final determination on this, let's at least focus on effective strategies and not political stunts. Perhaps in your fantasy world women have no say in politics and unanimously support abortion. That is not the case in the real world, however. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that it should be okay for you to kill another person for trespassing after having lured them into your house. All sorts of things wrong with this, but I'll bite. Not "my fantasy", political decisions in the US regarding what we are going to do with any living being are always and have always been finally authorized by men, that's just a matter of fact.
You mean the fact that for a law to be passed it has to be signed by your president, who happens to be a man? If so, then that is a ridiculous thing to say. There is no law prohibiting women from becoming a president. The president's gender is irrelevant here - both women and men have equal rights when it comes to electing the president. Likewise, they both have equal rights in terms of participating in the legislative process.
You are also completely ignoring the fact that the opponents of abortion are not just men. Thus, to say that anyone is insisting that men should have the final say is a straw man.
edit: Also, using the leftist logic, what stops men from temporarily identifying as women when voting on the abortion laws?
As for women being able to determine what they put/keep in their bodies being equivalent to luring someone onto your property to murder them, that's comically absurd.
As far as I know, the USA is quite liberal when it comes to killing people for trespassing (perhaps it differs from state to state). This is a valid analogy. In both cases one is given the right to kill another human for what amounts to trespassing. What is comically absurd is saying that women should have the right to kill babies simply because they got inside them, against their will.
On April 24 2017 18:17 Gorsameth wrote:
Oh joy, the abortion debate part of this threads cycle.
Just want to add 2 things.
On when abortion becomes murder, how about America once again stops trying to invent the wheel and instead looks towards the rest of the world who seem to have settled on when it is ok and when its not. You guys do this all the time.
And secondly I get the feeling some people believe that if it is not made difficult to get an abortion that women will walk in and out of a clinic every few months while banging away. And sure your always going to have some psychos but again, the rest of the world seems to have discovered that regardless of how little humps you put in the way the women tend to find the experience traumatic and difficult. You don't need to shower them with artificial guilt to make it even worse.
That totally depends on the country. E.g. in the Netherlands you have 28k abortions for 171k live births. But in Russia you have roughly a million of abortions for a million of live births (and it used to be 2M for 1M, respectively, about 10 years ago).
Also, in Poland feminists constantly harp about abortion not being traumatic at all. The more militant ones even brag about having had an abortion (or several).
|
On April 24 2017 19:49 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 18:15 Toadesstern wrote:
this is more of an english vocabulary question than anything else but isn't something that's conscious just something that's... kind of alive? As in, "he's conscious"... I always wondered. So a dog, a goose are all conscious unless you knock them unconscious or is there dual meaning to the word?
Or is it that it's about self-consciousness? Dogs, cats etc are not as far as I know (but could be incorrect for all we know). At the same time some of the more intelligent animals are. I've heard of elefants and dolphins being self-consciousness iirc. And I'm pretty sure (human) babys aren't even until at least some point later into their lifes.
So I guess I'm taking a bit of a stance on it after all. I don't think there's really a hard line to draw with science and at least to me it boils down to an arbitrary line we draw due to practicality and a sense of morality. And I'm frankly speaking fine with that since neither side really convinces me if we're going all the way.
Like, let's take that argument from GH about dependency from earlier about how since it can't survive by itself it's part of the mother. Then what's with actual babys or even kids. I'm pretty sure if you leave a baby by itself it's not going to walk into a store to get food.
tl;dr: I do think this is a philosophical question and not convinced by trying to solve it otherwise. Consciousness isn't really a linguistic (English) question, it's a philosophical (or religious, or neuroscientific) one. What consciousness is not completely clear. What is pretty much clear is that Cartesian dualism is mostly dead + Show Spoiler +Abrahamic religions, and in fact, most religions, do require such a categorical distinction between "base" animals and humans. And there are some philosophers that (desperately) cling to this idea: see literature on Chinese room problem , so there is no such thing as a "soul" which provides humans with consciousness and not other lifeforms. Rather, there is a sliding scale ranging from inanimate objects with no consciousness at all, through the most basic lifeforms, with humanity at the top of the consciousness pinnacle (insofar as we know). Consciousness is separate from (but related to) intelligence, and there are philosophers who think that if something is sufficiently intelligent it is inevitably conscious. However, there is, in my understanding, a categorical difference between the two. For instance, a conscious being can explain the way it experiences things like qualia. That is no requirement for intelligence. You don't have to "experience" redness to be able to know, and reason about, the simple fact that red roses and red cars share a property (their color). Consciousness is a rather nebulous concept, though. Whether you try to define it from a philosophy of mind point (in fact, some philosophers have gone so far as to dismiss the entire concept as hogwash due to problems of definition), neurological (pinpointing what in the brain give rise to consciousness), medical (what can happen to "break" consciousness and what could we do to repair it), or in a religious fashion, you run into contradictions. Some of my favourite authors on the subject are Dennett, Hofstadter, Sacks, Damasio and Pincker. As amazing books that I suggest anybody remotely interested reads just to get an idea of the questions that are being asked, I suggest: Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid (Hofstadter) The Mind's I (editors: Dennett and Hofstadter) and basically any collection of Sacks' essays just to realize how much we take for granted about our mind, and the bizar things that can go wrong with it.
just to clarify because I'm not sure it got across. When I said "this is more of an english vocabulary question" I didn't mean the question should be that but that I had that question as I genuinly wasn't sure if the word conscious really means what people are talking about 
On April 24 2017 20:03 Simberto wrote:
Consciousness in english has the same dual meaning that the German "Bewusstsein" has. Meaning "awake" and something like "with a soul"
Weirdly enough, english "selfconsciousness" has nothing to do with being conscious of your self, it means being unsure of your own worth. It is thus diametrically opposed to the german "selbstbewusstsein", which means being sure of yourself, but also does not really have anything to do with consciousness per se.
[...]
+ Show Spoiler [pic] +
I think it goes for both?
//Oh I think I get what you're trying to say. That the german "direct" translation for it, Selbstbewusstsein, has nothing (or little) to do with it
|
On April 24 2017 20:12 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 19:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 19:34 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 16:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
So one is unwilling to concede even this one thing, fine. One can't stop it by force of law, and trying to will only make it worse. One think's abortion is murder, they can't leave this up to women to decide, they insist that men must have the final determination on this, let's at least focus on effective strategies and not political stunts. Perhaps in your fantasy world women have no say in politics and unanimously support abortion. That is not the case in the real world, however. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that it should be okay for you to kill another person for trespassing after having lured them into your house. All sorts of things wrong with this, but I'll bite. Not "my fantasy", political decisions in the US regarding what we are going to do with any living being are always and have always been finally authorized by men, that's just a matter of fact. You mean the fact that for a law to be passed it has to be signed by your president, who happens to be a man? If so, then that is a ridiculous thing to say. There is no law prohibiting women from becoming a president. The president's gender is irrelevant here - both women and men have equal rights when it comes to electing the president. Likewise, they both have equal rights in terms of participating in the legislative process.
https://twitter.com/RepMcGovern/status/844991898850877443/photo/1
Women clearly have equal influence.
On April 24 2017 20:12 maybenexttime wrote:
edit: Also, using the leftist logic, what stops men from temporarily identifying as women when voting on the abortion laws?
I have a feeling I shouldn't ask you to explain this logic out of respect for my sanity.
|
On April 24 2017 20:12 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 19:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 19:34 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 16:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
So one is unwilling to concede even this one thing, fine. One can't stop it by force of law, and trying to will only make it worse. One think's abortion is murder, they can't leave this up to women to decide, they insist that men must have the final determination on this, let's at least focus on effective strategies and not political stunts. Perhaps in your fantasy world women have no say in politics and unanimously support abortion. That is not the case in the real world, however. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that it should be okay for you to kill another person for trespassing after having lured them into your house. All sorts of things wrong with this, but I'll bite. Not "my fantasy", political decisions in the US regarding what we are going to do with any living being are always and have always been finally authorized by men, that's just a matter of fact. You mean the fact that for a law to be passed it has to be signed by your president, who happens to be a man? If so, then that is a ridiculous thing to say. There is no law prohibiting women from becoming a president. The president's gender is irrelevant here - both women and men have equal rights when it comes to electing the president. Likewise, they both have equal rights in terms of participating in the legislative process. You are also completely ignoring the fact that the opponents of abortion are not just men. Thus, to say that anyone is insisting that men should have the final say is a straw man. edit: Also, using the leftist logic, what stops men from temporarily identifying as women when voting on the abortion laws? Show nested quote +As for women being able to determine what they put/keep in their bodies being equivalent to luring someone onto your property to murder them, that's comically absurd. As far as I know, the USA is quite liberal when it comes to killing people for trespassing (perhaps it differs from state to state). This is a valid analogy. In both cases one is given the right to kill another human for what amounts to trespassing. What is comically absurd is saying that women should have the right to kill babies simply because they got inside them, against their will.
lol okay. "happens to be a man" is funny, and it's not just the president. I'm not saying women might not come to the conclusion that they want to increase abortion restrictions, I'm just suggesting men could let women make this determination, since they have final control over the rest of them.
But some men just can't let go.
|
On April 24 2017 20:19 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 19:49 Acrofales wrote:On April 24 2017 18:15 Toadesstern wrote:
this is more of an english vocabulary question than anything else but isn't something that's conscious just something that's... kind of alive? As in, "he's conscious"... I always wondered. So a dog, a goose are all conscious unless you knock them unconscious or is there dual meaning to the word?
Or is it that it's about self-consciousness? Dogs, cats etc are not as far as I know (but could be incorrect for all we know). At the same time some of the more intelligent animals are. I've heard of elefants and dolphins being self-consciousness iirc. And I'm pretty sure (human) babys aren't even until at least some point later into their lifes.
So I guess I'm taking a bit of a stance on it after all. I don't think there's really a hard line to draw with science and at least to me it boils down to an arbitrary line we draw due to practicality and a sense of morality. And I'm frankly speaking fine with that since neither side really convinces me if we're going all the way.
Like, let's take that argument from GH about dependency from earlier about how since it can't survive by itself it's part of the mother. Then what's with actual babys or even kids. I'm pretty sure if you leave a baby by itself it's not going to walk into a store to get food.
tl;dr: I do think this is a philosophical question and not convinced by trying to solve it otherwise. Consciousness isn't really a linguistic (English) question, it's a philosophical (or religious, or neuroscientific) one. What consciousness is not completely clear. What is pretty much clear is that Cartesian dualism is mostly dead + Show Spoiler +Abrahamic religions, and in fact, most religions, do require such a categorical distinction between "base" animals and humans. And there are some philosophers that (desperately) cling to this idea: see literature on Chinese room problem , so there is no such thing as a "soul" which provides humans with consciousness and not other lifeforms. Rather, there is a sliding scale ranging from inanimate objects with no consciousness at all, through the most basic lifeforms, with humanity at the top of the consciousness pinnacle (insofar as we know). Consciousness is separate from (but related to) intelligence, and there are philosophers who think that if something is sufficiently intelligent it is inevitably conscious. However, there is, in my understanding, a categorical difference between the two. For instance, a conscious being can explain the way it experiences things like qualia. That is no requirement for intelligence. You don't have to "experience" redness to be able to know, and reason about, the simple fact that red roses and red cars share a property (their color). Consciousness is a rather nebulous concept, though. Whether you try to define it from a philosophy of mind point (in fact, some philosophers have gone so far as to dismiss the entire concept as hogwash due to problems of definition), neurological (pinpointing what in the brain give rise to consciousness), medical (what can happen to "break" consciousness and what could we do to repair it), or in a religious fashion, you run into contradictions. Some of my favourite authors on the subject are Dennett, Hofstadter, Sacks, Damasio and Pincker. As amazing books that I suggest anybody remotely interested reads just to get an idea of the questions that are being asked, I suggest: Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid (Hofstadter) The Mind's I (editors: Dennett and Hofstadter) and basically any collection of Sacks' essays just to realize how much we take for granted about our mind, and the bizar things that can go wrong with it. just to clarify because I'm not sure it got across. When I said "this is more of an english vocabulary question" I didn't mean the question should be that but that I had that question as I genuinly wasn't sure if the word conscious really means what people are talking about Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 20:03 Simberto wrote:
Consciousness in english has the same dual meaning that the German "Bewusstsein" has. Meaning "awake" and something like "with a soul"
Weirdly enough, english "selfconsciousness" has nothing to do with being conscious of your self, it means being unsure of your own worth. It is thus diametrically opposed to the german "selbstbewusstsein", which means being sure of yourself, but also does not really have anything to do with consciousness per se.
[...] + Show Spoiler [pic] +I think it goes for both? //Oh I think I get what you're trying to say. That the german "direct" translation for it, Selbstbewusstsein, has nothing (or little) to do with it Self-consciousness is usually used to refer a particular kind of self-awareness, the latter being the term we'd more normally use to generally describe the degree to which one is conscious of his or her self. Being "self-conscious" connotes a level of self-obsession/possessory embarrassment that is usually contrasted with a more healthy self-awareness that is unclouded by such a selfish focus. That said, any area of English that borrows heavily from jargon, this being one of them, is going to be relatively flexible in its semantic ambit relative to terms like self-conscious and self-aware, so yeah, use the terms as you please
|
On April 24 2017 20:28 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 20:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 19:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 19:34 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 16:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
So one is unwilling to concede even this one thing, fine. One can't stop it by force of law, and trying to will only make it worse. One think's abortion is murder, they can't leave this up to women to decide, they insist that men must have the final determination on this, let's at least focus on effective strategies and not political stunts. Perhaps in your fantasy world women have no say in politics and unanimously support abortion. That is not the case in the real world, however. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that it should be okay for you to kill another person for trespassing after having lured them into your house. All sorts of things wrong with this, but I'll bite. Not "my fantasy", political decisions in the US regarding what we are going to do with any living being are always and have always been finally authorized by men, that's just a matter of fact. You mean the fact that for a law to be passed it has to be signed by your president, who happens to be a man? If so, then that is a ridiculous thing to say. There is no law prohibiting women from becoming a president. The president's gender is irrelevant here - both women and men have equal rights when it comes to electing the president. Likewise, they both have equal rights in terms of participating in the legislative process. https://twitter.com/RepMcGovern/status/844991898850877443/photo/1Women clearly have equal influence.
That is purely coincidental and has nothing to do with their underlying rights.
On April 24 2017 20:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 20:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 19:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 19:34 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 16:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
So one is unwilling to concede even this one thing, fine. One can't stop it by force of law, and trying to will only make it worse. One think's abortion is murder, they can't leave this up to women to decide, they insist that men must have the final determination on this, let's at least focus on effective strategies and not political stunts. Perhaps in your fantasy world women have no say in politics and unanimously support abortion. That is not the case in the real world, however. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that it should be okay for you to kill another person for trespassing after having lured them into your house. All sorts of things wrong with this, but I'll bite. Not "my fantasy", political decisions in the US regarding what we are going to do with any living being are always and have always been finally authorized by men, that's just a matter of fact. You mean the fact that for a law to be passed it has to be signed by your president, who happens to be a man? If so, then that is a ridiculous thing to say. There is no law prohibiting women from becoming a president. The president's gender is irrelevant here - both women and men have equal rights when it comes to electing the president. Likewise, they both have equal rights in terms of participating in the legislative process. You are also completely ignoring the fact that the opponents of abortion are not just men. Thus, to say that anyone is insisting that men should have the final say is a straw man. edit: Also, using the leftist logic, what stops men from temporarily identifying as women when voting on the abortion laws? As for women being able to determine what they put/keep in their bodies being equivalent to luring someone onto your property to murder them, that's comically absurd. As far as I know, the USA is quite liberal when it comes to killing people for trespassing (perhaps it differs from state to state). This is a valid analogy. In both cases one is given the right to kill another human for what amounts to trespassing. What is comically absurd is saying that women should have the right to kill babies simply because they got inside them, against their will. lol okay. "happens to be a man" is funny, and it's not just the president. I'm not saying women might not come to the conclusion that they want to increase abortion restrictions, I'm just suggesting men could let women make this determination, since they have final control over the rest of them. But some men just can't let go.
Yeah, and some women just can't help their urge to kill babies, right?
|
On April 24 2017 20:31 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 20:28 Grumbels wrote:On April 24 2017 20:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 19:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 19:34 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 16:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
So one is unwilling to concede even this one thing, fine. One can't stop it by force of law, and trying to will only make it worse. One think's abortion is murder, they can't leave this up to women to decide, they insist that men must have the final determination on this, let's at least focus on effective strategies and not political stunts. Perhaps in your fantasy world women have no say in politics and unanimously support abortion. That is not the case in the real world, however. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that it should be okay for you to kill another person for trespassing after having lured them into your house. All sorts of things wrong with this, but I'll bite. Not "my fantasy", political decisions in the US regarding what we are going to do with any living being are always and have always been finally authorized by men, that's just a matter of fact. You mean the fact that for a law to be passed it has to be signed by your president, who happens to be a man? If so, then that is a ridiculous thing to say. There is no law prohibiting women from becoming a president. The president's gender is irrelevant here - both women and men have equal rights when it comes to electing the president. Likewise, they both have equal rights in terms of participating in the legislative process. https://twitter.com/RepMcGovern/status/844991898850877443/photo/1Women clearly have equal influence. That is purely coincidental and has nothing to do with their underlying rights.
Yup, much like us all using the Gregorian calendar is purely coincidental.
|
On April 24 2017 20:31 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 20:28 Grumbels wrote:On April 24 2017 20:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 19:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 19:34 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 16:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
So one is unwilling to concede even this one thing, fine. One can't stop it by force of law, and trying to will only make it worse. One think's abortion is murder, they can't leave this up to women to decide, they insist that men must have the final determination on this, let's at least focus on effective strategies and not political stunts. Perhaps in your fantasy world women have no say in politics and unanimously support abortion. That is not the case in the real world, however. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that it should be okay for you to kill another person for trespassing after having lured them into your house. All sorts of things wrong with this, but I'll bite. Not "my fantasy", political decisions in the US regarding what we are going to do with any living being are always and have always been finally authorized by men, that's just a matter of fact. You mean the fact that for a law to be passed it has to be signed by your president, who happens to be a man? If so, then that is a ridiculous thing to say. There is no law prohibiting women from becoming a president. The president's gender is irrelevant here - both women and men have equal rights when it comes to electing the president. Likewise, they both have equal rights in terms of participating in the legislative process. https://twitter.com/RepMcGovern/status/844991898850877443/photo/1Women clearly have equal influence. That is purely coincidental and has nothing to do with their underlying rights. Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 20:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 20:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 19:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 19:34 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 16:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
So one is unwilling to concede even this one thing, fine. One can't stop it by force of law, and trying to will only make it worse. One think's abortion is murder, they can't leave this up to women to decide, they insist that men must have the final determination on this, let's at least focus on effective strategies and not political stunts. Perhaps in your fantasy world women have no say in politics and unanimously support abortion. That is not the case in the real world, however. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that it should be okay for you to kill another person for trespassing after having lured them into your house. All sorts of things wrong with this, but I'll bite. Not "my fantasy", political decisions in the US regarding what we are going to do with any living being are always and have always been finally authorized by men, that's just a matter of fact. You mean the fact that for a law to be passed it has to be signed by your president, who happens to be a man? If so, then that is a ridiculous thing to say. There is no law prohibiting women from becoming a president. The president's gender is irrelevant here - both women and men have equal rights when it comes to electing the president. Likewise, they both have equal rights in terms of participating in the legislative process. You are also completely ignoring the fact that the opponents of abortion are not just men. Thus, to say that anyone is insisting that men should have the final say is a straw man. edit: Also, using the leftist logic, what stops men from temporarily identifying as women when voting on the abortion laws? As for women being able to determine what they put/keep in their bodies being equivalent to luring someone onto your property to murder them, that's comically absurd. As far as I know, the USA is quite liberal when it comes to killing people for trespassing (perhaps it differs from state to state). This is a valid analogy. In both cases one is given the right to kill another human for what amounts to trespassing. What is comically absurd is saying that women should have the right to kill babies simply because they got inside them, against their will. lol okay. "happens to be a man" is funny, and it's not just the president. I'm not saying women might not come to the conclusion that they want to increase abortion restrictions, I'm just suggesting men could let women make this determination, since they have final control over the rest of them. But some men just can't let go. Yeah, and some women just can't help their urge to kill babies, right?
lol, are you a real person?
|
On April 24 2017 20:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 20:31 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 20:28 Grumbels wrote:On April 24 2017 20:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 19:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 19:34 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 16:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
So one is unwilling to concede even this one thing, fine. One can't stop it by force of law, and trying to will only make it worse. One think's abortion is murder, they can't leave this up to women to decide, they insist that men must have the final determination on this, let's at least focus on effective strategies and not political stunts. Perhaps in your fantasy world women have no say in politics and unanimously support abortion. That is not the case in the real world, however. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that it should be okay for you to kill another person for trespassing after having lured them into your house. All sorts of things wrong with this, but I'll bite. Not "my fantasy", political decisions in the US regarding what we are going to do with any living being are always and have always been finally authorized by men, that's just a matter of fact. You mean the fact that for a law to be passed it has to be signed by your president, who happens to be a man? If so, then that is a ridiculous thing to say. There is no law prohibiting women from becoming a president. The president's gender is irrelevant here - both women and men have equal rights when it comes to electing the president. Likewise, they both have equal rights in terms of participating in the legislative process. https://twitter.com/RepMcGovern/status/844991898850877443/photo/1Women clearly have equal influence. That is purely coincidental and has nothing to do with their underlying rights. Yup, much like us all using the Gregorian calendar is purely coincidental.
If women thought that being a woman is an important quality for their representative to have, they would've voted predominantly for other women. Do they do that?
On April 24 2017 20:40 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 20:31 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 20:28 Grumbels wrote:On April 24 2017 20:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 19:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 19:34 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 16:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
So one is unwilling to concede even this one thing, fine. One can't stop it by force of law, and trying to will only make it worse. One think's abortion is murder, they can't leave this up to women to decide, they insist that men must have the final determination on this, let's at least focus on effective strategies and not political stunts. Perhaps in your fantasy world women have no say in politics and unanimously support abortion. That is not the case in the real world, however. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that it should be okay for you to kill another person for trespassing after having lured them into your house. All sorts of things wrong with this, but I'll bite. Not "my fantasy", political decisions in the US regarding what we are going to do with any living being are always and have always been finally authorized by men, that's just a matter of fact. You mean the fact that for a law to be passed it has to be signed by your president, who happens to be a man? If so, then that is a ridiculous thing to say. There is no law prohibiting women from becoming a president. The president's gender is irrelevant here - both women and men have equal rights when it comes to electing the president. Likewise, they both have equal rights in terms of participating in the legislative process. https://twitter.com/RepMcGovern/status/844991898850877443/photo/1Women clearly have equal influence. That is purely coincidental and has nothing to do with their underlying rights. On April 24 2017 20:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 20:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 19:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 19:34 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 16:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
So one is unwilling to concede even this one thing, fine. One can't stop it by force of law, and trying to will only make it worse. One think's abortion is murder, they can't leave this up to women to decide, they insist that men must have the final determination on this, let's at least focus on effective strategies and not political stunts. Perhaps in your fantasy world women have no say in politics and unanimously support abortion. That is not the case in the real world, however. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that it should be okay for you to kill another person for trespassing after having lured them into your house. All sorts of things wrong with this, but I'll bite. Not "my fantasy", political decisions in the US regarding what we are going to do with any living being are always and have always been finally authorized by men, that's just a matter of fact. You mean the fact that for a law to be passed it has to be signed by your president, who happens to be a man? If so, then that is a ridiculous thing to say. There is no law prohibiting women from becoming a president. The president's gender is irrelevant here - both women and men have equal rights when it comes to electing the president. Likewise, they both have equal rights in terms of participating in the legislative process. You are also completely ignoring the fact that the opponents of abortion are not just men. Thus, to say that anyone is insisting that men should have the final say is a straw man. edit: Also, using the leftist logic, what stops men from temporarily identifying as women when voting on the abortion laws? As for women being able to determine what they put/keep in their bodies being equivalent to luring someone onto your property to murder them, that's comically absurd. As far as I know, the USA is quite liberal when it comes to killing people for trespassing (perhaps it differs from state to state). This is a valid analogy. In both cases one is given the right to kill another human for what amounts to trespassing. What is comically absurd is saying that women should have the right to kill babies simply because they got inside them, against their will. lol okay. "happens to be a man" is funny, and it's not just the president. I'm not saying women might not come to the conclusion that they want to increase abortion restrictions, I'm just suggesting men could let women make this determination, since they have final control over the rest of them. But some men just can't let go. Yeah, and some women just can't help their urge to kill babies, right? lol, are you a real person?
Are you Romanian?
I'm fighting fire with fire.
|
On April 24 2017 20:41 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 20:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 20:31 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 20:28 Grumbels wrote:On April 24 2017 20:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 19:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 19:34 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 16:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
So one is unwilling to concede even this one thing, fine. One can't stop it by force of law, and trying to will only make it worse. One think's abortion is murder, they can't leave this up to women to decide, they insist that men must have the final determination on this, let's at least focus on effective strategies and not political stunts. Perhaps in your fantasy world women have no say in politics and unanimously support abortion. That is not the case in the real world, however. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that it should be okay for you to kill another person for trespassing after having lured them into your house. All sorts of things wrong with this, but I'll bite. Not "my fantasy", political decisions in the US regarding what we are going to do with any living being are always and have always been finally authorized by men, that's just a matter of fact. You mean the fact that for a law to be passed it has to be signed by your president, who happens to be a man? If so, then that is a ridiculous thing to say. There is no law prohibiting women from becoming a president. The president's gender is irrelevant here - both women and men have equal rights when it comes to electing the president. Likewise, they both have equal rights in terms of participating in the legislative process. https://twitter.com/RepMcGovern/status/844991898850877443/photo/1Women clearly have equal influence. That is purely coincidental and has nothing to do with their underlying rights. Yup, much like us all using the Gregorian calendar is purely coincidental. If women thought that being a woman is an important quality for their representative to have, they would've voted predominantly for other women. Do they do that? Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 20:40 Grumbels wrote:On April 24 2017 20:31 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 20:28 Grumbels wrote:On April 24 2017 20:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 19:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 19:34 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 16:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
So one is unwilling to concede even this one thing, fine. One can't stop it by force of law, and trying to will only make it worse. One think's abortion is murder, they can't leave this up to women to decide, they insist that men must have the final determination on this, let's at least focus on effective strategies and not political stunts. Perhaps in your fantasy world women have no say in politics and unanimously support abortion. That is not the case in the real world, however. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that it should be okay for you to kill another person for trespassing after having lured them into your house. All sorts of things wrong with this, but I'll bite. Not "my fantasy", political decisions in the US regarding what we are going to do with any living being are always and have always been finally authorized by men, that's just a matter of fact. You mean the fact that for a law to be passed it has to be signed by your president, who happens to be a man? If so, then that is a ridiculous thing to say. There is no law prohibiting women from becoming a president. The president's gender is irrelevant here - both women and men have equal rights when it comes to electing the president. Likewise, they both have equal rights in terms of participating in the legislative process. https://twitter.com/RepMcGovern/status/844991898850877443/photo/1Women clearly have equal influence. That is purely coincidental and has nothing to do with their underlying rights. On April 24 2017 20:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 20:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 19:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 19:34 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 16:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
So one is unwilling to concede even this one thing, fine. One can't stop it by force of law, and trying to will only make it worse. One think's abortion is murder, they can't leave this up to women to decide, they insist that men must have the final determination on this, let's at least focus on effective strategies and not political stunts. Perhaps in your fantasy world women have no say in politics and unanimously support abortion. That is not the case in the real world, however. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that it should be okay for you to kill another person for trespassing after having lured them into your house. All sorts of things wrong with this, but I'll bite. Not "my fantasy", political decisions in the US regarding what we are going to do with any living being are always and have always been finally authorized by men, that's just a matter of fact. You mean the fact that for a law to be passed it has to be signed by your president, who happens to be a man? If so, then that is a ridiculous thing to say. There is no law prohibiting women from becoming a president. The president's gender is irrelevant here - both women and men have equal rights when it comes to electing the president. Likewise, they both have equal rights in terms of participating in the legislative process. You are also completely ignoring the fact that the opponents of abortion are not just men. Thus, to say that anyone is insisting that men should have the final say is a straw man. edit: Also, using the leftist logic, what stops men from temporarily identifying as women when voting on the abortion laws? As for women being able to determine what they put/keep in their bodies being equivalent to luring someone onto your property to murder them, that's comically absurd. As far as I know, the USA is quite liberal when it comes to killing people for trespassing (perhaps it differs from state to state). This is a valid analogy. In both cases one is given the right to kill another human for what amounts to trespassing. What is comically absurd is saying that women should have the right to kill babies simply because they got inside them, against their will. lol okay. "happens to be a man" is funny, and it's not just the president. I'm not saying women might not come to the conclusion that they want to increase abortion restrictions, I'm just suggesting men could let women make this determination, since they have final control over the rest of them. But some men just can't let go. Yeah, and some women just can't help their urge to kill babies, right? lol, are you a real person? Are you Romanian? I'm fighting fire with fire.
You think women are underrepresented in government because women want it that way? That's really where you're going with this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8dPuVhb.png)
