|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On October 24 2016 23:23 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2016 22:13 opisska wrote:On October 24 2016 21:41 SoSexy wrote:On October 22 2016 17:45 opisska wrote:On October 22 2016 17:37 Sent. wrote:
Malta and Vatican are probably the only places where abortion is banned Oh is that so? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Poland"Abortion in Poland is illegal except in cases of rape, when the woman's life is in jeopardy, or if the fetus is irreparably damaged." Those sound like good reasons. My stance on abortion is that every case should be taken on its own. Not allowing a raped woman to abort is ridicolous, just like getting mad with the gynecologist if he refuses to give you the 5th abortion (story personally told by a medic I know well in my town - his argument was that one time it can be a mistake, but if you refuse to use contraceptives in 2015, you are just stupid - also because the operation is not that piece of a cake for the woman's body) So you are of the opinion that a woman can be forced to act as an incubator against her will even regardless of her opinion? And that it is other people's right to decide whether it is good or bad for her to abort? Because that's definitely what you imply with the "piece of cake" comment and at least this part I find completely unacceptable. My body, my decision on medical procedures, period. The question whether it is moral to abort or not, is different to me and not very clear, but I am still leaning towards the position that it is ultimately the woman's decision and that women should not be forced to carry children against their will, but I can see the room for uncertainty there - in any case however, I am strongly inclined towards this still being largely the moral dilemma for the woman in question, not some medical committee. Thus I consider every legal system where a woman can abort only in specific circumstances to be one that "bans abortion". It is not just the woman's body the decision is pertaining to. It's also someone else's body. Both sides consider the other barbaric and keep talking past each other due to conflicting axioms. The mature thing to do is to agree on some sort of a consensus. Instead of doing that, most countries in Western Europe (and not only there) took one extreme position as default and try to sell it as the "moderate position" on abortion.
I really do believe that you see it this way with complete honesty. Yet you have shown a perfect example of probably the most hurtful trend of falacious argumentation that exists today - the "compromise falacy". The very fact of two existing opinions does not guarantee that the right solution is somewhere in the middle. I am on the opinion that we should not shoot black people on sight. If someone postulates that we should, it doesn't automatically make "shoot some black people on sight" the best course of action.
|
@Artisreal
the mistake you're making is that you equate 1 person with 2 persons.
i won't go down that rabbit hole but wanted to tell you that your argument/logic is baseless. for you to even have a premise you'd have to get an abusive parent, a child and the state who'll take that child from the parent for being a bad one, in that argument.
(and i always read you name antisrael  )
|
Well, I'm sorry to have generalized in that extreme fashion. What the message was is that you always have at least two sides. And I was portraying the one where things can be ruined for both mother and potential child.
I also do not want you to focus on that last statement. I should have left it out, my bad.
And please from now on read: art is real
|
On October 24 2016 23:52 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2016 23:23 maybenexttime wrote:On October 24 2016 22:13 opisska wrote:On October 24 2016 21:41 SoSexy wrote:On October 22 2016 17:45 opisska wrote:On October 22 2016 17:37 Sent. wrote:
Malta and Vatican are probably the only places where abortion is banned Oh is that so? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Poland"Abortion in Poland is illegal except in cases of rape, when the woman's life is in jeopardy, or if the fetus is irreparably damaged." Those sound like good reasons. My stance on abortion is that every case should be taken on its own. Not allowing a raped woman to abort is ridicolous, just like getting mad with the gynecologist if he refuses to give you the 5th abortion (story personally told by a medic I know well in my town - his argument was that one time it can be a mistake, but if you refuse to use contraceptives in 2015, you are just stupid - also because the operation is not that piece of a cake for the woman's body) So you are of the opinion that a woman can be forced to act as an incubator against her will even regardless of her opinion? And that it is other people's right to decide whether it is good or bad for her to abort? Because that's definitely what you imply with the "piece of cake" comment and at least this part I find completely unacceptable. My body, my decision on medical procedures, period. The question whether it is moral to abort or not, is different to me and not very clear, but I am still leaning towards the position that it is ultimately the woman's decision and that women should not be forced to carry children against their will, but I can see the room for uncertainty there - in any case however, I am strongly inclined towards this still being largely the moral dilemma for the woman in question, not some medical committee. Thus I consider every legal system where a woman can abort only in specific circumstances to be one that "bans abortion". It is not just the woman's body the decision is pertaining to. It's also someone else's body. Both sides consider the other barbaric and keep talking past each other due to conflicting axioms. The mature thing to do is to agree on some sort of a consensus. Instead of doing that, most countries in Western Europe (and not only there) took one extreme position as default and try to sell it as the "moderate position" on abortion. I really do believe that you see it this way with complete honesty. Yet you have shown a perfect example of probably the most hurtful trend of falacious argumentation that exists today - the "compromise falacy". The very fact of two existing opinions does not guarantee that the right solution is somewhere in the middle. I am on the opinion that we should not shoot black people on sight. If someone postulates that we should, it doesn't automatically make "shoot some black people on sight" the best course of action.
This is not a fallacy. I am not saying that the right solution is somewhere in the middle. What I am saying is that this is the only way to deal with two irreconcilable positions that has potential to deescalate social strife.
Consider this, which is better: agreeing on the "shoot some black people on sight" consensus or letting the "shoot all black people on sight" position eventually get the upper hand?
Another complication is that, in case of abortion, it is not clear which side is the "shoot all black people on sight" crowd...
|
One of the main reasons why I'm against the federalization of the EU is that I don't trust it to remain neutral in matters such as abortion. There are some huge ideological differencies between member states (it's not just West vs East, if I recall correctly some post soviet countries have abortion rates higher than "super progressive" Western Europe) and I have no doubt that eventually the majority would try to force the minority to fall in line. You can think that your stance is the right one but I bet you wouldn't be happy if someone tried to force their views on you.
Obviously the same (rule of majority) happens in nation states but since most of the time they're culturally cohesive there is no risk of having a feeling that they are forcing us to do something we don't want. I think it's very imporant because people won't trust a government that they don't believe is representing them. They'll start feeling like they just live in a territory controlled by some alien force.
I understand that without the federalization the EU won't be able to properly deal with crises like the refugee crisis but I'm against it as long as Europeans aren't as culturally cohesive as Americans. I know that American society isn't as cohesive as German or Polish societies but I bet people from Alaska have more in common with Texans than Poles have in common with Germans. I'm talking about that minimial level of cohesion which I don't think we have in the EU right now. Maybe the six founding countries have it but since they chose to expand their organization long time ago it's too late to kick the rest and build some sort of Frankish giant. I think we need to slow down with that "ever closer union" thing.
I used some buzzwords like culture and cohesion and I'd like you to try to understand them like I do in this context to avoid needless arguments. If you think I meant something racist then please just ignore my post.
|
On October 25 2016 01:14 Sent. wrote:
One of the main reasons why I'm against the federalization of the EU is that I don't trust it to remain neutral in matters such as abortion.
What's “neutrality” regarding abortion? You probably meant that the EU wouldn't be satisfied with the statu quo in some countries, but that's different.
|
Poor choice of words on my side. I meant refraining from intervening in internal matters of member states. It's fine when the European Parliament passes a resolution on something because it's just a non-binding opinion. My concern about the federalization is that giving more power to European institutions could "encourage" them to exert pressure on member states to adopt certain laws outside of EU's competence. I mean stuff like cutting subsidies because country X doesn't want to take in refugees or legalize abortion.
|
On October 25 2016 03:50 Sent. wrote:
Poor choice of words on my side. I meant refraining from intervening in internal matters of member states. It's fine when the European Parliament passes a resolution on something because it's just a non-binding opinion. My concern about the federalization is that giving more power to European institutions could "encourage" them to exert pressure on member states to adopt certain laws outside of EU's competence. I mean stuff like cutting subsidies because country X doesn't want to take in refugees or legalize abortion.
That is one thing... using the US as a model... eventually the majority will force the minority (US for all periods after Civil War), or the union will dissolve [Civil War] (ie over time the union/federation will get stronger or fall apart)
Because there is going to be some issue that
1. naturally moves across borders (ie taking your slaves with you as you move, recognizing a "marriage" granted in state X)
and/or
2. is too important to both sides to be an 'OK whatever you want' issue. (I really don't care about the local tax rates in another state/city unless they are 100+%.... I do care if they torture left handed people as a matter of policy...even if I never will travel through that state)
|
The EU cannot even stop Hungary from teetering towards an authoritarian government such that it would not have been able to join the EU today. As recent events has shown, power ultimately resides within the national governments themselves. Reintroduce border checks? One of the fundaments of the EU? The EU can do nothing against it. It's very unlikely that the EU will ever be able to obtain a degree of power such that it can affect national health policies. If it is able to do so, the countries of the EU would have long become so culturally cohesive that it would not be a problem, in the same way before the birth of nationalization, people owed allegiance to their lords, not to their country.
|
Even Stalinist propaganda was more subtle than 2016 Russian diplomacy
|
back then, people were getting the subtleties but nowadays one needs to vulgarize a point to get it across.
whats the deal with Belgium's Wallonia and CETA?; what do they want?, 'cause i don't believe their stance on this is purely ideological.
http://www.euractiv.com/section/trade-society/news/wallonia-rejects-eu-ultimatum-over-ceta/ Belgium’s Wallonia region yesterday (23 October) dealt a fresh blow to a proposed EU-Canada trade deal, rejecting a 24-hour ultimatum from the bloc to end its objection to the agreement.
In an embarrassment for the 28-nation EU, Belgium has so far been the only member not to sign up to the CETA trade deal, blocked by French-speaking Wallonia, which has refused to endorse it. Romania and Bulgaria wanted free visa travel to Canada but were played/diplomatically taught a lesson, but those dudes?; what's their beef with it?.
|
Elections are coming up apparently and they have to boost their leftist credentials.
|
|
|
On October 25 2016 16:00 mdb wrote:
wtf is Wallonia?
Somebody tell TB to make this video ))
Wallonia (if that's the correct english spelling) is a part of Belgium - Belgium is multi-national country with a lot of parliaments governing different parts and aspects of the country and an international treaty needs to simply be passed by every single of them to be accepted statewide.
I do not understand the surprise though. Anti-CETA movements are abundant in Europe, just put that into google and spend the rest of the year reading anti-CETA arguments. In general, these "free trade agreements" have to be taken with extreme care, because they are often used to enact rules that bypass local law and reduce the practical rights of local businsesses and customers. The "free trade" label sounds catchy, but it's very easily misused. I am not an expert on CETA, but there is a long history of very dubious proposals on similar agreements, so caution is really not surprising. What is surprising is that only Wallonia did not sell out quickly enough.
|
The guy who keeps saying no to the deal (Paul Magnette) is doing so to protect the farmers in Wallonia. (I was looking for an adjective here.. Wallonian farmers? Walloon farmers? lol.)
He is getting quite a bit of support from some organisations, but in general people are embarrassed and annoyed.
Fact is that if CETA does go through, our farmers will suffer. I agree with opisska that it is weird no one else is protesting this deal. Makes us look super bad.
|
|
|
On October 25 2016 16:21 Laurens wrote:
The guy who keeps saying no to the deal (Paul Magnette) is doing so to protect the farmers in Wallonia. (I was looking for an adjective here.. Wallonian farmers? Walloon farmers? lol.)
He is getting quite a bit of support from some organisations, but in general people are embarrassed and annoyed.
Fact is that if CETA does go through, our farmers will suffer. I agree with opisska that it is weird no one else is protesting this deal. Makes us look super bad.
People are protesting all over Europe. Just the governments mostly don't give a shit. That's going to blow up sooner or later. The same law that allowed the Dutch a referendum over the Ukraine treaty is being called into action for CETA, so expect the Dutch to vote no post-hoc again, which the government will then ignore, again... and then watch the populist right wing get very big in upcoming elections.
Although any referendum will almost certainly only be after the elections.
I haven't studied CETA in detail, but what I read about it, I agree with it being a pretty good deal. However, there are large tendencies to mistrust all the backroom dealing, and CETA is one of the clearest examples of recent backroom dealings (sorry, closed negotiations with unknown parties). Most people are not even interested in the result, they just see the process as bad, and anything that comes out of it is therefore also bad. Logical fallacy, but there's something to be said about the ends not justifying the means.
|
On October 25 2016 16:35 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2016 16:21 Laurens wrote:
The guy who keeps saying no to the deal (Paul Magnette) is doing so to protect the farmers in Wallonia. (I was looking for an adjective here.. Wallonian farmers? Walloon farmers? lol.)
He is getting quite a bit of support from some organisations, but in general people are embarrassed and annoyed.
Fact is that if CETA does go through, our farmers will suffer. I agree with opisska that it is weird no one else is protesting this deal. Makes us look super bad. People are protesting all over Europe. Just the governments mostly don't give a shit. That's going to blow up sooner or later. The same law that allowed the Dutch a referendum over the Ukraine treaty is being called into action for CETA, so expect the Dutch to vote no post-hoc again, which the government will then ignore, again... and then watch the populist right wing get very big in upcoming elections. Although any referendum will almost certainly only be after the elections. I haven't studied CETA in detail, but what I read about it, I agree with it being a pretty good deal. However, there are large tendencies to mistrust all the backroom dealing, and CETA is one of the clearest examples of recent backroom dealings (sorry, closed negotiations with unknown parties). Most people are not even interested in the result, they just see the process as bad, and anything that comes out of it is therefore also bad. Logical fallacy, but there's something to be said about the ends not justifying the means.
Good point really - I think that we are at the point where people should protest the backroom dealings no matter how good the agreement actually is, because the whole idea is completely rotten. You can't ignore your own democracy just by calling international politics more important, this really has to end right now.
|
The ceta agreement is made publicly available on the internet if you want to read it. There's nothing backroom about it.
|
Our government said something along the lines of "we don't think the deal is bad and it would be stupid to veto it as the only country in the EU".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
