|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 10 2022 22:50 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 22:42 NewSunshine wrote:On May 10 2022 22:34 gobbledydook wrote:
I think there are a few issues being conflated here.
The first is the moral issue of whether abortion is a women's health issue or a babies' life issue. You can disagree with other people's sense of morality, but you are unlikely to ever change anyone's mind. Especially not if you insult them.
The second is the constitutional issue of whether the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of moral issues. Clearly it isn't ideal, but there's also the practical question of do we have a better alternative.
The moral alternative is not undoing 50 years of precedent and destroying women's rights all in one swoop. You get that for free, that's an easy one. Also, forget about the courts being amoral and apolitical. That went out the window a long time ago. I'll repeat: On May 10 2022 22:28 NewSunshine wrote:
Face the consequences of your actions, instead of hiding behind arguments of legality. Face the reality of what you're doing, and own that you're in favor of that reality. 1) is as I said, a difference in opinion. I'm sure the other side views that as a positive. 2) we're discussing what courts *should* do. If you want to advocate for courts being political, be my guest.
Who do you think appoints and approves the judges in courts in America?
|
On May 10 2022 23:30 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 23:19 gobbledydook wrote:On May 10 2022 22:59 JimmiC wrote:On May 10 2022 22:34 gobbledydook wrote:
I think there are a few issues being conflated here.
The first is the moral issue of whether abortion is a women's health issue or a babies' life issue. You can disagree with other people's sense of morality, but you are unlikely to ever change anyone's mind. Especially not if you insult them.
The second is the constitutional issue of whether the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of moral issues. Clearly it isn't ideal, but there's also the practical question of do we have a better alternative.
Its not a baby, it is a fetus. Words matter and have definitions. Children are also not adults and we have different rules for them as well. Again - how to define the thing inside a pregnant woman's body is an opinion as well. You can disagree with those who don't view it your way but don't expect to change their minds. Sure, and I don’t try to. In a pro-choice paradigm we’re free to agree to disagree, with a pro-life one I’ve got to suck up my views and go along with theirs.
It's enforcing conformity to the views of a particular religious sect, when separation of church and state as well as religious freedom are both supposed to be core tenets of American society.
"You're free to adhere to my version of Christianity, else be labeled a criminal".
|
On May 10 2022 23:28 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 23:24 gobbledydook wrote:
In other news apparently Josh Hawley is proposing to cap copyright protection at 56 years, applied retrospectively.
He states that he is doing this to punish Disney, but if anything good is to come of it, maybe copyright reform is one. Punish them for what? Is copyright really in dire need of reform anyway? Patent abuse seems an area of more genuine concern that stifles innovation and development.
Punish them for opposing Florida's "Don't say gay" bill, presumably. Because using government power to punish organizations that stand up to you is what small government, keep government out of business Republicans are all about lately.
Copyright is in dire need of reform, though. Both the current insane duration (70 years past the death of the creator) and the fucked up enforcement mechanism like DMCA claims.
|
On May 10 2022 23:28 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 23:24 gobbledydook wrote:
In other news apparently Josh Hawley is proposing to cap copyright protection at 56 years, applied retrospectively.
He states that he is doing this to punish Disney, but if anything good is to come of it, maybe copyright reform is one. Punish them for what? Is copyright really in dire need of reform anyway? Patent abuse seems an area of more genuine concern that stifles innovation and development.
Obviously, for Disney's opposition to the so-called Don't Say Gay bill in Florida.
Regardless of ulterior motives, I do think copyright is in serious need of reform. Youtube copyright strikes, having been much maligned ever since it was introduced, was really forced by the horribly outdated copyright law that exists especially in the US. Would be nice to see it reformed into something that meets modern requirements.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26021 Posts
On May 10 2022 23:38 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 23:28 WombaT wrote:On May 10 2022 23:24 gobbledydook wrote:
In other news apparently Josh Hawley is proposing to cap copyright protection at 56 years, applied retrospectively.
He states that he is doing this to punish Disney, but if anything good is to come of it, maybe copyright reform is one. Punish them for what? Is copyright really in dire need of reform anyway? Patent abuse seems an area of more genuine concern that stifles innovation and development. Punish them for opposing Florida's "Don't say gay" bill, presumably. Because using government power to punish organizations that stand up to you is what small government, keep government out of business Republicans are all about lately. Copyright is in dire need of reform, though. Both the current insane duration (70 years past the death of the creator) and the fucked up enforcement mechanism like DMCA claims.
Ah, knew it would be something silly.
Enforcement mechanisms, especially badly implemented ones, I’d agree there 100%
I don’t mind copyrights/trademarks extending for a long period if they’re couched in a corporation that actively utilises those properties.
As long as Nintendo is putting out games, Mario should be their asset to use, or Disney with Mickey or whatever.
Older works featuring those characters entering the public domain, also fair enough though, if there’s a few tweaks to facilitate those I’d be in favour.
|
On May 10 2022 23:41 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 23:28 WombaT wrote:On May 10 2022 23:24 gobbledydook wrote:
In other news apparently Josh Hawley is proposing to cap copyright protection at 56 years, applied retrospectively.
He states that he is doing this to punish Disney, but if anything good is to come of it, maybe copyright reform is one. Punish them for what? Is copyright really in dire need of reform anyway? Patent abuse seems an area of more genuine concern that stifles innovation and development. Obviously, for Disney's opposition to the so-called Don't Say Gay bill in Florida. Regardless of ulterior motives, I do think copyright is in serious need of reform. Youtube copyright strikes, having been much maligned ever since it was introduced, was really forced by the horribly outdated copyright law that exists especially in the US. Would be nice to see it reformed into something that meets modern requirements.
You say that, but i don't really believe anyone in the US is capable of making it better.
Democrats would produce some half-assed nonsense with more loopholes for more bullshit.
Republicans would create some capitalistic evil i can't even imagine. Like, i don't know what they would produce, but i know that it would be more horrific than anything i can come up with.
|
Northern Ireland26021 Posts
On May 10 2022 23:41 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 23:28 WombaT wrote:On May 10 2022 23:24 gobbledydook wrote:
In other news apparently Josh Hawley is proposing to cap copyright protection at 56 years, applied retrospectively.
He states that he is doing this to punish Disney, but if anything good is to come of it, maybe copyright reform is one. Punish them for what? Is copyright really in dire need of reform anyway? Patent abuse seems an area of more genuine concern that stifles innovation and development. Obviously, for Disney's opposition to the so-called Don't Say Gay bill in Florida. Regardless of ulterior motives, I do think copyright is in serious need of reform. Youtube copyright strikes, having been much maligned ever since it was introduced, was really forced by the horribly outdated copyright law that exists especially in the US. Would be nice to see it reformed into something that meets modern requirements.
It’s a bad implementation, with not enough differentiation between genuine fair use and genuine copyright infringement.
That aside it’s a whole ecosystem that relies on ripping off copyrighted content and not paying people for it.
Basically every modern content generation platform is full of it.
|
On May 10 2022 23:38 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 23:30 WombaT wrote:On May 10 2022 23:19 gobbledydook wrote:On May 10 2022 22:59 JimmiC wrote:On May 10 2022 22:34 gobbledydook wrote:
I think there are a few issues being conflated here.
The first is the moral issue of whether abortion is a women's health issue or a babies' life issue. You can disagree with other people's sense of morality, but you are unlikely to ever change anyone's mind. Especially not if you insult them.
The second is the constitutional issue of whether the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of moral issues. Clearly it isn't ideal, but there's also the practical question of do we have a better alternative.
Its not a baby, it is a fetus. Words matter and have definitions. Children are also not adults and we have different rules for them as well. Again - how to define the thing inside a pregnant woman's body is an opinion as well. You can disagree with those who don't view it your way but don't expect to change their minds. Sure, and I don’t try to. In a pro-choice paradigm we’re free to agree to disagree, with a pro-life one I’ve got to suck up my views and go along with theirs. It's enforcing conformity to the views of a particular religious sect, when separation of church and state as well as religious freedom are both supposed to be core tenets of American society. "You're free to adhere to my version of Christianity, else be labeled a criminal".
While I imagine the majority of people who are pro-forced-birth have that opinion for religious reasons, I imagine that some non-theists might take a similar position, not because of anything supernatural like gods or spiritual souls or whatever, but because they sincerely think that a fetus's life is worth saving over the comfort and quality of life of someone who's already been born. While I disagree with their position - I'm pro-choice - I wonder if it might be a little easier to change the minds of those who are pro-forced-birth for secular reasons, as opposed to faith-based ones.
|
|
|
The gaslighting is getting absurd. First it was 'Roe vs Wade is settled', now it's 'they wont ban it totally' and 'contraceptives are safe' despite trigger laws and recent legislation. And now a fœtus and a baby are the same... ?
I guess revering a bunch of syphillitic drunkards will do that to a brain
|
On May 10 2022 23:24 gobbledydook wrote:
In other news apparently Josh Hawley is proposing to cap copyright protection at 56 years, applied retrospectively.
He states that he is doing this to punish Disney, but if anything good is to come of it, maybe copyright reform is one.
Is there any way in which legislators writing laws explicitly to punish specific companies for the content of their speech/artwork is not a violation of the First Amendment?
|
On May 11 2022 01:32 Erasme wrote:
The gaslighting is getting absurd. First it was 'Roe vs Wade is settled', now it's 'they wont ban it totally' and 'contraceptives are safe' despite trigger laws and recent legislation. And now a fœtus and a baby are the same... ?
I guess revering a bunch of syphillitic drunkards will do that to a brain
Calling a fetus any of those words - a baby or child or infant or newborn or any other word that's already been defined as post-birth - is merely being done to trigger an emotional response using incorrect semantics, to make it sound like women are taking two-week-old babies from their cribs and murdering them. It's both wrong and incredibly useful for their side, and the people who say that abortions are literally murdering babies know exactly what they're saying. It's incredibly bad-faith of them.
|
On May 10 2022 18:35 Velr wrote:
I find it hilarious how the US system is bending backwards trying to justify things according to an ancient and outdated document that can't be updated because your politicians (and people) are split.
Roe vs Wade is, from what i gather, not a good ruling but its the only one the US had. Probably because congress is disfunctional since way longer than people think.
The fundamentals of that document are really solid. You have a federal government, sharing power with the states, and itself divided into three branches to further divide power. Congress is in a sense the supreme branch - the executive executes Congress's laws, and the judiciary interprets Congress's laws. That core system should not be changed in the modern day. And I'm repeating myself but Roe was a violation of that core system. The judiciary usurped Congress's role. That's a grave violation, an illegal power grab by judges, that should be remedied.
Of course there is the point that congress is dysfunctional and it seems like we can't get anything done under the current system. But it's still not the judiciary's role to step in and enact the policy desired by just one side. Whenever people say we need the Supreme court to act because congress is dysfunctional, they are merely saying they want the court to carry out their own side's policy preferences.
On May 11 2022 01:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 01:32 Erasme wrote:
The gaslighting is getting absurd. First it was 'Roe vs Wade is settled', now it's 'they wont ban it totally' and 'contraceptives are safe' despite trigger laws and recent legislation. And now a fœtus and a baby are the same... ?
I guess revering a bunch of syphillitic drunkards will do that to a brain Calling a fetus any of those words - a baby or child or infant or newborn or any other word that's already been defined as post-birth - is merely being done to trigger an emotional response using incorrect semantics, to make it sound like women are taking two-week-old babies from their cribs and murdering them. It's both wrong and incredibly useful for their side, and the people who say that abortions are literally murdering babies know exactly what they're saying. It's incredibly bad-faith of them.
It's important to distinguish between the different stages of pregnancy though. There is really no meaningful difference between an end-stage fetus and a baby. It's a baby inside the mother.
|
On May 11 2022 01:38 Djabanete wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 23:24 gobbledydook wrote:
In other news apparently Josh Hawley is proposing to cap copyright protection at 56 years, applied retrospectively.
He states that he is doing this to punish Disney, but if anything good is to come of it, maybe copyright reform is one. Is there any way in which legislators writing laws explicitly to punish specific companies for the content of their speech/artwork is not a violation of the First Amendment?
Yeah, if you can't prove it.
There are a great many examples where someone does something, but you can't prove why, even though everyone "knows" why.
|
Pregnant people ought to decide for themselves. Not a bunch of men pontificating on how best to control them and legislate their bodies.
On May 10 2022 22:42 NewSunshine wrote:
The moral alternative is not undoing 50 years of precedent and destroying women's rights all in one swoop.
|
Northern Ireland26021 Posts
On May 11 2022 01:55 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 18:35 Velr wrote:
I find it hilarious how the US system is bending backwards trying to justify things according to an ancient and outdated document that can't be updated because your politicians (and people) are split.
Roe vs Wade is, from what i gather, not a good ruling but its the only one the US had. Probably because congress is disfunctional since way longer than people think. The fundamentals of that document are really solid. You have a federal government, sharing power with the states, and itself divided into three branches to further divide power. Congress is in a sense the supreme branch - the executive executes Congress's laws, and the judiciary interprets Congress's laws. That core system should not be changed in the modern day. And I'm repeating myself but Roe was a violation of that core system. The judiciary usurped Congress's role. That's a grave violation, an illegal power grab by judges, that should be remedied. Of course there is the point that congress is dysfunctional and it seems like we can't get anything done under the current system. But it's still not the judiciary's role to step in and enact the policy desired by just one side. Whenever people say we need the Supreme court to act because congress is dysfunctional, they are merely saying they want the court to carry out their own side's policy preferences. Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 01:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 11 2022 01:32 Erasme wrote:
The gaslighting is getting absurd. First it was 'Roe vs Wade is settled', now it's 'they wont ban it totally' and 'contraceptives are safe' despite trigger laws and recent legislation. And now a fœtus and a baby are the same... ?
I guess revering a bunch of syphillitic drunkards will do that to a brain Calling a fetus any of those words - a baby or child or infant or newborn or any other word that's already been defined as post-birth - is merely being done to trigger an emotional response using incorrect semantics, to make it sound like women are taking two-week-old babies from their cribs and murdering them. It's both wrong and incredibly useful for their side, and the people who say that abortions are literally murdering babies know exactly what they're saying. It's incredibly bad-faith of them. It's important to distinguish between the different stages of pregnancy though. There is really no meaningful difference between an end-stage fetus and a baby. It's a baby inside the mother.
How is the judiciary not doing that in this particular example?
Are we going to see past overreaches of the branch expunged en masse? Considering that is the principle at play here?
Or will we see Roe vs Wade specifically overturned, by the movement in the composition of the Supreme Court due to nominations by a party whose constituency wants an end to abortion?
It strikes me as mightily convenient that the sole ruling on the chopping block under the auspices of judicial overreach happens to be this thing loads of people want to happenZ
|
On May 11 2022 01:55 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 01:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 11 2022 01:32 Erasme wrote:
The gaslighting is getting absurd. First it was 'Roe vs Wade is settled', now it's 'they wont ban it totally' and 'contraceptives are safe' despite trigger laws and recent legislation. And now a fœtus and a baby are the same... ?
I guess revering a bunch of syphillitic drunkards will do that to a brain Calling a fetus any of those words - a baby or child or infant or newborn or any other word that's already been defined as post-birth - is merely being done to trigger an emotional response using incorrect semantics, to make it sound like women are taking two-week-old babies from their cribs and murdering them. It's both wrong and incredibly useful for their side, and the people who say that abortions are literally murdering babies know exactly what they're saying. It's incredibly bad-faith of them. It's important to distinguish between the different stages of pregnancy though. There is really no meaningful difference between an end-stage fetus and a baby. It's a baby inside the mother.
While I agree with you that it could be useful to distinguish between different stages of pregnancy, there is indeed a meaningful difference between an end-stage fetus and a baby. By definition. The difference is birth, and while I'm sure you and I could have an intelligent discussion on viability and whatnot, it's clear that many red states are trying to ban virtually all abortions, where the nuanced conversation about viability would still be months and months away.
|
Every friend of mine who has heard the heartbeat of their unborn child in the womb at like 3 months or whatever have all said “well suddenly my views on abortion are very complicated”. I’m in the same boat. Abortion should be legal. But pretending that little heart beat isn’t meaningful or worth protecting is not productive.
I think democrats have done their typical terrible job at messaging regarding abortion. The idea that we should treat it like dental treatment is something a lot of parents will not agree with. It’s not reasonable.
One critical thing is that democrats pretend abortions aren’t a bad thing. They should instead focus on “how do we prevent as many abortion as we can” and then advocate for contraception and sex education. Until democrats admit an abortion is a sad thing, they’re gonna keep getting clobbered by it culturally. Every poll shows the majority of people support a woman’s right to choose: that doesn’t mean it’s no big deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
