3 ms·
The quote at the bottom is from Desmond Tutu, who explicitly said that neutrality is a vote for the powerful/status quo. So if you were in Denmark, not caring t
by moomin 8y ago
The quote at the bottom is from Desmond Tutu, who explicitly said that neutrality is a vote for the powerful/status quo. So if you were in Denmark, not caring that much could be treated as a pro-choice position, but in Texas it would be the other way around.
- jtbayly 8y agoWrong. Not caring anywhere in the USA would also be pro-choice since Roe v Wade overturned laws in all 50 states against abortion.
- guelo 8y agoThat was before 40 years of culture wars on the issue. Today the majority of the country is pro choice.
- jtbayly 8y agoWhich, if true, only further proves my point, which is that to "not care" is to be fine with the way things currently are—abortion being legal.
- moomin 8y agoJust because you don’t understand that availability matters, people getting shot because they do legal things matters, and your entire entire Supreme Court being defined by and chosen on their attitude to a subject matters, doesn’t mean they don’t matter. Attempting to obtain an abortion in Texas will have dramatically different outcomes to that of Denmark. Appreciating this is true should not be controversial.
- jtbayly 8y agoThe people in Texas are actively fighting against the status quo of Roe. If the people in TX simply took a neutral position, the status quo would reign. Thus, the example is a bad one.
- Fnoord 8y agoYou confuse neutrality with apathy. Also, you use a classic "either you're with us or against us" fallacy (classic example of a bifurcation, famously used by G.W. Bush).
- orbitur 8y agoYou ended your comment before you countered.
- Fnoord 8y agoMy first line is the counter. If you do not understand the difference between neutrality and apathy, say that and I'll happily explain. The difference is that neutrality, by itself, doesn't describe motivation (which could be apathy, but not necessarily). As an example, if you apply that logic on countries which were neutral in WWII, that doesn't mean they were pro status quo or pro whatever the outcome was either in theory or practice. It means they have a different interest than the 2 power blocs. And if you look at who was part of Axis, you find Finland, who made a pragmatic and strategic decision due to their (recent) history with Russia. The other line just describes the fallacy.
- orbitur 8y agoYou’re taking about intent, we’re talking about the very real consequences of inaction. The difference between apathy and neutrality is irrelevant.