4 ms·

"If we would give climate-deniers and anti-abortion biggots the platform they deserve" My wife happens to be vehemently opposed to abortion, and also a woman o

by JPKab 6y ago

"If we would give climate-deniers and anti-abortion biggots the platform they deserve" My wife happens to be vehemently opposed to abortion, and also a woman of color. Yet you associated her with a bigot and climate change denial. Which exposes similar thinking to what the OP was talking about: Not everything is political, but because my wife thinks differently from you on terminating fetuses due to her having worked in a neonatal ICU with premature babies, she's a bigot? Sounds like you are in a tribe and are lumping my wife into the opposing tribe based on one opinion she holds. By the way, I find it ironic that your last sentence that condemns view points that differ from your own to be silenced and then mentions flat-earthers. The original flat-earthers gave Galileo the platform they thought he deserved: a life sentence in prison. They were confident and lacked the intellectual humility to believe opposing views should be countered, not suppressed. Ring a bell?

runarberg 6y ago
Note I specifically said that the platforms climate change deniers and anti-abortion bigots is no platform. I did not advocate for imprisoning these people. That would be wrong. People have the rights to their opinion, even though their opinion is wrong. That said, wrong opinions—which I am willing to state exist—do not deserve to be elevated, they do deserve scrutiny if stated. Banning abortions is a wrong opinion. Perhaps some people have some reason to hold this opinion, and perhaps not all of these people are bigots (although many are). However they are still wrong. And when these wrong options are stated, they do deserve to be scrutinized, and they don’t deserve to be elevated in the general discourse.
- JPKab 6y ago
  I happen to share your opinion that banning abortions is not an ideal solution, and therefore I don't support it. However, your statement "banning abortions is a wrong opinion" is itself an opinion. Yet you stated it as if it's a scientific certainty, when in fact it's an opinion you don't share. My wife and I debate it all the time, and it comes down to a prioritization difference in my mind vs her mind. I prioritize the privacy and rights of the pregnant woman over the future existence of the fetus. She views the fetus identically to one that has exited the birth canal and is now a baby. She doesn't think there is a break in the continuum. I disagree with her entirely, but that doesn't make me right and her wrong. It just means that I put a higher priority on the woman's freedom than I do on the right of the fetus to develop into a human. It's amusing to me that when my wife and I argue about this topic, she is focused on the rights of the fetus, and I'm focused on the rights of the woman. We aren't having one argument over a woman's rights, we are having two arguments simultaneously. This is a nuanced view that the current political debate doesn't allow for. Her view was obviously influenced by walking into a hospital and watching parents pray by the side of incubators containing 26 week preemies, and then seeing activists debating whether third-trimester abortions should be banned. I certainly don't blame her for having that opinion when she has to reconcile those two ideas simultaneously. It's a lot easier to hold the opinion that you and I share when we view fetuses clinically rather than in incubators.
  - runarberg 6y ago
    I agree: “Can opinions be wrong?” is an unresolved philosophical question. I am of the opinion that they can, and you may disagree with my. Under my philosophical framework your disagreement is not wrong. However I don’t see the statement “Women have rights to their bodies” as an unresolved political question. I see it as a pretty clear truth, as true as “slavery is wrong and should be illegal”. I have my reasons to believe this is so (which I won’t go into because we are debating whether “everything is political”, not abortion rights). So under my philosophical framework anti-abortion is a wrong opinion to have. And I am certainly not the only person to believe this.
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    Great comment
JAlexoid 6y ago
Gallileo got jailed for the theory of heliocentrism(formally), but not really. He was imprisoned for the Pope to seem "tough on heresy".
- mcv 6y ago
  Galileo was not jailed at all, but got house arrest. And he got it mainly because he insulted the pope. Before that, he was actually on very good terms with the pope and the pope was seriously entertaining the idea of heliocentrism, but wasn't convinced because the evidence didn't add up, which indeed it didn't, because Galileo insisted on circular orbits that didn't match observations. Galileo was right about heliocentrism, but his model for it was incorrect, and that was a big factor in why it wasn't adopted. Asked by the pope to write a book to discuss the merits of heliocentrism and geocentrism in a balanced way, he instead used that book to insult the pope (he had a character called 'Simplico', or 'Fool', use arguments the pope had used), after which he fell out of favour, got investigated by the inquisition, which added a heresy charge for good measure. But for a long time his ideas weren't considered heretical at all and were seriously considered.
  - JAlexoid 6y ago
    +100 Gallileo isn't relevant in this context at all.

by JPKab 6y ago

runarberg 6y ago

Note I specifically said that the platforms climate change deniers and anti-abortion bigots is no platform. I did not advocate for imprisoning these people. That would be wrong. People have the rights to their opinion, even though their opinion is wrong. That said, wrong opinions—which I am willing to state exist—do not deserve to be elevated, they do deserve scrutiny if stated. Banning abortions is a wrong opinion. Perhaps some people have some reason to hold this opinion, and perhaps not all of these people are bigots (although many are). However they are still wrong. And when these wrong options are stated, they do deserve to be scrutinized, and they don’t deserve to be elevated in the general discourse.

JPKab 6y ago
I happen to share your opinion that banning abortions is not an ideal solution, and therefore I don't support it. However, your statement "banning abortions is a wrong opinion" is itself an opinion. Yet you stated it as if it's a scientific certainty, when in fact it's an opinion you don't share. My wife and I debate it all the time, and it comes down to a prioritization difference in my mind vs her mind. I prioritize the privacy and rights of the pregnant woman over the future existence of the fetus. She views the fetus identically to one that has exited the birth canal and is now a baby. She doesn't think there is a break in the continuum. I disagree with her entirely, but that doesn't make me right and her wrong. It just means that I put a higher priority on the woman's freedom than I do on the right of the fetus to develop into a human. It's amusing to me that when my wife and I argue about this topic, she is focused on the rights of the fetus, and I'm focused on the rights of the woman. We aren't having one argument over a woman's rights, we are having two arguments simultaneously. This is a nuanced view that the current political debate doesn't allow for. Her view was obviously influenced by walking into a hospital and watching parents pray by the side of incubators containing 26 week preemies, and then seeing activists debating whether third-trimester abortions should be banned. I certainly don't blame her for having that opinion when she has to reconcile those two ideas simultaneously. It's a lot easier to hold the opinion that you and I share when we view fetuses clinically rather than in incubators.
- runarberg 6y ago
  I agree: “Can opinions be wrong?” is an unresolved philosophical question. I am of the opinion that they can, and you may disagree with my. Under my philosophical framework your disagreement is not wrong. However I don’t see the statement “Women have rights to their bodies” as an unresolved political question. I see it as a pretty clear truth, as true as “slavery is wrong and should be illegal”. I have my reasons to believe this is so (which I won’t go into because we are debating whether “everything is political”, not abortion rights). So under my philosophical framework anti-abortion is a wrong opinion to have. And I am certainly not the only person to believe this.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  Great comment

JAlexoid 6y ago

Gallileo got jailed for the theory of heliocentrism(formally), but not really. He was imprisoned for the Pope to seem "tough on heresy".

mcv 6y ago
Galileo was not jailed at all, but got house arrest. And he got it mainly because he insulted the pope. Before that, he was actually on very good terms with the pope and the pope was seriously entertaining the idea of heliocentrism, but wasn't convinced because the evidence didn't add up, which indeed it didn't, because Galileo insisted on circular orbits that didn't match observations. Galileo was right about heliocentrism, but his model for it was incorrect, and that was a big factor in why it wasn't adopted. Asked by the pope to write a book to discuss the merits of heliocentrism and geocentrism in a balanced way, he instead used that book to insult the pope (he had a character called 'Simplico', or 'Fool', use arguments the pope had used), after which he fell out of favour, got investigated by the inquisition, which added a heresy charge for good measure. But for a long time his ideas weren't considered heretical at all and were seriously considered.
- JAlexoid 6y ago
  +100 Gallileo isn't relevant in this context at all.