3 ms·

> This isn't a privacy issue any more than the legality of anything else is a privacy issue. Things don't become legal just because they're done in secret. It's

> This isn't a privacy issue any more than the legality of anything else is a privacy issue. Things don't become legal just because they're done in secret. It's not even a controlling-women issue. > The abortion debate is, and has always been, a question of whether fetuses are alive enough for the term "murder" to apply to them. The longer we refuse to meet the opponent on those grounds, the longer every single thing we say will continue to sound like "it's okay to murder people because I'm doing so privately". I don't see how the abortion debate ever was about whether murder applies to fetuses. That's just been a figleaf. The self-proclaimed "pro-life" movement also strongly supports the death penalty, strongly oppose any sort of financial aid for poor children, are typically strong supporters of the military and violent intervention, unconditionally support the police in police violence cases, support corporal punishment of children etc.. "Pro-life" supporters have shown absolute disregard for born life, so I can not take serious a claim that they care about unborn life. Moreover, they oppose the measure which has been shown to be the most effective of reducing abortions, sexual education and availability of contraception. Make no mistake, the abortion debate has always been about forcing a specific belief system on everyone, once abortion rights have been taken away, they will move to the next part of their belief system to force on others.

philsnow 4y ago
Are you arguing against certain people or against certain positions? > The self-proclaimed "pro-life" movement also strongly supports the death penalty, strongly oppose any sort of financial aid for poor children, are typically strong supporters of the military and violent intervention, unconditionally support the police in police violence cases, support corporal punishment of children etc.. This is an incoherent straw man caricature of "the right". Unfortunately for us all, there are tons of people in every side of politics who hold incoherent sets of positions. They're the "sound of a potato rotating" [0] kind of folks. By "incoherent" I mean that I agree with you that it doesn't make sense for somebody to both be "pro-life" and also support the death penalty. But there are people who hold positions that are at least internally consistent. Why bother crafting arguments against the former (where you'll gain little if anything from winning) when you could against the latter (where you have a chance of changing the minds of a lot of people, if you make a strong argument)? [0] https://twitter.com/onlinegrapes/status/970945537435303936 https://twitter.com/onlinegrapes/status/970945537435303936
- cycomanic 4y ago
  > This is an incoherent straw man caricature of "the right". Unfortunately for us all, there are tons of people in every side of politics who hold incoherent sets of positions. They're the "sound of a potato rotating" [0] kind of folks. I actually very much dislike labels such as "the right" and "the left", that said the "pro-life" movement as in the political movement that is trying to overturn Roe are very much exactly how I portrait them above. Name any prominent figure in the pro-life movement who also strongly opposes the death penalty. > By "incoherent" I mean that I agree with you that it doesn't make sense for somebody to both be "pro-life" and also support the death penalty. But there are people who hold positions that are at least internally consistent. > Why bother crafting arguments against the former (where you'll gain little if anything from winning) when you could against the latter (where you have a chance of changing the minds of a lot of people, if you make a strong argument)? The issue is that the debate is not about convincing the fundamentalists, they can not be convinced, this is about pointing out the motivations of the fundamentalists to others. There is a very good book in German (unfortunately I do not believe there is an English translation): "Wie man mit Fundamentalisten diskutiert, ohne den Verstand zu verlieren: Anleitung zum subversiven Denken" which analyses forms of argumentation and historical debates and their philosophical underpinnings. One of the central concluding arguments is that in fighting totalitarism and fundamentalism the debate with a fundamentalist can will never convince them, because fundamentally their belief trumps rational arguments (something that fundamentalists on all sides of the spectrum consistently repeat), the debate should be to convince/warn the observers, to point out the inconsistencies, the real motivations.
  - philsnow 4y ago
    > I actually very much dislike labels such as "the right" and "the left" I do as well, because they conflate too many unrelated things together, and it's impossible to pin down something as amorphous as "the [direction]". > the "pro-life" movement as in the political movement that is trying to overturn Roe are very much exactly how I portray them above So are you against this "movement" or the position? I'm in the pro-life movement and I don't support the death penalty. > Name any prominent figure in the pro-life movement who also strongly opposes the death penalty. Oh, I'm not prominent though. Archbishop Gomez, president of the USCCB and board member of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, is pro-life and against the death penalty. > The issue is that the debate is not about convincing the fundamentalists, they can not be convinced I referred to "people who hold positions that are at least internally consistent", and then you started talking about fundamentalism? What does it mean to be "fundamentalist"? It sounds like it's one whose "belief trumps rational arguments". Those people are the worst. I don't think that they're the same people as who I was referring to, though. Anyway, I think we both agree on the nit I was trying to pick initially which is that broad labels aren't generally helpful to anybody trying to reach the truth, but they sure do get used a lot in our modern discourse.
philsnow 4y ago
> the [X] debate has always been about forcing a specific belief system on everyone, once [X] have been {taken away, granted}, they will move to the next part of their belief system to force on others. Substitute any [X] you like in the above and it still applies. Who is forcing a belief system on whom? That's politics.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  That's not true, one side is forcing the other side to live according to their believe system, the other isn't. Two examples: 1. Same sex marriage: One side: "nobody should be able to marry the same sex", i.e. I forbid you from marrying your gay partner. The other side, "everyone should be able to marry no matter what the sex", i.e. you are free to marry only other sex partners, as long as I can marry a partner of any sex. One side is forcing the other side to adhere to their belief system, the other isn't. 2. Eating Pork. One side: "We believe eating pork is dirty, so selling pork meat should be illegal" the other side "Everyone should be able to eat the meat they want"
  - Aurelius3 4y ago
    I suppose the problem is that in the abortion debate the pro life side believes the unborn fetus is being forced to live (or rather not live) according to another belief system. It's a matter of perspective I guess.

philsnow 4y ago

Are you arguing against certain people or against certain positions? > The self-proclaimed "pro-life" movement also strongly supports the death penalty, strongly oppose any sort of financial aid for poor children, are typically strong supporters of the military and violent intervention, unconditionally support the police in police violence cases, support corporal punishment of children etc.. This is an incoherent straw man caricature of "the right". Unfortunately for us all, there are tons of people in every side of politics who hold incoherent sets of positions. They're the "sound of a potato rotating" [0] kind of folks. By "incoherent" I mean that I agree with you that it doesn't make sense for somebody to both be "pro-life" and also support the death penalty. But there are people who hold positions that are at least internally consistent. Why bother crafting arguments against the former (where you'll gain little if anything from winning) when you could against the latter (where you have a chance of changing the minds of a lot of people, if you make a strong argument)? [0] https://twitter.com/onlinegrapes/status/970945537435303936 https://twitter.com/onlinegrapes/status/970945537435303936

cycomanic 4y ago
> This is an incoherent straw man caricature of "the right". Unfortunately for us all, there are tons of people in every side of politics who hold incoherent sets of positions. They're the "sound of a potato rotating" [0] kind of folks. I actually very much dislike labels such as "the right" and "the left", that said the "pro-life" movement as in the political movement that is trying to overturn Roe are very much exactly how I portrait them above. Name any prominent figure in the pro-life movement who also strongly opposes the death penalty. > By "incoherent" I mean that I agree with you that it doesn't make sense for somebody to both be "pro-life" and also support the death penalty. But there are people who hold positions that are at least internally consistent. > Why bother crafting arguments against the former (where you'll gain little if anything from winning) when you could against the latter (where you have a chance of changing the minds of a lot of people, if you make a strong argument)? The issue is that the debate is not about convincing the fundamentalists, they can not be convinced, this is about pointing out the motivations of the fundamentalists to others. There is a very good book in German (unfortunately I do not believe there is an English translation): "Wie man mit Fundamentalisten diskutiert, ohne den Verstand zu verlieren: Anleitung zum subversiven Denken" which analyses forms of argumentation and historical debates and their philosophical underpinnings. One of the central concluding arguments is that in fighting totalitarism and fundamentalism the debate with a fundamentalist can will never convince them, because fundamentally their belief trumps rational arguments (something that fundamentalists on all sides of the spectrum consistently repeat), the debate should be to convince/warn the observers, to point out the inconsistencies, the real motivations.
- philsnow 4y ago
  > I actually very much dislike labels such as "the right" and "the left" I do as well, because they conflate too many unrelated things together, and it's impossible to pin down something as amorphous as "the [direction]". > the "pro-life" movement as in the political movement that is trying to overturn Roe are very much exactly how I portray them above So are you against this "movement" or the position? I'm in the pro-life movement and I don't support the death penalty. > Name any prominent figure in the pro-life movement who also strongly opposes the death penalty. Oh, I'm not prominent though. Archbishop Gomez, president of the USCCB and board member of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, is pro-life and against the death penalty. > The issue is that the debate is not about convincing the fundamentalists, they can not be convinced I referred to "people who hold positions that are at least internally consistent", and then you started talking about fundamentalism? What does it mean to be "fundamentalist"? It sounds like it's one whose "belief trumps rational arguments". Those people are the worst. I don't think that they're the same people as who I was referring to, though. Anyway, I think we both agree on the nit I was trying to pick initially which is that broad labels aren't generally helpful to anybody trying to reach the truth, but they sure do get used a lot in our modern discourse.

philsnow 4y ago

> the [X] debate has always been about forcing a specific belief system on everyone, once [X] have been {taken away, granted}, they will move to the next part of their belief system to force on others. Substitute any [X] you like in the above and it still applies. Who is forcing a belief system on whom? That's politics.

cycomanic 4y ago
That's not true, one side is forcing the other side to live according to their believe system, the other isn't. Two examples: 1. Same sex marriage: One side: "nobody should be able to marry the same sex", i.e. I forbid you from marrying your gay partner. The other side, "everyone should be able to marry no matter what the sex", i.e. you are free to marry only other sex partners, as long as I can marry a partner of any sex. One side is forcing the other side to adhere to their belief system, the other isn't. 2. Eating Pork. One side: "We believe eating pork is dirty, so selling pork meat should be illegal" the other side "Everyone should be able to eat the meat they want"
- Aurelius3 4y ago
  I suppose the problem is that in the abortion debate the pro life side believes the unborn fetus is being forced to live (or rather not live) according to another belief system. It's a matter of perspective I guess.