3 ms·

> He is anti-choice ... he would not implement a federal ban As Americans have a lot of freedom to choose which state they live in, I don't see how this can po

by nvm0n2 3y ago

> He is anti-choice ... he would not implement a federal ban As Americans have a lot of freedom to choose which state they live in, I don't see how this can possibly be described as "anti-choice". Being anti-choice would mean implementing a federal ban. Abortion bans aren't about religious authority or "anti-individualism", even though most religions are against abortion. They exist because at some point the foetus transitions to become a person who themselves must have basic rights defended by the government and (possibly religious) morality. At that point the choice is by definition not an individual choice because it controls the baby's life, and the baby is an individual. That's why it's totally normal for even very secular countries to have abortion bans in place after a certain number of weeks. > This is Plato's Noble lie [3] and fundamentally anti-individualist. You are misrepresenting his point very badly here and it feels deliberate. Ramaswamy isn't saying he opposes secularism. He isn't even passing opinion on the phenomenon in question. The statements you quoted are phrased as neutral observation. He's arguing that this outcome appears to be inevitable regardless of what he or anyone else personally wants.

omniglottal 3y ago
The argument for inevitability is inevitably a lie. His opinion is engulfed in the notion that there exists no individual whose will is truly free as if given by God alone.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  Hmm, I don't interpret it like that. He doesn't seem to be arguing that 100% of all people need religion. That's clearly not true and never has been. There were people pointing out the Bible was nonsense in the 1600s, and getting hung for it! His point is that although we tell ourselves we live in a secular age now, there is a lot of surprisingly religious looking behavior re-appearing in supposedly non-religious contexts. He ponders why this is, and concludes that the widespread nature of religion in the past may not have been a mere phase of history but perhaps a basic need of most humans (but not all), and now the old religions are fading they're being replaced by new ones. It's a viewpoint that's becoming more common, he certainly isn't the first to express this idea. And you don't need to be religious yourself to make the same observation.

by nvm0n2 3y ago

omniglottal 3y ago

The argument for inevitability is inevitably a lie. His opinion is engulfed in the notion that there exists no individual whose will is truly free as if given by God alone.

nvm0n2 3y ago
Hmm, I don't interpret it like that. He doesn't seem to be arguing that 100% of all people need religion. That's clearly not true and never has been. There were people pointing out the Bible was nonsense in the 1600s, and getting hung for it! His point is that although we tell ourselves we live in a secular age now, there is a lot of surprisingly religious looking behavior re-appearing in supposedly non-religious contexts. He ponders why this is, and concludes that the widespread nature of religion in the past may not have been a mere phase of history but perhaps a basic need of most humans (but not all), and now the old religions are fading they're being replaced by new ones. It's a viewpoint that's becoming more common, he certainly isn't the first to express this idea. And you don't need to be religious yourself to make the same observation.