Thinking of My American Friends Today

Debater Slayer · Jun 24, 2022

Revoltingest said:
Civility, reason, friendliness, setting a positive example?

I think it's an underestimation of the extent to which certain laws can detrimentally impact people's lives to argue that sometimes hostility or "incivility" isn't an understandable reaction.

It's not how I roll anymore (or at least not how I strive to act), but I understand it. You don't take away someone's rights or endanger their safety and expect them to act nice and friendly.

epronovost · Jun 24, 2022

Audie said:
As with other issues with honourable people holding different views, it's best to
dehunanize them as despicable subhumans.

What makes you so sure people who are against abortion are honorable people with honest motives?

Audie · Jun 24, 2022

Debater Slayer said:
Not really. If you're talking about my posts, I've responded to that and explained why I stand by what I've said. It's neither overgeneralized nor inaccurate.

Opposition to elective abortion isn't exclusive to the U.S., as you surely know. What I've seen, both where I live and online, includes religious arguments to ban abortion because it's a "sin," assertions that women wouldn't need it if they didn't have "promiscuous sex," and that a woman who had sex outside of marriage and got pregnant by accident "must deal with the consequences" (that is, carry to term), among other things.

I staunchly oppose theocracy and any laws that stem from it. This holds for the U.S. as much as it does anywhere else.

This has zero to do with theocracy.
Have you read the 9th amendment?

Audie · Jun 24, 2022

epronovost said:
What makes you so sure people who are against abortion are honorable people with honest motives?

A percent of every group are not
decent people.
Goes for cops bankers priests con and pro and posters.
But if they are not your group then
dehunanize away. Fair game

Revoltingest · Jun 24, 2022

Audie said:
I don't want peace. It's boring. I want conflict, always!

It is invigorating.
But the more convincing my arguments, the
greater the chance I'll be bored with peace.
That would be success.

Revoltingest · Jun 24, 2022

Debater Slayer said:
I think it's an underestimation of the extent to which certain laws can detrimentally impact people's lives to argue that sometimes hostility or "incivility" isn't an understandable reaction.

Being understandable isn't necessarily productive.

It's not how I roll anymore (or at least not how I strive to act), but I understand it. You don't take away someone's rights or endanger their safety and expect them to act nice and friendly.

Perhaps you mistook my advice for expectation.

Twilight Hue · Jun 24, 2022

Debater Slayer said:
I have multiple friends living in the U.S. who will undoubtedly feel the aftermath of the Roe v. Wade reversal. I wish them the best along with other Americans here who also worry about this decision and the effects it could have on them.

Parenthetically, I find any ideology deeply harmful, inconsistent, and divorced from empathy if it favors abortion bans to "protect life" but has no issue with other measures that significantly affect or even threaten the lives of millions of people--such as anti-LGBT legislation, military adventurism, gendered discrimination, opposition to accessible and affordable health care for the poor, and retributive, inhumane prison systems.

Today, the SCOTUS has disgraced the U.S. among the developed world and among supporters of human rights whether inside or outside the developed world.

UN, world leaders condemn US Supreme Court ruling on abortion

I hope this period of regression in American politics comes to an end before it chips away at more hard-earned freedoms and rights.

There are no more rights in this country. The duopoly will see to that.

I feel bad for your country as well since it turned or will be turned into a surveillance police state dystopia before long. We are sure to follow.

Debater Slayer · Jun 24, 2022

Audie said:
Like I said it's correct if your bias is for it, wrong if not.

"Correct" as in conforming to a rigidly originalist legal view? Perhaps. "Correct" as in working to protect and advance the well-being and health of a considerable subset of citizens? Absolutely not.

In my opinion, there's much more to the assessment of such issues than strict legal text. The practical outcomes seem just as important to me, if not more important, than the mere letter of the law.

Anyone who did not read the
arguments or at least know constitutional law is just showing their own bias.

As for " bodily autonomy"??

Try thinking that through.
Of course that's impossible to guarantee as an absolute.

We disagree on the feasibility of a legal right to bodily autonomy. Not sure there's much to debate there considering said disagreement.

Audie · Jun 24, 2022

Revoltingest said:
It is invigorating.
But the more convincing my arguments, the
greater the chance I'll be bored with peace.
That would be success.

Invigorating! ( Wait or it...)

Twilight Hue · Jun 24, 2022

Aštra’el said:
It is a great day, worthy of celebration.

For states rights at least, but I wish the ruling wouldn't have been overturned like it did.

icehorse · Jun 24, 2022

Aštra’el said:
It is a great day, worthy of celebration.

Can we gather from this that you'll be adopting babies conceived via rape?

Debater Slayer · Jun 24, 2022

Audie said:
This has zero to do with theocracy.
Have you read the 9th amendment?

See my previous post. If the SCOTUS deals with laws that significantly affect people's health and safety as a mere collection of words to do away with based on rigid originalism, then there's perhaps a problem that extends far beyond one amendment or ruling.

Debater Slayer · Jun 24, 2022

Revoltingest said:
Being understandable isn't necessarily productive.

I don't fault someone whose life is endangered by abusive powers for not being "productive" in their frustrated speech toward said powers. Do you?

Perhaps you mistook my advice for expectation.

I'd rather direct any advice to those in power than to those affected by their actions.

epronovost · Jun 24, 2022

Audie said:
A percent of every group are not
decent people.

Then if a percentage of every group is not decent what makes you say that my commentary described every single member of the group? Nothing in it implied it was the case yet you came in waving your little finger as if you were some moral authority on anything, let alone politeness, empathy and people's rights. Why the sudden defensiveness?

There is definitely a core of highly motivated and active anti-abortion activists who so happen to be fueled by misogyny and the desire to punish sexual immorality. Everybody knows that. What's wrong in calling them out as such?

Audie · Jun 24, 2022

Debater Slayer said:
"Correct" as in conforming to a rigidly originalist legal view? Perhaps. "Correct" as in working to protect and advance the well-being and health of a considerable subset of citizens? Absolutely not.

In my opinion, there's much more to the assessment of such issues than strict legal text. The practical outcomes seem just as important to me, if not more important, than the mere letter of the law.

We disagree on the feasibility of a legal right to bodily autonomy. Not sure there's much to debate there considering said disagreement.

So if I figure my bodily autonomy means I don't hafta get shots and can carry xyz infectious diseases about I have bodily autonomy to
do so.
And if nobody wants to go to jail or join the
army, then they don't gotta. .
Autonomy sounds nice but lin practice...

Revoltingest · Jun 24, 2022

Debater Slayer said:
I don't fault someone whose life is endangered by abusive powers for not being "productive." Do you?

To clarify my position (rather than your straw man),
I favor that people do what is effective to secure
rights, eg, bodily autonomy.
If someone acts in a manner counter-productive,
eg, spewing vitriol that polarizes discussion, then
I oppose that.

I'd rather direct any advice to those in power rather than those affected by their actions.

Good for you.
But please keep it civil so that you
don't merely engender hostility.
We've a job to do here.

Debater Slayer · Jun 24, 2022

Twilight Hue said:
There are no more rights in this country. The duopoly will see to that.

I feel bad for your country as well since it turned or will be turned into a surveillance police state dystopia before long. We are sure to follow.

I hope not, and I doubt you will. For all of the current woes affecting the U.S., separation of powers is still a major failsafe against dictatorship. I do suspect you will have a harder time undoing the damage of harmful SCOTUS decisions as opposed to ones from Congress or the Oval Office considering that justices serve for life, though.

epronovost · Jun 24, 2022

Twilight Hue said:
For states rights at least, but I wish the ruling wouldn't have been overturned like it did.

The Robert's "third way" is indeed more respectable and prudent. Frankly, restricting elective abortion to 15 weeks isn't a bad idea. 95% of all abortions occur before that anyway. As long as you give more at least 3 months and have quick and easy access to the service, it's perfectly reasonable. Of course medically recommended abortion should be legal up to the moment of birth, but pretty much everybody is in agreement with that anyway except perhaps the most crazed zealots. The problem of course is that access is so bad in Mississippi and several other States that it might as well have been illegal in the first place. Imagine a State with such heavy restriction that there was only one armorer operating legally there. I don't think people would consider their 2nd amendment to be respected.

Debater Slayer · Jun 24, 2022

Audie said:
So if I figure my bodily autonomy means I don't hafta get shots and can carry xyz infectious diseases about I have bodily autonomy to
do so.
And if nobody wants to go to jail or join the
army, then they don't gotta. .
Autonomy sounds nice but lin practice...

Very few legal rights are entirely unconditional. Besides, Roe v. Wade was also based on an argument for a right to privacy, so there could be multiple angles from which to argue for a constitutional amendment enabling it.

Audie · Jun 24, 2022

epronovost said:
Then if a percentage of every group is not decent what makes you say that my commentary described every single member of the group? Nothing in it implied it was the case yet you came in waving your little finger as if you were some moral authority on anything, let alone politeness, empathy and people's rights. Why the sudden defensiveness?

There is definitely a core of highly motivated and active anti-abortion activists who so happen to be fueled by misogyny and the desire to punish sexual immorality. Everybody knows that. What's wrong in calling them out as such?

Defensive? That's kinda weird.

If you think the " core" you referes to is
representative then i guess you do and
that's kinda weird too.

And my fingers aren't all that small.
Or at least they are in proportion?
The rest of me is kinda diminutive...

You are just saying that to
hurt my tiny feelings boo hoo.
Sob.

Thinking of My American Friends Today

Vipassana

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Pragmatic Libertarian

Pragmatic Libertarian

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

Vipassana

Veteran Member

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist

Vipassana

Vipassana

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Pragmatic Libertarian

Vipassana

Well-Known Member

Vipassana

Veteran Member