31–40 of 388 posts
It’s not.
> Somehow, it feels like a huge social blunder to even demonstrate that I understand their positions.
The author then constructs six models to explain his emotions to himself.
Titles like this irk me. It clearly isn’t It should be something more like: “how has general discourse become so polluted and toxified in its perceptions for it to appear that the following statement yields any factuality” … I guess that doesn’t quite have the same ring to it though.
"Seek first to understand, then to be understood." -- habit #5 of the 7 habits of highly successful people
Quoted post unavailable.
"Not in my back yard" is a wonderful summation of this. While many upper class liberals support more homeless shelters, they don't want one in their neighborhood. While many neoconservatives support a ban on abortions, they wouldn't want low income, single mother housing placement shelters in their neighborhoods, with job training.
> The Constitution doesn’t mention abortion. But what about privacy? Well, it doesn’t mention privacy either. That's not true - the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The search part prevents the police from reading your mail or wiretapping your phones without a warrant (which declares the search reasonable), except illegally.
Well yes, but as much as I am a proponent of both the right to privacy and abortion, the latter doesn't really follow from the former. Just because one has a right to privacy, it doesn't follow that everything done in private is legal. Nor is abortion necessarily private - one could declare one is going to have one, or one could be visibly pregnant and then get an abortion. It would be a bizarre law if abortion was l…
No one, anywhere, has ever argued that the right to privacy means everything done in private is legal. That is not even remotely close to what the debate is about.
You have constructed an impressively bad strawman.
It is frustrating. I am on one side of the abortion debate, but I understand the other side, yet I have no success in even explaining it to my side.
> There’s a certain phenomenon I often wonder about, one that only seems to occur with culture war topics. I mean, the term "culture war" itself is part of the "conservative" vocabulary in that issue. So I can see why the whole thing is not easy.
"Seek first to understand, then to be understood." -- habit #5 of the 7 habits of highly successful people
Quoted post unavailable.
> The Constitution doesn’t mention abortion. But what about privacy? Well, it doesn’t mention privacy either. That's not true - the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The search part prevents the police from reading your mail or wiretapping your phones without a warrant (which declares the search reasonable), except illegally.
Well yes, but as much as I am a proponent of both the right to privacy and abortion, the latter doesn't really follow from the former. Just because one has a right to privacy, it doesn't follow that everything done in private is legal. Nor is abortion necessarily private - one could declare one is going to have one, or one could be visibly pregnant and then get an abortion. It would be a bizarre law if abortion was l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
"It's hard to understand the most extreme position I can think up, which is held by such a small number of people that it's not even really worth discussing."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You failed at understanding the author.
I don't think factual inaccuracies should get a free pass under the principle of assuming good faith, because the principle of assuming good faith only applies to how ambiguous claims should be construed. There is no way to construe "the constitution does not mention privacy" as a correct statement.