151–160 of 388 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Haven't school kids in the US been required to be vaccinated against numerous diseases for ages?
You always have the choice to homeschool your kids if you don't want to send them to school.
I do not know what I expected when I clicked on the comments section. I think the author makes some really good points about human psychology & game theory, and the fact that people are immediately riled up by his statements only serves to prove him right. You can only understand people when you're clear-headed, i.e. your "rational you" is the one in control. With these issues, people have either natural or nurtured…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where in the U.S. (other than in the military, where different structures apply) has anyone been compelled to be vaccinated?
Even in the military the compulsion was the prospect of dishonorable discharge. Where I live both government employees and private employees have been fired for not complying with vaccination mandates, and again the issue is political alignment not whether people are being jabbed without consent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, it's logically wrong on a number of levels. If they believe all three of these things, as well as the unsaid and equally necessary fourth that it is the government's job to enforce them regardless of the will of the people, then they must also believe - It is the government's job to ensure -everyone- receives necessary care. That means, minimally, food, shelter, healthcare, regardless of your work situation, age,…
It’s fairly common to believe you shouldn’t kill people but have no responsibility to keep them alive. Actually, believing they’re the same thing is more like EA utilitarianism, isn’t it? Almost noone has that philosophy and most would find it repulsive.
Which is why Roe v. Wade's recognition of abortion being protected until a fetus is considered viable.
But, that call out is worth also enumerating - a logically consistent position with that would be that it's legally acceptable to remove someone from life support. Potentially regardless of their wishes, depending on the level of nuance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not fair. Those extremists are succeeding in pushing their agenda.
Show me a law on the books in any state that would outlaw abortion in the case of rape. Obviously it would be a "trigger law" since states can't actually have such a law right now, but no such law exists as far as I'm aware. Unless you can do that, it's not fair to claim that those extremists are succeeding in pushing anything. Edit: I'm not going to individually address all of the dishonest rhetoric from the article…
>Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?
It's not. Many people[1] spend a great deal of time studying the rhetoric and activities of people who oppose abortion. They have studied them far more than you.
>For better or for worse, the vast majority of people I know favor Roe v. Wade. Still, I think I understand the view of people on the other side.
You give two possible reasons for opposing Roe v. Wade, one of which rejects the legal argument as fundamentally arbitrary, and one of which is based on the idea that a human life, with all the rights and dignities that it is entitled to, begins at conception.
This falls into a common trap, which is treating "culture war" disputes as being fundamentally about abstract philosophical debates. This ignores the important parts of the dispute, which concern women's sexuality and the role of (conservative, patriarchal) religion in public affairs. It also ignores the mountains of bad faith and hypocrisy in the anti-abortion movement, including but not limited to a lack of interest in "saving" IVF embryos, bizarre ignorance of the female reproductive system, a refusal to acknowledge the circumstances under which people have late-term abortions, active opposition to medically-accurate sex education and easier access to contraceptives, and a lack of concern for what happens to babies after they're born.
>As far as I can tell, my object-level views on “when abortion should be legal” are close to the median in my (leftist-dominated) corner of the universe. Yet, except with close friends, I’d be scared to say what I think above.
Scared of what, exactly? When you publicly make bad arguments, you should expect public criticism.
The only reason I can see that someone would get mad at you is that you are treating abortion rights as a bloodless, impersonal affair. This is a very practical issue with very real, very serious consequences for the women involved. Most women do not want to engage in an abstract debate about whether they should be forced to carry a dead fetus to term[2].
If you want to discuss how all this relates to jurisprudence and philosophy, you can certainly do that. It's not wrong, and you're not wrong for wanting to ask questions and start discussions on those subjects. But it's important to be clear that such discussions are (almost) totally separate from the practical questions of how overturning Roe v. Wade will actually affect American women. Conflating the two buries the practical questions, and only benefits people who would prefer that the practical questions are ignored.
[1] The Slacktivist blog is a good place to start. Search for articles about abortion. Those articles will have many links to other people examining anti-abortion views. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/
[2] Not hyperbole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People certainly do believe these things and I don’t know if it’s even something they can be “logically” wrong about. Where they are factually wrong is that they think they’re traditional but these are fully modern ideas. The actual Jewish tradition is against several of those; the actual Christian tradition may be for them, but the idea that you should actually read the Bible, know what an official position is, or d…
Oh, it's logically wrong on a number of levels. If they believe all three of these things, as well as the unsaid and equally necessary fourth that it is the government's job to enforce them regardless of the will of the people, then they must also believe - It is the government's job to ensure -everyone- receives necessary care. That means, minimally, food, shelter, healthcare, regardless of your work situation, age,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The comment said baby. Not children. People want babies, not so much children.
Fine; I'll show you 100k children under the age of 3 entering the foster care system each year.
Babies get adopted very quickly, the ones that don't are those with health issues.
Morality and law both work like mathematics. This means that my beliefs are constructed, and once I have a construction, the only in bounds way to convince me to change my mind about them is to show me that my beliefs are inconsistent. Moreover, understanding someone who has already demonstrated an inconsistent belief system is easy. They believe X because they believe something and its negation, and at least one of…