Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 388 posts

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#161

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

Barrin92 wrote: post #151
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You always have the choice to homeschool your kids if you don't want to send them to school.

So you're confined to your home if you don't comply which seems equivalent to covid policies, which was the point of the discussion, no? Nobody's been physically forced to get vaccinated, just excluded from public life. That seems to have plenty of precedent.

Home confinement? Oh please. You could go wherever you wanted outside, you could visit homes of friends or family, go shopping ... even in NYC (which had amongst the strictest regulation) you only needed to show proof of vaccination for indoor dining, fitness and entertainment venues.

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#162

Post by Clubber »

robonerd wrote: post #140
dvt wrote: post #42

Almost every serious non-partisan legal scholar agrees that Roe v. Wade is on tenuous legal footing. It's purely a logical argument, and it doesn't follow very well from the Constitution. We have a very simple mechanism to rectify this: amend the Constitution. But that ship has long sailed, and the problem now is stare decisis †, which complicates things further. So there's a very real justification for keeping Roe i…

An amendment seems ideal, but wouldn't a regular federal law also get the job done? They could even strengthen it like the Federal Reserve Act: "The right to amend, alter, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved."

The federal government derives much of it's power over the states using a controversial interpretation of the commerce clause:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause

Abortion tends to be single state centric, meaning the person getting the abortion and the abortion clinic are in the same state. Because of this, the federal government couldn't pass a law that only affects intrastate commerce.

At least that's my understanding of it.

FWIW, qualified immunity was also an immunity created from whole cloth by the Supreme Court. Apparently interpreting new "laws" like this was popular from the court in the 1960s and 1970s. Much of today's police brutality and lack of accountability stems from this decision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#163

Post by unyttigfjelltol »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #153
unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No; the issue is the entirely false equivalence between vaccine mandates and abortion access when the underlying concern is bodily autonomy.

@novemberWhiskey, I'm here to tell you I connected with someone who harbors strong feelings about Roe specifically with respect to the vaccination issue. You may disagree, but the relevancy is not 'false'.

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#164

Post by robonerd »

lostcolony wrote: post #135
robonerd wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clever idea, but a bad idea. What you propose would create an incentive for pro-choice activists to create red-tape in the adoption system, to ensure an adequate number of orphans remain unadopted. Furthermore, it would incentivize pro-life activists to adopt as many children as they can for all the wrong reasons.

So I think the poster was being facetious, but I'll point out neither of those incentives would hold. First, I've yet to meet a pro-choice person who didn't actually, you know, want the best outcomes for kids. They don't actually hate children, and there are other reasons to champion choice than "well, if they're born no one will adopt them" (despite what op says, pro-choice people don't ever list "no one will adopt…

There are nasty people on all sides of every issue. Unevenly distributed perhaps, but never absent completely.

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#165

Post by reedjosh »

lostcolony wrote: post #92
astrange wrote: post #74

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,…

Hey! Awesome reply.

I'm pretty much anti-abortion myself, but draw the line at your point. So, I'm practically pro-choice.

> it is the government's job to enforce

Which is where I say we stop on the whole abortion thing. So, I'm an anti-abortion pro-choicer? Kinda weird I suppose. Falling between two camps isn't popular these days.

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#166

Post by [deleted] »

car_analogy wrote: post #14
whatshisface wrote: post #3

> 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…

[deleted]

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#167

Post by rat87 »

> The question before the court in Roe v. Wade was not “Would the world be better if abortion were legal?” The question was, “Does the US Constitution prohibit states from making abortion illegal?”

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem that gives way to much credit to the court. The question isn't about legality or the constitution it's about politics and power. The conservative legal movement has spent decades working to take away the right of women to choose. They've been explicit about this. McConnell stacked the court by refusing to even hear from Garland then jamming in Barrett at the last moment. The reason Roe vs Wade is being overturned isn't because it is flawed but because they finally got not just a conservative majority but an extremely conservative supreme court majority

A lot of people claimed they didn't really mean it when they said they wanted to ban abortion and that they were just taking advantage of socially conservatives for the votes but when the politicians/judge politicans are themselves socially conservative why would you think they don't believe in it? And now we have the unsurprising result.

I wish we wouldn't dress it up in irrelevant theoretical conversations about what the constitution says

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#168

Post by TimPC »

guerrilla wrote: post #100
dj_mc_merlin wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Morality and law both work like mathematics. This is something only engineers are able to believe.

No, it's generally agreed upon in academia that ethics is an a priori science like math. I don't know about law but it sounds plausible.

No it’s not. There are two major schools of ethics, deontology and utilitarianism. The later is about maximizing happiness and doesn’t believe that people have unalienable rights. So we can’t agree on the concept of rights at all never mind an enumerated list.

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#169

Post by daenz »

ethanbond wrote: post #115
h2odragon wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blasphemy is alive and well! Try saying you doubt the safety and effectiveness of COVID vaccines. The reaction is the same.

Should read up a bit more on what the "reaction" to blasphemy was back in the day (at least some of the days, some of the places anyway). Tell you what, it wasn't people calling you an idiot on the internet.

I believe the charitable interpretation of "the reaction is the same" is "the reaction is the same for the time period." Comparing reactions modern reactions to blasphemy to "back in the day" reactions is an uncharitable interpretation.

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#170

Post by SilasX »

lemonlime wrote: post #132
SilasX wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you help me understand how the purported strawman diverges from the actual legal argumentation? It sounds like the article is making the case that this equivocation is eerily close to the actual jurisprudential reason.

Sure. Have you read Roe v. Wade. Where do you get the idea that it's eerily close? Can you quote the specific words from that decision? Here are some that are at odds with what you are saying: "The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close rela…

That doesn’t help. It just asserts that “oh no, it’s obviously not unlimited” but not how or why, in line with the core arguments used.

Did you read the article? Its whole point is that Roe is a dubious application of privacy, even if you support the ruling’s conclusion.

I assumed from your confident tone, and insistence that the parent comment was a strawman, that you would be able to shed more light on this topic. At least, that’s where I would be if I used that tone.

Post reply on HN