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

171–180 of 388 posts

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

#171

Post by rat87 »

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…

That is plainly untrue. Tons of legal scholars think the logic is extremely sound. The shortcoming with Roe is that due to a combination of bad luck and not willing to be as ruthless as Republicans on supreme court appointments. The arguments are irrelevant this is about power and supreme court appointments not logic.

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

#172

Post by robonerd »

Clubber wrote: post #162
robonerd wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thi…

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

Given that expansive interpretations of the commerce clause seems to be the status quo, doesn't that suggest that a federal abortion law is possible? It should be easy for lawyers and politicians to find some tortured meaning of interstate commerce that includes a woman getting an abortion in her own state. They seem to do this sort of thing all the time.

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

#173

Post by guerrilla »

TimPC wrote: post #168
guerrilla wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry, seems like you're either in over your head here or misunderstood what I said. Both deontology, utilitarianism and all other major schools of ethics* are justified a priori. This is common, introductory, knowledge in philosophy. Virtually nobody considers ethics an empirical science. That being said, descriptive and experimental ethics have made tiny inroads very recently.

* It doesn't really work like that today anyway; it's a decision tree of "schools."

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

#174

Post by ltbarcly3 »

ltbarcly3 wrote: post #94
lemonlime wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Just because one has a right to privacy, it doesn't follow that everything done in private is legal. 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.

Right, so some things done in private are prohibited, and others are not prohibited. So a right to privacy does not inform us whatsoever as to whether it is prohibited or not prohibited to do a thing. In all other contexts I know of, the 4th amendment does not grant anyone rights to do things that would otherwise be illegal. It sets careful restrictions on the governments ability to investigate. In other words, the g…

So I'm in a meeting and I've reloaded this comment a few times, and I see the moderation going up and down? If you down-vote this, please hit respond and let me know why, this is a good faith comment in the spirit of this thread trying to understand the issue better, or ideally have an expert in the law reply? I don't know why someone would down-vote it apart from seeing it as threatening to even be open to trying to discuss this issue?

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

#175

Post by Clubber »

robonerd wrote: post #172
Clubber wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thi…

> The federal government derives much of it's power over the states using a controversial interpretation of the commerce clause Given that expansive interpretations of the commerce clause seems to be the status quo, doesn't that suggest that a federal abortion law is possible? It should be easy for lawyers and politicians to find some tortured meaning of interstate commerce that includes a woman getting an abortion i…

Most of the time they just bribe the states. That's how the drinking age moving from 18 to 21 occurred. The federal government offered highway fund money (or threatened to remove it) if states increased the drinking age from 18 to 21.

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

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

#176

Post by dinosaurdynasty »

Clubber wrote: post #162
robonerd wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thi…

The federal government can always withhold funding to states that don't implement their laws the way they want them too (which is how the federal drinking age is enforced... states that were to set it to less than 21 don't get funding for freeways/roads/etc)

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

#177

Post by wbsss4412 »

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.

While it’s not a huge jump from the 4th amendment to a generalized right to privacy, you’re wrong when you say it’s not true, the fourth amendment does not actually say anything about privacy, it is at most implied.

The fourth amendment, much like the third, was passed in response to an explicit practice that occurred during the pre revolutionary period, and sought to remedy it.

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

#178

Post by RobertRoberts »

timoth3y wrote: post #68

The answer to the question in the title is contained in the title. For a number of reasons, we seem to have reached the point where hyperbolic, emotional statements get attention and calm, rational discussion is ignored. A world where everyone is trying to position themselves as the persecuted, besieged voice of reason defending simple truth against irrational attractors, does not leave much room for common ground. I…

Here is Milton Friedman discussing a politically charged topic with Bernie Sanders in a very civil manner. (though Bernie doesn't speak much)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sElz_P6QsZo (ignore the inflammatory title and intro screen)

Civility and decorum are what is missing today. And if it was taught in our schools today, and valued in society at large, maybe it we could still have debates like this.

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

#179

Post by evan_ »

alkaloid wrote: post #139
MockObject wrote: post #17

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.

Quoted post unavailable.

> the extremism from the abortion-supporting side

meanwhile your "side" is harassing patients, bombing clinics, murdering doctors, etc.

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

#180

Post by TimPC »

tensor wrote: post #93
causi wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. I find it very annoying that on most major issues, the sides argue at right angles to one another. They say the other side is wrong without saying what they believe is wrong. Anti-abortion activists don't address the issue of bodily autonomy and pro-abortion activists don't address the issue of the definition of personhood. If you're like me and settled on strictly-consistent stances on the topic you find…

If we were debating at what term we should allow abortions until then I think there is room for discussion. But the extreme position of "no abortions at all at any term" I'm simply uninterested in discussion. It's not that I don't understand their thinking. I simply do not agree and thus do not care to discuss or debate it. Here is the thing, the majority of people who actually reason and think about these topics hav…

I think a sizeable percentage of pro-lifers have not heard a coherent argument for Evictionism and have never worked their way through the violinist example. I’m not saying it will change their deeply held ideological beliefs but I highly doubt anyone has heard all arguments under the sun on this issue. I agree there is too much low-grade propaganda and a lack of good debate that makes it tempting to check out of the discourse entirely. I think we need to learn how to improve the discourse though as democracy ceases to function if people check out of nearly every issue and turn almost everything tribal.
Post reply on HN