Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with? • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by swearwolf » Mon, May 23, 2022, 6:17 PM UTC

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…

We do have a simple method, in amending the Constitution, but that’s been incredibly difficult to do for pretty much the entire history of the United States. For an issue like this one, it’s basically impossible.

The true simple solution would have been to codify the right to an abortion in federal law, as candidate Obama promised to do but President Obama failed to even attempt. Recently I’ve been introduced to the hypothetical that maybe the Democrats didn’t really want to do that because fear mongering about Republicans overturning Roe was such an effective fundraising tool. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case.

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

#182

Post by robonerd » Mon, May 23, 2022, 6:17 PM UTC

unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #117

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #96

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.

As far as your future job prospects go, a dishonorable discharge might as well be a felony conviction.

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

#183

Post by lostcolony » Mon, May 23, 2022, 6:18 PM UTC

reedjosh wrote: post #165

lostcolony wrote: post #92

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,…

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.

Maybe? A lot of the Christian people I know and like fall in between. Regardless of their personal views, they look at the idea of legislating morality as counter to the basis of their religion, and then also the moral fiber of the current GOP, and go "nope", and either abstain from voting, vote third party, or vote Democrat (potentially while holding their nose).

I've yet to meet the hardliner who wants to ban abortion, but then also is sufficiently pro-welfare to really show they care about life, let alone finding a logically consistent path through all the other knock on effects. Carlin had it right; they tend to be pro-birth, not pro-life.

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

#184

Post by RobertRoberts » Mon, May 23, 2022, 6:18 PM UTC

guerrilla wrote: post #111

RobertRoberts wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add to this, _everyone_ has some kind of inconsistent belief system. It's fairly simple to determine this, when people get defensive it's almost certainly based on something incongruous between their beliefs and actions, or possibly broaches a belief they hold to be true, but are unable to demonstrate why it's true. Therefore causing defensive behavior when challenged. I.E., very few people get upset if you say "t…

> To add to this, _everyone_ has some kind of inconsistent belief system. It's fairly simple to determine this, when people get defensive it's almost certainly based on something incongruous between their beliefs and actions, or possibly broaches a belief they hold to be true, but are unable to demonstrate why it's true. Therefore causing defensive behavior when challenged. This is silly folk psychology. There are ma…

I was pointing out _one_ simple idea (that everyone has _something_ inconsistent) not a broad brush about everything and everyone is inconsistent.

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

#185

Post by ClumsyPilot » Mon, May 23, 2022, 6:19 PM UTC

ouid wrote: post #53

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…

> the only in bounds way to convince me to change my mind about them is to show me that my beliefs are inconsistent

Have you not examined your beliefs at all? No 100% consistent belief system has even been invented, because the different principles that allow advanced society to exist conflict with each other - duty to the collective, freedom, equality, etc.

Should the tolerant, tolerate people who are Nazis?

Should people be forced to serve in the army against their will to defent freedom?

Should you have the freedom to choose the more expensive lawyer, and if so should the law apply equally to the rich and the poor?

the examples go on forever.

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

#186

Post by jasonlotito » Mon, May 23, 2022, 6:19 PM UTC

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…

> Almost every serious non-partisan legal scholar agrees that Roe v. Wade is on tenuous legal footing.

Citation needed. Also, would love to see how you are defining "serious non-partisan legal scholar." Seems like a whole bunch of adjectives you can use to disregard someone. As it stands, you can literally be talking about one person and be telling the truth depending on how you define those words.

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

#187

Post by mattwilsonn888 » Mon, May 23, 2022, 6:19 PM UTC

It would only be traitorous to understand the people you disagree with if your current mental framework is so fragile and irrational as to be consistently dismantled by your opposition's arguments.

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

#188

Post by hutzlibu » Mon, May 23, 2022, 6:20 PM UTC

h2odragon wrote: post #85

hutzlibu wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" but i feel more strongly that this is a question that shows the limits of what the state can do" No, it just shows how extreme your property thinking is. A child is the property of their parents and they should be able to do with it, what they want? Even kill them, as it is their property? Nope. Those times have passed. And even in savage times, where this might have been more common, there was certainly social bac…

For the record; i do not advocate "people as property". However, where the state holds us responsible for the actions of those living creatures in our care, the state does treat them (and us) as property.

Only if you define property in a different way.

Property can be sold for example. Children not, even though this happens underground.

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

#189

Post by guerrilla » Mon, May 23, 2022, 6:20 PM UTC

RobertRoberts wrote: post #184

guerrilla wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To add to this, _everyone_ has some kind of inconsistent belief system. It's fairly simple to determine this, when people get defensive it's almost certainly based on something incongruous between their beliefs and actions, or possibly broaches a belief they hold to be true, but are unable to demonstrate why it's true. Therefore causing defensive behavior when challenged. This is silly folk psychology. There are ma…

I was pointing out _one_ simple idea (that everyone has _something_ inconsistent) not a broad brush about everything and everyone is inconsistent.

> when people get defensive it's almost certainly based on something incongruous between their beliefs and actions

This is what I showed to be false in my previous comment.

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

#190

Post by riskable » Mon, May 23, 2022, 6:20 PM UTC

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

Can you post some examples? I know the anti-choice crowd has a history of assassination, arson, bombings, death threats, kidnappings, harassment/stalking, and vandalism...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

Note that Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a "pro-choice violence" page and searching around I couldn't find much beyond some vandalism.