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

191–200 of 388 posts

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

#191

Post by dotnet00 »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #133
mikece wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are aware that lots of people lost their jobs for refusing all forms of the COVID vaccination, right?

And how many of those people were forced to lose their bodily autonomy by taking those vaccines against their will?

So, just to make sure I understand you correctly, you wouldn't consider it a violation of bodily autonomy if the state governments simply put in place legislation that effectively forced people out of a job if they wanted an abortion?

Like, if they ruled tomorrow that abortion until birth is legal, but the mother and father must spend a week attending 8 hours of daily counseling before being allowed to abort and then must spend a month after to mentally recover (thus effectively making them unable to work for that period), wouldn't you consider that to be effectively the same as banning abortion?

I would consider it to be equivalent, as making something unreasonably difficult to do is effectively the same as a ban, particularly for more economically vulnerable people, after all, even if abortion were banned in the entire US, for the rich it just means taking time off to go to another country and having a 'miscarriage' before coming back, while for the poor it means resorting to more dangerous methods.

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

#192

Post by guerrilla »

daenz wrote: post #169
ethanbond wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Comparing reactions modern reactions to blasphemy to "back in the day" reactions is an uncharitable interpretation.

Hardly, since it was my point. Doing anything other than that would in fact be off topic in this branch of the thread.

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

#193

Post by alkaloid »

evan_ wrote: post #179
alkaloid wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> the extremism from the abortion-supporting side meanwhile your "side" is harassing patients, bombing clinics, murdering doctors, etc.

Thanks for proving my point.

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

#194

Post by astrange »

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.

> So, I'm an anti-abortion pro-choicer? Kinda weird I suppose. Falling between two camps isn't popular these days.

That’s what “pro-choice” means. They’re not “pro-abortion”, at least officially.

US liberals are good at avoiding abortions ahead of time because they have less premarital sex. The conservative no-sex messaging doesn’t work as well because it relies on telling teens that abstinence is the cool minority thing to do, but once you convert the whole school, it’s hard to believe that.

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

#195

Post by dj_mc_merlin »

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.

I do not know ethics, nor any branch of philosophy (as my below comments show, the issue I could discuss was the "law" part). However, what I have never understood is how does the a priori science of ethics map onto real life, where morality is borne out of emotions and instinctual human social conditioning. I think it's rather obvious from observing young humans that they do not discover ethics from first principles, but some form of it is practically branded into their brain. They will recognize when somebody gets more than their fair share, and will become mad at this, for example. This is very different from mathematics in my mind.

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

#196

Post by acover »

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…

Doesn't the commerce clause cover basically everything? You can't grow wheat to feed your own horses because it affects interstate commerce.

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

#197

Post by riskable »

alkaloid wrote: post #106
conorcleary wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Religion is like a firewall keeping logic out based on old rules and whitelists.

You know followers of "religion" invented empiricism (and logic and rhetoric, etc.), right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bacon

You know followers of invented , right?

There's no dots to connect between one thing and the other. Someone can be a hardcore Catholic and invent an abortion device or an atheist could come up with a fancy new way of manufacturing crosses. Their stance on religion is irrelevant.

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

#199

Post by asdffdsa »

The logical construction of this piece is poorly formulated.

The title is “why does x happen”.

The content is:

I believe foo. Evidence behind why author believes foo.

Here is an arbitrary list of 6 behavioral responses to foo: [a b c d e x]. X happens which is a bad thing.

There is no critical analysis or evidence substantiating the 6 responses, nor how/why response x happens. In other words, there’s no intellectual rigor behind the title’s claim, nor do I have any inclination to believe the author’s claim as true after reading it.

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

#200

Post by dane-pgp »

astrange wrote: post #144
dane-pgp wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The actual Jewish tradition is against several of those I think that Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, would have something to say[0] about that: “The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, an…

> I think that Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, would have something to say[0] about that I mean, he’s not a rabbi or anything. It was considered somewhat less bad than murder, or possibly is only bad when Romans do it. https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/publi... > That's like saying that Protestants didn't believe in God until recently, because they defined themselves as against Cath…

> I mean, he’s not a rabbi or anything.

“On the authority of Rabbi Ishmael, it was said: [A murderer is executed] even for the murder of an embryo. What is Rabbi Ishmael’s reason? Because it is written, ‘Whosoever sheddeth the blood of man within a man, his blood shall be shed.’ What is a man within a man? An embryo in his mother’s womb,” (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 57b).

> is 68 historic?

I wasn't aware of Waltke's position, which is cited by that CNN article, but I don't think it represents the consensus of Christian scholars at the time, and in any case, he later (in 1976) reversed his position, concluding: "The fetus is human and therefore to be accorded the same protection to life granted every other human being."

Post reply on HN