PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

that there's something specific to women that grants them this right inherently

Yeah, it's called a vagina.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, it's called a vagina.

Clearly you haven't yet been scolded enough about the pussification of society.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by nik-

how high am I right now?

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, it's called a vagina.

Obvious joke was obvious and anticipated:

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The fact that women are the only ones in the position to avail themselves of this instantiation of the more fundamental principles of self-determination and control over one's own body (and by the way I'm open to the possibility that that list isn't exhaustive) is a matter of biology, not morality.

[WCan_Kid]

--

[Cain]

Probably a mistake to wade in here but I do see what I think CHL is saying. Abortion rights are essentially just a specific case of bodily autonomy rights. I think most everyone is in agreement that people should be allowed to have control over what happens to their own body and abortion naturally flows from that. It isn't necessarily a unique case or idea.

It just so happens that it seems to be basically the only bodily autonomy right that is hotly contested (I'll leave out infant stuff like circumcisions/piercings/etc). It is a shame and black mark on society. Not sure how you can support bodily autonomy in all other cases and then toss it out the window in the case of abortion. Doesn't matter how pro-life you are, it is still the woman's body and therefore her choice...at least in my opinion.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Cain

It is a shame and black mark on society.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Obvious joke was obvious and anticipated:

I'm really curious to know what slippery-slope you think we're going to go down, or what hypothetical scenario negates the idea that this is wrong because it imposes unnecessary social, personal, and economic harm on a certain section of the population.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by chemgear

No you're racist!! For thinking I am racist!!

[ResAlien]

Just so I'm clear someone questioning DeVos and the FIRE organisation is enough to get corsi foaming at the mouth angry and ready to "actively root for Trump" but abortion rights are an argument we must dissect with ridiculous semantics because... identity politics? Hot damn son this Trump playbook works like a charm.

I'm not sure anymore if we're arguing for the sake of arguing or with an agenda.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

^I took back the "actively root for" and it was Trump's nominee, so you've screwed up twice in summarizing my views there.

Apparently anything that requires people to think carefully about their positions and why they hold them is "ridiculous semantics". I wouldn't have thought I'd have to go to this extent to explain to people why the underlying principle for this isn't gendered, but it seems like some people are absolutely determined to prove Jonathan Haidt right.

Originally Posted by Cain

Probably a mistake to wade in here but I do see what I think CHL is saying. Abortion rights are essentially just a specific case of bodily autonomy rights. I think most everyone is in agreement that people should be allowed to have control over what happens to their own body and abortion naturally flows from that. It isn't necessarily a unique case or idea.

You've got it - except that I'm not suggesting that it's solely a matter of bodily autonomy rights. I've also been arguing that it's a matter of the right to self determination; that is, whether or not you have an abortion leads you down two separate life paths that are massively different, and it should be for the individual to make that decision for herself, rather than having it imposed on her by others.

So there are two principles - bodily autonomy and self-determination - that underlie this political position. But I'm not saying there couldn't be others! You could well say, "alright, but even separately from bodily autonomy and self-determination, women should be permitted to have abortions because X", and I might agree. But X obviously isn't going to be "because abortions are, in themselves, intrinsically good things that we shouldn't stop people from experiencing". It also isn't, obviously, "Women should be allowed to have abortions because they have vaginas."

The point is, it's extremely unlikely that whatever compelling rationale you might come up with to support abortion rights, it will apply solely to women and not to people generally. And of course, no one has advanced such a rationale.

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm really curious to know what slippery-slope you think we're going to go down, or what hypothetical scenario negates the idea that this is wrong because it imposes unnecessary social, personal, and economic harm on a certain section of the population.

That's a whole can of worms, but it's one that's been repeatedly explored including in this thread as to why identity politics leads people away from reason and evidence in favour of narrative, in the pursuit of protecting those at a perceived disadvantage and disparaging or attacking their alleged oppressors, often leading to grouping innocent people in with them. And in any event, as has been said in the past, there's no logical, reasoned argument that could be offered that would persuade someone who's skeptical of the value of logic and reason, nor any evidence that could be brought to bear to convince someone who doesn't believe in the value of evidence.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and everyone thinks they're doing the right thing intuitively.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's a whole can of worms, but it's one that's been repeatedly explored including in this thread as to why identity politics leads people away from reason and evidence in favour of narrative, in the pursuit of protecting those at a perceived disadvantage and disparaging or attacking their alleged oppressors, often leading to grouping innocent people in with them. And in any event, as has been said in the past, there's no logical, reasoned argument that could be offered that would persuade someone who's skeptical of the value of logic and reason, nor any evidence that could be brought to bear to convince someone who doesn't believe in the value of evidence.

Okay but that's an argument against the effectiveness of the identity politics, not the morality of the identity politics.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

a true Republican, those glasses don't even help.

He is at least admitting he was wrong.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Okay but that's an argument against the effectiveness of the identity politics, not the morality of the identity politics.

It's both, if you're a consequentialist at least. If your moral theory is something like, "we ought to act in such a way that will produce the most human happiness", or "we ought to act in such a way that will best serve the advancement of the species", and identity politics isn't effective (or is counterproductive, as I'd argue) at producing the result you're after, then it's immoral by those lights.

If you want to talk about what the right moral theory is, that's a whole other thread, but the vast majority of people are consequentialists of some sort (whether they've consciously thought about it or not).

[HotHotHeat]

Reality check: Rick Perry is coming out of these hearings as the most likeable, least corrupt member of DonBon's cabinet.

Rick "I can't remember the fourth one" Perry.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's both, if you're a consequentialist at least. If your moral theory is something like, "we ought to act in such a way that will produce the most human happiness", or "we ought to act in such a way that will best serve the advancement of the species", and identity politics isn't effective (or is counterproductive, as I'd argue) at producing the result you're after, then it's immoral by those lights.

Well I'd disagree with that. Nearly every single major civil rights accomplishment for women, minorities, etc., has been accomplished by them organizing as groups and demanding justice as a collective. I doubt women get the vote without the suffragettes, for instance.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Rathji

He is at least admitting he was wrong.

Why didn't he do that before today, or yesterday? ulterior motives?

edit- I guess it is very noble, compared to others who would just deceive or flat out lie about it, Trump, Kelly Anne, come to mind, but by normal standards, it isn't that noble. Ultimately, I think he is just looking for a job.

[DuffMan]

Trump sucks.

[CaramonLS]

In a lot of ways Identity Politics is the simpleton way of dealing with issues.

I think specifically with the issue of being anti-abortion, a lot of Identity Politics supporters are equating the fact that abortion = misogyny and if you are anti-abortion, that is what you are. You want to oppress women and that abortion is a women's only issue.

While this may be true on some level, it doesn't really address the entire issue of why people are anti-abortion. There are plenty of people who don't support abortion based on religious or personal convictions and the IP perspective also fails to address. If a women is anti-abortion, it isn't because of another issue, but rather it is internalized misogyny.

My point is that oftentimes people don't fit into the nice little box that many IPers want to place them in.

We saw some of this come out where being anti-immigration (or even wanting to be restrictive on immigration) is resulting in people being called racists or bigots.

IP tends to boil very complex issues down to simple ones.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Well I'd disagree with that. Nearly every single major civil rights accomplishment for women, minorities, etc., has been accomplished by them organizing as groups and demanding justice as a collective. I doubt women get the vote without the suffragettes, for instance.

We've had this argument before, but the only basis for those civil rights advances was that they were demanding rights that should be afforded to everyone regardless of their identity and that they shouldn't be treated differently - the argument being that there was nothing different or special about being a woman or a black person that should result in you having different rights from men or whites. Again, at its core, human rights... Do you really want to have this whole debate all over again?

[puffnstuff]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Reality check: Rick Perry is coming out of these hearings as the most likeable, least corrupt member of DonBon's cabinet.

Rick "I can't remember the fourth one" Perry.

You are giving him too much credit, he couldnt remember three agencies he wanted to close. 'Commerce, education and uh...whats the third one, I cant remember.'