American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Sure - they could. But the BBB that Manchin approves won't be the one that Rubecube wants.

I just dislike the idea that Democrats fully control everything that happens in government and the Republicans are some kind of robotic evil creature that is easily stopped if the Democrats just did something different.

Maybe but there could be elements of it that rubecube would be happy about. Child care, child credit, obamacare etc...

Except now there's nothing.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Yet another terrible post by Itse that I for some reason have to waste my time replying to as quickly as possible, despite the fact that even reading it is annoying to no end... I should really just stop trying here.

Originally Posted by Itse

For starters, you're trying very hard to apply rigid logic to morality, while it is EXTREMELY well established that people's actual morality is basically never consistent, and it's doubtful whether it's even possible to be consistently logical.

Source for this "extremely well established" position? It's entirely possible for people to be consistently logical. And even if it weren't, this wouldn't matter, because being inconsistent and illogical is still another way to describe "losing an argument". The fact that it's difficult to maintain logical consistency in practice over time isn't a reason to abandon the effort in any particular case where you're trying to figure out what to do. This is just moral skepticism.

In fact the whole idea that people should strive for logically consistent moral positions is itself a somewhat marginal moral position, and not how the most people see morality.

Source for the notion that this is a "marginal moral position"? I'm sure there's an anthropology professor somewhere who thinks that's the case, but in terms of what's "marginal" as opposed to "well accepted", you're just making stuff up. There's 2000 years of moral philosophy striving for consistency in their moral theories. There's a department at every university that's dedicated to this stuff. You have no standing to suggest they're wrong to do so. What exactly is the source of your expertise here?

Morality, as I'm sure you would agree, can really only come from two places: inside or outside, aka personal emotions or belief in an outside authority (such as the law or a religious text), and there is never any one fundamental belief that underlies any persons morality.

No, I wouldn't agree, because this is obviously wrong - it's the sort of thing that someone who has never done any reading or had any education in this area would say. "One fundamental belief" underlies plenty of moral theories - it's the whole debate about consequentialism, whether a particular "inherent good" is in fact reducible to, for example, pleasure, for hedonistic utilitarians. The search for an effective grand unifying theory of morality is one of the most common things people have spent their time thinking and writing about over the course of human history.

One of the most primal urges of humans is the need to in some way belong to some kind of a society. This is what drives that outside morality, but it also drives a lot of base emotions, such as the mostly extremely healthy idea that it's just better to let other people do what they think is right if it doesn't bother me.
Which is how you get the by far most common position on abortion in the world, which is "it's okay for them to kill their own babies if they want, as long as I don't have to kill my baby if I don't want to".

Source for this being the most common position on abortion? Has there been a survey conducted? Because I don't have any data either, but I would guess that the most common position on abortion among pro-choice people is that abortion isn't the killing of a baby, and the most common position among pro-life people is that it is, and it's not okay for anyone to do it. So I think you're completely wrong about this - and, again, are trying to make things up while simultaneously claiming they're "obvious" or "widely accepted" in an attempt to avoid having to provide any actual support for your claims. It's a really obnoxious way to engage in a discussion.

Babies getting killed in general is not really a big deal for most people most of the time, as long as no one rubs it in our face. Just like we are totally chill with genocide if it doesn't come too close to us.

No one is "chill with genocide". What are you even talking about? Find someone to volunteer that that's their actual moral view. I wish you the best of luck.

If this was actually about "unborn babies are people and we should protect them", then logically those same people would also be extremely concerned about the quite high infant mortality rate in that country. That's like (quick math) 10,000 extra dead babies every year the government is doing nothing about!

It's fairly obvious what the distinction is: agency. Presumably, the 10,000 dead babies are not dead because someone is intentionally ending their lives - the assumption is that those babies died in spite of attempts to prevent that death. This is really poor sophistry.

We also know that the vast, vast majority of the people who think they genuinely care about the topic would very quickly stop caring about it if the topic disappeared from national discussion.

I actually do think this is true. But that doesn't change the fact that it's an earnestly held moral position, and that if you DO bring it up and ask people, they're giving you their earnestly held moral position, even if they haven't considered whether or not it's logical.

The only reason why it's "a big moral question" in the US is because it's one of the few talking points the conservatives have where most liberals actually show respect to their garbage inhumane political grandstanding and treat is as a somewhat legitimate moral position, which it isn't.

Just saying "it isn't" doesn't change the fact that it absolutely is. Or more accurately, it's a foggy moral issue without a clear answer. Your answer appears to be "majority rules". Which is sad.

We also know that the same people who can throw rallies against abortion clinics can completely forget about the topic when they move abroad. We also know they can be totally okay with someone close to them actually having an abortion.

Hypocrites and moral grandstanders exist - news at 11.

In my eyes, you're defending people's right to a position they mostly don't even really have, at least not in the way you describe it.

And now we've moved to poisoning the well. This post is like intellectual dishonesty bingo.

I would also like to point out that in consequentalist morality, it's immoral for you to treat that position with respect, because treating it with respect and letting it fester is clearly shown to lead to laws which have some pretty obviously evil real world consequences.

Another unsurprisingly sophomoric take. "Letting it fester" presumes it's wrong ab initio. Literally every contentious moral debate leads to different laws in different places with outcomes that you can attribute to the law and call "evil" if you happen to oppose the law. This is just a waste of time.

Just in general, defending people's right to have bad ideas is not good. It gives the ideas of those people legitimacy and power they would not have on their own.

Again, presupposing that the ideas you don't like are "bad ideas" and that you should be the one to decide. Again, what exactly is the source of your expertise here? What do you even do?

Classical liberalism is just a very fundamentally flawed idea.

Closing with a bang as usual. I'm going to go ahead and give your post / first year philosophy paper a C-. Unoriginal, unsupported, superficial ideas. Please do not try again, at least not in that tone - you seem very sure about everything for someone who doesn't appear to have even engaged with the contents of the most basic syllabus.

[nik-]

Imagine complaining about wasting your time and then proceeding to type out hundreds of words in a multi quote response when, in the end, nothing discussed here changes anything.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

No one has to imagine it, they just witnessed it. At least I managed to do it in under ten minutes.

[nik-]

We witnessed the post, we have to imagine the mindset.

[CliffFletcher]

Most peoples’ opinions on abortion are actually pretty nuanced. Only 8 per cent of Americans believe abortion should never be permitted, and only 20 per cent believe a woman should be able to have an abortion for any reason at any stage of pregnancy. For the great majority of people the morality and the legality around abortion is contingent on gestation and the reason for having the abortion.

Not that you would know it from the discourse (if we can even call it that) around the issue.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by nik-

We witnessed the post, we have to imagine the mindset.

"Annoyed as #### yet feeling compelled not to simply let some nonsense post on the internet go" is hard to imagine? I have to assume it's a common phenomenon given how widespread that XKCD comic is.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

"Annoyed as #### yet feeling compelled not to simply let some nonsense post on the internet go" is hard to imagine? I have to assume it's a common phenomenon given how widespread that XKCD comic is.

The comic wasn't intended as an instruction manual.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

If Roberts is somehow able to get Kavanaugh back on his side to support only incremental change to Roe, I think that the US Supreme Court might survive as a reputable institution.

Absent that, I do not see any good reason why the Dems shouldn't stack the obviously political court and forget about any nostalgic goals of non-partisanship or judicial impartiality.

The text messages between Meadows and Ginni Thomas were also incredibly damning.

I really hope that because of this issue the Democrats can be galvanized into actually fighting back instead of meekly accepting Mitch et al's naked power grabs.

I don't understand how Robert's compromise is an option. If I understand i correctly he's proposing that Roe can stand but the cutoff period can be reduced to 15 weeks or whatever Alabama is looking for. What is the legal justification for that? The cutoff date is already somewhat arbitrary but at least tied to some notion of viability being equated to human life. I'd be interested in seeing his reasoning, and what prevents the cut-off from continuously being changed.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The comic wasn't intended as an instruction manual.

I actually think it was, my mistake was taking it literally.

Still, that's a pretty good cue to take a hiatus.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I don't understand how Robert's compromise is an option. If I understand i correctly he's proposing that Roe can stand but the cutoff period can be reduced to 15 weeks or whatever Alabama is looking for. What is the legal justification for that? The cutoff date is already somewhat arbitrary but at least tied to some notion of viability being equated to human life. I'd be interested in seeing his reasoning, and what prevents the cut-off from continuously being changed.

Yeah, because we haven't seen the alternative majority opinion that he wrote, tough to say. All I know is that he is strongly in favour of incremental steps only when changing precedent. I also know that he is currently very worried about the public perception of the court as just another political body, and his legacy as Chief Justice over this disastrous period for the rule of law in the US.

Then there's also the fact that the majority opinion that was leaked is decided on the stupidest possible grounds. Couldn't find abortion mentioned in the constitution? In all 2,600 words written in the 18th century?

[Coach]

If this ends up getting stopped, who ever leaked it is a hero of The United States of America.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Coach

If this ends up getting stopped, who ever leaked it is a hero of The United States of America.

True - although then we'll have to deal with more 'this will never happen' posts from people on the right calling the lefties chicken little.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

True - although then we'll have to deal with more 'this will never happen' posts from people on the right calling the lefties chicken little.

Well, if it can't happen with a majority GOP shill court, then they might be right that time.

BTW, is there any method to remove justices who perjure themselves in their confirmation hearings? Seems like something that should exist.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Coach

Well, if it can't happen with a majority GOP shill court, then they might be right that time.

BTW, is there any method to remove justices who perjure themselves in their confirmation hearings? Seems like something that should exist.

They can be impeached:


https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/16/polit...ach/index.html

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Source for the notion that this is a "marginal moral position"? I'm sure there's an anthropology professor somewhere who thinks that's the case, but in terms of what's "marginal" as opposed to "well accepted", you're just making stuff up. There's 2000 years of moral philosophy striving for consistency in their moral theories.

I've said this before, but you should really read more what they actually teach in philosophy instead of boasting about how much you know about it. Because clearly you know.

But let's start with the very basics of your argument. Philosophy departments aren't typically very big. Within those departments, not all philosophy is about moral philosophy. Within that subcategory, a lot of is not about finding logical consistency. And most people don't think studying philosophy is worth their time. This is a pretty silly argument.

And yeah I don't quote my sources because 1. you don't (while very often making wild claims that I mostly just don't bother with) 2. this mostly isn't that type of forum and 3. it absolutely does not matter specifically with you, because you're just completely incapable of self-reflection, you're all about winning debates and I have no time for people like that.

I'm writing for the audience, not you.

I do however want to point out that before Trump was elected, you also spent a TON of energy defending Trumps positions and trumpists, and arguing against the claims that he has obvious fascistic tendencies before he was elected, and the idea that the Republicans have fascistic tendencies and they're trending towards political extremism and have deeply anti-democratic tendencies... Really just a ton of stuff which you were just very obviously wrong about in retrospect. Of course you weren't alone, and you were quite young then so it's excusable. But I don't find it very excusable that you don't bother to learn from your mistakes. Here you still are, doing the exact same thing.

This is why I don't even bother with you specifically anymore. I just sometimes really want to point out that you're still doing it.

Literally every contentious moral debate leads to different laws in different places with outcomes that you can attribute to the law and call "evil" if you happen to oppose the law. This is just a waste of time.

Oh please. You're completely running away from the actual argument.

You're very actively defending these specific harmful ideas and have done so pretty consistently for years on this forum. You were already very actively defending those same points in the Trump/Clinton election discussion. You are still quite consistently taking the same side in the debate about abortion laws, defending the logic of the anti-abortionists and attacking the logic of the pro-life people (although less that).

You yourself say that moral debates ultimately dictate abortion laws. If you believe what you yourself are saying, then your decision to actively and publicly defend anti-abortionist thinking has very clear moral consequences.

If you don't believe that anti-abortionist laws are bad, then just say so, don't hide behind hypotheticals and relativism 101. If you do think they're bad, there is no escaping the fact that what you're doing is wrong. You can't defend an idea theoretically. Either you're defending it or you're not.

Consequences of your actions aren't dictated by what you think about your own actions. It's what those actions are.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by dino7c

You are still fighting this fight that the democrats are no better...seriously what more needs to happen. Wake up dude.

Please point to one instance of me saying this.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Itse

I've said this before, but you should really read more what they actually teach in philosophy instead of boasting about how much you know about it. Because clearly you know.

I do still read a bunch, but not as much as I did before I got my degree in philosophy (granted, a minor).

And yeah I don't quote my sources because 1. you don't (while very often making wild claims that I mostly just don't bother with) 2. this mostly isn't that type of forum and 3. it absolutely does not matter specifically with you, because you're just completely incapable of self-reflection, you're all about winning debates and I have no time for people like that.

Apparently you have lots of time because you consistently address me personally in these things, in this case well after the conversation was OVER, with a massive brick of text. So, screw off.

I do however want to point out that before Trump was elected, you also spent a TON of energy defending Trumps positions and trumpists, and arguing against the claims that he has obvious fascistic tendencies before he was elected, and the idea that the Republicans have fascistic tendencies and they're trending towards political extremism and have deeply anti-democratic tendencies... Really just a ton of stuff which you were just very obviously wrong about in retrospect. Of course you weren't alone, and you were quite young then so it's excusable. But I don't find it very excusable that you don't bother to learn from your mistakes. Here you still are, doing the exact same thing.

First of all, "quite young"? How old do you think I am?

Second, you're either mistaking me for someone else or you're simply a liar attempting to smear me by attributing Trump-defending to me, which is mendacious crap that demonstrates that you shouldn't be discussing morality at all, because only a complete piece of garbage would lie about someone's positions like that to try to win an internet debate. I consistently, from the very moment Trump started running, decried him as the absolute worst sort of person and rejected his candidacy, his political positions (to the extent they even WERE political positions) and everything he stood for. For you to try to tie me to him in this manner... you're the worst sort of human, and you're going on ignore.

I won't bother with your attempt to lie about my views - again - in trying to suggest that I'm somehow an undercover pro-life person, when I've made it very clear that I'm pro choice and am really only opposed to anyone approaching this issue with moral certitudinousness.

This is why I don't even bother with you specifically anymore. I just sometimes really want to point out that you're still doing it.

Again, the discussion was over, you even said you came to it late, and you posted a novel.

You're a joke. Goodbye, and good riddance.

[Fuzz]

^
Itse also thinks Empire Strikes Back isn't the best Star Wars movie.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

^
Itse also thinks Empire Strikes Back isn't the best Star Wars movie.

Does he actually or did you make that up? Because if you're going to attribute a view to him he doesn't hold, it should probably be something consequential like anti-semitism or transphobia, since that's effectively what he just tried to do with me.

God, people are terrible on the internet.