Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - NobleHunter

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35
General Comments / Re: GOP nutbag of the week
« on: Today at 01:31:51 PM »
no one that voted for him then changed their minds, in any number.

You know that this is not a statement mathematicians can make, right?

General Comments / Re: GOP nutbag of the week
« on: August 06, 2022, 01:26:04 PM »
Inflation, al-Qaeda, and immigration are hardly existential threats to the republic, even if one accepts that Biden is the cause of inflation and the loss in Afghanistan, and that his immigration policy are "open borders."

Trump's the reason you lot are staring down the barrel of a constitutional crisis over conflicting slates of electors with a Supreme Court who's legitimacy is already questionable. One of the outcomes of this crisis is that the President is no longer elected but instead appointed by the states. That seems a lot worse to me than almost any failed foreign, economic, or immigration policy.

General Comments / Re: Alex Jones, scumbag
« on: August 04, 2022, 01:16:51 PM »
yeah I think the lawyer is going to be in trouble. Maybe he realizes that his client will not have any money to pay, since he has already been found guilty and this is just the penalty phase. I wonder how much of a retainer he got.

I assume Jones can sue the lawyer for malpractice?  He might get disbarred.  Can you appeal a awarded amount based on malpractice?

Jones can sue his lawyer but I don't think an appeal is possible. The malpractice is even worse because the lawyer had 10 days to remedy the mistake which they failed to do. Since they didn't tell the other side to send the erroneously provided information back it's open season on it. The Jan 6th committee has already expressed an interest in Jones' communications.

General Comments / Re: Climate alarmists are wrong.
« on: August 03, 2022, 11:26:30 AM »
Didn't the Romans grow wine in England? I seem to recall they did but I don't care enough to look it up. Of course, no way to tell if it was "high-quality wine."

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« on: August 03, 2022, 11:23:53 AM »
While the decision was decisive, I wonder if the balance of people confused by the question affected one side more than the other. It seemed to be deliberately arcane and I'm not sure we can take it as given that both sides were equally confused by it.

General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: July 22, 2022, 11:10:57 AM »
Given you ignore that Trump is a serial adulterer, I don't see why Tom couldn't ignore Biden's plagiarism (not that I think he is).

General Comments / Re: Musk and Twitter
« on: July 19, 2022, 04:39:01 PM »
It is strongly tempting to dismiss Musk's arguments because he's an idiot (for certain values of idiot). I mean, if you assume his mDAU complaint is being made in bad faith, why waste more mental energy?

Though I'm not purporting to offer serious legal analysis, so maybe you have a point.

General Comments / Re: Musk and Twitter
« on: July 14, 2022, 04:12:12 PM »
Social media platforms seem to converge on a fairly similar set of moderation policies. There are just rules you need to have if you want millions of people to use your service and also sell ad space. From Musk's earlier musing, he seemed to be in the process of discovering why everyone tends to adopt the same rules. If he does get forced to buy and then gets involved as he wanted to originally, I suspect he would make a bunch of changes that go horribly wrong before having to reverse course and put implement something fairly close to the current set of rules.

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« on: July 11, 2022, 08:11:35 AM »
No one cares about your ego-saving whining. Face it. Trump worked for four years without pay. He put his business on hold and his fortune decreased in order to focus on the country. In spite of everything he did, the Never-Trumpers still refer to the straw-man they created, and not the real Trump. There is nothing sad-making about defending a good man. It is sad-making for those who should know better to refuse to open their eyes.

I'm not sure I would you call someone who has cheated on every wife he's had a good man.

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« on: July 07, 2022, 02:22:51 PM »
That the "random Trump enemies" were both former directors of the FBI does lower the odds of simple coincidence. Though we shouldn't move any further than viewing with suspicion until there's actual evidence of wrongdoing.

General Comments / Re: God Exists
« on: July 05, 2022, 05:15:42 PM »
We see things which have essences which are distinct from their existences all around us.

Can you provide an example? And particularly how such things cease to exist?

ETA: Also, once you become wedded to the idea that humans are uniquely special, it is a very small step to decide that some humans are more special than others.

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« on: June 30, 2022, 09:42:55 PM »
I would not put anything past this Supreme Court.

And at the moment, medical professionals seem to be assuming that the law beats medical ethics or they wouldn't be waiting for ectopic pregnancies to go critical before treating the mother.

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« on: June 30, 2022, 08:33:04 PM »
Maybe some of these fool legislators think they can ban cancer treatment for pregnant women, but I doubt anything so ridiculous would hold water when challenged in court

Except cancer treatment isn't a right deeply rooted in American history and tradition.

General Comments / Re: God Exists
« on: June 27, 2022, 12:33:12 PM »
I keep checking this thread in hopes that I will determine which of the following is true:
  • I have completely missed something
  • I have not missed it but I failed to understand it, whether from insufficient attention or its complex or abstract
  • We're in "imagine a perfectly spherical, frictionless mass" territory and at least one person doesn't realize it

General Comments / Re: SOP
« on: June 25, 2022, 08:25:24 PM »
The armed rebellion fantasy isn't well addressed by the gun grabbers though. It's like there's not even any attempt at persuasion. It's just called crazy talk. "You could never win." The Taliban just did. "It could never happen." Democrats just told us what a crazy megalomaniac Trump was and how he tried to illegally and violently hold onto power. "Trust your government." Democrats don't even make that argument. They can't even use math because the numbers are far more weighted against mass murder by governments being much more dangerous, millions dead instead of tens of thousands. Foreign countries can't even be pointed at because for every Iceland there is a Mexico. All we hear is Nike, "Just do it."

Most of the people who belonged to the Taliban in 2001 are quite dead. Today's Taliban are new people using an old name. I'm not sure I'd be calling that a win.

General Comments / Re: SOP
« on: June 24, 2022, 09:19:22 PM »
The other part of that mentality is that having a highly armed citizenry makes a Hitlerian or Stalinist type pogrom very unlikely. You have it because you might need it. But there is only a very miniscule chance you'll ever need it precisely because you have it. And so if you don't have it, your odds of needing it just went way, way up and then of course you're not going to have it when you do need it. That's the mindset you're dealing with. The tens of thousands dying of gun violence every year may be saving tens or hundreds of millions down the road because there is no violence more deadly than that which comes from a government.

This argument would be a lot more effective if so many of the 2nd amendment fetishists weren't also chomping at the bit to line the enemies of the Republic up against the wall.

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« on: June 24, 2022, 11:11:25 AM »
If the GOP tries to turn around and launch a committee at democrats, it would be hilarious except for the enormous waste of time and money involved. They'll bring charge after charge with great sound and fury only to quietly slink away when they can't actually prove anything or when they've actually provided proof of innocence.

I mean, they tried how many times to hang Benghazi on Clinton using Benghazi? It was a farce. If she hadn't run her own private server they'd have had nothing to show for it.

General Comments / Re: Cryptocurrencies
« on: June 14, 2022, 03:14:43 PM »
I got convinced by some very optimistic PR, especially about plastic but solving the engineering problems has proven difficult.

I've lost so much value, I might as well take the long shot.

General Comments / Re: Cryptocurrencies
« on: June 14, 2022, 02:27:01 PM »
Cielo Waste Solutions CMC.V

They had, at least, good press about their tech last year but I missed the retail trading peak and have been holding an increasingly empty bag.

General Comments / Re: Cryptocurrencies
« on: June 14, 2022, 12:04:58 PM »
I have an investment in an company that is developing a technology that would basically let them print money. At the point, it's a gamble that the tech will pay off before the firm runs out of money. Fortunately for my state of mind, I've already lost enough money as everyone cashed out looknig for safer or at least more efficient speculation. Equally fortunate, I count it as money already spent.

It went down by 30 points yesterday on a bad press release. Another opportunity to learn that *censored*ing around on the stock around leads to finding out.

General Comments / Re: Cryptocurrencies
« on: June 14, 2022, 11:14:17 AM »
NFTs also allows for new packaging on old scams long since outlawed in established markets and speculative ventures.

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« on: June 13, 2022, 01:41:51 PM »
What I want to know is how so many Never-Trumpers infiltrated the very highest levels of the administration.

General Comments / Re: Cryptocurrencies
« on: June 13, 2022, 12:20:45 PM »
If I understand things right, government fiat currency is backed by production and utility. You don't get inflation until there's more money circulating than either things to buy with it or that you'll need to pay in taxes or other ways to derive benefit from having the money. Which strikes me as an interesting contradiction of fiat currency vs gold/silver-based: there's way more physical value backing fiat currency (essentially the GDP of the issuer?) than currency backed by gold (just the value of the gold reserves) but the amount of physical value behind any given currency unit is so much smaller for fiat currencies.

General Comments / Re: Inflation, Gas Prices, and what have you.
« on: June 13, 2022, 11:49:24 AM »
Didn't Trump convince the Saudis to cut production? Presumably to keep the US's production profitable.

General Comments / Re: machine learning and creativity
« on: June 13, 2022, 10:48:21 AM »
I'm not sure what it means that I know the episode is "The Measure of a Man" but haven't seen it recently enough to comment on the methodology. I think animals support my point since they aren't using simple text to communicate and that makes it much easier to judge sentience.

One of the elements making me think of this is Mary-Robinette Kowal teaching her cat to use talk buttons. A lot of what the cat "says" is pretty straightforward requests for treat or toys or human assistance that cats and dogs can do without speech. But the cat has also used a button it knew to mean "open the door to the stairs" to ask MRK to open the door to the bedroom. The cat has also innovated the term laser feather to apparently refer to the light reflected onto the ceiling from a phone or other shiny object. The cat also uses the word "dog" as an insult but that might the cat thinking the word means "bad."

General Comments / Re: Inflation, Gas Prices, and what have you.
« on: June 13, 2022, 09:56:12 AM »
That's some serious "look at what you made me do" energy.

General Comments / Re: machine learning and creativity
« on: June 13, 2022, 09:51:28 AM »
I'm sure there's a lot of chatter about how to measure sentience but I doubt you can do it with a call and response chat program. There's just not enough inputs and outputs to show anything but clever programming.

General Comments / Re: Inflation, Gas Prices, and what have you.
« on: June 13, 2022, 08:53:17 AM »
Yeah I agree with you about the very wealthy and apologize for not putting in the asterisk referring to the fine print that stipulated this evening of wealth inequality doesn't apply so much to the very wealthy as it does to the mid-range wealthy, the hard working normal Americans who have a few hundred thousand to a little over a million saved up for their retirements. The billionaires aren't going to notice this inflation at all. It's not even going to be a rounding error as far as having any impact on their lifestyle or quality of life. But for the millionaire next door, or the retired teacher or cop or engineer who can live comfortably but not extravagantly, who can afford a vacation or two every year and a nice house and have enough left over to put their grandkids through college and eat out a few times a week, it's likely they are going to have to make some cutbacks. I'm not celebrating it at all. This looks like it's going to be painful. Entirely predictable based on our government's policies, and it's going to hurt those mid range comfortable people quite a bit as they see the value of the dollars they worked so hard for, scrimped and saved to hold onto, fall in purchasing power with very high inflation.

Which government policies are driving inflation?

General Comments / Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« on: June 07, 2022, 01:29:02 PM »
The point of the bomb question is to point out that some of the "arms" required to defeat a tyrannical government are subject to regulation. Once some regulations are established it becomes difficult to refuse any regulation which seems to be the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Also, it proves the idea that 2nd amendment prohibits all regulation is absurd. It should be untenable to suggest that any yahoo should be able to buy enough explosives to level a building. Which would be why there are rules for the purchasing and sale of explosives.

General Comments / Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« on: June 06, 2022, 10:12:14 PM »
We all agree that's an irrelevant digression, right?

Well, no.

What kind of bombs? What delivery method? What yield? You could be talking about anything from a firecracker to a nuclear bomb. Rocket system? Dropped off a plane? Mobile launch truck?

You're the one saying civilians should be able to own them. Why don't you propose a suitable level of regulation.

General Comments / Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« on: June 06, 2022, 05:20:56 PM »
Should bombs be more regulated or less regulated than guns?

General Comments / Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« on: June 06, 2022, 01:05:36 PM »
Apparently, cops also do very little to reactively deal with crime. Despite what  you see on copaganda shows, they're pretty awful at actually solving crimes.

Recent history shows the best weapons to use against a modern military are IEDs, MANPADS, and anti-tank missiles. Should civilians be able to own these?

General Comments / Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« on: June 01, 2022, 02:40:01 PM »
Why would a politician grandstand without regards to the facts? Uh. Do you seriously need that question answered?

General Comments / Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« on: June 01, 2022, 02:10:58 PM »
Is there enough evidence to prove any given person in particular was doing the shooting beyond a reasonable doubt? The video is apparently not clear enough to establish the persons identity. What's good enough for the public or politicians isn't necessarily good enough for the courts.

General Comments / Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« on: June 01, 2022, 12:50:28 PM »
I don't think that's Chicago's fault, though. Except insofar that they can't make a case to get past a motivated judge.

General Comments / Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« on: June 01, 2022, 11:51:59 AM »
The article isn't clear if it's an active choice not to prosecute or if Chicago police/prosecutors have problems with getting the charges through court.  If most of the charges stemmed from unconstitutional searches, is it a bad thing if they're dismissed?

General Comments / Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« on: May 29, 2022, 05:22:34 PM »
No, you'll note they aren't run by the State of Michigan.

While there are groups that call themselves a militia, they're just aping the form (or more charitably applying a different definition) in order to sound legitimate.

General Comments / Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« on: May 29, 2022, 05:05:24 PM »
Yes and no. I think the state militias got folded into the National Guard and so aren't as independent at they used to be. I don't know if the states can still martial a completely separate body of troops, though they would be ill-prepared to do so.

General Comments / Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« on: May 29, 2022, 04:55:07 PM »
It also depends on how one defines militia. For instance if a group of concerned citizens (i.e. a militia) takes up arms to fight off a landed invasion in their state from overseas, I guess in a manner of speaking you don't want to make it illegal to do that. Practically speaking you can't make it illegal because in the very circumstance where such a defense is needed I imagine it already means the military is at its limit in terms of how much it's doing already. But if by militia one means "private military force" in the sense of taking positive action against enemies of the U.S., then I'm pretty sure it would be pretty easy to ban a militia group from, for example, going to war with a foreign country on their soil 'in defense of America'. It has become commonly accepted political doctrine at this point that 'defense of America' absolutely includes invading foreign countries, but a militia would certainly not enjoy the privilege of being able to defend America in this fashion on their own accord.

The Constitution is pretty clear what kind of militias it's talking about. It would be egregious even by the current court's standards to read it to mean a group operating independently of a state.

General Comments / Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« on: May 29, 2022, 10:30:12 AM »
The federal government can't abolish the militias. Though they may be able to screw around with standards enough to make them untenable. I'm sure someone with more interest in constitutional minutia could clear it up. They were probably aware that militias could become irrelevant but I think there was disagreement on how much effort should be expended on trying to prevent it.

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« on: May 26, 2022, 11:48:33 AM »
I deliberately left out that exception because it does have more merit, but I will posit that there is still an inherent distinction. We don't let people kill their two year old and harvest their liver to save their life.

We also don't forcibly take people's kidneys to save two-year-olds either.

General Comments / Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« on: May 26, 2022, 11:25:06 AM »
The AR happens to be one of the most popular semi-auto rifles, but "banning ARs" wouldn't do anything. Banning semi-automatic rifles would first need a clear definition of what semi-automatic means, and I've never seen anyone knowledgeable actually attempt to do this.

I'm curious about how semi-automatic can be unclear. I mean, the old "assault weapon" definition seemed to be more concerned with appearance than lethality and one could argue about what exactly counts as an "assault rifle" but semi-automatic is pretty straightforward.

General Comments / Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« on: May 26, 2022, 10:15:25 AM »
Though making certain types of guns less available may not have helped in this case since the cops let the shooter barricade himself in a room with his victims and then sat on their hands for most of an hour.

So much for the "good guy with a gun" solution.

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« on: May 25, 2022, 08:30:21 PM »
Abortion can be linked to other topics because humans like to have consistent beliefs and once you go ride-or-die against abortion it's hard to be consistent without reducing women to baby-makers. Especially since vanishingly few people reason their way to being pro-life without regards to other beliefs and assumptions. In a lot of cases, the starting point is that women's primary purpose is to make babies and then justification is sought for why abortion is wrong. It's not an accident that most people end up agreeing with the dominant beliefs of their surroundings.

The problem with your philosophizing is that the other side is actually regressive. Sure, not all pro-life people or Republicans are working for a theocratic white ethnostate but they're perfectly happy to caucus with those who are. I mean, if you believe that the Republican Justices are done eviscerating civil rights then I absolutely have a bridge to sell you.

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« on: May 25, 2022, 04:40:42 PM »
The current pro-life position *is* a product of modern politics. Continuity is more than just using the same arguments and logic. Otherwise you could argue there is significant continuity between the US government and the First Nations since they non-monarchies on the North American continent. Just because the current movement is recycling old arguments doesn't mean there's any connection between the two groups. And I should go look up the primary sources as I expect they sound more like "please save my baby from the pater familias" than "life begins at conception." I also expect finding accurate translations to be difficult.

Gender roles vs "no gender roles" (as WS put it)? No, the concept of 'no gender roles' aka everyone does the same things is an innovation essentially borne of tech and industrial innovation. That was never part of the issue about abortion.

How to tell me you're unfamiliar with pro-choice thought without telling me you're unfamiliar with pro-choice thought.

Catholics are a bit player in the American pro-life movement. They might make noises about excommunication or try to embarrass pro-life Catholics but they aren't getting people elected.

The fact that participation in the public sphere seems to find itself at home with the pro-choice side is a powerful factor, and one the pro-life side does not seem to take seriously.

And why don't they take it seriously? Because keeping women at home is part of their objective. Given the groups involved in the pro-life movement, if abortion (and birth control) didn't make it easier for women to be independent, they wouldn't care at all. As evidenced by the historical lack of concern over the issue until Roe vs Wade and the development of medically safe abortions.

Also keep in mind that the pro-life movement's position (as shown by the laws being put in place) are no abortions, ever. Which makes even the strictest rabbi pro-choice.

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« on: May 25, 2022, 03:13:06 PM »
So you don't know what people thought but you were still positing that there were consistent and continuous beliefs on the subject for two thousand years. Perhaps you should limit yourself to claims where you are better informed.

The question on Judaism was aimed at the phrase "Judeo-Christian" which can easily be replace with "Christian but needs to sound more inclusive." Christian and Jewish thought/philosophy/theology diverged about two thousand years ago and can't really be meaningfully grouped together (also worth noting is that protecting the life of the mother is now a decidedly pro-choice position. I expect there will be a first amendment challenge on those grounds).

The role of women in the church is, in fact, discussed in the Bible, so it doesn't get any older.

The evangelical position on abortion prior to Roe vs Wade that it was mostly something the basically pagan Catholics worried about. Which speaks to the point of continuity, saying that Christian beliefs on the subject date back to the early church erases Christians (even by the narrowest definition) have held different beliefs on the subject over time and space. This isn't an ironclad and foundational tenet of the faith that the "pro-life" side would have you believe. Any more than transubstantiation is. Discontinuity is the null position because continuity requires effort and deliberate action. 

Further to continuity, there basically isn't any between the early Christians and the current pro-life movement. Contrary to the mythology, the pro-life movement did not organically arise in horror due to Roe vs Wade but from the need to find a new coalition after the defeat of segregation. If it had been organic, it would have been Catholic-centered as they have a much stronger history of anti-abortion activism. So you can't use the early church to argue for the purity of the current movement. Sure, it's possible to be anti-abortion without intending to oppress women but that's not the mainstream position of the pro-life movement. As demonstrated by WS's link.

Nor does early Christian concern about abortions necessarily map to an idea of "life begins at conception/implantation or even quickening." Pre-modern methods of abortion are basically drink poison or induce physical trauma and hope you miscarry before you die. It may also be difficult to parse out their position on abortion from their opposition to infanticide. Historical persons rarely cooperate in making their precise beliefs plain. Not to mention pro-choice advocates would be as horrified at forced abortions as forced births.

Lastly, pro-choice is 100% a question of gender roles in society. There is no pretense that it's about protecting women's autonomy over their own bodies and therefore their ability to participate in the public sphere. The two are inextricably linked. Which would be another reason why anti-abortion beliefs correlate with beliefs about "traditional" gender roles.

General Comments / Re: God Exists
« on: May 25, 2022, 10:23:35 AM »

It feels particularly on point given yesterday.

(NB I'm presenting this with as much seriousness as the artistic style warrants)

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« on: May 24, 2022, 01:42:24 PM »
If by gender issues you mean the underlying realities (whatever they are) then obviously these go back to the Neanderthals and before. But I meant the public conceptualization of the alphabet soup gender spectrum, which absolutely did not exist in the 60's. And I'm being generous putting the timeframe in that era because realistically the conceptualization of abortion and its morally relevant features goes back way before the 1960's, and in fact was a serious issue of contention going back millennia. So yes, the idea that people's abortion beliefs are some sort of symptom of their beliefs about gender is patently preposterous. Many of the Christian beliefs about abortion go back right to the time of Christ, although obviously the medical detailing has improved. Life at conception vs life a few weeks later is an issue that was not as firm back then as it is now, for fairly obvious reasons, but the general principle of a fetus being a fully fledged human pre-birth is very, very old in Judeo-Christian thought. So yeah, CRT has zero conception of actual history.

You underestimate people's ability to adopt beliefs based on personal convenience. If the patriarchy still existed, there would absolutely be consensus that life begins in very late pregnancy at the earliest and possibly not until birth (which some people still believe). That pregnancy would interfere with men's ability to participate in the public sphere would be an acceptable justification for abortion because otherwise it would undermine the entire argument that the public sphere is the domain of men and women are properly constrained to the private sphere (which they may stronger influence but still don't dominate).

I know this wasn't directed at me, but...the times when the so-called patriarchy was at its strongest was the time most vehemently of the position that abortion was unacceptable. It's only been since the contraceptive revolution, women in the workforce, free love, and other such social/technological developments that there is strong pressure to consider a fetus a non-person. So if anything it was the anti-patriarchy movement taking the position you're indicating above. Note that the original anti-abortion position was taken by the early Christians, for instance, as a repudiation of various common practices which included abortion, exposing unwanted infants, and use of contraceptive potions. It was not a position taken from a position of power but rather one challenging the power elite in the attempt to defend the defenseless, among other theological motives. But the common thread of these motives was the maximum fostering and encouragement of life. Note that these positions can't really be divorced by other ways in which the early Christians differed from their pagan counterparts, for instance in not wanting to watch gladiators be eaten by lions. So back then the 'pro-life' position really meant that. Obviously once a minority position becomes the majority position in an eventual empire it's easy to think that these beliefs are designed to perpetuate some kind of oppressive anti-woman power structure, but again that's CRT-type thinking going all wrong. The actual beliefs predate all that, and the current moral positions on the topic are largely traceable back to those, obviously with more medical details being added. The fact that it's possible to take an old moral position and be a jerk is nothing new. Obviously some pro-life people are jerks and hypocrites, just as people in any camp can be. But the current pro-life position is not some brew concocted to bring back the good old days; it's a very old position.

Fail. Who's books were the Nazis burning again?  What is the Jewish stance on abortion? Where did WS mention trans issues or "alphabet soup gender spectrum"? How long has Christianity been arguing about the role of women in church leadership? What was the evangelical position on abortion prior to Roe vs Wade? Why do you think you can blithely argue for continuity over two thousand years of religious, scientific and philosophical developments? Why did you miss the fact that I was talking about men being pregnant and thus discussing an obvious counterfactual? Why do you keep mentioning CRT which has SFA to do with gender?

General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: May 24, 2022, 12:11:33 PM »
Speaking of less pain, we just had a major power outage in Ontario and Quebec when winds hammered our power lines. If everyone had had an electric car in their driveways with the ability to act as a battery as Ford's new truck can, then there would have been a lot less disruption and waste. Granted, it wouldn't help for a longer power outage but gas would start to be an issue in that case, too.

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« on: May 24, 2022, 11:50:11 AM »

Sounds to me like a typical position borne of the CRT training program: break down any disagreement into an innate power struggle and define the problem as merely being a disparity in power. So no, I don't think the way people think about gender has the slightest bit of relevance for almost anyone on either side of the abortion debate. It certainly has zero relevance to pro-lifers, and for pro-choicers, while many are obviously in the gender studies camp, their rationale are not based on their definition of gender. The gender issue came far after the abortion issue was already formed into its current divide. Once again this is CRT having no knowledge of history.

CRT has no knowledge of history? Yet you claim gender issues post-date abortion? I must be misreading you.

So back to the connection between abortion and gender. Supposedly, if men were the ones to become pregnant, the argument is that the same people who believe that life begins at conception and becomes more and more deserving of human rights as a sentient being the older he or she gets, they wouldn't believe any of that if men became pregnant instead of women. That argument doesn't hold up well to scrutiny.

You underestimate people's ability to adopt beliefs based on personal convenience. If the patriarchy still existed, there would absolutely be consensus that life begins in very late pregnancy at the earliest and possibly not until birth (which some people still believe). That pregnancy would interfere with men's ability to participate in the public sphere would be an acceptable justification for abortion because otherwise it would undermine the entire argument that the public sphere is the domain of men and women are properly constrained to the private sphere (which they may stronger influence but still don't dominate).

While it's nice to believe that people come to their convictions through reason or personal experience, they're more likely to adopt (or have imposed) convictions and then tailor their recollections and logic to fit. That beliefs about gender roles correlate to beliefs about abortion seems almost tautological. While the "pro-life" (you'll note the Right's famously pro-life judges just said the state can murder someone because correcting mistakes at trial or appeal would be too inconvenient) side insists it's just about human life, prioritizing the embryo or fetus--or even just the idea of the pregnancy--over the woman is going to lead to regressive views on gender.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35