"I'd answer that the issue is so bound up with the off-limits of religion and with astounding hypocrisies that honest discussion between people on opposite poles of the debate is not only futile but infeasible."
😁 No, I agree with you. I think conversation with people at the poles of any issue is broadly futile. My belief is just that th…
"I'd answer that the issue is so bound up with the off-limits of religion and with astounding hypocrisies that honest discussion between people on opposite poles of the debate is not only futile but infeasible."
😁 No, I agree with you. I think conversation with people at the poles of any issue is broadly futile. My belief is just that the majority of people don't sit at the poles. Extremes are extremes precisely because they're rare.
As we've discussed before, around 80% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in some or all cases. None of these peoples are extremists. And I think they'd accept a solution that didn't 100% conform to their personal feelings, as long as it wasn't too far.
The people who won't accept *any* compromise (as in those who argue women should be able to abort until the moment of birth or that taking the morning after pill is murder) probably aren't worth talking to. But they also represent a tiny slice of public sentiment
As with the Israeli peace movement, the reasonable people don't run the show. In any of our modern issues—guns, abortion, 2020 election, environment—it's not the moderates who are the problem.
You could count me as almost in the up-to-the-onset-of-labor crowd, being perfectly comfortable with the simplicity of human rights acquired at birth, but I would much MUCH rather there was never an unplanned pregnancy, that contraception was freely and anonymously available, but the same people opposed to abortion are every bit as strident in opposing contraception.
"As with the Israeli peace movement, the reasonable people don't run the show."
I don't know enough about the Israeli peace movement to comment, but I'm confident there's no useful comparison to be made between that struggle and the abortion rights debate except that, sure, there are unreasonable people everywhere.
But again, there's a depth in the anti-abortion position that you keep trying to flatten. Some people who oppose abortion also oppose contraception. Absolutely. These people are very likely to be religious. But that doesn't mean that everybody who's pro-life is anti-contraception or a religious fundamentalist.
It's pointless to talk about an issue if you only ever address the most extreme people who disagree with you.. Exactly as pointless as the people who paint all pro-choice people as soulless baby killers. Especially because, as I said, the people at the pole aren't the majority view. The minds that can be changed are in the middle.
I'd definitely prefer that there were never any unplanned pregnancies too. But I suspect it's going to be a long time before contraception is 100% effective.
A majority of Israelis want reconciliation with the Palestinians and an end to the occupation. This majority does not run the government. The government is overwhelmingly made up of settler-born bigots,
Do I have to make the same point on every issue? When I write about software I get told what Kent Beck wrote in his stupid book, and I need to point out that nobody has read it and they work in an absurd way.
I am aware that most prolife people don't oppose contraception, They are not the ones making the laws, nor are they they public face of the movement.
I am aware that many Republicans (a minority but still about 30%) know that Trump lost the election. They are not leading the party.
It's not that I am pointing at the most extreme and saying "they're all like that," it's that I am pointing at the most extreme and saying "they are running the show." It's the Empty Greens who point at the SJWs and say they're representative of all liberals.
In software there is this exceedingly dumb fad where writing tests has been elevated over writing software. The book says that it's better to write the tests first, and that developers should write the tests before the code, ignoring that they will have the same blind spots in both. I don't think the book says developers should have *sole* testing responsibility. But most practitioners of this idiocy do believe that.
So what does it matter if the book doesn't say that? That's what people do.
What does it matter if a majority of the people who think abortion is immoral are OK with contraception? Their leaders oppose contraception. You are aware I am certain that Thomas already said contraception was an "error." They will make contraception illegal and the prolife majority won't care. They've gotten what they wanted, and it isn't about compassion for anyone.
"Do I have to make the same point on every issue?"
😅 I know the feeling. I also feel as If I've made the following point countless times. Let's go one layer deeper.
How is societal or legal change achieved? What motivates politicians to effect change? How do minority or niche issues break into the mainstream? If you answered "public opinion," you are correct.
The people "running the show" didn't want women to have the right to vote or to have abortion rights (or even what's left of them). They didn't want slavery or segregation to end. At least not initially. Abraham Lincoln forcefully put down three attempts, by his own men, to end slavery. They didn't want gay marriage to be legalised. Barack Obama had to be convinced to drop his publicly stated anti-gay marriage stance.
You can effect change without persuading the extremists. None of these injustices were resolved by unanimous agreement. But you will definitely have to persuade people who are reasonable but unconvinced. The good news is, these people, on almost every issue, are the majority.
So apologies if I mischaracterised your position by implying that you're tarring everybody with the same brush as the extremists. But what you *do* seem to be doing, is arguing that because there are insane, unreasonable people out there, some of them in positions of power, persuading those who aren't in power doesn't matter. But, in fact, it's the only strategy that does matter. And it's been proven to work time and time again.
And that is exactly why control of the narrative via control of media, both official and social, is such a big deal. If extremists can sell thier view to the majority, it is no longer fringe, it becomes mainstream. That goes to the heart of many of your commentaries.
Abortion just before birth: unless we have evidence that the almost-baby has a mind, I don’t see the immorality. It’s not the killing of the somatic fetus that I see as the sin, it’s the individual with its experience and identity. People euthanize loving pets that have thinking emotional lives because it’s cheaper than treatment.
Suppose the baby has no cerebrum. Is it murder to pull the plug? There is no person there, and never will be; just human DNA.
"I'd answer that the issue is so bound up with the off-limits of religion and with astounding hypocrisies that honest discussion between people on opposite poles of the debate is not only futile but infeasible."
😁 No, I agree with you. I think conversation with people at the poles of any issue is broadly futile. My belief is just that the majority of people don't sit at the poles. Extremes are extremes precisely because they're rare.
As we've discussed before, around 80% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in some or all cases. None of these peoples are extremists. And I think they'd accept a solution that didn't 100% conform to their personal feelings, as long as it wasn't too far.
The people who won't accept *any* compromise (as in those who argue women should be able to abort until the moment of birth or that taking the morning after pill is murder) probably aren't worth talking to. But they also represent a tiny slice of public sentiment
As with the Israeli peace movement, the reasonable people don't run the show. In any of our modern issues—guns, abortion, 2020 election, environment—it's not the moderates who are the problem.
You could count me as almost in the up-to-the-onset-of-labor crowd, being perfectly comfortable with the simplicity of human rights acquired at birth, but I would much MUCH rather there was never an unplanned pregnancy, that contraception was freely and anonymously available, but the same people opposed to abortion are every bit as strident in opposing contraception.
And they are the people at that pole.
"As with the Israeli peace movement, the reasonable people don't run the show."
I don't know enough about the Israeli peace movement to comment, but I'm confident there's no useful comparison to be made between that struggle and the abortion rights debate except that, sure, there are unreasonable people everywhere.
But again, there's a depth in the anti-abortion position that you keep trying to flatten. Some people who oppose abortion also oppose contraception. Absolutely. These people are very likely to be religious. But that doesn't mean that everybody who's pro-life is anti-contraception or a religious fundamentalist.
It's pointless to talk about an issue if you only ever address the most extreme people who disagree with you.. Exactly as pointless as the people who paint all pro-choice people as soulless baby killers. Especially because, as I said, the people at the pole aren't the majority view. The minds that can be changed are in the middle.
I'd definitely prefer that there were never any unplanned pregnancies too. But I suspect it's going to be a long time before contraception is 100% effective.
A majority of Israelis want reconciliation with the Palestinians and an end to the occupation. This majority does not run the government. The government is overwhelmingly made up of settler-born bigots,
Do I have to make the same point on every issue? When I write about software I get told what Kent Beck wrote in his stupid book, and I need to point out that nobody has read it and they work in an absurd way.
I am aware that most prolife people don't oppose contraception, They are not the ones making the laws, nor are they they public face of the movement.
I am aware that many Republicans (a minority but still about 30%) know that Trump lost the election. They are not leading the party.
It's not that I am pointing at the most extreme and saying "they're all like that," it's that I am pointing at the most extreme and saying "they are running the show." It's the Empty Greens who point at the SJWs and say they're representative of all liberals.
In software there is this exceedingly dumb fad where writing tests has been elevated over writing software. The book says that it's better to write the tests first, and that developers should write the tests before the code, ignoring that they will have the same blind spots in both. I don't think the book says developers should have *sole* testing responsibility. But most practitioners of this idiocy do believe that.
So what does it matter if the book doesn't say that? That's what people do.
What does it matter if a majority of the people who think abortion is immoral are OK with contraception? Their leaders oppose contraception. You are aware I am certain that Thomas already said contraception was an "error." They will make contraception illegal and the prolife majority won't care. They've gotten what they wanted, and it isn't about compassion for anyone.
"Do I have to make the same point on every issue?"
😅 I know the feeling. I also feel as If I've made the following point countless times. Let's go one layer deeper.
How is societal or legal change achieved? What motivates politicians to effect change? How do minority or niche issues break into the mainstream? If you answered "public opinion," you are correct.
The people "running the show" didn't want women to have the right to vote or to have abortion rights (or even what's left of them). They didn't want slavery or segregation to end. At least not initially. Abraham Lincoln forcefully put down three attempts, by his own men, to end slavery. They didn't want gay marriage to be legalised. Barack Obama had to be convinced to drop his publicly stated anti-gay marriage stance.
You can effect change without persuading the extremists. None of these injustices were resolved by unanimous agreement. But you will definitely have to persuade people who are reasonable but unconvinced. The good news is, these people, on almost every issue, are the majority.
So apologies if I mischaracterised your position by implying that you're tarring everybody with the same brush as the extremists. But what you *do* seem to be doing, is arguing that because there are insane, unreasonable people out there, some of them in positions of power, persuading those who aren't in power doesn't matter. But, in fact, it's the only strategy that does matter. And it's been proven to work time and time again.
And that is exactly why control of the narrative via control of media, both official and social, is such a big deal. If extremists can sell thier view to the majority, it is no longer fringe, it becomes mainstream. That goes to the heart of many of your commentaries.
Abortion just before birth: unless we have evidence that the almost-baby has a mind, I don’t see the immorality. It’s not the killing of the somatic fetus that I see as the sin, it’s the individual with its experience and identity. People euthanize loving pets that have thinking emotional lives because it’s cheaper than treatment.
Suppose the baby has no cerebrum. Is it murder to pull the plug? There is no person there, and never will be; just human DNA.