Re: Abortion
Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2022 4:08 pm
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
Well, if you think the post of yours I responded to too was without bias - or, to put it less pejoratively, without opinion and without political positions - we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think it's a fine example of my theory. It would be an opinion piece in a newspaper, not an article. And of course articles, 'just reporting facts', can still be biased.Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 4:07 pmIn theory, but not the real life example that prompted the comment.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 10:32 amThose are not mutually exclusive. What gets focused on, what doesn't. If I could hear a conservative put what you are calling news in the context of what has gone before when their values had more sway, then I might have a different reaction.
You're cordially invited to try and disprove all those enumerated truths.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 4:15 pmWell, if you think the post of yours I responded to too was without bias - or, to put it less pejoratively, without opinion and without political positions - we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think it's a fine example of my theory. It would be an opinion piece in a newspaper, not an article. And of course articles, 'just reporting facts', can still be biased.Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 4:07 pmIn theory, but not the real life example that prompted the comment.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 10:32 am Those are not mutually exclusive. What gets focused on, what doesn't. If I could hear a conservative put what you are calling news in the context of what has gone before when their values had more sway, then I might have a different reaction.
You support them with arguments and we can take it from there.Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 4:20 pmYou're cordially invited to try and disprove all those enumerated truths.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 4:15 pmWell, if you think the post of yours I responded to too was without bias - or, to put it less pejoratively, without opinion and without political positions - we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think it's a fine example of my theory. It would be an opinion piece in a newspaper, not an article. And of course articles, 'just reporting facts', can still be biased.
In your prediction...
Yes, marriages and divorces are valid across state lines, though one does need to get residency in Nevada: it's short, six weeks, but that's significant and costly for many to move to Nevada for that time. But the important issue is that there are different state laws where you don't just get a pass. Such as laws around grooming and even consensual sex and crossing state lines. So, the bias here is that you are speculating about how it will go on the future, to make sure is sounds as bad, from your perspective, as possible. It will be like laws around X, no mention of Y. Bias. This is an unsettled shifting in laws around abortion in the US. If you want to make flat statement about what will happen, these may well be biased given the intentions of your essay, which I think goes beyond enumerating truths. So...Naw. An abortion in one state will be "honored" in another state.
This contains a value judgment. YOu could say 'no waiting period weddings' etc., but you used a pejorative term. If you want to claim it was merely literal, bullshit. You don't respect people making that choice. That is your bias coming out of your values. Bias.quickie wedding
there's a lot of bias packed in here. And the uses of this idea are the core of my resistance to pointing out the obvious in previous posts. Are you kidding? You really think this is just a fact? To hold this position seems to me is just expecting other people to bear the onus. A convenient naivte about what you are doing. I am just stating facts. LOL.the age of No Shame,
Here we have a biased conflation. IOW if you are prochoice you are a relativist. This is merely assumed and implied. If they don't have my values, they don't have any values. I don't know how you could have missed that the Left these days is objectivist. Yes, on some issues they are relativist, but not abortion. Certainly not on gay or trans rights. Not on pedophilia. (Often not on war, though now, ironically and tragically, they tend to support Biden's war noises. no one has any memory) It is hysterically and problematically obvious that there are all sorts of acts and even attitudes that the left thinks are wrong. Wrong period. Not relatively wrong, but fundamentally, absolutely. It's even a fucking problem, a big one. If you don't believe me, please check out your fellow conservative's forums. Cancel culture could be one way to search through it. Conservatives seem to forget that people could easily get cancelled for not living up to concervative values - say, in the 50s, if that's before your 'Age of Noshame. - but that doesn't make current lefty practice any better. Abortion rights are argued along moral lines, generally, and with great passion.Relativism says, there is no absolute by which to judge gambling, divorce, or abortion as being wrongful and unvirtuous. If it feels good, do it.
First off binary. NoShame again. Only specific moral issues are looked at and then these are the basis for the judgment that there is no shame now.Divorce, abortion, gambling … these used to be shameful activities because of the influence of religions and conservative traditional customs such as formal vows before God and mortal witnesses. Warriors also make secular vows, they're called blood oaths. The principle of "the vow" makes words and the meaning absolute and inviolate, even sacred.
In the age of No Shame, vows are worthless.
Here we have bias in the painting everyone who is prochoice as having what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas attitudes. That's absurd. You think someone could argue, yes, I beat up a trans person in mexico, but it is legal in Mexico so I should keep my job at NBC, and the Left would accept that.This residual shame is why it must be emphasized through advertising, winking and proper tips that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, because Vegas isn’t really a part of real life for folks who have yet to become woke enough to conquer the boundaries of shame that discourages aberrations both good and bad.
This speaks against the Vegas accusation and also against the moral relativism accusation. Yes, many prochoice people want women around the world to be able to choose. And I believe many people on the anti-abortion side want abortion to be illegal everywhere. Because both groups have not just selfish desires, but think their values are correct, that the Good is knowable. Unfortunately they differ over the Good. So, first even your own points include arguments against your painting the entire prochoice position as relativistic. SEcond, to me the implicit bias is that there is something wrong with them wanting their morals to hold everywhere on this issue. Well, that's often true for conservatives and this last paragraph is as if that wasn't the case.When federal approval of all abortions declared with Roe v Wade that abortion was no longer shameful, abortion became honored by all states. Anyone who disagreed with that legal justification, was the aberration. Now, all the hubub and threats to the SCOTUS is partially because abortionists don't want any legal disapproval of abortion from anyone, anywhere, even if they are in another state or country such as the USA, the greatest country on the face of the earth, objectively speaking and of course, all things considered.
I mean, come on.I'm just enumerating facts.
I could have just said that about my first response to you. Oh, my post is just facts. Maybe I'll try being a jackass for a while, see if I can get others to bear the onus. Oh, you don't like what I wrote, you just dragged bias into my immaculate discussion. I gotta take a shower. Prove that I had bias. Heading out to bike You do some work.. I like it. Maybe denial would have been a better path for me in general. Facile, but freeing.I have nothing to prove. You're the one imagining that my statements have bias, not me.
Let's tweak it a bit...commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 8:42 pm “If you’re against it, that’s OK. Just don’t tell me that I can’t have it.”
Insert either “abortion” or “guns” in place of “it”.
Clearly property and babies are not equal.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 12:43 amLet's tweak it a bit...commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 8:42 pm “If you’re against it, that’s OK. Just don’t tell me that I can’t have it.”
Insert either “abortion” or “guns” in place of “it”.
If you’re against it, that’s OK. Just don’t tell me that I can’t have it.
If you’re against property, that’s OK. Just don’t tell me that I can’t have it.
If you’re against killing babies, that’s OK. Just don’t tell me that I can’t do it.
I'm thinkin' you don't see the problem.
Of course not. You have a right to property; you don't have a right to kill babies (includin' the unborn kind).Clearly property and babies are not equal.
Property is property. My car, my house, my bed, my gun, etc.the issue is only about guns and not about property.
That takes you right back to my body my choice.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 2:31 am
Property is property. My car, my house, my bed, my gun, etc.