Obama judicial nominee blocked.

[bajadudes]

The decision to have an abortion is between a woman, her doctor and their god. Anyone else, especially the govt has absolutely no right to stick their nose into it.

 

[PrayingForWar]

SNIP
But incositencies and hipocrisy always bother me, and I do see hipocrisy in people being against abortions AND social programms for unwanted children at the same time, because it's either one or the other, and that's why I agreed with your point.

I don't think you have to have "one or the other". Private institutions and charities can be at least if not more effective than arbitrary bureaucracies that are accountable to no one. As far as I'm concerned however, abortion should be available to people who can not raise their kids. As horrible as that choice must be to make for the people who make it, I don't feel that the force of federal law should prevent it. Maybe state or local law. There are also a lot of people who would love to adopt a lot of the children being aborted, I don't know why that choice isn't championed more.

I'm not a big fan of abortion in general and don't think it's a good thing to do, but I wouldn't support any more legal restrictions than there already is, because I'm a libertarian before I'm a conservative...

Libertarian should be synonomous with conservative. There are just too many "conservatives" who want to use federal authority to enforce their morality. They're no different than leftists in my mind, but the moonbats don't call their pet issues "morals". They call them "rights". There is no "right" to free education, healthcare, food, shelter, clothing, ETC. Just like there is no moral obligation to abide by someone else's religious doctrines, except perhaps:

'You shall not murder.'

'You shall not steal.'

'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

 

[Daylen]

Libertarian should be synonomous with conservative. There are just too many "conservatives" who want to use federal authority to enforce their morality. They're no different than leftists in my mind, but the moonbats don't call their pet issues "morals". They call them "rights". There is no "right" to free education, healthcare, food, shelter, clothing, ETC. Just like there is no moral obligation to abide by someone else's religious doctrines, except perhaps:

'You shall not murder.'

'You shall not steal.'

'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

It is not. Constitutional conservative perhaps could be synonymous with libertarian, but not necessarily. Social conservatives are most certainly NOT libertarian, they are simply right wing progressives of the sort that brought us prohibition.

 

[marshaul]

It is not. Constitutional conservative perhaps could be synonymous with libertarian, but not necessarily. Social conservatives are most certainly NOT libertarian, they are simply right wing progressives of the sort that brought us prohibition.

Yup.

"Conservative" means whatever the user wants it to mean. It implies adherence to a certain set of traditional values. Ask 10 persons exactly what those values are, and you'll get 15 different answers.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I'm not going to lecture or berate you for your politics anymore (I think we both know how the other feels), but I will make one more comment in that vein.

You seem to contrast your admitted independence with "hard-line"-toeing partisanites. While this is not inaccurate, it suggests that only partisan line-toeers are capable of internally consistent thought, or that internal inconsistency and self-contradiction are a natural result of rejecting the partisan paradigm. I believe this is misleading.

It seems to superficially appear that 'hard-line' toers are capable of consistent thought, but it comes at the expense of an in-depth explanation of why they have reached their conclusion, or belief. There have been a number of conclusions that I have reached that I do not agree with, and I find myself in a bit of a pickle, don't you think? Typically what I do is just deal with it, and sort it out, but it is usually only sorted out through more consideration of the totality of the issue then justifying the give-and-take that must happen in order for me to solidify my stance.

In my own case, my views are (I think) consistent, internally non-contradictory, and might even be described as following a "hard line". However, that line derives not from predetermined partisan groupthink, but from a rigorous application of a philosophical -- not strictly political -- premise. In my case, that premise is the "non-aggression principle".

I agree that it is derived from a "rigorous application of a philosophical...premise." There are rarely concrete conclusions made, in my experience, because information is abundant, and constantly flowing in, and adding to my knowledge, broadening my understanding, and altering my conclusion. I am not a big fan of blanket statements; that's not to say that I have not made my share of them. Such as, "Flag burners should be executed," consider that a completely emotional response. When I see a person burning an American Flag, and then I think about the 43rd year my grandfather has been MIA from Vietnam, it pisses me the F-off.

What I'm not saying is that you ought to become a follower of the NAP (although I do think you and everybody else should). What I am saying is that internal consistency is a good thing, and that it is actually quite rare in politics (the only discernible internal consistency found amongst the mainstream left and right must be defined by partisan stereotypes, for example). I would politely suggest that perhaps a more rigorous from of philosophical analysis ought to be applied (what form that is remains up to you), and that any person who thinks as much as you evidently do can afford to achieve internal consistency, even if it means abandoning a few lesser conclusions in favor of more important and inflexible ones.

I am beginning to wonder if internal consistency is possible, not whether or not it is a 'good' or 'bad' thing. I make enough critical self-critiques about conclusions that I reach, and the sense that I fail in many ways to not only grasp the totality of whatever it is I am contemplating, but also articulating my conclusion is such a way that others can understand why I have concluded what I have concluded.

Let's face it though, the vast majority of discussions are made up of generalizations, which is why I typically engage in discussions that require very specifically focused topics such as on Philosophy Forums.

It seems to me that, for someone whose political conclusions are not spoon-fed, a lack of internal consistency derives from an unwillingness (partial, if not complete) to constantly reconsider one's past conclusions in light of present reasoning.

Welcome to the world of personal philosophical integrity. What others think about the conclusions is not as important as what you think about them, and whether you are confident that the conclusion you have reached is accurate as it possibly can be, in that moment that you have reach it.

I frequently change my thoughts on an issue, so as to achieve internal consistency. While sometimes I am forced to abandon a view which was quite favorable to me emotionally, or which I had defended thoroughly in the past, I view the resulting discomfort as preferable to lacking logical internal consistency in my political views.

I also engage in this behavior, altering my perspective in order to reach internal consistency. But I do not make a habit of it. I think it is a dangerous place to be when you conclude that there is some Divine, or Fundamental Truth to a conclusion which you have reached.

In fact, I believe, the farther someone's views become from the political mainstream, the more internal consistency becomes important (at least so far as convincing others goes), as it shifts the apparent source of one's conclusions from convenience and immediate emotional satisfaction, to careful thought and rigorous
application of experience, reason, and principle (all of which are important).

I agree, and believe that internal consistencies are important. Yes, the farther you separate yourself from mainstream political BS, an individual is able to really look deep into issues in their rawest form, and derive conclusions from them, not based on partisan BS, but based on your own personal conclusion. "Experience," and "principle" are contingent on the relative, and temporal time that your knowledge is applied, meaning, from the knowledge you have in that moment you have experience, and a general principle for application, but it is subject to change, at least for me.

Now, that did come across as a lecture (despite my best efforts), so I will merely say that it should be indisputable that every individual here has room for maturation of their political, social, and philosophical thought.

I agree.

Most of my responses are to statements that are made in the form of generalizations. If I identify that an issue requires further explanation I will begin to break it apart, and I have stated on many occasions that if there is some thing in my response that needs clarification, I will clarify. What bogs the discussion down are terms such as 'simpleton,' or whatever else a person can think of to attack the poster. IMO, it devalues what is an important discussion about important issues.

I agree with a variety of political views that conflict with the frequently overgeneralized Liberal, and Conservative political, ideological, and philosophical stances.

Liberals, and Conservatives are the bane of all our existence, and something needs to be done about it. Consensus is the only way, IMO. But good luck having either side climb aboard that train.

 

[since9]

I have always found it interesting that Conservatives want there to be no abortion, but the unaborted babies that are born, well, Conservatives don't want to pay higher taxes, and offer services to help those children that would surely be born into poverty, and to parents that are either too young to support the child, addicted to drugs, or both.

The nature of conservatism is one of personal responsibility. All things in life are a mix of privileges and responsibilities. You can't have one without the other. With the privilege of sex comes the responsibility of either preventing unwanted pregnancy or caring for the child.

Let's move this back towards the topic of this forum. Those of us who carry take personal responsibility for the safety of ourselves and our loved ones. Doesn't mean we don't mind backup in the form of tax dollar-support law enforcement, but we don't consider it to be the principle means of protection. Similarly, personal responsibility with respect to unwanted pregnancy begins with abstinence, then prevention (birth control). Some support abortion as a tertiary means, some don't.

 

[marshaul]

I think it is a dangerous place to be when you conclude that there is some Divine, or Fundamental Truth to a conclusion which you have reached.

I read your entire post, and I appreciate the thoughtful discussion. It is the above in particular to which I am responding, however.

I agree that this is a danger to any process, no matter how thoughtful. As to the non-aggression principle, it is likely to remain the basis for much of political reasoning as it is my primary moral compass. The danger there is in assuming that the concept of aggression itself is easily applied, or that its definition is subject to becoming a Fundamental Truth. The nature of "aggression" is under constant consideration by someone such as myself, although its existence and importance are never in doubt.

As to the value of internal consistency, I agree without question that it may be a bad thing when the source from which it derives is invalid or negative. For example, the (apparent) internal consistency of partisanship is of decidedly little value, and crumbles upon scrutiny. I caution, however, against applying a generalization derived from this observation to the nature of internal consistency itself. I still see this as a fundamentally emotional response.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I read your entire post, and I appreciate the thoughtful discussion. It is the above in particular to which I am responding, however.

I agree that this is a danger to any process, no matter how thoughtful. As to the non-aggression principle, it is likely to remain the basis for much of political reasoning as it is my primary moral compass. The danger there is in assuming that the concept of aggression itself is easily applied, or that its definition is subject to becoming a Fundamental Truth. The nature of "aggression" is under constant consideration by someone such as myself, although its existence and importance are never in doubt.

I agree that the "existence and importance" are never in doubt, well, personally, I share that.

As to the value of internal consistency, I agree without question that it may be a bad thing when the source from which it derives is invalid or negative. For example, the (apparent) internal consistency of partisanship is of decidedly little value, and crumbles upon scrutiny. I caution, however, against applying a generalization derived from this observation to the nature of internal consistency itself. I still see this as a fundamentally emotional response.

Partisanship does have little value, well, to me. The nature of internal consistency seems to be a fundamental emotional inclination, but the individual that is inclined to such an inclination should always be aware of the inclination, and consider the inclination as part of the their process of philosophical inquiry. It's being intellectually true to yourself.

 

[Daylen]

Seeing a divine or fundamental truth in a conclusion is not dangerous. Claiming a conclusion is such with no reason would be closer, but really just folly. I find it strange when those who think humans can not self regulate do not ask politicians to remove the 13th amendment. I take it though its really just a matter of who is the master and what word is used, and perhaps what condition the slaves are kept in for those who are against freedom as such. I do think there is a fundamental truth in the bill of rights and their meaning as said by its authors and in some other amendments including the 13th. Somewhat even in the Constitution itself. Why and what fundamental truth? Easy distributed control is far superior to central control and multiple feedback mechanisms taking to account all forms of error are needed to regulate any system including a government. For those that disagree with these truths try to find areas other than government where they apply and see which is the better and more used.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Seeing a divine or fundamental truth in a conclusion is not dangerous.

I am merely stating that IMO it is dangerous if the conclusion is that there is some Fundamental Truth reached, or that the Fundamental Truth is derived from some Divine source. Like I stated, it's just my opinion.

Claiming a conclusion is such with no reason would be closer, but really just folly.

All conclusions that are asserted to be 'concrete' are folly.

I find it strange when those who think humans can not self regulate do not ask politicians to remove the 13th amendment.

I find it strange that we have not discussed the Thirteenth Amendment. Humans collectively can self-regulate, but individually, typically, require some form of carrot to stay on the straight, and narrow...such as Heaven.

I take it though its really just a matter of who is the master and what word is used, and perhaps what condition the slaves are kept in for those who are against freedom as such.

You are right, a debate, discussion, argument, hinges on words, and the meaning of those words within the context of the discussion. The latter part of your line makes no sense, or you need to clarify.

I do think there is a fundamental truth in the bill of rights and their meaning as said by its authors and in some other amendments including the 13th.

No, the Founding Father "held these things to be self evident." There was nothing fundamentally true, just that they might have been deemed fundamental, and true.

Somewhat even in the Constitution itself. Why and what fundamental truth?

I am not sure what you are talking about.

Easy distributed control is far superior to central control and multiple feedback mechanisms taking to account all forms of error are needed to regulate any system including a government.

I have to admit that I am completely lost here. If you are asserting that distributed control is superior to central control, how have you reached that conclusion?

For those that disagree with these truths try to find areas other than government where they apply and see which is the better and more used.

How about you offers 'areas' as examples.

 

[eye95]

The decision to have an abortion is between a woman, her doctor and their god. Anyone else, especially the govt has absolutely no right to stick their nose into it.

Congratulations. You know the words and can parrot them.

 

[PrayingForWar]

I think it is a dangerous place to be when you conclude that there is some Divine, or Fundamental Truth to a conclusion which you have reached.

If it is a conclusion YOU HAVE REACHED, it is another matter. It is a conclusion someone else has convinced you is the "divine" truth, without you having done any critical thinking on the subject that is the danger. Even more dangerous is ignoring any and all input from those who argue against these "truths", and then attempting to marginalize their arguements as "fluff". I take great delight in using Alinsky's rules against those who've adopted them. Hence my unrepentant hypocrisy.

Most of my responses are to statements that are made in the form of generalizations. We all know you've NEVER made "generalizations" here. If I identify that an issue requires further explanation I will begin to break it apart, and I have stated on many occasions that if there is some thing in my response that needs clarification, I will clarify. What bogs the discussion down are terms such as 'simpleton,' or whatever else a person can think of to attack the poster. IMO, it devalues what is an important discussion about important issues.

Such as disregarding an entire arguement as "fluff", rather than addressing it.

I agree with a variety of political views that conflict with the frequently overgeneralized Liberal, and Conservative political, ideological, and philosophical stances.

Liberals, and Conservatives are the bane of all our existence, and something needs to be done about it. Consensus is the only way, IMO. But good luck having either side climb aboard that train.

Words mean things, and their meaning should be bedrock. There has been far too much fluctuation in the meaning of our political labels in the last century. Nazis were not "right wing", modern "liberals" have very little in common with "liberal" Thomas Jefferson (I'm sure he'd reject gay marriage as lunacy too), the "religious right" is not "conservative".

Seeing a divine or fundamental truth in a conclusion is not dangerous. Claiming a conclusion is such with no reason would be closer, but really just folly. I find it strange when those who think humans can not self regulate do not ask politicians to remove the 13th amendment. I take it though its really just a matter of who is the master and what word is used, and perhaps what condition the slaves are kept in for those who are against freedom as such. I do think there is a fundamental truth in the bill of rights and their meaning as said by its authors and in some other amendments including the 13th. Somewhat even in the Constitution itself. Why and what fundamental truth? Easy distributed control is far superior to central control and multiple feedback mechanisms taking to account all forms of error are needed to regulate any system including a government. For those that disagree with these truths try to find areas other than government where they apply and see which is the better and more used.

IMO there has to be a "divine", or a fundamental truth. Without it everything is relative to popular truth, which we all know can be manipulated with propaganda. If you had a time machine and could go back to 1941, any German alive would have told you the 3rd Reich would last 1000 years,. At the moment it may have been the truth had not an industrial juggernaut been awakened by a bunch of nips in airplanes. (What is it with airplanes?) The fundamental truth was that the human spirit cannot be oppressed in perpetuity.

The "progressive" foundation of the National Socialist Workers Party, was not viable since it's focus was to control people in every aspect of their lives, meanwhile making war against every ethnicity a sociopathic leader decided was unfit for such a "utopia". Likewise with all "progressive" leftwing marxist governments. I digressed as usual into one of my anti-liberal rants. I would apologize if I felt bad, but screw it, I don't.

The thing is, I was a liberal once. I towed the line, agreed with all my friends, railed against our "oppressors", and ridiculed arguements I was programmed to reject. Once I took an "open mind" to the opposition, and researched as best I could to counter their "lies", I found out I lived in a world of lies. That's what liberalism is. For whatever reason people adopt liberalism as a foundation of their beliefs, (mine was the pot issue) they're only doing it to be rebellious of the status quo. Being a "one issue" voter based on the "liberation" of whatever issue you support, should NEVER cause you to adopt every other stance that party takes in as it's base, unless you've taken the time to full understand the issues, and can disregard those that are pretty much irrelevant to the prosperity of the nation as a whole, let alone yourself.

 

[sharkey]

This is way off topic but I feel compelled to respond.

I support the death penalty.

I am against abortion.

I am atheist.

I do not believe in needlessly ending innocent life. If we allow abortion there is no reason to disallow infanticide. Why is one a crime and the other not?

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

If it is a conclusion YOU HAVE REACHED, it is another matter. It is a conclusion someone else has convinced you is the "divine" truth, without you having done any critical thinking on the subject that is the danger.

I am neither religious, nor do I accept a 'thing' called Divine Truth as anything more than some delusional assertion that an individual has acquired some 'truth' from some Divine (mystic) source.

Even more dangerous is ignoring any and all input from those who argue against these "truths", and then attempting to marginalize their arguements as "fluff". I take great delight in using Alinsky's rules against those who've adopted them. Hence my unrepentant hypocrisy.

I have never read(e) Alinsky, actually, I have read(e) nothing about Alinsky. Although, I have heard Alinsky referenced on entertainment news programs from time to time, such as Glenn Beck.

What I have dismissed as "fluff" are responses that are packed with personal attacks, and insinuations of me lacking the capacity of logical thought, etc.

Funny, you take great pride in Alinsky, assuming that I know something of this person. The first bit that I have read(e) about Alinsky is this evening when someone brought up the name of the person. I suppose I am just not as Left-wing as some might think that I am.

Such as disregarding an entire arguement as "fluff", rather than addressing it.

Read the above regarding personal attacks being deemed "fluff" by me. Seriously, individuals can go back to things I have deemed "fluff" and decide for themselves. There may have been occasions where I have deemed a response "fluff" that had nothing to do with attacks or insinuations, but the "fluff" has more to do with attacks, and insinuations.

Words mean things, and their meaning should be bedrock. There has been far too much fluctuation in the meaning of our political labels in the last century. Nazis were not "right wing", modern "liberals" have very little in common with "liberal" Thomas Jefferson (I'm sure he'd reject gay marriage as lunacy too), the "religious right" is not "conservative".

And, your point? You managed to place Nazi's, homosexuals, and Liberals in the same paragraph, congratulations.

Words do not have bedrock meanings. Sorry to disappoint you. Words mean some 'thing' within the context it is being used.

IMO there has to be a "divine", or a fundamental truth. Without it everything is relative to popular truth, which we all know can be manipulated with propaganda. If you had a time machine and could go back to 1941, any German alive would have told you the 3rd Reich would last 1000 years,. At the moment it may have been the truth had not an industrial juggernaut been awakened by a bunch of nips in airplanes. (What is it with airplanes?) The fundamental truth was that the human spirit cannot be oppressed in perpetuity.

All we have is popular truth within a society as it relates to the social application of whatever it is deemed to be true. Once again, a Nazi reference. Yes, they were quit ambitious to think the Reich would last a thousand years; they were wrong.

If there is such a thing as Fundamental Truth, it is this: The human spirit is oppressed by different things at different times.

The "progressive" foundation of the National Socialist Workers Party, was not viable since it's focus was to control people in every aspect of their lives, meanwhile making war against every ethnicity a sociopathic leader decided was unfit for such a "utopia". Likewise with all "progressive" leftwing marxist governments. I digressed as usual into one of my anti-liberal rants. I would apologize if I felt bad, but screw it, I don't.

I have stated the I do not believe a Utopia society will ever exist. It goes against human nature, IMO. Hitler was a sociopath to some, a Leader to others - go figure!

"Progressive leftwing marxist governments," how quaint. You managed to sum it up in one sentence, right? That progressives are leftwingers, and leftwingers are marxists, sure.

You don't have to feel bad, that is the great thing about America, and about online interaction, you can engage in arguments in an abstract world all day long if you like, and not feel bad for it.

The thing is, I was a liberal once. I towed the line, agreed with all my friends, railed against our "oppressors", and ridiculed arguements I was programmed to reject. Once I took an "open mind" to the opposition, and researched as best I could to counter their "lies", I found out I lived in a world of lies. That's what liberalism is. For whatever reason people adopt liberalism as a foundation of their beliefs, (mine was the pot issue) they're only doing it to be rebellious of the status quo. Being a "one issue" voter based on the "liberation" of whatever issue you support, should NEVER cause you to adopt every other stance that party takes in as it's base, unless you've taken the time to full understand the issues, and can disregard those that are pretty much irrelevant to the prosperity of the nation as a whole, let alone yourself.

Well, I have never been Liberal, but have Liberal aspects in my views. Even my Liberal friends are just as irritated with me as my Conservative friends. That's one of the ways I gauge that I have taken a balanced approach in my consideration of all 'things'.

Liberalism is not more a lie than Conservativism.

Things are deemed irrelevant by individuals, they are not inherently irrelevant. We are Gods of relevancies.

 

[marshaul]

Humans collectively can self-regulate, but individually, typically, require some form of carrot to stay on the straight, and narrow...such as Heaven

Do you believe this to be true about yourself?

 

[marshaul]

Thomas Jefferson (I'm sure he'd reject gay marriage as lunacy too)

I actually rather doubt that. One of Jefferson's proudest accomplishments was the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which among other things ended the existence of a Virginia State Church (the Anglican church). He was a firm believer in freedom of religious conscience, and wouldn't have wanted the state to dictate religious norms regarding issues which neither picked his pocket nor broke his bones.

I strongly suspect that, were Jefferson to live to see an America where there were churches who would marry gays, and churches who would not, he would have recognized that the issue is a religious one over which the state has no business taking sides.

 

[PrayingForWar]

I am neither religious, nor do I accept a 'thing' called Divine Truth as anything more than some delusional assertion that an individual has acquired some 'truth' from some Divine (mystic) source.


I have never read(e) Alinsky, actually, I have read(e) nothing about Alinsky. Although, I have heard Alinsky referenced on entertainment news programs from time to time, such as Glenn Beck.

That's funny, perhaps you should have wrote the second generation of his books, because that is exactly the tactics you use here whenever you're challenged with questions your program cannot answer. I've read more of your circular "logic" than I ever cared too. However since you occasionaly seem to inject a good point that ruffles the feathers of "conservatives", I actually enjoy reading some of your nonsense. You're actually worth reading when you're defending your nonsense against marshaul. Otherwise you're intentionally irritating people just to get a rise out of them. You would be merely a troll if not for that.

What I have dismissed as "fluff" are responses that are packed with personal attacks, and insinuations of me lacking the capacity of logical thought, etc.

Of course no one should be allowed to question your ability to make a reasonable, logical, rational, or especially an independent thought. There's no need at all for you to defend your posts when you allege racism, bigotry or a lack of compassion.

Funny, you take great pride in Alinsky, assuming that I know something of this person. The first bit that I have read(e) about Alinsky is this evening when someone brought up the name of the person. I suppose I am just not as Left-wing as some might think that I am.

I'll buy that for a dollar.

Read the above regarding personal attacks being deemed "fluff" by me. Seriously, individuals can go back to things I have deemed "fluff" and decide for themselves. There may have been occasions where I have deemed a response "fluff" that had nothing to do with attacks or insinuations, but the "fluff" has more to do with attacks, and insinuations.

Horsescat, they were tough questions. Perhaps they were laced with language made to ridicule you, but see Rule#5.

And, your point? You managed to place Nazi's, homosexuals, and Liberals in the same paragraph, congratulations.

Words do not have bedrock meanings. Sorry to disappoint you. Words mean some 'thing' within the context it is being used.

Words should have bedrock meanings, or else Orwellian douchebags of whatever political affiliation in power can change their meanings. This should trouble anyone.

All we have is popular truth within a society as it relates to the social application of whatever it is deemed to be true. Once again, a Nazi reference. Yes, they were quit ambitious to think the Reich would last a thousand years; they were wrong.

If there is such a thing as Fundamental Truth, it is this: The human spirit is oppressed by different things at different times.

You left out half the equation, the fundamental truth is that the human spirit always overcomes that which oppresses it.

I have stated the I do not believe a Utopia society will ever exist. It goes against human nature, IMO. Hitler was a sociopath to some, a Leader to others - go figure!

Yes it must be nice to be able o villify the man while adopting a bunch of his philosophies.

"Progressive leftwing marxist governments," how quaint. You managed to sum it up in one sentence, right? That progressives are leftwingers, and leftwingers are marxists, sure.

Words mean things, if you like it or not. The days of manipulating language may be coming to an end, and that is a great portion of the lie that is liberalism.

You don't have to feel bad, that is the great thing about America, and about online interaction, you can engage in arguments in an abstract world all day long if you like, and not feel bad for it.



Well, I have never been Liberal, No, you just champion their messiah Even my Liberal friends are just as irritated with me as my Conservative friends. That's one of the ways I gauge that I have taken a balanced approach in my consideration of all 'things'.

So you've shown some ability to take a balanced evaluation? Accolades!! You've still done a pisspoor job of differentiating fact from fiction. That should be a bigtime failure, but it seems like a grade enhancement in many universities.

Liberalism is not more a lie than Conservativism. Horsescat, liberalism is founded on lies. The lie that other people are entitled to that which they have not worked for.

Things are deemed irrelevant by individuals, they are not inherently irrelevant. We are Gods of relevancies.

Spoken like a true Alinskite, we are not gods of anything. Things are determinded to be irrelevant based on their substance by lucid people.

 

[marshaul]

I do not believe in needlessly ending innocent life. If we allow abortion there is no reason to disallow infanticide. Why is one a crime and the other not?

A simple analysis of right as derived from self-ownership should suffice:

Firstly, rights cannot overlap. The sphere of one's freedom/right is limited by the equal sphere of others'. By definition, if something is within the sphere of another's freedom, it is outside your own.

A fetus (until a point, which may become earlier as medical technology improves) depends on the mother's body to survive.

A woman has a right to self-ownership and to do what she will with her body.

Therefore, the fetus cannot have a right to life until such a time as it can do so without dependency on the mother's body, or whenever its mother wishes to keep it.

Now, as the fetus's right to life is limited only by its mother's will, it is still murder to kill a fetus whose mother wishes it to live. Therefore it is appropriate to charge for double homicide when a pregnant woman is murdered.

 

[sharkey]

SNIP

Now, as the fetus's right to life is limited only by its mother's will, it is still murder to kill a fetus whose mother wishes it to live. Therefore it is appropriate to charge for double homicide when a pregnant woman is murdered.

You're extremely intelligent (more so than I probably) but I find that statement patently absurd.

Don't kid yourself about "the mother's will". If you committed a homicide against a pregnant woman and claimed/proved the mother was planning on getting an abortion they would not drop the second homicide charge.

I hear you on overlapping rights but an infant is dependent too. In some countries the children and wife are "dependent" on the patriarch for spiritual and cultural guidance. The families right to life is dependent upon the patriarch's will and may be revoked at anytime as an honor killing.

I don't think that's the best example but I'm trying to put it into perspective, as much for myself as anyone else.

Wasn't this thread about a judicial nominee being blocked? :lol:

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Spoken like a true Alinskite,

Fluff

But I will quote Alinsky: "In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace.... "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.' This means revolution" (http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm).

Hmm, it appears that Alinsky's intentions are too "seize power," from the Federal Government (?), and give the Power back to the People.

we are not gods of anything.

Hmm, yes we are.

Things are determinded to be irrelevant based on their substance by lucid people.

Things are only relevant because we first perceive them, then attribute relevance or irrelevance to them. As I stated, we are Gods of relevancy. A 'thing' is only relevant because you have attributed relevance to it, not because it has any intrinsic value. There is no intrinsic value in any 'thing'. Value is attributed to a 'thing', such as life.