SCOTUS stops the election interference....cold!

[...

 

...

 

...

 

...

 

I’m not seeking to change your mind about anything. Differences of opinion are more stimulating than echo chambers.

Why don’t you tell me why those stupid right to lifers are antisemitic misogynists for wishing that women wouldn’t dismember their fetuses and have them sucked from their wombs.

 

The only relevant words in the last post are the last two.

 

Agreed. But let’s suppose you were the father of such a fetus. Further, let’s suppose you’re not keen for this baby to be, but she changes her mind and wants to carry to term and deliver? You get no say just because it happens to be inside her for the moment? How about a post-natal abortion? That should be your choice as well then shouldn’t it?

Ok, ok. I’m being disingenuous in the above. But to say the issue is as simple as those two words is, to me, also disingenuous. My own thoughts, when I give it any, are;
1. Abortion is infanticide. I wish we’d stop with the euphemisms and clinical terminology that disguise this fact and just admit this to ourselves. As fond as I am of birth canals, so much so that I return to them as frequently as I can, they are not some magic passage that separates life from non-life. So the premise that we call killing the baby on the inside a private medical procedure and killing it on the outside murder, is nonsensical to me.
2. As with drug or alcohol prohibitions, there will always be a market for this and excessive restrictions will bring other undesirable consequences upon not just those who engage in the activity. The market will attract the unscrupulous to service it and gather the profits that come from doing so. And people who would otherwise not be, will become criminals.

 

Ah, the old "My enemy's enemy is my friend" situation?
Not the best way to determine good or bad on someone, me thinks.

 

Agreed. Lacking omniscience, I must make all of my assessments and decisions based on limited information. Also, as discussed earlier, the concept of “rational ignorance” at least somewhat accurately applies to me.

In the elections in which I have voted, I chose, as I suspect many others do, the lesser of the two evils. More specifically, I always chose the person/platform that I thought would screw me over the least. Regardless of whether the person I voted for won or lost, I have always been disappointed by how much I underestimated capacity of the victor to perform said screwing.

 

So, as I mentioned in the earlier post, it seems you’re categorizing it, based upon whether or not there has been a complete, live passage through this magic birth canal, to distinguish a medical procedure from murder. Is my understanding correct?

 

Getting back to the original topic of the thread then, is the court’s decision in error? It was not a partisan ruling.
If it was in error, and states should have the ability to determine which candidates for federal offices are allowed to be on their ballots, is it a reasonable course of action, for the cause of “saving democracy”, to preclude the people from being able to cast their vote for any candidate?

 

...

 

You're still denying it?

Again, looking at a theory (or idea) in context of who may have proposed it, or who may support it, rather than the theory or the idea itself.

It's interesting that, yet again, you'd describe other people instead of a subject. If you take your feelings about others out of consideration then you might think that with a seemingly high IQ you might see how those you attack could see you as being the way you describe them.

And it would be no more or less valid. Nonetheless it simply detracts from the conversation topics.
It also makes you look like simply a team player rather than someone who analyses.

 

...

 

You’re right. I was being facetious with that question, just trying to throw as many silly descriptors in to make it appear so.

As to why the right wing, republican, evangelical, etc. folks are trying to pass such extreme legislation, I could only speculate since I’m not invited to the meetings. So I will.

I have come to think of our culture as though it were swinging back and forth on a pendulum over time. More appropriately perhaps, multiple pendulums. From say conservative to liberal. From free to authoritarian. From exuberant to depressed. And so on. For any one of these supposed opposites, it may swing very far in one direction or not. It may swing quickly or not.

If we can accept that some folks may prefer one side of the oscillation over the other, and that change is the only constant, then we could consider this as an iterative game between competing interests. If that were the case, each side not only wants to maintain their time in the zone of the swing that they prefer, but also, knowing that this is an iterative game and that the pendulum will swing back, then each side has incentive to push the swing as far and fast as they can in their favored direction, even past the range of their own comfort, and do all they can to hinder the speed and distance of the return swing to the other side.

Before someone chimes in with the physics of pendulums such as retained energy, angular and linear speed, and arc length; yes I know. But this is just an analogy to illustrate a concept of cultural change.

 

I do believe it, it's well thought out, and describes reality as I see it.

It has nothing to do with the source, nor with me.

Plus, I have no obligation to "back up" my beliefs and observations.

You can call others names and make accusations but you can't change that.

 

Haha yes, physics aside, the pendulum analogy has been in use for decades.
People get fed up with extremes and want to turn back.