This entire discussion demonstrates the lie in Cecil’s belief that “the truth will come out through polite debate.” No, it fucking will not. One person throws shit around the room, many people are horrified and angered, and meanwhile a few valuable contributors decide this isn’t a welcoming place and disappear.
I recently saw this on the web - no idea who was the originator or how old it is, but it’s pertinent.
I was thinking of the “free exchange of ideas” last night. You know, it’s not like a market, it’s like a potluck. Everyone brings their own ideas and you sample others and some are familiar with a twist, some are interesting but not to your taste, some are bad, some are lifechanging. You can get into a discussion about recipes or technique, or what have you as people talk about the food.
If someone brings mashed potatoes, you can debate the appropriateness for a potluck: is it too bland? Will it get cold on the table? Do potatoes make up too much of our diet?
But if someone puts a steaming platter of dog shit on the table, we’re not going to debate it. And when we tell them to take it off the table, it’s not because we are afraid of eating their dog shit or we think that it’s going to revolutionize lunch and we don’t want that to happen.
We tell them to get it off the table because there is no debate to be had. It’s dog shit. It’s not an open question, it’s not a matter of palettes or picky eaters.
That’s why we don’t engage with neo-nazis and white supremacists, and it’s why we don’t (or shouldn’t) let them come to the potluck.
Bad example. She would probably die without that abortion, and I don’t think the state can lawfully get in between a doctor and someone’s life. I wouldn’t put it past Florida to try though.
Maybe try weed possession? ETA: I don’t think I’d be sympathetic to help a “fugitive” wanted for weed possession.
I appreciate what you’re doing here, but what outcome are you expecting? Is Max going to see the light and suddenly find a moral compass? He has shown us clearly who he is. Further scenarios and debate just gives him more opportunity to spread his pile of dog shit.
Women have successfully given birth at that age throughout history. It might put her life in danger, but not necessarily. But what it does do is force her to undergo a life-changing, traumatic, and physically painful situation that she was pushed into against her will.
And you’re missing facts. Prior to Roe v Wade, abortion was illegal in 30 states under any circumstances. Only 16 states had an exception for the safety of the mother (as well as for victims of rape or incest). Only a few states allowed it under any circumstance. States absolutely can get in between a doctor and someone’s life, thinking otherwise is ignorant.
Since this is the Pit, I don’t think I necessarily need to expect a positive outcome for my posting. Consider this something of a mini rant against his bullshit.
I disagree with you - at the very least the state must allow for individualized consideration before depriving a person of their life, or the liberty necessary to live.
I tend to appreciate arguments based on the infinite extensibility of a premise (ie, what if everybody thought that way ?).
In a vacuum, they can be a good test.
But then reality sets in, and the more salient question – and, usually, the more important moral question – sets in: what is the (more) right thing to do given the realities of the situation that I face – where the beliefs of other people – either de jure or de facto are at odds with mine ?
You know, Max, a lot of smart people elevate rationalization to a high art. They do this because they are certain they are the smartest person in the room. I think you are such a one. And I hope you can hear me when I tell you, you are wrong.
You are often wrong in your legal conclusions, and you are pathetically wrong in your conclusions about race.
I hope you can shut up, take a step back, read what is offered to you here with a fresh, open mind and learn. Because reading everything you’ve posted in this discussion turns my stomach. You’re a racist through and through – and I want you to be better than that. You have the intellect. You, alone, are blocking your own path to enlightment here.
I hate to write you off as a lost cause, but you may be a lost cause. How sad.
What if the state’s law says “we can deprive you of life or liberty at any time for any reason”? Wouldn’t it be morally wrong to impede the state from depriving life and liberty of anyone it wished?
You’re well past the racist line. You know that, right? The fact that you’re still allowed to post shows that this board still has a long way to go with regards to tolerating racism.
The only thing I will say in his defense is he has said he is basically questioning what he’s allowed to say to avoid being punished. I think a reasonable position would be for the mods to tell him he’s topic banned from discussing race and move on, there is little value added to the boards in hearing or seeing these views.
It would be invalid because of these sections in the federal constitution,
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
So I would be comfortable flouting it to help the child.
I really don’t think deliberately so, although the effect may be indistinguishable.
I think he lives in a fantasy world where he’s an insightful intellectual who embraces certain ideas/ideals, and has a bravery that others lack to explore these ideas to all their logical implications, however uncomfortable and controversial. The problem is that he appears to lack any ability to do elementary triage to distinguish good/interesting ideas from obviously stupid ideas. As we’re seeing here, if you drill down from his strange peerspectives, you discover that they are derived on fundamental principles that are so obviously stupid or morally bankrupt that you’re just left with…WTF? He also shows no capacity to modify stupid ideas when their gaping flaws are exposed through debate. So on certain topics (what we’re seeing here and language are striking examples), he stubbornly and verbosely recycles a set of obviously stupid ideas over and over again.
As with anyone who’s functionally equivalent to a troll, I think it’s worth engaging to the extent that it helps me clarify my own ideas, or if his stupidity is worth dissecting for the potential benefit of others who might be reading. But don’t engage with any expectation that he will change or learn anything.
So, are you willing to retract everything you said about helping a slave? Because slaves were deprived of all of that, based solely on their skin color.
Do you understand that what it looks like is that if someone is deprived of their basic human rights based on race, you’re okay with it. But not other situations. That’s really, really racist.
A society based on horrific immorality is not one I owe shit to. I don’t owe them allegiance, I don’t owe them the honor of leaving them. I don’t owe them shit, and any claim to the contrary is shit.
Society is just a bunch of people, and people are a bunch of jumped-up primates wearing clothing and making agreements with one another. I’m not bound by agreements that are shitty.
Specifically, in the case of chattel slavery, that means some other primates have said, “Hey, let’s use the state’s power to enforce a system of oppression-through-torture.” There is nothing in that agreement that can bind me, or bind anyone else.
If the society gives me wealth, that shitty agreement still doesn’t bind me. If the society gives me privilege, that shitty agreement still doesn’t bind me. The idea that I’m obligated to leave all parts of that society is bullshit: I have no such obligation to the assholes who are in power and who tried to make everyone agree to that system of torture.
This sort of mystical adherence to whatever gang of thugs have intimidated everyone else into letting them be in power is stupid.
I get the opposite impression. It is clearly a me problem if this many people are so confident that I’m wrong.
If introspection alone could make me see the error in my ways, I wouldn’t have joined the SDMB in the first place. And if the condemnation of my peers could make me see the error in my ways, I would have stopped with this many hours ago.
A couple of times on these boards I’ve had a click! and there is nothing more satisfying in the world.
