2016 Presidential Horse Race

[zelezo vlk]

My point was more that maybe comparing abortions to the holocaust and slavery isn't exactly a fruitful line of rhetoric when even your own side acknowledges that there's something very fundamentally different about an abortion and a murder of a fully developed person.

Well to what would you compare infanticide? It shares numerous important characteristics (diminishing a particular group as less human and worthy of less rights than a "normal" human) with those two historical examples. So what would you say?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[kmoose]

I view it as the exact same thing because it's a developing human (likely with more potential than the severely mentally handicapped, although not necessarily so).

Fetus, neonate, infant, toddler, adolescent, adult, geriatric: Different names for temporally-defined human development.

I respect that. But do you allow that others feel like it is not a viable being, until it is formed to the point that it can sustain life?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

My point was more that maybe comparing abortions to the holocaust and slavery isn't exactly a fruitful line of rhetoric when even your own side acknowledges that there's something very fundamentally different about an abortion and a murder of a fully developed person.

There are lots of ways in which slavery was very different from the Holocaust as well. But I contend that, when it comes to human dignity and the importance of protecting all human life, they're all basically the same-- a vulnerable minority is defined as subhuman, commoditized, and then brutalized. Stopping that sort of atrocity should be priority 1A for anyone who believes in the concept of human rights.

If your support for criminalizing abortion is contingent on more generous benefits for poor single mothers, or legal clemency for the distressed women who seek them, that's fine! But you don't get to occupy the moral high ground of denouncing slavers and Nazis as monsters if you identify as pro-choice.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Well to what would you compare infanticide? It shares numerous important characteristics (diminishing a particular group as less human and worthy of less rights than a "normal" human) with those two historical examples. So what would you say?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

I think it's a semantic issue of no import. There's no objectively right answer to the question of when a human being starts to exist... people draw the line all over the place. Which is exactly why I don't think it's an appropriate area for the state to be involved. If you want to call it infanticide, fine. I think that's reasonable. I also think it's perfectly reasonable to call it not infanticide. Unlike Jews or African Americans, fetuses are not obviously "people".

But the key point is that I was not arguing that it was different- Ross Douthat was. And Whiskey was citing him with approval.

 

[IrishinSyria]

There are lots of ways in which slavery was very different from the Holocaust as well. But I contend that, when it comes to human dignity and the importance of protecting all human life, they're all basically the same-- a vulnerable minority is defined as subhuman, commoditized, and then brutalized. Stopping that sort of atrocity should be priority 1A for anyone who believes in the concept of human rights.

If your support for criminalizing abortion is contingent on more generous benefits for poor single mothers, or legal clemency for the distressed women who seek them, that's fine! But you don't get to occupy the moral high ground of denouncing slavers and Nazis as monsters if you identify as pro-choice.

This is just question begging though, so I'm comfortable if you don't think I have the moral high ground- I disagree.

I personally think your* efforts would be more fruitful if you focused on ways to reduce abortions rather than to try to make the moral case for criminalizing it. I understand your argument. I'm sympathetic to it. But there's an equally compelling counter argument. If you want to focus your energy and burn all your political capital on an un-winnable moral fight, fine. No skin off my back. But if you actually want to reduce the number of abortions in the US, there are more productive avenues.


* defined broadly as anti-abortion advocates

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I think it's a semantic issue of no import. There's no objectively right answer to the question of when a human being starts to exist... people draw the line all over the place.

Not true. The scientific consensus is unanimous that every unique human life begins at conception. You can attempt to define the set of "legal persons" as something smaller than the set of "human beings", but then you're in some pretty atrocious historical company. I think it's perfectly appropriate to remind pro-choice advocates of that fact, and to challenge them to justify keeping that company. We've had this conversion before, and you haven't produced anything close to a good answer here.

Which is exactly why I don't think it's an appropriate area for the state to be involved. If you want to call it infanticide, fine. I think that's reasonable. I also think it's perfectly reasonable to call it not infanticide. Unlike Jews or African Americans, fetuses are not obviously "people".

As Veritate alluded to above, they're just as human as an adult with Down Syndrome or a an elderly woman with advanced Alzheimer's Disease.

But the key point is that I was not arguing that it was different- Ross Douthat was. And Whiskey was citing him with approval.

And as I pointed out above, the bit I quoted was written in the larger context of criminalizing abortion nationwide. If you're prepared to concede that point, the pro-life movement will happily concede that there are some distinctives about abortion that militate in favor of legal clemency for distressed mothers who seek the procedure.

So no, the fact that we tried and hung Nazis at Nuremberg but are prepared to treat distressed mothers differently doesn't invalidate the comparison.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Like Peter Singer makes an equally compelling argument that killing animals is also a form of murder. He also draws parallels to slavery. I think his argument is strong. But I'm not a vegetarian, and I don't think eating meat should be outlawed. I think it's a perfectly logical moral decision to make. But there are also strong arguments against it. In the end, neither side is obviously right (again, unlike slavery or the holocaust). Without a strong social consensus and without a strong utilitarian reason for the state to step in, I'm fine with letting individuals making their own moral choices.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

This is just question begging though, so I'm comfortable if you don't think I have the moral high ground- I disagree.

I personally think your* efforts would be more fruitful if you focused on ways to reduce abortions rather than to try to make the moral case for criminalizing it. I understand your argument. I'm sympathetic to it. But there's an equally compelling counter argument. If you want to focus your energy and burn all your political capital on an un-winnable moral fight, fine. No skin off my back. But if you actually want to reduce the number of abortions in the US, there are more productive avenues.

* defined broadly as anti-abortion advocates

So now we're talking about political expediency? We're engaged in large scale infanticide for the same reason we justified no-fault divorce, contraception, widening economic inequality, and virtually every other symptom of the social dissolution we're currently experiencing. Liberalism is evil. It's a vaguely Christian heresy which will eventually destroy us if we don't find a more stable source of cultural renewal.

The abortion epidemic will not be solved by a mere political movement. We'll either need a miracle or a widespread religious revival/ conversion. Thus, I don't expect to see meaningful progress in my lifetime.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Thus, I don't expect to see meaningful progress in my lifetime.

On this, we agree, though I might word it slightly differently.

 

[GoIrish41]

Only 29% of Americans (as of a May 2016 Gallup Poll) support abortion being legal in all circumstances.

Also, Abortion poll finds 81% Americans, 66% pro-choice advocates support restrictions on procedure - Washington Times

Sure, most people are against abortion until their teenaged daughter gets pregnant. I don't think I know anyone who would be whimsical about the prospect of having an abortion. Indeed, I think a person would have to be a monster to believe there should be no restrictions! I know there are some who have that position and they are mostly liberals like me. I vehemently disagree with them. That said, taking a poll on what people think about abortion isn't likely to generate believable responses unless you are polling people facing unwanted pregnancies. For a lot of folks, values become a little fuzzy when it's a real decision.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

In the end, neither side is obviously right (again, unlike slavery or the holocaust).

Slavery and the Holocaust are not obviously wrong based on your stated first principles. That's the whole point of this argument. Your position cannot coherently condemn those two phenomena as atrocities while simultaneously praising abortion.

Without a strong social consensus and without a strong utilitarian reason for the state to step in, I'm fine with letting individuals making their own moral choices.

There's the rub. There is no utilitarian basis for the concept of human equality. It's a theological (and uniquely Christian) concept. Once you've rejected the theology, you've stepped into the void and no longer have a solid foundation for defending any human rights. See the quickly coalescing movements in favor of legalized euthanasia and "post-birth abortions". It's just the strong disposing of the weak and calling it justice. Very old idea, but just as evil as it's always been.

 

[BGIF]

Happy Days Are Here Again!

Happy Days Are Here Again!

Tech Wreck - 100+K Jobs Gone and More Cuts Coming | Fox Business

By Suzanne O'Halloran Published August 17, 2016

Technology, which makes our lives easier, is also putting more Americans out of work at a fast clip.

At the same time it announced a fiscal fourth-quarter earnings beat on Wednesday, Cisco (CSCO), the world’s largest networking giant, said it was cutting 5,500 jobs or 7% of its global workforce. Mark Haranas, of tech news website CRNOpens a New Window. , which earlier in the day reported Cisco would eliminate potentially as many as 14,000 jobs, told FOXBusiness.com the tech industry is cutting the dead weight.


Tech Wreck - Job Cuts 2015-2016
•Hewlett-Packard Enterprise 30,000
•Intel 12,000
•Dell 10,000
•Microsoft 7,800
•Seagate Technology 6,500
•Cisco 5,500

“The jobs cuts are necessary to shed some staff in order to bring on new employees with the skillset needed in today’s market. The networking skills needed in 2016 is drastically different from the skills that were needed just five years ago in 2011,” he said.

Microsoft (MSFT), Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) and Intel (INTC) have already slashed more than 100,000 jobs over the past 12 to 14 months, according to data from Challenger, Gray & Christmas, and that number is rising.

“There is a certain worry with these bellwethers,” John Challenger of Challenger, Gray & Christmas told FOXBusiness.com. “[The job cuts] are a recessionary sign, the economy may be moving toward that side of the [economic] cycle” he added.

The cuts at Cisco follow the company’s shift to software from its hardware networking bread and butter as cited in the CRN report. Cisco declined FOXBusiness.com’s request for comment citing the company’s quiet period ahead of earnings released after the closing bell.

Old school tech-companies are being forced to reinvent themselves as the industry moves toward newer technology such as the cloud. Many CEOs are being forced to recalibrate businesses by carving up a company that was once a behemoth into two separate entities.

Earlier this year Hewlett-Packard, once run by former GOP candidate Carly Fiorina, completed the spin-off of Hewlett-Packard Enterprises (HPE) under the direction of CEO Meg Whitman. The separation aims to capitalize on services, an industry that brings in more than $20 billion in annual sales. It also means less headcount.

What’s even more troubling is the U.S. is nearing full employment, yet it is not being fueled by quality jobs and innovative sectors. Last month, private sector employers added 288,000 jobs however a small fraction of those, 8,000 or so, were computer related.

Not a good sign for future economic growth.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Technology, which makes our lives easier, is also putting more Americans out of work at a fast clip.

Yuuup.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

And of course, I can make the argument that Bush's wars and tax cuts -- neither of which he paid for -- are what doomed the economy. We can go on like this forever -- in fact its seems like we have in this and the politics thread that was started ahead of the 12 election). None of it matters. Unless any of us have a time machine, there's nothing we can do about any of that now. Who has solutions to right the ship? Trump? I can't take anybody who thinks that is a good idea seriously. Hillary is talking about reinstating Glass-Steagall. I doubt Trump even knows what that is.

Forget Trump and Hillary. 8 years and MANY discussions later in this thread and you still don't know what caused 2008? The banks didn't go belly up because of wars and tax cuts. They went belly up because the government forced banks to give people mortgages they couldn't afford. Why? Because social justice.

 

[woolybug25]

Forget Trump and Hillary. 8 years and MANY discussions later in this thread and you still don't know what caused 2008? The banks didn't go belly up because of wars and tax cuts. They went belly up because the government forced banks to give people mortgages they couldn't afford. Why? Because social justice.

While all the government incentives created a mortgage culture, that was only one small piece of the puzzle. That wasn't the direct cause of the crisis. MBS's packed full of bullshit mortgages with no regulations, fraudulent rating agencies and a cowboy culture mortgage industry were the fire, the government just fanned the fire.

 

[wizards8507]

While all the government incentives created a mortgage culture, that was only one small piece of the puzzle. That wasn't the direct cause of the crisis. MBS's packed full of bullshit mortgages with no regulations, fraudulent rating agencies and a cowboy culture mortgage industry were the fire, the government just fanned the fire.

Right. Stop giving mortgages to the poors.

 

[pkt77242]

Forget Trump and Hillary. 8 years and MANY discussions later in this thread and you still don't know what caused 2008? The banks didn't go belly up because of wars and tax cuts. They went belly up because the government forced banks to give people mortgages they couldn't afford. Why? Because social justice.

While there is some truth there you seem to be missing two important things.

1. The CRA (and other laws like it) exist because of the discriminatory lending practices of banks. What a shocker that the regulation that people complain about came about because of real problems.

2. This is also important, many banks embraced subprime mortgages and loved the profit that was being made from them.

3. Lets not forget the fraud that banks/mortgage companies and ratings agencies engaged in in the lead-up to the financial crisis.


In summary, yes the government was part of the problem, but to pin all of the problem on them is overly black and white, as with most things in life there were multiple failures, not one.

 

[ACamp1900]

Right. Stop giving mortgages to the poors.

We don't. We give them the same house on section 8.........

 

[pkt77242]

While all the government incentives created a mortgage culture, that was only one small piece of the puzzle. That wasn't the direct cause of the crisis. MBS's packed full of bullshit mortgages with no regulations, fraudulent rating agencies and a cowboy culture mortgage industry were the fire, the government just fanned the fire.

^Said much better than my post.

Reps.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Big government is a symptom, not the disease. It increases to fill the vacuum left by withering civil institutions. Liberalism, in both its leftist and rightist forms, elevates the autonomous individual over all else, thereby ensuring social atomization.

Most modern Americans aren't fit for self-governance, which is why no Republican administration since WWII has ever actually succeeded in decreasing the size of government. If you'd like to downsize the government, your focus needs to be on creating a more virtuous citizenry.

Without disciplined citizens willing to sacrifice for their neighbors and future generations, the minimally invasive "night watchman" government that libertarians dream of is impossible.

I can't help but notice that falls right in line with our switch to suburbia and building subdivisions for the individual. Our most basic way of connecting to one another in a community, the built environment around/between us, was completely destroyed it in the years following World War II by big government planners who thought they knew better. I think I'm preaching to the choir, maybe, but I completely agree that the pendulum has swung too far in individualism's favor, and I think building neighborhoods again would be among the biggest available improvements for society.

 

[Buster Bluth]

While there is some truth there you seem to be missing two important things.

1. The CRA (and other laws like it) exist because of the discriminatory lending practices of banks. What a shocker that the regulation that people complain about came about because of real problems.

2. This is also important, many banks embraced subprime mortgages and loved the profit that was being made from them.

3. Lets not forget the fraud that banks/mortgage companies and ratings agencies engaged in in the lead-up to the financial crisis.


In summary, yes the government was part of the problem, but to pin all of the problem on them is overly black and white, as with most things in life there were multiple failures, not one.

More succinctly: the economy is a public-private partnership and any systemic failure in said economy will also reflect a public-private failure!

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

I can't help but notice that falls right in line with our switch to suburbia and building subdivisions for the individual. Our most basic way of connecting to one another in a community, the built environment around/between us, was completely destroyed it in the years following World War II by big government planners who thought they knew better. I think I'm preaching to the choir, maybe, but I completely agree that the pendulum has swung too far in individualism's favor, and I think building neighborhoods again would be among the biggest available improvements for society.

Great added point and agreed.

 

[yankeehater]

I can't help but notice that falls right in line with our switch to suburbia and building subdivisions for the individual. Our most basic way of connecting to one another in a community, the built environment around/between us, was completely destroyed it in the years following World War II by big government planners who thought they knew better. I think I'm preaching to the choir, maybe, but I completely agree that the pendulum has swung too far in individualism's favor, and I think building neighborhoods again would be among the biggest available improvements for society.

So why do you not consider the suburbs a neighborhood?

 

[phgreek]

So why do you not consider the suburbs a neighborhood?

my view of neighborhoods was mixed use zoning where you have businesses intermingled with homes...so you have the buthcher, the pharmacy, the accountant the post office all within a walk, as well as all manner of other store fronts. Not sure what Buster's intent was but thats my vision.

Edit: that creates a common purpose...I mean the only common purpose in a subdivision is if a sexual predator moves close by...maybe neighborhood watch. I'm not saying there aren't subdivisions that are close...but generally you move into a subdivision to "get away".

 

[connor_in]

Clinton Foundation hired cyber firm after suspected hacking: sources | Reuters

Uh Oh

cue clip of iron man from The Avengers just before he tumbles through the engine



Seriously, how much does DJT know about these things that he hasn't spent a thing on ads yet saving it all for a huge push at some future date?

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

I respect that. But do you allow that others feel like it is not a viable being, until it is formed to the point that it can sustain life?

Out of respect to you KMoose, perhaps you should reformulate the question since I believe what you posted above is a tautology I can't reasonably engage. (but I'll take a guess and retract if I'm mistaken)

Do I allow others to have their feelings? Yes, I allow that. I allow people to believe slavery should return or that Jewish people are evil or the Holocaust was warranted. Arbitrary convoluted lines do not alter the sacrosanct value of human life.

If you begin with the precept that all human life has dignity, it takes a certain amount of cognitive dissonance to mince words to arrive at it being acceptable to destroy human life after conception.

You're saying a viable/self-sustaining human before it's considered human? But only unidirectionally, right? We shouldn't kill old people when they are no longer self-sustained, right? Or is that in the moral grey as well?

 

[kmoose]

You're saying a viable/self-sustaining human before it's considered human?

I'm saying a lot of people believe that, and that belief forms the basis for their pro-choice stance.

But only unidirectionally, right? We shouldn't kill old people when they are no longer self-sustained, right? Or is that in the moral grey as well?

No, I'm not being unidirectional. I specifically said:

I'm not talking about a baby that cannot feed itself or walk to a water source, but a fetus whose organs are not developed sufficiently to sustain life without the umbilical cord supplying it?

I'm assuming that, by "old people when they are no longer self-sustained", you meant old people who can no longer feed and care for themselves, not old people whose organs have stopped functioning to the point of sustaining life. Our society HAS decreed that it is ok for old people whose bodies are failing to be allowed to die, hence DNR decrees. But upon further reflection, I guess that is a different animal because they are making their own choice, with a DNR. But then you could make the argument that a fetus is not capable of understanding the considerations involved in such a decision, so the personal choice of it is kind of moot. It's a pretty circular topic, when you think about it. I can see both sides of the debate, and I have respect for MOST of the opinions on both sides. I'm just glad that I have never been in a situation where I had to make that decision.

 

[phgreek]

Clinton Foundation hired cyber firm after suspected hacking: sources | Reuters

Uh Oh

cue clip of iron man from The Avengers just before he tumbles through the engine



Seriously, how much does DJT know about these things that he hasn't spent a thing on ads yet saving it all for a huge push at some future date?

IDK...until someone stands up and is willing to provide their name and stand behind all these Russian Rumors...seems like hot air. And a little too convenient given Trump's stance and now Manafort's issues.

AFAIC...Its a little more subtle Harry Reid type subterfuge.

 

[EddytoNow]

Trump Slump - Is it the sale's pitch or the product for sale?

Trump Slump - Is it the sale's pitch or the product for sale?

As Trump once again changes the leadership of his campaign team, a couple of questions come to mind. Is the floundering Trump campaign the result of poor marketing or is it simply the result of a product that no one wants to buy? Can Trump be repackaged to make him more appealing to voters?

IMHO the problem is the product that the GOP is selling. In other words, the problem is Trump, not a failure on the part of his revolving door campaign team. They can repackage all they want. The voters aren't buying, because they don't like what is being sold.

 

[wizards8507]

I can't help but notice that falls right in line with our switch to suburbia and building subdivisions for the individual. Our most basic way of connecting to one another in a community, the built environment around/between us, was completely destroyed it in the years following World War II by big government planners who thought they knew better. I think I'm preaching to the choir, maybe, but I completely agree that the pendulum has swung too far in individualism's favor, and I think building neighborhoods again would be among the biggest available improvements for society.

If cities were so great, nobody would have ever wanted to move to the suburbs in the first place. Cities are dirty and dangerous, period. Once you have kids, your perspective will change. Suburban planning would have failed if there was no demand for it.