Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I think that's arguing semantics, really. As far as I can tell, Fighteer was arguing something at least very similar to what you were.
Oh God! Natural light!The fact is, if the Federal Government had been kept to the limits of its power that the Constitution outlines, you wouldn't be viewing the election of the President as the most important issue affecting your life - it would be who your governor and state legislature are, which is something you have a lot more personal control over.
If the president didn't have too much power then the election of a bad president wouldn't be viewed as a disaster of biblical proportions. If Obama had managed to persuade some of his opponents that he had a point and had convinced them to support his policies, instead of ruling through executive orders, then it would be more difficult to reverse all of it now. You can argue "well no one could have convinced them to go along," but you would be ignoring the fact that successful presidents quite often do get their political opponents to go along, like Clinton and Reagan did.
If the Supreme Court were in their proper roles as umpires instead of super-legislators then no one would care which side appointed them as long as they were basically qualified. It's trying to push things on people by Supreme Court rulings rather than by convincing them and letting them come around on their own that has resulted in the current situation. Roe vs. Wade killed a debate that might have lead to legalized abortion anyway, and as a result the issue has never been truly resolved and continues to be re-fought every election more than 40 years later. The decision on same-sex marriage is the same. States were already going in the direction of legalizing it, but forcing a Supreme Court decision created resentment and will keep the issue alive interminably, to be fought again in every future election. In fact it's probably one of the factors that lead to the election of Trump. Not homophobia - rather a resentment at being told what to do rather than coming to the correct conclusion on your own.
They're called universal human rights for a reason. They apply to everyone everywhere at every time, and the only requirement for possessing them is being a member of the Human species.
Silasw, I would even hesitate to frame this in a consequentialist way. One shouldn't need to appeal to the outcome of the stripping of fundamental Human rights in order to argue against doing so, the doing so is itself what makes it undesirable, absent any consideration for utilitarian outcomes.
![]()
I'm sure he was, and I'm sure we're both in perfect accord on this. I just find it an important conceptual distinction to make.
edited 15th Nov '16 11:30:51 AM by Gault
yeyThat's such an extraordinarily petty sentiment that I simply have no sympathy for it. And again, if you think homophobia doesn't have anything to do with it and everyone or even most people are opposing gay marriage out of some great principled stance, I don't know what to tell you other than you haven't been paying attention.
Your argument also simply ignores that until the time comes when everyone magically realizes the error of their ways, minorities are thrown under the bus (which has been a recurring problem with your arguments). I'm sorry if I find that unacceptable.
edited 15th Nov '16 11:36:54 AM by Draghinazzo
At this point I doubt they'll be able to completely repeal Roe v. Wade, the current judges have said as much. There'll need to be other workarounds.
@Gault: I will say that if 99% of the country voted for oppression, I highly doubt you would be given the chance or the choice to support otherwise. Tyranny of the majority is an important and significant fear to carry when discussing government and civil rights, but there's a certain point when it becomes difficult to rule the people when the people who make, enforce, and decide the laws of the land are all for one opinion.
![]()
![]()
I'd argue that the utilitarian perspective is necessary from a practical standpoint, as some people need to understand the consequences of this sort of thing - after all, they might have been taught entirely differently.
Not everyone shares the same morals - this is why the consequentialist viewpoint is needed.
edited 15th Nov '16 11:33:40 AM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!Sure but that's because several troopers would be in jail, dead or in chains.
Not if don't have the right to vote you don't.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
![]()
You're probably right, but that was a thought experiment. I wanted to make the point that, as great as democracy is, there exist things outside the remit of democratic consensus.
![]()
You say that like there isn't a way to reach rational conclusions on what is or isn't moral.
edited 15th Nov '16 11:34:46 AM by Gault
yeyRegan, Clinton and Bush didn't have to deal with opposition parties who made "anti-Obama" the banner they unified under, who had radical factions that threaten to run primary candidates against their allies if they reach across the aisle or fail to toe the party line, who shut down the government and held the national debt hostage in a failed attempt to get Obamacare repealed, who held emergency funding for fighting the Zika virus hostage because some of the money would go to an organization that happens to support abortion (but offers all sorts of necessary medical services for women and expectant mothers). Obama finally resorted to ruling by executive order because after six years, he'd exhausted his negotiation options.
edited 15th Nov '16 11:38:59 AM by Elle
Bense: The reaction against Marriage Equality is NOT about homophobia!
I cannot facepalm hard enough.
![]()
Consensus. There is no way to reach consensus. You can conclude all you want, if I think you're wrong, I'll still think you're wrong.
edited 15th Nov '16 11:37:28 AM by blkwhtrbbt
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for youThe beautiful thing about reason is that it's what lets you be sure you have a good reason to believe in something. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's why it's called reason.
I don't need consensus to know that defending the fundamental rights of gay people is the right thing to do. Indeed, the entire point of that paragraph I wrote at the very bottom of the previous page is that no amount of consensus has the slightest power to impinge upon the ironclad rightness of my defending of the fundamental rights of gay people.
edited 15th Nov '16 11:43:43 AM by Gault
yeyWell, not everyone thinks the same way - people use different methods and different sources, and might not always be rational about them. I don't think you should expect everyone to follow your line of reasoning. Again, this is what the consequentialist perspective is for - to show why these are so important. Granted, you won't convince everyone, but you might convince some who wouldn't be convinced otherwise.
See, here's the thing - the people on the other side think the exact same thing. If we're to make progress, then I think we need to prove them wrong.
edited 15th Nov '16 11:45:39 AM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!![]()
That's admirable of you, but beside the point I was making. You DO have to convince them that what they believe is harmful somehow. Because there are some folks whose opinions will never change no matter how you reason with them.
edited 15th Nov '16 11:46:25 AM by blkwhtrbbt
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for you![]()
Naturally! Of course, that's correct. But it's also not the slightest bit relevant. The single factor that's relevant to the outcome of this question is whether it's the right thing to do, not whether I can get the majority of my constituency to agree with me.
I think we may be talking past one-another just a bit.
edited 15th Nov '16 11:45:58 AM by Gault
yeyUnless, of course, you live in solidly conservative states, which generally have no indication that they'd be willing to legalize things like gay marriage without Federal law. Support for gay marriage may be on the rise there, but not to the degree that it would be legalized soon.
The same would be said of slavery, Jim Crow, and other segregation laws. The American South didn't just support these things - the Confederacy was founded on the idea that slavery was the natural and moral place for black people.
Again, people shouldn't have their human rights suspended until bigots decide to not be bigots anymore. Oh, and as others have said, there is no difference between standard bigotry and "No, I get to decide when you get human rights!"
edited 15th Nov '16 11:46:32 AM by SilentColossus
What a load of bullshit. Switzerland let the people come around on their own regarding women's voting rights. It took until 1971 (six years after Afghanistan >_<). That's 50 years, or two generations, of disenfranchised women compared to other western countries. I'd rather have had some pissed off reactionaries for those 50 years then 50% of the population disenfranchised. And when in 1990 the last canton (state) still refused to give women the cantonal vote, guess what, we just forced those fuckers. And they haven't complained since. Mostly because conservatives die first.
What was it Martin Luther King said?
edited 15th Nov '16 11:49:02 AM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!
DAMN
You are just a complete font of quotes today
edited 15th Nov '16 11:55:36 AM by blkwhtrbbt
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for youThat "might have lead" is also a sticky point in and of itself. "Might have" is a fun story to tell yourself when it's pretty clear than in many cases it just wouldn't have at all. "Might have lead" can just as easily, and frequently much more likely, would have lead to abortion still being entirely illegal in states like Texas and Louisiana and various other states, which are states that frequently need the most in federal aid. Note that these states also tend to be the ones that deny funding to things like Medicare and education.
"Might have lead" tends to lead into terrible realities that just make things all around harder on everyone. Why do you think people oppose states rights to start with?

TLDR: If it's a human rights/civil rights issue, no government ought to deny it, nor should a state get away with ignoring a federal law protecting it.