You know...

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Politics in this country would be way easier if both parties accepted their own strengths and weaknesses. Neither has all of the answers. Neither is immune to fucking up or being stupid. Honestly both need each other just to create a healthy society. Liberals could teach conservatives quite a lot about high school economics and social engineering. Conservatives could teach liberals about as much about middle school biology and ethics. That's never gonna happen, but I can dream.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Politics in this country would be way easier if both parties accepted their own strengths and weaknesses. Liberals could teach conservatives quite a lot about high school economics and social engineering. Conservatives could teach liberals about as much about middle school biology and ethics. That's never gonna happen, but I can dream.

Conservatives know biology and have ethics? Real conservatives maybe, not the reactionaries, American Taliban, and Ayn Rand kids here that's for sure.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I've literally never met a conservative who holds that a newborn baby is a parasitic clump of cells or that they're immune to evolutionary forces. The part about ethics was grounded in Jonathan Haidt's work on moral foundations theory. On the reverse, the economic part came from liberals generally having a much better understanding of how our semi-capitalist system works in practice from top to bottom. The social engineering part was a reference to the Democratic Party's unparalleled successes in branding itself as the young and savvy Mac to the GOP's dim, bumbling PC.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I've literally never met a conservative who holds that a newborn baby is a parasitic clump of cells or that they're immune to evolutionary forces...

I've never met a liberal who does either...

 

[B. Kidd]

Politics in this country would be way easier if both parties accepted their own strengths and weaknesses. Liberals could teach conservatives quite a lot about high school economics and social engineering. Conservatives could teach liberals about as much about middle school biology and ethics. That's never gonna happen, but I can dream.

Conservatives know biology and have ethics? Real conservatives maybe, not the reactionaries, American Taliban, and Ayn Rand kids here that's for sure.

Amoebas are very small.........fetuses are comparatively very large. Your biology lesson for the day.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Politics in this country would be way easier if both parties accepted their own strengths and weaknesses. Liberals could teach conservatives quite a lot about high school economics and social engineering. Conservatives could teach liberals about as much about middle school biology and ethics. That's never gonna happen, but I can dream.

Conservatives know biology and have ethics? Real conservatives maybe, not the reactionaries, American Taliban, and Ayn Rand kids here that's for sure.

Amoebas are very small.........fetuses are comparatively very large. Your biology lesson for the day.

Size matters, often enough. Got that part.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I've literally never met a conservative who holds that a newborn baby is a parasitic clump of cells or that they're immune to evolutionary forces...

I've never met a liberal who does either...

I've personally witnessed you make one of these claims multiple times. I had to take about three hours out of my day once to put together a basic "birds and the bees" talk for a number of your comrades here just to explain exactly why they get horny. (Unsurprisingly, the only reactions that thread got were "why do you keep making us feel this way? "...) Regardless, my basic point was that the utter inability to admit fault or work in symbiosis is the underlying problem with our democracy right now. The two basic mental configurations - Dr. Haidt calls them liberal and conservative; I prefer neophile and neophobe - work by balancing each other out. The former are the thinkers and pioneers - the mind and imagination of a society. You're meant to come up with better ways to look at things and explore places nobody else has ever been before. The latter are the farmers and workers, the old guard - society's heart and hands. We're meant to keep the home fires burning while you're out exploring new frontiers, maintain the integrity of the culture's traditions and self-identity, and play devil's advocate to your radical new ideas. Properly applied, you keep us moving and we keep you stable. That natural balance fell apart with the Culture Wars and will most likely lead to a new society eventually arising out of the ashes of this one.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I've literally never met a conservative who holds that a newborn baby is a parasitic clump of cells or that they're immune to evolutionary forces...

I've never met a liberal who does either...

I've personally witnessed you make one of these claims...

I'd be interested to see you prove that but regardless, if you don't have a blog you need one. You can start with all change comes from the unreasonable man and not all change is for the better. Seems to be your worldview.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think being a rigid extremist isn't good for this country...The world isn't a straight rule book and we need leaders that can think about things without being controlled by such.

Anyone that opposes the basics like infrastructure, science, r&d, education and regulations for air, water and food isn't helping.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I'd be interested to see you prove that but regardless,

I could probably find the time you claimed that we call newborns neonates (literally "newborn" but in Latin) because they're not babies yet since they're still vulnerable if pressed. It was only like a day or two ago IIRC. That was just one time.

You can start with all change comes from the unreasonable man and not all change is for the better. Seems to be your worldview.

How do you mean "all change comes from the unreasonable man"? Not all change is for the better. Not all new mutations are good for a species and not all new ideas are good for a culture. That at least seems self evident.

 

[Moonglow]

Politics in this country would be way easier if both parties accepted their own strengths and weaknesses. Neither has all of the answers. Neither is immune to fucking up or being stupid. Honestly both need each other just to create a healthy society. Liberals could teach conservatives quite a lot about high school economics and social engineering. Conservatives could teach liberals about as much about middle school biology and ethics. That's never gonna happen, but I can dream.

You have never been divorced have you?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Nope. I'd rather never marry than divorce once. Marriage is very much an all or nothing commitment to me.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'd be interested to see you prove that but regardless,

I could probably find the time you claimed that we call newborns neonates (literally "newborn" but in Latin) because they're not babies yet since they're still vulnerable if pressed. It was only like a day or two ago IIRC. That was just one time.

You can start with all change comes from the unreasonable man and not all change is for the better. Seems to be your worldview.

How do you mean "all change comes from the unreasonable man"? Not all change is for the better. Not all new mutations are good for a species and not all new ideas are good for a culture. That at least seems self evident.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903) "Maxims for Revolutionists"

And a neonate is a very young infant, not a clump of cells, nor would any liberal I know call it that.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I see. I guess I just didn't get the reference (never been a fan of Shaw) or agree with the underlying notion.

I'll have to find the previous times you used that point. Anyway, I'm glad we currently agree on that. Now the only disagreement is whether there's anything mystical about birth that changes a clump of cells that just happens to be a constantly growing, maturing human into a gasping brand new person that just happens to have the exact same exact physiology it did five minutes ago at the birth canal. I can only assume it's the Personhood Fairy waiting patiently above the young lady's crotch with her magic wand.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I see. I guess I just didn't get the reference (never been a fan of Shaw) or agree with the underlying notion.

I'll have to find the previous times you used that point. Anyway, I'm glad we currently agree on that. Now the only disagreement is whether there's anything mystical about birth that changes a clump of cells that just happens to be a constantly growing, maturing human into a gasping brand new person that just happens to have the exact same exact physiology it did five minutes ago at the birth canal. I can only assume it's the Personhood Fairy waiting patiently above the young lady's crotch with her magic wand.

Ever heard of Ensoulment? Same kind issue, you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere but remember, I have no problem euthanizing sick, suffering, or profoundly deformed infants.

As for personhood, when do you have a person and when do you have a body? The reason people are so uncomfortable with late-term abortions is because you're getting close to a person. Regardless, the line must be drawn somewhere, and we are the ones who rule here so we are the ones to draw the line.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Ever heard of Ensoulment?

I'm aware of the concept. I'm unaware of any proof of the existence of anything like a soul, or why spiritual beliefs should have a place in a secular legal system.

Same kind issue, you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere but remember, I have no problem euthanizing sick, suffering, or profoundly deformed infants.

Unwanted? Also, would preemies count as sick or suffering? They wouldn't count as people under much of pro-choice rhetoric yet. Yours seems to be one of the few interpretations of it that would allow for that.

As for personhood, when do you have a person and when do you have a body?

I don't see why a distinction has to be made without taking ensoulment into consideration. My side doesn't consider a fetus to be at any point a non-living object. The living, maturing body moving and kicking in her mother's belly is the person - or at least to us anyway. It's not about theology, metaphysics, politics, or philosophy. It's about what we see with our eyes and feel against our hand and know about the mammalian life cycle.

The reason people are so uncomfortable with late-term abortions is because you're getting close to a person. Regardless, the line must be drawn somewhere,

Again, only if you differentiate between an ensouled person with innate rights and a fetus that might eventually become alive sometime during or after birth.

and we are the ones who rule here so we are the ones to draw the line.

Liberals?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Politics in this country would be way easier if both parties accepted their own strengths and weaknesses. Neither has all of the answers. Neither is immune to fucking up or being stupid. Honestly both need each other just to create a healthy society. Liberals could teach conservatives quite a lot about high school economics and social engineering. Conservatives could teach liberals about as much about middle school biology and ethics. That's never gonna happen, but I can dream.

Politics in this country would be much easier if conservatives simply accepted settled, established Constitutional case law, such as prior to birth an embryo/fetus is not a 'baby.'

 

[PaintMyHouse]

and we are the ones who rule here so we are the ones to draw the line.

Liberals?

Humans...

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Politics in this country would be way easier if both parties accepted their own strengths and weaknesses. Neither has all of the answers. Neither is immune to fucking up or being stupid. Honestly both need each other just to create a healthy society. Liberals could teach conservatives quite a lot about high school economics and social engineering. Conservatives could teach liberals about as much about middle school biology and ethics. That's never gonna happen, but I can dream.

Politics in this country would be much easier if conservatives simply accepted settled, established Constitutional case law, such as prior to birth an embryo/fetus is not a 'baby.'

You're not really contributing to the conversation here. It's not about Roe v Wade. It's about personhood and when it comes into existence. Even though it's actually about how liberal and conservative tendencies working at cross purposes without accepting any responsibility for our problems or the possibility of having any weaknesses or the other side having any strengths is what's eventually going to cause social collapse if left untreated.