You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 09, 2016, 05:31:36 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: How does this fit together?  (Read 716 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AndyZTopic starter

How does this fit together?
« on: September 06, 2012, 10:11:57 PM »
So I got sent this video which, allegedly, is supposed to show the hypocrisy of some issues on the left.  I realize not everyone is going to have all these views, but if someone out there does, I was wondering if someone could explain how it all fits together.

If you don't hold a number of these seemingly contradictory views, it's not going to help too much for you to comment.  Ideally, I'm hoping someone can explain how there really is some sort of pattern here and that these people aren't just hypocrites.

How 'Pro-Choice' are Democrats?

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: How does this fit together?
« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2012, 11:05:17 PM »
The description I read on a conservative site left me a little boggled.  It said that the Democrats they spoke to were unanimously pro choice as far as abortion goes.  The 'hostility' seems to come in as far as being asked about increased choice in 'other matters', which seems ripe for straw-man arguments. 

Offline AndyZTopic starter

Re: How does this fit together?
« Reply #2 on: September 06, 2012, 11:23:56 PM »
I find myself wondering about the number of edits/cut-takes involved.

It's entirely possible that this was edited, and that people who believe in one don't believe in the other.  If that's the case, few people will respond to this.

I consider it more likely that there's some other aspect that links (or disjoins) the two that I'm missing.

Quote
Both sides are imfamous for their 'cut-edits' like the one with the president saying 'if you create a business.. you didn't do it.' .. that cut leaves out 2 paragraphs taht put it in perspective.

Here's that speech:

Obama: If you've been successful you didn't get there on your own

Here's the entire speech if necessary:

President Obama, in Roanoke Virginia - 2012-07-13

Seems rather clear to me that he's talking about that you're not responsible for your own success.  Some people claim that when he said "you didn't build that" that he was talking about the roads and bridges that he mentioned before the business, but if so, wouldn't it be "you didn't build those"?

Regardless, I'm guessing you don't hold the opinions.

The description I read on a conservative site left me a little boggled.  It said that the Democrats they spoke to were unanimously pro choice as far as abortion goes.  The 'hostility' seems to come in as far as being asked about increased choice in 'other matters', which seems ripe for straw-man arguments. 

Well, the guy goes around asking Democrats if they're pro-choice.  They all talk about how it's the woman's body, so it's entirely the woman's choice.  (Inasmuch as pro-choice people don't believe that the fetus is a human life, we can leave that aspect out of the equation.)  He then asks about things like whether trans fats should be banned, and they're for it.

To me, this seems completely incongruous.  If you believe that someone has a complete right to their own body, why would they not then have a right to trans fats and to do whatever the crap else they want with their body?

Now, I might be completely missing something.  If someone believes these two things simultaneously, it suggests that there's some reason for it which doesn't seem obvious on the surface.  I was hoping to be told what that reason is.

Offline CalypsoNymph

Re: How does this fit together?
« Reply #3 on: September 06, 2012, 11:30:44 PM »
For me... I find, personally, that there's something deeply wrong with the entire set up of that interview, even if cuts didn't take place.  It's taking somebodies stance on one thing, and spreading it around to things it's not meant to be spread to.  The term 'pro choice' sounds good, is nice, solid, and supports the parties platform... but it is not meant for everything.  Personally, I am pro choice... when it comes to abortion.  I am not pro choice when it comes to making, using, and spreading highly dangerous and addictive drugs, even if it is each persons choice whether to use them or not.

Their views are not conflicting; they're oversimplified, and the people don't want to sound contridictory.  It would be faily easy to do the same with the republican view of 'pro-life'.

(The following conversation never happened and is not meant to offend anybody who is a republican or agrees with some republican ideas.)

"So... you're pro-life?"

"That's right.  I believe that no women should kill a soul growing inside her body, for any reason."

"Does that mean, since you are pro-life, you're against capitale punishment?"

"Now now... I didn't say that.  Clearly, people who have done horrible, cruel, inhumane acts deserve the capitale punishment."

"So... then, you're not pro-life?"

"No no... see, it's like this.  I am for the creation of life, as whoever he or she may be... but, clearly, if they've done somthing that deserves punishment, they need to be punished."

"Oh, okay, then.  So you're pro-life."

"Yes sir, I am."

"So, then, you're for stricter gun control laws?"

"I... what?  No, of course not.  Every American deserves the right to bear arms."

"But it's been statistically proven that drawing a gun during, say, a burglarly, is more likely to result in serious injury and death then if you didn't..."

...And so on and so on and so on.  It's easy to find contridiction in views when you take them out of context.

...And, ah, again, I don't mean to insult any republicans, or democrats, or anybody else.  I apologize deeply if I did.

Offline AndyZTopic starter

Re: How does this fit together?
« Reply #4 on: September 06, 2012, 11:48:07 PM »
The point he was trying to make in that speech is that the government has done a LOT to help business grow, particularly small business. (he's a lot more pro-small business that Romney.. who is very much pro-big business even at the expense of small companies)

Evidence please?

For me... I find, personally, that there's something deeply wrong with the entire set up of that interview, even if cuts didn't take place.  It's taking somebodies stance on one thing, and spreading it around to things it's not meant to be spread to.  The term 'pro choice' sounds good, is nice, solid, and supports the parties platform... but it is not meant for everything.  Personally, I am pro choice... when it comes to abortion.  I am not pro choice when it comes to making, using, and spreading highly dangerous and addictive drugs, even if it is each persons choice whether to use them or not.

Their views are not conflicting; they're oversimplified, and the people don't want to sound contridictory.  It would be faily easy to do the same with the republican view of 'pro-life'.

(The following conversation never happened and is not meant to offend anybody who is a republican or agrees with some republican ideas.)

"So... you're pro-life?"

"That's right.  I believe that no women should kill a soul growing inside her body, for any reason."

"Does that mean, since you are pro-life, you're against capitale punishment?"

"Now now... I didn't say that.  Clearly, people who have done horrible, cruel, inhumane acts deserve the capitale punishment."

"So... then, you're not pro-life?"

"No no... see, it's like this.  I am for the creation of life, as whoever he or she may be... but, clearly, if they've done somthing that deserves punishment, they need to be punished."

"Oh, okay, then.  So you're pro-life."

"Yes sir, I am."

"So, then, you're for stricter gun control laws?"

"I... what?  No, of course not.  Every American deserves the right to bear arms."

"But it's been statistically proven that drawing a gun during, say, a burglarly, is more likely to result in serious injury and death then if you didn't..."

...And so on and so on and so on.  It's easy to find contridiction in views when you take them out of context.

...And, ah, again, I don't mean to insult any republicans, or democrats, or anybody else.  I apologize deeply if I did.

Being neither Democrat nor Republican, it's not an issue for me.

Using your example, someone who's both Pro-Life and for Capital Punishment sees the fetus as a human life as of the moment of conception.  They believe that there is some lawful reason for ending the life of someone under specific circumstances in a court of law.

I guess I should have been more specific.  A number of the issues you can throw out, like unions and abortion.  The two involve choice but aren't truly similar. 

However, in my understanding, the whole point of choice is that only the woman can decide to do with her own body, right?  I have difficulty understanding how someone can be both for allowing abortion because of the woman's right to choose what to do with her own body, and keeping highly dangerous and addictive drugs illegal, implying that it's not a person's right to choose what to do with their own body.

Now, I posit that there's some aspect to this that I'm missing.  I realize it probably sounds just reading this like I'm trying to trick people, because that's all politics is really about anymore.

I'm Pro-Choice.. I belive that it's a person/couples choice.. my PERSONAL decision (barring issues with the child) is to have and raise a child if the girl I'm with came to me and said she was pregnant.. (My personal issues have me a bit worried.. my own bio-chemical issues ARE hereditary in part..and I've suffered enough before I was diagnosed that I wouldn't want to have my girl NOT know about it before hand (I'm biopolar and there are.. other issues in the family.)

So, do you believe that it's a human as of conception and believe in euthanasia, or do you believe that a fetus is not a human at the point of conception?  Or is there another option I haven't considered?

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: How does this fit together?
« Reply #5 on: September 07, 2012, 12:06:27 AM »
Now, I posit that there's some aspect to this that I'm missing.  I realize it probably sounds just reading this like I'm trying to trick people, because that's all politics is really about anymore.

The entire video is essentially one huge reductio ad absurdium, which is a fallacious manner of arguing in which you follow someone's reasoning to a ridiculous conclusion and then use that ridiculous conclusion as a sort of straw man to discredit their argument. (Read the long definition of what it is in the wikipedia page here.)

The reductio here seems to be, "You identify as pro-choice, but you oppose the right of people to choose not to join a union, therefore if you oppose one choice you are clearly not actually pro-choice. If you were pro-choice, you would not oppose any choices under any circumstances." Do you see how silly that is?

You are also, at a national convention, going to get people who are honestly fanatical on either side of the political spectrum. I think that if you interviewed delegates from the RNC last week, you would get people who are all about small government but want the federal government to build a fence along our southern border.

I'm an independent - I don't hold many of these views myself (some, but not all). However, videos like these annoy me because they are usually one big fat logical fallacy.

Offline Frozen Flame

Re: How does this fit together?
« Reply #6 on: September 07, 2012, 12:08:32 AM »
I think the problem with Politics in general and American Politics in particular is the Conservative-Liberal binary. I get why it's there, but it can be very frustrating for those of us who take a stance based on the issue and the situation, rather than one blanket view.

Not to talk "over" the subject, but I think this is why people have a hard time seriously discussing the issues with any meaningful dialogue. We seem to be caught up in these arguments with giant straw-people who don't exist. There are democrats who hate the abuse of food-stamp programs, and republicans who support gay marriage. But since they've subscribed to one view or the other, it's assumed that they must subscribe to the entire platform.

I think this sort of mentality is what George Washington was talking about when he described his view on political parties:
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism."

And the problem is, we're held captive to this system. Or else we vote for people outside of the two parties who won't get elected :\

Offline AndyZTopic starter

Re: How does this fit together?
« Reply #7 on: September 07, 2012, 12:43:49 AM »
I believe that for me PERSONALLY if I'm responsible enough to father a child I have a duty to help the woman raise it.

I do not believe that anything else matters beyond that.. at least in knowing what I believe and care about personally.


Do I think that there should be a point where the fetus is not aborted.. BUT I don't believe that the fetus magically has rights that overwhelm the rights of the woman. Before a certain point the fetus isn't viable.. and this movement has crept in and taken control of things..

"personhood' is set to roll back reproductive rights and health issues at least 60 years. In the Dominican Republic it's already claimed the life of one girl, who due to her unfortunate pregranacy couldn't get the chemo she needed for leukemia (sp).

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/08/17/draft-16-year-old-who-wasnt-allowed-abortion-dies-complications-from-her-cancer

Situations in life aren't absolute. Killing someone in your home trying to kill you is okay.. but accosting someone on the street and kiling them isn't. People should have a degree of choice. Pro-choice allows you to measure your ethics, choices and consider what YOU would do.

Personhood doesn't. And it curtails a LOT of choices for folks. Imagine that poor girl. They MADE her have ultrasounds to see the child moving.. knowing that most likely it wouldn't survive her chemo.. or even the leukemia.. but they MADE her watch the untrasounds.. can you IMAGINE looking at fetus and knowing that the odds were slim that you'd live long enough without chemo to bring the child to a point wher it could live without you.. BUT knowing carrying that child was definitely kill you and him/her? AND being made to watch it.

Or how about this... one of my mentors (and his wife) come from a ethic background where Tey Sachs is present.. both are carriers in the recessive sense.. would you HONESTLY make them carry a child to term.. knowing it will be dead by six?

Your argument is that abortion should be acceptable when the life of the mother is at risk.  Can you find me someone who doesn't believe that?  The big three exceptions are rape, incest and life of the mother at risk.

We can argue euthanasia all day long, but the usual deal for that is that only the person who's going to die gets to choose whether or not they want the chance to live for as long as possible.

The entire video is essentially one huge reductio ad absurdium, which is a fallacious manner of arguing in which you follow someone's reasoning to a ridiculous conclusion and then use that ridiculous conclusion as a sort of straw man to discredit their argument. (Read the long definition of what it is in the wikipedia page here.)

The reductio here seems to be, "You identify as pro-choice, but you oppose the right of people to choose not to join a union, therefore if you oppose one choice you are clearly not actually pro-choice. If you were pro-choice, you would not oppose any choices under any circumstances." Do you see how silly that is?

You are also, at a national convention, going to get people who are honestly fanatical on either side of the political spectrum. I think that if you interviewed delegates from the RNC last week, you would get people who are all about small government but want the federal government to build a fence along our southern border.

I'm an independent - I don't hold many of these views myself (some, but not all). However, videos like these annoy me because they are usually one big fat logical fallacy.

Yeah, I didn't realize people would see things from that angle.  I've seen so many of these this election year that I automatically filter anything which is an obviously bad argument.  My foolishness was expecting people to do the same.

I think the problem with Politics in general and American Politics in particular is the Conservative-Liberal binary. I get why it's there, but it can be very frustrating for those of us who take a stance based on the issue and the situation, rather than one blanket view.

Not to talk "over" the subject, but I think this is why people have a hard time seriously discussing the issues with any meaningful dialogue. We seem to be caught up in these arguments with giant straw-people who don't exist. There are democrats who hate the abuse of food-stamp programs, and republicans who support gay marriage. But since they've subscribed to one view or the other, it's assumed that they must subscribe to the entire platform.

I think this sort of mentality is what George Washington was talking about when he described his view on political parties:
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism."

And the problem is, we're held captive to this system. Or else we vote for people outside of the two parties who won't get elected :\

Pretty sure I said near-identical things in other places ^_^

I'm going to encourage you towards my Vote No Evil thread.  If you see the problem as I do, maybe you can help me figure out a better solution.

Offline AndyZTopic starter

Re: How does this fit together?
« Reply #8 on: September 07, 2012, 01:07:01 AM »
http://factcheck.org/2012/07/twisting-romneys-abortion-stance/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/mitt-romney-abortion_n_1834888.html

Although Mr. Romney has stated this position before, Mr. Ryan, a seven-term congressman from Wisconsin, has opposed abortion in the case of rape. During his first run for the seat in 1998, The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported that he opposed abortions in all cases except to save the life of the mother.

I'll give you Akin, but he's already proven himself incompetent.  Of course, being incompetent doesn't mean that you can't be in Congress, to my sorrow.

Hank Johnson (Congress D-GA) - Warns Guam May Capsize

Now, are you for banning trans fats or keeping drugs illegal, or are you just trolling?

Offline AndyZTopic starter

Re: How does this fit together?
« Reply #9 on: September 07, 2012, 01:54:48 AM »
I'll just try again.