Political Roundtable Part XXXI

[popper]

false equivalency...

Why don't you answer my question dck? Please muster the courage. It will set you free.

It is a false choice. Start with a false premise and work from there.

When did you stop beating your wife?

What you are asking is: choose a side based upon your belief. What did that get us? We have a weaponized religion sect that has given us Bush and the forever wars and Trump and everything that falls from that. You voted for Bush and Trump based upon that false choice. The country will pay the price for that in terms of national debt, inability to deal with climate change, the melt down of our healthcare system, institutional racism, etc..

I don't mean to be difficult dck. And I don't mean to unfairly single you out. It's a question we should all answer before debating/deciding public policy. There's likely a big difference between the policy choices a pure materialist would make as opposed to ones that a Buddhist, Muslim or Christian might make. Therefore it's important to understand from what belief system a person is debating from to ascertain the terms and motivations of a particular point of view. If Mother Theresa and Vladimir Putin were debating public policy the audience would be wise to know their respective beliefs and motivations before annointing one or the other the winner.

[dckingsfan]

Why don't you answer my question dck? Please muster the courage. It will set you free.

It is a false choice. Start with a false premise and work from there.

When did you stop beating your wife?

What you are asking is: choose a side based upon your belief. What did that get us? We have a weaponized religion sect that has given us Bush and the forever wars and Trump and everything that falls from that. You voted for Bush and Trump based upon that false choice. The country will pay the price for that in terms of national debt, inability to deal with climate change, the melt down of our healthcare system, institutional racism, etc..

I don't mean to be difficult dck. And I don't mean to unfairly single you out. It's a question we should all answer before debating/deciding public policy. There's likely a big difference between the policy choices a pure materialist would make as opposed to ones that a Buddhist, Muslim or Christian might make. Therefore it's important to understand from what belief system a person is debating from to ascertain the terms and motivations of a particular point of view. If Mother Theresa and Vladimir Putin were debating public policy the audience would be wise to know their respective beliefs and motivations before annointing one or the other the winner.

Of course it isn't - that is the false choice. Start right there - Christian vs. everyone else and that is the receipt for failure in a country with multiple religions. What is interesting is this us vs. them approach is driving Christianity into a minority as the right weaponizes religion. And that brings us back to the false choice leading to Bush and Trump.

This will always lead you to choosing your side based upon your beliefs as dictated by your religion. There is a reason that there is separation of church and state.

[popper]

It is a false choice. Start with a false premise and work from there.

When did you stop beating your wife?

What you are asking is: choose a side based upon your belief. What did that get us? We have a weaponized religion sect that has given us Bush and the forever wars and Trump and everything that falls from that. You voted for Bush and Trump based upon that false choice. The country will pay the price for that in terms of national debt, inability to deal with climate change, the melt down of our healthcare system, institutional racism, etc..

I don't mean to be difficult dck. And I don't mean to unfairly single you out. It's a question we should all answer before debating/deciding public policy. There's likely a big difference between the policy choices a pure materialist would make as opposed to ones that a Buddhist, Muslim or Christian might make. Therefore it's important to understand from what belief system a person is debating from to ascertain the terms and motivations of a particular point of view. If Mother Theresa and Vladimir Putin were debating public policy the audience would be wise to know their respective beliefs and motivations before annointing one or the other the winner.

Of course it isn't - that is the false choice. Start right there - Christian vs. everyone else and that is the receipt for failure in a country with multiple religions. What is interesting is this us vs. them approach is driving Christianity into a minority as the right weaponizes religion. And that brings us back to the false choice leading to Bush and Trump.

This will always lead you to choosing your side based upon your beliefs as dictated by your religion. There is a reason that there is separation of church and state.

You're missing my point entirely. Forget Christian. On what terms shall we debate public policy? I gather you and others here would like to debate on the basis of material concerns. I'm fine with that. Just be up front about it. We can use logic to determine what benefits us personally the most. I don't know why this conversation had to be difficult.

[dckingsfan]

I don't mean to be difficult dck. And I don't mean to unfairly single you out. It's a question we should all answer before debating/deciding public policy. There's likely a big difference between the policy choices a pure materialist would make as opposed to ones that a Buddhist, Muslim or Christian might make. Therefore it's important to understand from what belief system a person is debating from to ascertain the terms and motivations of a particular point of view. If Mother Theresa and Vladimir Putin were debating public policy the audience would be wise to know their respective beliefs and motivations before annointing one or the other the winner.

Of course it isn't - that is the false choice. Start right there - Christian vs. everyone else and that is the receipt for failure in a country with multiple religions. What is interesting is this us vs. them approach is driving Christianity into a minority as the right weaponizes religion. And that brings us back to the false choice leading to Bush and Trump.

This will always lead you to choosing your side based upon your beliefs as dictated by your religion. There is a reason that there is separation of church and state.

You're missing my point entirely. Forget Christian. On what terms shall we debate public policy? I gather you and others here would like to debate on the basis of material concerns. I'm fine with that. Just be up front about it. We can use logic to determine what benefits us personally the most. I don't know why this conversation had to be difficult.

Because as soon as you make that false choice then you can make those bad policy choices.

My religion tells me abortion is wrong. End all abortions. Punish those that have abortions.

vs.

Who are the stakeholders and how do we move those stakeholders forward in terms of decreasing abortion rates.

One might forget that abortion rates have been falling dramatically in recent years.

[popper]

Of course it isn't - that is the false choice. Start right there - Christian vs. everyone else and that is the receipt for failure in a country with multiple religions. What is interesting is this us vs. them approach is driving Christianity into a minority as the right weaponizes religion. And that brings us back to the false choice leading to Bush and Trump.

This will always lead you to choosing your side based upon your beliefs as dictated by your religion. There is a reason that there is separation of church and state.

You're missing my point entirely. Forget Christian. On what terms shall we debate public policy? I gather you and others here would like to debate on the basis of material concerns. I'm fine with that. Just be up front about it. We can use logic to determine what benefits us personally the most. I don't know why this conversation had to be difficult.

Because as soon as you make that false choice then you can make those bad policy choices.

My religion tells me abortion is wrong. End all abortions. Punish those that have abortions.

vs.

Who are the stakeholders and how do we move those stakeholders forward in terms of decreasing abortion rates.

One might forget that abortion rates have been falling dramatically in recent years.

Why do you care about abortion?

[dckingsfan]

You're missing my point entirely. Forget Christian. On what terms shall we debate public policy? I gather you and others here would like to debate on the basis of material concerns. I'm fine with that. Just be up front about it. We can use logic to determine what benefits us personally the most. I don't know why this conversation had to be difficult.

Because as soon as you make that false choice then you can make those bad policy choices.

My religion tells me abortion is wrong. End all abortions. Punish those that have abortions.

vs.

Who are the stakeholders and how do we move those stakeholders forward in terms of decreasing abortion rates.

One might forget that abortion rates have been falling dramatically in recent years.

Why do you care about abortion?

Or any policy. As soon as you start with the false question, you go down the wrong rabbit hole. Why do you care about the national debt? Why care about climate change? Why care about a few kids getting slaughtered at school when it is such a small price to pay for 2A? Why care about healthcare?

[queridiculo]

You're missing my point entirely. Forget Christian. On what terms shall we debate public policy? I gather you and others here would like to debate on the basis of material concerns. I'm fine with that. Just be up front about it. We can use logic to determine what benefits us personally the most. I don't know why this conversation had to be difficult.

Huh?

Are you suggesting that atheists, or non-christians cannot debate public policy beyond material concerns?

[Zonkerbl]

You're missing my point entirely. Forget Christian. On what terms shall we debate public policy? I gather you and others here would like to debate on the basis of material concerns. I'm fine with that. Just be up front about it. We can use logic to determine what benefits us personally the most. I don't know why this conversation had to be difficult.

Because as soon as you make that false choice then you can make those bad policy choices.

My religion tells me abortion is wrong. End all abortions. Punish those that have abortions.

vs.

Who are the stakeholders and how do we move those stakeholders forward in terms of decreasing abortion rates.

One might forget that abortion rates have been falling dramatically in recent years.

Why do you care about abortion?

Popper what are you talking about? Could you get to the point? Or are you genuinely just asking for input on what is the best way to decide policy questions?

We are trying to persuade *you* that *you* are wrong (well, I'm not, but let's assume we are). What sorts of arguments might we make to persuade you? Can you give an example from your personal life where someone changed your mind about something and what kind of arguments they made? Or are you asking for what sorts of arguments would change my mind?

On abortion, there's just no way to convince me that women's lives are worthless. Women are persons with intrinsic value. So it's impossible to convince me that abortion should be banned at conception with no exceptions for rape or incest or medical necessity.

I do think it's possible that somewhere between conception and birth a zygote makes the magical transition from a clump of cells indistinguishable from a bacteria to a potential person with rights. But I'm not persuaded by *any* religious argument or appeal to authority about what this transition period is. The only fact based dividing line is viability. Saying "oh well it should be a few weeks before that just in case" is a slippery slope. How many weeks is a "few"? Are you trying to slide in your religious beliefs into the threshold?

I don't take the side of imaginary children. My focus is definitely on the rights of actual, real world women. Any attempt to appeal to me that imaginary children are somehow more valuable than women, or that aborting imaginary children is murder, has no weight with me at all. The only fetus that I know has the potential to become a human being with rights is one that has reached viability. Everything else is just magical wishing.

I have thought about this issue a *lot*. I have been on the internet for decades and I have seen every forced birth argument under the sun. I don't find any of them to be fact or logic based, and so I don't find any of them persuasive.

I hope this helps you understand my perspective and the kinds of arguments necessary to persuade me otherwise (however unlikely that may be).

[dobrojim]

Quoting from an online comment in response to

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/29/dobbs-pro-life-women-children/

(because I couldn't say it better than this)

Nothing can heal the wound caused by denial of bodily autonomy. These sanctimonious people speak as
if a pregnant woman is not capable of moral agency and that they, not she, know what is best for both her and
an unwanted pregnancy. "Don't worry, dear, we will do what is in your best interests.
You aren't capable of deciding for yourself."

Women have become accustomed to being fully adult moral agents. We will not give up that human right.

They wouldn't accept this if it was being done to them but they are giddy at
doing it to others.

[montestewart]

You're missing my point entirely. Forget Christian. On what terms shall we debate public policy? I gather you and others here would like to debate on the basis of material concerns. I'm fine with that. Just be up front about it. We can use logic to determine what benefits us personally the most. I don't know why this conversation had to be difficult.

Huh?

Are you suggesting that atheists, or non-christians cannot debate public policy beyond material concerns?

I usually avoid discussions prefaced by stacked deck frameworks. I’ve never seen the “spiritual vs. material” dichotomy employed as anything but a pejorative us vs. them device. Why would an atheist concede to such a non-impartially defined framework? It’s like men alone defining the differences between men and women.

[pancakes3]

offering "hopes and prayers" is a "spiritualist" governmental response. passing substantive gun regulations is a "materialistic" governmental response.

that's why i say that any governmental policy has to be materialistic or else it's meaningless.

hth.

[pancakes3]

lol, just blatant. i don't think there's anything to debate. this is beyond repair. just democracy at work, like Nate said. the gerrymandering is just gamesmanship. it's not voter suppression.

Read on Twitter

[Zonkerbl]

The ends justifies the means! Might makes right! Hail Satan!

[popper]

You're missing my point entirely. Forget Christian. On what terms shall we debate public policy? I gather you and others here would like to debate on the basis of material concerns. I'm fine with that. Just be up front about it. We can use logic to determine what benefits us personally the most. I don't know why this conversation had to be difficult.

Huh?

Are you suggesting that atheists, or non-christians cannot debate public policy beyond material concerns?

Of course not.

[popper]

Because as soon as you make that false choice then you can make those bad policy choices.

My religion tells me abortion is wrong. End all abortions. Punish those that have abortions.

vs.

Who are the stakeholders and how do we move those stakeholders forward in terms of decreasing abortion rates.

One might forget that abortion rates have been falling dramatically in recent years.

Why do you care about abortion?

Popper what are you talking about? Could you get to the point? Or are you genuinely just asking for input on what is the best way to decide policy questions?

We are trying to persuade *you* that *you* are wrong (well, I'm not, but let's assume we are). What sorts of arguments might we make to persuade you? Can you give an example from your personal life where someone changed your mind about something and what kind of arguments they made? Or are you asking for what sorts of arguments would change my mind?

On abortion, there's just no way to convince me that women's lives are worthless. Women are persons with intrinsic value. So it's impossible to convince me that abortion should be banned at conception with no exceptions for rape or incest or medical necessity.

I do think it's possible that somewhere between conception and birth a zygote makes the magical transition from a clump of cells indistinguishable from a bacteria to a potential person with rights. But I'm not persuaded by *any* religious argument or appeal to authority about what this transition period is. The only fact based dividing line is viability. Saying "oh well it should be a few weeks before that just in case" is a slippery slope. How many weeks is a "few"? Are you trying to slide in your religious beliefs into the threshold?

I don't take the side of imaginary children. My focus is definitely on the rights of actual, real world women. Any attempt to appeal to me that imaginary children are somehow more valuable than women, or that aborting imaginary children is murder, has no weight with me at all. The only fetus that I know has the potential to become a human being with rights is one that has reached viability. Everything else is just magical wishing.

I have thought about this issue a *lot*. I have been on the internet for decades and I have seen every forced birth argument under the sun. I don't find any of them to be fact or logic based, and so I don't find any of them persuasive.

I hope this helps you understand my perspective and the kinds of arguments necessary to persuade me otherwise (however unlikely that may be).

Sure. I learn all kinds of interesting stuff on this thread. I once believed that sending able bodied people a monthly stipend based on income and # of kids (and who struggle financially) would be bad public policy. I saw a documentary last year where a dozen single mothers were interviewed. They described how they used the money and what a difference it made in their and their kids lives. I now support that policy if it's responsibly paid for. It's a D passed law that expires soon i think. Can't remember the name of it off hand.

I usually avoid discussions about race and abortion but I'll make an exception here. Years ago someone on this thread introduced the idea that there is only one race. I did a little research and it's changed the way I think about k-12 education. Regarding abortion, in the early stage I'm very sympathetic about the women's right to choose. Later on, not so much. But I'd abstain from voting on the issue for a personal reason.

To your main question, every time I'm involved in important discussions or in a substantial business transaction I want to know everything I can about the person(s) I'm engaged with. It helps me come at an issue from their perspective. I'm not sure why that's caused such controversy.

[doclinkin]

I will say that I appreciate popper and nate showing up in the thread and giving thoughtful responses to difficult questions. I hate the direction our country has taken, where each side declares jihad on the other's mindset. I may agree with a progressive holy war to retake civil liberty and protect the rights and lives of the vulnerable, but I deplore the mindset that has made this necessary. If we could have argued it out we might not be in this situation. Instead we allowed billionaires to promote a troll for the highest office of the land and have wrecked reasonable debate. That is what trolls do. Only there are no thoughtful moderators who can boot a President for ruining public discourse. Unless of course he is rightfully indicted and convicted. And even then it would take a stacked court to ensure the verdict sticks. We need more and better moderators on the Supreme Court.

[popper]

I will say that I appreciate popper and nate showing up in the thread and giving thoughtful responses to difficult questions. I hate the direction our country where each side declares jihad on the other's mindset. I may agree with a progressive holy war to retake civil liberty and protect the rights and lives of the vulnerable. But I deplore the mindset that has made this necessary. If we could have argued it out we might not be in this situation. Instead we allowed billionaires to promote a troll for the highest office of the land and have wrecked reasonable debate, as trolls do. Only there are no thoughtful moderators who can boot a President for ruining public discourse. Unless of course he is rightfully indicted and convicted. And even then it would take a stacked court to ensure the verdict sticks. We need more and better moderators on the Supreme Court.

Thanks doc. I respect your positions and advocacy on issues even if I'd prefer a different policy option. When we collectively lose the ability to respect one another then I shudder to think what our future might look like. I'm hopeful Trump fades away and the divisiveness he accentuates becomes nothing more than a distant memory.

[montestewart]

I will say that I appreciate popper and nate showing up in the thread and giving thoughtful responses to difficult questions. I hate the direction our country where each side declares jihad on the other's mindset. I may agree with a progressive holy war to retake civil liberty and protect the rights and lives of the vulnerable. But I deplore the mindset that has made this necessary. If we could have argued it out we might not be in this situation. Instead we allowed billionaires to promote a troll for the highest office of the land and have wrecked reasonable debate, as trolls do. Only there are no thoughtful moderators who can boot a President for ruining public discourse. Unless of course he is rightfully indicted and convicted. And even then it would take a stacked court to ensure the verdict sticks. We need more and better moderators on the Supreme Court.

We tried to moderate him: PMs, warnings, strikes, cool off suspensions. His behavior just got worse, and eventually he violated every RealGM TOS, even countervailing violations, like it was his intent to identify and violate every rule. When we voted on his fate, his supporters stormed RealGm, and seemed confused to find it was not a physical place. After he got his lifetime ban and we all started getting hate mail, threats, and relentless attempts to initiate litigation with all of us, he started a new platform called RealDT, which was quickly changed to RealDonaldTrump because the former name was repeatedly confused with popular gay S&M site RealDBT. And now he and his supporters call us FakeGM. Even his insults are plagiarized from other people.

[dobrojim]

I hereby condemn Trump (without use of any false equivalency). Yes, for now I would support my governor Desantis for president.

I guess you don't have any gay or trans family members. DeathSantos is a clown.
His agenda is basically fascist, all based on singling out whatever 'other' is
the most convenient target of the moment. And then there's the head in the sand belief
that more guns is the answer to our appallingly violent society.

Maybe you voted for that crook Scott too. You're not making a very good
case for rationality.

I do have a gay family member, recently deceased. He was a super intelligent lawyer but a troubled soul and drug/alcohol addicted. I don't personally know a conservative in my circle that cares whether a person is gay or trans. Scott has ethical issues just as the Biden family does.

Edit - are you a materialist or do you have some other foundational/spiritual belief system? The answer will help me relate to you. Please have the courage to answer.

1. I am sorry for the loss of a family member. One can wonder how much the ongoing and continued disparagement
of gay and many other marginalized groups manifests in the sorts of poor lifestyle choices that your family member
suffered with and which have nothing to do with what they are being disparaged for. There is a large cost to all of
us when we allow marginalization of certain targeted groups. It's particularly disgusting to me when pol
do this in pursuit of power which is then used against marginalized people and to the benefit of
those who need society's help the least. Based on the history of GOP legislation during 2017-20188
when they had full control, they only managed to pass a tax bill to benefit those who needed it least.
That is quite a view of where our most serious problems exist.

2. Even if you don't know any of your own conservative friends who care about sexual or gender
orientation, I think it would be extremely disingenuous at best to claim that most righties
don't care about such things based on the public statements and high priority placed on
those issues by leading righty pols, like DeathSantis. What else are they actually giving you?
Tax cuts that are demonstrably ill advised not to mention misrepresented (lied about) when offered.
Things have changed a little since 2004 when Cons demagogued marriage equality to
win the presidency. Now the GOP has nothing except we will tell you after we win.
Or maybe Scott's plan to tax everyone.

3. I'm not sure what ethical issues Biden might have that come even close to comparing
to what Scott did as health care CEO ie stealing from the people of the state of FL.
I think that is what DCK was referencing when he said false equivalencies. You might
as well have started talking about HRC's emails (oh the horror) as justification for
voting for Golfy McBonespurs (his unfitness for office was manifest long before the
nomination process was completed) in the first place. Biggest issues I have with Biden
historically were his support for crime bill and his bankruptcy bill, both of which
were horrible.

as to your question (Am I a materialist?), I might be greedy or selfish at times, but when
it comes to how I vote or put my beliefs into the public sphere, I'm not that at all.
That said, I'm definitely not a perfect person, by a long shot.

When I think about the history of political debate going back as far as Reagan,
I have trouble remembering a single *good faith* argument that the GOP made
in pursuit of their agenda or in opposition to the DEM agenda. Perhaps you
could remind me of one. For instance, claiming the marriage equality would
somehow damage 'straight' marriage was BS from the git-go. And they knew it.
But it was an easy sell. Scare tactic.

[dobrojim]

You're missing my point entirely. Forget Christian. On what terms shall we debate public policy? I gather you and others here would like to debate on the basis of material concerns. I'm fine with that. Just be up front about it. We can use logic to determine what benefits us personally the most. I don't know why this conversation had to be difficult.

Huh?

Are you suggesting that atheists, or non-christians cannot debate public policy beyond material concerns?

Of course not.

I think ethics has to come into the equation.
quote from a quick google search-

The Fundamental Principles of Ethics. Beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy,
and justice constitute the 4 principles of ethics.

Sometimes those tenets can be in conflict with each other. Then you have something to debate.