Let's start the Pragmatist Party

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, unfortunately it does. People don't always recognize when it does because it generally unwinds along a different path than it wound up, but it absolutely can and does unwind.

"generally"

Yes, it's possible, and yes it has occurred... but it's neither frequent nor common. That said, it's also not linear - there are dips and peaks along the path, but the path is still generally upward.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Each side insisting that their side gets everything they want and the other side gets nothing they want is part of why we're in this current mess.

If so then at least an equally large part can be attributed to the idea that if there are two 'sides' to an argument then the sensible way forward lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[Crawtator]

If someone chops your arm off are there no strict criminal repercussions, or is it just another case of "property rights"?

Your post is confusing. It may even be reinforcing my argument, but I can't quite tell.

If someone chops off my arm, there would be severe criminal repercussions. If I tried to chop off my arm and authorities knew about it, I would be committed, so there would be repercussions in that case as well. That is in no way a direct comparison to abortion. So please explain how you believe this example is relevant.

 

[Fudbucker]

Really? Many of the arguments against abortion don't require religious belief.

http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/

I wasn't impressed.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Every solution has some losers.

Congratulations you just destroyed your political career.

Proposal:

Each stage of political campaigns have stiff limits on the amount of money spent. Each contender gets the same amount. States have the option to allot endowments for local and congressional seats, or may opt to allow candidates to raise funds through contributions, or a combination of the two. Contributions must be from individuals, not from corporations or lobbying coalitions, or anything of that sort. Candidates may NOT use personal funds for their campaigns.

You forget that this is America. No matter how well-crafted a law may appear to be, people will find a way around it. How do you define 'campaign'?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Your post is confusing. It may even be reinforcing my argument, but I can't quite tell.

If someone chops off my arm, there would be severe criminal repercussions.

So you admit that parts of your body are not just 'property'.

If I tried to chop off my arm and authorities knew about it, I would be committed,

Like this guy?

Aron Ralston

...amputated his own right forearm with a dull pocketknife

 

[Crawtator]

I'm still not quite sure what your point is. Did you miss the part where I said I was still on the fence?

Your example fails miserably. Mr. Ralston did it to save his own life. How is that in any way related to the example I was giving?

 

[Emily's Cat]

If I destroy my own car, oh well. It's mine to do with as I please.
If someone else destroys my car, they better be prepared to play for it.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Mr. Ralston did it to save his own life. How is that in any way related to the example I was giving?

Mr. Ralston hacked off his forearm to escape from a desperate situation. Many women have abortions for the same reason.

You suggested it is hypocritical to let women do things to their own bodies that would be criminal behavior if forced on them by others. But that is absurd, and clearly not an issue when the body part in question is anything but a fetus. Why the difference? There may be hypocrisy here, but not where you think...

 

[Emily's Cat]

Mr. Ralston hacked off his forearm to escape from a desperate situation. Many women have abortions for the same reason.

You suggested it is hypocritical to let women do things to their own bodies that would be criminal behavior if forced on them by others. But that is absurd, and clearly not an issue when the body part in question is anything but a fetus. Why the difference? There may be hypocrisy here, but not where you think...

I suspect there may be some miscommunication here - I don't think crawtator is saying what you think he's saying.

I believe s/he is pointing out that the treatment is often quite dissimilar. If the woman wants the baby, and someone else kills it, then it is viewed as murder. If the woman doesn't want the baby, and she kills it herself, then it's viewed as disposal of personal property more or less. Sometimes it's a personal choice to remove a part of one's own body... but other times it's the murder of a separate being... often within the same jurisdiction. The circumstances dictate the status of the fetus as either a separate entity or as private property.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

The issue of the health impact of currently illegal drugs is already intensely politicised with, for example, some groups who support the legalisation of cannabis providing evidence to show that it is positively beneficial and those on the other side of the debate providing counter evidence showing that it causes all kinds of physical and psychological damage.

Then there's the issue of use vs. abuse. Some substances may be less bad than alcohol or tobacco when all are used in moderation but may be worse when used to excess. It will be a minefield.

I personally agree that legalisation of many currently illegal drugs would likely be beneficial but I cannot necessarily justify that on medical grounds alone.

<snip>

Putting aside issues of the validity of different "evidence". (It isn't all created equal.), medical grounds alone is not 'pragmatic'.

What is pragmatic is that prohibition and punitive controls have been consistently shown to be both ineffective and far more expensive to society. The only basis for them is cultural, and a limited subset of culture at that. Medical evidence has little or nothing to do with it.

The pragmatic solution would be to allow the legal exchange of the drugs, monitor and control that with the same sort of tools we already use successfully with currently legal but addictive and abusable ones, and provide socially approved and if necessary funded paths for the treatment of abuse.

The abuse is there anyway. It hasn't gone anywhere regardless of how punitive the actions have been to try and suppress it. In fact, it is clear that they have done more harm than good. Treatment has been clearly shown to be more effective and to cost society less.

That's the 'pragmatic' approach.

 

[TragicMonkey]

This party blows. Join my party instead. The Deplorable Party! Our position is everything except missionary. Our platform is if you can't be kind at least be polite, live and let live, mind your own business, and celebrate freakiness. Also war with Switzerland.

 

[quadraginta]

This party blows. Join my party instead. The Deplorable Party! Our position is everything except missionary. Our platform is if you can't be kind at least be polite, live and let live, mind your own business, and celebrate freakiness. Also war with Switzerland.

A senior in the dorm I was in at Duke in '72, a Phi Psi brother known as "Tricky Dick", ran for class president on the Apathy ticket.

No vote was a vote for him.

He won ... but nobody cared.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Proposal:

Each stage of political campaigns have stiff limits on the amount of money spent. Each contender gets the same amount. States have the option to allot endowments for local and congressional seats, or may opt to allow candidates to raise funds through contributions, or a combination of the two. Contributions must be from individuals, not from corporations or lobbying coalitions, or anything of that sort. Candidates may NOT use personal funds for their campaigns.

Presidential campaigns would use an allotment of federal funds, with very small amounts prior to the primaries, and then a moderate amount afterward. No private contributions allowed in any form, and no use of personal funds.

Oh, that should be easy. Your new party only needs to get a super majority of the seats in both houses and take the White House. ('cuz you'll need to both amend the Constitution and have a new majority on the Supreme Court who currently take a dim view of limiting one's freedom of association through spending limitations)

 

[Crawtator]

I suspect there may be some miscommunication here - I don't think crawtator is saying what you think he's saying.

I believe s/he is pointing out that the treatment is often quite dissimilar. If the woman wants the baby, and someone else kills it, then it is viewed as murder. If the woman doesn't want the baby, and she kills it herself, then it's viewed as disposal of personal property more or less. Sometimes it's a personal choice to remove a part of one's own body... but other times it's the murder of a separate being... often within the same jurisdiction. The circumstances dictate the status of the fetus as either a separate entity or as private property.

Exactly. I clearly stated I don't have a well formed opinion, contrary to Roger's statements. It seems strange that certain jurisdictions have separate laws that could be so different in the treatment of the same "potential life".

 

[Crossbow]

This party blows. Join my party instead. The Deplorable Party! Our position is everything except missionary. Our platform is if you can't be kind at least be polite, live and let live, mind your own business, and celebrate freakiness. Also war with Switzerland.

This is my kind of party!

 

[Emily's Cat]

This party blows. Join my party instead. The Deplorable Party! Our position is everything except missionary. Our platform is if you can't be kind at least be polite, live and let live, mind your own business, and celebrate freakiness. Also war with Switzerland.

New party position: We're against tragic monkeys!

 

[Emily's Cat]

Oh, that should be easy. Your new party only needs to get a super majority of the seats in both houses and take the White House. ('cuz you'll need to both amend the Constitution and have a new majority on the Supreme Court who currently take a dim view of limiting one's freedom of association through spending limitations)

Nobody said there wouldn't be challenges. Depending on the degree of resistance, we might consider a Guy Fawkes solution. I'd prefer not to, but that might be the most practical solution

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Exactly. I clearly stated I don't have a well formed opinion, contrary to Roger's statements. It seems strange that certain jurisdictions have separate laws that could be so different in the treatment of the same "potential life".

You don't have a 'well-formed opinion', yet you say it 'appears to be, at first blush, hypocrisy'.

hypocrisy
1: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel.​

Where is the hypocrisy?

 

[3point14]

New party position: We're against tragic monkeys!

How do we feel about comic monkeys?

Or history monkeys?