Beware, liberals are about to frame Christians!

[Travis]

I can't but help be a little amused that Travis delights in the skewering of the religious right, but seems less interested in skewering the 'social progressive' left which is quite happily putting freedom of speech under assault, to say nothing of its continued advancement of divisive identity politics.

But, I guess we all have our ideological blind spots...

On that we disagree. I have yet to see anyone on the "social progressive" left advocate prison or execution for people just because of what they believe.

 

[Corsair 115]

On that we disagree. I have yet to see anyone on the "social progressive" left advocate prison or execution for people just because of what they believe.

I guess you missed the UN Women panel on 'cyber violence' and its suggested remedies, which included heavy government interference on ISPs to restrict user speech. I guess you missed the numerous cases of free speech and due process violations listed in the files of FIRE. I guess you missed the way the 'social progressive' types are achieving censorship by proxy. I guess you missed how Laura Kipnis was dragged through a Byzantine Title IX procedure because a student found Kipnis' writings on a topic "problematic". I guess you've missed the cases of male students expelled from college due to seriously flawed sexual assault administrative processes (in some cases being cleared yet still being expelled) and are having to sue their former colleges for redress. And so on and so forth.

Folks like me, who are on the left and have paid attention to what is going on, are the canary in the coal mine. We're giving you the warning. There is a significant problem with identity politics (and its strongly authoritarian views) that is rotting the core of the left. If it goes unchecked, bad things are entirely possible.

If you care about a sane and rational left, you should be concerned at what's going on, because so much of identity politics is insane and irrational (to say nothing of lacking in anything remotely resembling evidence).

 

[Ziggurat]

As far as anybody can tell, a fetus doesn't seem to have an ideological preference though. They might even arguably prefer an early retreat to non-existence over being unwanted if they can be said to have a preference at all (which they can't). Of course, the sorts of notions of the inviolability of human life concerned here can be taken to extremes beyond trying to protect a few stray sexual cells that got hooked up for reasons other than the intent to create a new life. The dividing line is a bit unclear, yes.

...but that's exactly why it is a personal decision rather than a government one.

But it's NOT simply a personal decision. The government has decided that you can kill a fetus, but not an infant. Claiming that this decision is NOT a decision is a lie. And of course the dividing line is unclear. But the government must decide on a line. You are satisfied with where they have decided to draw the line. Others are not. And why should they be? Nothing in your argument provides a reason.

The very fact that the issue is intertwined with religion suggests that the government should stay out of it almost entirely.

Opposition to slavery was intertwined with religion too. So obviously trying to ban slavery was a mistake, right?

It doesn't work that way.

Quite frankly, anti-abortion groups would have a lot more credibility if they left religion out of it

You are trying to set yourself as an arbiter of credibility, but abortion opponents have no reason to accept your authority.

since the government is heavily restricted on religious issues anyway.

Not in the way you seem to think.

That sets up a situation where the government is being asked to choose between one take on the religion and another... which is explicitly forbidden constitutionally, even if you assume we're a "Christian" country (which we aren't in any fashion other than a mere description of the majority population).

No. That isn't how it works. Unless you think having an abortion is a necessary component of practicing your religion (and it isn't, you're merely claiming that certain religions don't oppose it), then banning abortion has zero impact on freedom of religion. Just like speed limits are not an infringement of religious rights even though you will find nothing in the bible prohibiting you from going very fast.

 

[Ziggurat]

On that we disagree. I have yet to see anyone on the "social progressive" left advocate prison or execution for people just because of what they believe.

Then you haven't been paying attention. For example, this professor wants to criminally prosecute people for not believing in climate change.

 

[dudalb]

I guess you missed the UN Women panel on 'cyber violence' and its suggested remedies, which included heavy government interference on ISPs to restrict user speech. I guess you missed the numerous cases of free speech and due process violations listed in the files of FIRE. I guess you missed the way the 'social progressive' types are achieving censorship by proxy. I guess you missed how Laura Kipnis was dragged through a Byzantine Title IX procedure because a student found Kipnis' writings on a topic "problematic". I guess you've missed the cases of male students expelled from college due to seriously flawed sexual assault administrative processes (in some cases being cleared yet still being expelled) and are having to sue their former colleges for redress. And so on and so forth.

Folks like me, who are on the left and have paid attention to what is going on, are the canary in the coal mine. We're giving you the warning. There is a significant problem with identity politics (and its strongly authoritarian views) that is rotting the core of the left. If it goes unchecked, bad things are entirely possible.

If you care about a sane and rational left, you should be concerned at what's going on, because so much of identity politics is insane and irrational (to say nothing of lacking in anything remotely resembling evidence).

Sadly, a number of people here have gone to the
"No enemies to the Left" way of thinking,where anybody on the left is an ally,and should never be criticized.
For some time I have seen a sort of Left Wing version of the Tea Party mentality on the rise.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Huh. I honestly didn't expect you to concede all of my points so quickly. Go me!

Whoosh.

 

[Travis]

I guess you missed the UN Women panel on 'cyber violence' and its suggested remedies, which included heavy government interference on ISPs to restrict user speech. I guess you missed the numerous cases of free speech and due process violations listed in the files of FIRE. I guess you missed the way the 'social progressive' types are achieving censorship by proxy. I guess you missed how Laura Kipnis was dragged through a Byzantine Title IX procedure because a student found Kipnis' writings on a topic "problematic". I guess you've missed the cases of male students expelled from college due to seriously flawed sexual assault administrative processes (in some cases being cleared yet still being expelled) and are having to sue their former colleges for redress. And so on and so forth.

Folks like me, who are on the left and have paid attention to what is going on, are the canary in the coal mine. We're giving you the warning. There is a significant problem with identity politics (and its strongly authoritarian views) that is rotting the core of the left. If it goes unchecked, bad things are entirely possible.

If you care about a sane and rational left, you should be concerned at what's going on, because so much of identity politics is insane and irrational (to say nothing of lacking in anything remotely resembling evidence).

Huh, I guess I did miss all that. Except the campus rape thing. I was aware of that but not sure how that is connected to free speech.

You should be aware I don't actually spend much time reading writings from the left or visit their spheres on social media. I have loads of conservative facebook pages bookmarked but only one that might be considered liberal.

 

[Kid Eager]

Concur Corsair's observations. In Australia I'm moderate center to slightly left, which would make me left on the USA political spectrum.

What I think of as the "Irrational Left" in its various guises really peeves me, primarily through techniques they use to play the arguer, rather than the argument. I refer to microaggression as a supposedly valid concept, tone policing, when it suits them, and reducio ad absurdium (sorry if spelling wonky, am on iPad and rushing).

Recent exposure to the unwashed Facebookerati has really highlighted the rush to outrage at any contradictory position suggesting that a far left position may be logically flawed.

I'm surpirised that the Right is not lampooning the Left more than they do, with the amount of oblivious stupidity being spoken at times.

 

[Craig B]

Would you accept this argument?
No one is forcing anyone to murder an infant - the courts have simply refused any attempt to outlaw the act. If you don't like infant murder, don't murder an infant. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Do you see why this argument doesn't work? You have assumed things which are in fact in dispute. You are welcome to your beliefs, but you cannot expect to convince people with this reasoning if they don't share those beliefs.

These beliefs have been subject to repeated change in the RCC. It has always been opposed to abortion, as to contraception, but the justification for this has not always been that a foetus is an infant. The sexual taboos on contraception and abortion came first, and the doctrine that a foetus is an infant was introduced to reinforce them. The final enunciation of this doctrine dates to the 1860s, the time when anaesthetics were introduced, which made abortion more practicable than previously. Some commentators have attributed the RCC's reinforcement of doctrine to that fact. I haven't made my mind up about that yet. Maybe, maybe not. But the Pope of those days was a vile reactionary of the worst kind, and needed no encouragement to enact restrictive regulations.

As early as the time of Tertullian in the third century, Christianity had absorbed the Pythagorean Greek view that the soul was infused at the moment of conception. Though this view was confirmed by St. Gregory of Nyssa a century later, it would not be long before it would be rejected in favour of the Septuagintal notion that only a formed fetus possessed a human soul. While Augustine speculated whether "animation" might be present prior to formation, he determined that abortion could only be defined as homicide once formation had occurred. Nevertheless, in common with all early Christian thought, Augustine condemned abortion from conception onward ...

the 1869 Bull Apostolicae Sedis, Pius IX rescinded Gregory XIV's not-yet-animated fetus exception and re-enacted the penalty of excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy, which even before that were never seen as merely venial sins. Since then, canon law makes no distinction as regards excommunication between stages of pregnancy at which abortion is performed.

In spite of the difference in ecclesiastical penalties imposed during the period when the theory of delayed ensoulment was accepted as scientific truth, abortion at any stage has always been condemned by the Church and continues to be so. However, in its official declarations, the Catholic Church avoids taking a position on the philosophical question of the moment when a human person begins to be.​

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoulment#Catholic_Church

 

[Ziggurat]

These beliefs have been subject to repeated change in the RCC.

Not relevant.

It has always been opposed to abortion, as to contraception, but the justification for this has not always been that a foetus is an infant.

Nobody believes that a fetus is an infant. They have mutually exclusive definitions. I can only conclude that you are confused about what these definitions are.

 

[Travis]

Concur Corsair's observations. In Australia I'm moderate center to slightly left, which would make me left on the USA political spectrum.

What I think of as the "Irrational Left" in its various guises really peeves me, primarily through techniques they use to play the arguer, rather than the argument. I refer to microaggression as a supposedly valid concept, tone policing, when it suits them, and reducio ad absurdium (sorry if spelling wonky, am on iPad and rushing).

Recent exposure to the unwashed Facebookerati has really highlighted the rush to outrage at any contradictory position suggesting that a far left position may be logically flawed.

I'm surpirised that the Right is not lampooning the Left more than they do, with the amount of oblivious stupidity being spoken at times.

The right is incapable of humor on account of them being unintelligent and cruel. Such people don't laugh unless a puppy is being thrown into a furnace.

 

[Corsair 115]

Huh, I guess I did miss all that.

A year ago I would have missed such things too. Now I'm paying more attention. There are concerning trends taking place. Maybe they're just a brush fire that'll burn itself out harmlessly. But maybe not. And even if it does burn itself out, there is the damage that fire may cause before it burns out.

Except the campus rape thing. I was aware of that but not sure how that is connected to free speech.

It certainly is connected to due process rights (which I mentioned). It is arguably connected to free speech rights as well, if we consider, for example, the case of George Lawlor in the U.K.

The right is incapable of humor on account of them being unintelligent and cruel. Such people don't laugh unless a puppy is being thrown into a furnace.

Uh, okay. Way to cast the right as if it is some monolithic entity. Way to demonize an entire side of the political spectrum. (That sort of talk, incidentally, is precisely part of the problem. And you will find it happening with at least equal vigour from some of those on the left, especially those favouring identity politics.)

I'm surpirised that the Right is not lampooning the Left more than they do, with the amount of oblivious stupidity being spoken at times.

I think the right, in many cases, has its own schisms to deal with, and which likely blunt any effective reply it might make.

I guess you missed the UN Women panel on 'cyber violence' and its suggested remedies, which included heavy government interference on ISPs to restrict user speech.

Interestingly, in regards to this particular point, in spite of the centerpiece report being shown to have myriads of dubious (at best) to ridiculous or even missing (at worst) citations, which ultimately led to the report being withdrawn, a BBC News article from today included claims made in that very report. Claims that the BBC article repeated as if completely true, and no mention was made at all over how the source report had originally been found to be hugely lacking in credibility due to its often shoddy sources.

 

[Travis]

A year ago I would have missed such things too. Now I'm paying more attention. There are concerning trends taking place. Maybe they're just a brush fire that'll burn itself out harmlessly. But maybe not. And even if it does burn itself out, there is the damage that fire may cause before it burns out.





It certainly is connected to due process rights (which I mentioned). It is arguably connected to free speech rights as well, if we consider, for example, the case of George Lawlor in the U.K.





Uh, okay. Way to cast the right as if it is some monolithic entity. Way to demonize an entire side of the political spectrum. (That sort of talk, incidentally, is precisely part of the problem. And you will find it happening with at least equal vigour from some of those on the left, especially those favouring identity politics.)

The highlighted bit was exactly what I was hoping for.

I have my reasons.

 

[Corsair 115]

The highlighted bit was exactly what I was hoping for.

I have my reasons.

Do go on.

(Need I remind you again I'm not a conservative?)

 

[Craig B]

Not relevant.

Nobody believes that a fetus is an infant. They have mutually exclusive definitions. I can only conclude that you are confused about what these definitions are.

Then why did you introduce this into the discussion?

Would you accept this argument?
No one is forcing anyone to murder an infant - the courts have simply refused any attempt to outlaw the act. If you don't like infant murder, don't murder an infant. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Do you see why this argument doesn't work? You have assumed things which are in fact in dispute. You are welcome to your beliefs, but you cannot expect to convince people with this reasoning if they don't share those beliefs.

It seems utterly pointless to discuss this if, as you now state, "nobody believes that a foetus is an infant".

But if the expression "infant" is causing you a problem now, why don't we replace it with "human being". Is there a belief that a foetus is a human being? Yes. Here's the late John Paul II

Therefore by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops — who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine ‐I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium​

I think we might call a very young human being an infant. But call it what you please. As I have stated, Christian doctrine in this matter has been subject to changes over time. That's my basic point.

 

[Ziggurat]

Then why did you introduce this into the discussion?

To show you the logical error in your argument.

Infants are not fetuses, and fetuses are not infants, but why does the difference matter in terms of the acceptability of killing them? Your argument doesn't provide a reason. Do you think killing infants is acceptable?

It seems utterly pointless to discuss this if, as you now state, "nobody believes that a foetus is an infant".

It seems utterly pointless to discuss this if you can't recognize the difference between a fetus and an infant, or understand the rhetorical purpose in substituting one for the other.

As I have stated, Christian doctrine in this matter has been subject to changes over time. That's my basic point.

And again, that point isn't relevant.

 

[Ziggurat]

The right is incapable of humor on account of them being unintelligent and cruel.

How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?

THAT'S NOT FUNNY!

 

[Mike!]

The right is incapable of humor on account of them being unintelligent and cruel. Such people don't laugh unless a puppy is being thrown into a furnace.

That's a pretty broad brush you're using to paint that blanket statement.

 

[catsmate]

I can't but help be a little amused that Travis delights in the skewering of the religious right, but seems less interested in skewering the 'social progressive' left which is quite happily putting freedom of speech under assault, to say nothing of its continued advancement of divisive identity politics.

But, I guess we all have our ideological blind spots...

 

[Craig B]

To show you the logical error in your argument.

Infants are not fetuses, and fetuses are not infants, but why does the difference matter in terms of the acceptability of killing them? Your argument doesn't provide a reason. Do you think killing infants is acceptable?

No. That is because I draw a distinction between foetuses and infants. You are saying that nobody believes that one is the same as the other.

It seems utterly pointless to discuss this if you can't recognize the difference between a fetus and an infant, or understand the rhetorical purpose in substituting one for the other.

What is that purpose? If foetuses are different from infants, what rhetorical purpose can be served by putting one word in place of the other? Is the rhetoric detached from the reality? Of what value is it then?