🇳🇱
Arguing men shouldnt have a right to an opinion on abortion because they can only be the victim of abortion and never the executor is like arguing women shouldnt have an opinion on rape because they are typically the victim and not the executor.
We all started our lives as fetuses and would have been effected by abortion laws, and as such we all should have a right to an opinion on the matter.
@freemo Of course everyone has a right to their opinion on any subject.
But it does seem clear that while men are not unaffected, women *are* disproportionately affected and their voices should therefore hold more weight on the subject.
And the inverse holds true as well. Men's voices carry more weight when it comes to men's issues, such as the legality and ease of access to Viagra.
+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
@bonifartius @freemo One could argue that a lack of it does. Ultimately it just depends on when you think life starts and whether or not you're willing to use violence to enforce that belief.
@bonifartius @louis @freemo Abortion is never illegal for the wealthy. Abortion bans are class warfare.
Just to be clear he is more than welcome on my threads. He has been nothing but polite and if he wants to look through my threads and jump in, so long as he remains respectful, it is more than welcome.
@freemo @Ponygirl @louis i was just teasing (hence the smiley) because this thread is a bit old and i read the atheism thread earlier.
i don't like two sentence drive by with communist rethorics though. of course "the wealthy" can do more things than others, but why is this wrong? why is it warfare? in states that follow these ideas we wouldn't be able to have this exchange we have here.
@freemo @bonifartius @louis I think we're in agreement about capitalism. It has the capacity to being a thriving economic system; however, it must be governed to avoid where we're at now- a guilded era where economic injustice is proving Dr. King to have been spot on over a half century ago. Just wondering, your statement about morality and law enforcement, do you mean laws should be enforced morally, or that laws should legislate morality itself?
@freemo @bonifartius @louis Also, I know we've been engaging for some time so if you don't respond, I understand. Thank you for your time just in case.
> I think we're in agreement about capitalism. It has the capacity to being a thriving economic system; however, it must be governed to avoid where we're at now-
I assume you mean USA's capitalist government, as opposed to europe, which is also capitalist of course but with their own take?
> a guilded era where economic injustice is proving Dr. King to have been spot on over a half century ago.
We certainly have quite a few economic issues that could be address. I'd imagine the devil is in the details so im not sure if we agree on the points (since we didnt dig that deep) but i certainly agree on the principle that there are economic issues that need addressing, many of which revolve around poverty and prosperity.
> Just wondering, your statement about morality and law enforcement, do you mean laws should be enforced morally, or that laws should legislate morality itself?
My view is that law should enforce the "objective morality" as a guiding principle. When I saw objective morality I mean "That which reduces suffering to its utmost" which to me is really all morality is, a societal agreement on some rules designed to minimize the overall suffering of society, to effectively minimize unhappiness and maximize happiness. So I think all laws should be designed with that principle in mind.
@freemo @bonifartius @louis OMG we could go so much deeper on the objective morality, but I get your gist, and am on board with the alleviation of suffering. Thank you for your thoughtful responses and giving me a run for my money 😊 For now, I bid you good night sir.
The objective morality bit seems to be a hot topic anytime i bring it up with anyone... most people seem to have an almost visceral reaction and disagreement to the notion that morality can be objective rather than a pure cultural construct.
I argue its both, while on the one hand the measure of morality is objective (quantity of suffering) ont he other hand what will cause suffering is very much influenced by culture. If a culture covers women up (like muslim cultures) then forcing a woman to wear very little would cause most women to suffer more so than forcing them not to. In a society where women usually expose more like west societies the opposite is true, most women would suffer more to have to cover up. Basically, whatever feels normal for your culture, usually there will be some degree of suffering to depart from that. But my whole argument is that the suffering needs to be measured in aggregate and not just the emotional component.
Anyway im rambling, have a good night, it was a pleasure.
@freemo @Ponygirl @bonifartius I think another big problem with 'objective morality' is the question of who deserves not to suffer. Personally, I ascribe to the "all humans" view, but there are folks who believe it should only be white people and there are other people who believe it should extend to dolphins and trees.
That inherent subjectivity, I think, is why we we cannot have objective morality.
While there would need to be a conversation around that, for me the bigger challenge is just quantifying suffering.
Imagine some future world where we can scan someones brain and objectively measure and quantify their happiness. I would simply take the average over each persons lifetime, using the geometric average, and then would take the average across society as a RMS average.
Obviously when you dont have sci-fi type brain scan devices it becomes a far less precise process to actually quantify it, and therein lies the real problem IMO.
@freemo @Ponygirl @louis
it's late here so i'll be terse :)
> Might I suggest we give ponygirl the benefit of the doubt here that it wont go that far based on how reasonable she has been in debate so far?
certainly!
like i wrote in the other post, why see the wealthy as enemies if you think the law is what is wrong. i think this is why i reacted this strongly: it's the state implementing a law removing individual rights of everyone, poor and rich. the rich might have resources to work around it, but how does this make them enemies? it just doesn't make much sense.
@bonifartius
I think you may just be particularly senative to anti-capitalist discussion because so often it devolves into nonsense, and I do get that. Might I suggest we give ponygirl the benefit of the doubt here that it wont go that far based on how reasonable she has been in debate so far?
That said while, as you know, I have no issues with capitalism, and even think its good when implemented properly, I kinda agree with ponygirl on this one. While you are right that it is perfectly ok for the wealthy to do more or have more than the poor, I dont think that should carry over to the law. The law is one place everyone should be equal, and being wealthy should not make you immune to some laws while the poor not. Laws should be about morality, and enforcing it. Something doesnt become right just because you have more money to get around the rules. Now I wouldnt blame the wealthy person, they are just working within the system. But it certainly is an indication that there is a failure in the law when that happens.
@Ponygirl @louis