1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Political compass
« on: June 30, 2022, 12:31:47 AM »
I am a radical centrist
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Politicians saying crazy and outrageous things is a non-issue! If their views aren't popular, then they'll lose, and if their views are popular, then it's democracy in action!
The legal system isn’t corrupt because it disagrees with you.
There are plenty of good arguements for the legality of abortion and simply ascribing to those views doesn’t make them morally bankrupt.
We allow humans to shoot other humans legally in certain cases, but all abortions are murder? It’s a shallow analysis that ignores the multitude of circumstances under which an abortion may be sought out. The question is complicated and unfortunately is being decided by people whose stock in trade is creating polarizing viewpoints for people to ascribe to.
Well sure, your moral opinion of what constitutes murder may be different from the legal definition. But the latter is a definition.
Cool. Well good luck with that next time you're in court.
I'm sure your opinion about what the laws should be will carry a lot of weight with the judge.
In the legal sense, yes.
You can have an opinion about what the laws should be, sure. But what the laws are is not a matter of opinion.
*wonders when they'll realize Rushy is using the factual definition, not legal*
The dictionary definition is:Quote from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murderthe crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
Perhaps this has been stated or addressed. Not going to read 14 pages of dialogue to catch up.
This issue with your assertion is that, in the US, a majority of the population feels abortion should be legal. Hence, a majority feel it is not murder. That is not an overwhelming majority, but significantly more than 51/49. So, is it murder or isn't it? Just because Rushy thinks so doesn't make it so. It's a subjective opinion. This leads to the fact that it will be the government that ultimately decides whether it is or not.
It's not a problem at all, it's just reality.
I'm talking about the legal definition of murder. You said that "she should be in jail", so you are too.
That's a definition, defined by the State. Because that's how society works.
You don't get to decide what is legal, you vote for people who do that and if they're not making laws you like you can vote for different people.
So you might think that abortion should be considered murder if you like, but saying it "is" is simply incorrect by the current definition.
This is not about what to think or a matter of opinion. The States define laws - including what is an isn't murder.
A rabid vegetarian saying "Meat is Murder" doesn't make them correct, as defined by law.
There are no States where abortion is murder, so technically incorrect.
She later decided abortion is murder. Maybe you thought she was someone else? Or maybe you typed the wrong turn of phrase?
https://mobile.twitter.com/theliamnissan/status/1536779021010276355
If this is true, I wonder if Lauren will be contrite or pivot to whinging about MSM? This is being released by the same PAC that released info on Madison Cawthorn so it’s not something I will dismiss out of hand but I’m not getting out my pitchfork.
I know nothing about this woman but if she did this in the distant past (10 years+) and changed her stance, thats fine. I don't agree but we shouldn't shame people for changing their minds.
The other stuff? Yeah, totally a target for criticism.
By that logic, wouldn't it also work if the US said "We'll nuke you unless you stop"?
So your plan would be let anyone with a nuke take over as much territory as they want and hope that territory doesn't include where you happen to live?
Also, non nuclear? Wouldn't the same logic hold up if Putin attacks a nuclear power? By this logic shouldn't the US surrender if Russia threatens to nuke us?
The fact that he has never done that is a great indicator that he hasn't completely lost his sanity just yet.That's one possible explanation. I'm not convinced it's correct. Keep in mind that it wouldn't be Putin, personally, launching the nukes, and his generals have previously put the brakes on significantly smaller infractions than annihilating the world. Their loyalty is to their own comfort, not to Putin, and not to Russia.
Chances are that the moment he declares a nuclear strike, he gets shot in the head by a high-ranking official. He's done his fair share of shooting people in the head, so he likely realises that.
In each of those times we successfully avoided nuclear war.I dunno, Putin is still saying he'll totally start a nuclear war. Postponing it while giving him time to grow stronger (regardless of whether he squandered it) doesn't seem to have worked out so far.
Maybe I'm wrong but I just don't think that giving up chunks of territory to anyone threatening nuclear war is a great foreign policy.
I think its a mistake to assume that there's some kind of rulebook that Putin is referring to if he's deciding if he's okay with a particular weapon or not. He's not a statesman. He's a thug. The only thing these people understand is power. Frankly I think it's a mistake not to give Ukraine even more advanced weapons asap.
Also kicking an invading army out of the country is hardly backing them into a corner.
Russia is nowhere near collapse. A nation like Russia can take an enormous amount of punishment before it collapses. In ww2 things were so bad they had to run public service announcements telling starving peasants not to cannibalize their children. They still held up.
We've tried appeasing Putin many times. Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, Ukraine again, Ukraine for a third time. I suppose if we appease him this one last time he might stop. It has to work eventually right?
The alternative seems to be appeasing Russia while it's led by an insane man - I would not expect for him to act rationally either. You could argue that non-involvement is an option, but that's largely the same as letting Russia grow bolder.
It really wouldn't be in their best interest to attack Russia itself as from the occasional ammo or fuel depot. I'm pretty sure Ukraine knows that.
Also the triple 7's we've been giving them have enough range to attack cities in Russia from Kharkiv so it doesn't add much risk to Russian territory.
What about after the kids move out?
Or the woman goes through metapause and is unable to have kids? Should the marriage be null and void in a legal sense?
You think the Government should treat the populace as livestock, then?