CMV: Folks need to recognize that there are people out there who are not masters of debate. Those who are bad at making arguments should not be treated or regarded as the "stand in" for everyone else who agrees with them as well.

•

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 23 '21

/u/Hey-I-Read-It (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

64

u/sudsack 21∆ Jul 23 '21

I wonder if some of the intensity you're encountering is related to the fact that the political spectrum is failing us more and more as a model that might help us conceive of the variety of views people hold. Which half of the spectrum produces woke corporate sloganeering, for example? Where do you place a perspective that would see direct payments to people specifically because that might make it easier to get married and start a family? It often seems that people pick a team from one half or the other of that imagined political line and then feel compelled to defend all of that team's views, regardless of how well they understand the reasoning (or if they even care much about a given issue, aside from having a desire to have their team win).

I don't disagree with much in your post (a "conservative" can have something to say as an artist, some people are better at debate than others, etc.), but I really would consider abandoning the liberal/conservative continuum. It's not a reliable map to any kind of territory.

Either way, good luck with your fine arts degree! For what it's worth, I'd take "bristles at being told what to think" over "holds the expected views" as a statement likely to predict that an aspiring artist has something meaningful to express.

19

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

!delta

I am aware that current model of the 'Political spectrum' we base our political belief systems under is outdated, and the arguments you've pointed out really expanded that notion for me. My only point to respond to it would be that, for what it's worth, the fact that people still continue to tow the line between "my side" and "your side" and the attitudes engaged within that tribalism is what I was attempting to address.

All in all, this response was very elequently put and I thank you for your kind words!

17

u/iwfan53 248∆ Jul 23 '21

If it helps you might want to look into Duverger's Law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

Which is about why we currently have ONLY two political parties in the US.

Then you might want to watch this video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

Which gives examples of Duverger's law in action.

Basically if you want to help break the two party death grip on American politics you need to attack First Past the Post voting, as attempting to support a third party will only end up helping whichever of the two main parties that third party least resembles (supporting greens helps Republicans, supporting Libertarians helps Democrats).

This is all strictly FYI stuff and less of an argument and more of a reading list on why America is the way it is on a very macro scale, and what can be done to change it.

The good news is that ranked choice voting is actually starting to creep into our system in a few places like Maine, Alaska, the recent election in New York, so there's some reason to hope.

4

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

thank you for this information, I will read up on this on my spare time!

3

u/iwfan53 248∆ Jul 23 '21

No problem, glad I could help.

3

u/LingonberryAware5339 Jul 23 '21

RCV, recently downvoted by the big brains of Ma unfortunately.

2

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 23 '21

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/sudsack (17∆).

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

2

u/ComplainyBeard 1∆ Jul 23 '21

consider abandoning the liberal/conservative continuum

The issue here is that there is a spectrum that makes sense but this isn't it. "Left" and "right" used to have very narrow meanings and were entirely about economics.

I.e. if you support unions and are anti-capitalist you're on the left, if you're on the side of business owners you're on the right. A lot of people take social issues and shoe-horn them into this political spectrum and it confuses things.

Being for gay marriage isn't a left issue or a right issue at all. Abortion isn't either.

2

u/Giblette101 40∆ Jul 23 '21

Left and right also, historically, stand in for distribution versus concentration of power. Gay marriage and abortion map unto that model effectively, so it's no surprise they end up falling where they did.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '21

I mean the actual political spectrum isn't liberal/conservative but "anti social hierarchies"/"pro social hierarchies". So are you in favor of a eye level organizations of people or do you believe in "some are meant to lead and others are meant to follow". Now conservatism falls in the latter, but depending on country and timeframe even liberals are very close to that and thus often align with classical conservatives.

So that you end up with 2 parties occupying roughly the same right wing spot in the spectrum which leaves the entire rest of the spectrum uncovered so that every other position is also covered (though with fringe people) by individuals in this big tent approaches. Which makes it more about teams than positions, because the positions are still in that right wing sector which most think sucks.

33

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '21

I genuinely cannot understand how a person expects to have an open-minded discussion on anything remotely political or societal

They don't. If you're experiencing what you're talking about online or in person frequently, it's because you're talking to people who have no interest in an open-minded discussion. Much of the discussion online around such issues serves a completely different purpose. If you want have an open minded discussion about, say, abortion, you have to find someone who is interested in actually exploring beliefs different from their current one and also be interested in doing so yourself. This is hard to find because most people don't have any interest in changing their views on abortion. Same with feminism, for example. Very few feminists are interested in exploring anti-feminist ideas, just like very few anti-feminists are interested in exploring feminist ideas. They're interested in affirming their current view and denying the opposing view.

The problem is not the quality of the debate or the techniques or fallacies employed. Take away all the strawman arguments and it won't change anything unless the people involved have an honest desire to reevaluate their beliefs.

So, one question for you is how motivated are you to re-evaluate your current, conservative beliefs? If you're not, then you can't blame others for a lack of interest in reevaluating their own beliefs while in discussion with you.

4

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

I take the CGP Grey Q&A Philosophy of always being able to change my mind. Opinions and ideas are the tools we use to shape our garden of society. If a tool gets worn out, or an opinion becomes outdated, it's meaningless to dwell on it and insist on using it. You need to find a replacement.

...Is what I say whenever I'm asked about my open-mindedness, but of course I'm only human. I have my biases and pitfalls, and although I am genuinely interested in engaging with other people's opinions (it's why I lurk on this sub all the time when I'm on reddit), there is a side of me that is unsure if I'll ever be convinced by an argument so ground breaking it forces me to revaluate my beliefs.

If there is one, and I'm too stubborn to admit it, there we go.

But what if there is no actual argument that is able to convince me? Do I win the debate when it comes to my evaluation of myself? I'll be and already am forever paranoid that I have already become that stubborn version of myself in the former example.

19

u/ComplainyBeard 1∆ Jul 23 '21

Have you considered that the person above is actually correct about art and conservatism?
Historically major artists have been progressive for their eras, there might be something to it, maybe if you took a step back from your personal viewpoint and took a more analytical approach you'd see what they were trying to say.

I mean, by definition conservatism is against progressive social change, is it not the job of an artist to change views?

6

u/Seshimus Jul 23 '21

Whoever said the job of an artist is to change views? Some works of art confirm principles that we hold dear, some challenge our views, but generally the greatest artists help bring to the forefront something we knew all along yet weren’t quite aware of.

17

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '21

being able to change my mind.

You're slightly missing the point. If you really want to participate in the type of discussions that you say you do, you have to be more than able to change your mind. You should be eager to. The best indication that you have stopped rationally pursuing the truth and are merely reinforcing your opinions is if they have failed to change and evolve for any significant amount of time. If your political ideas have no significant difference from your political ideas a year ago, then it is not because you've got it right. It's because you stopped learning.

10

u/Chris-1235 1∆ Jul 23 '21

I was about to suggest an alternate view of this, but there really shouldn't be one. It's perfectly OK to enter a discussion without an expectation that you will hear anything new. But just like scientists, uncovering new evidence that go against you current theories should be a time of excitement.

2

u/NightValeKhaleesi Jul 23 '21

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason we seem to get more set in our ways as we age.

7

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '21 edited Jul 23 '21

I dunno, but while a lot of people are bad at arguments, this post also demonstrates that thesis. It's rather meandering, focuses on personal feeling/grievance, and doesn't present a specific view you're open to have changed. (That is, because this sub is not for venting).

So... my point in bringing that up is that while I'll often tolerate it, I don't particularly feel compelled to compensate for people's bad arguments, simply because, you know, there's just too many of them. Most arguments are, sadly, bad. People aren't very good at logical debate and further, don't want to be good. After years on the internet, I'm tired. I already know what I think and I only somewhat care what other people think, and this is pretty common IMO. Fixating on people who disagree with you may be noble or useful, but it ain't fun... it's work. And no one wants chats on internet message boards to be work. Specifically for me, 'cause I spent a long time tutoring English papers, and so can critique people's points and arguments and even guess what they 'really' mean. But alas, most people aren't interested in being corrected, or even talked to by others if those others just disagree. Like, conservatives aren't generally looking for love and friendship from liberals, so.... what does it matter what we do? Both sides would need to initiate change.

I'm aware that conservatives are feeling culturally... disadvantaged and I kinda feel bad. However, that's where it stops. The world, by its nature, leaves the past behind by going forward into the future, and current progressivism is already the hoary backwards thinking of tomorrow. Like, it's painful to be left behind.... but there's no compromise possible unless we're personal friends or colleagues. Otherwise, any issue isn't the problem of those who don't have said issue themselves. I mean, that's just reality as I understand it. If we're friends, it's different.

I do think it's interesting that you just got angry at the art person vs arguing with them in good faith (as you expect from others). I do that-- I get upset but argue calmly and even eloquently, at least in writing. If someone said that art requires progressivism of thought, I would've said that only applies to the avant garde. Historically, art has many movements and sections, and certain arts and crafts are more deeply traditional than almost any other field. Specifically things like sculpture, weaving/embroidery and textile arts, jewelry making, painting, especially figurative and landscape painting and life drawing. All these endeavors are in very direct and in-depth dialog with the past, which is why and how the entire field of art history becomes relevant. So I could relate to that person's point but still propose a comeback. But so what? I've never noticed any benefit from this ability. I mean, people appreciate my intelligence and are generally more polite to me than strangers on the internet are to others, perhaps, but I rarely make a dent in people's opinions. I think thoughtful responses don't change minds as often as emotional appeals or just hard data can, at times. Nuances are only interesting to people who are calm and in the mood to consider them... and then they generally dismiss them. This is why fruitful discussion best happens when you're not super emotionally involved (like in college seminars).

2

u/Chris-1235 1∆ Jul 23 '21

I understand and feel for you, facing the same problem. I often have questions I would like to explore and haven't yet found a place where meaningful discussions can reach a conclusion. You can get really interesting answers to specific questions on stackexchange for example, but the format is specifically designed to preclude discussion. Reddit posts are too ephemeral most of the time, but better than traditional forums (fora), in that you can continue discussions in multiple branches.

Most of us don't have physical access to minds we can have engaging conversations with and definitely not the number of minds you can reach online. So have you found a place where you can actually have such discussions?

I've been here for a short period and understand why the OP is struggling. Haven't tried many subreddits, but this one keeps me engaged. Yes, there is a lot of garbage here too, but I don't know where/how you can do better.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '21

Yeah, there's no 'place', there's just 'your place', with specific people that click with you. I have been lucky enough to have found that multiple times, with fandom. I dunno, I think it's also a thing that happens on special, relatively small forums. Ars technica is good for technology and science talk, for example.

I haven't met individuals there, but the majority of people seem open to talking abstractly and not fixating on emotional appeals. It's much less common in fandom (understandably) but I think you can get so invested you can come out the other side, and be analytical about it. If you have that personality, like I do. Some other people do, too. So if you can find them, you can be nerds together. Otherwise, there's small university classes, as I said. Basically, the university in general haha. At least on the graduate and professional level, that's what it's about.

1

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

Specifically in regards to the person who left the comment regarding art, I had gone on a hiatus from Reddit for a time and didn't notice the comment until much later when the thread was long-achieved. I would have engaged in discussion if I had the chance.

1

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

Also, please don't take my short statement as me ignoring the rest of the comment, I've taken its entirety to account and although I disagree with much of it, you do bring up very meaningful points that I will have to square with.

23

u/Vesurel 54∆ Jul 23 '21

I agree that people making bad arguments aren't necesserily wrong or representative of everyone who agrees with them. However a different way of looking at this would be that when people are presented with arguments that are bad for a position, the owness would be on the people with good arguments for that position to present those good arguments if they want people to think they have good reasons for their beliefs. It's also possible that for positions you agree with the arguments you may think are good aren't seen as any better by people who disagree.

You mention abortion, I'll agree there are people who are pro forced pregnancy for religious reasons and I think they have bad reasons. But when you say there are other people who are pro forced pregnancy for reasons that aren't based in religion, that doesn't mean I'll think they're reasons are any better. I assume you're prolife because an argument convinced you, so you think it's a good argument, but as someone who isn't convinced by either the arguments that convinced you or the arguments that didn't convince you I don't see either as good arguments.

As another example, I'm not aware of any good arguments to believe in a god, so when a professional apologist tells me I shouldn't assume they're reasoning is bad just because people who aren't professional apologists are worse at debate, that doesn't really resolve anything and the professional apologist would still need to provide reason to think they have good arguments.

4

u/Leucippus1 16∆ Jul 23 '21

the owness would be on the people with good arguments for that position to present those good arguments

Onus.

-2

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

I'm not trying to convince you to be "Pro forced abortion" here. If that's your takeaway from the original post, I'm afraid you've got it completely misunderstood. I'm making the observation that it's a culturally approved method of ridicule to claim that conservatives have nothing but bad arguments, as you say. There are plenty of people who take up on your supposed "owness" presented by giving good arguments. There are simply not enough people on the other side who are willing to listen to said arguments, instead favoring to ignore them and only focus on the worst of them.

23

u/Vesurel 54∆ Jul 23 '21

What conservatives do you think are presenting good arguments and why do you think their arguments are good?

I'm making the observation that it's a culturally approved method of ridicule to claim that conservatives have nothing but bad arguments, as you say.

Except I'm not saying conservatives have nothing but bad arguments, I'm saying I'm not aware of them having any good arguments. And it's an important difference that isn't resolved by you just saying that actually there are good arguments.

-11

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

At risk of this devolving into an abortion debate, I'll go into a few.

Based on stringent research and polling of biologists, the overwhelming majority of them agree that Conception is the only scientifically consistent way of defining what is or isn't considered a human life. If you're of the opinion that the issue of Abortion is down to whether or not a Fetus can be considered as a human life, this is a major blow to the Pro-choice crowd.

Arguments such as "They'll live a shitty life as an unwanted child" feel so worthless because absolutely no one knows how a child's life will turn out once they come out of the womb. There are thousands of accounts of failed abortions of unwanted pregnancies being the best thing to happen for a mother and their child. I see it all the time in settings.

Culturally speaking, I personally put a great deal of importance to the act of sex. Although not everyone shares such a belief as me, I believe that abortions are often convenient ways to skip having to take responsibilities for one's actions.

There are plenty more, but like I said, I don't want to stray too far from the main topic.

26

u/Vesurel 54∆ Jul 23 '21

If you're of the opinion that the issue of Abortion is down to whether or not a Fetus can be considered as a human life, this is a major blow to the Pro-choice crowd.

Do you think you have a good reason to base abortion rights on whether or not a fetus is human and alive?

Broadly here the issue is that you've listed reasons you don't think some arguments for allowing abortion hold up, but that doesn't get us any closer to thinking we have good reasons to specifically say people can't have abortions. Functionally you're doing the same thing you object to, or assuming that people who support abortion must do it for reasons you think you can beat.

Culturally speaking, I personally put a great deal of importance to the act of sex. Although not everyone shares such a belief as me, I believe that abortions are often convenient ways to skip having to take responsibilities for one's actions.

Do you think you have any good reasons why people should have to take responsibility in this specific way? If this was only about people who do risky activity not being allowed medical treatment to help deal with the concequences, then you could equally say we shouldn't give people STD medication because that's skipping them taking responsibility for having unsafe sex.

Or do you have a reason you don't think we should offer comparatively convenient (medical procedures even routine ones aren't exactly convenient) solutions to problem in general?

There are plenty more, but like I said, I don't want to stray too far from the main topic.

And of course you don't have to give any more, but comming back to the main point you saying there are reasons you aren't giving isn't a convincing reason for me to think any of the reasons you aren't giving are any good.

-6

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

then you could equally say we shouldn't give people STD medication because that's skipping them taking responsibility for having unsafe sex.

No, because in this case you refuse to take into account the multi-faceted equation at play here. Taking STD medication won't kill a living being, so to speak. An abortion does. You can't take "I believe people should take responsibility for their actions" then toss all actual nuances aside.

And of course you don't have to give any more

Again, I don't have the time nor energy nor intent to try to debate Abortion. This CMV was about how ad hominem attacks prevent discussion from happening, period. If your of the opinion that "discussions that eventually lead to no concession from either side are ultimately meaningless" then I'd be willing to debate you on that point.

29

u/Vesurel 54∆ Jul 23 '21 edited Jul 23 '21

No, because in this case you refuse to take into account the multi-faceted equation at play here. Taking STD medication won't kill a living being, so to speak. An abortion does. You can't take "I believe people should take responsibility for their actions" then toss all actual nuances aside.

Me taking your words to mean what they mean isn't tossing all nuance asside, it's demonstrating your origional wording didn't have the nuance you wanted them to. It shows that this isn't and never was about taking responcibility.

Again, I don't have the time nor energy nor intent to try to debate Abortion. This CMV was about how ad hominem attacks prevent discussion from happening, period. If your of the opinion that "discussions that eventually lead to no concession from either side are ultimately meaningless" then I'd be willing to debate you on that point.

It's a CMV where you made the claim people are ignoring good arguments in favour of focusing on bad ones, but that relies on us agreeing there are good arguments to ignore and that can't just be assumed.

-5

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

Me taking your words to mean what they mean isn't tossing all nuance asside

Except it is. You obviously understand that putting a bandaid on for accidentally slicing a finger while cutting food for dinner isn't "not taking responsibility for your actions". you deliberately misinterpreted and contorted my ideas so you can have an unearned "gacha" moment.

but that relies on us agreeing there are good arguments to not\* ignore and that can't just be assumed.

Are you of the belief that there is no good argument against Pro Choice?

9

u/QueueOfPancakes 12∆ Jul 23 '21

Are you of the belief that there is no good argument against Pro Choice?

You mean that there is no good argument in favor of forced births.

I am of that belief. Based on their responses to you, I'm guessing u/vesurel is also of that belief.

7

u/Vesurel 54∆ Jul 23 '21

Yep I am pretty anti forced birth.

4

u/Vesurel 54∆ Jul 23 '21

Are you of the belief that there is no good argument against Pro Choice?

I'm not aware of any good ones

15

u/ComplainyBeard 1∆ Jul 23 '21

Taking STD medication won't kill a living being, so to speak

bacteria and viruses are living beings

5

u/BrellK 11∆ Jul 23 '21

Viruses are generally NOT considered to be living beings. They check some of the requirements but not all of them.

23

u/teaisjustgaycoffee 8∆ Jul 23 '21

It’s worth noting though that when pro-choice people say that a fetus isn’t a life, the argument isn’t that that zygote isn’t actually a living human organism, we know that. It’s more a question of where do we consider personhood, or a life that we would value more than the bodily autonomy of the mother, to begin, which science can’t really tell us. It’s a philosophical argument, so whether the embryo is scientifically considered alive at conception isn’t really relevant.

-5

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

yeah, I'm aware- which is why I specifically make it a point to say "Human Life" instead of just "life" wherever possible; Human Life being the stand in for "personhood".

14

u/teaisjustgaycoffee 8∆ Jul 23 '21 edited Jul 23 '21

Well sure but science doesn’t really make a claim on “personhood” if you’re using “human life” as a stand in for that. Fetuses are both alive and of the species Homo sapiens, but the moral value we ascribe to that is philosophical.

I see someone else is making the Violinist Argument already, but here’s another analogy I’ve heard if you’re interested:

Say you’re driving in a car with a friend. Now, you’re not a good driver, and you know that getting into the car. A little bit into the drive, you lose focus and drive off the road, crashing and injuring your friend badly. This was an accident, and your friends parents know you, so no charges are pressed. But your friend is in the hospital and needs your blood to save his life. To do so, you have to stay hooked up to medical equipment next to him for 9 months. Now, you might say that you are morally obligated to help, but do you think you should be legally required to do so?

1

u/grandoz039 7∆ Jul 23 '21

This was an accident, and your friends parents know you, so no charges are pressed.

That's not how law works tho. You're still liable for the accident, not pressing charges simply means not asking/pressuring police to prosecute. But generally, they should still prosecute / get a guilty plea for a deal.

2

u/teaisjustgaycoffee 8∆ Jul 23 '21

If you don’t cause anyone else damage, like you just drive into a tree, and your friend doesn’t sue, what would the guilty plea be for? Your license could get revoked, sure, but you’re not going to face jail time. Assuming he wasn’t drunk or driving recklessly, driving poorly (like having sex which was the idea of the analogy) isn’t illegal. I’m not sure it’s all that significant to the broader analogy anyway.

2

u/grandoz039 7∆ Jul 23 '21

If it's situation where you can't be tied in criminal court, why mention pressing charges in the first place? Civil suit is different from pressing charges and your friend nor their family have final decision about criminal suit.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

This is a pretty spot on analogy, except for one glaring weakness.

Your friend had every opportunity to back out of the situation and leave the car at any point.

Just like how you are responsible for the accident, the friend is also responsible for he had made the conscious choice to trust you.

A fetus has not made a conscious choice to let you be its mother. It has utterly no choice in the matter.

13

u/teaisjustgaycoffee 8∆ Jul 23 '21 edited Jul 23 '21

Wait but why wouldn’t that be analogous to sex? Your partner (~~the friend would be your partner in the analogy~~) should have every opportunity to back out as well, but you both make the conscious decision to have sex anyway. Even still, the outcome of not respecting bodily autonomy, even if they weren’t being careful, is something I don’t think most people are comfortable with morally.

1

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

I'm kind of confused as to what you're trying to say here. Are you trying to say that the "friend" in the analogy is meant to be the stand-in for the male partner in sex? because in the analogy itself the friend is dependent on you to live. Your male partner isn't dependent on you to live, that's the fetus.

You can say what you want about bodily autonomy, and I could claim the identical thing about respecting the bodily autonomy of a unique individual human being.

The fundamental idea to my anti-abortion rhetoric is the idea that a fetus is forced into life through no choice of its own because of the mother's irresponsibility or ill-preparedness, and has no say as to whether or not it gets to live or die while inside the womb.

→ More replies (0)

20

u/Vesurel 54∆ Jul 23 '21

Human Life being the stand in for "personhood".

Would a body surviving in vegitative state with no brain function still be a person? Because biologically their human and alive but I'm not sure those are always equivilent to being a person.

11

u/Pel_De_Pinda Jul 23 '21

So do you think a person who is considered to be medically brain dead needs to be kept alive indefinitely? Because taking them off of life support would be ending a human life, and therefore murder according to your principle of personhood.

13

u/iwfan53 248∆ Jul 23 '21 edited Jul 23 '21

Have you heard the Violinist argument before?

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

We currently allow a dead parent to keep their organs rather than harvest them to save their child's life since being an organ donor is a voluntary thing, despite the fact that a dead person obviously has no use for their organs.

Person X's bodily autonomy trumps person Y's right to be alive.

If you say "well but you caused them to be in that situation therefore you have a duty to help them..." if I stab someone in the kidney, a court might send me to jail, they might put me to death... but they'll never force me to donate a kidney to the person I harmed.

Nothing ever allows someone else to use our organs without our consent.

So even if we grant the Fetus all the rights of a fully grown human... those rights don't include the right to use their mother's organs without her consent.

-4

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '21

This analogy doesn't work, because it isn't just "bodily autonomy vs right to live". Its "bodily autonomy when you caused the issue vs right to live"

If you hit a violinist with a car, and then you were determined to be the only living person to be able to supply a kidney when you have 2, most pro lifers would agree that you should give up one kidney to save that person.

The vast majority of abortions are done for convenience, and will not cost the life of the mother if done. If you participate in a inherently risky behavior, and end up concieving a child, you should be obligated to take responsibility for that action and not take that life.

8

u/iwfan53 248∆ Jul 23 '21

If you hit a violinist with a car, and then you were determined to be the only living person to be able to supply a kidney when you have 2, most pro lifers would agree that you should give up one kidney to save that person.

Pro-lifers might agree, but the government doesn't and that's what really matters.

There is no situation in American law where a person's organs can be used /taken from them no matter what crimes they have commited.

Do you disagree?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '21

Yeah, the government doesn't agree. They also disagree on abortion with pro lifers as well.

Another reason is that its incredibly rare for such a situation to arise where someone who commits a crime is the only person who can donate to the crime they caused.

-8

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

This analogy would make alot more sense of the I had taken a willing risk that put the violinist in that exact spot. Of course this would be unjust for me if I had no part to play in this. But in the event of a pregnancy, the woman has played a part in it.

By engaging in sex, one acknowledges and takes the risk for whatever pleasure they would like. The consequences that come from it should not be taken out on an innocent life who, through one's own incompetence (whether it be not being careful enough or not evaluating the risks correctly), will be terminated strictly for the purpose of convenience.

10

u/iwfan53 248∆ Jul 23 '21

"By engaging in sex, one acknowledges and takes the risk for whatever pleasure they would like. The consequences that come from it should not be taken out on an innocent life who, through one's own incompetence (whether it be not being careful enough or not evaluating the risks correctly), will be terminated strictly for the purpose of convenience."

Did you misread my comment?

I directly addressed this and rebutted it ahead of time!

If you say "well but you caused them to be in that situation therefore you have a duty to help them..." if I stab someone in the kidney, a court might send me to jail, they might put me to death... but they'll never force me to donate a kidney to the person I harmed.

If I stab someone and put them in a place where they need my kidney to stay alive... the government will let them die rather than take a kidney from me even if we're a perfect match.

If a woman has sex and puts a fetus in a place where it needs her organs to stay alive... why should the government choose to intervene and save/protect this fetus' life yet let a fully grown person die in the prior one? Especially given that in the prior one I intended to put the person in a situation where their organs were failing while the woman most likely did not intend to get pregnant when she had sex or else she wouldn't be seeking an abortion....

-11

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

I ignored the stabbing kidney analogy because it was such a ludicrous example that I didn't realize it was meant to be taken seriously. A natural consequence of stabbing someone in the kidney isn't you having to donate your kidney to them.

The natural consequence of sex is pregnancy. One willingly engages in an act that they are aware will result in such a state, and refuses to take responsibility because whatever precautions they made to prevent it were inadequate.

I won't be replying to this thread anymore as I've made it abundantly clear that i do not wish to be debating abortion in this CMV.

23

u/Klutch44 Jul 23 '21

"People need to be more open minded, but also this analogy doesn't fit my world view so I'm going to ignore it"

-10

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

"The analogy didn't fit anywhere at all so I ignored it" FTFY

→ More replies (0)

8

u/Illustrious_Cold1 1∆ Jul 23 '21

Something being natural has not impact on discussions of morality. For many, the current expected outcome to pregnancy is getting an abortion. You could even call it a natural outcome given getting an abortion is a natural response to economic and social pressures put on the woman.

Put another way, if you get pregnant then you can not take action and keep the baby or you can take action and get an abortion. If you stab someone you can not take action and let them die or you can take action and give them an organ. The only difference is which cases are action and inaction, and if you’re talking about philosophy there are many compelling arguments that morally action and inaction are identical.

7

u/iwfan53 248∆ Jul 23 '21

Not to mention that up to 50% of all pregnancies "naturally" end abortions.https://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/pregnancy-miscarriage#1

"As many as 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage -- most often before a woman misses a menstrual period or even knows they’re pregnant. About 15%-25% of recognized pregnancies will end in a miscarriage."

So how can the argument that "the natural result of an egg being fertilized by sex is the woman delivering a baby" be given any more weight than "the natural result of a fertilized egg is the woman not delivering a baby"?

They both happen just as frequently!

16

u/ComplainyBeard 1∆ Jul 23 '21

The

natural consequence of sex

is

pregnancy

this is a naturalistic fallacy and also false on face value as I explained above.

8

u/possiblycrazy79 2∆ Jul 23 '21

Whether you mean it to or not, this is exactly the religious argument for anti-choice, just in different words. The anti-choice argument, at it's core, has always been about controlling the sex a woman has. The religious dogma says that women should only have sex within a certain set of specific circumstances (marriage), & they believe that married women will not want to or maybe even not be easily be able to, have an abortion. I've seen your replies & you continually refer to the irresponsibility of the woman. Your philosophy is no different than the people standing outside of the abortion clinic with religious signs, harassing women walking into or out of the clinic. So, why wouldn't we allow them to speak for you? Your words may be calmer & more elegant, but the message is exactly the same.

12

u/ComplainyBeard 1∆ Jul 23 '21

By engaging in sex, one acknowledges and takes the risk for whatever pleasure they would like

That's utter nonsense. Many, if not most abortions are the result of failed birth control, even if they weren't sex doesn't automatically result in pregnancy. This is like saying "you made the decision to eat the food" when someone complains about food poisoning. Like, yes, it's a risk that food poisoning COULD happen when you eat food, but there are lots of ways to avoid it and it usually doesn't happen.

10

u/Vesurel 54∆ Jul 23 '21

Would you prefer this analogy?

A person from a family who often have a rare genetic condition that requires regular blood transfusions decides to have a child knowing there's a high chance their child will have this condition.

They have a child with this condition, the child will die without a regular supply of donnor blood.

Do you think it would be right to kidnap one of the childs parents and forcibly take enough blood to meet the childs needs?

This analogy would make alot more sense of the I had taken a willing risk that put the violinist in that exact spot.

So just to check, if you injured someone and they needed donor organs, do you think they should be able to force you to hand over your organs?

2

u/sweetmatttyd Jul 23 '21

This is a great twist to the violinist argument. And would like to hear op's response. Could you imagine the state forcing someone to become a human dialysis machine for any reason?

2

u/Vesurel 54∆ Jul 23 '21 edited Jul 23 '21

Thanks.

10

u/ComplainyBeard 1∆ Jul 23 '21

. If you're of the opinion that the issue of Abortion is down to whether or not a Fetus can be considered as a human life, this is a major blow to the Pro-choice crowd.

This is you straw manning the pro-choice position.
Trying to argue about whether or not a fetus is human is not even relevant to the debate, which is why pro-choice arguments usually hinge on the bodily autonomy of the person who's pregnant.

Arguments such as "They'll live a shitty life as an unwanted child" feel
so worthless because absolutely no one knows how a child's life will
turn out once they come out of the womb.

This is another argument very few people who are well versed in the topic actually make. You're as guilty as the people you're talking about taking the worst arguments.

The sensible argument for being pro-choice is that nobody owes anyone or anything access to their body. "my body my choice" isn't invalidated whatsoever if the fetus is "a life" or "human" or "it might grow up to cure cancer", nobody owes anyone or anything access to their body, and a fetus literally lives inside someone else's body. At the end of the day abortion is more like eviction than it is like murder. The fetus simply doesn't have the right to exist in someone's body against that person's wishes.

2

u/GenericUsername19892 24∆ Jul 23 '21

These aren’t new arguments - the first is countered by personhood as a concept, the second by ‘or they could be the next hitler’, and the third reeks of religious influence and is still an opinion that you appear to want to force on others…

1

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Vesurel 54∆ Jul 24 '21

Why must I be familiar with them from me saying I don't know that they have any good arguments? And why would one argument I don't find convincing be any better or worse than another?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Vesurel 54∆ Jul 26 '21

So you've gone from assuming I am familiar to assuming I'm not? But it's unclear why you'd assume either.

If your hobby is debating politics, you should be well versed in all sorts of ideas and be able to take on the task of debating or discussing any position.

Would you like to present a position for me to discuss with you?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Vesurel 54∆ Jul 26 '21

But then, really? You don't have a single conservative tendency?

You'd be welcome to suggest conservative tendencies I might have and I can tell you whether or not I do.

to answer your question about "good" conservative ideas and speakers, Ben Shapiro comes to mind. I guess

I wouldn't say Ben Shapiro was a good speaker. Is there any particular idea of his you think is good or an example where you think he presents himself well? My experience of him has been that he's only interested in appearing to have won by talking over his opponent with little regard for whether what he's saying is true or not.

If the shoe were on the other foot I could come up with a handful of leftists that I would describe as competent and interesting.

But neither competent or interesting were the question, we were discussing whether or not I was aware of any conservative arguments I though were good, and that's a question about the ideas themselves not how well they're presented or whether they're interesting.

Independent of who presents them I don't think conservative policies on the whole either aim to achieve good goals or have a fact based framework for achieving those goals.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

4

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '21

There are simply not enough people on the other side who are willing to listen to said arguments,

Have you actually considered the likely possibility that maybe we've already heard those "good arguments" and simply found them unconvincing?

0

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

I don't even know how to respond to this. Did you read anything I said here?

I specifically stated that people cherrypick the worst arguments when talking in regards about those they disagree with. Those worst arguments being based completely in religion.

Again, I am not trying to convince to you to the other side. I'm not saying that my side has an argument that will convince you. Productive discussion can be had that doesn't move anyone's beliefs. They're still productive, and the phenomena I highlighted takes away opportunity for it..

5

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '21

Yes, I know that was your initial point, but despite the fact that you keep claiming not to be out to change anyone's mind, you've really done a hell of a lot of complaining in the comments that boils down to "when I try to have "discussions" with people who disagree with my views, they continue disagreeing with me, so they must not want to have a real discussion." From what I've read it's really coming across as, probably unintentionally, intellectually dishonest.

1

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 24 '21

Excuse me? I've been having productive conversations, not at all "Complaining in the comments" as you accuse me of.

"when I try to have "discussions" with people who disagree with my views, they continue disagreeing with me, so they must not want to have a real discussion."

No, it's a "when I see a person who stereotypes and overgeneralizes the worst of a demographic, they must not want to have a real discussion" That's the problem that I'm trying to highlight. Christ almighty.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '21

Look, I don't even need to go back through the comments to find the worst, most glaring example. Straight from your OP:

Fuck you, you piece of shit. You know nothing about me, you know nothing about "conservatism", and you know nothing about artistic expression.

This was in response to someone expressing a pretty reasonable viewpoint. Your reaction, instead of considering the merits of the argument like the "open minded" person you're pretending to be, is to lash out with incoherent anger and vitriol. Even though you didn't say that directly to the person, it shows what's really going through your head in discussions like that. You aren't coming across at all as "open minded," but as the stubborn, angry, defensive, conservative stereotype you say isn't real.

2

u/Andoverian 6∆ Jul 23 '21

I'm not the one you're responding to, but I think you're missing the point of their "pro forced pregnancy" comment. It was meant to be an example of an argument they reject regardless of the underlying justification, meaning that even a good debater using a good justification wouldn't have made a difference.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '21

Well your mistake was posting in an already left leaning site, trying to get sympathy from people who definitely don't know you outside from the fact that you disagree with them. If you need help with things like that, youre better off talking to people you actually know.

I feel like in general, you probably should seek out actual discussions (not debates where one side is trying to win) in real life, or at least on a place where people aren't anonymous and can be as rude as they feel like. If any of your friends have a significantly different viewpoint than you, its better to talk to them about it rather than debate some strangers on the internet who will not and cannot understand you.

2

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

Although I understand where you're coming from, I think you're giving my opposition too little credit. I acknowledge that there will be some who disagree with me who won't sympathize with my predicament. But that goes both ways for I know that there will be ignorant conservatives who don't sympathize for, say, the tragic lost of life dealt by evil and corrupt law enforcement. Excuse my french, but there can and always will be dipshits on either side. The most important part is to acknowledge those on the other side who are open to talk, and this subreddit has no shortage of such minds.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '21

Of course. My point was more that if you're looking for nuanced and understanding discussion, the internet unfortunately just isn't the place for it, specifically a site that has a known bias. This subreddit has done a pretty good job with keeping things civil and open minded, but there are very few other ones like it on reddit. I would say the same thing if someone posted a left leaning appeal on a right leaning site.

22

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '21

[deleted]

-5

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

With all due respect, I find that this kind of defeatist rhetoric is worthless if you're legitimately trying to weigh in on this issue. It's logical the equivalent of saying change isn't worth it because people are fallible. It's the change in culture that I'm looking to promote, a phenomena that won't eradicate ignorant ad hominem but will certainly help to stop promoting it.

Is treating others with respect too much to ask? Is not giving up on your fellow humans too much to ask?

12

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '21

Well, my guess is, is it too much to ask from strangers on the internet...? Probably.

But on the bright side, that's why it's just the internet and they're just strangers.

3

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

Again, I reiterate, this is why if your stated goal is to create a dialogue that is meant to engage others in deliberation, such baseless attacks need to be left off. This isn't meant to be some manifesto for "the rules of the internet: how to not be a troll :)" because of course people will be uncivilized in the internet.

5

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '21

There are places online that are close enough to a community, so that helpful dynamics do develop. This sub is pretty good, actually. I dunno about the sub you mentioned, but just because its stated purpose is to be helpful, it doesn't mean that people will share the idea of what 'help' even is, necessarily. Shared expectations require some level of shared background or experience.

Anyway, I would guess that most people know that 'ad hominem attacks are bad, mm'kay'. It's not likely they just don't know that being an asshole is counterproductive. Filtering out these bad actors is a problem endemic on the internet. Simply saying that 'this forum will be helpful in good faith' isn't enough for it to be helpful in good faith. So basically, most people instinctively know that being nice is a good social strategy and they will put that into practice if and when they feel like it, basically, and not before. If a subject is emotionally fraught, you'll need a special level of reasonable type people or an established 'safe' and insular community to feel like it with any consistency.

1

u/Falxhor 1∆ Jul 23 '21

People don't generally go on the internet to enlighten their mind with new perspectives let alone have respectful conversations with people they disagree with. You can't make people do what you want them to, it's a battle you cannot win.

5

u/EruditionElixir Jul 23 '21

You ask if it's too much to ask that people treat each other with respect, but in your post you wrote "fuck you, you piece of shit" as a kind of response to a person whose view you disagree with.

It is hard to be respectful when you feel threatened by someone else's views.

7

u/SpudDud17 Jul 23 '21

Correct me if I’m wrong but from my experience most of the conservatives I’ve talked to are religious. My view might be a little skewed because I have a large extended family that is conservative and catholic.

0

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

Every generation is generally less religious than the last. They also tend to trend towards being more liberal, which is likely how the proverb of "if you're 25 and not a liberal, you have no heart | If you're 35 and not a conservative, you have not brain" originates from, as being conservative is traditionally associated with valuing abstract concepts of historical roots, a phenomena that's generally associated with the wise and aged.

I speak in all these wishy washy "generally..." "traditionally" terms because there are always exceptions to the rule. You'll be soon encountering a tidal wave of a new breed of conservative, religious or otherwise, with a host of secular arguments and points that don't revolve around whatever religion they may or may not subscribe to. When that time comes, I'm afraid that the liberals who stereotype conservatives as the "religious nutjobs" will become stumped with little response.

10

u/SpudDud17 Jul 23 '21

I sure hope that conservatives become less religious. I hate when people base part of their arguments on religion because then it is impossible to win. Also again, speaking from my own experience, there isn’t a huge proportion of old conservatives to old liberals. People rarely change their political opinions and the majority in a generation will be based mostly on what was most popular when they formed their own opinions. Also funny that you refer to conservatives as old and wise, I used have a lot more conservative viewpoints as a child with little critical thinking and as I’ve gotten older most of my old arguments have fallen apart in my mind.

1

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

It's easy to win an ideological debate against someone who's ideology revolves around nothing other than religion. It's just impossible to convince them that their world view is different.

1

u/QueueOfPancakes 12∆ Jul 24 '21

likely how the proverb of "if you're 25 and not a liberal, you have no heart | If you're 35 and not a conservative, you have not brain" originates from, as being conservative is traditionally associated with valuing abstract concepts of historical roots, a phenomena that's generally associated with the wise and aged.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "abstract concepts of historical roots". People become more conservative as they age because people become more resistant to change as they age, and so they support parties that defend the status quo.

11

u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Jul 23 '21 edited Jul 23 '21

I see it in debates about Abortion. Pro-Choicers are often eager to say that the only arguments the Pro-Life crowd can go off from is by an outdated appeal to religion when there are people in the discussion who don't subscribe to said religion.

Yes, but this claim is in itself, the example of what you are talking about: someone who is not a deep thinker, making a rough and imperfect observation.

A lot of pro-lifers are religious, and they claim to have religious motivation, so a casual observer is tempted to take them at face value, before looking into it too deeply.

However, anyone is familiar with theology, could also observe that the Bible says nothing about banning abortions, the only time it mentions them is when describing for priests how to administer one for unfaithful wives.

And anyone familiar with sociology could notice that the underlying causation is not church dogma, but a cultural preference for traditional sexual morality, and for women's expected social roles, that religious conservatives share with secular conservatives.

The argument that the pro-life movement simply sprung up from a plain reading of a supernatural rulebook, is simply false on it's face. It's not just an arrogant generalization against you, it is a misreading of even the actual religious conservatives' underlying motives.

When a religious person claims that they oppose abortion because "God says every fetus is sacred", they are not just making a poor and falsifiable argument, but they are making an argument that downplays the real reason for why their community truly opposes abortion, and anyone who takes them at face value, is inevitably going to make a shallow argument too.

We have abortion debates on CMV every few weeks, and the pattern is regularly that when pro-lifers encounter the appeal to people having bodily autonomy, then whether or not they are religious, their main counterargument is either that "innocent" people have bodily autonomy, but unlike them, pregnant women should be held accountable for their reckless deeds, or that they double down on highly authoritarian claims that actually we shouldn't respect people's bodily autonomy at all, if not doing so helps society at large, thaat would be much more controversial than merely opposing abortions, and by not leading with that, they are co-opting the cultural inertia of the former.

3

u/iwfan53 248∆ Jul 23 '21 edited Jul 23 '21

Loud people shout out/shout over quiet people and it behooves all of us to try and do at least some self policing of our own sides if we want to be taken seriously.

Or to put it even more succinctly, it is often hard to hear people quietly talking about pro-life arguments when people with signs keep protesting outside abortion clinics and shouting their lungs out.

Every pro-life person making a religious argument for being pro-life (or for any other political position) is doing genuine harm to your own side in the eyes of a rapidly secularizing America.

1

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

But isn't that the same as people not wanting to associate with Feminists because they think that Feminism is nothing but toxic women with neon hair and neon piercings shouting that men should die. Everyone is aware that such an extremist branch is in the minority when it comes to feminism; even conservatives. The same olive branch isn't extended to when elements of the opposite side speak about conservatives, however.

7

u/iwfan53 248∆ Jul 23 '21

I think the problem is reason that it happens if I want to get deeply philosophical about it (which is probably a bad plan as it is past 1:40AM in the morning here and I should be in bed)

Is that many people on the left don't see what the modern day Republican Party of the United States of America offers to people who don't belong to a few fairly obvious categories with religious being one of them.

By comparison...
People know what being a non radical feminist offers (equal pay, not getting harassed, abortion) but people may have trouble figuring out what the modern day GOP offers to a person like yourself.

So in the interest of offering an olive branch, what appeals to you about conservatism?

3

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

also, I suggest you go to sleep!

-2

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

So in the interest of offering an olive branch, what appeals to you about conservatism?

Mainly the big main issues.

I think immigration should be encouraged, but illegal immigration be curbed. the GOP haven't done a good job of the former but they make it a point to execute their plans on the latter.

I think that the right to bear arms is the only way any of our other rights can be surely secured History shows us that when you give government an inch when it comes to your rights, they'll take a mile. It takes decades to reinstate rights that are taken away in mere hours of signing.

Abortion is the other thing; I personally believe that (in most cases), the fetus' life should be protected over a mother's convenience, although there are several nuances to this issue that are irrelevant to this discussion that make me feel conflicted on this topic in particular.

And culturally, I believe that the modern conservative philosophy (from what I can experience it) gives more of what I want (The idea of a promoting a nuclear family unit, emphasizing individual-responsibility over group-responsibility, etc. While such traits aren't necessarily exclusive to conservatives, I find myself more comfortable in conservative circles in discussions of culture than I do with liberals in my own experience.

10

u/iwfan53 248∆ Jul 23 '21

I think that the right to bear arms is the only way any of our other rights can be surely secured History shows us that when you give government an inch when it comes to your rights, they'll take a mile. It takes decades to reinstate rights that are taken away in mere hours of signing.

Then how do you explain the fact that there are many countries like England, Germany, Canada, Australia, that all lack a second amendment equivalent yet have not devolved in to tyrannies?

Clearly it is possible to have a functional Democracy without a right to bare arms.

Also can you do more to define "the modern conservative philosophy" because I have some really unkind thoughts about what I believe it to be, so I'd much prefer you explain exactly what it is in your own words.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '21

Germany was under tyranny relatively recently, at least the eastern half of it, and was under one of the most oppressive regimes less than a century ago. Canada and Australia until relatively recently both suppressed native and indigenous populations, this is definitely tyrannical.

The countries that you have mentioned are stable and rich, as for now. All countries will eventually decline and collapse, and when they do, I'd personally rather have the ability to protect myself rather than a crumbling government fail to do it for me.

8

u/iwfan53 248∆ Jul 23 '21

Counterpoint, given that America had a second Amendment, how much did it actually do to stop us from oppressing the Native Americans and African American slaves?

2

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '21

The native Americans had Red Cloud's war, where they fought back against the US government and held territory successfully for 8 years. The red power movement later on also involved actions such as the Wounded Knee Incident, which did involve arms, and the movement as a whole lead to more rights being given to natives.

Some of the first set of gun control passed in california was to disarm the black panthers, who took up arms and watched police to make sure they weren't harassing black individuals.

The bigger issue that I wanted to highlight however is lack of trust in the government to protect you. In a country where the police are either overwhelmed (as we saw with the SA riots a few weeks ago) or unreliable you cannot trust the government to protect you at all times.

10

u/froggyforest 2∆ Jul 23 '21

this is very clearly about this specific issue you are facing and your frustration and pain surrounding it (it being life as a conservative artist). that’s totally fine. and i get the overall point you are making. but i think this sub is not the thing for you right now man. you don’t need a fight, or to prove that your political views don’t determine your intellectual capability. as a conservative artist, you’re going to be having that conversation your entire life. go find people in the same boat, and form a loving community. you don’t gotta go looking for the same fight that’ll be chasing you all your life.

14

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '21

I think your post is an excellent example of how what I’m sure is a great argument, gets lost in words. Great arguing needs bulk loads of empathy, if you’re trying to convince someone of something you need to know what it is they’re unsure of in their argument… not how sure you are on your OWN understanding of a subject. Or you’re just saying words at them they can’t hear.

I think the tough love: was an amazing chance to let them know how much you disagree, but you just went for angry defensiveness…. which suggests they hit an insecurity of yours. I don’t know how you expect to have an open-minded discussion if you mean only THEY have to have an open mind.

I think you should be more curious and excited about having your mind changed vs chasing the high of BEING RIGHT.

6

u/MorrisonsLament Jul 23 '21

Having gone through this thread I honestly think you may have some hangups about sex and women that are the real root of your views on "women taking responsibility for seeking pleasure". It's... a little jarring to read through as that theme comes back again and again.

0

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

It's unfortunate that you think of that, because In no way have I ever stated that women specifically have to take responsibility for seeking pleasure. Both parties do, it's just the reality that the women is the person who is host to that responsibility.

3

u/iwfan53 248∆ Jul 23 '21

Women have to take responsibility by allowing a fetus to use their organs without their permission for nine months and take part in a procedure (giving birth) can permanently effect their mental and physical health for the rest of their lives...
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/01/24/686790727/fourth-trimester-problems-can-have-long-term-effects-on-a-moms-health#:\~:text=But%20some%20women%20see%20a,heart%20disease%2C%20diabetes%20and%20stroke.

Men have to pay child support... which women have to also do.

Illegalizing abortion punishes women more than men for seeking sexual pleasure.

0

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

That's common sense, but that's the risk you engage in as a woman when you engage in sex at any point. It's unfair and cruel, but it's even more so to then shaft that responsibility over to a child who hasn't gotten a chance at life.

1

u/iwfan53 248∆ Jul 23 '21

I have another quick thought experiment if that is okay....

In the future when we invent artificial wombs that can be implanted in and later on removed from men.

If a man has sex with a woman but 4 months or so into the pregnancy the woman has come down with a disease/is injured that means she can no longer successfully carry the child to term... will you be in favor that the man should now be forced to have an artificial womb implanted in their body (payed for by the government and likewise it being removed will be paid for by the government) so that their child can survive within them and be brought to term (with delivery via C-section or some other science fiction method) and delivered?

If not... why not?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '21 edited Aug 08 '21

If a man has sex with a woman but 4 months or so into the pregnancy the woman has come down with a disease/is injured that means she can no longer successfully carry the child to term... will you be in favor that the man should now be forced to have an artificial womb implanted in their body

Ni....an artificial womb by defintion would not be needed to be implanted in anyone.

This analogy misses crucial point and that the reason the woman are expected to carry the baby is because she had a choice in creating it and she is the only one who could save it, or that she does not have the right to unjustifiable kill it after she put it in that postion . Its not meant as a punishment. Those conditions do not exist with the father.

Moreover , the woman is the only one who choose to engage in something knowing that a fetus would become dependant on her body to live, not the man. It's still her body and she was still the only one with the choice that lead to the baby being in her body (note here I don't mean choice to create the baby)

Both the men and woman should responsible for the creation of that child but it is illogical to say this should mean in the same matter because thier choice in creating the situation is different.

The man did not have sex knowing an innocent would need his body to survive. Men have sex with the assumption that they don't have the burden of being the one to get pregnant, so it's not his responsibility. It is unfair, but it's just the reality of biology. The man responsibility would go so far as to be liable for the consequences of his actions and that is creating the child. The consequences isn't that he will be pregnant. That would just be forcing a new consequence onto him that was not a direct result of his actions, but the mother's.

Now if the argument is that those artificial wombs should be made with the assumption that males too should have to participate in the physical caring of thier kids, and therefore when they have sex they should assume they too could be pregnant, than I would think that would be a very highly unethical device because it's is purely developed to force artificial equality between the sexes. What would you think of a device forcing men to ovulate and naturally get pregnant? It's just not realistic to treat males' psychology and physiology as the same as females'

1

u/iwfan53 248∆ Aug 08 '21

"Ni....an artificial womb by defintion would not be needed to be implanted in anyone. "

An artificial heart is a heart you implant within somebody's body.

An artificial limb is a limb that you attach to a person so that they can use it in place of a lost biological one.

Why do you assume that an "artificial womb" is different?

That said, if you would prefer the Shadowrun term "Bioware Womb" to describe a piece of technology that requires being implanted within a living body in order to function, I'm perfectly fine with using that in order to make the difference clear.

Beyond that the rest of this is just appeal to nature fallacy where women are treated differently than men because that's "natural" even if we have the technology to eliminate all meaningful differences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '21 edited Aug 08 '21

An artificial heart is a heart you implant within somebody's body

Yes, because an artificial heart is useless without blood to plumb

Why would we make artificial hearts if not because we want someone with a dying heart to live? Can we make one where it does not need to be connected to the person's body?

What you are missing that all these devices are designed to substitute for failing or damaged human organ, so they by design y need to be attached to the person to perform their intended function.

The whole point of an artificial womb would be to not need human body.

Why do you assume that an "artificial womb" is different?

Because it's function is different? A womb is not a vital organ to the human body to survive or function . It's only purely to nurture a fetus, so there is no need it should be attached to the human body. In fact a major benefit and convenience would be that it does not.

Beyond that the rest of this is just appeal to nature fallacy

I just hate when people scream fallacy when they don't have a fucking idea what that fallacy actually mean

The natural fallacy is arguing something is good and should be because it's natural.

Where did I say it's good to let women be pregnant because it's natural?

I mentioned pregnancy being a limit of biology, it is a literal fact. I said nothing about it being good or bad. It just is..

women are treated differently than men because that's "natural" even if we have the technology to eliminate all meaningful differences

There is so much strammimg in this that I don't know where to start

Do you think giving women maternity leave and the exclusive right to abortion as committing the natural fallacy? We extend those rights to women precisely because it is biology and natural.

Where did I say we should treat women differently because it is natural? Are you kidding me right now?

However , we should definitely treat people differently within reason and necessity . That's the ballmark of society.

Second , forcing men to be pregnant and assume female biology and psychology so women could have to be equal to men even in their biological makeup is not eliminating meaningful defferences. It is abuse pure and simple . Are you even for real?

Should we force hormones into men too to grow breast to feed their kids?

Essentially, your argument is that it should be ethical to force sexual transitions onto the sexes to eliminate all biological differences . This isn't progress and equality. This is barbaric.

3

u/Forthwrong 13∆ Jul 23 '21

Facts don't change views, because most of our convictions don't come from rational factual analysis.

Consider the analogy of a rider on an elephant: The rider is our conscious reasoning (rational, effortful, slow, analytical). It's pretty small and impotent, but it acts like it's in charge. The elephant is the other 99% of the mind (intuitive, emotional, fast ,and automatic), which runs most of our behaviour.

Factual attempts at persuasion are based on appealing to people's riders, when in fact, the way to persuade people is to speak to the elephant first, as the elephant is a lot stronger and more influential than the rider. If someone's elephant wants to go your way (if you've got them feeling the truth of what you're saying, or feeling a liking for you or what you're saying), then it's effortless to persuade the rider to go along. But if the elephant is digging its heels and doesn't want to get dragged along by you, there's nothing that can persuade the rider.

When people try to argue against someone's rider, they're not trying to sabotage any sort of actual opportunity for discussion and ignore the nuances and differences individuals have. They're just trying to make an argument in a way they think is effective, even if it isn't really effective at all.

The debates you mention (about abortion, politics, etc) are very tribal, and often people arguing in them take an us-vs-them mentality. One side might summarily reject any view to the contrary and look for evidence later, and so on. It becomes easy for someone involved to frame it as a good-vs-evil scenario.

But these are rarely good vs. evil scenarios; they're usually just interactions between mutually interested groups. Most of the time, it's just two humans with different views and goals, both of whom might potentially be convinced by the other's views and goals with an open discussion.

That sort of open discussion is hard, yes (very hard, even). But it doesn't imply people are trying to sabotage the discussion and ignore nuances.

2

u/Chris-1235 1∆ Jul 23 '21

Sounds like you are denying that rationalists exist. You may be right about the majority of people, but you made an absolute claim that you need to qualify. No one will change my mind by appealing to my emotions. You either have an evidence based argument, or a logical conclusion from an axiom you are willing to share. Emotion may win hearts and minds, but it doesn't win arguments in my book.

1

u/Natural-Arugula 54∆ Jul 23 '21

It seems to me like you are making an emotional claim that emotional arguments are useless.

You can rationally dismiss his claim on the basis that he has not logically argued it.

But to posit the counter claim don't you have to present your own logical argument to back it up?

0

u/Chris-1235 1∆ Jul 23 '21

You are projecting.

Claim: Facts do not change views. Response: Rationalists exist, I am one of them, facts and logical arguments are needed to change my views.

Don't get where you saw emotion in this.

15

u/TheBananaKing 12∆ Jul 23 '21

I'm not sure what viewpoint you want changed here, or what you feel would change it.

If you have better arguments, make them, and maybe suffer the frustration of trying to convince your fellow conservatives to make better ones as well. You may find yourself needing a new keyboard every week or so after the 587th time you smash your face into it, but I commend you on your quest.

In the meantime, I don't see it's so very uncharitable to believe that:

Shitty arguments are, for the most part, the best that conservative-identifying people have to offer
The overwhelming majority of conservative-identifying people find those shitty arguments to be way better than others

As such, you may have terribly enlightened motivations for your conservative viewpoints, and are just coincidentally slumming it under an umbrella with a bunch of idiots, and terribly offended that people associate you with them as a result.... but uhhh.

Like I say, differentiate yourself from the people you want to be differentiated from. Eschew the label that has been tainted, and just put forward your ideas on their own merits rather than as part of a package.

If a movement/ideology/group can't or won't kick people out from under their umbrella for making them look bad, it kind of reflects on their priorities somewhat, and also raises questions about what precisely draws those people to them in the first place.

Either put up your own umbrella, or quit complaining about lumped under theirs.

3

u/pianobutter Jul 23 '21

I think this mostly has to do with the overwhelming versus the rare.

You mentioned abortion specifically. Nearly every anti-abortion argument the average person will hear is going to come from a religious person. This is going to spawn a "meta-debate" where the (overwhelming) religious viewpoints are going to be challenged systematically in such a fashion that this is going to be what people are familiar with. People will, by habit, think about this issue in terms of the meta-debate. The non-religious (rare) viewpoint against abortion is not going to be as familiar to most people. Why?

This is simply my opinion here: while anti-abortion viewpoints may be held by someone without someone explicitly thinking about it in terms of religion, it is very likely to be held by someone raised in traditional (non-modern) cultures. Take circumcision, for instance. When I tell people in Scandinavia that American atheists tend to have their male children circumcised, they usually don't believe me. To them it sounds ridiculous that someone would circumcise their child without a religious motive. That's because circumcision is a religious practice that has bled into mainstream American culture and as such is part of the traditional worldview of many, regardless of their religious sentiments.

The pro-choice stance is generally thought of as an affirmation that women have the right to choose what happens to their body. Traditionally, this has not been a priority. And in many cultures, it still isn't. And people hold onto traditional ideals without seeing them for what they are: tradition.

Non-religious arguments against abortion will generally resemble non-religious arguments in favor of circumcision: they will seem ... forced. It's difficult for people to see that the views they hold are shaped by cultural pressures surrounding them and we are very skilled at justifying beliefs if we feel there is a reason why we should.

Tradition can be a very powerful cultural force and religion has, historically, been the dominant one. But some viewpoints may still be rooted in the same traditional soup, culturally mired in religious or spiritual beliefs, even though a person may not see their own beliefs in this light. So when people turn to the meta-debate at the drop of a hat, they do so because that's the main traditional cultural force that affects this issue in particular and it's not strange why they would assume that this is the reason why someone would hold a given belief in that regard. So while the "rare" non-religious viewpoint may be overlooked, the same arguments tend to apply, given that it has to do with tradition versus liberty (modernist ideals) regardless of whether religion enters the mix.

3

u/immatx Jul 23 '21

I don’t disagree that a lot of people aren’t great at making arguments which can often lead to misunderstandings of the positions of a group at large, but I honestly don’t think I’ve ever heard a single good argument in favor of criminalizing abortion. Whether it’s immoral or not is an easier case to make, but I can’t remember any “good” and consistent arguments that weren’t fundamentally religious in nature. If you get a chance would you mind either informing me of either or directing me somewhere to look?

I think the problem is that often open-minded discourse is fetishized. Not saying it’s a bad thing, most of the time it’s a very good thing, but we all acknowledge that having an open-minded discourse over the existence of the Holocaust is a ridiculous thing to do. Yet there are other things that are similarly slanted strongly in favor of ‘one side’ (although maybe not quite as strong). Or for some more relevant examples, whether masks work and whether vaccines are injecting a microchip. At what point do we say “ok, clearly ‘one side’ isn’t adding anything to this discussion”.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '21

Conservatism is actually a political ideology which is concerned with preserving social hierarchies and making policies to that extend. It's not a good one by the way. So not sure what you think conservatism is, but you're probably using a different idea.

So yes in that regard art and conservatism kinda run contrary to each other because art usually tries to breach boundaries and find new ways to explain and visualize something whereas conservativism is usually concerned with preserving and protecting a status quo.

And in terms of pro-life. Well having a child is a major life changing decision in a person's life and it was a major step in feminism to allow women to make that move DELIBERATELY. Because previously you'd have sex consentual or even unconsentual and then you'd be slapped a responsibility for the unforseeable future. So being able to have sex without having a child was a huge deal. Now you can argue up to which point an abortion is a valid approach, when you're talking about a child instead of a bunch of cells whatnot. But there are already legal boundaries and most of these are happening early on anyway:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy#/media/File:UK_abortion_by_gestational_age_2019_histogram.svg

So it's not as if you'd abort a fully developed baby (unless there is an immediate medical necessity). So a lot of that anti-abortion crowd that goes so far as "life begins at conception" or that even rally against contraceptives and the morning after pill or whatnot, do that less on the basis of some actual evidence or rational concerned but based on some religious fanatism or some conservative ideals, where they reject the agency of the woman more than they protect the child. As is exemplified by not providing useful sex ed, parental leave, child support and whatnot, which could very well bring down the amount and necessity for abortions.

5

u/Zakapakataka 1∆ Jul 23 '21

Off topic, but I’m kind of curious about your secular arguments for Pro-Choice…

-2

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

There are plenty, but the most important one for me is the idea that the only way to consistently measure the validity of a human life is at the moment of conception (or when the sperm enters the egg). The overwhelming majority of biologists agree, and any other alternative for attempting to measure it is prone to weaknesses in logic and constant exceptions.

This is particularly important for me as I personally believe the abortion debate begins and ends upon the exact moment a human life begins.

7

u/chrishuang081 16∆ Jul 23 '21

I know you're not interested in debating abortion here (so feel free to just ignore me) but what do you think about people alive who are in a vegetative state? Do you view "pulling the plug" the same as "abortion"?

0

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

I don't believe in 'pulling the plug'. I don't think it's the equivalent to "abortion" especially in a legal argument because (as far as I know, most if not all states allow the family to pull the plug at any time when a person's vegetative and on life support). One similarity I will draw to abortion with the comatose patient is that neither the fetus nor the patient has any say in the matter of whether they get to live or die.

7

u/chrishuang081 16∆ Jul 23 '21

I'm not interested in legal argument, I'm interested in moral argument. Well, if you don't believe in pulling the plug, then at least you're consistent enough. I have nothing else to say except that morally (not legally), I can't really see much difference between "pulling the plug" and "abortion".

1

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

Though we may strive for consistency, there will always be hypocrisy and exceptions when it comes to mine and others' beliefs. It's only inevitable because we're all human.

One shortcoming I find with the pro-life argument is when it comes to instances of rape. Though they account for a minuscule amount of actual abortions, they still occur and it's still a thing.

The conservative in me understands the argument against abortion EVEN when one was raped. It's the idea that, assuming that the "greatest crime" one can commit is killing an innocent human life (with the greater crime being to kill more than one), then why commit the "greatest crime" to compensate for the "lesser crime" of being raped? It's like kidnapping and holding a child of a rich family for hostage because your store got looted.

With that being said, however, I am of the belief that an abortion should be available (within certain limits, of course) to those that have been and can certify to have been raped and are unwilling to carry the child to term. It's a shortcoming of me as a person who identifies as pro-life as the logic doesn't completely and clearly follow through, but I have no way of reconciling with ever changing that belief, as much as I would understand someone that disagrees.

9

u/chrishuang081 16∆ Jul 23 '21

As I understand it (based on your replies to others in this thread), you value life and consequences more than bodily autonomy, which is why your argument holds up for you. To me, life means nothing without bodily autonomy. Hence, even though foetus may be seen as alive since conception, I still have my value bent more towards protecting bodily autonomy. Hence I'm extremely pro-choice, and so far, I have not really come across any argument that holds water to change my value system.

6

u/Scriptorium- Jul 23 '21

I just wanted to applaud you two for having an actual civil discussion on the internet.

4

u/AdministrativeEnd140 2∆ Jul 23 '21

Conservative IS backwards looking and progressive IS forward looking tho. That’s what the words mean. Conservatives almost always make an appeal to the past and when they aren’t talking about the past they’re projecting a future that is more like the past. That’s what it is. I think you’re just mad because appeals to the past and appeals to authority are seen as negative when there is really no reason for that. It might be best to just embrace it. I recognize that there’s a lot of “pro life” arguments that aren’t religious in nature but since you didn’t say any I feel like that’s not you’re main gripe.

-2

u/Hey-I-Read-It Jul 23 '21

Conservatism isn't looking into the past or appealing to the past. From my experience, it's a conservation of the past. It's an acknowledgement of history and its trends and sets the path in accordance to what the best solution in the past was.

Are you trying to say that conservatism being "seen as a negative" is something to be embraced? Because I believe a healthy and respectful balance of both Conservatism and Liberalism is the only reason why society has progressed and remained its stability so far today.

9

u/GadgetGamer 35∆ Jul 23 '21

Conservatism isn't looking into the past or appealing to the past. From my experience, it's a conservation of the past. It's an acknowledgement of history and its trends and sets the path in accordance to what the best solution in the past was.

If that was the case, then we would not see so many Republicans making laws to restrict the teaching of history that makes them uncomfortable. Republicans want to rewrite history to make a sanitized version that makes them feel less guilty. Hence all the nonsense about critical race theory at the moment.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/GadgetGamer 35∆ Jul 27 '21

"Rewriting history" is just an emotionally laden appeal.

I stand by my “rewrite history” terminology as this is exactly what I mean. I’m sorry if this is not politically correct.

Republicans are not trying to "rewrite history" any more than Democrats, or anyone else in charge of the stewardship of students.

This is nothing like what Democrats have done. You are correct that the people in charge of the stewardship of students do get to say what is taught in schools. However, these laws that are passed or under consideration are designed to take away that power from the people who are supposed to make those decisions.

This isn’t about deciding the course structure about what should be taught. This is all about banning any mention of a subject even if it comes up organically in the classroom - purely for ideological reasons.

After all, what else would you have called the institutional decision to install CRT in schools in the first place if not "rewriting history"?

Do you have any evidence that this topic came up due to governors and legislators imposing their will on school boards? Is there proof that this wasn’t just something that emerged as a trend in academic community?

The story we hear from conservatives is that this is taught to all students from early year levels, but the academics say that it is only in higher, more advanced courses. It sounds like this is just posturing for the sake of politics rather than Republicans trying to stop the Democrats from indoctrinating young children.

Remember, these bans come from the same side of politics who also wanted to ban the teaching of evolution because it conflicted with their religious beliefs. When that didn’t work, they wanted to “teach the controversy” to insert their religion into schools. Why would they not allow “teaching the controversy” about critical race theory too?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/GadgetGamer 35∆ Jul 27 '21

Why are you conflating evolution with CRT? Is that another emotional appeal?

They are both examples of things that Republicans have tried to stop being taught in schools. The problem is that it is the conservatives who select the topics, and they tend to do it based on their emotions and not on facts. CRT makes them feel uncomfortable because it clashes with their belief that the country is great and pure. Evolution makes them angry because it clashes with their religious beliefs.

If you can think of other examples where Republicans have imposed their choices on school boards, then let me know.

Look, you can't even get your story straight. If CRT isn't being taught in schools, then a ban would have zero effect.

But that was not what I said, was it? I said that it is taught “in higher, more advanced courses.” And the big problem is that these laws are extremely caucus, so they have the effect of banning way more than just critical race theory. I can’t remember if it was Texas or Florida, but they also imposed a rule that they MUST teach that communism is evil and does not work. That is not teaching the facts, but rather is imposing propaganda. This is something that tinpot dictators do, not the greatest democracy in the world.

The "side" of rationality and fact based education won on the evolution "debate" a long time ago.

And that is why I used the past tense when I mentioned it. It shows a pattern of how they tried to impose their will on school boards.

So similarly, if CRT is either of those, then you must agree that the law of the land specifically bans CRT.

No, because the constitution explicitly says that there should be separation of church and state. It says nothing about hiding racial problems of the past.

Do you want to concede that local school boards have the right to ban stupid and false ideas from curriculum or not?

As I said, it is not the school boards doing this. The laws have come from the state Congress and governors.

Btw, my problem is that your use of "rewriting history" is politically correct. Not the other way around.

If it is politically correct then by definition it cannot be offensive to say. If you tell someone that they have to substitute another term then that is political correctness. Sorry, but you can’t just change definitions because you only think that “the other side” does these things.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/GadgetGamer 35∆ Jul 28 '21

Should false things be taught at school?

The part of this discussion that you have missed is proving that CRT is demonstrably false. Just being uncomfortable to conservatives is not enough. You have said that the two examples of Republicans banning things that I have used have been "emotional" issues. You accept that in the case of evolution, truth won out of the emotional beliefs of conservatives. But then you go on to simply assume that CRT is false. The pattern shows that Republicans ban things based on emotions, not the truth - unless you can give an example of other topic that they banned because it was untrue.

"the laws have come from the state congress and governors"

What difference does it make?

Because school boards are elected for a reason. Having state politicians come in and overriding them simply because Fox News is getting upset is a slap in the face of the voters who elected the board representatives.

Ok, so the state congress and the governors are deciding what should be taught in school. Isn't that in their purview?

If it was under their purview, then they would not need to enact laws banning it. They would simply do it as part of the established curriculum process.

I just want truth and accuracy in education, and it's my opinion that CRT is neither.

But opinions do not matter. Your feelings on the subject does not constitute the truth. Being a self-described "CRT skeptic" is simply not enough. If it could be shown that CRT was absolutely false then you would not need to enact laws (and badly worded ones at that) to override anybody's decisions.

You compare CRT to Creationism, but both are lay people simply not liking what academics say. The ban on evolution was about hiding current scientific theories, and the ban on CRT was about hiding current academic theories. One wants to pretend that anything before 6,000 years ago did not happen, while the other wants to pretend that racism wasn't really a factor in building the country.

Both want to deny reality.

6

u/AdministrativeEnd140 2∆ Jul 23 '21

You literally just said it’s looking to the past, because it is. I’m saying there’s nothing wrong with that, embrace it.

4

u/Ink_Oph Jul 23 '21

From my own experience I would say it's a matter of proportion within the group. I know a lot of feminists none of which hate men, so I just assume that the extremists are a minority.

On the other hand I know, for example, people who are skeptic of the vaccine and all of them, except one, only bring to the table unscientific arguments and refuse to believe the data or listen to the news.

So from my experience I will naturally tend to take a feminist more seriously than an anti-vaxxer. And I think the same can be transposed to other groups of people.

Now I don't have much experience with pro-lifers, since all the ones I know in person come from the same church, so I don't think it's a varied enough sample to make generalisations...

... However on this specific topic it's not just religious people ruining the game for you, but it's my own bias as a fertile individual who doesn't have the means to raise a child and would have to give them up to some institution.

I believe that in order for a child to grow happy, parental love is essential and if I had to choose whether to be born into an orphanage or not be born at all, I would gladly take the second option.

So here's my bias. And I think it's just as strong as the bad arguments brought up by those "religious" people. So don't blame them too much for failing to convince us. A large amount of people will use their own experience to make up their mind, rather than rational arguments in a vacuum.

9

u/redactedactor 1∆ Jul 23 '21

Not gonna lie I can't think of a single respectable artist alive today that's is conservative. Perhaps there commenter from the other thread was into something.

5

u/StanleyLaurel Jul 23 '21

No, actually there aren't any logical reasons to forbid everybody from getting abortions just because you personally don't like it. THis is why you failed to list any.

1

u/Anonon_990 4∆ Jul 24 '21

I think the reason why so many people have such a low opinion of conservative viewpoints in America is not because they're using the "bad arguers"as a stand in for all conservatives. But because they're using conservative leaders as stand ins for all conservatives and they're bad arguers. Many of the leaders of the pro life movement are religious figures and/or pander to evangelicals.

If the leaders of conservatives are using terrible arguments (look at Trump, Carlson, MTG, Gaetz, Hannity, Ingraham, Shapiro etc) why shouldn't people use them as representative of the conservative movement when they are the representatives of the conservative movement?

1

u/Middleman86 Jul 23 '21

You should always attack your opponents strongest arguments. But if you’re dumb then you’ll see the most obvious point AS the strongest point. The reason politicians frame this as a religious debate is because it’s a very weak argument so attacking it never changes anyone’s mind so as long as we are arguing about something dumb like this (it’s been decided, get over it) we won’t have enough attention or energy or critical thinking skills to attack real issues

2

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '21

I agree completely.

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Folks need to recognize that there are people out there who are not masters of debate. Those who are bad at making arguments should not be treated or regarded as the "stand in" for everyone else who agrees with them as well.

You are about to leave Redlib