Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion

[Bedinsis]

The sweet irony here is that your understanding of this is an oversimplified and wrong explanation of the world. The virtue of understanding and education depends on the source of information, and intellectualism refers to the practice of seeking truth through thought, potentially at the expense of personal or empirical experience. It is not a mark of curiosity for the intellectualist to spend their time trying to think through problems in an ivory tower.

Show me an instance of something allegedly intellectualist rejecting empiricism. The scientific process involves empirical evidence so I suspect most would consider someone rejecting it no longer being intellectual.

A recent (admittedly super biased) analysis of the Biden administrations top officials found the median time spent in the business sector was 0 years. More than half of the people at the top of the current administration have spent their entire adult lives working in education or government. Their experience over the things they are regulating is entirely theory, with no personal connection at all. There is a word for things that are solely the product of the human mind, that word is fiction.

On the other hand, Trump became president without any prior public office experience, a position that involves regulating how all public administration should operate.

What I'm saying is that no matter whom is in charge of your country there will be blindspots in their experience which ideally they ought to cover, and taking in information not derived through their personal experience then become a necessity.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

This is a lie. Authorities have confirmed it: suspect has been arraigned, and police confirmed he has stated that he did it. Court documents also corroborate the details of the victim.

Authorities confirm story about 10-year-old rape victim as abortion debate rages

Two newspapers have humanized the new American reality about abortion now that Roe v. Wade has been reversed. And in doing so, they have highlighted the inhumanity of some partisan punditry.

edition.cnn.com

The incident occurred, but right-wing media intentionally cast false doubt on it for political reasons.

I...it *happened*, come the fuck on with this. The had an on-the-record statement from somebody directly involved. They didn't print the girl's name because A) She's 10, B) it's an ongoing investigation, and C) the rapist hadn't been arrested yet. That *doesn't* mean they didn't fact check. It was reported to the cops and the cops *fucking lied* and every right wing shitheel ran with it.

So naturally the Indiana GOP wants to force any future 10 year old rape victims to carry to term

The original story in the newspaper didn't do the bare minimum to confirm the story, that is not a lie.

 

[Silvanus]

The original story in the newspaper didn't do the bare minimum to confirm the story, that is not a lie.

Correction: they didn't provide those supporting sources in the article itself (which is fairly normal). You have no way of knowing whether they pursued due diligence in finding out whether it was true.

...Which is quite irrelevant anyway, because the story was true.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

The original story in the newspaper didn't do the bare minimum to confirm the story, that is not a lie.

"And no amount of It Actually Happening will make me drop this accusation", amazing

Indiana AG: "The doctor didn't report to our office like they should have so we are going to prosecute"
A Freedom of Information Act Request Like 10 Minutes Later: "The doctor reported on time as required"

 

[Trunkage]

The original story in the newspaper didn't do the bare minimum to confirm the story, that is not a lie.

Why are you making what normally happens in news articles (like every article) out as a trick to get you?

 

[Trunkage]

Why do you kick puppies?

Legit, not the worst thing you've said about me in this thread

Anyway, here's what you stated

I personally think it is wrong, I'm sure you're aware I subscribe to a Christian moral system, but that doesn't give me grounds to assert my beliefs or dismiss yours.

This whole thread is not about asserting your beliefs. it's about forcing others to follow your beliefs.

Roe was about letting individuals choose their beliefs. Under that ruling, governments were not allowed to choose for others (at least until 20 weeks)
Getting rid of Roe means that governments choose for individuals because individuals are seen incompetent and can't choose the right choice. I.e. personal beliefs are dismissed and supplanted by the government's beliefs

If you at all believed this statement, you SHOULD see Roe as too restrictive, that women should be able to get abortions anytime. And you, who disagrees with abortions whole heartedly, would do your best to dissuade individuals, to help them through the process. This is, in fact, this how normal Christians see abortions. And I've heard this comment personally many times from Christians, even from Catholics. But I understand that American Catholics and Australian ones are definitely not the same

I cannot what to hear how 'assert' and 'dismiss' are magic words that have different definition from how they are normally used to justify the statement

 

[tstorm823]

Show me an instance of something allegedly intellectualist rejecting empiricism. The scientific process involves empirical evidence so I suspect most would consider someone rejecting it no longer being intellectual.

The definition of an intellectualist is a person who believes knowledge can be derived from pure reason. It is an alternative epistemological process to empiricism. The "-ism" makes a big difference in the meaning of words, it is not a matter of being against the intellect, but rather being against the idea that intellect can derive truth in a vacuum.

On the other hand, Trump became president without any prior public office experience, a position that involves regulating how all public administration should operate.

What I'm saying is that no matter whom is in charge of your country there will be blindspots in their experience which ideally they ought to cover, and taking in information not derived through their personal experience then become a necessity.

I would agree with your general sentiment here. There should be a balance of things.

This whole thread is not about asserting your beliefs. it's about forcing others to follow your beliefs.

I don't think it is. There are certainly plenty of people who want to ban abortion because it violates their moral beliefs, but I'm not making that argument. Part of the role of government is to protect the lives of individuals from others. You can argue that position morally, but you don't have to, as if you are trying to create a peaceful and stable society, you're not going to want people murdering each other even from purely practical, amoral perspective. A government in pursuit of a stable society, even in the absence of morals, does not benefit from rampant homicide.

 

[Bedinsis]

The definition of an intellectualist is a person who believes knowledge can be derived from pure reason.

No it isn't. You're thinking of a rationalist.

 

[tstorm823]

No it isn't. You're thinking of a rationalist.

In this context, those are synonyms.

 

[Trunkage]

I don't think it is. There are certainly plenty of people who want to ban abortion because it violates their moral beliefs, but I'm not making that argument. Part of the role of government is to protect the lives of individuals from others. You can argue that position morally, but you don't have to, as if you are trying to create a peaceful and stable society, you're not going to want people murdering each other even from purely practical, amoral perspective. A government in pursuit of a stable society, even in the absence of morals, does not benefit from rampant homicide.

See, that's more insulting than kicking puppies

Why are you lying again? Abortion has been around since we have been able to write things down. In fact, civilization probably couldn't start without it. If you are at all keen on the family structure, which leads to stable societies, you better be for abortion. Overturning Roe has done more damage to the family unitthan any lefties could imagine

But you didn't answer the question. You can think we are evil mass murders that are going to hell all you want. It's got nothing to do with needing to ban abortions. That just means you personally don't want an abortion

 

[Terminal Blue]

The sweet irony here is that your understanding of this is an oversimplified and wrong explanation of the world. The virtue of understanding and education depends on the source of information, and intellectualism refers to the practice of seeking truth through thought, potentially at the expense of personal or empirical experience.

Attempting to draw truth from personal or empirical experience without engaging intellectually with it is still stupid, because in your empirical experience your feelings and beliefs are real regardless of whether they are reasonable or real to anyone else.

It takes intellectual labor to turn an empirical experience into something that is useful, certainly something that is useful to anyone but yourself.

Simply because I am one. Nothing more, nothing less.

And why does that matter?

Is it more acceptable to kill women than men because you're not a woman, or does this chauvinism only apply to the category of human itself? Why?

How do you define a human? Was there a point in evolutionary history where it suddenly became morally unacceptable to kill certain hominids, and what was the difference between the before and after of that point?

This is the problem with empiricism without intellectualism. It leads you to privilege your own experience above reality, and thus leads to weak, arbitrary belief systems that disintegrate on contact with reality.

In this context, those are synonyms.

Haha, no.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

 

[tstorm823]

Why are you lying again? Abortion has been around since we have been able to write things down. In fact, civilization probably couldn't start without it. If you are at all keen on the family structure, which leads to stable societies, you better be for abortion. Overturning Roe has done more damage to the family unitthan any lefties could imagine

This is deranged.

It takes intellectual labor to turn an empirical experience into something that is useful, certainly something that is useful to anyone but yourself.

It takes both. The root of anti-intellectualism is not resentment for intellectual labor, but recognition of its limitations. Anti-intellectualism in America stems directly off of the university education system, but from the time where attending a university largely meant you came from wealth in the first place, and never had to personally suffer as a consequence of your ideas. The intellectualism being opposed is the idea among the overeducated that people sitting around thinking about things deserve authority over those with more practical life experience. Who gets the say on manufacturing regulations: someone who has worked in factories for 25 years, or some guy who just happened to go to Harvard? Sure, there's value in both, but if you ask me we lean far too heavy on the latter, especially in left wing circles. Communism is purely the invention of bougie, overeducated types, and when the actual working class people try to tell them that communism is stupid, they think that's just what an uneducated anti-intellectual would say.

In case you can't tell, I personally love thinking through concepts. I would not be here arguing with you if I had no appreciation for intellectual pursuits. And as someone who both likes this sort of thing and is really, really smart, I can tell you from experience, the human intellect is just as capable of rationalizing falsehood as it is deriving truth. Thinking through something longer should give you no additional confidence in the truth or value of the concept until it's had opportunity to be tested against reality.

And why does that matter?

Because that is what society is made of. Laws are made by human beings for human beings in a society made of human beings. You are welcome to consider that arbitrary, but it is the system we live in.

Haha, no.

I guess that's just between me and the Oxford English Dictionary then.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Correction: they didn't provide those supporting sources in the article itself (which is fairly normal). You have no way of knowing whether they pursued due diligence in finding out whether it was true.

...Which is quite irrelevant anyway, because the story was true.

"And no amount of It Actually Happening will make me drop this accusation", amazing

Indiana AG: "The doctor didn't report to our office like they should have so we are going to prosecute"
A Freedom of Information Act Request Like 10 Minutes Later: "The doctor reported on time as required"

Why are you making what normally happens in news articles (like every article) out as a trick to get you?

 

[Trunkage]

This is deranged.

Abortions are in every society, even when they were isolated. (I should have added contraception with abortion here.) For millenia.

This includes a ritual birth control procedure done by the Australian Indigenous men where they cut a hole in the penis to stop reproduction. That's being seperated from most population for 40 000 years and still knowing that abortion and contraception is important

It's that integral to society

 

[Seanchaidh]

 

[Trunkage]

Do I have to explain to you how journalist dont normally do best practices? I dont mean Indiana Star. I mean all journalist. Most journalist would never reach what the guest expects here. It's not good, it's just what is

I would disagree with the assessment of waiting for police to confirm. But that's might be because I've seen the confirmation coming out of US police and it being wildly wrong. It takes time for investigation to happen. If this guy didn't confess, the police has little to confirm.

This case made to state Attorney Generals out to be idiots because THEY didnt bother looking into the case properly. And they have way better access to the police than journalist. I'd also point out that the Ohio government created the problem, they have a vested interest covering it up. I don't think anything the police says proves anything to me

I do agree they should have had more sources. Eg. Multiple doctors going on record reporting this. I'd point out that pretending it was fake is an over reach. Sometimes you need to wait for more info

 

[Trunkage]

So he hasn't changed a bit

 

[Bedinsis]

In this context, those are synonyms.

If it is a contextual meaning it is not "the definition" as you earlier claimed.

 

[tstorm823]

If it is a contextual meaning it is not "the definition" as you earlier claimed.

I'll concede that I should have said "a definition". Would you care to backtrack on the "no it isn't" part?