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

[Absent]

The left cares about the social policies because it doesn't upset the status quo. And, of course, there has to be a push back for it to be a fight and waste time. Both of the parties are very bad for the people. It's not like republicans have caused say 90% of harm and democrats 10%, it's probably 60-40 at best and actually arguable of who is actually worse. If you say the republicans are driving us off the cliff at like 100mph and saying how bad they are and how everyone should vote for the democrats, but why when they democrats are doing the same but only say 80mph?

Really significant social policies would upset the status quo though.

But... this is all a bit US-specific. I'm in Europe, where the spectrum is shifted towards the left in terms of social standards. So of course, seen from here, Democrats are quite right-wing and Republicans to the far right. It would be easy to be more social (more left-leaning) than Democrats. But Republicans never would, their goal being to shift the whole spectrum to the right, to the less social. And they scream about stalinism at the sightest social proposal, which helps nothing (except the very rich).

So yes, it's a matter of degree. I was just pointing out that the idea of Republicans implementing social policies (and moreso than Democrats) would be wrong, and certainly far from Sander's perception. Although it's not rare that, rhetorically, the left is accused to be even more right-wing than the right. It's never technically truth, but as a mere hyperbolic insult it's sometimes deserved.

Also, things can get more complicated at a more granular level. For instance, the extreme-right can make a social gesture for white christian nationals at the expense of stigmatized minorities (nazis and neonazis sometimes do that), then the classification of it becomes more subjective.

 

[tstorm823]

But... this is all a bit US-specific. I'm in Europe, where the spectrum is shifted towards the left in terms of social standards. So of course, seen from here, Democrats are quite right-wing and Republicans to the far right.

You were not here any of the times I posed this question, so I would like to ask you, what policies or social standards in Europe are actually to the left of the US? I concede health financing, and users here have offered me organized labor as an answer, and as best as I can tell, the US is as left or more left than Europe generally on basically everything else.

 

[Silvanus]

You were not here any of the times I posed this question, so I would like to ask you, what policies or social standards in Europe are actually to the left of the US? I concede health financing, and users here have offered me organized labor as an answer, and as best as I can tell, the US is as left or more left than Europe generally on basically everything else.

Workplace protections, pay scales, consumer protections, environmental protections, public ownership of utilities, to name a few.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Workplace protections, pay scales, consumer protections, environmental protections, public ownership of utilities, to name a few.

Oh, but he didn't ask you, so your answer doesn't count, remember? Even if you do actually live there and he doesn't.

 

[tstorm823]

Workplace protections, pay scales, consumer protections, environmental protections, public ownership of utilities, to name a few.

You couldn't begin to justify half of those, and I could debate you on all of them. What even begins to make you think the environment is less protected or the utilities are more privatized?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Having zero guaranteed parental leave after a birth, paid or otherwise, is definitely to the left of Europe and also relevant to the thread.

It helps that tstorm is actually posting from an alternate reality where that is true. The raw ability to debate something is quite easy if both participants don't inhabit the same material plane

 

[Silvanus]

You couldn't begin to justify half of those, and I could debate you on all of them. What even begins to make you think the environment is less protected or the utilities are more privatized?

I could very easily justify them all in a way that would satisfy anyone approaching the topic with an understanding of left and right that's widely understood and shared.

You could "debate" them perhaps by substituting your own personal definitions and insisting we all use those instead.

 

[tstorm823]

I could very easily justify them all in a way that would satisfy anyone approaching the topic with an understanding of left and right that's widely understood and shared.

You could "debate" them perhaps by substituting your own personal definitions and insisting we all use those instead.

What even begins to make you think the environment is less protected or the utilities are more privatized?

 

[tstorm823]

Having zero guaranteed parental leave after a birth, paid or otherwise, is definitely to the left of Europe and also relevant to the thread.

The thread is about Roe V Wade, which either all or most nations in Europe would be in gross violation of if it had applied to them. The US is so far left of Europe on social policy, you don't want to bring that up.

 

[Ag3ma]

You couldn't begin to justify half of those, and I could debate you on all of them. What even begins to make you think the environment is less protected or the utilities are more privatized?

Spoiler: State-owned enterprises

Well. I just checked the OECD data on state ownership of enterprises

The size and sectoral distribution of SOEs in OECD and partner countries - OECD

This report analyses a dataset detailing the size of national state-owned enterprise (SOE) sectors (by number, value and employment) and their composition by sector and corporate forms for 34 countries.

www.oecd.org

I've looked at the USA and major EU economies, and excluded statutory companies (as these are largely forms of government agencies). Total values of state ownership of enterprises:
USA: $53 billion
France: $260 billion
Germany: $130 billion
Italy: $230 billion
Netherlands: $60 billion
UK: $117 billion

So, the USA has less government ownership of business in total dollar value than the Netherlands and UK, which are relatively pro-free market European countries with economies approximately one twentieth and one seventh of the USA respectively.

Spoiler: Air Quality Standards

Next, I just grabbed this comparison on Air Quality Policy:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1309104215302592

Now, there's a lot of devil in the detail, and certainly areas where the USA has tighter standards than the EU, however I'd sum up with the article's statement:

"Table 4 shows that air quality standards in the EU are somewhat more restrictive than in the U.S. In addition, the EU monitors a larger number of compounds than are set out in the WHO recommendations... The United States in the process of creating air quality standards are focused primarily on assessing the level of pollution that would be an acceptable level of risk to public health... The European Union, on the other hand, has established air quality limits at levels at which the probability of the impact of pollution on human health is minimal or none."

I mean, you can debate this stuff. But mostly I think you're relying on no-one actually bothering to look anything up, in which case oops, ruined those two for you.

Broadly, the USA is well known to have a reputation in these sorts of things compared to the EU. It is in fact not a production of corrupt, liberal media and public ignorance, but overall mostly true. So why is it so important for you to fight that?

Do you feel bad that the USA has worse air quality standards than the EU? If so, wouldn't it be more useful to campaign for better air quality standards in the USA rather than attempt to pretend the USA isn't actually worse? Or are you content that the USA has worse standards, you're just not willing to defend that it's cheaper and advantageous to poison the population slightly more so businesses can more easily operate?

 

[Silvanus]

Spoiler: State-owned enterprises

Well. I just checked the OECD data on state ownership of enterprises

The size and sectoral distribution of SOEs in OECD and partner countries - OECD

This report analyses a dataset detailing the size of national state-owned enterprise (SOE) sectors (by number, value and employment) and their composition by sector and corporate forms for 34 countries.

www.oecd.org

I've looked at the USA and major EU economies, and excluded statutory companies (as these are largely forms of government agencies). Total values of state ownership of enterprises:
USA: $53 billion
France: $260 billion
Germany: $130 billion
Italy: $230 billion
Netherlands: $60 billion
UK: $117 billion

So, the USA has less government ownership of business in total dollar value than the Netherlands and UK, which are relatively pro-free market European countries with economies approximately one twentieth and one seventh of the USA respectively.

Spoiler: Air Quality Standards

Next, I just grabbed this comparison on Air Quality Policy:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1309104215302592

Now, there's a lot of devil in the detail, and certainly areas where the USA has tighter standards than the EU, however I'd sum up with the article's statement:

"Table 4 shows that air quality standards in the EU are somewhat more restrictive than in the U.S. In addition, the EU monitors a larger number of compounds than are set out in the WHO recommendations... The United States in the process of creating air quality standards are focused primarily on assessing the level of pollution that would be an acceptable level of risk to public health... The European Union, on the other hand, has established air quality limits at levels at which the probability of the impact of pollution on human health is minimal or none."

I mean, you can debate this stuff. But mostly I think you're relying on no-one actually bothering to look anything up, in which case oops, ruined those two for you.

Broadly, the USA is well known to have a reputation in these sorts of things compared to the EU. It is in fact not a production of corrupt, liberal media and public ignorance, but overall mostly true. So why is it so important for you to fight that?

Do you feel bad that the USA has worse air quality standards than the EU? If so, wouldn't it be more useful to campaign for better air quality standards in the USA rather than attempt to pretend the USA isn't actually worse? Or are you content that the USA has worse standards, you're just not willing to defend that it's cheaper and advantageous to poison the population slightly more so businesses can more easily operate?

To add to this, we have the fact that the Clean Water Act falls dramatically short of European water quality regulation; that the US dwarfs Europe in terms of per-capita CO2 emissions; and that regulations surrounding what dross you can pack into consumer goods are utterly substandard in the US (HF corn syrup, bread being sweet, Mountain Dew breaching EU health law, sickeningly high 'acceptable' levels of chitin and arthropod fragments). And lest we forget the near-scandal that was caused by the UK Conservatives hoping to loosen our food hygiene rules to allow American chlorine-soaked chicken into the market. Not because the chlorine itself is necessarily a hazard-- but just because its a quick but severely substandard method of decontamination. And how the US routinely allows infrastructure projects like the pipeline to ride roughshod through residential areas, such as the affected Native reserve, obliterating clean water sources.

The mass polluting train derailments (multiple) in the US this year alone would be unthinkable in the UK. In the US, its just a typical February *shrug*

 

[Ag3ma]

sickeningly high 'acceptable' levels of chitin and arthropod fragments

Mm, even more carbs!

 

[Thaluikhain]

You couldn't begin to justify half of those, and I could debate you on all of them. What even begins to make you think the environment is less protected or the utilities are more privatized?

I mean, you can debate this stuff. But mostly I think you're relying on no-one actually bothering to look anything up, in which case oops, ruined those two for you.

Alternatively, they could be relying on it being easier and faster for them to type a two sentence dismissal than for you to provide sources. In attrition, rather than a debate, that gives them an advantage.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

The thread is about Roe V Wade, which either all or most nations in Europe would be in gross violation of if it had applied to them. The US is so far left of Europe on social policy, you don't want to bring that up.

I mean, until your pals got rid of it and half the country lurched to the right of Saudi Arabia, a move you fully support, but sure. You don't get to take credit for what your political opponents accomplish or stop you from doing.

I mostly don't want to debate it with you because you consider the ability to debate to be a virtue to itself. A creationist being able to go ten rounds in a debate doesn't make the creationist correct, and they're far more rational and logical in a debate than you tend to be.

 

[tstorm823]

So, the USA has less government ownership of business in total dollar value than the Netherlands and UK, which are relatively pro-free market European countries with economies approximately one twentieth and one seventh of the USA respectively.

Now try to imagine what is owned by the other levels of government. The utilities aren't owned by the federal government, they are owned by the states and municipalities. That doesn't make them no publicly owned.

Now, there's a lot of devil in the detail, and certainly areas where the USA has tighter standards than the EU, however I'd sum up with the article's statement:

"Table 4 shows that air quality standards in the EU are somewhat more restrictive than in the U.S. In addition, the EU monitors a larger number of compounds than are set out in the WHO recommendations... The United States in the process of creating air quality standards are focused primarily on assessing the level of pollution that would be an acceptable level of risk to public health... The European Union, on the other hand, has established air quality limits at levels at which the probability of the impact of pollution on human health is minimal or none."

" The United States in the process of creating air quality standards are focused primarily on assessing the level of pollution that would be an acceptable level of risk to public health. The limit values of the most air pollutants (CO, SO2, and PM10) cannot be exceeded more than once a year. The European Union, on the other hand, has established air quality limits at levels at which the probability of the impact of pollution on human health is minimal or none. In addition, the EU in the process of setting air quality limits was guided by the WHO guidelines. However, the number of exceedances of air quality limits values is higher. For example, limit values of CO cannot be exceeded more than 8 times per calendar year. "

You cut off the part of the paragraph that undermines your point.

 

[tstorm823]

The mass polluting train derailments (multiple) in the US this year alone would be unthinkable in the UK. In the US, its just a typical February *shrug*

What does BP stand for again?

 

[tstorm823]

I mostly don't want to debate it with you because you consider the ability to debate to be a virtue to itself.

No, I think it's fun.

 

[Gordon_4]

What does BP stand for again?

Well in the old days it stood for British Petroleum, but it’s now just the market name for about six amalgamated/absorbed companies from Britain and the US. It’s honestly kind of wild.

 

[Silvanus]

What does BP stand for again?

It originally stood for British Petroleum, though officially it doesn't stand for anything anymore. It is of course the private multinational whose American subsidiary, operating under the American regulatory framework, caused the largest oil spill in history.

 

[Ag3ma]

Now try to imagine what is owned by the other levels of government.

I think it's up to you to demonstrate that utilities owned by local/regional government are so much higher in the USA than other countries to more than make up the difference. Because you can "debate" all you like, but unless you want to stump up data, it's nothing more than empty yapping.

You cut off the part of the paragraph that undermines your point.

Yes, except it doesn't really undermine the point. After all, if the EU standards are higher, occasional breaches in the standards will often still be less pollution than the US standard. Secondly, even where they not, occasional incidents aren't going to make up for the 365 days a year the US standards allow more polluting.

And besides, the key takeaway point is simply the sentence "air quality standards in the EU are somewhat more restrictive than in the U.S." Well then.