GOP Primary Megathread!

[derspiess]

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? 

Yeah-- I guess I missed something funny

By being gutless enough to abandon even the position that you were too gutless to take a position, you only make matters worse.

Apathy is not gutlessness.  If I were as gutless as you think I am or was, I either would have agreed with you guys wholeheartedly or not said anything at all.

Having principles means that you stick to them even when they are unpopular (though you don't ever assume that they are the only possible principles).  The unprincipled change their positron whenever, as is the case with you in this post, changing positions is easier than standing your ground.

Wait, so you think I decided to formulate an opinion because I'm unprincipled and gutless?  If I did that for those reasons, I would have just parroted back your & Berkut's opinions.  I knew you guys were going to give me shit for my stated reasons for opposing the bill.

Go back to talking shit about women

I don't do that.   

and their "whore pills.".

It can only improve your image after you shit your bed like this.

[DGuller]

I suggest you stop using the "whore pills" troll.  It's like Hitler trolling about putting Jews in the oven.  He may really be trolling, but given the individual context it would be hard to tell.

[grumbler]

I dunno. Seems one of the defining principles of American Libertarianism is "I got mine, I ain't sharing and you can't make me because LIBERTY!"

Not sure if serious.

American libertarianism is arguably the defining characteristic of the American political system.  Libertarianism was the driving force behind the creation of the country.  Libertarians arguably sacrificed more for the creation of the country, and then the abolition of slavery, than did all the statists combined.

Sure, there are as great a percentage of selfish libertarians as selfish statists ("you got what I want and I am going to take it because JUSTICE" on the left, and "I do what God sez and I am gonna make you do what God sez because I'm not suffering alone and GODIDIT" on the right), but no more, I'd think. 

[garbon]

Whether or not there's a religious or theological motivation is really irrelevant and just serves to distract from the from the discussion of whether or not the infringement on personal liberties is justified.

Entirely true.

Yes, I think we all (at least Max, DGul, you and I) agree on that.

[garbon]

Couldn't D1 just be replaced with "The state shouldn't sanction the killing of innocent people*, and any means necessary to stop/restrict or limit abortion are perfectly acceptable".

Doesn't seem like that has to be a particularly religious point of view.

In theory that may be possible, but it doesn't seem to be the case in reality.

Well he did say "The only consistent position that could rationally inform those is" so I was just pointing out that such isn't the only consistent one.

[derspiess]

And you do know that this is a fatuously erroneous assertion, right?

Opposition to abortion is a pretty fundamentally conservative opinion.  I'm surprised we're debating that-- even here on Languish.

I am not "opposed" to abortion, and I am conservative.

I suspect you're trying to draw me into some sort of trap here, with calling yourself conservative rather than *a* conservative.  But I'll play.  In what ways are you conservative?

[derspiess]

I suggest you stop using the "whore pills" troll.  It's like Hitler trolling about putting Jews in the oven.  He may really be trolling, but given the individual context it would be hard to tell.

How many times have I uttered those words? 

And Hitler?  Really??

[Berkut]

Couldn't D1 just be replaced with "The state shouldn't sanction the killing of innocent people*, and any means necessary to stop/restrict or limit abortion are perfectly acceptable".

Doesn't seem like that has to be a particularly religious point of view.

In theory that may be possible, but it doesn't seem to be the case in reality.

Well he did say "The only consistent position that could rationally inform those is" so I was just pointing out that such isn't the only consistent one.

Yeah, I over-stated that - what I meant to say was that it seemed like that was the only consistent position in reality comes from the religious.

I think that is because absent a religious conviction that the moment of conception having significance because that is when the soul is put in or whatever, your typical non religious person is very unlikely to take such a stark and uncompromising view of what constitutes a human life. It is hard to reallya rgue that a two cell zygot has full human rights, expecially since we know that so many of them are created and destroyed absent any intervention at all, and we also know that it isn't even aware of itself, much less it's destruction.

It is not that one could not do so, but more that there is no obvious and compelling non religious case to be made that one MUST do so.

[Barrister]

And you do know that this is a fatuously erroneous assertion, right?

Opposition to abortion is a pretty fundamentally conservative opinion.  I'm surprised we're debating that-- even here on Languish.

Really?

I'm pretty sure I didn't see anything about abortion in my complete Edmund Burke.

Abortion is one of those issues that historically seemed to cut across party and ideological lines.  I know that for the last 30 years the pro-life position has solidified behind the GOP in the US, but I don't see any ideological basis for it.  As you and I have discussed the Catholic church takes generally a left-wing position on most issues, but is of course staunchly anti-abortion.

[Jacob]

I dunno. Seems one of the defining principles of American Libertarianism is "I got mine, I ain't sharing and you can't make me because LIBERTY!"

Not sure if serious.

American libertarianism is arguably the defining characteristic of the American political system.  Libertarianism was the driving force behind the creation of the country.  Libertarians arguably sacrificed more for the creation of the country, and then the abolition of slavery, than did all the statists combined.

Sure, there are as great a percentage of selfish libertarians as selfish statists ("you got what I want and I am going to take it because JUSTICE" on the left, and "I do what God sez and I am gonna make you do what God sez because I'm not suffering alone and GODIDIT" on the right), but no more, I'd think.

You're right. I think it's just that the selfish strain of American libertarianism seem more vociferous right now... actually, not even that, but that ideological selfishness is using the language of liberty to justify their positions. I don't want to get into a "no true libertarian scotsman" situation. Sufficeth to say, I have high respect for the principle of freedom as espoused, and often enacted, by the American people at their best.

[grumbler]

I think people can draw their own conclusions about how much (or how little) a difference there is between those two statements.  Res Ipsa Loquitor.

I think it will be trivial for them to draw such a conclusion, given the enormous difference between the positions.   As you say, Res Ipsa Loquitor.

[frunk]

Opposition to abortion is a pretty fundamentally conservative opinion.  I'm surprised we're debating that-- even here on Languish.

I dunno, I've never seen opposing abortion as being particularly conservative.  My dad has always been the more conservative of my parents, but is pro-choice.  My mom is closer to a classic big government liberal but is pro-life.

In fact a few years ago they both switched parties.  My dad went from Republican to Democrat, repulsed by the spending without taxing attitude of Bush (and the increasing radicalism of the Tea Party), while my mom went Republican driven away by the lack of pro-life support in the Democrats.

[DGuller]

And you do know that this is a fatuously erroneous assertion, right?

Opposition to abortion is a pretty fundamentally conservative opinion.  I'm surprised we're debating that-- even here on Languish.

Really?

I'm pretty sure I didn't see anything about abortion in my complete Edmund Burke.

Abortion is one of those issues that historically seemed to cut across party and ideological lines.  I know that for the last 30 years the pro-life position has solidified behind the GOP in the US, but I don't see any ideological basis for it.  As you and I have discussed the Catholic church takes generally a left-wing position on most issues, but is of course staunchly anti-abortion.

The split in US always struck me as a little strange.  It's usually the liberals who go "fixing injustice trumps personal rights", and it's usually the conservatives who go "I'll do whatever I want, butt out".  However, in case of abortion, it's reversed.  It probably has something to do with the confounding of issues that the two party system coupled with partisanship forces, with the religious wing of the GOP tent subverting other wings.

[derspiess]

And you do know that this is a fatuously erroneous assertion, right?

Opposition to abortion is a pretty fundamentally conservative opinion.  I'm surprised we're debating that-- even here on Languish.

Really?

I'm pretty sure I didn't see anything about abortion in my complete Edmund Burke.

Abortion is one of those issues that historically seemed to cut across party and ideological lines.  I know that for the last 30 years the pro-life position has solidified behind the GOP in the US, but I don't see any ideological basis for it.  As you and I have discussed the Catholic church takes generally a left-wing position on most issues, but is of course staunchly anti-abortion.

I think we've also established that Canadian Conservatism is different from US Conservatism.

[grumbler]

If I were as gutless as you think I am or was, I either would have agreed with you guys wholeheartedly or not said anything at all.

No, being the one who knows exactly how gutless I think you are, I can assuredly say that you are wrong here.

Wait, so you think I decided to formulate an opinion because I'm unprincipled and gutless?

Yes.  You said as much yourself: "Okay, since it apparently means so much to you guys for me to form an opinion on the issue, I decided to give it a little thought and form one."  You interpreted criticism of your unwillingness to oppose anti-liberty legislation from your side as mere criticism of your lack of an opinion, and so attempted to mitigate the criticism you thought you were getting by an insipid and uninformed cursory "opinion" that you thought would obviate the need for defending yourself based on principles and courage.

If I did that for those reasons, I would have just parroted back your & Berkut's opinions.  I knew you guys were going to give me shit for my stated reasons for opposing the bill.

I don't think you understand my position, nor perhaps Berkut's.  You do get shit for basing opinions on expediency while claiming to be guided by principles.  Sorry, but you can't change your spots.  You can't even see them, it appears to me.