I agree with the scale of the issue but I don't think bans have decreased it enough either, they reduce it but only so much. Some Dem policies also reduce it. I think both approaches are needed but I care about practice more than principle, and I can't say one party reduces abortion significantly more in practice. Unless we get a huge SC decision that like bans it completely.
SatanLucy wrote:
If you hate abortions and child murder, you cannot vote for democrats. Not voting for democrats helps prevent murder of unborn.
Depends on if a SC seat is up for grabs like in 2016. I think banning abortion does decrease it, but I can't say with certainty that one party decreases it more overall. Dems are more likely to support contraception and sex education which also decreases abortion. That said, I'm not sure a widespread contraception bill is any more politically feasible than an abortion ban. And Dems like to say their policies decrease abortion, but they're not really optimizing them to do so as much as they could, they just might decrease abortion on accident.
Democrats do have higher standards, that's not disputable
I believe Platner dropped out, and I give Dems significant credit for that (yes, the bar is that low). With SA accusations, Dems are more likely to say you should believe accusers by default, so it makes sense to hold them to higher standards. Like Biden said if a woman alleges assault you should presume she is telling the truth, so he's just being held to his own standard.
Democrats always have to show you they deserve your vote. Trump and the republicans, they get your vote by default.
If this is true, how do Dems ever win elections? Clearly there are some standards for Republicans if Dems tend to win the popular vote. Trump lost the popular vote twice, so clearly he was being held to some standard. Herman Cain dropped out after SA allegations. Biden won the election after SA allegations. With Kavanaugh I don't think the allegations were super credible, but that seemed more ambiguous than strong evidence clearly pointing either way (and I think a lack of evidence favors the accused).
I also think that some of this is due to the DNC having tighter control over the party so they can push someone more polished and electable through, which makes something like Trump's hostile takeover of the Republican party more difficult. I think that approach may lead to more electable candidates in the short term, but I think power to the people is probably a better long term approach even if it's tough love. People need to be allowed to elect populists to learn why they can't always be trusted.
Picking a definition like that pretty much determines final decision in the first place.
Which is fine and actually makes things easy as long as the definition can be justified. In this case I think it was based on the context/original intent of the law being interpreted.
"Bio-male thinks he's a female? Well... no."
What was this supposed to be? If he wants to convince anyone in this, he probably shouldnt base his entire argument on definition no opponent on topic would even agree to.
It's said in the context of a ruling on sports where the definition relies less on opinion and more on the context of the law being interpreted. If he's saying no one can ever use another definition then I disagree with that, but I think the general point is about the ruling on sports teams.
Even then of the ones that are caught, most don't result in anyone getting hit.
Definitions are always arbitrary
I mean they have to decide on cases somehow. Picking an appropriate definition kind of matters.
it's irrelevant to what I should accept
If you don't care about court rulings, then sure. I don't think anyone implied this ruling was about what your personal opinions have to be.
Even choosing biology to make definition is arbitrary.
Biology is irrelevant to physical sports?
Buddy, you could make 1000 courts do 1000 decisions on trans issues, and none of those will ever be accepted by trans people.
The job of the court is to interpret the law, not to convince trans people or anyone else.
Still arbitrary. I could use "biology" to define woman as an ant or a cat. It doesnt matter what you use to make a definition.
The method does matter insofar as it affects the definition you come up with. And if you want to discuss [x], then you need definitions based on [x], whether that's biology or something else.
And honestly
Ok ChatGPT
crying about some tiny part of population calling themselves women and making irrelevant Supreme Cort decisions which wont even be accepted by trans people anyway is like punching the air and claiming you are winning
They're the judicial branch. It's their job to rule on cases. Also, this ruling was about state laws on sports, not about people calling themselves women, so it has an effect whether or not trans people accept it. I think it would make more sense for you to be criticizing the legislative branch than the judicial branch on this.
I'm on vacation RN but if we don't have ppl when I get back I'll just start it.
Same thing. I can use ants to make definitions. It doesn't mean ants made a definition.
Yeah but in this context it's clearly about people using biology to make a definition.
He has right to opinion, and people have right to reject his opinion and call him a crybaby. Same applies to everyone.
Is he a crybaby if he's happy with the SC result? Seems more like he and the SC are the ones rejecting others' opinions and calling them crybabies.
SatanLucy wrote:
Biology doesnt make definitions, people do by their opinions. So yeah, your opinion is rejected.
In this case, the Supreme Court (people) decided on a definition using biology. Also, fauxlaw is a person proposing a definition. So kinda weird for you to reject his opinion outright after saying opinions are necessary to make definitions.
Saying men can't do evil isn't really saying men do evil.
It's a specific type of evil though. Like people in wheelchairs are less likely to beat people to death, don't think that means being paralyzed makes you a better person necessarily.
Maybe some murderer was in circumstances I wasn't in, but still it doesn't make him same as me.
Cause on an individual level the circumstances aren't the most significant factor. Once you start aggregating people based on gender, biological circumstances are now the primary factor you're studying.
Men can't get abortions though. So if not getting an abortion is a test of morality, men aren't being tested in the first place.
I believe women are more likely to support abortion being legal, but then they're more likely to be in a position to want one, which probably skews the results. If men were in a similar position they might be more likely to support it as well.
It's a bit like saying Germans are bad cause more of them were Nazis. If it's skewed by outside influences, then I think it's moral luck.
There's a school of thought akin to determinism that says everything is moral luck, but I think there's a difference between your brain's decision making process and outside influences that are separate from it.
I agree they could accidentally be right, but if they are right randomly they're not learning because they won't be more consistently right over time, they will continue being right at the rate of chance. Which is what "not correlated" means.
If you believe what you want, then it doesn't correlate to what's true.
it still can mean people wanting world to be the way some other part of them doesn't want
Well if people "want" multiple contradicting things, then your claim is true but vacuous. Of course people believe what they want because they want everything. And if they change their mind then the new belief will still happen to be what they want.
I would say people cannot believe in things they don't want to believe in, as that is a logical contradiction. So believing requires some form of wanting to believe in, and this is true even in case of evidence.
People can be motivated by learning (i.e. want to believe whatever the objective truth is even if it's bad), since delusion is typically not useful. So I guess your statement is technically correct, but it could just mean people are being rational and considering evidence fairly.
I didn't say people never consider evidence. I said people consider evidence only when they want to.
I mean that's effectively the same thing. If this was true it would be impossible to learn anything, we'd just believe what we want as long as there's minimal justification for it and then never stray from that.
Nah, people actually prefer believing in pessimism.
Um, the definition of pessimism is believing things aren't going to be how you want them.
Your argument was about people "wanting something to be true." Even if people wanted to believe the world sucks, they don't want it to be true that the world sucks.
Just listing a bunch of false beliefs doesn't really support your claim, especially since you're cherry picking. If people never considered evidence, no one would learn anything and we'd reach an information heat death. In fact, you'd have no way of knowing your claims are based on evidence, so it's a bit self defeating.
If they want something to be true, they will take tiniest argument in favor of it over countless arguments opposing it.
I don't think this is accurate. People are wrong about stuff, but it's not always in the direction of optimism. Most people want the economy to be doing well and that the world is doing great, yet they have no problem believing that the economy is terrible and everything sucks. Which to some extent is true. But if everyone just believed that what they wanted to be true was true, we should expect everyone to be super optimistic about the economy and the government and the world in general, which they pretty clearly aren't.
Cool, then that proves my point. Because if we're talking about all DUIs then that includes the ones that aren't caught, meaning a much smaller fraction of them actually result in hospital time.
100 DUIs send fewer people to the hospital than 100 rapes, even looking at just reported DUIs, since most reported DUIs don't have victims.
Yeah I'm referring to reported ones. You can look up the stats.
Yeah but most DUIs still don't have a victim. I think I posted the stats earlier but you can look it up if you don't believe me.
Or they get pulled over for breaking a traffic rule.
Only if you were comparing DUIs with victims to rape. But you're comparing DUIs in general.
What are you talking about here? Do you have specifics?
Men pay more for car insurance. A startup faced legal challenges after hiring only female drivers. But each of these is defended by statistics by the respective groups doing the discriminating. I'm sure there are people who would say "I support gender equality, but this is an exception because the discrimination is justified." In which case if gender equality can have exceptions it's not really a guiding principle.
If men and women both have access to the same level of care (life sustaining, preventitive care, basic well-being management, etc.) then they are being treated equally.
Don't want to come across as just talking in circles, so if I understand your point, men and women have the same basic rights but those rights are achieved in different ways because they are different. I agree, but I think you could find plenty of die-hard sexists whose beliefs could be fit into a similar framework. For example, "men and women are entitled t the same level of fairness, but it's fair for men to work and women to stay at home. But because they're both being treated fairly, they're being treated equally." In either case, the right (care/fairness) is the same but the mechanism is different. I think gender equality is generally going further than this though, that in some cases, the mechanism needs to be equal. I think women's healthcare and men's healthcare can be different yet equal, but some sexist would probably say that women working at home and men entering the workforce are similarly different yet equal. The principle isn't the difference so much as the application of it.
"Descrimination" is the unjust, unfair treatment of a person because of characteristics like race, disability, etc. It is not unfair to disqualify an applicant that cannot perform the essential functions of a job.
The "unfair" qualifier is what makes this come down to technicalities. To determine whether a distinction based on gender is "fair" or not has to be judged on a case by case basis. Some places want to only hire women because men are seen as more likely to be unsafe. Is that unfair? Cause it has to do with probability that someone won't perform the essential functions of their job. I think it would depend on the specific situation, but there are some hypothetical scenarios where it might be fair. Let's say we use utilitarianism (it might not be the optimal tie-breaker but we need to draw the line somehow); on a utilitarian basis we would probably have gender equality in some cases but not in other cases. Of course because the cases where we treat men and women differently are seen as reasonable, then we would probably retroactively define gender equality to match whatever decision we made.
Like, if someone convinced you we should favor men or women for a specific job (could be niche), would you say that in a specific case we were violating gender equality, or would you say that because it's reasonable it doesn't violate gender equality at all? It's the ex-post-facto redefining that people often do that makes this fraught.
I dont think you can reasonably justify disallowing crucial care because bodies with ovaries cost more to care for. If government is going to be involved, then it should handle essential care for everyone. After all, women are taxpayers too.
Yes but the point is that care for women would get more care for some things and men more care for other things. Like screening for cancers that women are much more likely to get or vice versa. The principle you're saying is whether the care is "essential," but if that differs based on gender, why could other essential rights not vary based on gender? Like a sexist would probably say people should have "essential" freedoms but those differ between men and women.
Really, I would be thrilled if there was a way to define gender equality to make it clear what violates it or not, but I think any defensible version of it is going to end up along the lines of "we should treat people equally, except in cases when we shouldn't." It's not really an issue that can be resolved on an outside view without the details of each case in mind.
If rights mean anything at all, there can be no "reasonable exception" to equal rights.
I think I agree on the concept of natural rights. What I'm getting at more is the "right to be treated equally" which seems a lot more tenuous. Usually when someone says they are for equal rights, they aren't just talking about natural rights. For example, being offered a job isn't a natural right. However, if someone started discriminating when hiring based on sex or race or other protected criteria, we would treat that as a rights violation. But there are cases when discriminating makes sense, like not letting a blind person drive a car. So these aren't reasonable exceptions to natural rights, but reasonable exceptions to protections that the government provides on top of natural rights.
Rights aren't determined by accountants
I'm also not sure universal healthcare is a natural right, it depends on what the system actually achieves and if it actually improves health outcomes. It can be a good thing if designed well, but the financial costs are not irrelevant since people are taxed to fund it.
There is no need to quantify, compare, or contrast body stats to make gender equality (GE) a reality.
That part of my argument is about descriptive statements like "men are equal to women." Not prescriptive statements. But I don't think your point is about descriptive statements at all, so I will drop this.
Eg. Medical care for men and women are different, but access to that care can be the same for men and women.
I mean, resources cost money, so it makes sense to give access to some resources only to the people that need them. That's gonna be lopsided in cases of pregnancy, periods, testicular cancer, etc. So there are obvious exceptions. But if there can be reasonable exceptions to equal rights, then everyone believes in equal rights, they just have reasonable exceptions (according to their definition of reasonable.) So the principle becomes non-unique. There's obviously a difference between reasonable distinctions ("women need tampons more") and unreasonable distinctions ("women should have to stay at home"). Someone might say, "both men and women have the same right of achieving happiness, but in different ways." The only way to tell which distinctions are reasonable is on a case by case basis, I'm not sure there's a principle of equality that cleanly separates them.
The dignity MLK believed in wasnt something that was earned or lost. ...I am a little perplexed why you would favor MLK when you argue against the universal equality he was known and admired for.
Because I favored MLK in the context of saying he was better than Hitler. That's a low bar and it doesn't require agreeing with everything he said. I also don't think I said his view was necessarily wrong, just a very narrow definition of dignity in practice and not the only way or most useful was to compare people. I agree with him on a good chunk of policy positions, but that's in cases where views can be concretely defined. Sure, if you ignore people's actions and are just left with abstract dignity that doesn't depend on actions, everyone is equal. But I am judging them by the content of their character, which MLK also said to do.
Confusion over the best way to apply a principle does not negate the principle.
It's not about applying the principle though, it's people disagreeing about what it means in the first place. We can't even agree on how to measure "equal," for example. And if its truth value changes depending on the situation, it's not really a principle anymore.
And that means men and women shouldn't have access to the same rights, resources, or opportunities? That does not follow.
I'm treating belief in gender equality and advocating for gender equality as two different things; I think believing groups are "equal" is probably the most fraught because you have to find a way of measuring/comparing the groups and then somehow it comes out to a tie.
Also men and women probably shouldn't have access to the same resources; women need tampons and support for pregnancy more than men do, because of obvious differences. So where do we draw the line? If there are biological differences in spacial reasoning or strength, that may mean different treatment in some cases. In which case, the distinction isn't necessarily between "gender equality is good" and "gender equality is bad," but "which specific circumstances merit equal treatment?" The devil's in the details. Because "only discriminate when it makes sense" isn't a hot take, even sexists agree with that. They just think it makes sense in more cases.
A woman doesnt need medical care for a prostrate exam, but both men and women need care. This isnt complicated
Which means there's no longer a clear line between gender equality and non gender equality. In the past people would have said "men and women both contribute to society in different ways, therefore women should have to stay at home and cook." I disagree with that reasoning, but I can't just use the blanket logic "it's always unfair to treat men and women differently" when there are cases when it is fair (like with prostate exams). I think the more appropriate response would have more to do with the specific mechanics of the situation and a more general argument for being allowed to choose a job. Ideally one should be able to argue for why women should have the right to work without mentioning equal treatment at all, the issue isn't inequality so much as an arbitrary restriction of liberty.
I dont think MLK would have agreed such comparisons were appropriate. He believed all humans were equal in dignity.
Well I think some people are clearly more dignified than others. Maybe with a narrow meaning of the term "dignity" this is true but there are many other metrics we could use, like "did they commit genocide?"
