My criticism was directed against Ted Cruz, particularly in light of his flirtation with hate preacher Kevin Swanson. My position on your position depends on whether you are against homosexuality the state of being, or the sexual actions of homosexuals exclusively. The word "homosexuality" is used to describe both or either. If it's the former then your position would be no better than thinking being black is immoral or inferior as in:

{ You didn't say what follows but it would be no better than saying }>>I asked you to realise that there is a difference between assessing the morality of being black, which is a purely objective question, and answering the question of how blacks should be treated. I can easily believe that being black is wrong, and someone who is black harms themselves first and foremost, even if they do not realise this.

But the last sentence suggested you think the latter as in:

{ You may have meant } >>I asked you to realise that there is a difference between assessing the morality of homosexual sex which is a purely objective question, and answering the question of how homosexuals should be treated. I can easily believe that homosexual sex is wrong, and someone who engages in homosexual sex harms themselves first and foremost, even if they do not realise this.

I disagree with both, but I wouldn't feel I should be in a position to judge someone holding the latter view for religious reasons. So, if the following is what you meant:

We cannot say, as liberals do, that thinking about the morality of homosexuality {homosexual acts} is wrong, and this question is off limits, and must be answered a priori in the affirmative, that homosexuality {homosexual acts} is morally correct. — Agustino

Then fine. And I would agree with the following:

We must treat each other with respect dignity and compassion, but thinking must remain free to judge what is right and wrong. — Agustino

As it would boil down to a difference over what is considered a moral act. So, I agree with the liberal that we should be free to do what we want with our bodies as long as we are in consent. I disagree that others have to like it or that we all have to like each other.

Yes, homophobia is wrong in my view. Discriminating against people because of their sexual preference is wrong. As is going to conferences and shaking hands with people who think homosexuals deserve to be executed. That's not only wrong, it's disgusting.

The reason that some associate criticism of Israeli policy with anti-Semitism is because there does appear to be an over-analysis of Israeli policy (like should they develop certain areas of their country and how they should defend themselves from enemies) in comparison to how other countries are analyzed. It is only Israel that actually has to justify its own existence and state its legitimate claim to its own land, a requirement that all other nations are relieved of. — Hanover

What European or other developed nation questions the right of Israel to exist? Of course there are some groups (like Hamas) and countries (like Iran) that do and I have no problem with that claim being called antisemitic but that's not part of the mainstream debate in Europe or the rest of the western world. As for the claim to its own land, that depends on what you mean by "it's own land". No-one is arguing Tel Aviv is not legitimately Israel's but there is reason to think that Jerusalem should be shared with the Palestinians as both peoples have in recent times controlled it or parts of it and both lay claim to it. And there is certainly reason to think that the West Bank which is part of the Palestinian territories should be considered legitimately Palestinian land. You do not automatically get a moral right to own land simply because you are presently in charge of it. Historical context has to be taken into consideration. And the context suggests the dividing up of the land in the region rather than giving it all to one or the other party is the only fair solution.

Which brings me to the main point: Do you not think the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to some of the land in the region, at least the Palestinian territories? Because at the moment that is occupied by Israeli troops. If they do have a legitimate claim to that land, then should not Israel remove its army and stop the building of settlements there.

These policies however aren't of such magnitude that Israel ought to always remain under the microscope anymore than should the policies of the various European nations that offer these criticisms. — Hanover

Do you really think though that if Israel had been set up in Europe and was living peacefully with its neighbours like Sweden, Holland or Ireland are, it would be subject to threats of economic boycott? The reason Israel is under the microscope is that in the view of many -who not unreasonably believe that the Palestinians have as much a right to self-determination as the Israelis do- it is colonizing (or settling if you prefer) another's territory. It has built roads in the Palestinian territories that only its settlers can use. It has soldiers and roadblocks there that can prevent Palestinians travelling from one place to another even in the case of emergency. And it has a built a security wall within the territories that separates Palestinians families and villages from each other. The only reason it is not under UN sanctions for these and other actions is that the US has on several occasions used its veto to prevent that eventuality. These are not minor details, nor of course are the facts that Israel is a tiny country surrounded by largely hostile neighbours and is currently in a state of low level war with the Palestinians. But the comparison with European nations who are critics of Israel just doesn't work as far as I can see.

Anyway, this really boils down to the following, and I would really like to understand your point of view: While we both accept absolutely that Israelis have a right to self-determination and legitimate claims to some of the land in the region, do you accept that Palestinians also have also have a right to self-determination and a legitimate claim to some of the land there? And, if so, how do you think that claim should be realized?

Why Catholics Can't Sing. — Bitter Crank

Never heard of U2?

Oh, bad example :-|

You gave me some references, which I said more than once I'd read and get back to you on. And I will do that when I have time.

I think if you read over that again you might see the humour in what you've written particularly the part about me smearing accusations of antisemitism. Anyway, as I said, when I get a chance I'll read some of the authors you've mentioned in order to try to get more insight into your viewpoint. Until then I'm not really in a position to debate the issue in any detail.

This sounds like wanting to have your cake and eat it. On the one hand, you seem to want to say that the positions of those who would debate you on this issue are infected by anti-semitism (to me that's clearly poisoning the well) and on the other hand you want to say if they decide it's pointless to debate you on those grounds that should also be taken as a sign of what? More antisemitism? Something else? I'd have to read the authors myself before I could comment in detail but I don't see how you can have it both ways.

In any case, critics of Israeli policy include Jews and non-Jews, Israelis and non-Israelis alike so obviously antisemitism is not necessarily a part of such critiques. But the accusation of antisemitism is such a serious one that of course it's likely to put off debate.

Yeah, kind of mind candy there, isn't it?

You got me.

http://www.unz.com/jman/the-donald-trump-phenomenon-part-1-the-american-nations/

Worth a gander if you're interested in the demographics of Trumpistas..

You too, Tiff :D

Ok, I'll look up some of authors you mentioned on this. But my point about poisoning the well stands. It may be that anti-Semitism comes into the conversation somewhere but it shouldn't be used as a cudgel to stifle debate. I'll leave it at that for now.

I'm the one who's not a leprechaun.

I guess they have a point. And they will milk it.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-03/04/c_135156215.htm

The Muslim world is just misunderstood, but the Jewish world is evil. Such is the narrative. — Hanover

I will say this, there is a narrative that Jews are rich, cunning, shady and an integral part of a powerful cabal that rule the world, and this can sometimes bleed into the Israel vs Palestine debate. But in so far as it does, it bleeds in from the right. It's almost exclusively right-wing morons like David Duke and others who feed this kind of paranoia, not the left. And they usually hate Muslims as much as Jews.

I nearly fell into the same trap with Trump, but the Muslim ban was already sufficient for me. And the fact that he was seeking the Republican nomination. — photographer

The signs were indeed there.

LOL #bernvictims TOLD, can't stump Trump — The Great Whatever

Yay, schadenfreude! Got anything else?

I meant it literally so we agree on that. I don't agree that anti-Semitism plays much of a part in anti-Israeli sentiment on the left. I think it's part of the same vein of politics that feeds anti-US sentiment and no-one is accusing those criticizing the US of being anti-Christian. And on the other side, I wouldn't expect to be accused of Islamophobia for my criticisms of the behaviour of Hamas, Saudi Arabia or Yemen, for example. But there are two debates here: One concerns the extent to which anti-Semitism plays a part in the debate and the other is the debate itself, i.e. to what extent Israeli policy is justified. I think you can look at the second question simply on its own merits as an ethical issue without having to get bogged down in the first. (Otherwise, you are left with a classic case of poisoning the well).

I didn't say anti-Semitism was irrelevant. All I am saying is that it's possible to criticize Israeli government policy without being anti-Semitic. There are obviously opponents to the government both within and outside Israel who are Jewish, for example. And the effort to brand every critic of Israel an anti-Semite (I'm not saying you are part of that btw) is a fairly pernicious way to shut down debate.

Just to note that in roughly the past week or two I've been accused of being a regressive reactionary, a misogynist, a lefty racist, and worst of all, a liberal (thanks @The Great Whatever !). I hope it's possible to have a discussion about Israeli government policy without having anti-Semite added to the list.

Israel is not the Jewish world. The Jewish world as a whole is mostly very secular and forward looking (unlike a lot of the Muslim world obviously).

I think you know that @WhiskeyWhiskers wasn't suggesting the statement was illogical. He was suggesting that because of it's logical structure the implication is obviously false. It's as false as saying if you don't like Ted Cruz you must be racist (and I would support Hillary before Ted Cruz).

Incidentally, I had earlier flirted with the idea that Trump might be a better choice for president than other Republicans and also than Hillary. This is because a) He seemed to be for socialized medicine b) He said he wasn't going to touch social security c) He was willing to be sensible in his remarks on planned parenthood d) He called out Bush over the Iraq war and e) He expressed some level of neutrality over the Israel /Palestinian conflict. Considering his gradual descent into racism and fascism though, I would take that back in the case of Hillary and Kasich. As for Cruz, his homophobia is no better than Trump's fascism in my book.

Well, almost no one, politician or otherwise, outside the states is as rabidly biased towards Israel as those inside that bubble so @Hanover's assumption is not all that unfair.

I mentioned Jill Stein to show why the charge of misogyny in my case was absurd. You've ignored the rest of the post including the Elizabeth Warren angle. There will always be some misogyny/racism involved in why minority candidates are hated but to say it's misogyny "pure and simple" here is obviously wrong as @WhiskeyWhiskers points out. Hillary doesn't get a pass on being a liar, corporate shill and lover of war criminals because she's a woman. Arguably, her husband is worse (in my view at least) but he's not running for office this time.

Plus the fact that much of Bernie's support comes from young women who would presumably love to see a female president but cannot stand the only option they are being offered.

And haven't even mentioned @ArguingWAristotleTiff who will be surprised to learn she's a woman hater.

Hillary hate is misogyny, pure and simple — photographer

Rubbish. Many Elizabeth Warren supporters hate Hillary as much as Bernie supporters do. And Hillary haters tend to hate Bill as much as they hate Hillary. Ideally I'd support Jill Stein rather than any Democrat and I've said this on these boards. So would many others. Last time I looked she was a woman. The worst thing about your comment though is the idea that because candidate X is from category A, they are beyond criticism. This is a very underhand way of trying to defend the indefensible by smearing its critics.

What BC said.

Morals can change if the meme is spread thoroughly enough. Slavery used to be seen as morally neutral, now it is seen as immoral through the demonstrations of millions. — darthbarracuda

Social morals do not morality make. Not any morality worth moralizing about anyhow.

I wouldn't worry about Trump, the Republocrat party has chosen Hilary as its nominee. Do keep worrying about Hilary though. She will be horrible. For America and for the world..

And just because you're not extreme (or should I say consistent?) doesn't make you non-reactionary. — jamalrob

Never mind. I'll enjoy the novelty. I doubt I'll get a chance to be called that again in a while.

If this woman only managed to get to the abortion clinic in the third trimester, would you still oppose a law that forced her to go through with the birth? For the sake of argument let's say she's not suicidal or at risk otherwise. — jamalrob

It seems a very unlikely scenario that a woman would need more than 27 weeks to find an abortion clinic after being raped, but I'll answer anyway. First of all, whether I think the abortion would be justified in a case like this would depend on a variety of variables. If the woman concerned was just a week or two before giving birth, most of her suffering would probably have already occurred and be unpreventable, so I would think on balance the greater harm would be to abort the fetus. If she was a month or two before birth and was suffering greatly (even if not suicidal) it might not be. I'm not sure how you would draft a law that would cover the complexities here and if my only choice was to oppose or to not oppose one that would force a mother to go through with a pregnancy after the third trimester in all cases barring a threat to the life of the mother (i.e. including a rape that didn't make the mother suicidal), I would find it very difficult to make a call. I'd just have to think more about it. One very important reason I oppose some abortions, above and beyond the harm to the fetus, is that usually the mother has some responsibility in causing the pregnancy. In the case of rape, there is not only no responsibility, there is a greatly increased risk of psychological suffering being caused by the pregnancy. That obviously carries a lot of weight.

Persons are agentive beings who develop through profound embeddedness in socio-cultural contexts and within inalienable relations to and interactions with others.
—Anna Stetsenko, in The Psychology of Personhood

But it goes back to my reply above to BC. Biological reductionism often seems to be the default position, which I think is why the abortion issue is seeing the reactionary, regressive pressures that you and Baden represent. (Yes, more name-calling, I know) — jamalrob

I think I've made it clear numerous times that I don't necessarily disagree with this definition. In fact, it seems quite a good one to me. But the latter part of your post betrays your and @Moliere's consistent attempts to stereotype your opponents. I mean if our position is reactionary, you're going to have to come up with some new vocabulary for those who would force a woman who had been raped and is suicidal to carry a pregnancy through its full term, which is another form of cruelty I would oppose as much as you would.

But I would at least encourage you to look into the foundations and history of your beliefs (the whole "killing a fetus is murder" is, historically speaking, very recent -- it has always been serious, but it has rarely been equated to murder until recently). And, of course, I will defend mine if called into question -- especially on a philosophy forum of all places. — Moliere

I want to make this clear again. I don't think "killing a fetus is murder" necessarily. My objection specifically was to the killing of an about-to-be-born fetus on the grounds that it is human and should be granted some protection and that the harm done to the mother to carry the birth through is unlikely to outweigh the harm done to it except in very exceptional circumstances. Earlier abortions should be considered based on the balance of harm and the less developed the fetus the less harm that can be said to be being done to it.

But I wanted to extend an olive branch. I do actually enjoy these conversations. Like I said, it's one of my favorite topics in philosophy for the very reason that people really do care about it. — Moliere

I'm not sure how much I enjoy it. I find it disturbing sometimes. But I accept your olive branch and will try to keep my vociferous disagreement with your view on this issue polite for the sake of the debate.

I could sum up my view like this: A world where people are free to treat babies as they do animals and where abortions could be carried out at any time for any reason would be a much less humane and a much less compassionate world than this one is, and this one isn't exactly winning many awards for humanity and compassion as it is.

What it comes down to is that your attitude is pissing me off. You keep wanting to draw a line under things, to say things are settled. You are plainly annoyed that people with views you don't like persist in holding them. That's why I'm attacking you, not because you're passionate. — jamalrob

Yes, people do get annoyed on issues like this as they do on terrorism and other life and death stuff. I know you do, so please stop playing the holier than thou. For my part, I'll try to be nicer to @Moliere.

Catholics feel the same way. — Moliere

Honestly Moliere, I don't know why you keep mentioning Catholics with me except as some kind of odd attempt to tar me with religious beliefs I don't have. I only came into this debate to argue about super-late-term abortions. Hanover and Sapientia aren't Catholic either to my knowledge nor are the vast majority of people who oppose your views.

But I said you should go away if you don't treat your interlocutors with some respect, not if you get passionate. — jamalrob

If you can't see the hypocrisy in this, have a look through your own post history. As for fanaticism, if it's fanaticism to passionately oppose a view that would give new born babies no more rights than animals or that would consider the killing of 8 1/2 month fetuses who pose no threat to the life of the mother perfectly OK, I plead guilty. If I go too far I'm happy for any of the mods not involved in the conversation to edit my posts. That hasn't happened so far and I doubt it will to be honest.

More silliness. Do you seriously believe Moliere and I don't know all that already? There's little point in our debating a rabid fanatic. Calm down and treat your interlocutors with some respect or else go away. We're not taking the piss; we really do believe what we're saying. — jamalrob

Moliere didn't know it as far as I can see. You weren't mentioned. The idea that my position represents that of a rabid fanatic because when I'm presenting the science is ludicrous. And telling me to go away is pathetic. You are not immune to being passionate in your arguments either as is evident from this post and plenty of others.

And I see no reason, then, to not consider the fetus as a part of the mother -- considering that that there is a continuation between the two — Moliere

Can't you see the circularity here?

"I see no reason...not to consider the fetus as part of the mother [because] there is a continuation between the two" (i.e. the fetus is part of the mother). Whether or not there is a continuation is the issue under debate. There is a connection obviously through the umbilical cord and across the placental barrier. I've just demonstrated why this is not a bodily continuation because an organism that does not contain your DNA and has a full set of organs of its own and is (in the case of late fetuses) viable on its own is not your body. On your side you have no argument at all. All you are saying is it's part of her body because it's in her body.

which is no better than begging the question, — Moliere

Which is what you've been doing.

The fetus doesn't have anything at all. There is no separation between the fetus and the mother. So it is strange to treat the fetus as if it is a human just waiting inside the mother. — Moliere

Oh ffs. The fetus has its own DNA along with a separate brain, nervous and immune system. And there is a specific barrier called the placental membrane separating fetal blood from the mother's blood and their immune systems from each other so the mother's immune defences don't attack and reject the fetus. No bodily organ has different DNA and a different immune system to its host. I can't believe I have to actually point this out. I mean, if you are so totally ignorant of the basic biology of a pregnant woman, then you are in no position to give an opinion on what is and is not part of her body, or to offer any meaningful view on what the implications are.

"From an immunologic point of view, the fetus is an alien....And your body is programmed to mount an assault on foreigners." — Dr. Randi Epstein

Link

So can we now drop this utter nonsense that the fetus is just part of the woman's body?

Reminds me of the Israeli lobby trick - you highlight Israeli war crimes so you must be an anti-semite. In this case, you highlight bad reasons for abortion so you must be anti-woman and anti-left.

It's the judgmentalism of the conservative who worries about the permissive society and the irresponsible behaviour of loose women. — jamalrob

The idea that we should ignore the possibility @Sapientia raised or others like it and thus abrogate our responsibility to the fetus because it might suggest some women are irresponsible is pathetic, frankly.

Reading further, I guess the conversation has moved on. It's not a left vs right issue as far as I'm concerned anyhow, it's a rights vs rights issue.

You're the one misunderstanding things. Maybe go read back over my earlier comments. Or possibly explore my posting history. I haven't suddenly forgotten what moral agency is and as I've said before, personhood is not something we're going to settle today. Anyway if this is all you've got, good luck.