Personally I feel that children not conceived under free will would not be accorded the same rights to birth, but I understand there are those that feel differently. — ernestm

I thought that natural rights theory answered the question of who a person was and who should be afforded rights? Why do you now withdraw from your all encompassing theory and present your personal opinion, as if there is no answer?

in other cases I cannot see a clear justification, and again there are people who disagree with that. So it should not be federally mandated and should be under the control of the States, within the broad guideline that the right to an abortion should not be automatic, but be required to be justified under some cause of duress. — ernestm

What does federalism have to do with natural rights? Are you now suggesting that the 10th Amendment check against the federal government is a dictate of natural rights? I understand that you believe there are areas of disagreement regarding abortion and they should be submitted for democratic decision, but I don't follow why you think state legislatures are more principled than federal legislatures on this point.

You consistently do not respond to the substance of posts and use every opportunity, regardless of content, to drone on about your supposedly perfect understanding of natural rights. Have you noticed that?

The decision was wrong, if you understand Jefferson's theory of natural rights. — ernestm

The question being addressed was what the legal dispute centered around, not what you think it should center around. Your comment asserted what the debate was in fact over. My response was pointed out that it was in fact not.

Regardless, you current comment is incorrect for two reasons (at least). 1. The wrongness of Roe v. Wade is weighed by how correctly it interprets the Constitution, not by its fidelity to natural rights theory. It strikes me that you wish to impose natural law as some sacred rule of construction on the Constitution, and perhaps you even want to discard the text of the Constitution and simply infer what natural law might require. Regardless, that rule of construction is highly idiosyncratic (aka one you just sort of made up), and not one generally (aka not at all) accepted.

2. Natural law theory does not mandate any particular definition of "person." It's just as consistent with a natural law theory to accept that life begins at conception as it does to say it begins at viability or at birth.

Regardless, no one (that I am aware of) suggests that the abortion debate is just a tug of war of competing interests between two different people. That is, it's not like everyone admits the fetus is a person just like the mother, but mom has the right to kill her kid while unborn, but kid also has the right to live while unborn, so the grand compromise is to let mom have the right to kill her kid for 6 months but then give the kid the last 3 to live without fear of murder. And then to say that this result is somehow the consequence of natural law theory (to those few souls intelligent enough to understand it) is just to add an additional layer of nonsense to this discussion.

not quite right. The debate is over the woman's right to liberty over her unborn child's right to life. — ernestm

Exactly wrong. Roe v. Wade held specifically that the unborn child was not a person: "All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."

That is, the unborn child is not a person and therefore has no rights at all.

As the Court stated with regard to third trimester abortions: "For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."

That is, the State has the right to promote life in the third trimester by prohibiting abortion regardless of the wishes of the mother unless the mother's life or health is in jeopardy.

There are therefore two interests being weighed: (1) The mother's and (2) the State's. The fetus' rights are not weighed at all. The distinction is critical. If a particular state chose to allow 3rd trimester abortions to viable fetuses, it would not run afoul of the Constitution.

For example, there is the conflict between pro-life and pro-choice positions. Both sides believe their views necessarily true by intuition, but have reached totally opposing conclusions. — ernestm

I don't agree. From a legal perspective, the debate centers around the woman's right over her body versus the state's right to regulate. From a philosophical perspective, the debate most often centers around the concept of personhood and when the fetus gains inherent rights. Regardless, the abortion issue no more centers around intuition than any other issue.

I don't see where you and @Cavacava are necessarily disagreeing. I would think most artists would intend that the viewer openly interpret the art and not simply try to decipher the artist's thoughts about the art when he created it. That is, the artist intended to leave room for personal interpretation, so when you openly interpret, you fulfill the artist's intent (as Cavacava argues ought occur), but you don't try to figure out the specific aim of the artist (as you argue ought not occur).

Whatever you.

Fair enough. We needn't define every grade of anti-semitism (mild, moderate, severe, extreme, super extreme, super duper extereme...), but suffice it to say it was enough to arouse concern, but, yeah, I've seen much worse.

No, the point is, however, that the Jews are sensitive to anything about the topic of Israel and Palestine together with the Holocaust and the concept of 'outsiders' is fairly strong, which is why I mentioned that he was in the minority. — TimeLine

The reason for sensitivity among Jews for issues related to the Holocaust isn't complicated and ought to be screamingly obvious. The reasons you are being treated as an outsider and not as a fellow Jew are admittedly vast, but, to the extent you lack empathy for the Jews for what occurred during the Holocaust, that will keep you more securely outside than everyone else.

There are specific and general reasons your comments appear extremely anti-semitic. 1.
Specifically, the Palestinians, even if considered wholly right and unfairly oppressed by the Israelis, are not experiencing systematic slaughter with an express aim to eliminate them genetically. They are not placed in workcamps and forced to labor until death. They are not starved to death and thrown into mass graves. That is, should I accept the Palestinian position in its most extreme form, the Holocaust is disanalagous as a matter of historical fact. That you can't see that says to me that your empathy toward Jews is minimal.

2. Generally, many minorities have experienced horrible events during their history that define that group to an extent - blacks and slavery, Native Americans and displacement, Jews and the Holocaust and many many more. Each group rightly believes their suffering incomparable (quite literally so). That is, that suffering is so extreme that it is unique. If you want to raise some ire, do as you did, and compare it to other moments of suffering. If you compare someone's incomperable suffering to anything, you won't be well received, especially when that comparison is so very tenuous, as in comparing Palestinian treatment by Jews to Jewish treatment by the Nazis.

Spitting out venomous notions of 'anti-Semitism' and holocaust denial to anything and everything is embarrassing and shameful — TimeLine

Why are we now talking about holocaust denial? I don't remember that accusation being made. I also don't recall accusing anyone of ant-Semitism for anything and everything. I accused you specifically of it because you were. It was just an observation.

What happened is that I noted an instance of unambiguous Jewish victimization and you felt it necessary to insert an instance where you felt Jews were oppressors as if it added anything at all to the conversation.

Even though I said:
I am completely neutral, anti-racist and my only concern is human rights and not politics
— TimeLine — TimeLine

I realize you self declared this, but I was questioning it obviously. All I said in my post was that I'd stand by those who stood by me in their opposition to the holocaust, and you then started talking about injustice in Palestine. If you can't see why that might be construed as anti-Semitic, then maybe think a little deeper. If a Muslim were beaten to death for being Muslim and a Muslim poster expressed gratitude for non-Muslim support for the victim, do you think me bringing up the topic of Muslim terrorism would be in order? Do you really think it'd matter if I just said "Oh btw I'm not racist, so don't take this the wrong way"?

Most interesting shit. Thank you. I bathe daily in the Nile, defacating, scrubbing, washing my clothes and dishes, all in one sitting. Cleanses my mind, body, and spirit.

I had sex in gay bath houses where the Holy — Bitter Crank

Does anyone actually bathe in a bath house? It would seem there would be few bath houses because most people have running water in their homes and can just bathe there. It would be like going to a dressing house to get dressed. I mean, just get dressed at home.

You do make up a minority should you think of the Palestinian subject. I am completely neutral, anti-racist and my only concern is human rights and not politics, and having returned from Israel not too long ago, I learnt that as an outsider discussions on the subject was often viewed antagonistically, except in Tel Aviv. I care about the Jews, trust me on that, but I also care about the Palestinians. So, what does it mean to care? — TimeLine

What this means is that you wish to interject a non-sequitur regarding Israeli/Palestinian relations into the question of whether one should be opposed to the Holocaust. As you may realize (but maybe not), it's entirely possible to feel unmitigated sympathy to the Jewish victims of the Holocaust and still side with the Palestinians in the current Israeli situation.

By comparison, had someone said that they found they couldn't fully sympathize with Till because Blacks, after all, do commit a disproportionate amount of crime in society, I'd find the statement outrageously racist. By the same token, should someone say that one couldn't fully sympathize with the victims of the Holocaust due to the current state of affairs in Israel, I'd find the comment outrageously racist.

And so, back to what I said, in the hopes that you'll clarify what appears to be anti-Semitic comment. I would embrace anyone who creates art expressing opposition to the Holocaust for their allegiance to Jews just as I would hope that African Americans would embrace those who present opposition to what happened to Till. The fact that someone might have other misgivings about Jews or Blacks notwithstanding; the fact that there was allegiance in these regards is laudable. That you might wish to say that you stand by Jews in the Holocaust, but you want to be very clear that you don't like them always, isn't terribly laudable or necessary, and it's unclear why that clarification needed to be made to my uncontroversial comments regarding the horror of the Holocaust.

I can say for myself that prior to reading this thread, I was unaware of the Till tragedy, which means that but for Shutz' cultural appropriation or whatever it should be called, I would not now be educated. Surely there is some value in that. I say this despite the fact that Shutz' art sucks. It simply doesn't convey the horror of the event in any real way.

On another note, I say in all my Jewishness that I welcome those of all colors and stripes to produce art depicting the horrors of the holocaust. Appropriate all you wish. I gain much comfort in knowing that someone other than Jews care about Jews.

Preaching to the choir in my case. I expounded a bit here: — Benkei

If you can cite yourself, so can I. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/63098

They are tools. Not participants. — Frederick KOH

A corporation must be a tool, considering it cannot do anything without human activity. That's a given.

Nor should they be allowed to be a means to convert and amplify individual economic power into political power.

Why should people be limited in what tools they can use to raise money for individual use?

As I said, I have several independent verifications. — ernestm

And yet you withhold the verifications from us. Why? It was signed by "Trump Headquarters," as if that's some real entity. And now the conversation had turned to Trump's other factual mistatements and some golf hypocrisy, as if my attention span is so short that I'll be unable to realize you've changed the subject from the OP. Set out your proof, or admit that you have none, making you no different from your characterization of Trump.

I think the problem is that philosophy is defined as the field of unanswerable questions, and so if a firm answer were given to a question, it would no longer be considered philosophical. What is beyond the realm of science is within the speculative realm of philosophy, but should science advance, philosophy will contract, except to the extent the new scientific discovery arouses new philosophical questions.

Actually, I'd argue that the study proved dumb people are luckier than smarter people, thus the saying "dumb luck." It is most likely that the Heavenly Creator bestows luck upon idiots as a divine apology.

A person named "Molly Crabapple" tweeted that this survey came from "Trump Headquarters." I think before carrying her tweet down to the Governor's office and pontificating upon the definition of "fascism," I'd figure out who "Trump Headquarters" is. It might be Molly or just about anyone. I mean I get that it was on the internet and it did feed into your worldview, so it must be true, but before making the trek down to Capitol Hill, maybe double check.

I don't think so. "Am I going to the store?" versus "Ought I go to the store?" seems to ask distinct questions. How do you derive ought from is?

What about "ought"?

Dude, that was so me screwing with you not some actual UFO.

There is either a platypus in my pocket or not, so there's a 50% chance that I have a platypus in my pocket. Seems kind of high odds there. I either have an IQ of 250 or I don't....

That a person is dependent on a corporation should not be confused with an alignment of interests. In general they are not. — Benkei

Can't we just substitute the word "corporation" here with "employer." I don't really see why it matters how they've structured their business.

Accordingly, the tactic you've singled out here is morally compatible with an interest in reforming the role of corporations in politics, and it's utility is to some extent independent of the current degree or state of corporate influence in politics. — Cabbage Farmer

It's not so much reforming the role of corporations as it is the continued use of corporations for personal benefit. If a corporation uses its profits to interfere with climate change regulation or if it uses it to protect gay rights, it's all the same thing: the use of corporate power in the democratic setting to affect policy. When the corporation does what you want it to, you can't simply refer to it as reform, and when it doesn't, you refer to it as improper interference.

I'd also say part of your post is a straw man. Few are actually calling for the elimination of the corporation, but many are calling for limiting the influence of corporations. It would seem that if corporations should have limited access to the democratic process, that should be the objection universally and not just when that influence makes you unhappy.

And this issue can be illustrated in a variety of ways, from corporate divestiture in unpopular countries to the creation of PACs to fund liberal (or conservative ) causes.

Your point is that a baker can refuse to make gay wedding cakes, as long as it's the cake he refuses to make and its not the person he refuses to bake for? That is, he'll happily sell gays Christmas cookies, but he won't sell them a cake he knows will be used for their marriage.

And that raises the question of what a gay wedding cake is. Does it have to have gay symbols on it, or is it adequate the baker knows that it will be used in a gay wedding ceremony? Are you just saying the baker has the right to refuse to put a gay couple figurine on the cake, but he must otherwise bake a generic cake for our gay couple (and then they can do the honors of placing the figurine on top?)

It just seems that if the baker can refuse to bake cakes for all gay couples he thinks will be used to celebrate their marriage, he could push the argument further and say that he won't bake anything that will be used within the relationship that might normalize what he finds abhorrent behavior. My point being that your distinction might may no practical difference and gays could be denied all baked goods (such homophobia among bakers, who'd've thunk?).

So pretty trivial on the specific level but if you abstract away from it and consider the possibility that gays could be discriminated everywhere all the time, it's clear why you need to nip this in the butt as quickly as possible. — Benkei

It's the slippery slope argument, although the slope is leaning in the opposite direction in reality. That is, we've gotten ourselves into a situation where we we're requiring the general public to respect whatever it is that two consenting adults agree to, even if what that is happens to be repugnant to someone.

To me, it's a pragmatic issue at some level, and until gays are actually discriminated against in a way that limits their ability to live their life as they want to live it (as opposed to having to endure the insults of those who don't share their viewpoint), then there's no practical reason for the law. The trend has been favorable for the gay community and pushing the matter on those holdouts who find homosexuality disagreeable seems far more designed to make a political point than to make anyone's life easier.

Hyena! I'm so glad you're back. Are you here to stay this time, are you going to mosey on again?

Midnight beans on toast isn't something you'd eat in America. In America we eat gruel and boiled dandelions on crackers we make by burning a corn meal paste on a scalding iron skillet. We then rub red Georgia clay on our bodies to protect ourselves against the mosquitos and gnats as we sleep face down in the pine straw so that our sadness will be hidden from the heavens.

That, my friend, is the way you write a last word.

I heard that at Disney, they don't hire workers, but they hire actors. So, if you were assigned the job of sweeping the street, you would wear the clothes you'd imagine a street sweeper might wear in a Disney movie, perhaps suspenders and an old style hat, you'd whistle, say hello to the kids who walked by, and you'd show an optimism impossible of any actual street sweeper.

I'd imagine those folks look at their job differently and go home feeling differently than those with just routine jobs. They aren't street sweepers after all; they're just playing them convincingly.

Next time you must stock shelves, ring up some customers, or do whatever it is you do, don't buy into the notion that that is you. You are you, with all your amazing nuances, but by day, you're an actor, playing a role. If you find yourself not doing your job very well, maybe work on your acting skills and do what any fine doctor, lawyer, or Indian chief would be expected to do.

The Sanders quote is ironic. The liberals, not the right, have denigrated the electoral process itself by openly proclaiming Trump's election invalid. John Lewis attacks the integrity of the electoral process, and the left's response is that it's shameful to attack John Lewis for saying that.

And where's the evidence of bias in the CBO? — Baden

You can Google "bias at cbo" as well as I can for historical claims of bias by both parties.

You've presumably noticed that tendency? — Baden

Of course, but he didn't create this problem. He simply identified it and exploited it. Both sides have fostered an us versus them attitude, and so absolute skepticism of criticism has been the result.

They're not 'fair game', and your argument simply capitulates to the notion that everything really is a matter of opinion. — Wayfarer

If they're not fair game, why do the liberals attack conservative justices and FoxNews? Even Obama struck at the Court. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/obamas-unsettling-attack-on-the-supreme-court/2012/04/02/gIQA4BXYrS_blog.html?utm_term=.645ad4aec527

I'm not defending your friend's statement about Vietnam, but terrorism has in fact been going on for 100s of years. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_terrorism&ved=0ahUKEwjn-6SU7tDSAhUp34MKHbJvD-cQFggcMAE&usg=AFQjCNH6S1kk9Vlac3RMTwi8gJkZrOvaNA&sig2=Dx-C2zGmeB-FsUA36PTdSA.

I'd also point out that the variation in usage of the term "terrorism" over time (to the extent it has) only means that it shares a trait that many words do and it's not a sign something is wrong.

Your reply isn't responsive except to defend against a perceived ad hom attack against the CBO as obscure, which really wasn't at all my point. The point is if the courts and media are fair game, everything is. The CBO isn't a great protector of American freedom like the press and the courts and it holds no sacred place in American history.

It's a simple enough tactic, though, to take advantage of the current state of polarization, much of which arose from previously dependable objective bodies abdicating their roles as objective bodies.

Would you not criticize the Supreme Court if all members adopted Scalia's ideology and do you not distrust Fox News? That is, the media and the courts are already distrusted with each side asserting only their allies are to be trusted. Since both sides have no deference to the other, why should it be surprising when someone expands who they are willing to challenge? If the courts and media are fair game, so it would seem appropriate for some obscure agency to also be.

It's the writer's responsibility to be understandable and the reader's to understand, and it seems equally possible that either can be deficient. That is, a perfectly understandable statement can be misunderstood and a perfectly reasonable interpretation can be something unintended. If communication were so easy, we'd have far less need for philosophy professors to teach us Kant and for divorce attorneys to sort through broken marriages.

No, I mean like why do you condemn the effects of media in changing what we consider the meaning of a neutral expression (or of anything), as if media events are different from other types of real world events? That is, why do care particularly whether media changes our opinions as opposed to our opinions being changed by the weather, political events, or anything else? The media's no more or less artificial than anything else.