So would that legal agreement be that you would refrain from attempting to coerce those who seek abortions, and those who are willing to perform abortions? — Banno

I don't think anyone is seeking to physically coerce them. Changing the law isn't physically coercing them.

So this law, making it illegal to harass people within 150-metres of abortion providers, would meet with your approval?

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/women-avoid-prolife-protesters-for-the-first-time-in-decades-20160502-gok1gl.html

So this law, making it illegal to harass people within 150-metres of abortion providers, would meet with your approval?

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/women-avoid-prolife-protesters-for-the-first-time-in-decades-20160502-gok1gl.html — Banno

No, I don't think I'd be fine with that. 150-m away from abortion providers is a public space, so people there should be able to say whatever they want. You don't have a right for others not to look down on you for your behaviour, whether that is having an abortion or having a gay marriage. People should be free to judge you if they so want. You cannot dictate what they are to think about you.

But now you are condoning the coercion of those seeking an abortion...

I asked

So would that legal agreement be that you would refrain from attempting to coerce those who seek abortions, and those who are willing to perform abortions? — Banno

You replied

I don't think anyone is seeking to physically coerce them. Changing the law isn't physically coercing them. — Agustino

I gave an example of such coercion. You re-described it as "look(ing) down on you for your behaviour".

150-m away from abortion providers is a public space, so people there should be able to say whatever they want. — Agustino

They are. They just cannot do it in front of the clinic, since that is seen as coercion.

Anything that is in the process of developing into a fully grown human being if there is no external interference (blastocyst, baby, child, teenager, etc.), and any person who is actually an adult or old woman/man. — Agustino

Well, it's a bit better than "featherless biped".

But now you are condoning the coercion of those seeking an abortion... — Banno

No I'm not.

I gave an example of such coercion. You re-described it as "look(ing) down on you for your behaviour". — Banno

:s That's not coercion! How is me saying something to you coercing you? Coercion means physically restraining them from getting to the abortion clinic.

They are. They just cannot do it in front of the clinic, since that is seen as coercion. — Banno

Yes, it's wrongly seen as a form of coercion.

Coercion means physically restraining them from getting to the abortion clinic — Agustino

Not according to my understanding.

But the wider point is that apparently you think one can say anything?

But the wider point is that apparently you think one can say anything? — Banno

Yes, absolutely, so long as what is being said doesn't include threats of physical violence, terrorist propaganda, and such things.

So... threats of physical violence, terrorist propaganda, and such things would count as coercion?

So... threats of physical violence, terrorist propaganda, and such things would count as coercion? — Banno

No, they wouldn't, but they would be unacceptable because of the consequences that they can give rise to.

So Mill's "the moral coercion of public opinion" is a misuse of the term?

So Mill's "the moral coercion of public opinion" is a misuse of the term? — Banno

Yes, I would certainly say so. Communities of people are allowed to express their opinions freely.

So close...

And unlikely to recover as it's been somewhat cannibalized by dclements' thread, which discusses the similarities between Trump and Bilbo Baggins.

dclements, Rude bugger.

Morally speaking no, because he would be harming a human being. — Agustino

So if one says a blastocyst is not a human being, one is equivocating?

Looks like truth is beginning to matter after all. For all those who aren't privy to the special prosecutor's case against Trump, it's still only a matter of time. Given what we know about subpoenas and testimony and warrants... his investigation and it's team are covering all the bases...

I'm also beginning to believe that Trump is not just a bullshitter. I mean, truth most certainly matters to one who's under the most invasive criminal investigation possible. So, while Trump most certainly gives no regard to truth when his aim is to affect/effect the situation with his speech acts, in these times, and in this particular set of circumstances - when Trump knows what's true regarding his own behaviours - he also knows the crucial importance of it all...

That is precisely why his questionable behaviours regarding all of the concerted attempts to distract and/or put an end to the investigation are of crucial importance.

In the span of 48 hours, Trump cut a deal with Democrats to keep the government funded and raise the nation’s borrowing authority, advanced talks with the senior Senate Democrat on a permanent debt ceiling solution and followed the advice of the top House Democrat, who urged him to use Twitter to ease the fears of young undocumented immigrants.

He is questioning the GOP's basic presumptions such as there has to be a debt ceiling, following his own logic, not listening to what his advisers have to say. I think for him it's more a question of 'let's make a deal' , and he has been stymied at each point by the rather stark polarization between the GOP and the DEMs. Being able to agree with DEMs on certain critical issues means he can get legislation passed, because the GOP are trained from birth O:) to follow the leader.

The GOP will have to get used to this alternative fact.

That may turn out to be true...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=491&v=Zh3Yz3PiXZw

If left alone, will it develop in a fully grown human being — Agustino

Well, no. To develop into a fully grown human being - a person - the blastocyst will need considerable support.

Bump. It'll get there, even if I have to drag it there by myself.

Time is on my side.

But I might give time a hand by pointing out that while a blastociste is a normal part of the human lifecycle, it is not a person.

And it is grossly immoral to consider the needs of a bunch of cells over those of a person such as the pregnant woman.

See if that helps.

OR we could just ask, "what sort of a dick pushes a small man until he has to fight, then beats the crap out of him?"

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/trump-in-the-crucible/536256/

@Agustino is being rather a poor sport here.

And it is grossly moral to consider the needs of a bunch of cells over those of a person such as the pregnant woman. — Banno

I take it you mean "immoral"?

(Does that help?)

Every little bit helps.

Fixed my error. Thanks.

To all those who said that Trump's lies are 'no different to other politicans....'



Source

Another story du jour - Trump trusts Putin more than the US intelligence community.

(Trumpets - don't bother.)

"What I have done – and this is unprecedented, by the way, no administration has done this before – is I’ve said to each agency, 'Don't just look at current regulations – or don't just look at future regulations, regulations that we’re proposing. Let’s go backwards and look at regulations that are already on the books, and if they don't make sense, let’s get rid of them.'"