US-Roe vs Wade overturned

[TheVat]

38 minutes ago, zapatos said:

 

People fight for animal rights. That doesn't mean they are against human rights or any other good causes. It just means they picked something and took action on it. All of us do that. No one can take on every related cause to the one cause that prompts us into action.

Let's say I agree with you in principle, but reserve the right to carve out exceptions where there is a strong practical reason to bundle causes.  Pragmatically, the anti-abortion person is going to save more infant lives (and reduce the cycle of poverty that leads to more abortions in the first place), if they get behind social policy that allows improved access to contraception, prenatal care and education, ease of adoption options, maternity leave, etc.  Sometimes a "package" is the truly effective way to advance your cause.  

So I find it bizarre when anti abortion people actively OPPOSE such policy packages that would help to save many babies and make abortion rare.  It just defies common sense.  

Edited June 18, 2022 by TheVat
Cpwmyifj

[MSC]

38 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So the end justifies the means? Too many downsides for me.

I could say the same thing about making abortion illegal. My entire argument revolves around the ends being to reduce the amount of abortions that happen. And pointing out that making abortion illegal is an example of unjustified means. 

40 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Totally disagree. No one is required to go all in. I can be 'pro-environment' without giving away my car. 

And how is that working out for us? I use a bike and public transport. I'd only even buy an electric car when the energy infrastructure enabling it to be manufactured doesn't rely on fossil fuels. I'd also argue that you are definitely not pro-life or pro environment when you put your convenience first. If you aren't willing to go all in, then saying you are pro-life or pro-environment is just talk for the sake of virtue signaling, about virtues you don't even have because you're not willing to behave in a way that reflects them. 

47 minutes ago, zapatos said:

That's is fine. It works for me. Both are stances say 'do the right thing even if the consequences are bad'.

Would you kill in self defense?

Impeaching Donald Trump was indeed the right thing to do, both times. Especially from the consequentialist perspective. Incuring the wrath of his supporters may be a bad consequence, but it's a far better outcome than Trump successfully becoming a fascist dictator. Stopping Donald Trump and his cronies, was a good outcome. 

As far as I'm concerned, trying to claim you did the right thing while not caring about the larger harms done, is just ineffective rationalization to not be held accountable for the things you cause or to justify laziness to not make changes because they are difficult. 

Good intent is a good start, but if the actions betray the intent, then was the intent ever truly there? Anyone can say they have good intentions. But then, everyone is also capable of lying to themselves to protect their self image.

58 minutes ago, zapatos said:

The key is "wanting to", as opposed to "have to". There are only so many tasks we can take on in this world. While I might have time to attend protests against the death penalty, that doesn't mean I also have time to fight for prison reform. 

Yet you have the time to post and comment here? If you have time to have discussions about it in places like this, then you can be part of the ideological fight for these things. Nobody is saying you have to physically show up to protests. I don't tend to because I don't like crowds. We can all do what we are best suited to doing. I'm best suited to having these conversations with people and encouraging them to think about it on a deeper level. 

Since you've made it clear that you have the deontological perspective of right and wrong, what if I say it ought to be a rule that it is always right to try to avoid the worst consequences that cause the most harm? Why can't demonology, utilitarian and consequentialist ethics be used in conjunction with each other as tools to enhance our understanding of right and wrong, instead of the ideological tribalism most engage with? Why can't I value and make use of all three of those types of moral thinking as well as virtue theory?

[zapatos]

20 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Pragmatically, the anti-abortion person is going to save more infant lives (and reduce the cycle of poverty that leads to more abortions in the first place), if they get behind social policy that allows improved access to contraception, prenatal care and education, ease of adoption options, maternity leave, etc.

Completely agree. No question at all.

I am just saying you are not required to get involved in Part B (improved access to contraception, etc.) if you choose to get involved in Part A (anti-abortion).

If you think life begins at conception, then being active in stopping abortion and through your actions allowing, say, 100 additional babies to be born, is a great accomplishment and something to be proud of. It is not as if there are not other people who are active in improved access to contraception, ease of adoption, maternity leave and all the others.

I know someone who runs a dental charity for adults. Pragmatically this person is going to have better outcomes if they get behind providing dental care for kids. But you can only take on so many responsibilities in life. Are you going to criticize them for their charitable work because it did not go far enough?

29 minutes ago, TheVat said:

So I find it bizarre when anti abortion people actively OPPOSE such policy packages that would help to save many babies and make abortion rare.  It just defies common sense.  

Yeah, that seems like a major flaw in their reasoning. But of course many versions of "making abortion rare" are anathema just like abortion.

15 minutes ago, MSC said:

If you aren't willing to go all in, then saying you are pro-life or pro-environment is just talk for the sake of virtue signaling, about virtues you don't even have because you're not willing to behave in a way that reflects them. 

Ouch. That's rather harsh.

And rather hypocritical. By choosing to bike rather than drive you are just choosing an arbitrary line in the sand and saying "anything on my side is virtuous and anything on your side is not." Surely not manufacturing a bike and walking instead is better for the environment. Surely only eating fruit that fell from the trees is better for the environment than eating anything that has to be transported to the grocery store.

In fact, unless you are going to remove yourself from the earth to remove your impact 100%, you are only taking the partial steps that YOU have decided are 'virtuous'.

21 minutes ago, MSC said:

I use a bike and public transport.

And how is that working out for you? Have you solved the environment crisis yet?

 

22 minutes ago, MSC said:

As far as I'm concerned, trying to claim you did the right thing while not caring about the larger harms done, is just ineffective rationalization to not be held accountable for the things you cause or to justify laziness to not make changes because they are difficult. 

Okay, I'm done here. I don't need this crap.

[MSC]

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

know someone who runs a dental charity for adults. Pragmatically this person is going to have better outcomes if they get behind providing dental care for kids. But you can only take on so many responsibilities in life. Are you going to criticize them for their charitable work because it did not go far enough?

Nope. However I would take issue if they didn't encourage more people to do the same when they have the chance to do so. I do understand where you are coming from. We do all have limited time and resources. What concerns me, is that others reading some of your comments may be inclined to only do the bare minimum. A really simple example to show what I mean. Four men want to lift a heavy rock. They set up a system of ropes. The system works best when there is one person on the end of each of the four ropes that need to be pulled. But instead of doing this, all four men try to pull on the same rope. The rock does not budge. 

What I mean by this, is that some of your comments could be interpreted as telling everyone to pull on the exact same rope.

33 minutes ago, zapatos said:

By choosing to bike rather than drive you are just choosing an arbitrary line in the sand and saying "anything on my side is virtuous and anything on your side is not." Surely not manufacturing a bike and walking instead is better for the environment

I'm not saying that at all. I'm sorry I have upset you. I didn't mean to offend. My usage of the word "you" before, wasn't intended to be directed solely at you as an individual. 

You are correct though. The metal on my bike needed to be mined, refined and cast. Fossil fuels contributed to the structure and creation of the tires. The same is also true of the shoes I wear to walk and ride. It's a shitty state of affairs for sure. What we all lack, not just in the abortion debate, is a better quality and quantity of choices. How our society is structured, currently leads is into only being able to adopt half measures, ineffective compromises and unavoidable hypocrisy in some instances. I can reduce my carbon footprint. I can't elimate it completely without eliminating myself, as you say. But to not reduce it where we can, leads to us collectively eliminating ourselves and many other creatures we share this planet with. 

In order to really have effective dialogues we have to be willing to state the truth of it all. My criticisms of your means are as valid as your criticisms of mine are. I am not more or less virtuous than you. Even if I believed it was possible for one of us to be more virtuous than the other, I don't know enough about you to be able to say. I could be more in some ways and you in other ways. I'm not blaming you, I'm not saying you are the one holding us back. I am not judging individuals at all. I am judging the society we individuals belong to and contribute to. As a group, we aren't doing enough. We aren't in the right. We aren't virtuous and we aren't good. Even if good individuals exist in our society; collectively we just aren't good enough. This needs to change.

 

39 minutes ago, zapatos said:

And how is that working out for you? Have you solved the environment crisis yet?

I'm doing the things I can do. I am setting myself up to be able to do more as I live my life. Part of that is trying to convince others to do the same. I'm not going to solve the climate crisis. If it does get solved, it's going to be buy us and we, collectively. If it doesn't get solved, it's us and we again that are responsible. If and when it is time for us all to perish because of our own stupidity, I'll be blaming everyone. That includes myself. I'll say I haven't done enough, you haven't done enough, we haven't done enough. 

53 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Okay, I'm done here. I don't need this crap.

I'm not saying you are the cause or you are the problem. It's that mindset that is the problem and you aren't the only one with it, but you can change your mindset. You are capable of looking at things in a different way, you are capable of questioning yourself and your beliefs to see if they truly are serving you and us well. 

In order to bring us closer to the topic at hand, I have a new question.

Should men be allowed to get a vasectomy or get any procedure or treatment that elimates their sperm? 

What makes a sperm different from an embryo or a zygote?

[TheVat]

Even with the occasional moment of frustration for some, this is getting interesting, in terms of defining moral obligations versus moral guidelines.  My guess is that the person donating to adult dentistry in a developing country will assume that, as he pulls on that one rope, others are pulling on the other rope of child dentistry.  So he is not obligated to also fund child dentistry because there is a good faith assumption that collective social action is also at work on that.   Sometimes that assumption is okay.  Sometimes it is not so okay, as when people donate heavily to save baby seals because gosh they're cute while other species more crucial to our ecosystems perish because they are less photogenic and get neglected by charities.  We might do okay without baby seals, but a  massive collapse of bee populations or soil nematodes would be catastrophic.  

 

 

 

[zapatos]

40 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Sometimes that assumption is okay.  Sometimes it is not so okay...

I think you are misplacing your criticism. You seem to be saying it is valid to criticize someone for doing good, if by some arbitrary standard it is not deemed good enough. To the best of my knowledge no one on this site, or anyone mentioned here, has ever been criticized for not supporting juvenile dental care. But as soon as I mention someone who actually helps some portion of the population with dental care, they are now open to potential criticism for not doing enough. I don't believe that is the best path forward wrt solving problems through participation. We need to press the people who are doing nothing, rather than the people who are doing something.

My wife and I used to get along with everyone at my kid's grade school. Then we started volunteering for fund raisers, Homecoming, etc. Suddenly there were a lot of parents who no longer cared for us and criticized us to no end because we did not do enough, or the right thing, or what it was that they thought we should be doing.

Do nothing and you can be everyone's friend. But a sure way to make enemies is to attempt to help people.

[MSC]

21 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I think you are misplacing your criticism. You seem to be saying it is valid to criticize someone for doing good, if by some arbitrary standard it is not deemed good enough. To the best of my knowledge no one on this site, or anyone mentioned here, has ever been criticized for not supporting juvenile dental care. But as soon as I mention someone who actually helps some portion of the population with dental care, they are now open to potential criticism for not doing enough. I don't believe that is the best path forward wrt solving problems through participation. We need to press the people who are doing nothing, rather than the people who are doing something.

My wife and I used to get along with everyone at my kid's grade school. Then we started volunteering for fund raisers, Homecoming, etc. Suddenly there were a lot of parents who no longer cared for us and criticized us to no end because we did not do enough, or the right thing, or what it was that they thought we should be doing.

Do nothing and you can be everyone's friend. But a sure way to make enemies is to attempt to help people.

For what it is worth to you, I do actually believe you are a good person. You're here, talking about ethics, making good points and not being apathetic to the issue. I can be pretty critical. This I know, and it does rub people the wrong way. I do try to minimize it and work toward being less critical in my personal life. This subject is my career and vocation however. So I'll always be critical in this type of venue and I don't pull punches. 

I understand that you are doing your best as we all have to, but for me, part of doing my best is knowing I can always improve on my best over time. 

You also sound like a good parent. 👍 

21 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Do nothing and you can be everyone's friend. But a sure way to make enemies is to attempt to help people.

We can only have a dialogue with the people in front of us. Show me a person doing nothing and see how much more critical we can both be 😆 

Also, I'm not your enemy. Being critical of you or anyone else does not make me your enemy. It just is what it is. It's not like you aren't allowed to also be critical of me and you have been. I don't mind though. It helps.

Edited June 18, 2022 by MSC

[zapatos]

31 minutes ago, MSC said:

Also, I'm not your enemy. Being critical of you or anyone else does not make me your enemy. It just is what it is. It's not like you aren't allowed to also be critical of me and you have been. I don't mind though. It helps.

No offense but you've been crossing over between criticizing my arguments and criticizing me. My arguments are fair game, but you don't know me well enough to suggest I'm lazy, not doing enough, virtue signaling, not pro-life enough, or what my intentions are.

I'm not telling anyone which rope to pull on, or whether or not to fight against abortion without fighting for increased adoptions. What I've been doing is suggesting that it is not up to others to judge the acceptability of how people choose to make the world a better place. There is no accepted baseline of how much is enough, or what the acceptable issues to support are. We have to leave it up to the individual. 

[MSC]

42 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What I've been doing is suggesting that it is not up to others to judge the acceptability of how people choose to make the world a better place. There is no accepted baseline of how much is enough, or what the acceptable issues to support are. We have to leave it up to the individual. 

Except when we are telling women what to do with their bodies ofcourse. No need to leave it up to the individual there. Men know better right?

I never suggested you were any of those things either. Just that the arguments can be used to enable those things. I think you've misunderstood a lot of what I've been saying and are taking it a bit too personally. 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

if by some arbitrary standard it is not deemed good enough

There is nothing arbitrary about whether or not something is successful in solving a problem or not. Do or do not, there is no try. 

Either the stone is lifted, or it is not. If you fail, make another attempt. You don't see me here bragging about a job half done or failed attempts to do something. 

52 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What I've been doing is suggesting that it is not up to others to judge the acceptability of how people choose to make the world a better place. There is no accepted baseline of how much is enough, or what the acceptable issues to support are. We have to leave it up to the individual

Whether or not something works, is the baseline by scientific consensus. Take Alchemy for example, it failed to make gold, it failed to produce an elixir of life. Alchemy was trashed. Chemistry has made modern miracles in medicine, textiles, materials, hygiene etc and so hasn't been trashed. 

A ban on abortion will not only cause more women to die, it will increase poverty, ruin the economy and cause a massive female exodus in the job market as women are forced to be mothers whether they want to be or not. That means less Dr's, less nurses, less key infrastructure workers and every industry that isn't male dominated will shrink. Every business will lose key workers. It will also put a massive strain on an already spread thin care system. Orphanages will fill up, not enough people will adopt and you will see more homeless people at younger ages the longer these bans are left in place. The job market will become even more competitive, unemployment will increase, suicides and violent crimes will increase. You might think access to abortion couldn't possibly lead to all of this, but pregnancy is the root cause of our being. When you try to remove women's choices by banning abortion, something which has been happening in pretty much our entire recorded history, it has far reaching dramatic consequences for everyone. 

To sum up my position; I think, abortion should be legal up to somewhere between 16-20 weeks. I've only heard of 1 baby who survived as a preemie at 21 weeks gestation. As far as I'm concerned, I believe that life truly starts when a being is capable of surviving living by itself, without the need for life support systems from its mother. 

Can you focus on this question when you get the chance?

4 hours ago, MSC said:

Should men be allowed to get a vasectomy or get any procedure or treatment that elimates their sperm? 

What makes a sperm different from an embryo or a zygote?

 

[zapatos]

17 minutes ago, MSC said:

Except when we are telling women what to do with their bodies ofcourse. No need to leave it up to the individual there. Men know better right?

Can you please tell me what you mean by this in plain and direct words? You are clearly implying something and I don't want to misunderstand you.

[MigL]

 whole idea of 'pro-choice', is that everyone has their core beliefs.
I may be against abortion, personally, and would never urge my wife/girlfriend to abort a child, but I only make that decision for myself; everyone else has the right to decide for themselves also, and they may want to abort their pregnancy, for whatever reason is important to them,
People have the right to be 'virtuous' or 'hypocritical' in their beliefs and values, which means that MSC and TheVat are consistent in their reasoning, and so is Zapatos in his.
Trying to force your beliefs of what 'pro-life' means on others, is not 'pro-choice'.

[zapatos]

23 minutes ago, MSC said:

Should men be allowed to get a vasectomy or get any procedure or treatment that elimates their sperm? 

 

Yes.

23 minutes ago, MSC said:

What makes a sperm different from an embryo or a zygote?

Only about a million things. Can you be more specific?

[MSC]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Can you please tell me what you mean by this in plain and direct words? You are clearly implying something and I don't want to misunderstand you.

So you really don't see the irony in advocating for making abortions illegal and then saying this:

 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

What I've been doing is suggesting that it is not up to others to judge the acceptability of how people choose to make the world a better place. There is no accepted baseline of how much is enough, or what the acceptable issues to support are. We have to leave it up to the individual. 

 

Just now, zapatos said:

Yes

So it's okay for a man to make decisions over his own body but not for a woman?

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Only about a million things. Can you be more specific?

Name 1. If there is a million, naming one should not be that difficult.

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

People have the right to be 'virtuous' or 'hypocritical' in their beliefs and values, which means that MSC and TheVat are consistent in their reasoning, and so is Zapatos in his.
Trying to force your beliefs of what 'pro-life' means on others, is not 'pro-choice'.

I agree. Which is why I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I'm just contributing toward the discussion with my perspective. My perspective is just another choice. People can choose to accept it, find value or truth in it, or not. I've explained it. That is enough for me. I both can't and won't force anyone to agree with me and I don't have a gun to anyone's head about it. Nor do I feel like Zapatos is trying to force me into doing anything either. If i wanted, I could just not read anything he writes. Where is the force here?

Quote

Feel the force around you!

- Yoda

This just popped into my head. Figured I'd already quoted Yoda once so why not again for the sheer banter.

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, MSC said:

So you really don't see the irony in advocating for making abortions illegal and then saying this:

 

Since I'm not advocating for making abortions illegal, 'no'.

6 minutes ago, MSC said:

So it's okay for a man to make decisions over his own body but not for a woman?

No.

6 minutes ago, MSC said:

Name 1. If there is a million, naming one should not be that difficult.

A sperm is a male reproductive cell, a zygote is not a male reproductive cell.

34 minutes ago, MSC said:

I think you've misunderstood a lot of what I've been saying and are taking it a bit too personally. 

So much for you not minding if I am critical of you...

36 minutes ago, MSC said:

There is nothing arbitrary about whether or not something is successful in solving a problem or not. Do or do not, there is no try. 

 

Then you may as well quit riding your bike as it has not solved the problem with our environment.

Or perhaps we should keep trying after all. Things do take time. Calling our efforts unsuccessful just because they haven't worked yet, or are only contributing to the overall effort, may be a bit premature.

[MigL]

22 minutes ago, MSC said:

Name 1. If there is a million, naming one should not be that difficult.

It is about turkey/chicken eggs, not human 'eggs', but I found this interesting, so I thought I would share

Parthenogenesis: Embryonic development in unfertilized eggs may impact normal fertilization and embryonic mortality | The Poultry Site

I'm not sure human 'eggs' can do the same, but I definitely know sperm cannot.

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Do or do not, there is no try. 

You never know if you 'do', until you 'try' first.

( sorry Zap, attributed that quote to you; it should be MSC )

Edited June 18, 2022 by MigL

[MSC]

17 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Since I'm not advocating for making abortions illegal, 'no'

Then what are you doing? Playing Devils advocate? Help me understand what your view is. Because so far it certainly seems like that is what you are advocating.

17 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So much for you not minding if I am critical of you

Me pointing out you may have misunderstood and whether or not I mind when you are critical are not the same. The former does not imply the latter at all. If I minded you being critical of my arguments I just wouldn't continue the dialogue with you... yet here I am. So clearly I don't mind. I can perceive your criticisms to just be incorrect or poorly communicated. You're entitled to make them. I even agreed with you earlier and pointed out that I'm quite well aware that even my bike and its parts create a bigger carbon footprint than if I just walked. It's still preferable to a car since the bike did all of its pollution when it was made, not every time I ride it. At that point, my farts are a bigger issue than my bike is 😆 

Edited June 18, 2022 by MSC

[iNow]

1 minute ago, MSC said:

Then what are you doing? Playing Devils advocate? Help me understand what your view is. Because so far it certainly seems like that is what you are advocating.

From the outside, his view appears to be that your argument has holes which need to be highlighted. It seems you feel you’re the sole arbiter of what is moral and what is not, and he’s illuminating the validity of other perspectives. 

[MSC]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

From the outside, his view appears to be that your argument has holes which need to be highlighted. It seems you feel you’re the sole arbiter of what is moral and what is not, and he’s illuminating the validity of other perspectives. 

Okay, fair enough. Can you show me which sections of my writing gives you the impression that I feel as if I'm the sole arbiter of what is right and wrong? 

What do you mean by "validity of other perspectives"? Do you mean acknowledging that other perspectives are allowed (ofc they are) or valid in that they are correct and right? I'm genuinely confused as to how people want or expect me to respond to their perspectives. Am I not allowed to take issue with them? Am I not allowed to say "I think that's wrong" or "That criticism isn't valid" or "I don't think that is a good way to think about it." 

I'm really just getting the impression that others here don't really get my communication style and that maybe I should just go since I seem to be causing so much cognitive dissonance for others. I don't understand what Zap wants from me or why he is getting so offended but I'm not going to hold anyone's hand into making high level critiques the way it is done in moral philosophy in an academic setting. If they can, they can, if they can't, they can't.

[iNow]

1 minute ago, MSC said:

I'm really just getting the impression that others here don't really get my communication style

You seem clear enough to me. Communication style seems less relevant here than a seeming lack of self-awareness. 

2 minutes ago, MSC said:

I don't understand what Zap wants from me or why he is getting so offended but I'm not going to hold anyone's hand

Lol. I strongly suspect he wants nothing from you and doesn’t care enough about you to be offended. 

As for holding hands, maybe this is an example of that issue with communication style you reference?

[zapatos]

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

From the outside, his view appears to be that your argument has holes which need to be highlighted. It seems you feel you’re the sole arbiter of what is moral and what is not, and he’s illuminating the validity of other perspectives. 

That sums it up nicely.

23 minutes ago, MSC said:

Then what are you doing? Playing Devils advocate? Help me understand what your view is. Because so far it certainly seems like that is what you are advocating.

I've not been advocating for or against abortion. All I've been advocating for is finding your own way rather than having it imposed on you, which is what you seem to be doing. To wit...

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

... it is not up to others to judge the acceptability of how people choose to make the world a better place. There is no accepted baseline of how much is enough, or what the acceptable issues to support are. We have to leave it up to the individual. 

For example, in this statement...

6 hours ago, MSC said:

If you aren't willing to go all in, then saying you are pro-life or pro-environment is just talk for the sake of virtue signaling, about virtues you don't even have because you're not willing to behave in a way that reflects them. 

Even you admit that you are not going "all in" on the environment because you continue to exist. Yet you feel you can tell others that since they are not "all in" (based on what YOU define as "all in") then they are just virtue signaling.

[MSC]

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

You seem clear enough to me. Communication style seems less relevant here than a seeming lack of self-awareness. 

Lol. I strongly suspect he wants nothing from you and doesn’t care enough about you to be offended. 

As for holding hands, maybe this is an example of that issue with communication style you reference?

 

16 minutes ago, MSC said:

Can you show me which sections of my writing gives you the impression that I feel as if I'm the sole arbiter of what is right and wrong

So can you show me a section that gives you this impression or not?

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, MSC said:

So can you show me a section that gives you this impression or not?

Zapatos was kind enough to highlight one example already. Are more needed?

[zapatos]

22 minutes ago, MSC said:

I'm genuinely confused as to how people want or expect me to respond to their perspectives. Am I not allowed to take issue with them? Am I not allowed to say "I think that's wrong" or "That criticism isn't valid" or "I don't think that is a good way to think about it." 

Of course you are allowed to take issue. The problem from my perspective is that you don't seem all that open to criticism of your position. You started this dialogue as if it were a lecture, not a conversation. You seem to be more interested in telling me why I am wrong than to understanding what I am saying. 

[MSC]

14 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Even you admit that you are not going "all in" on the environment because you continue to exist. Yet you feel you can tell others that since they are not "all in" (based on what YOU define as "all in") then they are just virtue signaling.

I'm telling you, that's how it comes across to me. That's just my honest perspective. If the boot didn't fit, then why did you get so defensive and try to rage quit the conversation earlier? I can tell others what I think. I can't tell them what is and what isn't. I can only tell them what I think. 

You've been here arguing for abortion being made illegal. Whether that was to test me or if it is your true found beliefs, that's what you have been doing. Apparently you won't won't share what you truly think so this argument could be in complete bad faith for all I know. 

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Zapatos was kind enough to highlight one example already. Are more needed?

Not a very good example in my opinion. Oops, shared my opinion again. I forgot you said mine isn't allowed. I'm just going to come right out and say what is on my mind, You and Zaps egos are bruised because you can't actually supply me with a valid criticism and are crying foul because I won't pretend there is any weight to these ineffectual ones. 

I'll respond now only to people who actually engage with my writing and don't ignore my questions to try to construct their own false narrative about who they reckon I am and what motivates me.

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Of course you are allowed to take issue. The problem from my perspective is that you don't seem all that open to criticism of your position. You started this dialogue as if it were a lecture, not a conversation. You seem to be more interested in telling me why I am wrong than to understanding what I am saying. 

I'm very open to criticism. Just not in the way you seem to expect me to be. You haven't changed my mind about anything. Maybe you were just wrong and there is little to understand?

[zapatos]

45 minutes ago, MSC said:

You've been here arguing for abortion being made illegal.

Please show me where I did that.

45 minutes ago, MSC said:

If the boot didn't fit, then why did you get so defensive and try to rage quit the conversation earlier?

"Rage quit". That's cute. You were making it personal.

46 minutes ago, MSC said:

Apparently you won't won't share what you truly think so this argument could be in complete bad faith for all I know. 

I've told you exactly what I truly think. Since I wasn't arguing for or against abortion my views on abortion didn't come up.

I'm happy to share. I am for unfettered, legalized abortion until fairly late term, at which point restrictions should come into play. I don't have firm dates or firm restrictions in mind, but I feel at some point there should be restrictions.

50 minutes ago, MSC said:

Oops, shared my opinion again. I forgot you said mine isn't allowed.

Don't respond in a childish manner. This was really a very interesting conversation for a while.

51 minutes ago, MSC said:

I'll respond now only to people who actually engage with my writing and don't ignore my questions

Please show me where I ignored your questions.

53 minutes ago, MSC said:

I'm very open to criticism.

This post seems to indicate otherwise. You said you were open to criticism so I told you what I think. Sorry you found my perspective offensive.

57 minutes ago, MSC said:

You and Zaps egos are bruised because you can't actually supply me with a valid criticism and are crying foul because I won't pretend there is any weight to these ineffectual ones. 

You are making it personal again.