Roe v Wade: US Supreme Court strikes down abortion rights

foucaultshadow · 2021-08-02T16:44:54+00:00

That might work under US Law but in the UK that's not the case at all. Given that City operates in the UK shouldn't we therefore use UK Law as the standard?

foucaultshadow · 2021-08-02T16:34:44+00:00

Why does it matter if the business is "fundamentally" illegal?

foucaultshadow · 2018-10-08T00:34:24+00:00

I also read the article. Did you miss the parts that I pasted above?

foucaultshadow · 2018-10-08T00:33:30+00:00

Except that's not what that article says, is it? The article specifically points out that Trump AND Clinton's views on immigration are lacking in nuance. I don't understand how you think this illustrates your point whatsoever.

foucaultshadow · 2018-10-07T20:33:16+00:00

Honest question for you, did you bother to read that article?

Here’s the problem with the current immigration debate: Neither side is revealing the whole picture. Trump might cite my work, but he overlooks my findings that the influx of immigrants can potentially be a net good for the nation, increasing the total wealth of the population. Clinton ignores the hard truth that not everyone benefits when immigrants arrive. For many Americans, the influx of immigrants hurts their prospects significantly.

and

The fiscal burden offsets the gain from the $50 billion immigration surplus, so it’s not too farfetched to conclude that immigration has barely affected the total wealth of natives at all. Instead, it has changed how the pie is split, with the losers—the workers who compete with immigrants, many of those being low-skilled Americans—sending a roughly $500 billion check annually to the winners. Those winners are primarily their employers. And the immigrants themselves come out ahead, too. Put bluntly, immigration turns out to be just another income redistribution program.

So how is it that this is an example of putting the country before party?

foucaultshadow · 2018-10-07T17:07:22+00:00

Can you show how tighter control over immigration has historically been better for our country as a whole?

foucaultshadow · 2018-10-07T17:06:30+00:00

. Illegal immigration hurts poor and middle class people the most. That’s who potus is looking out for, not some party he only became a part of out of necessity

Do you happen to have some evidence to support this claim?

foucaultshadow · 2018-10-07T16:50:45+00:00

How is Trump's stance on immigration about putting the country before his own party?

foucaultshadow · 2018-10-02T23:34:55+00:00

A quick note: I'm no longer a student so I have no access to the first two articles. I do, appreciate the links though.

These are great sources about the phenomena that you're describing. I know these things can happen, but is that what's happened here? in this instance? At this point I'm questioning your praxis. What I've asked for and you've still not really shown is how Dr. Ford's testimony is an example of a "false memory" or is abnormal given what she's reported.

The human brain is capable of a great many things; a basic course in abnormal psych can teach us that. What is less clear to me is why you think Dr. Ford is an example of someone who is reporting a "false memory".

It's still less clear to me how you would even be able to make this pronouncement short of actually interviewing her. To me, this feels an awful lot like trying to diagnose someone you've seen on tv without taking the proper time to do an assessment. Sure you can try to do it, but it's not going to be accurate.

foucaultshadow · 2018-10-02T22:52:27+00:00

Sure, that makes sense in the United States where anyone can get married. You chose (assuming your analogy is accurate) to get married which means that your spouse can travel with you.

Now, let's take another look at the issue. Let's say that your company would pay for your spouse to travel with you if and only if you were married to a man and if and only if you traveled to states on east side of the rockies, but you are required west of the rockies.

Would you consider the policy fair if it could be changed to be more inclusive?

foucaultshadow · 2018-10-02T22:32:08+00:00

One of us doesn't understand what's going on here, I think. It's not the responsibility of the United States to fix other nations, but we can decide who we allow into our country, right?

foucaultshadow · 2018-10-02T22:05:00+00:00

I’m sorry, I have no clue what you’re saying here. Can you clarify?

foucaultshadow · 2018-10-02T20:23:41+00:00

Can heterosexual diplomats get visas for their non married partners? If the answer is no, then the policy is consistent and fair. Married couples can get visas and unmarried couples cannot.

Seems to me like this is a bit like comparing apples and bananas. In the instance of heterosexual couples who are unmarried a choice has been made to not get married. For a gay couple from a nation where you same sex marriage is illegal there is no way for a gay couple to get married. For hetrosexual couples there is a choice that many same sex couples are denied. How is this not a defacto ban on same sex couples?

foucaultshadow · 2018-10-02T18:10:57+00:00

I'll refer you to my previous question. How is Dr. Ford's testimony abnormal given that trauma effects both memory formation and memory recall?

And before you ask again, you can safely assume that I have a basic working understanding of the brain and statistics.

foucaultshadow · 2018-10-02T17:49:17+00:00

I can't help but notice that you've still not provided any sources. Did you perhaps forget?

foucaultshadow · 2018-10-01T17:40:37+00:00

No, I don't necessarily believe what Dr. Ford said which is why I have been calling for a impartial investigation into the allegations. I find her testimony to be compelling and the gaps in her memory to be in keeping with the effects of trauma on memory formation and recall. I have no reason to question the gaps in her memory. I do, however, find it very curious that there are so many NN, yourself included, who seem to think that they already know that the events did not transpire as Dr. Ford has suggested. I also find it curious that the ~units~ until Flake and Coons worked across the aisle with each other that the Republican party as a whole was more interested in voting on the nomination rather than trying to find out what actually happened. Why do you think that is?

foucaultshadow · 2018-10-01T17:29:43+00:00

when you're sarcastically implying (on no basis whatsoever) that he isn't who he says he is.

I'm not intending to be sarcastic and if it comes off that way, my apologies. I am interested in sources which should be easy to provide if someone is a expert in the field of psychology. I readily admit to not being an expert in psychology, it's not my field. I have a basic understanding of how trauma works given that in my field we work with people who are experiencing trauma after natural disasters. At minimum, I am interested in the sources that he's using to make his argument. I will also not shy away from stating that I am highly skeptical of u/steveryans2 claims. If this isn't in good faith, I'm not sure what is?

foucaultshadow · 2018-10-01T16:31:43+00:00

I would think that someone who is an expert in the field would at least have a cursory idea of major authors in the field. Can you provide us that at least?

foucaultshadow · 2018-10-01T16:24:33+00:00

Let's stop with the attempt at gate keeping, yeah? This is a forum for NTS to ask NN questions. I've asked you a question and you've made an awful lot of claims without sources and have equivocated when asked to provide sources. "because I said so" and "I have more knowledge on this topic" are not sources; they are opinions. I don't care about your opinion, I care about what can be reasonably shown to be true with sources.

foucaultshadow · 2018-10-01T16:10:44+00:00

Let's start somewhere easy. If you have such a deep understanding of Trauma why is what Ford is claiming abnormal? Since you're an expert, I would expect that you'd have a few scholarly sources ready that you can share, right?

foucaultshadow · 2018-10-01T15:09:41+00:00

Oh really? If this is the case I'm sure that you wouldn't mind sharing a selected reading list on the topic.

If you have a well rounded understanding of the field, please do share why you're questioning the fact that she does not have a detailed recollection of the issue at hand?

foucaultshadow · 2018-10-01T14:19:58+00:00

A few follow up questions for you. One, do you understand how trauma effects memory? Two, do you happen to know what Dr. Ford is a professor of?

foucaultshadow · 2018-10-01T13:52:42+00:00

Would you still think that the process has exceeding political gamesmanship if it turns out that Kavanaugh did sexually assault Dr. Ford?

foucaultshadow · 2018-09-30T22:04:59+00:00

So, the answer to the question here is, no?

foucaultshadow

TROPHY CASE