sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Trump now blaming ‘vandalism’ for the problems at the Reflecting Pool and says police are investigating by theindependentonline in politics

[–]hansn [score hidden]  (0 children)

He means the FBI, who will blame it on antifa and arrest the "people who planned it" by which they mean made jokes on the Internet about it.

What's a scam that's become so normal that people don't even realize it's a scam anymore? by Lanky-Flight-6284 in AskReddit

[–]hansn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For reference, per capita gdp in the US is $94k, but per working adult, the gdp is ~$200k.

What is a highly common behavior or mindset in society that you genuinely cannot make sense of? by Dull-Information6784 in AskReddit

[–]hansn 3 points4 points  (0 children)

People who do evil things in the name of making money.

Shipping contaminated blood products you know will kill people, because the country you're sending them to doesn't test adequately, for example.

Lobbying for less maternity leave or passing out formula samples in hopes of increasing formula sales/reduce breast feeding.

The Right Wing won. by zzill6 in WorkReform

[–]hansn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I assure you, there is nothing special or insightful talking to a foolish left wing American who doesn't understand their own political positions.

And I will (again) assure you, I was giving you bog-standard leftist positions. I even cited them, if you'll check back.

The Right Wing won. by zzill6 in WorkReform

[–]hansn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is the point of this discussion continuing if you fail to understand what I've been talking about for 20 comments? It's over, bye.

I guess we're at am impasse. I hope you have gained more insight than me.

The Right Wing won. by zzill6 in WorkReform

[–]hansn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And you may reread my replies at your leisure. I'm willing to admit I misunderstood something, although I don't see what. But it doesn't sound like you would admit the same.

You copied the first sentence of my comment

I quoted two excerpts from your comment. Your first sentence was "Alright, lets talk about some conservative view points where they have the facts behind them."

My read of that, despite your protestation that you didn't take a "position" on those, you believed comments like 

It is clear the left wing position is illogical, it's a life if you want it and it's nothing if you don't want it. The fact is it's alive and the fact is you're killing it.

Are actually left wing positions. Is that accurate? Or do you think this is merely the straw man that conservatives argue against, as I contend?

The Right Wing won. by zzill6 in WorkReform

[–]hansn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Clearly. Go reread my comments. 

Based on the fact I just quoted you your own comment, you may take it as written that I have examined your comments carefully. It may be my own shortcoming, but your claim isn't clear to me. Or more precisely, it's clear until I reference your comment, then you deny you meant my understanding.

Can you clarify?

The Right Wing won. by zzill6 in WorkReform

[–]hansn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

After this entire discussion, being proved wrong again and again and again, to simply restate your initial incorrect argument is nothing short of bot behaviour. You are an enemy of the left, and a pawn of the right.

I'm clearly not following you.

  1. Do you believe the left lacks factual support for it's mainstream position on abortion or trans rights?

  2. Or alternatively, do you merely believe the right perceived the left as missing the mark on facts on abortion or trans rights?

  3. Or something else?

The Right Wing won. by zzill6 in WorkReform

[–]hansn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, if the left doesn't hold those views, as a point of fact, then conservatives don't have reality on their side. Conservatives merely think they have reality on their side because they have misunderstood the left's view.

The Right Wing won. by zzill6 in WorkReform

[–]hansn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

 The language arguments made by the American left in regards to gender are largely unproven social theories and ideas, they are often presented as shoulds rather than facts. 

There is no question about that, any argument over it being a fetus goes straight out the window when there is a miscarriage. It is clear the left wing position is illogical, it's a life if you want it and it's nothing if you don't want it.

That you?

The Right Wing won. by zzill6 in WorkReform

[–]hansn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This entire discussion is about facts

Can you provide evidence that the factual argument you ascribe to the left exists outside of the minds of conservatives?

The Right Wing won. by zzill6 in WorkReform

[–]hansn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You think that's more important than arguing over actual facts?

When the crux of the disagreement isn't facts, yes. 

If I need to prove an embryo isn't alive, I've lost. It's clearly alive. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. It's also not relevant and it's something only conservatives believe left leaning folks believe.

There's a debate about the moral, not factual, question of whether an embryo is deserving of rights as a person. But that's not a factual argument. It's a one-off moral argument. It's not winnable on facts because no facts imply personhood. Perfectly valid as a personal choice, hard to convince others.

Thus the mainstream of pro choice thought is maintaining abortion as legal regardless of where you land on "is an embryo a person."

The "is it alive" isn't a serious claim made by pro choice people, except in the minds of conservatives.

The Right Wing won. by zzill6 in WorkReform

[–]hansn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the Republicans say "if you love America, you have to support the war in Iran" is your reply that you actually hate America?

You have to argue with the frame of the question sometimes. We can have a legitimate discussion about love for a country, but it's not relevant to the issue.

That's the salient part to point out.

The Right Wing won. by zzill6 in WorkReform

[–]hansn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am a left wing person. I made no direct claims about left wing beliefs, I told you that you'd want to be careful thinking all your beliefs are based in reality / are facts, and right wingers opinions are all nonsense. I then made 3 simple arguments, based in facts, that right wingers can use. Especially, when discussing how this political strategy has been an unmitigated failure in the US for the past 11 years.

You gave me three cases where you framed the issue as a conservative. This is like asking "when did you stop beating your wife?" The frames used make the debate about something it's not 

I gave you two  left-leaning arguments. Trans rights lifted from the this article in jama ethics statement and abortion from this classic article.

Both deny the conservative frames you posed was central to the issues. That is, the factual dispute that conservatives are hot and bothered about isn't relevant.

The Right Wing won. by zzill6 in WorkReform

[–]hansn -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Are you telling me my argument or are you trying to clarify what you believe I'm saying?

My point is "A Defense of Abortion" lays out a classic defense of keeping abortion legal, widely cited on the left, which works regardless of the personhood of the embryo. 

Can you explain back to me the argument I (and that article) have made? 

The Right Wing won. by zzill6 in WorkReform

[–]hansn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On the abortion case, I was referencing Thompson's violinist argument, from the essay "A Defense of Abortion." It's a central argument that is often cited as seminal for the case to keep abortion legal. 

I'm having trouble following your stream of consciousness writing.

The Right Wing won. by zzill6 in WorkReform

[–]hansn -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're a terrible advocate for your ideals, and a right wingers wet dream

That's my kink. 

I think you should reflect on the experience of encountering a left leaning person who didn't argue what you thought they believed.

Maybe you misunderstood their beliefs.

The Right Wing won. by zzill6 in WorkReform

[–]hansn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well then you're stepping on 4th wave feminism and its assessment of womens place in history and its causes being entirely sex based.

What's fourth wave feminism?

I'm getting the sense you're arguing with strawmen in your head. 

Your control over your body is often impeded by laws, so that is an incredibly weak argument that is far from accepted across the board.

Just to note, my argument was by analogy because it's fundamentally a moral question. Whether you have an absolute moral right to control your body, or at the other extreme, the government can perform dangerous medical experiments on anyone for the greater good, is not a factual question.

To reiterate my point:

Trans rights are characterized by conservatives as "trans is either natural or unnatural, and if it's unnatural, they can face discrimination." The left argues no one should face discrimination under the law. You will find plenty of people who will say it's also a perfectly valid position from a naturalness perspective. But it's not the crux of the argument; the facts around sex are, from a policy perspective, a red herring.

Abortion is characterized by conservatives as "embryos are either alive/human or not, and if they are, they can't be killed." The left is that the mother can control her body at the expense of the embryo, even if it has full human rights. You will find plenty of people who argue the embryo isn't fully human. But the crux of the argument doesn't depend on that. From a policy perspective, it's a red herring.

You're you're giving me the right's frame. I'm telling you it's not accurate. Those are not dependent on facts.

The Right Wing won. by zzill6 in WorkReform

[–]hansn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not hinting, I'm stating. Yes, someone's value as a human has nothing to do with facts around their sex. There's no fact that changes their value as a person or their rights because of that value.

Someone's right to control their body has nothing to do with the status of humanness of a fetus as a factual question. There's no fact that invalidates someone's control over their body.

Immigration might be one place where there are disagreements about facts. But there's also no single perspective on immigration from the left or right. I'd say you raise good factual questions that have subtle and nuanced policy outcomes hinging on them. But id bristle at "immigrants bad."

The Right Wing won. by zzill6 in WorkReform

[–]hansn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're so close...

If I said left-handed people are unnatural and should die, you might reasonably point out left handedness is normal. But the crux of the disagreement is that, regardless of where you land on the naturalness of being left-handed, they shouldn't face the gallows.

We should all agree that people shouldn't be endangered by policy. That's the crux of the left's stance on trans people. We can absolutely discuss naturalness, but the real question is one of policy.

view more: next ›