Eviora

Yeahhh... Caitlyn Jenner's offer fails on so many levels that it's hard to cover all the ways it falls short. For starters, I doubt Cruz feels he needs a trans ambassador any more than he feels he needs an atheist one. He probably views us as abominations, judging by his previous comments. Further, Caitlyn is spectacularly unqualified to be a trans ambassador. Specifically because she is conservative, she's extremely unrepresentative of the trans community. She's a champion of "throw others under the bus" logic that doesn't even make sense. (Case in point: She opposes same sex marriage because she deems herself a "traditionalist." Because transitioning is totally an age old tradition.) Also, unlike most trans people, she's rich. She doesn't seem particularly sympathetic to the plight of those who find it hard to find work due to discrimination. Literally the only thing she has going for her over any other trans person is fame. If that's how people choose their representatives in this country, we'll end up with Trump for sure. So, no, I don't think Cruz should make her his "trans ambassador". If he actually wanted one, there would be many, many better choices. I don't think you're owning all of your positions to the extent you should be. Example: Ted Cruz's willful ignorance on the subject of global warming could contribute to the deaths of billions, not merely make us look bad. You also ignore a lot of lives that are at stake, such as those of the people who would be geographically close to members of ISIS when he "carpet bombs" them. You also ignore a lot of the downsides of rampant capitalism and brush off the benefits of higher taxes. You don't have to look far to find a bunch of conservatives who are grateful they had access to Obamacare. Do you truly own the deaths of those who die because they couldn't afford healthcare without placing a staggering burden on their families as solemnly as if they were your own call? Are you so confident in your capitalistic ideology that you don't mind sinking a few million more people below the poverty line in pursuit of it? I believe a certain governor of Louisiana tried that recently and it didn't go so well. You could try to replicate the experiment on a national level, but, well... you're gonna have a bad time.

I would probably tie "being human" in with cognitive ability somehow, but I'm no expert on the science, so I don't know the specifics. I do know that really late abortion doesn't sit super well with me. More importantly, once a baby has, in fact, been born, the argument that they're infringing on the mother's right to her body vanishes. if the baby is already born, there are better ways to get rid of it if you really don't want it. it's silly to talk about potential humans, though. I mean, instead of arguing with me on the internet, you could be out procreating right now. Think of all the potential lives you "cancelled" just by not being a breeding machine! I don't think anyone would be silly enough to call your failure to do so murder. Within the framework of the not-yet-human viewpoint, nothing changes just because there's a fetus associated with the would-be human. It's true that taxes associated with Global Warming regulations can cause financial/energy difficulties for people, but if you are truly going for the "greater good", it's hard not to acknowledge that those hardships pale in comparison to potential disasters that could eventually claim billions of lives. Failure to act now could have permanent repercussions for not just humans, but life in general. That seems like more than enough to overshadow abortion, LGBT rights, taxes, ISIS, and income inequality all combined. As for solidarity... I'll believe it from Trump when I see it. Romney certainly just today sent the opposite message, and Rubio was recently blasting Trump in an incredibly juvenile manner. So far, the establishment has done an outstanding job of making Trump, the man with a commanding lead for his party's nomination, come off as the underdog. In this election, that makes him more likable. We'll see if that vow of unity holds over the next week, as several states where Trump is projected to win overwhelming hold their primaries. As an aside, I do believe I'm the only one here to explicitly own the results of the policies of a candidate they intend to vote for. At this point, I'm not expecting anyone else to join me. Oh well.

What you are assuming is that the fetus itself is a human, not that it will result in a human if left alone. We all know that would happen. The question is essentially "what makes an organism a human?" Your answer probably has something to do with souls. Not everyone believes in those. As far as death goes, I do support opt-in euthanasia. I don't expect many people to agree with me on that front, but it seems to me that any adult ought to be able to make that choice if they deem it best. That doesn't mean we shouldn't care whether people want to die or not. Obviously, I'd prefer for people to be happy. That's not always possible. It's easy for you to sit there as an outsider and talk about how people should carry on despite however bad things are, but it's certainly not helpful. You can call the suicidal weak, cowards, whatever you want. I would imagine those comments would be less likely to dissuade them than the opposite. If you truly want to help such people, I recommend less judgment and more compassion. No one is claiming a mother has the right to kill her baby. Many liberals believe she has the right to remove a fetus from her body - which, yes, kills it. But by labeling the fetus as a baby, you're again trying to sneak in the assumption that the fetuses are already human. You can try to brush off global warming if you want, but even if you count would-be aborted fetuses (he'll make little progress there anyway), your confidence that Cruz is saving more lives than he's endangering is completely unfounded in light of it. Enough so that it makes me question whether you actually care about saving lives and not just conservative ideology. If there's a phenomenon that could ever plausibly cause global catastrophes, it seems like addressing it should be pretty high up on the priority totem pole for those who care about human lives. Fortunately, it's looking more and more like this election is becoming a choice between "embrace Trump" and "pave the way for Hillary" on the conservative side. At this point, I think Trump has plenty of reason to defect if he doesn't get the nomination for any reason, and he's just the man to do it. Although my optimism about people gets proven unjustified again and again, I'll just hope there are enough conservatives who realize the damage Trump would deal their party that he won't win the general election. =p

I don't think you can prove "human fetuses" are human without making an assumption that directly implies the conclusion. =p (A condescending hashtag isn't proof.) But, regardless of pedantic arguments about what it means to be human, the question of who would care for those children remains. I think far fewer conservatives would be willing to take up that responsibility than are willing to protest loudly. The quality of a life does matter, not just the life itself, as does the mother's rights. But this argument is old and tired. Even if abortion is unequivocally wrong, I am willing to acknowledge my share of the responsibility for legislation passed by the pro-choice candidates I vote for. Do you do the same for the candidates you vote for and what they may do to people you care about? Could you look LGBT people you care about in the eyes and say, "I would sacrifice you for 'the greater good?'" By the way, the candidates' positions on contentious topics seems pretty relevant to the primaries to me. I don't know where you stand on Global Warming, but if you acknowledge it I wonder how you deal with Cruz's refusal to do so, and the irreparable damage he could do in his ignorance.

The supreme court didn't write legislature. And the belief that the Constitution should be interpreted strictly based on the written word is most certainly part of an ideology. My ideology is worth no lives at all - at least, none that are indisputably human.I do value human life more than other life, I'm afraid. That said, I would prefer to avoid inflicting a painful death on any create - or, even worse, a painful life. By the way, that goes for myself, too - I'd rather die than live in misery. Strictly speaking, my metric for morality is human well-being rather than life for the sake of life. While I *do* think it's wrong for people to be having abortions all willy-nilly when they could have used protection, sometimes things go wrong, and I think it's far more harmful to bring a child into the world only to neglect them or worse. In terms of law, the reality is that people who really don't want children can find ways to be rid of them whether abortion is legal or not. Better for the deed to be done by a professional who can ensure minimal suffering. To the extent that some suffer anyway... well, that's on me to the same extent that it's on Hillary, or whomever I vote for who would be supporting pro-choice legislation. On the flip side, conservatives who oppose abortion are responsible for the pain endured by mothers and by children abandoned because they were not wanted. Abortion is an issue I can empathize with conservatives on, even if I disagree. Regardless of which path you choose, you end up with a lot of weight on your shoulders. Discrimination is not nearly as difficult a topic, especially in the case of same-sex marriage. Allowing two men or two women to be married doesn't hurt anyone at all as far as I can see. You can try to bring your religion into the issue, but really, I can make up all sorts of religions that would require me to do things I'm not allowed to do. if you're religious, it's your own job to see to it that you fulfill your "divine mandate" or whatever. The government doesn't have to make it legal if it hurts someone else. Incidentally, Jericho, you still haven't answered my question. I hope you don't decide to close the topic or something just to avoid it. =p

Sure the Supreme Court had the right to make that decision. Take a particular man. Allowing women to marry him but not allowing men to is sexism. I believe a conservative judge was the deciding vote. Especially on these social issues, conservatives are overturned again and again because they are morally wrong. That sort of discrimination is painted as heinous because it is. As a society, we are starting to realize this. Cruz might be able to put a bump in the road, but the trend will continue nonetheless. He would just be messing up thousands of lives along the way. How pointless. But you didn't answer my questions, Jericho. How many lives is your ideology worth?

How many lives is an ideology worth? We're not just talking about Cruz overturning the recent marriage equality decision. He could spread discrimination into many aspects of life in this country, and particularly could make life a living hell for a lot of transgender people, who don't yet have many of the protections extended to the LGB community. And before you claim that's far-fetched, let me remind you that he spoke at a conference held by a pastor who believes gay people should be killed. If the man you voted for pushes laws that lead to suicides or worse, will you try to wash your hands of it and say "Not my problem?" Or will you own your role in those deaths? Is doing so really a lesser evil than electing a selfish woman who will support some socialistic legislation you disagree with? I fully expect people to be upset with me for making this dark. But I'm not sorry. Follow your positions all the way to their plausible logical conclusions, even if you don't like them.

My "leave the country" candidate would be Cruz. He comes off as a complete zealot and if I think he'd do what he could to ruin the lives of LGBT people. Trump would similarly try to mess up the others of some other demographics. What I will say is that, if you vote for either of them, you're squarely responsible for whatever harm they bring to your friends and family. Hillary may be a complete liar, but at least she's just in it for herself, not trying to smite some of her own citizens.

My prediction is that Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, Trump the Republican one. Then Trump is betrayed due to establishment shenanigans, thereby handing the presidency to Hillary.

Rubio is toast. No idea how close Cruz is to Trump in terms of delegates, but I imagine he's in significant peril despite his victories. Sadly, Bernie's in quite a pinch, too. =( Let's hope Hillary shapes up a bit, 'cause she's in serious danger of being Trumped this fall. Out of curiosity, would you conservatives actually vote for Trump over Hillary? Anyway, here's to hoping the establishment Republicans try to snub Trump as much as possible and cause him to go rogue. It would be so kind of him to split the party in two in November.

I doubt it matters. Based on my experiences with people, I find that far more are swayed by irrational things than are by logic. This is a nifty little video I ran into the other day that has something to say about the whole Trump debacle.

http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/marco-rubio http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/donald-trump-opposes-nationwide-marriage-equality Neither of them are good, but Trump is more ambiguous on LGBT rights issues. While I certainly agree that walls and deportations are undesirable, like I said, I'm basically thinking in pure self defense mode with regards to this election. I hate having to think that way (Not that it matters, 'cause I won't be voting for a Republican on any level regardless) but that's the sort of awful situation discrimination puts people in.

Unfortunately, I do want Trump to win the nomination at this point, for two reasons. 1. I think Democrats will rally around whichever of their candidates wins the primary to beat him in an election. If nothing else, Trump has become recognizable - he would be a lightning rod for drawing out those who would vote against him. 2. Sad to say, but I think his other two realistic opponents would be worse presidents than he would. Cruz is the worst kind of extremist, and even Rubio seems incapable of keeping his religious beliefs out of politics. 'Fraid that puts me in just plain self defense mode when it comes to Republican candidates.

Well, Trump is looking more and more inevitable as the Republican nominee by the week. Poor Jebby - I almost feel sorry for the guy. I predict that the cynicism will be strong with this country this year~

I think you're jumping to conclusions on the Hillary thing despite being a supporter of Bernie. (I'm quite happy he won, though!)

Hmm... well, being able to focus on the task at hand and enjoy it was nice. These days I always have way too much on my mind to have much fun.

Huh. Well, I certainly agree that those unwilling to fight for their freedom are more likely to lose it. But I'm not entirely sure if you're using "deserve" just to highlight that likelihood, or whether you would actually elect for people too cowardly to defend themselves to not be free in an ideal world. I'm probably coming off as pedantic - probably because I am pedantic - but the distinction seems quite critical to me. Either way, to clarify, are you saying a conscientious objector doesn't deserve to be free?

The bold is mine, of course.

It seems to me that "deserve" entails some element of the ideal. You don't say someone deserves to die of a terminal disease just because they contracted one. They're more likely to, sure, but they don't deserve it.

That's beside the point. Is life an essential freedom? Why do people who are too weak (physically or emotionally) to fight for their freedom DESERVE to be ruled by a dictator? Who are you to determine that, and what criteria did you use?

Well, unless you disagree that life is an essential liberty, at worst it just doesn't describe the situation. Edit: @Kurotsune What then? Jump in the ocean and drown myself? (I actually would prefer that to being drafted...) Go to another country that would try to force their draft on me? None of these countries have any real right to drive anyone off their land. Their "ownership" of their territory is a matter of point their guns at those who say otherwise. Might. Does. Not. Make. Right.

Sure, civilian forces have won wars throughout history. But these days, technology plays a much larger role that it once did, and we're talking about a scenario where nukes would be flying. We would barely matter at all in the face of that sort of power. Drafts are a violation of the very freedom we pride ourselves in. Yes, the people have some say in the government's policies, but there are certain rights we hold inalienable - for instance, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Drafts would have some people sacrifice all three of those - especially appalling if we've already lost and you just want a token last stand. You talk about bargains, but frankly, I never agreed to anything like what you describe. I was just born. That's not a contract. To force me to fight in your country's war is to prove yourself every bit as authoritarian as whatever invader you want to fend off. If individual human rights are trumped by the edict of the masses, then no one is free at all.

You... do realize that quote supports my opinion, right?

Whether I would want to rescue others or not is actually completely irrelevant. The point is that people should be free to choose for themselves, not be coerced into a particular course of action. I understand that we're talking about quite dire circumstances. You're giving me a very clear picture of what you would want to do in the scenario you outlined. But in such dire circumstances, would the efforts of scarcely trained civilians even matter? if some power is beating our colossal army, all our allies, and the nukes we'd almost certainly have deployed in such a desperate situation, what on earth makes you think throwing a few million more people at the enemy would help? And, in that desperate situation, would you prefer to have police officers arresting harmless non-combatants or fighting that overwhelming foe? No, such a conflict would plunge the world into complete chaos. That scenario scarcely even matters. However, all this drafting legislation leaves us open to being enlisted over more frivolous matters. You may think there won't ever be a draft for an offensive war again, but you don't know that. As long as the possibility is open, the draft is a tool waiting to be abused. As for that last bit, it's just backwards. The government isn't some benevolent entity granting us our rights from on high, it's a tool created by the people of the country to serve those people in protecting the rights they claim for themselves. You're not allowed to commit crimes because (assuming those crimes violate fair laws) doing so is an infringement on the freedom of someone else. "The country" has exactly as much right to occupy this land as I do; it just has more weapons to bully people with. Of course the government claims you owe it your allegiance, but that is just conceit, an abuse of power. I'll say it again: Might does not make right.

If my whole city was on fire I think I'd want to rescue its inhabitants and get out. It seems rather silly to endanger all those lives to cling to infrastructure that will end up charred to a shell even if we do extinguish the fire. I find it funny that you say my ideal lacks compromise, but it is you who advocate for forcing tons of people to take the action you deem most prudent in the event of a crisis. Let me put a question to you: How, exactly, do you define freedom? Is freedom really freedom when you're forced to serve a certain entity to keep it?