posted by jmogWhen life begins is a scientific issue not an individual subjective issue.
Seems to me that 2020 did a great job of illustrating that scientific issues can quickly become subjective issues when you have multiple scientific viewpoints on something, leading to people auto-gravitating towards whichever one mirrors their personal views on the matter. And when talking about something that is a hot-button issue for many people, it's a guarantee that will be the case.
So, I think I've been terribly negligent in not hearing about this project to go after all of Trump's election lawyers.
The 65 Project
Am I the only one who never heard of this before?
posted by HereticSeems to me that 2020 did a great job of illustrating that scientific issues can quickly become subjective issues when you have multiple scientific viewpoints on something, leading to people auto-gravitating towards whichever one mirrors their personal views on the matter. And when talking about something that is a hot-button issue for many people, it's a guarantee that will be the case.
I wonder just how much of a fiasco this was due to all of the overbearing censorship that shrouded everything. Medical scientists/doctors were being banned outright for offering any criticisms or alternatives for treatment and regular people couldn't even talk about medicines like Ivermectin on FB or Twitter or even about their own conversations with their doctors. I personally couldn't post a brief version of what my mother's doctor advised me concerning her during covid, FB wouldn't let me post it.
All the censorship and blocking of medical information that was called "fighting disinformation/malinformation".
With the State interfering so much, I think it was impossible to know much outside of what big pharma and the State allowed. That was one of the things that the Twitter Files exposed.
posted by jmogWhy can't it?Scientifically when life begins should have a set "date", it can't be arbitrary to what one person (mother) believes, or the current technology.
I admit to still being angry and resentful about all the covid business. My mother died with a nurse holding her hand because myself nor any other family was allowed in the room with her in her final minutes. And she, nor any of us, didn't even have covid!
So yeah, I am not a person who is comfortable or tolerant with govt being so fucking heavy handed in the minutia of our lives.
posted by CenterBHSFanI've been hearing and seeing people bitch about taxpayer money being spent on a bridge instead of the usual insurance claims.
I look at it much differently.
At least taxpayer money is being spent on US soil.
I just want all of the companies that have responsibility for it to pay up to and including liquidation. Then send me a bill for my share of the rest.
posted by queencitybuckeyeI just want all of the companies that have responsibility for it to pay up to and including liquidation. Then send me a bill for my share of the rest.
Understandable and fair enough, imo
posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie22
I'll take the over
posted by CenterBHSFanSo, I think I've been terribly negligent in not hearing about this project to go after all of Trump's election lawyers.
The 65 Project
Am I the only one who never heard of this before?
Sometimes the leftists try to hide their lawfare, political weaponizations, and financial assassinations.
posted by ptown_trojans_1"Enshrine" telling choice of a word when it comes to abortion. So state after state is making the "correct" choice. What is everyone on about here?You can use polling all you want, but state after state is voting to enshrine abortion as an option by more than 52%.
posted by HereticSeems to me that 2020 did a great job of illustrating that scientific issues can quickly become subjective issues when you have multiple scientific viewpoints on something, leading to people auto-gravitating towards whichever one mirrors their personal views on the matter.
Scientific "issues" are never subjective. There may be competing theories and hypotheses, but "subjective" is a media-manufactured narrative where certain theories that support the agenda are promoted as "fact" and "consensus" while competing ideas are SUPPRESSED as "pseudo-science", "conspiracy theory" and "alternative facts".
And, yes, Covid provided numerous examples of all of the above.
Go back 20 years and straight news articles were generally separate from editorials, and were pretty balanced in discussing both sides of an argument's strengths and weaknesses. What passes as straight news today are traditional editorials that skew and slant the facts, and bury counterpoints toward the end of the article. And today's editorials are straight-up propaganda that resort to distortions and strawmen, if they even acknowledge counterpoints at all.
posted by HereticSeems to me that 2020 did a great job of illustrating that scientific issues can quickly become subjective issues when you have multiple scientific viewpoints on something, leading to people auto-gravitating towards whichever one mirrors their personal views on the matter. And when talking about something that is a hot-button issue for many people, it's a guarantee that will be the case.
What you are describing is the most infectious disease known to man. Its killed more people than any other plague combined. No one is immune to it and there is no vaccine. The only treatment for it is reason and logic.
posted by queencitybuckeye
Why can't it?
There is another person involved.
posted by majorsparkThere is another person involved.
With rare exception, not true.
posted by jmogThe government is design, but our founding documents (DoI, Constitution) to instill laws and order that protect things like life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Who else would we setup to protect life? We have laws against murder, laws against even unintentional, but negligent killing (manslaughter), laws that are in place to even protect ourselves from killing ourselves (seat belt laws, etc).
Who else would you prescribe to have laws protecting life once we establish scientifically when life begins?
Ok, fair enough.
So, when should government set the line? When exactly should an abortion be legal and not legal? What week?
How is that determined and who exactly determines it within government?
Where is the line where the government is restricting the rights of the women and forcing them to do what they may not want to do?
It seems like Republicans the last two years are way out is step on this issue as they cannot come up with a good answer to that question. Hence why the abortion measures in states are passing because voters like the option and do not want government totally making the decision for them. People like options, cause the real world is messy.
posted by majorspark
"Enshrine" telling choice of a word when it comes to abortion. So state after state is making the "correct" choice. What is everyone on about here?
People like the option and do not want government restricting them.
posted by queencitybuckeye
Why can't it?
posted by queencitybuckeyeWith rare exception, not true.
Millions believe otherwise. Judgement of an individual in this country is not left to one person. It requires a unanimous decision of many.
Leaving this issue to the smaller forms of government makes sense to me.
posted by majorsparkMillions believe otherwise. Judgement of an individual in this country is not left to one person. It requires a unanimous decision of many.
Leaving this issue to the smaller forms of government makes sense to me.
Agreed.
The problem is that a lot of people feel some sort of need to have everything come from the absolute apex of authority. Not God, but government. Even a government as fuckassed corrupt as ours. I think people just need to have a belief system. Outside of God or government people will search for redemption from anything. A rutabaga, art, animals. People are just wild.
posted by ptown_trojans_1People like the option and do not want government restricting them.
People love government restrictions. Just not for them.
