kalm wrote:Chizzang wrote:
MY point:
Which I made poorly was the willingness with which the "regular old Conservative" surrendered the party over to the hands of the nut balls... (to get votes maybe?)
Each Party is only as Reasonable and Common Sense as it's looses bolts and wildest canons
Which is why Obama has been in my opinion a disaster
Not monitoring your zinc intake enough =/= doing methJohnStOnge wrote:That is a very tough one but I basically come down on the "yes" side. If you start worrying about what women do when pregnant that might damage the developing unborn you are going into a very wide area. For example: A woman who does not get enough sleep can do harm to the unborn. A woman who does not eat a healthy diet. A woman who does not ingest enough folic acid. So on and so forth.I wonder if JSO is okay with women doing meth or other drugs while pregnant...you know, as long as they don't intend to do harm.
I would stick to the "intent to do harm" standard.
The point is that if you accept the general premise that government has the right to step in if a woman acts in a way that can damage the development of her unborn progeny you have accepted the idea that government, as the final authority, could do something like make an issue of something like folic acid intake or the diet of the pregnant woman. You have accepted the premise that it's up to government to regulate the behavior of a pregnant woman even if what she's doing has nothing to do with an intention to harm her progeny. There is no clear, distinct line that can be drawn.Not monitoring your zinc intake enough =/= doing meth
Given how the old guard in Congress has regularly caved to the democrats over the last two years (and even recently in spite of majorities) regardless of the efforts of the Cruzes and the rest- I'd say the nutballs dont have quite as much control as you thinkChizzang wrote:MY point:CID1990 wrote:
You're falling into the trap of thinking the Tea Party is monolithic and representative of conservatives as a whole. Congrats to the media for a successful campaign on that.
Remember- depending on who you talk to- both you and I are foamy mouthed Tea Partiers because we would be considered fiscal conservatives. I agree with the fiscal platform. I am not threatened by the whacko religious side because I know they have ZERO chance of making substantial changes to their pet issues.
But yeah, "Tea Party" writ large has a bad image issue
Which I made poorly was the willingness with which the "regular old Conservative" surrendered the party over to the hands of the nut balls... (to get votes maybe?)
Each Party is only as Reasonable and Common Sense as it's looses bolts and wildest canons
Which is why Obama has been in my opinion a disaster
There is no distinctive line because it's not black-and-white, just like almost everything else in life. You're basically saying they have to regulative everything, or nothing and turn it over to people's common sense. But you can't do that because people are too stupid to not do harm to themselves or their loved ones. See motorcycle helmets, vaccines, seatbelts, and now faith healing apparently. Things on the far end of the spectrum that they should controlJohnStOnge wrote:The point is that if you accept the general premise that government has the right to step in if a woman acts in a way that can damage the development of her unborn progeny you have accepted the idea that government, as the final authority, could do something like make an issue of something like folic acid intake or the diet of the pregnant woman. You have accepted the premise that it's up to government to regulate the behavior of a pregnant woman even if what she's doing has nothing to do with an intention to harm her progeny. There is no clear, distinct line that can be drawn.Not monitoring your zinc intake enough =/= doing meth
On the other hand, it's very easy to draw a clear, distinct line based on intent to do harm.
What I suggested is indeed black and white. Either someone intends to do harm or they don't. It's a very clear dichotomy.There is no distinctive line because it's not black-and-white,
That's called smart, John.JohnStOnge wrote:What I suggested is indeed black and white. Either someone intends to do harm or they don't. It's a very clear dichotomy.There is no distinctive line because it's not black-and-white,
I think black and white, distinct lines can be drawn a lot more often than a lot of people like to think. Saying there is not black and white is a good way to weasel out of consistently proceeding according to principle. So it's a pretty common excuse.
Just about any situation can, if one desires, be rendered into a "categorical" scenario where everything fits into exactly one category and no other categories. It's just that people don't like to be penned down into doing that.
If what you're talking about is saying there isn't Black and White because you want to be able to weasel is smart: No, ti's not. It's just being a weasel.That's called smart, John.
Black and white is lazy thinking, John, and not very smart at all.JohnStOnge wrote:If what you're talking about is saying there isn't Black and White because you want to be able to weasel is smart: No, ti's not. It's just being a weasel.That's called smart, John.
Black and White exists. It exists a lot. It exists a lot more than most people are willing to admit because most people want to be able to weasel.
I completely disagree. I think the tendency to say "there is grey" is lazy thinking. If you put a little effort into it you can render just about any situation into black and white. And you can do that even if the black and white involves uncertainty (i.e., I'm 95% confident that X is true is still a black and white statement). The "lazy" is associated with not wanting to do that. The tendency to want to claim "grayness" is just weaseling.Black and white is lazy thinking, John, and not very smart at all.
And I completely disagree as well. We all create our own realities and write our own narratives. The trick comes when you have to work with others and arrive at a consensus. Black and white thinkers are the ones who cause most of the problems in the world.JohnStOnge wrote:I completely disagree. I think the tendency to say "there is grey" is lazy thinking. If you put a little effort into it you can render just about any situation into black and white. And you can do that even if the black and white involves uncertainty (i.e., I'm 95% confident that X is true is still a black and white statement). The "lazy" is associated with not wanting to do that. The tendency to want to claim "grayness" is just weaseling.Black and white is lazy thinking, John, and not very smart at all.
