APP - Do Conservatives lack Freewill

[canceled.2021.1]

While I didnt intend for this thread to go off topic into abortion, it was a great subject for the topic, free will.

I dont know how ILA labels himself but I'm pretty sure it's conservative and from his posts, I see "social conservative."

And he illustrates my initial post in this thread beautifully. He wants society to decide FOR a woman what happens in her body. He wants to remove her free will and wishes to use the state to do so. He sees punitive action...."her consequences" as rightful and wants doctrine (limited doctrine, certainly not all agree with him) to FORCE a woman to do as THEY decide. He does not respect her free will and places the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of an unborn, non-sentient fetus above that of the fully functioning woman in society.

Good thread!

BTW

We have established that you aren't opposed to the government forcing people to do as they decide. So please spare me your feigned indignation

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Yes why can't the little unborn child say "murder me please."? In fact why can't unborn children just make the decision on abortion themselves and text us!

Well you are admitting that it is a child, therefore living and therefore deserving of protection.

Thank you for that

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Also I might suggest Lorca return to the OP and re-read.

 

[Lorca]

I just want to be clear here. It is your contention that the government should not be able to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with or to her body?

Is that what you believe?

The discussion is about free will and re: abortion, about the govt infringing on a woman's right to privacy (per SCOTUS). And placing an unborn fetus's rights for life, liberty, pursuit of happiness above the same rights of the mother.


To be polite and answer your question of 'what I believe,' for the most part I agree. I think suicide and euthanasia should be legal (spare me the self-righteous indignation. Just like with abortion, no one 'wants' those things, they are just difficult choices that sometimes people must make and should have the option to do so.)

I also think drugs should be decriminalized as should prostitution. There's a few off the top of my head. It's not a complete list

I'm sure you have something you intend to "spring on me," lol and there are probably exceptions but that's why I dont believe in zero tolerance....there are always exceptions and they should be examined individually.

 

[Lorca]

BTW

We have established that you aren't opposed to the government forcing people to do as they decide. So please spare me your feigned indignation

Now lets not get off track again....the OP was about social conservatives and the 'social' refers to personal issues. We went over all this, remember?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Now lets not get off track again....the OP was about social conservatives and the 'social' refers to personal issues. We went over all this, remember?

Actually that isn't what the OP was about. That is what you "think" it is about or what you "want" it to be about. But that wasn't what it was about.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

The discussion is about free will and re: abortion, about the govt infringing on a woman's right to privacy (per SCOTUS). And placing an unborn fetus's rights for life, liberty, pursuit of happiness above the same rights of the mother.


To be polite and answer your question of 'what I believe,' for the most part I agree. I think suicide and euthanasia should be legal (spare me the self-righteous indignation. Just like with abortion, no one 'wants' those things, they are just difficult choices that sometimes people must make and should have the option to do so.)

I also think drugs should be decriminalized as should prostitution. There's a few off the top of my head. It's not a complete list

I'm sure you have something you intend to "spring on me," lol and there are probably exceptions but that's why I dont believe in zero tolerance....there are always exceptions and they should be examined individually.

Actually the discussion as started by Midcan was about free will in general and not specific to abortion. As to a right to privacy, that isn't absolute and was not in the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court made up law to comport its will on the American people.

Your claim is that a woman has this inviolable right to do with her body as she wishes. But, apparently you only believe that insofar as it pertains to killing an unborn baby.

For example, does a woman have the right to sell a kidney for money? Should the government interfere? She isn't hurting anyone by doing it. It is her private medical decision. Where do you stand? Today the government prohibits this free will.

As for your other examples, you may be for decriminalizing prostitution, but the government isn't. Why aren't women fighting for their right to be prostitutes? Why isn't NARAL fighting for that free will?

You seem to be singularly focused on killing the unborn which wasn't a subject of the OP. In fact you injected abortion into this discussion

 

[Lorca]

Actually that isn't what the OP was about. That is what you "think" it is about or what you "want" it to be about. But that wasn't what it was about.

Ack! My initial responses were focused on Mid's and the OP....and then here is what took you and I off into 'social' conservatism:

This is laughable. Apparently your worldview about legislating personal choices revolves around abortion and homo's.

You think nothing of the personal choices that lefties legislate. Oh yeah, you are doing it for everyone's own good and you have noble purposes. I forgot

Oh well, that was your opener and our discussion took off from there, LMAO.

 

[Lorca]

Actually the discussion as started by Midcan was about free will in general and not specific to abortion. As to a right to privacy, that isn't absolute and was not in the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court made up law to comport its will on the American people.

Your claim is that a woman has this inviolable right to do with her body as she wishes. But, apparently you only believe that insofar as it pertains to killing an unborn baby.

For example, does a woman have the right to sell a kidney for money? Should the government interfere? She isn't hurting anyone by doing it. It is her private medical decision. Where do you stand? Today the government prohibits this free will.

As for your other examples, you may be for decriminalizing prostitution, but the government isn't. Why aren't women fighting for their right to be prostitutes? Why isn't NARAL fighting for that free will?

You seem to be singularly focused on killing the unborn which wasn't a subject of the OP. In fact you injected abortion into this discussion

Now now, it was a SCOTUS decision....they've made some I dont like also, but it is Constitutional for more than just privacy, as I've pointed out.

I didnt say anything about prosititute activism, I just said I didnt think the govt has the right to tell a woman she cant sell sex.

Re selling a kidney, good example. Sure, let people sell body parts. However it will need to be regulated by the govt & medical community to protect the people purchasing, regarding diseases, sanitary conditions, lots of things (sorry, havent thought it through in depth). And if the govt decriminalized prostitution, they could make that safer too.

(btw, we know none of our rights is inviolable....right? You can get your rights taken away all the time if you break a law.)

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Now now, it was a SCOTUS decision....they've made some I dont like also, but it is Constitutional for more than just privacy, as I've pointed out.

I didnt say anything about prosititute activism, I just said I didnt think the govt has the right to tell a woman she cant sell sex.

Re selling a kidney, good example. Sure, let people sell body parts. However it will need to be regulated by the govt & medical community to protect the people purchasing, regarding diseases, sanitary conditions, lots of things (sorry, havent thought it through in depth). And if the govt decriminalized prostitution, they could make that safer too.

(btw, we know none of our rights is inviolable....right? You can get your rights taken away all the time if you break a law.)

actually you don't understand the US Constitution and its founding. The Founders believe our rights come from God which means they can't be taken away from you.

 

[Lorca]

actually you don't understand the US Constitution and its founding. The Founders believe our rights come from God which means they can't be taken away from you.

First....they may have believed that but they also believed that no one else 'must.' So God should have no influence on our laws. (Of course, he did and does).

Second, if you believe it....God also gave us free will and the 'judgement' is up to him.

Can you or God explain why it's ok to take the fetus's right to life in the case of rape, incest, or to save the mother's life?

Edit: btw, there were prisons and the death penalty back in our govt's infancy and the Founder's time too....so I think they were 'down' with that.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

First....they may have believed that but they also believed that no one else 'must.' So God should have no influence on our laws. (Of course, he did and does).

Second, if you believe it....God also gave us free will and the 'judgement' is up to him.

Can you or God explain why it's ok to take the fetus's right to life in the case of rape, incest, or to save the mother's life?

Well, I don't profess to speak for God. As I said before, I don't support taking the life of a baby under any circumstances including RAPE, INCEST or to save the life of the mother.

 

[Lorca]

Well, I don't profess to speak for God. As I said before, I don't support taking the life of a baby under any circumstances including RAPE, INCEST or to save the life of the mother.

I think that is perfectly fine.

 

[Truth Detector]

That isn't change...that's reverting....going backwards. To some imagined "good old days" that Conservatives have created in their minds and made it their platform.

As opposed to the current good days? What an interesting argument; one that suggests that we should embrace failure and not go back to what has worked.

 

[Truth Detector]

Is it possible to lack freewill: the basic idea that consciousness guides your decisions. I think it is certainly worth our consideration. It may just be that conservatives lack the capacity both genetically and culturally to exhibit freewill. This interplay of genes and culture make them easily susceptible to the influence of ideas that oppose change or revision. Most cognitive processes never reach consciousness, thus if you are conservative, thought would require an awareness you are not capable of. Given the widespread power of their media today, you witness an opposition to change repeated over and over again. No rational discussion is possible when you have the answer already. The final question becomes, are conservatives then a threat to a dynamic, open, democratic society?

See 'The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy' Albert O. Hirschman

I am perplexed that your view of free will is kowtowing to a Socialist ideology that has been a known historic failure and that those who believe in the tenants of our founders and the greatest document of governance known to man as a lack of free will.

How is it that you have such a confused and muddled point of view. I would argue that massive Government that has grown well beyond the part time notion of the founders is anything but a sign of free will, but rather that of a lemming and dependence on the State.

When in history has a massive growth and breadth of State control led to free will and liberty?

 

[Truth Detector]

I believe that God only grants what you are willing to reach out and take. In a society where people increasingly depend upon the state for their food, housing, and education I find it ironic that you accuse those who wish to increase self-reliance as focusing upon an external locus of control.

BRAVO; someone who gets it.

 

[Truth Detector]

Ring the bell and watch em salivate.

True; you can see Democrats do this whenever you see an Obama rally.

 

[Truth Detector]

That could be a valid point, but unions have never been strong in America. Look at the South and consider Walmart as another example. Corporations and the wealthy have always fought unions as they create a balance of power the powerful do not want. (I was in a union in my early days in corporate America and everything in their power was done to destroy union strength.)

"Corporate propaganda directed outwards, that is, to the public at large, has two main objectives: to identify the free enterprise system in popular consciousness with every cherished value, and to identify interventionist governments and strong unions (the only agencies capable of checking a complete domination of society by corporations) with tyranny, oppression and even subversion. The techniques used to achieve these results are variously called 'public relations', 'corporate communications' and 'economic education'." Alex Carey 'Taking the Risk out of Democracy' [see also http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/827 ]

You're an idealist lacking reality. I am amused by the premise that unions can be all things good and collectivism while the corporations trying to keep them out are just greedy Capitalists.

But I too have worked in a Union. The Machinist union to be exact. I was constantly encouraged to slow down my production as it would cause all shifts to have to match my output. This was considered bad by the shop stewards who were more interested in keeping more shifts than the profits of the company.

I also remember seeing union Business Mangers in their $800 dollar suits walking onto my Construction sites intimidating the sub trades working there; and it was not enough that they were card carrying union members, but those from their particular union post.

I remember the difference between construction sites in the Southeast without Union representation and those in New York with them. The projects cost twice as much, took twice as long and had the same quality of workmanship. In some cases, much better in the Southeast.

I also remember job superintendents who refused to be intimidated by Union Business Managers only to find their job sites sabotaged or tires slashed.

These are real world experiences idealists lack. You speak of tyranny yet argue for the greater risk of tyranny in massive Government Growth and "deciders" of what is fair and equal. You argue for free will yet mindlessly parrot the Marxist class envy rhetoric of the DNC.

Liberals are an amusing breed; they argue for Big Government and claim it is good and we should give up our wealth towards it and be thankful for what they allow us to keep; BUT, only if THEIR "deciders" are the ones in charge.

It is an ideology of hypocrisy, deceipt, denial and irony; and here you are talking about free will. Ironic don't you think?

 

[Truth Detector]

Funny....when unions were strong, we had a better standard of living for a lot more of our citizens.

Even non-union employers paid better because they didn't want unions in their establishments....so they were competitive with the union shops.

Now.....that being said, unions got too big for their britches in the 70's. Which brought us Reagan and his union busting tactics.

I believe in unions, but I also believe in fair and open negotiation....from both sides. Transparency is the key. If business is good, the workers should benefit. If business is down, then unions(and their members) need to back off.

That's an interesting claim. While working in the union I felt I was held back and limited to set raises every six months. I didn't start making REAL money until I had left the union, gone back to school getting my degree and working as a professional.

You don't increase the middle class through Union wage rates and work rules; it increases by increasing opportunity and creativity; something Unions discourage. I speak from personal, as well as, academic and historical knowledge and experience.

 

[Truth Detector]

Except for the fact conservatives are repeating a myth, this time about unions, proving my point that their ability to think on their own is missing - we are off topic.

Unions were once bigger in America, they helped make the middle class. That is no longer true with the obvious death of the middle class. The right wing puppets are programmed to think the opposite. Check the numbers in Europe for real union strength.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/22union.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States

"The percentage of workers belonging to a union (or "density") in the United States peaked in 1954 at almost 35% and the total number of union members peaked in 1979 at an estimated 21.0 million. Membership has declined since (currently 14.8 million and 12% of the labor force[2]). Private sector union membership then began a steady decline that continues into the 2010s, but the membership of public sector unions grew steadily (now 37%).[10]
After 1960 public sector unions grew rapidly and secured good wages and high pensions for their members. While manufacturing and farming steadily declined, state- and local-government employment quadrupled from 4 million workers in 1950 to 12 million in 1976 and 16.6 million in 2009.[11] Adding in the 3.7 million federal civilian employees, in 2010 8.4 million government workers were represented by unions,[12] including 31% of federal workers, 35% of state workers and 46% of local workers.[13] As Daniel Disalvo notes, "In today's public sector, good pay, generous benefits, and job security make possible a stable middle-class existence for nearly everyone from janitors to jailors."[14]
By the 1970s, a rapidly increasing flow of imports (such as automobiles and steel from Germany and Japan, and clothing and shoes from Asia) undercut the market share of corporations with high wage rates.[15] Many companies closed or moved factories to Southern states (where unions were weak),[16] or offshore to low-wage countries.[17] or offshore to low-wage countries. The effectiveness of strikes declined sharply. On the political front, the shrinking unions lost influence in the Democratic Party, and pro-Union liberal Republicans faded away.[citation needed] Union membership among workers in private industry shrank dramatically, though after 1970 there was growth in employees unions of federal, state and local governments.[18][19] The intellectual mood in the 1970s and 1980s favored deregulation and free competition.[15] Numerous industries were deregulated, including airlines, trucking, railroads and telephones, over the objections of the unions involved.[20] The climax came when President Ronald Reagan--a former union president in his younger days--broke the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) strike in 1981.[21]
Republicans, using conservative think tanks as idea farms, began to push through legislative blueprints to curb the power of public employee unions as well as eliminate business regulations."

Unions did no such thing; you're the one espousing myths and lacking independent thinking.

But one thing Unions have done to themselves, made their members a thing of the past and replaceable with machines and increased the size, inneficiency and cost of Government.

Yay you?