A Hypothetical Choice

[deignan]

Poll question: A Hypothetical Choice

The replies to Reforming the Party to Win, indicate that there is a fundamental issue of principle that needs to be broached. Is there a pragmatic solution to this principled dilemma? I need your help on this so I am proposing the following hypothetical:

If you could have your preference between the following, which would you choose (knowing with certainty that you would get what you prefer):

A. - A governing democrat majority for the next 20 years
- Full and universal health care for children (to 17 yrs) and mothers (conception to term + 1 yr)
- Mandated compensation to rape victims over any other compensation at $100 day through term +3mo. for delivery.
- Stringent and enforced federal and state laws against deadbeats.
- Free birth control and pregnancy/wellness checks for women nationally.
- Choice up to 4-5 weeks (paid by individual or charity) and restricted thereafter except in case of physical threat to mother's life (if delivery not possible) or other such medical necessity (not emotional well being, etc.).


B. Status Quo






Thanks, I know this is a tough one

[Feathered Fish]

1. Choice up to 4-5 weeks?

A lot of women abort at 10-12 weeks. I'd extend that last point, if I was responsible for it.

[deignan]

2. The crux of the issue

I had to consider the time period very carefully in posing the hypothetical. There is a distinct proposition that I am testing here.

It is a tough decision at hand.

[Warpy]

130. you considered everything but anatomy

and the reproductive process.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lukasahero]

3. Agree on questioning the time limit

Is it possible that some women might not even know they were pregnant within that time frame? (I don't know, I'm asking.)

[deignan]

4. A good point

Yes, that was a critical consideration and the reason I explicitly included the wellness/pregnency check and free birth control options.

(So as well as possible, women would be able to know and control -- for just this time being, let's assume that 100% effective birth control is available).

Let's also assume that should for any reason these benefits not be provided in a timely manner that there would be recourse to the law and the award of adequate monetary damages (just to cover other possibilities).

[ihaveaquestion]

7. The Democratic majority would extend this to 10-12 wks. eom

[deignan]

8. Undoubtedly

However, I must focus the question to one that cuts cleanly into the national electorate at large.


There is a line of division that this question shoots for (a principled position that stands on its own -- not a shifting sand compromise but one that if articulated might attract a lasting majority). However, to get there we need to survey the possibilities within the party. It might be politically impossible in the present structure -- I just don't know.

What I do know is that the question has not been posed like this before so we don't know the answer. (And if the party leaders knew the answer, then why didn't they win? What purpose does losing serve?)


I will wait until after the results are in to articulate that principled position. If the votes don't support the one I have in mind, we need to know that it is not feasible.

[lukasahero]

12. I don't think you can "articulate a principled position"

without considering the points made below or with the caveats you suggest in the original post as well all the follow ups.

I assumed you were looking for a rough feel for how we prioritized some things but you can't then formulate a position based on unrealiztic qualifiers - "assume for purposes of this poll that x is true". That's fine for a hypothetical discussion but it is NOT fine for developing a sense of platform, policy or party positioning.

Sorry, change my vote to B - STRONG B.

[deignan]

15. OK

I added my vote as 'Strong B' to cover your wish. Now, you understand my points to lwfern I hope?

For the record, what were you before (it seems that it is not possible to change votes, so I will need to substract this from the results)?

[lukasahero]

34. I originally voted A

I understand your points but you are saying here you want to try and formulate some sort of position we can "agree on " based on a series of hypothetical "let's pretend we live in a perfect world" qualifiers. While that's all well and good for the purposes of discussion, I don't think it's appropriate for purposes of trying to promote a platform.

Yes, if we lived in a perfect world and no one ever got pregnant from rape or incest and all birth control was free and it all was 100% effective and all women had access to healthcare and birth control and weren't too supressed or scared to utilize that right, then I might be willing to discuss a limitation on the timing of abortion rights. But that's hardly a paragraph to base a "national" platform on.

[deignan]

37. Not really a position

I'm not really concerned about a position as much as I am with estimating constraints.

The question is about the possible existence of a solution. Necessarily the proposition must take some form to be proposed, but no one should be too attached to it at this point. The important thing is to get an appreciation of the opposition to change and the reason for the concern. On that account, we are doing very well.

[grace0418]

121. A lot of women don't even know at 4-5 weeks

especially if it's unplanned.

[spooked911]

5. is this a trick question?

why would anyone choose B?

[deignan]

6. No Trick

B is the course we are presently on (by definition). There are strong feelings at stake. This is no trick.

I will present a formulated proposition based on whatever the results show. So, if someone is for B, they should weigh in just as those for A.

Again, if you are for B, please do register your vote. If the proposition just will not sit with you as it is, we need to hear from you.

Thanks!

[noamnety]

9. B

1. At 4-5 weeks, a person often does NOT know they are pregnant. A woman I spoke with yesterday, in fact, told me that when she got pregnant, she had her period (spotting?) at the normal time despite being pregnant, so she had no reason at all to have a clue. Those who least want to be pregnant are often in denial at that stage; they wouldn't be out buying pregnancy tests. And those who do know would be forced into snap decisions because of the deadline, instead of having time to think their options through. At some point, I'd like to think people that propose stuff like this would be able to grasp the concept that laws like that (that have the pretense of allowing abortions while removing any practical approaches) do not eliminate abortions, it just shifts people to unsafe or unsupervised methods. That's a policy that relies on the republican head-in-the-sand approach to life, not a reality based vision.

2. $100 a day for a year to force a rape victim to carry a baby she doesn't want? My first instinct is to ask if you are crazy, but since that doesn't add to the dialogue, I'm going to point out that she's likely going to lose her job in that scenario, because she's going to be too traumatized by that to hold it together - or because she's too sick from the pregnancy to work. (speaking as someone who's watched the consequences of rape from the sidelines, and as someone who DID have to quit because my pregnancy put my in the hospital for weeks.) And her job is quite possibly paying her something comparable to that to begin with. So you're removing the option of continuing working at her permanent job with spending 24 hours a day being sick and not being able to escape what happened, not even for a second, for $4.00 an hour that comes with no retirement benefits, that screws you over in terms of seniority at your old job, and leaves you having to go on new interviews and explaining why you were out of work for a year. Hi, I'm here for a job interview, hey, by the way, I was raped. Please hire me.

3. Back to that traumatizing issue - one of the problems police have had over the years with rape victims is that every instinct in their body is to wash away the evidence as quickly as possible, kind of like people who are afraid of spiders - if one gets on them, they freak out and start yelling "get it off me! get it off me!" If I were raped, I would have that feeling. If I had to have part of the rapist inside me for 9 months, I would likely go crazy. Not like a little unhappy, I can see myself going over the edge, killing the baby when it's born, or killing myself beforehand. I view that as torture, to be honest. So I can't bring myself to vote for that option, the torture/prostituting yourself to the government for a year option.

4. Stringent and enforced laws against deadbeats is an empty phrase. You can't force a man to work. And you can't get the money from an unemployed man. You can throw them in prison, but that doesn't help the mother, all that does is reduce his chances in the future of being able to get a job and pay.

[deignan]

10. Consider the possibilities -- no commitment here

Is there a way for a woman to be informed/control her status in a responsible and timely manner? If she decides to be sexually active, then birth control is the choice -- free and available. In the case of rape, then she would report it within a week (this seems reasonable). Extraordinary circumstances beyond her will/awareness -- then someone is liable for monetary damages. Of course, awareness is a choice that is part of this calculation.

Again, for the time being assume that we can make a perfect law here (this is just for the sake of judging possibilities, not for dealing with practical difficulties). It does not commit you to supporting a proposition that may be flawed if implemented imperfectly. I would like you to relieve yourself of the errors of others in your opinion. However, if 4-5 weeks is simply not enough, then B (or strong B) is the choice that is right.

The point is to see if the core values at hand are possible to reconcile within the party. No sense in losing by default through lack of effort.

Also, thanks -- your concerns are absolutely critical to this poll. We need to know what are the sticking points. The information is your reply is an essential for the analysis of the poll results.

[noamnety]

11. You're asking me to ignore the practical ramifications?

I don't know how to respond to that.

You're asking my opinion on hypothetical laws that ignore all aspects of reality. How can I do that?

Assume there's a way for a woman to know within 4 weeks that she's pregnant, and that she can make a snap decision about something so major?

Assume birth control is 100% effective, never fails?

Assume that a woman who has consentual sex would not claim rape when she is given financial incentive to do so?

Assume we can make laws requiring deadbeats to earn a living wage?

Should I also assume that the rape victim won't have long term mental health issues from this? That she will - unlike lots of rape victims - have a normal appetite afterwards and not be on antidepressants, so her baby will be born healthy and well nourished? Should I assume that if she loses her job, she will immediately be offered a comparable one at the end of her ordeal?

How can I judge core values in any meaningful kind of way, when they are based on untruths?

May as well ask me if I support gay marriage assuming that it destroys traditional marriage. Or how about we just make a law that birth control will be 100% effective?

I'm at a loss to see how ranking unworkable solutions is constructive for the party.

[deignan]

13. That's right

This is only an exploration of possibility. It is not actually a policy proposition.


The point is to test if there is a reconcilable principle that can be articulated for a reformed party that then can go on and win elections. So if there is a principle (not a want/fear/desire/matter of practicality) that strikes to the heart of a shared consensus, we need to find that principle(s). If it is impossible, then we need to know that as well.

In this issue, the fear is high, emotions run deep, and it has become so politically charged that it is possible that what we all really want is obscured by superficial political considerations. A principle, clearly articulated, cuts through this. There may be a solution that wins.



Look at this as an exercise in testing the feasibility of keeping the existing constituency while breaking out of a suboptimal strategy for a more universally optimal political solution.

[noamnety]

14. It's not an exploration of POSSIBILITY

It's an exploration of lies, misrepresentations, and impossibilities (assume birth control is 100% effective?).

There is no "reconcilable principle" to be found in this if we have to accept lies as truths to get to it.

[deignan]

16. Trust me -- here's the point (we are on record)

We are documented as stating such plainly.


You see, there is something that I noticed from my study of political affiliation -- it is that the core constituency of liberal/progressives are feeling. This is problematic as it is difficult for feeling people to settle on discrete issues (just such as these practical considerations) and feel safe and secure about them. However, feeling people can "know" if something is "right" or not -- very well.

This is where this proposition comes in. You see, my assumption is that feeling people do not settle on a feeling that is inherently bad in any serious respect. We all want to feel good about ourselves. You must have noticed how viscerally bad you felt after the election? Didn't we all know in our heart of hearts that if we just were able to get through to others, that they too would agree with us? So why the loss?

The problem is that the party is trapped in a suboptimal position where principles are at odds with each other on the level of practicality. This scares others away when they see the policy and not the person/core principle. The solution is to align policy with principle and to do that we need to get to the core (if there is a core).

[noamnety]

18. Well, I read that several times

and I'm not sure if I'm too dense to get it, or if you're talking around the issue.

What I got from it (and I'm sure it's not your intention, but it's the only way I'm able to read it) is that liberals make decisions based on feelings, not logic, so we don't need to be so reality-based or logical.

Now I know that's not right. So maybe you mean something other than "liberals are feeling" - they have compassion, but also they have the ability to use critical thinking. It's not one or the other, and I find the label "they are feeling" slightly objectionable, as if the implication is that liberals are feelers, and conservatives are thinkers.

I don't agree that we are trapped in a place where our principles are at odds with practicality. I believe just the opposite. And this topic - perhaps more than any other - proves it. Republicans oppose abortion rights, but their policies result in more abortions. There is your disconnect witih principles and practicality.

Democrats/liberals, on the other hand, view abortion as undesirable (in a practical sense, it is the most traumatic way, even just physically, to avoid giving birth), but they support the option because practicallly we know that sometimes an unwanted pregnancy occurs. And they support policies that have the real and proven effect of reducing abortions (education, access, social support systems, living wages). No disconnect between principles and practicality.

What I see is we have values or principles (we don't "support" abortion; we do support choice) and we have practical reality based ways to accomplish our goals (reducing the need for abortions, retaining the woman's power to make her own choices).

What I don't see is our politicians and pundits consistently framing the issue properly. They are afraid to talk about it, because they perceive it as a wedge issue, and the result is that the republicans have been allowed free reign to frame it as they wish.


As for the poll itself here, I almost regret voting at all in it. It's like one of those CNN polls where the options are A: Bush won because he's more honest, or B: Bush won because he's smarter. Where is my reality based option C? The one that says democrats get in control, we provide health care and birth control, and better economic policies, and in return the abortion rate goes back down like it did under Clinton, but no woman is enslaved into pregnancy against her will if an accident happens?

[deignan]

20. Sure

There is the possibility that the last three elections were just a big misunderstanding/fluke/conspiracy whatever. Maybe the winds of fortune will turn around. Just remember, there was a time when it wasn't even close.


Now, none of these issues you mention are a core value. Issues are not values, they are expressions of a collection of values run through a political calculus. I am questioning that calculus. We should all pause and reevaluate after each election -- make sure things are on track and the fundamentals are sound. That's all we are doing here. This is the place for it. Question orthodoxy.

The problem is that getting to the nub of the principles is much more difficult for feeling people. The sentiments are deep and the expression is diffuse. You see a painting and you feel that it is a masterpiece or a dude without even knowing the artist. Can you articulate exactly what it is about that painting that makes it so great (or bad)? It's difficult even for experts to agree. They have to analyze the painting abstractly -- and then they see it.

There is a possibility, however, that there can be no agreement. It might be that when we get down to it, we simply need to part ways or yield to the winds of fortune. It is also possible that this is worth some mental effort and all we need is the right expression. It is also possible that things are fine as they are -- its just that I am an empiricist so I am not so sure of the last possibility.

[noamnety]

24. unfortunate analogy

"You see a painting and you feel that it is a masterpiece or a dud without even knowing the artist. Can you articulate exactly what it is about that painting that makes it so great (or bad)?"

Yes, I can. I'm an art teacher. :)

And it's a skill I try to teach my students as well, because during a critique, you cannot simply say "that's crap" or "I love it." It's not constructive. It doesn't matter whether the students are in high school or in 1st grade; I've taught both. And at both levels, they are capable of critical thinking, and articulating the emotion the picture evokes, how the colors influence the emotion, how the composition is balanced or unbalanced, busy or serene, whether lighting is realistic, and so on. When I taught the first graders, I used the same format for critiques as my college prof used in our classes, and while I adjusted it slightly, it was not above their heads. They ALL got it.

Anyone over the age of 5 of reasonable intelligence that looks at a painting and CAN'T articulate something meaningful about it either is not capable of critical thinking, or hasn't gotten the right training. And any art teacher that isn't teaching that skill is doing their kids a disservice, because they are losing a valuable opportunity to teach not only how to mix paint, but also how to carry on productive discourse. Likewise, any politician who encourages people not to engage in discourse, but to blindly accept policies or choices based on feelings without questioning the ramifications is doing a disservice to the public.

On this issue, a person who believes we need to even consider outlawing abortions based on faulty premises is underestimating our background knowledge and our ability to be critical thinkers.

[deignan]

25. Analogy

Is based on information content as the example used in the information model post at: www.info-theory.blogspot.com


Of course we can articulate something meaningful about a painting. The perceptions may be agreed upon, but not always without some disagreement or differences, nuances etc. Otherwise, it would not be art -- it would be science. It is difficult to discretize art unlike the words that I am typing (English words defined by a dictionary). You see, the point is that there is meaning. As you say, a coherent meaning exists. I am relying on that idea here.


The previous reply has to do with understanding us -- it is not concerned with the issue at hand per se. Your opinion is all that matters here. As long as your feeling is coherent with your vote, you are right.

[noamnety]

26. my feeling is not consistent with my vote

if that's what you mean.

Why should I chose between the status quo (republicans in charge) and an option of republican-lites?

My feeling with both options is disgust, because they are both based on misleading people to gain power. Bah. I want to change my vote to neither.

[deignan]

29. B=not A?

We will also understand B as 'not A' OK?

Does this proper then?

[iverglas]

35. join the club ;)

"I want to change my vote to neither."

But I'm entertaining (see post 27) the possibility that this is genuinely an exploratory exercise. Which way do we (if I may be so presumptuous) move from Option B, the status quo?

Option A is worse. Reject it, in a forced choice between A and B. Since there is an infinite number of other options, we should be able to expect that another one will then be presented. Will the next option presented be less bad than Option A?

When the optometrist asks you to choose between "this" and "this", she knows what criteria you are using, even if you don't. She knows why you would pick one "this" over the other; "worse" has a content, in that situation. So she knows which direction to move in, when she offers the next choice.

The problem in this thread is that a simple A/B vote doesn't necessarily tell us what we need to know. I think that's part of the gist of the discussion you've been having. What criteria are the votes based on? Can the pollster know which direction to move in, just by tallying the results?

I think maybe, given the pool of respondents. If Option A is rejected, it would appear to be because of the extreme restriction placed on access to abortion, even in the presence of all the goodies incorporated into the option. One could fairly confidently deduce that the reason for the rejection is that extreme restriction, since this audience wouldn't likely reject it because of its health care content, for instance. That is: remove the restriction on access to abortion, and there's nothing particularly objectionable about it, to us.

Maybe I should just say: give me a poke when we get to Option XYZ:

- universal health care (including contraception and abortion services);
- no restrictions on access to abortion services;
- guarantees of basic decent living conditions for everyone, including but not limited to women with unplanned pregnancies/children, not dependent on ability or willingness of third party individuals to support.

Just so's I don't have to sit here saying "B. ... B. ... B. ... B. ... B." for the next few weeks. I like to walk out with a prescription within a reasonable timeframe, and not spend all day checking out all the possible diopters and prisms and cylinders. ;)

[OrwellwasRight]

145. Actually, some of us do support abortion.

Sometimes it is the best thing that can ahppen to a person.

But because we can't say this publically, we will often paint ourselves into a corner like the one we are in now (e.g., Well everyone knows abortion is bad, so why don't we just given in a little bit to the republicans who want all women barefoot and pregnant so we can gain some swing voters?").

We have to allow for the fact that it is a respectable, not a shameful choice, and we should promote women coming frward with abortion success stories to combat the bs rightwing "I had an abortion, and it ruined my life" stories.

[noamnety]

161. alright, that's fair enough - good point

I support abortion rights. I support using something else as a first choice, because like I've noted elsewhere other options are cheaper and less traumatic on a woman's body. I think other options are more practical, financially and physically. That's not a moral judgment, however, and at the end of the day, it's each individual's choice to make, not mine.

To some people, taking the pill every day might make more sense than using something like Plan B, on the surface, but in some cases plan B might make more sense than taking something every single day that messes up your hormones and affects your blood pressure, etc. when it's only needed once every 6 months or so.

Preventing unwanted pregnancies is important, and also having the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is important. No argument here.

[OrwellwasRight]

162. Likewise, I am not arguing against birth control.

I'm all for it: affordable, lots of choices, widely available to young and old, men and women alike.

I just think that when it fails--as it inevitably does--getting caught up in the rhetoric that abortion is shameful, embarrassing, and not to be advised is a loser for us. It prevents us from sharing success stories about it and drives any positive outlook on it into the closet, so our leaders are left saying something like, "Yes, I agree that it is horrible, but let's keep it legal anyway."

I just don't think that is as powerful or effective as saying, "You know, sometimes, abortion is the very best thing that can happen to a pregnant 16 year old."

[bloom]

39. I agree - there are too many assumptions

why not have a poll with choices that make more sense? :shrug:

[deignan]

49. Choice

The point is to force an expression of preference. The poll is really about the possibilities of a coherent principled position, not the particularities of that position.

[noamnety]

38. another issue with this post

"In the case of rape, then she would report it within a week (this seems reasonable)"

Is it fair to guess, from that comment, that you are a guy? I don't think women would necessarily agree with that assessment. It's not like reporting that your car has been broken into. It is a traumatic thing, and reporting it comes with a huge number of issues.

1. It involves having to relate (multiple times, in front of strangers) - for the record - what is often perceived as an intensely personal and private matter. I wouldn't want to stand in a courtroom or a police station and relate all the intimate details of having sex with my husband, let alone of a rape scenario that is painful to relive.

2. I don't know the current laws, but in the 80's, in Rhode Island, where my knowledge comes from, if you reported it as a crime and named the rapist, your personal information including your name and address was then made available to the rapist. (You have the right to know your accuser.) So if they abducted you and raped you and you survived, if they didn't know how to find you before, they would after you reported them. And at that point, they'd have motivation to want revenge. Reporting it seems like the thing to do for the good of society, but it can put you at increased risk of violence. Furthermore, at least back then, the woman was considered a witness to the crime, and the state was the victim - meaning that the woman had no real rights once it was reported. As a witness, she can't even hire or fire a lawyer; it was a state appointed one, who could be totally incompetent or could be attacking her on the witness stand. Going public with a rape charge is not a decision to be taken lightly; you shouldn't assume it's reasonable for a woman to come forward at all, let alone within a week.

3. If the rapist is a family member (let's say an uncle), reporting it will put a permament wedge in the family. For me personally, I would do that with no regrets. But I know other people who've been raped as a teen or younger by their uncle, and when they came out about it later, the entire family turned against them, not understanding why they would want to destroy their own uncle like that. Does it make sense? Not to me, but that's what I've seen in both cases of incest that I know of. The family turns against the victim. Go figure. Anyway, again, it gives a person motivation NOT to report it at all.

4. If the victim is intimidated by the rapist, because they are in some kind of position of power (older relative, boss), it's conceivable they would not come forward within a week, but rather they'd wait until they moved out or got another job. Security is a funny thing; people will put up with a lot of abuse rather than risk losing it.

The option for a rapist to have a discrete abortion and not legally report it, not make a public circus out of it, not make it a matter of public record, needs to stay. I think anyone who really understands the psychology of a rape victim would not broadly say reporting it within a week is reasonable.


Also, on this free birth control deal for all women ... is that regardless of age? Free access without parental notification for all minors?

[deignan]

48. Why not?

Birth control is not a deal breaker on principle. Youngsters who reach the age of sexuality have also reaced the age of reason. We can assume that this is a practical matter.

[SarahB]

17. My thoughts exactly...

My first pregnancy was very difficult. I threw up nearly every day day for 9 months. I was miserable. I was young and scared. I did, though, conceive her within the bounds of a loving relationship at the time and he was there for me. If I conceived through rape and the governmentforced me to carry to term, I probably would have literally lost my f*cking mind- maybe suicidal (that pregnancy was like months of chemotherapy). No joke.

Not to mention, I used to have long cycles when I was young- often 6 weeks (and I'd skip a month a couple times a year even). I could have easily not known I was pregnant at 4 or 5 weeks. The main reason I knew is because I spent a few days with my head in the toilet and then took a test.

I love my children more than anyone can imagine, but women are not things or vessels. We are human beings.

My counter answer for anti-choice is this forced vasectomies for males at puberty and then if they choose to conceive with a women later, she can give written consent before the surgically extract his sperm. Crazy? Nuts? Don't like reproductive choices taken from you? Then stay the Hell out of mine.

[deignan]

28. Thank You

Thanks very much. It is important that your views be registered as you see them and not as others would prefer to see them.

[iverglas]

19. nonsense

In so many ways.

If I am going to be queen of the world, I'm going to identify my own options, not let someone else make up nonsensical ones.

Your question reminds me of the one that Firesign Theatre asked all those years ago: "which would you rather do: hit that little old Jew over the head with this sack of shit, or beat out that rhythm on a drum?"

This:

Choice up to 4-5 weeks (paid by individual or charity) and restricted thereafter except in case of physical threat to mother's life (if delivery not possible) or other such medical necessity (not emotional well being, etc.).

is the precise equivalent of hit that little old Jew over the head with this sack of shit.

It is a proposal to be complicit in THE VIOLATION OF SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHTS.

I don't know how many times, and in how many ways, it needs to be said.

Eventually, a woman who is compelled to carry a pregnancy to term, and deliver, against her wishes, for whatever reason she may wish not to do so, is going to die. Of a post-partum haemorrhage, or a stroke resulting from pregnancy-induced hypertension, or of abuse at the hands of her partner. There are women who carry pregnancies to term who do die, who would not have died were it not for the pregnancy and/or delivery.

And that death will be the direct result of your little law, and of the refusal of whatever tribunal may have considered her request to be permitted to terminate her pregnancy outside your little timeframe. And that woman will therefore have been denied the exercise of her right to life -- in the US, she will have been deprived of life without due process of law.

And we do not bargain away people's right to life.

Questions like yours might make for interesting first-year philosophy exams -- would you kill Hitler in his cradle if you knew it would save 100 million lives? would you outlaw abortion if you knew it meant 50 million children would get healthcare who otherwise wouldn't? -- but those choices really are not the ones that present themselves in real life.

You are apparently positing an electoral event in which enough people would rush to support all the other things you are suggesting, if abortion were restricted in the manner you are suggesting, that all those other things could be brought about.

I'd like some confirmation that those people exist. Name two, maybe? People who are willing to dig into those taxpaying pockets to support your other policy proposals, but will only do so if abortion is effectively eliminated (or however you choose to characterize that part of your suggestion).

Me, I think those people are chimeras -- fabulous beasts with parts taken from various animals. They have the kind heart of social solidarity that prompts them to be eager to pay taxes so that children they don't know have health care and rape victims they don't know receive tens of thousands of dollars in "compensation", and yet they have the bile-full belly of fascism that prompts them to seek control over women's lives, and the twisted neural pathways and disordered personalities that prevent them from seeing the impossibility of the two existing in the same body politic.

The point is to test if there is a reconcilable principle that can be articulated for a reformed party that then can go on and win elections. So if there is a principle (not a want/fear/desire/matter of practicality) that strikes to the heart of a shared consensus, we need to find that principle(s). If it is impossible, then we need to know that as well.

In this issue, the fear is high, emotions run deep, and it has become so politically charged that it is possible that what we all really want is obscured by superficial political considerations. A principle, clearly articulated, cuts through this. There may be a solution that wins.

I confess that I do not readily grasp why you are having such difficulty grasping what this governing principle is. It's right there in the fifth amendment to your constitution.

No person shall be ... deprived of life <or> liberty ... without due process of law ... .

It's sad that you live in a time and place where so many people either do not grasp this principle or refuse to apply it. But it is entirely beyond me why the idea of abandoning it would even be considered.

And it is entirely beyond me, as well, why anyone would think that abandoning the principle would have any beneficial consequences, let alone consequences that would somehow outweigh the horrific fact, and precedent, of anyone's most fundamental rights being bargained away.

Did the abolitionists press for health care and minimum wages for slaves (or, as would be more parallel to your scenario perhaps, sturdy shoes for slaves and school lunches for poor children), or did they demand that slavery be eliminated?

[deignan]

21. Please vote

If it is nonsense, then the choice is B or strong B. The status quo option is the option to ignore the proposition.

[iverglas]

22. nope

I'm not a USAmerican, so I don't have to make any choice. And on principle, as it were, I decline to vote in DU polls that involve US domestic policy choices. My vote don't count.

And in any event, I'm sorry, but you really just don't get to present

(A) a load of crap
and
(B) the status quo

and say that if I don't want the load of crap, I have to pick the status quo.

The status quo position is not "the option to ignore the proposition". It may be AN option for ignoring the proposition. But there are an infinite number of "options to ignore the proposition", and the status quo is merely one of them.

What you are actually asking respondents to do is predict the future. Your prediction is that if a new policy direction is not adopted -- specifically, if the one you present is not adopted -- the status quo is the only possible outcome.

I don't agree. There are other options that could be adopted and that would be preferable to both the status quo and your proposition.

Nonetheless, the possibility remains that the status quo would be the outcome no matter what other option were selected. It may be that no matter what the Democratic Party does, or what it might have done in the last election, it would not have won and will not win.

I'm probably more used to this situation than you are. I am a 35-year member, and 3-time candidate (unsuccessful, because in a hopeless constituency - but I did double our vote), for the New Democratic Party of Canada. I've lived in constituencies that have elected NDP representatives municipally, provincially, and federally, and even in a province that once in recent memory elected an NDP government. But the NDP has never formed a federal government, or even the official opposition to the winning party (i.e. come second). And we go through these same periodic tearings of hair and we must make ourselves electable paroxysms.

Why don't people do the right thing - in this case, vote for policies that support the exercise of fundamental rights and benefit the disadvantaged and, in most cases, even themselves? That's the perennial question. But why you'd expect women to agree to adopt, and vote for, a policy that denies them the exercise of their fundamental rights, I just can't figure that one out.

"Please vote" is not a response to anything in my post, by the way.


(edit - oops, that's 35 years in the party, not 25; what a drag it is getting ooold.)

[deignan]

23. Yes, Absolutely -- that is given as a certainty

I don't agree. There are other options that could be adopted and that would be preferable to both the status quo and your proposition.

Unfortunately, there must be a proposition to pose a question. The proposition is based on broad outlines of political possibilities. The politics and nature may or may not allow a solution. I have to start somewhere broad. The particulars of the best solution cannot be discerned at the beginning of the investigation. In fact, that is not my concern. It will be decided by others like yourself.

If it helps, the votes are anonymous. This is not an election. It is a question of solubility. "Is it possible that there is a principled solution?" -- not "This is the solution, do you like it?". It is your opinion that matters since you are a core member of the constituency.

[iverglas]

27. "In our continuing look at logical fallacies everywhere ..."

Just a quick google on the fallacy of the false dilemma. I like this one.

http://www.brians.org/Blogs/2003/a10/1066278796-entry.xml

<quoting a radio personality:>

Sooner or later all of us need to ask ourselves whether we trust George W. Bush, or Saddam Hussein.

This is a fallacy of distraction. It is intended (at least it has the effect) to distract the listener from the actual proposition. Yes, I know, this one is pretty obvious. These types of fallacies misuse operators such as "or", "and", "not", and "if-then".

Specifically, the above statement is a "False Dilemma", implying that there are only two options ("or"), when there are actually more. For example, I don't have to trust George Bush or Saddam Hussein. And if I do trust one, it doesn't mean I cannot trust the other (strange though that would be). Classic examples of False Dilemmas include:

"You're either for us or against us." (Sounds familiar.)
"People either love Seinfeld or hate Seinfeld."

False dilemmas are often intentional exaggerations, and not intended as factual statements. Doug could have made this statement as such an exaggeration, but it doesn't really make much sense anyway. Given the forced choice, I would choose to trust Bush over Hussein (duh). But that doesn't mean I have to approve of what he does. And if I happen to distrust Bush, it doesn't mean I would trust Saddam. There is no binary decision tree here.

You have created a binary decision tree where none exists.

If I happen to find your proposition (A) utterly revolting (which I do, for reasons that include those well stated by lwfern in post 9), that doesn't mean that I approve of your option (B).

But in this case, I guess I'd just have to say that option (B) was less revolting than option (A). So given the forced choice, which I must make in the context of a false dilemma, I'd go for (B).

Now, it's possible that there is method in what first seems like your madness.

You may actually find (A) as revolting as I do. This may be something like those trips to the optometrist, when she says "which is better: this ... or this?", and you think "but they're both crappy and I still can't see!" What she is doing is ruling out a very bad choice, and determining which direction to move in from there.

So allow me to say: Option B is better than Option A. And we will all understand that I am not saying that Option B is good, or that I want Option B to be chosen, or that I will be happy if Option B is adopted.

Given that Option A is truly revolting, I want to rule it out. I want to move in a different direction. I want to say that at least with Option B, it is possible to envision scenarios that would be an improvement -- knowing that an improvement is what I want. If Option A were adopted, the situation would be worse than it is now, and so achieving an improvement over Option B would be even harder. Just as, if I told the optometrist that the first "this" was better when it really wasn't, I'd simply find myself with increasingly worse choices being offered to me.

Of course, that's the whole issue that arises when one talks of "compromise" with people trying to prevent others from exercising their rights. They don't want to compromise. They want to prevent you from exercising your rights. Once you agree to be prohibited from exercising your rights in some ways or some situations (or, worse, to prohibit others from doing so) in which the prohibition is not legitimate or justified, but simply arbitrary, you haven't compromised, you have given in. And you have that much farther to go to get back where you started, and you'll be facing exactly the same pressure, if not more because of the momentum you have given your adversary, to take the next step down the slippery slope.

So: Option A is bad. And I guess I'll just wait for you to flick the next lens into place, hoping that we'll eventually get to one that lets me see better than I see through Option B, not worse.


(html fixed on edit)

[Jackie97]

32. Okay.

I just want to say that since I messed up on the vote the first time and since iverglas makes a convincing argument (about not comprimising rights), I would pick Option B as well. The United States might be a lot more progressive today if they didn't comprimise so much.

[deignan]

36. Factored in the analysis

It will be factored into the analysis along with your comment. There is no way of being exactly on the mark with such a proposal -- just looking for an approximate distribution of inclination here.

Otherwise it would have been done already, I suppose.

[deignan]

33. Logic and probabilities

Just shooting for an approximate estimation here. Good point. In line with it we should understand B to be simply 'not A'.

The word "prefer" should cover the logical mushiness here.

[Jackie97]

30. I did vote...

I voted Strong A, but I didn't completely agree with it. I was thinking it was the option for universal healthcare. Oops.

I'm for abortion rights throughout the whole time, none of this wishy washing (only before the first four or five weeks) stuff. At least make it legal on demand until the third trimester.

I agree with going after deadbeats, checking women out, and giving them free birth control. I can't predict the future though. All I can do is fight like hell to make whoever is in office vote for what I want.

[deignan]

31. That's OK

I should have added something like:

"This is just an one possibility, is this near to something you might prefer if you had to decide?"


I have to start somewhere with the question. Unfortunately, I don't know the lay of the land well enough on this issue to ask anything near an optimal question. As we see, it is probably ill-posed. Nonetheless, the results are extremely worthwhile considering the great clarifying comments we have.

[bloom]

40. "liberals “feel” while conservatives “think"

I don't agree with your assumption - I know plenty of conservatives who don't think. :)

...We found that the primary intrinsic information-processing distinction between self-described progressives/liberals and conservatives was that liberals “feel” while conservatives “think”. Both terms should be understood in the context of the study. They tell us how about the mode of decisions making of the individual based on information presented by the environment. The distinction is not a product of the moral status of the decision maker, but the mode of decision does have moral implications. Since the vast majority of individuals consider themselves to be “good” in a moral sense irregardless of political affiliation, the distinction must be a function of how we judge the imperatives of good action in relation to the environment.

The conservative makes decision based on discrete, measurable actions on his environment. Rationalism is a method of organizing the environment in a logically consistent method such that the environmental entropy is reduced. That entropy which cannot be reduced is treated in such a way that it does not enter the moral calculus. Thus, the misfortunes of Job were a test of fidelity while other randomness is ascribed to either the unavoidable byproduct of physical laws of creation or the consequences of other’s actions for which a collective moral consequence is assumed. There is moral order in the environment of the conservative because the conservative believes that he acts on the environment for a moral purpose. Internal feelings of happiness or guilt are a consequence of this measurable action. Feeling follows thinking.

The moral viewpoint of the progressive is not primarily a function of his perceived action on the environment. His judgement of good and bad action is more directly a result of his internal harmony, i.e. "feeling". The conflict which arises from discordant forces is to be minimized for the maximization of the good of the liberal -- conflict is inherently bad. Thus progressives do not seek to interact at odds with the environment; they seek consensus. This is by definition the search for an interior solution as the social/economic model is defined. The external environment is rationalized to come into agreement with internal needs and desires. Thinking follows feeling.

-deignan

(from link in profile)

[noamnety]

41. This puts it in context also

"Not a Patriot
Paul Deignan - Lafayette, Ind.

The more Mr. Kerry tries to play soldier and patriot, the more that I am reminded of what he is not. Why serve if the electorate does not care about fundamental loyalty? A Kerry election would eviscerate the military moral and recruiting. We saw all we needed to see at Wendy's."


http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/responses.html?article_id=110005437

To be fair, I had a feeling a democrat would not be making those assumptions, or claiming there was a disconnect between our principles and our policies. :)

I appreciate the efforts, though, to move our party in the right direction.

[deignan]

42. Not a Kerry Fan

Yup, sorry -- Kerry was not the optimal choice. Gephardt would have won.

Nonetheless, I did send my best ideas for winning to [e-mail] (They are also on his blog somewhere around the same time or later than the post you mention). (I think it was mid Sept -- it was just when things looked really dark, but before the debates).

Note that the campaign seems to have used some of the ideas the next day. Had the presentation been stronger (implementing the "Democrats are for democracy" point, I think he would have won narrowly). Note also that this presages the gist of my contribution.

The task at hand is to decide whether or not to challenge orthodoxy -- is the road being laid out for us the right one? The numbers show a possible winning situation in the wide and narrow sense. Basically, it was the realization that political affiliation was divided along information processing lines and that inherent liberal assumptions might be masked. So this is the question here also. A test of the will -- a question posed point blank on the strength of hope and fear. I assume hope; fear must be proven. On that account, everyone is encouraged to Google "Paul Deignan", "deignan", etc. Reach you own conclusion, judge the implications yourself. This is coherent with the point of the poll. The result is self-ratifying.

[noamnety]

44. Are you a democrat?

It seems odd that someone who wanted him to win would have been trashing him on any boards during the campaign, saying he wasn't a patriot and seemingly echoing the swiftboat liars.

I'm asking this in the interest of full disclosure.

[deignan]

46. Good Question

I would describe my political philosophy as "classical liberal". This is based on years of mulling over all the issues and following the results and logic (also a result of the way I think and process information -- characteristic of engineers and old military I suppose).

I am a registered Republican from a traditionally Democrat background. My formative years were in HS during the cold war when many Dems switched to Blue Dog status. I don't vote the party line, but I do vote my principles as I see them likely to be optimally realized. I expect that most all of us do the same thing.

Now, I had an epiphany of sorts when I analyzed the political affiliation data. Initial question: "What is the likely expression of 'good' given the state of our society, rationalism, and the idea that 'feeling' is an absolutely valid method of "thinking" as an adaptation (I'm an INTJ if you haven't already guessed so "feeling" is not my natural strength).

So, twisting my head about and reading and discussing with a lot of current libs (I have a year long thought development on www.foreignpolicy.com under 'deignan' as well as other sites), I decided to challenge my own orthodoxy -- you know the "Democrats are bad" people doctrine of some of the right.

DU had the reputation of being the worst of the worst (read some of the polipundit stuff -- DU is invariably sited as a good example to keep the troops on the reservation. However, DU is full of people who care about their country and care about the same egalitarian ideals that I share judging from the posts. Zealotry in the cause of freedom is no vice (its problematic and potentially embarrassing, but virtue is virtue). So I decided that this was just the place to put an idea, a proposition to the test. Honestly and forthrightly -- straight to the point and right between the eyes. The political affiliation study indicates that we communicate at different wavelengths -- naturally as a part of our upbringing. That in no way changes "the good".


(Also, I have had the benefit of being married for a while.)





The short answer to your question, giving good advice to an opponent on a matter of substance is a moral duty unless that person and cause is inherently bad. (BTW, I think this is why Bush gets so much projection). I said the same as a preface in my advice to the Kerry campaign. Also, I said the same by e-mail to the Gerhardt campaign before he foundered. (People tend to listen best when they are at their lowest). So I am here for your examination. Submitted.

[noamnety]

50. you'll fit in better here

if you use democrat as a noun, democratic as an adjective.

With all due respect, I don't know that people are so interested in helping republicans reshape our party, despite your best intentions.

If you want to learn what we're about or engage in debate, that's fine, it's an open forum, but misrepresenting yourself as wanting to help us win when you are a republican, and using that type of push polling to do it, is not the most honest approach.

[deignan]

53. Thanks

You can consider me to be a Blue Dog Democrat looking to come back home (wherever that is).

Now, since I'm not a party stripe Democrat, I will not be advocating positions until and if I change registrations. For now, I am just asking questions and pointing out possibilities. The political affiliation-personality study results are something that all Americans should be aware.

[deignan]

43. It's a distribution

The distinction is statistical -- not all liberals/progressive are feeling and not all conservatives think. The difference, however, statistically significant.

[iverglas]

45. and he's got it entirely ass backwards

The "rationalism" that he ascribes to conservatives is in fact what he ascribes to progressives: rationalization, not rationalism. I say from long observation and some knowledge of personality stuff.

In my experience (and the abortion issue is a classic example), it is conservatives who are most stickily wed to their image of themselves as moral and good.

Protecting little fetuses, for example, is a good, moral thing to do, on the face of it in their eyes. Acting to that end gives them the warm fuzzies, makes them look like heroes to themselves. What they refuse to do is look beyond the immediate (at least purported) effect of their actions, and see that what they are in fact doing is causing enormous harm.

They also refuse to look rationally at the subject of what they are doing. They don't have a rational concept of fetuses, they have an emotional and childish, and perhaps religious (quite the opposite of rational), image on which they are basing their choices and actions.

If one of these people looks beyond the end of his/her nose at the tragedies in the wake of what s/he is doing -- dead women, among other things -- s/he is smacked with dissonance. I'm a good, moral person ... and I'm causing all this harm. So I must rationalize! What's the real cause of all this harm? Why, not moi, it's all those nasty sluts and silly cows who don't have the decency and sense to keep their legs together, and then are so evil that they will murder their own children. Never mind that that is complete nonsense. It works. Maybe up until the person herself, or someone close to him/her, becomes pregnant and doesn't want to be. Then maybe s/he will admit the badness and wrongness of what s/he has been doing ... or maybe s/he will just have/concur in the abortion and engage in some more mental gymnastics to make it jibe with his/her self-image as a good, moral person.

People do these things all the time. None of us could keep on living if we didn't rationalize; we all do things that are quite inconsistent with our values. But people like the anti-choice are the experts at it.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with feelings. We are corporeal beings with lives, not brains in bottles, and feelings are an inherent part of that nature. Without them, both we and the species would be long gone. The "feeling" that it is wrong to hurt someone else is crucial to the survival of our species. Knowing that we are acting that way should cause us discomfort, and we should (to the extent possible, keeping in mind that we also have a natural impulse, in our own and the species' interest, to self-preservation) change our behaviour to minimize it.

In my observation, it is progressives who do that. It is conservatives (not the term I actually prefer) who instead redefine the world to suit their self-image. And victim-blaming is a very important part of that re-definition process.

In both cases, I would say that "thinking follows feeling". The difference is that the progressive thinks about ways to change his/her behaviour in order that it won't make him/her feel bad, even at sacrifice to him/herself, while the conservative thinks of ways to blame someone else in order not to have to sacrifice anything s/he has. For a progressive, the sacrifice is worth the self-respect gained, which would be lost without the sacrifice; for a conservative, no doubt of his/her worthiness of respect can be admitted.

Progressives then seek to act on their environment in ways that change it to make their behaviour less harmful to others, which makes them feel better; conservatives seek to act on their environment in ways that enable them to behave as they like, since, given that they refuse to acknowledge the harmful impact of their behaviour on anyone else, they have no need to alter it or accept limits on it.

[deignan]

47. Data

The summarized data is at the blog site. I am happy to e-mail the XLS spreadsheet to anyone who wants to run their own analysis (it is copyrighted however -- so check with me if you want to post it).

[iverglas]

51. and that's as may be

and I'm an INTJ myself, m'dear, with one of those really sky-high IQs.

And I find a whole lot of your stuff quite simply incoherent, and not merely because there is no such word as "irregardless".

But then, I am very definitely not a "classical liberal", let alone anything like a registered Republican. I *am* a progressive, although that might mean something as different to you from what it means to me as "conservative" means to me from what it means to you. In fact, I regard "classical liberals" as very right-wing indeed.

Taken the political compass test lately?
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/index.html
You'll find me way, way down and over in the bottom left hand corner.

I'm a social democrat, in the circumstances. And what you say about "liberals" in your stuff simply has nothing to do with me.

What I was able to grasp of your talk about conservatives and their "rationalism", by the way, makes me wonder about how gullible one must be to accept what people say about themselves without question.

Anybody can be an INTJ, you know.

[noamnety]

52. great point about accepting what people say without question

This whole thread reminds me of James Wolcott:

"Conservatives not only dictate the terms of debate from their side, but dictate how the other side should conduct itself (i.e., like eunuchs). Liberals would never bother pestering Rush or Ann Coulter to acknowledge one positive achievement of liberalism or feminism a day, because they know they'd only get a dismissive get-lost in return. But conservatives have no hesitation in lecturing liberals on how to discuss the war in Iraq, even though all of the power in Washington is now concentrated in Republican hands and liberal Democrats haven't the slightest input into the decision-making process."

http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2004/12/sweet_reason_be.php

[deignan]

54. INTJ

I use the definition of classical liberal at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/

The categorical type classifications might be strong or weak (so don't get misled by the labels -- its the numbers that count). I'm about 66% across the types and this has been consistent throughout my adult life. (It's more characteristic in my case -- and in general -- than political affiliation which also depends on other specific factors). So the causality tends to go personality -> affiliation (this is a hypothesis).

There are also second and third degree factors at work here so the (thinking/feeling) discriminant is simplistic. In fact, the mean lib metric is still thinking -- just not as strong as the con mean. The study was preliminary -- one main objective was to see if a deeper study was potentially worth conducting.

I like "irregardless" over "regardless" just as I prefer "flammable" to "inflammable". I know this can be irritating. I suppose French is superior to English in this regard. Irregardless, I still like American English for its flexibility. :)

[deignan]

55. Neat Test

Took it and surprised myself:

Economic Left/Right: -4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.36


I never thought of myself as a leftist libertarian before.

[REP]

56. What's So Tough? I'll Play This Stupid Game

"Emotional well-being" is off the table, eh? Betcha didn't know that most drugs for serious mental illnesses - oops, "emotional well-being" are teratogenic or cause fetal demise?

What exactly is "etc"? Say the pregnancy will cause a woman's kidneys to fail, but won't actually kill her. Does she have to live hooked up to a machine to please you? How about if there's an 80% chance the pregnancy will cause her kidneys to fail, and a 11% chance of death from the pregnancy. Does she roll the dice?

Aside from that, how about the 22%+ of US women who have chosen to remain childfree? There is simply no amount of money that would induce these women to breed healthy newborns for the adoption industry. Name the largest number you can think of and add 1 to it. Still ain't enough.

Paying rape victims to become incubators? Isn't that a bit - harsh?

Free birth control? You are aware, aren't you, that the abortion rate is in line with the failure rate of contraception? You are aware that birth control, even when used properly every time, can fail, right?

You are aware that 4-5 week terminations are done medically (ie, with medicine, not surgery) and are not appropriate for many women, and that surgical abortions must be done later?

But why oh why are we being asked to give up the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Something stinks, and I think it's someone's tired old agenda.

[deignan]

60. Etc.

Yes, that is right, emotional well-being is not a provision in this proposal. So as you say, that would preclude the use of the type of drugs you mention.

Etc: Child formed without head, etc.

Paying rape victims is an optional compensation feature for the victims -- their choice and to their benefit. So I don't see your point here.

The proposal assumes (you can take as given as mentioned earlier) that the provided birth control is 100% effective.


Remember, this is a test of political feasibility of a principle. That is why it is phrased as "What would you prefer?". Any answer you have is right as long as it is your considered opinion consistent with your feelings.

Thanks for voting.

[REP]

120. Psychotic Breaks Better than Abortion?

It's better to risk the death of a mentally ill woman than allow her to abort or to take her meds, lest they harm the Holy Fetus?

Why allow abortion for acardiac acormic fetuses? They are often born without complications for the woman.

What color is the sky in a world where all BC is 100% effective?

Why didn't you answer the rest of my questions?

I didn't vote; or rather, I voted for the option I preferred, which was not included.

[deignan]

122. Birth Control Effectiveness

Here is what the FDA had on effectiveness: Birth Control Effectiveness
Norplant is 99.91% over the term (one year) of the study. That drops to 97.33% over 30 years. Of course, should the government take birth control seriously (as they would should the principle be policy), I would expect that technology and the combination of methods would be able to cut this rate down some.

No government policy or law can assure anything with certainty so this 2.67% probability is subsumed by the fundamental question, "Do you trust government -- to what degree?" That rate is probably pretty low for most all of us.

We want a clear expression of the respondents feelings and thoughts here and not to force them to wade through statistics -- the presentation of which would probably be counterproductive.

[DaedelusNemo]

57. Couldn't possibly force rape victims

to do anything. That's a deal-breaker right there, repulsively so, on both emotional and rational grounds.

Why is four-to-five weeks a magic number for you? What principle is expressed in it that isn't expressed with a 10-12 week number, for example? If there is some principle involved, why wouldn't you include it as the factor in decision-making it would be?

Personally, i'm conflicted about abortion and can't come up with any answer i can be completely comfortable with - i can't satisfy myself completely that it is or is not murder. If you're going to allow it at all, though, i don't see what is principled about your proposal.

I'm willing to take my chances on improving the status quo on the other points.

I have to tell you i suspect your numbers will have been skewed by misunderstanding / quick reading / not thinking things through. Unless that's what you are measuring. It's a shame you can't stick another post into this thread for people to vote on only after reading it.

[deignan]

58. Rape Provision

The rape provision proposed is that the victim may decide to abort within 4-5 weeks. Naturally, the victim must have the capability to decide and to exercise her decision within that time frame. (otherwise there would be some sort of compensation).

The logic in proviso relies on the fact that the rape victim must report the rape. So I am unclear as to why a rape victim would not have full rights under this provision as compared to anyone else. In fact, she has the option to earn $100/day to carry to term which is not available to others.

The 4-5 week time frame will be explained at the end of the poll in the context of the proposed (or not) principled reform. As noted before, it is one of the few landmarks by which a coherent principled position may be formulated. Here I have in mind a particular principled position that you might even guess from the proposition. It is one that can win.


Remember, this is a proposition to test the feasibility of a principle. Any answer you have is right as long as it is coherent with your deliberative feelings and thought. This is not a policy proposal per se.

Thanks for participating.

[noamnety]

59. she has the option to earn $100/day

In fact, an option not available to others!

OMG, you make it sound like the lucky lady has hit the lottery.

[deignan]

61. Important to some

There are women who are very conflicted about rape -- wanting to keep the child but burdened under the cost of the pregnency.

[noamnety]

62. I obviously have not met these women

The rape victims I knew were not "conflicted" about the rape in anyway. They knew it sucked.

[deignan]

63. Big Picture of Poll Reminder

I haven't met a woman either that thought rape was not bad. But I have heard about women that went on to keep their child and those that were conflicted.

I think if you Google on "Rape and Choice and Life" you will find some anecdotes. Frankly, the number of such occurrences is not essential to this test, only that it is a possibility.

For purposes of this test, the importance of the provision is that it is consistent with a principle. The number of dollars was arbitrarily assigned but otherwise estimated to be in a ballpark of practical concensus. The important thing is that the rape victim has the choice of carrying with compensation.

I'm glad that you are interested in this issue as an issue. That helps me appreciate better the types of things that people consider. However, I will not be able to help you much in any sort of discussion other than to attempt to clarify the proposal and its limits/implications. Remember, it is not a policy proposal, it is a test of feasibility. If a principle is feasible, I will state the principle (it is to democracy and the party in general -- abortion is simply the choke point of feasibility of a political consensus). So rather than initiate a "free trade" or "environmental" poll, this was the best choice, I think. Also, the issue is clear and fairly well thought out to most -- the trade issues tend to be a bit more specific to understanding of economics, the players, policy, etc.

Also this topic is nice because it cuts through several different issue areas such as health care, sexuality, and the role of the government.

[iverglas]

64. hmmmm ... those women ...

Are you seeing observations of reality ... or redefinitions of reality to ensure that someone's behaviour isn't causing him/her discomfort?

As long as we can define women who are pregnant as a result of rape however we like -- i.e. completely ignore the reality of women who are pregnant as a result of rape -- then we can tailor our responses to those women who are pregnant as a result of rape, rather than to real women who are pregnant as a result of rape.

Start by knowing what has to be done for one's own comfort (place virtually insurmountable barriers in the path of women who wish to terminate pregnancies, for whatever reasons that happens to make one comfortable), then define the world in such a way that this becomes a good and moral thing to do.

You see what I was getting at?



First, we assume that contraception is 100% reliable ... (and a whole lot more) ...

An economist, a physicist and an engineer are stranded on a desert island, with only the case of canned beans they were able to drag ashore. They are hungry, but have no way of accessing the contents.

The engineer says I know, we'll bash a can with a rock, and it will open, and we can eat the beans. He bashes a can with a rock, and the beans spill out into the sand, and are inedible.

The physicist says No, silly, we'll build a fire, heat the can, it will expand and open, and we can eat the beans. He uses his eyeglasses to ignite the cardboard box, builds a fire with driftwood, heats the can, and it explodes and there are beans all over the sand, again inedible.

The economist sighs. No, you fools, she says. First, we assume a can-opener.

[deignan]

65. Ha Ha

In the latest Notices they had a whole series of mathematician folk culture jokes. They usually go along the same lines and include a physicist and an engineer. Usually the engineer doesn't come out looking to bad.

The point of the inclusion of the provision was in recognition of the possibility of rape and the fact that there were those who might wish to carry their child to term if there was a practical method to do so. I want to relieve as much of the practicality of the situation -- same ideas as with 100% effective birth control as these are matters that are related to implementation of specific policy and not to the existence of a coherent principle.

I'm concerned with determining the political feasibility of a principle by which the Democratic Party can be reformed successfully (i.e. one that will lead to winning elections). As it turns out, in the history of the US, such a principle does exist and has led to political dominance of the party that most relevantly espoused that principle and applied it to the problems of the day. We have even seen this in the last election where a swing portion of the vote (on both sides) stated values and derivative values type reasons for their support of a particular candidate.

[iverglas]

66. The point

The point of the inclusion of the provision was in recognition of the possibility of rape and the fact that there were those who might wish to carry their child to term if there was a practical method to do so.

The actual point -- which you seem to be working very hard to avoid noticing -- is that including that provision but excluding the infinite number of other possible provisions relating to the same set of facts FAILS to recognize all of the other possible realities of women who are pregnant as a result of rape.

SOME women "might wish to carry their child to term if there was a practical method to do so".

SOME (and very arguably, very many more) might wish to terminate the pregnancy REGARDLESS of what benefits were available if they chose to continue it.

YOU are choosing to ignore all of the other possibilities that we KNOW to exist, and offering a provision that recognizes and addresses one very small subset of reality, and benefits one very small subset of women pregnant as a result of rape, while denying the other women the ability to actualize their own choices.

This is like proposing that high school students who graduate in the top 5% of their class be offered full scholarships to study quantum physics but be prohibited from studying anything else -- and then saying that one has made a proposal to address the problem of high-ranking students being unable to afford university tuition.

Really.

[deignan]

67. Is this your point?

I thought I saw your point, now I don't.

If rape then:
a) abort w/i 4-5 weeks
b) keep until delivery at $100/day

These are the provisions of the proposal. So your point:
SOME (and very arguably, very many more) might wish to terminate the pregnancy REGARDLESS of what benefits were available if they chose to continue it. was already covered in the given provisions.


I think you simply may have missed the priviso that the 4-5 week time period applies to all including rape victims.

[noamnety]

69. Newsflash

A rape victim is in shock for the first 4-5 weeks.

[deignan]

70. Being Human

Unfortunately, that is part of life. There are people, like those in Indonesia, that suffer terrible harm and tragedy, yet they must also make important decisions. This is part of being human.

Our task is to be helpful, compassionate, and caring.

[noamnety]

72. Compassionate Conservatism

Sorry you were raped, now snap out of it, that's life.

Love and kisses,

The government.

on edit: I forgot p.s. Here's a hundred bucks.

[deignan]

75. Don't see your point

Honestly, I don't see your point unless you are implying that nothing is better than something.

[iverglas]

78. yours is a funny one

Honestly, I don't see your point unless you are implying that nothing is better than something.

I'm still just not seeing yours. I mean, unless you are implying that women having the ability to exercise their fundamental rights to life, liberty and security of the person in the manner they regard as being in their own best interests is "nothing".

Since that does indeed seem to be what you want us to accept as the underlying assumption -- that "status quo" = "nothing" -- the depth of your own respect for women (despite your disclaimers about not espousing the proposition you advance) seems to be pretty apparent.

[deignan]

80. Thanks

Thanks for your questions.

[noamnety]

82. My point is there's nothing compassionate or caring in you

or rather in your statement, that rape victims should make a snap decision even if they're in shock, within days of finding out they're pregnancy because that's life.

It's not life. It's an arbitrary deadline you're suggesting, knowing they won't be in a position to make a decision like that at that point, and you are justifying it by saying it's good enough for the tsunami victims; it's good enough for them.

Suggest it if you must, but don't try to pass it off as compassionate or caring, because it's neither.

[deignan]

85. Should?

It's an interesting point you make. Is it the responsibility of our fellow man to make sure that things go OK for us? To what degree?

Do they have a moral obligation to make certain of this? Who is the judge of their fulfilling their obligation? Are we responsible? To what degree?


All these questions are implicit in your post. The questions will be very appreciated once a principle is stated. Then we can test it.

[Jackie97]

163. The point

Is that you just can't compensate somebody for being raped. You just can't.

Especially that $100 business. Sheesh. I would feel insulted if I was raped and got offered that. In fact, I think I'd feel insulted if I was raped and was offered a million dollars.

Want to do something for the rape victims? Get into rape prevention, helping prosecute rapists more often, and giving all women (including rape victims) freedom of choice. Oh, and free counseling for rape victims would be nice too.

You can't compensate rape victims.

[lukasahero]

71. Personally

I think that if a woman is HEINOUSLY FUCKING RAPED she should have any god damn option she frickin' chooses about what to about being pregnant and I would never support a restriction on the amount of time she has to make that decision - period. No retreat on that one, sorry.

You say you're here to come up with an idea regarding what's negotiable on the Dem side of the abortion platform. I think you've heard many in this thread tell you exactly that but you're not interested in hearing it - you're more interested in trying to get people to agree with you and, I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem like many do. Regarding rape, restrictions are off the table as far as I'm concerned. So you might want to try and come up with another proposal rather than convince me you are making accomodations for such. Your accomodations are not accepted - try again.

[deignan]

87. Thanks

Thanks for being clear on that point. :)

[iverglas]

74. aren't you out of breath yet?

You are working so very hard, you must be just about exhausted.


If rape then:
a) abort w/i 4-5 weeks
b) keep until delivery at $100/day

These are the provisions of the proposal. So your point ... was already covered in the given provisions.

My point was:
SOME (and very arguably, very many more) might wish to terminate the pregnancy REGARDLESS of what benefits were available if they chose to continue it.

I think you simply may have missed the priviso that the 4-5 week time period applies to all including rape victims.

No, I didn't miss anything. The fact is that you simply don't quite seem to have addressed the issues that are necessarily raised by this "4-5 weeks" proposal of yours, and I thought that went without saying. I didn't actually think that I had to reiterate all the excellent points made by others in this thread explaining why "a) abort w/i 4-5 weeks" does NOT cover my point. But allow me.

I'm assuming you're meaning 4-5 weeks gestational age, not 4-5 weeks from conception. At 4-5 weeks from conception, i.e. when a standard menstrual period was 2-3 weeks late, large numbers of women would have no inkling they were pregnant. My own menstrual cycle, when I was young, seldom involved more than 8 menstrual periods a year, i.e. a cycle of 6-7 weeks, and not infrequently longer, with no regular interval whatsoever. At 4-5 weeks from conception, I would not even have missed a period.

Now, 4-5 weeks gestational age = 4-5 weeks from the date on which the menstrual period following conception should have occurred. In my case, that would have been 6-8 weeks, say, from the date of conception, i.e. the date of the rape.

That raises an interesting evidentiary problem in itself, doesn't it? What will we have -- a rebuttable presumption that menstrual periods are 28 days long? What evidence would I have to present in order to rebut the presumption: a calendar with days circled on it? That could be faked pretty easily. Records of my tampon purchases? Affidavits from my sexual partners or girlfriends stating, to the best of their recollection, when I had made statements regarding my menstrual situation? Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or on a balance of probabilities?

And when it comes to the compensation aspect of it -- "b) keep until delivery at $100/day" -- well, we have more evidentiary problems. I'm going to have to prove I was sexually assaulted. I've actually been through that wringer once. The circumstances in my case made it relatively easy -- i.e. easy as an evidentiary issue, not easy as a personal matter. Few women who are sexually assaulted are in the circumstances I was in (abducted and assaulted by a stranger). Might the state not be wanting indemnification from the assailant? It tends to want indemnification from fathers for support paid to mothers. In the latter case, DNA evidence provides proof beyond a reasonable doubt of paternity. Will DNA evidence be required? It isn't always even available (smart guys use safes). What proof will be required of the sexual assault for purposes of compensation? Proof to only the civil standard? Will the evidence accepted by the state constitute res judicata against the alleged assailant in a claim for indemnification? What if the assailant wishes to dispute the compensation claim? Could he be a third party intervener, with rights to cross-examine and so on? In order for the claim to be granted, there would obviously have to be a finding that a sexual assault occurred, which in many cases would necessarily involve proving the identity of the alleged assailant. Would he not be entitled to intervene in the proceedings simply in order to avoid such a blot on his reputation?

You see?

Apart from the fact that (as others have pointed out) your proposition does not accord with the reality experienced by women who are sexually assaulted -- trauma that interferes with decision-making, shame that interferes with reporting, etc. etc. -- it is not, on the face of it, even a workable proposition for women who were theoretically able to meet the requirements.

I think most of us here see "b) keep until delivery at $100/day" for what it is.

It's slavery. Coupled with the prohibition on a woman implementing her own choices about her pregnancy -- her life, her body -- it's a denial of freedom, for which you have presented no justification, and an appropriation of the body and services -- the life -- of a human being in return for arbitrary (and very minimal, although that's actually irrelevant) compensation.

If you may tell me that I may not terminate my pregnancy unless I am somehow able to do so within 4-5 weeks (of ...?) and that if I don't meet that requirement I must accept $100 a day as compensation for my inconvenience, then I may tell you that if you don't get off that bridge by the time I count to 10, you must accept $100 a day as compensation for cooking my meals and cleaning my house for the next 9 months.

That's my proposition. Is it okay with you?

Of course, to be more equivalent to yours (knowing that there is nothing in the world that is equivalent to pregnancy and parenthood), it would have to be: if anyone who chooses to cross a bridge doesn't get off it by the time the troll underneath it counts to 10, s/he must accept $100 a day as compensation for, oh, making weekly donations of blood and bone marrow.

I just don't think that people should linger on bridges once they've decided to cross them, and that's all the reason I need. Since you (making this equivalent to your proposition) nobody wants your own blood and bone marrow, will this be acceptable to you?

[deignan]

83. Complexity and the Status Quo

The proposal is that the 4-5 week period start from the time of the rape. This point was implicit. This is just a matter of clarifying what reasonably might be clarified. I'm very interested to see how people here respond and think so I don't want to discourage you.

It is also a good answer that one finds the whole thing just too complex. This is a good reason for sticking with the status quo. In fact, it might be a leading reason. So your questions are very to the point in this regard. Unfortunately, I can only go so far to answer them.

Remember, the proposal is just a broad outline of something that is potentially consistent with a principle, but need not be well defined.

[iverglas]

89. laughable

The proposal is that the 4-5 week period start from the time of the rape.

Obviously, then, the proposal of "Choice up to 4-5 weeks" for any pregnant woman means 4-5 weeks from the act of sexual intercourse that preceded the pregnancy. (Conception itself may occur some time after that act, of course.)

This means that a woman with a standard menstrual cycle would have 2-3 weeks after her expected menstrual period did not begin to obtain an abortion. Not just decide to have an abortion, mind. Actually complete the process.

As far as I know, there is not even an acceptable, reliable method of abortion in existence that would enable your proposition to be implemented.

Talk about "nothing".

It is also a good answer that one finds the whole thing just too complex.

I must assume that there is some reason for your addressing that remark to me in particular.

Let me assure you that there is nothing complex about your proposition whatsoever, and that I, personally, do not find it at all complex.

Pointing out that it is moronic and incapable of execution is very different from calling it complex.

Remember, the proposal is just a broad outline of something that is potentially consistent with a principle, but need not be well defined.

Sorry. I'm not willing to assume a can-opener when I'm being asked to buy a pig in a poke. Call me crazy. Or perhaps just not as stupid as you for some reason thought some of us were.

Remember, the proposal is just a broad outline of something that is potentially consistent with a principle, but need not be well defined.

The only principle that can be said to underlie your proposition is that it is acceptable to deny certain classes of people the exercise of their fundamental rights, for no legitimate reason, in return for benefits to other classes of people.

That just isn't one that I've ever even given serious consideration to, or that there is any reason for anyone to give any serious consideration to in this instance.

[deignan]

95. Here is your point -- it is a good one

Lwfern referred to a point that is implicit and that you have also been thrashing about. You may also want to reference that post.



Policy, any policy and therefore any principled policy, is almost always imperfect (by the laws of information theory). An real world implementation of a policy will not ensure that all contingencies are satisfied or even able to be satisfied. In fact, we cannot know with any certainty to what degree we will be able effect the policy objectives due to the inherent complexity of out world and the finite processing power of the human mind. (So I guess you can read the complexity post any which way you like).

It is a totally valid answer to say, "I'm not taking the risk" especially if you are aware that the complexity of the problem allows for sufficient lack of information with that associated risk that the costs may outrun the rewards.

So your principled objection to the change from the status quo is based on a weighing of risks as you are able to judge. Our brains are actually wired to do just this.

[noamnety]

68. "relieving the practicality of the situation"

"I want to relieve as much of the practicality of the situation -- same ideas as with 100% effective birth control as these are matters that are related to implementation of specific policy and not to the existence of a coherent principle."

Lies are not issues of "practicality." Why not state what you're really doing, relieving the situations of their facts?

Similarly, lies are not an "implementation" issue. Let's make the policy, worry about how to implement it later. Claiming that there is such a thing as 100% birth control (for the purpose of your study) is not a matter of implementation, it's an underlying falsehood of the principle that unwanted pregnancies can be prevented through birth control access alone. Claiming a woman can decide to abort a fetus she's not even aware of yet isn't an implementation issue. It's a principle based on a lie.

If you are testing the feasibility of a principle, you need to base the principle on truth, not fiction. Otherwise, by default, it's not feasible.

Now, if you are concerned about the possibility of rape and the fact that there were those who might wish to carry their child to term if there was a practical method to do so, why aren't you equally concerned about others who can't afford to carry their child to term?

Why not $100 per day for ALL expectant mothers? I can answer that - it's because the nonraped mothers were sluts, so they deserve poverty. The rape victims get a cash reward because you don't object to their sexual activities.

The $100 per day has nothing to do with ensuring expectant mothers can afford to keep a child, it has to do with penalizing and rewarding people who act the way you want them to act in the bedroom. If it were otherwise, the money would be on a sliding scale based on need, and pure and moral (nonslut) millionaires who got raped wouldn't be getting our tax dollars in return for breeding. If it were otherwise, anyone who needed assistance to survive would get it - even if you didn't like who they slept with - and knowing that, women would feel more secure about deciding to raise a child.

Guess what? That's what the democrats support! And it's been proven to work!

There's your feasibility study.

[deignan]

73. The Question

The question was, "Would you prefer A or B (not A)".


It's a question of your preference.

If you could have $1,000,000 from me for whatever purpose you want, would you like that? If I don't have that kind of money, it is no lie to ask you if you would have likely accepted the offer if I did have the money. Who knows, someday I might win the lottery.

Your response to such a question yields invaluable information about your inclinations and the possibility of rectifying your inclinations with the implications of a principle. So any way you answer, even a nonanswer, answers the question and gives me a basis upon which to proceed.

Reading your posts, I see that you are very inclined towards Not A. That is great! I appreciate you sharing this. I also appreciate your replies because now I will be better able to appreciate how many other members of the constiuency might react in respect to how a certain principled reformation of the party might impact its constituency in this particular area of concern. Is proposing such a principled reformation just a waste of time?

That was my question.

[iverglas]

76. "That was my question"

Yup, like I said in the first place.

Which would you rather do: hit that little old Jew over the head with this sack of shit, or beat out that rhythm on a drum?

Is it apparent yet that the idea of bargaining away women's fundamental rights in return for ... hmm, shall we call it a mess of potage? ... isn't meeting with general approval, at least among those who have bothered to give the idea more than the instant's reflection needed in order to click on an option in an on-line poll?

Given that the discussion pretty much seems to have ground to a halt (not much new being said that I see), will you tell us now? Was that what you wanted to know?

[deignan]

81. Thanks

Thanks again

[iverglas]

84. not an answer

How civil is it to seek answers to your questions and answer none put to you?

My post contained a question. Answer?

[deignan]

88. Answer

The answer is that unfortunately I am unable to give you an more elaborate answer at this juncture (please see other post on complexity). However, once a principle is stated (or if) an answer to you satisfaction might to possible.

I can thank you and we will keep your post on record for future reference.

Oops, I missed some of your earlier post.


I will propably close out this poll question in a couple of days. The results yet are not as statistically significant as I was hoping.

[lukasahero]

77. Do you have any idea how condescending you sound?

"Is proposing such a principled reformation just a waste of time?"

I guess we "feeling" liberals just don't see it your "reformation" to be as "principled" as you do.

Your question was "what's negotiable" and it has been answered - resoundingly.

[deignan]

79. Feasibility

If there is insufficient control effort available to meet the specs, we don't design and build the controller, unless we are just trying to bilk the client or perform some sort of exercise.

In engineering, knowing whether a solution is possible is a good part of the design effort. The next step is figuring out how to do it.

[noamnety]

86. bilking the client

We seem to be engineering a car that requires us to program in the turns to take before we've decided what our destination is (I must undergo the abortion before I know I'm pregnant), and the car is being designed to use sugar for fuel, even though we know it will ruin the gas tank. If an independent authority decides he approves of the way I am driving, he will supply me with the sugar for free. If not, I may not be able to afford the sugar, but I will be forced to drive the vehicle anyway.

[deignan]

90. Travel

Well, I'd consider it more to be like, "Would you like to travel by car or by train?"

Neither of us know the particular destination yet or whether or not we will even go on that ride.

[iverglas]

91. Nope

Well, I'd consider it more to be like, "Would you like to travel by car or by train?"

Neither of us know the particular destination yet or whether or not we will even go on that ride.

It's actually quite the inverse.

It's more like "would you like to go to Hawaii or Darfur?"

We know very well what the destinations are. What we can't figure out, in the case of Darfur, is how the hell you plan to get us there, even if, in a moment of insanity or insouciance, we said we want to go there.

[deignan]

92. OK

That's right -- I was thinking from my perspective, not yours on the matter of the question.

[noamnety]

93. no, it's not like that at all.

Would you like to travel by car or train is a question of preferences. Option A is requiring us to actually undergo an abortion before we know if we are pregnant.

Your scenario is not a matter of preferences (would you like to have a child now). It's a matter of paying for and undergoing surgery when we don't know if it is required.

In what fantasy world is that even an option to be considered? It's like undergoing chemo without knowing that you have cancer.

I thought the laws about having to wait 24 hours to get an abortion were restrictive. That's nothing compared to not being ALLOWED to have 24 hours to make a decision.

[deignan]

94. The Genius of Your Post

There is even a provision that pregnancy testing is free and available as part of A as well as the 100% effective birth control assumption.


However, there is a more arcane case or two where it might very well be that through no fault of their own, that someone gets pregnant and does not know about it for 4-5 weeks. As I said, the question is ill-posed by design. So it can be that even the best policy is not perfect. Fortunately, this does not destroy the applicability of the test as a feasibility of a principled policy.

The essential aspect is that there is a degree of randomness in the environment -- even randomness caused by human action that is deliberate (the definition of randomness here is dependent on the observer not being aware of the cause of the event).


So, that essential dilemma you have been knocking around for is an acknowledged fact of the problem. You could actually come up with many, many however improbable instances of the possibility for even the best broad brushed outline to fail. The essential saving grace of the approach is that it should not fail either in principle or to some acceptable level of approximation to reality.


Thanks, that was a great point that you implied.

[iverglas]

96. you just keep saying it ...

... feasibility of a principled policy.

You continue to speak as if there is a principle underlying the policy option you have presented.

The only one that I can make out, even if I squint really hard, is pretty much (forgive me for repeating myself):

it is acceptable to deny certain classes of people the exercise of their fundamental rights, for no legitimate reason, in return for benefits to other classes of people. (A)

I can't even bring myself to characterize this as a "principle", I'm afraid.

This entire waste of time was premised on your assertion that you wished to determine whether a principled policy is feasible.

There is an existing principled policy (not that the US Democratic Party has necessarily espoused it):

it is unacceptable to deny anyone the exercise of his/her fundamental rights without first publicly demonstrating the justification for that denial. (B)

Do you have a problem with that policy?

I'm now offering you two options -- for the principle on which policy should be based -- marked (A) and (B) above.

Which is your preference? It's a question; it's a forced choice; it's premised on a false dilemma, maybe, but that's no reason not to answer it.

[deignan]

97. Feasibility

This is a study of the existence of a feasible principled policy to reform the Democrat party. Therefore, no principle has yet been stated. (No politically feasible principle may exist).


Does this answer your question?

In optimization, we use the word "feasible" to mean "obtainable". Sorry for the confusion.

[iverglas]

98. good lord

This is a study of the existence of a feasible principled policy to reform the Democrat party. Therefore, no principle has yet been stated. (No politically feasible principle may exist).

Does this answer your question?

Are you not aware that you are speaking complete gobbledygook?

Allow me to recommend one of my all-time faves:
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html


In optimization, we use the word "feasible" to mean "obtainable". Sorry for the confusion.

Who cares? Was I asking about "feasibility"? I don't think so.

You are evidently using the term "principled policy" to mean something entirely different from what that expression means to anyone else who speaks English.

Why don't you answer the question I asked?

It's getting to be time for me to go play with another of my faves:
http://www.jabberwacky.com


This is a study of the existence of a feasible principled policy to reform the Democrat party. Therefore, no principle has yet been stated. (No politically feasible principle may exist).

None of this makes a shred of sense.

In no particular order:

- principles are not feasible; you may as well say that horses are indelible.

- policies do not exist; they are not somehow discovered, they are made.

- one does not "study the existence" of something unless it exists (and even then one would not be making any sense, anyhow).

- one cannot "study the existence" of something that does not exist ("has not been stated").


http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm

`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

That seems to me to be more to the point.

[deignan]

99. Feasibility Errata

That is "politically feasible".

So in our democracy there would need to be majority support (or perhaps less) for the core principle or the derivitive implementations.

I liked your references. For what it is worth, the phrase is technically correct (perhaps practically useless). To get my drift, just read the intro and links to the initial post. You will like that better.


P.S. I have the same difficulties with mathematicians. :)

P.P.S. Oh, I also noticed that every once in awhile I tend to drop words or letters. There should have been a "study" after "feasibility" in the phrase you cited. This is actually a characteristic of INTJs -- I am delegating the job of filling in the blanks to the reader as I concentrate my efforts on masterminding the argument (as in logic).

P.P.P.S. Also, I have to admit, I agree with the Alice. Since this is a nation "of the People" and Bush makes up words on occassion, I feel that I ought to be able to do so also. I will try to define them in context or leave them to your imangination.

[iverglas]

102. I give up

You wrote:

This is a study of the existence of a feasible principled policy to reform the Democrat party. Therefore, no principle has yet been stated. (No politically feasible principle may exist).

and now you say:

There should have been a "study" after "feasibility" in the phrase you cited.

The word "feasilibity" didn't even appear in the phrase I quoted!!! ... or anywhere else in that post.


So in our democracy there would need to be majority support (or perhaps less) for the core principle or the derivitive implementations.

Here we come to a point that I regard as extremely important.

There in fact does *not* need to be support for any "core principle" in order for a policy to be a subject of majority agreement, or consensus.

In fact, it would be very difficult to find any "core principle" among the adherents of the anti-choice position on abortion. (Keep in mind that I do not accept at face value any statement of adherence to a principle, and look instead for evidence of adherence to that principle.)

In fact, however, we have categorical knowledge of certain "core principles", and prima facie evidence of majority adherence to them.

The are, in the US as in many modern societies, set out in a constitution.

The US constitution includes these "core principles":

- no one to be deprived of life without due process;
- no one to be deprived of liberty without due process;
- no one to be denied the equal protection of the laws.

That evidence may be subject to rebuttal. It may be that despite the statement of these principles in their constitution, a majority of USAmericans do not in fact adhere to them.

But the really, really core principle of a constitutional democracy is that the constitution overrides any temporary or apparent majority sentiment. Whether or not a majority of the population adheres, or claims to adhere, to those principles at any particular time is irrelevant (unless, of course, they succeed in changing the constitution). The principles govern, regardless.

(And "irregardless" is still not a word; if it were, it would mean "not regardless". It bears no similarity to "inflammable" whatsoever, since "inflammable" is derived from "inflame", and does not mean "non-flammable". "Irregard" is not a word or concept.)

So we know what principles we're starting from. And your proposition (A) contains multiple gross violations of them right from the get-go.

Your proposition (A) amounts to a policy that would be in violation of your constitution. It would prohibit the exercise of constitutional rights without justification.

Now, it is not the case that there is never justification for violating rights. There is overwhelming consensus that the exercise of the right to liberty, for example, may be severely limited if an individual commits a crime.

A policy that consists of violating constitutional rights MUST, if it is to be described as a "principled policy" by anyone other than a demagogue, be supported by an articulation of the justification for the violation. (This, by the way, is what your Supreme Court failed to do in Roe v. Wade.) And anyone who advocates such a policy must advance such justification, if s/he claims to be a democrat (small "d"). Any argument for such a policy that does not consist of such justification -- that appeals to emotions or prejudices, etc. -- is quite simply demagoguery.



Oh, I also noticed that every once in awhile I tend to drop words or letters. ... This is actually a characteristic of INTJs -- I am delegating the job of filling in the blanks to the reader as I concentrate my efforts on masterminding the argument (as in logic).

Yes, and I am in fact quite skilled at filling in the blanks, and inferring from context and other knowledge (such as what people frequently tend to inadvertently omit) what was omitted. Since in this instance you haven't even given a coherent explanation of what was omitted from where, I'm no farther ahead.


Since this is a nation "of the People" and Bush makes up words on occassion, I feel that I ought to be able to do so also. I will try to define them in context or leave them to your imangination.

That would be dandy, but that is not what you have been doing. You're not making up words, you're using words that already exist and have an agreed meaning.

My point was that you appear to be using the word "principled", and the expression "principled policy", to reflect a secret meaning that you have assigned to them and that you have not bothered to inform anyone else of.

What I ask is really a very easy thing to do.

State what you mean when you say "principled policy". Surely you know.

[deignan]

105. Study

I backtracked and reread more closely your earlier post. Unfortunately, I was unable to amend the response post with the errata -- but I am assuming that you remember the question you were asking.



The words used here are technically correct (uniqueness, feasibility), etc. So I haven't been making up words here on you yet.


Principled policy: A policy derived from a principle applied to the existing environment. Not a function of the environment, but rather a function on the environment. E.g. "Health is good -> we tax fast food and subsidize gym membership" as opposed to taxing people and subsidizing McDonald's if they build in your neighborhood. This example is superficial because the 'good' is not a root good. So employment is not a consideration (or taxes). The policy will apply the pursuit of the good in a manner consistent with the principle.

Also, principled implies that the 'good' is philosophically good and not just a physical good (like food or air) and that there is a rule structure that can be derived from it (some actions will be consistent with the good regardless of consequence of the action). Existing laws are not constraints on a principled policy that derives from a root good upon which the law is based. Laws like this policy are often expressions of a good.

Anti-authoritarians will appreciate this last point.



This is funny (from Webster):

Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.



I guess it is true that I am anti-authoritarian.

[iverglas]

148. I'm still waiting, you know

"Principled policy: A policy derived from a principle applied to the existing environment. Not a function of the environment, but rather a function on the environment."

WHAT is the principle from which the policy you state in option (A) is derived?

It's a simple question, it's been asked several times.

If you can't/won't state what that principle is, I just don't agree that you get to call the policy in question "principled". And I can't think of any reason why anyone would answer your question as if the policy it sets out were in fact, in any way, "principled".

"Also, principled implies that the 'good' is philosophically good and not just a physical good ... and that there is a rule structure that can be derived from it ... ."

Yuppers. Things like "equal protection" and "right to life and liberty": philosophical goods. The things that *I* cited in support of my own principled policy.


I have repeatedly stated the principles from which the policy "no statutory/regulatory restrictions on access to abortion" is derived. It really was very easy to do. I can't think why you'd have any greater difficulty than I had, or be any less willing to do what I did.

[Name removed]

157. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

159. time for dinner

"Never fear, the principle will be stated. There does appear to be cause to suspect that it is politically feasible. ... Perhaps none would be feasible. ... Luckily, the one with the greatest electoral reach appears feasible."

Believe me when I say I have no fear. I don't cower from roaring mice; I snicker.

My interest in talking to someone who speaks nonsense like "principle is feasible" has waned to the point of invisibility to the naked eye.

A principle is not something that one DOES.

"Feasible" means DOABLE; it is derived from the Latin facere, to do.

It may be "doable" to implement a policy based on a principle. One might describe the policy as a "principled policy". One might even, at a stretch, describe the policy as "doable", in the sense of "capable of being implemented". But a principle IS NOT "doable". Fer chrissakes.

Since you refuse to answer the question, I'll infer (not assume, of course) an answer.

The principle that underlies your policy proposition is that some people can be made to agree with the most amazingly stupid and vicious propositions, when said propositions are presented to them in a context in which they do not expect to be presented with distastefully fascistic propositions wrapped up in fancy ribbons to make them look less distasteful and fascistic, many of those people being prone to spout opinions into which they have put no thought, and some of those people having very weak allegiance in any event to the principles that the proposition in question violates.

Recognize it?

You can fool some of the people some of the time ...


Luckily, the one with the greatest electoral reach appears feasible. Frankly, I did not expect the sort of result from the poll that we got. It is very hopeful.

Oh, yes indeed. There is indeed a huge unmet demand out there for a policy that involves levying taxes to pay for strangers' kids' medical expenses and to support pregnant strangers who claim to have been sexually assaulted, while at the same time violating women's right to life, liberty and security of the person.

Why hasn't somebody else spotted this before now? Surely those responsible for this bizarre and stupid oversight will now smack their foreheads and say but of course! propose to pick their pockets to reward the sloth and irresponsibility of all those strangers they have been happily ignoring for all this time, and promise to enslave women, and the entire brigade of right-wing cretins in the country will rush to our side! Or, well, enough of them to outweigh all the decent folk who will be jumping ship faster than you can count 'em ...


Who be this royal "we", by the way, pray?

[liontamer]

100. ewww

what's the point of having a democratic government if we eliminate choice for the people?

duh

[noamnety]

101. yep, we won't have rights, but we'll win the election! Yay!

I was also wondering about the point of a survey to check the reactions of democrats, on a board that's frequented by freepers as well as democrats. We don't even know here if we have democrats voting to sacrifice women's reproduction rights or if we have republicans voting for democrats to give up those rights.

What's the disclaimer on the CNN polls? This poll is not scientifically accurate. I hope you aren't planning to use your results for anything other than entertainment purposes.

[deignan]

103. Poll

I assume that you have to at least to a member in good standing to vote on these things. The return seems to be the same for other polls so the numbers are about right.

Since it is a test of feasibility, its actually the characteristic and number of the Not A responses that are important. What is the rationality? What are the objections? Feeling? etc.


It's a bit of a backhanded complement that you think this poll might be worth publicizing. It means that the right sort of questions are being asked.

Have you heard of other similar polls?

[noamnety]

104. don't take it as a compliment

I don't believe it IS worth publicizing, I just saw that you publicized your other stuff on your website and tried to pass it off as scientific research. It wasn't a statement based on a value judgement; it was a statement based on observation of past activities.

What I've seen is that you changed your definition of the options half way through your test. B means status quo. Wait, I mean B means anything except A. (for those of you who read to this point before voting). Changing the rules halfway through the game can't be proper methodology, unless you are affiliated with Mitofsky.

You were able to vote in the poll after being a member here for just a couple of days, not being a democrat, and having very few posts. That should tell you something. Your research is flawed because you have assumed something about your test subjects here, which may or may not be true.

Let me ask you, do you think I am a democrat?

[deignan]

106. Of Course

Worth publishing this? Ha. I am gratified that you would even consider the possibility.


Think of the logic. Preference is an ordering. It really doesn't matter a if you take the status quo to be not A or simply 'status quo' in determining your preference between two propositions.

I can safely assure the voter that he need not consider an infinite number of possible variations with concern -- I am only concerned about the feasibility of A -- not the content with the status quo (this would be a good point in other situations however. Here it is irrelevant). The fact that he can register his concerns in reply form is sufficient. (A lot of studies get bogged down in introducing too many variables -- especially when the number of respondents is limited).

You know, full blown scientific studies cost $$$ and often give poor results. I do have a concern. Is it possible that you may have been inhibited from voting your conscience when you saw how the poll was coming out? (I am concerned only with the B responses here).


BTW: I published the blog study in order to elicit comment. As you can see, the response was negligible.

[noamnety]

107. "of course"?

Is the "of course" in regards to you thinking I'm a democrat?

"Is it possible that you may have been inhibited from voting your conscience when you saw how the poll was coming out? "

Of course it is possible for a person to do that. In this particular poll, I personally was not. I posted an emphatic B right after a person asked why on earth would someone pick B.

But in other polls, I have been influenced by other responses on occasion. I listed myself as a "values" voter who did not vote for Bush. Was it a vote against my conscience? No, but it wasn't an answer I would have given without all the media buzz about Bush winning the values vote. Everyone who votes votes on their values, whether they are greed, civil rights, etc. I thought it was a ridiculously stupid option. And so I picked it. :)

[iverglas]

108. excellent point

I've always wondered why anyone believed all those self-serving statements made by smug poll exiters, about how they voted their values. (I mean, I don't disbelieve their statements; their "values" generally consist of naked, if extremely unenlightened, self-interest.) Just all too damned convenient, I'd say.

Kinda like I wonder why anyone would unquestioningly believe a bunch of right-wingers (surely a trustworthy bunch) who claimed, on a personality quizzie, that they make choices and decisions based purely the evidence in front of them and their entirely rational analysis of that evidence (whatever that means anyhow: a choice is never made based on facts alone, it is made based on desired outcomes, which are among the premises that all that logic is applied to ... and which it's surely difficult to separate from those feelings thingies), and are never swayed by their feeeelings ... sorry, my head is starting to spin. Am I feeling dizzy, or just deducing rationally from the evidence that I'm dizzy? Hmmmmmm.

[deignan]

110. Values Speculation

I would guess that most everyone votes their values as they see them. What are the alternatives -- voting to try to win a betting pool?

BTW: The poll is essentially over so I thought I would ask you what you thought a good IQ was and why it is important. Part of my reason for asking is that I noticed several weeks back that "smartness" is sometimes used as a reference in a trust relation to try to lay out the land. (This goes to a post on Human Transactions on my site). Others simply go by the maxim that "Smart is a smart does" -- a more contractual approach.

What is your opinion?

[noamnety]

112. I will answer that as a teacher

What's a good IQ for what? Wasn't there a case a few years back where a man was rejected on a police force because he scored too high on the IQ test?

For success in life? For accomplishing things? You can be autistic, unable to reason things through, and get gigs at the local opera house. You can likewise have a high IQ and make yourself a success by, in essence, stealing from others.

IQ by itself is not a measure of rational thought, of morality, of talent, of happiness, of butt-size, or of athletic ability. It is a good measure of being able to feel secretly superior to others, though, and I suppose that shouldn't be underestimated.

[deignan]

113. Just your opinion

I thought earlier that you said you had a high IQ. I didn't know how to judge that or what to make of it.

[noamnety]

114. That was someone else.

I'll take it as a compliment though that you think I might have a high IQ. :D

[deignan]

116. Right you are

I guess I liked some of your remarks -- showed some thinking about the underlying problems.

That was iverglas.

[iverglas]

129. indeed it was

I pointed out that I am an INTJ after you identified yourself as one and after all the chitchat about how un-"thinking" "liberals" are. And I alluded to my IQ when I pointed out that you had been babbling incoherently, by way of assuring you that the problem was not at my end. And by way of response to the obnoxiously patronizing tone you had adopted in responding to many people, myself included, in this thread. Interestingly, after I informed you of my INTJ-ness, you attempted to out-INTJ me by citing your consistent and strong INTJ-ness. I decline to play.

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

134. "OK"?

"... so what is a good IQ in your book?"

(For some reason that title appears on your post on the main thread page, but not on the post as I respond to it.)

I didn't say anything about a "good" IQ. I said that I have a very high IQ, as I recall. "High" is word used to describe a relative position on a scale, when speaking of numbers or notes, for instance. There is no value judgment inherent in it: a temperature of 100 is higher than a temperature of 99; fa is higher than mi; which is "good", or "better" than something else, is entirely a matter of context.

Since I didn't state, or imply, any value judgment at all about any IQ score at all, your question is not relevant to anything I said, and is not related to anything I have any desire to discuss here.


I'm in the 'smart is as smart does' camp myself since 'smartness' strikes me as an appeal to authority (and I am anti-authoritarian by nature).

Fer chrissakes. Your entire output here has been one great big appeal to an alleged authority: yourself. Your INTJ-ness, for instance, is of no interest to me in relation to whatever argument you have supposedly been attempting to formulate, and yet you go to lengths to assert it as if it were relevant. Behind that, you have obviously adopted the personality quizzies in question as authoritative measurements of something useful, and I'm not quite on board with that, as you've noticed. Self-reporting by self-selected respondents just isn't one of the most reliable measurement methods around.

By the bye, refusing to use words according to their accepted meaning, or to acknowledge the meaningless-ness of the "words" one uses, is not evidence of an anti-authoritarian nature. It's just dumb. Authority can exist without its exercise being "authoritarian". The "authority" in question is the authority of the collectivity composed of speakers of a language, in respect of the meanings assigned to the words in that language; that authority itself is definitional. Rejecting that authority isn't evidence of anti-authoritarianism, it's evidence of contrarianism. Occasionally charming, but hardly worth making an ideology out of.

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

138. gee, did I say "patronizing"?

Oh good
I think that's great and I am very glad for you.
I hope you are able to put it to good use.

Whatever could I have been thinking?

Personality type is not a criterion of merit.

Of course not! It is no assessment of merit at all for you to say that "liberals", that which you are not (a "classical liberal" not being a "liberal" by contemporary USAmerican usage), operate by feeling, while "conservatives" operate by thinking, on which you then elaborated (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=217&topic_id=615&mesg_id=655&page=) in such a way as to make it quite clear which was "better" by the standard of anyone with a brain or shred of decency.

This statement:

Rationalism is a method of organizing the environment in a logically consistent method such that the environmental entropy is reduced.

-- which may or may not be true or meaningful -- is simply a non sequitur in its context in your post.

And I will stick to my earlier assertion that rationalization is the method used by the right wing for organizing its environment.

The only person who can call it "moral", or a matter of "values", to deny others the equal protection of the law, and simple happiness, when they have done one no harm (prohibiting same-sex marriage), and advocate gross violation of the right to life and liberty (prohibiting abortion), just for instance, is someone desperate to "organize" his/her environment (i.e. redefine everything in it in a manner inconsistent with reality) in order to reduce the internal discomfort s/he experiences upon realizing that what s/he does in the selfish pursuit of his/her own interests makes him/her an agent of evil (someone who causes pain to others), and not of good, by his/her own standards (few people regard causing pain to others "good), in the reality of that environment.

It is not the "environmental entropy" that is reduced by the right wing's actions (as is perfectly evident from history, to anyone who cares to look). It is the internal entropy of the individual right-winger that is reduced by the right wing's rationalizing of its actions.


My INTJ-ness is by the Keirsey assessment. In the past, some years ago, I have come out as ENTJ, a "fieldmarshall" rather than "mastermind", and I apparently have "P" rather than "J" tendencies as well, the "NT" elements are strong and consistent. My results on some test I forget the name of many years ago (edit: obviously not the MMPI, something I had recently done and that inadvertently and erroneously slipped out through my fingers when I first typed this) reflect a similar tension: my ideal occupations were given as lawyer and language teacher. Interestingly, I was a lawyer at the time, and have been a language teacher of sorts (a sort of language teacher, with management authority over the "students"). My current occupation permits me to indulge my interest in both law and language, doing something I am a recognized expert at (which is why I don't name it), and mainly to sit in my extremely messy office avoiding contact with people and playing with problems and ideas. Howzat?

[NorthernSpy]

139. whatever you do, don't tell him...

... that superiority of intellect correlates most strongly with the NP intuitive-perceiver type, rather than with any of the types containing S or J.

http://www.sengifted.org/articles_social/Sak_SynthesisOfResearchOnPsychologicalTypes.shtml

It would be really bad to go and take a chunk out of such a blossoming INTJ self-image.

Oh, wait...

:P

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NorthernSpy]

155. judging involves abbreviated perception

This is what some call "mathematical maturity" -- opening your mind to abstraction. On the other hand, when an innovation is necessary, you really should call on an INTJ. Every once and a while we should give the system a poke and not just a good passive observation.

No, if you want anything to actually get done, call a J. What perceivers supposedly resist doing is not "innovating", but rather deciding among possible courses of action outside of the abstract realm.

FWIW...

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NorthernSpy]

160. action is implicit in the Judging temperament

I model the perception/judgment dimension as a tightness of focus for feedback referenced to the cognitive structure (intuition basis). Judgmental individuals have tight focus while perceptive individuals have a wider focus. This is all in the internal loop.

Action is another matter. (...)

The vaster your interior world, the less need you have to leave it, and the smaller your drive to "actualize" anything. To "judge" in this sense is to cut off perception early enough to form a conclusion that one may then act upon. Concrete action is implicit in the Judging temperament. The E/I part mostly just applies to how, with whom, and under what circumstances you carry out your actions.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NorthernSpy]

141. yikes!

To understand your point of view better (and thus the argument you are making), I am going to review your posts and see if I can appreciate some of your nonstated assumptions, method of understanding, etc.

In the meantime, it will help me if you could give me an idea of your background: area of study, point of career, career field, bio, etc. those sort of things. If you have a homepage or some publications that might also help.

Oh, and ask her what she's wearing. Mustn't forget that.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

146. oh dearie me

I just assumed that iverglas was male.

Funny it is, how many male persons who take me on, in print, do make that assumption. I had no idea you had joined them.

So what was it? The NT stuff? Just too damned rational to be a girl, I know.

Northern Spy's source noted a disproportionate prevalence of that "feeling" stuff among gifted female adolescents in one study, I noted. Whaddaya wanna bet that the labels "feeling" and "thinking" were made up and applied by boys?

The fact is, we all know very well that women are commonly characterized as being driven by feelings rather than thoughts, and we also know very well that this characteristic is, and has historically been, regarded as negative by the dominant opinion and opinion leaders in our societies. Except when it comes to opinion about women, in which case "thinking" has historically been regarded as negative (in our own interests, but of course: it saps our energies). I'm sure you've read Phyllis Chesler and all that has followed in the 30-odd years since Women and Madness was published (and since I read it). Dually deviant, that's me: a woman (one of those weak feeling sisters) ... but a thinking woman ... my sister, my daughter. Whistling girls and crowing hens. Amazing how many of us there are, once ya turn over a few stones ... or overturn a few assumptions.

Basically, your hypothesis about "liberals" continues to come down to: they're a bunch of big old girl's blouses. Based on some "tests" that are themselves affected by some pretty obvious biases, you ascribe the negative characteristic of acting from feeling, rather than from "rationalism", to "liberals", and accept self-identified conservatives' self-serving claims (everybody knows that "thinking" is better than "feeling", and any moderately clever person knows what to do in order to come out looking the way s/he wants to be seen and to see him/herself) as evidence of their positive, potent (masculine) nature.

And basically, the Keirsey-type tests tell you things about yourself that you want to hear, because they are the things that you and this society value.

Ring around the rosie, my friend.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

150. odd indeed

"This is a computer interface you know. It does not speak to me in a tone of voice or otherwise show anything but unencoded ASCII. So, assigning some gender to the interface seems odd -- anthropomorphic romanticism."

Sure didn't stop you from doing it though, eh?

"I make an implicit assumption that everyone (on the computer) is male unless they have some female specific avatar or login, i.e. not different from me on basis of gender -- that's the generic default."

"Difference from you", or lack thereof, is a completely ludicrous thing to assume, and a completely nonsensical basis for any assumption.

Male, no matter how "like you" it is, is not "generic". Likewise, "like me" is not "generic".

"Once I know you better as something other than a characteristic pattern of bits, I might be able to understand you point of view."

So far -- and it's been a reasonably great distance -- all you have evidenced is a studied effort to IGNORE my point of view, which has been repeatedly and very explicitly stated.

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

153. aren't you finished yet?

"You don't need to beat yourself up for anything other than the quality of your ideas."

I shall assume, if I may be so bold, that you are not using the pronoun "you" in the generic sense.

If I am correct, your latest pronouncement is about as responsive to anything I've said as the responses I'd expect to get from my friend jabberwacky.com. That is: completely non-responsive.

I have not beaten myself up for anything at all. I most certainly would not do so, and have not done so, "for the quality of my ideas", I assure you. So once again, I am left clueless as to the substance of the message you may be attempting to convey ... and once again, not through any defect or disability on the receiving end of the process.


"I was assuming that you had a point of view to relate, not simply a point of a spear."

No assumption is called for or appropriate in this case, friend.

You have all the evidence you need regarding my point of view, and the fact that I have been relating it. Do allow me to pat you on the head for your attempt at witticism, though.

No points for you, however, for democratic discourse. You have done nothing but obfuscate and obstruct. I (and not just I, of course) have stated both views and the reasons for which I hold them, while you have not. And I have both asked questions to elicit the same information from you and answered the relevant questions you have asked, while you have not.

The lifeblood of democracy is the full and transparent disclosure of views and the bases for them (including the interests of the speaker in having those views generally adopted). Your continuing evasion of that democratic duty here confirms my assessment that you are no democrat.

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noamnety]

152. I assume computer users are male also

Because men are so good with computers.

Iverglas, don't you have some cross-stitching you should be doing? :)

[iverglas]

154. almost right

Iverglas, don't you have some cross-stitching you should be doing? ;)

I gotta go feed my man soon. Mm mm, skinless fatless chicken with brocolli, red peppers, onions and almonds on a bed of brown basmati rice. (Good for the arteries, all that.) He gets to clean up after me ... and the cats. He's a whiz with computers, though, I must admit, especially for composing music on, although I leave him in the dust when it comes to composing thoughts on 'em. He can barely type. Virgos and Geminis, eh? Luckily, my gifted-kid public school classes were equal opportunity in the assumption that the girls too, and not just the boys, would need to know how to type their graduate theses someday.

I'm hungry and I wanna go watch teevee. But first I have to do some more work on this rather tedious job on my viewscreen ... I mean, if I didn't do some tedious work sometime, I'd be just as smart but not nearly as rich. ;)

[deignan]

109. Of course not publishable

That was your original question.

Do I think you are a (big D or little d?) democrat? Well, I actually haven't even considered it. I did check your web site and was impressed that you are a bit of a wit with a penchant for writing letters. However, I didn't take the time to read much of the letters so I can't say that that gave me much information in regards to political affiliation. For all I know, you are a registered Republican.

I suppose you could take that political affiliation-personality test and see where you come out. It might be interesting if I could relate that to a rationality for political affiliation of a certain type (why you chose this or that party, how do you process information, etc.)

[noamnety]

111. If you publish this

I will likely send you a letter. O8)

[deignan]

115. Great

However, we are seriously looking at publishing the political affiliation study results as they are inherently interesting and can be used to demonstrate the MI method of class identification (a pattern recognition term for determining differences).

[noamnety]

117. I don't think it would help you if I took the test

I'm not affiliated with any party.

[deignan]

118. Affiliation

The study question is 1-d lib/con. I had not a few respondents that didn't feel that they could put themselves on that line. These people tended to be self-described libertarians. Apparently that can mean very left or right.

On the other hand, I'm still not clear about "progressive" -- don't see what distinction is being made from "liberal".

[noamnety]

119. I think I can answer that

The distinction between progressive and liberal is that the republicans don't seem to like the word liberal. So now the liberals call themselves progressives, in the interest of pleasing the republicans. I think it's an effort to reach across the aisle; it's a unity thing.

disclaimer: that explanation has not been properly vetted by either the liberals or the progressives.

[WildClarySage]

123. I'm still a liberal

I refuse to let them tell me what to call myself! =) I agree that a lot of people have gone to calling themselves progressive as a response to the demonization of the world liberal. I'll even go so far as to call myself the worst of the worst- a BLEEDING HEART liberal!

[iverglas]

131. that's what I was getting at earlier

The distinction between progressive and liberal is that the republicans don't seem to like the word liberal. So now the liberals call themselves progressives, in the interest of pleasing the republicans.

Damned liberals, masquerading as progressives.

Being a politicized child of the 60s, and of course not a USAmerican, I have never had any desire to be, or be called, a liberal. I'm sticking with Phil Ochs on that one. And I'm not about to start calling liberals "progressives".

"Progressive" has always meant something quite different from "liberal", and was certainly not just a mask for liberals to hide behind. "Progressive" has always been a cross-cutting description of people engaged in political and other activities to promote such things as women's rights, workers' rights and human rights; while they may not have had overt political affiliations, they were involved in identifiably pro-people causes and actions, actions that would achieve progress in human history -- in the eyes of us who see a reduction in oppression and exploitation, and an increase in individual and collective well-being and happiness, as progress. "Progressive" means "left", although not necessarily by political (party) affiliation. (And the Democratic Party ain't left.)

My usage of the term predates its use in contemporary USAmerican mainstream politics by many decades. It is related to Marx's (and others' before him) "progressive theory of history".

The notion that "classical liberalism" is progressive is of course silly; classical liberalism is all about individual property rights, and there's nothing "progressive" about political positions that elevate property rights above human beings' welfare. (See the link provided by our interlocutor.)

Some USAmerican "liberals" are of course not much liberals at all, in the classical sense; they are progressives -- the word "liberal" has come to include, in the US, people who espouse vaguely social democratic ideas, such as more public contribution to individual needs for health care, housing, education, etc. (which is certainly not a "classical" liberal stance), as well as more respect for classical individual freedoms such as free speech, and less interference in matters regarded as within the private realm. Outside the US, no one would really think of calling these ideas, when they co-exist in an individual's or party's political positions, "liberal". They are what the Political Compass calls left-libertarian.

Liberal democracy guarantees the classical individual freedoms and democratic rights: free speech, freedom of assembly, right to vote, etc. Social democracy provides, in addition, greater guarantees of equality: not just the right to marry someone of one's own sex (non-interference by the state), but a guarantee against discrimination by the private sector if one does; not just the right to obtain health care and education, but public assistance in doing so. What such guarantees necessarily do, to some extent, is interfere in the exercise of the individual property rights so dear to the classical liberal's heart.

So while recognizing that some of those in the US who call themselves "liberal" are just using their own dialect to express values that I share, there are others who are not actually "progressive" and to whom I'm not going to abandon the title without a fight. ;)


http://www.stlyrics.com/songs/o/ochsphil15543/lovemeimaliberal418461.html

Phil Ochs - Love Me, I'm a Liberal

I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
And I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to the civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
And I'm glad that the commies were thrown out
From the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
And I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
As long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Ah, the people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
Now I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Yes, I read New Republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the Democratic Party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I attend all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
And I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Sure, once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
Ah, but I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

[yurbud]

124. are these mutually exclusive?

the way it's set up, it sounds like someone on the left if trying to cut a deal with the far right, which they won't honor in any case.

[deignan]

125. Yes

It's a preference poll to test the feasibility of a principle so the choices are mutually exclusive.

[yurbud]

128. I misread the question

I thought it was a democratic majority OR health care, etc.

[Catbird]

126. Forced Choice

This question is like asking if I would rather win the lottery (A) or go to work today (B) when the real choice is between BUYING a lottery ticket or going to work. I'm not going to win the lottery, so I might as well go to work. (I don't buy lottery tickets. But the chances are about the same, whether or not you buy tickets.)

Also, I'm not sure this is a lottery I would want to win. I don't think A could be administered without an even more intrusive Big Brother style of government than the one we have now.

[deignan]

127. Status Quo = Not A

Since it is a proposition of preference only, your vote does not imply that you like the status quo only that you would not be inclined to go for A if that was the only choice on the table.

If it helps, think of the status quo option as 'Not A'

[SarahB]

135. Questions for you.

1. Are you male or female? (I already know the answer to this.)

2. When have you ever had to face an unplanned pregnancy? You seem to think women should make major compromises in terms of their health and bodies which are entirely personal matters. You seem rather condescending regarding valid points people bring up. Do you have the guts to get personal about yourself? Come on. Let's hear it.

I've been in those shoes. I had my child. I married her father. I did everything I was "supposed" to do. I've never had an abortion (and I hope to never be in a situation where I would feel as though that were my only choice), yet I fully support choice because I see that things are very, very complex and sometimes there may be not a right choice, but merely what is the best in terms of the woman's judgment depending on the situation and based upon what she knows at the time.

This should not be a public issue or a party platform issue. This is certainly not an issue for outside males to put their 2 cents into. This should be an issue between a woman, her own conscience, her doctor, and hopefully her child's father.

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WildClarySage]

144. Given the republican party's tendency to take a mile when offered an inch

I'll opt for status quo. That means I keep fighting for what is right and good for my country, rather than giving in to what is wrong.

[OrwellwasRight]

147. I have read all the posts and I am not sure what your principles are

except that they include being Republican, so I am not sure how your proposal resolves any "principled dilemma."


1) I have no dliemma. Abortion should not be legislated. There really is no more to the argument. If I can't make a law about what surgeries you are not allowed to have, you cannot make such laws for me. It is called equal rights, there is no dilemma.

2) Your proposition is nonsensical. The average woman's cycle is exactly four weeks (by definition, average means some cycles are shorter, some are longer). And even cycles that fall at the exact average length can be one week late. Thus, you entire free-for-all period will preclude MOST women from being able to exercise therir choices. You propose to basically outlaw abortion and you wonder if we will accept it if children get healthcare?

3) Your premise that Repubs agree to universal healthcare for kids if Dems give in on abortion is pure fantasy (Repubs are bent on dismantling social programs, not adding to them).

Moreover, it asks Dems to give up more than the American public even wants. For all the Repub electoral victories since 1994, the polls STILL show that the majority of Americans support elective abortions in the first trimester. That's 12 weeks. Your proposal would therefore displease the majority of Americans. What is your point?

[Heddi]

164. Even with all of that,*HE*

wants us to make a choice between A and B based on the idea that "let's say ALL birth control is 100% effective"

IMPOSSIBLE. Not only is there no DRUG that's 100% effective, there's no BIRTH CONTROL that is 100% effective, aside from abstinence, which isn't so much "Birth control" as it is "lifestyle choice". I don't know too many married couples who practice abstinence because they don't want a pregnancy at that time.

SO he's asking us to make a choice between A (complete unrealistic scenarios that are just impossible to EVER come to fruitition ((there will NEVER be a 100% effective BC)) and B (status quo).

Then he changes the rules and say you can either vote "For A" or "Not for A" when that's not the options.

The options are A or B.

Not:
A
not A
B
not B

I don't think this poster has ever taken a course on ethics of research (which I have), a course in logic (which I have), a course in statistics (which I have), otherwise he would know that the simple phrasing of the question makes the study absolutely irrelevant. In order to judge people's perception and reaction to a situation, the situation must be as factually correct, or realistically possible as is possible.

I suppose a good example would be:

Let's say that only women who want to have children can get pregnant. Your body will know if you want to have children and that will determine whether or not you release an egg every month. If you don't want to get pregnant, your body will not release a viable egg. You never have to worry about unintended pregnancies because your body will know and can release or not release an egg based on your desire to have children. Equally, men will not produce viable sperm unless they want to impregnate a woman. THey will never be father's against their will, because their bodies will know if they're ready to be fathers and will only produce viable sperm if they are ready to be fathers.

Given this, do you support A) No abortions in any case or B) status quo.

The question itself negates any results the poll would generate because the question itself is flawed. It doesn't matter if 90% of the population votes for A --no abortions in any case -- because the situation that would LEAD them to vote for A would never feasably happen.

His poll, questions, and constant re-writing of the rules and reclarification and changing of the terms makes this one of *THE* most intellectually dishonest "research studies" I've ever seen, and trust me, I"ve seen ALOT of intellectually dishonest research study proposals.

[iamjoy]

165. Who Decides "Medical Necessity"?

n/t

[iamjoy]

166. Here Is Another One...

Women who give their babies up for adoption get 24 free sessions with a personal trainer to help get their bodies back in shape - have one year from date of delivery to use.