Difference between revisions of "Woozle/2021/12/04/1"
(Created page with "==About== ''This is cross-posted from [https://nextdoor.com/p/62nR3Jdmy7YR?view=detail Nextdoor].'' ==Post== '''subject''': Dennis's pro-government arguments Does anyone else...") |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
'''subject''': Dennis's pro-government arguments | '''subject''': Dennis's pro-government arguments | ||
| − | Does anyone else here endorse Dennis's arguments in the thread linked below? | + | Does anyone else here endorse Dennis's arguments in the thread linked below? ([[Woozle/2021/12/02|local copy]]) |
: https://nextdoor.com/p/LkT5M-ShmGBT?view=detail | : https://nextdoor.com/p/LkT5M-ShmGBT?view=detail | ||
Revision as of 15:18, 4 December 2021
About
This is cross-posted from Nextdoor.
Post
subject: Dennis's pro-government arguments
Does anyone else here endorse Dennis's arguments in the thread linked below? (local copy)
It seems to me that he doesn't understand what he is talking about, and is using logical contradictions to defend his viewpoint against an imaginary threat.
His primary claim seems to be that taking away a federal-level right is somehow giving individuals *more* freedom, when it obviously does the exact opposite.
(He also refuses to answer my question about whether he really supports the idea that government should be allowed to overrule individual autonomy on a highly personal medical decision.)
If that's not what he's saying, I'd very much appreciate it if someone -- someone ELSE -- could explain it to me.
(...without, you know, being obviously illogical or counterfactual.)
P.S. Also, his claim that he's the one advocating a democratic process is highly disingenuous. Abortion rights have overwhelming support among voters, and is in danger of being overruled by a court packed 6-to-3 against it -- selected through a dishonest process enabled by a president who lost the majority vote and a Congress led by a party that has been rigging elections in their favor for decades now.
I wish I could laugh.
Comments
In response to Jeff's claim that I don't really want a dialogue:
The conservoid idea of "dialogue" seems to be something like "we explain things, and you listen and nod politely".
No wonder they complain about being censored and cancelled: anytime anyone points out how terrible almost all of their ideas are, that's "censorship" and "incivility" and not really wanting a dialogue.
I guess I keep hoping there's more substance to them than that. I don't *want* people to be authoritarian [pre-censored for the civility police]-holes, but I guess sometimes they just are and we have to accept that and deal with it.
Sometimes people just suck, you know? And that's too bad, and we just need to make sure their goals don't prevail.