Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Hitler's war.
Saddam's war with Iran.
In short, the wars of conquest, as opposed to the wars stopping evil.

That's not a principled distinction, sad to say. All the Roman wars of conquest advanced the cause of world peace, as did all of Alexander's and Saladin's. Meanwhile, arguably the cause of world "peace" would have been better served by punting Korea, as I assure you the NKs saw that war as "stopping evil."

Or maybe you think it's better for the Nobel to be awarded as "Best Effort at Advancing the Ideals of a Select Group of Western Nations, the Methods of Which Not All of Those Western Nations Agree On."

I personally prefer a policy of being reticient to award a Nobel to a person who fought a war while claiming it was fought to achieve a lasting peace, as even Hitler would have described it thus. The award is designed to encourage outside-the-box thinking on how to avoid human conflict, not to reward winning it. Remember who Nobel was, and for what he sought to atone. Besides, giving a Nobel to a war-winner kinda defeats the point, like giving a dollar to your kid for winning the big baseball game.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You still have yet to (1) question my list - you did after all, pose the question to me, and (2) post your lefty 5.

Jesus, give me a fucking minute --- there were 9 million abortion posts today, and I have to find a Cocteau quotation for each and every one of them.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
That's not a principled distinction, sad to say. All the Roman wars of conquest advanced the cause of world peace, as did all of Alexander's and Saladin's.

I'm drawing a distinction that you're missing, probably because it's arbitrary and poorly described by "peace".

Best I can put it, this late, is peace is something more, something greater and more benign, than mere calm. A conquered world is certainly calm, but it doesn't leave its subjects in peace.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Jesus, give me a fucking minute --- there were 9 million abortion posts today, and I have to find a Cocteau quotation for each and every one of them.

Off the top of my head, three candidates for the award might be Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the opposition in Zimbabwe, and the guy who led Montenegro while we were bombing Serbia.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
This is probably true. The abolitionists certainly weren't content to leave the Northern states free while the Southerners kept their slaves.

Wow. I got no traction at all when I posted this in December. It took the GOP Messiah to cite Dred Scott in a town hall meeting before the con side and finally woke up to the realization THAT THE GOP DOESN'T GIVE THE SMALLEST SHIT ABOUT FEDERALISM OR THE UNIQUE CONSTITUTIONAL "FLAWS" IN ROE.

49-6. The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Best I can put it, this late, is peace is something more, something greater and more benign, than mere calm. A conquered world is certainly calm, but it doesn't leave its subjects in peace.

Remind me what your Israel policy is, again?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
It's that whole compromise thing. He's hung up (I think) on the idea that, if one accepts the "it's a human" principle, you can still bargain its life against a woman's right to autonomy.

I don't think the two could ever be compatible. Even in the rape circumstance, I think a logical consistency mandates no exception.

If you can buy the idea that humanity starts sometime after conception and nearer birth, you can make this bargain. But, if not, it's a pretty merciless moral position.

Stop being a puss, bilmore. Do you believe life begins at conception? Do you believe abortion is murder? If so, let's hear you say it.

[Atticus Grinch]

sgtclub: [loaded rhetorical question indicating obviously desired result]

sucker: [observation that obviously desired result leads to a logical absurdity]

sgtclub: Who said [obviously desired result] or [logical absurdity]? I didn't. I haven't posted on how I come down on that issue.

sucker: [patient explanation of how obviously desired result leads to logical absurdity]

sgtclub: Whatever. You're mischaracterizing what I said. All I asked was [loaded rhetorical question indicating obviously desired result]. I haven't expressed an opinion as to the answer, and I never meant [logical absurdity].

[dead silence]

[repeat]

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Stop being a puss, bilmore. Do you believe life begins at conception?

No, see the sperm and the egg are alive when they unite and only life begets life except that first time in prebiotic earth when the RNA formed from random, ah fuck it.

[Jean Socteau]

Atticus Grinch
sgtclub: [loaded rhetorical question indicating obviously desired result]

sucker: [observation that obviously desired result leads to a logical absurdity]

sgtclub: Who said [obviously desired result] or [logical absurdity]? I didn't. I haven't posted on how I come down on that issue.

sucker: [patient explanation of how obviously desired result leads to logical absurdity]

sgtclub: Whatever. You're mischaracterizing what I said. All I asked was [loaded rhetorical question indicating obviously desired result]. I haven't expressed an opinion as to the answer, and I never meant [logical absurdity].

[dead silence]

[repeat]

The poet never asks for admiration; he wants to be believed

-- Jean Socteau

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I'm waiting for Atticus to do it, as I didn't really get the point of that exercise to begin with.

I had hoped two things would happen by asking the cons for five Nobel nominations.

One, I hoped to show that they could not name five ideologically pure living individuals whom they would admire for advancing the cause of peace. I accomplished this by Bilmore and Club expressly admitting they couldn't come up with five, and Slave tacitly admitting so by including Bono.

Two, I hoped against hope that the con side would tacitly admit that the Nobel has more moral authority than their Coulteresque constant repetition of the Carter/Arafat awards would indicate --- as if these two were the only ones ever to have won the award (in Arafat's case, he wasn't even the only recipient that year). I had hoped merely that they would name people who as a categorical matter leant credence to the Nobel committee's equanimity and fundamental even-handedness in awarding the Peace Prize. They surpassed my wildest dreams by repeatedly naming people WHOM THEY HAD FORGOTTEN HAD PREVIOUSLY WON THE AWARD. All in all, it looks like calling the Nobel Committee a bunch of dupes and internationalist assholes is thoroughly debunked. What, we're going to shit on them now for not naming Reagan before he died?

I'm batting 1.000. If I can think of other goals accomplished by this exercise, I'll add them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If I can think of other goals accomplished by this exercise, I'll add them.

Did I spell Aun Sang Suu Kyi right? Did she win before?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I had hoped two things would happen by asking the cons for five Nobel nominations.

One, I hoped to show that they could not name five ideologically pure living individuals whom they would admire for advancing the cause of peace. I accomplished this by Bilmore and Club expressly admitting they couldn't come up with five, and Slave tacitly admitting so by including Bono.

Two, I hoped against hope that the con side would tacitly admit that the Nobel has more moral authority than their Coulteresque constant repetition of the Carter/Arafat awards would indicate --- as if these two were the only ones ever to have won the award (in Arafat's case, he wasn't even the only recipient that year). I had hoped merely that they would name people who as a categorical matter leant credence to the Nobel committee's equanimity and fundamental even-handedness in awarding the Peace Prize. They surpassed my wildest dreams by repeatedly naming people WHOM THEY HAD FORGOTTEN HAD PREVIOUSLY WON THE AWARD. All in all, it looks like calling the Nobel Committee a bunch of dupes and internationalist assholes is thoroughly debunked. What, we're going to shit on them now for not naming Reagan before he died?

So when you sue people on behalf of your clients, what percentage cut do you take and after expenses, what is the total percentage that your clients get?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I said:

• Club's conception of individual rights -- as least as regards a woman's bodily autonomy -- is a pretty weak one. Woman who act irresponsibly in his book -- e.g., choosing to have non-incestuous sex -- are not deemed to have any real cognizable interests relating to the pregnancy that follows.

In #2602, you quoted that post, and responded:

• Dude you are being ridiculous in your characterization of my position.

Earlier, in #2482, I said:

• Is there a non-rhetorical difference between saying that a woman who engages in non-incestuous consensual sex forfeits the right to autonomy, and saying that you're not going to include the burdens to her in weighing the relative interests relevant to her desire to have an abortion? I'm not seeing it.

In response to which, in #2489, you said:

• I think it goes to how much weight you give the burdens - less if she didn't take proper precautions in the first place.

To which I said, in #2494:

• I fail to see where you are giving any weight at all to the mother's interests. It sounds like you think abortion is OK only if the fetus is entirely oblivious to whatever it experiences. It's not really "balancing" if one side of the scale has nothing on it. It is analytically, simply, I grant you, but only at the cost of ignoring half of a difficult moral equation.

And pointed out that you view property rights differently.

The crux of it is this idea that women who act irresponsibly -- i.e., opt to have sex -- have fewer rights. Or you take their burdens less seriously. It's a morally judgmental view of personal rights that is profoundly unlibertarian -- it's the opposite of libertarianism, really -- and stands in direct contrast to your many and well-developed posts about economic rights. I don't think you've ever said that someone who invests money unwisely can be taxed at higher rates.

You've left out some of the argument, but that's ok.

Let me try to summarize my position. Keep in mind that I've admitted that this is a very difficult issue for me, and one I haven't resolved.

You seem to want to only look at one side of the equation (i.e., a woman's rights. I am uncomfortable not looking at both sides simultaneously. So while you believe I discount the woman's rights, I'll throw that back at you and say you discount the fetus' rights.

As we both agree that this is a question of balancing rights, let me try to define them. These definitions will be oversimplified, and you are free to expand upon them.

The woman's rights are, essentially, to have dominion over her body and to be free on unwanted pain/burden.

The fetus' rights are to life or potential life and to be free of pain.

The right to dominion over her body and to be free of unwanted pain/burden conflict with the fetus' right to potential life. The issue of pain cannot be answered definitively at this time.

When balancing these competing rights, I tend to be biased towards protecting potential life. This is not to say that the woman's rights are not important. They are extremely important. But I find it hard to choose those rights over a potential life or death decision. I make the same choice when it comes to the death penalty because I find it prudent, when there are unknowns, to side with life. What can possibily be a more important interest than that.

But you are right, I am making a judgement of sorts when comparing the rights of a woman who took precautions v. a woman who did not. I believe that the woman who was responsble is entitled to greater protections. I still end up in the same place today, but who knows how the calculus will come out when we know more.

Rape/incest poses a different calculation, because I put a large multiplyer on the woman's pain, and discount the quality of life of the fetus due to all of the consequences involved.

Although I freely admit that this model has inherent problems, I don't think it is inconsistent with libertarianism. My rights, as a libertarian, are not unlimited. Their border is when they infringe upon the rights of another. This is clearly the case in the abortion context.

[Atticus Grinch]

See, Slave, here's where you're being shortsighted. The libs can always name billions of potential Nobel recipients because we're the ones who want to give it to some bleeding heart African who got macheted for trying to encourage her village to vote or not sew their vaginas shut --- you guys have to come up with Kissinger types or you look like pussies.

Aside from being able to unreservedly endorse most of the prior recipients, my nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize might include:

• Vaclav Havel
• International Committee of the Red Cross (again --- hey, time of war, it's tradition)
• Oswaldo Paya
• Any Chinese dissident chosen at random
• Mordechai Vanunu (dark horse)

They should probably just award it to the 15th Dalai Lama as a preemptive matter in case the world blows up before he's reincarnated.