quote:The majority of those who are pro-choice are women, because it is their bodies and their futures that are being discussed.
Can you cite this? The studies I've seen shown women to be more likely to want a total ban on abortion.
Here's one example, about a third down the page. 32% of men support a ban except in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother, 8% support a total ban. The numbers for women are 31% and 11%.
Hum. The numbers you quote do not necessarily contradict the assertion made. You have shown that more women than men are pro-total-ban; given that there exists a 'neutral' position, it is still possible that most of the pro-choice people are women.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ACLU isn't against all religion. When they demanded that LA remove the small cross from its seal, they had no problem with the much larger image of Pomona, the goddess of orchards.
They also aren't always against political expression. In VA, they threatened lawsuit to ban a "Choose Life" license plate design, saying that it constituted endorsement of a religion (?). They had no problem with "Kids First" or "Protect Wildlife."
On abortion: consistently, in poll after poll, women are more likely to oppose legal abortion than men. The difference is small but statistically significant. I don't have an explanation, and I don't see it as proof that either side is right; but it does put paid to the idea that "women" support legal elective abortion. Some do, some don't.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, fine. You can say I haven’t proved it. But I think the goggle search shows very compelling evidence to the contrary.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, fine. You can say I haven’t proved it. But I think the goggle search shows very compelling evidence to the contrary.
No, it doesn't. Geez, are you really this bad at logic? You made a SPECIFIC allegation: that they would support someone in the exact same situation who wanted to take the Lord's name in vain instead of thanking Jesus.
The facts of the case matter. You might go around deciding what you're going to do based on broad, ill-defined and ill-understood categorizations. The ACLU does not, for the simple reason that every position they take has to be reduced to a specific legal argument founded in specific legal premises and facts. Everything they do is about distinguishing one situation from another.
All your "evidence" shows is that the ACLU takes a lot of stands that piss off some people who call themselves Christians. That's not evidence at all that they will therefore take any stand that will piss off those people.
Come on now. This farce has gone on long enough. From the first time you started posting on political topics here, you've engaged in this simplistic charade, calling people "liberal" because they disagree with you on a specific issue and making unsupportable claims about what motivates others. It's time to stop this. There's a lot of intelligent discourse to be had on this board. For some reason, it never seems to happen when you're around.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:The majority of those who are pro-choice are women, because it is their bodies and their futures that are being discussed.
Can you cite this? The studies I've seen shown women to be more likely to want a total ban on abortion.
Here's one example, about a third down the page. 32% of men support a ban except in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother, 8% support a total ban. The numbers for women are 31% and 11%.
Hum. The numbers you quote do not necessarily contradict the assertion made. You have shown that more women than men are pro-total-ban; given that there exists a 'neutral' position, it is still possible that most of the pro-choice people are women.
A simple click would have shown you that women are slightly outnumbered by men on the two pro-choice options in the survey, KoM.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Dag, I usually find you very insightful and informative but this time you seem to have stooped to the Tom level of arguing. As I have said multiple times the EXACT case of taking the Lord’s name in vain does not exist, it was meant as an analogy from the typical way that the ACLU functions. I have showed this from various places. You might not like where or how, but I have. Who is the one that is bad at logic? You keep trying to say that I’m looking for this specific case when I’m not. It’s really hard to argue when this is your only defense. Plus you two always want to go to the mic being cut off instead of taking the issue from the beginning where they wanted to edit the speech. That’s where the issue really starts. And where I’d maintain that the ACLU would step in the other way around. Sure I’m saying this might happen. I really think what pisses you all off is that you can’t proof that it wouldn’t happen.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
You are operating based on double standards here. Claims you believe are obviously true are given the benefit of the doubt, with support only of anecdotal cherry-picked Internet news reports.
Claims you believe are obviously false, you repeatedly insist that rock-hard factual statistics be demonstrated from totally unimpeachable sources, which you proceed to grant the same level of credibility as your own anecdotal cherry-picked Internet news.
You've done it at least a half-dozen times on this thread alone. It does neither you nor your arguments any favors. In fact and unfortunately, it makes your arguments appear foolish because of this blatant double-standard being used. I say unfortunately because on more than one occassion in the past, I have agreed with the general thrust of your statements, but am almost always completely unable to maintain that agreement beyond generalities.
quote:And where I’d maintain that the ACLU would step in the other way around.
With no proof. Not even good evidence.
You've picked a standard - an ill-defined standard - of "antiChristian." You've contended that the ACLU uses this standard in selecting cases.
To prove this, you've selected a bunch of cases you claim match the "antiChristian" criteria you've created and said, "See, the ACLU takes antiChristian cases."
The problem is that there are other case-selection criteria that can be tested against the ACLU's cases that fit better than this anomalous "antiChristian" criteria, for two reasons:
1.) These other criteria account for the case selection history.
2.) These other criteria don't have counterexamples, whereas your antiChristian criteria has dozens, probably hundreds of counter examples.
Your criteria fails step two.
quote:I really think what pisses you all off is that you can’t proof that it wouldn’t happen.
But we can prove that, in the past, the ACLU has acted to protect Christian speech. So the question becomes, what's different between these cases? It's not the Christian content of the speech. Therefore, the Christian content of the speech is unlikely to be determinative.
What pisses me off is that you said the cartoon was 100% accurate, leveling a fairly serious charge at the ACLU, and you can't acknowledge that you have no evidence at all for your position.
Here's what would support your argument:
1.) Find two cases, one taken by the ACLU, one not. 2.) The one taken by the ACLU contains anti-Christian speech. 3.) The one not taken includes Christian speech. 4.) There are no other significant differences between them.
If you can't find that, then you've got nothing. Because your contention isn't that the ACLU takes cases with the desired result of stopping some particular Christian speech. That's easy to prove.
Your contention is that in identical circumstances, the ACLU would support antiChristian speech and require Christian speech to be suppressed. This is a very particular charge.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I have said multiple times the EXACT case of taking the Lord’s name in vain does not exist, it was meant as an analogy from the typical way that the ACLU functions.
Jay, I really don't think you know what an analogy is.
quote:Plus you two always want to go to the mic being cut off instead of taking the issue from the beginning where they wanted to edit the speech. That’s where the issue really starts. And where I’d maintain that the ACLU would step in the other way around.
And I maintain that they wouldn't, especially if your idea of "the other way around" is "taking the Lord's name in vain" -- but agree that if one were to file a court case, one would do it to challenge the requirement of pre-approved scripts.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:A simple click would have shown you that women are slightly outnumbered by men on the two pro-choice options in the survey, KoM.
I would contend that the overwhelming majority of "actively" pro-choice people are women. Meaning those who attend rallies, who picket, who lobby, who pass out petitions, who create flyers, things of this nature. Its one thing to be pro-choice by checking a box on a survey, its another to be an actual advocate.
I admittedly have absolutely no evidence to back this claim, beyond my own experiences and through the media. I would be interested in hearing if anyone else's experiences are in contradiction of mine.
Anyway, great posts in regard to the ACLU, Dag.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would contend that the overwhelming majority of "actively" pro-choice people are women.
Also only from my own experiences, the overwhelming majority of actively pro-life people are women. It's generally 2-to-1 women-to-men at planning meetings and such, and probably 1.5-to-1 at rallies and such.
posted
It makes sense to me that most of the activists on both sides of the abortion issue are women (if that's the case generally). As a male, I think there's a difference between wanting a say in whether abortion is allowed and wanting a say in whether my significant other gets one.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jay, how does the Phelps case have any relation to the Smith case? Aside from Phelps' and Smith's positions on homosexuality, of course.
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is true, of course, that political appointees serve at the pleasure of whoever appoints them.
What legal theory do you propose the ACLU use to defend this man? Did he even approach the ACLU to ask them to file a suit in his name?
If it weren't so transparent, your proffering this as evidence of different standards by the ACLU would be an out and out lie.
As it is, since it takes about 30 seconds of reading to uncover the reason no one would pursue this case, it's merely another piece of "evidence" that is utterly unrelated to your original point.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jay, I completely get the posting at work thing. I don't have a computer at home, so can only post at work. Yesterday wasn't very busy for me, so put my nagging down to my eagerness to continue the conversation.
Thanks for the links.
So what the Phelps case seems to prove is that the ACLU will protect the free speech of self-proclaimed Christians even when (I imagine) they, and leftists like me, and (I am pleased to discover) you really disagree with what they are saying.
I wasn't sure how the ACLU factored into the Smith case.
At any rate, I'm not sure how any of those helped your point. I think they helped mine.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: ...antichristian I think could be considered left wing.
It is a shame we have let this happen. What ever became of that great liberal religious tradition. Where are the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.s, and the other Christian leaders that led the civil rights marches, the anti-war marches, the progressive and liberal causes of the 60's? The liberal anti-slave movements of the 1860's?
Are they all held captive of the abortion debate?
quote: The media always talks about those religious right wingers. So sure, why not. But if we want to look at the Goggle search right now. We’ve got drugs, sex offenders, same sex marriage, not praising God in public. Those seem to qualify as antichristian arguments.
Lets look at them.
Drugs. Where are drugs even mentioned in the Bible? Drugs are a Left/Right issue, not a Christian issue.
Sex Offenders. What you call supporting sex offenders others call suppoting privacy and due process. Again, is this a Christian thing or a Right/Left debate?
Same Sex Marriage and Prayer in Public is Christian, but not all Christian. Here we are defining Christians, true Christians, as only those who believe what you believe.
The main reason to separate church and state was to avoid the sectarian atrocities that ran rampant in previous centuries. Remember that before you start labeling people who is Christian and who isn't.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
You made an unsupportable accusation. My hope is that you will admit that you were wrong. Since that is unlikely, I will settle for a gentlemanly and public (rather than cowardly)acknowledgement that you don't want to continue this.
People have far too often gotten away with making these types of accusations because no one thinks it worth the time to argue with you. Even more frightening, you get people believing you. I don't intend to let this particular accusation stand.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, Kate, Kate….. Sigh… when I saw your first post about wanting to continue I emailed you.
This:
quote: Jay has sent you the following message through Hatrack River Forum:
Look I’m not sure there is really anything else to say. I really think it’s time to disagree to disagree. Plus it’s really starting to not be much fun.
You replied back with:
quote: As your conversation is not just with me - after all you started the thread and the discussion of the offensive and unsupportable cartoon - I think that you should offer to "agree to disagree" on the thread, rather than to just me.
Back to me:
quote: The thread is on page two now. It done with. I wasn’t really offering, I was telling that I thought it was way past time to disagree to disagree.
You:
quote: Look, I was trying to be nice. You made unsupportable accusations and were entirely wrong. Either be a grown up and admit it or at least graciously make public your offer to "agree to disagree" or I'll keep bumping the thread just to make the point.
Me:
quote: That is entirely your opinion, which I totally disagree with. Do what you want. As I keep saying, I never offered you a agree to disagree. I said, as the point is proofing, disagree to disagree. You already looked silly the one time with your constant you there posts. What do you hope to prove by digging it up more?
You:
quote: I don't think that you understand the "agree to disagree" concept. It basically means that you agree that you are never going to agree on the subject of the argument. "Disagree to disagree" does not make any sense at all. You made an unsupportable accusation. My hope is that you will admit that you were wrong. Since that is unlikely, I will settle for a gentlemanly and public (rather than cowardly)acknowledgement that you don't want to continue this. People have far too often gotten away with making these types of accusations because no one thinks it worth the time to argue with you. Even more frightening, you get people believing you. I don't intend to let this particular accusation stand.
Me:
quote: Oh brother…. I perfectly understand the agree to disagree. But since that concept does not seem to mean much on Hatrack I’m saying it has a disagree to disagree concept. Sort of like what is going on right here. Go figure. Again…. I supported my side. You might not have liked it, but tough. I was right. If people believe me it is because of that. Ok, I’m really late for work….. (All Star Game last night, I’ll try and post some pics later.) But I can’t get to my email from work (that whole national security thing and what not), so I won’t be able to answer email until later tonight. .
So…… There’s the whole story. I think all the points have been stated weather they are agreed on of course is not accepted. It seems like we’re done. So Kate, why not just drop it.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I for one am glad that's over. Now I can get something off my chest that's been driving me crazy (in a nit-picking sort of way), but wasn't truly relevant to the discussion...
Jay...you consistently use the word proofing and I automatically replace it in my head with the word proving. Was the use of the word "proofing" an intentional thing? I've never head it used like that before...
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
And guess what. You’re proofing the concept of disagree to disagree. Thanks for yet again showing Jay is right! Yes, I know. Immature statement there, but it’s really getting beyond old.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I explained why I don't "just drop it". Here it is again for those who might have missed it:
quote: People have far too often gotten away with making these types of accusations because no one thinks it worth the time to argue with you. Even more frightening, you get people believing you. I don't intend to let this particular accusation stand.
"Proofing" is slang for "proof reading". Is that what you mean?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry. I didn't mean on Hatrack, but rather as a general thing. One of things I like about Hatrack is that people are asked to support their assertions.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You’re proofing the concept of disagree to disagree.
*blink* Can you agree to disagree about facts? I mean, it bothers me enormously that 13 is not divisible by four. Can I agree with my math teacher that we disagree on this?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think your math teacher would say that "disagree to disagree" is like multiplying a negative - you get a positive. "I disagree to disagree with you. Therefore I agree, by default."
I guess that means ... kmbboots wins? Since Jay agrees with her.... Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love reading exchanges like this, because it's an illustration of the thought processes of a great deal of the voting populace.
The ACLU is bad. It just is. Even if you can list a few cases here and there that seem to show they're not, they are. We know it, and we smile when you continue to argue otherwise.
Your assertion is rife with inaccuracies, wishful thinking, and partisan accusations. Defend it.
My assertion should be enough for you. Why do you keep questioning it?
What's interesting is that the actual question -- should schools have the right to restrict teh valedictarian speech -- was touched on by all parties in the last few pages, and that is indeed a case where the ACLU might have gotten involved whatever the content of the speech, but it was swept aside by the rest of the inanity.
Jay, had you said that the ACLU probably would have taken her case if she had been taking the Lord's name in vain, you wouldn't have gotten as much flak. But because you seemed to be stating it as a definite, unquestionable, automatic action based on ACLU policy, you got questioned. The first is opinion, entirely supportable. The second is fact, and fact requires proof.
[ July 12, 2006, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: FACT #1: Her mic was cut off. FACT #2: It was cut off when she thanked Jesus. (Yes Tom, this was off her the edited approved script, but this was when it was cut)
I got a speeding ticket the other day. It was right after I went through an overpass. I'm sure I got the ticket for going under the overpass, not because I was going 15 over the speed limit.
See if I ever go under that overpass again.
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The ACLU is bad. It just is. Even if you can list a few cases here and there that seem to show they're not, they are. We know it, and we smile when you continue to argue otherwise.
What annoys me is that the areas where the ACLU really is bad can't even be discussed with posts like Jay's around.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I tend to regard the ACLU the same way I do the NAACP. They've done great work, and I'm very glad they're out there, but they've also made some boneheaded moves that hurt their cause more than helped. And, like every national organization, they've had local chapters go nuts.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I love reading exchanges like this, because it's an illustration of the thought processes of a great deal of the voting populace.
I thought the same thing Chris. Except it just kind of scares me. Unfortunately, as you observed, this kind of non-thinking appears to be rampant across the political spectrum.
Also, what I kept thinking of as I read Jay's posts was "Remember, he gets much of his news & commentary from Rush Limbaugh." I think it's really helpful to view that filter through which Jay may see these issues. If you listen to such biased media all the time, it's bound to change your perspective. Everything he reports about the ACLU that I've ever heard (although I only listened to him for 6 months time a couple years ago) has been negative. I can see how someone may conclude that everything the ACLU does is anti-Christian, or that liberal is an insult.
Oh and Jay, I really have to second Tom's opinion that you don't quite understand what an analogy is. What you gave would be more like a hypothetical example. See Dag's post--it'll help out on SAT and ACT tests if you haven't taken them yet--there's a ton of them in there.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, basically, on the one side we have history and case law, and on the other side...a cartoon duck.
I'm sorry Dag, I'm gonna have to go with the duck. Ducks are just cuter than case law and facts and stuff. Yep. Give me a duck every time.
It's like mom always said, "Son," she said, "ya can't go wrong with a duck."
In all seriousness Jay, are you sure this isn't the screen name you use when you're trying to be funny? So far, you've managed to tell Dagonee that he doesn't know about logic. You've called Tom a liberal. And you've managed to persist in holding an opinion that you can't back up with anything better than a cartoon. You really should've quit a couple of days (and a few pages) ago.
This has passed through pathetic and come out the other side.
Oh, and the phrase is "agree to disagree." It implies that that the argument has reached a point where the disputing parties can not solve their differences and wish to part amicably (or at least part).
Other possible permutations would be:
"agree to agree" -- that would be the time where you actually agreed with someone and they agreed with you. aka "agreement."
"disagree to agree" -- that would be what you are basically doing now. Sort of doggedly sticking to an opinion that you have failed to support while being pressed on all sides with material proof that your assertions were not correct and that the facts lie in a complete different direction, supporting the position of your opponent unequivocally. And yet, you disagree to agree.
Finally, there is "disagree to disagree" which is a lovely coinage and probably means something along the lines of refusing to enter into debate or argument. Or, in fact, simply "agree."
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I'm interested in what people think of the fact that the establishment clause/free speech divide is being defined largely by opposing advocacy groups duking it out in court.
The decisions being made nowadays are very fine parsing - witness the two Ten Commandments cases that came down on the same day, with one display constitutional and one not. There's almost no blame to levy on a local official who makes the wrong decision on some of these issues when the right decision doesn't exist yet.
This gives the advocacy groups great power in situations where the opposing one doesn't step up during the letter writing phase.
As I said earlier, one of the reasons I'm happy the ACLU exists is that I neither set of groups is completely correct (they just won't call me and have me settle things for them). If we're going to have an adversarial system, I want good adversaries on both sides.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm interested in what people think of the fact that the establishment clause/free speech divide is being defined largely by opposing advocacy groups duking it out in court.
I don't mind the adversarial framework being used to decide cases like this. Here, the problems are largely philosophical.
I do have some concerns about the prosecutor/defence framework in criminal trials; I think it would be far too easy to become a force for prosecution or defence, and less an employee of justice. But I hope that's the sort of thing they cover in ethics classes at law school...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Defense attorneys have the specific duty to zealously advocate toward an acquittal or minimize the punishment for a conviction, with no account taken of the actual guilt of a client. To this end, they may impeach a witness they know to be telling the truth. If their client confesses to them, it is their duty to try to get the defendant acquitted by any legal and ethical (as defined by the rules of conduct, not in an abstract sense) means.
Defense attorneys are not "employees of justice" in any sense except that we think a zealous defense of the guilty contributes to justice by minimizing false convictions.
They are not allowed to put on testimony they know to be false, but they have no duty to inquire into even obvious fabrications if they have no actual knowledge of them. Nor may a defense attorney limit the means by which he represents a client in order to help another client or class of clients. His duty is to the client first.
A prosecutor's duty is to "justice" - he may not impeach a witness he knows to be testifying truthfully, he must not try to convict a defendant he believes to be innocent.
However, he may consider factors outside the case in exercising his discretion, something a defense attorney may not do.
The best prosecutors take this very seriously. I've met few who don't try to live up this ideal, although I think that's because of the offices I was in.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, could you link to these cases? If it's handy - I'm just curious.
quote: The decisions being made nowadays are very fine parsing - witness the two Ten Commandments cases that came down on the same day, with one display constitutional and one not. There's almost no blame to levy on a local official who makes the wrong decision on some of these issues when the right decision doesn't exist yet.
And I heard the "duck" part of Bob's post in Drew Carey's voice for some reason.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:nine framed documents of equal size. One sets out the Commandments explicitly identified as the “King James Version,” quotes them at greater length, and explains that they have profoundly influenced the formation of Western legal thought and this Nation. With the Commandments are framed copies of, e.g., the Star Spangled Banner’s lyrics and the Declaration of Independence, accompanied by statements about their historical and legal significance.
quote:The monument challenged was 6-feet high and 3-feet wide. It was donated to the State of Texas by the Fraternal Order of Eagles, a civic organization. The State accepted the monument and selected a site for it based on the recommendation of the state agency responsible for maintaining the Capitol grounds. The donating organization paid the cost of erection. Two state legislators presided over the dedication of the monument.
The monument was erected on the Capitol grounds, between the Texas Capitol and Supreme Court buildings. The surrounding 22 acres (89,000 m²) contained 17 monuments and 21 historical markers commemorating the "people, ideals, and events that compose Texan identity."
Interestingly, the swing vote in each case was Justice Breyer.
The wikipedia pages have links to the actual decisions as well.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will read them in more detail, but at first glance, the decisions seem to make sense. The Texas display had historical purpose (both in what it displayed and that it had been around for a while) while the Kansas disply seemed to be more for the purpose of injecting a religious message where one didn't belong. at first glance. Also the fact that the Texas display was donated by a private group seems to make a difference.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
