The Tyranny of Enforced Tolerance

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It works like this:  A woman complains loudly in a restaurant that a woman she sees nursing her baby in public should not be doing so.  The police are called and must explain to the complainer that nursing in public is perfectly legal.  This just happened a few days ago in the USA.  Just because someone doesn't approve of nursing in public does not give that person the right to interfere.  They should remain respectfully silent.  Enforced tolerance would mean that the police officer would write a citation to the complainer charging her with disturbing a nursing mother and her baby.  She should be fined at increasing levels for each violation.

That’s what I mean though - tolerance is always one sided in matters like this.  Enforced tolerance of the breast feeding mother requires enforced intolerance of the woman complaining.

You can enforce tolerance of _____ behavior, but you cant enforce tolerance generally speaking without being intolerant of someone for something.

Edited August 8, 2019 by pogi

[Ahab]

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, they aren’t. They are passing ridiculous state laws targeting abortion clinics to make the clinics unable to operate. I am not a fan of abortion but I also really hate that kind of lawmaking where it is designed to eliminate something without actually just doing it.

Yeah, I am not sure Ahab realizes the steep cliff amendments have to go up. Demographics are favoring more states turning blue over the next few years and somehow 3/4s of the states are going to vote for this. Amending the constitution requires a very strong general consensus.

Trying to close or at least limit abortion in abortion clinics is part of the process of trying to limit and eliminate abortion but yes that in and of itself isn't enough to totally end it. For years since Roe v Wade they have been trying to get enough justices on the supreme court of our land who will either overturn or overrule Roe v Wade, and while it has taken a while they are either there or almost there at that point.  The next step is to get the right type of case or cases to go up before them for review, and with enough in their favor that will eventually happen.  And then the next step will be to add a new amendment to the constitution to uphold their ruling that mothers should not kill their babies before they are born except maybe in specific limited circumstances, rather than just because they can now.

[The Nehor]

34 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Trying to close or at least limit abortion in abortion clinics is part of the process of trying to limit and eliminate abortion but yes that in and of itself isn't enough to totally end it. For years since Roe v Wade they have been trying to get enough justices on the supreme court of our land who will either overturn or overrule Roe v Wade, and while it has taken a while they are either there or almost there at that point.  The next step is to get the right type of case or cases to go up before them for review, and with enough in their favor that will eventually happen.  And then the next step will be to add a new amendment to the constitution to uphold their ruling that mothers should not kill their babies before they are born except maybe in specific limited circumstances, rather than just because they can now.

This is a stupid plan and it is not going to work.

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

This is a stupid plan and it is not going to work.

I was just pointing out that they do have a plan. I may be leaving out a few details and they may even revise it a few times to try to get it to go through. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

That’s what I mean though - tolerance is always one sided in matters like this.  Enforced tolerance of the breast feeding mother requires enforced intolerance of the woman complaining.

You can enforce tolerance of _____ behavior, but you cant enforce tolerance generally speaking without being intolerant of someone for something.

An open and pluralistic society has many enemies, and many politically correct and authoritarian alternatives.  There wasn't much crime in Moscow, for example, but the price for such quiesence was much too high.  Still, we can choose to have our thinking done for us by legislating away all our freedoms (and responsibilities).

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Trying to close or at least limit abortion in abortion clinics is part of the process of trying to limit and eliminate abortion but yes that in and of itself isn't enough to totally end it. For years since Roe v Wade they have been trying to get enough justices on the supreme court of our land who will either overturn or overrule Roe v Wade, and while it has taken a while they are either there or almost there at that point.  The next step is to get the right type of case or cases to go up before them for review, and with enough in their favor that will eventually happen.  And then the next step will be to add a new amendment to the constitution to uphold their ruling that mothers should not kill their babies before they are born except maybe in specific limited circumstances, rather than just because they can now.

Well, we have six Roman Catholic justices and three Jews.  So, what's the problem?  Does our legal system in which Church and State are separated have anything to do with it?  Does the majesty of the Law itself interfere?  Note that I capitalized Law.  Do you know why?

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, we have six Roman Catholic justices and three Jews.  So, what's the problem?  Does our legal system in which Church and State are separated have anything to do with it?  Does the majesty of the Law itself interfere?  Note that I capitalized Law.  Do you know why?

In a country ruled by people who use laws to try to govern the population the population should exert whatever influence they have to make sure those laws are good laws, rather than just whatever the people want, and a law allowing mothers to kill their babies before those babies are born simply because those mothers don't want those babies to be born is a law that doesn't cut the mustard for being a good law to follow.  

Even if something is written in the Constitution as being a okay thing to do, the Constitution should be changed if it upholds something that is not a good thing to be doing.

Some people follow the Bible, or their own interpretation of the Bible, as a guide for how they should live, even when they incorrectly and unrighteously interpret the Bible, and some people do the same thing with the Constitution of the United States of America.

Righteousness is what we should strive to uphold, not just some words in a book or a document that some people don't interpret righteously.  And any judge or justice who rules in a court of law should know that and being doing that to the best of his or her abilities.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

In a country ruled by people who use laws to try to govern the population the population should exert whatever influence they have to make sure those laws are good laws, rather than just whatever the people want, and a law allowing mothers to kill their babies before those babies are born simply because those mothers don't want those babies to be born is a law that doesn't cut the mustard for being a good law to follow.  

Even if something is written in the Constitution as being a okay thing to do, the Constitution should be changed if it upholds something that is not a good thing to be doing.

Some people follow the Bible, or their own interpretation of the Bible, as a guide for how they should live, even when they incorrectly and unrighteously interpret the Bible, and some people do the same thing with the Constitution of the United States of America.

Righteousness is what we should strive to uphold, not just some words in a book or a document that some people don't interpret righteously.  And any judge or justice who rules in a court of law should know that and being doing that to the best of his or her abilities.

You never did get around to answering my question on why I capitalized Law.  That might be a fundamental part of your misunderstanding of what is at issue.

The U.S. Constitution says nothing about abortion, and it also says nothing about righteousness.  You may have personal or group issues which you want dealt with by the Law of the land.  In some cases you can have your elected representatives enact such laws, in other cases you can bring lawsuits in order to right some wrong (as you see it).  When you do that, you will find others in the same polity who will oppose you.  In a country such as ours, we try to reach peaceful and amicable solutions to such disagreements.  However, that is not always possible, and those on the losing side must either bide their time till the next election, or should bring additional legal cases.  In many countries, they don't do that.  They go for the pitchforks instead, and you can see the sad results of that approach.  Impatience does not result in righteousness.

[mapman]

What's with the spamming of political stuff that doesn't have anything to do with Mormonism?

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Can't tell the difference between the two, right?  Is this a man or a woman?

 

 

Looks like a woman trying to dress like a man. 

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You never did get around to answering my question on why I capitalized Law.  That might be a fundamental part of your misunderstanding of what is at issue.

The U.S. Constitution says nothing about abortion, and it also says nothing about righteousness.  You may have personal or group issues which you want dealt with by the Law of the land.  In some cases you can have your elected representatives enact such laws, in other cases you can bring lawsuits in order to right some wrong (as you see it).  When you do that, you will find others in the same polity who will oppose you.  In a country such as ours, we try to reach peaceful and amicable solutions to such disagreements.  However, that is not always possible, and those on the losing side must either bide their time till the next election, or should bring additional legal cases.  In many countries, they don't do that.  They go for the pitchforks instead, and you can see the sad results of that approach.  Impatience does not result in righteousness.

I supposed you capitalized Law with pretty much the same reasoning some people use to capitalize God in this country, thinking Law is what we should ultimately follow. But in a country like ours, where there are some laws which uphold some things which are not good, that is really not a good thing for us to be doing.

I suppose you might think I should run for a political office to try to change laws which are not good, or that I should appeal to someone else who is in a position to enact good laws and overturn or overrule the bad ones, and I do some of that as I have the time to do it, but let's get off of me personally for a moment and just talk generally about what should be happening in this country regarding the bad laws that are out there which uphold some legal right to do something which is not a good thing to be doing.

Generally speaking, we want good laws to follow and for everyone else to follow, with nobody supporting someone else unrighteous actions.  Right?  

Once I see that you agree with me up to that point we can maybe talk about what we can do to make that happen, and maybe even do something to get or keep the ball rolling.

[Storm Rider]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Then you should applaud when a man goes back to his masculine roots of skirts and hose:

Throughout time there has been a type of evolving attire for the aristocracy and the elites; however, the common man seldom followed suit. I think there is some wisdom there. 

[Bob Crockett]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

Gotta get some more ducks in the row first.  They've been working on it for quite a while now, trying to set the stage first.  And they are getting closer and closer.

No they haven't.  No they aren't.  No they won't.  The American public won't tolerate it, for one thing. 

[Calm]

53 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There wasn't much crime in Moscow...

And yet back then they built like their homes and stores were fortresses. I never saw such thick doors and two of them. Going into our older apartment was like entering a bank vault. And all the ground floor windows of older buildings had massive bars on them.

If there been no crime, why was there such a major investment in protecting oneself?

[provoman]

15 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

No they haven't.  No they aren't.  No they won't.  The American public won't tolerate it, for one thing. 

Didn't a State assembly, a southern state I think, pass an abortion law it knew was not Constitutional? But since a suit was brought, the parties get appeal rights, which means get it back to SCOTUS and attempt to over turn Roe v. Wade.

[The Nehor]

46 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You never did get around to answering my question on why I capitalized Law.  That might be a fundamental part of your misunderstanding of what is at issue.

The U.S. Constitution says nothing about abortion, and it also says nothing about righteousness.  You may have personal or group issues which you want dealt with by the Law of the land.  In some cases you can have your elected representatives enact such laws, in other cases you can bring lawsuits in order to right some wrong (as you see it).  When you do that, you will find others in the same polity who will oppose you.  In a country such as ours, we try to reach peaceful and amicable solutions to such disagreements.  However, that is not always possible, and those on the losing side must either bide their time till the next election, or should bring additional legal cases.  In many countries, they don't do that.  They go for the pitchforks instead, and you can see the sad results of that approach.  Impatience does not result in righteousness.

It is worth noting that Roe v Wade was decided on really shaky legal grounds. Both sides of the issue agree on that. It was decided 7-2 based on the right to privacy based on previous precedent allowing contraception as a right to privacy. Other better rationales could have been used. Those for legalized abortion would rather it be more stable legally.

In my personal opinion the Supreme Court should have declined the case back then. The issue of abortion was still far too polarized for a decision to be helpful. A lot of people and institutions were still working out their stance on it. The decision pushed a lot of people to extremes unnecessarily.

There are rumblings of a retrial of a similar case. If Roe v Wade were overturned it would take away the federal precedent legalizing it and kick the legality of abortion back to state laws. Some states would quickly ban it. Most would probably not at this point.

I think it would be stupid tactically to push a case through right now hoping to overturn it.

Edited August 8, 2019 by The Nehor

[USU78]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It's called "the rule of law."  There are other modes of governance.  It has nothing to do with whether you or I like any particular decision.

Prof Kingsfield's character gave us all the impression that the law is a living abstraction permitting people to live in harmony and beauty.

My first year contracts prof, Harvard law dude, also the dean at the ewe at the time, wrote three words on the board early on:  "Tools, not rules."  Everything we learned thereafter in every area of law was to be looked at from this perspective:  everything you encounter gives you a tool for crafting aggressive, defensive, and/or malicious outcomes* for your client.  The idea that the law is a benign if not wondrous bit of magic became laughable.  There are no answers to life's questions to be found there, only a scrum where competing interests battle it out using the tools the attorney on each side is clever enough to employ at the right time and in the right way.

I sigh and weep a little maybe at the good-intentioned naivete implicit in your post.  The law ain't what you think it is, and nothing's ever settled so long as interests compete, which is forever.

*Hence vexatious lawsuits, writs of habeas corpus, and, again, vexatious lawsuits described by JSJr.

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, provoman said:

Didn't a State assembly, a southern state I think, pass an abortion law it knew was not Constitutional? But since a suit was brought, the parties get appeal rights, which means get it back to SCOTUS and attempt to over turn Roe v. Wade.

Mississippi. They were slapped down twice in federal court. It was a publicity stunt and was never intended to work.

[USU78]

 

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

What does this have to do with LDS anything?  Seems like a thread devoted to conservative political handwringing.

Where is the kindness and regard for the grieving, broken-hearted, and bereft?  I can place my personal issues front and center during these folks' grief ritual, and and I've projected power, enforced by the Vth Army Nuclear Strike Force.  I am a bully.  I am truly despicable and evil when I do this.  I get to "feel my feels," but the bereft don't get to because my "feels" trump everybody else's "feels."

If we cannot address the ethics of public life in which we all participate, honestly and openly, without getting howled down by political correctness, then just what are we doing here?

[USU78]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

How much experience do you have with people who have transitioned gender?

None of your business.

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think it would be stupid tactically to push a case through right now hoping to overturn it.

The whole point of the "Republican" effort is to make Roe v Wade something that no longer gives federal support to a woman's decision to abort her pregnancy for no specific reason given, so whatever it takes to do that is what the Republicans are wanting to do.

It should be a painful decision for any mother to contemplate and I know there are some circumstances when it should be allowed and supported, such as to save the life of only the mother if the baby can not be saved as well. 

But to just kill it because the mother doesn't feel ready to have a baby?  Come on!  If that mother can't handle her responsibilities to care and nurture that child there are plenty of other people who would love to and would try to do as good as they know how to do it.

 

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

None of your business.

Okay, I will just guess it is from the Internet then and point out your sample is probably pre biased towards your conclusion.

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Okay, I will just guess it is from the Internet then and point out your sample is probably pre biased towards your conclusion.

Is that a tautology or a doxology?

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, USU78 said:

 

Where is the kindness and regard for the grieving, broken-hearted, and bereft?  I can place my personal issues front and center during these folks' grief ritual, and and I've projected power, enforced by the Vth Army Nuclear Strike Force.  I am a bully.  I am truly despicable and evil when I do this.  I get to "feel my feels," but the bereft don't get to because my "feels" trump everybody else's "feels."

If we cannot address the ethics of public life in which we all participate, honestly and openly, without getting howled down by political correctness, then just what are we doing here?

How about you speak plainly (for once) and answer the question?  What does this have to do with LDS anything?  The board plainly states that this forum is for LDS-related discussion, only.  There are plenty of other places in the Internet-universe to discuss one's personal political hobbies or worries or gripes, or whatever it is you're doing here.

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The whole point of the "Republican" effort is to make Roe v Wade something that no longer gives federal support to a woman's decision to abort her pregnancy for no specific reason given, so whatever it takes to do that is what the Republicans are wanting to do.

It should be a painful decision for any mother to contemplate and I know there are some circumstances when it should be allowed and supported, such as to save the life of only the mother if the baby can not be saved as well. 

But to just kill it because the mother doesn't feel ready to have a baby?  Come on!  If that mother can't handle her responsibilities to care and nurture that child there are plenty of other people who would love to and would try to do as good as they know how to do it.

 

If Roe v Wade were overturned most of the solidly red states would make it illegal without exception, probably until someone sympathetic to the voters died in childbirth in a dangerous pregnancy where the doctors predicted she would die.

I notice that four times you mention the mother and the mother’s responsibility and did not once mention the father or his responsibility. Why is that?

Edited August 8, 2019 by The Nehor