The Young Turks and conspiracy theorists.

[CashRules]

I have a love-hate relationship with TYT, I love to hate these arrogant asshats. I actually enjoy watching Jimmy Dore's own show where he's away from the other TYT asshats because I agree with a lot of what he says, which means he's right in a lot of what he says. But every single one of these fuckers is so damn hypocritical it's laughable, particularly when it comes to conspiracy theories>

1) TYT founder Cenk Uygur spent years verbally attacking and ridiculing Holocaust deniers. Cenk Uygur also spent years denying the Armenian Genocide. He even named his fucking show after the murdering psychopaths responsible for the Armenian Genocide. Relatively recently he has "amended" his position on the Armenian Genocide to say he's not knowledgeable enough to make an informed comment. Yeah...okay.

2) Cenk Uygur ridicules birthers. Cenk Uygur believes the JFK assassination was a conspiracy.

3) Ana Kasparian defends Cenk's comments about the Armenian Genocide. Ana Kasparian is a 9/11 Truther. Ana Kasparian is also of Armenian descent.

4) Jimmy Dore insults birthers. Jimmy Dore is a truther. Jimmy Dore is also a JFK conspiracy theorist.

5) Jimmy Dore verbally attacks Rachel Maddow for a fake news story in which she claimed that the deaths of four U.S. servicemen in Niger was the result of Trump's latest travel ban. Rachel Maddow actually did this because Rachel Maddow is insane and a corporate Democrat stooge. Meanwhile Jimmy Dore spent several episodes of his show claiming that there might be some truth to right-wing conspiracies about Hillary Clinton using a body double to cover up for the "fact" that she has serious health problems. He's also "jokingly" referenced the latest conspiracy theory that Melania Trump hasn't been seen in public in months and that the person we've been seeing is, of course, a body double. Actually, this might explain why Trump once forgot she was standing right next to him.

This is similar to having someone who thinks the moon landings were a hoax and that same someone ridiculing David Icke for claiming that the moon is a hologram.

Also, Harambe was framed by the damn chimpanzees in the next enclosure. The orangutans know the truth and were bribed into silence.

[Derived Absurdity]

I want to like Jimmy Dore, but I can't. He's a dishonest propagandist in his own way, just targeting a different audience. His audience is basically the social democrat bridge between actual leftists/socialists and centrist Democrat morons. Generally they're only slightly better than the centrists they like mocking.

All it seems Jimmy Dore ever does is blindly and uncritically read out some news article or opinion page and add his own snarky commentary to it, lasting about fourteen minutes. I liked how his "The REAL Reason We're In Syria!!!" videos are literally just him mindlessly echoing some guy who wrote an article for, like, twenty minutes. Like, sure, that's probably part of the story, but, dude, do you ever do your own research? I finally wrote him off when he made a video criticizing Democrats for moving right on abortion rights, while he didn't provide a link to the article he was quoting parts from. Sure enough, I looked up the article myself, and just as I suspected he conveniently skipped over the part where it mentioned Bernie Sanders being one of the Democrats doing that. He's a piece of shit. All of these political commentators are propagandists, just selling to different audiences.

I also don't think JFK conspiracies and birther conspiracies are in any way analogous.

[CashRules]

I also don't think JFK conspiracies and birther conspiracies are in any way analogous.

A complete lack of evidence is a complete lack of evidence. Also, Trump supporters are trying to give the Orange Haze credit for releasing classified documents about the JFK assassination. Trump had nothing to do with it. That decision was made 25 years ago by Bush the Elder. Trump is simply not trying to reverse the decision. Yes, he deserves credit for literally doing nothing. Then again, doing nothing is probably better than most of his decisions so maybe they're onto something. I didn't start a wildfire today. I want credit.

[Raxivace]

Sure enough, I looked up the article myself, and just as I suspected he conveniently skipped over the part where it mentioned Bernie Sanders being one of the Democrats doing that.

Which article is this?

[Derived Absurdity]

Believing in birtherism says something about a person that believing in JFK conspiracy theories does not.

Rax: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/34 ... n-abortion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Raxivace]

To be fair Sanders isn't a member of the Democrat Party- even your article points this out.

I also don't think this really means he's somehow moved right on abortion tbh.

[Derived Absurdity]

Come on. In a video criticizing Democrats for loosening their standards on abortion rights, you don't think it's relevant that he completely ignored Sanders, whom he has incessantly been holding up as the face of "true" progressives and praising non-stop for two years every chance he gets, doing the exact same thing? You don't think it's because he doesn't want his audience to hear him criticize their hero Bernie Sanders for doing exactly what the Dems are doing?

[Raxivace]

I dunno man, I haven't watched much of Jimmy Dore's stuff and I don't possess the ability to read his mind and divine what his secret motivations may or may not be.

[Derived Absurdity]

Lol, okay. I thought it was a reasonable inference based on his behavior, not mind-reading.

Also, what do you consider moving right on abortion?

[Raxivace]

Also, what do you consider moving right on abortion?

Intention of preventing or denying access to abortion and birth control measures, access to organizations like Planned Parenthood etc. for women.

[Derived Absurdity]

Yeah, opposing abortion rights... what these Democrats claim to have no problem with.

[Raxivace]

Who says they don't have a problem with it? Being willing to compromise with people you don't agree with on one issue is not the same thing as supporting all of their views.

Do you think everyone who voted for Obama in 2008 was against gay marriage, just because Obama didn't support it at the time?

[Derived Absurdity]

Dude. The campaign chief is quite explicitly saying that it's okay to have pro-life Democrats be candidates for 2018. Meaning that Democrats who oppose abortion rights are potentially going to go the House. This is willingness to "compromise" with basic fundamental human rights.

[Raxivace]

Honestly that's still an improvement over anti-choice Republicans taking those seats. An anti-choice Democrat is more likely to be negotiated with, and will likely have more mild views than their Republican counterparts.

It still sucks and is not at all the way I wish things worked, but that still does more to help people than running a pro-choice candidate in an area in the deep south they simply never were going to win.

[Derived Absurdity]

Is compromising on abortion rights really the only way Democrats can win those seats?

[Raxivace]

Probably, yeah?

Like have you ever been to the American South before? Those people really, really, really fuckin' hate abortion. Even getting anti-choice Democrats in these cities there would be a miracle in of itself, but they sure as fuck are not going to vote for a pro-choice candidate in any meaningful capacity any time soon.

Mississippi for example has only a single abortion clinic left. Just one in the whole state, and it's not because of the financial costs of running such a facility. These are the people (And they're voters) we're dealing with here. The only thing that saved that clinic from being closed too was a Supreme Court decision in 2016, and with Neil Gorsuch on the bench now, relying on the Supreme Court to do what's right isn't a sure thing either (Especially with some of these other judges only getting older and older).

[Derived Absurdity]

The people who care that much about opposing abortion rights are not going to vote for a Democrat in any case. Come on. If you're that hardcore about being pro-life, you're also hardcore about social conservatism in general, and you are never going to vote for a Democrat over a Republican no matter what. You disagree with the Democrats on every single fundamental issue... you're not going to change your mind because a Democrat mouths some platitudes about being pro-life, especially if the Republican he or she is running against is also, you know, pro-life, which they're going to be.

[Raxivace]

I don't necessarily disagree that it would still be an extremely uphill battle to win these elections and actually convince people that their lives would actually be improved if they vote Democrat, but I'm not sure what alternative exists. Clearly doing nothing isn't the answer.

[Derived Absurdity]

There's a third alternative to "compromising on fundamental human rights" and "doing nothing". (Namely, look at everything Hillary Clinton and Jon Ossoff did, and then do the exact opposite.)

[Anakin McFly]

Come on. If you're that hardcore about being pro-life, you're also hardcore about social conservatism in general

Not true, I know quite a few Democrat-voting exceptions (including a friend who's a bisexual trans WOC activist) who are very socially liberal except on abortion, on the basis of protecting all life, particularly those often viewed as disposable such as the marginalised, disabled and unborn. I've been seeing an increase in that view actually. There's some concern on how the decision to abort is sometimes based on valuing certain lives more than others - another friend whose two children have Down Syndrome (whom people often abort) is extremely hardcore pro-life despite being socially liberal in almost everything else. Mothers who abort are also disproportionately poor and non-white, and often feel forced into that decision because they have no other option, such that people want to fight instead to give them more options and provide the support they need rather than to present abortion as the easiest solution (or a solution at all).

[Derived Absurdity]

That's all certainly true. But what I meant was that most hardcore pro-lifers (the type who are such single-issue voters on that issue that the Dems think they can get their votes by changing on that single issue) are so for religious/socially conservative reasons, not for reasons for protecting the life of the marginalized and the disabled, which is a more left-wing attitude. The Democrats will never reach those people. If they want to reach the people you're talking about (if they don't have them anyway), then they should do what you say - "fight instead to give them more options and provide the support they need rather than to present abortion as the easiest solution (or a solution at all)", or fight for economic and social justice... which they should be doing anyway.

[Cassius Clay]

A female acquaintance of mine(and her family) are pretty much one-issue voters. Over the years, she has sometimes pulled me into really long abortion arguments with her(which is a bit awkward for me - as a man arguing with a woman that's arguing against women's rights), and she's mentioned that she and her family have reluctantly voted Republican a few times because pro-life is too important to them. They are relatively progressive when it comes to racism, sexism(other than the choice issue, obviously), and "diversity"...but they are also very religious. And that's the thing, there are a lot of religious people that struggle with the abortion issue because they genuinely see it as a huge sin/evil, and see themselves as protecting innocent babies....and that's all they see...which is the problem. I try to communicate that I get all that, but that there are other very important(more important) factors to consider...mainly that no one should be forced to put their body through such an ordeal, especially one that could cause death/injury. That it's possible to personally have an issue with abortion, and to respect the right to choose. I still haven't won her over, but I feel like I've come close. She actually voted against Trump, btw.

Dems still shouldn't be catering to any pro-life folk and should not compromise on human rights. There are times where compromise is appropriate and/or necessary...compromising on your platform ain't it.

[Derived Absurdity]

In my experience women are more pro-life than men... and the pro-life women are more pro-life than the pro-life men. That's backed up by polls too. My mother is essentially the same as your female acquaintance. She's very liberal on almost all issues except abortion. I only argued with her a few times about it, making the basic point that #embryolivesdontmatter and that the right of a woman to have control over her body is infinitely more important than the "right" of some fetus to keep on parasitizing it, and she always come back with, "But I almost aborted you, aren't you grateful that I never thought that way when I was pregnant with you? Weren't you glad to be born?"

I always change the subject really fast when that comes up.

[Anakin McFly]

I also see a fair amount of pro-life leanings within LGBT circles in particular, since it's full of couples who desperately want children but in many cases aren't even allowed to adopt. I can relate to that. I don't even really want kids, but sometimes I get sad that I couldn't even if I did.

and that the right of a woman to have control over her body is infinitely more important than the "right" of some fetus to keep on parasitizing it

This argument can be extended past birth, though - it could be used to justify the right to euthanise a disabled child who requires intensive 24/7 care if their existence creates an undue burden on their parents and renders them incapable of having their own life.

Personally I think embryo lives start mattering when they start being conscious (and there's not much consensus of when that is, but definitely only after their brain has developed to a degree physically capable of consciousness), prior to which they're no more a person than a brain dead human is. Few people have trouble considering those legally dead. But once they're conscious, their right to life comes into play and raises the stakes. (I know of the theory that consciousness only begins at birth with sensory input, but I'm not convinced, partly due to hearing of savants with memories that go back to the womb.)

In that scenario, an ethics professor once used the analogy of being kidnapped and hooked up to a dying child who had no say in the matter, told that your body is the only thing keeping them alive, and that if you stay there for another nine months, they'll survive; if you leave, you would kill them instantly. In that scenario you should have the right to leave, since you never asked for this in the first place and shouldn't have your life ruined for someone you don't even know. But you still have the power to save that one life, and the morally superior - though not morally obligatory - choice would be to make that sacrifice.

I think this also explains why women tend to be more pro-life: they can imagine themselves being willing to make that sacrifice, even if it's unfair, and find it wrong that someone might choose not to. Whereas it's much easier and much more inappropriate to expect other people to make sacrifices that will never ask anything of you, as pro-life men do, while often continuing to create the unwanted pregnancies that cause the problem in the first place.

tl;dr All men should be pro-choice. Women should have the choice to be pro-life or not, and the only people who should argue against pro-life women should be pro-choice women.

[Derived Absurdity]

and that the right of a woman to have control over her body is infinitely more important than the "right" of some fetus to keep on parasitizing it

This argument can be extended past birth, though - it could be used to justify the right to euthanise a disabled child who requires intensive 24/7 care if their existence creates an undue burden on their parents and renders them incapable of having their own life.

Yes.

Life is not important. If that child is euthanized, by definition he's not going to be around later to care that he was euthanized or that he's missing out on anything, so he or she is not being harmed. If it reduces the amount of suffering in the world, or prevents the potential for more suffering, then it should be done.

I don't think that analogy is a particularly solid one for abortion, but I do agree with the general principle that men don't really have the right to be pro-life because it's wrong to ask other people to make sacrifices you'll never have to make.

[Raxivace]

What the fuck am I reading? "Euthanized children are not being harmed because they're dead"? The fuck is wrong with you?

[Derived Absurdity]

lol.

I'm basically just repeating Peter Singer.

I mean, this is a perfectly legitimate and respectable position in philosophy, and I know it's extremely counterintuitive but that doesn't automatically make it wrong.

It's certainly not counterintuitive to me, I've thought this way since I was twelve.

[Raxivace]

I don't care about your appeals to authority or your appeal to "I've made this argument since I was 12" as if that somehow justifies your shitty ableism.

[Derived Absurdity]

Don't worry, I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with ending the lives of perfectly healthy babies, either.

Edit: so this reply implies that your problem with me is less the fact that I don't think life matters and more the fact that you think I don't think the lives of the disabled matter as much as the non-disabled.

[Derived Absurdity]

Man, I felt bad, because I had thought I had said something horrifically evil and offensive because I was thoughtless (again), so I typed out like five huge super-defensive paragraphs outlining where I was coming from and stuff, but then I looked back and it and I don't think what I said was really that bad. It could have been worded a lot better, though.

I feel like I said it in a way that reads like I think it's okay to euthanize the disabled, and I apologize for that. No, I didn't mean it that way. I'm not some fascist who thinks we should all go around eliminating the disabled because they're bad for society. The point I was making is that I don't think life, by itself with no other considerations, is important.

[Anakin McFly]

Valuing life forms the foundation of a lot of moral worldviews especially regarding human rights. It's why murder is almost universally acknowledged as one of the worst evils, and I've found that to be more the case with atheists and/or those who don't believe in an afterlife. If this is all we get, it's all the more cruel to shorten someone else's existence unless they personally wish it. Other people's suffering (or perceived suffering) should never be used as the basis to end another's experience of existence*, or that's how you get the Holocaust.

*which does not apply to non-sentient foetuses

I'm personally strongly in favour of euthanasia only if the person themself wants it in order to end suffering they consider unbearable, or where we can reasonably ascertain that is the case, such as when they are in extreme agony and already in the throes of death. But euthanising an innocent person for the good of others is a complete no, likewise forcing someone else to live in suffering even when they desire death.

Some people consider a continued life with suffering preferable to death, and it's not a decision other people should ever get to make for them either way. Perhaps being alive allows them to also experience things they love which make the suffering bearable. Your argument also ignores the suffering caused by death, which is a considerable amount and arguably the primary concern. I know a parent whose disabled daughter died in an accident, and even though things had been extremely tough it still broke him completely to lose her.

It also potentially leads to people feeling obliged to kill themselves for the benefit of others, which is the mindset behind almost every LGBT kid who's committed suicide. Global suffering would also be significantly reduced if we were to kill all the poor people, but that wouldn't make it morally acceptable in the least, outside of philosophical thought experiments.

[phe_de]

and that the right of a woman to have control over her body is infinitely more important than the "right" of some fetus to keep on parasitizing it

This argument can be extended past birth, though - it could be used to justify the right to euthanise a disabled child who requires intensive 24/7 care if their existence creates an undue burden on their parents and renders them incapable of having their own life.

Yes.

Life is not important. If that child is euthanized, by definition he's not going to be around later to care that he was euthanized or that he's missing out on anything, so he or she is not being harmed. If it reduces the amount of suffering in the world, or prevents the potential for more suffering, then it should be done.

I agree. I've read works by Peter Singer as well, and I believe that personhood should be the qualifier for a right to life. Fetuses and newborns aren't persons yet.

[BruceSmith78]

I don't think what I said was really that bad. It could have been worded a lot better, though.

I mean, either it's terribly worded or you and Peter Singer are batshit crazy. What I just read was, "If someone's an inconvenience to you, their life isn't worth a goddam and you should just kill them. Killing people doesn't harm anyone, because dead people don't have feelings. In fact, we should just kill everyone so that nobody suffers anymore."

That's some comic book villain level shit. I'm sure I'm missing something if this is supposed to be a respectable position in philosophy. Also, everything Anakin said.

[CashRules]

I start the best threads. Have you seen this? Amazing! #covfefe

[phe_de]

I don't think what I said was really that bad. It could have been worded a lot better, though.

I mean, either it's terribly worded or you and Peter Singer are batshit crazy. What I just read was, "If someone's an inconvenience to you, their life isn't worth a goddam and you should just kill them. Killing people doesn't harm anyone, because dead people don't have feelings. In fact, we should just kill everyone so that nobody suffers anymore."

That's some comic book villain level shit. I'm sure I'm missing something if this is supposed to be a respectable position in philosophy. Also, everything Anakin said.

You are missing something.

I didn't read your bizarre interpretation into DA's post at all. But then, I've read "Writings on an Ethical Life" by Peter Singer and know where he comes from. It's about the ability to suffer, and about personhood; and avoiding suffering. I am not very good at summarizing philosophical positions; and it would go beyond the scope of this thread. Maybe you should just read the book without prejudice.

On the other hand, you are not alone in your knee-jerk rejection of Peter Singer. In Germany, lectures with him are frequently disrupted by activists who attribute positions to him that he never endorsed. Obviously (to me at least) these activists have never read his books.

Derived Absurdity and me don't often agree; so IMO when we agree on a position, this position has merit.

[BruceSmith78]

Yeah, I'm not reading his book. I'm too lazy to spend my leisure time reading non-fiction, not to mention so far what I've read on this thread hasn't exactly been a ringing endorsement.

In regards to your last sentence, my thought was that when you agree with DA, DA might wanna rethink his position.

[Faustus5]

I'm with DA. Peter Singer expresses the position better, but that's because it's his job to do so.

[Derived Absurdity]

Yeah, Bruce's interpretation is not even remotely in the same universe of what I said. And it would be bizarre if it was, because I've been an inconvenience to a whole lot of people, and I would have issues if any of them decided to kill me because of it.

I think murder is bad, not because I think life has some magical special substance that makes it intrinsically valuable all the time but because when you murder someone you're going against their wishes. It's a non-consensual violation of a person's rights and autonomy. If a person wants to live, he or she should be able to live. Barring extremely exceptional circumstances.

Other people's suffering (or perceived suffering) should never be used as the basis to end another's experience of existence*, or that's how you get the Holocaust.

*which does not apply to non-sentient foetuses

Anakin, I have no idea what this sentence means.

I strongly value the well-being of life forms. Not life itself in the abstract. In fact to me life is a negative because it allows the potential for suffering, whereas non-life doesn't. Of course, non-life does't allow the potential for pleasure as well, whereas life does, but who gives a shit?

Some people consider a continued life with suffering preferable to death, and it's not a decision other people should ever get to make for them either way.

I never said anything to the contrary...

Your argument also ignores the suffering caused by death, which is a considerable amount and arguably the primary concern.

It doesn't, because my whole argument rests on preventing suffering.

[Derived Absurdity]

I'm with DA. Peter Singer expresses the position better, but that's because it's his job to do so.

Thanks. What changed your mind? I remember we argued about this on the Philosophy board on IMDB and you were hostile to it.

[Derived Absurdity]

I start the best threads. Have you seen this? Amazing! #covfefe

This thread easily took the best turn in the history of this board, and all the previous ones. You're welcome.

[Faustus5]

I'm with DA. Peter Singer expresses the position better, but that's because it's his job to do so.

Thanks. What changed your mind? I remember we argued about this on the Philosophy board on IMDB and you were hostile to it.

I don't remember that at all. I've mostly always agreed with Singer. Maybe you're on the more radical end of his views than I am, but we're largely in the same ballpark.

[Derived Absurdity]

Maybe it was a different person.

Maybe it was about antinatalism, and you were hostile to that. I don't know, whatever.

[BruceSmith78]

Well I admitted right up front that I was sure I was missing something, and clearly Anakin was too. You said yourself it was badly worded, and so far I haven't seen any clarification. You argued for killing your kids when they cause you too much grief, didn't you? Then you say you're against murder? I'm pretty confused.

You're still saying that not living is better than living, because the potential for suffering trumps the potential for pleasure, which I disagree with, but if you extrapolate that and combine it with your earlier assertion that if it reduces the amount of suffering in the world, or the potential for suffering, it should be done, I don't see how you can get anything but, "nobody should live".

[phe_de]

You argued for killing your kids when they cause you too much grief, didn't you?

I would be interested to know where you read this. I just reread the entire thread, and my attempt to find DA saying this has been unsuccessful.

[BruceSmith78]

It's reply #24.

[phe_de]

It's reply #24.

Which doesn't say anything about killing kids when they cause you too much grief.

[BruceSmith78]

Care to explain what you got from that post?

[BruceSmith78]

I mean it literally says a parent should have the right to euthanize (kill) their child if it causes them an undue burden (too much grief).

[phe_de]

I mean it literally says a parent should have the right to euthanize (kill) their child if it causes them an undue burden (too much grief).

No.
It literally says: "If that child is euthanized, by definition he's not going to be around later to care that he was euthanized or that he's missing out on anything, so he or she is not being harmed. If it reduces the amount of suffering in the world, or prevents the potential for more suffering, then it should be done."

From that, I get: If the child has no chance of living a life that is not a life full of suffering; if the child has a very limited chance of happiness, then euthanasia might be the more humane option. Example: A child born with a severe disease that will make it suffer and die at a young age anyway.

Of course, this interpretation matches what I've read in Peter Singer's works. So maybe my interpretation of DA's post is influenced by it.

[BruceSmith78]

I think you missed the quote from Anakin that he was responding to.