Iambiguous came to mind

Discussion of the recent unfolding of history.

Iambiguous came to mind

Postby Jakob » Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:04 pm

In Susan Collins speech which for me as a still very novice lover of US Law came as a nice surprise

"Mr President, the Constitution does not provide guidance on how we are supposed to evaluate these competing claims; it leaves that decision up to each Senator."
https://youtu.be/FRpSJed5xsA?t=1823

The law is a fluid thing. That is why it provides stability.
Static (European) law is brittle, US law is resilient, flux like, Heraclitean; yes to principles, no to forms. Due process even in the formulation of justice. Nothing is given except by time. Earth and water, the heavy elements. Not idealism, but faith in ones fellow citizens, past as well as present.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6090
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Iambiguous came to mind

Postby iambiguous » Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:43 pm

Right, like the manner in which each Senator reacts to Brett Kavenaugh has nothing at all to do with the way in which I situate the components of my own moral philosophy -- dasein and conflicting goods -- in the discussion and debate.

Like the law and the Constitition grappled with by the Supremes has nothing at all to do with the manner in which Karl Marx and others situated the components of their own political philosophy in the organic, hstorical evolution of political economy.

The fact is that with Kavanaugh on the court it is much more likely that here in America, abortion legislation will either be sent back to the states, or abortion itself will simply be prohibited from coast to coast.

Now, let's explore Susan Collins rendition of the law here.

You tell me: How fluid ought the law be here in order to be in sync with that which philosophers can provide in the way of a moral obligation for all rational and virtuous human beings?

A "resilient" law is one that is more rather than less in sync with "moderation, negotiation and compromise". And that is basically what is encompassed in the political parameters of Roe V. Wade.

It is in fact the objectivists on the right who want to chisel the law here into something akin to the Ten Commandments.

Right?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27693
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous came to mind

Postby phyllo » Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:58 pm

The fact is that with Kavanaugh on the court it is much more likely that here in America, abortion legislation will either be sent back to the states, or abortion itself will simply be prohibited from coast to coast.

Now, let's explore Susan Collins rendition of the law here.

You tell me: How fluid ought the law be here in order to be in sync with that which philosophers can provide in the way of a moral obligation for all rational and virtuous human beings?

A "resilient" law is one that is more rather than less in sync with "moderation, negotiation and compromise". And that is basically what is encompassed in the political parameters of Roe V. Wade.
The real question is : Is prohibiting abortion in sync with what the majority of Americans want?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10960
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Iambiguous came to mind

Postby Ecmandu » Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:02 pm

Abortion is simple.

Every mother has the right to want to be a hands on parent, and has the right to not trust anyone else raising what she is pregnant with. If she doesn't feel the capacity to raise that child the way that she deems fit, for many reasons, it is her prerogative to make that choice.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7444
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Iambiguous came to mind

Postby iambiguous » Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:14 pm

phyllo wrote:The real question is : Is prohibiting abortion in sync with what the majority of Americans want?


Either that or this one: Is what the majority of Americans want more or less in sync with the manner in which I construe the components of my own moral philosophy as of fundamental importance in grappling with the question of how "fluid" the law should be with respect to an issue like abortion.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27693
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous came to mind

Postby phyllo » Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:25 pm

Is what the majority of Americans want more or less in sync with the manner in which I construe the components of my own moral philosophy as of fundamental importance in grappling with the question of how "fluid" the law should be with respect to an issue like abortion.
That question is not very clear because it has 3 different components but why don't you go ahead and answer it for us.

The questions relating to prohibiting abortion or overturning R vs W are easily answered by polling.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10960
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Iambiguous came to mind

Postby phyllo » Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:29 pm

Every mother has the right to want to be a hands on parent, and has the right to not trust anyone else raising what she is pregnant with. If she doesn't feel the capacity to raise that child the way that she deems fit, for many reasons, it is her prerogative to make that choice.
That's great but in a democracy, the laws just reflect the wants of the people.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10960
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Iambiguous came to mind

Postby iambiguous » Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:37 pm

phyllo wrote:
Is what the majority of Americans want more or less in sync with the manner in which I construe the components of my own moral philosophy as of fundamental importance in grappling with the question of how "fluid" the law should be with respect to an issue like abortion.
That question is not very clear because it has 3 different components but why don't you go ahead and answer it for us.


But the answer that I would give is no less an existential contraption rooted in this...

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.


In what I presume to be a No God world.

phyllo wrote: The questions relating to prohibiting abortion or overturning R vs W are easily answered by polling.


They're answered, sure. But how do the answers then transcend the components of my own moral philosophy? How are they not the embodiment of them?

And, sure, no doubt, folks in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia could have been polled about the policies of their own government.

And they'd have their own answers, wouldn't they?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27693
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous came to mind

Postby phyllo » Sun Oct 07, 2018 1:35 am

But the answer that I would give is no less an existential contraption rooted in this...
Not that I'm surprised that you won't or can't answer.
They're answered, sure. But how do the answers then transcend the components of my own moral philosophy? How are they not the embodiment of them?
It comes down to what are the laws of the land and how are they produced.

Nothing really to do with "your moral philosophy" or "transcending" or "embodiment".
And, sure, no doubt, folks in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia could have been polled about the policies of their own government.
If they could speak freely then those polls would be meaningful.
And they'd have their own answers, wouldn't they?
Well ... obviously.

What does that have to do with abortion?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10960
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Iambiguous came to mind

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:02 am

Founders said democracy wouldn't work without an informed electorate ...

What's more, representative democracy with states - the states are Petrie dishes for the working ideas we have, when proofs are found, they become national law.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7444
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

antinatalist

Postby barbarianhorde » Sun Oct 07, 2018 5:21 pm

Union through difference... the difference between the sexes is nexus of of all the other beautiful making differences of the fabric... why so serious?

"Whoever would like to have been aborted is for abortion and whoever exists with gratitude is against it." ?
It has a core of fairnes.

I think the mother is influential enough on the child without the right to kill it.
Abortion rights always give te mother the right to say "I could have aborted you".
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: the cupboard by your kn knees

Re: Iambiguous came to mind

Postby Jakob » Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:56 pm

iambiguous wrote:Right, like the manner in which each Senator reacts to Brett Kavenaugh has nothing at all to do with the way in which I situate the components of my own moral philosophy -- dasein and conflicting goods -- in the discussion and debate.

Like the law and the Constitition grappled with by the Supremes has nothing at all to do with the manner in which Karl Marx and others situated the components of their own political philosophy in the organic, hstorical evolution of political economy.

The fact is that with Kavanaugh on the court it is much more likely that here in America, abortion legislation will either be sent back to the states, or abortion itself will simply be prohibited from coast to coast.

Now, let's explore Susan Collins rendition of the law here.

Simple;

You tell me: How fluid ought the law be here in order to be in sync with that which philosophers can provide in the way of a moral obligation for all rational and virtuous human beings?

A "resilient" law is one that is more rather than less in sync with "moderation, negotiation and compromise". And that is basically what is encompassed in the political parameters of Roe V. Wade.

It is in fact the objectivists on the right who want to chisel the law here into something akin to the Ten Commandments.

Right?

The Constitution does not provide guidance on how we are supposed to evaluate these competing claims; it leaves that decision up to each US Supreme Justice.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6090
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Iambiguous came to mind

Postby iambiguous » Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:08 pm

phyllo wrote:
But the answer that I would give is no less an existential contraption rooted in this...
Not that I'm surprised that you won't or can't answer.


Not that I'm surprised that you won't or can't describe for us your own rendition of this:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.


In what I presume that you presume to be world in sync with the will of however you construe God here yourself.

They're answered, sure. But how do the answers then transcend the components of my own moral philosophy? How are they not the embodiment of them?


phyllo wrote: It comes down to what are the laws of the land and how are they produced.

Nothing really to do with "your moral philosophy" or "transcending" or "embodiment".


Sure, if you are able to convince yourself that, when lawmakers choose particular sets of behaviors to either reward or punish, this has nothing to do with the manner in which I have come to understand the existential implications of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

And, sure, no doubt, folks in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia could have been polled about the policies of their own government.

phyllo wrote: If they could speak freely then those polls would be meaningful.


Sure, if you are able to convince yourself that the meaning ascribed here has nothing to do with the manner in which I have come to understand the existential implications of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

phyllo wrote: What does that have to do with abortion?


From my perspective, value judgments [and answers] relating to any set of behaviors revolving around conflicting goods are embedded existentially in the components of my own moral philosophy: nihilism.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27693
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous came to mind

Postby iambiguous » Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:12 pm

Jakob wrote:The Constitution does not provide guidance on how we are supposed to evaluate these competing claims; it leaves that decision up to each US Supreme Justice.



Sure, if you are able to convince yourself that, when any particular Supreme Court Justice makes a decision that will either reward or punish particular sets of behaviors, this has nothing to do with the manner in which I have come to understand the existential implications of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27693
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland


Return to Current Events



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users