Political Divisions in the U.S. 2022 Midterm Elections

[fkizz]

Person B has a problem with Biology. Maybe had bad grades in Biology classes when younger?

On a more serious way, person B makes a lot of sudden emotional appeals/accusations typical of someone de-railing from their rethoric and entering cognitive dissonance.

Overall, we must make a clear distinction between what science is and the contemporary cult of scientism, where we have typically ignorant people that treat science same way they'd treat a religion, in a nature contrary to the very principle of science.

They talk as if treating science with religious zealoutry will make them very rational and scientific, but that's their belief, not their science.

True Scientific Method exists to be questioned constantly, not to be treated as some Higher Dogma that questioning it puts you in the label "has no faith in the experts".

[chilon]

1. There is a difference between gender and sex. It's been discussed before and isn't really hard to understand.

2. Not a valid argument. The right-wing opposed climate change for decades before transgender rights or debate was ever in the public debate. From what I've seen and heard first-hand, the right-wing generally denies climate change based on two things: greed and self-interest because they profit from polluting or other companies that cause climate change or because they are religious conservatives. It really has nothing to do with trans rights or issues and to suggest it does is rather silly.

3. No, those "concerns" are pretty ridiculous. Less than 1%, probably much less, of the population would ever seriously consider going to war over these culture war issues despite the right-wing mainstream media like Tucker amplifying them at every opportunity and nuclear is well off the table as the military is far too disciplined in the US.

Finally, I find your title a bit misleading as your OP is not about whether democracy is on the ballot.

[Heathen Hammer]

The MO of establishment left is take something they consider a "good cause" and then propose measures that have little to do with that cause (usually tied to establishment interests), but use that cause to criticize the opposition for being against it.
Carbon tax in Canada is a perfect example, or Sander's pro-coal-plant "environmentalism" in Vermont.

[Love Mountain]

Gender =/= Biological sex.

"Woman" is a gender. "Female" is biological sex. While what Warren said may offend your sensibilities, it's not really offensive to science.

[Cyclops]

Democracy in the US is not on the ballot. The US has some degree of freedom, and a somewhat functioning system but there's profit to be made from stressing the system so it gets stressed. Its never been a Democracy, just democracy flavoured.

Both sides of politics (because Democracy is when a two-party system...) misrepresent themselves and the Other. The current and previous presidents are pretty crappy, a long way from the best the US has to offer. It's clear the Presidency is not that important as the country rolls on strongly with these nitwits in charge, I guess thanks to the Deep State? The downside is none of Epstein's clients face the courts. It's OK, shut up and argue about Orange Man and Hispanic Woman and the other cartoon characters. New Billionaire at Bird App? Freeeeeeeeedom.

The Democratic nomination is dominated by superdelegates and is not at all democratic, the slightly more free and democratic Republican process has been hijacked by a reality TV clown. I mean its lolworthy, except the winner gets the nuclear launch codes, which means you have to have an assassin stationed with POTUS at all times, and it gets messy (look at Dealy Plaza).

Enjoy the show, the real power lies elsewhere, probably the most important decisions get made over a mimosa in the Hamptons. Or an Oat Late in Silicon Valley.

[paleologos]

I'm quite curious as to what everyone means when they say "democracy".
Direct democracy of Switzerland? Democracy of Greek city-states of Antiquity?
Or modern "representative democracy", where people only can elect representatives, who are then free of any accountability to their voter and can do whatever they want and typically just do what rich elites want them too? I think it is important to point out that in such systems, population has barely any say, so people doing something "against democracy" in the system that is de-facto oligarchy isn't that much of a big deal, since there wasn't much democracy in it to begin with.

You will get no disagreement by me on all of that.
But you will get a clarification.

"Democracy Is On The Ballot" is the title of a YouTube video that gave rise to this thread, that's why I made it the title of this thread.
The link for the video is in post #1, did you not notice the video and it's title?
In that video Senator Warren is being interviewed by Stephen Colbert.
There she makes the claim that if the Republicans win a majority in the House of Representatives -and perhaps even the Senate- then the peaceful transition of power by means of the electoral process will no longer be a given because the Republicans may not give up power peacefully this time.
That's what I think she implies anyway.
So yes, democracy in the US is not on the ballot but the peaceful transition of power has been threatened once and does not seem safe now.
But since people are grasping at straws I have asked a moderator to find a more appropriate title.

My position:
I do not have a stake in the domestic politics of the USA but I do have a stake in the state of the USA.
I believe the world, at least the western part, will be worse off if the USA become a dictatorship, or if a rather large number of "red" states secede and/or if a second civil war results from the mutual intransigence of the cultural factions.
The USA have a role to play in the world, perhaps not 100% benevolent some have argued but in my opinion we are better off with the USA playing that role than not.
If the people of America and their political establishment become too distracted with their domestic issues, not to mention if the USA become worn by internal strife the USA will not be as effective with the duties thus far undertaken.

The MO of establishment left is take something they consider a "good cause" and then propose measures that have little to do with that cause (usually tied to establishment interests), but use that cause to criticize the opposition for being against it.
Carbon tax in Canada is a perfect example, or Sander's pro-coal-plant "environmentalism" in Vermont.

I can make no argument against this.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Person B has a problem with Biology. Maybe had bad grades in Biology classes when younger?
On a more serious way, person B makes a lot of sudden emotional appeals/accusations typical of someone de-railing from their rhetoric and entering cognitive dissonance.
They talk as if treating science with religious zealotry will make them very rational and scientific, but that's their belief, not their science.

No objections by me on the above.

True Scientific Method exists to be questioned constantly, not to be treated as some Higher Dogma that questioning it puts you in the label "has no faith in the experts".

A few respectful objections here:
The scientific method is not questioned.
It is the method by which we question whether claims that new fact have been discovered are to be treated as true.

Now, ideas about what is happening (they are called theories) on the fringes of what is known are constantly questioned.
The discovery and establishment of a new fact that happens to support theory X is not considered a conclusive demonstration of the supremacy of theory X over rival theories that are attempting to explain the same observations.
For theory X to become dominant, all rival theories must be thoroughly disproved and still theory X will not be considered proven.
It will only be considered "dominant".

That being said there are well established theories and established knowledge that exist far from the fringes and very well into what is known.
Pasteur's theory of the germs for example, is one of those and you will not find a person who is accredited as a doctor, who will tell you that Pasteur was wrong.
But you will find people who do not believe that planet earth is roughly spherical in shape -any flat earthers around?
Still none of them is an accredited geographer, or a geologist, or an astronomer.

So there are people who have been trained to apply the rigors of the scientific method in a field of science and interpret the results and these people are accredited specialists.
And there are people who just dispute the interpretation of said results without being able to apply the scientific method.
Then they defend their disputations by arguments along the line "I'm not a scientist but...".



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. There is a difference between gender and sex. It's been discussed before and isn't really hard to understand.

2. Not a valid argument. The right-wing opposed climate change for decades before transgender rights or debate was ever in the public debate. From what I've seen and heard first-hand, the right-wing generally denies climate change based on two things: greed and self-interest because they profit from polluting or other companies that cause climate change or because they are religious conservatives. It really has nothing to do with trans rights or issues and to suggest it does is rather silly.

3. No, those "concerns" are pretty ridiculous. Less than 1%, probably much less, of the population would ever seriously consider going to war over these culture war issues despite the right-wing mainstream media like Tucker amplifying them at every opportunity and nuclear is well off the table as the military is far too disciplined in the US.

It is evident from these statements that you did not have the inclination to read all the posts in this thread carefully.
Quite frankly I cannot blame you one bit.

Finally, I find your title a bit misleading as your OP is not about whether democracy is on the ballot.

"Democracy Is On The Ballot" is the title of a YouTube video that gave rise to this thread, that's why I made it the title of this thread.
The link for the video is in post #1, did you not notice the video and it's title?
In that video Senator Warren is being interviewed by Stephen Colbert.
There she makes the claim that if the Republicans win a majority in the House of Representatives -and perhaps even the Senate- then the peaceful transition of power by means of the electoral process will no longer be a given because the Republicans may not give up power peacefully this time.
That's what I think she implies anyway.
So yes, democracy in the US is not on the ballot but the peaceful transition of power has been threatened once and does not seem safe now.
But since people are grasping at straws I have asked a moderator to find a more appropriate title.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gender =/= Biological sex.
"Woman" is a gender. "Female" is biological sex. While what Warren said may offend your sensibilities, it's not really offensive to science.

Sir, you cause worry to me!
You are going to get us accused of being an echo chamber.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Democracy in the US is not on the ballot.

"Democracy Is On The Ballot" is the title of a YouTube video that gave rise to this thread, that's why I made it the title of this thread.
The link for the video is in post #1, did you not notice the video and it's title?
In that video Senator Warren is being interviewed by Stephen Colbert.
There she makes the claim that if the Republicans win a majority in the House of Representatives -and perhaps even the Senate- then the peaceful transition of power by means of the electoral process will no longer be a given because the Republicans may not give up power peacefully this time.
That's what I think she implies anyway.
So yes, democracy in the US is not on the ballot but the peaceful transition of power has been threatened once and does not seem safe now.
But since people are grasping at straws I have asked a moderator to find a more appropriate title.

The US has some degree of freedom, and a somewhat functioning system but there's profit to be made from stressing the system so it gets stressed. Its never been a Democracy, just democracy flavoured.

Both sides of politics (because Democracy is when a two-party system...) misrepresent themselves and the Other. The current and previous presidents are pretty crappy, a long way from the best the US has to offer. It's clear the Presidency is not that important as the country rolls on strongly with these nitwits in charge, I guess thanks to the Deep State? The downside is none of Epstein's clients face the courts. It's OK, shut up and argue about Orange Man and Hispanic Woman and the other cartoon characters. New Billionaire at Bird App? Freeeeeeeeedom.

The Democratic nomination is dominated by superdelegates and is not at all democratic, the slightly more free and democratic Republican process has been hijacked by a reality TV clown. I mean its lolworthy, except the winner gets the nuclear launch codes, which means you have to have an assassin stationed with POTUS at all times, and it gets messy (look at Dealy Plaza).

Enjoy the show, the real power lies elsewhere, probably the most important decisions get made over a mimosa in the Hamptons. Or an Oat Late in Silicon Valley.

I agree with the gist.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...
P.S. sorry for not addressing every word you wrote. I may well have missed arguments you consider vital. I simply don't have the time to go through it in one sitting.

That's ok.
I cannot blame you one bit.
I confess that when I started reading your post #39, I missed your P.S., you can imagine what I would think of post #39 without the P.S..

So, if I may graciously propose:

1. Please, be so kind as to read my post #38 in as many sittings as you like.
   
2. Please, do take extra care to read the part written in very bold letters in my post #38, it was written in very bold letters so that it would not be missed.
   
3. Then edit your post #39 so that it does not misrepresent my positions by the method of omitting a paragraph for the sake of a sentence (sorry, kind of you did).
   

And then I will happily respond to your objections.

[AnthoniusII]

Question to the thread maker.
Democracy in on the balot or Republic because there is a HUGE difference between those two despite the fact that westerners use the term Democracy in a false meaning. Please define.
As Prf Pedro Olalla said in with audiovisual ...(activate english subtitles)

Take a nottice in 18:05 the Prf Pedro Olalla makes clear that difference!

[paleologos]

"Democracy Is On The Ballot" is the title of a YouTube video that gave rise to this thread, that's why I made it the title of this thread.
The link for the video is in post #1, did you not notice the video and it's title?
In that video Senator Warren is being interviewed by Stephen Colbert.
There she makes the claim that if the Republicans win a majority in the House of Representatives -and perhaps even the Senate- then the peaceful transition of power by means of the electoral process will no longer be a given because the Republicans may not give up power peacefully this time.
That's what I think she implies anyway.
So yes, democracy in the US is not on the ballot but the peaceful transition of power has been threatened once and does not seem safe now.
But since people are grasping at straws I have asked a moderator to find a more appropriate title.

So only a select few bother to read the initial thread, or click the link to the video.
I guess that should be expected.
I'll try not to make the same mistake again.

And how come so many miss that "Democracy Is On The Ballot" is in quotation marks and that it is followed by the question Or is it?
Does that not express doubt?

[Love Mountain]

"Democracy Is On The Ballot" is the title of a YouTube video that gave rise to this thread, that's why I made it the title of this thread.
The link for the video is in post #1, did you not notice the video and it's title?
In that video Senator Warren is being interviewed by Stephen Colbert.
There she makes the claim that if the Republicans win a majority in the House of Representatives -and perhaps even the Senate- then the peaceful transition of power by means of the electoral process will no longer be a given because the Republicans may not give up power peacefully this time.
That's what I think she implies anyway.
So yes, democracy in the US is not on the ballot but the peaceful transition of power has been threatened once and does not seem safe now.
But since people are grasping at straws I have asked a moderator to find a more appropriate title.

So only a select few bother to read the initial thread, or click the link to the video.
I guess that should be expected.
I'll try not to make the same mistake again.

And how come so many miss that "Democracy Is On The Ballot" is in quotation marks and that it is followed by the question Or is it?
Does that not express doubt?

No offense paleologos, but the quotations you chose to quote, were universally about gender and sex. It is natural to assume that what you actually wanted to discuss from the video, were Warren's comments regarding sex, gender identity, and whether Biology is the last scientific field not ruined by "the Left".

Whether Democracy is truly on the ballot is indeed a worthy discussion to have, but one that is unlikely to be prosecuted in good faith. Iraq has regular elections. Is their Democracy on the ballot every time because of how unstable it is? Or is the mere existence of regular elections means that the Democracy is not on the ballot?

Japan has regular elections, but is essentially under one party rule. Are their elections perfectly free and fair?

It's a worthy topic, but most foreigners regularly dismiss Democratic complaints regarding voter disenfranchisement. So is there really a productive conversation to be had when so many dismiss the contextual intricacies of a political system?

[paleologos]

No offense paleologos...

I want you to have the right to offend me.
And for what it's worth I did not take any.

...the quotations you chose to quote, were universally about gender and sex.
It is natural to assume that what you actually wanted to discuss from the video, were Warren's comments regarding sex, gender identity, and whether Biology is the last scientific field not ruined by "the Left".

It is only natural to assume this for people who believe that the partizan kind of debater is the only kind there is.
The reason I raised the issues I raised is because these are the issues senator Warren raised.
And because she raised them in away that was blatantly one sided that would undoubtedly be perceived by conservatives as partizan and self righteous.
Had it been a partizan from the GOP in her stead, I would have raised the endorsement of the theory the 2020 elections were stolen by so many candidates in the GOP lists.
As a matter of fact, Person A, in their response to Person B, in post #1 raise the issue of election denialists as a divisive influence coming from "the right".

Whether Democracy is truly on the ballot is indeed a worthy discussion to have, but one that is unlikely to be prosecuted in good faith.

Of course I agree with this, the first part is self evident and the part that I put in bold has been proven in this thread.

Iraq has regular elections. Is their Democracy on the ballot every time because of how unstable it is?
Or is the mere existence of regular elections means that the Democracy is not on the ballot?
Japan has regular elections, but is essentially under one party rule. Are their elections perfectly free and fair?

You did not need to ask these question to me.
I have stated in the past in more than one thread in the forums my opinion that democracy neither begins, nor does it end with elections.

It's a worthy topic, but most foreigners regularly dismiss Democratic complaints regarding voter disenfranchisement.

If you are referring to the accusations that voters in southern states who happen to be namesakes of convicted individuals are directed to "provisional" ballots who are not counted
and the artificial difficulties of having to go through the DMC in order to exercise their electoral duties, I can say I am aware of these issues.

So is there really a productive conversation to be had...

I can argue that as much as understanding the apprehensions of both sides is a worthy outcome, but I am still hoping for more.
Honing one's ability to word their arguments so that the are easier to go across is another worthy outcome, in my opinion.
A third worthy outcome I can think of is to train ourselves to want to come across even when we see outrageous positions there.

We are most certainly not going to solve the problems of American disunity.
Trigger Warning in Spoilers Below - (See? I still accommodate the easily melted.)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

But if as many as one person are convinced that the right to say trans women are real women is as important as someone else's right to call BS and not have anyone punished, then it will be a better world.

Ultimately this does depend on how you define "productive".

...when so many dismiss the contextual intricacies of a political system?

If all people were capable and willing to do the necessary nuances the contextual intricacies of a political system would not go amiss with them.
And it is my opinion that if as many as one become better acquainted with said intricacies then it will be a better world.

[Muizer]

I confess that when I started reading your post #39, I missed your P.S., you can imagine what I would think of post #39 without the P.S..

So, if I may graciously propose:

1. Please, be so kind as to read my post #38 in as many sittings as you like.
   
2. Please, do take extra care to read the part written in very bold letters in my post #38, it was written in very bold letters so that it would not be missed.
   
3. Then edit your post #39 so that it does not misrepresent my positions by the method of omitting a paragraph for the sake of a sentence (sorry, kind of you did).
   

And then I will happily respond to your objections.

I will decide how I respond. When I write posts, much time goes into drilling down to what is IMHO the essence of the matter and avoid conflating it with examples and if my 'interlocutor' does not, I will do it for them. And yes, that may mean quoting selectively. If I did not, and you insisted I address your arguments as made, in full, I would be dragged into a discussion of the particularities of transgender and abortion politics just when I think we have established that the topic of the thread is the role of science, in general, in politics.



So without further ado, here's the rest of my response.

Do you think this is going to work if either side use science a-la-carte?
Either science is a legitimate informer of policy making, or it isn't.
How is it that democrats are pro science as an informer of policy making when it comes to climate policy but when it comes to what a woman is then suddenly biology is not good enough?
Why must I make the case that the Law of noncontradiction must not be violated?
Is that not self evident?

First of and perhaps superfluously I think we should establish that in this discussion we should disregard the debate about the rigor of climate science vs biology as a separate topic. For our purpose, both are just 'science'. In that sense I follow the law of noncontradiction: I will assume both carry equal authority. That is not where I have trouble finding equivalency.

That trouble resides in the division between scientific evaluation of facts vs the ethical decisions we base on them:

Climate science informs us about the material world and the impact measures could have. The ethical evaluation what price we are willing to pay for what outcome is a separate one.

An equivalent role for biology would be epidemiology. It informs us about the viruses and the impact they can have on human populations. Again, the ethical evaluation what price we are willing to pay for what outcome is a separate one.

Now where human biology such as sex and growth stage are concerned, what is the impact of choosing one set of criteria vs another going to be? What do we need to evaluate ethically to arrive at a legal status?


In the case of gender policy, your answer would seems to be given here:

If people are going to be demanded by law, under threat of punishment, to pay lip service to that they have every right to demand that hard evidence is presented.

Like it or not, the choice of biological criteria is an ethical one and therefore subject to policy. The thing you can reasonably demand if you indeed are legally obliged to respect the chosen criteria is that they are met. This precludes the (IMHO entirely imaginary) scenario where people would opportunistically change their mind about their identity, at any time and without any limitations, and have recourse to the law in that regard.

Hard evidence is in bold because it is the operating term here.
You can go look for evidence in many ways but you will need the scientific method in order to make the case that the evidence discovered and presented is indeed hard evidence.

Again, evidence and their ethical evaluation and legal implementation are separate things. You cannot find in a scientific work of biology what the law should say is a human being or a man/woman.

Take the case of abortion. Biologically speaking we can establish several facts about a human fetus: It has the human genome. It cannot survive independently. It's still up to us, not science, to decide what that means for its legal status (including whether it can have any legal status at all) and how it is weighed against the interest of a woman, who definitely has that legal status, when they come into conflict.

[paleologos]

@ Muizer:
So now you posit that "ethics" should inform policy and law making more than the "truth of fact" as revealed by the scientific method.
It did take you long enough to declare that and you omitted to account for the case of nonuniform ethics in the citizenry.
I find that to be quite the oversight.
Also this does leave me with an aftertaste of "moving the goalpost", but I could be wrong, this could just be my impression.

Because -if I have understood your position correctly- then we can explain why people in the USA are talking about a national divorce.
Half the country has one set of ethics and the other half a different set of ethics.
And both sides are trying to shove their ethics down the other side's throats.
So the Republicans are thinking "if that's how they are going to behave let's never again give them any opportunity to wield the power of the state".

My assertion is that in a democracy the citizenry need to have uniformity of ethics in order for ethics to be allowed to inform policy and law making.
When the citizenry do not share those ethics then the alternatives are:
The use of the "truth of fact" as revealed by the scientific method as an informer of policy and law making with the scientific method being universally accepted.
But in the case the citizenry are just not scientists, neither do they want to become, nor are they willing to trust those who are, then science is discarded and the options become dismal:
National divorce or civil war.

When the stakes are that high, do we believe it is ethical to use "ethics" as an alibi for authoritarianism, especially when bloodshed is threatened?
I personally declare that argument moot.

[Muizer]

@ Muizer:
So now you posit that "ethics" should inform policy and law making more than the "truth of fact" as revealed by the scientific method.

Where did you get the "more than" from? You get to making sensible laws by making decisions that are ethical in nature based on facts provided by science/experts. There is no direct route from science to law without a weighing that is ethical in nature.

It did take you long enough to declare that

Yes. Because from my perspective your proposition is the one that is quite unclear. Anyway, what is the merit of this 'argument'? Being adversarial for the sake of it?

and you omitted to account for the case of nonuniform ethics in the citizenry.
I find that to be quite the oversight.

It is not an oversight. Science cannot help there, because you enter the realm of interests. That's a political subject. In the case of global warming, if all citizens were compelled to accept the science, the question would still remain what to do with that knowledge. And the same applies to the role of biology in the gender and abortion debate.

Also this does leave me with an aftertaste of "moving the goalpost", but I could be wrong, this could just be my impression.

Perhaps form you perspective. To follow the analogy it seemed to me I needed to demonstrate there's actually two separate goal posts.

Because -if I have understood your position correctly- then we can explain why people in the USA are talking about a national divorce.
Half the country has one set of ethics and the other half a different set of ethics. And both sides are trying to shove their ethics down the other side's throats. So the Republicans are thinking "if that's how they are going to behave let's never again give them any opportunity to wield the power of the state".

Yes, that is a pretty accurate description of where America is at.

My assertion is that in a democracy the citizenry need to have uniformity of ethics in order for ethics to be allowed to inform policy and law making.
When the citizenry do not share those ethics then the alternatives are:
The use of the "truth of fact" as revealed by the scientific method as an informer of policy and law making with the scientific method being universally accepted.
But in the case the citizenry are just not scientists, neither do they want to become, nor are they willing to trust those who are, then science is discarded and the options become dismal:
National divorce or civil war.When the stakes are that high, do we believe it is ethical to use "ethics" as an alibi for authoritarianism, especially when bloodshed is threatened?
I personally declare that argument moot.

Science is itself not ethical in nature. It does not tell us what is right and what is wrong. The whole idea that when views on right and wrong diverge, one can fall back on science as an arbitrator is inherently false.

Science's input in law making tends to be questioned most by the general public when accepting the science is true would force an unpalatable ethical dilemma upon them. In the case of climate change, the dilemma is that morally the right thing to do for the vast majority would be to "not be selfish" and make sacrifices now for the benefit of future generations. People who do not want to make the sacrifice and yet also not want to be seen as selfish have no other option than to reject the science. So you might say that, in fact, challenging science is a pretty clear sign there is actually widespread agreement on what would be the ethical thing to do if it were true!

In the gender and abortion discussion, I do not actually see a comparable dilemma forcing people to reject science to get what they want without feeling bad about it. E.g. no freedom of choicer would deny the growth stage or genetics of a fetus. There is no disagreement with pro-lifers about this. The disagreement is about whether and when the protection of human life in the law applies to it. We can choose to decide that or not, because the entirety of the law is an agreement between people. It's not a god given or scientific axiom. So the difference with climate change is that here people agree about the science but not about its ethical implications. The reverse situation of what is going on with climate change denial.

[paleologos]

Where did you get the "more than" from?

I got it from the context of your previous posts that, absent the declaration of the first principles as stated below, invited misinterpretation.

You get to making sensible laws by making decisions that are ethical in nature based on facts provided by science/experts.

This is a first principles statement that would have saved us some time.
For what is worth, I endorse it, conditionally on ethical consensus.

There is no direct route from science to law without a weighing that is ethical in nature.

But who decides what is ethical? (Rhetorical question)
In the absence of ethical consensus, the solutions are less government, a national divorce, or authoritarianism.
The Democrats reject "less government", the national divorce is likely to lead to civil war and both sides in the USA seem to have become ruthless in the pursuit of power in order to defend themselves from the authoritarianism of the "other".

Yes. Because from my perspective your proposition is the one that is quite unclear.

I believe I gave up my position right from the first post:
The USA are in trouble due to profound internal division caused by recalcitrance and dishonesty on both sides, plus cavalierism on the side of "the left" and bitterness and distrust on the side of "the right".

Anyway, what is the merit of this 'argument'? Being adversarial for the sake of it?

It was a passive-aggressive protestation for what I perceived as sly maneuvering on your part, likely unwarranted, apologies.

It is not an oversight.

"Oversight" referred to the absence of acknowledgement by you, that ethics are not enough as a citizenry as diverse as that of the USA do not share ethics.

Science cannot help there, because you enter the realm of interests. That's a political subject. In the case of global warming, if all citizens were compelled to accept the science, the question would still remain what to do with that knowledge.

No argument against that by me.
But it is obvious to me that it is for the sake of interests that someone would attribute an a-la-carte varying gravitas on either science, or ethics.
In other words it is interests that inform the degree of gravitas to be attributed to either science, or ethics in the drafting of policy and the making of laws.
It is exactly that which I find dishonest and I see it on both sides equally.
And I interpret Person A's comments as hinting to that.

And the same applies to the role of biology in the gender and abortion debate.

A demonstration of my argument from above:
In the case of abortion, the pro choice side claim that biologically speaking, "a blob of cells is not a human being, therefore abortion is not unethical".
Yet, they demand unrestricted access to abortion rights up to right before childbirth, when medically speaking, the fetus is viable as a human baby.
So when the fetus is a blob of cells, science is good enough to buttress their political positions but after the 24rth week it's all about the ethics.

As far as the gender debate goes, I am profoundly disappointed that you have yet to acknowledge that:
We are not trying to decide whether trans women are real women.
What we are trying to decide is whether we are going to punish those who do not pay lip service to that.

Let me be clear:

Science informs me and others that trans people are not the sex they claim to be.
My ethics inform me that I should not punish them for claiming what they claim.
What makes you think that it is ethical to demand that I say things I don't believe and threaten me with punishment for not submitting?

This is where I declare that I expect you to shy from addressing head on my protestation.
You have shied from that for several rounds of back and forth posting so far.
Please, surprise me.

...it seemed to me I needed to demonstrate there's actually two separate goal posts.

I understand what you mean.
It took until your post #53 to make that clear but better late than never.
And to further extend the analogy you had me thinking we were playing cricket, with basketball rules in a tennis court.

Yes, that is a pretty accurate description of where America is at.

We are making progress.

Science is itself not ethical in nature. It does not tell us what is right and what is wrong.

Yes, science is positive, not normative.
It attempts to uncover and assert what is true, not what is right.

The whole idea that when views on right and wrong diverge, one can fall back on science as an arbitrator is inherently false.

I can effortlessly concede that.
Can you equally effortlessly concede that when views on right and wrong diverge, one should fall back to less governing?

Science's input in law making tends to be questioned most by the general public when accepting the science is true would force an unpalatable ethical dilemma upon them.

Perhaps that used to be the most prevalent case.
And it is still the case sometimes.
But, judging by the attitudes of Americans, the most prevalent case today in the USA is distrust towards those who only communicate science as part of a preexisting political agenda.

In the case of climate change, the dilemma is that morally the right thing to do for the vast majority would be to "not be selfish" and make sacrifices now for the benefit of future generations.
People who do not want to make the sacrifice and yet also not want to be seen as selfish have no other option than to reject the science.
So you might say that, in fact, challenging science is a pretty clear sign there is actually widespread agreement on what would be the ethical thing to do if it were true!

Just plain "no" by me on this one:

First, the American "right" seem to no longer deny climate change.
Person A was either wrong on this one, or they were making a reference to historical climate change denial on the part of the American "right".
Quite frankly, in our time and age, when the waters are already inside the kitchen of the proverbial Kansas mom, climate change has become undeniable.

So the current argument of the American "right"goes roughly along the lines:
"What are you gonna do about it?"
"If we starve or freeze today there will not be any future generations."

Or as Jordan Peterson questions (I am paraphrasing):
"How would it be ethical to sacrifice today's existing poor for the hypothetical poor of the future?".
"Especially, when the decision on what form exactly sacrifices will take, will be made by people who will be sacrificing nothing themselves".

To this question I throw my hands up in the air.
I don't like it any more than you do, the only light I see at the far end of the proverbial tunnel is the train speeding towards us and we are already halfway inside the tunnel.
Current science informs us of the problem but it is not adequate to provide solutions.
We need technologies for solutions, not just science.

In the gender and abortion discussion, I do not actually see a comparable dilemma forcing people to reject science to get what they want without feeling bad about it. E.g. no freedom of choicer would deny the growth stage or genetics of a fetus. There is no disagreement with pro-lifers about this. The disagreement is about whether and when the protection of human life in the law applies to it. We can choose to decide that or not, because the entirety of the law is an agreement between people. It's not a god given or scientific axiom. So the difference with climate change is that here people agree about the science but not about its ethical implications. The reverse situation of what is going on with climate change denial.

I have discussed the points of this paragraph above.
One of the points that have been argued in this thread is how the alternation between attributing sometimes greater gravitas to science and sometimes to ethics by the same people, undermines the credibility of both.

[Lord Thesaurian]

We are not trying to decide whether trans women are real women.
What we are trying to decide is whether we are going to punish those who do not pay lip service to that.

At a time when people are being thrown in jail for refusing to do just that, the answer is, objectively, yes.

https://nypost.com/2021/03/18/man-ar...der-violation/

[Love Mountain]

At a time when people are being thrown in jail for refusing to do just that, the answer is, objectively, yes.

https://nypost.com/2021/03/18/man-ar...der-violation/

That's not why. He was arrested for defying court orders, which expressly forbade him from discussing the matter in public.

"The high court ordered the dad to not stand in the way of the 15-year-old’s hormone therapy and to try and better understand gender dysphoria, the outlet reported. He was also told to stop speaking to the media about the case and warned that his public attempts to undermine his child’s wishes was a form of family violence, according to the article."

To paint it in another perspective, imagine if a Father regularly tweeted about how the gay agenda turned his son gay. That's a form of harassment against your own child.



This is just public harassment and attention seeking, at the expense of the child. Even if the father is fully against the transition, which in my opinion, he has all the right in the world to be upset about his child's choices, he shouldn't be publicizing it online to a point that Legio_Italica is now posting it on a random Internet forum, let alone being published on NYPost. He is making his family a potential target from both far-left activists and far-right activists, who are likely to hurl a plethora of abuse and support at this poor family. The father will be responsible for this disruption in the family law proceeding, which are typically, private affairs and away from prying eyes.

[paleologos]

Quoting myself:

The Democrats reject "less government", the national divorce is likely to lead to civil war and both sides in the USA seem to have become ruthless in the pursuit of power in order to defend themselves from the authoritarianism of the "other".

The intention of the thread is to discuss how incidents like this are intensifying ruthlessness in the pursuit of power on both ends of the political spectrum in the USA.
It is not the intention of the thread to discuss the legal minutiae of this father's legal travails.

[Lord Thesaurian]

That's not why. He was arrested for defying court orders, which expressly forbade him from discussing the matter in public.

That is why. The court order prohibited the father from, among other things, addressing his child by the “wrong” name, referring to his child by the “wrong” pronouns to anyone, or urging his child to reconsider, in addition to the ban on speaking publicly about the matter. Doing any of those things would defy the court order. Thus he was punished for not expressing approval of his child’s decision, as was asked by my interlocutor.

Quoting myself:

The intention of the thread is to discuss how incidents like this are intensifying ruthlessness in the pursuit of power on both ends of the political spectrum in the USA.
It is not the intention of the thread to discuss the legal minutiae of this father's legal travails.

It’s a wedge issue and wedge issues highlight political polarization, so yes, I guess? I wouldn’t say this is motivating politicians to behave more ruthlessly than they otherwise would have though. If the question is about increasing the risk of public violence in American politics overall, that’s not easy to directly predict. We already know neither Democrats nor Republicans are averse to capitalizing on the polarization and violence which does occur, but I’m not sure this issue in particular plays a causal role yet.

[Love Mountain]

That is why. The court order prohibited the father from, among other things, addressing his child by the “wrong” name, referring to his child by the “wrong” pronouns to anyone, or urging his child to reconsider, in addition to the ban on speaking publicly about the matter. Doing any of those things would defy the court order. Thus he was punished for not expressing approval of his child’s decision, as was asked by my interlocutor.

Published January 2020.

B.C. Court of Appeal decision a mixed outcome for trans teen and disapproving father



For emphasis.




Published April 14, 2021.
Court hears transgender teen’s anguish — and a father’s 11th hour regrets — over public campaign against treatment

Facing the possibility of additional jail time, a B.C. father who repeatedly flouted court orders in order to wage a public campaign against his transgender child’s gender-affirming treatment told a judge Wednesday he may have got caught up in the publicity and put his trust in people with ulterior motives.

The court also heard this week from the teenager, who said in a statement his father’s defiance of publication bans left him feeling anxious and terrified he would be outed.

“Over and over private stuff about me was published online because of my dad. I have lost my faith that the courts can protect me. That makes me feel really vulnerable,” he wrote in a victim-impact statement submitted to the court, a copy of which was obtained by the Star.

The father, who cannot be identified due to a publication ban, pleaded guilty Tuesday to criminal contempt of court, avoiding a trial. The Crown recommended a sentence of 45 days in jail, plus 18 months probation, with credit for the time he had already served.

But B.C. Supreme Court Justice Michael Tammen said Wednesday he was leaning toward a heftier sentence based on the father’s conduct.

“I will tell you I am very much thinking of imposing a further term of imprisonment beyond time served,” Tammen said.

“The sentence of 45 days is woefully inadequate and would tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”

It turns out, acting like a scumbag to "protect" your child is still considered to be acting like a scumbag by British Columbia's Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Especially if you're doing it to your own child. Contempt of court in family law rarely involves jail time. The consideration of imposing jail time beyond 45 days is likely indicative of the malicious intent displayed by the father.

[Lord Thesaurian]

It turns out, acting like a scumbag to "protect" your child is still considered to be acting like a scumbag by British Columbia's Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Especially if you're doing it to your own child. Contempt of court in family law rarely involves jail time. The consideration of imposing jail time beyond 45 days is likely indicative of the malicious intent displayed by the father.

The article I referenced was from March 2021. The father was punished for publicly referring to his child by the “wrong” name and “wrong” pronouns in defiance of a court order. Your own source also indicates that’s why he was punished, so I’m not sure why you said it wasn’t. The subsequent ruling in his favor did not remove that requirement and corroborates my observation of said punishment. You’ll have to ask my interlocutor whether he would consider being legally compelled to pay lip service to his child’s decision a punishment, but I believe it is, hence my response.