Where are you on the political spectrum?

[Marc]

    It has never happened that a child lacked an identity because it really belonged to an abortion. Your mother can decide to abort, but it's beyond her power to abort an identity, an "I" or "me", because personal identities are developed in living persons out of their experiences and inherited features.

     There are no preexisting identities out there in "identity space" that are subject to abortion. Do we need a metaphysics of identity recycling, too? If you indulge free floating identities, can they ever get a second chance to be attached, or is it "one and done"? Sorry, you had your chance, but the bitch snatched it away from you!

     Such willful nonsense should be contested. Some questions can only be answered by pointing out that they are absurd. It's impossible to instantiate in the real world the dilemma they purport to show.

Maybe I already got used to (some of) Andrei's questions.
(As he might have to my answers.)

But I most definitely feel for your POV. Despite that: I also still support my own rather quick and straightforward answer. If that sounds a bit complex or even twisted... then, yes, it is.

For the rest: peace be with you all, whether within or without a Lord. 0:)

[drogulus]

    I say buddy, you say boody, it's OK by me.

    How come I don't hear no metaphysics of the "identity" of miscarriages? Are we obliged to indulge that, too, on the same "because I say so" basis?

Maybe I already got used to (some of) Andrei's questions.
(As he might have to my answers.)

But I most definitely feel for your POV. Despite that: I also still support my own rather quick and straightforward answer. If that sounds a bit complex or even twisted... then, yes, it is.

For the rest: peace be with you all, whether within or without a Lord. 0:)

     Nooooo peace........die!!

     I'm exaggerating, of course. I want bad ideas to die, not the poor blokes who are in the grip of them.

     When people refuse to take responsibility for their ideas they blame the innocent uncomprehending for their failure to make sense. It's my fault that I don't see how an abortion could also be an "I/me".

     What other things could happen? Could there have been a mistake where I got my brother's identity and he got mine, possibly as a result of sin, or luck? If so, how could it be determined? Is there a good answer under the "because I believe it" rule?

[Marc]

    I say buddy, you say boody, it's OK by me.

    How come I don't hear no metaphysics of the "identity" of miscarriages? Are we obliged to indulge that, too, on the same "because I say so" basis?

     Nooooo peace........die!!

     I'm exaggerating, of course. I want bad ideas to die, not the poor blokes who are in the grip of them.

     When people refuse to take responsibility for their ideas they blame the innocent uncomprehending for their failure to make sense. It's my fault that I don't see how an abortion could also be an "I/me".

     What other things could happen? Could there have been a mistake where I got my brother's identity and he got mine, possibly as a result of sin, or luck? If so, how could it be determined? Is there a good answer under the "because I believe it" rule?

I'm just not into another typical 'Diner' debate. Debates that have been around here for a huge amount of years, and where, for at least 99 percent, people never left their POV during it. It's useless to me. To me, its'not that difficult: about abortion, one should make proper laws that can 'satisfy' multiple people. So, if you don't want an abortion because of your ethnical background and moral ideas... please be free to do so. If you have proper reasons for an abortion, then it should be allowed under good regulation, with good medical care.

For the rest: peace again, bro. The "you just do not understand" explanation is mostly fine with me. If it makes the opposite party happy, then I'm happy I made them happy.
I say buddy, you say boody. And yes, in the end that's also fine with me. It has been like that for ages and ages and I won't ruin my fun with endless heavy debating about who is 'right' and who is 'wrong'.

[greg]

All this talk of abortion is making me think of my favorite death metal band, Aborted.

Check them out. 

Took the long version, results below.

Hmmm
Let's stuff you into a box mwahaha 

Religious centrism? Idk, I just made up that term lol.

Yes.

Typical rightwinger: assuming ones broader ethics will automatically bow to ones self-interest.

Is this really more typical on the right than the left, though? Seems like a more general human thing.

[drogulus]

I'm just not into another typical 'Diner' debate. Debates that have been around here for a huge amount of years, and where, for at least 99 percent, people never left their POV during it. It's useless to me. To me, its'not that difficult: about abortion, one should make proper laws that can 'satisfy' multiple people. So, if you don't want an abortion because of your ethnical background and moral ideas... please be free to do so. If you have proper reasons for an abortion, then it should be allowed under good regulation, with good medical care.

For the rest: peace again, bro. The "you just do not understand" explanation is mostly fine with me. If it makes the opposite party happy, then I'm happy I made them happy.
I say buddy, you say boody. And yes, in the end that's also fine with me. It has been like that for ages and ages and I won't ruin my fun with endless heavy debating about who is 'right' and who is 'wrong'.

     I don't want people adopt my "POV". I'm clarifying how such a view can be achieved by Herculean effort and what is optimistically called "common sense".

     Common sense says people are born and die and have an identity in between. One ought to accept an alternative to that view only under the pressure of evidence that is very strong.

     It's a little like the "Captain Kirk problem" as I see it. Scotty kills Kirk by "beaming him up" and then the copy goes on with a pasted identity. I say Kirk is dead and the "Kirk" is someone else with a separate identity, notwithstanding that for an instant it's the same. In a microsecond it's different. The "same identity" thesis falls apart as soon as it starts.

     OK, that was just an excuse to bring up Captain Kirk. Still, identities like "preexisting" or "postexisting" conditions don't pass any test that wasn't custom designed to pass them, like a belief.

[Florestan]

Religious centrism? Idk, I just made up that term lol.

Christian democracy, especially in the 60s and 70s.

[greg]

Christian democracy, especially in the 60s and 70s.

Sounds like some European thing before my time.
Buuut probably pretty close to how my family would score so I might have a vague idea of it.

[Florestan]

Sounds like some European thing before my time.

Yep. You know, there was life long before you were born and the US is not the whole world. 

[drogulus]

     The stock market crashed slightly and now I'm poor, so I think I'll be a socialist for the time being.

[greg]

Yep. You know, there was life long before you were born and the US is not the whole world. 

Oh, please. All of that stuff isn't real. We all know that reality actually began when I was born. Your memories are fake... don't tell me you are just learning this now? 

[drogulus]

Oh, please. All of that stuff isn't real. We all know that reality actually began when I was born. Your memories are fake... don't tell me you are just learning this now? 

     I knew it was something like that! I mean I could just tell that before you were born nothing much was going on and none of it was real. Colors were all washed out like a VHS tape.....

[Florestan]

Oh, please. All of that stuff isn't real. We all know that reality actually began when I was born. Your memories are fake... don't tell me you are just learning this now? 

     I knew it was something like that! I mean I could just tell that before you were born nothing much was going on and none of it was real. Colors were all washed out like a VHS tape.....

[Marc]

     I don't want people adopt my "POV". I'm clarifying how such a view can be achieved by Herculean effort and what is optimistically called "common sense".

     Common sense says people are born and die and have an identity in between. One ought to accept an alternative to that view only under the pressure of evidence that is very strong.

     It's a little like the "Captain Kirk problem" as I see it. Scotty kills Kirk by "beaming him up" and then the copy goes on with a pasted identity. I say Kirk is dead and the "Kirk" is someone else with a separate identity, notwithstanding that for an instant it's the same. In a microsecond it's different. The "same identity" thesis falls apart as soon as it starts.

     OK, that was just an excuse to bring up Captain Kirk. Still, identities like "preexisting" or "postexisting" conditions don't pass any test that wasn't custom designed to pass them, like a belief.

I just said that I'm with your 'POV' to make clear what my own 'POV' is.

For the rest, I just look at issues like these in a practical way (if possible of course), without having to use an example of episode(s) of Star Trek or whatever SciFi movie.

You said you wanted bad ideas to die, not the people who believe in them. But IMHO one can't just talk about 'bad ideas' as an independent entity. Those ideas come from human beings. They created those ideas and they believe in it and made/make other human beings believe in it.

When you want bad ideas to die, you have to convince those who believe those bad ideas first. (Not kill them, of course. At least we agree on that 'POV' (again). )
Which means that you must convince those believers that they do not use their common sense, according to your ideas/definition of what common sense is. Which means that you have to convince them of your 'POV'. (You could try and use Captain Kirk, but I doubt if it will work for everyone.)

You claim that common sense says that people are born and die and have an identity in between. Whether you and I like it or not, there are millions of people who do not agree with that 'common sense'.  And they won't use Star Trek, but other stories/scriptures/movies (with many ('bad' or not) ideas) to make their point. And they will also try to prove that this belief is based on common sense, too.

And I admit that I'm just too tired to try to convince them again and again. Also not about 'identity'. I would not even use Hitchcock's Vertigo to do a serious attempt.
Therefore I am all for laws that can be appreciated by, say, both pro-abortion and against-abortion citizens. Because one says 'buddy' and the other one says 'boody'. And keep my fingers crossed that there will be no flaming war between those camps about who is 'right' and who is 'wrong' and that the law should be changed (back) again to the wishes of just one of those camps. Alas, this crossing of fingers mostly appears to be wishful thinking.

Again, whether you and I like it or not, some bad ideas seemed to have died a thousand times already, and then they suddenly have risen again like a Phoenix from the flame. Even common sense laws have not prevented that.

But at least I can vote for a political party that more or less have the same 'common sense' thoughts as I have. That's a great thing to cherish and embrace.

[drogulus]

You said you wanted bad ideas to die, not the people who believe in them. But IMHO one can't just talk about 'bad ideas' as an independent entity. Those ideas come from human beings. They created those ideas and they believe in it and made/make other human beings believe in it.

     I discuss ideas regardless of who holds them all the time. It's not even hard. Though it's true that ideas come from human beings, that's a contingent fact. I would evaluate an idea that came from nowhere the same way.

     I also think "believed in by persons" qualifies an idea for analysis more than "believed in by no one". What would be at stake if I picked an idea at random from "idea space" (presumably where identities are stored)?

     To clarify further, I don't think ideas that are "believed in" are believed. I recognize the distinction because it's pervasive (Do you believe in ghosts? Do you believe the germ theory of disease?). By this means people distinguish what they think is the case from what they feel obliged to affirm. In the case of mere affirmation the proposition is a poor candidate for belief because the idea is too unclear for anything much beyond using the words of the affirmation.

     So if you caution me against attacking what I think are bad ideas on the grounds that they are believed in (or even believed!), I can only say I can think of no better reason to focus on them.

[Marc]

     I discuss ideas regardless of who holds them all the time. It's not even hard. Though it's true that ideas come from human beings, that's a contingent fact. I would evaluate an idea that came from nowhere the same way.

     I also think "believed in by persons" qualifies an idea for analysis more than "believed in by no one". What would be at stake if I picked an idea at random from "idea space" (presumably where identities are stored)?

     To clarify further, I don't think ideas that are "believed in" are believed. I recognize the distinction because it's pervasive (Do you believe in ghosts? Do you believe the germ theory of disease?). By this means people distinguish what they think is the case from what they feel obliged to affirm. In the case of mere affirmation the proposition is a poor candidate for belief because the idea is too unclear for anything much beyond using the words of the affirmation.

     So if you caution me against attacking what I think are bad ideas on the grounds that they are believed in (or even believed!), I can only say I can think of no better reason to focus on them.

It's not meant as a caution.
There's no reason not to discuss, exchange or disagree.

I'm just not as much as a debater/arguer/converter than you, I guess. In the end, I'm more a seeker for solutions. With many things, I aim for solutions that will keep more parties happy/pleased/satisfied. The subject of abortion is a good example of that.

I also admit that our discussion is getting a bit too abstract for me. That wasn't my intention.

I'm gonna switch to listening to some Bach again. He believed in God. I don't anymore. But the thought of believing in a God can still move me.

[drogulus]

     Just as I was becoming a Maoist the stock market trolls me with a big bounce.

     Between now and 4PM falls the shadow I expect some debouncing because it usually happens.

     We are at an inflection point™.

     Wake me when a non-inflection point arrives.

[greg]

Hahaha

[drogulus]

     Today we got the Wall St. debouncing I expected late yesterday. I'm feeling a leftward tug. If it continues it will be "All power to the soviets!" by Friday.

[greg]

So I think I realized something about the political compass, although I couldn't find info about it- there are two hidden diagonal dimensions.

"Wealth distribution": auth left to lib right

"Human rights distribution": lib left to auth right

Human rights is the most basic dimension of them all... even animals have a position here- it's about survival, who you eat or don't eat.

The next to come is who to share the animal you killed with, who to share your currency with- so the wealth distribution comes next.

Then humans organize into tribes so it's time to decide how leadership works- authoritarian dimension.

Then next comes liberalism-conservatism which ironically is the one I least understand, though religion plays a huge involvement in this.

The upcoming political dimension will be technology- how stuff like chips in the brain, deepfakes, facial recognition, big data, etc. should be handled.

Also how a president is percived is helpful in predicting which countermovements will arise- Obama was perceived as communist (auth left) so the Tea Party libertarians arose (lib right). Trump is seen as fascist so Antifa arose (anarchocommunist, lib left).

[drogulus]

Then next comes liberalism-conservatism which ironically is the one I least understand, though religion plays a huge involvement in this.

     Religion is another ideology alongside the liberal and conservative ones. Libs and cons have their own versions. A well known version among libs is "none".

     There are larger differences that underlie the categories, captured at the level of psychology. I like to think I choose my philosophical dispositions, but I don't exactly think that.

     Some people are ideologically ambidextrous. They can look at things from alternative frameworks, others are rigidly framework-dependent.