I think I've debated you before. What you posted is an exact replica of what you posted on the original reply over a month ago.
Well, the question seemed kind of silly, so I opted to re-post the essentials of my argument.The premise of your questions motives, which are ultimately unknowable and - being subjective - are incapable of refutation in any empirical sense. If someone is pro-life because they are bitter toward women, what of it? You cannot refute feelings. So the question was pointless. To wit, I replied with a principled analysis of the issue rooted in the ideas of Aristotle and Burke. A bit weightier than questioning a person's feelings, after all.
I'm not interested in refuting feelings, I'm interested in making fun of people who lash out at women politically because of their romantic or sexual shortcomings. Obviously nobody is going to raise their hand and say "oh yeah, that's exactly why I oppose abortion."The question is polemical and not meant to be taken seriously.
Yes, sort of my point. Not a serious question. More an expression of self-satisfaction and mockery - and if I might add as someone who works in the business, and exquisite example of why the tone of our politics has become so rancid.
Politics will be remain rancid until a tipping point is reached. Racial minorities, sexual minorities, and people of all different backgrounds are tired of being ignored and treated unfairly, particularly in age where most countries that score well on the human rights index do a much better job at respecting minority rights than the US does. It took mass protests and rioting before action was taken on the Floyd case. Only after buildings were burned did the establishment cave in and grant justice. If you think it's bad now, just wait. If Trump bypasses a fair election or if RBG is replaced by a conservative justice, there will be unprecedented violence in America not seen in ages.
You are stating a banality as if it were a revelation. Politics got so rancid in the 1860s that 650,00 Americans killed each other. Then again in the 60s and 70s - to cite a more recent example. (Also a more relevant one as the current interregnum has interesting parallels to the 60s and 70s.)Bottom line, as Disraeli said, "Finality is not in the vocabulary of politics." So to say that politics will be rancid until circumstances change is really not saying very much.Suffice to add that a popular slogan of the 60s and 70s was that "Politics is the personal." That did not improve the mood but is an accurate description of the pedigree that inspired your question. Happily, the country grew exhausted after 20 years of tumult and five failed presidencies in a row and we go the relative - it is ALWAYS relative - stability and prosperity of the 80s, 90s and early 2000s.
I don't think it's a banality nor a revelation. Historians are quite literally forecasting the possibility of second civil war at 20-40% within the next 5 years.
Yup, just like they have predicted ten of the last two recessions and were bang on predicting that pandemic.It would be grand good fun if man was predictable in that way. However, as the social engineers of the 60s and 70s learned, they are not. The law of unintended consequences always pertaining.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
You have the right views
Be the first girl to share an opinion and earn 1 more Xper point!