David Eagleman: The mystery of Stephen Paddock's brain

[Leigha]

I responded about that (I thought?), the terms moderate and conservative only are similarly defined when we're talking along the lines of economics, business, money matters, etc. On a social matters spectrum, that's where the similarities stop. 

LOL! No, you said they weren't synonyms.

Did you even read my post? I covered all that quite thoroughly. Social liberalism is not moderate...it's just not as far left as economic progressivism. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative is a social liberal...because that's the definition.

I read it, and I replied above. Not an elaborate post, but I replied.

I always read what people reply to me. 

But, again, there's always overlap. Do you know anyone who is a staunch conservative? Or leaning mainly in the liberal camp?
I don't know anyone personally, who doesn't lean in agreement with more than one party.

Some small overlap does not a moderate make. Moderation/temperance are characteristics you have not displayed here. Just because you use the buzzword "moderate" to mean "not extreme" doesn't make it any closer to center. That's just your expression of not being as far left as others. You would be more accurate to call yourself left-leaning.

But that would likely take examining your own beliefs with some moderation.

I haven't had enough exchanges with you here for you to decipher where I ''lean,'' honestly. I've shared a few views, but I'm not emphatic about any one particular view, thus my desire to see myself as more of a centrist. I lean towards the left with social matters, but lean center/right when it comes to capitalism/socialism, etc. 

If we want to play the game of assumptions, I've always assumed you are a conservative, but maybe I'd be wrong?

[Syne]

I haven't had enough exchanges with you here for you to decipher where I ''lean,'' honestly. I've shared a few views, but I'm not emphatic about any one particular view, thus my desire to see myself as more of a centrist. I lean towards the left with social matters, but lean center/right when it comes to capitalism/socialism, etc. 

If we want to play the game of assumptions, I've always assumed you are a conservative, but maybe I'd be wrong?

Well go ahead then. Tell me about the social issues you lean right on.
You can "desire to see" yourself as a bunny rabbit, but unless you have long ears and fur, I'm not sure that counts as finding "a lot of joy in not creating illusions for myself".
The problem with social liberals claiming to be centrist is that their social goals require a larger, redistributive government...which runs counter to fiscal conservatism...and classical liberalism.

Embrace your leftism....or is it a dirty word?

I am a conservative, and I'd be shocked if that weren't fairly obvious...even in wholly apolitical discussion.

[Leigha]

Some of my views, Syne:

I lean right on abortion. I'm pro-choice in that abortion shouldn't be illegal, but I'm personally against it. I'm against tax funding for it.

I'm against having a purely socialist economy.

I'm against the death penalty - it should be abolished in all states.

I'm pro-religious freedom.

I'm not a feminist.

I'm against ''big'' government.

I'm against trade unions, in general. Depends, but mainly against.

I'm ''pro'' stronger local/state level government and less federal governing/involvement.

See? I mix it up.

[Syne]

Some of my views, Syne:

I lean right on abortion. I'm pro-choice in that abortion shouldn't be illegal, but I'm personally against it. I'm against tax funding for it.

I'm against having a purely socialist economy.

I'm against the death penalty - it should be abolished in all states.

I'm pro-religious freedom.

I'm not a feminist.

I'm against ''big'' government.

I'm against trade unions, in general. Depends, but mainly against.

I'm ''pro'' stronger local/state level government and less federal governing/involvement.

See? I mix it up.

Why are you against abortion if you think it should be legal? If it's morally wrong, isn't that like saying you're personally against murder but think others should be able to kill? If it's not morally wrong, why are you against it?

Pure socialist economies only exist in communist/totalitarian countries. Even Bernie adds the qualifier that he's a democratic socialist...which generally means a mixed economy, like the US and most the west already have in varying degrees.

Pro-religious freedom for businesses to deny service for religious reasons?

Do you want public healthcare and welfare?

If you support local/state power over federal power, would you support a state's right to ban abortion?
Do you at least agree with this bit of the 2016 Republican platform:
"We support funding for ultrasounds and adoption assistance. We salute the many states that now protect women and girls through laws requiring informed consent, parental consent, waiting periods, and clinic regulation." and "ban sex-selection abortions and abortions based on disabilities — discrimination in its most lethal form."


I could actually say I'm a feminist, as I believe in equal rights, but that's not really what modern feminism is about. I could say that I'm pro-choice...the morning after. I could say I am for big government...for things like military, border protection, and disaster response. I'm against the death penalty in principle but not in practicality. I don't see an overwhelming need for constitutional carry (no permit necessary to carry a gun). I'm for decriminalization of marijuana...and perhaps other drugs that don't significantly contribute to violent crime.

See? I mix it up.

But I think you can see how those vague statements don't really define a stance on specific issues.

[Leigha]

I'm not being purposefully vague, I'm at work, and don't have the time right now to expand on my views. But, I will later.

[Leigha]

Some of my views, Syne:

I lean right on abortion. I'm pro-choice in that abortion shouldn't be illegal, but I'm personally against it. I'm against tax funding for it.

I'm against having a purely socialist economy.

I'm against the death penalty - it should be abolished in all states.

I'm pro-religious freedom.

I'm not a feminist.

I'm against ''big'' government.

I'm against trade unions, in general. Depends, but mainly against.

I'm ''pro'' stronger local/state level government and less federal governing/involvement.

See? I mix it up.

Why are you against abortion if you think it should be legal? If it's morally wrong, isn't that like saying you're personally against murder but think others should be able to kill? If it's not morally wrong, why are you against it?

Pure socialist economies only exist in communist/totalitarian countries. Even Bernie adds the qualifier that he's a democratic socialist...which generally means a mixed economy, like the US and most the west already have in varying degrees.

Pro-religious freedom for businesses to deny service for religious reasons?

Do you want public healthcare and welfare?

If you support local/state power over federal power, would you support a state's right to ban abortion?
Do you at least agree with this bit of the 2016 Republican platform:
"We support funding for ultrasounds and adoption assistance. We salute the many states that now protect women and girls through laws requiring informed consent, parental consent, waiting periods, and clinic regulation." and "ban sex-selection abortions and abortions based on disabilities — discrimination in its most lethal form."


I could actually say I'm a feminist, as I believe in equal rights, but that's not really what modern feminism is about. I could say that I'm pro-choice...the morning after. I could say I am for big government...for things like military, border protection, and disaster response. I'm against the death penalty in principle but not in practicality. I don't see an overwhelming need for constitutional carry (no permit necessary to carry a gun). I'm for decriminalization of marijuana...and perhaps other drugs that don't significantly contribute to violent crime.

See? I mix it up.

But I think you can see how those vague statements don't really define a stance on specific issues.

I know my reasons for why I feel as I do on certain issues. It's safer to say if we're being honest, that most labels in this context are a catch all for most of our views, but certainly not all. I may feel that abortion should remain legal because I don't believe that it's a government issue at all (it's a medical one), but that doesn't mean I feel that late term abortions shouldn't be banned. Same topic, but different views. Morality comes into it to a degree for me, but not on each and every issue. 

if you are a conservative, then you are against big government, but you likely feel that the government should be intervening in abortions. How can you have it both ways? If you are using your own moral compass to seek a ban on abortion (not saying you are, but IF you are) then should the law of the land be dictated by your morality?

So, perhaps we both have strong views when it comes to the totality of a subject, but with caveats. 

We're not robots, programmed to think one way, and only one way, across all topics. And I reserve the right to change my mind. That could account for that shifting graph you posted in another thread. Life isn't so cut and dry...it's riddled with caveats, nuance, and disclaimers.

[Syne]

if you are a conservative, then you are against big government, but you likely feel that the government should be intervening in abortions. How can you have it both ways? If you are using your own moral compass to seek a ban on abortion (not saying you are, but IF you are) then should the law of the land be dictated by your morality?

I think government should intervene in murder (the taking of human life...as defined by science). I certainly wouldn't think that a capital crime, like murder, should significantly differ by state, but for the sake of compromise, I'd entertain the notion if that meant conservative states could ban abortion. At least then we could compare outcomes...especially like the impact on minority communities.

The law of the land should be consistent. Not subject to people redefining "human life" to suit their agenda. That's happened before, when slaves weren't considered human. You'd think we'd be beyond that by now. It's not my moral compass. It's just insisting on consistency.

[Leigha]

if you are a conservative, then you are against big government, but you likely feel that the government should be intervening in abortions. How can you have it both ways? If you are using your own moral compass to seek a ban on abortion (not saying you are, but IF you are) then should the law of the land be dictated by your morality?

I think government should intervene in murder (the taking of human life...as defined by science). I certainly wouldn't think that a capital crime, like murder, should significantly differ by state, but for the sake of compromise, I'd entertain the notion if that meant conservative states could ban abortion. At least then we could compare outcomes...especially like the impact on minority communities.

The law of the land should be consistent. Not subject to people redefining "human life" to suit their agenda. That's happened before, when slaves weren't considered human. You'd think we'd be beyond that by now. It's not my moral compass. It's just insisting on consistency.

I think the argument too is that many people feel that if abortion is illegal, then pregnant women will find illegal means to have an abortion, thus risking their lives. Kind of like gun control. If guns were to be banned, people would find a way to obtain them, illegally. And an entire underground world of criminal activity would continue to grow. So, there's that. I believe it's human life, but I hesitate to judge another woman's situation.

[Syne]

I think the argument too is that many people feel that if abortion is illegal, then pregnant women will find illegal means to have an abortion, thus risking their lives. Kind of like gun control. If guns were to be banned, people would find a way to obtain them, illegally. And an entire underground world of criminal activity would continue to grow. So, there's that. I believe it's human life, but I hesitate to judge another woman's situation.

But you advocate stricter gun control? How do you reconcile the two? Personally, I'd rather have the legal purchase in the system, where it can potentially raise a red flag (in conjunction with other info), than to have so many restrictions that such people skip the legal purchase altogether...making attacks even less predictable.

Situational morality can justify an awful lot of awful.

"Deaths from illegally induced abortion declined between 1940 and 1972 in part because of the introduction of antibiotics to manage sepsis and the widespread use of effective contraceptives. Deaths from legal abortion declined fivefold between 1973 [Roe v Wade] and 1985 (from 3.3 deaths to 0.4 death per 100,000 procedures), reflecting increased physician education and skills, improvements in medical technology, and, notably, the earlier termination of pregnancy. The risk of death from legal abortion is higher among minority women and women over the age of 35 years, and increases with gestational age. Legal-abortion mortality between 1979 and 1985 was 0.6 death per 100,000 procedures, more than 10 times lower than the 9.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births between 1979 and 1986." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1433765

We can't say that we really know the mortality rate of illegal abortions now days in the US (with modern medicine), since it's been so long. Antibiotics and contraceptives alone had already reduced that rate before Roe v Wade. And without the option, wouldn't more people resort to the morning after pill? That alone would likely have a greater effect than contraceptives on illegal abortions prior to Roe v Wade.

But morally, why should a person seeking to kill a human life have their own health protected in doing so?

[Leigha]

I think the argument too is that many people feel that if abortion is illegal, then pregnant women will find illegal means to have an abortion, thus risking their lives. Kind of like gun control. If guns were to be banned, people would find a way to obtain them, illegally. And an entire underground world of criminal activity would continue to grow. So, there's that. I believe it's human life, but I hesitate to judge another woman's situation.

But you advocate stricter gun control? How do you reconcile the two? Personally, I'd rather have the legal purchase in the system, where it can potentially raise a red flag (in conjunction with other info), than to have so many restrictions that such people skip the legal purchase altogether...making attacks even less predictable.

I'm not advocating for anything, I was just giving an analogy relating to banning abortion.

Situational morality can justify an awful lot of awful.

Okay.

"Deaths from illegally induced abortion declined between 1940 and 1972 in part because of the introduction of antibiotics to manage sepsis and the widespread use of effective contraceptives. Deaths from legal abortion declined fivefold between 1973 [Roe v Wade] and 1985 (from 3.3 deaths to 0.4 death per 100,000 procedures), reflecting increased physician education and skills, improvements in medical technology, and, notably, the earlier termination of pregnancy. The risk of death from legal abortion is higher among minority women and women over the age of 35 years, and increases with gestational age. Legal-abortion mortality between 1979 and 1985 was 0.6 death per 100,000 procedures, more than 10 times lower than the 9.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births between 1979 and 1986." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1433765

We can't say that we really know the mortality rate of illegal abortions now days in the US (with modern medicine), since it's been so long. Antibiotics and contraceptives alone had already reduced that rate before Roe v Wade. And without the option, wouldn't more people resort to the morning after pill? That alone would likely have a greater effect than contraceptives on illegal abortions prior to Roe v Wade.

But morally, why should a person seeking to kill a human life have their own health protected in doing so?

While we may believe that life begins at conception, the law is the law, and the most you can really do is vote for people whom you think align well with your values. 

I'm sure you've read about this, but I didn't know this until recently. It's interesting. 

http://www.messengernews.net/opinion/edi...-of-heart/