What conduct do you feel is a deal breaker for SCOTUS nominees

[Keith&Co.]

70% of abortions are done for financial motive.

Is there any sort of breakdown?
What does 'for financial reasons' actually mean? You make it sound like a big investment, huge amounts of money changing hands...
But 'financial' could also mean 'I aborted because I can't afford to raise a child.'


37% of all abortions in the US are done on Protestant women (18 on Born Agains). Are 70% of them doing it for $$'s?
31% of all abortions in the US are on Catholic women. $$'s?
24% on 'Nones.'

Where, exactly, does 'big money' come into play, here?

- - - Updated - - -

but from an ethical standpoint,

i thought we were talking about congress...

 

[Jarhyn]

70% of abortions are done for financial motive.

Is there any sort of breakdown?
What does 'for financial reasons' actually mean? You make it sound like a big investment, huge amounts of money changing hands...
But 'financial' could also mean 'I aborted because I can't afford to raise a child.'


37% of all abortions in the US are done on Protestant women (18 on Born Agains). Are 70% of them doing it for $$'s?
31% of all abortions in the US are on Catholic women. $$'s?
24% on 'Nones.'

Where, exactly, does 'big money' come into play, here?

- - - Updated - - -

but from an ethical standpoint,

i thought we were talking about congress...

He wants to pretend, I think, that having an abortion means never having a child at all, maybe? (Totally not the case, btw)
Or maybe that abortions enrich someone in particular? (They don't; it's a job in the field of medical surgery. Surgeons make good money no matter where they go. Arguably, they could make good money an have some peace from people like Lion if they switched to a different surgical specialization. That they don't is generally a matter of principle, I think)
Or perhaps he thinks that someone in government is, what, selling black market baby parts or something, and that women are aborting babies they can't afford because of some kind of ad campaign, rather than "because they cannot afford it at this point in their lives"?

Honestly, a lot of abortion could probably be ended by resolving the student loan crisis that prevents young people from having the financial security to raise a child. I know that if I'd ended up getting my husband pregnant last year, we would have gone straight away to get an abortion, even knowing we are planning to try for it next year.

(Edit: oh, and if you are curious about how the hell to parse "getting my husband pregnant", lol. You can keep wondering about that one; it's not my fault if you're confused about the new realities of being a human being in the 21st century

 

[Angry Floof]

This is all about the love of money. Roe vs Wade is huge stakes. People will do whatever it takes.
70% of abortions are done for financial motive.
Turn the tables and ask if the liberal left would accept a rapist if that was the only way to stop Kavanaugh getting the job.

Funny you should pull the 70% figure out of your ass for this particular flight of fancy.

Did you not know that 70% of abortions are requested by Christian women?

You should ask them why they got the abortions. You could also be a grownup and listen to all women on abortion, not just the Christians who get the majority of abortions, and not just what you pull out of your ass, and certainly not hypocritical right wing authoritarians eager to demonize women and latch onto abortion as the only issue to help them pretend their "chosen" ideology is humane.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is all about the love of money. Roe vs Wade is huge stakes. People will do whatever it takes.
70% of abortions are done for financial motive.

Oh honey, you seem to misunderstand. Women don't get paid when they have an abortion.

Turn the tables and ask if the liberal left would accept a rapist if that was the only way to stop Kavanaugh getting the job.

Oh honey, you don't seem to understand what an analogy is.

 

[TSwizzle]

The poll is ambiguous. The options should state "accused of rape" and "convicted of rape" etc.

No, I don't care about whether they were accused. This, as I stated in the post isn't about Kavenaugh explicitly. You saw what you saw, at the hearing. A man doing his very best to dissemble about a whole lot of stuff, and a bunch of people making speeches about how questions shouldn't be asked, and then him not answering the questions. If he was innocent, he would have described what actually happened at parties: drunkenness and assaults. He could have named names, admitted to fights, or expressed shame in, well, anything he would have had to do to fit in in high school given his aspirations of sports. But he didn't say anything about that, didn't cop to being a human teenager, or a fearful college student. Because he wasn't. He was a raping piece of shit and we all know it from the fact that all of us here have seen enough liars, hell, BEEN those liars sometimes. I know I lied to myself about some things from time to time.

I have my doubts he raped anybody. I don't think even Ford has accused him of rape but you are certain he is a "raping piece of shit" ?

Edit: Let's frame this another way. Let's say whoever was nominated to the Supreme Court had raped YOU. No ambiguity there. Would you vote to confirm?

Of course not, what a daft question.

 

[Jarhyn]

I have my doubts he raped anybody. I don't think even Ford has accused him of rape but you are certain he is a "raping piece of shit" ?

Edit: Let's frame this another way. Let's say whoever was nominated to the Supreme Court had raped YOU. No ambiguity there. Would you vote to confirm?

Of course not, what a daft question.

First point: Do you think there is an ethical difference between someone who tried to rape and succeeded, and someone who tried to rape and failed on accident?
Second point: we aren't talking about Kavanaugh explictly. We are talking about a higher principle. I BK raped isn't really germane to the question of whether a rapist should be on the SCOTUS. As you have said, if someone raped YOU, you wouldn't confirm them. Do you think there is any ethical difference between the suitability of someone who raped you vs someone who raped somebody else? Do you think that the pain someone caused YOU is somehow more germane to the decision? Are other people somehow not your ethical equals? And if they aren't, then what are your thoughts on the other person who votes to confirm knowing you were raped by the candidate?

As to whether BK raped, my judgement is formed from a myriad of accusations, all of which I have read, a letter by BK which implies activities consistent with those described in those allegations, and a long list of unnessary LIES about those activities and plans. This means, absolutely, that there is behavior behind those lies which is worse than the lie. Either that or he is a compulsive liar (which is its own bar to qualification for SCOTUS). I can only think of a few things that lying about otherwise benign and stale drunkenness from high school in front of congress, and all of them are about as damning as "being a rapist".

 

[TSwizzle]

I have my doubts he raped anybody. I don't think even Ford has accused him of rape but you are certain he is a "raping piece of shit" ?

Edit: Let's frame this another way. Let's say whoever was nominated to the Supreme Court had raped YOU. No ambiguity there. Would you vote to confirm?

Of course not, what a daft question.

First point: Do you think there is an ethical difference between someone who tried to rape and succeeded, and someone who tried to rape and failed on accident?

Ethically, of course not, another daft question. (Legally there is a difference).

Second point: we aren't talking about Kavanaugh explictly. We are talking about a higher principle. I BK raped isn't really germane to the question of whether a rapist should be on the SCOTUS.

You do bring BK up a lot though.

As you have said, if someone raped YOU, you wouldn't confirm them. Do you think there is any ethical difference between the suitability of someone who raped you vs someone who raped somebody else? Do you think that the pain someone caused YOU is somehow more germane to the decision? Are other people somehow not your ethical equals?

No. Another daft question.

{snip}what are your thoughts on the other person who votes to confirm knowing you were raped by the candidate?

First of all, I doubt anyone would vote to confirm someone they knew was a rapist. It's possible they would, but I do think it unlikely. But if they did, fuck them, they should be ousted.

As to whether BK raped, my judgement is formed from a myriad of accusations, all of which I have read, a letter by BK which implies activities consistent with those described in those allegations, and a long list of unnessary LIES about those activities and plans. This means, absolutely, that there is behavior behind those lies which is worse than the lie. Either that or he is a compulsive liar (which is its own bar to qualification for SCOTUS). I can only think of a few things that lying about otherwise benign and stale drunkenness from high school in front of congress, and all of them are about as damning as "being a rapist".

As far as BK goes, his behavior seems typical of a boorish jock high school student. But so far, I don't think he is a rapist or attempted rapist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

70% of abortions are done for financial motive.

Is there any sort of breakdown?
What does 'for financial reasons' actually mean? You make it sound like a big investment, huge amounts of money changing hands...
But 'financial' could also mean 'I aborted because I can't afford to raise a child.'

Exactly. This is one of the biggest reasons for abortion. Either not having the income, or having a child would interfere with getting the education needed to get the income.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He wants to pretend, I think, that having an abortion means never having a child at all, maybe? (Totally not the case, btw)
Or maybe that abortions enrich someone in particular? (They don't; it's a job in the field of medical surgery. Surgeons make good money no matter where they go. Arguably, they could make good money an have some peace from people like Lion if they switched to a different surgical specialization. That they don't is generally a matter of principle, I think)
Or perhaps he thinks that someone in government is, what, selling black market baby parts or something, and that women are aborting babies they can't afford because of some kind of ad campaign, rather than "because they cannot afford it at this point in their lives"?

Abortion costs the doctors money. Remember, it's female reproductive doctors who do it--and female reproductive doctors generally also deliver babies. Delivering a baby pays more than an early abortion.

 

[Jarhyn]

First point: Do you think there is an ethical difference between someone who tried to rape and succeeded, and someone who tried to rape and failed on accident?

Ethically, of course not, another daft question. (Legally there is a difference).

Second point: we aren't talking about Kavanaugh explictly. We are talking about a higher principle. I BK raped isn't really germane to the question of whether a rapist should be on the SCOTUS.

You do bring BK up a lot though.

As you have said, if someone raped YOU, you wouldn't confirm them. Do you think there is any ethical difference between the suitability of someone who raped you vs someone who raped somebody else? Do you think that the pain someone caused YOU is somehow more germane to the decision? Are other people somehow not your ethical equals?

No. Another daft question.

{snip}what are your thoughts on the other person who votes to confirm knowing you were raped by the candidate?

First of all, I doubt anyone would vote to confirm someone they knew was a rapist. It's possible they would, but I do think it unlikely. But if they did, fuck them, they should be ousted.

As to whether BK raped, my judgement is formed from a myriad of accusations, all of which I have read, a letter by BK which implies activities consistent with those described in those allegations, and a long list of unnessary LIES about those activities and plans. This means, absolutely, that there is behavior behind those lies which is worse than the lie. Either that or he is a compulsive liar (which is its own bar to qualification for SCOTUS). I can only think of a few things that lying about otherwise benign and stale drunkenness from high school in front of congress, and all of them are about as damning as "being a rapist".

As far as BK goes, his behavior seems typical of a boorish jock high school student. But so far, I don't think he is a rapist or attempted rapist.

So now that we have confirmed, by your own clear admission, that your position IS that rape and sexual assault are, in fact, dealbreakers to being on the Supreme Court...

A supermajority o voters here, on the liberal side of the aisle have stated, unequivocally, that they do not think being a boorish high school drunk is a deal breaker: this means that BK could have just told the truth about being a boorish drunk. There was absolutely nothing to hide with regards to drinking, either to the point of puking or even having short lapses in memory. Hell, there aren't even any real objections that I (and I assume others here) have about making boasts about sexual conquests, particularly as a high schooler. The issue we have is that, despite the fact that it is benign to have been a jock in high school, he lied about all the realities of being a jock in high school. He is hiding something, clearly, about some of the things HE did AS a jock in high school that isn't merely being that jock. And the one overwhelming thing that people are claiming, and the one most significant thing that SOME jocks do is rape and attempted rape. If he can't come clean about what he did as a highschool jock, even when nobody cares if he was JUST a jock, there's a skeleton there. Either that or he's too much of a compulsive liar to qualify to sit on the bench.

 

[Elixir]

Where's the "Any of the above" button?

 

[Jarhyn]

He wants to pretend, I think, that having an abortion means never having a child at all, maybe? (Totally not the case, btw)
Or maybe that abortions enrich someone in particular? (They don't; it's a job in the field of medical surgery. Surgeons make good money no matter where they go. Arguably, they could make good money an have some peace from people like Lion if they switched to a different surgical specialization. That they don't is generally a matter of principle, I think)
Or perhaps he thinks that someone in government is, what, selling black market baby parts or something, and that women are aborting babies they can't afford because of some kind of ad campaign, rather than "because they cannot afford it at this point in their lives"?

Abortion costs the doctors money. Remember, it's female reproductive doctors who do it--and female reproductive doctors generally also deliver babies. Delivering a baby pays more than an early abortion.

Yeah. I get that. I mean, OBGYN surgeons are like the Elementary School Teachers of the medical world, working shit wages to be abused by protesters in order to help poor women who often can't on their own can't afford their services, so that those poor women don't have to risk death, further poverty, or maternal depression from having to give up a birthed baby. It's not glamorous or well-paid, so I'm at a loss as to why HE thinks it's a booming industry or whatever. Planned parenthood doesn't advertise abortions, either. They advertise that people should use condoms... and they give those away at the clinic for free. If there was a profit motive, I don't think they would be so keen on pushing literally every option that isn't an abortion first and foremost.

 

[TSwizzle]

So now that we have confirmed, by your own clear admission, that your position IS that rape and sexual assault are, in fact, dealbreakers to being on the Supreme Court...

True, because I answered a specific (and asinine) question.

 

[Jarhyn]

So now that we have confirmed, by your own clear admission, that your position IS that rape and sexual assault are, in fact, dealbreakers to being on the Supreme Court...

True, because I answered a specific (and asinine) question.

now what about the rest of it? You call my questions asinine. The point is, you have, now, finally agreed to all of the basic principles that are required to get to the point where I can finally apply your admitted philosophical stance to a concrete example: as there are allegations against him, in his clear dissembly about all the things around those allegations despite the utter lack of reason for said dissembly in the case of his innocence of the allegations, would you want the question of those allegations tested? Or would you want to dismiss them even after he lied, repeatedly (and unnecessarily, if he were innocent) about all of those events and statements?

I still don't understand how you can honestly get from "this guy lied about SO MUCH STUFF, stuff he didn't have to lie about if he didn't actually assault anyone" to "therefore I trust him that he didn't do something he claimed not to have done in the same hearing as the one in which he told the other lies"

When we are talking criminal charges, the kind that end in jail and a sex offender rap, yeah, there is a high standard of evidence. But when we are talking the decision to admit someone to the SCOTUS, there's a different standard. One is taking away something basic and vital, essentially kicking someone out of human society. The other is essentially making someone MORE than a normal human. When taking away, of course you have to be sure beyond a doubt that they did. When deciding to make someone something MORE than a normal human, someone afforded power, the sword must cut in the opposite way in that their INNOCENCE must be beyond a reasonable doubt, by the same symmetry, for the same reasons.

 

[fast]

Where's the "Any of the above" button?

It's in selecting all options except the "none of the above" option. Had there been an "any of the above" option with no way to regulate the calculations, they would of all been off except the "none of the above" option.

 

[TSwizzle]

So now that we have confirmed, by your own clear admission, that your position IS that rape and sexual assault are, in fact, dealbreakers to being on the Supreme Court...

True, because I answered a specific (and asinine) question.

now what about the rest of it? You call my questions asinine. The point is, you have, now, finally agreed to all of the basic principles that are required to get to the point where I can finally apply your admitted philosophical stance to a concrete example:

It's not a philosophical stance. You asked if I would confirm someone if I knew they had raped (me) or attempted to rape (me?). That's a NO based on what I KNOW.



Wait a minute, didn't you say this wasn't about BK ?

 

[ZiprHead]

Where's the "Any of the above" button?

I wonder who are the three that chose none of the above.

 

[TSwizzle]

Where's the "Any of the above" button?

I wonder who are the three that chose none of the above.

Me because I felt the responses were ambiguous. Probably should have abstained.

 

[Jarhyn]

Where's the "Any of the above" button?

I wonder who are the three that chose none of the above.

Me because I felt the responses were ambiguous. Probably should have abstained.

More, my guess is you want to have abstained because you don't understand that the standard of evidence for elevation should mirror the standard of evidence for de-elevation: beyond a reasonable doubt. You just don't want to hold THIS guy to that standard because he is partisan and so are you. Correct me if I am wrong, or come and participate in the thread I just made about standards of evidence and decisional symmetry.

 

[TSwizzle]

Is the poll about BK or not ? Rhetorical question, it clearly is.

Me because I felt the responses were ambiguous. Probably should have abstained.

More, my guess is you want to have abstained because you don't understand that the standard of evidence for elevation should mirror the standard of evidence for de-elevation: beyond a reasonable doubt. You just don't want to hold THIS guy to that standard because he is partisan and so are you. Correct me if I am wrong, or come and participate in the thread I just made about standards of evidence and decisional symmetry.

No, I didn't understand that what you set up was a test, with a right and wrong answer, not a poll. And since the poll is not about THIS guy (BK, obviously) I don't see how I can be partisan about it.

Anyway, what did you get out of this poll ?