Scalia and Ginsburg

[KAWDUP]

In my opinion, this is one of the low points of American political discourse:

"Scalia also said that while there are U.S. laws against torture, nothing in the Constitution appears to prohibit harsh treatment of suspected terrorists. "I don't know what article of the Constitution that would contravene," he said. Scalia spent a college semester in Switzerland at the University of Fribourg."
​

lowest of the low:

During a panel discussion about terrorism, torture and the law, a Canadian judge remarked, ?Thankfully, security agencies in all our countries do not subscribe to the mantra ?What would Jack Bauer do?? ? Justice Scalia responded with a defense of Agent Bauer, arguing that law enforcement officials deserve latitude in times of great crisis. ?Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles . . . . He saved hundreds of thousands of lives,? Judge Scalia reportedly said.
​

A freaking Harvard-educated Supreme Court Justice using a TV SHOW to refute centuries of human experience, law, and decency...

Scalia is an abortion.

In response to someone who brought it up first in the argument? Typical MichChamp crap. I'm sure he would listen to you about him being an abortion.

. . . oh wait that is just MichChamp being a dick again.

 

[KAWDUP]

THIS is condescending?

Edit: And your reading comprehension comment isn't I'm sure?

No of course it was. Answering in kind - Don't you know the rules of the internets? :*)

 

[hailhail]

No of course it was. Answering in kind - Don't you know the rules of the internets? :*)

I disagree. My second post was condescending, but that was in response to this:

"Well, who needs numbers when you're "pretty sure" and can dismiss arguments as "nonsense on its face". Well done hail, well done. You're almost as good at this as thumb. Maybe you can find a sweet meme to show how smart you aren't?"



I found all the numbers he asked for to back up my statements and he hasn't said a single substantive thing in response. He DID question my understanding of the term "majority," calling into question his own understanding of the word or maybe his own reading comprehension though. He also DID bring up his wife's views, which was kind of odd. But whatev.

 

[Michchamp]

In response to someone who brought it up first in the argument? Typical MichChamp crap. I'm sure he would listen to you about him being an abortion.

. . . oh wait that is just MichChamp being a dick again.

sticks and stones...

No response to the fact that a Supreme Court Justice is apparently unaware of the 8th Amendment, and conflates TV with reality?

. . . oh wait, that's just how you respond when you have nothing intelligent to add (AKA "all the time.")

 

[KAWDUP]

sticks and stones...

No response to the fact that a Supreme Court Justice is apparently unaware of the 8th Amendment, and conflates TV with reality?

. . . oh wait, that's just how you respond when you have nothing intelligent to add (AKA "all the time.")

Ha ha - made ya look.

Jack Bauer is my hero - how dare you take his name in vain.

<<. . . oh wait, that's just how you respond when you have nothing intelligent to add (AKA "all the time.")>>

Liar liar pants on fire, I have intelligent responses all the time. I just can't bring myself to use one where you're concerned because of the number of totally unintelligent things you say on a daily basis.

 

[KAWDUP]

I disagree. My second post was condescending, but that was in response to this:

"Well, who needs numbers when you're "pretty sure" and can dismiss arguments as "nonsense on its face". Well done hail, well done. You're almost as good at this as thumb. Maybe you can find a sweet meme to show how smart you aren't?"



I found all the numbers he asked for to back up my statements and he hasn't said a single substantive thing in response. He DID question my understanding of the term "majority," calling into question his own understanding of the word or maybe his own reading comprehension though. He also DID bring up his wife's views, which was kind of odd. But whatev.

Your last statement was what I was referring to. Do you really think that anyone on this board didn't know exactly how you felt about killing children?

 

[hailhail]

Your last statement was what I was referring to. Do you really think that anyone on this board didn't know exactly how you felt about killing children?

I feel pretty strongly that nobody should kill children under any circumstance. I'm sorry you live in a world where a woman's choice to have an abortion is the equivalent.

 

[Spartanmack]

I've backed up every single one of my claims using the source you recommended. You made a causal claim about a trend line, and haven't attempted to back it up. I said your claim is nonsense. Without considering the simple fact that more people still identify as pro-choice than pro-life (especially at younger ages), when the question is framed in numerous different ways that disparity increases. For example, a majority of the population (consistently over time) favors legalized first-trimester abortions.

What part of this are you taking issue with, or being intentionally dense about?

I didn't back up my claim about the trend line? That is simply not true. I told you where to look and you posted the links to the data yourself then tried to discredit my claim about a trend line by limiting the argument to a very narrow position on 1st trimester under certain circumstances (life of mother, etc) and claiming that majority disproves my argument about the trend. It doesn't. The survey as posted only shows ~17 years of data for your narrowly defined question and while a majority still supports that very narrow circumstance, it actually does show an overall decline after an initial brief uptick. Looking at abortion overall, the trend is clearly toward pro-life and while being pro-life is still highly correlated with being religious, the trend is not being driven by religion because people who identify as religious has been in decline over that same period.

 

[Spartanmack]

sticks and stones...

No response to the fact that a Supreme Court Justice is apparently unaware of the 8th Amendment, and conflates TV with reality?

. . . oh wait, that's just how you respond when you have nothing intelligent to add (AKA "all the time.")

I assume it's pretty clear to just about everyone that the Jack Bauer reference was a joke in response to the Canadian judge bringing up the Jack Bauer example in the first place. Why do you have such a big problem w/ a Harvard educated justice making a sarcastic response to the Jack Bauer reference but don't have a problem w/ the original reference to Jack Bauer? Did that judge get his law degree at some second or third tier school like say, Illinois rather than Harvard and therefore it's OK for him to be say something so foolish like other Illinois grads? Or do you need to ignore the context so you can blow your top about Scalia being so detached, unhinged and living in a fantasy land.

 

[hailhail]

I didn't back up my claim about the trend line? That is simply not true.

No, you didn't back up the claim I took issue with originally:

"Clearly, the opposition hasn't grown because of religion - it's grown largely because of technology and science. Entire generations of kids have grown up with ultrasound pictures of their siblings in the womb on their refrigerators and they learn at a very early age that it's a person and not just a clump of cells."

I never argued against the general trend. I simply don't think it's true to say that technology, or "entire generations of kids growing up seeing ultrasounds" is a primary cause of anything. Exhibit A was my generation's current views -- from the poll 60% identify as pro-choice. They grew up "viewing ultrasounds" of their brothers and sisters also.

Also, to clarify, the other data points I've mentioned multiple times aren't about abortion under very narrow circumstances like you keep saying. There's been a majority of support over time for legalized first-trimester abortion (independent of threats to the mother's or child's health, etc). I shouldn't have to say this, but that's a very different question than asking someone if they're pro-life or pro-choice. I know plenty of people who identify as "pro-life" because they themselves would never consider getting an abortion, but also don't think it's right to tell other they shouldn't (despite my insistence that that's actually a pro-choice stance). That's Exhibit B.

 

[Spartanmack]

No, you didn't back up the claim I took issue with originally:

"Clearly, the opposition hasn't grown because of religion - it's grown largely because of technology and science. Entire generations of kids have grown up with ultrasound pictures of their siblings in the womb on their refrigerators and they learn at a very early age that it's a person and not just a clump of cells."

I never argued against the general trend. I simply don't think it's true to say that technology, or "entire generations of kids growing up seeing ultrasounds" is a primary cause of anything. Exhibit A was my generation's current views -- from the poll 60% identify as pro-choice. They grew up "viewing ultrasounds" of their brothers and sisters also.

Also, to clarify, the other data points I've mentioned multiple times aren't about abortion under very narrow circumstances like you keep saying. There's been a majority of support over time for legalized first-trimester abortion (independent of threats to the mother's or child's health, etc). I shouldn't have to say this, but that's a very different question than asking someone if they're pro-life or pro-choice. I know plenty of people who identify as "pro-life" because they themselves would never consider getting an abortion, but also don't think it's right to tell other they shouldn't (despite my insistence that that's actually a pro-choice stance). That's Exhibit B.

Yes, I did back up my primary claim which is that the trend is toward pro-life and it is not being driven by religion. And ultrasound pictures on the refrigerator is not a primary cause, it's one example of how the primary causes, science and technology are making people aware that what they are killing is a human being and not just a clump of cells. Science has also revealed to us that at conception, the fertilized egg is uniquely human with it's own unique DNA. Science and technology also tell us that the baby has a heartbeat before most women even know they are pregnant. If what you're saying is that you chose to make this 3 page back and forth about nit picking the example I chose to demonstrate my point then I think we're done here.

Also, do you really not see that in the very next sentence after you claim that you're not using a narrowly defined circumstance, you once again cite the question which asks about a very narrowly defined circumstance?

 

[KAWDUP]

I feel pretty strongly that nobody should kill children under any circumstance. I'm sorry you live in a world where a woman's choice to have an abortion is the equivalent.

I'm sorry you live in that world too. Same world, and of course it doesn't change the fact that abortion is killing children.

We can be flippant about it all you want - you can continue to be happy that you are allowed to decide to kill your unborn child - and, of course, I will continue to think that that is immoral as hell.

Just so you understand, I am not judging you, that is for someone else, only telling you what I think - the state should probably get out of the business of legislating this bit of morality.

. . . but I know how it works - you need to be protected from all those who would judge you, and attempt to take matters into their own hands. Two wrongs never make a right. The end doesn't ever justify the means, and most of all, you have every right in the world to be immoral in my mind.

 

[Michchamp]

...

Just so you understand, I am not judging you, that is for someone else, only telling you what I think - the state should probably get out of the business of legislating this bit of morality.

...

Yes.

 

[Gulo Blue]

The end doesn't ever justify the means

Not ever or rarely? St. Augustine's Just War Doctrine takes the ends into consideration.

 

[Michchamp]

I assume it's pretty clear to just about everyone that the Jack Bauer reference was a joke in response to the Canadian judge bringing up the Jack Bauer example in the first place. Why do you have such a big problem w/ a Harvard educated justice making a sarcastic response to the Jack Bauer reference but don't have a problem w/ the original reference to Jack Bauer? Did that judge get his law degree at some second or third tier school like say, Illinois rather than Harvard and therefore it's OK for him to be say something so foolish like other Illinois grads? Or do you need to ignore the context so you can blow your top about Scalia being so detached, unhinged and living in a fantasy land.

this post is a steaming pile of dung. a longer report is here, and I don't see anything in it that suggests it was clearly a joke to "just about everyone."

the rest of your "argument" is absurd (as per usual). idiot.

 

[Spartanmack]

this post is a steaming pile of dung. a longer report is here, and I don't see anything in it that suggests it was clearly a joke to "just about everyone."

the rest of your "argument" is absurd (as per usual). idiot.

You're a steaming pile of dung. He was obviously "playing along". He was not invoking Jack Bauer, he was using the Canadian judge's example to make a point about harsh interrogation techniques. Whether you agree with his position or not, blowing your lid about Scalia making that reference is moronic. It's pretty clear who the idiot is here. For dummies like you, I'll tell you - it's you (as per usual). Idiot.

 

[Michchamp]

No, you are.

 

[KAWDUP]

Not ever or rarely? St. Augustine's Just War Doctrine takes the ends into consideration.

Yes it does take the end into consideration, but let me see you come up with set of criteria for judging when it is good or even OK. I don't think even St Augustine would find agreement throughout the church. Greatest good for the greatest number is nebulous at best.

How bad does the "means" need to be before it isn't justified anymore?

These are just some of the problems.

I ask myself the simple question - what would Jesus have done? This is why atheist's have very little trouble justifying the means to an end. A perceived good outcome is good always - the means are a separate issue, and usually the other guy's problem.

 

[Michchamp]

Yes it does take the end into consideration, but let me see you come up with set of criteria for judging when it is good or even OK. I don't think even St Augustine would find agreement throughout the church. Greatest good for the greatest number is nebulous at best.

How bad does the "means" need to be before it isn't justified anymore?

These are just some of the problems.

I ask myself the simple question - what would Jesus have done? This is why atheist's have very little trouble justifying the means to an end. A perceived good outcome is good always - the means are a separate issue, and usually the other guy's problem.

yes, because you couldnt possibly be moral without belief in an imaginary man in the sky who judges your actions and magically rewards or punishes you when you die.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Yes it does take the end into consideration, but let me see you come up with set of criteria for judging when it is good or even OK. I don't think even St Augustine would find agreement throughout the church. Greatest good for the greatest number is nebulous at best.

How bad does the "means" need to be before it isn't justified anymore?

These are just some of the problems.

I ask myself the simple question - what would Jesus have done? This is why atheist's have very little trouble justifying the means to an end. A perceived good outcome is good always - the means are a separate issue, and usually the other guy's problem.

I don't know the answer either. It seems like the idea has application beyond war, but how far to go, I'm not sure you can come up with a set of criteria to do the job.