bostonbananarama @ bostonbananarama @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

438

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm arguing that the principal of debate requires that you have a mind that can be changed.

Having an open mind that can be changed if provided with sufficient evidence is fantastic, something we should all strive for.

That being said, I don't think it is necessarily needed for a debate. If you're in a formally structured debate I would hope that you have fully considered all aspects, the pros and the cons. During the debate they should be making their points and critiquing the opposing viewpoint. Changing their mind would, in my opinion, be a disservice to the audience.

I was speaking about debates more broadly, not just political debates but also scholarly debates. I don't think the participants changing their minds would be a virtue.

Easy enough, let's make political gerrymandering unconstitutional, as it always should have been. Politicians should not be choosing their voters, that's 180° backwards.

Perhaps sway the audience, but I've never seen a debate where the participants ever changed their mind. Debates are about showcasing ideas and then seeing if those ideas stand up to the critiques of your opponent.

Honestly, if a participant ever changed their mind during a debate, I'd think they were a poor representative of that idea. By the time you're on stage at a formal debate you should have already thoroughly considered your opinion from every angle.

Not necessarily. If they withdraw by motion, then certainly, but if successor counsel is in place they usually don't need to.

We lost federal abortion protection and they went "aww shucks, oh well".

What would you like the Dems to do, and how should they accomplish your goal? Right now it just seems like you're blaming the wrong people.

bad faith judiciary

This is what we certainly have now, given the recent decisions that are based on facts that are somewhere between cherry picked and outright false. Laws and precedent don't, and won't, matter if they're acting in bad faith.

but I question whether the current SCOTUS wouldn't overturn a national abortion protection on States Rights grounds, finding some reason to disqualify the Commerce Clause from being applicable.

They definitely would. And if the Commerce clause is where Congress finds its grant of authority, they wouldn't be wrong. That's why it bothers me every time someone laments that Dems should have passed a law, as if SCOTUS wouldn't have struck that too.

Are you honestly suggesting that the bus companies might be unaware of what they're doing? That seems preposterous to me. Greg Abbott isn't walking up to the ticket window purchasing two tickets to NYC, these busses are specifically chartered for this purpose.

They've done studies on this using an FMRI. They ask people what God thinks about things and the part of the brain that lights up is the same as when they're asked what they think themselves. A different area lights up when they're asked about what other people think.

You're not wrong. No one wants to hear it, but Roe was reasoned terribly. They attempted to appease everyone by protecting abortion but setting limits.

While laws are a better avenue, I do not believe Congress has the authority to regulate abortion. From where does the authority arise, interstate commerce?

The Supreme Court could have ruled that the most basic and fundamental right, which is woven throughout the constitution, is a right to bodily autonomy. The idea of controlling one's own body is supported by a host of amendments. Incorporate the right with the 14th and abortion is protected everywhere.

I assume it's a reference to Harvard being the richest university in the world, sitting on a roughly $51 billion dollar endowment.

Can you, and everyone else, please stop with this ridiculous argument? It honestly might be one of the stupidest things said about abortion, and that's saying something.

First, Republicans weren't passing this, so you need Democratic control of the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and the presidency. So you're down to about 70 days in the past 40 years when this could have happened.

Second, where does Congress get the authority to regulate abortion? Interstate Commerce? How are you circumventing the 10th amendment?

Lastly, why wouldn't SCOTUS strike down this law when they overturned Roe? So they are willing to strike 50 years of judicial precedent, but not an act of Congress?

Your argument doesn't make sense and you're blaming the wrong people.

Set intermediate and long term goals. Have the absolutely best, most amazing time you can have while not sacrificing those goals.

This was filed as a class action, with the class being all Floridians that purchased these. If you're at all familiar with class action lawsuits, they hugely benefit the lawyers, minimally benefit the named plaintiff, and barely provide anything to the class at large.

So an attorney may take it, assuming the believe they can get the class certified. I don't do that type of work, so I don't know too much about it.

Also, contingency cases are possible against large companies based on nuisance value, essentially it's cheaper to pay you $15k to go away then to litigate for a large company.

Absolutely this. All the metrics already tell us that productivity does not decline from allowing employees to work from home. Why would additional data suddenly cause CEOs to admit what's already known?

Cons: It will never work in practice because human nature is a thing.

This exact reason is why capitalism will never work. Human nature will look to exploit.

My favorite Wayfair story is when I ordered an entertainment cabinet. The majority was brown, but the doors were white. One box comes in, packed tightly, it's obvious that nothing is missing from the box, but I have no white pieces. Missing the doors plus all the hardware to put it together.

Contact customer service explain the problem, that I think there's supposed to be a second box. OK, we'll send another. Same thing, one box, packed tightly, same pieces missing. Call again, explain again, they send out the same thing a third time. Finally I just cancelled my order and threw all three "Box A's" into the dumpster.

There's a process, and the DC circuit is the next stop. Why didn't the liberal justices dissent? This is fairly standard.

But there isn't a time imperative here.

While I don't disagree that SCOTUS might very well get around to giving Trump a get out of jail free card, they haven't acted inappropriately yet. It isn't the normal flow for this appeal to immediately go to SCOTUS; the expected result for such an attempt is denial.