All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[Ohnooze]

I'm not deciding anything for the woman who has to carry the child -- that's my point.

And your last statement is so full of irony that I'll just let it stand on it's own merits.

Forgot who I was talking to. Hang ups are bad.

[Tuck]

Provide a legitimate scenario where an execution is not taking life. If you cannot, you are deciding which instances in which taking life is acceptable. Once we have established that there are some scenarios where it is acceptable, you can take trying to dictate where it is and is not and shove it.

Huh?

Capital murder is a thing that some jurisdictions have decided warrants the loss of the right to life through due process, the same as it would take away the right to liberty or property in other less severe criminal cases.

If one sincerely believes there is no moral difference between an unborn child and one that has already been born, it's still philosophically consistent, because that child has done nothing. If it were to grow up and commit capital murder, however, it would then be subject to possible execution.

I've never understood not seeing the difference. (I mean, I also don't understand people who invoke their Catholic faith in a pro-life argument, but then also support the death penalty, which the Church is against.)

[aja_christopher]

Forgot who I was talking to. Hang ups are bad.

Like I said before, my opinions are based on experience, and you're only further confirming said experience.

So you decide when consciousness begins?
So an unborn child that knows the sound of his mothers voice and feels stress has no consciousness...so if I feel like a 3 month old has no consciousness then I guess we just give him the needle. Everyone has a bad habit of pushing their views on others, stop pointing at people of faith for everything you don't like about the world.

But just for fun -- what "view" have I pushed on you?

And when did I point my finger at people of faith for everything I don't like about the world -- rather than, specifically, anti-abortion efforts and performing horrendous actions (the Inquisition, the Crusades, Manifest Destiny, etc) in the name of religion or God?

[Ohnooze]

Like I said before, my opinions are based on experience, and you're only further confirming said experience.



But just for fun -- what "view" have I pushed on you?

And when did I point my finger at people of faith for everything I don't like about the world -- rather than, specifically, anti-abortion efforts and performing horrendous actions (the Inquisition, the Crusades, Manifest Destiny, etc) in the name of religion or God?

Am I so bad? You clearly really dislike faith and seem to be pretty passionate about it.

[aja_christopher]

Am I so bad? You clearly really dislike faith and seem to be pretty passionate about it.

I never said that -- I said it might be better to ask why so much of the "Christian faith" had left Jesus, especially when it comes to the "Christian" right.

And I also never said you were "bad" -- I just asked you what view I've pushed on you, since you said everyone does it, and then pointed out that religion has been behind a lot of repressive and outright torturous and genocidal acts in an effort to force itself on others.

I'm reasonable enough to understand that not all Christians are the same and that not every religion is inherently "evil" so don't assume I think you're "bad" just because you're Christian (or religious in general) but it is telling that you've already seemingly judged me, even going so far as to tell me to get rid of my "hang ups" and to stop blaming religion for "everything".

I just asked a few questions in response to your accusations -- like when did I blame people of faith for everything I don't like in the world?

[Ohnooze]

I never said that -- I said it might be better to ask why so much of the "Christian faith" had left Jesus, especially when it comes to the "Christian" right.

And I also never said you were "bad" -- I just asked you what view I've pushed on you, since you said everyone does it, and then pointed out that religion has been behind a lot of repressive and outright torturous and genocidal acts in an effort to force itself on others.

I'm reasonable enough to understand that not all Christians are the same and that not every religion is inherently "evil" so don't assume I think you're "bad" just because you're Christian (or religious in general) but it is telling that you've already seemingly judged me, even going so far as to tell me to get rid of my "hang ups" and to stop blaming religion for "everything".

I just asked a few questions in response to your accusations -- like when did I blame people of faith for everything I don't like in the world?

You did not push any view on me. My point is that it's not a Christian problem it's a people problem. As for your hang up with faith...well that's just how it comes across. Seems like you're harboring some resentment.

[aja_christopher]

You did not push any view on me. My point is that it's not a Christian problem it's a people problem.

Some people seem to have this problem a lot more than others.

I get your point about how "all have fallen short" and all, but your faith doesn't give you the right to tell others what they should do and how they should behave.

[Ohnooze]

Some people seem to have this problem a lot more than others.

I get your point about how "all have fallen short" and all, but your faith doesn't give you the right to tell others what they should do and how they should behave.

Continue tomorrow. It's getting late.

[Mister Mets]

There's an interesting controversy at Harvard. An African-American law professor has been removed as faculty dean following pushback from students. A big part of the pushback is that he's defending Harvey Weinstein.


Conor Friedersdorf writes about it for The Atlantic.

Outsiders can’t know to what degree representing Weinstein inspired the ouster, and to what degree longtime critics of the faculty dean, such as the ones alluded to in a Harvard Crimson story attacking his performance, exploited unhappiness about Weinstein to accomplish a long-hoped-for removal.

Either way, Harvard administrators were warned about the unavoidable conflict between upholding an important civic norm––that legal representation for even the most reviled is a service to the community, not a transgression against it—and giving in to the demands of the undergraduates most aggrieved by their faculty dean’s choice of clients. And rather than infer a responsibility of the extremely privileged to uphold civic norms for the benefit of those in society who most need them, this institution, which purports to educate future leaders, chose to prioritize transient discomfort felt by its most aggrieved students.

He thinks it was the wrong call.

But protecting the norms around the right to counsel is orders of magnitude more important than the “unenlightened or misplaced” discomfort of some Harvard undergraduates––discomfort rooted in difficulty tolerating moral difference, not in having to report sexual assault to Sullivan, as some have erroneously suggested. In fact, Sullivan long ago appointed Linda D. M. Chavers, a resident dean, to serve as his house’s “point person” for sexual-assault issues. (Moreover, Harvard employs dozens of people to whom any student in need could report sexual misconduct.)

People outside Harvard, including up-and-coming defense lawyers and those inclined to attack them, received this message: “Harvard professor out as dean amid backlash for representing Harvey Weinstein.” (That’s from a USA Today article, but other prominent news sources ran similar headlines.) As I previously warned, Harvard’s decision may deter ambitious young lawyers from undertaking the defense of any potentially controversial client, including indigent men who stand accused of rape or sexual assault. That raises the odds of wrongful convictions, especially among the poor. Harvard grads are relatively unlikely to be affected.

Randall Kennedy, a fellow Harvard Law professor, defends his colleague, while describing the context.

Mr. Sullivan is my friend and colleague. He is the director of the Criminal Justice Institute at Harvard Law School and the architect of a conviction-review program in Brooklyn that has freed a score of improperly convicted individuals. He is also a sought-after lawyer who has represented plaintiffs (including the family of Michael Brown, whose death at the hands of a police officer fueled the Black Lives Matter movement) as well as defendants (including Rose McGowan, the actress who faced drug charges and is, ironically, one of Mr. Weinstein’s accusers).

In addition to his work as a professor and a lawyer, Mr. Sullivan, with his wife, Stephanie Robinson, has served for a decade as the faculty dean of Winthrop House, an undergraduate dormitory where some 400 students live.

As a faculty dean, Mr. Sullivan is responsible for creating a safe, fun, supportive environment in which students can pursue their collegiate ambitions. Winthrop House is meant to be a home away from home; faculty deans are in loco parentis. Mr. Sullivan and Ms. Robinson are expected to attend to the students as counselors, cheerleaders, impresarios and guardians.

Enraged by Mr. Sullivan’s work on behalf of Mr. Weinstein, a cadre of students at Winthrop, and in other parts of the university as well, demanded the lawyer’s ouster, asserting that his choice of client undermined their confidence in his ability to be properly attuned to their thoughts and feelings. Some said that Mr. Sullivan’s choice was nothing less than “trauma-inducing.”

From the outset of the dispute, which began in January when Mr. Sullivan joined Mr. Weinstein’s team of lawyers (he has recently withdrawn from active participation), Harvard authorities have evinced sympathy with the position voiced by the student dissidents. “I take seriously the concerns that have been raised from members of the College community regarding the impact of Professor Sullivan’s choice to serve as counsel for Harvey Weinstein on the House community that he is responsible for leading as a faculty dean,” the dean of Harvard College, Rakesh Khurana, remarked in an email to students in February.

A few weeks later, after protests that included vandalism (spray-painted graffiti on university buildings included the slogans “Our rage is self-defense” and “Whose side are you on?”), Dean Khurana initiated a review of “the climate” at Winthrop House, including asking students in a questionnaire whether they found the dormitory “sexist” or “non-sexist.” Some onlookers saw the move as a predetermined predicate for wrangling Mr. Sullivan’s resignation or dismissal.

My dad's a lawyer (who primarily worked for New York City's Administration for Children's Services) and thinks that Harvard is clearly in the wrong for even entertaining the idea that there should be any consequences to a lawyer for agreeing to defend a particular client, let alone for bowing to pressure. I'm sure there's a counterpoint, but it's not articulated effectively enough. Is the principle that everyone is entitled to a defense important or it is problematic for a rich scumbag to get a prestigious lawyer?

[numberthirty]

Huh?

Capital murder is a thing that some jurisdictions have decided warrants the loss of the right to life through due process, the same as it would take away the right to liberty or property in other less severe criminal cases.

If one sincerely believes there is no moral difference between an unborn child and one that has already been born, it's still philosophically consistent, because that child has done nothing. If it were to grow up and commit capital murder, however, it would then be subject to possible execution.

I've never understood not seeing the difference. (I mean, I also don't understand people who invoke their Catholic faith in a pro-life argument, but then also support the death penalty, which the Church is against.)

First, take a moment to seriously ask yourself if an innocent human being has ever been executed in the United States. Let's set aside instances where people were actually set up by the state.

If you are willing to be straight with yourself about the actual answer to that question, there is no difference.

[numberthirty]

You did not push any view on me. My point is that it's not a Christian problem it's a people problem. As for your hang up with faith...well that's just how it comes across. Seems like you're harboring some resentment.

Wrong.

If you are trying to dictate when life starts, you are absolutely coming from a Christian perspective.

[Ohnooze]

Wrong.

If you are trying to dictate when life starts, you are absolutely coming from a Christian perspective.

That was not just about the topic at hand but pushing views on others in general is a human thing not just a Christian thing.

[numberthirty]

That was not just about the topic at hand but pushing views on others in general is a human thing not just a Christian thing.

Ask yourself how many times you have seen a regular old non-believer walk into a church, and tell folks not to believe.

Ask yourself how many times you see abortion protests trying to get folks in line with Christian belief.

Ask yourself how many times Christians step forward to say "Hey, stop trying to make people say 'Under God' at the end of the Pledge."

Ask yourself how many times Christians have stepped forward to demand that marriage stripped of it's current legal status.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Bah. Everyone knows that the superior space pirate wears a miniskirt and has yuri undertones. Well, not exactly undertones when I think about it.

No pics from my phone sadly. Otherwise this post would be a little more...bodacious.

DANG! How could I have forgotten about THIS Space Pirate?

[JCAll]

Ted Cruz Thinks the U.S. Needs to Defend Against Space Pirates

"Space Pirate" is an offensive term, they prefer "Outlaw Star"