This is a debate site, not a court of law.
What's the relevance? Roosevelt was making the claim that he doesn't think Trump supporters should be allowed to vote.
Well I'm not black, first of all, that's really my picture in my avatar ; )
My bad; I thought you said in another post that you were black.
If I pass a new voter ID law that says college ID's are invalid while hunting licenses are fine, we don't need a ferensic study to know that less college kids will vote while more hunters will, and we know which party that is going to help.
That would be true, but no GOP state banned it's college voters from voting. The right wants an ID requirement to vote in order to separate out undocumented immigrants from trying to vote illegally (we know how they will vote if legally allowed). If you are fine with undocumented immigrants voting, that's fine; but then be upfront with that (and the independents would tend to view it as a power grab because if the undocumented were a right wing voting group, the left would not be pushing for their voting rights).
Advocates for these laws love to pretend that the way to examine them is by looking at how it impacts the individual, as if relatively rare cases shouldn't count in our analysis.
Advocates for Voter ID laws merely don't want undocumented immigrants voting. Advocates against Voter ID law requirements cite that blacks can't get IDs (which they easily can).
Political positions are not a matter of randomness which we can evaluate via statistical probabilities, they are the result of how we see the world.
They kinda are.
Abortion, gay marriage & transgender rights for example are not random unconnected issues. If you believe in letting and supporting people living their lives how they see fit, you're going to be on the left on all of them. If your views are based deeply in religion, you're probably going to be on the right on all of them.
There are multiple flaws with this argument:
a. There are 8 combinations of beliefs based on the 3 issues you stated. They are:
1. Abortion should be banned, gay marriage should be banned, belief that transwomen are men.
2. Abortion should be banned, gay marriage should be banned, belief that transwomen are women.
3. Abortion should be banned, gay marriage should not be banned, belief that transwomen are men.
4. Abortion should be banned, gay marriage should not be banned, belief that transwomen are women.
5. Abortion should not be banned, gay marriage should be banned, belief that transwomen are men.
6. Abortion should not be banned, gay marriage should be banned, belief that transwomen are women.
7. Abortion should not be banned, gay marriage should not be banned, belief that transwomen are men.
8. Abortion should not be banned, gay marriage should not be banned, belief that transwomen are women.
(my belief combination is bolded and is a combination you agree with me on 2/3 of the issues you mentioned)
Why do I believe this? I think you should be allowed to do whatever you want as long as you are not harming another human to a significant degree (why I think gay marriage should be legal). I think a zygote is a human being based on the following scientific quote:
“The human life cycle, from zygote to adult organism”.
If it was believed that a human life starts at any other point (10 weeks into pregnancy as an example), the quote would say, “The human life cycle, from 10 weeks into pregnancy to adult organism”
Human and person are synonymous terms in our society.
Wrt to transgenderism, the only reason why I believe the vast majority of transwomen are women is because I actually have a good definition for what a woman is that isn't just, "Anyone who identifies as a woman".
My definition of a woman is someone who has more female points than male points according to the following spreadsheet:
The belief that transwomen are women or men is similar to the belief that God is either real or fake; it does not violate a trans person's right to live their life as they see fit. So by your libertarian definition of, "let people live their lives as they see fit", a leftist by that definition can believe that while also thinking transwomen are men pretending to be women (and letting them do that).
But here's how someone can believe the other belief combinations:
1. Theocrat.
2. A theocrat that doesn't think transgenderism goes against the bible.
3. Someone ideologically the same as me, but they didn't develop the spreadsheet I did and as a result, they don't believe in the trans ideology.
4. My justification I stated.
5. Someone worried about public health (gay sex often spreads STIs) and happens to not believe in the trans ideology.
6. Someone worried about public health (gay sex often spreads STIs) and happens to believe in the trans ideology.
7. Abortion should not be banned, gay marriage should not be banned, belief that transwomen are men.
8. Left wing group thinker.
That's the first thing I realized.
2nd thing, you claim leftism is:
Letting and supporting people living their lives how they see fit.
This is the definition of Libertarianism, not leftism, and libertarians are consistent with this belief (if you don't want to get vaccinated, if you want to get a bunch of AR 15s because you believe the government could go tyrannical, and other social issues associated with libertarianism that isn't associated with leftism (because socially libertarian and socially leftist aren't synonyms). If someone decides that they don't want to pay a huge amount of money in taxes and would rather donate directly when they die, leftism wouldn't let that person live their life as they see fit.
This belief is not the belief of leftism. You may make some justification to your socially left position on vaccine mandates, "public health" and it's fine to have this argument. Just realize then that leftism to you is not exclusively:
Letting and supporting people living their lives how they see fit.
It would then be an arbitrary combination of "public health/safety" and, "freedom". The right does the same thing. A time when they support "public health" is banning gay sex because it has the potential to spread STIs (condoms don't always work, testing is not done nearly as much as it should, PreP works for HIV only). A time when they back freedom is with not getting vaccinated against COVID. If the unborn are humans, and therefore part of the public, an abortion ban is done in the name of public health as well.
There's a clear link there, in one study they actually traced it back to the level of disgust they felt when viewing certain images, which upon further study was traced back to the size of the papillae on their tongues.
If you really believe that political ideology is caused by what is on someone's tongue, then changing a person's mind on political ideology would be like trying to change the stuff that's on their tongue.
I would assume the only reason people do long political conversations is to try and change someone else's mind, but if what you said is accurate, then tongue surgery would do a better job at changing one's mind than political debates. I'm going to go with not chopping through people's tongues in order to win votes.
That just literally makes no sense.
Studies have been done on this
Some studies have also said that 2nd hand smoke is worse for you than actually smoking:
As noted above, by being exposed to secondhand smoke, non-smokers are effectively smoking. However, it’s worse than if you were smoking tobacco directly, particularly if you inhale sidestream smoke.
Sometimes it's better to not treat scientists like a religion that can't be questioned no matter what. Sometimes common sense makes more sense.
