A deal the left and right can make

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 33
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
2 issues that should be considered, abortion and transgenderism. 

Me personally, I don't care about either one of these issues; not enough scientific evidence is there for me to believe a zygote is a human being and I'm not trans.

But the left and the right believe something very different.

The left's argument:
"Abortion bans and not calling transwomen women negatively impact women and transgenders."

The right's argument:
"Abortion legalization harms the unborn and transwomen are men pretending to be women because that's science"

When the left claims that all these science groups claim that transwomen are women, the right proceeds to ask, "What is a woman?" of which the left has no decent answer that encompasses transwomen and ciswomen and excludes transmen and cis men.  They also don't have a good definition for what a man is.  The right has their definition; it's based on chromosomes, but the left won't accept this definition because they believe transwomen are women.

I asked Quora people (who were both pro choice and believed transwomen are women) who they would rather support, a pro lifer that believed transwomen are women or a pro choicer that agreed with Matt Walsh on transgenderism.

To my surprise, the left on Quora cares more about transgenderism than abortion, so they perferred the pro lifer that believes that transwomen are women.

Now if your on the right, you believe that abortion should be banned and that transwomen are men pretending to be women.  What issue do they care about more?  I would imagine abortion, because from their perspective, 800,000 dead unborn children per year is a bigger issue than whether or not you call the few trans people you know by their preferred pronouns.  To confirm this, my conservative brother told me he cares more about abortion than transgenderism.

So here's the deal I would support: The moment the right can define what a woman is in a way that excludes (cis and trans) men and includes cis women and transwomen and the moment the right can define what a man is in a way that excludes (cis and trans) women and includes cis women and transmen, they can enact a right to life amendment in the constitution that outlaws abortion nationwide (you can have an exception for rape and/or mother's life if you want that, you can enact exception for fetal defects if you want, you can leave these rare situations up to the states if you want; the left got their victory with transgenderism, now you get to have your victory with abortion laws written in the constitution so they won't be able to be overturned unless 3/4 of the states vote for that).

From my experience, the left cares more about transgenderism (an issue where the right has their way since the majority of America agrees with the right on this issue) and the right cares more about abortion (an issue where even with Roe gone, a majority of states have abortion legal.)

But then the right has to define women in a way that would get the trans community what they want, which is to be recognized as their perceived gender.

Lets make a deal!

Then once these very polarizing issues are settled, we can focus on something less divisive.

You can propose counteroffers to this idea if you want; but both sides get what they want out of this deal.  But I want some sort of deal to be made so we can focus on something less divisive.
#2
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
Compromise on moral issues solves nothing. The human heart cannot tolerate perceived injustice forever. The moral conflict itself must be solved, either by convincing the next generation, the current generation, or just killing people.

If that sounds like it will never happen, look at history; war is never over is it?

There is only one deal that can bring peace and justice (to my new empire): Liberty i.e. leave me the fuck alone unless I'm trampling someone else's liberty

Non-aggression = interaction by consent is something that is easily susceptible to logical analysis and universal application. There is every reason to believe everything good in human history was primarily predicted by the degree of liberty.

There is no reason to delay, and very little to lose by moving in that direction. Collectivism has been given a hundred chances in different variants and each time caused disaster and collapse.

Liberty has been tried only a handful of times and in a few limited contexts and each time it has led to an explosion of prosperity, good will, and generosity.

So I say, without the least irony: True liberalism has never been tried, let's fly closer to the sun.
#3
the_viper
the_viper's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 7
0
0
4
the_viper's avatar
the_viper
0
0
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
What can the right really offer the left here in terms of policy? Allow hormone therapy? I'm not sure the left would make the trade. Maybe if Republicans threw in a carbon tax.
Topic's author
#4
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@the_viper
I would make that deal; a $5 a ton carbon tax for banning abortion except to save the mother’s life.

The deal would be calling transwomen women and trans men men (which the trans community really wants) and coming up with a definition to support that.
#5
the_viper
the_viper's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 7
0
0
4
the_viper's avatar
the_viper
0
0
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
As an official party policy or are we restricting freedom of speech for individuals? I'm not sure even the left would support that.
#6
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
No deal. You can't trade rights for rights. Rights are not privileges, my man.
#7
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
The deal would be calling transwomen women and trans men men (which the trans community really wants) and coming up with a definition to support that.
Please explain how you would legislate this. It sounds a lot, well, it sounds EXACTLY, like limiting people's free speech. There is no law today that prevents or penalizes anyone for misgendering a person, you want to create one? Then can you make clearer why this "trade" is feasible? If you have a right, it's a RIGHT. As Skep points out, you can't trade rights. You can trade privileges. 
#8
the_viper
the_viper's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 7
0
0
4
the_viper's avatar
the_viper
0
0
4
-->
@ludofl3x
Not sure why you wouldn't trade rights if it becomes necessary. I'd be willing to limit freedom of speech in order to end slavery, for example.
#9
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@the_viper
Because rights are inalieable, non-negotiable. You have them all, by default. Not to mention the idea of women getting to exercise reproductive freedom and if Ron DeSantis says transgender or cisgender are not even remotely the same societal impact. In my view if you want to call a trans woman a man, you're just an asshole but well within your rights. If you want to tell a woman that she can't make her own medical decisions, different pair of shoes. 
#10
the_viper
the_viper's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 7
0
0
4
the_viper's avatar
the_viper
0
0
4
-->
@ludofl3x
But you can pass laws that restrict or allow rights. That's why I gave the slavery example. Would you be willing to restrict freedom of speech to end slavery, if slavery was still around and the option became available?

Imagine you have to choose between voting for two politicians. One wants to restrict freedom of speech; the other wants to bring back slavery. Who do you vote for?
#11
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@the_viper
Imagine you have to choose between voting for two politicians. One wants to restrict freedom of speech; the other wants to bring back slavery. Who do you vote for?
Probably whoever the Democrat running on the other side of the ticket is :-).

Sorry, you walked me right up to it, I couldn't leave it alone! 

I am not sure why free speech and slavery are intertwined in your example. The example on its face seems unimaginably unAmerican to me, I get that it's a hypothetical but I can't make a decision based on what is in front of me. Can you out a little more into this, like what restriction on free speech would lead to the outlawing of slavery, or why slavery would be interdependent on freedom of speech?
Topic's author
#12
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@the_viper
As an official party policy or are we restricting freedom of speech for individuals? I'm not sure even the left would support that.
As an official party policy.  The left argues that transwomen are women because of the science, but the left can't define what a woman is in a way that includes the groups they want and excludes the groups they want.  Because of this, the right's definition of a woman is based on chromosomes.  If the right comes up with an alternative definition for woman in a way that includes transwomen and cis women and excludes cis and trans men (while doing something similar for the definition of a man), then science can use that definition so the trans debate is settled.  But this would only happen if the left agrees to ban abortion nationwide (except to save maternal life).

You are still allowed to call Caitlyn Jenner a man if you want too, but it just wouldn't be official party policy.
Topic's author
#13
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
No deal. You can't trade rights for rights. Rights are not privileges, my man.
If you don't have a counter offer, your too ideologue and too much in the group think of the democrat party.

People want compromises in politics according to pew research, but this is actually what a compromise would look like, so try and come up with a counter offer.
Topic's author
#14
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ludofl3x
Please explain how you would legislate this.
The definition of a woman and man would change federally.

 It sounds a lot, well, it sounds EXACTLY, like limiting people's free speech.
If you disagree with the new definition of a woman that includes cis and trans women, you are free to call Caitlyn Jenner and Blaire White men.  That's your freedom of speech.  You would just be incorrect by doing so if the definition of a woman changes to include these people.

Just like how a hypothetical person named Bob has the right to be incorrect when he claims that Trump won in 2020.  He's wrong, but he's allowed to believe that.
#15
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
Anyone who thinks compromises should be made regarding rights doesn't understand rights. Rights are immutable.
Topic's author
#16
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Compromise on moral issues solves nothing. The human heart cannot tolerate perceived injustice forever. The moral conflict itself must be solved, either by convincing the next generation, the current generation, or just killing people.
There have been times when conflict was solved by compromise (like over Toledo).  Michigan and Ohio both wanted it, but Michigan was offered the upper pinensula in exchange for giving up Toledo (which they agreed to).

Having a compromise on the issue helps both sides get more of what they want and prevents civil war (which seems like it might happen).

 leave me the fuck alone unless I'm trampling someone else's liberty
But is abortion part of this?  Is calling transwomen part of this if you believe they are men based on the dictionary definition for a woman?  People disagree on this, so there has to be a compromise.  In reality, nothing would happen if the right can't define woman in a way that includes transwomen and cis women and something similar for men.

Collectivism has been given a hundred chances in different variants and each time caused disaster and collapse.

Liberty has been tried only a handful of times and in a few limited contexts and each time it has led to an explosion of prosperity, good will, and generosity.
What is collectivist or individualist about a comprimise?
#17
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
The definition of a woman and man would change federally.
It's not clear what this means, or why it's important. Are you saying the government is the final authority on what words mean, and would therefore issue some sort of government approved dictionary? 

If you disagree with the new definition of a woman that includes cis and trans women, you are free to call Caitlyn Jenner and Blaire White men.  That's your freedom of speech.  You would just be incorrect by doing so if the definition of a woman changes to include these people.
The bold is the current situation. It's not clear what you're trying to change. And as it's the current situation, somehow tying the status quo to reproductive rights seems like a category error. The whole thing is solved if you start to recognize that anything pertaining to your genitals is no one's business but yours, and laws should reflect that. 

Your example is more compelling if you tie it to gun rights instead of free speech. Try it that way. 
#18
the_viper
the_viper's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 7
0
0
4
the_viper's avatar
the_viper
0
0
4
-->
@ludofl3x
100 years in the future, the Democrats want to bring back slavery and the Republicans want to make burning the flag illegal. You could protest both by not voting, but it's a close race. The issues are only related in that each party supports a different one and you have to pick between one or the other. All other issues are bipartisan by then. Who do you vote for?
#19
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@the_viper
Who do you vote for?
Neither, as I believe both to be unAmerican at their core. Also, because I'm dead. I understand what you're trying to say, that yes, we vote to restrict rights ("fire" in a theater, child pornography, etc) but I don't see those as in the same category as your hypothetical. I wouldn't vote for either, and in fact would likely look to relocate because that doesn't sound like a country I want to live in. 

If forced to choose between the two, I'd vote for the anti-flag burning guy, because that doesn't inherently infringe on the rights of another human being, then I'd protest and organize against the person I voted for. 
#20
the_viper
the_viper's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 7
0
0
4
the_viper's avatar
the_viper
0
0
4
-->
@ludofl3x
I suppose you're being consistent, but I don't know that most people can afford to be idealistic in a country with two parties. Most people aren't hardline Republican or Democrat on every issue, which means they're voting for someone they believe will infringe on at least one right.

Idealistic people not voting is how you end up with slavery guy as president. You said you'd vote for flag-burning guy, even though restricting freedom of speech does infringe on the rights of another human being, because it's a lesser evil. Plenty of people feel like they're compromising a lot more than that when they vote for a politician today.
#21
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
Compromise on moral issues solves nothing. The human heart cannot tolerate perceived injustice forever. The moral conflict itself must be solved, either by convincing the next generation, the current generation, or just killing people.
There have been times when conflict was solved by compromise (like over Toledo).  Michigan and Ohio both wanted it, but Michigan was offered the upper pinensula in exchange for giving up Toledo (which they agreed to).
Resources and territory are not moral disputes.

Having a compromise on the issue helps both sides get more of what they want and prevents civil war (which seems like it might happen).
You mean like it did last time? Oh wait. No it didn't prevent anything, it just allowed another two generations to live in slavery.

There are times compromise can avoid conflict. When dealing with arbitrary claims (like over land) or when dealing with a situation of mutual fear or pride such as Thucydides' trap.

For example the arms race between UK and USA after WW1 was neither a moral conflict nor a conflict over resources. It was simply a combination of fear and pride, and it was solved by taking a chill pill via the naval arms treaty.

But is abortion part of this? 
I don't know, but I know that disagreement over it cannot be contained forever.

Is calling transwomen part of this if you believe they are men based on the dictionary definition for a woman? 
No

People disagree on this, so there has to be a compromise. 
Why do you assume that if there is a disagreement a coherent compromise must be possible?

If I say you must drink 50g of arsenic per day and you say you won't, what compromise must there be?

If the road forks, what compromise is there between left and right? Only smashing into the divider.

What is collectivist or individualist about a comprimise?
Nothing, compromise is orthogonal to (doesn't address) the problem.
Topic's author
#22
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
Anyone who thinks compromises should be made regarding rights doesn't understand rights. Rights are immutable.
The right to an abortion is absolutely mutable (many states took it away) and transgenders right now don't have the definition on their side to be called by their preferred gender.


Topic's author
#23
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ludofl3x
It's not clear what this means, or why it's important. Are you saying the government is the final authority on what words mean, and would therefore issue some sort of government approved dictionary? 
Who else is?  Should we let the private sector define words?  Because they haven't been able to define woman in a way that the left is fine with.

The bold is the current situation.
The current situation contains this, but Blaire White and Caitlyn Jenner want to be referred to as women, so they need a new definition that includes them.

Your example is more compelling if you tie it to gun rights instead of free speech. Try it that way. 
The right might have to restrict gun rights, but would specifically be reduced?  Would you do universal background checks for example?  Would you ban AR 15s nationwide?  How about requiring all states to double their background checks in exchange for a national abortion ban?

I personally am way more pro 2A than I am pro life, so I wouldn't agree to this deal.  But maybe some conservatives would.
#24
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@SkepticalOne
No deal. You can't trade rights for rights. Rights are not privileges, my man.
Yes, they actually are. Most of us just are stroppy ungrateful bitches these days that don't appreciate how lucky we are to not have been born in a more tyrannical era or region.
Topic's author
#25
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Resources and territory are not moral disputes.
Michigan morally thought Toledo was theirs.

If I say you must drink 50g of arsenic per day and you say you won't, what compromise must there be?
Why would you want me to drink poison though?  It's not like you have a reason that is even comparable to the right's desire to ban abortion.

If the road forks, what compromise is there between left and right? Only smashing into the divider.
Possible, but if there is a road that is in a grid format, you can take some lefts and some rights to end up at a new location.

Nothing, compromise is orthogonal to (doesn't address) the problem.
It doesn't address the problem, but the left wants the right to call transwomen women and the right wants the left to ban abortion, so if both of these things are done, you got a compromise.  Provided the left values transgenderism more (which I think they do on average) and provided the right values abortion over transgenderism (which they do), then you can make a deal and both parties are better off.

Just like I may value $10 and a steak, while I own just the $10 and a steak maker values both items (but owns just the steak), if I value the steak over $10 and he values the $10 over the steak, we trade, and we are both better off.

Replace $10 with abortion rights, replace the steak with calling transwomen women and trans men men by the government definition of women and men, lets say I'm on the left and the steak maker is on the right.  We both trade, and we are both better off.
#26
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
Who else is?  Should we let the private sector define words? 
This is who defines words today: people who use them. Why would we make an exception for these two words?

Because they haven't been able to define woman in a way that the left is fine with.
This is not reality, at all. The definition of man or woman is immaterial: if you want to be called a woman and use female pronouns, I literally do not care at all, it doesn't have any affect on me, and my decision to comply with your wishes or disregard them, on something this personal, depends only on how much I respect your right to decide for yourself. It has absolutely zero impact on my life. I don't think "Wait, what's the dictionary say?" Can you explain what impact you see this having on your life? If this law were to go into effect tomorrow, where men are defined this way and women that way, what exactly, SPECIFICALLY, in your life changes? I don't get the obsession with other people's junk on the conservative side. It makes absolutely zero sense to me. I've asked several of the people on this board to explain the big deal, no one ever has. One idiot was like "HOW WILL WE USE DNA TO SOLVE CRIMES?!?!" as if DNA is currently used to solve most crimes, not interviewing witnesses and gathering evidence. 

We can talk gun rights, but I don't want to pollute your topic here any further, so feel free to start one. 
#27
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
Resources and territory are not moral disputes.
Michigan morally thought Toledo was theirs.
If they didn't change their minds about that there would have been war.

If the road forks, what compromise is there between left and right? Only smashing into the divider.
Possible, but if there is a road that is in a grid format, you can take some lefts and some rights to end up at a new location.
One exception is sufficient to disprove a rule.

Just like I may value $10 and a steak, while I own just the $10 and a steak maker values both items (but owns just the steak), if I value the steak over $10 and he values the $10 over the steak, we trade, and we are both better off.
In trade, part of the trade is the abandonment of the claim of property over the item you previously considered yours.

To trade moral beliefs would imply that they could be abandoned, and there is no reason to expect that to be possible. I can't, I can't trade my beliefs either. No matter how helpful it would be I cannot (honestly) offer to believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

Topic's author
#28
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ludofl3x
This is who defines words today: people who use them. Why would we make an exception for these two words?
People can't agree on a definition.

 I literally do not care at all, it doesn't have any affect on me, and my decision to comply with your wishes or disregard them, on something this personal, depends only on how much I respect your right to decide for yourself. It has absolutely zero impact on my life. I don't think "Wait, what's the dictionary say?"
The thing is though, definitions are important; just like if you decide to be Korean when your a white guy, it doesn't matter how many surgeries you do to look Korean, your not Korean.  I care about facts.  You can decide to sleep with them if your into Korean looking people, but acknowledge he's not Korean.

Just like how I can think transwomen who did their surgery are hot while acknowledging they are biological men.


#29
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
 but the left wants the right to call transwomen women 
I don't care what Ron DeSantis calls anyone. I care if he is going to start making legislation that tells a person what their name can be and how they can dress and where and when they can be seen. It has literally nothing to do with anyone calling someone something else. Again, that's your free speech and right to be an inconsiderate asshole until someone can tell me how understanding that someone wants to present themselves as a gender other than their birth gender somehow is a specific and measurable problem for someone ELSE. 

People can't agree on a definition.
So what happens then? And how is this problem not solved by letting people simply identify with whatever gender they think best represents them? WHY IS THIS AN ISSUE, in other words. 
Topic's author
#30
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If they didn't change their minds about that there would have been war.
That's why you need compromise.

One exception is sufficient to disprove a rule.
If there was only one  main issue of the day (like in the 1860s with slavery) there won't be a long term compromise.  But when there are many issues of the day that are divisive (like our time), you can come up with compromises.

In trade, part of the trade is the abandonment of the claim of property over the item you previously considered yours.
Right now, one property the right has is there is no definition for woman that includes transwomen and something similar for men.  One property the left has is abortion being legal in most states.  Let them trade.

 I can't, I can't trade my beliefs either. No matter how helpful it would be I cannot (honestly) offer to believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
You don't have too.  They are official party positions.  If the trans issue is big enough for you, you will never call Caitlyn Jenner a man, and the GOP leadership accepts transwomen as women so they can ban abortion, like minded people can start their own party.  Similarly, someone who is pro choice and doesn't like the democrat party giving the right what they want in exchange for transgenderism can start their own party.

The 2 party system is bad.