Compromise

Author: Alec

Posts

Total: 63
#31
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Alec
Agreed.  The American left realizes that banning guns won't reduce gun crime relative to the status quo.  So they have decided to move on to banning only AK 47s and AK 15s.  This has it's pros and cons.  
Citation needed

The Left gets the gun laws they want.  The Right gets the abortion laws they want.
Well, Firstly, these aren't the gun laws that the left wants. Nor are these the abortion laws that the right want.

Secondly, not much has been achieved with your proposed laws of gun control in terms of gun violence. Everything has been achieved with your proposed laws of abortion.

This is what I mean by value. One side gets everything they want, the other-side does not. This is not a compromise

AK 47s according to their advocates should be legal to defend against a potentially tyrannical government.  It's a defense against potential tyranny.  The left believes that a tyrannical government won't happen in the US in the near future, the right believes it is a possibility.
This has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with practicality.

Most want to ban the AK and the AR guns.
Citation needed

Any offers?  I can make a counter offer.  Only legal guns are pistols, shotguns, and rifles in exchange for abortion being banned with exception of the literal life of the mother would terminate unless they get an abortion (basically to ave a mother's literal life from death).
No. Compromising between gun control and abortion laws is foolish. There are far better compromises to be made in both issues when examining them alone. For example, guns ownership may be unrestricted, provided there is a strict registration with mandatory expanded background checks which are applied to private sales. Or abortion is heavily restricted in the third trimester except in the cases of when the mother's life is in danger, but is unrestricted in the first trimester.
#32
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@Alec
Agreed.  The American left realizes that banning guns won't reduce gun crime relative to the status quo.  So they have decided to move on to banning only AK 47s and AK 15s.  This has it's pros and cons.  

The "Pro" is repealing the 2nd amendment.  The Con is the collateral damage.  A tolerated "ban" by the federal government on "assault weapons" effectively constitutes a repeal of the 2nd amendment.

Once that is done, then we can talk about your other compromises.  How does that sound?
#33
CroixRennie
CroixRennie's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 12
0
0
3
CroixRennie's avatar
CroixRennie
0
0
3
-->
@Snoopy
A tolerated "ban" by the federal government on "assault weapons" effectively constitutes a repeal of the 2nd amendment.
So if you can understand the nuance about this, why aren’t you capable of seeing this is the exact same sentiment pro-choice people have towards abortions?  Both sides view the government as some tyrannical entity.  Both sides are afraid to concede on anything  due to some slippery slope.  Both sides also have shitty argumentation when you try to introduce any logic and common sense within these discussions.  Unless you’re getting paid to be a pundit, I don’t see the benefit in fearmongering about the other side, or caricaturizing them to eliminate all complexity that their concerns have. You don’t have to agree, but at least try to understand where the other side is coming from.

#34
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@CroixRennie
I haven't mentioned abortion. 

#35
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@CroixRennie
Snoopy: These are both state level issues, with constitutional implications. 
Correction, I did mention abortion in an earlier statement on page one.

Topic's author
#36
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@dustryder
Agreed.  The American left realizes that banning guns won't reduce gun crime relative to the status quo.  So they have decided to move on to banning only AK 47s and AK 15s.  This has it's pros and cons.  
Citation needed
AOC, the leftist politician I know, only advocated for gun control, not a gun ban(https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ocasio-cortez-gun-rights-quote/).

No. Compromising between gun control and abortion laws is foolish. There are far better compromises to be made in both issues when examining them alone. For example, guns ownership may be unrestricted, provided there is a strict registration with mandatory expanded background checks which are applied to private sales. Or abortion is heavily restricted in the third trimester except in the cases of when the mother's life is in danger, but is unrestricted in the first trimester.
I wouldn't agree to that.  Lets see.  You want unrestricted abortion at 12 weeks.  I want unrestricted abortions at 0 weeks.  Will 6 weeks be middle ground?  The fetus has a heartbeat and brainwaves by then.  Most women know they are pregnant before 6 weeks, so they still can get an abortion before the 6 week deadline.  That seems fair.  In exchange, expanded background checks apply so anyone who wants to commit murder or has had a history with felonies can't get a gun.  Do we have a vigilantic deal?
#37
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@Alec
#38
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Snoopy
I haven't mentioned abortion. 

Do you have any understanding of what it is or are you just indoctrinated by ignorant, primitive, superstitious savages?
#39
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Alec
Do you have a uterus? NO? then fuck off out of those who do. Just fuck off
Topic's author
#40
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@disgusted
What does my sex have to do with the topic of abortion?  If the sex/gender of someone mattered, then there would be a strong correlation between sex and abortion position.  However, males are only slightly more likely to be pro life then females, so not much of a correlation.

25 days later

Topic's author
#41
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
New offer: Death penalty for murder becomes abolished, and abortion becomes illegal, treated just like murder which would result in life imprisonment for women who have had abortions as well as men who "smash and dash".  In exchange, $100 Million per year gets invested into Artificial womb R&D so women who don't want to be pregnant can select an artificial womb for their kid so neither the fetus nor the mother has to suffer.  Would create about 1000 high paying jobs too.
#42
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Alec
Try thinking it through from the perspective of a typical pro-choice pregnant woman who did her due diligence in terms of contraception.

Under your compromise, what is she gaining and what is she losing?

Well she's being all but forced to carry a physical burden for 9 months, with a further prospective financial burden for 18 years. Her personal and professional development will be heavily impacted.

In return she gets the knowledge that somewhere, a new technology will be developed that she won't be able to take advantage of, as well as jobs that she also most likely can't take advantage of?

Do you think this is a fair compromise?







Topic's author
#43
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@dustryder
Under your compromise, what is she gaining and what is she losing?
She loses the right to have an abortion.  She gains the right to an artificial womb once those are developed and good enough for public use.  Since most women who have abortions care about the child to some extent, they would easily pick the artificial womb in droves.  At that point, the abortion debate ceases to be, "Women's rights vs Right to life".  It becomes what is best for the child, because a woman can use an artificial womb.  This would cause society to become more pro life, just like New Zealand, parts of Australia, South Korea, and Japan.
#44
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Alec
So essentially this compromise violates women's rights in exchange for the possibility that there will be an alternative to abortion in the future but without any guarantee. In otherwords the woman isn't actually getting anything so there is no compromise.

For example, would you agree to having the marginal income tax be sharply increased for wealthy individuals and corporations, if 100 million dollars per year were set aside in an attempt to assimilate Canada and increase America's GDP?


Just FYI, in terms of abortion in New Zealand, while the law as written is restrictive of abortions, in actual practice abortion is de facto on demand. The general public is generally supportive of abortion rights, and it is likely that the law will be changed.


#45
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Alec
She loses the right to have an abortion. 
Wrong. She loses the right to bodily autonomy. Here's a compromise if you strip all women of their bodily autonomy then you strip the same right from men.
Now that is a fair compromise.


#46
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Alec
She loses the right to have an abortion.
1} all women vote whether to ban Alec from Earth,

2} and if we follow Alec's irrational pathways of though  --or others like him--- pregnant women get two votes since they have one in the oven,

3} married men whose wife is bears their child get a half a vote,

4} single men or married men who have not yet fertilized the wife get 1/4 vote,

5} female who has reached  reached puberty you get 1/4 vote,

6} male who has reached puberty gets a package of condoms but no vote.



#47
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,568
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@mustardness
all women vote whether to ban Alec from Earth,

That id very radical
#48
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
That id very radical
Anything for free is radical concept for you, much less rational, logical common sense concepts.

.....6} male who has reached puberty gets a package of condoms but no vote."....
#49
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,568
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@mustardness
You make no sense mustard man,gtfo
Topic's author
#50
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@mustardness
pregnant women get two votes since they have one in the oven,
If children can't vote, neither can the unborn.  Voting is for adults.
#51
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,568
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Alec
There is no sense in responding to mustard man as he makes absolutely NO SENSE.
Topic's author
#52
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Mustardness wants me off the planet.  Where would I go?  Does mustardness even have a job?  I'm glad mustardness doesn't run this country.
#53
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,568
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Alec
Exactly, he is so weird and radical, he thinks women should vote you off the plant, Is he that stupid.And for some reason 3ural or the alien can't read or effectively comprehend my points

I said

Ok, evidence GOP doesn't want women's rights, and no abortion doesn't count because killing isn't a right
He responds

The democrats have a much higher percentage of women and minority lawmakers. [LINK]

The report shows that Democrats, even though they are outnumbered by Republicans, have three times more women in the two chambers.

The contrast is even greater for racial diversity. Democrats have nearly six times more minority members than the Republicans. [LINK]
Im sorry but can he read? I said WOMENS RIGHTS. They are still GOP women senators but GOP doesn't look at gender they look at the characteristics, consverative women tend to value Tradition,family, and religion over politics. How is that bad?

He doesn't get it,NONE of these forum people get it
Topic's author
#54
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@dustryder
So essentially this compromise violates women's rights in exchange for the possibility that there will be an alternative to abortion in the future but without any guarantee.
It would happen.  History shows it.  Humans can create technology pretty well.  The device that you are using to read my message is more advanced technology then what NASA had to land someone on the moon.  I certainly wasn't expecting Echos/Alexas to exist by now(https://www.bing.com/th?id=OIP.zmKEeKeLITh6ZkJPq8nSDAHaE7&pid=Api&rs=1&p=0).  Technology grows very fast.  When humans care about innovating technology enough to do something, they can get it done and quickly.  When humans cared about sending a guy to the moon, we got it done in less then a decade.  I predict it will be technology that ends abortion, just like it was technology that ended slavery.  In other words, it's a question of when, not if artificial wombs get developed.  More funding means that women get artificial wombs sooner.

For example, would you agree to having the marginal income tax be sharply increased for wealthy individuals and corporations, if 100 million dollars per year were set aside in an attempt to assimilate Canada and increase America's GDP?
How much would the tax rate increase?  If it's by 1% (the top tax rate goes from 39.6% to 40.6%), deal.  If it's a maximum wage set up where the top rate increases by 60%, then no, it would destroy the American economy.



Topic's author
#55
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@disgusted
Here's a compromise if you strip all women of their bodily autonomy then you strip the same right from men.
Now that is a fair compromise.
A woman can't get out of the results of a pregnancy and neither can a man?  Deal.
#56
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Alec
"Woulds" aren't good enough. Compromises are built upon solid exchanges of value. In your compromise, women give up bodily autonomy and their rights. In exchange they get a promise that they may not be able to take advantage of. In the short time, it means they get absolutely nothing.

As for a tax compromise, I envision the top marginal tax bracket to be raised to %90 at the absolute highest income brackets. We know that high income taxes will not "destroy the American economy" as evidenced by successful nordic tax models and American historical models. Why wouldn't you want this compromise? It gets you something that you want. And I assume you aren't an ultra billionaire so it won't affect you all that much

Topic's author
#57
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@dustryder
Compromises are built upon solid exchanges of value. In your compromise, women give up bodily autonomy and their rights. In exchange they get a promise that they may not be able to take advantage of. In the short time, it means they get absolutely nothing.
Lets say your 13 and you get pregnant from consensual sex with your boyfriend.  If the US can get a feasible artificial womb in existence in 20 years with some federal funds allocated to it, then the deal is your pregnant this one time and in exchange, you won't have to be pregnant twice in the future for 9 months at a time because the kids get go into the womb.  I think women would rather be pregnant once then twice.  Also, your boyfriend has to stick with you during the pregnancy, so he can't get out of it either.

As for a tax compromise, I envision the top marginal tax bracket to be raised to %90 at the absolute highest income brackets. We know that high income taxes will not "destroy the American economy" as evidenced by successful nordic tax models and American historical models.
The only time I know where the US has had a 90% tax rate was in the 50s.  At this time period, there was also a post WWII economic boom.  The economic boom was due to the end of the war, not due to the tax raise.  The 20s were a time period without massive tax rates and in the US, this also produced an economic boom.  As for Scandinavia, America's GDP per capita is higher then Scandinavia's and the US's economic growth is more stable then Scandinavia.

Why wouldn't you want this compromise? It gets you something that you want. And I assume you aren't an ultra billionaire so it won't affect you all that much
If billionaires are taxed a lot, it reduces their ability to grow their business and to create more jobs.  It also encourages them to leave the country, meaning people and families would either lose their jobs or would have to immigrate to the pace where their business moved just to get the job they already had.  I don't live in a billionaire house, but 16% of households experience a net loss for taxes.  Its not the 99% vs the 1%, since it's more then the 1% that lose money overall from taxes.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_nVEH2woBQ explains it better then I can.

#58
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Alec
I think that women who don't wish to be pregnant would rather an abortion than being pregnant at all. You are offering these women absolutely nothing


If billionaires are taxed a lot, it would increases the quality of life for middle class and lower class citizens. You would have healthier and happier workers. You would have more well educated people able to contribute to the economy. Crime would go down creating a safer and more free society.

There are definitely arguments for having higher taxes and plus, you would have funding into getting Canada assimilated
#59
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,568
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
I think that women who don't wish to be pregnant would rather an abortion than being pregnant at all. You are offering these women absolutely nothing

That's not an excuse for killing
Topic's author
#60
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@dustryder
I think that women who don't wish to be pregnant would rather an abortion than being pregnant at all. You are offering these women absolutely nothing
They only have to be pregnant once rather then twice later in life when they are married once artificial wombs become feasible.

If billionaires are taxed a lot, it would increases the quality of life for middle class and lower class citizens.
If billionaires are taxed a lot, then they leave the country, causing many in the middle class and lower class people to have no jobs and no source of income because the billionaires left the country.

Crime would go down creating a safer and more free society.
Crime would go up since people lose their source of income.

There are definitely arguments for having higher taxes and plus
Not good enough ones to convince people like me that I know of.  I might find a good argument for it, but I have yet to find a good enough one.  Despite this, the offer could be, 45% top tax rate, what Hillary Clinton wanted in exchange for an annexation of Canada, which 40% of America supports and 20% of Canada supports in 2001(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/CanadiansForAnnexation2001.png/800px-CanadiansForAnnexation2001.png).  Not sure what the numbers are now.