(08-08-2023 10:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 10:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 09:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm not sure how you see the breakdown between the definition of "democrats" vs. "progressives" on this forum but it's not really interesting to me and it's not relevant to the intellectual dishonesty of OO's title.

A breakdown between "democrats" and "progressives" does not interest me because I intensely dislike both groups.

What intellectual dishonesty?

As I read it, the article describes efforts by Planned Parenthood, perhaps the prototypical progressive organization, to oppose a proposed law to outlaw child marriage in California.

Pro-choice Republicans favor pregnant mothers dying.

I hope that example makes it clear how the title is intellectually dishonest.

No reason to apply any signifiers to the title apparently.

"Right-wingers favor women dying."

(08-08-2023 10:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  This was a bill introduced by CA Democrats (progressives) BTW.

THIS is what I see as working against these arguments... both about the 'generalizations' in the other thread (which I don't know if that was yours or not) but also against the headline.

Re the generalization: You have quite literally labeled 'democrats' here as progressives... and of course you are aware that many democrats would not fit the label of 'progressive'... SOME of them of course... but not enough to label them as 'in sync' as you are doing here. I'm not saying you mean anything by it... but if you can do it, so can everyone, right?

Why are you implying that democrats are progressives here?

Re the headline... the ACLU is certainly viewed by the right as being 'progressive'.... and the issue that we're really talking about here has to do with parental consent/some form of emancipation.

Teens having abortions without parental consent I suspect IS a 'progressive' issue that may not be reflective of the broader party... even if they still support kids having abortions... It is perhaps the reason why Democrats sponsored the bill... which was probably supported by many Republicans... and now 'Progressives' (the ACLU) are against it.

To me this is just an example of what many actual progressives have told me for years... that a US Democrat would be considered a conservative in Europe. Well, this bill seems to be sponsored by Democrats, but opposed by progressives.

I think if you look at the issue from a standpoint of emancipation/lack of parental involvement, you might see the 'favor child marriage'. They certainly seem to favor child marriage over banning it... which was the goal of the Democrats who sponsored this, and many Republicans would likely support.

As I said earlier, I think Louisiana (a conservative state) bans then until 16 or something like tghat. I found the collection of left/right and the ages there to be interesting (strange bedfellows)

(08-08-2023 10:49 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 10:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  This was a bill introduced by CA Democrats (progressives) BTW.

THIS is what I see as working against these arguments... both about the 'generalizations' in the other thread (which I don't know if that was yours or not) but also against the headline.

Re the generalization: You have quite literally labeled 'democrats' here as progressives... and of course you are aware that many democrats would not fit the label of 'progressive'... SOME of them of course... but not enough to label them as 'in sync' as you are doing here. I'm not saying you mean anything by it... but if you can do it, so can everyone, right?

Here I am having to wade in the weeds of definitions, but don't you think that on this forum California Democrats is basically synonymous with progressives? Certainly more than the ACLU/PP which are a more extreme branch of progressives.

Lad and I get called progressives on this forum ALL THE TIME! I am certainly closer to the center than the average California Democrat.

Quote:Why are you implying that democrats are progressives here?

See above.

Quote:Re the headline... the ACLU is certainly viewed by the right as being 'progressive'.... and the issue that we're really talking about here has to do with parental consent/some form of emancipation.

Nope. It's so simple. OO said that [some group] favors child marriage and yet the article did not support that AT ALL.

Labeling the ACLU as "progressive" seems strange to me.

Many of their legal positions happen to align with progressive causes, but that's more of an enemy of my enemy situation than taking up the progressive banner.

(08-08-2023 10:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Pro-choice Republicans favor pregnant mothers dying.

That absolutely gets said... and on national TV, not just in the Spin Room. that said, the more accurate comment might be 'pro life' Republicans. I am pro choice, and that choice for me and anyone I might have an influence on would be to choose life... but I am not pro-life.

Again though... comparing someone dying to someone who wants to get married, to get married is not really a fair comparison. Maybe more like, some portion of republicans (you can fill in whatever word fits) favor no sex before marriage.

(08-08-2023 10:34 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  No reason to apply any signifiers to the title apparently.

"Right-wingers favor women dying."

What am I missing here in your comments? Progressives are a subset- a signifier within the Democrat party. There clearly IS a signifier there... at least to me and it seems others on the right and at least one on the left (I think)

(08-08-2023 11:01 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Here I am having to wade in the weeds of definitions, but don't you think that on this forum California Democrats is basically synonymous with progressives? Certainly more than the ACLU/PP which are a more extreme branch of progressives.

I don't know.... but he chose the word 'progressive', not the word 'democrat'. Is it really fair to 'complain' that someone used a subset word because it is often used to imply the broader party? How would one differentiate if you can't use the words?

Having lived in California, I know the difference. LA and SF progressives dominate the legislature because they dominate the population and even more, the money. Plenty of other Democrats and a few Republicans elsewhere. Most Democrats in say Fresno or Bakersfield would be Republicans almost anywhere else. They often become Democrats just to get a voice in the legislature.

(08-08-2023 11:01 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Lad and I get called progressives on this forum ALL THE TIME! I am certainly closer to the center than the average California Democrat.

I get called a progressive on the Memphis forum. Tanq gets called worse. SOME of your positions are/may be progressive... I can't speak for anyone else, but when I speak of 'progressives' I often say 'on this issue' because while certainly some people are 'all' one way... many people vary depending on the issue. Abortion and gun control seem to be common ones. Even when I don't say 'on this issue', that is almost always what I mean

Quote:Nope. It's so simple. OO said that [some group] favors child marriage and yet the article did not support that AT ALL.

Okay on your point, but I disagree. I think the article absolutely supports that the ACLU supports it, and it seems obvious that they are looking to appeal to 'abortion rights for children without parental consent' people (whom I am pretty convinced are mostly progressives)

That's why I began with the idea about the motivations of anyone who would buy this sales pitch by the aclu that banning marriage before 18 somehow impacted the abortion question.

(08-08-2023 11:20 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Labeling the ACLU as "progressive" seems strange to me.

Many of their legal positions happen to align with progressive causes, but that's more of an enemy of my enemy situation than taking up the progressive banner.

As I understand it, the opposite of 'progressive' is 'traditionalist' and refers almost solely to social issues. That's the word used in the dictionary definition... which is not dispositive, but is common.

The ACLU to me has always been fundamentally libertarian... against government intrusion on individual liberty... but many of their positions as you note favor progressive views... at least in that they are more concerned about 'certain' people being intruded upon... and care, but put less effort towards others. This in particular is one for me because obviously people under 18 are not 'full' citizens in that there are age based limitations on many rights. I don't see the ACLU in favor of eliminating the drinking age or what have you... I don't know that progressives as a whole do either, but I would think that would certainly be a 'progressive' stance on that issue.

So I think the headline fair because the argument being brought forth by the ACLU (which is not the argument that most of us would use) would (I think) mostly appeal to progressives (on the issue). People seeking to expand abortion access, especially for children without parental consent/involvement. So on the issue of abortion, not the issue of child marriage, they are favoring the progressive stance.


Let me say that last part more clearly... There the right for a child to get an abortion without parental consent is a progressive stance... and that is what the ACLU is saying needs to be defended by opposing this law. Most of us of course don't see that connection, but they are putting that priority above protecting children from being 'married off'. The purpose of that law (which can be argued) is to protect children from exploitation.

(08-08-2023 10:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 10:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 09:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm not sure how you see the breakdown between the definition of "democrats" vs. "progressives" on this forum but it's not really interesting to me and it's not relevant to the intellectual dishonesty of OO's title.

A breakdown between "democrats" and "progressives" does not interest me because I intensely dislike both groups.
What intellectual dishonesty?
As I read it, the article describes efforts by Planned Parenthood, perhaps the prototypical progressive organization, to oppose a proposed law to outlaw child marriage in California.

Pro-choice Republicans favor pregnant mothers dying.
I hope that example makes it clear how the title is intellectually dishonest.

Nope.

I don't know if you would call gun control a social issue, but the ACLU has historically been pro-2nd amendment, and has been the enemy of the NRA's enemies. Not arguing because we aren't disagreeing, but I thought I'd post an illustrative counterexample.

The connection between marriage age and abortion hasn't been made clear. Maybe what the proponents of an 18 minimum age for marriage don't want to come out and say is that fewer alternatives for a pregnant child increases the likelihood of abortion as the choice?

(08-08-2023 09:13 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 03:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  When one tags an entire 1/2 of a political spectrum, and has to immediately retreat to 'some groups in it' -- that is a pretty good indication of at least a decent amount of intellectual dishonesty.

I'll say it more slowly.

While that may have happened in another thread... I only read the post with the 'complaint' about it and didn't read the entire thread.... the exact opposite happened here.... the 'some groups within it' was clearly in the OP... as in Progressives are a subset of Democrats... and 'here' is where the intellectual dishonesty is being alleged.

I am talking about the title of this thread, Ham. It is fundamentally intellectually dishonest.

Ill type it more slowly to repeat your shitball comment. Yay, feel proud now?

Quote:Yes... tagging 1/2 of the political spectrum CAN BE intellectually dishonest, but that was not done in the OP here.

Absolutely it was. 'Progessives' (as a whole) really *dont* support "child marriage".

Plain words Ham.

Compare the above to the title.

Quote:Your comment on 'how everyone does it' doesnt change that. It is more of a justification.

I think that 'more of' speaks more to your predispositions than it does to my comment. The line after the above was something like 'to varying degrees'. I spoke about politicians and their naming of bills... and while I wasn't remotely addressing you, since you chose to chime in here.... You are rather infamous for your trite rephrasing of the positions of others, often in order to diminish them... and that is also an example of someone doing what I was speaking about.... describing their position in the least favorable way. That's precisely what the headline here does. [/quote]

And your soliloquy to that was 'everyone does it'. That is your 'justification'.

The title is fundamentally dishonest. Just like saying 'Conservatives want to see pregnant mothers die'.

Yes, people shade language, people shade comment. No doubt.

That isnt a justification for the (inaccurate as ****) title though. But please tell us how it makes it better.

Quote:I find it funny that this seems to bother (particularly) you, as you do it a lot.

I couldnt care less if some person wants to broadcast an inaccurate, to the point of being dishonest, title. When people try to justify is not inaccurate, or not dishonest -- that is funny part.

Just accept that it is inaccurate, inaccurate to the point of being dishonest. Or tell us how it is justified.

I can point to that crap on both sides. I dont justify it, nor blind myself to it.

Quote:

Quote:Many comments have a certain delta in that 'presentment' that is small enough where it really isnt worth the effort to denote it.

The ones of 'Republicans think so little of social security, they want to throw Granny off the cliff' and this one of 'Progressives (impliedly as a whole) defend child marriage' are enough over the top in that 'shading' to warrant a comment.

Progressives aren't 1/2 the political spectrum. I don't know how much they make up of the left, but they aren't anywhere near 100% of them... and THEY are 1/2 the spectrum.

Fine get charged up about the relative number. Big fing deal.

The issue is hiding a subset in a huge catch all group. It is inaccurate. And pretty much dishonest. But in great fashion that doesnt seem to catch with you.

Quote:As to 'enough to warrant a comment'... your opinion is fine but you seem to be missing his connection. You may not agree with it, nor may I, but it does not make it invalid simply for that reason. The FACT is that the ACLU, which USED to be a more libertarian organization and now seems to be more progressive, and they are certainly seen as 'left'... are the ones speaking out against this bill... and associating it with 'abortion rights' for these same people under 18... which IS a leftist dog-whistle.

'some smaller groups of progessives <> 'progressives' as a whole.' Should be fairly obvious. With or without the ACLU red herring.

Quote:While certainly a more extreme example of what I described above... I find it ridiculous to compare pushing an elderly person off a cliff to not allowing children to get married.

You may not have read fully. I allowed that the 'pushing Granny off a cliff' was rhetorical for cutting welfare.

Quote:The entire stated purpose of Delaware and California in wanting to enact such a bill could well be paraphrased as PREVENTING children from jumping off a cliff... and it would be the ACLU supporting allowing them to do so. I wouldn't make that comparison, but comparison makes more sense than what I understand the above one to be.

Thats all fine and dandy, and wonderful air ball non sequitor. Again, expanding a smaller group as encompassing an entire population is inaccurate, and inaccurate to the point of being dishonest.

Couple that with a hot button item, and the dishonesty kind of expands.

Quote:

Quote:Just because 'everyone does it' doesnt shade from the inherent 'dishonesty through blurring the people' that is present.

You got very upset when I referred to doing just that to lying. The difference between 'being dishonest' and 'lying' is mostly a matter of how rude one is trying to be at the moment. They mean the same thing.... hence the 'to one degree or another' or however I phrased it earlier.

One can be dishonest and not be lying due to intent, Ham.

If I state a falsehood, that may very well be dishonest.

If I do the above knowing it is false, that is a lie. No they do not mean the same thing

(08-08-2023 01:25 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I don't know if you would call gun control a social issue, but the ACLU has historically been pro-2nd amendment, and has been the enemy of the NRA's enemies. Not arguing because we aren't disagreeing, but I thought I'd post an illustrative counterexample.

The connection between marriage age and abortion hasn't been made clear. Maybe what the proponents of an 18 minimum age for marriage don't want to come out and say is that fewer alternatives for a pregnant child increases the likelihood of abortion as the choice?

You might want to double check on the ACLU and the 2nd Amendment.

Historically, at best, they have ignored the 2nd Amendment all while they fight for all other types of rights under the Bill of Rights, and whole passel of other ones they think are there.

Quote:The ACLU to me has always been fundamentally libertarian... against government intrusion on individual liberty

Not for the last decade, maybe two.

ACLU *used* to be libertarian in nature.

Now, even their free speech activities does not cover much of what they would have supported 10-15 years ago. There is *no way* the ACLU would support the Nazi Party as they did in the 70s Skokie case, nor the KKK activities that they used to headline on their defense.

And they have expanded their activities to issues that are not 'Bill of Rights' issues, but 'social activism' issues.

There is a good reason I gave up my ACLU donations a long time ago. Much better places to put time, money, and effort. FIRE for one. Or Institute for Justice.

(08-08-2023 02:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:The ACLU to me has always been fundamentally libertarian... against government intrusion on individual liberty

Not for the last decade, maybe two.

ACLU *used* to be libertarian in nature.

Now, even their free speech activities does not cover much of what they would have supported 10-15 years ago. There is *no way* the ACLU would support the Nazi Party as they did in the 70s Skokie case, nor the KKK activities that they used to headline on their defense.

And they have expanded their activities to issues that are not 'Bill of Rights' issues, but 'social activism' issues.

There is a good reason I gave up my ACLU donations a long time ago. Much better places to put time, money, and effort. FIRE for one. Or Institute for Justice.

Exactly right -- they are not what they used to be. :(

Now if the Illinois Nazis could simply position themselves as BDS/anti-Zionist, perhaps today's ACLU would stick up for them.

(08-08-2023 02:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 01:25 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I don't know if you would call gun control a social issue, but the ACLU has historically been pro-2nd amendment, and has been the enemy of the NRA's enemies. Not arguing because we aren't disagreeing, but I thought I'd post an illustrative counterexample.

The connection between marriage age and abortion hasn't been made clear. Maybe what the proponents of an 18 minimum age for marriage don't want to come out and say is that fewer alternatives for a pregnant child increases the likelihood of abortion as the choice?

You might want to double check on the ACLU and the 2nd Amendment.

Historically, at best, they have ignored the 2nd Amendment all while they fight for all other types of rights under the Bill of Rights, and whole passel of other ones they think are there.

Well, here are a couple of recent articles by the ACLU on gun control. Plenty to make people on either end of the spectrum unhappy, which means they are still centrist on this issue.

https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-libertie...un-control
https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-libertie...expression

I'm not happy with the ACLU's recent drift toward ideological stances in lieu of constitutional stances either.

The old joke used to be that the ACLU actively defended 7 of the 8 individual liberties defined in the Bill of Rights, used one of the remaining two as a smokescreen to get what they wanted, the other of the remaining two they ignored studiously, and the individual liberty they did not defend they hired out the NRA to do that work.

No -- as a group whose main mission goal is the protection of *individual liberties* (that is 1-8 in the amendments, the 14th, and a few others like the right to vote, to travel, etc), their 'taking a pass' on the 2nd is a class study of sticking their heads in the sand.

To the first lin -- look at how they organize it. They *only* give a flip when another right is implicated. Or non-right.

Quote:First are laws that regulate or restrict particular types of guns or ammunition, regardless of the purchaser. These sorts of regulations generally raise few, if any, civil liberties issues.

Second are proposals that regulate how people acquire guns, again regardless of the identity of the purchaser. These sorts of regulations may raise due process and privacy concerns, but can, if carefully crafted, respect civil liberties.

Third are measures that restrict categories of purchasers — such as immigrants or people with mental disabilities — from owning or buying a gun. These sorts of provisions too often are not evidence-based, reinforce negative stereotypes, and raise significant equal protection, due process, and privacy issues.

Short hand -- 2nd Amendment as a right on its own (i.e. specific laws on the restrictions on specific guns or ammo), they take a flying gainer. When it deals with registration, they care to the extent that a so-called right to privacy is implicated. When dealing with restricting categories of purchasers, only then do they give a flying flip about rights, and then only the the extent it deals with discriminatory practices.

In the second link, they come against a strong personal right, as they submitted amici brief *for* the right of NY to continue its practice of 'may carry' -- that is one can carry only at the whim of the subjective view of a state.

Fk the ACLU for these stances. I dont have an issue with a group like the ACLU (with its history of defending individual rights) going on the sidelines, but fk them and the horse they rode in on especially for taking that anti- personal rights stance in the Bruen case.

Champion of individual rights -- my ass.

(08-08-2023 05:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The old joke used to be that the ACLU actively defended 7 of the 8 individual liberties defined in the Bill of Rights, used one of the remaining two as a smokescreen to get what they wanted, the other of the remaining two they ignored studiously, and the individual liberty they did not defend they hired out the NRA to do that work.

No -- as a group whose main mission goal is the protection of *individual liberties* (that is 1-8 in the amendments, the 14th, and a few others like the right to vote, to travel, etc), their 'taking a pass' on the 2nd is a class study of sticking their heads in the sand.

To the first lin -- look at how they organize it. They *only* give a flip when another right is implicated. Or non-right.

Quote:First are laws that regulate or restrict particular types of guns or ammunition, regardless of the purchaser. These sorts of regulations generally raise few, if any, civil liberties issues.

Second are proposals that regulate how people acquire guns, again regardless of the identity of the purchaser. These sorts of regulations may raise due process and privacy concerns, but can, if carefully crafted, respect civil liberties.

Third are measures that restrict categories of purchasers — such as immigrants or people with mental disabilities — from owning or buying a gun. These sorts of provisions too often are not evidence-based, reinforce negative stereotypes, and raise significant equal protection, due process, and privacy issues.

Short hand -- 2nd Amendment as a right on its own (i.e. specific laws on the restrictions on specific guns or ammo), they take a flying gainer. When it deals with registration, they care to the extent that a so-called right to privacy is implicated. When dealing with restricting categories of purchasers, only then do they give a flying flip about rights, and then only the the extent it deals with discriminatory practices.

In the second link, they come against a strong personal right, as they submitted amici brief *for* the right of NY to continue its practice of 'may carry' -- that is one can carry only at the whim of the subjective view of a state.

Fk the ACLU for these stances. I dont have an issue with a group like the ACLU (with its history of defending individual rights) going on the sidelines, but fk them and the horse they rode in on especially for taking that anti- personal rights stance in the Bruen case.

Champion of individual rights -- my ass.

Like I said, something to piss everyone off.

I don't find the ACLU's interpretation of the 2nd amendment radical. It's to the left of where I am, but not left enough for a lot of other people.

(08-08-2023 05:10 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The old joke used to be that the ACLU actively defended 7 of the 8 individual liberties defined in the Bill of Rights, used one of the remaining two as a smokescreen to get what they wanted, the other of the remaining two they ignored studiously, and the individual liberty they did not defend they hired out the NRA to do that work.

No -- as a group whose main mission goal is the protection of *individual liberties* (that is 1-8 in the amendments, the 14th, and a few others like the right to vote, to travel, etc), their 'taking a pass' on the 2nd is a class study of sticking their heads in the sand.

To the first lin -- look at how they organize it. They *only* give a flip when another right is implicated. Or non-right.

Quote:First are laws that regulate or restrict particular types of guns or ammunition, regardless of the purchaser. These sorts of regulations generally raise few, if any, civil liberties issues.

Second are proposals that regulate how people acquire guns, again regardless of the identity of the purchaser. These sorts of regulations may raise due process and privacy concerns, but can, if carefully crafted, respect civil liberties.

Third are measures that restrict categories of purchasers — such as immigrants or people with mental disabilities — from owning or buying a gun. These sorts of provisions too often are not evidence-based, reinforce negative stereotypes, and raise significant equal protection, due process, and privacy issues.

Short hand -- 2nd Amendment as a right on its own (i.e. specific laws on the restrictions on specific guns or ammo), they take a flying gainer. When it deals with registration, they care to the extent that a so-called right to privacy is implicated. When dealing with restricting categories of purchasers, only then do they give a flying flip about rights, and then only the the extent it deals with discriminatory practices.

In the second link, they come against a strong personal right, as they submitted amici brief *for* the right of NY to continue its practice of 'may carry' -- that is one can carry only at the whim of the subjective view of a state.

Fk the ACLU for these stances. I dont have an issue with a group like the ACLU (with its history of defending individual rights) going on the sidelines, but fk them and the horse they rode in on especially for taking that anti- personal rights stance in the Bruen case.

Champion of individual rights -- my ass.

Like I said, something to piss everyone off.

I don't find the ACLU's interpretation of the 2nd amendment radical. It's to the left of where I am, but not left enough for a lot of other people.

For a group that blows their own horn about themselves being a supposed champion of rights, their stance on the 2nd is disgusting.

And they have followed up that above in their now 'only the 1st amendment rights *we* care about'.

ACLU is a bunch of hypocritical asshats.

(08-08-2023 04:38 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 02:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 01:25 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I don't know if you would call gun control a social issue, but the ACLU has historically been pro-2nd amendment, and has been the enemy of the NRA's enemies. Not arguing because we aren't disagreeing, but I thought I'd post an illustrative counterexample.

The connection between marriage age and abortion hasn't been made clear. Maybe what the proponents of an 18 minimum age for marriage don't want to come out and say is that fewer alternatives for a pregnant child increases the likelihood of abortion as the choice?

You might want to double check on the ACLU and the 2nd Amendment.

Historically, at best, they have ignored the 2nd Amendment all while they fight for all other types of rights under the Bill of Rights, and whole passel of other ones they think are there.

Well, here are a couple of recent articles by the ACLU on gun control. Plenty to make people on either end of the spectrum unhappy, which means they are still centrist on this issue.

https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-libertie...un-control
https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-libertie...expression

I'm not happy with the ACLU's recent drift toward ideological stances in lieu of constitutional stances either.

Holy cow: the first link actually includes this line:
"Raising the minimum age for all gun ownership to 21, currently the legal age for purchasing a handgun, also raises no civil liberties issues, as research on brain development shows that young people’s impulse control differs from that of adults."\

Note the perverse absolutism of the organization's official position: not that the age-21 rule is just barely justifiable, but that is raises "no civil liberties issues" whatsoever. None. Even a grade-schooler can see that such a blanket statement is absurd. It really is disgusting, to use Tanq's apt description.

I wonder how the ACLU would feel about an age-21 requirement for, say, having an abortion -- or a baby?

The theory that "The government knows better than you do" is certainly classic "progressive" thinking, but it cannot remotely be considered a formula for civil liberties.

(08-08-2023 07:48 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 04:38 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 02:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 01:25 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I don't know if you would call gun control a social issue, but the ACLU has historically been pro-2nd amendment, and has been the enemy of the NRA's enemies. Not arguing because we aren't disagreeing, but I thought I'd post an illustrative counterexample.

The connection between marriage age and abortion hasn't been made clear. Maybe what the proponents of an 18 minimum age for marriage don't want to come out and say is that fewer alternatives for a pregnant child increases the likelihood of abortion as the choice?

You might want to double check on the ACLU and the 2nd Amendment.

Historically, at best, they have ignored the 2nd Amendment all while they fight for all other types of rights under the Bill of Rights, and whole passel of other ones they think are there.

Well, here are a couple of recent articles by the ACLU on gun control. Plenty to make people on either end of the spectrum unhappy, which means they are still centrist on this issue.

https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-libertie...un-control
https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-libertie...expression

I'm not happy with the ACLU's recent drift toward ideological stances in lieu of constitutional stances either.

Holy cow: the first link actually includes this line:
"Raising the minimum age for all gun ownership to 21, currently the legal age for purchasing a handgun, also raises no civil liberties issues, as research on brain development shows that young people’s impulse control differs from that of adults."\

Note the perverse absolutism of the organization's official position: not that the age-21 rule is just barely justifiable, but that is raises "no civil liberties issues" whatsoever. None. Even a grade-schooler can see that such a blanket statement is absurd. It really is disgusting, to use Tanq's apt description.

I wonder how the ACLU would feel about an age-21 requirement for, say, having an abortion -- or a baby?

The theory that "The government knows better than you do" is certainly classic "progressive" thinking, but it cannot remotely be considered a formula for civil liberties.

What about the age-21 requirement for, say, purchasing alcohol? Whether in favor or opposed, what's the essential difference between one age requirement and another? Whether you agree or not, can you at least understand the POV of someone who thinks buying a gun is a weightier matter than buying a six-pack?

Progressives are advocating lowering the voting age from 18 to 16. You in favor?

Mimimum age requirements are inherently "absolutist". I have no doubt that you agree with at least some of them, whatever you may have posted above. All there is to do is to differ over details like 18 vs. 21 and what should or should not be age-restricted.

(08-09-2023 07:41 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 07:48 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 04:38 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 02:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 01:25 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I don't know if you would call gun control a social issue, but the ACLU has historically been pro-2nd amendment, and has been the enemy of the NRA's enemies. Not arguing because we aren't disagreeing, but I thought I'd post an illustrative counterexample.

The connection between marriage age and abortion hasn't been made clear. Maybe what the proponents of an 18 minimum age for marriage don't want to come out and say is that fewer alternatives for a pregnant child increases the likelihood of abortion as the choice?

You might want to double check on the ACLU and the 2nd Amendment.

Historically, at best, they have ignored the 2nd Amendment all while they fight for all other types of rights under the Bill of Rights, and whole passel of other ones they think are there.

Well, here are a couple of recent articles by the ACLU on gun control. Plenty to make people on either end of the spectrum unhappy, which means they are still centrist on this issue.

https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-libertie...un-control
https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-libertie...expression

I'm not happy with the ACLU's recent drift toward ideological stances in lieu of constitutional stances either.

Holy cow: the first link actually includes this line:
"Raising the minimum age for all gun ownership to 21, currently the legal age for purchasing a handgun, also raises no civil liberties issues, as research on brain development shows that young people’s impulse control differs from that of adults."\

Note the perverse absolutism of the organization's official position: not that the age-21 rule is just barely justifiable, but that is raises "no civil liberties issues" whatsoever. None. Even a grade-schooler can see that such a blanket statement is absurd. It really is disgusting, to use Tanq's apt description.

I wonder how the ACLU would feel about an age-21 requirement for, say, having an abortion -- or a baby?

The theory that "The government knows better than you do" is certainly classic "progressive" thinking, but it cannot remotely be considered a formula for civil liberties.

What about the age-21 requirement for, say, purchasing alcohol? Whether in favor or opposed, what's the essential difference between one age requirement and another? Whether you agree or not, can you at least understand the POV of someone who thinks buying a gun is a weightier matter than buying a six-pack?

Can you point me to the explicit Constitutional provision that protects the right of buying alcohol?

There are weightier matters on the opposite side.

If one wants an even better example than George's one should think of what would happen if folks backed a 'you must be 21 to be able to speak about political matters'? An even better fact pattern than George's.....

Quote:Progressives are advocating lowering the voting age from 18 to 16. You in favor?

Mimimum age requirements are inherently "absolutist". I have no doubt that you agree with at least some of them, whatever you may have posted above. All there is to do is to differ over details like 18 vs. 21 and what should or should not be age-restricted.

Sorry the issue is tied to an explicit right carved into the Constitution, which adds a vast new aspect.

(08-09-2023 08:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Can you point me to the explicit Constitutional provision that protects the right of buying alcohol?

There are weightier matters on the opposite side.

If one wants an even better example than George's one should think of what would happen if folks backed a 'you must be 21 to be able to speak about political matters'? An even better fact pattern than George's.....

Quote:Progressives are advocating lowering the voting age from 18 to 16. You in favor?

Mimimum age requirements are inherently "absolutist". I have no doubt that you agree with at least some of them, whatever you may have posted above. All there is to do is to differ over details like 18 vs. 21 and what should or should not be age-restricted.

Sorry the issue is tied to an explicit right carved into the Constitution, which adds a vast new aspect.

Problem is, there are already age restrictions on firearms purchases in place. The 2nd amendment never has been interpreted in a way that prohibits minimum ages, even by conservative lawmakers. I doubt a movement to remove the minimum age of 18 for purchasing a firearm would gain much traction with either progressives or conservatives. It's possible you'd gain some support for lowering the age to 16 for some firearms like .22 rifles, but that's about it.

Again, the ACLU's position here is objectionable, but it isn't extreme. That's my point. You can make an argument that the 2nd amendment establishes the uninfringible right for five-year olds to purchase firearms, but in the context of public opinion and court precedent, your argument would be relatively extreme.

Just a little historical perspective:

I bought my first gun at 12 - long before school shootings. A .22 rifle, single shot - still have it.

Got my driver's license at 14.

Was not allowed to vote until 21, but i could enlist in the military and go fight a war at 18. If fact, the government said I had to if called.

Current beliefs:

Must be 18 to get an abortion without parental consent.

Must be 25 to vote unless a veteran.

Must be 72 or younger to run for a first term as President.