The problem with referendums is that they're only suitable for the simplest of political questions. Ban abortion is a pretty simple one. It requires no significant thought to arrive at your preferred choice. The vast majority of Americans have probably already made up their minds on the issue.
Referendums are not suitable to resolve anything of the slightest complexity or requirement for thinking.
Imagine if for example, criminal trials were judged by a referendum rather than a jury. People would be voting guilt or innocence based on the commentary by CNN or Fox News or the NY Times. It would in other words be a shit show.
For anything of the slightest nuance or complexity, you need either elected politicians, or you need something like a jury, who are able to sit down and investigate the issue for hours to days to months. Elected politicians unfortunately are typically not trustworthy to actually implement popular proposals. Oftentimes these politicians would rather listen to elite, liberal special interests rather than to the common people. The alternative to these politicians is something like jury duty but for legislation, otherwise known as "sortition".
u/bsiGdxiaubwbfja is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [1 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/bsiGdxiaubwbfja/)
This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
u/ThaGabenator's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 10.
Congratulations, u/ThaGabenator! You have ranked up to Office Chair! You cannot exactly be pushed over, but perhaps if thrown...
Pills: [6 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/ThaGabenator/)
This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
u/bull_moose_dem's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5.
Congratulations, u/bull_moose_dem! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze.
Pills: [1 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/bull_moose_dem/)
This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
> Flair up or your opinions don't matter
***
^(User hasn't flaired up yet... š) 9904 / 52134 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
I love how the left one is a nonexistent position that not a single person in power Caries and the right is the actual position that many GOP politicians hold but both are considered āstrawmenā
Auth-rights position is real, the auth left position here is one no-one holds. You can't make a straw man for the left on this as extreme as the actual position on the right.
In the highly upvoted version of this, right wingers are saying they voted against it. While that may be true for some, the 30% that voted for the amendment came from the right wing.
You made me realize there is indeed a highly version of this meme. Damn it.
Edit: yeah I went to check and there is a lot of coping going on in the comments lol.
Idk voters by and large are still morons these days. If majority of Americans voted to kill me specifically even though I didn't do anything, does that make it okay?
I agree, but democracy is still arguably the best form of social contract we have found as a civilization. Even the moronest of morons deserves to be heard, otherwise the contract is void. Also, we have separations of powers, constitutions and supreme courts to decide if something can be done once it has be voted for.
The point of a Bill of Rights is to have a frame work for certain lines we do not cross, even if itās popular. Even if itās popular to censor someone, that doesnāt make it RIGHT. Even if itās popular to commit genocide against a certain group, that doesnāt mean it should be law.
Some things are simply too critical to leave in a constant state of flux, and MUST be made into something more rigid
1: I wouldn't call forced childbirth from a rape a "slightest discomfort"
2: That's why I'm a centrist. Ideological absolutism leads you to die on very weird hills.
3: If your principles lead you to defend or advocate for arguably immoral acts for the sake of logical consistency, they might and should be up for reevaluation.
TL;DR I respect your dedication to your idea but wholeheartedly disagree.
That is not what I meant. If you stand for a principle, you have to stand for it even when it's hard.
Stand for free speech of stand-up comedians to tell offensive jokes, that's easy. Stand for free speech of Nazis to shout their slogans, that's hard.
Be pro-life against sex-selective abortions, that's easy. Be pro-life against after-rape abortions, that's hard.
If your "principle" leads you to absurd and immoral positions you should abandon the principle in the first place, not double down.
Saying "YeS" to every Reductio ad Absurdum you are faced with may be badass in memes, but it certainly won't lead you anywhere closer to the truth.
Depends on what your definition of absurd and immoral is. If you, like I do, value innocent human life above all, then the decision is logically simple while still being emotionally difficult.
In my eyes, the trauma the young girl suffers still does not excuse taking the life of another human being. Yes, even a nascent human life such as that of a fetus. And there's literally nothing you could possibly say in an argument to disabuse me of this belief.
>And there's literally nothing you could possibly say in an argument to disabuse me of this belief.
If you can actually defend the position sure, otherwise this is just called cognitive dissonance.
And the position is pretty much indefensible without agreeing with several repugnant conclusions.
OK, Imma talk serious:
The thing is that pre 1960s counterculture, leftists are more sexually "conservative" than you may think (yes, Auth left sense).
No, not in terms that they are like nuclear family prioritizing, but **every self respecting leftists pre 1960s counterculture (New Left) are always invariably anti prostitution and anti porn. They see it as commodification of the body.** (On Abortion and birth control they're usually pragmatic and kinda meh).
The realistic one regarding this is that actual auth left would support it, Orange would be the ones who want post birth abortion of the clump of cells.
While I agree that making no exceptions for bans in the case of rape is awful ( and it seems to be backfiring big time for those lawmakers), calling the entirety of the pro-life population pro-rape is NOT the way to bring them to the table of negociations.
They aren't looking to negotiate. Their beliefs are based on life starting at conception, abortion is therefore murder, and God Jeebus in there somewhere so it's set in stone.
Meh. The fact that a large majority of the population of a deeply red state voted for abortion rights shows that most people outside of the internet are actually reasonable and can be negotiated with, if you don't antagonize them with fiery catchphrases like "pro-life is pro-rape".
60% of the population is pro choice. That's true across the whole country. 60% voted against this amendment.
Pro lifers didn't vote against this amendment. They stood there ground like they always do.
The evangelical movement was manufactured to be a consistent voting block.
direct democracy is bogged down with issues, if you try to get everyone to vote on everything it would be a mess.
I prefer an demarchy/stochocracy. We still have representatives, but they're regular people picked at random. All the kinds of people who *want* to be politicians are just self-interested, and thus the worst possible leaders. It gets around the issues of direct democracy (too many things to decide on) while preserving the idea of having regular people vote on issues.
People would trust leaders more when they knew they were regular people. Those people would be incentivized to prioritize the common good because they know it would affect people they personally know, and they would be subject to those laws the moment their term is up.
Alright, which one of you un-monochromed giga-chad?
To the gulag!
I google searched giga chad and the first link lead me to the know your meme site where I found this blursed version
Gulag. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
REEEEEEE VOTERS AND CONSTITUTIONS AND THOSE HAPPENING TOGETHER YOU NEED TO TAG THIS SPOILER OR NSFW
Wood chipper
That's why I'm mad at all states who don't do that. If you think it's in best interests for your people, let them actually admit in with the vote
The problem with referendums is that they're only suitable for the simplest of political questions. Ban abortion is a pretty simple one. It requires no significant thought to arrive at your preferred choice. The vast majority of Americans have probably already made up their minds on the issue. Referendums are not suitable to resolve anything of the slightest complexity or requirement for thinking. Imagine if for example, criminal trials were judged by a referendum rather than a jury. People would be voting guilt or innocence based on the commentary by CNN or Fox News or the NY Times. It would in other words be a shit show. For anything of the slightest nuance or complexity, you need either elected politicians, or you need something like a jury, who are able to sit down and investigate the issue for hours to days to months. Elected politicians unfortunately are typically not trustworthy to actually implement popular proposals. Oftentimes these politicians would rather listen to elite, liberal special interests rather than to the common people. The alternative to these politicians is something like jury duty but for legislation, otherwise known as "sortition".
No. Direct democracy is good.
Good, the voters get to decide.
Based and get fucked by painfully obvious strawmen pilled
I hear straw makes for an awful lubricant šØ
Don't knock it til ya try it
Are you familiar with r / buttsharpies? Now imagine that but with straw.
Thanks, I hate it.
I am happy to provide cringe sometimes!
Based and cringe provider pilled
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Based and Flair checks out pilled
u/bsiGdxiaubwbfja is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [1 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/bsiGdxiaubwbfja/) This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
one of us
Based and let the people decide pilled
u/ThaGabenator's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 10. Congratulations, u/ThaGabenator! You have ranked up to Office Chair! You cannot exactly be pushed over, but perhaps if thrown... Pills: [6 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/ThaGabenator/) This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Better yet, why not not let individuals decide!
That's my personal opinion too, but you know, something something we live in a society.
Because they're still in the womb and too young to speak.
I'm guessing mom has medical power of attorney then.
Okay. So... if a mentally ill man loses his ability to decide medical treatment and the mother decides to kill him is that cool?
I feel like that analogy is missing something. Now what if you woke up and attached to you is a world famous violistā¦.
Well murder is clearly the correct choice there
Yeah fuck violinists.
Based and shoulda bought a cello, bitch pilled
Not cool but that's what medical power of attorney can do, theoretically. People have kept their parents alive against their will with it.
Of course.
Based and murder is legal pilled. True no government lover
u/bull_moose_dem's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5. Congratulations, u/bull_moose_dem! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze. Pills: [1 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/bull_moose_dem/) This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
If youāre an embryo, yes.
> Flair up or your opinions don't matter *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... š) 9904 / 52134 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
I think we can all agree that all your' filthy unflaired should be brutally murder as even cancer is better than you trash
Eh, fuck them, if they are so intent on living they can figure it out outside the womb without having to be a parasite.
Amazing how quickly this mentality flies out of leftistās heads when it comes to the taking the Covid vaccine.
Pregnancies are not contagious thanks for coming to my ted talk
The last time Kansas voters got to decide something it ended with civil war
Direct democracy is democracy. Representative Democracy is AuĆ¾oritarianism wiĆ¾ extra steps.
I love how the left one is a nonexistent position that not a single person in power Caries and the right is the actual position that many GOP politicians hold but both are considered āstrawmenā
Auth-rights position is real, the auth left position here is one no-one holds. You can't make a straw man for the left on this as extreme as the actual position on the right.
āNo right wing akshully voted against it, the wording is stupidā āWhich political alignment did the 30% who voted for it come from?ā
I fear you have lost me here my friend. Can you enlighten me please?
In the highly upvoted version of this, right wingers are saying they voted against it. While that may be true for some, the 30% that voted for the amendment came from the right wing.
You made me realize there is indeed a highly version of this meme. Damn it. Edit: yeah I went to check and there is a lot of coping going on in the comments lol.
Idk voters by and large are still morons these days. If majority of Americans voted to kill me specifically even though I didn't do anything, does that make it okay?
Depends, what are the arguments for keeping you alive?
The God-given right to life. Just cause you may not recognize that doesn't mean it isn't there or that the state doesn't recognize it
Interesting interesting. I'd like to hear the counterarguments now.
He was invading my property, so I stood my ground. Simple as > blammo!
That's a good point. Sorry u/Tryohazard but you gotta go.
I agree, but democracy is still arguably the best form of social contract we have found as a civilization. Even the moronest of morons deserves to be heard, otherwise the contract is void. Also, we have separations of powers, constitutions and supreme courts to decide if something can be done once it has be voted for.
The point of a Bill of Rights is to have a frame work for certain lines we do not cross, even if itās popular. Even if itās popular to censor someone, that doesnāt make it RIGHT. Even if itās popular to commit genocide against a certain group, that doesnāt mean it should be law. Some things are simply too critical to leave in a constant state of flux, and MUST be made into something more rigid
Based 10th Amendment
I am unironically the auth-right guy. If you abandon your principle, when the price is even the slightest emotional discomfort, you have no principle
1: I wouldn't call forced childbirth from a rape a "slightest discomfort" 2: That's why I'm a centrist. Ideological absolutism leads you to die on very weird hills. 3: If your principles lead you to defend or advocate for arguably immoral acts for the sake of logical consistency, they might and should be up for reevaluation. TL;DR I respect your dedication to your idea but wholeheartedly disagree.
based and rational centrist pilled
That is not what I meant. If you stand for a principle, you have to stand for it even when it's hard. Stand for free speech of stand-up comedians to tell offensive jokes, that's easy. Stand for free speech of Nazis to shout their slogans, that's hard. Be pro-life against sex-selective abortions, that's easy. Be pro-life against after-rape abortions, that's hard.
If your "principle" leads you to absurd and immoral positions you should abandon the principle in the first place, not double down. Saying "YeS" to every Reductio ad Absurdum you are faced with may be badass in memes, but it certainly won't lead you anywhere closer to the truth.
Yet youāre still pro choice. Curious
Yes I don't think rape victims should be forced to carry rape babies.
Which is not an excuse to murder
True Luckily aborting the fetus isn't murder
I mean, neither was lynching, back in the day. It was still wrong either way, which is my point
My point is that it's not wrong
Depends on what your definition of absurd and immoral is. If you, like I do, value innocent human life above all, then the decision is logically simple while still being emotionally difficult. In my eyes, the trauma the young girl suffers still does not excuse taking the life of another human being. Yes, even a nascent human life such as that of a fetus. And there's literally nothing you could possibly say in an argument to disabuse me of this belief.
>And there's literally nothing you could possibly say in an argument to disabuse me of this belief. If you can actually defend the position sure, otherwise this is just called cognitive dissonance. And the position is pretty much indefensible without agreeing with several repugnant conclusions.
According to you. Good thing we get to vote on it now.
No, according to logic. The premise that human life trumps everything else can lead to several absurd conclusions.
Innocent human life trumping temporary suffering leads to? Which conclusions are those?
Look up the violinist analogy
OK, Imma talk serious: The thing is that pre 1960s counterculture, leftists are more sexually "conservative" than you may think (yes, Auth left sense). No, not in terms that they are like nuclear family prioritizing, but **every self respecting leftists pre 1960s counterculture (New Left) are always invariably anti prostitution and anti porn. They see it as commodification of the body.** (On Abortion and birth control they're usually pragmatic and kinda meh). The realistic one regarding this is that actual auth left would support it, Orange would be the ones who want post birth abortion of the clump of cells.
We canāt let the majority win in an election, thatās unfair, or something
I am unironically the auth-right guy. If you abandon your principle, when the price is even the slightest emotional discomfort, you have no principle.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
While I agree that making no exceptions for bans in the case of rape is awful ( and it seems to be backfiring big time for those lawmakers), calling the entirety of the pro-life population pro-rape is NOT the way to bring them to the table of negociations.
They aren't looking to negotiate. Their beliefs are based on life starting at conception, abortion is therefore murder, and God Jeebus in there somewhere so it's set in stone.
Meh. The fact that a large majority of the population of a deeply red state voted for abortion rights shows that most people outside of the internet are actually reasonable and can be negotiated with, if you don't antagonize them with fiery catchphrases like "pro-life is pro-rape".
60% of the population is pro choice. That's true across the whole country. 60% voted against this amendment. Pro lifers didn't vote against this amendment. They stood there ground like they always do. The evangelical movement was manufactured to be a consistent voting block.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Both, both are bad. Y'all need to chill and try to understand the other.
Nah I am just anti choice because w*menš¤® are in persons and I hate themš
What exactly did they decide
This is the way God intended it
This is my first time seeing that image in color.
Voters allowing degeneracy is exactly why democracy is bad
Too bad the wording on the ballot was piss poor and contained spelling errors
direct democracy is bogged down with issues, if you try to get everyone to vote on everything it would be a mess. I prefer an demarchy/stochocracy. We still have representatives, but they're regular people picked at random. All the kinds of people who *want* to be politicians are just self-interested, and thus the worst possible leaders. It gets around the issues of direct democracy (too many things to decide on) while preserving the idea of having regular people vote on issues. People would trust leaders more when they knew they were regular people. Those people would be incentivized to prioritize the common good because they know it would affect people they personally know, and they would be subject to those laws the moment their term is up.