We still each only get how to spend our own money. That is why it is equal.
The woman has the bigger responsibility, and she decides how that responsibility is handled. The man has the lesser responsibility, and he decides how that lesser responsibility is handled. This is equitable.
If you are exclusively talking about the conscious part of the mind, "the conscious part of the mind" is pretty clear. I don't think this is useful, however, because excluding the subconscious is a completely unrealistic view of decision making.Again we are back to interpretation of the meaning of words rather than the debate. I am talking about the conscious part of the mind and it's choice. What word would you like me to use?
It was something I had said numerous times before your comment, and I honestly don't know what "the question" is that you refer to. This would be far easier if you would just point out where supposedly I made all these caveats.It was not a response to the question and it was not said before my comment so obviously it has no bearing on this.
Since I honestly don't know what you are talking about, it really isn't easy for me to point out where I "didn't make the caveats".
That isn't what I asked. That isn't an example where the same entity is deprived rights based on a legal definition in one instance, and deprived those rights in another.Many laws use terms like young person and in the law what they mean by that. Laws also often define words to mean something other than the standard meaning.
I don't demand you use a different interpretation. I only demand you actually clarify what you mean.You are talking about interpretations. For example day. Day can mean a 24 hour period. It can mean a specific 24 hours from midnight to midnight. It can mean the period of rotation of a planet. It can mean the part of the 24 hour period (or other rotation) when the sun is visible in the sky. It can mean the part of the 24 hour period (or other rotation) in which someone is awake or working. Now if I use day to mean one thing and you refuse to accept it as such and demand I use a different interpretation of it and continue for words I use in its stead we are going to have problems communicating. You show no desire to understand and every desire to confound my ability to clarify while demanding i do.
I have acknowledged the difference in strengths of influences all along, and I have said from the beginning that this is part of what the process of making a choice is.My argument is neither silly or trivial. You just refuse to accept that the differences in strengths of influences are very significant in the process of making a choice. We can choose if the influence is not overwhelming.
Since it is part of the normal process of choosing, it is silly to say that it has some special bearing in this circumstance.
It is a conscious choice, just influenced by sub-conscious factors. That is how all choices work.That is not a choice. It does not involve the conscious self.
You didn't explain anything... you just denied, despite all human experience pointing to the contrary.I just explained how that is not true. You ignored my comments.
Every case is influenced by unconscious processes. Every choice is ultimately decided by unconscious processes. Choosing not to act is still a choice.In action can be a choice but it is not inherently a choice. Not if it is imposed by unconscious processes.
There is no intentional ambiguity nor significant lack of English skills to have that effect.
...but it isn't. That doesn't make sense. The ability itself isn't "a choice".The ability to act or select an action as a choice of the conscious mind.
Yes, there are varying degrees. Varying degrees does not show that someone is every "incapable" or "can't".Post 202.
"We all have emotions and I am sure the vast majority have been angry to many degrees. From mildly annoyed which has little influence on our behavior through anger than has made us say thing we wish we had not. The control our conscious mind very much is affected by the strength of these emotions. There are many degrees in between as well where I realize I am just barely in control and need to remove myself from a situation. I have never become seriously violent from anger, but I can very much understand how someone can get to the point where they loose control."
...how on Earth do you take that interpretation from the definition that was supplied?I have. Can involves not being stopped from doing something including unconscious things like emotions / morals. Note by unconscious I mean thing swe do not have conscious control over.
In either case, by this definition we "can't" make any true decisions... so it has no weight.
No. No there isn't.There is always room for interpretation as you showed.
If things do not have shared meanings it is impossible to communicate.
For example, in the above sentence it should be obvious what I mean by "impossible". There isn't room to interpret me meaning "red" or "Martin Luther King" or "astro-physics". It just wouldn't make sense. There is a clear, common sense meaning.
Sure, but that is only death. Death isn't the greatest possible countering influence. I bet enough physical torture would change anyone's tune.You have gone to ludicrous extremes and yet not proven it. I have already stated that people have accepted death over other influences even when they consciously seem willing to do it.
Yes it does. If we go extreme enough, we can make them choose the other option. We can overcome that emotional / moral influence by going to these absurd lengths. This proves that it is POSSIBLE for them to choose the option. It proves that it CAN be done. It proves that they are CAPABLE.Again you use extreme situations. These are not present. I agree that one can contrive a situation to force most people to do anything, but that does not prove that lessor influences stop the conscious self from choosing.
So really it is just a "big" influence, fundamentally no different than any other.
Yes, I am saying those are the two alternatives. Either you are capable of making a choice, or you lack the mental competency to make a choice. Those are really the only options.They have a mental disease only if you consider being human a mental disease. You jump from one extreme to the other. On one hand you say they have no choice and then you say if they can't make a choice they must be incompetent.
You are the one that compares a woman's emotions to an irrational, debilitating phobia. I am just taking your own sexist argument to its natural conclusion.
I am only suggesting that they "can" choose any option. It just takes varying degrees of influence.If you are suggesting we torture them until they choose what you wish the to I think it is a bad idea.
...how does this show there wasn't an influence greater than your distaste? If anything this would agree with my statement.Not necessarily. I chose to try them again.
This is as true for emotions and morals then as it is for anything else. You consciously consider that you think it is wrong or evil when making the choice. Perhaps you will suppress that belief.But the process of contrasting and comparing is conscious and is a choice. Often we will suppress some to come to a choice.
So what? It is irrelevant. This is how all decisions work.
I asked how do we KNOW that there was no choice? With strong enough counter factors she would have chosen the alternative.Well if it is a matter of there being no choice then the woman has no choice and then the man should simply support the child.
She had the choice, she just didn't choose what was to her advantage.
How do you know this? Have you ever faced a choice you couldn't make? Did you resist years of physical torture and were STILL unable to make this choice?Because as humans we experience it.
If not, you cannot know.
Also, I see you again ignore how this should have legal repercussions.
If all choice is an illusion then we shouldn't make the male pay any more than this is justification for banning abortions.Well it is a choice or it is not. If all choice is an illusion then the male should just pay as no one has choice. If we do have choice then we still need to recognize that emotions / morals can cripple that process.
If we do have a choice then it doesn't matter that there are big influences. That is part of what making a choice means. "Recognizing" that influences exist doesn't change anything.
Haha... nope, I'm not thinking binary. I don't see two options: just one.It strikes me you are thinking far more binary as you thin we either have no choice or we have full choice. My option varies.
You have the choice. Influences are just part of what having a choice means.
Sure it does. It literally makes no sense at all that we would say "a woman cannot take an option, therefore we make a man pay gobs of cash". That is a hilarious non sequitur.The current system does not assume a woman can always take this option.
I was talking about my use of the word. By my definition, your "can't" is essentially the same as the dictionary definition I provided of "willing".We were talking about my option.
"Your argument is completely discounting the important subconscious component of decision making. Pretty please don't use an intentionally misrepresentation of the human decision making process in your argument."Then ask, don't just change terms to confuse the situation.
There, I asked. Better?
How can we know it happens in ANY case? How does "recognizing" that influences happen (which is the same as every decision) change anything?In a particular case? You don't. You just realize it occurs and the system need to recognize that the option is not one everyoe can take due to emotional / moral reasons.
How can you decide what influences you?I never said I could control what influences me, but I can decide.
No, that was me making fun of your silly statement. You said it lasts a lifetime. I was sarcastically implying that they shouldn't spend a lifetime up on stage.We already did this earlier. You said "Then they should probably get off that stage. Spending your whole life paralyzed on a stage is no way to live." which seems to show you recognized it is not inherently just momentary.
Skeptical that it is every really the case... I think if we pushed extremes again they would be capable of functioning.Stage fight in some cases cause a momentary incapacity, but many people are incapable of ever functioning on a stage.
In either case, you are comparing a debilitating mental illness with a woman's emotions. That is extremely sexist. If the woman is so mentally incompetent she needs to have someone else make the legal decision for her.
Haha... no other "normal" influence. Nice caveat.Because at a certain point no other normal influence including our rational mind can over come it.
What is a "normal" influence? Clearly they can be over come by an "abnormal" influence, so clearly it is possible that they make the decision.
She can choose it every bit as much as anyone can choose anything. Like I said, I don't want to get into a debate about free will, and I certainly don't want to make our laws dependent on whether or not free will truly exists or not.I believe our laws should be as fair as possible and the does not give the man the power to simply walk away if a woman can't choose an abortion. (And based on what you seem to think she can never choose it.)
The man has the power to choose to walk away just as much as the woman has the power to choose abortion. This is equitable.
Maybe, but for one she was barred, and two it would have been more painful (and would have caused more physical fear) and three it still wouldn't be as reliable as a gun.Jumping off the building would have been reliable and she did really want to.
No, it is just that my desire for pizza was pretty weak. It was two weak influences battling, and the laziness won. There was no other influence involved, so it was "impossible" for me to choose the other option.They you have an inordinately powerful laziness which is not demonstrated in your posting.
Then will you PLEASE give an example!We do indeed.
No, so we look for factors that help us judge that likelihood, which may include emotions and morals. The emotions and morals are not the justification, however. No matter the emotions and morals if the person said "I am going to commit this crime again as soon as I get out" we won't grant parole. Obviously parole isn't about the emotions and morals. It is about repeat offense.Except we can't see that practical thing.
...what? It isn't? Those were completely unrelated statements.How is "You mean there are some factors that make her like the decision, but emotional and moral factors that make her unwilling." asking anything about prevent?
I am claiming it is irrelevant. I am claiming that whether or not free will truly exists has no bearing on our legal policy. The illusion of free will is enough.Either I have a choice or I am controlled by those factors and I do not. Which are you claiming?
So your whole "stage fright" comparison wasn't meant to be an analogy? What the hell was it supposed to be then? More unrelated drivel?Saying "So you are saying that women cannot get abortions due to an irrational phobia, and that is what emotions are: an irrational phobia." is not claiming they are an analogy. You are claiming they are the same.
That's fine. It doesn't change the fact that all of these decisions are fundamentally the same.Then they are as I defined unconscious.
Like I said, I'm not interested in a discussion on free will. We don't have control over our influences, but those influences are part of who we are. I can't control my dislike of onions, but my dislike of onions is part of what it means to be me. That factor (which is beyond my control) is part of what it means for me to choose... just as a woman's emotions and morals that lead her to a certain decision are part of her being and part of what it means for her to choose.So if that case then why is your overall argument about choice. None of us have it. The the only overriding factor is responsibility to support the child.
That is why choice still matters. It is part of what defines us as individuals.
As for responsibility to the child, if that was the only factor then we would outlaw abortion and adoption.
Not at all. It is just how choices work. The underlying mechanics of what a choice is doesn't make the point "moot". Having the power of choice is still important and a crucial aspect of individual liberty.Then your argument of the man's lack of choice s moot.
Choice is as important to my position, as sexism and inequality is to yours.