So what defines right and left?

People tend to "fill in the blanks" when pieces of the truth puzzle are missing. They allow their biases to color the facts when filling in those blanks, and that leads to partisan spin, not truth. I agree wholly that there is, ultimately, one truth. And, I'm glad you too have come around to this realization.

 

I never reject facts, because I seek truth.

Dairyair's task was to support his/her assertion that the "vast majority" leave welfare rolls and become self sufficient, which he/she did not do. Ironically, he/she credited the "Welfare Reform Act of 1996" with getting people off welfare and back to work. The official name of this republican legislation, introduced by republican Clay Shaw and signed by Bill Clinton under duress and pressure by republican Newt Gingrich, was the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act". It was legislation aimed at counteracting the welfare trap that so many Americans are caught in, and that democrats seek to expand and perpetuate.

No one has been denied abortion. That is left-wing propaganda. I urge you to seek truth rather than perpetuate propaganda. The Supreme Court characterizes the right to travel as fundamental.

 

According to CNN over 74 million Americans voted for Trump.
https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/results/president

 

I havent come round to anything.
I have not changed my opinion.
And please stop taking my words out of context.
There are many truths. Each one contributes to the whole truth.
Once again you are misreading what I post.

 

Once again you present an alternative reading of facts.
Some women have been denied an abortion in the state in which they live.
I never mentioned travel.
You seem to be writing your own version of what I said, and you want to identify TRUTH and criticism propaganda?
ISTM propaganda is your first port of call.
Read what post and not what you want it to be.

 

Not relevant to my point.

 

You have suggested that there is no "one truth" many times in this thread, which I have refuted every time. Now, you say there is "one truth", which has been my position forever.

vs

 

You said there are 900 examples that support your point. Name a few.

 

I just explained there are many truths that contribute to the whole truth.
This is fundamental in proving à legal case for example
If one élément is not true à case can fall apart.
I have said that only one thing can happen I. Any given time and space, assuming we are not talking quantum reality.
Not someone's version of it. Just what happens. And each event is part of the whole truth of the event.
And frankly there is no other reality. The rest is fairy tale. Like silly conspiracy theories pretending to be truth.
Give me strength.

 

The 900 people who have been charged with being involved in the assault on the Capitol building.

 

I responded to EXACTLY what you said. You did not say they were denied an abortion in their state, you said they were denied abortion [period]. Those are two very different things. One is accurate, and one is left-wing propaganda.

Again, the art of propaganda is leading the reader to a false conclusion using only those facts that support your narrative. To say women have been denied abortion is false, they can still get an abortion; their right to travel to get one is fundamental, per the SCOTUS. To say they are denied an abortion by their state is true, but that's not what you said. I hope you can see the distinction.

 

And there are no women denied an abortion??
I led no one. I posted à truth.
You chose to dress it up with extra détails to suit YOUR propaganda.
So dont come here telling me what unvarnished truth is. It is you who changed the truth of what I said by adding an extra élément I never mentioned.
Some women have been denied abortions. True. Period.

 

I see what you are saying.

"Facts" are the elements from which truth can be assembled. Each "fact" is true, but it is not truth. There is only one truth. Conflating "fact" with "truth" is how propaganda is built.

The Jan 6th Commission is a perfect example. Imagine being on trial where only those facts and evidence that are against you are permitted to be considered. Everything that comes from it might be true, but they do not combine to represent truth, because exculpatory facts have not been permitted. If ALL the facts are not considered, the truth can never be reached.

I encourage everyone to seek truth, and not to merely seek to confirm their biases. Most cannot or will not.

 

Facts become THE TRUTH.

I never mentioned SOME FACTS.
It is you once again reshaping my thinking.
You are shaping another reality.
I have conflated nothing. When all facts are known, you have truth.
I never suggested leading any out or bending their shape.
It is you who are propagandising this conversation by adding détails I never mentioned.
Just like those who bend the truth about évents to fit an opinion.
Or in your words, propaganda.

 

No. You posted a half-truth. YOU amended it in a later post to include "...by their state". I added nothing, you did.

The word 'denied' implies women are being prevented from getting an abortion. To my knowledge, no woman has been denied an abortion, but I welcome your support for your assertion. I'm sure you can find one or two examples. The fact is, any woman can get an abortion, none are denied, provided they transport themselves to the nearest clinic that offers the service. And that's no different than at any time in history.

 

Women have been deniedcan abortion in some states

Period.
I spoke à fact.
A truth.
Not à half truth.
A truth. Women have been denied an abortion .
You introduced the travel élément. You changed the situation.
You introduced the "provided that: which was not part of my fact. It created another fact.
Because you wanted to introduced something that supported your propaganda.


That is textual corruption or, as you call it, propaganda.

 

I do try to be very careful not to misrepresent people with whom I engage, and to understand their point of view. But, with the above-bolded part, we are in complete agreement, which I think is progress.

 

Well, as I mentioned, your use of the word 'denied' implies that women have no option, and therefore can not get an abortion. The 'provided that' clause that I interjected proves that they can not have been denied, because they do have an option. i.e. "No woman is denied an abortion provided that they are willing to drive to a clinic that offers the service." You added 'in some states' later.

To my knowledge, as I have mentioned, no woman who wants an abortion has been 'denied' the ability to get one. That is your assertion to support with evidence, or to abandon. It would not surprise me if you could find an example or two, though, her fundamental right to travel would have had to be violated for that to have happened.

As a practical matter, the only thing I have seen that has really changed for women, with regards to access to abortion in the US, is which freeway exit ramp they have to take to get to a clinic. That is anything but 'denial to abortions', in my opinion.

Of course, I, as a truth-seeker, am always open to new facts being introduced that may change my perspective on any topic, and I welcome them.

 

You asserted the 74 million Americans are intemperate conspiracy driven loonies. Have you now changed your point?

 

No I didn't.
My référence was to about 900 people who stormed the Capitol.

 

Sigh.
Stop apologising.
You rewrote my fact.
When there are no abortion clinic in a state because they have been closed, women are denied an abortion.
Fact.
That is all I said. I never mentioned travel. You did. You changed the paramètres of my fact. You assumed à different fact to the one I stated.
You are doing what you dislike...distorting facts to confirm your bias.
I am not going to repeat myself.

 

I have not apologized, because I would have had to done something to apologize for. I will apologize, readily, if I am wrong. I have offered you ample opportunity to support your assertion that women have been denied abortions, but you have, thus far, declined to do so. Support your assertion or abandon it!

I did no such thing. YOU introduced the topic of abortion into our conversation with these words:

I correctly responded to these words saying that no one, to my knowledge, has been denied an abortion. I have offered you multiple opportunities to SUPPORT your assertion, which you have refused to do. ONLY THEN did you start adding qualifiers about their state, etc. Had you instead said something like "...denial of convenient, nearby, in-state abortion within walking distance" or some such, I probably wouldn't have even responded to it.

In some (few) cases, an abortion clinic in an adjacent state likely is CLOSER than one in-state that has been closed. Perhaps you don't understand that traveling between states here is nothing like crossing international boundaries in the EU. Here, you can drive 5000km at 100km/h and never stop, except for food and fuel, crossing every state line from Miami to Seattle.

Untrue. Not a fact. Women have to travel to the clinic. Whether it is 100m or 100km. Whether it is in state, or out of state, is absolutely irrelevant. They are only denied if they are prevented from traveling. Nothing else will prevent them from getting their abortion.

I did no such thing. YOU introduced the topic of abortion into our conversation with these words:

"May I also suggest that denial of abortion just pushed the wheel of dépendance round again." - Pixie

This is the "fact you stated", verbatim. I correctly responded to your words that no one, to my knowledge, has been denied an abortion. The reason they cannot be denied is that they can always travel to get one. It would, in fact, be very, very difficult to deny anyone an abortion. Impossible to do, as of this writing, without violating their fundamental right to travel.

I have not distorted anything. I have given you the opportunity to support your assertion and change my mind. You have chosen not to do so. We must let the reader decide for themself why that is.

 

For heavens saké.
Women have been denied an abortion.
That is a fact.
I am not discussing YOUR fact.
I am discussing MY fact.
Women have been denied an abortion.
You added to my fact. You made it à different fact.
And because they have been denied an abortion they have had to go elsewhere so
you have proven me correct once again.
For someone who sets himself out to be an expert on facts and truth you are displaying à woeful appréciation of both.

 

Ok, we have differing opinions on what the word 'denied' means. In the context that you used it, I equated it more with 'prohibited' or 'prevented', as I stated before.

But, let's go with your meaning, then. For context, you said:

"May I also suggest that denial of abortion just pushed the wheel of dépendance round again." - Pixie

So, in what significant way has the inconvenience of having to go elsewhere to get an abortion "pushed the wheel of dependance"?

 

I would conjecture that closing abortion clinics equals prohibited or prevented.
I am done here.
This thread is about political ideology, not abortion.