Opinions on Ivana Bacik

aodh_rua

The Corinthian wrote:

That she’s older and with a considerable amount of scholarly and professional achievements does not magically preclude her from being untrustworthy. And presently we have no reason to believe that she would not be justified to be so cavalier with the democratic process again. So it’s regrettably very relevant, even today.

I can see your point of view - I'm just not convinced that her actions in her early 20's, in the middle of a highly divisive and high profile abortion debate,offer the same insight into her personality now as they did then. From my dealings with her, I would find her trustworthy even though I wouldn't agree with many of her opinions.

simu

aodh_rua wrote:

I can see your point of view - I'm just not convinced that her actions in her early 20's, in the middle of a highly divisive and high profile abortion debate,offer the same insight into her personality now as they did then. From my dealings with her, I would find her trustworthy even though I wouldn't agree with many of her opinions.

Yeah, I agree with you about not judging her too much based on her actions as a young student. She seems as "trustworthy" as any other politician out there to me - it's naive to think that anyone can get by in politics without a bit of wrangling and manipulation.

Hobbes

Someone might want to go update wikipedia, all this has been removed from it.

The Corinthian

aodh_rua wrote:

I can see your point of view - I'm just not convinced that her actions in her early 20's, in the middle of a highly divisive and high profile abortion debate,offer the same insight into her personality now as they did then. From my dealings with her, I would find her trustworthy even though I wouldn't agree with many of her opinions.

Fair enough - as long as she could be trusted not do something like that again. And given her subsequent lack of remorse for a highly unethical and anti-democratic action, my gut tells me that she would, regardless of whatever dealings you may have had, or presently have, with her.

In the end, all it apparently requires is another “highly divisive and high profile debate” to justify throwing of the rulebook out the window again.

simu wrote:

She seems as "trustworthy" as any other politician out there to me - it's naive to think that anyone can get by in politics without a bit of wrangling and manipulation.

Except we’re talking about something a bit more serious than ‘a bit of wrangling and manipulation’.

pete

The Corinthian wrote:

Not really that irrational; regardless of where you stand on the issue you have to appreciate that for someone who is strongly anti-abortion, it is viewed essentially as the organised homicide of a demographic of Society.

So it would be the equivalent of asking you to vote for a very competent politician with sound views on economics, housing, road safety, sugar consumption, beef sales to Iraq, next-day postal delivery, social welfare, neon signage and leather plimsolls, who also happens to want to gas all Jews.

Quite probably true, but the suggestion was that disagreeing with a specific opinion held by an individual (i.e. their being pro choice) renders the rest of their views worthless.

Whether you would vote for them or not is another matter entirely and quite irrelevant.

The Corinthian

pete wrote:

Quite probably true, but the suggestion was that disagreeing with a specific opinion held by an individual (i.e. their being pro choice) renders the rest of their views worthless.

Whether you would vote for them or not is another matter entirely and quite irrelevant.

Logically that is correct, however that is not how most think. For example, one could quite logically suggest that the Nazis may have had some good policies and that we should not discount those policies or even the Nazis themselves on the basis that we disagree strongly with other policies that they might have.

In reality because we disagree strongly with other policies, the vast majority of people will render all of their views worthless. If we accept that in one case, then we must in all others.

Hobbes

The Corinthian wrote:

Logically that is correct, however that is not how most think. For example, one could quite logically suggest that the Nazis may have had some good policies and that we should not discount those policies or even the Nazis themselves on the basis that we disagree strongly with other policies that they might have.

Wasn't the woman from Big Brother fired from her TV job for suggesting just that? Another example is how to stop hypothermia, Nazis discovered how to do this, the method in how they did it though is questionable.

Time to invoke Godwins law

This thread has ran it's course anyway-closed

p.s

Nevertheless, there is also a widely-recognized codicil that any intentional invocation of Godwin's law for its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful. See "Quirk's exception" below.

This will be sucessfull unless fellow pol mods/smods or admins want to add to the thread...