|
@Monsen
Do most politicians separate faith from politics?
It's hard to make a general statement. As you probably know, they definitely do not separate faith from campaigning, but I don't think that's necessarily bad. Many people are very committed to their faith, and it helps them have faith in the system when they know their beliefs are shared by leaders, at least to some extent. As to faith in actual decision making, there is definitely a sect that has no problem being led by faith. I keep bringing up Rick Santorum because I think he is fairly open about equating faith and political duty. For every one of him, I suspect there are two or three pragmatists who are a little more on my page in that regard. And to be fair, there is a decent sphere of overlap between religious understanding and solid politics.
What about Mormonism in Romney's campaign?
All the major religions have some . . . interesting aspects of their orthodoxy. I think Romney has done more than anyone since Steve Young (49er's QB) in "normalizing" the Mormon faith in America. In a practical sense, I like how Mormonism directs my candidate's life. He's not a drinker or smoker, he's healthy and energetic during what I promise you is a horribly trying schedule. Furthermore, I'm confident we're not going to get to November and have some stripper come forward claiming a love child or other such unpleasantry because he seems to respect the morality of it all.
The four most recognizable Mormons in America today (off the top of my head) are Mitt Romney, Steve Young, Glenn Beck, and Bill Paxton (HBO's "Big Love"). Despite the unfortunate ressurection of the polygamist stereotype by HBO, I'd say this is some interesting company to keep. We're going to see if it ever really flares up as an issue, but I think the fact that Romney was a visible primary challenger in 2008 has helped America get to the point where it doesn't particularly care.
|
I'm actually going to attempt to play some Starcraft today (strange concept coming from me, right?), so I don't know how often I'll be updating. Also, Delwack has given me some homework on IP law that I'll hopefully get to today.
Keep the questions and comments coming. I hope when this is all said and done, a lot of people can see this as a little more in-depth reference guide to the right side of US politics than can be easily found elsewhere. So far, it's been a big success in my eyes.
|
|
|
On April 28 2012 15:10 SaintBadger wrote:
@ninazerg
Ok, now we're into theater of the absurd. I asked you if you were saying we shouldn't intervene when people are being killed in foreign countries. You did not answer the question.
And you stated that there was no concrete evidence suggesting war was the only option, which implies lack of evidence is significant to the discussion. Since war is never the only option, that evidence can never exist.
And I stated that if we believed WMD's existed in the hands of an enemy, that does involve self-preservation. You said nothing which suggests otherwise. Your issue is with whether WMD's existed. I don't care one way or the other for the sake of this argument.
And forced deportation was the least of what was happening in Serbia and Kosovo.
I don't even really know why we're discussing specific conflicts. I believe it is a tenable moral position to make a distinction between purely innocents, which unborn children surely are, and transgressors of various sorts which may be judged to have, by malicious action, forfeited certain rights afforded to innocents. That is my evidence for the lack of hypocrisy in the conservative stance on these issues.
@shinosai
You bring up worthwhile points, and tomorrow I shall respond. Very tired at the moment.
I was specifically addressing this statement made by you: "The nation has a right to perpetuate its own existence against all enemies, foreign and domestic." and saying that the wars I listed were not conducted for the purpose of the preservation of the United States.
In regards to your statement "I don't even really know why we're discussing specific conflicts.", you said: "On the subject of war, most of the scenarios we discuss are based on historical events. They aren't hypothetical at all. And liberals are very quick to jump on the war bandwagon, in fact, VIetnam was all them. If you would like to discuss the merits of individual conflicts, we can do that, but I was discussing the reasons why aborting a pregnancy is not analogous to war."
That's how we got from there to here.
You keep attempting to justify the Iraq War as a "necessary" conflict, when the Bush Administration's specific intelligence about WMDs was proven to be either sketchy or completely false prior to the war. This is a problem that no one in the former Bush Administration has seen fit to address without saying something along the lines of "We thought the intelligence was correct." This total oversight of counter-evidence prior to the war could have prevented a war from being initiated in the first place, but it was ignored.
Saying that the possibility of WMDs pertains to the security of the United States is absurd, because if this were the case, the United States would have dealt with North Korea in the early 2000s, who posed a more potent threat to our national security.
The only problem I have with any of your statements is that you continuously are trying to justify warfare, which is the pinnacle of human beings killing one another. You also have stated that you are against Capital Punishment, but on the subject of our enemies abroad, you say "I believe it is a tenable moral position to make a distinction between purely innocents, which unborn children surely are, and transgressors of various sorts which may be judged to have, by malicious action, forfeited certain rights afforded to innocents." which constitutes a total lack of consistency. You are against the execution of specific individuals who have been convicted and sentenced in US courts, but you are for war, with all it's unpreventable collateral damage, innocent bystanders being blown to bits, conscripted soldiers being forced to fight for a government who could care less about them, and the deaths of volunteer American soldiers - all based on sketchy evidence which would never hold up in a court of law.
If you tell me again that our justification for this war was that we thought WMDs existed in Iraq, I will be happy to bury you in evidence that the Bush Administration knew that they were wrong prior to the war, or blatantly ignored the counter-evidence.
Before I go, I would like to make another correction that I forgot to make last night. The United States does observe Common Law.
|
@ninazerg
Ok, I apologize, I misinterpreted a few things you said.
My comments on the Iraq war aren't really meant to justify. I suppose I'm trying to talk about a circumstance where one takes at face value that we were acting on the assumption of WMD's in existence. I tend to agree with you with regards to the flimsy nature of the evidence presented, but I'm trying to take a step back from the specifics.
Btw, Iron Lady tourney is live. Scarlett I think is involved, for anyone who is interested.
EDIT: The US enforces some forms of common law, though generally not in criminal matters. Moreso in contracts and torts. And my comment meant to convey that we do not submit to any international understanding of common law.
2nd EDIT: I'm not FOR war and I'm certainly not for the death penalty. I'm trying to argue there is a position which is tenable that makes room for both without endorsing abortion.
|
On April 29 2012 01:37 SaintBadger wrote:
@Monsen
Do most politicians separate faith from politics?
It's hard to make a general statement. As you probably know, they definitely do not separate faith from campaigning, but I don't think that's necessarily bad. Many people are very committed to their faith, and it helps them have faith in the system when they know their beliefs are shared by leaders, at least to some extent. As to faith in actual decision making, there is definitely a sect that has no problem being led by faith. I keep bringing up Rick Santorum because I think he is fairly open about equating faith and political duty. For every one of him, I suspect there are two or three pragmatists who are a little more on my page in that regard. And to be fair, there is a decent sphere of overlap between religious understanding and solid politics.
What about Mormonism in Romney's campaign?
All the major religions have some . . . interesting aspects of their orthodoxy. I think Romney has done more than anyone since Steve Young (49er's QB) in "normalizing" the Mormon faith in America. In a practical sense, I like how Mormonism directs my candidate's life. He's not a drinker or smoker, he's healthy and energetic during what I promise you is a horribly trying schedule. Furthermore, I'm confident we're not going to get to November and have some stripper come forward claiming a love child or other such unpleasantry because he seems to respect the morality of it all.
As a Non believer discussing Faith is a very difficult issue for me. I fail to comprehend how the public can listen to candidates clamoring over who's the most zealous, while everyone in the room knows of their many divorces, drinking problems and whatnot. It's hard for me to understand why they're not boo'ed of the stage as hypocrites.
I guess that's where your candidate scores, as his lifestyle is, as far as I'm aware, pretty consistent with the belief he claims to have. It's probably one of the very few fields where the words "Romney" and "consistent" actually go well together 
You made the choice to try to keep you faith from impacting your political views- obviously I'm glad you do but here's what I don't understand: You made that choice for a reason- you thought this was the "right" way to make political decisions. Doesn't that mean that your fellow colleagues who don't do that are wrong? Can (do) you condone their faith based policies? I feel that lately the separation of church and state is under heavy assault in your political arena. Shouldn't "pragmatists" as yourself be opposed to that development?
Concerning Romney's faith I like how you wiggled your way around the issue.
"In a practical sense" I like how whipping people gives me a strong biceps and how eating babies provides me with excellent nutrition.
Obviously I'm more interested in your "absolutely not practical at all" views on Mormonism. As it seems to be somewhat alien to what regular Christians (they call themselves Christians too, don't they? I'm no expert.) believe.
Good luck with your games.
|
@Monsen
Yes, it does feel like the people who legislate through faith are wrong, but we live in a two-party system, and I still believe that the Republican party is a lot closer to the path that will sustain this country in the way I think it was intended to be. Also, most of the time I do agree with the ends and the means of those who legislate through faith, just not the reasons.
I didn't mean to wiggle on the Romney question, but I actually don't know a huge deal about Mormonism from a theological perspective. Romney himself hasn't said a word about it in any of the private meetings I've had with him (I've never actually had a one-on-one meeting, but I mean behind closed doors).
In a practical sense, I think the cortisol secreted by my brain from the psychological stress of eating babies would be a net negative on my muscle mass. Just sayin 
And I never ended up playing games. Been watching the Iron Lady tourney all day.
|
A woman who WILLINGLY engages in sexual intercourse understands that she is risking conception, to a varying extent, regardless of the use of contraception. In doing so, perhaps she is willingly taking upon herself an added responsibility absent from the lives of men and women who do not engage in intercourse. If pregnancy results, maybe it represents a shirking of this responsibility by electing to seek an abortion.
I'm not really convinced that this is a very good argument, though. My problem with this argument is like I noted earlier - instead of arguing for the rights of a fetus here, you are basically blaming women for having sex, and carrying the fetus to term is their punishment - the consequence of their action. It's very difficult to get around this. You've simply changed your criteria for why abortion is wrong to one of "responsibility" instead of a fetuses right to life. But this responsibility argument really just seems like a way to blame women for behaving like humans.
To further my point, consider: By changing the criteria, it is no longer the fetuses right to life that determines whether or not abortion is wrong. It is merely whether or not a woman voluntarily had sex. So, abortion isn't wrong because fetuses have any sort of right to life. It's wrong because a woman chose to have sex. Doesn't this seem a little strange?
RE: Responsibility argument
You're not required to save his life, though. That's my only point. A woman is required to undergo a rather large loss of physical autonomy in order to protect the life of the fetus. People in general, however, have no *physical* duty whatsoever to others whose lives are dependent upon them. We expect the mother to allow the fetus to use her body, but we will not require any human to use their body to keep any other person alive. Even if we are in fact *responsible* for their predicament.
I of course do not expect to change your view on abortion. But, hey, at least I've given you something to think about. That's something I suppose.
|
@shinosai
I'll admit that punishment and enforcing responsibility can take on the same appearance under many circumstances, but looking at it as punishment comes up short in a couple of ways. Maybe I was too quick to completely divorce the argument from murder, in the sense that there are many types of murder with varying degrees of severity, and all the distinctions revolve around how "responsible" the guilty party is, i.e. premeditated vs involuntary manslaughter. Either way, I don't think it's a matter of "blaming" women, but you introduced that "behaving like humans" at the end which can open up a whole can of worms on how InControl (get it?) we are of our actions. I don't take it as a precondition of being human that we're going to wantonly have sex, but I don't know if that's where you were going, so I'll stop there.
On the other subject, I think we're muddying the waters between legal and moral. Morally speaking, if you can replace the guy's kidney, you should. You absolutely have a responsibility to save his life, even at the potential cost of your own. At least pontentially, depending on the circumstances of the accident. I just meant that legally, that standard can never be enforced in this country, and so we turn to money as the next best thing.
|
On April 26 2012 14:55 Coramoor wrote:
how can you support and campaign for a candidate that is so incredibly flip floppy on every issue and clearly wants nothing more then power
I dont know. How can you support someone who has done nothing but increase the federal debt during his time in office?
|
I just meant that legally, that standard can never be enforced in this country, and so we turn to money as the next best thing.
And if it can't, then why do we legally enforce the same standard upon women? Perhaps they should only "morally" be required to bring the fetus to term.
edit: Also in response to my first question you've created a false dichotomy. I don't have time to explain because I have to goto work but hopefully when I get back we can continue the conversation.
|
@FoeHamr
To be fair, a lot of the people who have questioned and criticized me here have admitted they are not particularly enthusiastic about Obama either.
@shinosai
We don't enforce that standard, and I don't particularly think we should. I imagine the pro-choicers would win an argument over the wisdom of outlawing abortion with the electorate, but they haven't earned the right to have that argument yet. They're still stuck on this fiction that was tragically enshrined in our jurisprudence which states that no argument is necessary because the right to terminate a pregnancy is protected by the founding documents. But I've gone into detail on that earlier.
I think I might know what you mean about the false dichotomy, but perhaps the above will shed some light on it. Either way, I'll let you flesh it out if you like.
|
Well, then, Saintbadger, I think we're in agreement, then, if you don't think we should enforce the standard.
To explicate on the false dichotomy (although perhaps I shouldn't have described the problem in this way)... the way you describe it women have different levels of responsibility based on the situation in which the killing occurs. But this logic can only tell you how to punish a woman who has already performed an abortion. Under this logic, we still cannot allow abortion to occur, since it is always some sort of manslaughter or murder. We may not think the woman responsible for the killing (since she wasn't responsible for the life), but at the same time we cannot carry the abortion out since we're doing an act that is wrong. So in the analogy to the party having different levels of responsibility, we ultimately can only think of actions in terms of punishment, not in normative terms. If we were to think normatively, then the abortion will be wrong, for it doesn't matter whether or not the woman is responsible for the life - it's still a life. She might not be responsible for it (and not liable to be charged for murder accordingly), but we're still killing it.
If you divorce the concept of fetal rights from the problem, then all you end up with is a system of responsibility that really looks like punishment for having sex. If you don't divorce the concept of fetal rights, then you end up with abortion always being wrong, even in the case of rape.
|
Erm, just commenting on something you said earlier. I'm pretty positive Bill Paxton isn't Mormon, just plays the role of a FLDS (Fundamentalist) polygamist in Big Love. The FLDS faith and LDS faith (Mormon) are different.
"I feel like these people have their beliefs, and every religion has its share of beliefs that other people find kind of crazy.
I was raised Roman Catholic, and we eat the body and drink the blood of our savior, and worship a deity with a crown of thorns who hangs on a cross, naked, after being tortured.
That's a quote by him. Sorry for the aside, just clarifying. I could be wrong, but I don't think he's Mormon.
|
Haha,
Yeah, I was sort of making a joke on the Bill Paxton front. I see where it looked a bit literal.
Anyway, this blog has slowed down a lot over the weekend. All good things must end, I suppose.
If anyone has more questions, please post. But, this will be my last semi-bump unless responding to someone else.
I appreciate the opportunity. We'll see how things turn out in November.
Regards
|
I'd like to know if you have anything to add regarding the IP stuff. I know it'll likely be a slow process where things are considered, but even if you can't come back with a stance in such a short time, know I appreciate your consideration.
I suppose I might as well add a few things to the IP heap while I'm at it.
A bit of a note on foreign politics, the 'piracy party' and their goals, and a few short mentions of how it even links back to US politics and it's failures:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/opinion/the-pirate-party-logs-a-new-politics.html?_r=3&ref=opinion
While the US system is not as flexible to allow the rise of a new party as has happened in some of the euro countries, note that some voters such as myself are starting to put more and more emphasis on these issues and how to reform the process through better direct interaction. It'll be a trend to look out for, especially in the coming years.
More information about the European pirate parties can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party
More recent articles published about industry stuff:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120503/00163118751/swizz-beatz-technology-brings-freedom-to-musicians-those-not-embracing-it-are-greedy.shtml
More on abuse of power:
http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-prosecution-is-lawless-and-unconstitutional-law-professor-says-120502/
Again just highlighting how ridiculous the attacks against service providers such as megaupload are. Technology is not the enemy. If people are misusing the technology then either there is a problem with the people (e.g. guns are tools of murder, but are not necessary for the crime of murder itself) or the laws (e.g. prohibition).
I hope you or someone around you gets around to reading Against Intellectual Monopoly, as it in my opinion puts together a really compelling argument about the whole copyright and patent situation. Talking it over with economists is most important I think in order to really get back to the root of the issue: do patents and copyrights really encourage the arts and sciences over time?
I've enjoyed reading this thread and learned a few things, even if I don't agree with where you are coming from.
Edit: added another megaupload article. I think it's easy to pick on the pieces where government gets out of hand. Both the laws and our priorities of enforcement are messed up.
Edit2: More notes on the power of narrative, and how the internet changes it. http://torrentfreak.com/the-net-vs-the-power-of-narratives-120429/
Understanding that power is also key to understanding why the traditional players in Washington are being shaken up, and how the SOPA and PIPA bills were defeated. The ability of the industry, lobbyists, and politicians to provide a narrative did not agree with the conclusions that people came to under scrutiny.
I would posit that this, along with the understanding of how the pirate party is changing things in the NYTimes article up above, should be a heads up to both parties that real change in the process is coming, and the party that can harness this better and align itself with the public better will be in much better shape. It isn't trying to direct a narrative, but showing your information and letting people come to their own conclusions, relying on a broad view from multiple experts in different fields, with all the information on the table.
|
AND SO HNNNGG SAID, LET THERE BE LIFE.
My question isn't partisan.
I swear.
How do you, as a Republican (I am not a Democrat, I managed to ask a Democrat friend of mine this same question, and I don't have any Republican friends because I am really really really intolerant outside of the internet), feel/think/perceive the fact that most/nearly all/some of politicians (those who are in the power position of politics, not advisers or such) are in fact Lawyers.
Now, I will preface I have no such ill-will towards Lawyers and that is not what this is about. I believe that they (and if I remember correctly, you are also they) do the job that we need them to do. However, I would like to get at least a wide-brushed picture of the Republican viewpoint of a Lawyer being in charge of the government (or at least the face and/or mover of the government) instead of someone with a Scientific background in their field of study.
+ Show Spoiler +Personally, I think it would be much much much better if someone with a non-professional degree (no Lawyers, Engineers, Doctors) from a private university (can't trust those librul lubin hippie gubmnt funded state universities) would be the candidate for most/nearly all/some of the political positions. Preferably Math/Physics/Chemistry because I am an elitist jerk.
|
On June 07 2012 07:25 Hnnngg wrote:AND SO HNNNGG SAID, LET THERE BE LIFE. My question isn't partisan. I swear. How do you, as a Republican (I am not a Democrat, I managed to ask a Democrat friend of mine this same question, and I don't have any Republican friends because I am really really really intolerant outside of the internet), feel/think/perceive the fact that most/nearly all/some of politicians (those who are in the power position of politics, not advisers or such) are in fact Lawyers. Now, I will preface I have no such ill-will towards Lawyers and that is not what this is about. I believe that they (and if I remember correctly, you are also they) do the job that we need them to do. However, I would like to get at least a wide-brushed picture of the Republican viewpoint of a Lawyer being in charge of the government (or at least the face and/or mover of the government) instead of someone with a Scientific background in their field of study. + Show Spoiler +Personally, I think it would be much much much better if someone with a non-professional degree (no Lawyers, Engineers, Doctors) from a private university (can't trust those librul lubin hippie gubmnt funded state universities) would be the candidate for most/nearly all/some of the political positions. Preferably Math/Physics/Chemistry because I am an elitist jerk.
huh? Lawyers study law. Politicians make and develop laws. It seems like a natural fit.
I understand what you mean, but wouldn't scientists be more interested in pursuing science?
Also, how is that question partisan? It doesn't seem partisan to me.
|
On June 07 2012 07:41 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 07:25 Hnnngg wrote:AND SO HNNNGG SAID, LET THERE BE LIFE. My question isn't partisan. I swear. How do you, as a Republican (I am not a Democrat, I managed to ask a Democrat friend of mine this same question, and I don't have any Republican friends because I am really really really intolerant outside of the internet), feel/think/perceive the fact that most/nearly all/some of politicians (those who are in the power position of politics, not advisers or such) are in fact Lawyers. Now, I will preface I have no such ill-will towards Lawyers and that is not what this is about. I believe that they (and if I remember correctly, you are also they) do the job that we need them to do. However, I would like to get at least a wide-brushed picture of the Republican viewpoint of a Lawyer being in charge of the government (or at least the face and/or mover of the government) instead of someone with a Scientific background in their field of study. + Show Spoiler +Personally, I think it would be much much much better if someone with a non-professional degree (no Lawyers, Engineers, Doctors) from a private university (can't trust those librul lubin hippie gubmnt funded state universities) would be the candidate for most/nearly all/some of the political positions. Preferably Math/Physics/Chemistry because I am an elitist jerk. huh? Lawyers study law. Politicians make and develop laws. It seems like a natural fit. I understand what you mean, but wouldn't scientists be more interested in pursuing science? Also, how is that question partisan? It doesn't seem partisan to me.
I typed isn't but that's cool, np.
Academics being blended with Profession is basically what I'm asking. A professional degree (Law, Medicine, Engineering, Plumbing, Truck Drivers) EXTREMELY, like a lot, limit what you learn in an academic environment. Personally, I know a handful of Engineers and they know nothing besides Engineering.
There is a certain feeling in the liberal internet community (not even a party in America could represent us) that would prefer scientists because they aren't limited towards their field, being a hard science major exposes you to the entirety of the knowledge.
Whereas a professional degree gets you a job. Obviously the Lawyer->Law->Politician->Laws makes some immediate sense but having a Law degree doesn't make you experienced enough (obviously imo) to make a political decision.
Some silly evidence, the way SaintBadger discredited the idea of "theory". Actually not just SaintBadger, but a lot lot lot lot of people. Yes, yes, he linked people that have respectable opinions on the idea of evolution, too bad that's too specific. Even just getting the concept of theory wrong is a big red x where we just need to stop and say, "Wow you are so dumb why am I talking to you."
|
On June 07 2012 07:59 Hnnngg wrote:being a hard science major exposes you to the entirety of the knowledge.
huh?
There are lots of aspects of human knowledge one does not study as a hard science major... Am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
