EPT2008 US Presidential Election - Page 99
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
| ||
|
geno
United States1404 Posts
I don't see the use in arguing any of these issues in particular on a logical basis; I seriously doubt anyone who is against any of these social issues is swayed by that type of argument. For every one you make, there are a million more ad hoc rebuttals, because the issue is based in opinion. If anything, an appeal to religion or fairness are the strongest tactic. An example would be those commercials I've seen on TV here showing a man and women getting married where everything goes wrong for the bride with the point being, "Imagine if you couldn't marry the person you loved..." These arguments are no more rooted in fact than their opposition, but they are probably more effective because of the nature of the issues. I don't think its in the least bit worthwhile to make a 'logical' argument against Savio as to why abortion or gay marriage should be legal. He will have an equally 'logical' response, because there is no factual, irrefutable answer. Of course, no one really knows what the best answer is for economic or foreign affairs issues either, but we at least operate off the assumption that there is one. Maybe I'm alone on this, but I've had more fun reading arguments for and against fiscal policy, foreign policy, and domestic policy than these social black holes. | ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
a debater's best friend | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
DOMA says other states do not need to respect those marriages or all the other legal stuff that goes along with marriage, but DOMA is a only federal law, while article IV of the Constitution says they do need to respect that agreement. Constitution trumps federal law, end result is all states must respect same sex marriage licenses from MA/CA. The only way they'll get around it is with an amendment. The federal gov't part (pt. 2) still stands, but that's less important. How this matters to Savio is that the gay marriage issue is moot. He may be morally adverse to it, but legally it has to be allowed and respected and there's not a Supreme court staff in the world willing to rule otherwise, because DOMA pt. 1 violates the constitution in very exact terms. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On October 04 2008 11:50 ahrara_ wrote: <3 the economist a debater's best friend They make compelling arguments but I'm careful whenever I read it because the writers are all young and inexperienced like us, and they're all based out of the typical London schools. They may be excellent schools, but they tend to breed similar opinions and diversity is almost always better. Assuming you have time (which I don't), it's probably a good idea to read it along with the Atlantic. | ||
|
Flaccid
8843 Posts
On October 04 2008 10:26 ahrara_ wrote: I know I'm making an ass out of myself a bit by posting one liners in here, but seriously guys -- abortion and gay marriage? Is that really the best discussion TL can have? I have stances on both these, but they're not ever going to outweigh macroeconomic policy and foreign policy in deciding who to vote for as president. Can we just agree that people have different stances on these positions and that regardless of who becomes president, they will have little impact on how these policies change? And even if it did, it will have a very small impact on very few people. I am not advocating relativism. But I don't think it's easy to persuade anybody to change their positions on morality through reasoning alone... so what's the point?) If you go back like 15 pages, I think we talked about 'special interest voting' and why it doesn't make sense in the grand scheme of things =] | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On October 04 2008 08:31 aRod wrote: Savio, you claim not a single cell of the baby came from the mother. So... the EGG didn't come from the mother? After all the egg is a cell. This is why the baby and the mother share the same mitochondrial DNA, because yes the embryo is formed from the mother's egg when joined with sperm DNA. Another thing, you claim the mothers body doesn't recognize the baby as "self." Like any false hypothesis, you are right! The mother doesn't recognize the embryo's cells at all due to the immunosuppresive nature of the syncitiotrophoblast. The baby has blood, a CNS, and unique DNA. So do most mammals. You may think these things are a godsent like I believe they're great evolutionary achievents, but these characteristics don't entitle any organism life. You talk about the constitution like it represents the perfect, 100% garunteed, god sent, beautiful and true, document that we should all live by. Anyone who has this much respect for a set of principles laid out hundreds of years ago needs to ask themself is this really a good idea? What I'm saying is that strict adherence to an old dogmatic mentality doesn't necessarily address modern day problems. I think we should keep guns, but not because "it's in the constitution." You can write something wherever you want and it isn't necesarily true, much less a good idea. Abortion doesn't need to be explicitly stated in the constitution for us to make national laws about it. You actually did bring up a good point that I was going to make. I was going to state that the baby is as much the father's body as the mother's EXCEPT that there is slightly more DNA from the mother given to the baby because like you stated, the mitochodrial DNA is inherited strictly from the mother. Few people know that and it is one of the cooler aspects of human genetics imo. You mentioned that CNS, DNA and the like don't entitle someone so life. That wasn't addressed in my long post. I merely wanted to share some of the science behind "my body, my choice". Today we have a society largely led by nice sounding cliche's like this but just because it sounds catchy doesn't mean its true. I think I made a good argument that the baby is not the mother's body. There is a LOT more we could say about abortion, for example talking about what "entitles an organism to life" as you stated----but when the baby is already moving around at its own volition, listening and recognizing its mother's voice, whether or not you think that baby is entitled to life it irrelevant, it already has life. The only question is, are we going to end that life... As for the constitution, it is good to have document that doesn't change with the fads/transitory trends of the day. I do believe that the constitution is amazing and has worked wonders in the couple centuries of our country's existence. But once you can change it to mean whatever you want it to mean, it no longer has any meaning as a constitution. That is why judges should not try to stretch it to mean what they want. If they can do that, they might as well rule the constitution is unconstitutional. | ||
|
BloodyC0bbler
Canada7876 Posts
![[image loading]](http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2008/10/nevergonnama9.jpg) Figured that this was worth seeing, was taken just before the debates. My faith in humanity is dropping | ||
|
wswordsmen
United States987 Posts
On October 04 2008 12:47 BloodyC0bbler wrote: Figured that this was worth seeing, was taken just before the debates. My faith in humanity is dropping Your serious! This isn't photo shopped? My faith has dropped below its already deplorably low level. | ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
WOOT | ||
|
Clutch3
United States1344 Posts
On October 04 2008 07:39 SnK-Arcbound wrote: That's right, when an interview with Barack Obama has a question including holding a picture of him on the cover of Newsweek and asking what his grandmother would think, obviously they are asking others that same question. The Obama thing with the cover of Newsweek is the kind of thing that has been done to all kinds of public figures by all kinds of reporters (see below). And when NBC anchor says "It's hard to be biased when you have someone like Barack Obama," they aren't being biased. It wasn't an NBC anchor that said anything like that. It was a reporter covering Obama's campaign. How about this for your MSNBC bias: Chris Matthews, who IS an MSNBC anchor has said the following things about McCain: -- "He deserves to be President" (at least twice) -- Called him a "true reformer" -- Compared him to Martin Luther, for God's sake -- said his Senate office is like "something out of the movies" -- said he was "holding out for a McCain/Giuliani ticket" -- said that McCain was "in his heart" -- said that McCain "shows a lot of courage out there" -- said everyone knows he is a "maverick" I can go on and on. Let's see how much you can come up with, shall we? http://mediamatters.org/items/200801290003 When MSNBC hears that McCain annouces his VP pick it is subtitled not with who the VP pick is, but "How many houses does this add to the ticket?" I assume if you're going to use MSNBC as an example of a biased network, I get to use Fox News? Let me know if you really want to go down that road. By the way, MSNBC also apologized, and they took Olbermann and Matthews behind the woodshed. Let's see Fox muzzle Hannitty or O'Reilly. If you care I'll even pull up the articles from Newsweek stating they gave Barack Obama more print, and then I'll pull up the NYT choosing who will be front page worthy based only on their political party. And of course they gave Obama more print than McCain in the early primaries. First of all, McCain's been around forever. He's been in Newsweek many many more times than Obama. The media covers news. McCain running for President isn't really news until he's doing well. They cover things that the public is interested in. You cannot deny that Obama had a huge amount more interest from the general public, especially before Super Tuesday, than McCain did. Just look at the attendance of his rallies. Even conservatives talked more about Obama than McCain, up until February of this year. If you want to see who's gotten more total coverage, by all means, let's compare how many times the two have been on the cover of Newsweek, or how many times each of them has been on Letterman. But of course you know you'll lose that one, because McCain's been around forever. Which is exactly why he's not as newsworthy. By all means, let's see your proof of the New York Times bias. I'd love to debate it. I'd also be interested to hear how you can explain the liberal media bias (NY Times included) that was involved when major newspapers reported as fact that McCain "suspended his campaign", when he did nothing of the sort. BTW, if the media seems biased to you, maybe it's because McCain's campaign lies a shitload more and is thoroughly more negative than Obama's. The media's having a hard time just ignoring the truth and trying to be "unbiased". | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On October 04 2008 10:26 ahrara_ wrote: I know I'm making an ass out of myself a bit by posting one liners in here, but seriously guys -- abortion and gay marriage? Is that really the best discussion TL can have? I have stances on both these, but they're not ever going to outweigh macroeconomic policy and foreign policy in deciding who to vote for as president. Can we just agree that people have different stances on these positions and that regardless of who becomes president, they will have little impact on how these policies change? And even if it did, it will have a very small impact on very few people. I am not advocating relativism. But I don't think it's easy to persuade anybody to change their positions on morality through reasoning alone... so what's the point?) This is good. In my post on abortion, if you notice, I did not try to make a comprehensive argument for it. I took one small facet and wrote some thoughts I had had for a long time which I think are interesting because most people don't talk about that very often. But we are slowly devolving into the standard abortion debate which we have all heard all the time: one side arguing against the gruesomeness of abortion and the other espousing women's choice. I'm going to attempt to stay away from the comprehensive argument because I have already been over that with lots of people and everyone has already heard it. Hopefully, my OP on abortion had some stuff which you hadn't heard before. If so, then that is good, but there is little point in covering the "standard debate". | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On October 04 2008 10:36 Jibba wrote: No, what Savio is saying is that the 50+ million aborted fetii + loss of guns + loss of sanctity of marriage is a bigger factor for him than foreign relations/economics/etc. That's what I've been going off about. That's the only reason we're talking about these. It just so happens that I also prefer McCain's stance on foreign affairs and the economy. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On October 04 2008 11:46 geno wrote: Social issue voting, usually on just a single issue, is pretty common (no matter how silly stupid it is). I personally can't stand it though. Although people try, there is no real basis for logical arguments for/against most social issues. They are largely based on opinion, belief, and religion, which simply cannot be argued against. Its cool that Savio is making an appeal to science in support of abortion, but I would be tremendously shocked if the root of his stance isn't based clearly in what he "feels" is right, not knows. There is no real way to know. I don't see the use in arguing any of these issues in particular on a logical basis; I seriously doubt anyone who is against any of these social issues is swayed by that type of argument. For every one you make, there are a million more ad hoc rebuttals, because the issue is based in opinion. If anything, an appeal to religion or fairness are the strongest tactic. An example would be those commercials I've seen on TV here showing a man and women getting married where everything goes wrong for the bride with the point being, "Imagine if you couldn't marry the person you loved..." These arguments are no more rooted in fact than their opposition, but they are probably more effective because of the nature of the issues. I don't think its in the least bit worthwhile to make a 'logical' argument against Savio as to why abortion or gay marriage should be legal. He will have an equally 'logical' response, because there is no factual, irrefutable answer. Of course, no one really knows what the best answer is for economic or foreign affairs issues either, but we at least operate off the assumption that there is one. Maybe I'm alone on this, but I've had more fun reading arguments for and against fiscal policy, foreign policy, and domestic policy than these social black holes. You're pretty much dead-on with your entire post. Its cool that Savio is making an appeal to science in support of abortion, but I would be tremendously shocked if the root of his stance isn't based clearly in what he "feels" is right, not knows. There is no real way to know. Yes, at the base of it all is my feeling and belief. But I did think that the science I brought up is intereseting. There is one more goal I want to accomplish with this. There is this stereotype out there that liberals are intellectual and come to their beliefs through an intellectual process while conservative thought (especially on social issues), is some hill billy who likes big provacative bumper stickers about God and abortion. So to root out this stereotyping I put myself forward as an intellectual, from an intellectual family, who still believes in God and sees no contradiction. I have beliefs that come from feeling (like on abortion), but can defend them cohesively and consistently with my thoughts. but I've had more fun reading arguments for and against fiscal policy, foreign policy, and domestic policy than these social black holes. Lets do it then! I'm down with shifting back into the economy, and policy issues. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
 | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
If McCain votes against it his foreign policy stance will greatly improve in my view. Seriously, fuck this administration. | ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
| ||
|
geno
United States1404 Posts
| ||
|
Wolverine
138 Posts
On October 04 2008 18:26 MyLostTemple wrote: sorry but what's so funny about that pic? i must be missing something www.internetisseriousbusiness.com [NSFW] | ||
|
nitram
Canada5412 Posts
![[image loading]](http://media.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/583018/977466.jpg) | ||
| ||
