|
On February 18 2012 04:12 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 04:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 03:35 Mohdoo wrote:So do you think its just him trying to pander to extremists? On one hand, he goes on a big rant out contraception is a bad thing and that government doesn't talk about it enough. On the other hand, he votes to fund it. How does someone rationalize that? ?_? I already explained what Santorum is doing. He's starting a conversation about the underlying social problems in this country. Again, I don't speak for Santorum, but I'm guessing that if you asked him, if he would say that there isn't anything wrong with contraception. The problem are the unintentional consequences of its use and availability -- namely how it has enabled this culture of immoral behavior that contributes to problems like high divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, the spread of STD's, etc. It takes guts to even start this conversation in today's culture because we're living in an age of the cultural laissez-faire. All of the traditional anchors that held people to moral behavior (RELIGION) have been blown apart and denigrated by liberals and progressives. So now we're living in a Jersey Shore/Teen Mom culture where no one is accountable to behave themselves and be productive members of society. As a result, we have this swelling class of people that is dependent upon the federal government for survival. I can't even begin to explain how important of a change this is to our country, which was founded on the principal that people would be accountable to themselves (see my "republican virtue" discussion from above). You have absolutely zero basis for saying that the use and availability of contraceptives has contributed to higher divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and spreading STD's. Furthermore, you are in no position to determine what is "immoral". High divorce rates can be a good thing - It's not like in the past, the vast majority of married couples were two people that were actually right for each other. The high divorce rates could simply mean we've removed a cultural taboo on divorce, meaning people can take the better path for their mental (and sometimes physical) health - that of divorce. Furthermore, out-of-wedlock births is completely and 100% irrelevant. The important thing is having a child being born into and growing up in a stable household with both parents. And here is Exhibit A for why fixing social problems in the US is so hard: complete denial that they even exist and a refusal to judge people (which is why I alluded to moral relativism earlier). And that's exactly the point - in a country where we tout the ideals of freedom so much, it's incredibly hypocritical for you to judge what you think is a social problem and then try to get rid of that via government action. I'm as judgmental as the next guy when it comes to certain things - stuff like Jersey Shore is absolute trash and embarrasing to our culture. That said, does the government (and this includes state governments, not just the federal government) have any place whatsoever in making any actions to discourage that kind of behavior? No. The government's job is not to arbitrarily decide what our culture is going to be and then make policies to that end. The government's job is to protect our rights/self/property.
You're so blindly prejudiced that you're omitting significant chunks of what I have been saying in this thread. I have said repeatedly that the federal government can't be used to fix these problems. I have said repeatedly that all Santorum is doing is starting a discussion to draw attention to these problems.
Look, if you're going to respond to my posts, at least take the time to understand what I am saying. Between this and your constant allusions to healthcare, it's clear that you currently don't really understand what the issues are.
|
On February 18 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 04:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 03:35 Mohdoo wrote:So do you think its just him trying to pander to extremists? On one hand, he goes on a big rant out contraception is a bad thing and that government doesn't talk about it enough. On the other hand, he votes to fund it. How does someone rationalize that? ?_? I already explained what Santorum is doing. He's starting a conversation about the underlying social problems in this country. Again, I don't speak for Santorum, but I'm guessing that if you asked him, if he would say that there isn't anything wrong with contraception. The problem are the unintentional consequences of its use and availability -- namely how it has enabled this culture of immoral behavior that contributes to problems like high divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, the spread of STD's, etc. It takes guts to even start this conversation in today's culture because we're living in an age of the cultural laissez-faire. All of the traditional anchors that held people to moral behavior (RELIGION) have been blown apart and denigrated by liberals and progressives. So now we're living in a Jersey Shore/Teen Mom culture where no one is accountable to behave themselves and be productive members of society. As a result, we have this swelling class of people that is dependent upon the federal government for survival. I can't even begin to explain how important of a change this is to our country, which was founded on the principal that people would be accountable to themselves (see my "republican virtue" discussion from above). You have absolutely zero basis for saying that the use and availability of contraceptives has contributed to higher divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and spreading STD's. Furthermore, you are in no position to determine what is "immoral". High divorce rates can be a good thing - It's not like in the past, the vast majority of married couples were two people that were actually right for each other. The high divorce rates could simply mean we've removed a cultural taboo on divorce, meaning people can take the better path for their mental (and sometimes physical) health - that of divorce. Furthermore, out-of-wedlock births is completely and 100% irrelevant. The important thing is having a child being born into and growing up in a stable household with both parents. And here is Exhibit A for why fixing social problems in the US is so hard: complete denial that they even exist and a refusal to judge people (which is why I alluded to moral relativism earlier).
There is a field called sociology which studies these issues, they are not treated lightly. It is not complete denial, just because you believe that divorce is bad for society does not mean it is bad for society. It appears you are the one in complete denial, and your willingness to judge people without any support for your argument could actually be harmful to society.
|
xDaunt - "I have said repeatedly that all Santorum is doing is starting a discussion to draw attention to these problems. "
I think the problem people have with Santorum is that most people in this country would like solutions based on factual evidence and logic. This is contrary to his method of obtaining such solutions, which is to pull out a book written 2000 years ago by a bunch of people who should have stayed in school.
|
What is bad about people getting divorced? I don't see the problem.
|
On February 18 2012 04:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 04:12 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 04:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 03:35 Mohdoo wrote:So do you think its just him trying to pander to extremists? On one hand, he goes on a big rant out contraception is a bad thing and that government doesn't talk about it enough. On the other hand, he votes to fund it. How does someone rationalize that? ?_? I already explained what Santorum is doing. He's starting a conversation about the underlying social problems in this country. Again, I don't speak for Santorum, but I'm guessing that if you asked him, if he would say that there isn't anything wrong with contraception. The problem are the unintentional consequences of its use and availability -- namely how it has enabled this culture of immoral behavior that contributes to problems like high divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, the spread of STD's, etc. It takes guts to even start this conversation in today's culture because we're living in an age of the cultural laissez-faire. All of the traditional anchors that held people to moral behavior (RELIGION) have been blown apart and denigrated by liberals and progressives. So now we're living in a Jersey Shore/Teen Mom culture where no one is accountable to behave themselves and be productive members of society. As a result, we have this swelling class of people that is dependent upon the federal government for survival. I can't even begin to explain how important of a change this is to our country, which was founded on the principal that people would be accountable to themselves (see my "republican virtue" discussion from above). You have absolutely zero basis for saying that the use and availability of contraceptives has contributed to higher divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and spreading STD's. Furthermore, you are in no position to determine what is "immoral". High divorce rates can be a good thing - It's not like in the past, the vast majority of married couples were two people that were actually right for each other. The high divorce rates could simply mean we've removed a cultural taboo on divorce, meaning people can take the better path for their mental (and sometimes physical) health - that of divorce. Furthermore, out-of-wedlock births is completely and 100% irrelevant. The important thing is having a child being born into and growing up in a stable household with both parents. And here is Exhibit A for why fixing social problems in the US is so hard: complete denial that they even exist and a refusal to judge people (which is why I alluded to moral relativism earlier). And that's exactly the point - in a country where we tout the ideals of freedom so much, it's incredibly hypocritical for you to judge what you think is a social problem and then try to get rid of that via government action. I'm as judgmental as the next guy when it comes to certain things - stuff like Jersey Shore is absolute trash and embarrasing to our culture. That said, does the government (and this includes state governments, not just the federal government) have any place whatsoever in making any actions to discourage that kind of behavior? No. The government's job is not to arbitrarily decide what our culture is going to be and then make policies to that end. The government's job is to protect our rights/self/property. You're so blindly prejudiced that you're omitting significant chunks of what I have been saying in this thread. I have said repeatedly that the federal government can't be used to fix these problems. I have said repeatedly that all Santorum is doing is starting a discussion to draw attention to these problems. Look, if you're going to respond to my posts, at least take the time to understand what I am saying. Between this and your constant allusions to healthcare, it's clear that you currently don't really understand what the issues are.
I know exactly what the issues are - you just refuse to acknowledge them because to do so would be to acknowledge that you've been strawmanning the issue for the last couple pages.
You have yet to address this problem - Santorum thinks it's ok to allow states to rule on an issue like this. I don't know why, but Republicans have this delusional idea that if a state rules on it, it's automatically OK, but if it's the federal government that does it, it's automatically bad. The problem is, to the individual, the state government is just as bad as the federal government. Federalism wants the diffusion of power so that the states can protect us from the federal government, but it's also the federal government's job to protect us from the states. If the state government bans homosexual marriage, it's still taking away a right. This is the massive problem. Sure, he might not lead the federal government to do it, but he would appoint judges/other officials that would apply their own personal moral judgments to rulings/policies and he would let states roam free to make laws like this.
|
On February 18 2012 04:20 Tor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 04:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 03:35 Mohdoo wrote:So do you think its just him trying to pander to extremists? On one hand, he goes on a big rant out contraception is a bad thing and that government doesn't talk about it enough. On the other hand, he votes to fund it. How does someone rationalize that? ?_? I already explained what Santorum is doing. He's starting a conversation about the underlying social problems in this country. Again, I don't speak for Santorum, but I'm guessing that if you asked him, if he would say that there isn't anything wrong with contraception. The problem are the unintentional consequences of its use and availability -- namely how it has enabled this culture of immoral behavior that contributes to problems like high divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, the spread of STD's, etc. It takes guts to even start this conversation in today's culture because we're living in an age of the cultural laissez-faire. All of the traditional anchors that held people to moral behavior (RELIGION) have been blown apart and denigrated by liberals and progressives. So now we're living in a Jersey Shore/Teen Mom culture where no one is accountable to behave themselves and be productive members of society. As a result, we have this swelling class of people that is dependent upon the federal government for survival. I can't even begin to explain how important of a change this is to our country, which was founded on the principal that people would be accountable to themselves (see my "republican virtue" discussion from above). You have absolutely zero basis for saying that the use and availability of contraceptives has contributed to higher divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and spreading STD's. Furthermore, you are in no position to determine what is "immoral". High divorce rates can be a good thing - It's not like in the past, the vast majority of married couples were two people that were actually right for each other. The high divorce rates could simply mean we've removed a cultural taboo on divorce, meaning people can take the better path for their mental (and sometimes physical) health - that of divorce. Furthermore, out-of-wedlock births is completely and 100% irrelevant. The important thing is having a child being born into and growing up in a stable household with both parents. And here is Exhibit A for why fixing social problems in the US is so hard: complete denial that they even exist and a refusal to judge people (which is why I alluded to moral relativism earlier). There is a field called sociology which studies these issues, they are not treated lightly. It is not complete denial, just because you believe that divorce is bad for society does not mean it is bad for society. It appears you are the one in complete denial, and your willingness to judge people without any support for your argument could actually be harmful to society.
I haven't said nor mean to imply that there is an absolute correlation between divorce rates and "societal health," however defined, nor do I mean to say that divorce and out-of-wedlock births are always a bad thing. That said, on the whole, they are still decent indicators of societal problems. Think about it this way, it is a good thing that the African American population has incredibly high incidences of divorce and out-of-wedlock births, particularly when you consider their overall social-economic status?
|
On February 18 2012 04:24 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 04:17 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 04:12 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 04:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 03:35 Mohdoo wrote:So do you think its just him trying to pander to extremists? On one hand, he goes on a big rant out contraception is a bad thing and that government doesn't talk about it enough. On the other hand, he votes to fund it. How does someone rationalize that? ?_? I already explained what Santorum is doing. He's starting a conversation about the underlying social problems in this country. Again, I don't speak for Santorum, but I'm guessing that if you asked him, if he would say that there isn't anything wrong with contraception. The problem are the unintentional consequences of its use and availability -- namely how it has enabled this culture of immoral behavior that contributes to problems like high divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, the spread of STD's, etc. It takes guts to even start this conversation in today's culture because we're living in an age of the cultural laissez-faire. All of the traditional anchors that held people to moral behavior (RELIGION) have been blown apart and denigrated by liberals and progressives. So now we're living in a Jersey Shore/Teen Mom culture where no one is accountable to behave themselves and be productive members of society. As a result, we have this swelling class of people that is dependent upon the federal government for survival. I can't even begin to explain how important of a change this is to our country, which was founded on the principal that people would be accountable to themselves (see my "republican virtue" discussion from above). You have absolutely zero basis for saying that the use and availability of contraceptives has contributed to higher divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and spreading STD's. Furthermore, you are in no position to determine what is "immoral". High divorce rates can be a good thing - It's not like in the past, the vast majority of married couples were two people that were actually right for each other. The high divorce rates could simply mean we've removed a cultural taboo on divorce, meaning people can take the better path for their mental (and sometimes physical) health - that of divorce. Furthermore, out-of-wedlock births is completely and 100% irrelevant. The important thing is having a child being born into and growing up in a stable household with both parents. And here is Exhibit A for why fixing social problems in the US is so hard: complete denial that they even exist and a refusal to judge people (which is why I alluded to moral relativism earlier). And that's exactly the point - in a country where we tout the ideals of freedom so much, it's incredibly hypocritical for you to judge what you think is a social problem and then try to get rid of that via government action. I'm as judgmental as the next guy when it comes to certain things - stuff like Jersey Shore is absolute trash and embarrasing to our culture. That said, does the government (and this includes state governments, not just the federal government) have any place whatsoever in making any actions to discourage that kind of behavior? No. The government's job is not to arbitrarily decide what our culture is going to be and then make policies to that end. The government's job is to protect our rights/self/property. You're so blindly prejudiced that you're omitting significant chunks of what I have been saying in this thread. I have said repeatedly that the federal government can't be used to fix these problems. I have said repeatedly that all Santorum is doing is starting a discussion to draw attention to these problems. Look, if you're going to respond to my posts, at least take the time to understand what I am saying. Between this and your constant allusions to healthcare, it's clear that you currently don't really understand what the issues are. I know exactly what the issues are - you just refuse to acknowledge them because to do so would be to acknowledge that you've been strawmanning the issue for the last couple pages. You have yet to address this problem - Santorum thinks it's ok to allow states to rule on an issue like this. I don't know why, but Republicans have this delusional idea that if a state rules on it, it's automatically OK, but if it's the federal government that does it, it's automatically bad. The problem is, to the individual, the state government is just as bad as the federal government. If the state government bans homosexual marriage, it's still taking away a right. This is the massive problem. Sure, he might not lead the federal government to do it, but he would appoint judges/other officials that would apply their own personal moral judgments to rulings/policies and he would let states roam free to make laws like this.
Alright, whatever. If you're going to keep bringing up stuff that is not germane to what I'm talking about, then don't expect a response.
|
On February 18 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 04:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 03:35 Mohdoo wrote:So do you think its just him trying to pander to extremists? On one hand, he goes on a big rant out contraception is a bad thing and that government doesn't talk about it enough. On the other hand, he votes to fund it. How does someone rationalize that? ?_? I already explained what Santorum is doing. He's starting a conversation about the underlying social problems in this country. Again, I don't speak for Santorum, but I'm guessing that if you asked him, if he would say that there isn't anything wrong with contraception. The problem are the unintentional consequences of its use and availability -- namely how it has enabled this culture of immoral behavior that contributes to problems like high divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, the spread of STD's, etc. It takes guts to even start this conversation in today's culture because we're living in an age of the cultural laissez-faire. All of the traditional anchors that held people to moral behavior (RELIGION) have been blown apart and denigrated by liberals and progressives. So now we're living in a Jersey Shore/Teen Mom culture where no one is accountable to behave themselves and be productive members of society. As a result, we have this swelling class of people that is dependent upon the federal government for survival. I can't even begin to explain how important of a change this is to our country, which was founded on the principal that people would be accountable to themselves (see my "republican virtue" discussion from above). You have absolutely zero basis for saying that the use and availability of contraceptives has contributed to higher divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and spreading STD's. Furthermore, you are in no position to determine what is "immoral". High divorce rates can be a good thing - It's not like in the past, the vast majority of married couples were two people that were actually right for each other. The high divorce rates could simply mean we've removed a cultural taboo on divorce, meaning people can take the better path for their mental (and sometimes physical) health - that of divorce. Furthermore, out-of-wedlock births is completely and 100% irrelevant. The important thing is having a child being born into and growing up in a stable household with both parents. And here is Exhibit A for why fixing social problems in the US is so hard: complete denial that they even exist and a refusal to judge people (which is why I alluded to moral relativism earlier).
No, see I have no problem judging people. I'm being pretty judgmental right now. I'm willing to judge people who thinks this kind of stuff is their business. That's not moral relativism at all. My basis for morality is human well-being, not arbitrary ancient law or superstition. Human well-being is objective.
But yea, I do completely deny these issues are incredibly important and religion would only make the issue worse (or hide it by restricting gender freedoms). I'm perfectly willing to talk about the issues though as are many people in this thread that have defended divorce and out-of-wedlock births. We're not afraid to talk about it or anything. If anything I have yet to hear you give good reasons why divorce is bad and such and such.
|
On February 18 2012 04:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 04:24 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 04:17 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 04:12 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 04:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 03:35 Mohdoo wrote:So do you think its just him trying to pander to extremists? On one hand, he goes on a big rant out contraception is a bad thing and that government doesn't talk about it enough. On the other hand, he votes to fund it. How does someone rationalize that? ?_? I already explained what Santorum is doing. He's starting a conversation about the underlying social problems in this country. Again, I don't speak for Santorum, but I'm guessing that if you asked him, if he would say that there isn't anything wrong with contraception. The problem are the unintentional consequences of its use and availability -- namely how it has enabled this culture of immoral behavior that contributes to problems like high divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, the spread of STD's, etc. It takes guts to even start this conversation in today's culture because we're living in an age of the cultural laissez-faire. All of the traditional anchors that held people to moral behavior (RELIGION) have been blown apart and denigrated by liberals and progressives. So now we're living in a Jersey Shore/Teen Mom culture where no one is accountable to behave themselves and be productive members of society. As a result, we have this swelling class of people that is dependent upon the federal government for survival. I can't even begin to explain how important of a change this is to our country, which was founded on the principal that people would be accountable to themselves (see my "republican virtue" discussion from above). You have absolutely zero basis for saying that the use and availability of contraceptives has contributed to higher divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and spreading STD's. Furthermore, you are in no position to determine what is "immoral". High divorce rates can be a good thing - It's not like in the past, the vast majority of married couples were two people that were actually right for each other. The high divorce rates could simply mean we've removed a cultural taboo on divorce, meaning people can take the better path for their mental (and sometimes physical) health - that of divorce. Furthermore, out-of-wedlock births is completely and 100% irrelevant. The important thing is having a child being born into and growing up in a stable household with both parents. And here is Exhibit A for why fixing social problems in the US is so hard: complete denial that they even exist and a refusal to judge people (which is why I alluded to moral relativism earlier). And that's exactly the point - in a country where we tout the ideals of freedom so much, it's incredibly hypocritical for you to judge what you think is a social problem and then try to get rid of that via government action. I'm as judgmental as the next guy when it comes to certain things - stuff like Jersey Shore is absolute trash and embarrasing to our culture. That said, does the government (and this includes state governments, not just the federal government) have any place whatsoever in making any actions to discourage that kind of behavior? No. The government's job is not to arbitrarily decide what our culture is going to be and then make policies to that end. The government's job is to protect our rights/self/property. You're so blindly prejudiced that you're omitting significant chunks of what I have been saying in this thread. I have said repeatedly that the federal government can't be used to fix these problems. I have said repeatedly that all Santorum is doing is starting a discussion to draw attention to these problems. Look, if you're going to respond to my posts, at least take the time to understand what I am saying. Between this and your constant allusions to healthcare, it's clear that you currently don't really understand what the issues are. I know exactly what the issues are - you just refuse to acknowledge them because to do so would be to acknowledge that you've been strawmanning the issue for the last couple pages. You have yet to address this problem - Santorum thinks it's ok to allow states to rule on an issue like this. I don't know why, but Republicans have this delusional idea that if a state rules on it, it's automatically OK, but if it's the federal government that does it, it's automatically bad. The problem is, to the individual, the state government is just as bad as the federal government. If the state government bans homosexual marriage, it's still taking away a right. This is the massive problem. Sure, he might not lead the federal government to do it, but he would appoint judges/other officials that would apply their own personal moral judgments to rulings/policies and he would let states roam free to make laws like this. Alright, whatever. If you're going to keep bringing up stuff that is not germane to what I'm talking about, then don't expect a response.
I don't know how you haven't understood this yet, but several of us here are arguing with you because Santorum's line of discussion which talks about "social issues that need to be dealt with" is a line of discussion in which he is permitting the federal and/or state government to infringe upon the freedoms of the people and is also infringing on a territory where the government quite frankly has no authority in legislating - that of what our culture is.
|
nvm. I don't want to argue about this. Have fun yo.
|
On February 18 2012 04:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 04:27 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 04:24 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 04:17 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 04:12 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 04:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 03:35 Mohdoo wrote:So do you think its just him trying to pander to extremists? On one hand, he goes on a big rant out contraception is a bad thing and that government doesn't talk about it enough. On the other hand, he votes to fund it. How does someone rationalize that? ?_? I already explained what Santorum is doing. He's starting a conversation about the underlying social problems in this country. Again, I don't speak for Santorum, but I'm guessing that if you asked him, if he would say that there isn't anything wrong with contraception. The problem are the unintentional consequences of its use and availability -- namely how it has enabled this culture of immoral behavior that contributes to problems like high divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, the spread of STD's, etc. It takes guts to even start this conversation in today's culture because we're living in an age of the cultural laissez-faire. All of the traditional anchors that held people to moral behavior (RELIGION) have been blown apart and denigrated by liberals and progressives. So now we're living in a Jersey Shore/Teen Mom culture where no one is accountable to behave themselves and be productive members of society. As a result, we have this swelling class of people that is dependent upon the federal government for survival. I can't even begin to explain how important of a change this is to our country, which was founded on the principal that people would be accountable to themselves (see my "republican virtue" discussion from above). You have absolutely zero basis for saying that the use and availability of contraceptives has contributed to higher divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and spreading STD's. Furthermore, you are in no position to determine what is "immoral". High divorce rates can be a good thing - It's not like in the past, the vast majority of married couples were two people that were actually right for each other. The high divorce rates could simply mean we've removed a cultural taboo on divorce, meaning people can take the better path for their mental (and sometimes physical) health - that of divorce. Furthermore, out-of-wedlock births is completely and 100% irrelevant. The important thing is having a child being born into and growing up in a stable household with both parents. And here is Exhibit A for why fixing social problems in the US is so hard: complete denial that they even exist and a refusal to judge people (which is why I alluded to moral relativism earlier). And that's exactly the point - in a country where we tout the ideals of freedom so much, it's incredibly hypocritical for you to judge what you think is a social problem and then try to get rid of that via government action. I'm as judgmental as the next guy when it comes to certain things - stuff like Jersey Shore is absolute trash and embarrasing to our culture. That said, does the government (and this includes state governments, not just the federal government) have any place whatsoever in making any actions to discourage that kind of behavior? No. The government's job is not to arbitrarily decide what our culture is going to be and then make policies to that end. The government's job is to protect our rights/self/property. You're so blindly prejudiced that you're omitting significant chunks of what I have been saying in this thread. I have said repeatedly that the federal government can't be used to fix these problems. I have said repeatedly that all Santorum is doing is starting a discussion to draw attention to these problems. Look, if you're going to respond to my posts, at least take the time to understand what I am saying. Between this and your constant allusions to healthcare, it's clear that you currently don't really understand what the issues are. I know exactly what the issues are - you just refuse to acknowledge them because to do so would be to acknowledge that you've been strawmanning the issue for the last couple pages. You have yet to address this problem - Santorum thinks it's ok to allow states to rule on an issue like this. I don't know why, but Republicans have this delusional idea that if a state rules on it, it's automatically OK, but if it's the federal government that does it, it's automatically bad. The problem is, to the individual, the state government is just as bad as the federal government. If the state government bans homosexual marriage, it's still taking away a right. This is the massive problem. Sure, he might not lead the federal government to do it, but he would appoint judges/other officials that would apply their own personal moral judgments to rulings/policies and he would let states roam free to make laws like this. Alright, whatever. If you're going to keep bringing up stuff that is not germane to what I'm talking about, then don't expect a response. I don't know how you haven't understood this yet, but several of us here are arguing with you because Santorum's line of discussion which talks about "social issues that need to be dealt with" is a line of discussion in which he is permitting the federal and/or state government to infringe upon the freedoms of the people and is also infringing on a territory where the government quite frankly has no authority in legislating - that of what our culture is.
Not to mention his entire line of reasoning for doing so is that it's written in a 2000 year old fairy tale that often contradicts itself anyways.
|
On February 18 2012 04:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 04:20 Tor wrote:On February 18 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 04:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 03:35 Mohdoo wrote:So do you think its just him trying to pander to extremists? On one hand, he goes on a big rant out contraception is a bad thing and that government doesn't talk about it enough. On the other hand, he votes to fund it. How does someone rationalize that? ?_? I already explained what Santorum is doing. He's starting a conversation about the underlying social problems in this country. Again, I don't speak for Santorum, but I'm guessing that if you asked him, if he would say that there isn't anything wrong with contraception. The problem are the unintentional consequences of its use and availability -- namely how it has enabled this culture of immoral behavior that contributes to problems like high divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, the spread of STD's, etc. It takes guts to even start this conversation in today's culture because we're living in an age of the cultural laissez-faire. All of the traditional anchors that held people to moral behavior (RELIGION) have been blown apart and denigrated by liberals and progressives. So now we're living in a Jersey Shore/Teen Mom culture where no one is accountable to behave themselves and be productive members of society. As a result, we have this swelling class of people that is dependent upon the federal government for survival. I can't even begin to explain how important of a change this is to our country, which was founded on the principal that people would be accountable to themselves (see my "republican virtue" discussion from above). You have absolutely zero basis for saying that the use and availability of contraceptives has contributed to higher divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and spreading STD's. Furthermore, you are in no position to determine what is "immoral". High divorce rates can be a good thing - It's not like in the past, the vast majority of married couples were two people that were actually right for each other. The high divorce rates could simply mean we've removed a cultural taboo on divorce, meaning people can take the better path for their mental (and sometimes physical) health - that of divorce. Furthermore, out-of-wedlock births is completely and 100% irrelevant. The important thing is having a child being born into and growing up in a stable household with both parents. And here is Exhibit A for why fixing social problems in the US is so hard: complete denial that they even exist and a refusal to judge people (which is why I alluded to moral relativism earlier). There is a field called sociology which studies these issues, they are not treated lightly. It is not complete denial, just because you believe that divorce is bad for society does not mean it is bad for society. It appears you are the one in complete denial, and your willingness to judge people without any support for your argument could actually be harmful to society. I haven't said nor mean to imply that there is an absolute correlation between divorce rates and "societal health," however defined, nor do I mean to say that divorce and out-of-wedlock births are always a bad thing. That said, on the whole, they are still decent indicators of societal problems. Think about it this way, it is a good thing that the African American population has incredibly high incidences of divorce and out-of-wedlock births, particularly when you consider their overall social-economic status?
Maybe if they had a lot better Internet they would stop @#$%ing. We need more nerds over there. Occupy Africa.
|
On February 18 2012 04:35 ReturnStroke wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 04:25 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 04:20 Tor wrote:On February 18 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 04:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 03:35 Mohdoo wrote:So do you think its just him trying to pander to extremists? On one hand, he goes on a big rant out contraception is a bad thing and that government doesn't talk about it enough. On the other hand, he votes to fund it. How does someone rationalize that? ?_? I already explained what Santorum is doing. He's starting a conversation about the underlying social problems in this country. Again, I don't speak for Santorum, but I'm guessing that if you asked him, if he would say that there isn't anything wrong with contraception. The problem are the unintentional consequences of its use and availability -- namely how it has enabled this culture of immoral behavior that contributes to problems like high divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, the spread of STD's, etc. It takes guts to even start this conversation in today's culture because we're living in an age of the cultural laissez-faire. All of the traditional anchors that held people to moral behavior (RELIGION) have been blown apart and denigrated by liberals and progressives. So now we're living in a Jersey Shore/Teen Mom culture where no one is accountable to behave themselves and be productive members of society. As a result, we have this swelling class of people that is dependent upon the federal government for survival. I can't even begin to explain how important of a change this is to our country, which was founded on the principal that people would be accountable to themselves (see my "republican virtue" discussion from above). You have absolutely zero basis for saying that the use and availability of contraceptives has contributed to higher divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and spreading STD's. Furthermore, you are in no position to determine what is "immoral". High divorce rates can be a good thing - It's not like in the past, the vast majority of married couples were two people that were actually right for each other. The high divorce rates could simply mean we've removed a cultural taboo on divorce, meaning people can take the better path for their mental (and sometimes physical) health - that of divorce. Furthermore, out-of-wedlock births is completely and 100% irrelevant. The important thing is having a child being born into and growing up in a stable household with both parents. And here is Exhibit A for why fixing social problems in the US is so hard: complete denial that they even exist and a refusal to judge people (which is why I alluded to moral relativism earlier). There is a field called sociology which studies these issues, they are not treated lightly. It is not complete denial, just because you believe that divorce is bad for society does not mean it is bad for society. It appears you are the one in complete denial, and your willingness to judge people without any support for your argument could actually be harmful to society. I haven't said nor mean to imply that there is an absolute correlation between divorce rates and "societal health," however defined, nor do I mean to say that divorce and out-of-wedlock births are always a bad thing. That said, on the whole, they are still decent indicators of societal problems. Think about it this way, it is a good thing that the African American population has incredibly high incidences of divorce and out-of-wedlock births, particularly when you consider their overall social-economic status? Maybe if they had a lot better Internet they would stop @#$%ing. We need more nerds over there. Occupy Africa.
No no no, Black Americans, not Africans.
|
On February 18 2012 04:30 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 04:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 03:35 Mohdoo wrote:So do you think its just him trying to pander to extremists? On one hand, he goes on a big rant out contraception is a bad thing and that government doesn't talk about it enough. On the other hand, he votes to fund it. How does someone rationalize that? ?_? I already explained what Santorum is doing. He's starting a conversation about the underlying social problems in this country. Again, I don't speak for Santorum, but I'm guessing that if you asked him, if he would say that there isn't anything wrong with contraception. The problem are the unintentional consequences of its use and availability -- namely how it has enabled this culture of immoral behavior that contributes to problems like high divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, the spread of STD's, etc. It takes guts to even start this conversation in today's culture because we're living in an age of the cultural laissez-faire. All of the traditional anchors that held people to moral behavior (RELIGION) have been blown apart and denigrated by liberals and progressives. So now we're living in a Jersey Shore/Teen Mom culture where no one is accountable to behave themselves and be productive members of society. As a result, we have this swelling class of people that is dependent upon the federal government for survival. I can't even begin to explain how important of a change this is to our country, which was founded on the principal that people would be accountable to themselves (see my "republican virtue" discussion from above). You have absolutely zero basis for saying that the use and availability of contraceptives has contributed to higher divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and spreading STD's. Furthermore, you are in no position to determine what is "immoral". High divorce rates can be a good thing - It's not like in the past, the vast majority of married couples were two people that were actually right for each other. The high divorce rates could simply mean we've removed a cultural taboo on divorce, meaning people can take the better path for their mental (and sometimes physical) health - that of divorce. Furthermore, out-of-wedlock births is completely and 100% irrelevant. The important thing is having a child being born into and growing up in a stable household with both parents. And here is Exhibit A for why fixing social problems in the US is so hard: complete denial that they even exist and a refusal to judge people (which is why I alluded to moral relativism earlier). No, see I have no problem judging people. I'm being pretty judgmental right now. I'm willing to judge people who thinks this kind of stuff is their business. That's not moral relativism at all. My basis for morality is human well-being, not arbitrary ancient law or superstition. Human well-being is objective. But yea, I do completely deny these issues are incredibly important and religion would only make the issue worse (or hide it by restricting gender freedoms). I'm perfectly willing to talk about the issues though as are many people in this thread that have defended divorce and out-of-wedlock births. We're not afraid to talk about it or anything. If anything I have yet to hear you give good reasons why divorce is bad and such and such.
I'm not saying that the "freedom to divorce" is bad, thus arguing that people should not be allowed to divorce. What I am acknowledging is that the act of divorce is rarely good thing and ALWAYS comes in bad circumstances. That's why people divorce in the first place. Even in the best of circumstances, divorces is always attended by severe emotional and economic pain. Thus, if divorce rates are high, that's not a good thing.
|
Yeah definatelly, better not to get married at all.
|
On February 18 2012 04:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 04:20 Tor wrote:On February 18 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 04:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 03:35 Mohdoo wrote:So do you think its just him trying to pander to extremists? On one hand, he goes on a big rant out contraception is a bad thing and that government doesn't talk about it enough. On the other hand, he votes to fund it. How does someone rationalize that? ?_? I already explained what Santorum is doing. He's starting a conversation about the underlying social problems in this country. Again, I don't speak for Santorum, but I'm guessing that if you asked him, if he would say that there isn't anything wrong with contraception. The problem are the unintentional consequences of its use and availability -- namely how it has enabled this culture of immoral behavior that contributes to problems like high divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, the spread of STD's, etc. It takes guts to even start this conversation in today's culture because we're living in an age of the cultural laissez-faire. All of the traditional anchors that held people to moral behavior (RELIGION) have been blown apart and denigrated by liberals and progressives. So now we're living in a Jersey Shore/Teen Mom culture where no one is accountable to behave themselves and be productive members of society. As a result, we have this swelling class of people that is dependent upon the federal government for survival. I can't even begin to explain how important of a change this is to our country, which was founded on the principal that people would be accountable to themselves (see my "republican virtue" discussion from above). You have absolutely zero basis for saying that the use and availability of contraceptives has contributed to higher divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and spreading STD's. Furthermore, you are in no position to determine what is "immoral". High divorce rates can be a good thing - It's not like in the past, the vast majority of married couples were two people that were actually right for each other. The high divorce rates could simply mean we've removed a cultural taboo on divorce, meaning people can take the better path for their mental (and sometimes physical) health - that of divorce. Furthermore, out-of-wedlock births is completely and 100% irrelevant. The important thing is having a child being born into and growing up in a stable household with both parents. And here is Exhibit A for why fixing social problems in the US is so hard: complete denial that they even exist and a refusal to judge people (which is why I alluded to moral relativism earlier). There is a field called sociology which studies these issues, they are not treated lightly. It is not complete denial, just because you believe that divorce is bad for society does not mean it is bad for society. It appears you are the one in complete denial, and your willingness to judge people without any support for your argument could actually be harmful to society. I haven't said nor mean to imply that there is an absolute correlation between divorce rates and "societal health," however defined, nor do I mean to say that divorce and out-of-wedlock births are always a bad thing. That said, on the whole, they are still decent indicators of societal problems. Think about it this way, it is a good thing that the African American population has incredibly high incidences of divorce and out-of-wedlock births, particularly when you consider their overall social-economic status?
Are you saying more divorce and out of wedlock births lead to poverty, and the reason african americans have higher rates of poverty is because of their moral decay? I don't think you're qualified to make these correlations, i'd leave that to the sociologists. I guess as an indicator, you mean, where you find high divorce rates you'll find high poverty. But without doing any investigation, this would suggest that poverty is as likely the cause of divorce as divorce is the cause of poverty.
Seriously though, you have no idea what you're talking about. You are making up your own hypothesis for social issues, and then assuming they are correct without doing any research, this is opposite of what one should do in a discussion. Basic research suggests poverty and divorce is linked, however, based on research it would appear poverty causes divorce, not the other way around.
"When two-parent families fall into poverty, that significantly increases the chances that the family will break up
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/15/us/poverty-termed-a-divorce-factor.html
Sure, there are societal problems, but to approach them from a biased perspective (such as one based on religion or your perception of morality), will only help to blind society from the answers to these problems or even the questions that need to be asked.
And finally, yes, when someone sees something like increased divorce rates, this indicates something. However, unless you are an expert on the subject and have done some research, then you cannot know for sure what that indicates. For all we know, high divorce rates could be caused by ice cream.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
|
On February 18 2012 04:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 04:30 DoubleReed wrote:On February 18 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 04:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 03:35 Mohdoo wrote:So do you think its just him trying to pander to extremists? On one hand, he goes on a big rant out contraception is a bad thing and that government doesn't talk about it enough. On the other hand, he votes to fund it. How does someone rationalize that? ?_? I already explained what Santorum is doing. He's starting a conversation about the underlying social problems in this country. Again, I don't speak for Santorum, but I'm guessing that if you asked him, if he would say that there isn't anything wrong with contraception. The problem are the unintentional consequences of its use and availability -- namely how it has enabled this culture of immoral behavior that contributes to problems like high divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, the spread of STD's, etc. It takes guts to even start this conversation in today's culture because we're living in an age of the cultural laissez-faire. All of the traditional anchors that held people to moral behavior (RELIGION) have been blown apart and denigrated by liberals and progressives. So now we're living in a Jersey Shore/Teen Mom culture where no one is accountable to behave themselves and be productive members of society. As a result, we have this swelling class of people that is dependent upon the federal government for survival. I can't even begin to explain how important of a change this is to our country, which was founded on the principal that people would be accountable to themselves (see my "republican virtue" discussion from above). You have absolutely zero basis for saying that the use and availability of contraceptives has contributed to higher divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and spreading STD's. Furthermore, you are in no position to determine what is "immoral". High divorce rates can be a good thing - It's not like in the past, the vast majority of married couples were two people that were actually right for each other. The high divorce rates could simply mean we've removed a cultural taboo on divorce, meaning people can take the better path for their mental (and sometimes physical) health - that of divorce. Furthermore, out-of-wedlock births is completely and 100% irrelevant. The important thing is having a child being born into and growing up in a stable household with both parents. And here is Exhibit A for why fixing social problems in the US is so hard: complete denial that they even exist and a refusal to judge people (which is why I alluded to moral relativism earlier). No, see I have no problem judging people. I'm being pretty judgmental right now. I'm willing to judge people who thinks this kind of stuff is their business. That's not moral relativism at all. My basis for morality is human well-being, not arbitrary ancient law or superstition. Human well-being is objective. But yea, I do completely deny these issues are incredibly important and religion would only make the issue worse (or hide it by restricting gender freedoms). I'm perfectly willing to talk about the issues though as are many people in this thread that have defended divorce and out-of-wedlock births. We're not afraid to talk about it or anything. If anything I have yet to hear you give good reasons why divorce is bad and such and such. I'm not saying that the "freedom to divorce" is bad, thus arguing that people should not be allowed to divorce. What I am acknowledging is that the act of divorce is rarely good thing and ALWAYS comes in bad circumstances. That's why people divorce in the first place. Even in the best of circumstances, divorces is always attended by severe emotional and economic pain. Thus, if divorce rates are high, that's not a good thing.
I'm talking about divorce itself so were talking about the same thing.
I see divorce as people splitting when they aren't right for each other or other pressures. So I guess we can talk about those other pressures, but I'm pretty sure those are almost exclusively sex and money. The libertine sex thing that Santorum is bitching about is exactly what we need to deal with our blatant insecurities about sex. Running from sex, telling people how immoral they are does nothing to help. Repression does help us be honest about our sexuality. As far as money, that gets into all this economics stuff.
So there, that would be a reasonable way to start a conversation about high divorce rates. Not this bullshit moral scare crap.
|
On February 18 2012 04:53 Tor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 04:25 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 04:20 Tor wrote:On February 18 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 04:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 03:35 Mohdoo wrote:So do you think its just him trying to pander to extremists? On one hand, he goes on a big rant out contraception is a bad thing and that government doesn't talk about it enough. On the other hand, he votes to fund it. How does someone rationalize that? ?_? I already explained what Santorum is doing. He's starting a conversation about the underlying social problems in this country. Again, I don't speak for Santorum, but I'm guessing that if you asked him, if he would say that there isn't anything wrong with contraception. The problem are the unintentional consequences of its use and availability -- namely how it has enabled this culture of immoral behavior that contributes to problems like high divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, the spread of STD's, etc. It takes guts to even start this conversation in today's culture because we're living in an age of the cultural laissez-faire. All of the traditional anchors that held people to moral behavior (RELIGION) have been blown apart and denigrated by liberals and progressives. So now we're living in a Jersey Shore/Teen Mom culture where no one is accountable to behave themselves and be productive members of society. As a result, we have this swelling class of people that is dependent upon the federal government for survival. I can't even begin to explain how important of a change this is to our country, which was founded on the principal that people would be accountable to themselves (see my "republican virtue" discussion from above). You have absolutely zero basis for saying that the use and availability of contraceptives has contributed to higher divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and spreading STD's. Furthermore, you are in no position to determine what is "immoral". High divorce rates can be a good thing - It's not like in the past, the vast majority of married couples were two people that were actually right for each other. The high divorce rates could simply mean we've removed a cultural taboo on divorce, meaning people can take the better path for their mental (and sometimes physical) health - that of divorce. Furthermore, out-of-wedlock births is completely and 100% irrelevant. The important thing is having a child being born into and growing up in a stable household with both parents. And here is Exhibit A for why fixing social problems in the US is so hard: complete denial that they even exist and a refusal to judge people (which is why I alluded to moral relativism earlier). There is a field called sociology which studies these issues, they are not treated lightly. It is not complete denial, just because you believe that divorce is bad for society does not mean it is bad for society. It appears you are the one in complete denial, and your willingness to judge people without any support for your argument could actually be harmful to society. I haven't said nor mean to imply that there is an absolute correlation between divorce rates and "societal health," however defined, nor do I mean to say that divorce and out-of-wedlock births are always a bad thing. That said, on the whole, they are still decent indicators of societal problems. Think about it this way, it is a good thing that the African American population has incredibly high incidences of divorce and out-of-wedlock births, particularly when you consider their overall social-economic status? Are you saying more divorce and out of wedlock births lead to poverty, and the reason african americans have higher rates of poverty is because of their moral decay? I don't think you're qualified to make these correlations, i'd leave that to the sociologists. I guess as an indicator, you mean, where you find high divorce rates you'll find high poverty. But without doing any investigation, this would suggest that poverty is as likely the cause of divorce as divorce is the cause of poverty. Seriously though, you have no idea what you're talking about. You are making up your own hypothesis for social issues, and then assuming they are correct without doing any research, this is opposite of what one should do in a discussion. Basic research suggests poverty and divorce is linked, however, based on research it would appear poverty causes divorce, not the other way around. "When two-parent families fall into poverty, that significantly increases the chances that the family will break up http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/15/us/poverty-termed-a-divorce-factor.htmlSure, there are societal problems, but to approach them from a biased perspective (such as one based on religion or your perception of morality), will only help to blind society from the answers to these problems or even the questions that need to be asked. And finally, yes, when someone sees something like increased divorce rates, this indicates something. However, unless you are an expert on the subject and have done some research, then you cannot know for sure what that indicates. For all we know, high divorce rates could be caused by ice cream. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
I'm not making conclusions about causation one way or another. I'm just pointing out the fairly indisputable conclusion that a high divorce rate in a population is an indication that there problems in the population.
You guys need some lessons in reading comprehension. You're reading far more into what I am saying than you should.
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 18 2012 04:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 04:06 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 03:58 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 03:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 01:31 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 00:52 DoubleReed wrote:On February 18 2012 00:09 xDaunt wrote:On February 17 2012 21:55 DoubleReed wrote:
Honestly xDaunt, it sounds like you disagree with Santorum just like the rest of us. He's said that he wants to make this part of his public policy, so just because he doesn't have the power to ban it should still worry you considering this is apparently what he really cares about.
I do not understand why teaching abstinence teaches virtues or morals in any way. I'm still not understanding that point. It doesn't worry me because, as I said above, Santorum has not said he would advocate legislation banning contraceptives, and he doesn't have that power anyway. All he is doing is starting a conversation about some of the fundamental problems in our society today, which I think is a good thing. What offends me is how Santorum's views are being spun by liberals and the media. It's dishonest fear-mongering. Well it is justified fear mongering that someone who is running for president of the united states is decrying the immorality of contraception. I don't want someone like that to be president and I don't think a lot of women do either. Again, what exactly is his issue with it? It seems to come back to his religious beliefs. And I don't want theology getting involved with our government like that. For instance, he doesn't want gays to be legally married for exactly these reasons. There's plenty to be fearful of. Santorum could do plenty of damage to our society with his social views. See, this is the kind of thing that I don't understand. The country has real problems right now -- problems with a capital P. Regardless of where you fall on the birth control issue, federal funding (or lack thereof) is not one of those big problems. Yet, people blow issues like this one up way out of proportion and base their electoral issues on where candidates fall on these relativity minor issues. So instead of focusing on real issues like looming fiscal disaster and seemingly imminent war in and around Iran, the country is talking about contraception right now. How stupid are we? It's because social freedoms are NOT a minor issue to many in this country. Consistently ignoring "minor" social issues is what ends you up in a police state or a theocracy that takes away rights based on arbitrary religious beliefs. Yeah, except no one's talking about taking away social freedoms. The conversation, to the extent that it exists, revolves around who has to pay for the exercise of those freedoms. Again, you're failing to see that coverage of contraceptives is seen not only as necessary for women's equality under medical care, but also as a general right that people get as part of their universal right to healthcare (a belief that I don't think it's a stretch to say that the majority of the developed western world believes in). I've already mentioned this idea and you failed to address it. No, you're just incapable of acknowledging the difference between a Constitutional right and the personal policy preference of having someone pay for someone else's exercise of that right. I already discussed this thoroughly and don't feel like retreading the ground.
Just because a right isn't in the constitution doesn't mean it isn't a right, nor does it mean it shouldn't be a right. The overwhelming majority of the nations in the developed western world believe in a right to health care. It SHOULD be a right, people should have the right to help when they get sick.
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 18 2012 04:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 04:53 Tor wrote:On February 18 2012 04:25 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 04:20 Tor wrote:On February 18 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 04:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 03:35 Mohdoo wrote:So do you think its just him trying to pander to extremists? On one hand, he goes on a big rant out contraception is a bad thing and that government doesn't talk about it enough. On the other hand, he votes to fund it. How does someone rationalize that? ?_? I already explained what Santorum is doing. He's starting a conversation about the underlying social problems in this country. Again, I don't speak for Santorum, but I'm guessing that if you asked him, if he would say that there isn't anything wrong with contraception. The problem are the unintentional consequences of its use and availability -- namely how it has enabled this culture of immoral behavior that contributes to problems like high divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, the spread of STD's, etc. It takes guts to even start this conversation in today's culture because we're living in an age of the cultural laissez-faire. All of the traditional anchors that held people to moral behavior (RELIGION) have been blown apart and denigrated by liberals and progressives. So now we're living in a Jersey Shore/Teen Mom culture where no one is accountable to behave themselves and be productive members of society. As a result, we have this swelling class of people that is dependent upon the federal government for survival. I can't even begin to explain how important of a change this is to our country, which was founded on the principal that people would be accountable to themselves (see my "republican virtue" discussion from above). You have absolutely zero basis for saying that the use and availability of contraceptives has contributed to higher divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and spreading STD's. Furthermore, you are in no position to determine what is "immoral". High divorce rates can be a good thing - It's not like in the past, the vast majority of married couples were two people that were actually right for each other. The high divorce rates could simply mean we've removed a cultural taboo on divorce, meaning people can take the better path for their mental (and sometimes physical) health - that of divorce. Furthermore, out-of-wedlock births is completely and 100% irrelevant. The important thing is having a child being born into and growing up in a stable household with both parents. And here is Exhibit A for why fixing social problems in the US is so hard: complete denial that they even exist and a refusal to judge people (which is why I alluded to moral relativism earlier). There is a field called sociology which studies these issues, they are not treated lightly. It is not complete denial, just because you believe that divorce is bad for society does not mean it is bad for society. It appears you are the one in complete denial, and your willingness to judge people without any support for your argument could actually be harmful to society. I haven't said nor mean to imply that there is an absolute correlation between divorce rates and "societal health," however defined, nor do I mean to say that divorce and out-of-wedlock births are always a bad thing. That said, on the whole, they are still decent indicators of societal problems. Think about it this way, it is a good thing that the African American population has incredibly high incidences of divorce and out-of-wedlock births, particularly when you consider their overall social-economic status? Are you saying more divorce and out of wedlock births lead to poverty, and the reason african americans have higher rates of poverty is because of their moral decay? I don't think you're qualified to make these correlations, i'd leave that to the sociologists. I guess as an indicator, you mean, where you find high divorce rates you'll find high poverty. But without doing any investigation, this would suggest that poverty is as likely the cause of divorce as divorce is the cause of poverty. Seriously though, you have no idea what you're talking about. You are making up your own hypothesis for social issues, and then assuming they are correct without doing any research, this is opposite of what one should do in a discussion. Basic research suggests poverty and divorce is linked, however, based on research it would appear poverty causes divorce, not the other way around. "When two-parent families fall into poverty, that significantly increases the chances that the family will break up http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/15/us/poverty-termed-a-divorce-factor.htmlSure, there are societal problems, but to approach them from a biased perspective (such as one based on religion or your perception of morality), will only help to blind society from the answers to these problems or even the questions that need to be asked. And finally, yes, when someone sees something like increased divorce rates, this indicates something. However, unless you are an expert on the subject and have done some research, then you cannot know for sure what that indicates. For all we know, high divorce rates could be caused by ice cream. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation I'm not making conclusions about causation one way or another. I'm just pointing out the fairly indisputable conclusion that a high divorce rate in a population is an indication that there problems in the population. You guys need some lessons in reading comprehension. You're reading far more into what I am saying than you should.
That's not indisputable. What is divorce exactly? It's simply the members of a marriage deciding that the marriage should not be continued. This can mean many different things, ranging from a mistake to marry in the first place to people changing. That's not necessarily a bad thing. One could easily make the argument that the only reason divorce rates were low in the past was the social stigma of divorce: people who wanted one were scared to get one. What problems, exactly, would a high divorce rate indicate? (Consider that divorce rates have been falling over the past few decades). And no, divorce is not always accompanied with high economic pains, I've seen couples divorce relatively painlessly with an easy settlement and no hard feelings, and no court battles over it either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
