EPT(cmon give me more credit than that)
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 307
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
(cmon give me more credit than that) | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
Which is why war is a terrible thing. Also why we spend billions of dollars are precision weapons instead of justs spending a teeny bit on cheap big ole fat bombs like the Daisy Cutter | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On August 18 2012 12:45 sam!zdat wrote: It is a sufficient but not necessary condition. (cmon give me more credit than that) I would say that being: 1. Alive AND 2. Human is a sufficient condition.. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8004 Posts
could a fetus survive on its own without being inside a mother? if not, i don't know how you could really talk about it being a human or whatever. @savio | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On August 18 2012 12:48 darthfoley wrote: could a fetus survive on its own without being inside a mother? if not, i don't know how you could really talk about it being a human or whatever. @savio I feel bad for people on ventilators in the ICU... Or for those on dialysis. Again: Are they alive? Are they human? Those are the 2 questions to ask. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On August 18 2012 12:46 Savio wrote: Which is why war is a terrible thing. Also why we spend billions of dollars are precision weapons instead of justs spending a teeny bit on cheap big ole fat bombs like the Daisy Cutter War is war, high tech or not. | ||
|
Velocirapture
United States983 Posts
On August 18 2012 12:37 Savio wrote: Actually the state has gone further and has gotten involved already and said that States CANNOT outlaw abortion even if there is a clear consensus within that state. Roe v Wade. Really the issue is one of legislative principles in my view. From a scientific perspective the pro choice argument always wins. The more conservatives try to give rights afforded to humans to things that are clearly not (embryos, stem cells, blastocysts, even sex cells in extreme cases and the list goes on) the less likely it is they will have any chance of changing anything. As a pro-choice advocate I can think of one somewhat compelling argument for pro-life and it is based on a legislative principle of avoiding ambiguity. Because the exact conversion point from a clump of cells to human being is so vague, even if it is known to be well after conception, it can be argued that we should stay as far away from the line as possible. Another example of this logic is torture. Many people were outraged when Bush asked his lawyers to define the exact line of where interrogation becomes torture because the line is so vague. By the previous principle we should stay as far away from the line as possible (things that are clearly not torture). In the end it becomes a battle between legislating towards reality (pro-choice) or legislating towards an ideal (pro life) which is actually a very common divide between liberals and conservatives. Just look at the drug war and immigration. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On August 18 2012 12:47 Savio wrote: I would say that being: 1. Alive AND 2. Human is a sufficient condition.. (So first I want to say that while I think this philosophical conversation is interesting, my political claim is not that "fetuses are not persons" - although I do believe this - but is "it remains an open question about the personhood of fetuses and therefore the state should leave it up to individuals." So don't construe my willingness to engage in the philosophical debate as an indication that I think my position here is relevant to the political position, because it isn't. Also I think there are many other reasons not to have an abortion that don't have anything to do with the ethical question of personhood; that is, I believe that having an abortion is something to be avoided but is not unethical. Anyway) If you believe that 1 + 2 is a sufficient condition, then you think a living human who has only a brainstem remaining is a person? I don't. What about a blob of human stem cells? Not a person. | ||
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
| ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
Some countries try to minimize collateral damage. Some do not. That is the point. EDIT: Also, its nice to see you write something and contribute directly to the discussion. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
On August 18 2012 12:57 Savio wrote: Some countries try to minimize collateral damage. Some do not. That is the point. EDIT: Also, its nice to see you write something and contribute directly to the discussion. Psh. He's the one that keeps it on track when everyone else goes off on abortion tangents for instance. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On August 18 2012 13:02 Falling wrote: Psh. He's the one that keeps it on track when everyone else goes off on abortion tangents for instance. There is a good point here and that is: This abortion discussion was interesting but really has probably run its course in an election thread. We should get back to the horse race. Fact: Romney seems to be having a good week in the polls. He is up in many of the polls, as well as the model forecast as well as in the prediction market Even if it is just a temporary bump, I think it is worrisome for Obama that he had not knocked Romney down further. Also Pennsylvania in particular looks like it might become competitive. That is bad news for Obama as he is likely not going to have as much $$$ as Romney in October and Pennsylvania will be expensive | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On August 18 2012 11:17 dvorakftw wrote: And the only solution liberals have is to fix it by taking away money from rich people. And when that doesn't work (and it never does) the reason is because they didn't take enough money away from rich people. Isn't this fun? Oh no, I think you misunderstand me. I wasn't talking about economics. I was talking about social issues, economics, politics, foreign policy, and personal ideas. Blaming the Victim and Deterrents is their solution to everything. Taking money from rich people is something liberals do only in one situation, really. And let's face it, taking money from rich people does sometimes work. Just not always. Like deterrents. Think about it, honestly. The conservative right is the one blaming rape victims, coming up with weird shaming abortion laws, capital punishment, absurdly harsh criminal sentencing rules, anti-immigration policies, resisting domestic abuse laws, and warhawk-style interventionism. Obviously economically we have the anti-poor stuff. And even in their personal lives we see them being the ones that favor things like corporal punishment and harsher deterrent attitudes. I can't think of a single policy that's "conservative" that isn't Blaming the Victim or Deterrents. Can you? | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On August 18 2012 13:37 DoubleReed wrote: Think about it, honestly. The conservative right is the one blaming rape victims, coming up with weird shaming abortion laws, capital punishment, absurdly harsh criminal sentencing rules, anti-immigration policies, resisting domestic abuse laws, and warhawk-style interventionism. Obviously economically we have the anti-poor stuff. And even in their personal lives we see them being the ones that favor things like corporal punishment and harsher deterrent attitudes. I can't think of a single policy that's "conservative" that isn't Blaming the Victim or Deterrents. Can you? All-volunteer military. Boom. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
Is this a "conservative" position? Only crazies like me want to reinstate mandatory service, not democrats | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
I... what? I've never heard this stated as a conservative position. Hell, I've never heard this as a stated position. Huh? | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On August 18 2012 13:49 sam!zdat wrote: Is this a "conservative" position? Only crazies like me want to reinstate mandatory service, not democrats Actually, during the Bush administration they were a few Democratic legislators who did try to restore the draft, or at least increase the scope of the selective service. They were unsucessful of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_National_Service_Act On August 18 2012 13:52 DoubleReed wrote: I... what? I've never heard this stated as a conservative position. Hell, I've never heard this as a stated position. Huh? I think what he was inferring is that it was Republicans who removed the draft, but I could be wrong. On August 18 2012 14:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Yet every American male that is of age should have a Registration Acknowledgement Card. Indeed, but Carter made the selective service requirement mandatory eight years after the "draft" had officially been terminated. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On August 18 2012 14:08 1Eris1 wrote: Actually, during the Bush administration they were a few Democratic legislators who did try to restore the draft, or at least increase the scope of the selective service. They were unsucessful of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_National_Service_Act Yea, but everyone knows that was just bullshit to scare people that "omg the war is bad they're going to draft people" thing. It's not like the draft doesn't exist. It's just not instated at the moment. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On August 18 2012 13:49 sam!zdat wrote: Is this a "conservative" position? Only crazies like me want to reinstate mandatory service, not democrats Good question, there are many on the left that think the rich should sacrifice and serve their time just as much as the poor and unemployed. I can't decide myself, but can see the point. Last draft was under LBJ I believe, so maybe volunteer military is indeed more of a conservative platform. Would kind of make sense to me. One advantage of the draft is that it means the entire country becomes more invested in the often idiotic foreign policy of the country rather than creating disposable heroes and collateral damage. | ||
| ||
