|
|
On May 10 2012 16:36 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 16:01 Velocirapture wrote:
To the first paragraph, here you go again claiming I go on about absolutes. Never did I say that all issues are black and white. In fact I very specifically stated that they are not. In many cases it is very easy to fall on one side or the other of an issue. My assertion is that the way you should get to that point is not, "i believe in X so Y is bad", it should be a logical process that takes consideration of the facts. Exactly, it's an opinion, and what some people take as more important than others is different, which results in different end opinions. Just because somebody finds certain arguments more compelling doesn't necessarily make them irrational, it just makes them opinions. Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 16:01 Velocirapture wrote:
And again to the second paragraph, "promoting a child-bearing culture" is nowhere in the contract of marriage. None of the mandates or preconditions of marriage are related in any way to having biological children. I was under the impression that this is generally why marriage ever existed or evolved in the first place, and why it is part of basically every human society throughout history. There are a few that practice polygamy, but nearly all practice monogamy for this reason -- it's promotes stability for raising the next generation. It's not the only way, but it's been proven to be a good way. Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 16:01 Velocirapture wrote:
This is simply people imposing their unqualified belief systems. I guess what this whole conversation boils down to is me saying that we need to be as objective and rational as possible in our distribution of benefits and you saying we can deny them "just because". In the end I think my rationale wins thankfully. When I read this, I see "My opinion is better than your opinion." Sorry if you think it's deeper or more justified than that, but it's the same rationale people on the other side of the debate use. Or at least the same mindset.
This is a complete misrepresentation of my point. The whole idea has nothing to do with what your final result is. Derivation and process are the key. Some people have the opinion that evolution is false. I would like to see the logical and rational process by which they have challenged this opinion and concluded that it is correct. If you actually try, it is possible but requires one to assume a large number of extremely unlikely things. There is a similar situation with gay marriage. Going all the way back to the beginning, I asked for a naysayer to show me his process by which they satisfy the onus to prove that gay marriage is more harmful than straight marriage (with the assumption that marriage is a worthwhile institution and should thus be provided). Gay people have all of the logistics on their side. There is absolutely no part of the contract, as written, that can not be satisfied by two adult males or females. There has to be a rational logic by which we include or exclude parties from an institution that isnt based on raw emotion, suspicion, prejudice or fortune telling. The gays are dealing in real world scenarios, it is not too much to ask the same of the opposition.
|
On May 10 2012 17:01 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 16:51 SgtSlick wrote:
The fact America doesn't have free and universal health care and instead has this huge defense budget is a disgrace. Its because you vote in too many conservatives. Seriously you guys need to look to the future, a more green and socialist future. Im not saying A green and socialist, but more of one for sure! It's never "free". You just pay for it in different places. If you tax and provide it, the health care still costs money.
"The US system is often compared with that of its northern neighbor, Canada (see Canadian and American health care systems compared). Canada's system is largely publicly funded. In 2006, Americans spent an estimated US$6,714 per capita on health care, while Canadians spent US$3,678.[98] This amounted to 15.3% of US GDP in that year, while Canada spent 10.0% of GDP on health care. A study by Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Information determined that some 31% of US health care dollars, or more than $1,000 per person per year, went to health care administrative costs." "The over 1,300 U.S. health insurance companies have different forms and processes for billing and reimbursement, requiring enormous costs on the part of service providers (mainly doctors and hospitals) to process payments. For example, the Cleveland Clinic, considered a low-cost, best-practices hospital system, has 1,400 billing clerks to support 2,000 doctors."
Consider this & the fact that despite all these costs you don't even have health care for everyone.. so foolish lol
How on earth people can justify that social policy and welfare should be determined through a profit driven market system is laughable. That is why insurers don't pay out a lot of the time and charge you premiums for existing conditions and cap coverage - because they want $$$. They couldn't give a rats arse about the health of your society when it all comes down to it. That is why a health care system that is equal for everyone including the poor is the way to go, unless your getting millions from insurance lobbyists i guess lmao
|
On May 10 2012 16:57 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 16:37 Kiarip wrote:On May 10 2012 15:53 BluePanther wrote:Inaction != Action, I was just saying you can't say the two are the exact same when you analyze it. You're right when you say there's another step in there. But that step makes a huge difference in process, if not in substance. Forget it, it's just me being a lawyer, I think the real disagreement is below: On May 10 2012 15:40 Kiarip wrote:
You are either for state discrimination without reason, or against it. If you are against state discrimination but also against equal rights in a particular case you should provide a reason for it. There are reasons, you just disagree with them. That's called an opinion. And until the date where someone can prove that legally sanctioned gay marriage has nothing but positive affects in every human civilization that has ever existed, it will remain just that -- an opinion. What are they? The ones you listed are counter-productive... You're acting like these reasons aren't important.. They are, as far as I see there are no logical reasons in existence, if there are no reasons, that means that same sex marriage should be allowed, as not allowing it would be discrimination without a reason. Look, you're clearly just going to dismiss whatever I say. Others have given reasons, and you just bury your head in the sand and yell "LALALA I CANT HEAR YOU." It's an opinion. It doesn't matter if the reasons are productive or not. It's gray area, not black and white. There isn't an empirically correct answer. It's not science, and it cannot be simulated to a 100% accuracy. There are simply too many complicated factors and they cannot be accurately modeled. I'm done with this conversation.
So no logical reasons... Ok, I guess this is the end of the discussion, you're right, issue resolved.
|
On May 10 2012 17:21 Velocirapture wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 16:36 BluePanther wrote:On May 10 2012 16:01 Velocirapture wrote:
To the first paragraph, here you go again claiming I go on about absolutes. Never did I say that all issues are black and white. In fact I very specifically stated that they are not. In many cases it is very easy to fall on one side or the other of an issue. My assertion is that the way you should get to that point is not, "i believe in X so Y is bad", it should be a logical process that takes consideration of the facts. Exactly, it's an opinion, and what some people take as more important than others is different, which results in different end opinions. Just because somebody finds certain arguments more compelling doesn't necessarily make them irrational, it just makes them opinions. On May 10 2012 16:01 Velocirapture wrote:
And again to the second paragraph, "promoting a child-bearing culture" is nowhere in the contract of marriage. None of the mandates or preconditions of marriage are related in any way to having biological children. I was under the impression that this is generally why marriage ever existed or evolved in the first place, and why it is part of basically every human society throughout history. There are a few that practice polygamy, but nearly all practice monogamy for this reason -- it's promotes stability for raising the next generation. It's not the only way, but it's been proven to be a good way. On May 10 2012 16:01 Velocirapture wrote:
This is simply people imposing their unqualified belief systems. I guess what this whole conversation boils down to is me saying that we need to be as objective and rational as possible in our distribution of benefits and you saying we can deny them "just because". In the end I think my rationale wins thankfully. When I read this, I see "My opinion is better than your opinion." Sorry if you think it's deeper or more justified than that, but it's the same rationale people on the other side of the debate use. Or at least the same mindset. This is a complete misrepresentation of my point. The whole idea has nothing to do with what your final result is. Derivation and process are the key. Some people have the opinion that evolution is false. I would like to see the logical and rational process by which they have challenged this opinion and concluded that it is correct. If you actually try, it is possible but requires one to assume a large number of extremely unlikely things. There is a similar situation with gay marriage. Going all the way back to the beginning, I asked for a naysayer to show me his process by which they satisfy the onus to prove that gay marriage is more harmful than straight marriage (with the assumption that marriage is a worthwhile institution and should thus be provided). Gay people have all of the logistics on their side. There is absolutely no part of the contract, as written, that can not be satisfied by two adult males or females. There has to be a rational logic by which we include or exclude parties from an institution that isnt based on raw emotion, suspicion, prejudice or fortune telling. The gays are dealing in real world scenarios, it is not too much to ask the same of the opposition.
You are just holding one side to a standard that you don't hold the other side to.
|
I'm going to vote just incase my vote matters.
|
On May 10 2012 17:50 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 17:21 Velocirapture wrote:On May 10 2012 16:36 BluePanther wrote:On May 10 2012 16:01 Velocirapture wrote:
To the first paragraph, here you go again claiming I go on about absolutes. Never did I say that all issues are black and white. In fact I very specifically stated that they are not. In many cases it is very easy to fall on one side or the other of an issue. My assertion is that the way you should get to that point is not, "i believe in X so Y is bad", it should be a logical process that takes consideration of the facts. Exactly, it's an opinion, and what some people take as more important than others is different, which results in different end opinions. Just because somebody finds certain arguments more compelling doesn't necessarily make them irrational, it just makes them opinions. On May 10 2012 16:01 Velocirapture wrote:
And again to the second paragraph, "promoting a child-bearing culture" is nowhere in the contract of marriage. None of the mandates or preconditions of marriage are related in any way to having biological children. I was under the impression that this is generally why marriage ever existed or evolved in the first place, and why it is part of basically every human society throughout history. There are a few that practice polygamy, but nearly all practice monogamy for this reason -- it's promotes stability for raising the next generation. It's not the only way, but it's been proven to be a good way. On May 10 2012 16:01 Velocirapture wrote:
This is simply people imposing their unqualified belief systems. I guess what this whole conversation boils down to is me saying that we need to be as objective and rational as possible in our distribution of benefits and you saying we can deny them "just because". In the end I think my rationale wins thankfully. When I read this, I see "My opinion is better than your opinion." Sorry if you think it's deeper or more justified than that, but it's the same rationale people on the other side of the debate use. Or at least the same mindset. This is a complete misrepresentation of my point. The whole idea has nothing to do with what your final result is. Derivation and process are the key. Some people have the opinion that evolution is false. I would like to see the logical and rational process by which they have challenged this opinion and concluded that it is correct. If you actually try, it is possible but requires one to assume a large number of extremely unlikely things. There is a similar situation with gay marriage. Going all the way back to the beginning, I asked for a naysayer to show me his process by which they satisfy the onus to prove that gay marriage is more harmful than straight marriage (with the assumption that marriage is a worthwhile institution and should thus be provided). Gay people have all of the logistics on their side. There is absolutely no part of the contract, as written, that can not be satisfied by two adult males or females. There has to be a rational logic by which we include or exclude parties from an institution that isnt based on raw emotion, suspicion, prejudice or fortune telling. The gays are dealing in real world scenarios, it is not too much to ask the same of the opposition. You are just holding one side to a standard that you don't hold the other side to.
This is demonstrably untrue and irrelevant as shown through my earlier posts. And with such nonsense to finish off the evening I head to bed. I hope somebody benefited from our discourse.
|
Why would anyone vote for a republican asshole? Honestly? I know Obama doesen't do anything usefull now that hes president, I don't like him either but come on, you want some Christian anti-gay bible thumper to rule your country and at the same time be the mightiest person in the world?
...Wow.
User was warned for this post
|
On May 10 2012 20:06 Thylacine wrote:
Why would anyone vote for a republican asshole? Honestly? I know Obama doesen't do anything usefull now that hes president, I don't like him either but come on, you want some Christian anti-gay bible thumper to rule your country and at the same time be the mightiest person in the world?
...Wow.
.... Romney is a Mormon.
The stereotypes are rampant.
|
|
|
On May 10 2012 20:22 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 20:06 Thylacine wrote:
Why would anyone vote for a republican asshole? Honestly? I know Obama doesen't do anything usefull now that hes president, I don't like him either but come on, you want some Christian anti-gay bible thumper to rule your country and at the same time be the mightiest person in the world?
...Wow. .... Romney is a Mormon. The stereotypes are rampant.
''Mormons self-identify as Christian, some of their beliefs differ from mainstream Christianity. Mormons believe in the Bible, as well as other books of scripture, such as the Book of Mormon. They have a unique view of cosmology, and believe that all people are spirit-children of God. Mormons believe that returning to God requires following the example of Jesus Christ, and accepting his atonement through ordinances such as baptism.''
^ Wikipedia.
And still, hes a republican.
|
On May 10 2012 20:28 Thylacine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 20:22 BluePanther wrote:On May 10 2012 20:06 Thylacine wrote:
Why would anyone vote for a republican asshole? Honestly? I know Obama doesen't do anything usefull now that hes president, I don't like him either but come on, you want some Christian anti-gay bible thumper to rule your country and at the same time be the mightiest person in the world?
...Wow. .... Romney is a Mormon. The stereotypes are rampant. ''Mormons self-identify as Christian, some of their beliefs differ from mainstream Christianity. Mormons believe in the Bible, as well as other books of scripture, such as the Book of Mormon. They have a unique view of cosmology, and believe that all people are spirit-children of God. Mormons believe that returning to God requires following the example of Jesus Christ, and accepting his atonement through ordinances such as baptism.'' ^ Wikipedia. And still, hes a republican.
That's like saying Muslims are Christians too. It's a different religion that branched off of Christianity, similar to Islam. Islam is probably further away, but its also had more time to evolve.
And still, that's a stereotype.
|
On May 10 2012 20:41 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 20:28 Thylacine wrote:On May 10 2012 20:22 BluePanther wrote:On May 10 2012 20:06 Thylacine wrote:
Why would anyone vote for a republican asshole? Honestly? I know Obama doesen't do anything usefull now that hes president, I don't like him either but come on, you want some Christian anti-gay bible thumper to rule your country and at the same time be the mightiest person in the world?
...Wow. .... Romney is a Mormon. The stereotypes are rampant. ''Mormons self-identify as Christian, some of their beliefs differ from mainstream Christianity. Mormons believe in the Bible, as well as other books of scripture, such as the Book of Mormon. They have a unique view of cosmology, and believe that all people are spirit-children of God. Mormons believe that returning to God requires following the example of Jesus Christ, and accepting his atonement through ordinances such as baptism.'' ^ Wikipedia. And still, hes a republican. That's like saying Muslims are Christians too. It's a different religion that branched off of Christianity, similar to Islam. Islam is probably further away, but its also had more time to evolve. And still, that's a stereotype.
No it is not like saying Muslims are Christians too... though you are right that it is quite different from what the pope in rome says.
//edit: but that can be said for a lot that goes for "Christianity" in the states 
|
On May 10 2012 20:41 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 20:28 Thylacine wrote:On May 10 2012 20:22 BluePanther wrote:On May 10 2012 20:06 Thylacine wrote:
Why would anyone vote for a republican asshole? Honestly? I know Obama doesen't do anything usefull now that hes president, I don't like him either but come on, you want some Christian anti-gay bible thumper to rule your country and at the same time be the mightiest person in the world?
...Wow. .... Romney is a Mormon. The stereotypes are rampant. ''Mormons self-identify as Christian, some of their beliefs differ from mainstream Christianity. Mormons believe in the Bible, as well as other books of scripture, such as the Book of Mormon. They have a unique view of cosmology, and believe that all people are spirit-children of God. Mormons believe that returning to God requires following the example of Jesus Christ, and accepting his atonement through ordinances such as baptism.'' ^ Wikipedia. And still, hes a republican. That's like saying Muslims are Christians too. It's a different religion that branched off of Christianity, similar to Islam. Islam is probably further away, but its also had more time to evolve.
And still, that's a stereotype.
And still, hes a republican.
|
|
|
|
|
On May 10 2012 20:06 Thylacine wrote:
Why would anyone vote for a republican asshole? Honestly? I know Obama doesen't do anything usefull now that hes president, I don't like him either but come on, you want some Christian anti-gay bible thumper to rule your country and at the same time be the mightiest person in the world?
...Wow.
Cause a lot of people don't give a shit that he's Christian (cause more than half the country is Christian) and the gay marriage issue is so so low on people's priority lists. But maybe that is the arguement Obama should use: "Common on guys, he's an asshole! Why would you vote for an asshole!" Not sure how well it would go over with electorate though.
|
On May 10 2012 20:45 Thylacine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 20:41 BluePanther wrote:On May 10 2012 20:28 Thylacine wrote:On May 10 2012 20:22 BluePanther wrote:On May 10 2012 20:06 Thylacine wrote:
Why would anyone vote for a republican asshole? Honestly? I know Obama doesen't do anything usefull now that hes president, I don't like him either but come on, you want some Christian anti-gay bible thumper to rule your country and at the same time be the mightiest person in the world?
...Wow. .... Romney is a Mormon. The stereotypes are rampant. ''Mormons self-identify as Christian, some of their beliefs differ from mainstream Christianity. Mormons believe in the Bible, as well as other books of scripture, such as the Book of Mormon. They have a unique view of cosmology, and believe that all people are spirit-children of God. Mormons believe that returning to God requires following the example of Jesus Christ, and accepting his atonement through ordinances such as baptism.'' ^ Wikipedia. And still, hes a republican. That's like saying Muslims are Christians too. It's a different religion that branched off of Christianity, similar to Islam. Islam is probably further away, but its also had more time to evolve.
And still, that's a stereotype. And still, hes a republican.
You clearly have zero understanding of US politics.
While certainly some do care about the candidate's religion, according to a couple ofGallup polls from a few weeks ago, the top issues on the minds of US voters are the economy/jobs, healthcare, and federal spending.
Why does someone want to vote republican? Because many people still believe a small government is better, and want lower taxation rates and lower US federal debt. Those are still going to be the core issues of this campaign, most of this religion stuff is backgroung noise and the polls so far reflect that. I really don't care that Romney is Mormon, I'm not so sure I would care if it turned out Obama was a Muslim. What I care about is the $14 trillion dollars of debt our generation is going to have to pay off somehow, and the still sorry state of the US economy.
Obama's stance on gay marriage could change things, but as of yet there hasn't been any polling data to support that one way or another. I was correct when I posted yesterday that he would see a fundraising bump (check it, I predicted that one properly), but the US presidential election isn't decided by popular vote; it's decided by who wins the most states. Obama's gay marriage stance could tip the scales one way or another in the 'battleground' states; but then again maybe not. It's tough to make that call at this stage.
|
On May 11 2012 01:20 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 20:06 Thylacine wrote:
Why would anyone vote for a republican asshole? Honestly? I know Obama doesen't do anything usefull now that hes president, I don't like him either but come on, you want some Christian anti-gay bible thumper to rule your country and at the same time be the mightiest person in the world?
...Wow. Cause a lot of people don't give a shit that he's Christian (cause more than half the country is Christian) and the gay marriage issue is so so low on people's priority lists. But maybe that is the arguement Obama should use: "Common on guys, he's an asshole! Why would you vote for an asshole!" Not sure how well it would go over with electorate though.
Not so well. FYI more than just Mormons claiming they're "Christians too" and Christians rejecting that ... the dominant protestant view is that Mormons are a cult. The whole claiming new scripture / special revelation, together with some firm rejections of the dominant view of Jesus's divinity really give founding for the opposition. It isn't scoring him any points for that 'particular' faith, but does gives reassurances that he has some firm views on family and isn't just another secular guy.
Really think our horse in the race (Registered republican since age 18) was one of the worst to face off against Obama, but I'm left with what I've been doing in the last three elections: Not voting for somebody I can get behind and support, but voting for who I estimate is the lesser of the two evils.
OP was DEAD-ON in my particular enclave of conservative thought when he wrote:
Romney is conservative enough. He’s not perfect but represents to conservative fewer pokes in the eye compared to those McCain inflicted on his own party. His reversals on abortion seem genuine and are extremely unlikely to be reversed back to the positions he held running for office in uber liberal MA. He will disappoint on some levels in office – heck so did Reagan (he signed an amnesty bill that was a complete failure) but the scale and scope of the disappointments that conservatives may likely suffer under Romney will pale into insignificance compared to what Obama will unleash in his second term untrammeled by his need to be re-elected.
McCain I despised much much more because of his record in the senate. The scale and scope of the disappointments that I will have with a Romney presidency will pale in what I have reason to expect from an Obama one.
|
Lots of people think that the most fearsome phrase in the English language is, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
|
On May 11 2012 02:19 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Lots of people think that one of the most brilliant and effective campaign phrases in the English language since Reagan is, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
Fixed that for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
