EPT2008 US Presidential Election - Page 46
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
KOFgokuon
United States14899 Posts
| ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On October 26 2008 13:28 Mindcrime wrote: America's breadbasket is not located in the southern states. good try though! WHAT THEY MOVED IT??? | ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
| ||
|
Doctorasul
Romania1145 Posts
On October 26 2008 12:24 The Storyteller wrote: First of all, my wife is Catholic. Are you calling her anti-intellectual and pro-thought-crime? People who label people as being idiots just because they disagree with their principles are no better than the very people they condemn. What's next, calling Muslims "anti-work" because they take a 3 hours break to pray on Friday? Calling geeks "ignorant about the world" because they spend most of their time on the computer? Calling pro-choice people "pro murder"? Is everyone who doesn't agree with you ignorant? No, it's not nonsense. You haven't understood what I'm saying. I am not defending these people's points of view, I am explaining their reasons for doing it. The principle is simple: what is convenient is not always the right thing to do. We all apply that principle, though we often disagree with other people's principles. Let me give another example. A fair justice system will ensure that a criminal gets a defence in court, even if it is obvious that he's guilty. This is because every man has the right to a fair trial. No matter how heinous the crime, no matter how obvious the guilt, the defending lawyer STILL has to do his best. Many people would argue as vehemently as you have about Catholics that no lawyer should touch such a criminal. But he still deserves a defence anyway because what is convenient (just hanging him) is not the right thing to do. And yes, we can talk about suicide bombers as well. They're sacrificing their lives for something they believe in. We condemn them for doing that because we don't agree with what they're sacrificing their lives FOR, but the principle of sacrificing your life is certainly something we can all understand. I'm sure Romanians did the same when the Austria Hungary stomped all over the country during WW1. Catholics don't change their minds because "people around them are calling them out on their stupidity and ignorance." That implies that Catholics somehow become stupid the moment they get baptised. They change their minds because of a variety of factors including society, education, economic situation and so on. Would you have any respect for someone who drops his principles whenever it's convenient? Where I come from, we call them snakes. Why is your wife being a catholic at all relevant to the discussion? What, am I supposed to not say anything because you might get offended? Just because it's religion doesn't mean it's exempt from criticism. You say you're not defending their views, then why do you keep posting in their defense? Explaining how and why catholics believe what they believe has nothing to do with whether or not their beliefs have anything to do with reality. Changing your principles in the face of evidence and reasoning is called intellectual honesty and it deserves more praise than stubbornly defending mindless drivel. Anyone that is actively pushing catholic agenda is anti-intellectual and pro-thought-crime. Most don't, most are passively supportive of that agenda, in which case the least I can say is that they are victims of religious indoctrination. Either way, there is nothing to be admired about defending a point of view that is not only illogical, but intrusive and harmful to the people around them. If they believed whatever nonsense they do in the privacy of their own minds it would be a different story, but like it is shown by that ad, the nature of at least Christianity is to force itself on anyone and everyone. And you expect the rest of us to sit idly by as bronze-age myths are slowly chipping away at people's hard-fought freedoms because you're offended? So unless you do want to defend the catholic point of view, I don't think there's anything relevant we're in disagreement about. | ||
|
Wysp
Canada2299 Posts
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9b/John-stuart-mill-sized.jpg/200px-John-stuart-mill-sized.jpg) http://books.google.ca/books?id=9xARAAAAYAAJ&dq=on liberty&pg=PP1&ots=UVfuxwwa7b&source=bn&sig=-Oeq87vn527tEJW4Xggfh5DQyfQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA12,M1 John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" Its safe to assume that 98% of people who read this work will easily understand it and agree with it. When Nietzsche was listing a group of men he calls "My impossibles" he says "John Stuart Mill: or offensive clarity." A compliment (be it sardonic) compared to the lashings he gives to the other score of writers he mentions. The modern liberal tradition (Canada, USA, European democracy, and all the governments similar to them) descend from this fine fellow's work. Its clarity makes it utterly impossible for Republicans and Democrats to deny their debt to Mill's liberal tradition. When talking from historical perspective both American parties would be called liberal. I would tend to agree that its a tad silly to see Republicans and Democrats as that far apart from a historical perspective. But, when we're discussing politics in 2008 its really okay to call the republican base conservative and the democrat base liberal. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
Catholicism is full of flaws After all, if you take away peoples choice, whats the merit in someone that doesnt "fuck up" ? If all i need to do is regret, then by all means I should be free to make any mistakes so i can later repent. Its really silly to belive that having a strict and rigid society you are going to make progress. Limiting peoples choice is always a step backwards | ||
Arbiter[frolix]
United Kingdom2674 Posts
| ||
|
Sfydjklm
United States9218 Posts
On October 27 2008 02:04 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: In the politics of the western powers some seem to see abortion and gay marriage as "moral issues" subject to the most absolute of constraints (often claimed to come from God) while at the same time being happy to indulge in the most chilling, objectionable consequentialist calculations when it comes to killing dark people in far away lands. why would u even want to sidetrack this into gay marriage and abortion? God or not god this topic is incredibly complex, and while you point out the irony those issues exist no matter whether said dark people get killed or not. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
On October 27 2008 02:34 Sfydjklm wrote: why would u even want to sidetrack this into gay marriage and abortion? God or not god this topic is incredibly complex, and while you point out the irony those issues exist no matter whether said dark people get killed or not. I think you missed his point? People in this country have a moral problem with abortion, but see no moral objection to bombing innocent people. You can't really quantify moral issues, but there is definitely a disconnect there. Americans are blessed with the ignorance of the realities of war, and they should not take that for granted. | ||
|
Sfydjklm
United States9218 Posts
On October 27 2008 02:41 TeCh)PsylO wrote: I think you missed his point? People in this country have a moral problem with abortion, but see no moral objection to bombing innocent people. You can't really quantify moral issues, but there is definitely a disconnect there. Americans are blessed with the ignorance of the realities of war, and they should not take that for granted. How is that a point at all? First of all how often do u hear in the news that US bombed someone innocent? And second of all how is it of any surprise that people cant relate to someone that happens on a whole different side of the planet? | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
How is that a point at all? The point is that many Americans are either ignorant beyond reason, or have an extremely upside down system of values. If you think that is not "a point at all", than you are lost. | ||
|
Sfydjklm
United States9218 Posts
On October 27 2008 02:58 TeCh)PsylO wrote: The point is that many Americans are either ignorant beyond reason, or have an extremely upside down system of values. If you think that is not "a point at all", than you are lost. oh yeah lets keep beating the horse that died 15 years ago. The point is that ive heard those darfur analogies years ago from some hippie chicks in college, not too long after i myself was very fond of coming up with them in high school. The point is that i would fancy something a bit more... intriguing from someone as articulate as Arbiter. | ||
|
cava
United States1035 Posts
On October 27 2008 02:58 TeCh)PsylO wrote: The point is that many Americans are either ignorant beyond reason, or have an extremely upside down system of values. If you think that is not "a point at all", than you are lost. I think you have a point. There are a lot of Americans that are ignorant, but there are also a lot that aren't. If you see nothing wrong with the bombing of innocent people then something is not right. On October 27 2008 03:07 Sfydjklm wrote: oh yeah lets keep beating the horse that died 15 years ago. The point is that ive heard those darfur analogies years ago from some hippie chicks in college, not too long after i myself was very fond of coming up with them in high school. How can you ever trivialize genocide? | ||
|
Sfydjklm
United States9218 Posts
On October 27 2008 03:11 cava wrote: I think you have a point. There are a lot of Americans that are ignorant, but there are also a lot that aren't. If you see nothing wrong with the bombing of innocent people then something is not right. What are you talking about. Who are those people youre talking about. Nobody thinks bombing innocent people is okay, its the fact that they dont know/dont consider that those people are innocent is what speaks of their ignorance. Even if it was a for the greater good sorta thing, trying to distance themselves from it, go into denial, how are you any better? Any of you? What have you done lately to save the world, keyboard warriors? How can you ever trivialize genocide? So you shook your finger at me, so now your debt to society and genocide victims is paid? | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On October 27 2008 03:16 Sfydjklm wrote: What are you talking about. Who are those people youre talking about. Nobody thinks bombing innocent people is okay, its the fact that they dont know/dont consider that those people are innocent is what speaks of their ignorance. Even if it was a for the greater good sorta thing, trying to distance themselves from it, go into denial, how are you any better? Any of you? What have you done lately to save the world, keyboard warriors? So you shook your finger at me, so now your debt to society and genocide victims is paid? the ironic part is this post smacks so hard of seventeenism.... | ||
|
Sfydjklm
United States9218 Posts
On October 27 2008 03:35 fusionsdf wrote: the ironic part is this post smacks so hard of seventeenism.... must be canadian word. | ||
|
boghat
United States2109 Posts
I don't think any of these people like that innocent civilians die but that's a consquence of a war they think is just. I'm sure some of these people are so blinded that they think even the civilians are the enemy but this is not the majority. Furthermore, a lot of the most advocate proponents of war are those people that have family members fighting in the war, so there are plenty of people that are not completely emotionally removed. And unless you being emotionally involved in a far away war makes you help out the effort somehow, not sure what you would do, it's emotionally healthy and normal to disconnect from the war and live your day to day life. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On October 26 2008 10:32 XoXiDe wrote: i'll vote for economic security before i vote to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body, + Show Spoiler + I have a few thoughts that I wanted to share regarding the argument "My body, my choice" and your assertion that the baby's body is simply part of the mothers body. Here are some facts: 1. The human body has a built in way to discriminate between "self" and "non-self". Part of this is called the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) which is a protein embedded in every cells that is "self" and tells you what is you and what isn't. If something is not "you" then your body will attack it (I'm cutting out a lot of technical science so this is readable). So here is the kicker. The mother's body does not recognize the baby's cells as "self". This is because not a singe cell fo the baby was created by the mother. The baby began as a single cell with a unique genetic makeup from a mix of its father and mother. That cell divides a bagillion times until the baby is ready to be born. The cells created by the mother were never "welded" onto the baby. That baby made it by itself. So why call the baby part of the mother, when the mother's body identifies it as "non-self" and would attack it and destroy it if it could? This is partly why the mother's immune system is suppressed during pregnancy. 2. The baby made his own blood. NONE of it came from his mother, and they never mix. The blood made by the babys body and other accessory parts of what the BABY has made including the yolk sac. Many babies don't even have the same blood type as their mother and if their blood mixed, it would result in an sensitivity reaction. 3. The baby HAS ITS OWN CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM. The mother cannot "flex" her baby's muscles. Even her autonomic nervous system cannot act on the baby. No ganglia from the mother extend to and innervate effectors within the baby. The baby kicks and swims and swallows all from its own neural impulses and not the mother's. 4. The mother's role during the pregnancy is to provide nutrients and sugar to the baby (same thing breast milk does). Also, she does the work of the baby's kidneys. And most importantly, her blood delivers oxygen to the baby's blood. She also provides a good and stable environment for the baby to grow in. Her roles after the baby is born are to: provide nutrients and sugar by way of breast milk and provide a safe and stable environment for the baby to grow. The primary difference between what a mother does for her baby during pregnancy as opposed to after is that she is no longer doing the work of the baby's kidneys and lungs. If this is what you think makes the baby not human, then patients on a ventilator and dialysis are not human either, but just part of the "machine" they are connected to. 5. DNA defines who we are. You see a crime scene with DNA evidence, you can look at the DNA and say, this is the DNA of so-and-so. The baby has a unique DNA sequence. It is NOT the mother's. The baby has its own brain, its own MHC complex defining "self", its own blood, its own DNA, and its own autonomy (it decides when it moves). That the unborn baby is totally dependent on its mother for the continuation of its life is irrelevant because the baby that is BORN is also completely dependent on her for the continuation of its life. Dependence on its mother does not make it un-human or un-alive. So....this post was ONLY to cover the science behind the claim that the baby is "the mother's body". There is a lot more that could be said about abortion, but this post only addresses that issue. | ||
|
Arbiter[frolix]
United Kingdom2674 Posts
On October 27 2008 02:34 Sfydjklm wrote: why would u even want to sidetrack this into gay marriage and abortion? God or not god this topic is incredibly complex, and while you point out the irony those issues exist no matter whether said dark people get killed or not. I have no intention of "side-tracking" anything. As far as the rest of your response is concerned I am happy to endorse Tech)Psylo's excellent follow-up posts. | ||
| ||
