EPTVote! 2008 and Exit Poll - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
cava
United States1035 Posts
| ||
|
Ludrik
Australia523 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On November 03 2008 10:04 HeadBangaa wrote: Mindcrime, I have to sign off for a while, so instead of going Socrates on you, I'll just point out that all tenets of marriage could be thrown out in the name of individualism, letting all people marry whoever/whatever/ for however long, rendering it a meaningless pact. You would turn marriage into nothing but a figurehead leftover from an expired culture. This is what I disdain. I see this semantic realignment as a weakening attempt. When you broaden the definition that it can no longer be distinguished from casual dating, it's no longer significant. It is significant because it is exclusive. Marriage is meaningless without uniform restrictions? I'm not following you here. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On November 03 2008 10:30 Mindcrime wrote: Marriage is meaningless without uniform restrictions? I'm not following you here. well marriage is kind of an arbitrary line. but i dont think allowing gay marriage is a problem unless we are all robots who can't think critically about certain situations. brb marrying rock. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On November 02 2008 09:27 Sadist wrote: being liberal is a good thing shows you are considerate of others =-) instead of a selfish pig. So, in the election thread, someone once tried to say the same thing. Basically he said that "capitalism and conservatism are the opposite of altruism, they just promote greed and unacceptance respectively.." This was my response to him and my response to you since you didn't back up your statement with anything: Do a google search on whether Republicans or Democrats give more to charity. You will find that it is Republicans. Democrats are pretty generous with tax money taken by coercion, while Republicans tend to be more generous with their own money. http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm Excerpt: "In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others." "If liberals persist in their antipathy to religion," Mr. Brooks writes, "the Democrats will become not only the party of secularism, but also the party of uncharity." And a map of the most generous state in the Union with red being "more generous": ![[image loading]](http://www.lawprofessorblogs.com/taxprof/linkimages/generosity0512map.gif) Here is the outcome of the 2004 Presidential race: ![[image loading]](http://www.lawprofessorblogs.com/taxprof/linkimages/election04.gif) Source: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/11/generosity_inde.html According to this, 28 of the 29 "most generous" states are Red States that voted for President Bush (including all 25 of the "most generous" states) While 17 of the 21 "least generous" states are Blue States that voted for Senator Kerry (including all 7 of the "least generous" states) So, I'm wondering how you are going to back up your assertion that religion and conservatism are impediments to altruism.... | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32098 Posts
On November 03 2008 09:34 HeadBangaa wrote: Talking about Prop 8 (well, gay marriage in general ) is difficult to talk about without delving into the merits of some fundamentals of what marriage is, and why it exists at all. + Show Spoiler + First off, I'm voting Yes (no gay marriage). I've had exhaustive debates (one was 2 hours long) with my liberal friends on this, who view it as a civil rights issue. They believe that, all people have an inherent right to marry whomever they want. Each and every person, I was able to whittle them down to acknowledging that marriage is inherently exclusive, rather than inclusive (eg, why not polygamy, too?) and then they admit that marriage should probably be absolved anyways. It's kind of scary seeing that conservatives are correct, in that such liberals do want to undermine marriage, a construct which I see as the most essential context of socialization of children. I see the nuclear family as ideal and meriting preservation. But what's the rate for divorces now in this country? It's somewhere like 50% or something ridiculous, correct (didn't fact check, but I know it's up there)? The nuclear family isn't as common as it was in the 40's, and I'm sure pretty much everyone who has posted in this thread knows several people who has family members that are divorced. It's not the sacred thing that it was back then, but most families still manage to get by ok, just with more work. And there's plenty of nuclear families that are fucked too. As for the children, there's plenty of ways to look at this. A lot of research has indicated that there's some kind of gay gene. I wouldn't dare flat out say that having two gay parents might influence you to a degree, but I'm inclined to believe that most humans are genetically programed to hump and pass their seed with the opposite sex. Plus, even if I'm completely wrong on that, do you completely agree with your parents on everything? Do everything that they do? Now I'm not saying that marriage should be absolved at all. That's something that each couple should decide on their own whether it's for them or not. All I'm saying that the whole concept of it as some kind of exclusive thing for just heteros and gays will dick it up is way, wayyyyyy off base. I don't get where the confusion is with polygamy later in this thread, but that's just having more than one spouse? While I personally wouldn't want it (who in their right mind would want to get bitched at by two women and have twice the responibilities?) why shouldn't it be allowed? If the dude can financially and emotionally afford to run two families, why the hell not? As long as all parties are consenting--no arranged marriages or any shit like that--knock yourself out. Keep marriage defined as being done by two consenting adults, you don't have anyone marrying rocks or kids or shit like that. On November 03 2008 10:16 cava wrote: I believe the exlusiveness of marriage is an important concept in Christian religion, but Christianity isnt the only religion and there is a seperation of church and state. I don't think that the government should support Christian specific marriage rules. I personally believe that if you want to get married in church, it should be seperate from the legal binding of two (or more if you argue for polygamy) individuals. What this guy said too. And also, and I think this is a big one, is the legal rights that come with marriage. If one gay is a teacher or something with healthcare that covers the family, and his live-in, non-married boyfriend gets deathly ill and doesn't have coverage, then what? That's a fact of life man, plenty of people have benefits that extend to the family. If your gay partner is on his deathbed and living on a resperator, you can't decide what to do, even if you've lived with them for 20 years. No spouse, no decision. The only way is a living will. There's a whole lot of other things that fall under this area too. And most of all, it's the government coming in and making a decision for two consenting adults on something that won't effect anyone else. Side question: what's the public perception out there? Is it looking like it's gonna pass? | ||
|
MaZza[KIS]
Australia2110 Posts
On November 02 2008 13:18 Ideas wrote: I'm curious... how is McCain better for Columbia? Actually, a question to all non-Americans, why do you want 1 candidate or the other to win? Personally, it's because I believe Obama is not as indoctrinated as McCain is. The current "us vs the world" stance that the U.S. has taken is, well, bullshit and unfair. Barack comes from a disadvantaged background and, most importantly, is black. This will mean that he understands prejudice and what it feels like to be prejudiced against. In that sense, I'm hoping that THIS side of him stops all the warring. However, I don't think either will make the difference. The USA is not governed by publicly elected officials. It's governed by men with big wallets who try to push their own interests to the forefront. It's kind of gay, because democracy and capitalism are such GREAT ideas, but (like everything else) they're prone to abuse at the hands of a few (who spoil it for the many). Hence, I'm very skeptical that the election of either candidate will fix ANYTHING. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On November 03 2008 11:24 Hawk wrote: But what's the rate for divorces now in this country? It's somewhere like 50% or something ridiculous, correct (didn't fact check, but I know it's up there)? The nuclear family isn't as common as it was in the 40's, and I'm sure pretty much everyone who has posted in this thread knows several people who has family members that are divorced. It's not the sacred thing that it was back then, but most families still manage to get by ok, just with more work. And there's plenty of nuclear families that are fucked too. High divorce rates means that marriage and nuclear family is not ideal? Or is it that we have a culture preoccupied with immediate satiation and encouraging a short attention span? I could enumerate cultural problems, but they don't mean anything without a causal relationship. You analysis lacks causal relationship, too. Humans are dexterous beings; we can survive most any condition. Look at African tribes, how they live. But the nuclear family is ideal. A mother and father can bring to the socialization process what two fathers or two mothers cannot. It is in the best interest of children to have role models for both sexes, and this is a product of our biological evolution. The nuclear family has the highest potential for rearing healthy adults to perpetuate society. No amount of "semantic destruction int he name of tolerance" can change that. The rest of your post is a great example of what I was saying: people conceptualize what marriage is in different ways. You see it as a religious construct, only, rather than an important vital societal insitution. This is why if we take your logic to its natural progression, you would have marriage absolved. Society rewards marriage because marriage rewards society. Marriage rewards society because kids raised by heterosexual parents have a higher potential for success. Kids raised in single-parent homes tend to be more fucked up, do more drugs, etc. Did you know the single most accurate predictor of a drug addiction among young males is the lack of a father? Psychological science is on my side here. This is not a topic that should be argued from an ethical or civil rights perspective. It has nothing to do with ethics, no more than the color of grass being green, or the sky being blue. | ||
|
-_-
United States7081 Posts
I just don't know who should win. Really, what both candidates are promising is basically the same. And when they disagree, I have no idea which plan is better. I took two courses in economics; who knows whether Obama's spending plan will save the economy. I do find it funny how the 18-22 crowd somehow knows everything Obama says > what McCain says. You have no fucking clue, and I know that because I have no fucking clue. Oh yeah, If you're the one guy with the 3 PHDs in the prestigious academic area of Obama > McCain, ignore the above statement. So... even though I don't know if McCain would be better than Obama, I do hope he wins. Just to see the internet Obamatards go crazy. That would give me quite a bit of joy. Schadenfreude at its finest, baby. Of course, that's not a good reason for voting for McCain. And McCain will get my state anyway (despite it being called a swing state by the media, seriously LOL at that). | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On November 03 2008 14:11 -_- wrote: So... even though I don't know if McCain would be better than Obama, I do hope he wins. Just to see the internet Obamatards go crazy. That would give me quite a bit of joy. So very true. Agreed totally. | ||
|
mindspike
Canada1902 Posts
On November 03 2008 10:59 Savio wrote: So, I'm wondering how you are going to back up your assertion that religion and conservatism are impediments to altruism.... I'm going to show you a source that I found on my first try in google that paints a different picture. http://www.forbes.com/leadership/2006/10/24/leadership-philanthropy-charity-lead-cx_mw_1024states.html?partner=links Click on the map at the bottom and you'll see the ranking for each state. I didn't run statistics on it but there are quite a few red states at the bottom of the ranking. | ||
|
cava
United States1035 Posts
On November 03 2008 14:11 -_- wrote: I'm not going to vote. I think I'll skip my two classes and play video games for like twelve hours straight. I just don't know who should win. Really, what both candidates are promising is basically the same. And when they disagree, I have no idea which plan is better. I took two courses in economics; who knows whether Obama's spending plan will save the economy. I do find it funny how the 18-22 crowd somehow knows everything Obama says > what McCain says. You have no fucking clue, and I know that because I have no fucking clue. Oh yeah, If you're the one guy with the 3 PHDs in the prestigious academic area of Obama > McCain, ignore the above statement. So... even though I don't know if McCain would be better than Obama, I do hope he wins. Just to see the internet Obamatards go crazy. That would give me quite a bit of joy. Schadenfreude at its finest, baby. Of course, that's not a good reason for voting for McCain. And McCain will get my state anyway (despite it being called a swing state by the media, seriously LOL at that). Even if your not an economic genious you can look at their moral character. Obama has run an intelligent, clean, and inspired campaign that focuses on supporting the vast majority of Americans. McCain on the other hand has picked a bimbo from Alaska as his running mate, and is also running a smear campaign against Obama that labels him as a terrorist. To me the choice is clear ... and Im not an economic mastermind either. | ||
|
-_-
United States7081 Posts
On November 03 2008 14:44 cava wrote: Even if your not an economic genious you can look at their moral character. Obama has run an intelligent, clean, and inspired campaign that focuses on supporting the vast majority of Americans. McCain on the other hand has picked a bimbo from Alaska as his running mate, and is also running a smear campaign against Obama that labels him as a terrorist. To me the choice is clear ... and Im not an economic mastermind either. I'm not an arguing man, friend (as McCain would say!). And I hope you're reasonable person. I would ask you how you know Obama has run a clean campaign? Is that just how you feel? Is it his positive, issue focused ads? Is it the nice things he says about McCain's positions? I'm not trying to ask leading questions which will make you say Obama is a terrorist, I'm just wondering if you've really thought about it. Maybe you have. I'm not going to tell you McCain is running a cleaner campaign than Obama. But I am going to ask you again do you really think Obama is running an intelligent, clean campaign (it is certainly an inspired one!)? If yes, congrats, you're more sure about this thing than I am. I'm sad to say I just don't see it as clearly as you. As many people here will tell you, though, I'm dumb. | ||
|
cava
United States1035 Posts
The fact that you want someone to win just to get a reaction out of people is rediculous, I hope your not old enough to vote. | ||
|
cava
United States1035 Posts
On November 03 2008 14:56 -_- wrote: I'm not an arguing man, friend (as McCain would say!). And I hope you're reasonable person. I would ask you how you know Obama has run a clean campaign? Is that just how you feel? Is it his positive, issue focused ads? Is it the nice things he says about McCain's positions? I'm not trying to ask leading questions which will make you say Obama is a terrorist, I'm just wondering if you've really thought about it. Maybe you have. I'm not going to tell you McCain is running a cleaner campaign than Obama. But I am going to ask you again do you really think Obama is running an intelligent, clean campaign (it is certainly an inspired one!)? If yes, congrats, you're more sure about this thing than I am. I'm sad to say I just don't see it as clearly as you. As many people here will tell you, though, I'm dumb. Obama has had the chance to attack McCain on several things, for example the McCain campaign has attacked Obama for being associated with Rachid Kaliti (sp?), a Palestinian Liberation supporter, and giving him around $38 thousand. Obama could call him out on the fact that McCain himself has givin the man around $500 thousand. Another thing is Palin is still under scrutiny about the Troopergate situation, and Obama has taken the high road and not speculated that she might indeed be guilty. There are many more examples with things like how McCain is running a 100% negative ad campaign while Obama had only a 34% negative ad campaign ... thats what I came up with on the top of my head. | ||
|
mindspike
Canada1902 Posts
On November 03 2008 14:56 -_- wrote: I'm not an arguing man, friend (as McCain would say!). And I hope you're reasonable person. I would ask you how you know Obama has run a clean campaign? Is that just how you feel? Is it his positive, issue focused ads? Is it the nice things he says about McCain's positions? I'm not trying to ask leading questions which will make you say Obama is a terrorist, I'm just wondering if you've really thought about it. Maybe you have. I'm not going to tell you McCain is running a cleaner campaign than Obama. But I am going to ask you again do you really think Obama is running an intelligent, clean campaign (it is certainly an inspired one!)? If yes, congrats, you're more sure about this thing than I am. I'm sad to say I just don't see it as clearly as you. As many people here will tell you, though, I'm dumb. Its not hard to figure out who has run the more negative campaign. All you have to do is count. The McCain campaign has campaigned on false accusations. All you have to do is turn on the tv and when they're not calling Obama a socialist they are calling him a terrorist (palin famously said that Obama "pals around with terrorists". Heres an independent source on the subject: http://americannonsense.com/?p=15633 | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On November 03 2008 14:57 cava wrote: The fact that you want someone to win just to get a reaction out of people is rediculous, I hope your not old enough to vote. No, there are so many reasons to hope for Obama to lose. The whining is just perk. | ||
|
EGLzGaMeR
United States1867 Posts
On November 03 2008 15:25 Savio wrote: No, there are so many reasons to hope for Obama to lose. The whining is just perk. Ditto | ||
|
NotJumperer
United States1371 Posts
| ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On November 03 2008 12:45 HeadBangaa wrote: The rest of your post is a great example of what I was saying: people conceptualize what marriage is in different ways. You see it as a religious construct, only, rather than an important vital societal insitution. This is why if we take your logic to its natural progression, you would have marriage absolved. Society rewards marriage because marriage rewards society. Marriage rewards society because kids raised by heterosexual parents have a higher potential for success. Kids raised in single-parent homes tend to be more fucked up, do more drugs, etc. Did you know the single most accurate predictor of a drug addiction among young males is the lack of a father? Psychological science is on my side here. This is not a topic that should be argued from an ethical or civil rights perspective. It has nothing to do with ethics, no more than the color of grass being green, or the sky being blue. gay parenting and gay marriage are different things, you may have a point about gay parenting and it definitely needs to held under close scrutiny, in case it does have an adverse impact on the kids. but what rationale is there for denying gay marriage? it IS a civil rights issue. theyre being denied equal treatment because the idea of 2 men having sex makes you and a bunch of stuffy old politicians feel icky inside. just imagine 2 hot lesbians having sex when you think of gay marriage, that'll make this whole issue go away. ya having read your first post the entire problem is you seem to think raising children and marriage has to go hand in hand. there is nothing that says a married couple (or group) has to be allowed to raise children. we could allow anyone who wants to get married and only allow male/female couples to raise children. although given that we allowed single parenting and underaged girls to have/keep children, plus just generally unqualified parents, i think its kinda retarded to prevent a stable gay couple from raising children. | ||
| ||
