People like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke
Blogs > SaintBadger |
Half
United States2554 Posts
People like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke | ||
SaintBadger
United States139 Posts
Aww, you edited out George Savile. His last words were awesome. I never really considered the politics of David Hume before. His whole is-ought principle was a breath of fresh air after dealing with the nihilists, but I'm not 100% sure I agree with wikipedia's characterization of him as a centrist. I need to think on that. Edmund Burke is a very interesting historical figure. I remember a philosophy professor at Millsaps gave me a printout of his mockery of the atheists that I enjoyed thoroughly, but I seem to recall him using some Cartesian tricks that I don't fully endorse. As to politics, it's always interesting to try to hear someone appropriate an historical figure to a contemporary cause. For example, Burke argued for the repeal of certain taxes levied on the American colonies. I'm tempted to talk about decentralized government or the colonies being the semantic equivalent of states, but in truth, I don't know if he was just more in tune than others as to how much Britain was about to piss off the New World. Hume talks about his ideal commonwealth as a place where everyone with property would be given the franchise. One could scoff and lament the sexism and class-consciousness that entails, or one could praise him for being a forward thinker, as at the time, one had to have property in his family for three traceable generations to vote. A matter of perspective. I need to do more reading; particularly on Burke. Questions like that leave me wistful because I remember a time in school where all of these things were interesting for their own sake. Nowadays, if it's not going to fit in a commercial or a mailer, it gets shut away in some dusty corner of the brain. This is stimulating, though. | ||
SaintBadger
United States139 Posts
| ||
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
And no, I don't think there is anymore racism, sexism, or any other ism among conservatives than one would find in any random population. In fact, decidedly less racism, since whether you think it is a good idea or not, affirmative action policies are definitionally racist. ... So I don't really know how to ask this, but are you delusional? You don't think conservatives are any more homophobic than any other random population? You do know it was conservatives and republicans that were trying to get a constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriage, right? You realize it is republicans that talk about the gay lifestyle is "bondage" and how they are living in sin. You seem like a nice enough guy. I'm not trying to insult you. I'm really not. But if there is legislation that is pointedly against gays or women it is nearly universally from the republican side of the camp. To deny this is to deny reality. To deny this is to actively ignore a problem that is very pertinent to your side of politics. You should be, if anything, more frustrated with this than I am. | ||
jeeeeohn
United States1343 Posts
On April 27 2012 09:51 DoubleReed wrote: Show nested quote + And no, I don't think there is anymore racism, sexism, or any other ism among conservatives than one would find in any random population. In fact, decidedly less racism, since whether you think it is a good idea or not, affirmative action policies are definitionally racist. ... So I don't really know how to ask this, but are you delusional? You don't think conservatives are any more homophobic than any other random population? You do know it was conservatives and republicans that were trying to get a constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriage, right? You realize it is republicans that talk about the gay lifestyle is "bondage" and how they are living in sin. You seem like a nice enough guy. I'm not trying to insult you. I'm really not. But if there is legislation that is pointedly against gays or women it is nearly universally from the republican side of the camp. To deny this is to deny reality. To deny this is to actively ignore a problem that is very pertinent to your side of politics. You should be, if anything, more frustrated with this than I am. I don't speak for Saint, but in my opinion it comes down to bad politics. It's politicians catering to the extremist right in order to sway their vote. This IS a problem, but not one limited to conservatives. As Saint said affirmative action is definitionally (spelling?) racist. Basically everything boils down to groups of votes and politicians saying whatever they think will win over that particular group. The people you see on television saying that crap are not real conservatives. They're talking heads: personalities. Their sole purpose is to piss people off. | ||
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On April 27 2012 11:06 jeeeeohn wrote: Show nested quote + On April 27 2012 09:51 DoubleReed wrote: And no, I don't think there is anymore racism, sexism, or any other ism among conservatives than one would find in any random population. In fact, decidedly less racism, since whether you think it is a good idea or not, affirmative action policies are definitionally racist. ... So I don't really know how to ask this, but are you delusional? You don't think conservatives are any more homophobic than any other random population? You do know it was conservatives and republicans that were trying to get a constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriage, right? You realize it is republicans that talk about the gay lifestyle is "bondage" and how they are living in sin. You seem like a nice enough guy. I'm not trying to insult you. I'm really not. But if there is legislation that is pointedly against gays or women it is nearly universally from the republican side of the camp. To deny this is to deny reality. To deny this is to actively ignore a problem that is very pertinent to your side of politics. You should be, if anything, more frustrated with this than I am. I don't speak for Saint, but in my opinion it comes down to bad politics. It's politicians catering to the extremist right in order to sway their vote. This IS a problem, but not one limited to conservatives. As Saint said affirmative action is definitionally (spelling?) racist. Basically everything boils down to groups of votes and politicians saying whatever they think will win over that particular group. The people you see on television saying that crap are not real conservatives. They're talking heads: personalities. Their sole purpose is to piss people off. The extremist right is part of the conservatives. Clearly they must have someone to cater to. Do they not count for some reason? I'm not saying conservative = racist. Not even close. I asked if he felt there was more homophobia, sexism, racism, and anti-semitism coming from conservatives at the moment. His answer was no. I think he must be delusional, and many of his answers seem to confirm that he simply doesn't want to admit how serious it is for conservatives right now that aren't completely crazy. This is basically what happened to Eric Cantor. He's a serious conservative from Virginia and he's Jewish. He eventually found that a lot of the people he was catering to and the people he was supposedly allied with were anti-semitic. And then he smashed some faces, and many republicans accused him of being traitorous to the party. | ||
SaintBadger
United States139 Posts
Stop reading my shit and go check it out. Are you back? Good. First I'm going to speak for myself. Marriage is between the church and its members. Catholics officially don't condone homosexual marriage rites, but plenty of American priests perform them anyway. I know there are a lot of horror stories about hospital visitation rights and other such things that homosexual couples are constantly denied, but the reality is, a hospital can choose to remove any collective stick up its ass concerning visitation without any federal interference. I would GLADLY (get it? GLAAD?)join in an effort to take business elsewhere if there actually exists a private medical institution like that today. No, the whole homosexual marriage thing really boils down to the IRS. The tax code allows hetero couples who are married to get certain tax breaks denied to same-sex couples. Period. That's the issue. Now, in the conservative book, the issue isn't really that homosexuals are denied special treatment for randomly visiting a justice of the peace. The issue is that HETERO COUPLES DO!!! As I've said at least once before in this blog, marriage incentives in the tax code were written in a time where marriage == babies. They were designed to keep a two-parent household together for the sake of children. We live in a different time. We are rapidly approaching a day where single parent homes are the majority. Homosexual singles and couples are steadily gaining adoption rights. The bottom line is all of this can be fixed with a two-sentence amendment tacked onto any fed legislation. Get rid of the marriage incentives . . . all of them . . . and simultaneously tack on childcare tax credits in reciprocal amounts. That way you have tax incentives where they were actually meant to be in the first place, with parents (regardless of gender). Now, the obvious reaction to all this is, "Well that might be what you believe, but . . . " and just stop there. The party doesn't disagree with this suggestion. Not at all. In fact, I expect this to happen in the next few years on a reasonably bipartisan basis. It has a lot of appeal in certain minority communities where single parenthood is a huge issue, so the Dems will probably jump on it. They generally oppose marriage incentives anyway. The only reason this hasn't been in the public discourse is because as a whole, the nation doesn't rank homosexual marriage as one of the more pressing issues on the docket. That's not particularly fair, I agree, but it doesn't represent malice on either side's part. It represents the reality that there is a LOT of shit to fix at the fed level, and we're going as fast as we can, which as you might notice is somewhat slower than grass growing in winter. Now, with all that said, yes, yes, there is absolutely a group in my party who take religious issue with the homosexual lifestyle. But you MUST understand and acknowledge that the same is true on the other side. I realize that the Dems are considered the gay-friendly party, but Obama is on record as stating marriage should be between man and woman, as is any number of known spiritual leaders in the minority community. Go google Jesse Jackson on that issue and get ready to cringe. This is not a Republican-driven bigotry, and I don't particularly care how many people feel differently. Go read the literature on GoProud. They're a lot more qualified than I am to talk about this, but they'll back my point 100%. | ||
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
You're bringing all this other shit up, so that you can say "yea it's OK. It's not a big deal." No, it actually is a big deal. The entire argument is not about money (because as I said before, money would favor gay marriage by a long shot. All the studies I've ever seen show significant boons to the economy if gay marriage is enacted). It's also about human dignity that two people can have a relationship that is equivalent to another regardless of what their genitals are. You're not saying it's wrong. You're not saying it's bullshit. If you actually want to fix the issue on your side, you need to call them out on it. I don't know why you're stopping short. haha, and thank you on my 2kth post! :D | ||
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
When it comes down to it, both parties have certain things on the table that are non-negotiable: A pro-business, pro-war, pro-Christian ideology. And anytime the rights of minorities come into conflict with any of the big three, the big three come out on top. Since the democratic party must appeal to a Christian base as well, it will be a long time before you see any right to marry for gays coming from them. I even question whether or not the democratic party is really interested in helping out blacks. Yes, we have a black president, but so far we haven't seen a single bill to address the issue of why there are currently more blacks in prison than there were slaves before the civil war. Most of them, of course, are in prison for non violent crimes, but neither party seems particularly interested in altering their war on drugs, which would probably be the single most important thing anyone could do for the black community at this moment. Saintbadger is also absolutely right about marriage. Legally, it's an outdated institution that no longer serves its purpose. We should strip monetary incentives out of marriage. Yes, it's unfair that gay people can't get married. But if the legal sort of marriage isn't something we should be seeking out, then it isn't the logical conclusion that we should help gay people get married. We should get rid of the institution (legally speaking, not religiously - let priests do what they want) | ||
ninazerg
United States7290 Posts
On April 27 2012 05:52 SaintBadger wrote: Show nested quote + On April 27 2012 05:16 ninazerg wrote: On April 27 2012 04:35 SaintBadger wrote: @Ninazerg Re: How can conservatives claim to be pro-life? I absolutely respect the question. The length of my answer is not meant as disrespect, but as a concession to the fact that I must eat at some point today. I have done literally nothing but sit at meetings, listen to interns ramble at me, and type these responses. The Bill of Rights says no deprivation of life or liberty without due process. Some people still argue that the death penalty is cruel and unusual, but a quick study of history tells us that the death penalty was accepted before and after the founding of the U.S. as acceptable punishment for crime. I don't support it; in fact, I vehemently oppose it. Nevertheless, I am forced to concede that it is an option for each state to decide on individually. If we were to stop talking about fetuses for a moment and talk about living, breathing newborns, there would not be many people who suggest that allowing the death penalty means mothers are allowed to kill their children. So now we're back to when does a fetus become a child? You seem to be an "at birth" subscriber, so of course, you'll be happy to know that the law is on your side. I don't pretend to know for certain, but I'd damn sure prefer to err on the side of caution. As to war, I think the general idea is to punish and deter aggressors in the hopes of saving lives in the end. You may not agree with the particular engagements this country has chosen (I certainly don't), but conceptually, there's no dissonance in being engaged in war and pro-life. As to gun control, I don't think it's a matter of preference. I stated in an earlier post, the state of affairs as to gun rights was spelled out long before the Republican party existed. This whole "how can you call yourself pro-life?" talking point will always haunt us, but I honestly don't think it stands up to more than the most casual of scrutiny. Granted, I would prefer we took the death penalty off the table, but I still don't see any conceptual contradiction. Thanks for the reply, I have a few things I'd like to address in your answer that pertain to my question, though. The first is the disposition of the Republican party and Conservatives towards being pro-war and pro-military. In terms of sheer gruesome carnage, war is a lot more destructive to human life than abortion. My question was more geared towards the question of support for war, including pre-war support for the war in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was cooperating with U.N. inspectors, and the current situation where Conservatives are considering a war with Iran. This position would seem to contradict the Conservative position on issues regarding "The sanctity of life." Second, concerning the fifth amendment - you've said "The Bill of Rights says no deprivation of life or liberty without due process" - and if a woman is carrying a baby, she is the vessel of that baby. If she dies, the baby dies. If the baby dies, she could also potentially die. Until birth, the baby is literally physically connected with it's mother, essentially making it a part of the mother's body. Any federal mandate to ban abortion would therefore, be unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has ruled as such, which sets a precedent for pro-choice medical options to be constitutional. I don't see how the Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty, can be used to deny women legitimate medical care. Not that I want to see abortions happen, or ever considered getting an abortion personally; but the fact is that until the baby is born, a woman has the ultimate governance over something that is a part of her body, and a part of her health. I wrote a couple of different responses here. I mean, obviously this is deep moral stuff we're trekking through here, but in the end, I still don't find any hypocrisy in the Republican stance. We're not looking to go to war at the drop of a hat. Furthermore, under the Bush administration, the rules of engagement for military on the ground were incredibly restrained relative to any previous conflict. We do recognize the potential for unintended death in war, and we try very hard to act intelligently and minimize it. But, si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace, you prepare for war. And yes, that's from The Punisher. I don't respect the pacifist version of peace. My Poly Sci professor called it Chamberlainian peace. Same idea with gun control. There is a chance that you'll meet someone one day who intends you harm, and sometimes talking isn't going to work. I don't mean to patronize you at all, but it's really that simple to me. What is extremely complicated is deciding when and where those situations have actually arisen on an international level. But once the decision is made, it is just to act. Regarding the fifth amendment, let me ask you something. Forget everything you know about abortion law. In a void where all is legal, if I wanted to pass a law that forbids an abortion IF the pregnancy had reached a point at which two doctors will sign off (at the risk of their licenses) on the notion that the child could be delivered viably THAT DAY without foreseeable consequence to mother and child beyond normal natal care, what would your feeling be on that law? I'm actually genuinely curious. The truth is, that's basically what the Court did in Roe. They said that on average, a fetus was not viable until six months into gestation. Ergo, prior to six months, states can't interfere with abortion. After six months, the fetus is deemed (not officially, but functionally) to be an unborn person with the right to not be aborted. More accurately, the state's interest in keeping the child alive had at that point risen beyond the mother's interest in medical privacy. Of course, the problem is that science keeps moving. In 1973, viability was around six and a half months. Now we're down to four months (at the absolute extremes of medicine, granted), but the concept is the same. Many believe that that's why the Court changed course in 1992 with Casey. They realized this whole viability thing wasn't going to preserve the right of abortion for much longer in a meaningful way. That's somewhat of a conspiracy theory, but it fits the language of the opinion. So, to be clear, you don't see any hypocrisy with condoning one form of killing, but condemning another? | ||
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
| ||
SaintBadger
United States139 Posts
Well, to be accurate, I'm not defending anything. I'm suggesting a change that would address an issue a lot of people find very important. I don't really have strong feelings on this issue because I have other things I want to accomplish first. Discrimination is a sort of blanket term that doesn't really mean much. Men are discriminated against because they get less "paternity" leave than women do. The reason that discrimination exists is because women actually have to birth children. Non-citizens are discriminated against with all sorts of laws. In my book, that happens because we can't tax them to the same extent as citizens. In the case of marriage, here you go. I'll admit it. Homosexuals suffer discrimination. Just like the other examples above, said discrimination makes sense from the standpoint of encouraging stable families for children. [EDIT: When the first action groups got together advocating homosexual marriage, both sides were bewildered. Why in God's name would two people who can't have children be eligible for marriage incentives?] That IS the whole genesis of said discrimination. Not religious zealotry, not blind hate, just a social experiment in the tax code. One of millions. And it is relevant that both sides are equally hesitant on this issue because of your original question. I suggested a very simple way of bringing things up to 21st century understanding, and I think that's what's going to happen. I think you give politicians too much credit for being able to deny human dignity and such. DADT is an interesting side issue, but that's pretty much settled at this point. "Some members" of my party are still fighting that fight. "Some members" of the Dems are calling for George Zimmerman to be lynched. No one is really interested in trying to speak for everyone who has ever put an R or a D next to his or her name. @Ninazerg Of course I don't. I also would have opposed Japanese internment, but am perfectly comfortable with locking up convicted felons. The nation has a right to perpetuate its own existence against all enemies, foreign and domestic. @ GGTeMpLaR Thanks very much. | ||
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
| ||
Mazer
Canada1086 Posts
On April 27 2012 04:20 SaintBadger wrote: @Mazer 1. Why abstinence only sex-ed? The statistics I've seen on that subject are kind of muddled. The children who take abstinence-only sex-ed tend to wait longer to lose their virginities, but are less likely to use contraception when they do. So, your premise is correct. Just wanted to throw out that abnormality. From a party standpoint, this was a concession to the religious right. As you probably guess. I don't think there is any tenent of conservatism that has anything to say on the subject, so the party sort of went with the flow. I think the conscience of the party is pulled in many directions on the issue of sex and marriage and babies. On one hand, some groups believe sex without the intent to procreate is sinful. On the other hand, we have a large pro-life contingent that absolutely would rather see contraception use increase in the hope of fewer abortions. And we have a silent majority who doesn't understand the issue with teaching contraception but won't come out for teaching kids how to apply condoms in a public setting. I might add, some of the more fringe sex educators have not helped moderates on this issue by allowing stories about performing sex acts in front of kids to percolate. I suppose I don't have a great answer for you, but I do have a cool story in the form of a short play: Priest: Teaching kids contraception is like telling them you're leaving your Ferrari in the garage with the keys in the ignition, but don't drive it . . . but if you do drive it wear your seatbelt! Concerned Parent: Wouldn't you want them to wear seatbelts??? The end 2. Why do conservatives support Big Brother stuff? Politicians seem to be hard-wired to make a show of doing something in the face of a crisis. I know there are these vast conspiracy theories stating that 9/11 and all the other terrorist activity was a big inside job designed to grab power, or in the alternative, the cynical Rahm Emanuel "never let a crisis go to waste" paradigm. I really don't give politicians that much credit for foresight. I think Republicans in particular like the idea that they're the hawk party and, in the wake of 9/11 went a bit Jack Bauer on the whole civil rights thing. So, Patriot Act was passed with a ten-year sunset. Congress granted Bush pretty much carte blanche to bomb or invade anyone. And both parties rejoiced in their decisive action. The more I think about this question, the more I disagree with this as a Republican-only trait. The Patriot Act and the NDAA's from 2002 to about 2007 were as bipartisan as they come. Last I checked, Gitmo is still intact. The Patriot Act was renewed (in part, anyway). I'm hesitant to talk about SOPA/CISPA because there's still a lot of discussion about whether a modified form of that is going to hit the floor or not. If I had to guess, I'd imagine they'll die in the House. There's a cool book called "Not a Suicide Pact" (the author's name escapes me at the moment) which talks about . . . um, "stretching" the Constitution in times of crisis. A lot of it is ugly history, and we should definitely review it. 3. Re: Israel I hate to borrow yet another West Wing line, but Leo once asked Sam, "Is the only solution to this whole thing really a US flag flying over Mecca? And if that's what it takes, why are we waiting around? Let's do it!" Sam replies that he hasn't come up with a better solution, but as Leo leaves the room, Sam catches him by the arm and says, "You know I haven't stopped trying?" I think that's where we've been for a long time with Israel and Palestine. WWII ends and we feel like we've got to do something for this horribly persecuted group of people. With the last vestige of old colonialism, Britain pipes up and says, "I know! Let's displace the folks in this colony of ours and call it Zion." We've been watching the body count pile up ever since. But when two sides are willing to die for the same piece of land, and somehow they transfer that zealotry from grandfather to father to son to grandson and on and on, what are we really going to do? We pull support and the Israelis are extinct in a year. They are tough as any group on the planet, but they are an island in a sea of enemies. And we'd do well to remember that some of those enemies have good reason for their hatred. I don't try to justify terrorist acts, but sticking our heads in the sand doesn't help anything. So that's another long rant with no solution. I don't pray about much, but I do occasionally direct some towards that part of the world. I suspect we'll continue to help hold things together with ducttape and silly string till a smarter Sam comes along with something better. 4. Why do we equate college education with liberals? As I've mentioned, I think there is some element of indoctrination by osmosis that goes in many institutions of higher learning. But I agree with the premise of the question. It's a strange way of expressing oneself to look down on education. I don't pretend to understand it. I will say that I don't think Mitt was trying to sound elite when he made his comments about the world needing blue collar jobs. It was just one of a long list of things that came out . . . a bit less polished than I'd have preferred. 1) Sounds about right. You can definitely understand how this stance hurts the GOP overall though. It seems like a great way for the GOP to appeal to moderate voters while still not pissing off their religous base too much (less abortions is ultimately better). 2) Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that the Democrats had nothing to do with those pieces of legislation. It's just that a big chunk of the rhetoric I hear from the right is that they stand for individual liberties but it isn't consistent at all with what they actually do. CISPA is pretty damn relevant this morning and although there was some Democratic backing, it was overwhelmingly supported by the GOP. Closing Gitmo is a promise I really wish Obama had kept but at least he deserves credit for stopping torture. That was one of the most embarassing aspects of the Bush administration. 3) I was hoping for some tidbit of brilliant insight but I guess we both do see it in a similar light. The US really can't turn their back on Israel, the situation is just shitty. 4) So how do you defend the Republican party in light of this and other related issues? I mean, why the hell is evolution still made out to be a controversial subject in public schools? Why is climate change being made out to be a lie despite the fact that so many other nations have sided with the scientists? This makes the GOP comes off as a party that doesn't value intelligence and is another big problem. I know you touched on climate change already and don't totally buy into it, but at what point you stop and consider that maybe we should listen to the people who spend their lives researching climate change? (I'll add in that I'm not impressed with Obama's approach to medicinal marijuana. Ie. ignoring the scientific research and statistical evidence on the matter.) Thanks for the replies. | ||
SaintBadger
United States139 Posts
On April 27 2012 23:21 DoubleReed wrote: What? Homosexuals can still have children, just not through intercourse. Once again that's not really relevant. I have yet to hear a single republican (or anyone for that matter) claim that more people shouldn't be married because "we can't afford it." Your argument sounds extremely disingenuous to me, to the point where I am worried you are trolling very skillfully. I think you honestly need to consider that you may be incorrect about how much religious zealotry and bigotry is in the republican party. I really think that I have a better perspective on conservative motives than most. And again, I direct you to GoProud for more specifics. And of course then can adopt. My point was, there was no inkling of homosexuals adopting at the time these laws were written. What I'm suggesting will give homosexual adopters the same breaks as are currently on the books for heterosexual married couples, whether they have children or not. Thus, we have the tax code targetted as it's intended, and we get off this tired issue. As for actual marriage (i.e. the religious ceremony), I can go through why Catholics don't recognize same-sex marriage, but it seems beside the point. I'm sorry many don't respect the purpose of legal marriage as a societal incentive for raising children. If we had a uniform adoption system across all states that didn't favor heterosexual couples (not that that would be a good thing, but IF), then there might be a story. But we don't. Furthermore, everyone really needs to understand that changing laws is HARD . . . and SLOW . . . and we live under a tax code written for a marriage system controlled by the churches. We didn't even have "civil ceremonies" at the time. I find myself defending two fronts here, and it's difficult to go back and forth. One point I'm trying to make is that in general, there are reasons beyond bigotry why people defend heterosexual marriage in the legal realm. Sooner or later, those reasons will disappear, and coincidentally, year by year, voters care less and less about preserving the traditional concept of marriage. The second front is this notion that Republicans are worse than Democrats, and for me, this is equally important. Yes, I want to make progress, but I'm not a single-issue voter, and damn sure not single-issue regarding homosexual marriage. It is very important to me to spend some time totally debunking this idiotic notion that Democrats are somehow better on this issue. You want evidence of that? It would have taken about ten seconds to repeal DOMA at any point between the beginning of 2009 and when Ted Kennedy died. The Dems had filibuster proof majorities in both houses of Congress and the POTUS. Did it happen? Never even got brought up. After a while, we're just going back and forth on this. I do not accept the premise that the legislation you've mentioned is evidence of bigotry. I do not accept that Dems are the "gay friendly" party. I DO understand that the Dems are quite good at painting us as backward rednecks because if you choose to assume the worst about all our stances, that's where you end up. If that's what people believe, especially after reading the content I've put up here, then vote Dem or better yet, vote 3rd party I'll be here. | ||
triangle
United States3803 Posts
On April 28 2012 00:27 SaintBadger wrote:It is very important to me to spend some time totally debunking this idiotic notion that Democrats are somehow better on this issue. Am I reading this correctly? Are you claiming that Democrats and Republicans have equal stated policies on homosexual rights, or an equal track record on homosexual rights? Both those claims are ludicrous, so I'm wondering if I just misinterpreted your post. On April 28 2012 00:27 SaintBadger wrote: Catholics officially don't condone homosexual marriage rites, but plenty of American priests perform them anyway. Dunno what you mean by "plenty". Do you have any statistics for this at all? Only person I know who worked as a clergyman for a marriage between two men was a unitarian, which is not exactly a conservative denomination. Edit - man, I wish I had met a conservative who opposed gay marriage on grounds other than "God says it's not ok". I think you are misrepresenting sentiment within the republican party. There's no hostility toward alternative energy on this side of the line I think the Republican conception of alternative energy is very different from the Democrats', and that Republicans are in fact, quite hostile to many alternative energy technologies (just as many democrats are hostile to alternative energies like shale, nuclear, etc.). "Alternative energy" must be defined before you make a claim like that. | ||
SaintBadger
United States139 Posts
@ Mazer I am perfectly comfortable with our stance on global warming. There's no hostility toward alternative energy on this side of the line, but it's amusing to me how global warming is treated by the left as some sort of religion. For example, I just read today that a number of climate-change organizations are organizing boycotts of all radio and TV stations who employ meteorologists who are "climate deniers". In this case, being a denier includes not only those who are skeptical of anthro-climate change, but those who agree global warming is potential, but don't agree that we are already suffering effects RIGHT NOW. I'll take this moment to point out that over a third of the planet set records for all time low temps last winter. Somewhere along the way, global warming became a cult. But anyway, I'll stop there. I have a lot of contact regarding global warming on earlier pages. Now, I thought long and hard about whether I wanted to open the following can of worms. But here we go. Regarding evolution, and I can't believe we went almost 36 hrs of this blog without this coming up, let me get my disclaimer ready 1. In principle, I suspect Darwin had it right when he theorized that genetic drift occasionally develops advantageous traits in offspring of whatever life we're talking about, and over time those offspring are more successful in breeding and eventually breed out the less desirable trait in a species. 2. When Darwin first wrote Origin, his main critics were not priests and cardinals, they were scientists. It flew in the face of a lot of theories of life held by the community at the time. 3. Regarding humanity's common ancestry with apes, there is a reason the people in the Northwest call Sasquatch "The Missing Link". While it is heavily heavily likely (like REALLY heavily) that humans and apes share a common ancestor, even today that is still properly considered a theory. The reason we don't call that a FACT is that we've never found a link in the fossil record chain that could be considered "the half-way point" between humans and something else. Maybe one day we will, but we haven't yet. Originally, evolutionary science was hated because creationism was taken literally. God created everything in a week, and then took a break on Sunday (or Saturday for the Adventists). Period. No room for the fallibility of understanding in writing scripture. Sit down, shut up, that's how it was. If you've never seen George C. Scott and Jack Lemmon in "Inherit the Wind", please go Netflix it or something. Wonderful depiction of the Scopes monkey trial. NOWADAYS, I think we all know that there was a little more to the history of the universe than that. There will be a few folks who just say, "Well, God made it look like things are millions of years old to test our faith in the Bible," but I honestly believe those people don't even believe it themselves. It's just pandering. Nevertheless, there is still an issue of evolution vs. creationism in schools. Most of the time today, it's not a fight over whether evolution is going to be taught. It is. Now it's a fight over whether creationism or intelligent design (not quite the same thing, but close) is mentioned as well. I think the reason this is such a fight goes back to what I said in #3 of disclaimer. Evolution is a likely explanation for the origins of complex life, but it is a theory. A theory backed up by lots of evidence, but not proven. Now, people of faith believe that there is evidence of God's existence on Earth. I will readily admit that sometimes, that requires an act of faith to accept in the first place. But people of faith here this message, "Oh how quaint, they believe in GAWD! How cute and ignorant!" and then immediately, "How stupid can you be? Don't dare question evolution!" and it doesn't compute, and it engenders a lasting resentment. And when they get the chance to fight to have their children exposed to religious teachings, they go for it. Always. I would LOVE to make this a juicy hot issue, because I enjoy receiving donations. But, it generally isn't. I doubt we'll ever again see it as an issue in federal politics. It generally stays in municipal or even lower levels of administration. I think that both sides are living in the past with regard to the desire to blow that out of proportion. No, creationism doesn't really belong in a science class, but in general, we are woefully deficient in theological literacy education. You learn about the Crusades in World History class without having any clue about the theological clashes between Christians and Muslims . . . what use is that? On a theological note, how the hell would you have measured "days" before anyone was around on Earth? What was that Treebeard or somesuch guy in LotR who rolls into the clearing and says ominously, "Something is about to happen that hasn't occurred in . . . an AAAGGGGEEEEEE". How the hell long is an Age? Just sayin' | ||
SaintBadger
United States139 Posts
On April 28 2012 00:47 triangle wrote: Show nested quote + On April 28 2012 00:27 SaintBadger wrote:It is very important to me to spend some time totally debunking this idiotic notion that Democrats are somehow better on this issue. Am I reading this correctly? Are you claiming that Democrats and Republicans have equal stated policies on homosexual rights, or an equal track record on homosexual rights? Both those claims are ludicrous, so I'm wondering if I just misinterpreted your post. Edit - man, I wish I met a conservative who opposed gay marriage on grounds other than "god says it's not ok". I think you are misrepresenting sentiment within the republican party. I think you've been lied to about sentiment within the Republican party. Or you're equating the beliefs of voters with the beliefs of party politicians. I don't speak for everyone that votes for us, but I'll gladly take their vote. Trust me, Dems don't want to speak for large portions of their voters either (My mind drifts to "Obama givin' me money from his stash!" clips). And other than DADT, which I suspect would have been out the door regardless of who won POTUS in 2008, I'm interested in the great record of the Dems. Their rhetoric is better, but take that to the booth and vote on it, and you'll be a very disillusioned person. As I stated earlier, actual members of the Dem party, like actual leaders, not just voters, have terrible terrible records on the homosexual issues. They just don't get called on it, because as always, the Dems are better at managing their image. I should probably explain that comment about DADT. McCain wasn't keen on repealing it, but he would have had a damn-near veto proof Congress that wanted it out, not to mention Republican-installed military men who wanted it out. So I assume it would have happened. | ||
triangle
United States3803 Posts
On April 28 2012 01:10 SaintBadger wrote: Show nested quote + On April 28 2012 00:47 triangle wrote: On April 28 2012 00:27 SaintBadger wrote:It is very important to me to spend some time totally debunking this idiotic notion that Democrats are somehow better on this issue. Am I reading this correctly? Are you claiming that Democrats and Republicans have equal stated policies on homosexual rights, or an equal track record on homosexual rights? Both those claims are ludicrous, so I'm wondering if I just misinterpreted your post. Edit - man, I wish I met a conservative who opposed gay marriage on grounds other than "god says it's not ok". I think you are misrepresenting sentiment within the republican party. I think you've been lied to about sentiment within the Republican party. Or you're equating the beliefs of voters with the beliefs of party politicians. I don't speak for everyone that votes for us, but I'll gladly take their vote. Trust me, Dems don't want to speak for large portions of their voters either (My mind drifts to "Obama givin' me money from his stash!" clips). And other than DADT, which I suspect would have been out the door regardless of who won POTUS in 2008, I'm interested in the great record of the Dems. Their rhetoric is better, but take that to the booth and vote on it, and you'll be a very disillusioned person. As I stated earlier, actual members of the Dem party, like actual leaders, not just voters, have terrible terrible records on the homosexual issues. They just don't get called on it, because as always, the Dems are better at managing their image. I should probably explain that comment about DADT. McCain wasn't keen on repealing it, but he would have had a damn-near veto proof Congress that wanted it out, not to mention Republican-installed military men who wanted it out. So I assume it would have happened. This may shock you, but I actually do talk to Republicans :p They are not some mythical entity I only hear about through rumor. Admittedly, my sample size is small, but still, come on. Don't act as if I am completely ignorant. Also, why are you assuming politicians will act dramatically different from the will of their constituents? If many republicans dislike gays for religious reasons, that (ought) to affect their leaders as well. I am friends with a lobbyist who campaigns for increased gay marriage rights. Opposition comes from the Republicans. Democrats overwhelmingly support gay marriage at higher rates. See http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx Additionally, look at the supporters of same sex marriage and their party affiliation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supporters_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States Additionally, examine which states have legalized same sex marriage. They are liberal states. Of course, gay rights extend far beyond marriage, but I don't understand how you can argue this. Do you have any evidence at all that democrats and republicans are equally effective on this issue? All evidence points in the other direction. For more in depth look at gay rights beyond marriage by state, see http://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/legal_equality_by_state Democrats do a WAY WAY better job. It's not even close. For example, contrast some state laws. http://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/profile_state/AL http://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/profile_state/TX http://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/profile_state/AK vs. http://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/profile_state/MA http://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/profile_state/CA http://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/profile_state/NY | ||
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
Nevertheless, there is still an issue of evolution vs. creationism in schools. Most of the time today, it's not a fight over whether evolution is going to be taught. It is. Now it's a fight over whether creationism or intelligent design (not quite the same thing, but close) is mentioned as well. I think the reason this is such a fight goes back to what I said in #3 of disclaimer. Evolution is a likely explanation for the origins of complex life, but it is a theory. A theory backed up by lots of evidence, but not proven. Now, people of faith believe that there is evidence of God's existence on Earth. I will readily admit that sometimes, that requires an act of faith to accept in the first place. But people of faith here this message, "Oh how quaint, they believe in GAWD! How cute and ignorant!" and then immediately, "How stupid can you be? Don't dare question evolution!" and it doesn't compute, and it engenders a lasting resentment. And when they get the chance to fight to have their children exposed to religious teachings, they go for it. Always. A Theory has nothing to do with proven or unproven or true or false. It has to do with the idea of depth and explanation. It's to contrast a Law which is a simplistic statement about the world that seems to be true. For instance, the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. We don't know why it's true. It just is. Shrug. Theories are explanations. They have far more depth. Atomic Theory, Gravitational Theory, Relativity Theory. They encompass much larger ideas and have lots of intricate detail. Theories however remain Theories whether or not they are proven or disproven. The Plum Pudding Model of the Atom is a theory and it's disproven and wrong. String Theory is completely unproven. Evolutionary Theory, on the other hand, has been proven. It is just as much a fact as Atomic Theory. Yes there are details that are still being looked into, but it is a fact. It is a Theory. It has also been proven. | ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games tarik_tv77699 gofns20093 summit1g9520 Grubby2380 sgares669 JimRising 390 Hui .214 NuckleDu173 Maynarde108 -ZergGirl99 Nathanias72 Mew2King70 ViBE36 Trikslyr30 Organizations StarCraft 2 Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War
StarCraft 2 • HeavenSC 47 StarCraft: Brood War• RyuSc2 40 • Hupsaiya 39 • musti20045 31 • davetesta24 • Gussbus • LaughNgamez Trovo • Poblha • aXEnki • Migwel • intothetv • Laughngamez YouTube • Kozan • IndyKCrew Dota 2 League of Legends Other Games |
Kung Fu Cup
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
PassionCraft
ESL Pro Tour
World Team League
ESL Pro Tour
Korean StarCraft League
Afreeca Starleague
hero vs Soulkey
AfreecaTV Pro Series
Reynor vs Cure
[ Show More ] ESL Pro Tour
World Team League
ESL Pro Tour
BSL
CSO Cup
Sparkling Tuna Cup
ESL Pro Tour
World Team League
ESL Pro Tour
BSL
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
|
|