I joined this community a few weeks ago to voice my opinion in the newly-formed Scarlett fanclub. Several of the posts in that particular club made disparaging remarks about conservatives by assigning that philosophy to those who ridicule her transgender status. This struck me as very odd, as there is no particular tenant of conservatism that addresses transgender persons one way or the other. Then I began to read the "Obama v. Romney" post in the general forum and it became painfully obvious that sincere, thoughtful individuals are grossly mistaken about some of the beliefs held by conservatives. So, at the risk of starting a wildly abusive, short-lived topic, I'd like to offer my expertise on the subject.
If there is anything that a member of TL would sincerely like to ask regarding either conservative beliefs or justifications thereof, I'd like to answer to the best of my ability.
Now, who the hell am I to speak for conservatives?
For the past seven years, I have worked on various campaigns for conservative U.S. politicians at the state and national level. Currently, I am a manager in the North Carolina branch of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. I have a B.S. in Mathematics and Political Science and an MBA from Millsaps College (small liberal arts spot) and a J.D. from Tulane University School of Law. Perhaps most importantly, I have had some personal experience with a lot of the social and financial issues that plague American politics. If this takes off, I will get more explicit as necessary.
I also have a fairly good understanding of constitutional law. I suspect I'm not the only law school graduate around here, but if you'd like the conservative tint to a decidedly ambiguous area of the way our legal system works, feel free to ask.
From where do these answers come?
Only myself. I do not propose to speak for any particular politician, including my candidate. That's for other times and other forums. I am a practicing Catholic, but I try very hard to not allow my faith to be my sole justification for political convictions. Also, I am NOT a libertarian. The distinction between libertarians and conservatives is very important to me, and I believe to the country at large. Again, if someone is interested, I will develop that further.
Why do you care?
Obviously, I would love nothing more than to convince all of you that my understanding of the world is the truth and the way to approach life. Barring that, you should know that somewhere around 40% of the country self-identifies as conservative, and that 40% tends to vote quite reliably. If for no other reason than "know thy enemy", I hope you will ask anything you want to know.
I'm fully aware that this could be an obnoxious disaster. Furthermore, as the campaign begins to shift to the general-election phase, my time to check and answer this blog will vary wildly. However, ICCup Tesla's recent post on female gamers has proven that this community can be reasonably respectful and coherent if sufficiently engaged. Hopefully, this post will do just that.
Highest Regards
EDIT: For those who come late to this blog, there have been one or two occasions when I have admitted a mistake somewhere up the page without necessarily editting original posts. This is particularly true regarding the Intelligent Design discussion around page 8. So please read all the way through. And thank you for the civil interaction. This has been a very fun project and I have learned a lot so far.
This is a really cool idea I went to a fairly liberal university (Rutgers in New Jersey), and only really had one token conservative in our circle of friends, and he was very extreme (and not very good at speaking his mind or defending his positions during discussions). Over time, I met more conservatives and clear Republicans, but it's always nice to learn more!
1. What are your top three most important ethical/ moral issues (either in the upcoming presidential election or in general) that you hold a conservative position about, and what's your rationale for leaning towards the right?
2. Are there any platforms or topics that you hold a liberal position towards, or are you 100% conservative through and through?
1) What do you think the relationship is/should be between religion and politics in a secular democracy?
2) How would you respond to social critics who say that democrats and republicans are just different flavours of the same brand, and that Americans have no real choice when it comes to politics?
3) Why do you think the voting rate in America is so low?
On April 26 2012 14:55 Coramoor wrote: how can you support and campaign for a candidate that is so incredibly flip floppy on every issue and clearly wants nothing more then power
And this is why we can't have nice things.
Great blog idea by the way. I like the idea of open communication as it relates to politics. Try not to let obvious inflammatory posts like this get to you.
How do you feel about political conservatism getting tangled up with social conservatism? Does it upset you that most people think of hyper religious rednecks when they think of conservative voters?
1. You say you are catholic. What makes you believe in god? 2. What makes you think that right wing politics works when you see that socialist countries like Norway have a way better living standard than USA? 3. I don't know if you know, but do you think/know if this clip is a serious clip, or just a joke?
Love the idea =) ... Note that my second questions is mostly based on me not being American and despite having been over there for quite some time I find your republican vs democrats thingy highly confusing at times. I don't really see where the actual differences are between your parties. =P
How old are you?
Why did you choose to become a conservative? What are your main grounds of believing that this the "right" approach to todays politics?
1) do you consider the social conservatives of today to be real conservatives or just socialists? 2) why would you go to a liberal arts school when you're a conservative ( in other words, do you believe these two groups of beliefs conflict?)
On April 26 2012 14:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: This is a really cool idea I went to a fairly liberal university (Rutgers in New Jersey), and only really had one token conservative in our circle of friends, and he was very extreme (and not very good at speaking his mind or defending his positions during discussions). Over time, I met more conservatives and clear Republicans, but it's always nice to learn more!
1. What are your top three most important ethical/ moral issues (either in the upcoming presidential election or in general) that you hold a conservative position about, and what's your rationale for leaning towards the right?
2. Are there any platforms or topics that you hold a liberal position towards, or are you 100% conservative through and through?
ANSWERS for DarkPlasmaBall
1. "Top three most important ethical/moral issues" is going to have to be off the top of my head for now. I may have to revise this answer after I see the next month or so of campaigning.
A. Healthcare
Obviously, this is somewhat of an umbrella term. It kills me that we have spent 20 months under a President who clearly does have the motivation and charisma to effect real change in this matter, and yet all that has been accomplished is a shift in the regulation of payment for service. The dirty little secret of the healthcare debate is that regardless of whether we call it an insurance pool, a single-payer system, or simply a new tax, the end result is we are simply expanding the list of health problems for which the government will pick up the tab.
Now, morally, there's nothing wrong with that except for the dishonesty exhibited by those who discuss it. The issue is that nothing has been solved. The staggering overhead and redundant costs of the American hospital system and its interaction with government at all levels have not been reduced. Sooner or later, we will need to make the decision whether we are going to have a socialized system or a profit-driven system, because this current state somewhere in the middle is far worse than both. The consumer gets hit with all the profit margin and all the compliance costs simultaneously. I believe that profit is a fine motivator for most if not all systems, but there is certainly an argument to be made on the other side. I think there is a lot of merit to the stopgap measure of allowing interstate sale and portability of health insurance. That would not fix the ultimate issue, but it would drop insurance costs quickly with no political backlash.
I just realized these need to be a bit shorter.
B. The 1%
I almost hate to elevate this to top three status, but I know it is an effective campaign tool. Calling it "class warfare" is too generous to the Democrats, in that by the traditional Euro-standard of class-based society, we have no classes in this country. There will always be those who think the rich don't "need" as much money as they have. To be frank, in the Hierarchy of Needs sense of "need", that's very true. But the morality of this issue is actually quite interesting. Each "rich person" will have to come to peace in his or her own mind about greed vs. charity, but in terms of taxation, it is wrong to pretend that the US can bail itself out with a new Buffet Rule. We've all heard the stats about how if we confiscated all the wealth in the country from the top 1%, it would pay the governement's bills for about two months. I don't pretend to know THE PERFECT TAX SYSTEM, but I do know that we are wasting time dealing with Warren Buffet's secretary trying to score political points when we could be making some prudent investments and tough decisions which would cement the social safety net for a few more generations. The bottom line is, each generation will face its own existential crisis as it ages. So far, our parents have not stepped up.
C. Nation-Building
It amazes me how little press Afghanistan gets these days. President Bush was raked over the coals constantly, and perhaps rightfully so. But President Obama represented himself as willing to change things, and so far, we are actually spending MORE per year on foreign military operations. As we have left Iraq, Afghanistan expenses have grown, and Libya has entered the picture. Iran and Syria are probably coming soon. We need to decide the purpose of our military. Personally, if Bush had simply said, "we're going into these places to murder those who attacked us and anyone who has even smiled at them since 9/11," I'd have been more enthusiastic knowing that once it was done, my brothers in arms would be coming home. This indefinite occupation is not accomplishing much, and doesn't even seem to be scoring political points for either side. It will be interesting as the world changes to see whether or not we have learned anything about starting what we are not willing to finish.
2. Do I take any liberal positons?
I'm going to assume that we're talking about stereotypical conservative and liberal positions. As a practicing Catholic, I cannot support the death penalty. To take the life of one who has not received penance for a mortal sin is the worst sin I can possibly imagine. But, stepping away from the faith, I know as an attorney that some defendants have simply walked into court with no chance of a "not guilty". Maybe it was incompetent counsel, maybe it was a jury who had been introduced to improper evidence, but the system is not infallible. Furthermore, by the time an accused is put through all his trials and appeals, is housed in prison during that time, and is actually executed, the cost eclipses the average cost for a life sentence. So any argument supporting capital punishment on financial grounds is just false.
Liberals tend to believe that certain things are fundamental rights which simply aren't. Abortion is the typical example. My understanding of constitutional law is that a state should have the right to outlaw or allow abortion, and to restrict it as it sees necessary. I don't particularly think a state SHOULD outlaw abortion, but the notion that somewhere in the "penumbras and emanations" of the Bill of Rights is the right to abort a pregnancy is just false. If you ever want an interesting read, go to oyez.org and search on Roe v. Wade. You can read or listen to the transcripts and watch the court lead the lawyer through their arguments. The lawyer for Roe had no idea how to frame a constitutional argument, but she knew the Court was sympathetic, so she basically showed up and agreed with the Justices.
In the time it's taken to write this reply, nine more have come up. I will have to make future answers shorter and I will also bundle a few that are similar. If you see me answer a question posted after yours, it's because I think I have answered yours elsewhere. Please repost if you didn't think I got to it.
Saintbadger, the response to DarkPlasmaBall was thoughtful and well-written. Thanks for your hard work in this.
I have been feeling an intense frustration recently at the incredibly poor quality of our political discourse in America. Our democracy has degenerated into sound-bites. So I appreciate the time, effort, and thought that is clearly on display here.
First of all, in my book there is no such thing as a non-fiscal issue. Homosexual marriage involves substantial decreasing of tax revenue at the state and federal levels. Abortion has HUGE HUGE financial implications. So, as I said in the last post, I don't subscribe to the notion that everything a person might want to do is a fundamental right protected implicitly in the Constitution. Having said that, I don't necessarily want all of the things I morally disapprove of to be outlawed.
I believe it is morally wrong to have sex without taking precaution against pregnancy unless it is your intention to have and raise a child. I do not think abortion is murder, and furthermore, I don't think the country could survive at the current state of society without it. I think homosexual marriage is a matter for the church, and I think ALL marriage incentives should be removed and replaced with increased child credits, since the whole point of marriage incentives is to help ensure two-parent households for children. There are millions more social issues, but I tend to stick with these when asked a blanket question.
As to what a government's role is, that's a little too broad. I think for the most part, it can be whatever its people wants it to be, with a few fundamentals not up for discussion.
I am not a libertarian for pretty much the reasons I indicated regarding social conservatism. Libertarians generally do not acknowledge the simple truth that we are going to have a safety net in this country funded by taxpayers, and thus, it is very much my business whether you are doing something that is likely to incur tremendous costs to the government. Striking the balance between personal liberty and society's willingness to financially forgive certain mistakes by an individual is the work of statesman, and not to be ignored.
@ Coramoor
All politicians want power. I believe both Romney and Obama intend to use that power in a way that pursues what they see as a better future for the country. You might think me naive, but I have some idea what the job of President entails, and believe me, there are easier ways to be very powerful. As to the flip flop, I'm very slow to judge people as dishonest when they claim to have changed their minds. I change my mind frequently, and I think it takes a particularly stubborn individual to not admit they've learned new things and evolved because of them. In the end, I'm not the one stepping up to the plate to be the leader of the free world. If he governs as he represents himself to me and my party, we'll be happy. No one can be sure how it's going to go beforehand.
Do women (in general) find your conservativeness to be offensive? I'd imagine that since the conservative stance could be interpreted as a more misogynistic political stance that anyone outside the conservative standpoint would find it an automatic turn-off as opposed to having a more liberal stance would have possibly zero.... something like, "meritless conclusions based on prejudice".
1. What's the proper relationship of religion and government in the US?
That's a big one. Personally, I try to live my life by my faith and vote on empirical evidence and educated guesswork. The death penalty and a few other issues are so big and so intertwined with faith that I have given up trying to avoid my religious convictions. I think we'd all be a little better served if we knew what our religion ACTUALLY had to say on the matters at hand, and I don't just mean scripture.
I'm going to plagarize a West Wing episode for a moment: "The Bible says a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye. It says a prideful child can be stoned at the gates of a city. It says [a few other things that I can't remember from that episode]. For all I know, this represented the most learned and wise of philosophy at the time. But it's just wrong, by any modern standard." I think that scripture was written by man and man is fallible. So be careful and err on the side of compassion.
As to the public sphere, I think we've actually done a good job. Employment law and the IRS have carved out fairly liberal exceptions to religious organizatons. There are a few lasting issues with gender discrimination in the Catholic Church, but they're being resolved slowly but surely.
Having said all that, I'm sorry to break the scholarly tone, but to hell with these people who say Congress can't start business with a prayer. Nowhere in the Constitution are you guaranteed freedom from annoyance or offence. I checked.
2. Aren't Dems and Reps two sides of the same coin, with no real choice involved?
At an individual level, that is provably false. Ron Paul really does want to go back to the gold standard and legalize all drugs. Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont) really does want to abolish private property. But the FUNCTIONAL truth of the matter is probably a lot more in line with your question. WIth the veto, the fillibuster, and the looming high Court, not a lot of stuff gets done. From 2009 - 2011, we had the rare privilege of seeing what happens when one party manages to secure the presidency and enough votes in Congress to override parliamentary maneuvers. I speak of the Affordable Care Act. In my book, that was a very bad time. But regardless of which side of the line you stand, it was a bit scary to see how different the political realm looks when one party amasses that many seats in government.
3. Why is the U.S. voting rate so low?
We vote on Tuesdays. No, seriously, that's the reason. All of Europe has a holiday to vote. Obviously there's some apathy inherent in all populations, but I think we'd be comparable with Europe if we voted on Sunday. Frankly, I've never seen the merit in trying for a higher voter turnout when we aren't trying for more voter UNDERSTANDING. I like the idea that only those of us who are engaged enough to have an opinion actually make the trek to the booth and pull the lever.
ANSWERS @SnipedSoul (think I answered the first part earlier)
Do conservative stereotypes bother me?
Not really. I think deep down, everyone understands that their are some fiercely intelligent and motivated people on both sides of the aisle. There will always be some who insist on characterizing religion as ignorant, but I gladly accept the mantle of the "religous party" if they really want to give it to us. Ironically, of course, the same people who decry "bible thumpin' rednecks" are strangely silent when Nancy Pelosi reaches out to her "fellow" Catholics.
And let's face it. No matter where you stand on the issues, if the zombie apocalypse ever breaks out, y'all bettter get your asses to the deep South. God may not be taking a personal role in things at that point, but the guns sure will.
If people finally run out of things to ask conservatives, I may make "Ask a Catholic Anything", but by then, I hope to be working at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave (we can dream). I really can't do the long answer right now. The short version is that given all the evidence I can perceive, Occam's Razor points me in the direction of some sort of prime mover. As to the Christian tenants, the EXTREMELY condensed version is that the passion story rings true in some preternatural part of my brain, and my gut reaction to things which Christianity holds as virtuous or evil generally validate the teachings. That's a weird answer, but it's a hard thing to write quickly.
2. Why be conservative when more liberal European countries have better standards of living?
For one thing, we're seeng the beginnings of what I think will be a massive restructuring of old Europe. I don't know enough about Norway, but I do know quite a bit about Sweden, and the bottom line is that that system of government is extremely precarious, and a relatively minor depression can send it tumbling toward total collapse without the willing aid of a more prosperous nation. I don't think the U.S. can count on someone bailing us out if we ever get out of control.
I do realize that the governement can maintain increasing levels of debt to fund itself, BUT that debt increase should not outpace GDP growth. Over the past ten years, the US has shown no restraint whatsoever. Also, it just grates on me, this idea that we have trillions of dollars spent on ourselves that we never intend to pay back. That may be a sustainable framework, but it's not how I want to sustain my country.
One last thought: Be careful reading about standards of living as compared between America and Europe. When Dems want to talk about socialized medicine, they talk about how our infant mortality rate is so much higher (one of the big factors in calculating standard of living). The only problem is, they're lying thru their teeth and they know it. In America, any pregnancy that reaches the 8th month of gestation is counted as an infant because viability is 100% established (barring some sort of deformity, of course). In Europe, an infant has to be living and breathing outside the mother for 24 hours before it's counted as an infant. So yes, America has a higher rate of infant mortality by its definition, but if we used the Euro definition, ours is something like 3% of Europe's. It's comparing apple seeds to apples.
3. Youtube clip = I can't watch right now, but please repost later or remind me.
@r.Evo
I am 29 years old.
I chose to be a conservative at first because the people who identify themselves as conservative are generally more accepting of their existing a right and a wrong absent any relativism. Now, the failing of conservatives is that too often, they proclaim they know exactly what that right and wrong is in every circumstance. I don't pretend to be an arbiter of right and wrong, but the moral relativism argument upon which a lot of liberalism is based, in other words the "it's right for you but wrong for me" idea, is just an untenable logical fallicy to me. Later, as I learned the economic side of it, I did a lot of research on the numbers and decided that in order to sustain the kind of government that can accomplish most of what liberals desire, we would have to sacrifice a lot of the incentives that I think make the US a special place to live. I want the opportunity to be filthy rich if that's what's important to me. I am willing to pay taxes, but I will fight hard to never allow a penny of them to go to things that I don't see as worthwhile.
That's a sort of idealistic answer, but that's a fairly broad question.
What's the strongest part of the Republican platform?
I sometimes imagine both parties as two individuals reading that line on the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal . . ." The Democrat sees merit in that line and finds his fulfillment in creating equality throughout life. The Republican finds merit in that line, but finds fulfillment in maintaining equal POTENTIAL for all, while reveling in the infinite ways that individuals will fulfill or squander that potential at their leisure.
I guess I'm saying this in a weird way because I feel like I should have some lofty notion to impart here. My point is, Republicans are ready to legislate, enforce, and fund the laws and mechanisms necessaary to feed, clothe, and educate the entirety of the U.S. But as we do that, we are constantly trying to find ways to lessen the imposition on the rest of the country, not because we're all rich fat cats, but because we want to preserve the possibility to be a rich guy, or a starving artist, or whatever the hell you want.
Democrats are very quick to pass new laws making it harder for banks to charge you high interest rates or mandate health insurance for everyone, etc. All of these things sound great, and I imagine many of the people who vote Democrat do so because they see that party as a generous provider. But they are notoriously stubborn in refusing to ask whether there might be a good reason why someone would willingly choose not to carry insurance or whether a bank could charge those interest rates but simultaneously provide benefits that aren't generally found in the banking world.
I guess as I'm writing this, I'm deciding on my own most favored part of the platform. Republicans try to maintain the safety net while maintaining as much room as possible for individual success or failure. The ability to fail and have it hurt in a meaningful way, be it to your pocketbook, your esteem, whatever, is a very important thing in a growing society. It takes willpower and conscious effort to not squander future opportunity in order to create a temporary cushion over which there is no real such thing as success or failure.
Sorry, it's getting late. I'll read this tomorrow and possibly want to revise the response. I hope I'm coherent.
1. Do I consider current social conservatives "real" conservatives?
I'm not quite sure what you mean. I will say that I think there is a liberalizing tendency as all societies progress, but then again, there is also a tendency for societies to collapse at some point in their progression. Each generation manages to pass along a good portion of their understanding of morality and how the world "should" be, but there is an element of rebelliousness which doesn't allow for static understandings. Nerds might call it "social entropy".
2. Why would I go to a liberal arts school?
The women, of course. But seriously, there wasn't much of a political calculation involved in choosing Millsaps or Tulane. Both are extremely liberal places, but I was that guy that I'm sure you've all had in your classes. You know, the one that would annoy you by arguing with the professor. You'd all be pissed at him until you realized he'd managed to eat up the entire 90 minutes without anyone having to read or do anything. I enjoyed it, anyway.
Law school was much worse. I had civil rights professors calling me a racist to my face, sending out emails to various organization heads telling them I was a trouble maker, etc. The students weren't particularly bad, but the professors were ridiculous.
Thank you for the kind words, but you'll have to be a bit more specific on the consumer culture question. Or at least let me get a few hours sleep first. Work in . . . four hours now
@Hnnngg
1. Do women find my views offensive?
I think the thing that offends them the most is I don't respect the distnction of "women's issues". As a person who has endured a girlfriend telling him after the fact that she aborted his very-much-desired child, I can tell you that abortion is very much a PERSON issue. The birth control thing that got played up with Rick Santorum is sort of a woman's issue, but it's more like not an issue, since no one is trying to outlaw contraception. I imagine they'll carve out a religious exemption as always when it's all said and done.
For the most part, I think women respect conviction as much as men do. There is certainly a higher percentage of liberal women than men, but after fifty years of hearing nothing but an echo chamber on how Republicans just want to own their ovaries, you can't really blame them. Before Obama hit the political scene, it was the same with African Americans. Except that made even less sense, given the Democrat track record on race issues pre-1964.
The bottom line with so-called women's issues, and in fact, with many Republican stances, is that they are easily twisted into sound bytes which are effective on an uninformed audience. Abortion is not a constitionally-protected right = Republicans hate women and want them to just use clothes hangers in dark alleys. Employers are allowed, but not required, to give women who take maternity leave credit towards tenure in additon to full salary = Republicans stick it to women to help make rich men richer. It goes on and on, and no amount of facts or debate will stop the practice.
We do it too. The Democrat positions just don't always lend themselves to such easily summarized talking points.
2. Do I watch FOX News?
Absolutely. I hope to be appearing on it sometime this week in fact, though they may send someone from the national campaign to bump me. I won't argue that the network doesn't have a conservative spin, but I would respectfully submit, that with the incredible amount of bias in most other non-internet media sources, even perfectly down the middle reporting would appear extremely conservative. Fox is definitely right of center, but nowhere near as much as the Media Matters crowd would have us all believe.
I do watch the MSNBC line of talkshows. They are remarkably effective at predicting exactly what someone will be yelling at me about the next day.
Hey you know if Conservatives and Politics in general responded and explained things the way you do...we'd all be in a better place.
I am in no way a conservative but I can definitely respect someone that has a thoughtout and intelligent reason for thinking the way they do. I also realize in the sad darkness that is my cynicism that...explaining things the way you explain them isn't the way you win elections. With the way it works now you need BIG TALKING points and FLASH POINT issues to draw in your crowd and it makes me sad that this sort of thing is never actually...brought up. The only thing that bothers me about you is the way you used Occama Razor That explanation for believing in God always struck me as odd but hey whatever.
So anyone to my one question. Conservatism is pretty heavily linked with religion these days. While I realize that the USA as a whole is religious in general the media definitely portrays the right as the "religious ones." I'm curious if this is actually a fundamental part of the conservative platform or if this is just one of those things to help someone win an election.
On April 26 2012 14:55 Coramoor wrote: how can you support and campaign for a candidate that is so incredibly flip floppy on every issue and clearly wants nothing more then power
And this is why we can't have nice things.
Great blog idea by the way. I like the idea of open communication as it relates to politics. Try not to let obvious inflammatory posts like this get to you.
i'm sorry but no, have you seen the comments he's made and the way he's acted in his political career, it's quite easy to draw these conclusions, and the commentary has been made in the mainstream media worldwide that his only aspiration is power and he's willing to say and do whatever to get it, you could say this of any politician I suppose but Romney is in my opinion an extreme example
thank you to the OP, although i disagree due to the radical shift in views on everything leads me to believe pandering to a certain audience, but that's just me and as I am not American I'll leave it at that.
I must say OP I like you :D. Nice answers was nice to read your responses and find I agree with a lot you have said . (I'm conersative but in no way do I pay as much attention as you, hate politics personally and arguing with people about it haha )
Democrats are very quick to pass new laws making it harder for banks to charge you high interest rates or mandate health insurance for everyone, etc. All of these things sound great, and I imagine many of the people who vote Democrat do so because they see that party as a generous provider. But they are notoriously stubborn in refusing to ask whether there might be a good reason why someone would willingly choose not to carry insurance or whether a bank could charge those interest rates but simultaneously provide benefits that aren't generally found in the banking world.
I was going to get out of this, but as a Canadian I have to ask. In what world would a person ever on any planet not want health insurance that will keep said person alive and out of crippling debt so that they can enjoy the short years they have on this planet.
I'm pretty sure this isn't a useful comment, but the consent of "rage welcome" inspired me. I have no questions, just a general distaste for Republicans because actions speak louder than words, and that provides them as the greater nuisance in the war of "who can be the most facetious". Their combination of stubborness and disregard for societal advancements hinder my endearment. The extremist ones don't really draw my love either.
My personal opinion given your educational background is that you were one of the guys in my pre-law classes that were so insanely neanderthal and delusional in being a conservative (generally military) that they spewed out reckless antics of why we should practically still be slave owners. Did we have classes? No, simply a way to picture that stereotype better.
There's a distinct possibility I can muster up some questions when it is not close to 6am.
Also, North Carolina, you don't need to campaign in a state with open carry, clay hills, and optional segregation, even if Romney is not a qualified opponent for Obama.
Edit: 6am typo
Second edit: Please don't ruin the good name of genuine conservatives and rename your title to include "neo conservative". I don't see anything to do with the constitution and or Jeffersonian life in Romney's opinions or prior political actions.
in that by the traditional Euro-standard of class-based society
"The fuck?" You seriously typed that in and tought.. "Yes, that seems a smart thing to say?" Or do you mean X-early 20th century europe? Which still would make absolutely no sense to even bring up? Nowadays inequality is bigger in the US.. You have people living in Tents and iirc 1/8 of your POPULATION is on food stamps ffs...
I won't even go on what you said after because you actually say: "Stop talking about taxing the rich more because that won't solve all our problems anyway..." "rmblrmbl TOUGH DECISIONS to be made rmblrmbl."
, even perfectly down the middle reporting would appear extremely conservative. Fox is definitely right of center, but nowhere near as much as the Media Matters crowd would have us all believe.
Rofl. Have you actually watched Fox News? If not for certain clips (actually.. probably even with them) you couldn't tell which one wants to be taken serious.. The Daily Show/Colbert or Bill O'Reillies stuff (or however he is written)...
For one thing, we're seeng the beginnings of what I think will be a massive restructuring of old Europe. I don't know enough about Norway, but I do know quite a bit about Sweden, and the bottom line is that that system of government is extremely precarious, and a relatively minor depression can send it tumbling toward total collapse without the willing aid of a more prosperous nation. I don't think the U.S. can count on someone bailing us out if we ever get out of control.
How did you come to this conclusion? How can you say with so much certainty ''and a relatively minor depression can send it tumbling toward total collapse without the willing aid of a more prosperous nation'' when Economics is so underdeveloped. What system of government are we actually talking about exactly?
I almost hate to elevate this to top three status, but I know it is an effective campaign tool. Calling it "class warfare" is too generous to the Democrats, in that by the traditional Euro-standard of class-based society, we have no classes in this country. There will always be those who think the rich don't "need" as much money as they have. To be frank, in the Hierarchy of Needs sense of "need", that's very true. But the morality of this issue is actually quite interesting. Each "rich person" will have to come to peace in his or her own mind about greed vs. charity, but in terms of taxation, it is wrong to pretend that the US can bail itself out with a new Buffet Rule. We've all heard the stats about how if we confiscated all the wealth in the country from the top 1%, it would pay the governement's bills for about two months. I don't pretend to know THE PERFECT TAX SYSTEM, but I do know that we are wasting time dealing with Warren Buffet's secretary trying to score political points when we could be making some prudent investments and tough decisions which would cement the social safety net for a few more generations. The bottom line is, each generation will face its own existential crisis as it ages. So far, our parents have not stepped up.
Class-based society......? There is much greater inequality between Americans than between Europeans. What's your stance on the inequality in wealth between Americans?
What is your stance on Education? Seeing as how public education is pretty awfull.
For one thing, we're seeng the beginnings of what I think will be a massive restructuring of old Europe. I don't know enough about Norway, but I do know quite a bit about Sweden, and the bottom line is that that system of government is extremely precarious, and a relatively minor depression can send it tumbling toward total collapse without the willing aid of a more prosperous nation. I don't think the U.S. can count on someone bailing us out if we ever get out of control.
How did you come to this conclusion? How can you say with so much certainty ''and a relatively minor depression can send it tumbling toward total collapse without the willing aid of a more prosperous nation'' when Economics is so underdeveloped. What system of government are we actually talking about exactly?
I almost hate to elevate this to top three status, but I know it is an effective campaign tool. Calling it "class warfare" is too generous to the Democrats, in that by the traditional Euro-standard of class-based society, we have no classes in this country. There will always be those who think the rich don't "need" as much money as they have. To be frank, in the Hierarchy of Needs sense of "need", that's very true. But the morality of this issue is actually quite interesting. Each "rich person" will have to come to peace in his or her own mind about greed vs. charity, but in terms of taxation, it is wrong to pretend that the US can bail itself out with a new Buffet Rule. We've all heard the stats about how if we confiscated all the wealth in the country from the top 1%, it would pay the governement's bills for about two months. I don't pretend to know THE PERFECT TAX SYSTEM, but I do know that we are wasting time dealing with Warren Buffet's secretary trying to score political points when we could be making some prudent investments and tough decisions which would cement the social safety net for a few more generations. The bottom line is, each generation will face its own existential crisis as it ages. So far, our parents have not stepped up.
Class-based society......? There is much greater inequality between Americans than between Europeans. What's your stance on the inequality in wealth between Americans?
What is your stance on Education? Seeing as how public education is pretty awfull.
My questions exactly, so +1 on them. And also the bit about Sweden/Europe being precarious, what about America and the financial crisis? In Norway we barely felt it, while USA almost fell in another great depression.
Sleep is a wonderful thing. Found some massive "their != there" issues with my own writing.
@Jayme
Is religion a substantial part of conservative platform or just pandering?
Depending on the politician, could be anywhere on that spectrum. Both political parties are mixtures of different groups whose interests do not always overlap (e.g. Ron Paul and the religious right). As I've said in earlier posts, I try to have justifications beyond my faith for my stances. I will say that people like Rick Santorum seem to feel their religious convictions with every ounce of the fervor you see on television. But, for every one of him, I imagine there are quite a few who overplay their faith to court that particular population segment.
Mitt Romney has had an interesting history with the religious right. He has lived his Mormonism publicly, but taken steps to not constantly remind the general voter that he is not a Christian. We'll see whether that turns into a more serious issue as November nears.
@SpearWrit
Will I shout out TL on Fox News? Absolutely (if I can do so without getting fired) Have I read An Assault on Reason? No I haven't, and do not know much about it. But I will add it to the list of things that I either read or get someone I trust to read and then act as if I've read. It's been a busy year, what can I say?
What's your take on global warming and what measures are you willing to take?
What's your response to the suffering infrastructure in the USA?
What's your stance on gun control, more or less? Do you see any connection between gun control and homicide rates, school shootings and the general safeness in the society?
On April 26 2012 16:32 SaintBadger wrote: ANSWERS @Arnstein
1. Why do I believe in God?
If people finally run out of things to ask conservatives, I may make "Ask a Catholic Anything", but by then, I hope to be working at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave (we can dream). I really can't do the long answer right now. The short version is that given all the evidence I can perceive, Occam's Razor points me in the direction of some sort of prime mover. As to the Christian tenants, the EXTREMELY condensed version is that the passion story rings true in some preternatural part of my brain, and my gut reaction to things which Christianity holds as virtuous or evil generally validate the teachings. That's a weird answer, but it's a hard thing to write quickly.
I was particularly intrigued by this answer as Occam's Razor is typically used by atheists to explain why they do not believe in the existence of a supreme being.
Occam's Razor is a philosophical principle that states (simply put) that if there are multiple explanations for the same thing, the simplest explanation is the most likely to be true.
Now it is clear that our world and our universe behaves according to the law of physics. Gravitation, light, electricity, all follow laws that are well understood and well described. Even for cosmological phenomena, the light from the sun, the expansion of the universe, there are very detailed models that can predict all observations.
So the basic world-model without a supreme being consists of a universe governed by the laws of physics. Adding a supreme being to this model doesn't add any additional explanations, but it does raise the complexity of the model considerably: Where does this being come from? How does it live / think? How can it influence our world? Since there is no experimental evidence for the presence of such a being, the simplest explanation, that there is no such supreme being, is the most likely to be true, using Occam's Razor.
I'm very glad someone asked this, because it's one of the areas in my own life I think I've really gained from the aforementioned ability to fail. In Novemeber of 2008, my grandmother passed away, leaving my father and myself a good amount of money. Not 1% rich kind of money, but enough that I was able to pay off student debt and still have a comfortable nest egg. I had been self-insured since leaving law school and chose not to renew my health insurance in the next year after this inheritance. My reasoning was that I was 26 years old, in very good health, and suddenly had enough money that if disaster were to strike, I would likely be able to absorb a large hit to the pocketbook. I made an educated economic decision and essentially gambled the cost of several years' worth of insurance on not getting injured or sick.
That didn't work out well for me. The day after Valentine's Day in 2010, I wrapped my car around a tree at interstate speeds and snapped my t-10 vertebrae. A major back surgery and several months of therapy later, and the gifts my grandmother had left me were gone, in addition to a good portion of my own savings. I made a calculated risk and it slapped me in the face. Better believe I was back in the health insurance market before I even left the hospital. But I learned from the experience, and I don't regret the decision that ultimately turned out to be wrong.
That's a long story, I suppose, but I'm going back to the idea of the room to fail being a very important tool for growth. You learn lessons from failure, not from being regulated into safety. Conservative politicians see their obligation to the country as one of allowing everyone to have the opportunity to afford health insurance IF THEY CHOOSE. It is not within our moral or legal authority to force the choice. If I had been rendered bankrupt by my choice to not have health insurance, assuming I was at a level of income that I could have afforded the insurance in the first place, then that's what should happen. I'd neither starve, nor die deprived of medical care, but I'd certainly be in financial ruin because I chose to roll the dice while being unprepared for a loss. That's the reality of personal responsibility, and it is the way we all should live.
As to actually making health insurance affordable, I already suggested one quick and easy step. Unfortunately, everything in the health insurance market is sort of in limbo until June. Hopefully, the high Court will hurry and rule on the insurance mandate.
On April 26 2012 18:53 Game wrote: I'm pretty sure this isn't a useful comment, but the consent of "rage welcome" inspired me. I have no questions, just a general distaste for Republicans because actions speak louder than words, and that provides them as the greater nuisance in the war of "who can be the most facetious". Their combination of stubborness and disregard for societal advancements hinder my endearment. The extremist ones don't really draw my love either.
If you don't have questions or anything constructive to add, it might be a good idea to take your rage and distaste elsewhere.
Questions 1) What is the philosophy that informs conservative political ideas in the US?
2) To what extent do you think your own opinions and those of people in the US are affected by biased subversive news coverage and information sources? Your negative opinions on Europe seem based on fictions, and watching US news can seem to me like an Orwellian nightmare.
Fair enough. Please let me know where North Carolina has "optional segregation" I'll need to look into that.
@ Veir and Recognizable (in part)
1. Why did I make the Euro-class comment? What is my stance on income inequality?
I'll be the first to admit, that sentence showed a lot of signs of 4 a.m. writing. But, please keep in mind that a class-based society isn't only measured in income inequality. It is also concerned with mobility in economics and social status from one generation to the next. Income inequality is a fact of life in a capital-driven economy. I've never once heard someone explain why that should be considered a bad thing. Different people contribute in varying ways and with varying amounts of labor and innovation; it's always seemed very natural to me that they'd be compensated differently.
I realize I'm falling into the dangerous trap of speaking of Europe as if it's one nation, but for the sake of generalizing, the main reason the income inequality is lesser in Europe is because of larger marginal tax rates at the higher ends of income. This is exactly how some in American politics would "solve" the income inequality problem, but for my money, this wouldn't accomplish much. I know liberals like to sell the idea that the poor would be brought out of poverty by taxing the rich, but this simply doesn't happen. By the time each new dollar from the wealthy passes through the levels of government and administration into whatever social program it ultimately funds, only a few cents remain, and the income inequality gap only shrinks because the top make less.
I would suggest that the potential to be at the top end of the income spectrum creates a lot more prosperity than the various ways in which our government would use additional tax revenue. That is a fairly broad statement, but I will defend the specifics as they arise. I don't know why you mock that position, but that's certainly your right.
2. Do I actually take Fox News seriously?
Well, if we're speaking of Bill O'Reilly, I take him like every adult should. That is to say, he's a TV personality in the relatively new "infotainment" business who makes money by presenting issues through one ideological lens. What bothers me about your question is that you omit mentioning the ten or twenty easily recognized liberals on other news networks who do the exact same thing with their own perspectives. But, I honestly believe you and everyone else knows that. Fox News gets targetted because they are conservative. That's perfectly fair. I suppose my answer to you is I take Fox News with the same grain of salt as every other news network, with the somewhat minor consideration that any network which inspires so much hatred from David Brock does occupy a special place in my heart.
On April 26 2012 22:01 SaintBadger wrote: I know liberals like to sell the idea that the poor would be brought out of poverty by taxing the rich, but this simply doesn't happen.
My comments regarding precariousness and restructuring are largely directed at Greece, Italy, Spain, and to somewhat of a lesser extent, Germany. I do not live in any of these places, but in Greece particularly, there have been fairly longstanding reports of violent responses to austerity measures from a portion of the public. Certainly in the financial world, most of the heavy traffic days in European bond markets occur immediately after there is news regarding either a new proposed structuring of pension debt, or an impending bailout by the EU as a whole. So, I feel comfortable in the precariousness comment, but perhaps merely hopeful in the restructuring aspect.
Whoever mentioned the US in terms of financial crisis is absolutely right. We have allowed ourselves to indulge in ridiculous fantasies of neverending paper money, and it has come back to bite us. Hopefully, we will learn the correct lessons. Also, I mentioned Sweden earlier because in the 80's, Sweden was often invoked as the perfect system in terms of pension and socialized medicine. And of course, there is some allure to that system in terms of security. But it comes down to this fundamental assumption that when the material incentives to excel, overproduce, or innovate are taken away by an increasingly heavy progressive tax, the US will still be able to rely on the production of its citizens to drive GDP. I don't think that assumption is correct, in a long term sense.
I'm not sure if this addresses what all of you were getting at, but I'm doing my best to field quite a few of these in the midst of working.
EDIT: @ Recognizable
You make a good point about my stating as fact what is actually suspicion in economics. I hope you'll understand, it is EXTREMELY difficult to go from playing the talking points game of my job to the more thoughtful discourse we have going here. I suppose the backlash from the general public in Greece has me thinking that the US is (so far) holding together a little more solidly. I'll back off my certainty on that a bit, but as a more general statement, I will stand by the notion that when government borrowing outpaces GDP growth, sooner or later something has to change or someone has to bail you out.
Hey again, just popping back in to say that I really like your answers to these questions They're very well-constructed and clearly fleshed out. Thanks for responding to my questions as well!
I'm also eager to hear your opinions on American education, as Recognizable and Arnstein are as well. What are the biggest problems and most plausible solutions, in your opinion?
We need more gentle, open dialogue in general to clear up misconceptions about certain parties or groups of people
I think this is a great thread, but I feel like SaintBadger is a bit too centrist to really represent the core of conservatism as it is currently practiced in the United States. I mean, I think it would be great if the majority of republicans shared the belief system of SaintBadger, but that's not the world we're living in.
For example, the republican party has basically adopted no tax increases of any kind, ever, as a central philosophy in the last 10-15 years, which it seems SaintBadger isn't really on board with. Likewise, SaintBadger's flexibility on abortion is definitely a minority opinion among republican politicians (although not necessarily among republican voters). His view of same-sex marriage and transgender-ism throug a monetary prism is also a bit, um, unique? I mean, sure money is involved, but primarily it is an ethical issue. You don't have conservative republicans campaigining against same-sex marriage holding signs saying that the US can't afford the costs of extending benefits. They're holding signs saying that its a sin in the eyes of god.
Lastly, just a little thing that's been bugging me. Articles of faith are tenets, not tenants, those are renters.
Protesters are a sign of a healthy democracy, NOT political instability, particularly in European countries with large socialist histories. If you think the US is in a much better financial situation than most of Europe you are wrong. Yes, Greece and Spain have large national debts, that they were managing fine until the crisis in world lending confindence caused by subprime mortgages in the US. Germany, the UK and other countries are supporting these countries because they are part of the Eurozone, but this doesn't mean that the economies of the main countries in Europe are unstable. Indeed the UK and Germany have better credit ratings than the US.
Do you think women should be able to sue an employer for paying them less than a man for the same job?
As someone in favor of Mitt Romney, are you in favor in getting rid of planned parenthood?
Are you in favor of restricting women's reproductive rights to pressure and shame women into keeping children?
You mentioned financial implications of gay marriage. Are you aware of the massive booms to marriage industries that places with gay marriage have benefitted from? It also encourages more competitive employees because obviously gay people want to work in a state that they can get married in. The financial implications of gay marriage are overwhelmingly positive.
How do you feel about Eric Cantor? Do you think he betrayed the Party? Do you think he confronted some of the ugly antisemitism that is currently in the republican party?
On April 26 2012 22:29 alQahira wrote: I think this is a great thread, but I feel like SaintBadger is a bit too centrist to really represent the core of conservatism as it is currently practiced in the United States. I mean, I think it would be great if the majority of republicans shared the belief system of SaintBadger, but that's not the world we're living in.
For example, the republican party has basically adopted no tax increases of any kind, ever, as a central philosophy in the last 10-15 years, which it seems SaintBadger isn't really on board with. Likewise, SaintBadger's flexibility on abortion is definitely a minority opinion among republican politicians (although not necessarily among republican voters). His view of same-sex marriage and transgender-ism throug a monetary prism is also a bit, um, unique? I mean, sure money is involved, but primarily it is an ethical issue. You don't have conservative republicans campaigining against same-sex marriage holding signs saying that the US can't afford the costs of extending benefits. They're holding signs saying that its a sin in the eyes of god.
Lastly, just a little thing that's been bugging me. Articles of faith are tenets, not tenants, those are renters.
Edit: spelling and grammar
I'd say he represents mainstream conservatism pretty well. The majority are not no tax religious zealots. Conservatives in genneral are a fairly agreeable bunch.
In a nutshell, over the past 30-40 years, for every new dollar spent in education, the average US highschooler's test scores in math and reading have dropped a fraction of a point. That is . . . problematic, to say the least. A lot of people who are much smarter than me have tried and failed to fix this issue. I think conservatives only focus on part of the actual problem. To borrow a line from Gov. Christie (R-NJ), "there are only two areas of employment where accomplishment is in no way recognized, and failure is in no way punished: Weathermen and public school teachers."
My mother teaches 7th grade, and has done so for many years. I remember meeting a friend of hers who taught 8th grade math and argued with me for five minutes, claiming the angles of a triangle added up to 360 degrees (for those who don't remember, it's actually 180). I think that moment was when I first realized the deep-seated cancer in American education. It's not that teachers are not good at their job. It's that we have no idea whether a teacher is good at his or her job, and the teachers themselves fight against any mechanism which would award pay and incentives (not to mention jobs) based on merit. The most frustrating thing about it is those good teachers who we all remember from our own school experiences. They stand right next to the idiots who don't know a triangle from a circle when it comes time to protest spending cuts or support Democrats. That drives me insane.
I said conservatives don't focus on all of the actual problem here, and this is why. It's easy to point the finger at teachers' unions and say, "here's the problem!" You know what the real problem is?
Parents
Yup, I said it. Parents of all sorts. The absentee double-career folks who let the nanny raise the kids and only have a passing idea whether their child can read or write. The helicopter parents who drive good teachers out of the profession by threatening to sue everytime their child gets a B+. Perhaps worst of all, the homeschoolers who choose to homeschool not because they're going to do a better job of educating, but because they're afraid to let their child break out of whichever idealogical bubble in which the family lives. As a general rule, parents are just flatly less involved in and feel less responsibility for educating children than in past generations. I think the nation suffers for it.
Unfortunately, lecturing parents is not a particularly smart political move, and so we focus all attention on teachers and certain schemes to promote privatization. The school voucher concept is obviously targetted at bringing private schools a larger market share, but that is not yet a legitimate option for the majority of children. Also, it should be noted that President Bush and Senator Kennedy didn't do us any favors with No Child Left Behind. If you want an interesting read, Steven Levitt's "Freakanomics" goes into a lot of what that legislation has done to our country, and it is not pretty.
I'm sorry I don't have better answers. We're honestly working on it. I foresee that this is one area where we may still find some bipartisan cooperation as soon as someone comes up with a workable idea, but so far, attempts have fallen flat.
DAMN IT DAMN IT DAMN IT. Tenents. You have no idea how hard I was trying not to do something stupid like that in this blog. Thank you for not letting me do that much longer. Will return to you in a bit.
I was sort of wondering how long this would take to come up. First of all, we should just decide whether we can agree to the following statement: Anyone who tells you they know with certainty how atmospheric conditions will change based on man-made pollutants is lying regardless of which way they claim it will go. If we can't agree to that, then you might as well stop reading this response.
I know there was a comic going around depicting a bunch of scientists at a climate convention where one stands up and says, "What if it was all a hoax and we created a better world for nothing?" I would respectfully submit that IF it were to turn out that global warming would not occur in any relevant levels if we keep on the current fossil fuel consumption path, then by comparison, abstaining from fossil fuels would not in any way result in a better world. At least, not for many generations. It would require massive sacrifice, both in the developing world and right here at home.
The obvious counter to that is that IF global warming on the order of "An Inconvenient Truth" magnitude is on the horizon, then there is no sacrifice involved in changing course. Ok, so nothing new there. I am not a meteorologist. I do not have the expertise to make an independent judgment. I know that the majority of authorities on the matter seem to agree that some level of warming is or will take place due to man-made causes. However, they are in extreme disagreement as to the extent of the present danger. I would also point out that if one were to go back 30 years, one would hear doomsday predictions from the same general group of experts about the second Ice Age. It is difficult for a non-expert to parse the cacophony of voices on the issue, particularly when some of the main proponents and opponents of climate change - oriented energy policies all have profit motives for their perspective.
Ultimately, I suspect that the same oil companies the current administration loves to scapegoat will be the ones who own the proprietary technology of whatever fossil fuel alternative we end up settling upon for the majority of our energy needs. In the meantime, I encourage everyone to read about a company called Intellectual Ventures based out of Bellevue, Washington. IV swears up and down that they have two quick and cheap fixes for the greenhouse gas problem, and are ready to deploy them whenever their is sufficient reason for alarm. I don't know if their ideas will work, but it's interesting stuff and it's far cheaper and more efficient (allegedly) than 5,000 square miles of solar panels covering las vegas and a decent chunk of the western US (to borrow another West Wing suggestion).
Yup, I said it. Parents of all sorts. The absentee double-career folks who let the nanny raise the kids and only have a passing idea whether their child can read or write. The helicopter parents who drive good teachers out of the profession by threatening to sue everytime their child gets a B+. Perhaps worst of all, the homeschoolers who choose to homeschool not because they're going to do a better job of educating, but because they're afraid to let their child break out of whichever idealogical bubble in which the family lives. As a general rule, parents are just flatly less involved in and feel less responsibility for educating children than in past generations. I think the nation suffers for it
This reads like you are trying to mesh together points that don't mesh. How can you blame helicopter parents or homeschoolers for being less involved and feeling less responsibility than past generations? If anything this is an example of the opposite.
If you want to blame parents of all sorts you need a different general rule.
Yes the Conservative US position is to undermine "Scientists", "Science"and "Experts", and just say they don't believe it, or point to the one religious scientist (lol) who will agree with whatever it is they want him to say.
On April 26 2012 23:05 SaintBadger wrote: It is difficult for a non-expert to parse the cacophony of voices on the issue, particularly when some of the main proponents and opponents of climate change - oriented energy policies all have profit motives for their perspective. .
Which is the bigger industry. The oil industry or the alternative energy industry? Also, how are academic researchers at universities who are notoriously independent motivated by their own economic greed. The idea is preposterous.
Unlike many of the somewhat outlandish spending priorities our federal govrernment manages to find, there is a pretty clearcut authorization for the feds to levy taxes to facilitate interstate commerce. In my mind, that covers the interstate systems, ocean docks, rail lines, and various inland navigable waterways. As much as I don't like these words leaving my mouth, this is the sort of thing for which taxes should be paid and paid willingly. I don't think many conservatives will disagree with that general point. Now, I could write for an hour about the corruption in the process by which the feds award contracts, but that's another story.
3. Gun Control
The Second Amendment is probably the single biggest lightning rod for debates between people who want to read the Constitution literally and those who basically say, "the thing was written in 1776 . . . we don't have standing state militias anymore." My first response to those people is that it was actually the Declaration of Independence that was written in 1776 (ZING!). Beyond that, I'd point out that the Amendment doesn't say, "the right to keep and bear arms by members of militias shall not be infringed." It says the right shall not be infringed, after obviously indicating that the intention is to protect the right to assemble for protection against the government.
If the writers of the Constitution had it to do all over again, they might word that a bit differently. But they don't. There is a process by which the Constitution can be amended, but as to this point, it hasn't been changed. I don't really see the argument for the legality of federal gun laws. And since the 14th Amendment has been read to apply freedom of speech, speedy trial, and all the other Bill of Rights protections to state governments as well, consistency suggests the right to bear arms is also protected from the states.
I don't pass judgment on whether that's good or bad. I do own a gun and enjoy shooting it. I was happy that I owned said gun during Katrina, though I did not end up with reason to use it. If only for peace of mind, I was happy to have a chance to protect myself in a situation where law enforcement was unavailable. As a side note, I do believe that it would be legal to pass a law stating that, to some extent involving serious jail time, one is responsible for whatever injuries are caused by his or her gun. Perhaps that would reign in some of the less responsible behavior.
What is your stance on patents and copyright, and the current state of patent and copyright law? What role do you think patents and copyrights should play in society, and where do you think we should be going (if you feel that should be changed)?
Yup, I said it. Parents of all sorts. The absentee double-career folks who let the nanny raise the kids and only have a passing idea whether their child can read or write. The helicopter parents who drive good teachers out of the profession by threatening to sue everytime their child gets a B+. Perhaps worst of all, the homeschoolers who choose to homeschool not because they're going to do a better job of educating, but because they're afraid to let their child break out of whichever idealogical bubble in which the family lives. As a general rule, parents are just flatly less involved in and feel less responsibility for educating children than in past generations. I think the nation suffers for it
This reads like you are trying to mesh together points that don't mesh. How can you blame helicopter parents or homeschoolers for being less involved and feeling less responsibility than past generations? If anything this is an example of the opposite.
If you want to blame parents of all sorts you need a different general rule.
If I had to guess, (I tend to agree with the idea), it's because involvement isn't guaranteed to be helpful. If the motive is wrong, and the implementation is wrong, the involvement isn't doing the kids any favors. If a parent homeschools poorly, the child may have excellent grades and no understanding of the subject matter, or vice versa. If a parent hovers to the point of smothering, and instead of helping their children excel tries to change circumstances around their child so they SEEM to excel, it's also not much of a contribution.
Grades mean very little if you don't understand the material.
On April 26 2012 23:05 SaintBadger wrote: @archon00id
1. Global Warming
I was sort of wondering how long this would take to come up. First of all, we should just decide whether we can agree to the following statement: Anyone who tells you they know with certainty how atmospheric conditions will change based on man-made pollutants is lying regardless of which way they claim it will go. If we can't agree to that, then you might as well stop reading this response.
Certainty is a matter of probability. I have no idea what "know with certainty" means unless you mean absolute certainty which nobody has or needs or cares about. We make nearly all decisions without absolute certainty so that's not an excuse for inaction. But as a matter of probability, it is extremely likely at this point that global warming is manmade. To pretend otherwise is living in a fantasy world.
I see what you mean. Again, trying to write very quickly. I meant to convey that the helicopter parents don't see it as their job to teach, but still become outraged when teachers suggest less than perfection. And while some homeschoolers do it for reasons relating to quality of education, others are simply afraid of exposing their child to a world outside of whatever value system they want to install.
Thank you for the pointer.
@deathly rat
Re: Denying science
I don't understand how anyone could possibly still claim to be certain of global warming in the face of several instances where leading authorities on the subject have admitted to manipulating the data. I never once denied anything; I'm merely pointing out that there is still work to be done. Even Al Gore himself admitted to deliberately exaggerating "An Inconvenient Truth" because he believed this was too important to NOT exaggerate. I suppose I admire the motives, but that doesn't bring us any closer to certainty.
Not sure where religion came into global warming.
EDIT: @ DoubleReed
It's not a matter of whether any warming has occured. It's a matter of whether warming will occur to the point where serious problems will be created for the global ecosystem. And no one, not even Al Gore, pretends that there is any "extremely high likelihood" of that. They are simply warning of a possible outcome predicted by some iterations of climate forecasting. So it becomes a balance between possibility for serious problems vs. serious sacrifices in the present.
Anyway, I knew as soon as global warming came up, there would be a sharper focus on that one issue. I've represented my understanding of conservative thinking on that matter as best I can.
That's not quite how I understand the Razor. Any explanation is going to somewhat increase the complexity of a previously stand-alone system. But if we accept that any effect has a cause, and considering physical concepts like entropy, things point to a first cause which is not easily explained. The concept of eternal past is very difficult for me to reconcile, as is the somewhat bizarre speculations of multi-dimensional universes that certain vocal physicists have put forth. In my estimation, there is less complexity in accepting a prime mover than other potential explanations. "Prime mover", however, is a far cry from a God in the Judeo-Christian tradition. I skipped many steps on that post simply because I don't really want to go there beyond a statement of personal belief. Having enough trouble keeping up with entries as it is.
On April 26 2012 23:28 SaintBadger wrote:. EDIT: @ DoubleReed
It's not a matter of whether any warming has occured. It's a matter of whether warming will occur to the point where serious problems will be created for the global ecosystem. And no one, not even Al Gore, pretends that there is any "extremely high likelihood" of that. They are simply warning of a possible outcome predicted by some iterations of climate forecasting. So it becomes a balance between possibility for serious problems vs. serious sacrifices in the present.
Anyway, I knew as soon as global warming came up, there would be a sharper focus on that one issue. I've represented my understanding of conservative thinking on that matter as best I can.
Uhm, yes it is. If manmade global warming is occurring (which is extremely likely) then it is also extremely likely that it will cause more extreme weather conditions across the globe. Have you looked into any research that doesn't horribly exaggerate? Because the effects are nonetheless very serious.
Edit: Oh and please respond to my post on women's issues and Eric Cantor. :D
Two questions. 1.) how much Starcraft do you play? 2.) what is your opinion on racism in Starcraft. Basically am I wrong for thinking that Protoss requires no skill?
I lack the proper educaion in the subject to relate conservatism to a specific discipline. I guess the easy answer is, I hope it is distinct enough from other teachings to represent its own philosophy. Maybe I'm missing your question a bit.
2. To what extent are my opinions based on biased coverage?
It's a fairly settled point that people are most receptive to views that validate their own. I try very hard to see both sides of an issue, and assume the best in terms of motives from the other side of the aisle. But I won't swear to some sort of perfectly centrist understanding. In fact, I am very much NOT a centrist. I am genuinely hoping to move the country to the right on a number of issues, either through legislation or just through understanding (e.g. I don't think abortion should be illegal necessarily, but I wish people would view it as a very unfortunate necessity and not just a morally neutral act).
As to Europe, I think I did a poor job representing my arguments comparing the US to Europe in my first posts. Hopefully, I have made progress since.
You are right, of course, in that language gets very careless during these debates. But on that particular subject, that is, the concept of equalizing income, I think American "liberals" are very socialistic in their advocacy. There is a distinction between conservatism and Republican politicians just like there is between liberalism and Democratic politicians. I was speaking of Democratic politicians.
Why did people assume you were conservative ? Do you see this as a bad prejudice ?
Context : I am also against transgender operations and gender studies for various reasons that I shall not develop here but people would be foolish to call me conservative since I was a member from the socialist party in France. Still it doesn't prevent me from considering Scarlett as female if that's what she wishes.
On April 26 2012 23:28 SaintBadger wrote: @deathly rat Re: Denying science
I don't understand how anyone could possibly still claim to be certain of global warming in the face of several instances where leading authorities on the subject have admitted to manipulating the data. I never once denied anything; I'm merely pointing out that there is still work to be done. Even Al Gore himself admitted to deliberately exaggerating "An Inconvenient Truth" because he believed this was too important to NOT exaggerate. I suppose I admire the motives, but that doesn't bring us any closer to certainty.
Not sure where religion came into global warming.
The process of "doing science" is not a matter of facts and certainties, it is about theories and evidence. It is impossible to prove a theory is fact, it is only possible to provide evidence which undermines said theory.
In the case of global warming the overwhelming evidence is that it is occurring and that it's a product of human activities. So much so that some people falsely call it a "fact".
Religion is entwined in this because 99% of everybody who is a global warming denier is part of a religious group. It's the same willingness to reject science and logic that enables religion as it is to deny global warming.
EXCELLENT QUESTION. And I'll be the first to admit that in the short run, they seem to be voting against fiscal interests. Some of them are one-issue voters, and simply concern themselves with a particular social issue or gun control or something like that. I hope above all hope that at least some of them vote Republican because they hope for a time when their work, or the work of their children, is rewarded in the way this country promises it can be. I like to believe that the reason the majority of America doesn't resent the rich is because they understand the desire to be wealthy and know that one day, one of their family members might reach that level of wealth. I suppose it varies heavily based on other demographics.
I can go find 100 names, all of whom have appropriate PhD's, that will tell you you're overestimating the overwhelming nature of the evidence, but let's just take one.
Dr. Ivan Giaever, 1973 Nobel Prize Winner in Physics, and NORWEIGAN (bringing it back!).
Spend a moment going out and reading his words on the reason he quit the APS. If you are not moved to at least admit that there is stil room for debate, then again, there is not much more to discuss here. I AM NOT SAYING GLOBAL WARMING DOESN'T EXIST. I am saying that many of the organizations tasked by various governments with studying the ways to address the situation have stopped looking for evidence. In a manner of speaking, they take global warming on faith. That is not acceptable to me, when so much is at stake in the present and the future.
Again, Giaever is smarter than me. If he won't convince you to be a little less overwhelmed by the evidence, I never will. I have no idea if he has a religious affiliation.
CENTRAL ANSWER (I should mention that you are all successfully undermining the Romney campaign today, as I haven't done anything productive outside of this forum) @ alQahira
Am I too centrist to represent conservatives?
CENTRIST?!? How dare you?
First of all, let me suggest that the average "conservative" is far less extreme than the stereotypes imply.
On the subject of taxes, I have no idea whether Romney would actually live up to that whole "not one dollar of taxes even for ten dollars of spending cuts" pledge, but I certainly hope so. Not because taxes are never appropriate, but because Democrats have NEVER delivered on their side of those sorts of deals. I don't have a problem levying taxes for certain legitimate expenses, but we've been taxing long enough. It's definitely the other side's turn to go first.
Of course, after eight years of President Bush, I think it probably takes someone saying "no taxes under any circumstances" for anyone to believe there is any intent to stop the growth of federal expenses. He was a Republican, but a very poor conservative, and that's all I have to say about that.
On the subject of abortion, you have to understand there are two very different types of pro-life voters. One believes that abortion is already a crime equivalent to murder, and we are simply not punishing the offenders. The other type believes, as I do, that it is morally wrong, it is NOT a guaranteed right in our government, and states should have the right to do as they wish. That is the extent of my political stance on the issue, and trust me, that's where the vast majority of conservative voters, and not a few independents, stand.
Regarding the other social issues you mention, I was merely pointing out that this rigid line between fiscal and social issues doesn't actually exist. When someone says to me, "I'm a fiscally conservative libertarian," I try to inform them in the politest of ways that they have told me nothing. I agree that the ethics probably trump the money on most of these issues, but we'll see.
To be honest I hardly feel any more qualified to advocate global warming as you are to argue against it, and I certainly don't object to a discussion of the evidence. What I would say though is that politicians and the general public must listen to what the associated bodies of their profession have decided. If the APS is saying that it is an issue, then without better knowledge ourselves we must take them at their word without political pressure or manipulating their words to meet our own ends.
Re: The philosophy of Conservatism: As a signed up member to this group I would have a real problem not knowing what underpins the policies created by the Republican party. One of my criticisms of US Conservatives, and US politics in general, is that there aren't enough over-riding philosophies which inform policy, and this leads to vacuous policy making devoid of ethics or logic motivated primarily by short term political gain.
However, if I look at the ideas of Conservatives and try to find the root of their beliefs I must say that it seems that it is the modern political extension of Christian ideas. Would I be wrong?
I'm working on responses, if you haven't noticed, this is sort of a one-man sounding board.
1. Should a woman be able to sue for getting paid less than a man for the same job?
On a multiple choice test, I'd say "not enough information", but I'll do my best to guess at the variations of the question you might have. First of all, let's assume it's a salaried job with no consideration of overtime or incentive-based bonus structure. Let's further assume that the woman and the man have the same level of seniority. Let's further assume that we live in the post-2009 world where Congress fixed their idiotic oversight concerning the statute of limitations. With all of these assumptions, there's no "should" involved. She can sue.
Now, I'll admit there are still genuine instances of unequal pay for equal work, and that obviously shouldn't be. But the majority of the disparate pay statistics usually quoted around this issue is explained by maternity leave and subsequent leave for childcare. Employers are not required to credit women with seniority for the time off, and aren't required to grant paid leave beyond the minimum in Title IX, which I think is something like 8 weeks? Don't quote me.
Not sure where the conservatism comes in there, it's mostly just a legal question. I don't think there's a moral imperative one way or the other.
2. Am I in favor of getting rid of Planned Parenthood?
No politician of which I'm aware wants to "get rid" of PP. I believe my candidate and I personally advocate the halting of public funding to that organization. But that's a matter of advocacy. I do not want to fund an organization that provides termination of pregnancies, but PP could very easily divest that portion of its business and happily maintain funding for the other important work it does. Or we could split said funding among state health clinics that provide the same services. I list out these options only to underscore the fact that not funding abortion services does not equate to the ever-popular War on Women.
3. Am I in favor of restricting women's reproductive rights or to pressure and shame women into keeping children?
If witholding public funding from PP equates to restricting reporductive rights in your mind, then we should discuss definitions. Otherwise no, I'm on record as not personally being in favor of outlawing abortion. I am, however, respectful of people's right to vote to do things that I don't think are particularly smart. Two examples of that would be outlawing abortion and electing our current President
As to "pressuring" women into keeping their children, I could frankly care less whether they keep the children or not, assuming we can get this country's adoption system under control. I am all for pressuring them to BIRTH their children rather than abort them. I don't know what you refer to regarding "shaming".
4. RE: Financial implications of homosexual marriage
You make an excellent point. I would be interested to see data regarding how it all shakes out when you look at commercial tax revenue vs. "lost" personal income tax revenue. As I said subsequently, I don't have the numbers on that issue; I was simply pointing out that there is no such thing as a non-fiscal issue.
5. Re: Eric Cantor
I've met the man personally on two occasions. He seems genuine in his faith and his political convictions. A political party is not always going to have every member in agreeement, and if you're referring to what I think you are, I think he made some reasonable points. John McCain stood up in the Senate and lambasted the Tea Party for squandering a chance to knock out a Democrat majority by running Sharon Angle and the Christine O'Donnell, and I don't think he was betraying his party either. Did Bart Stupak betray his party by holding out for the EO on funding for abortion? I don't know
As a general principle, I'd say the ability to own private property and the use thereof is essential to making a capital-driven system work. The Constitution is actually explicit on the notion of giving inventors exclusive rights to the fruits of their labor for a given period of time before they become available to the public. That concept is a good balance between the profit motive driving the scientist to invent the longer lasting lightbulb and the goal of fostering competition via offbrands and the like. It's a complicated subject in law, but I'm content with the American system. And yes, I shouldn't have, but I did use Napster back in the day.
The trick is international enforcement. The only way we get that is through trade agreement, and even then, how do we verify that other countries are enforcing as they claim? It's a very complicated subject, and I'm somewhat disappointed that with all the cordial relations this administration is allegedly building around the world, that hasn't yet been front and center of any major international deals.
I drove a 1998 Firebird until I wrapped it around a tree breaking my back, then a 2002 Firebird.
Weirdly, my father's last 4 cars have also been Firebirds.
@MstrJinbo
I'm a gold leaguer thru and thru, though I hadn't placed in over two seasons and bombed my placement matches last week.
Also, in keeping with the discussion, Terrans are people who want to keep mining coal (i.e. they mostly use minerals), Zerg are the environmentalists (they use natural gas for the important stuff but still go through minerals like nothing flat, and they hate terran), and Protoss are us 200 years from now when we understand how to turn coal byproducts into oxygen and sea salt. And we hate them for it.
There was recent legislation taking away equal pay laws. In some states, women are no longer able to sue in the cases you mentioned. That is part of the war on women.
2. Am I in favor of getting rid of Planned Parenthood?
No politician of which I'm aware wants to "get rid" of PP. I believe my candidate and I personally advocate the halting of public funding to that organization. But that's a matter of advocacy. I do not want to fund an organization that provides termination of pregnancies, but PP could very easily divest that portion of its business and happily maintain funding for the other important work it does. Or we could split said funding among state health clinics that provide the same services. I list out these options only to underscore the fact that not funding abortion services does not equate to the ever-popular War on Women.
Cutting public funding from contraceptive services and health insurance providers for women definitely is part of the war on women. Contraception is actually a pretty serious health and financial issue for women. Mitt openly said he wanted to stop all funding for PP. You cannot act like this isn't an issue.
As to "pressuring" women into keeping their children, I could frankly care less whether they keep the children or not, assuming we can get this country's adoption system under control. I am all for pressuring them to BIRTH their children rather than abort them. I don't know what you refer to regarding "shaming".
Wait, what? Why do you want to pressure and shame women into birthing children? Didn't you just say you don't care one way or another?
There has been recent legislation requiring ultrasounds (transvaginal and not) or isolating the woman from her family before undergoing abortion. That is what I am referring to.
I was fairly outspoken about my beliefs, but I did so in a way that I thought was unobtrusive. For example, 14th Amendment professor would say something neutral and unbiased, like, "people who are pro-life also believe that contraception should be illegal because it's all just privacy rights and you can't be for one without the other. They also believe the state can jail homosexuals." I would respond that I don't accept the premise that all three of these things simply refer to some nebulous legal concept of "privacy", and suddenly I hated women.
Whatever works. After some of the insults James Carville and Debbie Schultz have thrown at us over the years, you better have a hell of a vocabulary if you think you can insult me more deeply than them. I didn't have it nearly as bad as the evangelists.
It's possible. I think both parties tend to couch their arguments in the same thematic elements of Christianity because we all sort of assume that those ideas carry some power with our listeners. And it is ABSOLUTELY TRUE that no conservative or liberal tows the party line all the time. Sometimes, as with my issue with the death penalty, I am reassured by the notion that we aren't all mindless drones. Other times, as with President Bush's addiction to deficit spending, I just realize that some people see the political parties as means to an end.
I started this because I am a true believer in what I understand to be conservative principles. An important consequence of that, however, is that I find myself disowning Republicans from time to time. I think that's just a part of the two-party system.
2. Am I in favor of getting rid of Planned Parenthood?
No politician of which I'm aware wants to "get rid" of PP. I believe my candidate and I personally advocate the halting of public funding to that organization. But that's a matter of advocacy. I do not want to fund an organization that provides termination of pregnancies, but PP could very easily divest that portion of its business and happily maintain funding for the other important work it does. Or we could split said funding among state health clinics that provide the same services. I list out these options only to underscore the fact that not funding abortion services does not equate to the ever-popular War on Women.
Cutting public funding from contraceptive services and health insurance providers for women definitely is part of the war on women. Contraception is actually a pretty serious health and financial issue for women. Mitt openly said he wanted to stop all funding for PP. You cannot act like this isn't an issue.
As to "pressuring" women into keeping their children, I could frankly care less whether they keep the children or not, assuming we can get this country's adoption system under control. I am all for pressuring them to BIRTH their children rather than abort them. I don't know what you refer to regarding "shaming".
Wait, what? Why do you want to pressure and shame women into birthing children? Didn't you just say you don't care one way or another?
There has been recent legislation requiring ultrasounds (transvaginal and not) or isolating the woman from her family before undergoing abortion. That is what I am referring to.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED AT ALL IN THIS BLOG, PLEASE READ THIS POST
Ok, so earlier I stated that part of my method of doing politics is to assume good motives and basic levels of intelligence in my opposition. We can always assume the worst of people and find something to take in a different way than was meant, but that doesn't advance the argument. If you assume good intentions and even go so far as to assume the most logical meaning in your opponent's words, and you STILL DISAGREE, then we're in business.
DoubleReed is refusing to do me that courtesy. As you'll note in the nested quotes, I answered his questions to the best of my abilities and stated the areas in which I was confused.
Regarding Planned Parenthood, I said that Romney advocates removing public funding from organizations that provide abortion services. I then noted that PP could easily divest into two organizations, one of which did not provide that particular service, but still provided contraception and health insurance for women AND receive the public funds. I then suggested another option where public funding would flow to contraception and health insurance while avoiding abortion providers.
The response I got ignored my words completely, referring to "cutting all funding" (which the government can't do, because the vast majority of PP funding is privately given) and somehow managed to avoid addressing the abortion concern altogether, while reaffirming the War on Women over my considered denial.
Regarding "pressuring and shaming" women to keep children, I said that I didn't care whether they kept them or not; I merely hoped they would give birth to the child and that the child could be adopted. I also said I didn't know what he meant by "shaming"
The response I got suggested there was something absurd about differentiating between birthing the child and "keeping" it. I will assume this was due to a misunderstanding over the word "keep"; I assumed you meant "raise" the child, not "keep" as opposed to abort. I think that was fairly obvious from my context. Now that I know what you mean by "shaming", I will say that I think some of the ultrasound requirements are absurd and more than a little grotesque, BUT, I think they exist as a manifestation of deeply-held frustration by a large portion of the public which believes that abortion is not some sacred right enshrined in the founding documents of the country.
I fully respect if you simply want to use this forum to make your own point. I certainly don't have a monopoly on opinions. However, I thought this was a good opportunity to show exactly what I think is NOT a productive dialogue.
What? How was that unproductive? I got you to clarify your answer. Sheesh. Calm down boy.
Romney never issued an ultimatum or whatever to PP saying that "if you continue to fund abortion we will cut off public funds." He simply stated that he was going to cut public funding to Planned Parenthood. I honestly don't get how you get to your very complex conclusion from that. It seems to me like you just wanted to talk about abortion, and you were the one dodging. I'm not sure where you got abortion from, honestly, because that's not the stated stance.
I also ninja edited my post, saying that I was referring to state legislation that got rid of equal pay laws, so that women could not sue in the very example you gave. That is also part of the war on women. It's not some silly abstract thing. Republicans have been passing lots of legislation against women recently.
Now that I know what you mean by "shaming", I will say that I think some of the ultrasound requirements are absurd and more than a little grotesque, BUT, I think they exist as a manifestation of deeply-held frustration by a large portion of the public which believes that abortion is not some sacred right enshrined in the founding documents of the country.
Okay, this needs some mighty clarification. You can't say something is grotesque and then defend it like that. I have absolutely no idea where you stand on this issue at all. Is it disgusting or understandable? Those really are mutually exclusive.
Are you happy with copyright/patent is today? If you don't mind diving a bit deeper into the issue, it's been extended a significant amount (especially copyright) over the years. Nothing has entered the public domain in quite a while because of this.
Also 'anti-circumvention' laws like those of the DMCA mean that if you circumvent protections for fair use purposes, you have still committed a crime. This, for all practical purposes, shuts down any form of fair use on any type of DRMed media because you'd have to 'circumvent' the protection measures in order to access the content you have a fair use right to.
Also, private right of action through DMCA (e.g. copyright holders notify services like youtube to issue take down notices) bypass due process and are extremely open to abuse. So far, there hasn't been any repercussions for abusive uses of the system by many different parties (especially large corporations). I can dig up stories of abuses if you'd like, but of course such things are anecdotal to some degree, and I think we all recognize that there will always be some abuse and some cost associated with such things. Do such updates to copyright and patent legistlation put us where we should be today?
One of the main problems I have with copyright and patents is that they often encourage economic rent seeking behaviors more often than encouraging innovation, which is the stated purpose of patents and copyright. The economic costs of a legally enforced monopoly, such as these, as great. Also, patent trolling is far too common, and very expensive legally.
America also has no provision for 'independent invention' when one or more people arrive at similar inventions at the same time (which is much more common than people 'stealing' inventions from each other). This should be relatively obvious if multiple competitors in the same space have similar expertise, and a good read on their markets (the smart phone market is probably a good example of this). Right now however, whoever files for a patent first, 'wins' so to speak. Also, rather than licensing technology to a competitor to encourage innovation and profit from it, they instead make licensing prohibitively expensive to discourage competition. Practices like this mean the system is not working as intended.
While the ideal of rewarding inventors/copyright holders and serving the public good by encouraging the progress of art and science is good, our implementation and balance between these interests is terrible.
I take it from your position that unlike in most EU countries, you don't believe there is a moral right associated with copyright (e.g. an author of a work has a moral right to do whatever he wants with it and control it however he wants. This moral right typically precludes any type of fair use). This is common for most American views (since we never raised with moral right being one of the things we value), and I agree that artists don't have one.
I think international enforcement is a very tricky issue. From an international point of view, America is being somewhat imperialist in this regard. Because companies are granted an effective monopoly, you get monopoly pricing. Companies are also afraid to export goods and services because of 'reverse importing' fears. As an example, even though pharamas could sell drugs cheaper overseas to a much wider market, they are afraid that US citizens would 'reverse import' these drugs, and therefore cut into their own monopoly profit margins at home. This is why so many drugs tend to unavailable at any reasonable price worldwide.
About your claim that the administration isn't doing anything about it in international deals, you should read more about ACTA and TPP. The USTR is actually trying very hard to get its version of copyright and patent law implemented around the world. The problem is the world is fighting back, hard, because they recognize that American copyright and patent law is harmful in many cases (see drug example above). Even as a US citizen myself, I consider forcing our patent and copyright law onto other countries to be a bad idea.
It's a book that's clearly against intellectual property (and generally wary of patents and copyrights in general), so that is something to keep in mind as you read it, but I think you can glean a lot of insight about copyright and patents, even if you don't necessarily agree the position in the book. It is presented in a reasonable manner with sourced examples and data, as well as anecdotal arguments.
I understand this probably isn't a traditional issue that sets conservatives apart from the other political affiliations. I have found your explanations of your positions very interesting so far, even if I don't necessarily agree with you in all cases. I think your views are quite centrist and reasonable (with a conservative spin), which gives me hope that America may yet be able to work out its problems if we can all just agree to get away from the extremes on both sides.
More questions: I think most people can accept that our current government system is very corrupt, with the system encouraging rent-seeking behaviors from everyone, lobbying, pandering, and all kinds of other insanity in the political process (tell me if you disagree!). If we assume that the majority of American is genuinely willing to discuss these issues and come to reasonable agreements (as you are doing here), what are your thoughts on improving the American political process to better reflect this, instead of getting terrible forced legislation that everyone hates?
Unlike many of the somewhat outlandish spending priorities our federal govrernment manages to find, there is a pretty clearcut authorization for the feds to levy taxes to facilitate interstate commerce. In my mind, that covers the interstate systems, ocean docks, rail lines, and various inland navigable waterways. As much as I don't like these words leaving my mouth, this is the sort of thing for which taxes should be paid and paid willingly. I don't think many conservatives will disagree with that general point. Now, I could write for an hour about the corruption in the process by which the feds award contracts, but that's another story.
The part about corruption and i suppose the inefficient government bodies is classical republican phrase to limit good public projects. Instead of working for an efficient and transparent government it seems that it much easier to cut the funding. So my follow question is whether it's better to focus on a stronger (efficient) and smarter (fair and open) government instead of weaker and dumber government. Government is supposed to service the public and by cutting funding you are cutting the beneficial public services.
First off, let me thank you for this thread - it is always much more interesting to see an intelligent and articulate person discuss their views than to read the normal liberal vs. conservative flamefests that one usually finds online. Though I am not religious or a conservative myself, I've had the opportunity to talk with well-reasoned religious people and conservatives alike, which is extremely helpful in preventing me from lumping all conservatives together in that "red-neck bible-thumping <insert stereotype here>" group that is common. I hope this thread will serve that purpose for others here.
With that, I do have a couple questions for you:
1.) What is your opinion of Grover Norquist and his "Taxpayer Protection Pledge"?
2.) What is your opinion of the "Fact Check" and "Politifact" websites? Do you believe politicians are knowingly lying or misrepresenting the truth in the cases highlighted by these sites, or are they unknowingly passing on incorrect information given to them by their campaign staff?
On April 26 2012 23:57 SaintBadger wrote: @ Zorkmid
1. Why do poor people vote Republican?
EXCELLENT QUESTION. And I'll be the first to admit that in the short run, they seem to be voting against fiscal interests. Some of them are one-issue voters, and simply concern themselves with a particular social issue or gun control or something like that. I hope above all hope that at least some of them vote Republican because they hope for a time when their work, or the work of their children, is rewarded in the way this country promises it can be. I like to believe that the reason the majority of America doesn't resent the rich is because they understand the desire to be wealthy and know that one day, one of their family members might reach that level of wealth. I suppose it varies heavily based on other demographics.
That's what I thought you might say, it's like they think they're going to win the lottery, and are voting based off that.
I'll NEVER understand this wish-thinking, ever ever ever.
Other than this, everything else makes some sort of sense to me.
Just to clarify on the social conservatives; people on the right wing who claim to be for less government and cry about big government intruding in our lives always seem to be the ones trying to regulate our morality (here's the best part) by expanding government based on religion or regressive ideas. Would you agree that these aren't real conservatives?
There is no issue regarding cutting funding for contraception or health insurance for women. Certainly none advocated at a national level (I won't pretend to be able to keep track of 50 state legislatures). The issue is whether the funds will flow through PP or another source. I was talking about abortion because that is the real sticking point. Rick Santorum managed to gin up a huge row over contraception issues, but now that he is out of the race, I assume more moderate heads will prevail. I don't know the legislation you refer to regarding equal pay, but I absolutely will read it and comment if you point me in the right direction.
I apologize, that was a bit over the top. Trying to do this while watching Salazar talk about $9 gasoline has me a bit on edge.
@ Delwark
RE: Copywright/Patent Issues
I'm sorry I gave your first question short shrift. There is a popular suspicion that copywright laws are extended to coincide with the impending expiration of Disney's main rights to Mickey Mouse and other such content. History correlates well with that theory.
I don't know enough about the conflict with the DMCA and fair use to make an educated statement, but I agree that someone in the room during the higher up meetings definitely should and I will ask around. Concerning the private rights of action, I think the term "abuse" is somewhat misleading. No one has a protected right to have anything on YouTube, so if the site decides to take the ultra-cautious approach and shut down anything remotely resembling infringement, that's basically their perrogative. I guess you could sue a reporting observer for damages if you could somehow show the report was knowingly false and could show damages, but that would be extremely difficult. I have no doubt that some parties have abused that procedure, but as Denzel Washington once said, "It's not what you know. It's what you can prove."
The issue with rent-seeking behavior is a valid concern, but I am not creative enough to envision a way of legislating against any sort of licensing or patent trolling. If one were to not allow patents to be transferred as consideration, there would be zero value to invention unless the inventor also had means of reproducing whatever we're talking about for sale.
The first-to-file system was heavily criticised in every class I took on the subject, but again, I don't know how one crafts an equitable alternative. I realize at this point that my main answer has been, "I don't know." There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but you bring up some points that bear discussion. I do, however, have a fairly strong opinion on the subject of the moral right to works. The government expends resources on a massive scale enforcing the rights granted to patent holders. SOME element of public use is rightfully withheld in return. We're very comfortable with patents and copywrights after so many years of their existence, but at a basic level, these concepts are somewhat counterintuitive. If I see a guy using some sort of new tool and I think I could copy his design successfully with my own efforts, it's a somewhat interesting concept that I, in fact, can't do that without paying the inventor. Well, it's a stretched analogy, but you get the basic idea. The government expends resources on a massive scale enforcing the rights granted to patent holders. SOME element of public use is rightfully withheld in return. As to the specifics of timeframe and exceptions, I should be able to speak more specifically than I am currently, but it has been a while since IP.
On the subject of progress in international enforcement, I will confess that in my profession, one sometimes gets so focused on the coverage of politics that one can forget other things are happening unnoticed. I will try to make time to read up on these particular current events. I actually have a decent collection of stuff to read based on this forum already.
As to your final question, I'll be perfectly honest. I think the majority of Americans don't care. And I don't mind, don't bother to read up on the nuances of foreign policy. I mean very literally do not believe that it matters in their life who is the POTUS. And both sides have found that the only way to even attempt to get these people out of their houses on voting days is to paint the other side in such horrible stripes that the apathetics can't help but get pissed off enough to vote for the other guy. And fixing that phenomenon involves everything we've talked about here.
If a teenage girl is too busy worrying about whether she is going to be pressured and shamed into having her unwanted child, she's not considering fiscal policy when she votes Democrat.
If a coal miner or an oil rig worker thinks that Obama is going to snap his fingers and end the fossil fuel industry tomorrow, they are not thinking about anti-immigration measures when they vote Republican.
Who knows? I try to persuade without using fear tactics (unless of course I'm genuinely afraid of something), but beyond that, I don't have a silver bullet.
Two questions (all your answers have been fantastic by the way):
A) I work for PBS in Virginia, and I watched firsthand as our Governor set off a firestorm and contributed to the "war on women." They tried to mandate that life begins at conception (which I personally believe, but you can't legislate morality). They also tried to mandate transvaginal ultrasounds when a woman goes in for an abortion, which would not be covered by insurance. This is the source of the "shaming women" comments you've seen so far. In a way it's true. For the vast majority of people, this cast conservatives in a backwards, negative light. My question is how do you feel this affects Romney in November?
B) In my opinion Obama is invincible. There is actually no way he can lose. He knows this too. That's why he's on Jimmy Fallon and whispering secrets to the Russian ambassador. He can probably burn down the white house and everyone will vote for him anyway, because this crop of Republicans are seen as wishy washy, socially backwards, and--sometimes (read: Rick Perry)--stupid. What is Romney's strategy in turning this perception around? He's loaded with money, but he's out of touch with anyone in the middle class. He practiced shady business. Flip flopped on many issues. On the other hand, Obama is (in my opinion), a lame duck. How does Mitt turn things around for the election?
Unlike many of the somewhat outlandish spending priorities our federal govrernment manages to find, there is a pretty clearcut authorization for the feds to levy taxes to facilitate interstate commerce. In my mind, that covers the interstate systems, ocean docks, rail lines, and various inland navigable waterways. As much as I don't like these words leaving my mouth, this is the sort of thing for which taxes should be paid and paid willingly. I don't think many conservatives will disagree with that general point. Now, I could write for an hour about the corruption in the process by which the feds award contracts, but that's another story.
The part about corruption and i suppose the inefficient government bodies is classical republican phrase to limit good public projects. Instead of working for an efficient and transparent government it seems that it much easier to cut the funding. So my follow question is whether it's better to focus on a stronger (efficient) and smarter (fair and open) government instead of weaker and dumber government. Government is supposed to service the public and by cutting funding you are cutting the beneficial public services.
@archonOOid
Let me suggest that it's classic Democrat practice to make sure that every dollar of spending is passed through as many organizations and programs as humanly possible before anyone ever starts mixing asphalt. In MOST cases, my Republican answer is "apportion the money to the states as you see fit and let them handle it." I don't say that because state governements are less corrupt; I say it because they are a little less removed than Washington D.C., and thus, hopefully, some level of accountability is possible with the electorate.
In the case of these specific public works, the state answer doesn't work. It is the fed's direct responsibility. I don't really have any violent issue with that, except that you get into affirmative action in awarding contracts, earmarks which are sometimes blatantly illegal, etc. I mean the work has to be done, and it has to be done at the national level. That's my answer. All the rest is details.
On April 26 2012 14:33 SaintBadger wrote: Hello esteemed members of TL,
I joined this community a few weeks ago to voice my opinion in the newly-formed Scarlett fanclub. Several of the posts in that particular club made disparaging remarks about conservatives by assigning that philosophy to those who ridicule her transgender status. This struck me as very odd, as there is no particular tenant of conservatism that addresses transgender persons one way or the other. Then I began to read the "Obama v. Romney" post in the general forum and it became painfully obvious that sincere, thoughtful individuals are grossly mistaken about some of the beliefs held by conservatives. So, at the risk of starting a wildly abusive, short-lived topic, I'd like to offer my expertise on the subject.
If there is anything that a member of TL would sincerely like to ask regarding either conservative beliefs or justifications thereof, I'd like to answer to the best of my ability.
Now, who the hell am I to speak for conservatives?
For the past seven years, I have worked on various campaigns for conservative U.S. politicians at the state and national level. Currently, I am a manager in the North Carolina branch of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. I have a B.S. in Mathematics and Political Science and an MBA from Millsaps College (small liberal arts spot) and a J.D. from Tulane University School of Law. Perhaps most importantly, I have had some personal experience with a lot of the social and financial issues that plague American politics. If this takes off, I will get more explicit as necessary.
I also have a fairly good understanding of constitutional law. I suspect I'm not the only law school graduate around here, but if you'd like the conservative tint to a decidedly ambiguous area of the way our legal system works, feel free to ask.
From where do these answers come?
Only myself. I do not propose to speak for any particular politician, including my candidate. That's for other times and other forums. I am a practicing Catholic, but I try very hard to not allow my faith to be my sole justification for political convictions. Also, I am NOT a libertarian. The distinction between libertarians and conservatives is very important to me, and I believe to the country at large. Again, if someone is interested, I will develop that further.
Why do you care?
Obviously, I would love nothing more than to convince all of you that my understanding of the world is the truth and the way to approach life. Barring that, you should know that somewhere around 40% of the country self-identifies as conservative, and that 40% tends to vote quite reliably. If for no other reason than "know thy enemy", I hope you will ask anything you want to know.
I'm fully aware that this could be an obnoxious disaster. Furthermore, as the campaign begins to shift to the general-election phase, my time to check and answer this blog will vary wildly. However, ICCup Tesla's recent post on female gamers has proven that this community can be reasonably respectful and coherent if sufficiently engaged. Hopefully, this post will do just that.
Highest Regards
I find this really pretentious because you sir cannot speak for all conservatives. You can only speak for yourself.
1) I'd imagine most people (regardless of political/religous belief) would prefer an unwanted pregnancy to not occur in the first place to avoid any possibility of an abortion. Why do Republicans still push for abstinence only education in schools when it's been proven to be less effective than proper sex-ed in preventing unwanted pregnancies?
2) What is your opinion of the GOP's general or outright support on the various bills/laws in the past decade that a lot would say were 'attacks' on personal liberties (Patriot Act, NDAA, SOPA/CISPA, etc)?
3) What is your opinion on America's role in supporting Israel?
4) Why does the GOP seem to portray the idea that getting a college/university education is a bad thing? Do you really believe that students are being intentionally 'liberalized' at these institutions or is it possible that people naturally gravitate towards liberalism as they learn and experience the world more?
Btw, to whomever called reed out on the "boy" thing, don't worry about that stuff here.
I actually think disgusting and understandable are not mutually exclusive here. You have a massive interest group who genuinely (for the most part) believe that abortion ranks with the worst of sins and can't understand why they aren't allowed to vote under that premise. As I mentioned earlier, I personally had the privilege of being told after the fact that my girlfriend aborted a child that I very much wanted because "she didn't want to bother me with it." Things like that make people very angry. Some of them are effing crazy, and go try to target abortion providers. They are criminals, and should obviously be in jail. But a lot of this group chooses to go the legislative route. Gov. Perry (R-TX) was particularly proud of his ultrasound requirement.
Personally, I don't comprehend how abortion has become a right, but I respect the law of the land. These folks who try to pass all these weird laws are all aiming to make an abortion as difficult as possbile to obtain. I think some of the means to that end are grotesque, and I, along with the VAST majority of conservaties, do not support them. But I do understand the visceral reaction.
Personally, I don't comprehend how abortion has become a right, but I respect the law of the land. These folks who try to pass all these weird laws are all aiming to make an abortion as difficult as possbile to obtain. I think some of the means to that end are grotesque, and I, along with the VAST majority of conservaties, do not support them. But I do understand the visceral reaction.
Really? Vast majority you say? I'd like statistics on that honestly, because I think you are quite mistaken about that.
Look, if you don't support the war on women then that's fine and good. But when you actively say that such a thing is just a ploy is when you anger people like me. No, there is a lot of anti-female legislation occurring from republicans right now. Don't dismiss such issues, as these are issues that real women have to face. It's insulting and offensive.
I might as well follow up with another question. Do you feel like there is a lot of sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism and racism among conservatives and republicans right now?
1. What about the Grover Norquist "taxpayer protection pledge"?
I had hoped we had learned the whole "read my lips" lesson when President HW Bush went down to Clinton after taking the oath and breaking it. People like Norquist are only out for themselves, and my evidence for that assertion is that no one with half a functioning brain who has been around politics as long as he has would fail to realize that he is seriously hurting his party's chances for election. To pretend we know everything that's going to happen between now and 2016 with regards to the fiscal state of the US is stupid, and signing onto such a pledge is begging to get it thrown in your face later. Unfortunately, that's how primary politics works. Who knows if Romney would have even gotten the opportunity to face Obama if he didn't make that concession to the party? Don't get me wrong, the party obviously helps the campaign to the point where they do have a say in his platform, but this is just dumb politics.
2. What about factcheck/politifact? Are politicians deliberately lying or just misinformed?
I love Politifact. My favorite they've ever done is taking an in-depth look at the research as to whether Jon Stewart's audience tends to be more informed than Fox News and other network watchers. Good read.
More to your point, I think it's often that they've found a way to say something which is grossly misleading, but not technically false. For example, right now they've got a Mitt Romney quote rated "mostly false". The quote is:
"The total unemployment rate for Hispanic or Latino workers has increased from 10% to 10.3%" between January 2009 and March 2012."
That quote is 100% true. However, if you start the metric at February 2009 (Obama's first full month in office), Obama's numbers look much better. So Politifact calls it "mostly false" for being misleading, yet he is telling the truth. Most of them fall under that sort of heading. Another example was when the Democrats claimed the Affordable Care Act cost less than a trillion dollars. Technically that was true, but only because about 400 billion in costs had randomly been severed into a second bill that was passed in tandem with the first. In other words, they can play all sorts of games with what is "true".
Some of them are deliberately based on a single outlying poll or study which is often contradicted by other work. And some of them, I just can't reconcile. When Michelle Bachmann went off on Perry about how his vaccinations were causing birth defects or autism or whatever it was, she clearly had no evidence to back this up. I imagine she took the shot, ready to fall back on "Well, I'm not a doctor but I've been told . . . " Who knows?
Why are Conservatives typically more hawkish than liberals, but when it comes to women's reproductive rights, "the sanctity of life" suddenly becomes an issue? Doesn't this seem like an ideological contradiction to support killing fully-grown people (including support for capital punishment, lax restrictions on gun control, and open warfare) but then get in a tizzy about fetuses?
I just wanted to say (like many others) that this is a great idea! As a conservative myself, I've often thought about something like this because I feel like proper representation of conservative ideals is lacking and, therefore, many of the discussions are often one sided -- devoid of any balance.
In Canada we've had an election every year for the past three years (at least where I live) and they've been at all levels of government. It's been a great experience because I've been able to get out and work on all sorts of conservative campaigns. I wanted to ask, though: other than the Romney camp., what other experience do you have with politics/campaigns?
Also, what are your thoughts on the Keystone pipeline connecting Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico? I don't get to talk to many Americans about it . . .
On April 27 2012 01:06 SaintBadger wrote: @ Deathly Rat
RE: Conservative philosophy a la Christianity
It's possible. I think both parties tend to couch their arguments in the same thematic elements of Christianity because we all sort of assume that those ideas carry some power with our listeners. And it is ABSOLUTELY TRUE that no conservative or liberal tows the party line all the time. Sometimes, as with my issue with the death penalty, I am reassured by the notion that we aren't all mindless drones. Other times, as with President Bush's addiction to deficit spending, I just realize that some people see the political parties as means to an end.
I started this because I am a true believer in what I understand to be conservative principles. An important consequence of that, however, is that I find myself disowning Republicans from time to time. I think that's just a part of the two-party system.
I think it is the product of a sane mind that realises that you don't have to believe everything your own political party believes at that moment because policies and the political environment can change, but to change your own personal views based on this is the sign of a lack of personality.
As a life-long Liberal I hope you will look at what Liberalism actually is and means, because it has scant resemblence to Socialism and Communism (which you seem to think is so), indeed there is such a thing as Liberal Conservatism, which is basically taking the moral position of Liberalsm such as divorcing religion from state, and prioritising the rights of the individual over that of the collective state (a 'la Guantanamo Bay, no thanks!), but having a Conservative view on managing the economy with a small civil service and low taxes. By contrast, I cannot imagine how you could have Conservative Socialism, because the demands of Socialism, in that the state actually takes care of it's citizens, demand higher taxes and an enlargened civil service.
No, I don't agree. You're using the phrase "expand government" regarding social legislation in a way that I don't see as applicable. For one thing, there is a heavy distinction between state and federal levels. The state goverments can have as much power and money as its people will allow, subject to the proscriptions of the Bill of Rights and certain specific duties (like interstate commerce) reserved to the feds. There are many reasons why it is good to have a state government with more power than a federal government. States were designed to be "grand experiments" on the designs of democracy. Texans decide they don't want an income tax, so maybe businesses move there. Seeing that, maybe Louisiana decides to have no income tax. Conversely, maybe Texas goes bankrupt and Louisiana chuckles and says, "phew, glad we had that income tax." Perhaps the most important difference between state and federal levels is that if you don't like the state you're in, you can "vote with your feet" and GTFO. Some would stupidly argue that you can just as easily leave the US, but we live in a country based on privileges of citizenship, and the whole reason the federal goverment was supposed to be so limited is so we would not end up forcing the minority to renounce their country.
I've said MANY TIMES in the past few hours that the federal government was not meant to have the power to legislate abortion one way or the other. It was even worse when the Supreme Court said, "oh you don't even have to legislate. It's all right here in this Constitution." But conceptually, whether you or I or anyone agrees with the Court, the expansion of government involved refers to the feds taking a piece of state power and reserving it for themselves. If the Court had decided that abortion was cruel and unusual punishment and was therefore illegal in all fifty states, conservatives would have the same philosophical objection. And before the obvious, "yeah, but they'd have been happy," we're all human. It's difficult to order our principles such that one clearly comes out ahead of another (e.g. federalism vs. moral belief on abortion).
This subject could go on for pages, but I hope I've answered the basic question.
On April 27 2012 01:45 sc2superfan101 wrote: What exactly would you look for in a Supreme Court Justice nominee?
Where do you stand on the issue of judicial review, and why?
Which politician that is currently serving would be your ideal President?
Gotta love the straightforward questions.
I'd want a Justice that I felt was smarter than me. I mean wiser, more experienced, in a way that I couldn't possibly deny. Because like it or not, the Supreme Court is collectively more powerful than any domestic or foreign body in terms of US government. As I imagine a candidate, I would assume he or she is on my page with regards to understandings of constitutional law, but only because I believe I have some of the black and white correct answers. However, I'm fairly good at knowing when I'm in the presence of someone who grossly outclasses me in intelligence or wisdom. And if he or she had something differnt to say, I'd be all ears.
On the subject of judicial review, I have to say this is where I think President Obama has conducted himself embarassingly. He didn't miss his opportunity to get in the jab, "zomg, I thought Reublicans didn't like activist judges". Of course, he knows as well as I do that an activist judge isn't defined by whether or not he or she upholds a law in question. Judicial activism is characterized by increasing an accepted scope of law by fiat. For example, the concept of privacy rights is a judicially-created construct. No one passed a law or drafted an amendment that says anything about privacy. In fact, the listing of six or seven specific privacies (search and seizure, quartering of troops, etc) suggests to me that there was no general "privacy" intended as a fundamental right. But, all of that is a long standing argument.
In the case of healthcare, the Court will have to decide whether "regulating" commerce will be increased in scope to include "creating" commerce. If it is, that's my concept of activism, and it's an unfortunate thing.
In a more general sense, it's hard to envision a nation like this without a court system. I suppose someone has to be that final arbiter of the differing factions of government. As many problems as I have with past jurisprudence, this system has held together alright for going on 300 years now.
As to who is currently serving that I like for President, honestly Romney is not my "ideal" in the sense of what I would create if I could imagine a politician out of thin air, but he's proving to be capable and I believe he's sincere. I like that we're running a rich guy in this day and age, because I want to pound home the point that wealth is not a cause for shame or apology.
I suppose if I had to pick one other person, I'd tell Gov. Christie to get on the treadmill. I suspect Rubio and Nikki Haley will get their turn in future years, but they don't have the chops just yet. Christie hasn't been around long, but he's made such a splash (no fat joke intended) that he might have a shot. And I imagine he'd be fun to work with.
I almost went to school at William and Mary. Awesome state.
They tried the same thing in Mississippi with regards to passing a state law that defines life beginning at conception. If that had passed, within about 12 hours of the votes being counted, the ACLU or a NOW chapter would have filed for and received a temp injunction against enforcement of the law until a hearing could be convened. The state court would have found the constitutional questions too profoud, and kicked it up to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (in the case of MS) which would have laughed the state's lawyer out of the building.
As long as the Supreme Court stands by its decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which, btw, pretty much overturned Roe and introduced a new standard regarding abortion laws, there is no chance that state law can somehow circumvent the abortion ruling. They can try to nibble at the edges of things with parental consent (with bypass, of course) or these bizarre ultrasound requirements, but as far as trying to outlaw abortions again, it is never going to happen at the state level.
Furthermore, if the ultrasounds aren't paid for by the gov, that's just a sitting duck for a court challenge. The law may be in effect for a while, but sooner or later that's going to be struck down. You can't require that much added cost as a preventative measure.
So, with no hope of success and possibly the worst PR in history, are Republicans in VA just that stupid in terms of politics? Nope, they're just gambling. I think what's happening is that they know Obama is going to come out swinging in 2012, and his race and charisma guarantee him a segment of usually apathetic voters that is not usually counted on by the Dems. So, now, while it's still early in election season, they're bringing up a number of issues which they know can't pass, but will rile up the religious right. They know they can count on the religious vote, but they need the money. And money comes most readily from outrage. So, the short version is, it's a calculated risk against a master opponent.
You want a really stupid analogy? The VA Republicans are bronzies up against Nestea. What's the only chance of victory? Well, clearly a six-pool. It's not pretty, it's not popular, but it's a shot, and you're going to lose the macro game anyway.
Btw, don't for one second believe this is a Republican-only practice. Remember in 2004 when slavery reparations were on the dockett while the Dems were trying to get Sharpton out of the race to endorse Kerry? Same basic idea. Politics get ugly. We play to win.
2. Re: Obama can't lose
There have been moments in the pas year when I've agreed with this sentiment. Let's say for a moment you're right. What do we do? Just concede the race? Nah, we fight the fight because most of us believe in what we're doing. Even if we don't win the Presidency, I have high hopes for the Senate this year.
Also, the Obama administration has made some really serious blunders. He came in on such a high in 2008, but he lost a lot of influence by not catering to representatives and senators who needed to avoid the spotlight during unpopular battles. That's one of the reasons we won so convincingly in 2010. If Gingrich and Santorum had gotten out a month or two ago, I'd say we'd be 50-50 to win. As of now, we've got some ground to make up, but it's not as hopeless as you might imagine. He's got more money, more free air time via the Jimmy Fallons of the world, and a very devoted following. I like to think we have the right way of going about the business of the world on our side, but that's for November voters to decide.
On a brief side note, decisions are made by those who show up. I've spent about seven hours straight typing responses in a SC2 forum after staying up till 4a.m. doing the same last night. I do it because I want someone's vote and I want someone's understanding. Whether you agree with me or not, just remember . . . Show up.
On April 26 2012 23:48 I wrote: Why did people assume you were conservative ? Do you see this as a bad prejudice ?
On April 27 2012 01:00 SaintBadger wrote: @Otolia
I was fairly outspoken about my beliefs, but I did so in a way that I thought was unobtrusive. For example, 14th Amendment professor would say something neutral and unbiased, like, "people who are pro-life also believe that contraception should be illegal because it's all just privacy rights and you can't be for one without the other. They also believe the state can jail homosexuals." I would respond that I don't accept the premise that all three of these things simply refer to some nebulous legal concept of "privacy", and suddenly I hated women.
Whatever works. After some of the insults James Carville and Debbie Schultz have thrown at us over the years, you better have a hell of a vocabulary if you think you can insult me more deeply than them. I didn't have it nearly as bad as the evangelists.
I want DoubleReed to have an epic 2,000th post. Please do this. Also, your commitment to this thread is more than I expected "Saint" Badger, how long will you sit here and muster up the energy to peck away at simple questions? Moreover, as the Republican party is called "the political machine", you surely are aiding that reputation. I could never, ever imagine educated and practicing politcal Democrats pandering for positive attention on a gaming website's blog section.
This more than anything might actually convince me to go vote. I'm of the belief that American politics and the subjects it deals with are too arcane to penetrate by the average person. It takes education, and that education isn't being made readily available by either the media or our schools.
But, maybe I'll go vote. Thanks for the response, hope you get some sleep! :0
Thank you for responding to what I said. I'd just like to respond to a few points that you make. I'd just like to note that issues cannot be considered in a bubble. You mentioned that each issue has impact beyond that of a moral one (e.g. there are no purely moral issues, the financial impact of each issue must be considered also), and therefore I would like to point out that consequences of all actions must be looked at to determine the total good of any action.
With this in mind, I do take issue with part of your stance in one of your response to me, let me explain why.
On April 27 2012 02:20 SaintBadger wrote: I don't know enough about the conflict with the DMCA and fair use to make an educated statement, but I agree that someone in the room during the higher up meetings definitely should and I will ask around. Concerning the private rights of action, I think the term "abuse" is somewhat misleading. No one has a protected right to have anything on YouTube, so if the site decides to take the ultra-cautious approach and shut down anything remotely resembling infringement, that's basically their prerogative. I guess you could sue a reporting observer for damages if you could somehow show the report was knowingly false and could show damages, but that would be extremely difficult. I have no doubt that some parties have abused that procedure, but as Denzel Washington once said, "It's not what you know. It's what you can prove."
We must consider the consequences of the private right of action here. It is possible for anyone to send a copyright takedown notice to youtube. Because of the safe harbor provision, you can reasonably assume that no company will ever not take the safe harbor. The practical effect of all of this is even if claims are entirely bogus, content will be removed, regardless of context. Since you have a lot of difficulty proving it was intentional, this is absolutely what opens the system up to abuse. Ops, it was accidental. I took down your a video of a competition project because I claimed copyright on that video because you mentioned my product somewhere in the video. This could also easily be used to oppress free speech, impede fair use, and has a ton of other unintended consequences. The DMCA does not do enough effective net good (it is supposed to protect the rights of copyright holders) to offset what I consider very serious negatives, especially as more people and organizations realize the can abuse the system.
These examples show that instead of encouraging innovation in the arts and science, such bad laws designed to enforce copyright often hinder the development of art and science. There are many, many more examples of abuse that I could provide.
Such law is designed to uphold the rights of copyright holders. Let's talk next about the premise, the benefits of copyright and patents, which support such laws.
On April 27 2012 02:20 SaintBadger wrote: The issue with rent-seeking behavior is a valid concern, but I am not creative enough to envision a way of legislating against any sort of licensing or patent trolling. If one were to not allow patents to be transferred as consideration, there would be zero value to invention unless the inventor also had means of reproducing whatever we're talking about for sale.
The first-to-file system was heavily criticized in every class I took on the subject, but again, I don't know how one crafts an equitable alternative. I realize at this point that my main answer has been, "I don't know." There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but you bring up some points that bear discussion. I do, however, have a fairly strong opinion on the subject of the moral right to works. The government expends resources on a massive scale enforcing the rights granted to patent holders. SOME element of public use is rightfully withheld in return. We're very comfortable with patents and copyrights after so many years of their existence, but at a basic level, these concepts are somewhat counterintuitive. If I see a guy using some sort of new tool and I think I could copy his design successfully with my own efforts, it's a somewhat interesting concept that I, in fact, can't do that without paying the inventor. Well, it's a stretched analogy, but you get the basic idea. The government expends resources on a massive scale enforcing the rights granted to patent holders. SOME element of public use is rightfully withheld in return. As to the specifics of timeframe and exceptions, I should be able to speak more specifically than I am currently, but it has been a while since IP.
Note that if we abolished copyright and patent law tomorrow, there would be no need for government to regulate any of it, and therefore all costs to legislate, enforce, etc. would be gone, and therefore there would be no need to withhold any rights. Copying a design (through transfer of knowledge) is not simple (copyright of artistic works is a different issue in this case, this is a patents only), and if it is, why should it be patentable in the first place (patent law states 'obvious' things are not supposed to be patentable, and I think a reasonable test for obviousness is how easily the implementation of an idea is copied. If it is easy to copy, it shouldn't be eligible for a patent, if it's not, it doesn't need one anyway because it's hard to copy). This can get especially ridiculous in the technology sector (see fights between apple iphone and google android over little interface design decisions, all of which are patented).
I would also like to assert that the basic premise, that copyright and patent increases the amount of innovation, and encourages development of the arts and science is false. Please see the link to 'Against intellectual monopoly' I provided earlier (and read it) to understand that position, and the data supporting it.
Even if it was not false, I posit that we have to measure the benefit that patents and copyrights 'gain' us vs. the obvious rent-seeking, patent trolling, enforcement and judicial costs that accompany it. I maintain that the trade-off is not worth it under our current copyright and patent law, especailly since we keep on extending copyright and patent terms and continue to limit fair use.
See my problem with the current system though is that corruption seeps in with lobbying. These industries find it cheaper to spend money hiring attorneys and buying politicians (by offering them well paying jobs on 'industry groups' after they leave office as well as funding campaigns), so very few are willing to alienate said special interests.
This goes for both democrats and republicans. It is part of our broken system, which frustrates me the most. I'm rather indifferent from a moral standpoint on if government should provide many of the different services it does, I am interested in what the cost/benefit analysis is, and if it is efficient to do so, the government should provide such services. As this is my stance, reduction of waste and corruption in government I consider an extremely high priority. Anything that helps this is the best improvements we can get. If corruption cannot be eliminated, it is best to leave the government out of as many issues as possible, as long as basic rights aren't be trampled (establishing what rights are basic is another difficult discussion, one I think is best left for another time. Anyway, most Americans agree on which rights are absolute as individuals).
I think economists need to show what the cost-benefit trade off of patent and copyright systems are, and that the lobbing voice of studios who have a stake in rent-seeking should be taken with a block or two of salt.
You noted that there is a 'sneaking suspicion' that copyright is being extended as Mickey Mouse's copyright expires, and that is not incorrect, but you did not state if you view the extensions as moving in the right direction or wrong direction. I'm interested in your thoughts. Maybe you meant to cover it with the later 'I don't know'. If that's the case, please just reiterate that so I understand that.
Another poster asked:
On April 27 2012 02:31 Mazer wrote:
2) What is your opinion of the GOP's general or outright support on the various bills/laws in the past decade that a lot would say were 'attacks' on personal liberties (Patriot Act, NDAA, SOPA/CISPA, etc)?
In interested in this response, because I want to highlight that again here because note that acts like SOPA/PIPA and trade agreements like TTP and ACTA are targeted at additional copyright enforcement, but further erode personal liberties (either here or abroad). Are we going too far in trying to protect copyright and patents here? You noted that you don't know what an equitable solution is to things like file sharing. If there are clear negative effects to the legislation and laws in place (cost to enforce, cost of maintaining copyright and patent system, damage of protected rights such as fair-use, free speech and privacy), isn't it better to remove the bad laws from the books in the short term to prevent additional damage?
I know I'm going hardcore deep into this issue, but that's partially because I don't think conservatives yet have a developed stance on copyright and patents, aside from what has been fed to them over the past 300 years, and I think this is going to become a bigger issue in the years to come (see SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/TPP protests, especially the SOPA/PIPA ones), and I want to encourage discussion (and present my opinion too of course).
Lastly, I just want to thank you again for providing all the insight you have.
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.
I'd like to give you statistics, or even read them for myself, but no one seems to understand how to answer the question.
I've seen one survey that asks, "do you support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution stating that life begins at conception?" Err no, no I don't.
I've seen another that asks, "do you think abortion should be free of charge to any U.S. resident?" Err, no. No I don't. Maybe one day I'll have the budget to run my own polls.
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.
Hi there, I fundamentally disagree with you on a lot of points (I am Canadian, go figure ) however I appreciate the format of this thread, and the time and thought you actually put into your responses. I may not agree with you, but I do respect you. On to my questions:
1) This has been the biggest question I have had, and could never understand the reasoning of. Why is it that the Republican party rallies around the idea of a totally free market, and promotes the idea that regulations stifle success, and prevents job creation? This is especially confusing, considering lack of regulation and corporate greed was what just caused your economic collapse.
In Canada, the Conservative party wanted to follow US legislation to allow banks and insurance firms the freedom that you guys offered them in playing with peoples money. The Conservatives used the exact same line of reasoning to defend their stance. They said we would limit our success, we would be less competitive, we would fall behind, we would lose jobs, and that a free market would allow for greater prosperity. The Liberals did not allow them this freedom, and that is the soul reason we werent crushed by the recession like you guys were.
How can you in one sentence accept that corporate greed and deregulation caused the financial crisis, and then advocate further deregulation, and corporations operating in a "free market" as being the proper response for fixing the economy? Isn't that like punching someone in the nose and breaking it, then telling them that the only way to fix it is to punch it back into position, and expecting them to believe it?
2) How do you feel about religion being talked about at ALL in politics? In Canada, religion is not spoken about. A candidates faith (or lack thereof) is of no concern during a campaign. Do you think that requiring your candidates to identify as christian to even be considered is a good state of affairs? Why is it, that even with the separation of church and state being outlined in your constitution, politicians (mostly republicans) feel that they can claim to be constitutionalists, and claim to want things to be the way the founding fathers drew them up to be, yet blatantly ignore parts of it?
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.
I am actually waiting for permission from up the totem pole to be a little more explicit as to who I am, but given that I have made several statements contrary to campaign platform, and given that I enjoy my job, I'm going to hold off on naming other campaigns for now. Remind me in a day or two.
The Keystone Pipeline is going to get built. Obama doesn't feel confident with enthusiasm among the green voters just like Romney is worried about the Christian donations. But, POTUS is also going to have to toss labor a bone or two, and I suspect Keystone will be it. Makes him look nice and moderate all around. He's played that issue well.
I am actually waiting for permission from up the totem pole to be a little more explicit as to who I am, but given that I have made several statements contrary to campaign platform, and given that I enjoy my job, I'm going to hold off on naming other campaigns for now. Remind me in a day or two.
The Keystone Pipeline is going to get built. Obama doesn't feel confident with enthusiasm among the green voters just like Romney is worried about the Christian donations. But, POTUS is also going to have to toss labor a bone or two, and I suspect Keystone will be it. Makes him look nice and moderate all around. He's played that issue well.
On April 27 2012 03:59 Game wrote: I want DoubleReed to have an epic 2,000th post. Please do this. Also, your commitment to this thread is more than I expected "Saint" Badger, how long will you sit here and muster up the energy to peck away at simple questions? Moreover, as the Republican party is called "the political machine", you surely are aiding that reputation. I could never, ever imagine educated and practicing politcal Democrats pandering for positive attention on a gaming website's blog section.
I feel slightly damned with fake praise here, but that's perfectly ok. Maybe I'm overly sensitive. I find this incredibly engaging, plus I have learned a few things.
I think it was Reed that pointed out the positive financial aspects of allowing homosexual marriage. That's definitely something that needs to enter the debate.
Delwack is kicking my ass on copywright issues. I'm going to spend the weekend on that as much as I can.
I mean, I could easily see how someone could come in here and be like, "Wow, this guy is either really bored or really desperate for votes," but in actuality, I think this makes me a better asset to the campaign.
Who knows? Maybe one of you might actually switch your vote? You don't have to tell anyone. Totally confidential.
On April 27 2012 04:44 SaintBadger wrote: I mean, I could easily see how someone could come in here and be like, "Wow, this guy is either really bored or really desperate for votes," but in actuality, I think this makes me a better asset to the campaign.
This is the new paradigm. Using the internet for real discourse as opposed to memes and namecalling. Now if only every campaign hired a couple hundred educated and dedicated people like the Saint here to do exactly this, and our democracy might actually function.
I know I'm going hardcore deep into this issue, but that's partially because I don't think conservatives yet have a developed stance on copyright and patents, aside from what has been fed to them over the past 300 years, and I think this is going to become a bigger issue in the years to come (see SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/TPP protests, especially the SOPA/PIPA ones), and I want to encourage discussion (and present my opinion too of course).
I think that's absolutely correct, and it's part of the reason I've felt awkward trying to apply what little knowledge I have of the subject. I'm putting myself forward as a representative of a party that has done very little soul-searching on how new laws should be crafted to conform or abolish old-style media rights.
When you say the overarching premise of our protection of patent rights, that is the fostering of innovation, is just plainly false, that's powerful stuff. It would take some time for me to fully flesh out whether I agree with that or not. In the meantime, I definitely intend to make use of the reading material you provided. And you'll be happy to know that I fired off an email to Dr. Townsend-Garr, keeper of all things IP-related at Tulane, pleading for her expertise.
Hopefully, she'll have some time to devote, and I will share her insight. Preferably after ever-so-slightly modifying it and calling it my own. After all, educational fair use, am I right?
Interestingly, the word "patent" comes from the latin "patere" which means "to open up" or "to reveal." The point of a patent is to get people to divulge their trade secrets so that they can become a part of all human knowledge - that's why you have to explicitly detail how to build the thing when you are awarded a patent. The reward for this is exclusive rights for a certain period of time... the problem is that that period of time has been extended in years at the same time that the rate of technological progress speeds up, making the length "adjusted for inflation" even longer to the point where it ends up being counterproductive.
Copyright is a totally different issue. Don't believe in it myself. Don't believe it's possible really to own an idea - you certainly can't sell an idea more than once, not without a police state to enforce it.
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.
First, I'd say that Republicans will hit the talking points and speak as if they want zero regulation, but if you got more than a sound byte from them, I think most of them would say they are shorthanding a certain amount of exceptions within the word "regulation". For example, taxes would technically fall under regulation. Granted, some of us want none of those, but the typical politician isn't talking about taxes when they mention goverment regulation. Also, it's very difficult to talk about regulation as a general concept, when in fact, different industries are regulated in very different ways.
Since you mention the financial collapse, let's talk about banks. One regulation on every FDIC-insured bank is that it must maintain on-hand cash equal to 10% of their total deposits. On paper, that sounds great. If there's a run on banks, and a bunch of people withdraw money all at once, the bank should remain liquid. But it isn't great. In fact, as someone whose fiance' works in a bank, it kind of sucks. It means that at any given point, one of every ten dollars is not earning interest and not working for the bank in any way. That's profit margin that will be made up in fees to consumers.
Furthermore, it accomplishes one of the worst effects of poorly-worded regulation: It has a disparate impact on different-sized banks. Hancock Bank, based in smalltown Gulfport, MS, has aggregate deposits of . . . let's say $100 million. That means ten million is sitting around, just waitng for some run on the bank. At a prime rate of, say 1%, that's $100,000 per year in lost earnings. Ok, now let's look at Citibank. Let's say aggregate deposits of . . . $20 billion. That's 2 billion sitting around, or 20 million in lost interest. Now, you may be saying "boo hoo, big bank loses out on a little money," but I wonder how many people 20 million employs per year.
The other annoying aspect of regulating bodies is that, much like patent law, they are ridiculously slow in adapting to the times. No one uses cash anymore in the amounts we're discussing here. We have debit cards and check books. Guess what those DON'T require. You got it! Cash on hand in a bank.
As for free markets causing the financial collapse, you can't really make that statement, because some of the regulations played direct roles in the collapse. Any American bank financing mortgages was required to maintain a certain percentage of their portfolio in sub-prime notes. In English, that means all banks were required to give mortgages to people who had no reason to believe they could successfully manage that debt. That may not have directly caused the bubble, but it damn sure didn't help. And above all else, the reason our financial system collapsed is that their was no risk for the risk takers. The banks got bailed out. One of the beauties of a TRULY free market is that you sink or swim on your own. We have never really had the stomach to not extend a corporate safety net under the free market. If we actually tried with the understanding that mortgage underwriters were going to be homeless and on unemployment if their investments tanked, we might have seen a little more prudent business decisionmaking.
The separation of church and state is a little overblown. That phrase comes from a letter Jefferson wrote to some Baptists. The actual founding documents just says no establishing state religion and no preventing free exercise thereof. Believe me, in a country where there are religions centered around pot and peyote, that's a tall enough order. We don't need speech codes. There is no right to not be offended. There is no right to not be annoyed.
As to how religion should inform the work of politics, I've done my best to answer that in other posts.
On April 27 2012 05:00 sam!zdat wrote: Interestingly, the word "patent" comes from the latin "patere" which means "to open up" or "to reveal." The point of a patent is to get people to divulge their trade secrets so that they can become a part of all human knowledge - that's why you have to explicitly detail how to build the thing when you are awarded a patent. The reward for this is exclusive rights for a certain period of time... the problem is that that period of time has been extended in years at the same time that the rate of technological progress speeds up, making the length "adjusted for inflation" even longer to the point where it ends up being counterproductive.
Copyright is a totally different issue. Don't believe in it myself. Don't believe it's possible really to own an idea - you certainly can't sell an idea more than once, not without a police state to enforce it.
Rather interesting. I am no conservatist, I don't know what I am. Probably leaning towards being a liberal. However the image I had of an American conservatist after visiting the USA a couple of times was that mostly they were so extremely dumb and had such extreme (religious) views. It made me uncomfortable being in the USA, watching FOXnews and the like. However, altough I don't agree with most of your viewpoints. Atleast you base all your conclusions on statistics and evidence, even when regarding questions you think religion can't be avoided. Which is the right way to go about things. In my opinion.
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.
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.
I'm going to step away for a few hours. One issue with this format is that it's sort of a one-man show. Feel free to pontificate amongst yourselves here. I shall return around 11 p.m. EST
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.
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.
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.
I have returned. First and most importantly, I congratulate DoubleReed on a spectacular 2000th.
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%.
No, you're still doing it. You're still defending discrimination. You're trying to play both sides. Do you think that it's OK that there are still republicans are defending DADT? Do you think it's OK that republicans are trying to prevent gays from getting legally married? I don't give a crap about your religious beliefs, because my religious beliefs are different. We're talking about legal marriage.
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.
God forbid I agree with a conservative, but Saintbadger has a point. Democrats like to pretend like they're the pro-gay/pro-woman/pro-black political party, but at the end of the day it's a really a ruse. The democratic party hates gays just as much as the republicans do, only they're willing to do the bare minimum required to make the gay voters believe that democrats are the ones that will help them out. They'll do little things for them, oppose anti-gay legislation here and there. But when it comes to proposing real legislation that would make a big difference in their lives, that isn't on the table. Of course, this isn't much of a defense for the conservatives, pointing out "well they're doing it, too." It just makes both parties look pathetic.
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)
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?
Enjoyed reading a lot of these posts because you usually only get one side of the picture on the internet which tends to be an extremely anti-conservative bashing of all things right-wing. Thanks for taking the time to do all of this and being so respectful of others who disagree in the process.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
HERE IT IS FOLKS. THE MOMENT YOU'VE BEEN WAITING FOR FOR 130 POSTS. HE'S GOING THERE! EVOLUTION BABY!
@ 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'
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.
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.
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.
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.
On April 28 2012 01:05 SaintBadger wrote: 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.
Oh, my.
No theory will ever "graduate" and become something greater. It doesn't work like that.
On April 28 2012 01:05 SaintBadger wrote: 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.
Oh, my.
The Theory of Evolution will never be called a fact in scientific parlance because it isn't. It is a theory, a predictive explanation of facts, and it will remain so. No theory will never "graduate" and be referred to as a scientific fact or law. It doesn't work like that.
He talks about missing links, but he neglects the missing link between Creation and Intelligent design. (Which he calls different.)
Of People and Pandas, the book the Dover school board tried to fob off, had it's various drafts subpoenad for that particular trial. Funny thing, they found a spot where a draft (in the process of having creation related terms changed to intelligent design) had the terms creation and intelligent design all painfully meshed together.
Intelligent Design is creation, which is religion. Doesn't belong in a science class. Even the ID "experts" admitted that for it to be considered "science", we'd have to change the definition of science in a way that would also make Astrology a science. In court.
Great documentary on that is Nova's Intelligent Design on Trial.
I'll admit that I had federal level politicians in mind when I responded to your post, but let's not go overboard on the point in the state level. For one thing, a lot of the states that allow same-sex marriage do so because courts have forced the issue on equal protection grounds. I don't think political parties today get much credit for drafting state constitutions. For another, Iowa is a liberal state? New Hampshire is a liberal state? While California, of all places, has decided by petition, legislation, AND COURTS, that marriage is between men and women.
After looking at wikipedia "same-sex marriage status in US by state", I agree with you that there is SOME edge to the Democrats at the state level. When you axe the states that didn't do anything and just had the issue forced by courts, it's a pretty close thing, but there is definitely an edge for the Blues.
I apologize. I keep my eyes on the feds most of the time, and I think the point stands at that level.
On the subject of you talking to Republicans, again I don't speak for everyone who sets an R by his name. Constant focus on this issue has caused me to drift away from representing conservative thought to a more partisan defense of my party. That was not really my purpose in starting this blog, but I do gladly represent Republicans as best I can, and I am very convinced that Republicans stand to benefit the country as a whole far more than our opposition. As I've said, I suspect the same-sex marriage issue will be resolved in the next few years, and I will be very relieved. At that point, the Dems will cease to have this issue to wedge in between me and the votes I so desperately want.
STOP READING NOW IF YOU WANT TO STAY ON PARTISAN STUFF I don't want to stop talking about this issue, but I do want to point out something else interesting.
You bring up a very interesting philosophical point when you say political leaders ought to be affected by their constituents. Did you know the US might not exist if the Georgia delegate to the Second Continental Congress agreed with you?
Somewhere around Spring of 1776 (don't quote me, I'm not looking this stuff up and running off stuff I learned years ago), John Adams brought a motion to discuss independence from England. John Dickinson was PN's rep along with Ben Franklin, and he was a huge royalist. He opposed even discussing it, and he had a lot of Southern votes, because they knew that some of the independence folks wanted to do away with slavery. However, GA had not yet sent a delegation to the Congress. When the dude from GA got there, I think his name was George Walton, they were deadlocked 6-6 on discussion of Independence. When they first called his vote, he abstained, saying,
"I have a problem. Georgia is against independence and I'm for it."
What followed was an interesting debate with Ben Franklin over the nature of a republican (not the party, the system) government. Are the elected officials "representatives" who are sent to vote the will of the people, or "delegates" who are selected to serve and vote their own wisdom and understanding? Obviously, the GA man eventually decided he was a delegate. But it is an interesting question.
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.
I don't ever recall hearing evolution was proven as regards to life more complex than bacteria. I definitely could have missed it somewhere. And technically, at a stage where life reproduces at that speed, the "proof" of evolution vs. random mutation is a little suspect. You may be referring to something else.
I should have done a better job of saying what I meant. It has not been proven that humanity shares a common ancestor with apes.
I'm not quite sure that paradigm of "theory" is correct. I think you're correct that it doesn't denote proven or unproven, but it certainly doesn't denote fact. Relativity theory and gravitational theory have both been disproven at certain levels of atomic physics and speeds respectively. Not going to pretend to understand why, but I read Time Magazine, and that makes me smart
On April 28 2012 01:05 SaintBadger wrote: 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.
Oh, my.
No theory will ever "graduate" and become something greater. It doesn't work like that.
I wasn't equating the specific ancestry of humanity with evolution in general.
I should have said, that is still properly considered an ASSUMPTION or GUESS. You are correct in pointing out that "theory" was misused.
On April 28 2012 01:59 SaintBadger wrote: @ JingleHell
I was the one who first said creationism doesn't belong in a science class.
You also tried to distinguish between Creationism and it's false front, ID. You work for a politician, semantics is your game. You'll understand if I expect to need to read between the lines a bit.
This is sort of the reason I didn't want to go into evolution.
My purpose is not to hold myself out as a geneticist. I'm not. I'm trying to explain the psychology behind the creationism fights in school boards across the country.
I hope some readers appreciate the difficulty of doing politics. Those who try to be elected leaders are called upon to address a nearly infinite set of issues, and the politician will NEVER be the most knowledgable person on that issue. I know exactly what I've read in some laymen books and magazine articles about evolution, plus what I've been taught about genetics at a high school level. So, I'm happy to be corrected about the misuse of a word (e.g. theory), but be careful about extrapolating the wrongness of a position from laymen errors. I don't know if anyone is doing that, but it's a common pitfall in my work.
On April 28 2012 01:51 SaintBadger wrote: @triangle
I'll admit that I had federal level politicians in mind when I responded to your post, but let's not go overboard on the point in the state level. For one thing, a lot of the states that allow same-sex marriage do so because courts have forced the issue on equal protection grounds. I don't think political parties today get much credit for drafting state constitutions. For another, Iowa is a liberal state? New Hampshire is a liberal state? While California, of all places, has decided by petition, legislation, AND COURTS, that marriage is between men and women.
After looking at wikipedia "same-sex marriage status in US by state", I agree with you that there is SOME edge to the Democrats at the state level. When you axe the states that didn't do anything and just had the issue forced by courts, it's a pretty close thing, but there is definitely an edge for the Blues.
I apologize. I keep my eyes on the feds most of the time, and I think the point stands at that level.
On the subject of you talking to Republicans, again I don't speak for everyone who sets an R by his name. Constant focus on this issue has caused me to drift away from representing conservative thought to a more partisan defense of my party. That was not really my purpose in starting this blog, but I do gladly represent Republicans as best I can, and I am very convinced that Republicans stand to benefit the country as a whole far more than our opposition. As I've said, I suspect the same-sex marriage issue will be resolved in the next few years, and I will be very relieved. At that point, the Dems will cease to have this issue to wedge in between me and the votes I so desperately want.
STOP READING NOW IF YOU WANT TO STAY ON PARTISAN STUFF I don't want to stop talking about this issue, but I do want to point out something else interesting.
You bring up a very interesting philosophical point when you say political leaders ought to be affected by their constituents. Did you know the US might not exist if the Georgia delegate to the Second Continental Congress agreed with you?
Somewhere around Spring of 1776 (don't quote me, I'm not looking this stuff up and running off stuff I learned years ago), John Adams brought a motion to discuss independence from England. John Dickinson was PN's rep along with Ben Franklin, and he was a huge royalist. He opposed even discussing it, and he had a lot of Southern votes, because they knew that some of the independence folks wanted to do away with slavery. However, GA had not yet sent a delegation to the Congress. When the dude from GA got there, I think his name was George Walton, they were deadlocked 6-6 on discussion of Independence. When they first called his vote, he abstained, saying,
"I have a problem. Georgia is against independence and I'm for it."
What followed was an interesting debate with Ben Franklin over the nature of a republican (not the party, the system) government. Are the elected officials "representatives" who are sent to vote the will of the people, or "delegates" who are selected to serve and vote their own wisdom and understanding? Obviously, the GA man eventually decided he was a delegate. But it is an interesting question.
Actually, I meant "ought" in the positive rather than normative sense, which was just bad word choice on my part. I guess "one would expect" would be better wording. If a politician's constituents make certain demands, I suspect most successful politicians will accept those demands.
Also, on that site many of those issues were legislative, not court issues. Gay marriage seems to come up more in the courts than say, bullying protection for transgender students (or maybe we just hear about it more). The overall picture is not a "slight" difference. In some cases, the courts do play a major role, but a lot of this progress is not court mandated. Court cases just get more attention.
Anyway, you've done an extremely good job preventing this thread from degenerating into the usual abysmal levels of political discussion on forums, so you deserve congratulations for that.
On April 28 2012 01:59 SaintBadger wrote: @ JingleHell
I was the one who first said creationism doesn't belong in a science class.
You also tried to distinguish between Creationism and it's false front, ID. You work for a politician, semantics is your game. You'll understand if I expect to need to read between the lines a bit.
Actually, the difference is far from semantic. Most people call "Intelligent Design" a false front because a few wayward folks have tried to put forward ID as a scientific theory. Those people were wrong, and you are correct to oppose them.
However, there is a useful, nonsemantic reason to speak of Intelligent Design instead of creationism. Creationism connotes the belief that God created the universe and all things in it from a void of nothing approximately 7,000 years ago. Intellgent Design connotes the acceptance of Big Bang or whatever universal beginning theory one subscribes to, and the billions of years of development from then to now. It simply includes a belief that these events were set in motion by a higher deity of some sort.
I don't know if you honestly believe there is no difference between the terms, or if you just assume I'm trying to deceive. But this is what I'm talking about in assuming motives in arguments. We're sitting here getting nowhere.
Ah, I see what you mean now. Well, thanks for the excuse to tell the Congress story.
I honestly don't believe there is such a huge gap between parties on this, but I will admit that Republicans probably made a poor political choice and definitely made a poor choice with regards to constitutional fidelity in aligning so closely with the religious zealots. And I don't say "zealot" to include all religion. It may have been a bad calculation, but a lot of us are working to undo some of that damage.
Again, I'm a conservative. I work for Republicans because that's how best I can express myself. As a conservative, I don't particularly like the stance on same-sex marriage that we find ourselves supporting. As a Republican, I don't see it as a big enough issue to abandon the party when I believe the whole resistance to acceptance of same-sex marriage will evaporate. One might say a bit of social evolution is at work, breeding out reluctance.
EDIT: I'm actually very humbled by the amount of civil debate going on here. I don't know if I'm convincing anyone of anything, but the opportunity to try and the interaction that resulted is very heartening. I was actually the only one who has snapped during this whole experience after an early misread of DoubleReed's tone, but other than that, I'm very happy with the content here.
On April 28 2012 01:59 SaintBadger wrote: @ JingleHell
I was the one who first said creationism doesn't belong in a science class.
You also tried to distinguish between Creationism and it's false front, ID. You work for a politician, semantics is your game. You'll understand if I expect to need to read between the lines a bit.
Actually, the difference is far from semantic. Most people call "Intelligent Design" a false front because a few wayward folks have tried to put forward ID as a scientific theory. Those people were wrong, and you are correct to report them.
However, there is a useful, nonsemantic reason to speak of Intelligent Design instead of creationism. Creationism connotes the belief that God created the universe and all things in it from a void of nothing approximately 7,000 years ago. Intellgent Design connotes the acceptance of Big Bang or whatever universal beginning theory one subscribes to, and the billions of years of development from then to now. It simply includes a belief that these events were set in motion by a higher deity of some sort.
I don't know if you honestly believe there is no difference between the terms, or if you just assume I'm trying to deceive. But this is what I'm talking about in assuming motives in arguments. We're sitting here getting nowhere.
No, Intelligent Design does NOT connote acceptance of any specific origin. It's a red herring for Creation, using terms that aren't as blatantly religious. It doesn't matter how you couch the terminology, it's the same thing. "A rose, by any other name" and all that. Creation, a higher deity, that's creationism. It may not automatically reflect a Biblical ahistorical creationist viewpoint, but it IS clearly a creationist viewpoint, and it's not science, it's philosophy.
If religious proponents want philosophy taught in schools, I'm fine with it as an elective. But it needs to be done honestly, as a philosophy class, not mandatory, and not introduced as a pseudoscience alternative to evolution. Evolution may not have all the answers, but at least it involves LOOKING for answers.
I honestly DO believe there's no difference between the terms, and given your job you claim, I honestly do believe you're very carefully considering your words so you can say something that sounds nice and moderate, and leave unspoken the actual belief. That's just politics. I don't think ill of you for it, but I do know I need to read between the lines.
Should economic policy be geared specifically toward increasing GDP?
I think in a capital-driven system, economic policy can afford to play it a bit reactionary. If you have a stable production base in your own nation, you don't need to constantly be tweaking your policy in order to keep things running, and you are able to direct most of your attention to international markets. There, I think the best way to go is to willingly go for parity of bargaining position and parity of currency (adjusting for the relative stability of various economies). When a nation like China plays with devaluing currency, there's some element of retaliation that may be called for, but in general, I think you don't need to drive GDP domestically. Exports are a little difficult to generalize, but I think that's where most of the effort belongs.
On a side note, I wish John Huntsman got a little more press for his views on a potential trade war with China. He is an intelligent guy, and I hope that if we do win in November, we use him well.
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.
I don't ever recall hearing evolution was proven as regards to life more complex than bacteria. I definitely could have missed it somewhere. And technically, at a stage where life reproduces at that speed, the "proof" of evolution vs. random mutation is a little suspect. You may be referring to something else.
I should have done a better job of saying what I meant. It has not been proven that humanity shares a common ancestor with apes.
I'm not quite sure that paradigm of "theory" is correct. I think you're correct that it doesn't denote proven or unproven, but it certainly doesn't denote fact. Relativity theory and gravitational theory have both been disproven at certain levels of atomic physics and speeds respectively. Not going to pretend to understand why, but I read Time Magazine, and that makes me smart
No, relativity and gravitational theory have not been disproven anywhere. There are just small details here and there. Those details are part of those theories.
Theory doesn't denote fact. It doesn't say anything about certainty whatsoever. The statement "but it is a theory" means literally nothing. There are theories that are true. Saying it is a theory says nothing positive or negative about it's truth value.
We have sequenced the Human Genome. We can trace our ancestry through our genes. Yes it has been proven.
Well, I definitely do believe in Intelligent Design as I described it in the last post.
How about we say this? Not everyone uses those terms as you expect them to mean. I am certainly not the only one, and this discussion is really not on the clock for me (that is to say, I'm not really in campaign mode).
I was the one who said creationism doesn't belong in a science class. It is unfortunate that our party has a history of fighting for that cause. The vast majority does not embrace it.
You may be very correct that some still have deceitful purposes when using the term Intelligent Design. But I didn't make up my definition for it. I was taught that. In fact, I'm kind of surprised that everyone doesn't understand it as that. I haven't heard someone use ID as a scientific alternative to evolution in several years. Not saying no one uses it that way, just that I certainly don't and no one I work with does.
On April 28 2012 01:05 SaintBadger wrote: 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.
"They believe we came from apes?! Haven't they ever read the Bible? That's all the evidence anyone should ever need."
I'll take a theory backed by scientific evidence over any religous theory that ultimately comes down to blind faith and I would like to believe any rational being who objectively thinks about the two would come to the same conclusion.
Anyways, I see you've acknowledged (on a few occasions) that this need to appeal to the religous right is a pretty big hindrance in the GOP's attempt to appeal to a broader range of voters so I guess there's nothing else that can be really said here. If there's one thing you should try working towards in the future, it would be addressing this. Thanks for the time.
I agree with you about word use, except to say that the distinction between "disproven" and "changed to include things that were discovered to disprove earlier iterations" is somewhat hazy to me.
If we've proven common ancestry, it's news to me. Please direct me to the appropriate reading. I'm not being sarcastic; I would honestly like to know. I've already learned a lot here.
I think we are agreeing here. I'm not advocating the position these people take; I'm just trying to answer your question. And I think that most people have come to realize that if we actually read scripture through the lens of questionable translations and the inability to be exact in time before man back then, there really isn't a contradiction between the idea that God created the universe and the theory of evolution. You obviously don't need to subscribe to religion, but the idea that somehow natural selection disproves God is as strange to me as the idea that the Bible disproves Darwin.
After a quick review of the wikipedia article on "Intelligent Design", I have more appreciation for your intolerance of my use of the term. Is there an accepted term that simultaneously encapsulates big bang/cosmic/drift/evolution and the concept of a prime mover? I need to start using it instead of ID.
EDIT: This is a fairly large development for the past page or so of blog posts. I was clearly mistaken on the use of that term and I apologize.
By the way, anyone want to defend the concept of totally forgiving student loans? Lots of stuff on the wire about that today.
I want to thank you for looking into the IP issues. If there is something that would truly work in favor of America for long term growth I think IP (copyright and patent) reform are going to be huge. I really see IP reform as something similar to free trade. The biggest challenges for the politics of reforming IP is that like free trade, that reform will appear to hurt some sectors in the short term if not handled very carefully, and that is a very, very bitter pill for many politicians to swallow (especially when campaign money is on the line!).
Short term protections allow America (who is currently dominating in tech) to extract monopoly rents from the rest of the world. This may be beneficial for Americans in the short term, but it will eventually shoot us in the foot as other areas with less restrictive innovation laws attract innovators to their country. Did you know that Hollywood originally formed all the way out in californa because Edison wanted royalties on his patents? See how that industry ultimately grew up in the wild west? It certainly didnt' grow in the place where patents were rigorously enforced. By the time the patents expired, guess what: the areas where patents were enforced could no longer effectively compete because they were too far behind. Unless America's IP law is forced upon the rest of the world in it's entirety, this will eventually happen to the US too.
The only way to truly fully enforce American IP law would be trade treaties and then ultimately war. Are we really going to go to war over IP, to protect our short-term monopoly gains?
Since we are on evolution, I might as well add my 2 cents.
Really, I just want to clarify the definition of theory, since I'm really, really tired of people (especially politicians) misusing the word. Theory has two distinctive definitions, the scientific and the layman. I've taken this directly from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory
1.a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine. [emphasis mine]
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
The problem is that most people conflate at one point or another definition meaning 1 with definition meaning 2 when they are not the same.
In science, a peer reviewed and accepted theory is of the former definition, not the latter, but many people, especially many of those what want to dismiss evolution as 'just a theory' conflate the the first and second definitions. There is a distinct difference between 'well I have a theory' as conjecture vs. 'the theory of [science]'. Until revolutionary knowledge comes about, theories are very rarely thrown out entirely. We just learn the theories needed revisions (sometimes major revisions) to fit more general cases (classical mechanics [or Newtonian physics as it is sometimes called] -> general relativity and relativistic statistical mechanics. )
Theories are never proven. They simply provide guidance for expectations and predictions. This is true of all theories. We cannot prove gravity. We just use the theory of gravity to explain and predict certain specific phenomena. The jump that people make seems to be people put faith in theories because of their ability to explain and predict, and somehow the discussion gets to this ridiculous level where you must 'absolutely prove' something. I guess theists sometimes take issue with how people put faith in these theories instead of their alternatives.
It is because theories provide predictive power that we are able to harness them in useful ways (for evolution, that would be animal husbandry, domestication, breeding, and various genetics.) I don't understand the sentiment of dismissing evolution as 'just a theory'. You can't definitively prove it, but it is useful in explaining and predicting results.
That said, personal beliefs are personal beliefs. This issue of evolution really only comes up when it seeps into education, and that's where it becomes a real issue. ID and/or creationism isn't science, and should not be taught as such.
As to theological education, I think theology can be useful, but I think if you do that you have to be careful about when exactly you introduce theology into the classroom, and how it is presented. Any study of religion should be a review of all different types of religion, their histories, their interactions, and their purposes. Study of religion should be more of a social science where you take a clinical look at the theology. The great fear with religion education has always been that is was going to be indoctrination for the religion. The fear it would be taught as 'YOU SHOULD BELIEVE IN X' rather than 'Group so and so believes A because of B, C and D.'
I think we are both in agreement that science should be taught in science classes, and theology in theology or social science/social study classes.
Every time I have to correct someone on the use of the word theory because they are much more familiar with it's non-scientific definition my head hurts. I think in communication it is important not to conflate these definitions of theory, just like you don't want to conflate free as in freedom and free as in no cost. Even if you are not an expert in a field, semantics and words are the job of a politician. They have to mean what they say. I expect them to be chosen with wisdom. I see conflating the definitions as an act of pandering at best, and intellectual dishonesty at worst (you can convince both crowds that you meant their definition, so for the creationist crowd, you meant theory definition 2, for the intellectual crowd, you meant theory definition 1).
That said, I seriously doubt any politician will ever make the effort to avoid such misunderstandings. If you consider the use of or turning a blind eye of the use of such terms to be expedient for working with what you are given or deception is an exercise left up to each individual.
Edit: added details, more cohesion, better spacing.
Edit 2: I also believe that using appropriate terms and clarifying what the exact scope of the terms are very important, but is something very rarely done in politics because you need the ability to draw in a large audience, and at times that means using terms that can be interpreted multiple ways by multiple groups in order to get everyone's vote. Again I consider this at best pandering, and at worst intellectual dishonesty, and I doubt this practice will ever be abandoned.
I really wish more candidates would use science, statistics and numbers in what they do, and show not just the pluses but also the minuses. It also helps to show both studies that support and studies that oppose your position, and explain why you believe the context of your reports (and/or methodology of such reports) are correct, and why the others are incorrect. In that context, we can make the best informed decisions. I can respect candidates that I disagree with who do this, but more importantly a candidate is very likely to convince me to their position as long as they can show long-term overall good.
I think what I would respect the most is if we see studies that show certain policies did not achieve their goals, that the politicians sit down and try to come up with new policies to meet those original goals. The goals should always be the focus, not the methodology. We need to measure then prove out the effect of the things we do, but sadly the public has very little data about the results of all the policies put in place.
On April 28 2012 02:34 SaintBadger wrote: @ JingleHell
After a quick review of the wikipedia article on "Intelligent Design", I have more appreciation for your intolerance of my use of the term. Is there an accepted term that simultaneously encapsulates big bang/cosmic/drift/evolution and the concept of a prime mover? I need to start using it instead of ID.
"Theistic evolution" is closer to what you're looking for.
I took a look at wikipedia to make sure I wasn't about to say something stupid and actually found a sentence that encapsulates a lot of what I've been saying over the past few pages:
"In contrast to so-called "American conservative" counterparts, however, they did not undertake as dramatic an ideological turnaround in the first half of the 20th century by continuing to follow mercantilism and nascent notions of the welfare state."
I have a hard time understanding the distinctions between major parties in other countries, particularly Canada and Great Britain. I guess we're used to the two-party system to the extent where we expect an absolute black-and-white distinction in the rhetoric and are somewhat confused by parliamentary systems with multiple parties.
Regarding the PC party specifically, it seems like they attempted to be a little too "big tent" in the sense that their ideology was a little too flexible to inspire the sort of loyalty that keeps a party together through the primary squabbles and platform disagreements. I think the endurance of the two-party system here owes a lot to this notion that we'll tear each other's throats out during primary season, but all have the understanding that when a winner emerges, it's time to get back to business. PC didn't do a good job in keeping internal strife under control. I do, however, appreciate the notion of never taking a stance that we are incapable of hearing new ideas and potentially adopting them. Regardless of PC's failures, we have to keep some element of that mindset at the forefront of our own politics.
Tell me something. After the Alliance merger referenced towards the end of the wiki article, did they ever have a period of dominance again? It sounds as if they didn't really get a boost from that event.
On April 28 2012 02:34 SaintBadger wrote: @ JingleHell
After a quick review of the wikipedia article on "Intelligent Design", I have more appreciation for your intolerance of my use of the term. Is there an accepted term that simultaneously encapsulates big bang/cosmic/drift/evolution and the concept of a prime mover? I need to start using it instead of ID.
"Theistic evolution" is closer to what you're looking for.
On April 28 2012 02:34 SaintBadger wrote: @ JingleHell
After a quick review of the wikipedia article on "Intelligent Design", I have more appreciation for your intolerance of my use of the term. Is there an accepted term that simultaneously encapsulates big bang/cosmic/drift/evolution and the concept of a prime mover? I need to start using it instead of ID.
"Theistic evolution" is closer to what you're looking for.
Do you think that the average Joe Schmo will hear that and know that I mean to include the entirety of scientific understanding about the origin of the universe? Personally, I like it, but I sort of have a job requirement of tailoring language a bit.
Thanks for that, though. That does seem to work much better.
On April 28 2012 02:34 SaintBadger wrote: @ JingleHell
After a quick review of the wikipedia article on "Intelligent Design", I have more appreciation for your intolerance of my use of the term. Is there an accepted term that simultaneously encapsulates big bang/cosmic/drift/evolution and the concept of a prime mover? I need to start using it instead of ID.
"Theistic evolution" is closer to what you're looking for.
Do you think that the average Joe Schmo will hear that and know that I mean to include the entirety of scientific understanding about the origin of the universe? Personally, I like it, but I sort of have a job requirement of tailoring language a bit.
Thanks for that, though. That does seem to work much better.
I think it's better to have to explain it a bit than to accidentally create misconceptions. Theistic evolution is still kind of broad, it covers multiple beliefs, but the range of things it covers are a bit different.
Just say you believe in evolution and that it is the way in which the Will of God is made manifest in the world (and that the process is itself a manifestation of Will).
Evolution is a beautiful and elegant process - how could one appreciate the glory of God's creation without an appreciation of one of his most subtle works?
(I'm not talking out of my ass here; I believe something much like this myself although I am not a theist. I would say that evolution is an unfolding of the Dao - but this amounts to much the same thing)
edit: Even if you believe that God made the world perfect, who says that that perfection exists at a single point in time? Does God exist WITHIN time?
I feel bad taking tiny quotes out of your large and well-written contributions, but "Theories are never proven. the simply provide guidance for expectations and predictions," is something I definitely need to keep in mind.
I actually was familiar with those definitions, but sometimes when trying to make a point, it's hard to find the correct substitutes. I think a strong influx of the word "predict" might help. For example, I should have said we now know that gravitational theory and relativity theory fail to predict quite a few circumstances they originally purported to include. That was my intended point.
It's extremely difficult to discuss evolution. EXTREMELY. In keeping with new found nomenclature, I'll ammend my disclaimer to say I suspect Darwin was successful in outlining a guide for predicting the mechanism of change from generation to generation of life, and by extrapolation, understanding the fossil record in a more meaningful way than simple observation.
I have no doubt in my mind that humans and apes share a common ancestor, but it's funny how one sets out to try to explain human feelings and has an all-too human reaction to the inevitable criticism.
Anyway, thank you for your help. I might actually have a PM for you soon. I spoke to a patent bar competent friend from Tulane and it turns out he is lobbying for reforms in D.C. right now. I may try to put you two in touch if you're interested.
On April 28 2012 02:50 SaintBadger wrote: @ 57 Corvette
I took a look at wikipedia to make sure I wasn't about to say something stupid and actually found a sentence that encapsulates a lot of what I've been saying over the past few pages:
"In contrast to so-called "American conservative" counterparts, however, they did not undertake as dramatic an ideological turnaround in the first half of the 20th century by continuing to follow mercantilism and nascent notions of the welfare state."
I have a hard time understanding the distinctions between major parties in other countries, particularly Canada and Great Britain. I guess we're used to the two-party system to the extent where we expect an absolute black-and-white distinction in the rhetoric and are somewhat confused by parliamentary systems with multiple parties.
Regarding the PC party specifically, it seems like they attempted to be a little too "big tent" in the sense that their ideology was a little too flexible to inspire the sort of loyalty that keeps a party together through the primary squabbles and platform disagreements. I think the endurance of the two-party system here owes a lot to this notion that we'll tear each other's throats out during primary season, but all have the understanding that when a winner emerges, it's time to get back to business. PC didn't do a good job in keeping internal strife under control. I do, however, appreciate the notion of never taking a stance that we are incapable of hearing new ideas and potentially adopting them. Regardless of PC's failures, we have to keep some element of that mindset at the forefront of our own politics.
Tell me something. After the Alliance merger referenced towards the end of the wiki article, did they ever have a period of dominance again? It sounds as if they didn't really get a boost from that event.
Well, The 2007 Election resulted in a Minority (Less than 50% of all seats) Conservative Federal Government, which basically sucked, they couldn't get much done as they needed help from one of the other official parties (Liberals, NDP and Green party) to pass anything through. In 2011 however, they managed to pick up a Majority federal government and are now doing well running the country (although I still think Steven Harper is an idiot, but thats probably because I am Leftist.)
On April 28 2012 02:34 SaintBadger wrote: @ JingleHell
After a quick review of the wikipedia article on "Intelligent Design", I have more appreciation for your intolerance of my use of the term. Is there an accepted term that simultaneously encapsulates big bang/cosmic/drift/evolution and the concept of a prime mover? I need to start using it instead of ID.
"Theistic evolution" is closer to what you're looking for.
Do you think that the average Joe Schmo will hear that and know that I mean to include the entirety of scientific understanding about the origin of the universe? Personally, I like it, but I sort of have a job requirement of tailoring language a bit.
Thanks for that, though. That does seem to work much better.
I think it's better to have to explain it a bit than to accidentally create misconceptions. Theistic evolution is still kind of broad, it covers multiple beliefs, but the range of things it covers are a bit different.
Can you recommend a resource for someone who needs to catch up on contemporary Canadian politics? We used to have drinking parties at my frat house watching the British House of Commons on CSPAN, so I educated myself on that country as best I could, but I'm somewhat negligent with regards to our neighbor to the north.
I'm sitting here trying to think of some of the big talking points in national politics that haven't been discussed here.
Abortion, check Climate change, check Economy, semi-check War, check Terrorism, not much Same-sex marriage, check, check, check
We're missing a couple of things. Anyone want to give immigration a whirl? How about Unions? Unions are going to be HUGE this season. Campaign finance?
I enjoy the theological stuff a lot, but I feel like I've gotten far from my realm of expertise.
I've actually been asking around the office to see if some others want to get in on this, but they think I'm weird and more than a tad unstable when I tell them I'm up to 2500 views on a computer game forum.
EDIT: Sort of touched affirmative action, but that's actually my specialty. Wrote a bunch on that subject in law school.
2nd EDIT: Who is actually enthusiastic about voting for Obama? I never know in these forums whether the people who argue against conservatism are dyed in the wool liberal or just disdainful of all the choices. Also, I'm very grateful for the international audience. I'm sorry I keep focusing on US-specific issues and circumstances, but I really appreciate the perspectives from outside this country.
On April 28 2012 03:11 SaintBadger wrote: I've actually been asking around the office to see if some others want to get in on this, but they think I'm weird and more than a tad unstable when I tell them I'm up to 2500 views on a computer game forum.
HAHA
2nd EDIT: Who is actually enthusiastic about voting for Obama? I never know in these forums whether the people who argue against conservatism are dyed in the wool liberal or just disdainful of all the choices. Also, I'm very grateful for the international audience. I'm sorry I keep focusing on US-specific issues and circumstances, but I really appreciate the perspectives from outside this country.
I voted for Obama the first time but I will not this time as I feel he did not do a good enough job to warrant my vote. I will not however vote for Romney because the right is hijacked by a lot of bigoted idiots and I will not play into their hands. I think that it is impossible for me to be represented at all in our current political system, so I will vote for a third party candidate.
I can give you my opinions: Unions are an outdated concept that was once necessary before other laws were enacted to prevent stupid stuff, like you know, death from workplace hazards. I don't think unions are really as necessary today, labor markets tend to work themselves out fairly well in the end. I like at will employment. I don't think unions will be a big issue to anyone who isn't a union member today. Unions are starting to engage in a lot of rent-seeking behavior themselves, and are an administrative nightmare for the union members, the union itself, and the legal structure around it. I don't think unions should be banned, but I don't think unions should be allowed to have a monopoly on workers in an industry or company either (e.g. a company is free to hire non-union workers at all times). Monopolies always encourage economic activities that are not beneficial to anyone, be them from bad trade law, bad patent and/or copyright law, or faulty contract law.
If you want to tackle campaign financing, I'd pose the broader question: What do you believe the best measures for reducing all forms of corruption in government would be? (examples of corruption occur in contract processes, 'buying' politicians to create policy through the offer of future lobby jobs or well-paid positions on industry boards, prominent example: Christ Dodd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Dodd, power-grabs by various departments, rent seeking behaviors of government agencies). I don't necessarily think getting rid of them is the solution, because then you have an argument of why have government at all? How do we best reduce corruption across all sectors of government? Campaign financing plays a big part in this because of course the politicians are expected to scratch their backers backs at some point and time in the future. Can we even prevent this from happening? How do you best tackle these corruption issues?
I'm not sure where I really stand on immigration, that's a harder issue. I guess what I'd ask is what do you think of current immigration quotas and our visa system? Do you think being very tough on illegal immigration truly benefits the nation long and short term?
What do you say to someone who tells you that in the US, if you switch your vote from Dem to third-party, it's the functional equivalent of voting Rep since there is no chance of a third party winning?
On April 28 2012 03:30 SaintBadger wrote: @sam!zdat
What do you say to someone who tells you that in the US, if you switch your vote from Dem to third-party, it's the functional equivalent of voting Rep since there is no chance of a third party winning?
My response is that if I vote for one party out of default then I am abdicating my political voice. Demographically, I am a locked in vote for Obama and so he has no incentive to represent my views. I want to vote FOR somebody, not against somebody. I think thinking about it instrumentally is the wrong way to go about it - I want to be REPRESENTED.
2nd EDIT: Who is actually enthusiastic about voting for Obama? I never know in these forums whether the people who argue against conservatism are dyed in the wool liberal or just disdainful of all the choices. Also, I'm very grateful for the international audience. I'm sorry I keep focusing on US-specific issues and circumstances, but I really appreciate the perspectives from outside this country.
Definitely disdainful of all choices. Both political parties annoy me to no end. corruption is rampant, and even if people are interested in actually solving problems, the method we have used to get there has been so horrible that any good is lost by the end of the process. Rent seekers and gains from short-term thinking are winning more often over meaningful reform that could hurt us in the short term.
Yes, exactly. The entire system is corrupt so voting for one candidate within it is meaningless. At this point, all I can do is vote against the system. I think the difference between the candidates is negligible, at least from my political standpoint.
edit: because each candidate only cares about representing 51% of America. Since most of that is locked in due to ideological polarization, the only people with power are the relatively uninformed middle 5% or so, and so our system turns into a circus.
edit again: and unless you live in a swing state, which I don't, nobody cares about you.
On April 28 2012 03:06 SaintBadger wrote: @57 Corvette
Can you recommend a resource for someone who needs to catch up on contemporary Canadian politics? We used to have drinking parties at my frat house watching the British House of Commons on CSPAN, so I educated myself on that country as best I could, but I'm somewhat negligent with regards to our neighbor to the north.
Basically any Canadian National News source will have information on Canadian politics (IE., National Post.com, Globe and Mail.ca, Sun news network.ca). Party websites offer some insights into what's going on as well.
Edit: I should mention that party websites are, of course, biased. Some news sources as well. For instance, the CBC, considering the funding cuts the government has planned for them, can be rather predisposed in their articles.
I tend to agree with you. I really fight to keep the distinction between public sector and private sector unions front and center, because while I don't think attacking all unions is good politics, I think people can be made to understand that public sector unions are hurting us badly. The adversarial nature of management vs. labor doesn't exist when the same politicians who control the employees are also seeking their votes.
RE: Immigration
I love that you started with LEGAL immigration. We never talk about that in this country. And frankly, I think ceiling quotas are idiotic. Given the amount of work involved in becoming a citizen legally, I think we should throw the doors open to as many as are willing to go through that process.
As far as illegal immigration goes, I think it's inevitable that whenever something like 9/11 happens, the backlash will reach immigration considerations as well. That probably has something to do with heightened attention recently. I do think that having a gigantic amount of undocumented individuals in the country causes several problems on its face. For one, CA has shown us that not making appropriate infrastructure adjustments for a rising population can really screw up the hospital and education systems. Also, it's at least worth a debate as to how dangerous it is to have a large group of people taking part in the country's economy, but without any intention of supporting the country and without any ties which hopefully come from birthright citizenship. The most obvious issue is the dispersal of benefits in the form of police, medical services, roads, etc. without any taxation. And yes, obviously one pays sales tax in some states and that does get collected, but the real issue is income tax.
RE: Campaign Finance/Government
Hah. Seriously, man, ask me something difficult why don't you (I hope the sarcasm is obvious)?
How do we reduce corruption across the board? Well, the biggest quick fix is term limits. Obviously, people can be corrupt quickly, but Robert Byrd (D-WV) and . . . wow, can't think of his name, Ted Stevens (R-AK???) really showed how amazingly sold out one can become as a permanent fixture in D.C. I think limits would make a lot of progress overnight, but I doubt either party is going to push that. Honestly, it may be functionally impossible to make serious progress on the types of corruption you describe. The party in power is more than happy to use disciplinary committees in Congress to witchhunt their opposition, but never themselves. It may be somewhat idealistic, but I think the only real answer is a more-engaged electorate. If people really understood some of the utterly grotesque practices in D.C., I like to think they'd make clear with votes that it isn't acceptable.
Regarding campaign donations, I actually don't think that's as much of a problem. Nowadays, campaign donations are watched very carefully. I actually think Obama made a serious mistake accepting Bill Maher's donation after the whole Limbaugh/Fluke issue. I find that most of the time, the "favors" done for campaign backers would probably have been done anyway. The only thing donations usually buy is an adjustment to the priority list. It's not ideal, but not terribly damaging either.
If you want a crazy idea, you could always get the FCC to pass rules that each party receives equal time on all TV and radio channels free of charge. It wouldn't totally eliminate corruption, but right now, on average a US Representative has to raise something like $8,000 per day every day of their term to successfully run their next campaign. I think like 75% of that money goes to buying air time. It's not a very Republican solution, but hey, outside the box is fun too.
On April 28 2012 03:33 sam!zdat wrote: edit: because each candidate only cares about representing 51% of America. Since most of that is locked in due to ideological polarization, the only people with power are the relatively uninformed middle 5% or so, and so our system turns into a circus.
edit again: and unless you live in a swing state, which I don't, nobody cares about you.
This is so true it hurts. I really enjoy the math involved in putting together a strategy that wins the Electoral College, but every once in a while I feel like I need to take a shower. I lived in Mississippi for the first 22 years of life. I know exactly what you mean about the non-swing-state syndrome. Unfortunately, I don't even know how to begin fixing it.
EDIT: I should mention that both Obama and Romney seem to be genuine in the desire to be "everyone's" President. So, I do feel obligated to say that the candidates care. But they are absolutely forced into a 51% strategy nowadays.
Thanks very much. The lack of international information on American news sites really impedes awareness of current events, even for those of us whose job it is to stay informed.
On April 28 2012 03:33 sam!zdat wrote: edit: because each candidate only cares about representing 51% of America. Since most of that is locked in due to ideological polarization, the only people with power are the relatively uninformed middle 5% or so, and so our system turns into a circus.
edit again: and unless you live in a swing state, which I don't, nobody cares about you.
This is so true it hurts. I really enjoy the math involved in putting together a strategy that wins the Electoral College, but every once in a while I feel like I need to take a shower. I lived in Mississippi for the first 22 years of life. I know exactly what you mean about the non-swing-state syndrome. Unfortunately, I don't even know how to begin fixing it.
EDIT: I should mention that both Obama and Romney seem to be genuine in the desire to be "everyone's" President. So, I do feel obligated to say that the candidates care. But they are absolutely forced into a 51% strategy nowadays.
I'm glad you have sympathy. I'm not mad at politicians - they have no choice but to play the game they're given, just as financiers have no choice but to play the game THEY'RE given (which is why all this populist anger about wall street bonuses etc. is misplaced).
I think there's definitely a way to fix this, but it will require some pretty radical reorganization which we're not yet ready for politically. I'm an academic, and one of my primary research interests is precisely this question. Guys, I'm working on it!
It's a very hard problem though, and I still have a lot to learn as I try to formulate an idea of what a solution might look like. That's why I like having mature conversations about issues, like this thread, because any solution that gets developed has to make everybody happy - it can't just be one team "winning" over the other (which is impossible anyway). I'm not talking about "compromise" but about true synthesis in the hegelian or marxian sense.
edit:
EDIT: I should mention that both Obama and Romney seem to be genuine in the desire to be "everyone's" President. So, I do feel obligated to say that the candidates care. But they are absolutely forced into a 51% strategy nowadays.
Yes, see above. They can only play the game they are given, despite whatever intentions they may have.
On the subject of the 51% phenomenon, I think I should take a moment to say Newt Gingrich is a fierce campaigner and really has a gift for convincing the people he campaigns around that he wants to represent them. I have a lot of issues with Gingrich, but he is good at what he does.
If you watched the Florida debate, most people remember it for him catching flack about the moon colony. The thing I noticed was the way he was able to reel off several regional and state issues that were hot button current events in that area, but nowhere else in the country. Some construction project that I had never heard of, sugar subsidies, and the efforts to privatize space exploration are the ones I recall.
He did that in many different states. To some extent, it was a blatant pander, but he was able to discuss them on a deeper level than most non-native politicians ever could. I think that particular skill is why he got as far as he did despite his . . . um, let's say checkered past.
On April 28 2012 02:34 SaintBadger wrote:By the way, anyone want to defend the concept of totally forgiving student loans? Lots of stuff on the wire about that today.
Nope, not from me - and I'm not even sure how I feel about extending the interest rate cuts. While there are certainly arguments to be made for education spending paying off long-term for the future of the country, the beneficiaries of this are early-career professionals with college degrees (myself included). There are certainly those in this group who are struggling financially, but if we are going to be throwing $6B (the estimated cost I've seen for extending the cuts one year) around I can pretty easily come up with groups of people who would need it more.
If you want a crazy idea, you could always get the FCC to pass rules that each party receives equal time on all TV and radio channels free of charge. It wouldn't totally eliminate corruption, but right now, on average a US Representative has to raise something like $8,000 per day every day of their term to successfully run their next campaign. I think like 75% of that money goes to buying air time. It's not a very Republican solution, but hey, outside the box is fun too.
I've had similar thoughts. I find it shamefully disappointing that today, in the information age, we haven't been able to use our technology to remove wealth as a barrier-to-entry of politics. I tend to agree with the idea of term limits as well, but really don't have enough of an idea of how things run in DC to have an idea on how long they should be.
I was glad to see you have a high opinion of Jon Huntsman as well. He was by far my favorite primary candidate and the only one I would easily have chosen over Obama. Romney is about even, and the rest of the candidates were varying degrees of atrocious.
As far as the American political system goes, I've always found it disappointing how unimportant third parties are. I've also never understood why the electoral college has remained as it is. Why not a simple popular vote? Or if we want to preserve the relative importance of small-state populations that would be lost this way (though I also don't see the value of maintaining this), why not just use the same weightings from the current electoral college on a rolling scale? (i.e. if you win 60% of the popular vote in WI, you get 6 of 10 electoral votes)
On April 28 2012 02:34 SaintBadger wrote:By the way, anyone want to defend the concept of totally forgiving student loans? Lots of stuff on the wire about that today.
Nope, not from me - and I'm not even sure how I feel about extending the interest rate cuts. While there are certainly arguments to be made for education spending paying off long-term for the future of the country, the beneficiaries of this are early-career professionals with college degrees (myself included). There are certainly those in this group who are struggling financially, but if we are going to be throwing $6B (the estimated cost I've seen for extending the cuts one year) around I can pretty easily come up with groups of people who would need it more.
If you want a crazy idea, you could always get the FCC to pass rules that each party receives equal time on all TV and radio channels free of charge. It wouldn't totally eliminate corruption, but right now, on average a US Representative has to raise something like $8,000 per day every day of their term to successfully run their next campaign. I think like 75% of that money goes to buying air time. It's not a very Republican solution, but hey, outside the box is fun too.
I've had similar thoughts. I find it shamefully disappointing that today, in the information age, we haven't been able to use our technology to remove wealth as a barrier-to-entry of politics. I tend to agree with the idea of term limits as well, but really don't have enough of an idea of how things run in DC to have an idea on how long they should be.
I was glad to see you have a high opinion of Jon Huntsman as well. He was by far my favorite primary candidate and the only one I would easily have chosen over Obama. Romney is about even, and the rest of the candidates were varying degrees of atrocious.
As far as the American political system goes, I've always found it disappointing how unimportant third parties are. I've also never understood why the electoral college has remained as it is. Why not a simple popular vote? Or if we want to preserve the relative importance of small-state populations that would be lost this way (though I also don't see the value of maintaining this), why not just use the same weightings from the current electoral college on a rolling scale? (i.e. if you win 60% of the popular vote in WI, you get 6 of 10 electoral votes)
The problem with a popular vote in America right now is that it would be all too literally a "popular" vote.
On April 28 2012 02:34 SaintBadger wrote:By the way, anyone want to defend the concept of totally forgiving student loans? Lots of stuff on the wire about that today.
Nope, not from me - and I'm not even sure how I feel about extending the interest rate cuts. While there are certainly arguments to be made for education spending paying off long-term for the future of the country, the beneficiaries of this are early-career professionals with college degrees (myself included). There are certainly those in this group who are struggling financially, but if we are going to be throwing $6B (the estimated cost I've seen for extending the cuts one year) around I can pretty easily come up with groups of people who would need it more.
If you want a crazy idea, you could always get the FCC to pass rules that each party receives equal time on all TV and radio channels free of charge. It wouldn't totally eliminate corruption, but right now, on average a US Representative has to raise something like $8,000 per day every day of their term to successfully run their next campaign. I think like 75% of that money goes to buying air time. It's not a very Republican solution, but hey, outside the box is fun too.
I've had similar thoughts. I find it shamefully disappointing that today, in the information age, we haven't been able to use our technology to remove wealth as a barrier-to-entry of politics. I tend to agree with the idea of term limits as well, but really don't have enough of an idea of how things run in DC to have an idea on how long they should be.
I was glad to see you have a high opinion of Jon Huntsman as well. He was by far my favorite primary candidate and the only one I would easily have chosen over Obama. Romney is about even, and the rest of the candidates were varying degrees of atrocious.
As far as the American political system goes, I've always found it disappointing how unimportant third parties are. I've also never understood why the electoral college has remained as it is. Why not a simple popular vote? Or if we want to preserve the relative importance of small-state populations that would be lost this way (though I also don't see the value of maintaining this), why not just use the same weightings from the current electoral college on a rolling scale? (i.e. if you win 60% of the popular vote in WI, you get 6 of 10 electoral votes)
The problem with a popular vote in America right now is that it would be all too literally a "popular" vote.
Right now it seems to me that it is still just a "popular" vote, except the only people whose opinions matter are the few living in swing states that don't dogmatically vote along party lines.
Edit: I'm being a little hyperbolic here, but you get my point.
Edit2: New question I just thought of. Super-PACs. Good, Bad, or Ugly?
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?
On April 27 2012 22:27 SaintBadger wrote:
@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.
This is what bugs me the most about political ideologues. Let's be perfectly clear: War is mass murder, and the Iraq War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War, Bombing of Serbia, Invasion of Grenada, Invasion of Panama, Invasion of Haiti, Intervention in Somalia, and the recent calls for war against Iran are not pertinent to the survival of the United States. Conservatives seem to argue endlessly about hypothetical scenarios where these military actions were necessary because failure to engage in the said military actions would result in some sort of erosion of "national security".
MILLIONS of lives have been thrown away because of these acts of aggression. If you have no conflict of conscience about these acts of violence, which leave nations devastated, families and lives shattered, cities destroyed, and hundreds of thousands of men, women and children butchered, but say "It's complicated, but sometimes necessary", when the same argument is applied to another form of killing which you condemn?
Hyperbolic? Please don't show your asymptotes. A math nerd somewhere is thinking, "Wow! That joke had everything!"
Anyway, my general take on the electoral college is it's just kind of a way for states to slightly tweek how they will contribute to the presidential election. I think Maine allows proportional awards of electoral votes. Most states go with the traditional all-or-nothing approach. And it does spread the campaigning around. For example, if it was a straight-up popular vote, a Dem could stay in CA a lot longer, because he or she could focus more on voter turnout. As it is now, as long as the Dem believes nothing weird is going on, he just goes to CA to fundraise and speechify, and then heads for other campaign venues.
Another reason the Electoral College has not been challenged is that it has the effect of turning narrow popular victories into seeming-landslides, which is actually really important to a democratic system. It adds a lot of legitimacy to the process when folks believe a decent majority of the country was behind the results. In 2008, Obama got 52% of the popular vote, but that translated to 68% of the electoral college votes.
Of course, there's a little bit of a problem with the EC that was painfully shown in 2000. President Bush actually lost the popular vote, even though he won the EC vote (He really did, guys. I know you hate the Supreme Court for that one, but they actually never found a way to count the votes such that Gore won Florida). I mean, the system was knowingly set up such that this circumstance was a possibility, but it still hurts national morale.
Conceptually, SuperPACs are just fine. It's well within my idea of freedom of expression. And contrary to popular belief, the campaign staffs are extremely careful to avoid contact and correspondence with the PAC folks. It's a very awkward system, but I think there is some merit to donation limits to the actual campaigns in a country where there is such inequality of income.
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?
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.
This is what bugs me the most about political ideologues. Let's be perfectly clear: War is mass murder, and the Iraq War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War, Bombing of Serbia, Invasion of Grenada, Invasion of Panama, Invasion of Haiti, Intervention in Somalia, and the recent calls for war against Iran are not pertinent to the survival of the United States. Conservatives seem to argue endlessly about hypothetical scenarios where these military actions were necessary because failure to engage in the said military actions would result in some sort of erosion of "national security".
MILLIONS of lives have been thrown away because of these acts of aggression. If you have no conflict of conscience about these acts of violence, which leave nations devastated, families and lives shattered, cities destroyed, and hundreds of thousands of men, women and children butchered, but say "It's complicated, but sometimes necessary", when the same argument is applied to another form of killing which you condemn?
Since "murder" is a legal term, let's be perfectly clear: War is NOT mass murder. I'll assume you meant mass killing.
I'm very used to having words put in my mouth, but this is on a whole new level. There is nothing in my response to you that remotely implies a lack of conflict of conscience, and in fact, I find it hard to believe anyone in this country who has taken the time to reflect on any war is completely without conflict.
Furthermore, I get the feeling you haven't read my other responses regarding abortion. I do apply that argument to abortion. As a matter of fact, I said "I recognize this country probably couldn't survive without [abortion] at the current state of society". So, I'd ask you to review a few posts if you're interested in continuing this discussion, and while you're at it, I'd appreciate an answer to my question.
On the subject of war, most of the scenarios we discuss are based on historical events. They aren't hypothetical at all. And liberals are very quick to jump on the war bandwagon, in fact, VIetnam was all them. If you would like to discuss the merits of individual conflicts, we can do that, but I was discussing the reasons why aborting a pregnancy is not analogous to war. Btw, we weren't the aggressors in several of those conflicts you mention.
I would be happy to defend Iraq I and II and Afghanistan, but it's probably a waste of time since we're not going to be able to agree on facts surrounding Gen. Powell's WMD presentation to the UN. I will NOT be defending the nation-building in the aftermath.
I'm curious, anyone else want to join Nina (or stand alone) in exploring the so-called hypocrisy in the "pro-life" mantle? I've always assumed that was just a talking point to score some political points. Does anyone actually see moral equivalency among abortion, war, and the death penalty?
I'm very surprised that you added the bombing of Serbia to this list. Do you just think we should not intervene when people are being killed in foreign countries? I mean, there is absolutely no doubt that less people died because of our involvement. But we just didn't have any business there, or what? I'm just wondering, because the inclusion of that instance is strange to me.
I wish I had more to contribute to this conversation, but half of these topics I wouldn't touch with a 10 meter pole (like America's involvement in Eastern affairs). About Immigration, I hear a lot of jokes about illegal immigrants in the USA, but is it actually that big of a problem in the southern states, or is it blown entirely out of proportion?
Edit: Also, my spelling sucks when I try to sound fancy.
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?
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.
This is what bugs me the most about political ideologues. Let's be perfectly clear: War is mass murder, and the Iraq War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War, Bombing of Serbia, Invasion of Grenada, Invasion of Panama, Invasion of Haiti, Intervention in Somalia, and the recent calls for war against Iran are not pertinent to the survival of the United States. Conservatives seem to argue endlessly about hypothetical scenarios where these military actions were necessary because failure to engage in the said military actions would result in some sort of erosion of "national security".
MILLIONS of lives have been thrown away because of these acts of aggression. If you have no conflict of conscience about these acts of violence, which leave nations devastated, families and lives shattered, cities destroyed, and hundreds of thousands of men, women and children butchered, but say "It's complicated, but sometimes necessary", when the same argument is applied to another form of killing which you condemn?
Are you suggesting that war is never justified? War is not a good thing, but it may still be a preferable outcome. War can save lives.
Let's be clear, national sovereignty is a internationally accepted thing. There are four ways to eliminate your own national sovereignty: Invading neighboring countries, Nuclear Proliferation, Genocide (or mass killings), and harboring and support of international terrorism. Saddam Hussein, may I point out, only missed out on the Nuclear Proliferation, not without lack of trying. In my opinion, it's the job of the international community as a whole (of which we're supposed to be the leader) to enforce such rules of sovereignty.
Now, I say this, but I'm no hawk. I don't think war is the best way to do things (in fact I think it's basically the worst). I don't really support most of the wars you mention, because not only is war bad but it also undermines our authority as a superpower. It makes us look like a bully, rather than an authority figure. Our military should be powerful, but only be used to advance human rights and humanity.
Let me go back a bit, did you just use Occam's Razor to support your belief in god? Are you familiar witih the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit? The following link provides a good summary and explanation.
There are widely varying estimates as to how many undocumented immigrants are in the country right now, but a few states in the Southwest have had some serious issues. Immigration in and of itself is a financial burden, but CA in particular has had massive problems with providing medical care to a huge population influx, most of which lack the ability to pay for the services they require.
I would say it is probably slightly exaggerated, but not hugely.
On April 28 2012 06:50 SaintBadger wrote: I'm curious, anyone else want to join Nina (or stand alone) in exploring the so-called hypocrisy in the "pro-life" mantle? I've always assumed that was just a talking point to score some political points. Does anyone actually see moral equivalency among abortion, war, and the death penalty?
I don't know if it's hypocrisy exactly, but I would expect consistency in anyone's stance. It is important to understand the justifications for why someone is pro-life. Your definition of pro-life doesn't take a 100% moral argument. You realize there are social and economic costs, and that it shouldn't necessarily be outlawed entirely or absolutely, just that we shouldn't be necessarily be funding it with public tax dollars. I don't have an issue with that argument. For someone who is 'pro-life' like you (not on absolute moral grounds), you'd perhaps consider killing via war and death penalty justified. War because it is an opposing country, and our interests trump theirs, and blood must be split to enforce. For the death penalty, someone has committed crimes against society, and that justifies a killing. And by that same token you consider killing by abortion not justified. (note: I don't mean to say you think killing is or isn't justified for these reasons, I don't know. This is simply an illustrative example.)
However, many other people argue pro-life on purely moral grounds. If you are arguing pro-life on purely moral grounds, I must believe that you feel there is no justification for killing, full stop. In this case, the above justifications for killing during war and through the death sentence do not apply. If you attempt to apply them as 'exceptions' to an absolute moral argument then yes you are being hypocritical.
I also think some people who don't fully believe it to be a moral issue take it up only as a moral issue because they do not want to frame the debate in terms of justified reasons for killing, because then their opponents can take a stance that even if you see it as killing, like war and like the death sentence, there are good reasons to justify abortion.
So arguments for pro-choicers will now have two levels: (1) it should not be considered killing and (2) even if it is, there are good socioeconomic justifications for allowing abortion (having unprepared couples who do not want a child carry it to term does a lot of financial and social harm. The child will likely not be well cared for, either or both of the parents may be lead to financial ruin, etc. etc. etc.).
This, I think, tends to be a can of worms most pro-lifers don't want to touch, so they stick purely to the moral argument, and as I mentioned earlier, if you are morally against killing and refuse to consider any reasons/justification for killing valid, then I think it is reasonable to conclude that such a person believes that there is no justification for killing anyone. I think a lot of people view pro-lifers as hypocrites when they take the purely moral argument, but then do not apply that argument to war or the death penalty.
If you are not arguing the moral absolutely (e.g. you admit there are sometimes justifications for killing) then I don't think it's hypocritical, but now you must consider the justification arguments presented on abortion, why it is a good idea to allow (and maybe even fund) it. If you refuse to even consider or debate the justifications to abortion, then you absolutely are being hypocritical, and using moral grounds as a means to further an agenda you like, while burying it where it doesn't support the agenda you dislike. I don't want to hear "every life is precious, oh except if they are a serial killer. Clearly his life is not precious." Those two sentences are in clear contradiction.
I think part of the problem in debating justification is I've seen some studies that show the clear costs of not having abortion available, costs to society and people when the families break down, when the kids are neglected, and when the parents have to do crazy things to survive. The costs are clear, and I don't think pro-lifers want to get into the debate where they think the line should be drawn: at what point does it become justified, even if they think it should be justified for say, serial killers. I also have never seen any studies talking about the benefits of disallowing the abortion, so this is why most people default to the moral argument, as there is no economic one to be made. The absoluteness of the moral argument, and it's hyprocrasy in practical application I think is what ticks most people off. If you are going to claim life has no cost, no price, then I expect you to apply that in all situations. If you feel killing is justified in some cases, I expect to debate in what situations it is justified, and why those justifications apply, and how we can come to a consensus on where that line should be drawn.
I don't mind if people say they are morally against killing (let's use war here), but feel it is justified in certain cases because A. B. C (we need to protect our national interests/defend ourselves from invaders/whatever). I may not agree with such arguments, either if killing is or is not justified in any given situation, but I will not view them as hypocritical in conjunction with a moral argument when presented like that.
I do think this is another case where extreme views tend to come up on top, partially because they are so ridiculous, and partially because people believe they have the best chance of getting the argument through if they go to one extreme or the other, then go find 'middle ground'. Just more examples of how disgustingly disingenuous these things are sometimes.
Edit: spelling, nonsense removed, provided clarification on a number of sentences that could be interpreted multiple ways. Edit2: added more content, tried to clarify a bit more.
I disagree. And yes, I think I've read just about everything Richard Dawkins has published. He implicitly states that a multiverse theory is endorsed by the Razor over the concept of a prime mover. That to me is blatantly false. And furthermore, it smacks of the same sort of gimmick as Intelligent Design. He couches a completely unsubstantiated guess for how the universe is as it is in scientific terminology, and then feels free to use the Razor to endorse it. I honestly believe that the only reason his colleagues don't laugh him out of the building is the 70 or so years during which multiple dimensions has slowly worked its way into the pop culture nomenclature through science fiction. That group is somehow more comfortable endorsing that notion than a prime mover, but in terms of simplicity vs. complexity, I'd say the multiverse is far more complex.
And again, I hope people aren't assuming the most ignorant context of my arguments, because there is no progress to be made that way. The concept of a "prime mover" or "first cause" has zero to do with an Abrahamic God. As I said in the same post in which I mentioned the Razor, I'm skipping quite a few steps between that and how I came to the Catholic faith. So yes, I suppose I used the Razor to support my believe in God in much the same way integers are used to prove advanced calculus.
The reason I skipped the rest of my story is because this blog is not supposed to be a theological debate. I am well aware of the pride some TL members take in their rationalism, and how that has led them to disdain religious faith. I do not seek their affirmation. The only discussion of religion I have willingly begun is that which is necessary to explain how certain political issues are understood.
I certainly think abortion has net negative consequences in more than just the moral arena, but for the sake of argument, let's say I'm purely coming from a moral standpoint. I still disagree that there is hypocrisy at play, because ethics recognize the concept of guilt or innocence, as well as the concept of defending the innocent against aggression (referring to war) just as much as laws do.
If you believe the unborn have some sort of moral significance beyond apendages of their mothers, then a question arises about whether they have enough significance to meaningfully attach the term "innocent". Skipping hundreds of years of political philosophy and blanketly assuming that people have the moral right to imbue a government with the power to remove rights based on "guilt" of understood laws, there seems to be reasonable expectation to differing treatment of innocent and guilty people.
Maybe this doesn't require all this abstraction. I don't see why it's an untenable position to say, "Killing the innocent is unjustified". I know there's a gutcheck to say "what the hell is innocent?" but pragmatically, we do operate under a legal definition of innocent that is informed by some level of collective morality.
Again, I know you know this, but I don't want anyone else to read this as their first glimpse of this blog and go after me as having no other leg to stand on with the abortion issue. It's just a strange concept to me the moral argument represents hypocrisy vis a vis abortion v. death penalty.
I'd also like to remind new readers that if I had my way, the death penalty would never be exercised in this country. I simply acknowledge its legality.
EDIT: I forgot the response to the societal costs aspect of your post. Earlier in the blog when I said I didn't think our society could survive without legalized abortion at this stage, I believe that because we are now about to complete our second generation which has grown up being told that abortion is a fundamental right of a US citizen. Women have organized their lives under the assumption that this is an option, and that is hugely significant to choosing whether to seek a marriage partner, choosing what sort of career, etc. I don't shy away from these facts, but I do suspect that it is not part of the human condition that we can't get along without abortion. It's just how the country has evolved.
On April 28 2012 07:58 SaintBadger wrote: @IronMonocle
I disagree. And yes, I think I've read just about everything Richard Dawkins has published. He implicitly states that a multiverse theory is endorsed by the Razor over the concept of a prime mover. That to me is blatantly false. And furthermore, it smacks of the same sort of gimmick as Intelligent Design. He couches a completely unsubstantiated guess for how the universe is as it is in scientific terminology, and then feels free to use the Razor to endorse it. I honestly believe that the only reason his colleagues don't laugh him out of the building is the 70 or so years during which multiple dimensions has slowly worked its way into the pop culture nomenclature through science fiction. That group is somehow more comfortable endorsing that notion than a prime mover, but in terms of simplicity vs. complexity, I'd say the multiverse is far more complex.
And again, I hope people aren't assuming the most ignorant context of my arguments, because there is no progress to be made that way. The concept of a "prime mover" or "first cause" has zero to do with an Abrahamic God. As I said in the same post in which I mentioned the Razor, I'm skipping quite a few steps between that and how I came to the Catholic faith. So yes, I suppose I used the Razor to support my believe in God in much the same way integers are used to prove advanced calculus.
The reason I skipped the rest of my story is because this blog is not supposed to be a theological debate. I am well aware of the pride some TL members take in their rationalism, and how that has led them to disdain religious faith. I do not seek their affirmation. The only discussion of religion I have willingly begun is that which is necessary to explain how certain political issues are understood.
Many-worlds is the most likely theory at the moment for the way the world works. We don't have that much certainty, of course, but it is the most likely of everything we have.
How is many-worlds complex? It presupposes basically nothing. In fact I'd say it presupposes almost the bare minimum. It sounds like you don't seem to understand what Dawkins means by complex.
Please don't mix up "multiple dimensions" with many-worlds. It's just confusing when you have things like String Theory 11 dimensional spaces going around as well.
IronMonocle directed me to a site where Dawkins is quoted as offering the multiverse theory as the physics equivalent to biology's Darwinism in in terms of debunking the God concept.
On April 26 2012 16:32 SaintBadger wrote: As to the Christian tenants, the EXTREMELY condensed version is that the passion story rings true in some preternatural part of my brain, and my gut reaction to things which Christianity holds as virtuous or evil generally validate the teachings.
<snip>
I chose to be a conservative at first because the people who identify themselves as conservative are generally more accepting of their existing a right and a wrong absent any relativism. Now, the failing of conservatives is that too often, they proclaim they know exactly what that right and wrong is in every circumstance. I don't pretend to be an arbiter of right and wrong, but the moral relativism argument upon which a lot of liberalism is based, in other words the "it's right for you but wrong for me" idea, is just an untenable logical fallicy to me.
On that note, how do you feel about genocide? Is it ever justifiable? And how should the United States respond when it happens elsewhere?
As a personal aside, my fiance' was attending the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa a year ago today. Some of you may recall a catastrophic wave of tornadoes that killed many people in that area, and this is the one year anniversary of that event. She was a bit disheartened that no mention of the event was forthcoming in the media, so I thought I'd mention it here. If anyone knows someone who was affected by that event, I would imagine it would make that person's day if you were to mention it to them and wish them well.
I recognize that argument. You are simply saying guilt or innocence is a line with which we use to justify a killing. I have no issue with that argument. You must acknowledge though you are recognizing an exception, or justification, for a killing here, through the concept of guilt or innocence in this case (which indeed you do). Those who have been judged guilty by whatever methodology, their killing is now justified.
Perhaps this argument (of innocence and guilt) is always implied, but every time someone asserts the wrongness of killing as absolute, my hypocrisy meter goes off, because it clearly is not if you are using differences in innocence and guilt to change stances.
Attaching a moral or ethnial value to a fetus/baby/whatever is probably the more relevent argument here, but in talking points it simply gets boiled down to 'killing is absolutely wrong!' and 'there are good reasons to allow this!', again a failure in general communication.
Relevant Edit on morality: I also found this quote interesting:
I chose to be a conservative at first because the people who identify themselves as conservative are generally more accepting of their existing a right and a wrong absent any relativism. Now, the failing of conservatives is that too often, they proclaim they know exactly what that right and wrong is in every circumstance
I don't understand how you can be an moral absolutist if you don't proclaim to know exactly what is right or wrong in every circumstance? If you don't know what is right or wrong given a certain set of conditions, how is that moral absolutism? I thought the whole idea behind moral absolutism is that in each situation, regardless of context, there is a right and a wrong. If you consider circumstance, then you are talking about moral relativism. If you are unsure if some situation is right or wrong, then the morality concept is entirely useless in that situation, is it not? If you do not know the answer, then how the heck are we supposed to arrive at the correct conclusion? Someone has to provide that moral absolute answer, yes? And more importantly, we need to be able to apply that answer to a discussion so decisions can be debated and then made, so please don't tell me we are going to wait (till death) to find out if something is morally right or morally wrong. If we are, then the moral right or wrongness should have no bearing on the practical discussion at hand.
Perhaps my understanding of moral absolutism is incorrect. I think I need to do some reading in regards to the study of ethics in general.
Is genocide ever justifiable? Hmm, I don't think so. I mean, during most of history and probably today, there are populations small and constrained enough where any sort of military conflict would run the risk of completely destroying them, so if they happened to be the aggressor, I suppose one could come up with some sort of hypothetical.
I've never really come to terms with US obligation as humanitarian interventionist. I know Bush Sr. was heavily criticized for the Persian Gulf War and the justifiction of liberating Kuwait when so many other areas were also suffering under similar occupations. Then again, I don't have an issue with vital resources being something we actively protect, so that particular dichotomy never struck a chord with me. Similarly, there were some black leaders (many of whom are prominent Dems) who criticized Clinton for having a racial bias in getting involved with Serbia, but not engaging in certain parts of Africa where similar violence was taking place.
It's a hard question. I think the conservative answer is, we look to ourselves first. If we are in a situation where the nation is prosperous and we could engage in military effort without jeopardizing that prosperity, then it becomes a question of consent by the electorate. That's a political answer, not a moral one. Obviously, in this world there are a lot of options to attempt prior to military action, but I assumed by your question that the implication was whether military intervention is justified.
Ok, I see where you are now. I admire your dedication to assuming people say what they mean. It is a very rare trait, though to be fair, it is also rare to see someone who is careful and conscientious enough to earn that assumption.
On April 28 2012 08:20 SaintBadger wrote: @DoubleReed
IronMonocle directed me to a site where Dawkins is quoted as offering the multiverse theory as the physics equivalent to biology's Darwinism in in terms of debunking the God concept.
Oh now I see.
Eh, Dawkins isn't a physicist. While I agree that the Razor would imply that a Multiverse explanation would be more likely than a Prime Mover, I don't know what Multiverse he's talking about. So there isn't evidence for either so skepticism throws them both out.
Still, many-worlds actually does have evidence for it, and is becoming increasingly likely. I don't think that works with a prime mover, but considering you can tack on God to any explanation I doubt that affects much.
Your last comment is something I always want to point out at these arguments. When someone says they've "debunked God", they haven't. They've just debunked what someone else claims as evidence for God. The thing that frustrates the Dawkinses of the world is that there really isn't a disproof to that concept.
Even if the many world concept is absolutely accurate, the effect on the argument is that the complexity of the universe can't be taken as evidence for God. I recognize that. It just makes me lol a bit when someone has that AHA! moment and comes out with, "I've proven there's no God!!!" All I have to say is, that would be quite an accomplishment.
On April 28 2012 08:46 SaintBadger wrote: @DoubleReed
Your last comment is something I always want to point out at these arguments. When someone says they've "debunked God", they haven't. They've just debunked what someone else claims as evidence for God. The thing that frustrates the Dawkinses of the world is that there really isn't a disproof to that concept.
Even if the many world concept is absolutely accurate, the effect on the argument is that the complexity of the universe can't be taken as evidence for God. I recognize that. It just makes me lol a bit when someone has that AHA! moment and comes out with, "I've proven there's no God!!!" All I have to say is, that would be quite an accomplishment.
So true. Disproving the existence of a divine being is as much of a logical fallacy as proving it.
I don't want to get caught in another blatant misuse of a term as with the Intelligent Design faux pas, but what I mean is that right and wrong can exist without an individual knowing what they are at any given point. Me saying, "I want to figure out what is right" is a far cry from the relativist saying, "Oh well, I'll decide what's right for me and you can decide what's right for you and we can both doublethink and accept each other's differing right".
The admission of not knowing what is right and wrong is an invitation for discussion and discovery.
The decision to recognize multiple "right"s is, at least in my understanding, an invitation for insanity.
To tie in what I just said about right and wrong to the God question:
It seems like Dawkins and I can agree that there is a factual state of the existence of God. God either exists or not. Now, I don't pretend to fully comprehend what "God exists" entails, but the folks who are content to say He exists for you and not for me just boggle my mind.
I don't understand how you can be an moral absolutist if you don't proclaim to know exactly what is right or wrong in every circumstance? If you don't know what is right or wrong given a certain set of conditions, how is that moral absolutism? I thought the whole idea behind moral absolutism is that in each situation, regardless of context, there is a right and a wrong. If you consider circumstance, then you are talking about moral relativism. If you are unsure if some situation is right or wrong, then the morality concept is entirely useless in that situation, is it not? If you do not know the answer, then how the heck are we supposed to arrive at the correct conclusion? Someone has to provide that moral absolute answer, yes? And more importantly, we need to be able to apply that answer to a discussions so decisions can be debated and then made, so please don't tell me we are going to wait (till death) to find out if something is morally right or morally wrong. If we are, then the moral right or wrongness should have no bearing on the practical discussion at hand.
Moral objectivity is a real thing. Look, we have a pretty good understanding of human well-being and human suffering. That's pretty much all Moral Objectivity is. I don't think women should be stoned for wearing certain clothing. Is this just a cultural thing? No! You're killing a human woman for something as trivial as clothing. That's not relative and you can't pretend that it is. Treating people as slaves, torture, beating people, this all can be quantified quite objectively in terms of suffering and human loss. There's no relativism.
Usually the answers are pretty obvious. Treat people nicely, don't steal, don't hurt others. But of course there are going to be situations that are grey or not at all clear. Are we going to magically know what's the best option to maximize human well-being all the time? No, we aren't. We're going to guess and estimate and do the best we can.
Moral relativism is insane. It basically assumes we know absolutely nothing about the way people should be treated. It acts as if all cultures are equal in terms of human dignity. No. Slavery is bad. Objectively. End of story.
On April 28 2012 08:46 SaintBadger wrote: @DoubleReed
Your last comment is something I always want to point out at these arguments. When someone says they've "debunked God", they haven't. They've just debunked what someone else claims as evidence for God. The thing that frustrates the Dawkinses of the world is that there really isn't a disproof to that concept.
Even if the many world concept is absolutely accurate, the effect on the argument is that the complexity of the universe can't be taken as evidence for God. I recognize that. It just makes me lol a bit when someone has that AHA! moment and comes out with, "I've proven there's no God!!!" All I have to say is, that would be quite an accomplishment.
You can't disprove something like that. Everyone knows that. Remember, certainty is all about probability. You can still make the claim ridiculously improbable, like God is. We don't make any decisions in our life based on absolute certainty, so I don't need to disprove anything. It's improbable, therefore I don't believe in it. I don't really know how people can 'believe' in something that's absurdly improbable, but they do, and they will continue to do so.
Congratulations SaintBadger for being polite, clear and coherent. I respect what you are doing here. It's absolutely not the kind of world I would like to live in but it's certainly a vision that is clear from the beginning. I must confess you scare me. It's like reading the mind of someone you consider evil. It shows me I still have work to do on myself to improve my understanding of your opinion and find a way to make it work with mines - which I deeply believe are better .
Agree to disagree on relative probabilities, but at least we see eye to eye on the general concept of what constitutes proof. Some people really do think they can absolutely prove such things.
Mind you, that's nowhere near my belief, but the term slipped my mind earlier. I figured since you wanted a better descriptor, I'd bring it in when my mind allowed me to remember since I wasn't thinking about it anymore.
On April 28 2012 08:59 SaintBadger wrote: @DoubleReed
Agree to disagree on relative probabilities, but at least we see eye to eye on the general concept of what constitutes proof. Some people really do think they can absolutely prove such things.
Well, I can't prove that the Sun is going to rise tomorrow morning, but I can certainly guess.
Edit: Eh, I don't want to get any more deeply into religion. Just to make sure, when you say "agree to disagree on relative probabilities" are you saying you disagree my ideas of certainty, or just that your probabilities of God's existence are different from mine?
I think I'm going to stick with theistic evolution. Sounds like Day-age still leaves some ambiguity about evolution and such.
@DoubleReed
I was referring to the probability of God's existence. I definitely accept that we live our lives based on what's probably going to happen or probably the case. We rarely have a 2 + 2 situation.
On April 28 2012 07:00 SaintBadger wrote: @Ninazerg
I'm very surprised that you added the bombing of Serbia to this list. Do you just think we should not intervene when people are being killed in foreign countries? I mean, there is absolutely no doubt that less people died because of our involvement. But we just didn't have any business there, or what? I'm just wondering, because the inclusion of that instance is strange to me.
Was Kosovo a situation where mass deportation and genocide was occurring? Yes.
Did the conflict pertain to our national security or the survival of the United States? No.
That's why it's on the list, and I will address your prior post shortly.
Edit: Actually, I need to go to the grocery store, so it's going to be a somewhat delayed response.
On April 28 2012 08:34 SaintBadger wrote: @Mindcrime
Is genocide ever justifiable? Hmm, I don't think so. I mean, during most of history and probably today, there are populations small and constrained enough where any sort of military conflict would run the risk of completely destroying them, so if they happened to be the aggressor, I suppose one could come up with some sort of hypothetical.
I've never really come to terms with US obligation as humanitarian interventionist. I know Bush Sr. was heavily criticized for the Persian Gulf War and the justifiction of liberating Kuwait when so many other areas were also suffering under similar occupations. Then again, I don't have an issue with vital resources being something we actively protect, so that particular dichotomy never struck a chord with me. Similarly, there were some black leaders (many of whom are prominent Dems) who criticized Clinton for having a racial bias in getting involved with Serbia, but not engaging in certain parts of Africa where similar violence was taking place.
It's a hard question. I think the conservative answer is, we look to ourselves first. If we are in a situation where the nation is prosperous and we could engage in military effort without jeopardizing that prosperity, then it becomes a question of consent by the electorate. That's a political answer, not a moral one. Obviously, in this world there are a lot of options to attempt prior to military action, but I assumed by your question that the implication was whether military intervention is justified.
I actually had the Conquest of Canaan in mind. According to the Bible, God commanded the Hebrews to "completely destroy" a number of peoples including the Canaanites, Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites, Jebusites and Amorites. In some cases women and children were kept as "plunder," but in other cases all were put to the sword, even the livestock. My gut certainly doesn't react favorably to that.
As for the rest; fair enough. I'm not comfortable with America policing the world unilaterally. At all. If the United States is going to take military action that isn't strictly in self-defense, I would prefer it to be very multilateral in nature. But, at the very least, I think we owe it to ourselves to not support a genocidal regime as America did the Khmer Rouge.
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?
On April 27 2012 22:27 SaintBadger wrote:
@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.
This is what bugs me the most about political ideologues. Let's be perfectly clear: War is mass murder, and the Iraq War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War, Bombing of Serbia, Invasion of Grenada, Invasion of Panama, Invasion of Haiti, Intervention in Somalia, and the recent calls for war against Iran are not pertinent to the survival of the United States. Conservatives seem to argue endlessly about hypothetical scenarios where these military actions were necessary because failure to engage in the said military actions would result in some sort of erosion of "national security".
MILLIONS of lives have been thrown away because of these acts of aggression. If you have no conflict of conscience about these acts of violence, which leave nations devastated, families and lives shattered, cities destroyed, and hundreds of thousands of men, women and children butchered, but say "It's complicated, but sometimes necessary", when the same argument is applied to another form of killing which you condemn?
Since "murder" is a legal term, let's be perfectly clear: War is NOT mass murder. I'll assume you meant mass killing.
I'm very used to having words put in my mouth, but this is on a whole new level. There is nothing in my response to you that remotely implies a lack of conflict of conscience, and in fact, I find it hard to believe anyone in this country who has taken the time to reflect on any war is completely without conflict.
Furthermore, I get the feeling you haven't read my other responses regarding abortion. I do apply that argument to abortion. As a matter of fact, I said "I recognize this country probably couldn't survive without [abortion] at the current state of society". So, I'd ask you to review a few posts if you're interested in continuing this discussion, and while you're at it, I'd appreciate an answer to my question.
On the subject of war, most of the scenarios we discuss are based on historical events. They aren't hypothetical at all. And liberals are very quick to jump on the war bandwagon, in fact, VIetnam was all them. If you would like to discuss the merits of individual conflicts, we can do that, but I was discussing the reasons why aborting a pregnancy is not analogous to war. Btw, we weren't the aggressors in several of those conflicts you mention.
I would be happy to defend Iraq I and II and Afghanistan, but it's probably a waste of time since we're not going to be able to agree on facts surrounding Gen. Powell's WMD presentation to the UN. I will NOT be defending the nation-building in the aftermath.
1. Since we're suddenly discussing the legal definition of murder, the exact definition of 'murder' changes depending on jurisdiction, however, according to Common Law, murder is "the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought". This means that the killing is calculated and pre-meditated, as well as unlawful. If you consider the United States to be the police force of the world, then nothing we do is "unlawful". The legality of war cannot be argued, because there is no World Court in which to make such a litigious claim, however, there never was a United Nations mandate authorizing the invasion of Iraq. The United Nations only ordered Iraq to allow weapons inspectors into the country, and Iraq's government complied fully. How do I know they complied fully? Because, no 'weapons of mass destruction' were ever found. The war was completely illegitimate and therefore, in my view, was unlawful.
But for the sake of clarity on your part, I will change my phrase to "mass killing", because we certainly don't want to confuse murdering a huge number of people with merely killing a huge number of people.
2. Regarding the question: "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 have a few thoughts on this hypothetical question.
- It is completely off-topic. My original inquiry concerns whether you as a Conservative believe that one form of killing is justified over another in your view. You basically said, in a nutshell, 'No, the killing in war is a separate issue than the killing involved in abortion.'
- Most hypothetical scenarios are full of holes. So is this one. Using a 1-day-before-birth-where-the-baby-is-healthy scenario would be a terrible basis for the opposition of all contraceptive options, including first and second trimester abortions. Furthermore, even two or three or a billion doctors swear on their mothers' graves that the baby is going to be born healthy, they are not able to see the future. That's why no two doctors would ever both sign a document risking their medical licenses simultaneously. You would be hard-pressed to find even ONE doctor who would do such a ridiculous thing.
- The question ignores a woman's personal liberty over her medical decision. This question ignores HER right as the carrier of the fetus. There's a reason this argument didn't win Roe v. Wade.
- Bringing this kind of question up seems to be a way of gauging my perception and opinion of abortion-issues. That's really not important. The important thing is discussing your view of the killing in war (which I believe is horrible) versus the killing in abortion (Which I also find horrible).
3. Concerning Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations: carrying a vile of anthrax onto the UN floor seems hyperbolic and theatrical in nature. I actually had the opportunity to watch the presentation live on television as it unfolded, and personally felt underwhelmed and unconvinced by it.
Anyone can watch the entire presentation for themselves. There are accusations quoted, bullshit audio recordings, computer-graphics depictions of fictional mobile weapons labs, various satellite images of sites that proved to either be empty or were harmless, and so on.
Journalists outside of the United States were very skeptical about the report made before the UN, and for good reason: there was no concrete evidence presented in the report given to the UN that suggested that the only option was military action against the Iraqi government.
The United Nations subsequently did not pass a resolution allowing a US military engagement with Iraq, but we went to war anyway, despite the fact that the Bush administration had information that suggested that there were no WMDs in Iraq and that the Iraqi government was complying with the UN resolution to inspect for WMDs.
Furthermore:
- Iraq had no ties to Al-Qaida or housed any Al-Qaida bases in their territory.
- Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
- North Korea had a much more appalling human-rights violation record, and was known to be actively attempting to develop nuclear weapons, and eventually did in 2006.
- Saddam Hussein fully complied with the UN resolution to open his country to weapons inspectors.
Indeed. You'd think after the Exodus, the Hebrews would have learned to follow instructions. But, if memory serves, they were tempted by . . . was it Palestinian women? One of the black listed people's women, anyway. And I believe that was the beginning of the forty year exile. The Old Testament was a brutal time.
For the record, I speak for conservatives. Not for God. I've never felt called to evangelism and I don't plan on starting now. And we've done far worse than Khmer Rouge in our history.
1. We really need to work on our use of the words "know" and "prove" in this blog. No WMD's being found does not equate to you knowing anything of the sort. But in any case, the US is not subject to common law, so I'm glad we agree that "murder" is not the correct term. To the best of my knowledge, we never surrendered authority to act to UN discretion either, so I can't imagine how that is relevant. Certainly UN support is preferable, but in no way required.
2. Regardless of original inquiry, you subsequently made some statements about Supreme Court precedent. My question was meant to discern whether you actually understood the precedent on the issue. I wish you had answered it. Since you brought that up, I can't see how it would be off-topic. Your comment about the one-day-before-birth concept doesn't seem to indictate you read my hypothetical very carefully. My proposed law would potentially be relevant as early as four months into pregnancy. And the invocation of personal liberty is relevant to all laws in this country, but personal liberty is not absolute. Roe specifically codified a time in a pregnancy after which a woman was not at liberty to seek that particular form of "legitimate medical care". Roe also stated that its trimester framework was based on the concept of viability. So conceptually, under Roe, a woman is not at liberty to abort a viable fetus. We are, however, not under Roe anymore. We are under Casey, which prevents laws from placing "a substantial obstacle" in the way of a woman seeking an abortion, and all subsequent precedent fleshes out what constitutes a substantial obstacle. If you don't want to share your views on something, that's fine, but I follow along with discussions well enough to understand what is related to a topic and what is not.
3. Once again, regardless of one's political views or opinions of the Bush administration's performance, I am thoroughly disappointed in the lack of basic propositional logic that has surrounded the history of the Iraq War. If place A does not contain B, then place A never contained B??? I certainly don't purport to tell you that Iraq had WMD's, because as you correctly recall, they were never found. That absolutely does not equate to there never existing WMD's in Iraq, but for the sake of argument, let's assume every factual statement you make is 100% correct.
I'd like to examine a quote: "there was no concrete evidence presented in the report given to the UN that suggested that the ONLY option was military action." You once again never answered my question directly concerning the bombing of Serbia, but I think you implied that the U.S. had no business involving itself because the matter did not threaten us. I think, by double implication, you are suggesting that you DO buy threats to the US itself as potential justification for war.
Now you've entered into this notion of "only option". That is an impossible standard. There is never a circumstance where war, or for that matter any reaction, is the only option. So I don't really understand how one proceeds in a discussion with you.
From my perspective, in the modern world where the power of the atom has been weaponized, the difference between "remote threat" and "imminent threat" basically amounts to the push of a button. So, if we believe that a hostile nation possesses or is close to possessing nuclear weapons, that does constitute a threat to our security. We can absolutely choose to NOT exercise the military option. But in the case of Sadaam Hussein, I did not lose a lot of sleep over the fact that we chose otherwise. I think it was a tragic and stupid mistake to stay behind and allow thousands of soldiers to die importing democracy, but that's a whole other issue.
Whether you believe that the WMD argument was sincerely made is largely irrelevant. Democrats, Republicans, and the electorate all lined up to be the first and loudest supporters of the invasion. We can ret-con history all we like, but it doesn't speak to the philosophy behind it all.
By the way, if memory serves, North Korea was already a confirmed nuclear power. With a man like Kim Jong Il with his finger on the button, you bettter believe there is a decided change in the calculus of foreign policy towards that nation.
EDIT: You say it was 2006 when NK first detonated? I'll take your word for it, but close enough for my comfort level with that particular maniac in charge. Also, geographically speaking, the technology required to strike mainland US from NK is far less than from Iraq.
I really want to get this out on the table. Anybody else who wants to jump on the "pro-life folks are hypocrites because they support a party that goes to war and exercises the death penalty" stage, please speak your piece.
On April 28 2012 14:14 SaintBadger wrote: I really want to get this out on the table. Anybody else who wants to jump on the "pro-life folks are hypocrites because they support a party that goes to war and exercises the death penalty" stage, please speak your piece.
Well, I will speak my piece here. Although my criticism is going to be a little different. I do think the position is typically somewhat hypocritical, though, and here is why:
First off, anyone that would allow for an abortion in the case of rape but not in any other case is hypocritical. To be consistent you must say that all abortion is wrong. After all, the rights of a fetus should not have anything to do with whether or not the mother was "responsible" for the fetus coming into existence. There seems to be a lot of blaming going on here. Now, I'm sure there are plenty of conservatives that are consistent on this issue, but...
It seems like we expect a lot more out of women than other people in society. The conservative position is very strange in this respect. The rhetoric is often heard that we are not responsible for your livelihood. I should not have to pay for your healthcare or for your food, etc. Even if you are unable to get them, I bear no responsibility to you. And yet, at the same time, they hold that women have a sort of strange responsibility to bring a fetus to live birth.
If I accidentally hit someone with my car and damage their kidney, I am not required by law to give them my kidney. But even though I'm "responsible" for their current predicament in every possible sense, and I could keep them alive by simply donating a kidney, and they will die if they don't get my kidney, there's nothing in the law that requires me to help keep alive people that would die without my help. So it seems strange that at the same time we expect women to keep the fetus alive, when people in general have no such responsibility to their neighbors and other strangers.
I think if pro-life is to be a consistent position, then you are going to have to argue that we have more responsibility towards each other rather than the current conservative mindset which typically tends to be "every man for himself."
On April 28 2012 14:10 SaintBadger wrote: @ninazerg
1. We really need to work on our use of the words "know" and "prove" in this blog. No WMD's being found does not equate to you knowing anything of the sort. But in any case, the US is not subject to common law, so I'm glad we agree that "murder" is not the correct term. To the best of my knowledge, we never surrendered authority to act to UN discretion either, so I can't imagine how that is relevant. Certainly UN support is preferable, but in no way required.
2. Regardless of original inquiry, you subsequently made some statements about Supreme Court precedent. My question was meant to discern whether you actually understood the precedent on the issue. I wish you had answered it. Since you brought that up, I can't see how it would be off-topic. Your comment about the one-day-before-birth concept doesn't seem to indictate you read my hypothetical very carefully. My proposed law would potentially be relevant as early as four months into pregnancy. And the invocation of personal liberty is relevant to all laws in this country, but personal liberty is not absolute. Roe specifically codified a time in a pregnancy after which a woman was not at liberty to seek that particular form of "legitimate medical care". Roe also stated that its trimester framework was based on the concept of viability. So conceptually, under Roe, a woman is not at liberty to abort a viable fetus. We are, however, not under Roe anymore. We are under Casey, which prevents laws from placing "a substantial obstacle" in the way of a woman seeking an abortion, and all subsequent precedent fleshes out what constitutes a substantial obstacle. If you don't want to share your views on something, that's fine, but I follow along with discussions well enough to understand what is related to a topic and what is not.
3. Once again, regardless of one's political views or opinions of the Bush administration's performance, I am thoroughly disappointed in the lack of basic propositional logic that has surrounded the history of the Iraq War. If place A does not contain B, then place A never contained B??? I certainly don't purport to tell you that Iraq had WMD's, because as you correctly recall, they were never found. That absolutely does not equate to there never existing WMD's in Iraq, but for the sake of argument, let's assume every factual statement you make is 100% correct.
I'd like to examine a quote: "there was no concrete evidence presented in the report given to the UN that suggested that the ONLY option was military action." You once again never answered my question directly concerning the bombing of Serbia, but I think you implied that the U.S. had no business involving itself because the matter did not threaten us. I think, by double implication, you are suggesting that you DO buy threats to the US itself as potential justification for war.
Now you've entered into this notion of "only option". That is an impossible standard. There is never a circumstance where war, or for that matter any reaction, is the only option. So I don't really understand how one proceeds in a discussion with you.
From my perspective, in the modern world where the power of the atom has been weaponized, the difference between "remote threat" and "imminent threat" basically amounts to the push of a button. So, if we believe that a hostile nation possesses or is close to possessing nuclear weapons, that does constitute a threat to our security. We can absolutely choose to NOT exercise the military option. But in the case of Sadaam Hussein, I did not lose a lot of sleep over the fact that we chose otherwise. I think it was a tragic and stupid mistake to stay behind and allow thousands of soldiers to die importing democracy, but that's a whole other issue.
Whether you believe that the WMD argument was sincerely made is largely irrelevant. Democrats, Republicans, and the electorate all lined up to be the first and loudest supporters of the invasion. We can ret-con history all we like, but it doesn't speak to the philosophy behind it all.
By the way, if memory serves, North Korea was already a confirmed nuclear power. With a man like Kim Jong Il with his finger on the button, you bettter believe there is a decided change in the calculus of foreign policy towards that nation.
EDIT: You say it was 2006 when NK first detonated? I'll take your word for it, but close enough for my comfort level with that particular maniac in charge. Also, geographically speaking, the technology required to strike mainland US from NK is far less than from Iraq.
Actually, I did answer the question concerning Serbia.
In 2003, North Korea did not yet have nuclear weapons. Additionally, the distance of the United States from Iraq is about 7,000 miles, whereas North Korea is only 6,300 miles away. North Korea kicked UN weapon inspectors out of the country prior to the United States' engagement of Iraq in diplomacy, indicating that they were a more potent threat to "National Security" than Iraq. I say this because there is a flaw in the notion that we neutralized the greatest threat to our nation by removing Saddam Hussein from power. Personally, I hated Saddam Hussein, but that in itself does not justify lying to the American public for the sake of war.
Furthermore, I don't care if Democrats supported Vietnam or Iraq along with or without Republicans. Both wars were wrong, unjustified, and did not have to do with the security or survival of the United States. The NATO mission against Serbia was a response to a forced mass deportation, but again, was not pertinent to the survival of the United States.
The reason I bring this up is because you said that a country has the right to go to war for it's own self-preservation, and these wars clearly did not serve that purpose.
Furthermore, arguing that Iraq may have had WMDs prior to the Iraq War, and we just didn't find them, ignores a mountain of post-war evidence that shows that Iraq did not possess or was in the process of developing such weapons in 2002-2003. When I said "there was no concrete evidence presented in the report given to the UN that suggested that the ONLY option was military action." I did not present an "impossible standard". I presented a standard that says the criteria for war cannot be based upon flimsy evidence and outright falsehoods.
Ok, now we're into theater of the absurd. I asked you if you were saying we shouldn't intervene when people are being killed in foreign countries. You did not answer the question.
And you stated that there was no concrete evidence suggesting war was the only option, which implies lack of evidence is significant to the discussion. Since war is never the only option, that evidence can never exist.
And I stated that if we believed WMD's existed in the hands of an enemy, that does involve self-preservation. You said nothing which suggests otherwise. Your issue is with whether WMD's existed. I don't care one way or the other for the sake of this argument.
And forced deportation was the least of what was happening in Serbia and Kosovo.
I don't even really know why we're discussing specific conflicts. I believe it is a tenable moral position to make a distinction between purely innocents, which unborn children surely are, and transgressors of various sorts which may be judged to have, by malicious action, forfeited certain rights afforded to innocents. That is my evidence for the lack of hypocrisy in the conservative stance on these issues.
@shinosai
You bring up worthwhile points, and tomorrow I shall respond. Very tired at the moment.
Very interesting (and brave) blog, will try to read all your points (which takes a bit more time than skimming over the funny picture thread ) when I have the time. Please disregard if already answered:
You mentioned that you try to keep your faith from informing your political decisions. Do you think that is true for any/most/all other politicians (US, obviously)? And if not, how do you reconcile with some of the "rather strange" aspects of (Romneys) Mormonism?
On April 26 2012 16:32 SaintBadger wrote: The short version is that given all the evidence I can perceive, Occam's Razor points me in the direction of some sort of prime mover.
Occam's Razor would lead one to the exact opposite conclusion.
On April 26 2012 16:32 SaintBadger wrote: The short version is that given all the evidence I can perceive, Occam's Razor points me in the direction of some sort of prime mover.
Occam's Razor would lead one to the exact opposite conclusion.
He said "all the evidence I can perceive." Judging by his delusions that conservatives aren't any more homophobic or sexist than liberals, his perception of reality is certainly nontrivial.
It depends on you use Occam's Razor. If you take the razor to mean, the simplest explanation is the best one, then God is pretty good, you can answer a lot of things by simply saying, God did it. However as has been pointed out, God is the most complex assertion you can make. A deity that transcends all things we know isn't simple, it's the most complex answer because we couldn't explain anything beyond, 'God did it', no how, when, why, it would be beyond our grasp.
I didn't say Occam's Razor proves God, I said Occam's Razor leads me to believe there was a prime mover. If you like, I'll amend that to "first cause". As I've said several times here, there was a lot of development between that and my coming to the Catholic faith, but I'm not an evangelist and this blog isn't really about that. I stated my subscribed faith only because it is necessary against the backdrop of some of these political issues.
If one equates abortion with the legal concept of murder, then you are correct. A rape victim would be equally culpable as any other abortion seeker. Rick Santorum famously (or infamously) made a splash during one of the early primary debates when he said something to the effect of, "We live in a nation where a rapist can't be put to death, but the child conceived from the crime can be, and that is wrong." While on some level, I admire his singlemidedness, Santorum probably hasn't considered the other results of abortion == murder. If a woman is holding her child in a careless way and drops the child, somehow managing to kill it in the process, she is probably guilty of some level of manslaughter. If she is carrying a child and skipping or dancing or some other such non-careful activity and falls, suffering a miscarriage, she should be similarly liable under Santorum's definition.
I see abortion as morally reprehensible, but I do not equate it with murder. In terms of responsibility, perhaps an argument could be made that it is more akin to a betrayal of trust. I'd have to consider whether I'm fully endorsing what I'm about to say, but let's go with it for a moment. A woman who WILLINGLY engages in sexual intercourse understands that she is risking conception, to a varying extent, regardless of the use of contraception. In doing so, perhaps she is willingly taking upon herself an added responsibility absent from the lives of men and women who do not engage in intercourse. If pregnancy results, maybe it represents a shirking of this responsibility by electing to seek an abortion. While I absolutely agree that men, through an accident of biology, get the better end of this construct, I suppose the masculine equivalent would be the responsibility to share in the care and upbringing, or at least providing for, a child.
If you subscribe to this notion, than the allowance for an exception in the case of rape is not inconsistent. If a woman did not willingly undertake that added responsibility, she cannot be seen as having betrayed it. I think if you really pressed pro-lifers who do not have an issue with rape exceptions, they would reach some form of this argument. This assumes that everyone who expresses a political opinion actually has fleshed out thoughts behind it, which as we all know is a silly assumption on both sides, but still . . . perhaps.
RE: Responsibility for injuring persons vs. abortion
I would suggest that one aspect of your argument is a bit unfair. It is true that the Supreme Court has long held that invasive medical procedures represent cruel and unusual punishment, and thus, even if I can give the man I injured a kidney, I will not be required to do so. However, I am certainly responsible under the law to make him whole in the best method which does not violate the 8th Amendment. Normally, that means money. I am required to pay all expenses resulting from my negligence. There may be some analogy to child support somewhere in there. I don't think we'll ever be at a point where a woman is forced to carry a pregnancy to term from conception, and because I respect the law of the land as I understand it, that's probably a good thing. But we're talking morality here, which reaches far beyond legality.
It's hard to make a general statement. As you probably know, they definitely do not separate faith from campaigning, but I don't think that's necessarily bad. Many people are very committed to their faith, and it helps them have faith in the system when they know their beliefs are shared by leaders, at least to some extent. As to faith in actual decision making, there is definitely a sect that has no problem being led by faith. I keep bringing up Rick Santorum because I think he is fairly open about equating faith and political duty. For every one of him, I suspect there are two or three pragmatists who are a little more on my page in that regard. And to be fair, there is a decent sphere of overlap between religious understanding and solid politics.
What about Mormonism in Romney's campaign?
All the major religions have some . . . interesting aspects of their orthodoxy. I think Romney has done more than anyone since Steve Young (49er's QB) in "normalizing" the Mormon faith in America. In a practical sense, I like how Mormonism directs my candidate's life. He's not a drinker or smoker, he's healthy and energetic during what I promise you is a horribly trying schedule. Furthermore, I'm confident we're not going to get to November and have some stripper come forward claiming a love child or other such unpleasantry because he seems to respect the morality of it all.
The four most recognizable Mormons in America today (off the top of my head) are Mitt Romney, Steve Young, Glenn Beck, and Bill Paxton (HBO's "Big Love"). Despite the unfortunate ressurection of the polygamist stereotype by HBO, I'd say this is some interesting company to keep. We're going to see if it ever really flares up as an issue, but I think the fact that Romney was a visible primary challenger in 2008 has helped America get to the point where it doesn't particularly care.
I'm actually going to attempt to play some Starcraft today (strange concept coming from me, right?), so I don't know how often I'll be updating. Also, Delwack has given me some homework on IP law that I'll hopefully get to today.
Keep the questions and comments coming. I hope when this is all said and done, a lot of people can see this as a little more in-depth reference guide to the right side of US politics than can be easily found elsewhere. So far, it's been a big success in my eyes.
On April 28 2012 15:10 SaintBadger wrote: @ninazerg
Ok, now we're into theater of the absurd. I asked you if you were saying we shouldn't intervene when people are being killed in foreign countries. You did not answer the question.
And you stated that there was no concrete evidence suggesting war was the only option, which implies lack of evidence is significant to the discussion. Since war is never the only option, that evidence can never exist.
And I stated that if we believed WMD's existed in the hands of an enemy, that does involve self-preservation. You said nothing which suggests otherwise. Your issue is with whether WMD's existed. I don't care one way or the other for the sake of this argument.
And forced deportation was the least of what was happening in Serbia and Kosovo.
I don't even really know why we're discussing specific conflicts. I believe it is a tenable moral position to make a distinction between purely innocents, which unborn children surely are, and transgressors of various sorts which may be judged to have, by malicious action, forfeited certain rights afforded to innocents. That is my evidence for the lack of hypocrisy in the conservative stance on these issues.
@shinosai
You bring up worthwhile points, and tomorrow I shall respond. Very tired at the moment.
I was specifically addressing this statement made by you: "The nation has a right to perpetuate its own existence against all enemies, foreign and domestic." and saying that the wars I listed were not conducted for the purpose of the preservation of the United States.
In regards to your statement "I don't even really know why we're discussing specific conflicts.", you said: "On the subject of war, most of the scenarios we discuss are based on historical events. They aren't hypothetical at all. And liberals are very quick to jump on the war bandwagon, in fact, VIetnam was all them. If you would like to discuss the merits of individual conflicts, we can do that, but I was discussing the reasons why aborting a pregnancy is not analogous to war."
That's how we got from there to here.
You keep attempting to justify the Iraq War as a "necessary" conflict, when the Bush Administration's specific intelligence about WMDs was proven to be either sketchy or completely false prior to the war. This is a problem that no one in the former Bush Administration has seen fit to address without saying something along the lines of "We thought the intelligence was correct." This total oversight of counter-evidence prior to the war could have prevented a war from being initiated in the first place, but it was ignored.
Saying that the possibility of WMDs pertains to the security of the United States is absurd, because if this were the case, the United States would have dealt with North Korea in the early 2000s, who posed a more potent threat to our national security.
The only problem I have with any of your statements is that you continuously are trying to justify warfare, which is the pinnacle of human beings killing one another. You also have stated that you are against Capital Punishment, but on the subject of our enemies abroad, you say "I believe it is a tenable moral position to make a distinction between purely innocents, which unborn children surely are, and transgressors of various sorts which may be judged to have, by malicious action, forfeited certain rights afforded to innocents." which constitutes a total lack of consistency. You are against the execution of specific individuals who have been convicted and sentenced in US courts, but you are for war, with all it's unpreventable collateral damage, innocent bystanders being blown to bits, conscripted soldiers being forced to fight for a government who could care less about them, and the deaths of volunteer American soldiers - all based on sketchy evidence which would never hold up in a court of law.
If you tell me again that our justification for this war was that we thought WMDs existed in Iraq, I will be happy to bury you in evidence that the Bush Administration knew that they were wrong prior to the war, or blatantly ignored the counter-evidence.
Before I go, I would like to make another correction that I forgot to make last night. The United States does observe Common Law.
Ok, I apologize, I misinterpreted a few things you said.
My comments on the Iraq war aren't really meant to justify. I suppose I'm trying to talk about a circumstance where one takes at face value that we were acting on the assumption of WMD's in existence. I tend to agree with you with regards to the flimsy nature of the evidence presented, but I'm trying to take a step back from the specifics.
Btw, Iron Lady tourney is live. Scarlett I think is involved, for anyone who is interested.
EDIT: The US enforces some forms of common law, though generally not in criminal matters. Moreso in contracts and torts. And my comment meant to convey that we do not submit to any international understanding of common law.
2nd EDIT: I'm not FOR war and I'm certainly not for the death penalty. I'm trying to argue there is a position which is tenable that makes room for both without endorsing abortion.
It's hard to make a general statement. As you probably know, they definitely do not separate faith from campaigning, but I don't think that's necessarily bad. Many people are very committed to their faith, and it helps them have faith in the system when they know their beliefs are shared by leaders, at least to some extent. As to faith in actual decision making, there is definitely a sect that has no problem being led by faith. I keep bringing up Rick Santorum because I think he is fairly open about equating faith and political duty. For every one of him, I suspect there are two or three pragmatists who are a little more on my page in that regard. And to be fair, there is a decent sphere of overlap between religious understanding and solid politics.
What about Mormonism in Romney's campaign?
All the major religions have some . . . interesting aspects of their orthodoxy. I think Romney has done more than anyone since Steve Young (49er's QB) in "normalizing" the Mormon faith in America. In a practical sense, I like how Mormonism directs my candidate's life. He's not a drinker or smoker, he's healthy and energetic during what I promise you is a horribly trying schedule. Furthermore, I'm confident we're not going to get to November and have some stripper come forward claiming a love child or other such unpleasantry because he seems to respect the morality of it all.
As a Non believer discussing Faith is a very difficult issue for me. I fail to comprehend how the public can listen to candidates clamoring over who's the most zealous, while everyone in the room knows of their many divorces, drinking problems and whatnot. It's hard for me to understand why they're not boo'ed of the stage as hypocrites. I guess that's where your candidate scores, as his lifestyle is, as far as I'm aware, pretty consistent with the belief he claims to have. It's probably one of the very few fields where the words "Romney" and "consistent" actually go well together
You made the choice to try to keep you faith from impacting your political views- obviously I'm glad you do but here's what I don't understand: You made that choice for a reason- you thought this was the "right" way to make political decisions. Doesn't that mean that your fellow colleagues who don't do that are wrong? Can (do) you condone their faith based policies? I feel that lately the separation of church and state is under heavy assault in your political arena. Shouldn't "pragmatists" as yourself be opposed to that development?
Concerning Romney's faith I like how you wiggled your way around the issue. "In a practical sense" I like how whipping people gives me a strong biceps and how eating babies provides me with excellent nutrition.
Obviously I'm more interested in your "absolutely not practical at all" views on Mormonism. As it seems to be somewhat alien to what regular Christians (they call themselves Christians too, don't they? I'm no expert.) believe.
Yes, it does feel like the people who legislate through faith are wrong, but we live in a two-party system, and I still believe that the Republican party is a lot closer to the path that will sustain this country in the way I think it was intended to be. Also, most of the time I do agree with the ends and the means of those who legislate through faith, just not the reasons.
I didn't mean to wiggle on the Romney question, but I actually don't know a huge deal about Mormonism from a theological perspective. Romney himself hasn't said a word about it in any of the private meetings I've had with him (I've never actually had a one-on-one meeting, but I mean behind closed doors).
In a practical sense, I think the cortisol secreted by my brain from the psychological stress of eating babies would be a net negative on my muscle mass. Just sayin
And I never ended up playing games. Been watching the Iron Lady tourney all day.
A woman who WILLINGLY engages in sexual intercourse understands that she is risking conception, to a varying extent, regardless of the use of contraception. In doing so, perhaps she is willingly taking upon herself an added responsibility absent from the lives of men and women who do not engage in intercourse. If pregnancy results, maybe it represents a shirking of this responsibility by electing to seek an abortion.
I'm not really convinced that this is a very good argument, though. My problem with this argument is like I noted earlier - instead of arguing for the rights of a fetus here, you are basically blaming women for having sex, and carrying the fetus to term is their punishment - the consequence of their action. It's very difficult to get around this. You've simply changed your criteria for why abortion is wrong to one of "responsibility" instead of a fetuses right to life. But this responsibility argument really just seems like a way to blame women for behaving like humans.
To further my point, consider: By changing the criteria, it is no longer the fetuses right to life that determines whether or not abortion is wrong. It is merely whether or not a woman voluntarily had sex. So, abortion isn't wrong because fetuses have any sort of right to life. It's wrong because a woman chose to have sex. Doesn't this seem a little strange?
RE: Responsibility argument
You're not required to save his life, though. That's my only point. A woman is required to undergo a rather large loss of physical autonomy in order to protect the life of the fetus. People in general, however, have no *physical* duty whatsoever to others whose lives are dependent upon them. We expect the mother to allow the fetus to use her body, but we will not require any human to use their body to keep any other person alive. Even if we are in fact *responsible* for their predicament.
I of course do not expect to change your view on abortion. But, hey, at least I've given you something to think about. That's something I suppose.
I'll admit that punishment and enforcing responsibility can take on the same appearance under many circumstances, but looking at it as punishment comes up short in a couple of ways. Maybe I was too quick to completely divorce the argument from murder, in the sense that there are many types of murder with varying degrees of severity, and all the distinctions revolve around how "responsible" the guilty party is, i.e. premeditated vs involuntary manslaughter. Either way, I don't think it's a matter of "blaming" women, but you introduced that "behaving like humans" at the end which can open up a whole can of worms on how InControl (get it?) we are of our actions. I don't take it as a precondition of being human that we're going to wantonly have sex, but I don't know if that's where you were going, so I'll stop there.
On the other subject, I think we're muddying the waters between legal and moral. Morally speaking, if you can replace the guy's kidney, you should. You absolutely have a responsibility to save his life, even at the potential cost of your own. At least pontentially, depending on the circumstances of the accident. I just meant that legally, that standard can never be enforced in this country, and so we turn to money as the next best thing.
On April 26 2012 14:55 Coramoor wrote: how can you support and campaign for a candidate that is so incredibly flip floppy on every issue and clearly wants nothing more then power
I dont know. How can you support someone who has done nothing but increase the federal debt during his time in office?
I just meant that legally, that standard can never be enforced in this country, and so we turn to money as the next best thing.
And if it can't, then why do we legally enforce the same standard upon women? Perhaps they should only "morally" be required to bring the fetus to term.
edit: Also in response to my first question you've created a false dichotomy. I don't have time to explain because I have to goto work but hopefully when I get back we can continue the conversation.
To be fair, a lot of the people who have questioned and criticized me here have admitted they are not particularly enthusiastic about Obama either.
@shinosai
We don't enforce that standard, and I don't particularly think we should. I imagine the pro-choicers would win an argument over the wisdom of outlawing abortion with the electorate, but they haven't earned the right to have that argument yet. They're still stuck on this fiction that was tragically enshrined in our jurisprudence which states that no argument is necessary because the right to terminate a pregnancy is protected by the founding documents. But I've gone into detail on that earlier.
I think I might know what you mean about the false dichotomy, but perhaps the above will shed some light on it. Either way, I'll let you flesh it out if you like.
Well, then, Saintbadger, I think we're in agreement, then, if you don't think we should enforce the standard.
To explicate on the false dichotomy (although perhaps I shouldn't have described the problem in this way)... the way you describe it women have different levels of responsibility based on the situation in which the killing occurs. But this logic can only tell you how to punish a woman who has already performed an abortion. Under this logic, we still cannot allow abortion to occur, since it is always some sort of manslaughter or murder. We may not think the woman responsible for the killing (since she wasn't responsible for the life), but at the same time we cannot carry the abortion out since we're doing an act that is wrong. So in the analogy to the party having different levels of responsibility, we ultimately can only think of actions in terms of punishment, not in normative terms. If we were to think normatively, then the abortion will be wrong, for it doesn't matter whether or not the woman is responsible for the life - it's still a life. She might not be responsible for it (and not liable to be charged for murder accordingly), but we're still killing it.
If you divorce the concept of fetal rights from the problem, then all you end up with is a system of responsibility that really looks like punishment for having sex. If you don't divorce the concept of fetal rights, then you end up with abortion always being wrong, even in the case of rape.
Erm, just commenting on something you said earlier. I'm pretty positive Bill Paxton isn't Mormon, just plays the role of a FLDS (Fundamentalist) polygamist in Big Love. The FLDS faith and LDS faith (Mormon) are different.
"I feel like these people have their beliefs, and every religion has its share of beliefs that other people find kind of crazy. I was raised Roman Catholic, and we eat the body and drink the blood of our savior, and worship a deity with a crown of thorns who hangs on a cross, naked, after being tortured.
That's a quote by him. Sorry for the aside, just clarifying. I could be wrong, but I don't think he's Mormon.
I'd like to know if you have anything to add regarding the IP stuff. I know it'll likely be a slow process where things are considered, but even if you can't come back with a stance in such a short time, know I appreciate your consideration.
I suppose I might as well add a few things to the IP heap while I'm at it.
While the US system is not as flexible to allow the rise of a new party as has happened in some of the euro countries, note that some voters such as myself are starting to put more and more emphasis on these issues and how to reform the process through better direct interaction. It'll be a trend to look out for, especially in the coming years.
Again just highlighting how ridiculous the attacks against service providers such as megaupload are. Technology is not the enemy. If people are misusing the technology then either there is a problem with the people (e.g. guns are tools of murder, but are not necessary for the crime of murder itself) or the laws (e.g. prohibition).
I hope you or someone around you gets around to reading Against Intellectual Monopoly, as it in my opinion puts together a really compelling argument about the whole copyright and patent situation. Talking it over with economists is most important I think in order to really get back to the root of the issue: do patents and copyrights really encourage the arts and sciences over time?
I've enjoyed reading this thread and learned a few things, even if I don't agree with where you are coming from.
Edit: added another megaupload article. I think it's easy to pick on the pieces where government gets out of hand. Both the laws and our priorities of enforcement are messed up.
Understanding that power is also key to understanding why the traditional players in Washington are being shaken up, and how the SOPA and PIPA bills were defeated. The ability of the industry, lobbyists, and politicians to provide a narrative did not agree with the conclusions that people came to under scrutiny.
I would posit that this, along with the understanding of how the pirate party is changing things in the NYTimes article up above, should be a heads up to both parties that real change in the process is coming, and the party that can harness this better and align itself with the public better will be in much better shape. It isn't trying to direct a narrative, but showing your information and letting people come to their own conclusions, relying on a broad view from multiple experts in different fields, with all the information on the table.
How do you, as a Republican (I am not a Democrat, I managed to ask a Democrat friend of mine this same question, and I don't have any Republican friends because I am really really really intolerant outside of the internet), feel/think/perceive the fact that most/nearly all/some of politicians (those who are in the power position of politics, not advisers or such) are in fact Lawyers.
Now, I will preface I have no such ill-will towards Lawyers and that is not what this is about. I believe that they (and if I remember correctly, you are also they) do the job that we need them to do. However, I would like to get at least a wide-brushed picture of the Republican viewpoint of a Lawyer being in charge of the government (or at least the face and/or mover of the government) instead of someone with a Scientific background in their field of study.
Personally, I think it would be much much much better if someone with a non-professional degree (no Lawyers, Engineers, Doctors) from a private university (can't trust those librul lubin hippie gubmnt funded state universities) would be the candidate for most/nearly all/some of the political positions. Preferably Math/Physics/Chemistry because I am an elitist jerk.
On June 07 2012 07:25 Hnnngg wrote: AND SO HNNNGG SAID, LET THERE BE LIFE.
My question isn't partisan.
I swear.
How do you, as a Republican (I am not a Democrat, I managed to ask a Democrat friend of mine this same question, and I don't have any Republican friends because I am really really really intolerant outside of the internet), feel/think/perceive the fact that most/nearly all/some of politicians (those who are in the power position of politics, not advisers or such) are in fact Lawyers.
Now, I will preface I have no such ill-will towards Lawyers and that is not what this is about. I believe that they (and if I remember correctly, you are also they) do the job that we need them to do. However, I would like to get at least a wide-brushed picture of the Republican viewpoint of a Lawyer being in charge of the government (or at least the face and/or mover of the government) instead of someone with a Scientific background in their field of study.
Personally, I think it would be much much much better if someone with a non-professional degree (no Lawyers, Engineers, Doctors) from a private university (can't trust those librul lubin hippie gubmnt funded state universities) would be the candidate for most/nearly all/some of the political positions. Preferably Math/Physics/Chemistry because I am an elitist jerk.
huh? Lawyers study law. Politicians make and develop laws. It seems like a natural fit.
I understand what you mean, but wouldn't scientists be more interested in pursuing science?
Also, how is that question partisan? It doesn't seem partisan to me.
On June 07 2012 07:25 Hnnngg wrote: AND SO HNNNGG SAID, LET THERE BE LIFE.
My question isn't partisan.
I swear.
How do you, as a Republican (I am not a Democrat, I managed to ask a Democrat friend of mine this same question, and I don't have any Republican friends because I am really really really intolerant outside of the internet), feel/think/perceive the fact that most/nearly all/some of politicians (those who are in the power position of politics, not advisers or such) are in fact Lawyers.
Now, I will preface I have no such ill-will towards Lawyers and that is not what this is about. I believe that they (and if I remember correctly, you are also they) do the job that we need them to do. However, I would like to get at least a wide-brushed picture of the Republican viewpoint of a Lawyer being in charge of the government (or at least the face and/or mover of the government) instead of someone with a Scientific background in their field of study.
Personally, I think it would be much much much better if someone with a non-professional degree (no Lawyers, Engineers, Doctors) from a private university (can't trust those librul lubin hippie gubmnt funded state universities) would be the candidate for most/nearly all/some of the political positions. Preferably Math/Physics/Chemistry because I am an elitist jerk.
huh? Lawyers study law. Politicians make and develop laws. It seems like a natural fit.
I understand what you mean, but wouldn't scientists be more interested in pursuing science?
Also, how is that question partisan? It doesn't seem partisan to me.
I typed isn't but that's cool, np.
Academics being blended with Profession is basically what I'm asking. A professional degree (Law, Medicine, Engineering, Plumbing, Truck Drivers) EXTREMELY, like a lot, limit what you learn in an academic environment. Personally, I know a handful of Engineers and they know nothing besides Engineering.
There is a certain feeling in the liberal internet community (not even a party in America could represent us) that would prefer scientists because they aren't limited towards their field, being a hard science major exposes you to the entirety of the knowledge.
Whereas a professional degree gets you a job. Obviously the Lawyer->Law->Politician->Laws makes some immediate sense but having a Law degree doesn't make you experienced enough (obviously imo) to make a political decision.
Some silly evidence, the way SaintBadger discredited the idea of "theory". Actually not just SaintBadger, but a lot lot lot lot of people. Yes, yes, he linked people that have respectable opinions on the idea of evolution, too bad that's too specific. Even just getting the concept of theory wrong is a big red x where we just need to stop and say, "Wow you are so dumb why am I talking to you."
That is a very naive view of the nature of human knowledge.
"Purity" in that strip is just fundamentalness (and it leaves out philosophy, which should be to the right of mathematics, c.f. Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, et. al.)
But it is a mistake to confuse fundamentalness with truthfulness, or usefulness. Mathematics is more fundamental, but not more true or more useful, than e.g. sociology.
On June 07 2012 09:00 sam!zdat wrote: That is a very naive view of the nature of human knowledge.
"Purity" in that strip is just fundamentalness (and it leaves out philosophy, which should be to the right of mathematics, c.f. Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, et. al.)
But it is a mistake to confuse fundamentalness with truthfulness, or usefulness. Mathematics is more fundamental, but not more true or more useful, than e.g. sociology.
Yeaaaaaah you just said mathematics isn't more useful or true than sociology, so you and me are done talking to each other.
On June 07 2012 09:00 sam!zdat wrote: That is a very naive view of the nature of human knowledge.
"Purity" in that strip is just fundamentalness (and it leaves out philosophy, which should be to the right of mathematics, c.f. Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, et. al.)
But it is a mistake to confuse fundamentalness with truthfulness, or usefulness. Mathematics is more fundamental, but not more true or more useful, than e.g. sociology.
Yeaaaaaah you just said mathematics isn't more useful or true than sociology, so you and me are done talking to each other.
Ok. Have fun figuring out everything in life with math...
edit: How old are you, and how much education do you have? Just out of curiosity. I'm fascinated by people who think things like this.
On June 07 2012 09:00 sam!zdat wrote: That is a very naive view of the nature of human knowledge.
"Purity" in that strip is just fundamentalness (and it leaves out philosophy, which should be to the right of mathematics, c.f. Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, et. al.)
But it is a mistake to confuse fundamentalness with truthfulness, or usefulness. Mathematics is more fundamental, but not more true or more useful, than e.g. sociology.
Yeaaaaaah you just said mathematics isn't more useful or true than sociology, so you and me are done talking to each other.
Ok. Have fun figuring out everything in life with math...
edit: How old are you, and how much education do you have? Just out of curiosity. I'm fascinated by people who think things like this.
If you think mathematics isn't useful, then I don't know what to tell you. Statistics, geometry, and calculus are used in literally every scientific field. Hell, don't get me started about Bayes' Theorem, which is probably one of the most useful things you could ever learn about in life and is the basis of all empiricism (look it up and how it applies to daily life). Yes, I plan on having fun figuring everything out in life through math. Good luck with your intuition and guessing.
I have no idea what you mean by truth. This is some weird definition that makes no sense. In math things are True and False, as opposed to all those sciences which use Laws or empiricism. I mean that's fine, don't get me wrong, but things are actually true in mathematics.
But other things are true and useful as well. You can't derive everything you need to know from zermelo-fraenkel plus choice, you know...
Sometimes you need to study complex systems which cannot be usefully reduced to mathematics. That should be obvious.
edit:
I have no idea what you mean by truth. This is some weird definition that makes no sense. In math things are True and False, as opposed to all those sciences which use Laws or empiricism. I mean that's fine, don't get me wrong, but things are actually true in mathematics.
I understand this. I actually have some background in the philosophy of science, and most of my friends are mathematicians, for what it's worth, so I have a pretty good understanding of what mathematics is.
On June 07 2012 10:22 sam!zdat wrote: I never said mathematics wasn't true or useful...
But other things are true and useful as well. You can't derive everything you need to know from zermelo-frankel plus choice, you know...
Sometimes you need to study complex systems which cannot be usefully reduced to mathematics. That should be obvious.
Yes, you need a model. What's your point? It's still absolutely certain within your model. Unlike the sciences which uses empiricism. Empiricism cannot obtain absolute certainty because it relies on Bayes Theorem.
How do you make anything useful without mathematics and statistics? How do you estimate or approximate without mathematics? Things don't 'reduce down' to mathematics. Things rely on mathematics at every level.
I understand this. I actually have some background in the philosophy of science, and most of my friends are mathematicians, for what it's worth, so I have a pretty good understanding of what mathematics is.
On June 07 2012 10:28 DoubleReed wrote: Then please don't abuse the word 'truth.'
I'm not. There are different sorts of truths, not just a priori analytic ones.
edit: Also, I'm not sure why you think I'm dismissing the usefulness of mathematics. Math is great... Also, I'm an idealist of sorts, by which I mean that I think the universe is fundamentally MADE of math. None of this changes anything.
On June 07 2012 10:30 sam!zdat wrote: For example, consider the following:
Can you prove to me mathematically that reducing all phenomena to mathematics is the best way to go about things?
Your question is circular. The best way to answer it would be to use mathematics, but I can't show that without first showing that the best way to answer it would be to use mathematics.
I'm not. There are different sorts of truths, not just a priori analytic ones.
...I have no idea what you're talking about. This sounds fluffy and poorly defined.
On June 07 2012 10:30 sam!zdat wrote: For example, consider the following:
Can you prove to me mathematically that reducing all phenomena to mathematics is the best way to go about things?
Your question is circular. The best way to answer it would be to use mathematics, but I can't show that without first showing that the best way to answer it would be to use mathematics.
Precisely! Please meditate on this for some time. When you come back, I will give you a certificate of enlightenment.
On June 07 2012 10:30 sam!zdat wrote: For example, consider the following:
Can you prove to me mathematically that reducing all phenomena to mathematics is the best way to go about things?
Your question is circular. The best way to answer it would be to use mathematics, but I can't show that without first showing that the best way to answer it would be to use mathematics.
Precisely! Please meditate on this for some time. When you come back, I will give you a certificate of enlightenment.
I... what? All right, I can't respond anymore without getting insulting and disrespectful. You're just silly.
On June 07 2012 10:30 sam!zdat wrote: For example, consider the following:
Can you prove to me mathematically that reducing all phenomena to mathematics is the best way to go about things?
Your question is circular. The best way to answer it would be to use mathematics, but I can't show that without first showing that the best way to answer it would be to use mathematics.
Precisely! Please meditate on this for some time. When you come back, I will give you a certificate of enlightenment.
I... what? All right, I can't respond anymore without getting insulting and disrespectful. You're just silly.
Perhaps. Have you studied much philosophy? It often seems silly until you understand what the question actually is, at which point it becomes deeply problematic and you lose a lot of sleep.
edit: And I'll add that being able to carry on a conversation without becoming insulting and disrespectful is a useful life skill (which cannot, of course, be reduced to mathematics)
edit again: And please note that the circularity is not in my question, but in your original claim. My question is designed to make you see this internal contradiction in your position.
On June 07 2012 10:30 sam!zdat wrote: For example, consider the following:
Can you prove to me mathematically that reducing all phenomena to mathematics is the best way to go about things?
Your question is circular. The best way to answer it would be to use mathematics, but I can't show that without first showing that the best way to answer it would be to use mathematics.
Precisely! Please meditate on this for some time. When you come back, I will give you a certificate of enlightenment.
I... what? All right, I can't respond anymore without getting insulting and disrespectful. You're just silly.
Perhaps. Have you studied much philosophy? It often seems silly until you understand what the question actually is, at which point it becomes deeply problematic and you lose a lot of sleep.
edit: And I'll add that being able to carry on a conversation without becoming insulting and disrespectful is a useful life skill (which cannot, of course be reduced to mathematics)
No, I don't care much for philosophy myself. I'm a mathematician. The question is simply a poor one. I don't think I need to meditate more than that. It's not that hard to come up with circular, idiotic questions.
Well, if I was more awake I could come up with good jabs that would be a lot more clever and trololol, but at the moment I am drawing a blank. There's no fun in berating someone if you can't do it hilariously, you know.
I would suggest you look up Bayes' Theorem, because it does pertain to philosophy and belief. You might find it fun and enticing.
And please note that the circularity is not in my question, but in your original claim. My question is designed to make you see this internal contradiction in your position.
Uhh... I see it as tautological or possibly axiomatic, but not contradicting...
Yes, I'm familiar with Bayes theorem. I have studied it in the context of the philosophy of language, though I am hardly an expert. I don't see what it has to do with this, however.
Do you realize that mathematics as you know it comes out of philosophy? Specifically early twentieth century analytic philosophy, like Frege and Russell, who essentially invented set theory?
Uhh... I see it as tautological, not contradicting...
Hmm... can you elaborate on what the tautology is?
edit: so perhaps "essentially invented" is an overstatement... at least "made significant contributions to." I don't want any limbs breaking beneath me.
Anyway, the point is, how are you going to go about studying history or making a better, more just society with just pure mathematics?
edit: I know it's popular for people who do everything with numbers to think that people in humanities departments spend all day picking lint from the navels and talking about flowers, and due to the sad state of the humanities in our educational system there is an element of truth to this, but you can't seriously think that there are NO objects of inquiry which can't be usefully studied with mathematics.
For example, why has Western culture changed so much in the last 100 years? Do you have a mathematical explanation for this? Can you characterize the change mathematically?
On June 07 2012 10:52 sam!zdat wrote: Yes, I'm familiar with Bayes theorem. I have studied it in the context of the philosophy of language, though I am hardly an expert. I don't see what it has to do with this, however.
Do you realize that mathematics as you know it comes out of philosophy? Specifically early twentieth century analytic philosophy, like Frege and Russell, who essentially invented set theory?
Uhh... I see it as tautological, not contradicting...
Hmm... can you elaborate on what the tautology is?
edit: so perhaps "essentially invented" is an overstatment... at least "made significant contributions to." I don't want any limbs breaking beneath me.
Set Theory is philosophy? Is logical systems philosophy? I've only heard of them in the context of specifically mathematics. I've never studied philosophy, but I've studied logic.
Care to elaborate about what is contradicting? I see absolutely no contradiction. I see my answer being forced to be circular, but that means it's tautological, in which case maybe "things are better solved with mathematics" needs to be taken as an axiom in my model or something. But I can't see where I contradict myself anywhere.
Bayesians take Bayes' Theorem to be the basic law of belief. Anything that you believe is example of Bayes' Theorem. Through this lens it actually becomes the basis of the scientific method (in fact, completely surpassing the scientific method). Beliefs are used in everyday life to do even menial tasks, and using Bayes' Theorem can let you benefit even in this way.
Anyway, the point is, how are you going to go about studying history or making a better, more just society with just pure mathematics?
edit: I know it's popular for people who do everything with numbers to think that people in humanities departments spend all day picking lint from the navels and talking about flowers, and due to the sad state of the humanities in our educational system there is an element of truth to this, but you can't seriously think that there are NO objects of inquiry which can't be usefully studied with mathematics.
For example, why has Western culture changed so much in the last 100 years? Do you have a mathematical explanation for this? Can you characterize the change mathematically?
This is confusing. I'm not insulting humanities, am I? You can't study history or society or whatever without understanding things like biology/chemistry, because that's how humans work. I don't really understand your point.
Mathematics CAN be used to study history or make a more just society. We use statistics all the time to figure out the issues in society. Mathematics can be applied at all levels, and is usually used to actually provide context and meaning to the other stuff. I'm not saying mathematics is exclusively useful (which seems to be what your question is getting at), I'm saying it is useful at all levels all the time.
Logic, and by extension set theory, are generally considered part of philosophy, not mathematics. In this sense, philosophy bears the same relation to mathematics that mathematics bears to physics. (Sometimes I say controversial things; this is not one of them).
Bayesianism is not uncontroversial, though I'm out of my comfort zone here and I'm not really qualified to discuss it. I do know that there are things which are worth knowing that the scientific method can't really help you with (although I think students in the humanities very often underestimate the importance of scientific models and paradigms for their own studies, empirical methods of inquiry cannot replace critical inquiry as such. Culture, for example, is a phenomenon which really exists, and has real, material effects on the world, but resists the application of empirical scientific inquiry.).
Is your claim that mathematics is the only and best way to go about collecting all knowledge?
edit: It will perhaps be amusing to note that, in my field, people think I'm weird because I like math too MUCH. So I'm really not trying to dismiss math here, because I think math is a very useful thing to study. But it is not the be-all end-all of human knowledge, as some mathematicians (but very few philosophers) like to think.
On June 07 2012 11:02 DoubleReed wrote: This is confusing. I'm not insulting humanities, am I? You can't study history or society or whatever without understanding things like biology/chemistry, because that's how humans work. I don't really understand your point.
Mathematics CAN be used to study history or make a more just society. We use statistics all the time to figure out the issues in society. Mathematics can be applied at all levels, and is usually used to actually provide context and meaning to the other stuff. I'm not saying mathematics is exclusively useful (which seems to be what your question is getting at), I'm saying it is useful at all levels all the time.
Perhaps we are talking past each other. The guy before you was making precisely this claim.
In general, though, it gets less useful as you travel up the hierarchy of emergence, so things at the very top, like culture, can't be very usefully studied with mathematics.
edit: for illustration, just consider the difference between the way math is used in physics and how it is used in a "higher" field, like sociology. Things get more fuzzy as you go up, and you have to use more language and less math.
On June 07 2012 11:02 DoubleReed wrote: This is confusing. I'm not insulting humanities, am I? You can't study history or society or whatever without understanding things like biology/chemistry, because that's how humans work. I don't really understand your point.
Mathematics CAN be used to study history or make a more just society. We use statistics all the time to figure out the issues in society. Mathematics can be applied at all levels, and is usually used to actually provide context and meaning to the other stuff. I'm not saying mathematics is exclusively useful (which seems to be what your question is getting at), I'm saying it is useful at all levels all the time.
Perhaps we are talking past each other. The guy before you was making precisely this claim.
In general, though, it gets less useful as you travel up the hierarchy of emergence, so things at the very top, like culture, can't be very usefully studied with mathematics.
edit: for illustration, just consider the difference between the way math is used in physics and how it is used in a "higher" field, like sociology. Things get more fuzzy as you go up, and you have to use more language and less math.
So what you're saying is that a sociologist would be better than a lawyer.
Right, I can agree with that. I only said a hard science would be preferable but any other "science" would be better than lawyer.
Presumably, you would want to have specialists from all fields working together and listening to each other, as crazy a thought as that is.
It is probably not possible to accomplish in a western-style mass-mediatized "democracy" with a moribund educational system, however.
edit: Lawyers are useful, though, like financiers, their importance in society is significantly out of proportion with their usefulness to the commonweal.
On June 07 2012 11:28 sam!zdat wrote: Presumably, you would want to have specialists from all fields working together and listening to each other, as crazy a thought as that is.
It is probably not possible to accomplish in a western-style mass-mediatized "democracy" with a moribund educational system, however.
and then we could banter about the idea of meritocracy instead what you guys were doing .
Basically I guess my reformed question for Saint (where he may be, whoever he may be) would be the Republican/Conservative viewpoint, that he can present, on technocracy.
I asked my Democrat friend, basically said 1. Didn't care, 2. Didn't think it would matter.
EDIT: Yeah I said Lawyers are useful, mostly because they are. They also should be a part of the political process, where appropriate instead of just being saturated throughout the entire American political process.
On June 07 2012 11:33 Hnnngg wrote: and then we could banter about the idea of meritocracy instead what you guys were doing .
But this goes back to the same question. How do your technocrats know what kind of a society would be worth making? You are going to need some philosophers.
edit: another way to think about it: science cannot tell us what "usefulness" means in the first place. That is a philosophical, not empirical, question.
On June 07 2012 11:33 Hnnngg wrote: and then we could banter about the idea of meritocracy instead what you guys were doing .
But this goes back to the same question. How do your technocrats know what kind of a society would be worth making? You are going to need some philosophers.
edit: another way to think about it: science cannot tell us what "usefulness" means in the first place. That is a philosophical, not empirical, question.
Yeah, I don't think lawyers would be able to figure that out either.
Not positing an exact better idea, more of a question on how a populist party like Republicans would take some weird science and logic conglomerate government.
Half-way implying that the Republican/Conservative party would be against it. Not that Democrats/"Liberals" would be any more or less against it. I'd guess less, but mostly because I'm an optimist.
On June 07 2012 11:33 Hnnngg wrote: and then we could banter about the idea of meritocracy instead what you guys were doing .
But this goes back to the same question. How do your technocrats know what kind of a society would be worth making? You are going to need some philosophers.
edit: another way to think about it: science cannot tell us what "usefulness" means in the first place. That is a philosophical, not empirical, question.
How is utility not a empirical question? What a random assertion.
What is usefulness, and how would you discover it empirically?
Once you've decided what usefulness is, you can discover empirically how best to achieve that goal, but empirical methods can't tell you what's useful in the first place. How would you do that?
edit: A society has to decide what its goals are, and that's not an empirical question.
edit again: Science gives you technology, but it doesn't tell you how to use that technology.