[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i]
[B]You, good sir, rock. We could use more people like you. About four million more, in fact, but that's neither here nor there.
[/b]
Well, why don't you give some of those well-thought-out reasons. Just a short list, maybe a dozen items, on why John Smith, from Anytown, USA should've voted for George W. Bush.
And, hey, [i]I'm[/i] not the one who threatened to kill people, simply because they have a different opinion, no matter how inflammatorily it was presented. If you know that you made a well-thought-out decision, don't go into a murderous rage when someone calls you a moron. Attempt to educate and enlighten them. Sure, it won't work, but it'll prove you aren't just some beer-guzzling redneck who didn't want to vote for a rich pretty-boy who the bald scary man on the Tee-Vee said was a flipper-flop. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actualy that kind of response has been coming from several kerry supporters, along with even in this thread attempts to belittle and dehumanize those with diverging opinions.
And everything else you wrote is inflamatory rehtoric devoid of the factual material you are calling for. I sense a double standard?
Anyways I will give you a some reasons.
1. social security needs to be completely overhalled. The current system depends on a dramatic and major influx of new taxpayers or constantly higher taxes to support those receving benefits.
The idea of "a social security lock box" is a lie, all money recivied via the social security taxes is put into the general fund, and all recipts paid out are done by the general fund. Either recently or sometime in the future the amount of money being payed. privitization in some form, or using perhaps long term bonds is the only way out of that mess, as the current system has degenerated into a pyramid scheme which, like all pyramid schemes will collapse, and in this case probably irreperably shatter the nation.
2. Tort reform is needed, and not just for corporations but for individuals, indeed the entire judicial body needs to be modified so that personal responsiblity is paramount. People who get injured on my land and do not have my permision to be there should not be able to hold me culpable for their injuries, Im sorry.
Even if the tort reform is to cap the percentage of damages lawyers recieve or establish a flat cap on them while allowing the rest of the money to go to the victoms, you will see a lessinging in the litegiousness of this society.
3. Defense and foreign policy issues. The whole "the US caused it" argument is BULLSHIT. Im sorry, with a few excemptions the role the US had in the world may have been major, but only when viewed in the context of the period of time since 1948 and till about 1989. thats 41 years. The trends we are viewing at play in the world today, especially in latin america, africa and asia have their roots MUCH farther back. In fact the nations which ought to be cleaning up that mess are the european nations, since they were once the colonial masters of those regions, often untill after WWII (much of central africa was only decolonized in the 60's) and they held the damn places for over a century. If there is cultural disintergration the euro's better start blaiming themselves.
Yes the United States did alot of meddling around during the cold war, and we should endevour to fix those issues, but how to do so, frankly if somebody else here can come up with a way to reform a nation states political structure when it is resisting such reform that doesnt involve invasion, post it here! then submit it to some journals! your looking at a noble prize if it works!
4. I ineherently distrust centralization. Centralization means more power by those inside government and more tools for them to manifest control. And wheather people like to admit it or not, government programs to address any problem are an increase in power and responsiblity of the government. And just because you may agree with Kerry's position, hell even if I agree with Bush's posistion, that doesnt mean were not going to get a real nutjob 30 years down the road.
5. Im a second ammendment fanatic. Which REALLY REALLY threatens those with power. disarming the public is not about public saftey. Australia and UK after disarming can show no provable increase in public saftey, in Australia and the UK murders went down, yes, but they were declining at the same rates they had been prior to their laws. And yes Im willing to trade some insecurity for the ability of the people to posses a massive hedge against the goverment. And if you think insurections by a populace are impossible, then explain why iraq is so impossible to deal with? My M1A may not be fully automatic, but its a hell of alot more accurate then any AK, and there are AP rounds in civilian hands in the US meaning the first round might not blow through the trauma panel but number 3 will. That right there is a powerfull tool against potential tyranny.
6. The economy, NON ISSUE since the president doesnt deal with the economy. even the all mighty FDR, NEVER grew the GNP untill his 4th term, (you know that whole war thing occured though) And again untill the war unemployement never dropped below 10%. The only thing trully usefull his public works projects accomplished, is beefing up the US navy just before WWII, it was under the disguise of keeping the shipyard workers at work that the US ended up with 5 aircraft carriers, a dozen extra crusiers and quite a few DD's. And for that I give grudging approval.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i]
[B]You, good sir, rock. We could use more people like you. About four million more, in fact, but that's neither here nor there.
[/B][/QUOTE]
and you sir, dared to patronize me two pages back?
Everything is fine. Thanks. By the way, I'm sorry. I realize I've said some unkind things. It was only because I was upset. And insulted. And somewhat terrified. But I'm better now. Good day.
Im going to reccomend that if you live on the west coast, move. If/when Bush decides its time to stop the North Korean threat, I think they have missiles that can reach you guys now.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]its ok to be terrified, I am.
Im going to reccomend that if you live on the west coast, move. If/when Bush decides its time to stop the North Korean threat, I think they have missiles that can reach you guys now. [/B][/QUOTE]That's what Star Wars is for. :rolleyes:
It's too bad you banned SB for saying out loud what most of the people in the world pretty much think anyway, if not exactly though, and being a natural human being showing anger and using swear words and talking about things with their real names.
I don't agree 100% with everything what SB's said over the years, but I respect him, because he's one of those rare people who's got enough courage to talk about things with their real names and is not licking anyones asses just for the sake of friendship or some stupid correctness.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i]
[B]Okey-dokey.
Everything is fine. Thanks. By the way, I'm sorry. I realize I've said some unkind things. It was only because I was upset. And insulted. And somewhat terrified. But I'm better now. Good day. [/B][/QUOTE]
Apology accepted. I'll admit, I had the wrong impression from you from some of the things you said.
In the past I've tried to do what Tyvar just did. People like Faylorn, who I do miss very dearly, would rip it to shreds, and it would eventually come down to whose "facts" one believed. Neither side gained anything from it. It would have been a waste of time, if it didn't help each side refine and examine their own beliefs.
Now it doesn't seem like that's happening anymore, and that's why I stepped in. It seemed like some *cough*Shadow Boxer*cough* were just lashing out. Instead of waiting for the gradual descent from logical, reasonable discussion and debate to flaming and name-calling, we just skipped that here and went straight to the latter.
Though I myself have conservative principles, I'm glad there's a healthy percentage out there who disagree. Let's face it - if it was just us, we'd end up with facism eventually, and if it was just them, we'd end up socialists or communists eventually. For a stable, healthy system to grow and thrive, you need discussion and compromise. Synergy, to throw a bone to the JMS followers here.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vertigo_1 [/i]
[B]Wow. Just.....wow.
What seems to be bothering people like Tyvar is the attitudes of the people who supported Kerry. Before the election, they thought they were right, Bush is a retard, he's going to screw over the country, a choice between Hitler and Bush would yield Hitler, and that [i]everyone in their right mind thought the same.[/i] But apparently 59.2 million people thought differently. In the face of this, the reaction isn't, "Well, we'll wait and see," or "Perhaps they had a good reason," the assumption is that all 59 million of them have some kind of mental illness! They must have made their decision based on erronious information, or maybe they were all just brought up by strict, closed-minded fundementalists, or they were ignorant, or they were all abused children, or they're in bed with big business, or something, [i]anything[/i] other than the mere suggestion that they might be making an informed or well-thought-out decision. Anyone who voted for Kerry thinks, has weighed the issues, and made the right decision after much conscientious soul-searching. Anybody that votes for Bush is just a bandwagoneer, ignorant, and is just about as original as your average cattle. [/B][/QUOTE]
Thanks for saying that... Because that's exactly what it is that's bothering me about this whole fucking thing...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]Actualy that kind of response has been coming from several kerry supporters, along with even in this thread attempts to belittle and dehumanize those with diverging opinions. [/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]its ok to be terrified, I am.
Im going to reccomend that if you live on the west coast, move. If/when Bush decides its time to stop the North Korean threat, I think they have missiles that can reach you guys now. [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm in the process of getting ready to leave California for good. Not for the reasons above, but they are a potential motivator as well (Not because Bush is president, but because the threat would be there regardless of who was in office).
This state is so messed up, and I don't see any hope for better times for a long while.
Now, do we need to talk about potential Terrorist Nukes/Bio/Chemical weapons that are probably trained on us already (and I mean the WHOLE USA), and just waiting for the right moment to be released?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PJH [/i]
[B]It's too bad you banned SB for saying out loud what most of the people in the world pretty much think anyway, if not exactly though, and being a natural human being showing anger and using swear words and talking about things with their real names.
That was a stupid decision.
- PJH [/B][/QUOTE]
hate to say it mate but there are rules to be followed...
From the [b]Rules and Guidlines[/b]
[quote]
Behave: no flaming, no unnecessary swearing at people, no personal attacks, etc.
[/quote]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by the_exile [/i]
[B]That's what Star Wars is for. :rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]
You mean we get to fling those horrible original trilogy DVDs at someone else and let THEM suffer for a change? ;)
Seriously though, WTF is going on here?! We all have different opinions, but thats no reason to attack eachother dammit. Now lets let bygones be bygones and let this thread die the death it deserves.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by WHY [/i]
[B]I suggest this button be used.
Its because you're not clicking it right. You have to hit CTRL ALT DEL and type /join #2,000 in IRC for it to work right.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
You know...SB flames and swears all the time...but only in this thread does that earn him a ban. :rolleyes:
Anyway. I think the biggest problem with Bush is that for those that do not like him it isn't just one issue we were against - it was almost everything he stood for: his lack of environmentalism, his pro-corporatism, his war in Iraq which wasn't needed, his marginalizing of world allies, his US-centric view, his "moral and religious" justification of everything, his inability to admit mistakes, etc.
To those of us who disliked him we disliked almost everything about him. This means we have very very little that we can find to say "maybe something will work out" about. We know his record and it is the antithesis of what we believe in. Now the fact that half the country does believe in his record indicates how divided our great country really is. According to exit polls the "moral" position (I still can't understand where this whole equation of morality and the GOP comes from) represented the reason 25% of the voters came out - and they predominately went for Bush.
On to this question of morality and why it seems to equate with one party over the other. For years the GOP has been making a big issue out of abortion rights and more recently gay rights. Congress rarely says anything on either of these issues. Yet at the same time there can be another moral position: corporate pandering, personal ethics and morals, etc. To these neither party ranks very good - the republicans slightly worse in my book then the democrats. So why, if there are so many moral problems, would anyone think that Bush and the GOP is really supporting their view on morality?
Anyway - I don't think this discussion will ever really be understood. Personally I believe in the idea of free choice and action, so long as that action does not endanger the life or property of another. The point at which you start life is generally assumed to be at birth and not conception. Abortion rights does not force people to have abortions that believe it is morally wrong. It only allows those to have it that believe it is morally right. Anti-abortion forces those that wish to have abortion to be unable to have them, and doesn't change the position of those that believe it morally wrong not to have one. This is my objection: Anti-abortion limits a group that has no problem with abortions, but pro-abortion does not impact upton those who believe abortions wrong beyond providing a temtation...which is something in their all-full-of-themselves moral superior position they should be able to shun.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ok...that was a bit more of a rant then I wanted...oh well :)
As for fear... I think I have it the most. Bush is not the one I am worried about, like I have said before I think he is too stupid to cause much trouble. Its his staff. Its Ashcroft I am afraid of.
Funny how he wasn't seen or heard from much during election time...........
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
Well - AP is reporting that aides to Ashcroft are saying that Ashcroft may soon resign - most likely before even the normal resignation point for 2nd terms of January - due to fatigue of responsibility.
To us republicans we have the same feeling about democrats and morality, that its not there.
The democrats are in bed with their own power blocks that advance their causes at the expense of others.
As for environmentalism, with some exeptions such as air and water quality, republicans are skeptical of the science on alot of things. Like Global warming you can find many legitimate scientists who completely disagree with it. Yet its treated like gospel even though its a theory with as many serious detractors and supporters.
And thats not a lie that people claim it as the truth, when all it is is a very tentative theory, that as time progresses is actually loosing credibility?
And dont get me started on Kyoto, Kyoto was a political ploy to further eliminate US manufacturing from global competition, it would have probably put alot of people, including many here on this board out of work, because plants would have moved and with those movements supporting jobs would have gone. Because Kyoto didnt target every nation equally, or even in any kind of fairness. Japan, Russia, Milaysia, Indonesia and Brazil would have tottaly exemted themselves due to some brilliant lanugage they negotated, and other countries had alot of things in there which dramaticly reduced its inpact on them.
As for the US's "allies" they have never been that firm, France especially has done things in the past 40 years that has put american security at risk, because it benefits france. Germany to a lesser extent has done the same.
Nations look out for themselves.
As for the abortion issue, we have a deeper problem.
I want everybody here to sit back and think, where DO rights come from? what is it that gives us rights?
This is an important question and shapes everything else were discussing.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B] I want everybody here to sit back and think, where DO rights come from? what is it that gives us rights?[/B][/QUOTE]
We get rights from our own innate ability to reason due to an evolutionary process that has resulted in the present human brain combined with cultural traditions that have developed over hundreds of thousands of years and certain biochemical responces to specific types of stimuli.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by WHY [/i]
[B]I'm less pissed about Bush being in office, more pissed about how in 30 states not only was gay marriage banned, Civil Unions were specifically dissallowed, as well as recognizing any aforementioned civil-union made in another state. [/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Random Chaos [/i]
[B]We get rights from our own innate ability to reason due to an evolutionary process that has resulted in the present human brain combined with cultural traditions that have developed over hundreds of thousands of years and certain biochemical responces to specific types of stimuli.
At least that's my view :) [/B][/QUOTE]
So in essence natrual rights are nothing more the social consensus? is that what your saying?
As for the ability to reason being a carte blanch cause for rights, I think its quite possible to create scenarios where entities which have some capacity to reason would not be extended rights.
I mean rats navigate mazes.
Also your argument implies that only humans would have rights, not any other sentient beings we encounter.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
Yes - the difference is level of developed communication combined with long term cultural development based on that communication ability. Humans have this. Rats don't. Why? Becuase our brain developed in a way that enables us to understand and vocalize a complex communications method with near unlimited possible vocalized combinations.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B] Also your argument implies that only humans would have rights, not any other sentient beings we encounter. [/B][/QUOTE]
No, his explanation did not exclude other sentient beings. Yes, Random Chaos did use the word "Human" in his argument, but that mean that when we DO meet other sentient beings that we wouldn't change to include them. Hopefully by the time we do encounter them, we'll be more evolved ourselves.
I'm going to keep pushing the gay marriage/civil union ban thing...
That, along with the fact that a good %20 voted primarily based on "moral reasons" just makes you look like you're full of religious nutjobs.
no offense to A#
[SIZE=1]I kid because I love.[/SIZE]
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
While I don't agree with tyvar's interpretation of my statement applying only to humans, Rambie's interpretation leaves out a lot of nuiances that I feel ar needed.
This is a more accurate view on what I see:
Human morality is only available to humans. Why? Every species brain and historical cultural evolution is different. Therefore every speicies that can define morality would be different then what we see as morality. (I in no way claim that other species ever are able to - only that those with sufficient brain development and ability to "learn" might) I therefore also feel that our application of any one human culture's morality to other cultures, or even species, often ignores the fact that their morality may be different then our's.
In fact this different in morality becuase of different cultural traditions is a lot of the cause of the Red-vs-Blue divide in this country.
Alot of things communicate, and RC attributed it to a property in the HUMAN brain, if its not a property of purely the human brain, then it is some other general property.
And if its through cultural conditioning why do all the despirate human cultures have such different notions of rights?
Our idea of natural rights comes straight from John Locke and Thomas Aquinas, if you go back before say 1000 AD you will find no mention of rights what so ever. So if they are some quality that originated from the mind and from ages of cultural conditiong, how come they havent existed untill recently?
that gets me on another tangent
David of Mac made the comparisons between conservatives and 17th century aristocrats, which is falls generated by european political commentators so not understanding that american conservatives are radicly different then european conservatives.
The political bible of all american conservatives are two works, John Locke's two treities of civil government and Adam Smiths "The Wealth of Nations: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes" NOT Montesque, or Hobbes, who are the foundations of european political conservatisim.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
Tyvar: Choice of words "Human Brain" refer to "Human Morality" - the topic of our discussion. It excludes nothing.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Random Chaos [/i]
[B]While I don't agree with tyvar's interpretation of my statement applying only to humans, I also don't agree with Rambie's interpretation.
This is a more accurate view on what I see:
Human morality is only available to humans. Why? Every species brain and historical cultural evolution is different. Therefore every speicies that can define morality would be different then what we see as morality. (I in no way claim that other species ever are able to - only that those with sufficient brain development and ability to "learn" might) I therefore also feel that our application of any one human culture's morality to other cultures, or even species, often ignores the fact that their morality may be different then our's.
In fact this different in morality becuase of different cultural traditions is a lot of the cause of the Red-vs-Blue divide in this country. [/B][/QUOTE]
Whoot! thank you! you just made my day! :D
Alright we have here the classical reltavisitc argument.
That what is true for one person is not true for another. So at one time some thing is both wrong and not wrong, say, slavery. Thus you have an inherent contradiction.
You have eliminated the possibitlity for a true morality meaning its nothing more then a permable social construct that we all agree to live with due to at best elightend self interest.
But you can not have any act ever be truly "immoral" just you know a BAD idea.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B] And if its through cultural conditioning why do all the despirate human cultures have such different notions of rights?
Our idea of natural rights comes straight from John Locke and Thomas Aquinas, if you go back before say 1000 AD you will find no mention of rights what so ever. So if they are some quality that originated from the mind and from ages of cultural conditiong, how come they havent existed untill recently?[/B][/QUOTE]
Becuase disparate cultures, prior to the last couple hundred years, did not intermingle much. Thus cultural conditioning would have had different historical development in different parts of the world. In fact you state the entire core of your answer: "And if its through cultural conditioning why do all the despirate human cultures have such different notions of rights?
As for Locke, et al - they are an element of our cultural history.
This is actually one of the reasons I so like the internet. It allows cultural intermingaling that will result in a more unified world. Unfortunately this same cultural intermingaling has resulted in religious extreamist movements in every religion - even inside the US - though many like to deny this.
Comments
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i]
[B]You, good sir, rock. We could use more people like you. About four million more, in fact, but that's neither here nor there.
[/b]
Well, why don't you give some of those well-thought-out reasons. Just a short list, maybe a dozen items, on why John Smith, from Anytown, USA should've voted for George W. Bush.
And, hey, [i]I'm[/i] not the one who threatened to kill people, simply because they have a different opinion, no matter how inflammatorily it was presented. If you know that you made a well-thought-out decision, don't go into a murderous rage when someone calls you a moron. Attempt to educate and enlighten them. Sure, it won't work, but it'll prove you aren't just some beer-guzzling redneck who didn't want to vote for a rich pretty-boy who the bald scary man on the Tee-Vee said was a flipper-flop. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actualy that kind of response has been coming from several kerry supporters, along with even in this thread attempts to belittle and dehumanize those with diverging opinions.
And everything else you wrote is inflamatory rehtoric devoid of the factual material you are calling for. I sense a double standard?
Anyways I will give you a some reasons.
1. social security needs to be completely overhalled. The current system depends on a dramatic and major influx of new taxpayers or constantly higher taxes to support those receving benefits.
The idea of "a social security lock box" is a lie, all money recivied via the social security taxes is put into the general fund, and all recipts paid out are done by the general fund. Either recently or sometime in the future the amount of money being payed. privitization in some form, or using perhaps long term bonds is the only way out of that mess, as the current system has degenerated into a pyramid scheme which, like all pyramid schemes will collapse, and in this case probably irreperably shatter the nation.
2. Tort reform is needed, and not just for corporations but for individuals, indeed the entire judicial body needs to be modified so that personal responsiblity is paramount. People who get injured on my land and do not have my permision to be there should not be able to hold me culpable for their injuries, Im sorry.
Even if the tort reform is to cap the percentage of damages lawyers recieve or establish a flat cap on them while allowing the rest of the money to go to the victoms, you will see a lessinging in the litegiousness of this society.
3. Defense and foreign policy issues. The whole "the US caused it" argument is BULLSHIT. Im sorry, with a few excemptions the role the US had in the world may have been major, but only when viewed in the context of the period of time since 1948 and till about 1989. thats 41 years. The trends we are viewing at play in the world today, especially in latin america, africa and asia have their roots MUCH farther back. In fact the nations which ought to be cleaning up that mess are the european nations, since they were once the colonial masters of those regions, often untill after WWII (much of central africa was only decolonized in the 60's) and they held the damn places for over a century. If there is cultural disintergration the euro's better start blaiming themselves.
Yes the United States did alot of meddling around during the cold war, and we should endevour to fix those issues, but how to do so, frankly if somebody else here can come up with a way to reform a nation states political structure when it is resisting such reform that doesnt involve invasion, post it here! then submit it to some journals! your looking at a noble prize if it works!
4. I ineherently distrust centralization. Centralization means more power by those inside government and more tools for them to manifest control. And wheather people like to admit it or not, government programs to address any problem are an increase in power and responsiblity of the government. And just because you may agree with Kerry's position, hell even if I agree with Bush's posistion, that doesnt mean were not going to get a real nutjob 30 years down the road.
5. Im a second ammendment fanatic. Which REALLY REALLY threatens those with power. disarming the public is not about public saftey. Australia and UK after disarming can show no provable increase in public saftey, in Australia and the UK murders went down, yes, but they were declining at the same rates they had been prior to their laws. And yes Im willing to trade some insecurity for the ability of the people to posses a massive hedge against the goverment. And if you think insurections by a populace are impossible, then explain why iraq is so impossible to deal with? My M1A may not be fully automatic, but its a hell of alot more accurate then any AK, and there are AP rounds in civilian hands in the US meaning the first round might not blow through the trauma panel but number 3 will. That right there is a powerfull tool against potential tyranny.
6. The economy, NON ISSUE since the president doesnt deal with the economy. even the all mighty FDR, NEVER grew the GNP untill his 4th term, (you know that whole war thing occured though) And again untill the war unemployement never dropped below 10%. The only thing trully usefull his public works projects accomplished, is beefing up the US navy just before WWII, it was under the disguise of keeping the shipyard workers at work that the US ended up with 5 aircraft carriers, a dozen extra crusiers and quite a few DD's. And for that I give grudging approval.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i]
[B]You, good sir, rock. We could use more people like you. About four million more, in fact, but that's neither here nor there.
[/B][/QUOTE]
and you sir, dared to patronize me two pages back?
Heh, shameless, arn't we? :p
Okey-dokey.
Everything is fine. Thanks. By the way, I'm sorry. I realize I've said some unkind things. It was only because I was upset. And insulted. And somewhat terrified. But I'm better now. Good day.
Im going to reccomend that if you live on the west coast, move. If/when Bush decides its time to stop the North Korean threat, I think they have missiles that can reach you guys now.
[B]its ok to be terrified, I am.
Im going to reccomend that if you live on the west coast, move. If/when Bush decides its time to stop the North Korean threat, I think they have missiles that can reach you guys now. [/B][/QUOTE]That's what Star Wars is for. :rolleyes:
I don't agree 100% with everything what SB's said over the years, but I respect him, because he's one of those rare people who's got enough courage to talk about things with their real names and is not licking anyones asses just for the sake of friendship or some stupid correctness.
That was a stupid decision.
- PJH
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i]
[B]Okey-dokey.
Everything is fine. Thanks. By the way, I'm sorry. I realize I've said some unkind things. It was only because I was upset. And insulted. And somewhat terrified. But I'm better now. Good day. [/B][/QUOTE]
Apology accepted. I'll admit, I had the wrong impression from you from some of the things you said.
In the past I've tried to do what Tyvar just did. People like Faylorn, who I do miss very dearly, would rip it to shreds, and it would eventually come down to whose "facts" one believed. Neither side gained anything from it. It would have been a waste of time, if it didn't help each side refine and examine their own beliefs.
Now it doesn't seem like that's happening anymore, and that's why I stepped in. It seemed like some *cough*Shadow Boxer*cough* were just lashing out. Instead of waiting for the gradual descent from logical, reasonable discussion and debate to flaming and name-calling, we just skipped that here and went straight to the latter.
Though I myself have conservative principles, I'm glad there's a healthy percentage out there who disagree. Let's face it - if it was just us, we'd end up with facism eventually, and if it was just them, we'd end up socialists or communists eventually. For a stable, healthy system to grow and thrive, you need discussion and compromise. Synergy, to throw a bone to the JMS followers here.
[B]Wow. Just.....wow.
What seems to be bothering people like Tyvar is the attitudes of the people who supported Kerry. Before the election, they thought they were right, Bush is a retard, he's going to screw over the country, a choice between Hitler and Bush would yield Hitler, and that [i]everyone in their right mind thought the same.[/i] But apparently 59.2 million people thought differently. In the face of this, the reaction isn't, "Well, we'll wait and see," or "Perhaps they had a good reason," the assumption is that all 59 million of them have some kind of mental illness! They must have made their decision based on erronious information, or maybe they were all just brought up by strict, closed-minded fundementalists, or they were ignorant, or they were all abused children, or they're in bed with big business, or something, [i]anything[/i] other than the mere suggestion that they might be making an informed or well-thought-out decision. Anyone who voted for Kerry thinks, has weighed the issues, and made the right decision after much conscientious soul-searching. Anybody that votes for Bush is just a bandwagoneer, ignorant, and is just about as original as your average cattle. [/B][/QUOTE]
Thanks for saying that... Because that's exactly what it is that's bothering me about this whole fucking thing...
;)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]Actualy that kind of response has been coming from several kerry supporters, along with even in this thread attempts to belittle and dehumanize those with diverging opinions. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yep...
[B]its ok to be terrified, I am.
Im going to reccomend that if you live on the west coast, move. If/when Bush decides its time to stop the North Korean threat, I think they have missiles that can reach you guys now. [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm in the process of getting ready to leave California for good. Not for the reasons above, but they are a potential motivator as well (Not because Bush is president, but because the threat would be there regardless of who was in office).
This state is so messed up, and I don't see any hope for better times for a long while.
Now, do we need to talk about potential Terrorist Nukes/Bio/Chemical weapons that are probably trained on us already (and I mean the WHOLE USA), and just waiting for the right moment to be released?
[B]It's too bad you banned SB for saying out loud what most of the people in the world pretty much think anyway, if not exactly though, and being a natural human being showing anger and using swear words and talking about things with their real names.
That was a stupid decision.
- PJH [/B][/QUOTE]
hate to say it mate but there are rules to be followed...
From the [b]Rules and Guidlines[/b]
[quote]
Behave: no flaming, no unnecessary swearing at people, no personal attacks, etc.
[/quote]
[B]That's what Star Wars is for. :rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]
You mean we get to fling those horrible original trilogy DVDs at someone else and let THEM suffer for a change? ;)
Seriously though, WTF is going on here?! We all have different opinions, but thats no reason to attack eachother dammit. Now lets let bygones be bygones and let this thread die the death it deserves.
[B]I suggest this button be used.
[IMG]http://forums.firstones.com/images/sendpm.gif[/IMG]
otherwise let the grownups talk. [/B][/QUOTE]
Well I just kept clicking it and clicking it and nothing happened!
It could of been any other Republican for all I care. I really just don't like W.
-Quigoni
Anyway. I think the biggest problem with Bush is that for those that do not like him it isn't just one issue we were against - it was almost everything he stood for: his lack of environmentalism, his pro-corporatism, his war in Iraq which wasn't needed, his marginalizing of world allies, his US-centric view, his "moral and religious" justification of everything, his inability to admit mistakes, etc.
To those of us who disliked him we disliked almost everything about him. This means we have very very little that we can find to say "maybe something will work out" about. We know his record and it is the antithesis of what we believe in. Now the fact that half the country does believe in his record indicates how divided our great country really is. According to exit polls the "moral" position (I still can't understand where this whole equation of morality and the GOP comes from) represented the reason 25% of the voters came out - and they predominately went for Bush.
On to this question of morality and why it seems to equate with one party over the other. For years the GOP has been making a big issue out of abortion rights and more recently gay rights. Congress rarely says anything on either of these issues. Yet at the same time there can be another moral position: corporate pandering, personal ethics and morals, etc. To these neither party ranks very good - the republicans slightly worse in my book then the democrats. So why, if there are so many moral problems, would anyone think that Bush and the GOP is really supporting their view on morality?
Anyway - I don't think this discussion will ever really be understood. Personally I believe in the idea of free choice and action, so long as that action does not endanger the life or property of another. The point at which you start life is generally assumed to be at birth and not conception. Abortion rights does not force people to have abortions that believe it is morally wrong. It only allows those to have it that believe it is morally right. Anti-abortion forces those that wish to have abortion to be unable to have them, and doesn't change the position of those that believe it morally wrong not to have one. This is my objection: Anti-abortion limits a group that has no problem with abortions, but pro-abortion does not impact upton those who believe abortions wrong beyond providing a temtation...which is something in their all-full-of-themselves moral superior position they should be able to shun.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ok...that was a bit more of a rant then I wanted...oh well :)
As for fear... I think I have it the most. Bush is not the one I am worried about, like I have said before I think he is too stupid to cause much trouble. Its his staff. Its Ashcroft I am afraid of.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ashcroft[/url]
Funny how he wasn't seen or heard from much during election time...........
We can all hope :)
The democrats are in bed with their own power blocks that advance their causes at the expense of others.
As for environmentalism, with some exeptions such as air and water quality, republicans are skeptical of the science on alot of things. Like Global warming you can find many legitimate scientists who completely disagree with it. Yet its treated like gospel even though its a theory with as many serious detractors and supporters.
And thats not a lie that people claim it as the truth, when all it is is a very tentative theory, that as time progresses is actually loosing credibility?
And dont get me started on Kyoto, Kyoto was a political ploy to further eliminate US manufacturing from global competition, it would have probably put alot of people, including many here on this board out of work, because plants would have moved and with those movements supporting jobs would have gone. Because Kyoto didnt target every nation equally, or even in any kind of fairness. Japan, Russia, Milaysia, Indonesia and Brazil would have tottaly exemted themselves due to some brilliant lanugage they negotated, and other countries had alot of things in there which dramaticly reduced its inpact on them.
As for the US's "allies" they have never been that firm, France especially has done things in the past 40 years that has put american security at risk, because it benefits france. Germany to a lesser extent has done the same.
Nations look out for themselves.
As for the abortion issue, we have a deeper problem.
I want everybody here to sit back and think, where DO rights come from? what is it that gives us rights?
This is an important question and shapes everything else were discussing.
[B] I want everybody here to sit back and think, where DO rights come from? what is it that gives us rights?[/B][/QUOTE]
We get rights from our own innate ability to reason due to an evolutionary process that has resulted in the present human brain combined with cultural traditions that have developed over hundreds of thousands of years and certain biochemical responces to specific types of stimuli.
At least that's my view :)
[B]I'm less pissed about Bush being in office, more pissed about how in 30 states not only was gay marriage banned, Civil Unions were specifically dissallowed, as well as recognizing any aforementioned civil-union made in another state. [/B][/QUOTE]
I still want my explanation.
[B]We get rights from our own innate ability to reason due to an evolutionary process that has resulted in the present human brain combined with cultural traditions that have developed over hundreds of thousands of years and certain biochemical responces to specific types of stimuli.
At least that's my view :) [/B][/QUOTE]
So in essence natrual rights are nothing more the social consensus? is that what your saying?
As for the ability to reason being a carte blanch cause for rights, I think its quite possible to create scenarios where entities which have some capacity to reason would not be extended rights.
I mean rats navigate mazes.
Also your argument implies that only humans would have rights, not any other sentient beings we encounter.
[B] Also your argument implies that only humans would have rights, not any other sentient beings we encounter. [/B][/QUOTE]
No, his explanation did not exclude other sentient beings. Yes, Random Chaos did use the word "Human" in his argument, but that mean that when we DO meet other sentient beings that we wouldn't change to include them. Hopefully by the time we do encounter them, we'll be more evolved ourselves.
That, along with the fact that a good %20 voted primarily based on "moral reasons" just makes you look like you're full of religious nutjobs.
no offense to A#
[SIZE=1]I kid because I love.[/SIZE]
This is a more accurate view on what I see:
Human morality is only available to humans. Why? Every species brain and historical cultural evolution is different. Therefore every speicies that can define morality would be different then what we see as morality. (I in no way claim that other species ever are able to - only that those with sufficient brain development and ability to "learn" might) I therefore also feel that our application of any one human culture's morality to other cultures, or even species, often ignores the fact that their morality may be different then our's.
In fact this different in morality becuase of different cultural traditions is a lot of the cause of the Red-vs-Blue divide in this country.
And if its through cultural conditioning why do all the despirate human cultures have such different notions of rights?
Our idea of natural rights comes straight from John Locke and Thomas Aquinas, if you go back before say 1000 AD you will find no mention of rights what so ever. So if they are some quality that originated from the mind and from ages of cultural conditiong, how come they havent existed untill recently?
that gets me on another tangent
David of Mac made the comparisons between conservatives and 17th century aristocrats, which is falls generated by european political commentators so not understanding that american conservatives are radicly different then european conservatives.
The political bible of all american conservatives are two works, John Locke's two treities of civil government and Adam Smiths "The Wealth of Nations: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes" NOT Montesque, or Hobbes, who are the foundations of european political conservatisim.
[B]While I don't agree with tyvar's interpretation of my statement applying only to humans, I also don't agree with Rambie's interpretation.
This is a more accurate view on what I see:
Human morality is only available to humans. Why? Every species brain and historical cultural evolution is different. Therefore every speicies that can define morality would be different then what we see as morality. (I in no way claim that other species ever are able to - only that those with sufficient brain development and ability to "learn" might) I therefore also feel that our application of any one human culture's morality to other cultures, or even species, often ignores the fact that their morality may be different then our's.
In fact this different in morality becuase of different cultural traditions is a lot of the cause of the Red-vs-Blue divide in this country. [/B][/QUOTE]
Whoot! thank you! you just made my day! :D
Alright we have here the classical reltavisitc argument.
That what is true for one person is not true for another. So at one time some thing is both wrong and not wrong, say, slavery. Thus you have an inherent contradiction.
You have eliminated the possibitlity for a true morality meaning its nothing more then a permable social construct that we all agree to live with due to at best elightend self interest.
But you can not have any act ever be truly "immoral" just you know a BAD idea.
[B] And if its through cultural conditioning why do all the despirate human cultures have such different notions of rights?
Our idea of natural rights comes straight from John Locke and Thomas Aquinas, if you go back before say 1000 AD you will find no mention of rights what so ever. So if they are some quality that originated from the mind and from ages of cultural conditiong, how come they havent existed untill recently?[/B][/QUOTE]
Becuase disparate cultures, prior to the last couple hundred years, did not intermingle much. Thus cultural conditioning would have had different historical development in different parts of the world. In fact you state the entire core of your answer: "And if its through cultural conditioning why do all the despirate human cultures have such different notions of rights?
As for Locke, et al - they are an element of our cultural history.
This is actually one of the reasons I so like the internet. It allows cultural intermingaling that will result in a more unified world. Unfortunately this same cultural intermingaling has resulted in religious extreamist movements in every religion - even inside the US - though many like to deny this.